title: Using the False to Pry Open the Real

category: English essays

series: English essays

sourceStatus: published

markdown:
# Using the False to Pry Open the Real

本文为研究档案公开版，保留来源版本的论述与限制。公开时间：2026-09-07；不表示已完成同行评审。

来源版本日期：2026-07-14

证据边界：This is a normative, self-auditing public theory essay. It does not prove that P4 has already achieved shared rule-making, redistributed power, material withdrawal, or institutional change. Project-specific claims about authorization, versions, production, labor, rights, archives, relationships, and effects require protocols, production records, affected participants’ accounts, and other project-level evidence.

# Using the False to Pry Open the Real

## P4 Theater as a Rehearsal of Reality

By He Fa

We have finally found a set of words adequate to re-examine P4’s many years of practice. They are not a theoretical medal, but a measure that turns back on us and demands an account of power, materials, and consequences.

In *Human Surrender* (*Shoot Self with You*), someone says, “Skip,” yet what is skipped does not disappear. Someone asks, “Who wants to come up?” and the audience’s position is no longer secure. One person says, “I wasn’t thinking of anything,” and another voice immediately asks, “Do you need me to say it for you?” With both camera and audience present, a figure says, “No one can see you.” These lines do more than describe the live scene. They alter who can keep going, who may speak for someone else, who becomes visible, and who has the power to handle another person’s silence.

A performance can announce its end, but relations do not disperse on schedule. The images remain. Editing continues to rearrange cause and effect. Names enter the credits, and people who come later continue to watch. Some words have already been spoken; some bodies have already borne pressure; some refusals have already been preserved by the camera. The real questions therefore arrive after the work: To whom do these consequences belong? Who may interpret them? Who may write them into the next round of creation? And who has the right to let them stop here?

Looking back over P4’s years of rehearsal, filming, and writing, we encounter these questions again and again. We have described our work through experimental theater, participatory creation, reflexive images, and recursive media. Each term captured one part, but none made the same underlying matter clear: what, exactly, has P4 been trying to change in reality?

We now call this work a **rehearsal of reality**.

![Performers, spectators, stage surfaces, and the camera share one live field in Human Surrender.](/research/images/b421f8f0ce9178b2468c.webp)

*Performers, spectators, stage surfaces, and the camera share one live field. Film still from* Human Surrender / Shoot Self with You.

## I. Where Art Enters Reality

Theater can, of course, represent reality. Poverty, anxiety, identity, intimacy, and generational conflict can all be written into dialogue and characters, and spectators may see something they had not seen before. But when reality enters art only as content, it is easily enclosed a second time inside the work: the stage presents the problem, the audience understands it, and those who control resources and decisions remain where they were.

P4 is concerned with another point of entry. An artificially constructed scene, a rule that does not exist in everyday life, a temporary role, or a camera entering a relationship can alter what people on site are actually able to do. Someone acquires the authority to give a command. Someone is able to refuse for the first time. A previously secure directorial position is challenged. A spectator may be pushed into the position of an actor. Fiction is no longer merely the content of the work; it becomes a temporary condition of reality.

A rehearsal of reality is precisely this kind of practice: participants know that the situation has been deliberately constructed and nevertheless act within it for a time; fiction rearranges roles, rules, and positions of viewing on site, and the bodily responses, changes in relationship, and material consequences it produces cannot all be cancelled by saying, “We were only acting.”

The concept itself deserves no celebration. Corporate crisis simulations, military exercises, reality television, and psychological experiments can also use fictive conditions to produce real consequences. A rehearsal of reality names only a way of working; it does not automatically prove that the work is free, equal, or progressive. If P4 wants the term to carry political meaning, it must still answer how consequences are distributed, whether the conditions can be changed, and whether those who set the conditions are willing to surrender some of their monopoly over the event.

## II. The False, the Real, the Lever

“Using the false to pry open the real” can easily sound like a game of truth and falsehood: the artist sets a trap, participants take it for reality, and the camera waits for their true nature to show; or a film deliberately confuses documentary and fiction, inviting the audience to guess which passage can be trusted. Such tricks are far removed from what we mean.

Here, “the false” is a publicly acknowledged “as if.” Everyone knows that the role is temporary, the rule has been devised, and the scene has been organized, yet they agree to act accordingly for a limited period. Theater can give the authority to issue commands to someone who ordinarily has none. It can let an institution that does not yet exist begin to operate in advance. It can make the camera stop pretending to be transparent and enter the site as a position with weight and direction, one that alters relationships. Fiction draws its power from this substitution of conditions, not from deception.

The fictional premise may be false; authorization, harm, payment, and responsibility for the material cannot be. If participants do not know what will be recorded, how it will be edited, to whom it will be shown, how long it will be kept, or whether they can leave, then “artistic fiction” is merely a better-sounding alibi.

Nor should “the real” continue to mean a person’s inner essence. When someone falls silent, becomes angry, complies, or even loses control under fatigue, conflict, prolonged filming, or public observation, this first shows that the conditions have acted on a body. It does not prove that the artist has finally discovered who this person truly is. An apparatus that produces a response does not thereby gain the right to authenticate a soul. Once exhaustion is written as authenticity and breakdown as insight, the pressure created by art is decorated in retrospect as artistic achievement.

What we call “real” is the reality of consequences. A fictional relationship really does alter how two people later relate to each other. A shoot really does move someone’s position within a group. A sentence uttered under a temporary identity really does create responsibility. Once released, an image really does enter someone’s life. None of these changes can be easily revoked by saying, “We were acting at the time.”

**The real is not a secret that the camera excavates from the human heart. The real is a consequence that cannot be revoked by saying, “It was only a performance.”**

Nor does “prying” mean tearing away an illusion. Much of reality is not a completed truth waiting for the artist to discover it. It is continually produced through the coordination of rules, roles, resources, watching, and interpretation. Fiction is the lever; existing relations of power are the fulcrum. Whether the lever works depends on whether capacities to act, decision-making power, and people’s positions relative to the material have actually moved. If conflict merely makes the work more exciting and the theory more complete while those who set the conditions retain their original power, the site may have been shaken, but the structure has not moved.

## III. The Smallest Unit of Reality

“Transforming the world” is often stated on too grand a scale. Once the world appears only as a vast noun, art can easily substitute one moving moment, one burst of circulation, or one sensation for actual change. P4 needs to bring the claim back to a scale that can be examined.

Reality exists in a set of concrete conditions of action: who may begin and who must answer; who is entitled to ask and who is always answering; who controls space, time, equipment, and payment; who holds the camera and who has final-cut authority; who may leave and whose exit carries an extra cost; who bears the risks of exposure and broken relationships, and who receives the work, reputation, income, and theoretical gains.

The politics of art must also be judged here. A work may discuss power without moving power within its own production. It may invite many people to appear without giving them the capacity to decide the work’s direction. Calling a spectator onto the stage proves only that the position of viewing has been disturbed; it does not prove that the spectator has also gained the right to change the rules, refuse the use of an image, or close the loop.

The smallest form in which art can change the world is to change the conditions under which certain actions become possible. A person who previously could not refuse gains a right to refuse without penalty. Someone who could only be filmed begins to participate in decisions about the shot and the version. One person’s silence is no longer automatically handed to someone else to interpret. Such changes are small, but they come closer to reality than “raising awareness.”

## IV. Can Consequences Rewrite the Rules?

After an event, a work learns. The camera captures a reaction; editing arranges its meaning; commentary and dispute enter theory; the next work matures as a result. Feedback is certainly present, and perhaps even recursion. But feedback is not inherently political. Platforms collect people’s responses every day and use those responses to optimize their systems.

What P4 needs to examine is whether consequences can modify the rules that produced them. We call this step **condition write-back**.

Suppose a participant objects to the way filming is conducted. If the objection is edited into the film as proof that the work dares to criticize itself while the filming protocol remains unchanged, the system has merely absorbed another critique. If the objection leads the next round to add procedures for pausing and stopping the event; if participation, recording, publication, and archiving are no longer bundled into a single authorization; if the affected person can request that particular material be re-edited, obscured, or sealed—then the consequence has entered the rules.

A director being challenged does not mean directorial authority has been dispersed. An artist can arrange resistance into the most exciting passage and still retain control over interpretation, version, publication, and archive. Real change begins when the challenge becomes binding: when it can alter who decides the next step, who approves the final version, who can veto publication, and who can make the project lose part of its material.

When people change themselves according to the rules, that is training. When a system adjusts its methods in response to people, that is feedback. When conflict changes the rules of the next round, conditions begin to write back. When those who bear the consequences acquire the capacity to constrain the rules, politics truly enters the site.

This does not require the director to disappear. The initiator must still take responsibility for constructing the situation, securing resources, performing care work, and taking responsibility for consequences. Nor does shared decision-making mean that everyone has identical authority over everything. What must change is the unspoken natural sovereignty concentrated in one person: the right to begin, to hold the camera, to make the final cut, to name, to publish, to archive, and to end must all become speakable, contestable, and redistributable within a specific project.

## V. P4, Too, Can Become a Small Platform

The society we inhabit is already full of loops. Platforms record clicks, dwell time, anger, and purchases, then turn them into the conditions of the next recommendation. Workers adjust themselves to evaluation systems, and those systems learn from their adjustments. Users hand over everyday life, relationships, and emotions; platforms convert them into data, traffic, and models. The system keeps updating, but the rules do not thereby pass to the people who provide the feedback.

P4 must submit to the same interrogation. If participants provide bodies, lives, conflict, failure, and dissent while P4 acquires images, works, methods, reputation, and theory—and participants can only continue adapting to new creative arrangements—then the difference between P4 and a platform is merely one of scale and technology. P4 may be open and may permit resistance, yet all experience can still flow toward a single center.

Critique can even become premium fuel. The more participants resist, the more complex the work becomes. The sharper the ethical challenge, the more complete the theory. The harder it is to leave, the easier it becomes for the artist to describe that difficulty as proof that the work has touched the boundary of the real. If critique only strengthens P4’s capacity to explain itself, it is merely a system upgrade. Only when critique changes protocols, permissions, and the fate of the material does it enter reality.

A platform learns from people without allowing them to decide what the platform should learn, what it should forget, or when it should stop learning. Radical art must reverse this direction: those drawn into the work must be able not only to affect its content, but also to constrain the way it acquires experience. They must not merely share the stage; they must participate in decisions about recording, interpretation, circulation, and closure.

![P4 Theater’s Beijing space seen from above.](/research/images/fa02e346a37eec31418e.webp)

*P4 Theater’s Beijing space seen from above. Space, equipment, access, and circulation are among the conditions a practice must organize.*

## VI. Refusal Must Make the Work Lose Something

Reflexive art can absorb almost anything. Cooperation can become part of the work, but so can resistance. Silence can be psychologized, and withdrawal can be narrated as the moment when the apparatus finally revealed its boundary. The system is therefore always right, because every outcome can be used as proof that it worked.

**An artistic apparatus that cannot be refused is not very different from the platform it criticizes.**

A rehearsal of reality must recognize **the right not to be made into a work**. This right does not require everyone to erase their memories, nor does it allow anyone to evade responsibility for actual consequences merely by saying so. It limits an art institution’s continued use of a person. Participants may require that particular words or actions, bodily states, private relationships, silences, refusals, or withdrawals not enter the final work or its promotion, not be used as evidence that a theory is valid, and not be preserved in a long-term identifiable archive.

Most importantly, refusal cannot be automatically translated into the work’s meaning. If a person says “no” and the work still obtains that “no” without losing anything, then the person never truly had the power to refuse. Only when refusal may close the camera, reduce the material, alter the version, or even prevent the work from being completed as planned does power actually enter the creative process.

Withdrawal does not occur only at the moment someone leaves the site. Participation, recording, editing, publication, and archiving should be authorized separately. Withdrawing future uses of material should take concrete form in obscuring, deletion, sealing, or an end to further circulation. Withdrawal cannot reverse time, but it can stop a system from continuing to possess.

Fiction may run out of control. The boundaries of rights cannot disappear.

## VII. From a Work to an Institutional Rehearsal

A rehearsal of reality enters a larger social context not by exaggerating one performance into a revolution. It places a small section of social rules into actual operation and lets another kind of relationship happen once in advance: who makes the rules, who can speak, who controls the material, who performs the work of maintenance, and who may refuse. These arrangements are no longer ideals merely expressed by the work; they become working rules that the production site must actually implement.

P4 must therefore care about conflict in front of the audience and about the labor that sustains it over time. Who maintains the space? Who bears the cost of equipment and transport? Who coordinates, films, produces subtitles, handles post-performance communication, and cleans and organizes the archive? How are payment, credit, copyright, and income distributed? Who continues to hold the relationship after the project ends? These seemingly backstage questions determine who actually supports a so-called common practice and where its value remains.

A short rehearsal cannot directly prove that a social institution has changed. Changes in perception, action, relationship, procedure, and resource distribution carry different weight. Nor can changes occurring on site, in post-production, in the next project, or within a long-term organization all be folded into the phrase “it had an impact.” P4 must state honestly where a change holds, how long it lasts, who benefits, where it fails, and whether it transfers new costs onto those with less power.

![P4 Theater’s black-box stage.](/research/images/ca0f6d74904363077caf.webp)

*P4 Theater’s black-box stage. The essay asks what rules, labor, and rights must sustain what happens in front of spectators.*

To be radical is not to apply greater pressure, expose more, or take greater formal risks. The truly difficult moment comes when consequences produced by art begin to limit art’s own power.

## VIII. A Measure, Not a Medal

We can now describe more precisely the method toward which P4’s years of practice have pointed. P4 uses openly constructed fictional situations to rearrange roles, power, relationships, and positions of viewing for a time, allowing actions suppressed by the everyday order a chance to occur. Real bodies produce responses that cannot be fully scripted in advance, while filming, review, editing, and the archive carry these consequences into another time.

This loop is not automatically political. Whether those who bear the consequences can participate in interpretation; whether they can constrain the fate of the material; whether dissent changes the rules of the next round; whether people have the ability to leave, not to be made into a work, and to close the loop—these questions determine whether the theater is producing a shared reality or merely improving its extractive techniques.

A “rehearsal of reality” is therefore not a title that P4 awards itself. It is a measure with which to audit every project. Every future practice must answer: What conditions were set at the beginning? What unscripted events occurred? Who held interpretive authority? Which rule changed as a result? Who gained or lost rights? Where did materials, income, and risk flow? Which refusal truly remained outside the work? Did any change enter the next round?

Using the false to pry open the real does not mean using deception to force out human nature, nor does it mean using fiction to prove that reality is false. It means building a situation in which relations of force within reality are displaced, in which an action that previously had no place can happen once, and then allowing the consequences of that action to enter the remaking of rules, rights, and relationships.

What P4 needs to pry open is not a truth hidden behind appearances.

What we need to pry open is this: who has the right to decide what counts as reality, who has the right to organize reality, and who has the right to write what has already happened into the conditions of the next reality.

---

**[Watch *Human Surrender / Shoot Self with You*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1riPOyQuCI)**

**[Read the first essay: *A Film Without an Outside*](https://p4theater.substack.com/p/a-film-without-an-outside-the-referential)**

**[Explore P4 Theater](https://p4theater.top/en/)**

_Public evidence note: this essay proposes a measure for auditing P4’s practice; it does not certify that shared rule-making, power redistribution, material withdrawal, or institutional change has already been achieved in any particular project. Its film dialogue functions as a scene entrance and does not by itself settle off-screen identity, psychology, authorization, coercion, harm, relationships, or responsibility._

text: Using the False to Pry Open the Real

text: P4 Theater as a Rehearsal of Reality

text: By He Fa

text: In Human Surrender ( Shoot Self with You ), someone says, “Skip,” yet what is skipped does not disappear. Someone asks, “Who wants to come up?” and the audience’s position is no longer secure. One person says, “I wasn’t thinking of anything,” and another voice immediately asks, “Do you need me to say it for you?” With both camera and audience present, a figure says, “No one can see you.” These lines do more than describe the live scene. They alter who can keep going, who may speak for someone else, who becomes visible, and who has the power to handle another person’s silence.

text: We now call this work a rehearsal of reality .

text: Performers, spectators, stage surfaces, and the camera share one live field. Film still from Human Surrender / Shoot Self with You.

text: I. Where Art Enters Reality

text: II. The False, the Real, the Lever

text: III. The Smallest Unit of Reality

text: IV. Can Consequences Rewrite the Rules?

text: What P4 needs to examine is whether consequences can modify the rules that produced them. We call this step condition write-back .

text: V. P4, Too, Can Become a Small Platform

text: A rehearsal of reality must recognize the right not to be made into a work . This right does not require everyone to erase their memories, nor does it allow anyone to evade responsibility for actual consequences merely by saying so. It limits an art institution’s continued use of a person. Participants may require that particular words or actions, bodily states, private relationships, silences, refusals, or withdrawals not enter the final work or its promotion, not be used as evidence that a theory is valid, and not be preserved in a long-term identifiable archive.

text: VIII. A Measure, Not a Medal

text: Watch Human Surrender / Shoot Self with You

text: Read the first essay: A Film Without an Outside

text: Explore P4 Theater


title: 第四部分重挖第十三步：漏词如何把不想说转成石碑白布与帮说 2026-05-21

category: 声画与理论笔记

series: 声画与理论笔记

sourceStatus: active

relationMethod: literal links and image references in the public edition; no inferred semantic support

markdown:
# 第四部分重挖第十三步：漏词如何把不想说转成石碑白布与帮说 2026-05-21

本文为研究档案公开版，保留来源版本的论述与限制。公开时间：2026-09-08；不表示已完成同行评审。 本文属于公开研究资料（历史笔记、研究稿或来源记录）：已完成格式、来源限制与重复项筛查，尚未完成逐篇独立事实复核；原文中的解释、候选判断和未确认内容均按其原有限制阅读。

来源版本日期：2026-05-21

证据边界：本页为 145:00-150:00 的 T3 综合。T0 锁定台词与说话人；T1 本地接触表、关键帧、波形和音量检测锁定声画事实；T2/MiMo 只作形式候选。不得扩写敏感身体/亲密记忆细节；不得把 `不想说` 写成胜利或失败定案；不得把 `徐锦江` 写成实名真值闭合；不得把 `脑子有病 / 脑子一片空白` 写成真实诊断；不得把 `说` 写成完整同意或完整被迫；不得把白布下的真实状态、动作意图或心理状态闭合。

# 第四部分重挖第十三步：漏词如何把不想说转成石碑白布与帮说 2026-05-21

## 核心判断

`02:25:00-02:30:00` 是上一窗 `漏词` 的真正后果。

上一窗的尾部是：

```text
继续说呀 / 我在听呢
-> 大脑一片空白
-> 你错过了
-> 你漏掉了好多的词
```

这一窗证明，`漏词` 不是普通忘词。它像一张欠条。现场立刻要求把漏掉的东西补回来，补不回来就催促，催促到 `不想说`，再把 `不想说` 转译成石头、石碑、角色槽、脑子命名、白布遮挡和帮说。

本窗的链条是：

```text
漏词
-> 揭示
-> 阿蒙声部接管
-> 甲瑞厌恶
-> 继续
-> 不想说
-> 石头 / 地
-> 徐锦江 / 石碑
-> 脑子有病
-> 白布遮挡
-> 脑子一片空白
-> 需要我帮你说吗
-> 说
-> 代说
-> 安全感
-> 谁也看不见你
```

这不是“终于说出了秘密”。更准确是：电影展示了一个说话系统怎样在遇到拒绝时换壳继续。

## 一、漏词把空白改写成债务

阿蒙说：

```text
你错过了
你漏掉了好多的词
```

紧接着她说：

```text
它应该被揭示出来
它揭示出来应该对我们会有所帮助
但是我不知道怎么能够揭示出来
```

这里的残酷性在于，空白已经失去作为边界的资格。刚才甲瑞说 `大脑一片空白`，本来可以是停顿、阻断、退后一步。但阿蒙马上把它改写成漏词：不是你没有东西，而是你少交了东西。

`漏词` 因此不是字幕技术问题，也不是单纯表演错误。它把不能说的部分登记为欠下的语言。接下来整段都在追这笔债。

## 二、阿蒙声部接管敏感内容，但观众墙在场

`02:25` 分钟里，阿蒙进入一段高密度代说。这里不能扩写敏感身体/亲密记忆细节；按证据边界，只能写它的机制位置：它是 `漏词` 被追缴后的补词行为。

本地接触表显示，画面没有把这段收进私密空间。相反，观众席、白塑料幕、冷光、灰白墙面和阿蒙白衬衫背影持续在场。观众像一堵墙，坐在那里承受这段被说出的东西。MiMo 的 T2 观察也提示，空间回响和观众墙让声音具有公开声压。

所以这段不是“一个人替另一个人温柔说出”。它更像一次公开提取：内容从不能说的位置被推到观众前面，而镜头把承受面也拍进去。

## 三、甲瑞的厌恶不是题外反应

甲瑞说：

```text
这种话真的他妈非常恶心
就是他妈特别恶心
```

这几句不能被当作噪音。它们是本窗的第一个抵抗面。揭示机器把内容说出来，甲瑞没有马上进入理解、感谢或释放，而是给出厌恶。

这让 `帮助` 一词变得不干净。上一窗说 `对你有帮助`，这一窗出现的却是恶心、粗口、短促回声和继续催促。电影没有把揭示拍成治愈，它拍成了一个内容被公开之后仍然难以承受的现场。

## 四、`不想说` 是短促残余，不是停机按钮

阿蒙第二次说 `继续呀` 之后，甲瑞说：

```text
我
不想说
```

这句话很短，但它改变了后面的材料形态。它没有停住现场。几秒之后，子丑接上：

```text
灵魂烧沸一座座孤城
箍紧的石头
敲打坚硬的地
```

于是拒绝没有变成安静，而是变成硬物。不能说的东西，被换成孤城、石头、地面。这就是 拒绝的残余保存（馆内参考，未随本文公开） 的冷面：拒绝被留下了，但留下之后立刻被加工。

这不是否定 `不想说` 的价值。恰恰相反，系统为了继续，必须先承认它出现过。它被 T0 字幕锁定，被接触表保存，被 Wiki 标记。只是它没有获得终止权。

## 五、徐锦江回流：拒绝被交给角色槽和石碑

子丑接着问：

```text
你觉着徐锦江怎么样啊
```

随后他说：

```text
我觉得他太麻木了
他麻木的就像一块石碑一样
他为什么没有感觉到呢
这戏我是为他写的
```

这里的 `徐锦江` 不能写成实名真值闭合。更稳的是写成角色名、身份槽、命名面具的回流。前半段的命名事故到这里重新变硬：名字不再只是叫错或混淆，而成为麻木、无感、石碑、为他写的戏、选你当演员的承受面。

这一步很重要。`不想说` 后，现场没有只催甲瑞继续说，而是绕到另一个名字上。拒绝被转交给角色槽。一个名字被拿来承担无感，一个石碑被拿来承担不能回应，一个演员位置被拿来承担“为什么选你”。

## 六、脑子有病：自我命名也会被回声接走

子丑问阿蒙：

```text
你知道我为什么选你当演员吗
```

阿蒙答：

```text
我不知道
```

子丑说：

```text
因为我脑子有病
```

阿蒙复述：

```text
呵呵 你脑子有病
```

这里仍然不能写成真实诊断。它是片内自我命名和回声。一个人用异常命名解释选角，另一个人把这个命名轻笑着还回现场。

这句话的位置非常关键。它连接两边：前面是徐锦江、麻木、石碑、为他写的戏；后面是 `脑子一片空白 / 需要我帮你说吗`。也就是说，`脑子有病` 不是终点，而是把硬物/角色槽转入空白/帮说的铰链。

## 七、白布不是消失，而是把身体改造成可观看块面

`02:28` 后，白布进入画面中心。T1 接触表显示，身体被白色材料包裹，形成锥状、块面和不规则轮廓。观众仍在背景里，绿色出口灯、白塑料幕、灰色平台和冷光仍在场。

白布不是简单“遮住”。它做了三件事：

```text
遮住脸和身体边界
-> 把身体改造成块面
-> 让观众继续观看不可见
```

MiMo 的 visual-only T2 候选也抓到同一点：白布的垂坠、褶皱、顶光和块面感，使身体介于人体和抽象几何体之间。这个观察可用，但只能用于视觉形式，不能替代声音和台词事实。

## 八、`说` 是最小让渡

阿蒙问：

```text
你不是脑子一片空白吗
需要我帮你说吗
你要我帮你说吗
```

甲瑞答：

```text
说
```

这个 `说` 不能写得太满。它不是完整同意，也不是完整被迫。它太短，短到几乎没有能力承受后面整段代说；但它又确实让后面的代说发生。

所以它更像一个最小让渡：说话位置被暂时交出去。空白不再由原身体保管，而交给阿蒙的声部、观众、字幕和档案共同保管。

这就是 [空白代管](/research/hs-1024f9236b469301) 的硬点。它的可怕不在于“有人帮忙”，也不在于“一定是侵犯”，而在于帮忙和接管在这一刻无法被干净分开。

## 九、越遮挡，声音越密

从 `02:28:48` 到 `02:29:24`，阿蒙持续代说。画面上，白布越来越占据主体，观众时隐时现，绿色出口灯偶尔成为固定空间锚点；声音上，本窗 mean volume 是 `-27.4 dB`，明显高于上一窗 `-33.5 dB`。

这说明白布没有带来沉默。相反，越不可见，声音越替它工作。

这里出现一个很重要的声画反向运动：

```text
画面把身体盖住
声音把空白填满
观众仍然在场
字幕继续归档
```

所以不能把白布写成隐退。白布制造的是一种更高风险的观看：你看不见脸，但你仍然在听；你看不见布下状态，但你被迫接受一段替它说出的文本。

## 十、`谁也看不见你` 的入口已经铺好

本窗结束处，阿蒙问：

```text
你觉得这样好玩吗
```

子丑答：

```text
好玩
特别好玩
特别有安全感
```

阿蒙接：

```text
因为什么也 谁也看不见你
```

这句话属于下一窗的不可见链入口，但它在本窗已经被白布准备好了。白布先把身体变成不可见块面，帮说再把不可见区域填满声音，然后 `安全感` 被接到 `谁也看不见你`。

可是画面正在看。观众正在看。摄影机正在看。绿色出口灯和白塑料空间还在。于是 `谁也看不见你` 不能写成视觉事实。它是一句片内承诺、诱导、命名或安慰，也是一句会被画面反证的语言。

## 本窗公式

```text
空白不是边界
漏词把它变成债务
不想说把它变成残余
石碑把它变成硬物
脑子命名把它变成异常解释
白布把它变成不可见块面
帮说把它变成他人第一人称
安全感把它带向不可见公式
```

这就是 `145:00-150:00` 在第四部分里的位置：它把上一窗的未揭示处真正推入高风险执行。电影在这里不是解释关系，而是展示一套关系机器如何处理不能说、拒绝说和由别人说。

## 反读

可以把这五分钟低限度地反读为：一次排练/公演中的台词补漏、即兴反应、角色名回收和道具遮挡。这个反读是必要的，因为它防止我们把所有内容都抬成深层真相。

但即使按最低限度读，链条仍然成立：`漏词` 后确实出现高密度补词；`不想说` 后确实没有停机；`徐锦江/石碑` 确实回流；`脑子一片空白` 确实被接到 `需要我帮你说吗`；`说` 确实打开代说；白布确实遮住身体而让观众继续看。

所以本窗的结论不是心理真相，而是形式事实：拒绝没有让现场停止，空白也没有获得安静。它们被材料、角色槽、声部和观看结构继续加工。

## 支持证据

- 本地 T1/T0 复核：[2026-05-21-145到150分钟级接触表与clip复核](/research/hs-8cae3c46aa4cf435)
- MiMo T2 候选：[MiMo-第四部分145到150漏词拒绝石碑白布帮说复扫-2026-05-21](/research/hs-4d3ad49114440127)
- 上一窗来源：[2026-05-21-140到145分钟级接触表与clip复核](/research/hs-a233d02debe92fef)
- 既有微窗：[2026-05-12-第四部分继续说漏词不想说微窗](/research/hs-81835984356d1577)、[2026-05-12-第四部分不想说后徐锦江石碑微窗](/research/hs-bcbdb7c0901f1f93)、[2026-05-12-第四部分空白代管帮说微窗](/research/hs-d9c3d4759e5f8e24)

## 使用边界

- 不扩写敏感身体/亲密记忆细节。
- 不把 `揭示` 写成真实秘密被证明。
- 不把 `不想说` 写成完整胜利或完整失败。
- 不把 `徐锦江` 写成外部实名事实。
- 不把 `脑子有病 / 脑子一片空白` 写成真实心理诊断。
- 不把 `说` 写成完整同意、完整自愿或完整被迫。
- 不把白布下状态或动作意图闭合。
- 不让视觉-only MiMo 派生副本承担声音/台词/字幕事实。

headingPath: 第四部分重挖第十三步：漏词如何把不想说转成石碑白布与帮说 2026-05-21

text: 第四部分重挖第十三步：漏词如何把不想说转成石碑白布与帮说 2026-05-21

text: 核心判断

kind: p

text: 02:25:00-02:30:00 是上一窗 漏词 的真正后果。

text: 上一窗的尾部是：

kind: pre

text: 这一窗证明， 漏词 不是普通忘词。它像一张欠条。现场立刻要求把漏掉的东西补回来，补不回来就催促，催促到 不想说 ，再把 不想说 转译成石头、石碑、角色槽、脑子命名、白布遮挡和帮说。

text: 本窗的链条是：

headingPath: 一、漏词把空白改写成债务

text: 一、漏词把空白改写成债务

headingPath: 一、漏词把空白改写成债务

text: 阿蒙说：

headingPath: 一、漏词把空白改写成债务

text:
你错过了
你漏掉了好多的词

headingPath: 一、漏词把空白改写成债务

text: 紧接着她说：

headingPath: 一、漏词把空白改写成债务

text:
它应该被揭示出来
它揭示出来应该对我们会有所帮助
但是我不知道怎么能够揭示出来

headingPath: 一、漏词把空白改写成债务

text: 这里的残酷性在于，空白已经失去作为边界的资格。刚才甲瑞说 大脑一片空白 ，本来可以是停顿、阻断、退后一步。但阿蒙马上把它改写成漏词：不是你没有东西，而是你少交了东西。

headingPath: 一、漏词把空白改写成债务

text: 漏词 因此不是字幕技术问题，也不是单纯表演错误。它把不能说的部分登记为欠下的语言。接下来整段都在追这笔债。

headingPath: 二、阿蒙声部接管敏感内容，但观众墙在场

text: 二、阿蒙声部接管敏感内容，但观众墙在场

headingPath: 二、阿蒙声部接管敏感内容，但观众墙在场

text: 02:25 分钟里，阿蒙进入一段高密度代说。这里不能扩写敏感身体/亲密记忆细节；按证据边界，只能写它的机制位置：它是 漏词 被追缴后的补词行为。

headingPath: 二、阿蒙声部接管敏感内容，但观众墙在场

headingPath: 二、阿蒙声部接管敏感内容，但观众墙在场

headingPath: 三、甲瑞的厌恶不是题外反应

text: 三、甲瑞的厌恶不是题外反应

headingPath: 三、甲瑞的厌恶不是题外反应

text: 甲瑞说：

headingPath: 三、甲瑞的厌恶不是题外反应

text:
这种话真的他妈非常恶心
就是他妈特别恶心

headingPath: 三、甲瑞的厌恶不是题外反应

headingPath: 三、甲瑞的厌恶不是题外反应

text: 这让 帮助 一词变得不干净。上一窗说 对你有帮助 ，这一窗出现的却是恶心、粗口、短促回声和继续催促。电影没有把揭示拍成治愈，它拍成了一个内容被公开之后仍然难以承受的现场。

headingPath: 四、 不想说 是短促残余，不是停机按钮

text: 四、 不想说 是短促残余，不是停机按钮

headingPath: 四、 不想说 是短促残余，不是停机按钮

text: 阿蒙第二次说 继续呀 之后，甲瑞说：

headingPath: 四、 不想说 是短促残余，不是停机按钮

text:
我
不想说

headingPath: 四、 不想说 是短促残余，不是停机按钮

text: 这句话很短，但它改变了后面的材料形态。它没有停住现场。几秒之后，子丑接上：

headingPath: 四、 不想说 是短促残余，不是停机按钮

text:
灵魂烧沸一座座孤城
箍紧的石头
敲打坚硬的地

headingPath: 四、 不想说 是短促残余，不是停机按钮

headingPath: 四、 不想说 是短促残余，不是停机按钮

text: 这不是否定 不想说 的价值。恰恰相反，系统为了继续，必须先承认它出现过。它被 T0 字幕锁定，被接触表保存，被 Wiki 标记。只是它没有获得终止权。

headingPath: 五、徐锦江回流：拒绝被交给角色槽和石碑

text: 五、徐锦江回流：拒绝被交给角色槽和石碑

headingPath: 五、徐锦江回流：拒绝被交给角色槽和石碑

text: 子丑接着问：

headingPath: 五、徐锦江回流：拒绝被交给角色槽和石碑

text: 你觉着徐锦江怎么样啊

headingPath: 五、徐锦江回流：拒绝被交给角色槽和石碑

text: 随后他说：

headingPath: 五、徐锦江回流：拒绝被交给角色槽和石碑

headingPath: 五、徐锦江回流：拒绝被交给角色槽和石碑

text: 这里的 徐锦江 不能写成实名真值闭合。更稳的是写成角色名、身份槽、命名面具的回流。前半段的命名事故到这里重新变硬：名字不再只是叫错或混淆，而成为麻木、无感、石碑、为他写的戏、选你当演员的承受面。

headingPath: 五、徐锦江回流：拒绝被交给角色槽和石碑

text: 这一步很重要。 不想说 后，现场没有只催甲瑞继续说，而是绕到另一个名字上。拒绝被转交给角色槽。一个名字被拿来承担无感，一个石碑被拿来承担不能回应，一个演员位置被拿来承担“为什么选你”。

headingPath: 六、脑子有病：自我命名也会被回声接走

text: 六、脑子有病：自我命名也会被回声接走

headingPath: 六、脑子有病：自我命名也会被回声接走

text: 子丑问阿蒙：

headingPath: 六、脑子有病：自我命名也会被回声接走

text: 你知道我为什么选你当演员吗

headingPath: 六、脑子有病：自我命名也会被回声接走

text: 阿蒙答：

headingPath: 六、脑子有病：自我命名也会被回声接走

text: 我不知道

headingPath: 六、脑子有病：自我命名也会被回声接走

text: 子丑说：

headingPath: 六、脑子有病：自我命名也会被回声接走

text: 因为我脑子有病

headingPath: 六、脑子有病：自我命名也会被回声接走

text: 阿蒙复述：

headingPath: 六、脑子有病：自我命名也会被回声接走

text: 呵呵 你脑子有病

headingPath: 六、脑子有病：自我命名也会被回声接走

headingPath: 六、脑子有病：自我命名也会被回声接走

text: 这句话的位置非常关键。它连接两边：前面是徐锦江、麻木、石碑、为他写的戏；后面是 脑子一片空白 / 需要我帮你说吗 。也就是说， 脑子有病 不是终点，而是把硬物/角色槽转入空白/帮说的铰链。

