From Collective Construal to Symbolic Cosmos: 30 Refusal and Return

Transformation is never guaranteed. At every threshold, there arises the possibility—not just of passage—but of refusal.

This refusal is not mere hesitation. It is constitutive. Without the possibility of refusal, the threshold has no symbolic weight.

1. Refusal as Ontological Tension

To refuse a symbolic crossing is to withhold alignment with a new construal of reality:

• Jonah flees the prophetic call.

• The initiate runs from the fire.

• The exile longs for Egypt.

These refusals do not cancel the threshold. They intensify its pull. In relational ontology, they construe a tension between potential and actualisation—between the vector toward transformation and the construal that resists it.

2. The Symbolic Economy of Return

Refusal rarely ends the story. It delays, distorts, or reroutes the trajectory.

Eventually, the subject may return—not to the starting point, but to the threshold itself, now reframed. Return is not reversal. It is recursive construal:

• The hero returns home changed.

• The wanderer re-enters the circle with new symbolic standing.

• The once-refused task becomes the axis of a new becoming.

Return, in this sense, is not repetition but re-entry—a second symbolic alignment with altered parameters.

3. Recursive Symbolisation

The cosmos does not form through linear unfolding. It forms through recursion:

• Threshold → Refusal → Return → Threshold anew.

Each loop tightens or loosens the symbolic structure of the real. This is not metaphor—it is the dynamic of symbolic cosmos formation itself.

---

The symbolic cosmos is not a static order but a reflexive architecture of tension, refusal, and recursive return. These dynamics are not contingent features—they are the very motions by which construal grounds the real.

Next, we turn to symbolic architecture itself: the emergent structures through which meaning scaffolds reality.