Daoism (c. 400-300 BCE)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

'The Joy of Fishes' (子非鱼) captures the Daoist sages Zhuangzi and Huizi in a moment of philosophical stillness, gazing from a weathered stone bridge upon koi fish gliding through amber water, their bodies tracing the effortless path of least resistance—wuwei made visible in fin and current, a living question about whether joy can be known or only felt, rendered as a photorealistic scene of tranquil contemplation, courtesy of Nano Banana.

I. Abstract

Daoism is best understood as a monism that expresses itself through a generative duality—yin and yang. It is not a dualism in the Cartesian or Zoroastrian sense, where two separate, eternal principles are in conflict but rather a single, self-differentiating process whose complementary phases give rise to the manifest world while always remaining rooted in the undifferentiated Dao. This comparative assessment reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground relationality without a prior, undifferentiated unity. Where Daoism's system is fundamentally descent-oriented—moving from the One to the Many—the CoD model presents a flat ontology of perpetual negotiation. This comparison argues that the CoD’s framework offers a more robust account of persistent, dynamic multiplicity, resolving a tension inherent in the Daoist system between the perfection of the Dao and the problematic nature of the manifested world.

II. Overview of Daoist Model

Emerging from the Warring States period of Chinese philosophy, the Daoist model, articulated in texts like the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi, presents a cosmogony and ontology centered on the Dao—the unnameable, eternal, and spontaneous wellspring of all that is. The core ontological principle is that the myriad things (wanwu) of the phenomenal world are transient, differentiated manifestations of this single, undifferentiated source. The key mechanism for this manifestation is ziran (自然), often translated as 'self-so-ness' or spontaneous emergence, governed by the dynamic interplay of complementary opposites (yin and yang).

If the Dao seems frustratingly ineffable, that's the point. The text itself warns that any conceptual model of it is provisional.

In Daoism: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:

• Regarding the primacy-of-existence, ultimate reality is vested in the Dao itself, a metaphysical unity prior to all differentiation.
• Regarding the manner-of-existence, the phenomenal world is characterized by constant change and flux, but this is a secondary expression of the Dao’s primordial, constancy-in-transformation.
• Regarding the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity is therefore hierarchical and cyclic; multiplicity emerges from unity and is ultimately subsumed back into it. The phenomenal world, while real, possesses a derivative and lesser ontological status, with the ideal state being a return to the Dao’s uncarved block (pu), a state of pure potential before differentiation.

This model is further elaborated in the work of Zhuangzi, who explores the relativistic and transformative implications of living in accordance with the Dao.

III. Overview of the CoD

The CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as {Δ} and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.^[1] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.^[2]

IV. Comparison

Criterion 1: Primacy-of-Existence

• Statement: The OMAF assessment identifies a critical divergence on what constitutes the primary reality.
• Daoism's Position: For Laozi, conceptual and existential primacy is pointed toward the Dao. The text suggests it seems to have preceded any anthropomorphic lord (Ch. 4) and may be regarded as the mother or source of all things (Ch. 25).^[3] The Dao is the metaphysical ground, the unvarying source from which all varying existence springs. The ten thousand things are secondary, emergent phenomena.
• CoD’s Position: The CoD model radically flattens this hierarchy. Primacy is vested in the conference of difference itself, which is not a source behind existence but manifests the very 'condition of being' that is existence (Koan 10.1). There is no prior, undifferentiated unity; relational dynamism is the foundational layer.
• Interpretive Analysis: This difference is not merely technical but foundational. Where Laozi posits a silent, monolithic source, the CoD’s insistence on constitutive relationality allows it to account for a universe of persistent, genuine plurality without requiring a descent from a higher unity. The CoD finds the 'divine epistle' not in a transcendent source, but in the ongoing, immanent conference of difference (Koan 10.6).

Criterion 2: Manner-of-Existence

• Statement: A significant convergence exists on the dynamic nature of the phenomenal world, but the rationale for this dynamism differs profoundly.
• Daoism's Position: The manner of existence for the ten thousand things is one of constant transformation and return, governed by the cyclical patterns of yin and yang. This dynamism is a necessary expression of the Dao’s fecundity, but the ideal is to emulate the Dao’s spontaneous, non-forcing manner (wuwei) by aligning with the natural flow of events, not by imposing one's will.
• CoD’s Position: For the CoD, dynamism is not a secondary expression but the fundamental manner of all existence. Every being: 'action to be' is inherently 'problematic'—defined by its capacity to project itself forward—and is granted leave for perpetual 'motility' (Koan 20.3). Stasis is an illusion.
• Interpretive Analysis: Both models see a world in flux, but Daoism's flux is a movement back towards a static origin. The CoD, by contrast, sees flux as the perpetual, forward-casting engine of reality itself, with no original or final state of rest. The CoD’s universe is one of sanctioned, inherent flux, not a cyclical return to silence.

Criterion 3: Relationship-Between-Multiplicity-and-Unity

• Statement: This criterion reveals the most significant philosophical schism between the two models.
• Daoism's Position: Multiplicity and unity exist in a hierarchical and dialectical relationship. Unity (Dao) is primordial and supreme; multiplicity (wanwu) is its temporary, differentiated manifestation. The relationship is one of origin and destination.
• CoD’s Position: The CoD model posits that the conference of difference is the irreducible process-primitive of existence. Within it, what we call 'multiplicity' (differences) and 'unity' (conference) are not separate components but inseparable aspects of a single dynamic. As Koan 100.6 asserts, 'Without difference, there is nothing to relate to; without relation, no potential for transformation—no being.' The unity is the ongoing conference of difference itself—not a prior, undifferentiated state.
• Interpretive Analysis: Daoism's system must grapple with the ontological status of the differentiated world, often framing it as a departure from a primordial unity. The CoD sidesteps this tension by asserting that there is no prior unity from which to fall. The foundation of reality is a process primitive—the conference of difference—a ceaseless condition: 'process of declaring together'. Thus, the world of distinct things and constant change is not a fallen state; it is the only reality. The conference of difference is the engine of reality without which there is no transformation—no existence.

V. Implications

The confrontation with Daoism throws the CoD’s commitment to a flat, process-oriented ontology into sharp relief. The central insight is that an ontology can be grounded and coherent without relying on a monistic, ineffable source. Where Daoism's Dao stands behind existence as a silent progenitor, the CoD locates the generative principle within the noisy, co-petitive and at times competitive 'conference of difference' of existence itself.

This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by demonstrating its capacity to solve a specific problem: it grants full ontological dignity to the world of multiplicity and change without dismissing it as a mere appearance or a derivative expression. The CoD does not need to advocate for a return to an undifferentiated state (wuwei as a return to pu) because the conference of difference is the very engine of being. This opens a new line of inquiry into ethics and action, suggesting that engagement in the conference of difference, rather than withdrawal from it, is the fundamental mode of existence. This sets the stage for comparing the CoD with process philosophies that similarly prioritize dynamism, but which may lack the CoD’s irreducible core of differential relation.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book