What relational ontology restores
Across the previous posts, we have traced a long and remarkably consistent error: the elevation of formal closure into ontological authority. From number to form, from form to law, from law to physics and beyond, mathematics has been repeatedly asked to do more than it can — and more than it should.
The result has been a metaphysics of inevitability: a picture of reality as already written, fully specified, and governed by structures that admit no alternative.
This post marks a turn.
Not a rejection of mathematics, and not a retreat into vagueness, but a re-opening of ontology — a re-grounding of being in relation, horizon, and cut.
1. What Was Lost
The story so far is not one of increasing error, but of increasing forgetfulness.
What was forgotten was not technique, but orientation.
Mathematics was never meant to tell us what is. It was meant to stabilise patterns of relation so they could be coordinated, explored, and extended. Its power lay in disciplined construal, not metaphysical disclosure.
When closure was mistaken for reality:
horizon disappeared,
perspectival construal was treated as distortion,
relation was subordinated to form.
Ontology hardened. Explanation narrowed. Possibility collapsed into necessity.
2. Relational Ontology Reintroduced
Relational ontology begins from a different commitment.
Reality is not a finished structure waiting to be mirrored. It is a field of relational potential, continually actualised through perspectival stabilisations.
3. Mathematics Reclaimed as Construal
Within this frame, mathematics can be reclaimed without remainder.
Mathematical systems are not windows onto being-in-itself. They are highly disciplined construals — practices that:
enforce closure,
privilege invariance,
suppress horizon effects,
and eliminate perspectival variation.
These are methodological virtues, not ontological truths.
Mathematics becomes powerful again once it is recognised as a mode of symbolic action rather than a metaphysical tribunal.
The question is no longer whether mathematics is “true,” but what its inclination makes possible — and what it necessarily excludes.
4. Form as Orientation, Not Essence
This reframing dissolves one of the deepest confusions inherited from Platonism.
A form stabilises attention. It guides construal. It shapes what can be seen, measured, and coordinated. But it does not exhaust what is.
To treat form as essence is to mistake a successful cut for the whole of reality.
Relational ontology restores form to its proper role: as a way of leaning into possibility, not as a declaration of what must exist.
5. Horizon Returns
Perhaps the most radical restoration is the return of horizon.
Every construal opens some possibilities and closes others. There is no view from nowhere, and no description that does not exclude.
Once horizon is acknowledged, closure can no longer masquerade as completeness.
6. Ontology Without Inevitability
Re-opening ontology does not plunge us into chaos. It releases us from false inevitability.
The world is not underdetermined; it is over-determined by relation. What happens is shaped by histories, alignments, constraints, and cuts — not by abstract necessity alone.
This allows contingency, emergence, and novelty to be real without being mysterious.
7. What This Makes Possible
With ontology re-grounded in relation rather than closure:
mathematics can inform without ruling,
models can guide without governing,
explanation can illuminate without erasing alternatives.
Physics, economics, and algorithmic systems can be practised with power and humility — aware of their cuts, attentive to their horizons, and responsible for their exclusions.
8. The Final Step
This post has reopened the ground.
What remains is practice.
In the final post of the series, we will ask what it would mean to treat inclination as first-class — to design mathematical and scientific modelling practices that explicitly account for their orientations, closures, and horizon effects.
No comments:
Post a Comment