4 System, Alignment, and the Negotiation of Meaning

1 What is a System?

In our ongoing exploration of relational ontology, the concept of system takes centre stage—not as a static set of parts, but as a dynamic interplay of potential and process.

Drawing on Halliday’s insight, we can think of a system as shorthand for system–&–process—where the system represents the potential, the structured range of possibilities available, and the process represents the unfolding instance, the actualisation of those possibilities.

System as Potential

A system is not a fixed entity. It is a structured field of potential—a network of interrelated possibilities from which particular instances can emerge. This means:

• In language, the system is the grammar, the inventory of choices and constraints that guide how meaning can be made.

• In physics, the system might be a quantum field or wavefunction—the underlying potentials that inform how particles and phenomena can instantiate.

• In ecology, the system is the range of possible interactions and relationships among species, climates, and habitats.

The system is like a theory of what can be—it holds open the space of potential instances without fixing any one of them.

Process as Instance

While the system holds potential, the process is the actual unfolding—the event, the instance that arises from that potential. It is the realization of a particular choice or configuration within the system’s range.

• A sentence spoken or written is an instance of the language system.

• A particle observed is an instance emerging from the quantum field.

• The weather we experience is an unfolding instance of the broader climate system.

Process is the dynamic event that brings potential into concrete form, always situated within its relational context.

The Mutual Interdependence of System and Process

System and process are two sides of the same coin—neither exists independently of the other. Potential without instance remains abstract; instance without potential is meaningless.

This interdependence is ergative: the instance is the medium through which the system is actualised, and the system is the range from which the instance is drawn.

Each instance contributes to shaping and reshaping the system by affecting its potentials—instantiations constrain and inform future possibilities.

Across Domains: Examples of System and Process

• Language: The grammatical system offers choices; each utterance actualises a particular path. Through speaking and listening, language evolves.

• Physics: Quantum fields provide a structured potential; each observed particle is a process instantiation. Measurement events update the system’s probabilities.

• Ecology: Ecosystems present networks of interactions; each living event or change is a process. Species’ actions feed back to reshape ecological potentials.

Conclusion

Understanding system as the structured potential and process as its unfolding instance is fundamental to seeing how relational ontology operates. This framework underlies the continuous dance of becoming: how the universe, meaning, and experience emerge through ongoing relation.

In the next post, we’ll explore alignment—how systems and processes tune themselves to one another, creating coherence and enabling communication.

---

2 Alignment — Tuning Systems and Processes for Meaning

Having established that systems represent potential and processes represent instance, we now turn to an essential mechanism that enables meaningful interaction between them: alignment.

Alignment is the dynamic tuning of one system or process to another, creating coherence within the relational field. Without alignment, potential and instance remain disconnected—meaning cannot emerge.

What is Alignment?

At its core, alignment is about bringing into relation different perspectives, potentials, or processes so that they resonate or correspond in some meaningful way.

• In language, alignment occurs when speaker and listener coordinate their expectations and interpretations, allowing communication to succeed.

• In physics, alignment can be seen in how measurement setups are calibrated to interact with quantum systems, allowing meaningful outcomes to be observed.

• In ecology, species align their behaviours and life cycles to environmental patterns and to each other, sustaining balance.

Alignment as Negotiation and Adaptation

Alignment is not fixed or given; it is an ongoing negotiation and adaptation.

Each system or process adjusts to changes in the other, enabling:

• Mutual entrainment, where rhythms or patterns synchronise.

• Feedback loops that maintain or shift coherence.

• The emergence of shared meaning or functional coordination.

Alignment Enables Participation and Meaning-Making

Meaning arises when agents participate within aligned fields of potential and process.

• A language user, by aligning their construals with others, co-creates meaning.

• A physicist, by aligning their instruments and interpretations with phenomena, participates in generating knowledge.

• An organism, by aligning with its environment, sustains life and contributes to ecological meaning.

Alignment is Scale-Free and Recursive

Alignment happens across scales and domains:

• From molecular to social systems.

• From quantum interactions to cultural negotiations.

It is recursive—alignment at one scale influences and is influenced by alignment at others.

Challenges and Tensions in Alignment

Alignment is never perfect or total. It involves:

• Tensions between differing perspectives or potentials.

• Misalignments that create opportunities for change or breakdown.

• Negotiation that can transform systems and processes themselves.

These dynamics are central to how meaning evolves and systems co-develop.

Conclusion

Alignment is the relational dance that tunes potentials and instances toward coherence, enabling participation and meaning to unfold.

In our next post, we’ll explore negotiation more deeply—the processes by which meaning is shaped through relational interaction and difference.

---

3 Negotiation — The Dynamic Shaping of Meaning in Relation

Building on our exploration of systems, processes, and alignment, we now delve into the heart of meaning-making: negotiation.

Negotiation is the ongoing process by which differences within and between systems and processes are managed, contested, and transformed, enabling new meanings and forms of coherence to emerge.

Negotiation as Relational Interaction

Meaning is not fixed or given; it arises through relational interaction—the dynamic interplay of constraints, potentials, and instances.

Negotiation involves:

• Recognising difference: acknowledging that perspectives, potentials, and processes are not identical.

• Engaging difference: interacting with these differences rather than suppressing them.

• Transforming difference: creatively resolving tensions to produce new, shared meanings or configurations.

Negotiation Across Domains

• In language, negotiation happens in conversation, where interlocutors adjust, contest, and co-construct meaning moment by moment.

• In physics, negotiation is seen in how experimental setups and theoretical models are refined through feedback between observation and interpretation.

• In ecology, species negotiate niches and interactions through adaptation and co-evolution.

The Role of Power and Agency

Negotiation is not neutral. It involves agency, the capacity to influence relational fields, and power, the asymmetries that affect whose meanings and potentials prevail.

Understanding negotiation requires attending to:

• How agents position themselves within relational fields.

• How constraints and potentials are enacted or resisted.

• How systemic inequalities shape possibilities for meaning.

Negotiation and Emergence

Through negotiation, new patterns, systems, and processes emerge:

• Novel meanings arise that could not have been predicted solely from the prior potentials.

• Systems evolve as potentials shift in response to negotiated instances.

• New relational configurations become possible.

Negotiation as Ethical Practice

Because negotiation shapes what is realized and what remains possible, it has an ethical dimension:

• How do we negotiate differences fairly and inclusively?

• How do we attend to the consequences of enacted meanings and constraints?

• How do we foster negotiation that respects the openness of potential and the agency of all participants?

Conclusion

Negotiation is the creative and contested unfolding of relation that makes meaning possible. It is the crucible where systems and processes dynamically interact, transforming potentials into evolving realities.

Next, we will explore how these concepts play out in concrete cases, beginning with language as a living example of system, alignment, and negotiation.

---

4 Language as Living System — System, Alignment, and Negotiation in Practice

Having explored system, alignment, and negotiation as foundational dynamics of meaning-making, we now turn to a concrete and rich domain where these unfold vividly: language.

Language is not just a set of rules or structures; it is a living, dynamic system that emerges through the continual alignment and negotiation among its users.

Language as System and Process

• The system perspective treats language as a set of potentials—a vast network of choices, patterns, and probabilities shaped by history and culture.

• The process perspective focuses on language-in-use—the unfolding events of speaking, listening, reading, and writing where potentials are instantiated.

Together, these views reflect the relational ontology: language is both potential and instance, theory and event.

Alignment in Language Use

Communication requires alignment:

• Speakers and listeners align their expectations, interpretations, and intentions.

• This alignment is often partial, temporary, and adaptive, allowing flexibility and creativity.

• Alignment happens on many levels: phonological, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and social.

Negotiation in Conversation

Conversations are vibrant sites of negotiation:

• Meaning is co-constructed moment-by-moment as participants respond, adjust, and sometimes contest each other.

• Misalignments and misunderstandings are opportunities for clarification, repair, or transformation.

• Through negotiation, the language system itself evolves over time, adapting to new contexts and uses.

Language as Ecology

Language is an ecosystem of interrelated choices and meanings:

• Individual utterances influence the system.

• The system influences future utterances.

• This ongoing feedback loop sustains language as a living, evolving organism.

Implications for Meaning and Reality

Language exemplifies how meaning arises from:

• The interplay of structured potentials (system)

• Dynamic instantiations (process)

• The ongoing work of tuning and negotiating relations (alignment and negotiation)

By studying language this way, we glimpse how all meaning-making—whether cultural, scientific, or physical—may unfold.

Conclusion

Language, as a living system of system, alignment, and negotiation, offers a powerful example of relational meaning-making in action. It grounds abstract ideas in everyday experience, revealing how theory and event interweave to create our shared worlds.

In our next post, we will explore parallels in scientific inquiry, where systems of knowledge and observation engage in similar relational dynamics.

---

5 Science as Relational Inquiry — Observation, Theory, and the Dance of Knowing

Building on our exploration of language as a living system of system, alignment, and negotiation, we now turn to science—another rich domain where relational meaning-making unfolds with distinctive features.

Science as a System of Potential and Process

• Science is both a system—a structured body of knowledge, methods, and conceptual potentials—and a process—the unfolding practice of inquiry, observation, and theorising.

• The system encodes the potentials for scientific statements, models, and explanations.

• The process instantiates these potentials through experiments, observations, and discourse.

Observation as Relational Construal

• Scientific observation is not passive recording.

• It is an active, relational construal where instruments, theories, and researchers co-shape what is observed.

• Observations unfold within a field of constraint formed by existing theories and experimental setups.

• Each observation shifts the relational field, influencing subsequent possibilities for inquiry.

Theory as Systemic Potential

• Scientific theories model the potential space of phenomena.

• They articulate relations, constraints, and possible instances.

• Theories are not fixed truths but evolving grammars for describing and predicting the unfolding of nature.

Negotiation and Alignment in Scientific Communities

• Scientific knowledge advances through social processes of alignment and negotiation:

  • Peer review, replication, and debate ensure coherence and refinement.

  • Disagreements open new possibilities and prompt theory change.

• Scientific communities embody dynamic systems where knowledge is co-constructed.

Feedback Loops and Evolution of Scientific Meaning

• The recursive interplay between theory and observation creates feedback loops.

• New data may challenge existing theories, prompting revision.

• This evolutionary dynamic sustains science as an open, adaptive system.

Implications for Understanding Reality

• Science exemplifies how knowledge is a relational act—not a mirror of a fixed world, but a participatory construal within a web of relations.

• The dance of knowing is an ongoing process of system activation, instance unfolding, and negotiated meaning.

Conclusion

Science, like language, unfolds through the interplay of system, alignment, and negotiation. It is a collective, relational practice where potential and instance co-constitute each other in the ongoing quest to understand the universe.

In our next post, we will explore how these relational principles manifest in cultural meaning-making and social systems.

---

6 Culture and Social Systems — Relational Meaning in Collective Life

Following our exploration of science as a relational system of inquiry, we now turn to culture and social systems—complex domains where meaning is co-created, negotiated, and enacted across individuals and generations.

Culture as a Relational System

• Culture is a living system of shared meanings, values, practices, and symbols.

• It embodies systemic potentials—norms, roles, languages, rituals—that shape what can be expressed and understood.

• At the same time, culture unfolds through processes: events, interactions, and performances that instantiate these potentials in concrete contexts.

Alignment and Negotiation in Social Life

• Social systems require ongoing alignment of meaning:

  • Individuals and groups negotiate norms, roles, and interpretations.

  • This negotiation is dynamic, context-sensitive, and often contested.

• Meaning is never fixed but always emergent from interaction.

Meaning as Relational Construal

• Like observation in science, cultural meaning is a construal—a relational act that differentiates experience and holds it open to interpretation.

• Individuals participate as both interpreters and co-creators, bringing their perspectives and histories to bear.

Feedback and Adaptation

• Social meanings evolve through feedback loops:

  • Practices reinforce or challenge norms.

  • Innovations and conflicts reshape cultural potentials.

• This ongoing adaptation sustains cultural vitality and diversity.

Intersections with Language and Science

• Culture is deeply intertwined with language as system and process.

• It also interacts with scientific knowledge, influencing how knowledge is produced, communicated, and applied.

• These intersections create complex, multilayered relational fields of meaning.

Implications for Understanding Collective Reality

• Viewing culture as a relational system highlights the ethical and participatory dimensions of social life.

• Each act of meaning-making contributes to the unfolding of shared realities.

• It invites us to see social systems as co-created, open, and evolving.

Conclusion

Culture and social systems exemplify how relational meaning scales from individual construals to collective worlds. Through alignment and negotiation, we participate in shaping the social fabric that sustains human life.

Next, we will delve into the nature of consciousness itself—as the site where relational construal becomes lived experience.

---

7 Consciousness — The Site of Relational Construal and Experience

Having explored culture and social systems as relational fields of meaning, we now turn inward to the phenomenon of consciousness—the lived experience of relational construal.

Consciousness as Relational Construal

• Consciousness is not a detached observer or a container of experience.

• It is the process by which relational meaning becomes experienced from within.

• The conscious system construes difference, holding relations open as meaningful phenomena.

Not Separate, But Integral

• Consciousness is not a separate “thing” above or beyond relational systems.

• It is an integral perspective within relational unfolding, reflecting and participating in the ongoing differentiation of meaning.

The Reflexive Loop of Experience

• Consciousness involves a reflexive loop:

  • It experiences difference (instances),

  • It orients to potential (systemic possibilities),

  • It shapes future unfolding through attention, intention, and memory.

• This reflexivity creates a dynamic interplay between experience and meaning.

Layers and Scales of Consciousness

• Consciousness unfolds at multiple levels—from simple sensory awareness in organisms to complex self-reflexive thought in humans.

• Each level construes relational meaning appropriate to its complexity and participation.

Consciousness and Agency

• Consciousness grounds agency—the capacity to select, shape, and stabilise relational instances.

• Agency is not absolute free will but a position within the relational field, enabling meaningful participation and transformation.

Consciousness and Language

• Language is a key medium through which consciousness construes and communicates meaning.

• The interplay between thought, language, and experience exemplifies relational co-creation.

Implications for Understanding Reality

• Consciousness reveals that reality is not simply “out there,” but always experienced and enacted through relational construal.

• This challenges views that separate mind and world, observer and observed.

Conclusion

Consciousness is the living edge of relational ontology—the site where meaning and being meet in experience. It is both the medium and message of the universe’s unfolding.

Next, we will reflect on the ethics of knowing and being within this relational framework.

---

8 The Ethics of Knowing and Being — Responsibility in a Relational Universe

Knowing as Participation

• Knowing is never neutral or detached.

• It is a participatory act within a relational field that shapes unfolding reality.

• Each act of construal stabilises some potentials and disrupts others.

Ethical Implications of Relational Knowing

• Because knowledge shapes what becomes actual, knowing is inherently ethical.

• We are always choosing which relational pathways to enable or constrain.

• This means knowledge carries responsibility—for self, others, and the broader system.

Agency and Moral Responsibility

• Agency arises from consciousness within relational fields.

• Ethical agency involves awareness of one’s participation in shaping relational constraints and potentials.

• This reframes traditional ethics as a practice of relational stewardship.

Implications for Science, Society, and Environment

• Scientific knowledge is not value-neutral; it shapes what realities are possible.

• Social systems and cultural knowledge must be understood as ongoing negotiations of relational meaning, requiring ethical attentiveness.

• Environmental responsibility follows from seeing humans as embedded agents within broader relational ecosystems.

Toward an Ecology of Knowing and Being

• We need epistemologies and ontologies that emphasise interdependence, relational accountability, and humility.

• Knowing and being become acts of care for the unfolding universe.

Conclusion

Ethics in a relational universe is about recognising that every act of knowing is an act of world-making. We become co-creators of reality, with responsibility to the patterns we stabilise and the futures we enable.

---

Reflective Coda: Becoming Ethical Participants in the Unfolding

As we conclude this series, we reflect on the profound shift that relational ontology brings to how we understand knowledge, consciousness, and ethics.

We are no longer detached observers standing outside a fixed world.

Instead, we are intrinsic participants—conscious construals embedded within a dynamic web of relation.

Our knowing is a form of world-making.

Every act of meaning-making enacts a choice about which possibilities to stabilise and which to leave open or close off.

This means that ethical responsibility is inseparable from epistemology.

To know is to shape; to shape is to choose.

Our challenge now is to cultivate awareness, humility, and care in how we engage with the unfolding universe.

In doing so, we step into a relational ethic of co-creation—recognising that who we are is inseparable from what we know and how we act.