01 / CONTRIBUTE
Share what you see.
Write with a question, criticism, correction, source, lived perspective, or proposal about a book, manifesto, essay, article, or philosophical idea.
Human Return Library · Correspondence
A Living Library.
Published work can change. Its history should remain visible.
Books, manifestos, essays, articles, and the Reality Alignment philosophy remain open to thoughtful challenge, further inquiry, and documented revision.
An open invitation
What is a Living Library?
The Human Return Project is developing a Living Library: an interconnected body of books, manifestos, essays and articles that can be corrected, expanded, reconsidered, and revised after publication. The Reality Alignment philosophy developed across these works is evolving, too. Its arguments and principles are not fixed doctrines.
Readers can identify factual errors, question interpretations, challenge assumptions, offer relevant research, or share experiences the work has overlooked. I can also revisit a text because of new evidence, further study, or critical examination of the AI-assisted creative process.
The point is not to revise according to popularity, or to promise agreement. I remain responsible for examining contributions, checking claims, deciding what stands, and choosing what changes. An exchange may lead to a correction, a fuller argument, another essay, or no revision at all.
When a substantive change is published, I intend to make its history visible: what changed, why it changed, when it changed, and, where relevant and permitted, what helped bring the change about. Earlier versions or the original passages will remain identifiable where practical.
The Living Library preserves the history of its thinking while allowing its conclusions to change.
Field Notes have a different purpose. They document the research, conversations, decisions, uncertainties, and development of the project at particular moments. They are historical records, not living texts to be rewritten whenever my thinking changes. When needed, dated corrections, contextual notes, or privacy redactions can be clearly marked without silently replacing the original record.
That is the proposal: an evolving library of published works, an evolving philosophy, and a traceable record of how both change. You're invited to take part—and you don't have to agree with me to belong in the conversation.
How a Living Library works
From a challenge to a documented decision.
02 / EXAMINE
Test the claim.
I consider the contribution, check evidence and context, seek further perspectives as appropriate, and reconsider what the work actually says.
03 / DECIDE
Keep, qualify, or change.
A claim might stand, be clarified, be expanded, or require revision. Questions may remain unresolved; correspondence does not guarantee a change.
04 / REVISE
Update the work.
When justified, a revised book edition or an updated manifesto, essay, or article can reflect what has been learned. A philosophical change may affect several works.
05 / DOCUMENT
Show what changed.
Substantive revisions receive a dated account of the change and its reasons, with prior wording or versions identifiable where practical and contributor credit only with consent.
This is an editorial process, not an automatic sequence. Some questions lead to correspondence or further research without revision; other revisions may begin with my own investigation. The correspondence and invitation are open now; the public revision record will grow as changes are made.
Write to the author
I'd like to hear what you think.
Dear reader,
I don't want the Human Return Library to be a collection of conclusions handed down from an author to an audience. I want its books, manifestos, essays, and ideas to begin conversations—and to remain capable of learning from them.
Tell me what stayed with you. Tell me what you questioned. Tell me about an argument that doesn't hold up, a passage that leaves something out, a claim needing evidence, or an experience that gives you another way of seeing the subject. You're equally welcome to challenge the philosophy itself or the use of AI in developing these works.
You don't need an elaborate argument. A sincere question is enough. And you don't have to flatter me, agree with me, or convince me of anything before I'll take your perspective seriously.
I can't promise to answer every letter or offer professional guidance, but I will approach the correspondence I can engage with in the spirit in which I hope the work is read: with curiosity, care, and a willingness to learn.
— Jason Elijah
Where might you begin?
- An argument in a book you think needs revisiting
- A manifesto or Reality Alignment principle you question
- An error or omission in an essay or article
- A source or lived experience that complicates a claim
- A criticism of the AI-assisted writing process
- A topic or connection the Library should investigate
Email opens your own mail application. There is no account, public comment box, or automatic publication of your message.
Conversations from the Library
An archive of questions worth keeping.
As correspondence develops, selected exchanges may be shared here: not as endorsements, testimonials, or debates to be won, but as records of people thinking together.
Some conversations may end in agreement. Others may remain unresolved. Both can be valuable.
The archive begins with an invitation.
No reader correspondence has been published in this section yet. Future entries will appear only after everyone involved has agreed to the specific material being shared.
Be part of the conversation →Living works & revision records
What can change—and what stays on record.
Books may receive corrected or expanded editions, revised arguments, or new chapters. Manifestos may be amended when a declaration, premise, or interpretation no longer holds. Essays and articles may be updated to address errors, new evidence, or more developed reasoning.
Reality Alignment is an evolving philosophy. When a foundational principle changes, the relevant manifestos, essays, or books can be reconsidered rather than leaving mutually inconsistent claims unexamined. Not every text must be rewritten to match a later view: the record should make genuine changes in thinking discoverable.
Field Notes are excluded from this rolling revision process. They document the inquiry as it happened. Subsequent thinking belongs in new entries or transparently dated annotations, rather than undated rewriting of the historical record.
For substantive changes, the aim is to publish a clear revision record. Earlier language or versions will remain identifiable where practical. Minor spelling and formatting fixes need not receive a full report, while material corrections should be disclosed even when they originate with me rather than a reader.
The revision record · Proposed format
What a future entry will show
- Work & version
- The book, manifesto, essay, or article affected, with its edition or date
- Date & change
- When the revision was made and precisely what was corrected, expanded, or reconsidered
- Reason
- Evidence, further inquiry, editorial reassessment, or a substantive challenge
- Earlier wording
- The previous version or passage, preserved or linked where practical
- Contribution
- How a reader or other contributor helped, with acknowledgement only by permission
- Open questions
- What remains uncertain, contested, or worthy of investigation
This is a proposed publishing practice, not a claim that reader-driven revisions have already occurred. Where printed books receive new editions, previously purchased copies will not change automatically. Online revisions and print editions will be identified distinctly.
The principles of participation
Open to disagreement. Careful with trust.
Privacy by default.
Writing privately does not grant permission to publish your words. Any public excerpt or exchange will require explicit permission for its particular use, including how you are named or anonymized.
No promise of agreement or revision.
Readers may question any published argument, including the project’s philosophy and its use of AI. I consider contributions, but retain responsibility for evidence, interpretation, and editorial decisions; no one has an automatic veto or right to a revision.
Credit without pressure.
Meaningful contributions may be acknowledged with permission. No one has to make a private experience public to have their perspective considered.
Careful boundaries.
Correspondence is not therapy, legal advice, or an emergency support service. Responses cannot be guaranteed, and sensitive stories should be shared with discretion.
Visible correction is part of the work.
A changed mind is worth documenting. Substantive updates should leave an intelligible trail, without silently changing the historical Field Notes.
The inquiry belongs to everyone who enters it.
The publisher remains responsible for what is published, while contributors retain their own perspectives and voices.
The invitation remains open
Help make this a library that learns.
Read a book, manifesto, essay, or article. Question a claim, challenge the philosophy, or tell me what I missed. The published work can evolve—and the record of that evolution matters.
Write to Jason ↗Explore the books · The Uncertainty Project · Read the Journal