International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics

Referred to by J. WARFIELD as "referencial transparency": "Referential transparency is required from methodology back to theory, and from theory back to foundations. Moreover it is required from applications forward and throughout all three of these components of a science.

"Ultimately, referential transparency is a description of a relationship between an interpreter and what is to be interpreted…

"Working against referential transparency is the following formidable collection of difficulties:

- What constitutes a science is implicit;

- Divisions 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 the science are implicit;

In some instances, especially in newer areas of technology, even the theory is implicit. In the ultimately reprehensible situation, even the methodology may be implicit" (1988, p.340).

In brief, the invisibility of the implicit can lead to considerable opacity of any representation and make its value highly doubtful. This is also a caveat for systemists!

Moreover, transparency also implies a "sometimes implicit aspect of communication – (i.e.) interpretive symmetry between originator and receiver of communications, summarized in four essentials:

"a. That the linguistic terms needed to represent either exist in the language or will be created as required;

b. that a way to organize the description exist or will be created;

c. that the design of the representation will employ the foregoing;

d. that the representation can be assimilated by both the originator and receiver.

"All these essentials depend on the awareness of basic language types" (Ibid).

Some of the reasons why systemics is so resisted in some quarters are closely related to WARFIELD's views. There is a wide gap between generalist and specialist languages, and this gap should be eliminated by the systemists if they ever want to be listen to.

→ Frame (mental); Reference frame