Inclination is not a metaphor for motion; it is the motion that precedes motion. It names the relational bias through which potential coheres into form. Before anything moves, before anything occurs, there is already a leaning — a disposition of the field that makes actualisation possible.
When we speak of inclination ontologically, we mean the structured asymmetry of potential: a relational tilt that makes neutrality impossible. Every system, as a theory of its instances, embodies not equilibrium but poise — the readiness to construe itself into actuality.
This tilt is the metaphenomenal analogue of what physics once called force, and biology calls drive, and linguistics recognises as meaning potential. Yet in all these cases, the same confusion persists: inclination is mistaken for causation. But causation presumes an already-actual world of antecedents and consequences; inclination belongs to the world before that cut — the pre-causal readiness of relation.
Inclination is not what makes things happen; it is what makes happening possible. It is the systematic curvature of potential that allows construal to find coherence.
In the relational ontology, then, energy can be re-read as the metaphenomenal name for inclination — not a substance, not a quantity, but a distributed readiness to actualise relational coherence. Energy does not move matter; it is the leaning of the field that becomes matter when construed.
To recognise this is to see that the universe is not a mechanism but a choreography of readinesses. Each act of actualisation is the stabilisation of a particular lean, a brief alignment in the ongoing inclination of the real.
No comments:
Post a Comment