The first demand placed upon thought after the collapse of metaphysical innocence was commitment. The second arrives immediately and without mercy: how to remain systematic once totality is no longer credible.
Many respond to this pressure by abandoning system altogether. Others double down, insisting that incompleteness is merely temporary — a problem of insufficient data, better models, or more powerful formalisms. Both responses misunderstand the nature of the fracture.
What has failed is not system as such, but system as closure.
The Seduction of Total Explanation
The desire for totality is not merely intellectual. It is affective. A closed system promises rest: nothing left unexplained, no loose ends, no remainder that threatens coherence.
Classical metaphysics trained us to expect this rest. A successful theory was one that could, in principle, account for everything within its domain. Failure was always provisional.
But once possibility itself is taken seriously — once the world is understood as structured potential rather than determinate inventory — this expectation becomes untenable. There is always more that could have been otherwise, more relations than any single construal can hold.
Why Anti-System Fails
In reaction, some embrace fragmentation: local narratives, partial views, pluralisms that refuse synthesis. While this posture often presents itself as humility, it too avoids responsibility.
Without system, distinctions float free of one another. Nothing constrains their relation; nothing allows critique to travel from one site to another. Thought becomes episodic, expressive, and ultimately mute.
Relational ontology does not license this escape. If cuts matter, then their relations matter too.
System as Theory of the Possible
A system, rethought relationally, is not a map of what exists. It is a theory of possible instantiations — a structured space within which particular cuts can be made intelligibly.
Such a system:
does not aim to exhaust its domain,
does not promise completeness,
and does not treat its boundaries as final.
Its value lies not in closure but in constraint. It tells us which distinctions hang together, which moves follow from which commitments, and where tensions must appear.
Coherence Without Completion
Coherence, under this orientation, is no longer the absence of contradiction. It is the capacity of a framework to hold its tensions without denial.
A coherent system:
allows incompatible instantiations to be recognised as such,
preserves the memory of alternative cuts,
and remains responsive to pressures it cannot yet resolve.
In this sense, incompleteness is not a flaw to be repaired. It is the mark of a system that has not mistaken itself for the world.
The Discipline of Staying Inside
Perhaps the most difficult demand here is the refusal of exit. When contradictions arise, the temptation is always to step outside the system — to invoke an external principle, a higher level, or a final arbiter.
Relational thinking forbids this comfort. One must remain inside the system one has enacted, working its tensions from within rather than dissolving them from above.
This is not intellectual masochism. It is fidelity to the idea that systems are enacted commitments, not neutral containers.
A Moving Architecture
What replaces the static edifice of classical theory is something closer to architecture in motion: a structure that holds, flexes, and occasionally fractures without collapsing.
Such systems are revisable without being arbitrary, structured without being total, and stable enough to think with without pretending to be final.
This is the second unavoidable form of thinking after closure: systematic thought that knows it will never finish, and builds anyway.
In the next post, we will turn to a further pressure that now asserts itself — the necessity of thinking after irreversibility, once time itself can no longer be smoothed into symmetry.
No comments:
Post a Comment