Genealogies of Scientific Construal: 6 Chemical Worlds: Elements, Reactions, and Hidden Structures

Focus: The relational structuring of matter through emergent chemical principles.

Throughline: Possibility in the natural world is understood through interactions, hidden relations, and emergent patterns.

Following the formalisation of Newtonian mechanics, the focus of scientific construal shifted to the microcosm of matter. Chemists such as Lavoisier, Dalton, and Berzelius developed systematic frameworks for understanding elements, compounds, and reactions, revealing the relational structures that govern material potential. Possibility here is mediated through relations among entities: an element’s behaviour is intelligible only within the network of possible interactions and transformations it can undergo.

Lavoisier’s careful measurement and conservation principles re-cut chemical possibility as constrained and predictable, yet emergent in relational complexity. Dalton’s atomic theory further abstracted matter into discrete units, each with potential interactions constrained by chemical laws. Berzelius’ chemical notation and systematic classification extended the field, allowing relational possibilities to be conceptually visualised, manipulated, and communicated.

Modulatory voices:

• Lavoisier: conservation of mass as a relational constraint on chemical potential.

• Dalton: atomic theory as a formalisation of combinatorial possibilities.

• Berzelius: systematic notation enabling relational visualisation of potential reactions.

In this phase, possibility is hidden yet accessible: the behaviours of substances are not immediately observable, but can be inferred, structured, and predicted through relational systems. Construal moves from direct observation to model-mediated understanding, where actualisation of potential is contingent upon both material laws and the conceptual frameworks used to describe them.

Genealogies of Scientific Construal: 5 Newtonian Mechanics: Determinism and the Lawful Cosmos

Focus: Mathematical abstraction as a construal of all potential motion.

Throughline: Possibility becomes law-governed and predictable; the relational field of potential is framed through universal principles.

The emergence of Newtonian mechanics marked a profound re-cut of possibility. Where Renaissance empiricism expanded the horizon through observation and experimentation, Newton formalized these observations into a mathematical cosmos, governed by universal laws. Potential was now quantifiable, predictable, and relationally constrained: every motion, from celestial orbits to terrestrial objects, could be understood as the instantiation of lawful relations.

In this framework, possibility is codified as a deterministic field. Forces act according to precise ratios, bodies interact predictably, and the relational structure of the cosmos is fully intelligible to reason and calculation. This is not mere description; it is a systemic construal, where potential is shaped by lawful relations, and the field of what can occur is bounded by universal principles. The cosmos becomes a structured landscape of possibilities, wherein each event is intelligible as an actualisation of law-mediated potential.

Modulatory voices:

• Newton: the universal law of gravitation as a relational constraint on potential; the mathematical cosmos as a system of predictable possibilities.

• Laplace: the determinist ideal of total predictability, exemplifying the apex of Newtonian construal.

Newtonian mechanics illustrates a key ontological move: possibility is no longer simply observed or hypothesised; it is formally articulated and constrained within a coherent relational framework. The relational field of the universe is now both intelligible and generative: understanding its laws allows one not only to describe phenomena but to predict and, in principle, manipulate outcomes.

Genealogies of Scientific Construal: 4 Renaissance Empiricism: Observation, Experiment, and Expanding Horizons

Focus: Rediscovery of experience as a conduit of potential.

Throughline: Possibility begins to emerge through disciplined observation and experimental practice, expanding the relational field of knowledge beyond inherited hierarchies.

The Renaissance marked a decisive re-cut in the structuring of potential. While medieval scholasticism framed possibility through theological hierarchies, Renaissance thinkers emphasized direct engagement with nature. Observation, measurement, and experimentation became primary means of construal, opening new fields of potential for understanding and acting in the world. Knowledge was no longer fully mediated by scripture or inherited authority; it could be actualized through systematic inquiry and relationally patterned observation.

Figures such as Galileo, Vesalius, and Copernicus exemplify this shift. Copernicus’ heliocentric model displaced Earth from the cosmic center, broadening the relational horizon of possibility for both the cosmos and human understanding. Galileo’s telescopic observations instantiated a new coupling between empirical practice and conceptual ordering, while Vesalius’ anatomical studies revealed the body as a relational field structured by observable patterns. Possibility, here, is dynamic: it is extended, tested, and realized through iterative engagement with the relational network of phenomena.

Modulatory voices:

• Copernicus: heliocentrism as a reconfiguration of cosmic potential.

• Galileo: telescopic observation as a relational tool for structuring empirical knowledge.

• Vesalius: anatomical empiricism as an alternative construal of biological potential.

This phase highlights a crucial principle: possibility is not a static inheritance but a horizon expanded through disciplined engagement. The Renaissance marks the transformation of construal from passively received knowledge to actively structured and relationally mediated exploration. Observation becomes generative, creating new fields of potential where none were previously accessible.

Genealogies of Scientific Construal: 3 Medieval Synthesis: Theology, Nature, and Scholastic Constraints

Focus: Construal of scientific possibility under religious hierarchies.

Throughline: Possibility is framed by theological and scholastic orders, integrating inherited natural philosophy with divine law.

In the medieval period, the structuring of cosmic and natural potential became inseparable from theological frameworks. The Aristotelian cosmos, already hierarchically ordered and teleologically driven, was absorbed into Christian scholasticism, where God occupied the apex of relational order. Possibility was simultaneously expanded and constrained: the heavens and earth were intelligible through reason, but only insofar as they reflected divine harmony. Observation and experimentation existed, yet they were subordinate to the meta-frame of sacred causality.

Scholastic thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas systematically aligned the inherited Greek natural philosophy with scriptural authority. The cosmos was construed as a nested hierarchy, where each entity’s potential was relationally defined by both its nature and its place within divine order. Actualisation of potential was therefore not merely a material process but a reflection of a broader relational and symbolic structure: the cosmos as a field of constrained possibility, governed by principles both rational and theological.

Modulatory voices:

• Aquinas: synthesis of Aristotle and Christian cosmology, showing potential actualisation within hierarchical divine order.

• Maimonides: alternative theological structuring of possibility, emphasising rational harmony and divine intentionality.

In this phase, scientific construal is deeply intertwined with symbolic and theological systems. Knowledge and possibility are not neutral; they are mediated through relational hierarchies that define what can be intelligibly conceived, predicted, or acted upon. Observation alone cannot reveal the full spectrum of potential — it must be interpreted through the prevailing symbolic and rational frame.

Genealogies of Scientific Construal: 2 Platonic and Aristotelian Naturals: Ordering Possibility

Focus: How Greek philosophy structured potential through formal and material principles.

Throughline: Possibility is no longer merely observed; it is conceptualised, classified, and relationally ordered.

Following the empirical beginnings of Greek natural philosophy, Plato and Aristotle introduced systematic frameworks for construal that went beyond observation to ontological structuring of potential. For Plato, the cosmos was intelligible through ideal forms: patterns of order that exist relationally, providing the blueprint for phenomena. Possibility is abstracted — not every observed event is treated individually, but as an instantiation of universal principles. The cut between the ideal and the actual allows a conception of potential as constrained by relational perfection: what may occur must align with structural forms, rendering the cosmos simultaneously intelligible and generative.

Aristotle extended and transformed this framework through his analysis of substance, causality, and teleology. Possibility is hierarchically organised: the potential of each entity is determined by its nature, its place within nested categories, and its end-directed motion. Construal here is both descriptive and normative: the cosmos is not a chaotic collection of events but a structured field of potential actualisation, where motion, growth, and transformation are intelligible according to relational laws embedded in matter and form.

Modulatory voices:

• Plato: forms as relational templates governing what can manifest; potential constrained by ideal patterning.

• Aristotle: substance, causality, and teleology as relational rules for actualisation; contrasts with pre-Socratic focus on general principle.

Together, these thinkers demonstrate a pivotal re-cut of possibility: from observational regularity to principled, relational structuring. The cosmos is no longer simply observed; it is interpreted through a systemic lens, where potentialities are intelligible only as relationally ordered and hierarchically structured.

Genealogies of Scientific Construal: 1 Cosmic Observation: From Babylon to Greece

Focus: Early astronomy and natural philosophy as constrained fields of potential.

Throughline: Observation and systematic record-keeping begin the structuring of possibility, situating potential within relational and symbolic frameworks.

Long before formalised scientific theory, human construal of the heavens operated through symbolic, ritual, and observational systems. In Mesopotamia, Babylonian astronomers recorded celestial motions with remarkable precision, yet these observations were bound to divinatory and calendrical frameworks. Possibility was both circumscribed and articulated: the heavens could be described, predicted, and interpreted, but always within culturally and ritually determined constraints. The potentialities of observation were embedded in a network of signs, meanings, and relational patterns linking sky, society, and time.

By the time of early Greek natural philosophy, these observational practices were reframed through a new lens: reasoned, relational, and abstracted. Figures such as Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes began to translate empirical observation into explanatory principles, positing patterns and elements as generative of cosmic behaviour. Possibility became more explicitly structured: what could be known was governed not merely by perception but by relational principles intelligible to reason. The cut between phenomena and principle — between event and law — began to emerge.

Modulatory voices:

• Babylonian astronomers: meticulous observation and predictive tables, emphasizing relational regularity without abstract theory.

• Thales and Anaximander: abstraction from observation to principle, showing the first systematic recuts of cosmic potential.

In this shift, we see the first deliberate alignment of construal with a proto-ontological frame: potential becomes intelligible not just as what occurs, but as what can be conceptually structured, anticipated, and relationally integrated. Observation itself is no longer passive; it participates in the reconfiguration of possibility.

From Myth to Metacosmos: Symbolic Orders of Possibility: 10 Synthesis: Symbolic Cosmology and the Becoming of Possibility

From myth to simulation, we have traced the symbolic orders through which human cultures have construed the cosmos—not merely as backdrop to existence, but as a living field of possibility. Each symbolic formation has functioned as both scaffold and horizon: a way of making the world intelligible, and simultaneously a way of shaping what could be imagined, pursued, or brought into being.

The genealogy we have followed reveals that symbolic cosmology is never fixed. Mythic origins gave us narratives of divine creation, where possibility was articulated through sacred story. Philosophy abstracted these narratives into principles, ratios, and logical relations, constraining possibility within the bounds of reason. Theology codified potential through sacred law and ritual, while allegorical literature layered multiple fields of meaning, multiplying potentialities within narrative machines. Rationalist systems then universalised symbolic order through science, while the Romantics countered with plural, affective, and artistic worlds.

Modernism fractured this confidence, foregrounding multiplicity, ambiguity, and perspectivism. Structuralism followed, reconstructing symbolic possibility as a system of relations, differences, and codes. And finally, speculative cosmologies of science fiction and simulation opened onto worlds not yet actualised, symbolically testing futures beyond the present. Each movement has shifted the ground of symbolic construal, yet each remains tethered to the same task: orienting human life within the expanse of possibility.

The reflexivity of this process is key. Symbolic construal does not simply represent possibility—it transforms it. Imagination, narrative, and concept do not passively mirror the cosmos; they actively shape the horizons through which the cosmos is construed. Each symbolic order both reflects historical conditions and generates new trajectories of becoming. Myth produces religion; philosophy produces science; science produces fiction; fiction re-enters science as hypothesis. The symbolic cosmos is recursive: a field where construal itself becomes the engine of possibility.

Seen from this perspective, symbolic cosmology is not ancillary to human understanding—it is constitutive. To construe the cosmos symbolically is to participate in its unfolding, to give form to what might be. Our myths, philosophies, theologies, literatures, sciences, and speculations are not simply archives of thought; they are architectures of potential. They delimit and expand the very conditions under which we perceive, imagine, and actualise reality.

Thus the becoming of possibility is inseparable from the symbolic. As symbolic orders shift, so too does the cosmos we inhabit. Reflexivity, relationality, and historical contingency mark every stage of this genealogy. The cosmos we know is not a singular, objective totality; it is a symbolic field, perpetually re-construed, perpetually re-opened. In this sense, the symbolic cosmos is not only our inheritance but also our ongoing task: to create, critique, and re-imagine the architectures through which possibility becomes.

