At first glance, these positions appear opposed: one affirms certainty, the other contingency. Yet both assume a pre-existing world and a detached knower — a split that dissolves once being is understood as meaning.
The old divide
Truth (correspondence): statements are true if they match reality “as it is,” independent of who asserts them.
Relativism: statements are true only relative to perspective, community, or context.
Both assume an underlying ontology/epistemology gap: either a reality to be mirrored, or a set of constructions to be validated socially.
The relational shift
If being is meaning, then truth is emergent from the alignment of construals, not correspondence to a detached reality or mere consensus:
Ontology = systemic potential of meaning-being; reality is the field in which construals can phase.
Epistemology = reflexive construal of construal; truth is the phase in which multiple perspectives align coherently within this field.
Truth is thus neither absolute nor arbitrary. It is reflexive alignment: the emergent stability of meaning across construals.
Why this matters
Both absolutist and relativist positions mistake one phase of construal for an ontological foundation:
Absolutists treat alignment as pre-given in reality.
Relativists treat alignment as freely invented or contingent.
Once being is meaning, these are ontological fallacies. Truth is dynamic, relational, and emergent, dependent on the phasing of construal rather than on any substrate behind or beyond it.
The pay-off
In a universe where being is meaning:
Truth is not correspondence; it is coherence of construal.
Relativism is not freedom from reality; it is perspective within reflexive alignment.
This reframing dissolves the old opposition while preserving a robust notion of evaluation. Truth emerges as the reflexive stabilisation of meaning — a phase within the unfolding of construal itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment