What ontology becomes once completion is refused
This final post in the After Totality series draws together the insights from the preceding posts into a coherent vision of ontology that refuses completion, maximalism, and inventory-thinking, while affirming presence, instantiation, and relational structure.
1. Refusal as Principle
The series has established that totality is a category mistake. Claims to everything or to completion are not errors of observation but errors of conceptual type. Ontology that respects actuality must refuse these moves.
Refusal is not negation for its own sake. It is a disciplined principle that preserves the integrity of instantiation and perspective.
2. The Five Disciplines Recap
The methodological spine of ontology after totality can now be summarised:
Refuse totality: do not claim what cannot be instantiated.
Exhaustiveness is relative: be exhaustive only within a system or perspective, not absolutely.
Discriminate: make claims answerable to instantiation and constraint, not maximal inclusion.
Systems as frameworks: treat systems as relational structures for possible instances, not as inventories of actuality.
Presence without completion: acknowledge that local, perspectival instantiations are fully real without requiring global assembly.
These disciplines form the operational core of a post-totality ontology.
3. What Ontology Becomes
Ontology after totality is:
Architectural, not encyclopaedic: it designs the spaces of possibility, rather than listing what exists.
Disciplined, not speculative: it imposes constraints on what can be claimed, respecting instantiation and perspective.
Open, not closed: it allows novelty, difference, and local fullness without aiming to assemble them all.
It is a practice, not an inventory; a lens, not a container.
4. Coherence Without Completion
The coherence of this ontology is structural rather than total. Relational systems govern what can appear, but they never aspire to exhaust all actuality. Instantiations respect systems, but the systems themselves remain open-ended.
This approach satisfies both rigour and realism: ontology is meaningful because it governs possibility, not because it lists totality.
5. The Ethical Dimension
There is also an ethical dimension. By refusing totality, ontology resists the temptation to dominate or assimilate reality under a single theoretical perspective. It honours the autonomy of phenomena, the irreducibility of instantiations, and the primacy of perspective.
Ontology becomes a practice of attentiveness, not conquest.
6. Preparing Future Cuts
This synthesis lays the groundwork for future explorations:
Ontology as a disciplined lens on meaning, mythos, and value
The interplay between relational systems and creative instantiation
Extensions into semiotics, narrative, and the architecture of knowledge itself
Refusing completion is not a limit. It is the opening for richer, more coherent, and more responsible ontological practice.
7. Closing Thought
After totality, ontology is no longer a project of finishing reality. It is a practice of enabling reality to occur.
The series ends here, not with finality, but with the disciplined openness that makes the enterprise of ontology both rigorous and generative.
No comments:
Post a Comment