From Myth to Metacosmos: Symbolic Orders of Possibility: 9 Speculative Universes: Science Fiction and Simulation Cosmologies

If structuralism mapped symbolic possibility as systemic difference, the speculative imagination of the late modern era extended that logic into the future, the virtual, and the technological. Science fiction became not simply entertainment but a symbolic laboratory: a space in which cosmologies could be tested, inverted, and multiplied. Possibility was no longer confined to the inherited orders of religion, philosophy, or literature—it became the very substance of imagined worlds.

Isaac Asimov’s galactic empires and robot laws exemplify this shift. His narratives extrapolated rationalist and Enlightenment systems into vast symbolic architectures, where ethics, technology, and social order unfolded as thought experiments in cosmic scale. Possibility here was not mythic or divine, but algorithmic: rules and principles codified the horizon of potential action. The symbolic cosmos was refigured as a programmable order.

Ursula K. Le Guin offered a counterpoint, foregrounding relationality, plurality, and lived possibility. Her imagined worlds—of gender fluidity, anarchist collectives, or radically alien lifeworlds—opened symbolic orders to affective and ethical multiplicity. Here the cosmos was not a single system but a constellation of possible worlds, each construal reflecting different ways of being, knowing, and living together. Symbolic architecture became a site of contestation, where cultural logics could be re-imagined and re-aligned.

Parallel to literary speculation, contemporary theorists of the simulation hypothesis reframed possibility itself through digital mediation. The claim that our universe might be a simulation displaces symbolic order into technological recursion: the cosmos as code, consciousness as computational artefact. Whether embraced as hypothesis, allegory, or provocation, this move crystallises a broader shift—the recognition that symbolic architectures may themselves be generative engines, capable of enclosing or proliferating entire orders of possibility.

Science fiction and simulation cosmologies thus represent a double movement. On one hand, they extend symbolic construal into imagined and virtual domains, multiplying potentialities beyond the bounds of the empirically given. On the other, they reveal how technological mediation can itself become a cosmological principle, shaping not just stories but our very imagination of reality.

In these speculative universes, the symbolic cosmos becomes reflexively aware of itself as a construct—capable of being coded, simulated, and endlessly reconfigured. Possibility is no longer only narrated or structured; it is simulated, tested, and iterated. The horizon of construal now includes worlds that may never exist, but whose symbolic architectures transform the way we live in this one.

From Myth to Metacosmos: Symbolic Orders of Possibility: 8 Structuralism and Semiotic Networks

With structuralism, symbolic construal took a decisive methodological turn: possibility itself came to be understood as patterned through the very relations among signs. No longer the unfolding of divine order, philosophical principle, or artistic intuition, the symbolic cosmos became a network of codes and differences—a system whose internal structures constrained and enabled meaning.

At the foundation lies Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistic model, in which the sign functions not by essence or natural bond, but by difference. A word signifies because it stands apart from all others in the system, its value emerging only through relational contrast. This was not merely a linguistic insight but a semiotic revolution: possibility was no longer grounded in universal truths or singular narratives, but in the dynamic differentials of symbolic order itself. To speak, to construe, was to participate in a system that already shaped the range of potential.

Claude Lévi-Strauss extended this logic to myth and culture. Myths, in his analysis, were not timeless stories about gods or heroes, but structured transformations, variations of symbolic oppositions that reflected the architecture of human thought. The “savage mind” was not primitive but systematic, constructing symbolic order through binary contrasts and mediations. In this move, construal became less about individual creativity or divine revelation than about the collective, unconscious operations of symbolic systems.

Structuralism thus repositioned the symbolic cosmos as a kind of grammar of possibility. Language, kinship, ritual, narrative—each became legible as a network of relations, a code that ordered the field of what could be thought, felt, or actualised. Yet in this reconfiguration, agency shifted: the subject was no longer the autonomous creator of meaning, but a node shaped by structures that preceded and exceeded them.

This was both liberation and constraint. Liberation, because symbolic possibility could be mapped with scientific rigour; constraint, because the human agent appeared dissolved into the structural play of signs. Possibility was now abstracted into systemic differentials, networks of relational tension, where meaning could always be traced, but never reduced to presence or essence.

Where myth had once narrated cosmic beginnings, structuralism revealed the logic of narrative itself. The symbolic cosmos became not a singular order of being, but a networked architecture of differences—possibility refigured as relational code.

From Myth to Metacosmos: Symbolic Orders of Possibility: 7 Modernist Deconstructions: Fragmented Orders of Possibility

Where Romanticism celebrated symbolic plurality as an opening of possibility, Modernism sharpened that plurality into fracture, ambiguity, and dissonance. The early twentieth century witnessed a radical critique of totalising symbolic systems—whether theological, philosophical, or aesthetic. In their place arose fragmented symbolic orders, where construal became perspectival, provisional, and destabilised. Possibility was no longer guaranteed by cosmic harmony or rational law but had to be continually renegotiated in fields of ambiguity.

Nietzsche’s perspectivism provides a key philosophical backdrop. Rejecting absolute truths and transcendent orders, Nietzsche construes possibility as conditioned by perspective: every construal is a stance, every symbolic order a creation of life and power. The “death of God” signals not the end of possibility but its dispersion into competing horizons, where truth itself is perspectival. In this move, Nietzsche anticipates the symbolic deconstructions that would characterise modernist art and literature.

James Joyce’s Ulysses exemplifies this fragmentation in narrative form. Through shifting styles, voices, and interior monologues, Joyce constructs a symbolic cosmos where possibility is plural, layered, and often incoherent. No single narrative order encompasses the whole; instead, possibility is disclosed through the juxtaposition of perspectives, each partial, each provisional.

Similarly, Marcel Proust’s In Search of Lost Time deconstructs linear temporality, revealing possibility as contingent on memory, sensation, and subjective experience. Time itself becomes a symbolic field, fractured and reconstituted through affective construal. In this vision, possibility is not objective but continually remade in the interplay of perception and recollection.

Modernist deconstruction thus entails a decoupling of possibility from fixed narrative or hierarchy. Where myth and theology structured potential through symbolic authority, and Enlightenment systems codified it through rational law, Modernism refuses closure. Possibility is not what is ordained, calculated, or harmonised, but what emerges in the gaps, fractures, and multiplicities of symbolic life.

This shift reveals construal as an inherently unstable practice: to construe is also to fragment, to multiply, to unsettle. Modernism’s symbolic orders are not totalities but fields of ambiguity, where potential remains open precisely because it is not unified.

In this way, Modernist deconstructions mark a profound transformation in the genealogy of symbolic orders: possibility becomes irredeemably perspectival, located not in a single system but in the interplay of fractured and competing construals.

From Myth to Metacosmos: Symbolic Orders of Possibility: 6 Romantic and Artistic Worlds: Symbolic Pluralism

In response to the abstraction of Enlightenment rationalism, Romanticism reclaimed the cosmos as a plural, affective, and imaginative field of possibility. Where Newton and Leibniz construed potential as calculable or harmonised by reason, Romantic and artistic traditions opened alternative symbolic worlds: those of feeling, vision, and aesthetic intensity. Here, possibility is not exhausted by scientific law or rational system but emerges from the creative interplay of imagination, nature, and subjective perspective.

Romantic construal foregrounds the relational and affective dimensions of existence. The cosmos is alive, imbued with meaning not reducible to mechanism. Goethe’s scientific writings exemplify this sensibility: his Theory of Colours resists Newtonian optics, construing colour as relationally constituted by light, darkness, and perception. Possibility, for Goethe, arises in the dynamic interplay between observer and world, where aesthetic experience discloses truths inaccessible to rational abstraction.

William Blake pushes this further, construing art itself as a symbolic cosmos. His illuminated poems and visionary engravings collapse distinctions between myth, theology, and philosophy, constructing worlds in which imagination is the measure of possibility. Blake’s “worlds” are not merely literary but ontological: symbolic universes where human perception and cosmic structure interpenetrate. Here, possibility is expanded through visionary creation, challenging the reduction of the cosmos to calculable order.

Early Romantic cosmologies more broadly emphasise the unity of nature and spirit, where possibility is not governed by external law but disclosed through aesthetic participation. The sublime—the overwhelming power of mountains, storms, or infinite space—becomes a symbolic horizon where the human imagination encounters and construes cosmic potential beyond rational mastery.

Romanticism thus inaugurates a symbolic pluralism: multiple ways of construing possibility coexist, from scientific to poetic, rational to aesthetic. Art and literature do not merely illustrate the cosmos; they generate alternative symbolic orders that expand the range of potential. In doing so, Romantic and artistic worlds remind us that construal is never only conceptual—it is affective, relational, and creative.

In contrast to Enlightenment systematisation, Romanticism demonstrates that possibility is as much imagined and felt as it is abstracted and calculated. Through this symbolic pluralism, art becomes not an ornament to knowledge but a parallel construal of the cosmos itself.

From Myth to Metacosmos: Symbolic Orders of Possibility: 5 Rationalist Symbolism: Enlightenment Systems and the Structuring of Potential

The Enlightenment transformed the symbolic orders of possibility by recasting the cosmos as a system comprehensible through reason, mathematics, and conceptual abstraction. Where allegory had multiplied layers of meaning and theology had bound potential to divine order, Enlightenment thought construed possibility as structured by universal principles, accessible to rational inquiry. Scientific law and philosophical systematisation became new symbolic architectures, expanding the horizons of potential while subjecting them to rigorous codification.

Newton’s Principia exemplifies this symbolic transformation. Gravity, expressed as a universal law, functions not merely as a physical force but as a symbolic condensation of cosmic order: a single principle capable of explaining the motions of planets, tides, and terrestrial bodies. Newton’s cosmos is a rational system where potential is calculable and governed by invariant rules. The symbolic power of this model lies in its generality: one law, abstractly formulated, orders both heaven and earth. Possibility is thus construed as law-governed and predictive, the cosmos a mechanism revealed through symbolic mathematics.

Leibniz offers a counterpoint: the world as the best of all possible worlds, structured by divine rationality and expressed through the relational harmony of monads. Here, possibility is not reducible to deterministic mechanics but unfolds through a symbolic logic of pre-established harmony. Each monad reflects the entire universe from its perspective, a model of relational construal that anticipates later perspectival philosophies. Leibniz thus extends rationalist symbolism beyond mechanics to metaphysical possibility, where the cosmos is ordered through conceptual and relational symmetry.

The Enlightenment’s rationalist systems signal a new mode of construal: possibility as something not merely intuited through myth or mediated by allegory, but abstracted into conceptual and mathematical form. These symbolic orders are generative: they enable technologies, scientific practices, and philosophical frameworks that transform both human understanding and material capacity. Yet they also constrain, since possibility is admitted only insofar as it can be rationally modelled.

In this shift, symbolic orders move decisively towards abstraction: the cosmos is no longer narrated or ritually sustained but systematised and symbolically formalised. Rationalist symbolism demonstrates that the structuring of potential is inseparable from the symbolic means through which it is codified—laws, systems, and principles that become the architecture of possibility itself.

From Myth to Metacosmos: Symbolic Orders of Possibility: 4 Allegory, Metaphor, and Narrative Machines

If theology and philosophy codified possibility through law and logic, medieval and early modern literature developed a parallel mode of construal: allegory and metaphor as narrative machines. These symbolic systems layered multiple registers of meaning within a single text, multiplying potentiality through the interplay of literal, moral, spiritual, and eschatological dimensions. Literature thus became a field where construal could be simultaneously theological, ethical, and imaginative, expanding possibility by stratifying it.

Allegory functions as a symbolic technology: a means of embedding multiple horizons of construal within one form. A single narrative event—say, a pilgrim’s journey—operates on several planes at once: literal travel, moral trial, spiritual ascent, and cosmic drama. This layering allows possibility to be refracted, such that each figure or episode opens onto several potentialities, each conditioned by its symbolic frame. The text becomes a machine for proliferating construal.

Dante’s Divine Comedy exemplifies this mode. The journey through Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise maps not only the soul’s movement towards God but also the cosmic order itself, dramatising possibility as a path structured by justice, repentance, and grace. Each encounter actualises a symbolic node in the larger architecture: sinners embody choices foreclosed, saints embody realised potential, and the pilgrim’s passage embodies possibility as a dynamic unfolding. Dante’s allegory is not merely decorative; it is ontological.

Similarly, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales deploys allegory and narrative layering to situate human possibility within social, moral, and cosmic frames. Here, possibility emerges less as transcendence than as plurality: different voices, perspectives, and moral orders intersect, generating a field of potential that is dialogic rather than hierarchical. Chaucer’s narrative machine construes the cosmos as a polyphony of possibility, where truth is negotiated across voices rather than revealed from above.

In both cases, allegory and metaphor enable literature to function as a symbolic cosmos in miniature. The text itself becomes a world where potentialities are structured, constrained, and explored. Unlike philosophy’s abstractions or theology’s commandments, allegorical literature operates through indirection: it multiplies possibility by proliferating symbolic correspondences.

Through these narrative machines, medieval and early modern literature reveals that construal is not only about codifying possibility but also about layering and weaving it. Allegory’s stratified symbolic orders both reflect and expand the human capacity to imagine worlds.

From Myth to Metacosmos: Symbolic Orders of Possibility: 3 Symbolic Law and Moral Order: Religious Cosmologies

As philosophy abstracted possibility into categories of reason, religious traditions developed parallel yet distinct strategies: they construed the cosmos as a sacred order, binding together theology, ritual, and ethics. Here, possibility is not only a question of metaphysical structure but also of moral and communal orientation. The cosmos is meaningful to the extent that it reflects divine law, and human potential unfolds through alignment with sacred order.

Religious cosmologies codify possibility in at least three interwoven dimensions:

1. Theological — the cosmos is created, sustained, or regulated by a divine principle, whose will establishes the horizon of what can and cannot occur.

2. Ritual — symbolic practices re-enact or maintain cosmic balance, translating metaphysical possibility into embodied, communal life.

3. Ethical — moral law binds cosmic potential to human conduct, such that to act justly is also to maintain the world’s order.

Aquinas synthesises Aristotelian teleology with Christian theology, interpreting creation as an ordered hierarchy in which all beings orient towards God as their final cause. In this view, possibility is structured teleologically: every creature has a potential inherent to its essence, and human flourishing requires participation in divine law. Maimonides, within the Jewish tradition, likewise integrates philosophy and revelation, construing the cosmos as rationally ordered by God yet ultimately incomprehensible in full. For him, possibility is conditioned by the limits of human knowledge, where revelation guides where reason falters.

In Qur’anic cosmology, the cosmos is constituted through divine speech and sustained by God’s continuous command: kun fa-yakun—“Be! and it is.” Here, possibility is inseparable from divine will; the unfolding of the universe is both contingent upon and oriented by God’s words. Ritual and law (shari‘a) then actualise cosmic order in human practice, ensuring that life remains attuned to the unfolding of divine possibility.

Religious cosmologies thus operate as symbolic architectures of constraint and enablement. They delimit potential—what is possible is always mediated by divine law—yet they also expand it, offering humans a place within an ordered, purposeful cosmos. Sacred narratives, far from arbitrary, function as construal strategies: they shape the collective imagination of possibility, binding the cosmic to the communal, the metaphysical to the ethical.

In this synthesis, theology, ritual, and moral order converge to make possibility both transcendent and immanent. The divine sets the horizon, but human participation—through action, law, and devotion—actualises possibility within the world.

From Myth to Metacosmos: Symbolic Orders of Possibility: 2 Philosophical Abstraction: Logos and the Codification of Possibility

With the emergence of Greek philosophy, the cosmos ceased to be construed primarily through mythic genealogy and narrative drama. Instead, logos—reasoned discourse—became the mode by which possibility was structured, codified, and systematised. Where myth bound potential to symbolic actors and genealogical forces, philosophy abstracted these dynamics into principles, proportions, and relational logics. The horizon of construal shifted from story to structure.

In early fragments such as those of Heraclitus, possibility is figured not as the caprice of divine beings but as the flux of oppositions held in tension. Panta rhei—all things flow—construes potential as an ever-unfolding process of transformation, where order arises through the dynamic balancing of strife and harmony. Here, relationality is primary: the cosmos persists because of its tensions, not despite them. Heraclitus’ thought exemplifies the transition from mythic opposition (e.g., chaos and cosmos, gods and mortals) to philosophical principle, where possibility is relationally codified as the generative power of contrast and becoming.

Plato, by contrast, radicalises abstraction. In the doctrine of the Forms, possibility is no longer located in flux or narrative sequence, but in a transcendent order of pure intelligibility. The cosmos becomes the imperfect reflection of ideal structures, and potentiality is construed as participation in—or deviation from—these eternal Forms. The Timaeus presents the world as a crafted harmony, proportioned by a demiurge who aligns matter with mathematical and ideal order. Here, possibility is partitioned: the realm of becoming is subordinated to the realm of being, and construal depends on a cut between ideal essence and phenomenal appearance.

Together, these early philosophers mark a decisive reorientation of construal. Mythic genealogies give way to systems of principle; symbolic actors are replaced by categories, ratios, and logics. What can be becomes subject to reason’s codification, even as differing philosophical schools contest whether flux or form, immanence or transcendence, best accounts for the cosmos.

The shift to logos does not abolish the symbolic dimension; rather, it reorganises it into conceptual architectures. The cosmic drama becomes a metaphysical system. Possibility is no longer the unfolding of divine narratives, but the structured field disclosed by principles of order, proportion, and relational necessity. In this movement, Western thought establishes the enduring template: that possibility is not merely narrated but codified through abstraction, a construal whose legacy continues to shape philosophy, science, and symbolic systems of knowledge.

From Myth to Metacosmos: Symbolic Orders of Possibility: 1 Primordial Myths: Narrative Construals of the Cosmos

Before philosophical abstraction and formalised science, human understanding of the cosmos was mediated through mythic narrative, in which possibility was apprehended relationally rather than mechanistically. Early myths constitute symbolic fields in which the cosmos, human beings, and divine forces are interwoven networks of potential. These narratives do not merely describe events; they structure what could occur, delineating constraints, affordances, and relational alignments within a shared symbolic horizon.

In Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and early Greek traditions, creation myths articulate cosmic ordering through symbolic actors. Chaos, primordial waters, or elemental deities function not as inert matter but as relational nodes whose interactions generate structured potentialities. Possibility is understood through the dynamics of these interactions: which outcomes can arise, how relational tensions resolve, and what patterns of causality shape the unfolding of the cosmos.

Greek sources such as Hesiod’s Theogony illustrate the genealogical structuring of the cosmos: deities, titans, and primordial forces are arrayed in hierarchies and networks, each with distinct capacities to act and influence. These mythic genealogies are construal strategies: they organise potential, map relational dependencies, and provide a horizon within which human action and interpretation are intelligible. Possibility is bounded by narrative roles, symbolic functions, and cosmological regularities, yet it remains open to variation, transformation, and reinterpretation.

Early mythic cosmology also foregrounds temporal and relational rhythm. Cycles of creation, destruction, and renewal convey that potential is not static; it unfolds according to relational dynamics among symbolic actors. Human beings are simultaneously observers, participants, and narrators, enmeshed in the symbolic structures that render the cosmos intelligible. The act of construal is therefore inseparable from the relational field of myth itself.

In sum, primordial myths establish the first historically traceable symbolic orders of possibility. They demonstrate that human understanding of potentiality emerges within relationally structured, historically situated, and narratively mediated fields. These mythic frameworks set the stage for later philosophical abstraction, religious cosmology, and modern symbolic universes: they reveal the foundational insight that possibility is always constructed within a symbolic order, one that both conditions and exceeds the human capacity to comprehend it.

Western Cosmology and the Becoming of Possibility: 10 Synthesis: Cosmology as Construal

The genealogy of Western cosmology reveals not a linear accumulation of knowledge but a series of construals, each reframing the cosmos as a relational field of potential. From mythic order and harmonic proportion to mechanistic law, relativistic contingency, quantum indeterminacy, and participatory reflexivity, each cosmological moment has constituted a distinct horizon of possibility. The cosmos is not merely discovered but historically construed, and possibility itself is reshaped by these construals.

At the heart of this genealogy lies a persistent oscillation between closure and openness. Medieval theology constrained potential within divine hierarchy; Newtonian mechanics compressed possibility into determinism; quantum theory and relativity reopened it into contingency and indeterminacy. Each construal strategy does not simply describe the cosmos but redefines what it means for something to be possible within the conditions of thought, measurement, and relation available at that time.

This synthesis highlights three critical features of cosmology as construal:

1. Relationality: Cosmology always operates through relations — between celestial bodies, mathematical ratios, physical laws, or observer and observed. The cosmos is never a solitary entity but a web of interdependencies that structure potential.

2. Reflexivity: In the modern and contemporary era, cosmology recognises its own participation in shaping possibility. Observation, measurement, and symbolic modelling are not neutral but actively co-constitute the horizons of the cosmos they describe.

3. Historical Conditioning: Each cosmological construal emerges within a specific intellectual, cultural, and symbolic context. Possibility is not timeless but historically contingent, redefined as new frameworks of understanding open or foreclose what can be imagined, theorised, or enacted.

Thus, cosmology must be read not as the discovery of a pre-given totality but as the becoming of possibility itself. Each shift in construal is also a shift in ontology, a transformation in how the cosmos and its potentials can be apprehended. The universe we inhabit is not only relationally constituted but also historically layered, carrying within it the sediment of prior cosmologies and the anticipations of future ones.

In this sense, cosmology is never outside of human thought; it is a reflexive dialogue between the cosmos and its construal, an ongoing co-evolution of potential and understanding. To trace its genealogy is to see that possibility itself has a history — one written not only in the stars but in the ways we construe their meaning.

Western Cosmology and the Becoming of Possibility: 9 Cosmic Reflexivity: 21st-Century Cosmology and the Observer’s Role

The developments of relativity and quantum theory converged in the twentieth century to destabilise the notion of a detached, objective cosmos. In the twenty-first century, cosmology increasingly confronts the reflexive role of the observer: measurement, perspective, and construal are not external to the universe but actively shape how potential is actualised and understood.

At the quantum level, observation is inseparable from outcome. Measurement does not simply reveal a pre-existing reality; it participates in the process through which one among many possible states is brought into being. Scaled upward, this principle unsettles cosmology itself: the act of modelling, observing, and interpreting the cosmos becomes part of the very relational field that it seeks to describe. The universe is no longer construed as an external object but as a participatory system in which observers and observed co-constitute potential.

John Archibald Wheeler’s idea of a “participatory universe” captures this turn. He suggested that observers are necessary for the universe to be meaningful, and perhaps even for certain potentials to become actualised. Construal here is not a passive act of representation but a reflexive engagement in which the horizons of possibility are reshaped by the very act of inquiry.

Further modulatory voices extend this reflexivity. Multiverse hypotheses propose that our cosmos is one among many, with different sets of physical parameters and possibilities. In this view, the conditions that make our construal possible are themselves contingent: the observer emerges in one universe capable of supporting life, while other potential universes remain inaccessible or uninhabitable. Reflexivity thus stretches beyond the quantum to the cosmological scale, raising questions about the relationship between possibility, observation, and existence itself.

In this framework, cosmology becomes explicitly relational and historical. The observer is not a neutral spectator but part of the unfolding of potential. What can occur is conditioned by frames of measurement, tools of observation, and symbolic systems of construal. The cosmos is apprehended not as a fixed totality but as a field of becoming, where reflexivity links epistemology, ontology, and cosmology in a single relational weave.

In sum, twenty-first-century cosmology foregrounds the reflexive entanglement of possibility and construal. The act of knowing the cosmos is itself an ontological act, one that participates in the very becoming of potential.

Western Cosmology and the Becoming of Possibility: 8 Quantum Possibility: Indeterminacy, Superposition, and the Probabilistic Cosmos

Where relativity restructured space and time as dynamic and contingent, quantum theory transformed the very notion of possibility. At the microscopic scale, matter and energy do not conform to deterministic trajectories but to principles of indeterminacy, probability, and superposition. The cosmos here is no longer calculable clockwork; it is a field in which multiple potentialities coexist until actualised.

Wave-particle duality demonstrates that entities such as electrons or photons cannot be reduced to fixed categories. Their behaviour depends on experimental conditions, embodying relational construal at the physical level: the possibilities that manifest are contingent upon the context of observation. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle formalised this indeterminacy, showing that certain pairs of properties (such as position and momentum) cannot be simultaneously determined. Potential is inherently non-deterministic, not due to ignorance but because of the structure of reality itself.

Schrödinger’s concept of superposition pushed this further: quantum systems can exist in multiple possible states simultaneously, only collapsing into a definite outcome upon interaction. This is not mere epistemic limitation but an ontological account of how possibility operates at the quantum level. Bohr’s principle of complementarity underscored the perspectival nature of construal, insisting that wave and particle descriptions, though mutually exclusive, are both necessary to apprehend quantum phenomena.

In this frame, the cosmos is construed as probabilistic: what may occur is governed not by determinist necessity but by distributions of likelihood. Actualisation occurs through relational events of measurement or interaction, where one among many coexisting possibilities is brought into being. Possibility itself becomes a constitutive feature of ontology, no longer a mere lack of knowledge or a gap awaiting fuller description.

This probabilistic cosmos thus represents a radical reframing of construal. It displaces the Laplacian ideal of total predictability and inaugurates a relational universe in which potential is irreducibly open, perspectival, and contingent. What can occur is not determined in advance but emerges from the dynamic interplay of superposed possibilities and relational actualisations.

In sum, quantum theory articulates a cosmos in which possibility itself is primary: multiple trajectories co-exist, uncertainty is structural, and construal must attend to relational indeterminacy as the horizon of actualisation.

Western Cosmology and the Becoming of Possibility: 7 Relativity and the Expanding Universe: Einstein and the Contingency of Space-Time

The Newtonian cosmos of absolute space, time, and calculable necessity was decisively restructured in the early twentieth century through Einstein’s theories of relativity. Where Newton had construed possibility as law-governed motion within a fixed stage, Einstein revealed that the stage itself — space and time — is dynamic, relational, and contingent.

Special relativity displaced the notion of absolute reference: all motion is relative to frames of observation, and the speed of light functions as a universal constraint. Possibility, in this construal, is not merely calculable in mechanical terms but perspectival, tied to the relational conditions of observers embedded within the cosmos. Time dilates, lengths contract, and simultaneity dissolves into perspectival difference.

General relativity extended this insight, recasting gravity not as a force but as the curvature of spacetime. Matter and energy shape the geometry of the cosmos, and this geometry in turn conditions the trajectories of matter and light. Potential is thus deeply contingent: what is possible in one region of spacetime depends on the relational configuration of mass, energy, and curvature. The cosmos becomes a dynamic field in which possibility is continually reshaped by the interplay of matter and geometry.

The modulatory voice of Hermann Minkowski formalised this shift through the four-dimensional conception of spacetime. By fusing space and time into a single manifold, Minkowski provided the mathematical architecture within which Einstein’s theories could be expressed and extended. This geometrical formalisation allowed possibility to be construed not as unfolding upon an absolute background, but as structured within the relational fabric of spacetime itself.

The expansion of the universe, revealed through astronomical observation and predicted by relativistic models, further deepened this reorientation. The cosmos is not static or closed; it is evolving, stretching, and opening new horizons of possibility across cosmic time. Where Newton’s vision compressed possibility into determinism, relativity dispersed it into relational contingency and historical unfolding.

In sum, relativity recasts the cosmos as a field of dynamic relation, where potential is neither absolute nor fixed but emerges from the perspectival, contingent interplay of spacetime and matter. Construal itself becomes historical and situated, mirroring the very structures it seeks to apprehend.

Western Cosmology and the Becoming of Possibility: 6 Newtonian Cosmos: Determinism, Mechanism, and Calculable Potential

The seventeenth century saw the consolidation of a new cosmological paradigm in the work of Isaac Newton. Where Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler had expanded and mathematised the horizons of possibility, Newton unified these insights into a mechanistic and law-governed cosmos. Universal gravitation and the laws of motion reframed the universe as an ordered system in which celestial and terrestrial phenomena were subject to the same principles.

In this cosmos, possibility is construed as calculable and repeatable. Motion is no longer explained through intrinsic purposes or divine hierarchies, but through universal laws that describe how bodies relate in space and time. Potential is not arbitrary; it is mathematically determinable, bounded by the constraints of force, mass, and distance. The cosmos becomes a relational field whose possibilities can be predicted, modelled, and manipulated through calculation.

The Newtonian vision marks the triumph of mechanism: the universe operates like a vast clockwork, each component interacting through fixed relations that unfold according to universal rules. This mechanical construal of possibility emphasises predictability and control, making the cosmos both intelligible and technologically actionable.

The modulatory voice of Pierre-Simon Laplace amplifies this determinist trajectory. His hypothetical “demon” — an intelligence that, knowing the position and momentum of all particles, could predict the entire past and future — epitomises the ideal of total calculability. In this vision, potential collapses into necessity: what can occur is fully determined by what already exists. The cosmos becomes a perfectly transparent mechanism, leaving little room for indeterminacy or openness.

Yet within this apparent closure lies a profound reorientation of construal. Possibility, once tethered to divine order or teleological purpose, is now framed as a matter of lawful relation and calculable prediction. The Newtonian cosmos provides both constraint and power: it narrows the horizon of potential to the mechanically necessary, while vastly expanding the human capacity to anticipate and intervene in the unfolding of the universe.

In sum, Newton’s synthesis inaugurates a cosmos of deterministic intelligibility — a world in which construal means calculation, and possibility is identified with the predictable motion of matter within universal law. This vision, though later challenged by relativity and quantum theory, defined the modern imagination of cosmic order for centuries.

