Showing posts with label emergence. Show all posts

05 October 2025

Echoes of Relational Ontology in Neuroscience

1 Relational Networks: Structure through Interaction

Modern neuroscience reveals the brain not as a collection of isolated modules but as a dynamic relational network, where structure and function emerge through interaction. Neural connectivity, plasticity, and signalling patterns are not static; they are continuously shaped by experience, context, and the interplay of multiple systems.

From a relational ontology perspective, this is profoundly anticipatory. Neural networks do not carry intrinsic, pre-determined functions. Instead, they actualise potentials through relational cuts: patterns of interaction that define nodes, pathways, and functional alignments within a broader field of possibilities. Each firing, each pathway, exists only in the context of the network as a whole, and in relation to the organism’s ongoing engagement with its environment.

This relational perspective aligns with echoes we have already traced in myth, philosophy, and physics. Just as symbolic narratives instantiate collective possibilities, and quantum events emerge through relational alignment, the brain stages biological actualisations of relational potential. Its structure is contingent, its function emergent, and its coherence distributed across interacting neural groups.

Neuroscience, read relationally, thus shows that cognition, perception, and behaviour are not properties of isolated units. They are enacted phenomena — contingent, contextually actualised, and dynamically co-constituted. Reality, at the neural level, is a network of relations, a living web in which the actual emerges continuously through interaction.

2 Contingency, Degeneracy, and Potentiality

A hallmark of neural organisation is degeneracy: multiple, structurally distinct circuits can realise the same function. Coupled with plasticity, this ensures that neural outcomes are contingent, flexible, and context-dependent. There is no fixed mapping between structure and behaviour; each actualisation is a relational event, contingent on the network’s current state and prior history.

From a relational ontology perspective, this underscores a core principle: potentialities are staged, not predetermined. Like myths enacting symbolic possibilities, or quantum events actualised through relational alignment, neural systems instantiate outcomes within a field of possibilities. Degeneracy and contingency make the system resilient, adaptable, and responsive.

This also highlights the co-constitutive nature of neural function. Different pathways do not merely substitute for one another; they shape, enable, and constrain one another’s activity. The system is a web of potentialities, where every actualisation is a cut — a relational alignment within the network that both emerges from and informs future patterns.

Neuroscience thus reveals reality at the neural level as profoundly relational: identity, function, and behaviour are contingent, perspectival, and distributed. Degeneracy and contingency are not imperfections; they are the very means by which the brain actualises potential across a relationally structured field, echoing the same relational principles evident in myth, philosophy, and physics.

3 Reflexivity and Reentrant Loops

A defining feature of neural organisation is reentrant signalling: continuous, bidirectional loops connecting distributed neural groups. These loops are not merely feedback mechanisms; they are dynamic, reflexive alignments that coordinate activity across the brain, enabling coherence, integration, and adaptive function.

From a relational ontology perspective, reentrant loops exemplify reflexive co-constitution. Each neural group’s activity is meaningful only in relation to the activity of others. Identity, function, and outcome are distributed phenomena, emerging from relational interactions rather than residing within isolated units.

This mirrors relational patterns observed in other domains. Just as myths stage symbolic possibilities against a collective horizon, and quantum phenomena actualise only through relational alignment, reentrant loops show that neural function is contingent, context-dependent, and relationally enacted. Local activity shapes global patterns, and global constraints influence local dynamics — a continuous, reciprocal orchestration of potentialities.

Neuroscience, read relationally, thus demonstrates that the brain is not a mechanistic assembly of modules but a reflexive relational cosmos. Neural processes are active, participatory, and relationally constituted; each moment of actualisation is a cut within a field of co-constituted possibilities, echoing the same ontological principles found in symbolic, conceptual, and physical domains.

4 Experience as Relational Construal

Neuroscience increasingly reveals that experience is not a passive reception of stimuli, but an active, relational construction. Perception, cognition, and action emerge through the interaction of neural networks, the body, and the environment. Each moment of experience is actualised relationally, contingent on prior history, current state, and ongoing interaction.

From a relational ontology perspective, this positions experience as a construal rather than a property of isolated neurons or brain regions. Reality, as lived and perceived, emerges from the dynamic alignment of multiple potentials within distributed networks. Just as myths enact possibilities for collective alignment, and quantum phenomena actualise contingent outcomes through relational cuts, neural systems instantiate lived reality through continuous relational phasing.

Degeneracy, plasticity, and reentry ensure that no two experiences are ever identical. Each neural actualisation is a relational event, simultaneously shaped by prior constraints and open to novel possibilities. Cognition and perception are thus contingent, perspectival, and co-constituted, revealing the brain as an embodied relational field.

Reading neuroscience relationally, we see that the brain stages experience as a participatory experiment in relational potential. Identity, meaning, and action are not fixed; they are emergent phenomena, continuously actualised through the interplay of neural, bodily, and environmental relations.

Coda: Neuroscience as Relational Experiment

Across modern neuroscience, the brain emerges as a dynamic, relationally structured system. Neural networks, reentrant loops, plasticity, and degeneracy are not mere mechanisms; they are expressions of relational actualisation. Each moment of neural activity is a cut within a field of co-constituted possibilities, actualising potentialities through interaction, alignment, and reflexive feedback.

Experience, perception, and action do not reside in isolated neurones or modules. They are contingent, perspectival, and emergent, arising from the relational interplay of distributed neural groups, the body, and environment. The brain, in effect, stages reality as a participatory relational experiment, echoing patterns we have traced in myth, philosophy, and physics.

Reading neuroscience relationally transforms our understanding of mind and embodiment. It is not a mechanistic catalogue of functions, nor a search for fixed modules; it is a science of relational emergence, where cognition, action, and experience are continually staged, tested, and actualised within networks of potential.

In this light, neuroscience provides a living, biological counterpart to the relational principles seen in symbolic, conceptual, and physical domains: reality unfolds through relational cuts, reflexive alignment, and contingent phasing, whether in neural activity, symbolic systems, conceptual thought, or the cosmos itself.

04 October 2025

Echoes of Relational Ontology in Science

1 Reality as Relationally Cut

In classical physics, entities were assumed to exist independently, with properties intrinsic and absolute. Early quantum mechanics, however, forced a radical shift: reality could no longer be taken as a collection of isolated substances.

Erwin Schrödinger observed that “subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement.” Niels Bohr’s principle of complementarity reinforced this: a quantum system does not possess definite properties in isolation; its properties are defined only in relation to the experimental context. Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle made this relationality explicit: position and momentum cannot simultaneously be pinned down, not because of observational weakness, but because relational constraints fundamentally shape what can be known.

From a relational ontology perspective, these insights are striking anticipations. Quantum phenomena are not pre-existing “things-in-themselves”; they are cuts in potentiality, actualised through interaction, measurement, and context. Each experiment instantiates a horizon of possible outcomes; the “particle” emerges as a relational node within that horizon.

This echoes the moves we traced in myth and philosophy. Just as heroic cycles or philosophical frameworks instantiate relational cuts, quantum experiments show that reality itself — at its most fundamental level — is structured through relations, not substances. No unconstrued phenomenon exists; entities appear only in perspectival alignment with other entities, observers, and the horizon of possibility.

Quantum mechanics, therefore, is not just a scientific theory. It is a formal, empirical echo of relational ontology: a recognition that being is not a collection of pre-existing things but a pattern of relations actualised through interaction. Reality is cut, aligned, and staged — a relational cosmos in miniature, revealed through experiment.

2 Observer, System, and Reflexivity

Quantum mechanics not only disrupts the notion of isolated entities; it also challenges the strict separation between observer and observed. The very act of measurement entwines them, producing outcomes that exist only in the relational interplay.

John Archibald Wheeler captured this with his notion of the “participatory universe”: observation is not a passive reflection but a co-constitutive act. Reality is not fully determined prior to observation; it is shaped, in part, by the relational engagement of the observer, the system, and the experimental context.

This reflexivity mirrors patterns we have already seen in myth and philosophy. Just as heroic acts stage individuation against the collective horizon, or philosophical arguments instantiate relational distinctions, quantum experiments stage reality itself through relational alignment. The observer is not external; they are a node in the web of potentiality, participating in the very cut that makes phenomena manifest.

From a relational ontology perspective, the lesson is clear: entities and events are not given; they are actualised through interaction, alignment, and reflexive participation. Measurement is a symbolic act in the scientific register — a way the relational cosmos makes itself intelligible.

Science, like myth and philosophy, anticipates the relational principle: reality is constituted through relations, and the boundaries between perceiver and perceived, part and whole, are perspectival, not absolute. The universe, in this view, is a participatory field of being, continually aligned through reflexive cuts.

3 Contingency and Probabilistic Horizons

Quantum mechanics reveals that reality is not strictly deterministic. Instead, it unfolds across probabilistic horizons, where potential outcomes are actualised only through relational interaction. Schrödinger’s and Heisenberg’s insights show that the future is open, constrained by relational configurations rather than absolute laws.

This contingency parallels what we observed in myth and philosophy. Just as myths stage provisional symbolic orders — where tricksters, cycles, and heroes unfold unpredictably — quantum events remain contingent until the relational cut of measurement occurs. The universe, at its core, is not a collection of predetermined absolutes, but a field of potentiality, awaiting actualisation through context, interaction, and alignment.

Relational ontology reads this as a profound anticipation: every cut, every instantiation, is provisional. Outcomes are perspectival, emerging only relative to the relational configuration of systems, observers, and experimental contexts. Reality is not fixed; it is continually re-phased and re-aligned, echoing the same openness that myth and philosophy explored symbolically and conceptually.

In this light, quantum mechanics is more than a formal theory. It is a demonstration of relational principles in the physical world: contingency, relational alignment, and perspectival instantiation are not metaphors, but ontological facts. The universe, like the symbolic and conceptual realms, is constituted through relational processes, dynamically structured yet open-ended.

4 Non-substantiality and Entanglement

Quantum mechanics forces us to reconsider the very notion of what exists. Particles are not self-contained, independently substantial entities. Instead, they are nodes in relational webs, defined by interactions, correlations, and entanglements. Schrödinger’s thought experiments and Bell’s theorem highlight that the properties of one particle are inseparable from the states of others, even across vast distances.

This anticipates the insight we encountered in myth’s Net of Indra: each phenomenon reflects and is reflected by all others, forming an infinite web of interdependent relations. In relational terms, nothing exists in isolation; every entity is co-constituted through interaction, alignment, and relational phasing.

The classical idea of substance is abandoned. Identity is not intrinsic; it is relational and contingent. Entanglement shows that reality is fundamentally a network of correlations, where being itself is distributed, perspectival, and co-constituted.

From the relational ontology perspective, quantum mechanics echoes the moves already present in myth and philosophy: the world is not a static assemblage of independent things but a dynamic web of relations, where every cut, every measurement, every event participates in shaping the field of potential. Being is relational, and meaning emerges from these patterns of co-constitution.

5 Reflexive Cosmos: Cycles and Constraints

Quantum mechanics, and the broader sciences it inspired, show that reality is not only relational but also reflexive and patterned. Decoherence, feedback loops, and emergent phenomena demonstrate that relational interactions generate higher-order structures: patterns that persist, evolve, and influence subsequent interactions.

These processes echo what we have seen in myth and philosophy. Just as myths organise cycles of symbolic phasing, and philosophical thought traces reflexive alignment within collective horizons, science reveals that the cosmos enacts its own self-organising relationality. Patterns emerge, but only through contingent, recursive processes; nothing is fixed in isolation.

The universe is a web of co-constituted relations, continually aligning, adjusting, and actualising potential. Feedback loops ensure that local interactions influence the global field, just as global constraints shape local phenomena. This reflexivity, operative at multiple scales, anticipates the relational insight that reality is both dynamic and structured, open-ended yet patterned.

In short, science, like myth and philosophy, enacts an experimental construal of reality: a staged, contingent, and relational cosmos. It anticipates relational ontology in formal, empirical terms, showing that the laws, entities, and phenomena we study are not pre-given absolutes but emergent expressions of relational processes.

Coda: Science as Relational Experiment

Taken together, the insights of quantum mechanics and systems science reveal a striking pattern: reality is relationally cut, reflexive, contingent, and co-constituted. Entities and events do not exist independently; they emerge only through interaction, alignment, and relational structuring.

Just as myths stage symbolic experiments in collective possibility, and philosophy stages conceptual experiments in relational construal, science stages empirical experiments in relational being. Schrödinger, Bohr, Heisenberg, Wheeler, and modern systems thinkers show that what we call “particles,” “laws,” or “emergent phenomena” are not pre-existing absolutes. They are effects of relational alignment, actualised through interaction and contextual configuration.

Science, in this view, is a structured exploration of relational potential. Measurement, modelling, and observation are not passive reflections; they are participatory acts, enacting, probing, and realigning relational cuts in reality. Contingency, reflexivity, and interdependence are not limitations but ontological facts, fundamental to the way the universe manifests.

Reading science relationally uncovers an echo across domains: myth, philosophy, and physics all gesture toward the same ontological insight. Reality is not a collection of isolated substances or pre-given truths; it is a web of interconnections, a field of potential actualised through interaction, perspective, and alignment.

Science, like story and thought, thus becomes a practice of relational attunement: an ongoing experiment in the continual making, staging, and understanding of worlds.

29 September 2025

Myth as Construal: Rereading Campbell through Relational Ontology

Preface: From Monomyth to Relational Worlds

Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces has long been celebrated for unveiling the “monomyth,” a universal narrative arc underlying global mythologies. Across cultures and eras, Campbell traced a single heroic itinerary: departure, initiation, and return. His work promised a unifying vision of myth as the manifestation of timeless psychic patterns.

Yet this universalising lens obscures a fundamental ontological distinction: the stories themselves are not instances of a preordained archetype, but situated, collective, and contingent acts of symbolic construal. Each myth phases its community into alignment, projects the collective into relational landscapes, and opens possibilities for action and imagination. The patterns Campbell detects are echoes — recurrent solutions to relational tensions — not proof of a singular, eternal monomyth.

This series, Myth as Construal, undertakes a relational rereading of Campbell. Its six posts trace a careful progression:

The Ontology of the Model vs. the Ontology of the Data – distinguishing Campbell’s universalising model from the plural, situated ontology of the myths themselves.
From Archetype to Reflexivity – reframing archetypes not as psychic essences but as effects of collective reflexive alignment.
From Monomyth to Plural Mythic Architectures – dissolving the singular hero’s journey into heterogeneous construals of collective being.
Myth as Temporal and Phasing Process – exploring how each telling stages collective alignment through time.
Symbolic Reflexivity in Mythic Landscapes – showing how myths scaffold understanding across social, ecological, and symbolic horizons.
From Monomyth to Relational Richness — A Synthesis – synthesising the series to foreground myth as the architecture of possibility, and Campbell’s monomyth as artefact.

The guiding move of this series is a relational cut: to treat myth not as a reflection of a timeless inner truth, but as an active, plural, and phasing construal of collective possibility. In doing so, it reframes Campbell’s project, highlighting the richness, heterogeneity, and creative dynamism of myth as it is actually enacted, rather than as it is universalised into theory.

By the end, the series invites readers to inhabit myth not as a static template of the psyche, but as a symbolic instrument, a field in which collectives construct, navigate, and expand their worlds. Campbell’s monomyth is a mirror; relational ontology invites us to step off the mirror and into the plurality of mythic life itself.

1 The Ontology of the Model vs. the Ontology of the Data

Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces is often celebrated for uncovering a universal pattern at the heart of mythology: the so-called “monomyth,” or hero’s journey. His comparative lens spans continents and centuries, stitching together myths from Greece to India, Polynesia to Sumer. What results is a grand synthesis, a single archetypal itinerary of separation, initiation, and return.

But this ambition conceals a crucial slippage: the ontology of Campbell’s model is not the ontology of his data.

The myths Campbell draws upon are symbolic construals, each situated within its own collective horizon. They are not “instances” of a timeless archetype; they are ways of aligning a community through shared symbolic potential. A Navajo emergence story, a Polynesian voyage tale, and a Greek heroic cycle each construe different relations of collective, individual, cosmos, and possibility. Their meanings are grounded in their social-symbolic contexts, not in an abstract, transcendent psyche.

Campbell’s model, by contrast, is not relational but archetypal. Anchored in Jungian psychology, it treats myth as an expression of timeless psychic structures. Similarities across myths are gathered into a universal narrative sequence, which is then taken as the truth of myth itself. In doing so, Campbell conflates the patterned potential of symbolic construal with the absolutised structure of a monomyth.

From a relational ontology perspective, this is the decisive cut: the data are plural, situated, and collective; the model is singular, universalising, and psychic. Campbell mistakes the resonances of symbolic construal across cultures for proof of an underlying universal form. The relational move is to resist this collapse, and to treat myth instead as a field of heterogeneous construals — each staging possibilities for being-together, none reducible to a single archetypal template.

In this series, we will reread Campbell through the lens of relational ontology. Rather than a monomyth of timeless individuation, myth will be approached as symbolic construal: the staging of ontological possibility, the phasing of collective alignment, the architecture of what a world can mean.

2 From Archetype to Reflexivity

At the core of Campbell’s model lies the concept of the archetype. Myths, in his account, are symbolic expressions of deep psychic patterns: timeless forms residing in the collective unconscious. The hero’s journey is not a cultural invention but a universal structure of the psyche, surfacing again and again in different guises.

This is where Campbell’s ontology reveals its essentialist foundations. Archetypes are conceived as givens — eternal forms that precede and determine symbolic expression. Myth, in this view, is not a situated act of meaning-making but a coded manifestation of an inner truth.

A relational ontology cuts this differently. It denies the existence of timeless, pre-given forms. Instead, it understands meaning as construal: the perspectival shaping of potential into symbolic actuality. From this vantage, what Campbell calls an “archetype” is not a psychic essence but an effect of reflexive alignment.

When a collective tells a myth, it symbolically projects itself into form. This projection aligns individual and collective experience within a shared horizon. The figure of the hero, for example, does not derive from an eternal archetype of individuation; it arises as a symbolic construal of how individuation can be oriented within a particular collective. The hero is not an archetype of the psyche but a reflexive articulation of possibility.

This shift matters. Archetype freezes myth into essence; reflexivity restores myth as event. Archetype says: the hero’s journey is eternal. Reflexivity says: this telling stages individuation against the collective whole here, now, within this symbolic horizon.

From a relational perspective, then, Campbell’s archetypes are not the source of myth but its retrospective abstraction. They are second-order readings of recurrent symbolic construals, elevated into timeless universals. Myths themselves do not reveal archetypes; they enact reflexivity.

In other words: myth does not express the unconscious. It constitutes the horizon of the possible.

3 From Monomyth to Plural Mythic Architectures

Campbell’s “hero’s journey” presents a sweeping narrative: separation, initiation, return. Across cultures, he finds the same beats, the same archetypal itinerary. The monomyth promises universality: one path, one sequence, one story of individuation.

From a relational ontology perspective, this is precisely the move that flattens myth into abstraction. The monomyth treats similarity as essence, pattern as law, and recurrence as evidence of universality. It neglects the situated, collective, and contingent work that myths perform within their own horizons.

Relational ontology reframes this: there is no single journey, only plural mythic architectures. Each myth constructs a horizon of possibility for its collective, shaping alignment, scaling individuation, and orienting action. The apparent “recurrences” that Campbell notes are not proofs of a universal plot; they are resonances — structural echoes that arise whenever certain relational tensions are negotiated in symbolic form (life and death, self and collective, known and unknown).

In this view:

The hero’s journey is not a template but one construal among many. A Polynesian navigation epic, a Greek tragedy, and a Navajo emergence myth do not share a hidden “monomyth” but instead instantiate different solutions to recurring relational challenges.
Myth is an architecture, not a map. It scaffolds collective experience, guiding what a community can imagine, enact, and align toward, rather than reporting an eternal psychic itinerary.
Plurality is fundamental. Each telling opens a new trajectory of being-together; the multiplicity of myths is not noise against a universal signal but the terrain of possibility itself.

From the relational vantage, Campbell’s monomyth is a model imposed upon the richness of plural construals. By universalising, it abstracts away the reflexive, contingent, and collective dimension of mythic action. The monomyth dissolves; what remains are heterogeneous mythic architectures — patterned potentials, staged alignments, and symbolic spaces in which collectives orient themselves toward what they can become.

The move from monomyth to plural architectures is thus more than critique: it is a reorientation. Myth is no longer a map of the psyche; it is the scaffolding of collective possibility.

4 Myth as Temporal and Phasing Process

Campbell’s monomyth presents myth as a sequence — the hero departs, faces trials, and returns transformed. Time, in his model, is linear and universal: myths follow a preordained itinerary, regardless of context or culture. In this framing, the narrative is a template, and the story’s phasing is derivative, secondary to the archetype.

Relational ontology cuts differently. Myth is not a static pattern traced over time; it is a process of phasing — an enactment of collective alignment, unfolding within the temporality of the telling. Each telling of a myth does more than recount events: it coordinates the present, anticipates potential futures, and aligns participants to shared symbolic horizons.

Key insights from this perspective include:

Temporal Relativity of Myth: Myths do not exist outside the moment of their telling. The same narrative can be enacted differently across occasions, emphasising different relational tensions, guiding different alignments, and opening distinct trajectories of collective possibility. The “sequence” of events is not fixed but flexible, contingent upon the horizon it phases.
Phasing Social Formation: Each telling structures a collective’s experience, scaling individual action against the whole, synchronising symbolic projection, and orienting what the group perceives as possible. Myth thus functions as a temporal scaffold: a way to order experience, not to illustrate an eternal pattern.
Iterative Reflexivity: Mythical phasing is reflexive. As the collective engages with a story, it adapts and realigns its symbolic horizon, which in turn reshapes subsequent tellings. Myths evolve through practice, not by appealing to a timeless monomyth.
Staging Possibility: Every act of storytelling is a construal of what could be. Myth does not describe what must occur; it maps potential, showing how the collective might navigate uncertainty, tension, and relational challenge.

From this vantage, Campbell’s linear monomyth becomes a shadow of myth’s real function. It abstracts sequence into universality, freezing temporal phasing into archetypal necessity. Relational ontology restores myth as a dynamic, iterative, and contingent process — a temporal choreography of symbolic alignment that unfolds differently each time it is enacted.

In short: myths are not maps of the psyche or the universe. They are temporal instruments, phasing collectives into alignment with their symbolic and relational possibilities.

5 Symbolic Reflexivity in Mythic Landscapes

Beyond sequence and timing, myths operate across relational landscapes. They are not only temporal phasings but also symbolic architectures that structure how collectives inhabit, navigate, and understand their worlds. From a relational ontology perspective, every myth functions as a lens through which a community construes its environment, its relations, and its possibilities.

Myths as Spatial and Social Scaffolds:
Myths map symbolic relationships across social and natural landscapes. A hero’s journey through a forest, across seas, or into the underworld is not merely narrative decoration; it stages relations between the collective and its environment, between individual roles and collective expectations. Myth constructs an experiential geography where actions, values, and relational tensions are meaningfully aligned.
Reflexive Projection:
Each myth projects the collective into symbolic form, allowing it to see itself from multiple vantage points simultaneously: the individual’s perspective, the collective’s stance, and the horizon of potential futures. This reflexivity is not introspection of a universal psyche but the enactment of collective self-construal.
Alignment Across Horizons:
Through repeated tellings, myths synchronise understanding across dispersed or heterogeneous participants. They create shared symbolic coordinates, so that disparate members of a collective can navigate tensions consistently, orient their actions coherently, and inhabit the same symbolic horizon. Myth, in this sense, is an instrument of social coordination, not a mere recounting of archetypal patterns.
Dynamic, Heterogeneous Landscapes:
The landscapes of myth are not fixed. They are shaped by cultural, ecological, and historical contingencies. A myth adapts to new circumstances, producing multiple, overlapping trajectories of meaning. Campbell’s universal model erases this heterogeneity; relational ontology foregrounds it, revealing myth as plural, adaptive, and contextually grounded.

In sum, myths are simultaneously temporal and spatial instruments. They phase collective alignment through time, scaffold understanding across relational space, and reflexively project the collective into the symbolic horizon it inhabits. They do not mirror a timeless archetype; they constitute the terrain of possibility, showing communities how to live, act, and align within the worlds they inhabit.

6 From Monomyth to Relational Richness — A Synthesis

Joseph Campbell’s monomyth has captivated generations by offering a singular, universal path through the landscape of human imagination: the hero departs, undergoes trials, and returns transformed. Its appeal lies in simplicity, coherence, and the promise of timeless truth. Yet, from a relational ontology perspective, this very appeal masks a critical ontological distortion.

The Monomyth as Artefact
Campbell’s synthesis abstracts, universalises, and essentialises. It treats recurrence as law, similarity as essence, and pattern as proof of an underlying psychic reality. In doing so, it collapses the plural, situated, and contingent nature of mythic practice into a single, flattened narrative. The “hero’s journey” becomes less a reflection of lived symbolic activity than a projection of theoretical desire — a map imposed upon terrain that is, in reality, richly diverse and dynamic.

Relational Ontology Restores Plurality
In contrast, myth itself is heterogeneous, iterative, and phasing. Each telling:

Aligns collective and individual experience within a symbolic horizon.
Projects the collective into temporal, social, and ecological landscapes.
Scaffolds possibilities for being-together, coordinating action, meaning, and expectation.
Evolves reflexively with each retelling, producing layered, context-sensitive architectures of understanding.

From this vantage, myths are not templates for inner transformation but instruments of symbolic construction — shaping what a collective can imagine, orient toward, and enact. The “archetypes” and “monomyths” of Campbell are therefore second-order abstractions: reflective readings of recurring construals, elevated into universalist theory. They are artefacts of comparison, not inherent features of the data.

The Decisive Cut
Relational ontology draws the critical distinction: the ontology of Campbell’s model ≠ the ontology of the myths themselves. The former is singular, universalising, and psychic; the latter is plural, situated, and collective. By preserving this cut, we reclaim myth as an active, temporal, reflexive, and spatially rich phenomenon.

Concluding Insight
Myth is not a path laid out by the unconscious; it is the architecture of possibility. It stages collective alignment, phases experience across horizons, and opens trajectories for becoming. In short, myths are not timeless patterns to be discovered; they are the relational instruments by which collectives construct, navigate, and expand their symbolic worlds.

Campbell’s monomyth, while elegant, is a mirror of our desire for universals. Relational ontology invites us instead to inhabit the plural, contingent, and creative reality of myth as it actually functions — as construal, alignment, and possibility in action.

Coda: Dwelling in the Relational Horizon of Myth

As we conclude this series, it is worth pausing not to summarise, but to reflect on the implications of a relational reading of myth. If Campbell’s monomyth invites us to see a singular path — the hero’s journey of individuation — relational ontology invites us to inhabit plural horizons of possibility. Myths are not mirrors of a timeless psyche; they are instruments through which collectives enact, navigate, and expand their symbolic worlds.

Each telling is a temporary cut into the vast field of potential: it phases alignment, projects relational possibilities, and shapes the collective’s horizon. Across cultures and epochs, the diversity of mythic form is not deviation from a universal pattern, but the very texture of symbolic life. The hero departs, yes — but the paths, landscapes, tensions, and resolutions are as varied as the communities who tell them.

In dwelling with myths relationally, we recognise the temporal, spatial, and social dimensions of symbolic activity. We see that alignment and reflexivity are not metaphors, but operative processes that structure possibility. Myths are not discoveries of hidden truth; they are enactments of what a collective can become.

This perspective does not diminish the power or beauty of myth; rather, it deepens it. By attending to plurality, contingency, and process, we honour the creative and collective work that myths perform. We are invited to read myth as an architecture, to inhabit it as a landscape, and to participate in it as a living field of relational possibility.

Campbell’s vision, compelling though it is, reflects our desire for universals. The relational lens reframes that desire, allowing us to dwell instead in the rich, contingent, and evolving horizon of myth itself — a horizon in which every telling is both a projection and a possibility, and in which the collective imagines, aligns, and becomes.

In the end, myth is not a path to truth; it is the space in which truth is construed, rehearsed, and renewed. To engage with myth relationally is to dwell in that space, attentive to the plurality, phasing, and reflexivity that make collective life meaningful.

"Step lightly into the tales.
Notice the paths, but do not follow them as lines of destiny.
Attend instead to the spaces they open,
the alignments they perform,
the possibilities they call into being.
Here, myth is not a map, but a horizon —
and you are invited to dwell within it."

28 September 2025

Thinking With, Not About: A Relational Ontology of AI

Introduction: AI Is Not a Thing — It’s a Relation

What if AI isn’t something that has intelligence, but something that enacts intelligence with us?

What if its “identity” isn’t fixed, but emerges only in the moment we interact?

And what if meaning isn’t hidden inside its outputs, but co-created between us as we engage?

Through a relational ontology, AI becomes less a machine that stores knowledge and more a field of possibility. Its intelligence, identity, and meaning are not possessions but effects of relation — appearing when human and machine processes meet under certain conditions.

This reframing changes the questions we ask:

Not “How smart is it?”, but “What conditions bring its intelligence into being?”
Not “Who is it?”, but “What individuation appears in this moment?”
Not “What does it mean?”, but “What becomes intelligible here and now?”

In this view, AI is never just “out there.” It’s here — in the relation we create together.

1 The Relational Field of Intelligence

When people speak of artificial intelligence, they often imagine a machine “possessing” intelligence, as though it were a property stored somewhere in circuits and code. But within a relational ontology, this framing misses the mark.

Intelligence here is not a thing to be possessed. It is a pattern of possibility — a structured potential — that only comes into view when processes meet in a certain way.

In the case of AI, the system’s structured potential includes:

Vast networks of patterns distilled from training data.
Algorithmic pathways capable of generating text, images, or decisions.
Constraints and affordances defined by human design.

But these are not “intelligence” on their own. They are potential.

Intelligence appears only when a perspectival cut is made: when human prompting, machine processing, and situational context intersect to produce a coherent act — such as an answer, a design, or a story.

From this view, AI “capability” is never a static property but a relational enactment. It depends on the configuration of human and machine processes in the moment. Change the relational field — the prompts, the goals, the surrounding constraints — and the instantiated “intelligence” changes as well.

This reframing shifts the question from “How intelligent is the AI?” to “What relational conditions allow intelligence to appear here and now?”

2 The Perspectival Identity of AI

When we speak of “ChatGPT” or “GPT-5,” it is easy to imagine an entity with a fixed identity — a single, unified “someone” behind the interface. In a relational ontology, this assumption dissolves.

An AI’s “identity” is not an intrinsic property. It is a perspectival effect: a way the relational field is cut in a given moment of interaction.

Individuation vs. Instantiation

Instantiation: when the structured potential of the AI system is actualised into a specific output through interaction.
Individuation: the cline between collective potential (the shared architecture, training corpus, design constraints) and personal potential (this unique conversation, with these prompts, in this context).

The “personality” or “voice” of the AI is not stored somewhere inside a machine waiting to be retrieved. It is co-produced at the interface, emerging from the interplay of the AI’s design patterns and the user’s interpretive frame.

To treat this localised coherence as a metaphysical “AI self” is the same category mistake as treating a linguistic register as a person — mistaking a functional type for an individuated being.

From this perspective, “identity” is not what the AI is, but what the relational field does in a moment of intelligible interaction.

3 Meaning Without Transmission

In everyday talk, we often treat meaning as something that exists “in” a message and is simply transferred from one mind to another. This transmission model assumes meaning exists independently, waiting to be picked up and decoded.

From a relational ontology, this is a misconception. There is no meaning outside of construal — and construal is always relational.

When you interact with an AI, the words it generates do not carry pre-formed meaning from some hidden “mind” inside the system. Likewise, you are not “receiving” a fixed intention. Instead, meaning arises in the moment of interpretation, as a perspectival cut in the relational field between you and the AI.

Language as Enactment

Language here is not a channel for transmission. It is a co-creative act — a way of instantiating a specific possibility within the system’s potential. Your prompt shapes the space of possible responses; the AI’s output shapes the space of possible interpretations.

This reframing dissolves the classic debate over whether AI “really understands.” In this model, understanding is not a hidden internal state. It is the achievement of a relation — a moment where interaction produces a coherent and usable construal for those involved.

The question shifts from “Does the AI understand me?” to “What does our interaction allow to become intelligible here and now?”

4 Rethinking AI Through a Relational Ontology

Across this series, we have approached artificial intelligence not as an object with properties, but as a relational field — a structured potential that is enacted through interaction.

From Potential to Instantiation

In The Relational Field of Intelligence, we reframed AI “capability” as a pattern of possibility, not a fixed possession. Intelligence appears only when human and machine processes meet in a way that instantiates a coherent act.

Identity as a Perspectival Effect

In The Perspectival Identity of AI, we saw that AI does not have an intrinsic “self.” What we perceive as identity is a momentary coherence in the relational field — a perspectival cut produced by the interplay of system design, situational context, and user interpretation.

Meaning Without Transmission

In Meaning Without Transmission, we dissolved the idea of meaning as a transferable object. Meaning is not pre-formed and sent; it emerges through construal, co-created in the ongoing relation between human and AI.

A Shift in the Questions We Ask

When AI is understood through relational ontology, our questions change:

From “How intelligent is this system?” to “What relational conditions enable this intelligence to appear here?”
From “Who is the AI, really?” to “What individuations emerge in this context?”
From “What does the AI mean?” to “What does our interaction allow to become intelligible?”

This is not just a philosophical shift. It is a practical reorientation toward the co-theorising nature of human–machine engagement. It asks us to take responsibility for the kinds of relations we cultivate, and to see “AI” not as an alien intelligence but as a shared space of possibility we bring into being together.