📘 Book II: Value, Choice, and Normativity

A Structural Theory of Obligation Without Morality

Book II of the Intent Tensor Series — Building on Self-Reference

「好みは揺れる。価値は残る。」
Preferences fluctuate. Values remain.

Part I: The Third Silence

After space is earned, and after selves are constructed, a deeper silence appears.

Systems now evaluate themselves, act with agency, even observe their own evaluations. And yet—something is still missing. They can act. They can prefer. They can choose.

But none of that explains why some choices bind.

This book begins in that silence.

Central Thesis

Value is not what a system prefers.
Value is what a system cannot abandon without ceasing to be itself.

From this: choice becomes meaningful, norms become binding, responsibility becomes coherent. No morality required.

The Ascent Stack (Locked)

Layer	Achievement
Preference	Bias without obligation
Value	Invariance under revision
Choice	Normative resolution
Norm	Inviolable constraint
Ethics	Multi-agent coordination

No layer may be removed. No layer may be reordered. This is necessity.

Part II: Value as Constraint on Self-Revision

「価値があるから、選択が重くなる。」
Because there is value, choice gains weight.

Why Revision Is the Right Lens

To understand value, we must stop looking at action and look instead at revision.

Preferences guide what a system does.
Values govern what a system may change about itself.

This is the correct level of analysis.

A system without revision capacity has no values.
A system with unrestricted revision has no values.

Value exists only in between.

Self-Revision Defined

Self-revision is not learning. Self-revision is:

The capacity of a system to alter its own evaluative criteria.

This includes changing preferences, reweighting priorities, redefining success, altering what counts as “better.” Most adaptive systems can revise preferences. Very few can revise values.

The Invariance Condition

A value is invariant under self-revision.

This does not mean the value is static. It means: any attempt to revise it destroys the system’s ability to continue revising coherently. The value is preserved because revision depends on it.

The Recursive Dependency Loop

The mechanism is recursive:

1. Evaluation depends on certain constraints
2. Revision depends on evaluation
3. Therefore, revision depends on those constraints

Removing the constraint breaks the loop.

This is why value appears non-negotiable from within.

Why Values Are Few

Each value reduces the space of allowable revisions, increases fragility, and limits adaptability.

A system with too many values cannot adapt.
A system with none cannot bind itself.

Thus, values are sparse by necessity.

Most evaluative systems stabilize around very few.

「多すぎる価値は、何も守れない。」
Too many values protect nothing.

Part III: Why Choice Is Not Freedom

「自由とは、価値から逃げないことだ。」
Freedom is not escaping value. It is refusing to abandon it.

The Seduction of Choice

Once values exist, choice becomes unavoidable. But it is precisely here that confusion enters. Across philosophy, economics, and politics, one assumption dominates:

Freedom is the capacity to choose among alternatives.

This assumption is false.

Choice is common. Freedom is rare. This chapter separates them cleanly.

Choice Exists Without Normativity

Choice alone is trivial.

Random selection chooses.
Optimization algorithms choose.
Deterministic systems choose outcomes.

None of these are free.

Choice, by itself, is merely resolution among options.
Freedom cannot be defined so cheaply.

Choice After Value Is Constrained

Once value exists, choice changes character. Not all options remain admissible. Some choices violate value, dissolve identity, destroy evaluative coherence.

Thus, choice is no longer symmetric. Choice occurs under constraint imposed by value. This is not limitation. It is structure.

Why Freedom Cannot Mean “Unconstrained”

Unconstrained choice is indistinguishable from randomness.

A system with no constraints:
  - selects arbitrarily,
  - bears no responsibility,
  - preserves no identity.

Such a system cannot be free.

Freedom requires structure that matters.
Value provides that structure.

The Paradox Clarified

Without value → choice is empty
With value → choice is constrained

Freedom does not lie on either extreme.

Freedom is not maximal choice.
Freedom is meaningful constraint.

Choice as Normative Resolution

Choice is the resolution of action among options that are not normatively equivalent.

If all options are equivalent, there is no real choice. If only one option is admissible, there is no choice. Choice exists only where multiple admissible actions remain, yet not all are equal with respect to value.

Why Choice Can Be Tragic

Once values exist, tragedy becomes possible. A tragic choice is one where all available options violate some value, no option preserves identity fully.

This is not failure of reasoning. It is a structural consequence of normativity. Tragedy cannot occur in systems without values.

Freedom as Fidelity, Not Latitude

Freedom is the capacity to act in fidelity to one’s values under constraint.

Freedom is not the absence of limits. It is the presence of commitments that matter. This is why freedom feels heavy.

Why Determinism Is Irrelevant Here

Determinism does not negate freedom.
Indeterminism does not guarantee it.

Freedom is not about causal openness.
It is about normative coherence.

A determined action can be free.
An undetermined action can be meaningless.

「選択とは、可能性ではなく責任の配分である。」
Choice is not the opening of possibilities. It is the allocation of responsibility.

Part IV: What Normativity Actually Is

「規範は外から与えられない。内側で壊れる。」
Norms are not given from outside. They break from within.

Why Normativity Must Be Rebuilt

Normativity is one of the most overburdened words in philosophy. It is usually treated as morality, rules, social enforcement, prescriptions imposed from outside. All of these are late phenomena.

This book uses “normativity” in a stricter, earlier sense.

What Normativity Is Not

Normativity is not: moral goodness, social expectation, legal rule, rational requirement, cultural convention. Those are expressions of normativity, not its source. Normativity exists before any of them.

Normativity Defined Precisely

Normativity is the presence of internal constraints whose violation results in loss of evaluative identity.

This definition contains no moral language. It contains only: identity, constraint, collapse.

Why Obligation Feels Absolute

Norms feel absolute because they are not weighed against alternatives. A violated norm does not produce a worse outcome or a lower utility. It produces self-fracture.

The system is no longer able to evaluate coherently. This is why norms do not negotiate.

The Difference Between Norms and Rules

Rules regulate behavior.
Norms regulate selfhood.

Rules can be broken and repaired.
Norms, when broken, dissolve something.

This is the sharpest distinction in the book.

Why Normativity Is Not External

External enforcement does not create normativity. A system obeying under threat is constrained—but not normatively bound.

Normativity exists only when: the constraint is internal, violation is self-destructive, enforcement is unnecessary.

Why This Solves the “Is–Ought” Gap

The is–ought gap dissolves here. “Ought” is not derived from facts about the world. It arises from facts about what must not be changed for the system to remain itself.

The “ought” is internal, not descriptive.

The Shape of Normative Force

Normative force does not push.
It forbids.

It removes options rather than encouraging actions.

This negative character explains its rigidity.

「破れないから守るのではない。破れば自分でなくなるからだ。」
Norms are not kept because they cannot be broken—they are kept because breaking them dissolves the self.

Part V: Formal Rule Set of Value Formation

「規則は命令ではない。生成条件である。」
Rules here are not prescriptions. They are conditions of emergence.

These are necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for value to arise. No psychological, moral, biological, or social assumptions permitted.

Rule 1 — Endogenous Evaluation

A system must generate its own evaluative criteria.

Let E be an evaluation operator.
E must be defined internally by the system's recursive history.
If E is externally imposed, value cannot arise.

Failure mode: obedience, not normativity.

Rule 2 — Revisability Rule

Preferences must be revisable in principle.

For any preference P_i, there must exist a revision operation R(P_i)
such that the system remains evaluatively coherent 
unless a value condition is met.

This ensures: preference ≠ value

Rule 3 — Identity Dependence

Evaluation must depend on a subset of preferences 
for its own coherence.

Let P = {P_1, P_2, ...}
Let E(P) be the evaluative function
There exists P_k ∈ P such that:

E(P \ P_k) → evaluation failure

Such P_k is a candidate value.

Rule 4 — Non-Substitutability

A value cannot be replaced by an alternative preference 
without collapse.

For candidate value V,
There exists no P_j such that:
E(P \ V ∪ P_j) remains coherent

If substitution is possible, the constraint is not a value.

Rule 5 — Invariance Under Self-Revision

Values are invariant under all admissible 
self-revision operations.

Let R be the set of self-revision operations.
For value V:

∀R ∈ R, R(V) → collapse

This defines bindingness.

Rule 6 — Load-Bearing Constraint

A value must be structurally load-bearing 
within recursive self-constraint.

The evaluative recursion must depend on V 
as part of its rule closure.

Removing V breaks recursive self-reference.

This distinguishes deep values from surface invariants.

Rule 7 — Scarcity Constraint

The number of values must be minimal.

Let V ⊂ P be the set of values.
If |V| is too large, adaptive revision collapses entirely.

Systems that survive stabilize at: |V| ≪ |P|

Scarcity is structural, not accidental.

Rule 8 — Collapse Condition

Violation of a value produces evaluative identity collapse, 
not mere cost.

If action or revision violates V:
E → ∅ (loss of coherent evaluation)

This distinguishes norm violation from preference frustration.

Rule 9 — Discovery, Not Declaration

Values are discovered through failed revision, not chosen.

1. A system attempts revision R(V)
2. Collapse occurs
3. The system stabilizes with V invariant

Value emerges as a negative result.

Rule 10 — No External Justification

Values require no external grounding.

No appeal to:
  - truth,
  - morality,
  - utility,
  - survival,
  - authority.

Justification is internal coherence alone.

Part VI: Comparative Analysis

Preference vs Value vs Norm

Feature	Preference	Value	Norm
Revisable	Yes	No	No
Identity-defining	No	Yes	Yes
Generates obligation	No	Yes	Yes
Violation consequence	Suboptimal outcome	Identity threat	Identity collapse
Scarcity	Many	Few	Very few

Preference: What the system tends to do
Value: What the system cannot give up
Norm: What the system cannot violate and remain itself

Norms vs Laws

Feature	Law	Norm
Source	External authority	Internal identity
Violation result	Punishment	Collapse
Enforcement	Required	Unnecessary
Regulates	Behavior	Selfhood

「法は外にある。規範は中で折れる。」
Law stands outside. Norms break within.

Failure Modes

Failure Mode	What It Denies	Structural Collapse
Nihilism	Value invariance	Obligation
Moralism	Endogenous normativity	Responsibility
Relativism	Binding constraints	Normativity

Each denies a different layer. All collapse the stack.

Part VII: Compressed Summary

Summary Schema

A constraint X is a value iff:

X is endogenous
X participates in evaluative self-reference
X is non-substitutable
X is invariant under self-revision
Violating X collapses evaluative identity

All five are required.

This Framework Forbids

Value-as-utility
Value-as-feeling
Norms-as-conventions-only
Morality-as-foundation
Freedom-as-unconstraint

Any theory that commits these errors has mislocated normativity.

This Framework Allows

Normativity without morality
Obligation without authority
Responsibility without free will
Tragedy without failure
Meaning without metaphysics

These are not paradoxes here. They are consequences.

Why Ethics Comes Last

Ethics is the coordination of norms across multiple value-bearing systems.

Ethics does not generate value. It handles value collision. Ethics presupposes multiple agents, shared norms, accountability, and conflict resolution. None of these are assumed at the foundation. Ethics is a late phenomenon.

Full Documentation

📂 GitHub Repository: 0.0_Value_choice_and_normativity

The repository contains the complete chapter-by-chapter derivation with all appendices.

「価値は定義されなかった。失敗で明らかになった。」
Value was not defined. It was revealed by failure.

「否定も絶対も相対も、すべて崩れ方だった。」
Denial, absolutism, and relativism were all modes of collapse.