Introduction

In our previous discussion of the “Reversal Test,” we demonstrated how primary and secondary causes appear to switch places depending on whether one is viewing an event from System A’s vantage or from System B’s vantage. Each system’s own internal logic frames the other perspective as secondary, while maintaining that its own vantage captures the principal cause.

This raises an important philosophical question: If each system’s viewpoint is internally coherent—yet inverse of the other—what, if anything, constitutes the ‘actual truth’?

Below, we explore this question by positing that:

Actual truth (to the extent we can approach it) requires simultaneous acceptance of both systems’ perspectives. This, in turn, implies a broader conceptual framework or “larger system” in which both seemingly contradictory views can be upheld without self-contradiction.

We then propose two approaches to articulating this “higher truth,” leading us to a limited Theory of Truth in a multi-system context.

The Challenge of Defining Absolute Truth

In the context of systems thinking, when we look at an event that spans across two (or more) distinct system boundaries, the designation of what is “primary” and what is “secondary” in the causal chain often switches depending on which system’s perspective we adopt. Each system defines its own boundaries, internal objectives, and assumptions, so the exact same event can yield different conclusions about which factor “initiated” the occurrence.

For example, consider a pedestrian stepping off the pavement into the road and subsequently getting hit by a car:

• From the pavement (pedestrian) system, leaving the protective boundary is the central act. The person’s crossing into the roadway is viewed as the primary cause because this system is designed to keep people safe on the sidewalk. Everything outside that boundary (such as moving vehicles) is secondary from this viewpoint.
• From the road (vehicle) system, the main factor is that a foreign object (the pedestrian) suddenly appeared where cars are meant to move unhindered. Thus, the primary cause is the unexpected presence on the roadway, while how the pedestrian got there is secondary.

Neither perspective is “incorrect”; rather, each system’s boundaries and purposes naturally reorient the primary/secondary labels. (See these posts: Using Systems Thinking to Analyse Different Viewpoints and “Does it Make Sense?”: The Reversal Test, for other examples of the same effect.)

No logical flaw necessarily arises within each individual system’s explanation, since each standpoint is coherent by its own boundary conditions, purpose, and assumptions. Yet when taken together, those causal priorities are inverted. This leads to a deeper question:

If each system can be “exactly correct” within its own frame of reference, then how do we determine whether there is a single, unified, absolute truth—and if so, what it is?

Acceptance of Opposites and the “Greater Vantage”

In order to reconcile how each system inverts the other’s perspective, so that what is primary for one becomes secondary for the other, but nevertheless both perspectives can still be stated to be valid, we must look beyond the boundaries of both System A and System B.

The key realization here is that it is not enough to analyze each system in isolation, nor is it sufficient to simply combine the two perspectives. A broader conceptual space is required, one in which both viewpoints can coexist without forcing one to yield to the other.

Below, we explore this idea step by step.

The Need for a Vantage Beyond Both Systems

When we try to assess an event exclusively from System A’s vantage, System B’s view automatically becomes subservient—and vice versa. Neither position is “wrong” on its own, but each assumes it can define the entire truth. This leads to a stalemate: System A and System B appear to contradict one another, even though each is internally coherent.

The only way around this deadlock is to recognize that we need a third vantage point—something beyond A or B alone, which can hold both positions in balance. This broader perspective doesn’t replace the two systems, nor does it merely add them together; rather, it stands at a higher level of abstraction (or existence), seeing value in each system’s reasoning while acknowledging their reciprocal limitations.

Simultaneous Validity of Both Perspectives

A crucial step in forming this broader vantage is to accept that both perspectives are valid. Instead of discarding one viewpoint in favor of the other, we affirm that System A’s assignment of primary cause is correct within its own boundaries, and System B’s assignment of primary cause is likewise valid within its own scope.

This “both/and” acceptance prevents us from prematurely declaring one system “right” and the other “wrong.” Instead, we highlight that each viewpoint makes sense given its defining premises and objectives—and that these premises cannot simply be collapsed into one another.

A Larger Set of Existence

By acknowledging the legitimacy of both perspectives, we implicitly invoke a larger set of existence—an overarching framework that accommodates each system without reducing one to the other. This new conceptual space is not merely the sum of the two systems; it is a domain where the seemingly contradictory claims of A and B can exist together as partial truths of a more comprehensive reality.

In this broader arena, the statement “System A is correct” and the statement “System B is correct” are no longer mutually exclusive, instead they are recontextualized as different facets of the same event.

One benefit of this larger vantage is that it allows the apparent contradiction—where A sees its cause as primary while B insists on the opposite—to be preserved in a coherent way. Rather than forcing a resolution that invalidates one system, we create a conceptual space that houses both accounts simultaneously. In other words, we do not resolve the contradiction by eliminating one side; we recognize that each side’s “primary cause” remains primary within that system. This is only possible if we stand in a place that is bigger than either system alone, so that both remain intelligible and consistent in their own contexts.

Dialectical Transcendence

Philosophically, this process is akin to dialectical transcendence*. We begin with a thesis (System A’s framing) and its antithesis (System B’s framing), each claiming supremacy. Instead of canceling one in favor of the other, we move toward a synthesis at a higher level, where neither perspective is erased but both are interwoven into a more capacious understanding.

It follows that the so-called “absolute truth” cannot be located solely in System A or System B. Rather, it manifests through this synthesis, which enfolds both vantage points without stripping them of their distinct insights. This is how we reconcile the otherwise incompatible causal priorities: we embrace both, and in doing so, transcend the strict boundaries that initially forced them into opposition.

*When logic is used to judge not analytically, but to judge synthetically of objects in general, it is called transcendental dialectic.

In Summary

In summary, reconciling inverted truths between systems demands that we simultaneously accept each system’s legitimacy and situate them both within a broader conceptual framework—one that makes space for their apparent contradictions. By adopting this “greater vantage,” we honor the internal logic of each system while preventing either from overshadowing the other, thereby opening a path toward a more holistic understanding.

This means to say that we cannot just add two unilateral perspectives and call it “the whole,” because as soon as we hold one system’s vantage constant, the other system’s vantage becomes subservient, and vice versa. Instead:

1. We simultaneously accept that System A’s causal assignment is valid and that System B’s causal assignment is valid.
2. This acceptance axiomatically points to a “larger set of existence” or “broader conceptual framework” than either system by itself (or the mere sum of both).
3. This “space” or “higher vantage” is necessary to keep the two apparently contradictory truths both alive at once. If no such broader domain existed, the contradiction could not be maintained coherently.

In philosophical terms, this may be viewed as a form of dialectical transcendence, wherein a thesis (System A’s perspective) and its antithesis (System B’s perspective) must be upheld together. The so-called “absolute truth” then cannot be equated with merely one or the other. Instead, it rests in a synthesis that does not erase their differences but rather enfolds them.

Building the “Greater Vantage”

As established above, to accommodate two contradictory but valid viewpoints, we must situate ourselves in a broader conceptual framework—one that can house both perspectives without forcing one to overrule the other. The question that naturally follows is: How do we go about creating this larger vantage point?

Philosophically, there are two main ways to achieve this expanded perspective:

Implicit Approach: Presenting Both Perspectives in Parallel

The first approach is to hold both viewpoints together, ‘as is,’ stating each in full without immediately trying to unify them into a single formulation. We simply place the two perspectives side by side and allow them to coexist, even if they contradict each other when taken at face value.

This means that we simply state both perspectives side by side and let them stand in creative tension. Rather than trying to unify them into a single statement, we allow the apparently contradictory claims to coexist as equally legitimate descriptions of the same event. In this view, truth “emanates” from the very fact that both vantage points are held simultaneously without forcing one to dominate the other.

• Example (Pedestrian vs. Driver)

  • Pedestrian View: “The main cause is stepping off the curb.”
  • Driver View: “The main cause is an unexpected obstacle in the road.”

By keeping these statements intact, we neither dilute them nor choose one over the other. Instead, we appreciate that each is ‘true’ within its own boundary conditions—and that the conceptual “room” required to hold these apparently conflicting truths is necessarily larger than either system alone. The overall truth, then, emerges from the interplay of these valid but opposed viewpoints—an approach often termed epistemic pluralism*.

• Effect: By openly presenting each perspective as valid within its own system boundaries, we implicitly move beyond either system’s reference framework. The “space” needed to sustain these opposing truths side by side becomes the broader vantage point itself.
• Why This Works: The tension between the two accounts creates a kind of implicit conceptual pluralism**, prompting us to think: “If both are correct in some sense, then there must be a more encompassing domain in which both can stand.” In other words, their very coexistence pushes the conversation outward to a more inclusive level of analysis.

*Epistemological pluralism is a term used in philosophy, economics, and virtually any field of study to refer to different ways of knowing things.

**Conceptual causal pluralism is a theory of causation that does not claim to analyse a master concept of cause to which all other causal concepts are subsumable.

Explicit Approach: Ascending to a Higher Level of Abstraction

In the second approach, we do more than just hold the two contradictory perspectives in parallel. Instead, we shift our thinking to a vantage point beyond the corporeal or concrete boundaries that define each system’s worldview (or, “way of looking at things”).

This entails a more conceptual or dialectically subtle analysis—one that is less tethered to the physical, “on-the-ground” assumptions of either system.

Why the ‘Corporeal’ Level Constrains Our Perspective

Each system, whether it’s a sidewalk designed for pedestrians or a roadway designed for vehicles, is anchored in a specific physical reality—a “corporeal manifestation”—that drives how the system is constructed and how it functions.

Pavements are engineered to protect and guide pedestrians, while roads accommodate cars, trucks, and their rules of movement.

At this corporeal level, each system’s logic is necessarily localized and concrete:

• A sidewalk’s boundaries are physically defined by the curb and the property line. Pedestrians rely on a set of assumptions (for instance, “I am safe on this pavement.”).
• A roadway’s boundaries are demarcated by lanes, shoulders, and traffic lights. Drivers follow another set of assumptions (for instance, “This road is for vehicles, and anything in the lane should move or be moved out of the way.”).

Because these assumptions and rules arise directly from the physical construction of the environment, each system’s explanation of an event (such as a pedestrian stepping onto a road and being hit by a car) is tied to its own spatial and physical logic.

Consequently, each system interprets “primary cause” or “fault” in light of its immediate, corporeal constraints: the pedestrian system emphasizes “stepping off the curb,” while the vehicular system highlights “an obstacle in the lane.”

How Ascending to a Higher Level of Abstraction Helps

When we remain at the corporeal level (sidewalk vs. road, curb vs. lane), it is difficult to reconcile these opposing statements about cause and effect, precisely because each system frames the event in terms of its physical, on-the-ground boundaries. One sees “moving off the sidewalk” as the main cause, and the other sees “suddenly appearing in the lane” as the cause.

To transcend this impasse, we need to shift our analysis to a plane of thinking beyond the immediate physical setups. At a higher level of abstraction, we look at how:

• Spatial allocation is conceptualized (one zone for pedestrians, another for cars).
• Boundaries are assigned as a matter of city planning or safety engineering.
• Interactions occur at the “interface” where different systems meet (the curb/road boundary).

This “ascension” means we stop defining the problem solely in terms of concrete physical elements (like curbs, lanes, or crosswalks) and start defining it in terms of the overarching principles or logic behind those elements—for example, “pedestrian space vs. vehicular space” or “how society decides to segment travel paths.”

Reconciling Opposite Viewpoints: The Pedestrian–Car Example

Corporeal-Level Thinking

• • Pedestrian Perspective: “He was safe on the sidewalk; by stepping off it, he caused the problem.”
  • Driver Perspective: “The lane was for cars; the real cause is that a person unexpectedly entered car territory.”

At this level, the contradiction seems irreconcilable. One side sees a breach of pedestrian safety protocol; the other sees an intrusion into vehicle space.

Higher-Level Abstraction

By contrast, a city planner or urban theorist might say:

“At the interface between pedestrian and vehicular zones, an event occurred that each system would call ‘primary’ for its own reasons. The phenomenon can be understood by examining why we created distinct zones in the first place, how each zone’s rules operate, and what assumptions each system makes about crossing the boundary. This leads us to see that both perspectives are valid reflections of a broader principle: separate domains for walking and driving, which require safe negotiation at their edges.”

At this more conceptual vantage point, we see both the physical reality of the sidewalk and the physical reality of the road as subsystems of a larger whole—say, an urban infrastructure guided by certain principles of safety, efficiency, and accessibility.

The “contradiction” (Was it stepping off the curb, or was it appearing in the lane?) is now reframed as two partial truths about how boundary-crossing ought to occur. This reframing accommodates both perspectives without forcing one to negate the other, precisely because we are no longer confined to “Which side is right?” at the street level. Instead, we’re analyzing why both the curb and the lane exist, how each system’s logic was designed, and what happens when those systems overlap.

In short, moving to a higher level of abstraction frees us from the rigid local assumptions tied to the physical features of each system. By analyzing the conceptual logic behind those physical boundaries, we can accommodate the otherwise conflicting explanations in a single, more comprehensive framework.

Stated Philosophically

Philosophically, this approach resonates with ideas of dialectical transcendence and hermeneutic comprehensiveness.

Each system’s perspective is tied to a distinct “level of corporeality,” complete with its own concepts and constraints. By moving “up” to a more general plane of reasoning, we recognize how each system’s viewpoint expresses one facet of a broader reality. The contradiction occurs only at the lower level, where the systems’ boundaries physically intersect.

At a higher level of abstraction, we see these boundaries as relative markers within a larger conceptual whole—thus both viewpoints can coexist, each revealing part of the truth.

Deriving a Systems-Based Theory of Truth

Drawing on the above considerations, we can offer a provisional “Theory of Truth” in multi-system contexts as follows:

1. Dialectical Consistency: Truth arises (in part) from the interplay between distinct vantage points—none of which can be reduced wholly to the other.
2. Intersubjective Coherence: Each perspective is valid within its own boundary conditions, and the “truest” account we can give is the one that keeps these individual truths coherent in a larger framework.
3. Hermeneutic Accommodation: We either (a) hold both accounts side by side, letting their tension illuminate the event in full, or (b) address a level of abstraction at which each system is a discrete implementation of basic logical principles that are defined at that higher level of abstraction, in which case the perspectives of both systems can be understood together as localised representations of the higher logical-order explanation.

This approach aligns with coherence theories of truth*, emphasizing consistency among various perspectives.

It also leaves the door open to a “correspondence” dimension** — recognizing that each system’s vantage is grounded in an empirical domain that yields valid claims. Where they appear mutually exclusive, we invoke a broader domain that can hold the tension.

*The Coherence theory of truth asserts that a statement is true if it logically aligns and is consistent with a comprehensive and interconnected system of beliefs or propositions.

**The Correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world.

Conclusion

In précis:

• Absolute truth is not simply “System A’s claim” or “System B’s claim.”
• Instead, genuine insight requires simultaneous acceptance of both vantage points within a broader framework.
• Practically, one can either retain both opposite facts in co-equal tension or develop a higher-level understanding that is interpretable from both (or all) relevant angles.
• Truth is a function of the totality of the relevant existential domain, so that no single system’s vantage alone exhausts the full truth.

By engaging in dialectical interplay—where thesis and antithesis interact to form synthesis—we approach a more profound and comprehensive understanding of truth. In essence, truth is not merely what we perceive directly, but rather what unfolds through the dynamic and often conflicting interactions of ideas and perspectives.