The sixteen ontological evasions we have traced across physics and cosmology reveal a striking pattern: formal elegance, technical ingenuity, and disciplinary convention repeatedly outweigh ontological clarity. But why? And why does relational framing succeed where traditional methods falter?
The Cultural Architecture of Evasion
Physics and philosophy are cultures as much as they are disciplines. Each evolves norms, practices, and cognitive habits that guide what counts as acceptable explanation:
Physics prizes calculability, predictive success, and formal consistency. Questions that threaten these—about the origin of relation, the nature of actualisation, or the emergence of coherence—are systematically deferred. Evasions like initial conditions, renormalisation, or the cosmological constant reflect this cultural bias.
Philosophy prizes conceptual rigour, analytic clarity, and historical argumentation. Ontological questions are endlessly dissected, but the methods often trap thinkers in abstraction, creating sophisticated evasions that avoid the practical mechanics of relational emergence.
Both cultures protect their internal logic at the cost of fundamental intelligibility. What counts as “solved” is success within the discipline, not understanding from a relational standpoint.
Why Evasion Is Natural
Ontological evasion is not mere negligence; it is a predictable outcome of evolved epistemic priorities:
Complexity overload: Relational dynamics at scale are difficult to formalise. Evasion preserves tractability.
Methodological conservatism: Established tools and frameworks discourage questioning foundational assumptions.
Institutional reinforcement: Careers, journals, and funding reward incremental innovation and technical mastery, not radical ontological reconception.
Cognitive closure: Humans naturally seek closure; placeholders, parameters, and abstract formalisms offer it cheaply.
Evasion is, in a sense, adaptive: it sustains disciplinary function even while sacrificing ontological insight.
How Relational Framing Escapes
Relational framing bypasses these cultural constraints by shifting the focus from representation to relation:
Actualisation is central: Rather than asking “what is,” relational ontology asks “how does possibility become actuality?”
Constraints and alignment replace parameters: Coherence emerges perspectivally, without arbitrary constants or privileged frames.
Observers are embedded: Measurement, observation, and initial conditions are not exogenous—they are part of the relational system.
Emergence is intelligible: Novelty unfolds through structured relational dynamics, not via placeholders or semantic labels.
By attending to relation itself, rather than the trappings of discipline, we recover the intelligibility that evasions obscure.
Cultural Implications
The persistence of ontological evasion is instructive. It reminds us that success in a discipline is not the same as understanding reality. Techniques that preserve form and prediction can systematically blind practitioners to relational structure. Relational framing is not just an alternative; it is a corrective to cultural inertia, revealing patterns that conventional epistemic habits cannot see.
Conclusion
Ontological evasion is a culturally reinforced habit, embedded in both physics and philosophy. Relational framing escapes this habit by foregrounding the dynamics of possibility, actualisation, and alignment. Where disciplines are constrained by inherited norms and cognitive shortcuts, relational ontology operates freely, exposing the mechanisms that evade explanation.
In short: the world is intelligible, but only if we stop explaining it through the limits of our disciplinary cultures and start explaining it through relation itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment