Ontological Revolution
I’m highly ambivalent about quoting ChatGPT directly. It’s a little embarrassing, actually. I’m ambivalent about using artificial intelligence at all. I see AI as being dangerous in all sorts of ways. But ChatGPT clearly does assist (one among many assistants) me with the research process which lies behind all of my writing (though it plays a very minor roll in my research process, generally). And I could say more on all of this, but that would just be a distraction from what I intend to share with you today. So I’ll just share my question and response from GPT, instead.
Me:
“Pretty much everyone understands that beings and things are in relation with yet other beings and things. And yet most people do not seem to identify as believers in relational ontology. What’s the difference between believing that relationships are important and relational ontology, per se?”
ChatGPT:
“You’re hitting on an intriguing point! The distinction lies in the depth and scope of the perspective.
Believing that relationships are important acknowledges their significance in shaping our lives and the world around us. It’s a valuable recognition of the interconnectedness between beings and things. However, relational ontology delves deeper. It’s not merely about acknowledging the importance of relationships; it’s about viewing relationships as fundamental to the very nature of existence.
Relational ontology asserts that entities don’t have fixed, intrinsic properties in isolation. Instead, their essence, identity, and even existence are shaped by their interactions and relationships with other entities. It’s a way of understanding reality that emphasizes the primacy of relationships in defining the nature of things.
In simpler terms, while acknowledging the importance of relationships is recognizing their impact, relational ontology goes a step further, proposing that relationships aren’t just important but integral to the very fabric of existence.”
Me:
“Well said!
I have read that in relational ontology, beings and things (entities) are said to “constitute” one another. That’s a pretty interesting claim. What, precisely, is being said in this claim?”
ChatGPT:
“Absolutely! The concept of entities constituting one another in relational ontology is quite fascinating. Essentially, this idea emphasizes that entities aren’t just connected or influenced by relationships; rather, they actively shape and form each other’s identities and existence.
Here’s a breakdown:
- Mutual constitution: Entities are not standalone or independent; their identities are co-constituted by their relationships with other entities. This means that what something is (its nature, properties, or essence) is, in part, defined by its interactions and connections with other entities.
- Interdependence: There’s a mutual reliance or interdependence among entities. They aren’t self-contained or self-defined but rely on their relationships for their existence and characteristics.
- Dynamic nature: Entities are in a constant state of becoming through their interactions. They’re not static or fixed; their identities evolve and are continuously shaped by their relational dynamics.
In essence, the idea of entities constituting one another in relational ontology challenges the traditional view of individual entities existing in isolation with predefined characteristics. Instead, it suggests that the very being and essence of entities emerge from their relational engagements, highlighting the interconnected and interdependent nature of reality.” [emphasis added – mine]
To understand any of this one must have a somewhat clear understanding what the word “entity” refers to in philosophical discourse. In philosophy, ontology and metaphysics, an “entity” refers to anything that has existence, whether tangible or conceptual. It encompasses objects, beings, concepts, or elements that are considered to exist in some form or another within a particular context of study or philosophical inquiry. Essentially, an entity is anything that can be identified, described, or considered as a distinct unit within the scope of philosophical analysis or discussion about existence and reality.
What relational ontology does, its implications and impact on thought and perception, is to radically re-frame what things and beings are. That is, it is a radical re-framing if one has been taking things and beings as “standalone” or independently existing. This re-framing constitutes a paradigm shift and shift in worldview of momentous scope and significance, which is why I am calling it — at least in potential — an “ontological revolution”. It is a shift so profound that it would shake up the substrata of the dominant modern worldview. It would destabilize this worldview in the most fundamental of ways. It would in so many ways simply rock our world. And it would challenge us all in ways we probably cannot as yet imagine.
And—very importantly—while this shift in perspective certainly importantly includes systems thinking and systems theory, it is actually much larger in significance and scope than systems theory as a cultural evolutionary development. It is at least one level of strata down — down into the very bedrock of culture. This is mainly because it challenges our very sense of what “mind” is, what “consciousness” is, what “thought” and “perception” is. It challenges our very sense of “self” — a topic I hope to address in depth in this series.
Is, of course, is the quintessential word in ontological thought. That’s bedrock. That’s the level out of which epistemology and cosmology itself can be borne. That’s the root of the root of “metaphysics”.
The Weight of Emphasis
I grew up in a culture, at a time and place where and when the weight of emphasis in understanding beings and things was upon their distinctness from one another, as contrasted with their relations with one another. Odds are that this was the case for most anyone who will find themselves reading these words. But there is something else going on here than merely the placement of emphasis on differentiation, distinctness and separation. The weight of emphasis on things and beings as independently existing “entities” can be understood as appearing on a spectrum of degrees of emphasis. The spectrum can be laid on on a line (mapped in this way). On one side of the spectrum, the left, say, is a very strong emphasis on things and beings seen and understood in isolation. On the opposite end of the spectrum, at the rightmost end, there is a strong emphasis on the relations between things and beings.
The spectrum I just described is one of differences along a spectrum of degrees of differentiation. But it strongly seems to me that this is not the only way to understand the distinction we’re exploring here. There is also the matter of difference of kind. A distinction of degree is a measure or description of things belonging to the same category—apples for example. There are many shades of color found among apples, with some being green, others yellow and others red. But some are dark red while others are only light red, and some are dark green, etc. Differences of kind are like the difference between apples and oranges, which grow on distinctly different genus of tree. Some much more stark distinctions of kind would be the difference between a house and an umbrella, a table and a chair, a piano and a wolf.
I believe the important difference between relational ontology and substance ontology is mostly a matter of kind, rather than of degree. While both of these frameworks or orientations represent philosophical stances on the nature of existence, they fundamentally diverge in their foundational principles and perspectives, showcasing differences not just in degree but in the very essence of how these shape our thoughts, perceptions and experiences of reality.
This does not negate the importance of the difference between these two orientations along a spectrum of difference in degree. In degree, these differences highlight the varying emphasis placed on the relationships and interconnections among entities. Substance ontology acknowledges relations but often considers these as secondary to the intrinsic properties or essence of entities. Relational ontology, on the other hand, elevates the significance of relationships to a primary position, viewing entities as fundamentally shaped by and existing within networks of interdependence.
Yet, beyond a difference in emphasis or degree, there’s a qualitative shift in how reality is fundamentally perceived through these very different ontological lenses. Substance ontology perceives “entities” (people “selves”, things, minds, souls…) as self-contained, possessing inherent “properties” that define their individuality and separateness. Relational ontology, in contrast, perceives entities as fundamentally relational, where their identity and nature are co-constituted through interactions and connections with yet other “entities”. Indeed, within the relational ontological framework the ostensible line dividing one entity from another becomes a bit vague and ambiguous — uncertain, rather indeterminate. This indeterminacy and ambiguousness, I believe, is not best taken as a signal that one has gone off one’s rocker and “lost the plot’. I say it is a signal that one is beginning to see the world just as it really is. That is, I believe we’re living in a world and kosmos defined by relationality at the ultimate (or fundamental) ground of our being. Things and beings (entities) are relational through-and-through. It’s what we are.
This difference in foundational perspective between these two ontologies we’re discussing potentially leads to a shift in how existence itself is understood—whether “existence” is seen as primarily self-contained and defined from “within” entities (e.g., selves, minds…), or as inherently interconnected and shaped by a pattern of relationships. So, while there might be degrees of emphasis on relationship, the core conceptualization of reality diverges very significantly within relational ontology, representing a difference not just in degree but indeed in kind.
A Tale of Two Cultures
I believe the dominant worldview of both Western Civilization, as a generalization, and “modernity” has its fundamental roots in various kinds and degrees of substance ontology, and that this substance ontology forms the theoretical, conceptual, cognitive and cultural bedrock of who we have been as a culture and civilization. And I believe the metacrisis / polycrisis roots precisely into this bedrock, as does our cultural anthropocentrism. If I’m right about this, it makes no sense to believe we can alter our course or our culture — material or non-material — without shifting the bedrock upon which we have our being.
Nearly everything about who and what we are as a culture and civilization has these roots, whether it be our notions about “politics,” “self,” “ethics,” or “aesthetics”. Our entire cultural pattern of making sense of things is rooted in the sense of our being separate from one another, isolated and alone.
I believe we’re going to have to address the very root of the metacrisis where it emerges from the ground of its pseudo-being.
(With special thanks to Daniel Schmachtenberger for helping me find my Way.)
— To Be Continued —
