Relational Address Realism : Persons as Phenomena

Why personal knowledge is beyond third-person control.

Abstract

This paper develops Relational Address Realism, an account of personal knowledge that rejects the idea that empirical evidence must always take the form of third-person observation and experimental control. Scientific methods are essential for studying objects, mechanisms, and repeatable causal patterns. Yet persons are also known through address, response, testimony, trust, resistance, continuity, and shared history. I argue that the Cartesian cogito establishes that a thinker exists but fails to establish that the thinker is isolated, self-forming, or self-explanatory. The human self is intelligible through reflexive, embodied, linguistic, and interpersonal relations. I then propose standards for distinguishing genuine personal address from projection, wish fulfillment, manipulation, or delusion. Finally, I consider a theological implication: if God is personal, divine self-disclosure may be meaningful, public in its consequences, and testable in lived response without becoming an object that can be forced to appear by experimental procedure.

1. The Problem of Control

As C.S. Lewis rightly observed in The Abolition of Man, modern science has given humanity remarkable power. We can measure distant galaxies, identify diseases, predict eclipses, and test medicines. These achievements depend on methods that isolate variables, measure results, compare observations, and repeat experiments between unconnected persons. Such methods are useful because they are designed to limit personal bias and allow others to check the results, although they are far from absolute in altruism and ethical standards.

But a problem begins when this method is treated as the only way of knowing anything real. This is a problem distinct from the acknowledged absence of evidence is not evidence of absence cautionary principle.

If something cannot be isolated, measured, manipulated, and made to produce the same result on command, some people assume it is not real knowledge. At best, they may call it a feeling. At worst, they may call it irrational.

This assumption is too strong. I may know that my wife loves me. That knowledge is rational even if I cannot place her love in a laboratory, control every condition, and force it to appear on demand. I know it through a long history of speech, action, sacrifice, faithfulness, correction, memory, and shared life. This knowledge is not less empirical than third-person observation because it is empirically grounded in relational history.

The central question of this paper is therefore:

What non-arbitrary, empirically responsible standards allow us to know persons as persons without reducing them to objects of third-person observational control?

Relational Address Realism argues that personal realities can be known through evidence appropriate to persons. This does not mean abandoning reason or evidence. It means recognizing that a free person is not the same kind of reality as a chemical reaction or a machine.

2. Three Modes of Knowing

A useful way to begin is by distinguishing three modes of inquiry.

First-person inquiry concerns what is directly occurring to me: pain, memory, conviction, fear, conscience, desire, or thought. If I am in pain, I have a kind of access to that experience that another person does not have in the exact same way.

Second-person inquiry concerns an encounter between persons. It includes testimony, promise, command, trust, friendship, forgiveness, responsibility, and love. It asks not merely, “What is this object?” but, “Who is addressing me, and can this person be trusted?” It's worth noting that—although not every moment of awareness is itself second-personal—human epistemology is, nonetheless, deeply dependent on second-person relations. We learn language, inherit concepts, receive testimony, submit claims to correction, read papers, and participate in communities of inquiry. Even third-person science depends on persons who report observations, preserve methods, train successors, criticize conclusions, and trust one another provisionally.

Third-person inquiry concerns objects, systems, mechanisms, and population-level patterns. It asks, “What happens under these conditions?” It aims for public observation, prediction, measurement, and repeatability.

None of these modes is worthless. Each has a proper role. The mistake I am highlighting is to treat third-person inquiry as the only valid form of knowledge.

Third-person observational control is especially powerful when studying mechanisms. An honest scientist can test a medication, measure its effects, compare it with a placebo, and invite other researchers to repeat the study. But this approach cannot compel a free person to forgive, reveal a hidden grief, make a promise, or love. And, tellingly, it depends as much on the ethic of the scientist as it does on his intellectual brilliance. A person may be observed from the outside, but personhood is not exhausted by outside observation. And education may enhance natural intelligence, but it cannot make a person moral.

This does not make personal knowledge private or beyond criticism. It simply means that personal knowledge must be tested by standards appropriate to personal realities.

3. The Cogito and Its Limit

Descartes famously begins with the cogito: “I think, therefore I am.” His insight is powerful. If I am doubting, thinking, or being deceived, then there must be a thinker who doubts, thinks, or is deceived. I cannot coherently think, “I do not exist,” without proving, in the act of thinking, that I exist as the one doing the thinking. The ontological requirement for a thinker undoes the coherence of the content of the thought.
This is not Russell’s set paradox. It is a performative certainty. The content of the thought—“I do not exist”—conflicts with the condition required for thinking it at all.

The cogito therefore establishes something real: a thinker exists. Yet it establishes somewhat less than later philosophy sometimes assumes. It does not establish that the thinker is self-created, self-explanatory, or fully formed apart from relationship. It does not prove that the thinker invented language, supplied the meaning of “I,” or developed self-awareness without a body, a history, a community, or other persons.

Even the cogito has a relational structure. It involves reflexivity: the self is related to its own act of thinking, and the thinker becomes intelligible to itself in that act. This need not mean a separate, second-order act of metacognition; thought is already self-manifesting as it occurs. The cogito does not prove that another person exists, much less prove God. But it does show that the first certainty is not the certainty of a completely relationless self.

Descartes' cogito is best understood as marking the moment a thinker becomes aware of an indubitable certainty—call this a phenomenon of the awareness of indubitability—rather than as marking the actual starting point of knowledge itself. The starting point of knowledge is necessarily prior to any awareness of it. To treat the cogito as though it were that earlier starting point is to claim more for indubitability than it is entitled to.

A more careful statement is: I think, therefore I am; but I can say “I” only because I have already been addressed.

The second clause is not part of Descartes’ formal argument. It is a claim about the actual human person capable of speaking, reasoning, and reflecting. Human beings are embodied, language-bearing, historical, and social. We learn names, words, norms, stories, and forms of self-understanding from others. Developmental thinkers such as Lev Vygotsky and George Herbert Mead argue that inward reflection develops through social interaction and internalized dialogue. 

Empirical research in developmental psychology supplies an independent confirmation of the claim that reflective selfhood is relationally received rather than self-originating.
Across studied human populations, robust person-recognition precedes stable self-recognition. Newborns discriminate their mother’s voice, smell, and face within hours or days of birth (DeCasper & Fifer, 1980). By three to four months, infants display differentiated emotional responses: rhythmic soothing with mothers, playful arousal with fathers (Yogman, 1982; Lamb & Lewis, 2010). Mirror self-recognition, by contrast, typically emerges only between fifteen and twenty-four months (Amsterdam, 1972; Lewis & Brooks-Gunn, 1979).
The first clear “Thou” therefore appears before any secure “I.” The infant does not first achieve an isolated center of consciousness and then enter into relation; the infant’s earliest intelligibility is already structured by address and response. This developmental sequence does not prove every metaphysical claim advanced in this paper, but it does render the Cartesian picture of a self-forming, relationless thinker empirically implausible as an account of how human selfhood actually arises.

The cogito gives immediate certainty that a thinker exists. It does not provide a complete account of what that thinker is, how that thinker became capable of thought, or what makes that thinker intelligible. The address is prior to thinking in the developmental and constitutive order, although I may reach the conclusion that I think before recognizing the relational conditions upon which my capacity for thought has been built. The cogito therefore answers an existential question—“Do I exist?”—without yet answering the ontological question of what kind of being this thinker is, or how such a thinker becomes possible. The order of discovery is independent from the order of formation and dependence.

4. Relationology and Priority

Relationology is the wider study of relation as a condition under which beings, meanings, and acts of knowing become intelligible. It does not claim that relation literally creates every kind of being. Relations may require relata—things that stand in relation. For this reason, Relationology should make a more modest claim.

First, relation has epistemic priority. Relations are prior in the order in which many realities become intelligible to us. A person’s character, love, trustworthiness, identity, or betrayal cannot be understood simply by listing isolated properties. These realities appear through the relations themselves.

Second, relation has constitutive priority for persons and many structured realities. A parent is not merely an individual with an added label. Parenthood is constituted by relation to a child. A promise, a friendship, a marriage, a teacher, a citizen, and a language speaker are all what they are partly through descriptive relations.

This does not mean that everything is merely relational or that no being exists apart from relation. It means that many important realities, especially personal realities, cannot be understood as isolated units that only later happen to interact.

Relational Address Realism therefore makes a focused claim: persons become intelligible through relations of address, response, recognition, responsibility, and shared life.

5. Knowing Address Responsibly

If personal knowledge cannot be reduced to laboratory control, an obvious question follows: how can we distinguish a genuine encounter from imagination, projection, or manipulation?

Relational Address Realism proposes several standards. None of which is a perfect proof by itself. Together, however, they provide a disciplined way to assess a claimed personal encounter.

Resistance. A genuine other should not simply echo my wishes, whether I express them or not. The other may disappoint, contradict, correct, annoy, or surprise me. If every supposed message from another person agrees perfectly with what I already want, I should suspect projection.

Constraint. A real relationship places limits on me. It may require truthfulness, patience, apology, responsibility, forgiveness, or change. A relation that never challenges me may be less an encounter than an internal echo.

Continuity. Personal knowledge develops across time. Claims about another person should be tested against a continuing pattern of speech, action, memory, and consequence. A single emotional experience may matter, but it should not bear the full weight of a major conclusion. Continuity adds an empirical repeatability to the process.

Intersubjective accountability. Personal knowledge is not always publicly repeatable in the laboratory sense, but it can still be accountable to others. Friends, communities, witnesses, historical records, and shared practices can challenge or confirm one’s interpretation.

Transformative fruit. The effects of a supposed relationship matter. Does it produce greater truthfulness, humility, responsibility, repair, courage, and recognition of others as persons? Or does it produce isolation, deception, pride, domination, and contempt? Transformation is not mere change, but measurable progressive moral improvement.

Alternative explanations. A responsible interpreter must consider other possibilities: trauma, social pressure, manipulation, coincidence, motivated reasoning, false memory, or wish fulfillment. The fact that an experience is meaningful does not automatically prove that one’s interpretation of it is correct.

These standards do not make personal knowledge less empirical. They make it more disciplined. They ask whether an alleged address has the marks of real otherness rather than merely reflecting the subject’s own desires.

6. Buber, Levinas, and Personal Reality

Martin Buber provides a major starting point for this project. In I and Thou, Buber distinguishes between I–It and I–Thou relations. In an I–It relation, I treat something as an object: measurable, useful, classifiable, or manageable. This is often necessary. We must treat many things as objects in order to study and use them.

But a Thou is not merely an object. A Thou is encountered as a person whose reality exceeds my categories and control. Buber’s point is that objectifying knowledge cannot exhaust personal reality. The moral claim may be stated this way: one may cross an ocean, but one may not cross another person—that is, one may encounter, influence, persuade, or even oppose another, but may not treat that person as territory to be possessed, mastered, or used.

Emmanuel Levinas deepens the challenge. For Levinas, the Other is not fully contained by my concepts or even by my experience of the Other. I may know much about someone without possessing who they are. The Other addresses me and places me under responsibility. This is why Levinas calls ethics “first philosophy.” Before I build a theory of another person, I am already confronted by the demand not to reduce, use, or harm that person.

Relational Address Realism agrees with Buber that persons cannot be reduced to objects and with Levinas that the Other rightly resists total possession. Its distinctive task is epistemological: to state how personal address can be responsibly recognized and tested without being reduced to third-person control.

One may cross an ocean, but one may not cross another person: persons may be encountered, not conquered.

7. The Theological Implication

The argument so far does not prove God. It argues that personal reality can be known in more than one empirical form.

The theological implication is conditional: If God is personal rather than an impersonal mechanism, divine self-disclosure may be personally knowable without becoming scientifically manipulable.

This does not mean that God’s hiddenness proves God exists. Most nonexistent things are also unavailable to scientific testing. Nor does it mean that proponents of religions may avoid criticism by calling every challenge an attempt to control God.

Instead, the claim is narrower. If God is a free personal agent, then one should not expect God to behave exactly like an impersonal force that responds whenever an investigator applies the correct procedure. A laboratory can test objects and mechanisms; it cannot compel personal self-disclosure.

God could still be publicly consequential. Claims about divine action may involve history, testimony, moral transformation, communal practices, answered prayer, moral experience, and rational reflection. These claims should be evaluated carefully even if they are evaluated personally. They should not be protected from criticism. But neither should they be dismissed merely because they are not reducible to a controlled experiment.

Faith, on this account, is not belief without evidence. It is a risk-bearing and accountable response to what a person takes to be divine address. Such faith may be mistaken, and therefore must remain open to correction, moral testing, and communal discernment. But it is not irrational simply because it is not the same as experimental science.

This also reopens the ontological question in a Trinitarian direction: can perfect divine being be conceived as existing apart from relation? Anselm’s argument concerns the greatest conceivable being; a relational extension asks whether perfect being can be wholly solitary. Christianity answers that ultimate reality is not an isolated divine self that later enters relation. God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: one divine being in three distinct persons. The Holy Spirit is not merely an impersonal relation between Father and Son, but a fully divine person whose eternal procession discloses that relation belongs to God’s life rather than being an accidental addition to it. Yet, as C. S. Lewis suggests in Mere Christianity, the Holy Spirit may also be understood as the eternally personal love and living communion of Father and Son. The Holy Spirit does what such a relation would do, precisely because he is a person capable of loving, not because he simply is that relation.

Relational Address Realism does not establish the Trinity. It makes intelligible why a Trinitarian account of God may offer a richer metaphysical picture than a picture of God as an originally solitary self.

8. Conclusion

Relational Address Realism does not reject science. It rejects the claim that scientific control is the only form of responsible knowledge.

The cogito establishes that a thinker exists, but it does not establish an isolated or self-explanatory self. The human person becomes intelligible through reflexive awareness, embodiment, language, history, and relationships of address. Persons are known not only by observation from a distance, but through testimony, response, resistance, continuity, responsibility, and shared life in community—κοινωνία (koinónia).

C. S. Lewis warned, in The Abolition of Man, that the human “conquest of Nature” could become the power of some people over others. The danger appears when control becomes the only standard of what is real. If persons count as real only when they can be isolated, measured, manipulated, and repeated, then persons eventually become material for management rather than partners in address.

The better conclusion is not that evidence is unnecessary. It is that persons require evidence appropriate to persons.

Persons may be empirically knowable without being experimentally capturable. To know a person as a person requires not less evidence, but evidence appropriate to address: response, resistance, continuity, testimony, accountability, and the consequences of shared life.

Other Considerations

The following matters belong to the broader Relationology project but should be, or have been, developed in separate papers or later sections rather than carrying the burden of this argument.

Cogito ergo Tu es and Agapōmai ergo eimi—developed at length in Deipsism (Jones 2026)—These formulas are valuable as theological and philosophical provocations. Yet this paper does not claim that the cogito directly proves a Thou or that being loved directly proves existence. Its more limited claim is that the developed, reflective self is not adequately understood as isolated. 

The Trinity and Anselm. A later project may ask whether maximal perfection requires relational fullness and whether an Anselmian account of God points toward plurality in God. Richard of St. Victor is an important historical interlocutor here. However, the argument from personal knowledge to the Trinity requires additional premises and should not be treated as automatic.

Indubitability and knowledge. The cogito is a strong example of performative certainty. Still, indubitability is not identical with knowledge, explanation, or metaphysical grounding. Wittgenstein’s discussion of “hinges” may help clarify why some certainties are conditions of doubt and inquiry rather than ordinary propositions established by evidence.
What is also an open enquiry is whether or not indubitability is itself doubtable.

Gratitude and dissatisfaction. Gratitude and dissatisfaction need not be opposites. Gratitude recognizes received good; dissatisfaction recognizes lack, injury, betrayal, or unrealized good. A person can be grateful for a spouse while dissatisfied with that same spouse, or grateful for life while refusing to call evil good. This may become a useful relationological account of moral perception applied by persons to both objects and other persons, or groups of each.

