In relational ontology, the system is structured potential. But structure is not the same as determinism; potential is not the same as actuality. The cut, which we examined in the previous post, selects from this potential. But on what grounds? Where does the system’s structure reside, and how does it shape instantiation without collapsing into rigidity?
This is the second pressure point: constraint within freedom. It is where relational ontology risks either over-determination or dissolution.
1. Structured Potential: A Double-Edged Concept
Structured potential is deceptively simple in words, yet fiendishly complex in application. It asserts that:
-
The system contains possibilities, not instances.
-
These possibilities are relationally constrained.
-
The cut selects among them, generating an instance without imposing extrinsic rules.
The challenge lies in “relationally constrained.” If constraints are too loose, the system fragments: every instantiation is equally possible, and nothing meaningful emerges. If constraints are too tight, the system collapses into determinism: every instance is predictable, the relational richness evaporates, and possibility itself is stifled.
The tension is structural, not rhetorical. It is a test of how the ontology operationalises potential without collapsing it.
2. Sources of Constraint
Where, then, does constraint reside in a relational ontology? There are several candidate sources:
-
Internal Relations – The system’s own configuration produces limiting interactions. Dense relational networks generate emergent patterns; sparse networks allow broader variation.
-
Contextual Co-actualisation – Instances do not emerge in isolation. The relational field around the cut — other actualised instances, environmental conditions, local potentials — imposes soft constraints.
-
Construal Dynamics – Construal is constitutive. The act of interpreting, focusing, and navigating potential imposes constraints that shape instantiation without external enforcement.
Each source preserves freedom, but all operate under relational pressure. Together, they form a lattice of constraint: sufficient to individuate instances, flexible enough to allow novelty.
3. The Risk of Over-Determination
Constraint carries risk. Over-determination appears when the system appears structured but is in fact pre-structured by assumptions external to relational dynamics. Consider:
-
A social coordination system “predicting” behaviour by assuming fixed norms rather than emergent tendencies.
-
A text-type ontology that defines all possible instantiations by pre-existing genre conventions rather than relational interaction.
-
A phenomenological account that treats perceptual or cognitive boundaries as primitive rather than emergent from relational intensity.
In each case, structure becomes prescriptive rather than emergent. Instantiation is mechanically constrained; freedom is illusory. Relational ontology collapses into deterministic interpretation, betraying its own principles.
4. The Risk of Under-Determination
Conversely, under-determination occurs when constraints are insufficient to distinguish one instantiation from another. Every potential becomes equally probable, and meaningful selection dissolves. Examples:
-
In a poorly constrained social network, coordination becomes stochastic; the relational field produces noise rather than structured instances.
-
In language, unconstrained grammatical or semantic potential yields sequences that are theoretically possible but uninterpretable.
-
In phenomenology, undifferentiated perceptual potential produces experience that is incoherent.
Here, relational ontology risks indeterminacy. The cut may exist, but it cannot stabilise the instance. Meaningful differentiation fails.
5. Balancing Constraint and Freedom
Relational ontology must thread a narrow path between these extremes. The guiding principle:
Constraints must emerge from the relational field, not from presupposed rules.
This principle preserves the ontology’s integrity:
-
Emergent constraint ensures that structure is not projected externally.
-
Flexible constraint ensures that relational freedom and novelty persist.
The system is thus neither rigid nor chaotic. Structure is relationally distributed, dynamically enacted, and responsive to local tension and global patterning.
6. Examples of Constraint in Action
Consider three concrete domains:
-
Language – Grammar is not prescriptive but emerges from usage patterns across a speech community. Constraints arise from prior instantiations, phonetic patterns, semantic consistency, and social negotiation. Instantiation is actualised text; structure is emergent, relational, and locally constrained.
-
Social Action – Coordinated behaviour in a group is shaped not by top-down rules but by relational density: who interacts with whom, what attention is paid, and which potentials are salient. Constraints emerge from relational feedback loops, producing coherent action without pre-imposed scripts.
-
Phenomenology – Attention selects sensory input. The relational field of perceptual intensity, salience, and prior construal shapes what is experienced. Constraints are dynamic, distributed, and constitutive of actualised perception.
In each domain, structure resides within relational interaction. The cut is stabilised without collapsing freedom. But the system remains vulnerable to both over- and under-determination.
7. Constraint as a Pressure Point
Constraint is thus a second operational pressure point. To interrogate it:
-
Identify sources of relational constraint and how they shape instantiation.
-
Examine instances for signs of over-determination (rigidity) or under-determination (indeterminacy).
-
Observe whether relational freedom persists without collapsing structure.
By pressing on constraint, we test whether structured potential is genuinely relational rather than a disguised prescriptive framework. The cut alone cannot reveal this; we must see how potential is shaped in the field itself.
8. Closing: Structure Trembles
The tension between constraint and freedom is subtle, but it is where the ontology must either validate itself or fracture.
The system is strongest not where constraints are rigid, but where they emerge from relational dynamics and respond to local pressures. In that trembling — between rigidity and indeterminacy — relational ontology enacts its own principles.
The next pressure point will push further: boundary preservation. How does relational ontology maintain the distinction between semiotic meaning and non-semiotic value without collapsing one into the other? This is a live wire. It is delicate, invisible to most interpretive frameworks, and yet it defines the edge of possibility.
We will see in the next post whether the lattice of constraint holds, and where fractures begin to appear.
No comments:
Post a Comment