hulusitaiscs on Nostr: 人類社會敘事史(2)：神權開啟的文明(上)——公平 ...

人類社會敘事史(2)：神權開啟的文明(上)——公平

神，無論是否存在，都以其超現實的能力與創世身份獲得了統治地位，在人類世界中擁有絕對正當性，成為人類歷史上極為特殊的至高權力階級。
​神，無論是否存在，人類對神的供奉與獻祭都在歷史上真實發生。即便在今天，飲食文化、婚姻倫理、死亡儀式、節日慶典中，神的身影依然無處不在。「神為主、人為僕、萬物皆為神之財物」的主從擁有關係，已深深植入人類文明，並伴隨社會演化延續至今。
​神如同人類理解世界最基礎的底層語言，與生活深度交融，滲透於一切意識形態之中。人類因神的能力、地位與創世身份而生出的那份特殊情感，如母親慈祥的目光，在集體協作與日常生活中流淌；現實中，動物界普遍存在的支配關係與領地佔有本能，在人類社會中具備廣泛的心理認可。
​因而，以神的權力地位為起點，將「神對萬物的擁有關係」樹立為人類社會關係的模板，建立起「跨本體擁有」秩序下的主從支配權力系統，並演化出人類彼此間的角色扮演與歸屬關係，便水到渠成。血統也因承襲了神的名望獲得正當性得而得到廣泛傳播，具備時代特徵的階級制度逐漸成形。
​神對萬物的「跨本體擁有」關係，就如同人類社會初始的座標系統，始終在確定著文明的進程與展開方向。

建立在擁有關係之上的勞動協作，在支配效率與組織穩定性上都優於鬆散的協同。在殘酷的自然選擇面前，鬆散的協作逐漸被基於擁有關係的支配性協作所取代。在生產力低下的時代，跨本體擁有主導下的主從關係與身份權力系統，實現了人盡其才、物盡其用。它幫助人類在自然選擇中取得優勢，並最終站到了世界舞台的中央。然而對於個人而言，這意味著只能被迫接受主從關係的安排，在既定的階級位置中填充與扮演自身的社會角色。這也導致後人常常誤以為，個人擁有「先天且生而具有的出身命運」。
​在人類文明進程中，跨本體擁有關係逐漸演變為穩定的、模型化的跨本體擁有權力。它透過符號宣稱與角色扮演，在與物理本體並無直接關聯的前提下，實現了社會世界對物理實體的佔有。它純粹是意識的宣稱，僅存在於人的意識之中，與人體擁有手腳這種物理上的本體性擁有，具有本質不同：擁有者與被擁有者之間的剝離，只會切斷情感寄託、導致意義消失，卻不會造成任何物理本體的傷害。然而，正是這種符號宣稱中的跨本體擁有權，其在意識中進行的邊界切割與意義賦予，構成了社會組織的基本骨架。
例如「這錢是我的」，「錢」本身並不屬於「我」的物理本體，「我」也不能像支配手腳那樣支配「錢」，但「錢」在社會關係中被認知為歸屬於「我」這一符號所代表的實體；「我」真正使用的，是「錢」這一符號在社會中的意義及其所代表的地位、資源與人際網絡。「擁有錢」不只是對物品的佔有，更是在確認一個人的社會地位、人際關係與可調用資源；再如「這片土地是中國的」，即「中國」這一符號，透過意識認知中的邊界切割與賦予意義，取得了對真實土地的排他性支配權；「這是一個美國人」——這個人在宣稱中屬於美國，被美國這一符號強制保護、支配，並排斥他國符號的調用。這一切正是現實社會的根本結構關係——跨本體擁有權為核心的社會結構。

物理世界中，萬物之間存在並列、交叉、包含、排斥等各種關係，但這些關係都不構成主從支配關係。即便是包含中有些關係會被稱為從屬，但其本質只是結構上的「屬於／包含於」，並不存在意志上的從屬——支配與服從。也就是說，萬物之間並不存在天然的主從支配，而是在各自獨立中自主運行。這種彼此互不從屬、互不支配、互不擁有、各自獨立的自主運行狀態，稱為平權，即萬物平權。萬物平權是天然的物理狀態，也是一種天然的平等關係。
人類與其擁有物之間，是由意識虛擬而生出的擁有關係，無法在物理上連接為一體，因此，人類並非天然擁有萬物，也不是萬物的中心，而是作為萬物之一與萬物平權。人類社會活動中的本能，也清晰體現出這一平權現象：個體對「不被擁有的獨立自主」狀態有著強烈的嚮往與執著。這不僅是心理需求，更是生命本體對「平權狀態」自然回歸的一種渴望，就如水流會嚮往低處。
人類對公平的認知差異始終存在，因需求、分配與認知差異引發的爭執從未間斷。儘管如此，人類追求公平的腳步從未停下，依然持續不懈地用血淚與汗水對公平進行賦義。然而，人類對公平的賦義，卻始終處於「跨本體擁有權」所確立的階級框架內，這導致平等概念一直都被統治階級所主導與定義，因此，平等一直都是統治階級的敘事工具，並且其生成的主流價值觀也只能是統治階級公平觀。
這些公平觀，均與「平權」這種天然平等狀態相去甚遠，現代人對自由的追求，本質上正在靠向平權狀態。然而，平權必須以「獨立自主」為成立前提，無法獨立，便意味著置身於控制之中，任何控制之下的自由，都是被允許的自由，其本身就是不自由，人們似乎還沒有充分意識到這一點。必須要說明的是，獨立自主並不必然妨礙個體之間「共跳同一支舞」。

「跨本體擁有權」作為先驗性的底層邏輯，已成為人類社會世代遺傳的文化基因，將人類文明緊密綑綁。它讓人類理所當然地認為：一塊土地、一頭牛、甚至一個人及未來，都「應該」屬於某個主體或某種價值。這種集體共識，導致人類長期混淆了物理真實中的擁有與符號宣稱中的擁有。人類文明，正是在「宣稱擁有」與「為公平賦義」的堆疊與交織中奮力前行。

(This English translation was generated by AI and does not reflect the author's original phrasing.)

A Narrative History of Human Society (II): Civilization Begun by Theocracy (Part I) — Fairness

God, whether real or imagined, attained a position of authority through His supernatural powers and status as creator. In human society, He acquired unquestioned legitimacy and became one of the most distinctive supreme power structures in human history.
Whether or not God truly exists, human offerings and sacrifices to God have undeniably existed throughout history. Even today, traces of the divine remain embedded in food traditions, marriage ethics, funeral rituals, and festival celebrations. The master-servant ownership structure in which “God is the master, humanity the servant, and all things the property of God” has become deeply rooted in human civilization and has continued through successive stages of social evolution.
God functions much like the most fundamental language through which humanity understands the world. Interwoven with everyday life, the idea of God permeates virtually every ideology. The special emotions generated by God's power, status, and role as creator flow through collective cooperation and daily existence like the gentle gaze of a mother. At the same time, dominance relationships and territorial instincts, which are widespread throughout the animal kingdom, enjoy broad psychological acceptance within human societies.
Consequently, it became natural to take God's ownership of all things as the template for human social relations. From this foundation emerged systems of master-servant authority organized through symbolic ownership, gradually evolving into patterns of social roles, obligations, and belonging. Bloodlines likewise gained legitimacy through association with divine prestige and spread widely throughout society, while historically distinctive class systems gradually took shape.
God's symbolic ownership of all things functioned much like the original coordinate system of human civilization, continuously determining both the direction and the development of civilizational progress.

Labor cooperation organized through ownership relations proved more efficient and more stable than loose forms of collaboration. Under the pressures of natural selection, decentralized cooperation was gradually replaced by systems of coordinated domination based upon ownership structures.
In eras of low productivity, master-servant relationships and systems of status and authority organized through symbolic ownership enabled societies to allocate people and resources with considerable efficiency. Such arrangements helped humanity gain advantages in the struggle for survival and ultimately rise to a dominant position in the natural world.
For individuals, however, this meant being compelled to accept assigned social roles within predetermined hierarchical positions. As a result, later generations often came to believe that one's social origins and destiny were innate and predetermined at birth.
Throughout the development of civilization, symbolic ownership gradually evolved into a stable and institutionalized form of social power. Through symbolic claims and social role performance, it enabled the social world to establish possession over physical entities without any direct physical incorporation between owner and owned.
Such ownership exists entirely within human consciousness. It differs fundamentally from bodily ownership, such as possessing one's own hands or feet. When the owner and the owned are separated in symbolic ownership, meaning and emotional attachment may disappear, yet no physical injury is inflicted upon either party.
Nevertheless, it is precisely this symbolic ownership—with its mental acts of boundary-drawing and meaning-assignment—that forms the basic structural framework of social organization.
Consider the statement: "This money is mine."
The money itself is not physically part of the owner's body, nor can it be controlled in the same manner as one's limbs. Yet within social relationships, the money is recognized as belonging to the entity represented by the symbol "I." What the individual actually utilizes is not merely the physical object, but the social meaning attached to it—its associated status, resources, opportunities, and networks of relationships.
To possess money is therefore not merely to possess an object; it is also to affirm one's social position, social connections, and accessible resources.
The same logic applies to statements such as "This land belongs to China." Through collectively recognized boundaries and socially assigned meanings, the symbol "China" acquires exclusive authority over a physical territory.
Likewise, when one says, "This is an American," the individual is symbolically incorporated into the social entity called America, protected and governed through that symbolic affiliation while simultaneously excluded from competing claims made by other political entities.
These examples reveal what may be considered one of the fundamental structural features of social reality: a social order organized around symbolic ownership.

In the physical world, entities may stand in relationships of coexistence, intersection, inclusion, or exclusion. Yet none of these relationships inherently constitute domination or subordination.
Even relationships often described as subordinate are fundamentally structural relations of belonging or containment rather than relations of command and obedience. In other words, no natural master-servant hierarchy exists among things themselves. Each entity operates independently according to its own nature.
This condition of mutual independence—where things neither dominate, possess, nor subordinate one another—may be called Pingquan, the equal standing of all things.
Pingquan is both a natural physical condition and a natural form of equality.
The relationship between human beings and their possessions, by contrast, exists only through symbolic constructions of consciousness. Human beings are therefore not naturally the owners of all things, nor are they the center of existence. Rather, they exist as one part among many within a state of Pingquan.
Human behavior itself reveals this tendency. Individuals display a persistent desire for independent existence free from ownership by others. This is not merely a psychological preference but a deeper inclination toward a return to Pingquan—a tendency as natural as water flowing downhill.
Human disagreements about fairness have always existed. Conflicts arising from differences in needs, distribution, and perception have never ceased.
Yet despite these disputes, humanity has never abandoned the pursuit of fairness. Across generations, people have continued to define, redefine, and struggle over its meaning through sacrifice, labor, and conflict.
The problem, however, is that these definitions of fairness have almost always been formulated within the hierarchical framework established by symbolic ownership. As a result, concepts of equality have historically been defined by ruling groups and deployed as narrative instruments of power. The dominant values of any era therefore tend to reflect the ruling class's conception of fairness.
These conceptions remain far removed from Pingquan as a natural condition of equality.
Modern aspirations toward freedom may, in many respects, be understood as movements toward Pingquan. Yet Pingquan requires independence as a precondition. Where independence is absent, control is present. Any freedom that exists only by permission remains a form of unfreedom.
This distinction remains insufficiently recognized.
At the same time, independence does not necessarily prevent individuals from participating in collective cooperation—from "dancing the same dance" together.

As a foundational and inherited logic, symbolic ownership has become one of the enduring cultural genes of human civilization.
It leads people to assume that land, livestock, resources, other persons, and even the future itself ought to belong to some owner, authority, or value system.
This collective assumption has caused humanity to conflate physical possession with symbolic claims of ownership for much of its history.
Human civilization has advanced through the continual intertwining of two processes: the declaration of ownership and the ongoing effort to define fairness.
It is within this intersection that the history of civilization has unfolded.