Western Cosmology and the Becoming of Possibility: 5 Copernicus to Galileo: The Decentering of Earth and the Expansion of Possibility

The transition from medieval to early modern cosmology inaugurates a decisive reopening of potential through heliocentrism and systematic observation. Copernicus’ radical proposal that Earth is not the centre of the universe fundamentally altered the horizon of possibility: the cosmos was no longer a fixed, hierarchically ordered stage for human and celestial events, but a vast, dynamic field with new degrees of freedom for both celestial bodies and human understanding.

Observational astronomy, particularly through Galileo’s telescopic investigations, reinforced this construal shift. The heavens were revealed as complex, dynamic, and accessible to empirical investigation. Possibility expanded not merely in a spatial sense but epistemically: humans could now test, measure, and engage with phenomena previously reserved to theological or speculative frameworks. The cosmos itself became a field in which relational patterns could be apprehended and interpreted, opening new pathways for conceptualising potentiality.

Two modulatory voices further enrich this period. Giordano Bruno’s vision of infinite worlds challenges any residual hierarchical centrism, presenting the cosmos as potentially boundless and multiplicities of worlds as actualisable possibilities. Johannes Kepler’s laws of planetary motion introduce precise mathematical regularities, demonstrating that the relational structures governing celestial bodies could be rigorously described, predicted, and thus conceptually integrated into the horizon of human potential.

In this period, construal strategies pivot from theological determinism to empirical relationality: possibility is both discovered and structured through observation, calculation, and conceptualisation. The decentring of Earth signifies not just a spatial reorientation but a profound epistemic and ontological shift — humans are participants in a universe whose potentialities extend far beyond prior hierarchical constraints.

In sum, the Copernican-Galilean revolution exemplifies how cosmological innovation reconfigures both cosmic and human possibility. By decentring the familiar, expanding observational scope, and introducing new conceptual tools, this era establishes a foundation for the mechanistic and mathematical cosmos of the seventeenth century, while opening the door to radical imaginaries of infinite worlds and relational laws.

Western Cosmology and the Becoming of Possibility: 4 Divine Mechanics: Medieval Cosmology and the Theology of the Heavens

Following Aristotle’s hierarchical and teleological cosmos, medieval thinkers integrated cosmology with theology, producing a scholastic framework in which possibility was circumscribed by divine order. The heavens were no longer merely intelligible through observation and reason; they were understood as manifestations of God’s will, and the potentialities of all entities were regulated within a theological hierarchy.

In this period, the cosmos was construed as a divinely governed mechanism, in which every sphere, star, and terrestrial element occupies a fixed relational position. Potentiality was actualised according to God’s design: celestial motions, terrestrial processes, and human actions were coordinated within an overarching plan that aligned all relational interactions with divine intelligence. Construal strategies focused on identifying these patterns, reconciling empirical observation with theological principles, and understanding the limits of what could occur in a world saturated with divine intentionality.

The modulatory voice of Thomas Aquinas exemplifies this synthesis. By harmonising Aristotelian metaphysics with Christian doctrine, Aquinas established a model in which hierarchy, substance, and teleology are subordinated to divine causality. The cosmos becomes a relational network whose potentialities are ultimately grounded in God’s intellect: the motions of the stars, the transformations of earthly matter, and the ethical possibilities of human action are all actualised within this divine relational field.

Medieval cosmology thus constrains and channels possibility through the lens of theology, providing both predictability and purpose. The heavens are intelligible not solely through reason or number but through the relational mediation of divine order. Yet even within this bounded framework, relational dynamics persist: entities interact according to their nature, hierarchy informs relational dependencies, and the cosmos remains a structured field in which potential is co-actualised within theological parameters.

In sum, the scholastic cosmos demonstrates how cosmological construal can be deeply integrated with ethical, metaphysical, and theological commitments, revealing that the field of possibility is historically contingent upon the relational frameworks through which the universe is apprehended. The divine mechanics of the medieval period prepare the conceptual ground for the Renaissance re-opening of cosmic and human potential.

Western Cosmology and the Becoming of Possibility: 3 Aristotelian Cosmos: Substance, Motion, and the Hierarchy of Worlds

Building upon the abstraction of cosmic order introduced by Pythagoras and Plato, Aristotle systematised the cosmos through substance, motion, and hierarchical organisation. The universe was construed as a structured totality, composed of nested spheres in which potentiality is realised according to natural and teleological principles. Every element, from the sublunar realm to the celestial spheres, occupies a specific relational position that determines how it may act, change, and realise its inherent possibilities.

In this framework, teleology becomes central. Motion is not arbitrary; each substance moves according to its nature and purpose. Potentialities are actualised when entities fulfil their intrinsic ends, whether in the terrestrial domain of generation and corruption or the immutable celestial realm of uniform circular motion. The cosmos is a field of relational constraints and affordances: the scope of what can occur is bounded by the nature of each substance and the structural hierarchy of the universe.

Aristotle’s nested spheres extend Pythagorean and Platonic harmony into a hierarchical cosmology. The heavens are perfect and eternal, the sublunar realm imperfect and mutable, and the Earth occupies a central yet finite position. Possibility is distributed differentially: celestial entities actualise potential in accordance with eternal order, while terrestrial elements realise potential through processes of growth, decay, and interaction. Construal is therefore embedded within ontological stratification, reflecting both relationality and hierarchical structure.

The modulatory voice of Empedocles and early materialist thought offers a counterpoint. Empedocles’ four elements and the cosmic forces of Love and Strife present a model in which change arises from interaction and balance rather than fixed teleology. While Aristotle codifies hierarchical actualisation, these materialist perspectives emphasise relational dynamics and contingent combination as sources of potential, reminding us that construal can also attend to generative flux rather than preordained ends.

In sum, the Aristotelian cosmos consolidates possibility as structured, hierarchical, and teleologically constrained, while simultaneously revealing relational mechanisms that govern actualisation. This conception establishes a paradigm for later medieval synthesis, scholastic theology, and the enduring human desire to apprehend the cosmos as both intelligible and purposive — a universe in which construal, hierarchy, and motion define the boundaries of potential.