Potential and Tension: The Architecture of Coherence: 3 What Makes the Resolution of Tension Possible?

In the previous posts, we examined the conditions for structuring potential and the generative consequences of structured potential. One insight was unavoidable: where there is potential, there is tension. Possibilities collide, constraints conflict, and patterns pull in different directions. The question now becomes: what makes the resolution of these tensions possible? How do systems navigate this structured landscape to achieve coherence without stifling generativity?

Resolution of Tension as a Relational Process

Resolution of tension is not an external imposition; it is an emergent property of relational systems. It arises from:

1. Internal differentiation and flexibility — system components must be sufficiently distinct to negotiate conflict yet sufficiently integrated to enable alignment.

2. Feedback loops — continuous interaction among elements allows errors, misalignments, or conflicts to be detected and corrected.

3. Nested constraints across scales — local resolutions must cohere with meso- and macro-scale patterns.

Without these conditions, tension accumulates or dissipates chaotically, and coherence fails.

SFL and Tension Resolution

Language provides a concrete lens for understanding tension resolution. In SFL terms:

• Field: The topical or experiential content of a discourse may generate conflicting demands—for instance, reporting events versus evaluating them.

• Tenor: Interpersonal relations introduce potential conflict; speaker and audience may have differing knowledge, authority, or social goals.

• Mode: The channel and medium constrain expression; spoken, written, or multimodal forms offer different affordances.

Resolution occurs when lexicogrammar, semantic choices, and textual organisation align these potentially conflicting constraints. A coherent text or interaction is not tension-free; rather, it navigates the tensions inherent in field, tenor, and mode, producing a recognisable, intelligible outcome.

Example: A classroom discussion about climate policy might balance the field of scientific data, the tenor of authority and student engagement, and the mode of oral exchange. Tensions among these elements—e.g., conflicting interpretations of evidence or divergent student roles—are resolved through coherent argumentation, sequencing, and modality choices, all realised within the structured potential of the linguistic system.

Cross-Domain Conditions for Tension Resolution

Across biological, social, and symbolic systems, resolution of tension depends on comparable relational mechanisms:

• Biology: Feedback loops in homeostasis allow metabolic networks to respond to competing demands.

• Social systems: Negotiation, mediation, and adaptive norms enable actors to reconcile conflicting roles, resources, or expectations.

• Symbolic systems: Patterns of repetition, analogy, and hierarchical organisation in ritual, or design allow resolution of aesthetic or functional tensions.

In all cases, resolution does not erase tension; it redistributes and integrates it, producing higher-order coherence while preserving generative potential.

Resolution of Tension as Actualisation of Potential

Tension resolution is itself a mode of actualisation: it is the process by which structured potential becomes coherent instantiation. Yet it is reflexive: resolving one set of tensions may generate new tensions at other scales or in other dimensions. This recursive process is what sustains dynamic equilibrium and adaptive coherence in complex systems.

Implications

Understanding what makes the resolution of tension possible highlights the interdependence of structure, potential, and instantiation:

1. Resolution requires relationally embedded components capable of flexible alignment.

2. Feedback mechanisms are essential to detect and negotiate conflict.

3. Multi-scale coherence ensures that local resolutions do not destabilise the system.

4. Tension is generative; its resolution sustains adaptability and novelty.

In the final post of this series, we will ask the converse question: what does the resolution of tension make possible? How does resolving conflict enable new possibilities, emergent structures, and higher-order coherence?