The World of SPLectrum
Home > Positioning > Subjects > Metaphysics > Where the stances combine
Where the stances combine
The five stances are analytically pure: construct, critique, disclose, deflate, diagnose. Few of the field’s major positions are. The most consequential metaphysics often combine stances — and combining is not fence-sitting or eclecticism, because the stances tend to pull against one another. Disclosure and deflation in particular usually function as reasons to stop constructing: phenomenology relocates the questions rather than building systems, and the deflationary line sets representation aside rather than erecting a metaphysics on it. To build a positive account while also taking the disclosive or the deflationary turn is therefore a distinct and demanding position, not a midpoint between two others. This page holds the positions that hold such combinations together.
Process philosophy — construction with the mirror refused
Process philosophy builds a full speculative metaphysics and, in the same move, refuses representation. Whitehead’s philosophy of organism erects a systematic account of actual occasions while denying any substrate of mind-independent qualities for thought to mirror — the bifurcation of nature is refused at the root. Bergson builds an account of duration accessed from within lived time rather than read off a clock. The combination is construction plus anti-representation: a positive system whose contents are relational and processual all the way down, with nothing standing outside the relations to be copied.
Radical empiricism and the constructive pragmatists — building from experience
The constructive wing of pragmatism builds a positive metaphysics out of experience while keeping the anti-representational result that the deflationary reading of pragmatism is better known for. James’s radical empiricism makes “pure experience” the primal stuff and holds that relations are themselves experienced — a metaphysics, not a dissolution of one, and one in which knowing is a relation within experience rather than a copy of an outside. Dewey’s Experience and Nature develops a naturalistic metaphysics of experience-as-transaction, anti-spectator throughout. Peirce built an evolutionary cosmology whose categories are semiotic and processual. The combination is construction plus deflation’s anti-representationalism, with experience as the ground built from.
The constructive reach in phenomenology
Phenomenology mostly relocates the questions rather than building — but not always. Merleau-Ponty’s late work turns disclosure toward a positive ontology: The Visible and the Invisible reaches for an “indirect ontology” of the flesh, a single sensible fabric in which perceiver and perceived are folded together. Here the disclosive starting point — the world as given to an embodied subject — is pressed past description toward an account of what there is. The combination is disclosure carried toward construction, the move the pure disclosive stance declines to make.
Enactivism — the thoroughgoing modern combination
Enactivism holds all three of the building-side turns together. It builds a positive account — living systems as self-producing (autopoiesis) and cognition as sense-making — grounded in lived experience and the disciplined study of it (Varela’s neurophenomenology, with Maturana and Evan Thompson), with anti-representationalism as its founding polemic against the computational theory of mind. Construction, disclosure, and the refusal of the mirror are carried together rather than traded off — the most fully worked combination in the contemporary field.
The Kyoto School — construction from prior-to-subject experience
Across the line the beyond-the-Western-frame page draws, the Kyoto School straddles in its own register. Nishida builds a systematic metaphysics — the logic of basho (place), resolving into absolute nothingness — from pure experience, the field prior to the split of subject and object. The combination is construction plus disclosure, reached through categories the European tradition does not share, which is why it sits at once on this page and at the edge of the non-Western one.
Where these positions stop
Combining stances buys reach at the cost of a standing instability, and it is the same instability across the family. Once the outside standpoint is refused — once knowing is denied any mirror, or relocated into the subject’s disclosure — the ground these positions build from comes into question. “Pure experience,” “the flesh,” “sense-making,” “the relational” are each offered as the bedrock the positive account rests on; but a stance that has disavowed any privileged access to how things really are owes an account of why its bedrock is not itself a posited foundation, smuggled back in under another name. The constructive pragmatists were pressed on whether “experience” does the work asked of it; process philosophy carries an ordering principle (Whitehead’s God) to supply what the relations alone do not; enactivism is asked whether sense-making can be specified without quietly reintroducing the represented world it rejects. The recurring difficulty is not that these positions fail, but that holding construction together with disclosure or deflation leaves them owing a justification for the ground they stand on — the very thing the refused standpoint was meant to do without.