Anti-Colonization
反殖民

Introduction

On that day in Paper 1, the man who prepares the reports was asked by his manager to recalculate a metric on a different basis, and he did not switch the basis (Paper 1). It was not the first time someone had asked him to change the basis.

In the year he joined this company, it had happened once before. The figures in the month-end report did not look good, and his team lead said to switch to another method of calculation, since everyone did it that way. He switched, without thinking much about it. In those years he also believed a saying: only those rated first tier are good employees. When he measured himself, that ranking was what he measured by.

Later he came to have a set of his own. That a report be accurate, and that its basis stay consistent from one period to the next: these he had accepted for himself, and if anyone again asked him to change the basis on a whim, he would push back. But in those years he also used this set to measure the people who were new to his group. When someone's basis did not line up from one period to the next, he told his manager that this person was no good; when reports were due in a rush, he scheduled other people's weekends into the work as well, as if those people were hands for his set of rules.

Later still came that day in Paper 1. He did not change the basis, and he went and told the other team; he also protected the young colleague who had made the first draft the way his manager wanted it.

This paper looks back along that road. Paper 1 set down the sentence pattern of the whole series: when a person makes a decision, what he does is negate; he negates doing, or he negates not doing (Paper 1, D1, D2). This paper describes where, in one person, this pattern is first put to use: in anti-colonization. The main line of this series is one sentence: Hold to anti-colonization inwardly, strive for cultivation outwardly. This paper describes how the first half begins, and also how it joins the second half.

The question this paper answers is this: how does a person who lives by his own law walk out of other people's rules, and once he is out, what is there, toward himself and toward others, that he cannot cancel? The answer comes in five steps. §1 is about the road he came by; §2 says that it begins with a not-doing; §3 says that after the not-doing he recognizes his own cannot-not-doing; §4 says that others have their own cannot-not-doing too, and that anti-colonization therefore also opposes others being colonized; §5 is about the main line of the whole series. The whole paper has five propositions (D8–D12), listed together at the end. The text names no outside theorists and cites no historical events; the conclusions of the upstream papers are restated only in plain words, with the paper and place noted in parentheses; how this paper connects with existing theories is left to Paper 0.

§1 The Road He Came By

A person who lives by his own law may have come by a road like this.

In his first few years at the company, the rules from outside came in and met almost nothing. When the team lead said to change the basis, he changed it; when the company said only first-tier people were good employees, he believed it. It was not that he had chosen these rules. This system describes it exactly: when a person's own law has not yet emerged, rules from outside settle in without meeting any resistance from within, and they seem to fit perfectly; it is not that he chose them, but that he does not yet have anything to choose with (Moral Law P9 §2.4). Value Theory has also described what this looks like: in some matter, the thoughts that can surface in a person all issue from one place, and that place is not himself (Value Theory P3 V31). In those years, on the question of what a good employee is, the only thing that could surface in his mind was that ranking.

Later he came to have a set of his own. This set was his. It was a set of rules, and also a picture of what someone who prepares reports is like, but it was one he had accepted himself; when other people's rules pressed in again, they would run into it (Moral Law P9 §2.5). With this set, he could no longer be pushed around so easily. The set also had a side he could not see: he used it to measure others, and took them for hands that would carry the set through. This system says that seeing others this way is often not a matter of malice; it is simply what that way of seeing people is like (Moral Law P9 §2.3).

Later still, he saw that others had their own share too. The people on the other team, the young colleague, the new hire who came later: each had things of their own that they cared about, and none of them was material for his set.

Not everyone walks this road to the end. This system has written that a person may, within his own lifetime, walk one stretch of it; this is not universal, and many people stay in the same place all along (Moral Law P6 §2.3). Whether someone has walked all of it is not something this series uses to rank people high or low; it says only that a person who lives by his own law may have a road like this behind him, and the road this paper follows is the one the man who prepares the reports walked. That on this road he was pushed around by others, and also pushed others around, is nothing to hide. The non-fabrication that Paper 3 speaks of holds here as well: what was done is said to have been done (Paper 3, D18).

D8 A person who lives by his own law may have come by a road like this: he once lived by other people's rules, and once measured others by his own; this road is not used to rank people, and it is not one that everyone necessarily travels.

§2 First, a Not-Doing

On that day in Paper 1, the first thing he did was a not-doing: he did not switch.

The anti-colonization this paper speaks of begins, in action, as a not-doing like this. This system defines colonization in a single sentence: replacing another's own law with one's own purposes (Moral Law P9, Abstract). Brought down to one person, it brings two things with it. One is a deed: others want him to do it, and if he does it, other people's purposes have taken the place of his own law. The other is a view: others want him to accept it, and if he accepts it, he has let other people's measure legislate for him. So the not-doing of anti-colonization also has these two parts: not doing what others use to colonize him; not taking as his own the views others use to colonize him. Paper 1 has said that what is struck out may be something to be done, and may also be a way of regarding something (Paper 1, D1).

This not-doing does not need him to know first what his own law is. Paper 1 has also said that not-doing does not need a goal affirmed beforehand (Paper 1, D1). That day, when he did not change the basis, he may not yet have been able to say clearly what he wanted; he had only recognized that to change it this time would be to let a year-end ranking decide for him what kind of person he was to become. Striking out came first; looking further came after.

The view was struck out in the same way. At the end of that year, because of that report, he was rated third tier (Paper 3, §1). He still looked at the ranking, and still knew that it set his bonus; only he no longer measured himself by the saying "only those rated first tier are good employees." The ranking was still there, and the saying was still in other people's mouths; what was struck out was the position it held in him, the position of legislating for him.

Recognizing colonization is sometimes easy and sometimes hard. Value Theory divides colonization into two branches (Value Theory P3 V29). In one, something presses on him from outside: a claim is laid on him, he denies it, and his denial cannot get through; this branch lies between him and others, and others can read it. In the other, he has come to believe it himself: something counts for him, but what holds it up is in fact a warrant from outside, and he has not seen this; this branch only he himself can find. The time he was asked to change the basis belonged to the first branch, and it could be seen. The saying "only those rated first tier are good employees" stayed in his mind for years, and it belonged to the second: no one was pressing on him; he had come to believe it himself. What Paper 3 describes is mostly the second branch: not being able to tell at the time, and looking back after the fact (Paper 3, D16, D17).

Nor is anti-colonization a refusal of everything from outside. He can still listen to outside evaluations, use them, and let them change him; what is negated is only the position of legislating for him (Paper 3, D13). That a person changes his mind, or comes to care about different things, is not in itself evidence that he has been colonized; Value Theory states plainly that change is evidence that the position is open (Value Theory P3 V34).

D9 Anti-colonization, in action, begins as a not-doing: not doing what others use to colonize him, and not taking as his own the views others use to colonize him; this not-doing does not need him to know first what his own law is.

§3 After Not-Doing, Recognizing One's Own Cannot-Not-Doing

Having left the basis unchanged, he then did something else: he went and told the other team (Paper 1). That, he said later, was something he could not not do.

What is described here is an order: on his road, not-doing came first and recognizing his own cannot-not-doing came after. Paper 1 says that not-doing and cannot-not-doing are two acts, and neither follows from the other (Paper 1, D3). The order here does not mean that the first entailed the second; it is the sequence in which this person came along. First he struck out what was pressing on him; that place was cleared; and only then did what he himself could not not do slowly become clear to him. This is not an order that everyone passes through; other people's roads can be different.

Recognizing is not retrieving: it is not a self long buried and waiting for him to dig it out; it can be arriving in place for the first time (Paper 3, D15). Nor is it something anyone taught him: this system says that "I cannot not" is not something the transfer of information can pass on; it can only occur from within (Economics P3 §5.1).

What he recognized was his own law. He came to know later that what he cared about was that the people who read the reports not be led astray by the numbers (Paper 8). This was his.

Having his own law was not yet the end of the road. §1 spoke of the years when he had a set of his own and used it to measure others. No longer being colonized oneself and not colonizing others are two different things.

D10 On such a road, not-doing comes first and recognizing his own cannot-not-doing comes after; this is an order along this road, not one thing entailing the other; what he recognizes is his own law.

§4 Others Have Their Own Cannot-Not-Doing Too

That day, he also thought of the young colleague. She had made the first draft the way his manager wanted, and once the matter came out, she was the one most likely to be pushed forward to take the blame. He protected her (Paper 1, §2).

In recognizing his own cannot-not-doing, he recognized at the same time that another person's share of cannot-not is not his to give; it can only be set by that other person himself. What the people on the other team wanted, what the young colleague cared about, were not material for his set. This step has a premise: he still takes others as ends too. This premise is not derived from recognizing his own law. Value Theory puts this precisely: another person can have values of his own, and this is not anyone else's to give; once a person accepts this, it becomes one of the values he holds as his own (Value Theory P6 V73). This series does not establish this again; it only takes it as a premise (Prequel, §4). The previous section said that one's own law is recognized by oneself; this section says that the other person's share is likewise set by that person himself. What he recognizes is that the source of that share lies with the other person, not what the share contains.

A few days later, the young colleague said to him: "The manager told me to change it, so I changed it; everyone does it that way." He had said the same thing himself in his first year at the company. He did not say to her, "You have been colonized." He went to his manager and said that the first draft had been made the way the manager wanted, and that this could not be put on her alone; he also told her about the time in his first year when he had changed the basis, and when he had finished, he did not draw the conclusion for her.

So anti-colonization does not stop at not being colonized oneself. The foundational paper of this system sets down only one moral law: "Cannot not oppose the suppression of any subject's remainder." It also states plainly that this law is for oneself, not for others: its direction is universal, but its binding force falls only on the person who holds it (A16 §3.2). Where this law meets colonization, the same paper has also written: when one colonizes another person with one's own purposes, then, seen from the position that takes people as ends, the evil lies in suppressing that person's remainder (A16 §3.6). To set another person's law for him by one's own purposes is to hold down exactly his share of legislating for himself. So, put into this series' own words: a person who lives by his own law not only does not do what others use to colonize him, but also opposes the colonizing act that holds down another person's legislating for himself.

Opposing others being colonized has three boundaries.

First, what is opposed is the colonizing act; it is not judging for another person what he has inwardly accepted. Of the two branches in §2, the one that presses on him from outside can be read by others and can be opposed; the one he has come to believe himself only he can find, and all others can do is offer a view (Value Theory P3 V29; Paper 3, §5). When he went to his manager, he was opposing the act; when he told his own story, he was offering a view.

Second, opposing others being colonized is not legislating for them. Once one has pushed away what was pressing on a person, where he goes is his own affair (Paper 6, D35; Paper 9, §5).

Third, opposing others being colonized does not take the occasion to measure people by one's own rules. §1 described those years of his: his own set was very firm, and he used it to measure others. If anti-colonization turns into using one's own law to decide right and wrong for others, it has gone back to those years. To make oneself into the colonizing side in order to deal with the colonizing side is what Paper 9 calls mirror assimilation (Paper 9, D55).

Paper 7 and Paper 9 describe the ways of opposing: protection, resistance and guarding; Paper 6 describes not colonizing and cultivation.

D11 On the premise that he still takes others as ends too, in recognizing his own cannot-not-doing he recognizes at the same time that another person's share of cannot-not is not given by anyone else and can only be set by that person himself. Anti-colonization therefore does not stop at not being colonized oneself; it also opposes the colonizing act that holds down another person's legislating for himself. What it opposes is the act: it does not judge for another what he has inwardly accepted, does not legislate for him, and does not use this opposition to measure people by one's own rules.

§5 Hold to Anti-Colonization Inwardly, Strive for Cultivation Outwardly

Hold to anti-colonization inwardly, strive for cultivation outwardly: this is the main line of this series.

The first half says "hold to." Anti-colonization toward oneself has no day on which it is done. Rules from outside are always there, and they can come in again under another name, by another road; what has entered the heart is not thereby already his law (Paper 3, D14); habit makes some not-doings cheap and others dear (Paper 4, D20). So inwardly the word is "hold to."

The second half says "strive for." Toward others, not colonizing cannot be cancelled; cultivation is a direction, and it depends on the other person being willing to receive it, being suited to receive it, and the time being ripe; these three cannot be answered in his place (Paper 6, D33, D34). So outwardly the word is "strive for," not "guarantee." Opposing others being colonized is part of striving for cultivation: first what presses on a person is moved aside, and only then does his own law have room to unfold.

This line also shows the course of the whole series. Paper 3 to Paper 5 mainly unfold it on the side of a person himself: Paper 3 describes how a person acts when he cannot tell, and how he looks back afterward; Paper 4, can and cannot; Paper 5, how one's own value unfolds. Paper 6 to Paper 9 mainly carry it into others and shared life: Paper 6 describes not legislating for others, not colonizing, and cultivation; Paper 7, living by one's own law where things are mixed; Paper 8, finding one another; Paper 9, one's own share of strength, and guarding. These are where the papers mainly stand; they do not cut the nine papers into two halves. Outwardly there is still anti-colonization: §4 of this paper is exactly that, and this strand is present too in Paper 7's protection and resistance and in Paper 9's guarding. Inwardly, too, cultivating others can send a person back to ask again whether his own law is his own (Paper 3, §6).

The two halves are not two sets of law. Holding to anti-colonization inwardly and striving for cultivation outwardly come from one and the same recognition: oneself is an end, and others are ends too (Paper 6, §6).

D12 Hold to anti-colonization inwardly, strive for cultivation outwardly: inwardly the word is "hold to," because colonization can keep coming back; outwardly the word is "strive for," because cultivation depends on the other person and cannot be answered in his place. Both halves come from one and the same recognition: oneself is an end, and others are ends too.

Conclusion

This paper has set down five propositions. Taken together they say this. A person who lives by his own law may have a road behind him, on which he was pushed around by other people's rules and also used his own rules to push others around. Anti-colonization, in action, begins as a not-doing: not doing what others use to colonize him, and not taking as his own the views others use to colonize him; this not-doing does not need him to know his own law first. On such a road, not-doing comes first and recognizing his own cannot-not-doing comes after; this is an order along this road, not an entailment. On the premise that he still takes others as ends too, in recognizing his own he recognizes at the same time that another person's share can only be set by that person himself, and anti-colonization therefore also opposes the colonizing act that holds down another person's legislating for himself; what it opposes is that act: it does not judge a person's heart for him, does not legislate for him, and does not measure people by one's own rules. Hold to anti-colonization inwardly, strive for cultivation outwardly: these are two lines that run through the whole series, not a first half and a second half.

What this paper does not say is also recorded here. It gives no test for recognizing colonization: what to do when one cannot tell is a matter for Paper 3. The ways of opposing others being colonized are a matter for Paper 7 and Paper 9; not colonizing and cultivation are a matter for Paper 6.

The Five Propositions of This Paper

D8 A person who lives by his own law may have come by a road like this: he once lived by other people's rules, and once measured others by his own; this road is not used to rank people, and it is not one that everyone necessarily travels.

D9 Anti-colonization, in action, begins as a not-doing: not doing what others use to colonize him, and not taking as his own the views others use to colonize him; this not-doing does not need him to know first what his own law is.

D10 On such a road, not-doing comes first and recognizing his own cannot-not-doing comes after; this is an order along this road, not one thing entailing the other; what he recognizes is his own law.

D11 On the premise that he still takes others as ends too, in recognizing his own cannot-not-doing he recognizes at the same time that another person's share of cannot-not is not given by anyone else and can only be set by that person himself. Anti-colonization therefore does not stop at not being colonized oneself; it also opposes the colonizing act that holds down another person's legislating for himself. What it opposes is the act: it does not judge for another what he has inwardly accepted, does not legislate for him, and does not use this opposition to measure people by one's own rules.

D12 Hold to anti-colonization inwardly, strive for cultivation outwardly: inwardly the word is "hold to," because colonization can keep coming back; outwardly the word is "strive for," because cultivation depends on the other person and cannot be answered in his place. Both halves come from one and the same recognition: oneself is an end, and others are ends too.

---

Acknowledgments

This paper is the second in the Action Theory branch of the SAE (Self-as-an-End) philosophical system, and is signed by Han Qin alone. All philosophical argument and all decisions between alternatives were finally adjudicated by the author, who bears sole responsibility for the final text.

Drafting assistance and review were carried out with the help of large language models. Drafting and the internal precision audit were undertaken by Claude (Anthropic), and structural gatekeeping with pre-publication signature by ChatGPT (OpenAI); the first two review rounds of the series outline also included ontological-limit and contradiction detection and boundary testing, undertaken by Gemini (Google DeepMind) and Grok (xAI) respectively. The ten texts of the series received final review from the internal precision audit and the structural gate, followed by a check of every revised sentence. Thanks are due to these systems and to the research and engineering teams behind them. Their comments were adjudicated by the author item by item, and both what was adopted and what was rejected are on record.

This paper continues the standing product of an upstream-paraphrase audit table, comparing item by item what the paper says of upstream texts against their published wording. The record of revisions and withdrawals across the rounds of review is kept in the series outline and the review returns, and is not reproduced here. This English edition is an independent rewrite of the Chinese final text; a separate parity audit compared it with the Chinese paragraph by paragraph. The review markedly improved the precision and consistency of this paper, and thanks are due for it.

---

References

All works below are archived on Zenodo, with Chinese and English versions under the same record. The DOIs cited are concept DOIs, always pointing to the latest version; version numbers and access dates are therefore not given separately. All works are single-authored (Han Qin). Drafting and review assistance is described in the Acknowledgments.

The text restates upstream work in plain words, with the paper and proposition number, or the title of an unnumbered section, noted in parentheses at the place of use. Concept DOIs always point to the latest version, so proposition numbers may drift as upstream is renumbered. This paper's restatements are compared item by item with the upstream originals in its transcription audit table.

I · Works actually called upon in this text

Qin, H. (2026). One's Own Law: The SAE Critique of Ethics and Morality (SAE Foundational Paper A16) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19037566

Qin, H. (2026). On the Colonization of Value (SAE Value Theory, Paper 3) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21611154

Qin, H. (2026). On Value and the Other (SAE Value Theory, Paper 6) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22191071

Qin, H. (2026). Mixed Reality — The Intermediate State of 14DD Growing toward 15DD (SAE Moral Law, Paper 6) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20108658

Qin, H. (2026). The Institutional Architecture of Mixed Reality (SAE Moral Law, Paper 9) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20262737

Qin, H. (2026). Dimensional Sequence Economics in Mixed Markets: Remote Observation, Clustering, and Emergence (SAE Economics, Paper 3) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19384446

II · This series

Qin, H. (2026). What Action Is Not (SAE Action Theory, Prequel) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970747

Qin, H. (2026). Not Doing and Cannot-Not-Doing (SAE Action Theory, Paper 1) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970752

Qin, H. (2026). Is It Mine? (SAE Action Theory, Paper 3) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970762

Qin, H. (2026). Can and Cannot (SAE Action Theory, Paper 4) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970769

Qin, H. (2026). Developing One's Own Value (SAE Action Theory, Paper 5) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970771

Qin, H. (2026). Not Legislating for Others (SAE Action Theory, Paper 6) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970777

Qin, H. (2026). Living by One's Law in Mixed Reality (SAE Action Theory, Paper 7) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970781

Qin, H. (2026). Finding One Another (SAE Action Theory, Paper 8) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970783

Qin, H. (2026). One's Own Share of Strength, and Guarding (SAE Action Theory, Paper 9) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970787

引言

第一篇那一天，上司要他把一项指标换个口径重算，他没有换（第一篇）。那不是第一次有人要他换口径。

他刚进这家公司的那一年，也有过一回。月底报表的数字不好看，组长说换个算法，大家都这么做。他换了，没有多想。那几年他也信一句话：拿第一等的，才是好员工。他量自己，用的就是那张表。

后来他有了自己的一套。报表要准，口径要前后一致，这是他自己认下的；谁再让他随手换口径，他会顶回去。可那几年，他也拿这一套去量组里新来的人：谁的口径前后对不上，他就在上司面前说这个人不行；赶报表的时候，他把别人的周末也排了进去，好像那些人是他这一套规矩的手。

再后来，就是第一篇那一天。他没有换口径，去告诉了那个团队；他也护住了那个照上司的意思做出初稿的年轻同事。

这一篇回头看这条路。第一篇立了全系列的句式：一个人作决定，做的是否定，否定做，否定不做（第一篇 D1、D2）。这一篇写这个句式在一个人身上最先用在哪里：用在反殖民（anti-colonization）上。这个系列的主线是一句话：内部坚持反殖民，外部争取涵育（cultivation）。这一篇写前半句怎样开始，也写它怎样接到后半句。

这一篇要回答的是：一个行自己的法（one's own law）的人，是怎样从别人的规矩里走出来的；走出来以后，对自己、对别人，各有什么取消不了。回答分五步。第一节说来路；第二节说先是不做；第三节说不做之后，认清自己的不得不做；第四节说别人也有他自己的不得不做，反殖民因此也反对别人被殖民；第五节说全系列的主线。全篇五条（D8 至 D12），末尾合列。正文不点名外部理论家，不援引历史事件；上游各篇的结论只用平实话重述，括注篇次；这一篇与已有理论怎样对接，留给 Paper 0。

第一节　来路

一个行自己的法的人，可以有这样一条来路。

他刚进公司那几年，外面的规矩进来，几乎没有碰到什么。组长说换口径，他换；公司说第一等才是好员工，他信。这不是他选了这些规矩。这个体系说得很准：一个人自己的法还没有长出来的时候，外面的规矩落进来，不遇里面的抵抗，看上去严丝合缝；那不是他选了它们，是他还没有能拿来选的东西（道德律 P9 §2.4）。价值论也写过这种样子：在一件事上，一个人能浮起来的想法全出自同一处，而那一处不是他自己（价值论 P3 V31）。那几年，关于什么是好员工，他心里浮得起来的，只有那张表。

后来他有了自己的一套。这一套是他的：它是一套规矩，也是一个做报表的人的样子，可它是他认下的；别人的规矩再压进来，会碰到它（道德律 P9 §2.5）。有了这一套，他就不那么容易被人摆布了。这一套也有它看不见的一面：他拿它去量别人，把别人当成成全这一套的手。这个体系说，这样看别人，常常不是出于恶意，是那样一种看人的方式本来就是这样（道德律 P9 §2.3）。

再后来，他看见别人也有他自己的那一份。那个团队的人，那个年轻同事，后来的新人，各有各在意的，不是他这一套的材料。

这一路，不是每个人都会走完。这个体系写过，一个人在自己的一生里，可以走过其中一段，这不普遍，很多人一直在同一处（道德律 P6 §2.3）。走没走完，这个系列不拿来给人排高低；它只说，一个行自己的法的人，身后可以有这样一条来路；这一篇跟着的，是做报表的人走过的这一条。来路里被别人摆布过，也摆布过别人，这些不是要藏起来的事。第三篇说的不伪造，在这里照样：做了什么，就说做了什么（第三篇 D18）。

D8　一个行自己的法的人，可以有这样一条来路：他曾照着别人的规矩活，也曾拿自己的规矩去量别人；这条来路不用来给人排高低，也不是每个人都会经过的必然。

第二节　先是不做

第一篇那一天，他做的第一件事，是一个不做：不换。

这一篇说的反殖民，在行动上先是这样一个不做。殖民（colonization），这个体系的定义只有一句：以自身目的替代他者自己的法（道德律 P9 摘要）。落到一个人身上，它带来两样东西。一样是事：别人要他去做，做了，就是拿别人的目的顶替了他自己的法。一样是看法：别人要他认下，认下了，就是让别人的尺替他立了法。反殖民的不做，也就有这两样：不做别人拿来殖民自己的事；不把别人拿来殖民自己的看法，认成自己的。第一篇说过，划掉的可以是一件事，也可以是一种看待（第一篇 D1）。

这一个不做，不需要先知道自己的法是什么。第一篇也说过，不做不需要先有一个被肯定的目标（第一篇 D1）。那一天他不换口径的时候，未必已经说得清自己要的是什么；他只是认出了，这一回换，就是让一张年底的表替他定他要做成什么人。先划掉，再往下看。

看法那一样，也是这样划掉的。那一年年底，他因为那份报表拿了第三等（第三篇第一节）。那张表他照样看，照样知道它定了他的奖金；只是「拿第一等的才是好员工」这句话，他不再拿来量自己。表还在，话也还在别人嘴里；划掉的，是它在他这里替他立法的那个位置。

认出殖民，有容易的时候，也有难的时候。价值论把殖民分成两支（价值论 P3 V29）。一支是外面按着：一项说法压在他身上，他否认，否认也进不去；这一支落在他和别人之间，旁人读得到。另一支是他自己信了：一样东西在他那里算数，撑着它的其实是外面的一份担保，而他没看出来；这一支只有他自己找得到。换口径那一回，是前一支，看得见。「拿第一等的才是好员工」那一句在他心里待了好几年，是后一支：没有人按着，是他自己信了。第三篇写的多半是后一支：一时分不清，事后回看（第三篇 D16、D17）。

反殖民也不是拒绝外面的一切。外面的评价照样可以听，可以用，可以让他改；被否定的只是替他立法的那个位置（第三篇 D13）。一个人改了主意，换了在意的东西，本身也不是被殖民的证据；价值论写明，改动说明位置开着（价值论 P3 V34）。

D9　反殖民在行动上先是一个不做：不做别人拿来殖民自己的事，不把别人拿来殖民自己的看法认成自己的；这一个不做，不需要先知道自己的法是什么。

第三节　不做之后，认清自己的不得不做

不换口径以后，他做的是另一件事：去告诉那个团队（第一篇）。那一件，他后来说，他没法不去做。

这里说的是先后：在他这条来路里，不做在先，认清自己的不得不做在后。第一篇说，不做与不得不做是两个动作，互不推出（第一篇 D3）。这里的先后不是说前一个推出了后一个，是这个人走过来的次序：先把压在身上的划掉，那块地方空出来，他自己不得不做的，才慢慢认清。这不是每个人都会经过的次序，别人的来路可以不一样。

认清不是找回：那不是一个早就埋着、等他挖出来的自己，它可以是第一次到位（第三篇 D15）。也不是谁教会的：这个体系说，「我不得不」不是传递信息能传出来的，它只能从里面发生（经济学 P3 §5.1）。

他认清的，是他自己的法。他后来知道，他在意的是看报表的人不被数字带偏（第八篇）。这一项是他的。

有了自己的法，还不是走完了。第一节说过，他有过自己那一套、却拿它去量别人的年头。自己不再被殖民，和不殖民别人，是两件事。

D10　在这样一条来路里，不做在先，认清自己的不得不做在后；这是这条来路上的先后，不是谁推出谁；认清的，是他自己的法。

第四节　别人也有他自己的不得不做

那一天，他也想到了那个年轻同事：初稿是她照上司的意思做的，这件事一说出去，最可能被推出来顶罪的是她。他护住了她（第一篇第二节）。

认清了自己的不得不做，他也就同时认得：别人那一份不得不（cannot not），不由他给，只能由别人自己立。那个团队的人要什么，那个年轻同事在意什么，不是他这一套的材料。这一步有一个前提：他仍把别人也当目的。这个前提不是从认清自己的法里推出来的。价值论把这一条写得很准：别人可以有他自己的价值，这不由旁人代给；一个人认下这一点，它就成了他名下的一项价值（价值论 P6 V73）。这个系列不重立这一条，只把它当前提（前置篇第四节）。前一节说，自己的法由自己认清；这一节说，别人那一份，也由别人自己立。他认得的，是那一份的来处在别人那里，不是那一份里装着什么。

过了几天，那个年轻同事对他说：「上司让改，我就改了，大家都这么做。」这句话，他刚进公司那一年也说过。他没有对她说「你被殖民了」。他去找了上司，说那份初稿是照上司的意思做的，这件事不能让她一个人担；他也跟她讲了自己第一年换口径的事，讲完了，没有替她下结论。

所以反殖民不止于自己不被殖民。这个体系的基础篇只立了一条道德律：「不得不反对任何主体的余项被压制。」它也写明，这条律是给自己的，不是给别人的：它的方向是普遍的，约束只落在持有它的那个人身上（A16 3.2）。这条律和殖民接在哪里，同一篇也写过：拿自己的目的去殖民别人，从把人当目的的位置看，恶就恶在压制了那个人的余项（remainder；A16 3.6）。拿自己的目的替别人定他的法，压住的正是他自己立法的那一份。所以落到这个系列的话里：一个行自己的法的人，不只自己不做别人拿来殖民他的事，也反对压住别人自己立法的那个殖民动作。

反对别人被殖民，有三道边。

第一，反对的是殖民那个动作，不是替别人判他心里认下了什么。第二节那两支，外面按着的那一支，旁人读得到，可以反对；他自己信了的那一支，只有他自己找得到，旁人能做的只是递一个看法（价值论 P3 V29；第三篇第五节）。他去找上司，是反对那个动作；他讲自己的事，是递一个看法。

第二，反对别人被殖民，不是替他立法。替一个人挡开了压在他身上的东西，他往哪里去，是他自己的事（第六篇 D35；第九篇第五节）。

第三，反对别人被殖民，不借机拿自己的规矩去量人。第一节写过他那一段年头：自己的一套很硬，拿它去量别人。反殖民若变成拿自己的法去替别人定对错，就又回到了那一段；为了对付殖民的一方，把自己也做成了那一方，第九篇叫它镜像同化（第九篇 D55）。

反对的几种做法，保护、抗争与守卫，第七篇与第九篇写；不殖民与涵育，第六篇写。

D11　在仍把别人也当目的这一前提下，认清了自己的不得不做，也就同时认得：别人那一份不得不，不由旁人给，只能由他自己立。反殖民因此不止于自己不被殖民，也反对压住别人自己立法的那个殖民动作。反对的是动作：不替别人判他心里认下了什么，不替他立法，也不借这一反对拿自己的规矩去量人。

第五节　内部坚持反殖民，外部争取涵育

内部坚持反殖民，外部争取涵育：这是这个系列的主线。

前半句说坚持。对自己的反殖民没有做完的一天。外面的规矩一直在，它可以换个名字、换条路再进来；进了心里的，也不等于已经是他的法（第三篇 D14）；习惯会让一些不做变得便宜，让另一些变得贵（第四篇 D20）。所以对内说坚持。

后半句说争取。对别人，不殖民是取消不了的；涵育是一个方向，要对方愿意接受、适合接受、时机成熟，这三样不能替对方答（第六篇 D33、D34）。所以对外说争取，不说保证。反对别人被殖民，是争取涵育的一部分：先让压在他身上的东西挪开，他自己的法才有地方长。

这一句也照见全系列的走向。第三篇到第五篇，主要把它往一个人自己这一边展开：第三篇写分不清的时候怎样行动、事后怎样回看；第四篇写能与不能；第五篇写自己的价值怎样展开。第六篇到第九篇，主要把它带到别人与共同生活里：第六篇写不替别人立法，不殖民与涵育；第七篇写在混着的地方行自己的法；第八篇写寻找彼此；第九篇写自己的一份力量与守卫。这是主要的篇位，不是把九篇切成两半。对外仍有反殖民：这一篇第四节就是；第七篇的保护与抗争、第九篇的守卫里，也都有这一支。对内也会因为涵育别人，回头再问自己的法是不是自己的（第三篇第六节）。

两半不是两套法。对内坚持反殖民，对外争取涵育，出自同一个承认：自己是目的，别人也是目的（第六篇第六节）。

D12　内部坚持反殖民，外部争取涵育：对内说坚持，是因为殖民可以一再回来；对外说争取，是因为涵育要看对方，不能替对方答。两半出自同一个承认，自己是目的，别人也是目的。

结语

这一篇立了五条。合起来说的是：一个行自己的法的人，身后可以有一条来路，被别人的规矩摆布过，也拿自己的规矩摆布过别人；反殖民在行动上先是一个不做，不做别人拿来殖民自己的事，不把别人拿来殖民自己的看法认成自己的，这个不做不需要先知道自己的法；在这样一条来路里，不做在先，认清自己的不得不做在后，这是这条来路上的先后，不是推出；在仍把别人也当目的这一前提下，认清了自己的，也就同时认得别人那一份只能由他自己立，反殖民因此也反对压住别人自己立法的殖民动作，反对的是那个动作，不替人判他的心，不替他立法，也不拿自己的规矩量人；内部坚持反殖民，外部争取涵育，是贯穿全系列的两条线，不是前后两半。

这一篇没有说的，也记在这里。它不给认出殖民的测试：分不清的时候怎么办，是第三篇的事。反对别人被殖民的几种做法，是第七篇与第九篇的事；不殖民与涵育，是第六篇的事。

本篇立的五条

D8　一个行自己的法的人，可以有这样一条来路：他曾照着别人的规矩活，也曾拿自己的规矩去量别人；这条来路不用来给人排高低，也不是每个人都会经过的必然。 D9　反殖民在行动上先是一个不做：不做别人拿来殖民自己的事，不把别人拿来殖民自己的看法认成自己的；这一个不做，不需要先知道自己的法是什么。 D10　在这样一条来路里，不做在先，认清自己的不得不做在后；这是这条来路上的先后，不是谁推出谁；认清的，是他自己的法。 D11　在仍把别人也当目的这一前提下，认清了自己的不得不做，也就同时认得：别人那一份不得不，不由旁人给，只能由他自己立。反殖民因此不止于自己不被殖民，也反对压住别人自己立法的那个殖民动作。反对的是动作：不替别人判他心里认下了什么，不替他立法，也不借这一反对拿自己的规矩去量人。 D12　内部坚持反殖民，外部争取涵育：对内说坚持，是因为殖民可以一再回来；对外说争取，是因为涵育要看对方，不能替对方答。两半出自同一个承认，自己是目的，别人也是目的。

---

致谢

本篇为 SAE（Self-as-an-End）哲学体系行动论分支的第二篇，由秦汉独立署名。全部哲学论证与取舍由作者最终裁决，最终定稿与文责由作者独任。

起草辅助与评审均借助大型语言模型进行。起草与内部精度审计由 Claude（Anthropic）承担，结构闸门与发布前签署由 ChatGPT（OpenAI）承担；系列大纲的前两轮另有本体极限与矛盾检测、边界测试两方参加，分别由 Gemini（Google DeepMind）与 Grok（xAI）承担。十篇正文经内部精度审计与结构闸门两方终审，并经核句验收。谨向这些系统及其背后的研究与工程团队致谢。它们提出的意见由作者逐条裁定，采纳与驳回均记录在案。

本篇续行上游转述审计表这一常设产出，逐条比对本篇的转述与上游原句；各轮评审的改定与撤销记录存于本系列的大纲与交回件，不录于此。评审显著提升了本篇的精度与一致性，谨此致谢。

---

参考文献

以下文献均存档于 Zenodo，中英双语版本同记录。所引 DOI 为概念 DOI，始终指向最新版本，故不另注版本号与访问日期。全部文献单一作者署名（秦汉）。起草与评审辅助已在致谢中说明。

正文对上游用平实话重述，句后就近括注篇次与命题号，或无编号节的节题。概念 DOI 始终指向最新版，故命题号可能随上游重编而漂移。本篇的转述与上游原句逐条比对，另记于本篇的转述审计表。

一 · 本篇正文实际调用的文献

秦汉. (2026). 自己的法：SAE 对伦理与道德的批判（SAE 基础论文 A16） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19037566

秦汉. (2026). 论价值的殖民（SAE 价值论系列 Paper 3） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21611154

秦汉. (2026). 论价值与他者（SAE 价值论系列 Paper 6） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22191071

秦汉. (2026). 混合现实——14DD向15DD成长的中间态（SAE 道德律系列 Paper 6） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20108658

秦汉. (2026). 混合现实的机构架构（SAE 道德律系列 Paper 9） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20262737

秦汉. (2026). 混合市场中的维度序列经济学：远距离观察，聚集，与涌现（SAE 经济学系列 Paper 3） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19384446

二 · 本系列

秦汉. (2026). 行动不是什么（SAE 行动论 前置篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970747

秦汉. (2026). 不做与不得不做（SAE 行动论 第一篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970752

秦汉. (2026). 是不是我的（SAE 行动论 第三篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970762

秦汉. (2026). 能与不能（SAE 行动论 第四篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970769

秦汉. (2026). 发展自己的价值（SAE 行动论 第五篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970771

秦汉. (2026). 不替他者立法（SAE 行动论 第六篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970777

秦汉. (2026). 在混合现实中行法（SAE 行动论 第七篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970781

秦汉. (2026). 寻找彼此（SAE 行动论 第八篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970783

秦汉. (2026). 自己的一份力量与守卫（SAE 行动论 第九篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970787