Two Ontologies of Contextuality: Igor Prisyazhnyuk and Gilbert Simondon

The focus of the article is the question of the nature of contextuality in quantum phenomena. What underlies it: normative procedures of description dictated by rules and language, or is reality itself structured procedurally? At the core of Igor Prisyazhnuk's contextual quantum realism lies the distinction between the ideal and the real. Quantum uncertainty is interpreted by him as a situation where the rule has not yet been applied to the object, and the measurement context merely creates conditions in which the object can be identified. This allows for the avoidance of both subjectivism and flat objectivism, while maintaining the conception of a reality that objectively exists, yet is sensitive to context. Prisyazhnuk draws a line between sequential contextualism (the Bohr-Benoit line) and what he calls ontological correlationalism, classifying the latter under agency realism by Karen Barad. The methodology is based on a comparative analysis of two philosophical traditions concerning quantum contextuality. First, the foundations of each position and key concepts are reconstructed to reveal the divergence: Prisyazhnuk's categorical dualism versus Simondonian ontogenesis. Then this divergence is tested against the material of quantum uncertainty and entanglement. The goal is to understand which strategy more consistently explains the nature of quantum reality, avoiding relativism and anthropocentrism. The comparison is made along three parameters: the relationship between reality and its description, the status of the subject and norms, and the explanatory power of the conceptual apparatus in the context of experimental data. Viewing this through the lens of Simondon reveals a different ontological perspective. Quantum contextuality ceases to be a relation between norm and reality; it becomes a phase of individuation. The measurement situation appears not as the application of a rule, but as the resolution of a metastable state. In this state, the system and the instrument do not yet exist separately; they exist in an inseparable potential being, and only in the act of measurement do their outlines emerge. The comparison of the two approaches raises questions about ontological depth. Does Prisyazhnuk's normative structure provide the tools necessary to explain quantum entanglement and the emergence of the world, or does the Simondonian model, with its transduction, metastability, and associated environment, offer a more coherent description of the formation of a quantum event, avoiding anthropocentrism?