The General Theory of Interpretation

1. Canonical Definition

The General Theory of Interpretation (GTOI) is the foundational theory that specifies the structural conditions under which meaning remains reliable across interpreters, environments, and time.

GTOI defines interpretation as a system-level process, governed by proportional and structural constraints rather than by individual cognition, belief, or intent. It explains how meaning is generated, stabilized, transmitted, and degraded across human, organizational, institutional, cultural, and artificial systems. Meaning System Science (MSS) operationalizes GTOI by supplying the measurable variable architecture—Truth Fidelity (T), Signal Alignment (P), Structural Coherence (C), Drift (D), and Affective Regulation (A)—under which interpretive reliability can be evaluated and governed.

GTOI is distinct from classical hermeneutic theories focused on textual or legal interpretation. It treats interpretation as a cross-domain systems phenomenon.

2. Featured Lineage: Foundational Thinkers

GTOI rests on the structural inheritance formalized in Meaning System Science. The following thinkers each established one necessary condition for interpretive stability later unified into the MSS variable architecture.

  1. Alfred Tarski
    Established truth as a formal correspondence condition independent of belief. GTOI inherits this as the requirement that systems maintain stable reference for interpretation to remain reliable (Truth Fidelity, T).

  2. Ferdinand de Saussure
    Demonstrated that meaning arises through relational signal structure rather than inherent properties. GTOI inherits this as the requirement that signals remain consistently aligned with reference and with one another (Signal Alignment, P).

  3. Ludwig von Bertalanffy
    Showed that stability depends on organized relationships and usable pathways rather than isolated parts. GTOI inherits this as the requirement that decision and information pathways remain structurally usable across time (Structural Coherence, C).

  4. Ilya Prigogine
    Showed that far-from-equilibrium systems reorganize under sustained pressure and that instability follows lawful dynamics. GTOI inherits this as the requirement to model contradiction accumulation as a measurable rate-pressure on interpretation (Drift, D).

  5. Lisa Feldman Barrett
    Demonstrated that interpretation is constrained by regulatory capacity and predictive updating. GTOI inherits this as the requirement that systems maintain sufficient capacity to absorb variability and update meaning before contradictions accumulate into drift (Affective Regulation, A).

3. Position Within the Sciences

The General Theory of Interpretation occupies a foundational theoretical position within the scientific study of meaning and transformation.

It is neither an applied science nor a management discipline. Instead, it defines the theoretical constraints that must hold for interpretation to function reliably at scale.

Its position can be understood across four layers:

  • General Theory of Interpretation — establishes the laws and constraints of interpretation

  • Meaning System Science — provides the structural and proportional science of meaning

  • Transformation Science — models interpretive behavior over time during change

  • Transformation Management — governs interpretation in live systems

4. GTOI as a Foundational Theory

At the theoretical level, GTOI answers the question:

What conditions must hold for interpretation to remain stable across contexts, roles, and time?

GTOI:

  • defines interpretation independently of domain,

  • applies equally to human, organizational, and artificial systems, and

  • treats interpretive stability as a function of structure and proportion, not intelligence or agreement.

GTOI does not measure variables. It defines the constraints under which interpretation is possible at scale.

5. Relationship to Meaning System Science

Meaning System Science (MSS) is the operational science of the General Theory of Interpretation.

MSS provides:

  • the variable architecture (T, P, C, D, A),

  • the proportional relationships governing interpretive reliability, and

  • the rate-based dynamics through which drift emerges.

In this relationship:

  • GTOI defines what interpretation requires, and

  • MSS defines how those requirements can be evaluated in real systems.

Without GTOI, MSS lacks theoretical grounding.
Without MSS, GTOI lacks operational precision.

6. Structural Conditions of Interpretation (T, P, C, D, A)

Under GTOI, interpretation remains reliable when the following conditions maintain proportional balance:

  • T — Truth Fidelity
    The system’s correspondence condition; its “promise” of reality.

  • P — Signal Alignment
    The consistent expression of that promise across roles, channels, and interfaces.

  • C — Structural Coherence
    The stable distribution of meaning through decision pathways and governance structures.

  • D — Drift
    The rate of accumulated contradiction when T, P, and C lose proportionality under load.

  • A — Affective Regulation
    The system’s capacity to sustain interpretive load and process complexity without destabilization.

Interpretive reliability degrades when drift rate exceeds the stabilizing capacity of the system.

7. Relationship to the First Law of Moral Proportion

L = (T × P × C) / D

GTOI supplies the interpretive basis of the Law by defining how legitimacy depends on the proportional stability of meaning across a system. When drift accelerates faster than stabilizing variables can compensate, interpretive instability precedes legitimacy loss.

8. Application in Transformation Science

Transformation Science applies GTOI and MSS to systems undergoing change.

It models:

  • how interpretive conditions shift over time,

  • how proportional imbalance emerges under transformation pressure, and

  • when accumulated drift requires structural reorganization rather than incremental adjustment.

GTOI defines interpretive constraints. Transformation Science models how those constraints are stressed and restored.

9. Application in Transformation Management

Transformation Management is the applied professional discipline derived from GTOI and its supporting sciences.

It governs interpretation in live systems by:

  • designing decision environments that preserve shared meaning,

  • maintaining alignment across roles, signals, and structures, and

  • detecting rising drift rates before interpretive failure becomes irreversible.

Transformation Management operationalizes interpretive governance rather than behavioral control.

10. Example Failure Modes

  • Identical directives produce divergent interpretations due to degraded Truth Fidelity (T).

  • Signals lead to inconsistent action because Signal Alignment (P) varies across roles.

  • Decisions diverge because Structural Coherence (C) does not provide stable pathways.

  • Contradiction accumulates as Drift (D) increases beyond system capacity.

  • Systems destabilize under pressure due to insufficient Affective Regulation (A).

11. Canonical Cross-References

Meaning System Science • Physics of Becoming • First Law of Moral Proportion • Proportionism • Truth Fidelity (T) • Signal Alignment (P) • Structural Coherence (C) • Drift (D) • Affective Regulation (A) • Legitimacy (L) • Transformation Science • Transformation Management • Semantics • Semeiology • Systems Theory • Thermodynamics of Meaning