If hierarchy is an illusion, if the metalevel is reversible, and if complementarity is universal, then theory can no longer be understood as a domain “above” data or “beyond” phenomena. It is something more subtle: a directional act within structured potential.
Theory is positional. It is a stance taken along the cline of instantiation, orienting one’s construal toward certain actualisations while making others recede. It is not a metaphysical ladder; it is a relational gradient.
1. Positional Authority
Consider the traditional view:
-
Data are observed events.
-
Theory explains or organizes them.
-
Authority accrues to theory by virtue of abstraction.
Once complementarity is acknowledged, authority no longer derives from elevation. Instead, it arises from directional leverage:
-
The theorist positions their construal relative to structured potential.
-
Some patterns become foregrounded; others recede.
-
The act of positioning is the generative moment of theorising.
Theory does not reside somewhere; it points somewhere.
2. Relational Leverage
A position on the cline affords leverage:
-
It allows anticipation of future actualisations.
-
It highlights patterns as constraining potential.
-
It renders certain data intelligible as instance, others as system.
This leverage is directional, not hierarchical. Its efficacy depends on relational clarity, not metaphysical elevation.
Theorising becomes the art of choosing vantage and maintaining it with rigor, while recognising that any vantage is reversible.
3. Positional Theory Across Domains
In linguistics:
-
A corpus pattern can be positioned as “text type” from one perspective, and as recurrent instance of register from another.
-
Theorist and data are co-constituted: the act of identifying the pattern is the act of positioning.
In science:
-
A law is theory when positioned to constrain new observations.
-
The same law is instance when considered relative to broader frameworks.
In mathematics:
-
An axiom is foundational when positioned as starting point.
-
The same axiom is emergent when seen as a generalisation of prior formal patterns.
In every domain, theory is not a higher domain but a direction along which structured potential is read.
4. Implications for Method and Practice
Viewing theory as directional positioning has immediate consequences:
-
No final theory — any position along the cline can be reversed.
-
Data is never theory-free — all actualisations are interpretable relative to prior patterns.
-
Theory is never absolute — authority is relational, not ontological.
-
Rigor is relational — clarity arises from explicit positioning and consistency, not elevation.
Theorists must attend to the relational architecture of their field, not merely to “abstracting upwards.”
5. Reframing the Metalevel
The metalevel is now redefined:
-
It is not a place above phenomena.
-
It is a stance, a direction, a perspective.
-
Any “metalevel” is potentially reversible into instance, and any instance may be read as constraining potential.
This reconstruction preserves structure, maintains rigor, and accommodates reversibility.
6. The Promise of Directional Theory
When theory is directional:
-
Complementarity becomes a resource rather than a barrier.
-
Hierarchy dissolves without collapsing structure.
-
Patterns are understood as relational rather than essential.
-
Knowledge emerges as orchestrated orientation along structured potential.
We stop trying to climb.
We start learning how to position.
In the next post, we generalise this insight: Complementarity as Structural Principle — demonstrating how these dynamics operate across semiotics, science, mathematics, and beyond.
Here we will see that the cline of directional positioning is not merely linguistic or epistemic. It is ontological.
No comments:
Post a Comment