AIM Framework glossary
Constitution-Direction Principle
Canonical definition
The Constitution-Direction Principle is the result that in any domain where a flow is constituted from the periphery of a system but is experienced as emanating from its centre, Source Opacity conceals the true direction of constitution, Confabulation under the Sincerity Guarantee supplies a sincere account running in the misread direction, and the believed misread direction installs the unbounded Mimetic dynamic because it organises the very behaviour that gives the apparent centre its force, such that the corrective is to operate the system on its true polarity while holding the Appetitive floor invariant. The Push-Pull Obligation Principle is the Constitution-Direction Principle's instance in the domain of interpersonal obligation, where the constituting flow runs outward from the duty-bearer's capacity (push) while being experienced as running inward on the claimant's entitlement (pull); the Chapter 12 result on the constitution of Money is its instance in the monetary domain, where the constituting flow runs upward from the population's coordinated acceptance while being experienced as running downward from institutional control.
Explanation
Some flows in a social system are built up from the bottom by many small contributions, but they feel as though they are handed down from the top. Money is the clearest case, a currency has value only because a whole population accepts it, each person accepting because they expect everyone else to, yet almost everyone believes the government and the banks control the money from above. The same pattern appears in everyday obligation, real duty runs outward from whoever has the capacity to help, but a demand made on you feels as though the obligation runs inward from the other person's entitlement. The Constitution-Direction Principle says these are the same situation. Because we cannot see the true direction (Source Opacity) and our minds supply a sincere but wrong story about it (Confabulation), we believe the flow runs the wrong way, and believing it makes it behave that way, which lets the one motivational source that never satiates (Mimetic Desire) run unchecked, producing inflation and collapse in the money case and escalating, resentful obligation in the personal case. The fix in both is the same, run the system the right way round (the polarity switch) while making sure everyone's basic Appetitive needs are guaranteed no matter what. A point on status applies to both instances and most pointedly to the interpersonal one, which is the least intuitive. The word obligation makes the push polarity sound like a norm humans must choose, but some obligations are not chosen, they are imposed by nature once an outcome is wanted. A parent who wants their child to live must meet the child's Appetitive needs, and this must is imposed by the way the world is, not by anyone's decision. The Push-Pull Obligation Principle, and the Constitution-Direction Principle that subsumes it, are obligations of this kind, if humanity wants to avoid the supercritical Mimetic cascade, it must run obligation on the push polarity and guarantee everyone's Appetitive floor, for the same reason and in the same sense that the parent must feed the child. The entailment itself is established by the architectural derivation from the axioms and the prior definitions of Coercion and Freedom, the welfare mathematics then quantifies how much the push polarity outperforms demand and that the gap grows with population, so the maths confirms and measures the entailment rather than supplying it. That the interpersonal result feels counter-intuitive is itself predicted by Source Opacity, which conceals exactly the direction the architecture in fact runs, so the entailed polarity should be expected to feel wrong to the intuitions the architecture produces. The result is held because the architecture entails it, not because it is intuitive.
Epistemic status
Framework-Specific Principle. Derived from Source Opacity (Axiom 3), Confabulation (Axiom 4), and the Boundedness Asymmetry Principle, operating at different scales.