If horizons evolve, if constraints fold, if actualisations reshape the space of what can occur, then the theory articulating these dynamics cannot stand outside them. It, too, must be subject to horizon effects. It, too, must evolve.
This post makes that turn explicit.
No External Vantage
Traditional theory often seeks an external position: a place from which possibility can be surveyed without being implicated. Gödel already showed why this aspiration fails in formal systems. Relationally, the failure is deeper and more general.
There is no view from nowhere because:
-
Every theory is a construal.
-
Every construal operates within a horizon.
-
Every horizon constrains what the theory can articulate.
A theory of possibility that denies this exempts itself illegitimately from its own claims.
The Theory as a Relational System
The framework developed across this series can now be seen for what it is:
-
A system of distinctions (possibility / actualisation / constraint / horizon).
-
A set of relational cuts that render certain dynamics intelligible.
-
A horizon that enables some questions while foreclosing others.
This does not undermine the theory. It situates it.
Reflexivity Without Collapse
Self-reference is often treated as dangerous: paradox, contradiction, infinite regress. But these dangers arise only if reflexivity is imagined as representational mirroring.
Here, reflexivity is structural, not semantic.
The theory does not attempt to fully contain itself. Instead:
-
It acknowledges that its own distinctions are actualisations.
-
It recognises that these actualisations reshape the conceptual field.
-
It accepts that future construals may cut the field differently.
Reflexivity becomes a mode of openness, not closure.
Meta-Horizons and Constraint Awareness
Once a theory becomes reflexive, new horizons appear:
-
A horizon governing what counts as a legitimate distinction.
-
A horizon shaping which domains are treated as exemplary.
-
A horizon limiting how far reflexivity itself can be pushed.
These meta-horizons are not flaws. They are conditions of intelligibility.
To theorise possibility at all is already to accept constraint. The only question is whether those constraints remain implicit or are brought into view.
Closure Without Finality
This brings us to a crucial formulation:
The theory can close locally without closing globally.
At any moment, the framework achieves enough stability to function:
-
To analyse emergence,
-
To reinterpret physics,
-
To rethink semiotic systems,
-
To reframe mathematics and logic.
But this closure is contingent, not absolute.
There is no final form of the theory, because any such form would require a horizon immune to evolution — precisely what the theory denies.
Gödel, Once More — and Beyond
Gödel showed that formal systems cannot exhaust their own truth. Here, we see the broader implication:
No system of meaning can exhaust its own conditions of intelligibility.
What Gödel encountered formally, this framework encounters relationally:
-
At the level of theory,
-
At the level of meaning,
-
At the level of possibility itself.
The incompleteness is not a defect. It is the engine of evolution.
Why This Matters
This reflexive turn matters because it prevents two failures:
-
DogmatismThe theory cannot harden into doctrine without betraying itself.
-
RelativismConstraint remains real, structured, and consequential — even when revisable.
Between these extremes lies a theory that is:
-
Rigorous without finality,
-
Systematic without closure,
-
Reflexive without paralysis.
Conclusion
When the theory evolves itself, possibility reveals its deepest character:
In the final post, “Possibility Without End”, we will step back one last time — not to conclude, but to show why no true conclusion is possible, and why that is precisely what makes possibility inexhaustibly generative.
No comments:
Post a Comment