In this third post, we apply the relational concepts of coherence and integrity to several concrete examples — cases where a theory seems internally consistent but fails to preserve the structural viability of its system. We also examine how relational ontology can reframe or diagnose these failures.
In each case, we ask:
-
Is the construal coherent?
-
Does it violate the integrity of its own system?
-
Could it be reconstrued relationally to preserve coherence and integrity together?
1. Quantum-Classical “Boundary” (Physics)
The issue:
Standard interpretations of quantum theory often posit a boundary between the quantum and classical worlds — coherent within the maths, but ontologically unstable.
Diagnosis:
-
Coherence: The maths is internally consistent.
-
Integrity: Broken. The so-called boundary introduces ontological dualism into a system that otherwise treats quantum fields as foundational.
Relational reframe:
The “boundary” is not ontological, but a perspectival cut — a shift in the constraints and scale of actualisation. What’s needed is not two worlds, but one system with constrained possibilities for instantiation.
☑ Coherence restored by reframing the boundary as an instance of construal, not an ontological divide.
2. Mental Representation (Philosophy of Mind)
The issue:
Cognitive science routinely describes mental phenomena in terms of internal representations of an external world.
Diagnosis:
-
Coherence: Internally consistent if one assumes mind and world are distinct.
-
Integrity: Violated. The theory presupposes an unmediated world and a detached observer — a view disallowed by its own constructivist implications.
Relational reframe:
No need for representation. Mental life is not a mirroring of an external world, but a perspectival construal shaped by systemic constraints — biological, social, symbolic. What appears as representation is actually a cut upon a cut.
☑ Integrity recovered by abandoning the metaphysics of mind/world dualism.
3. Standardised Curricula (Education)
The issue:
School curricula aim for consistency and equity by enforcing universalised learning outcomes — coherent at the policy level, but incoherent in practice.
Diagnosis:
-
Coherence: The standards are logically structured.
-
Integrity: Collapsed. The system excludes the situated, relational nature of learning and presumes a disembedded subject.
Relational reframe:
Instead of universal content, curriculum can be construed as a system of potentials actualised differently across contexts. The goal is not sameness, but coherence within situated constraints.
☑ Coherence re-achieved at the level of instance; integrity maintained by acknowledging the system as fielded and perspectival.
4. Essentialism in Identity Politics (Social Theory)
The issue:
In struggles for recognition and rights, identity categories are often treated as essential — “I am X” becomes a claim to reality.
Diagnosis:
-
Coherence: The logic of group identity is consistent and politically powerful.
-
Integrity: Under threat. The strategy borrows essentialist metaphysics from the very systems it aims to resist.
Relational reframe:
Identity can be theorised as a position in a field, a cut from collective potential. This allows for strategic coherence without ontological essentialism.
☑ Integrity restored by replacing fixed identities with constrained actualisations.
5. ‘Forbidden’ Black Holes (Recent Astrophysics)
The issue:
Some black holes now being detected lie in mass ranges thought to be “forbidden.” The construal is coherent, but the framing misleads.
Diagnosis:
-
Coherence: The term “forbidden” is consistent with past models.
-
Integrity: Jeopardised. The term implies that models have the force of laws — a misunderstanding of modalisation as modulation.
Relational reframe:
The anomaly can be construed as a constraint re-evaluation, not a breach. The model was never a closed law but a system of constrained potential. The new data simply marks an actualisation previously unpredicted.
☑ Integrity recovered by shifting from law-based to system-based construal.
Conclusion: Reading for Structural Viability
Relational ontology offers more than a lens — it offers a discipline. By distinguishing between coherence and integrity, we can:
-
Diagnose where apparently consistent theories break their own ground
-
Rescue powerful construals by restoring the systems they depend on
-
Engage in critique without collapsing into rejection or relativism
This is how we read responsibly. Not for internal logic alone, but for the conditions that make logic meaningful in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment