Applications of CRF « | Epistemological Commitments | » Closing Reflections

CRF does not claim access to metaphysical truth. Instead, it offers a model for understanding how knowledge emerges within recursive, interpretive systems.

This section outlines the framework’s stance on reality, justification, and the limits of knowing.

CRF rejects the notion that reality can be directly apprehended in an unmediated, objective form. All perception is filtered through lenses: cognitive, cultural, emotional, and ideological.

• There is no “view from nowhere”,
• Even scientific observation is theory-laden and context-bound,
• Perception and interpretation are inseparable.

This is not relativism—it is structural humility. CRF does not deny reality; it denies that any single lens can fully capture it.

Instead of appealing to objectivity, CRF introduces cross-subjective justification:

• A belief is more epistemically stable when it coheres across diverse interpretive systems,
• Shared constraints—bodily needs, emotional responses, environmental pressures—anchor lenses to overlapping experiences,
• Claims that survive recursive reflection and intersubjective scrutiny are treated as robust, though contingent.

This approach values recursive coherence over metaphysical certainty.

CRF affirms the value of scientific inquiry as a model of structured recursive observation. It sees science as:

• A loop-refining system that builds models with high predictive and intersubjective validity,
• A methodology that reduces lens distortion through peer feedback and replication,
• A language for developing cross-subjective frameworks of coherence.

Science does not access “reality-in-itself,” but it builds increasingly reliable interpretive scaffolds.

CRF recognizes that knowledge has recursive boundaries:

• Every epistemic loop depends on prior assumptions and beliefs,
• All interpretation is embedded in systems of meaning that evolve over time,
• Truth is not a fixed endpoint but a moving horizon, an emergent property of recursively stabilized interpretation.

This stance is both skeptical and constructive. It places meaning-making within systems rather than above them.

CRF is not a truth-claiming system—it is a map of how truth is constructed, justified, and negotiated within perceptual and identity loops. It embraces:

• Humility in knowing,
• Coherence across perspectives,
• Recursivity as the engine of meaning.

Within CRF, epistemology is not a ladder to truth. It is a spiral of understanding, ever-evolving through conscious engagement with perception and identity.