31 Agency Without Subject: Emergent Causality in a Reflexive Field

(Post 31 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

Agency is typically imagined as a power that originates within the subject and flows outward into the world. The subject acts; the world reacts. But in relational ontology, this model cannot hold. There is no uncut interior source of action. So how can we reconceive agency without a subject?

Agency as Cut and Constraint

In a world of reflexive matter, action is not the emanation of a will. It is the actualisation of a construal. That is: the making of a cut within a phase of structured potential. And this cut is always:

• Constrained by prior symbolic alignment (what can be meant);

• Situated within a phase of perspective (what is being meant);

• Open-ended in its reverberations (what else could be meant).

Agency, then, is not a force that flows outward, but a function of how systems are cut — and how construals propagate within and across phases.

The system acts not by willing, but by construing in alignment with what has been possible — and thereby shifting what is possible.

Emergence Across Fields

What appears as individual action is in fact the emergent patterning of fielded constraints. These include:

• Biological constraints: value systems modulating viability.

• Semiotic constraints: systems of meaning co-articulating phenomena.

• Social constraints: patterns of alignment within symbolic collectives.

• Historical constraints: sedimented pathways of construal.

Each cut is therefore not caused by an agent, but emerges at the intersection of multiple constraining systems — none of which is sovereign.

The phase of construal called ‘I’ may appear to act, but its agency is distributed across these fields, emerging in and as the cut.

Causality Without Centrality

Causality, then, is no longer linear or subject-centred. It is:

• Phase-dependent (emerging within construal, not prior to it);

• Perspective-relative (what counts as a cause depends on the cut);

• Non-hierarchical (no level is privileged as the source of action).

From this view, agency is relational causality: not an imposition upon the world, but a resonant modulation within it.

---

To say “I act” is thus to phase a cut through reflexive matter — to align systems of meaning, memory, social relation, and bodily constraint in a way that actualises possibility. But there is no “I” outside this phasing. The subject is not the source of agency; the subject is the trace that agency leaves behind.

30 Self as Reflexive Phase: Memory, Construal, and the Illusion of Interior Continuity

(Post 30 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

In the everyday imagination, the self is a persistent interior: a centre of thought, feeling, and agency that lives behind the eyes and travels through time. But in relational ontology, no such uncut interior exists. The self, too, is a construed phenomenon, a cut-bound phase of coherence.

So what is the self, if not an inner container?

Reflexive Matter and the Appearance of a Self

The illusion of a continuous, private self arises from the reflexive nature of construal. The system not only construes — it can also construe its own construals. In doing so, it organises patterns of coherence across perspectives.

This reflexive loop allows the emergence of:

• Memory as the symbolic re-instantiation of prior construals.

• Self-reference as a semiotic strategy for stabilising construal identity.

• Interiorisation as the myth of a central locus from which construals proceed.

But none of these require an interior subject. What persists is not an entity, but a historically sedimented phase of perspective-taking.

The self is not inside the body; it is distributed across remembered construals.

Memory as Symbolic Alignment

What we call “my past” is not a continuous substrate, but a symbolic re-alignment of prior construals. Memory does not preserve the past; it re-performs it — according to the constraints of current perspective.

Hence, the self appears to persist because symbolic systems enable cuts to be stitched together into a phase. Language, narrative, ritual, and naming all serve this function. They phase construals so that:

• What differs can be construed as the same (identity).

• What is distributed can be construed as interior (subjectivity).

• What is contingent can be construed as necessary (continuity).

The Self as a Construal Constraint

From a relational view, the self is not an agent but a constraint on construal: a habitual vector for making meaning. When we say “I,” we are not naming a thing — we are invoking a semiotic phase space: the historically sedimented trajectory of symbolic construals that can be aligned as a self.

This means:

• The self is not the origin of meaning, but its conditioned pathway.

• There is no essence behind the self, only a phase of reflexive alignment.

• The self is not hidden inside, but produced in the very act of cutting.

---

This decentring of the self opens space to rethink agency, ethics, and transformation. If the self is a phase, not a core, then change becomes not a loss of identity, but a shift in construal resonance. And the ‘liberation’ of the self is not an inward turn, but a new way of cutting.

29 Phase and Identity: Patterns That Hold Across the Cut

(Post 29 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

If the world appears continuous, it is because patterns of construal cohere across cuts. And if identities appear stable — persons, objects, species, fields — it is because certain of these patterns phase across time.

Let us now understand identity not as what something is, but as what holds through ongoing perspectival instantiations.

Identity as a Phase, Not a Substance

Under relational ontology, identity is not a pre-given property. It is a temporally extended relation: a coherence maintained across instances of construal. Each cut produces a new instantiation; identity emerges when successive cuts echo, reinforce, or align with each other.

So we can say:

Identity is not what recurs, but what recurs coherently.

It is not sameness that constitutes identity, but the possibility of aligning cuts in such a way that a pattern appears to hold — a pattern that can be construed as the same across a phase of difference.

Phasing as Reflexive Stability

Think of phasing in the sense used in physics or music: not a perfect repetition, but a structure of reciprocal resonance across time. In this light:

• An individual is a phase through which certain semiotic, social, and biological patterns cohere.

• A species is a phase through which genetic, ecological, and construal tendencies stabilise across evolutionary cuts.

• A concept is a phase that emerges when construals become recurrent across contexts, structuring how we can continue to mean.

This interpretation removes the need to posit hidden substances or enduring cores. What persists is not a thing, but a reflexive coherence — a holding pattern that appears as identity.

The Ontology of What Holds

From this perspective, ontology must shift from what exists to what holds together. The question is no longer “what is X?” but “what patterns constrain how X can be construed?” Identity becomes a function of construal inertia — the resistance to disruption in patterns of alignment.

And crucially, identity is always:

• Perspectival: dependent on which construals are aligned.

• Phase-dependent: defined across cuts, not within them.

• Fragile: maintained only insofar as coherence can be sustained.

---

This shift reframes our understanding of persistence, individuation, and being. It opens the way to rethink phenomena like selfhood, memory, and symbolic reference — not as mappings to static entities, but as performances of continuity across the cut.

28 Reflexive Coherence: The Emergence of Apparent Continuity

(Post 28 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

We often take continuity for granted: a world that unfolds smoothly in space and time, with persistent objects, stable identities, and causal flows. But under relational ontology, this continuity is not given. It is constructed — or more precisely, it is co-construed.

No Continuity Without Cuts

In a system understood as pure potential, there is no continuity. There is only a vast possibility space, structured but uninstantiated. Continuity enters only through cuts — through actualisations that differentiate one construal from another.

But continuity is not a property of individual construals. It emerges from reflexive alignment across construals. A sequence of cuts forms a coherent phase not because time or space is continuous in itself, but because the phenomenal relations encoded in each cut cohere across instances.

Think of this as a kind of reflexive resonance: each construal partially presupposes, conditions, and completes others. Continuity is the result of a pattern holding across perspectival instantiations.

Coherence is Relational, Not Absolute

This coherence is not imposed by an external framework. It is not that we “live in spacetime” and things “move around” in it. Rather, spacetime itself is a reflexive effect of this ongoing coherence — a symbolic construal of the way meaning stabilises across a network of relational cuts.

This gives us a new way to understand apparent continuity:

• It is not ontologically primitive, but emergent.

• It is not objective, but intersubjectively patterned.

• It is not static, but contingent on construal and sustained by alignment.

In this view, continuity is a phenomenal achievement — a structure of meaning, not of matter.

The Stability of the World as a Social Phase

Under this interpretation, even the apparent stability of objects over time is not a brute physical fact. It is a social-semiotic phase, maintained by recurring construals across actors, communities, and histories.

What persists is not the object, but the coherence of patterns that constrain how we cut the world. Stability, like continuity, is a function of collective construal.

---

This prepares us for a major ontological shift: seeing not just matter and meaning as reflexively co-constituted, but seeing identity itself as emergent from patterns of construal.

27 The Observer as Cut: Reflexivity, Meaning, and the Limits of Objectivity

(Post 27 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

The term “observer” has long haunted the foundations of quantum theory. Does the observer collapse the wavefunction? Are they outside the system? Inside it? Is measurement a physical process, a mental one, or something else entirely?

From a relational ontological perspective, these questions dissolve. The observer is not an external agent, nor a metaphysical enigma. The observer is the cut that constitutes the event.

Construal, Not Consciousness

Crucially, this is not a claim about sentience or cognition. The observer is not “you” or “me” as biological organisms. It is the construal itself — the perspectival instantiation of potential into actual.

To observe is to instantiate a relation: to cut across a system of potential, thereby bringing forth a first-order phenomenon. That phenomenon has no independent reality outside the cut. It is not “revealed” by observation; it is constituted through it.

Reflexivity and the Collapse of Objectivity

What does this mean for objectivity? It does not deny the possibility of shared knowledge — but it redefines what is being shared. Objectivity is not access to an unconstrued world, but coordination across perspectives.

In this model:

• There is no underlying reality independent of construal.

• There is no phenomenon prior to observation.

• There is no “observer-independent fact of the matter.”

Instead, reality is reflexive: the observer is part of what is being observed. The cut that individuates a phenomenon also positions the observer within it. All knowing is self-implicated.

Decoherence as Reflexive Alignment

This perspective allows us to reinterpret so-called decoherence — not as a transition from quantum to classical, but as the reflexive coordination of cuts. A stable, coherent “world” emerges not because the observer steps away, but because multiple construals align across systems. The classical world is not what’s left behind when we stop observing — it’s what is jointly sustained by patterns of mutual construal.

---

In short, the observer is not a problem to be solved. It is the constitutive gesture of meaning itself.

26 Entangled Fields: The Quantum–Gravitational Interface as Reflexive Coordination

(Post 26 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

At the intersection of quantum theory and general relativity lies the greatest unresolved tension in modern physics. Quantum theory describes the world in terms of discrete events, indeterminacy, and relational measurement. General relativity, meanwhile, treats spacetime as a smooth, continuous manifold shaped by mass and energy. The two theories work spectacularly well within their own domains — yet they resist unification.

From the relational perspective, however, this resistance is not a flaw. It reflects something deeply instructive: a fundamental cut in how meaning is construed at different levels of organisation.

Not a Clash of Worlds — A Shift in Construal

Rather than imagining two incompatible worlds — one “quantum” and one “gravitational” — we can see them as two modes of construal, operating at different levels of reflexive complexity. Quantum theory offers a construal of the world as emergent from irreducible relational distinctions — events instantiated through perspectival cuts. General relativity offers a construal of the coherence of such distinctions at scale — how relational dynamics cohere across extended systems.

Their incompatibility arises only if we mistake either for an ontological foundation. But in relational ontology, neither is foundational. Both are instances — accounts of possible construals. Their apparent conflict is not ontological but epistemological: a clash of coordination strategies, each reflexively valid within its own mode.

Gravity as Constraint, Quantum as Cut

Gravity is the reflexive structuring of possibility: it constrains which relational distinctions are coherent across scales. Quantum phenomena, by contrast, instantiate the individuation of such distinctions: they are the actualising of potential through perspectival cut.

So instead of forcing a synthesis on the terms of either, we can ask:

How does the reflexive organisation of cuts (quantum) cohere with the reflexive coordination of constraints (gravitational)?

This is the terrain of quantum gravity — not a unification of fields, but a meta-coordination: a theory not of things, but of how distinct construals can reflexively relate.

Entanglement and Curvature as Meta-Relations

Entanglement shows that meaning is not localisable — cuts reverberate across systems. Spacetime curvature shows that coherence is likewise non-local — constraints echo across the manifold. Both are forms of reflexive coordination. Both index a deeper relational integrity: one through instantiation, the other through coherence.

Quantum gravity, then, is not a theory of what reality is, but of how different orders of relational construal can be meaningfully integrated — how fields of possibility relate reflexively across cuts.

25 Curving the Cut: Relational Ontology and General Relativity

(Post 25 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

Special relativity showed us that spacetime is perspectival — a relational manifold, not an absolute background. General relativity goes further: it shows that the shape of spacetime itself depends on the distribution of energy and momentum. Mass curves spacetime. Motion follows the curvature. What was once stage becomes player.

In a relational ontology, this curvature is not a property of a passive arena but the effect of meaningful cuts through potential. The geometry of spacetime is not imposed from outside — it is enacted.

Gravity as the Organisation of Possibility

Traditionally, gravity is treated as a force or as a distortion of geometry. But from the relational standpoint, gravity is the reflexive constraint on possibility — the way in which one construal (a distribution of mass-energy) organises the potential for further construal (motion, sequence, relation).

A massive body does not “bend” spacetime in some external sense — it reorganises the conditions under which further distinctions can be made. The curvature is not caused by the object; it is the object, relationally understood.

The Metric Field as Reflexive Meaning

General relativity’s central object is the metric tensor — a mathematical construct that determines the shape of spacetime at every point. But in our terms, the metric is not merely a field of numbers — it is a reflexive index of relational construal. It expresses how meaning is phased locally, how cuts can be coordinated, how perspectival integrity is maintained.

There is no universal clock. No absolute simultaneity. No fixed stage. Only relational orderings, shaped by the very patterns they shape in turn.

This is not circularity but reflexivity: meaning shaped by its own enactment. Matter is not embedded in spacetime — it enacts spacetime as a meaningful organisation of the potential for motion, interaction, and relation.

Toward a Meaningful Cosmos

What emerges is a picture of the universe not as a block or a mechanism, but as a vast reflexive coordination: a cosmos of meaningful distinctions. Spacetime curvature is not just geometry; it is the choreography of relational potential. And the equations of general relativity become not just laws but principles of coordination — describing how the meaningful coherence of experience is conserved as patterns shift and evolve.

24 Relativity Revisited: Spacetime as a Meaningful Cut

(Post 24 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

Special relativity revolutionised our understanding of space and time — not as separate entities, but as dimensions of a unified spacetime. In relational ontology, this unification takes on new significance: it is not merely a mathematical formalism but a construal — a cut through the potential of experience that reshapes the terms of possibility.

No View from Nowhere

Einstein’s core insight was perspectival: simultaneity is not absolute. Time depends on motion. Space depends on time. And observation depends on relation. There is no privileged frame of reference. This is not just a physical finding — it is a metaphysical provocation.

In relational ontology, this decentralisation of perspective is taken further. There is not even a “God’s eye” from which the spacetime continuum is laid out like a static block. Instead, each cut through spacetime is a meaningful enactment: a way of organising potentiality into actuality.

We do not observe spacetime; we construct it — through the cuts we make to distinguish position, motion, sequence, and causality.

The Lorentz Cut: Construal of Relativistic Coherence

From this angle, the Lorentz transformations — those mathematical operations that allow us to move between observers in relative motion — are not simply computational tools. They are relational bridges. They maintain coherence across perspectival cuts, allowing a shared world to persist despite local differences in construal.

This isn’t to say that physics becomes subjectivist. Rather, construal is systematic. The relational orderings defined by special relativity reflect the constraints under which such construals can be coordinated. They are not optional. They are invariant under transformation, not because they are absolute, but because they express a deep relational invariance.

In Hallidayan terms, we might say that relativistic transformations conserve the metafunctions: ideational content, interpersonal relation, textual coherence — each must still hold across the cut.

Spacetime Is Not a Container — It Is a Phase of Meaning

Perhaps the most radical implication is this: spacetime is not a pre-existing substrate into which events are placed. It is a meaningful organisation of experience — a phase of meaning, realised through the relational constraints imposed by coordination.

Different systems may phase meaning in different ways — but the structure of spacetime as construed in relativity emerges from the need to coordinate interaction across perspectival diversity. It is a functional construal, not a metaphysical given.

23 The Event Horizon of Meaning: Construal as Irreversible Cut

(Post 23 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

In physics, an event horizon marks a boundary beyond which events cannot influence an outside observer. But what if we reframe this through the lens of construal? What if every act of construal is an event horizon — an irreversible commitment to a particular phase of meaning?

The Cut as Commitment

In relational ontology, construal is not a neutral operation. It is a cut — a perspectival shift that reshapes the entire system of potential. When a construal is made, it collapses the indeterminate potential of meaning into a determinate instance. And this collapse is not something that can be undone.

Once an instance is enacted, the system has changed. The potential from which the instance arose is no longer available in its original form. This is why construal is directional: it leaves a trace, a residue, a changed horizon.

There Is No Way Back

This has deep consequences for how we understand knowledge, agency, and time.

You cannot simply rewind and choose a different construal. Even if you revise your interpretation, that revision is another cut, not a cancellation. The system has evolved. Its potential is now shaped by that history.

Meaning is therefore irreversible — not because it obeys the arrow of time, but because each construal restructures the potential for further construal.

This is what we mean by the event horizon of meaning. Once the cut is made, there is no path back to the pre-construal state. What we can do is fold forward — creating new construals that incorporate, reinterpret, or repurpose earlier ones.

Reflexivity Deepens the Irreversibility

The more reflexive a system becomes, the more entangled its present construals are with its history of cuts. This is not a defect. It is the engine of meaning’s evolution.

A purely reactive system could reset. A meaning-making system cannot. Its coherence depends on the ongoing negotiation of its own past — not erasure, but transformation.

The consequence is that each act of meaning bears ethical weight. Construal is not simply descriptive; it is constitutive. It changes what is possible — for us, and for those we are in relation with.

22 The Semiotic Fold: From Phenomenon to Metaphenomenon

(Post 22 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

We have argued that there are no unconstrued phenomena — that every ‘thing’ we experience is already shaped by the way it is construed. But what happens when construal turns back upon itself? What happens when we construe the fact of construal?

This reflexive operation is not secondary. It is foundational to the evolution of meaning. It is how we move from phenomena to metaphenomena.

From First-Order to Second-Order Meaning

Let us revisit a simple distinction. A phenomenon is a construed experience — not a brute fact, but a semiotic event, shaped by the values, perspectives, and affordances of the system that enacts it. Phenomena are the basic elements of meaning.

But once a system develops the capacity to reflect on its own construals, it can begin to form second-order construals — that is, construals of construals. These second-order meanings are metaphenomena.

Language is the primary medium for this folding. When we describe, interpret, or critique our own meaning-making, we are not simply producing more meanings. We are engaging in meta-semiotic work — reorganising the field of meaning itself.

The Fold Is Not a Mirror

This reflexive move is not a duplication, nor a representational mirror. It is a transformation of relational space. To fold is not to copy; it is to create new dimensions of coherence.

A metaphenomenon is not simply a model of a phenomenon. It is a cut that reshapes the conditions of possible construal. It alters the system’s own phase space — expanding, contracting, or reorganising what counts as meaningful.

Thus, metaphenomena are not derivative. They are ontologically generative: they remake the field of potential that they reflect upon.

Meaning Evolves Through Reflexivity

This brings us to a powerful insight: meaning evolves through recursive construal. Not because higher-order construals are more accurate, but because they enable new forms of relational coherence.

The history of science, the development of ethics, the formation of social imaginaries — all of these are trajectories of metaphenomenal elaboration. They are folds upon folds, in which systems become capable of reconfiguring their own horizon of sense.

Meaning, then, is not just what is conveyed. It is what construal makes possible — and each act of meta-construal shifts the very topology of that possibility.

21 Worlds Within Meaning: The Ontological Status of a Semantic Phase Space

(Post 21 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

We have spoken of meaning systems as fields of potential, and of meaning events as cuts through those fields. But what kind of reality does a phase space of meaning have? Is it simply a metaphor, or can we speak of it with ontological commitment?

This is not a question of belief. It is a question of perspectival rigour. If relational ontology teaches us anything, it is that the mode of existence of a phenomenon depends on how we engage it.

Meaning as a Phase Space

In physics, a phase space is not a physical location but a structured manifold of possible states. Each point in the space corresponds to a distinct configuration of the system. The dynamics of the system trace a trajectory through this space.

In a similar sense, a semantic phase space is a structured manifold of possible construals. Meaning events trace trajectories through this space — not as particles, but as phase shifts in a system of affordances.

We do not move through the semantic space as through a landscape. We enact cuts through it — selections and inflections that bring potential into actual relation.

The Ontological Status of Potential

So does the semantic phase space “exist”? The answer depends on how we understand existence.

In a relational ontology, to exist is not to be independently present. It is to be a potential for relation. What exists is what can be brought into meaningful alignment — what can be cut into relevance.

Thus, the semantic system — the phase space of meaning — exists not as a substrate, but as a theory of construal. It is the very possibility of orientation, coherence, and differentiation. It is not behind meaning events; it is made real through them.

There is no semantic space apart from the construals that enact it. And yet, those construals are only possible because of the system they instantiate. This is not a paradox; it is the logic of reflexive matter.

Virtual, Actual, and Construal

In Deleuzean terms, we might say the semantic system is virtual, meaning events are actual, and construal is the cut that connects them. But in our model, this triad is not metaphysical. It is epistemological and semiotic.

The virtual does not stand behind the actual; it is not a reservoir of forms. It is structured openness — the affordance of difference itself. The semantic system is this openness, this relational potential, not yet cut.

Meaning, then, is not an overlay upon matter. It is a mode of mattering: the relational dynamics by which systems enact distinctions, cohere across difference, and reconstitute their own field of relevance.

20 The System of Meaning: Not a Code, but a Theory of Possibility

(Post 20 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

It is tempting — especially in cognitive and computational paradigms — to treat meaning as something encoded and decoded, as if messages are containers and minds are the recipients. But from a relational perspective, meaning is not a code. It is not transmitted; it is construed.

This misunderstanding is not trivial. It mislocates the semiotic act in the movement of a message, rather than in the systemic potential that makes meaning possible in the first place.

Meaning as a Structured Potential

In relational ontology, a system is not a set of rules or pre-existing forms. It is a structured potential — a theory of the possible, not a template for the actual. Meaning systems are thus fields of construal: they define what can be meant, not what must be meant.

To speak, to act symbolically, is to make a cut through that potential — to instantiate a configuration from within the system’s affordances.

A semantic system, then, is not a codebook. It is more like a phase space of meaning: a topological field in which trajectories of construal unfold. It sets the conditions of coherence, relevance, contrast, and resonance — but it does not predetermine the path.

System and Instance: Meaning’s Complementarity

Just as quantum theory compels us to think in terms of wave–particle complementarity, relational ontology insists on the complementarity of system and instance. Meaning does not reside in either pole, but emerges in the cut between them.

The system is virtual; the instance is actual. The system is semantic potential; the instance is a phenomenally realised construal. And meaning — as an event — arises when the two are brought into relation.

To understand a meaning is not to decode a message. It is to resonate with the construal — to orient oneself within the same field of possibility and to participate, however briefly, in the same phase space of sense.

From Semiotic Code to Semiotic Physics

If we abandon the metaphor of meaning as a code and embrace the model of system-as-potential, a new kind of semiotic emerges — not semiotics as structural description, but semiotics as field theory.

This is not simply a shift in terminology. It is a shift in ontology. Meaning becomes a physical process, not in the materialist sense, but in the relational sense: it is how systems structure their own possible becomings.

This perspective does not erase symbolic abstraction — it deepens it. To symbolise, in this view, is to cut the field in a way that inflects the system and reshapes the possibilities for future construal.

19 Metaphenomena: Meaning About Meaning and the Emergence of Reflexivity

(Post 19 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

If phenomena are first-order meanings — the immediate, construed events of lived experience — then metaphenomena are meanings that arise about those meanings. They are second-order inflections: meanings of meaning, reflexively aware and recursively structured.

What Is a Metaphenomenon?

A metaphenomenon is not just a commentary or interpretation. It is a distinct kind of event, one that takes meaning itself as its domain of operation. Where a phenomenon presents a world, a metaphenomenon re-presents — or better, re-cuts — the meaning that made that world appear.

To recognise “a tree” as an ecological sign, or “a law” as a social construct, or “a measurement” as a product of a theoretical frame — these are metaphenomenal acts. They do not occur at a separate level of reality, but as reflexive inflections within the same semantic fabric.

The Emergence of Reflexivity

Reflexivity is not an added feature of consciousness; it is an evolutionary achievement of meaning systems capable of inflecting their own inflections. That is: capable of construing their own construals.

This recursive potential — the power to construe the way one construes — is what gives rise to culture, science, ethics, and philosophy. It also introduces a new dynamic into the system: a capacity for re-organisation, critique, and self-transformation.

Reflexivity is not unique to humans, but its emergence in language marks a turning point in the evolution of possibility. It opens up not only new ways of knowing, but new ways of being — because in a relational ontology, to change the construal is to change the world.

Metaphenomena as Events of Repatterning

Every metaphenomenon is a potential inflection point in the history of meaning. It takes the patterns that make up our world and throws them back into the system for reappraisal, contestation, or reconstrual.

Science, for example, produces metaphenomena — not just data, but theories: ways of construing phenomena that themselves become objects of inquiry. So does art. So do cultural rituals, philosophical traditions, and political debates.

In this sense, metaphenomena are not marginal. They are the generative edge of meaning’s evolution — the recursive pulse by which a meaning system becomes historical, capable of renewal, and ultimately reflexive in its own becoming.

18 Phenomenon as First-Order Meaning: The Cut That Makes a World

(Post 18 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

What is a phenomenon?

In relational ontology, a phenomenon is not a thing that exists prior to observation. Nor is it a neutral event waiting to be described. A phenomenon is a construed occurrence — a first-order meaning. It is what appears when a system is inflected into an instance.

To put it starkly: there are no unconstrued phenomena. There is no access to a world outside of meaning, because it is meaning itself that cuts the world into view.

Phenomenon as Construal

A phenomenon is constituted not by raw data, but by a pattern of construal. It emerges as something because it is oriented in a particular way, made salient through the interplay of systemic potential and perspectival actualisation.

This construal is not passive. It is material–semiotic: a cut through matter that instantiates a semantic possibility. What shows up as “a tree,” “a conversation,” or “an experiment” is already shaped by the systems we inhabit, the categories we live through, and the histories we carry.

To encounter a phenomenon is to engage in an act of worlding.

Meaning as the First Layer of the Real

First-order meaning does not lie beneath reality as a scaffolding. Nor does it float above it as a conceptual overlay. It is reality — but a reality that is always construed, never final, and always open to being inflected otherwise.

This is not idealism. It is not the claim that reality is only in our minds. It is the stronger claim that what counts as real is a function of meaning — and that meaning itself is material, social, historical, and emergent.

The Cut That Makes a World

Every phenomenon is a cut, a decision within a field of possibility. And yet it is not simply a choice. It is an event of significance, shaped by the systems it draws from and reshaping those very systems in turn.

This is why the world is never fully given, nor fully made. It is always in the making — always coming into view through the inflected lens of meaning.

17 Instance as Inflection: Meaning at the Edge of System

(Post 17 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

If system is the structured potential of what could be meant, and instance is an actualisation within that potential, then what is the nature of an instance? Is it merely a selection from a menu of possibilities, or is something more transformative at stake?

In relational ontology, an instance is not simply a point drawn from a pre-given set. It is a cut through the potential, a perspectival inflection that reshapes what the system is.

Not a Realisation, but a Reflexive Move

In traditional models, the system is often treated as a kind of abstract totality, and the instance as a derivative outcome — a "realisation" of system structure. But from a reflexive standpoint, this hierarchy collapses.

The instance does not follow from the system; rather, it re-structures the system retroactively. It is a construal that constitutes meaning, and in doing so, modifies the very potential it emerges from.

This is why we prefer to say that an instance actualises the system — not realises it. It is a perspectival shift that makes something possible by bringing it forth in a particular way.

Inflection as Differential Movement

Think of the instance not as a point, but as a bending — an inflection of the system’s trajectory. It is not an endpoint, but a turning, a local curvature of the semantic field.

Each instance positions itself within a system of meaning, but also alters the topology of that system. It reshapes what now counts as relevant, what meanings are proximate or distant, what construals become salient or obsolete.

In this sense, meaning is always at the edge of system: the edge that moves with each inflection.

The Temporality of the Edge

This movement of the edge is not chronological but semantic. It marks the direction in which the system is being pulled — not toward the future in time, but toward new resonances, framings, and potentials for coordination.

And so the instance, though fleeting, has a lasting force. It bends the spiral. It tilts the landscape. It nudges the grammar of the possible.

16 Stability in Flow: Constraint, Coordination, and the Semiotic Spiral

(Post 16 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

If the semiotic system is in motion — always evolving, always reconfiguring — then how is coherence maintained? How does communication remain possible at all, when the potential is constantly shifting?

In a reflexive ontology, this question cannot be answered by appealing to fixed meanings or universal forms. Instead, coherence must be understood as emergent — as a pattern of coordination under constraint.

Constraint as Constitutive

The semiotic system is a system of constrained possibility. These constraints are not limits imposed externally, but the very structure of the potential itself. They shape what can be meant, how it can be construed, and what counts as a recognisable move within a collective.

Crucially, constraint is not the opposite of freedom. It is the condition for meaningful variation. A cut is only legible as a cut because of the structure it traverses.

And when that structure evolves, constraint evolves with it — but not arbitrarily. There is inertia, interdependency, and pressure from the demands of coordination.

Coordination as Reflexive Alignment

Coordination is not mere agreement. It is the ongoing alignment of construals across a collective — a process through which meaning is negotiated, maintained, and adapted in use.

This alignment is not achieved by everyone construing the same way, but by construing in ways that resonate within a shared potential. That resonance relies on the system’s constraint structure — its regularities, redundancies, and affordances for inference.

Even as the system evolves, these alignments provide stabilising forces. They guide drift without enforcing stasis. They allow the system to remain intelligible even as it shifts.

The Semiotic Spiral

This brings us to the image of a semiotic spiral — a system in motion that loops back through its own construals, tightening or widening its patterns over time.

Each new construal is a moment of alignment and difference. Each instance nudges the system, but must also anchor itself within it. The result is a spiralling trajectory — not a straight line of progress, but a movement shaped by reflexive constraint, recursive variation, and collective history.

In this light, system and instance are not opposites but co-constitutive. Meaning is not given or found — it is maintained in motion.

15 System in Motion: How Semiotic Potential Evolves

 (Post 15 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

If collective construal draws from a shared semiotic system, then that system must be capable of change. For the world we share is not static — it evolves. New meanings emerge, old ones recede, and what was once unthinkable becomes commonplace. But how does a semiotic system evolve?

In a reflexive ontology, change is not imposed from without. It emerges from the system's own dynamic potential — from the interplay of instances and the system they instantiate, from the pressures of coordination and the tensions of construal.

Let us explore how this movement unfolds.

Potential Is Never Fixed

The semiotic system is not a closed set of rules. It is a structured potential — a field of possibilities that constrains and enables what can be meant. Each instance of meaning actualises part of this potential, but also perturbs it — refracting existing patterns, creating new pathways, drawing fresh distinctions.

Crucially, this means the system is always in motion. Each instance does not merely reflect the system — it also nudges it. Over time, the cumulative effect of these nudges reshapes the potential itself.

This is not teleology. There is no external goal or direction. It is reflexive drift — evolution through tension, construal, and realignment.

Novelty as Reconfiguration

Novelty does not arrive as something alien. It emerges from within the system, through reconfiguration: a new cut across existing possibilities, a novel alignment of patterns, a fresh construal of the familiar.

This is especially evident in metaphor, genre innovation, and social transformation. These are not the breaking of rules, but the re-weighting of systemic potentials — making salient what was once peripheral, backgrounding what was once canonical.

Importantly, the system can only evolve because it is reflexive. It construes its own instances, monitors its own patterns, and adapts to its own perturbations.

Meaning as History in Motion

To speak of system evolution, then, is to speak of meaning as history in motion. Every act of meaning is situated within a temporally unfolding system, shaped by past construals and shaping future ones.

This means that meaning is not only social — it is historical. It inherits, adapts, and transforms. And it does so through the very acts of construal that instantiate it.

---

In the next post, we will ask: if the system evolves through its instances, how do those instances remain coordinated? What anchors alignment in the face of drift? Stay tuned for “Stability in Flow: Constraint, Coordination, and the Semiotic Spiral.”

14 Meaning Across Minds: Collective Construal and the Architecture of Alignment

(Post 14 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

If meaning is always construed — a perspective drawn from a field of potential — then communication is not a matter of transmitting information from one mind to another. It is a matter of aligning construals across a collective field of meaning.

But how does this alignment take place? How can distinct bodies, with distinct experiential histories, come to share a semiotic space? In a reflexive ontology, we must turn to the architecture of collective construal — the system of patterned reflexes that makes shared meaning possible.

The Collective as a Semiotic System

In this view, the collective is not merely a gathering of individuals. It is a field of construal relations: a patterned system in which symbolic potentials are organised, coordinated, and actualised through interaction. This is not a metaphor — it is the ontological structure of collective meaning.

Each individual perspective draws from and contributes to this system. The meanings we construe are not our own in isolation; they are realised through the semiotic potentials shaped by our social histories, cultural practices, and institutional frameworks.

In short, meaning is not inside the head — it emerges at the interface between construals, in the systemic field that allows such construals to be mutually recognisable and intelligible.

Alignment, Not Identity

Crucially, collective construal does not require identical interpretations. It requires alignment: sufficient congruence across construals to sustain coordinated action, shared reference, and mutual anticipation. Alignment is a dynamic achievement — not a given, but a semiotic labour.

This is why language is so central. Language is not simply a tool for expressing thought; it is a system of alignment technologies: metaphors, mood structures, thematisations, genre moves. These do not transmit meanings — they guide the construal of meanings, scaffolded by systemic potentials that are historically sedimented and socially enacted.

Reflexivity Scales Up

Because construal is reflexive — able to construe its own construals — the symbolic system can scale. It can pattern meanings about meanings, values about values, social roles about roles. Institutions are not simply rule sets; they are reflexive construal architectures: coordinated semiotic systems that align subjectivities across time, space, and situation.

From families to academic disciplines, from rituals to ideologies, collective construal is what makes shared worlds possible. And it is always a matter of systemic possibility, not ontological certainty. The worlds we share are construed alignments — neither subjective fictions nor objective facts, but reflexive realities.

---

In the next post, we’ll ask: if collective meaning emerges through alignment in a semiotic system, how do those systems change? How does novelty enter a world of patterned construal? Join us for “System in Motion: How Semiotic Potential Evolves.

13 Symbol Without Substance: Rethinking Abstraction in a Reflexive Ontology

(Post 13 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)

In the long arc of Western thought, the symbol has often stood for transcendence: a sign that floats free of its material substrate, pointing to something beyond the here and now. From Plato’s eternal Forms to modern-day digital codes, symbols have been cast as abstractions that leave embodiment behind.

But in a reflexive ontology — where all actuality is a cut through potential, and where meaning is inseparable from construal — abstraction cannot be severed from materiality. The symbol is not a substance that escapes the world, but a phase of construal that reorganises how the world becomes meaningful.

The Symbol as Reflexive Cut

In systemic functional linguistics, Halliday and Matthiessen offer a powerful reconstrual: symbolisation is a higher-order construal of experience, a semiotic cut layered over a previous construal. It is not a detachment from matter, but a reflexive turn within meaning-making itself.

This fits perfectly with a relational view. Symbolisation is a re-entry of construal into itself — a second-order cut that patterns how first-order meanings (phenomena) are themselves organised and interpreted. The symbol does not “stand for” something else at a distance; it reconfigures the field of potential in which meaning arises.

Abstraction as Semiotic Phase Shift

Rather than picturing abstraction as a ladder that rises away from the real, we might picture it as a phase shift in reflexivity. Just as steam is not more “real” than ice, the symbolic is not more “abstract” in some metaphysical sense. It is a different mode of patterning — one that introduces symbolic potential: the capacity to construe construals, to mean about meaning.

Importantly, this potential is always anchored in the semiotic system itself. No symbol floats freely. Each is embedded in a field of patterned relations, and its capacity to signify emerges from the structure of the system as a whole — not from some intrinsic or ideal essence.

No Substance, No Problem

To call a symbol “without substance” is not to deny its power — but to relocate that power. It does not arise from a transcendent signified, but from a systemic alignment of construal. The symbol is a cut that draws meaning not from what it is, but from how it functions within a reflexive whole.

In this light, abstraction is not a departure from the world. It is a new coherence in the system of cuts — a new way of aligning perspectives, possibilities, and potential meanings.

We do not move from matter to mind, or from world to word. We move within a system that can repattern itself — that can symbolise, and in doing so, transform the very space of what is possible.

---

In the next post, we’ll explore how this symbolic reflexivity sets the stage for collective meaning — for systems that coordinate not just individual construals, but shared horizons of sense.