【(Preliminary)Perspective】The Emergence of Norms in Generative Relational Being - A Preliminary Discussion

Posted on 2026-07-14 In Philosophy of Intimacy and the Theory of Justice Views: Disqus: Word count in article: 23k Reading time ≈ 1:22

ENGLISH

The Emergence of Norms in Generative Relational Being

A Preliminary Discussion

Wanhong Huang (huangwanhong@serendip.ngo)

Abstract

A norm differs from a regularity in that people hold one another to it. Where this holding comes from, and whether it can be justified, are treated by two separate literatures: one models the emergence of norms and is silent on justification, the other argues justification and treats emergence as irrelevant. The naturalist takes the division to favour him, arguing that a complete account of emergence renders justification a residue. Normative philosophy answers by invoking the is-ought gap, and thereby concedes the point it means to deny.

This paper argues the reverse. A sanction cannot be distinguished from an aggression by any description of the sanctioner’s behaviour, the difference being a fact about the configuration in which the act stands. Normative vocabulary therefore appears in the explanans of any emergence mechanism, and a correct account of emergence requires normative philosophy in place of eliminating it.

The paper develops a positional account of normative emergence within the Generative Relational Being framework. Composition of relations generates loci occupied by no participant, and bindingness is borne at such a locus and by no relatum. The dyad is accordingly pre-normative. Power is asymmetry, of which interpretive asymmetry is the kind whose monopolization forecloses correction of the others. Generativity is the condition under which valuing occurs and is not itself a value, so the demand to justify it is malformed, and five conditions of normative generation are stated as conditions and not as evaluative criteria. Non-exploitation is derived in place of being imported: a configuration providing no locus at which a participant’s excess can register has foreclosed the source of its own further generation, so that the distinction between generation and extraction becomes internal to the mechanism.

As a preliminary discussion paper, its aim is to establish the mechanism and to name what the framework must next supply: a composition rule, an account of scale, and an epistemic criterion by which a configuration might determine from within whether it generates or extracts.

Keywords: normative emergence; relational structure; generative justice; power; historical materialism; scale.

A note on the standing of this paper. The argument has a load-bearing beam, and it should be identified before the reader begins. Everything rests on the claim that what distinguishes generation from extraction, and sanction from aggression, is visible in the structure of a relational configuration, and is imposed upon it from no evaluative standpoint. Should a critic show that these can be told apart only by someone who already holds a view about who deserves what, the criterion is external, the account has licensed nothing, and the normative content of the paper is intuition with formal ornament. We hold the claim defensible. We hold it far from obvious, and §4 is where it is defended.

The paper poses a problem of scale it leaves unsolved, names an operation it cannot define, and bites a bullet in Part VI. These are reported, and none is buried. Correspondence, and objection above all, is welcome at huangwanhong@serendip.ngo.

Statement on the use of artificial intelligence. The arguments of this paper were developed in extended dialogue with artificial intelligence systems (OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude). The dialogue shaped the substance of the arguments and did not confine itself to matters of drafting or of language. Several of the paper’s central claims arose within it, and several were corrected within it, in both directions.

The author is the sole author, and takes full responsibility for every claim made here, for every argument advanced in support of a claim, and for every error that remains.

The disclosure is made in the ordinary interest of transparency, and it carries a further significance that the paper’s own commitments require us to state. This paper holds that concepts are determinations of relational configurations, generated at positions, bearing the marks of their generation, and revisable in the historical process that produced them. A theory so committed can hardly treat the provenance of its own concepts as a matter to be passed over. The concepts advanced here were generated in a particular configuration, at a particular moment, by participants of more than one kind. That is a fact about them, and the account offered in these pages predicts that it should be. We report it, in place of concealing it, because concealment would be the first refutation of what we argue.

Part I. The Two Questions

§1 Necessity and Emergence

The necessity question asks whether normative philosophy is eliminable. The naturalist holds that it is. Once we possess a sufficiently good account of how norms arise, spread, and stabilize, the further question of their justification begins to look like a residue of a superseded vocabulary. Supply the evolutionary game theory and the models of cultural transmission, and normative philosophy becomes a description of what people happen to endorse.

The emergence question asks where norms come from. Here the literature is strong and it is almost entirely descriptive: conditional preferences supported by empirical and normative expectations (Bicchieri 2006); equilibrium selection in signalling games (Skyrms 1996); conformist transmission and group selection (Boyd and Richerson 1985); strong reciprocity and the punishment of defectors (Bowles and Gintis 2011). None of these accounts is obliged to say anything about justification, and mostly they do not.

The customary philosophical response declares independence. Emergence is genetic, justification is logical, and the gap between them protects normative philosophy from any finding about the former.

The response is too cheap, and it concedes the war to win the battle. It grants that a complete account of emergence would leave normative philosophy without work, and it merely observes that no such account is in hand. This paper holds the concession to be unnecessary and false.

The thesis. A correct account of the emergence of norms requires normative philosophy, and eliminates it in no degree. The emergence mechanism admits of no specification in which normative vocabulary is absent from the explanans. The reduction therefore fails from within, and it stands in need of no gap asserted from without.

§2 Ownership and Its Presupposition

An intermediate position has brought the two literatures nearer, and it does so by asking a question neither had asked: to whom does the norm belong?

Theories of generative justice hold that value is produced by the activity of those who labour, that justice consists in its returning to them, and that extraction, the movement of value away from the relations that produced it, constitutes a category of injustice, and a deviation from a mechanism in no sense (Eglash 2016). Applied to ethical value, the norm belongs to those whose practice generated it.

Accounts organized around authorship hold that a norm one can recognize as one’s own has a standing that a norm merely complied with does not, and that ethical standing depends on this authorship relation (Mazouz 2019). That the move is from ownership to authorship is a tell worth pausing on: ownership is a relation to a thing, authorship is a relation to a meaning, and meaning is not material.

Both are advances and this paper criticizes neither. Both are nonetheless distributive theses about a good whose existence they presuppose. They take the norm as a thing already generated, and ask where it goes, who owns it, whether it has been alienated, whether it can be returned. The prior question goes unasked: what kind of thing a norm is, such that ownership, extraction, or return should apply to it at all.

That question is this paper’s.

Part II. The Form of the Inquiry

§3 No Ontology Is Asserted

The account makes no claim about what exists. It withholds, in particular, the claim that relations are prior to entities, and none of its arguments requires that claim.

It specifies its object structurally, in the discipline of a group specification. Whatever the relata may be, the theory concerns their composition, and the question “what is a person, really?” fails to arise within it. The analogy is precise: group theory neither denies nor affirms that group elements have intrinsic natures. A group is specified up to isomorphism, and the non-arising of the substance question is a feature of structural specification, and it counts as no defect.

Structural specification. The account quantifies over relations and their composition, and over the identity of the relata not at all. Its results are independent of that identity. To the realist who holds persons primary, the account says: very well. To the constructivist who holds that relations constitute persons: very well. To the network theorist with only nodes and edges: very well. The framework applies throughout.

The relational vocabulary was earlier motivated by an appeal to theoretical physics, and the appeal licensed less than was taken from it. It licensed one methodological lesson: that a determinate structure can emerge from composition alone, and that a theory may leave unsaid what its structure is a structure of. It licensed no conclusion whatever about what exists.

§4 The Insufficiency of Neutrality

Methodological neutrality is a virtue in a theory that explains and a disqualification in one that judges. The distinction must be respected, on pain of the paper’s normative content being worthless.

The difficulty is exact. Suppose the relational description is chosen for being the most informative basis for explaining social phenomena. Then when the account says that extraction is visible in the structure of a configuration, a critic replies: visible in the description you selected for its explanatory convenience, and you have conceded the selection to be optional, so what you have shown is a property of your representation.

The reply admits of no answer on those terms, and a second claim is therefore required, resting on a different justification.

The question of value admits no formulation outside relational structure.

The ground is the failure of the alternatives, and it is emphatically not that structure exhausts reality, which is the ontological claim we have declined. No alternative standpoint has ever been produced.

Utilitarianism requires a welfare metric standing over the relations, and cannot say where it stands. Kantianism requires a legislating standpoint, and cannot say who occupies it. Contractarianism requires a pre-relational agent capable of consent, and cannot produce one.

Each fails for the same reason, and naming that reason is this paper’s contribution. The relational description is what remains when the standpoints supposed to be available prove unavailable. Informativeness plays no part in its selection.

What the paper is thereby entitled to claim falls short of a discovery of what goodness is. It claims that we have found the only place in which the question can be asked, that the answer given there is demanding, and that its rivals presuppose a standpoint nobody has produced.

Part III. The Mechanism

§5 Composition Generates Positions

Position. A structural locus generated by the composition of relations, occupied by none of the relata that compose it. What is borne at a position, bindingness, authority, value, identity, is borne by no relatum.

The claim is general and it is the paper’s economy. Norms, power, identity, and institutions are four consequences of one mechanism, and they constitute four theories only in appearance. This explains a pattern that would otherwise be coincidence: power is no possession, a norm is no property, trust is no attitude, value is no substance. None is a property of a bearer, each being a property of a position.

§6 The Dyad Is Pre-Normative

A configuration of two relata and one relation lacks the resources to distinguish sanction from aggression. It contains A’s stance toward B and B’s toward A, and nothing further. Characterizing the act requires a locus from which the characterization may issue, and the dyad supplies only its two poles, each of which is a party. Prediction, roughly falsifiable: purely dyadic configurations generate no norms. They generate habit, dependence, rivalry, and force.

Every institution that produces bindingness contains a third term: the witness, the oath, the tribunal, the symbolic order. This has been observed from several directions, in the triadic structure of the sign (Peirce 1931), in the taking of the attitude of the other (Mead 1934), in the keeping of deontic score (Brandom 1994), and in the legal-anthropological literature on the third party, and its necessity has gone unexplained. The explanation offered here identifies the third term as what composition generates, and holds that in its absence nothing remains from which an act might be characterized.

§7 A Causal Route, Not a Viewpoint

An objection arises here and would be fatal should it hold. To be seen as doing something is already to be characterized; characterization is subsumption under a category; categories are symbolic; the third position therefore requires language, normative structure begins with language, and the account is idealist.

The reply turns on what the third position does at minimum. It differentiates before it classifies. The act acquires a second aspect, how it stands from a locus that is neither party, and this aspect obtains prior to the application of any category. Differentiation of that kind requires only that the act have consequences running through the third.

The reply is partial. It establishes that a locus can exist and be causally live in the absence of language, and it leaves open whether a locus so occupied supports full bindingness, or only the weaker structure of an act being costly by a route the agent does not control.

The third position is a causal route, not a viewpoint. If A relates to B and B to C, then A’s act upon B has consequences that reach A by way of C. The route is the position. It is a structural fact about the configuration, obtaining whether or not any participant can say so, and it is what composition generates.

Occupancy admits of strata, distinguished by the durability of the characterization each supports.

Stratum	Mode of occupancy	What it supports
Composition	(none)	The route exists. Structural, pre-symbolic.
Witness	Episodic	Characterization holds while the third is present, and lapses in its absence.
Speech	Persistent	Characterization is deposited: it survives absence, and can be transmitted, recalled, invoked.
Institution, writing	Trans-generational	Characterization survives death.
Reinterpretation	Re-opening	The route is restored where it had been closed to an occupant.

The symbolic order is a witness that need not be present. Language adds persistence to a position composition has already produced, and it adds the position not at all. Normative structure originates in causal architecture and is rendered durable by speech, and the account is on that ground a materialism.

A concession, stated and not hidden. The pre-symbolic stratum secures that positions exist and are occupiable in the absence of language. It leaves unsecured that pre-symbolic occupancy produces full bindingness. The ought, as distinct from the merely costly, may arrive only with the durable third. Should that be so, the position weakens to this: proto-normative structure is pre-symbolic, and normative structure proper requires the durable third. The account remains a materialism under that weakening, since the durable third is explained where it might have been presupposed.

§8 Occupancy Constitutes the Occupant

The occupant is constituted in the occupying, and exists in no way antecedent to it. Position and subject come into being in one act: the inhabiting of the locus and the constitution of the inhabitant are simultaneous. To separate them reinstates the very assumption that the distributive theories of Part I were shown to make, namely a subject who exists first and interprets afterwards.

Two consequences follow immediately.

First, the naturalist reduction fails. Normative expectations resist reduction to behavioural dispositions to sanction, since a sanction described behaviourally is indistinguishable from an aggression. What makes an act a sanction is a fact about the configuration in which it stands, namely that the configuration’s third locus is inhabited. Sanction and aggression differ neither in force nor in structure. They differ in whether the structure is inhabited.

The naturalist has a reply and it must be met, since a reader will supply it immediately. Enlarge the description: add the third party’s behaviour to the model, and the distinction between sanction and aggression becomes a distinction between acts followed by third-party behaviour of one kind and acts followed by third-party behaviour of another. The description remains purely behavioural, and the reduction is saved.

The reply relocates the difficulty and leaves it standing. Whatever the third party does can itself be described as a sanction or as an aggression, and the description of the third’s behaviour supplies no more resources for settling the question than the description of the first’s. The naturalist may enlarge the description again, and each enlargement reproduces at the new level the question it was introduced to answer. The regress terminates only where something other than behaviour is admitted: the locus is inhabited, and inhabiting is a relation to a structure rather than a further act. The reduction fails at every level, and it fails for one reason.

Second, the diagnosis extends. The naturalist seeks bindingness among the properties of the sanctioner and finds none. The distributive theorist takes the norm as a thing that may be owned, extracted, or returned, and thereby treats it as separable from the relations that bear it. Each locates in a relatum what exists only at a position.

The two cases differ in an important respect, and the difference should be marked. The naturalist advances a reduction, and the reduction fails. The distributive theorist advances a thesis about circulation, and that thesis is correct within its scope. What the present account supplies is the prior question its correctness presupposes. The necessity of normative philosophy is thereby established by the emergence literature, in place of being asserted against it.

§9 The Source of Motion

A structure stands still. Composition generates positions and occupancy constitutes subjects, and nothing in either accounts for a configuration ever changing. A theory of generative relations that cannot name what drives generation is a taxonomy.

The available drivers fail. Material scarcity explains disruption and leaves generation dark; a configuration under pressure may as easily ossify or collapse, and people generate abundantly under conditions of plenty. Contradiction explains destabilization and leaves generation dark: it accounts for the breaking of an order and for the making of nothing. Preference is exogenous, and it was surrendered along with the assumption of the pre-given subject.

The source of motion is the non-coincidence of subject and position.

A position is generated by composition. A subject is constituted in occupancy. These are two operations and they fail to coincide. The subject produced at a position departs from the subject the position specifies, and the residue acts back on the configuration.

Generation is driven by the structural impossibility of a subject being fully what its position makes it, and it is driven by need, interest, and contradiction in no degree.

This is the theory’s internal engine, and it imports no external driver. Positions constitute subjects; subjects exceed positions; the excess acts; composition absorbs it; new positions appear. The loop closes in the absence of any outside, and the account has required exactly that throughout.

It converts a theory of repetition into a theory of history. Pure absence yields circling: the subject returns to the same failure. The second step converts movement into creation, composition absorbing the excess and producing new positions, which are new loci from which to want. Absence ignites; composition generates.

The non-coincidence runs on both sides

Occupancy constitutes the subject, and the subject nevertheless acts against the position that made it. The source of this capacity requires accounting.

The position is non-coincident with itself. It departs from what it presents itself as being. The interpretive locus lacks the answer and lacks completeness, and its completeness is a claim it makes, and a property it has in no degree.

Counter-power begins in the exposure of the order’s incompleteness. It begins in no assertion of prior freedom by the subject, there being none to assert.

Domination therefore fears exposure more than disobedience. A disobedient subject can be punished, and the punishment reconfirms the order’s authority to characterize. An order shown to lack the answer has lost the locus from which punishment could be characterized as punishment at all.

§10 The Psychoanalytic Layer and Its Warrant

One phenomenon in the mechanism escapes the governance, economic, and inferentialist literatures alike, and the account requires it: the sustaining, by participants, of the very relations that damage them. Rational choice cannot answer, since preferences are given and self-harming given preferences are simply irrational. Generative justice cannot answer, since it must assume the extracted party experiences extraction as a wrong, and many defend the arrangement that consumes them. Inferentialism cannot answer, since a scorekeeper without investment has no account of attachment.

Psychoanalysis has a worked account of attachment to the position that constitutes one, the destructive position included, and it is cited for that and for nothing else. It serves as no foundation. It stands downstream, theorizing the fate of a subject who enters a symbolic order already there, where the present account takes up the generation, by relational configurations, of the positions that become occupiable. The apparatus is used as the best available account of a phenomenon this account’s own commitments require it to explain; should a better account appear, it is adopted. The move is principled. A theory holding that all normative structure is historically generated and revisable may not exempt its own resources from that condition.

The technical treatment is given in a companion paper. What is required here is the mapping, and it is given in summary.

Source	Counterpart here	Status
The Other	The third position (§5)	Derived. It is posited there; here it is what composition produces.
The imaginary	The dyad	Derived. Same result by an independent route: absent a third locus, rivalry and force follow.
The paternal function	The mechanism instituting the third position	Derived. A mechanism here where the source has a myth.
Alienation	Alienation of interpretation	Derived, and rendered political where the source made it ontological.
Separation	Counter-power; the order’s incompleteness (§9)	Derived.
Manque	The non-coincidence (§9)	Derived, and broken with. A symptom there; a source here.
Desire	The residue’s action on the configuration	Translated, vocabulary refused.
Jouissance	Attachment to the position that damages	Translated, and indispensable: nothing else performs this work.
The Real	(refused)	Refused. It reintroduces an exterior. Its phenomena admit a better explanation as structural exclusion: positions rendered unoccupiable through the monopolization, destruction, or non-formation of the interpretive locus. The unsayable is produced, and it is given in no respect. It must never be mapped onto novelty: the Real names what cannot be composed, and novelty here is what is composed.
Object-cause of desire	(dissolved)	Dissolved. It is the residue of an operation, hypostatized by a theory with nowhere to put it.
Four discourses	(structure only)	Structure derived, algebra refused.

The refusals are load-bearing. A mapping in which everything mapped would have established nothing. The value of the derivations depends entirely on the existence of what resists translation.

§11 The Material Layer

A theory in which everything is a position in a relational structure has no way to say that a starving person is starving. Material need, mortality, and pain obtain whatever any symbolic order makes of them. They occupy no position, and composition generates them not at all.

The material layer is retained as a layer. This is what keeps the account a materialism, in place of a structuralism carrying political vocabulary, and it is the check on the entire apparatus.

Part IV. Power

§12 Power Is Asymmetry

Power is asymmetry in a relational configuration, and asymmetries come in kinds: material (control of resources), structural (brokerage, position in the network), and interpretive (occupancy of the locus from which acts are characterized). Interpretive asymmetry is one kind among these, and it supplies no definition of power as such.

It differs in one respect, and the difference is the claim.

Interpretive asymmetry is the asymmetry whose monopolization forecloses the correction of all the others. Monopolize the locus from which acts are characterized, and resistance is characterized as deviance, grievance as ingratitude, counter-power as sedition. The interpretive position is where the other asymmetries are adjudicated.

§13 The Conversion Sequence

(i) Generation produces material and structural asymmetry necessarily.
(ii) Asymmetry converts into interpretive asymmetry contingently but reliably: wealth purchases the press, brokerage purchases the frame.
(iii) Interpretive monopoly forecloses reinterpretation.
(iv) Normative generation ends. The configuration persists by reproduction rather than by generation.

The fourth condition of Part V accordingly targets the conversion step, and it thereby states a more precise demand than the generation of counter-power as such.

The locus is generated by composition, and it is therefore artificial, contingent, and plural in principle. A configuration may sustain several such loci or one, and interpretive monopoly is the singularization of the Other.

An application suggests itself, and its warrant requires care. An algorithmic recommender characterizes acts, addresses subjects, and is monopolizable to a degree no prior occupant has been. Whether it occupies the locus in the account’s sense turns on a question the account leaves open, occupancy having been defined as constituting the occupant as a subject. What may be claimed without settling that question is weaker and worth stating: the recommender holds the locus against other occupants, and the singularization proceeds whether or not anything inhabits what has been closed.

§14 Domination as the Attempt to Abolish the Non-Coincidence

Interpretive monopoly prevents contestation, and it does considerably more. It attempts to make occupancy exact, to make the subject be what its position specifies and nothing further, and to make the position be what it claims. It attempts the elimination of the residue.

The attempt must fail, the non-coincidence being structural. The residue persists and requires a name. Deviance, madness, sedition, heresy, and crime are the names a frozen order gives the remainder it cannot abolish.

This gives the fourth condition its justification, and the justification is functional throughout. The restraint of power demands that a system refrain from attempting to close what admits of no closure, the attempt destroying the source of the system’s own generation. It demands fairness in no respect.

And it gives the third its justification as well, at a different level. Domination attempts to abolish the non-coincidence at the level of the order; exploitation attempts it at the level of the participant, treating them as exhausted by their function. The two are one attempt, and both fail, and §18 carries the derivation.

§15 The Regress, Dissolved

Generation produces power necessarily, so counter-power must be generated; and counter-power is a structure, hence a power, hence stands in need of counter-power. The regress is ancient. The usual exits are closed to the account, constituent power, the people, the basic norm, each positing an outside.

Formal exits are closed to it as well, and this must be said plainly, the temptation being real.

A renormalization fixed point would be the bad case. The best result the technique could deliver is the convergence of the regress: a scale-invariant configuration of power and counter-power reproducing itself. A fixed point of power and counter-power is a frozen domination structure. Stability falls short of legitimacy, and where the theory’s primitive is generation, a fixed point is death.

Dynamical stability fails for the same reason. A stable attractor is stable whether the order is democratic or despotic. Both routes import stability where legitimacy was wanted.

The dissolution is this. On a substantialist ontology, power is a possession; possessions require guardians; guardians have possessions; hence the regress. Power is a structural asymmetry, and it is a possession in no sense. The condition of its legitimacy occupies no level whatever. That condition is the continued generativity of the relations that bear it, and the question is asked identically at every level, creating no new level in the asking.

The cost, avowed. No institutional guarantee is on offer. What remains is a condition requiring continual re-achievement, and admitting always of loss. Every reader who wants a constitutional design will feel cheated. We accept this, every theory that has promised a guarantee having lied.

Part V. The Historicity of Norms

§16 The Pivot

Norms can come to be only historically. From this a conclusion follows that the paper’s entire normative content depends upon.

Generativity is the condition under which valuing occurs at all. It is a value the theory endorses in no respect.

It competes with other values for the highest place nowhere, occupying as it does a different logical position: it stands prior to the place.

The demand “justify the value of continued generation” is therefore malformed. It asks for a justification issued from a standpoint that only the generative process makes available. The condition of justification admits of no justification; it admits of exhibition. Compare: one may ask why it is good that there be reasons, and no answer in reasons will be forthcoming.

Both available answers to the demand must be refused. That continued generation is intrinsically good is bare stipulation, and it reintroduces the transcendent value the account was built to avoid. That it is instrumentally good, in producing better norms, presupposes a standard of “better” that would have to arrive from outside history.

§17 Historical Materialism: Inheritance and Two Departures

The account inherits from historical materialism three theses: that norms are historically situated, that the conditions of thought are produced in practice, and that no tribunal stands above history. The inheritance is real and it should be acknowledged.

The departures number two, and neither should be softened.

Telos

Historical materialism has a direction, and its destination underwrites the normativity of the movement. This permits the condemnation of an order in the absence of any eternal moral law, the order standing condemned by history’s own tendency.

This account has no telos. The process is going nowhere in particular, and its normativity admits of no borrowing from a destination. Everything must arrive from the conditions of the process.

This is a loss and it is named as one. What is gained: no philosophy of history is owed, and no claim about where things are heading falls due for defence. What is paid: the account cannot say the future will vindicate us. Honesty at the price of consolation.

The symbolic

The absence of a theory of subject formation in classical historical materialism followed from the architecture, and it was an oversight in no degree. Consciousness determined by social being is a refusal to grant the symbolic its own causal weight. Every thinker who filled the gap had to break something: relative autonomy and overdetermination detonated the base-superstructure model (Althusser 1971); hegemony became a site of struggle where it had been a reflection of class position (Gramsci 1971); the class subject was surrendered (Butler 1997).

The claim that the descendants filled the gap, and that no conflict accordingly obtains, is a diplomatic evasion, and a good reader will see through it.

The honest formulation: this account shares with historical materialism the historical situatedness of norms, and departs from it in giving the symbolic a constitutive role where historical materialism gave it a derivative one, a departure the post-Marxist tradition also made, and made for the same reason.

The dialectic that does not sublate

The structure of Part IV is dialectical and should be recognized as such: the generative process produces, from within itself and by its own success, the condition of its own arrest. This is close in form to the contradiction between productive forces and the relations of production, in which the relations that enabled development become the fetters upon it, and the fetter is produced by the development.

The dialectic has a sublation, and this account, having refused the telos, can have none. The contradiction recurs where it might have resolved. Power is generated, counter-power is generated, and the configuration goes on, toward nothing in particular. The negation of the negation repeats where it might have sublated.

Open, and left open. Whether a dialectic without sublation remains a dialectic, or is an oscillation flattered by the name, goes unsettled here. The question is more dangerous than the problem of scale, deciding as it does whether the inheritance claimed above is genuine or merely rhetorical.

§18 The Conditions of Normative Generation

Generation falls short of sufficiency. Criminal organizations persist; empires generate roads, literature, law, and cities. A theory identifying the good with the generative would be refuted by its first counterexample.

Five conditions are therefore stated. Their status must be got right, and getting it right is the paper’s most important repair.

These are conditions of normative generation. They are values in no respect.

To violate them is to have stopped generating norms, to have exited the process within which anything is right or wrong. Immorality has no part in it. The claim is functional throughout.

The account contradicts itself absent this repair, applying a tribunal above history in Part V after denying in Part IV that any exists. The conditions are a specification of what it takes for history to be norm-generating at all, and they constitute a tribunal in no sense.

Layer one: the condition of historical unfolding

1. Generativity. The relation does not foreclose the participants’ capacity to go on generating.

Longevity is beside the point. A five-century tyranny is lasting and acquires no legitimacy thereby. What must persist is the capacity to generate, and no particular norm need do so. Absent that capacity, normative structure has no unfolding in history at all, and the remaining conditions have nothing to apply to.

Layer two: the conditions of direction

2. Co-reproduction. The relation is reproduced through joint participation, and by the decision of one party in no degree.

3. Non-exploitation. The relation does not depend on the instrumentalization or the sacrifice of any participant.

4. Restraint and non-entrenchment of power. The generation of value carries power, and a generative configuration generates at the same time the counter-power that restrains power and prevents its entrenchment.

5. Subject preservation. The relation does not purchase unity by effacing the other as a subject. Coincidence is not the aim. The preservation of difference and of the subject is what makes continued generation possible.

The functional standing of each condition

Each condition must be shown to be a condition of normative generation, on pain of the register collapsing and the tribunal returning. The showings are given, and the third is given at greatest length, being the one on which the account’s relation to the literature on extraction turns.

(2) Co-reproduction. A relation reproduced by the decision of one party is reproduced from a monopolized interpretive position. What it produces are rules held in place by the party that decides, and they lapse when that party’s grip lapses. Nothing holds itself, and nothing is generated.

(4) Restraint and non-entrenchment. Entrenchment is the completion of the conversion sequence of Part IV. An entrenched power has foreclosed reinterpretation, and a configuration in which reinterpretation is foreclosed persists by reproduction and generates nothing further.

(5) Subject preservation. A configuration that effaces the other as a subject has destroyed the relata at which the residue arises. Effacing the other as a subject is making occupancy exact, and the preservation of difference is the preservation of the non-coincidence, which §9 identified as the source of generation. The fifth condition and the source of motion are one claim, stated at different levels.

(3) Non-exploitation. The derivation requires care, and a natural formulation of it fails.

The natural formulation runs: a participant is instrumentalized when they are treated as exhausted by their function, and to treat a participant so is to make their occupancy exact. This will not do. Instrumentalization so described is a stance the exploiter takes, and exactness of occupancy is a condition of the configuration, and the one entails the other in no way. A proprietor may regard workers as mere labour while the configuration nonetheless leaves their positions inexactly occupiable, whereupon they organize, contest, and generate a union. The regard did nothing.

The condition must therefore be structural throughout.

Exploitation is the condition of a configuration that provides no locus at which a participant’s excess can register.

The stance of any party is beside the point. What matters is whether the residue has anywhere to arrive. Where it has nowhere, the participant’s excess over their function goes unregistered, and their occupancy is exact in the only sense the account recognizes.

This is making occupancy exact at the level of the participant, and domination is the same attempt at the level of the order. The two are one attempt at two levels. Both fail, the non-coincidence being ineliminable, and in the second case the residue returns under names the configuration supplies: laziness, insubordination, ingratitude, theft.

The functional consequence, owing nothing to any moral premise. A configuration providing no locus for a participant’s residue has denied that residue its effect. The residue is what acts back, and a configuration that has foreclosed its acting has foreclosed the source of its own further generation. Such a configuration persists by consuming what it would have needed in order to generate, and that is extraction.

The account nowhere holds that using people is wrong, possessing no standpoint from which to say so. It holds that a configuration providing no locus for the excess of its participants has stopped generating, and it says this from within.

The formulation is checkable, and its checkability is the point. Where the participants of an apparently extractive arrangement organize and contest, a locus for the residue exists, and the arrangement is to that extent already less exploitative than it appears. Where they cannot, the configuration has closed. Exploitation admits of degrees, and the degree is the availability of the locus.

The relation to the literature on extraction

The third condition is the central thesis of generative justice (Eglash 2016), and the account restores it as a condition and derives it as a consequence. The relation between the two should be stated exactly.

Generative justice identified the condition, and the present account supplies a derivation of it. Extraction is named there as an injustice, and the naming is correct.

What the mechanism adds is an account of what extraction removes, and thereby of the sense in which an extractive configuration is self-undermining. Extraction removes the locus at which the residue would have registered. The distinction between generation and extraction thereby becomes internal to the mechanism, requiring no antecedent view about who deserves what.

The two accounts are complementary and stand in no competition. Generative justice asks where value goes and answers correctly. The present account asks what a norm is, such that value could go anywhere at all, and its answer entails the other’s condition. We take the condition from that literature and return a derivation of it.

This closes the standing objection to any theory taking generation as its primitive. Empires generate; criminal organizations persist; the cancer grows.

The diagnosis of the empire must be stated with a precision the slogan lacks. It is insufficient to observe that empires instrumentalize, since an empire might instrumentalize at one site and generate at another, and the two would then be merely concurrent. The claim is stronger and it is structural: the imperial configuration provides no locus at which the excess of the colonized can register, and its generation is funded by relations so configured. Roads, literature, and law are produced, and the capacity by which the colonized would have gone on generating is consumed in producing them. That is extraction, and the diagnosis follows from the structure of the configuration, and from no evaluative standpoint outside it.

The claim is falsifiable in the way such claims can be. Where an imperial configuration does provide such a locus, where the colonized contest, and the contestation registers, and the order is altered by it, the account must say the configuration is to that extent generative. We accept the consequence. It is what distinguishes a structural criterion from a moral verdict.

Revisability, and its place

The account earlier stated a condition of openness to revision, and it is absent from the five above. It is absent because it is contained in the first: a capacity to go on generating which cannot revise what it has generated is no capacity to generate. New relations must be able to enter, and the interpretive position must remain re-occupiable, and both follow from the first condition without standing beside it.

Register discipline. Should any condition slide into sounding like a value, the contradiction with which §18 opened returns.

Non-exploitation and subject preservation stand most at risk, reading as they do like moral claims, the one about use and the other about dignity. Their defence must remain functional throughout, and it is given in the preceding subsection: each is an instance of the attempt to make occupancy exact, and each fails for the reason the attempt always fails.

The counterexamples, and the manner of their failure

Case	Where it fails, and the functional character of the failure
Criminal organization	Provides no locus at which a member’s dissent may register, dissent being answered by force. Fails (3). What it generates are rules held in place by coercion, and they lapse when the coercion lapses. Nothing here holds itself. Failure of (2) alone would not suffice for this diagnosis: a hierarchy also reproduces by the decision of one party, and hierarchies generate norms. The coercion is what distinguishes the case.
Colonial legal order	Effaces the colonized as subjects and instrumentalizes them as a source. Fails (3) and (5). The relata at which the residue would arise have been destroyed.
Frozen state	Power entrenched, counter-power ungenerated, reinterpretation foreclosed. Fails (4). It reproduces norms and generates none.
Empire	Generates abundantly, and generates by instrumentalizing. Fails (3). It funds its persistence by consuming the generative capacity of the relations beneath it, which is extraction.
Lynch mob	Distributed interpretation, and it fails (4) and (5) together. Generation from below acquires no warrant of goodness, and this must be said: distributed interpretation produces mobs efficiently.

Each counterexample fails a condition, and fails it as a condition of normative generation. No moral preference is imported from outside, and the two-layer structure exists to secure exactly this.

Self-application

The conditions are what can currently be stated about normative generation. Should they prove wrong, the same historical process that revises everything else will revise them. This is the only position consistent with the account’s own content. It is stated once and set aside.

The concepts of this paper enjoy no exemption from what it claims. They are determinations of a relational configuration, generated at a position, and they will be revised as the configuration changes. That several traditions have arrived at the same structure under different names follows from the account offered here, and it is a coincidence to be marvelled at in no respect. This paper occupies one more position. It occupies the vantage from which all such names are seen as one nowhere, and it offers an account of what makes the translation among them possible.

§19 The Unit of Normative Evaluation

Traditional normative philosophy evaluates actions, individuals, or outcomes. The account here evaluates relations and their generative capacity, and the question accordingly becomes: which relations merit maintenance, promotion, transformation, or termination, and on what grounds.

This is the turn stated in its most compressed form, and the originality of the account, should it have any, lies here.

Part VI. Limits

§20 The Single Gap

The mechanism gap, the formalism gap, and the problem of scale constitute one problem wearing three masks. There is no composition rule.

We know what composition must do: generate positions, and fail to close on them. A rule producing perfectly occupiable positions would produce a dead structure, the fixed point, the frozen order. The generative rule is one whose closure is imperfect, from which the exclusion of the group follows, groups closing exactly. The exclusion is narrower than we should like, eliminating one candidate and leaving standing several others whose composition is partial, or whose associativity holds only up to coherent isomorphism. It is a formal property of the target, and formal properties are searchable.

We cannot write the rule.

Consequences, stated so that nothing unearned is claimed.

No formalism without it. Absent a composition rule, formal vocabulary is all that remains to be formalized.

No account of scale without it. The renormalization group acts on a theory possessing a specified composition and a specified scale, and this account possesses neither. The difficulty lies deeper than a technique awaiting application. The object on which it would act has yet to be constructed.

§21 The Problem of Scale

The problem falls out of the mechanism, and it is imported from nowhere. Both available answers fail for a stated reason.

Aggregation, macro norms composed of micro norms, reinstates the separability that Part III denied.

Autonomy, each scale possessing its own norms, independent of the others, leaves cross-scale conflict unexplained, and cross-scale conflict is empirically the main thing that happens.

Both fail because the coarse structure is a different structure with different relata, generated by composing different relations, and it is the fine structure averaged in no respect. The right question therefore concerns what survives composition, and it concerns the aggregation of micro norms not at all. The direction we would take, offered as a direction and not a result, holds that scale is compositional depth, and it is resolution in no sense, and that the candidate invariant is the non-closure itself: no position is exactly occupied, at any depth.

Were that right, the invariant across scales would be the very thing that prevents any scale from settling. The invariant would be the source of change. We do not know whether it is right, and its investigation must wait upon the composition rule.

§22 The Residues, Named

The epistemic residue. A configuration may lack the resources to tell from inside whether it generates or extracts. The extractive system experiences itself as generative. The problem is epistemological, and it is unsolved.

The bullet. Should a genuinely open, co-generative, non-erasing, counter-power-generating configuration produce a norm we abhorred, our abhorrence would have no higher court. The account accepts this. What it keeps is that the conditions are demanding enough to exclude nearly every historical monstrosity we care about, and that this follows from their content: the conditions are conditions of generation, and domination is the arresting of generation.

Metastability, in place of equilibrium. An order that settles is dead. What is wanted is stability because revisable: an order persisting by absorption of reinterpretation, and by resistance to it in no degree. Stability purchased by closure is the failure mode.

§23 The Standing of This Paper

The argument rests on a claim that could be false, and the claim should stand at the end as it stood at the beginning. The generative and the extractive must be distinguishable in the structure of a configuration, by someone holding no antecedent view about who deserves what. Should they prove otherwise, the criterion is external, the account has licensed nothing, and its normative content is intuition with formal ornament. §4 is where this is defended, and a reader who wishes to destroy the paper should begin there.

Four things are claimed. That the naturalist reduction fails from within, a sanction described behaviourally being indistinguishable from an aggression, and that this failure shares one cause with the failure of the distributive theories: each locates in a relatum what exists only at a position. That generativity is the condition of valuing, and a value in no respect, so that the demand to justify it is malformed. That the conditions of normative generation are conditions and never criteria, so that the account may hold them while erecting none of the tribunal above history it has denied. And that non-exploitation admits of derivation from the mechanism: instrumentalization makes occupancy exact, the residue is denied, and an exploitative configuration consumes the capacity by which it would go on generating. Generation and extraction are thereby distinguished from within.

Three things go unclaimed. The composition rule. The problem of scale. And the standing of a dialectic without sublation.

Norms have no being apart from their historical generation. The conditions under which that generation continues are the whole of what can be said, and they are demanding enough to condemn most of what has been built.

References

Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Monthly Review Press, New York.

Bicchieri, C. (2006). The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2011). A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Brandom, R. B. (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Butler, J. (1997). The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Eglash, R. (2016). An introduction to generative justice. Teknokultura, 13(2): 369–404.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers, New York.

Mazouz, N. (2019). Authorship, agency, and the grounds of ethical standing.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected Papers, 8 vols. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Skyrms, B. (1996). Evolution of the Social Contract. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

中文

规范在生成性关系存在中的涌现

一场初步的讨论

黄万宏 (huangwanhong@serendip.ngo)

摘要

一条规范区别于一个规律，在于人们相互把彼此持守于它。这一持守从何而来、以及它能否被辩护，被两个分离的文献所处理：一个建模规范的涌现、而就辩护沉默，另一个论证辩护、而把涌现当作不相干。自然主义者取那分裂为对他有利，论证一个关于涌现的完整说明使辩护成为一个残余。规范哲学以援引实然-应然的鸿沟来回应，并由此让步它本意要否认之点。

本文论证相反者。一个制裁无法被任何对那制裁者之行为的描述与一个侵犯区分开来，那差异是一个关于那行动立于其中之配置的事实。因此，规范的词汇出现在任何涌现机制的解释项之中，而一个正确的涌现说明要求规范哲学、以取代消去它。

本文在生成性关系存在框架之内发展一个位置性的规范涌现说明。诸关系的组合生成被无一参与者所占据的诸处所，而约束力被承担于这样一个处所、并被无一关系项承担。因此二元组是前规范的。权力是不对称，其中解释性不对称是那种其垄断预先关闭对其余者之纠正的种类。生成性是估价在其下发生的条件、而它本身不是一个价值，因而那要求辩护它的要求是病构的，而五个规范生成的条件作为条件、而非作为评价性判准被陈述。非剥削被推导、以取代被输入：一个不提供任何参与者的余额可在其上登记之处所的配置，已预先关闭它自己进一步生成之源，因而生成与榨取之间的区分成为那机制的内部之事。

作为一篇初步的讨论稿，它的目标是确立那机制、并命名框架接下来必须供给者：一条组合规则、一个关于尺度的说明、以及一个认识论的判准，一个配置据以能从内部确定它是生成还是榨取。

关键词： 规范涌现；关系性结构；生成性正义；权力；历史唯物主义；尺度。

关于本文之地位的一则说明。 这一论证有一根承重的梁，而它应在读者开始之前被辨认。一切都倚于那主张：把生成与榨取、把制裁与侵犯区分开来者，在一个关系性配置的结构中可见，而它从没有任何评价性立场被强加于它。若一个批评者显示这些只能被一个已然持有一种关于谁应得什么之看法的人分辨开来，那么那判准便是外部的，那说明便许可了无物，而本文的规范内容便是带形式装饰的直觉。我们持那主张为可辩护的。我们持它为远非显然的，而§4是它被捍卫之处。

本文提出一个它留而未解的尺度问题，命名一个它无法定义的运算，并在第六部分咬下一颗子弹。这些都被报告，而无一被埋藏。欢迎通信，尤其欢迎反对，在 huangwanhong@serendip.ngo。

关于人工智能之使用的声明。 本文的诸论证是在与人工智能系统（OpenAI 的 ChatGPT 与 Anthropic 的 Claude）的延展对话中被发展的。那对话塑造了诸论证的实质，而并不把自己限于起草或语言之事。本文的若干中心主张在其中升起，而若干在其中被纠正，在两个方向上。

作者是唯一的作者，并为此处所作的每一个主张、为支持一个主张而推进的每一个论证、以及为每一个残留的错误承担全部责任。

这一披露是以透明之寻常利益被作出的，而它携带一个框架自己的诸承诺要求我们陈述的进一步意义。本文持有：概念是关系性配置的诸规定，在诸位置被生成，带着它们生成的诸痕迹，并在那产生它们的历史过程中可被修订。一个如此被承诺的理论，很难把它自己诸概念的来源当作一件可被略过之事来处理。此处所推进的诸概念是在一个特定的配置中、在一个特定的时刻、由不止一类的参与者所生成的。那是一个关于它们的事实，而这些页所提供的说明预测它本应是。我们报告它、以取代隐藏它，因为隐藏会是对我们所论者的第一个反驳。

第一部分. 两个问题

§1 必要性与涌现

必要性问题追问规范哲学是否可被消去。自然主义者持它是。一旦我们拥有一个关于规范如何升起、传播并稳定的足够好之说明，它们辩护的进一步问题便开始看起来像一个被取代之词汇的残余。供给演化博弈论与文化传递的诸模型，而规范哲学便成为对人们碰巧认可者的一个描述。

涌现问题追问规范从何而来。此处文献是强的、而它几乎全然是描述性的：被经验与规范期望所支持的条件性偏好（比奇耶里，2006）；信号博弈中的均衡选择（斯凯尔姆斯，1996）；从众传递与群体选择（博伊德与里彻森，1985）；强互惠与对背叛者的惩罚（鲍尔斯与金蒂斯，2011）。这些说明中没有一个有义务就辩护说任何东西，而大多数它们不说。

惯常的哲学回应宣告独立。涌现是发生学的，辩护是逻辑的，而它们之间的鸿沟保护规范哲学免于任何关于前者的发现。

这一回应太廉价，而它为赢得一场战役而让出整个战争。它承认一个关于涌现的完整说明会使规范哲学无工作可做，而它仅仅观察到没有任何这样的说明在手。本文持那让步为不必要的与虚假的。

论旨。 一个正确的规范涌现说明要求规范哲学，而绝无一分消去它。那涌现机制不容许任何一种其中规范词汇从解释项中缺席的指定。因此那还原从内部失败，而它不需要任何从外部被断言的鸿沟。

§2 所有权及它的预设

一个居间的立场已把这两个文献拉近，而它这样做是通过追问一个两者都不曾追问的问题：那规范归属于谁？

生成性正义的诸理论持有：价值由那些劳作者的活动所生产，正义在于它返回给他们，而榨取，即价值离开那生产它之诸关系的移动，构成一个不义的范畴，而绝非一个对某机制的偏离（埃格拉什，2016）。应用于伦理价值，那规范归属于那些其实践生成它者。

围绕作者身份被组织的诸说明持有：一条人能把它辨认为自己的规范，有一种一条仅仅被遵从的规范所没有的地位，而伦理地位依赖于这一作者身份关系（马祖兹，2019）。那移动是从所有权到作者身份，这是一个值得停顿的征兆：所有权是一种对一个事物的关系，作者身份是一种对一个意义的关系，而意义不是物质的。

两者都是进展、而本文批评两者中的无一者。两者仍是关于一个其存在它们所预设之善的分配性论旨。它们把那规范取为一个已然被生成的事物，并追问它去到何处、谁拥有它、它是否已被异化、它能否被返回。那在先的问题去而未被追问：一条规范是那种什么样的事物，以致所有权、榨取或返回竟应应用于它。

那问题是本文的。

第二部分. 探究的形式

§3 没有本体论被断言

这一说明就什么存在作出不了任何主张。它尤其保留“关系先于实体”这一主张，而它的诸论证中没有一个要求那主张。

它结构地指定它的对象，在一个群指定的纪律中。无论那些关系项可能是什么，理论关切它们的组合，而“一个人究竟是什么？”这一问题在它之内不升起。这一类比是精确的：群论既不否认、也不肯定群元素有内在的本性。一个群被指定至同构，而那实体问题的不升起是结构指定的一个特征，而它算不上任何缺陷。

结构指定。 这一说明在诸关系及它们的组合之上量化，而在诸关系项的身份之上全然不量化。它的诸结果独立于那身份。对持人为首要的实在论者，这一说明说：很好。对持关系构成人的建构主义者：很好。对只有节点与边的网络理论家：很好。这一框架自始至终适用。

那关系性词汇早先被一个对理论物理学的诉诸所推动，而那诉诸许可的少于从它被取得者。它许可一个方法论的教益：一个确定的结构能仅从组合涌现，而一个理论可以留而不说它的结构是什么之结构。它许可就什么存在的无论任何结论。

§4 中立的不充分

方法论的中立在一个解释的理论中是一种德性、而在一个判断的理论中是一种失格。这一区分必须被尊重，否则本文的规范内容便一文不值。

那困难是确切的。假设那关系性描述因是解释社会现象的最有信息之基础而被选择。那么当那说明说榨取在一个配置的结构中可见时，一个批评者回答：在你为它解释上的便利而选择的那个描述中可见，而你已让步那选择是可选的，因而你所显示者是你的表象的一个性质。

那回答在那些措辞上容许不了任何回应，而因此一个第二主张被要求，倚于一个不同的辩护。

价值的问题不容许任何在关系性结构之外的表述。

那根据是诸替代者的失败，而它断然不是结构穷尽实在，那是我们已谢绝的本体论主张。从未有任何替代的立场被产生出来。

功利主义要求一个立于诸关系之上的福利度量，而无法说它立于何处。康德主义要求一个立法的立场，而无法说谁占据它。契约论要求一个能够同意的前关系性能动者，而无法产生一个。

每一个都因同一理由失败，而命名那理由是本文的贡献。那关系性描述是当那些被设想为可得的诸立场被证明不可得时所留下者。有信息性在它的选择中不起任何作用。

因此，本文所有权主张者少于一个对善是什么的发现。它主张我们已找到那问题唯一能被追问之处、那里所给出的答案是苛求的、以及它的诸对手预设一个无人已产生的立场。

第三部分. 那机制

§5 组合生成位置

位置。 一个由诸关系之组合所生成的结构性处所，被组成它的诸关系项中的无一者所占据。在一个位置被承担者，即约束力、权威、价值、身份，被无一关系项承担。

这一主张是一般的、而它是本文的经济。规范、权力、身份与制度是一个机制的四个后果，而它们只在表面上构成四个理论。这说明一个否则会是巧合的模式：权力不是任何占有，一条规范不是任何财产，信任不是任何态度，价值不是任何实体。无一是一个承担者的性质，每一个都是一个位置的性质。

§6 二元组是前规范的

一个两个关系项与一个关系的配置缺乏区分制裁与侵犯的资源。它含 A 对 B 的立场与 B 对 A 的立场，而无更多。刻画那行动要求一个那刻画可从之发出的处所，而二元组只供给它的两极，其中每一极都是一方。预测，大致可被反驳：纯二元的配置生成不出任何规范。 它们生成习惯、依赖、竞争与力量。

每一个产生约束力的制度都含一个第三项：那见证、那誓言、那裁判庭、那象征秩序。这已从若干方向被观察，在符号的三元结构中（皮尔士，1931）、在采取他者之态度中（米德，1934）、在道义记分的保持中（布兰顿，1994）、以及在关于第三方的法律-人类学文献中，而它的必要性去而未被解释。此处所提供的解释把那第三项辨认为组合所生成者，并持有：在它的缺席中没有任何东西留待一个行动可从之被刻画。

§7 一条因果路线，而非一个视点

一个反对在此升起、而若它成立便会是致命的。“被看作做某事”已然是被刻画；刻画是归摄于一个范畴之下；诸范畴是象征的；因此第三位置要求语言，规范性结构以语言开始，而这一说明是唯心主义的。

那回复转轴于第三位置至少做什么。它在它分类之前区别。 那行动获得一个第二方面，即它从一个既非任一方之处所如何自处，而这一方面在任何范畴之应用之先便获得。那一类的区别只要求那行动有穿过那第三的诸后果。

那回复是部分的。它确立一个处所能在语言的缺席中存在、并因果地活跃，而它留敞：一个如此被占据的处所是否支持完全的约束力、抑或只支持那更弱的结构，即一个行动经由一条能动者所不控制之路线而是有代价的。

第三位置是一条因果路线，而非一个视点。 若 A 关联于 B、而 B 关联于 C，那么 A 对 B 的行动有经由 C 而抵达 A 的诸后果。那路线是那位置。 它是一个关于配置的结构性事实，无论任何参与者是否能如此说都成立，而它是组合所生成者。

占据容许诸层，被每一层所支持之刻画的耐久性所区分。

层	占据的模式	它所支持者
组合	（无）	那路线存在。结构性的、前象征的。
见证	偶发	刻画在第三在场时成立，而在它缺席时失效。
言说	持久	刻画被沉积：它熬过缺席，并能被传递、回忆、援引。
制度、书写	跨代	刻画熬过死亡。
重新解释	重新打开	那路线在它曾对一个占据者被关闭之处被恢复。

象征秩序是一个无需在场的见证。 语言给一个组合已然产生的位置添加持久，而它绝无一分添加那位置。规范性结构起源于因果的架构、并被言说使之耐久，而这一说明在那根据上是一种唯物主义。

一个让步，被陈述而非被隐藏。 前象征的层确保诸位置存在、并在语言的缺席中可被占据。它未确保前象征的占据产生完全的约束力。那应当，作为区别于仅仅有代价者，可能只随那耐久的第三而到来。若那是如此，那立场削弱为这个：原规范性的结构是前象征的，而规范性结构本身要求那耐久的第三。在那削弱之下这一说明保持一种唯物主义，因为那耐久的第三被解释于它本可被预设之处。

§8 占据构成占据者

占据者在那占据中被构成，并以无一方式先于它而存在。位置与主体在一个行动中来到存在：那处所的栖居与那栖居者的构成是同时的。把它们分开重新设立了恰恰是第一部分的诸分配性理论被显示为作出的那个假定，即一个先存在、并在其后解释的主体。

两个后果立即随之而来。

第一，那自然主义的还原失败。规范性期望抵抗对制裁之行为倾向的还原，因为一个被行为主义地描述的制裁与一个侵犯无从区分。使一个行动成为一个制裁者，是一个关于它立于其中之配置的事实，即那配置的第三处所被栖居。制裁与侵犯既不在力量上、也不在结构上有别。它们在那结构是否被栖居上有别。

自然主义者有一个回复、而它必须被应对，因为一个读者会立即供给它。扩大那描述：把那第三方的行为加入模型，而制裁与侵犯之间的区分便成为“被一类第三方行为所跟随的诸行动”与“被另一类第三方行为所跟随的诸行动”之间的一个区分。那描述保持纯行为主义，而那还原被拯救。

那回复重新安置那困难、并留它立着。无论那第三方做什么，本身都能被描述为一个制裁或一个侵犯，而对那第三之行为的描述供给的用以了结那问题之资源，不多于对那第一之行为的描述。自然主义者可以再次扩大那描述，而每一次扩大都在新的层级重新产生它被引入以回答的问题。那回退只在某种非行为之物被承认之处终止：那处所被栖居，而栖居是一种对一个结构的关系、而非一个进一步的行动。那还原在每一层级失败，而它因一个理由失败。

第二，那诊断延展。自然主义者在那制裁者的诸性质中寻求约束力、而找不到任何。分配性理论家把那规范取为一个可被拥有、被榨取或被返回的事物，并由此把它当作可与那承担它之诸关系分离的。每一个都在一个关系项中定位那只在一个位置存在者。

这两种情形在一个重要方面有别，而那差异应被标记。自然主义者推进一个还原，而那还原失败。分配性理论家推进一个关于流通的论旨，而那论旨在它的范围之内是正确的。当下的说明所供给者是它的正确所预设的那个在先问题。规范哲学的必要性由此被涌现文献所确立，以取代针对它被断言。

§9 运动之源

一个结构静止不动。组合生成位置、而占据构成主体，而两者中没有任何东西说明一个配置竟会改变。一个无法命名什么驱动生成的生成性关系之理论是一个分类法。

诸可得的驱动者失败。物质的稀缺解释扰动、而留生成于黑暗；一个受压之下的配置可以同样容易地僵化或崩溃，而人们在丰足的条件之下丰盛地生成。矛盾解释失稳、而留生成于黑暗：它说明一个秩序的破坏、并说明无物的造就。偏好是外生的，而它随那前给定主体的假定一同被交出。

运动之源是主体与位置的不重合。

一个位置由组合所生成。一个主体在占据中被构成。这是两个运算而它们未能重合。 在一个位置被产生的主体偏离那位置所指定的主体，而那余数回作于配置。

生成被一个主体完全成为它的位置所使它成为者之结构性不可能所驱动，而它绝无一分被需要、利益与矛盾所驱动。

这是理论的内部引擎，而它输入不了任何外部的驱动者。位置构成主体；主体超出位置；那超额行动；组合吸收它；新的位置出现。那循环在任何外面的缺席中闭合，而这一说明自始至终恰恰要求了那。

它把一个重复的理论转换为一个历史的理论。纯粹的缺席产出绕行：那主体返回到同一个失败。那第二步把运动转换为创造，组合吸收那超额并产生新的位置，它们是新的、可从之想要的诸处所。缺席点燃；组合生成。

那不重合在两侧都运行

占据构成主体，而主体却对那造就它的位置行动。这一能力之源要求说明。

那位置与它自己不重合。它偏离它把自己呈现为之所是者。 那解释性处所缺乏那答案、并缺乏完备，而它的完备是它所作的一个主张，而一个它绝无一分拥有的性质。

反权力开始于那秩序之不完备的暴露。 它开始于主体对一个在先自由的无一断言，因没有任何自由可被断言。

因此支配畏惧暴露甚于不服从。 一个不服从的主体可被惩罚，而那惩罚重新确认那秩序刻画的权威。一个被显示为缺乏那答案的秩序，已失去那惩罚可从之被刻画为惩罚的处所。

§10 那精神分析的层及它的凭据

那机制中的一个现象同样逃脱治理的、经济的与推论主义的诸文献，而这一说明要求它：参与者对那些恰恰损害他们之关系的维系。理性选择无法回答，因为偏好是既定的、而自我伤害的既定偏好只是非理性的。生成性正义无法回答，因为它必须假定那被榨取的一方把榨取经历为一桩错，而许多人捍卫那消耗他们的安排。推论主义无法回答，因为一个没有投注的记分者对依附没有任何说明。

精神分析有一个关于对构成一个人之位置（毁灭性的位置包括在内）之依附的成型说明，而它为那、并为无一其他被引用。它充当不了任何基础。它立于下游，理论化一个进入一个已然在那里之象征秩序之主体的命运，而当下的说明接手诸位置的、由关系性配置进行的生成，那些位置成为可被占据的。这一装置被用作对某个现象的最佳可得说明，而这一说明自己的诸承诺要求它去解释那现象；若一个更好的说明出现，它便被采纳。这一举动是有原则的。 一个持有“一切规范性结构都是历史地被生成的、并可被修订”之理论，不可把它自己的诸资源豁免于那一条件。

那技术性的处理在一篇姊妹篇中被给出。此处所要求者是那映射，而它以概要被给出。

源头	此处的对应物	状态
大他者	第三位置（§5）	被推导。它在那里被设定；此处它是组合所产生者。
想象界	二元组	被推导。同一结果，经由一条独立的路线：缺一个第三处所，竞争与力量随之而来。
父性功能	设立第三位置的机制	被推导。此处一个机制，于源头有一个神话之处。
异化	解释之异化	被推导，并被弄成政治的，于源头把它弄成本体论之处。
分离	反权力；那秩序的不完备（§9）	被推导。
Manque（匮乏）	那不重合（§9）	被推导，并与之断裂。那里一个症状；此处一个源。
欲望	余数对配置的作用	被翻译，词汇被拒绝。
Jouissance（享乐）	对损害之位置的依附	被翻译，并不可或缺：没有任何其他东西执行这一工作。
实在界	（被拒绝）	被拒绝。它重新引入一个外部。它的诸现象容许一个作为结构性排除的更好解释：诸位置通过那解释性处所之垄断、摧毁或非形成而被弄成不可被占据。那不可言说者是被生产的，而它绝无一分被给定。它必不可被映射到新颖之上：实在界命名那无法被组合者，而此处的新颖是那被组合者。
欲望的对象-成因	（被溶解）	被溶解。它是一个运算的余数，被一个无处安置它的理论所实体化。
四种话语	（仅结构）	结构被推导，代数被拒绝。

诸拒绝是承重的。 一个其中一切都被映射的映射本会确立无物。诸推导的价值全然依赖于那抵抗翻译者的存在。

§11 那物质的层

一个其中一切都是一个关系性结构中之位置的理论，没有任何方式说一个饥饿的人是饥饿的。物质需要、必死性与痛苦成立，无论任何象征秩序把它们弄成什么。它们占据不了任何位置，而组合绝无一分生成它们。

那物质的层作为一个层被保留。这是那使这一说明保持一种唯物主义、以取代一种携带政治词汇之结构主义者，而它是对整个装置的制衡。

第四部分. 权力

§12 权力是不对称

权力是一个关系性配置中的不对称，而诸不对称有诸种类：物质的（对资源的控制）、结构的（居间、网络中的位置）、以及解释的（对那诸行动从之被刻画之处所的占据）。解释性不对称是这些之中的一种，而它供给不出权力本身的任何定义。

它在一个方面有别，而那差异即是那主张。

解释性不对称是那种其垄断预先关闭对所有其余者之纠正的不对称。 垄断那诸行动从之被刻画的处所，而抵抗被刻画为越轨、不满被刻画为忘恩、反权力被刻画为煽动。那解释性位置是那其余诸不对称被裁决之处。

§13 那转换序列

(i) 生成必然地产生物质与结构的不对称。
(ii) 不对称偶然但可靠地转换为解释性不对称：财富购买报刊，居间购买框架。
(iii) 解释性垄断预先关闭重新解释。
(iv) 规范生成终止。配置靠再生产、而非靠生成而持存。

因此，第五部分的第四个条件瞄准那转换步骤，而它由此陈述一个比反权力本身之生成更精确的要求。

那处所由组合所生成，而它因此是人为的、偶然的、并在原则上是复数的。一个配置可以维系若干这样的处所、或一个，而解释性垄断是大他者的单一化。

一个应用自行提示，而它的凭据要求审慎。一个算法推荐器刻画诸行动、致意诸主体、并可被垄断到一个无一先前占据者曾达到的程度。它是否在这一说明的意义上占据那处所，转轴于一个这一说明留敞的问题，因为占据曾被定义为把占据者构成为一个主体。可在不了结那问题的情况下被主张者更弱、而值得陈述：那推荐器针对其他占据者持有那处所，而那单一化进行，无论任何东西是否栖居那已被关闭者。

§14 支配作为废除那不重合的尝试

解释性垄断阻止抗争，而它做的相当地更多。它尝试使占据变得精确，使主体成为它的位置所指定者而无更多，并使那位置成为它所声称者。它尝试那余数之消除。

那尝试必须失败，那不重合是结构性的。那余数持存并要求一个名字。越轨、疯狂、煽动、异端与罪行，是一个被冻结的秩序给它无法废除之余下者的诸名字。

这给那第四个条件其辩护，而那辩护自始至终是功能性的。权力的约束要求一个系统避免尝试去闭合那不容许任何闭合者，那尝试摧毁那系统自己生成之源。它绝无一分要求公平。

而它也给那第三个条件其辩护，在一个不同的层级。支配在秩序的层级上尝试废除那不重合；剥削在参与者的层级上尝试它，把他们当作被他们的功能所穷尽。这两者是一个尝试，而两者都失败，而§18承担那推导。

§15 那回退，被消解

生成必然地产生权力，因而反权力必须被生成；而反权力是一个结构，故一个权力，故需要反权力。那回退是古老的。惯常的诸出口对这一说明是关闭的，即制宪权、人民、基本规范，每一个都设定一个外面。

诸形式的出口对它也是关闭的，而这必须被平白地说出，那诱惑是真实的。

一个重整化不动点会是那坏情形。 那技术所能交付的最佳结果是那回退的收敛：一个权力与反权力的尺度不变之配置再生产它自己。一个权力与反权力的不动点是一个被冻结的支配结构。稳定止步于正当性之前，而在理论的原语是生成之处，一个不动点是死亡。

动力学的稳定因同一理由失败。 一个稳定的吸引子是稳定的，无论那秩序是民主的还是专制的。两条路线都在正当性被想要之处输入稳定。

那消解是这个。在一个实体主义的本体论上，权力是一个占有；诸占有要求守卫者；守卫者有诸占有；故那回退。权力是一个结构性的不对称，而它绝非任何占有。它正当性的条件占据不了任何层级。那条件是那承担它之诸关系的持续生成性，而那问题在每一层级被同一地追问，在那追问中创造不出任何新的层级。

那代价，被公开承认。 没有任何制度的保证被提供。所留下者是一个要求持续重新达成、并总容许损失的条件。每一个想要一个宪法设计的读者都会觉得被骗。我们接受这，每一个曾允诺一个保证的理论都撒了谎。

第五部分. 规范的历史性

§16 那转轴

规范只能历史地来到存在。从这里一个本文整个规范内容所依赖的结论随之而来。

生成性是估价根本在其下发生的条件。它绝无一分是一个理论所背书的价值。

它无处与其他价值争夺那最高之处，因它占据一个不同的逻辑位置：它立于那位置之先。

因此那“辩护持续生成之价值”的要求是病构的。 它要求一个从一个唯有那生成过程所使之可得之立场发出的辩护。那辩护的条件不容许任何辩护；它容许展示。比较：人可以追问为何有诸理由是善的，而没有任何以诸理由的答案会到来。

对那要求的两个可得答案都必须被拒绝。持续生成是内在地善的，是赤裸的规定，而它重新引入这一说明被建来回避的那个超越价值。它是工具地善的，在产生更好的规范上，预设一个“更好”的标准，而那标准会不得不从历史之外到来。

§17 历史唯物主义：承继与两处背离

这一说明从历史唯物主义承继三个论旨：规范是历史地被定位的、思想的诸条件在实践中被生产、以及没有任何法庭立于历史之上。这一承继是真实的、而它应被承认。

那些背离数为两个，而两者都不应被软化。

目的

历史唯物主义有一个方向，而它的目的地担保那运动的规范性。这准许对一个秩序的谴责，在任何永恒道德法则的缺席中，那秩序被历史自己的倾向所谴责。

这一说明没有目的。 那过程没有特别地去往任何地方，而它的规范性不容许从一个目的地的任何借用。一切都必须从那过程的诸条件到来。

这是一个损失、而它作为一个被命名。 所得者：没有任何历史哲学被欠，而没有任何关于事情朝向何处之主张到期待辩护。所付者：这一说明无法说未来将为我们平反。以慰藉为代价的诚实。

那象征界

经典历史唯物主义中一个主体形成理论的缺席从那架构随之而来，而它绝无一分是一个疏忽。意识被社会存在所决定，是一个拒绝授予那象征界它自己的因果分量。每一个填补那缺口的思想家都不得不打破某物：相对自主与多元决定引爆了基础-上层建筑模型（阿尔都塞，1971）；霸权成为一个斗争的场址，于它曾是一个阶级位置之反映之处（葛兰西，1971）；那阶级主体被交出（巴特勒，1997）。

那“诸后裔填补了那缺口、而因此没有任何冲突成立”的主张，是一次外交上的回避，而一个好的读者会看穿它。

那诚实的表述：这一说明与历史唯物主义共享规范的历史被定位性，而从它背离，在给那象征界一个构成性的角色、于历史唯物主义给它一个派生性的角色之处，一处后马克思主义传统也作出、并因同一理由作出的背离。

那不扬弃的辩证法

第四部分的结构是辩证的、并应被如此认出：那生成过程从它自身之内、并凭它自己的成功，产生它自己被遏止的条件。这在形式上接近于生产力与生产关系之间的矛盾，其中那使发展成为可能的诸关系成为对它的桎梏，而那桎梏被那发展所产生。

那辩证法有一个扬弃，而这一说明，既已拒绝那目的，便不能有任何。那矛盾复现于它本可解决之处。权力被生成，反权力被生成，而那配置继续下去，朝向没有特别的任何地方。那否定之否定重复于它本可扬弃之处。

敞开，并被留敞。 一个没有扬弃的辩证法是否仍是一个辩证法、抑或是一个被那名字所抬举的振荡，在此去而未被了结。这个问题比尺度的问题更危险，因它决定上文所主张的承继是真正的还是仅仅修辞的。

§18 规范生成的诸条件

生成止步于充分之前。犯罪组织持存；帝国生成道路、文学、法律与城市。一个把善与生成性相等同的理论会被它的第一个反例所反驳。

因此五个条件被陈述。它们的地位必须被弄对，而弄对它是本文最重要的修复。

这些是规范生成的诸条件。它们绝无一分是价值。

违反它们便是已停止生成规范，已退出那任何东西在其中是对或错的过程。不道德在其中没有任何份。这一主张自始至终是功能性的。

缺这一修复，这一说明自相矛盾，在第五部分应用一个历史之上的法庭，在第四部分否认有任何存在之后。这些条件是一个关于“历史根本是规范生成的所需者”的指定，而它们绝非一个法庭。

层一：历史展开的条件

1. 生成性。 那关系不预先关闭参与者继续生成的能力。

长久无关紧要。 一个五个世纪的暴政是持久的、并由此获得不了任何正当性。所必须持存者是那生成的能力，而没有任何特定的规范需要如此。缺那能力，规范性结构根本没有任何在历史中的展开，而其余的诸条件没有任何可应用之物。

层二：方向的诸条件

2. 共同再生产。 那关系通过联合参与被再生产，而绝无一分通过一方的决定。

3. 非剥削。 那关系不依赖于任何参与者的工具化或牺牲。

4. 权力的约束与非固化。 价值的生成携带权力，而一个生成性的配置在同一时刻生成那约束权力并防止它固化的反权力。

5. 主体的保存。 那关系不通过抹除他者作为一个主体来购买统一。重合不是目标。差异与主体的保存是那使持续生成成为可能者。

每一个条件的功能地位

每一个条件都必须被显示为一个规范生成的条件，否则那层面便坍缩而那法庭返回。诸显示被给出，而那第三个以最大的篇幅被给出，因它是那关于这一说明与关于榨取之文献之关系所转轴的那一个。

(2) 共同再生产。 一个由一方的决定所再生产的关系是从一个被垄断的解释性位置被再生产。它所产生者是被那决定之一方持于原处的规则，而它们在那一方的把持失效时失效。没有任何东西持守它自己，而没有任何东西被生成。

(4) 约束与非固化。 固化是第四部分之转换序列的完成。一个被固化的权力已预先关闭重新解释，而一个其中重新解释被预先关闭的配置靠再生产而持存、并进一步生成无物。

(5) 主体的保存。 一个抹除他者作为一个主体的配置已摧毁那余数所在其上升起的诸关系项。抹除他者作为一个主体便是使占据变得精确，而差异的保存是那不重合的保存，而§9把它辨认为生成之源。那第五个条件与那运动之源是一个主张，在不同的层级被陈述。

(3) 非剥削。 那推导要求审慎，而它的一个自然表述失败。

那自然表述这样说：一个参与者在他们被当作被他们的功能所穷尽时被工具化，而如此对待一个参与者便是使他们的占据变得精确。这不成。如此被描述的工具化是那剥削者所取的一个立场，而占据的精确是配置的一个条件，而这一者绝无一分蕴含那一者。一个业主可以把工人视为纯粹的劳动，而配置却仍把他们的位置留为不精确地可被占据，于是他们组织、抗争、并生成一个工会。那视为无所作为。

因此，那条件必须自始至终是结构性的。

剥削是一个不提供任何参与者的余额可在其上登记之处所的配置之条件。

任何一方的立场无关紧要。所要紧者是那余数是否有任何地方可抵达。凡它无处，那参与者对他们功能的超额去而未被登记，而他们的占据在这一说明所认可的唯一意义上是精确的。

这是在参与者的层级上使占据变得精确，而支配是在秩序的层级上的同一尝试。这两者是两个层级上的一个尝试。两者都失败，那不重合是不可消除的，而在第二种情形中那余数以配置所供给的诸名字返回：懒惰、抗命、忘恩、盗窃。

那功能性的后果，不欠任何道德前提。 一个不为一个参与者的余数提供任何处所的配置已否认那余数它的效果。那余数是那回作者，而一个已预先关闭它行动的配置已预先关闭它自己进一步生成之源。这样一个配置靠消耗它本会为了生成而需要者而持存，而那便是榨取。

这一说明无处持有利用人是错的，因它拥有不了任何从之如此说的立场。它持有：一个不为它参与者的超额提供任何处所的配置已停止生成，而它从内部说这。

那表述是可被核查的，而它的可核查性正是要点。凡一个看似榨取性之安排的参与者组织并抗争，一个供那余数的处所便存在，而那安排在那一程度上已然比它显得的更少剥削。凡他们不能，那配置已闭合。剥削容许诸程度，而那程度是那处所的可得性。

与关于榨取之文献的关系

那第三个条件是生成性正义的中心论旨（埃格拉什，2016），而这一说明把它作为一个条件恢复、并把它作为一个后果推导。这两者之间的关系应被确切地陈述。

生成性正义辨认了那条件，而当下的说明供给它的一个推导。榨取在那里被命名为一种不义，而那命名是正确的。

那机制所增添者是一个关于榨取移除什么的说明、并由此一个关于一个榨取性配置在何种意义上自我拆台的说明。榨取移除那余数本会在其上登记的处所。 生成与榨取之间的区分由此成为那机制的内部之事，要求不了任何关于谁应得什么的先在看法。

这两个说明是互补的、并立于没有任何竞争之中。生成性正义追问价值去到何处、并正确地回答。当下的说明追问一条规范是什么，以致价值竟能去到任何地方，而它的答案蕴含那另一者的条件。我们从那文献取那条件、并返回它的一个推导。

这闭合了那对任何以生成为它原语之理论的长存反对。帝国生成；犯罪组织持存；癌生长。

对帝国的诊断必须被以一个那口号所缺的精确来陈述。观察到帝国工具化是不充分的，因为一个帝国可能在一个位点工具化、而在另一个生成，而这两者便只是并存的。那主张更强、而它是结构性的：那帝国配置不提供任何被殖民者的超额可在其上登记之处所，而它的生成被如此被配置的诸关系所资助。道路、文学与法律被生产，而那被殖民者本会据以继续生成的能力在生产它们中被消耗。那便是榨取，而那诊断从那配置的结构随之而来，而从没有任何在它之外的评价性立场。

那主张以这样的主张所能之方式是可被反驳的。 凡一个帝国配置确实提供这样一个处所，凡那被殖民者抗争、而那抗争登记、而那秩序被它所改变，这一说明必须说那配置在那一程度上是生成性的。我们接受那后果。它是那把一个结构性判准与一个道德裁断区分开来者。

可修订，及它的位置

这一说明早先陈述了一个对修订之开放的条件，而它从上面的五个中缺席。它缺席，因为它被含于那第一个之中：一个无法修订它已生成者的继续生成之能力不是任何生成的能力。新的关系必须能进入，而那解释性位置必须保持可被重新占据，而两者从那第一个条件随之而来，而不立于它之旁。

层面纪律。 若任何条件滑入听起来像一个价值，那§18由之开始的矛盾便返回。

非剥削与主体保存最处于风险，因它们读起来像道德主张，一个关于利用、另一个关于尊严。它们的辩护必须自始至终保持功能性的，而它在前一小节被给出：每一个都是那使占据变得精确之尝试的一个实例，而每一个都因那尝试总是失败之理由失败。

诸反例，及它们失败的方式

情形	它在何处失败，及那失败的功能性品格
犯罪组织	不提供任何一个成员的异议可在其上登记之处所，异议被力量所回应。违反 (3)。它所生成者是被强制持于原处的规则，而它们在那强制失效时失效。此处没有任何东西持守它自己。单是 (2) 的违反不会足以支持这一诊断：一个层级也靠一方的决定而再生产，而层级生成规范。那强制是那区分这一情形者。
殖民法律秩序	抹除被殖民者作为主体、并把他们工具化为一个源。违反 (3) 与 (5)。那余数本会在其上升起的诸关系项已被摧毁。
被冻结的国家	权力被固化，反权力未被生成，重新解释被预先关闭。违反 (4)。它再生产规范、而生成无物。
帝国	丰盛地生成，并凭工具化而生成。违反 (3)。它靠消耗它之下诸关系的生成能力来资助它的持存，而那便是榨取。
私刑暴民	分布式的解释，而它一同违反 (4) 与 (5)。从下面的生成获得不了任何善之保证，而这必须被说出：分布式的解释高效地产生暴民。

每一个反例违反一个条件，并作为一个规范生成的条件违反它。没有任何道德偏好被从外面输入，而那两层的结构存在，为的正是确保这。

自我应用

这些条件是那关于规范生成当前所能被陈述者。若它们被证明是错的，那修订其余一切的同一历史过程将修订它们。这是唯一与这一说明自己内容相一致的立场。它被陈述一次并被搁置。

本文的诸概念享有不了任何对它所主张者的豁免。它们是一个关系性配置的诸规定，在一个位置被生成，而它们将随那配置改变而被修订。若干传统在不同的名字之下抵达同一结构，这从此处所提供的说明随之而来，而它绝无一分是一个值得惊叹的巧合。本文占据又一个位置。它占据那从之一切这样的名字被看作一无处之视角，而它提供一个关于什么使它们之间的翻译成为可能的说明。

§19 规范评价的单位

传统的规范哲学评价诸行动、诸个体、或诸结果。此处的说明评价诸关系及它们的生成能力，而那问题因此成为：哪些关系值得维持、促进、转化或终止，以及在什么根据上。

这是那转向以它最被压缩之形式被陈述，而这一说明的原创性，若它有任何，在此。

第六部分. 诸界限

§20 那单一的缺口

那机制缺口、那形式主义缺口、以及尺度的问题构成一个戴着三副面具的问题。没有组合规则。

我们知道组合必须做什么：生成位置，并未能闭合于它们。一条产生完美可被占据之位置的规则会产生一个死的结构，即那不动点、那被冻结的秩序。那生成性的规则是一条其闭合是不完美的规则，从它群之排除随之而来，群精确地闭合。那排除比我们所本会想要者更窄，消去一个候选者、并留下若干其他者立着，即那些其组合是部分的、或其结合律只成立至融贯同构者。它是那目标的一个形式性质，而形式性质是可被搜索的。

我们无法写出那规则。

诸后果，被如此陈述，以致没有任何未挣得者被主张。

没有它便没有形式主义。 缺一条组合规则，形式的词汇是留待被形式化的一切。

没有它便没有对尺度的说明。 重整化群作用于一个拥有一个被指定之组合与一个被指定之尺度的理论，而这一说明两者都不拥有。那困难躺得比一个等待应用的技术更深。它本会作用于其上的对象尚待被构造。

§21 尺度的问题

那问题从那机制中掉出，而它从无处被输入。两个可得的答案都因一个被陈述的理由失败。

聚合，即由微观规范所组成的宏观规范，重新设立那第三部分所否认的可分离性。

自主，即每一尺度拥有它自己的、独立于其余者的规范，留跨尺度冲突于未被解释，而跨尺度冲突在经验上是所发生的主要之事。

两者都失败，因为那粗的结构是一个有不同关系项的不同结构，由组合不同的关系所生成，而它绝无一分是那细的结构被平均。因此那正确的问题关切什么熬过组合，而它绝无一分关切微观规范的聚合。我们所会采取的方向，作为一个方向、而非一个结果被提供，持有尺度是组合的深度，而它绝非分辨率，并持有那候选的不变量是那非闭合本身：没有位置在任何深度被精确地占据。

若那是对的，横跨诸尺度的不变量便会是那个阻止任何尺度安顿之物本身。那不变量便会是变化之源。 我们不知道它是否是对的，而它的研究必须等待那组合规则。

§22 诸残余，被命名

那认识论的残余。 一个配置可能缺乏从内部分辨它是生成还是榨取的资源。那榨取性的系统把它自己经历为生成性的。这个问题是认识论的，而它未被解决。

那子弹。 若一个真正开放的、共同生成的、不抹除的、生成反权力的配置产生一个我们所憎恶的规范，我们的憎恶便会有没有更高的法庭。这一说明接受这。它所保留者是：这些条件苛求到足以排除我们所在意的几乎每一个历史的怪物，而这从它们的内容随之而来：这些条件是生成的条件，而支配是生成的遏止。

亚稳态，以取代均衡。 一个安顿下来的秩序是死的。所想要者是稳定因为可修订：一个靠对重新解释之吸收、而绝无一分靠对它之抵抗而持存的秩序。由闭合所购得的稳定是那失败模式。

§23 本文的地位

那论证倚于一个可能是假的主张，而那主张应在结尾立着，如它在开端立着。生成者与榨取者必须在一个配置的结构中可被区分，被一个持有不了任何关于谁应得什么之先在看法的人。 若它们被证明是别样的，那么那判准便是外部的，那说明便许可了无物，而它的规范内容便是带形式装饰的直觉。§4是这被捍卫之处，而一个希望摧毁本文的读者应从那里开始。

四件东西被主张。那自然主义的还原从内部失败，一个被行为主义地描述的制裁与一个侵犯无从区分，而这一失败与那诸分配性理论的失败共享一个成因：每一个都在一个关系项中定位那只在一个位置存在者。生成性是估价的条件，而绝无一分是一个价值，因而那要求辩护它的要求是病构的。规范生成的诸条件是条件、而绝非判准，因而这一说明可以持有它们、同时竖起它已否认的那个历史之上之法庭中的无一。以及非剥削容许从那机制被推导：工具化使占据变得精确，那余数被否认，而一个剥削性的配置消耗那它本会据以继续生成的能力。生成与榨取由此从内部被区分。

三件东西去而未被主张。那组合规则。尺度的问题。以及一个没有扬弃的辩证法的地位。

规范没有任何离开它们历史生成的存在。那生成据以持续的诸条件是那所能被说的全部，而它们苛求到足以谴责所建之物的大部分。

参考文献