International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics

The non perception of some objects, features or situations due to the insufficiencies of our observational competence.

The concept, developed by G.de ZEEUW (1992, p.1071-1078), is related to H.von FOERSTER's cognitive blindspots: "We do not see what we do not see. Objectivity is a subjects delusion that observing can be done without him" (Declaration of the American Society for Cybernetics).

According to de ZEEUW the progress toward visibility is a result of the use of more embracing observational languages. However, and paradoxically, as observed by Th. SANDOZ: "Knowledge and ignorance are directly correlated… (they) grow together and mutually reinforce" (1993, p.1544).

Humanity passed from the magical and mythical languages to the rational one, wich allowed for the understanding of phenomena governed by linear causality and determinism in its strong (Laplacian) sense.

While obtaining great successes, especially with all kinds of mechanisms, the classical logical-rational paradigm left misunderstood or downright concealed nonlinear relations and is not conducive to a clear understanding of complex entities.

According to de ZEEUW: "Nowadays, its (i.e. the classical rational observational language) use begins to create excesses itself, however, especially in the case of increasing competence for complex activities (activities depending on the continued interacting of many actors). It can be argued that the observational language limits itself in this way by imposing models on the actors in an interaction, that is imposes criteria for access to interaction. Breaking this limit requires new languages" (Ibid., p.1077).

A quite closely related concept is "implicitness", which in J. WARFIELD's terms, works "against referential transparency". He enumerates the resulting difficulties as follows:

" – What constitues a science is implicit

- Division of many component concepts are implicit

- The Universal Priors of Science may be treated as implicit, in the presentation of the science.

- Definition of concepts by relationships may be implicit in the science.

- The underlying basis of arguments in the Theory of sets may be implicit

- The underlying basis of arguments in the Theory of Relations may be implicit

- The foundations of science are implicit.

- In some instances, especially in newer areas of strategic behavior in response technology, even the theory is implicit" (1988, p.340).

In short, we do not know that we do not know (and what we do not know).

The quick expansion of many conceptual tools adressed to complexity seems however to announce the emergence of a new and wider language, including for example Prigoginian thermodynamics, fuzzy sets, catastrophes, fractals, connectionism, percolation in composite systems and chaos models.

Such an expanded language could reduce invisibility.

In any case, in D. MEADOWS et al. words: "One can never be fully aware of all one's biases. But one can be aware that one is unaware and deliberately expose oneself to situations in which biases can be discovered (the best way is to 'hang out' with whomever one regards as the enemy)" (1982, p.278).