The preceding essay 25 arrived at three propositions:
Reality is real.
What is real is relational.
Relational reality is generative.
Together they gave a name to the philosophical orientation that had gradually emerged through this inquiry:
Generative Relational Realism.
But a name is not yet a philosophy.
Nor does placing three concepts beside one another demonstrate that they belong together.
The more difficult question now begins.
What happens when realism, relationality, and generativity are allowed to modify one another?
This question matters because the three terms cannot simply remain independent commitments.
A realism that becomes genuinely relational can no longer assume that reality consists fundamentally of self-sufficient entities whose relations are secondary to their existence.
A relational philosophy that becomes genuinely realist must resist reducing reality to human interpretation, discourse, perception, or conceptual construction.
And a relational realism that becomes genuinely generative must account not only for how realities are constituted, but for how their achievements may become consequential within the conditions of further becoming.
GRR therefore cannot be constructed by addition:
Realism + Relationality + Generativity = GRR
Its philosophical significance, if it has one, must arise from their integration.
This brings us back to the two inquiries from which GRR emerged.
Two Inquiries, One Reality
Embodied Relational Reality (ERR) developed as an ontological inquiry.
It asked:
What kind of reality is this?
Its answer increasingly centered upon relation, coherence, embodiment, persistence, differentiation, and participation. Reality appeared not as an aggregate of self-contained substances but as differentiated relational realities whose identities and continuities become possible through organized relational constitution.
Open Relational Process Metaphysics of Becoming (ORPMOB) asked a different question:
How does such a reality become?
Its language therefore emphasized becoming, inheritance, openness, responsiveness, possibility, novelty, recursive development, participation, and the alteration of conditions through time.
The distinction between the two remains important, even as the preceding essays revealed that neither inquiry could finally be understood in isolation. Their correspondence required an architecture.
What reality is affects how reality can become.
How reality becomes affects what kinds of realities can emerge, persist, and participate.
Ontology and metaphysics remain distinguishable. But they also correspond. And GRR begins within that correspondence.
From Correspondence to Architecture
This gives GRR a different task from either ERR or ORPMOB. GRR does not ask for another list of ontological primitives. Nor does it require another sequence describing the dynamics of becoming. Instead, it asks what philosophical orientation becomes possible when these discoveries are viewed together.
The question is architectural.
How do relation and becoming belong together?
How does coherence become embodied?
How does embodiment make persistence possible?
How do persistent realities participate within worlds beyond themselves?
How does participation alter relational conditions?
How do altered conditions become inheritance?
And how does inheritance enter the possibilities of further becoming?
When these questions are placed together, something important happens.
The familiar sequence begins to bend back upon itself:
Relation → Becoming → Coherence → Embodiment → Persistence → Participation
↪ Altered Conditions → Inheritance → Possibility → Further Becoming
What appeared initially as a grammar increasingly reveals itself as an architecture. And what makes the architecture philosophically significant is not simply the presence of its individual terms. It is their mutual dependence.
Relation without becoming would lack dynamism.
Becoming without inheritance would lack history.
Coherence without embodiment would lack effective form.
Persistence without participation would lack wider consequence.
Participation without altered conditions would lack generative depth.
Generativity without openness would collapse into predetermination.
GRR begins to emerge precisely through these correspondences.
GRR is a Philosophy - Not a Theory of Everything
But this widening architecture introduces a danger. Once a philosophical framework begins to show explanatory reach, there is a temptation to make it explain everything.
GRR must resist that temptation.
GRR is not a substitute for specialized inquiry, nor should it predetermine later questions of consciousness, meaning, ethics, theology, or civilization. Those inquiries possess their own evidence, methods, and disputes.
GRR's task is more foundational:
It asks what broad philosophical orientation toward reality becomes possible if reality is understood as real, relational, open, historically consequential, and generative.
That orientation may illuminate other inquiries and expose assumptions requiring reconsideration.
But it must remain accountable to the realities those inquiries investigate.
This is why GRR must remain a provisional philosophy of reality rather than a completed system imposed upon reality.
The Question Before Us
Essay 25 established the meaning of the name.
Essay 26 begins somewhere more demanding.
Can the commitments named by GRR actually form a coherent philosophy?
That requires us to examine its architecture, identify what it positively affirms, establish what it does not claim, and determine the limits of its philosophical reach.
Only then can GRR enter serious conversation with other philosophies.
And only then can we ask the still more difficult question reserved for the essays ahead:
Is this architecture genuinely distinctive - or are we simply redescribing philosophical territories others have already explored?
We need not answer that question yet.
First we must know what GRR itself is.
And so the inquiry moves from definition to architecture:
not another layer placed above ERR and ORPMOB,
but a philosophical orientation emerging from their correspondence.
That is where GRR II begins.
ERR and ORPMOB have already developed the principal vocabulary required for this inquiry: relation, becoming, coherence, embodiment, persistence, inheritance, embeddedness, possibility, and participation. There is little reason to rehearse those concepts again.
The question before us is different:
What becomes philosophically visible when these concepts are understood as interrelated expressions within one generative relational architecture?
The answer begins with a change in how the architecture itself is understood.
It is not fundamentally a sequence.
It is a recursive field of consequential relations.
From Sequence to Recursion
Earlier formulations often required sequences because philosophical development proceeds one concept at a time. Relation led toward coherence. Coherence toward embodiment. Embodiment toward persistence. Persistence toward participation. Such sequences remain useful as explanatory grammars. But reality does not necessarily proceed according to the order in which philosophy learns to describe it.
GRR therefore makes an important transition:
The grammar is sequential because human understanding proceeds epistemically.
But the architecture is constitutively recursive because relational reality itself behaves recursively.
Once a relational reality becomes sufficiently organized to participate, it does not simply complete a sequence. It reenters the relational field from which further becoming proceeds. Its activity may alter environments, relations, constraints, resources, inheritances, and possibilities. What has become therefore becomes part of the conditions within which subsequent realities become.
The architecture folds back upon itself:
Inheritance → Relational Becoming → Embodied Achievement → Participation
↪ Altered Conditions → Altered Possibilities → Further Becoming
This is not merely another description of process. It changes the philosophical status of what becomes:
An achieved reality may itself become a condition of reality's further becoming.
That proposition moves us beyond a grammar of becoming toward a philosophy of consequential becoming.
Participation as the Hinge
Participation therefore assumes greater significance within GRR than it possessed when considered simply as one term within an ontological or metaphysical sequence. Participation is the point at which an achieved relational reality becomes consequential beyond itself.
Participation is the hinge between what has become and what may become next.
This does not mean that every participant transforms its world dramatically. Most consequences are local, limited, transient, or absorbed within wider conditions.
But participation introduces efficacy. The participant is no longer merely the product of inherited relations. It becomes one of the relations subsequently inherited. This gives GRR a reciprocal architecture:
Worlds form participants.
Participants participate in forming worlds.
The asymmetry of scale remains important. A bacterium does not affect the planet in the same way a biosphere does; a person does not individually determine a civilization. Yet the principle remains: embedded realities may become consequential within the fields that sustain them. The architecture therefore refuses a simple division between background and participant.
What functions as environment from one perspective may itself consist of innumerable participants from another.
What functions as inheritance at one moment may be the accumulated consequence of earlier participation.
From Relational Constitution to Relational Consequence
Here GRR makes a significant philosophical move.
Relational ontology establishes:
Realities are constituted relationally.
Generative relational philosophy adds:
Relationally constituted realities may become constitutive of subsequent conditions.
The difference is small linguistically but substantial philosophically.
The first proposition concerns how realities become what they are.
The second concerns what realities may do once they have become.
Together they establish a two-directional movement:
relations constitute participants
↕
participants alter relations
This reciprocity gives GRR its generative architecture.
Reality is neither merely a field acting upon passive participants nor a collection of agents imposing themselves upon passive environments.
It consists of nested and interacting relational fields in which conditioning and consequence continually intersect.
What is constituted may itself become constitutive.
The conditioned may become conditioning.
The inherited may become inheritance.
The participant may become part of the world encountered by another participant.
That is more than process.
It is recursive relational efficacy.
The Emergence of Historical Depth
This architecture also explains why history matters metaphysically.
If relational achievements simply disappeared without consequence, the past would be merely what had ceased to exist.
But some achievements persist materially, structurally, biologically, ecologically, culturally, or causally within subsequent conditions.
The past therefore does not remain present unchanged.
It remains consequential through inheritance.
History is not the preservation of the past.
It is the continued efficacy of selected consequences of the past within the present.
And because present participants modify what will subsequently be inherited, history does not simply accumulate behind reality. It enters the conditions of reality's continuing becoming.
This gives GRR a distinctive temporal orientation:
the present is inherited but unfinished;
the future is conditioned but undetermined.
Between those two statements lies the space of generative becoming.
A Generative Relational Architecture
We can now describe GRR's architecture more economically.
It is not:
Relation → Becoming → Coherence → Embodiment → Persistence → Participation
as though reality climbed a metaphysical staircase.
Rather, those terms describe interrelated movements of recursive becoming:
Inherited relational conditions
↓
situated becoming
↓
relational achievements
↓
participation
↓
altered relational conditions
↪ further becoming
The architecture therefore has no absolute endpoint internal to the sequence. Participation returns reality to relation. Achievement returns to condition. Outcome becomes inheritance.
What has become enters what is becoming.
This may be the simplest expression of GRR's architecture.
What the Synthesis Adds
We can now answer the question with which this section began. What becomes visible when ERR and ORPMOB are understood together? Not another inventory of metaphysical concepts. But something more consequential:
Relational constitution is recursively generative.
Realities arise within relational conditions. Some become sufficiently coherent and embodied to participate. Their participation may alter those conditions. Altered conditions change what subsequent becoming inherits. And what subsequently becomes may repeat the movement under conditions that are no longer identical to those that preceded it.
GRR therefore describes reality as:
relationally constituted,
historically inherited,
participatively consequential,
and generatively open.
This is what the philosophical synthesis contributes.
ERR tells us something about the relational constitution of reality.
ORPMOB tells us something about the open becoming of relational reality.
GRR asks what follows when what becomes relationally can itself become consequential within further relational becoming.
The answer is not another level above ontology and metaphysics.
It is a philosophical orientation toward the reality they jointly disclose.
And now, for the first time, we are in a position to move beyond describing the architecture and ask what GRR actually commits us to saying about reality.
What does Generative Relational Realism affirm?
A philosophy eventually must become willing to affirm something about reality. GRR has arrived at that point. Its task here is not to rehearse relation, becoming, coherence, embodiment, persistence, participation, and generativity. Those foundations have been established. The question is what follows from them:
What can GRR now affirm about reality?
Reality Is Unfinished
GRR adds that reality cannot be adequately understood merely as an inventory of what presently exists. Every present reality carries histories from which it has become and participates within conditions from which further realities may emerge.
Reality is not merely what is.
Reality includes the conditions through which what is may become otherwise.
This does not make every imaginable possibility real. Possibilities remain situated within actual relations, capacities, constraints, and histories. But neither can reality be reduced to the presently actual.
Reality is unfinished.
Not unfinished because it is deficient - but because further becoming remains possible.
Difference Is a Relational Achievement
Constitutive relation does not dissolve individuality. A reality may acquire sufficient coherence, embodiment, continuity, and boundary to become distinguishable within the relations through which it arose without becoming independent of them.
GRR therefore rejects the choice between isolated individuality and relational dissolution.
Relation does not erase difference.
Relation makes differentiated existence possible.
Individuality becomes neither primordial isolation nor illusion.
It becomes a relational achievement.
Participants Become Consequential
Once differentiated realities participate within wider relational fields, they cease to be merely products of inherited conditions. They may themselves become consequential.
Worlds form participants.
Participants participate in forming worlds.
Most participants inherit vastly more than they transform. Yet their participation may still contribute to what wider relations subsequently become:
What is constituted may itself become constitutive.
A participant may become part of the conditions encountered by another participant.
Relational constitution therefore becomes relational consequence.
The Future Is Conditioned but Open
If present realities inherit the consequences of prior becoming, the future cannot be disconnected from the past.
But if participation can alter conditions and possibilities, neither can the future be merely the inevitable unfolding of what already exists.
The future is conditioned by what has become without being exhausted by it.
History matters without becoming destiny.
Constraints matter without necessarily becoming determination.
Possibilities arise from actual conditions without being reducible to a single predetermined outcome.
Or, more simply:
The future has a history before it has an outcome.
This is one of GRR's central affirmations.
Inheritance and openness belong together.
Reality Produces Conditions for Further Reality
Here the preceding claims converge. Relational realities arise within inherited conditions, and some become participants whose consequences alter what subsequent becoming inherits. Reality therefore does not merely produce additional realities.
Reality produces conditions for further relational becoming.
More precisely:
Reality's products may become part of reality's productive conditions.
This is the deeper meaning of recursive generativity. What becomes does not merely follow from conditions. Some of what becomes joins the conditions. The result is a reality possessing genuine historical depth:
Reality continually inherits consequences of its own becoming.
This does not turn Reality into a cosmic agent. The inheritance occurs through the relational worlds and participants in which previous consequences remain effective.
A Reality Capable of Becoming Otherwise
GRR can therefore make a relatively simple positive affirmation. Reality is neither finished nor relationally inert. Its differentiated realities emerge within inherited conditions, participate within wider worlds, and may contribute to the conditions of further becoming.
The result is neither complete determination nor unconstrained possibility.
It is:
continuity without closure,
difference without isolation,
inheritance without destiny or determination,
possibility without arbitrariness.
These converge upon perhaps the strongest affirmation of the section:
Reality is capable of becoming otherwise because what it has become matters to what it may become.
The sentence holds together both sides of GRR.
What has become matters: reality possesses inheritance, continuity, constraint, and history.
What may become remains open: inheritance does not completely prescribe its future realization.
That is the positive philosophical orientation emerging from GRR.
But affirmation requires restraint.
Relation does not establish harmony. Coherence does not establish goodness. Generativity does not establish progress. Openness does not establish unlimited possibility. Participation does not establish consciousness. And relational philosophy does not establish theology.
Those boundaries do not weaken GRR.
They determine what it can responsibly claim.
The next question therefore follows naturally:
What does Generative Relational Realism not affirm?
A philosophy is defined partly by what it refuses to claim.
This is especially important for GRR because words such as relation, coherence, openness, and generativity easily invite conclusions stronger than the architecture warrants. If GRR is to remain a philosophy of correspondence rather than speculation, several boundaries should be made explicit.
Relation Does Not Mean Harmony
To say that reality is relational is not to say that its relations are harmonious.
Relations may cooperate, compete, sustain, exploit, nurture, constrain, disrupt, or destroy. Predation is relational. Disease is relational. Ecological collapse is relational. Human violence occurs relationally.
Relation describes constitution and participation.
It does not guarantee harmony.
This distinction prevents relational philosophy from becoming an ontology of sentimental interconnectedness.
Reality may be relational while its relations remain profoundly conflicted.
Coherence Does Not Mean Goodness
The same restraint applies to coherence.
Coherence describes an achieved organization capable of some degree of persistence. But highly coherent systems may be destructive to the wider worlds within which they participate.
A cancer possesses organization. So may an authoritarian institution. So may an exploitative economy. Their coherence does not make them good.
Coherence describes relational achievement, not moral value.
Questions of goodness require another level of inquiry. GRR may eventually help orient ethics, but it cannot derive ought merely from what coheres.
Generativity Does Not Mean Progress
Generativity must not be confused with progress. What becomes may alter the conditions of further becoming without reality thereby progressing toward richer, better, or more complex forms.
Generativity may enlarge possibilities. It may also diminish them. It may produce greater complexity or radical simplification, flourishing or extinction, resilience or collapse.
Generativity means consequential becoming, not inevitable improvement.
Reality can become otherwise without necessarily becoming better.
Openness Does Not Mean Anything Is Possible
An open future is not an unconstrained future.
Every becoming occurs within inherited conditions. Physical structures, biological capacities, environmental circumstances, historical inheritances, and prior relational achievements constrain what can subsequently occur. Openness therefore exists within conditions.
The future is not predetermined.
Neither is it unlimited.
GRR affirms situated possibility rather than boundless possibility. This is precisely why inheritance matters: the future remains open, but it does not begin again from nothing.
Participation Does Not Mean Consciousness
A star participates gravitationally within a galaxy. A plant participates within an ecosystem. A bacterium participates within its environment.
Nothing in the concept of participation alone establishes consciousness, intentionality, experience, or agency in the richer senses associated with animals and persons.
Participation requires relational efficacy.
It does not by itself require consciousness.
Questions of experience and consciousness therefore remain open for later investigation rather than being smuggled into the metaphysics beforehand.
Relational Philosophy Does Not Establish Theology
GRR may carry significant theological implications without itself becoming theology. If God is real, and reality is constitutively relational, then God cannot simply be exempted from relationality.
If God is real, God is relational.
This does not prove God's existence or determine the fuller character of divine relationality. Nor does generativity by itself establish divine creativity, openness establish divine action, or direction establish providence. Those conclusions require theological interpretation.
However, GRR may nevertheless place philosophical constraints upon theology:
Any God understood as real must correspond with the relational character of reality.
Thus GRR neither proves God nor prescribes a theology. It establishes a philosophical framework within which theological claims may eventually be examined.
Relational philosophy may open toward relational theology without prematurely becoming it.
Boundaries as Philosophical Strength
These distinctions do not qualify the relational character of reality. They discipline what may legitimately be inferred from it.
The universality of relation does not justify the universality of our conclusions.
That distinction is essential to a philosophy committed to correspondence rather than closure.
The next question therefore concerns GRR itself:
What does it mean for Generative Relational Realism to remain a provisional philosophy of reality?
A philosophy accountable to reality must remain capable of being changed by reality.
This is what provisional means within GRR.
It does not mean tentative in the sense that nothing can be affirmed. Nor does it mean that every interpretation is equally adequate. GRR makes definite claims: reality is real, relation is constitutive, becoming is consequential, inheritance conditions possibility, and the future remains open.
But none of these claims becomes immune to further inquiry merely because it now belongs to a philosophical system.
Provisionality is not uncertainty about reality.
It is humility about our descriptions of reality.
Correspondence Rather Than Possession
GRR's realism establishes an important asymmetry between reality and philosophy.
Reality does not answer to GRR.
GRR answers to reality.
Our concepts, categories, and architectures are philosophical constructions intended to correspond as adequately as possible with realities that exist independently of those constructions.
This means philosophy never possesses its subject completely.
Correspondence seeks adequacy without claiming exhaustive possession.
A philosophical account may correspond well with some features of reality and poorly with others. New evidence, other disciplines, or competing philosophies may expose assumptions and distinctions requiring revision.
Such encounters need not threaten the philosophy.
They are how an open philosophy learns.
Revision as Philosophical Method
Revision is sometimes what correspondence requires.
GRR should expect the same of its future.
Its concepts may be refined.
Some distinctions may prove unnecessary.
Others may become indispensable.
Scientific developments may challenge its assumptions. Philosophical criticism may expose inconsistencies. Later inquiry may show that something presently considered fundamental is better understood as derivative—or that something treated as secondary deserves greater importance.
A provisional philosophy must permit such revision without imagining that every revision constitutes failure.
Participatory Correspondence
There is, however, another consequence. Human beings do not investigate reality from outside it. We are among the relational realities we attempt to understand. Our bodies, languages, concepts, instruments, communities, histories, and traditions all participate in how inquiry becomes possible.
Knowing therefore occurs within the reality being known. Knowing within reality neither creates that reality nor reduces it to subjectivity. It means that correspondence itself is relational.
We encounter reality as participants within reality.
Our knowledge is consequently neither a detached mirror of the world nor an arbitrary construction imposed upon it.
It is an achievement arising through interaction between knowers and what they seek to know.
GRR may therefore describe its epistemic posture as participatory correspondence:
Reality exceeds us.
We participate within it.
Our understanding seeks correspondence with what our participation discloses.
The formulation preserves realism while acknowledging the situated character of knowing.
A Philosophy Capable of Becoming
Inquiry inherits.
Inquiry interprets.
Inquiry revises.
What inquiry achieves becomes inheritance for further inquiry.
GRR should not be exempt from its own philosophy of becoming. A generative relational philosophy must itself remain capable of relational development. Some conclusions may prove remarkably durable, but their durability should arise from sustained correspondence rather than protection from criticism.
GRR remains open not because it has nothing to say, but because reality may always have more to say than GRR has yet understood.
This is the difference between correspondence and closure. GRR can make and defend substantive claims without declaring reality philosophically finished.
And that brings us to a practical question.
If GRR is a philosophy of reality rather than a theory of everything, what work properly belongs to it - and what work must be left to other forms of inquiry?
That question defines the scope of the final section.
GRR therefore distinguishes philosophical orientation from explanatory jurisdiction.
GRR may orient an inquiry without determining its conclusions.
But philosophical orientation does not supply empirical conclusions.
GRR cannot tell physics what particles exist, biology how life originated, consciousness studies where consciousness begins, ethics what should be done in every circumstance, or theology whether God exists.
Those questions require forms of inquiry appropriate to their subjects.
The universality of relation invites investigation rather than replacing it.
Correspondence Without Preemption
GRR nevertheless has a critical philosophical role. It can ask whether assumptions made within other inquiries correspond with the relational reality GRR describes. Claims based upon self-sufficient entities, historically disconnected possibilities, or wholly nonrelational realities would therefore require examination.
Such tensions do not allow philosophy to overrule another discipline. They identify assumptions requiring further inquiry.
GRR can test philosophical correspondence without claiming that philosophy alone resolves every question.
And this relationship runs in both directions.
If science, history, consciousness studies, theology, or another inquiry discloses realities that GRR cannot adequately accommodate, GRR must reconsider its own formulations.
Thus:
Philosophy orients inquiry.
Inquiry encounters reality.
Reality may require philosophy to change.
GRR therefore neither stands above other inquiries nor dissolves into them.
Different disciplines possess different questions, methods, and forms of evidence while remaining inquiries into one reality.
Plurality of inquiry does not require a plurality of unrelated realities.
GRR may consequently serve as a philosophical meeting place where different inquiries can test their assumptions and correspondences without being reduced to one another.
Knowing Its Work
It can orient inquiry, examine assumptions, test correspondence, and provide philosophical coherence across differing fields.
It cannot substitute philosophical architecture for investigation.
GRR offers orientation without preemption, coherence without reduction, and correspondence without closure.
And because correspondence is reciprocal, what later inquiries discover may return to challenge or revise GRR itself.
The boundary of GRR is therefore not a wall.
It is a threshold.
GRR opens toward further inquiry because relational reality can never be exhausted by the philosophy that describes it.
That is not where its wider work ends.
It is where that work begins.
Generative Relational Realism began as a synthesis of relational ontology and relational metaphysics. It now points toward something larger: a philosophical orientation arising from their correspondence.
The significance of GRR lies not in adding another system to philosophy, but in gathering consequences of relational reality that increasingly belong together.
What is constituted may itself become constitutive.
What becomes may enter the conditions of further becoming.
Reality therefore possesses history without being imprisoned by history. Its participants inherit worlds they did not create, yet through participation may alter what subsequent becoming inherits.
The future consequently begins neither from nothing nor from an already completed script.
The future has a history before it has an outcome.
This is where the generative character of relational reality becomes most consequential.
Reality's achievements may become part of reality's subsequent conditions. What has become matters precisely because reality remains capable of becoming otherwise.
GRR therefore affirms neither predetermined progress nor unrestricted possibility. It describes a reality in which inheritance and openness continually meet:
conditioned but not closed,
historical but unfinished,
relational throughout,
and generative in its becoming.
Yet GRR must remain subject to the same openness it describes.
Its concepts are not reality. They are philosophical attempts to correspond with reality. Where inquiry discloses something they cannot adequately explain, they must change.
Philosophy orients inquiry.
Inquiry encounters reality.
Reality may require philosophy to change.
Generative Relational Realism therefore ends where an open philosophy should end - not with possession, but with further inquiry.
Reality remains greater than its descriptions.
And philosophy remains responsible to the reality it seeks to understand.
Cobb, John B., Jr. A Christian Natural Theology: Based on the Thought of Alfred North Whitehead. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965.
Rescher, Nicholas. Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996.
———. Process Philosophy: A Survey of Basic Issues. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Adventures of Ideas. New York: Macmillan, 1933.
———. Modes of Thought. New York: Macmillan, 1938.
———. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Corrected ed. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Free Press, 1978.
———. Science and the Modern World. New York: Macmillan, 1925.
Barad, Karen. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007.
Bhaskar, Roy. A Realist Theory of Science. 2nd ed. Brighton: Harvester Press, 1978.
Donati, Pierpaolo. Relational Sociology: A New Paradigm for the Social Sciences. London: Routledge, 2011.
Emirbayer, Mustafa. “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 2 (1997): 281–317.
Ladyman, James, and Don Ross, with David Spurrett and John Collier. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Deacon, Terrence W. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. New York: W. W. Norton, 2012.
Juarrero, Alicia. Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
———. Context Changes Everything: How Constraints Create Coherence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2023.
Kauffman, Stuart A. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Meadows, Donella H. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Edited by Diana Wright. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008.
Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco J. Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1980.
———. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Rev. ed. Boston: Shambhala, 1992.
Varela, Francisco J., Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.
Capra, Fritjof, and Pier Luigi Luisi. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Kauffman, Stuart A. Investigations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Morin, Edgar. On Complexity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2008.
Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam Books, 1984.
