On Meaning as Possibility: 4 Pedagogy without Teleology: Teaching in a Space of Possibility

If system is primary and instantiation is perspectival, then pedagogy cannot be organised around movement toward predefined endpoints.

This post draws out the educational consequences of a system-first ontology and makes a simple but far-reaching claim:

Teaching is not the management of progress.

It is the exploration of possibility.

1. Why teleology enters pedagogy so easily

Pedagogy is particularly vulnerable to teleological thinking.

The moment learning is described as:

• development,

• progression,

• acquisition,

• or mastery,

it becomes tempting to imagine learners as moving along a path toward a goal that exists in advance of their activity.

From there, it is a short step to:

• stages,

• benchmarks,

• alignment,

• and normative trajectories.

But none of these are pedagogical necessities. They are theoretical inheritances from process-based models of meaning.

Once those models are abandoned, pedagogy must be reconceived.

2. Learning as re-construal, not advancement

In a system-first frame, learning is not movement toward something new. It is a re-construal of what was already possible.

Students do not travel through meaning. They come to see the system differently.

This means that:

• learning is not additive,

• competence is not cumulative,

• and understanding is not a state that can be reached once and for all.

Each act of learning is an instantiation: a fresh perspective on a shared semiotic system.

What changes is not the system itself, but the learner’s relation to it.

3. Authority without direction

Teleological pedagogy often treats authority as directional:

• the teacher knows where the student is meant to go,

• and instruction is the art of getting them there.

In a system-first pedagogy, authority takes a different form.

The teacher’s authority lies not in foreknowledge of outcomes, but in expert navigation of the possibility space.

This includes:

• knowing which distinctions matter,

• recognising productive construals,

• and identifying where interpretations stretch or collapse the system.

Authority here is epistemic, not managerial. It does not pull learners toward an endpoint; it helps them orient themselves within the system.

4. Assessment without endpoints

Once teleology is removed, assessment must be rethought.

If learning is exploration rather than progression, then assessment cannot be about measuring distance travelled or proximity to a goal.

Instead, assessment asks:

• How does this construal relate to the system?

• What distinctions does it mobilise?

• What possibilities does it open or foreclose?

Judgement is no longer about correctness relative to a target, but adequacy relative to the system.

This does not make assessment arbitrary. It makes it more demanding.

The system, not the rubric, becomes the ultimate reference point.

5. Creativity without transgression

Teleological pedagogies often frame creativity as deviation:

• going beyond the expected,

• breaking the mould,

• or subverting the norm.

In a system-first pedagogy, creativity is neither deviation nor rebellion.

Creativity emerges when learners:

• recombine existing distinctions,

• inhabit unexpected regions of the possibility space,

• or make latent affordances visible.

Creative work is judged not by how far it departs from a model, but by how productively it re-construes the system.

6. Risk, disagreement, and learning

Without endpoints, disagreement ceases to be a problem to be managed.

Disagreement becomes a pedagogical resource.

Because the system is shared, learners can:

• test construals against one another,

• argue about adequacy,

• and refine distinctions through conflict.

Risk here is not the risk of failure to arrive, but the risk of exposing one’s construal to the system and to others.

This is a deeper, more epistemic risk — and a more productive one.

7. What pedagogy is for

A system-first pedagogy does not promise closure.

It does not aim to produce finished knowers or completed competencies.

Its task is simpler and more demanding:

• to keep the semiotic system alive,

• to expand learners’ access to its possibilities,

• and to maintain accountability between system and instance.

Pedagogy, on this view, is not about getting somewhere.

It is about learning to inhabit meaning.

8. Looking ahead

So far, this series has remained largely within the terrain of theory and education.

But system-first ontology is not confined to linguistics or pedagogy.

In the final post, we will turn to narrative, music, and myth — not as illustrations, but as domains where system-first thinking can be felt rather than argued.

That is where we turn next.