【本章提要：递进自组织让权力从统治回归沟通，实现逐层提炼理性的“递进自治—递进联邦”。】
Chapter synopsis: Recursive self-organization allows power to shift from domination back to communication, achieving a stepwise refinement of rationality through "recursive self-governance - recursive federation".
递进自组织既是向量求和的结构，又是权力实施的结构，两个结构合在一起，自下而上的选举一直到顶，逐层向下的负责一直到底。这样的结构没有断裂，不存在有权和无权二元，权力包含于每个层块，权力源头出自民众。
Recursive self-organization is not only a structure of vector summation but also a structure of power implementation. These two structures are combined, with elections from bottom to top and responsibilities cascading from top to bottom. This structure is continuous, avoiding a dualistic division of having power or not, as power is embedded in each layer, and its origin is rooted in the people.
消除权力与无权的分离，权力就不再是民众之上的统治力量，而是民众对日常信息的自我处理。递进自组织的结构看上去和权力结构依然形似，但权力结构本来就是被窃取的间接沟通结构，二者的区别在于权力源头在上还是在下，决定了一个是统治结构，一个是沟通结构。
By eliminating the separation between power and powerlessness, power no longer becomes a dominating force above the people but rather a self-processing of daily information by the people. The structure of recursive self-organization may appear similar to a power structure, but the fundamental difference lies in whether the source of power is at the top or the bottom, determining whether it is a structure of domination or communication.
权力原本是实现沟通的结构和工具，却被异化成统治民众并与民众对立的权力元。金字塔尖的当权者以个人意志行使权力，即使正好与社会意志“吻合”而使社会意志得到体现，权力也是其私有。递进自组织的当权者作为“和载体”，只能以其承载的共同体意志或社会意志行使权力，才是权力不再私有的标志，使权力重归其原本应有之义。
Power was originally a structure and a tool to achieve communication, but it was alienated into the power that rules and opposes the people. Those in power at the top of the pyramid exercise power with their personal will, and even if it happens to "coincide" with the will of society so that the will of society is embodied, power is their private property. As the "sum carrier", the power of recursive self-organization can only exercise power with the collective will of the community or society it carries. This marks the end of the privatization of power, returning it to its original purpose.
第八章提出的问题——“能否找到一种方法，可以让‘社会意志’无需通过‘压力’和‘强力’，无滞后地随时实现？”——答案就是递进自组织，通过层层向量求和，以“和载体”取代权力意志，就不再有权力意志对社会意志的扭曲，社会意志得以随时自我实现，也就不再需要用压力或强力去调整、更新权力。
The question posed in Chapter 8 is "Is it possible to find a way for the 'societal will' to be realized at any time without a lag without the need for 'pressure' and 'force'?" The answer is recursive self-organization, through the summing of layers of vectors, and the replacement of the will to power with the "sum carrier", there will no longer be the distortion of the will to power to the societal will, and the societal will can be self-realized at any time, and there is no longer a need to use pressure or force to adjust and update power.
民主是当今的政治正确。然而真心相信民主的人并不像口头相信的那么多。对于精英，民主往往只被作为反对专制的合法性来源，却非可靠的政治方式。世界仍然只能由精英领导，民主必须由精英代议，人民的作用只是在选举日进行授权，其他时间仍然接受统治。不能说是精英存心架空民主，也不能怪他们认定人民缺乏参与民主的意愿和能力，有递进自组织之前，的确没有其他方法实现真正的民主。
Democracy is the prevailing political correctness today. However, those who genuinely believe in democracy are not as numerous as one might verbally claim. For the elite, democracy is often seen merely as a legitimate source of opposition to authoritarianism, rather than a reliable political system. The world still must be led by the elite, and democracy must be represented by the elite; the role of the people is merely to authorize on election day, while they continue to accept governance at other times. It cannot be said that the elite intentionally marginalize democracy, nor can they be blamed for recognizing what they see as the lack of the people's willingness and ability to participate in democracy. Before the advent of recursive self-organization, there truly were no other means to achieve genuine democracy.
递进自组织的当选者和代议制的当选者，区别在于前者不是“代理人”，而是“和载体”。“和载体”与“代理人”不一样。“代理人”以其个人意志行事，虽然当选与否由选民决定，需要迎合选民，但由于选举规模超出经验范围，且只能定期选举，选民既难以准确判断其是否真正符合社会意志，亦不能及时对其制约，反而还可能受其对数量和的操纵。“和载体”则是“向量和”的体现者和执行者，受经验范围的随时选举制约，任何时候都得按照“向量和”行事，因此不再是“代议”，而是对共同体意志（最终达至社会意志）的直接表达。
The elected representatives of recursive self-organization and the elected representatives in the representative democracy differ in that the former is not an "agent" but a "sum carrier". The "sum carrier" and the "agent" are distinct. An "agent" acts based on personal will, and though their election depends on the voters and they need to cater to them, due to the scale of elections exceeding the empirical range and being held only periodically, voters find it challenging to accurately assess whether the elected truly aligns with societal will. They also struggle to promptly impose constraints, and there is a risk of manipulation regarding quantity and scale. On the other hand, the "sum carrier" is the embodiment and executor of "vector sum". Constrained by the ongoing elections within the range of experience, they must act in accordance with "vector sum" at all times. Therefore, they are no longer "representatives" but rather the direct expression of the collective will (ultimately leading to societal will).
林肯的“government of the people, by the people, for the people”（孙中山采纳的“民有、民治、民享”之翻译广为人知，但不如胡适译的“吾民所自有、所自操、所自为之政府”清楚），其中关键在于 by the people。只要做到 by the people，of the people 和 for the people 都会自然而然地应验。但问题在如何 by the people？如果民众无法“自操”政府，by the people 被收缩到单一的“民选”， 政府就由当选者操持，弊病和变异随之而来。尤其在当选者有能力将“民选”掏空变质时，“民有”和“民享”就会变为“官有”和“官享”，因此民众能否自操权力实为核心所在，绝非有了选举就可万事大吉。
Abraham Lincoln's famous phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" emphasizes the key element of "by the people." As long as "by the people" is achieved, "of the people" and "for the people" will naturally follow. However, the question lies in how to achieve "by the people." If the public cannot "exercise control" over the government, "by the people" is reduced to a singular "people's choice," and the government is then controlled by elected officials, leading to problems and deviations. Especially when elected officials have the ability to hollow out and distort the essence of "people's choice," the concepts of "government of the people" and "benefit for the people" can transform into "government of the officials" and "benefit for the officials." Therefore, whether the people can exercise control over power is truly the core issue; having elections alone does not ensure everything will be fine.
这当然是难题，人民如何可能操持政府？对此需要把政府理解为公权力——二元社会的公权力是被抽离出来，合在一起，便只能由政府官员操持；递进自组织的公权力分散在每个层块，在层块内由本层块成员自我操持；对更大范围的公权力，则推选“和载体”在上级层块共同操持。整个社会的公权力相当于所有层块的公权力之和，由分布在所有层块的全体社会成员共同分担，即是 by the people。
This is indeed a challenging question, how could the people possibly exercise control over the government? To understand this, it's necessary to perceive the government as public power. In a dualistic society, public power is detached from people and consolidated with those in power; hence, it can only be wielded by government officials. In the case of recursively self-organizing public power, it is dispersed across every layer blocks, and within layer block, it is self-governed by its members. For broader scopes of public power, "sum carriers" are elected to collectively manage it in higher-level layers. The entirety of society's public power is the sum of all layers' public power, shared collectively by all members distributed across these layers. This, in essence, is "by the people."
因此，by the people一定是人民自治，而非所谓的人民统治。人民统治需要人民是一体，那只能是名义的，实际上由号称代表人民的实体——或是独裁者，或是党和政府，或是代议机构，总之不是人民——进行统治。如同当年在面对苏联文化部长以人民名义做出谴责时，作家帕斯捷尔纳克（Борис Леонидович Пастернак）反诘：“人民！人民！您好象是从自己的裤子里掏出来的。”人民自治只能自下而上，从小的自治一步步扩大联合。以往认为宏观的政治民主是其他民主的前提和必要条件，社区、村庄等微观民主是次级的。而从自治角度出发，微观组成宏观，政治民主由自下而上的团体民主构成，团体民主才是政治民主的前提和必要条件。
Therefore, by the people must be the people's self-government, not the so-called people's rule. The rule of the people requires that the people are unity, which can only be nominal and in fact ruled by entities that claim to represent the people—either dictators, or parties and governments, or representative bodies, in short, not the people. Just as in the face of the condemnation of the Soviet Minister of Culture in the name of the people, the writer Pasternak (Борис Леонидович Пастернак) retorted: "The people! People! It's like you're pulling it out of your pants. "People's autonomy can only be from the bottom up, from small autonomy to expand the alliance step by step. In the past, it was believed that macro political democracy was the premise and necessary condition of other democracies, and micro democracy such as community and village democracy was secondary. From the perspective of autonomy, the micro is composed of the macro, and political democracy is composed of bottom-up group democracy, which is the premise and necessary condition of political democracy.
递进自组织本身就是一种参与，由参与而形成组织。覆盖整个社会的公权组织实行递进自组织，便相当于全民参与政府。过去认为全民参与政府只是煽情空想，顶多举行偶尔为之的数量求和公决。但递进自组织让全民参与政府变成现实。那不像公决是所有人对同一问题表态，而是每人只参与自己所属的层块，所有人的参与通过递进自组织的结构形成向量和。
Recursive self-organization itself is a form of participation, giving rise to organization through participation. Implementing recursive self-organization for the public power organization that covers the entire society is equivalent to universal participation in governance. In the past, the notion of universal participation in governance was considered sentimental and idealistic, perhaps limited to occasional numerical referendums. However, recursive self-organization turns universal participation in governance into a reality. Unlike referendums where everyone expresses their stance on the same issue, in recursive self-organization, each person participates only within their respective layer block or unit. The collective participation of everyone is formed into a vector sum through the structure of recursive self-organization.
不错，很多人对参与政治和公共议题没兴趣，只关注私域的快乐。但这不能成为质疑递进自组织的理由。代议制才需要人们关注政治和公共议题，递进自组织要民众关注的恰恰是私域与快乐，解决近在身边的问题，然后由“和载体”进行后面的向量求和。
Yes, many people are not interested in getting involved in politics and public issues, and only focus on the pleasures of the private domain. But this is not a reason to question recursive self-organization. Representative democracy requires people to pay attention to political and public issues, and recursive self-organization requires people to pay attention to the private domain and happiness, solve the problems that are close to them, and then carry out the vector summing by the "sum carrier".
很多情况下，递进自组织中的参与看上去是无形的，不需要开会讨论，没有投票表决，共同体成员各干各的，似乎都是由当选者任意做主。然而人们时刻在参与，只不过参与方式是通过当选者的默契。随时选举的制约使当选者每次做主都要在头脑中模拟向量求和，经验范围使其能准确了解每个成员的要求和反馈，也能让所有成员时刻了解当选者的作为。正是这种关系决定了看似当选者做主，实际真正在决定的却是各行其事的全体成员，当选者是通过默契在追随他们。
In many instances, participation within recursive self-organization may seem intangible—there are no apparent meetings or discussions, no voting, and community members go about their tasks seemingly at the discretion of elected representatives. However, people are constantly participating; it's just that their involvement is guided by tacit understanding with the elected representatives. The constraints of ongoing elections require elected representatives to mentally simulate vector summing each time they make decisions. The empirical range enable them to accurately grasp the demands and feedback of each member, and it allows all members to be aware of the actions of the elected representatives at all times. It is this relationship that determines that, while it appears that elected representatives are in charge, in reality, the decisions are made collectively by all members going about their tasks, with elected representatives leading through a tacit understanding.
所谓民主和参与，并不总得显露在外。如果当选者的作为都恰到好处，其他人何必多费心？看在眼里，乐在心中即可。但是任何偏差都逃不过经验范围的敏锐感知，人们随时能出手，且能立竿见影就够了。递进自组织的基层不是最小的权力。衡量权力大小首先看任免和服从关系。在权力序列中能随时进行任免和必须被服从的源头便是最高权力。递进自组织的基层层块正是这种源头，因此最高权力属于所有的基层参与者——也就是亿万个人组成的人民。
The so-called democracy and participation don't always have to be visibly apparent. If the actions of elected representatives are just right, why should others worry too much? Observing and finding joy in their hearts is sufficient. However, any deviation cannot escape the keen perception within the empirical range. People can intervene at any time, and prompt action is enough. The grassroots of recursive self-organization is not the smallest unit of power. Measuring the size of power first involves examining the relationships of appointment and obedience. In the hierarchy of power, the origin where appointments can be made at any time and must be obeyed is the highest authority. The grassroots layer blocks of recursive self-organization represent this origin, and thus the highest authority belongs to all grassroots participants—the billions of individuals constituting the people.
