Alfred North Whitehead (1929)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

Close-up portrait of Alfred North Whitehead as if taken by an 8x10 view camera. Courtesy of Nano Banana

I. Abstract

Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy posits that the fundamental constituents of reality are not static substances but dynamic, experiential events termed 'actual occasions'. Each occasion is a process of becoming, prehending (or feeling) its entire past and aiming at a subjective satisfaction, thereby contributing to the ever-advancing creative universe. As mentioned in Methodology, this comparative assessment employs the Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF). The OMAF 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 unifying aim. Where Whitehead's occasions resolve into a complex unity, the CoD's conference is the constitutive act from which both unity and multiplicity emerge. This chapter demonstrates how the CoD offers a more primitive, non-teleological account of relational existence, strengthening the thesis that the conference of difference is the foundational ontological process.

II. Overview of Whitehead's Process Philosophy

Emerging in the early 20th century as a radical alternative to substance metaphysics, Whitehead's process philosophy seeks to harmonize insights from quantum theory, relativity, and human experience. Its core principle is that 'the actual world is a process', and that 'the very essence of real actuality…is process'.^[1]

In the Alfred North Whitehead: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:

• On primacy-of-existence: The primary entities are 'actual occasions'—from Latin occasio, 'a falling towards, a happening'. These are not enduring things but momentary events of becoming that constitute the entire universe. An actual occasion's becoming is governed by a three-phase mechanism: first, it physically prehends (or feels) the entire settled past of other actual occasions; second, it conceptually prehends eternal objects (pure potentials); and finally, it integrates these feelings into a novel, complex unity in a subjective satisfaction: 'process of doing enough'. This process is driven by a 'subjective aim' at intensity of experience, guided initially by God's primordial nature, which is the reservoir of all potential. Creativity—from Latin creare, 'to bring forth, to produce'—is the ultimate principle, 'the universal of universals',^[2] the bare activity by which the many become one and are increased by one.

• On manner-of-existence: The manner-of-existence is experiential and concrescent—concrescence: the 'condition of growing together' (from Latin concrescere, 'to grow together'). Each actual occasion is a process of feeling and integration, moving from potentiality to a final, determinate fact. Existence is a rhythm of becoming and perishing, where each occasion achieves a terminal 'satisfaction' before contributing to the next pulse of creativity. The process is inherently aimed at the synthesis of experience.

• On the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity: The relationship is one of teleological synthesis. Multiplicity—the disjunctive 'many' of the past world—is drawn into a novel, conjunctive 'one' (the new actual occasion). The entire process of concrescence is governed by this drive to unify. As Whitehead states, 'The many become one, and are increased by one'.^[3] Unity is the achieved goal.

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—from Latin conferre, 'to bear together'—of difference—from Latin differre, 'to bear apart': 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

• Statement: The OMAF assessment identifies a shared commitment to process over substance, and—critically—a shared commitment to the primacy of relation over relata. Both systems reject the notion of a 'bare particular' that exists prior to its relations. However, they diverge fundamentally on what relation is and how it operates.
• Whitehead's Position: For Whitehead, primacy-of-existence is given to actual occasions—momentary events of becoming. These are not 'bare particulars' that then enter into relations. Rather, each occasion is constituted by its prehensions (relations) to the past. As Whitehead states, 'The subject emerges from the process; it does not exist before it'. The occasion is a 'self-creating unit', but this self-creation is not the act of a pre-existing agent—it is the process by which relations are integrated into a novel unity. The 'discrete' nature of an occasion is a result of its process of concrescence, not a pre-existing condition. The universe is composed of these discrete 'drops' of experience, but each drop is nothing but its relations.
• CoD's Position: For the CoD, primacy-of-existence is given to the relational process itself—the conference of difference. Relation precedes relata. Entities are not primary units but stabilized patterns discerned within the ongoing conference of difference. As Koan 10.1 declares, '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.
• Interpretive Analysis: The divergence here is subtle but decisive. Both systems reject the classical ordering of 'relata before relation'. Both hold that relation is constitutive of the relatum. However, the divergence lies in what relation is and how it operates. For Whitehead, relation is experiential and teleological—prehension is a form of feeling, and it is driven by a subjective aim toward satisfaction. For the CoD, relation is declarative and non-teleological—the conference of difference is the transformation of bearing-apart into bearing-together, with no aim, no satisfaction, and no 'inside'. The CoD thus offers a more austere account of relationality—one that does not require the projection of experience onto every entity, and one that does not outsource the ground and direction of relation to posited, unobservable principles and entities such as Creativity and God.^[5]

