Relation Without Totality: 3 Systems as Structured Possibility (Not Containers of Being)

Once relation is placed before relata, ontology faces a choice.

Either systems are treated as containers of what exists, or they are understood as structures that constrain what can be instantiated.

The first option leads back, quietly but inevitably, to totality.

The second opens a genuinely post-completion ontology.

This series takes the second path.

---

The Container Mistake

It is common to speak of systems as if they were bounded regions of reality:

• a physical system,

• a biological system,

• a social system.

On this picture, a system contains entities, properties, and events. Ontology then becomes a matter of describing what is inside the container.

This picture is intuitive — and wrong.

Containers presuppose:

• clear boundaries,

• pre-existing contents,

• and an external vantage point from which the container is identified as a whole.

Systems, as they function in science and experience, satisfy none of these conditions.

---

What a System Actually Is

A system is not a thing.

A system is a theory of possible instances.

It specifies:

• which distinctions are available,

• which relations are stable,

• which variations are admissible,

• and which instantiations count as phenomena.

This is not metaphorical.

It is how systems actually operate.

A physical system does not contain particles.

It constrains what can count as a particle in that context.

A biological system does not contain functions.

It constrains what can count as functioning for that organism.

A linguistic system does not contain meanings.

It constrains what can be meant in that situation.

---

Possibility Comes First

Because systems are structures of constraint, possibility is ontologically prior to actuality.

This does not mean that possible things float about waiting to exist.

It means that actuality is always actuality-of-a-possibility, instantiated relative to a system.

Without structured possibility:

• nothing could appear,

• nothing could be identified,

• nothing could repeat.

Actuality is not self-sufficient.

It is parasitic on the systems that make it intelligible.

---

Why Systems Cannot Be Completed

If a system were a container of being, it might in principle be exhaustively described.

But if a system is a theory of possible instances, completion is incoherent.

No theory can list all its instances in advance.

Not because of ignorance, but because instantiation is not derivation.

This is the ontological force of incompleteness:

• not a limitation of knowledge,

• but a structural feature of systems themselves.

A system must remain open to remain generative.

---

Instantiation Is Not a Process

A frequent mistake is to imagine instantiation as something that happens over time — as though possibilities slowly turn into actualities.

But instantiation is not a temporal process.

It is a perspectival shift.

It is the cut by which a possibility becomes a phenomenon.

The system does not change when an instance appears.

What changes is the perspective from which a particular configuration is taken as actual.

This is why systems can remain stable while phenomena come and go.

---

No System Without a Cut

Systems do not exist in isolation.

A system becomes operative only relative to a cut that:

• delineates relevance,

• stabilises distinctions,

• and renders certain instantiations available.

Without a cut, there is no system — only undifferentiated potential.

This is why appeals to “the system of everything” fail.

A system with no cut is not maximally general.

It is meaningless.

---

The Payoff

Once systems are understood as structured possibility rather than containers of being:

• Totality becomes a non-starter

• Explanation separates from inventory

• Relation takes precedence without mysticism

• Incompleteness becomes ontological necessity

Ontology no longer asks what exists in the system.

It asks what the system makes possible.

This is a quieter question — and a deeper one.

---

Where We Go Next

Two implications now demand attention:

1. If instantiation is a perspectival cut, what exactly distinguishes phenomenon from abstraction?

2. If systems remain incomplete by necessity, how does meaning arise without correspondence to a finished world?

These will guide the next posts.

Next up:

Post 4 — Instantiation as Cut, Not Process

That is where possibility finally becomes experience.