The epistemological and ontological foundations of the Ontology of Meaning provide the terrain. Methodological assumptions define how to move across that terrain without collapsing into conceptual traps. They are the analytic principles that allow disciplined engagement, so that each inference, observation, or description respects the architecture of first-order meaning.
These assumptions are not optional guidelines. They are preconditions for coherent analysis.
Explanatory minimalism: no illicit primitives
First, analysis must proceed with explanatory minimalism.
-
No entities, agents, objects, or symbols can be introduced as primitives.
-
Only what is already actualised in the field of potential, and the relational patterns revealed by construal, may be treated as explanatory.
-
Every explanatory step must be justified in terms of first-order phenomena, not assumed metaphysical scaffolding.
This principle ensures that analytic moves remain grounded in the ontology itself, rather than relying on inherited metaphysical habits.
Maintain strata distinctions
Second, the distinction between first-order phenomena and second-order theory must be strictly maintained:
-
First-order phenomena: the coherence produced by cuts and constraints.
-
Second-order theory: descriptive, systematising, or explanatory accounts of those phenomena.
Conflating the two reintroduces representational thinking by stealth. Methodologically, each analysis must ask: am I describing what actually happens, or am I redescribing it afterward?
Systems must be treated relationally
Third, systems are always understood relationally, not aggregatively:
-
The system is not the sum of parts.
-
Relations, constraints, and participation patterns constitute the system.
-
Explanatory focus is on coherence, stability, and the propagation of constraints, not on entities conceived as causal building blocks.
This prevents reification of entities and supports faithful alignment with first-order meaning.
Constraint, coherence, and actualisation as guiding analytic tools
Fourth, the analysis must foreground constraint, coherence, and actualisation:
-
Constraint: how possibility is locally limited.
-
Coherence: the emergent organisation that results from constraints.
-
Actualisation: the process by which potential becomes realised as observable pattern.
These concepts are the methodological “magnifying glass” for observing meaning without importing representation. Every analytic step should map clearly onto these principles.
Participation without subjectivism
Fifth, methodological attention must recognise participation without presupposing subjectivity:
-
Systems participate in meaning insofar as they maintain, propagate, or transform construals.
-
Observation, stability, and recognisability do not require minds or intentionality.
-
Analytic language may describe participation, but must not attribute it to subjects as causal agents.
This ensures the methodology aligns with the relational ontology, preserving precision without anthropocentric distortions.
Why methodological assumptions matter
Making methodological assumptions explicit:
-
Ensures coherence: every analytic step respects the epistemological and ontological foundations.
-
Prevents smuggling assumptions: no hidden reference, representation, or individuation creeps back in.
-
Supports reproducibility: others can follow the logic without importing metaphysical baggage.
-
Prepares the final post: implicit axioms and operational consequences can now be articulated cleanly.
With these principles in place, analysis can proceed rigorously, yet without the distortions of habitual representational thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment