Hello budding sprouts, it's Isaac?here, one of the hosts of the Lark System.

As the title suggests, we are going to talk about what defines a system discourse. We thought that it would be best if we start by defining what this is before we go into the nitty-gritty of things.

The word?system discourse?consists of two parts: system?and discourse.

If you are new to the terminology of what a system is, it is usually defined as the whole of multiple/plural in the body. A person who is?plural or multiple can call themselves a system. Currently, there are no evidence or written work suggesting that the term "system" is used as a medical term. The definition of the term?is how knowledge?subjects, behaviour, and events are depicted. In this case, it refers to the debate surrounding what defines a system as a system.

Hence, if we put that together, all the discussions surrounding the discourse is really just "what makes a system?a system". It sounds confusing, but that's really just it.

In addition to that, system discourse can be shortened to "syscourse". We will be using these terms simultaneously.

Next, we move on to the different topics that circulates around syscourse.

There are a few main topics that surrounds the central view of syscourse, but we have compiled these into a few points below:

1. Validity of?System Origin

2. Validity of?Symptoms

3. Validity of?Alter/Headmate Origin

4. Validity of?the?Use of Terminology

5. Validity of?the Use of Names

We will be mainly discussing these things, but feel free to DM us or comment here what other central ideas were discussed in syscourse.

Notice how the points made all have "validity" in them? This is the key determining factor in the syscourse. In general, people?in system discourse tend to validate or invalidate other systems' experiences?based on judgement or literature. Some also make judgements on others' use of terminology and names.

From these points, one could conclude that, system discourse is "a discussion mainly based on judgement of whether or not if something is done correctly". The "something" can include a lot of things, such as the points we have stated above. It could also serve as a source of validation or a source of protection. However, for those who have been invalidated, it might serve as a source of harm.

I might let someone else talk about different sides of what we like to call the "validation spectrum" in the system discourse. For now, this will do to conclude the discussion. Let us know in the comments or DM us what future topics you want us to discuss, and if you have other points you wish to make, please do make it clear and concise to us.

Thank you for your time reading this piece I've written. This is Isaac, signing out.