On Value and the Other
论价值与他者

Introduction

P1 established the sources of value, P2 the positions at which value occurs, P3 the structure that obtains when those positions are occupied, P4 the readings that value takes in time, and P5 what happens when two of them collide. Across five papers a value content has acquired both its history and its trials: which row of sources gives it standing, through which position it became this person's, what happens structurally when it is occupied, how it rises and falls over time, and how an ordering of action is settled when it cannot be reconciled with another. Throughout, the account has stayed on one person's own side.

The object of this paper is the value of the other (the value of the other). Three questions come down from upstream, and their exact shape is this: why a third person's picture of a particular other's values cannot acquire the verdict already complete; why the standings of two bearers' respective contents admit no common external measure; why events in a relation are not enough to merge sources of value that already exist. And how resonance (resonance) occurs precisely within these three limits.

One line runs through the whole, in two sentences. The other's values are not my values; that the other can have values of his own, and that this is not mine to give, is itself a value of mine. These are not two separate claims set side by side: the second takes the first as its object, so that the content I avow just is what the first sentence states. Can have says that he can have them without waiting upon me. I do not permit him to have them, and I hold no position from which permission could be given. This is a sentence in the first person. The one who says it is a bearer who has already avowed it, and this paper does not claim that every bearer says it.

The danger here is not saying too little. It is that three limits, read one after another, collapse into a single thought: cannot be read through, cannot be measured against, cannot be merged, and in that shorthand the reader will reach for the conclusion that each of us just lives his own life. The inference does not go through, and the reason is not that the reader has missed something. It is that the three limits do not entail it: they say what I have no standing to do with another's values, not that there is nothing between him and me.

P1 has already divided the two steps. That the other is an end is a fact, and it holds before I recognise it; the work at the fifteenth row is to recognise and to continue that fact from the first-person position. When a bearer unfolds to the fifteenth row, his own law thereby has a content that faces outward, and that content is the recognition of this particular other as an end. P1 established that as well. What this paper takes up is a further step: within that outward-facing content there is one particular matter, and the question is when it ceases to be merely a content of the law at that layer and becomes a value content this bearer has actually avowed.

This paper gives no procedure for deciding whether resonance has occurred, and no method for reading another person. How the content that the other can have values of his own, and that this is not mine to give, is carried forward by one and the same life, goes elsewhere; the closing section says where. Questions of the normative, that is, whether these things ought to be so, are not drawn upon at any point.

The text observes the disciplines of the series: no external theorists are named, no historical events are invoked, and first-tier terms carry an English gloss at their first appearance.

---

Section One · Fact and Response

V73 That the Other Can Have Values of His Own and That This Is Not Mine to Give Becomes, Once Avowed, a Value Content on That Bearer's Fifteenth Row

A man has a friend he has known for many years. He knows some of the things the friend cares about: getting the windows of the old house repaired, going down to that river once a year, refusing to hand the work in progress to anyone else. He can see all of them, and he set none of them. If one day the friend lets one of them go, it is the friend who lets it go.

The friend's caring about these things has a history, most likely. His father taught him; something happened one year that changed his mind; a book reached him early. Those origins are all there, and none of them is the friend's own making. What made repairing the windows the thing he cherishes is the avowal he made. Cultivation loosens a grid, occupation takes hold of a position of occurrence, and both work on the side of conditions: they can alter what he is able to come up against, and they cannot touch that avowal. Constitution is not accomplished on the side of conditions.

So there are two things here, and the order between them cannot be reversed. The first is a fact: this particular friend too is an end, and this holds before I recognise it. The second is a response: recognition and continuation from the first-person position. What recognition does is to acknowledge the fact and carry it on, not to make it.

When a bearer unfolds to the fifteenth row, his own law thereby has a content that faces outward, namely the recognition of this particular other as an end. P1 established this, and set down as well that this content of the law and the source at that row are two faces of one place rather than a further layer added on top of the source; that the absence of any lateral obligation is secured by the same sentence.

What this section takes up is a further step. Within that outward-facing content there is one particular matter: that the other can have values of his own, and that this is not mine to give. The question is when it ceases to be merely a content of the law at that layer and becomes a value content this bearer has avowed. The line falls on that one avowal.

Three things must be kept apart, and none of them can be folded into another. That the other can have values of his own, and that this is not mine to give, is a fact that holds prior to me. Whether I avow it is a first-person occurrence on my side. Not avowing it does not alter the first sentence, and avowing it does not create the first sentence. So this is not something every bearer has by nature, and someone who has not avowed it does not thereby make the fact untrue.

This content is arrived at by inference, and the order of the inference must be set down, because it is the easiest thing to reverse. That the other is an end is a premise, not a conclusion drawn from my side. I am an end, and the first-person source of value lies with me. The other stands in that same position of being an end, so that source lies equally with him, and he too can have values of his own. Same falls on the position, not on the contents: he likewise has his own, not a set that matches mine.

There is no observation anywhere along that chain. Even if I could read nothing at all of what my friend cares about, the conclusion would stand. The reverse does not go through: I cannot say that because I see he has values of his own, he is therefore an end. The point of application is not the point of justification, and P5 has already set that down.

Not mine to give speaks of the constitutive side, and it does not say that nothing outside reaches him. What he cares about, how he came to be as he is, who taught him, which sentence changed his mind, all of that is there. What P1 established in setting down cultivation is precisely that one bearer can loosen another's grid; what P3 established in setting down colonization is precisely that an end from outside can take hold of a position. Read as saying that his values have nothing to do with the world outside, that sentence would shut down the machinery of both papers at once. It governs one thing only: that the constitution by which a content becomes his value content is not accomplished at my place.

The layer of source is stated uniformly by P1: across the domain of bearers, the source of end-value is anchored on the condition that the standing of being an end is not placed outside; for a complete subject, the running of his sources is anchored on the autonomous reflexive operation of his own law; for a quasi-subject, the source is already there while the manner of running is still forming.

There is an asymmetry here that must be seen clearly. An infant who cannot yet say what he wants: his source of value is not mine to give, and this holds of him entirely. He counts on the side of the other in that sentence. On my side he does not yet count, because the fifteenth row is not yet running within him.

Two things are easily written into each other. The source of value at the fifteenth row is the irreplaceability of the other as an end. That is a noun, the shape by which that row can give candidates. What this section takes up is a content already avowed on that row, something that fits into that shape. The shape is not the content.

Once avowed in the first person, this content takes standing alongside the other contents already avowed under this person's name. It does not lie at some further layer, and it is not a value about value. In a concrete situation it can organise a demand for action, and it can run up against another content, in which case the adjudication P5 set down settles the matter. What it actually demands is given by each bearer out of his own law, and this paper does not prescribe it.

What the three sections that follow set down is what structural standing the relevant judgements and actions cannot acquire. That is not to say this content will make no other demands. A man may perfectly well try to understand his friend more fully, and that does not conflict with what he has avowed; what conflicts with it is declaring his own picture finished and using it to settle on his friend's behalf what the friend truly avows. And conflicting with it is not the same as not happening.

---

Section Two · What Admits No Final Verdict and What Can Be Audited Together

V74 For a Particular Other's Values, Third-Person Evidence Cannot Close into a Reading Guaranteed to Be Complete

Suppose the man knows his friend better than most. Over twenty years he has seen how the friend chose in a number of matters, heard what he said, watched the year he changed his mind. He has, on that account, a fairly detailed picture.

The picture may be accurate. It may even be right at every point. What it cannot acquire is the verdict that it is already finished. And this is not a matter of observation being too coarse, nor of materials being too few.

What is in the picture falls into two kinds, and each is stopped in its own place.

The first is whether some particular content under the friend's name has in fact become his value content. What has to be read is the first-person avowal itself, and that is the only position at which a content becomes a value content, a position no outsider enters. P2 has already ruled out the two things most often taken for a signature: a verbal declaration is not necessary, because many value contents are embodied and tacit; a lasting preference is not sufficient, because a liking may persist for thirty years and never be avowed.

