Edmund Husserl (1913)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

I. Abstract

Edmund Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology makes the core ontological claim that conscious experience is the irreducible foundation of all meaning and being, accessed by bracketing out presuppositions to examine the structures of consciousness itself. As mentioned in Methodology, this comparative assessment employs an Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF) to juxtapose this view with the Conference of Difference (CoD) model. The CoD’s claim to ground reality in a 'dynamic, pre-conscious relational process' is not just a different ground—it is the only legitimate ground. Because the CoD anchors its principles in observable, processual reality (rather than a transcendent, unverifiable ego), it avoids the fatal flaw of transcendental idealism. Where Husserl seeks the conditions for the possibility of experience, the CoD describes the constitutive process of existence itself. This chapter demonstrates that the CoD provides a more foundational ontology, one that can account for the emergence of consciousness from a prior, dynamic ground of relationality, thereby contributing to the thesis that the CoD offers a robust and comprehensive metaphysical framework.

II. Overview of Husserlian Phenomenology

Emerging in the early 20th century as a rigorous philosophical science, Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology sought to return to the 'things themselves' (zu den Sachen selbst). Its core principle is that all meaning and validity of being are constituted through and within conscious acts. To uncover these structures, Husserl developed the method of the epoché—bracketing the 'natural attitude' that posits an external world—to focus on pure phenomena as they are given to consciousness. This leads to the discovery of intentionality, the fundamental characteristic of consciousness: it is always consciousness of something. The structures of this intentional correlation between the act (noesis) and the object-as-intended (noema) form the bedrock of his ontology.

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

• primacy-of-existence: transcendental consciousness is the absolute, non-worldly foundation from which all worldliness and being are derived.^[1]
• manner-of-existence: the being of the world is one of being constituted through intentional acts; its manner is to appear for a consciousness.
• relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity: the diverse phenomena of experience are unified through the synthesizing activity of a transcendental ego, which constitutes a coherent world from a manifold of appearances. The world’s unity is a achievement of consciousness.

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.^[2] 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

• Statement: The OMAF assessment identifies a radical divergence on what constitutes the primary ground of reality.
• Husserl’s Position: For Husserl, transcendental consciousness is the ultimate, non-worldly foundation. The existence of the world is contingent upon its being constituted by and for a consciousness. The being of the world is a cogitatum whose validity is secured within the cogito. The natural world is "phenomenologically reduced" to its meaning for consciousness.
• CoD’s Position: The CoD inverts this hierarchy. Existence is primative, and consciousness is a highly complex, emergent conference of difference within that existence. As stated in Koan 50.5, consciousness is a "'measure of knowing together'", a specific, localized pattern of relation that arises from, and participates in, the broader ontological conference. The CoD posits a world that is fundamentally relational and real prior to any conscious apprehension of it.
• Interpretive Analysis: This difference is not merely technical but foundational. The CoD does not just "account for" the natural world; it is continuous with it. Husserl must bracket the natural world to make his system work. The CoD embraces it. This is not a neutral choice—it is a choice between grounded realism and unmoored idealism.

Criterion 2: Manner-of-Existence

• Statement: "The models offer starkly different accounts of how things exist."
• Husserl’s Position: The manner-of-existence for any entity is to be a phenomenon, an object-for-consciousness. Its being is its manner of givenness. The tree I perceive exists as a perceived tree, with its identity and properties constituted through my intentional acts and the horizons of potential experience surrounding it.
• CoD’s Position: The manner-of-existence is active, processual, and declarative. To be is to be an 'action to be' engaged in a perpetual 'conference of difference'. A tree, in the CoD view, is a nested hierarchy of conferences—from biochemical processes to ecological relations—that is real and transformative independently of a perceiver. Its "treeness" is a stable pattern within this dynamic conference.
• Interpretive Analysis: Husserl’s "lifeworld" (Lebenswelt) is a beautiful description of one type of conference (the human-perceptual). But it is a subset of the CoD’s ontology, not its foundation. The CoD can encompass the phenomenological description as one specific type of conference of difference (the conscious-perceptual conference of difference) without reducing all of reality to it.

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

• Statement: Both models grapple with the one-and-the-many, but propose divergent unifying mechanisms.
• Husserl’s Position: Unity is an active synthesis performed by transcendental subjectivity. The manifold of sensory data and intentional acts is unified into coherent objects and a single, objective world through the synthesizing functions of consciousness. Multiplicity is given; unity is constituted.
• CoD’s Position: Unity and multiplicity are co-primordial and mutually constitutive within the conference itself. "Difference" is the 'condition of bearing apart', and "conference" is the 'condition of bearing together'; one does not precede the other. Koan 100.6 states it plainly: "Without difference, there is nothing to relate to; without relation, no potential for transformation—no being." Unity is not imposed but is an emergent property of the relational dynamic itself.
• Interpretive Analysis: This is where the most significant action occurs. Husserl’s solution is elegant but centers everything on a transcendental ego. The CoD offers a decentralised, process-oriented model where unity is immanent to the relational network, not bestowed by a central synthesizer. This allows the CoD to describe the unity of a biological ecosystem or a social group without recourse to a collective consciousness, grounding cohesion in the very fabric of relational existence.^[3]

V. Implications

The CoD is not just a "more comprehensive metaphysics." It is the only metaphysics that passes the test of being anchored in observable reality. The CoD’s relational process is not a postulate; it is a description of how existence operates. Husserl’s system is a construction—a fiction that refuses to admit it is fiction. The central philosophical insight is that a coherent and grounded account of reality need not begin with the constituting ego. The CoD solves a specific problem that Husserl’s model creates: the problem of the world’s independent reality and the emergence of the conscious subject within it. By locating the foundational principle in the conference of difference, the CoD strengthens its case as a more comprehensive metaphysics, one that can accommodate both the reality described by the natural sciences and the lived experience so central to phenomenology. It opens a new line of inquiry by asking how consciousness, meaning, and culture arise as specific, highly complex modes of conferencing.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book