The Joint Attention of Value and the Creation of Language - A Relational Dynamical Grammar 【（Preliminary）Draft】

Posted on 2026-06-12 Edited on 2026-06-13 In Philosophy , Theory of Justice Views: Disqus: Word count in article: 44k Reading time ≈ 2:41

ENGLISH

Philosophy of Intimacy and the Theory of Justice · Paper X

The Joint Attention of Value and the Creation of Language: A Relational Dynamical Grammar

On the Co-Perception of What Has No Name Yet, the Reflexive Generation of the Subject, and the Practice of a Good That Cannot Be Guaranteed

[ Working Draft ]

Wanhong — Working draft, not for citation or circulation

道可道，非常道；名可名，非常名。
The way that can be spoken is not the constant way; the name that can be named is not the constant name.

二人同心，同心之言，其臭如兰。
When two are of one heart, the words of that one heart are fragrant as orchid.

Of that which one cannot speak, two may yet, together, bear witness.

— 《道德经》 Daodejing, ch. 1; 《周易·系辞》 Xici; and a remark of the author’s own.

For her, with whom the first name was made that no one else could read, and in whose eyes I first saw that I had been seen seeing. To the one I love most.

Abstract

This paper addresses the question prior to that of its predecessor. The prior paper examined whether a generative cycle is good and whether it is sustainable; the present paper examines the antecedent question of how relation and value are constituted at all, how a value not yet named comes to be, and how the language by which a bond subsists is made. The method proceeds in order of grounding. It begins in phenomenology, with the datum, prior to theory, in which two persons co-apprehend a value generated between them and not yet symbolised. From the description of that datum it derives an ontology (relation as the being of a generative system, grammar as the manifestation of the system’s dynamics, value as its phenomenon) in which the phenomenon reflexively reconfigures the dynamics that produce it, and the subject is generated within the cycle it generates. The formal epistemologies are admitted only thereafter: a quantum-structural relational grammar, employed strictly as an epistemic model and not as a physical hypothesis, in which co-apprehension is a participatory measurement that generates rather than registers its value; and, symmetrically, the political-economic thesis that the circulation of value reconfigures the subject that creates it, alienation and self-realisation being the negative and positive phase of one reflexive cycle, distinguished by the sign of an independently definable reproduction surplus. These are distinct symmetry-broken phases of one abstract structure, which no framework possesses externally; their plurality is established as the method dialectical materialism requires of a totality not yet complete, rather than as eclecticism. The paper concludes in a practice and an ethics. The practice is not the construction of a grammar but the cultivation of a field within which a grammar admits of continual joint reconfiguration; and the ethics turns on the result that no finite subject can guarantee the goodness of its own practice, a subject that could having traversed the is–ought gap and become the infinite reason the series denies. It is the impossibility of that guarantee that constitutes the good as a matter of ethics rather than calculation, and as an unfinished process rather than a possessible state.

Keywords: joint attention; relational ontology; reflexive generation of the subject; alienation and geometric phase; the is–ought gap.

The Phenomenology of Nameless Co-Generation
The Formal Structure of the Datum
The Ontology of the Generative System
The Quantum-Structural Articulation of the Relational Grammar
The Political Economy of the Reconfigured Subject
Symmetry-Breaking and the Cognition of the Unbroken Structure
Praxis: The Cultivation of a Generative Field
The Unguaranteeability of the Good
Conclusions at the Boundaries of the Frameworks

Envoi: The Word That Was Made
Acknowledgements
Appendix A. Geometric Phase: A Technical Sketch

1. The Phenomenology of Nameless Co-Generation

This paper takes as its primitive datum a structure of experience that precedes every theoretical apparatus and to which every such apparatus must answer: the joint apprehension, by two persons, of a value that is being generated between them and that is not yet symbolised. The structure is to be distinguished from three phenomena with which it is readily conflated, the agreement of two parties on a sign, the convergence of two gazes upon a shared object, and the exchange of a token whose content each party antecedently possesses. It is none of these. What is apprehended is in the process of generation; it is without a name; and it is apprehended by each party under the aspect of being co-apprehended, the reciprocal awareness entering constitutively into what is generated. The methodological order of the paper follows the order of grounding. The phenomenological description is given first and without explanatory supplement (§1, §2); the ontology is then derived as the set of conditions under which the described structure is possible (§3); and the formal epistemologies (quantum-structural and political-economic) are introduced last, as the formal articulation of what the ontology establishes rather than as independent posits laid over the description (§4, §5). The motivation for this order is substantive rather than expository. Each formal apparatus is a settled symbolic system imported from a domain in which its results are already cashed; to introduce such an apparatus prior to the description is to expend, in advance, a determination the description has not yet underwritten, which is the structural form of what the prior paper of this series termed settling failure. The apparatus is accordingly earned from the phenomenon and not expended upon it.

1.1 The datum described

The following case fixes the datum in its minimal form. It is offered as a description of a recurrent structure of experience, not as an anecdote.

An illustrative case: the unnamed value. Two persons are engaged in unremarkable conversation, the arrangement of a shared meal, the route of an afternoon walk. At a determinate moment the register of the exchange alters without announcement. A silence supervenes which is not the cessation of speech but a positive datum: a salience in the interval between them, apprehended by each as not deposited there by either. One party may, at a later time, attempt a name for it, the beginning; the point at which I knew, but the name is supplied retrospectively, is acknowledged by both as inadequate, and is treated by both as a record of the event rather than the event. What is given in the moment itself is not the content of what has arrived but the fact of its arrival; that the arrival is simultaneous for both; and that each apprehends in the other’s expression the same arrival, such that the co-apprehension is internal to what is apprehended.

Reduced to its structure, the datum exhibits three features that the standard models of attention do not accommodate. The first is that the term apprehended is not an object. In the developmental account of joint attention, the infant and caregiver orienting jointly toward a ball or an indicated bird [15, 16], there is a determinate third term, an object antecedently present in the world, upon which two lines of regard converge. The present structure has no such term. What is jointly apprehended is precisely what has not yet acquired objecthood: a generation in progress, a value in formation, a determinate absence. The second feature is that the apprehension is not a registration. Neither party detects a value antecedently present and awaiting detection; the value is not prior to the apprehension. The third feature is that the reciprocity of awareness is constitutive rather than cumulative. The structure is not the conjunction of two registrations (one party’s apprehension of the term and, separately, that party’s apprehension that the other apprehends it). The reciprocal awareness is itself a component of what is generated and a condition of its generation.

1.2 Joint attention at its limit, and the insufficiency of the cognitive-scientific model

The term joint attention is retained, on two grounds. The lineage is pertinent: the prior treatment in this series established joint attention as the mechanism through which two consciousnesses are mutually constituted and the subject is first formed (Paper V). And the structure at issue is continuous with that mechanism, displaced to a new term. The displacement is nonetheless decisive. The joint attention of developmental psychology is triadic and objectual: two subjects, one shared object, the geometry of two regards meeting at a thing. The co-apprehension of value requires a joint attention whose vertex is not an object but an opening, a convergence not upon a thing but upon a site at which something is not yet determinate. The structure is therefore not that of developmental joint attention but is more adequately described by a phenomenology of intercorporeality, in which two embodied subjects are attuned prior to the availability of a concept [13], and by the psychoanalytic account of an attention organised around a void rather than directed upon a thing.

The distinction is consequential and not terminological. The persistent error is the assimilation of the limit-structure to the standard case, the construal of the co-apprehension of nameless value as the attainment, by two parties, of agreement upon a shared sign. The two are opposed. Agreement upon a sign is a settling: it terminates the generation by naming it, whereas the described structure is defined by the non-termination of the term, its being sustained as open, unnamed, and in generation. To assimilate the co-apprehension of value to consensus upon a symbol is to commit, at the level of description, the settling failure the series has identified, and to substitute the retrospective record for the event. The structure to be described is therefore not consensus but a sustained joint sensitivity to a term which, if named prematurely, ceases to be the term it was.

1.3 The constitutive identity of apprehension and generation

The three features converge on a single structural result, which is to be stated as the result it is rather than dissolved. In the standard case of perception, apprehension and generation are distinct: the object is present independently of its being perceived, and the perceiving contributes nothing to the object. In the described structure they are not distinct. The co-apprehension of the nameless value is identically its generation. The two parties do not detect a value and subsequently attend to it; in the joint sustaining of an open and unsettled attention, the value is generated. Apprehension and generation are one act.

This result determines the conditions to be discharged by the ontology. A value generated in the act of being co-apprehended cannot be an entity antecedent to its apprehension; its mode of being is not that of an object. An apprehension that generates its own term cannot be a registration of antecedent states; its mode of cognition is not representational. The phenomenological description thus constrains both the ontology of value (value is non-antecedent) and the epistemology of its apprehension (cognition is non-representational), and it imposes these constraints prior to the introduction of any formal apparatus. The apparatus introduced in §4 is accordingly the formal articulation of a structure the description has already established, and not an external warrant. The remainder of the paper is constrained by the datum fixed here: each subsequent construction is to be assessed by its adequacy to the co-apprehension of a nameless value, generated in the act of its joint recognition, and to nothing of larger scope.

2. The Formal Structure of the Datum

The description of §1 is now analysed for its structure, within the descriptive attitude and without explanatory supplement. The objective is to exhibit the form already present in the datum, so that the ontology of §3 is constrained by a determinate structure rather than by an impression. The three features identified above compose a single structure, the components of which are mutually dependent in the manner set out below.

2.1 Simultaneity as constitutive medium

The togetherness of the co-apprehension is not the synchrony of two independently occurring events. On the construal as synchrony, each party would possess a distinct apprehension, the two apprehensions coinciding in time by attunement or chance. That construal is inadequate to the datum. In the structure as described, there are not two apprehensions that coincide but one apprehension that is irreducibly of two parties. The togetherness is not a relation obtaining between two antecedent awarenesses; it is the medium within which each awareness is first constituted. The apprehension of one party is internally determined by that party’s apprehension of the other’s apprehension, and conversely, such that neither awareness is well-defined independently of the other. This is the structure the prior treatment located at the constitution of the subject, where the first and second persons are mutually constituted rather than antecedently given and subsequently joined [4]; here the same structure obtains at the constitution of a value between two parties. The structure recurs at a higher level: in Paper V joint attention constitutes the persons, and here it constitutes the value the constituted persons sustain between them. The recurrence of the founding structure at successive levels is the first instance of a pattern the paper thematises in §6.

2.2 Mutual witness as reflexive and constitutive

The reciprocal awareness is reflexive: what each party apprehends includes the other’s apprehension, and what is apprehended includes that reciprocal inclusion. The resulting regress, each party apprehends the term, apprehends the other apprehending it, apprehends the other apprehending its own apprehension, is not to be truncated but is the structural form of the density the description recorded. The reflexive witnessing is not a spectatorial relation to a completed fact; it is a component of the term’s generation. Its function is constitutive: were the witnessing withdrawn, were one party to simulate apprehension while in fact absent, the term would not be generated, however exact the simulation. The structure is therefore not counterfeitable from a single side. This yields, at the level of description, the condition the ethics of §8 discharges: the value subsists only in a witnessing that is genuinely reciprocal, and is extinguished when one party becomes a spectator of, or an extractor from, the other’s investment.

2.3 Directedness upon an opening

The co-apprehension is directed, it has the intentional form of a directedness-upon, but its term is an opening, a site at which something is not yet determinate, rather than an object. The psychoanalytic tradition supplies an account of an attention organised around a void without filling it; the contemplative traditions supply several. The prior paper established the corresponding thesis in its own terms: real value, the value capable of endogenously bearing the positive phase of a good cycle, is the value organised around an absence and resistant to symbolisation. The present analysis adds that this organisation is, at its origin, joint: the void is co-encircled, attended by two parties conjointly. The nameless term is therefore not an object the parties have not yet named but an opening the parties jointly sustain. A consequence follows directly. To name the term, to fill the opening with a settled sign, terminates the generation; this is the pathology the prior paper identified as settling failure. The subsistence of the structure consists in the non-termination of the term, the sustaining of the opening, which is the condition the practice of §7 undertakes to tend.

2.4 The constitutive identity of apprehension and generation

The three features converge on the structural result that organises the paper. The co-apprehension of the nameless value is identically its generation; the epistemic operation and the ontological event are one. Conjoined with the third feature, this yields a structure of consequence. Because the directedness is upon an opening rather than an object, there is no antecedent value for the apprehension to copy; and because apprehension is generation, the value generated is conditioned by the manner of the apprehending. The manner of attending, the void around which, the register within which, the quality with which the opening is sustained, determines the value generated. There is no fact, antecedent to and independent of the joint apprehending, as to what the value is; the apprehending is not the measurement of an antecedent quantity but a participation that brings the quantity to determinacy. This is the structural antecedent of the formal model of §4, where it receives the articulation of a participatory measurement whose basis is selected in the manner of attending.

2.5 The structure stated

The structure is stated as a single result, to be discharged by the ontology of the following section.

The structure of co-apprehended value. In the founding datum, value is co-generated in co-apprehension, with four components: (i) the apprehension is irreducibly of two parties, the togetherness constituting the medium within which each awareness arises rather than a relation between antecedent awarenesses; (ii) the reciprocal witnessing is reflexive and constitutive, a component of the term’s generation rather than a report upon a completed fact; (iii) the joint attention is directed upon a sustained opening rather than upon an object, such that settling it with a sign terminates it; and (iv) apprehension and generation are one operation, whence the manner of the joint apprehending conditions the value generated. It follows that value, so structured, is not an entity antecedent to its co-apprehension, and that co-apprehension is not a representation of antecedent states: the datum determines a non-objectual ontology of value and a participatory epistemology of its apprehension, antecedently to the introduction of any formal apparatus.

This result is the constraint on what follows. The phenomenological analysis determines both the being of value and the mode of its cognition, in a determinate direction: away from the object and from representation, toward generation and participation. The following section discharges the first constraint, the ontological, by establishing what relation, grammar, and value must be in order that the datum of §1 be possible. The formal epistemologies are admitted only after that determination is made.

3. The Ontology of the Generative System

The phenomenology determines the task of the ontology. The task is not the general specification of what value or relation is, but the specification of what they must be in order that the datum of §1 be possible, a datum in which a nameless value is co-generated in co-apprehension, conditioned by the manner of a joint attending directed upon an opening. The ontology’s theses are warranted as the conditions of that datum, and are not advanced beyond it. The section establishes three theses concerning the being of the generative system, each as a condition of the founding datum rather than as an independent posit, and concludes with the single structural feature, reflexivity, of which the two following sections supply distinct disciplinary realisations.

3.1 Relation, grammar, and value as aspects of one system

The construal of relation, grammar, and value as three entities standing in relations of causal or constitutive dependence, with a consequent question as to which is fundamental, is to be declined. That construal imports the externality the datum excludes: it posits an order of grounding among three separate items and thereby requires a standpoint external to all three from which their order is surveyed. The phenomenology affords no such standpoint. It affords a single event under three aspects, and the ontology specifies the aspects without dividing the event.

Relation, grammar, and value as three aspects of one generative system. Relation, grammar, and value are not three entities in relations of mutual foundation but three ontological aspects of a single generative system. Relation is the being of the system: the relational substance, that which is, not a phenomenon of a deeper term and not a representation. Grammar is the manifestation of the system’s dynamics: not a description applied externally to the system in order to cognise it, but the form in which the system’s dynamics manifests itself, the morphology of its movement. Value is the phenomenon of the system: the aspect of the generative system that emerges and admits of being witnessed. As aspects of one event rather than items in a sequence, the three are co-temporal of necessity; there is no moment at which the relation obtains while the grammar and value do not, since they are one being under three regards.

This dissolves the circularity that would otherwise obtain. The objection that relation, value, and grammar each presuppose the others, so that none can be initiated, assumes them to be distinct items requiring sequence. They are not distinct items. They are the being (relation), the manifest dynamics (grammar), and the appearance (value) of one generative system, and one entity under three regards requires no sequence, as a body’s being, its motion, and its visible aspect are not three items awaiting one another but one entity regarded in three ways. The three registers of value established in the prior paper, the imaginary, the symbolic, the real, are accordingly relocated as distinctions internal to the third aspect, articulations within the aspect termed phenomenon, and not as competitors to relation or grammar.

3.2 The ontological status of grammar

A consequence is to be drawn, as it governs the subsequent development. Grammar, in this ontology, is an ontological category and not an epistemic one. It is not the formal apparatus constructed by an observer in order to describe or predict the relation; that apparatus, the externalist’s grammar, is a settling, a fixing of the dynamics into a surveyable rule-set, the operation §4 identifies as a form of possession. The grammar at issue is the self-manifestation of the dynamics: the form the generative movement assumes in moving, antecedent to and independent of any observer’s attempt to fix it. The characteristic rhythm of two parties’ being-together, the moves that are available to them and those that are not, the developing repertoire of private signs, is not an observer’s description of their relation but the self-manifestation of the relation’s dynamics. The grammar is in the movement, not in the notation.

This distinction supports a subsequent result. It permits the consistent assertion both that the relational grammar is real, being the system’s own manifest dynamics, and that no notated grammar captures it, every notated grammar being an external settling that, in fixing the dynamics, falsifies the feature, open and continuing generation, constitutive of it. The grammar is, ontologically; it is non-possessible, epistemically; and §4 establishes that this non-possessibility is not a limitation of instruments but the formal signature of the relation’s non-possessibility.

3.3 The reflexive structure

The structural feature that organises the paper, located phenomenologically in §2.4 and realised in distinct forms in the two following sections, is now stated ontologically. In a standard dynamical system the law of evolution is fixed: the state evolves, while the rule governing its evolution does not change in consequence of the evolution. The datum of §1 departs from this. There, apprehension was generation: the coming-to-be of the value was not the output of a fixed dynamics but an event whose manner conditioned what could subsequently obtain. Stated ontologically:

The reflexive reconfiguration of the dynamics by the phenomenon. The value, which is the phenomenon, does not merely issue from the grammar, which is the manifest dynamics; it reconfigures it. Each crystallisation of a nameless value into the relation alters the system’s dynamics, modifying which moves are subsequently available, opening regions of the relational space that did not antecedently exist and foreclosing others. The generative system is one whose dynamics is reconfigured by its own products: the appearance reacts upon and reconfigures the movement that bore it. The system is therefore not one with a fixed law and a varying state, but one in which the law is itself transformed by what it produces, a self-modifying generativity.

Three consequences follow, each of which is discharged in the subsequent development.

The first is that the subject is generated within the cycle and is not antecedent to it. If the dynamics is reconfigured by its products, and if the parties to the relation are among the system’s products, constituted, as the prior treatment held, in and through the relation rather than entering it complete, then the subject is not an external term standing outside the generative cycle and operating it. The subject is a product of the cycle it contributes to generating: a fixed point of the reflexive structure, not its external premise. There is no antecedently complete self that enters the relation in order to generate value; the self is, in part, what the relation’s value-cycle generates. This is the antecedent that §5 develops into a political economy, the thesis that the circulation of value reconfigures the subject who creates it being Marx’s, transposed here from the social to the ontological register.

The second is that the dynamics admits no external pre-enumeration. A system whose law is reconfigured by its products has no fixed law that an external observer could specify in advance of the system’s operation, the subsequent law being generated within the operation, in the joint act, and not antecedently available. This is the ontological antecedent of the non-enumerability that §4 formalises: not the thesis that a super-physical process operates, but the thesis that any external fixing of the grammar fails because the grammar fixed is in the course of being generated, internally, by the generation the fixing would be required to anticipate.

The third is that the manner conditions the product without remainder. Since apprehension is generation and the dynamics is reconfigured by what it generates, the manner of the system’s operation, the void around which, the register within which, the quality with which the opening is sustained, is not incidental to the product. There is no separation of a neutral content of value from the manner of its co-generation; the manner is constitutive. This is the antecedent of the result that the ethics of §8 is not an ethics of externally assessed outcomes, and that the practice of §7 is the tending of the manner, of the field and its curvature, rather than the manufacture of the product.

3.4 The commitments and exclusions of the ontology

The character of the ontology is to be stated, together with its exclusions. It is a process ontology, and a dialectical one: there is no value antecedent to the relation’s movement, and no movement antecedent to the relation; there is one generative system, manifest as relation, grammar, and value, whose dynamics is transformed by its own appearing. It is continuous in this respect with the relational ontology of the mother paper, being is relational, the terms are constituted in the relating, and adds the reflexive clause, that the relating is reconfigured by what it generates.

The ontology excludes three theses, and the exclusions are of equal standing with the commitments. It excludes substance: there is no value-substance, no relational substrate, subsisting beneath the system and persisting unchanged through its transformations; the three aspects are aspects of a movement, not properties of a thing. It excludes the external standpoint: there is no position external to the generative system from which its three aspects are surveyed and their order legislated, which is the ontological form of the absence of a metalanguage that the prior paper established, and which §6 discharges in addressing the cognition of the unbroken structure. And it excludes completion: the system is not a totality that is, but a totality in generation, its law in the course of being written; to treat it as complete, to notate its grammar and declare it captured, is the ontological form of settling, and, as §8 establishes, of alienation. These exclusions are not concessions. They are the conditions of the founding datum: a value antecedent as substance could not be co-generated; a system surveyable externally would not require the joint internal witnessing of which the datum consists; and a completed totality could generate nothing, least of all a value not yet named.

The ontology possesses a single structural signature, reflexivity: the reconfiguration of the dynamics by the phenomenon, of the producer by the product. The signature is, to this point, abstract, stated in the general terms of relation, grammar, and value. The two following sections supply two disciplinary realisations of this structure, the abstract structure being realised, under the conditions of distinct disciplines, in distinct and mutually irreducible forms. Under the conditions of formal epistemology it is realised as a participatory, quantum-structural grammar (§4); under the conditions of political economy it is realised as the circulation of value that reconfigures its subject (§5). Neither realisation is the truth of the other, and neither is the unbroken structure; they are two symmetry-broken phases of it, and the cognition of the unbroken structure they share, in the absence of the external standpoint the ontology excludes, is the matter of §6.

4. The Quantum-Structural Articulation of the Relational Grammar

The ontology of §3 establishes four conditions: value is not antecedent to its co-apprehension; apprehension is identically generation; the manner of apprehension conditions its term; and the dynamics is rewritten by the term it generates. A cognition satisfying these conditions cannot be representational, since representation presupposes an antecedent term; it is participatory, in the sense that the cognition is a component of the generation of what is cognised. The present section establishes that the formal structure of quantum measurement supplies a precise articulation of participatory cognition, and writes the relational grammar in that structure. The articulation is structural and epistemic, and its scope is delimited at the outset.

4.1 Delimitation of the claim

The structure of quantum theory is employed here as a formal model of participatory generation. No claim is advanced that intimate relation, joint attention, or the neural substrate is a quantum-physical system; no hypothesis is made concerning quantum coherence, entanglement, or physical collapse in any relational or cognitive substrate. The positions that do advance such claims, orchestrated objective reduction, and the literalist interpretation of quantum cognition, are not at issue, and the present argument is independent of their physical adjudication. The procedure is continuous with the series’ prior use of probabilistic context-free grammars to model the recursion of generative justice [5, 6]: the assertion that a regenerative structure has the form of a branching process is an assertion about form and not about physical constitution, and the assertion that the co-apprehension of value has the form of a quantum measurement is of the same kind.

The quantum structure as epistemic model. Quantum structure is employed to articulate, in formal terms, the participatory character of co-generation established phenomenologically in §2 and required ontologically in §3. The relation asserted is a structural isomorphism at the level of epistemology and not a thesis concerning physical substrate. No claim of the paper depends upon relation or cognition being physically quantum; the quantum vocabulary is, in principle, replaceable by “the formal structure of participatory generation,” for which quantum measurement is the developed exemplar. At the single point at which the structural model and the physics diverge, the question of enumerability, §4.6, the structure is retained and the physical thesis explicitly declined.

4.2 The relational state as superposition

Let the value-potential of a relation at a given moment be represented by a state |ψ⟩ in a complex inner-product space ℋ, the relational state space. Let {|vᵢ⟩} be an orthonormal family of determinate value-states, the values the relation might come to bear, each |vᵢ⟩ a candidate determinate value. The relational state is in general a superposition, |ψ⟩ = Σᵢ cᵢ|vᵢ⟩, in which no single |vᵢ⟩ is the value the relation determinately bears. This represents formally the ontological thesis that real value is not antecedent to its co-apprehension (§2.3). The interpretation of |ψ⟩ is to be distinguished from a probability distribution over antecedently determinate values: the coefficients cᵢ do not encode ignorance of a value already settled but the genuine indeterminacy of a value not yet generated, for which no further specification of the present state resolves the indeterminacy, there being as yet no determinate term. The opening of §2.3, the site at which something is not yet determinate, is formally the superposition prior to its resolution.

4.3 Co-apprehension as participatory measurement

Joint attention is modelled not as a registration of |ψ⟩ but as a measurement of it. A measurement is specified by a choice of observable, equivalently by a choice of orthonormal basis {|bⱼ⟩} of ℋ in which the measurement is resolved; the basis is not fixed by the state but is selected, and the selection corresponds to the manner of apprehension. This is the formal content of the thesis that apprehension is generation (§2.4): the measurement does not return an antecedent value but resolves the superposition into a determinate term. The decisive structural fact is the basis-dependence of the outcome. Expressed in the basis {|bⱼ⟩}, the state is |ψ⟩ = Σⱼ dⱼ|bⱼ⟩ with dⱼ = ⟨bⱼ|ψ⟩, and the values accessible as outcomes are exactly the |bⱼ⟩; a distinct choice of basis {|b′ⱼ⟩} renders accessible a distinct family of outcomes, and in general [B, B′] ≠ 0, so that the two families are not jointly resolvable.

The manner of apprehension as choice of basis. The manner in which two parties jointly attend corresponds formally to the selection of a measurement basis, and the basis determines the family of values that can be co-generated. There is no basis-independent measurement, and hence no manner of joint attention that merely registers an antecedent value; every manner of attending is the selection of a space of admissible outcomes, effected prior to the determination of any outcome. The phenomenological thesis that the manner conditions the term (§2.4) is thereby given formal content: the manner is the basis, and the basis fixes the space of admissible terms.

4.4 Generation as collapse with reconfiguration of the state space

The generation of a determinate value is modelled by two operations conjoined. The first is resolution: the superposition |ψ⟩ is resolved, on this occasion, into a determinate outcome |bₖ⟩. The second is reconfiguration: the post-measurement relational state space is not identical to the prior space. Where standard measurement returns the system to a state |bₖ⟩ within a fixed ℋ, the present model requires that the admissible state space itself be altered by the resolution, the realised value |bₖ⟩ enters as a condition on subsequent dynamics, so that the family of admissible subsequent superpositions, and in the limiting case the dimension of the effective state space, is transformed. Formally, the realised value induces a map ℋ → ℋ′ in which dimensions are added (relational possibilities that did not antecedently exist) or removed (possibilities foreclosed). This is the formal content of the reflexive thesis of §3.3: the generated term reconfigures the dynamics that bore it.

Generation as collapse-cum-reconfiguration. Each co-generation of value is conjointly a resolution of the relational superposition into a determinate term and a transformation of the space of subsequently admissible terms. The generated value is not the terminus of a fixed dynamics but a condition that reconfigures the dynamics, altering the admissible superpositions available for subsequent generation. Measurement modifies the measured system; in the relational case the modification is constitutive of generation rather than incidental to it.

4.5 Geometric phase

The geometric phase employed throughout the series to characterise the good cycle, the return to a configuration accompanied by a non-trivial accumulated holonomy, distinguished from mere repetition, has its origin in the quantum structure here invoked. A state transported around a closed loop in the projective state space accumulates a phase determined by the geometry of the loop and not by its duration [1, 2, 14]. For a loop C in the parameter space governing the relational state, the accumulated geometric phase is γ_geo(C) = i ∮_C ⟨ψ|∇|ψ⟩ · dR, the holonomy of the natural connection on the state bundle. The anchoring of the relational grammar in quantum structure thus returns the series’ geometric phase to its source rather than importing a foreign formalism. The model further specifies a feature the prior treatment could only assert: since the measurement basis is variable (§4.3), the connection along which phase is accumulated is itself variable, and a variation in the manner of joint attention is formally a variation of the connection, hence of the holonomy that a given loop in relational configuration accumulates. Two relations may traverse the same configurations and accumulate distinct, even opposite, phases, in virtue of attending, connecting, differently. The Value-Foam programme is, on this articulation, the determination of the carrier and the connection of which the series’ relational holonomy is an instance, with Berry’s phase as its formal antecedent.

4.6 Enumerability and non-possession

The ontology established that a system whose dynamics is rewritten by its products admits no external pre-enumeration (§3.3). The quantum articulation renders this precise: if each co-generation conjointly resolves a superposition and reconfigures the space of subsequent superpositions, then no grammar fixed in advance, external to the relation, enumerates the values the relation will generate, since the productions governing subsequent generation are themselves generated within the process and are not antecedently available for enumeration. The strength of this claim requires delimitation, in accordance with §4.1. The claim is not that the relational grammar exceeds the recursively enumerable in the computability-theoretic sense, that its generation computes a non-recursive function. That thesis is not advanced and is not supported by the structure: quantum computation does not compute non-recursive functions, and quantum indeterminacy yields unpredictability rather than super-recursive enumerative capacity. The non-enumerability asserted is epistemic and internal.

Non-enumerability as the form of non-possession. The relational grammar is non-enumerable in the following sense: there exists no grammar, fixed in advance and external to the relation, that enumerates the values the relation will co-generate, since the generating productions are produced within the joint act that any external enumeration would be required to anticipate. The complete fixing of the grammar is not a tractable computation that happens to be infeasible; it is the substitution of a settled rule-set for a generation in progress, which is the operation of settling and of possession. Enumerability, settledness, and possession are coextensive, and their negation is the formal correlate of the non-possessibility of the relation. The impossibility of fixing the grammar is therefore not an epistemic limitation but the formal signature of the openness the phenomenology described as the sustaining of the nameless and the ontology declined to complete.

The quantum articulation thus discharges, in formal terms, the conditions established by the phenomenology and the ontology, and no more: a state of superposed potential in place of a determinate value; a co-apprehension modelled as participatory measurement with a basis selected in the manner of attending; a generation modelled as collapse conjoined with reconfiguration of the state space; a geometric phase returned to its quantum source, with the variable basis as the formal correlate of the efficacy of manner; and a non-enumerability that is the epistemic correlate of non-possession, with the computability-theoretic thesis declined. The articulation constitutes one realisation of the reflexive structure, its formal-epistemic phase. The following section develops the same structure under the conditions of political economy, where it is realised in a distinct form: the circulation of value that reconfigures its subject.

5. The Political Economy of the Reconfigured Subject

The reflexive structure is now realised under the conditions of a second discipline, in which it assumes a distinct form. In §4 it is realised as a formal epistemology of participatory measurement; here it is realised as a political economy. The two sections are deliberately symmetric and deliberately independent: each takes the single abstract structure, the reconfiguration of the dynamics by the phenomenon, of the producer by the product, and develops what its discipline establishes concerning that structure, to the discipline’s limit, without reduction of either to the other. Political economy contributes what the formal articulation does not: that the producer reconfigured by the product is a subject, and that the reconfiguration possesses a determinate direction that the geometry of Paper IX specifies.

5.1 The reflexive structure in the register of production

The abstract structure is stated in political-economic terms. A generative system produces; its product reacts upon and reconfigures the system’s dynamics. Under the reading of “produces” as social production and of “the system’s dynamics” as the producing subject, the structure yields a thesis that is Marx’s: the subject creates value, and the value, in circulation, reacts upon and reconfigures the subject who created it. The product is not inert. Value, once created and set in circulation, does not remain the completed output of a subject who persists unaltered; it returns upon its creator and reconstitutes the creator. This is the reflexive structure of §3.3 in the social register, and it is the same structure: the appearance reconfigures the movement, the product reconfigures the producer.

Political economy contributes what the formal section does not. The reconfiguration is not neutral; it possesses a direction, and the direction is the distinction the prior paper drew between the vicious and the good cycle. The reconfiguration of the subject by its product is, in Marx, divided, at once the developed form of alienation and the form of self-realisation, and the determination of which obtains is given by the sign of the phase.

5.2 The negative phase: the alienated reconfiguration

In the negative case the reconfiguration depletes. The worker produces value; the value congeals as capital; and capital, the “dead labour” of Capital, reacts upon living labour to dominate, deplete, and diminish it [10, 12]. The product reconfigures the producer negatively: the subject is subordinated to its own product, diminished by its own creation, and committed to sustaining a circulation that expands as the subject contracts. This is the reflexive structure in the orientation contrary to the good: the reconfiguration obtains, it obtains necessarily, the structure guaranteeing it, but the accumulated phase is extracted and possessed elsewhere, and the creating subject is depleted, a means to a cycle whose increment accrues to another. Capital is the producer reverse-colonised by its product: a reflexive structure in which the reconfiguration of subject by value proceeds at negative phase, the subject depleted in the measure that the circulation is augmented. This is the vicious cycle of the prior paper, the structure of net extraction, of negative holonomy, located at its sharpest point, the production of the subject.

Alienation as the negative-phase reconfiguration of the subject. Alienation is not, fundamentally, the loss of a product, the worker’s forfeiture of the produced thing. It is the structural foreclosure of the subject’s positive reconfiguration by its own product: the subject creates value, the value reconfigures the subject, but the reconfiguration is a depletion, the phase extracted and possessed elsewhere, such that the creator is reconstituted as diminished rather than augmented by what it creates. The fundamental sense of alienation is the foreclosure of the subject’s becoming, through its own creating, the subject it might have become. The fuel-subject of the prior paper, the subject that creates value and is never reached by its return, is, in this ontology, the subject for which the positive reconfiguration is foreclosed: present in the cycle solely as that consumed to drive it.

5.3 The positive phase: the generative reconfiguration

The same reflexive structure admits the contrary orientation, of which Marx also gives an account, most explicitly in the Grundrisse: labour as the objectification of human powers, and wealth in its non-alienated form as the developed richness of human needs, capacities, and relations [11]. The product reconfigures the producer positively: the subject creates value, and the circulation of the value returns to augment and develop the subject that created it, the subject becoming, through its own creating, a more developed subject. This is the good cycle of the prior paper, the positive holonomy, located at the production of the subject: a structure in which the reconfiguration of subject by value proceeds at positive phase, the creator augmented by what it creates, the return accruing to the one whose creation it was. The structure thus yields a thesis stronger than either pole considered alone.

The reconfiguration is necessary; its direction is the variable. That the circulation of value reconfigures its creating subject is not contingent but a structural necessity of the reflexive system, as a quantum measurement necessarily reacts upon its state. The variable is not whether the subject is reconfigured but the direction, the sign of the phase: whether the subject is depleted by its own product (alienation, negative phase, the vicious cycle) or developed by it (self-realisation, positive phase, the good cycle). Settling, possessive, extractive circulation effects the former; non-possessive circulation effects the latter. The apparatus of the prior papers, the good and vicious cycle, the geometric phase, possession and the dark virtue, settling failure, the fuel criterion, is, in this section, reactivated and unified at the central object of political economy: the production of the subject.

5.4 The non-circular criterion of the phase sign

The identification of alienation with negative phase and of self-realisation with positive phase requires an independent criterion for the sign, on pain of circularity: were the sign defined by the alienation it is invoked to explain, the identification would be vacuous. The criterion is supplied by a reproduction surplus, defined independently of the phase. Let a cycle of the relational or productive system be considered over one period. Let G denote the gross regeneration effected in the period, the augmentation of the subject’s generative conditions: its capacities, relations, and powers of further production. Let C denote the consumption the period exacts of the subject, the depletion of those same conditions in driving the cycle. Define the reproduction surplus as S = G − C. A cycle for which S > 0 regenerates the subject’s generative conditions in excess of what it consumes: the subject emerges with augmented capacity for further generation. A cycle for which S < 0 consumes those conditions in excess of what it regenerates: the subject emerges depleted. A cycle for which S = 0 reproduces the subject’s conditions without augmentation, the structure of simple repetition. The thesis is then that the sign of S tracks the sign of the holonomy: positive reproduction surplus corresponds to positive phase, negative surplus to negative phase, and zero surplus to the zero-holonomy cycle of mere repetition. The correspondence is asserted as a thesis to be established, not as a definition, and the independent definability of S in terms of regeneration and consumption, without reference to the phase, is what secures the identification of §5.2 and §5.3 against circularity.

5.5 The subject as generated within the cycle

A further consequence completes the symmetry with §4. The reconfigured subject is not a complete subject that entered production antecedently constituted and was subsequently modified. The subject is generated within the cycle of which it is also the producer. There is no fixed, antecedently given creator of value standing external to the circulation, awaiting the production and the subsequent modification by what it produced; the subject is itself produced, recurrently, in and through the cycle, as the social-reproduction tradition establishes, the subject being reproduced in each period through the labour of care and maintenance on which the prior papers have insisted [3, 7, 8]. The subject is the fixed point of the reflexive structure, not its external premise: that which is produced in the producing, constituted in the constituting. This is the political-economic form of the first consequence of §3.3, and of the mother paper’s relational ontology, that the subject is generated in and through relation rather than entering it complete. Marx’s thesis that in transforming the objective world the human transforms itself, Foucauldian subjectivation, and the recurrent reproduction of the labouring subject are, in their distinct registers, formulations of the single thesis of this ontology: the producer is among the products.

5.6 The identity of the reconfigured subject as parallel transport

A difficulty requires address. If the subject is recurrently reconfigured by the cycle, the sense in which value is “returned to its creator” returned to the same subject is in question. The creator augmented by the return is not, subsequent to the reconfiguration, identical to the creator that first created the value, the reconfiguration having reconstituted it. The question is whether “return to the creator” thereby loses its sense, there being, strictly, no single creator to which value returns.

The sense is not lost but is specified. This is the central result of the prior paper, the return to the root that is not a return to the origin, the spiral as distinct from the circle, obtaining at the level of the subject. The value returns to its creator, but the creator has, in the returning, been augmented; the return is therefore not to the original subject but to the spirally developed one. “Creator and beneficiary are identical” is not the persistence of a self-identical subject but the spiral development of a subject. The geometric formulation specifies the result:

Personal identity as parallel transport in the reflexive value-cycle. The continuity of the subject through the reflexive cycle is not the strict self-identity of an unchanged entity but the parallel transport of a subject around a loop in relational space, a sameness that carries, on return to its starting configuration, a phase difference. Personal identity, on this construal, is parallel transport in the reflexive value-cycle; alienation is the negative-phase displacement of that identity, the non-recognition of itself by the depleted subject; and self-realisation is its positive-phase development, the becoming more itself of the subject through its own creating. The creator to which value returns is the creator parallel-transported around the cycle: the same, and developed, returned to the root and not to the origin. The identity of creator and beneficiary holds in the holonomic sense, the sense of a sameness that has accumulated a phase. The construal is advanced as a structural model of the subject’s continuity, and the adequacy of parallel transport as its formal carrier is subject to the cautions of §A.

This is the limit of the section, the point at which political economy, developed to its boundary, returns the question to the geometry without being absorbed by it. It has established what its discipline establishes: that the reflexive reconfiguration of the producer by the product is a social fact possessing a moral direction; that alienation and self-realisation are the two phases of one cycle, distinguished by the sign of an independently definable reproduction surplus; that the subject is produced within the cycle it produces; and that the return to the creator is a spiral and not a circle, a sameness bearing a phase. It has established this in its own terms, to its own boundary, without dissolution into the formal grammar of §4 or legislation by the geometry it employs. Two realisations of one structure, the formal-epistemic and the political-economic, now stand in juxtaposition, recognisably identical in structure and irreducibly distinct in register. The status of the situation in which one abstract structure is realised, under distinct disciplines, in such distinct and mutually irreducible forms, and the cognition of the unbroken structure they share, in the absence of the external standpoint excluded in §3.4, are the matter of §6.

6. Symmetry-Breaking and the Cognition of the Unbroken Structure

Two realisations of one structure stand in juxtaposition. The quantum-structural grammar (§4) and the political economy of the reconfigured subject (§5) are recognisably the same reflexive structure, the reconfiguration of the dynamics by the phenomenon, of the producer by the product, and are irreducibly distinct, neither translatable into the other, each employing a vocabulary the other lacks. This section specifies the status of that situation and addresses the question it generates: given one abstract structure realised in these two distinct forms, the cognition of the unbroken structure, in the absence of the external standpoint excluded by the ontology of §3.4. The section is the central juncture of the paper, at which the claim to a metalanguage is both most available and most consequential.

6.1 The disciplines as symmetry-broken phases

The relation between the two realisations is specified by symmetry-breaking. There is one abstract, highly symmetric, undifferentiated structure, the reflexive structure in which a generative system’s appearance reconfigures its dynamics. Under the conditions of a particular discipline this symmetry breaks, and the structure assumes a determinate, lower-symmetry form: a participatory measurement under the conditions of formal epistemology, the alienation–realisation of the subject under the conditions of political economy, and, as the prior papers established, the dialectic of desire under psychoanalysis and 反者道之动 under Daoism. The operative feature of symmetry-breaking is that, the symmetry once broken, there is no path internal to any broken phase by which the unbroken symmetry is recovered. The symmetric phase is not surveyable from within the asymmetric one; one is always already within a phase, and the unbroken structure is, from within, irrecoverable, accessible only as that which must have broken in order to yield the phase one occupies.

The disciplines as symmetry-broken phases of one structure. Each discipline is not a partial external view of the unbroken structure but a phase that the structure assumes when realised under that discipline’s conditions. The absence of a metalanguage, established in the prior paper, obtains in consequence: there is no unbroken phase to occupy, since all discourse proceeds within some discipline’s broken vocabulary, from within a determinate phase, the symmetric structure being not a language into which one might revert but precisely that of which every actual language is a breaking. The exclusion of the external standpoint in §3.4 is the ontological statement of this result; symmetry-breaking is its mechanism.

6.2 The paradox of the section

A paradox is now to be addressed rather than evaded. If one is always already within a broken phase, and the unbroken structure is irrecoverable from within any phase, the possibility of the present section is in question. For the section speaks of the unbroken structure, names it, asserts that the two realisations are phases of it. The objection is that the section thereby claims precisely the external, phase-transcending standpoint it has declared impossible, and that the predicate “unbroken structure” constitutes a covert metalanguage, a settling of what has been asserted to be unsettlable.

The paradox is genuine and is not to be dissolved by qualification; it is the substantive difficulty of the undertaking, and the remainder of the section consists in three modes of addressing it without claiming the excluded standpoint. The inadequate response is the claim to a partial overview, that the unbroken structure is dimly apprehended. This retains the standpoint under the appearance of modesty. The adequate response is that the unbroken structure is cognised not by being viewed, from any standpoint however partial, but in three modes, none of which occupies an external position.

6.3 The unbroken structure as abductively posited

The unbroken structure is not perceived; it is posited, abductively, as the best explanation of a cross-phase correspondence. It is not viewed. What is encountered, from within the phases, is the fact that two disciplines as mutually foreign as quantum measurement and the critique of political economy exhibit one reflexive structure. From that fact the inference proceeds: there is a structure, antecedent to the breaking, of which these are phases, on pain of treating the correspondence as a coincidence of implausible magnitude.

The unbroken structure as inference to the best explanation. The unbroken structure is posited as the inference to the best explanation of the cross-phase isomorphism; it is not given but inferred, and inferred from within the phases. The procedure preserves the constraint the paradox imposes: the unbroken structure is at no point occupied, its features at no point read off directly; one remains within a phase and infers, from the correspondence of the phases, a unity one does not occupy. The positing is defeasible and does not resolve into a view. It is a commitment the phases incur, not a content possessed.

6.4 Holonomy as the proposed cross-phase invariant

A more determinate formulation of what is conserved across the phases yields the most consequential, and most carefully delimited, proposal of the paper. Let each discipline be treated as a local gauge, a coordinate chart in which the structure is written in one manner; the passage between disciplinary vocabularies is then a change of chart, a transition function, and the question of the identity of the unbroken structure becomes the question of the invariant under all such changes of chart. In the geometry employed throughout the series there is a distinguished gauge-invariant quantity, one belonging to no single chart yet conserved across all of them, namely the holonomy, the phase accumulated around a loop, on which the good and vicious cycle have turned since the prior paper. The proposal is the following.

Holonomy as the cross-phase invariant: a proposal advanced as unsettled. The distinction between the good and the vicious, the sign of the holonomy, augmentation as against extraction, the spiral as against the circle, is proposed as the invariant conserved across the broken phases: belonging to no single discipline, conserved across all, and capable of serving as the connective among disciplines in virtue of being possessed by none. On this proposal the geometric phase tracked across intimacy, political economy, quantum epistemology, and the Dao is not a further discipline but the gauge-invariant core of the unbroken structure, which accounts for the operation of one criterion across all of them. The proposal is advanced as unsettled. To assert it as the established truth of the unbroken structure would be to cash, in a sign, a determination the paper has not established, to commit, at its own central juncture, the settling failure it elsewhere identifies. It is accordingly advanced as the strongest unsettled conjecture of the series, the mode of whose assertion must, on pain of self-contradiction, remain non-possessive.

The restraint is required and is not a weakness of the position. The available move is the assertion that holonomy is the invariant and the central juncture thereby established, with the consequent completion of the series. But the section has established that the unbroken structure is not possessible from any phase; its subsequent possession, under the designation of holonomy, would controvert the section in its conclusion. The conjecture is therefore left standing, at once load-bearing and unsettled, which is the only manner in which a central juncture of this structure can stand. The formal vocabulary of the conjecture, and the conditions on its discharge, are recorded in §A.

6.5 The cognition of the unbroken structure as the traversal of the phases

The third mode of addressing the paradox is performative rather than asserted. The manner in which the section has cognised the unbroken structure is not by viewing it but by traversing the phases, by passing from the quantum phase to the political-economic phase and registering, in the passage, their correspondence. The cognition of the unbroken structure is the holonomy accumulated by the interpreter who traverses the loop from one phase to another and returns; it is not a proposition delivered concerning the unbroken structure but a phase accumulated in traversing its breakings. This is the poetics of the prior paper applied to the method of the present one: the unbroken structure is not represented, representation being a settling and a claim to the standpoint, but witnessed, by an interpreter who traverses the path through the phases and accumulates, in the traversal, a cognition no summary delivers.

Cognition by traversal rather than survey. The section does not survey the phases from above; it traverses them, and its cognition of their common structure is the phase accumulated in the traversal. The section therefore terminates in no proposition concerning the unbroken structure, but in the traversed recognition that the phases correspond. The form of the section is its content: a refusal to settle the unbroken structure into a thesis, effected in the manner of the section’s procedure.

6.6 The dialectical-materialist ground of the polyphony

A misidentification is to be precluded. The insistence on a plurality of frameworks, none sovereign, no metalanguage, a truth obtaining in the dialogue of phases rather than in any one, admits of construal as postmodern relativism, the abandonment of truth for an irreducible plurality of language-games. The position is the contrary, and the distinction is the methodological commitment of the series.

The polyphony as dialectical-materialist, not relativist. The plurality of frameworks is not the relativist thesis that there is no truth but only discourses. It is the dialectical-materialist thesis that truth is real and not yet complete, that it is realised in a historical, material process of generation, such that any single framework is a partial determination, from one historical-disciplinary position, of a totality still in production. No framework possesses the whole, not because there is no whole, but because the whole is unfinished; and the declaration of its capture, in any single framework, is the settling of a process in progress into a fixed doctrine, which is alienation in the register of cognition. The many-framework polyphony of the series is accordingly neither eclecticism nor collage but the method a not-yet-complete totality requires: the available fidelity to a truth still in the course of its own generation. That generative justice must sustain itself through a recursive structure, that the poem refuses to settle, that the dialectic does not close in absolute knowledge, are formulations of one commitment, and it is materialist throughout.

This precludes the construal the form of the series most invites. The objection that the work does not conclude, that it disperses into frameworks rather than synthesising them, misidentifies a method as a deficiency. The refusal to synthesise is not an inability to conclude but a fidelity to a totality that is not concluded, a refusal, on principle, of the settling that would present an unfinished generation as a completed possession. The polyphony is the form truth assumes when truth is still in production. The section has thereby completed its task: it has specified the relation between the disciplines as symmetry-broken phases of one structure; addressed the paradox of cognising the unbroken structure in the absence of an external standpoint, through the abductive positing of the structure, the proposal of holonomy as an unsettled invariant, and the traversal rather than survey of the phases; and established the dialectical-materialist rather than relativist character of the position. The manner in which the unbroken structure is cognised, by traversal rather than survey, by positing rather than possession, by an invariant advanced rather than settled, is the first determination of the practice, being the cognitive form of wu wei: a cognition that does not grasp. The practice is the matter of the following section.

7. Praxis: The Cultivation of a Generative Field

The paper turns to practice, to the question latent in the preceding development: the manner of action within a system that reflexively reconfigures, and may alienate, the subject that acts within it. The ontology imposes a constraint that excludes the standard model of practice, and the determinate form of the practice, a cultivation rather than a construction, and a subtraction rather than an addition, is established only once that model is excluded.

7.1 The exclusion of the external operator

The standard model of practice is cybernetic: a subject external to the system observes its dynamics and intervenes to direct it toward the good. The model is unavailable, and its unavailability is a consequence of the preceding development rather than an incidental restriction. §3.3 and §5.5 established that there is no subject external to the cycle: the practitioner is internal to the dynamics, is recurrently reconfigured by it, and is a product of the system the practitioner would act upon. There is no completed self external to the process and operating it.

This excludes every practice of external mastery, and establishes that such a practice would in any case be self-defeating. To stand external to the relation and to administer it as an object to be optimised, extracted from, or engineered toward a specified output is the posture the geometry of Paper IX identified as the vicious cycle: the treatment of the relation as a possessible object. The posture of external control is itself the structure of the vicious cycle; the intervention from an external position to compel the good effects, by the form of its operation, the depletion it would prevent. The question is therefore reconstituted: not the regulation of the dynamics toward the good from an external position, there being no external position and the external posture being itself the depletion, but the manner of participation, within a reflexive system that may alienate the participant, such that the participation tends toward the good cycle. The regulator is the regulated; the practice is not a force applied to the dynamics but a tendency internal to it.

7.2 Cultivation of a field in place of construction of a grammar

This reconstitution corrects a description that requires correction. One speaks loosely of constructing the shared grammar, of two parties making the rules of their relation. But the construction of a grammar is the legislation of productions, the antecedent fixing of the manner in which the relation shall generate, which is the settling and possession identified in §3.2: the externalist’s notation applied to the dynamics. The grammar is not constructed but cultivated into an openness within which it admits of continual joint reconfiguration. What the practice tends is not the content of the grammar, which is generated, jointly, by the parties within the field, but the condition under which the surface grammar admits of continual joint reconfiguration: the openness of the field, its curvature, the conditions under which the positive phase arises.

The term field is employed with precision and not as loose figure. A field does not prescribe the trajectory of what moves within it; it determines the curvature, the potential, the conditions of motion, and admits the unfolding of each entity’s dynamics along them. To cultivate a field rather than construct a grammar is to effect, for a relation, what a field effects for a particle: not the dictation of the path but the determination of the space within which paths are freely taken. The good the paper specifies is a condition of the space, a curvature under which the positive phase arises, and not a prescribed path. This is the practical form of the eudaimonic thesis of the prior papers: a good relation is not a structure two parties complete but a field within which each party’s dynamics unfolds, flourishing being the unfolding of a subject’s own dynamics within such a field. The practitioner does not author the content of the relation; the practitioner tends the field within which that content is jointly authored.

7.3 The subtractive character of the practice

The tending of such a field admits of determinate specification, and the actions specified share a form the preceding development establishes: they are negative, subtractive, refusals rather than productions, the positive phase being non-producible directly without its destruction (Paper IX), such that the available practice is the removal of what obstructs the curvature under which the positive phase arises. Three such tendings are specified.

The first is the preservation of divergence. The criterion of a living grammar is its admission of genuine divergence, the capacity of the other party to take an unanticipated next step, to become an unanticipated subject, without penalty and without the withdrawal of regard as the cost of the divergence. The preservation of divergence is the refusal to narrow the relation’s admissible productions to a single anticipated path, sustained as the recurrent question whether, within the relation, the other party retains the capacity to become an unanticipated subject. When one party’s next move admits of a single permitted derivation, converging upon a prescription, the grammar has ceased to generate and generation has become regulation. This preservation is not only the cultivation of the field; it is, as §8 establishes, the practitioner’s sole means of correcting the practitioner’s own alienation, the other party’s capacity to register extraction being the only available instrument by which the practitioner’s own displacement is detected.

The second is the sustaining of the opening without its occupation. This is the most counterintuitive of the three: confronted with the unsayable term of the relation, the injury, the vulnerability, the present that resists articulation, the practice is to remain with it, to sustain it, and not to occupy it with explanation, designation, or premature commitment. The occupation of the opening, its settling with a sign, confers the security of determination and extinguishes the real value that subsists only around the opening (§2.3). The tending of the field is the sustaining of the opening, such that the positive phase is undergone recurrently rather than cashed once in a designation.

The third is the preservation of the made language as poetic rather than as capital. Two parties generate private signs, a shared idiom, an internal designation, a metaphor legible only to them; these are joint attention condensed into a re-traversable poetic loop, the manifest trace of the grammar’s joint reconfiguration, and the creation of language the paper’s title denotes. The practice preserves these signs as poetic, sustaining the opening, soliciting the re-traversal, accumulating a fresh remainder at each traversal, rather than permitting their hardening into exclusionary symbolic capital, in which the legibility internal to the parties becomes a barrier against the exterior and a regulation within. The made language is well tended when it remains a solicitation to traverse the real, and ill tended when it sets into a settled token to be cashed, displayed, or deployed.

7.4 An illustrative case

The three tendings are exhibited in a single situation, described in the manner of §1.

An illustrative case: the tended field under strain. Two parties, after some years, possess a private language: designations, gestures, a shared mode of falling silent each can read. A period of strain supervenes. The available recourse is control: the exhaustive designation of the difficulty, and thereby its mastery, which occupies the opening; the requirement that the other party cease to diverge and resume the anticipated role, which narrows the productions; the invocation of the shared idiom as a claim, the prior commitment, the established definition of the relation, which cashes the relation’s accumulated tokens against the present difficulty, hardening the poetic into capital. Each is an addition, a compulsion, an operation from an external position; each, by the geometry, deepens the negative curvature it is intended to repair. The cultivation is the contrary, and is subtractive throughout: the difficulty is left partly unsaid rather than mastered by designation; the other party is permitted, in this period, to be unanticipated, without withdrawal of regard; the established idiom is re-traversed afresh rather than cashed as a claim. None of this produces the recovery. It removes the compulsions under which recovery cannot arise, and admits the field’s curvature, the relation’s own dynamics, to effect the positive phase no compulsion could.

7.5 The internal criterion

The practice requires a means of determining, internally, whether the field tends toward the good or its contrary, a criterion held internally, posed as a question, and not a metric read from an external position, the latter restoring the excluded external operator. Two questions are sufficient, and they are the orthogonal pair the series has developed: the poetic criterion and the criterion of justice, neither reducible to the other.

The first is the dynamical, poetic question: whether the loop continues to spiral or merely recurs. When the private signs, the practices, the shared silences are re-traversed, whether they continue to accumulate an irreducible remainder, the spiral and positive holonomy, or have emptied into a performance recurring for its own sake, the circle and zero holonomy.

The second is the question of justice: whether the spiral’s positive phase excludes any party from its benefit, present solely as its cost. Returning to the political economy of §5: whether, in the coupled system of the two parties and the families behind them, there is a party, characteristically the party bearing the labour of care and reproduction, idealised as natural devotion, that creates value and is never reached, positively, by its return; that is reconfigured solely negatively; that is, within the system, solely fuel.

The practice as the posing of the two questions and subsequent subtraction. The practice is the recurrent and exacting posing of the two orthogonal questions, whether the loop continues to spiral, and whether any party is solely its cost, and, when the answers turn negative, the operation of subtraction: the withdrawal of the extraction, the relaxation of the compelled closure, the restitution of the possessed phase. The practice does not add, optimise, or produce; it removes what obstructs the curvature under which the good arises. This is the content of wu wei for two parties: not the absence of practice but the redirection of practice from the production of the good relation to the non-obstruction of the field within which a good relation generates, and from a control exercised over the dynamics to a tending exercised within it.

A constraint remains, which the section has twice indicated and which is now stated. The practice requires of the practitioner the determination of whether the field tends toward the good, the subtraction of the extraction, the preservation of the other’s divergence. But the practitioner is a product of the cycle, and possibly a product of an alienated cycle, the developed form of which is precisely that it is not registered as alienation, the extraction being experienced as regard. A subject already reconfigured by a vicious cycle poses the two questions in good faith and obtains reassuring answers, taking itself to be tending the field while depleting it. The entitlement of such a practitioner to the practice of the good is thereby in question. The practice, posed exactingly, encounters a limit it cannot cross from within itself, and that limit is the matter of the following section.

8. The Unguaranteeability of the Good

The practice encountered a limit it could not cross from within: the practitioner, being a product of the cycle and possibly of an alienated one, cannot from the practitioner’s own position certify the goodness of the practice. This section does not dissolve the limit. It establishes that the limit is the condition of the practice’s being ethical, that the impossibility of self-certified goodness follows from the preceding development, and that this impossibility constitutes the good as a matter of ethics rather than calculation and as a process rather than a possessed state. This is the central juncture of the paper and of the series.

8.1 The result stated

The result is stated in its direct form. No finite subject can guarantee that its own practice is good. The subject that loves cannot guarantee that its love does not constitute, or has not already constituted, an extraction; the subject that tends the field cannot certify, from within, that it tends rather than depletes; the subject that poses the two questions of §7.5 in good faith cannot stand surety for the answers, the subject that poses them being the subject whose possible alienation is in question. There is no internal certificate of the subject’s own goodness, no position within the subject from which the subject audits itself and pronounces its practice sound. The result is contrary to the demand, characteristic of the subject in a relation, for assurance that it does not injure the other, and the section establishes that the demand cannot be satisfied truthfully.

8.2 The guarantee as a crossing of the is–ought gap

The result possesses a determinate form, the establishment of which is the work of the section, an analytic result supplying the rigour of a thesis otherwise statable only as a disposition. Consider the requirements on a subject that would guarantee the goodness of its own practice. To guarantee that an action will be good is to claim secure passage from a present fact, the state of the subject and the relation, to a normative outcome, the good the action will effect. It is to claim a valid inference from what is to what ought to follow. This is the inference Hume marked as admitting no valid passage: from premises concerning what is, no conclusion concerning what ought to be follows by any rule of inference; the passage from is to ought is a gap no finite reasoning traverses [9].

The guarantor of its own goodness as infinite reason. To guarantee the goodness of one’s own practice is to claim a secure inference from the present being of the subject and the relation to the good the action will realise. But the passage from is to ought is the gap Hume established that no finite reason traverses. A subject that could guarantee the goodness of its own practice would therefore be a subject that had traversed the is–ought gap, a subject for which the inference from fact to value is secure, which is an infinite reason: the term denoted, in the several traditions, as God, the Absolute, or the big Other this series has established does not exist. The demand for a guarantee of one’s own goodness is, structurally, the demand to be that infinite reason. There being no such reason, no external standpoint, no metalanguage, no subject external to its own historical and relational production, there can be no guarantee. The impossibility of self-certified goodness is not a contingent limitation of human knowledge but the ethical consequence of finitude: of being a subject within the cycle rather than the infinite reason external to it.

This is the juncture at which the analytic and continental commitments of the paper coincide. The phenomenological result, that the subject cannot be assured that its love does not injure, acquires the rigour of a logical one: a subject claiming such assurance claims to have traversed Hume’s gap, and thereby to be the infinite reason the series denies. The demand for a guarantee of one’s own goodness is the covert invocation of the big Other, the term the series has established to be absent. The result is not a disposition but the form of finitude, with its demonstration.

8.3 Unguaranteeability as the condition of ethics

The consequence is the central thesis of the section. The unguaranteeability of the good is not the dissolution of ethics but its condition, that which constitutes the good a matter of ethics rather than of calculation.

Unguaranteeability as the condition of the ethical. Were there a subject that could guarantee the goodness of its practice, that could compute, from present facts, the good its action would infallibly realise, ethics would be eliminated, and there would remain the execution of a determined optimal procedure: without risk, responsibility, trust, or exposure to the other. The ethical is constituted by the impossibility of the guarantee. Because the subject cannot guarantee that its love does not constitute extraction, the subject is committed to the sole course adequate to that impossibility: the continual sustaining of the question, the exposure of the practice to correction, and the consignment of the criterion of the subject’s goodness, in part, to the other. The untraversable gap, far from licensing resignation, is the condition that directs the practice outward, and constitutes it as answerable and as ethical. A good admitting of guarantee would not be a good with respect to which the subject is required to be ethical; it would be a determined result.

The section thereby derives, from the result, the form the practice must assume, as its direct consequence rather than as a consolation. Since no subject certifies its own goodness from within, the good is not the possession or pronouncement of a single subject. It is polyphonic: consigned to the other, exposed to the other’s correction, practised in a continual reciprocal disclosure in which each party is the other’s sole available instrument of correction. This is the ground on which the preservation of divergence (§7.3) is the practitioner’s sole means of correcting the practitioner’s own alienation: the subject not detecting its own displacement from within, the other party’s capacity to register extraction is the sole instrument by which it is detected. The good is practised in the interval between two parties that each decline the guarantee and submit to correction.

The private certainty of one’s own goodness as the cardinal error. The single subject that attains, in isolation, certainty that the relation is good has, in that certainty, committed the cardinal error: the possession of a determination that, on pain of invoking the infinite reason, no single party may possess. The moment of private certainty of one’s own goodness is the moment of greatest hazard.

8.4 The good as unfinished process

A final consequence returns to the dialectical materialism of §6.6. That the good admits of no guarantee entails that the good is not a state, attained, certified, and subsequently possessed. It is a process: reproduced recurrently, and at each reproduction liable to failure. A good admitting of guarantee would be a good settled, closed, and completed, and a settled good is, by the development of the paper, a good cashed, possessed, and thereby alienated. It is in virtue of admitting no guarantee that the good remains a process rather than a fixed doctrine; the unguaranteeability of the good is the condition of its not being extinguished. A good rendered certain would, in the rendering, be extinguished; the good subsists only insofar as it is non-possessible, only as a process to be traversed anew and liable always to failure. The sustainability of the good established in the prior paper and its unguaranteeability are one result: the good subsists as a living spiral precisely in virtue of admitting no settlement, once and for all, into a fixed circle of certainty.

The result, fully developed, possesses two aspects which are one. The unguaranteeability of the good is not its defect; the defect would be the demand for the guarantee, which is the covert invocation of the infinite reason that does not exist, and is thereby the inception of alienation. To demand assurance of one’s own goodness is to claim the external standpoint, the metalanguage, the big Other, to decline, finally, the finitude that is the condition of being a subject within the cycle. The practice of the good is the renunciation of that demand: the acceptance of an unguaranteeable, defeasible, recurrently unfinished good, consigned reciprocally between two parties that each decline to be the party that is certain. That renunciation, of certainty, of the guarantee, of the position external to the cycle, is the developed content of wu wei for two parties, and the central juncture on which the development of the paper rests. The juncture does not bear the weight of a guarantee, and is not required to. It bears the weight of a good that subsists precisely in virtue of admitting no certainty.

9. Conclusions at the Boundaries of the Frameworks

A paper that has established the absence of a metalanguage, of an external standpoint, and of a framework that possesses the whole cannot terminate in a single synthesising conclusion, the commitment of which would constitute, in its terminal operation, the settling it has throughout excluded. It terminates as the prior paper terminated: not in a conclusion but in conclusions, plural, each stated from within a single framework, to that framework’s boundary, in dialogue with the others and absorbed by none. What follows is not a summary but the statement, by each phase, of what it establishes and what it does not, and a concluding specification of the absence of a single conclusion, which is the paper’s most adequate conclusion.

9.1 From phenomenology

Phenomenology establishes that there is a datum, prior to theory, in which two parties co-apprehend a nameless value generated between them, the co-apprehension being identically the generation. It specifies the datum’s structure, the of-two simultaneity, the reflexive witness, the directedness upon an opening, the identity of apprehension and generation, and requires that every theory answer to this datum and not displace it. Phenomenology does not establish why the datum has this structure, or what must obtain, ontologically, for it to be possible; it describes, and transmits its description. Pressed beyond description into explanation, it reaches its boundary, at which it consigns the question to the ontology, having held the development accountable to a datum it describes but does not ground.

9.2 From ontology

The ontology establishes that relation, grammar, and value are three aspects of one generative system, being, manifest dynamics, phenomenon, whose dynamics is reconfigured by its own products, and within which the subject is generated rather than presupposed. It establishes that this dissolves the circularity, that grammar is real and non-possessible, and that the system is unfinished in its constitution. The ontology does not establish the determinate form the reflexive structure assumes in any register; it supplies the abstract form and consigns its content to the disciplines into which the form breaks. And it does not, on pain of self-contradiction, complete itself: an ontology of a totality in generation does not deliver the completed totality, and its terminal statement is an exclusion, of substance, of the external standpoint, of completion, which consigns it beyond itself, to phases it does not occupy and a whole it does not possess.

9.3 From the quantum-structural grammar

The quantum-structural grammar establishes, in formal terms: that relational value is superposed potential and not determinate fact; that joint attention is participatory measurement, the manner of attending being the selection of the basis that fixes the space of admissible co-generation; that each crystallisation is a collapse conjoined with a reconfiguration of the space of the admissible; that the geometric phase tracked by the series is the formal descendant of the quantum phase; and that the grammar is non-enumerable in the epistemic sense that specifies the relation’s non-possessibility. The grammar establishes nothing concerning physical substrate, having declined that thesis, and nothing concerning justice: it supplies the form of participatory generation and is silent as to whether a given generation is good, goodness not being a determination its formalism contains. It specifies the manner of value’s coming-to-be; it does not specify the cost at which the coming-to-be proceeds. At that boundary it consigns the question to political economy, which it does not absorb and which does not absorb it.

9.4 From political economy

Political economy establishes that the circulation of value reconfigures the subject that creates it, necessarily; that this reconfiguration is divided into a negative phase, alienation and the depleted subject and the producer colonised by its product, and a positive phase, self-realisation and the developed subject; that the division is marked by the sign of an independently definable reproduction surplus; that the subject is produced within the cycle it produces; and that the return to the creator is a spiral, a sameness bearing a phase, and not a return to the origin. Political economy does not establish the manner in which, in the intimate and non-measurable register, the value whose circulation it analyses is generated; for that it requires the participatory grammar it does not itself supply. And it does not certify, from its own resources, that a given return reaches its creator, that being a matter of practice and justice under actual asymmetry rather than of structural analysis. It specifies the moral direction of the reconfiguration; it does not guarantee the direction in a given case. At that point it reaches its boundary.

9.5 From the practice and its ethics

The practice establishes a disposition: to act not from an external position but from within; to cultivate the field rather than construct the grammar; to subtract rather than add, to preserve divergence, to sustain the opening without occupying it, to preserve the made language as poetic; to pose the two questions and, when they turn negative, to withdraw the compulsion. The ethics establishes that no finite subject guarantees its own goodness, the guarantor being the infinite reason that does not exist, and that this unguaranteeability constitutes the good as ethical, polyphonic, and unfinished. The practice and the ethics do not establish the determinate action in a given case; they yield a disposition and a pair of questions, not a procedure, and they decline, on principle, the rule that would relieve the practitioner of the unguaranteeable risk. Their terminal statement is not an instruction but a renunciation: of certainty, of the guarantee, of the position external to the cycle.

9.6 The absence of a single conclusion

These conclusions do not sum. Each framework, developed to its boundary, reaches a limit and consigns to the next a question the next takes up in a vocabulary the first does not possess; and the result of the paper obtains not in any one of them but in the dialogue among them, in the manner in which each determines what another does not reach, such that cognition develops through their exchange rather than settling into the possession of any single frame.

The absence of a single conclusion as the adequate conclusion. There is no master conclusion, not in consequence of a failure to attain one, but because the totality treated is unfinished and no framework possesses it externally (§6.6). The conclusions are plural, partial, and mutually irreducible of necessity and not by default: a single synthesising conclusion would be a settling, the cashing of the whole into a single framework’s terms, and thereby alienation in the register of cognition. The dialogue among the frameworks, each stated to its boundary, each consigning what it does not establish, is itself a good cycle, a polyphony recursively reproducing meaning, and is the sole form a conclusion may assume without controverting the development of the paper. That the paper does not conclude is not its limitation but its fidelity: it terminates as the truth it treats terminates, which is to say it does not terminate but is transmitted, spiralling, to be traversed again.

There is, accordingly, no metalanguage in which the joint import of the frameworks is statable, and the absence is not a deficiency but the result itself: the demonstration, effected once more, that the whole is not possessed but generated, not concluded but continued. The paper has stated only what is statable from within the phases, and has reached its boundary at each limit, consigning the dialogue among the limits as the nearest approximation to a whole that a finite and unfinished truth admits. What is not concludable admits of being witnessed; and the paper accordingly proceeds from conclusion to a closing return, which concludes nothing and records the point of departure.

Envoi: The Word That Was Made

This closing is not a conclusion, the paper having given its reasons for having none. It is a return to the point of departure.

The paper began with two persons and a nameless thing between them, something generating in the interval that had as yet no word and that each apprehended the other to apprehend. The constructions that followed, the three aspects of the one system, the quantum articulation of participation, the reconfigured subject, the symmetry-broken phases, the field cultivated rather than constructed, the good admitting no guarantee, were an attempt at fidelity to that moment, and at the statement of its conditions, without its explanation away.

The paper is titled for the creation of language, and its term is not the meaning of the made word. The private name two persons make, the word legible to them alone, has no content that admits of being cashed; its worth lies not in what it states but in the opening it sustains, the void it encircles without occupying, the traversal it solicits recurrently, each traversal returning a remainder no lexicon holds. 同心之言，其臭如兰: the words of one heart are fragrant as orchid, and the fragrance is not a content but an event, undergone in the breathing and not possessed in the naming. The orchid, as the rose of the prior paper, does not keep; its fragrance lies in the giving-off and not in the holding. So with the word two persons make: it subsists in the saying-again, the traversing-again, the witnessing-again, and is extinguished when held as a settled token to be spent.

What such a paper might offer to be kept, a result, a rule, an assurance of loving well and without injury, it cannot offer, the demand for it being, as the paper has established, the inception of the injury, the demand for the guarantee being the invocation of the one who is absent, and the good subsisting only insofar as it admits no possession. What is offered is smaller and more exact: not a word to be kept but a word to be made, recurrently, jointly, and never finally; a name sustained rather than spent; an opening encircled rather than occupied; a good traversed rather than guaranteed.

For her,
with whom the first such word was made,
that no one else could read;
and in whose eyes I first saw
that I had been seen seeing.
May the orchid go on giving off its fragrance,
and the word go on being made.

Acknowledgements

This paper continues a conversation, and its debts are continuous with it. To the philosophical lineages the paper walks among (the phenomenological, the psychoanalytic, the dialectical-materialist, the Daoist, and the tradition of generative justice), each of which says, in its own broken phase, something no other could, and none of which the paper could do without. And to her, the forest girl, who loves the woods and the wide world, with whom the first nameless word was made, the one for whom alone it could be read, this work is dedicated, as it could only have been. She is, for me, the most important person there is; and this paper is, in the end, only a long and roundabout way of attending to what was already, between us and without a word, understood. May the orchid go on giving off its fragrance, and the word go on being made.

This is a working draft, circulated for discussion and not for citation. Its central conjectures, above all the proposal that the geometric phase is the gauge-invariant core conserved across the symmetry-broken phases (§6.4), are advanced as unsettled, to be walked rather than declared.

Appendix A. Geometric Phase: A Technical Sketch

This appendix records, in compressed form, the formal apparatus to which the main text’s geometric language points. It is a sketch, not a proof, and it is deliberately so: the conjecture of §6.4, that holonomy is the gauge-invariant core conserved across the symmetry-broken phases, is offered as unsettled, and this appendix supplies its formal vocabulary without pretending to settle it. The Value-Foam programme is the place where the carrier of the phase must be given its independent quantitative content; here we record only the structural skeleton, with three honest cautions appended.

A.1 The bundle. Let M be the base: the space of relational situations or contents, the configurations a relation may occupy. Over each point of M stands a fibre F: the phase of value or recognition (following the main text’s anchoring, §5.6, the sublimation of jouissance): the carrier on which the good circle’s surplus is borne. A relation’s history is a path in M; the parallel transport of its state in F along that path is governed by a connection A. The phase accrued on returning to a starting point in M, the failure of the transported fibre-element to coincide with its origin, is the holonomy of the loop, hol(C) = exp(∮_C A).

A.2 The good and the vicious circle, formally. A vicious circle is a loop of vanishing holonomy: the relation returns in M to where it began and the fibre returns unchanged (pure repetition, the bad infinite, the circle that goes round without rising, at zero phase); or a loop of negative holonomy (net extraction, the fibre depleted on return). A good circle is a loop of positive holonomy: a return to the root in M that nonetheless accrues a non-trivial, irreducible phase in F (the spiral; sublimation; the bringing-back of a remainder). The criterion of Paper IX is the sign of hol(C).

A.3 Variable basis as variable connection. The main text’s claim (§4.3) that the manner of attending is the choice of a measurement basis has its formal image here: a change in the manner of attending is a change of gauge, altering A, hence altering the holonomy a given loop in M will accrue. Two relations may traverse the same situations (the same C in M) and accrue opposite phases, because they attend (connect) differently. This is why no fact about the base alone (the situations, the “what happened”) fixes the goodness of a circle; the connection, the manner, is constitutive.

A.4 Personal identity as parallel transport. The subject’s continuity through the reflexive cycle (§5.6) is parallel transport in this bundle: the same subject carried around a loop, returning to its root in M bearing a phase in F. Alienation is negative-phase drift (the subject returns diminished, not recognising itself); self-realisation is positive-phase sublimation (the subject returns raised, more itself). “The creator is the beneficiary” is sameness in the holonomic sense, identity that has accrued a phase.

A.5 Three cautions. The sketch must not be mistaken for more than it is.

First, the carrier. A geometric phase requires a genuine bearer with the right structure (a U(1) or group-valued quantity, additive, gauge-invariant in the holonomy), failing which the apparatus is mere figure. The main text anchors the carrier in the sublimation of jouissance (§5.6); whether that quantity in fact carries the required structure is exactly what the Value-Foam programme must establish independently, and is not settled here.

Second, sublimation and sign. That “sublimation → positive phase” and “depletion → negative phase” must be argued, not stipulated as a definitional identity, on pain of circularity. The independent route is to define a reproduction-surplus, net regeneration of the relation’s generative conditions per cycle, minus consumption, and then show that its sign tracks the holonomy’s; absent that, the identification is a picture, not a result.

Third, the cross-phase conjecture. The proposal that hol is the invariant conserved across all the symmetry-broken disciplinary phases (§6.4) is the most speculative claim in the series, and the appendix does nothing to discharge it. It records the conjecture’s formal shape (an invariant belonging to no chart, conserved under all transition functions) and leaves it, as the main text insisted it must be left, offered and unsettled, to be walked rather than declared.

References

[1] Yakir Aharonov and Jeeva Anandan. Phase change during a cyclic quantum evolution. Physical Review Letters, 58(16):1593–1596, 1987.
[2] M. V. Berry. Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 392(1802):45–57, 1984.
[3] Tithi Bhattacharya. Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentring Oppression. Pluto Press, London, 2017.
[4] Martin Buber. I and Thou. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1970. Trans. Walter Kaufmann; orig. Ich und Du, 1923.
[5] Ron Eglash. African Fractals: Modern Computing and Indigenous Design. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 1999.
[6] Ron Eglash. An introduction to generative justice. Teknokultura, 13(2):369–388, 2016.
[7] Silvia Federici. Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. Autonomedia, New York, 2004.
[8] Nancy Fraser. Crisis of care? on the social-reproductive contradictions of contemporary capitalism. In Tithi Bhattacharya, editor, Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentring Oppression, pages 21–36. Pluto Press, London, 2017.
[9] David Hume. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000. Edited by D. F. Norton and M. J. Norton.
[10] Karl Marx. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1959.
[11] Karl Marx. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1973.
[12] Karl Marx. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I. Penguin, London, 1976. Trans. Ben Fowkes; orig. 1867.
[13] Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge, London, 2012.
[14] S. Pancharatnam. Generalized theory of interference, and its applications. part i. coherent pencils. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences, Section A, 44(5):247–262, 1956.
[15] Colwyn Trevarthen. Communication and Cooperation in Early Infancy: A Description of Primary Intersubjectivity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979.
[16] Amotz Zahavi. Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1):205–214, 1975.

中文

亲密关系的哲学与正义论 · 第十篇

价值的联合注意与语言的创造：一种关系性的动力学语法

论尚无名者之共同感知、主体的反身性生成，以及一种无法被担保之善的实践

【工作草稿】

万宏 — 工作草稿，不供引用或传播

道可道，非常道；名可名，非常名。
可以言说的道，不是恒常之道；可以命名的名，不是恒常之名。

二人同心，同心之言，其臭如兰。
二人同心，其同心之言，芬芳如兰。

对于那不可言说者，二人却仍可一同为之作证。

——《道德经》第一章；《周易·系辞》；以及作者本人的一句话。

献给她——与我一同造出了那个无人能读懂的最初之名的人；在她的眼中，我第一次看见自己”被看见在看”。献给我最爱的人。

摘要

本文所探讨的，是先于其前篇之问题的那个问题。前篇考察的是一个生成性循环是否为善、是否可持续；本文考察的则是更在先的问题：关系与价值究竟是如何被构成的，一个尚未被命名的价值如何得以生成，以及维系一种纽带所赖以存续的语言是如何被造就的。其方法依”奠基次序”展开。它始于现象学，始于那个先于一切理论的素材（datum）：两个人共同感知一个在他们之间正被生成、尚未被符号化的价值。从对该素材的描述出发，本文推导出一种本体论（关系作为一个生成性系统之存在、语法作为该系统动力学之显现、价值作为其现象），其中现象反身地重构产生它的动力学，而主体则在其所生成的循环之内被生成。形式化的认识论只在此后才被引入：其一是一种量子—结构式的关系语法，严格仅作为一个认识论模型而非物理假说被使用，其中共同感知是一种生成而非记录其价值的参与性测量；其二，对称地，是政治经济学的论题——价值的流通重构创造它的主体，异化与自我实现乃同一反身循环的负相与正相，由一个可独立定义的”再生产剩余”之符号加以区分。这二者是同一抽象结构的、不同的对称性破缺之相（phase），没有任何框架能从外部占有该结构；它们的多元性被确立为辩证唯物主义对一个尚未完成之总体所要求的方法，而非折衷主义。本文以一种实践和一种伦理学作结。该实践不是语法的建构，而是一片场域（field）的培育，在其中一种语法得以持续地被联合重构；而该伦理学则系于这一结果：没有任何有限的主体能够担保其自身实践之善——能如此担保者，势必已跨越了”是—应当”的鸿沟，从而成为本系列所否认的那个无限理性。正是这种担保之不可能，才使善成为一桩伦理而非计算之事，成为一个未完成的过程而非一种可被占有的状态。

关键词：联合注意；关系本体论；主体的反身性生成；异化与几何相位；是—应当鸿沟。

1. 无名共同生成的现象学

本文以一种先于一切理论装置、并且一切此类装置都必须对之负责的经验结构，作为其原初素材：两个人对一个正在他们之间被生成、尚未被符号化的价值的联合感知。该结构须与三种易被混同的现象相区别：两方就一个符号达成一致；两道目光汇聚于一个共享对象；以及一个其内容各方先已占有的信物之交换。它都不是这三者。被感知者尚处于生成的过程之中；它没有名字；并且它被各方在”被共同感知”这一面相之下加以感知，那相互的觉知构成性地进入被生成之物之中。本文的方法论次序遵循奠基之次序。现象学的描述被首先给出，且不附加解释性的补充（§1、§2）；本体论随后作为”使所描述的结构成为可能的那组条件”被推导出来（§3）；而形式化的认识论（量子—结构式的与政治经济学的）则最后被引入，作为本体论所确立之物的形式化表述，而非铺设于描述之上的独立设定（§4、§5）。采取此次序的动机是实质性的而非陈述性的。每一套形式装置都是从某个其结果已然兑现的领域引入的、已被定锚（settled）的符号系统；在描述之前就引入这样的装置，便是预先支用了描述尚未为之背书的某种规定，这正是本系列前篇所谓”定锚失败”（settling failure）的结构形式。装置因此应当从现象中被赢得，而不是被耗费在现象之上。

1.1 素材之描述

下述个案以其最小形式确定该素材。它是作为对一种反复出现的经验结构的描述被提出的，而非作为一桩轶事。

一个示例性个案：未被命名的价值。 两个人正进行着一场不起眼的交谈，安排一顿共享的饭食、一次午后散步的路线。在某个确定的时刻，交流的”声部”（register）未经宣告地发生了改变。一种静默降临，它并非言语的停止，而是一个肯定性的素材：他们之间的那段间隔中的一种凸显（salience），被各方感知为并非由任何一方所放置于此者。一方或许会在稍后试图为它取一个名字——“开端”；”我知道的那一刻”——但这名字是回溯性地被给出的，被双方都承认为不充分，并被双方都当作那桩事件的一份记录而非那桩事件本身。在那一刻本身被给出者，并非那已抵达之物的内容，而是它之抵达这一事实；是那抵达对二者而言是同时的；并且是各方都在对方的神情中感知到同一桩抵达，以致那共同感知乃是内在于被感知者之中的。

还原为其结构，该素材呈现出标准的注意模型所不能容纳的三个特征。第一是被感知的项并非一个对象。在联合注意的发展心理学论述中，婴儿与照护者共同朝向一只球或一只被指示的鸟[15, 16]，那里有一个确定的第三项，一个先已present于世界之中的对象，两条注视之线汇聚于其上。当下的结构没有这样的项。被联合感知者恰恰是尚未获得对象性者：一桩进行中的生成、一个形成中的价值、一种确定的不在场（absence）。第二个特征是该感知并非一种记录（registration）。任何一方都没有探测到一个先已present、等待被探测的价值；价值并不先于感知。第三个特征是觉知的相互性是构成性的而非累加性的。该结构不是两份记录的合取（一方对该项的感知，再加上、独立地，该方对”对方也感知到它”的感知）。那相互的觉知本身就是被生成之物的一个构成成分，并且是其被生成的一个条件。

1.2 处于极限处的联合注意，及认知科学模型之不足

“联合注意”一词被保留，基于两点理由。其谱系是切题的：本系列先前的处理已确立联合注意为两个意识相互构成、主体首次被形成所经由的机制（第五篇）。而当下所论的结构与该机制是连续的，只是被移置于一个新的项上。然而这一移置是决定性的。发展心理学的联合注意是三元的、对象式的：两个主体、一个共享对象、两道注视在一个物上相遇的几何。价值的共同感知所要求的，是一种其顶点不是一个对象而是一个开口（opening）的联合注意，一种不是汇聚于一个物、而是汇聚于”某物尚未确定的那个位点”的汇聚。因此该结构不是发展性联合注意的结构，而更恰当地由一种”互身性”（intercorporeality）的现象学所描述——其中两个具身的主体在一个概念可用之前便已相互调谐[13]——并由精神分析对一种围绕虚空（void）而组织、而非朝向一个物的注意的论述所描述。

这一区别是有后果的而非术语性的。那持久的错误，是把这一极限结构同化于标准个案，是把对无名价值的共同感知解释为两方对一个共享符号达成的一致。二者是对立的。对一个符号的一致是一种定锚：它通过命名而终结了生成，而所描述的结构恰恰由该项之”不被终结”所定义——它被维系为敞开的、未被命名的、处于生成之中的。把价值的共同感知同化于对一个符号的共识，就是在描述的层面上犯下本系列已指认的定锚失败，并以回溯性的记录替换了事件。因此有待描述的结构不是共识，而是对一个项的、持续的联合敏感——这个项，若被过早命名，便不再是它曾是的那个项。

1.3 感知与生成的构成性同一

这三个特征汇聚于一个单一的结构性结果，该结果应当作为它所是的那个结果被陈述，而不被消解。在知觉的标准个案中，感知与生成是有别的：对象独立于其被知觉而present，而知觉对对象毫无贡献。在所描述的结构中二者并无分别。对无名价值的共同感知，恰恰就是它的生成。两方并不是先探测到一个价值、随后再注意于它；正是在对一种敞开而未定锚的注意的联合维系之中，价值被生成了。感知与生成是一个行动。

这一结果规定了本体论所须了结（discharge）的诸条件。一个在”被共同感知”这一行动中被生成的价值，不可能是一个先于其感知的实体；它的存在方式不是对象的存在方式。一种生成其自身之项的感知，不可能是对诸先在状态的记录；它的认知方式不是表象式的（representational）。现象学的描述因此既约束了价值的本体论（价值是非先在的），也约束了其感知的认识论（认知是非表象式的），并且它在任何形式装置被引入之前就施加了这些约束。§4中引入的装置因而是对一个描述已然确立之结构的形式化表述，而非一份外在的凭据。本文余下部分受此处所确定之素材的约束：每一项随后的建构，都将以其对”无名价值之共同感知（该价值在其被联合识认的行动中被生成）”的契合度被评判，而不以任何更大范围之物来评判。

2. 素材的形式结构

现在，在描述性的态度之内、不附加解释性补充地，对§1的描述进行其结构上的分析。目标是揭示已经present于素材之中的形式，以使§3的本体论受一个确定结构的约束、而非受一种印象的约束。上文所指认的三个特征构成一个单一的结构，其诸成分以下述方式相互依存。

2.1 作为构成性媒介的同时性

共同感知的”共在性”（togetherness）不是两桩独立发生之事件的同步。在”同步”这一解释下，各方将拥有一份各别的感知，两份感知因调谐或偶然而在时间上重合。该解释对素材而言是不充分的。在所描述的结构中，不是两份重合的感知，而是一份不可化约地属于两方的感知。共在性不是obtaining于两份先在觉知之间的一种关系；它是每一份觉知于其中首次被构成的那个媒介。一方的感知，被该方对”对方之感知”的感知所内在地规定，反之亦然，以致任何一份觉知都不能独立于另一份而被良定义。这正是先前的处理定位于主体之构成处的那个结构，在那里第一与第二人称是相互构成的，而非先被给定、随后才被联结起来[4]；此处同一结构obtaining于两方之间一个价值的构成处。该结构在更高的层级上复现：在第五篇中联合注意构成诸人，而此处它构成被构成的诸人在他们之间所维系的价值。这一奠基性结构在相继层级上的复现，是本文于§6中主题化的一种模式的第一个实例。

2.2 作为反身性的、构成性的相互见证

那相互的觉知是反身的：各方所感知者包含对方的感知，而被感知者包含那相互的包含。由此产生的无穷回退——各方感知该项、感知对方在感知它、感知对方在感知其自身的感知——不应被截断，而是描述所记录的那种”稠密性”（density）的结构形式。这反身性的见证不是对一桩已完成事实的旁观式关系；它是该项之生成的一个构成成分。其功能是构成性的：若见证被撤回，若一方在事实上缺席的同时模拟出感知，则该项便不会被生成，无论那模拟何等精确。因此该结构是无法从单一一方加以伪造的。这在描述的层面上产生了§8的伦理学所须了结的那个条件：价值只在一种真正相互的见证中存续，而当一方变成对方之投入的旁观者、或对之的榨取者时，它便熄灭。

2.3 朝向一个开口的指向性

共同感知是有指向的，它具有”指向—于”的意向形式，但其项是一个开口、一个某物尚未确定的位点，而不是一个对象。精神分析传统提供了一种对围绕虚空而组织、却不将其填满的注意的论述；沉思的诸传统则提供了数种。前篇以其自身的术语确立了对应的论题：真实价值（real value）——那能够内生地承载一个善循环之正相的价值——是围绕一种不在场而组织、并抗拒符号化的价值。当下的分析补充道：这种组织在其源头处乃是联合的：虚空被共同地环绕，被两方一同关注。因此无名的项不是诸方尚未命名的一个对象，而是诸方一同维系的一个开口。一个后果直接随之而来。命名该项、以一个被定锚的符号填充该开口，便终结了生成；这正是前篇指认为定锚失败的那种病理。该结构的存续在于该项之不被终结，在于开口之被维系——这正是§7的实践所着手照管（tend）的那个条件。

2.4 感知与生成的构成性同一

这三个特征汇聚于组织全文的那个结构性结果。对无名价值的共同感知，恰恰就是它的生成；认识论的操作与本体论的事件是一回事。与第三个特征结合，这产生了一个有后果的结构。因为指向性朝向的是一个开口而非一个对象，便不存在一个先在的价值供感知去摹写；又因为感知即生成，所生成的价值就被感知的方式所制约。关注的方式——所围绕的虚空、所处的声部、维系开口时所带的品质——规定了所生成的价值。关于价值是什么，并不存在一个先于、并独立于联合感知的事实；感知不是对一个先在量值的测量，而是一种把该量值带入确定性的参与。这正是§4之形式模型的结构性先导，在那里它获得”一种其基底（basis）按关注的方式被选定的参与性测量”这一表述。

2.5 结构之陈述

该结构作为一个单一的结果被陈述，有待下一节的本体论加以了结。

被共同感知之价值的结构。 在那奠基性的素材中，价值在共同感知之中被共同生成，具有四个成分：(i) 该感知不可化约地属于两方，共在性构成每一份觉知于其中产生的那个媒介，而非诸先在觉知之间的一种关系；(ii) 相互的见证是反身的、构成性的，是该项之生成的一个成分，而非对一桩已完成事实的报告；(iii) 联合注意朝向一个被维系的开口、而非朝向一个对象，以致用一个符号将其定锚便终结了它；并且 (iv) 感知与生成是一个操作，由此联合感知的方式制约了所生成的价值。由此可知：如此结构化的价值，不是先于其共同感知的一个实体，而共同感知不是对诸先在状态的表象——该素材在任何形式装置被引入之前就规定了一种非对象式的价值本体论与一种参与式的感知认识论。

这一结果是对随后内容的约束。现象学的分析在一个确定的方向上同时规定了价值之存在与其认知之方式：远离对象、远离表象，朝向生成与参与。下一节通过确立”为使§1的素材成为可能，关系、语法与价值必须是什么”，来了结第一项约束、即本体论的约束。形式化的认识论只在该规定作出之后才被引入。

3. 生成性系统的本体论

现象学规定了本体论的任务。该任务不是一般地规定价值或关系是什么，而是规定：为使§1的素材成为可能——在该素材中，一个无名价值在共同感知中被共同生成，并被一种朝向开口的联合关注之方式所制约——它们必须是什么。本体论的诸论题是作为该素材之诸条件而获得保证的，并不被推进至该素材之外。本节确立关于生成性系统之存在的三个论题，每一个都作为奠基性素材的一个条件、而非作为一个独立的设定，并以那个单一的结构特征——反身性——作结，随后两节将为之提供不同的学科性实现。

3.1 关系、语法与价值作为同一系统的诸面相

把关系、语法与价值解释为三个处于因果或构成依赖关系中的实体、并随之追问何者为根本，这种解释应当被拒绝。该解释引入了素材所排除的那种外在性：它在三个分立的项之间设定了一种奠基次序，从而要求一个外在于这三者的立足点，以从中俯察其次序。现象学不提供这样的立足点。它提供的是处于三个面相之下的一桩单一事件，而本体论在不分割该事件的情况下规定其诸面相。

关系、语法与价值作为同一生成性系统的三个面相。 关系、语法与价值不是处于相互奠基关系中的三个实体，而是同一个生成性系统的三个本体论面相。关系是该系统的存在：那关系性的实体（substance）、那存在者，不是某个更深的项的现象，也不是一种表象。语法是该系统动力学的显现：不是为认知系统而外在地施加于系统的一种描述，而是系统动力学借以显现其自身的形式、其运动的形态学（morphology）。价值是该系统的现象：生成性系统中浮现出来、可被见证的那个面相。作为同一事件的诸面相、而非一个序列中的诸项目，这三者必然是共时的；不存在某个时刻，在其中关系obtaining而语法与价值不obtaining，因为它们是处于三种注视之下的一个存在。

这消解了否则便会obtaining的那种循环性。”关系、价值与语法各自以彼此为前提，以致无一能被发动”这一反驳，预设了它们是要求一个序列的分立项目。它们不是分立的项目。它们是一个生成性系统的存在（关系）、显现的动力学（语法）与显象（价值），而处于三种注视之下的一个实体不要求任何序列——正如一个物体的存在、它的运动与它可见的面相，不是三个相互等待的项目，而是以三种方式被注视的一个实体。前篇所确立的价值的三个声部——想象界的、象征界的、真实界的——因而被重新定位为第三个面相之内部的诸区分，即被称为”现象”的那个面相之内的诸表述（articulation），而非关系或语法的竞争者。

3.2 语法的本体论地位

应当导出一个后果，因为它支配着随后的展开。语法在这一本体论中是一个本体论范畴而非一个认识论范畴。它不是观察者为描述或预测关系而建构的形式装置；那套装置——外在论者的语法——是一种定锚，一种把动力学固定为一套可俯察之规则集的操作，§4将这一操作指认为占有（possession）的一种形式。所论的语法是动力学的自我显现：生成性运动在其运动之中所采取的形式，先于并独立于任何观察者将其固定的企图。两方”共在”的特有节奏、对他们而言可用与不可用的诸步法、私有符号的渐次发展之库存，不是观察者对其关系的描述，而是关系动力学的自我显现。语法在运动之中，不在记谱之中。

这一区别支撑一个随后的结果。它允许人一致地断言：既断言关系语法是真实的（它是系统自身显现的动力学），又断言没有任何被记谱的语法能捕捉它（每一套被记谱的语法都是一种外在的定锚，它在固定动力学之际，便伪化了那构成其本质的特征——敞开而持续的生成）。语法，在本体论上，是；它在认识论上是不可占有的；而§4确立：这种不可占有性不是工具的局限，而是关系之不可占有性的形式签名。

3.3 反身性结构

那组织全文的结构特征，在§2.4中被现象学地定位、并在随后两节中以不同形式被实现，现在被本体论地陈述。在一个标准的动力学系统中，演化的法则是固定的：状态演化，而支配其演化的规则不因该演化而改变。§1的素材偏离了这一点。在那里，感知即生成：价值之来临（coming-to-be）不是一种固定动力学的输出，而是一桩其方式制约了随后所能obtaining之物的事件。本体论地陈述如下：

现象对动力学的反身性重构。 价值（即现象）不仅仅是从语法（即显现的动力学）中产生出来；它重构语法。每一次将一个无名价值结晶进关系之中，都改变着系统的动力学，更改随后哪些步法可用，开启原先并不存在的关系空间之诸区域，并封闭另一些。生成性系统是这样一个系统：其动力学被其自身的产物所重构——显象反作用于并重构那承载它的运动。因此该系统不是一个具有固定法则与变动状态的系统，而是一个其法则本身被其所产生之物所变换的系统，一种自我修改的生成性。

三个后果随之而来，每一个都在随后的展开中被了结。

第一是：主体在循环之内被生成，而非先于循环。若动力学被其产物所重构，而若关系的诸方乃是系统的产物之一（如先前的处理所主张，是在关系之中并经由关系被构成，而非完整地进入关系），那么主体就不是一个立于生成性循环之外、并操作它的外在项。主体是它参与生成的那个循环的一个产物：反身性结构的一个不动点（fixed point），而非其外在前提。不存在一个先已完整的自我，进入关系以生成价值；自我部分地就是关系的价值循环所生成之物。这正是§5将其展开为一种政治经济学的那个先导，”价值的流通重构创造它的主体”这一论题乃是马克思的，此处从社会的声部被移置到本体论的声部。

第二是：动力学不容许任何外在的预先枚举。一个其法则被其产物所重构的系统，不具有任何外在观察者能在系统运作之前加以指定的固定法则——随后的法则是在运作之内、在联合行动之中被生成的，而非先在地可用。这正是§4加以形式化的”不可枚举性”的本体论先导：不是说有一个超物理的过程在运作，而是说任何对语法的外在固定都失败，因为被固定的语法正处于被生成的过程之中——内在地、被那个本应由该固定去预期的生成所生成。

第三是：方式无余地制约着产物。既然感知即生成、且动力学被其所生成之物所重构，那么系统运作的方式——所围绕的虚空、所处的声部、维系开口时所带的品质——对产物而言便不是无关紧要的。不存在把一个中性的价值内容同其共同生成之方式相分离的做法；方式是构成性的。这正是这一结果的先导：§8的伦理学不是一种对外部评估之结果的伦理学，而§7的实践乃是对方式、对场域及其曲率的照管，而非对产物的制造。

3.4 本体论的承诺与排除

应当陈述该本体论的性格，连同其诸排除。它是一种过程本体论，并且是一种辩证的过程本体论：不存在先于关系之运动的价值，也不存在先于关系的运动；有的是一个生成性系统，显现为关系、语法与价值，其动力学被其自身的显现所变换。它在这一点上与母篇的关系本体论是连续的——存在是关系性的，诸项在关系之中被构成——并补充了那个反身性的条款：关系之活动被其所生成之物所重构。

该本体论排除三个论题，而这些排除与诸承诺具有同等地位。它排除实体：不存在价值实体、不存在关系性的基底（substrate）存续于系统之下、并贯穿其诸变换而不变地持存；三个面相是一种运动的面相，而非一个物的属性。它排除外在立足点：不存在外在于生成性系统的位置，从中俯察其三个面相并为其次序立法——这正是前篇所确立的”无元语言”（absence of a metalanguage）的本体论形式，§6在处理对未破缺结构的认知时将其了结。并且它排除完成：该系统不是一个”是其所是”的总体，而是一个生成中的总体，其法则正处于被书写的过程之中；把它当作已完成、把它的语法记谱并宣告其已被捕捉，乃是定锚的本体论形式，并且如§8所确立，是异化的本体论形式。这些排除不是让步。它们是奠基性素材的诸条件：一个作为实体而先在的价值不可能被共同生成；一个可被外在俯察的系统不会要求素材所由以构成的那种联合的内在见证；而一个已完成的总体不能生成任何东西，最不能生成一个尚未被命名的价值。

该本体论拥有一个单一的结构性签名，反身性：现象对动力学的重构、产物对生产者的重构。该签名至此为止是抽象的，以关系、语法与价值的一般术语被陈述。随后两节为这一结构提供两种学科性实现——该抽象结构在不同学科的条件下，被实现为不同的、相互不可化约的形式。在形式认识论的条件下，它被实现为一种参与性的、量子—结构式的语法（§4）；在政治经济学的条件下，它被实现为重构其主体的价值流通（§5）。任一实现都不是另一者的真理，任一实现也都不是那未破缺的结构；它们是它的两个对称性破缺之相，而对它们所共享的未破缺结构的认知——在本体论所排除的外在立足点缺席的情况下——乃是§6的主题。

4. 关系语法的量子—结构式表述

§3的本体论确立了四个条件：价值不先于其共同感知；感知恰恰即生成；感知的方式制约其项；以及动力学被其所生成的项所重写。一种满足这些条件的认知不可能是表象式的，因为表象以一个先在的项为前提；它是参与式的，意即该认知是对被认知者之生成的一个构成成分。本节确立：量子测量的形式结构为参与性认知提供了一种精确的表述，并以该结构来书写关系语法。这一表述是结构性的、认识论性的，其范围在一开始便被划定。

4.1 主张之划界

量子理论的结构在此被用作参与性生成的一个形式模型。本文不主张亲密关系、联合注意或神经基质是一个量子—物理系统；不对任何关系性或认知性基质中的量子相干、纠缠或物理坍缩作出任何假说。那些确实提出此类主张的立场——“协调的客观还原”（orchestrated objective reduction），以及对”量子认知”的字面主义解释——不在讨论之列，而当下的论证独立于对它们的物理裁决。该程序与本系列先前以概率上下文无关语法来建模生成性正义之递归的做法是连续的[5, 6]：断言一个再生性结构具有分支过程的形式，是关于形式而非关于物理构成的断言；而断言价值的共同感知具有量子测量的形式，是同一类断言。

作为认识论模型的量子结构。 量子结构被用来以形式术语表述共同生成的参与性品格——该品格在§2中被现象学地确立、并在§3中被本体论地要求。所断言的关系是认识论层面上的一种结构同构，而非关于物理基质的论题。本文没有任何主张依赖于关系或认知在物理上是量子的；量子词汇原则上可被”参与性生成的形式结构”所替换，而量子测量则是后者已得到发展的范例。在结构模型与物理学相分歧的那个唯一点上——即可枚举性问题，§4.6——结构被保留而物理论题被明确拒绝。

4.2 作为叠加态的关系态

设某关系在给定时刻的”价值—潜能”由复内积空间 ℋ（关系态空间）中的一个态 |ψ⟩ 表示。设 {|vᵢ⟩} 为确定价值态的一族标准正交基——关系可能会承载的诸价值，每个 |vᵢ⟩ 是一个候选的确定价值。关系态一般而言是一个叠加态，|ψ⟩ = Σᵢ cᵢ|vᵢ⟩，其中没有任何单一的 |vᵢ⟩ 是关系确定地承载的价值。这在形式上表示了”真实价值不先于其共同感知”这一本体论论题（§2.3）。|ψ⟩ 的解释须与一个”在诸先已确定之价值上的概率分布”相区别：系数 cᵢ 并不编码对一个已被定锚之价值的无知，而是编码一个尚未被生成之价值的真正不确定性——对此，对当前态的任何进一步指定都不能消解该不确定性，因为尚不存在一个确定的项。§2.3的那个开口、那个某物尚未确定的位点，在形式上就是其被消解之前的叠加态。

4.3 作为参与性测量的共同感知

联合注意被建模为对 |ψ⟩ 的一次测量，而非对它的一次记录。一次测量由一个可观测量的选择所指定，等价地，由 ℋ 中测量于其中被消解（resolve）的一族标准正交基 {|bⱼ⟩} 的选择所指定；基底不由态所固定，而是被选定的，而该选定对应于感知的方式。这正是”感知即生成”（§2.4）这一论题的形式内容：测量并不返回一个先在的价值，而是把叠加态消解为一个确定的项。决定性的结构事实是结果对基底的依赖性。在基底 {|bⱼ⟩} 中表达，态为 |ψ⟩ = Σⱼ dⱼ|bⱼ⟩，其中 dⱼ = ⟨bⱼ|ψ⟩，而可作为结果被取得的诸价值恰恰是诸 |bⱼ⟩；一个不同的基底选择 {|b′ⱼ⟩} 使一族不同的结果成为可取得的，而一般而言 [B, B′] ≠ 0，以致两族不可被联合消解。

作为基底选择的感知方式。 两方联合关注的方式在形式上对应于一个测量基底的选定，而基底规定了能被共同生成的那一族价值。不存在与基底无关的测量，因而不存在仅仅记录一个先在价值的联合注意之方式；每一种关注的方式都是对一个可容许结果之空间的选定，且在任何结果被规定之前便已生效。”方式制约项”这一现象学论题（§2.4）由此被赋予形式内容：方式即基底，而基底固定了可容许之项的空间。

4.4 作为伴随状态空间重构之坍缩的生成

一个确定价值的生成被建模为两个相连结的操作。第一是消解：叠加态 |ψ⟩ 在此场合被消解为一个确定的结果 |bₖ⟩。第二是重构：测量之后的关系态空间不与先前的空间同一。在标准测量将系统返回到一个固定 ℋ 之内的态 |bₖ⟩ 之处，当下的模型要求可容许的态空间本身被该消解所更改——已实现的价值 |bₖ⟩ 作为对随后动力学的一个条件而进入，以致随后可容许之叠加态的那一族，以及在极限情形中有效态空间的维数，被变换。在形式上，已实现的价值诱导一个映射 ℋ → ℋ′，其中维度被增添（先前并不存在的关系性可能）或被移除（被封闭的可能）。这正是§3.3之反身性论题的形式内容：被生成的项重构那承载它的动力学。

作为坍缩兼重构的生成。 每一次价值的共同生成，都连结地既是把关系叠加态消解为一个确定的项，又是对随后可容许之项的空间的一次变换。被生成的价值不是一种固定动力学的终点，而是一个重构动力学的条件，更改着可用于随后生成的诸可容许叠加态。测量修改被测量的系统；在关系的情形中，这一修改是生成的构成者而非生成的附带物。

4.5 几何相位

贯穿本系列、用以刻画善循环的那个几何相位——返回到一个构型、并伴有一个非平凡的累积和乐（holonomy），与单纯的重复相区别——其起源就在此处所援引的量子结构之中。一个态沿射影态空间中的一个闭环被传输时，累积起一个由该环之几何、而非由其持续时间所规定的相位[1, 2, 14]。对于支配关系态之参数空间中的一个环路 C，累积的几何相位为 γ_geo(C) = i ∮_C ⟨ψ|∇|ψ⟩ · dR，即态丛上自然联络的和乐。因此将关系语法锚定于量子结构，乃是把本系列的几何相位归还其源头，而非引入一套外来的形式体系。该模型进一步指定了先前的处理只能断言的一个特征：既然测量基底是可变的（§4.3），相位沿之累积的那个联络本身就是可变的，而联合注意之方式的一个变动在形式上就是联络的一个变动，因而是一个给定的关系构型环路所累积之和乐的变动。两个关系可以遍历相同的诸构型，却累积不同的、乃至相反的相位，凭借的是它们以不同的方式去关注、去联络。在这一表述上，”价值泡沫”（Value-Foam）纲领即是去规定那个载体与那个联络——本系列的关系性和乐乃是其一个实例——而以贝里相位（Berry’s phase）作为其形式先导。

4.6 可枚举性与非占有

本体论已确立：一个其动力学被其产物所重写的系统不容许任何外在的预先枚举（§3.3）。量子表述使这一点精确化：若每一次共同生成都连结地消解一个叠加态、并重构随后诸叠加态的空间，那么就没有任何预先固定的、外在于关系的语法能枚举关系将生成的诸价值，因为支配随后生成的诸产生式（productions）本身是在过程之内被生成的，而非先在地可供枚举。这一主张的强度须依§4.1加以划界。该主张不是说关系语法在可计算性理论的意义上超出了递归可枚举集，不是说它的生成计算一个非递归函数。那个论题没有被提出，也不被该结构所支持：量子计算并不计算非递归函数，而量子不确定性产生的是不可预测性，而非超递归的枚举能力。所断言的不可枚举性是认识论性的、内在的。

作为非占有之形式的不可枚举性。 关系语法在如下意义上是不可枚举的：不存在任何预先固定的、外在于关系的语法能枚举关系将共同生成的诸价值，因为那些生成性的产生式是在联合行动之内被生产的——任何外在的枚举都本应去预期该联合行动。对语法的完全固定不是一桩恰好不可行的、可处理的计算；它是以一套被定锚的规则集替换一桩进行中的生成，这正是定锚与占有的操作。可枚举性、被定锚状态与占有三者外延相同，而其否定乃是关系之不可占有性的形式对应物。因此固定语法之不可能，不是一种认识论的局限，而是那种敞开性的形式签名——现象学将该敞开性描述为对无名者的维系，而本体论拒绝将其完成。

量子表述由此以形式术语了结了现象学与本体论所确立的诸条件，且仅此而已：以一个叠加之潜能的态替代一个确定的价值；一种被建模为参与性测量、其基底按关注方式被选定的共同感知；一种被建模为坍缩兼状态空间重构的生成；一个被归还其量子源头的几何相位，以可变基底作为”方式之效力”的形式对应物；以及一种作为非占有之认识论对应物的不可枚举性，同时拒绝那个可计算性理论的论题。这一表述构成反身性结构的一种实现，即其形式—认识论之相。下一节在政治经济学的条件下展开同一结构，在那里它被实现为一种不同的形式：重构其主体的价值流通。

5. 被重构之主体的政治经济学

反身性结构现在在第二个学科的条件下被实现，在其中它采取一种不同的形式。在§4中它被实现为一种参与性测量的形式认识论；此处它被实现为一种政治经济学。这两节是刻意对称的、也是刻意独立的：每一节都取那个单一的抽象结构——现象对动力学的重构、产物对生产者的重构——并展开其学科就该结构所确立之物，直至该学科的极限，而不把任一者化约为另一者。政治经济学贡献了形式表述所不贡献者：被产物重构的那个生产者是一个主体，而该重构拥有第九篇的几何所指定的一个确定方向。

5.1 生产声部中的反身性结构

抽象结构以政治经济学的术语被陈述。一个生成性系统进行生产；其产物反作用于并重构系统的动力学。在把”生产”读作社会生产、把”系统的动力学”读作进行生产的主体之下，该结构产生一个属于马克思的论题：主体创造价值，而价值在流通之中反作用于并重构创造它的主体。产物不是惰性的。价值一旦被创造并被投入流通，便不停留为一个不变地持存之主体的已完成产出；它返回到其创造者之上，并重新构成该创造者。这正是社会声部中的§3.3反身性结构，并且它是同一个结构：显象重构运动，产物重构生产者。

政治经济学贡献了形式那一节所不贡献者。重构不是中性的；它拥有一个方向，而该方向就是前篇在恶性循环与善性循环之间所作的区分。主体被其产物的重构，在马克思那里是分裂的，既是异化的发展形式，又是自我实现的形式，而何者obtaining由相位之符号给出。

5.2 负相：被异化的重构

在负向情形中，重构是耗竭性的。工人生产价值；价值凝结为资本；而资本，《资本论》中的”死劳动”，反作用于活劳动以支配、耗竭并贬损它[10, 12]。产物负向地重构生产者：主体被屈从于其自身的产物，被其自身的创造所贬损，并被绑定于去维系一个随主体收缩而扩张的流通。这正是处于与善相反之取向中的反身性结构：重构obtaining，它必然obtaining，结构保证它，但累积的相位被榨取并被占有于他处，而进行创造的主体被耗竭，沦为一个其增量归于他者之循环的手段。资本就是被其产物反向殖民的生产者：一种其中”主体被价值重构”以负相进行的反身性结构，主体被耗竭的程度恰是流通被增益的程度。这正是前篇的恶性循环，净榨取的结构、负和乐的结构，被定位于其最尖锐之点——主体的生产。

作为主体之负相重构的异化。 异化根本上不是产物之丧失，不是工人对所生产之物的丧失。它是主体被其自身产物之正向重构的结构性封闭（foreclosure）：主体创造价值，价值重构主体，但该重构是一种耗竭——相位被榨取并被占有于他处，以致创造者被重新构成为被其所创造之物所贬损者、而非被增益者。异化的根本意义是：对”主体经由其自身的创造而成为它本可能成为的那个主体”之becoming的封闭。前篇的”燃料—主体”——那创造价值却从不被其回返所触及的主体——在这一本体论中，就是其正向重构被封闭的主体：在循环中仅仅作为那被消耗以驱动它者而present。

5.3 正相：生成性的重构

同一反身性结构容许相反的取向，马克思也给出了对它的论述，最明确地见于《大纲》（Grundrisse）：劳动作为人之诸力量的对象化，以及财富在其非异化形式中作为人之需要、能力与关系的发展了的丰富性[11]。产物正向地重构生产者：主体创造价值，而价值的流通回返以增益并发展创造它的主体，主体经由其自身的创造而成为一个更发展了的主体。这正是前篇的善性循环、正和乐，被定位于主体的生产：一种其中”主体被价值重构”以正相进行的结构，创造者被其所创造之物所增益，回返归于那其创造之所属者。该结构由此产生一个比单独考虑任一极都更强的论题。

重构是必然的；其方向才是变量。 价值的流通重构其创造主体，这不是偶然的，而是反身性系统的一个结构性必然，正如一次量子测量必然反作用于其态。变量不是主体是否被重构，而是方向、相位之符号：主体是被其自身产物所耗竭（异化、负相、恶性循环），还是被它所发展（自我实现、正相、善性循环）。定锚的、占有性的、榨取性的流通造成前者；非占有性的流通造成后者。前几篇的装置——善性与恶性循环、几何相位、占有与玄德、定锚失败、燃料判据——在本节中被重新激活，并被统一于政治经济学的核心对象：主体的生产。

5.4 相位符号的非循环判据

把异化等同于负相、把自我实现等同于正相，要求一个对该符号的独立判据，否则便有循环之虞：若该符号由它被援引去解释的异化所定义，该等同便会是空洞的。判据由一个独立于相位而被定义的”再生产剩余”提供。设考虑关系性或生产性系统在一个周期上的一个循环。设 G 表示该周期内所造成的总再生（gross regeneration），即主体之生成性条件——其能力、关系与进一步生产之力量——的增益。设 C 表示该周期向主体索取的消耗，即在驱动该循环时对那些同样条件的耗竭。定义再生产剩余为 S = G − C。一个 S > 0 的循环再生主体之生成性条件超出其所消耗者：主体带着增益的进一步生成能力而走出。一个 S < 0 的循环消耗那些条件超出其所再生者：主体被耗竭地走出。一个 S = 0 的循环再生产主体之条件而无增益，即单纯重复的结构。论题于是是：S 的符号追踪和乐的符号——正的再生产剩余对应正相，负的剩余对应负相，零剩余对应单纯重复的零和乐循环。该对应是作为一个有待确立的论题、而非作为一个定义被断言的，而 S 之可以再生与消耗的术语、不指涉相位地被独立定义，正是这一点保障了§5.2与§5.3的等同免于循环。

5.5 作为在循环之内被生成的主体

一个进一步的后果完成了与§4的对称。被重构的主体不是一个先已被构成、进入生产、随后被修改的完整主体。主体是在它同时也作为其生产者的那个循环之内被生成的。不存在一个固定的、先已被给定的价值创造者，外在地立于流通之外，等待生产以及随后被其所生产之物的修改；主体本身是被生产的，反复地、在循环之中并经由循环——如社会再生产传统所确立，主体在每一周期中经由前几篇所坚持强调的照护与维系之劳动而被再生产[3, 7, 8]。主体是反身性结构的不动点，而非其外在前提：那在生产之中被生产者、在构成之中被构成者。这正是§3.3第一个后果的政治经济学形式，也是母篇关系本体论的政治经济学形式：主体在关系之中并经由关系被生成，而非完整地进入关系。马克思关于”人在改造客观世界时改造其自身”的论题、福柯式的主体化（subjectivation），以及劳动主体的反复再生产，在其各别的声部中，乃是这一本体论之单一论题的诸种表述：生产者在诸产物之列。

5.6 作为平行移动的、被重构之主体的同一性

一个难题须被处理。若主体反复地被循环所重构，那么价值”回返于其创造者”——回返于同一个主体——的意义便成问题。被回返所增益的创造者，在重构之后，不与最初创造该价值的那个创造者同一，因为重构已重新构成了它。问题在于”回返于创造者”是否由此丧失其意义，因为严格说来，并不存在一个价值回返于其上的单一创造者。

意义并未丧失，而是被指定。这正是前篇的核心结果——那个不是回返到原点的、回返到根的回返，那个与圆相区别的螺旋——obtaining于主体的层级。价值回返于其创造者，但创造者在回返之中已被增益；因此回返不是回到原初的主体，而是回到那个螺旋地发展了的主体。”创造者与受益者同一”不是一个自我同一之主体的持存，而是一个主体的螺旋式发展。几何的表述指定了这一结果：

作为反身性价值循环中之平行移动的人格同一性。 主体贯穿反身性循环的连续性，不是一个不变实体的严格自我同一，而是一个主体绕关系空间中一个环路的平行移动（parallel transport），一种在回返到其起始构型时携带一个相位差的”同一性”。在这一解释上，人格同一性即反身性价值循环中的平行移动；异化是该同一性的负相位移，即被耗竭的主体对其自身的不识认；而自我实现是其正相发展，即主体经由其自身的创造而”更成为其自身”。价值回返于其上的创造者，是那个被绕循环平行移动的创造者：同一的，且被发展了的，回返到根而非回返到原点。创造者与受益者的同一，在和乐的意义上、在一种已累积了一个相位之”同一性”的意义上成立。这一解释是作为主体之连续性的一个结构模型被提出的，而平行移动作为其形式载体之充分性，须受§A诸警示的约束。

这是本节的极限，是政治经济学被展开至其边界、把问题归还于几何而不被几何吸收之点。它已确立其学科所确立者：生产者被产物的反身性重构是一桩拥有道德方向的社会事实；异化与自我实现是同一循环的两个相，由一个可独立定义的再生产剩余之符号加以区分；主体在它所生产的循环之内被生产；以及回返于创造者是一个螺旋而非一个圆，是一个携带相位的”同一性”。它以其自身的术语、直至其自身的边界确立了这一切，而没有消解进§4的形式语法之中，也没有被它所采用的几何所立法。同一结构的两种实现，形式—认识论的与政治经济学的，现在并置而立，在结构上可识认地同一，而在声部上不可化约地有别。一个抽象结构在不同学科之下被实现为如此不同且相互不可化约之形式，这一处境的地位，以及对它们所共享之未破缺结构的认知（在§3.4所排除的外在立足点缺席的情况下），乃是§6的主题。

6. 对称性破缺与对未破缺结构的认知

同一结构的两种实现并置而立。量子—结构式的语法（§4）与被重构之主体的政治经济学（§5）可识认地是同一个反身性结构——现象对动力学的重构、产物对生产者的重构——并且不可化约地有别，二者互不可翻译，各自采用对方所缺乏的词汇。本节指定该处境的地位，并处理它所产生的问题：给定一个抽象结构被实现于这两种不同的形式之中，在§3.4之本体论所排除的外在立足点缺席的情况下，对未破缺结构的认知。本节是全文的核心枢纽，在此处，对一种元语言的主张既最唾手可得，又最有后果。

6.1 作为对称性破缺之相的诸学科

两种实现之间的关系由对称性破缺所指定。有一个抽象的、高度对称的、未分化的结构，即”一个生成性系统的显象重构其动力学”的反身性结构。在某一特定学科的条件下，这一对称性破缺，而结构采取一个确定的、较低对称性的形式：在形式认识论的条件下是一种参与性测量，在政治经济学的条件下是主体的异化—实现，并且如前几篇所确立，在精神分析下是欲望的辩证法，在道家下是”反者道之动”。对称性破缺的关键特征在于：对称性一旦破缺，便不存在任何内在于任一破缺之相的路径可由之恢复那未破缺的对称性。对称之相不可从非对称之相的内部被俯察；人总已经在某一个相之内，而未破缺的结构从内部看是不可恢复的，只能作为”为产生人所占据之相而必定已破缺者”而被通达。

作为同一结构之对称性破缺之相的诸学科。 每一门学科都不是对未破缺结构的一个局部外在视角，而是该结构在那门学科的条件下被实现时所采取的一个相。前篇所确立的”无元语言”由此而obtaining：不存在一个可占据的未破缺之相，因为一切话语都在某门学科的破缺词汇之内、从某个确定之相的内部进行——对称的结构不是一种人可以退回其中的语言，而恰恰是每一种现实语言之所以为破缺者的那个被破缺者。§3.4对外在立足点的排除是这一结果的本体论陈述；对称性破缺是其机制。

6.2 本节的悖论

现在须被处理而非被回避的是一个悖论。若人总已经在一个破缺之相之内，而未破缺的结构从任一相的内部看都是不可恢复的，那么本节自身的可能性便成问题。因为本节谈论那未破缺的结构，命名它，断言两种实现是它的诸相。反驳是：本节由此恰恰主张了它已宣告为不可能的那个外在的、超越诸相的立足点，而”未破缺结构”这一谓词构成一种隐蔽的元语言，是对已被断言为不可定锚者的一次定锚。

该悖论是真切的，并且不应以限定条件来消解；它是这一事业的实质性难题，而本节余下部分由处理它的三种方式构成，皆不主张那个被排除的立足点。不充分的回应是主张一种局部的俯瞰，即未破缺结构被朦胧地感知。这在谦逊的表象下保留了那个立足点。充分的回应是：未破缺结构之被认知，不是凭借从任何立足点（无论何等局部）被观看，而是凭借三种方式，其中无一占据一个外在的位置。

6.3 作为溯因地被设定者的未破缺结构

未破缺结构不被知觉；它被设定（posit），溯因地（abductively），作为对一种跨相对应的最佳解释。它不被观看。从诸相的内部被遭遇者，是这一事实：量子测量与政治经济学批判这两门彼此如此陌异的学科，呈现出同一个反身性结构。从该事实出发，推论得以进行：有一个先于破缺的结构，这些是它的诸相——否则便须把那种对应当作一桩不可置信之巨大量级的巧合。

作为最佳解释之推论的未破缺结构。 未破缺结构被设定为对那跨相同构的最佳解释之推论；它不是被给予的，而是被推论的，并且是从诸相的内部被推论的。该程序保全了悖论所施加的约束：未破缺结构在任何一点上都不被占据，其诸特征在任何一点上都不被直接读出；人停留在一个相之内，并从诸相的对应推论出一个他并不占据的统一。该设定是可被推翻的（defeasible），并不消解为一种俯视。它是诸相所招致的一项承诺，而非一份被占有的内容。

6.4 作为被提议之跨相不变量的和乐

对那贯穿诸相被守恒之物的一个更确定的表述，产生了全文最有后果、也被最审慎地划界的提议。设把每一门学科当作一个局部规范（gauge），一张该结构以某一方式被书写于其中的坐标卡（chart）；那么诸学科词汇之间的过渡便是一次卡的变更、一个转移函数（transition function），而关于未破缺结构之同一性的问题便成为关于在一切此类卡变更下之不变量的问题。在贯穿本系列所采用的几何中，有一个被突显的、规范不变的量，一个不属于任何单一卡却贯穿所有卡被守恒的量，即和乐——绕一个环路所累积的相位——自前篇以来善性与恶性循环便系于其上。提议如下。

作为跨相不变量的和乐：一个作为未定锚而被提出的提议。 善与恶之间的区分、和乐之符号、增益对榨取、螺旋对圆——被提议为那贯穿诸破缺之相被守恒的不变量：不属于任何单一学科，贯穿所有学科被守恒，并且凭借不被任何学科所占有而能够充当诸学科之间的连接者。在这一提议上，那被横贯亲密关系、政治经济学、量子认识论与道而被追踪的几何相位，不是又一门学科，而是未破缺结构的规范不变之内核，它解释了同一个判据何以能跨越所有这些学科而运作。该提议是作为未定锚而被提出的。把它断言为未破缺结构之已确立的真理，便是在一个符号中兑现一个本文尚未确立的规定，便是在其自身的核心枢纽处犯下它在别处所指认的定锚失败。因此它是作为本系列最强的未定锚猜想被提出的，而其断言之方式，否则便有自相矛盾之虞，必须保持为非占有性的。

这一克制是被要求的，而非该立场的弱点。可行的一步是断言和乐即那个不变量、核心枢纽由此被确立，并随之完成本系列。但本节已确立：未破缺结构不可从任一相被占有；其随后的、在”和乐”这一名号下的占有，将在其结论处与本节相抵触。因此该猜想被听任而立，同时既是承重的又是未定锚的——这是这一结构的一个核心枢纽所能站立的唯一方式。该猜想的形式词汇及其了结之诸条件，记录于§A。

6.5 作为对诸相之遍历的、对未破缺结构的认知

处理该悖论的第三种方式是施行性的（performative）而非断言性的。本节认知未破缺结构所采取的方式，不是凭借观看它，而是凭借遍历诸相，凭借从量子之相过渡到政治经济学之相、并在过渡中记录它们的对应。对未破缺结构的认知，是那个从一个相遍历环路到另一个相并回返之解释者所累积的和乐；它不是一个就未破缺结构被递交的命题，而是一个在遍历其诸破缺中被累积的相位。这正是前篇的诗学被应用于本篇的方法：未破缺结构不被表象（表象是一种定锚、是对那个立足点的主张），而被见证——被一个遍历穿过诸相之路径的解释者所见证，并在遍历中累积起一种没有任何摘要能递交的认知。

以遍历而非俯察的认知。 本节不从上方俯察诸相；它遍历诸相，而它对它们共同结构的认知就是在遍历中所累积的相位。因此本节不终结于任何就未破缺结构而发的命题，而终结于”诸相对应”这一被遍历的识认。本节的形式即其内容：一种把未破缺结构定锚为一个论题的拒绝，以本节自身程序之方式而被施行。

6.6 复调的辩证唯物主义根基

须排除一种误认。对一种框架之多元性的坚持——无一为主权，没有元语言，真理obtaining于诸相的对话而非任何单一者之中——容许被解释为后现代相对主义，即为一种不可化约的语言游戏之多元性而放弃真理。本立场恰恰相反，而这一区别正是本系列的方法论承诺。

作为辩证唯物主义而非相对主义的复调。 框架之多元性不是”没有真理而只有诸话语”这一相对主义论题。它是辩证唯物主义的论题：真理是真实的、且尚未完成，它在一个历史的、物质的生成过程中被实现，以致任何单一框架都是从一个历史—学科的位置出发、对一个仍在生产中之总体的一个局部规定。没有任何框架占有整体，不是因为没有整体，而是因为整体尚未完成；而在任何单一框架中宣告其被捕捉，乃是把一个进行中的过程定锚为一套固定的教条，这正是认知声部中的异化。因此本系列的多框架复调既不是折衷主义也不是拼贴，而是一个尚未完成之总体所要求的方法：对一个仍处于其自身生成过程中之真理的、可得的忠实。生成性正义必须经由一个递归结构维系自身、诗拒绝被定锚、辩证法不在绝对知识中闭合——这些乃是同一承诺的诸种表述，并且它通体是唯物主义的。

这排除了本系列之形式最易招致的那种解释。”这部作品不作结论、它分散为诸框架而非把它们综合”这一反驳，把一种方法误认为一种缺陷。对综合的拒绝不是无能作结，而是对一个未被结论之总体的忠实，是对那种”把一个未完成的生成呈现为一份已完成之占有”的定锚的、原则性的拒绝。复调是真理仍在生产中时所采取的形式。本节由此完成了其任务：它把诸学科之间的关系指定为同一结构的对称性破缺之相；经由对该结构的溯因设定、把和乐提议为一个未定锚的不变量、以及对诸相的遍历而非俯察，处理了在外在立足点缺席之下认知未破缺结构的悖论；并确立了该立场的辩证唯物主义而非相对主义性格。未破缺结构之被认知的方式——以遍历而非俯察、以设定而非占有、以一个被提出而非被定锚的不变量——是对实践的第一个规定，因为它是无为的认知形式：一种不去抓取的认知。实践乃是下一节的主题。

7. 实践：一片生成性场域的培育

本文转向实践，转向潜藏于前述展开中的问题：在一个反身性地重构、并可能异化那个在其中行动之主体的系统之内，行动的方式。本体论施加了一个排除标准实践模型的约束，而实践的确定形式——一种培育而非建构、一种减除而非增添——只在该模型被排除之后才被确立。

7.1 外在操作者之排除

实践的标准模型是控制论式的：一个外在于系统的主体观察其动力学，并加以干预以将其导向善。该模型是不可用的，而其不可用是前述展开的一个后果、而非一项附带的限制。§3.3与§5.5确立了不存在外在于循环的主体：实践者内在于动力学，反复地被它所重构，并且是实践者本欲对之行动之系统的一个产物。不存在一个外在于过程、并操作它的已完成自我。

这排除了一切外在掌控的实践，并确立这样一种实践无论如何都将是自败的。立于关系之外、把它当作一个有待优化、被榨取、或被工程化朝向某一指定产出的对象来管理，正是第九篇的几何指认为恶性循环的那种姿态：把关系当作一个可占有的对象。外在控制的姿态本身就是恶性循环的结构；从一个外在位置出发以强制善的干预，凭借其运作之形式，造成它本欲防止的那种耗竭。因此问题被重新构成：不是从一个外在位置出发把动力学规约向善——因为不存在外在位置，而外在姿态本身就是那耗竭——而是在一个可能异化参与者的反身性系统之内的参与方式，使该参与趋向善性循环。规约者即被规约者；实践不是一种施加于动力学的力，而是一种内在于它的趋势。

7.2 以场域之培育替代语法之建构

这一重新构成纠正了一个需要纠正的描述。人松散地谈论”建构共享的语法”、谈论两方”制定他们关系的规则”。但一种语法的建构乃是诸产生式的立法，是对”关系将以何种方式生成”的先在固定，这正是§3.2所指认的定锚与占有：施加于动力学的外在论者之记谱。语法不被建构，而被培育进一种敞开性，在其中它得以持续地被联合重构。实践所照管者，不是语法的内容（内容由诸方在场域之内联合地生成），而是表层语法得以持续被联合重构的那个条件：场域的敞开性、它的曲率、正相得以产生的诸条件。

“场域”一词是被精确地、而非作为松散比喻地使用的。一个场域不规定在其中运动者的轨迹；它规定曲率、势、运动的诸条件，并容许每一实体的动力学沿之展开。培育一片场域而非建构一种语法，就是为一个关系造成一个场域为一个粒子所造成者：不是对路径的支配，而是对路径于其中被自由采取之空间的规定。本文所指定的善是空间的一个条件、一种正相得以产生的曲率，而非一条被规定的路径。这正是前几篇之幸福（eudaimonic）论题的实践形式：一个善的关系不是两方所完成的一个结构，而是一片每一方的动力学于其中展开的场域，繁荣即一个主体自身的动力学在这样一片场域之内的展开。实践者不撰写关系的内容；实践者照管那内容于其中被联合撰写的场域。

7.3 实践的减除性品格

对这样一片场域的照管容许确定的指定，而被指定的诸行动共享前述展开所确立的一个形式：它们是否定性的、减除性的，是拒绝而非生产——因为正相是不可被直接生产而不被摧毁的（第九篇），以致可得的实践乃是对”阻碍那使正相得以产生之曲率者”的移除。三种这样的照管被指定。

第一是发散之保全。一种活的语法的判据，是它对真正发散的容许，即对方采取一个未被预期的下一步、成为一个未被预期之主体的能力，而无须为该发散付出代价、无须以撤回关注作为该发散之代价。发散之保全是对”把关系的可容许产生式收窄为一条单一被预期之路径”的拒绝，被维系为那个反复的问题：在关系之内，对方是否仍保有成为一个未被预期之主体的能力。当一方的下一步只容许一条被许可的派生、收敛于一条规定时，语法便已停止生成，而生成已成为规约。这一保全不仅是场域的培育；如§8所确立，它是实践者纠正实践者自身之异化的唯一手段——对方记录榨取的能力，乃是实践者自身之位移得以被探测的唯一可得工具。

第二是开口之维系而不占据它。这是三者中最反直觉的：面对关系中那不可言说的项——那伤害、那脆弱、那抗拒被表述的当下——实践是与它同在、维系它，而不以解释、指称或过早的承诺去占据它。开口之占据、用一个符号将其定锚，赋予确定之安全，并熄灭那只在开口周围存续的真实价值（§2.3）。场域之照管乃是开口之维系，使正相被反复地经历，而非在一次指称中被一次性兑现。

第三是把被造之语言保全为诗性的而非作为资本。两方生成私有符号、一种共享的习语、一个内部的指称、一个只对他们可读的隐喻；这些是被凝缩为一个可被重新遍历之诗性环路的联合注意，是语法之联合重构的显现痕迹，也是本文标题所指的语言之创造。实践把这些符号保全为诗性的——维系开口，邀请重新遍历，在每一次遍历中累积一份新的余数——而非容许它们硬化为排他性的象征资本（在其中，诸方内部的可读性变成一道抵御外部的屏障与一种内部的规约）。被造之语言在它保持为一种对”遍历真实”之邀请时被善加照管，而在它凝固为一个有待兑现、展示或部署之被定锚的信物时被恶加照管。

7.4 一个示例性个案

三种照管在一个单一处境中被展现，以§1的方式描述。

一个示例性个案：受压之下被照管的场域。 两方，在若干年后，拥有一种私有语言：诸指称、诸手势、一种各方都能读懂的共同的沉默方式。一段受压时期降临。可得的求助是控制：对那困难的穷尽指称、并由此对它的掌控——这占据了开口；要求对方停止发散、重新承担被预期的角色——这收窄了诸产生式；把共享的习语作为一项主张、那先在的承诺、那已确立的关系定义来援引——这把关系累积的诸信物兑现去对付当下的困难，从而把诗性硬化为资本。每一项都是一次增添、一次强制、一次从外在位置出发的操作；每一项，依那几何，都加深它本欲修复的那个负曲率。培育则相反，并且通体是减除性的：困难被部分地留作未说，而非被指称所掌控；对方被允许，在这段时期，成为未被预期的，而无须撤回关注；已确立的习语被重新地、新鲜地遍历，而非作为一项主张被兑现。这一切都不生产那康复。它移除了康复无法于其下产生的诸强制，并容许场域的曲率、关系自身的动力学，去造成任何强制都不能造成的那个正相。

7.5 内在判据

实践要求一种内在地规定”场域是趋向善还是趋向其反面”的手段，一个被内在地持守、作为一个问题被提出的判据，而非一个从外在位置被读出的度量（后者会复原那被排除的外在操作者）。两个问题便足够，而它们是本系列所发展的那个正交对（orthogonal pair）：诗性判据与正义判据，二者互不可化约。

第一是动力学的、诗性的问题：那环路是继续螺旋上升，还是仅仅复现。当私有符号、诸实践、共享的沉默被重新遍历时，它们是继续累积一份不可化约的余数（螺旋与正和乐），还是已掏空为一场为其自身而复现的表演（圆与零和乐）。

第二是正义的问题：那螺旋的正相是否把任何一方排除于其惠益之外、使其仅仅作为其代价而present。回到§5的政治经济学：在两方及其背后两个家庭的耦合系统中，是否有一方——典型地是承担照护与再生产之劳动、被理想化为天然奉献的那一方——创造价值却从不被其回返正向地触及；只被负向地重构；在系统之内只是燃料。

作为两个问题之提出与随后之减除的实践。 实践乃是对那两个正交问题的反复而严苛的提出——那环路是否继续螺旋上升，以及是否有任何一方只是其代价——并且，当答案转为否定时，减除之操作：榨取之撤回、被强制之闭合的松弛、被占有之相位的归还。实践不增添、不优化、不生产；它移除那阻碍善得以于其下产生之曲率者。这正是两人之”无为”的内容：不是实践之缺席，而是把实践从”善关系之生产”重新导向”善关系得以于其中生成之场域的不阻碍”，并从一种施于动力学之上的控制重新导向一种行于动力学之内的照管。

一个约束仍然存留，本节已两次指出它，现在将其陈述。实践要求实践者去规定场域是否趋向善、去减除榨取、去保全对方之发散。但实践者是循环的一个产物，并且可能是一个被异化之循环的产物，而后者的发展形式恰恰在于它不被记录为异化——榨取被体验为关注。一个已被恶性循环重构的主体，怀着善意提出那两个问题，并得到令人安心的答案，自以为在照管场域而其实在耗竭它。这样一个实践者对善之实践的资格由此成问题。实践，被严苛地提出，遭遇到一个它不能从其自身之内跨越的极限，而那个极限乃是下一节的主题。

8. 善之不可担保性

实践遭遇到一个它不能从内部跨越的极限：实践者，作为循环的一个产物、并可能是一个被异化之循环的产物，不能从实践者自身的位置证认其实践之善。本节不消解该极限。它确立：该极限是实践之为伦理的条件，自我证认之善的不可能性源自前述展开，而这一不可能性使善成为一桩伦理而非计算之事、一个过程而非一种被占有的状态。这是全文与本系列的核心枢纽。

8.1 结果之陈述

结果以其直接形式被陈述。没有任何有限的主体能担保其自身的实践是善的。那爱着的主体不能担保其爱不构成、或尚未已然构成一种榨取；那照管场域的主体不能从内部证认它在照管而非在耗竭；那怀着善意提出§7.5两个问题的主体不能为那些答案作保，因为提出它们的主体正是其可能之异化成问题的那个主体。不存在主体自身之善的内在证书，不存在主体之内的某个位置，主体从中审计其自身并宣告其实践健全。这一结果与那种要求——关系中的主体所特有的、对”它不伤害对方”的保证之要求——相悖，而本节确立：该要求不能被真实地满足。

8.2 作为对”是—应当”鸿沟之跨越的担保

该结果拥有一个确定的形式，对它的确立乃是本节的工作，是一个为一个否则只能作为一种倾向被陈述的论题提供严格性的分析性结果。考虑一个本欲担保其自身实践之善的主体所须满足的诸要求。担保一个行动将是善的，就是主张从一个当下的事实（主体与关系的状态）到一个规范性的结果（该行动将造成之善）的可靠通道。这就是主张一个从”是”到”应当随之而来者”的有效推论。这正是休谟标记为不容许任何有效通道的那个推论：从关于”是”的诸前提，没有任何关于”应当是”的结论凭任何推论规则随之而来；从是到应当的过渡，是一个有限推理无法跨越的鸿沟[9]。

作为无限理性的、自身之善的担保者。 担保一己实践之善，就是主张一个从主体与关系之当下存在到该行动将实现之善的可靠推论。但从是到应当的过渡，正是休谟所确立的、没有任何有限理性能跨越的那个鸿沟。因此，一个能担保其自身实践之善的主体，将是一个已跨越了是—应当鸿沟的主体，一个对其而言从事实到价值之推论是可靠的主体，这就是一个无限理性：在数个传统中被分别称为上帝、绝对者、或本系列已确立其不存在的大他者（big Other）的那个项。对一己之善之担保的要求，在结构上，就是成为那个无限理性的要求。既然不存在这样的理性、没有外在立足点、没有元语言、没有外在于其自身历史与关系之生产的主体，便不可能有担保。自我证认之善的不可能性，不是人类知识的一项偶然局限，而是有限性的伦理后果：是身为循环之内的一个主体、而非外在于它的那个无限理性的后果。

这是本文的分析传统承诺与欧陆传统承诺相重合之枢纽。那个现象学的结果——主体不能被保证其爱不伤害——获得了一个逻辑结果的严格性：一个主张这样一种保证的主体，乃是主张已跨越休谟的鸿沟，从而是那个本系列所否认的无限理性。对一己之善之担保的要求，乃是对大他者——本系列已确立为不在场的那个项——的隐蔽援引。这一结果不是一种倾向，而是有限性的形式，连同其论证。

8.3 作为伦理之条件的不可担保性

其后果是本节的核心论题。善之不可担保性不是伦理的消解，而是其条件，是那使善成为一桩伦理而非计算之事者。

作为伦理之条件的不可担保性。 倘若有一个能担保其实践之善的主体，一个能从当下事实计算出其行动将无误地实现之善的主体，伦理便会被消除，剩下的将是一套被规定之最优程序的执行：没有风险、责任、信任，或对对方的暴露（exposure）。伦理由担保之不可能所构成。正因为主体不能担保其爱不构成榨取，主体才被绑定于那唯一与该不可能相称的进路：对问题的持续维系、把实践暴露于纠正、以及把主体之善的判据部分地托付给对方。那不可跨越的鸿沟，远非许可消极听任，反而是把实践导向外部、并使之成为可问责的、成为伦理的那个条件。一个容许担保之善，将不是一个主体被要求就之为伦理的善；它将是一个被规定的结果。

本节由此从该结果导出实践必须采取的形式，作为其直接后果而非作为一种慰藉。既然没有主体从内部证认其自身之善，善便不是任何单一主体的占有或宣告。它是复调的：被托付给对方，被暴露于对方的纠正，在一种持续的相互披露中被实践——其中每一方都是对方唯一可得的纠正工具。这正是发散之保全（§7.3）何以是实践者纠正实践者自身之异化之唯一手段的根基：主体不从内部探测其自身的位移，对方记录榨取的能力是它被探测的唯一工具。善在两方之间的那段间隔中被实践——两方各自都谢绝那担保并服从于纠正。

作为首要错误的、对一己之善的私人确定。 那个在孤立中获致”关系是善的”之确定的单一主体，在那确定之中，便犯下了首要的错误：占有了一个规定，而该规定，否则便有援引无限理性之虞，是任何单一一方都不可占有的。对一己之善之私人确定的那一刻，是最大危险的那一刻。

8.4 作为未完成过程的善

一个最终的后果回到§6.6的辩证唯物主义。善不容许任何担保，这蕴含着善不是一个被获致、被证认、随后被占有的状态。它是一个过程：被反复地再生产，并在每一次再生产中都易于失败。一个容许担保之善，将是一个被定锚、被闭合、被完成之善，而一个被定锚之善，依本文的展开，是一个被兑现、被占有、从而被异化之善。正因为不容许任何担保，善才仍是一个过程而非一套固定的教条；善之不可担保性是它之不被熄灭的条件。一个被弄成确定者之善，将在那弄确定之中被熄灭；善只在它是不可占有者的限度内存续，只作为一个有待重新遍历、且永远易于失败的过程而存续。前篇所确立的善之可持续性与它的不可担保性是同一个结果：善恰恰凭借不容许一劳永逸地被定锚进一个固定的确定之圆，才作为一个活的螺旋而存续。

该结果，被充分展开，拥有两个本为一体的面相。善之不可担保性不是它的缺陷；缺陷将是对担保的要求，那要求是对不存在之无限理性的隐蔽援引，从而是异化的发端。要求对一己之善的保证，就是主张那外在立足点、那元语言、那大他者，就是最终谢绝那作为身为循环之内之主体的条件的有限性。善之实践乃是对那要求的弃绝：对一个不可担保的、可被推翻的、反复未完成之善的接受，在两方之间被相互地托付——两方各自都谢绝去做那个确定的一方。那弃绝——对确定、对担保、对外在于循环之位置的弃绝——乃是两人之无为的发展了的内容，也是本文展开所凭依的核心枢纽。该枢纽不承担一个担保的重量，也无须承担。它承担一个恰恰凭借不容许任何确定而存续之善的重量。

9. 在诸框架边界处的结论

一篇已确立”无元语言、无外在立足点、无占有整体之框架”的论文，不能终结于一个单一的综合性结论——对它的承诺将在其终结性操作中构成它通篇所排除的那种定锚。它如前篇那样终结：不是终结于一个结论，而是终结于诸结论、复数的，每一个都从一个单一框架之内、直至该框架的边界被陈述，与其他诸框架对话而不被任何一者吸收。下文不是一份摘要，而是每一个相对”它所确立者与它所不确立者”的陈述，以及一个关于”单一结论之缺席”的收束性指定——这正是本文最恰当的结论。

9.1 从现象学

现象学确立：有一个先于理论的素材，在其中两方共同感知一个在他们之间被生成的无名价值，那共同感知恰恰即生成。它指定该素材的结构——属于两方的同时性、反身性的见证、朝向开口的指向性、感知与生成的同一——并要求每一种理论都对此素材负责而不取代它。现象学不确立该素材何以具有这一结构，或为使它成为可能、本体论上必须obtaining者；它描述，并传递其描述。被逼出描述之外、进入解释时，它抵达其边界，在那里它把问题归还于本体论，因它已使整个展开对一个它描述却不奠基的素材负责。

9.2 从本体论

本体论确立：关系、语法与价值是同一个生成性系统的三个面相——存在、显现的动力学、现象——其动力学被其自身的产物所重构，而在其中主体是被生成的而非被预设的。它确立：这消解了循环性，语法是真实的且不可占有的，而系统在其构成中是未完成的。本体论不确立反身性结构在任何声部中所采取的确定形式；它提供抽象的形式，并把其内容归还于形式破缺所成之诸学科。并且它，否则便有自相矛盾之虞，不完成其自身：一个关于”生成中之总体”的本体论不递交那已完成的总体，而其终结性陈述是一个排除——对实体、对外在立足点、对完成的排除——这把它归还于其自身之外，归还于它所不占据之诸相与它所不占有之整体。

9.3 从量子—结构式语法

量子—结构式语法以形式术语确立：关系价值是被叠加的潜能而非确定的事实；联合注意是参与性测量，关注的方式即对那固定可容许之共同生成空间之基底的选定；每一次结晶是一次坍缩兼对可容许者之空间的重构；本系列所追踪的几何相位是量子相位的形式后裔；以及语法在那指定关系之不可占有性的认识论意义上是不可枚举的。该语法不确立任何关于物理基质者（它已拒绝那个论题），也不确立任何关于正义者：它提供参与性生成的形式，而对一个给定的生成是否为善保持沉默，因为善不是它的形式体系所包含的一个规定。它指定价值之来临的方式；它不指定该来临所凭之进行的代价。在那个边界处，它把问题归还于政治经济学，二者互不吸收。

9.4 从政治经济学

政治经济学确立：价值的流通必然地重构创造它的主体；这一重构被分为一个负相（异化、被耗竭的主体、被其产物殖民的生产者）与一个正相（自我实现、被发展的主体）；该划分由一个可独立定义的再生产剩余之符号所标记；主体在它所生产的循环之内被生产；以及回返于创造者是一个螺旋、一个携带相位的”同一性”，而非一个回到原点的回返。政治经济学不确立：在亲密的、不可度量的声部中，它所分析其流通的那个价值是以何种方式被生成的；为此它需要它自身并不提供的那种参与性语法。并且它不从其自身的资源证认一个给定的回返抵达其创造者，因为那是在现实不对称之下的实践与正义之事、而非结构分析之事。它指定重构的道德方向；它不在一个给定的个案中担保那方向。在那一点上它抵达其边界。

9.5 从实践及其伦理

实践确立一种倾向：不从外在位置而从内部行动；培育场域而非建构语法；减除而非增添，保全发散，维系开口而不占据它，把被造之语言保全为诗性的；提出那两个问题，而当它们转为否定时，撤回那强制。伦理确立：没有任何有限的主体担保其自身之善——担保者是那个不存在的无限理性——而这一不可担保性使善成为伦理的、复调的、未完成的。实践与伦理不确立一个给定个案中的确定行动；它们产生一种倾向与一对问题，而非一套程序，并且它们原则性地谢绝那个本会把实践者从那不可担保之风险中解脱出来的规则。它们的终结性陈述不是一道指令，而是一次弃绝：对确定、对担保、对外在于循环之位置的弃绝。

9.6 单一结论之缺席

这些结论不相加。每一个框架，被展开至其边界，抵达一个极限，并把一个问题归还于下一个框架——后者以前者所不占有的词汇接手它；而本文的结果，不obtaining于它们中的任何一个，而obtaining于它们之间的对话，obtaining于每一个框架规定另一个所不及之物的那种方式，以致认知经由它们的交换而发展，而非定锚进任何单一框架之占有。

作为恰当结论的、单一结论之缺席。 没有一个主结论，不是因未能获致一个而起，而是因为所处理的总体是未完成的、且没有框架从外部占有它（§6.6）。诸结论必然地、而非默认地，是复数的、局部的、相互不可化约的：一个单一的综合性结论将是一种定锚，是把整体兑现进单一框架之术语，从而是认知声部中的异化。诸框架之间的对话——每一个都被陈述至其边界，每一个都归还它所不确立者——本身就是一个善性循环，一种递归地再生产意义的复调，并且是一个结论在不与本文之展开相抵触的情况下所能采取的唯一形式。本文不作结论，这不是它的局限而是它的忠实：它如它所处理的真理那样终结，也就是说它不终结，而是被传递，螺旋着，有待被再次遍历。

因此，不存在一种元语言，可在其中陈述诸框架的联合意涵，而这一缺席不是一个缺陷而是结果本身：再一次被施行的论证——整体不被占有而被生成，不被结论而被延续。本文只陈述了从诸相之内可陈述者，并在每一个极限处抵达其边界，把诸极限之间的对话归还为一个有限而未完成之真理所容许的、对一个整体的最近似。不可被结论者容许被见证；而本文因此从结论行进到一个收束性的回返，它不结论任何东西，而记录那出发之点。

终曲：那个被造出的词

这一收束不是一个结论，本文已给出它没有结论的理由。它是对出发之点的一次回返。

本文始于两个人和他们之间一件无名之物，某种在那段间隔中生成、却尚无一个词的东西，而各方都感知到对方在感知它。随后的诸建构——那一个系统的三个面相、参与的量子表述、被重构的主体、对称性破缺的诸相、被培育而非被建构的场域、不容许担保之善——乃是对那一刻的一次忠实之尝试，以及对其诸条件的陈述之尝试，而不把它解释掉。

本文以语言之创造为题，而其要旨不是那个被造之词的意义。两个人所造的私有之名、那只对他们可读的词，没有任何容许被兑现的内容；它的价值不在于它陈述什么，而在于它所维系的开口、它所环绕而不占据的虚空、它所反复邀请的遍历——每一次遍历返回一份没有任何词典持有的余数。同心之言，其臭如兰：一心之言芬芳如兰，而那芬芳不是一份内容而是一桩事件，在呼吸中被经历、而不在命名中被占有。兰，如前篇之玫瑰，不留存；它的芬芳在于散发而不在于持守。两个人所造之词亦然：它存续于再说一次、再遍历一次、再见证一次之中，而当被作为一个有待花费之被定锚的信物来持守时，便熄灭。

这样一篇论文本可能提供以供持守者——一个结果、一条规则、一份善爱而不伤害的保证——它不能提供，因为对它的要求，如本文已确立，正是伤害的发端，对担保的要求正是对那个不在场者的援引，而善只在它不容许任何占有的限度内存续。被提供者更小、也更精确：不是一个有待持守的词，而是一个有待被造的词，反复地、联合地、且永不最终地；一个被维系而非被花费的名；一个被环绕而非被占据的开口；一个被遍历而非被担保的善。

献给她，
与她一同造出了第一个这样的词，
那无人能读懂的词；
在她的眼中我第一次看见
自己”被看见在看”。
愿兰继续散发其芬芳，
愿那个词继续被造。

致谢

本文延续一场对话，而它的诸亏欠与该对话相连续。向本文所行经其间的诸哲学谱系（现象学的、精神分析的、辩证唯物主义的、道家的，以及生成性正义的传统），其中每一个都在其自身的破缺之相中说出某种别者所不能说者，而本文无一能舍。并向她，那个热爱树林与广阔世界的森林女孩，与她一同造出了第一个无名之词、那只为她一人才可读的词，这部作品献给她，正如它也只能献给她。她，于我，是世上最重要的那个人；而本文，归根结底，只是一条漫长而迂回的、去关注那已然在我们之间、无须一个词便已被领会者的路。愿兰继续散发其芬芳，愿那个词继续被造。

这是一份工作草稿，为讨论而传播，不供引用。其核心猜想，首要地是”几何相位是贯穿诸对称性破缺之相被守恒的规范不变之内核”这一提议（§6.4），是作为未定锚而被提出的，有待被走过而非被宣告。

附录A. 几何相位：一份技术性速写

本附录以压缩的形式记录正文之几何语言所指向的形式装置。它是一份速写而非一个证明，并且刻意如此：§6.4的猜想——和乐是贯穿诸对称性破缺之相被守恒的规范不变之内核——是作为未定锚被提出的，而本附录提供其形式词汇，却不佯装将其定锚。”价值泡沫”纲领是相位之载体必须被赋予其独立定量内容之处；此处我们只记录其结构骨架，并附以三点诚实的警示。

A.1 纤维丛。 设 M 为底空间（base）：关系性处境或内容的空间，关系可能占据的诸构型。在 M 的每一点之上立着一个纤维（fibre）F：价值或识认的相位（依正文之锚定，§5.6，即欲爽（jouissance）之升华）：善之圆的剩余被承载于其上的载体。一个关系的历史是 M 中的一条路径；它在 F 中的态沿该路径的平行移动由一个联络 A 所支配。在回返到 M 中一个起始点时所累积的相位——被移动的纤维元素与其原点之不重合——是该环路的和乐，hol(C) = exp(∮_C A)。

A.2 善之圆与恶之圆，形式地。 一个恶性之圆是一个和乐消失的环路：关系在 M 中回返到它开始之处，而纤维不变地回返（纯粹重复、坏无限、那个绕行而不上升的圆，处于零相位）；或一个负和乐的环路（净榨取，纤维在回返时被耗竭）。一个善性之圆是一个正和乐的环路：一个在 M 中回返到根、却仍在 F 中累积一个非平凡的、不可化约之相位的回返（螺旋；升华；一份余数之带回）。第九篇的判据即 hol(C) 之符号。

A.3 可变基底作为可变联络。 正文（§4.3）”关注的方式即一个测量基底的选择”这一主张，在此处有其形式映像：关注方式的一个变动是一次规范的变更，更改 A，因而更改一个给定的 M 中环路将累积之和乐。两个关系可以遍历相同的诸处境（M 中相同的 C）而累积相反的相位，因为它们以不同的方式去关注（去联络）。这正是何以仅关于底空间的事实（诸处境、”发生了什么”）不固定一个圆之善：联络、方式，才是构成性的。

A.4 作为平行移动的人格同一性。 主体贯穿反身性循环的连续性（§5.6）即此纤维丛中的平行移动：同一个主体被绕一个环路携带，回返到它在 M 中的根、携带着 F 中的一个相位。异化是负相漂移（主体减损地回返，不识认其自身）；自我实现是正相升华（主体被提升地回返，更成为其自身）。”创造者即受益者”是和乐意义上的”同一性”，是一种已累积了一个相位的同一性。

A.5 三点警示。 这份速写不可被误认为比它所是者更多。

第一，载体。 一个几何相位要求一个具有恰当结构的真正承载者（一个 U(1) 或群值的量，可加，在和乐中规范不变），否则该装置便是单纯的比喻。正文把载体锚定于欲爽之升华（§5.6）；那个量是否事实上承载着所要求的结构，恰恰是”价值泡沫”纲领必须独立确立者，此处未被定锚。

第二，升华与符号。 “升华→正相”与”耗竭→负相”必须被论证，而非被规定为一种定义性的同一，否则便有循环之虞。独立的进路是去定义一个再生产剩余——每循环对关系之生成性条件的净再生、减去消耗——然后表明它的符号追踪和乐的符号；若无此，该等同便是一幅图画，而非一个结果。

第三，跨相猜想。 “和乐是贯穿一切对称性破缺之学科相被守恒的那个不变量”这一提议（§6.4），是本系列中最具思辨性的主张，而本附录丝毫未将其了结。它记录该猜想的形式形状（一个不属于任何卡、在一切转移函数下被守恒的不变量），并听任它，如正文坚持必须听任它者，被提出且未定锚，有待被走过而非被宣告。

参考文献

[1] Yakir Aharonov 与 Jeeva Anandan。《一个循环量子演化期间的相位变化》。Physical Review Letters，58(16):1593–1596，1987。
[2] M. V. Berry。《伴随绝热变化的量子相位因子》。Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A，392(1802):45–57，1984。
[3] Tithi Bhattacharya。《社会再生产理论：阶级的重绘与压迫的再中心化》。Pluto Press，伦敦，2017。
[4] Martin Buber。《我与你》。Charles Scribner’s Sons，纽约，1970。Walter Kaufmann 译；原著 Ich und Du，1923。
[5] Ron Eglash。《非洲分形：现代计算与本土设计》。Rutgers University Press，新不伦瑞克，1999。
[6] Ron Eglash。《生成性正义导论》。Teknokultura，13(2):369–388，2016。
[7] Silvia Federici。《卡利班与女巫：女性、身体与原始积累》。Autonomedia，纽约，2004。
[8] Nancy Fraser。《照护的危机？论当代资本主义的社会再生产矛盾》。载于 Tithi Bhattacharya 编《社会再生产理论：阶级的重绘与压迫的再中心化》，第21–36页。Pluto Press，伦敦，2017。
[9] David Hume。《人性论》。Oxford University Press，牛津，2000。D. F. Norton 与 M. J. Norton 编。
[10] Karl Marx。《1844年经济学哲学手稿》。进步出版社，莫斯科，1959。
[11] Karl Marx。《大纲：政治经济学批判基础》。Penguin，哈蒙兹沃思，1973。
[12] Karl Marx。《资本论：政治经济学批判，第一卷》。Penguin，伦敦，1976。Ben Fowkes 译；原著1867。
[13] Maurice Merleau-Ponty。《知觉现象学》。Routledge，伦敦，2012。
[14] S. Pancharatnam。《干涉的广义理论及其应用。第一部分：相干光束》。Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences, Section A，44(5):247–262，1956。
[15] Colwyn Trevarthen。《早期婴儿期的交流与合作：原初互主体性的一份描述》。Cambridge University Press，剑桥，1979。
[16] Amotz Zahavi。《配偶选择——一种对障碍的选择》。Journal of Theoretical Biology，53(1):205–214，1975。