VOLUME III, SEMESTER 4, CHAPTER 52, SECTION 3
The Four Items Are Arranged in Position, but Who Will Draw That Boundary?
reached the end of the previous section, the elements established firmly across four semesters were pointed through item by item. After pointing through them, there remains one final task to handle, and this task is the most crucial one when bringing this volume to a close: handing over in their original form those few questions it cannot answer. When a volume of book reaches its very end, the place where propriety is most displayed lies not in how much it has answered, but in whether it is willing to honestly admit which few places it cannot answer. Chapter 49 established that statement by Confucius: When not in that position, do not plan its governance (不在其位，不謀其政). This statement is to be used for the very last time in this section, and used upon this volume itself.
1. What Has Been Answered in This Volume
First, counting what has been answered. What the four items each are has been answered: one measuring contribution, one measuring need, one measuring risk, and one measuring coercion; all four matters are real, so not a single scale can be removed—the first three cannot be removed, and the fourth cannot be ignored.
How they gather together has been answered: they are not four historical stages, but four elements, living simultaneously upon a single ledger, upon a single person, and within a single human life; coexistence means all are present, co-living means nurturing each other, co-dwelling means each guarding its own boundary, and co-sharing means that unowned portion belongs to the public.
How they push against each other has been answered: those three paths of checks and balances—people can still speak out, people can still produce something else, and people can still choose not to buy; with all three paths open, no single item can grow into sole dominance; if all three paths are blocked, holding out might require waiting for decades, during which many people's entire lives pass by.
What lies above and underneath them has also been answered: culture is the root, economics is the foundation, and politics and law are the superstructure; the foundation supports the superstructure rather than determining everything, and all three layers support and pull each other. Where each of the four scales stops and how the boundary is drawn have been answered: through the three methods of segments, matters, and layers, placing the boundary upon matters rather than upon individuals; the boundary can be discussed and ought to be revised year by year, while what cannot be discussed is that there must be a boundary.
2. What Cannot Be Answered in This Volume Is the Exact Same Issue
Next, counting what cannot be answered. Counting down reveals that what cannot be answered are actually several facets of the exact same issue. The first question: by whose pen is that boundary drawn? Chapter 49 stated that the person drawing the boundary cannot be someone down on the field doing business; this volume is able to answer that line. Yet who that person off the field actually is, and on what grounds he sits in that position, this volume cannot answer.
The second question: on what grounds does he stand? That weight of having the final say held in his hands—who gave it to him, on what grounds was it given to him, whether it can still be taken back after being given, and through which procedures must it pass when taking it back—this volume cannot answer either. The third question: what happens if it is drawn wrong? If the boundary is drawn crookedly, biasedly, or onto places where it originally should not be drawn, who modifies it, according to what is it modified, how often is it modified, and to whom is the modifier himself accountable—this volume likewise cannot answer.
The fourth question is the most crucial: after being drawn, will that boundary grow on its own into a wall? Chapter 47 discussed two types of walls—those holding back harm and those holding back others from doing the exact same thing; yet once a boundary is drawn, as days go by, it most easily grows into the latter type; and after growing into it, the very first person who fails to see it is often precisely the person who drew the boundary back then.
There is also a fifth question, which is what the previous four questions look like combined together: how to guarantee that the portion conferred upon a single individual will eventually be returned to the public in the future? These five questions grow deeper one by one, yet they strike at the exact same spot.
These five questions also share one common point: none of them can be calculated by relying on accounting. Chapter 49 stated that all three matters governed by the economic position are calculated, not judged; no matter how thick a ledger is, it can calculate how large that slot is, but it cannot calculate who ought to have the final say over that slot. This is the boundary of this volume, and also the reason why it must be handed over: not because it is lazy, but because these few questions originally do not grow upon its patch of land.
3. That Spot Where These Few Questions Strike Is a Single Word
That spot where they strike is a single word: Feng (封 / Conferment and Enclosure). This word itself carries three layers of meaning, and these three layers correspond precisely to the five questions above. The first layer is drawing boundaries. Conferring domains (封疆) and conferring boundaries (封界) speak of drawing a line upon the land—this side belongs here, that side belongs there, each remaining separate from then on. The four items are arranged in position, each guarding its own boundary, and those boundaries line by line are precisely conferred out.
The second layer is granting/conferring. Conferring upon whom—handing a piece of land, a position, or a weight of having the final say into the hands of a specific individual. What the second question above asks is precisely this layer: that weight of having the final say held in his hands—who gave it to him, and on what grounds was it given to him.
The third layer is enclosing/sealing. Enclosing, sealing up, sealing dead. When an item is sealed for long, it can no longer move; when a boundary is drawn for long, it gradually becomes a wall that no one is allowed to cross, where no one even remembers why it was originally drawn. What the final question above asks is precisely this layer.
One single word, three layers of meaning: who draws it, upon whom is it conferred, and whether it will be sealed dead after being drawn. These three layers are precisely those three matters that this volume cannot answer, and ought not be answered by it.
4. Why This Single Word Is Said to Hold Up Everything
Looking back once more, one discovers that every crucial spot discussed throughout this entire semester eventually strikes upon this single word. Can that slot of unowned yield in Chapter 46 be assigned outward? It depends on how that boundary is drawn: whether it is drawn so that no one is allowed to monopolize it, or quietly drawn under the names of a few specific houses.
Can those three paths in Chapter 47 be opened? It depends on who draws that boundary: that table where both sides can step up needs someone willing to open it; whether that paper contract that nails someone down counts or not needs someone with the final say; whether that wall is willing to retreat when its term expires also needs someone to oversee it.
Those two types of boundary-crossing in Chapter 49—money reaching into that side, or that hand reaching into this side—what is guarded against is still this boundary. That piece of soil discussed in Chapter 50 also relies on this boundary for protection: only when those willing to exert effort do not suffer losses, those willing to keep agreements do not suffer losses, and those willing to speak the truth do not suffer losses can those few statements be passed down.
Therefore, when this volume on economics reaches its very end, no matter how clearly the accounts are calculated and how plainly the positions are laid out, one final question must always be asked: who drew these boundaries? Where does the person drawing them stand himself? This question cannot be answered by the position of economics.
One more point must be stated, lest this word be heard as a matter of ancient times. The word Feng (封) today is certainly no longer about conferring territories and feudal fiefs, yet its three layers of meaning are not diminished in the slightest: assigning a certain matter to a few specific firms via a written document is drawing boundaries as well as granting authority; refusing to retreat when a permit reaches its expiration date is enclosing. Though names have changed many times, those three layers remain. Therefore, this section discusses not historical anecdotes, but matters still happening everywhere today—only wearing different clothing today.
5. Handing Over These Few Questions in Their Original Form
Therefore, this volume stops here. This is not because it cannot go on, but because it has reached the very end of its own position. Chapter 50 stated a line: when a volume of book reaches the end of its own position, it should honestly hand over. This volume can calculate the accounts to this point and ask these few questions one by one clearly and explicitly, yet it cannot set the answers for the next volume. Setting them would be crossing positions; answers that cross positions mostly fail to stand firm.
Therefore, handing over these five questions in their original form, without adding a single word: By whose pen is that boundary drawn? On what grounds does the person drawing it sit there, who gave that weight of having the final say, and can it be taken back? How is it modified if drawn wrong, and to whom is the modifier himself accountable?
After being drawn, will that boundary grow into a wall that no one is allowed to cross? How to guarantee that what was conferred upon a single individual will eventually be returned to the public?These five questions form the very topics of the next volume. What Volume IV, Political Systems, is to discuss is precisely this word Feng (封); and what Volume V, Legal Systems, further down is to discuss are matters after writing this boundary into black and white text.
Before handing over, the stance of this volume must also be made clear: handing over does not mean washing hands of it. Chapter 49 stated that when not in that position, do not plan its governance does not tell people to pull back their hands, nor does it tell people to shut their mouths; a person can certainly care and can speak—what the first path in Chapter 47 spoke of was precisely speaking out. What this volume hands over is the portion of making final decisions, not the portion of caring. When reading Volume IV and Volume V in the future, a person who has walked through these four semesters holds scales in hand: he knows that the boundary should be drawn upon matters rather than upon individuals, knows that the person drawing the boundary should not go down onto the field, knows that there are two types of walls, and knows to whom that slot of unowned yield originally belonged. Reading those two volumes while carrying these few scales is the only way to read them through properly.
6. The Layer Established in This Section, Serving Also as the Close of the Main Text of This Volume
What this section establishes clearly is a single line: The four items are arranged in position, but who will draw that boundary—this volume cannot answer. What has been answered are what the four items each are, how they combine, how they push against each other, the three layers above and underneath, and how boundaries are drawn; what cannot be answered is by whose pen that boundary is drawn, on what grounds he stands, how to modify it if drawn wrong, and whether it will be sealed dead after being drawn. These few questions strike at the exact same word: Feng (封). The three layers of meaning of this word—drawing boundaries, granting authority, and enclosing—are precisely these three matters.
Therefore, when this volume on economics reaches its deepest point, it hands over downward to that soil of culture, and hands over upward to that word Feng (封). Only when handed over at both ends is this volume complete. The main text of this volume stops at this section. Further down lies an Afterword, which serves as the true concluding chapter (封章) of this volume, handing these four semesters over to the next volume.
Credit to the ancestors; the mistakes are mine: Tiger Lyon.