This post outlines some of those exclusions — not as shortcomings, but as constitutive constraints. These exclusions enable the ontology to function as a coherent framework for construal.
Thinking Within One Ontology
Coherence, in this view, depends on thinking entirely within a single ontological frame. Relational ontology demands that we think from the inside — that we do not treat its primitives as optional or metaphorical, but as the conditions of possibility for being and meaning.
This means treating as foundational:
-
Being as relational, not substantial.
-
Construal as constitutive, not representational.
-
Systems as structured potentials, not aggregates of parts.
-
Actualisation as perspectival, not absolute.
To violate these commitments is not to stretch the theory — it is to exit it, and thus to dissolve its coherence.
1. What Relational Ontology Excludes
The following conceptual moves are incompatible with the ontology. They are not just difficult — they are excluded by its internal grammar.
a. Unconstrued phenomena
There is no phenomenon “prior to” or “outside of” construal. Every phenomenon is already cut — already perspectival. The idea of a raw, unmediated reality is incoherent within the model.
b. Entities independent of systems
There are no things that simply “are.” Everything that can be said to exist is an instance of a system — a selection from a field of structured potential. Substance metaphysics is excluded.
c. Essentialist categories
Categories such as “truth,” “mind,” or “world” cannot be treated as self-standing referents. They are actualised construals, and cannot be assumed as stable across systems.
d. Fixed boundaries or natural kinds
All individuation occurs through perspectival cuts. A “natural kind” that exists prior to construal is a contradiction in terms within this ontology.
2. What the Ontology Cannot Meaningfully Formulate
Some ideas cannot even be well-formed within relational ontology. They are structurally incoherent.
a. A ‘view from nowhere’
Because all construal is perspectival, there can be no view that is unpositioned, absolute, or unconstrained. There is no neutral observer.
b. Meta-languages that escape construal
Even metalanguage — including ontology itself — is cut from a field. There is no uncut language from which to describe all other systems.
c. Universals without systems
There are no context-free universals. What appears general must be systemically actualised. A universal without a system is meaningless.
3. What the Ontology Can Do, But Only with Care
Certain moves are possible, but only if carefully managed within the constraints of the model.
a. Self-reflexive theorising
The ontology can reflect on itself (as in the meta-ontology series), but only by recognising each statement as a cut — perspectival and situated. There is no omniscient summary.
b. Cross-ontological dialogue
Dialogues with other ontologies are possible, but they must acknowledge incommensurable commitments. No translation is innocent.
c. Re-description of other frameworks
Relational ontology can reconstrue other systems — but always from its own terms. The re-description is a cut, and not a neutral mapping.
4. Why Exclusion Matters
These exclusions are not arbitrary — they are constitutive constraints. They are what give the ontology:
-
Its integrity — preserving coherence across levels of construal.
-
Its clarity — by avoiding conceptual slippage and collapse.
-
Its power — by maintaining disciplined boundaries that allow generative complexity to emerge.
Constraint, here, is not limitation — it is grammar. It is what makes coherent thought possible.
Conclusion: Coherence by Design
Relational ontology excludes what would otherwise unravel it. It does not aim to accommodate all metaphysical intuitions, nor to serve as a universal language. It offers, instead, a precise and self-consistent framework for understanding reality as construed, actualised, and systemically constrained.
This is not a narrowing — it is a commitment to rigour, intelligibility, and responsibility in thought.
To think within a coherent ontology is to accept its exclusions as the price — and the condition — of meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment