The Extraction Invariant

What abolition could reach, and what it could not.

This essay is the fifth of our instruments, following The Problem of Absolutes, Standing, Addressability, and Followable. The first traced the missing criterion beneath rankings of subjective magnitude over measured standards. The second identified what is violated when a good-faith challenge to a governing standard is closed rather than answered. The third turned to the authority on the other side of that relation, and found that the seat is conferred, never seized. The fourth stepped behind all three to a prior question — whether the standard can be followed at all — and found that the line must be findable by the person expected to stand behind it. This essay speaks to what passes through the seat.

Here we argue that the institution named slavery is the limit case of a structural family, that the family is older than the institution, and that it has outlived it. The invariant that defines the family is not ownership of persons; ownership is the limit case’s legal costume. The invariant is uncontestable extraction: surplus produced by coordinated labor, captured or externalized by the holder of the coordination point, under terms the laborer cannot challenge because voice is closed and exit is priced. Abolition struck the legal form. The structure it could not strike re-instantiated in the next form, and the next, because remedies reach instances and the invariant lives at the level of configuration. We read the invariant’s two oldest dossiers, both preserved by the tradition that is usually accused of ignoring them: the founding warning of the state, which is an extraction schedule read aloud before consent, and the famine administration of Genesis 47, in which crisis leverage converts money, then livestock, then land and bodies into a permanent tribute — recorded without flinching, executed by a hero, and consented to twice.

Then we examine one modern, publicly measurable expression of the invariant: the divest-and-mandate gap. Across the recent period, a civilizational-scale natural experiment tested output under remote coordination and returned a mixed but survivable result; a wide class of firms monetized the demonstration by divesting physical capacity, capturing the savings; a substantial overlap of the same class subsequently mandated physical presence without re-acquiring equivalent capacity. The gap between divested capacity and mandated presence is measurable, and what it establishes is narrower than it first appears, and harder to escape: the mandate is not capacity-driven, and whatever drives it does not appear on the ledger that funded the divestment. No intent is claimed anywhere in this paper, and our point is sharper without one: a ledger that never prices the laborer’s side produces every behavior described here by itself, with every administrator acting in good faith. The close names the test that sorts governance forms into the two kinds this program has been documenting from its first instrument: heads that carry, and heads that hold — and the verbs by which each betrays itself.

First the fence

Before the claim, the fence around it, because this subject punishes imprecision more than any other our program has touched.

We do not claim that modern employment is chattel slavery, nor claim moral equivalence between a salaried employee and a person owned as property. The limit case is distinguished from the rest of its family by totality — the person as asset, the child as inventory, violence as the ordinary instrument of terms — and nothing below the limit case shares its weight. Degree is real, and the definition in the next section is built to measure it — not erase it. Anyone who quotes this paper as flattening that distinction is quoting us against what we’ve written.

What we claim in this essay is narrower and, held narrowly, harder to escape: the limit case and the lesser cases share a structure, the structure is the operative thing, and the structure survived the abolition of the limit case because abolition was aimed — could only be aimed — at legal form. Slavery is what the invariant looks like at maximum. The invariant is what slavery looks like once its costume is outlawed.

And one more fence: no intent, anywhere. No villains, no boards of directors as slaveholders, no orchestration. The mechanism described below runs on ordinary accounting performed by ordinary people, and the argument is stronger without a single malicious actor in it — because a structure that requires villains can be reformed by replacing them, and ours cannot.

The invariant defined

Coordinated labor produces more than the sum of its laborers; that surplus is the entire reason coordination exists. Where the surplus belongs is a question with a long and unresolved literature behind it, and we do not enter through that door. Our claim is about defaults, not deserts: the surplus has no node it accrues to automatically, and so it accrues, absent contestation, to whoever holds the coordination point. Whether the holder deserves some of it — for organization, for capital, for risk — is exactly the question that contestable terms exist to settle, and exactly the question that closed terms never ask.

That much is neutral. Coordination points are necessary; ladders need heads. The invariant appears when two further conditions hold, and each is a dimension with a measure, not a switch:

Extraction. The holder’s share of the surplus, after the nodes are paid, measured as a ratio. A steward’s share sits low on it. The invariant sits high: the growth itself retained at the point, while the nodes are paid the replacement cost of a node. The ratio counts surplus captured by the holder and surplus externalized — costs the coordination generates that fall on the laborer’s side and on no one else’s — because both are the same thing seen from opposite ends of a ledger.

Uncontestability. Two tests. Voice: does a claim about terms receive a disposition — a ruling, a yes or a no — or does it receive nothing? Exit: what does leaving cost the laborer, measured against what staying extracts? Terms are uncontestable where voice receives no disposition and exit costs the laborer at least what staying does.

Extraction with contestable terms is a negotiation. Contestability with no extraction is administration. The invariant is the pair, above declared levels on both dimensions: differential capture under closed terms. The limit case adds totality — the node itself becomes the held asset, exit is closed by violence rather than priced — and totality is where the weight lives. But the pair is present all the way down the family, at lower readings on both dials, and the pair, not the totality, is what persists across legal epochs. Our thesis in one line: the dials are continuous, the limit case pins both to the top, and abolition unpinned the top without touching the dials.

We borrow the vocabulary and pay respects accordingly. Voice and exit as the two channels by which the governed act on terms is Hirschman’s (Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, 1970); we use his channels and add a measurement — whether voice receives a disposition and what exit costs — that he did not need for his purposes. Extractive as the name for an institutional family is Acemoglu and Robinson’s (Why Nations Fail, 2012), and the departure is the whole thesis: they locate extraction in political institutions, which can be replaced; we locate it in a configuration that survives the replacement of institutions, which is why this is about what abolition could not reach and not about which institutions to abolish next. The claim that laborers are paid the reproduction cost of labor while the growth is retained above them has Marx’s name scribbled all over it. We take that observation without the theory of value that came attached — the invariant is defined by who captures by default, not by who is owed or owned.

A note on the older dossier. The invariant has a case older than either this paper reads. In both dossiers below, what is seized is goods and then persons — but in each, the seizure is possible because someone already held the standing to set the terms, and that standing is itself the first thing any coordination point acquires. Where that standing comes from, what it costs, and why the apparatus built to constrain it tends instead to license it are the subject of a separate instrument in this series, and no part of it is assumed here.

A connective note, held as hypothesis and not relied on: the coordination point that captures the surplus is the same position through which hidden coordination runs in our program’s formal work — the extractor and the silent coupler occupy one seat. Our position stands without it, and our own recent addendum on relational reach (O’Connor, Reach, 2026) is the reason we mark it: a structural resemblance across registers is not a mapping until the hypothesis class is verified on both sides.

Certificate of Birth

The oldest extraction schedule preserved as a warning — read aloud, in advance, before consent — is the founding transaction of the state in the biblical record, and the warning fails.

The people demand a king — a head that holds, “like all the nations” — and the seer is instructed to warn them solemnly what the holding head costs. The warning is a list, and the list is a single verb conjugated through an economy:

He said, “This will be the custom of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and his horsemen, and they will run before his chariots. He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and those to do his plowing and to reap his harvest, and those to make weapons of war and the equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters as his perfume makers and as cooks and as bakers. He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive trees and will give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your seed and your vineyards and give it to his high officials and to his servants. He will take your male slaves and your female slaves and the best of your young men and your donkeys and will use them for his projects. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.” — 1 Samuel 8:11–17 (LEB)

Six takings — sons, daughters, land, the tenth of the seed, the servants and young men and animals, the tenth of the flocks — and the count in the Hebrew is exact: the verb laqach, to take, four times outright (sons, daughters, land, servants), and the tithe verb twice, which English renders as taking a tenth. Between the takings sits the capture cascade: what is taken from the fields is given to his servants, the intermediate tier paid in extracted assets, which is how a holding head buys the loyalty of the tier that does the holding. And then the seventh line, which is not a taking but the taker’s disclosure that the schedule converges: and you yourselves will become his servants. Itemized extraction, run long enough, ends in the extraction of the person. The limit case is not a different institution from the tax schedule. It is the tax schedule’s asymptote.

And the people consent.

However, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel and they said, “No, but there must be a king over us, so that we also may be like all the nations, and our king may rule us and go out before us and fight our battles.” — 1 Samuel 8:19–20 (LEB)

Not deceived — warned, itemized, and consenting, for security and for likeness to the nations. The founding transaction of the state, as the record preserves it, is extraction accepted with the price sheet read aloud. Every subsequent form of the invariant is a renegotiation of this trade, usually without any courtesy of any reading.

The administrator’s ledger

The record’s second dossier is the more uncomfortable one, because the administrator is a hero and the text does not flinch.

A famine. A centralized grain reserve, accumulated by foresight. And then the mechanism, executed in stages as the crisis deepens: the people spend their money for grain until the money is gone; then their livestock, until the livestock is gone; then, in their own recorded words:

“We cannot hide from my lord that our money and livestock belong to my lord. Nothing remains before my lord except our bodies and our land. Why should we die in front of you, both we and our land? Buy us and our land in exchange for food, then we and our land will be servants to Pharaoh. Then give us seed and we shall live and not die, and the land will not become desolate.” — Genesis 47:18–19 (LEB)

The administration accepts. The land consolidates to the crown; the population is moved; and the settlement is a permanent tribute:

And Joseph said to the people, “Look, I have bought you and your land this day for Pharaoh. Here is seed for you so you can sow the land. And it shall happen that at the harvest, you must give a fifth to Pharaoh and four-fifths shall be yours, as seed for the field and for your food and for those who are in your households, and as food for your little ones.” And they said, “You have saved our lives. If we have found favor in the eyes of my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh.” So Joseph made it a statute unto this day concerning the land of Egypt: one fifth to Pharaoh. Only the land of the priests alone did not belong to Pharaoh. — Genesis 47:23–26 (LEB)

Read structurally, Genesis 47 is the invariant’s operating manual. Crisis leverage converts a negotiation into a closure: the starving cannot contest terms, and uncontestability arrives free of charge. Assets transfer in order of liquidity — money, livestock, land, persons — the same convergence as the taking-list, run forward in real time. The end state is not a one-time seizure but a standing extraction rate, which the text notes is still in force at the time of writing. The intermediate tier is present here too: the priests’ land is exempt, and the text says so twice. And the consent is recorded twice — the offer in verse 19, the ratification in verse 25 — so that this dossier, like the first, is extraction accepted by the extracted, with the terms stated.

A couple notes on the textual variants of verse 21 that ride the subject of our thesis: the Masoretic text, which the LEB follows, reads that Joseph transferred them to the cities; the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch read that he made them slaves. The two traditions differ on whether the administration relocated the population or enslaved it, and the structural reading holds under either — which is the point about the family. The register: we read the text here as record, just like we do elsewhere in our program. Whether the narrative approves, laments, or merely preserves the administration is a live interpretive question that we do not adjudicate, only present it. No violence is recorded. No malice is recorded. The administrator is the most sympathetic figure in the book to that point — which is precisely the finding: the mechanism does not require a villain. It requires a reserve, a crisis, and a ledger.

The instance problem

Why does the invariant survive every remedy aimed at it? The record contains the answer in a single scene. We’ve read it before (O’Connor, Addressability, 2026). We read it again.

And then in those days when Moses had grown up, he went out to his brothers, and he saw their forced labor, and he saw an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man, one of his brothers. And he turned here and there, and he saw no one, and he struck the Egyptian, and he hid him in the sand. — Exodus 2:11–12 (LEB)

The text gives the order of seeing: first the forced labor, the system entire, and then one overseer striking one laborer. He acts on the instance. He strikes the striker. Nothing in the text suggests the system registered the event — that reading is ours, not the verse’s, but the next day’s scene supports it: the man’s own people ask him the standing question, Who appointed you as a commander and a judge over us? (Exodus 2:14, LEB), because ending an instance conferred no seat from which to contest the structure. That is the finding of our third instrument in this series, stated in its subtitle — the seat is conferred, never seized (Addressability) — and it is why the instance problem is not merely a limit on remedies but a limit on standing: the man who strikes the striker acquires the capacity to act and none of the authority to be answered.

That is the instance problem, and it is the invariant’s structural armor. Force — and law is force with paperwork — reaches the instance it can see: an overseer, a master, a statute, a named institution. The extraction configuration is not an instance. It is the arrangement that produces instances, and it re-instantiates in whatever legal costume the next epoch permits. The chain after abolition in the American South is the documented case: the plantation became the sharecropping contract and the crop lien; convict leasing and debt peonage carried forced labor under other statutes into the twentieth century (Daniel, The Shadow of Slavery, 1972; Blackmon, Slavery by Another Name, 2008); the company town priced exit by owning the store, the house, and the scrip (Green, The Company Town, 2010). Each form was struck by striking its instance-class; each abolition was real; and the pair — differential capture under closed terms — walked out of the burning costume and dressed again. The record’s own image for that succession is four beasts rising from the sea, “differing from one another” (Daniel 7:3, LEB), and each one a kingdom that replaces the last — the sequence, not any member of it, being what the vision is about.

The name of this section is chosen to be near a neighbor and not to be confused with him. Scott’s Seeing Like a State (1998) is about what the state must make legible in order to act; this section is about what any remedy can act on at all — the instance — and why the configuration is never an instance. The two problems face opposite directions.

Abolition of the limit case was the greatest instance-strike in history, and this paper subtracts nothing from it. The claim is only that it was an instance-strike — the most that force and law can be — and that the invariant is, by construction, the thing an instance-strike cannot reach.

The modern specimen: the divest-and-mandate gap

The invariant is only worth naming if it is measurable now, without intent claims, from public records. It is — with the measurement’s limits stated.

The recent period produced a natural experiment no ethics board could ever have approved: a civilizational-scale, involuntary demonstration of coordinated work under remote conditions. The result is mixed, and the paper says so rather than rounding it. A pre-pandemic randomized trial found productivity gains for call-center work at home (Bloom, Liang, Roberts and Ying, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2015); a randomized trial of hybrid work found no loss of performance or promotion and lower attrition (Bloom, Han and Liang, Nature, 2024); personnel analytics on skilled IT professionals found hours up and output per hour down (Gibbs, Mengel and Siemroth, Journal of Political Economy: Microeconomics, 2023); and a study separating who selects into remote work from what remote work does found the treatment effect on productivity negative in its setting (Emanuel and Harrington, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2024). What the literature supports, stated at its actual strength, is that across a wide class of coordination-intensive work output held within a range that firms found acceptable to monetize — which is the only reading the next step requires, because the next step is what the firms did.

They divested physical capacity. Leases unrenewed, campuses sold, square footage reduced, and the savings recognized — visible in public filings, because real property does not move quietly; lease commitments and their reductions are disclosed line by line under the accounting standards that govern them. The divestment side of the gap is measurable from filings. The mandate side is not: return mandates are announced in memoranda and press, not disclosed in financial statements. The gap is therefore assembled from a filing on one side and a public announcement on the other, and the paper names no firm, because the pattern is sector-wide and the argument is about the pattern.

Then, without re-acquiring equivalent capacity, a substantial overlap of the same class mandated return.

The obvious inference — capacity was sold, so the mandate is not about capacity; output funded the sale, so the mandate is not about output; thus, presence is the good — is a disjunction with the middle cut out, and we spent a paper (Reach) on what omission costs. Other drivers exist: the belief, with some evidence behind it, that proximity trains the young and the new (Emanuel, Harrington and Pallais, working paper, 2023, on the power of proximity to coworkers); executive conviction about collaboration; municipal tax incentives tied to occupancy; lease obligations that outlast the decision to leave; and the plain difficulty of measuring work one cannot see. What the gap establishes is exactly this and no more: the mandate is not capacity-driven, because the capacity was sold, and whatever does drive it was not on the ledger that funded the sale — because that ledger recorded the savings from absence and would have recorded the loss from it, and did not. The drivers just listed either belong on that ledger and were not recorded, or belong to the laborer’s side of the relation, where the extracting side keeps no records at all.

That second possibility is the specimen. Presence acts on the laborer along three channels, none of which appears on the mandating side’s ledger. Commute time — the laborer’s only non-renewable asset, spent and captured by no one, an externalized cost of the defined invariant. Supervision surplus — the control-value of bodies in sight, captured. And attrition-by-mandate — severance avoided by making the exit door the cheaper one, captured, and extraction’s oldest move: pricing the exit. The gap does not prove these are the drivers. It proves that if the drivers are not among them, they are among the benefits the ledger failed to record — and a firm that failed to record a benefit large enough to justify unwinding a divestment has a different problem than what we’ve recorded here.

No intent, anywhere, and the mechanism needs none. A ledger that records the real-estate savings and does not record the commute is not evil; it is a ledger. But a ledger that prices one side of a relation will extract from the unpriced side forever, mechanically, with every administrator acting in good faith — which is the invariant’s modern costume: humane extraction — not the whip, not the deed of sale, but the asymmetric ledger, enforced by a badge reader. The fence stands beside that sentence: the three costumes are named together because they dress the same pair, not because they weigh the same, and the paper has said which one carries the moral weight.

Falsifiers, stated now and kept. The reading dies wherever mandates track re-acquired capacity; wherever firm-level output data justifies the mandate on production grounds; and wherever a mandate is explained by a benefit — mentoring gains measured and recorded, say — because a documented benefit weighed against a documented cost is a negotiation, not an extraction, and the invariant does not apply. The gap is an empirical object; it can close.

The verbs of governance

Our program’s other instruments this season have read the two founding texts of administration, and the pair sorts every head into two kinds by verb alone.

The first architecture is Jethro’s, in Exodus 18. It delegates judging downward — commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, of tens — and keeps the carrying at the top in both directions: you bring the issues to God (18:19, LEB), and every major issue they will bring to you (18:22). It vets its tiers against capture — fearers of God, trustworthy men, haters of dishonest gain (18:21) — and it ships with an acceptance test that names the governed and not the governor: each of the people will go to his home in peace (18:23). Its verbs are bring, bear, lighten — and so lighten it for yourself, and they will bear it with you (18:22). The second architecture is requested by the governed themselves and disclosed in advance, and its verb is take, conjugated six times, converging on the person.

Heads that carry, and heads that hold. The invariant is what holding heads do — not because they are wicked but because holding is what the seat, so constructed, does with whatever passes through it. The reform question is therefore never which holder to install. It is whether the seat carries or holds — whether the surplus and the claims that ride with it pass through the coordination point, or stay.

What would kill this

Our standing rule is that load-bearing claims name their killers, and a killer that cannot fire is not a killer. Each one below is stated against the measures of the defined invariant.

The invariant claim dies against a documented coordination-scale society in which the holder’s share of surplus stays at a steward’s level — sustained, not episodic — while terms remain closed. Capture at a steward’s level under closed terms would be administration without extraction, and the pair would not be a pair.

The uncontestability criterion dies wherever the terms are shown to be genuinely contestable — a claim about terms that receives a disposition, an exit that costs the laborer less than staying extracts.

The Genesis 47 reading dies if the settlement is shown to be temporary, reciprocal, or contested and answered within the text. The variant at verse 21 does not kill it; the reading holds under both traditions.

The divest-and-mandate reading dies as stated above — the gap is empirical and can close, and a documented justification closes it.

And our entire thesis dies the day someone demonstrates that an instance-strike has, in any documented epoch, terminated the pair rather than its costume — meaning that the capture ratio fell to a steward’s level and stayed there, or the terms became contestable and stayed so, for the population the strike was aimed at, in the generation after the strike. That demonstration would be the best news in the history of the subject, and our thesis would deserve its death.

Close

The limit case was abolished, and the abolition was real. The pair walked out of the courtroom unindicted, because the indictment — like the blow in the sand — could only name what it could see. The ambition of our essay is smaller than a remedy and prior to one: to name the invariant at the level where it actually lives, so that the next instance-strike, whenever it comes, knows the difference between the costume and the thing wearing it.

