Adversity
逆境

This is an independent English rewrite, not a translation, of the Chinese final text v1.0. Terminology and framing are recomposed for an English-reading audience; the philosophical content is the same.

Introduction

These are still the years of Paper 7.

The industry was doing badly, and the company was cutting people by quota: the bottom tenth of every team was rated "unsatisfactory," and anyone rated "unsatisfactory" would not have the contract renewed the following year. His mother had been in and out of hospital for the past two years (Paper 7, Introduction). The rule for cutting people came from others' side; his mother's illness had its causes on the world's side; the two were there in the same stretch of days.

In those years he also had a matter of his own in hand. The company had set up a new post: not just preparing reports, but sitting beside the people who had to make decisions from those reports, and explaining to them where the figures came from, what they could show and what they could not. He wanted to move there. Paper 3 said that what he later came to care about was the people behind the report who relied on it to make decisions (Paper 3, §3). No one assigned this to him; he held it as his own.

That spring, the company froze new posts, and this one was among them.

First, two terms. When this paper says a person "takes" a purpose as his own, it means that he holds it as his own; this does not guarantee that it really is his; determining whether it is requires looking back (Paper 3, D16, D17). And by "purpose" this paper means a concrete thing a person sets out to achieve, like moving to that post; it does not mean the standing by which he, as a person, is an end. For the latter, this series has always said "taking oneself as an end" and "taking others as ends," and it does so here as well.

The questions this paper answers are these: when a purpose a person takes as his own does not match what is outside, what is it that he meets; where in him does it fall; what can he turn back and ask by way of it; and, having asked, on what basis can he keep going.

This paper is a special study within Action Theory. The previous nine papers have already answered most of the questions in adversity; from the single angle of adversity, and staying close to what readers most often meet, this paper walks along one line through what lies scattered across the nine: first, where in a person adversity falls; then, how he turns back and asks; last, on what basis he keeps going. The seven propositions continue the series numbering; most of them set up again, from the side of adversity, what the nine papers already hold, and they are not counted as seven new principles. The person this series speaks of takes himself as an end, and takes others as ends too; this marks out the domain of the series, and is not a demand made of the reader (Prequel, §4).

The answer comes in seven steps. §1 says what adversity is; §2, why it cannot be avoided; §3, the three layers in which it falls on a person; §4, that it is the outside world's questioning of him, which opens an entry for turning back to ask; §5, the ways of going on once the asking is done; §6, the two kinds of cannot-not on which holding on rests; §7, the line that faces others. After the seven sections comes a passage on other people's adversity, and then where it lands. The paper has seven propositions, numbered on from the series as D57 to D63 and listed together at the end. The text names no outside theorists; the conclusions of upstream papers are restated only in plain words, with the paper cited in parentheses. This paper also takes real events from history as examples, nine in all, all before 1945, with their sources listed in the references. They tell of particular events, and raise no statue to anyone; that a person turned back and asked, or for whom he acted, is written only where he left words of his own.

§1 What Adversity Is

The notice of the freeze came out in March: an email to the whole company, three lines long.

There are three things in this, and they are first set apart. One is the situation outside: the post has been frozen, the rule for cutting people has come down, his mother is going into hospital again. One is the purpose he takes as his own: moving to that post. And one is the feeling in him when these two do not match. What this paper calls adversity is the third.

The situation itself is not adversity. Another colleague on the team received the same email; that colleague had never thought of going to the post, and frozen or not, nothing in it failed to match what that colleague set out to do. For that colleague, the email was not adversity. One and the same situation is adversity for this person and not for that one, because the purposes the two take as their own are different. Nor is the purpose itself adversity: he had wanted that post for two years, and in all the wanting nothing failed to match.

As to where this feeling falls, this system has given a structural account in the Laughter series. The Laughter series calls a way of grasping that a person is currently using a construct: an expectation, or a person's understanding of his own situation, is a construct; the point that the construct has not fully taken in, and that is nonetheless right there before one's eyes, it calls the remainder. Faced with one and the same construct, attention can fall in different places: weeping and fear both focus on the construct, weeping being the construct lost, "it's gone," and fear the construct threatened, perhaps about to be gone; laughter focuses on the remainder (Laughter Overview §3). A person's own purpose can itself be that construct (Laughter III §1). This paper borrows the account to read adversity: the situation presses in, the purpose he takes as his own is threatened or comes to nothing, and attention falls there; this feeling lies on the side of the construct.

In the same situation, he can also laugh. The Laughter series says that in one and the same situation a person can laugh or weep, and often alternates between the two; nor need attention fall in one place only (Laughter Overview §3). When a person still avows the purpose as his own, and attention falls on the cost paid for it, or on the unexpected place it has taken him, that is wry laughter: the bitterness is an emotion and comes from the cost; the laugh comes from where attention falls (Laughter III §4). That summer, someone on the team asked about the post. He said he had prepared for two years, had a drawer full of talk notes, and so far the only one who had heard them was himself; having said it, he gave a little laugh, and went back to revising the notes. This laugh does not show that he had already let the matter go: laughter does not decide whether the construct stays or goes (Laughter Overview §2).

That this feeling occurs is a fact. From March on, the feeling was there in him; that much is true. It can also enter judgment as a reason: this feeling was one of the things to be weighed in deciding whether to set that matter aside for these few months. Paper 4 said that body, emotion and capacity can enter judgment as facts and reasons; they are not value judgments, and do not decide for a person what his law is (Paper 4, D19). So it is with adversity.

To say that its occurrence is a fact is not to say that the judgments it carries are all true. Whether the mismatch is real, and how large it is, remain fallible. He took the freeze to mean the post was scrapped; it had not been scrapped. He took it that the post would not reopen within the year; no one had said so. What can be checked right away can be checked right away (Paper 1, §5); §4 comes back to this. Paper 4 also said that fear can grow larger than the facts: it magnifies the possible cost (Paper 4, §1); this feeling, too, can be larger than the facts.

It is a clue, not a criterion. Paper 1 said that the feeling of whether something goes smoothly gives judgment a direction; it is a clue, fallible, and does not prove that something issues from oneself (Paper 1, D6). So with adversity. Its presence does not show whether that purpose is his own: what holds out against the outside may be his own law, or may be only something held up from outside that has been knocked.

Its absence does not show it either. In his first few years at the company, 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 (Paper 2, §1). In those years the feeling was not in him. This does not show that the situation in those years was good, nor that the purposes he took as his own then were his own. Paper 2 restated a sentence from the Moral Law: 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 (Paper 2, §1; Moral Law P9 §2.4). This paper takes one step further from there: when rules from outside settle in without meeting resistance, the feeling can be absent from the person as well.

One more boundary is drawn, and drawn within the definition. Adversity in this paper is not dire straits. Dire straits are where a person can no longer sustain even himself; that is another topic, and this paper does not write it. The boundary is placed here because what is said later about adversity being unavoidable, and about holding on, goes only as far as this line. The final cannot of Paper 4 (Paper 4, D25) and the extreme situations of Paper 7 (Paper 7, D43) both lie on the side near this line.

D57 Adversity is the feeling in a person when a purpose he takes as his own does not match the situation outside. That this feeling occurs is a fact, and it can enter judgment as a reason; it is a clue, not a criterion; it can be larger than the facts, and it does not decide for him what his law is. Its presence does not show whether that purpose is his own, and neither does its absence. Adversity in this paper is not dire straits: when a person can no longer sustain even himself, that is another matter.

§2 Why It Cannot Be Avoided

That year his mother was in hospital twice.

In this, there is no one who laid hands on him. The illness lies on the world's side; where the world is going, he cannot foresee. Illness, natural disaster, epidemic and accident are all like this: their direct causes are not themselves subjects capable of responding; they cannot be asked, nor reasoned with, and they cannot all be explained as somebody's colonization. Yet in the same situation there are still others: the doctors and nurses on the ward, another family in the same room, and his sister, who took turns with him staying the night. The cause is not a subject; the people in the situation are. He can still provide conditions for them, and give protection where it is needed.

Freezing posts and cutting people by quota is another matter. In this there are people: the rule was set by the company, and the one who pushed for it was his manager (Paper 7, §1). Others are ends too, each with his own law, and they do not arrange things according to his purpose; the company has the figures it wants, his manager has considerations of his own, and they are not holding that post for him. Running into adversity here does not by itself show that others are wrong. In a mixed place there are, to be sure, workings that treat people as means; Paper 7 has written what that rule was doing (Paper 7, §3), and that is a separate matter, to be judged against the facts, not inferred from his having run into adversity. Paper 2 said something in the same direction: once a person has a set of his own, other people's rules pressing in again will run into it (Paper 2, §1).

History has events whose source lay on this side too. During the Crimean War, Mary Seacole applied in London to go out with the army as a nurse; in several places it came to nothing, and she recorded these applications in her autobiography. In this event, all that can be seen is one door after another closing. §5 tells what she did afterward.

There is one more source, on his own side. That year his manager asked him to draw up a list first (Paper 7, Introduction). For someone who did not care about the people on the team, it would have been just a table; coming to him, the rule ran into his own law: he does not regard people as numbers that can be cut by quota (Paper 7, §1). The definition in §1 already contains this layer: only where there is a purpose taken as one's own is there a mismatch; what presses in from outside runs into precisely what he has avowed. It is because that law is there that the rule could run into him at all. So running into a great deal does not show that he has taken a wrong road.

These three sources are not a table of causes, mutually exclusive and exhaustive. His mother in hospital, the post frozen, the list to be drawn up: all were in the same spring; and one matter can touch several at once.

Nor is being unable to avoid it fate, nor his due, nor an assignment handed to him to be tempered by. Paper 3 said that sorting things out is not an assignment either (Paper 3, §6); nor is adversity. This does not rule out that, after adversity, a person comes to avow something himself; that is his own avowal, not something adversity arranged for him.

D58 As long as a person has a purpose he takes as his own, no way of living can rule out adversity in advance: where the world is going, he cannot foresee; others are ends too, each with his own law, and they do not arrange things according to his purpose; and his own law, too, gives what presses in from outside something to run into. That adversity cannot be avoided does not show that others are wrong, does not show that he has taken a wrong road, and does not show that it is his due, an assignment handed to him.

§3 The Three Layers in Which It Falls

In those six months, adversity fell on him in more than one place.

The first layer falls on the body. In those six months he often woke in the night, ate little, and lost a few pounds; twice he spent the night at the hospital and went to work as usual the next day. What happens in the body is a fact, and can enter judgment as a reason: in these months he can do less than usual, and when he arranges things, that is part of the arranging. It is not a value judgment, and does not decide for him what his law is (Paper 4, D19). Being tired shows that he is tired; it does not show that he no longer wants the thing (Paper 4, §1).

The second layer falls in memory and prediction. Adversity lasts; once it has lasted a few months, he expects it to go on lasting, even to grow: the post will not open next year either, the rule will be changed next year to an evaluation every quarter, his mother will go into hospital again. An expectation is a fallible sentence. Paper 4 said that fear can grow larger than the facts: it magnifies the possible cost (Paper 4, §1); an expectation, too, can be larger than the future. This time, at one point what he expected was larger than what came about: the following year the rule was changed to no more cutting, only grading (Paper 7, §4). This does not show that expectations are always larger than the future; it shows only that they are fallible. The part of an expectation that can be checked right away can be checked right away; §4 says how.

The third layer falls in his recognizing it as his own. Once, in a hospital corridor, his sister said: "If the post's gone, it's gone. Isn't your job now perfectly fine?" To her, this was not adversity. She did not see wrongly: the purposes she takes as her own differ from his, and when the same situation reaches her, the mismatch is not at this point (§1). Others not seeing it this way does not show that he sees wrongly either. The matter falls on the purpose he takes as his own; this layer only he can look back on (Paper 3, §5).

The hesitation over whether to hold on comes from here too: the matter falls on the purpose he himself takes as his own, others do not see it this way, and whether to go on wanting it is for him alone to decide. In those months, one moment he would go and ask when the post might reopen, and the next he would think, forget it. Paper 4 said that hesitation is of two kinds, not yet decided, and decided but not yet moving; weakness cannot be judged from hesitation alone (Paper 4, D21). In those months he was mostly in the first kind: whether he still wanted the thing, he had not yet decided.

There is one point here that is not to be made larger than it is. "Recognizing it as his own" means that the matter falls on the purpose he takes as his own; it does not mean that the purpose has been proved to issue from his own law; that is another question. That question can also start from here: recognizing that the matter falls on a purpose he takes as his own brings with it the question "is that purpose my own?", which §4 takes up.

The three layers can be present at once. In those six months, waking in the night, expecting next year, hearing his sister's words in the corridor, all came in the same week. The order of telling is not the order of going: not every matter has all three layers, nor does one finish one layer and then climb to the next. The two kinds of cannot-not in §6 do not cancel these three layers either: once he has seen clearly that something is his own cannot-not, adversity still falls on his body and still falls in his expectations. Nor are the three layers used to rank people.

D59 Adversity often falls on a person in three layers: on the body; in memory and prediction, where it lasts, and he may expect it to go on lasting, even to grow; and in his recognizing it as his own, where to others it may not be adversity at all, and where the hesitation over whether to hold on also comes from. The three layers can be present at once, and are not a ladder; all are facts, all can enter judgment as reasons, and none decides for him what his law is: expectation can be larger than the future, others not seeing it this way does not show that he sees wrongly, and hesitation does not show that he is weak; recognizing it as his own does not prove either that the purpose issues from his own law.

§4 The Occasion for Turning Back to Ask

That autumn his mother went into hospital once more. In the hours he waited in the corridor, he asked his way through the matter from the beginning.

§1 said that adversity is a feeling in him. Seen from the other side, this feeling is a questioning of him by the outside world, landing on him: the purpose he takes as his own has met a situation it cannot take in, and whether it still stands has been put before him as a question.

This system first used the word questioning between people: a person cannot not let his own way of regarding others be exposed to others' questioning (Moral Law P1, Fourth Theorem; Paper 8, §4), and a consensus once settled is not a contract to stop asking (Paper 8, D46). The questioning this paper speaks of is questioning in the broad sense. The world is not a subject that asks: an illness, an email freezing a post, have no intent to ask; they do not ask in words, and do not wait for his answer; the question has been set before him, and how it is put into words and how it is answered are his. The question is also aimed at the purpose he takes as his own: in the same situation, his sister meets no such question, because what is being asked about is not her purpose (§3).

To call it questioning is also not to say that the side pressing down on him is questioning him legitimately. What the rule of cutting people by quota was doing, and whether it was treating people as means, is to be judged separately against the facts (Paper 7, §3). He can still take up the mismatch it caused as a questioning; what he takes up is the question, not the law that rule would legislate for him (Paper 3, D13).

Questioning comes from outside; turning back to ask comes from within. Paper 1 said that whether something goes smoothly gives judgment an entry for turning back and asking, and does not answer that question for it (Paper 1, §5). Adversity opens such an entry too, only it does not just lie there: it keeps after a person, as the second question will show. It only asks; it does not answer for him. There are at least five things he can ask. The five are not an order; they need not all be asked, and finishing the asking is not a condition for moving.

The first question: is the mismatch real, and how large is it? The feeling can be larger than the facts, and expectation larger than the future (§1; §3). What can be checked right away can be checked right away. The next day he went and asked HR: the post was frozen, not abolished; frozen until when, no one could say. Two other companies in the city had posts like it, paying a notch less. The mismatch was real; it was a little smaller than he had thought, and a little harder to reckon than he had thought.

The second question: is that purpose his own, or has it been colonized? Papers 2 and 3 have set out how this question is asked (Paper 2, D9; Paper 3, D13–D17). He asked himself: in wanting that post, how much was wanting those people to see the figures clearly, and how much was the line "people who make reports never get anywhere"? That line he had heard often since he first joined the company. He did not sort it out then; Paper 3 said that when this kind of thing cannot be told apart for the time being, it is a real inability to tell (Paper 3, D16).

On this question, adversity gives one thing more: it often brings a moment when a choice has to be made, and this is where the questioning presses. After the post was frozen, he would either wait, or leave, or let it go; Paper 3 said that of the three things time gives, the third is just such a moment: when it truly comes to choosing, what did he choose (Paper 3, §6)? The question thereby becomes visible, and becomes pressing, and the opportunities to tell things apart increase. An opportunity is not a guarantee: looking back can tell a particular item apart; it does not guarantee that every item will in the end be told apart (Paper 3, D16). Conversely, from "the moment it was knocked, he no longer wanted it," it cannot be inferred that it was never his: a doubt that arises for a moment does not show that the thing is not one's own (Paper 3, §4).

The third question: the purpose is his own, the timing is wrong; is it to be deferred? In those two years his mother needed someone, and the family's money had to be reckoned with too; moving to another company paying a notch less was a risk he could not take in those two years. The time is his; the window is not (Paper 4, §3). When a thing is done is among the things to be compared in the first place (Paper 1, D7); interrupting is not giving up (Paper 4, D22).

The fourth question: the law has not changed; are the means to change? Whom to go to, by what method, when. The arrangement of time, resources, roles, procedure and the conditions of action is not on the same layer as a law (Paper 4, §4; Conflict Treatise §8); changing is not betraying (Paper 4, D22). With the post frozen, the thing he set out to do does not necessarily have only that one road.

The fifth question: can his own judgment be made more accurate? Judgment can be questioned, can be wrong, can be revised (Paper 1, D5, D6; Paper 1, §5). He later found that his judgment that the post would not reopen within the year rested on nothing more than two news items and a remark over dinner.

There is an event in history in which a person asked and found that the original way did not work, and she left her own words of it. In 1887 Anne Sullivan was engaged to teach Helen Keller: the Keller family had asked the director of the Perkins Institution for the Blind in Boston for a teacher, and he recommended her. She had at first meant to teach by fixed lessons. Five weeks after she came to Keller's side, on 10 April, she wrote in a letter: "I have decided not to try to have regular lessons for the present. I am going to treat Helen exactly like a two-year-old child." She went on: "I sent Helen away and sat down to think. I asked myself, 'How does a normal child learn language?' The answer was simple, 'By imitation.'" It was absurd, she wrote, "to require a child to come to a certain place at a certain time and recite certain lessons, when he has not yet acquired a working vocabulary"; the child "learns of himself, provided he is supplied with sufficient outward stimulus." Having turned back and asked, and found that the original way did not work, she dropped the fixed lessons and put all the teaching into daily life. This is the fourth question and the fifth: the means changed, and the judgment became more accurate.

There is also the reverse shape. The chemist Thomas Midgley Jr. was one of the principal figures in developing the gasoline additive tetraethyl lead. In 1923 he himself stopped work because of lead poisoning and went away to recover. In 1924, at a plant producing tetraethyl lead, a number of workers were poisoned by lead, and some died. That October, at a press conference, he poured tetraethyl lead over his hands in public, held it close and breathed its vapor, and said he could do this every day. With the unfavorable facts in front of him, what he said in public was that there was no danger. This paper does not judge whether he asked the first question in his heart; what is written is only what he did and said in public (Paper 2, D11). It shows one thing only: the facts of a mismatch can lie before one's eyes while the public account faces the other way; adversity opens the entry, and does not answer the question for anyone.

These five questions are not a checklist; turning back to ask is not an assignment either. Turning back to ask can be done only by himself; what others can do is hand him a question (Paper 3, §5). What his sister said in the corridor handed him a question, not an answer. Nor does adversity answer for him: it asks, and does not judge; adversity does not prove the purpose wrong, and the absence of this question in good times does not prove the purpose right. Turning back to ask can come late, and can also not come at all; only, as long as the mismatch is there, the question is still there.

D60 Adversity is the outside world's questioning of a person, landing on him: this is questioning in the broad sense, for the world is not a subject that asks, and what is questioned is the purpose he takes as his own. To call it questioning is not to say that the side pressing down on him is questioning him legitimately. It opens an entry for turning back to ask: he can ask whether the mismatch is real, whether that purpose is his own, whether the time has come, whether to change the means, whether his own judgment can be made more accurate. It only asks, and does not answer for him; adversity does not prove the purpose wrong, and good times do not prove it right. Adversity often brings a moment when a choice has to be made, giving him further opportunities to tell things apart, but it does not guarantee that he will. Turning back to ask can be done only by himself.

§5 After the Asking

That winter he did two things.

For now he stopped contending for the post; he would wait until things eased with his mother and the post reopened: this is deferring. While he waited, he asked his manager whether he could take on a little of that work within the team in the meantime: once a month, give a talk to the two departments that used his reports, on where the figures came from and what they could show. The manager agreed. This is changing the means. The two were done in the same month.

After turning back to ask, a person may hold on, or defer, change the means, revise or exit his avowal of that purpose, or stop before a real cannot. These are not mutually exclusive compartments; within one matter they can overlap, as they did in his winter; none is right in advance; this time's judgment decides.

What these speak of lies in three places, and they are looked at apart. Holding on, deferring and changing the means concern how action is arranged. Revising and exiting concern the avowal of that purpose: Value Theory says that an avowed content's standing alters only by revision or by exit (Value Theory P4 V53). A real cannot concerns whether, as a matter of fact, the thing can be done. The real cannot here is the kind of that morning in Paper 4, with a fever of 39°C, when he could not get out of bed (Paper 4, §7).

Deferring and changing the means can remain within one and the same cannot-not; nor need it be said that every deferral already proves he is holding on. Leaving a route or a position is an exit in action or arrangement; it is not automatically an exit from the avowal of that purpose. Stopping before a real cannot does not prove that the avowal has changed: Paper 4 said that a real cannot has a place to stop, and stopping is not losing one's ground (Paper 4, D25). Nor can a person be required to withdraw his avowal first before he is allowed to acknowledge that he cannot do the thing.

Several events in history can serve as examples of these ways of going on.

Stopping one thing. In 1665 London had the Great Plague. The physician Nathaniel Hodges and a few colleagues were chosen and appointed specifically to attend the infected; through the whole epidemic he stayed in the city. He later wrote in his book: "After then all Endeavours to restrain the Contagion proved of no Effect, we applied our selves altogether to the Care of the diseased." Stopping one line of handling is not stopping action. Nor is this the kind of cannot of that morning in Paper 4 when he could not get out of bed.

Changing the means. After her applications came to nothing in several places (§2), Seacole did not go on waiting at those doors. She wrote in her autobiography: "Let what might happen, to the Crimea I would go. If in no other way, then would I upon my own responsibility and at my own cost." And: "If the authorities had allowed me, I would willingly have given them my services as a nurse; but as they declined them, should I not open an hotel for invalids in the Crimea in my own way?" Once there, she went into partnership and opened an establishment that sold provisions and also looked after the sick and wounded. What she left was a route of application; the original matter was still there. The establishment was a business and also a place of care; both are true.

Keeping what could be kept. In the Song dynasty, after the death of Li Qingzhao's husband Zhao Mingcheng, the collection the two had gathered was scattered piece by piece as it was moved about through the fighting. She kept what could be kept; later she wrote down how the collection had been gathered and how it had been scattered, and that is her Afterword to Records on Metal and Stone. This case shows that what could be preserved, and the concrete ways of doing it, had changed; on this alone, it cannot be decided for her that her original purpose had been revised.

Exiting one office. In the preface to Returning Home, Tao Yuanming wrote that while he was magistrate of Pengze, his younger sister died in Wuchang; "my heart was set on hastening there, and I relieved myself of the post," having been in office over eighty days. What he exited was this one office; from his resigning, it cannot be decided which of his own laws he exited; nor does this case show that resigning is in general better than staying in office.

Revision is the one kind for which none of the events above is taken as an example: this paper writes a matter up as an example of revision on the strength of the person's own account. Back to him.

The following spring, the post was still frozen. He had been giving the talks within the team for a winter. One day, talking with his sister, he said: "What I want to do is still the same thing: to let the people who make decisions from these figures see the figures clearly. The shape I first avowed it in was moving to that post, sitting next to the people who decide, being someone whose job is explaining figures. Now its shape is this: every sheet in my hands, I explain until the people who use it can see it clearly. That post isn't part of this anymore."

He has not fully sorted out, even today, how much of the shape of that post was held up by the line "people who make reports never get anywhere"; he made the revision without having fully resolved that question (Paper 3, D16). What he changed, he can say clearly: what he avows is still the same thing, that avowal has not ended, and what changed is its content. Value Theory keeps these two apart: if the original avowal has not ended, it is revision; if it has ended, it is exit (Value Theory P4 V52). From outside, he simply did not go on contending for the post; beneath this one appearance there can be a spell of not doing it, or revision, or exit, and the three look the same from outside (Value Theory P4 V52). Which it is depends on whether the avowal reaches it, and only he can answer (Value Theory P4 V53).

Whichever is chosen is called by its name (Paper 3, D18). Giving up is not called deferring. What was pressed down by adversity is not called something never wanted: Paper 4 said that if, to avoid carrying it, one says the law was never one's own, the original avowal does not move because of this statement (Paper 4, D24); here it is the same shape. Not being able to hold up is not called having made peace with letting it go. That spring he could have said to his sister, "I never really wanted that post"; it would have been convenient, but it was not true: he had wanted it for two years. Conversely, it cannot be decided from outside, merely because a person later stopped, that he was not genuine before; real revision still has its place.

Which one was chosen this time can still be looked back on afterward (Paper 3, D17).

D61 After turning back to ask, there may be holding on, or deferring, changing the means, revising or exiting the avowal of that purpose, or stopping before a real cannot; these are not mutually exclusive compartments, and none is right in advance; this time's judgment decides, and it can be looked back on afterward. Leaving a route is not exiting the purpose; stopping before a real cannot does not prove that the avowal has changed. Whichever is chosen is called by its name: giving up is not called deferring, and what was pressed down is not called something never wanted.

§6 Two Kinds of Cannot-Not

That winter, an older colleague on the team patted him on the shoulder and said: "When things are hard, you've got to grit your teeth and hang on."

The words were kindly meant; this series does not speak this way. No one can assign holding on to a person from outside, and adversity itself cannot assign it either. This series does not answer this question with "ought": each person legislates only for himself, and "you ought" is a way of legislating for someone else (Paper 1, §4). A person who holds on in adversity rests on his own cannot-not. Such a cannot-not always hangs on conditions, and has two layers: how people are regarded cannot be cancelled while one stands in the position of taking oneself and others as ends; what to do this time is his judgment, which can be questioned, can be revised, and may be obstructed in the doing (Paper 1, D5).

In adversity, such cannot-nots are of two kinds, told apart by what they face: one faces his own matter, the other faces others. The source of both lies in himself.

One's Own Cannot-Not

Having turned back and asked, he saw it clearly: letting those who make decisions from figures see the figures clearly is his own cannot-not (Paper 2, D10). Having seen it clearly, he does not lightly let it go because of adversity: cannot-not-doing is, in the first place, a person's negation of not doing something (Paper 1, D2). With the post frozen, he went on giving the talks.

Detours and deferral can remain within one and the same cannot-not. That winter he did not contend for the post, and gave the talks within the team in the meantime; this cannot-not was not broken. Whether he can carry on later, and when and how, still depends on conditions and still rests on judgment; Paper 4 said that it cannot be inferred from his still being headed that way that the action will certainly happen (Paper 4, §4). Letting this cannot-not go is another matter: it is revising or exiting the avowal of it (§5).

Seeing clearly can also be wrong, and can be looked back on again (Paper 3, D16, D17). Holding up does not prove that it is his own: how strongly something holds cannot tell its source; for the source, one looks back (Paper 7, §5). Letting it go does not prove that it is not his either: being tired is not not wanting (Paper 4, D19).

For Others

The other kind of cannot-not faces others. For others, what is done is providing conditions for others.

The items here have all been written in earlier papers. Cultivation is a direction, and it exists only when that person is truly taken as an end in a matter (Paper 6, D33); whether the other is willing, whether suited, whether the time is ripe, these three cannot be answered in his place (Paper 6, D34). Protection does not wait on the conditions of cultivation; what it looks at is the person in front of one being treated as a means and harmed (Paper 6, D35; Paper 7, §3). Guarding does not wait for the phase transition to be complete either (Paper 9, D54). The conditions are his to give; where the other grows is the other's own (Paper 6, D32, D36).

There is one more item: an agreement, a matter settled with others and avowed together. In those two years he and his sister agreed that, for their mother's hospital care, the two of them would take turns, a week each. Each of them had reasons of their own, and the reasons came to rest on one matter that both avowed and both were able to do; Paper 8 said this is doing something together, not a shared law (Paper 8, D47). That winter the company had a great deal of overtime, and he still kept his own week; how his sister arranged her week was her affair. Holding on for an agreement is holding on to his own share.

For others, this cannot-not is also his own: it points to others, and its source is still in himself. Paper 6 said that the direction of cultivation is, inwardly, a cannot-not (Paper 6, D33). So when a person is said to hold on "purely for others," this is not read as his having handed the source over to others, nor as his having handed himself over.

Another person's own share of cannot-not is not here. Paper 2 said that another person's share of cannot-not is not given by anyone else and can only be set by that person himself (Paper 2, D11). What he holds on to is not the other's share. Holding on for others is still holding on to his own share: providing conditions for others; what others do is their own affair.

Three events in history allow a look at this line.

Sullivan was engaged for the work (§4), and this case is looked at for one thing only: what she gave was her share, and the learning was Keller's own. She wrote in her letter that the child learns of himself, provided he is supplied with sufficient outward stimulus (§4). Given enough, the learning still may not come.

Louis Braille reworked the raised-dot method of Charles Barbier into a system of points. In 1829 he published a book on the method, whose title states that it is for the use of the blind and arranged for them; its preface says of Barbier's method that "it is to his procedure that we owe the germ of the idea of our own"; and in this edition the system still carried dashes. The conditions he gave were given to a group of people.

In the Tang dynasty, in 742, the Japanese monks Yōei and Fushō came to Yangzhou and asked the monk Jianzhen to cross the sea to the east and transmit the teaching; he agreed. Several crossings after that did not succeed. On the fifth, the ship drifted to Hainan; on the way back north, he lost his sight. In 753 he set out on a ship of the Japanese embassy to the Tang, and reached Japan at the end of that year. The asking and the agreeing were one matter that both sides avowed together; what he held on to was his own share.

D62 Holding on in adversity rests on a person's own cannot-not, not on an "ought" that anyone assigns him. Such cannot-nots are of two kinds; the source of both lies in himself, and each hangs on its own conditions: one faces his own matter; the other faces others: cultivation, which exists only when that person is truly taken as an end in a matter; protection, which does not wait on the conditions of cultivation; guarding, which does not wait for the phase transition to be complete; or the matter agreed with others and avowed together. Another person's own cannot-not can be set only by that person himself; that share is not what he holds on to.

§7 The Line That Faces Others

In the months the post was frozen, he did not look over a single report for the young colleague on the team.

She was the one he had protected in Paper 1 (Paper 7, §3). Early that spring she had come to ask whether he could teach her to write the notes on how figures are defined; he said yes, and went through it with her twice. Then the post was frozen, his mother went into hospital, and the matter of the list pressed down too. In the matter of the list, he protected her as well; what he had promised to teach her, in those months, he did not teach again.

Does this show that his share facing her had stopped too? It does not follow. Meaning Theory says that the absence of an act of cultivation at this moment does not by itself imply that looking-toward has stopped (Meaning Theory P3 Y22). Looking-toward means this: the item of her as an end still actually enters his future arrangements and reasons, and is not merely recallable. Whether it is still there depends on what is actually the case: whether she is still in his future arrangements and reasons is judged by the relation across time, not replaced by a single act, nor counted as so merely because he once avowed the item (Meaning Theory P3 Y22). In this case, she is still in his plans for next year: he has settled with his manager that she will work with him on the report for the first quarter of next year; she, too, said she wanted to do it. This is the fact in this case that looking-toward is still there; it is not that everyone who meets adversity will be like this.

That looking-toward is still there does not guarantee that there is something he can do at this moment either. That year she spent three months at home looking after her sick father (Paper 7, §3); while she was away, there was little he could do. Whether he can do something later, and how, still depends on conditions and still rests on judgment (Paper 4, §4).

Meaning Theory has a technical core sentence that can stand here in the same direction: "attribution closes within one person; the outlet of orientation is not sealed within one person" (Meaning Theory P1, Abstract). The first half falls on this point: holding on for others is holding on to one's own share. The second half keeps an outlet open outward, without confirming for every person that he is already actually facing outward.

This line has three edges.

First, even if this kind holds up, this does not show that it is higher, nor that it issues more from his own law: how strongly something holds cannot tell its source (Paper 7, §5).

Second, giving one's all stays within the limits of self-preservation (Paper 4, D23). In those months, in his weeks, he worked by day, went to the hospital in the evening, and caught up on his own reports late at night; once he slept past his stop on the subway. Self-preservation rests first of all on the fact that one is an end too; it holds without waiting until one can no longer sustain oneself. Giving one's all does not mean wearing oneself out in a relationship one cannot cultivate: going past those limits already harms oneself, even before one reaches dire straits. If a person can no longer sustain even himself, he has passed beyond what this paper calls adversity. He is not anyone's consumable, to be used up (Paper 9, D52).

Third, holding on for others is holding on to one's own share, which is providing conditions for others; what others do is their own affair (Paper 6, D36). He does not answer for her whether she comes to do that report next year, whether she is willing, whether suited, whether the time is ripe (Paper 6, D34); if she comes, he does not settle the account in her thanks or response either (Paper 6, D31). Nor are others the fuel that keeps him going.

There is also a kind of adversity that comes precisely from losing a person. Meaning Theory P3 has written how, after the loss, the one who remains goes on, or changes his looking-toward that person (Meaning Theory P3 Y22, Y23); whether the other's first-person position has exited cannot be decided directly from the state visible from outside, which Meaning Theory P4 has written and Paper 4 has also restated (Meaning Theory P4 Y28, Y30; Paper 4, §7).

History has an event in which the range of "for others" is larger. After Marie Curie and her husband Pierre discovered radium, they did not apply for a patent; in her words, they "published without reserve all the results of our research, as well as the exact processes of the preparation of radium," and gave "to those interested whatever information they asked of us." In 1906 Pierre died, and the way the two had worked side by side was broken off from then on; she carried on the research they had shared, and took over her husband's chair. Later, so that quantities of radium could be measured accurately everywhere, scientists of different countries formed a commission and agreed to take as an international standard a carefully weighed quantity of pure radium salt; she was appointed to prepare the primary standard, and completed it in 1911. In her autobiographical notes she wrote of how deeply she appreciated "the privilege of realizing that our discovery had become a benefit to mankind."

Read in this paper's way, she was for others; and the others are all of humanity, not her husband alone. To say all of humanity is to say that the circle remains open: whoever can use it may use it. It is not a higher end standing above these people (Paper 9, D50, D56), nor is it saying that she gave herself up for humanity. Nor does this case prove that being for others always holds up better.

Taking §6 and §7 together, "for others" has three ranges: one person, as Sullivan for Keller; a group of people, as Braille for the blind; an open-ended circle of people, as Curie.

D63 When a matter of his own is blocked in adversity, it does not follow that the looking-toward others he had before has stopped along with it: whether that person is still in his future arrangements and reasons depends on what is actually the case; and looking-toward still being there does not guarantee that there is something he can do at this moment. Even if the cannot-not facing others holds up, this does not show that it is higher, nor that it issues more from his own law; holding on for others is holding on to one's own share: it stays within the limits of self-preservation, does not reach into the other's share, and does not settle the account in the other's thanks or response.

Other People's Adversity

The colleague who was rated "unsatisfactory" had wanted to go on doing this work; the following year, his contract was not renewed (Paper 7, §3). That was that colleague's adversity.

He asked around in a few places for that colleague, and wrote a letter of recommendation; on several evenings the two of them ate together downstairs, and talked mostly about other things.

Another person's adversity is not something those around him can get through for him. Turning back to ask can be done only by the person himself; what others can do is hand him a question (Paper 3, §5); whether he is willing to hear it, whether suited, whether the time is ripe, others cannot answer for him (Paper 6, D34). If he is being treated as a means and harmed by others, protection does not wait on these three (Paper 6, D35; Paper 7, §3). Not being able to stand in for him is not the same as being able only to look on. Those around him can actually change the conditions he faces, offering support, company and help, and giving protection where it is needed; but they cannot avow a purpose for him, complete his looking back, or decide how he takes up this stretch of what he has been through.

That colleague later found a new job (Paper 7, §6); he found it himself. Whether he gained anything from it, and what, cannot be avowed for him by others either (Paper 6, D36).

Where It Lands

No way of living can rule out adversity in advance. It is the outside world's questioning of a person; it falls on him, and it also gives him an entry for turning back to ask. How he goes on after asking, and how he changes, is for him to judge in the concrete situation; holding on rests on his own cannot-not; before a real cannot he can stop, without calling what he cannot do something he does not want to do.

The post opened once more, later on; he did not apply. He still hands in his sheets, one by one; before handing in each one, he first thinks it through: who is going to read this?

Conclusion

This paper has set out seven propositions. Taken together, they say this: adversity is the feeling in a person when a purpose he takes as his own does not match the situation; its occurrence is a fact, it can enter judgment, and it is a clue, not a criterion; no way of living can rule it out in advance; it falls on the body, in expectation, and in his recognizing it as his own, and the three layers can be present at once; it is the outside world's questioning of him, which opens an entry for turning back to ask, and which only asks and does not answer for him; after asking he can hold on, or defer, change the means, revise or exit, or stop before a real cannot, and whichever is chosen is called by its name; holding on rests on his own cannot-not, facing his own matter or facing others; and holding on for others is holding on to one's own share.

What this paper does not say is also recorded here. It does not write about dire straits: when a person can no longer sustain even himself, that is another topic. It does not teach people how to get through adversity, sets no fixed duration for holding on, and does not judge for the reader whether, this time, holding on is right or letting go is right. It does not judge for the people in the historical events what went on in their hearts: what is written is what they did, and the words they themselves left. The adversity that comes from losing a person is referred back to Meaning Theory and not unfolded here.

The Seven Propositions of This Paper

D57 Adversity is the feeling in a person when a purpose he takes as his own does not match the situation outside. That this feeling occurs is a fact, and it can enter judgment as a reason; it is a clue, not a criterion; it can be larger than the facts, and it does not decide for him what his law is. Its presence does not show whether that purpose is his own, and neither does its absence. Adversity in this paper is not dire straits: when a person can no longer sustain even himself, that is another matter.

D58 As long as a person has a purpose he takes as his own, no way of living can rule out adversity in advance: where the world is going, he cannot foresee; others are ends too, each with his own law, and they do not arrange things according to his purpose; and his own law, too, gives what presses in from outside something to run into. That adversity cannot be avoided does not show that others are wrong, does not show that he has taken a wrong road, and does not show that it is his due, an assignment handed to him.

D59 Adversity often falls on a person in three layers: on the body; in memory and prediction, where it lasts, and he may expect it to go on lasting, even to grow; and in his recognizing it as his own, where to others it may not be adversity at all, and where the hesitation over whether to hold on also comes from. The three layers can be present at once, and are not a ladder; all are facts, all can enter judgment as reasons, and none decides for him what his law is: expectation can be larger than the future, others not seeing it this way does not show that he sees wrongly, and hesitation does not show that he is weak; recognizing it as his own does not prove either that the purpose issues from his own law.

D60 Adversity is the outside world's questioning of a person, landing on him: this is questioning in the broad sense, for the world is not a subject that asks, and what is questioned is the purpose he takes as his own. To call it questioning is not to say that the side pressing down on him is questioning him legitimately. It opens an entry for turning back to ask: he can ask whether the mismatch is real, whether that purpose is his own, whether the time has come, whether to change the means, whether his own judgment can be made more accurate. It only asks, and does not answer for him; adversity does not prove the purpose wrong, and good times do not prove it right. Adversity often brings a moment when a choice has to be made, giving him further opportunities to tell things apart, but it does not guarantee that he will. Turning back to ask can be done only by himself.

D61 After turning back to ask, there may be holding on, or deferring, changing the means, revising or exiting the avowal of that purpose, or stopping before a real cannot; these are not mutually exclusive compartments, and none is right in advance; this time's judgment decides, and it can be looked back on afterward. Leaving a route is not exiting the purpose; stopping before a real cannot does not prove that the avowal has changed. Whichever is chosen is called by its name: giving up is not called deferring, and what was pressed down is not called something never wanted.

D62 Holding on in adversity rests on a person's own cannot-not, not on an "ought" that anyone assigns him. Such cannot-nots are of two kinds; the source of both lies in himself, and each hangs on its own conditions: one faces his own matter; the other faces others: cultivation, which exists only when that person is truly taken as an end in a matter; protection, which does not wait on the conditions of cultivation; guarding, which does not wait for the phase transition to be complete; or the matter agreed with others and avowed together. Another person's own cannot-not can be set only by that person himself; that share is not what he holds on to.

D63 When a matter of his own is blocked in adversity, it does not follow that the looking-toward others he had before has stopped along with it: whether that person is still in his future arrangements and reasons depends on what is actually the case; and looking-toward still being there does not guarantee that there is something he can do at this moment. Even if the cannot-not facing others holds up, this does not show that it is higher, nor that it issues more from his own law; holding on for others is holding on to one's own share: it stays within the limits of self-preservation, does not reach into the other's share, and does not settle the account in the other's thanks or response.

---

Acknowledgments

This paper is a special study 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.

The writing and review of this paper were assisted by Anthropic's Claude and OpenAI's ChatGPT. Thanks are due to both companies and to their research and engineering teams.

---

References

Groups I and III are works of this system, archived on Zenodo with Chinese and English versions under the same record; the DOIs cited are concept DOIs, always pointing to the latest version, so version numbers and access dates are not given separately; all are single-authored (Han Qin). Group II lists the sources for the events before 1945 cited in the text; the checking status of each case is recorded separately in this paper's verification table of historical cases. 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 restatement audit table.

I · Works actually called upon in this text

Qin, H. (2026). On the Dynamics of Value (SAE Value Theory, Paper 4) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22050204

Qin, H. (2026). What Kind of Relation Meaning Is (SAE Meaning Theory, Paper 1) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22652134

Qin, H. (2026). The Half That Is Not Mine to Settle (SAE Meaning Theory, Paper 3) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22731235

Qin, H. (2026). The Carrier's Boundary (SAE Meaning Theory, Paper 4) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22738709

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Conflict Treatise: How Subjecthood Is Not Swallowed by Conflict Itself [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22313628

Qin, H. (2026). Four Foundational Theorems of the Moral Law (SAE Moral Law, Paper 1) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20011018

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). Judgment and Laughter (SAE Laughter, Overview) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23286244

Qin, H. (2026). Purpose Enters the Construct Laughed At (SAE Laughter, III) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23287629

II · Historical sources (events before 1945)

In order of first appearance in the text.

Seacole, M. (1857). Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands. London: James Blackwood. Chapter VIII. Project Gutenberg #23031. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/23031/pg23031.txt

Keller, H. (1903). The Story of My Life (with Anne Sullivan's letters and John Albert Macy's account). New York: Doubleday, Page & Co. Project Gutenberg #2397. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2397/pg2397.txt

For the Midgley case, the following three items were not seen in the original; they are cited at second hand from the Wikipedia article "Thomas Midgley Jr." (accessed 2026-10-25):

Kovarik, B. (1994; rev. 1999). Charles F. Kettering and the 1921 Discovery of Tetraethyl Lead in the Context of Technological Alternatives. Society of Automotive Engineers Fuels & Lubricants Conference, Baltimore. (Cited at second hand.)

