This question isn’t just philosophical navel-gazing. It opens a crucial door to deeper coherence, flexibility, and insight within our system of thought. The short answer: Yes — and doing so is both possible and profoundly productive.
Ontologies as Living Systems, Not Static Objects
Traditional metaphysics often treats an ontology as a fixed object: a stable set of categories describing what is. By contrast, relational ontology understands ontology as a system of potential — a structured theory of construals that can be actualised in many ways, depending on perspective and context.
In other words, relational ontology is not a frozen monolith but a living system, open to continual perspectival instantiation.
What Does It Mean to Apply Relational Ontology to Itself?
To apply relational ontology reflexively is to turn the analytical lens inward. The ontology becomes both the subject and object of inquiry.
-
It is a theory of potential construals.
-
Each articulation of the ontology—whether a paper, a blog post, or a dialogue—is an actualisation: a perspectival cut construing the theory in a particular way.
-
The ongoing process of theorising and refining is itself a construal event within the system.
Thus, the ontology is recursive: it construes itself without collapsing into circularity because every actualisation is situated, perspectival, and open to revision.
Why is This Reflexivity Valuable?
1. Avoiding Reification
This move prevents us from treating the ontology as an absolute, static truth. Instead, it remains dynamic and contingent—a system in motion rather than a thing-in-itself.
2. Enhancing Coherence
By modelling the ontology within itself, hidden assumptions and tensions come into view, enabling continuous self-correction and refinement.
3. Illuminating Ontology-Making as a Process
We see that ontology-making is itself a relational event—a construal producing metaphenomena (theories about theories) that can be analysed with the same tools.
4. Supporting Dialogue Across Frameworks
Viewing ontologies as relational systems actualised perspectivally allows for cross-theoretical dialogue without forced reduction or assimilation, fostering pluralism and iterative integration.
Towards a Meta-Ontology of Construal
This reflexive turn points us to a meta-ontology—a theory not only of being but of construal itself as ontological. Concepts like actualisation, perspectival cut, and systemic constraint become foundational primitives.
Importantly, this meta-level is not “above” or “outside” the ontology but immanent within it, offering a language to describe how ontological systems arise, evolve, and transform.
Conclusion: A Living Theory for a Living Practice
Relational ontology’s power lies not just in describing the world but in being a self-actualising system of thought. Reflexive application allows us to hold our frameworks accountable, embrace openness and change, and nurture a rigorous yet flexible philosophy.
Far from mere abstraction, relational ontology is a theory of how we construe what is—including the very tools we use to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment