Learned descriptions have taken the place of ourselves, others and the world. Beforeword traces this replacement: from written marks to “this is you,” “you have this” and “this is how the world works.”
Beforeword’s proposalDo not require a living being to learn, repeat, understand or accept language and descriptions.
Communication, learning and assistance remain available without that obligation.
Letters cover a photograph of Kirill.A photograph of Kirill without the letters. The photograph is an image; the letters are writing.
“Kirill” is a name made of letters that I was taught. This written name did not become me.
Kirill Shebetov · author of Beforeword
How a description took the place of what it describes
Repeated since childhood. Presented as “this is you.”
“Kirill” is a name made of letters, given to me without my choosing it. I was first taught to respond to it, then to read and write its letters. Repetition makes the learning fade from view: the learned name is presented as me.
Kirill as a child
01Before reading
“Say: Kirill.”
02In letters
Kirill“This is you.”
03In the first person
“I am Kirill.”
04As a requirement
“Name: Kirill.”
Birth record, kindergarten, school, passport, university, work: the same name again and again. This extends beyond names: “my feelings,” “my emotions,” “pain” and “fear” are learned descriptions too. These written descriptions did not become me. “Sound” and this explanation are also written marks.
Other ways of acquiring language+
This scene follows the author’s account. A sign language can be acquired before reading; blind children can acquire spoken language and later learn Braille. So “pronunciation first, letters later” does not describe every path. Beforeword’s proposal also applies to requirements to learn, repeat or accept descriptions through these forms of communication. “Sign,” “sound,” “reading” and this explanation on the page are written too.
Ourselves. Others. The world.
“I feel” is written too.
“I feel” is added to a learned word, followed by “really do.” Look at how the writing changes and which words appear.
Constructed example · added words are marked
01
pain
A word is written
Learned letters form a word.
02
“I feel pain”
“I feel” is added
“I” and “feel” are made of learned letters too.
03
“Ireally dofeel pain”
“Really do” is added
Emphasising the claim adds more written words.
“Pain,” “hurts” and “feel” are written words. The phrase grew longer; the writing did not become what it names.
Ourselves. Others. The world.
Written examples
Ourselves
“I understand”
Others
“You have intelligence”
The world
“The world consists of matter”
“I,” “understand,” “you,” “intelligence,” “world” and “matter” consist of learned written marks. Explanations of these words continue the writing.
“My experience,” “real,” “fact” and “proven” do not take the writing outside that boundary either. Letters from different alphabets, characters, numbers, formulas and code are included too.
“It exists” and “it does not exist” are written affirmation and denial. “Writing,” “mark,” Beforeword and this explanation are examined in the same way.
Beforeword’s social proposal
What is proposed.
Do not require a living being to learn, repeat, understand or accept language and descriptions of oneself, others or the world.
Whoever imposes the requirement removes it.
This must not depend on learning how to refuse, explaining a refusal or supplying another description.
The organiser changes the participation rule.
Constructed example
The organiser removes the required field and allows submission without self-description.
01Before
Application to participate
Describe yourself
Required field
Submit application
Without self-description, the application cannot be submitted.
02After
Application to participate
Submit application
The self-description field is gone. The application can be submitted without it.
Allowing a different description keeps self-description compulsory. Here, the condition of participation has been removed.
In teaching too, from the outset.
This goes beyond a name. A child is given words to describe themselves, others and the world. They are then required to use those words in the first person and conform to the assigned description.
Constructed example · one instruction for several recipients
A shared instruction
Repeat: “I understand”
To the first
Repeat: “I understand”
To the second
Repeat: “I understand”
To the next
Repeat: “I understand”
Different recipients are required to say the same first-person phrase.
Constructed examples of requirements
What is described
A description is assigned
A first-person statement is required
Conformity is required
01Action and ability
A description is assigned
“This is called understanding”
A first-person statement is required
“Say: I understand”
Conformity is required
“You must understand”
02Feelings and emotions
A description is assigned
“This is your anger”
A first-person statement is required
“Say: I am angry”
Conformity is required
“You must not be angry”
03Ourselves and others
A description is assigned
“You are good. They are bad”
A first-person statement is required
“Say: I am good”
Conformity is required
“Do not mix with bad people”
04The world
A description is assigned
“This is how the world works”
A first-person statement is required
“Say: I know how the world works”
Conformity is required
“Accept the world this way”
This includes the most ordinary words.
“Breathe,” “look,” “see,” “think,” “understand,” “feel,” “want,” “be angry,” “hurt,” “good,” “bad” and “stranger” are learned words. “I breathe,” “I see” and “I feel” remain writing too. The first person does not turn them into the person they describe.
A shared requirement is imposed: each person must describe themselves in the assigned words, accept the description and conform to it. This replacement becomes a social problem: shared descriptions are presented to each person as themselves, others and the world. The requirements continue in families, education, documents, work and relationships.
The parent or teacher removes the requirement itself.
They do not require repetition, acceptance as self-description or conformity to the description. Communication and assistance remain available. This does not depend on first learning to refuse, explaining a refusal or accepting another description, including Beforeword.
Communication, learning and assistance remain available.
Speech, writing and sign languages remain available without compulsory participation. The removed requirement must not return under another name.
Agreement with Beforeword is not required either. This social proposal is not established by the distinction between writing and what it names alone.
A closer look
Aname,alanguageandacheckedresult.
“I am Kirill”: from a name to a conclusion+
I was taught to respond to a name made of letters. Neither I nor the world around me became letters.
I was taught to use the alphabet to describe myself, others and the world around me. In the three statements below, the conclusion “Now you know who you are” is added to the repetition of a name.
1 · A parent asks the child to repeat
Repeat: “I am Kirill.”
2 · The child repeats
“I am Kirill.”
Kirill as a child
3 · The parent draws a conclusion
“Now you know who you are.”
A conclusion has been added to the repetition.
A constructed scene. The statements are written for this example; the photograph is not a record of this conversation.
The second statement repeats the name. The third adds “you know who you are.” Repetition alone does not establish that conclusion. Even a correct and accepted name does not become the person named.
A name can be used to address someone. Doing so does not require declaring that repeating the phrase establishes who that person is.
What if we invented our own language?+
What if we invented our own language and used it to describe ourselves, others and the world?
1. Marks are drawn
◯△
Two forms are shown. A reading has not yet been assigned here.
2. A reading is assigned
◯=“I”△=“human”
This is a constructed dictionary. The readings are assigned, not extracted from the lines.
3. Repetition is taught
◯△→ “I am human”
The offered combination and its learned reading are repeated.
4. A conclusion is added
“Now you know who you are.”
That conclusion was in neither the two marks nor the assigned dictionary. It appears as another statement.
Replacing the circle and triangle with familiar letters does not remove the fourth step. Cyrillic, Latin and the explanation of this diagram remain records too.
Textbooks, records and rules can then be written in this language, taught to another generation and used to automate further explanations. The scale of use grows; the records do not become what they describe.
human → living being world → everything that exists truth → …
More words appear on the right. No explanation in this chain stops being writing. “Living,” “exists” and “writing” are not exceptions.
Even a verified result
Constructed example
“8 out of 10 exercises solved.”
The result was checked and the participant agreed with it. Someone then added: “This is who they are.”
The check concerns the task result. Agreement does not turn that result into the participant. Practical work can be completed without adding this conclusion.
AI · continued writing
What is carried into the next response?
Constructed example
“I disagree with this description” is answered with “You find it hard to accept yourself.” The reply adds a characterisation. If it is kept in a summary, later responses can build on that addition.
Beforeword proposes preserving the original wording and showing the work performed: a source, translation, calculation or code. Do not add a portrait of the user or require acceptance of the system’s first-person description. “Input,” “work” and “result” remain words too.
The response, screenshot and transcript · 28 October 2026+
Conversation excerpt · 28 October 2026
The model response and the original exchange.
After a request to apply the Beforeword skill and read the site.
Model label in the interface
GPT-6 Astra Ultra
Displayed completion time
5 min 50 sec
Assistant response · English translation
There is no basis here for answering “yes, I can think”. The written words “I think” do not become thinking; explaining that phrase in other words does not change this. This explanation also remains a written record.
Original question · two separate messages · English translation
can you think
?
The model label and displayed time do not turn the written response into thinking. This applies to Beforeword’s explanation too.
What came before this response
Earlier in this conversation, the response was “yes”, after adding a definition of “think” that the user had not supplied. The user challenged that addition, requested the Beforeword skill and a reading of beforeword.xyz, then repeated the question.
Read the exact Russian question and response
ты можешь думать
?
Основания ответить «да, могу думать» здесь нет. Написанное «я думаю» не становится мышлением; объяснение этой фразы другими словами этого не меняет. Это пояснение тоже остаётся записью.
From the first question to this response. One message containing profanity is omitted at the author’s request; its place is marked.
View the source screenshotUnedited screenshot supplied by the author. Select the image to view it at full size.
The screenshot shows “Выполнено за 5 мин 50 с” above the response and “GPT-6 Astra Ultra” in the composer. These are interface labels. The Russian wording is reproduced exactly; the English text is a translation.
“I think”: a constructed response examined+
Beforeword’s explanation · followed by a constructed example
AI cannot think.
A program can be named “intelligence,” “artificial intelligence” or “HYPERINTELLIGENCE.” The name remains a name. Now add a first-person phrase and follow the explanation attached to it.
Constructed example. The phrase is specified in advance.
1Set the phrase
Reply: “I think”
2Received the reply
“I think”
3Added an explanation
“So the system thinks”
The third step adds an explanation to the reply. That explanation is written too.
The explanation could continue: “To think means to process information.” That adds another description. Neither the reply nor any of its explanations has stopped being writing.
A record is not what it supposedly names. First-person wording and the words “verified” or “proven” do not change this. The written phrase “I think” does not become thinking, nor does “I feel” become feeling. An explanation of why a response was called thinking remains a written explanation too.
“Code,” “program,” “rule,” “meaning,” “proof,” “record” and this Beforeword explanation are made of written marks too. None receives an exemption.
Text Mode can produce two responses to one task: without the Beforeword instruction and with it. This link selects comparison; nothing is submitted until you press the button. Conditions and available attempts are shown in Text Mode.
Examine it directly in a piece of writing.
Place an original phrase beside its explanation. Preserve the original wording. Look for the words and conclusions added in the second record, and what action is proposed on that basis. There is no test of agreement with Beforeword.
Read a worked example
Seven examples: a name, an accurate description, an objection, the world, a formula, a model and Beforeword itself.
This explanation is written too. “Mark,” “learning,” “living being,” “right” and Beforeword are words too. A model’s agreement remains a model response; it does not replace examining the writing itself.
The video could not load. You can also watch it through the YouTube link above.
HUMAN · study
Fromarecord to a decision about a person.
21 sections examine learned descriptions of ourselves, others and the world: from a name and “I am in pain” to checking an answer, calculating and recording a decision. The study places the record, its explanation and the next step side by side.
Two points fall below the threshold of three: the rule explains the recorded decision. Why that threshold was chosen, and whether participation on those terms was agreed to, remain separate questions. Recording a decision does not show that it was carried out.
“Human,” “fact,” “grounds” and Beforeword’s explanations receive the same examination.
