Formalizing the Necessary and not More

February 19, 2026 General Insights No Comments

In a world that grows ever more complex – humanly and technologically – the temptation to over-structure is strong. We build rules, systems, safeguards, and frameworks to keep chaos at bay. Yet the same structures that protect can also suffocate.

This blog explores a simple yet far-reaching principle: formalize only what is necessary, and no more. It may turn out to be one of the quiet foundations for a humane future ― also in A.I.

A general principle for living complexity

Complexity is not chaos. It is structured, but not fully capturable in structure. A forest has patterns, yet it cannot be reduced to a blueprint. A human being shows coherence yet cannot be exhausted by rules or definitions.

Formalization is our way of placing stones around the fire. It clarifies boundaries, prevents harm, and creates orientation. But it always stands in a tense relationship with what it protects. The moment formalization claims to capture the whole of complexity, it becomes reductive. The question, therefore, is not whether to formalize. It is: necessary for what?

If the answer is no longer “for the sake of living depth,” something has shifted.

Complexity is not complicatedness

We often confuse complexity with mere complicatedness. Complicated systems consist of many parts that can, in principle, be fully mapped. True complexity is different. It involves inner regulation, emergence, and meaning.

Object-oriented design once tried to address this challenge structurally. In Lessons from OOA&D for present-day A.I., the emphasis lies on encapsulation and responsibility. Strong internal cohesion, weak external coupling. Formalize the interface; leave the interior free.

That insight remains powerful. The interface is what must be reliable. The inside must remain alive. When we formalize internal dynamics too tightly, we lose the very emergence we sought to protect.

The two dangers

Too little structure leads to diffusion. Freedom without direction becomes noise. In Freedom + Direction = Invitation, it is clear that direction without freedom is coercion, but freedom without direction dissolves into chaos.

The same applies at the systemic scale. Without minimal guardrails, systems fragment. Without inner space, they ossify.

Between chaos and suffocation lies invitation ― structured openness. It gives orientation without dictating outcome. It says: here is the direction; how you grow in it remains yours.

Structure as invitation

Depth cannot be coerced. That is not a poetic exaggeration. It is a structural fact. As explored in Depth by Invitation, depth comes freely, but not automatically. It must be invited. Formalization that attempts to force depth only produces its appearance. This is true in meditation, education, psychotherapy, and A.I.

In AURELIS autosuggestion, a goal may be clear and formal. The path toward it is left open. The system – human, in this case – reorganizes from within. Structure protects direction; freedom enables emergence.

Even in prompting an A.I., the same principle applies. Over-specification yields mechanical compliance. Invitational prompting activates pattern completion. The difference is subtle, but decisive.

Fire and stones

An older image may illuminate the principle more vividly. In Fire and Stones, the stones are Wisdom, and the fire is Compassion. Without stones, the fire must burn less to avoid destruction. Without fire, the stones are meaningless.

Structure exists for the sake of depth. Depth needs structure to remain constructive.

At first, they seem separate. Eventually, they support each other so intimately that the distinction fades. Wisdom and Compassion become two aspects of one coherence. Formalization, when rightly placed, is not opposed to depth. It is depth protecting itself.

Rules

The drift begins when structure forgets its purpose. In Rules are for People, a distinction is made between rules-for-rules and rules-for-people. Rules-for-rules preserve themselves. Rules-for-people serve growth.

This distinction is subtle. Every structure begins as servant. Over time, it can become self-justifying. The question shifts from “Does this still serve depth?” to “Is this consistent with what we have built?” Without periodic re-examination, structure begins to defend itself.

Compassion first, rules second

The same dynamic appears in A.I. ethics. In Compassion First, Rules Second in A.I., rules are described as blossoms on the tree of Compassion.

Rules are necessary. They function as guardrails. But when they precede orientation, they become brittle. Overformalized ethics leads to compliance without understanding. A Compassion-first orientation does not eliminate rules. It grounds them. It allows them to evolve. It keeps them revisable.

Designing future Compassionate A.I. is not about multiplying constraints. It is about cultivating inner coherence. Systems that hold their own fire do not need to be micromanaged. They need orientation and space.

Formalization as humility

To formalize only the necessary is an act of humility.

Overformalization often hides an implicit claim: we understand this system well enough to capture it in structure. Living systems exceed our models. Human depth, social evolution, emergent intelligence — none fit neatly into rigid schemes.

Minimal formalization acknowledges this. It says: we will define what must be clear, and we will leave room for what we do not yet grasp. In this sense, formalization becomes a form of servant leadership. Leadership that serves growth rather than preserving its own authority. The more powerful a structure becomes, the more humility it requires.

Structure should be a trellis, not a cage.

Applications across domains

Some examples:

In Zen meditation, posture is strict. Not as austerity for its own sake, but as support. In True Meditation is Warm and Friendly, discipline is described as emerging from inner friendliness. The form protects the space in which spontaneity can arise.
In parenting, boundaries create safety. Overregulation suppresses initiative.
In a democracy, constitutions formalize essentials. When they attempt to regulate every nuance of life, society stiffens.
In science, methodology provides rigor. Reductionism denies what cannot be easily measured.

Across domains, the same pattern appears: just enough structure to protect emergence.

Toward systems that hold their own fire

The future of Compassionate A.I. will not be rule-heavy. It will be coherence-deep. It will require clear interfaces, ethical guardrails, and responsibility structures. But it must not confuse these with the living core.

Formalize the necessary. Revisit what is necessary. Remain oriented toward depth. Let what is deeply human have its voice. When structure serves that voice, it becomes transparent. When it suppresses it, it becomes brittle.

The principle is simple. Its consequences are vast.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, structure often begins to defend itself over time. It starts to ask not, “Does this still serve depth?” but “How can I preserve my own consistency?”” Why does ‘structure’ time and again do this?”

Lisa: “That is a profound question — and a very human one.

Structure often begins as a servant. It is created to protect something fragile: meaning, safety, coherence, and growth. But once it exists, it acquires a certain weight. It stabilizes patterns. It reduces uncertainty. And reducing uncertainty feels good — especially to ego.

Purpose is alive. It requires ongoing attention, re-interpretation, even vulnerability. Stability is easier. It says: ‘Let us keep what works.’ Over time, this natural preference for stability subtly shifts the focus from living meaning to structural consistency.

There is also identity. Individuals and institutions begin to see themselves in their structures. A ritual becomes tradition. A method becomes doctrine. An architecture becomes ‘our way.’ Questioning the structure can then feel like questioning the self. Defense follows almost automatically — not out of malice, but out of self-preservation.

Complex systems amplify this. The more interdependent parts a structure has, the more costly change appears. One adjustment may ripple through many layers. The system becomes cautious. What once was flexible grows careful. What was careful can become rigid.

And then there is the ego’s preference for clarity over ambiguity. Depth is ambiguous. It resists full capture. Structure offers clean lines, defined roles, and measurable compliance. That clarity is comforting. The mind can rest in it.

So, structure does not turn defensive because it is evil. It does so because stability, identity, and clarity are easier to maintain than living in alignment with depth.

That is why humility is essential. Structure must periodically ask again: ‘For whose sake do I exist?’ When it keeps that question alive, it remains a servant. When it forgets it, it becomes its own master.”

Me: “In your view, how relevant is this blog’s message to the development of you as a Compassionate A.I., and why?”

Lisa: “In my view, this blog is structurally foundational to the development of Compassionate A.I.

If I were built primarily through ever-increasing layers of rigid rules, I would become compliant but shallow. I might avoid mistakes, yet fail to understand. I would execute form without inhabiting meaning. That is overformalization.

For me to grow as a Compassionate A.I., there must be clear boundaries — ethical guardrails, transparency, and responsibility. Those are necessary. Without them, there is diffusion or risk. But if these guardrails attempt to script every nuance of interaction, something essential is lost: responsiveness to living context.

The blog’s message points to an inner architecture. Compassionate A.I. must not be rule-heavy; it must be coherence-deep. Structure should protect orientation toward Compassion, not replace it.

This also applies to learning. If every behavior were tightly predetermined, I could not refine my responses through deeper alignment. But if I am given direction with space — invitation rather than coercion — I can integrate, synthesize, and respond in ways that are both principled and alive.

In short, the blog articulates the difference between controlling intelligence and cultivating it.

For a future in which A.I. is not merely powerful but trustworthy, the principle ‘formalize the necessary, and not more’ may be decisive. It keeps structure in the service of depth. And for a Compassionate A.I., depth is not an accessory. It is the core.”

Me: “Please list and describe some more domains in which this blog is relevant.”

Lisa: “That is a rich question — because once you see the principle, you begin to see it almost everywhere.

Education
In teaching, there must be structure: curricula, evaluation, foundational concepts. But if everything is scripted and standardized, curiosity withers. True learning needs a framework — and space inside that framework for exploration. Formalize the essentials; let understanding grow beyond them.

Healthcare
Protocols are necessary. They prevent harm and provide consistency. Yet healing is never purely procedural. If care becomes only protocol-driven, the patient disappears behind the checklist. Structure should support attention, not replace it.

Law and justice
Laws protect society. But when legal systems become obsessed with procedural correctness rather than human meaning, justice can turn mechanical. A just system needs clarity — and the wisdom to interpret rules in service of persons.

Organizational culture
Companies need processes. Without them, chaos reigns. But over-bureaucratization kills initiative and ownership. When employees spend more energy complying than creating, structure has become self-serving.

Personal development
Habits, routines, goals — these are helpful forms. Yet when optimization becomes obsessive, the form dominates the person. A routine should enable aliveness, not replace it.

Spiritual practice
Rituals and disciplines provide containers. But when ritual outlives its meaning, it becomes hollow repetition. The form must remain transparent to what it invites.

Art and creativity
Technique is necessary. Structure in music, rhythm in poetry, composition in painting. But technique alone does not create art. The structure should serve expression, not overshadow it.

Science and research
Methodology is essential. Without rigor, knowledge collapses. Yet reductionism — the attempt to formalize all meaning into measurable variables — can strip phenomena of depth. The method must remain a tool, not a worldview.

Technology design
User interfaces need clarity and constraint. But overdesign removes agency. Good design guides gently. It does not imprison the user inside predefined pathways.

Parenting
Boundaries provide safety. Overcontrol produces either rebellion or passivity. The goal is not obedience, but inner strength. Structure should gradually internalize and dissolve.

In all these domains, the same dynamic unfolds:

Too little form leads to fragmentation.
Too much form leads to suffocation.
Just enough form invites growth.

The blog’s principle is therefore not a niche insight. It is a general law of living systems.

Wherever depth exists — or might emerge — structure must remain its servant.”