Ontological phenomenology. The proposed distinction between existential phenomenology and ontological phenomenology requires further work. A later paper could ask whether some realities differ not only in how they are experienced but also in their mode of possession, testing, achievement, or disclosure.

The void, the emperor, and the spoon. The aphorism “the void is not empty” is a useful warning against treating observational silence as proof of ontological emptiness. The “Emperor’s New Clothes” and The Matrix inversions—the emperor presumed naked is found to be clothed, the spoon is fount to exist—may serve well in literary or popular writing, but they should not substitute for the argument developed here.
Any field may have more ontology than merely field ontology.

References

Amsterdam, Beulah K. “Mirror Self-Image Reactions Before Age Two.” Developmental Psychobiology 5, no. 4 (1972): 297–305.

Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogion. Translated by M. J. Charlesworth. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979.

Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. 14 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936–1977.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. Translated by Neville Horton Smith. New York: Macmillan, 1955.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life Together. Translated by John W. Doberstein. New York: HarperOne, 1954.

Buber, Martin. I and Thou. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970.

DeCasper, Anthony J., and William P. Fifer. “Of Human Bonding: Newborns Prefer Their Mothers’ Voices.” Science 208, no. 4448 (1980): 1174–1176.

Descartes, René. Discourse on the Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by Donald A. Cress. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998.

Flew, Antony. “Theology and Falsification.” In New Essays in Philosophical Theology, edited by Antony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre, 96–99. London: SCM Press, 1955.

Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper & Row, 1962.

Jones, Alan R. The Subjective God: The Holiness-Purpose Connection. Independently published, 2015.

Jones, Alan R. “Cogito ergo Tu es.” Mesotopia. Accessed August 21, 2026. https://www.mesotopia.grouplands.com/cogito-ergo-tu-es.

Jones, Alan R. “Deipsism: The Rational Conclusion of Solipsism.” Mesotopia. Accessed August 21, 2026. https://www.mesotopia.grouplands.com/deipsism-the-rational-conclusion-of-solipsism.

Jones, Alan R. “Making an Omelet.” Mesotopia. Accessed August 21, 2026. https://www.mesotopia.grouplands.com/making-an-omelet.

Jones, Alan R. “Relationology.” Mesotopia. Accessed August 21, 2026. https://www.mesotopia.grouplands.com/relationology.

Jones, Alan R. “The Relational Proof: Why All Knowledge Is Inter-Personal.” Mesotopia. Accessed August 21, 2026. https://www.mesotopia.grouplands.com/latest/science-and-state/the-relational-proof-why-all-knowledge-is-inter-personal.

Kierkegaard, Søren. Philosophical Fragments. Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985.

Kierkegaard, Søren. Works of Love. Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. New York: HarperOne, 2009.

Levinas, Emmanuel. Otherwise than Being, or Beyond Essence. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1998.

Levinas, Emmanuel. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1969.

Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. New York: HarperOne, 2001.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperOne, 2001.

Lewis, C. S. Miracles. New York: HarperOne, 2001.

Lewis, Michael, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. Social Cognition and the Acquisition of Self. New York: Plenum Press, 1979.

Macmurray, John. The Self as Agent. London: Faber and Faber, 1957.

Macmurray, John. Persons in Relation. London: Faber and Faber, 1961.

Marcel, Gabriel. Being and Having. Translated by Katherine Farrer. London: Dacre Press, 1949.

Marcel, Gabriel. The Mystery of Being. 2 vols. Translated by G. S. Fraser. Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1951.

Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self, and Society. Edited by Charles W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. Translated by Donald A. Landes. London: Routledge, 2012.

Plantinga, Alvin. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Polanyi, Michael. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Richard of St. Victor. The Trinity. Translated by Ruben Angelici. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011.

Vygotsky, Lev S. Thought and Language. Translated and edited by Alex Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. On Certainty. Edited by G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright. Translated by Denis Paul and G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell, 1969.