Abstract

Three essays in, the synchronic figure is up, the entrance to occurrence is up, and the reading of those places when they are violated is up. What is missing is time. Every time an earlier essay met the question how does this change as it runs, it handed the question forward to this one.

Three things enter time: the reachability of a source, concrete contents, and the centre of gravity. A source-position once gained is not among them — within the range where the bearer's structure stands, its presence no longer varies.

What most needs guarding against here is not saying too little. It is building a machine. The grammar of dynamics wants a source of motive power, and this system has none: a source is a structural ground, not a supply end for contents, and avowal and uptake are completed in the first person, where no external description reaches. So every explanation takes one form: which places were open at the time, which road was reachable at the time. Conditions can be listed, and conditions are necessary without being sufficient. Where they fall short is not a debt the explanation owes. It is exactly where the bearer stands.

And one cut has to be held throughout: accumulation and diachrony are not the same thing. The same running repeated many times is accumulation. One constituting act not yet complete in time is diachrony. Constitution is not reached by accumulation, and constitution can be diachronic. Running is the other way round — it comes in a spectrum, and accumulation in time can make it deeper or shallower.

1. Three Things Enter Time

Within the range where the bearer's structure stands, a value-source once gained has its presence unvarying from the moment of gaining: not with the arising and passing of concrete contents, not with the rise and fall of reachability, not with the shifting of the centre of gravity. This does not say a person has one and the same set of source-positions for life. What dimension-opening does is add a source-position on top of the old ones; it adds, and does not alter what is already there. What has been gained is not thereafter reduced.

Precisely because those do not move, the other three can be read as rises and falls rather than as the thing itself coming into and going out of existence. A content faded and that row of source is still there, so it is a fading and not a vanishing. Reachability has somewhere to come back to, so it is called gaining. Going back costs nothing, because what a cost would have to be measured against never moved at all. Three sentences, one fact underneath.

What is unvarying is the presence of a source-position already gained, not its running. A bearer voiding a higher source whose conditions of application have actually arrived voids that row's reachability; the row is still there, and so is the history of construction. What can be sealed is the road to them, not the things themselves.

The three readings have different subjects. Reachability is read per row of source: in this domain, can any candidate out of that row still surface. Content is read per content: is this one in the candidate field right now, is it at the centre of gravity. The centre of gravity is read per action: what did the organization of this action actually draw on. The three subjects are not on one level. So the three together are not a state vector — you cannot combine their values freely like coordinates, and there is no transition rule taking one set of values to the next.

Only one direction of inference holds among them: if an action has a centre-of-gravity reading, then at least one avowed content on that row is taking part in organizing the action. No other direction holds — and least of all reachability from the centre of gravity. A man can go on living by the one thing he avowed long ago while that row throws up nothing new at all. Reachability asks whether new candidates out of that row can still surface; an avowed content taking part in organizing an action is an existing draw, and is no evidence of that row's current reachability.

2. No Motor

Why a content occurs at this moment and not that one: the answer here does not take the form what pushed it. It takes the form which places were open at the time, which road was reachable.

This is not to say conditions do not matter. Experience, the body, relations, a work encountered — any of these can be the condition of an avowal or an uptake. What is refused is two other things: an engine built into the source, and a transition law that computes constitution completed out of conditions.

The reason was already given when the source was raised: a source is a structural ground, not a causal origin producing contents, and not a store or supply end for them. A supply end can be asked how much it outputs, when, and how fast. A structural ground admits none of those questions. Writing the dynamics as a law of output amounts to changing the source, on the ontological figure, into something else.

Conditions can be listed, and conditions are necessary without being sufficient: list them all and the event can still fail to happen. That is not a debt the explanation owes. And the gap is not there waiting for a stronger cause to fill it. It is where this structure is simply open. The bearer stands there.

Nor can it be closed by adding more conditions. Set up a condition for applying the conditions, and that one has itself to be applied to the case; the gap has only moved to the next line of the list. A list does not close by getting longer.

