On Alethic Unfolding in Systems Thinking:

In today’s post, I am exploring the concept of alethic unfolding, drawing upon ideas from the controversial German philosopher, Martin Heidegger. “Aletheia” is a Greek word often interpreted as truth. Heidegger used it to mean uncovering or unconcealment. In Greek mythology, Aletheia is the goddess of truth. The word originates from “lethe,” which means “concealment” or “forgetfulness.” According to myth, the dead were required to drink from the Lethe river to forget everything about their earthly life. Thus, a-letheia stands for un-covering or un-concealment.

Heidegger employed this word to describe how things are revealed to us in a given context. For instance, when we interact with an object such as a hammer, its properties, previously hidden, become unconcealed to us. These properties are what define a hammer for us. In everyday life, we don’t think about objects theoretically; we simply use them. A hammer makes sense to us as something for hammering, not as an abstract concept.

Another example Heidegger provides is that of a picture hanging askew on a wall. When we encounter the askew picture, its misalignment is uncovered to us. We may not notice the contents of the picture itself, but what becomes apparent is its askewness. This stems from our general understanding that pictures on walls should remain straight. This example also highlights another important aspect of aletheia according to Heidegger – aletheia, or unconcealment, is a happening or an event, not a static phenomenon. Moreover, when something is unconcealed, something else becomes concealed. In the case of the picture, as its askewness is revealed, other aspects such as the content of the picture or the color of the wall recede from our attention.

To expand further on the interplay between concealment and unconcealment in the case of the askew picture, as the misalignment becomes unconcealed, our normal, unthinking relationship with the room becomes concealed. We’re no longer just inhabiting the space; we’re now consciously observing and analyzing it. The functionality of the picture as an artwork or decorative piece becomes concealed as its status as a physical object that can be misaligned comes to the forefront. Our habitual ways of perceiving become unconcealed to us (we realize we expect pictures to be straight), while in normal circumstances, these expectations remain hidden.

We make sense of things through an ongoing interplay of unconcealment and concealment. Finding meaning in this regard is entirely contextual. It is an ongoing process and will always remain incomplete. Reality, in this sense, is a tease. Things are covered and uncovered in a dynamic interplay. This requires us to interact with the phenomenon. It is not an abstract exercise completed from afar, but rather an experiential activity. The phenomenological approach emphasizes that our experience of reality is always from a particular perspective, necessarily limiting what we can perceive at any given moment. Heidegger’s concept of unconcealment suggests that reality is not a static, fully accessible entity, but rather a dynamic process of revealing and concealing.

Heidegger wrote:[1]

The unconcealment of beings (entities) is never a merely existent state, but a happening. Unconcealment (truth) is neither an attribute of factual things in the sense of beings, nor one of propositions.

This quote encapsulates Heidegger’s view of aletheia as an active process of revelation rather than a static state. It emphasizes that unconcealment is a “happening” or an event, highlighting the dynamic nature of the emergence of meaning. Heidegger’s concept suggests that as certain aspects of a phenomenon are revealed (unconcealed), others necessarily recede (become concealed). This ongoing process of revealing and concealing is central to how we understand and interact with the world around us.

Reality, or making sense of reality, for Heidegger has some dependence on the observer and their context surrounding the phenomenon in question. The sense of the phenomenon emerges in the interaction between the observer and the phenomenon. In this sense, reality or depiction of reality requires an observer who provides the context and has practical engagement with the world. Here, reality unfolds itself gradually but not wholly. Heidegger’s view of aletheia as an event challenges us to think beyond traditional notions of truth as correspondence or coherence, and to consider how our understanding of the world is shaped by an ongoing process of revealing and concealing. It’s crucial to understand that for Heidegger, the way we encounter and understand entities is always contextualized within our being-in-the-world. Entities/objects aren’t just neutral, present things, but are enmeshed in a web of significance and practical engagement.

Heidegger didn’t believe we needed an internal “model” of reality in the way cognitive scientists might describe it. Instead, he believed we’re always already involved in the world, making sense of it through our interactions and practical engagements. Reality for Heidegger is not a fixed set of things, but a process of unfolding or revealing. We don’t need an internal “model” of reality; we’re always already involved in the world, understanding it through our practical engagements. Our understanding is shaped by our cultural context and prior experiences. We primarily make sense of things by using them and dealing with them, not by abstract thinking. Heidegger’s view challenges us to think about reality not as something “out there” to be modeled, but as something we’re always already a part of and engaged with. Reality is understood or made sense of in a space of possibilities.

With this, I would like to present the idea of alethic unfolding in Systems Thinking. We have seen that we make sense of the world as a space of possibilities. We interact with the world around us, and reality unfolds to us in a dynamic interplay of concealment and unconcealment. The world discloses differently to different people because reality is multidimensional and dependent on the observer. But this does not mean that anything goes from a relativistic standpoint. It is still weighed down by the actuality of the possibilities from a practical standpoint. This aligns more closely with pragmatic philosophy.

Alethic unfolding is making sense of the world around us as a communal activity. It refers to understanding the world as a process that emerges within specific contexts, rather than merely corresponding to isolated facts. This aligns with the principles of soft systems thinking, where knowledge is collectively constructed through dialogue and collaboration among diverse stakeholders. By acknowledging and integrating multiple perspectives, we can navigate complex human situations more effectively, leading to a richer and more practical understanding of the “system” we engage with.

We can look at an example to further illustrate the idea of alethic unfolding. This will combine Heidegger’s concepts of concealment and unconcealment with systems thinking, focusing on the role of perspectives. We’ll use the example of a city’s transportation system. Imagine a busy urban environment with various modes of transportation such as cars, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. The alethic unfolding in this context involves the revelation and hiding of different aspects of the transportation system as various perspectives come into play. There are of course more perspectives in play than what is explored here.

1. Car Driver’s Perspective:

   – Unconcealment: The efficiency or lack thereof of road networks, traffic flow, and parking availability become apparent.

   – Concealment: The experiences of pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport users remain hidden or secondary.

2. Cyclist’s Perspective:

   – Unconcealment: The presence (or absence) of bike lanes, air quality, and the physical effort required for commuting come to the forefront.

   – Concealment: The concerns of car drivers about parking or long-distance travel fade into the background.

3. Urban Planner’s Perspective:

   – Unconcealment: The complexities of their work – interconnectedness of various transportation modes, long-term sustainability, and social equity issues in transportation access are revealed.

   – Concealment: Individual daily experiences of commuters might be obscured by numbers and long-term projections of complicated models.

4. Environmental Scientist’s Perspective:

   – Unconcealment: The environmental impact of different transportation modes, air quality data, and carbon emissions become prominent.

   – Concealment: The economic benefits of certain transportation industries might be less visible.

5. Public Health Official’s Perspective:

   – Unconcealment: The health impacts of active transportation (walking, cycling) and air pollution from vehicles come to light.

   – Concealment: The economic necessities driving certain transportation choices might be less apparent.

The alethic unfolding occurs as these different perspectives interact and shift. A systems thinking approach might reveal (unconceal) the interconnectedness of these perspectives, showing how changes in one area affect others. For example:

  • When a city decides to implement more bike lanes, it brings forth (unconceals) the needs of cyclists and environmental concerns. This decision might conceal the preferences of car drivers who lose road space.
  • A public health campaign highlighting the benefits of walking might unconceal the city’s walkability issues, leading to improvements in pedestrian infrastructure. This could conceal other priorities, like rapid transit development.

In this example, the truth of the city’s transportation system is never fully revealed or fully hidden. Instead, it unfolds through the interplay of different perspectives, each bringing certain aspects to light while obscuring others. This alethic process is ongoing, with new unconcealment leading to new forms of concealment, and vice versa.

The key insight from a systems thinking perspective is that no single viewpoint can capture the entire truth of the transportation system. The “truth” emerges through the dynamic interplay of these various perspectives, constantly shifting between concealment and unconcealment. This alethic unfolding helps us understand the complexity of the system and the importance of considering multiple viewpoints in decision-making and analysis.

Always keep on learning.

[1] The Origin of the Work of Art, Martin Heidegger (1950)


Discover more from Harish's Notebook - My notes... Lean, Cybernetics, Quality & Data Science.

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “On Alethic Unfolding in Systems Thinking:

  1. cross-posted to the discussion on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/posts/harishjose_on-alethic-unfolding-in-systems-thinking-activity-7251284335830441984-o5Xx

    oh, bravo, this is great!

    Links for me to concepts of ‘affordance’ but ‘unveiling of affordance’, to the insight of a joke or the unveiling of a puzzle or cracking a Bongard Game (see https://stream.syscoi.com/2019/06/09/a-first-lesson-in-meta-rationality-meaningness/), and in the way you talk about unconcealment and concealment, of course to Macluhan’s Tetrads https://stream.syscoi.com/2021/04/22/marshall-macluhans-tetrad-of-media-effects/

    Oh, and specifically on this problem in ‘transport systems’, this brilliant piece from Strong Towns https://chosen-path.org/2022/04/27/why-cant-we-talk-the-same-language-when-its-so-important/ (well it’s a podcast of a recording of a US City Council meeting but trust me, it works)

    Worth saying also in relation to ‘meta-rationality’ that all forms (I think) of ‘adult development’ could also be seen as ways of raising our awareness of this foundation of reality and our ability to embody and understand – and even ‘model’ – these different contextualities. (As is, for example, Donna Meadows’ ‘places to intervene in a system’, and Mike has already on Linkedin drawn attention to

    Liked by 1 person

  2. All thought happens metaphorical, and I also mean this metaphorically, as a figure speach. (I invented that word, combining speech and speak). Using a metaphor we “carry over” concepts from one domain to another.

    Funny enough the word “Aletheia” comes from the metaphorical transition – crossing a river – from the domain of the living to the domain of the death, the metaphor of Life-is-a-Voyage. In my interpretation of the story, I would say that “death” is the only truth. The only thing you cannot forget.

    The Greek poets invented metaphorical world views – with metamorphoses – and animated these through their words. Words a figures of speech. Since the invention of the letterpress, we’ve been pressed to taken words literally. Many people stress this by using “literally” when using a metaphor.

    ———-

    Systems don’t think, except thinking systems. Animals. I’m mostly concerned about Thinking, not Systems.

    Thinking happens in language, while Thought (for lack of a better word 🙂 , I borrowed it from Vaihinger, The Philosophy ‘As-if’) is an organic function. like moving is an organic function of legs. Thought – located in the brain – is just a function of the body, like the hearth, arms, legs.

    Thought and Feeling are judging functions, functions to work with perceiving functions Senses and Intuition (based on Jung and the MBTI), and vice versa.

    You cannot not have Thought. Any animal with a brain has Thought, or thinks. Or so me thinks. Thought works continuously, even if we don’t speak. Thought works continuously, even in sleep, then called dreams. (As I told elsewhere: the brain acts like a future predicting engine and is just trying out some new ideas while the body is resting).

    Thought, again borrowed from Vaihinger, works through inventing concepts, or fictions and acting as-if these concepts are real. Again, think of you dreaming.

    The function of these functions is the art of staying alive. We gradually develop these while growing up. The tuning of your Thinking System worked and works through play, learning and – later – education and work. The models thus invented, induce – following Peirce – beliefs and these in turn can become fixated, habits.

    Authorities like to define concepts, “fix” them, so we can fix problems. Fixes that fail.

    Models, maps and metaphors are invented, fictitious – subjective – and can be translated into explicit knowledge through language. So we act as-if we have maps or models of the world. Because these work for us. We realize these models – for our selves and in reality – through using them.

    “Truth” is another concept, which we use as-if she is true. Then we name it “the truth”. As the story ofAletheia also may seem to tell us: truth must be forgotten. Reality must be realized.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Very clear take on Heidegger and powerful take for systems thinking. Great to see the comment on as if philosophy as it puts in perspective the correspondence of pragmatic thinking and action to systems inquiry. Myself I have developed a view on rituals that could go well with systems boundary critique if we consider that we are not to fully develop actionable knowledge. Still confused as to why we keep saying that the Heideggerian ( ‘hands-on’) perception of situations is both phenomenological and pragmatic.

    Like

Leave a comment