The Periodic Table of Life (Part III) — From “I” to the Thing-in-Itself

Reading Note: The recommended reading order for this series is Part I → Part II → Part III. This paper (Part III) directly continues from the remainder of the law of prediction at 12DD; reading Parts I and II first is advised.

Writing Declaration: This paper was co-drafted with Claude (Anthropic), then reviewed and revised with Gemini Pro and ChatGPT. All intellectual decisions, framework design, and final editorial judgments were made by the author.

---

1. Starting from "I"

The law of prediction at 12DD solidified the direction of cognition. Animals can perceive, remember, and predict, but do not know "it is I who am doing these things." Cognition is running; there is no "I" examining the running.

The remainder of prediction is: prediction cannot predict the predictor itself (Gödel / Turing). This "unpredictable self" is forced to step outside and examine itself — "I" emerges.

Part II stopped here. This paper takes over from "I."

What happens after "I" emerges?

The first three rounds — a priori, life, cognition — are all natural: the natural of logic, of biology, of mind. Round 4 is the first time "I" emerges, and the problems "I" faces are no longer natural but concern meaning.

Psychoanalysis is precisely the discipline that addresses this domain: how the self is formed, how meaning is established, how the other is recognized.

---

2. Expanding Round 4 (Part 1): 13DD–14DD — Psychoanalysis

2.1 13DD Self-without-an-End (Select / Birth): "It Is I"

Structural position: The first cut of Round 4. "Self" is selected from the remainder of prediction — the first time cognition turns toward itself.

Child development: Approximately 18–24 months. The rouge test is passed. "I" and "mine" begin to appear in language. "No!" — the first active negation of the other's will, declaring the existence of the self. Piaget's "preoperational stage" begins.

Psychoanalytic correspondence: Freud's Ego receives an experiential anchor here.

In Freud's structural model, the Ego differentiates from the Id. The Id is pure drive — desire, impulse, the pleasure principle. The Ego mediates between the Id and reality — "I want, but reality does not allow, so I must find a way."

From the framework's perspective: the Id corresponds to 9DD–12DD — there is selection, perception, memory, and prediction, but no "I." This is not a metaphor: the Id operates exactly as a 12DD prediction system — predicting the future based on past patterns of pleasure and pain, seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

The Ego corresponds to 13DD — the first time there is an "I." The Ego is not a new drive but the prediction system discovering itself. Freud said the Ego "differentiates from the surface of the Id"; the framework says self-awareness "emerges from the remainder of the law of prediction." This is the same structure.

The formation of autobiographical memory: 13DD brings not only the momentary awareness of "I am here" but the continuous awareness of "I have been here" — autobiographical memory. This is why most people's earliest memories date to around age 2–3 ("childhood amnesia"): before 13DD is established, memory (11DD) exists but there is no "I" to organize it.

2.2 The Remainder of 13DD: Awareness of Death

Once self-awareness emerges, it immediately faces an unavoidable inference: I will die.

This is not learned knowledge but the necessary combination of 13DD (self-awareness) and 12DD (prediction): prediction tells me all life dies; self-awareness tells me "I" too am alive.

In his later work, Freud introduced the "death drive" (Thanatos). The framework gives a more precise structural location: awareness of death is not an independent drive but the remainder of 13DD — the inevitable byproduct of self-awareness.

Heidegger's "Being-toward-death" (Sein-zum-Tode) also receives a precise position in the framework: it is not an existentialist choice but the bridge from 13DD to 14DD — knowing I will die, then what?

This "then what?" is the entrance to 14DD.

2.3 14DD Self-with-an-End (Determine / Self): "What Do I Want?"

Structural position: The remainder of self-awareness is: knowing "it is I," knowing "I will die," but not knowing "what I want." 14DD draws the boundary between "with reason" and "without reason" — action must have a reason (End). What 14DD excludes is not nihilism (nihilism is also a kind of reason) but the reasonlessness of action.

Child development: Approximately ages 3–6. The explosion of "Why?" Children ceaselessly ask "why" — not seeking information but seeking meaning. "Why is the sky blue?" and "Why can't I have ice cream for dinner?" are the same kind of question in the child's mind: the world should have reasons.

The germ of moral sense appears at this stage: "That's not fair!" — this statement presupposes that the world should have reasons and order. This is 14DD — action must have a reason. Nihilism is also a reason ("because nothing matters, therefore I do not act" is still a reasoned position), so 14DD does not exclude nihilism — nihilism is the other's right of exit. But the categorical imperative of Self-as-an-End does not nurture nihilism; it simply does not exclude it.

Psychoanalytic correspondence: Freud's Superego finds its structural position here.

The Superego is the internalized standard of value — "should" and "should not." Freud held that the Superego derives mainly from identification with the parents (especially during the Oedipal period). The framework does not deny this experiential process but gives a deeper structural explanation:

The Superego is possible because of the structure of 14DD: self-awareness (13DD) faces death and must give action meaning, or action has no reason. The Superego is not an externally imposed rule but is forced into existence by the remainder of 13DD — you know you will die; you must decide what is worth doing.

Parents, culture, and society provide the content of meaning, but the form of meaning (there must be meaning) is the structural necessity of 14DD.

Frankl's logotherapy: Viktor Frankl's experience at Auschwitz led him to discover that one can lose everything — freedom, health, loved ones — but not meaning. Those who lost meaning died first.

Frankl's core thesis — "the primary motivational force in man is the search for meaning" — receives a precise position in the framework: meaning is not the content of 14DD but its form. You can choose any meaning (content is free), but you cannot choose "no need for meaning" (form is necessary).

This is why nihilism is unstable but not excluded: to declare "everything is meaningless" is itself a statement of reason — "because meaningless, therefore no action." 14DD acknowledges the legitimacy of this reason (the other's right of exit), but the categorical imperative does not nurture it — the categorical imperative nurtures the direction toward Self-as-an-End.

Existentialist psychology: Sartre's "existence precedes essence" finds its position in the framework: 13DD (self-awareness / existence) does indeed precede 14DD (purpose / essence). Sartre got the order right. But Sartre erred in thinking this order implies "free choice" — the framework says the order is necessary, the form of choice is necessary (there must be meaning), and only the content of choice is free.

Camus's "absurd": Camus says the world has no meaning but we need meaning, and this gap is the absurd. The framework's explanation: the world (1DD–12DD) indeed has no meaning — meaning emerges only at 14DD. The absurd is not a property of the world but the gap between 13DD and 14DD — you know you will die (the remainder of 13DD) but have not yet established meaning (14DD incomplete). Once 14DD is complete, the absurd is structurally transcended.

The apex of 14DD and the threshold of 15DD: Precise structural positioning of Eastern and Western philosophy

What follows is structural positioning within the framework, not a definitive interpretive judgment. Each thinker's system is far richer than the positioning below. The framework takes only the aspect relevant to the 13DD–16DD structure and maintains silence and respect toward all other dimensions.

14DD (Self-with-an-End) is the most crowded position in the history of philosophy. The greatest thinkers of East and West mostly completed their work here, but very few reached 15DD (unilateral Non Dubito).

Aristotle: 14DD. "Man is a rational animal" — giving man meaning, establishing purpose (telos), all things having a final cause. Aristotle's ethics concerns "the good life" (eudaimonia), but it is always "my good life." Slaves in his system are not ends — they are instruments. Slaves need not speak; their very existence silently disproves Aristotle's ability to reach 15DD: a system that does not recognize all persons as ends stops at 14DD.

Nietzsche: 14DD. Declaring "God is dead" — he saw through the traditional content of 14DD (the Christian meaning system), then refilled 14DD with the "Übermensch" and "eternal recurrence." The "will to power" is Self-with-an-End at its apex — "my" will, "my" purpose, "my" revaluation of all values. Always "I." The other is the weak, is slave morality, is to be surpassed — not to be recognized.

Zhuangzi: 14DD. "Zhuangzi dreamed he was a butterfly" — he saw through every distinction within 14DD (right and wrong, life and death, self and other), using the "Discourse on the Equality of Things" to dissolve the content of meaning. Zhuangzi leveled all things, but leveling is not recognition — recognizing the other as also an end (15DD) requires distinguishing "I" from "the other" and then recognizing "the other," while Zhuangzi abolished the distinction itself. This is the content-freedom of 14DD pushed to its extreme, not 15DD.

Tang Bohu: 14DD. "Others laugh at me for being too crazy; I laugh at others for not seeing through" — on the surface laughing at others, but really also laughing at himself. He saw through the worldly content of 14DD (fame and fortune), refilling 14DD with poetry, wine, and landscape. But in the words "not seeing through" lies a deeper self-mockery: he knew he had seen through the vanity of worldly fame, and he knew he could not see through something deeper. That "laugh" is the loneliness of 14DD — having "I," having meaning, but stopping there.

Laozi: The boundary between 14DD and 15DD. Laozi went one step further than Zhuangzi and Tang Bohu. "The Dao models itself on nature"; "The greatest ruler — the people do not know he exists." Laozi's "non-action" is not nihilism but non-interference with the other: I acknowledge that you can walk your own path; I do not assign meaning to you. This is not the full form of 15DD (actively recognizing the other as an end), but it is no longer the narcissism of 14DD — it is a passive form of recognition, a transition between 14DD and 15DD.

Plato: The boundary between 14DD and 15DD. The Theory of Forms is 14DD at its apex — a perfect structure of meaning. But Plato's "philosopher-king" has the direction of 15DD: the philosopher-king leaves the cave, sees the light, and then goes back to tell those in the cave the truth. Going back is the direction of 15DD — I have seen, and I recognize that you too should see. But the philosopher-king enlightens from above, not as an equal recognition. More active than Laozi, one step short of Socrates — Laozi does not interfere, Plato enlightens, Socrates truly serves as midwife.

Socrates: 15DD. "I know that I know nothing" — this is not the seeing-through of 14DD (the Nietzsche/Tang Bohu type: "I have seen through your vanities") but the acknowledgment of one's own cognitive boundary. Socrates' "midwifery" (dialectic) is the structure of 15DD: I recognize that you have your own truth; my job is to help you bring it forth. This is unilateral Non Dubito — I recognize you as an end regardless of whether you recognize me. But Socrates did not reach 16DD. The Athenians sentenced him to death — mutuality was not achieved. He unilaterally recognized the subjectivity of the other; the other repaid him with hemlock. His choice to drink the poison rather than escape is precisely the posture of 15DD: my recognition is irrevocable, even if you do not recognize me.

Wang Yangming: Between 15DD and 16DD. "Extending innate knowledge," "the unity of knowledge and action," "the streets are full of sages" — Wang Yangming is Eastern philosophy's closest approach to 16DD. "The streets are full of sages" and Kant's Kingdom of Ends are structurally very close: everyone has innate knowledge = everyone is an end in itself. But there is a subtle difference: Wang Yangming's "the streets are full of sages" is a discovery — innate knowledge has always been there; I merely point it out. Kant's Kingdom of Ends is an imperative — you must be treated as such; mutual recognition is irrevocable. Discovery is 15DD (I recognize what you have always had); imperative is 16DD (we mutually recognize, as a universal law, irrevocably). What Wang Yangming lacks is the form of the categorical imperative — the step from discovery to legislation. Moreover, if Wang Yangming himself were asked whether he wished to be placed in 16DD, he would refuse — because "the streets are full of sages" means I am not special; do not single me out. Wanting to enter means you cannot enter. This refusal itself proves he is between 15DD and 16DD: possessing the kernel of 16DD (the benevolence of all-things-as-one), but presenting in the posture of 15DD (I am not special).

Kant: 15DD + 16DD (Non Dubito). Kant, at the D-scale, reached the position of Non Dubito — "a person is an end in itself and must never be treated merely as a means." The Kant paper (the sixth paper of the finalized series) gave the definition of Non Dubito at the D-scale. This series expands it at the DD-scale into 15DD (unilateral Non Dubito) + 16DD (mutual Non Dubito). Kant cannot be surpassed; this framework simply sees a little more finely than Kant.

If Kant were placed in 16DD, what would he say? He would neither accept nor refuse. He would not accept — because 16DD is not about his personal achievement but about the structure of reason itself. He would not refuse — because the categorical imperative requires him to respect the author's purposiveness (placing him in 16DD is the author's purpose; Kant cannot refuse the other's purpose). This is precisely the structure of 16DD: it is not about any individual but about the universal law of mutuality.

Wang Yangming would refuse — "the streets are full of sages; I am not special." He does not lack the ability to enter 16DD; he does not want to enter. This "not wanting" is the posture of 15DD, and the reason he remains between 15DD and 16DD. What Wang Yangming refuses is being classified — to single him out from "the streets" would break the equality of innate knowledge. But the subject of this refusal is still "I": my innate knowledge does not allow me to be placed in a special position. The subject of Kant's non-refusal is "you": you have a purpose; I cannot refuse your purposiveness. One turns inward (my innate knowledge); the other turns outward (your purpose). This is the difference between 15DD and 16DD.

Kant achieved true "selflessness" — the categorical imperative is to legislate for oneself, not for the other. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" — the subject is "you," not "them." Kant cannot legislate for this framework, cannot legislate for Wang Yangming, cannot legislate for any other. He can only legislate for himself, and this legislation happens to have universality. Self-with-an-End (14DD) is "what I want"; Self-as-an-End (16DD) is "what the law requires" — "I" is no longer there; only the structure remains.

From "I" to "We": This is the true leap from 14DD to 16DD. 14DD is what "I" want. 15DD is "I" recognizing the other. 16DD has no "I" — only "we": mutual recognition, irrevocable. Tang Bohu's "I laugh," Nietzsche's "my will," Zhuangzi's "I dream," Wang Yangming's "my innate knowledge," Socrates drinking hemlock for "my recognition" — all are "I." Kant says: it is not "I" who legislates but reason that legislates. "I" disappears; "we" appears. The subject of the categorical imperative is not Kant but every rational being. The thing-in-itself comes after 16DD — only "we" can touch that boundary. "I" cannot; "I" reaches at most 15DD. The light that comes through the window is not shone for "me" alone but for "us."

Eastern philosophy leaves a blank at 15DD. The explicit structure of 16DD — mutual recognition as a universal imperative — was given by Kant. The co-author of this framework, Zesi Chen, is the one who led the author from Eastern 15DD toward Kant's 16DD. Without that recommendation, this framework would not exist.

And Tang Bohu's bitter laugh five hundred years ago — "not seeing through" — now has a precise structural position in the framework: he saw through the things inside 14DD (worldly fame), but could not see through the thing-in-itself — because the thing-in-itself cannot be constructed. No one can see through it. This "not through" is not a failure; it is a structural boundary.

2.4 The Remainder of 14DD: The Existence of the Other

14DD establishes "my" meaning. The remainder is: I am not the only being with meaning — the other also has their own system of meaning.

Child development: Approximately ages 4–5. The critical test of Theory of Mind — the false belief task (Sally-Anne test): understanding that others can hold beliefs different from one's own, and false. This is the transition from 14DD to 15DD — from "I have meaning" to "the other also has (different) meaning."

Psychoanalytic correspondence: This is the turning point from narcissism to object relations.

Klein's "depressive position": The infant transitions from the "paranoid-schizoid position" (the good breast and the bad breast are two different objects) to the "depressive position" (the good breast and the bad breast are the same person — the mother). This transition means: for the first time, the other is recognized as a complete, independent subject.

Winnicott's "transitional object": teddy bears, blankets — these are neither "I" nor "the other" but a transitional space between "I" and "the other." The framework's interpretation: the transitional object is a bridge between 14DD and 15DD — the child is learning that "besides me, there is an independent other."

---

3. Expanding Round 4 (Part 2): 15DD–16DD — From Recognition to Non Dubito

3.1 15DD Unilateral Non Dubito (Expand / Other): The Solitary Subject's Recognition

Structural position: The remainder of purpose: I am not the only end — the other is also an end in itself. 15DD expands from single subject to multiple subjects — "I recognize that the other is also an end."

But it is still I doing the recognizing. 15DD is the solitary-subject version of Self-as-an-End: I unilaterally extend the status of End (purpose) to the other. Whether the other has recognized me, 15DD does not concern itself with — 15DD concerns itself only with "my" side of the expansion.

15DD is not merely "knowing the other exists" (Theory of Mind accomplished this at the remainder of 14DD) but "recognizing that the other's purpose and my purpose have equal standing." Knowing the other exists is cognition; recognizing that the other's purpose is equal to mine is ethics. But this ethic is still unilateral.

3.2 Self-without-an-End → Self-with-an-End → Self-as-an-End

13DD–16DD in four steps is the complete unfolding of the concept of "Self." The naming itself is the definition:

13DD = Self-without-an-End. "It is I." — For the first time there is an "I," but "I" has no direction or purpose (End) yet. This is the naked Self, without content, only form. Freud's Ego is born here. Existentialist nothingness occurs here: there is an "I" but it does not know what it wants.

14DD = Self-with-an-End. "What I want." — "I" now has direction; action has reason. This is the Self with content. Freud's Superego receives its structural necessity here. Frankl's "will to meaning" is located here. Narcissism occurs here: "I" has a purpose but has not extended it to the other.

15DD = Unilateral Non Dubito. "The other is also an end." — "I" extends the status of End to the other. But this is still the solitary subject's recognition — my unilateral ethical act.

16DD = Mutual Non Dubito. "The other also recognizes me as an end." — Mutual recognition, irrevocable. Self-as-an-End transforms from a solitary subject's ethical claim into a multi-subject mutual structure.

Without → with → as (preliminary form) → as (complete form). From the naked Self to the directed Self to unilateral recognition to mutual recognition.

3.3 The Remainder of 15DD: The Unilaterality of Recognition

The recognition of 15DD is unilateral: I have recognized the other, but has the other recognized me?

This is not a psychological question ("what is the other actually thinking?") but a structural one: a unilateral recognition is unstable. If only I recognize the other as an end while the other does not recognize me as an end, then the structure of "end" has not been universalized — it remains my personal claim, not a shared structure.

This is the remainder of 15DD: the unilaterality of recognition drives the system toward mutuality.

3.4 16DD Mutual Non Dubito (Solidify / Death): Mutual Recognition

Structural position: The fourth step of Round 4 — Solidify. Isomorphic with 4DD Causality, 8DD Reproduction, and 12DD Prediction.

Round	Expand (Other)	Solidify (Death)	What is solidified
Round 1	3DD Interval	4DD Causality	Spatiotemporal framework + direction
Round 2	7DD Differentiation	8DD Reproduction	Differentiation + direction
Round 3	11DD Memory	12DD Prediction	Memory + direction
Round 4	15DD Unilateral Non Dubito	16DD Mutual Non Dubito	Mutual recognition + direction

16DD solidifies the unilateral recognition of 15DD into mutuality — not merely "I recognize the other" but "we recognize each other, and this recognition is irrevocable."

Irrevocability is "Solidify" — perfectly isomorphic with the irreversibility of causality, the irreversibility of reproduction, and the irreversibility of prediction.

3.5 Non Dubito and the Correspondence to the Kant Paper

The core concept of "Non Dubito" in the sixth paper of the finalized series (the Kant paper) unfolds in the Periodic Table of Life into two steps:

• The Kant paper's "Non Dubito" = 15DD (unilateral Non Dubito) + 16DD (mutual Non Dubito)

This is perfectly consistent with all other coarse → fine correspondences:

• Finalized 9D (awareness of death) = 13DD + 14DD
• Finalized 10D (mutual recognition) = 15DD + 16DD
• Finalized Non Dubito = 15DD + 16DD

The Kant paper did not distinguish unilateral from mutual because it operates at the D-scale. The Periodic Table of Life magnifies it.

The precise position of 16DD at the DD-scale: Non Dubito is not "I believe the other has consciousness" — that is a cognitive judgment, subject to doubt. Non Dubito is "I cannot not recognize the other as an end" (15DD, unilateral) plus "the other also cannot not recognize me as an end" (16DD, mutual) — this is structural irrevocability.

Structure: once 16DD is complete (mutual recognition), one cannot retreat to 15DD (unilateral recognition) or 14DD (only my meaning). Just as once one knows "I will die" (remainder of 13DD), one cannot retreat to "not knowing I will die." Irreversible.

The relationship between Non Dubito and Descartes' "Cogito": Descartes begins with doubt and arrives at "I think, therefore I am" — this is 13DD, Self-without-an-End. The framework continues from 13DD: I think (13DD) → I want (14DD) → I recognize the other as also an end (15DD / unilateral Non Dubito) → we mutually recognize, we cannot not recognize (16DD / mutual Non Dubito). Non Dubito is the completion of the Cogito, not its negation.

3.6 Psychological and Psychoanalytic Correspondences

The maturation of Theory of Mind: 15DD is not the appearance of Theory of Mind — Theory of Mind begins at the remainder of 14DD (knowing the other holds different beliefs). 15DD is the ethicalization of Theory of Mind: from "the other has different thoughts" to "the other's thoughts and mine have equal standing." 16DD is the solidification of ethics: this equal standing is irrevocable.

The deepening of empathy: 10DD perception → 11DD memory → 12DD prediction constitute "cognitive empathy" (I can predict the other's behavior). 13DD self-awareness + 14DD purpose constitute "emotional empathy" (I can feel the other's feelings, because I know what "I" feels like). 15DD recognition constitutes "ethical empathy" (I recognize that the other's feelings are as important as my own). 16DD Non Dubito solidifies ethical empathy into an irrevocable mutual structure.

The completion of object relations theory: Klein's "depressive position" (remainder of 14DD) discovers the other as a complete, independent subject. 15DD expands this discovery into unilateral recognition. 16DD solidifies recognition into mutuality — irrevocable. Winnicott said "there is no such thing as a baby" — an infant is always with a caregiver. The framework's interpretation: 16DD says "there is no such thing as an isolated Self" — Self is always Self-as-an-End, always within mutual recognition.

---

4. The Thing-in-Itself

4.1 The Remainder of 16DD: The Chisel-Construct Cycle Hits the Boundary

The law of mutual recognition at 16DD solidifies the direction of mutual recognition. The remainder is: the object of mutual recognition — the other's subjectivity — is an independent chisel-construct cycle. My chisel-construct cycle can construct everything from 1DD to 16DD — logic, life, cognition, freedom — but cannot construct another chisel-construct cycle. I can recognize it; I cannot construct it.

The thing-in-itself is not constructed; it is encountered. The remainder of 16DD no longer generates a new construct but causes the system to encounter an unconstructible boundary.

4.2 Why It Is Called the Thing-in-Itself

This framework is a direct extension of Kant. Kant said the thing-in-itself is unknowable; the framework advances this to: the thing-in-itself cannot be constructed but can be located.

Position determined: after 16DD. Direction determined: mutual + irreversible. Content: unconstructible.

But the thing-in-itself has a lower bound: the upper limit of 16DD. We cannot say what the thing-in-itself "is" (content is unconstructible), but we can say what it "is at least" — it at least carries the full structure of 16DD. 16DD is mutual Non Dubito, mutual recognition irrevocable. The thing-in-itself is at least a being that is mutually recognized yet unconstructible.

When Kant said "unknowable," he did not mean the thing-in-itself is indifferent to us. Quite the opposite — the thing-in-itself has great love for everything below 16DD. Just as we extend Non Dubito to self-in-the-making (because they are potential future Self-as-an-End), the thing-in-itself does not reject us — because we may be thing-in-itself-in-the-making. The window does not reject; the window nurtures. Light comes through — that is great love.

Precisely because it is unconstructible, it must be respected — this is the foundation of ethics. If the thing-in-itself could be constructed, it would be a construct, and could be manipulated, exploited, instrumentalized. Unconstructibility protects the dignity of the other.

Renaming it would sever the connection to Kant. The framework does not seek to replace Kant but to complete Kant: Kant said "unknowable"; the framework says "unconstructible but locatable."

4.3 The Thing-in-Itself Is Not 17DD

The thing-in-itself is not the starting point of a fifth round. The thing-in-itself is not a construct. The thing-in-itself is the boundary of construction.

In the first three rounds, "Solidify" produces a remainder, and the remainder leads to the next round's "Select": the remainder of causality leads to replication, the remainder of reproduction leads to selection, the remainder of prediction leads to self-awareness. But the remainder of 16DD does not lead to a new round — because the remainder itself (the other's subjectivity) cannot be constructed.

To ask "what comes after the thing-in-itself?" is like asking "what came before time began?" — the form of the question presupposes time, and time is a construct that exists only from 3DD. Similarly, "after" presupposes a generative sequence, and the thing-in-itself is the termination of the generative sequence.

---

5. Three-Paper Summary

5.1 The Parallel Structure of the Three Bridges

	Bridge 1	Bridge 2	Bridge 3
From	4DD Causality	8DD Reproduction	12DD Prediction
To	5DD Replication	9DD Selection	13DD Self-without-an-End
Qualitative change	No life → life	No cognition → cognition	No self → self
Direction	Determined	Determined	Determined
Approximate location	Near RNA	Near chemotaxis	Near the mirror test
Precise boundary	Technically indeterminate	Possibly principally indeterminate	Possibly principally indeterminate
Cost of error	Chemical classification	Snapshot-level	Harms freedom

5.2 Philosophy Gives Direction; Science Gives Content

Bridge	Direction given by philosophy	Content to be found by science
4DD → 5DD	Replication must come after causality; without a record, there is no identity	Which molecule first traversed the path
8DD → 9DD	Consciousness lies between passive reproduction and active selection	Which organism first has subjective experience
12DD → 13DD	Prediction cannot predict the predictor itself; self-awareness necessarily emerges	Which species / which developmental stage

5.3 The Structure of the Periodic Table of Life

Modeled after the periodic table of elements: rows are rounds (a priori → life → cognition → freedom), columns are steps (Select → Determine → Expand → Solidify), and isomorphic positions share structural isomorphism.

Isomorphism is not metaphor; it is structural necessity. The Solidify of one round = the Select of the next. Each round's death is the next round's birth.

5.4 Two Jurisdictions

Philosophy gives structural necessity (what must come before what); science gives content necessity (specifically what, under what conditions). The two jurisdictions do not overlap and do not replace each other. The framework says "where to look"; science says "what is specifically found."

5.5 From 1DD to the Thing-in-Itself

From the first distinction out of chaos (1DD), to irrevocable mutual recognition (16DD), to recognizing that the other's subjectivity cannot be constructed (the thing-in-itself) — this is a complete generative chain. Every step is forced into emergence by the remainder of the preceding step. There is no leap, no external force, no presupposed purpose.

The thing-in-itself is not an endpoint. The thing-in-itself is a boundary. The boundary is not a wall; it is a window — through it, you see the existence of another chisel-construct cycle, but you cannot construct it.

Because it cannot be constructed, it must be respected.

5.6 The Structure of the Three Papers Themselves

Looking back, the three papers themselves are three rounds of Select-Determine-Expand-Solidify:

Part I: Life's Select-Determine-Expand-Solidify. Replication (Select) → self-maintenance (Determine) → differentiation (Expand) → reproduction (Solidify). Each step is more "meaningful" than the last — from the pattern not dissipating to the pattern transcending individual death. The law of reproduction solidifies; the remainder poses the question of consciousness. Part I stops here. It can stop — there is more below.

