Previous posts have shown that explanation is not inventory, prediction, or totality (Post 1), that understanding is orientation within possibility (Post 2), and that explanations are constraint-sensitive (Post 3). We now confront a subtle but pervasive trap: the belief that understanding is representation.
1. Representation vs. Explanation
Representation suggests a mirror: an explanation corresponds exactly to reality. The world, in its totality, is imagined as fully present, fully captured. Post-totality ontology rejects this.
-
Explanations do not present the world itself.
-
They articulate relations among phenomena as they appear under specific cuts.
-
Misidentifying explanation with representation leads to the illusion of completion and the seduction of omniscience.
Key insight: Understanding is not about reproducing reality; it is about being able to navigate and reason about what is intelligible under given constraints.
2. Prediction Is Not Explanation
Closely related is the assumption that predictive success equals understanding. This is a trap for two reasons:
-
Prediction often relies on model stability rather than relational insight.
-
Understanding is perspectival and relational, while prediction can succeed without illuminating structure.
Explanation is oriented navigation, not probabilistic forecasting. It prioritises relational insight over foreknowledge.
3. Understanding as Dynamic Engagement
In post-totality ontology, understanding is active:
-
It identifies which distinctions matter.
-
It situates phenomena within systems of relevance.
-
It communicates patterns, constraints, and relations without claiming total knowledge.
Representation collapses this dynamic into a static “image” of reality. Understanding, by contrast, is mobile, relational, and generative.
4. Symbolic Systems as Stabilising Mechanisms
While understanding is not representation, it requires symbolic and semantic structures to stabilise:
-
Distinctions and patterns must be communicable across observers.
-
Symbolic systems allow reasoning and explanation to propagate without invoking totality.
-
Meaning is preserved relationally, not mirrored literally.
Thus, explanation navigates the space of possibilities, rather than reproducing “the world itself.”
5. Implications
Understanding without representation allows us to:
-
Avoid the seductive illusion of completeness.
-
Preserve relational and perspectival flexibility.
-
Maintain intelligibility and explanatory power without invoking metaphysical totality.
Explanation is a discipline of orientation, not of mirroring; a practice of navigation, not of inventory.
Conclusion:
Post-totality explanation operates in a dynamic, relational space. Understanding does not depend on representation; it depends on orientation, constraint, and relational insight.
Next, in Post 5 — Interpersonal and Intersubjective Understanding, we will explore how explanation functions across multiple observers without collapsing into psychology, coordination, or totality, bridging toward symbolic and second-order structures.
No comments:
Post a Comment