headingPath: 七、白布不是消失，而是把身体改造成可观看块面

text: 七、白布不是消失，而是把身体改造成可观看块面

headingPath: 七、白布不是消失，而是把身体改造成可观看块面

text: 02:28 后，白布进入画面中心。T1 接触表显示，身体被白色材料包裹，形成锥状、块面和不规则轮廓。观众仍在背景里，绿色出口灯、白塑料幕、灰色平台和冷光仍在场。

headingPath: 七、白布不是消失，而是把身体改造成可观看块面

text: 白布不是简单“遮住”。它做了三件事：

headingPath: 七、白布不是消失，而是把身体改造成可观看块面

text:
遮住脸和身体边界
-> 把身体改造成块面
-> 让观众继续观看不可见

headingPath: 七、白布不是消失，而是把身体改造成可观看块面

text: 八、 说 是最小让渡

text: 阿蒙问：

text:
你不是脑子一片空白吗
需要我帮你说吗
你要我帮你说吗

text: 甲瑞答：

text: 说

text: 这个 说 不能写得太满。它不是完整同意，也不是完整被迫。它太短，短到几乎没有能力承受后面整段代说；但它又确实让后面的代说发生。

text: 这就是 空白代管 的硬点。它的可怕不在于“有人帮忙”，也不在于“一定是侵犯”，而在于帮忙和接管在这一刻无法被干净分开。

text: 九、越遮挡，声音越密

text: 从 02:28:48 到 02:29:24 ，阿蒙持续代说。画面上，白布越来越占据主体，观众时隐时现，绿色出口灯偶尔成为固定空间锚点；声音上，本窗 mean volume 是 -27.4 dB ，明显高于上一窗 -33.5 dB 。

text: 这说明白布没有带来沉默。相反，越不可见，声音越替它工作。

text: 这里出现一个很重要的声画反向运动：

text:
画面把身体盖住
声音把空白填满
观众仍然在场
字幕继续归档

headingPath: 十、 谁也看不见你 的入口已经铺好

text: 十、 谁也看不见你 的入口已经铺好

headingPath: 十、 谁也看不见你 的入口已经铺好

text: 本窗结束处，阿蒙问：

headingPath: 十、 谁也看不见你 的入口已经铺好

text: 你觉得这样好玩吗

headingPath: 十、 谁也看不见你 的入口已经铺好

text: 子丑答：

headingPath: 十、 谁也看不见你 的入口已经铺好

text:
好玩
特别好玩
特别有安全感

headingPath: 十、 谁也看不见你 的入口已经铺好

text: 阿蒙接：

headingPath: 十、 谁也看不见你 的入口已经铺好

text: 因为什么也 谁也看不见你

headingPath: 十、 谁也看不见你 的入口已经铺好

text: 这句话属于下一窗的不可见链入口，但它在本窗已经被白布准备好了。白布先把身体变成不可见块面，帮说再把不可见区域填满声音，然后 安全感 被接到 谁也看不见你 。

headingPath: 十、 谁也看不见你 的入口已经铺好

text: 可是画面正在看。观众正在看。摄影机正在看。绿色出口灯和白塑料空间还在。于是 谁也看不见你 不能写成视觉事实。它是一句片内承诺、诱导、命名或安慰，也是一句会被画面反证的语言。

text: 本窗公式

text: 这就是 145:00-150:00 在第四部分里的位置：它把上一窗的未揭示处真正推入高风险执行。电影在这里不是解释关系，而是展示一套关系机器如何处理不能说、拒绝说和由别人说。

text: 反读

text: 但即使按最低限度读，链条仍然成立： 漏词 后确实出现高密度补词； 不想说 后确实没有停机； 徐锦江/石碑 确实回流； 脑子一片空白 确实被接到 需要我帮你说吗 ； 说 确实打开代说；白布确实遮住身体而让观众继续看。

text: 支持证据

kind: li

text: 本地 T1/T0 复核： 2026-05-21-145到150分钟级接触表与clip复核

text: MiMo T2 候选： MiMo-第四部分145到150漏词拒绝石碑白布帮说复扫-2026-05-21

text: 上一窗来源： 2026-05-21-140到145分钟级接触表与clip复核

text: 既有微窗： 2026-05-12-第四部分继续说漏词不想说微窗 、 2026-05-12-第四部分不想说后徐锦江石碑微窗 、 2026-05-12-第四部分空白代管帮说微窗

text: 使用边界

text: 不扩写敏感身体/亲密记忆细节。

text: 不把 揭示 写成真实秘密被证明。

text: 不把 不想说 写成完整胜利或完整失败。

text: 不把 徐锦江 写成外部实名事实。

text: 不把 脑子有病 / 脑子一片空白 写成真实心理诊断。

text: 不把 说 写成完整同意、完整自愿或完整被迫。

text: 不把白布下状态或动作意图闭合。

text: 不让视觉-only MiMo 派生副本承担声音/台词/字幕事实。