Does Diorthics Collapse into Relativism?

Why Ontological Pluriformity Does Not Destroy Truth, Objectivity, or Science

One of the most serious and reasonable objections to Diorthics and its central claim—Ontological Pluriformity—goes like this:

“If reality is plural at the deepest level, doesn’t that mean everything is just perspective?
If no single framework has ultimate authority, isn’t this just relativism by another name?
And if that’s true… how can physics or objective truth be real at all?”

This criticism matters.
It is not superficial—it aims at the heart of the philosophy.

So let’s face it directly.

This article will show:

Why this concern is valid.
Why Diorthics does not lead to relativism.
How it actually protects objectivity and science more rigorously than scientism does.
Why “pluralism” in Diorthics is not chaos, but structured reality.

Let’s begin where the worry feels strongest.

1. The Fear Behind the Criticism

When people hear “pluralism,” they often hear:

“There’s no truth.”
“Everyone has their own reality.”
“Science is just another opinion.”
“Anything goes.”

That’s relativism—and relativism does destroy the possibility of genuine knowledge.

If Diorthics implied that, it would be intellectually useless.

So the first key move is this:

Diorthics is not relativism.
It is a structured, rigorous pluralism with real standards of truth.

What does that mean?

To see it, we have to clear up a common false choice.

2. The False Binary: Absolutism vs. Relativism

Most of philosophy and culture has been trapped in a simple binary:

Option	Claim	Problem
Absolutism / Monism	One framework has the final truth (science, God, reason, mind, awareness…)	Leads to dogma; collapses when contradictions appear.
Relativism	No framework has any real truth; all views are equal	Leads to nihilism; destroys meaning and knowledge.

Both positions are flawed.

We need a third option—something that preserves real truth without collapsing everything into one frame.

That’s where Diorthics comes in.

3. Diorthics’ Key Insight: Frames of Intelligibility

Diorthics begins with two observations:

Axiom 0 — Presentation:

Whatever we can talk about, deny, or test already appears in some way.

Axiom 1 — Contextuality:

Every appearance is intelligible only within a structured context (a frame).

A frame is not a mere “opinion.”
It is a formal structure with:

Tokens (what can be distinguished),
Rules (how they can combine or interact),
Adjudicator (how success or truth is decided),
Authentication (verdict: accept, reject, suspend).

Science has a frame.
Mathematics has a frame.
Ethics, law, theology, phenomenology, art—each has its own structural frame.

These frames are real. They are how meaning becomes coherent.

4. Why Diorthics Is Not Relativism

Relativism says:

“No framework has authority. There is no real standard. All perspectives are equal.”

Diorthics says the opposite:

Each frame has internal standards of truth.
Those standards are real and binding within that frame.
Frames are not interchangeable.
Frames can be more or less coherent.
Frames can fail (collapse under contradiction).
Frames must be viable (Axiom 4)—able to handle feedback and adjust.

Therefore, not all frameworks are equal.
Science is more reliable at predicting physical events than mythology.
Mathematics is more precise in proving theorems than poetry.

This is not relativism.
This is pluralistic realism.

Truth still exists—but it is frame-indexed.

5. So What About Physics?

Isn’t there one physical reality?

Yes. Physical reality is real.

Diorthics fully affirms this.

Physics is not a “mere perspective.”
Physics is one of the most powerful, precise, and stable frames in existence.

Why?

Because the scientific frame has:

Highly constrained tokens (mass, charge, spin),
Rigorous mathematical rules,
A brutally honest adjudicator (experiment),
A relentless repair mechanism (peer review, anomaly-driven change),
Massive viability (it works across observers, cultures, technologies).

Physical laws are real.
They are not arbitrary. They are not statistical illusions. They are not “constructed by culture.”

But—and this is crucial—they are real within the physical frame of intelligibility.

Physics tells us how physical presentation behaves.
It does not tell us how moral obligation behaves.
Or how logical necessity behaves.
Or how conscious experience appears.
Or how beauty moves us.
Or how meaning emerges in life.

Physics is the master of the physical.
It is not the master of everything.

That is not a weakness—it is its strength.

6. Why Scientism (not science) is the real problem

Scientism = the belief that science alone describes all of reality.

The issue?

“Only scientifically testable statements are meaningful.”

That statement is itself not scientifically testable.

It is a philosophical claim smuggled in as fact.

Scientism violates its own rule and collapses under self-reference.

Worse:
When science claims to judge all truth, it uses its adjudicator outside its frame—violating the Separation Requirement (Axiom 3), which says adjudicators must not apply to themselves.

Scientism turns science into dogma.

Diorthics protects science from this collapse.

It says:

Let science rule the physical.
Let other frames rule their domains.
Maintain boundaries to preserve coherence.

This is not anti-science.
It is the structural condition under which science remains rational, open, and self-correcting.

7. The Deepest Point:

Plurality does not destroy truth—plurality structures truth.

Truth is not a single spotlight from nowhere.
Truth is the successful authentication of presentation within a viable frame.

Different aspects of reality require different frames.

Domain of Reality	Frame Needed
Physical processes	Science
Logical necessity	Mathematics / Logic
Moral value	Ethics
Lived experience	Phenomenology
Meaning, narrative	Hermeneutics
Sacred significance	Theology
Beauty / resonance	Aesthetics

None of these are “just opinions.”
They each have real adjudicators.

Reality is not flat.
Reality is structurally multidimensional.

Ontological Pluriformity =
Reality is the dynamic ecology of these irreducible modes of intelligibility.

8. So where does this leave us?

Diorthics rejects two extremes:

❌ Not Absolutism (one totalizing frame)
❌ Not Relativism (no real truth)

✅ Instead: Pluralistic Realism

Multiple real frames
Each with real standards
Each limited in scope
None can totalize being
All can interact via interfaces
Philosophy’s job = maintain coherence between them

9. Final Formulation (Print-worthy clarity)

Relativism says:
Nothing is truly real.

Scientism says:
Only one kind of reality is truly real.

Diorthics says:
Reality is too rich to appear in only one way—
and each way of appearing has its own real standards of truth.

Plurality is not how truth dies.
Plurality is how truth has structure.

10. Why this matters

Diorthics does not weaken science.
It secures the integrity of science.

It does not deny objective truth.
It shows how objective truth functions contextually—and why that is the only non-dogmatic way it can function.

It does not say “anything goes.”
It says only that which survives adjudication in a viable frame goes.

And it does not destroy reality.
It reveals the architecture by which reality becomes intelligible at all.

**Ontological Pluriformity is not relativism.

It is the framework that finally dissolves the false choice between absolutism and nihilism.**

Pluralism is not a failure of knowledge.
Pluralism is how being shows itself.

And that changes everything.