CERT (Cause-and-effect relationship theory) is a logical system which delineates the various stages that enable a living being to shift from its initial state to the following state, and so on, by the means of a tree structure.


The first thing, which one can really be sure of, is that, from the moment when one is, one has aptitudes according to what one is, and one acts according to these aptitudes. Thus:
first, one is, then, one has, and then, one does.

It is also possible to find a cause and effect relationship between what one
can, what one must and what one wants. Let us examine them by pairs.

First, let us consider the relationship between one
must and one can. One can commit suicide, and if one had to (must), I would not have written these lines and you would not read them now. We’d all be dead. Since we’re not, since this document exists and that you are reading it, it is therefore absurd to consider that one can implies one must. On the other hand, if one must, one should can/be able to, as it is necessary, in order to achieve what one must, to have the possibility to do so.

Then, between
one can and one wants. Even if it is my will to carry Mount Everest to Warsaw on my own in one night, I will not be able to do so. One wants does therefore not logically imply that one can. On the other hand, if one wants, first of all, one should can – or at least, be able to want it – there is no other way to go about it. It is, therefore, necessarily true that one wants comes after one can.

Finally, between
one must and one wants. If one must implies that one wants, this means that what one wants does not follow a choice but an obligation. One is then left with but a single choice, i.e., with no choice at all. Will (to want) then becomes a carbon copy of duty (to must) – is, therefore, a duty. Therefore, one must implies that one wants makes no sense at all, as duty and will cannot here be separated. However, when one wants, there must be a process enabling that what has been decided must happen, as it is not otherwise possible. It seems therefore logical that one must (duty) should come after one wants (will).

What we have now are two cause and effect relationships. The first one is:
one is (to be), one has (to have), one does (to do) – which is a linear cause and effect relationships law. The second one is: one can, one wants, one must, one can, one wants, one must, and so on – which is then a circular law. In order to assemble both laws together, we know that to be/being is the quintessential condition to have and to do. To must thus pairs with to be, to can with to have and to want with to do. A new cause and effect law is thus obtained: one must be in order to can have and want to do, written: MB>CH>WD. And, since duty comes after will (to want comes after to must) and that duty (to must) pairs with to be, we end up again with MB, then CH, WD, MB, etc.
Therefore: in order to move from one
Being/to Be to another – from one MB to the next MB – this cause and effect law can be used.

To Be, to Have and to Do may now be thus defined: must Be, can Be, want to Be, must Have, can Have, want to Have, must Do, can Do, want to Do.
A sequence of elements is thus shaped, inside which one can pass from one to another, using the afore-defined law.

One thing which is certain is that one first exists. Taking existence as the starting point of this channel (that is, the
Must Be), it is then possible to find out the logical following of that sequence.

What this
existence, as is, can have, is its characteristics. The act which is made possible by these characteristics determines the capacity. The capacity is therefore the Can Be.

Characteristics due to this capacity are possibilities. Once an act has been accomplished according to these possibilities, a
situation ensues. Situation is therefore the Want to Be.

Being (To Be) is thus outlined as follows:
Existence (m) → Capacity (c) → Situation (w)

Let us now consider the transition from the
Want to Be to the Must Have. The act will be done according to what possibilities one has so as to outline the situation – that is, the definition.

From now on, one knows that, in order to define the subsequent elements of the sequence, one must determine their Must Be, Can Be and Want to Be (existence, capacity, situation), referred to as m, c, w.

From definition itself, let us move on to the following element’s Must Be. In order to do so, and as it is possible, one does the act to set this same definition according to our own characteristics, as borne of our existence as such. This results in

Following the same logic, one will do the act of defining, in terms of feelings, what
emotion is. Then, one defines, emotionally speaking, which allows to assess what one likes or dislikes.

Can Have is therefore thus defined:
Feeling (m) → Emotion (c) → Love (w)

In order to move on to the next element’s Must Be, one does the act to define what one likes and what one dislikes. This is

There being judgment enables one to accordingly define – i.e., to choose. And our goal will be to define our

Want to Have is thus divided:
Judgment (m) → Choice (c) → Goal (w)

Then, one does the act to define that goal. This is the
decision which is thus the following element’s Must Be. One now knows that a decision must be made.

One the decision has been made to do something according to the goal one has assigned to oneself, the
Must Do’s Can matches the various decisions which can be taken and the Want will then be the very decision which will be taken.
Decision (m) → Possible decisions (c) → Decision-making (w)

Once the decision has been made, it will then be possible to define the characteristics of its realization – those are the
One knows that these are the means (m). From then on, one assesses the possible means (c) and one then collects what one wants to use (w).
Means (m) → Possible means (c) → Means collected (w)
This results in the existence (Must Be) of a specific act according to these means. One now knows that one must act (m). All possible acts are assessed (c) and one then precisely outlines the act which one wants to do (w).

Act (m) → possible acts (c) → wanted act (w)

Realizing this act will provide the transition between the last element of this sequence to the first element (existence) of the following sequence.

…. → Wanted act → Existence → Capacity → ….

What we get is a direction where every element depends upon the one that precedes it and determines the one to follow:
One exists, one has capacities, there ensues a situation which one defines; this triggers off feelings, then, an emotion – one likes or dislikes – one judges, chooses, sets a goal, decides on an act, gathers the means, does the act ; one then exists as a result of this process, one thus has renewed capacities, etc.



Now that one has defined to Be/Being (b), to Have/Having (h) and to Do/Doing (d) according to Must (m) Can (c) and Want (w), one can work it out the other way round, that is, define M, C, W according to B, H, D.
In order to do so, one refers to the following diagram →
See the diagram

Working one’s way from the bottom to the top, it is obvious that the Being of Must/Duty is Existence, the Have, the Definition and the Do(ing), the Decision – which is the only element made up only of Duty/to Must and to Do/Doing.
Following the same rule, the Power (to Can)’s to Be/Being will be the Capacity; the Have, the emotion and the Do the possible means.
The Will (to Want)’s Being (to Be) is therefore the situation, Having (to Have) is the goal and the doing (to Do) is the wanted act
This leads us with a graphic representation whose scientific name is arborescence.

See the arborescence

What we then get is a system founded on a basic system (MB, CH, WD), a consequent internal logic (B, H, D, according to M, C, W) and an ensuing
modus operandi (M, C, W according to B, H, D).

To get from one item to another within the internal logic, one uses the MB→ CH→ WD law. Consequently, one can rebuild an arborescence between each pair of its sequential items

In order to move on from one of the
modus operandi’s element to the other, one uses the internal logic.

Example: to move on from Existence to Definition, the way is Existence → Capacity → Situation → Definition.
To move on from Possible Means to Situation, the way is Possible Means → Gathering of the means → Act → Possible acts → Wanted act → Existence → Capacity → Situation.
And so on…