Support
支持

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

Introduction

In the spring of Year 25, Bluekiln Porcelain Works shut down two kiln lines and laid off nine hundred people.

Bluekiln lies in the mountains in the west of the Kingdom State. It has about eight thousand people and has made porcelain for more than two hundred years. Bluekiln Porcelain Works is the largest employer in town; the people it employs make up about seventy percent of the town's working-age population. The company said that low-priced porcelain from elsewhere had taken its market; Crossways Home, the own brand of Crossways Group of Apple City, had also switched to buying its porcelain from elsewhere.

After the layoffs, two forms of support were set before those laid off.

One came from the State Labor Agency. Unemployment benefit for twelve months; any one course of vocational training, with the tuition subsidized by the state; for those who relocate, a relocation subsidy; for those who want to start something of their own, a small start-up loan they can apply for, half of it guaranteed by the state. Applicants are not asked where they will go, nor required to take part in any particular item. The state's training courses are mostly held in Apple City, three hours each way from town. Among those laid off in town, fewer than fifteen percent signed up for training.

The other came from the Qiao Foundation, and was called the New Bluekiln Program. The Qiao Foundation is the philanthropic body of the family of the founder of Crossways. The program gave those laid off a full living allowance for three years, about ninety percent of their former wages. The conditions were: enter the Bluekiln Design Park, which the Foundation had newly built outside town, and train on one of three roads the Foundation had set, design, e-commerce operations or cultural-tourism guiding; and not work for any other porcelain enterprise for three years. Four hundred and twenty people signed up.

A spokesperson for the state government said: "The state does not choose anyone's road; it only widens the roads." The Foundation's statement of the program read: "We are giving them a certain future."

Outside town there is a workshop, which a veteran kiln worker opened in Year 23 after leaving Bluekiln Porcelain Works. The workshop took on nine of those laid off. Two of the nine had signed up for the New Bluekiln Program and left it two months after the courses began. The program document states that those who leave midway stop receiving the living allowance, and that what has already been paid is not clawed back; the clause "may not work for any other porcelain enterprise for three years" runs from the day the living allowance is first received, and whether it still applies after leaving, the program document does not say. The Foundation has not stated a position on whether these two remain bound by that clause.

There is also a woman laid off who did not sign up for the Foundation's program. She drew the state's unemployment benefit and training subsidy, went to Apple City to train in nursing, and in Year 26 was working night shifts at Southwindow Care Homes. The town's schools and clinics stayed open as usual.

These arrangements of the State Labor Agency, and the Foundation's program document and its terms, are examples set up by this series; this paper cites them only as facts, and does not claim that they are the best design.

Set the two forms of support side by side, and the questions appear. Which of them gives conditions, and which gives a direction? Where does the amply given one stop? In giving unemployment benefit, training and loans, has the state given everything it should give? With the training courses three hours from town, whom are these conditions within reach of?

Behind these questions there is a larger one. The first five papers wrote mostly of checks: not letting accumulation become a door that others cannot get around, not letting it be converted into domination over people's Base Layer, not letting it be converted into control over questioning. With checks said, what is an institution to give, on the positive side, toward people's emergence in the economy? If people's emergence needs no one to give it, it is enough for an institution to guard the line; if it needs an institution to make it, the institution must do many things on people's behalf. This paper looks for a place between these two ends.

The paper goes in eight steps. It first asks whether emergence is inevitable, and to what degree (§1); then whether, for an emergence that is inevitable, the people of the present must wait (§2). It then returns to the two forms of support at Bluekiln: what an institution gives is conditions, and it does not manufacture emergence (§3); the Base Layer is to be secured, the Emergence Layer supported (§4); the thickness of securing does not prove cultivation (§5); support may have particular content, but does not acquire the authority to decide a person's direction (§6). §7 separates two readings of cultivation: on the side of the institution, and on the side of the person. §8 closes the whole series.

The reading follows the Prequel: the construct takes the ought, the position takes accountability, the person takes his own law. To the State Labor Agency, the Qiao Foundation and the veteran kiln worker's workshop, as constructs, this paper writes oughts; to the nine hundred laid off, to the two who left, and to that woman, it writes no ought: how they go is, for each, within their own law. The division into the normative layer, the rule layer and the judgment layer also follows the Prequel; this paper states which sentence falls on which layer only where it is used. Terms such as 15DD and 14DD are used in this paper only in theoretical passages; they speak of directions and mechanisms, and are not used of any actual person or body.

§1 Structural Inevitability, with Premises

Before speaking of support, one must first ask what support is given for.

This series' upstream in economics has a strong conclusion. Economics P5 states, as its main conclusion A, that in markets that meet three premises, 15DD emergence is a structural inevitability (Economics P5, main conclusion A). What it calls 15DD is "perceiving the other as an independent purposive subject": a person, in transaction and cooperation, perceives the person opposite as a subject with ends of his own, and not only as a thing that can be used. The argument of that paper does not rely on the philosophical premises of this series; it uses only three premises that economics itself acknowledges:

"Three economic premises: (1) Markets with nonzero exit freedom exist — participants can choose cooperation partners and exit at least some relationships. (2) Some participants have baselines — 'this is not for sale,' … (3) Baseline collisions will occur — in markets with exit freedom and repeated interaction, different participants' baselines inevitably conflict." (Economics P5 §1–§2)

Under these three, people who have baselines collide again and again with others' baselines in repeated transactions; after enough collisions, perceiving the other as a person with ends of his own becomes a capacity that holds its ground in competition. This perception is not taught by anyone, nor made by an institution; in that paper's words, it is "not innate, not accidental, not institutionally manufactured."

This conclusion enters the series carrying several qualifications.

First, it has premises, and the premises must be carried with it in the original wording. Premise one requires "nonzero" exit freedom, and the original says "at least some relationships": it does not require that every relation can be exited, only that in some relations a person can choose with whom to cooperate, and can also leave. This premise is not an empty phrase. Paper 2 wrote that what the level of relations guards is not only the person of the present but also this premise (Paper 2, E13): where seventy percent of a town's working-age population work for one company, forty percent of the town's housing belongs to it, twenty percent of wages are paid in scrip usable only at its store and its canteen, wage-advance arrangements restrict departure, and non-compete clauses restrict where a person may work after leaving, exit there is pressed very narrow. The original has its own reading of such compression: power lock-in means "compressing exit freedom and collision direction — extreme suppression violates premise one," and under the three premises it "can delay this process but cannot prevent it under the stated conditions" (Economics P5). Exit pressed narrow is not zero; by the original, the inevitability is still there, only delayed. On whom that stretch of delay falls is what the next section asks: the person of the present.

Second, only the inevitability of emergence is taken up, not the inevitability of dominance. What inevitably appears under the three premises is this perception emerging in some of the participants; that paper itself sets out the further stage structure as a separate, reinforcing conclusion, supplied by the SAE framework and not derived from economic priors alone. This series takes only the first half. That 15DD appears in the market does not mean that it will dominate the market; nor is what has appeared guaranteed to stay.

Third, falling back is possible. The premises can be compressed, and what has already appeared can retreat. The Theory of the State has written of the dynamics of sliding back at the level of a state; there it says that the process "is recognized by acts; it is a window, not a moment; and it fixes no identity on a state" (the Theory of the State companion study The Reverse Phase Transition). The original speaks of the systemic purpose of a state, as a construct, moving backward; here it is extended to the falling back of emergence in the market (own undertaking): falling back too is recognized by what has happened, by how the premises have been compressed, in which relations exit is gone, how baselines have been bought off; it fixes the identity of no person, no company and no generation. When a company changes those in power and several arrangements are taken back, that is a matter of those arrangements, each examined by its own grounds; it is not an example of "emergence in the market has fallen back," still less a reading on anyone.

Fourth, that the direction does not change does not mean there is a timetable. Institution Theory says of the Kingdom of Ends: "There is a direction, the endpoint is open, and there is no historical guarantee" (Institution Theory Z39). This series' normative direction does not change: toward accumulated power, it holds to anti-colonization and strives for cultivation. This is the orientation this series sets for itself, not a prediction about any stretch of empirical history. It does not say what the market will have become by which year, nor that the present trend must go there.

Fifth, it does not rely on "inevitable collapse." This series does not argue that the kind of economic organization that leans toward 14DD must collapse of itself, nor does it rest the grounds of checks on such a prediction. Even if it never collapses, the grounds of checks do not change; the next section speaks to this.

Why write out these qualifications before speaking of support? Because they settle the place of support. If emergence comes of itself when the premises are met, what an institution has to do is not to make it, but two things: to guard the premises, and to give conditions. Guarding the premises is the checks of the first five papers; giving conditions is this paper. If someone reads "inevitable" as "nothing need be done," the next section answers him; if someone reads "inevitable" as "an institution can make it from a blueprint," §3 answers him.

It may be said that "structural inevitability" is too strong a phrase: it turns a perception that appears in some people into the direction of history, as though history were a machine with a goal. The weight of this objection is that the word "inevitable" really is easily used to excuse what lies in front of us, or to vouch for the future. But the "inevitable" here is a conditional: if the three premises are met, emergence will appear. It does not say that the premises will always be met, does not say that what appears will dominate, and does not say in which year it will appear. The strength of a conditional lies in pointing out what must be guarded: where premise one is pressed to zero, the inevitability is no longer there; where it is pressed narrow, the inevitability is delayed.

In which industries emergence appears first, in which later, and how fast, this series does not answer; Economics P6 leaves this question as its own open remainder (Economics P6, §7.3 of the Chinese text; §7 of the English text).

E32 Structural inevitability, with premises; falling back is possible, the direction does not change. In markets that meet three premises, 15DD emergence is a structural inevitability (Economics P5). The three premises follow the original sentences: markets with nonzero exit freedom exist — participants can choose cooperation partners and exit at least some relationships; some participants have baselines — "this is not for sale"; baseline collisions will occur. This series takes up only the inevitability of emergence, not the inevitability of dominance. Falling back is possible: falling back speaks of the falling back of emergence in the market; it is recognized by what has happened, and fixes the identity of no person, no body and no generation (the same form as the Theory of the State companion study The Reverse Phase Transition, N41; the original speaks of a state's systemic purpose moving backward; here it is extended to emergence in the market; own undertaking). That the direction does not change is not a timetable: "There is a direction, the endpoint is open, and there is no historical guarantee" (Institution Theory Z39). This series' normative direction does not change; it gives no guarantee of trend for any stretch of empirical history, and does not rely on "inevitable collapse."

§2 The People of the Present Are Not Asked to Wait

In the winter of Year 23, Springhollow Water Company cut off water to twenty-three households: nine in Upper Hollow, fourteen in Lower Hollow. Two of them had bedridden elderly members at home. In the spring of Year 25, the nine hundred at Bluekiln Porcelain Works received their layoff notices.

If the last section is right, and 15DD emergence is a structural inevitability when the premises are met, must these people wait? Wait for the perception in the market slowly to grow, for the ways of doing business that lean toward 14DD to lose out in repeated transactions, for a better market to come and catch them?

This series' answer is: inevitable emergence is not paid for by the people of the present.

This sentence has its ground on the side of institutions; it relies neither on optimism about the future nor on pessimism about the present. Institution Theory's first ought governs the construct's own acts: they cross no line against any internal subject. "This ought is held to in full: it governs the construct's own acts, guarding and dismantling included; it does not vary with relational thickness and is not discounted under any condition." (Institution Theory Z9) "Any condition" includes "in a few more years the market will set itself right." A line-crossing does not cease to be a line-crossing now because emergence will correct it later.

Institution Theory also writes when protection is triggered. "The trigger does not wait for the other party's tier or maturity, for the violating party's good will, for the protected party's assent, or for a complete adjudication; but there must be traces of the operation that can be raised and verified, and the traces speak of operations, not of persons. In the cell where physical safety, basic livelihood or the exit channel is actually suppressed, protection may precede any mutual handling; that cell cannot wait." (Institution Theory Z20)

This passage must be read whole, both its halves. The first half says that the trigger does not wait: not for the people of Springhollow Water Company to become better, not for its shareholders to change their minds, nor for a complete adjudication. The second half says that the trigger needs traces: not an impression of some person or some company, but operations that can be raised and verified. The traces in the Springhollow cell are clear: a notice reading "Where arrears reach four months, the water supply will be stopped"; water cut off to twenty-three households; bedridden elderly people in two of them. Physical safety and basic livelihood were actually suppressed, and that cell cannot wait. Paper 2 has already read the Springhollow cutoff by this cell: the part of the cessation of supply that falls on the life-substrate must be carved out, and how those who cannot pay are kept from being cut off lies on the manager's side (Paper 2, E11, E11a). Only one sentence is added here: what this cell does not wait for is neither the maturity of the market nor the good will of the company.

There is a sentence in Moral Law P9 that is often taken to say "one must wait." It cuts waiting into two layers: "Macroscopic waiting at the institutional-architectural level requires that 15DD not overthrow 14DD by 'establishing tyranny'"; and it says that microscopic operation in concrete encounters, individual or small-scale, is different: there, "microscopic recognition is never delayed" (Moral Law P9 §2.7). This series takes only the macroscopic half, and with a change of subject. The subject of the original sentence is 15DD: it says that 15DD does not overthrow 14DD by tyranny; here it is changed to institutions: institutions do not force the phase transition, and do not install a perception in people by compulsion (own undertaking). This half connects to the next section: institutions give conditions and do not manufacture emergence. The microscopic half speaks of how the 15DD legislative subject acts in concrete encounter, and that is a matter for persons; this series writes no ought for persons, and so derives no duty of institutions from that half. "The people of the present are not asked to wait" has its ground in the two provisions of Institution Theory, not in that half-sentence of the Moral Law.

There is another place in the economics upstream that is also easily read as "just wait a little." Economics P6 argues that genuine behavior has no additional signaling-maintenance cost, while the maintenance cost of disguise is monotonically increasing, and that on this basis Kingdom-of-Ends organizations will overtake Kingdom-of-Means organizations in competition. That paper limits its own field: its argument is conditional, and applies to markets of high information density, high observability and nonzero exit freedom (Economics P6, §7.3 of the Chinese text; the English text states the three conditions in §2). The same section also says that in fields that are heavy-asset, low-transparency, dominated by physical execution and with zero exit freedom, Kingdom-of-Means organizations may maintain themselves over the long term. Whether Bluekiln's kiln lines are such a field, this paper does not judge. What is to be said is only this: that conclusion carries its conditions, and cannot be taken to tell the people of any place: wait a little, and the market will set it right of itself.

Hence checks have two grounds, and the two stand together. One is that present harm cannot wait; the other is guarding the premise of emergence (Paper 2, E13). The first does not depend on the second: even if emergence never comes, line-crossing is not thereby allowed. Nor does the second depend on the first: even if no one is being harmed at present, the compression of premise one is in itself something to be guarded against.

The opposite worry also has weight: an institution that steps in too fast and too much may instead press emergence down; if it catches everything for people, people no longer stand up on their own, and this itself is a kind of ghostwriting. The next section is about to say that institutions do not manufacture emergence, and excessive protection really can turn into deciding for people. But the "cannot wait" of this section holds only in that cell: where physical safety, basic livelihood or the exit channel is actually suppressed. It does not say that an institution must step in wherever things are not as one would wish; the trigger also needs traces of the operation that can be verified. The way of guarding is itself bound by the line: Institution Theory says that "the way of guarding must be a limit, and its means are bounded by the construct's authority in the matter" (Institution Theory Z15). What does not wait is that cell, not everything.

Here one thing is left: what counts as "actual suppression," and who recognizes it in a concrete matter and on what grounds, lies at the judgment layer and is handed to the position that makes that finding; the account falls on that position.

E33 The people of the present are not asked to wait. Inevitable emergence is not paid for by the people of the present. On the side of institutions, present harm cannot wait: that the acts cross no line is held to in full and is not discounted under any condition (Institution Theory Z9); the trigger of protection does not wait for the other party's tier or maturity, nor for the violating party's good will, but there must be traces of the operation that can be raised and verified, and the traces speak of operations, not of persons; in the cell where physical safety, basic livelihood or the exit channel is actually suppressed, that cell cannot wait (Institution Theory Z20). Of macroscopic waiting only half is taken: "Macroscopic waiting at the institutional-architectural level requires that 15DD not overthrow 14DD by 'establishing tyranny'" (Moral Law P9 §2.7); the subject term of the original sentence is 15DD; here it is changed to institutions not forcing the phase transition (own undertaking); the microscopic half speaks of how persons operate in concrete encounter, and this series writes no ought for it. The cost asymmetry of Economics P6 carries its own field conditions (high information density, high observability, nonzero exit freedom), and is not extended into a macroscopic guarantee for every economic field. The two grounds of checks stand together: present harm cannot wait; the premise of emergence is guarded (Paper 2, E13).

§3 Institutions Give Conditions; They Do Not Manufacture Emergence

Back to Bluekiln. Of the two forms of support, look first at what each gave.

The nine hundred laid off, among them the two who signed up for the program and then left, and the woman who did not sign up, all stand before these two forms of support. Two things are asked first: whether what the two forms of support give is within reach of those laid off; and what effect the terms of each have on where people go. The baseline of comparison is livelihood before the cutback, which is what had already happened; the two forms of support are compared within one and the same situation, both being given to the same group of people laid off. There are also two things that cannot be filled in: only one case of a person changing trades is recorded here, and one case does not prove that either form of support succeeded across the town; nor does the number of those who signed up have only one cause.

Economics P4, in speaking of the phase transition of the market, writes: "Institutions change ecological conditions — the phase transition itself is spontaneous emergence." (Economics P4 §5) This is the upstream of this section. What an institution can do is change the conditions people live in: whether there is transparency, whether exit is protected, whether harmful behavior is punished. The phase transition itself, people perceiving others in transactions as subjects with ends of their own, grows from people.

The War Treatise has said something of the same form in another place. Speaking of a state's support for the oppressed within another state, it sets up a gate: "Genuine rising proceeds from the inside out; the outside can recognize it and can support it, but cannot manufacture it." (War Treatise §13, Gate Three) The original speaks of the rising of the oppressed within another state; here it is extended to people's emergence in the economy (own undertaking). The extension holds because the two places have the same structure: what a hand from outside can do is recognize it and support it; what is made from outside is not that person's own rising.