Criterion 2: Manner-of-Existence

• Statement: The OMAF assessment identifies a profound alignment on the fundamental nature of existence as process, but a deep divergence in the character of that process.
• Whitehead's Position: For Whitehead, the manner-of-existence is experiential and concrescent. Each actual occasion is a process of feeling and integration, moving from potentiality to a final, determinate fact. Existence is a rhythm of becoming and perishing, where each occasion achieves a terminal 'satisfaction' before contributing to the next pulse of creativity. The process is inherently aimed at the synthesis of experience.
• CoD's Position: For the CoD, the manner-of-existence is declarative and conferential. Existence is the continuous 'process of declaring together of action to be', a conference of difference that has no terminal point. It is not an experience that concludes but an ongoing declaration that is the being itself. As Koan 100.1 states, existence has 'no beginning or end, only ceaseless transformation', a process without the punctuation of perishing.
• Interpretive Analysis: This difference is not merely technical but foundational. Whitehead's process is teleological—aiming at and achieving a final unity—and framed through the language of experience. But this introduces a fundamental difficulty: why must every unification, even at the most basic physical level, be a form of experience?Whitehead's defenders argue this is not anthropomorphism but ontological generalization—taking the most concrete thing we know (human becoming) and using it as a clue to all becoming, while stripping away human-specific qualities. They distinguish between conscious experience (rare, high-grade) and non-conscious prehension (universal, low-grade). A quark does not think or feel emotions—it simply receives data from the past and integrates it. However, this defense reveals a deeper problem. The method is not empirical—it is speculative generalization. Whitehead begins with human experience and generalizes its structure to the entire universe, removing human-specific qualities but retaining the language of 'feeling', 'aim', and 'satisfaction'. This is not observation. It is imaginative rationalization—a rationalist method that Whitehead himself admits. The language itself carries anthropomorphic connotations, even if the concept is stripped of consciousness. Furthermore, the scalar problem remains. The 'inside' of a quark—its non-conscious prehension—is beyond empirical reach. We cannot observe it, verify it, or falsify it. This is not a testable claim. It is a metaphysical posit. The CoD avoids this entirely: the conference of difference is a single, observable process applicable universally, without requiring that a rock has an 'inside' or an 'experience' of unifying. The CoD's process is open-ended and constitutive, allowing it to account for the persistent, dynamic stability of entities as a single, extended conference, whereas Whitehead must analyze them as vast, sequential societies of momentary occasions.

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

• Statement: This is the criterion where the most significant philosophical action occurs, revealing a fundamental architectural split.
• Whitehead's Position: In Whitehead's system, the relationship is one of teleological synthesis. Multiplicity—the disjunctive 'many' of the past world—is drawn into a novel, conjunctive 'one' (the new actual occasion). The entire process of concrescence is governed by this drive to unify. Unity is the achieved goal, a terminal satisfaction that perishes and becomes part of the many for future occasions.
• CoD's Position: For the CoD, the relationship is one of primordial co-constitution. Multiplicity and unity are not sequential stages but simultaneous products of the conference itself. The 'condition of bearing together' (unity) is the very act that transforms the 'condition of bearing apart' (multiplicity). They emerge together in the single declarative act of existence. Koan 10.1 frames all existence as this very conference.
• Interpretive Analysis: The confrontation with Whitehead throws the CoD's commitment to non-teleological relationality into sharpest relief. Whitehead requires a subjective aim and a divine lure to guide the process toward unity. This architecture, however, rests on his ultimate principle, Creativity—defined as the principle by which 'the many become one'. When examined closely, Creativity is a formal description of an outcome (the many become one), not an account of an operation (how this occurs). It asserts that 'it lies in the nature of things that the many enter into complex unity', but provides no mechanism. The CoD, by contrast, posits no such mysterious ground. The conference of difference is the mechanism: the 'condition of bearing together' transforms the 'condition of bearing apart' through observable dynamics of relational negotiation. Unity is not an achieved goal guided by a divine lure; it is an immanent achievement of the conference itself, a self-organizing principle inherent to existence. The CoD thus grounds relationality in a traceable process, whereas Whitehead grounds it in an unexamined formal assumption.

V. Implications

The principal purpose of any process ontology is to account for the how of existence—to provide an account of the process itself. This is its one job.

Whitehead's system, for all its sophistication, fails this test. It describes the what—the many become one—in rich detail. It provides a vocabulary for the process: prehension, concrescence, satisfaction. But the mechanism itself remains opaque. The actual occasion performs the synthesis—but how? That is never explained. Whitehead explicitly states that philosophy is 'sheer disclosure', not mechanical explanation. He describes the structure of concrescence, but the force that drives it—Creativity—is defined only as 'the universal of universals'. It is a metaphysical axiom to be accepted, not a mechanism to be dissected.

The system requires us to accept:

• Creativity—an unobservable, non-entity principle that is the 'universal of universals', the bare activity of existence, posited but never observed
• God—a unique actual entity whose primordial nature (the ground of order, the source of the initial aim) is unobservable, posited to explain why the universe has order and relevance rather than chaos
• Eternal objects—pure potentials, posited but not traceable
• Subjective aim—the lure toward satisfaction, inaccessible except through human introspection

These are not observed. They are posited. They are asserted because the system needs them. Whitehead openly admits these are speculative metaphysical posits derived from 'imaginative rationalization' rather than direct empirical observation. He argues that metaphysics should be judged by coherence and applicability, not by empirical verification—but this concedes the point: the system is grounded in rational faith, not empirical observation.

This is not empiricism. It is rationalist theology—a system built on unobservable posits, defended by coherence rather than verification, and demanding a leap of faith in its ultimate categories.

The CoD meets the requirement that Whitehead cannot. It provides the how: the conference of difference itself—the bearing-together that transforms the bearing-apart. This is observable, traceable, verifiable. No God is needed. No Creativity is invoked. No eternal objects are posited. No subjective aim is required. The process is complete in itself. This is what it means to have a genuine process ontology.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book