A debt, recorded where it belongs. This essay would not exist without the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, written by himself. It is the limit case testifying in the first person, and it does what no structural account can: it shows the thing from inside. Two of its findings are load-bearing here. Douglass learned that literacy was withheld as policy — that keeping a man from reading was keeping him from contesting terms — which is uncontestability administered at the source, a century before anyone gave it a name. And he recorded that the worst holders were not the cruelest but the ones who believed themselves righteous, which is the no-intent mechanism observed by a man who had no reason to be generous about it. We have read his book as record, as we read the others. Unlike the others, its author was the one being counted, and his account is the measure of the subject, not ours.

The schedule was read aloud once, before consent, as a courtesy.

It has not been read aloud since.

Keywords: extraction; surplus; coordinated labor; coordination point; slavery; abolition; structural invariant; voice and exit; taking-list; famine administration; divest-and-mandate gap; return-to-office; corporate real estate; no-intent mechanism; governance verbs

Sources

Scripture. 1 Samuel 8:11–20; Genesis 47:13–26; Exodus 2:11–14; Exodus 18:19–23; Daniel 7:3. Scripture quotations marked (LEB) are from the Lexham English Bible. Copyright 2012 Logos Bible Software. Lexham is a registered trademark of Logos Bible Software. Genesis 47:21 variant: Masoretic Text against the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch.

Testimony.

• Douglass, F. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Written by Himself. Boston: Anti-Slavery Office, 1845.

Frameworks.

• Hirschman, A. O. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Harvard University Press, 1970.
• Acemoglu, D., and J. A. Robinson. Why Nations Fail. Crown, 2012.
• Scott, J. C. Seeing Like a State. Yale University Press, 1998.
• Marx, K. Capital, Volume I. 1867. On labor-power and surplus.

Post-abolition chain.

• Daniel, P. The Shadow of Slavery: Peonage in the South, 1901–1969. University of Illinois Press, 1972.
• Blackmon, D. A. Slavery by Another Name. Doubleday, 2008.
• Green, H. The Company Town. Basic Books, 2010.

Remote work.

• Bloom, N., J. Liang, J. Roberts and Z. J. Ying. “Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 130(1), 2015.
• Bloom, N., R. Han and J. Liang. “Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance.” Nature 630, 2024.
• Gibbs, M., F. Mengel and C. Siemroth. “Work from Home and Productivity: Evidence from Personnel and Analytics Data on Information Technology Professionals.” Journal of Political Economy: Microeconomics 1(1), 7–41, 2023.
• Emanuel, N., and E. Harrington. “Working Remotely? Selection, Treatment, and the Market for Remote Work.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 16(4), 528–559, 2024.
• Emanuel, N., E. Harrington and A. Pallais. “The Power of Proximity to Coworkers: Training for Tomorrow or Productivity Today?” Working paper, 2023.

Our Gods Research Program

The instruments

• O’Connor, T. The Problem of Absolutes. Zenodo, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21866538
• O’Connor, T. Standing. Zenodo, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21883564
• O’Connor, T. Addressability — The seat is conferred, never seized. Zenodo, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21926668
• O’Connor, T. Followable. Zenodo, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21971832
• O’Connor, T. The Extraction Invariant. Zenodo, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22806212

Program spine

• O’Connor, T. (2025). An Epi-Phenomenological Series in Thrice – A Quantum Junkies’ Riddle – Our Garden. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17926796
• O’Connor, T. (2026). The Bare, Naked Lie: The Architecture of Recursion. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18287548
• O’Connor, T. (2026). A Trick Question, The Cascade, and a Cup Worthy of Exile — A Script’ Junkies’ Riddle — Our Destiny (M5). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18452359
• O’Connor, T. (2026). The Veil: A Structural Autopsy of Epiphany — A Revelation Junkies’ Riddle — Our Apokalypsis. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19040340
• O’Connor, T. (2026). Quadratic Failure Scaling in Pairwise-Coupled Systems. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19600761

Copyright

Copyright 2026 Tony O’Connor—All Rights Reserved

License

Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Share and cite freely with attribution. No commercial use. No derivatives. Full licence text: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

Citation

O’Connor, T. (2026). The Problem of Absolutes. Our Gods Research Program. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21866538

Contact

Permissions beyond the scope of this license are handled through the Our Gods Research Program.