Institution Theory writes this share of an institution's responsibility as its third ought: "An institution provides conditions for the cultivation of its internal subjects according to relational thickness; it is concerned with conditions, not with outcomes." (Institution Theory Z23) Being concerned only with conditions is not indifference to outcomes; it means that outcomes are neither guaranteed by the institution nor claimed by it. Institution Theory writes this more finely in the provision that follows: where no elevation has occurred, the name cultivation is not given; cultivation is not recorded as having occurred on the strength of attendance, nor as absent on the strength of dropping out; and "whether the institution has discharged the burden of providing the conditions it has undertaken is checked separately, by which conditions it provided, whether they were within reach, and how wide a range it undertook; outcomes can serve as clues for checking the conditions, not as direct verdicts of success or failure." (Institution Theory Z24)

By these provisions, look first at the State Labor Agency's support.

What it gives can be matched, item by item, to the kind of conditions an institution can give. Unemployment benefit for twelve months gives basic livelihood, and also gives time: a person need not, on the day after the layoff, take whatever work comes along. The training subsidy gives learning. The relocation subsidy gives mobility. The small start-up loan, half guaranteed by the state, gives access to credit: a person who could not otherwise borrow can give something a try. None of the four designates content: what to learn, the person chooses; where to move, the person chooses; what to do with the borrowed money, the person chooses. Applicants are not asked where they will go. Time, learning, mobility, access to credit, basic livelihood: a list of this kind is an example at the rule layer; these four items of the State Labor Agency are one way of writing it, and this series does not claim that it is the best way.

The spokesperson said that the state "only widens the roads." This is the state's own account. An arrangement is read not by how the construct speaks of itself but by its structure: Institution Theory says that relational thickness "is read from the structure, not from the construct's own account" (Institution Theory Z25a); the original speaks of relational thickness; here it is extended to reading the effect of an arrangement (own undertaking). Read by its structure, the terms of this support attach no condition on where people go.

But conditions must also be within reach. Speaking of securing, Institution Theory says that "Protection on paper is not securing" (Institution Theory Z17); reading conditions by the same reasoning, conditions out of reach do not count as already given (own undertaking). The state's training courses are mostly held in Apple City, three hours each way. Suppose a person who must care for family, a person who cannot pay the fare there and back, a person who cannot leave home: the subsidy is written there, but he cannot get to the course. Among those laid off in town, fewer than fifteen percent signed up for training. This fifteen percent does not in itself judge the state's success or failure: by that provision of Institution Theory, outcomes are only clues for examining the conditions. The question it raises is: whom these conditions are within reach of, whom they are not within reach of, and why those out of reach are out of reach. The reasons of each of the eighty-five percent who did not sign up are not recorded here, and this paper does not supply them on their behalf; what is to be examined is the conditions, and the account falls on the positions that arranged where the training is held.

That woman is one case of these conditions being within reach. She drew unemployment benefit, used the training subsidy to study nursing in Apple City, and the next year was working night shifts at Southwindow. One case within reach does not prove that the conditions are within everyone's reach; the road she took she chose herself, the state did not choose it for her, nor can her road on that account be recorded as the state's achievement.

Now look at the Foundation's support. Its term is longer: three years, at about ninety percent of former wages; the state's unemployment benefit lasts twelve months, and its amount is not recorded. It also has content: a park, three roads, a course of training. Where this content stops is the business of §§4 to 6. This section looks at only one thing: whether it can manufacture emergence.

The Foundation's statement reads "We are giving them a certain future." Read by its structure, what the program can make certain is three years of living allowance, a park, and courses on three roads; "the future" is not among them. Whether a person, in three years, grows a road of his own out of design, e-commerce or guiding is something that grows from him; the Foundation can support it, but cannot manufacture it, nor make it certain in advance. It is the Foundation that says "certain"; what cannot be made certain is the three years of each of those four hundred and twenty people.

Here the tradition must be brought in. In "The Use of Knowledge in Society," Hayek says that the knowledge an economic order must use is knowledge of "the particular circumstances of time and place," and that this knowledge "never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess" (Hayek 1945; per the Library of Economics and Liberty online text, originally published in American Economic Review 35(4): 519–530; the page of the quoted sentences not confirmed; tier B).

The common question: who knows where the conditions a person receives should be used? In this essay Hayek separates two kinds of knowledge: scientific knowledge, where a body of suitably chosen experts may be in the best position to command it; and knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place, which is dispersed among individuals (ibid., §III). Reading Bluekiln in this paper's terms: what each of the nine hundred should learn, where each should move, what each should borrow money to do, is knowledge of the second kind; the state does not know it, nor does the Foundation; who knows it is at most each person himself, and often he too knows only part of it. Giving general conditions that do not designate content is the direction of arrangement this series proposes at this point; it connects with Hayek's reasons at this place, and does not obtain from this 1945 essay an endorsement of the design of subsidies at Bluekiln. This series raises a further normative question: direction is a person's own cannot-not, and even where a body knows more about some fact or risk, it does not thereby acquire the authority to decide a person's direction (§6). This question does not need first to declare that the difficulty of dispersed knowledge has vanished at that place: that a body knows more locally, and that the dispersed knowledge of each person's situation is still needed, can hold at the same time.

The capability approach has asked something close to the question of this section: as paraphrased, it takes as its goal the freedom people actually have to do and to be, not some particular life already realized, and its reason too is to favor no particular conception of the good life (per the corresponding entry of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, tier C; the basis is the same as in Institution Theory Paper 0, §5.1). Institution Theory Paper 0 has already interfaced with it; here it is only pointed to, not redone, and this paper draws no separate conclusion of its own on how far agreement goes and where the two part.

It may be said that general conditions that do not designate content are too thin: give money, give courses, give loans, and people still do not know where to go; that four hundred and twenty people signed up for the Foundation's program shows precisely that what people want is a direction, not a heap of blank options. The weight of this objection is that the number of sign-ups is real. But two things must be kept apart. First, conditions can have content; support can bring courses, a park, a teacher, and §6 writes how far it can go; this section says only that an institution cannot manufacture emergence. Second, four hundred and twenty sign-ups show that many people made use of this support; what it is to each of them, the sign-ups cannot show, still less that the direction ought to be set by the giving side; and in the same town, someone also chose the other support and went to Apple City on their own. Two forms of support standing side by side, with people choosing between them, is itself one kind of condition.

Two things remain unsettled: with the training courses three hours from town, how these conditions can be brought within reach of those they do not now reach is a matter for the rule layer and the judgment layer, handed to the positions of the State Labor Agency; where the rest of the nine hundred laid off have each gone is not recorded here, and this paper does not supply it.

E34 Institutions give conditions; they do not manufacture emergence. "Institutions change ecological conditions — the phase transition itself is spontaneous emergence." (Economics P4 §5) Institutions give general conditions that do not designate content; lists of this kind, such as time, learning, mobility, access to credit and basic livelihood, are examples at the rule layer. "Genuine rising proceeds from the inside out; the outside can recognize it and can support it, but cannot manufacture it." (War Treatise §13, Gate Three; the original speaks of the rising of the oppressed within another state; here it is extended to people's emergence in the economy; own undertaking) Institutions are concerned with conditions, not with outcomes (Institution Theory Z23). Conditions must be within reach: read as the same form as "Protection on paper is not securing" (Institution Theory Z17), conditions out of reach do not count as already given (own undertaking). Whether the burden of providing conditions has been discharged is seen from which conditions were provided, whether they are within reach, and how wide a range was undertaken; outcomes can serve as clues for examining the conditions, not as direct verdicts of success or failure (Institution Theory Z24). An arrangement is read by its structure, not by the construct's own account (Institution Theory Z25a; the original says that relational thickness is read from the structure; here it is extended to reading an arrangement; own undertaking).

§4 Two Layers: The Base Layer Is to Be Secured, the Emergence Layer Supported

To which layer does the State Labor Agency's unemployment benefit belong?

What it gives in the twelve months after the layoff is a share of basic livelihood: food, a place to live, daily expenses; as to whether it is enough, its amount is not recorded. On this face, it lies in the Base Layer. It can also give people time, providing conditions for looking for work, for learning and for trying things; how much room it actually gives must still be examined by amount and situation. On this face, it lies in the Emergence Layer. One and the same sum of money can be read two ways.

This series writes the two layers apart not in order to cut a sum of money in half, but because the two layers make different demands on an institution.

The Base Layer is to be secured. What belongs to the Base Layer does not rise or fall with assets, and is not exchanged for achievement: a person laid off who has not found the next job, who has not finished training in nursing, ought not on that account to have his basic livelihood taken away. Institution Theory places securing basic rights on the side of anti-colonization: "Securing basic rights belongs here; it lies on the side of anti-colonization and is not part of cultivation." (Institution Theory Z15) Nor is the Base Layer the same as basic rights: basic rights are all in this layer, but the layer is thicker; some embedded recognition-based rights are also here, and some of them double as power (the Prequel, §7). The securing of this layer the earlier papers have already written: Springhollow's water is supply at the life-substrate; the sole position of supply there holds the accountability of supply, and the institution that manages it holds the accountability of creating conditions for this supply (Paper 2, E11a); where a construct does the work of the Base Layer, beyond checks the institution must also secure this supply, and this is not limited to sole suppliers (Paper 3, E14a). In the winter when Springhollow's water was cut off, two households with bedridden elderly people had no water; that is the Base Layer.

The Emergence Layer is to be supported. What the Emergence Layer gives is conditions, the content being decided by people themselves. What kind of person someone is to become, what kind of life he is to live, what he takes as happiness, is his own cannot-not; an institution gives conditions, not content. Institution Theory writes this share as: "An institution provides conditions for the cultivation of its internal subjects according to relational thickness; it is concerned with conditions, not with outcomes." (Institution Theory Z23) The word "support" this series keeps for this layer; for the Base Layer it uses "securing."

Keeping the two layers apart has a direct consequence, which this series undertakes here (own undertaking): between the two layers, neither is traded for the other, and neither direction is permitted. In one direction, losses in the Emergence Layer are not traded for securing in the Base Layer: securing in the Base Layer is not conditional on a person's taking some particular road (learning one particular thing, going to one particular place, doing one particular trade); to narrow a person's choice to the extreme in exchange for a floor beneath him is the paternal government (imperium paternale) that Kant opposes (§6; the original speaks of judging, out of benevolence, how people are to be happy on their behalf, leaving them only passive; here it is read as trading narrowed choice for a floor; own undertaking). In the other direction, the absence of securing in the Base Layer is not traded for more choice in the Emergence Layer: neither holding people up nor restricting their choice is hands-off government (own undertaking); without the Base Layer, talk of having a choice is empty (§5). These two are two extremes used to draw the boundary, not labels for any government. Application procedures and the verification of eligibility ask whether the person is within this layer, and are not included here. The first direction is not taken directly from any one upstream sentence; it is read out by putting the demands of the two layers together: the Base Layer is not exchanged for achievement, and the content of the Emergence Layer is decided by people themselves; if a person's basic livelihood is conditional on his taking some particular road, the Base Layer has been traded for a direction in the Emergence Layer. Institution Theory Z27 says that support in the Emergence Layer, too, may not require the other party to take a designated direction of development as his own, nor use conditions to seal off his position for changing direction (§6); the Base Layer goes one step further than this, and attaches not even one particular road.

Whether requirements are attached depends on whether the Base Layer is held up thickly enough. Where an institution holds people up thickly enough, a person who does not go looking for "work" but goes to do what he likes still has his basic livelihood; that is what a thick Base Layer looks like there. This is a balance between the two layers: the Base Layer is not conditional on a person's learning one particular thing, but it cannot be said that it is not conditional on his learning anything at all. Where the holding up is not thick enough, the rule layer may have certain requirements, such as registering as a job seeker, accepting a comparable job, or being in study or in training, with which thing to learn and which trade to take up chosen by the person himself; a person who is in study or in training is within this requirement, and does not lose his share of the Base Layer for not having taken a job. This is a condition the rule layer sets on receiving, and what it asks is whether he is doing something toward his own way onward, looking, working or learning; it does not merely look at whether he has an income now; nor does refusing one arrangement automatically prove that his need for a livelihood is gone. It does not designate which of these he is to do, and is not in itself a condition on where he goes; yet that nothing is designated does not by itself prove that his direction has not been pressed down: where there is only one actually available job at hand, and refusing it means losing all securing, that is deciding for a person where he goes. What counts as comparable, what choices are actually available, and how to proceed where something cannot be done or is disputed, are to be examined separately by conditions, consequences and the review available. This is a balance, not a ratio: it is not that the thinner the holding up, the more may be required; what is feasible and what does not cross the line are examined apart. How to require, and how far, lies at the rule layer; this series only suggests (own undertaking). Conversely, if the Base Layer is held up thickly at the cost of restricting the Emergence Layer, that thickness is a boundary-crossing disguised as cultivation, which is exactly colonization in the narrow sense this series takes (Rights Theory P6 F26); the passage of Kant read in §6 speaks of exactly this kind.

Support in the Emergence Layer may carry content: Institution Theory says that an institution's support "may carry the undertone of its own purposes, and may hope that people develop" (Institution Theory Z27); it can be attached because at this layer, whether to accept is the person's own choice. What is to be examined is whether this choice is really there: what is actually lost by not accepting or by ceasing to accept; whether it touches what the person is already owed; whether, together with other constraints, it cancels the room for refusal and change of direction. If what is lost belongs to the Base Layer, the person has no choice, and the condition has become trading the Base Layer for a restriction in the Emergence Layer, which, by what was said above, is not permitted. That some other payment exists does not by itself certify that the Base Layer has been held up. Paper 2 judged conditional payments by the same way of examining (Paper 2, E12a); the original speaks of the division and combination of non-compete agreements and conditional payments; here it is extended to support across the two layers (own undertaking).

Looked at by these two statements, the two forms of support at Bluekiln fall in two places.

In the state's support, basic livelihood carries no condition on where one goes: applicants for unemployment benefit are not asked where they will go, nor required to take part in any particular item. In the twelve months it gives, this share of the Base Layer is not conditional on where one goes. The town's schools and clinics, staying open as usual, are also in this layer.

The Foundation's support attaches particular content and conditions to the living allowance: entering the park, training on one of three roads, not working for any other porcelain enterprise for three years. The last must first be sorted out. If it is tied only to the living allowance, binding while one takes the allowance and leaving one free to go once one no longer takes it, with what has been paid not clawed back, then its backing is only no longer paying, and it is not a non-compete agreement: a person who has left employment can accept it in exchange for that payment, or decline it; whether it is a real option still depends on the way of examining below. Fork Rights says that a person has the right to choose; whether to choose, and why not, is his own affair (Paper 2, E12a). Only if it still binds a person after he has left, with liquidated damages or the like, does it become a non-compete agreement; on this the program document says nothing, and §6 reads it in two periods. Its term is longer than the state's unemployment benefit; the amounts of the two cannot be compared directly, the state's not being recorded. Whether it really lies only in the Emergence Layer depends, by the way of examining above, on what a person actually loses by not accepting, or by ceasing to accept, this living allowance. At Bluekiln, the facts point this far: those who did not sign up had the state's unemployment benefit to draw for the first twelve months; whether those who signed up and then left can return to the state's support once their allowance stops, and for how long, is not recorded; after twelve months, what the basic livelihood of either group rests on is also not recorded.

These blanks are not for this paper to fill. How the state's support is given, its amount and term, whether those who signed up and then left can draw it again, and what happens after twelve months, are matters for the rule layer; whether Bluekiln was held up this time is a matter for the judgment layer, to be recognized on the state's side by its rules and by each person's circumstances. The record has only the twelve months, and that applicants are not asked where they will go; this paper does not make the finding on the state's behalf. The normative layer says only two things here: the Base Layer must rest somewhere outside the Foundation, and this share lies on the state's side and is not added onto the donor; the Foundation's conditions can be attached so long as refusing them does not lose a person what belongs to the Base Layer. Where a government does well, the Base Layer is naturally thick and held up steadily; reality has to develop, and there are accidents too; the rule layer, in particular circumstances, keeps as close as it can to the criteria here; the normative layer leaves room for it, and the rule layer in turn leaves room for judgment.

The measure of this layer needs one more thing put precisely. The Foundation, as a donor, has no accountability in the first place to provide basic livelihood for those laid off; this series does not add this accountability onto it. Securing in the Base Layer lies on the side of the State Labor Agency: the Theory of Government says that, for the guarantee of basic rights, "What a government gives is backing and enforcement, not the core" (Theory of Government G18); this share of securing in the Base Layer lies likewise on the side that gives backing and enforcement.

Is reading one sum of money two ways, as "holding up a livelihood" and as "giving time," playing with concepts? A person laid off has only one sum of money in hand, and does not sort it by layer; for the one who receives it, the money really is not divided into layers. But for the institution that gives it, the two readings make a practical difference: the face of basic livelihood cannot be used in exchange for which road a person takes, nor used to seal off his position for changing direction, application procedures and the verification of eligibility not being included in this; the face that gives time and roads can be designed, can have courses, can have a term. The two layers are kept apart so that the giving side knows which face can be designed and which face cannot be used in exchange.

What the Base Layer concretely includes is given as examples at the rule layer, and individual cases lie at the judgment layer; at the normative layer this series sets only criteria (Paper 2, E10).

E35 Two layers: the Base Layer is to be secured, the Emergence Layer supported. The Base Layer does not rise or fall with assets, and is not exchanged for achievement; securing basic rights lies on the side of anti-colonization and is not part of cultivation (Institution Theory Z15); the Base Layer is not the same as basic rights: some embedded recognition-based rights are also in it (the Prequel, §7); for a construct that does the work of the Base Layer, the institution secures its supply (Paper 3, E14a). What the Emergence Layer gives is conditions, the content being decided by people themselves; happiness is the subject's own cannot-not; an institution provides conditions for cultivation according to relational thickness, and is concerned with conditions, not with outcomes (Institution Theory Z23). The demands of the two layers are written apart; the two layers matter equally, and neither is traded for the other; neither direction is permitted: losses in the Emergence Layer are not traded for securing in the Base Layer, nor is the absence of securing in the Base Layer traded for more choice in the Emergence Layer (own undertaking). One and the same payment can be read two ways: the face that holds up a livelihood lies in the Base Layer; the face that gives people time and roads lies in the Emergence Layer. Securing in the Base Layer is not conditional on a person's taking some particular road; application procedures and the verification of eligibility ask whether the person is within this layer, and are not included here (own undertaking; Institution Theory Z27 says that support in the Emergence Layer may not require the other party to take a designated direction of development as his own, nor use conditions to seal off his position for changing direction; the Base Layer goes one step further than this). Where the holding up is thick enough, no demand need be attached; where it is not, the rule layer may require people to look for work, to accept comparable work, or to be in study or in training; the Base Layer is not conditional on learning one particular thing or doing one particular trade, and which to learn and which trade to take up people choose themselves; whether such requirements actually form a restriction on where one goes is examined separately by their actual effect. Support in the Emergence Layer may carry content (Institution Theory Z27), because whether to accept it is the person's own choice; a condition attached to a payment that the person may decline is an option: he may accept it in exchange for that payment, or decline it; this is not a non-compete agreement; Fork Rights says that a person has the right to choose (Paper 2, E12a). What is to be examined is whether this choice is really there: what is actually lost by not accepting or by ceasing to accept, whether it touches what the person is already owed, whether together with other constraints it cancels the room for refusal and change of direction; if what is lost belongs to the Base Layer, the Base Layer is being traded for a restriction in the Emergence Layer, and this is not permitted. That some other payment exists does not by itself certify that the Base Layer has been held up (Paper 2, E12a; the original speaks of the division and combination of non-compete agreements and conditional payments; here it is extended to support across the two layers; own undertaking).

§5 The Thickness of Securing Does Not Prove Cultivation

First, a word on "securing" in the title of this section: in this series' usage, it refers only to the Base Layer. Cultivation needs the two layers together: securing in the Base Layer and support in the Emergence Layer; it fails if either is missing. Without the Emergence Layer, people have no choice; without the Base Layer, people must first stay alive, and talk of having a choice is empty. So guarding the Base Layer thickly is only half, and does not prove cultivation; nor does giving thickly in the Emergence Layer give the giver an authorization to decide people's direction. The two faces of this section are these two halves. What is spoken of here is the institution's two tasks concerning conditions, and the account of one may not be settled with the other; the act of securing is not itself renamed cultivation (Institution Theory Z15), nor is any one donor required to carry both layers alone.

The Foundation gives three years, at about ninety percent of former wages; the state gives twelve months of unemployment benefit. By term, the Foundation's support is much longer: three years against twelve months; the amounts cannot be compared directly, the state's not being recorded.

What does giving thickly show?

Institution Theory, speaking of the relation between protection and cultivation, sets a division: "Protection does not wait for the conditions of cultivation, and is not measured by cultivation; protection does not give the construct an authorization to cultivate the protected person." (Institution Theory Z18) That provision originally speaks of an institution's protection, and Institution Theory itself marks a sentence: "This division is extended to the construct (own undertaking)." Here it is extended to an amply given support (own undertaking: the original speaks of protection, here changed to support in the Emergence Layer; the original speaks of not acquiring an authorization to cultivate the protected person, here read as not acquiring an authorization to decide the recipient's direction): giving thickly is a good thing, and this series does not argue for giving less; but thickness in itself does not prove that cultivation has occurred, nor does it give the giver an authorization to decide the recipient's direction.

This provision has two faces, and both must be kept.

One faces the side that gives thickly. Three years of living allowance do not give the Foundation the authority to decide whether these four hundred and twenty people should become designers, e-commerce operators or guides. It can hope that they take these three roads, and can prepare courses for these three roads; giving amply does not change this reading. §6 writes how far its conditions can go.

The other faces the side with the shorter term, and every institution that guards the Base Layer well. An institution may not, on the strength of guarding the Base Layer thickly, declare that its support in the Emergence Layer has been discharged. The state gave unemployment benefit, training subsidies, relocation subsidies and loans, and these are all real; but "the state gave these" does not in itself answer whether these conditions are within reach, and whether the range undertaken is wide enough. §3 has already said that the training courses are three hours from town; if an institution answers "the courses cannot be reached" with the thickness of its Base Layer, it is answering a question about one layer with the thickness of the other. The two layers are kept apart (§4), and so is their thickness.

There is one more thing to guard against: recording sign-ups and attendance as cultivation. Four hundred and twenty people signed up for the Foundation's program; this is a fact, not evidence that cultivation has occurred. Institution Theory says: "Where no elevation has occurred, the name cultivation is not given; cultivation is not recorded as having occurred on the strength of attendance, nor as absent on the strength of dropping out; whether there has been elevation is checked separately." (Institution Theory Z24) By this provision, the four hundred and twenty sign-ups are not recorded as cultivation, nor are the two who left recorded as failure. Those two went to the workshop after leaving; whether they have grown roads of their own in the workshop is to be examined separately, and it is not avowed on their behalf by the Foundation, nor by the workshop.

Giving thickly is always better than giving thinly; ninety percent of wages for three years is real money; this series says on the one hand that it does not argue for giving less, and on the other that thickness proves nothing, as if it had said nothing at all. For a person just laid off, the difference between three years and one is indeed very real. But this section speaks of two different things. Giving thickly is an act for which one can be thanked; giving thickly does not change what the giving side can and cannot require, nor does it change an institution's burden of explanation as to whether its conditions are within reach. The first this series acknowledges as it stands; the second is what this section guards.

Whether a support has in fact helped a person grow a road of his own is something to be examined after the fact; what is looked at in examining it is elevation, not how much was given, and how it is examined lies at the judgment layer.

E36 The thickness of securing does not prove cultivation. Cultivation needs the two layers together: securing in the Base Layer, support in the Emergence Layer; it fails if either is missing; without the Emergence Layer, people have no choice; without the Base Layer, talk of having a choice is empty. So guarding the Base Layer thickly is only half; an institution may not declare, on the strength of guarding the Base Layer thickly, that its support in the Emergence Layer has been discharged. Giving thickly in the Emergence Layer does not give the giver an authorization to decide the recipient's direction either: "Protection does not wait for the conditions of cultivation, and is not measured by cultivation; protection does not give the construct an authorization to cultivate the protected person." (Institution Theory Z18) The original speaks of protection; here it is extended to support in the Emergence Layer, and the word authorization is read as an authorization to decide the recipient's direction (own undertaking). Where no elevation has occurred, the name cultivation is not given; cultivation is not recorded as having occurred on the strength of attendance, nor as absent on the strength of dropping out; whether there has been elevation is examined separately (Institution Theory Z24).

§6 Support May Have Particular Content; It Does Not Acquire the Authority to Decide a Person's Direction

The Foundation's program does not give only money. It has a park, three roads, a course of training, and also a clause: "may not work for any other porcelain enterprise for three years." Of these particular contents, which can support carry, and which go beyond support?

The four hundred and twenty who signed up, and the two who left two months after the courses began, are all under these terms. What is asked is what effect the program's conditions have on a person's position for changing direction; what is in hand is the terms the program document writes down, and the state's unemployment benefit, which attaches no condition on where people go.

Institution Theory has a provision written for exactly this question: "Once a condition carries the demand 'accept this direction of development,' it becomes ghostwriting by an outsider. An institution's support may carry the undertone of its own purposes, and may hope that people develop; it may not require the other party to take a designated direction of development as his own, nor use conditions to seal off his position for changing direction. Particular skills, role tasks and service agreements with a fixed term are checked separately, each by its own source." (Institution Theory Z27)

This provision can be read as three things kept apart. One is expectation: support may carry the undertone of the giver's own purposes, and may hope that people develop toward somewhere. One is requiring a particular action by agreement: learning a skill, taking on a task, keeping to a service with a fixed term; these are examined separately, each by its own source, and are not excluded wholesale. One is requiring the other party to take a designated direction as his own, or using conditions to seal off his position for changing direction: this Institution Theory excludes. Of the three, only the last goes beyond support.

Read the program's terms by these three.

The courses on three roads are particular skills. Design, e-commerce operations and cultural-tourism guiding can be useful abilities; the Foundation's hoping that those laid off take these roads is the first thing, expectation. With only three roads given, the menu is narrow; but a limited menu is not in itself ghostwriting. What is to be asked is whether these three roads are required to be taken as the person's own direction, and whether his position for changing direction has been sealed off.

The program document states that those who leave midway stop receiving the living allowance, and that what has been paid is not clawed back. Those two left two months after the courses began, and went to the workshop. These two things show the text and what those two experienced at the time: the text sets no consequence of clawing back allowance already paid, and those two were able to leave. They do not certify that leaving is affordable for everyone at every stage; whether leaving is only giving up an additional payment must go back to §4 and be examined by actual conditions. The text speaks of this one point, leaving; whether, in the daily round of courses and park over the three years, there are other requirements that people take these three roads as their own direction, the program document does not say, and nothing is recorded. By the division Paper 2 set up, tying an additional payment to a choice, where the direction can still be chosen and going means only not taking that money, is a conditional payment, and the normative layer does not judge it a strict violation (Paper 2, E12a). On which side it falls at Bluekiln, §4 has already written: it depends on the Base Layer resting somewhere else, so that refusing it loses nothing that belongs to the Base Layer; and on this point, the material for the first twelve months is not enough for a full certification either.

The clause "may not work for any other porcelain enterprise for three years" must be looked at in two periods. During the three years of receiving the living allowance, if the consequence of this clause is only that payment stops, with what has been paid not clawed back, the form of what backs it is read in the same way as the clause above, and it is a conditional payment; whether it is really optional is examined separately, by §4. If it still binds a person after he leaves, so that even when he no longer takes the money he may not go to work for other porcelain enterprises, it has become a prohibition on going in a certain direction after leaving, which by Paper 2's reading is a non-compete agreement, and a violation with compensation as without (Paper 2, E12a). The program document does not say whether it applies after leaving; the Foundation has not stated a position on whether those two remain bound. Which side the facts point toward goes only this far: how this clause stands after leaving is first to be answered by the position of the Foundation; if there is a dispute, it is decided by the position that hears the dispute. This paper does not answer for them.

"We are giving them a certain future" is the Foundation's own account. §3 has already said that an arrangement is read by its structure, not by the construct's own account; the word "certain" does not settle the reading: Institution Theory says that relational thickness "is read from the structure, not from the construct's own account" (Institution Theory Z25a); the original speaks of relational thickness; here it is extended to reading the effect of an arrangement (own undertaking).

Here Kant must be brought in. In Part II of On the Common Saying: That May Be Correct in Theory, but It Is of No Use in Practice (1793), where he treats the right of the state, he speaks of a government that aims at the happiness of its subjects and exercises benevolence as a father toward his children. Under such a government the subjects are treated as minor children (the English translation has "immature children"), who "are compelled to behave merely passively, waiting, as to how they ought to be happy, merely upon the judgment of the head of state, and, as to his also willing it, merely upon his kindness" (my translation; sich bloß passiv zu verhalten genöthigt sind, um, wie sie glücklich sein sollen, bloß von dem Urtheile des Staatsoberhaupts und, daß dieser es auch wolle, bloß von seiner Gütigkeit zu erwarten). Kant says that such a government "is the greatest conceivable despotism" (my translation; ist der größte denkbare Despotismus; AA 8:291, lines 1–4, the passage beginning at 8:290, line 33; per the transcription of the Academy edition, tier A). The English translation has "Such a government is the greatest conceivable despotism" (per the abridged translation on constitution.org, which names no translator and states no edition; tier B).

The common question: may a giver who aims at people's happiness and acts from benevolence judge for people how they are to be happy? How far agreement goes: here, neither side lets benevolence make this judgment on people's behalf. Kant leaves happiness to each person to seek for himself; this series says that happiness is the subject's own cannot-not, and that an institution only gives conditions (§4). Institution Theory also says that cultivation is not vouched for by good intentions, design purposes or labels (Institution Theory Z7c).

They part in scope, and this parting must be written out clearly, or Bluekiln will be misread. Kant's passage speaks of the constitution of a kind of government: all the freedom of the subjects is abolished, and they can only wait on the head of state's judgment and kindness, with no other road. The material at hand is not enough to equate the Foundation's program with such a structure: it is one of two forms of support in town; those who did not sign up have the state's unemployment benefit; for those who did, the program document permits leaving midway, with what has been paid not clawed back, and each person's actual room for leaving has not been fully examined. Merely because the Foundation gives training on only three roads, it cannot be judged to be the kind of structure Kant speaks of; nor, conversely, can it be said, for the sake of avoiding this equation, to have already kept all the boundaries. This series' criterion is finer than Kant's passage: Institution Theory Z27 permits support to carry particular content, and excludes only two things: requiring a person to take a designated direction as his own, and sealing off his position for changing direction.

When, then, does it come near Kant's passage? By this series' criterion, when several things appear at once: basic livelihood can come only from this one support, with no other floor; receiving it means taking the road it sets as one's own; and having left, a person is still forbidden to go elsewhere. At Bluekiln, on the first: there is the fact that the state's unemployment benefit is there for the first twelve months, but its amount and each person's actual access to it are not recorded, and whether this suffices for people to keep an affordable room for refusing the Foundation's program, this paper cannot recognize; after twelve months, and whether those who joined and then left can draw the state's benefit again and for how long, are also not recorded. On the second: the program document permits leaving, with what has been paid not clawed back; whether in the three years there are other requirements that people avow the direction is not recorded. The third is not settled: whether that clause still binds a person after he leaves, the program document does not say. The use of Kant's passage in this paper is to mark the far end of that direction, not to put a name on the Foundation.

The scope of this provision needs one more sentence. Institution Theory originally speaks of the support an institution gives those inside it; the Foundation is not the state, nor the government to which those laid off belong; it is a body holding a large accumulation, giving a support with its own money. Here that provision of Institution Theory is extended to support given by bodies holding large accumulations (own undertaking). The extension holds because this series says that oughts are addressed to constructs whatever their size: a body that, with its accumulation, arranges three years of living and training for people actually organizes the lives of those four hundred and twenty in this relation, and so it falls under this provision.

It may be said that the Foundation spends its own money, and whom it gives to and what conditions it attaches are its freedom; to say that it may be "ghostwriting" is to measure a donor by a standard meant for governments. The weight of this objection is that a donor really can decide what to support; the normative layer does not, to begin with, judge conditional payments a strict violation, and the rule layer may permit them or not. But this section has not said that the Foundation may not attach conditions, nor that it must, like the state, not ask where people go. It says only something narrower: attaching conditions is permitted; requiring a person to take a designated road as his own direction is not permitted; sealing off his position for changing direction is not permitted. This line does not move because the money given is one's own; nor does giving amply move it (§5).

Here one thing is left: whether that clause of the New Bluekiln Program applies after leaving was still unsettled in Year 26. This blank is recorded as it stands, and is first to be answered by the position of the Foundation.

E37 Support may have particular content; it does not acquire the authority to decide a person's direction. Following Institution Theory Z27, three things are kept apart: expecting a kind of output is permitted: support "may carry the undertone of its own purposes, and may hope that people develop"; requiring a particular action by agreement is examined by its source: "Particular skills, role tasks and service agreements with a fixed term are checked separately, each by its own source"; requiring the other party to take a designated direction as his own, or using conditions to seal off his position for changing direction, is not permitted: "Once a condition carries the demand 'accept this direction of development,' it becomes ghostwriting by an outsider." Support may have particular skills, tasks and a limited scope; this does not give the provider the authority to require the recipient to take a designated direction of life as his own, or to seal off his changing direction. Agreements with a term are examined by the threshold of exit; what restricts where a person goes after leaving falls under Paper 2, E12a. Giving amply does not change the reading; "a certain future" is the construct's own account, and an arrangement is read by its structure, not by the account (Institution Theory Z25a; the original speaks of relational thickness; here it is extended to reading the effect of an arrangement; own undertaking). The original speaks of the support an institution gives those inside it; here it is extended to support given by bodies holding large accumulations (own undertaking).

§7 Cultivation, Read Two Ways

The workshop outside town was opened by the veteran kiln worker. When he wanted to leave Bluekiln Porcelain Works, his wage advance had not been paid off, and a two-year non-compete clause stood in his way; later an investment body called Elmseed Long-Term Partners put up the money and paid the liquidated damages for him, and the company waived in writing the application of that clause to him. Paper 2 has read this matter (Paper 2, E12, E12a).

Elmseed Long-Term Partners then invested in the workshop: it holds thirty percent of the shares, appoints no directors, and asks only for an account once a quarter; it requires no dividends, and after ten years can sell the shares back to the workshop at an agreed price; if the founder sells the workshop, the partnership has a right of first refusal; the workshop may not take on other investors for three years. Later, when a storm of bad reviews broke on Echo Wall and the workshop was refused a loan, Long-Term Partners lent it a sum at an interest rate below that of the microlenders. The partnership's annual report for Year 24 states an annualized return of four percent, "lower than Elmseed Buyout Fund." Another arm of the same Elmseed Capital, Elmseed Buyout Fund, acquired Southwindow Care Homes some years earlier.

In Year 25 the workshop employed twenty-two people, nine of whom had been laid off by Bluekiln Porcelain Works that year. The workshop pays its apprentices wages. The workshop's apprenticeship contract states: "For two years after completing the apprenticeship, the apprentice may not open a kiln in Bluekiln."

What this section asks is how the word "cultivation" is used here. Who is cultivating whom? Is Long-Term Partners cultivating the veteran kiln worker? Is the workshop cultivating those nine and its apprentices? Can an institution require them to cultivate?

This series reads cultivation in two places: on the side of the institution, and on the side of the person.

On the side of the institution, cultivation is a burden of providing conditions, carrying three qualifications. Institution Theory says: "To carry the criterion of cultivation over from another's questioning to an institution's provision of conditions, three things must come with it: refusal and change of direction are preserved; cultivation is named by the elevation actually achieved, with the elevation specified as landing in the person's own law or in the public space of rights; it is not vouched for by good intentions, design purposes or labels." (Institution Theory Z7c) A construct that has undertaken to provide conditions for people must keep these three: people can refuse and can change direction; to say that it has cultivated someone, one must look at what that person has actually been raised up by; one may not, because the construct means well, because the plan was designed for people, or because its name has the word "assistance" in it, record that cultivation has occurred.

On the side of the person, cultivation is a person's own posture, coming from his own law. Whether a person who holds accumulation is willing to use it to open roads for others is his own affair; an institution does not set up this law in his place. Institution Theory separates these two places at its very normative root: the step from a person's standing as an end to demands on a construct is one it undertakes at the construct; "The step at the person this series leaves alone and hands to the Critiques; neither stands in for the other." (Institution Theory Z2)

Reading the two places apart has three consequences.

First, an institution cannot avow a person's cultivation posture on his behalf, nor obtain this inner avowal by compulsion; what it can do is keep people from being colonized, and give conditions. The burden of guarding the line and providing conditions that a construct holding and mobilizing accumulation undertakes in its relations is examined by this series' corresponding norms, and is not in this sentence. Long-Term Partners' investment in the workshop can be one form of cultivation on the investor's side (Paper 5, E26); investing comes from the investor himself, not by an institution's command. But "can be" is not "already is": long terms, low returns, not appointing directors, none of these alone proves that it has actually become cultivation here; whether it actually has become cultivation is examined separately, by the effect of this relation. What effect the clause barring other investors for three years and the clause on the right of first refusal have on the workshop's road is likewise examined by their own effects (Paper 5).

