The Admissibility Doctrine
Fuente:
Zenodo
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866901076517584896 |
|---|---|
| author | Smith, Ian M. The Institute for Relational Performatism |
| author_facet | Smith, Ian M. The Institute for Relational Performatism |
| contents | <p><strong><span>White Paper Series, WP Volume 1 Paper 2<br></span></strong></p> <h1>The Admissibility Doctrine</h1> <h2><em>On Legitimate Termination Under Relational and Performative Strain</em></h2> <p><strong><span>Abstract</span></strong><br>This paper introduces the Admissibility Doctrine, a canonical rule governing termination under relational and performative strain. The doctrine is content-agnostic, domain-independent, and self -limiting. It does not provide answers, interpretations, or authority claims. It governs only the admissibility of stopping.</p> <p>The paper identifies what existing uncertainty and complexity frameworks leave structurally exposed when used in isolation and clarifies the gap that emerges between inquiry and authority under unstable meaning, contested legitimacy, and consequence pressure. It distinguishes three unresolved termination states and defines the condition under which termination becomes legitimate. It establishes a structural test for termination sufficiency without resolving or collapsing the underlying inquiry. The doctrine applies across epistemic, institutional, and operational domains where inquiry and authority interact under consequence pressure.</p> <p>This paper does not extend inquiry or authority. It constrains the assumption that either may terminate without justification.<br><br></p> <p><strong><span>Scope and Non-Claims</span></strong></p> <p>This paper defines a doctrine governing when inquiry, judgement, or decision may legitimately terminate under conditions of relational and performative strain.</p> <p>It does one thing only:</p> <p>It establishes a formal rule for distinguishing legitimate termination from premature closure, protective ambiguity, and false resolution.</p> <p>This paper does not:</p> <p><span><span>·<span> </span></span></span>Provide answers, interpretations, or solutions</p> <p><span><span>·<span> </span></span></span>Stabilise meaning, legitimacy, or shared reality</p> <p><span><span>·<span> </span></span></span>Offer guidance, methods, or techniques</p> <p><span><span>·<span> </span></span></span>Justify action or inaction</p> <p><span><span>·<span> </span></span></span>Extend, revise, or reinterpret RPI or RPL</p> <p>This doctrine governs stopping conditions only.<br>It does not govern inquiry content, authority conduct, or outcomes.</p> <p>The Institute’s role is strictly custodial.</p> <p><strong><span> </span></strong></p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_19196907 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | eng |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | The Admissibility Doctrine Smith, Ian M. The Institute for Relational Performatism termination, admissibility, termination under strain, premature closure, authority, governance, doctrine, restraint, consequence pressure <p><strong><span>White Paper Series, WP Volume 1 Paper 2<br></span></strong></p> <h1>The Admissibility Doctrine</h1> <h2><em>On Legitimate Termination Under Relational and Performative Strain</em></h2> <p><strong><span>Abstract</span></strong><br>This paper introduces the Admissibility Doctrine, a canonical rule governing termination under relational and performative strain. The doctrine is content-agnostic, domain-independent, and self -limiting. It does not provide answers, interpretations, or authority claims. It governs only the admissibility of stopping.</p> <p>The paper identifies what existing uncertainty and complexity frameworks leave structurally exposed when used in isolation and clarifies the gap that emerges between inquiry and authority under unstable meaning, contested legitimacy, and consequence pressure. It distinguishes three unresolved termination states and defines the condition under which termination becomes legitimate. It establishes a structural test for termination sufficiency without resolving or collapsing the underlying inquiry. The doctrine applies across epistemic, institutional, and operational domains where inquiry and authority interact under consequence pressure.</p> <p>This paper does not extend inquiry or authority. It constrains the assumption that either may terminate without justification.<br><br></p> <p><strong><span>Scope and Non-Claims</span></strong></p> <p>This paper defines a doctrine governing when inquiry, judgement, or decision may legitimately terminate under conditions of relational and performative strain.</p> <p>It does one thing only:</p> <p>It establishes a formal rule for distinguishing legitimate termination from premature closure, protective ambiguity, and false resolution.</p> <p>This paper does not:</p> <p><span><span>·<span> </span></span></span>Provide answers, interpretations, or solutions</p> <p><span><span>·<span> </span></span></span>Stabilise meaning, legitimacy, or shared reality</p> <p><span><span>·<span> </span></span></span>Offer guidance, methods, or techniques</p> <p><span><span>·<span> </span></span></span>Justify action or inaction</p> <p><span><span>·<span> </span></span></span>Extend, revise, or reinterpret RPI or RPL</p> <p>This doctrine governs stopping conditions only.<br>It does not govern inquiry content, authority conduct, or outcomes.</p> <p>The Institute’s role is strictly custodial.</p> <p><strong><span> </span></strong></p> |
| title | The Admissibility Doctrine |
| topic | termination, admissibility, termination under strain, premature closure, authority, governance, doctrine, restraint, consequence pressure |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19196907 |