Against the Metaphysics of Objects: 1 Why Individuation Is a Perspective, Not a Process

We are accustomed to thinking of individuals—whether particles, organisms, or social actors—as things that come into being through time, as if there were a hidden recipe that, once followed, produces an entity fully formed. Quantum particles are born, cells differentiate, and people mature. Individuation seems like a temporal process: something emerges and then persists.

But from a relational perspective, this is a misconception.

---

Individuation as a Perspectival Clines

Individuation is not a temporal process; it is a perspectival cline. That is, it depends on the viewpoint, criteria, and relational frame from which the system is observed or engaged. Different observers or contexts may draw boundaries differently, highlighting some relations while downplaying others.

Quantum superpositions exemplify this clearly: a particle’s state is indeterminate until measured, but the indeterminacy does not imply incompleteness or delay in a process of becoming. The “individual” particle is only individuated relative to a particular measurement context—a perspectival cut, not a temporal evolution toward entity-hood.

---

Biological Individuation

In biology, similar insights hold. A cell is only an individual in relation to its environment, its developmental trajectory, and the criteria used to demarcate it. A multicellular organism is recognisable as an individual only when certain relations—genetic, physiological, and functional—are stabilised sufficiently to allow interaction with observers, other organisms, or systems.

No cell or organism carries an intrinsic “individuality.” What persists is the pattern of relations that constitutes individuation from a given perspective. Change in these patterns can redefine boundaries without invoking metaphysical creation or destruction.

---

Social and Semantic Individuation

Social and linguistic systems reinforce this lesson. Consider how roles, identities, or concepts are recognised as units. They appear as individuals, but only because relational criteria—shared norms, conventions, and expectations—stabilise them. Different communities may draw the same boundaries differently; the same entity may be individuated in multiple ways simultaneously.

Language itself exemplifies individuation as perspectival. Words, categories, and concepts are individuated through usage patterns and contextual constraints rather than by pre-existing essences.

---

Implications for Thinking About Objects

Recognising individuation as perspectival shifts how we treat the notion of “objects.” Objects are not ontological primitives that emerge in time; they are stabilised relational cuts actualised through observation, measurement, and interaction. Breakdowns—quantum ambiguity, developmental plasticity, social role shifts—signal the instability of assumed boundaries rather than failure of the entity.

This perspective dissolves the need for mysterious metaphysical processes that produce entities “out of nothing.” Individuals are never created in isolation; they emerge as patterns of relational stability under particular constraints.

---

Conclusion

Individuation is best understood not as a process that entities undergo, but as a perspectival achievement that observers, systems, and contexts coordinate. Recognising this allows us to dissolve persistent confusions about identity, emergence, and persistence across domains.

In the next post, we will examine how the object itself functions as a convenient fiction: robust enough to coordinate action and measurement, yet fundamentally a relational cut rather than a metaphysical primitive.