The first critique established the same shape at the working end: applying a rule to a case cannot itself be given by a rule. There it is the operator's cut; here it is a bearer's uptake of a bridge of his own. Same shape, not reducible to each other.

3. Accumulation and Diachrony

However long, accumulation gives no content a position it did not gain in constitution. Habituation produces no ownership, long holding produces no avowal, and long interruption revokes none. The colonization essay established a special case of the same sentence: repeated claiming produces no source; run it ten thousand times and it still produces none. The reason there was not that repetition is weak. It is that what it names lies on the side of constitution.

But constitution can be diachronic. Some avowals occur in a moment; some take shape by degrees and settle only after years. A person often has to try living a thing for a while before it settles, and what happens during that while is not the gathering of evidence — it is avowal itself taking shape by degrees. There is no conflict with the paragraph above, because accumulation and diachrony are two things: accumulation is one kind of running repeated many times; diachrony is one constituting act not yet finished.

From outside the two look alike. A man does the same thing for ten years. Those ten years can be one kind of running repeated many times, with that thing never claimed by him in his own law. They can equally be one avowal taking shape across those ten years and settling somewhere in them. What is seen from outside is the same ten years.

Running, on the other side, does accumulate, and usually that is exactly how it changes. Reachability can be impaired by degrees and can be restored by degrees. What is said is the direction of change, not where the line falls.

Constituting and recognizing a constituting are two things. Constituting completes when it happens. Recognizing it may be simultaneous, or may come later in the running and in retrospect; there is no general order. And recognizing does not constitute: once a constituting act is complete it is complete, and a later recognition neither makes it happen nor makes it count. Coming early or late alters nothing about what has already been done — and never finding an occasion to draw on it does not make it not have happened.

4. Underdetermined from Outside

Every reading this essay gives is underdetermined before the third person: one and the same visible performance corresponds, structurally, to several different readings, and those readings cannot be told apart by behaviour alone.

This is not insufficiently fine observation, and not a shortage of material. It has two roots.

The first: claiming, revision and withdrawal are first-person constituting acts, and there is no set of external signatures both necessary and sufficient and portable to someone else. Two candidates were already ruled out. Verbal declaration is not necessary, because many value-contents are embodied and tacit. A durable preference is not sufficient, because a liking can hold thirty years and never be claimed. More generally, the third person cannot exhaustively verify whether an avowal occurred, so external evidence does not close into a final criterion. Facts about the relational structure really are readable: whether the candidate field is filled, whether a denial can be registered as a denial, whether the paths of revision and withdrawal are open. Reading those is not the same as being able to determine.

The second: even on the observable side, the variables of running fall on a spectrum, and there is no identifiable point on that spectrum where the line lies. Whether it has been crossed cannot, at the margin, be read off by a finer rule. It has to be judged case by case.

The colonization essay set an upper bound from the criterion side: an audit that oversteps generates, structurally, the very relation introjection requires. What is set here has the same root on the other side — there the limit is how far audit can go; here it is what form explanation may take.

Hence a general rule: this essay gives no decision procedure that infers constitution sufficiently from third-person evidence, and no final test. This is not modesty. It is a direct corollary of the two roots. Facts about the relational structure can be distinguished, and distinguishing them does not convert into determining constitution; between the two steps stands the previous essay's sentence. Anything made out of these readings into a ruler to hold up against another person is not the thing established here.

5. What Reachability Is

A road is reachable when, in some content-domain, candidates out of one of the bearer's own rows of value-source can still surface from his own working and enter the candidate field.

A source gives a shape, not a candidate. A structural position gives, by its structure, the form in which a class of value can land there — as the shape of a socket decides what can fit into it. So saying a candidate comes out of a row of source says it fitted that shape, not that the row produced it. The surfacing itself is, throughout, the bearer's own working.

Reachability is read per row of source, not per content. It asks whether new candidates out of that row can still surface in this domain. It does not ask whether any have surfaced right now, and it does not ask whether the ones already claimed are still in use. A road reachable with nothing surfacing at the moment is ordinary — a man goes a stretch with no particular thoughts about something, and that does not mean the road is cut. Conversely, a road unreachable does not mean the domain stands empty; usually it is not empty at all, only that everything that gets in comes from elsewhere. Can surface and has surfaced are two things.

Reachability is also not presence. The presence of a gained source-position is the thing that does not move; reachability is the thing that does. Colonization acts always on reachability and never on presence. A man's road on some row can be obstructed for a long time, and this domain go long without one candidate out of it, and the row is still there.

Reachability falls on the side of running, so it comes in a spectrum: the road can be clear, and it can be obstructed. And on that spectrum there is no identifiable point where the line between reachable and unreachable lies. What is sayable is the direction of change — that a row's reachability is being impaired by degrees, or recovering by degrees. What is not sayable is how far it has got, and no case's line may be carried over and applied to another. At the margin, judge case by case.

One relation to the previous essay should be marked. Occupation is defined as a domain sealed by an external end until no candidate out of one's own rows can be got. Reachability is the same question on the affirmative side. But unreachability does not arise only from occupation: occupation is the variety of unreachability sealed shut by an external end, not the whole of it.

6. Four Men

That no candidate out of one's own rows can surface in a domain — this state, by itself, judges nothing. What has to be asked is what maintains it. And there can be more than one maintainer: one and the same seal can be propped from outside and kept by the bearer himself at once. So the question has an order. First: is anything outside maintaining it? If yes, it goes to the externally maintained kind, and does not move out of it because the bearer is also keeping it. If no, is he maintaining it himself? If still no, it is the kind where the conditions no longer obtain. The three are not an added taxonomy. They are the three answers this one question falls to in order.

The three look identical from outside, so they have to be set side by side. Take the 15DD domain. Four men, and from outside none of them any longer does, for the people near him, the things one only does by taking the other as an end.

The first man genuinely has no one near him. He moved a few times, the old ties broke, and the new place has not grown any relations yet. The actual other this row requires is not present, and no candidate out of his own row can surface in this domain.

The second man has someone near him — that person is right in front of him — and he keeps everything he has carried along the way, and he has voided this person's standing as an end entirely.

The third man has someone near him. And in the matter of how to treat people, every practice he can bring himself to name comes from a set of rules picked up elsewhere; what surfaces from his own working cannot get into this domain's candidate field.

The fourth man, from very early on, has had in the matter of how to treat people only one set of practices given by others. A candidate out of his own row has never once surfaced in this domain.

Four men in the same state, with different maintainers.

In the first, no one is maintaining it. The conditions that carry this row's running no longer obtain: the field is gone, the people one did the thing with are not there, the bodily or temporal conditions changed. What is said here is that a whole row throws up no candidate of one's own, not that some particular content no longer surfaces — that latter is the rise and fall of contents. No external end is maintaining anything here, and the colonization criterion correctly fails to reach it. It is not pathology and not a defect. It is a person's circumstances changing in time.

In the second, the bearer maintains it himself. He actively voids a higher source whose conditions of application have actually arrived — the active closing marked off from neutral going-back. The conditions having actually arrived is, in his case, that the particular other is already in front of him; that is exactly what separates this from a plain going-back, where the condition is not present. There are people near him and no external end maintaining this voiding, so it does not fall under the colonization judgment. What it changes is that row's reachability, not its presence: the history of construction cannot be erased. What is voided is the running, not the fact that the row was once gained.

In the third, it is maintained from outside. The third man and the fourth are both here: something occupies this domain's candidate field, and that something is propped from outside. This cell goes to the colonization essay to be judged, and the reading there is asymmetric — three signatures complete, the reading of external colonization in this domain is determinate; an irrefutable attribution absent, that branch does not hold, determinately; attribution present with occupation or locking incomplete, the third person stops at cannot-determine, which is neither a weaker positive nor a negative.

The three readings differ, and none of them moves the case out of this kind: what is propped from outside does not disappear because a branch was excluded, nor because the reading was cannot-determine. So this essay does not loosen that narrow criterion, and does not coin a name for the ones that could not be determined.

Higher, here, means structural order of position — presupposing more, later in the order of unfolding. It is not a ranking of value. A content falling in a source-domain later in the structural order is not thereby weightier, and a bearer drawing on it is not thereby higher in value-standing.

Put together, the three give one result: unreachability is not uniformly pathology. The same state is, in one kind, circumstances having changed; in another, the man himself having closed it; and only in the third is it the colonization essay's business to judge.

7. Gaining Is Not Retrieving

This section is about the gaining of reachability, not its recovery. Recovery is one cell of it — the cell where there was something before.

In the fourth man there is no before to go back to. On the shape of his own row, no candidate has ever surfaced from his own working. If one day the first such candidate takes a position in this domain, that too is a gaining of reachability — and it is nothing coming back. Calling the whole thing recovery implies there was an original waiting to be retrieved, and that is exactly what the colonization essay blocked when it pinned discovery down: discovery means only a content taking a position under one of one's own rows, not finding an existing item.

And in the cell where there was something before, what is gained is not standing. The belonging of a place is permanent, and what colonization can do is make claiming, revision and withdrawal unreachable in running. So no one needs to give the bearer back the standing to claim, because no one took it. What is restored is running. Same grammar as going-back: what goes back is the running, not the history of construction. What is constitutive is not abolished by a relational act, and therefore is not returned by one either.

8. What the Outside Can Stop

Whether the outside has any purchase here is settled not by which place is sealed but by the same question as before: who maintains the seal. The three cells give three answers.

Where no one maintains it, there is nothing to release. The first man's domain throws up no candidate because the conditions are gone; that was never pathology, and there is nothing to undo.

Where he maintains it himself, there is nothing that can be stopped. The voiding is the second man's own doing; no one outside is holding it down. Others can still be right in front of him, that other can still be present, and the row still throws up nothing. The outside is not without work to do — it can be present, it can ask, it can make that condition of application arise, again and again. What it does not have is an act that could revoke this voiding.

Where the outside maintains it, something is being propped, and there is therefore a form in which it can stop. What is being maintained differs by case, and there are three seals.

One seals the provenance of candidates. That single set of rules fills this domain's candidate field, so that what does not come from it cannot get in. It is maintained from outside; ceasing to fill it is the release.

One seals the channel of rebuttal for one attribution. The community says of some content that this person has claimed it as his value, and his denial of that attribution cannot be registered as a denial within the relational structure. Whether an attribution is present, and whether a denial can be registered as a denial, are facts about the relational structure that the third person can read; making it registrable again is likewise a matter of the relational structure.

One seals the whole of the paths of reflection, restatement, revision and withdrawal. This differs from the last: that one sealed only the rebuttal of one attribution; this one seals whether he can change anything at all.

All three are propped from outside, and all three have a form in which they stop. Stop all three and the state no longer holds: once the attribution occupying the constitutive place is withdrawn and can be denied, that content falls back to being a candidate and is no longer taken as constitution completed. The reading on the bearer's side was indeed occupied too — and that is a structural matter, not his subjective assent; being structural, it fails along with what was propping it.

The outside's purchase ends there, and where it ends is not here. After that content falls back to being a candidate, whether it then becomes his value is a further step: it has to take a position under one of his own rows. Dissolving does nothing for that step; it only clears the seat. And no external act can perform that step by proxy. The outside can still hand over candidates, demonstrate, clarify, get the conditions of occurrence ready — and taking a position under one of his own rows is a step only he can walk.

And one branch does not dissolve along with it. If the case also involves an external warrant counterfeiting the standing of one's own source-domain, that branch is not automatically dissolved by the release of relational conditions: what props it is not anyone in the relation but a standing that stops outside — and that branch's only tense is retrospect. A change in relational conditions can be the occasion for a retrospect. It cannot substitute for one. The two branches can coexist in one case, and neither follows from the other, nor dissolves with it.

