Readiness as Categorial Grammar: Inclination, Ability, and the Architecture of Potential: 2 Category Theory as the Grammar of Potential

If Post 1 established readiness as structured potential, then this post establishes the complementary insight:

category theory is the grammar of that structure.

Not a mathematics of sets or quantities.

Not an abstract algebra of symbols.

But a metalanguage for the organisation of potential itself—for the way transitions hang together, cohere, transform, or fail to.

This post marks the entry of category theory into our relational ontology without importing any external metaphysics.

It comes in only as a disciplined way to speak about patterns of becoming.

---

1. Why Potential Needs a Grammar

From a relational-ontological view:

• A system is structured potential.

• An actor is a node of construal inside that potential.

• Readiness is the patterning of transitions available to that node.

But this also means:

• potential is not amorphous; it has a shape

• transitions are not arbitrary; they have conditions

• different regions of potential interlock in patterned ways

As soon as potential is shaped, it becomes grammatically organised.

We need a formal language for:

• how transitions relate

• how potentials compose

• how structures constrain each other

• how a local construal fits into a global shape

Category theory gives us exactly this:

a grammar of structured potential.

---

2. Categories: The Architecture of Possible Transitions

In ordinary presentations, a category is described as:

• a collection of “objects”

• a collection of “morphisms” between them

• with morphisms composing coherently

But we do not read this representationally.

We read it ontologically:

• objects = structured potentials

• morphisms = coherent transitions between potentials

• composition = the logic of how transitions chain

A category is not describing things.

It is describing how potentials can transform while remaining coherent.

This is precisely the territory of readiness.

Objects → nodes of readiness

Each object represents a local geometry of potential.

Morphisms → admissible transitions

Each morphism is a possible actualisation path.

Composition → the grammar of possibility

Composition asserts that if one transition is possible and another is possible, their sequence is also possible—but only when the structures align.

This is ability in formal clothing.

---

3. Why Morphisms (Not Objects) Are the Primary Unit

In relational ontology, actuality is transition; potential is patterned transition.

There are no atomic “things” underneath.

Only relations and shifts.

Category theory is remarkable because it mirrors this:

• the primary unit is the morphism

• the object is just the node at which morphisms cohere

• identity morphisms ensure every potential is internally stable

• composition articulates how potentials form pathways

This is not a coincidence.

Category theory emerges naturally as a language of relational becoming.

It does not describe what there is.

It describes how what there is can transition coherently.

That is the grammar of readiness.

---

4. Readiness as a Categorical Pattern

Now we bring back the two components of readiness from Post 1:

Inclination = internal orientation of potential

This is a bias in the morphic structure of the local object.

Certain transitions are favored because of the object’s internal geometry.

In category-theoretic terms:

an internal morphic asymmetry.

Ability = external compatibility with surrounding structure

A transition is only “able” if it composes coherently with the rest of the system.

In categorical terms:

admissible composition.

Thus:

• inclination is a pattern within an object’s morphisms

• ability is a pattern between objects’ morphisms

This cleanly splits readiness into:

• internal morphic topology

• external morphic compatibility

Both are categorical in nature.

---

5. Category Theory as the Metalanguage of Readiness

We can now state the central thesis of this post:

Category theory is the formal grammar that allows us to speak about inclination and ability as patterns in potential.

Not as:

• psychological traits

• causal dispositions

• metaphysical properties

• or cognitive states

But as the geometry of what can coherently follow from what, under the constraints of a system’s structure.

In other words:

• Readiness = patterned potential.

• Category theory = the discipline of patterned potential.

• Therefore, readiness admits a categorical description.

This does not “mathematise” semantics.

It gives the relational ontology a rigorous metalanguage.

---

6. The Cut We Have Now Opened

Post 1 gave us:

Readiness is structured potential.

Post 2 now adds:

Category theory is the grammar of structured potential.

In Post 3 we will cross these two strands:

• readiness understood as a mapping

• functoriality as the stability of such mappings

• inclination and ability as different faces of that mapping

• readiness as the categorical coherence of a transition-space

Post 2 marks the moment when readiness becomes formal.

From here the architecture opens.