The Essence of the Concept System
Understanding evolving concept systems
A concept system is a network of concepts with a coordinating mechanism. In this article, we explore it from six perspectives: scale, hierarchy, boundary, function, representation, and genidentity.
I will curate my explorations and insights from the past few years in these areas. Although these early investigations focused on Knowledge Frameworks, the principles they reveal are applicable across all six faces. Taken together, they form a complete and systematic meta-framework for understanding the coordinating mechanisms underlying evolving concept systems.
Scale: The Art of Chunking
The scale of a network depends on the number of its nodes. If a concept system contains too many concepts, it can become a complex and unwieldy structure.
Cognitive psychologists suggest that people use the Chunking technique to transform a large amount of information into a human-friendly scale for bypassing the limited capacity of working memory. This principle can also be applied in the practice of evolving concept systems.
For example, I often rely on the middle layer of the Evolving Knowledge Enterprise model (see the diagram below).
The model is structured as a 3×3 matrix, which exceeds the typical limits of working memory.
Hierarchy: The Art of Structural Organization
While Chunking (Section 2.1) reduces the complexity of individual units, hierarchy organizes these units into nested layers to manage systemic complexity. Hierarchy is an efficient way to structure information, and in concept systems, it typically spans 2–4 layers.
From 2023 to 2024, I developed the “Variant > Quasi-invariant > Invariant > Invariant Set” schema as a meta-framework for developing an ecological epistemological framework.
The schema defines four types of knowing. For example, it can be applied to understand knowledge frameworks.
- Invariant: Basic Forms
- Invariant Set: Frames
- Quasi-invariant: Derived Forms
- Variant: Frameworks
The diagram below illustrates how the Basic Form of “Container(Containee)” can generate multiple knowledge frameworks for different projects.
Notably, the landscape of the Evolving Knowledge Enterprise is situated at the Variant layer.
Zooming into the Evolving Knowledge Enterprise reveals its own hierarchical structure: a 3-dimensional × 3-level model:
3 Dimensions
- Mental Platform: Knowledge Elements → Knowledge Frameworks → Knowledge System
- Material Container: Themes → Representations (such as Diagrams) → Things
- Behavioral Network: Circles → Projects → Social Network
The Middle Loop
- Knowledge Frameworks
- Representations (Such as Diagrams)
- Projects
Based on the above model, I expanded it into a toolkit. More details can be found in The Landscape of Evolving Knowledge Enterprise.
For the “Mental Platform” part, the following three levels are considered:
- Knowledge Element (theme, concept, diagram, case study, etc.)
- Knowledge Framework (concept system)
- Knowledge System (a large system based on a series of concept systems)
Themes, concepts, diagrams, case studies, and similar elements are individual knowledge elements. When curated together, they form a systematic knowledge framework.
When several knowledge frameworks are grouped together, they form a larger unit, a knowledge system.
In my 2025 book draft, Strategic Life Narrative, I used the following levels for the “Theme” group:
- Creative Clues
- Creative Themes
- Creative Concepts
- Creative Frameworks
Here, Clues, Themes, and Concepts correspond to Knowledge Elements. When multiple concepts work together, they form a Concept System, also referred to as a Knowledge Framework.
Boundary: The Inside — Outside Principle
In 2022, I applied the Inside–Outside Principle to design the Knowledge Discovery Canvas. The canvas was originally developed to explore the development of tacit knowledge. To distinguish external, public knowledge from internal, personal knowledge, I used the notions of inner space and outer space in its design.
The Inside — Outside Principle leads to the following distinctions:
- Mental Elements vs. Knowledge Elements
- Mental Models vs. Knowledge Frameworks
On October 26, 2025, I further connected the principle with the Container-Platform-Network schema, resulting in the diagram below.
At the “Network” corner, we find:
- Knowledge Elements
- Mental Elements
At the “Container” corner, we find:
- Knowledge Frameworks
- Mental Models
At the “Platform” corner, we find:
- Theory as Platform
- Mental Platform
These concepts can also be grouped into two overarching categories:
- External, Public, and Objective
- Internal, Private, and Subjective
Moreover, there exist several types of attachances between the thematic spaces associated with these concepts.
A Knowledge Framework can be internalized and transformed into Mental Models; in this movement, we detach from the outside space and attach to the inside space.
Conversely, a Mental Platform can be externalized as a product, becoming a Theory as Platform. In this movement, we detach from the inside space and attach to the outside space.
This model represents the seed of the Six Faces of the Concept System.
Function: The Means — End Spectrum
Within the landscape of evolving concept systems, concept systems serve two distinct purposes:
- Concept System as Work: Such as Theory as Platform and the Concept System behind a product. Here, a concept system functions as an End, producing external results for others to use.
- Concept System for Work: Such as Mental Platform, Team Culture, and Beliefs and Values. Here, a concept system functions as a Means, serving as internal tools for a team.
This distinction reflects the Means — End Spectrum I introduced on November 29, 2021.
On October 23, 2025, I developed the Double Platform Framework:
- Mental Platform → Spontaneous Concept System → Concept System as Means
- Theory as Platform -> Scientific Concept System → Concept System as End
More details can be found in Weave the Concept: Mental Elements, Mental Models, and Mental Platform.
The Six Faces of the Concept System further situate these distinctions within the context of the social world.
Representation: Strategic and Operational Levels
Some concept systems are designed to analyze specific activities or social practices. When a concept system serves this purpose, it functions as a knowledge framework. While all knowledge frameworks are concept systems, not all concept systems qualify as knowledge frameworks; thus, knowledge frameworks represent a subset of concept systems.
What’s the relationship between Frameworks and Diagrams?
Knowledge Diagrams are external visual representations of knowledge frameworks. However, this correspondence is not strict. Some knowledge frameworks are represented through tables or textual formats rather than diagrams. Conversely, certain diagrams — such as meta-diagrams — represent only spatial structures, not domain-specific knowledge. The typology below illustrates different forms of cognitive representation.
There is also a loose correspondence between networks of knowledge frameworks and Diagram Networks. A Diagram Network can be used to develop a Network of Knowledge Frameworks.
More details can be found in Diagram Explained: Concept System, Diagram Network, and Knowledge Frameworks, and Diagram Explained: Kinds of Cognitive Representation and The Fifth Way of Knowing.
Although this typology of cognitive representation was originally developed to study knowledge frameworks, it can now be applied to explore other types of concept systems.
Genidentity: Essential Differences and Situated Dynamics
In May 2022, I developed the Platform Genidentity framework to understand the Identity of a Knowledge System and a Knowledge Center over time. The framework drew from Kurt Lewin’s early 20th-century concept of genidentity, defined as the existential continuity of an object through its successive phases of development. According to Lewin, identity did not stem from static properties but from a lineage of transformation — “one has developed from the other.”
Though Genidentity was originally developed to compare scientific disciplines and their developmental logic, I interpreted it as a concept of “topology of identity” with temporal dynamics.
To operationalize the concept, I proposed the following working definition:
A thing’s Genidentity is defined by Essential Differences with Situated Dynamics. This allowed me to transform a philosophical concept into a usable one for empirical research.
In May 2024, based on the Platform Genidentity framework, I further developed a model to discuss the Genidentity of the Knowledge System. The diagram below illustrates an application of this model, developed later in December 2024.
In December 2024, I launched the World of Activity toolkit, featuring five models. I later positioned these five, along with an additional one, on the Genidentity diagram.
- CALL hosted The Ecological Practice Approach, inspired by Ecological Psychology.
- AA hosted the Activity Analysis Method, rooted in Activity Theory.
I regarded a theoretical approach as a large-scale knowledge system composed of different types of knowledge entities. Some were foundational (e.g., primary concepts that define Essential Differences), and others were applied (e.g., practical frameworks that adapt to Situated Dynamics).
I also placed a series of knowledge frameworks on the diagram, assigning them to the primary, secondary, and tertiary areas. This arrangement allows us to identify which knowledge frameworks constitute the Essential Differences of a given knowledge system.
More details can be found in The Genidentity of Knowledge System.
v1 - December 26, 2025 - 1,418 words