One of the most persistent misunderstandings comes from readers who approach relational ontology with the assumption that the world is divided into two metaphysical domains:
an internal realm (mind, experience, perception)
an external realm (matter, objects, physical reality)
Within this frame, any claim that “construal is constitutive” or that “there is no unconstrued phenomenon” gets misinterpreted as:
“So you’re saying reality is all internal?”
or its twin:
“So you deny the external world?”
This is a textbook case of ontological projection — taking the internal/external binary as universal and then forcing an alien ontology to answer within it.
Let’s be unambiguous:
Once that metaphysics is abandoned, the question dissolves.
1. The Internal/External Divide Is Part of the Problem, Not the Solution
The entire mental-interior / physical-exterior model belongs to:
classical dualism
representational epistemology
psychological internalism
folk metaphysics of “the mind inside the head”
Relational ontology begins elsewhere:
with relational potentials, systems, constraints, and perspectival cuts.
Thus, asking:
“Is this happening internally or externally?”
is like asking a topologist:
“Is this shape east or west?”
You are using coordinates that simply don’t exist in the relevant geometry.
2. Construal Doesn’t Happen “Inside” Anything
A key confusion arises because readers assume:
“construal” is an internal event
“actuality” is external
and the ontology must say which one dominates
But in our model:
Think of construal as:
a way potential is sliced,
a perspectival organisation of an event,
a structured difference that orients action.
“Internal” is simply the wrong category.
3. Events Aren’t Internal or External — They Are Actualised
Another misunderstanding: the attempt to classify events as “inner experiences” vs “outer realities.”
But in this ontology:
an event is an actualisation of potential through relational constraints.
Events are:
relational
perspectival
situational
co-constituted
systemic
not inner or outer.
The notion of a phenomenon “inside your head” is a 19th-century psychological relic.
4. Why Realists Misread This as Anti-Realism
When a realist says, “Are you denying the external world?” what they really mean is:
“Why aren’t you using my metaphysics?”
Because in their ontology:
reality is external
knowledge is internal
accuracy is matching inner to outer
When we reject the inner/outer architecture, they interpret this as a rejection of reality itself.
But what we are doing is much simpler:
5. A Clean Statement of the Relational Position
To clarify:
There is no metaphysical interior where experience is stored.
There is no metaphysical exterior where reality is kept.
There are no representations mediating the two.
There are systems with potentials, constraints, and relational organisation.
There are perspectival cuts that actualise events from this potential.
Meaning and reality co-occur in the event, not across an inner–outer divide.
Once you grasp this, the internal/external question becomes unintelligible.
6. If You Keep Asking “Inside or Outside,” You Are Misreading the Ontology
The binary belongs to:
realist metaphysics
representational epistemology
psychological internalism
computational cognitive science
analytic philosophy of mind
It does not belong to relational ontology.
Bringing it in from outside only guarantees misunderstanding.
Next in the Series
If Post 1 dismantled the idealism strawman, this post removes the entire interior/exterior scaffolding that produces many of the most persistent misreadings.
Post 3 will now take the next predictable confusion:
Why Perspectival ≠ Subjective (And Why Psychology Is the Wrong Frame)
No comments:
Post a Comment