Relationality is a significant theme across Western and non-Western frameworks, and its ‘relational turn’ has been a genuine achievement in dislodging atomistic, substance-based thinking. Yet even in radical formulations (e.g., Buber’s I-Thou and Whitehead’s process philosophy), relational ontology commonly presupposes participants that precede relation. This ‘participant presupposition’ reveals a deeper problem: relationality is not only a metaphysics but also a validity regime - it privileges what can be represented as relations between terms, and therefore misrecognises Aboriginal epistemological validity when its warrant is enacted rather than abstracted. This paper reframes the issue by arguing that Aboriginal epistemological validity is constructed performatively through lawful enactment on/with Country, as exemplified in Songlines and ceremonial practice. Rather than opposing ‘verb’ to ‘noun’ as a familiar Western binary, I argue that Aboriginal knowledge-transfer trains an integrated capacity to hold action, place, law, story, and entity together in one enacted intelligence - where Country, protocol, and obligation are not ‘context’ but warrant. The paper closes by outlining what philosophy (and HDR evaluation practices) must become if Aboriginal knowledges are to be received without validity-destroying translation, including in contemporary debates about representing Indigenous knowledge in AI.