Kitman, J. L. (2000, March 2). The Secret History of Lead. The Nation. (Cited at second hand.)

Markowitz, G., & Rosner, D. (2002). Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Cited at second hand.)

Hodges, N. (1720). Loimologia: or, an Historical Account of the Plague in London in 1665 (English translation by J. Quincy; the year of the Latin original has not been checked for this paper). London. Part I. Project Gutenberg #40106. https://gutenberg.org/files/40106/old/40106-h/40106-h.htm

Li Qingzhao. Jinshi lu houxu 金石录后序 [Afterword to Records on Metal and Stone]. From the Wikisource electronic transcription (uncollated).

Tao Yuanming. Preface to Guiqulai xi ci 归去来兮辞 [Returning Home]. In Tao Yuanming ji, juan 5. As quoted at aisixiang.com. https://www.aisixiang.com/data/45473.html

Braille, L. (1829). Procédé pour écrire les paroles, la musique et le plain-chant au moyen de points, à l'usage des aveugles et disposé pour eux. Paris. (Title capitalization follows bibliographic convention; title page, preface and page 12 from the transcription and English translation by Duxbury Systems.) https://duxburysystems.org/downloads/library/history/lb_1829/braille_1829.htm

Jianzhen: chuanbo Zhonghua wenhua de shizhe 鉴真：传播中华文化的使者 [Jianzhen: An Envoy Who Spread Chinese Culture]. (2024, March 15). Fengci yu youmo 讽刺与幽默 (as carried by People's Daily Online; based on Tang Da heshang dongzheng zhuan). https://paper.people.com.cn/fcyymwap/html/2024-03/15/content_26047906.htm

Curie, M. (1923). Pierre Curie (translated by C. Kellogg & V. Kellogg; with Autobiographical Notes). New York: Macmillan. Project Gutenberg #69617. https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/69617/pg69617-images.html

III · 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). Anti-Colonization (SAE Action Theory, Paper 2) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970758

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). 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

还是第七篇那几年。

行业不好，公司按比例裁人：每个组最末的一成评「不合格」，评了「不合格」的人，第二年不再续约。他母亲这两年常跑医院（第七篇引言）。裁人的规矩来自别人那一边；母亲的病，成因在世界那一边；两件同在一段日子里。

那几年他手上还有一件自己的事。公司新设了一个岗位，不再只是做报表，是坐到要靠报表做决定的那些人旁边，给他们讲这些数字从哪里来，能说明什么，说明不了什么。他想调过去。第三篇说过，他后来在乎的，是报表背后那些要靠它做决定的人（第三篇第三节）。这件事没有人派给他，他拿它当自己的。

那年春天，公司冻结了新的岗位，这一个也在里面。

先说清两个词。这一篇说一个人「认作」自己的目的，是说他拿它当自己的；这不担保它真是他的，是不是，要回看（第三篇 D16、D17）。这一篇说的「目的」，是一个人要达成的具体目的，像调去那个岗位；不是说他作为一个人是目的的那个地位。后一种意思，这个系列一直用「把自己当目的」「把别人当目的」来说，这一篇照旧。

这一篇要回答的是：一个人认作自己的目的和外面对不上，他碰到的是什么；它落在他身上的哪里；他能借它回头问什么；问完以后，凭什么接着走。

这一篇是行动论的专论。前九篇已经回答了逆境（adversity）里的大部分问题；这一篇从逆境这一个角度，贴着读者最常碰到的事，把散在九篇里的东西沿一条线走一遍：先是逆境落在一个人身上的哪几处，再是怎样回头问，最后是凭什么接着走。七条命题接着系列的编号，多数是把前九篇的东西从逆境这一头重新立起来，不算作七个新的原理。这个系列说的人，把自己当目的，也把别人当目的；这是这个系列的定义域，不是对读者的要求（前置篇第四节）。

回答分七步。第一节说逆境是什么；第二节说它为什么躲不开；第三节说它落在身上的三层；第四节说它是外面的世界对他的追问，给出回头问的入口；第五节说问完以后的几种做法；第六节说坚持凭的两种不得不（cannot not）；第七节说朝向别人的那一条。七节之后，有一段说别人的逆境，然后是落点。全篇七条，接着这个系列的编号，从 D57 到 D63，末尾合列。正文不点名外部理论家；上游各篇的结论只用平实话重述，括注篇次。这一篇也举历史上真实的事作例子，共九件，都在一九四五年以前，出处列在参考文献里。说的是一件件事，不是给谁立像；写一个人回头问过、为了谁，只在他自己留下了话的时候写。

第一节　逆境是什么

冻结的通知是三月出的，一封发给全公司的邮件，三行字。

这件事里有三样东西，先分开。一样是外面的处境：岗位冻结了，裁人的规矩落下来了，母亲又要住院。一样是他认作自己的目的：调去那个岗位。还有一样，是这两样对不上的时候，他身上的那个感受。这一篇说的逆境，是第三样。

处境本身不是逆境。同一封邮件，组里另一个同事也收到了；那个同事从来没想过去那个岗位，冻不冻结，和那个同事要做的事没有一处对不上。对那个同事，这封邮件不是逆境。同一个处境，对这个人是逆境，对那个人不是，因为两个人认作自己的目的不一样。目的本身也不是逆境：那个岗位他想了两年，想的时候没有什么对不上。

这个感受落在哪里，这个体系在笑论里给过一个结构上的说法。笑论把一个人正在用的把握叫构（construct）：一个预期，一个人对自己处境的理解，都是；构没有收尽、却又就在眼前的那一点，叫余项（remainder）。面对同一个构，注意力可以落在不同的地方：哭与怕都落在构上，哭是构失去，「没有了」，怕是构受威胁，可能就要没有了；笑落在余项上（笑论·总论 第三节）。一个人自己的目的，也可以就是那个构（笑论·三 第一节）。这一篇借这个说法读逆境：处境压过来，他认作的那个目的受了威胁，或者落了空，注意力落在这里；这个感受，在构的那一边。

同一处境里，也可以笑。笑论说，同一处境，人可以笑，也可以哭，而且常常交替；注意力也不必只落一处（笑论·总论 第三节）。人仍认那个目的是自己的，注意力落在为它付出的代价、或者它把人带去的意料之外的地方，是苦笑：苦是情感，来自代价；笑来自注意力落在哪里（笑论·三 第四节）。那年夏天，组里有人问起那个岗位，他说，准备了两年，讲稿攒了一抽屉，到现在听过的只有他自己；说完，他自己笑了一下，回去接着改那份讲稿。这一笑不说明他已经把那件事放下了：笑不判构的去留（笑论·总论 第二节）。

这个感受的发生，是一个事实。三月以后，他身上有这个感受，这一点不假；它也可以作为理由进入判断：这几个月要不要先把那件事放一放，它是要掂量的一样。第四篇说过，身体、情绪与能力可以作为事实和理由进入判断，它们不是价值判断，不替一个人定什么是他的法（第四篇 D19）。逆境也是这样。

说它的发生是事实，不是说它里面含着的判断都已为真。对不上是不是真的，有多大，仍是可错的。他以为冻结就等于撤了，其实没有撤；他以为一年之内都不会再开，其实没有人这样说过。能当下核的，当下就核得了（第一篇第五节），第四节再说。第四篇也说过，怕会比事实大，它把可能的代价放大（第四篇第一节）；这个感受也可能比事实大。

它是线索，不是判据。第一篇说，做得顺不顺的感受给判断一个方向，它是线索，可错，不证明一样东西出自自己（第一篇 D6）。逆境也一样。有它，说明不了那个目的是不是他自己的：顶住外面的，可能是他自己的法（one's own law），也可能只是一样外面撑着的东西被碰了一下。

没有它，也说明不了。他刚进公司那几年，组长说换口径，他就换；公司说拿第一等的才是好员工，他信（第二篇第一节）。那几年他身上没有这个感受。这说明不了那几年的处境好，也说明不了他那时候认作的目的是他自己的。第二篇转述过道德律的一句：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（第二篇第一节；道德律 P9 §2.4）。这一篇从这里推一步：外面的规矩落进来不遇抵抗的时候，人身上也可以没有这个感受。

还有一条界，放在定义里说。这一篇说的逆境不是绝境。绝境，是一个人连自身的维持都保持不住；那是另一个话题，这一篇不写。放在这里，是因为后面说躲不开、说坚持，都只说到这条界为止。第四篇说的最终的不能（第四篇 D25），第七篇说的极端处境（第七篇 D43），都在靠近这条界的那一边。

D57　逆境是一个人认作自己的目的与外面的处境对不上时，他身上的那个感受。这个感受的发生是一个事实，可以作为理由进入判断；它是线索，不是判据，可能比事实大，也不替他定什么是他的法。有它，说明不了那个目的是不是他自己的，没有它，也说明不了。本篇说的逆境不是绝境：连自身的维持都保持不住，是另一件事。

第二节　为什么躲不开

母亲那一年住了两回院。

这一件里，没有一个对他下手的人。病在世界那一边；世界往哪里走，他预料不了。病、天灾、瘟疫、意外，都是这样：它们的直接成因本身，不是一个可以回应的主体，问不了，也商量不了，不能一概解释成谁的殖民（colonization）。可同一个处境里仍然有别人：病房里的医生和护士，同一间病房里的另一家人，和他轮着陪床的姐姐。成因不是一个主体，处境里的人是；他照样可以给他们创造条件，必要时提供保护。

冻结岗位、按比例裁人，是另一件。这一件里有人：定这条规矩的是公司，力主它的是他的上司（第七篇第一节）。别人也是目的，各有自己的法，不照他的目的安排；公司有公司要的数字，上司有上司的考虑，他们不为他留着那个岗位。这里碰上了逆境，本身说明不了别人错了。混着的地方里，也确实有把人当手段的运作；那条规矩在做什么，第七篇写过（第七篇第三节），那是另一件要照事实判的事，不由他碰上了逆境推出来。第二篇说过同向的一句：一个人有了自己的一套，别人的规矩再压进来，会碰到它（第二篇第一节）。

历史上也有来处在这一边的事。克里米亚战争的时候，玛丽·西科尔（Mary Seacole）在伦敦申请随军去做护理，几处都没有成，她在自传里记下了这几回申请。这一件只看得到一道道门关上。她后来怎样做，第五节再说。

还有一个来处，在他自己这一边。那年上司让他先拟一份名单（第七篇引言）。换一个不在乎组里这些人的人，这只是一张表；落到他这里，那条规矩碰到的是他自己的法：他不把人看成可以按比例裁掉的数（第七篇第一节）。第一节的定义里已经有这一层：有认作自己的目的，才有对不上；外面压进来的东西碰得到的，正是他认下的那些。有那条法在，那条规矩才碰得到他。所以碰得多，不说明他走错了。

这三个来处，不是一张互斥、穷尽的成因表。母亲住院、岗位冻结、拟名单，是在同一个春天里；一件事也可以几样都沾着。

躲不开，也不是命该如此，不是他该受的，不是派给他磨炼的功课。第三篇说过，分清也不是一项功课（第三篇第六节）；逆境也不是。这不排除一个人在逆境以后，自己认下了什么；那是他自己认下的，不是逆境替他安排好的。

D58　只要一个人有认作自己的目的，就没有一种活法能预先排除逆境：世界往哪里走，他预料不了；别人也是目的，各有自己的法，不照他的目的安排；他自己的法，也让外面压进来的东西碰得到它。逆境躲不开，不说明别人错了，不说明他走错了，也不说明它是他该受的、派给他的功课。

第三节　逆境在身上的三层

那半年，逆境落在他身上，不止一处。

第一层，落在身上。那半年他夜里常醒，吃得少，瘦了几斤；有两回在医院陪了一夜，第二天照常上班。身上的事是事实，可以作为理由进入判断：这几个月他能做的比平常少，他排事的时候，这一点就在里面。它不是价值判断，不替他定什么是他的法（第四篇 D19）。累了，说明他累，说明不了他不想要那件事了（第四篇第一节）。

第二层，落在记忆与预测里。逆境持续着；持续了几个月，他就料想它还会持续，甚至变大：那个岗位明年也不会开，那条规矩明年会改成每个季度评一回，母亲还会再住院。料想是一句可错的话。第四篇说过，怕会比事实大，它把可能的代价放大（第四篇第一节）；料想也可能比将来大。这一回，有一处他料想的比后来发生的大：那条规矩第二年改了，不再裁人，只评等（第七篇第四节）。这说明不了料想都比将来大，只说明它是可错的。料想里能当下核的那一部分，当下就核得了，第四节说。

第三层，落在认出它是自己的那里。有一回在医院的走廊里，姐姐说：「那个岗位没了就没了，你现在的工作不是好好的？」在她看来，这不是逆境。她没有看错：她认作自己的目的和他的不一样，同一个处境落到她那里，对不上的地方不在这一处（第一节）。别人不这样看，也不说明他看错了。这件事落在他认作的目的上；这一层只有他自己能回头看（第三篇第五节）。

要不要坚持的犹豫，也从这里来：这件事落在他自己认作的目的上，别人不这样看，接不接着要它，只有他来定。那几个月，他一会儿还去打听那个岗位什么时候重开，一会儿又想算了。第四篇说过，迟疑有两种，还没判定，与判了还没动；不能仅凭迟疑判软弱（第四篇 D21）。他那几个月多半是前一种：那件事还要不要，他还没判。

这里有一处不说大。「认出它是自己的」，说的是这件事落在他认作的目的上，不是已经证明那个目的出自他自己的法；那是另一问。那一问也可以从这里起：认出它落在自己认作的目的上，就有了「那个目的是不是他自己的」这一问，第四节说。

三层可以同时在。那半年，夜里醒，料想明年，在走廊里听姐姐那句话，是在同一个星期里。讲的次序不是走的次序：不是每一件事都三层齐备，也不是走完一层再上一层。第六节说的两种不得不，也不取消这三层：认清了一件事是自己的不得不，逆境照样落在他身上，落在他的料想里。三层也不拿来给人排高低。

D59　逆境落在一个人身上，常有三层：落在身上；落在记忆与预测里，它持续着，他可能料想它还会持续，甚至变大；落在认出它是自己的那里，别人看来未必是逆境，要不要坚持的犹豫也从这里来。三层可以同时在，不是阶梯；都是事实，都可以作为理由进入判断，不替他定什么是他的法：料想可能比将来大，别人不这样看不说明他看错了，犹豫不说明他软弱；认出它是自己的，也不证明那个目的出自他自己的法。

第四节　回头问的时机

那年秋天，母亲又住了一回院。他在走廊里等的那几个钟头，把那件事从头问了一遍。

第一节说，逆境是他身上的一个感受。换一面看，这个感受，是外面的世界对他的一次追问落到了他身上：他认作的那个目的碰上了收不住的处境，它还站不站得住，被问到了他面前。

追问这个词，这个体系原先用在人与人之间：一个人不得不让自己看待别人的那一套被别人追问（道德律 P1 第四条；第八篇第四节），说定了的共识也不是停止追问的契约（第八篇 D46）。这一篇说的追问是广义的。世界不是一个发问的主体：一场病，一封冻结岗位的邮件，没有发问的意图，不用话问，也不等他回答；问摆到了他面前，这一问怎样说出来、怎样答，是他的。这一问也冲着他认作的目的：同一个处境，姐姐那里没有这一问，因为问的不是她的目的（第三节）。

说它是追问，也不是说压下来的那一方在正当地问他。那条按比例裁人的规矩在做什么，是不是在把人当手段，另照事实判（第七篇第三节）。他照样可以把它造成的对不上，当成一个追问来接；接下的是这一问，不是那条规矩替他立的法（第三篇 D13）。

外面追问，里面回头问。第一篇说，做得顺不顺，给了判断一个回头去问的入口，不替这一问作答（第一篇第五节）。逆境也给出这样一个入口，只是它不只摆在那里，还追着人，第二问那里再说。它只问，不替他作答。能问的，至少有五样。这五样不是一个次序，不必问全，也不是问完了才能动。

一问，对不上是不是真的，有多大。感受可能比事实大，料想可能比将来大（第一节；第三节）。能当下核的，当下就核得了。他第二天去问了人事部：那个岗位是冻结，不是撤销；冻到什么时候，没有人说得准。城里另有两家公司有这样的岗位，薪水低一截。对不上是真的，比他想的小一点，也比他想的难算一点。

二问，那个目的是不是自己的，还是被殖民了。这一问怎样问，第二篇与第三篇写过（第二篇 D9；第三篇 D13 至 D17）。他问自己：想去那个岗位，有几分是想让那些人看清数字，有几分是那句「做报表的没出息」？后一句，他刚进公司就听熟了。他当时没有分清；第三篇说过，这一类一时分不清，是真的分不清（第三篇 D16）。

逆境在这一问上多给了一样东西：它常给出一个非做不可的时刻，追问的「追」就在这里。岗位冻结以后，他要么等，要么走，要么放下；第三篇说，时间给的三样线索里，第三样就是这样的时刻，真到要选的时候，他选了什么（第三篇第六节）。这一问因此变得看得见，也变得紧了，分清的机会多了。机会不是保证：回看能把具体的一项分清，不保证每一项终将分清（第三篇 D16）。反过来，也不能由「一碰就不想要了」，推出它本来不是他的：一时起了疑，不说明它就不是自己的（第三篇第四节）。

三问，目的是自己的，时机不对，要不要延迟。母亲那两年要人，家里的钱也要算；换一家薪水低一截的公司，这两年他冒不起这个险。时间是他的，窗口不是他的（第四篇第三节）。一件事什么时候做，本来就在要比的事里（第一篇 D7）；中断不等于放弃（第四篇 D22）。

四问，法没有变，法子要不要换：找谁，用什么办法，什么时候。时间、资源、角色、程序与行动条件的安排，和法不在同一层（第四篇第四节；冲突论 八）；改变不等于背叛（第四篇 D22）。岗位冻着，他要做的那件事，不一定只有那一条路。

五问，自己的判断还能不能更准。判断可以被问，可以错，可以改（第一篇 D5、D6；第一篇第五节）。他后来发现，他判那个岗位一年之内不会再开，凭的只是两条新闻和饭桌上的一句话。

问出原来的法子不合用，历史上有一件事，留下了本人的话。一八八七年，安妮·沙利文（Anne Sullivan）受聘去教海伦·凯勒（Helen Keller）：凯勒家向波士顿柏金斯盲人学校（Perkins Institution）的校长要一位教师，校长推荐了她。她原先打算按固定的课来教。到凯勒身边五周以后，四月十日，她在信里写，她决定暂时不上固定的课了，要像对一个两岁的孩子那样待她。她写，有一天她把孩子打发开，自己坐下来想：一个寻常的孩子是怎样学会说话的？靠模仿。孩子还没有可用的词汇，就要他定时定点来背课，是荒唐的；孩子是自己学会的，只要外面给的刺激足够。她回头问出原来的法子不合用，就撤掉固定的课，教都放在日常里。这是第四问与第五问：法子换了，判断也更准了。

也有反过来的样子。化学家托马斯·米奇利（Thomas Midgley Jr.）是研制汽油添加剂四乙基铅的主要人物之一。一九二三年，他本人因铅中毒停下工作，去休养。一九二四年，生产四乙基铅的一家工厂里，多名工人铅中毒，有人死了。那年十月，他在记者会上当众把四乙基铅倒在手上，凑近去吸它的气，说他可以天天这样做。不利的事实摆在前面，他公开说的是没有危险。他心里有没有问过第一问，这一篇不判；写的只是他公开做了什么、说了什么（第二篇 D11）。它说明的只有一件：对不上的事实可以摆在眼前，而公开的说法朝着另一边；逆境给出入口，不替这一问作答。

这五问不是一张检查表；回头问也不是一项功课。回头问只能由他自己做；别人能做的，是递一个问题（第三篇第五节）。姐姐那句话，递到他面前的就是一个问题，不是答案。逆境也不替他作答：它问，不判；逆境不证明目的错了，顺境里没有这一问，也不证明目的对了。回头问可以晚，也可以不问；只是对不上还在，这一问就还在。

D60　逆境是外面的世界对一个人的追问落到了他身上：这是广义的追问，世界不是一个发问的主体，问的是他认作的目的。说它是追问，不是说压下来的一方在正当地问他。它给出回头问的入口：可以问对不上是不是真的，那个目的是不是自己的，时机到了没有，法子要不要换，自己的判断能不能更准。它只问，不替他作答；逆境不证明目的错了，顺境也不证明目的对了。逆境常给出一个非做不可的时刻，分清的机会因此多了，但它不保证分清。回头问只能由他自己做。

第五节　问完以后

那年冬天，他做了两件事。

那个岗位，他先不去争了，等母亲那边缓一缓、岗位重开再说：这是延迟。等的时候，他问上司，能不能先在组里兼着做一点：每个月给用他报表的两个部门讲一回，讲这些数字从哪里来，能说明什么。上司答应了。这是换法子。两件是在同一个月里做的。

回头问过以后，一个人可以坚持，也可以延迟，换法子，修订或退出对那个目的的认领，或者在真的不能面前停下。这几样不是互斥的分格，一件事里可以交叠，像他那个冬天；没有哪一样预先就是对的，由这一次的判断定。

这几样说的事分在三处，分开看。坚持、延迟、换法子，说的是行动怎样安排。修订与退出，说的是对那个目的的认领：价值论说，一项认下的东西，地位的改变只由修订或退出发生（价值论 P4 V53）。真的不能，说的是事实上做不做得到。这里的真的不能，是第四篇那个烧到三十九度、下不了床的早上那一种（第四篇第七节）。

延迟和换法子，可以仍在同一条不得不里面；也不必说，每一次延迟都已证明他在坚持。退出一条通道、一个职位，是行动或安排上的退出，不自动是退出对那个目的的认领。真的不能而停下，不证明认领已经改变：第四篇说，真的不能，有停下的位置，停下不是失守（第四篇 D25）。也不能要一个人先撤回认领，才准他承认做不到。

历史上有几件事，可以作这几种做法的例子。

停下一项。一六六五年，伦敦闹大瘟疫。医生纳撒尼尔·霍奇斯（Nathaniel Hodges）和几位同事被选出来，受指派专门照料染疫的人；整个疫期，他都留在城里。他后来在书里写，阻止传染的种种努力都没有奏效以后，他们把力量全转去照料病人。停下一项处理，不等于停止行动。这也不是第四篇那个下不了床的早上那一种不能。

换法子。西科尔几处申请都落空以后（第二节），没有再在那些门口等下去。她在自传里写，别的路走不通，她就自担其责、自出其费，去克里米亚；当局既然不要她去做护理，她就照自己的办法，在那里开一处给伤病的人住的地方。到了那里，她和人合伙开了一家店，供应物资，也照料伤病的人。退出的是一条申请的通道，原来的那件事还在。那家店是做生意，也是照料人，两样都是真的。

保住能保住的。宋代的李清照，丈夫赵明诚死后，两人的收藏在战乱的转移中不断散失。她保住能保住的；后来，她把这份收藏怎样聚起来、怎样散掉记了下来，就是《金石录后序》。这一例说明，能保全的东西与具体的做法变了；单凭这一点，不能替她判定她原来的目的已经修订。

退出一次官职。陶渊明在《归去来兮辞》的序里写，他在彭泽县令任上，妹妹在武昌去世，「情在骏奔，自免去职」，在官八十余日。退出的是这一次官职，不能由辞官判定他退出了哪一条自己的法；这一例也不说明，辞官一般比留任好。

修订这一种，上面几件事都不拿来作例子：这一篇把一件事写成修订的例子，凭的是本人的说明。还回到他。

第二年春天，那个岗位还冻着。他在组里兼着讲了一个冬天。有一天跟姐姐说起，他说：「我要做的，还是那一件：让靠这些数字做决定的人，看得清这些数字。原先我认下的样子，是调去那个岗位，坐到做决定的人旁边，做一个专门讲数字的人。现在它的样子是，我手上每一张表，都讲到用它的人看得清为止。那个岗位，不在这一件里头了。」

那个岗位的样子里，有几分是那句「做报表的没出息」撑着的，他到今天也没有完全分清；他是在分不清里改的（第三篇 D16）。改的是什么，他说得清：认下的还是那一件，那道认领没有终止，改的是它的内容。价值论把这两种分开：原来那道认领没有终止，是修订；终止了，是退出（价值论 P4 V52）。外面看，他只是没有再去争那个岗位；这一个样子底下，可以是这一阵没去做，可以是修订，也可以是退出，三种在外面看着一样（价值论 P4 V52）。是哪一种，看那道认领覆盖不覆盖得到，这只有他自己答得出（价值论 P4 V53）。

选了哪一样，就说哪一样（第三篇 D18）。不把放弃说成延迟。不把被逆境压下去的，说成本来就不想要：第四篇说过，为了不担而说那条法本来就不是自己的，当初那一认不因这句话移动（第四篇 D24）；这里是同一个形状。不把撑不住说成看开了。那年春天，他也可以对姐姐说「我本来就不想去那个岗位」；这句话省事，可不是真的，他想了两年。反过来，也不能仅凭一个人后来停下了，就从外面断定他先前不真；真正的修订，仍有它的位置。

这一次选的是哪一样，事后还可以回看（第三篇 D17）。

D61　回头问过以后，可以是坚持，也可以是延迟、换法子、修订或退出对那个目的的认领，或者在真的不能面前停下；这几样不是互斥的分格，没有哪一样预先就是对的，由这一次的判断定，事后还可以回看。退出一条通道，不等于退出那个目的；真的不能而停下，不证明认领已经改变。选了哪一样，就说哪一样：不把放弃说成延迟，也不把被压下去的说成本来就不想要。

第六节　两种不得不

那年冬天，组里一个老同事拍拍他说：「人在难处，得咬牙挺住。」

这句话是好意，这个系列不这样说。没有人能从外面把坚持派给一个人，逆境本身也派不了。这个系列不用「应当」回答这一问：每个人只给自己立法，而「你应当」是替别人立法的说法（第一篇第四节）。在逆境里坚持的人，凭的是他自己的不得不。这样的不得不总挂着条件，分两层：怎样看待人，站在把自己和别人都当目的的位置上就取消不了；这一次做什么，是他的判断，可以被问，可以修订，做的时候可能受阻（第一篇 D5）。

逆境里，这样的不得不有两种，照它朝向的事来分：一种朝向他自己那件事，一种朝向别人。两种的来处都在他自己。

自己的不得不

回头问过以后，他认清了：让靠数字做决定的人看得清这些数字，是他自己的不得不（第二篇 D10）。认清了，他就不因为逆境轻易放下它：不得不做，本来就是一个人对不做某件事的否定（第一篇 D2）。岗位冻着，他照样讲。

迂回和延迟，可以仍在同一条不得不里面。那个冬天他没去争岗位，先在组里兼着讲，这一条不得不没有断。以后能不能接着做，什么时候、怎样接着做，仍要看条件，仍要判断；第四篇说过，也不能由他还朝那边走，推出行动一定发生（第四篇第四节）。放下这一条是另一件事，是修订或退出对它的认领（第五节）。

认清也可错，可以再回看（第三篇 D16、D17）。撑得住，不证明那是他自己的：强弱说明不了来源，来源要回看（第七篇第五节）。放下了，也不证明那不是：累了不是不想（第四篇 D19）。

为了别人

另一种不得不朝向别人。为了别人，做的是给别人创造条件。

这里的几样，前几篇都写过。涵育（cultivation）是一个方向，在一件事上真把那个人当目的的时候才有（第六篇 D33）；对方愿不愿意、适不适合、时机成没成，这三样不能替对方答（第六篇 D34）。保护不等涵育的条件，它看的是眼前的人正被当成手段而受害（第六篇 D35；第七篇第三节）。守卫也不等相变完成（第九篇 D54）。条件由他给，别人往哪里长，由别人自己（第六篇 D32、D36）。

还有一样是约定：和别人说定、一起认下的那一件事。那两年，他和姐姐说定，母亲看病，两个人一人一周，轮着陪。两个人各有各的缘由，落在同一件两个人都认下、也都做得成的事上；第八篇说，这是共同做事，不是共同的法（第八篇 D47）。那个冬天公司加班多，他照样守着自己那一周；姐姐那一周怎样排，是姐姐的事。为约定坚持，坚持的是他自己那一份。

为了别人，这一条不得不也是他自己的：它指向别人，来处仍在他自己。第六篇说，涵育这个方向，对内是不得不（第六篇 D33）。所以说一个人「纯粹为了别人」坚持，不读成他把来处交给了别人，也不读成他把自己交了出去。

别人自己的那一份不得不，不在这里。第二篇说，别人那一份不得不，不由旁人给，只能由他自己立（第二篇 D11）。他坚持的，不是别人那一份。为了别人坚持，坚持的还是他自己这一份：给别人创造条件；别人怎样做，是别人的事。

历史上有三件事，可以看这一条。

沙利文是受聘去的，这一例只看一件事：她给的是她那一份，学会是凯勒自己的。她信里写过，孩子是自己学会的，只要外面给的刺激足够（第四节）。给足了，也不一定学得成。

路易·布莱叶（Louis Braille）在夏尔·巴尔比耶（Charles Barbier）的凸点法上，改出了一套点字。一八二九年，他出版了一本讲这套方法的书，书名写明是供盲人使用、为盲人编排的；序言里写，他们这套方法的念头，最初出自巴尔比耶的方法；这一版里，还带着短划。他给的条件，是给一群人的。

唐代，七四二年，日本僧人荣睿、普照到扬州，请僧人鉴真东渡传法，他应下了。此后几次东渡，都没有成。第五次，船漂到了海南；北返的路上，他失明了。七五三年，他随日本遣唐使的船出发，那年年底到了日本。请与应，是两边一起认下的一件事；他坚持的，是他自己那一份。

D62　在逆境里坚持，凭的是一个人自己的不得不，不是谁派给他的「应当」。这样的不得不有两种，来处都在他自己，也都挂着各自的条件：一种朝向他自己那件事；一种朝向别人：涵育，在一件事上真把那个人当目的的时候才有；保护，不等涵育的条件；守卫，不等相变完成；或者和别人约定、一起认下的那一件事。别人自己的不得不只能由别人自己立，他坚持的不是那一份。

第七节　朝向别人的那一条

岗位冻着的那几个月，他没有再替组里那个年轻同事看过一张报表。

她就是第一篇里他护过的那个人（第七篇第三节）。那年开春，她来问过他，能不能教她写口径说明；他答应了，带她看了两回。后来岗位冻结，母亲住院，名单的事也压了下来。名单那一回，他也护过她；答应教她的，那几个月，他再没有教过。

这说明他朝向她的那一份也停了吗？推不出来。意义论说，此刻没有涵育行动，不能单凭这一点推出看向（looking-toward）已经停止（意义论 P3 Y22）。看向说的是：她作为目的的那一项，仍实际进他往后的安排和理由，不只是想得起来。还在不在，要看实际：她是不是还在他往后的安排和理由里，由跨时的关系来判断，不由一次行动来代替，也不由他认过这一项就算数（意义论 P3 Y22）。在这一例里，她还在他明年的安排里：他跟上司说定，明年第一季度那份报告，让她跟着一起做；她也说想做。这是这一例里看向还在的事实，不是每一个碰上逆境的人都会这样。

看向还在，也不保证此刻有能做的事。那一年她有三个月在家照顾生病的父亲（第七篇第三节）；她不在，他能做的不多。以后能不能做、怎样做，仍要看条件，仍要判断（第四篇第四节）。

意义论有一句技术核句，可以在这里作同向：「归属闭于一人，方向的出口不封于一人」（意义论 P1 摘要）。前半句，落在为别人坚持、坚持的是自己这一份上；后半句留着一个向外的出口，不替每一个人确认，他已经实际朝外。

这一条还有三道边。

第一，这一种撑得住，说明不了它更高，也说明不了它更出自他自己的法：强弱说明不了来源（第七篇第五节）。

第二，全力以赴，不越过自保（第四篇 D23）。那几个月，轮到他的那几周，他白天上班，晚上去医院，夜里赶自己的报表，有一回在地铁上睡过了站。自保首先因为自己也是目的，不必等到自身的维持保持不住才成立；全力以赴也不在涵育不了的关系里把自己耗尽，越过它，不必等到绝境，已经伤了自己这一端。若到了连自身维持都保持不住的地步，就出了这一篇划给逆境的范围。他不是谁的耗材（第九篇 D52）。

第三，为别人坚持，坚持的是自己这一份，是给别人创造条件；别人怎样做，是别人的事（第六篇 D36）。她明年来不来做那份报告，愿不愿意、适不适合、时机成没成，他不替她答（第六篇 D34）；她来了，他也不拿她的感谢或回应来结算（第六篇 D31）。别人也不是他撑下去的燃料。

还有一种逆境，正来自失去一个人。失去以后，留在这里的人怎样继续，或者改变对他的看向，意义论 P3 写过（意义论 P3 Y22、Y23）；对方那个第一人称的位置是不是已经退出，不能由外面看得到的状态直接代判，意义论 P4 写过，第四篇也转引过（意义论 P4 Y28、Y30；第四篇第七节）。

历史上有一件事，为了别人的范围更大。玛丽·居里（Marie Curie）和丈夫皮埃尔发现镭以后，没有申请专利；他们把研究的全部结果和镭的精确制备方法公开发表，谁来问，就告诉谁。一九〇六年，皮埃尔死了，两个人一起在场工作的那种方式从此断了；她接着做两个人共同的研究，接下了丈夫的教席。后来，为了各处的镭量得准，各国的科学家组成一个委员会，商定以一份精心称量的纯镭盐作国际标准；她受委派制备这份原级标准，一九一一年做成。她在自传的笔记里写，他们的发现成了对人类的益处，这一点她看得很重。

照这一篇的读法，她是为了别人；这个别人是全人类，不止丈夫一个人。说全人类，说的是不封口：谁用得上，谁就能用。它不是一个站在这些人上面的更高的目的（第九篇 D50、D56），也不是说她为人类献出了自己。这一例也不证明，为了别人就一定更撑得住。

第六、七两节合起来，为了别人有三个范围：一个人，像沙利文之于凯勒；一群人，像布莱叶之于盲人；不封口的众人，像居里。

D63　逆境里他自己的一件事受阻，推不出他原先朝向别人的那份看向也跟着停了：那个人是不是还在他往后的安排和理由里，要看实际；看向还在，也不保证此刻有能做的事。朝向别人的这一种不得不，撑得住，也不说明它更高，也不说明它更出自他自己的法；为别人坚持，坚持的是自己这一份，不越过自保，不伸进对方那一份，也不以对方的感谢或回应来结算。

别人的逆境

那个被评了「不合格」的同事，原本还想把这份工作做下去；第二年，他没有续约（第七篇第三节）。那是那个同事的逆境。

他替那个同事打听过几处，写过一封推荐信；有几个晚上，两个人在楼下吃饭，说的多半是别的事。

别人的逆境，不是旁人能替他渡过的。回头问只能由他自己做，旁人能做的，是递一个问题（第三篇第五节）；他愿不愿意听，适不适合，时机成没成，旁人不能替他答（第六篇 D34）。他若正被别人当成手段而受害，保护不等这三样（第六篇 D35；第七篇第三节）。不能代替，不等于只能旁观。旁人可以实际改变他面对的条件，提供支持、陪伴、帮助，必要时给予保护；但不能替他认下目的、完成回看，或决定他怎样承接这段经历。

那个同事后来找到了新工作（第七篇第六节），是他自己找到的。他是否从中得着什么、得着什么，也不能由旁人替他认下（第六篇 D36）。

落点

没有一种活法能预先排除逆境。它是外面的世界对一个人的追问，落在身上，也给他一个回头问的入口。问过以后怎样走、怎样改，由他在具体处境里判断；坚持，凭的是自己的不得不；真的不能，可以停下，不必把做不到说成不想做。

那个岗位后来又开过一回，他没有去报。他手上的表，还是一张一张地交；每交一张，他都先想一遍，这是给谁看的。

结语

这一篇立了七条。合起来说的是：逆境是认作自己的目的与处境对不上时身上的那个感受，它的发生是事实，可以进判断，是线索，不是判据；没有一种活法能预先把它排除；它落在身上，落在料想里，落在认出它是自己的那里，三层可以同时在；它是外面的世界对他的追问，给出回头问的入口，只问，不替他作答；问过以后，可以坚持，可以延迟、换法子、修订或退出，也可以在真的不能面前停下，选了哪一样就说哪一样；坚持凭的是自己的不得不，朝向自己那件事，或者朝向别人；为别人坚持，坚持的是自己这一份。

这一篇没有说的，也记在这里。它不写绝境：连自身的维持都保持不住，是另一个话题。它不教人怎样熬过逆境，不给坚持多久定读数，也不替读者判这一次是坚持对，还是放下对。它不替史事里的人判他们心里怎样想：写的是他们做了什么，和他们自己留下的话。失去一个人的那一种逆境，回指意义论，这里不展开。

本篇立的七条

D57　逆境是一个人认作自己的目的与外面的处境对不上时，他身上的那个感受。这个感受的发生是一个事实，可以作为理由进入判断；它是线索，不是判据，可能比事实大，也不替他定什么是他的法。有它，说明不了那个目的是不是他自己的，没有它，也说明不了。本篇说的逆境不是绝境：连自身的维持都保持不住，是另一件事。 D58　只要一个人有认作自己的目的，就没有一种活法能预先排除逆境：世界往哪里走，他预料不了；别人也是目的，各有自己的法，不照他的目的安排；他自己的法，也让外面压进来的东西碰得到它。逆境躲不开，不说明别人错了，不说明他走错了，也不说明它是他该受的、派给他的功课。 D59　逆境落在一个人身上，常有三层：落在身上；落在记忆与预测里，它持续着，他可能料想它还会持续，甚至变大；落在认出它是自己的那里，别人看来未必是逆境，要不要坚持的犹豫也从这里来。三层可以同时在，不是阶梯；都是事实，都可以作为理由进入判断，不替他定什么是他的法：料想可能比将来大，别人不这样看不说明他看错了，犹豫不说明他软弱；认出它是自己的，也不证明那个目的出自他自己的法。 D60　逆境是外面的世界对一个人的追问落到了他身上：这是广义的追问，世界不是一个发问的主体，问的是他认作的目的。说它是追问，不是说压下来的一方在正当地问他。它给出回头问的入口：可以问对不上是不是真的，那个目的是不是自己的，时机到了没有，法子要不要换，自己的判断能不能更准。它只问，不替他作答；逆境不证明目的错了，顺境也不证明目的对了。逆境常给出一个非做不可的时刻，分清的机会因此多了，但它不保证分清。回头问只能由他自己做。 D61　回头问过以后，可以是坚持，也可以是延迟、换法子、修订或退出对那个目的的认领，或者在真的不能面前停下；这几样不是互斥的分格，没有哪一样预先就是对的，由这一次的判断定，事后还可以回看。退出一条通道，不等于退出那个目的；真的不能而停下，不证明认领已经改变。选了哪一样，就说哪一样：不把放弃说成延迟，也不把被压下去的说成本来就不想要。 D62　在逆境里坚持，凭的是一个人自己的不得不，不是谁派给他的「应当」。这样的不得不有两种，来处都在他自己，也都挂着各自的条件：一种朝向他自己那件事；一种朝向别人：涵育，在一件事上真把那个人当目的的时候才有；保护，不等涵育的条件；守卫，不等相变完成；或者和别人约定、一起认下的那一件事。别人自己的不得不只能由别人自己立，他坚持的不是那一份。 D63　逆境里他自己的一件事受阻，推不出他原先朝向别人的那份看向也跟着停了：那个人是不是还在他往后的安排和理由里，要看实际；看向还在，也不保证此刻有能做的事。朝向别人的这一种不得不，撑得住，也不说明它更高，也不说明它更出自他自己的法；为别人坚持，坚持的是自己这一份，不越过自保，不伸进对方那一份，也不以对方的感谢或回应来结算。

---

致谢

本篇为 SAE（Self-as-an-End）哲学体系行动论分支的专论，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。

本篇写作与审读借助了 Anthropic 的 Claude 和 OpenAI 的 ChatGPT。谨向这两家及其研究与工程团队致谢。

---

参考文献

第一、三两组是本系统的文献，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；全部单一作者署名（秦汉）。第二组列正文所举一九四五年以前史事的出处；各例的核验状态另记于本篇的史例核验表。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). 论价值的动力学（SAE 价值论系列 Paper 4） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22050204

秦汉. (2026). 意义是哪一种关系（SAE 意义论系列 Paper 1） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22652134

秦汉. (2026). 不在我这里结账的那一半（SAE 意义论系列 Paper 3） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22731235

秦汉. (2026). 承载者边界（SAE 意义论系列 Paper 4） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22738709

秦汉. (2026). SAE 冲突论：主体性如何不被冲突本身吞噬 [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22313628

秦汉. (2026). 道德律四条基础定理（SAE 道德律系列 Paper 1） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20011018

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). 判断力与笑（SAE 笑论·总论） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23286244

秦汉. (2026). 目的进入所笑之构（SAE 笑论·三） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23287629

二 · 史料（一九四五年以前的事）

依正文出场先后排列。

Seacole, M. (1857). Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands. London: James Blackwood. 第八章. Project Gutenberg #23031. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/23031/pg23031.txt

Keller, H. (1903). The Story of My Life（所收安妮·沙利文书信与 John Albert Macy 的记述）. New York: Doubleday, Page & Co. Project Gutenberg #2397. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2397/pg2397.txt

米奇利一例的以下三项未见原文，转引自 Wikipedia「Thomas Midgley Jr.」条（2026-10-25 查阅）：

Kovarik, B. (1994; rev. 1999). Charles F. Kettering and the 1921 Discovery of Tetraethyl Lead in the Context of Technological Alternatives. Society of Automotive Engineers Fuels & Lubricants Conference, Baltimore.（转引）

Kitman, J. L. (2000, March 2). The Secret History of Lead. The Nation.（转引）

Markowitz, G., & Rosner, D. (2002). Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution. Berkeley: University of California Press.（转引）

Hodges, N. (1720). Loimologia: or, an Historical Account of the Plague in London in 1665（J. Quincy 英译；拉丁原本年份本篇未核）. London. 第一部分. Project Gutenberg #40106. https://gutenberg.org/files/40106/old/40106-h/40106-h.htm

李清照.《金石录后序》. 据维基文库电子转录本（未校勘）.

陶渊明.《归去来兮辞》序.《陶渊明集》卷五. 据爱思想网所引. https://www.aisixiang.com/data/45473.html

Braille, L. (1829). Procédé pour écrire les paroles, la musique et le plain-chant au moyen de points, à l'usage des aveugles et disposé pour eux. Paris.（书名大小写依书目体例；题页、前言与第十二页据 Duxbury Systems 的转录与英译）https://duxburysystems.org/downloads/library/history/lb_1829/braille_1829.htm

鉴真：传播中华文化的使者. (2024, 3 月 15 日).《讽刺与幽默》（人民网所载；据《唐大和上东征传》）. https://paper.people.com.cn/fcyymwap/html/2024-03/15/content_26047906.htm

Curie, M. (1923). Pierre Curie（C. Kellogg & V. Kellogg 英译；附 Autobiographical Notes）. New York: Macmillan. Project Gutenberg #69617. https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/69617/pg69617-images.html

三 · 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). 反殖民（SAE 行动论 第二篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970758

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). 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