Methodology

What, how and why?

This thesis employs a multi-layered methodological framework designed to articulate, evaluate, and position the Conference of Difference (CoD) as a fundamental ontological process. The approach is integrative rather than reductive, dialogical rather than dogmatic, and acknowledges the interpretive nature of ontological inquiry while striving for internal coherence, explanatory breadth, and practical relevance.

1. Internal Evaluation: The OMAF Framework

The CRUP Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF) serves as the primary tool for internal validation. It is not used to compare ontologies externally, but to rigorously assess the CoD against a standardized set of criteria for a robust ontological model:

• Completeness: Does the model account for all relevant categories of existence (physical, mental, social, abstract, etc.)?
• Robustness: Can it withstand conceptual challenges and accommodate new evidence?
• Usefulness: Does it generate insights, solve problems, or enable applications beyond mere description?
• Potential: Does it open productive avenues for further research, critique, and development?

OMAF evaluation results are presented in summary tables and radar charts in the Formal Evaluation section, providing a transparent self-assessment of the CoD’s strengths and limitations.

2. Comparative Positioning: Qualitative Hermeneutic Analysis

To situate the CoD within the broader philosophical tradition, a qualitative comparative analysis of 34 historical and contemporary ontologies is conducted. This approach acknowledges that:

• Most ontologies of existence are not scientifically rigorous in the empirical sense, but are instead conceptual, normative, or metaphysical systems.
• Comparison is therefore inherently interpretive, relying on philosophical hermeneutics rather than quantitative metrics.
• The goal is not to 'prove' superiority, but to identify resonances, divergences, and conceptual innovations.

The comparative analysis follows a structured yet flexible pattern for each ontology:

1. Exposition: Faithful summary of the ontology's core claims.
2. Alignment: Where and how it converges with the CoD's emphasis on difference-as-process.
3. Divergence: Where it departs from or challenges the CoD framework.
4. Dialogue: How the CoD might respond to or incorporate insights from that tradition.

3. Domain-Based Evidence Mapping

To demonstrate the CoD's applicability across reality's layers, evidence is organized into 14 distinct domains, grouped into three tiers:

3.1 Fundamental Domains (Grounding Layers)

• Physical, Vital, Psyche, Social, Abstracta
• Purpose: To show the CoD operates at the most basic levels of existence.

3.2 Derived Domains (Cross-Cutting Interactions)

• Technological, Cultural, Ethical, Cosmological
• Purpose: To illustrate how the CoD manifests in complex, emergent phenomena.

3.3 Meta-Domains (Reflexive Layers)

• Metaphysical, Epistemic, Praxis
• Purpose: To examine the CoD's own status as knowledge and its practical implications.

Domain Interactions are examined through case studies (e.g., AI Ethics = Psyche + Technological + Ethical) to demonstrate the CoD's integrative explanatory power across disciplinary boundaries.

4. Causal Argumentation via Do-Calculus

To move beyond correlation and suggest causal primacy, the thesis employs Judea Pearl's do-calculus as a formal framework for causal reasoning:

• Intervention Logic: Treating the CoD as an intervention in ontological reasoning.
• Counterfactual Analysis: Exploring how systems would behave if the CoD were absent or different.
• Causal Diagrams: Modeling relationships between the CoD and other ontological primitives.

This formal approach provides a structured argument for why the CoD might be considered not merely descriptive but causally generative in ontological processes.

5. The What–How–Why Triadic Structure

All analyses follow a consistent tripartite pattern:

• What: Definitional clarity—what the CoD is as a process primitive.
• How: Mechanistic explanation—how it operates across domains and scales.
• Why: Explanatory justification—why it matters causally, ethically, and practically.

This structure ensures both analytical rigor and narrative coherence throughout the thesis.

6. Reflexive and Critical Integration

The methodology incorporates several layers of self-reflection:

• Meta-Ontological Examination: The CoD's own ontological status is questioned within the Metaphysical Domain.
• Epistemic Scrutiny: The knowledge-claims of the thesis are evaluated within the Epistemic Domain.
• Critical Engagement: Objections from philosophical literature are systematically addressed.
• Limitation Acknowledgement: The interpretive nature of comparative analysis and the speculative dimensions of ontology are explicitly acknowledged.

7. Serialized Presentation and Cumulative Development

The thesis is published serially throughout 2026, employing a modular yet cumulative structure:

• Each section is self-contained yet cross-referenced.
• Terminology is consistently defined in the back-matter.
• Complex arguments are built incrementally across publications.
• Reader engagement is facilitated through accessible entry points and progressive depth.

8. Practical Validation through Applied Case Studies

Beyond theoretical validation, the methodology includes practical testing:

• Praxis Domain: Examines how the CoD informs governance, policy, and ethics.
• Interdisciplinary Applications: Shows relevance to technology, environmental science, and social systems.
• Utility Demonstration: Proves the CoD is not merely abstract but operationally meaningful.

Methodological Summary

This methodology is consciously pluralistic yet structured:

1. It uses OMAF for internal rigor without claiming cross-ontological quantitative comparison.
2. It employs qualitative hermeneutics for philosophical positioning without pretending to scientific objectivity.
3. It maps evidence across domains to demonstrate breadth without reductionism.
4. It incorporates causal formalisms to strengthen argumentation without mathematical pretense.
5. It maintains reflexive awareness of its own interpretive and speculative dimensions.
6. It validates through both theoretical coherence and practical relevance.

The result is a methodological approach that respects the interpretive nature of ontology while demanding rigorous internal standards, acknowledges philosophical pluralism while advancing a specific thesis, and bridges abstract speculation with concrete application.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book