The second is the readings that belong to running: which row of his sources can still bring a new candidate up in this domain, whether some particular content is in his field of candidates just now, which row the organisation of a given action actually draws on. Reachability is read row by row, particular contents are read content by content, and the centre of gravity is read action by action; P4 has already kept those three subjects apart. P4 also established that these readings are underdetermined before a third person: one and the same stretch of visible conduct answers structurally to several different readings, and those readings cannot be told apart by conduct alone.

Both kinds have been established upstream. The conclusion given by the first is that external evidence cannot close into a final criterion; what the second gives is underdetermination. Neither admits a final verdict. A complete picture of him would have to close both. If one item cannot be closed, the whole picture cannot acquire the verdict already complete. Twenty years of attention buy a more accurate picture; they do not buy its being finished.

What is denied is the verdict, not the accuracy. The man may have got it right after all. He has no way, on third-person evidence, of proving that he got it right, and no way, on that evidence, of proving that there is nothing he has failed to read.

One thing does not go on this list. Whether a row of sources is present speaks of a source position already acquired, and that one does not move by definition; the rise and fall of particular contents speaks of whether a content enters the field of candidates. Present does not mean the same thing in those two places, and it is the latter that is underdetermined. The complete picture spoken of in this section is limited to particular contents and to the readings of running. Within the range in which the bearer's structure still stands, the presence of source positions already acquired does not rise and fall with those readings; which source positions a bearer has acquired belongs to another picture, a structural one. Whether that picture can be made out by a third person is not judged here, and nothing above depends on it.

Beside what admits no final verdict, there is a set of relational conditions that can enter joint audit. If there is a candidate arising from his own sources, whether the relational channel by which it enters expression and discussion has been blocked in advance; whether a denial of his can be registered as a denial rather than taken for one more piece of evidence of consent; whether refusal, restatement, revision and exit are passable as paths. These three are facts within the structure of a relation. And reading them is not the same as judging, a sentence P3 has already established. A path that is open does not show that he has taken it; a path that is closed does not show that there is nothing on his side wanting to come out.

There is a case that looks similar and is not the same. P5 established that a person's own adjudication presupposes the avowals he already holds, and therefore cannot turn round and certify those avowals. That speaks of the first person with respect to himself. The constitutive position belongs throughout to his own first-person side and does not pass outward; whether it is reachable for him in running at some moment is settled separately. What can be closed off is the path to it, not the position itself, a sentence P3 has already established. What he lacks is a tool: using adjudication to certify avowal is using the wrong thing. What is spoken of here is the third person with respect to another, and what is lacking is not a tool but a position.

Reading through and inferring are likewise two different things. Even if that picture really were finished, one still could not say in reverse that because I see he has values of his own, he is therefore an end. What the preceding section set down governs the order of the inference, not the capacity to read.

None of the above depends on anyone's having avowed what the preceding section set down. For someone who has avowed it, there is a further layer. However fine the representation, it cannot stand in for his friend's first-person avowal; knowing and constituting are two different things to begin with. Taking a detailed picture for a finished one is what this section blocks head on, and it holds for any third person. What conflicts with the content he has avowed is a further step: declaring that picture finished, and using it to settle on his friend's behalf what the friend truly avows, so that his subsequent denials and restatements have no room left in which to tell against it. The problem lies in the standing, not in the accuracy.

---

Section Three · Measuring, and What Belongs to the World

V75 The Standings of Two Bearers' Respective Value Contents Admit No Common External Measure; the Conditions, Options and Consequences in the World Can Be Jointly Described and Checked, and Those Readings Do Not Flow Back into Standing

The man has an undertaking of his own that he has kept up for years. Now and then he wonders which matters more, his friend's repairing that window or the thing in his own hands.

There is no answer to that, and the reason is not that the two are too close to call. To rank the standings of two contents avowed under two people's names, one would need a ruler that does two things at once: stand outside both laws, and convert two first-person standings into one and the same quantity. Neither can be had. P1 said, in establishing the leading proposition, that once something is the bearer's own and issues from his own law, there is no longer any coordinate system outside that law which can pass value judgement on it across subjects, and that proposition covers the case of distinct bearers. P5 said further that the standing of a content admits only of holding or not holding, not of amount. The two layers meet here.

There is a way of putting it that sounds courteous: not to say which matters more, but that both matter equally. It does not hold. Equally is still two marks on one ruler; it has not removed the ruler, only set the two readings at the same place.

What can be said between the two positions is something else. The place that matter occupies for him, and the place this matter occupies for me, are positions of the same type within their respective structures, and they do not make up a common quantity. Same type says one thing only: each content has acquired first-person standing at its own bearer's place. It does not say that the two issue from the same row of sources, nor that they play the same part in their respective lives, still less that they weigh the same.

What cannot be compared is standing. There is no shortage of things two people can look at together, say together and check together, and among them are the conditions that matter most for what actually gets arranged.

One afternoon two undertakings run up against each other: whose work has the yard, there is only one ladder, so many days of good weather are left. These are facts in the world; they can be checked together by both, and the records can be set side by side. P5 said, in establishing adjudication, that what can be arranged where two people meet is each party's own action, how resources are to be staggered, who moves the obstruction a little; and that from outside one can still furnish supporting conditions, give time, give things, give a somewhat steadier situation. Doing these things does take measures: what is measured is loss, days, one ladder. Those measures reach the yard; they do not reach standing.

The relational side has an accounting of its own, and Section Five takes it up.

There is a step here that gets taken without noticing. This option costs less than that one, and therefore the value behind this option matters more than the other. That step has to be blocked, because it looks the most like common sense.

Its fault is not that it is too broad; it is that it has switched axes. Consequence speaks of what came out of this particular arrangement; standing asks whether that content holds within its own bearer's law. P4 made the shape of this plain in establishing that output and position are independent axes: to put something visible in place of something that is in principle not visible, to let the easily had stand in for the hard to have, is a move that often works elsewhere and does not work here, because the reading substituted in does not prove the thing that had to be proved.

Nor does the side of standing take quantity at all. A reading that admits of more and less cannot flow back into a position that does not take amount.

So two things run at once between two people. On the conditions and consequences in the world, they can look together, check together, and each adjust his own arrangements; whether heterogeneous consequences can be converted into one and the same quantity is a further question, and this section does not judge it. On standing, they need no ruler and have none, and this is not because they are deferring to each other.

---

Section Four · Crossing and Merging

V76 Relational Crossing, Resonance, Joint Decision and Joint Arrangement Are Not by Themselves Enough to Merge Bearers' Existing Sources of Value into One

A number of people live along that river. One goes there because he learned to swim in it as a boy; one makes his living from it; one keeps an old temple on its bank. Over the years they have done several things together: cleared the silt, stopped a sand-dredging operation, put in money to repair a stretch of embankment. Afterwards people often say that this river is ours in common.

That is right, and it is also unclear. What is right is that those things really were done together, and done on a common arrangement. What is unclear is where in common falls. Falling on those undertakings, it says that the arrangement of action came to rest at one place, which is what P5 dealt with. Falling on sources, it says that these people's sources of value have already merged into one.

The second placement does not follow, on three counts.

Each person's source of value is anchored on the condition that his standing as an end is not placed outside; for someone whose own law is running, the running of those sources is anchored on the autonomous reflexive operation of that law. Where it is anchored is a structural fact on his side. The day before the silt was cleared, the source of the man who makes his living from the river was there; the day after, it was still there, and still in him. Several rounds of common work make no difference on this count.

At the fifteenth row, several people's sources may point at one another, and point densely. P1 wrote it down plainly in establishing relational crossing: each bearer's fifteenth-row source remains anchored in himself, and the directions of several sources crossing does not amount to those sources merging into one. Crossing speaks of where they point, not of where they come out.

Clearing silt together really happened, and so did the common arrangement. But something that happens in a relation is not the kind of thing by which any party acquires a source position. Source positions are given with the bearer's structure. Those common undertakings do not of themselves alter where existing sources are anchored, nor are they enough to show that a new source position has been acquired. Whether a relation might, in some course of a subject's growth, be one of the conditions is a further question, and this section does not judge it.

There is one thing a common relation genuinely cannot do, and it needs saying on its own. What those people decided together cannot stand in for any one of them making his own avowal. P2, in establishing that first-person avowal cannot be granted or withdrawn from outside, governs exactly this. It governs the side of contents; where sources lie is another question.

As to whether another bearer might come to stand on some other conditions, this section does not ask. Even if one did, that would not mean the sources of the original people had been swallowed by it. What is set down here is one sentence only: those things done together do not by themselves yield the conclusion that sources have merged.

When people say the river is ours in common, there is often a further sense in it: that protecting this river is something each of them has avowed for himself. That layer holds entirely, and it is common. Several people each avowing the same matter on his own row is several contents, not one. Their contents are the same; their origins are each his own.

A content held in common does not become an external measure merely by being held in common. It becomes one when it is taken up to rank people's standings, or taken up to declare that someone's standing ought to be overridden or withdrawn. What is done in common, what is agreed in common, what is kept in common, none of these is at fault for being common.

If sources really were merged into one, the first sentence of the spine would be gone. His source of value is not mine to give says that the source lies with him; once merged, the source lies with us, and no one can say whose it still is. And the content that man avowed takes the first sentence as its object. So merging does not thicken the relation; it dismantles the content on his own side. This speaks of the kind in which a total source takes existing individual sources in and displaces them; a case in which something comes to stand on other conditions and coexists with individual sources is not within this counter-argument.

P5 established one of similar shape: a joint decision does not generate a third position of value adjudication. That one says that two people settling something does not amount to two sets of values being made into one common table, nor to the appearance of a position that could rank the two sides. It falls on the side of action, and asks whether a further position of adjudication has appeared once a settlement is reached. This section falls on the side of constitution, and asks where the sources lie. Similar in shape is not one standing in for the other.

The three limits are set down at this point. What is left between two people is taken up in the section that follows.

---

Section Five · Recognition and Joint Audit

V77 For Two Bearers Each Able to Run Outward Recognition at the Fifteenth Row, Resonance Is a Mutual Recognition Between Them; It Constitutes No Third Value, No Third Source and No Third Bearer

The window was repaired in the end. The friend called him over to look, pointed at a few places and said a little, not much. Standing there, what he saw was not only a repaired window. He saw that this was the friend's, that it came out from the friend's side, and that it was not his to give.

In this example both sides recognised each other. He recognised that repairing the window was his friend's, come out from the friend's side; the friend recognised that the thing the man had kept up for years was the man's, come out from his side. That layer is given directly by the example; it cannot be read off from whom he called or how much he said, as Section Two has already explained. Resonance (resonance) is mutual recognition, and mutual recognition has two ends.

That resonance occurred, and someone judging that it occurred, are not the same thing. It may occur without being named, and someone may take a stir of feeling in himself for resonance. A description of it can be wrong and can be revised, and none of that constitutes it in turn.

Resonance is a mutual recognition between two bearers each of whom can run outward recognition at the fifteenth row. What stands at the two ends are people, not values. Values do not recognise anything; only a bearer can make something out. The prequel gives the shape of this, and P1 and P2 each hand over to this paper the question of how two bearers recognise each other; what this section sets down is that.

What resounds is each one's own values. On the friend's side what resounds is repairing the window; which row of sources it issues from is not asked here and need not be. The prequel says that it is the values each has given that can resonate, and sets no restriction on rows. Particular contents are the occasion on which mutual recognition occurs, not the object of what is recognised. Two people may recognise each other over a craft, or over a long stretch of care, or a long wait, or a fondness whose origins cannot be stated.

What is recognised, however, is always the same: that this is his, come out from his side, not mine to give. It is not sameness of content. Isomorphism gives the possibility of mutual recognition and does not guarantee sameness of content. What two people care about may lie very far apart, and each may still make out in the other the ownness on his own side.

That possibility comes from isomorphism. Each subject's law is of his own making. No one can, from an external position, acquire a final and exhaustive verdict on another's law, and no one can write another's law for him; and yet the two laws are isomorphic in form, the same internal double negation recurring in every self-legislating subject. Value and law are isomorphic. Isomorphism yields a structure that can be recognised; the recognising is still done by bearers. And because the same structure recurs from subject to subject, the values each has given can resonate. No ruler is at work here. A ruler measures higher and lower; resonance recognises.

The spine says he can have; here we say he has. The difference of a word is real. Can have does not wait upon his actually giving anything, and an infant who cannot yet say what he wants is within that sentence too; resonance requires that he has actually given something, for me to make it out. Recognition can be directed at an other not yet present; resonance cannot, since it requires something given and seen.

So can have reaches further than has. There are people with whom no expression, no work and no trace of a relation will ever pass between us; resonance will not occur there, and every one of them is within the spine's sentence. Resonance is the spine redeemed where two people meet, and not the whole of it.

Whether resonance occurs turns further on expression, on the relation, and on first-person continuation. Isomorphism gives only the possibility. Had the friend given that matter in no way that could be received, or given it and not been made out, or had something else long stood between the two of them, that moment would not have come.

Nor is it anyone's demand for action. A demand or an order from one party cannot constitute resonance, nor make it happen from one side. What can be done is conditions: give time, give things, give a somewhat steadier situation, move the obstruction a little. All of these can be done, and doing them does not guarantee that the moment will come.

A further layer follows. Each party can, from the first-person position, state and stand behind whether that act of recognition was completed on his own side; of the other side, what is had is a relational reading that can be wrong and can be revised. The two may also say together that resonance occurred here, and that sentence may hold and may equally be a misjudgement. Neither party, nor any joint procedure, can raise it into a final verdict. This paper gives no procedure for deciding whether resonance has occurred, and that is not to say that no one can answer the question.

A value no one resonates with is not thereby lowered. What resounds is already complete in a solitary subject. Through the years when no one came to look at it, that window was one of the friend's own.

That moment really happens; it is between two people and has a position of its own. But it does not enter the map of sources. It constitutes no third value, no third source and no third bearer. Mutual recognition occurs between two people already present and their values already present; the pearls are present before any resonance.

V78 Joint Audit Distributes Its Authority: Each Party States and Stands Behind His Own Side Only; What the Two Audit Together Is the Opening and Closing of Relational Channels; Neither Party nor Any Joint Procedure Can Certify for the Other What He Truly Avows

Resonance cannot be made to happen by anyone. There is something else two people can undertake together, and undertake to effect: joint audit (joint audit).

Section Two divided the matter into two sides: another's internal state of avowal and his readings in running admit no final verdict, while certain relational channels can enter joint audit. Joint audit works on the latter side only.

It falls into three places. Each party can state, from the first-person position, only his own side, and stands behind only his own side. That statement cannot be written for him by the other, and it does not acquire a guarantee by entering a joint setting. A person does not necessarily know on the spot where some content of his came from, as P3 explained in establishing self-colonization; and a person's own adjudication cannot turn round and certify the avowals he already holds, as P5 said. Joint audit yields no guarantee at this layer that a party gives himself.

What the two audit together is the opening and closing of relational channels. If there is a candidate, whether the relational channel by which it enters expression and discussion is open; whether a denial can be registered as a denial; whether refusal, restatement, revision and exit are passable as paths. These three can be checked together by both parties, and the records can be set side by side. His internal state of avowal is not audited, and neither is actual reachability.

What comes out is two first-person statements each party stands behind, together with a record of relational conditions checked in common. When the two do not agree, all that is registered at first is that they do not agree: no judgement yet as to which party is wrong, and none as to which path has been closed. Disagreement may come from the two having seen different things, from one of them not having put it accurately at the time, from the positions the two occupy in this relation being asymmetric to begin with, and it may equally come from a path having really been closed. To judge that a path is closed in running, relational evidence is needed besides. Once that evidence is in, the conclusion takes the form of positions and channels: this path is still open, this path is closed in running, or the three items are not yet complete. Being unable to judge is itself a legitimate conclusion.

When a path is said to be closed, what is closed is the path to that position, not the position itself. The positions of avowal, revision and exit are structurally permanent, and colonization works on reachability and not on presence; P3 established both.

This upper limit was not added here. P3 explained, in establishing the limit of audit, that to go past those three items and read the first person is to generate, structurally, the very kind of relation that introjection requires. Joint audit runs below that line.

There is a further case in which no one need be present. A person can act toward an other who has not yet appeared: write a book, leave a craft behind, put a road through. P1 said that a solitary subject keeps that formal position of the other open for any bearer of ends who may appear; what he avows is a content of the same form as the spine's, namely that any bearer who may appear can have values of his own, and that this is not mine to give. That content is real, and the one who writes the book is writing on it.

The sentence about some actual particular other has not yet come to hold. What that is, is an anticipatory exercise directed at the formal position of the other, and it does not fill the position of fact; only an actually existing particular other within the domain of bearers can fill the position of fact that the actual other too is an end. In a universe with a first subject, that sentence is already his in its formal shape, provided he has avowed this conditional from the fifteenth-row position, in which case it is a real content of his own while the position of the actual other stands empty; when a second subject appears, that only brings the position of fact to rest on a particular person, and whether the first subject avows the fact as a content of his own still requires a further first-person response.

This is where the case of the infant must be kept apart. A bearer who does not yet exist can enter only as a conditional: if he appears, he can have values of his own, and this is not mine to give. The infant is not of that kind. He has already filled the position of fact that an actual other is an end; how far particular value contents under his name have come to occur is not judged by whether he can speak, since speech was never a necessary signature of avowal. That he cannot yet be the first-person avower of this content does not mean that only can have may be said of him.

Come back to the three limits. Each blocks something of its own: V74 blocks one party's using his own representation to settle the matter for the other; V75 blocks an external measure passing judgement on the standings of the two; V76 blocks writing something that happened in a relation directly into the claim that the two sides' sources have already merged. What holds the two ends in place, each still standing, is the third.

Mutual recognition requires two ends, and the two ends are two sets of values each issuing from its own side. That is not produced by the three limits; it is what the spine's sentence has been saying all along. What the three limits do is keep it from being written away.

---

Section Six · Closing and Downstream

The other's values are not my values; that the other can have values of his own, and that this is not mine to give, is itself a value of mine. The second sentence takes the first as its object. What the first sentence states holds prior to any avowal of mine; whether I avow it is a first-person occurrence on my side.

The three limits are one and the same fact read at three widths. For a particular other, third-person evidence cannot close into a reading guaranteed to be complete. For two bearers, the standings of their respective contents admit no common external measure, while the conditions, options and consequences in the world can be checked together and those readings do not flow back into standing; the accounting for the relational side is in Section Five. For many bearers, relational crossing, resonance, joint decision and joint arrangement are not by themselves enough to merge existing sources of value into one. Each has grounds of its own, and none is derived from another.

Cannot be read through, cannot be measured against, cannot be merged: in that shorthand, the three together still do not yield each living his own life. The limits say what I have no standing to do with another's values, not that there is nothing between him and me. Mutual recognition occurs precisely within those three, and it is not generated by them jointly. The two ends are given by two bearers and their respective values; V74 and V75 keep the two ends from being settled for and from being overridden by an external measure, and V76 directly blocks a merger that would take existing individual sources in and displace them, wiping out the end at the source. The three set down what resonance cannot be written as; they do not guarantee that resonance will come.

There remain two forms of relation here, and they do not do the same work. Resonance can occur: a demand or an order cannot constitute it, nor make it happen from one side, and what a party can do is only to furnish or protect conditions. Joint audit can be undertaken: it runs on the side of relational channels, does not reach any party's internal state of avowal, and yields no guarantee that a party gives himself. This paper gives no procedure for deciding whether resonance has occurred.

How the content that the other can have values of his own, and that this is not mine to give, is carried forward by one and the same life, goes to the Theory of Meaning.

---

Acknowledgements

This is the sixth paper in the Value Theory branch of the SAE (Self-as-an-End) philosophical system, and its philosophical argumentation was carried out by the author alone. All argument, all decisions between alternatives, and the final text were adjudicated by the author, who bears sole responsibility for the paper. The drafting process used a four-way cross-review method: internal precision audit, ontological-limit and contradiction detection, boundary testing, and structural gatekeeping with pre-publication signature.

Drafting assistance and the four reviews above were carried out with the help of large language models. Drafting and the internal precision audit were undertaken by Claude (Anthropic), ontological-limit and contradiction detection by Gemini (Google DeepMind), boundary testing by Grok (xAI), and structural gatekeeping with pre-publication signature by ChatGPT (OpenAI). Thanks are due to these systems and to the research and engineering teams behind them. Their comments were adjudicated by the author item by item, and both what was adopted and what was rejected are on record.

Several load-bearing points in this paper were revised in review. The central line was corrected twice: first from the claim that the other's values issue from him alone, to the claim that the source of the other's values is not mine to give, since the earlier wording would have shut down at once the upstream machinery of cultivation and of colonization, both of which turn on the fact that what is outside does reach in; and then the positive half was restored, giving that the other can have values of his own, and that this is not mine to give, with the permissive reading blocked by the clause that immediately follows it. The paper's contribution was relocated: from first supplying that content to registering it as a value content, since upstream had already named the outward-facing content of the law at the fifteenth row and had already established the machinery by which a content acquires the standing of value, and this paper joins the two by saying when that matter becomes a content the bearer has avowed. The limit on reading was narrowed from cannot be read through to third-person evidence cannot close into a reading guaranteed to be complete, separating incidental completeness from a final verdict, and the step that conflicts with the spine was moved from taking reading-through as one's aim to declaring one's picture finished and settling on the other's behalf what he truly avows — the problem lies in the standing, not in the accuracy. The object of joint audit was moved from each party's checking his own side to the opening and closing of relational channels, since the earlier wording left both joint and audit with nothing to do, while giving it something to check would at once breach the limit on reading.

One further point was revised: the main proof that sources do not merge no longer runs through the proposition that first-person avowal cannot be granted or withdrawn from outside, since the subject of that proposition is the avowal of contents and not the source of value; it now runs through the anchoring of sources and through relational crossing, and the proposition itself states that what is denied is that relational events by themselves suffice to merge existing sources, leaving open whether another bearer might come to stand on other conditions.

This paper continues the standing product of an upstream-paraphrase audit table, comparing item by item what the paper says of upstream texts against their published wording; the table was compiled and first checked at the drafting position and separately reviewed by an independent gate. The four-way review markedly improved the precision and consistency of this paper, and thanks are due for it.

---

References

The following works are archived on Zenodo, with Chinese and English editions under the same record. The DOIs cited are concept DOIs, which always point to the most recent version; version numbers and access dates are therefore not given. All works are single-authored (Han Qin). Drafting and review assistance are described in the acknowledgements. Works are listed in series order.

Qin, H. (2026). Systems, Emergence and the Human Condition: A Normative Social Theory Centred on the Subject as an End in Itself (SAE Foundational Paper 1) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18528813

Qin, H. (2026). Internal Colonization and the Reconstruction of Subjecthood (SAE Foundational Paper 2) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18666645

Qin, H. (2026). The Three-Layer Two-Dimensional Unified Structure: The Complete Framework of Self-as-an-End (SAE Foundational Paper 3) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18727327

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

Qin, H. (2026). General Methodology: The Chisel-Construct Cycle (SAE Methodology) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18842449

Qin, H. (2026). Via Rho (SAE Methodology Paper 00) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19657439

Qin, H. (2026). On the Origin of Power (SAE Power Theory Paper 1) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20370225

Qin, H. (2026). On the Severing of Power (SAE Power Theory Paper 6) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20647463

Qin, H. (2026). On the Thickness and Boundary of Basic Rights (SAE Rights Theory Paper 2) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20769253

Qin, H. (2026). On the Limitation and Violation of Basic Rights (SAE Rights Theory Paper 5) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21212595

Qin, H. (2026). On Rights and Entitlements (SAE Rights Theory, Special Paper) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21314907

Qin, H. (2026). What Value Is Not (SAE Value Theory, Prequel) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21362575

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 Occurrence and Recognition of Value (SAE Value Theory Paper 2) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21437038

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

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

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 First Critique of SAE [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21439120

引言

P1 立了价值源，P2 立了发生的位置，P3 读了这组位置被占据时的结构，P4 给了时间中的读数，P5 立了两项撞在一起时怎么办。五篇下来，一项价值内容的身世与相持都有了：它从哪一行源上取得资格，经哪一位成为这个人的，被占据时结构上出了什么事，在时间里如何起落，与另一项不相容时那一道行动次序怎么排。唯独通篇讲的都是一个人自己那一侧。

本篇的对象是他者的价值。上游交下来那三问，其精确的形状是：第三人称关于一个具体他者价值的图，为何取不到已经完整这一判定；两个承担者各自内容的价值地位，为何不取共同外尺；关系上的事，为何不足以使既有的价值源自动合并为一；以及共鸣如何恰在这三条限界之内发生。

通篇由一条脊贯穿，它是两句。他者的价值不是我的价值；他者可以有他自己的价值，而这不由我代给，这件事是我的价值。两句不是并排的两件事，第二句以第一句为宾语：我所认领的那一项内容，就是第一句所说的那件事。可以有说的是他不待我而能有。我并不许他有，也没有那个位置去许。这是一句第一人称的话，说它的人是已经认领了它的承担者；本篇不断定每个承担者都说它。

这里最要防的不是说得太少，是三条限界读多了，读成一句各活各的。读不尽，比不了，合不拢，这样简写下来，读者会顺手推出那就各活各的。这一推不成立，而理由不在读者漏读了什么，在三条限界本身不蕴含它：限界说的是我在他者的价值上没有哪几样处置，不说我与他之间没有关系。

P1 已经把两步分好。他者是目的，这是一个事实，在我承认之前就是；而 15DD 的活，是从第一人称的位置承认并接续这个事实。承担者展开到 15DD，它自己的法就有了一项朝外的内容，就是承认具体他者为目的，这一条 P1 也已立过。本篇要接的是另一步：这项朝外的内容里有一件具体的事，它何时不只是法在这一层的内容，而是这个承担者名下一项已经认领的价值内容。

本篇不给判定共鸣是否发生的程序，也不给读取他者的方法。他者可以有他自己的价值而这不由我代给，这一项内容此后如何被同一条命持续担着，另有去处，末节交代。规范的问题，即这些事当不当如此，一律不支取。

正文遵系列纪律：不点名外部理论家，不援引历史事件；一级术语首次出现附英文注。

---

第一节 事实与回应

V73 他者可以有他自己的价值，而这不由我代给。承担者认领这一事实，它便成为该承担者 15DD 行上的一项价值内容

一个人有一位认识多年的朋友。他知道朋友在意些什么：把老屋的窗修好，每年去一趟那条河，不肯把手上的活交给别人做。这些他都看得见，也都不是他定下的。哪一天朋友把其中一件放下了，那是朋友自己放下的。

朋友在意这些，多半有来处。父亲教过他，某一年出过一件事让他改了主意，某一本书他读得很早。这些来处都在，也都不是朋友自己造的。使修窗成为他所珍重的那一件的，是他那道认领。涵育松开网格，占位占住发生处，两样都在条件那一侧，动得了他能碰到什么，动不了那道认领。构成不在条件那一侧做成。

于是有两件事，次序不能倒。第一件是事实：这个具体的朋友也是目的，这一点在我承认之前就是。第二件是回应：从第一人称的位置承认并接续这个事实。承认做的是认这个事实，接续这个事实，不是造这个事实。

承担者展开到 15DD，它自己的法就有了一项朝外的内容，就是承认具体他者为目的。这一条 P1 已经立过，并写明这项法之内容与那一行的源是同一处的两面，不是在源之外又加了一层，无横向义务也由这一句一并守住。

本节要接的是另一步。那项朝外的内容里有一件具体的事：他者可以有他自己的价值，而这不由我代给。它何时不只是法在这一层的内容，而是这个承担者名下一项已经认领的价值内容。分界就在那一道认领上。

这一项的成立分三处。他者可以有他自己的价值而这不由我代给，是先于我的事实。我认不认领它，是我这一侧的第一人称发生。不认领不改变第一句，认领也不创造第一句。所以它不是每个承担者天然就有的一项，而没有认领它的人，也不因此使那个事实不成立。

这一项是推出来的，推的次序如下。他者是目的，这一条是前提。我自己是目的，第一人称的价值来源在我这里。他者同样落在是目的这个位上，所以那个来源同样在他那里，他也一样可以有他自己的价值。一样落在位上，不落在内容上：他同样有他自己的那一份，不是有一份跟我一样的。

这条链上没有观察。即使我一点也读不到那位朋友在意什么，结论照立。反过来不成立：不能因为我看见他有自己的价值，所以说他是目的。着力处不是证成处，P5 已经立过。

来源这一层 P1 是统一说的：跨承担域，目的价值的来源锚在目的地位不外置这一条上；对完备主体，它的运行锚在它自己的法的自律反身运作上；对准主体，来源已在而运行方式尚在生成。

一个还说不出自己要什么的婴儿，他的价值来源同样不由我代给。他在这句话里作他者算得数。作认领的那一方他还算不得数，15DD 那一行还不在他内部现实运行。

15DD 的价值源是他者作为目的之不可替代性。那是名词，是这一行能给出候选的形状。本节所说的是这一行上已被认领的一项内容，是嵌进那个形状的东西。形状不是内容。

这一项经第一人称认可之后，与这个人名下别的已认领内容同取价值地位。它不在另一层上，也不是一项关于价值的价值。在具体的情境里它可以组织行动要求，也可以与别的内容撞上，那时按 P5 立下的那道裁断结算。它实际要求什么，由每个承担者从自己的法里给出。

后面三节所立的，是相关判断与行动不能取得什么样的结构资格。那不等于说这一项内容不会提出别的要求。一个人可以尽力把朋友理解得更全，那不与他认领的那一项相犯；相犯的是宣布自己那张图已经画完，并拿它替朋友结算他真正认可的是什么。相犯也不等于不会发生。

---

第二节 取不到终局的与可共同核验的

V74 对一个具体他者的价值，第三人称证据不能闭合为可保证穷尽的读数

那个人对朋友知道得比别人多。二十年里他见过朋友在几件事上怎么选，听过他说什么，也见过他哪一年改了主意。他手上因此有一张相当细的图。

这张图可能画得准，甚至可能处处都对。它取不到已经画完这一判定。而这不是观察还不够细，也不是材料不足。

图上的东西分两类，各有各拦住的地方。

一类是朋友名下的某一项内容究竟有没有成为他的价值内容。要读的是第一人称认可那一道，而那是唯一使内容成为价值内容的位置，这个位置外部进不去。P2 已经把两样最常被当作签名的东西排掉了：言语表态不是必要的，因为许多价值内容是具身的，默会的；持久的偏好不是充分的，因为一种喜欢可以维持三十年而始终未被认领。

另一类是运行上的读数：这一域上他哪一行源还浮得起新的候选，某一项此刻在不在候选场里，这一次行动的组织实际取自哪一行。可达逐源行读，具体内容逐内容读，重心逐次行动读，P4 已把三个主词分开。P4 已经立过，这些读数在第三人称面前都是欠定的，同一段外面看得见的表现在结构上对应几个不同的读数，而这几个读数不能单凭行为分辨开。

两类上游各自立过。第一类给出的结论是外部的证据合不拢成一套终局的判据，第二类给出的是欠定。两处都取不到终局的判定。一张关于他的完整的图要把两类一并合上。有一项合不上，整张图就取不到已经完整这一判定。二十年的留意换得来更准的一张图，换不来它已经画完。

否定的是那一道判定，不是准确。那个人也许恰好画对了。他没有办法凭第三人称的证据证明自己画对了，也没有办法凭这套证据证明还有没有他没读到的。

有一样不进这张清单。一行源在不在场，说的是已经取得的源位，那一件按定义不动；具体内容的起落说的是它进不进候选场。在场这个词在那两处说的不是一件事，欠定说的是后者。本节所说的完整的图，限于具体内容与运行的读数。在承担者结构仍在的范围内，已经取得的源位之在场不随这些读数起落；承担者究竟取得了哪些源位，属于另一张结构的图。那张图在第三人称面前认不认得出，本篇不判，上面的结论也不靠这一项。

取不到终局判定的那些旁边，另有一批关系条件可以进入共同核验。若有由他自己的源生成的候选，它进入表达与讨论的关系通道有没有被预先挡住；他的一项否认能不能按否认被登记，还是被当作同意的又一份证据；拒绝，重述，修订与退出这几条路通不通。这三样都是关系结构里的事实。而读到它们不等于判得出，这一句 P3 已立。一条路开着，不说明他走了；一条路封着，也不说明他那一侧没有东西要走出来。

有一处形式相近而不是一回事。P5 立过，一个人自己的裁断以他现有的认领为前提，因此不能反过来替这些认领验明正身。那说的是第一人称对自己。那个构成位始终归在他的第一人称一侧，不会转到外部；它在某一时刻对他运行上通不通，另行结算。可被封住的是通往它的路，不是它本身，这一句 P3 已立。他缺的是工具，拿裁断去给认领验明正身，用错了东西。这里说的是第三人称对他者，缺的不是工具，是位置。

读得尽与推得出也是两件事。就算那张图真的画完了，也不能倒过来说：因为我看见他有自己的价值，所以他是目的。上一节那一条管的是推的次序，不管读的能力。

以上都不依赖任何人已经认领了上一节那一项。对已经认领了它的人，还有一层。表征做得再细也代不了朋友的第一人称认可，认识与构成本来就是两件事；而把一张细图当成已经画完，是这一节正面挡的，对任何第三人称都成立。与他所认领的那一项相犯的是另一步：宣布那张图已经画完，并拿它替朋友结算他真正认可的是什么，使他此后的否认与重述都失去反驳的余地。问题在资格，不在准确。

---

第三节 比与世界里的事

V75 两个承担者各自价值内容的价值地位之间不取共同外尺；世界里的条件，方案与后果可以共同描述和核对，其读数不回流为价值地位

那个人自己也有一件做了多年的事。有时他会想，朋友修那扇窗，跟自己手上这一件，哪一件更要紧。

这一问答不出来，而原因不在两件事分量太近。要给两个人名下两项已认领内容的价值地位排出高下，须有一把尺同时办成两件事：站在两套法之外，又能把两个第一人称的地位换成同一种量。两件都办不成。P1 立头号命题时已经说过，一样东西一旦是承担者自己的，出自它自己的法，就再没有一个法外的坐标系能对它执行跨主体的价值审判，那一条涵盖跨承担者的情形。P5 又说过，内容的价值地位只取在与不在，不取量值。两层在这里合上。

有一个听上去客气的说法：不说谁更要紧，说两边一样要紧。它不成立。同等仍是一把尺上的两个刻度，它没有取消那把尺，只把两个读数放在了同一处。

两边的位置之间可说的是别的。那件事在他那里所占的位置，与这件事在我这里所占的位置，在各自的结构中是同型的位置，而不构成一个共同的量。同型说的只有一样：两项内容各自在各自承担者那里取得了第一人称的价值地位。它不说两项出自同一行源，不说它们在各自的日子里起同样的作用，更不说它们分量相同。

不可比的是价值地位。两个人之间可以一起看，一起说，一起核对的东西并不少，其中也包括实际安排上最要紧的那些条件。

某个下午两件事撞在一处：谁的活占着院子，梯子只有一副，好天气还剩几日。这些是世界里的事实，可以由两边共同核对，相关记录可以放在一处对。P5 立裁断时已经说过，相遇处能安排的是各自的行动，是资源怎么错开，是谁把挡着的东西挪开一点；外面还可以给出支持的条件，给时间，给东西，给一个安稳些的处境。做这些用得上尺，量的是损失，是天数，是一副梯子；那些尺量得到院子，量不到地位。

关系上的事另有它自己的分账，第五节说。

这里有一步顺手就会走的推论。这个方案比那个方案损失小，于是主张这个方案的那一项价值就比另一项更要紧。这一步必须驳掉，因为它最像常识。

它的错处不在它太宽，在它换了轴。后果说的是从这一次安排里出来了什么；价值地位问的是那一项在它自己承担者的法里成不成立。P4 立产出与位置两轴独立时已经把这个形状说清楚：拿一个看得见的东西去替一个原则上看不见的东西，以易得者代难得者，这一步在别处常常管用，在这里不管用，替下来的那个读数所证的不是要证的那件事。

地位那一侧根本不接量。一个可以比大小的读数，回流不到一个不取量值的位置上去。

所以两个人之间同时有两件事在走。世界里的条件与后果上，他们可以一起看，一起核对，并各自调整安排；异质的后果能不能换算成同一种量，那是另一问，本节不判。价值地位上，他们不需要一把尺，也没有一把尺可用，而这不是因为他们互相谦让。

---

第四节 交错与合并

V76 关系性交叉，共鸣，共同决定与共同安排本身，都不足以使各承担者既有的价值源自动合并为一

那条河边住着不少人。有人常去，是因为小时候在那儿学的游泳；有人靠河吃饭；有人守着河边一座旧庙。这些年他们一起做过几件事，清过淤，拦下过一次采砂，凑钱修了一段护坡。做完之后大家常说，这条河是我们共同的。

这话说得对，也说得含混。对的是那几件事确实是一起做成的，照的是一个共同的安排。含混的是共同二字落在哪里。落在那几件事上，说的是行动的安排落到了同一处，那是 P5 处理过的事。落在源上，说的是这些人的价值源已经并成了一个。

第二种落法推不出来，有三处。

各人的价值来源，锚在他作为目的这一地位不外置这一条上；对一个运行着自己的法的人，他那些源的运行锚在他自己那套法的自律反身运作上。锚在哪里，是他这一侧的结构事实。清淤那一天之前，靠河吃饭的人的源就在那里；那一天之后，它还在那里，还在他身上。共同的事做过几回，这一条上没有变化。

15DD 那一行上，几个人的源可以彼此指向对方，交错得很密。P1 立关系性交叉时已经写明，每一个承担者的 15DD 源仍然锚在它自己身上，多个源的指向交错在一起，不等于这些源合并成了一个源。指向交错说的是朝哪里，不说从哪里出来。

一起清淤是真发生的事，共同的安排也是真的。可是一件关系上的事，本身不是任何一方取得源位的那种事。源位随承担者的结构给定。那几件共同的事不凭自身改变既有源的锚定，也不足以证明新的源位已经取得。关系会不会在某一次主体的生长里成为一项条件，是另一问，本节不判。

有一样是共同关系确实做不到的，须单说。那几个人一起决定的事，代不了其中任何一个人自己那一道认可。P2 立第一人称认可不可由外部授撤，管的正是这一件。它管的是内容那一侧；源在哪里，是另一问。

至于另一个承担者能不能在别的条件下另行成立，本节不问。就算有，那也不等于原来那些人的源被它吞掉了。这里所立的只有一句：那几件一起做成的事，本身推不出源已经合并。

人们说这条河是我们共同的，往往还有一层意思：护住这条河，是每个人自己都认下来的一件事。这一层完全成立，而且常见。几个人各自在自己那一行上认领了同一件事，那是几项内容，不是一项。它们内容相同，来处各是各的。

共同的内容不因为共同二字就成了一把外尺。它成为外尺，是在被拿去给各人的价值地位排出高下，或者被拿去宣布某人的价值地位应当被覆盖或撤销的时候。共同做的事，共同定的规矩，共同守的东西，本身都不因共同而有错。

若真把源并成一个，脊的第一句就没了。他的价值来源不由我代给，说的是那个来源在他那里。并成一个之后，来源在我们那里，谁也说不出它还在谁那里。而那个人所认领的那一项，宾语正是第一句。所以合并不是把关系做厚，是把他自己这一侧的那一项拆掉。这说的是一个总的源把既有的个体源收下来并替下它们；另行成立而与个体源并存的情形，不在这一反证之内。

P5 立过一条形状相近的：共同决定不生成第三个价值裁断位。那一条说的是两个人谈成一件事，不等于两套价值合成了一张共同的表，也不等于出现了一个可以替两边排次序的位置。它落在行动那一侧，问的是谈成之后有没有多出一个裁的位置。这一节落在构成那一侧，问的是源在哪里。形状相近，不等于一条能替另一条。

三条限界到这里立完。两个人之间还剩下什么，下一节说。

---

第五节 相认与共同核验

V77 对两个在该关系域均能运行 15DD 他向承认的承担者，共鸣是双方之间的相认；所认的是对方有对方自己的价值；它不构成第三项价值，第三个源，或第三个承担者

那扇窗后来修好了。朋友叫他去看，指着几处说了几句，说得不多。他站在那里，看见的不只是一扇修好的窗。他看见这件事是朋友的，是从朋友那一侧出来的，不由他代给。

在这个例子里，两侧都认出了对方。他认出修窗那一件是朋友的，从朋友那一侧出来；朋友也认出他多年守着的那一件是他的，从他那一侧出来。这一层由这个例子直接给定；单从他叫了谁，说了多少这些外面看得见的地方，读不出来，第二节已经说过。共鸣是相认，相认有两端。

共鸣发生，与谁判断共鸣发生了，不是一件事。它可能发生而没有被叫出名字，也可能有人把自己的一阵感动认作共鸣。对它的描述可以错，可以改，而这些都不反过来构成它。

对两个在这段关系里都能运行 15DD 他向承认的承担者，共鸣是双方之间的相认。相认的两端是人，不是价值。价值不认东西，能认出点什么来的只有承担者。前置篇给的是这件事的形状，P1 与 P2 各自把两个承担者如何相认交到本篇，本节立的就是这一件。

所鸣的是各自的价值。朋友那一侧鸣的是修窗这一件，它出自哪一行源，这里不问，也不必问。具体内容是相认发生的场合，不是所认的对象。前置篇说的是各自给出的价值才能够共鸣，没有限在哪一行上。两个人可以在一门手艺上相认，也可以在一段照料，一次久等，一样说不清来处的偏爱上相认。

所认的却始终是同一样：那是他的，从他那一侧出来的，不由我代给。不是内容相同。同构给出的是相认的可能，不担保内容相同。两个人在意的东西可以差得很远，而在各自那一侧的自己性上认出对方。

这份可能来自同构。每个主体的法都是它自己立的。一方不能从外部位置取得对另一方之法的终局穷尽判定，也不能代写另一方的法；然而两套法在形式上同构，同一个内部的双重否定在每一个自我立法的主体里重现。价值与法同构。同构给出的是可被认出的结构，执行认出的仍是承担者。正因为同样的结构在主体与主体之间重现，各自给出的价值才能够共鸣。这里没有一把尺在起作用。尺量高下，共鸣相认。

脊上那一句说的是他可以有他自己的价值，这里说的是他有。一字之差是实的。可以有不等他实际给出什么，一个还说不出自己要什么的婴儿也在那一句里；共鸣要他真给出了什么，我才认得出。承认可以朝向一个还不在场的他者，共鸣不行，它要有东西被给出，被看见。

所以可以有比有走得远。有些人与我之间从来不会有任何表达，作品，或关系上的痕迹传到，共鸣在那里不会发生，而他们每一个都在脊那一句里。共鸣是脊在相遇处兑现的样子，不是脊的全部。

是否共鸣，还系于表达，关系与第一人称的接续。同构只给可能。那天朋友若没有把那一件以任何可被接到的方式给出，或者给出了而他没有认出来，或者两人之间早已隔着别的东西，这一下就不会来。

它也不是谁的行动要求。一方的要求或命令不能构成共鸣，也不能使它单方发生。一方能做的是给出或守住条件：给时间，给东西，给一个安稳些的处境，把挡着的东西挪开一点。这些都做得到，做到了也不保证那一下会来。

还有一层随之而来。每一方可以从第一人称的位置说出并承担自己这一侧那道相认完成了没有；对于另一侧，取得的只是可错可改的关系读数。两个人也可以一起说这里发生了共鸣，这句话可能成立，也可能是误判。任何一方与共同的程序都不能把它抬成终局的判定。本篇不给一套判定共鸣是否发生的程序，这不等于说没有人能回答它。

一个无人共鸣的价值不因此降格。所鸣的东西在孤独主体处就已完整。那扇窗在没有人去看的那些年里，一直是朋友的一件。

那一下是真发生的事，它在两个人之间，有它自己的位置。可是它不进源图。它不造出第三项价值，不造出第三个源，也不造出第三个承担者。相认发生在两个已经在场的人和他们各自已经在场的价值之间，珠在共鸣之前就已经在场。

V78 共同核验分布其权限：各方只能从第一人称位置陈述并承担自己一侧；双方共同核验的是关系通道的开合；任何一方及共同程序都不能替任一方验明其价值内容

共鸣不能由一方单独做成。另有一样两个人可以共同进行，而且做得着力，那就是共同核验。

第二节把话分在两侧：他者内部的认可状态与运行读数取不到终局判定；某些关系通道的开合可以进入共同核验。共同核验只在后一侧工作。

它分三处。各方只能从第一人称的位置说自己这一侧，也只承担自己这一侧。这一份陈述别人代写不了，进了共同的场合也不因此就有了担保。一个人未必当场知道自己某一项内容是从哪里来的，P3 立自我殖民时已经说过这一层；一个人自己的裁断也不能反过来替他现有的认领验明正身，那是 P5 说过的。共同核验给不出这一层的担保。

两个人共同核的，是关系通道的开合。若有候选，它进入表达与讨论的那条关系通道开不开；一项否认能不能按否认被登记；拒绝，重述，修订与退出这几条路通不通。这三样可以由双方共同核对，相关记录可以放在一处对。他内部的认可状态不核，实际的可达也不核。

核出来的是两份各自承担的第一人称陈述，加一份双方共同核对的关系条件记录。两边对不上的时候，先只登记这一处对不上：不先判哪一方错，也不先判哪条路已经封住。对不上可以出自两人看到的东西不同，出自一方一时没有说准，出自两人在这段关系里站的位置本就不对称，也可以出自那条路真的被封。要判某条路在运行上被封，另须有关系上的证据。证据齐了，结论才取位置与通道的形式：某一条路仍开，某一条路在运行上被封，或者三项尚未齐备。判不出本身是一个合法的结论。

说被封的时候，封住的是通往那一位置的路，不是那一位置本身。认领，修订与退出的位置在结构上恒在，殖民作用于可达，不作用于在场，这两层 P3 都已立。

这条上界不是这里新加的。P3 立审计上界时已经说明，越过那三项去读第一人称，那样的关系在结构上生成的正是内摄所需要的那一种。共同核验跑在这条线以下。

还有一种情形不必有人在场。一个人可以朝着一个还没有出现的他者做事，写一本书，留一门手艺，把一条路修出来。P1 说过，孤独主体为任何将来若出现的目的承担者保留着那个形式他者位；它所认领的，是一项与脊那一句同形的内容：任何将来若出现的承担者，可以有他自己的价值，而这不由我代给。这一项是实在的，写书的人正是照着它在写。

而关于某一个现实具体他者的那一句还没有成立。那是朝向形式他者位的预期施为，它不充实事实位；只有承担域里一个现实存在的具体他者，才充实得了现实他者亦是目的这个事实位。一个宇宙里第一个主体，若已从 15DD 的位置认领了这一条件式，它便是它自己的一项真实内容，而现实他者那个位仍然空着；等到第二个主体出现，只使那个事实位落到一个具体的人身上；第一个主体把不把这一事实认领为自己的那一项，仍须另发生一道第一人称的回应。

这里要与婴儿那一处分开。尚不存在的承担者只能进条件式：若他出现，他可以有他自己的价值，而这不由我代给。婴儿不是这一种。他已经充实了现实他者那个事实位；他名下的具体价值内容发生到了哪里，不由会不会说话来判，言语本来就不是认可的必要签名。他还不能作这一项的第一人称认领方，不等于关于他只能说可以有。

回到那三条限界。三条各挡一样：V74 挡的是一方拿自己的表征替对方把话说死，V75 挡的是一把外尺替两边的价值地位发判，V76 挡的是把一次关系上的事直接写成两边的源已经合并。真正守着两端各自还在的是第三条。

相认要有两端，两端就是两个各自出自自己那一侧的价值。这一点不是三条限界造出来的，是脊那一句本来就说着的；三条限界做的是不让它被写掉。

它们规定共鸣不是什么。它们不保证共鸣会来。那一下来不来，系于表达，关系与第一人称的接续。

---

第六节 收束与下游

他者的价值不是我的价值；他者可以有他自己的价值，而这不由我代给，这件事是我的价值。第二句以第一句为宾语。第一句所说的那件事先于我的认领就已成立；我认不认领它，是我这一侧的第一人称发生，而不认领并不使那件事不成立。

三条限界是同一件事在三种射程上的读数。对一个具体的他者，第三人称的证据合不拢成一套可保证穷尽的读数。对两个承担者，各自内容的价值地位之间不取共同外尺，而世界里的条件，方案与后果可以一起核对，那些读数不回流为价值地位；关系那一侧的分账在第五节。对许多承担者，关系性交叉，共鸣，共同决定与共同安排本身，都不足以使既有的价值源合并为一。三条各有各的根据，谁也不由谁推出。

读不尽，比不了，合不拢，这样简写下来，三句合起来仍推不出各活各的。限界说的是我在他者的价值上没有哪几样处置，不说我与他之间没有关系。相认恰在这三条之内发生，却不由这三条共同生成。两端由两个承担者及其各自的价值给出；V74 挡住一方拿自己的表征给对方把话说死，V75 挡住一把外尺替两边的价值地位发判，V76 直接挡住那种把既有的个体源收下来替下它们的合并抹掉源端。三条规定共鸣不能被写成什么，不保证共鸣会来。

这里仍有两种关系形态，做的却不是同一件。共鸣可以发生：要求或命令不能构成共鸣，也不能使它单方发生；一方能做的只是给出或守住条件。共同核验做得到，它跑在关系通道那一侧，不及任何一方内部的认可状态，也不给任何一方一份自己给自己的担保。本篇不给判定共鸣是否发生的程序。

他者可以有他自己的价值而这不由我代给，这一项内容此后如何被同一条命持续担着，交意义论。

---

致谢

本篇为 SAE（Self-as-an-End）哲学体系价值论分支的第六篇，其哲学论证由作者独立完成。全部论证 取舍与最终定稿均由作者裁决，文责由作者独任。成稿过程采用四方交叉评审方法：内部精度审计，本体极限与矛盾检测，边界测试，结构闸门与发布前签署。

起草辅助与上述四方评审均借助大型语言模型进行。起草与内部精度审计由 Claude（Anthropic）承担，本体极限与矛盾检测由 Gemini（Google DeepMind）承担，边界测试由 Grok（xAI）承担，结构闸门与发布前签署由 ChatGPT（OpenAI）承担。谨向这些系统及其背后的研究与工程团队致谢。它们提出的意见由作者逐条裁定，采纳与驳回均记录在案。

本篇若干承重处经评审改定。中心脊两次校正：先由他者的价值只出自他自己，校为他者的价值来源不由我代给，因前一写法会同时关掉涵育与殖民两处上游机器，而它们所立的正是外部进得来；再补回正面的那一半，成为他者可以有他自己的价值，而这不由我代给，其许可读法由紧随的后半句就近挡下。本篇的产出定位由首次给出那项内容，改为价值内容的登记：上游已命名 15DD 的法之他向内容，也已立内容取得价值地位的发生机器，本篇把两者合上，说明那件事何时成为承担者名下一项已经认领的价值内容。读的限界由不可穷尽读取收为第三人称证据不能闭合为可保证穷尽的读数，分开偶然完整与终局判定，并把与脊相犯的那一步由以读尽为目标改挂到宣布读数已经画完并据此替他结算，即问题在资格，不在准确。共同核验的宾语由各方自查自己那一侧，改挂关系通道的开合，因前一写法使共同与核验两个字都无事可做，而一旦让它有被校之物又立刻犯读的限界。

源不合并一条另经改定：撤去以第一人称认可不可外部授撤作主证，因该命题的主词是内容的认可而非价值源，改挂来源锚定与关系性交叉两处，并在题面写明所否定的是关系事件本身不足以使既有的源自动合并，不预判另一个承担者能否以别的条件另行成立。

本篇续行上游转述审计表这一常设产出，逐条比对本篇的转述与上游原句；该表由起草席编制并初核，另经独立闸门复核。四方评审显著提升了本篇的精度与一致性，谨此致谢。

---

参考文献

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

秦汉. (2026). 系统、涌现与人的条件：以主体作为目的本身为核心的规范社会理论（SAE 基础论文 Paper 1） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18528813

秦汉. (2026). Internal Colonization and the Reconstruction of Subjecthood（SAE 基础论文 Paper 2） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18666645

秦汉. (2026). 三层二维统一结构：Self-as-an-End 的完整框架（SAE 基础论文 Paper 3） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18727327

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

秦汉. (2026). 方法论总论：凿构循环（SAE 方法论） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18842449

秦汉. (2026). 余之道 · Via Rho（SAE 方法论 Paper 00） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19657439

秦汉. (2026). 论权力的起源（SAE 权力论系列 Paper 1） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20370225

秦汉. (2026). 论权力的凿削（SAE 权力论系列 Paper 6） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20647463

秦汉. (2026). 论基础权利的厚度与边界（SAE 权利论系列 Paper 2） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20769253

秦汉. (2026). 论基础权利的限与侵（SAE 权利论系列 Paper 5） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21212595

秦汉. (2026). 论权利与权益（SAE 权利论系列 专论） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21314907

秦汉. (2026). 价值不是什么（SAE 价值论系列 前置篇） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21362575

秦汉. (2026). 论价值的源（SAE 价值论系列 Paper 1） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21405207

秦汉. (2026). 论价值的发生与承认（SAE 价值论系列 Paper 2） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21437038

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

秦汉. (2026). 论价值的动力学（SAE 价值论系列 Paper 4） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22050204

秦汉. (2026). 论价值的冲突（SAE 价值论系列 Paper 5） [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22122819

秦汉. (2026). SAE 第一批判 [预印本]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21439120