Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1807)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel climbs past the Many symbolizing the teleological ladder toward the One without referent—nothing. Courtesy of Nano Banana.

I. Abstract

Hegel's central ontological assertion is that being is 'change that remains self-identical'.^[1] For Hegel, being is not a noun (substance) or a verb (process) but an irreducible substance-process i.e. each is only intelligible through the other. For Hegel, there is no 'thing' underneath the activity; the activity constitutes the thing. As mentioned in Methodology, this comparative assessment employs the Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF). The OMAF reveals convergence, in the sense, that existence is a condition: a 'process of declaring together. For Hegel, it's substance-process and for the CoD, it's the conference of difference. However, where Hegel requires the process to remain self-identical and return to itself in full self-knowledge; the CoD imposes no such return, acknowledging the open-ended, a-teleological transformation that is existence.

II. Overview of Hegel's Model

Hegel's system sought to overcome the split between mind and world by claiming that both are part of a single developing whole. The core principle is that being is change that remains self-identical—an irreducible substance-process. Every being contains its own opposite, breaks apart, and resolves into a higher, more complex being. This self-driven process applies to everything: logic, nature, art, religion, and philosophy.

In Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:

• primacy-of-existence: Being is neither substance (noun) or process (verb) but rather an irreducible condition that is substance-process.^[2]
• manner-of-existence: Every being contains its own opposite within itself. This internal opposition drives it to break apart and become something new.^[3]
• relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity: This opposition produces the Many (multiplicity). But because each conflict resolves into a new being that preserves what worked, the Many are never purely separate. They are always being gathered back toward a higher, more inclusive One (unity).

III. Overview of the CoD

The Conference of Difference (CoD) model claims that, as a 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, a 'process of declaring together of action to be'. This condition: 'process of declaring together' can itself be described as a conference of difference: a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'. Logically, every conference is of difference as every difference is born of conference. Critically, this is not a causal circle but a constitutive one: neither term precedes the other; each is intelligible only through the other.^[4] Therefore, the conference of difference is irreducible in and of itself and thus the process primitive of existence.

In the Conference of Difference: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:

• On primacy-of-existence: The CoD reveals primacy, not in substance of entities but, in the relational process itself: the conference of difference—relation precedes relata. Entities' are discerned as stabilized patterns within this ongoing process. As declared in Koan 10.1, 'all existence is a conference of difference'. Relation is not something that happens between discerned entities but rather the process primitive that transforms existence itself.
• On manner-of-existence: The manner-of-existence is fundamentally conferential and transformative. Thus, being: 'action to be' is a continuous, dynamic process of 'bearing together' and 'bearing apart' – a constant negotiation that defines the 'condition of being' that is existence. 'All existence transforms via binding, not freedom' (Koan 30.7).
• On the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity: Unity is an immanent and continuous achievement of the conference of difference itself. Koan 80.1 frames this as a universal reciprocity that moves toward equilibrium—a self-organizing principle inherent to existence itself.

IV. Comparison

Criterion 1: Primacy-of-existence

The OMAF assessment identifies that while both Hegel and the CoD reject a static substrate, the question as to what serves as the ultimate ground of existence differs.

• Hegel’s Position: For Hegel, the ground of existence is not a thing (noun) or pure change (verb) but the irreducible condition that is substance-process. Being is change that remains self-identical. There is no "thing" underneath the activity; the activity constitutes the thing.
• CoD’s Position: The CoD similarly grounds existence in an irreducible condition, but the terms are different. For the CoD, the ground is the conference of difference: the 'condition of bearing together', transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'. Conference and difference are co-constitutive: no conference without difference, no difference without conference. Neither functions without the other.
• Interpretive Analysis: Hegel grounds existence in substance-process. The CoD grounds existence in conference-of-difference. Both reject a static substrate. But Hegel requires the process to hold onto itself (self-identity); the CoD imposes no such requirement.

Criterion 2: Manner-of-existence

The OMAF assessment identifies a significant convergence, but also a profound divergence, on the fundamental nature of how existence manifests.

• Hegel's Position: Every being contains its own opposite within itself. This internal opposition drives it to break apart and become something new. The new being preserves what worked from the old being while discarding what failed, producing a higher, more complex being. This pattern repeats until no opposition remains — when being has become fully aware of itself.
• CoD's Position: The CoD similarly posits a dynamic, processual manner-of-existence—the continuous 'conference of difference'. However, this process has no final goal. It is an eternal, open-ended transformation without an ultimate origin or final destination. Existence is always 'forming beyond' itself (Koan 100.2).
• Interpretive Analysis: Both models see reality as dynamic process. But Hegel's process is a journey home to a unity that was always implied. The CoD's process is the home itself—continuous, open-ended, never finished. Where Hegel's self-driven process must eventually resolve all opposition into full self-awareness, the CoD insists that opposition (difference) is eternal and never fully resolved. This allows the CoD to account for perpetual novelty and open-ended becoming that Hegel's system must eventually absorb and end.

Criterion 3: Relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity

This is where the most significant philosophical action of this comparison takes place. The OMAF reveals a radical divergence on the fundamental architecture of reality.

• Hegel's Position: Unity comes before multiplicity. The Many (multiplicity) are temporary—they exist only to create opposition in being, which drives the process forward. The process ends when all multiplicity has been overcome and being knows itself fully as One.
• CoD's Position: Unity is not a prior state to be returned to. Instead, conference (unity) is the 'condition of bearing together' that transforms difference: the 'condition of bearing apart'. As a 'conference of difference', unity and multiplicity are always and forever mutually dependent on each other (Koan 10.1).
• Interpretive Analysis: For Hegel, the relationship between the Many (multiplicity) and the One (unity) is teleological. The Many (multiplicity) exists only as a temporary stage on the way to the One (unity). For the CoD, the relationship between difference (multiplicity) and conference (unity) is a-teleological. Each implies the other in negation—without both as referent to each other, there is no boundary upon which to define either and hence no existence?

V. Implications

The OMAF assessment reveals that Hegel's system subordinates multiplicity to unity without demonstrating why this subordination is necessary. Hegel asserts that the Many exist only as a temporary stage on the way to the One's full self-knowledge. But he never shows why the process must end, or why the Many cannot be irreducible.

Hegel's Absolute, at the moment it finally knows itself fully, has nothing left to distinguish itself from. It becomes indistinguishable from nothing. The teleology cancels itself at the finish line.

The CoD offers a far simpler explanation. It begins with existence as brute fact i.e. existence is; nothing isn't by definition. For the CoD, existence is the 'condition of being' realized through the conference of difference—observable from elementary particles to the cosmos itself. Unity is not a prior state to return to, but a continuously negotiated achievement of multiplicity—a continuous bearing together of that which bears apart. Transformation is not a journey home to a pre-implicated unity, but the journey itself: open-ended, without final goal, and eternal.

This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by showing that a coherent ontology can be built without subordinating multiplicity to unity, and without requiring the process, that defines existence itself, to end.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book