Having examined systems, actualisation, stability, and interaction, we now turn to the limits and horizons of admissibility. Systems define not only what is allowed, but also what is structurally impossible: the cuts that cannot occur without violating relational coherence.
Structural Boundaries
Every system possesses boundaries that delineate admissibility. These boundaries are not normative; they are relational and structural. A cut outside the boundary is not a failure or error, it is simply inadmissible given the system’s internal organisation.
Boundaries are defined by the network of distinctions, dependencies, and relations within the system. They determine the horizon of possibility: the extent to which cuts can be coherently selected and sequenced.
Horizons of Possibility
Horizons are the outer limits of what the system allows. They are not fixed in an absolute sense; they may shift as the structure itself evolves or interacts with other systems. Yet at any moment, the horizon defines the space of admissible cuts, including what is possible and what is impossible.
Horizon analysis allows us to see both the flexibility and the rigidity of systems, without assuming goals, efficiency, or external pressure.
Examples
Combinatorial Systems: In a puzzle, certain configurations cannot occur because they violate structural rules. These represent the boundary of admissibility.
Conceptual Spaces: In a network of distinctions, certain assertions or combinations are inadmissible because they collapse distinctions or create incoherence.
Ecological Systems: Certain species arrangements are impossible given energy, habitat, or resource constraints. These are not mistakes; they are structural impossibilities defined by relational organisation.
Interaction with Limits
Limits of admissibility are particularly salient when systems interact. The intersection of possibility spaces may create new inadmissibilities that were not present within either system alone. Conversely, some cuts may become accessible only through interaction, expanding the effective horizon for actualisation.
These dynamics illustrate how boundaries are relational, contingent, and perspectival, rather than absolute or normative.
Implications
Understanding limits and horizons clarifies both the potential and impossibility within systems. It reframes questions of failure, success, and constraint: what is impossible is defined by structure, not by error, insufficiency, or misalignment.
The next post, Observation, Description, and Perspective, will examine how observers or participants perceive admissibility, and how actualisation is conditioned by vantage point within these structured possibility spaces.
No comments:
Post a Comment