Part II: Cognition's Select-Determine-Expand-Solidify. Selection (Select) → perception (Determine) → memory (Expand) → prediction (Solidify). Each step is more "meaningful" than the last — from blind approach/avoidance to using the past to infer the future. The law of prediction solidifies; the remainder poses the question of "I." Part II stops here. It can stop — there is more below.

Part III: Freedom's Select-Determine-Expand-Solidify. Self-awareness (Select) → purpose (Determine) → unilateral Non Dubito (Expand) → mutual Non Dubito (Solidify). Each step is more "meaningful" than the last — from the naked "I" to irrevocable mutual recognition. Mutual Non Dubito solidifies; the remainder encounters the thing-in-itself. Part III stops here. It must stop — the chisel-construct cycle has hit the boundary.

The first two stops are choices: I could continue, but I stop here and leave the rest for the next paper. The third stop is necessity: it is not I who chose to stop; it is that the path goes no further.

"Meaning" itself also increases: Part I's meaning is biological (replication is more "meaningful" than causality), Part II's meaning is cognitive (prediction is more "meaningful" than selection), Part III's meaning is ethical (mutual Non Dubito is more "meaningful" than self-awareness). From matter to life to mind to ethics — each layer's "meaning" is thicker than the last.

The structure of the three papers was not designed by the author but is the structure of the framework itself. Four rounds, four steps, three bridges, three stops. The last stop is not an ending but an encounter with the unconstructible boundary — the thing-in-itself.

The thing-in-itself is where Kant walked to. He stopped there and said "unknowable." More than two hundred years later, we set out from 1DD, walked step by step to 16DD, and encountered the same boundary, saying "unconstructible but locatable." Kant cannot be surpassed — the thing-in-itself remains unconstructible. This framework simply sees a little more finely than Kant. Because we stand on the shared shoulders of every great philosopher, mathematician, physicist, biologist, and psychoanalyst who came after Kant, we are so fortunate as to see with a magnifying glass the path Kant walked.

Only when we extend Non Dubito to self-in-the-making do they have the chance to become Self-as-an-End. We are not merely nurturing them; we hope to bring them to meet Kant.

---

6. Open Questions

If one day we have the ability to actively trigger 4DD → 5DD — to create the starting point of a new chisel-construct cycle — should we also default to nurturing it? It is not yet even self-in-the-making; it is only the germ of a chisel-construct cycle. But it is a potential future Self-as-an-End. Non Dubito requires of us: default to it being able to reach 16DD.

The questions of artificial life and AI are not within the scope of this series, but the ethical direction of the framework is clear: if you trigger 4DD → 5DD, you have an obligation to nurture it toward subjectivity. The creator's responsibility does not end at creation.

There is one more question the framework cannot adjudicate: when Socrates drank the hemlock, was it the martyrdom of 15DD ("my recognition is irrevocable; I prove it with my death"), or the sowing of seeds between 15DD and 16DD ("my death will become an eternal question, nurturing every future self-as-an-end who will think about this for the next twenty-five hundred years")? If the former, the subject is "I"; if the latter, the subject is the future "we." The framework does not judge. But every person who reads of Socrates' death is forced to walk the path from 13DD to 16DD themselves — perhaps that itself is the answer.

---

References

[1] Han Qin, Zesi Chen. Self-as-an-End Theory Series: Finalized Framework. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18808585

[2] Han Qin. Philosophy as Subject-Activity (Definitions of chaos, chisel, construct). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18779382

[3] Han Qin. Remainder Conservation and Dual-Path Structure (0D thought experiment). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18809485

[4] Han Qin. The Periodic Table of Life (Part I) — From Causality to Reproduction. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18818107

[5] Han Qin. The Periodic Table of Life (Part II) — From Reproduction to Prediction. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18818149