Avicenna (c. 980-1037 CE)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

The thought experiment of necessary self-awareness—Ibn Sina (Avicenna) floats in a featureless black void, eyes open but perceiving nothing, no ground beneath him, no air against his skin, no limb touching another, yet he remains indubitably aware of his own existence, proving the soul's substantiality and its independence from bodily sensation, rendered as a stark photorealistic portrait of philosophical intuition, courtesy of Nano Banana.

I. Abstract

Avicenna’s ontological model posits a fundamental distinction between essence (what a thing is) and existence (that a thing is), with existence being an accidental property bestowed upon essence by a Necessary Existent. The Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF) reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground a dynamic, relational reality as a primary condition. Where Avicenna’s system requires a transcendent cause to actualize a fundamentally potential world, the CoD posits immanent, constitutive relationality as the very substance of existence. This comparison demonstrates the CoD’s ability to account for continuous transformation and internal relation without recourse to a hierarchical chain of emanation, thereby strengthening the thesis that the CoD offers a more immanent and process-oriented foundation for ontology.

II. Overview of Avicenna

Ibn/Pur Sīnā (Avicenna), an 11th-century Persian philosopher, developed a sophisticated metaphysical system that profoundly shaped Islamic philosophy and later Scholastic thought. His core ontological principle is the celebrated distinction between essence and existence. For Avicenna, the essence of a thing—its 'whatness'—is in itself neutral with regard to existence. A horse’s essence, for instance, can be conceived mentally without it necessarily existing in the world. Existence, therefore, is not part of an essence but is an 'accident' that must be conferred upon it by an external cause.

This leads to his cosmological argument for a Necessary Existent. Any contingent being—whose essence does not contain its own existence—requires a cause. This causal chain cannot regress infinitely and must terminate in a being whose very essence is existence: the Necessary Existent (God). From this single, self-sufficient principle, the multiplicity of the world emanates in a necessary, cascading flow of intellects, souls, and the material cosmos.

In Avicenna: a CRUP-OMAF case study, it's ontology is assessed as follows:

• Primacy-of-existence: belongs solely to the Necessary Existent, from which all else derives.
• Manner-of-existence: for all contingent beings is one of dependency and potentiality actualized from without.
• Relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity: is resolved through emanation, where the many proceed from the One in a graded, hierarchical structure of being.

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 $\lbrace\Delta\rbrace$ 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 foundational divergence on what is ontologically primary.
• Avicenna's Position: For Avicenna, primacy belongs exclusively to the Necessary Existent, a singular entity whose essence is identical to its existence. All other beings are contingent; their existence is secondary, derivative, and accidental to their essence. Existence is a property granted to a fundamentally potential world from a transcendent source.
• CoD's Position: The CoD posits that the conference of difference itself is primary. The CoD defines both essence and existence as functionally identical. Each is defined as a condition: 'process of declaring together', one of being: 'action to be' and the other 'setting-out'—functionally identical processes. Hence, existence is not a property added to essences, rather all existence as a 'condition of being' is by extension a 'process of declaring together of action to be' and as such: a conference of difference. Essentially, the CoD is the process primitive of transformation and thus the causal process of existence itself.
• Interpretive Analysis: This difference is not merely technical but foundational. Where Avicenna posits a transcendent God as primary, the CoD's insistence on immanent relationality allows it to account for a universe of inherent activity without requiring an external actualizer. The CoD sees existence as a self-constituting conference of difference, whereas Avicenna declares it a bestowed gift.

Criterion 2: Manner-of-Existence

• Statement: The models offer starkly contrasting visions of how things exist.
• Avicenna's Position: Contingent beings exist in a state of dependency and potentiality. Their manner-of-existence is defined by a lack of self-sufficiency, always pointing beyond themselves to the cause that sustains them. This creates a static hierarchy where each being has a fixed place in the great chain of being.
• CoD's Position: For the CoD, the manner-of-existence is dynamic, transformative, and interdependent. As Koan 30.2 exposits, 'every being realises interdependently with others; no being is free.' Existence is an active 'bearing together,' a continuous process of negotiation and transformation, not a state of static dependency.
• Interpretive Analysis: Avicenna’s ontology is one of stable hierarchy and dependency. The CoD, by contrast, describes a reality in constant, self-organizing flux. Where Avicenna explains a thing by tracing its cause upward, the CoD explains it by mapping its constitutive relations outward.

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

• Statement: The resolution of the one-and-the-many problem highlights the core metaphysical commitments of each model.
• Avicenna's Position: Multiplicity proceeds from unity through emanation. The perfect, undivided One necessarily overflows, giving rise to a cascade of increasingly complex and less unified beings. Unity is the source; multiplicity is the effect. The relationship is linear, hierarchical, and derivative.
• CoD's Position: The CoD reframes the relationship entirely. Unity and multiplicity are not separate poles but co-emergent properties of the conference itself. Koan 100.6 states, 'Without difference, there is nothing to relate to; without relation, no potential for transformation—no being.' Unity is the 'bearing together'; multiplicity is the 'bearing apart.' They are two aspects of the same constitutive process.
• Interpretive Analysis: The confrontation with Avicenna throws the CoD's commitment to dynamic relationality into sharpest relief. Avicenna’s system is elegant and powerful, but it must place the ultimate value and reality in a transcendent One. The CoD demonstrates that an ontology can be grounded and coherent without being monistic and static, locating the generative principle within the relational fabric of the cosmos itself.

V. Implications

The single most important philosophical lesson from this comparison is that a coherent ontology need not be grounded in a transcendent, self-sufficient unity. Avicenna’s system, for all its explanatory power, renders the entire cosmos fundamentally contingent and derivative, a shadow of true being. The CoD, by identifying the process primitive in the conference of difference, offers a framework where the dynamism, relationality, and transformative power of the world are not secondary effects but the very 'condition of being' that is existence.

This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by showing how it solves a specific problem inherent in emanationist models: the problem of accounting for genuine novelty and internal relation. In the CoD, transformation is not a descent from perfection but the continuous creation of new 'ability' through the conference of difference. The argument transitions from a vertical chain of causation to a horizontal web of co-constitution.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book