Showing posts with label self-organisation. Show all posts

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.

03 October 2025

Echoes of Relational Ontology in Philosophy

1 Being as Relation, not Substance

Philosophy often begins with the question: what is real? Traditionally, answers have centred on substance — what endures behind change, the hidden “stuff” of the world. Yet, in certain strands of thought, reality is anticipated not as substance but as relation.

Heraclitus declared, “Everything flows,” highlighting that the world is defined by change and interaction, not by static entities. Parmenides emphasised unity, but not as atomistic being — rather as the interdependent whole of existence. Even Plato, in his theory of Forms, hints that reality is structured not merely as objects but as patterns of relation — the forms acquire meaning through participation and interconnection.

Much later, process philosophy, especially in Whitehead, explicitly rejected substance as primary. Entities are “actual occasions,” constituted through their relations, events, and interactions. Being is not a static thing but a network of relations in continual flux.

From a relational ontology perspective, these anticipations are profound. Being is not first substance, then relation; being is relation. Entities exist only in perspectival alignment with other entities and potentialities. Reality is cut, instantiated, and sustained through relational structuring.

Philosophy’s early and modern anticipations thus echo the core moves of relational ontology: the world is not an assembly of independent things, but a patterned constellation of interdependencies. Substance is never ultimate; relation is constitutive. Being is always already relational.

2 Knowledge as Construal

If being is relational, then so too is knowledge. Philosophy has long anticipated that we do not encounter “raw” reality, but only reality as it is construed through relational frameworks.

Kant made this explicit: phenomena are always mediated by the structures of cognition. We do not know things-in-themselves; we know them as they appear through the organising patterns of the mind. Husserl extended this insight with intentionality: consciousness is never a passive mirror of reality but an active constitutor of objects, always relationally directed.

From a relational ontology perspective, these moves anticipate the principle that meaning is not a property of things themselves, but of their instantiation in a network of potential and perspective. Knowledge is not merely representation; it is a perspectival cut, a symbolic alignment between the knower and the known.

Even contemporary philosophy of science echoes this: observations, models, and measurements are constrained by the conditions of the system and the observer. Knowledge emerges not in isolation but in the relational interplay of observer, observed, and horizon of possibility.

Thus philosophy anticipates what relational ontology insists upon: phenomena are always construed, and reality as we engage it is inseparable from the relational conditions of its instantiation. Knowing is not uncovering an independent world; it is participating in the alignment of relational potential.

3 Individuation and the Social Horizon

If being is relational and knowledge is construed, then the self itself is never isolated. Philosophy has repeatedly anticipated that individuation emerges only in relation to a collective horizon.

Hegel’s notion of recognition (Anerkennung) makes this explicit: the self achieves selfhood through acknowledgment by others. Identity is not a private possession but a relational phasing, realised in the interplay of self and social whole. Dewey and pragmatist thinkers echo this: meaning, action, and value emerge through coordinated engagement within communities, not from isolated reasoning.

From a relational ontology perspective, these insights prefigure a core principle: individuation is perspectival. The individual is a node in a network of collective potential. Personal growth, ethical responsibility, and social agency are phased through the alignment of individual and collective horizons.

This reading dissolves the classical dichotomy of individual versus society. The self does not precede relation, nor is it subordinated to the group. It is a perspectival articulation along the cline between collective and individual potential, continually staged and re-staged.

Myth anticipates this relational phasing in heroic cycles; philosophy anticipates it conceptually. In both, individuation is never a solipsistic unfolding, but a symbolic or conceptual alignment within the larger field of relational being.

4 Contingency and the Limits of Absolutes

Philosophy, like myth, often anticipates the insight that order, law, and meaning are contingent rather than absolute.

Nietzsche argued that values, morality, and “truths” are perspectival constructions, arising from historical, cultural, and relational conditions. There are no eternal moral absolutes; each system of value is provisional and context-dependent. Derrida extended this critique to the very structures of language and thought, showing that any system of meaning is contingent, always open to reinterpretation, inversion, or deconstruction.

From a relational ontology perspective, these philosophical moves prefigure the trickster logic of myth: every order is a cut, but no cut is final. Horizons of meaning, once established, are never impermeable; they remain open to revision, disruption, and realignment. Contingency is not weakness — it is the ontological fact of relational being.

This insight resonates with relational ontology’s core principles: systems are perspectival, alignments are provisional, and reality is always open to re-cutting. Philosophy anticipates this through the conceptual recognition that absolutes are always contingent, and that understanding, being, and value emerge only in context and relation.

5 Reflexivity, Cycles, and the Web of Being

Philosophy, in certain traditions, has anticipated the deeply relational and reflexive character of reality.

Eastern philosophies such as Madhyamaka Buddhism, Daoism, and Huayan thought emphasise interdependence, non-substantiality, and infinite mutual reflection. The Huayan Net of Indra, for example, imagines each phenomenon reflecting all others, producing an infinite web of relationality — a cosmos without discrete, self-contained entities.

Western thinkers, too, have anticipated these insights. Cybernetics, autopoiesis, and systems theory treat entities as nodes in self-organising, feedback-rich networks. Knowledge, meaning, and being are sustained only through reflexive interaction; nothing exists in isolation.

From a relational ontology perspective, these ideas anticipate the insight that reality is co-constituted across scales: events, entities, and meanings emerge through ongoing alignment, reflection, and relational phasing. There is no final cut, no static cosmos; all is dynamically interdependent.

Philosophy, like myth, gestures toward this relational horizon. In thought, as in story, reflexivity, cycles, and infinite relationality are recognised as constitutive of being. Knowledge, action, and existence are never self-contained but always enacted within the web of being.

Coda: Philosophy as Experimental Construal

Taken together, these philosophical anticipations form a striking pattern: reality is relational, knowledge is perspectival, individuation emerges within collective horizons, orders are contingent, and being is reflexively constituted.

Just as myths stage relational experiments symbolically, philosophy stages them conceptually. Heraclitus’ flux, Kant’s mediation, Hegel’s recognition, Nietzsche’s perspectivism, Derrida’s deconstruction, and the Net of Indra all explore, in different registers, the same insight: there is no unconstrued phenomenon. Being, knowing, and meaning are always instantiated through relational cuts, alignments, and phasings.

Philosophy, therefore, is not only a search for timeless truths; it is an ongoing experiment in relational construal. Concepts are cuts, arguments are alignments, theories are reflexive projections. Each philosophical system constitutes a horizon within which reality is made intelligible — always provisional, contingent, and interdependent.

Reading philosophy in this way reveals an echo of relational ontology across time and tradition. It is a reminder that the questions we pose, the distinctions we draw, and the patterns we discern are themselves part of the unfolding web of being. Philosophy, like myth, invites us to construe anew, to re-align, and to participate in the continual making of worlds.

08 September 2025

2 From Value-Guided Action to Symbolic Enactment in Eusocial Colonies

Preface: When Does a Behaviour Mean Something?

In the previous series, we traced how value-guided behaviour in bees gives rise to complex patterns of coordination. We explored how perceptual categorisation, behavioural routinisation, and distributed regulation allow the colony to function as a self-organising system — without meaning in any symbolic sense.

Now we take a further step. We ask: when does a behaviour begin not only to regulate, but to construe? When does an act performed in the present come to stand for something absent — not through instinct or imitation, but through a structured enactment that can be recognised and responded to by others?

The waggle dance of the honeybee offers a compelling case. Through it, a forager re-enacts the flight to a food source — not by transporting nectar, but by compressing her experience into a patterned movement. The dance symbolises both perceptual dimensions (distance, direction) and value dimensions (richness of the source). And crucially, it can be interpreted by others.

In this series, we explore how such symbolic enactment emerges. We do not begin with meaning, but with the dynamics of constrained behaviour — with the routinisation, modulation, and coupling of value systems. From there, we examine how certain forms of behaviour come to function not merely as action, but as construal — a performance that stands for something beyond itself.

We remain with the bees. There is no need to invoke language, consciousness, or representation. The colony offers a different model: one in which meaning, in a minimal sense, emerges from the structured interplay of routine, perception, and social alignment.

This is the story of how symbolic form can emerge from value-guided life.

1 The Dance as Enactment of Experience

The waggle dance does not deliver food. It does not transport nectar, lead a convoy, or enact a plan. What it does is more remarkable: it re-enacts a past flight — and in doing so, enables future ones.

A forager returns to the hive after locating a productive food source. She moves through the crowd of her sisters, climbs onto the comb, and begins a patterned movement: a run forward while waggling her abdomen, a loop back, a return. She repeats this sequence, again and again, varying the angle of the waggle run and the duration of its vibration.

What is being enacted here is not the act of feeding, but the act of flying — compressed into a symbolically structured movement. The angle of the waggle run relative to gravity represents the angle of the food source relative to the sun. The duration of the waggle phase indicates distance. The intensity and repetition of the dance correlate with the richness of the find.

This is not mimicry. It is not a literal re-performance of the flight, nor is it the emission of a signal in the narrow sense. It is a constrained, routinised enactment — one whose form has stabilised across generations and whose structure is interpretable by others.

In this way, the waggle dance becomes more than behaviour. It becomes a performance that stands in for something absent — a past event that matters. The bee does not describe her flight, nor point to its endpoint. She enacts a construal of it: a structured mapping that others can read.

Here, we see a critical threshold: a shift from action that affects others to action that construes a shared world. It is not that the forager knows she is informing. Rather, the structure of the dance has evolved to embody a constrained relation between experience and action — one that recruits other bees into a pattern of behaviour aligned with the original experience.

The dance, then, is not a message but an enactment — a systemic compression of movement, distance, orientation, and value. It is behaviour become construal, grounded not in words, but in shared embodiment, constrained repetition, and the coupling of value-guided systems.

2 Compression and Construal

To dance is not to explain. And yet, in the waggle dance, something is compressed and conveyed — not through symbols in the linguistic sense, but through the structure of movement itself. What is compressed is experience: a flight across time and space, reduced to a pattern of orientation, vibration, and repetition.

The forager does not replay her journey in miniature. She enacts a mapping: the angle of the waggle run corresponds to the bearing of the food source relative to the sun; its duration compresses the length of the journey; its intensity encodes the relative value of what was found. In this way, the bee transforms a temporally extended, sensorimotor activity into a constrained behavioural sequence.

This transformation is only possible because the colony has evolved to interpret it. Other bees, attuned to the structure of the dance, are able to adjust their own orientation and flight accordingly. They are not deciphering a code, but responding to a patterned construal — a performance that aligns their action with a past event they did not witness.

The dance thus becomes a site of symbolic enactment. It is not merely a cause of behaviour, but a form that constrains the interpretation of experience. It allows one bee’s perception to shape another’s action, not through mimicry or contagion, but through a structured evocation — a choreography that stands for a relation.

This is compression in a technical sense. Information about space, time, and value is made actionable through reduction — through the distillation of a complex trajectory into a gestural form. It is not the content of the flight that matters, but its relational structure: how far, in what direction, and with what worth.

And this is construal: not the expression of internal states, but the enactment of a constrained relation between what was experienced and what can now be done. The dance is not about the flight. It is the flight — in symbolic form, enacted for others to extend.

Through this act of compression and construal, we begin to see how behaviour crosses a threshold. It ceases to be merely effective and becomes, in a minimal but crucial sense, meaningful — not because of mental states or conscious intent, but because of the structure it imposes on shared action.

In the waggle dance, the colony does not just act together. It sees together — not with eyes, but with alignment to an enacted, shared construal of the world beyond the hive.

3 Entrainment and Interpretability

The waggle dance is not a one-sided performance. For the symbolic enactment to function, it must be both enacted and entrained — produced by one bee and interpretable by others. This interpretability does not arise from shared mental models or learned codes, but from the structured tuning of perception and response within the colony.

Worker bees do not study the dance. They do not need to reconstruct the flight in abstract terms. Instead, they are physiologically and behaviourally attuned to the form of the dance itself: its orientation, duration, intensity. This attunement is not fixed by instinct alone, but shaped through developmental history, environmental regularities, and evolutionary pressure.

In this sense, the interpretability of the dance is not imposed from without. It emerges from the coupling of perception and action systems under constraint. The bees' perceptual systems are organised to treat this behavioural form as salient — not because they know what it means, but because their action systems are modulated by it in reliable, reproductively successful ways.

This is entrainment. The structure of one organism’s behaviour brings another into synchrony — not in the form of mimicry, but through the shaping of readiness. When a bee watches the dance, she is not decoding. She is being brought into alignment: her attention orienting, her action potentials shifting, her readiness taking form.

Interpretability, then, is not a property of the message alone. It is a function of the system — of the stable, shared dynamics between what is enacted and what is responded to. The dance constrains what the forager does, but also what the observers are likely to do. It exists as a structure of coupling.

Crucially, this system is not arbitrary. It is grounded in the shared biology of the colony, in the common conditions of flight and foraging, and in the evolutionary pressures that favour reliable alignment. The waggle dance succeeds because it compresses what matters in a way that can be enacted, perceived, and extended.

Interpretation, in this context, is not a mental event. It is a regulatory effect — a restructuring of behaviour in response to a structured enactment. What makes the dance semiotic is not the presence of representation, but the emergence of a system in which construal and response co-evolve, stabilising a form of symbolic action within a field of shared constraint.

4 The Semiotic Threshold

What makes the waggle dance more than an adaptive routine? What lifts it from the category of routinised behaviour into the domain of the semiotic? To answer this, we must be careful not to import the assumptions of language or representation. Instead, we look to the structure of the system itself — to the conditions under which behaviour becomes symbolic enactment.

Three features mark the dance as crossing this threshold.

First, the dance enacts a construal of an absent experience. It is not simply a behavioural response to current stimuli, but a performance anchored in a prior event — a flight that has ended. The dance compresses and reconfigures that event, so that it can guide the future behaviour of others. The event is not reproduced, but construed — enacted in a new medium.

Second, the construal integrates perceptual and value dimensions. It is not only the direction and distance that are encoded, but the desirability of the source — the evaluation of its worth. The symbolic form thus binds together what was perceived and what mattered, offering a compressed enactment of both.

Third, the performance is interpretable by others in a consistent, structured way. This interpretability does not rely on cognition or decoding, but on the shared coupling of perception and action systems. The form of the dance is constrained enough to be aligned with action, and flexible enough to adapt to variation. It functions not just because it is done, but because it can be taken up.

These features together mark a shift. The dance no longer simply modulates the colony's behaviour; it creates a construal space within which past experience, current performance, and future response are coordinated.

This is the semiotic threshold: not a moment of intention or reflection, but the emergence of a form of behaviour that functions as a symbolic act — an act that enables a shared relation to what is not present, through a structure that is neither innate nor arbitrary, but evolved and constrained.

The waggle dance, in this light, is not a message sent from one mind to another. It is a symbolic enactment grounded in value-guided action, embodied routine, and the coupling of attuned systems. It stands not for a thing, but for a relation — between experience, action, and response.

And in doing so, it invites us to see meaning not as something humans add to the world, but as something that can emerge, in rudimentary form, wherever life finds a way to act together on what is no longer there.

Conclusion: Behaviour that Stands for More Than Itself

Across this series, we have followed a single behaviour — the waggle dance — from its roots in value-guided action to its function as symbolic construal. We have seen how it emerges not from deliberation or internal representation, but from the stabilisation of movement, perception, and value in a colony that depends on shared orientation to the world beyond the hive.

The waggle dance does not transmit information in the abstract. It enacts a patterned relation between a past experience and a present opportunity for collective action. Its form is constrained enough to be interpreted, yet flexible enough to adapt to the conditions that matter: direction, distance, richness.

In this way, the dance reveals a threshold — a minimal form of semiosis, rooted not in words or thought, but in embodied, value-responsive life. It is not communication in the human sense, nor a precursor to language. It is something else: a relational achievement of a colony attuned to what matters, and able to act together on what is no longer there.

By attending carefully to this form, we begin to see how meaning — in its most basic, emergent form — need not begin with us. It may begin wherever structure, responsiveness, and the coupling of systems allow behaviour to stand for more than itself.

And in the dance of the bees, that threshold comes vividly into view.

07 September 2025

1 Value, Perception, and Social Coordination in Eusocial Colonies

Preface: Why Bees?

If we want to understand how complex forms of collective life emerge and endure, it makes sense to begin not with language or culture, but with systems in which coordination happens without them. One such system is the eusocial insect colony. Here, across thousands or millions of individuals, we find a remarkable form of distributed organisation: structured division of labour, elaborate reproductive and defensive systems, and real-time adaptation to changing environmental conditions.

Among these insects, bees offer a particularly compelling case. A forager bee departs the hive not as a representative of a collective, but as an individual organism — one guided by its own history, physiology, and sensory-motor capacities. And yet, what it does in the world, and how it returns, contributes directly to the stability and ongoing function of the hive. Perception, navigation, memory, and behaviour are all involved — and they are all grounded in the ongoing regulation of what matters.

In this series, we’ll trace a path from the value-guided behaviour of individual foragers to the large-scale coordination of activity within the colony. Along the way, we’ll distinguish between types of behaviour — those that are continually updated in response to local conditions, and those that are routinised over time. We’ll look at how these patterns emerge, stabilise, and participate in larger dynamics of social organisation.

Our concern here is with systems of regulation, differentiation, and coordination. Bees, in this sense, are not just fascinating creatures — they are living systems in motion, through which we can begin to explore how the local acts of individuals become integrated into a broader, self-regulating whole.

1 The Forager as Value System in Motion

We begin with a single bee in flight. She has left the hive not with instructions or orders, but with a readiness to act — a system of sensitivities and tendencies shaped by her physiology, her developmental history, and the broader conditions of the colony. She is not searching for 'information' in the abstract, but for what matters: nectar, pollen, water, resin, or a suitable site. Her movements are guided by value — by the differentiation of what is salient, what is to be approached, avoided, or ignored.

This is what Gerald Edelman called perceptual categorisation: a continual coordination of sensation and action, governed by the organism’s internal structure and its history of interactions with the environment. In this view, perception is not the passive reception of sensory data, but an active, selective process — a coupling of what is sensed with what can be done. A flower is not simply seen; it is foraged.

At every moment, the forager is engaged in a dynamic regulation of her own viability. Her sensory systems are tuned not to general truths but to immediate relevance: the colour contrast of a petal, the humidity of a potential water source, the direction and strength of the wind. These are not interpreted, but acted upon — within a tightly coupled system where perception and behaviour are entangled.

And yet, her activity is not isolated. Though she flies alone, her behaviour contributes to a larger system — the needs of the hive, the rhythms of the season, the distribution of resources in the environment. In tracing her path, we begin to see how the value-based activity of a single organism can serve as an anchor point for more complex patterns of coordination.

Before we reach the hive, we stay with the forager: a living system in motion, engaging the world not as a blank slate, but as a differentiated field of affordances — a world made actionable through the ongoing regulation of what matters.

2 From Perception to Behavioural Routine

A single foraging flight is a contingent act, guided by the conditions of the moment. But over time, repetition carves a path — not just in the environment, but in the organism. What was once novel becomes familiar; what was uncertain becomes anticipated. Patterns of value-guided action, once fluid, may settle into more stable forms.

This is not memory in the human sense, nor habit as mere repetition. It is a process by which experience reshapes responsiveness. A bee that has successfully located a nectar source may return not by calculation, but by the activation of a coordinated behavioural routine — a sequence of actions no longer dependent on moment-to-moment recalibration.

Behaviour, in this sense, becomes routinised when the conditions that support it are stable enough that continual updating is no longer necessary. The transition from fluid categorisation to stable response is not a shift from intelligence to automation, but a shift in the kind of constraint at play: from flexible regulation to efficient entrainment.

Such routinisation plays a crucial role in colonial life. It enables the colony to stabilise its internal operations — food collection, brood care, ventilation — without requiring every individual to evaluate each situation anew. Not all behaviour can be routinised, but where it can, efficiency and coordination improve.

We might think of this as a gradient: at one end, fully contingent behaviour shaped by immediate value distinctions; at the other, routinised sequences carried out with minimal need for updating. Between these poles lie a range of adaptive strategies — and it is this range that allows a colony to operate as a layered system of distributed responsiveness.

In tracing how perception can stabilise into patterned action, we begin to see how value-guided activity does not remain at the level of the individual. It becomes, through routine, part of a larger structure of coordination — one in which the past reshapes the present without the need for representation.

3 The Hive as a Distributed Value System

The individual forager, though autonomous in action, is never acting in isolation. Her value-guided behaviour takes place within a larger field of relations — the colony — in which the activities of thousands of individuals are likewise constrained, differentiated, and coordinated. What emerges is not a single mind, but a distributed system of regulation: one that maintains its coherence without recourse to central control.

Pheromones play a central role here. They do not convey meaning in the way language does, but they modulate the behavioural tendencies of others. A queen mandibular pheromone, for example, inhibits ovarian development in workers; alarm pheromones trigger defensive mobilisation; trail pheromones support the alignment of foraging activity. Each acts not by informing, but by shifting what matters — adjusting the value gradients that shape perception and action.

Within this system, division of labour arises not through fixed assignments, but through the modulation of responsiveness. Age, experience, nutritional status, and colony needs all interact to shape who does what, when. These dynamics are flexible, but not arbitrary. They are stabilised through feedback: when certain behaviours succeed, their likelihood increases; when needs are met, others recede.

The hive thus functions as a self-organising system of differentiated roles and responsivities. Its internal structure is not imposed from above, but emerges from the coupling of individual value systems through environmental and chemical mediation. It is this coupling — constantly shifting, but highly constrained — that enables the colony to operate as a coordinated whole.

What we see, then, is a distributed form of homeostasis: not the maintenance of a fixed state, but the ongoing regulation of viability across multiple scales. This regulation does not rely on deliberation or symbolic mediation. It is enacted through the structuring of sensitivities — a choreography of value systems tuned to one another through shared participation in a dynamic environment.

4 Routinised vs. Updated Behaviours

Not all behaviours in the hive are alike. Some must remain flexible, constantly tuned to momentary variation — while others can be repeated with minimal adjustment, stabilised across time and individuals. Understanding this distinction is key to grasping how the colony operates as a layered, adaptive system.

Updated behaviours are those shaped in real time by perceptual input and internal state. A forager adjusting her flight in crosswinds, or shifting her search pattern in response to floral density, engages in behaviour that must remain sensitive to ongoing conditions. These acts are situated, contingent, and dynamically regulated.

Routinised behaviours, by contrast, unfold within more stable parameters. Brood care, food exchange, and many aspects of nest maintenance follow well-established sequences. These are not fixed in the sense of mechanical reflex, but they are constrained in form and deployment. They do not require moment-to-moment recalibration.

Crucially, both kinds of behaviour are value-guided — but the structure of that guidance differs. In updated behaviour, value distinctions are re-evaluated continuously. In routinised behaviour, the relevant distinctions have been settled in advance, entrained through past success or genetic predisposition.

This division of behavioural labour allows the colony to manage complexity without overburdening any one part. Continuous responsiveness is preserved where necessary, but routinisation conserves energy and ensures reliability where variability is low or risk is high. The two forms are not opposed, but complementary.

Indeed, the boundaries between them can shift. What begins as updated behaviour — a novel foraging technique, a shift in thermoregulation — may, through reinforcement and stability, become a routinised pattern. Conversely, routinised behaviours may dissolve under pressure, requiring renewed responsiveness.

This interplay is not merely an optimisation strategy; it is a foundation for adaptability. The colony survives not by rigid control, but by maintaining the right mix of behavioural stability and flexibility — ensuring that what matters is acted on appropriately, whether through fresh adjustment or well-tuned repetition.

Conclusion: Social Life Before Meaning

In tracing the life of the bee colony, we have seen how value-guided behaviour in individual organisms becomes integrated into a larger system of coordination. From the forager’s continual adjustment to local conditions, to the stabilisation of behaviour into routinised routines, to the distributed regulation mediated by pheromones, the colony operates through layers of differentiated responsiveness.

This system is not controlled by a central authority or mediated by symbolic communication. Instead, it emerges through the dynamic coupling of individual value systems, each constrained and shaped by environmental and social feedback. Through this ongoing choreography, the hive maintains its viability and adaptability.

By focusing on these foundational processes—perception as action guided by what matters, behavioural routines as efficient entrainments, and social organisation as distributed regulation—we have taken a crucial step toward understanding how complex collective life is maintained.

This understanding sets the stage for further exploration. Future inquiry will consider how, from these layers of value and coordination, more structured systems of interaction might arise. But for now, we rest with the remarkable reality of social life before the emergence of meaning in any semiotic sense.

24 August 2025

5 The Reflexive Universe: Theorising Theorising

1 Introduction – The Universe as Self-Theorising

In the previous series, we explored how meaning unfolds through relational processes of potential and instance — how reality is not built from things but from relations, construed through perspectival differentiation. We saw that “potential” can be understood as a theory, a structured field of possible instances, while “instance” is an event, a concrete unfolding within that field.

Now, we step back to consider the universe itself as a theoriser — as a system that not only unfolds but also theorises its own unfolding. This may sound grandiose, but it follows naturally from the relational ontology we have developed: if all reality is relational meaning construed through difference, then the universe’s very becoming is a form of recursive theorising.

What Does It Mean for the Universe to Theorise?

To theorise is not simply to hold ideas or build models. It is to actively construe a field of possibility, to make distinctions and to hold those distinctions open across time and scale. A theory is a construal — a system of potential that frames what instances can be.

By viewing potential as theory and instance as event, we recognise that every event is both an outcome and a construal that feeds back into the system’s evolving theory. The universe, through its unfolding instances — from particles to galaxies, from cells to conscious beings — is continuously generating new ‘theories’ that shape its own future potentials.

The Reflexive Loop of Theorising

This creates a reflexive loop:

The universe theorises by holding open a field of potential relations.
Instances emerge as events that embody a particular construal within that theory.
Those instances, in turn, modify the structure of potential — the ‘theory’ itself — shifting what can unfold next.

In other words, the universe is not static or predetermined; it is self-reflexive, dynamically updating its own ‘theory’ through its own becoming.

Why Is This Important?

Seeing the universe as self-theorising reframes our place in reality. We are not passive observers standing outside a fixed world. We are active participants, nodes in the universe’s recursive process of theorising and unfolding.

This perspective bridges physics, linguistics, epistemology, and consciousness studies by highlighting a shared grammar of relational meaning — a grammar in which theorising is the very mode through which reality unfolds and knows itself.

In the next post, we will dive deeper into what it means to theorise as an act of meaning-making, exploring the difference between passive knowing and active theorising across language, science, and physics.

2 The Act of Theorising — Meaning-Making Across Domains

We introduced the idea that the universe is self-theorising — continuously constraining and differentiating its potential through the unfolding of instances. But what exactly is theorising?

Theorising is not mere observation or representation. It is an active meaning-making process — the ongoing creation, refinement, and negotiation of relational structures that shape what can unfold next.

Theorising in Language: System and Instance

In language, theorising is manifest in the development and use of system networks — models of potential meanings that structure how texts can be produced and interpreted.

The system is the theory — a network of interrelated choices and constraints representing possible meanings.
A text is an instance — a concrete unfolding of those potentials into a realised event of meaning.

When a speaker uses language, they are both drawing on and modifying the system: their choices reveal and shape the potential space for future discourse.

Theorising in Science: Modelling Reality

Similarly, scientific theories are structured models — conceptual systems designed to explain and predict phenomena.

The theory is the potential: a structured space of possible outcomes and explanations.
The experiment or observation is the instance: a concrete event that actualises and tests the theory.

Scientists theorise by interpreting instances, which then inform and reshape the theoretical framework itself. This ongoing dance between theory and data is a dynamic construal process.

Theorising in Physics: Potential and Instance as Complementary Perspectives

In physics, the wavefunction or quantum field represents the potential — a structured field of possible outcomes. Measurement or detection is the instance — the concrete event selected from potential.

Physicists theorise by constructing mathematical models (potentials) that explain observed instances, which in turn influence the evolution of these models.

Theorising as Recursive Meaning-Making

Across language, science, and physics, theorising is a recursive process:

Construct a system of potential meanings or outcomes.
Encounter or create instances that instantiate and differentiate that potential.
Refine the system based on the patterns revealed by these instances.
Repeat, continually shaping the evolving landscape of possibility.

The universe, through its reflexive unfolding, enacts this process at all scales.

Conclusion

Theorising is thus the grammar of becoming — the structured act of constraining and differentiating potential to give rise to meaningful instances.

By recognising theorising as the fundamental mode of the universe, we appreciate that knowledge, language, and physical reality are interwoven expressions of one dynamic process.

3 Reflexivity and the Recursive Nature of Theorising

We’ve explored theorising as the dynamic process by which systems of potential are shaped and reshaped through the unfolding of instances. Now we deepen our understanding by examining the reflexive nature of theorising itself.

What is Reflexivity?

Reflexivity refers to a system’s capacity to refer back to and modify itself. In the context of theorising, this means that the act of theorising is not external or detached, but is itself part of the unfolding system.

Theorising is not just about modelling an external world. It is a recursive, self-referential process where theory and instance co-constitute each other continuously.

Theorising as a Feedback Loop

At every moment, theorising involves:

Generating potential — creating or updating a theoretical framework or system of possibilities.
Encountering instances — unfolding events or data that instantiate and differentiate that potential.
Reflecting on instances — interpreting and constraining future potential in light of what has unfolded.

This cycle loops endlessly, each iteration refining both the theory and its scope.

Reflexivity in Language

Consider a writer crafting a text:

Their system of language choices (grammar, vocabulary, style) forms the potential.
Each word or phrase written is an instance, an actualisation of that potential.
As the text unfolds, the writer continuously reflects on the emerging meaning, adjusting their choices and thus the potential space for the next words.

This recursive feedback creates the richness and unpredictability of language.

Reflexivity in Science and Physics

In scientific practice:

Theorists build models (potentials) based on prior observations.
Experiments and data (instances) actualise phenomena within those models.
Scientists then revise their theories in response, updating the potential for future inquiry.

Similarly, in physics:

The wavefunction represents the evolving potential.
Measurement actualises an instance, which feeds back to alter the wavefunction’s evolution.

Thus, the universe itself can be seen as reflexively theorising — generating potentials, instantiating events, and recursively reshaping its unfolding.

The Importance of Perspective

Reflexivity also highlights the role of perspective or agency. Theorising involves a positional standpoint — a conscious or non-conscious perspectival construal that shapes which potentials are considered and which instances are foregrounded.

This recursive relation between perspective, potential, and instance is the essence of meaning-making.

Conclusion

Reflexivity reveals that theorising is not a linear, one-way act but a recursive dance — a continuous loop of construal, actualisation, and refinement.

Understanding this recursive grammar deepens our grasp of how knowledge, meaning, and reality unfold as intertwined, self-organising processes.

4 The Meta-Theory of Theorising – Awareness and Self-Reference

Building on our understanding of reflexivity as the recursive process of theory and instance co-constitution, we now explore what happens when theorising turns upon itself—when the act of theorising becomes an object of theorising.

What Is Meta-Theory?

Meta-theory is a theory about theorising. It’s the level at which we step back to observe and describe the process by which we generate, apply, and revise theories.

In our relational framework, meta-theory is a higher-order construal: the awareness of how systems of potential and instance themselves emerge, interact, and evolve.

Awareness as a Reflexive Turn

When consciousness enters the picture, theorising acquires awareness of its own dynamics.

This self-awareness is not an external vantage point but a perspective from within the recursive loop—where the subject recognises itself as both the creator and the product of theorising.

It entails an ongoing negotiation between being the knower and being known.
Theorising becomes a process of observing one’s own acts of construal and differentiation.

Self-Reference and Meaning

Self-reference is a hallmark of complex systems that can theorise themselves.

In language, this appears as a text reflecting on its own form or content; in science, as a paradigm examining its own foundations.

This meta-level is where meaning becomes aware of meaning, enabling:

Reflection on assumptions
Recognition of context-dependence
Accommodation of ambiguity and multiplicity

Meta-Theory as a System of Constraints

Meta-theory imposes constraints on theorising—guiding what can be said or done at the theoretical level.

But these constraints are themselves subject to revision, creating a meta-system of potential and instance.

This layered, nested structure parallels the fractal nature of the universe’s unfolding, where each level recursively informs and shapes others.

Implications for Knowledge and Inquiry

Recognising the meta-theoretical dimension encourages:

Humility about certainty—since all theorising is provisional and situated.
Openness to alternative perspectives and interpretations.
A dynamic stance toward knowledge as an evolving process rather than a fixed product.

It shifts epistemology from a quest for final truth to an ongoing craft of recursive meaning-making.

Conclusion

Meta-theory illuminates the reflexive heart of theorising—where awareness, self-reference, and recursive constraint converge.

This perspective enriches our understanding of how knowledge is not only constructed but lived as an embodied, participatory process in the reflexive universe.

5 The Infinite Horizon – The Ongoing Journey of Theorising

As we conclude our exploration of theorising as a recursive, reflexive process, we face a profound insight: theorising is an infinite horizon—an ongoing journey without a final destination.

The Open-Ended Nature of Theorising

Theorising is never complete. Each instance of theorising:

Arises from existing potentials shaped by past theories and instances.
Opens new potentials for future theories, interpretations, and actions.
Is constrained and enabled by the current relational context.

This continual unfolding means knowledge is always provisional, emergent, and evolving.

The Horizon as a Metaphor

The horizon is never reached, yet it guides movement.

Similarly, the “truth” or “final theory” is an ideal we pursue, but never fully attain.

This does not render theorising futile—instead, it highlights its generative power as a creative, participatory act.

The Role of Creativity and Imagination

In this infinite process, creativity is vital.

Imagination extends potential by proposing new relations, new ways of seeing, new constraints.

Theorising becomes an art as much as a science—a dance between rigor and openness.

Participatory Becoming

We do not simply discover knowledge; we co-create it.

Theorising is a mode of participation in the universe’s becoming.

Each act of theorising is a gesture in the ongoing conversation between potential and instance.

Embracing Ambiguity and Multiplicity

The infinite horizon invites us to embrace ambiguity rather than eliminate it.

Multiple, even conflicting, theories can coexist as expressions of diverse perspectives.

This pluralism enriches the field of meaning and deepens our engagement with complexity.

Living the Reflexive Universe

To live within this reflexive universe is to accept our role as:

Creators and interpreters of meaning.
Agents situated in layered relational fields.
Travellers on an unending journey of understanding.

This orientation nurtures humility, curiosity, and responsibility.

Final Thoughts

Theorising as a recursive, reflexive process is the universe becoming conscious of itself through us.

Our knowledge is not a fixed monument but a flowing river—always shaping, and shaped by, the unfolding world.

The journey of theorising never ends, and in that infinite horizon lies the profound beauty of meaning itself.

Coda: Embracing the Reflexive Journey

As we close this series, we pause to reflect on what it means to theorise within a universe that is itself reflexive—where knowing is not separate from becoming, and theory is not detached from event.

The journey of theorising is both an invitation and a responsibility:

An invitation to participate creatively in the unfolding of meaning and reality.
A responsibility to remain open to the multiplicity and fluidity of knowledge.

In this reflexive universe, knowledge is not a destination but a way of travelling—a continual dance between the potential of ideas and the actualities of experience.

Each theory is a moment of articulation, a new position within a vast and ever-shifting field.

Yet no articulation exhausts the landscape; each opens new paths, new questions, new horizons.

To theorise is to embrace uncertainty and complexity—to engage with the world as a living, evolving text, written and rewritten through our acts of construal.

As participants in this infinite dialogue, we are both shaped by and shaping the universe’s becoming.

May this awareness inspire humility, creativity, and a deep appreciation for the endless possibilities of thought and meaning.