Conceptual Framework and Noise

The production of a “theory of everything” is a continuous process. It does not emerge as a singular intellectual event but persists as a structural requirement of thought itself. This is particularly pronounced within Western civilization, which is organized as a system of competitive intellectual production, where frameworks of total explanation function as both instruments and stakes of intellectual rivalry.

1. Introduction

The problem of potential intellectual dissonance lies in the absence of a unified “theory of everything” capable of structuring the breadth of what is currently taking place.

There are periods in which mutual understanding becomes impossible, since the prevailing “theory of everything” has, for one reason or another, collapsed. What remains is a condition of articulated dissonance: multiple voices without convergence, where what is heard resolves into noise.

According to certain researchers, a striking property of collective consciousness is its limited temporal retention of events—approximately three months—after which a new agenda can be constructed, enabling a reversal of dominant public interpretations.

The internal cognitive operation of “montage,” as discussed by Merab Mamardashvili, along with related structural properties of consciousness, allows for the removal of memory elements that conflict with the current narrative configuration.

To grasp the underlying cause of events, to extract general meaning, and to derive significance from it, is a capacity of individual thought as distinct from collective cognitive processing.

2. Loss of Contact with Reality

A situation may arise in which quasi-intellectual circles lose analytical capacity, as the conceptual framework ceases to maintain any operative relation to reality.

The “theory of everything” adopted at the previous “congress” no longer corresponds to what is actually occurring. While the broader masses are structurally excluded from sustained comprehension of an inherently constructed world, certain strata responsible for maintaining the general line—fully aware of their own role in simplification—may develop a form of contempt toward the very outputs they reproduce.

The recognition of “factionality,” together with the necessity of continuously reaffirming the congress-defined “theory of everything,” requires persistent intra-group processing (“working-through”), a concept associated with the work of Merab Mamardashvili.

3. Project Intention

The governing layer, despite the structural instability of the “theory of everything,” does not lose the impulse to preserve the framing itself. This requires a revision of foundational premises, which in turn implies a shift of the general line, or in more extreme cases—an overhaul of the existing “concept of social aspiration” (if such a concept is in fact present).

A new conceptual formation (the project intention, as it appears within mass consciousness under the form of a “theory of everything”), which may emerge after a systemic crisis, presupposes a new governing configuration. This role may also be assumed by the existing leadership, provided it is capable of rapid re-alignment.

Conflict under transitional conditions is possible; however, such dynamics must ultimately resonate with a positive project, should one be identifiable.

If no positivity is available, processes will nevertheless continue: projectuality will persist (as will the governing line), though the resulting configurations will differ in outcome and internal structure.

4. Management Unit and the “Theory of Everything”

If the governing unit does not understand what is taking place, and shows no interest in understanding it, governance becomes structurally destined for termination.

A functioning governing unit will tend to monitor and actively construct the informational agenda, continuously adjusting it in accordance with the prevailing “theory of everything.” Events are interpreted through the lens of this approved framework, thereby regulating collective consciousness in alignment with the general line.

Following significant events, the “angle of vision” may shift; however, this shift is in fact only a change in the inclination of the same underlying interpretative emitter.

The agenda may be modified: certain events may be omitted, or reinterpreted differently, as long as such adjustments do not contradict the underlying “theory of everything.” In other words, shifts in the general line—caused by leadership change, systemic disruptions, or shifts in internal disposition—must remain compatible with the established framework.

In some cases, the “theory of everything” itself may collapse or be replaced, and then the constructed world of collective consciousness undergoes a radical transformation. Later, participants will sincerely assert that their consciousness was controlled at that time, while now it is not.

It is important to note that even those who reject the official “theory of everything” may still remain within the boundaries of an unrecognized one. For example, an intellectual in the 1970s–80s who considered the official narrative absurd nevertheless remained fully contained within its horizon.

To move beyond a “theory of everything” requires significant effort; in this sense, one may begin to speak of Greek metaphysics.

5. “Theories of Everything” as a Mode of Simplification

The production of a “theory of everything” is a continuous process. This is especially characteristic of Western civilization, which is itself a product of competitive intellectual production.

Such structuring frameworks may take the form of sacred texts, or the doctrines of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Kant, or Hegel. In a narrower sense, they include Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetic theory, or Einstein’s conceptual framework. Across different domains of knowledge, there exist localized “theories of everything” or aggregated conceptual systems that explain events within a bounded field.

Emerging conceptual structures are integrated into general cognition: they may function as specialized disciplines for explaining restricted phenomena while simultaneously extending into a general interpretative scheme that claims to explain everything. One may recall, for instance, the extension of Freudian theory into such a totalizing role.

Such “theories of everything” are simultaneously a necessity and a structural problem.

At times, a historical or regional framework assumes this function, reducing complex processes to something limited, local, and parochial. In such cases, it operates as an instrument of a specific center.

Conceptualization is a powerful mechanism of manipulation, allowing the present to be aligned with the past (or vice versa). Eliminating such forms of simplification in mass education is nearly impossible.

Even within professional communities, there exists an internal “theory of everything” specific to each domain, explaining a partial extraction from reality. The synthesis of these foundational conceptual schemes forms the epistemic profile of specialists who have access to higher-order knowledge systems.

Within an industry-specific “theory of everything,” a distinct form of jargon emerges, intelligible only within the boundaries of that environment.

The collapse of an industry-specific “theory of everything” transforms the worldview of the community operating within the given field.

6. Always Conceptual

It is impossible to eliminate either a universal simplified “theory of everything” or a narrower conceptual framework: any form of perception is structurally dependent on concepts. Attempts to think without concepts are illusory.

Engagement with reality may occur without reflective thought (a separate discussion is required here), but conscious thinking invariably requires:

• conceptuality as a mode of apprehending a fragment or an entire “world” through a set of foundational concepts;
• the construction of simplified structures that organize and explain what is taking place;
• a simplified “theory of everything” for mass cognition, expressed through conceptualizing thought.

7. “The Theory of Everything” as an Object of Attack

One may posit the existence of attacks directed at a “theory of everything”: either deliberately constructed conceptual interventions or stochastic configurations later utilized as instruments for the destabilization of an opposing “theory of everything.”

At the same time, a “theory of everything” is not falsehood in a direct sense. For instance, in contemporary school education, such a universal framework is often represented by scientific positivism and its various derivatives. On this basis, political conceptual models are constructed and operationalized within regional governance systems.

As a “theory of everything” for the interpretation of global processes, one may also employ an aggregate of geopolitical concepts. The fundamental problem, however, is that any representation is not reality itself—this constitutes one of the limits of metaphysics.

8. The Absence of “Free Access” and the Necessity of Mimesis

To grasp what is taking place, one must turn to professionals. Conceptuality is not surface-level; nor is it part of mass educational curricula.

Those who possess understanding most often either lie or withhold information:

• they lie, because knowledge and conceptual insight are too valuable to be distributed freely;
• they simulate understanding, because a fully honest articulation may contradict the official “theory of everything” and provoke conflict with authority structures;
• they perform ambiguity, since even a truthful statement may exceed the threshold of comprehension, while simplification would degrade its value.

For individual comprehension, two paths remain:

• either to rely on those who have already cleared conceptual debris within a specific domain and extracted its structural simplicity;
• or to engage in deep independent inquiry, which is nearly impossible for those occupied with operational activity.

Recommended Reading

• Gramsci, A. (1975). Quaderni del carcere [Prison Notebooks]
• Mamardashvili, M. K., & Pyatigorsky, A. M. Symbol and Consciousness
• Mamardashvili, M. K. How I Understand Philosophy
• Mamardashvili, M. K. Problems of Consciousness Analysis
• Mamardashvili, M. K. Psychological Topology of the Path: M. Proust, “In Search of Lost Time”
• Mamardashvili, M. K. Consciousness and Civilization