Wednesday, 19 November 2025

Relational Cuts: 3 Space as Emergent Construal

In the previous post, we explored time as a relational horizon: perspectival, system-relative, and emergent from successive instantiations. Here, we turn to space — not as a passive container, but as a relational phenomenon, arising through the act of construal.

Space as Relational Trace

Space is a pattern of relational distinctions. It does not exist independently “out there”; it emerges from the system’s act of distinguishing one phenomenon from another. Distance, orientation, and separation are measures of potential interactions actualised within a system. Space is the relational trace of these differences, a phenomenon created by the very act of perspectival instantiation.

Consider an ant navigating a leaf. The leaf’s surface, the crevices, the veins, and the positions of other ants are all “spatial” only because the ant’s system construes them relationally. The contours and pathways emerge in relation to the ant’s potential interactions — without that construal, the leaf is simply a continuum of matter. Space is perspectival, contingent, and contextual.

Emergent Spatial Configurations

Each system produces its own spatial configuration. A flock of birds forms shapes in the sky that exist only in the relational field defined by the flock’s interactions. A city’s layout, a neuron’s dendritic arbor, a molecule in a fluid — each instantiates a distinct spatial structure emergent from relational patterns. Space is thus not universal; it is system-relative, co-actualised with the events and processes unfolding within the system.

Interrelation with Time

Space and time co-emerge. Every relational cut produces both a temporal horizon and a spatial configuration. Moving through space is inseparable from moving through time, and vice versa, not because of an external clock or grid, but because both dimensions arise together through system actualisation. The trajectory of a phenomenon is a co-actualisation of spatial and temporal distinctions, and any attempt to treat them independently flattens the richness of relational emergence.

Implications for Meaning and Interaction

Understanding space as emergent reshapes how we conceive of interactions. Relationships, influence, and proximity are not fixed measures; they are enacted within relational fields. Distance becomes a function of potential interaction, orientation a reflection of systemic perspective, and spatial patterns a record of ongoing relational dynamics. Meaning, in this sense, is inseparable from the spatial-temporal emergence of phenomena.


Next in the series: The Interdependence of Time and Space — we will examine how spatial and temporal dimensions are inseparable in relational ontology, and explore the consequences for simultaneity, sequence, and relational dynamics.


Relational Cuts: 2 Time as Relational Horizon

In the previous post, we reframed time and space as emergent from relational cuts rather than as pre-existing containers. Here, we focus on time itself: not as a universal metric or linear sequence, but as a relational horizon — perspectival, system-relative, and traced by the actualisation of potentialities.

Temporal Emergence from Systems

Time emerges through the instantiation of systems. Each system actualises a subset of potentialities, producing a temporal horizon unique to its perspective. Duration, sequence, and rhythm are not absolute; they are relational phenomena that arise from the constraints and possibilities internal to the system.

For example, consider a plant growing toward sunlight. The “time” of its growth is not measured against a universal clock but is actualised through the plant’s own system: its metabolism, cellular interactions, and environmental feedback. The temporal horizon is the relational contour of these successive instantiations. Remove the system, and the notion of temporal progression evaporates.

Temporal Contours and Perspectival Tracing

Temporal contours are the patterns traced by successive instantiations. Each event or moment is a perspectival cut, an actualisation that marks a boundary between potentialities. Time is thus experienced and observed not as a flow but as the relational imprint of differences actualising in sequence.

In human experience, this is readily apparent. Moments of intense focus or creativity feel elongated; periods of monotony or waiting seem compressed. These subjective variations are not illusions: they reflect the system-relative nature of temporal emergence. Time is inseparable from the perspective of the system in which it arises.

System-Relative Temporality

Each system carries its own temporal logic. Biological, social, and ecological systems operate on distinct temporal scales and rhythms, coexisting without a universal synchronisation. A bee’s foraging pattern, a musician’s composition, and a city’s traffic cycle each instantiate temporal horizons emergent from their internal relational structure. Interactions between systems may align, clash, or coalesce, producing complex relational dynamics that classical notions of linear time cannot capture.

Implications for Causality and Sequence

Seeing time as relational also reshapes how we understand causality. Sequence is not a matter of one event “preceding” another in absolute terms; it is the pattern of actualisation within and across systems. Causal relations are perspectival: they exist only in the context of a system’s temporal horizon. Multiple systems may produce overlapping or divergent sequences, revealing that “before” and “after” are not universal, but relational and emergent.


Next in the series: Space as Emergent Construal — we will explore how spatial relations emerge through perspectival distinction, and how distance, separation, and orientation are co-actualised with temporal horizons.

Relational Cuts: 1 Rethinking Time and Space

Conventional thought treats time and space as containers: an independent temporal sequence unfolding within a three-dimensional spatial stage. Relational ontology demands a radical departure. Here, neither time nor space exists independently; both are emergent, perspectival, and inseparable from the relational systems that instantiate them.

Time as Relational Horizon

Time is not an absolute metric but a cut: a perspectival instantiation of potentialities. Each system, when actualised, brings forth a unique temporal horizon. What we perceive as duration is the relational contour traced by successive instantiations, constrained by the system’s internal possibilities. In this sense, time is system-relative: it is the phenomenon of difference actualising within potentiality.

Consider a river flowing. Classical physics treats water as moving through space over time. In relational ontology, the river and its flow are co-constituted: the “flow” emerges only through the act of actualisation, and temporal progression is a reflection of successive instantiations from a given perspective. Remove the system, and the notion of flow — of time itself — dissolves.

Space as Emergent Construal

Space is similarly not a neutral stage. Distance, separation, and orientation are relational: they measure potential interactions actualised within a system. Space emerges through the perspectival act of construal — the delineation of one phenomenon from another. Without such construal, spatial separation is meaningless. Space is contingent, contextual, and perspectival; it is a relational trace of difference, not an independent expanse.

Interdependence of Time and Space

Time and space are inseparable. The actualisation of a system produces both a temporal horizon and a spatial configuration simultaneously. One does not exist without the other: a relational cut in time necessarily creates a relational cut in space. The duality is not a property of the world “out there” but of the relational construal that brings the world into phenomenological presence.

Implications for Phenomena and Meaning

If time and space are relational, the meaning of events is inseparable from their spatiotemporal instantiation. Systems do not merely unfold in time and occupy space; they bring these dimensions into being, each through perspectival construal. Phenomena are inseparable from their spatiotemporal emergence. Any attempt to treat time or space as independent abstractions risks obliterating the relational texture of reality itself.


Next in this series: Time as Relational Horizon — we will explore the contours of temporal emergence within systems, examining how time is traced, experienced, and constrained perspectivally.

Relational Cuts: Time, Space, and the Emergence of Phenomena — Series Overview

Time and space are often taken for granted as universal frameworks: time flows linearly, space stretches uniformly, and events unfold within these fixed arenas. Relational ontology challenges this assumption, proposing instead that time, space, and the phenomena within them are emergent, perspectival, and inseparable from the systems that instantiate them.

This series, Relational Cuts: Time, Space, and the Emergence of Phenomena, explores how relational cuts — acts of actualisation that trace difference within a system — give rise to temporal horizons, spatial configurations, causal patterns, and meaningful phenomena. Each post builds on the last, progressively reframing classical notions of reality through the lens of relational emergence.

What to Expect in the Series

  1. Rethinking Time and Space
    An introduction to the relational perspective, showing why time and space are not independent containers but co-actualised through relational cuts.

  2. Time as Relational Horizon
    Examines how temporal horizons emerge from system-specific instantiations, shaping sequence, rhythm, and duration.

  3. Space as Emergent Construal
    Explores how spatial configurations arise from relational distinctions and co-actualise with temporal horizons.

  4. The Interdependence of Time and Space
    Shows how temporal and spatial dimensions are inseparable, co-emerging in every act of system actualisation.

  5. Relational Causality and Temporal Logic
    Reframes causality and sequence as perspectival, emergent patterns rather than linear chains unfolding in pre-existing spacetime.

  6. Phenomena, Meaning, and Spatiotemporal Embodiment
    Connects relationally emergent time and space to meaning, perception, and the embodied experience of phenomena.

  7. Beyond Classical Notions: Toward a Relational Mythos of Space and Time
    Reflects on the philosophical and cultural implications, proposing new metaphors and a relational mythos for understanding reality.


This series invites readers to reconceive the familiar dimensions of existence not as static frameworks but as emergent, dynamic patterns arising from relational systems. By the end, the ordinary notions of “time,” “space,” and “cause” are transformed into tools for tracing the rich interplay of phenomena, meaning, and perspectival horizons — a foundation for a relational mythos of possibility.

Relational Readings of Myth as Ontology: 9 — Islam

From Divine Potential to Revealed Guidance: Relational Cuts in Islamic Thought

Islam articulates relational ontology through Tawḥīd (the oneness of God), divine revelation, and human submission (islām). Reality and human existence are understood as structured divine potential actualised through moral, spiritual, and ritual instantiation. Systems, instances, and construals interact dynamically, showing how relational ontology underpins faith, law, and daily life.


1. World as Divine Potential

(Shift: Creation as structured potential from God)

  • The cosmos is the manifestation of Allah’s will, a structured system of potentialities.

  • Human and natural phenomena are perspectival instantiations, revealing divine order without being independent.

  • Every event is a relational cut, intelligible only through context and interaction.


2. God as Systemic Source

(Shift: Tawḥīd and relational omnipotence)

  • Allah represents the singular, all-encompassing system, whose potential structures all existence.

  • Revelation (Qur’an) and prophetic guidance provide structured pathways for actualisation.

  • Human understanding is a first-order construal of divine potential, unfolding through reflection and practice.


3. Humanity as Relational Actualisers

(Shift: Submission as participation in divine order)

  • Humans exercise agency by aligning choices with divine guidance (sharī‘a) and ethical principles.

  • Freedom is relational: actualisation occurs through submission to structured potential, not independence from it.

  • Ethical, spiritual, and ritual practice exemplify instantiation, making meaning and order tangible.


4. Meaning and Construal

(Shift: Revelation and interpretation as relational enactment)

  • The Qur’an and Hadith encode structured potentials for relational understanding and ethical action.

  • Insight arises through perspectival engagement, reflection, and application — not abstract mapping.

  • Construal is first-order and relational, emerging in lived practice, prayer, and contemplation.


5. Ontology as Relational and Ethical

(Shift: Existence as unfolding divine potential through human participation)

  • Systems (divine potential), instances (human actions, history), and construals (experience and interpretation) co-create reality.

  • Instantiation is fundamental: every ethical choice, prayer, and ritual enacts a perspective of divine potential.

  • Islamic ontology exemplifies structured, relational, and morally-infused instantiation.


6. Relational Signature Line

ConceptRelational Ontology Equivalent
AllahSystemic potential (singular and relational)
CreationPerspectival instantiation of divine potential
Revelation (Qur’an / Hadith)Structured potential guiding instantiation
HumansRelational actualisers through ethical and spiritual practice
MeaningConstrual enacted in engagement and obedience

Liora Micro-Myth: The Lantern of Submission

Liora entered a courtyard filled with lanterns, each glowing with a different hue.
When she touched one, it illuminated a path, and every step revealed a reflection of choices yet to be made.

A serene voice said:

“Each lantern enacts a perspective on divine potential.
Walk with awareness, and you participate in the unfolding of the light.
Freedom is not doing as you please, but actualising potential in alignment with the living system.”

Liora realised that agency and order were relationally entwined, each step a meaningful instantiation within the structured potential of the cosmos.


Three-Line Takeaway

  • Islam foregrounds divine oneness, revelation, and ethical instantiation as relational ontology in action.

  • Systems (divine potential) are realised through instances (creation, human action) and construals (understanding, practice).

  • Meaning, morality, and spiritual insight emerge through relational cuts, showing the coherence of relational ontology in a monotheistic framework.

Relational Readings of Myth as Ontology: 8 — Christianity

From Covenantal Potential to Incarnational Reality: Relational Cuts in Christian Thought

Christianity extends the relational themes of Judaism through incarnation, grace, and relational participation in divine life. The cosmos and human existence are understood as structured potentials actualised in Christ and human response, highlighting the interplay between system, instance, and construal. Unlike earlier Judaic frameworks, Christianity emphasises relational participation in divine being, offering a unique lens on instantiation.


1. World as Divine Potential Actualised in History

(Shift: Historical and incarnational instantiation)

  • Reality unfolds within God’s potential, realised through the historical and relational act of the incarnation.

  • Systems (cosmic, ethical, spiritual) are structured potentials, instantiated through events (miracles, teachings, sacraments).

  • Human participation aligns with or resists this perspectival actualisation.


2. Christ as Functional Relational Cut

(Shift: The Incarnation as maximal instantiation of divine potential)

  • Jesus embodies full instantiation of divine system, actualising potentials in time and space.

  • This instantiation mediates relational possibilities for humanity, illustrating how systemic potential can be accessed and experienced.

  • Christ functions as first-order construal of divine potential, intelligible in human perspective.


3. Humanity as Relational Participants

(Shift: Ethical and spiritual actualisation)

  • Humans are called to co-actualise divine potential through faith, love, and action.

  • Freedom is relational and perspectival, enacted within the structure of grace and vocation.

  • Each choice and act is an instance cutting through cosmic and ethical potential, making meaning tangible.


4. Meaning as Enfleshed Construal

(Shift: Sacrament, scripture, and lived experience as relational actualisation)

  • Scripture, liturgy, and sacraments provide structured potentials for relational engagement.

  • Understanding arises through active instantiation and participation, rather than abstract representation.

  • Construal is first-order: meaning emerges in experience, reflection, and relational engagement.


5. Ontology as Incarnational and Relationally Enacted

(Shift: Divine and human potentials in ongoing interaction)

  • Systems (divine potentials) and instances (historical events, human choices) are inseparably intertwined.

  • Construal emerges in lived experience, revealing first-order phenomena intelligible within relational structure.

  • Christianity exemplifies instantiation as relational actualisation, giving concrete form to cosmic potential.


6. Relational Signature Line

ConceptRelational Ontology Equivalent
GodSystemic potential (relational and incarnational)
ChristPerspectival maximal instantiation
HumanityCo-actualisers of divine potential
Scripture / SacramentsStructured pathways guiding instantiation
MeaningConstrual enacted in relational participation

Liora Micro-Myth: The Garden of Living Mirrors

Liora entered a garden where each flower reflected the sunlight differently, shifting with every step.
Touching one flower revealed a vivid scene, yet the other reflections continued to shimmer with untapped possibilities.

A gentle voice explained:

“Each blossom enacts one potential of the garden.
None is separate from the whole.
Your touch brings forth one instance, yet all potentials remain, waiting for another cut.”

Liora realised that freedom and participation were not absence of structure, but relational instantiation within a living, enfolded system.


Three-Line Takeaway

  • Christianity foregrounds incarnational and relational participation in divine potential.

  • Systems (divine life) are actualised through instances (Christ, human choices) and construals (experience, sacraments).

  • Meaning, morality, and spiritual insight emerge relationally, exemplifying instantiation as the dynamic realisation of systemic potential.

Relational Readings of Myth as Ontology: 7 — Judaism

From Flowing Potential to Covenantal Order: Relational Cuts in Jewish Thought

Judaism reframes relational ontology through monotheism, covenant, and ethical responsibility. The cosmos and human life are understood as interconnected potentialities actualised through obedience, interpretation, and relational engagement with a single divine source. Unlike the open-ended flows of Mahayana or Taoic thought, Judaism foregrounds normativity and covenantal structure, yet retains the centrality of perspectival actualisation.


1. World as Covenant-Structured Potential

(Shift: World as ethically framed relational order)

  • Reality emerges from God’s will, encompassing potentialities constrained by divine law (Torah) and creative intent.

  • The cosmos is relationally ordered, yet human interpretation and action actualise the potential, making moral and ritual choices intelligible.

  • Systems are structured potentials, instances are contextual enactments of covenantal possibility.


2. God as Singular Relational System

(Shift: Monotheism as centralised relational power)

  • God is the singular source of systemic potential, omnipresent yet relationally engaged with creation.

  • Divine action is realised through law, prophecy, and interaction with humans, emphasising instantiation through covenant.

  • Humans experience first-order construals of divine potential, e.g., ethical dilemmas, miracles, or sacred rituals.


3. Humanity as Covenantal Participants

(Shift: Agency as ethical actualisation)

  • Humans are called to participate in the unfolding of creation via mitzvot (commandments) and ethical discernment.

  • Freedom is relational: action actualises potential in alignment or misalignment with divine system.

  • Moral and ritual practice exemplifies instantiation, giving structured intelligibility to human potential.


4. Meaning as Interpretive and Contextual

(Shift: Text, law, and tradition as relational conduits)

  • The Torah, Talmud, and commentaries encode patterns of potential and interpretive constraints.

  • Meaning is realised through study, debate, and ritual, highlighting construal as first-order phenomenon.

  • Interpretation is perspectival, showing how systemic potential can yield multiple actualisations intelligible within covenantal context.


5. Ontology as Ethical and Relationally Realised

(Shift: Existence as participation in divinely framed relational system)

  • Reality is co-dependent: divine potential, human agency, and ethical-moral order mutually inform one another.

  • Instantiation occurs at every moment of ethical or ritual choice, making systems intelligible without assuming separate material or objective control.

  • Systems, instances, and construals interact to produce meaning, responsibility, and intelligibility.


6. Relational Signature Line

ConceptRelational Ontology Equivalent
GodSystemic potential (centralised)
World / CreationPerspectival instances of potential
Torah / LawContextual constraints guiding instantiation
HumansRelational actualisers of ethical potential
MeaningConstrual enacted through interpretation and action

Liora Micro-Myth: The Scroll of Choices

Liora discovered a luminous scroll, inscribed with countless possibilities of action.
Each letter shimmered with moral weight, and touching one illuminated a potential future.

A voice murmured:

“Every choice is a perspective on the divine system.
Each act, each interpretation, enacts what was potential into reality.
The scroll is endless, yet each instantiation is meaningful.”

Liora understood: freedom is not absence of structure, but relational actualisation within a living covenant of potential.


Three-Line Takeaway

  • Judaism foregrounds monotheism and covenant as structuring relational potential.

  • Humans actualise systemic potential through ethical, ritual, and interpretive instantiation.

  • Meaning, morality, and cosmology emerge through relational cuts, demonstrating a rich interplay of system, instance, and construal.

Relational Readings of Myth as Ontology: 6 — Zoroastrianism (Avestan + Middle Persian Traditions)

Dualism, Ethical Cosmology & the Relational Cut

Zoroastrianism is one of the earliest fully elaborated moral-cosmological systems, and historically decisive for later Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and even secular eschatological schemas. Although typically framed as an ontological dualism (good vs evil / light vs darkness), the tradition is rich enough to be re-read through a relational ontology, where what appears as metaphysical dualism can be reinterpreted as epistemic-perspectival distinction: the difference between patterns of construal that sustain coherence vs patterns that dis-integrate coherence.


Part I — Diagnostic (Relational Ontology Audit)

1. Dominant ontological grammar

  • Cosmos as moral order: Existence is intelligible insofar as it aligns with Asha (truth, right-order, coherence) and is corrupted, degraded, or obscured by Druj (deception, distortion, dis-order).

  • Existence as contested field: Reality is not assumed stable; it is a site of ongoing struggle between ordering and dis-ordering tendencies.

  • Human participation is decisive: Ethical choice, ritual purity, truth-speaking, and right action are not symbolic signals of allegiance but causal contributions to the maintenance of Asha.

2. Conceptual cores

  • Asha ≈ cosmic rightness, coherence, truthful alignment, proper unfolding — not merely moral correctness but world-ordering intelligibility.

  • Druj ≈ distortion, dis-integration, untruth, confusion — not “substance of evil” but mis-construal and mis-actualisation.

  • Ahura Mazda ≈ highest ordering intelligence/wisdom; Angra Mainyu ≈ contrary disposition/impulse toward dis-integration.

3. Ontological category clarification

Contrary to popular retellings, Zoroastrian dualism does not require two co-equal substances. It can instead be interpreted as two orientations of becoming within one field of potential:

  • Asha as coherent instantiation;

  • Druj as mis-regulated instantiation (patterning that collapses intelligibility).

4. Temporality, history, eschatology

Time is teleologically charged: existence is a finite-duration arena in which alignment or misalignment with Asha has real ontic effects. Final restoration (Frashokereti) is not annihilation but complete repair — a fully coherent enactment of potential.

5. Praxis

Zoroastrian ritual purity, ethical truth-telling, tending of sacred fire, and communal obligations should be read performatively, not symbolically: actions instantiate alignment, not merely signify it.

6. Common representational misreadings

  • Dualism as metaphysical substance theory (two “things” fighting)

  • Moralism as reward/punishment mechanism (rather than world-coherence engineering)

  • Purity as superstition (rather than semiotic-ecological hygiene of intelligibility)

  • Eschatology as future prediction (rather than systemic closure actualised by convergent patterns of construal)


Part II — Metamorphic Reinterpretation (Relational Ontology Lens)

1. Asha and Druj as relational modalities

Reinterpreted:

  • Asha = systemic alignment actualised into coherent, intelligible phenomena.

  • Druj = distortion resulting from representational or affective mis-cuts that disrupt intelligibility.

Thus, they are not substances but qualities of instantiationhow potential is cut, not what exists.

2. Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu re-read as orientational operators

Relationally, these are:

  • Ahura Mazda → the epistemic-ethical attractor toward coherent construal, ordered readiness, and intelligible unfolding.

  • Angra Mainyu → the counter-attractor that promotes fragmentation of construal, breakdown of readiness, and ontic confusion.

3. Ritual and ethics as semiotic stabilisation

Speaking truth (asha-vani), maintaining purity, and ritual flame-keeping become:

  • Technologies of construal hygiene

  • Practices that maintain signal-to-noise ratio in lived meaning

  • Collective stabilisation protocols for world coherence

4. Eschatology as fixpoint of convergence

Final restoration is not future magic but:

The theoretical limit state at which all instantiations converge on coherent construal, eliminating systemic noise.

5. Evil de-dramatised, responsibility intensified

Once “evil” is reconceptualised as mis-instantiation, the drama shifts:

  • Evil is not a metaphysical force

  • It is a pattern of mis-cutting

  • Responsibility becomes semiotic-ethical skill, not obedience

In short:

Zoroastrianism becomes an early theory of epistemic ecology.


Liora Micro-Vignette

Liora stepped into a quiet desert shrine where a small fire trembled like a held breath. A priest was neither praying nor commanding — only tending the flame, trimming smoke, adjusting air. He whispered: “The fire is not the god. The tending is the world.”

Outside, the wind carried voices from travellers: half-truths, rumours, frightened hopes. Liora realised the shrine was not built to keep the world pure but to keep it intelligible. When she stood beside the flame, she felt how a single careless construal could warp a whole village’s sense of what is possible — and how a single careful tending could bring coherence back into the field.

The fire did not symbolise order.
It was order — whenever one tended it.


Three-Line Takeaway

  • Zoroastrian dualism can be reinterpreted as two modes of instantiation, not two substances: coherent alignment (Asha) vs distortive mis-cutting (Druj).

  • Ritual, ethics, and truth-speaking are performative technologies of semiotic coherence, not symbolic gestures.

  • Eschatology reflects the limit condition where all construals converge upon intelligibility.