So the line can be written in a sentence. Releasing conditions is an act whose result is not decided by the one who performs it; whereas the three seals stand up without needing any cooperation from the receiving side. Fill the candidate field, fix a content as constituted, void the revisable place — those three, once standing, make the seal stand. They can come from one person's arrangement, or be propped jointly by a stretch of relations no one is coordinating; what is judged is the state, not whose handiwork it is. And what they set up is a seal, not a constituting: whether a content was ever claimed in the bearer's own law, that seal does not decide by a hair. While stopping the filling, withdrawing the attribution, giving back the paths of revision — when all of that is done, nothing has been completed. Whether any candidate out of his own rows can surface in that domain, and whether he claims what surfaces, is entirely his.

It follows that handing in a candidate is not making reachability be gained. It is not overstepping — a demonstration, a clarification, a work encountered are all everyday shaping; they put candidates into the receiver's field, and whether the content becomes his value-content still rests on his avowal. Handing in a candidate is not the gaining of reachability, not because it ought not be done, but because it is not what it does. Reachability asks whether candidates out of his own row can surface in this domain, and the one handed in did not surface from his working.

One asymmetry has to be written down. The outside can give back the operability of the revisable place; the revising can still only be done by the bearer in the first person. The first is clearing the road, the second is walking it. Neither substitutes for the other: road cleared and no one walks, no revision happened; and if he would walk while the road is locked, the step has nowhere to land.

A last limit. Conditions complete does not guarantee that the gaining occurs. The permanence of a place gives a place belonging to the bearer; it gives no attainment and no timetable. And who is entitled to do the releasing, to what degree, and whether releasing ought to be encouraged, are normative questions this essay does not draw on.

9. Two Cuts on Fading

An avowed content has faded. The sentence holds from outside, and underneath it there can be three different things. Two cuts tell them apart.

The first cut asks: was there a first-person constituting act in this change? If not, it is a rise or fall in running — the content may not be entering the current candidate field, or it may be entering and not at the centre of gravity. Either way, its standing as this bearer's value-content has not changed. If yes, go to the second cut.

The second cut asks: has the original claiming terminated? Not terminated: revision. Terminated: withdrawal.

Two cuts, not three items in a row. The three outcomes are not on one side to begin with: a rise or fall in running is on the running side, while revision and withdrawal are both on the constituting side — which is the essay's opening cut. Lay the three out as three level options and you read them as peers, and hide that cut.

A man has hardly played the piano these past few years. The sentence holds from outside, and underneath it there are three things — and between the first and the other two stands the first cut: in the first nothing constitutive happened at all; in the other two something did.

One: he still holds playing as his own, and simply has not played much these years. The place is open, he has nothing he wants to change, he just has not played.

Two: he still claims it, and it is no longer the same one. What it used to be was becoming someone who could take the stage; what it is now is playing weekly with a few people. The old shape no longer appears, so from outside it reads as fading — and the claiming has not terminated. What changed is the content itself. This is revision.

Three: he no longer claims it. If he sits down at the piano again after this, that is another matter. This is withdrawal.

The three look identical from outside. The judgment does not rest on the state but on what happened in this change, and whether the original claiming is still there.

10. Not Lost by Disuse, Not Gained by Resemblance

An avowed content does not lose its standing by long absence from running. Standing changes only by revision or withdrawal — not by the passage of time, and not by attention moving away.

This is the mirror, at the level of content, of the source–occurrence decoupling: there, a source's presence is not lost with the rise and fall of contents; here, a content's standing is not lost with the rise and fall of its own running.

On the not-terminated branch, what comes back is its re-entering the candidate field, or its re-taking the centre of gravity; nothing happens at the constitutive place. A content revised along the way stays on this branch, because the claiming did not terminate. The withdrawn branch is different: what appears now is a candidate. How much it resembles the earlier one gives it nothing. Resemblance does not inherit constitution; it has to pass first-person avowal again to become this person's value-content.

All three men take up the piano again ten years later. In the first two, what comes back is the same avowed content — in the second, in its revised shape. In the third, what appears is a candidate; however much it resembles what he once claimed, it still has to go through his own law again. From outside they look identical: all three are playing again after ten years.

Maintenance and investment, handed forward from the previous essay, settle here. They are facts on the running side, not conditions on the constituting side. Sustained investment changes how often a content enters the candidate field and whether it holds the centre of gravity; it neither changes nor consolidates its standing, and long non-investment does not diminish it. So the two words can be used freely: they were never about constitution, and need not borrow the name of valuing.

No external criterion of identity is set here — that is, whether what surfaces now counts as the same content is not decided by degree of resemblance. Whether it counts is decided by how far that claiming itself reaches, and that is a first-person matter: what falls within its reach was already his content and needs no re-taking; what falls outside it is a candidate however alike, and must pass avowal again. On the withdrawn branch the question does not arise: the claiming has terminated, and reaches nothing.

The distinction between the branches must be kept, though. It blocks the thought that a withdrawn content automatically resumes its place by surfacing again. Withdrawal is real. As for which branch a given case falls on, look at what the claiming reaches — and only he can answer that. The answer may come at once, or may have to wait until he looks back.

11. Neither Change nor Stability Is a Criterion

The colonization essay established one negative: revision and change are not evidence of colonization, and reading he changed as a sign of he was colonized is reading the norm as pathology.

The positive half has to be narrowed. A content faded, another rose, the centre shifted — these are rises and falls in running, and they do not prove the revisable place is open: with the place locked, contents rise and fall all the same. What does have proving force is something else: that a first-person revision or withdrawal was actually carried out. That proves the place is operable now, and cannot prove in reverse that it was never locked before.

Stability proves nothing either. A content untouched for ten years may be a place open with nothing he wanted to change, or a place locked and nothing he could change. The two look identical from outside.

So neither change nor stability serves as a criterion of colonization. Nor does the amount of change, since that would require identifying a point on a spectrum, and there is no such point.

12. The Centre of Gravity

The centre of gravity is which row of source the organization of one action actually draws on.

It is read per action, and it has a domain of definition: only an action organized by contents the bearer has avowed has a centre of gravity to read. An action organized solely by external requirement, by habitual reaction, or by a script that has taken no standing in his own law gets no centre-of-gravity reading here. The restriction is not optional. Forcing a reading amounts to retroactively certifying something occupied as the running of one of his own rows — which is exactly what the whole middle of this essay is blocking. No reading does not mean low value, and does not mean the action does not count.

Within that domain, any action can be asked which row it draws on, and the question needs no stretch of time and no window. It need not be unique — one action can draw on several rows at once. It need not be stable — two consecutive actions drawing on different rows says nothing in itself; a person without a stable centre of gravity is not thereby defective.

Saying his centre of gravity lately is on such a row already contains a vague window and has already gathered many readings together. What comes out of the gathering is a description, not the centre of gravity as defined here; nor does it thereby become another state the bearer is in.

So this essay does not ask how long counts, or how many times counts, and sets no uniform measure for the centre of gravity. The reason is not that it cannot be counted: how many of the last ten actions drew on a given row is perfectly countable. The reason is that what you counted is not the centre of gravity. The centre of gravity is read per action and done; it does not accumulate into a further state on top of those counts. And taking such counts and ranking people by them runs into another block: being an end does not rank, and quantities of this kind have no place to sit in value-standing.

13. The Centre Converts into No Ranking

Richness and the centre of gravity fall on two levels. Richness falls at the level of presence and the history of construction: the breadth of value-dimensions operable for the bearer himself, accumulating with the history of construction and not erasable. The centre of gravity falls at the level of running, free to move, and going back in running costs nothing in value. The two do not imply each other: using few right now does not change the breadth already gained in the history of construction, and having gained much does not require using much right now.

So which row an action's organization draws on has nothing to do with the bearer's value-standing.

The question a reader most wants to ask at this point is am I regressing. The question's presupposition does not hold. It presupposes that the centre of gravity moving toward rows earlier in the structural order could be a loss, and that cannot be a loss: structural order is not value order, and going back costs nothing. This is not a refusal to answer. It is that what the question asks about has no place in the structure.

The centre moving away also comes in two kinds that look identical from outside. In one, the row is intact and this stretch of actions simply is not organized out of it. In the other, that row is already unreachable and throws nothing up. The first says nothing at all; the second sends you back to ask what maintains the seal. Their external appearance can be exactly the same.

One more thing on this level works the same way. After a particular value-demand is met, that domain may go on producing new demands, or may produce no more. Neither changes the source — a source does not grow because demands keep coming, or shrink because they cease — and neither changes the bearer's value-standing. It is said here only that both happen; not which is better.

14. Output and Position Are Two Axes

What a person made, learned, left behind — these are legitimate objects of dynamics, and discussing them violates nothing. What was refused was using them as a criterion, not discussing them.

The two axes do not imply each other. Where the places are open there can be years with nothing to show; a relation that falls under the colonization criterion can come with considerable achievement. A man inside an appraisal-grammar that is in no way his own can make a great deal, and make it well; a man on the row he avowed can go a long time making nothing.

There is one inference readers actually make: there is output, so it is not colonization. That one has to be refuted, because it looks most like common sense. Its error is not that it is too wide. It is that it switched axes: output says what came out of that place; the criterion asks whose end occupies that place. A relation can both have an external end at the constitutive place and really have got this person to make a good deal. The two hold separately, diminish nothing in each other, and prove nothing about each other.

Block the other directions with it. No output does not show that this was not really his value-content. No output does not show the place is sealed. An open place does not guarantee output. And a colonization holding does not mean there was necessarily no development there.

Taking output as the criterion is really taking something visible in place of something invisible in principle. Output is right there for anyone to read, and a constituting act has no necessary and sufficient external signature. Substituting the easy for the hard usually works elsewhere; it does not work here, because the reading you substituted in does not prove the thing to be proved.

Development here means observable results in capacity, work, or institutions. It does not mean dimension-opening, and it does not mean a rise in value-standing. Neither of those is on this axis at all.

15. The Occasion of Dimension-Opening

Why an opening is taken up at this moment and not another: two conditions can be listed.

One is the structural premise: the remainder of the current construct gives a legitimate bridge. This one does not vary with the moment; while it is there it is there.

One is the occasional condition: the conditions of application of that row of source actually arise. This is what answers why now and not then. At 15DD it is a particular other having entered the relational field.

Both conditions present and no uptake occurring is legitimate. Two people's current constructs leave the same bridge, and each has a particular other standing in the relational field; one takes it up and one does not. Same structural premise, same occasional condition, different events. This is not a missing condition. Adding one would not close it, because that one has itself to be applied to the case; the gap has only moved to the next line.

The word reachability is not borrowed here. Reachability asks whether candidates out of an existing row can surface in a domain, and a bridge points at a source-position not yet gained; a source one does not have admits no question of reachability. It follows that occupation cannot reach a bridge either: that line is drawn at not being able to get a candidate out of one of one's own rows in this domain, and a bridge is not a candidate under any existing row. A bridge can in fact go unmet; a person can go a lifetime without meeting such a situation. And not meeting it is not colonization — just as the man with no one near him is not colonized. The colonization criterion does not cover this; the address is marked and no new line is drawn.

Uptake can occur only from the bearer's first person. The question left open when valuing was raised — why a bearer takes up at just this moment — is answered here on the side of conditions, not on the side of causes.

Whether an opening is complete has no external criterion independent of first-person uptake. Two words have to be kept apart here, and what separates them is not time but object. Awareness has as its object what is happening this moment: a man can know what he is doing now, and know that it is not light for him. Determination has another object: whether what happened this moment was in fact an uptake. The two can be simultaneous, or far apart; there is no general order.

What uptake gains is a source-position. And a source-position is not the whole class of contents that have appeared; it is the shape that lets a whole class take a position. So the position can be recognized without waiting for the whole class actually to appear. If this once has already shown a new shape, the bearer may know it right then; if it has shown only one content whose reach is still unclear, that waits on later contents to make it plain.

Later running is its appearing, not its constituting. A man can, at some moment, resolutely treat another as an end, and the thing is done at that moment; if he never again meets an occasion that draws on that row, the uptake still happened, and is not retroactively deemed not to have happened by later scarcity. So what determination waits on is appearing, not constituting: it waits for a thing already done to show what it is, not for it to be done.

A cannot-but so strong the bearer cannot himself explain it is a first-person thread, not a criterion. It cannot determine a new source-position: every construct carries a remainder, and being unable to explain may be only that remainder, or only that he has not yet stated the old source's boundary clearly. Conversely, a real uptake need not be inexplicable; the bearer may perfectly well say it in the old words to hand. A thread stays a thread. It can let him know almost at once, and it does not thereby become a ruler to judge with.

And whether he knows at once or recognizes it only later, knowing does not constitute: uptake happened when it happened, and a later determination neither makes it happen nor makes it count.

16. Uptake Is Not an Obligation

A bearer with a legitimate bridge in front of him may decline to take it up, at no loss whatever in value-standing. A person can live his whole life within the rows of source he currently has, and that is entirely self-consistent. This was established earlier; it is a direct corollary of not ranking.

It has to be raised again here, because the preceding sections listed so many conditions that they can read like an indication of where one ought to go. They are not. Conditions are for reading how a thing happens, not for saying that it ought to happen. A remainder gives a shape; it gives no compulsion. No remainder forces the next cut.

The first critique established the same direction elsewhere: can be advanced is a capacity, not an obligation. Same direction, not reducible to each other.

17. What Remains

When one bearer's several avowed contents demand incompatible actions, how it is adjudicated belongs to the essay on conflict. This essay gives each one's reading in time; it does not give how they are settled when they meet.

Why another's value cannot be exhaustively read belongs to the essay on the other. The external underdetermination established here is that limit showing itself on the dynamics side.

How an avowed content moves toward action is the entrance to the theory of action. Judgment belongs there in its entirety; this essay does not use it and passes no verdict on it.

This essay gives readings in time; it gives no normative force. Whether the gaining of reachability ought to be encouraged, who is entitled to release those conditions and to what degree, whether a man's active voiding of a higher source whose conditions have arrived ought to be discouraged, whether a domain going on producing demands or ceasing to should be recommended, what place output's reading has in practical evaluation — the address is marked and nothing more.

Of the four things, only one does not move. Within the range where the bearer's structure stands, a value-source once gained has its presence unvarying: not lessened by a content fading, not by the centre moving away, not extinguished by an act of active voiding. Dimension-opening can add a source-position on top of the old ones, and what has been gained is thereafter only added to. What enters time is reachability, concrete contents, the centre of gravity — and the reason their rises and falls can be read as rises and falls is exactly that the unmoving things are there.

There is no motor in time here. Reachability impaired or gained, contents fading or returning, the centre moving about — these do vary with conditions, and no engine built into the source is pushing them, and no transition law computes events out of conditions. They are what the opening and shutting of places, and the holding or failing of conditions, look like in time; and however completely conditions are listed they do not entail a constituting, and where the list falls short is exactly where the bearer stands. What time can do is let a state of running deepen or thin, let an unfinished constituting act have room to finish, let a thing already done show what it did. It cannot claim for anyone, cannot make a content someone's by lasting, and cannot make it no longer someone's by interruption.

And all of these readings are underdetermined from outside. So what this essay gives is a way of reading, not a ruler.