Second, actual effect and the person's own avowal do not vouch for each other. Long-Term Partners says that its return is "lower than Elmseed Buyout Fund"; this is its own account, and does not prove cultivation; if the veteran kiln worker says "without them I could not have got out," that is his own avowal, and does not testify to the structure of this relation either. Conversely, a relation that has actually raised a person up does not require the person concerned to avow it as cultivation. The two are each examined on their own.

Third, a body's burden of providing conditions is not withdrawn because the person in charge of it says "cultivation can come only from myself." On the side of the person this sentence is right: a person's cultivation posture can indeed come only from himself. But a construct's burden of providing conditions is not the personal intention of the person in charge: it is set by how far this construct actually organizes people's lives in this relation (Institution Theory Z25, Z25a), and is not only the few things it has promised; promising to pay apprentices wages, for example, or promising to leave people a position for refusal and change of direction, and the like, are the visible few among them. When the person in charge changes his mind, this share of the construct does not vanish with it. The sentence on the side of the person cannot be used to withdraw the responsibility on the side of the construct.

There is one more thing: judge the operation, not the person. The workshop opened a road for nine people laid off, and pays its apprentices wages; the same workshop's apprenticeship contract states that for two years after completing the apprenticeship the apprentice may not open a kiln in Bluekiln, and by Paper 2's reading that clause is a non-compete agreement, a violation (Paper 2, E12a). Of the same Elmseed Capital, one arm invested in the workshop with long-term, low-return money, while another changed the configuration of care at Southwindow through a leveraged buyout (Paper 5). One and the same holder of power can open a road in one place and hold others' road in another. This series gives no overall verdict on the workshop, on the veteran kiln worker, or on Elmseed; each act is examined by its own grounds. That the veteran kiln worker was once held back by a non-compete clause does not, as a matter of course, make the apprenticeship clause he wrote cross the line, nor make it reasonable; that clause is read by its own structure.

Since cultivation can come only from a person himself, is an institution's speaking of a "burden of providing conditions" overstepping, doing for people what should come from them? What this question guards is exactly the point this series cares about most: a person's own law is not ghostwritten by others. But cultivation on the side of the institution does not mean the institution cultivating people; it means the institution providing conditions and leaving positions for refusal and change of direction. The two readings are kept apart precisely so that the institution's side does not overstep into the person's side, and so that a sentence on the person's side does not exempt the institution's side from its responsibility.

What effect the clause barring the workshop from taking on other investors for three years has on the workshop's road from then on, this section does not judge; it is examined separately by the reading of Paper 5.

E38 Cultivation, read two ways. What an institution undertakes is guarding the line, and providing usable conditions according to the relation; carrying the criterion of cultivation over to an institution's provision of conditions brings three things with it: refusal and change of direction are preserved; cultivation is named by the elevation actually achieved; it is not vouched for by good intentions, design purposes or labels (Institution Theory Z7c). A person's own cultivation posture comes from his own law and is not set up by an institution in his place; the step at the person Institution Theory hands to the Critiques (Institution Theory Z2). Actual effect and the person's own avowal do not vouch for each other. A body's burden of providing conditions, as a construct, is set by relational thickness, is not only the few things it has promised, and is not withdrawn because the person in charge says "cultivation can come only from myself" (Institution Theory Z25, Z25a). An institution cannot avow a natural person's cultivation posture on his behalf, nor obtain this avowal by compulsion; what it can do is keep people from being colonized, and give conditions; investment can be one form of cultivation on the side of the holder of power (Paper 5, E26), and whether it actually becomes cultivation is examined separately. One and the same holder of power can open a road in one place and hold others' road in another: judge the operation, not the person.

§8 Closing

This series set out from one question: how what people accumulate in the Emergence Layer, capital, fame, status, qualifications, becomes power acting on others within others' decisions; and what direction an institution takes toward it.

Written all the way through, the direction comes to one sentence: not to aim at reducing it, but to check how it is used. Accumulation itself is not the problem; how it is used is (Paper 1). Where accumulation becomes a chokepoint that others cannot get around, exit must be real, supply at the life-substrate must be borne by someone, and where people go cannot be sealed off by contract (Paper 2). Where a position grows so large that many cannot get around it, checks increase with its power-face; where a construct does the work of the Base Layer, beyond checks there must also be securing; those who check are themselves questioned (Paper 3). Where accumulation is changed into another kind of effect, gates must be set at two places: it is not converted into domination over people's Base Layer, nor into control over questioning (Paper 4). Accumulation grows of itself, and growth is not the problem; growth within the line is subject to checks; returns placed in the position of the sole goal are a signal to be examined; a control arrangement must keep a road for revising it, and does not become final (Paper 5). This paper writes the positive side: an institution gives conditions, does not manufacture emergence, and does not decide people's direction for them.

Taken together, these point in one direction. Institution Theory calls this direction the Kingdom of Ends, and makes clear what it is and what it is not: "The Kingdom of Ends is a direction; it is not an ought, nor a state to be signed off as achieved." It "is made by persons; an institution cannot make it on their behalf, nor does it count as made because an institution declares it" (Institution Theory Z39). So too in the economy. No set of checks and no support can make a market into the Kingdom of Ends; nor can any body declare that its market already is one.

An economy does not become a good person by being subject to checks. It has no first person; it does not repent, nor does it give thanks. What checks give is places, one by one, where questions can be asked: a notice cutting off water can be questioned; a non-compete clause can be questioned; a ranking rule, a rating, a vote, a door of admission can all be questioned. What support gives is conditions, one by one, within reach: a year's livelihood, a course, a move, a loan. Where people go from there is their own affair.

Of where the nine hundred of Bluekiln are by Year 26, this series knows only a few things: four hundred and twenty signed up for the Foundation's program, two left and went to the workshop, one woman works night shifts at Southwindow. Of the rest, nothing is recorded here. This series does not write their endings for them. All it can say is: of the roads before them, which ones an institution should widen, which ones no one should block, and which ones are theirs to walk.

So the main line of this series is this sentence:

Toward accumulated power, an institution does not aim at reducing it, but checks how it is used: it holds to anti-colonization and strives for cultivation; accumulation is not converted into domination over people's Base Layer, nor into control over questioning; the arrangements that check it are themselves open to questioning.

The last half-sentence Paper 3 has already unfolded, where those who check are themselves questioned: checking is also an act of a construct, and its investigations, its proposals to break up, its rulings, likewise must be open to questioning and correction by someone. This sentence is placed at the end because what it guards against is an error this series itself might make: a series whose business is checks most easily forgets that those who check also have accumulation, also have a power-face, and may also want to shut others' doors.

E39 Closing. The direction is the Kingdom of Ends: "The Kingdom of Ends is a direction; it is not an ought, nor a state to be signed off as achieved"; it is made by persons, and "an institution cannot make it on their behalf, nor does it count as made because an institution declares it" (Institution Theory Z39). An economy does not become a good person by being subject to checks; it has no first person; what checks give is places, one by one, where questions can be asked; what support gives is conditions, one by one, within reach. The main line of this series: toward accumulated power, an institution does not aim at reducing it, but checks how it is used: it holds to anti-colonization and strives for cultivation; accumulation is not converted into domination over people's Base Layer, nor into control over questioning; the arrangements that check it are themselves open to questioning.

Where This Paper Stops

This paper has proved these things. In markets that meet three premises, 15DD emergence is a structural inevitability; this series takes up only the inevitability of emergence; falling back is possible, the direction does not change, and the direction is not a timetable (E32). Inevitable emergence is not paid for by the people of the present; the cell in which physical safety, basic livelihood or the exit channel is actually suppressed cannot wait, and the trigger needs traces of the operation that can be verified (E33). An institution gives general conditions that do not designate content, and the conditions must be within reach; it does not manufacture emergence (E34). The Base Layer is to be secured and the Emergence Layer supported, and the two layers matter equally; neither direction is traded: securing in the Base Layer is not obtained in exchange for restrictions in the Emergence Layer, and is not conditional on a person's taking some particular road, nor may the Base Layer go without securing in exchange for more choice in the Emergence Layer; support in the Emergence Layer may carry content, a condition the person may decline is an option, not a non-compete agreement, and what is lost by refusing it is to be examined; where the holding up is thick enough, no demand need be attached, and where it is not, the rule layer may require people to look for work, to accept comparable work, or to be in study or in training, with which thing to learn and which trade to take up chosen by people themselves (E35). Cultivation needs the two layers together and fails if either is missing, so the thickness of securing does not prove cultivation; nor does giving thickly give the giver an authorization to decide people's direction (E36). Support may have particular content; it may not require people to take a designated direction as their own, nor seal off their position for changing direction (E37). Cultivation on the side of the institution is a burden of providing conditions, and on the side of the person it comes from his own law; neither stands in for the other (E38). The whole series closes on the direction of the Kingdom of Ends and one main-line sentence (E39).

What it has not proved: the timetable of emergence, which industries come first and which later; the effectiveness of any particular subsidy or program; an "economics of cultivation"; who funds support, how much, and in what way. These lie at the rule layer and the judgment layer, or among the Economics series' own open remainders.

This paper is also the last paper of the main text of the whole series. Taken together, the seven papers do one thing: they give accumulated power a direction at the normative layer, pointing out where checks fall, where gates are set and where support is given, and whether each falls at the normative layer, the rule layer or the judgment layer. For the particular arrangements of the rule layer, this series gives only criteria and suggestions, and hands them to a theory of the firm, a theory of the university and other specific theories of institutions; concentrated interfacing with the tradition, and the registration of the accounts handed down from the upstream and of remainders, are handed to Paper 0.

Remainders left: the amount of the state's unemployment benefit, whether those who signed up and then left can draw it again, and what happens after twelve months are not recorded, and lie at the rule layer and the judgment layer; whether, in the three years of the New Bluekiln Program, there are other requirements that people avow the direction is not recorded; whether the New Bluekiln Program's clause "may not work for any other porcelain enterprise for three years" applies after leaving, the program document does not say, and the Foundation has not stated a position; with the state's training courses three hours from town, how these conditions can be brought within reach of those they do not now reach; why fewer than fifteen percent signed up for training is not recorded, and there is more than one possible cause; the one case of that woman does not prove that either form of support succeeded across the town; where the rest of the nine hundred each are is not known. All these are recorded as they stand, and each has where it goes.

The Eight Propositions of This Paper

E32 Structural inevitability, with premises; falling back is possible, the direction does not change. In markets that meet three premises, 15DD emergence is a structural inevitability (Economics P5). The three premises follow the original sentences: markets with nonzero exit freedom exist — participants can choose cooperation partners and exit at least some relationships; some participants have baselines — "this is not for sale"; baseline collisions will occur. This series takes up only the inevitability of emergence, not the inevitability of dominance. Falling back is possible: falling back speaks of the falling back of emergence in the market; it is recognized by what has happened, and fixes the identity of no person, no body and no generation (the same form as the Theory of the State companion study The Reverse Phase Transition, N41; the original speaks of a state's systemic purpose moving backward; here it is extended to emergence in the market; own undertaking). That the direction does not change is not a timetable: "There is a direction, the endpoint is open, and there is no historical guarantee" (Institution Theory Z39). This series' normative direction does not change; it gives no guarantee of trend for any stretch of empirical history, and does not rely on "inevitable collapse."

E33 The people of the present are not asked to wait. Inevitable emergence is not paid for by the people of the present. On the side of institutions, present harm cannot wait: that the acts cross no line is held to in full and is not discounted under any condition (Institution Theory Z9); the trigger of protection does not wait for the other party's tier or maturity, nor for the violating party's good will, but there must be traces of the operation that can be raised and verified, and the traces speak of operations, not of persons; in the cell where physical safety, basic livelihood or the exit channel is actually suppressed, that cell cannot wait (Institution Theory Z20). Of macroscopic waiting only half is taken: "Macroscopic waiting at the institutional-architectural level requires that 15DD not overthrow 14DD by 'establishing tyranny'" (Moral Law P9 §2.7); the subject term of the original sentence is 15DD; here it is changed to institutions not forcing the phase transition (own undertaking); the microscopic half speaks of how persons operate in concrete encounter, and this series writes no ought for it. The cost asymmetry of Economics P6 carries its own field conditions (high information density, high observability, nonzero exit freedom), and is not extended into a macroscopic guarantee for every economic field. The two grounds of checks stand together: present harm cannot wait; the premise of emergence is guarded (Paper 2, E13).

E34 Institutions give conditions; they do not manufacture emergence. "Institutions change ecological conditions — the phase transition itself is spontaneous emergence." (Economics P4 §5) Institutions give general conditions that do not designate content; lists of this kind, such as time, learning, mobility, access to credit and basic livelihood, are examples at the rule layer. "Genuine rising proceeds from the inside out; the outside can recognize it and can support it, but cannot manufacture it." (War Treatise §13, Gate Three; the original speaks of the rising of the oppressed within another state; here it is extended to people's emergence in the economy; own undertaking) Institutions are concerned with conditions, not with outcomes (Institution Theory Z23). Conditions must be within reach: read as the same form as "Protection on paper is not securing" (Institution Theory Z17), conditions out of reach do not count as already given (own undertaking). Whether the burden of providing conditions has been discharged is seen from which conditions were provided, whether they are within reach, and how wide a range was undertaken; outcomes can serve as clues for examining the conditions, not as direct verdicts of success or failure (Institution Theory Z24). An arrangement is read by its structure, not by the construct's own account (Institution Theory Z25a; the original says that relational thickness is read from the structure; here it is extended to reading an arrangement; own undertaking).

E35 Two layers: the Base Layer is to be secured, the Emergence Layer supported. The Base Layer does not rise or fall with assets, and is not exchanged for achievement; securing basic rights lies on the side of anti-colonization and is not part of cultivation (Institution Theory Z15); the Base Layer is not the same as basic rights: some embedded recognition-based rights are also in it (the Prequel, §7); for a construct that does the work of the Base Layer, the institution secures its supply (Paper 3, E14a). What the Emergence Layer gives is conditions, the content being decided by people themselves; happiness is the subject's own cannot-not; an institution provides conditions for cultivation according to relational thickness, and is concerned with conditions, not with outcomes (Institution Theory Z23). The demands of the two layers are written apart; the two layers matter equally, and neither is traded for the other; neither direction is permitted: losses in the Emergence Layer are not traded for securing in the Base Layer, nor is the absence of securing in the Base Layer traded for more choice in the Emergence Layer (own undertaking). One and the same payment can be read two ways: the face that holds up a livelihood lies in the Base Layer; the face that gives people time and roads lies in the Emergence Layer. Securing in the Base Layer is not conditional on a person's taking some particular road; application procedures and the verification of eligibility ask whether the person is within this layer, and are not included here (own undertaking; Institution Theory Z27 says that support in the Emergence Layer may not require the other party to take a designated direction of development as his own, nor use conditions to seal off his position for changing direction; the Base Layer goes one step further than this). Where the holding up is thick enough, no demand need be attached; where it is not, the rule layer may require people to look for work, to accept comparable work, or to be in study or in training; the Base Layer is not conditional on learning one particular thing or doing one particular trade, and which to learn and which trade to take up people choose themselves; whether such requirements actually form a restriction on where one goes is examined separately by their actual effect. Support in the Emergence Layer may carry content (Institution Theory Z27), because whether to accept it is the person's own choice; a condition attached to a payment that the person may decline is an option: he may accept it in exchange for that payment, or decline it; this is not a non-compete agreement; Fork Rights says that a person has the right to choose (Paper 2, E12a). What is to be examined is whether this choice is really there: what is actually lost by not accepting or by ceasing to accept, whether it touches what the person is already owed, whether together with other constraints it cancels the room for refusal and change of direction; if what is lost belongs to the Base Layer, the Base Layer is being traded for a restriction in the Emergence Layer, and this is not permitted. That some other payment exists does not by itself certify that the Base Layer has been held up (Paper 2, E12a; the original speaks of the division and combination of non-compete agreements and conditional payments; here it is extended to support across the two layers; own undertaking).

E36 The thickness of securing does not prove cultivation. Cultivation needs the two layers together: securing in the Base Layer, support in the Emergence Layer; it fails if either is missing; without the Emergence Layer, people have no choice; without the Base Layer, talk of having a choice is empty. So guarding the Base Layer thickly is only half; an institution may not declare, on the strength of guarding the Base Layer thickly, that its support in the Emergence Layer has been discharged. Giving thickly in the Emergence Layer does not give the giver an authorization to decide the recipient's direction either: "Protection does not wait for the conditions of cultivation, and is not measured by cultivation; protection does not give the construct an authorization to cultivate the protected person." (Institution Theory Z18) The original speaks of protection; here it is extended to support in the Emergence Layer, and the word authorization is read as an authorization to decide the recipient's direction (own undertaking). Where no elevation has occurred, the name cultivation is not given; cultivation is not recorded as having occurred on the strength of attendance, nor as absent on the strength of dropping out; whether there has been elevation is examined separately (Institution Theory Z24).

E37 Support may have particular content; it does not acquire the authority to decide a person's direction. Following Institution Theory Z27, three things are kept apart: expecting a kind of output is permitted: support "may carry the undertone of its own purposes, and may hope that people develop"; requiring a particular action by agreement is examined by its source: "Particular skills, role tasks and service agreements with a fixed term are checked separately, each by its own source"; requiring the other party to take a designated direction as his own, or using conditions to seal off his position for changing direction, is not permitted: "Once a condition carries the demand 'accept this direction of development,' it becomes ghostwriting by an outsider." Support may have particular skills, tasks and a limited scope; this does not give the provider the authority to require the recipient to take a designated direction of life as his own, or to seal off his changing direction. Agreements with a term are examined by the threshold of exit; what restricts where a person goes after leaving falls under Paper 2, E12a. Giving amply does not change the reading; "a certain future" is the construct's own account, and an arrangement is read by its structure, not by the account (Institution Theory Z25a; the original speaks of relational thickness; here it is extended to reading the effect of an arrangement; own undertaking). The original speaks of the support an institution gives those inside it; here it is extended to support given by bodies holding large accumulations (own undertaking).

E38 Cultivation, read two ways. What an institution undertakes is guarding the line, and providing usable conditions according to the relation; carrying the criterion of cultivation over to an institution's provision of conditions brings three things with it: refusal and change of direction are preserved; cultivation is named by the elevation actually achieved; it is not vouched for by good intentions, design purposes or labels (Institution Theory Z7c). A person's own cultivation posture comes from his own law and is not set up by an institution in his place; the step at the person Institution Theory hands to the Critiques (Institution Theory Z2). Actual effect and the person's own avowal do not vouch for each other. A body's burden of providing conditions, as a construct, is set by relational thickness, is not only the few things it has promised, and is not withdrawn because the person in charge says "cultivation can come only from myself" (Institution Theory Z25, Z25a). An institution cannot avow a natural person's cultivation posture on his behalf, nor obtain this avowal by compulsion; what it can do is keep people from being colonized, and give conditions; investment can be one form of cultivation on the side of the holder of power (Paper 5, E26), and whether it actually becomes cultivation is examined separately. One and the same holder of power can open a road in one place and hold others' road in another: judge the operation, not the person.

E39 Closing. The direction is the Kingdom of Ends: "The Kingdom of Ends is a direction; it is not an ought, nor a state to be signed off as achieved"; it is made by persons, and "an institution cannot make it on their behalf, nor does it count as made because an institution declares it" (Institution Theory Z39). An economy does not become a good person by being subject to checks; it has no first person; what checks give is places, one by one, where questions can be asked; what support gives is conditions, one by one, within reach. The main line of this series: toward accumulated power, an institution does not aim at reducing it, but checks how it is used: it holds to anti-colonization and strives for cultivation; accumulation is not converted into domination over people's Base Layer, nor into control over questioning; the arrangements that check it are themselves open to questioning.

References

All SAE works below are cited by concept DOI, which always resolves to the latest version. The version records used for sentence-by-sentence verification are given in the accompanying audit table.

I · This system

Qin, H. (2026). To Whom the Ought Is Addressed (SAE Institution Theory, Paper 1) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23269635

Qin, H. (2026). Not Crossing the Line (SAE Institution Theory, Paper 2) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23270384

Qin, H. (2026). Guarding the Line (SAE Institution Theory, Paper 3) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23270766

Qin, H. (2026). Conditions (SAE Institution Theory, Paper 4) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23270922

Qin, H. (2026). Open to Questioning (SAE Institution Theory, Paper 6) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23271324

Qin, H. (2026). Institution Theory and the Tradition: The Address of the Ought (SAE Institution Theory, Paper 0) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23272468

Qin, H. (2026). Guarantee (SAE Theory of Government, Paper 3) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23413112

Qin, H. (2026). On the Cultivation and Diachronic Unfolding of Rights (SAE Rights Theory, Paper 6) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21252863

Qin, H. (2026). The Reverse Phase Transition (SAE Theory of the State, Companion Study) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23779070

Qin, H. (2026). SAE War Treatise: How Cultivation Is Not Swallowed by War Itself [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19656617

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

Qin, H. (2026). The Phase-Transition Window of the Free Market: The Homologous Skeleton of ZFCρ and SAE Economics (SAE Economics, Paper 4) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19393913

Qin, H. (2026). The Structural Inevitability of 15DD Emergence in Free Markets: From Baseline Collisions to Perceptual Leap (SAE Economics, Paper 5) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19394738

Qin, H. (2026). Kingdom of Ends vs Kingdom of Means: Phase-Transition Acceleration in the Age of AI (SAE Economics, Paper 6) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19396633

II · External works (originals, tier A)

Kant, I. (1923). Über den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht für die Praxis (1793). In Kant's gesammelte Schriften, ed. Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. VIII, pp. 273–313. Berlin: de Gruyter. Pages cited: AA 8:290–291, per the Korpora transcription of the Academy edition: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa08/291.html

III · External works (tier B)

Kant, I. Theory and Practice (abridged translation; translator not named, edition not stated). Constitution Society online text: https://constitution.org/2-Authors/kant/rtppr.htm (source of the English translation quoted; the page heading gives the year 1792; the year of the work follows the Academy edition, 1793)

Hayek, F. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530. Per the Library of Economics and Liberty online text: https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw.html (quoted sentences confirmed; page not confirmed)

Interfaces

Main upstream: Institution Theory Z9, Z20 (present harm cannot wait); Z23, Z24, Z25a, Z27 (conditions, reach and direction); Z15, Z18 (securing kept apart from cultivation); Z2, Z7c (cultivation read two ways); Z39 (closing); Economics P5 (the three premises and structural inevitability).

Also used: Economics P4 §5; Economics P6 §7.3 (field conditions); Moral Law P9 §2.7 (only the macroscopic half-sentence, with the subject changed; own undertaking); War Treatise §13, Gate Three (extended to people's emergence in the economy; own undertaking); the Theory of the State companion study The Reverse Phase Transition (falling back, as the same form; own undertaking); Institution Theory Z17 (read as the same form; own undertaking); Institution Theory Z25a (extended to reading an arrangement; own undertaking); Institution Theory Z18 (extended to support in the Emergence Layer; own undertaking); Institution Theory Z25 (the burden of providing conditions follows relational thickness).

Interfacing: Hayek, "The Use of Knowledge in Society" (in §3; tier B, per the Library of Economics and Liberty online text); Kant, On the Common Saying: That May Be Correct in Theory, but It Is of No Use in Practice, Part II (in §6; the German tier A, per the transcription of the Academy edition; the English translation tier B, per the abridged translation on constitution.org). The capability approach (tier C, on the same basis as Institution Theory Paper 0) has been interfaced with in Institution Theory Paper 0, §5.1; this paper does not redo it.

This series: the Prequel (constructs are subject to oughts whatever their size; the two layers, and the Base Layer not being the same as basic rights; the three layers); Paper 2, E10, E11, E11a, E12, E12a, E13; Paper 3, E14a and the section on those who check being questioned; Paper 5, E26.

Handed to Paper 0: concentrated interfacing with the tradition; the accounts handed in from the upstream and the matters handed downstream; the registration of remainders.

写作声明：本文与 Claude（Anthropic）共同起草，所有思想决策、框架设计和最终编辑判断由作者做出。

引言

第 25 年春，青窑瓷业（Bluekiln Porcelain Works）关了两条窑线，裁员九百人。

青窑镇（Bluekiln）在王国州（the Kingdom State）西部的山地里，约八千人，制瓷两百多年。青窑瓷业是镇上最大的雇主，它雇的人约占全镇适龄劳动人口的七成。公司说，外地的低价瓷抢走了市场；苹果城（Apple City）通衢集团（Crossways Group）的自营品牌"通衢家用"，瓷器也改从外地进货了。

裁员以后，被裁的人面前摆着两份支持。

一份是州劳动厅的。失业金十二个月；任选一项职业培训，州补贴学费；迁居的，有迁居补贴；想自己做点什么的，可以申请一笔小额创业贷款，州担保一半。申领不问去向，也不要求参加哪一项。州的培训课多开在苹果城，从镇上去，单程三小时。镇上被裁的人里，报培训的不到一成五。

另一份是乔氏基金会（the Qiao Foundation）的，叫"新青窑计划"。乔氏基金会是通衢创办人一家的捐赠机构。计划给被裁的人三年全额的生活费，约为原工资的九成。条件是：进入基金会在镇外新建的"青窑设计园"，在基金会定的三条路里选一条受训，设计、电商运营或文旅讲解；三年内不得为其他瓷器企业工作。报名的有四百二十人。

州政府的发言人说："州不替谁选路，只把路修宽。"基金会的计划说明写："我们给他们一个确定的未来。"

镇外有一座窑坊，是一位老窑工离开青窑瓷业以后，第 23 年开起来的。窑坊招了被裁的九个人。九人里有两人报过新青窑计划，开课两个月后退出。计划书写：中途退出的，停发生活费，已发的不追回；"三年内不得为其他瓷器企业工作"一条自领取生活费之日起算，退出以后是否仍然适用，计划书没有写。基金会对这两人是否仍受那一条约束，没有表态。

还有一位被裁的女工，没有报基金会的计划。她领州的失业金与培训补贴，到苹果城学了护理，第 26 年在南窗养老院（Southwindow Care Homes）值夜班。镇上的学校、诊所，照常开着。

州劳动厅的这几项安排，基金会的计划书与它的条款，都是这个系列设的例子；本篇引到它们，只作事实，不主张它们是最好的设计。

两份支持摆在一起，问题就出来了。哪一份给的是条件，哪一份给的是方向？给得很足的那一份，在哪里停下？州给了失业金、培训与贷款，是不是就把该给的给尽了？培训课离镇三小时，这一份条件够得着谁？

这些问题背后还有一个更大的问题。前五篇写的大多是制衡：不让积累成为别人绕不过去的门，不让它兑换成对人的基础层的支配，不让它兑换成对追问的控制。制衡说完了，制度对人在经济里的涌现，正面要给什么？如果人的涌现不需要谁来给，制度守住线就够了；如果它要制度来造，制度就得替人做许多事。这一篇在这两头之间找位置。

这一篇分八步。先问涌现是不是必然、必然到什么程度（第一节）；再问必然的涌现，此刻的人要不要等（第二节）。然后回到青窑镇的两份支持：制度给的是条件，不制造涌现（第三节）；基础层要保障，涌现层要支持（第四节）；保障之厚不证明涵育（第五节）；支持可以有具体的内容，不取得替人定方向的权限（第六节）。第七节分开涵育的两种读法：在制度一侧，在人一侧。第八节收束全系列。

读法照前置篇：构用应当，位置用职责，人用自己的法。本篇对州劳动厅、乔氏基金会、老窑工的窑坊这些构写应当；对被裁的九百人、退出的两人、那位女工，不写应当，他们怎样走，各在他们自己的法里。规范层、规则层、判断层的分法也照前置篇，本篇只在用到的地方说明哪一句落在哪一层。15DD、14DD 这些词，本篇只在理论的段落里用，说的是方向与机制，不用来说任何一个现实的人或机构。

第一节　结构性必然，有前提

讲支持之前，先要问支持是给什么的。

本系列的经济学上游有一个很强的结论。经济学第五篇说：「在满足三条前提的市场中，15DD涌现是结构性必然。」（经济学第五篇，主结论 A）它所说的 15DD，是「"感知对方是独立目的主体"的认知操作」：一个人在交易与合作里，把对面的人感知为有他自己的目的的主体，而不只是一件可以使用的东西。那一篇的论证不依赖这个系列的哲学前提，只用经济学自己承认的三条：

「三条经济学前提：（1）存在非零退出自由度的市场——参与者至少在部分关系中可选择合作对象并退出。（2）部分参与者有底线——"这个不卖"……（3）底线碰撞会发生——在存在退出自由度的市场的重复互动中，不同参与者的底线必然冲突。」（经济学第五篇 §1–§2）

在这三条之下，有底线的人在重复的交易里一次次撞上别人的底线；撞多了，把对方当作有自己目的的人来感知，成了在竞争里站得住的一种能力。这种感知不是谁教出来的，也不是制度造出来的；那一篇的话是，它「不是天生的、不是偶然的、不是制度制造的」。

这一结论进入本系列，要带着几处限定。

第一，它有前提，前提要照原句带上。前提一要的是"非零"的退出自由度，而且原句写的是「至少在部分关系中」：不要求一切关系都可退出，只要求有一部分关系里，人可以选择跟谁合作，也可以走。这一条不是空话。第二篇写过，关系一级守的不只是此刻的那个人，也是这一条前提（第二篇 E13）：一个镇上适龄劳动人口的七成在同一家公司做工，镇上四成的住房属于它，工资的两成以只能在它的商店与食堂用的券发放，预支锁着离职，竞业锁着去向，那里的退出被压得很窄。原文对这样的压缩有它自己的读法：权力锁定「压缩退出自由度和碰撞方向——极端情况违反前提一」，在三条前提之下，它「可以延缓这个过程，但在上述条件下无法阻止」（经济学第五篇）。退出被压窄，不是零；照原句，必然仍在，只是被延缓。延缓的那段时间落在谁身上，是下一节要问的：此刻的那个人。

第二，只承涌现的必然，不承主导的必然。三条前提之下必然出现的，是这种感知在一部分参与者身上涌现出来；那一篇自己把更进一步的阶段结构另列为一项加强的结论，由 SAE 的框架提供，不从经济学先验单独推出。本系列只取前一半。15DD 在市场里出现，不等于它会主导市场；出现了的东西也不保证留下来。

第三，回落是可能的。前提可以被压缩，已经出现的也可以退回。国家论在一国一级写过往回滑的动态，那里说这一过程「按施为认，是一段窗口，不是一个时点，不给一国定身份」（国家论专论《逆相变》）。原说一国这一构的系统目的往回移动，这里推到市场里涌现的回落（自担）：回落也按发生了什么认，看的是前提怎样被压缩、哪些关系里退出没有了、底线怎样被买走；它不给任何一个人、任何一家公司、任何一代人定身份。一家公司换了掌权的人，几项安排收了回去，那是那几项安排的事，各照各的根据核；它不是"市场里的涌现回落了"的例子，更不是对谁的读数。

第四，方向不变，不等于有时间表。制度论说目的王国：「方向有，终点开放，没有历史的保证」（制度论 Z39）。本系列的规范方向不变：对积累起来的权力，坚持反殖民，争取涵育。这是本系列自己定的朝向，不是对某一段经验历史的预言。它不说到了哪一年市场会变成什么样子，也不说眼前的趋势一定往那里去。

第五，不倚靠"必然崩溃"。本系列不论证偏 14DD 的那一种经济组织必然自己垮掉，也不把制衡的理由放在这样一个预言上。即使它永远不垮，制衡的理由也不变；这一点下一节说。

为什么要在讲支持之前先把这几处限定写清？因为它决定了支持的位置。若涌现在前提满足时会自己来，制度要做的就不是把它造出来，而是两件事：守住前提，给条件。守住前提，是前五篇的制衡；给条件，是这一篇。若有人把"必然"读成"不必做什么"，下一节回答他；若有人把"必然"读成"制度可以按图把它造出来"，第三节回答他。

有人会说，"结构性必然"这个说法太强，它把一种出现在部分人身上的感知，说成了历史的方向，像是一台有目标的机器。这一说的分量在于，"必然"一词确实容易被用来替眼前的事开脱，或者替未来作保。可是这里的"必然"是一条条件句：三条前提满足，涌现就会出现。它不说前提总会满足，不说出现了的会主导，也不说它在哪一年出现。条件句的强，在于它指出了要守的是什么：前提一被压到零的地方，必然就不在了；被压窄的地方，它被延缓。

涌现在哪些行业先出现、在哪些后出现、多快，本系列不答；经济学第六篇把这一问留作它自己的开放余项（经济学第六篇 §7.3）。

E32　结构性必然，有前提；回落可能，方向不变。在满足三条前提的市场中，15DD 涌现是结构性必然（经济学第五篇）。三条前提照原句：存在非零退出自由度的市场，参与者至少在部分关系中可选择合作对象并退出；部分参与者有底线，"这个不卖"；底线碰撞会发生。本系列只承涌现的必然，不承主导的必然。回落可能：回落说的是市场里涌现的回落，按发生了什么认，不给任何人、任何机构或任何一代人定身份（国家论专论《逆相变》同形；原说一国的系统目的往回移动，这里推到市场里的涌现，自担）。方向不变，不等于有时间表：「方向有，终点开放，没有历史的保证」（制度论 Z39）。本系列的规范方向不变，不对某一段经验历史作趋势保证；不倚靠"必然崩溃"。

第二节　此刻的人不被要求等待

第 23 年冬，泉坳水业公司（Springhollow Water Company）对二十三户停了水：上坳九户，下坳十四户。其中两户家里有卧床的老人。第 25 年春，青窑瓷业的九百人拿到了裁员通知。

如果上一节说的是对的，15DD 的涌现在前提满足时是结构性必然，那么这些人要不要等？等市场里的感知慢慢长出来，等偏 14DD 的经营方式在重复的交易里吃亏，等一个更好的市场来接住他们？

本系列的回答是：必然的涌现，不由此刻的人付代价。

这句话在制度一侧有它的根据，不靠对未来的乐观，也不靠对现在的悲观。制度论的第一条应当，管的是构自己的施为：它对每一个内部主体都不越线。「这一条整条坚持：它管构自己的施为，守卫与拆除在内；不随关系厚度调节，也不随任何条件打折。」（制度论 Z9）"任何条件"里，包括"再过些年市场自己会好"。一项越线不因为将来会被涌现纠正，此刻就不算越线。

制度论还写了保护什么时候启动。「触发不等对方的层级与成熟，不等侵害方的善意，不等被保护方的认同，也不等一个完整的裁断；但须有可提出、可核验的操作痕迹，痕迹说的是操作，不是人。人身安全、基本生计或退出通道受到实际压制的那一格，保护可以先于任何互向处理，那一格不能等。」（制度论 Z20）

这一段要整段读，前后两半都要。前一半说不等：不等泉坳水业公司的人变好，不等它的股东改变主意，也不等一个完整的裁决。后一半说触发要有痕迹：不是凭对某个人、某家公司的印象，而是凭可以提出、可以核验的操作。泉坳那一格的痕迹是清楚的：一张写着"欠费满四个月的，停止供水"的公告，对二十三户的停水，两户家里的卧床老人。人身安全与基本生计受到实际压制，那一格不能等。第二篇已经照这一格读过泉坳的停水：停供落在生命基底上的那一部分要切出来，付不起的人怎样不断供，在管理者那一侧（第二篇 E11、E11a）。这里只补一句：这一格不等的，不是市场的成熟，也不是公司的善意。

道德律第九篇有一句话，常被拿来说"要等"。它把等待切成两层：「机构架构层面的宏观等待要求15DD不通过"建立暴政"来推翻14DD」，又说个体与小规模的具体相遇里，微观的运作「绝不等待」（道德律第九篇 §2.7）。本系列只取宏观的那半句，而且要换一个主语。原句的主语是 15DD，说的是 15DD 不以暴政推翻 14DD；这里换作制度：制度不强推相变，不以强制把一种感知装进人身上（自担）。这一半接下一节：制度给条件，不制造涌现。微观的那半句，说的是 15DD 立法主体在具体相遇里怎样做，那是人的事；本系列不对人写应当，也就不从那半句推出制度的义务。"此刻的人不被要求等待"，根据在制度论的两条，不在道德律那半句。

经济学的上游还有一处，也容易被读成"等一等就好"。经济学第六篇论证，真诚的行为没有额外的伪装维护成本，伪装的维护成本却单调递增，由此目的王国型的组织会在竞争里翻过手段王国型的组织。那一篇自己限定了场域：「本篇的论证是有条件的——适用于高信息密度、高可观察、退出自由度非零的市场。」（经济学第六篇 §7.3）同一节又说：「在重资产、低透明、物理执行主导、退出自由度为零的场域，手段王国型组织可能长期维持。」青窑的窑线是不是这样的场域，本篇不判。要说的只是：那一结论带着它的条件，不能拿去告诉任何一处的人，等一等，市场自己会把它理顺。

由此，制衡有两条根据，两条并存。一条是此刻的伤害不能等；另一条是守住涌现的前提（第二篇 E13）。前一条不靠后一条：即使涌现永远不来，越线也不因此可以。后一条也不靠前一条：即使此刻没有谁受伤，前提一被压缩，本身就是要守的事。

反过来的担心也有分量：制度出手太快、太多，反而压住了涌现；什么都替人接住，人就不再自己站起来，这本身是一种代写。下一节正要说制度不制造涌现，过度的保护确实可能变成替人决定。可是这一节说的"不能等"，只在那一格：人身安全、基本生计、退出通道受到实际压制。它不是说凡是不如意的事制度都要出手；触发也要有可核验的操作痕迹。守的方式本身受线约束，制度论说「守的方式须是限，手段以构在这件事上的权限为界」（制度论 Z15）。不等的是那一格，不是一切。

这里留下一处：什么算"实际压制"，在一件具体的事里由谁认定、凭什么认定，在判断层，交给作出这一认定的位置；账落在那个位置上。

E33　此刻的人不被要求等待。必然的涌现，不由此刻的人付代价。制度一侧，此刻的伤害不能等：不越线这一条整条坚持，不随任何条件打折（制度论 Z9）；保护的触发不等对方的层级与成熟，不等侵害方的善意，但须有可提出、可核验的操作痕迹，痕迹说的是操作，不是人；人身安全、基本生计或退出通道受到实际压制的那一格，那一格不能等（制度论 Z20）。宏观的等待只取一半：「机构架构层面的宏观等待要求15DD不通过"建立暴政"来推翻14DD」（道德律第九篇 §2.7）；原句的主语是 15DD，这里换作制度不强推相变（自担）；微观那一半说的是人在具体相遇里的运作，本系列不对它写应当。经济学第六篇的成本不对称带它自己的场域条件（高信息密度、高可观察、退出自由度非零），不推成一切经济场域的宏观保证。制衡的两条根据并存：此刻的伤害不能等；守住涌现的前提（第二篇 E13）。

第三节　制度给条件，不制造涌现

回到青窑镇。两份支持，先看它们各给了什么。

被裁的九百人，其中报了计划又退出的两人，没有报计划的那位女工，都在这两份支持面前。先问两件：两份支持给的东西，被裁的人够不够得着；各自的条款，对人往哪里去起什么作用。比较的参照是减产以前的生计，那是已经发生的事；两份支持放在同一处境里比，都是给同一批被裁的人的。还有两处不能补：这里只记了一例转行的人，一例不证明哪一份支持在全镇成功了；报名多少，也不只有一种原因。

经济学第四篇在讲市场的相变时写了一句：「制度改变生态条件——相变本身是自发涌现。」（经济学第四篇 §5）这是本节的上游。制度能做的，是改变人所在的条件：透明不透明，退出受不受保护，有害的行为受不受惩罚。相变本身，人在交易里把别人感知为有自己目的的主体，这件事从人那里长出来。

战争论在另一处说过同形的话。它讲一国对别国内部被压制者的支持时，立了一道闸门：「真实的起身是由内而外的，外部可以识别、可以支持，但不可以制造。」（战争论 §13，闸门三）原说别国内部被压制者的起身，这里推到经济里人的涌现（自担）。推得过去，是因为两处的结构相同：外面的手能做的，是识别它、支持它；从外面造出来的东西，不是那个人自己的起身。

制度论把制度的这一份责任写成第三条应当：「制度按关系厚度，为它的内部主体的涵育提供条件；只管条件，不管结果。」（制度论 Z23）只管条件，不是不在乎结果，而是说结果不由制度担保，也不由制度认领。制度论在后面一条里写得更细：没有发生抬升，不命名为涵育；不凭到课记为已发生，也不凭退课记为没有。「制度是否尽到已承担的条件之责，另核它提供了哪些条件、是否够得着、所承范围多大；结果可作核查条件的线索，不直接作成败判决。」（制度论 Z24）

照这几条，先看州劳动厅那一份。

它给的东西，可以一项一项对上制度能给的那一类条件。失业金十二个月，给的是基本的生计，也给了时间：人不必在裁员的第二天就随便接下任何一份活。培训补贴给的是学习。迁居补贴给的是流动。小额创业贷款，州担保一半，给的是信贷可得：一个原本借不到钱的人，可以试一试。四样都不指定内容：学什么由人选，搬到哪里由人选，贷来的钱做什么由人选。申领不问去向。时间、学习、流动、信贷可得、基本生计，这一类清单是规则层的例子；州劳动厅这四样是其中一种写法，本系列不主张它是最好的写法。

发言人说州"只把路修宽"。这是州的自述。读一项安排，不照构怎样说自己，照它的结构：制度论说关系厚度「由结构读，不由构的自述读」（制度论 Z25a）；原说的是关系厚度，这里推到读一项安排的作用（自担）。照结构读，这一份的条款里没有附去向。

可是条件还要够得着。制度论在讲保障时说「纸面上的保护不算保障」（制度论 Z17）；照同一个道理读条件，够不着的条件，不算已经给了（自担）。州的培训课多开在苹果城，单程三小时。设想一个要照顾家人的人、一个付不起来回车费的人、一个不能离家的人：补贴写在那里，课他去不了。镇上被裁的人里，报培训的不到一成五。这一成五本身不判州的成败：照制度论那一条，结果只是核查条件的线索。它提出的问题是：这一份条件够得着谁，够不着谁，够不着的那些人为什么够不着。那八成五没报的人各自的理由，这里没有记载，本篇不替他们补；要核的是条件，账落在安排培训地点的那些位置上。

那位女工是这份条件够得着的一例。她领失业金，用培训补贴去苹果城学了护理，第二年在南窗值夜班。一例够得着，不证明人人够得着；她走的这条路是她自己选的，州没有替她选，也不因此可以把她的路记成州的成绩。

再看基金会那一份。它给的期限更长：三年，约为原工资的九成；州的失业金是十二个月，数额没有记载。它也有内容：一处设计园，三条路，一套训练。这些内容在哪里停下，是第四至六节的事。这一节只看一件：它能不能造出涌现。

基金会的说明写"我们给他们一个确定的未来"。照结构读，计划能确定的是三年的生活费、一处园区、三条路的课程；"未来"不在其中。一个人在三年里是不是从设计、电商或讲解里长出他自己的路，这件事从他那里长出来，基金会可以支持它，不能造出它，也不能事先确定它。说"确定"的是基金会；确定不了的，是那四百二十个人各自的三年。

这里有一处要接上传统。哈耶克在《知识在社会中的运用》里说，经济秩序要用到的知识，是关于「the particular circumstances of time and place」（特定时间与地点的具体情形）的知识，而这种知识「never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess」（从来不以集中或整合的形式存在，只以分散的、不完整的、常常彼此矛盾的片段，存在于各个分立的个人那里）（Hayek 1945；据 Library of Economics and Liberty 网上本，原载 American Economic Review 35(4): 519–530，引句所在页未核，B 档）。

共同的问题是：一个人拿到的条件，该用在哪里，谁知道。哈耶克在这篇文章里分开两种知识：科学的知识，一组选得好的专家可能处在掌握它的最好位置；特定时间与地点的具体情形，那一种知识分散在各人那里（同上，第三节）。照本篇读青窑镇：九百个人各自该学什么、搬到哪里、借钱做什么，是后一种知识，州不知道，基金会也不知道；知道的，最多是每个人自己，而且常常也只知道一部分。给通用的、不指定内容的条件，是本系列在这一处提出的安排方向；它与哈耶克这一处的理由相接，不由 1945 年的这篇文章取得对青窑补助设计的赞同。本系列另提一个规范问题：方向是一个人自己的不得不，即使一个机构就某项事实或风险知道得更多，它也不因此取得替人定方向的权限（第六节）。这一问不需要先宣布分散知识的困难在那一处已经消失：一个机构在局部知道得更多，与仍需要每个人处境里的分散知识，可以同时成立。

能力进路问过与这一节相近的事：据转述，它以人实际可以去做、去成为的自由为目标，不以某一种已经实现的生活为目标，理由也是不偏袒某一种好生活（据斯坦福哲学百科的相应条目，C 档；所据与制度论 Paper 0 第五节第一小节同）。制度论 Paper 0 已经与它对过；这里只指过去，不重做，也不在本篇另作同在、分在的结论。

有人会说，不指定内容的条件太薄：给钱、给课、给贷款，人照样不知道往哪里走；四百二十人报了基金会的计划，正说明人要的是方向，不是一堆空白的选项。这一说的分量在于，报名的人数是实在的。可是两件事要分开。一，条件可以有内容，支持可以带课程、带园区、带一位老师，第六节写它能走到哪里；这一节只说制度不能把涌现造出来。二，四百二十人报名，说明许多人用了这一份支持；它对他们各自是什么，报名说明不了，更不说明方向应当由给的一方定；同一个镇上，也有人选了另一份，自己去了苹果城。两份支持并存，人在其间选，这本身就是条件的一种。

还有两处未定：培训课离镇三小时，这一份条件怎样才够得着那些现在够不着的人，是规则层与判断层的事，交给州劳动厅的位置；被裁的九百人里，其余的人各走向了哪里，这里没有记载，本篇不补。

E34　制度给条件，不制造涌现。「制度改变生态条件——相变本身是自发涌现。」（经济学第四篇 §5）制度给通用的、不指定内容的条件；时间、学习、流动、信贷可得、基本生计这一类清单，是规则层的例子。「真实的起身是由内而外的，外部可以识别、可以支持，但不可以制造。」（战争论 §13，闸门三；原说别国内部被压制者的起身，这里推到经济里人的涌现，自担）制度只管条件，不管结果（制度论 Z23）。条件要够得着：照「纸面上的保护不算保障」（制度论 Z17）同形读，够不着的条件不算已经给了（自担）。是否尽到条件之责，看提供了哪些条件、是否够得着、所承范围多大；结果可作核查条件的线索，不直接作成败判决（制度论 Z24）。读一项安排照它的结构，不照构的自述（制度论 Z25a；原说关系厚度由结构读，这里推到读一项安排，自担）。

第四节　两层：基础层要保障，涌现层要支持

州劳动厅的失业金，是哪一层的东西？

它在被裁以后的十二个月里给的，是基本生计的一份：吃饭、住处、日常的开销；够不够，数额没有记载。在这一面上，它在基础层。它也可以给人时间，为找工、学习与尝试提供条件；实际给到多少余地，仍要按数额与处境核。在这一面上，它在涌现层。同一笔钱，可以两读。

本系列把这两层分开写，不是要把一笔钱切成两半，而是因为两层对制度的要求不一样。

基础层要保障。基础层的东西不随资产增减，不以成就交换：一个人裁了员，没有找到下一份工，没有学成护理，他的基本生计也不因此该被拿走。制度论把保障基础权利放在反殖民的一边：「保障基础权利属此，在反殖民一边，不是涵育的一部分。」（制度论 Z15）基础层也不等于基础权利：基础权利都在这一层，这一层却更厚，一些已经载入的承认性权利也在这里，有的还兼任权力（前置篇第七节）。这一层的保障，前几篇已经写过：泉坳的水是生命基底处的供给，那一处唯一的供给位置持供给的职责，管理它的制度持为供给创造条件的职责（第二篇 E11a）；构做基础层的事，制衡之外，制度还要保障这一供给，不限唯一的供给者（第三篇 E14a）。泉坳停水那一冬，两户卧床老人家里没有水，那是基础层。

涌现层要支持。涌现层给的是条件，内容由人自己定。一个人要成为什么样的人，过什么样的日子，以什么为幸福，是他自己的不得不；制度给条件，不给内容。制度论把这一份写成「制度按关系厚度，为它的内部主体的涵育提供条件；只管条件，不管结果。」（制度论 Z23）"支持"这个词，本系列留给这一层；基础层用"保障"。

两层分开，有一个直接的后果，本系列在这里承担（自担）：两层之间不拿一层去换另一层，两个方向都不许。一个方向，不拿涌现层的损失去换基础层的保障：基础层的保障，不以人走某一条特定的路（学某一项、去某一处、做某一行）为条件；把人的选收窄到极处来换一份托底，是康德所反对的父权式政府（第六节；原说以善意替人判断怎样才幸福、使人只能被动，这里读到拿收窄的选去换一份托底，自担）。另一个方向，不拿基础层的没有保障去换涌现层更多的选：不托底、也不限制选，是放任式政府（自担）；没有基础层，说有的选也是空话（第五节）。这两样是立界用的两种极端，不是给哪一个政府的标签。申领的手续、资格的核实，问的是人在不在这一层之内，不在此列。前一个方向不是从某一条上游原句里直接取来的，它是把两层的要求合起来读出来的：基础层不以成就交换，涌现层的内容由人自己定；若一个人的基本生计要以他走某一条特定的路为条件，基础层就被拿去换涌现层的方向了。制度论 Z27 说，涌现层的支持也不可以要求人把指定的方向认作自己的方向，不可以借条件封死人改向的位置（第六节）；基础层在这之上再进一步，连一条特定的路也不附。

要不要附要求，看基础层托得够不够厚。一个制度若托得够厚，人不去找"工作"，去做自己喜欢的事，也照样有基本生计，这是那里的基础层厚的样子。这是两层之间的平衡：基础层不以人学某一项特定的东西为条件，但不能说它不以学任何一项为条件。托得不够厚时，规则层可以有一定的要求，比如登记求职、接受一份相当的工作，或者在学、在受训，学哪一项、做哪一行，由人自己选；一个人正在学、在受训，就在这一要求之内，不因没有接一份工作而失去基础层的那一份。这是规则层给领取设的条件，问的是他是否在为自己往下走做一件事：找、做或学，不只是查他现在有没有收入；拒绝一项安排，也不自动证明他的生计需要已经没有了。它不指定他做哪一项，本身不是去向条件；可没有指定，还不独自证明方向没有被压住：手边只有一份实际可得的工作、拒绝就失去全部保障时，就是在替人定去向了。什么算相当、实际有哪些可选、做不到或有争议时怎样处理，要按条件、后果与可用的复核另核。这是平衡，不是比例：不是托得越薄，要求就可以越多；可行与不越线分开核。怎样要求、要求到哪里，在规则层，本系列只建议（自担）。反过来，基础层托得厚，若代价是限制涌现层，那份厚就是伪装成涵育的越界，正是本系列取的窄义的殖民（权利论第六篇 F26）；第六节读康德那一段，说的正是这一种。

涌现层的支持可以附内容：制度论说，制度的支持「可以带它自己目的的底色，可以希望人发展」（制度论 Z27）；附得上，是因为到了这一层，接不接受，由人自己选。要核的，是这一选是不是真的在：不接受、停止接受时，实际失去的是什么；是否触到人已经应得的东西；是否与别的约束合起来，取消了拒绝与改向的余地。失去的若是基础层的东西，人就没得选了，这份条件就成了拿基础层去换涌现层的限制，照上一句不许。另有一项给付在，不独自认证基础层已经托住。第二篇判附条件的给付用的是同一种核法（第二篇 E12a）；原说竞业禁止与附条件的给付的分界与组合，这里推到两层支持（自担）。

照这两句看青窑镇的两份支持，事情落在两处。

州的那一份，基本生计不附去向：失业金申领不问去向，也不要求参加哪一项。在它给的十二个月里，基础层的这一份不以去向为条件。镇上的学校、诊所照常，也在这一层。

基金会的那一份，生活费附了具体的内容与条件：进园区，在三条路里选一条受训，三年内不得为其他瓷器企业工作。最后一条要先分清。它若只系在生活费上，领就守，不领可以走，已发的不追回，它的后盾只是不再给，不是竞业禁止：离职的人可以接受它、换取那份给付，也可以不接受；它是不是一个真的可选项，还要看下面的核法。分叉权说的是人有权选，选不选、为什么不选，是他自己的事（第二篇 E12a）。它若在人退出以后仍以违约金之类约束人，才成了竞业禁止；这一层计划书没有写，第六节分两段读。它的期限比州的失业金长；两份的数额不能直接比，州的那一份没有记载。它是不是真的只在涌现层，照上面的核法，要看不接受、停止接受这笔生活费时，人实际失去什么。在青窑镇，事实指到这里：不报计划的人，头十二个月有州的失业金可领；报了又退出的人，停发以后能不能回到州的那一份、还能领多久，没有记载；十二个月以后，两种人的基本生计靠什么，也没有记载。

这几处空白，不由本篇来填。州的那一份怎样给，数额、期限，报了计划又退出的人能不能回领，十二个月以后怎样，是规则层的事；青窑镇这一回是不是托住了，是判断层的事，由州那一侧照它的规则、按各人的情形去认。记载里只有十二个月、申领不问去向，本篇不替它认。规范层在这里只说两件：基础层要在基金会之外另有着落，这一份在州那一侧，不加到捐赠者身上；基金会的条件附得上，以拒绝它不会失去基础层的东西为限。一个政府做得好，基础层自然厚，也托得稳；现实要发展，也有意外，规则层在特定情形下尽量贴近这里的判据，规范层给它留出空间，规则层也给判断留出空间。

这一层的分寸，还要写准一处。基金会作为一个捐赠者，本来没有为被裁的人提供基本生计的职责；本系列不把这一份职责加到它身上。基础层的保障，在州劳动厅那一侧：政府论说，基础权利的保证，「政府给的是背靠与执行，不是核」（政府论 G18）；基础层的这一份保障，同在给背靠与执行的那一侧。

把一笔钱分成"托住生计"与"给时间"两读，会不会是在玩概念？被裁的人手里只有一笔钱，他不分哪一层；对拿钱的人来说，钱确实不分层。可是对给钱的制度来说，两读有实际的差别：基本生计的那一面，不能拿来换人走哪一条路，也不能借它封死人改向的位置，申领的手续、资格的核实不在此列；给时间与路的那一面，可以设计，可以有课程，可以有期限。分开两层，是为了让给的一方知道哪一面可以设计、哪一面不能拿来交换。

基础层的东西具体包括哪些，在规则层举例，个案在判断层；本系列在规范层只立判据（第二篇 E10）。

E35　两层：基础层要保障，涌现层要支持。基础层不随资产增减，不以成就交换；保障基础权利在反殖民一边，不是涵育的一部分（制度论 Z15）；基础层不等于基础权利，一些已载入的承认性权利也在其中（前置篇第七节）；做基础层之事的构，制度保障它的供给（第三篇 E14a）。涌现层给的是条件，内容由人自己定；幸福是主体自己的不得不；制度按关系厚度为涵育提供条件，只管条件，不管结果（制度论 Z23）。两层的要求分开写，两层同等重要，一层不拿去换另一层，两个方向都不许：不拿涌现层的损失去换基础层的保障，也不拿基础层的没有保障去换涌现层更多的选（自担）。同一笔给付可以两读，托住生计的一面在基础层，给人时间与路的一面在涌现层。基础层的保障不以人走某一条特定的路为条件；申领的手续、资格的核实，问的是人在不在这一层之内，不在此列（自担；制度论 Z27 说涌现层的支持不可以要求人把指定的方向认作自己的方向、不可以借条件封死改向的位置，基础层在此之上再进一步）。托得够厚时可以不附要求；不够厚时，规则层可以要求人找工作、接受相当的工作，或者在学、在受训；基础层不以学某一项、做某一行为条件，学哪一项、做哪一行由人自己选；这类要求是否实际形成去向限制，按实际作用另核。涌现层的支持可以附内容（制度论 Z27），因为接不接受由人自己选；附在给付上、人可以不接受的条件，是一个可选项：可以接受、换取那份给付，也可以不接受；这不是竞业禁止，分叉权说的是人有权选（第二篇 E12a）。要核的是这一选是不是真的在：不接受、停止接受时实际失去什么，是否触到人已经应得的东西，是否与别的约束合起来取消了拒绝与改向的余地；失去的若是基础层的东西，就是拿基础层去换涌现层的限制，不许。另有一项给付在，不独自认证基础层已经托住（第二篇 E12a；原说竞业禁止与附条件的给付的分界与组合，这里推到两层支持，自担）。

第五节　保障之厚不证明涵育

先交代这一节题里的"保障"：照本系列的用法，它只指基础层。涵育要两层加起来：基础层有保障，涌现层有支持，缺一样都不行。没有涌现层，人没得选；没有基础层，人先要活着，说有的选也是空话。所以基础层守得厚，只是一半，不证明涵育；涌现层给得厚，也不使给的一方取得替人定方向的授权。这一节的两面，就是这两半。这里说的是制度在条件上的两份任务，不能拿其中一份替另一份结账；保障的施为本身不改名为涵育（制度论 Z15），也不要求哪一位捐赠者一个人担起两层。

基金会给的是三年，约九成的原工资；州给的是十二个月的失业金。按期限比，基金会的那一份长得多：三年对十二个月；数额不能直接比，州的那一份没有记载。

给得厚，说明了什么？

制度论在讲保护与涵育的关系时，立过一条分界：「保护不等涵育的条件，也不按涵育衡量；保护不使构取得涵育被保护者的授权。」（制度论 Z18）那一条原说制度的保护，制度论自己标了一句"这一分推到构上（自担）"。这里把它推到一份给得很足的支持（自担：原说的是保护，这里换成涌现层的支持；原说不取得涵育被保护者的授权，这里读作不取得替受者定方向的授权）：给得厚，是好事，本系列不主张少给；可是厚本身不证明涵育已经发生，也不使给的一方取得替受者定方向的授权。

这一条有两面，两面都要守。

一面对着给得厚的一方。三年的生活费，不使基金会取得决定这四百二十个人该成为设计师、电商运营还是讲解员的权限。它可以希望他们走这三条路，可以为这三条路备好课程；给得足，不改这一读数。第六节写它的条件能走到哪里。

另一面对着期限短的一方，也对着一切把基础层守得好的制度。一个制度不能拿基础层守得厚，宣布涌现层的支持已经尽到。州给了失业金、培训补贴、迁居补贴与贷款，这几样都实在；可是"州给了这些"本身，不回答"这些条件够不够得着、所承的范围够不够"。第三节已经说过培训课离镇三小时；一个制度若以基础层守得厚来回答"课去不了"，那是拿一层的厚去回答另一层的问。两层分开（第四节），厚也分开。

还有一处要防：把报名、到课记成涵育。基金会的计划报名的有四百二十人；这是一个事实，不是涵育已经发生的证据。制度论说：「没有发生抬升，不命名为涵育；不凭到课记为已发生，也不凭退课记为没有，有无抬升另核。」（制度论 Z24）照这一条，四百二十人报名不记为涵育，两人退出也不记为失败。那两个人退出以后去了窑坊；他们在窑坊里是不是长出了自己的路，要另核，而且不由基金会、也不由窑坊替他们认领。

给得厚总比给得薄好，九成工资三年是真金白银；本系列一面说不主张少给，一面又说厚不证明什么，像是什么也没说。对一个刚被裁的人来说，三年与一年的差别确实是实实在在的。可是这一节说的是两件不同的事。给得厚，是一项可以被感谢的施为；给得厚，不改变给的一方能要求什么、不能要求什么，也不改变制度对条件够不够得着的说明之责。前一件本系列照认；后一件，是这一节要守的。

一份支持事实上有没有帮人长出自己的路，是事后要核的事；核的时候看的是抬升，不看给了多少，怎样核在判断层。

E36　保障之厚不证明涵育。涵育要两层加起来：基础层有保障，涌现层有支持，缺一样都不行；没有涌现层，人没得选，没有基础层，说有的选也是空话。所以基础层守得厚，只是一半；制度不能拿基础层守得厚，宣布涌现层的支持已经尽到。涌现层给得厚，也不使给的一方取得替受者定方向的授权：「保护不等涵育的条件，也不按涵育衡量；保护不使构取得涵育被保护者的授权。」（制度论 Z18）原说保护，这里推到涌现层的支持，授权一词读作替受者定方向的授权（自担）。没有发生抬升，不命名为涵育；不凭到课记为已发生，也不凭退课记为没有，有无抬升另核（制度论 Z24）。

第六节　支持可以有具体内容，不取得替人定方向的权限

基金会的计划不只给钱。它有一处园区，三条路，一套训练，还有一条"三年内不得为其他瓷器企业工作"。这些具体的内容，哪些是支持可以带的，哪些越过了支持？

报了计划的四百二十人，开课两个月后退出的那两人，都在这些条款之下。问的是计划的各项条件对人改向的位置起什么作用；手里的是计划书写下的条款，与州那一份不附去向的失业金。

制度论有一条，正是为这一问写的：「条件一旦附带"接受这个发展方向"的要求，就成了外面的人代写。制度的支持可以带它自己目的的底色，可以希望人发展；不可以要求对方把指定的发展方向认作自己的方向，也不可以借条件封死他改向的位置。具体技能、角色任务、有期限的服务约定，按各自来源另核。」（制度论 Z27）

这一条可以分开三样来读。一样是期待：支持可以带给的一方自己目的的底色，可以希望人往某处发展。一样是依约要求一项具体的行动：学一门技能，担一项任务，守一段有期限的服务；这些按各自的来源另核，不一概排除。一样是要求对方把指定的方向认作他自己的方向，或者借条件封死他改向的位置：这一样，制度论排除。三样之中，只有最后一样越过了支持。

照这三样读计划的条款。

三条路的课程，是具体的技能。设计、电商运营、文旅讲解，可以是有用的本事；基金会希望被裁的人走这几条路，是第一样，期待。只给三条路，菜单是窄的；可是菜单有限，本身不就是代写。要问的是：这三条路是不是被要求认作人自己的方向，改向的位置有没有被封死。

计划书写：中途退出的，停发生活费，已发的不追回。那两个人开课两个月后退出，去了窑坊。这两样说明的是条文与这两个人当时的经历：条文没有设追回已发生活费这一项后果，这两个人走得了。它们不认证所有人、所有时段的退出都可负担；退出是不是只是放弃一笔额外的给付，要回到第四节按实际条件核。条文说的是退出这一处；三年里课程与园区的日常，是否另有要人把这三条路认作自己方向的要求，计划书没有写，也没有记载。照第二篇立的分界，把一笔额外的给付系在一个选择上，方向仍可选，去了只是不拿那笔钱，这是附条件的给付，规范层不判它为严格的侵（第二篇 E12a）。它在青窑镇落在哪一边，第四节已经写到：系于基础层另有着落，拒绝它不失去基础层的东西；而这一层，头十二个月的材料也不足以作全面的认证。

"三年内不得为其他瓷器企业工作"一条，要分两段看。领生活费的那三年里，这一条的后果若只是停发、已发的不追回，后盾的形式与上一条同读，是附条件的给付；是不是真的可选，照第四节另核。退出以后它若仍然约束人，不领钱了也不能去别的瓷器企业做工，那就成了禁止人离开以后往某个方向去，照第二篇的读法，是竞业禁止，带不带补偿都是侵（第二篇 E12a）。计划书没有写退出以后是否适用；基金会对那两个人是否仍受约束，没有表态。事实指向哪一边，到这里为止：这一条在退出以后怎样，由基金会这一位置先作答；若有争议，由受理争议的位置判。本篇不替它们答。

"我们给他们一个确定的未来"，是基金会的自述。第三节已经说过，读一项安排照结构，不照构的自述；"确定"二字不定读数：制度论说关系厚度「由结构读，不由构的自述读」（制度论 Z25a）；原说的是关系厚度，这里推到读一项安排的作用（自担）。

这里要接上康德。他在《论俗语：这在理论上可能是正确的，但不适用于实践》（1793）的第二部分讲国家法时，说到一种以臣民的幸福为目标、像父亲对孩子那样施行善意的政府。那样的政府里，臣民被当作未成年的孩子（英译作「immature children」），「sich bloß passiv zu verhalten genöthigt sind, um, wie sie glücklich sein sollen, bloß von dem Urtheile des Staatsoberhaupts und, daß dieser es auch wolle, bloß von seiner Gütigkeit zu erwarten」（被迫只能被动地行事：他们应当怎样幸福，只能等元首的判断；元首是否也愿意如此，只能等他的善意）。康德说，这样的政府「ist der größte denkbare Despotismus」（是可设想的最大专制）（AA 8:291，第 1—4 行；该段起于 8:290 第 33 行；据学院版转录，A 档）。英译作「Such a government is the greatest conceivable despotism」（据 constitution.org 所载节译，不署译者，不注版本，B 档）。

共同的问题是：一个以人的幸福为目标、出于善意的给予者，能不能替人判断他怎样才幸福。同在这里：两边都不让善意替人作这一判断。康德把幸福交给每个人自己去求；本系列说幸福是主体自己的不得不，制度只给条件（第四节）。制度论也说，涵育不由善意、设计目的或标签代证（制度论 Z7c）。

分在射程上，而这一处分开要写清，不然会把青窑镇读错。康德那一段说的是一种政府的宪制：臣民的一切自由都被取消，他们只能等元首的判断与善意，别无他路。现有的材料，不足以把基金会的计划等同于这样一种结构：它是镇上两份支持里的一份；不报计划的人有州的失业金；报了的人，计划书允许中途退出，已发的不追回，各人实际的退出余地未核全。仅仅因为基金会只给三条路的培训，不能把它判成康德说的那一种结构；也不能反过来，为了不作这一等同，就说它已经守住了全部的边界。本系列的判据比康德那一段细：制度论 Z27 允许支持带具体的内容，只排除两件，要求人把指定的方向认作自己的方向，封死他改向的位置。

那么什么时候会走近康德那一段？照本系列的判据，是几处同时出现的时候：基本生计只能从这一份来，别无托底；领它就要认它定的路；走了，人还被禁止往别处去。在青窑镇，第一处：头十二个月有州的失业金这一事实，但数额与各人的实际可得性没有记载，是否足以使人对基金会的计划保有可承担的拒绝余地，本篇不能认；十二个月以后，以及参加后退出能否回领、还可领多久，也没有记载。第二处，计划书允许退出，已发的不追回；三年里是否另有要人认领方向的要求，没有记载。第三处没有定：退出以后那一条是否仍约束人，计划书没写。康德这一段在本篇的用处，是标出那个方向的尽头，不是给基金会贴一个名字。

这一条的射程还要说一句。制度论原说的是制度给它内部的人的支持；基金会不是州，不是被裁的人所属的政府，它是一个持有大量积累的机构，用自己的钱给出一份支持。这里把制度论那一条推到持有大量积累的机构所给的支持（自担）。推得过去，是因为本系列说给构的应当不论大小：一个机构以它的积累为人安排三年的生活与训练，它在这段关系里实际组织着那四百二十人的生活，它就在这一条之下。

有人会说，基金会花的是它自己的钱，愿意给谁、附什么条件，是它的自由；说它可能"代写"，是拿管政府的标准去量一个捐赠者。这一说的分量在于，捐赠者确实可以决定支持什么，附条件的给付规范层本来就不判为严格的侵，规则层可以许，也可以不许。可是这一节没有说基金会不能附条件，也没有说它要像州那样不问去向。它只说一条更窄的线：附条件可以，要人把指定的路认作他自己的方向不可以，封死他改向的位置不可以。这条线不因给的是自己的钱而移动；给得足，也不移动它（第五节）。

这里留下一处：新青窑计划那一条在退出以后是否适用，到第 26 年仍未定。这一空白照记，由基金会的位置先作答。

E37　支持可以有具体内容，不取得替人定方向的权限。照制度论 Z27 分开三样：期待一种产出，可以，支持「可以带它自己目的的底色，可以希望人发展」；依约要求一项具体的行动，按来源另核，「具体技能、角色任务、有期限的服务约定，按各自来源另核」；要求对方把指定的方向认作自己的方向，或借条件封死他改向的位置，不可以，「条件一旦附带"接受这个发展方向"的要求，就成了外面的人代写」。支持可以有具体的技能、任务与有限的范围；这不使提供者取得要求受者把指定的人生方向认作自己的方向、或封死其改向的权限。有期限的约定照退出阈值核；限制人离开以后往哪里去的，照第二篇 E12a。给得足不改读数；"确定的未来"是构的自述，读一项安排照结构，不照自述（制度论 Z25a；原说的是关系厚度，这里推到读一项安排的作用，自担）。原说制度给它内部的人的支持，这里推到持有大量积累的机构所给的支持（自担）。

第七节　涵育两读

镇外那座窑坊，是老窑工开的。他当年要离开青窑瓷业时，预支没有还清，又有一条两年的竞业条款挡着；后来一家叫榆钱长期合伙（Elmseed Long-Term Partners）的投资机构出资，替他付了违约金，公司书面放弃了那一条对他的适用。第二篇读过这件事（第二篇 E12、E12a）。

榆钱长期合伙接着投了窑坊：持股三成，不派董事，只要每季度报一次账；不要求分红，十年后可以按约定的价把股份卖回给窑坊；创办人若出售窑坊，合伙有优先购买权；窑坊三年内不得接受其他投资人。后来回音壁上出了一次差评风波，窑坊被拒了一笔贷款，长期合伙借给它一笔，利率低于小贷公司。合伙第 24 年的年报写：年化回报百分之四，"低于榆钱并购基金"。同一家榆钱资本的另一支，榆钱并购基金，几年前收购了南窗养老院。

第 25 年，窑坊雇了二十二人，其中九人是青窑瓷业那年裁下的。窑坊给学徒发工资。窑坊的学徒合同写："满师后两年内，不得在青窑镇开窑。"

这一节要问的是"涵育"这个词在这里怎样用。谁在涵育谁？长期合伙在涵育老窑工吗？窑坊在涵育那九个人和学徒吗？制度能要求它们去涵育吗？

本系列把涵育分两处读：在制度一侧，在人一侧。

在制度一侧，涵育是一份条件之责，带着三件限定。制度论说：「把涵育的判准从他者的追问迁到制度的条件提供，须带三件：保留回绝与改向；按实际抬升命名，并指明抬升落在个人自己的法还是公共的权利空间；不由善意、设计目的或标签代证。」（制度论 Z7c）一个构若承担了为人提供条件，它要守的是这三件：人能回绝，能改向；说它涵育了谁，要看那人实际被托起了什么；不能因为构是好意的、计划是为人设计的、名字里写着"扶持"，就记作涵育已经发生。

在人一侧，涵育是一个人自己的姿态，出自他自己的法。一个持有积累的人愿不愿意拿他的积累去为别人开路，是他自己的事；制度不代他立这个法。制度论在它的规范根上就把这两处分开了：从人的目的地位到对构的要求，是它在构这一处承担的一步；「人那一处的一步，这个系列不管，交给批判系列，两处互不代替。」（制度论 Z2）

两处分开读，有三个后果。

第一，制度不能替一个人认领他的涵育姿态，也不能以强制取得这一份内在的认领；它能做的，是不让人殖民，并给条件。持有与调动积累的构，在它的关系里承担的守线与条件之责，照本系列相应的规范核，不在这一句里。长期合伙投窑坊，可以是投资者一侧涵育的一种（第五篇 E26）；投资这件事出自投资者自己，不由制度命令。可是"可以是"不等于"已经是"：长期、低回报、不派董事，这些都不单独证明它在这里实际成了涵育；它是否实际成了涵育，另核这段关系的作用。三年不得接受其他投资人一条、优先购买权一条，对窑坊的路起什么作用，也照它们自己的作用核（第五篇）。

第二，实际作用与本人的认领，不互相代证。长期合伙说它的回报"低于榆钱并购基金"，这是它的自述，不证明涵育；老窑工若说"没有他们我走不出来"，那是他自己的认领，也不替这段关系的结构作证。反过来，一段关系实际托起了人，也不要求当事人认它叫涵育。两件各核各的。

第三，一个机构的条件之责，不因它的负责人说"涵育只能出自我自己"而撤回。这句话在人一侧是对的：一个人的涵育姿态确实只能出自他自己。可是一个构的条件之责，不是负责人个人的心意：它照这个构在这段关系里实际组织人的生活到什么程度来定（制度论 Z25、Z25a），不只是它答应过的那几项；例如答应给学徒发工资、答应给人留出回绝与改向的位置一类，是其中看得见的几项。负责人换了想法，构的这一份不随之消失。人一侧的那句话，不能拿来撤回构一侧的责任。

还有一处，是判操作，不判人。窑坊为九个被裁的人开了一条路，给学徒发工资；同一座窑坊的学徒合同写着满师后两年内不得在青窑镇开窑，照第二篇的读法，那一条是竞业禁止，是侵（第二篇 E12a）。同一家榆钱资本，一支以长期、低回报的资金投窑坊，另一支以举债收购改变了南窗的照护配置（第五篇）。同一个持权者，可以一处开路，一处握着别人的路。本系列不给窑坊、不给老窑工、不给榆钱下一个总的判词；每一项施为，照它自己的根据核。老窑工当年被一条竞业条款挡过，这件事不使他写下的那一条学徒合同当然越线，也不使它当然合理；那一条照它自己的结构读。

既然涵育只能出自人自己，制度说"条件之责"，会不会就是越位，替人做本该出自人自己的事？这一问守的，正是本系列最在意的那一点：人自己的法不由别人代写。可是制度一侧的涵育，说的不是制度去涵育人，而是制度提供条件、留出回绝与改向的位置。分开两读，正是为了不让制度那一侧越到人那一侧去；也不让人那一侧的一句话，免掉制度那一侧的责任。

窑坊三年内不得接受其他投资人一条，对窑坊此后的路起什么作用，本节不判，照第五篇的读法另核。

E38　涵育两读。制度承担的是守线，并按关系提供可用的条件；把涵育的判准迁到制度的条件提供，带三件：保留回绝与改向；按实际抬升命名；不由善意、设计目的或标签代证（制度论 Z7c）。人自己的涵育姿态出自他自己的法，不由制度代立；人那一处的一步，制度论交给批判系列（制度论 Z2）。实际作用与本人认领不互相代证。机构作为构的条件之责，照关系厚度定，不只是它答应过的几项，也不因负责人说"涵育只能出自我自己"而撤回（制度论 Z25、Z25a）。制度不能替自然人认领其涵育姿态，也不能以强制取得这一认领，能做的是不让人殖民，并给条件；投资可以是持权者一侧涵育的一种（第五篇 E26），是否实际成为涵育另核。同一个持权者可以一处开路、一处握着别人的路：判操作，不判人。

第八节　收束

这一系列从一个问题出发：人在涌现层积累起来的东西，资本、名声、地位、资质，怎样在别人的决定里成为作用于他人的权力；制度对它取什么方向。

一路写下来，方向是一句话：不以减少它为目的，而是制衡它怎样使用。积累本身不是问题，怎样使用才是问题（第一篇）。积累成了别人绕不过去的关口时，退出要真，生命基底处的供给要有人担着，人往哪里去不能被合同封死（第二篇）。一个位置大到许多人都绕不过去时，制衡随它的权力面递增；做基础层之事的，制衡之外还要保障；制衡者自己也受问（第三篇）。积累换成别的作用时，有两处要设闸：不兑换为对人的基础层的支配，不兑换为对追问的控制（第四篇）。积累会自己长大，长大不是问题；增长在线内就要受制衡，回报被放到唯一目标的位置，是一项要核的信号，控制安排要留着一条修订它的路，不成为终局（第五篇）。这一篇写正面：制度给条件，不制造涌现，不替人定方向。

这些合起来，指向一个方向。制度论把这个方向叫作目的王国，并且说清了它是什么、不是什么：「目的王国是方向，不是应当，也不是要验收的状态。」它「由人做成，制度不能代人做成，也不因制度宣布就算做成」（制度论 Z39）。经济里也是这样。没有一套制衡、一份支持能把一个市场做成目的王国；也没有哪一个机构可以宣布，它的市场已经是了。

经济不会因为制衡而变成一个好人。它没有第一人称，不会悔改，也不会感谢。制衡给的，是一处一处可以问的地方：一张停水公告，可以问；一条竞业条款，可以问；一项排序规则、一份评级、一次投票、一扇录取的门，都可以问。支持给的，是一处一处够得着的条件：一年的生计，一门课，一次搬家，一笔贷款。人从那里往哪里走，是他们自己的事。

青窑镇的九百个人，到第 26 年各在哪里，这一系列只知道几个：四百二十人报了基金会的计划，两人退出去了窑坊，一位女工在南窗值夜班。其余的人，这里没有记载。这一系列不替他们写结局。它能说的只是：他们面前的路，哪些是制度该修宽的，哪些是谁不该封住的，哪些是他们自己要走的。

所以，这一系列的主线是这样一句：

对积累起来的权力，制度不以减少它为目的，而是制衡它怎样使用：坚持反殖民，争取涵育；积累不兑换为对人的基础层的支配，也不兑换为对追问的控制；制衡它的安排，自己也可被追问。

最后半句，第三篇已经在制衡者自己受问的地方展开过：制衡也是构的施为，它的调查、它的拆分建议、它的裁决，同样要有人能问、能纠正。这一句放在末尾，是因为它防的是这一系列自己可能犯的错：一个以制衡为业的系列，最容易忘记制衡者也有积累，也有权力面，也会想要关上别人的门。

E39　收束。方向是目的王国：「目的王国是方向，不是应当，也不是要验收的状态」；它由人做成，「制度不能代人做成，也不因制度宣布就算做成」（制度论 Z39）。经济不会因为制衡而变成一个好人，它没有第一人称；制衡给的，是一处一处可以问的地方；支持给的，是一处一处够得着的条件。本系列的主线：对积累起来的权力，制度不以减少它为目的，而是制衡它怎样使用：坚持反殖民，争取涵育；积累不兑换为对人的基础层的支配，也不兑换为对追问的控制；制衡它的安排，自己也可被追问。

这一篇停在哪里

这一篇证了这些。在满足三条前提的市场里，15DD 的涌现是结构性必然；本系列只承涌现的必然，回落可能，方向不变，方向不是时间表（E32）。必然的涌现不由此刻的人付代价；人身安全、基本生计、退出通道受到实际压制的那一格不能等，触发要有可核验的操作痕迹（E33）。制度给通用的、不指定内容的条件，条件要够得着；它不制造涌现（E34）。基础层要保障，涌现层要支持，两层同等重要；两个方向都不兑换：基础层的保障不拿涌现层的限制来换，不以人走某一条特定的路为条件，基础层也不能没有保障去换涌现层更多的选；涌现层的支持可以附内容，人可以不接受的条件是一个可选项，不是竞业禁止，要核拒绝它时失去的是什么；托得够厚时可以不附要求，不够厚时规则层可以要求人找工作、接受相当的工作或在学、在受训，学哪一项、做哪一行由人自己选（E35）。涵育要两层加起来，缺一样都不行，所以保障之厚不证明涵育；给得厚也不使给的一方取得替人定方向的授权（E36）。支持可以有具体的内容，不可以要人把指定的方向认作自己的方向，也不可以封死改向的位置（E37）。涵育在制度一侧是条件之责，在人一侧出自他自己的法，两处不互相代替（E38）。全系列收束于目的王国这个方向与一句主线（E39）。

它没有证的：涌现的时间表，哪些行业先、哪些后；某一项补贴、某一份计划的成效；一套"涵育经济学"；支持由谁出资、出多少、以什么方式出。这些在规则层与判断层，或者在经济学系列自己的开放余项里。

这一篇也是全系列的最后一篇正文。七篇合起来，做的是一件事：给积累的权力一套规范层的方向，指出制衡落在哪里、闸设在哪里、支持给到哪里，各处落在规范层、规则层还是判断层。规则层的具体安排，本系列只给判据与建议，交给公司论、大学论与其他具体的制度论；与传统的集中对接、上游交来的账与余项的登记，交给 Paper 0。

留下的余项：州的失业金数额、报了计划又退出的人能不能回领、十二个月以后怎样，没有记载，在规则层与判断层；新青窑计划三年里是否另有要人认领方向的要求，没有记载；新青窑计划那一条"三年内不得为其他瓷器企业工作"，在退出以后是否适用，计划书没有写，基金会没有表态；州的培训课离镇三小时，这一份条件怎样才够得着现在够不着的人；报培训的人为什么不到一成五，没有记载，原因不止一种可能；那位女工的一例，不证明哪一份支持在全镇成功了；九百人里其余的人，各在哪里，不知道。这些都照记，各有去处。

本篇命题（合列）

E32　结构性必然，有前提；回落可能，方向不变。在满足三条前提的市场中，15DD 涌现是结构性必然（经济学第五篇）。三条前提照原句：存在非零退出自由度的市场，参与者至少在部分关系中可选择合作对象并退出；部分参与者有底线，"这个不卖"；底线碰撞会发生。本系列只承涌现的必然，不承主导的必然。回落可能：回落说的是市场里涌现的回落，按发生了什么认，不给任何人、任何机构或任何一代人定身份（国家论专论《逆相变》同形；原说一国的系统目的往回移动，这里推到市场里的涌现，自担）。方向不变，不等于有时间表：「方向有，终点开放，没有历史的保证」（制度论 Z39）。本系列的规范方向不变，不对某一段经验历史作趋势保证；不倚靠"必然崩溃"。

E33　此刻的人不被要求等待。必然的涌现，不由此刻的人付代价。制度一侧，此刻的伤害不能等：不越线这一条整条坚持，不随任何条件打折（制度论 Z9）；保护的触发不等对方的层级与成熟，不等侵害方的善意，但须有可提出、可核验的操作痕迹，痕迹说的是操作，不是人；人身安全、基本生计或退出通道受到实际压制的那一格，那一格不能等（制度论 Z20）。宏观的等待只取一半：「机构架构层面的宏观等待要求15DD不通过"建立暴政"来推翻14DD」（道德律第九篇 §2.7）；原句的主语是 15DD，这里换作制度不强推相变（自担）；微观那一半说的是人在具体相遇里的运作，本系列不对它写应当。经济学第六篇的成本不对称带它自己的场域条件（高信息密度、高可观察、退出自由度非零），不推成一切经济场域的宏观保证。制衡的两条根据并存：此刻的伤害不能等；守住涌现的前提（第二篇 E13）。

E34　制度给条件，不制造涌现。「制度改变生态条件——相变本身是自发涌现。」（经济学第四篇 §5）制度给通用的、不指定内容的条件；时间、学习、流动、信贷可得、基本生计这一类清单，是规则层的例子。「真实的起身是由内而外的，外部可以识别、可以支持，但不可以制造。」（战争论 §13，闸门三；原说别国内部被压制者的起身，这里推到经济里人的涌现，自担）制度只管条件，不管结果（制度论 Z23）。条件要够得着：照「纸面上的保护不算保障」（制度论 Z17）同形读，够不着的条件不算已经给了（自担）。是否尽到条件之责，看提供了哪些条件、是否够得着、所承范围多大；结果可作核查条件的线索，不直接作成败判决（制度论 Z24）。读一项安排照它的结构，不照构的自述（制度论 Z25a；原说关系厚度由结构读，这里推到读一项安排，自担）。

E35　两层：基础层要保障，涌现层要支持。基础层不随资产增减，不以成就交换；保障基础权利在反殖民一边，不是涵育的一部分（制度论 Z15）；基础层不等于基础权利，一些已载入的承认性权利也在其中（前置篇第七节）；做基础层之事的构，制度保障它的供给（第三篇 E14a）。涌现层给的是条件，内容由人自己定；幸福是主体自己的不得不；制度按关系厚度为涵育提供条件，只管条件，不管结果（制度论 Z23）。两层的要求分开写，两层同等重要，一层不拿去换另一层，两个方向都不许：不拿涌现层的损失去换基础层的保障，也不拿基础层的没有保障去换涌现层更多的选（自担）。同一笔给付可以两读，托住生计的一面在基础层，给人时间与路的一面在涌现层。基础层的保障不以人走某一条特定的路为条件；申领的手续、资格的核实，问的是人在不在这一层之内，不在此列（自担；制度论 Z27 说涌现层的支持不可以要求人把指定的方向认作自己的方向、不可以借条件封死改向的位置，基础层在此之上再进一步）。托得够厚时可以不附要求；不够厚时，规则层可以要求人找工作、接受相当的工作，或者在学、在受训；基础层不以学某一项、做某一行为条件，学哪一项、做哪一行由人自己选；这类要求是否实际形成去向限制，按实际作用另核。涌现层的支持可以附内容（制度论 Z27），因为接不接受由人自己选；附在给付上、人可以不接受的条件，是一个可选项：可以接受、换取那份给付，也可以不接受；这不是竞业禁止，分叉权说的是人有权选（第二篇 E12a）。要核的是这一选是不是真的在：不接受、停止接受时实际失去什么，是否触到人已经应得的东西，是否与别的约束合起来取消了拒绝与改向的余地；失去的若是基础层的东西，就是拿基础层去换涌现层的限制，不许。另有一项给付在，不独自认证基础层已经托住（第二篇 E12a；原说竞业禁止与附条件的给付的分界与组合，这里推到两层支持，自担）。

E36　保障之厚不证明涵育。涵育要两层加起来：基础层有保障，涌现层有支持，缺一样都不行；没有涌现层，人没得选，没有基础层，说有的选也是空话。所以基础层守得厚，只是一半；制度不能拿基础层守得厚，宣布涌现层的支持已经尽到。涌现层给得厚，也不使给的一方取得替受者定方向的授权：「保护不等涵育的条件，也不按涵育衡量；保护不使构取得涵育被保护者的授权。」（制度论 Z18）原说保护，这里推到涌现层的支持，授权一词读作替受者定方向的授权（自担）。没有发生抬升，不命名为涵育；不凭到课记为已发生，也不凭退课记为没有，有无抬升另核（制度论 Z24）。

E37　支持可以有具体内容，不取得替人定方向的权限。照制度论 Z27 分开三样：期待一种产出，可以，支持「可以带它自己目的的底色，可以希望人发展」；依约要求一项具体的行动，按来源另核，「具体技能、角色任务、有期限的服务约定，按各自来源另核」；要求对方把指定的方向认作自己的方向，或借条件封死他改向的位置，不可以，「条件一旦附带"接受这个发展方向"的要求，就成了外面的人代写」。支持可以有具体的技能、任务与有限的范围；这不使提供者取得要求受者把指定的人生方向认作自己的方向、或封死其改向的权限。有期限的约定照退出阈值核；限制人离开以后往哪里去的，照第二篇 E12a。给得足不改读数；"确定的未来"是构的自述，读一项安排照结构，不照自述（制度论 Z25a；原说的是关系厚度，这里推到读一项安排的作用，自担）。原说制度给它内部的人的支持，这里推到持有大量积累的机构所给的支持（自担）。

E38　涵育两读。制度承担的是守线，并按关系提供可用的条件；把涵育的判准迁到制度的条件提供，带三件：保留回绝与改向；按实际抬升命名；不由善意、设计目的或标签代证（制度论 Z7c）。人自己的涵育姿态出自他自己的法，不由制度代立；人那一处的一步，制度论交给批判系列（制度论 Z2）。实际作用与本人认领不互相代证。机构作为构的条件之责，照关系厚度定，不只是它答应过的几项，也不因负责人说"涵育只能出自我自己"而撤回（制度论 Z25、Z25a）。制度不能替自然人认领其涵育姿态，也不能以强制取得这一认领，能做的是不让人殖民，并给条件；投资可以是持权者一侧涵育的一种（第五篇 E26），是否实际成为涵育另核。同一个持权者可以一处开路、一处握着别人的路：判操作，不判人。

E39　收束。方向是目的王国：「目的王国是方向，不是应当，也不是要验收的状态」；它由人做成，「制度不能代人做成，也不因制度宣布就算做成」（制度论 Z39）。经济不会因为制衡而变成一个好人，它没有第一人称；制衡给的，是一处一处可以问的地方；支持给的，是一处一处够得着的条件。本系列的主线：对积累起来的权力，制度不以减少它为目的，而是制衡它怎样使用：坚持反殖民，争取涵育；积累不兑换为对人的基础层的支配，也不兑换为对追问的控制；制衡它的安排，自己也可被追问。

参考文献

以下 SAE 文献一律为概念 DOI，始终指向最新版本。逐句核验所据的版本记录，见随稿的转述审计表。

一 · 本系统

秦汉. (2026). 应当说给谁（SAE 制度论 第一篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23269635

秦汉. (2026). 不越线（SAE 制度论 第二篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23270384

秦汉. (2026). 守线（SAE 制度论 第三篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23270766

秦汉. (2026). 条件（SAE 制度论 第四篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23270922

秦汉. (2026). 可被追问（SAE 制度论 第六篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23271324

秦汉. (2026). 制度论与传统：应当的地址（SAE 制度论 Paper 0） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23272468

秦汉. (2026). 保证（SAE 政府论 第三篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23413112

秦汉. (2026). 论权利的涵育与历时展开（SAE 权利论系列 Paper 6） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21252863

秦汉. (2026). 逆相变（SAE 国家论 专论） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23779070

秦汉. (2026). SAE 战争论：涵育如何不被战争本身吞噬 [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19656617

秦汉. (2026). 混合现实的机构架构——涵育与殖民的相变演化（SAE 道德律系列 Paper 9） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20262737

秦汉. (2026). 自由市场的相变窗口：ZFCρ与SAE经济学的同源骨架（SAE 经济学系列 Paper 4） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19393913

秦汉. (2026). 自由市场中15DD涌现的结构性必然：从底线碰撞到感知跃迁（SAE 经济学系列 Paper 5） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19394738

秦汉. (2026). 目的王国 vs 手段王国：AI时代的相变加速（SAE 经济学系列 Paper 6） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19396633

二 · 外部文献（原文，A 档）

Kant, I. (1923). Über den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht für die Praxis (1793). In Kant's gesammelte Schriften, hrsg. von der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. VIII, S. 273–313. Berlin: de Gruyter. 引用页 AA 8:290–291，据 Korpora 学院版转录：https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa08/291.html

三 · 外部文献（B 档）

Kant, I. Theory and Practice（节译，不署译者，不注版本）. Constitution Society 网上本：https://constitution.org/2-Authors/kant/rtppr.htm（所用英译引句的出处；题头标年 1792，作品年照学院版作 1793）

Hayek, F. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530. 据 Library of Economics and Liberty 网上本：https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw.html（引句已核，所在页未核）

接口

主承： 制度论 Z9、Z20（此刻的伤害不能等）；Z23、Z24、Z25a、Z27（条件、可达与方向）；Z15、Z18（保障与涵育分开）；Z2、Z7c（涵育两读）；Z39（收束）；经济学第五篇（三条前提与结构性必然）。

另用： 经济学第四篇 §5；经济学第六篇 §7.3（场域条件）；道德律第九篇 §2.7（只取宏观半句，换主语，自担）；战争论 §13 闸门三（推到经济里人的涌现，自担）；国家论专论《逆相变》（回落同形，自担）；制度论 Z17（同形读，自担）；制度论 Z25a（推到读一项安排，自担）；制度论 Z18（推到涌现层的支持，自担）；制度论 Z25（条件之责照关系厚度）。

对接： 哈耶克《知识在社会中的运用》（第三节；B 档，据 Library of Economics and Liberty 网上本）；康德《论俗语：这在理论上可能是正确的，但不适用于实践》第二部分（第六节；德文 A 档，据学院版转录；英译 B 档，据 constitution.org 节译）。能力进路（C 档，所据与制度论 Paper 0 同）已在制度论 Paper 0 第五节第一小节对过，本篇不重做。

本系列： 前置篇（构不论大小受应当；两层，基础层不等于基础权利；三层）；第二篇 E10、E11、E11a、E12、E12a、E13；第三篇 E14a 与制衡者受问一节；第五篇 E26。

交给 Paper 0： 与传统的集中对接；上游交来的账与交下游的事；余项的登记。