محفوظ في:
| المؤلف الرئيسي: | |
|---|---|
| التنسيق: | Recurso digital |
| اللغة: | |
| منشور في: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| الموضوعات: | |
| الوصول للمادة أونلاين: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18502403 |
| الوسوم: |
إضافة وسم
لا توجد وسوم, كن أول من يضع وسما على هذه التسجيلة!
|
جدول المحتويات:
- <p dir="ltr">Contemporary suicide research has generated multiple empirically supported frameworks emphasizing cognitive vulnerability, interpersonal disconnection, stress–diathesis interaction, psychiatric pathology, and biological dysregulation. These approaches successfully identify population-level correlates and proximal risk processes, yet none fully accounts for a phenomenological feature consistently reported across suicidal states: the perceived impossibility of psychological continuation (Shneidman, 1993; Turecki & Brent, 2016).</p> <p dir="ltr">This paper advances an architectural reframing of suicidality as a failure of psychological feedback rather than as a deficit of coping, morality, rationality, or distress tolerance. Drawing on the Multidimensional Architectural Framework for Psychological Organization, the Dual-Singularity Model of Human Psychological Life, and the Five-Domain Architectural Framework for Psychological Pathology (Chu Nguyễn Đức Dũng, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c), suicidality is conceptualized as a boundary condition in which biological existence persists while alignment and sustainability through time collapse.</p> <p dir="ltr">Existing suicide theories are re-examined within this architecture, clarifying their empirical contributions while identifying a shared structural omission: the absence of an explicit account of how psychological systems lose access to viable continuation. By locating suicidality at the level of feedback collapse between existence, agency, and temporality, this model integrates contemporary findings while preserving phenomenological accuracy and avoiding moral, cognitive, or diagnostic reductionism.</p> <div> <p>Permissions Notice<br>This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).</p> <p>Any use involving adaptation, modification, translation, educational deployment, therapeutic application, derivative modeling, or inclusion in external platforms beyond unchanged archival hosting requires explicit written permission from the author.</p> <p dir="ltr">This paper is not a clinical guide, treatment protocol, risk assessment tool, or intervention framework. It does not provide advice, recommendations, or strategies for responding to suicidal thoughts or behaviors, nor does it evaluate, justify, normalize, or endorse suicide in any form. The paper does not model decision-making processes, compare outcomes, or engage with experiential narratives of suicidality. Its purpose is strictly theoretical and descriptive: to analyze the structural conditions under which psychological continuation becomes subjectively unavailable. Any implications for practice, prevention, or care fall outside the scope of this work and would require separate clinical, ethical, and empirical treatment.</p> </div>