SAE Cooperation Theory Paper 6: Each Bears a Share / SAE 合作论 Paper 6: 各担

This paper reads how the judgment layer falls within cooperation. When one thing is done together, the step that rules and arrangements do not cover has to be judged by people themselves; in the cooperation this series reads, the judgment layer has two shares: each judges his own share and answers for his own share. Neither party holds alone the adjudication of how this undertaking is done, and neither can declare agreement in the other's place; two judgments that fit together do not merge into a third judge either. Paper 1 has read that computation cannot stand in for judgment; this paper reads on whom the account falls once a judgment has been made. Answering for, as this paper means it, faces inward: each one's judgments and what he has done cannot be acknowledged by someone else in his place, and the account falls on the one who judges; that is, the subject answers to its own law. It stands alongside commitment's not turning into a duty to the other party, and is not owing the other party a duty. The accountability registered in an institution, and the cell of liability, in which a position can be altered, do not sit in the same cell as answering for here, and are registered as background; how causation, fault and remedy are allocated is not given by this. What a person has done himself cannot be acknowledged by someone else in his place: a thing done was done by the one who did it; how it is told can change, the one who did it cannot; doing things together does not let what one has done oneself turn into something "we" did, something no one did. This sentence says only who did it, and does not judge who is at fault. Contribution is not used to possess the other: trading "I have contributed" for the other's share of judgment, and recording the other's share as one's own, both carry the direction of colonization; writing one's giving as an account the other must repay is read in Paper 2; credit and authorship have an account of their own, and this series does not settle it. Breaking a commitment is entered on the books at the layer between person and person: breach of faith is entered apart, and from outside only non-fulfillment, obstruction and joint revision of the agreement are reported; it enters the other party's later conditions of occurrence, and expectation changes accordingly; the stretch that spreads through third parties is entered by pairwise accounting. Being entered on the books is not the same as having caused some visible loss; the face in which reputation, or a score taken as standing for it, is used by a position as a chokepoint belongs to Political Economy. This paper interfaces with Weber, Arendt and the Analects. It does not prove whose contribution is greater, nor does it lay down how what went wrong ought to be shared out. 这一篇读判断层在合作里怎样落。一起做一件事,规则与安排盖不住的那一步,要人自己判;这个系列读的合作里,判断层有两份:各人判自己那一份,负自己那一份。那件事怎么做,不由任何一方独占裁断,任何一方也不能替另一方宣布同意;两份判断对上了,也不合成第三个判断者。第一篇读过,演算替不了判断;这一篇读的是判断落下以后,账落在谁身上。 这一篇说的负责是朝内的:各自的判断与已做之事不可替认,账落在作判断的人自己身上,即主体对自己的法负责。它与承诺不落成对对方的义务并存,不是欠对方一项义务。制度上登记的职责、位置可被变更的那一格责任,与这里的负责不在一格,照背景登记;因果、过失与补救怎样分配,不由此给出。自己做下的事,不能换一个人来认:做下的事,是做下它的人做的,说法换了,做下它的人换不了;一起做事,不让自己做下的事变成「我们」做下的、没有谁做下的。这一句只说谁做下,不判谁有过失。 贡献不拿来占有对方:拿「我作出过贡献」换对方那一份判断,把对方那一份记成自己的,都带殖民的方向;把付出写成对方须偿还的账,第二篇读;功劳与署名另有它的账,这个系列不结。违背承诺,在人与人之间这一层入账:失信分开记,从外面只报未做到、受阻与共同改约;它进入对方此后的发生条件,期待随之改;经第三方传开的那一段,两两记账。入账不等于已经造成某个看得见的损失;声誉或被当作它的评分被一个位置拿去作关口的那一面,归政治经济学。这一篇与韦伯、阿伦特、《论语》对接。这一篇不证明谁的贡献更大,也不规定出了错应当怎样分担。