积极自由和消极自由是在有权无权被分为二元时存在的分别。消极自由是为保护无权者不受权力侵犯而给权力划定界限；积极自由则要权力按照道德和正义为无权者提供权利。积极自由往往被权力拿来当作侵犯自由的口实，消极自由相比之下对自由有更好的保护。然而今日人类紧密相关，每个行为都可能影响他人。当自家锅灶都跟大气污染或气候变暖有关，因而涉及道德或违法时，几乎没有什么能免于干涉和被干涉。消极自由的空间不断缩减，仅靠消极自由不能解决生态、资源及全球化一类的问题。当发现人类自由不能没有节制、甚至还需加强节制时，重要的已不是坚守消极自由，而是勇于面对积极自由，并确保其不成为权力压缩自由的口实。
Positive freedom and negative freedom are distinctions that arise when there is a division between having power and lacking power. Negative freedom involves setting limits on power to protect those from the infringement of power, while positive freedom requires power to provide rights to those without power in accordance with morality and justice. Positive freedom is often used by those in power as a pretext for violating freedom, and in comparison, negative freedom provides better protection for freedom. However, in today's interconnected world, every action can potentially affect others. When even personal activities, such as using a home stove, are linked to issues like air pollution or climate change and involve ethical or legal considerations, there is almost nothing that can escape interference or being interfered with. The space for negative freedom is continuously shrinking, and relying solely on negative freedom cannot address issues like ecology, resources, and globalization. When it is realized that human freedom cannot exist without restraint and may even require enhanced restraint, the crucial matter is no longer sticking to negative freedom but facing positive freedom courageously and ensuring it does not become an excuse for compressing freedom by those in power.
自由与节制是不可分的，可以说没有节制就没有自由。这种节制主要并非从外部施加。完整的个人意志不是某个异想天开的想法，而是人自身针对各种事物的个别意志的自我求和。那种求和过程虽不外露，却时刻在进行中。所谓的斟酌，瞻前顾后，左右思量，上下求索等都是对这种求和的形容。其中充满了“舍”和“得”的衡量。而“舍得”正是典型的节制，完全出自个体自我的决定，因此是自由的节制。没有“舍”便没有“得”，也说明了 “舍”的节制给予“得”的自由，二者相辅相成。
Freedom and restraint are inseparable; it can be said that without restraint, there is no freedom. This restraint primarily does not come from external imposition. The complete individual will is not some fanciful idea but rather a self-summing of individual wills towards various things. Although this process of summing is not overt, it is ongoing at all times. Actions like deliberation, careful consideration, weighing pros and cons, and seeking solutions are all descriptions of this summing process. Within this process, there is a measure of "letting go" and "gaining." "Letting go" is a typical form of restraint, entirely stemming from the individual's self-determination, making it a form of freedom's restraint. Without "letting go," there is no "gaining," and it also illustrates that the restraint of "letting go" provides the freedom of "gaining," showing that the two complement each other.
个人节制是在与他人互动中形成的，包含着对他人同样节制的期待。所有这类个人节制与期待形成的向量和，即为社会意志的节制。递进自组织可以运行并掌控这种向量求和，再施加给社会成员，形成对每个人的外部节制。这种外部节制不是由某个力量或法律施加，而是在递进自组织的自由组合、充分协商、委员会表决，随时选举等机制的作用下自发地施加，保证对每个人的公平。
Personal restraint is formed through interactions with others, encompassing expectations of similar restraint from others. The vector sum of all such individual restraints and expectations constitutes the restraint of societal will. recursive self-organization can operate and control this vector sum, then apply it to society members, forming external restraint for each individual. This external restraint is not imposed by a specific force or law but is spontaneously applied through the mechanisms of recursive self-organization, such as free assembly, extensive negotiation, committee voting, anytime elections, ensuring fairness for every individual.
如果把公平正义视为平等的节制，积极自由在相当程度上便成为如何把握节制的问题。正义不能是目标，而应是机制——即“会产生秩序的规则”；不能由有形的铁腕推行，而应由无形之手运作。动听的宏大概念往往落入相反结果，问题在于那些概念无法由当事的个体自我操作，只能被有形之手把持。罗素（Bertrand Russell）说希特勒来自卢梭，是因为卢梭主张“迫使自由”，却没有提供防止以公意名义滥用权力的措施，没有给个人防御集体压迫的能力，这种积极自由便会必然地投奔奴役。而递进自组织以向量求和达成社会意志，不是“迫使自由”，是以无形之手达成平等的节制。递进自组织消除有权无权之分，当不再有权力，自由便不会被窃取。当公平正义是由无形之手实现，滥用权力或肆意扩张也不再必然成为积极自由的产物。
If fairness and justice are viewed as a form of restrained equality, the issue of how to exercise restraint becomes central to positive freedom. Justice should not be the end goal; rather, it should be a mechanism—an "order-generating rule." It cannot be enforced by a tangible iron fist but should be operated by the invisible hand. Grand and appealing concepts often result in the opposite outcome, and the problem lies in the fact that these concepts cannot be self-operated by the individuals involved; instead, they are controlled by tangible hands. Bertrand Russell said that Hitler came from Rousseau because Rousseau advocated "forcing freedom" but did not provide measures to prevent the abuse of power in the name of public opinion. Without giving individuals the ability to defend against collective oppression, this form of positive freedom inevitably leads to enslavement. In contrast, recursive self-organization achieves societal will through vector summing, not by "forcing freedom," but by attaining restrained equality through the invisible hand. Recursive self-organization eliminates the distinction between having and lacking power; when there is no longer power, freedom cannot be stolen. When fairness and justice are realized by the invisible hand, the abuse of power or arbitrary expansion no longer necessarily becomes a product of positive freedom.
不过递进自组织社会仍可汲取消极自由的精神，基于普世价值制定一个经全民二分之一以上赞成（通过或修正）、同时经递进自组织最高层块一致赞成的人权宪章，作为与递进自组织规则并立的、高于其他所有法律的根本法，用以确保个人的基本自由。
However, recursive self-organizing society can still draw upon the spirit of positive freedom by establishing a Universal Declaration of Human Rights based on universal values. This declaration would require the approval of more than half of the entire population through approval or amendment, and simultaneous unanimous approval from the highest level block of recursive self-organization. It would serve as a fundamental law standing alongside the rules of recursive self-organization, superior to all other laws, aiming to ensure the basic freedoms of individuals.
有人说由“庸众”推举“精英”是代议制的悖论。当选举规模远大于选民的经验范围，选民既不能真正了解竞选者，也无法把握领导人应具备的素质。无知可以作为数量相加，但是再多无知也相加不成智慧，智慧却因向量的方向不同无法以数量相加，结果单看都是聪明人，结为群体却成了庸众，道理就在这里。
Some argue that the election of "elites" by the "mediocre masses" is a paradox of representative democracy. When the scale of elections far exceeds the empirical range of voters, they can neither truly understand the candidates nor grasp the qualities a leader should possess. Ignorance can accumulate in quantity, but no matter how much ignorance is accumulated, it does not add up to wisdom. Wisdom, however, cannot be summed quantitatively due to differences in the direction of vectors. As a result, when viewed individually, everyone may appear intelligent, but when forming a group, they may become mediocre masses. The essence of this paradox lies right here.
然而，偏见和局限是相对的。一个公司经理考虑国家经济发展战略免不了局限，考虑其公司事务却最全面。农民谈外交政策肯定是瞎说，但再权威的学者也不如他们对本村事务了解。当今世界分为越来越难跨界的多种专业和领域，使得人们不可能得到针对共同事务的同等智慧与参与能力。哪怕给他们再多的平等教育与闲暇时间，也做不到人人成为万事通的全才。当民众在代议制中选举总统或议员，当然只能从国民经济或外交关系而不能从公司或本村事务做判断，落入偏见和局限毫不奇怪。
However, biases and limitations are relative. A corporate manager, while considering national economic development strategies, cannot avoid limitations but can have a comprehensive understanding of company affairs. Farmers discussing foreign policy may be talking nonsense, yet even the most authoritative scholars may not match their knowledge of local affairs. The contemporary world is divided into increasingly specialized and diverse fields, making it impossible for individuals to possess equal wisdom and participation capabilities across all common affairs. Even with equal education and leisure time, it is unattainable for everyone to become a polymath. When the public elects a president or legislator within a representative democracy, they can only make judgments based on national economic or diplomatic relations, not on company or local affairs. It is not surprising that they fall into biases and limitations.
置身大规模社会的个人有局限和偏见是正常的，没有理由要求人人胸有全局。但是局限和偏见若以数量求和，便被迭加成愈发局限的“深井”， 局限程度与规模成正比。规模越大，对权力的压力越大。选举的意义本在择优，在代议制普选中追求数量和的当选者却明知民众是错也得迎合，否则就会被其他操纵数量和的竞争对手超越。权力顺应那种压力对社会不利，也与社会意志的长远目标相违。局限和偏见看似来自民众，却不是社会意志，而是被“数量求和结构”强加于民众的。
It is normal for individuals within large-scale societies to have limitations and biases, and there is no reason to expect everyone to have a comprehensive understanding. However, when limitations and biases are summed as scalar, they become an increasingly restrictive "deep well," and the degree of limitation is directly proportional to the scale. The larger the scale, the greater the pressure on power. The essence of elections lies in selecting the best, but in the universal suffrage of representative democracy, elected candidates pursuing quantity over quality knowingly cater to the public's misconceptions. Otherwise, they risk being surpassed by competitors manipulating the quantity. Yielding to such pressure is detrimental to society and contradicts the long-term goals of societal will. Although limitations and biases may appear to come from the public, they are not expressions of societal will; rather, they are imposed on the public by the "scalar summation structure".
解决大众局限不在把每个人都提高到可以把握全局，那永远无法指望，只能用向量求和取代数量求和。那首先要让人们在自己有智慧的领域从事民主，而不是非把他们推到无知领域去从事民主。递进自组织把层块限定在经验范围也是出于此种考虑。对经验范围内的事务，常人无需特殊教育皆能胜任，局限和偏见降到最低。其实全局与局限并不矛盾，全局正是由局限组成，处于不同局部的人视角也一定不同，提炼社会理性就是把所有的局限以向量求和拼接成全局而消除局限，把不同角度的偏见综合在一起而成为正见。
Solving the limitations of the masses does not involve elevating each individual to a level where they can comprehend the entire scope—an expectation that is perpetually unrealistic. Instead, it requires replacing scalar summation with vector summation. To achieve this, people should first engage in democracy within their areas of expertise, rather than forcing them into domains where they lack knowledge. Recursive self-organization restricts blocks within the empirical range precisely with this consideration in mind. For affairs within the range of experience, ordinary individuals can competently handle them without special education, minimizing limitations and biases. In reality, global and local perspectives are not contradictory; the global is composed of the local. Individuals in different localities have different viewpoints, and refining societal rationality involves combining all limitations through vector summation to form a global perspective, eliminating constraints. Integrating biases from different perspectives results in a more objective view.
这种方法适用处于同一层块的个人，也适用处于同一层块的“和载体”。递进自组织的上级层块由下级层块组成，每个层块的自我利益和立场即相当于各自的局限与偏见，向量求和将这些局限和偏见逐层拼接为全局和正见，层层递进，达成整个社会的全局与正见。
This approach is applicable to individuals within the same block and also to "sum carriers" within the same layer block. The higher-level blocks in recursive self-organization are composed of lower-level blocks, where the self-interest and positions of each block equate to their respective limitations and biases. Vector summation recursively concatenates these limitations and biases layer by layer into a global perspective and objective view. This process extends through each layer, achieving a comprehensive global perspective and objective view for the entire society.
逐层递进是提炼理性的过程。有两个性质始终伴随：一是各层块选举者与当选者位置接近，素质差距不大；二是当选者在本层块相对出众，主持层块全局也会使其眼光更为全面。前一性质决定了层块内部容易达成共识，选举者不会以偏见和局限约束当选者。后一性质决定了由当选者组成的上级层块可进一步提升理性。每递进一层，选举人和当选人的全局意识便提升一层，眼光更远，责任更大，形成一层托举一层的理性阶梯。
The process of recursive self-organization involves refining rationality through successive layers. Two inherent qualities consistently accompany this process: firstly, elected representatives and the positions they hold within each block are close, with little disparity in their qualities; secondly, elected representatives within a block are relatively outstanding, overseeing the overall block also enhances their comprehensive perspective. The first quality ensures that consensus is easily reached within the block, with elected representatives not being constrained by biases and limitations from the voters. The second quality enables the higher-level block formed by elected representatives to further enhance rationality. With each progression, the global awareness of both voters and elected representatives advances, their perspectives broaden, responsibilities increase, forming a rational staircase where each layer supports the one above.
同时，递进自组织还有一种有助形成理性的机制，我称为“隔层保护”——逐层递选在高层与基层之间加入隔层，层次越高隔层越多。不由基层直接选举的高层当选者不直接承受基层压力，要迎合的只是本层块，其决策即使与基层的“数量和”不一致，只要有本层块的支持，间隔层次就保护其免于逢迎大众。这是递进自组织随层次递升理性程度不断提高的原因之一。
Additionally, recursive self-organization employs a mechanism that aids in the formation of rationality, which I refer to as "compartment protection"—a system where, in the process of successive elections, compartment buffers are introduced between higher and lower levels, with the number of buffers increasing as the hierarchy ascends. Elected representatives in higher levels, not directly elected by the grassroots, do not bear the direct pressure from the grassroots. They only need to cater to their own block, and even if their decisions diverge from the "scalar sum" of the grassroots, as long as they have the support of their block, the compartment protection shields them from having to appease the general public. This is one of the reasons why the rationality level continually improves with the ascending hierarchy in recursive self-organization.
社会意志的压力出自社会成员个人意志的“向量和”，大众偏见与局限的压力则是出自“数量和”。之所以在递进自组织中向量和能够矫正数量和，靠的就是隔层。隔层把每人局限只限于其所处局部，把每人权力仅限于经验范围，从而保证了数量和不会压倒向量和。
The pressure of societal will arises from the "vector sum" of individual wills, while the pressure of public biases and limitations comes from the "scalar sum." The reason why vector summation can correct scalar summation in recursive self-organization lies in the presence of compartment protection. compartment protection confines the limitations of each individual to their specific locality and limits the power of each individual to their empirical range. This ensures that scalar summation will not overwhelm vector summation.
即使在同一层块，因为三分之二多数才能选举替换在任的当选者，当选者便可以在不同意见超过半数但尚未达到三分之二时，继续坚持其认为正确的选择。这一点亦有助于提炼理性。如果不久便能验证其选择是正确的，便会重新得到多数支持并得到更大信任；若不能证明正确，反对票便会增加到超过三分之二，使其放弃坚持或被罢免。
Even within the same block, because a two-thirds majority is required to replace an incumbent, elected representatives can persist in their chosen course of action even if more than half disagree but fail to reach the two-thirds threshold. This aspect also contributes to refining rationality. If it is soon proven that their choice was correct, they will regain majority support and increased trust. If unable to demonstrate correctness, opposition votes will accumulate beyond two-thirds, compelling them to abandon their stance or face removal from office.
向量求和不会让单一的偏激压倒全面和长远的平衡，这种意义上的暂时“违背多数”不但可取，而且必要。但是会产生这样的疑问：既然递进自组织的每一层都可以有效约束上层，为什么约束结果只是提炼理性，却不会叠加大众的局限呢？一方面说当选者只作为“和载体”忠实地追随共同体意志，另一方面又说当选者有能力并有必要在某些问题上违背基层多数，这中间有没有矛盾？
Vector summation prevents singular extremism from overwhelming comprehensive and long-term balance. In this sense, the temporary "violation of the majority" is not only acceptable but necessary. However, this raises a question: since each layer of recursive self-organization can effectively constrain the layer above, why does the result of this constraint only refine rationality and not accumulate the limitations of the masses? On one hand, it is stated that elected representatives merely serve as "sum carriers," faithfully following the will of the community. On the other hand, it is asserted that elected representatives have the ability and the need to contradict the majority at the grassroots level on certain issues. Is there a contradiction between these two statements?
其实，被违背的多数不是向量和，而是数量和——正因为当选者始终是“和载体”，当数量和与向量和不一致时，出于保证向量和，就必须违背数量和。例如得和舍一定是并存的，但是只要没理清，人们往往就只想得而拒绝舍。迭加为数量和，就成了貌似大众的意见。然而不舍不会有得，向量和的选择一定把舍和得放在一起，想得就必须舍。所以，递进自组织的高层决策与大众意见不同，其实只是求出了向量和与尚未求出向量和之间的区别。
In reality, the majority being contradicted is not the vector sum but the scalar sum. This is because elected representatives are always "sum carriers," and when the scalar sum diverges from the vector sum, to ensure the vector sum, it is necessary to contradict the scalar sum. For example, gaining and sacrificing must coexist, but as long as this is not understood, people often only consider gaining and reject sacrificing. When accumulated as a scalar sum, it appears as the opinion of the masses. However, without sacrificing, there can be no gaining, and the choice of vector sum always considers both gaining and sacrificing together—thinking of gaining necessitates sacrificing. Therefore, the high-level decisions in recursive self-organization, differing from public opinion, essentially reveal the distinction between the vector sum and the yet-to-be-determined vector sum.
可以放心的是，到底什么是向量和，不由高层当选者自己说了算，不会像“人民”概念那样可以信手拈来，任意冒用，而是在递进自组织的逐层求和过程中形成。
One can be assured that the determination of what constitutes the vector sum is not arbitrarily decided by the elected representatives in higher levels, unlike the concept of "the people," which can be easily invoked and misused. Instead, it is formed through the step-by-step summation process in recursive self-organization.
真正的自治只能是直接民主。但受制于充分直接沟通的限度，直接民主无法在大规模人群中实现，所以萨托利（G. Sartori）断言“（马克思）用自治代替政府的政治设计，无论当时还是现在都不可能实现，将来也决不可能实现”。萨托利提出的公式是“可以得到的自治强度同所要求的自治广度成反比”、“可能的自治强度同所要求的自治的持续性成反比”（冯克利、闫克文译《民主新论》）。而递进自组织恰恰是用自治代替政府。当全民都纳入公权递进自组织，可视为是一种“递进自治”社会，既是自治，亦是政府，自治广度可以无限扩大，自治强度却不减弱，且能一直保持。
True self-government can only be direct democracy. However, due to the limitations of sufficient direct communication, direct democracy cannot be achieved in large crowds, so Sartori (G. Sartori asserts that "[Marx's] political design of substituting autonomy for government was not and will never be realized, nor will it be". Sartori's formula is that "the degree of autonomy that can be obtained is inversely proportional to the breadth of autonomy required" and "the intensity of possible autonomy is inversely proportional to the persistence of autonomy requested" (Feng Keli and Yan Kewen, trans. A New Theory of Democracy). recursive self-organization, on the other hand, is precisely the replacement of government with self-government. When the whole people are included in the recursive self-organization of public power, it can be regarded as a kind of "recursive autonomy" society, which is both autonomy and government, and the breadth of autonomy can be infinitely expanded, but the intensity of autonomy is not weakened, and it can be maintained forever.
自治体之间的结合可以被视为联邦关系，因此递进自组织也是一种“递进联邦”。这种“递进自治—递进联邦”中的每个层块，一身兼具几种状态——自身是自治体，对上是组成上级联邦的成员体。对下则是由下级层块组成的联邦体（基层层块可视为由成员个人组成的联邦体）。
The union between the local governments can be regarded as a federal relationship, so recursive self-organization is also a kind of "recursive federation". Each layer of this "recursive autonomy-recursive federation" has several states in one body—it is a self-governing body, and the upper part is a member of the higher layer federation. Below is a federation of subordinate layers (the base layer can be thought of as a federation of individual members).
随着全球一体化，人类越发结为命运共同体，总有一天需要构建覆盖全球的超级联邦。面对那种管理重负，唯有层层自治取代统治，把管理分散于各个自治体自我消化。自治的基本冲动导致每个层块会将决策和管理权尽多留给自己。因此联邦怎样扩展都不会达到管理能力的极限。各国中央政府担负的国防和外交职责，也会随着世界大同逐步减少以致消失。
As global integration deepens, humanity becomes increasingly intertwined as a community of shared destiny. Eventually, there will be a need to construct a super-federation that covers the entire globe. Faced with the heavy burden of governance on such a scale, the only viable solution is to replace rule with layered autonomy, decentralizing governance and allowing each autonomous entity to manage itself. The fundamental drive for autonomy leads each block to retain decision-making and management authority as much as possible. Therefore, no matter how the federation expands, it will not reach the limit of its management capacity. The responsibilities of national governments for defense and diplomacy will gradually decrease or even disappear as the world moves towards greater unity.
愿意保持主权独立的人不必担心，递进自组织的本质是多核心，不但不会追求大一统，且正是让主权分散到所有社会成员，将“主权在民”的口号变成现实。从“递进自治—递进联邦”角度，“独立”还是“统一”的问题不再值得看重。递进阶梯上的每层联邦只是下层高度自治的成员体出于需要进行的联合，所谓“独立”就是自治，所谓“统一”就是联邦。“独立”和“统一”不过是相辅相成的一体两面。
Those who wish to maintain sovereign independence need not worry. The essence of recursive self-organization is multi-centric; it not only avoids pursuing uniformity but also ensures the decentralization of sovereignty to all members of society, turning the slogan of "sovereignty in the hands of the people" into reality. From the perspective of "recursive autonomy—recursive federation," the dichotomy of "independence" or "unity" is no longer of paramount importance. Each federated entity on the recursive ladder is merely a union of highly autonomous members from the lower level as needed. The term "independence" implies autonomy, while "unity" implies federation. "Independence" and "unity" are merely two complementary aspects of the same whole.
至于递进自组织何时突破国家范围，进入国际秩序，眼下只能当作科幻小说。人类总体是否能解决国家、民族、宗教、历史文化、地缘政治等方面的差异而实现向量求和，似乎连最大的想象力都不敢触碰。不过回头看人类的全球化，哥伦布以来的五百年超越以往几万年，未来的加速只会更疯狂。如何保护地球，开发宇宙，控制科技，摆平族群……没有全球秩序的整合不可能应对得了。我在2000年开始动笔写的《有托邦》一书，正是把“递进自治—递进联邦”当作解决方案。
As for when recursive self-organization will break through national boundaries and enter the international order, it currently remains in the realm of science fiction. Whether humanity can overcome differences in terms of nations, ethnicities, religions, historical cultures, geopolitics, etc., to achieve vector summation seems too daring even for the wildest imagination. However, looking back at humanity's globalization over the past five hundred years since Columbus, which has surpassed the preceding tens of thousands of years, the acceleration in the future is bound to be even more intense. Addressing challenges such as protecting the Earth, exploring the universe, controlling technology, and managing diverse communities requires the integration of a global order. In the book "Ntopia", which I began writing in 2000, I proposed "recursive autonomy - recursive federation" as a solution to these issues.