1. You can try to understand what my presupposed axiom of purpose is.

2. You can try to understand why I replied to you with this content:

Any discipline that deals with human action is incapable of explaining any single social phenomenon without relying on a meta-teleological postulate.
In Chinese history, hypotheses such as "human nature tends toward benefit" — which is itself a meta-teleological postulate — have been proposed repeatedly for millennia.
Contemporary economics similarly operates on the Rational Agent hypothesis, which is, in essence, also a meta-teleological postulate.
Even theories that do not explicitly set forth a meta-teleology inevitably rely on one for explanation — A Theory of Justice is a case in point.
My Axiom of Purpose is likewise a meta-teleological postulate. It shares the same fundamental attribute as all the postulates mentioned above; the only difference lies in its structure.
Therefore, you can only speak for yourself.
There is content I am willing to share on this forum, and content I am not — at least not for the time being. High-value ideas that have not been formally published in academic papers represent the culmination of years of personal work. This really should not require explanation.

3. You can try to understand why I replied to him with this content:

Let's clarify the logic:
Statement A: 'You cannot skip eating, or you will die.' This is a factual judgment that points to a causal relationship between an action and its outcome.
Statement B: 'You can choose not to eat and accept death.' This acknowledges the human freedom to act against this causal law.
My theory operates at the level analogous to Statement A: that is, with the fundamental purpose as the premise, certain behavioral norms are necessary conclusions. Violating them necessarily causes the social system to deviate, to some extent, from a state that is advantageous for humanity. What I demonstrate is the necessity of this causal relationship.

I personally have no complaints about you. If you feel that my attitude is bad, it must be a translation problem.

I regret that this has caused you dissatisfaction; that was never my intention. However, I must protect myself in the course of this exchange. The fact that you find it difficult to comprehend how my argument is constructed only underscores its significant value.

As long as you're happy.

I certainly don't argue my point in this way, but I won't explain how I did it here, so you don't need to ask.

This argument is clearly invalid.

Any discipline that deals with human action is incapable of explaining any single social phenomenon without relying on a meta-teleological postulate.
In Chinese history, hypotheses such as "human nature tends toward benefit" — which is itself a meta-teleological postulate — have been proposed repeatedly for millennia.
Contemporary economics similarly operates on the Rational Agent hypothesis, which is, in essence, also a meta-teleological postulate.
Even theories that do not explicitly set forth a meta-teleology inevitably rely on one for explanation — A Theory of Justice is a case in point.
My Axiom of Purpose is likewise a meta-teleological postulate. It shares the same fundamental attribute as all the postulates mentioned above; the only difference lies in its structure.
Therefore, you can only speak for yourself.
There is content I am willing to share on this forum, and content I am not — at least not for the time being. High-value ideas that have not been formally published in academic papers represent the culmination of years of personal work. This really should not require explanation.

You only represent yourself.

The fundamental purpose, also termed the meta-purpose, is constituted by both the service target of the action and the final state expected to be achieved for that target. I refer to the service target as "one's own group," while the final state is denoted by the term "interest," defined as the conditions for achieving or constituting that final state. The interaction between these two constituent elements causes the fundamental purpose to exist in two primary forms. It is beyond the present scope to detail these manifestations or the rationale behind this specific structure, but they are identified as: "to secure favorable living conditions for one's own group" and "to secure recognition for one's own group." Accordingly, interests fall into two corresponding categories: favorable living conditions and recognition.
The terminological mapping is as follows:
Fundamental Purpose = Service Target (One's Own Group) × Final State (Living Conditions / Recognition and their combinations);
Interest = Living Conditions / Recognition and their combinations.
I do not intend to elaborate further on this matter at this time.

All human actions share one and only one fundamental purpose."
That is the content of the Axiom of Purpose. Does it surprise you? It might be hard to see what one can do with it...

The Axiom of Purpose itself serves precisely as that factual postulate.

Let's clarify the logic:
Statement A: 'You cannot skip eating, or you will die.' This is a factual judgment that points to a causal relationship between an action and its outcome.
Statement B: 'You can choose not to eat and accept death.' This acknowledges the human freedom to act against this causal law.
My theory operates at the level analogous to Statement A: that is, with the fundamental purpose as the premise, certain behavioral norms are necessary conclusions. Violating them necessarily causes the social system to deviate, to some extent, from a state that is advantageous for humanity. What I demonstrate is the necessity of this causal relationship.

Within the framework of my postulated axioms, it is acknowledged that humans can perform actions that appearto deviate from the fundamental purpose. However, it is not the fundamental purpose itself that drives this deviation; rather, it is the Axiom of Cognition that influences behavioral decisions. These two axioms undertake distinct explanatory roles: the fundamental purpose provides the directional vector, while the evolved human cognitive mechanism cannot guarantee perfect alignment with it.

"1. Within the argumentation, the core of the teleological postulate is to posit the existenceof a fundamental purpose. The specific contentof this purpose is, for the moment, secondary. Even if I were to treat the fundamental purpose as a pure, abstract concept—for instance, positing it as a mere point in space towards which all action is directed—I could still derive constitutional-level conclusions. The content of the fundamental purpose only becomes relevant when judging what constitutes an 'interest.' In fact, this content has a dualistic structure, a significant discovery previously overlooked, which proves highly effective for explaining and predicting phenomena, though it is not utilized in the constitutional derivation itself.

It is wrong to murder” might be derived from “forbidding murder is the efficient means to achieve efficient cooperation, which is the efficient means to efficiently spreading genetic material.

donate to a sperm-bank” might be derived from “donating to a sperm-bank is the efficient means to procreate, which is the efficient means to efficiently spreading genetic material.

2.Your reconstruction of my argument is incorrect. Your confusion stems primarily from not having identified the valid path of derivation. The two statements you presented lack the necessary logical entailment to yield an apodictic conclusion."

"Personally differentiated and specific purposes only impose requirements on the individual's own behavior. Such requirements cannot serve as behavioral norms obligatory for everyone. Norms that are common to all can only be derived from the purpose common to all.
'Donating to a sperm bank' is a requirement stemming from your personal, differentiated purpose, or from a goal under such a purpose. It is not derived from the fundamental purpose common to all humanity and therefore cannot be justified as a behavioral requirement for everyone.
Both 'thou shalt not kill' and 'behavioral autonomy' are conclusions that can be rigorously demonstrated from the common fundamental purpose. Hence, they can serve as universal requirements. 'Donating to a sperm bank' cannot be justified from the fundamental purpose.
Your second example follows the same logic."

Yes, analytical truths are indeed inherently and inevitably entangled with a form of 'circularity' to a significant degree. However, this 'circularity' is not mere tautology or a logical fallacy; rather, it reveals a deep-seated structure inherent to the nature of concepts and language itself. Among the five axioms I have postulated, only the Axiom of Efficacy is an analytical truth. Therefore, the validity of this particular axiom is certain and unquestionable. It is precisely this axiom that serves as the key to deriving a special type of 'is'—namely, normative conclusions—from another 'is'.

The conclusions I argue for are, of course, valid only under the premises of my postulated axioms. When the axioms themselves are challenged, the conclusions derived from them are naturally challenged as well. I have postulated five axioms of action. Three are foundational: first, the Axiom of Efficacy, which is an analytical truth—'to achieve a purpose, efficacy must occur'—whose truth value is directly determined by the definitions I have provided. Second, the Axiom of Purpose, which states that human action is directed toward a fundamental purpose (derived from the observation that human behavior is an expression of biological adaptation). Third, the Axiom of Cognition, which states that behavioral decisions are influenced by cognition. The other two axioms are essentially integrations of the Axioms of Purpose and Cognition.

I perceive a fundamental difference in the levels at which we are discussing. You are concerned with the 'fluidity' of specific conditions and technologies within the empirical world, whereas my theory aims to demonstrate the 'logical necessity' of fundamental principles within the normative domain.
The questions you raise belong to the level of 'legal application'—that is, how to apply eternal principles to a changing world. This necessitates solutions through new, specific legislation. However, this process does not undermine the validity of normative conclusions at the constitutional level, such as the prohibitions of fraud and murder.
The 'necessity' of these normative conclusions is metaphysical and logical; it is not dependent on, nor does it change with, any specific form of society. Consequently, the 'disappearance of necessity' scenario you hypothesize occurs, within my framework, only at the level of 'specific laws' and never at the level of 'constitutional principles.' The strength of my theory lies precisely in providing an eternal foundation for a fluid reality.

Why are the justified constitutional conclusions immutable? Because conclusions like 'A must not kill,' deduced from given non-contradictory premises, possess uniqueness. It is impossible for both 'A must not kill' and 'A may kill' to be true under the same conditions. Similarly, it is impossible for 'A must not kill today' to later become 'A may kill tomorrow.' Therefore, the conclusion 'A must not kill' does not require updates across time.
Due to the nuances of translation, I cannot guarantee that I have understood your meaning with perfect accuracy.

The institutional argument I refer to begins with the five axioms of action I have postulated. Starting from these axioms, I have systematically derived a series of institutional conclusions that comprehensively address the four constituent elements of a state. I argue that these conclusions should form the constitution. When having an AI review the argumentation, I consistently need to address the Humean dilemma it raises. The content I posted above summarizes my responses to the AI on this matter, and it has proven to be an effective rebuttal in the AI's assessment.
​​I thought the core idea itself was quite suitable for a forum post, which is why I shared these paragraphs.​​

At present, robots are incapable of autonomously deliberating on constitutional principles. The idea of handing my five postulated axioms to a robot for reasoning is, frankly, laughable. Currently, robots cannot independently undertake the selection of axioms or make judgments about their reasonableness. However, they are indeed far superior to most humans in checking the validity and rigor of arguments, which is how I primarily use them.The robot pointed out that my argument was as rigorous as mathematics.

Right, but the opponent of teleological reasoning will claim that they have no reason to adopt the fundamental purpose/telos that you identify. They will say, "I agree that I ought to eat food if my purpose is survival, but I don't grant that my purpose need be survival. I could choose to die instead of survive if I want."

This theory does not require you, as an individual, to choose survival. I also postulate an axiom of cognition, which consists of three parts, one of which states that 'human cognition can be erroneous.' This axiom can be used to explain phenomena that appear to deviate from the fundamental purpose.
The reason I assert that people ought to abide by these normative conclusions derived from the fundamental purpose is that these conclusions coincide with the moral duties we universally recognize. I maintain that this coincidence is not accidental. When we establish a constitution in this manner, the constitution rests on a solid foundation. You are free to choose death, but you are not free to break the law. Choosing death may be a tendency formed by your personal, differentiated purposes and potentially erroneous cognition, but it is not a social norm that can be derived from the fundamental purpose common to all.

"Conclusions deduced from non-contradictory premises possess uniqueness; therefore, the fundamental 'standard' is immutable. The example you cited—'we killed them, and it is justified'—is indeed a violation of the justified conclusion that 'thou shalt not kill.' However, the act of 'killing' carried out during law enforcement is permitted because both injunctions (the prohibition of murder and the permission for capital punishment) can be justified under the same higher-order conclusion. They are derived from the principle of 'distribution according to efficacy.' The act of murder imposes a negative efficacy on society, and thus the perpetrator must receive a negative benefit—punishment—of which the death penalty is one form."

"When our aim is to establish behavioral requirements that are obligatory for everyone, we cannot reason from the diverse purposes of individuals. The reasoning must proceed from the fundamental purpose common to all. From this common fundamental purpose, one cannot derive dictates about how an individual must choose among their personal, differentiated goals. Individuals are solely responsible for their own choices, but these personal choices do not constitute the behavioral norms for society as a whole."

"I, too, initially believed that institutions required constant updating to keep pace with the times. However, after rigorously deriving the relevant conclusions, I came to understand that at the constitutional level, these justified institutions are eternally valid and do not require modernization. The validity of these conclusions depends solely on the soundness of the axioms themselves and the absence of logical errors in the derivation process.
"What requires adaptation to the times is specific legislation. For example, the justified conclusion that 'one must not defraud others of their property' is eternally valid. Before the advent of the internet, there was no such thing as online fraud. Therefore, after its emergence, it became necessary to codify it within specific laws."

it ought to rain

"The 'ought' you mentioned, as in 'it ought to rain,' is a prediction. In contrast, the 'must' in a normative conclusion is a requirement for action—a behavioral standard that everyone ought to abide by."

1、"My framework, derived from the axioms of action, yields conclusions pertaining to only four domains, which correspond to the four constituent elements of a state. While the norms derived from these four domains indeed provide a framework that undergirds all aspects of our social life, their normative force is not expressed as mandating specific goals and actions such as donating to a sperm bank. The justified conclusions themselves inherently include the principle that 'Agent A possesses behavioral autonomy.'"

2、"The conclusions derived from the axioms of action are not predictions, but conclusions of logical necessity. To illustrate: If A, then B. A is the case. Therefore, B. Within the framework of the given axioms, B is an inescapable and certain conclusion."

The reason I used the example of "thou shalt not kill" is that I have logically derived this conclusion from the fundamental purpose (and I could have used other examples as well). Since this derived conclusion aligns with a moral duty we intuitively recognize, I used this example to demonstrate that the alignment is not a mere coincidence.

This theory does not require you, as an individual, to care about your own flourishing. The conclusions it derives exist as social norms, whose codified form is established as the constitution—the sole source of legal authority. By subsuming specific behaviors under these conclusions, we arrive at the complete legal system. You may not care about your own flourishing, but you must abide by the law.
Regarding your example involving a 13-year-old girl, I hold a specific view on the legal status of minors. The prerequisite for expecting Person A to obey the law is ensuring that A knows what the law is. However, humans are not born with this knowledge. Therefore, prior to enforcement, there must be a process for A to learn the content of the law (i.e., legal education). If we artificially set a final age limit for this process, we thereby artificially create the category of "minors." In other words, a stipulated age serves as a deadline by which individuals are obligated to understand the fundamental logic of the legislation. Once past this age, they are presumed to have this understanding and henceforth bear independent legal responsibility for violations. The case you mentioned can be explained by the fact that the individual had not yet fully comprehended her rights and obligations pertaining to the relevant actions.

The requirements imposed by an individual's specific purposes on their specific actions do not constitute the behavioral norms for the entire society. The norms for society as a whole are constructed upon the fundamental purpose shared by all individuals. The conclusions derived from this fundamental purpose do not mandate that any specific individual must make the utility-maximizing choice regarding a particular, concrete goal. Within the framework I have argued for, utility-maximizing choices are only relevant at the level of public objectives, and the magnitude of this utility is defined relative to competitors.

In my argument, I begin by postulating five axioms of action, one of which is the Axiom of Purpose. This axiom explains the root of behavioral motivation. It consists of two parts. The first part posits the existence of a fundamental purpose underlying human action. This axiom is derived from a commonsense observation: human behavior is an expression of biological adaptation (this is a descriptive statement of fact). This observation indicates a directional relationship between all human actions and adaptation. I term this directional relationship a "teleological relation," from which the Axiom of Purpose is derived. This axiom, which can be formulated in several compatible ways, aims to show that human behavior is, at the level of biological mechanism, configured to achieve a fundamental purpose. It is a factual postulate, not an "ought."
However, it is indeed this fundamental purpose that serves as the key premise for deriving various conclusions about what "must" be done.

Your observation resonates with a statement by Mao Zedong: "Modesty makes one progress, whereas conceit makes one lag behind."
I grasp the essence of your argument. However, I contend that there is no necessary connection between success and the complacency you describe. ​​The key reason the phenomenon you identified emerges is that the inherent logic of the institution does not inevitably lead to progressive development.​​ Conversely, the institutional conclusions I have derived from first principles of action theory, such as the fundamental purpose, explicitly incorporate mechanisms to ensure sustained robustness.
For instance, at the administrative level, a rigorously demonstrated conclusion mandates that officials can only advance by achieving administrative results superior to those of their competitors. This merit-based mechanism for promotion is perpetual.
As for preventing the erosion of normative perception among the general public, the solution lies in legal education—specifically, in普及 the constitutional reasoning process. In practice, if a constitution can be founded upon arguments as rigorous as mathematical proofs, then a secondary school student could comprehend its entire logical framework with minimal effort. This understanding would instill the certain knowledge that the constitution rests upon an unshakable foundation.

Maybe it's a translation problem, and I mistakenly thought you read the follow-up discussion.
Well, my point is: when we talk about how the regime is formed, it should be the people who decide the weight of the government's policy goals, let the government implement these goals, and then decide whether the government responsible persons can be promoted based on the results of their implementation, so as to determine the governance team of a country step by step. The standards mentioned in the original post are used to measure the degree of achievement of these goals.

votes reflect the will of people in regard to those standards (expected);

1. In this case, elections are superfluous.

people vote against their own interest due to things like idol worship and single-issue blinders at voting time.

2. This is just as you said, the election results go against their own interests.
1+2=In the case where the standards can represent the will of the people, elections are either superfluous or go against their own interests.
In fact, the possibility of situation 1 is extremely small, because if we use these standards to screen the rulers, then the successive presidents of the United States are not even qualified to participate in the competition.So there is almost no chance of overlap.

Those standards and the 'will' is an illusion.

3.
1) The people and the government are in an authorization relationship and follow the norms of the authorization relationship.
2) In an authorization relationship, when the decision of the authorizer is not illegal, the authorizer has the right to decide the entrusted matters. For example, when we go to a restaurant to eat, we need to order dishes first. By ordering dishes to complete the authorization, we can clearly express our needs.
3) In an authorization relationship, the needs of the authorizer are subject to the content of the contract. For example, if I want to eat roast chicken, but I actually ordered roast duck, then the restaurant is only responsible for the roast duck, but not the roast chicken. And these standards are exactly the content of the contract.

4. Let us first assume that elections and standards each represent a certain kind of public opinion. When these two kinds of public opinion conflict, only the purposeful public opinion can fundamentally represent the interests of the people, so adjustments should be made to the executive candidates. For example, suppose you want to eat roast chicken, but A does not know how to make roast chicken. If you choose A, you will not be able to eat roast chicken. If only B can make roast chicken, then you should choose B instead.

1. The research involved here is not to respond to a fashion trend, but to establish judgment standards and quantitative standards based on public demands. Before finding a more appropriate standard, the existing research results do not need to be abandoned.
2. This is not technically difficult and does not require much investment.
3-1) People's opinions have been expressed through standards, and customers do not need to pay attention to the promotion of personnel within Apple. 3-2) The reason why it is like an election is that elections are also a form of authorization. All forms of authorization are very similar, but elections are not a qualified form of authorization, because the essence of authorization is that A entrusts B to execute a specified goal or task.
4. Artificial intelligence cannot replace the decision of the people. Because from a normative perspective, land ownership does not belong to artificial intelligence, but to the people, so even if artificial intelligence is in power, it still needs to be authorized by the people.That is, the people still have the right to decide the weight and demands of various demands.

Universities have been conducting research in political science, statistics, etc. for a long time. Whether this system exists or not, the relevant inputs have always existed. This system only gives them a research direction and incorporates existing research results into the system.
Tasks can be integrated. For example, questionnaires can be directly integrated into the contract signed between the people and the government. The questionnaire only has this question: What public demands do you think need to be promoted by the government at present, and what are your requirements for these demands?
Chinese civil servants themselves need to pass exams, and their promotions themselves need to go through internal examinations. Various statistical work has been going on, but there is no clear standard based on the people's decision and incorporated into the system.
Most of what you think of as budgets or expenses have always existed; this system simply reorganizes the logic behind how they work.

