逻辑多元主义面临一个深刻的元理论困境：如果经典逻辑与多种非经典逻辑在各自论域中同样正确，那么使它们得以共存、使“多元”本身可被言说与比较的那个共享约束究竟是什么？现有框架无法回答这一问题，因为历来的逻 辑体系皆预设了“真与假”“A与非A”等区分，却从未追问使这种区分得以可能的先验条件。本文在这一追问中，以本体论归谬演绎出反映本体论约束的原初逻辑三大律——原初不矛盾律、原初排中律、原初同一律——并论证 莱布尼茨“同一物的不可分辨性”原则隐含了这三条预设。本文进一步阐明，原初逻辑构成了不同逻辑系统共享的底层协议，并在此基础上初步展示原初逻辑的正向推理能力，从而在不诉诸一元论的前提下为逻辑多元主义奠基。 在此地基之上，本文识别并论证了一个被两千年来逻辑传统系统遗漏的概念层——对象属性关联模态（Object-Attribute Association Modality），揭示了其开放结构，并据此澄清“真逻辑”之争的范畴错误。 关键词：区分之可能；原初逻辑；逻辑三大律；对象属性关联模态；逻辑多元主义.

本文主动退入一个彻底不预设时间、空间、物理对象、因果律、主体实体性及他心可能的绝对真空，并在此真空中无预设的证明唯我论的不可能。以“意识正在发生”这一自明事实为唯一逻辑起点，并仅以自明的“意向”与基于 奠基关系的非自反性原则演绎出的“不意向”为两个基本操作单元展开演绎。本文论证：区分之可能的存在不可否定：其自身无需预设任何其他范畴，而其他一切范畴（包括存在与不存在、真与假、奠基关系）均须以它为先验前 提。假设区分之可能不存在即会推导出其存在。基于这一不可否定的自足性，本文为本文自己的方法论基石——奠基关系的非自反性与非对称性原则——提供了非循环的元证明，自举式的使方法论本身成为本体论演绎的必然结果 。基于区分之可能，本文在完全不预设时间的前提下，基于不可否定的前提必然性地演绎出时间的本体论本质：时间即是非自足性的展开，而时间性即是非自足性。在此基础上，本文证明：在唯我论的封闭结构下，若无超验区分 假设为真，则要么区分之可能这一不可能不存在的范畴自我取消从而不可能；若无超验区分假设为假，则唯我论的断言是范畴错误。本文核心推演过程只基于不可怀疑的自明事实和不可否定的自足事实，以确保论证对极端怀疑论 场景（包括缸中之脑、时间为幻觉等）的绝对免疫。 关键词：唯我论；他心问题；POC；区分之可能；自足性；时间性；.

This paper advances a generative ontology with minimal commitments that unifies Classical Logic and Hegelian Dialectics while simultaneously dissolving the Problem of Other Minds and providing an non-dogmatic ontological grounding for Structural Realism. Inspired by phenomenology and radical constructivism, the framework takes as its sole starting point the indubitable fact that cognition is occurring, together with two operational primitives—demarcation and anchoring—that generate and sustain objectivity. Objectivity is thereby shown to be generated by cognition rather than presupposed. Cognition itself, however, is (...) grounded in the transcendentally deduced Possibility of Directedness (POD), whose properties are deduced from the fundamental cognitive limitations in cognizing its own ontological ground. All traditional categories—space, time, subject, object, reason, consciousness, language, and more—are subsequently derived from and grounded in POD. Within this ontology, Classical Logic functions as the morphology of cognitive success in object-generation, while Hegelian Dialectics functions as the dynamics of cognitive failure in object-sustenance. From the constraints of POD it follows that a single cognition with no possibility of future new cognitions is metaphysically impossible. Solipsism is thus ruled out, not by analogical inference or empirical evidence, but solely by the conditions that make cognition itself possible. Keywords: Classical Logic; contradiction; Dialectics; objectivity; identity; Problem of Other Minds. (shrink)

Recent scholarship has begun to explore intriguing affinities between Structural Realism (SR) and Phenomenology. Yet both traditions remain hampered by a fundamental ontological deficit. SR struggles to account for how structure itself is possible, and lacks the fundamental ontological constraints needed to fully defuse the Newman objection plaguing both Epistemic and Ontic Structural Realism, leaving physical structures vulnerable to collapsing into arbitrary mathematical sets. Conversely, phenomenology remains unable to provide an ontological ground for consciousness and hyle; historical attempts to regress (...) beyond consciousness have frequently culminated in ineffability or obscure metaphysical commitments. To break this impasse, this paper develops a minimal generative ontology. Explicitly aligning with the non-egological tradition, this framework methodologically suspends dense phenomenological terminologies to isolate a primordial operational core: the pure encounter between consciousness and hyle via the operation of demarcation. Rooted in the indubitable fact that consciousness is occurring—and grasping intentionality as the fundamental structural unit of all consciousness—it performs a transcendental regress in the reverse direction of intentionality itself. It systematically examines the fundamental structural limitations consciousness encounters when attempting to intend its own ontological ground. From these limitations, the core properties of this ground—termed the Possibility of Consciousness (POC)—are deduced. In this way, this ontology supplies the missing ontological constraints that secure SR’s non-arbitrariness while offering radically simplified operational primitives for phenomenological constitution—achieving a foundational unification of these two major traditions. Keywords: Structural Realism; Phenomenology; consciousness; Generative Ontology; Non-egological Phenomenology. (shrink)

Logical pluralism faces the collapse problem, as formulated by Stei (2023): any position that simultaneously affirms a plurality of correct logics, competition among them at the level of application, and the normativity of logical consequence will inevitably collapse into monism or nihilism. Existing responses—whether appealing to derivative normativity (Tajer, 2024) or metalinguistic stipulation—leave a more fundamental question unanswered: in virtue of what can different logical systems coexist and be compared at all? This paper argues that the root of the dilemma (...) lies in the fact that every logical system has always presupposed distinctions—true and false, premise and conclusion—yet has never asked about the conditions that make distinction possible. Through an argument from operational self-refutation and an analysis of asymmetric existential dependence, this paper establishes a minimal ontological structure: the possibility of distinction (the self-sufficient primal ground), distinction itself, and products of distinction. From this structure, three Primal Laws are derived by ontological reductio—the Primal Law of Non-Contradiction (the condition under which distinction is meaningful), the Primal Law of Excluded Middle (the binary exhaustion of distinction modalities), and the Primal Law of Identity (the non-self-sufficiency of distinction products)—together with a further derived Mutual Exclusion Principle. It is then shown that Leibniz’s principle of the Indiscernibility of Identicals secretly presupposes all three Primal Laws. On this basis, the paper argues that Primal Logic constitutes the shared ground protocol underlying all logical systems, and provides a preliminary demonstration of its positive inferential capacity, thereby grounding logical pluralism without recourse to monism. Keywords: Primal Logic; the possibility of distinction; logical pluralism; collapse problem; Indiscernibility of Identicals. (shrink)

本文以“区分之可能”这一原初本体论基底为出发点，推导时间的必然结构与单向性原理。在“区分之可能—区分—区分产物”三层框架下，本文提出时间具有两个独立而互补的本体论原理。正向原理源于区分之可能的自足性与 无规定性：展开永不可穷尽，亦永不可彻底停止；这一永不止息的展开过程本身就是“先” 与“后”次序的持续生成，构成时间的必然与无穷，故称之为“自足性的展开”。负向原理源于区分本身与区分产物的非自足性：一切非自足者的存在皆为偶然，逻辑上必然蕴含“不再存在之可能”；这一从存在向不再存在的单 向敞开，构成时间的不可逆性，故称之为“非自足性的展开”。两者独立证成，却在效果上耦合：正向原理保证新者不断涌出，负向原理保证旧者不断消逝，生与灭在同一本体论过程中同时发生。在此基础上，本文进一步揭示传 统决定论与因果封闭性预设了一个未经审查的前提——时间只有负向性——而正向原理的确立使因果封闭性在原则上崩溃：新区分产物的涌现不蕴含于已有产物网络，因而没有在先的充分原因。涌现与混沌由此获得统一的本体论 说明：涌现是正向原理的直接呈现，混沌的长期不可预测性则根源于已有产物网络无法捕捉未来涌现的新内容；负向消逝与正向新生两种运动最为剧烈的交汇处，恰是最大限度的不可预测性所在。本文还将此框架与康德和德勒兹 的相关论断进行对话，在康德处以“展开趋势”取代“外在刺激”，消除物自体与现象之间的非法因果桥梁；在德勒兹处指出其差异哲学未触及使差异得以可能的前区分层级，从而确立“无区分的同一”相对于差异的本体论优先 性。本文的结论是：时间并非预先存在的容器或感性直观形式，而是区分之可能展开自身的双重运动——自足性展开的生与非自足性展开的灭——在同一基底上的必然交响；这一双重运动同时解释了世界的规律性与不可穷尽的新 异性。关键词：时间；区分之可能；区分；涌现；混沌；决定论；因果封闭性；.

本文从逻辑多元主义的元理论困境出发，追问“区分何以可能”这一前逻辑问题，以归谬法演绎出原初逻辑三大律（原初不矛盾律、原初排中律、原初同一律），论证其构成一切逻辑系统共享的底层协议。在此基础上，本文提出 “概念谱系学”与“对角线溢出”原理：任何试图将自身概念展开封闭为“全体在场”的系统，必然生成以该系统核心机制为否定开关的“反身概念后代”，从而必然溢出边界。 这一原理统一解释了五个传统上各自为政的极限现象——停机问题、哥德尔不完备性、说谎者悖论、没有免费午餐定理及悖论集合的不可封闭性——它们并非不同领域的技术巧合，而是同一存在论结构在计算、证明、语义、优化 与元理论层面的折射。本文进一步识别出被传统逻辑遗漏的“对象属性关联模态”独立概念层，揭示“真”作为第五层后天标记的存在论地位，据此消解“真逻辑”之争与可知性悖论所依赖的柏拉图主义预设。 本文的核心立场是反柏拉图主义的温和实在论：约定某一种属性，不代表“可能有该属性的区分产物”自动全体直接存在或者被召唤；区分之可能仅意味着“不封堵”而非“预先保证”；数学对象与物理对象在本体论上平等，皆 为区分产物。通过去除“封闭全集”这一隐蔽预设，本文以极简的存在论层级为数学基础与逻辑哲学提供了统一的奠基框架。 关键词： 区分之可能；原初逻辑；概念谱系学；对角线溢出；对象属性关联模态；反柏拉图主义；可知性悖论；逻辑多元主义.

摘要中国道德常被认为缺乏类似一神宗教的神圣性基础，由此被解释为习俗、实践理性或"内在超越"的产物。本文提出一种不同的理解路径：中华道德并非缺乏神圣性，而是建立在一次历史性的神圣性转 移之上。通过回到上古认知结构，本文将大禹治水理解为一次叙事性的"胜神事件"——在叙事所建构的意义框架中，人类成功战胜了自然神——使神圣性从自然神转移到人的德行之中。由此，" ;德"获得了超越性的合法性基础，并成为天命、道统与政治正当性的核心标准。本文结合考古学证据（积石峡洪水、石峁遗址、二里头文化）与跨文明洪水叙事的结构性对比，论证了"治水型" ;与"逃避型"洪水神话的根本差异。在此基础上，本文分析了天命观中"皇天无亲，惟德是辅"所揭示的德行优先于天命的逻辑顺序——与一神教"君权神授" ;形成根本性的顺序颠倒；考察了时间意象的调用机制与殉道叙事的结构同构对神圣性转移假说的验证；并在与一神教的系统性比较中，揭示了"胜神"与"侍神"在政治权威来源、 此世性起源、牺牲时刻的自我神圣化、人心的道德主权以及对苦难的回应等五个维度上的结构性差异。本文认为，中华道德是一种以战胜自然神为前提、由人承担神圣性的道德形态，而非一种去神圣化或无神圣性基础的伦理体系 。 关键词：神圣性转移；大禹治水；德；天命；道统；胜神事件；道德主权 -/- Chinese morality is commonly regarded as lacking a sacred foundationcomparable to that of monotheistic religions, and is consequently explained as a1product of custom, pragmatic reason, or "immanent transcendence." This paperproposes an alternative account: Chinese morality is not devoid of sacrality but isfounded upon a historical transfer of sacredness from nature gods to human virtue. Returning to the cognitive framework of archaic China, the paper interprets Yu theGreat's flood control as a "god-defeating event" (shengshen shijian)—a substantivevictory over nature (...) gods in the logic embedded in the narrative itself—throughwhich sacredness was transferred from the divine to the human realm. Drawing onarchaeological evidence (the Jishi Gorge outburst flood of c. 1920 BCE, theShimao site, Erlitou culture) and a structural comparison of global flood narratives("flood control" vs. "escape" types), the paper argues that "virtue" (de) acquired itstranscendental legitimacy from this event and became the core criterion for theMandate of Heaven, the Confucian orthodoxy (daotong), and political legitimacy. The paper further demonstrates that the principle "August Heaven has no partisanattachments; it supports only the virtuous" reveals a logical priority of virtue overthe Mandate—a sequence fundamentally inverted from the monotheistic doctrine ofdivine right of kings. Through systematic comparison with monotheism, the paperidentifies structural divergences across five dimensions: the source of politicalauthority ("communicating with gods" vs. "defeating gods"), the origin of this- worldliness, self-sacralization at the moment of sacrifice, the moral sovereignty ofthe human heart, and the response to suffering (guilt vs. sympathy). Chinesemorality, the paper concludes, is not a desacralized ethical system but a moral orderpredicated on human beings bearing the sacred—a sacredness won from, ratherthan granted by, the divine. Keywords: sacredness transfer; Yu the Great; virtue (de); Mandate of Heaven;daotong; god-defeating event; moral sovereignty. (shrink)

The Indiscernibility of Identicals is familiar; the sources of its contrastive and exclusionaryforce are less often separated. Using its reflexive profile as a diagnostic case, I isolate twopresuppositional commitments. The Meaningfulness Constraint says that being Distinct andbeing Non-Distinct cannot themselves be Non-Distinct. It is the point at which Distinctnessacquires a minimal contrastive role against a prior Non-Distinctness. The Prohibition ofSelf-Distinction supplies the exclusionary source: Proh 〈 D(A,A) 〉 . Non-Distinctness isintroduced as a bidirectional mutual self-relation. An additional operational presupposition, Bidirectional (...) Non-Distinct Replacement Invariance (NRI), preserves N across admissiblereplacement; a separate Status-Preservation rule then carries the Prohibition from D(A,A) toD(A,B). A Having/Lacking bridge and Reach carry the same source to a property-level no- co-obtaining result. The two routes have different costs but one D-specific source. This issource economy, not a claim that the whole theory has fewer rules. The argument assumesneither D/N coverage nor classical first-order non-contradiction. Keywords: Indiscernibility of Identicals; distinction; non-distinctness; exclusion;presupposition; laws of logic. (shrink)