Likely Misunderstandings of Relational Ontology: 4: Does Relational Ontology Deny Reality?

(Spoiler: Only if You’ve Already Decided That “Reality” Requires Representation)

This is the accusation that is usually voiced with a mixture of horror and triumph:

“If nothing is representational, and everything is relational, then reality itself doesn’t exist. You’re just inventing the world as you go!”

Let’s be clear: this is a misreading. Relational ontology does not deny reality; it redefines the conditions under which reality can be meaningfully talked about.

---

1. Reality Is Not a Warehouse of Objects

Realist metaphysics assumes that reality is:

• a collection of things

• with intrinsic properties

• waiting to be mirrored by knowledge

Relational ontology says:

Reality is structured potential, not pre-packaged objects.

Potentials exist whether or not anyone construes them. They are systemic, patterned, and constraint-laden.

Reality is not dependent on any mind or representation to exist — only on the relational scaffolding that allows phenomena to be actualised.

---

2. Reality Emerges Through Cuts, Not Representation

A “phenomenon” is the intersection of:

• system potentials

• perspectival constraints

• semiotic resources

• actualised activity

The world does not need to be represented to be real.

It simply needs to be actualisable within relational systems.

Reality is therefore:

• relational

• perspectival

• active in constraining potential

• co-individuated with phenomena

Denying representation does not deny these relational structures; it removes the misleading assumption that phenomena require mental mirrors.

---

3. Realism and Representation Are Not Necessary for Reality

Accusing relational ontology of “denying reality” assumes that:

• there is a “mind-independent” world

• truth requires correspondence

• knowledge is a mirror of objects

These are representational preconditions for reality.

Remove them, and the accusation collapses.

Relational ontology asserts that reality is still very much there — but its existence is not metaphysically primitive; it is expressed through structured potentials actualised in relational interactions.

---

4. Reality Is Constraint, Not Essence

If reality were a set of things with intrinsic essence, then knowledge could fail by misrepresentation.

In relational ontology:

• reality = structured potentials + constraints

• phenomena = actualisations of potentials

• error = misalignment of construal with constraints

No mind needed, no representational fidelity required. Reality exists because systems are constrained and patterns persist.

Reality is the arena of possibility and constraint, not a warehouse of mirrored objects.

---

5. The Misreading of Anti-Realism

Critics confuse anti-representationalism with anti-realism.

• Anti-representationalism: reality does not depend on mental content

• Anti-realism: reality does not exist at all

Relational ontology is anti-representational, not anti-real.

Reality persists through constraints, potentials, and relational scaffolding, independently of whether anyone is looking.

---

6. Why This Matters

This misunderstanding is dangerous because it invites:

• claims that relational ontology is “postmodern nonsense”

• dismissal of relational thinking as subjectivism or constructivism

• conflation with relativism or solipsism

By clarifying that reality is relational but robust, we defend the ontology from the usual cavalry of strawman critiques.

---

7. Summary for the Reader Who Is About to Comment “So, It’s All Just Socially Constructed?”

• Reality exists independently of representation.

• Phenomena are actualisations of potential within constraints.

• Reality is relational, not intrinsic.

• Anti-representationalism ≠ anti-realism.

• Relational ontology preserves the robustness of the world while removing the misleading baggage of mirror metaphysics.

Reality is relational, structured, and constraint-governed —

it does not need to be mirrored to be real.