A Philosophical Theory of Responsibility, Reciprocity, Consciousness, Free Will, Purpose, and Human Resilience
Author: Gilson Guilherme Miguel Ângelo
Angolan Thinker and Philosopher
Founder of GAESEMA Philosophy
Abstract
This article presents the philosophical proposal of Gilson Guilherme Miguel Ângelo, an Angolan thinker and philosopher, entitled “My Self First, Blame Others as a Zero Priority.” Its central thesis argues that individuals should place their own consciousness, responsibility, and actions at the forefront of interpreting their existence, while the automatic attribution of blame to others should be relegated to a secondary position. The article introduces the concept of the “Individual Square,” understood as the existential, cognitive, and decisional space within which each human being interprets available possibilities and makes choices. The study connects the philosophy of action, free will, social psychology, resilience, ethics, Newtonian physics, and biblical-theological traditions. It further proposes a Principle of Reciprocity of Action, according to which every action directed toward a human system initiates a response, although such responses may differ in form, intensity, and temporal expression. The theory explicitly distinguishes this philosophical principle from Newton’s third law of motion. GAESEMA Philosophy also introduces the concepts of the “Twin Guide” and the “Hidden Plane” as metaphysical hypotheses for interpreting the relationship between consciousness, purpose, spirituality, and decision-making. Finally, the article argues that freedom does not consist in the unlimited creation of possibilities, but in the capacity to choose, within the field of possibilities encountered, the response that best approximates one’s purpose. Responsibility, truth, resilience, and peace therefore become foundations for a renewed ethics of consciousness.
Keywords: Consciousness; Free Will; Responsibility; Reciprocity; Resilience; GAESEMA Philosophy.
1. INTRODUCTION
The history of humanity may be understood as a long attempt to answer a fundamental question:
Who is responsible for the life that each human being builds?
The question appears simple, yet it contains one of the deepest philosophical problems of existence. When an individual fails, there is often an immediate search for an external cause. When one is hurt, one looks for someone to blame. When one loses, one searches for the person responsible for the loss. When one succeeds, however, the victory may be interpreted as the exclusive result of one’s own abilities.
The proposal presented in this article begins with an inversion of this logic.
Before asking, “Who did this to me?”, the human being should ask, “What did I do, what did I choose, and how did I respond?”
It is at this point that Gilson Guilherme Miguel Ângelo proposes the expression:
“My Self First, Blame Others as a Zero Priority.”
The “self” here does not represent superiority, narcissism, or disregard for others. It represents the primary locus of responsibility.
To place the self first means beginning the investigation within the only territory to which the individual has privileged access: his or her own consciousness, interpretation, decision, and response.
GAESEMA Philosophy therefore begins with a premise:
Human beings cannot control everything that happens to them, but they participate in constructing the response they give to what happens to them.
Contemporary discussions of free will confirm that freedom, causality, choice, and responsibility remain open philosophical questions. Philosophical traditions have consistently associated free will with the capacity to choose, self-determination, and moral responsibility.
This proposal seeks to advance that discussion through its own conceptual architecture.
This architecture consists of six principal concepts:
- Self;
- Consciousness;
- Individual Square;
- Action and Reaction;
- Choice;
- Purpose.
Two additional metaphysical concepts are then introduced:
- Twin Guide;
- Hidden Plane.
GAESEMA Philosophy does not seek to replace science, religion, or any philosophical tradition. Rather, it seeks to establish a space in which they may enter into dialogue.
The proposal is deliberately international and diplomatic: to investigate without humiliating, to question without destroying, and to reform without turning the unknown into an enemy.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Action, Reaction, and the Problem of Applying the Concept to Human Behaviour
The idea that an action produces a reaction has a long scientific and philosophical history.
In classical mechanics, Newton formulated his third law of motion according to which the forces exerted between two bodies are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This scientific formulation concerns physical interactions between bodies and should not be directly confused with a psychological theory of human relationships.
GAESEMA Philosophy nevertheless makes a conceptual extension.
It does not claim that a person who receives an insult will necessarily produce a reaction that is mathematically equal and opposite in intensity.
It proposes something different:
An action directed toward a conscious being alters that being’s field of possibilities and initiates a response.
That response may be:
- immediate;
- emotional;
- cognitive;
- verbal;
- physical;
- behavioural;
- delayed;
- conscious;
- unconscious;
- constructive;
- destructive.
The GAESEMA concept is therefore not a literal application of physics to psychology.
It is a philosophical principle of causal reciprocity.
2.2. Reciprocity in Social Psychology
This proposal finds an important point of dialogue with Albert Bandura.
Within social cognitive theory, Bandura presents a model of reciprocal causation in which personal factors, behaviour, and environment influence one another. Human beings are simultaneously products and producers of social systems.
This formulation provides an important bridge to the theory of the Individual Square.
The individual does not exist independently of the world.
At the same time, the individual is not merely a passive object of the world.
A human being interprets, responds, learns, modifies the environment, and is subsequently modified by the consequences of his or her own actions.
A relationship therefore emerges:
Person → Action → Environment → Reaction → Learning → New Choice.
It is precisely within this sequence that GAESEMA Philosophy identifies a privileged space for responsibility.
2.3. Free Will
The question of free will has accompanied philosophy for centuries.
Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and countless other thinkers have contributed to this debate.
Contemporary literature remains divided among incompatibilist, compatibilist, and other interpretations of freedom. The debate involves causality, self-determination, the possibility of acting otherwise, and moral responsibility.
GAESEMA Philosophy proposes its own definition:
Free will is the conscious capacity to choose among possibilities that are effectively available within the field of possibilities presented by reality.
This definition avoids imagining freedom as absolute.
An individual does not choose to be born.
One does not choose the past.
One does not choose all material conditions one encounters.
One does not choose every person one meets.
One does not choose every circumstance.
Yet one may choose how to interpret and respond to the possibilities that arise.
Free will, from this perspective, is not a magical power to create any reality whatsoever.
It is a power of decision within a field of possibilities.
2.4. Purpose and Meaning
Viktor Frankl introduced a particularly important dimension to this theory: meaning.
Logotherapy places the search for meaning at the centre of human existence and argues that, even under adverse conditions, there remains a dimension of choice concerning how a person responds to experience.
GAESEMA Philosophy approaches this idea by proposing that every human being should seek to understand what his or her Individual Square is and what mission should be fulfilled within it.
This does not constitute a scientific claim that every individual possesses a supernatural mission encoded in advance.
It is an existential hypothesis:
Human life becomes more coherent when an individual identifies a meaningful purpose and organizes choices around it.
2.5. Resilience
Resilience constitutes another essential dimension.
Contemporary psychological literature describes resilience as the process of adapting to difficult experiences and recognizes the development of mental, emotional, and behavioural resources that support adaptation.
GAESEMA Philosophy proposes a complementary philosophical formulation:
After every choice, another choice remains possible.
This is where resilience emerges.
A person loses.
That person may give up.
Or may continue.
If the person continues, he or she does not return exactly to the previous point.
Experience has been acquired.
Thus:
Error → Experience → Learning → New Choice.
Failure therefore ceases to be merely loss.
It may become information.
3. METHODOLOGY
This article adopts a theoretical-conceptual, philosophical, hermeneutic, and interdisciplinary methodology.
It is neither an experimental study nor a clinical investigation.
Its purpose is to construct, organize, and discuss an original philosophical theory based on:
- philosophy of action;
- philosophy of mind;
- moral philosophy;
- free-will studies;
- social psychology;
- resilience studies;
- philosophy of science;
- biblical theology;
- hermeneutics;
- philosophical anthropology.
The methodology develops through four movements.
First movement: Identification of the Problem
The tendency of human beings to attribute responsibility to others for events in which personal responses and choices also play a role is examined.
Second movement: Conceptual Construction
The following concepts are defined:
- Self;
- Consciousness;
- Square;
- Action;
- Reaction;
- Choice;
- Purpose;
- Resilience;
- Twin Guide;
- Hidden Plane.
Third movement: Interdisciplinary Dialogue
The theory is examined in dialogue with concepts derived from philosophy, psychology, physics, and biblical tradition.
Fourth movement: Philosophical Formulation
Based on this comparison, propositions are formulated that may be discussed, criticized, and, where possible, subjected to future empirical investigation.
The methodology therefore does not claim that the metaphysical hypotheses of GAESEMA Philosophy have been scientifically proven.
It states that these hypotheses can be formulated clearly enough to become objects of philosophical discussion and, where possible, empirical investigation.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. The First Principle: “My Self First”
The first conclusion of the theory is simple:
Responsibility begins within the individual.
When a person encounters an event, at least three levels can be distinguished:
the event;
the interpretation of the event;
the response to the event.
The first may lie outside individual control.
The latter two involve the participation of consciousness.
Therefore, the question:
“Who is to blame?”
should be preceded by:
“What was my participation?”
This change is revolutionary because it does not eliminate the responsibility of others.
It eliminates the automatic attribution of blame to others.
4.2. Blame Others as a Zero Priority
The expression “blame others as a zero priority” does not mean that no one can be responsible for causing harm.
It means that the first investigation should begin with the individual.
The proposed logic is:
Self → Consciousness → Decision → Action → Consequence → Learning.
Only afterward should the participation of others be examined.
This produces a different ethical framework.
Instead of:
“He did this to me, therefore he is responsible for everything that happened to me.”
the theory proposes:
“He performed an action. Now I must understand what that action caused, how I responded, and what choices remain available to me.”
This position protects two principles simultaneously:
personal responsibility and the responsibility of others.
4.3. The Individual Square
The central concept of GAESEMA Philosophy is the Individual Square.
The Square represents each human being’s existential space.
It is not necessarily a physical space.
It is a space constituted by:
- consciousness;
- body;
- memory;
- thought;
- perception;
- experiences;
- relationships;
- possibilities;
- choices;
- values;
- limitations;
- purpose.
Every individual possesses a different Square.
Two human beings may face the same event and produce different responses because they do not occupy the same psychological, historical, or cognitive Square.
The Square therefore represents:
the inner territory in which reality is received, interpreted, and transformed into decision.
The metaphor of a chessboard makes the concept easier to understand.
Each player has a position.
Each position provides possibilities.
Not every move is available.
Yet, among the available possibilities, there is choice.
Life can therefore be understood as a succession of positions.
Consciousness observes.
Consciousness interprets.
Consciousness chooses.
Choice produces consequences.
Consequences modify the next position.
4.4. Power Within the Square
When GAESEMA Philosophy states that human beings possess “unlimited power over their own space,” this statement should be understood as a philosophical thesis of autonomy rather than a claim of absolute physical power.
The individual does not control the universe.
Within certain limits, however, the individual exercises influence over the relationship established with his or her consciousness, decisions, and conduct.
Thus, true power does not consist in controlling another person’s Square.
It consists in governing one’s own Square.
This is one of the principal reasons why the theory rejects manipulation.
Anyone attempting to dominate another person’s Square abandons the task of governing his or her own.
4.5. Action and Reaction: A New Formulation
GAESEMA Philosophy proposes:
Every action directed toward a human system initiates a response process.
The response may be immediate at the level of a change in the system’s state, even when its behavioural manifestation occurs later.
Consider a person receiving an unexpected shout.
Before consciously understanding what has happened, the body may produce:
- startle;
- tension;
- increased heart rate;
- heightened attention;
- defensive readiness.
If another person arrives with a hug, a friendly expression, or a compliment, a different range of responses may emerge.
The initial action alters the state of the person receiving it.
This helps explain why small actions can produce significant consequences.
4.6. The Ethics of Planting
The Bible presents a powerful formulation of consequence when Galatians 6:7 states that what a person sows will also be reaped.
Matthew 7:12 likewise presents a principle of reciprocity: treating others as one wishes to be treated.
GAESEMA Philosophy transforms these images into an ethical rule:
Do not manipulate the harvest before planting the seed.
If someone desires trust, that person should plant trustworthy behaviour.
If one desires respect, one should plant respect.
If one desires peace, one should produce behaviour compatible with peace.
If one desires cooperation, one should create conditions for cooperation.
Manipulation attempts to obtain the fruit without respecting the process of the seed.
GAESEMA Philosophy proposes the opposite:
Plant → Wait → Receive → Learn → Plant Again.
4.7. The Word as Action
Biblical tradition attributes extraordinary importance to the word.
John 1:1 presents the Logos as existing “in the beginning,” associated with God, while John 1:14 states that the Word became flesh.
Isaiah 55:11 presents the word as something that goes forth and accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent.
Proverbs 18:21 associates the tongue with consequences involving life and death.
GAESEMA Philosophy interprets this tradition through a central thesis:
The word is an action before it becomes matter.
When a person speaks, the speech does not merely move air.
It may modify:
- thoughts;
- emotions;
- relationships;
- decisions;
- behaviours;
- reputations;
- institutions.
In this sense, speech constitutes a form of action.
Therefore, “thinking,” “speaking,” and “acting” should not be treated as completely separate worlds.
A chain exists between them:
Thought → Word → Action → Consequence → New Reality.
4.8. Thought and the Space of Possibilities
One of the most ambitious ideas in the theory now emerges.
Human beings frequently think about things that do not yet exist materially.
A house begins as an idea.
A bridge begins as an idea.
A company begins as an idea.
A literary work begins as an idea.
A technology begins as an idea.
This does not necessarily mean that everything we imagine already exists in a hidden universe.
A more rigorous formulation is:
Thought can represent possibilities before they assume material existence.
GAESEMA Philosophy refers to the totality of these possibilities as the Plane of Possibilities.
The individual does not necessarily create every possibility.
The individual encounters possibilities, recognizes some, rejects others, and selects particular sequences of action.
Materialization occurs through processes.
Idea → Choice → Action → Resources → Execution → Result.
It is in this transition that free will becomes significant.
4.9. A New Definition of Free Will
GAESEMA Philosophy proposes:
Free will is the conscious space of choice among available possibilities within the conditions presented by reality.
This formulation simultaneously recognizes freedom and limitation.
The individual does not choose every card.
But may choose how to play the cards received.
One does not necessarily choose the board.
But one may choose one’s moves.
One does not control every player.
But one can decide one’s own move.
This definition approaches a conception of agency compatible with contemporary social psychology, in which individuals are influenced by their environments while simultaneously exercising agency within them.
4.10. Individual Mission
The theory proposes that every human being should seek to understand his or her mission.
This claim should not be interpreted as scientific proof that each individual possesses a predetermined supernatural mission.
It is an existential proposition:
A life without purpose tends to transform successive choices into disconnected movements.
When an individual identifies something meaningful, choices can be evaluated through a question:
“Does this choice bring me closer to, or further away from, what I understand to be my mission?”
This question can become an instrument of discipline.
4.11. The Theory of Resilience as a Second Choice
GAESEMA Philosophy proposes its own formulation:
After a choice, freedom does not disappear; it reappears in the next choice.
This is where resilience emerges.
A person loses.
The person may give up.
Or may continue.
If the person continues, he or she does not return exactly to the previous point.
The experience remains.
Therefore:
Loss → Experience → Learning → New Choice.
Failure ceases to be merely an endpoint.
It becomes data for the next decision.
Contemporary psychology recognizes resilience as a process or capacity of adaptation in the face of adversity and acknowledges that resilience-related resources can be developed.
GAESEMA Philosophy adds a philosophical dimension:
Resilience is the conscious choice not to transform a negative reaction into a permanent destiny.
4.12. The Twin Guide
The theory then introduces a metaphysical dimension.
The Twin Guide is defined as a philosophical-spiritual hypothesis according to which each human being is accompanied by an invisible guiding dimension whose function is to present, suggest, or signal possibilities to the individual.
According to the GAESEMA hypothesis, such guidance may appear symbolically through:
- intuition;
- sudden thoughts;
- dreams;
- a sense of direction;
- encounters;
- coincidences interpreted as meaningful;
- an impulse toward a particular place;
- inner warnings;
- perceptions of purpose.
An academic distinction must be established:
The objective existence of a “Twin Guide” is not currently an established scientific fact.
It is a metaphysical and spiritual hypothesis within GAESEMA Philosophy.
Its significance within the theory lies in investigating whether human consciousness may possess dimensions of guidance that have not yet been fully explained through ordinary experience.
GAESEMA Philosophy does not seek to impose this interpretation as dogma.
It proposes it as an object of philosophical, spiritual, and potentially phenomenological investigation.
4.13. The Hidden Plane
The same principle applies to the concept of the Hidden Plane.
The Hidden Plane does not necessarily refer to a physically concealed location.
It represents whatever may influence human experience without being immediately accessible to ordinary sensory perception.
Science recognizes that significant human processes occur outside direct conscious awareness.
Philosophy, meanwhile, has always investigated the relationship between appearance and reality.
Theology likewise works with distinctions between the visible world and spiritual reality.
GAESEMA Philosophy places these three territories into dialogue.
Nevertheless, it maintains a methodological rule:
That which is a hypothesis must be presented as a hypothesis.
This distinction protects philosophy from turning belief into false scientific proof.
4.14. “Our Struggle Is Not Against Flesh”
One of the strongest theological foundations of the proposal is found in Ephesians 6:12.
The biblical text states that the struggle is not against “flesh and blood,” but against principalities, authorities, powers, and spiritual forces.
This passage permits a particularly important philosophical reading.
The immediate adversary does not necessarily have to be another person.
It may be:
- fear;
- ignorance;
- manipulation;
- resentment;
- falsehood;
- violence;
- misinformation;
- intolerance;
- inability to understand;
- disordered consciousness.
The person therefore ceases to be automatically transformed into an absolute enemy.
Conflict can be redirected from the individual toward what is occurring through the relationship.
This constitutes an important diplomatic contribution of the theory.
Do not turn the human being into the absolute enemy.
4.15. Truth as Liberation
GAESEMA Philosophy finds another theological foundation in John 8:32:
“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Truth, from this perspective, is not merely information.
It is the ability to see correctly.
A person who understands his or her own Square knows:
- where personal responsibility begins;
- where personal control ends;
- what choices are available;
- what choices are unavailable;
- when to act;
- when to wait;
- when to leave;
- when to persevere;
- when to forgive;
- when to protect oneself;
- when to ask for help.
Truth liberates because it reduces confusion between what we control and what we do not control.
4.16. No One “Does Everything” to Another
One of the most delicate statements in the theory is:
“No one does harm to anyone.”
If interpreted literally, this statement could be ethically problematic.
GAESEMA Philosophy therefore requires a more rigorous formulation:
One person can cause real harm to another, but that person should not automatically be regarded as responsible for the entirety of the other person’s subsequent reaction, interpretation, and trajectory.
This distinction is fundamental.
If someone assaults another person, responsibility for the assault exists.
But the victim retains a dimension of agency concerning what may subsequently be done with that experience.
This does not eliminate justice.
On the contrary.
It makes justice more precise.
4.17. Reforming the Logic of Judgment
The theory proposes a reform of the logic of judgment.
Instead of asking exclusively:
“Who did it?”
one should ask:
- What happened?
- Who performed the initial action?
- What was the intention?
- What was the reaction?
- What conditions were present?
- What alternatives existed?
- What did each person know?
- What choices were genuinely available?
- What was each individual’s contribution?
- What consequence emerged?
- What can be repaired?
- What can be learned?
This approach brings judgment closer to an analysis of complex causality.
Responsibility ceases to be a weapon for finding a single culprit and becomes a tool for understanding a chain of events.
4.18. The Justice of the Square
GAESEMA Philosophy proposes a new metaphor for justice:
Justice is the protection of each Square without allowing one Square to deliberately destroy another.
To respect another person’s Square is to recognize that person’s dignity.
But autonomy does not mean impunity.
If someone deliberately enters another person’s Square and causes harm, society has legitimate grounds to establish boundaries.
The theory therefore rejects both:
revenge and permissiveness.
It proposes:
responsibility + protection + restoration + learning.
4.19. Manipulation and Shortcuts
The theory identifies manipulation as an attempt to produce a reaction artificially without respecting the natural process of reciprocity.
The manipulator wants:
results without sowing;
trust without transparency;
respect without merit;
power without responsibility;
love without reciprocity.
GAESEMA Philosophy refers to this as a causal shortcut.
The problem with shortcuts is that they may produce temporary results without necessarily constructing the structure required to sustain them.
Therefore:
It is not enough to obtain a reaction. One must build the relationship that makes the reaction sustainable.
4.20. Salvation as Understanding One’s Own Square
The word “salvation” receives a broad interpretation within this theory.
It is not presented exclusively as a religious concept.
It may represent liberation from confusion concerning:
- who one is;
- what one can control;
- what one cannot control;
- what one should do;
- what one should abandon;
- what one should learn;
- what one should preserve.
In this sense:
To save oneself is to stop living permanently inside other people’s Squares and return to one’s own Square.
An individual who spends an entire life observing others loses sight of his or her own path.
The person who understands the path begins to produce direction.
4.21. The Spiritual Dimension of Prayer
Within the theological dimension of GAESEMA Philosophy, prayer is understood as a practice of orientation, reflection, and spiritual connection.
James 1:5 presents the pursuit of wisdom through asking God.
Prayer may therefore be interpreted as:
request → silence → reflection → discernment → decision → action.
The theory does not claim scientifically that prayer automatically produces material outcomes.
It argues that, within spiritual traditions, prayer may function as a mechanism of orientation, discipline, hope, and the search for meaning.
4.22. The Problem of “Trapped Souls”
The expression “trapped soul” belongs to the spiritual and religious domain and must therefore be treated cautiously.
Within the GAESEMA metaphysical hypothesis, a “trapped soul” represents a condition in which consciousness is prevented from fully expressing its orientation or purpose.
The theory associates this idea with the concept of the Twin Guide.
Again, however, this is a metaphysical interpretation.
It is not a psychological or scientific diagnosis.
The philosophical significance of the hypothesis lies in the question:
What happens when a human being loses the capacity to hear what he or she understands to be an inner source of guidance?
The question can be investigated even without adopting a supernatural interpretation.
It may be explored through concepts such as:
- inner conflict;
- anxiety;
- loss of meaning;
- conditioning;
- trauma;
- alienation;
- dependency;
- social pressure;
- manipulation.
4.23. The Great Reform: From Automatic Reaction to Consciousness
The principal reform proposed by Gilson Guilherme Miguel Ângelo may be summarized as follows:
Human beings must cease being merely reactive and become conscious of their own reactions.
It is impossible to prevent the world from producing stimuli.
Under certain circumstances, however, it is possible to increase the interval between stimulus and response.
Within that interval, reflection emerges.
And within reflection, the possibility of choice appears.
Thus:
Stimulus → Consciousness → Interpretation → Choice → Response.
The greater the level of consciousness, the greater the potential capacity to avoid purely automatic responses.
4.24. A New Philosophical Equation
The theory can be summarized through a conceptual formula:
A + C + E = R
Where:
A = Action received or performed
C = Consciousness
E = Choice
R = Response
But the process does not end there.
The response becomes a new action:
A → R → A₂ → R₂ → A₃ → R₃
Human existence can therefore be understood as a sequence of cycles of reciprocity.
Each cycle produces experience.
Each experience may modify consciousness.
Each modification may alter the next choice.
Therefore:
Action → Reaction → Experience → Consciousness → Choice → New Action.
It is within this circularity that GAESEMA Philosophy locates human development.
4.25. The Fundamental Principle of GAESEMA Philosophy
From the analysis presented above, the following principle emerges:
Human beings should expect from reality not merely what they desire to receive, but what their actions, choices, conditions, and relationships make possible to receive.
This does not imply a simplistic view according to which every person who suffers “deserved” the suffering.
Such a position would be unjust.
The theory recognizes accidents, inequalities, illness, violence, unpredictable events, and circumstances beyond individual responsibility.
The principle primarily concerns what lies within the sphere of human influence.
If we plant trust, we increase the possibility of trust.
If we plant violence, we increase the possibility of violence.
If we plant fear, we may produce defensiveness.
If we plant security, we may facilitate openness.
If we plant respect, we may build reciprocity.
Human reality is complex, but it is not indifferent to action.
5. CONCLUSION
“My Self First, Blame Others as a Zero Priority” constitutes a proposal for the reform of human consciousness.
Its purpose is not to teach individuals to ignore others.
It is to teach individuals not to lose their own responsibility while observing others.
The theory begins with a simple observation:
Every human being has a Square.
Within that Square exist consciousness, memory, thought, emotions, possibilities, and choices.
Human beings encounter one another, but they should not confuse their Squares.
To respect another person’s Square is to recognize that person’s dignity.
To govern one’s own Square is to assume responsibility.
Action produces consequences.
Words produce consequences.
Thought influences action.
Action alters the environment.
The environment returns new conditions.
And the human being chooses again.
Newton’s third law cannot be directly transformed into a law of human psychology; however, the concept of action and reaction provides a powerful metaphor for thinking about reciprocity. Bandura’s social cognitive theory provides a more directly relevant framework for human behaviour by describing reciprocal interactions between person, behaviour, and environment.
Free will, meanwhile, should not be imagined as absolute power over the universe.
It is more rigorously understood as the capacity to choose within a field of possibilities.
Resilience emerges as one of the most important expressions of this freedom:
after loss, choice remains possible.
There may be surrender.
There may be continuation.
There may be transformation.
It is within this possibility that experience ceases to be merely suffering and can become knowledge.
Biblical tradition adds a powerful spiritual language to the theory.
Ephesians 6:12 shifts conflict from a simple opposition between individuals toward a dimension of powers and forces that transcend “flesh and blood.”
John presents the Word as the beginning and declares that the Word became flesh.
John 8:32 associates knowledge of truth with liberation.
Galatians 6:7 presents the logic of sowing and reaping.
Matthew 7:12 establishes reciprocity as an ethical principle.
These traditions do not, by themselves, constitute scientific proof of the metaphysical hypotheses presented in this article.
They constitute, however, philosophical-theological sources of dialogue for the construction of a theory concerning consciousness, responsibility, speech, choice, and consequence.
This is precisely where GAESEMA Philosophy seeks to position itself.
Not against science.
Not against religion.
Not against philosophy.
Not against spiritual traditions.
But among them, seeking what may be investigated, compared, questioned, and reformulated.
The concept of the Twin Guide should therefore remain open as a metaphysical hypothesis.
The concept of the Hidden Plane should remain open as a philosophical field of inquiry.
The concept of the Individual Square can be developed as a philosophical model of autonomy, agency, and responsibility.
And the principle of Action–Reaction can be developed as a theory of reciprocity in human relationships, without confusing it with Newton’s physical law.
The great contribution of this proposal may not lie in claiming that it already possesses every answer.
It lies in formulating a different question:
What if the first reform of human justice were not to find someone to blame, but to teach every individual to understand his or her own Square?
And then comes the central declaration of this manifesto:
Know your Square.
Govern your consciousness.
Respect the Square of the other.
Plant before demanding the harvest.
Think before responding.
Speak knowing that the word is an action.
Choose knowing that every choice changes the next move.
When you lose, learn.
When you fall, choose again.
When you encounter another human being, do not immediately turn that person into an enemy.
And when you seek truth, seek it first within the responsibility that belongs to you.
GAESEMA Philosophy therefore emerges as an Angolan contribution to a universal human conversation.
It does not claim a monopoly on truth.
It seeks to put truth into motion.
Because perhaps salvation does not begin when we manage to control another person’s Square.
Perhaps it begins precisely when we discover that our own Square is already enough responsibility for an entire lifetime.
REFERENCES
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. Resilience. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
BANDURA, Albert. Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, v. 2, p. 21–41, 1999.
BIBLE. Ephesians 6:12. Biblical reference concerning spiritual forces and the distinction between conflict with human beings and spiritual powers.
BIBLE. Galatians 6:7. Biblical reference concerning sowing and reaping.
BIBLE. Isaiah 55:11. Biblical reference concerning the relationship between the spoken word, purpose, and fulfilment.
BIBLE. John 1:1, 1:14. Biblical reference concerning the Logos/Word and its manifestation in the flesh.
BIBLE. John 8:32. Biblical reference concerning the relationship between truth and freedom.
BIBLE. Matthew 7:12. Biblical reference concerning ethical reciprocity and the Golden Rule.
BIBLE. Proverbs 18:21. Biblical reference concerning the power and consequences of speech.
FRANKL, Viktor E. Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston: Beacon Press.
NEWTON, Isaac. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. 1687.
STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY. Free Will. Stanford University.
STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY. Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Stanford University.
AUTHOR’S DECLARATION
The present proposal is presented by Gilson Guilherme Miguel Ângelo, Angolan thinker and philosopher, as an original contribution to interdisciplinary reflection on consciousness, responsibility, free will, spirituality, human relationships, and purpose.
GAESEMA Philosophy is presented here as a philosophical project dedicated to the investigation and reform of human consciousness.
Its fundamental diplomatic principle is:
Investigate the hidden without humiliating the sacred.
Question the known without destroying science.
Reform without persecuting.
Disagree without dehumanizing.
And seek truth without turning the other into an enemy.
Because before asking:
“Who is against me?”
perhaps we should ask:
“Who am I becoming within my own Square?”
Gilson Guilherme Miguel Ângelo
Angolan Thinker and Philosopher
Founder of GAESEMA Philosophy
GAESEMA PUBLISHING HOUSE
The Brand That Transcends Borders
Knowledge that transforms. Philosophy that liberates the world.
The GAESEMA Scientific and Philosophical Journal is internationally available, accessible to researchers, academics, thinkers, students, and readers committed to the intellectual, scientific, spiritual, and social transformation of humanity.
With original publications on philosophy, production, economics, spirituality, management, education, conscious innovation, and human development, GAESEMA promotes a new global consciousness — critical, practical, transformative, and oriented toward real solutions to contemporary challenges.
More than simply publishing content, GAESEMA proposes a new way of thinking about the world, encouraging constructive questioning, profound research, and the creation of knowledge applicable to human and institutional realities.
Discover bold ideas. Question the system. Inspire change.
Access the official platform:
https://gaesema.online/
Official Submission of Scientific Articles, Books and Academic Works
Researchers, lecturers, undergraduate, master’s and doctoral students, as well as independent authors, may submit:
- Scientific articles — 50% discount for Members
- Academic and philosophical books;
- Research papers;
- Scientific essays;
- Interdisciplinary and innovative works.
Official Contacts
Email: gaesefma@gmail.com
WhatsApp — Angola: +244 923 486 495
WhatsApp — Namibia: +264 81 742 9733
All scientific articles, previous editions, updated content, special publications, and institutional materials are available through GAESEMA’s official channels.
Participate. Publish. Become part of a philosophy that transcends borders.
INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION
Owning Entity: GAESEMA Investments Group (Pty) Ltd – Namibia
Institutional Partnership: ANGRIB, SA. / NANK, S.A. – Angola
International Headquarters: Windhoek – Namibia
Representation in Angola: Luanda – Kikuxi, Angola
Editor-in-Chief: Gilson Guilherme Miguel Ângelo
Official Institutional Contact
Angola: +244 923 486 495
Namibia: +264 81 742 9733
Institutional Email: gaesefma@gmail.com
Editorial Philosophy
“Thinking differently is creating the new.”
© All rights reserved by GAESEMA Publishing House.
Scientific citation is permitted provided that the source is properly referenced, in accordance with international principles of academic ethics and intellectual property.
G
