Likely Misunderstandings of Relational Ontology: 5: Relational Ontology Explains Error, Coherence, and Knowledge Without Representation

(Or: Why You Don’t Need Mirrors to Get Things Right)

A recurring misunderstanding — often framed triumphantly by representationalists — goes like this:

“If knowledge isn’t representational, how can you distinguish true from false, right from wrong, or successful from failed?”

This objection assumes exactly what relational ontology denies: that truth depends on a mind–world correspondence.

Once we drop that assumption, the whole question resolves itself naturally.

---

1. Error Is Not a Mismatch of Mind and World

Representationalism defines error as:

A failure of internal models to match external reality.

Relational ontology redefines error relationally:

Error = a construal that fails to coordinate effectively with the potentials of the system it engages.

• No inner models.

• No outer objects waiting to be mirrored.

• No metaphysical “fit” to measure.

Error occurs when a cut does not align with the relational constraints and affordances of the system, not because the mind is “wrong.”

---

2. Coherence Is the Measure, Not Correspondence

Instead of evaluating knowledge against an external reality, relational ontology evaluates it against coherence across relational systems:

• Is the construal effective within a biological, ecological, or social system?

• Does it enable coordinated action?

• Does it persist across semiotic, temporal, and material scales?

If yes → construal is coherent.

If no → construal is in error.

Truth is pragmatic and relational, not representational.

---

3. Knowledge Is Structured Construal

Knowledge is often misrepresented as:

“a mental mirror of reality”

Relational ontology treats knowledge differently:

• Knowledge = a set of relationally stabilised cuts through potentials

• Knowledge = the ability to actualise patterns that coordinate with constraints

• Knowledge = not stored in heads, but distributed across organism, social, and ecological systems

Knowledge emerges through interaction, not encoding.

It is actualised relationally, not inscribed mentally.

---

4. Error, Coherence, and Learning Are Systemic

In this ontology:

• Error signals misalignment of relational cuts

• Coherence emerges when cuts successfully coordinate with system potentials

• Learning = adjusting cuts to improve alignment

No “mental misrepresentation” is needed.

No external “truth” scoreboard is needed.

The world itself provides feedback through relational consequences.

---

5. Representation Is an Illusion, But Knowledge Is Real

Realists often assume:

“Without representation, there is no reality of knowledge; everything is subjective.”

Relational ontology flips this:

• Representation = optional metaphor

• Knowledge = real, measurable in consequences, coordination, and persistence

• Error = real, detectable in failed coordination

• Coherence = real, observable in successful alignment across scales

This preserves robust, actionable knowledge without any recourse to metaphysical mirroring.

---

6. Summary for the Skeptical Reader

• Error is relational misalignment, not representational failure.

• Coherence is cross-system alignment, not correspondence with an object.

• Knowledge is distributed and actualised, not stored and mirrored.

• Truth is emergent from relational success, not from inner mental fidelity.

• Representational metaphysics is unnecessary, misleading, and ultimately weaker.

In relational ontology, knowledge, error, and coherence are natural consequences of relational activity, not puzzles of representation.