What it means to know when meaning itself is ecological
-
Representational epistemologies assume a world made of objects “out there” and minds “in here.”
-
Constructivist epistemologies assume a mind-centered generativity that produces worlds.
-
Empiricist epistemologies assume the givenness of phenomena.
-
Rationalist epistemologies assume the primacy of conceptual structure.
But once meaning is ecological, none of this structure remains intact.
To know in an ecological universe is not to represent what is, but to participate in the differentiation of what can be.
This post articulates the epistemological stakes of that shift.
1. The Death of Representation
Representation assumes:
-
entities pre-exist their relations
-
meaning is attached to entities as a secondary layer
-
knowledge is a mapping from world to mind (or system)
By contrast, in a relational ontology:
-
relations precede entities
-
construal is constitutive, not interpretive
-
meaning is ecological, not mental
-
horizons, not objects, anchor stability
Representation collapses because:
-
there is no stable “object” independent of construal
-
there is no isolated “subject” performing the construal
-
meaning arises in the cut, not in the mind
-
knowledge does not mirror a world; it stabilises a field
Epistemology cannot begin from subjects or objects; it must begin from perspectival instantiation — the relational event that produces phenomenon.
2. Phenomenon as Ecological Event
In a relational ontology, phenomenon = construed experience = first-order meaning.
A phenomenon:
-
is neither subjective nor objective
-
is not a mental representation
-
is not a sensory input
-
is a relational event produced by cutting a horizon
This means:
-
There is no “raw given.”
-
There is no “view from nowhere.”
-
There is only the ecological field’s momentary articulation of itself.
Epistemology therefore becomes the study of:
how ecological fields articulate stable, re-identifiable phenomena through constrained relational operations.
3. Constraint as the Ground of Knowledge
In representational epistemology, truth is correspondence.
In ecological epistemology, truth is constraint.
A construal is “true enough” when:
-
it respects the invariants of the field
-
it preserves ecological coherence
-
it does not introduce contradictions in the relational dynamics
-
it persists across perspectival shifts
Truth becomes:
-
not matching
-
not internal coherence
-
not consensus
but the invariance of relational constraint across cuts.
Constraint is what remains stable when horizons shift.
Knowledge is therefore:
the reliable articulation of field-level invariances through perspectival instantiation.
This is knowledge as ecological robustness, not correspondence.
4. Objectivity Without Objectivism
If phenomena are perspectival and ecological, does anything deserve the name objective?
Yes — but only when understood relationally.
Objectivity is not neutrality or mind-independence; it is:
the stability of invariances across heterogeneous horizons.
A phenomenon is objective when:
-
multiple construals yield equivalent relational constraints
-
the field constrains its own articulation across perspectives
-
variation in cuts reveals structurally stable invariants
Thus:
-
Objectivity is not the absence of perspective.
-
Objectivity is what persists across perspectives.
This is an ecological, not metaphysical, objectivity.
It arises not from stepping outside the system, but from moving through it.
5. Error as Reconfiguration, Not Misrepresentation
In an ecological universe, error is not “getting the world wrong.”
Error occurs when:
-
a construal violates the invariants of the field
-
a cut destabilises the ecology of meaning
-
an articulation fails to maintain relational viability
-
a pattern is projected beyond its relational scope
Error is ecological misalignment, not incorrect mapping.
Correction is therefore:
-
not matching a fact
-
not deferring to authority
-
not self-consistency
but re-weaving the cut to restore ecological coherence.
Knowledge grows by refining relational fit, not by approaching a metaphysical truth.
6. Evidence as Semiotic Constraint
If knowledge is ecological, then evidence is no longer “data” gathered by a subject.
Evidence becomes:
the field’s own constraints, made manifest through construal.
Evidence is:
-
the relational resistance encountered in making a cut
-
the stabilising patterns that persist across horizons
-
the systemic pressures that limit viable interpretations
-
the affordances and constraints that shape articulation
7. Knowing as Participation
With all the above in place, we can finally define knowledge:
Knowledge is the participatory actualisation of relational potentials within an ecological field, such that its invariances are stably differentiated across perspectives.
In other words:
-
knowing is an ecological act
-
it is generative, not representational
-
it is participatory, not observational
-
it is relational, not subjective
-
it is constraining, not mirroring
-
it is world-forming, not world-copying
To know something is to become capable of co-individuating with it.
8. The Epistemic Consequences
Once knowledge becomes ecological:
a. the knower is a semiotic participant, not a mental container
Meaning flows across species, systems, and fields.
b. the known is a horizon of potential, not an object
Knowledge becomes a relation of possibilities, not properties.
c. explanation becomes relational articulation
To explain is to display the constraints that stabilise a field.
d. prediction becomes ecological attunement
You predict not by mapping, but by knowing the dynamics of constraints.
e. truth becomes the stability of invariance across perspective
Nothing metaphysical is required; only relational robustness.
f. uncertainty becomes inherent
Not because of ignorance, but because horizons are open-ended potentials.
9. Final Thought: Epistemology is Ecology
If ontology is relational and meaning is ecological, then epistemology cannot remain representational.
What we call “knowing” is the field’s way of becoming intelligible to itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment