In this closing post, we apply the coherence/integrity distinction to three major discursive arenas — theology, artificial intelligence, and metaphysics — where conceptual inflation, metaphoric slippage, or representational confusion frequently masquerade as insight.
Relational ontology doesn’t just offer a new perspective. It demands new cuts — and disciplines those cuts according to what the system can actually sustain.
1. Theology: The Collapse of Coherence into Transcendence
The issue:
Theology often aspires to speak of the absolute — the eternal, the infinite, the unconditioned. Within the relational model, such language cannot be coherent unless it is construed from a perspectival system. But transcendence, as typically framed, exceeds all possible systems.
Diagnosis:
-
Coherence: Maintained within the theological tradition, but only by excluding perspectival accountability.
-
Integrity: Collapsed. Theology frequently attempts to actualise what the ontology excludes — an unconstrued, uncut totality.
Relational reframe:
What theology calls “God” or “transcendence” may be reconstrued as the systemic horizon of construal itself — not an external being but the limit condition of actualisation. That is, not a substance, but what cannot be cut without the system breaking.
☑ Coherence restored by recutting theology as modalised construal within the constraints of systemic potential.
2. AI and ‘Thinking Machines’: Coherence without Ontological Integrity
The issue:
AI is often framed as a domain in which machines will eventually “think,” “understand,” or “possess consciousness.” These terms are used metaphorically, then reified as literal.
Diagnosis:
-
Coherence: High within computationalist models.
-
Integrity: Violated when language of subjective construal is projected onto systems that lack perspectival selection or systemic self-reference.
Relational reframe:
AI systems can be reconstrued as tools for syntactic recursion, not semantic construal. They manipulate symbolic structure but do not make cuts. Their “outputs” are not phenomena — they are artefacts.
☑ Integrity recovered by refusing the conflation of symbolic generation with perspectival experience. The difference is not quantitative, but ontological.
3. Metaphysics: Category Errors as Foundation
The issue:
Traditional metaphysics often treats abstract categories (e.g. “being,” “cause,” “substance,” “truth”) as things to be discovered, rather than as cuts made within a system of construal.
Diagnosis:
-
Coherence: Varies — often high within classical frameworks.
-
Integrity: Undermined when foundational categories are taken to precede construal. This reinstates essentialism under the guise of rationalism.
Relational reframe:
Metaphysical categories can be reconstrued as systemic invariants — features not of an external world, but of the logic of construal itself. For example, “cause” becomes a perspectival relation between instances, not a force that exists apart from them.
☑ Integrity maintained by treating metaphysical language as modalised, not absolute — constrained by and accountable to the system from which it is drawn.
Summary Table
| Domain | Coherence | Integrity | Relational Move |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theology | Internal only | Collapsed | Reframe transcendence as modalised systemic horizon |
| AI | High | Violated | Refuse conflation of output with experience |
| Metaphysics | Variable | Often weak | Recut categories as constraints of construal, not entities |
Final Thought: Constraint as Theoretical Maturity
These case studies expose a common pattern: when coherence is pursued without regard for integrity, the result is always the same — conceptual inflation, metaphysical confusion, and performative contradiction.
Relational ontology offers a different path: disciplined thought. It doesn’t promise completeness, universality, or transcendence. It offers instead:
-
Coherence within the cut
-
Integrity within the system
-
Accountability to what makes meaning possible
This, in the end, is not just a model. It is a mode of thinking — one that insists we draw every distinction with care, and every generalisation with constraint.
Epilogue: Thinking with Coherence and Integrity — An Ongoing Practice
Relational ontology teaches us that thought is never free-floating. It is always cut — a selective actualisation of a vast field of potential. To think clearly is to recognise the constraints we operate within; to think responsibly is to respect those constraints as the conditions of possibility.
Coherence is the grace of a cut that holds together; integrity is the strength of the system that sustains it. Neither is ever complete or final. Both are practices — tasks to be returned to, refined, and lived.
In this light, relational ontology is less a fixed doctrine and more a mode of attentive thought:
-
A practice of making distinctions carefully.
-
A commitment to self-awareness in conceptual moves.
-
A dedication to holding form while allowing for transformation.
This is a call to intellectual humility, rigour, and creativity. To embrace what can be known within constraints, and to explore what can be done because of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment