In the previous series, we proposed that complementarity is not a special feature of quantum theory, nor a peculiarity of semiotics, but a universal feature of construal. Any point along a cline can be viewed both as actualisation and as potential; any construal can function both as phenomenon and as theory of phenomenon, depending on directional positioning.
If this is so, then a question immediately arises.
What becomes of validity?
If there is no ultimate metalevel, no final vantage from which all other positions are surveyed and judged, what does it mean to say that a claim is supported? What does it mean for an argument to be sound?
We cannot simply retain traditional answers. Those answers presuppose precisely the hierarchical architecture we have been dissolving.
This post begins the reconstruction.
1. The Classical Picture of Support
In its familiar form, validity depends upon elevation.
A claim is valid if it is:
-
grounded in more fundamental premises,
-
derived from secure foundations,
-
confirmed by theory-independent data,
-
or shown to correspond to a reality conceived as external to construal.
Even when expressed in different philosophical vocabularies—empiricist, rationalist, realist—the structure is similar. Validation flows downward from a higher or more secure level.
The direction is vertical.
But if complementarity is universal, this verticality becomes unstable.
For what appears as “data” from one position appears as “theoretical construal” from another. What appears as “foundation” from below appears as “positional selection” from above. The asymmetry dissolves.
The question therefore becomes:
If no position is absolutely foundational, how can any position be valid?
2. Validity as Directional Constraint
The answer begins with a shift in how we conceive support.
Instead of asking whether a claim is grounded in something more fundamental, we ask:
How does this claim function within structured potential?
Validity, in a directional ontology, is not descent from foundations. It is constraint within positioning.
A claim is valid insofar as it:
-
Coheres within a positioned framework.
-
Constrains possible actualisations.
-
Maintains stability under reversible movement along the cline.
Let us consider each briefly.
Coherence does not mean circular self-confirmation. It means that the claim participates in an internally structured field of distinctions without generating collapse or contradiction.
Constraint means that the claim limits what can consistently be actualised next. A valid claim reduces arbitrariness. It structures expectation.
Reversibility means that when we shift perspective—viewing what was treated as instance now as potential, or vice versa—the claim does not disintegrate. It retains relational integrity across directional repositioning.
3. Evidence Reconsidered
This reconstrual allows us to rethink evidence.
In the classical model, evidence is theory-neutral fact that confirms or disconfirms a hypothesis.
But theory-neutrality is itself a positional illusion. What counts as evidence is already structured by available distinctions, by what is countable, observable, or describable within a semiotic system.
Rather than abandoning evidence, we reconceive it.
Evidence becomes patterned actualisation that stabilises a construal.
An observation supports a claim not because it descends from an unmediated reality, but because it:
-
fits coherently within the positioned system,
-
reinforces its constraints,
-
resists destabilisation under repositioning.
Support is therefore relational and dynamic. It is not a one-time act of confirmation, but an ongoing maintenance of structured constraint.
4. Avoiding Relativism
At this point a familiar worry arises.
If validity is positional, does anything go? Are all construals equally valid?
The answer is no.
Constraint is not optional.
A positioned construal that generates inconsistency, fails to constrain further actualisations, or collapses under minimal repositioning lacks validity. It cannot sustain structured potential.
Relativism imagines that once foundations are abandoned, arbitrariness reigns. But arbitrariness is precisely what structured potential excludes.
Directional validity is not weaker than foundational validity. In many respects it is stricter. It demands not appeal to a privileged level, but sustained coherence across movement.
5. From Hierarchy to Field
What emerges is a transformation in the metaphor underlying epistemology.
Instead of a ladder, we have a field.
Instead of ascent toward certainty, we have positioning within structured potential.
Instead of validation by appeal upward, we have stabilization through relational constraint.
This does not dissolve rigor. It redistributes it.
Rigor is no longer located in foundations. It is located in the durability of constraint across complementarity.
6. The Next Step
If validity can be reconstructed directionally, then the same must be possible for truth.
For “truth” has often functioned as the metaphysical name for ultimate validation. It is the point at which representation supposedly matches reality.
But if there is no external vantage outside construal, what becomes of correspondence?
In the next post, we turn to this question directly.
Not to abandon truth.
But to reconceive it.
No comments:
Post a Comment