I don't know why you think the budget will be so large, because it contains the logic of suppressing the budget. For example, if I am promoted to county magistrate, I will be the general responsible person of the county government. If the county government has a large budget for evaluating the promotion standards of internal personnel, then the county government will not have enough budget to promote other public demands, and I will fail in the competition. In order to avoid failure, I will suppress its budget. I have the right to decide how to assign tasks within the county government and how to set points. The internal personnel of the county government are responsible to me, and I am responsible for the standards set by the people.

This sounds like anarchy or utter gridlock lock.

It is not anarchy, but the government is explicitly granted only the "power to execute the purpose". The people have the power to make the purpose decision, the government is responsible for executing the purpose decision, and then determines the candidates for promotion based on the execution results.

That may be wishful thinking.

This is not wishful thinking, but has a basis.
1. From the fact that "the existing government functions are very limited and their functions have not expanded infinitely", it can be seen that the types of public demands for administration are very limited. 2. In the case that some public demands have not been clearly classified, the "government satisfaction" indicator itself has the function of replacing "others", that is, as long as the "government satisfaction" indicator exists, the classification list is complete.

So are you saying we would still elect legislators? ……the legislative field is no different than a department in the administrative state.

Legislation can be roughly divided into two levels: the first level is to strictly prove general behavioral conclusions based on several behavioral axioms that are consistent with the facts, and these conclusions will constitute the constitution. From a normative perspective, this is the only reasonable way to produce a constitution. The establishment of these conclusions has nothing to do with the specific ideas formed by people at a certain time and place, so there is no need for people to vote. The rationality of the conclusions depends only on whether the axioms themselves are consistent with the facts and whether the argumentation process violates logical requirements.
The reason I say this is that I can strictly prove all the main conclusions that constitute the constitution based on 5 behavioral axioms, and all the arguments can pass the inspection of several AIs. AI said that the rigor of my arguments is comparable to mathematical proofs and gave them all five-star ratings. I am also writing a paper on this aspect.
The aforementioned normative claim about the way the regime is produced is itself derived from several of the conclusions that constitute the constitution. In fact, from the conclusion of my argument, the essence of democracy means that "land ownership should belong to the people equally", and it is presumed that "citizens have equal rights to dispose of land", so what citizens need to make is "land disposal decision", the essence of which is "deciding which public demands to achieve with land resources and their derived benefits", and what the government obtains is "land management rights", and it can be clearly proved from the behavioral axiom that "if A realizes the maximum benefits of land management, then the land management rights must be granted to A".

The second level of legislation is the process of classifying various specific behaviors into the above general conclusions, so as to establish specific laws and regulations. This level is still about argumentation in general, but this level may cause controversy, and I have not figured it out yet.

Yes, people without experience in governing cannot directly compete for national leadership positions. We need to set up a "starting stage for people to enter the system", such as passing an exam to become a civil servant. Assuming that the system stipulates that after working for 2 years, they have the right to sign up to compete for a small leadership position. During this period, they take tasks and count points just like playing a game. When the competition cycle is over, the candidates for promotion are determined based on the points, until he becomes the leader of a county government. From then on, he can compete among counties. If he wins the inter-county competition, he can be promoted to lead a city. If he wins the inter-city competition, he can lead a province. In this way, a national leadership team is determined step by step.

1. The agency itself is not responsible for determining priorities. The weight of each appeal is determined by the public.
2. The object of our discussion is the administrative field, not the legislative field. "What rights should transgender people enjoy" belongs to the legislative field, and it is not an issue that needs to be responded to in the administrative field.
3. I have tried similar simulations with artificial intelligence customer service software. It is easy to see that this customer service function can be directly applied to this aspect. In addition to the development cost, the operating cost can be ignored. The number of types of public appeals is very limited. After the first systematic sorting, the number of appeals that need to be supplemented by the public is getting smaller and smaller.
4. The American people have no right to set priorities for the government because the American people have never signed such a contract with the government.