Likely Misunderstandings of Relational Ontology: 6: Why Relational Ontology Is Not Relativism

(Or: “Anything goes” is the easiest strawman in the book)

After explaining how relational ontology preserves reality, knowledge, and error, the next predictable accusation appears:

“If everything is relational, then there are no standards.

Truth, meaning, and reality are just whatever each person or culture decides.

You’re promoting relativism.”

This is the easiest strawman to demolish — yet it persists because most readers assume that non-representational = anything-goes.

Relational ontology is precisely not that naive.

---

1. Construal Is Not Arbitrary

Relational ontology asserts:

• Cuts are constrained by system potentials.

• Constraints are systemic, including biological, semiotic, ecological, and social dimensions.

• Not all construals “work.” Some fail spectacularly, some succeed locally, and some succeed broadly.

In other words: relational does not mean arbitrary.

---

2. Patterns, Constraints, and Feedback Generate Norms

Relativists assume that “differences in perspective” = “all perspectives are equal.”

Relational ontology sees differences as structured by relational feedback loops:

• Stability and recurrence emerge from interaction with constraints.

• Ineffective cuts are naturally suppressed (failure, breakdown, collapse).

• Effective cuts propagate, stabilise, and coordinate further interactions.

This is not social relativism; it is a system-theoretic account of why some patterns persist and others do not.

---

3. Cross-System Alignment Replaces Arbitrary Standards

The measure of a construal is how well it coordinates potentials across systems:

• Does it work biologically?

• Does it function socially?

• Does it align semiotically?

• Does it survive ecological or technological feedback?

If yes → the cut is “valid” in relational terms.

If no → the cut fails.

This is a rigorous, non-arbitrary way to evaluate truth, error, and coherence — without appealing to metaphysical absolutes.

---

4. Relativism Misunderstands Emergence

Relativism imagines all “cuts” as independent and unconnected.

Relational ontology shows that cuts are emergent, nested, and interdependent:

• Local innovations are constrained by larger systemic patterns.

• No culture can just invent physics, biology, or semiotics from scratch.

• Differences exist, but they are bounded by potentials and constraints, not “pure choice.”

Relational ontology produces structured pluralism, not an anything-goes sandbox.

---

5. Relativism Fails to Grasp Meta-Systemic Coherence

Relational ontology also explains why some patterns survive across contexts:

• Cross-cultural science

• Ecology and sustainable practice

• Semiotic coordination in large societies

These emergent regularities exist independently of representation.

They demonstrate that relational systems impose standards from the inside, through success and coordination, not by decree.

Relativism ignores constraints as the source of order, mistaking relational emergence for chaos.

---

6. Summary for the Commenter Who Loves “LOL EVERYTHING’S RELATIVE”

• Relational ontology is systemically constrained, not free-wheeling.

• Construals are evaluated by effectiveness, coherence, and cross-system alignment.

• Emergent patterns produce persistent standards, even without representation.

• Difference exists, but it is bounded and disciplined by relational potentials.

• Relativism misunderstands relationality as arbitrary choice; relational ontology understands it as structured actualisation.

Relational ontology is pluralist, emergent, and disciplined —

not relativist.