Asymmetry, Divergence and Ending
不对称、分歧与结束
This paper reads three things in a relation: how asymmetry enters collision; what continues after divergence and repair; and, once a relation has ended, what continues and what does not.
Asymmetry in itself is not crossing the line. This paper reads only how asymmetries of capacity, knowledge and expression enter collision; the authority that comes with a position is acknowledged but not judged; asymmetry between a person and a construct is not read. Asymmetry used to cross the two boundaries of basic rights is violation; asymmetry used outward to seal the other party's channels, or to make them hard to travel, carries the direction of colonization; operations that substantively compress the other party's channels are handed over as the Conflict Treatise directs, and the two grades are not jumped.
A conflict is handled as the Conflict Treatise handles it, and this paper does not rewrite that. Repair keeps two ledgers in parallel: making up does not settle the conflict, nor does an unresolved conflict leave the harm hanging; a reconciliation cannot accomplish either party's exit.
Ending does not presuppose that every relation ought to be repaired or to endure. Unilateral exit does not settle the accounts; a relation may be terminated and a channel closed, but one cannot on that account pass final judgment on this person. Withdrawing one's own side is exit, and it does not carry the direction of colonization, even if the other party's cost rises as a result; when one party exits, whichever party acts outward, adding consequences, using the occasion to apply pressure and calling on others to isolate him all carry the direction of colonization. Exit does not delete recognition; the act of exit is the leaver's own choice, and it does actually change the other party's conditions, but this is read as inward and does not carry the direction of colonization; saying it out loud, and thereby characterizing this exit for the other party, slides in the direction of colonization. What continues after parting can be the conditions and effects that still exist; shared matters that remain after parting are not settled by unilateral exit; leaving room for natural development when one exits points in the direction of cultivation; neither staying nor leaving certifies cultivation.
Introduction
Papers 1 through 5 read how a relation begins, how it binds people and how it sediments. This paper reads a few of its hard places: the two sides are not level with each other, the two sides disagree again and again, and the two sides part.
Upstream has written part of each of these. The Conflict Treatise wrote how a conflict is handled in the first person, how it reaches a terminus, and how it is suspended, removed or left stalling; Action Theory wrote that exit does not delete recognition; the Second Critique wrote that to exit is to stop lending one's own strength; Value Theory wrote "A Settlement Cannot Accomplish Either Party's Exit" (Value Theory P5 V72). This paper does not rewrite them. It reads only one thing that none of them made a topic of its own: after exit, suspension, removal and repair, which effects continue and which do not.
One example runs through the whole paper. Lao Shen and Xiao Tang have shared a rented apartment for nine years. Lao Shen is the elder; he has lived in this city longer and earns more, and household matters are his to decide. When Xiao Tang first arrived he knew nothing, and it was from Lao Shen that he learned to cook and to deal with the landlord. There is one thing the two argue about again and again: Lao Shen makes decisions for both of them and tells Xiao Tang only afterward. For nine years, every Sunday, the two of them have taken groceries to an elderly neighbor who lives alone downstairs. In the ninth year, Xiao Tang decides to move out.
§1 Asymmetry
H52 This paper reads only how asymmetries of capacity, knowledge and expression enter collision; the authority that comes with a position is acknowledged but not judged; asymmetry between a person and a construct is not read
Lao Shen knows this city better than Xiao Tang does, speaks better than he does and is better at getting things done: in capacity, knowledge and expression, all three are asymmetric. He also earns more; that is an asymmetry of resources, and it is not among these three. Conflict Treatise §5 lists it on the side of the first grade; if it is used to bear down on someone, it is handed over there. These asymmetries enter every collision between the two: Lao Shen proposes an idea, and Xiao Tang cannot come up with one of equal weight; Lao Shen sets out a line of reasoning, and Xiao Tang cannot meet it and can only nod. This is the kind this paper reads: how asymmetry enters collision, and how it sediments in dealings.
The authority that comes with a position is acknowledged but not judged. If Lao Shen were Xiao Tang's superior at work, authority of the kind that appraises, appoints and dismisses would be given by the position; it is an existing fact. This series acknowledges it and uses it to draw the range, but does not judge whether it is legitimate (Paper 1, H11). What this series reads is what a person adds beyond the position.
Asymmetry between a person and a construct is not read. What lies between each of the two and the lease, or the rules on renting, belongs to person and construct; that is a matter of power and of recognition-based rights, and it does not belong to this series.
The Conflict Treatise drew this division long ago. §13 counts "drawing on the asymmetry within a relation" among questions "of means and power": "Their domain handover is the first grade of section five." §21: "Other authorities of role, of law, or of procedure settle separately within their own domains and have nothing to do with this path."
H53 Asymmetry in itself is not crossing the line; asymmetry used to cross the two boundaries of basic rights is violation; asymmetry used outward to seal the other party's channels, or to make them hard to travel, carries the direction of colonization; operations that substantively compress the other party's channels are handed over as Conflict Treatise §5 directs, and the two grades are not jumped
Asymmetry in itself is not crossing the line. Institution Theory Paper 5, Z29, wrote a sentence of the same form on the side of the construct: the help and cultivation between people in the same institution "can be asymmetric and come one occasion at a time; they can run the other way." Lao Shen teaching Xiao Tang to cook is a giving within an asymmetry; if this giving left space, it points in the direction of cultivation. From the fifth year on, Xiao Tang cooked better than Lao Shen, and the asymmetry ran the other way.
Asymmetry can be used to bear down on someone, and this is read along two lines. Where it is used to cross the two boundaries of basic rights, it is violation, and this series can identify it (Paper 1, H9). Where it is used outward to seal the other party's channels, or to make them hard to travel, it carries the direction of colonization (Paper 1, H8). If Lao Shen has made a decision for Xiao Tang and then, just when Xiao Tang is about to say "no," holds him down with "I'm the one who found this place," that point carries the direction of colonization.
Operations that substantively compress the other party's channels are handed over as Conflict Treatise §5 directs. Conflict Treatise §5 writes: "Once asymmetric operations begin to substantively compress my capacity to interrupt, to exit, to speak, or my basic conditions, this treatise no longer hears the case alone" (rendered from the Chinese page). At that point it "runs in parallel with, or hands over to, the Power Series, rights mechanisms, law and safety mechanisms," and what is handed over is protection and disposition; the effects those operations leave in the dealings, this series still reads. The two grades are not jumped; the same section, Conflict Treatise §5: "Control, resource asymmetry, agenda manipulation, manufactured dependency and the compression of exit in personal relations usually stop at the first grade". The asymmetry within a relation is not pushed in one step up to the grade of the War Treatise.
The two senses of dependency belong to Paper 5 (Paper 5, H47); here they are called on only where dependency has become one face of the asymmetry. That Xiao Tang, when he first arrived, could not do without Lao Shen does not in itself carry the direction of colonization; if Lao Shen manufactured this dependency and also locked Xiao Tang's path to saying no, that portion does.
§2 Divergence and Repair
H54 A conflict is handled as the Conflict Treatise handles it, and this paper does not rewrite that; repair keeps two ledgers in parallel: making up does not settle the conflict, nor does an unresolved conflict leave the harm hanging; a reconciliation cannot accomplish either party's exit
"Discuss first" or "do it first, talk later": Lao Shen and Xiao Tang have argued over this one thing for nine years. By the Conflict Treatise, it may have passed both gates: two independently formed laws require incompatible actions in the same situation. How a conflict is handled in the first person, by facing, deepening the understanding, directedness toward a terminus and openness to questioning, this series takes from the Conflict Treatise and does not rewrite. What it sediments into once conflict occurs again and again, whether the stopping point has become routine or stalling has become the normal state, belongs to Paper 5 (Paper 5, H48).
This paper reads repair. Repair has two ledgers, kept in parallel. Conflict Treatise §4: "An apology does not dissolve the incompatibility of two laws"; and then: "Nor may it be run backwards." One time Lao Shen apologized, Xiao Tang accepted, and the two made up: there is an entry in the harm ledger, recording how this instance was met. But the incompatibility between the two laws, "discuss first" and "do it first, talk later," is not dissolved by this apology. Conversely, the conflict's not yet being resolved does not leave the harm ledger hanging either: one cannot say, "Let's first get straight who's right and who's wrong, and then we'll talk about how you hurt me last time."
So repair can succeed while the conflict is still unresolved. Making up does not settle the conflict, nor does an unresolved conflict leave the harm hanging.
Nor can a reconciliation accomplish either party's exit. This sentence is the very title of Value Theory P5 V72 ("A Settlement Cannot Accomplish Either Party's Exit"), which writes: "But whether an avowal has terminated can be accomplished only by that person's own exit." If, when the two make up, they agree that "from now on, you'll stop treating this as something that matters," this can be put forward, and it may even genuinely make Xiao Tang think it over again; but whether that avowal of Xiao Tang's has terminated can be accomplished only by his own exit.
§3 Ending
H55 Ending does not presuppose that every relation ought to be repaired or to endure; unilateral exit does not settle the accounts; a relation may be terminated and a channel closed, but one cannot on that account pass final judgment on this person
It is not presupposed that every relation ought to be repaired or to endure. This paper does not say that Xiao Tang should stay, nor that he should go. A relation's ending is not evidence of failure; its enduring is not evidence of success either.
Unilateral exit does not settle the accounts. Conflict Treatise §12: "And where shared resources, third-party responsibility or procedural obligation remain, leaving does not close them out." §2 also writes: "Departure can happen; departure does not by itself close those accounts." The same place says that, written this way, the condition has room for "intimate relations, shared child-rearing, organizational role and public responsibility."
A relation may be terminated and a channel closed, but one cannot on that account pass final judgment on this person. Conflict Treatise §14: "Actual relations and channels of contact may be terminated permanently. This constraint does not require keeping contact details, does not require remaining reachable, does not require permitting restart at any time. What it forbids is something else: writing the other's present unavailability for reciprocity into a final verdict on them as a subject." After Xiao Tang moves out, he may stop contacting Lao Shen; he cannot write Lao Shen down as "just that kind of person," and Lao Shen cannot write Xiao Tang down as "an ungrateful man."
The manner of exit is not this paper's to govern. Conflict Treatise §12 writes that walking away comes in "at least four" kinds: leaving under another name without having faced the conflict is avoidance; leaving first for safety, boundary or fact-checking is protective withdrawal; terminating the running of the handling within the original relation without having obtained a bilateral terminus is removal, and where it is only a temporary halt not yet handed over, it is suspension; each departing after both have obtained a terminus is action after the terminus. In what manner a person goes is a first-person constraint on him as he walks away.
H56 Withdrawing one's own side is exit and does not carry the direction of colonization, even if the other party's cost rises as a result; when one party exits, whichever party acts outward, adding consequences, using the occasion to apply pressure and calling on others to isolate him all carry the direction of colonization
Second Critique, Chapter Six §6: "To exit is to stop lending one's own strength. To add consequences is to set a penalty on his no, and what it seals off is exactly that way to say no." The same section cites Action Theory Paper 7, D41: "no longer lending one's strength, no longer keeping in touch, coexist with recognizing that he is a person."
Xiao Tang moves out, no longer pays half the rent, no longer cooks, no longer keeps in touch: this is withdrawing his own side. Lao Shen pays the whole rent alone and finds it a strain; his cost has risen. This does not change the reading either. Withdrawing one's own side does not carry the direction of colonization.
Withdrawing one's own side is one thing; acting in a way directed at the other party is another. This series calls the two inward and outward. The inward side takes priority: if I withdraw my own side, then even if the other party's cost rises as a result, that is not a problem. Outward is different: if I do something else, directed at the other party, that raises his cost, for instance telling other people that none of them is to work with this person, it carries the direction of colonization (Paper 1, H8), and it is at the same time directed at those other people's paths of dealing with him.
If Lao Shen says to Xiao Tang, "If you leave, and anyone asks about you later, I'll tell them you walked out without a word of goodbye," or goes and tells their mutual friends to stop having anything to do with Xiao Tang, that is outward: it is directed at Xiao Tang, raises his cost of leaving, of saying it out loud and of turning to others for help, and carries the direction of colonization. Calling on others to isolate him is at the same time directed at those mutual friends' paths of dealing with Xiao Tang, and it is entered on the books pair by pair, as in Paper 1, H12. Toward those friends: if Lao Shen only says that he himself does not get along with Xiao Tang and will not see him from now on, that is his own side; if he says to them, "None of you is to have anything to do with him," what it is directed at is at the same time their paths of dealing with Xiao Tang, and toward them too it carries the direction of colonization; one with a criterion attached, "If you still count me as a friend, you won't speak to him," is read in addition, by Paper 4, H37, as a qualifying condition. Where he only asks them not to have anything to do with Xiao Tang either, then on Xiao Tang's side it is read by this proposition for what it is used to do: if it is getting other people to stop dealing with him, it carries the direction of colonization, without waiting on whether the friends listen; if he is only saying that he himself will not go to gatherings Xiao Tang is at, it is withdrawal. On the friends' side, they can decline to listen, and this point matters: precisely because they can decline, this request is only the voicing of an expectation; one with a criterion attached is read by Paper 4, H37. Dividing the friends' side in this way is this series' own step (own undertaking; see the Introduction to Paper 1).
How inward and outward are divided has two cells fixed in advance: saying outward, "If you bring this up again, I'm done with you," is not inward; thinking it to oneself is purely inward. From these two cells this paper reads off a test (own undertaking): whether the withdrawal is being used to set a penalty on the other party's using a channel. Making the withdrawal conditional on his using a channel is the shape in which this kind reads most clearly; what is judged is this function, not the syntax. Where no conditional is attached but the withdrawal is actually used as a penalty, it is outward all the same; where one only states the boundary of one's own non-participation once the relation is over, without using it to bear down on that step of his, it is still withdrawal. When Xiao Tang raises an objection about some household matter and Lao Shen says, "Bring this up again and don't come to me the next time you need something," he has hung his not helping in the future on Xiao Tang's saying no; that is outward, the same form as the cell above. When Xiao Tang tells Lao Shen, "Once I move out, I won't be in touch," what he states is his own boundary from then on; it is still withdrawal. "Move out if you want to, but once you've moved, don't come to me when you need something" has to be read by what it is used to do: if Xiao Tang has already decided to move and Lao Shen is stating that he too will no longer help from then on, it is withdrawal; if it is used to bear down on whether Xiao Tang moves, it is outward. If what is attached is the other party's conduct in crossing my boundary, as in "Lay a hand on me again and I'm leaving," it is a statement of one's own protective withdrawal. Conflict Treatise §12: "Leaving first for safety, boundary or fact-checking is protective withdrawal and does not," that is, does not breach the constraint of facing; §12 separates it from avoidance under that constraint. Reading it here as not outward is this series' own step (own undertaking). Conduct that falls short of crossing a boundary, such as the other party's cursing at one, is also read by function: where what is attached is the way he speaks, not what he says, and room is left for what he says, as in "You can disagree, but curse at me again and I'm leaving," it is a statement of one's own boundary and is read as withdrawal; where cutting off what one provides is actually used to hold down his path to saying no and to proposing a change, it is outward. Neither the word "cursing" nor the grammar of the conditional can complete the classification on its own.
Truthful reporting and the work of one's own post do not count as outward; that is ordinary feedback. Using the occasion to apply pressure, or calling on others to isolate him, is a different matter. When Xiao Tang's new landlord comes to ask Lao Shen what kind of tenant Xiao Tang was, and Lao Shen answers according to the facts, this, in the terms of Action Theory Paper 6, §3, is not closing a way.
H57 Exit does not delete recognition; the act of exit is the leaver's own choice, and thoughts of his that he has not expressed in word or deed do not enter the other party's conditions of occurrence; saying, on exiting, something like "Nothing is lost by walking away like this" says for the other party what this exit amounts to, moves to occupy the other party's own step of understanding, and slides in the direction of colonization
Exit does not delete recognition (Action Theory Paper 7, D41). Xiao Tang's no longer contacting Lao Shen coexists with his recognizing that Lao Shen is a person. Exit has effects too: Xiao Tang moves out, Lao Shen pays the whole rent alone, and no one cooks anymore; by H56 these are read as inward and do not carry the direction of colonization. Having effects is not the same as carrying this direction, and not carrying this direction is not the same as having no effects.
The point of this proposition lies in saying it out loud. The act of exit is not the problem; the problem is saying, at the time of exit, "Nothing is lost by walking away like this." To say it out loud is to say, for the person opposite, that this exit is nothing much. For Xiao Tang, exit is his own choice; if he says nothing, no one will know what he really thought as he left.
The half not expressed. What Xiao Tang thinks as he leaves is his own affair. If he does not say it, and it does not show in his words or conduct, those thoughts have not entered Lao Shen's conditions of occurrence (Paper 1, H1), and Relation Theory does not read them; what does show in words and conduct, a slammed door, packing up with a cold face, is entered on the books under H1 as usual. What those thoughts amount to in his own value is a matter for Value Theory. If in his heart he has voided Lao Shen's standing as an end, that entry is read by Value Theory P1 V11: "when a concrete other has entered the relational field, and the bearer, keeping its fifteenth-level construction-history, wholly voids this other's standing as an end, and still calls this a walking-back without loss — this will not stand. This is an active shutting, not a walking-back." The same proposition says that the severing Power Theory sets up requires two subjects, and writes that "this case has no second subject." That entry falls on the leaver's own value, not between the two of them; this paper only registers it.
The half said out loud. For Lao Shen: if Xiao Tang says nothing at all, Lao Shen can have his own understanding and think for himself about why Xiao Tang left. If Xiao Tang says to Lao Shen, "Walking away like this, nobody has lost anything," the sentence enters Lao Shen's conditions of occurrence. It says for Lao Shen what this exit amounts to; it goes toward the step in which Lao Shen would think for himself about why, and sets out to fill that step in first: to say this sentence is to move toward leaving Lao Shen no room to think it out himself. The understanding it pushes across is not even the meaning it professes; it is discontent, or a grievance against him. So it slides in the direction of colonization (Paper 1, H8). This is a direction, and what is read is the sentence itself: even if there is other material, for instance that he may also have said words of thanks to Lao Shen, that does not change the fact that this sentence came from Xiao Tang, and does not change the sentence's own character. Whether Lao Shen is afterward really left with only this one understanding is to be seen in Lao Shen afterward.
This line is the same one as Paper 4, H37: it looks at whether one has fixed in advance, for the other party, what a thing means to him; here that thing is this exit, or what he has gained from the party who says it (own undertaking). Stating the plans and reasons on one's own side, such as "I want to be closer to work" or "Once I move out, I won't be in touch," is informing, and Lao Shen can still think for himself; characterizing this exit for the other party, as in "Nobody has lost anything," "This is better for you too" or "You don't care anyway," slides in the direction of colonization. The converse holds as well: if Lao Shen says to Xiao Tang, "You only know how to cook because of me," he is deciding for Xiao Tang what it is that Xiao Tang gained from him, and that likewise slides in the direction of colonization. Action Theory Paper 6, D36: "those who provided the conditions do not thereby become the ones who completed that step for him".
This proposition and H56 are both on the outward side, but they read different things: H56 reads the other party's cost of using a channel; this proposition reads the other party's own step of understanding.
H58 What continues after parting can be the conditions and effects that still exist; shared matters that remain after parting are not settled by unilateral exit; leaving the shared matters room for natural development when one exits points in the direction of cultivation; neither staying nor leaving certifies cultivation
After a relation ends, what continues? The conditions and effects that still exist. The ground is Meaning Theory P3 Y26: "Whatever another has obtained from me, once avowed in his own law, is his, and does not become a constitution I completed on his behalf. While I am still here, it is so; at the boundary, it is so; when I am gone, it is still so." When the two part, both are still here: that is exactly the cell of "While I am still here." Action Theory Paper 6, D36, says the same thing. Meaning Theory P4 Y31 writes the same point in the shape it takes at the place of departure: "What continues can be conditions and effects that still exist".
Xiao Tang can cook now: that is something he gained from Lao Shen, and once he has avowed it himself, it is his. This item continues after the exit, and it is no longer on Lao Shen's books. The title of Y26 puts it more firmly: "That the other is able to unfold without revolving around me is the hardest test in this row." Xiao Tang's moving out is exactly his unfolding without revolving around Lao Shen any longer; Y26's original domain is a relation that goes by the name of support, and the stretch in which Lao Shen taught Xiao Tang to cook counts as one of this kind. Lao Shen's nine years of making decisions for both of them left in Xiao Tang a habit of "someone will always decide things for me"; this item too continues after the exit, and how it goes on running in Xiao Tang's own time from then on, or is loosened, belongs to Paper 2.
Shared matters. For nine years the elderly neighbor downstairs has waited for the two of them every Sunday; the two have parted, and that shared matter remains. Conflict Treatise §12: "And where shared resources, third-party responsibility or procedural obligation remain, leaving does not close them out." Who carries it on, and how, is each one's own account with the neighbor, kept pair by pair as in Paper 1, H12.
Leaving room for natural development. When exiting, still being able to leave things room for natural development, rather than creating difficulties or over-arranging, is in itself treating others as ends. Going by this sentence, there are three ways of acting toward shared matters on exit. Leaving room for natural development points in the direction of cultivation: Xiao Tang tells the neighbor and Lao Shen early that he is leaving, hands over clearly what needs to be handed over, and leaves it to them to decide how the deliveries continue from then on. What exactly counts as over-arranging takes judgment, and no concrete rule can be given; this paper states only the direction. Fixing the future for the other party, as something he must follow and cannot revise himself, such as writing out who goes each week, what to buy and what time to arrive, and handing it to Lao Shen, goes toward deciding for the other party; it has the same form as H57 and slides in the direction of colonization. If what the handover leaves are conditions the other party can still use as they are, revise or set aside, it does not point that way. Meaning Theory P3 Y24: "What anticipatory enactment leaves behind is conditions, not an orientation deposited elsewhere"; its original domain there is anticipatory enactment toward future bearers, and this paper takes only its shape. On which side a given handover falls has to be judged in the situation at the time; this paper gives no rule. Creating difficulties means only difficulties created for others outward. Doing some further thing that puts the other party's step of carrying on out of reach, such as keeping the key to the neighbor's home on leaving and not handing it to Lao Shen, is creating difficulties and carries the direction of colonization (Paper 1, H8); what is looked at is this one operation, not the intention behind it. The hardships that exit itself brings are inward by H56 and are not called creating difficulties. Meaning Theory P4 Y33 wrote a sentence of the same form at the place of departure: the one handing over "does not use his own judgment to decide on their behalf what they ought to avow," they being those who come after; its original domain there is a carrier's leaving the world, and this paper only reads it alongside.
Neither staying nor leaving certifies cultivation. Institution Theory Paper 5, Z33, wrote a sentence of the same form on the side of the construct: "Cultivation between one another does not count the other's identifying with this institution and staying in it as success, nor does it take leaving as certifying cultivation". That proposition is marked in Institution Theory as its own undertaking, and it is addressed to the arrangements of the construct; this paper takes only its shape. Xiao Tang's staying nine years does not prove that Lao Shen's effects in those years pointed in the direction of cultivation; Xiao Tang's leaving does not prove that they did not, either. Whether the effects of those years took hold is to be seen in Xiao Tang's own understanding and action afterward (Paper 1, H8).
§4 Counterexamples and Boundaries
One party exits while the other party's reliance remains: for the past few years Lao Shen has relied on Xiao Tang to cook his meals; Xiao Tang leaves, and that reliance is still there, but with nothing to rest on. The reliance is real, and exit does not settle it; nor does it turn into a demand that "you must come back."
Shared child-rearing after parting is not settled by unilateral exit (Conflict Treatise §2). The elderly neighbor in this paper is a smaller example of the same form.
Repair succeeds and the conflict is still unresolved: the two have made up, and "discuss first" and "do it first, talk later" are still incompatible (H54).
Adding consequences for the other party on exiting: this carries the direction of colonization (H56).
Saying for the other party, on exiting, what this exit amounts to: this slides in the direction of colonization (H57).
Violation after which the relation does not end: if Lao Shen once crossed the line of basic rights, that entry is violation and is handed over as the Conflict Treatise directs; whether the relation ends is another matter. Violation does not pass final judgment on this person, nor does it automatically end a relation.
There is no exiting a self-relation (Paper 2, H20). This paper calls on Paper 2 only for "exit from a particular avowal."
§5 Drawing Together and Downstream
This paper has set out seven propositions (H52 to H58). Taken together they say: asymmetry in itself is not crossing the line, and where it is used to bear down on someone it is read along two lines: crossing the two boundaries of basic rights is violation; sealing the other party's channels outward, or making them hard to travel, carries the direction of colonization. Repair keeps two ledgers in parallel, and a reconciliation does not accomplish either party's exit. Ending does not presuppose that a relation ought to be repaired or ought to endure; unilateral exit does not settle the accounts; terminating a relation does not pass final judgment on the person. Withdrawing one's own side does not carry the direction of colonization; acting outward does. Exit does not delete recognition; exit has effects and still does not carry this direction; saying it out loud and thereby characterizing it for the other party slides in the direction of colonization. What continues after parting can be the conditions and effects that still exist; leaving room for natural development when one exits points in the direction of cultivation; neither staying nor leaving certifies cultivation.
This paper does not prove that every relation ought to be repaired or to endure; it does not prove that after exit one must resume contact or respond without limit; it does not prove that ending amounts to passing final judgment on this person.
Downstream. The effects that remain after exit are handed to Paper 7 to read: what is lost, and what is not lost.
References
All SAE works below are cited by concept DOI, which always resolves to the latest version. Quotations are checked item by item in the accompanying audit table.
I · Works directly cited in this paper
Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 1: What a Relation Is, and What It Is Not [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23545047
Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 2: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23541778
Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 4: Dealings and Expectation [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23545057
Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 5: The Sediment of Dealings [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23545076
Qin, H. (2026). SAE Conflict Treatise: How Subjecthood Is Not Swallowed by Conflict Itself [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22313628
Qin, H. (2026). SAE: The Second Critique [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23250387
Qin, H. (2026). Not Legislating for Others (SAE Action Theory, Paper 6) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970777
Qin, H. (2026). Living by One's Law in Mixed Reality (SAE Action Theory, Paper 7) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22970781
Qin, H. (2026). On the Source of Value (SAE Value Theory, Paper 1) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21405207
Qin, H. (2026). On the Conflict of Value (SAE Value Theory, Paper 5) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22122819
Qin, H. (2026). The Half That Is Not Mine to Settle (SAE Meaning Theory, Paper 3) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22731235
Qin, H. (2026). The Carrier's Boundary (SAE Meaning Theory, Paper 4) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22738709
Qin, H. (2026). Between One Another (SAE Institution Theory, Paper 5) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23271072
Interfaces
- Main upstream: Conflict Treatise (§2, §4, §5, §12, §14).
- Also used: Action Theory Paper 6 (D36), Paper 7 (D41); Meaning Theory P3 (Y24, Y26), P4 (Y31, Y33); Value Theory P1 (V11), P5 (V72); Institution Theory Paper 5 (Z29, Z33); Second Critique, Chapter Six.
- This series: Paper 1 (H8, H9, H12); Paper 4, H37; Paper 7 takes up the effects that remain after exit.