Over the past eleven posts, we have explored enduring paradoxes and puzzles spanning philosophy, language, and AI:
-
Meno’s Paradox – How can we inquire into what we do not know?
-
The Problem of Universals – Realism vs nominalism and the nature of generality.
-
The Problem of Qualia and the Explanatory Gap – Experience as first-order phenomenon.
-
The Hard Problem of Consciousness – Consciousness as relationally construed.
-
Ship of Theseus – Identity and individuation over time.
-
Free Will vs Determinism – Agency as relational actualisation of potential.
-
Reference – Meaning as relational distribution, not object-pointing.
-
Symbol Grounding – Symbols gain meaning through construal, not pre-anchoring.
-
Davidson’s Triangulation – Shared meaning emerges relationally, not representationally.
-
The Frame Problem – Relevance emerges from perspectival cuts, not exhaustive representation.
-
Searle’s Chinese Room – Computation coordinates value, but meaning requires construal.
These posts demonstrate a recurring pattern: what appears paradoxical or intractable arises from representational assumptions. Relational ontology dissolves these apparent conflicts by foregrounding three interdependent concepts:
1. System, Instance, and Construal: The Core Triad
-
System (structured potential)The space of possibilities, relational affordances, or systemic resources. Examples: the potential of language, consciousness, or physical systems.
-
Instance (perspectival actualisation)The particular actualisation of potential in context. Examples: a choice, a spoken sentence, a cognitive act, a perceptual cut.
-
Construal (first-order phenomenon)The lived, experienced meaning that emerges from the interaction of system and instance. Examples: conscious awareness, understanding, interpretation.
Across all paradoxes, misunderstanding arises when:
-
Systems are assumed fully self-contained.
-
Instances are treated as derivative objects rather than perspectival actualisations.
-
Construal is treated as representational or secondary.
2. How Each Paradox Dissolves
-
Meno’s Paradox → Inquiry is not “finding unknowns” but shifting perspective within structured potential.
-
Universals → Generality is systemic potential, not a metaphysical object.
-
Qualia + Explanatory Gap → Experience is first-order phenomenon, not an object to be reduced.
-
Hard Problem → Consciousness is relationally actualised construal.
-
Ship of Theseus → Identity is perspectival resolution, not material continuity.
-
Free Will vs Determinism → Agency is relational actualisation; freedom and constraint coexist.
-
Reference → Meaning emerges relationally; words do not point at objects.
-
Symbol Grounding → Symbols acquire significance through construal, not pre-existing anchors.
-
Davidson’s Triangulation → Shared meaning emerges relationally via system-instance-construal.
-
Frame Problem → Relevance is enacted in context, not pre-encoded.
-
Chinese Room → Computation coordinates value; meaning emerges only with relational construal.
3. The Pattern: Paradox as Guide
Relational ontology does not “solve” paradoxes in the traditional sense. Instead, it shows that they are artefacts of representational thinking. They illuminate:
-
Where systems are assumed to be complete.
-
Where instances are treated as objects.
-
Where construal is treated as derivative.
Once these assumptions are removed, paradoxes cease to exist, leaving a coherent landscape in which meaning, identity, agency, and consciousness are relationally enacted.
4. Implications Across Domains
-
Philosophy → Classic metaphysical puzzles dissolve; relational cuts provide clarity.
-
Language and Semiotics → Reference, symbols, and shared understanding are perspectival, not anchored.
-
Cognition and AI → Intelligence, attention, and meaning emerge relationally; computation alone is insufficient.
-
Ethics and Action → Responsibility and agency are realised relationally, not through metaphysical exemption.
5. Conclusion: Relational Ontology Without Paradox
The series demonstrates a unified principle:
Apparent paradoxes vanish when we recognise that reality, meaning, and action are system-instance-construal phenomena.Systems are potentials, instances are perspectival actualisations, and construals are first-order experience.
Paradoxes are not obstacles; they are signposts, indicating where representational thinking obscures the relational structure of reality. Once the lens is shifted, we see a coherent, non-contradictory landscape — relational ontology without paradox.
No comments:
Post a Comment