Abstract "The Authorization of Meaning: A Philosophical Reconstruction for the Technological Era" This work addresses the fundamental predicament confronting human civilization in the technological era: when humanity has acquired the power to reshape itself and the world, where does the legitimacy of action lie? The author proceeds from a real practical impasse—having developed a diagnostic framework for analyzing complex systems during his career in manufacturing, only to be halted by the ethical question, "What gives you the right to pull the lever of intervention?"—and gradually constructs a complete system of practical philosophy. Core Proposition: Human beings do not need to seek the legitimacy of meaning from any external authority. Reflective consciousness itself is the source and authorizer of meaning. This proposition is established through phenomenological fact and performative contradiction: any denial of "consciousness as the field of meaning" itself already presupposes a conscious subject engaged in the very act of meaning-bestowal. Deriving the Supreme Ethical Principle from the First Premise: If consciousness is the only field of meaning, then the capacity to sustain its continued operation—namely, the "capacity for meaning reproduction"—constitutes the precondition for all value judgments. From this is established the Principle of Meaning Reproduction Safeguarding: no social arrangement or technological design may systematically and irreversibly destroy the basic possibility for its members to perceive, interpret, and construct meaning. The Institutional Derivation of Freedom and Justice: The realization of the Meaning Reproduction Safeguarding Principle at the institutional level inherently requires two constitutive conditions—freedom as the subjective condition (without free individuals, meaning reproduction loses its agents), and justice as the sustainability condition (without justice, meaning reproduction degenerates into monopoly and exhaustion). These are not externally imposed values but intrinsic necessities of the meta-principle itself. Triadic Cycle Ontology: The work constructs a dynamic existential structure of "Emergence–Reflection–Shaping." Emergence provides the objective conditions that make meaning possible; Reflection is the site where meaning authorization occurs; Shaping transforms meaning into reality and, through feedback, reshapes the first two. The three are mutually presupposing, constituting the complete dynamic structure of existence. Three Ethical Principles: From the meta-principle are derived the Principle of Emergence Awe, the Principle of Reflective Purity, and the Principle of Shaping Reversibility and Side-Effect Minimization, together forming a system of institutional constraints on shaping power. Practical Instruments: The "Absolute Prerequisite List" establishes rigid ethical thresholds for extreme intervention; the "System Resilience Assessment" (SRA) model operationalizes philosophical principles into quantifiable criteria for civilizational health. Intellectual-Historical Positioning: Grounded in the spirit of "immanent transcendence" from traditional Chinese philosophy, structured by the argumentative methods of modern Western philosophy, and built upon the methodology of modern systems science, this work achieves a creative integration of three intellectual resources in the technological era. It is not a recapitulation of tradition, but a thinking independently forced out of real ethical predicaments, which then "recognizes itself" in ancient wisdom. Self-Positioning: The work presents itself as a "civilization grammar"—it does not supply specific contents of meaning, but safeguards the commensurability of meaning-bestowing activities; it does not claim final completion, but adopts an open posture of versioned evolution, reserving growth interfaces for future issues such as non-human consciousness, the ontological position of aesthetics, and ecological normativity. The Fundamental Turn: From "how to locate meaning in the universe" to "how to responsibly exercise our power as meaning-givers." This turn re-anchors philosophy from theoretical speculation to practical reason, providing a philosophical foundation for human action in the technological era that can withstand rigorous questioning. 本书旨在回应技术时代人类文明面临的根本性困境：当人类拥有了足以重塑自身和世界的力量时，行动的正当性根基何在？ 作者从自身实践困境出发——在制造企业中发展出系统诊断工具，却因“凭什么按下干预杠杆”的伦理追问而停步——逐步建构起一套完整的实践哲学体系。 核心命题：人类不需要向任何外部权威索要意义的合法性。具有反思能力的意识，本身即是意义的源泉与授权者。这一命题通过现象学事实与践言冲突得以确立：任何对“意识是意义场域”的否定，本身即预设了一个正在进行意义赋予的意识主体。 从第一前提推导最高伦理原则：如果意识是意义的唯一场域，那么维护意识持续运作的能力——即“意义再生产能力”——便构成一切价值判断的先决条件。由此确立意义再生产保障原则：任何社会安排与技术设计，不得系统性、不可逆地摧毁其成员进行意义感知、阐释与建构的基本可能性。 自由与正义的制度推导：意义再生产保障原则在制度层面的实现，内在地必然要求两个构成性条件——自由作为主体条件（没有自由的个体，意义再生产失去行动者）；正义作为可持续条件（没有正义，意义再生产走向垄断与枯竭）。二者不是外在价值设定，而是元原则的内在必然要求。 三元循环本体论：本书构建“涌现—反思—塑造”的动态存在结构。涌现提供意义得以可能的客观条件；反思是意义授权的发生地；塑造将意义转化为现实并反馈重塑前两者。三者互为前提，构成存在的完整动态结构。 三大伦理原则：从元原则推导出涌现敬畏原则、反思纯净性原则、塑造可逆性与副作用最小化原则，共同构成对塑造权力的制度约束体系。 实践工具：以“绝对前提清单”为极端干预设置刚性伦理阈值；以“系统韧性评估模型”（SRA）将哲学原则操作化为可量化的文明健康标尺。 思想史定位：本书以中国传统哲学“内在超越”精神为底色，以西方现代哲学论证方法为骨架，以现代系统科学为方法论基础，完成三种思想资源在技术时代的创造性整合。它不是对传统的复述，而是在真实伦理困境中独立逼出思考后，与古老智慧“认出彼此”。 自我定位：全书以“文明语法”自居——不提供具体意义内容，只保障意义赋予活动的可公度性；不宣称终极完成，而以版本化演进的开放姿态，为非人类意识、美学本体论、生态规范性等未来议题预留生长接口。 根本转向：从“如何在宇宙中为意义寻找位置”转向“如何负责任地行使我们作为意义赋予者的权力”。这一转向将哲学从理论思辨重新锚定于实践理性，为技术时代的人类行动提供了经得起追问的哲学地基。