If the world becomes intelligible through construal, it might be tempting to conclude that we are free to construe it however we please.
We are not.
The world pushes back.
A distinction may seem useful and then fail.
A category may organise our experience and then cease to predict anything.
A map may guide us until the road it depicts is no longer there.
A physical theory may work beautifully within one domain and fail beyond it.
Something constrains the construal.
This is why construal is not construction.
We do not simply make a world and then inhabit it.
We participate in a world whose patterns enable some ways of making distinctions and frustrate others.
A stone resists.
An organism changes.
A measurement disagrees with a prediction.
A relation persists where we expected it to disappear.
The world answers back.
And this matters because it gives us a way to avoid two opposite mistakes.
The first is to imagine that the world arrives already divided into exactly the categories we use to describe it.
The second is to imagine that our categories are entirely our own creation.
Neither is adequate.
A construal is possible because something in the world can sustain it.
It remains useful because the relations it identifies continue to matter.
It reaches its limits when those relations no longer support it.
Perhaps, then, the relation between world and construal is neither passive representation nor arbitrary construction.
It is participation under constraint.
We construe the world.
The world pushes back.
And somewhere between the two, a way of making something intelligible can become possible.
Which raises the question we have been approaching all along:
What happens when the world pushes back hard enough to change the construal itself?
No comments:
Post a Comment