Grammar and the Ghost in the Machine

1 A Haunted Inheritance

Philosophy is full of ghosts. It speaks in the voice of being, will, substance, mind, and essence — and calls them real. But beneath these timeworn abstractions lies something far more familiar: language. For while philosophy has asked for centuries what the world is made of, it rarely asks what its own materials are made of — the materials of thought, argument, and theory.

This series begins with a provocation:

What if many of the most enduring metaphysical ideas in philosophy are in fact reifications of semiotic architecture?

What if “being” and “form” and “substance” are not eternal truths but grammatical metaphors turned into metaphysical doctrines?

We propose that a theory of language — and in particular the systemic functional model developed by M.A.K. Halliday — can help us excavate the buried scaffolding of these ideas. By attending to how meaning is made in language, we gain a new vantage point on what has been taken for granted in centuries of thought.

Language: The Invisible Medium

Theories are realised in language. Whether in Plato’s dialogues, Descartes’ meditations, or Nietzsche’s aphorisms, theory always comes to us as text. But language is not simply a vehicle for ideas. It is itself a system of meaning — structured, patterned, and oriented to action. Like the observer in physics, language has often been left invisible, its shaping influence ignored.

But if language is what theory is made of, then a theory of language can reveal the architecture of theory itself.

This series will follow three key relations from Systemic Functional Linguistics:

• Instantiation: the relation between potential and its individual instances (e.g., from system to text).

• Realisation: the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction (e.g., from meaning to wording, or from system to structure).

• Grammatical Metaphor: the reconfiguration of meaning across strata (e.g., turning processes into things — “he decides” becomes “his decision”).

Each of these semiotic relations corresponds to familiar philosophical moves: from the abstract to the concrete, from appearance to essence, from act to identity. And each, we will argue, has been misrecognised as metaphysical when it is in fact linguistic.

Haunted Concepts

When Plato speaks of perfect Forms, is he not projecting the systemic pole of the cline of instantiation? When Descartes divides mind from body, is he not reifying the clause structure of mental projection? When Kant marks the noumenon as unknowable, is he not confronting the boundary where language can no longer construe?

These are not missteps. They are moments where language itself becomes visible — not because it is recognised, but because it is misunderstood. The philosophical tradition is haunted not by ghosts from another world, but by the unexamined grammar of this one.

Renovating the History of Thought

To renovate is not to destroy, but to rehouse: to take the ideas that have shaped us and place them in new conceptual architecture. The goal of this series is not to dismiss philosophy, but to reconstrue it — to understand it as a history of meaning-making, structured by language and illuminated by it.

In the posts that follow, we will explore how the scaffolding of language underpins some of philosophy’s most iconic ideas. We will begin, appropriately, with Plato — and with his realm of eternal Forms. But we will not climb to a world beyond. We will follow the cline of instantiation.

---

2 Plato’s Forms and the Reification of Instantiation

Plato’s metaphysics begins with a distinction that has echoed across millennia: between the world of appearances and the world of Forms. The first is changeable, sensory, particular. The second is eternal, intelligible, universal. We live among the many; only the Forms are truly one.

But what if Plato was not discovering a transcendent realm, but projecting a semiotic architecture — one that belongs not to the cosmos but to language?

The Cline of Instantiation

In systemic functional linguistics (SFL), meaning is construed along a cline of instantiation:

• At one end is the system — a structured potential for meaning.

• At the other is the instance — a concrete enactment of that potential in a specific context.
  Every time we speak or write, we instantiate the system — and in doing so, we add to its potential.

Plato’s ontology closely mirrors this architecture.

• The Form is the pure potential: the universal, unchanging idea of Justice, Beauty, or Tree.

• The particular is the instance: the just act, the beautiful painting, the tree in the grove.

Plato treats the Form as more real than the instance. But in SFL terms, this is a reversal: the system is a potential that exists only by virtue of its instances. It is abstracted from what has been said and done — not the other way around.

From Ontology to Semiotic Architecture

What happens if we read Plato’s metaphysics not as a vision of a metaphysical order but as a misrecognition of the semiotic order? His world of Forms is the system pole of instantiation, reified into an independent realm. His world of appearances is the instance pole, treated as a poor copy of the ideal. But in language, the system and the instance are not in competition — they are mutually constitutive.

Each instance contributes to the shape of the system; each system makes further instances possible. There is no need to posit a second world to account for the regularities of this one. What Plato mistook for eternal reality was the abstract structure of meaning itself.

The Danger of Reification

Plato’s move is not unique. It is part of a wider philosophical habit: the reification of semiotic relations — taking structural features of language and treating them as metaphysical truths.

When the abstract is separated from the concrete, and treated as its origin, the result is metaphysics. But when we see that the abstract arises through the concrete, and returns to it in use, we shift from metaphysics to semiotics.

Instantiation, not Imitation

Plato calls the particular an imitation of the Form. But in SFL terms, it is not an imitation — it is an instantiation. It is not a flawed copy of a perfect original, but a meaning-making event that both draws on and contributes to a system of potential.

Plato's error — and perhaps philosophy’s original ghost — was to mistake the architecture of meaning for the structure of the world.

---

Next time, we’ll trace another haunting: how the grammatical metaphor of action gives rise to the metaphysical concept of the Will.

3 The Will and the Reification of Desire

In Western metaphysics, the Will appears as a sovereign force. It acts, chooses, asserts — often in tension with reason, impulse, or fate. In some philosophies, it becomes the seat of the self; in others, the engine of the universe.

But from the perspective of language, the Will is not a metaphysical entity. It is a grammatical pattern, projected into the world and mistaken for its foundation.

Desire as a Grammatical Process

Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) classifies clauses according to process types, each construing a kind of experience as meaning. One such process is mental desiderative:

• I want a new idea.

• She hopes to understand.

• They wish it were otherwise.

Here, ‘want’, ‘hope’, and ‘wish’ are not expressions of force but semiotic processes. They construe the internal world of the speaker — not by referencing something called the Will, but by enacting a grammatical relation: a subject experiencing a mental orientation toward a desired object or outcome.

The Will is born when this pattern is reified. That is, when we take the linguistic projection of desire and treat it as a metaphysical force, as if wanting were a thing rather than a relational meaning.

From Process to Power

Grammar allows us to construe the self as a subject who acts. In doing so, it supplies the raw material for philosophical claims about agency.

• I decide.

• I resolve.

• I impose my will.

These are all clause structures in which the subject is medium and the process is intentional. But in language, such clauses are choices — not proof of a metaphysical faculty. The grammar of action provides a model of agency, but not its ontological foundation.

The Will arises when this model is lifted from its semiotic grounds and projected into the structure of reality — as if it were the cause of action rather than its construal.

The Fiction of the Autonomous Subject

The metaphysical Will also requires a metaphysical subject — a self that exists apart from its relations. But in SFL, the subject is a position in meaning, not an ontological entity. It is constituted by its participation in grammatical structures, including those of mental and verbal processes.

The autonomous self, like the Will it wields, is not a given. It is a construct, born of grammatical roles, culturally reinforced, and philosophically enshrined.

Unmasking the Ghost

When we see that language can construe desire as a process, not a power, the ghost of the Will begins to dissipate. What philosophy calls the Will, linguistics calls a desiderative clause. The metaphysical becomes grammatical — and in doing so, becomes tractable, analysable, and demystified.

---

In our next post, we’ll look at causality — and how the grammar of transitivity shaped the metaphysical search for necessary connections in nature.

4 Cause and Effect — Transitivity and the Machinery of Nature

Causality is one of philosophy’s deepest problems. What does it mean for one thing to cause another? Is causation a force, a law, a regularity, or an illusion?

But in systemic functional linguistics (SFL), causation is not a mystery. It is a grammatical resource.

Transitivity: Grammar’s Model of Experience

In SFL, the grammar of the clause construes experience through transitivity — the system that organises processes and their participants. A clause like:

• The sun melts the ice
  …construes a material process (melts), an actor (the sun), and a goal (the ice).

This is not a metaphysical claim. It is a semiotic configuration. The grammar does not discover causation in the world; it construes experience as causative by selecting from available grammatical patterns.

There is no metaphysical necessity here — only a semiotic regularity.

From Clause to Cosmos

When we elevate these patterns into metaphysics, we reify them. Clause structures become models of the world’s deep machinery:

• X causes Y.

• The will moves the body.

• Every event has a cause.

These are not discoveries of pure reason or empirical law. They are grammatical construals taken for ontological structures.

In this way, the grammar of transitivity becomes the ghost in the machine — animating our models of force, change, and inevitability.

Necessary Connection or Grammatical Expectation?

Philosophers from Hume to Kant have wrestled with the idea of necessary connection. But if we look through the lens of language, the source of this expectation is plain:

Grammar allows us to construe sequences where one process leads to another:

• He dropped the glass. It shattered.

• Because it rained, the picnic was cancelled.

Here, logical and temporal relations are grammatically construed — not given by nature. The sense of necessity is a product of textual cohesion, not metaphysical structure.

What philosophy calls causality, grammar construes as sequenced process.

Causal Chains as Grammatical Chains

Scientific explanation often seeks causal chains. But these chains are not neutral observations; they are narratives, built from clauses in which agency, process, and goal are selected according to meaning.

To explain an event is to construe it in a particular voice — grammatically, not just empirically.

---

In our next post, we’ll explore the reification of truth itself — and how logocentric philosophies mistake the grammar of projection for an external order of reality.

5 Truth and Projection — The Linguistic Architecture of Reality Claims

What is truth? A correspondence with reality? A coherence among propositions? A pragmatic utility?

In systemic functional linguistics (SFL), these abstract theories can be grounded in a concrete fact: truth is not discovered outside language — it is construed within it.

The Clause Complex and Projection

In SFL, the grammar of projection allows language to refer to itself:

• She said that it was raining.

• He believes the earth is round.

• I know that this is true.

Here, the projecting clause (she said, he believes, I know) introduces a projected clause — a meaning encoded as content. This is grammar’s way of construing semiosis itself as a phenomenon.

When philosophers speak of propositions, they are talking about projected clauses — language about language, meaning about meaning.

But when projection is reified, it ceases to be a grammatical function and becomes a metaphysical belief:

• Truth exists independently of thought.

• Propositions have truth-values.

• There is a realm of facts to be matched.

These are not philosophical discoveries. They are grammatical arrangements turned into ontologies.

Truth as Projection Reified

Consider the statement: It is thought that the Earth orbits the sun.

Here, "It is thought…" is a projecting clause construing the following as a proposition.

But now consider: The Earth orbits the sun.

The projecting clause is gone — the claim is presupposed, taken for granted, de-projected.

This shift from projection to assertion is a grammatical shift, but it is often mistaken for an epistemological one.

In reality, the grammar of projection allows us to navigate degrees of certainty, modality, and evidentiality — not to discover an objective realm of truth, but to construe our commitments to meaning.

Metaphysics as Misrecognised Grammar

Philosophy’s theory of truth often begins where grammar has already done its work. What was once a projecting clause becomes an ontological commitment. The distinction between content and commentary collapses into a belief in objective propositions.

Thus, the idea of truth as correspondence — a thought mirroring the world — is grammar misunderstood as metaphysics.

We do not discover truths. We construe propositions, and construe our orientation toward them.

---

In our next post, we turn to the concept of essence — that oldest of metaphysical categories — and ask whether it, too, is not a ghost born of grammatical processes.

6 Essence and the Grammar of Being

Where does the idea of essence come from?

Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, Western philosophy has been haunted by the notion that behind every appearance lies an underlying substance — an essence — that makes a thing what it is.

But what if this metaphysical commitment to essence is, at its root, a grammatical commitment?

The Nominalisation of Process

In Systemic Functional Linguistics, one of the most powerful meaning-making strategies is nominalisation — the transformation of a process or quality into a ‘thing’:

• She is wise → Her wisdom

• They govern → Government

• We differ → There is a difference

Nominalisation allows language to package experience into stable entities that can be named, described, possessed, or analysed. This syntactic sleight of hand is the origin of many theoretical constructs — not only in everyday reasoning, but in philosophy, science, and law.

When philosophers seek the essence of courage, beauty, or justice, they often begin by treating these nominalised abstractions as if they were entities with hidden cores, rather than grammatical construals of process and relation.

Essence as Identifying Process

SFL treats identity as a process — a relational clause type. In sentences like:

• A circle is a round plane figure.

• Water is H₂O.

The verb is enacts an identifying relation — not a metaphysical union, but a semiotic equivalence between two functions in a clause. The structure makes one element the "Token" (the signifier) and the other the "Value" (the signified), inverting the usual logic of substance and property.

Philosophy often reifies this identifying relation into a theory of essence. It takes the structure of a clause and turns it into a structure of reality:

• What is X? becomes What is the essence of X?

But in grammar, this is simply a way of construing meaning — a form of categorisation, not a window into noumenal reality.

The Illusion of Inherent Properties

When we say:

• Gold is heavy.

• Justice is fair.

• The soul is immortal.

We are drawing on attributive relations, projecting qualities onto entities. These too are grammatical: they belong to the system of intensive attribution. Yet over time, the constant co-occurrence of entity and quality becomes naturalised — taken as evidence of essence rather than of meaning-making.

Thus, the ghost of essence is born: an abstract identity, imagined as real, sustained by patterns of language.

7 Language as Origin — A Semiotic Ontology of Thought

In this final post, we draw together the threads of our journey — from Plato’s Forms to Nietzsche’s Will — to propose not the rejection of the philosophical tradition, but a re-reading of it: not as a map of reality, but as an archaeology of meaning.

Throughout the series, we’ve suggested that many core philosophical concepts are not false as such, but fossilised — sedimented residues of semiotic processes that have been turned into metaphysical doctrines. In every case, the origin of the concept was not the world itself, but language’s way of making sense of it.

The Semiotic Roots of Ontology

Systemic Functional Linguistics shows that meaning is organised by systems of choices — systems that are both structured and dynamic. These systems allow us to construe experience as meaningful, to project thoughts, to track agency and causation, and to distinguish appearance from reality.

But these same resources can also become invisible. As philosophy turns its gaze outward — toward Being, Will, Substance, Truth — it often forgets that the terms in which it does so are themselves products of a semiotic architecture.

In other words: philosophy speaks the grammar of meaning without often knowing it.

This is not a critique of philosophy, but a proposal: that the concepts we inherit are crystallised expressions of the architecture of language. To understand their power — and their limits — we must make visible the semiotic scaffolding that supports them.

Theories as Reconstruals of Meaning

Science, philosophy, and mythology all reconstrue the meaning of language. They are not simply ‘ideas about the world’, but second-order systems that re-interpret first-order meaning.

To say that gravity ‘acts’ on bodies is to metaphorise a grammatical structure — transitivity — into a cosmological agent.

To say that the ‘soul’ is distinct from the body is to project mental clauses into metaphysical planes.

To say that there is a ‘will to power’ behind all life is to nominalise a grammatical process and universalise it.

In each case, the movement is the same: from semiotic process to metaphysical reification. A verb becomes a noun. A clause becomes a doctrine. A projection becomes a substance.

Philosophy, then, can be read as the metaphysics of grammar.

Language as Origin, Not Obstacle

Traditionally, language has been treated in philosophy as either a transparent medium (a vehicle for truth) or a frustrating barrier (a source of confusion). But SFL offers a third view: language is the origin of meaning, not its distortion.

We do not simply describe the world with language; we construe it. The categories of thought — subject, predicate, cause, agent, event, intention, possibility — are not given by nature, but constructed in and through language.

To speak is not just to say something about the world. It is to make a world meaningful.

A Semiotic Ontology of Thought

If we take this seriously, then a theory of language offers more than just a tool for interpreting texts. It becomes a meta-theory: a way of reading the history of ideas as the history of meaning-making.

Plato, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche — and countless others — were not wrong. They were, we might say, listening closely to the architecture of their own thought, without yet knowing its grammar.

A semiotic ontology does not replace philosophy. It re-grounds it. It shows that the most profound metaphysical questions — What is being? What is truth? What is self? — are also questions about the architecture of meaning.

---

And so we conclude not with a rejection of metaphysics, but with its renovation. A theory of language does not solve the great problems of philosophy. It lets us see how those problems arose, and how — by attending to the meanings we live by — we might begin to live them differently.

Relational Ontology: From Things to Participations

1 What Is a Relational Ontology?

Ontology concerns itself with the question of being — of what exists and in what manner. It is not a question of what we know, nor of what we value, but of the fundamental presuppositions we bring to our engagement with the world. This series addresses such presuppositions explicitly, with a focus on what we will call relational ontology.

Traditionally, Western thought has been dominated by a substance ontology: a metaphysical stance that treats entities as primary and their relations as secondary. According to this view, the world is composed of discrete objects, each possessing intrinsic properties, and any relation between them is incidental or externally imposed.

By contrast, a relational ontology begins with the premise that relations are prior to relata. That is to say, it is not things that relate, but relations that bring things into being. “Things,” on this view, are not foundational elements of reality, but emergent phenomena: transient stabilisations within ongoing patterns of interaction. From this standpoint, reality is not composed of self-contained units but of events, processes, and participations. It is not the presence of substance that grounds being, but the ongoing actualisation of potential through relation.

---

Ontology and Everyday Assumptions

While the term may suggest abstract metaphysical speculation, ontology has direct and pervasive implications. It conditions the frameworks within which we conceptualise knowledge, identity, language, ethics, science, and more. Consider the contrast:

• If knowledge is construed as the accumulation of facts by a detached observer, then inquiry becomes a matter of acquisition. If, instead, knowledge is relationally constituted — a matter of participation — then inquiry becomes a practice of attunement.

• If the self is imagined as an autonomous, bounded entity, then sociality becomes secondary, even optional. But if selfhood is emergent within relation, then sociality is constitutive of subjectivity.

• If language is seen as a code for representing pre-existing objects, then meaning appears static. But if meaning is realised through relational instantiation, then language is an unfolding of interaction, not a mirror of the world.

These examples indicate the far-reaching consequences of one’s ontological commitments. A shift in ontology is not simply philosophical — it is transformative.

---

Toward a Participatory World

The position we wish to articulate in this series is that participation is prior to presence. What exists is not first a set of entities and only later their relations, but rather a field of unfolding potential, in which instances of meaning, action, and being are co-actualised through relation. This is a world not of fixed realities but of emergent configurations — not of static identities, but of mutual becoming.

This orientation is informed by several disciplinary commitments:

• A systemic functional linguistic account of meaning as relationally stratified and contextually instantiated;

• A neurobiological model of consciousness as selection within nested systems of coordination;

• A quantum theoretical framework in which observation constitutes, rather than merely records, phenomena;

• And an overarching commitment to understanding reality not as objective presence but as semiotic participation.

---

Looking Ahead

This first post offers an outline. The five that follow will articulate this ontological orientation in more detail. They will address the priority of relation, the ontological status of potential and instance, the world as participatory event, and the implications of grounding without foundation. A final post will draw these threads together in reflection.

For now, we will close with a proposition that frames what follows:

If there are no things prior to relation, then ontology is not a study of what is, but of how being is made possible through participation.

---

2 The Priority of Relation

At the heart of relational ontology lies a reversal: rather than beginning with entities and asking how they relate, we begin with relation itself. This reversal is not simply theoretical; it reconfigures how we understand existence, agency, and structure. It challenges us to see that relations do not connect pre-existing things — they bring things into being.

In this view, relation is ontologically prior to relata. That is to say, what we think of as “things” — bodies, selves, objects, identities — do not pre-exist the network of relations in which they participate. They are not the source of relation but its effect. This is not merely a re-description; it is a different metaphysical stance, one that refuses the assumption of atomism and posits instead a world constituted in and through ongoing interaction.

---

Emergence, Not Construction

To say that entities emerge through relation is not to say they are constructed in the sense of being artificial or illusory. The charge of “anti-realism” often levelled at relational perspectives mistakes emergence for fabrication. But relational ontology does not deny the reality of things; it denies their independent reality. It insists that what is real is real as a function of relation — and that to understand anything apart from the relations that make it possible is to misunderstand it fundamentally.

---

The Individual as Emergent Node

Take the example of the self. In a substance ontology, the self is a bounded individual, self-identical across contexts, capable of standing apart from its environment and engaging it at will. In a relational ontology, the self is a node in a field of relations — not reducible to that field, but not separable from it either. Its identity is not given once and for all but enacted through patterns of participation.

This view resonates with certain traditions in systems theory, cognitive science, and anthropology. But here we are framing it ontologically: not simply as a way the self behaves, but as a condition of its being.

---

Meaning as Relational Actualisation

The same applies to meaning. Meaning is not a property of signs, nor a correspondence between language and world. It is a relation — a triadic relation in which a sign functions for an interpreter in a given context. Systemic Functional Linguistics offers a particularly powerful model of this process, understanding meaning not as pre-existing but as instantiated in and through contextually motivated choices within a structured potential.

Meaning, then, is neither located in the signifier nor in the signified, but in the relation between potential and instance, between system and situation. It is a process of actualisation — always dependent, always situated.

---

Implications for Knowledge

When relation is given ontological priority, knowledge cannot be the apprehension of fixed truths about independent objects. Instead, knowing becomes a relational practice — an act of coordination, participation, and co-emergence. It is not that the world is unknowable, but that what we know of it is inseparable from how we come to know. This is not relativism. It is a call for reflexivity, for attentiveness to the ways in which knowing is always already embedded in relation.

---

A World Made of With

Relational ontology insists that we live not in a world of things, but in a world of with. We are never alone, never outside. We are in relation — and through relation, we become.

The next post will extend this line of thought by examining the ontological status of potential. If relational ontology begins with relation, what does it mean to speak of the potential from which instances emerge?

---

3 The Ontological Status of Potential

If relational ontology begins with relation, it must also account for that which can come into relation. This brings us to the concept of potential. What is potential, and how does it differ from — yet condition — the actuality of things?

In a substance ontology, potential tends to be treated as secondary or derivative: the possible is simply that which is not yet actual. In a relational ontology, by contrast, potential is a mode of being in its own right. It is not the negation of actuality, but the field from which actualisation becomes possible. This view requires a careful rethinking of both potential and instance, and of the relation between them.

---

Potential Is Not a Shadow of the Actual

To approach potential relationally is to reject the idea that the actual is more real than the possible. Instead, potential is what makes actualisation possible. It is not what things lack before they come into being; it is the structured horizon of becoming — the web of affordances, constraints, and systemic tendencies from which instances emerge.

In Systemic Functional Linguistics, this is the distinction between meaning potential and meaning instance: the potential is structured, not amorphous; and the instance is an actualisation, not an exception. The same applies at the ontological level: the potential is not an unformed void, but a differentiated field of possibilities shaped by patterns of past actualisations and the systems that make them available.

---

Instantiation as Ontological Process

The process by which potential becomes instance — instantiation — is not merely a linguistic phenomenon. It is an ontological principle. Actual entities are not static things but emergent outcomes: instances of relational actualisation. They do not stand apart from the field of potential; they express it. Each instance reconfigures the potential from which it emerged, just as each utterance in language shifts the probabilities within the meaning system for future utterances.

In this way, instantiation is not a linear unfolding from possibility to reality; it is a recursive process, a dynamic interplay between what has been and what may yet become.

---

The Temporality of Potential

Potential is inherently temporal. It is what could happen, not in some detached logical sense, but in the thick present of the unfolding world. It is always situated — conditioned by history, shaped by pattern, and open to contingency. In quantum physics, for instance, the wavefunction describes a field of potential outcomes, and measurement instantiates one among them. But the wavefunction is not “less real” than its collapse. It is a different mode of reality: a reality of openness and relation.

Similarly, in the relational ontology articulated here, potential is the mode in which relational configurations can take shape. It is not inert. It is active possibility.

---

From Possibility to Participation

To understand potential relationally is to recognise that possibility is not a neutral backdrop against which action occurs. It is a product of past actualisations and an invitation to future ones. It is not that we act upon potential; we participate in its unfolding. Thus, the shift from a substance to a relational ontology is also a shift from acting on the world to participating with it.

The instance is not a singularity but a node — a moment of coalescence that draws from, and returns to, the field of potential. And that field, in turn, is not fixed, but continuously reshaped through participation.

---

Looking Ahead

The next post will explore the consequences of this view for how we understand the world itself — not as a set of objects, but as a participatory event. If all beings are emergent from relation, and all relations unfold from a field of potential, then what is the world but the ongoing play of their co-actualisation?

---

4 The World as Participatory Event

If relational ontology gives ontological primacy to relation and recognises potential as a mode of being, then it follows that the world itself is not a static container filled with things, but a dynamic unfolding of participatory events. This view entails a radical reconfiguration of what we mean by “world.” The world is not a stage on which entities act, but the ongoing relational becoming of those entities — an event continually co-composed by its participants.

This is not a metaphor. It is a metaphysical claim: the world is not made of things, but of the relations that instantiate things in particular ways at particular times.

---

Against the Background/Foreground Divide

In substance ontology, the world is often conceived as a backdrop — an objective, external environment in which subjects and objects appear. This assumption underwrites many dualisms: mind/world, subject/object, figure/ground. But a relational ontology resists this division. There is no neutral background against which things stand out; what appears does so only through participation.

The world is always already involved. It is not a setting for events but their condition — not external to relation, but its expression. To exist is to participate in the event that is world-making.

---

Participation as Ontological Category

In this view, participation is not an epistemological feature (how we know the world), but an ontological one (what the world is). To be is to participate. This applies not only to human beings, but to all entities, forces, and processes — from cells to stars, from atoms to meanings. Nothing is outside relation. Nothing is outside the world-event.

Participation is thus the mode in which all actuality occurs. And crucially, it is non-isolable. No entity can be wholly disentangled from the relations through which it comes to be. Even attempts to define or delimit something — to draw a boundary — are themselves acts of participation, reconfiguring the potential for what can be seen, said, and done.

---

The World as Recursively Co-Actualising

If the world is an event of participatory unfolding, then it is not simply happening to us. We are happening with it. This “with” is not additive — it is generative. Our participation does not occur within a pre-given world; our participation is the world, or more precisely, a moment in its continual becoming.

This has profound consequences. It means the world is never finished. It is not the sum of all that exists, but the ongoing play of emergence, collapse, and reconstitution — a recursive negotiation between potential and instance, where each instance modifies the potential for future participation.

---

The Ethics of Co-Becoming

To frame the world as participatory event is also to reframe responsibility. If we are always already participants, then our task is not to seek a position of objective neutrality, but to cultivate attentiveness to the patterns we co-actualise. Knowing is no longer a matter of standing apart, but of leaning in — carefully, critically, and with care for what we bring into being.

This is not simply a philosophical point. It is a call to engage differently — with each other, with the more-than-human, with the systems and structures through which meaning and matter take shape.

---

Next: The Limits of Objectivity

The next post will confront a central implication of this view: if the world is participatory, what becomes of objectivity? Is it still possible to speak of knowledge that does not collapse into mere perspective? We will argue that the problem lies not in abandoning objectivity, but in rethinking what it can mean — not as detachment, but as accountable participation.

---

5 Rethinking Objectivity

The idea that the world is a participatory event invites a pressing question: what becomes of objectivity? If all knowledge is situated within relational unfolding, does this collapse truth into relativism? In a relational ontology, the answer is no — but only if we are prepared to rethink what objectivity means.

Objectivity is not abandoned. It is transformed. It ceases to be the view from nowhere and becomes a practice of accountable participation. The goal is not to escape relation, but to recognise and reckon with our place within it.

---

From Detachment to Situatedness

In substance-based ontologies, objectivity is often associated with detachment: the ability to observe without interference. But in a relational ontology, such detachment is impossible. Observation is always an act of participation. We do not merely receive data; we enact selections, set parameters, collapse potentials into actuals. This is not a failure of objectivity — it is its condition.

What shifts is the ideal. The aim is no longer to erase the observer, but to foreground the structure of participation: to trace how our perspective has come to be, what it opens up, and what it forecloses.

---

Epistemology Within Relation

Knowing is not a disembodied achievement. It is a mode of being-with. Every act of knowing is situated in a nexus of relations — historical, material, symbolic, affective. The question is not whether we can remove ourselves from these, but how we can move within them with greater precision, humility, and care.

This is what accountable participation means. It is not a denial of objectivity, but a commitment to an objectivity that begins with situatedness — one that asks not only what is true? but also how does this truth come to matter? and for whom?

---

Patterns of Recurrence and Inference

Importantly, relational ontology does not deny regularity, repeatability, or inference. Quite the opposite. Patterns emerge precisely through the recurrence of relational configurations. What changes is the status of such patterns: they are not features of a world out there, but expressions of the system’s actualisations over time. They can be tracked, modelled, and made increasingly robust — but they remain contingent upon the relations that produce them.

This is not relativism. It is realism — but of a kind that recognises the world as dynamically co-constructed rather than statically pre-given.

---

Reflexivity and the Practice of Objectivity

A relational approach demands reflexivity: a continual awareness of the conditions and consequences of our participation. This includes the disciplines we work within, the tools we use, and the metaphors we inherit. It is not enough to speak of “data” or “facts” as if they emerge unshaped. Every fact is the outcome of selection, framing, and interpretation. This does not make facts unreal; it makes them relationally real.

Objectivity, then, becomes a virtue of openness: openness to revising frames, testing assumptions, and acknowledging entanglements. It is a practice, not a position.

---

Toward a Relational Epistemology

In this light, epistemology itself must be rethought. Knowing is not the accumulation of representations, but the cultivation of capacities to participate meaningfully in a co-actualising world. It is not a conquest of the unknown, but an invitation to enter more deeply into the unfolding of relation.

The final post in this series will explore the implications of this view for what it means to know with — to understand not as possession, but as mutual emergence.

---

6 Knowing With — Toward a Relational Epistemology

If the world is constituted through relation, and objectivity is a practice of accountable participation, then knowing is not a private act of acquisition, but a shared process of co-becoming. In this final post, we articulate a relational epistemology: not knowing about, but knowing with.

To know is to enter into relation — to be changed by what one seeks to understand. This is not a failure of rigour; it is its fulfilment. In a relational world, epistemology becomes a mode of responsiveness: a way of living attentively in the presence of others, human and more-than-human, where every act of understanding is also an act of world-making.

---

Knowledge as Participation

In traditional models, knowledge is possession: one gains knowledge, accumulates facts, builds conceptual systems. But within a relational ontology, this metaphor no longer holds. Knowledge cannot be owned. It is not a static entity that sits in a mind or on a page. It is a process — a pattern of co-actualisation between knowers and knowns.

Knowing, then, is not separable from being. To know something is to become-with it, to let its potentials shape one’s own. Knowledge is not what I have about the world, but what we come to be together through our mutual engagement.

---

From Representation to Intra-Action

This shifts the function of knowledge from representation to intra-action — a term that underscores how entities do not pre-exist their interactions but emerge through them. Knowing is not the mirroring of a world already made; it is a participation in the making of the world. To know is to intervene, to co-compose, to respond.

This entails responsibility. What we bring into view is not neutral. It is a commitment — a participation in particular worldings, with their own inclusions, exclusions, and consequences.

---

Knowing-with as Ethical Practice

Relational epistemology is inseparable from ethics. If knowledge is participation, then all knowing is also a form of relating — and all relations carry ethical weight. What matters is not only what we know, but how we participate in the knowing: whether we make space for the other, whether we flatten difference, whether we listen or extract.

This is not a call to abandon analysis, but to deepen it — to let rigour and relationality inflect one another. Knowing-with is rigorous not because it pretends to be neutral, but because it strives to be reflexive, situated, and attentive to the difference that makes a difference.

---

Knowledge as World-Making

In this framework, knowledge becomes a form of world-making. Not because it invents reality from nothing, but because it selects, frames, and instantiates potential into particular actualities. Our categories, our questions, our models — all participate in shaping the world we inhabit and inherit.

This is not to say that anything goes. It is to say that everything matters. Each act of knowing is an intervention in the unfolding of relation. As such, the epistemic is always also the ontological and the ethical.

---

An Invitation

Relational ontology does not give us a stable platform on which to stand. It invites us into a practice of becoming-with — of living knowledgeably and responsibly in a world that is never merely given, but always in the making.

To take this seriously is not to despair over the loss of certainty. It is to recognise that we are always already involved, and to ask: what kinds of worlds do we want to participate in bringing forth?

Relational Cosmology: Science, Spirit, and Sense-Making

1 Why Cosmology Must Be Relational

What is the universe?

It sounds like a question of fact, of inventory — as if the universe were a warehouse to be catalogued, a container of things to be explained. This is how most cosmologies — scientific and mythic alike — have tended to proceed. They begin by asking what exists, and then how those things behave. Matter, particles, laws, dimensions. Inheritance. Structure. Force.

But what if this way of questioning already hides an assumption?

The assumption is that reality is made up of things — discrete units that persist in themselves and relate only secondarily. The universe, in this view, is a stage on which separate entities appear and interact.

We propose a different premise:

that relation is not secondary, but primary.

That the universe is not made of things, but of togetherings — processes of co-emergence and mutual becoming.

---

The Shift from Substance to Relation

This is not an esoteric metaphysical claim. It arises from the very heart of experience. Nothing arises alone. To see is to be seen. To breathe is to exchange. To think is to inherit language, to dwell in a history of meaning. Even the most basic 'thing' is already a confluence — a knot in a field of relations.

This is true not only experientially, but also physically. Quantum theory, for instance, resists efforts to describe isolated particles; it points us instead to entanglement, to wavefunctions that encode not individual properties but joint potentials. General relativity tells us that space and time are not neutral backdrops, but stretch and contract in response to mass — which is itself a measure of dynamic resistance to relational transformation.

Relation is everywhere — not as a feature, but as a ground.

---

Cosmology as a Mode of Life

If this is so, cosmology is not simply the study of what exists, but the study of how things co-exist — how they arise through participation, influence, and transformation. In this sense, cosmology becomes an ethical project: a way of orienting ourselves to a world in which we are always already entangled.

To insist on relational cosmology is to insist that the way we imagine the universe shapes how we live in it.

It makes a difference whether we see the cosmos as cold machinery or as a dance of co-becoming.

It makes a difference whether we think of knowledge as extraction, or as resonance.

It makes a difference whether we imagine matter as inert, or as communicative.

---

A Different Question

So the question is not “What is the universe made of?”

The question is:

“What kinds of relationships bring the universe into being?”

We begin here — not with substance, but with resonance; not with inventory, but with encounter. A cosmology not of separation, but of situatedness.

This is not merely a new theory, but a new stance:

to look outward as participants, not spectators;

to sense ourselves as within, not above;

to think, not of what-is, but of becoming-with.

Next, we’ll turn to the story of cosmic origin — the Big Bang — and reimagine it not as an explosion of substance, but as the genesis of relation itself.

---

2 Rethinking the Big Bang

The Big Bang is often described as the origin of the universe — a single moment in which everything began. Space and time, energy and matter, all bursting forth from a singularity: infinitesimal, dense, and incomprehensibly hot.

But how should we understand such an “origin”?

What kind of beginning was it?

Most treatments of the Big Bang imagine it as an explosion of stuff — the birth of particles, the unfolding of space, the ticking of time. In this view, the singularity is the seed from which all things expanded, driven by forces and governed by laws.

Yet this framing subtly smuggles in a substance ontology. It imagines existence as composed of separable entities, set in motion by prior causes.

Relational cosmology suggests a different reading:

The Big Bang is not the origin of substance, but the origin of relation.

---

From Nothing to With

It makes little sense to ask what existed “before” the Big Bang. Not just because time began then (as physics tells us), but because the very condition for anything at all is not a prior object, but a relational opening.

To say there was a beginning is to say there was a shift — from nothing to with.

Not from void to thing, but from absence of relation to the presence of co-actualisation.

In this light, the early universe is not a crowded furnace of particles, but a fluid interrelation — a wavefunction of possibility, still undifferentiated. Only gradually do determinate structures emerge: matter, charge, spin, space, time.

Each is a stabilised pattern of relating.

The birth of the universe, then, is not a moment in which things were made, but the moment in which making-with became possible.

---

Becoming Local, Becoming Tangled

Cosmic evolution is the gradual unfolding of locality — not a decline into disorder, but the differentiation of situated relations.

Gravity does not pull things into existence; it intensifies participation by drawing them into mutual proximity.

Particles do not exist independently, but condense out of fields of relation.

Mass is not a property of an object, but a measure of entanglement with a field.

In this view, evolution is not a story of matter behaving in space and time.

It is a story of space and time themselves becoming textured through relation.

---

From Myth to Meaning

Every cosmology is a mythos — not in the sense of a false story, but in the sense of a world-making narrative. The Big Bang, too, is a myth — a way of telling the origin in scientific terms.

Relational cosmology doesn’t deny the Big Bang. It reinterprets it.

It invites us to ask:

What if the true origin is not the first thing, but the first with?

What if what banged was not substance, but the possibility of resonance?

This reorientation does not discard physics.

It deepens it — by situating its abstractions within a story of becoming-with, where relation is not a complication, but the very ground of cosmos.

In the next post, we’ll follow this thread from origin to ontology, and consider what it means to say that reality is composed of relations all the way down.

---

3 It’s Relations All the Way Down

We’re used to thinking of reality as built from smaller and smaller things: molecules from atoms, atoms from protons and neutrons, those from quarks. Dig deep enough, and you’ll hit bedrock — the final substance, the irreducible particle.

But what if there’s no bottom?

What if the further down we go, the less we find things, and the more we find relations?

---

Abandoning the Bedrock

In physics, particles were once imagined as tiny billiard balls — solid and self-contained. But as theory progressed, this picture became untenable. Electrons have no known size or internal structure. Quarks cannot be isolated. Photons are quantised excitations of fields.

We haven’t uncovered fundamental building blocks.

We’ve uncovered patterns of interaction.

Quantum field theory no longer speaks of particles as things in space, but of fields in relation, where entities emerge as localised expressions of relational dynamics. An electron is not a discrete object so much as a recurrent ripple in a sea of potentiality.

This is not an oddity of quantum physics — it’s a shift in ontology.

The more deeply we examine matter, the more it dissolves into relations.

---

Entanglement Is Not an Anomaly

Nowhere is this clearer than in entanglement.

Two particles interact, then fly apart — and yet, their properties remain co-defined. Measure one, and you instantaneously constrain the other. This has been experimentally verified time and again. There is no “hidden information” travelling faster than light.

Entanglement is not a loophole in locality.

It is a window onto relational being.

What we call “particles” are not isolated facts. They are nodes in a network, and the state of any node can only be understood through its entanglements with others.

Reality, then, is not made of things.

Reality is made of co-actualisations.

---

From Particles to Participation

This reframe has profound implications. It means that identity is not prior to relation — it is composed through relation.

A quark is not a quark outside the context of a proton.

An organism is not alive outside its ecological mesh.

A person is not a self outside the weave of language, culture, and care.

The ontology of substance gives us a world of inert objects.

The ontology of relation gives us a world of mutually arising processes.

It is not that things relate. It is that relation is what things are.

---

There Is No Background

In this light, even space and time lose their status as neutral containers.

Spacetime in general relativity is not a static stage but a dynamic fabric, warped by mass and energy. This warping is not an effect on space — it is space. Time does not flow independently of events — it is the dimension of their unfolding.

Space and time are not where things happen.

They are how relation happens.

There is no background reality that exists independently of interaction.

Everything arises in and through mutual conditioning.

In the next post, we’ll ask how this relational metaphysics reshapes our understanding of physics itself — and how it invites us to read scientific theories not as mirrors of reality, but as maps of meaningful relation.

---

4 Physics as Relational Mapping

If reality is not built from things, but from relations, then physics is not the study of objects in space. It is the ongoing attempt to map the patterns of becoming in which objects arise.

This doesn’t mean physics is wrong.

It means we must reconsider what kind of truth it offers.

---

Theory as Interface, Not Mirror

Scientific theories are often imagined as mirrors: polished reflections of the world “as it is,” independent of us. But this objectivist fantasy is hard to defend once we appreciate that observation is always interaction, and measurement is always participation.

What we call “data” is not raw reality.

It is a record of our structured engagement.

In this light, theories are not mirrors but interfaces: symbolic systems through which we stabilise our couplings with dynamic processes. They don’t show us what the world is made of. They show us how worlds unfold when enacted through certain practices.

Relativity tells us how spacetime behaves in relation to mass and motion.

Quantum theory tells us how probability collapses in relation to measurement.

Thermodynamics tells us how energy disperses in relation to gradients and constraints.

Every scientific law is a mapping of relation, not an edict of substance.

---

Models as Meaningful Constraints

This does not mean all models are equal. Some fit better. Some predict more. But “fit” and “prediction” are not properties of the universe. They are properties of our engaged mappings.

We evaluate models by how well they coordinate our participations.

And we revise them when they fail to do so.

Importantly, a model’s usefulness does not depend on its metaphysical literalness. The Bohr model of the atom — with electrons orbiting like planets — is incorrect. Yet it was crucial in the development of quantum theory. Its power was not in being true, but in being fruitful.

This is the logic of all modelling: we render one domain intelligible in terms of another. This is not distortion — it is analogy in action. Every map is partial. But partiality is what makes navigation possible.

---

The Observer Is Always Inside the Frame

If theories are relational interfaces, then who is doing the mapping matters. We are not abstract minds gazing from nowhere. We are embodied participants — organisms within fields of relation, observing from within the world.

This is why every scientific act requires a cut:

What counts as a system? What is environment? What is measured? What is ignored?

Even “objective” observations are made from positions — instrumentally, conceptually, affectively. This does not undermine science. It enriches it — reminding us that what we can know depends on how we relate.

---

Relational Truth

Truth, in a relational cosmology, is not correspondence with an independent reality. It is the ongoing adequacy of relation: the fidelity with which our concepts, models, and theories coordinate meaningful participation.

This is not relativism.

It is relational realism.

The world is not whatever we say it is. But neither is it a brute fact waiting to be mirrored. It is an emergent field of co-actualisation, and knowledge is the art of finding stable, generative paths through it.

In the next post, we’ll ask how this view recasts the concept of law in physics — not as universal dictate, but as conditioned regularity within an unfolding dance of relation.

---

5 Law as Conditioned Regularity

If the universe is a field of unfolding relations, then the laws of physics cannot be timeless commands imposed upon a mute reality. They must be patterns of regularity that emerge within particular conditions of relation.

A relational cosmology asks us to shift our understanding of law —

from transcendent decree to immanent habit.

---

The Myth of Universal Law

Classical physics inherited its model of law from theology:

the universe as a system governed by divine reason, expressed in immutable rules.

But even Newton, despite his genius, assumed a fixed space and absolute time — a passive stage on which God's laws played out. Einstein shattered this view: spacetime is not fixed; it curves, stretches, contracts, depending on the presence and movement of mass and energy.

Quantum mechanics dealt another blow: measurement does not merely reveal what is, but helps bring what is into being. Law, here, is not about universal certainty, but probabilistic regularity, enacted in the context of experimental configuration.

What emerges from these revolutions is a vision of law that is not absolute, but relationally enacted.

---

Conditions of Regularity

A law is not a commandment.

It is a pattern of constraint that becomes visible under particular conditions.

For instance, the laws of thermodynamics appear when we describe matter at scale, where individual atomic randomness becomes statistical order. They are not violated in the quantum realm — they simply do not apply in the same way, because the conditions are different.

Likewise, general relativity and quantum field theory describe different regimes, each mapping consistent patterns that hold under certain scales, speeds, and energies. The apparent “incompatibility” between them may not be a contradiction in reality, but a difference in the relational frame.

This means laws are not inscribed into the cosmos like runes on stone.

They are recurrent stabilities — robust enough to guide action,

but not metaphysical absolutes.

---

Participation and Stability

The remarkable thing is not that there are laws.

It is that stable patterns emerge at all, in a world of ceaseless becoming.

Why should matter fall predictably, fields oscillate regularly, or particles decay consistently? Not because some legislator set the rules, but because relation itself can self-organise.

Form begets form. Patterns constrain possibilities.

Feedback loops build stability.

In this view, law is an attractor — a basin of relational possibility, sustained by the interplay of systems and constraints. These are not imposed from outside, but generated within the dance of participation.

And what we call "breaking a law" is better seen as entering a new regime: a shift in scale, energy, or context, where different patterns become dominant.

---

Law as Lure

Law, then, is not limitation — it is invitation.

It invites coordination. It allows predictability. It creates the conditions for cooperation, construction, and world-making.

In a relational cosmos, law is not what binds the world into compliance.

It is what allows the world to stabilise enough to become.

And perhaps this is its greatest gift: not certainty, but trustworthiness — enough regularity to participate, enough openness to evolve.

In the next post, we’ll explore how such a cosmos supports emergence: how new structures and meanings arise, not by imposing form, but through the creative play of relation itself.

---

6 Emergence as the Play of Relation

If laws are stable patterns that arise within particular relational conditions, then emergence is the appearance of new patterns — patterns not predictable from the parts alone.

Emergence is not an add-on to relational cosmology.

It is its pulse and principle.

---

From Parts to Patterns

Classical science sought to explain the world by analysing it into parts. But parts, in isolation, do not explain wholes. A pile of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms does not explain the emergence of a living cell. The parts are necessary, but not sufficient.

It is how the parts relate — how they constrain, amplify, stabilise and transform one another — that gives rise to new kinds of being.

Emergence is the moment when relation becomes more-than the sum of its relata.

Not by magic, but by configuration — by the intricate choreography of dependencies, feedbacks, and co-regulations that make the whole a new centre of agency.

---

Creativity Without Blueprint

In a relational ontology, emergence is not the unfolding of a fixed plan, nor the outcome of blind chaos. It is patterned novelty — the capacity of relation to surprise.

New structures — atoms, stars, cells, ecosystems, minds, meanings — come into being through thresholds of complexity. But these thresholds are not dictated by universal laws alone. They are negotiated through interaction.

There is no blueprint.

Only generative tension: between constraint and openness, stability and play.

This means emergence is not the exception. It is the rule.

The cosmos is not a clockwork machine with a few anomalies.

It is an ever-evolving network, where novelty is intrinsic to relation itself.

---

Nested Worlds

Emergent forms give rise to new domains of relation.

The emergence of life generates new kinds of sensitivity, metabolism, reproduction. The emergence of mind introduces memory, anticipation, and reflection.

Each of these domains is not reducible to the previous one.

Yet each depends on and transforms what came before.

This creates nested ontologies: worlds within worlds, each with its own kinds of relation, its own patterns of lawfulness, its own forms of becoming.

To think relationally is to think through these layers — not erasing their differences, but holding their co-dependence in view.

---

Emergence and Ethics

What emerges is not only structure, but meaning.

In each new layer of complexity, the world becomes capable of more — more perception, more expression, more care, more harm. Emergence carries with it the weight of responsibility. To participate in the becoming of a world is to help shape what it makes possible.

In this way, emergence is not only a scientific concept. It is an ethical challenge.

What kinds of worlds are we helping to bring forth?

What configurations do we stabilise, amplify, or suppress?

And how might we participate more wisely in the dance of becoming?

These questions bring us to the final post in the series:

“Cosmos as Kin: Toward a Participatory Metaphysics”

---

7 Cosmos as Kin — Toward a Participatory Metaphysics

If the universe is a web of relations,

And emergence is the play of novel forms within it,

Then we are not mere observers of the cosmos —

We are participants in its becoming.

---

From Object to Kin

Traditional metaphysics often casts the universe as a collection of discrete objects — inert, separate, knowable “things.”

Relational cosmology invites a radical rethinking:

The cosmos is a community of relations, a kinship network of becoming.

We are not detached subjects peering in;

We are nodes within the cosmic web, entangled and responsive.

This shift changes everything:

Knowledge is not about representing a static world.

It is about engaging with a world in formation.

---

Participatory Knowing

Knowing is a dance — a mutual unfolding between knower and known.

Our observations, measurements, and theories do not merely describe the cosmos;

They co-create it.

This participatory knowing dissolves the strict boundary between subject and object, mind and matter, observer and observed.

It calls for humility, curiosity, and openness to the unexpected.

---

Ethics of Participation

If we are kin with the cosmos, our actions ripple beyond ourselves.

We co-constitute not only knowledge but worlds.

The relational metaphysics demands ethics of participation:

• To act with awareness of our embeddedness and influence

• To nurture relations that sustain flourishing

• To resist domination and fragmentation that harm the whole

Participation is an ongoing practice — a continual negotiation with the world’s becoming.

---

Toward a New Story

This view invites a new story for humanity:

Not masters of nature, but co-creators with it.

Not isolated egos, but interwoven presences.

Not consumers of a fixed resource, but caretakers of a living community.

Relational cosmology opens a space for wonder, responsibility, and transformation.