The World of SPLectrum
Home > Positioning > Close affinity > Ontology
Ontology
In SPLectrum’s philosophy, ontology asks after the entities — the things language relates, the concepts. Reality is disclosed in language, and language is the medium through which a subject experiences reality; what it relates are concepts, and a concept is a chunk of meaning that has been wrapped into a being. A being is one by its difference from the others — that difference is the relational, and it is the whole of what the being is. A concept has no content of its own held apart from where it sits among the rest; it is not a thing first and related second, but constituted in the relating, exhausted by its place in the vocabulary. This is the static face of the language medium — the concepts at rest, each held in being by the others, and the question of how they come to be chosen. The same concepts in motion, worked and tied together, are the field of aesthetics; the same tooling running in the learning loop is epistemology. Ontology holds the catalogue still. The derivation is on the reality side; this surface points outward from it.
The territory this reads across is the metaphysics map — the inquiry into the most general features of reality, being and existence and what is basic — which already holds the field’s stances toward those questions. What follows points to where SPLectrum’s ontology resonates across that field: the relativity of what-there-is to a language, the constitution of an entity by its relations, and the root of the relational in difference.
Entities relative to a language
The line that the metaphysics map gathers under deflation makes existence relative to the language one speaks. Carnap drew the internal–external distinction: questions about what exists are asked inside a chosen linguistic framework, and to ask them from outside any framework — to ask which framework is the true one — is to ask a question with no answer, only the practical matter of which language to adopt. The contemporary form, quantifier variance, reads rival ontologies — one counting tables and chairs, another only particles arranged tablewise — as speaking slightly different languages, each internally in order. Putnam’s conceptual relativity is the same recognition: which objects there are is not fixed beneath every scheme but settled within one. Goodman carries it furthest, into many world-versions, each making its own world, none of them the description the others answer to.
The relativity is not confined to logic. The ontology of a religion is its own vocabulary of beings, shared in part with its neighbours, the same in none. And within the line it is read two ways. Carnap and the quantifier-variance reading set the existence question down — a dispute with no fact under it, only a choice of language to make. Goodman reads it as making: in Ways of Worldmaking (1978) the versions are made, not found, and the making is what there is to study. In that second reading the dynamic shows most plainly — the vocabulary contingent, it could have been otherwise, made rather than found.
An entity is its relations
A second strand reads an entity not as a substance with an interior but as something constituted by its relations to the rest. The process line the metaphysics map holds under construction takes relations as prior to the things related: Whitehead’s actual occasions are what they are by prehending one another, each gathering the others into its own constitution; Bergson sets the continuous becoming under the stable thing rather than the thing under the change. The relational is basic, and the enduring object is a pattern across it.
The strand divides on where the relations sit. Whitehead’s occasions take theirs inward, each constituted by holding the others within it. Russell, against Bradley’s idealism, held relations external — real between their terms, not absorbed into either — and James’s radical empiricism gave the relations between things the same standing in experience as the things themselves. In the external reading the dynamic surfaces plainly: a being is its difference from the others, the difference held between the concepts, across the catalogue, not folded into any one of them.
Value by difference
The root of “a being by its difference from the others” sits in the study of language rather than on the metaphysics map. Saussure held that a sign has its value not by a positive content of its own but by what it is not — by its place in the system of differences among signs; in the language there are only differences, with no positive terms. The same reading carries one step out from the sign to the entity: a concept a being by its difference from the neighbouring concepts, the vocabulary a system of such differences. The anti-representational note that travels with this — that there is no positive original standing outside the system for the signs to copy — rhymes through James’s relations-as-experienced and Rorty’s refusal of a vocabulary that reports the world as it really is: nothing behind the relations to be mirrored.
See also: Conceptual relativity (close affinity) — the frame side of the same relativity · Metaphysics (the territory this reads across) · Epistemology (close affinity) — the same tooling in the learning loop · Aesthetics (close affinity) — the concepts in motion · Ethics (close affinity) · Pluralism