The Becoming of Human Possibility: A Life-Scale Perspective 3 — The Lived Cosmos

A human life unfolds within a web of relational fields: social, cultural, environmental, and symbolic. These fields constitute the lived cosmos of possibility — the horizon against which potential actualises. No individual exists in isolation; each life is embedded in networks of influence, expectation, and meaning that shape which potentials can emerge and which remain dormant.

The lived cosmos is perspectival. What counts as possible, meaningful, or real is always mediated through the individual’s engagement with surrounding relations. Symbols, narratives, institutions, and technologies form scaffolds that orient action, constrain choice, and enable innovation. Even in apparent freedom, human possibility is co-structured by these relational frames, which both open and limit the paths of becoming.

By attending to the lived cosmos, we recognise that individuals are both products and agents within their relational environments. Possibility is neither purely internal nor wholly external: it is the emergent effect of the interplay between the person and the worlds they inhabit. Understanding this co-individuated dynamic is essential for mapping the becoming of human possibility across a lifetime.

The Becoming of Human Possibility: A Life-Scale Perspective 2 — Temporal Actualisation

Possibility is not a static stockpile; it is phased through time, continually reconfigured by the ongoing interplay of potential and actual. In a human life, moments do not exist as isolated points but as temporal nodes where relational potential is cut into actuality. Each choice, each encounter, each reflection is an event that shapes the horizon of future possibilities.

Time in human becoming is perspectival: it is lived, experienced, and structured by memory, anticipation, and attention. The unfolding of possibility is therefore both forward-reaching and retrospectively interpreted. Early experiences condition later potentials; later insights reframe earlier moments. Temporality is not a neutral container but an active medium through which possibility is constrained, guided, and expanded.

Understanding temporal actualisation allows us to see how a life is composed not as a sequence of discrete facts but as a relationally organised trajectory. Human possibility is always contextual: it is shaped by prior history, symbolic structures, and the ongoing emergence of relations in the world. By tracing these temporal threads, we can begin to understand how potential becomes lived actuality, moment by moment, over the span of a lifetime.

The Becoming of Human Possibility: A Life-Scale Perspective 1 — Possibility in the Individual

Reality is not fixed; it is a field of relational potential. For a human, possibility is the thread along which life unfolds, never fully determined, never fully random. Each person is a perspectival cut in the ongoing field of potential: a locus where relational actualisation occurs. What emerges as “the individual” is inseparable from the web of relations — social, cultural, environmental, and symbolic — that both constrain and enable the actualisation of potential.

To study human possibility at the scale of a single life is to confront the interplay of emergence and constraint. Some potentials are never actualised; others crystallise into patterns that shape further possibilities. Lived experience is thus not merely a sequence of events but a process of becoming, where each moment negotiates the tension between what is possible and what is actual.

This post sets the groundwork for the series: we will explore how individual possibility is shaped by symbolic cosmoi, historical and cultural structures, reflexive awareness, and contemporary forces. By tracing the becoming of human possibility across a lifetime, we can see how relational processes generate the unique microcosm of a single life — a life that is both singular and embedded within broader worlds.

Humanity in the Becoming of Worlds: Series Conclusion — The Becoming of Cosmos

Across this series, we have traced how possibility itself is cosmogenic. Myth, theology, and science each provided symbolic architectures that placed humanity within larger orders — narrating our origin, delimiting our destiny, and framing the scope of what could be thought or done. But when seen relationally, these architectures are not eternal truths; they are cuts in possibility, perspectival construals that weave a cosmos of meaning and action.

The becoming of human possibility is inseparable from the becoming of cosmos. To live as human is always already to inhabit a world, a patterned field of potential and actual that orients action and meaning. The mythic cosmos situates us within cycles and stories; the theological cosmos binds us under law and providence; the scientific cosmos maps us into laws and observers. Each construal opens, and at the same time closes, a domain of possibility.

Reflexivity marks a decisive turn. Once we see these architectures as constructs, not absolutes, possibility no longer appears as a pre-given horizon but as a field of negotiation. Cosmos itself becomes mutable, plural, contested — the unfolding of possibility in relation rather than the decree of any final order.

To study possibility, then, is to study the very becoming of worlds. Human action is not simply situated within cosmos but participates in its ongoing construal. Meaning, power, and existence converge in this co-individuation: the weaving of cosmos through cuts in possibility.

The cosmos of possibility is not behind us, nor above us, nor waiting at the end of time. It is here, unfolding — in every symbolic act, every collective negotiation, every perspectival cut that draws actuality from the open field of the possible.

Humanity in the Becoming of Worlds: 5 Reflexive Placements

Reflexivity unsettles every prior cosmos of placement. Myth, theology, and science each offered scaffolds that positioned humanity within an ordered world — narrated, decreed, or discovered. Reflexivity reveals these placements not as truths but as construals: symbolic architectures that world possibility by cutting potential into actuality.

With reflexivity, the human is no longer merely positioned. The human becomes the one who can question the positioning itself. No longer sinner, subject, or observer alone — but interpreter of interpretation, constructor of construction. The cosmos ceases to be a given framework into which humanity fits, and becomes a field of perspectival cuts in which humanity participates.

This reflexive placement is deeply ambivalent. It empowers: human possibility is no longer bound by obedience to divine command or submission to natural law. It destabilises: no placement can now claim absoluteness, for each is disclosed as symbolic scaffolding. The risk of nihilism emerges alongside the promise of freedom.

Reflexivity thus does not abolish cosmos but multiplies it. Worlds proliferate, each one perspectivally actualised, each one subject to critique and revision. Human possibility expands into self-conscious co-individuation, where to act is also to construe the frame in which action matters.

In this placement, the cosmos of possibility is no longer received but negotiated. Humanity is not simply placed within order — it becomes a participant in the becoming of order itself.

Humanity in the Becoming of Worlds: 4 Scientific Placements

Where theology anchored possibility in divine decree, science reconfigured that same symbolic scaffolding under the guise of neutrality. The cosmos was no longer secured by God, but by law. Conservation, symmetry, causality — these took the place of providence, transcendence, and command.

Science positioned itself as the banisher of myth and theology, yet carried forward their structuring impulse. Theological absolutes were transposed into physical constants. Divine eternity was reborn as timeless mathematical truth. Creation became the Big Bang; providence became conservation laws; eschatology became heat death.

In this scientific cosmos, human possibility is reframed through discovery and mastery. The human is no longer a sinner or worshipper but an observer — the one who reads the Book of Nature, who uncovers the law written into the fabric of being. Theological obedience mutates into epistemic submission: to know reality is to accept its laws as binding and universal.

But this placement too is perspectival. Science does not merely “uncover” the real; it constructs a cosmos through its abstractions and instruments. It replaces divine fiat with mathematical decree, while denying the symbolic work it performs. In doing so, it both frees possibility from overt theological judgment and constrains it within a new transcendence — the neutrality of “objective law.”

Scientific placements thus carry forward the theological impulse under a secularised banner. They shift the stage on which human possibility unfolds, but still script it within a cosmos of command, law, and eternal guarantees.

Humanity in the Becoming of Worlds: 3 Theological Placements

Where myth situates humanity within a cosmos of living relation, theology reconfigures that cosmos into a structure of order, decree, and transcendence. The divine is no longer diffuse across mountain, river, and ancestor — it is centralised, elevated, and projected as the ultimate source of law and truth.

In theological construals, the cosmos is stabilised by a transcendent guarantor. Creation is not an ongoing weave of relation but a singular act of origination. Order is no longer negotiated ritually but commanded by divine fiat. Human possibility is framed through obedience, covenant, and moral alignment with an overarching will.

This restructuring has consequences. The human is raised into unique dignity — created “in the image of God” — yet simultaneously subjected to divine authority. Possibility becomes bound to categories of salvation, sin, and destiny. Cosmic becoming is filtered through theological horizons of origin and end, providence and judgment.

What was once entanglement with an animate cosmos becomes relation to a transcendent deity who sustains the world from beyond. The theological cosmos is thus a symbolic placement of possibility that secures stability and order, but at the cost of severing immediacy: the river is no longer itself divine, but a sign of divine creation.

Theological placements shift human possibility into a cosmic drama of obedience and salvation. They sacralise permanence and authority, displacing the perspectival play of relation with the demand for alignment under a single, eternal source.

Humanity in the Becoming of Worlds: 2 Mythic Placements

Myth is often dismissed as primitive cosmology — stories told before science “got it right.” But from a relational perspective, myth is not failed explanation. It is world-construal: a symbolic architecture that situates the human within a cosmos of possibility.

In myth, the cosmos is never indifferent. It breathes, speaks, acts. Mountains may be ancestors, rivers may be deities, stars may be guides. These are not “superstitions” layered onto a mute nature; they are placements that embed the human in a living web of relation. To exist is to be entangled in a cosmos already saturated with meaning.

Human possibility, here, is not autonomous. It is co-ordinated with cycles of fertility, ancestral obligations, and cosmic renewal. A person’s becoming is aligned with ritual action, seasonal rhythms, and symbolic centres — hearth, shrine, mountain, sky. Myth construes the cosmos as a patterned order of relation, and the human as one participant in its unfolding.

From this view, the “mythic cosmos” is not a failed precursor to science but a mode of construal in which human possibility is inseparable from the vitality of the world. The human is never alone, never detached, but always already aligned with gods, spirits, ancestors, and forces that shape becoming.

The challenge for us is not to translate myth into literal fact or discard it as error. It is to see myth as a placement of possibility: a way of cutting human potential into a cosmos that is alive with relation.

Humanity in the Becoming of Worlds: 1 The Human in the Cosmos of Possibility

The human has always been more than a biological species. We are a placed being — situated within larger cosmoi of possibility. The way a collective construes the cosmos is never indifferent to how it construes itself: to speak of world is to speak, implicitly, of the human place within it.

This is not a question of beliefs about the cosmos, nor of representations of external reality. It is a question of possibility: how relational construals open some pathways of becoming while closing others, how they tether human potential to wider symbolic architectures.

In myth, the human is inscribed within cycles of creation and renewal, positioned among gods and ancestors. In theology, the human is bound to law, salvation, and eternity. In science, the human oscillates between insignificance in a vast cosmos and indispensability as the knowing subject. Each placement is a cut in possibility, orienting the human by embedding us in a larger order.

The task of this series is to follow those placements. We will trace how mythic, theological, and scientific cosmoi configure human possibility; how they orient our becoming within larger relational orders; and how a relational ontology reframes this entire question. For if possibility is always perspectival and co-individuated, then “the human” is not a fixed category but a shifting point of alignment within the unfolding of cosmos.

To study the human, then, is not to isolate our species from the world but to see how worlds and humans co-arise. The human is a figure of possibility cut into the weave of cosmos — one strand among many in the becoming of worlds.

Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming Series Conclusion The Becoming of Cosmos

To study possibility is to study the very unfolding of worlds. Across myth, theology, science, technology, and politics, we see that what becomes actual is never pre-given; it emerges through relational, perspectival, and co-individuated processes.

This series has shown that:

• Possibility is structured, yet never closed; horizons and frontiers constantly shift.

• Actualisation is perspectival: each instance of being emerges as a cut through potential.

• Individuals and collectives co-individuate possibility, shaping both what is realised and what remains latent.

• Symbolic, technological, and political architectures mediate, constrain, and enable actualisation, showing that possibility is always embedded within relational fields.

A relational cosmos of possibility invites us to see the world as dynamic, open, and interwoven. It is not a static arena awaiting outcomes, nor a pre-ordained plan to be deciphered. The cosmos is a living weave of potential actualised through relation, constantly generating new horizons, new multiplicities, and new singularities.

Studying possibility in this way is to engage with the becoming of worlds itself: to attend not only to what is, but to how what is comes to be. Reality is not a fixed map but an ongoing weaving; meaning, action, and being all emerge from this relational dance.

The task of understanding possibility, then, is to trace the threads of becoming, to see the patterns of relation that bring worlds into being, and to participate knowingly in the co-creation of the cosmos.

Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming 12 Toward a Relational Cosmos of Possibility

Having traced the horizons, structures, and contemporary stakes of possibility, we can now reframe possibility relationally. Possibility is not a pre-given set of options, nor a static container waiting to be filled. It emerges through relations — between agents, collectives, symbolic systems, technologies, and the cosmos itself.

Key features of a relational cosmos of possibility:

1. Perspectival Actualisation — Each actualisation arises from a relational cut between potential and realised; possibility is always experienced and enacted from a perspective.

2. Co-Individuation — Individuals and collectives actualise potential together, mutually shaping the field of possibility.

3. Dynamic Horizons — Boundaries of the possible shift as relational fields evolve, never fixed, always generative.

4. Embedded Constraints and Enablements — Structures — technological, political, cultural — orient and channel potential without fully determining it.

This view dissolves the illusion of absolute possibility and foregrounds the interdependence of being and becoming. The cosmos of possibility is not merely a landscape of outcomes but a weaving of relational fields, horizons, and actualisations, constantly evolving as new cuts in the field of potential emerge.

Understanding possibility in this way equips us to navigate the contemporary world more faithfully: we see that what can be done, imagined, or realised is always a product of relational, perspectival, and co-individuated dynamics.

Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming 11 Political Possibility

Possibility is never evenly distributed. Collective and individual actualisations are always shaped by power, access, and exclusion. Political structures — from governance and law to social norms and economic systems — delineate who can act, what actions are feasible, and which potentials are suppressed.

Political possibility operates through three intertwined mechanisms:

1. Access — Control over resources, knowledge, and networks determines who can realise which potentials.

2. Constraint — Laws, norms, and institutional structures restrict what is permissible or achievable.

3. Enablement — Policy, social organisation, and collective action create conditions for new possibilities to emerge.

The cosmos of human possibility is therefore inherently relational and co-individuated. Individual and collective potentials unfold within political fields, shaped by the interplay of opportunity, restriction, and initiative. What seems “possible” is never a pure abstraction; it is the outcome of relational entanglements that enable some actualisations while foreclosing others.

Understanding political possibility illuminates how human worlds are structured: it is not enough to examine potential in isolation; we must examine who gets to inhabit, navigate, and extend the field of becoming.

Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming 10 Technological Possibility

In the contemporary world, technology profoundly reshapes the horizons of what can be. Computation, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence extend the field of potentialities, opening new pathways for actualisation while constraining others through design, protocols, and algorithms.

Technology operates as a mediator of possibility. Algorithms define what is discoverable or actionable. Biotechnological interventions create new forms of life, pushing the boundaries of the biologically possible. Digital platforms orient attention, interaction, and social emergence, creating collective fields that shape both individual and collective actualisations.

Yet these extensions are not neutral. They structure relational fields, embedding priorities, biases, and affordances into the very space of becoming. Possibility is amplified, channelled, and sometimes restricted, showing that human and collective agency is always entangled with the tools and media that mediate it.

Understanding technological possibility is thus crucial for understanding the contemporary cosmos: it illuminates how the unfolding of potential is co-constructed with the instruments, infrastructures, and symbolic architectures humans create.

Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming 9 Multiplicity and Singularity

Possibility is never uniform. Within every relational field, multiple pathways, outcomes, and instantiations coexist — a multiplicity of potentialities. Yet each actualisation appears singular: one configuration, one event, one perspectival cut through the broader field.

This tension between multiplicity and singularity is central to the architecture of becoming. Multiplicity ensures richness, contingency, and adaptability: the same relational field can generate different worlds depending on which possibilities are actualised. Singularity ensures coherence and intelligibility: the world as experienced is navigable, actionable, and meaningful from a given perspective.

Relationally, multiplicity and singularity are not opposites but complementary. Every singular actualisation emerges from multiplicity while simultaneously shaping it: some potentials are realised, others foreclosed, yet the field of possibility remains open to new actualisations. This dynamic interplay produces the evolving cosmos of possibility — a landscape both structured and fluid, disciplined and generative.

Recognising this duality helps us see how worlds are woven: actuality is always perspectival, yet it is drawn from a broader relational horizon; potential is abundant, yet constrained by prior cuts and emergent relations.

Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming 8 Individuation and Collective Fields

Possibility unfolds not only across cosmic or symbolic horizons, but also through the interplay between individuals and collectives. Every actualisation is perspectival: it emerges from a relational field that includes others, prior actualisations, and broader patterns of potential.

Collective fields shape what becomes possible for any one agent. Cultural norms, symbolic frameworks, scientific paradigms, and social institutions constrain action while simultaneously generating new avenues of possibility. The individual is never isolated; their capacity to actualise potential is embedded in these relational matrices.

Individuation is the process by which singular perspectives crystallise within a collective field. It is a dialectic of constraint and emergence: the field sets boundaries, yet each act of actualisation reshapes those boundaries, producing feedback that reverberates across the system.

In this sense, possibility is co-individuated. The cosmos of potential is not merely a sum of individual capacities; it is a relational weave, where individual and collective actualisations continually shape each other. Understanding human becoming, or the becoming of worlds, requires seeing possibility as a field that is both shared and perspectival — relational, dynamic, and emergent.

Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming 7 Horizons and Frontiers

Across mythic, theological, and scientific cosmoses, possibility is always bounded and oriented. These boundaries are what we call horizons: the limits of what can be conceived, enacted, or realised at any given moment. Frontiers, by contrast, are the edges of these horizons — spaces where the possible is being expanded, tested, or redefined.

Horizons are relational constructs. They do not exist independently of the collectives that inhabit them; they emerge through practice, discourse, ritual, and technology. A horizon constrains what is considered feasible, while simultaneously shaping attention, expectation, and imagination.

Frontiers are the zones of potential transformation. They arise when accumulated knowledge, symbolic innovation, or collective effort pushes the boundaries outward. Whether in exploration, experimentation, or cultural innovation, frontiers illustrate that possibility is never static: the field of becoming continually opens, folds, and recombines.

From a relational perspective, horizons and frontiers are not mere limits; they are structures of orientation. They define axes along which actuality may emerge, while simultaneously inviting new forms of relational alignment. The cosmos of possibility is thus always both constrained and generative, a dynamic interplay between stability and emergence.

Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming 6 Scientific Cosmos

If mythology and theology map possibility through symbolic authority, science maps it through formal structures: laws, constants, equations, and models. Scientific cosmoses codify and constrain what can be in ways that feel objective, but are deeply relational and perspectival.

Science performs three moves in structuring possibility:

1. Formal Constraint — Physical laws delineate what trajectories, interactions, and configurations are possible within a system.

2. Abstraction and Idealisation — Models isolate aspects of the world, suppressing complexity to render possibility tractable, yet always imposing a perspective.

3. Predictive Orientation — By translating potential into expectation, science shapes not just understanding but also the horizon of action and technological realisation.

Yet scientific cosmoses are not neutral mirrors of reality. They construct relational landscapes, defining what counts as possible, probable, or impossible. Every measurement, model, or law is a perspectival cut through a broader, still-unfolding field of potential.

From quantum probabilities to cosmological constants, the scientific cosmos demonstrates that constraint does not equal closure. Possibility is structured, yet still emergent — the cosmos is a field in motion, not a pre-written script.

Understanding scientific cosmoses in this relational way reveals how human and collective imagination, tools, and reasoning co-shape the space of possibility, even under the guise of “objective” knowledge.

Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming 5 Theological Cosmos

Where myth sketches possibility, theology formalises it. Across traditions, divine order, providence, and eschatology structure the horizon of what can be, transforming potential into a morally and metaphysically bounded field.

Theological cosmoses operate through three interwoven moves:

1. Providential Constraint — Possibility is aligned with divine will; what is actual must accord with higher order.

2. Eschatological Orientation — Horizons are oriented toward ends: judgment, salvation, or cosmic fulfilment; the possible is measured against the ultimate telos.

3. Mediation of Agency — Humans participate in possibility, but always through the lens of divine scaffolding; freedom is relational, constrained, and conditioned.

The effect is subtle but profound. Theology not only limits or enables action; it maps the very field in which possibilities arise. It translates the fluid plenitude of potential into a structured cosmos where outcomes are intelligible, pathways meaningful, and actualisation morally legible.

From a relational perspective, theological cosmoses are symbolic codifications of possibility, where the actual is always situated within the imagined frame of the divine, and where the potential is channelled, folded, and rendered actionable.

In this light, theology is less about “God” per se than about how human and collective horizons of possibility are scaffolded, constrained, and oriented.

Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming 4 Mythic Cosmos

Long before science or philosophy formalised the cosmos, myth structured human possibility. Myths are not primitive errors or fanciful stories; they are symbolic architectures that orient collectives within relational worlds.

A mythic cosmos delineates:

• Axes — verticals of power, authority, and hierarchy;

• Horizons — boundaries between the sacred and profane, the known and unknown;

• Centres — focal points of meaning, ritual, and collective attention.

Within these frameworks, human action and thought are both constrained and enabled. Myths map the possible: they define which paths can be taken, which behaviours are sanctioned, which outcomes are imaginable. They do not merely describe the world; they mediate the field of possibility itself.

From creation myths to heroic cycles, mythic cosmoses shape potentiality. They provide symbolic scaffolding for decisions, social organisation, and ethical orientation, ensuring that what is possible is never arbitrary but embedded in a relational web of meaning.

Viewed through a relational lens, mythic cosmologies are proto-codifications of possibility. They offer a template for understanding how humans construe the field of becoming — a first insight into the interplay between relation, constraint, and the unfolding of actualisation.

Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming 3 Horizons of the Possible

Possibility is not infinite in the abstract. It is always bounded, shaped, oriented. Every cosmos — whether mythic, theological, scientific, or digital — sketches a horizon of the possible: a limit within which actuality can unfold, and beyond which only the unthinkable or unsayable lies.

These horizons are not fixed. They shift as collectives construe new ways of worlding. The mythic cosmos bounded possibility with gods, spirits, and cycles of return. Theology reoriented the horizon around divine creation and final judgment. Science redrew it with physical laws, constants, and equations. Each horizon constrains, but also enables, shaping what can be seen, said, and done.

Horizons function both as edges and openings. They mark limits — what lies outside is excluded, impossible, forbidden. Yet they also orient collective imagination, giving direction, scaffolding novelty, defining the stage upon which new actualisations can appear.

From a relational perspective, horizons are themselves actualisations of possibility. They are perspectival cuts: constraints that stabilise worlds but never totalise them. Every horizon can be displaced, refigured, or reframed as the field of relation shifts. What was once impossible may enter possibility; what was once certain may dissolve into contingency.

Cosmos is thus not a single horizon but a shifting weave of horizons: overlapping, contesting, proliferating. To live within a cosmos is to inhabit these limits, to navigate their openings, and to participate in the ongoing redrawing of possibility’s edge.

Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming 2 Potential and Actual

If possibility is the ground of being, then actuality is not a brute fact but a cut — a perspectival crystallisation within the field of potential.

Traditionally, philosophy has ranked actuality above potential. Aristotle defined potential as incomplete being, striving for the perfection of actuality. Physics tends to imagine the actual as primary — the particle detected, the law obeyed, the measurement recorded — with potential reduced to a cloud of hypothetical states. Theology often cast possibility as subordinate to divine will, a canvas for what God decides to actualise.

But from a relational perspective, this hierarchy is inverted. The actual is always situated, perspectival, contingent. It does not exhaust reality; it opens onto possibility. Every actualisation is a local cut in a larger horizon, a crystallisation of relation that could have unfolded otherwise.

Potential, in this sense, is not lack. It is abundance: the plenitude of relation that makes multiple actualisations possible. Actuality, then, is simply one trajectory through this abundance — one alignment of relation that constrains and shapes what can be.

The interplay between potential and actual is not static but rhythmic. Actualisations feed back into possibility, shifting constraints, redefining horizons, opening new lines of becoming. Cosmos itself is this rhythm — the continual folding of the possible into the actual, and the opening of the actual back into the possible.

To study reality is to study this movement: not just what has become, but the ongoing becoming of possibility itself.

Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming 1 Possibility as Ontological Ground

When philosophy, physics, or theology begin their stories, they nearly always begin with what is. Substance, being, matter, particles, laws, God, energy — some foundational “thing” or “principle” is installed as the anchor of reality.

But this misses the pulse of becoming. What if reality is not anchored in what is, but in what can be?

Possibility precedes actuality. The world is not a warehouse of objects, nor a stage governed by pre-written laws, but an unfolding of potential. Actuality is not a brute given; it is a cut in the flow of possibility, a perspectival crystallisation that emerges when relations meet thresholds and constraints.

This is why we say possibility is ontological ground. It is not mere potentiality hovering behind reality, waiting to be triggered. Possibility is the fabric of relation itself — the open horizon from which actuality continuously emerges.

By reframing reality in these terms, we gain a different picture of what it means to exist. Instead of treating the world as a completed inventory, we learn to see it as an evolving field of unfolding possibility, where each actualisation is provisional, perspectival, and embedded in relation.

This shift will guide the series:

• from myth to science, we will see how different worldings have framed the possible,

• from theology to politics, how possibility has been controlled, constrained, or expanded,

• and ultimately, how a relational ontology reveals cosmos itself as the architecture of possibility.

To understand reality, we begin not with being but with becoming — not with the actual, but with the possible.