I see your point, and in a sense, you're right. My model is rooted in the Stanislavski Method and the philosophy of Ghost in the Shell. I had to consume and int

I see your point, and in a sense, you're right. My model is rooted in the Stanislavski Method and the philosophy of Ghost in the Shell. I had to consume and internalize these 'cultural inputs' to synthesize this framework. So, on a deterministic level, I am indeed a 'product' of my environment and experiences. However, on a functional level, the S-M Protocol (Stanislavski Model) is about how the Subject (the human) chooses to perceive its Products (emotions and reactive states). In this model, these products are treated as a 'Shell.' From my internal, first-person perspective, the Shell is neither the Subject nor a mere Object. I understand that from a second or third-person perspective, my Shell might look like the entirety of who I am. But think of it like a profession—say, a lawyer. When people talk about 'the lawyer,' they think of the person, but being a lawyer is just a functional role within a social system; it doesn't define the totality of their being. So, while emotions might be seen as the 'subject' from an outsider's lens, from the first-person view, they are a transitional state: neither the 'I' nor just a 'thing.' They are the Shell I navigate through. My protocol simply grants the Subject the administrative rights to manage that Shell.