PMS Theory

A Praxeological Meta-Structure Theory

Relation to Other Systems

PMS may be misunderstood because it resembles multiple existing frameworks while being identical to none of them.

This page clarifies what PMS is not by placing it in relation to adjacent domains.


PMS vs Psychology

PMS is not a psychological model.

Psychology operates on subjects and experiences. PMS operates on structures of action and constraint, independent of who or what instantiates them.

A psychological interpretation may be layered on top of PMS, but PMS itself remains strictly non-diagnostic.


PMS vs Phenomenology

PMS is not phenomenology.

Phenomenology asks how something appears. PMS asks how structures are composed.

Any experiential reading of PMS operators is external to the system and must not be reinserted into the operator definitions.


PMS vs Programming Languages

PMS is not a programming language.

Instead:

Programming languages may implement or consume PMS, but PMS itself remains implementation-agnostic.


PMS vs AI Systems

PMS is not an AI system.

The relationship is asymmetric:

PMS defines which structural compositions are admissible. AI systems may operate within those constraints.

This makes PMS suitable as a governance, audit, or control layer, not as an intelligent agent.


PMS vs Ontologies and Worldviews

PMS is not an ontology.

It specifies relations between structural actions, nothing more.

Any worldview-level interpretation is orthogonal to PMS.


Summary

PMS is best understood as:

It constrains form, not content.

This makes PMS suitable as a governance, audit, or control layer.


What Comes Next

This page clarified what PMS is not by contrast with adjacent domains.

The next page lists where PMS is actually instantiated today: derived systems that apply the same operator grammar under different constraints, without redefining it.

Continue to:
Applications & Lineage
(Derived projects, links, and structural provenance)