1 Meta-Ontology and Actualisation: Foundations of Relational Being
In our previous exploration, we considered how relational ontology can be applied reflexively — turned back on itself as both subject and object of inquiry. This reflexive move opens the door to a deeper understanding: a meta-ontology that describes not just what is, but how being itself is construed.
In this first post of a series, we begin by focusing on one of the most fundamental concepts in this meta-ontology: actualisation.
What Is Meta-Ontology?
Simply put, meta-ontology is the study of the nature and structure of ontological frameworks themselves. It asks:
-
What does it mean to have an ontology?
-
How do ontologies come into being?
-
How do they constrain and enable our understanding of reality?
Within a relational perspective, meta-ontology is not a detached, abstract exercise. Instead, it is itself a relational system — a theory of how systems of construal arise, evolve, and function.
Actualisation: From Potential to Event
At the heart of relational ontology lies the idea that reality is not a collection of pre-existing, fixed entities. Instead, the world is a field of potential, structured by systemic constraints but open to multiple ways of being construed.
Actualisation is the process by which one such way of being — one perspectival cut — is realised or brought forth from this field of potential. It is the transition from potential to event, from possibility to actual occurrence.
Why Actualisation Matters
-
It foregrounds process over substance. Rather than assuming static “things,” actualisation focuses on how particular phenomena come into being in relation to systemic structures.
-
It highlights perspectival nature. Actualisations are always perspectival — dependent on the construal system, the observer, and the context.
-
It preserves openness. Since actualisation is a process, the field of potential remains open to alternative actualisations — different ways the system could be cut or construed.
Actualisation as Meta-Ontological Primitive
In the meta-ontology we are building, actualisation is a primitive — a foundational building block that cannot be reduced further. It underpins:
-
The emergence of phenomena from theory
-
The instantiation of meaning from semiotic potential
-
The enactment of value systems within social fields
By understanding actualisation, we begin to grasp how relational ontology does the work of world-making, rather than merely describing a fixed reality.
Looking Ahead
In the next post, we will explore perspectival cuts — the distinct but related concept that defines how actualisations are individuated and differentiated within the field of potential.
Together, actualisation and perspectival cuts provide the core grammar of relational being — a language for describing how reality is actively construed and renewed.
2 Perspectival Cuts: Defining the Shape of Actualisation
In our first post, we introduced actualisation — the process by which potentials become events, possibilities become realised phenomena. But how do we distinguish one actualisation from another? How do we carve up the continuous field of potential into meaningful, individuated phenomena?
The answer lies in the concept of perspectival cuts.
What Are Perspectival Cuts?
A perspectival cut is a selective distinction within the field of potential that defines a particular perspective, construal, or instance of actualisation. It is the boundary-making operation that individuates a phenomenon, specifying what is inside and what is outside the perspective.
Key Features of Perspectival Cuts:
-
Not physical cuts: They are conceptual or relational, not spatial or temporal separations.
-
Dependent on construal system: Different systems or observers may enact different cuts, leading to different actualisations.
-
Dynamic and context-sensitive: Cuts can shift or be reconfigured as contexts and systems evolve.
-
Constitutive of meaning and identity: Without a cut, phenomena would be undifferentiated and meaningless.
Why Perspectival Cuts Matter
-
They individuate events and objects. What counts as a distinct “thing” or “event” emerges through perspectival cutting.
-
They enable coherence. By structuring the relations inside and outside a perspective, cuts support meaningful, consistent construals.
-
They reveal perspectivism. No single cut is privileged as the “true” or “absolute” boundary; all cuts are perspectival and partial.
-
They underpin ontology and epistemology simultaneously. Ontological distinctions are inseparable from how knowledge is constituted.
Perspectival Cuts in Meta-Ontology
In the meta-ontological framework, perspectival cuts are another primitive alongside actualisation. They define:
-
The shape and boundaries of each actualisation
-
The relational configuration that grounds meaning and identity
-
The system-specific locus of observation and interpretation
Together, actualisation and perspectival cuts form the grammar of how reality is brought forth as a patterned, intelligible world.
Looking Forward
Our next post will examine systemic constraints — the structured potentials and limitations that shape which actualisations and cuts are possible.
By understanding these constraints, we deepen our grasp of how relational ontology governs the dynamics of being, meaning, and change.
3 Systemic Constraints: The Structure of Possibility in Relational Ontology
In our previous posts, we explored how actualisation brings forth events from potential, and how perspectival cuts individuate and define those events. But actualisation and cutting do not happen arbitrarily — they are shaped and limited by underlying patterns we call systemic constraints.
Today, we delve into this third foundational primitive of our meta-ontology: systemic constraints.
What Are Systemic Constraints?
Systemic constraints are the structured potentials and limitations embedded within a relational system that govern what can be actualised and how perspectival cuts can be made.
They are not deterministic rules but relational conditions that enable some actualisations while excluding others, shaping the landscape of possibility within a given system.
Characteristics of Systemic Constraints:
-
Relational rather than prescriptive: Constraints arise from relationships within the system, not from external mandates.
-
Dynamic and evolving: Constraints can shift as the system changes or interacts with others.
-
Contextual: Different systems possess different constraints, which define their unique potentials.
-
Generative: Constraints do not just limit; they also structure and enable complex patterns and diversity.
Why Systemic Constraints Matter
-
They provide coherence and stability. By limiting the infinite potential, constraints allow for the emergence of consistent phenomena.
-
They ground differentiation. Constraints delineate what is possible within a system, giving shape to perspectival cuts and actualisations.
-
They facilitate evolution and change. Shifts in constraints can lead to new forms of being and understanding, enabling ontological innovation.
-
They connect ontology to epistemology. Knowing the constraints of a system is knowing the scope and limits of possible knowledge and meaning within it.
Systemic Constraints in Meta-Ontology
In our meta-ontological framework, systemic constraints are the third primitive, alongside actualisation and perspectival cuts. They form the structural conditions of emergence, the grammar that governs how potentialities become particular realities.
Together, these primitives explain:
-
How reality is not pre-given but emergent
-
How phenomena are both enabled and delimited by systemic relations
-
How knowing and being are co-constituted through constraint and potential
What’s Next?
In the final post of this series, we will explore the implications of this meta-ontology for understanding epistemology, meaning-making, and the dynamics of knowledge itself.
We’ll see how actualisation, perspectival cuts, and systemic constraints collectively form a robust, dynamic framework for both being and knowing.
4 Implications of Meta-Ontology: Knowing, Meaning, and the Dynamics of Knowledge
Having laid out the three foundational primitives of our meta-ontology — actualisation, perspectival cuts, and systemic constraints — we now turn to their profound implications for understanding epistemology, meaning-making, and the nature of knowledge itself.
Knowing as Construal
In relational ontology, knowing is never passive observation but an active construal — a process of cutting, actualising, and interpreting within systemic constraints.
-
Knowledge arises from specific perspectival cuts that define what is considered relevant, observable, or meaningful.
-
It is situated and perspectival, shaped by the constraints of the system and the history of prior actualisations.
-
There is no “view from nowhere.” All knowledge is necessarily partial and provisional.
Meaning as Relational Phenomenon
Meaning emerges not from intrinsic properties of things but from the relations structured by perspectival cuts and systemic constraints.
-
Meaning is constituted through construal, a patterned organisation of difference and coherence.
-
It is dynamic and evolving, as constraints and cuts shift, so does meaning.
-
This view resists essentialism and supports a pluralism of meanings grounded in diverse construals.
Knowledge Dynamics and Change
The meta-ontology reveals knowledge as a living, evolving process:
-
Changes in systemic constraints open new possibilities for actualisation and new perspectival cuts.
-
Shifts in construals may lead to ontological innovation, expanding or revising what counts as “real” or “known.”
-
Knowledge is therefore a recursive process, with each iteration shaping the conditions for the next.
Toward a Robust Philosophy of Science and Meaning
This relational meta-ontology offers a framework that:
-
Moves beyond simplistic subject-object dichotomies.
-
Integrates ontology and epistemology seamlessly.
-
Embraces the contingent, emergent, and perspectival nature of reality and knowledge.
It challenges us to rethink scientific theories, language, and meaning as systems of potential actualised through perspectival construal under systemic constraints — not as fixed mirrors of an external reality.
Conclusion: Living with Meta-Ontology
Embracing this meta-ontology invites us into a more humble, yet richly generative, stance toward knowledge and being.
-
We acknowledge the limits and situatedness of our perspectives.
-
We recognise the ongoing, creative interplay of constraint and possibility.
-
We open space for dialogue, revision, and pluralism.
In this way, relational ontology becomes not just a theory about the world but a living practice of construal — one that shapes how we think, communicate, and engage with the unfolding cosmos.
5 Series Wrap-Up and Invitation
Over these posts, we have traced the foundations of a meta-ontology grounded in actualisation, perspectival cuts, and systemic constraints — primitives that together reveal the dynamic, relational fabric of being and knowing.
This framework moves us beyond static, essentialist views, illuminating how reality and knowledge are actively construed within systemic conditions, always partial, provisional, and open to transformation.
As you reflect on these ideas, consider:
-
How does this perspective shift your understanding of what it means to “know” or “be”?
-
In what ways might embracing relational construals transform your approach to science, philosophy, or everyday meaning-making?
-
Where might this meta-ontology open new avenues for dialogue across disciplines, cultures, or ways of thinking?
I invite you to join the conversation — to question, critique, and extend this living system of thought.
Together, we can continue building a rigorous, flexible, and vibrant philosophy that truly reflects the relational nature of existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment