Self-as-an-End
SAE Marriage Theory · Paper 3

Into One's Own
成就

Han Qin (秦汉) · Independent Researcher · 2026
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23819232 · Full PDF on Zenodo · CC BY 4.0
Abstract

This paper reads bringing each other into their own: in the 15DD direction, in a marriage the meaning of each belongs to each, and the outlet of one's direction falls outside oneself; one place where it falls is on the other, letting the other grow into the other's own self. Bringing someone into their own names an act here; it does not name a result, and it is not a metric.

Bringing someone into their own is cultivation, and is a direction; whether it took hold lies at the other's end. To declare on the other's behalf, on the sole basis of my judgment of success, that his constitution has been completed is no longer bringing him into his own. I bring you into your own without waiting for you to bring me into mine first; your direction is yours, and I can only make space for it; it is completed at your end, and is not mine to settle. Only when two such one-ways meet is it mutual; it is not obtained by exchange; if they do not meet, each one's share is still there as before; nor is mutuality a state a marriage is meant to reach. Bringing someone into their own takes two main ways, creating conditions and questioning; questioning leaves the question to the other, and to draw the conclusion on the other's behalf is to take my direction as the other's ruler. Mutuality requires neither simultaneity nor equality, and keeps no accounts: bringing each other into their own is not entered as an account of exchange awaiting the other's repayment, while commitments, contributions and the effects already left are entered as before; division of labor and cooperation is not exchange; complementarity is not a problem; demanding of each other that the other be the same as oneself is what takes my direction as the other's ruler.

What the other has gained from me, once avowed in his own law, is his in the attribution of constitution, and does not become a constitution I completed on his behalf; shared property, contribution, credit and responsibility each have their own accounts. Within the boundary of not infringing the positions of other subjects, the other may go in directions I did not foresee or do not approve of, and may even go in a direction in which he no longer needs me; this sentence is in the mode of ability, not a statement of fact. Bringing each other into their own has a mutual shape, and does not certify 16DD. The direction of colonization read from this matter is fixing for the other what he ought to become, and converting the conditions provided into ownership of the other's first-person constitutive results; to write bringing someone into their own as exchange is falling back; to hand over one's own share is accommodation, not bringing someone into their own: it is not having stood, and structurally carries no direction of colonization toward the other; how things are on his own side cannot be seen from outside, and this paper does not judge it. This paper interfaces with Mill, Aristotle and Tan Sitong, and points back to Kant, with whom Action Theory has already interfaced. This paper does not prove that bringing each other into their own makes a marriage last, does not prove that one ought to bring the other into his own, and does not prove that the party who has been brought into his own ought all the more to stay.

Introduction

It is the seventh year of Shen Chuan and Su He's marriage. Su He has been a nurse at a hospital for eleven years; Shen Chuan teaches mathematics at a secondary school. One winter evening Su He showed Shen Chuan an old violin whose glue had come apart, and said she wanted to quit her job and learn to make violins: at thirty-six, starting as an apprentice. Shen Chuan did not say yes right away, nor did he say no; he asked one question: "Is it violins you want to make, or the hospital you want to leave?" Su He thought for a long time, and said both, but violins first.

For the next two years, Shen Chuan moved all his classes to after the second period of the morning, so that she could catch the early bus to the violin workshop; he also did the cooking at home. In the third year Su He finished her apprenticeship and joined a violin workshop. A classmate of hers came to dinner, raised her glass to Shen Chuan and said: "Su He owes where she is today entirely to you." Shen Chuan smiled, and did not take up the remark.

There are several things in this scene: a question; two years of rescheduled classes and cooking; the classmate's "entirely to you." Spoken of in the ordinary way, each of them could be called bringing her into her own. What this paper asks is this: in the marriage this series reads, what is bringing the other into his own; where is it completed, and whose is it; if both do it, is that exchange; whose is what the other has gained from me; and what direction of colonization can be read from this matter?

What this paper reads. Paper 1 laid down the marriage this series reads: it has as its premise that both parties are headed in the 15DD direction, and it is made up of love, each person's own commitment and institutional endorsement.1 In this direction, in a marriage the meaning of each belongs to each, and the outlet of one's direction falls outside oneself: on the other, letting the other grow into the other's own self; on someone who has not yet come, creating conditions for him together. This paper reads the first place, looking toward this one person at one's side; the second is read in Paper 5. The two places have different structures: bringing each other into their own is two one-ways meeting; preparing for a child is two people doing one thing together.

Meaning Theory calls the outward side of a meaning relation looking-toward: "Looking-toward is the outward direction of this relation; cultivation is that direction in motion."2 Cultivation in that sentence is the value-layer use, speaking of that content of recognition in motion; when this paper says that bringing someone into their own is cultivation, it uses Relation Theory's broad sense, speaking of the direction of one effect; see the next paragraph.3 Bringing someone into their own is how cultivation looks in marriage when it falls on the other.

Colonization, in this series, names the direction of one effect: toward pouring in and occupying; the other direction is cultivation, toward making space. The two are not the two extremes of one scale; the same act can carry both directions, and can also carry no direction at all; the direction is read on this one effect, and whether it took hold is seen in the other party's later understanding and action.4

Shared words. In this paper, bringing someone into their own names an act: letting the other grow into the other's own self. In the Chinese of this series the word for it is also the everyday word for achievement; it does not name a result here, and the achievement of "a career of achievement" is not meant; nor is it a metric: the other is not gauged by how much he has grown. To speak of bringing the other into his own is to speak of a direction, not to say that it has already taken hold.

Support is taken in Meaning Theory's use: support is not substitute constitution.5 Constitution, in Meaning Theory and Value Theory, is the step by which a person, by his own law, avows a content and makes it his own; the one who provides conditions cannot take this step.6 The attribution of constitution, and the ownership of things, the authorship of a work, credit and responsibility, are several different matters (MA20).

"Mutuality" and "exchange" are used apart. Mutuality is two one-ways meeting; exchange is you give me this, I give you that, on condition that the other gives first, or must give.

Method. As in Paper 1: the conclusions of upstream papers are said in plain words; sources, the proposition numbers of other papers and the places where upstream words are carried beyond their original place all go in the notes, and where something is extended, this series takes it on as its own undertaking. What has already been said at the relational layer is used here directly, not rewritten. The SAE Marriage Principles in Appendix D of How Is Institution Possible (Foundational Paper 6; cited as F6) are a working demonstration; what this paper argues is the principles they contain; their sentences are quoted as they stand, and their concrete rules serve only as examples; where a sentence carries the vocabulary of evaluation or of quantity, the paper marks on the spot that it does not take up that layer. This paper speaks only of structure, not of good and bad, and issues no ought.

One couple, Shen Chuan and Su He, runs through the whole paper. Both are within scope: Su He wants to go and learn violin-making, and Shen Chuan acknowledges that this is her affair; Shen Chuan has long wanted to compile the geometry problems he has taught for twenty years into a book, and Su He acknowledges that this is his. This is a made-up example, used only to see structure; from outside, a married couple's words and deeds are only clues, and do not certify who is at which layer.

§1 What Bringing Someone into Their Own Is

MA16 To bring the other into his own is to let the other grow into the other's own self. Bringing someone into their own is cultivation, and is a direction; whether it took hold lies at the other's end. To declare on the other's behalf, on the sole basis of my judgment of success, that his constitution has been completed is no longer bringing him into his own

Growing into the Other's Own Self

The weight of this sentence is on "the other's own self." What Su He is to become is the one she herself wants to become; making violins is her affair, not a road Shen Chuan chose for her. Of the two things Shen Chuan did, rescheduling his classes and that one question, neither decided for her what she ought to become; they fall on her road, and the road is hers.

The SAE Marriage Principles write that people change; item 6(a) says: "Not merely tolerate—actively hope for their growth. Hope they pursue new interests, develop new capacities, become who they want to become."7 Item 2(a) of the same principles says of the other's inner life: "You may try to understand them, but you may not try to change them."8 The two sentences look as if they cancel each other: one hopes the other will change; the other says one may not try to change the other. Read apart, they do not cancel. Change is made by the other himself; what I can do is create conditions and question (MA18). What item 2(a) blocks is changing her toward my side, and its example sentence is "you are wrong to think that"; the change in item 6(a) is to "become who they want to become," toward her own side. Item 6(a) goes on to say: "A person who stops in place for your sake will eventually resent the relationship"; this is an estimate of consequences, and this paper does not take up that layer: bringing someone into their own is not argued from consequences. The "better version of yourself" of item 6(b) is not taken up either: growing into the other's own self does not say growing better, and ranks no one higher or lower.

A Direction, Not a Result

Bringing someone into their own is cultivation. Cultivation goes toward making space, and is a direction; the direction is read on this one effect, and whether it took hold is seen in the other party's later understanding and action.9 So bringing someone into their own is completed at the other's end, not at mine. Relation Theory has said the same thing at the value layer: "The completion of cultivation is not in the enactor's hands; incomplete cultivation is not colonization."10

Suppose that after a year of learning Su He found that making violins was not what she wanted, and went back to the hospital. Shen Chuan's two years of rescheduled classes and cooking went toward making space, and this direction is not judged otherwise because she went back to the hospital; whether it took hold lies at her end. The space made in those two years was real; if there she saw clearly what she did not want, that step too was one she took herself. Bringing someone into their own is a direction, not a finished product handed into the other's hands.

Declaring on the Other's Behalf That He Has Made It

That whether it took hold lies at the other's end yields a boundary. On the concept of support, Meaning Theory sets three negative boundaries: "If a relation seals off the other's channels of refusal, revision, exit and change of direction; if it converts the conditions it provides into ownership of the other's first-person constitutive results; or if it declares, on the sole basis of my judgment of success, that the other's constitution has been completed — then at those positions it is no longer support but the occupation of the office of constitution."11 This proposition uses the third; the second is in MA21; the first is mentioned only as a condition, where MA18 reads the channel of being questioned.

After Su He joined the workshop, what she did for the time being was change strings and reglue the seams on students' violins; she had told Shen Chuan that what she wanted to make was a violin that came from her hands from beginning to end. One evening she spoke of it again, and Shen Chuan said: "You've made it already; there's no need to keep at it." Meaning Theory says it clearly: observation from outside and the appraisals of others can enter as fallible material, and "this proposition does not block material; it blocks taking material as a substitute warrant."12 Shen Chuan's saying "I think you're doing very well" is material; she can go on asking herself all the same. If "You've made it already; there's no need to keep at it" is also only one view of his, which leaves her room to disagree, it is still material; if it is set up as a final verdict, so that whenever she brings up that violin again he blocks her with this sentence, then he is using his reading to testify in her place: from outside she seems to have made it, so she has made it. That is declaring on her behalf that her constitution has been completed, and at that point it is no longer bringing her into her own.

§2 Without Waiting for You

MA17 I bring you into your own without waiting for you to bring me into mine first. Your direction is yours; I can only make space for it; it is completed at your end, and is not mine to settle. Only when two such one-ways meet is it mutual, and it is not obtained by exchange; if they do not meet, each one's share is still there as before; mutuality is not a state a marriage is meant to reach

Not Waiting for the Other to Come First

In the two years in which Shen Chuan rescheduled his classes, he did not agree with Su He that once her workshop was established it would be her turn to help him compile his book. He rescheduled his classes without making her later repayment a condition.

This has the same form as Love Theory's reading of love at the layer of recognizing her as an end too. Love Theory Paper 5 borrows a sentence from Aesthetics Ray 12: "He recognizes you as an end too, without waiting for you to recognize him first."13 Bringing someone into their own is like this too: I make space for you without waiting for you to make space for me first.

Not Mine to Settle

Your direction is yours; I can only make space for it; it is completed at your end, and is not mine to settle. When Meaning Theory writes the outward side of a meaning relation, the title of that paper is The Half That Is Not Mine to Settle.14 Su He's becoming a violin maker is a step settled on her side; what Shen Chuan's books can record is what he did, rescheduled classes, cooked, asked that question; they cannot record whom she became.

Two One-Ways Meeting

In the fifth year, Shen Chuan began compiling his book. Every week Su He read his drafts and wrote questions in the margins: why is this problem placed here; will students understand that passage? At this point both were bringing the other into his own; two one-ways had met. Relation Theory says: "Mutuality is two one-way recognitions meeting; if they do not meet, each one's share is still there as before. Mutuality is not exchange, nor a state a relation is meant to reach."15

It is not obtained by exchange. Su He's reading the drafts is not read as paying off a debt for those two years; if in those years Su He had been too busy to manage it, Shen Chuan's two years would still be his doing, and would not come to nothing because nothing came back. Why she reads his drafts is a matter at her end; this series does not read minds, and does not infer whether she does it "because" he helped her first.

Nor is mutuality a state a marriage is meant to reach. In a marriage there may be many years in which only one party makes space for the other while the other cannot manage it; this is not read as the marriage's having failed to reach something; when two one-ways meet, it is mutual; when they do not, each one's share is still there as before.

§3 Two Ways

MA18 Bringing someone into their own takes two main ways: creating conditions, and questioning. Questioning leaves the question to the other, and does not draw the conclusion on the other's behalf; to draw the conclusion on the other's behalf is to take my direction as the other's ruler

Why These Two

Making space speaks of a direction;16 brought down into the days as they come, it mainly takes two forms. Why these two? The step at which she avows, I cannot take;17 what I can reach is mainly two places: the conditions of what she can afterward do and run into, and her own step of asking and changing. What falls on the first is creating conditions; what reaches the second without occupying it is questioning.

One is creating conditions. Shen Chuan rescheduled his classes, did the cooking, and later cleared out the balcony for her to keep her violin-making tools on: these enter the conditions of what she can afterward do and run into,18 leaving a little more room for the step she means to take. Conditions are only conditions; whether to go, and how, is up to her.

The other is questioning. "Is it violins you want to make, or the hospital you want to leave?" This sentence did not answer for her, nor did it persuade her; it put a question before her, and left the answer to her. Why can questioning bring someone into their own? Relation Theory says that the other party's law is not mine and is not under my control: "Because it is not under my control, it can occupy my position of revision; and because it is not under my control, it is an avenue of questioning I cannot monopolize."19 Seen from Su He's end, Shen Chuan's law is just such a law: not under her control, it can occupy her position of revision, and it is also an avenue of questioning she cannot monopolize. What a person can reach by asking herself is limited; another person, asking from where his own law stands, reaches places she cannot reach by herself. Action Theory, writing of the year two people did a thing together, says the same thing: each one's unfolding also illuminates the other; difference is not an impurity to be removed; it is precisely because what she cared about was different from what he cared about that she could see the spot he could not; nor is consensus a contract to stop asking.20

To say "mainly" is to say that these two are not all.

Questioning and Drawing the Conclusion

Questioning leaves the question to the other. Drawing the conclusion on the other's behalf is another matter.

In her first year at the workshop Su He was very tired, and one evening she spoke of wanting to give it up. Shen Chuan could say: "I'm worried you're too tired." That is his saying his worry out loud; it is material, enters her deliberation, and fixes nothing for her. He could also say: "You're just tired; take six months off and you'll be fine." This sentence alone does not tell the two apart. If he offers only one fallible interpretation, and allows her to disagree, it is material; if on its basis he no longer lets her explain her own situation, and insists that he has fixed the matter, he has judged her situation for her: it is not that she doesn't want to do it, she is tired; and the remedy too has been fixed for her. Direction reads this actual effect, not the outward form of a declarative sentence. The latter use falls on the first half of the sentence quoted in the last subsection: the law not under her control has gone and occupied her position of revision. Relation Theory says that saying an expectation out loud is a form of questioning; to attach a qualifying condition to an expectation, fixing for the other party what something means to him, is to slide in the direction of colonization.21 The conclusion drawn on the other's behalf is taking my direction as the other's ruler; Aesthetics Ray 11 says: "My cannot-not is not your must."22 The direction is read on that one effect; whether it took hold is seen in her later course: if from then on she measures herself by this sentence of his, and no longer asks herself what she wants, that direction has taken hold; if she hears it and goes on thinking for herself, that direction has not taken hold of her.

The Channel of Being Questioned

Questioning needs a way to go. Item 4 of the SAE Marriage Principles writes on being questioned: "Do not close the channel of being questioned"; it also says "The door may be temporarily closed," and "But the door may not be permanently closed. A permanently closed door means the chiseling channel in this relationship is sealed; remainder can only accumulate, never release."23 The principle contained here is: do not close the channel of being questioned. The example it gives, "I'm not in a good emotional state right now; let's talk tomorrow," is one concrete practice, and serves only as an example.

Su He asked Shen Chuan why the book kept being put off. Shen Chuan said: "You're being too controlling." By those principles, this is the sound of a door closing. One closing of the door seals off nothing. If he withdraws his own side and no longer discusses the matter, by Relation Theory that is his exit; "as far as this withdrawal goes, it carries no direction of colonization."24 What is read here is something else: questioning, as one way of bringing someone into their own, needs a way to go; if the door is closed like this every time, the road by which she asks has nowhere to land in him, this questioning is not caught, and bringing each other into their own does not meet at this point. The one asked can answer, or can leave it unanswered;25 not answering alone does not yet show that Su He's own refusal, revision, exit and change of direction have been sealed. Only if he goes further, and does not let her state her own judgment, or uses consequences that can be carried out to press down her way to changing the arrangements the two have acknowledged, or to exiting this relation, is it checked by the first of Meaning Theory's three boundaries: where the other's channels of refusal, revision, exit and change of direction are sealed, at those positions it is no longer support.26 What is asked about must also be kept apart: the book is his own affair; the arrangements the two have acknowledged are the two people's affair.

Conflict Can Be an Avenue of Chiseling

Questioning need not be peaceable either. In the month Su He decided to quit, the two quarreled several times: Shen Chuan asked whether she had thought about income; she said that all he thought about was income. Item 5 of the SAE Marriage Principles says: "Conflict is not the enemy of the relationship. Conflict is the relationship's chisel."27 The principle contained here Relation Theory writes as: "Collision itself, conflict included, can be an avenue of chiseling; the possibility of chiseling is written together with its cost."28 Those quarrels may have let her see more clearly what she wanted, and they also hurt; the two are entered together. The principles say that after a quarrel "the result ... is a deeper relationship"; that layer is an evaluative estimate, and this paper does not take it up. How conflict recurs, and what it sediments into, is read in Paper 4.

§4 Not Simultaneous, Not Equal, No Accounts Kept

MA19 Mutuality requires neither simultaneity nor equality, and keeps no accounts: bringing each other into their own is not entered as an account of exchange awaiting the other's repayment; commitments, contributions and the effects already left are entered as before. Division of labor and cooperation is not exchange, because it is not a mutual requirement. Complementarity is not a problem; demanding of each other that the other be the same as oneself is taking my direction as the other's ruler

Not Simultaneous, Not Equal

Shen Chuan's rescheduling was in the first and second years; Su He's reading his drafts was from the fifth year on. The two were not simultaneous. Nor are they equal in weight: Su He never afterward rearranged her shifts for him for two years. This paper does not measure bringing each other into their own by these two. Being neither simultaneous nor equal does not make it not mutual; it was never conditioned on simultaneity or equality in the first place.

No Accounts Kept; Entered as Before

Keeping no accounts means not entering bringing each other into their own as an account of exchange awaiting the other's repayment: I did all this for you, so you owe me all this. Entered as before means that commitments, contributions and the effects already left are all still there: Shen Chuan's two years of rescheduling are a real contribution; the effects they left in Su He are real, and so are those they left in his own days; all of these are entered.

The two sentences do not cancel each other. To record a contribution is not to record it as the other's debt. Speaking of commitment, Relation Theory has said something of the same form: the sentence "You owe me a month of meals" does not make sense structurally; what can be said is: you promised to take the meals, and I arranged my shifts on it.29 Commitment does not turn into a duty to the other party,30 and bringing someone into their own does not turn into an account the other owes either. The other's response likewise: it is material, not a settling of the account; the mere fact that a response has occurred settles nothing.31 Su He's reading the drafts does not settle those two years; had she not read them, those two years would not have become a bad debt either.

Division of Labor and Cooperation Is Not Exchange

The household's affairs the two divide between them: Shen Chuan cooks; Su He handles the household accounts and all the paperwork. This is not exchange: it is not "I cook, so you have to do the accounts"; neither is conditioned on the other, and it is not a mutual requirement. If division of labor slides into a fixed requirement aimed at the other, "the accounts are your job anyway," that is another matter, with a tendency toward colonization; Paper 4 reads it.

Complementarity, and Demanding That the Other Be the Same as Oneself

The two are good at different things. Shen Chuan can ask, and asks to the point; Su He is not much of a questioner, but when he is tired she takes things over from him and says nothing. Item 8(c) of the SAE Marriage Principles writes: "Two people need not be equally good at all principles. Perhaps you are good at expression but not at giving space; the other is good at giving space but not at expression. Complementarity is not a problem; demanding the other be identical to you is."32

Complementarity is not a problem. Demanding of each other that the other be the same as oneself is what is the problem; and where the problem lies can be said plainly: if Shen Chuan says, "I'd like you to ask me a few more questions too," he is saying his expectation out loud; if he says, "You ought to ask me more questions, the way I do," setting his way of bringing someone into their own up as the way she ought to be, he is taking his way as her ruler. My way is mine; it does not mean you must.33

The kind of falling back that writes bringing someone into their own as exchange is read in §6.

§5 Whose It Is

MA20 What the other has gained from me, once avowed in his own law, is his in the attribution of constitution, and does not become a constitution I completed on his behalf; shared property, contribution, credit and responsibility each have their own accounts, and are not settled by this proposition. Within the boundary of not infringing the positions of other subjects, the other may go in directions I did not foresee or do not approve of, and may even go in a direction in which he no longer needs me; this sentence is in the mode of ability, not a statement of fact. Bringing each other into their own has a mutual shape, and does not certify 16DD

What He Has Gained Is His

Su He keeps her violin-making records in a two-column notebook: the left column for what she sees, the right for judgments, and beside each judgment a blank line, to come back to and revise a few days later. This is Shen Chuan's old method of preparing lessons; she watched him use it for years, picked it up, and later changed it into her own shape. Whose is this way of keeping notes now?

Meaning Theory's answer is: "Whatever another has obtained from me, once avowed in his own law, is his, and does not become a constitution I completed on his behalf."34 Su He has avowed that note-keeping method in her own law and uses it on her own judgments; in constitution, it is hers. That Shen Chuan gave her this shape is true; he does not thereby become the one who completed that step for her. Meaning Theory says that this sentence does not forbid me to be glad for him, nor deny actual causal effect; "it refuses one sentence only: that because I provided conditions, the step by which he became himself was completed by me on his behalf."35

Each Has Its Own Accounts

This proposition settles one account only, the attribution of constitution. Meaning Theory adds a boundary in the same place: "This proposition settles one account only, the attribution of constitution. Ownership of things, authorship, causal contribution, credit, proceeds and responsibility each have their own accounts".36 Su He's fees for learning violin-making came out of the two people's shared savings; that is the account of shared property; Shen Chuan's two years of contribution are the account of contribution; if Su He one day finishes a violin, whose name goes on the label inside it follows the rules of the violin-making trade. None of these is settled automatically by the sentence "it is hers," nor does any of them testify in reverse for that sentence.

There is a married couple in history with whom one can see how these accounts are kept apart. In his Autobiography Mill says that On Liberty was "more directly and literally our joint production than anything else which bears my name." He also widened "whose work": when two persons have their thoughts and speculations completely in common, it is of little consequence, as regards the question of originality, which of them holds the pen; in this wide sense, all his published writings were as much the work of his wife, Harriet Taylor, as his.37 Scholars reckoning back from the evidence still dispute how large her share in his writings really was; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy concludes that the available evidence may be too sparse and too contradictory for us ever to arrive at definitive answers.38 Here the structure is read only from the words in the sources; it is not judged whether there was love between the two, nor whether they were headed in this direction. The structure that can be read is this: what scholars dispute all belongs to the account of authorship and credit, reckoned by evidence and by the rules of the trade, and it can be disputed to this day; the account of constitution is another question: what each gained from the other, once avowed in each one's own law, is each one's own. The two questions do not stand in for each other. Mill's "completely in common" is not read as two meanings merged into one either (Paper 2, MA11).

Able to Go in a Direction That No Longer Needs Me

Meaning Theory says that the hardest test of the concept of support is that the other is able to unfold without revolving around me: "Within the boundary of not infringing the positions of other subjects, the other may use the conditions I provide to go in directions I did not foresee, do not approve, and even no longer need me for"; and also: "The title of this proposition is in the mode of ability, not a statement of fact".39 This proposition originally speaks of relations that go by the name of support; carrying it to husband and wife is a step that is this series' own undertaking.40

In the eighth year, a violin workshop in another city invites Su He to come for three years. Shen Chuan had not foreseen this; perhaps he does not approve; in those three years, her violin-making perhaps really would not need him. The mode of ability means this: she is able to go in such a direction, and that being able is hers; it does not say that in fact she has to go, nor that only her going would prove that he had brought her into her own. Meaning Theory says it plainly: the other may perfectly well continue the shared undertaking, and go on having me as an important direction; "the test is not that he must in fact leave me."41

The test has two layers. The qualification layer: her constitutive position is not conferred by Shen Chuan, nor withdrawn by him because she does not go the way he wants; this layer holds in any relation. The relation layer: if she chooses a direction he does not approve, does this relation treat her choice as her having mistaken herself; does it on that account seal her road to asking, changing and going; or does it make listening to his last word the condition of still recognizing her? If so, at that point it is no longer bringing her into her own.42 The discrimination lies in the relation layer.

A Mutual Shape

When both are bringing the other into his own, it has a mutual shape. The 16DD this series speaks of is something that happens on an occasion, not a grade that a person or a relation is in; at that moment, neither side, by its own anticipation, avows that jolt on the other's behalf.43 Bringing each other into their own is two one-ways meeting again and again over many years; it has a mutual shape, does not certify that moment, and does not make the dealings that follow mutual automatically. That moment is read in Love Theory Paper 6.

§6 The Direction of Colonization Read from This Matter

MA21 The direction of colonization read from this matter: fixing for the other what he ought to become; converting the conditions provided into ownership of the other's first-person constitutive results, as in "Everything you have today, I gave you"; the real contribution is entered as before, and what this sentence occupies is the other's step of becoming himself. To write bringing someone into their own as exchange is falling back. To hand over one's own share is accommodation, not bringing someone into their own: it is not having stood, and structurally carries no direction of colonization toward the other; how things are on his own side cannot be seen from outside, and is not judged. Any further pressure applied outward is entered separately, by that one effect; accommodation is not determined from years of giving way

Fixing for the Other What He Ought to Become

"You should go and make violins; you were born for this." This sentence may come from good will, and may even be right. If it is only encouragement, or a view that can be rebutted, it is not judged, on the strength of this sentence, to be deciding for her. If it is set up as a final ground she may not reconsider, so that whenever she hesitates again he blocks her with "you were born for this," then it has fixed for Su He what she ought to become: the road is recognized by him and handed to her. Bringing someone into their own is making space for her own direction; a sentence used this way is taking his direction as her ruler.44 The direction is read on this one effect: if she afterward lets this sentence stand in for her own asking herself what she wants, that direction has taken hold; if she still judges for herself, then even if the conclusion happens to be the same, the direction does not count as having taken hold merely because the content is the same.

Converting into Ownership

Some years later, in a quarrel, Shen Chuan said: "Everything you have today, I gave you."

This sentence falls on the second of Meaning Theory's three boundaries: converting the conditions provided into ownership of the other's first-person constitutive results.45 Shen Chuan's two years of contribution were real, and are entered as before (MA19); what this sentence occupies is not that contribution but Su He's step of becoming herself, which it enters under his name. Conditions are on the side of conditions; constitution is not brought off on the side of conditions.

Aesthetics Ray 13 calls this annexation: "One person takes another in and raises him after his own pattern: whatever grows in you, I planted." The test it gives: "Take him away and see: without him, do you still acknowledge the place that grew in you, and can you change it yourself?"46 Without Shen Chuan, Su He still acknowledges her violin-making craft, and can change her way of keeping notes: these grew in her herself. Shen Chuan's sentence is exactly an attempt to say that what grew in her herself, he planted.

The classmate's "Su He owes where she is today entirely to you" is something an outsider said, and in itself occupies nothing. Shen Chuan did not take it up. Had he taken it up, "Even your classmate says so: it's all owed to me," that occasion would be read by this proposition.

Writing Bringing Someone into Their Own as Exchange

"I brought you into your own, so you ought to bring me into mine." This sentence writes bringing someone into their own as exchange, and is falling back. Love Theory says that loving each other is not exchange: "'I love you, so you ought to love me' writes love as exchange";47 here the same shape falls on bringing someone into their own. A moment of exchange is read as falling back, and the whole marriage is not characterized on the strength of one occasion. Using this account to make a demand of her, "I rescheduled my classes for two years for you, so you ought to quit your job and help me with my book," attaches a qualifying condition to an expectation, fixes for her what this matter means to her, and slides in the direction of colonization.48

Accommodation

There is one more thing that looks like bringing someone into their own: accommodation. Suppose that over these years Shen Chuan said of everything, "Whatever you decide; I'm fine with anything," and his own book stayed shelved. This example stipulates: in his heart he had a different view, and for the sake of peace he said not a word of it. This looks like making space for her, but it is not: his own share was not given.

Love Theory reads accommodation: "one's own share handed over; it is not 15DD; it is not having stood".49 Aesthetics Ray 12 says: "the accommodating person has a judgment of his own, but keeps it to himself for the sake of peace".50 Bringing someone into their own is that I stand where I am and make space for you; accommodation is that I withdraw from where I am. So accommodation is not bringing someone into their own.

Structurally, accommodation carries no direction of colonization toward the other: Love Theory says that it "does not carry a direction of colonization toward her, but it is not love at this layer either".51 Whether something has occupied his own side cannot be seen from outside; this paper does not judge it, and does not give it a separate name either.

Two further things are entered apart. One: if the accommodating person applies further pressure to her, for instance using these years of giving way to demand her gratitude, "I've gone along with you on everything; what more do you want," that sentence is read separately, by that one effect, and is not exempted from being read because he is accommodating. The other: from outside, accommodation is not determined from years of giving way: a person's not contending for years does not show that he is accommodating; "when to speak and when not, is also each person's own judgment";52 two people's not quarreling for years is not evidence of cultivation either.53

§7 Interfacing with Tradition

Several have asked, one after another, about the things this paper reads. For each, this paper writes faithfully what he sees and why he looks; where the original text presses on this paper, it writes the pressure, and then where they meet and where they part; other traditions appear in their own words. Aristotle on the threshold of friendship, its three kinds, and proportional love in asymmetric friendships, Relation Theory has already interfaced with;54 here only the passages in which he writes of husband and wife are picked up. Kant on the perfection of others Action Theory has already interfaced with; he is pointed back to here.

Leading and being led (Mill). In the last chapter of The Subjection of Women, Mill writes that between two persons whose faculties have been cultivated and whose opinions and purposes are identical there is the best kind of equality, powers and capacities alike, with reciprocal superiority in them, so that each can "enjoy the luxury of looking up to the other," and can have "alternately the pleasure of leading and of being led in the path of development"; he says he will not attempt to describe such a marriage, only that "this, and this only, is the ideal of marriage."55 He looks in order to argue that the legal subordination of one sex to the other is wrong; this passage is what he thinks marriage can be. What he sees: marriage can be a place where two people grow, leading each other; leading and being led can alternate, need not be simultaneous, and need not always run in one direction. He presses on this paper at one point: he writes equality with reciprocal superiority, and identity of opinions and purposes, together into the ideal of marriage; if mutual leading were conditioned on being "identical in opinions and purposes," the two one-ways meeting that this paper speaks of would lack this one condition. They meet in: mutuality does not require simultaneity, and can alternate (MA19); "reciprocal superiority" stands on the same side as complementarity's not being a problem; marriage can be a place where two people each grow; he looks at equality inside marriage, which stands on the same side as this paper's speaking only of what lies between the two. They part at three points. First, this paper does not require the two to have the same opinions and purposes: complementarity is not a problem; demanding that the other be the same as oneself is (MA19); "You are you, I am I" is read in Paper 2. This is a difference in conditions and in normative footing. Second, two people walking one shared path of development is not in itself one person's fixing the path for the other; only where one party on this basis cancels the other's revision and exit does it fall into what this paper calls fixing for the other what he ought to become (MA21). The alternate leading he writes of is not read, on the strength of the word "shared," as this kind; this paper merely does not make one shared path a condition of growth; each one's direction is each one's own. Third, he says this is the ideal of marriage; this paper sets up no ideal of marriage, does not prove that one ought to bring the other into his own, and does not rank marriages.

Friendship between man and wife (Aristotle). In Book VIII of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says: "Between man and wife friendship seems to exist by nature"; from the start their functions are divided, and "they help each other by throwing their peculiar gifts into the common stock"; in this kind of friendship both utility and pleasure seem to be present; "But this friendship may be based also on virtue, if the parties are good."56 He also says that the association of man and wife "seems to be aristocratic": the man rules in accordance with his worth, and hands over to her the matters that befit a woman.57 He looks in order to sort out the kinds of friendship, and to see how they correspond to the justice in the various associations and to the various forms of government. What he sees: between husband and wife there is a kind of friendship; the two divide the work, each putting his strengths into the common share; this friendship can be more than utility and pleasure. He presses on this paper at two points. First, if the division of labor between husband and wife comes from nature, each with its own function, then the division of labor is a fixed role; the division of labor spoken of in "division of labor and cooperation is not exchange, because it is not a mutual requirement" is, for him, a requirement fixed in advance by function. Second, if the association is ruled according to worth, then between the two there is a ruler by which worth is measured, and who has more and who less, who rules whom, is fixed by it; MA19's saying that equality is not required and that no accounts are kept looks, from his side, like throwing justice away. They meet in: division of labor and cooperation, each throwing his strengths into the common share, is not exchange item by item (MA19); marriage can be more than utility and pleasure. They part at three points. First, the division of labor in this paper does not come from natural function; the two divide things themselves; if it slides into a fixed requirement, it has a tendency toward colonization, read in Paper 4. Second, this paper sets up between the two no ruler by which worth is measured, and does not divide who rules whom by worth; inequality is not injustice; bringing someone into their own was never conditioned on equality in the first place (MA19). Third, he ranks friendships higher and lower by virtue; this paper reads the 15DD direction, and ranks no one higher or lower.

Friendship as the standard (Tan Sitong). In Renxue [An Exposition of Humaneness], Tan Sitong says: "Of the five relations, the one most free of harm and beneficial to human life, without the least bitterness and with the joy of plain water: is it not friendship alone?"; of the way of friends: "the first is called 'equality'; the second, 'freedom'; the third, 'holding back and letting out as one wills.' To sum up their meaning: it is nothing other than not losing the right of self-mastery"; and further, that friendship is not only to be prized above the other four relations, but "will be the standard for the other four relations," the passage going on: "and if the four relations are all threaded through with the way of friends, then the four relations can be abolished."58 The relation of husband and wife is among these four. He looks in order to break through the Three Bonds: for him, apart from friends and the brothers close to them, the other relations "are all clouded over by the Three Bonds, like a hell." What he sees: the best kind between person and person is between two people who do not lose the right of self-mastery; measured by this, husband and wife too should be equal, and should be free; if the four relations are all threaded through with the way of friends, the four relations can then be abolished. He presses on this paper at one point: if husband and wife are threaded through with the way of friends, the relation of husband and wife need not be set up on its own; this paper, reading bringing each other into their own in marriage on its own, has to be able to say what else there is in marriage. They meet in: "not losing the right of self-mastery" runs the same way as "You are you, I am I," and as growing into the other's own self; "holding back and letting out as one wills," with saying or not saying, staying or not staying, all up to each person, runs the same way as questioning's needing a way to go, and as exit's being within reach. They part at two points. First, he sets up friendship as a standard by which to reshape the other relations, which is an ought; this paper sets up no standard, and issues no ought. Second, friendship as the standard gives first a measure of equality, freedom and self-mastery; which arrangement in marriage conflicts with it has to be said item by item; it cannot be inferred directly from "standard" that the further things in marriage can all be subtracted. Paper 1 has said that marriage is made up of love, each person's own commitment and endorsement, and that exclusivity comes from love; this paper does not reduce marriage to friendship. F6 reads friendship as: "Subtract exclusivity and deep commitment from marriage";59 that is a subtraction in the structure of relations; his reshaping of the human relations by the way of friends is a normative measure. The two can be read side by side; they are not two parties proving one thing from opposite directions. Yet it must also be said plainly: bringing each other into their own does not hold only in marriage; Action Theory, reading two colleagues illuminating each other, has the same shape;60 what this paper reads is how it looks in marriage; doing things together in general belongs to Cooperation Theory.

The perfection of others (Kant). In the Introduction to the Doctrine of Virtue, Kant says that to make the perfection of another my end, and to hold myself duty-bound to promote it, is self-contradictory; for a person's perfection as a person consists precisely in his being able to set ends for himself according to his own concept of duty, and that is "what only he himself can do." Action Theory has already interfaced with him, and wrote that in their reasons the two are nearly the same in structure: that step can be taken only by the person himself.61 Marriage is where this sentence presses hardest: two people together morning and night easily take the other's perfection as their own life's work. This paper picks up the layer of marriage: bringing the other into his own is not read as a duty to promote the other's perfection, and this series does not speak of bringing someone into their own in terms of duty; whether it took hold lies at the other's end (MA16), and what the other has gained, once avowed in his own law, is his (MA20). The places where Action Theory wrote down its parting from him, the source of one's own law and the sentence form of cannot-not, are brought along here, not rewritten.

§8 Drawing Together and Downstream

This paper has laid down six propositions. Taken together, they say: to bring the other into his own is to let the other grow into the other's own self; bringing someone into their own is cultivation, and is a direction; whether it took hold lies at the other's end; to declare on the other's behalf, on the sole basis of my judgment of success, that his constitution has been completed is no longer bringing him into his own. I bring you into your own without waiting for you to bring me into mine first; it is completed at your end, and is not mine to settle; only two one-ways meeting is mutuality, and it is not obtained by exchange; if they do not meet, each one's share is still there as before; nor is mutuality a state to be reached. Bringing someone into their own takes two main ways, creating conditions and questioning; questioning leaves the question to the other, and to draw the conclusion on the other's behalf is to take my direction as the other's ruler; questioning needs a way to go; one closing of the door seals off nothing, and withdrawing one's own side is exit. Mutuality requires neither simultaneity nor equality, and keeps no accounts, while commitments, contributions and the effects left are entered as before; division of labor and cooperation is not exchange; complementarity is not a problem; demanding that the other be the same as oneself is. What the other has gained from me, once avowed in his own law, is his in the attribution of constitution; property, contribution, credit and responsibility each have their own accounts; he is able to go in a direction that no longer needs me, and this sentence is in the mode of ability. Bringing each other into their own has a mutual shape, and does not certify 16DD. The direction of colonization read from this matter is fixing for the other what he ought to become, and converting the conditions provided into ownership of the other's first-person constitutive results; writing bringing someone into their own as exchange is falling back; accommodation is not bringing someone into their own: it is not having stood, and carries no direction of colonization toward the other; how things are on his own side cannot be seen from outside, and is not judged.

This paper does not prove that bringing each other into their own makes a marriage last, does not prove that one ought to bring the other into his own, and does not prove that the party who has been brought into his own ought all the more to stay.

The question left open. A violin workshop in another city invites Su He to come for three years. She is able to go in a direction that no longer needs Shen Chuan; what this paper speaks of is that being able; whether she goes, and how things stand between the two after she goes, this paper does not answer. After people have changed, how the two ask together again, "do we still want to be together? in what form?",62 is read in Paper 4; staying or leaving, in Paper 7. One more place: this paper reads two one-ways meeting; two people doing one thing together for someone who has not yet come has a different structure, and is read in Paper 5.

Downstream. What this paper has laid down is used by the papers that follow as follows. Division of labor sliding into a fixed requirement, how moments of exchange sediment, and what conflict becomes once it has recurred again and again, are read in Paper 4. That "we" and the household neither take in nor take over each one's direction Paper 2 has already read; that bringing someone into their own falls on each of the two runs the same way. Preparing for a child and bringing each other into their own differ in structure, and Paper 5 sets them side by side. "The party who has been brought into his own ought all the more to stay" is not proved; staying and leaving belong to Paper 7. The check on the shared words "bringing someone into their own," "support" and "constitution" is listed together in Paper 0.

Acknowledgments

This paper is signed by Han Qin alone; the author decided every argument and choice and bears sole responsibility for the text. Models from Anthropic and OpenAI assisted with drafting and review; the author thanks them.

Notes

  1. Paper 1, MA1. ↩︎
  2. Meaning Theory Y22. ↩︎
  3. Meaning Theory P3, under Y22: "Cultivation is a verb-position, the dynamic showing-forth, on the transformation-axis, of that content of recognition — the content in motion (Value Theory P1 V16)." For the broad sense, see Relation Theory H8; Relation Theory Paper 1, under H8: "Wherever this series writes cultivation and colonization without such a mark, they are in the broad sense given here." Joining this value-layer sentence to bringing someone into their own in the broad sense is this series' own extension (own undertaking). ↩︎
  4. Relation Theory H8. ↩︎
  5. Meaning Theory Y25: "Support is not substitute constitution". ↩︎
  6. Meaning Theory Y25: the constitutive positions "stand structurally and cannot be taken from outside: the structural positions of avowal, revision and exit belong to this bearer"; in the same section: "constitution is not brought off on the side of conditions". The plain wording here follows the usage of Y25 and Y26. ↩︎
  7. F6, Appendix D, SAE Marriage Principles (a working demonstration, not evidentiary), item 6(a). ↩︎
  8. Same, item 2(a). The same item's example sentences: "You may say 'I don't understand why you think that way.' You may say 'the way you think about this hurts me.' You may not say 'you are wrong to think that.'" The original has the tone of an ought; here only its structure is taken. ↩︎
  9. Relation Theory H8. ↩︎
  10. Relation Theory H45. H45 states that these two sentences belong to the value layer; for the two directions in the broad sense, direction is read off that one effect alone, and whether it took hold rests on the other party's later understanding and action. ↩︎
  11. Meaning Theory Y25. ↩︎
  12. Meaning Theory P3, under Y25. ↩︎
  13. Aesthetics Ray 12 §3, as quoted in Love Theory Paper 5. ↩︎
  14. Meaning Theory P3, The Half That Is Not Mine to Settle. ↩︎
  15. Relation Theory H38. ↩︎
  16. Relation Theory H8: cultivation goes toward making space. ↩︎
  17. Meaning Theory P3, under Y25: "constitution is not brought off on the side of conditions"; the constitutive positions "stand structurally and cannot be taken from outside: the structural positions of avowal, revision and exit belong to this bearer". ↩︎
  18. "Conditions of occurrence" is Relation Theory's term: an act of one party, or the construct it leaves behind, identifiably and actually enters the conditions of occurrence of the other party (Relation Theory H1). ↩︎
  19. Relation Theory H59. H59 originally says that the danger and the necessity of relation at the relational layer come from the same place; carrying it to bringing someone into their own in marriage, read as the ground of the two ways, is this series' own extension (own undertaking). ↩︎
  20. Action Theory D46: "Mutual cultivation is two people illuminating each other: each one's unfolding also illuminates the other; difference is not an impurity to be removed, and consensus is not a contract to stop asking." Action Theory Paper 8, §4: "It is precisely because what she cared about was different from what he cared about that she could see the spot he could not." ↩︎
  21. Relation Theory H37. ↩︎
  22. Aesthetics Ray 11 §5. ↩︎
  23. F6, Appendix D, SAE Marriage Principles, item 4. ↩︎
  24. Relation Theory Paper 1, under H8: withdrawing my own side, no longer discussing a matter, no longer cooperating, no longer keeping in touch, ending contact, is my exit; "as far as this withdrawal goes, it carries no direction of colonization". ↩︎
  25. Relation Theory Paper 4, under H37: on saying an expectation out loud, "he can answer, can leave it unanswered, can say he cannot manage it". The original place speaks of expectation; carrying it to questioning is this series' own undertaking. ↩︎
  26. The first boundary of Meaning Theory Y25. Originally it speaks of the supporting party's sealing the channels of the party supported; here it is used only where he goes further and presses down her road. ↩︎
  27. F6, Appendix D, SAE Marriage Principles, item 5. ↩︎
  28. Relation Theory H60. ↩︎
  29. Relation Theory Paper 3, under H27: "So the sentence 'You owe me a month of meals' does not make sense structurally." Relation Theory Paper 3 is Commitment. ↩︎
  30. Relation Theory H27: "Commitment does not turn into a duty to the other party". ↩︎
  31. Relation Theory H33: "The other party's response is material, not a settling of the account"; "the mere fact that a response has occurred settles nothing". ↩︎
  32. F6, Appendix D, SAE Marriage Principles, item 8(c). ↩︎
  33. Aesthetics Ray 11 §5: "My cannot-not is not your must." ↩︎
  34. Meaning Theory P3, Abstract; under Y26. ↩︎
  35. Meaning Theory P3, under Y26. ↩︎
  36. Meaning Theory P3, under Y26. ↩︎
  37. Mill, Autobiography, ch. VII: "The 'Liberty' was more directly and literally our joint production than anything else which bears my name"; "When two persons have their thoughts and speculations completely in common ... it is of little consequence in respect to the question of originality, which of them holds the pen"; "In this wide sense ... all my published writings were as much my wife's work as mine". ↩︎
  38. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Harriet Taylor Mill." §3.3 says that the evidence on On Liberty is "equivocal"; §5: "The available evidence may be too sparse and too contradictory for us ever to arrive at definitive answers". ↩︎
  39. Meaning Theory Y26. In the final clause, it is the other who may no longer need the supporter. This clarification follows the Chinese text and the argument of Y26; the English quotation above is reproduced as published. ↩︎
  40. Meaning Theory Y26 speaks of relations that go by the name of support, its example being teacher and student; carrying it to husband and wife is an extension, this series' own undertaking. ↩︎
  41. Meaning Theory P3, under Y26. ↩︎
  42. Meaning Theory P3, under Y26, the two layers of the test: the qualification layer, "the other's constitutive position is neither conferred by me nor withdrawn by me on account of his refusal"; the relation layer asks of this relation whether it does "treat that response, which does not match my expectation, as grounds for declaring his first-person constitution invalid; does it on that account seal off his channels of actual expression, revision and change of direction; or does it make acceptance of my final verdict the condition of going on to recognize his first-person position". ↩︎
  43. Relation Theory H39: "16DD is something that happens on an occasion, not a grade that a person or a relation is in"; H40: "neither side, by its own anticipation, avows that jolt on the other's behalf". ↩︎
  44. Aesthetics Ray 11 §5; Love Theory L30 calls this the most refined colonization. ↩︎
  45. Meaning Theory Y25. ↩︎
  46. Aesthetics Ray 13 §6. ↩︎
  47. Love Theory L42. ↩︎
  48. Relation Theory H37. ↩︎
  49. Love Theory L40. L40 originally reads the counterfeit that borrows the name of that layer of love; carrying it to bringing someone into their own is this series' own extension (own undertaking). ↩︎
  50. Aesthetics Ray 12, as quoted in Love Theory Paper 5, §3. ↩︎
  51. Love Theory Paper 5, §3, under L40. ↩︎
  52. Aesthetics Ray 12, as quoted in Love Theory Paper 5, §3. ↩︎
  53. Love Theory L40: "A long absence of quarrels is not evidence of cultivation"; Relation Theory H46. ↩︎
  54. Relation Theory Paper 0, §5 (the threshold of friendship and its three kinds) and §13 (asymmetry, ending and need). ↩︎
  55. The Subjection of Women, ch. IV: "two persons of cultivated faculties, identical in opinions and purposes"; "that best kind of equality, similarity of powers and capacities with reciprocal superiority in them"; "enjoy the luxury of looking up to the other"; "alternately the pleasure of leading and of being led in the path of development"; "this, and this only, is the ideal of marriage". ↩︎
  56. Nicomachean Ethics VIII.12, Ross's translation: "Between man and wife friendship seems to exist by nature"; "from the start the functions are divided, and those of man and woman are different; so they help each other by throwing their peculiar gifts into the common stock"; "both utility and pleasure seem to be found in this kind of friendship"; "But this friendship may be based also on virtue, if the parties are good". ↩︎
  57. Same work, VIII.10: "The association of man and wife seems to be aristocratic; for the man rules in accordance with his worth"; "the matters that befit a woman he hands over to her". ↩︎
  58. Tan Sitong, Renxue: 五伦中于人生最无弊而有益，无丝毫之苦，有淡水之乐，其惟朋友乎; 一曰"平等"；二曰"自由"；三曰"节宣惟意"。总括其义，曰不失自主之权而已矣; 将为四伦之圭臬; 而四伦咸以朋友之道贯之，是四伦可废也; 皆为三纲所蒙蔽，如地狱矣 (English renderings this paper's own). These sentences follow the quotations in Zhang Yongle, "Within the Four Seas All Are Brothers"; 将为四伦之圭臬, and the following 而四伦咸以朋友之道贯之，是四伦可废也, are cross-checked against the quotations in Li Xiangjun, "The Formation, Evolution and Modern Development of the Confucian Way of Friends"; at 四伦可废 that article prints 四论, evidently a misprint. The original book has not been checked. ↩︎
  59. F6 §3.1(g). ↩︎
  60. Action Theory Paper 8, §4, and D46. ↩︎
  61. Action Theory Paper 0, §3.2, "Kant: Judgment, Sentence Form, and the Perfection of Others," citing section IV of the Introduction to the Doctrine of Virtue in the Metaphysics of Morals: "was kein anderer als er selbst tun kann". ↩︎
  62. F6, Appendix D, SAE Marriage Principles, item 6(c). ↩︎

References

All SAE works below are cited by concept DOI, which always resolves to the latest version. Quotations are checked item by item in the accompanying audit table.

I · SAE works directly cited in this paper

Qin, H. (2026). How Is Institution Possible: From Inter-Ontological Remainder to Co-Constructive Framework (SAE Foundational Paper 6) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19328662

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 Place of Judgment (SAE Action Theory, Paper 0) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22974154

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

Qin, H. (2026). The Beauty of Purpose (SAE Aesthetics, Ray 11) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22991142

Qin, H. (2026). The Beauty of Mutual Non Dubito (SAE Aesthetics, Ray 13) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23000910

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 0: The Place of Relation Theory [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23545115

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 1: What a Relation Is, and What It Is Not [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23545047

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 3: Commitment [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23545023

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 4: Dealings and Expectation [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23545057

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 5: The Sediment of Dealings [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23545076

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 7: Why Still Relate [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23545097

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Love Theory Paper 4: No Substitute [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23627776

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Love Theory Paper 5: Without Waiting for You [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23627779

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Love Theory Paper 6: That Moment [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23627781

II · External works

Classical texts are given in simplified characters.

Mill, John Stuart. The Subjection of Women (1869), ch. IV. (utilitarianism.net transcription)

Mill, John Stuart. Autobiography (1873), ch. VII. (utilitarianism.net transcription; the three sentences quoted cross-checked against the transcription at laits.utexas.edu; the first edition has not been checked)

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, VIII.10, VIII.12. Trans. W. D. Ross. (MIT Internet Classics Archive transcription; the Greek has not been checked)

Tan Sitong 谭嗣同. Renxue 仁学 [An Exposition of Humaneness]. (cited from the quotations in the articles of Zhang Yongle and Li Xiangjun, cross-checked; the original book has not been checked)

Kant, Immanuel. Die Metaphysik der Sitten, Tugendlehre, Einleitung IV (1797). (as checked in Action Theory Paper 0; pointed back to)

III · Secondary literature

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Harriet Taylor Mill", §3.3, §4.1, §5.

Zhang Yongle 章永乐. (2015). 四海之内皆兄弟：近代平等政治中"五伦"话语的突变 [Within the Four Seas All Are Brothers: The Mutation of the Discourse of the "Five Relations" in Modern Egalitarian Politics]. Xiandai zhexue [Modern Philosophy], 2015, no. 6; reprinted on rujiazg.com.

Li Xiangjun 李祥俊. (2023). 儒家朋友之道的生成、演变与现代开展 [The Formation, Evolution and Modern Development of the Confucian Way of Friends]. Jinyang xuekan [Jinyang Journal]; reprinted on the website of the Mencius Research Institute.

Interfaces

  • Main upstream: Meaning Theory P3 (Abstract; Y22, Y25, Y26, and the sections under them); Action Theory Paper 8 (D46; §4); F6 Appendix D (item 2(a), items 4, 5 and 6, item 8(c)).
  • Also used: Relation Theory Paper 1 (H1, H8 and the section under it), Paper 3 (H27; the section under H27), Paper 4 (H33, H37 and the section under it, H38, H39, H40), Paper 5 (H45, H46), Paper 7 (H59, H60), Paper 0 (§5; §13); Ray 11 (§5); Ray 13 (§6); Love Theory L30, L40, L42, and Paper 5 §1 and §3; Aesthetics Ray 12 §3 (by way of Love Theory Paper 5); F6 §3.1(g); Action Theory Paper 0 (§3.2).
  • This series: continues from Paper 1, MA1; runs the same way as Paper 2's "we" and household; Paper 4 takes up division of labor sliding into a fixed requirement, moments of exchange, the sediment of conflict, and choosing again together; Paper 5 sets the structure of preparing for a child alongside; Paper 7 takes up staying and leaving; Paper 0 lists "bringing someone into their own," "support" and "constitution" together.