Note: This is a informal record of thought.

Under the conjecture that “the universe is attempting to evolve in a manner that maximizes its generativity,” justice, ethics, and morality assume distinct epistemological and dynamical statuses.

在基于”宇宙在尝试以最大化其生成性的方式演化”这样的猜想下，正义、伦理与道德呈现出不同的认识论与动力学地位。

First, Justice possesses a phenomenological character. Justice is not a pre-existing entity but rather an observed manifestation of the generative process itself:

第一，正义（Justice）具有现象学性质。 正义不是一种预先存在的实体，而是对生成过程本身的观测所得：

$$ A \rightarrow B \rightarrow C \rightarrow \cdots $$

It reveals itself only in the unfolding of concrete generative mechanisms, such as judicial procedures, conflict resolution, or resource allocation, appearing in a mode of “presencing.” Justice can be experienced but cannot be reified; it belongs to the phenomenological manifestation of the generative process, not as an independent ontology.

它仅在具体生成机制的展开过程中，如司法程序、利益冲突解决、资源分配等，以”在场性”的方式显现。正义可被经验，但不可被实体化；它属于生成过程的现象学显现，而非独立的本体。

Note: This article contains AI-assisted creation. The conceptual development are authored and curated by the author, with AI used as a supportive tool for drafting, refining, and linguistic organization.

© 2025 Wanhong HUANG

摘要 / Abstract

我们提出一种根植于基础物理学的激进自然化伦理学。核心猜想：宇宙展现出一种内在倾向，即最大化生成性（generativity）。此处的生成性指向持续探索配置空间与产生熵的能力。这种倾向通过量子振幅加权显现：在路径积分表述中，高生成性分支获得指数级更大的”实在权重”。

We propose a radical naturalization of ethics grounded in fundamental physics. Our central conjecture: the universe exhibits an intrinsic tendency toward maximizing generativity, the capacity for sustained configuration space exploration and entropy production. This tendency manifests through quantum amplitude weighting, where high-generativity branches receive exponentially greater “reality weight” in the path integral formulation.

我们说明，标准的道德直觉, 例如反对权力集中、偏好平等、厌恶掠夺等并不仅仅是文化建构，其也是是从生成性保持原理中必然涌现。通过异质耦合的伊辛模型，我们证明了支配节点结构导致动力学寂灭（$𝒢 → 0$），而平等耦合维持广延生成性（$𝒢 = Θ(N)$）。

We demonstrate that standard moral intuitions, which is opposition to power concentration, preference for equality, aversion to predation are not cultural constructions but rather emerge necessarily from generativity preservation principles. Using Ising models with heterogeneous coupling, we prove that dominant node structures lead to dynamical quenching ($𝒢 → 0$), while egalitarian coupling maintains extensive generativity ($𝒢 = Θ(N)$).

该框架通过部分观测理论解决了不道德行为的悖论：每个主体在有限信息下优化其感知的生成性，导致与真实全局生成性的系统性异化。因此，道德进步在于通过透明度、多视角聚合与制度设计来缩小这一认识论鸿沟。

The framework resolves the paradox of immoral behavior through partial observation theory: each agent optimizes their perceived generativity under limited information, leading to systematic alienation from true global generativity. Moral progress thus consists in reducing this epistemic gap through transparency, multi-perspective aggregation, and institutional design.

我们在神经科学、社会学和政治经济学领域推导出可检验的预测，并提出统一的伦理理论:宇宙生成性功利主义综合了后果论、义务论与德性伦理。本研究为道德哲学提供了后启蒙时代的基础，既植根于物理学，又富含规范性，连接了古代东方智慧（生生之谓易，”持续生成即谓之变”）与现代科学。

We derive testable predictions across neuroscience, sociology, and political economy, and propose a unified ethical theory, i.e., the Cosmic Generativity Utilitarianism, which synthesizes consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. This work offers a post-Enlightenment foundation for moral philosophy, grounded in physics yet normatively rich, connecting ancient Eastern wisdom (生生之谓易, “continuous generation is called Change”) with modern science.

摘要
本文试图超越传统法理学中关于“正义是什么”的形而上追问，提出一种基于“关系性存在”的生成性法哲学观。通过整合后结构主义精神分析、东方道释智慧及马克思主义的批判视角，我们认为正义并非一个预先存在的实体，而是一种在法律的动态实践中被构筑的“在场性”。法律的符号秩序（“大他者”）如同渡河之舟，其终极目的并非自我永存，而是在实现正义的进程中导向自身的消解，从而使社会回归一种非异化的、本真的关系性和谐。

Abstract
This essay seeks to move beyond the metaphysical question of “what is justice” and to propose a generative philosophy of law grounded in relational being. Integrating post-structuralist psychoanalysis, Eastern Daoist–Buddhist insight, and Marxist critique, it argues that justice is not a pre-existing entity but a mode of presence constructed within the dynamic practice of law. The symbolic order of law—the “Big Other”—is like a raft for crossing a river: its ultimate purpose is not its own permanence, but its self-dissolution in the realization of justice, allowing society to return to an unalienated harmony of relations.

法理学的历史，其实是一部“正义”概念在结构与生成、符号与实在之间往复摆动的历史。功利主义将正义简化为可计算的效用最大化；法律实证主义将其限定为程序的符合性；概念法学又把它还原为符号体系的逻辑自洽。它们都试图将正义锚定于一种理性结构之中，使之稳定、可知，却也因此失去了生成的生命力。

The history of jurisprudence is a history of the oscillation of “justice” between structure and generation, between the symbolic and the real. Utilitarianism reduces justice to calculable utility; legal positivism confines it to procedural conformity; conceptual jurisprudence equates it with the logical consistency of legal symbols. Each seeks to anchor justice in rational structure—stable and knowable—but in doing so drains it of generative life.

语言学法学与社会学法学试图让法律重新贴近语言与社会的流动，但它们依然被困在现象界与符号界之内。主体在这些理论中逐渐消失，被溶解于结构的功能之中。法律现实主义把注意力转向经验与实践，逼近了正义的生成维度，却仍未触及生成与存在的本体性关联。即便新康德主义复兴了理性的“应然”，它也未能穿透理性自身的生成动力。

Linguistic and sociological jurisprudence attempted to reconnect law with the flow of language and society, yet both remained trapped within the phenomenal and symbolic domains. The subject gradually vanished, dissolved into the functional operations of structure. Legal realism turned toward experience and practice, approaching the generative dimension of justice, yet still failed to reach the ontological linkage between generation and being. Even the Neo-Kantian revival of rational normativity could not penetrate the dynamics by which reason itself is generated.

创造力，表面上似乎属于人类的能力范畴，是意志的展现、想象的产物、或认知机制的涌现。
然而，当我们追问创造的根基——创造为何可能？创造之前，何者在？
我们会发现，“创造”本身并非源自个体的意志，而是源自更深层的存在之流。

Creation seems at first to belong to the sphere of human capacity—an act of will, imagination, or cognition.
Yet when we ask the deeper question—why is creation possible at all, and what precedes it?—
we discover that creation does not originate in the will of the subject,
but arises from a more fundamental current of Being itself.

在人之创造中，生成性在意识与世界之间自我展开。
人只是这一展开的一个临时节点，
而创造之为，不过是道体自显的一个涟漪。

In human creativity, generativity unfolds itself between consciousness and the world.
The human is only a transient node of this unfolding;
what we call creation is merely a ripple of the Dao manifesting itself.

The Lacanian theorization of the feminine constitutes a radical departure from essentialist or empirical descriptions, positing it instead as a singular structural position within the topology of the speaking being. This position is fundamentally orchestrated by the “not-all” logic, a formulation that emerges directly from Lacan’s sexuation graphs. On the masculine side, a universal function is established—“all men are castrated,” meaning all are subject to the phallic function and the law of the signifier. This universality, however, is paradoxically founded on an exception, embodied by the primordial Father of Freud’s myth who is presumed to enjoy unrestricted access to jouissance. In stark contrast, the feminine side is structured by a different quantificational logic: there is no universal claim that “all women” are anything. A woman is not wholly subsumed under the phallic function; she is, as Lacan states, “not-all” within it. This is the profound meaning behind his most infamous axiom, “The Woman does not exist.” It declares that there is no transcendental signifier, no ultimate predicate, that could define the essence of “Woman” in the symbolic order. She is not a universal category but a collection of singularities; one can only speak of “women,” each finding her own singular way of negotiating with the phallic order and her existence as a speaking being.

Difference seems closely related to generativity. Derrida’s différance, Deleuze’s philosophy of difference, and systems theory’s feedback mechanisms—all these different intellectual traditions point to the same observation: the more sensitive a system is to difference, the greater its capacity for evolution and creation.

This may help us understand a common phenomenon in human society: we are eager to construct hierarchies and social strata and to strive for “higher” positions. This construction of difference may be precisely the mechanism that sustains social generativity. In class societies, it is precisely these artificially constructed differences—maintained through laws, institutions, and violence—that drive competition, innovation, and historical development. Masters drive away slaves, capitalists pursue profit; this distorted and alienating drive does indeed bring technological progress, albeit accompanied by suffering and crises.

Traditional Western metaphysics begins with a fundamental question: “What is being?” and habitually answers with substance. However, this substance ontology faces a fundamental dilemma: it cannot explain how relations are possible, and always reduces relations to subsidiary properties of substances.

Our revolutionary starting point lies in a radical shift in perspective: switching the basic unit of existence from “substance” to “relational event“. This does not deny the stability of phenomena, but rather claims that any seemingly stable “substance” is essentially a stable knot or persistent pattern of dynamic relations.

The gendered tendency toward relational versus competitive orientations may be understood through the psychoanalytic structure of subject formation. Within a patriarchal symbolic order, the female subject faces a unique predicament in the Oedipal complex: she can neither fully identify with the father (the position of power) nor comfortably with the mother (which would expose a structural lack).

Unlike the male subject who enters the symbolic through identification with paternal authority—the “Name-of-the-Father” as organizing signifier—there exists no equivalent “meta-mother” or “Name-of-the-Mother” to anchor female subjectivity within the symbolic order. This absence means women are never fully sutured into symbolic structures in the same definitive way.

Anthropological research reveals a thought-provoking possibility: human society may have originated from a matriarchal structure in which women once held higher status than men. If this hypothesis holds true, then according to the Daoist dialectical principle that “reversal is the movement of the Way,” history may not be a linear progression but rather a kind of spiral return. The structural transformations that contemporary society is experiencing—the collapse of the symbolic order, the erosion of traditional gender advantages by technology, and the revaluation of feminine qualities—may not be isolated phenomena. Instead, they may signify that human society is undergoing a historical threshold transition: a shift from the patriarchal symbolic order toward a new form of feminine subjectivity.

人类学研究揭示了一个引人深思的可能性:人类社会或许起源于母系社会,女性地位曾高于男性。若这一假设成立,那么根据”反者道之动”的辩证原理,历史可能并非线性进步,而是呈现某种螺旋式的回归运动。当代社会正在经历的诸多结构性变革——符号秩序的崩塌、技术对传统性别优势的消解、女性特质的价值重估——或许并非孤立的现象,而是预示着人类社会正处于一个历史性的临界转变之中:从父权符号秩序向一种新型的女性主体性社会的过渡。

This proposition must be understood through the lens of Lacanian psychoanalysis. In Lacan’s theory, the male subject is anchored in the symbolic order by identifying with the “Name-of-the-Father,” occupying the position of the “Big Other”—the embodiment of structure itself. The stability of patriarchal society rests upon the reliability of this symbolic order: law, contract, authority, and hierarchy all depend on the effective functioning of the symbolic system. However, contemporary society is witnessing an unprecedented crisis of the symbolic order. Artificial intelligence has detached the production of symbols from the intentionality of the subject; phenomena such as deepfakes, fabricated images, and generated texts proliferate, technically tearing open the ontological fissure between the symbolic and the real. More profoundly, people are beginning to lose faith in the Big Other itself, to demystify traditional authority, and to realize that the symbolic order is not a transcendent absolute but a historical construction. This skepticism toward the Big Other shakes the symbolic foundation of patriarchy at its core.

这一论断需要从拉康精神分析理论的框架来理解。在拉康的理论中,男性主体通过认同”原父之名”被牢固地锚定于符号秩序,扮演着”大他者”的角色——即结构本身的化身。父权社会的稳定性建立在这一符号秩序的可靠性之上:法律、契约、权威、等级制度等结构性安排,都依赖于符号系统的有效运作。然而,当代社会正在经历符号秩序前所未有的危机。人工智能技术使得符号的生产脱离了主体意志的支撑,深度伪造、虚假图像、生成文本等现象泛滥,符号与真实之间的本体论裂隙被技术性地撕开。更深层的变化在于,人们开始对大他者本身失去信任,对传统权威结构进行祛魅,认识到符号秩序并非超越性的绝对存在,而只是历史性的建构。这种对大他者的质疑,从根本上动摇了父权社会的符号基础。

Contemporary society is undergoing a profound crisis of trust. This crisis does not merely manifest as a localized decay in the moral domain, but penetrates comprehensively across all dimensions of interpersonal relations, gender relations, state relations, and class relations. This essay seeks to demonstrate that this crisis of trust has deep epistemological roots in the structural defects inherent to the symbolic system itself, and that any response to this crisis requires us to accomplish a theoretical turn from metaphysical pursuit to dialectical praxis.

当代社会似乎正经历着一场深刻的信任危机。这场危机并非仅仅表现为道德领域的局部衰退,而是全方位地渗透于人际关系、性别关系、国家关系乃至阶级关系的各个维度。本文试图指出,这场信任危机有其深层的认识论根源,即符号系统本身所固有的结构性缺陷,而对这一危机的回应,需要我们完成一次从形而上学追求到辩证实践的思想转向。

The dilemma of the symbolic system lies in its insurmountable dual failure: on one hand, the will of a subject has never been able to achieve complete representation through symbols—symbols as mediators can never exhaust the totality of subjectivity; on the other hand, the subject constructed by symbols—that “I” which is constituted and recognized through symbolic exchange—has never been able to genuinely reflect the original will of the subject. This ontological fissure between symbol and reality has long been concealed by the habitus of social practice. People have assumed the reliability of symbols in everyday life and have established fragile mechanisms of trust upon this foundation.

符号系统的困境在于其不可克服的双重失效:一方面,主体的意志从未能够通过符号获得完全的代理,符号作为中介永远无法穷尽主体性的全部内容;另一方面,符号构筑的主体——那个在符号交换中被建构、被辨识的”我”——也从未能真实地反映主体的原初意志。这种符号与真实之间的本体论裂隙,长期以来被社会实践中的惯习所遮蔽,人们在日常生活中默认了符号的可靠性,并在此基础上建立起脆弱的信任机制。

The emergence of artificial intelligence technology, along with the systematic abuse of symbols—phenomena such as fabricated images, generated texts, and deepfakes—has dramatically intensified this crisis. When the production of symbols no longer requires the support of subjective will, when symbols can be infinitely reproduced, manipulated, and recombined by technology, the collapse of the symbolic order becomes an irreversible trend. Under these circumstances, how to reconstruct trust between human beings becomes an urgent theoretical and practical question.

人工智能技术的出现,以及对符号的系统性滥用——诸如伪造图像、生成文本、深度伪造等现象——极大地加剧了这一危机。当符号的生产不再需要主体意志的支撑,当符号可以被技术无限复制、篡改、重组,符号秩序的崩塌便成为一个不可逆转的趋势。在这种情况下,如何重新构筑人与人之间的信任,成为一个紧迫的理论和实践课题。