Formalising the Cut: 3 Readiness and Commitment: How Actualisation Becomes Binding — and Why Not All Bindings Hold

Potential has been cut into actualisation.

Some act has been distinguished from the unactualised field.

But distinction alone is not enough for meaning to persist.

Meaning requires persistence in relation, a continuing hold over what has been actualised.

This post examines the second primitive distinction in the calculus: readiness and commitment.

---

Readiness: The System’s Preparedness

Readiness is the semiotic equivalent of potential in motion.

It is the system’s preparedness to respond, its sensitivity to unfolding actualisations, and its capacity to absorb or enact constraints.

• Readiness is conditional and distributed.

• It exists prior to binding.

• It is anticipatory, but not intentional.

A system can be ready for a future that never arrives — and still, readiness structures present possibilities.

---

Commitment: Binding Without Choice

Commitment is what emerges when readiness is taken up by actualisation.

It is the structural adhesion of meaning to consequence:

• Obligations are created

• Roles acquire weight

• Expectations propagate

Commitment is not choice.

It is a semiotic consequence of what has been actualised and what the system is prepared to respond to.

---

Why Not All Bindings Hold

Not every potential that is actualised becomes a binding commitment.

Some collapse under pressure:

• conflicts between obligations

• insufficient readiness

• overload of perspective

• structural incompatibilities

Bindings require alignment between actualisation and system readiness.

Without it, obligations either fail to stabilise or persist incoherently.

---

The Dynamics Between Readiness and Commitment

Readiness and commitment form a dynamic tension:

• Readiness alone: the system can respond flexibly, but nothing sticks.

• Commitment alone: the system imposes obligations, but cannot adapt.

• Together: actualisations persist, consequences propagate, meaning stabilises.

This is the machinery of semiotic endurance.

---

Degradation Under Stress

When systems are overloaded or perspectival cuts collapse:

• Readiness fragments: some areas are hyper-responsive, others blind

• Commitments incohere: obligations contradict, saturate, or fail to bind

• Meaning persists, but unpredictably

This explains exhaustion, confusion, and burnout structurally, not psychologically.

---

Why This Distinction Is Minimal

Remove readiness, and actualisations float unbound.

Remove commitment, and the system cannot stabilise consequences.

Both are necessary.

Both are irreducible.

They are the mechanisms by which meaning is maintained beyond the initial cut.

---

Next

The next post will introduce the third primitive distinction:

Modulation and Modalisation

How meaning is made flexible, negotiable, and context-sensitive without losing its structural hold.

That is where variation and adaptability enter the calculus.