Nicolai Hartmann (1935)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

I. Abstract

Nicolai Hartmann's 'new ontology' represents one of the most rigorous systematic ontologies of the twentieth century. His stratified model of reality—comprising inorganic, organic, psychic, and spiritual/cultural layers—offers a comprehensive categorical framework for understanding being as a layered structure of dependence and emergence. The Conference of Difference (CoD) proposes a fundamentally different ontology: not a stratified architecture of being to be discovered, but a dynamic, relational process of constitutive relating. As mentioned in Methodology, this comparative assessment employs the Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF). The OMAF reveals a foundational divergence on the criterion of primacy-of-existence, contrasting Hartmann's categorical stratification with the CoD's relational process. This chapter thus contributes to the overall thesis by demonstrating how the CoD offers an alternative ontology that resolves key tensions in Hartmann's model—particularly the relationship between dependence and autonomy, and the boundary ambiguity between strata—by replacing categorical stratification with constitutive relationality.

II. Overview of Nicolai Hartmann

Nicolai Hartmann (1882–1950) stands as one of the most systematic ontologists of the twentieth century. Rejecting both idealism and naive materialism, Hartmann developed a 'new ontology' grounded in the problem of being itself. His monumental ontological project is articulated in four major volumes: Ontology: Laying the Foundations (1935), Possibility and Actuality (1938), The Structure of the Real World (1940), and the posthumously published Philosophy of Nature (completed 1943, published 1950).  Together, these works present a comprehensive account of reality as a stratified structure of being, ranging from the inorganic to the spiritual.

In the Nicolai Hartmann: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:

Hartmann's model asserts a primacy-of-existence grounded in the stratified structure of being itself—but crucially, this structure is both processual and substantive. Hartmann's 'new ontology' explicitly rejects pure static substance metaphysics and pure process philosophy. His 'new ontology' deliberately navigates between the Scylla of pure process (Bergson) and the Charybdis of static substance (traditional Aristotelianism). Reality, for Hartmann, is characterized by real process occurring within categorical structures—a dynamic architecture where laws and processes are mutually constitutive rather than opposed.^[1] Reality is not flat but layered, and each layer is characterized by dynamic equilibrium, real becoming, and causal process operating within fixed categorical laws and structural relations. Reality is not a static edifice but a dynamic tower: processual in its existence yet structured in its categorical architecture.^[2]

Each stratum has its own categorical laws—its own Sosein (essence or 'what' of being)—while remaining dependent on lower strata. Hartmann articulates two governing principles:

• The 'law of strength': Lower categories are stronger, more fundamental, and more determinative, but poorer in content.
• The 'law of freedom': Higher categories are weaker, less determinative, but richer in content and novelty.^[3]

Critically, higher strata are founded upon lower ones—they could not exist without them—but they possess emergent novelty and relative autonomy. The psychic stratum, for example, depends on the organic stratum (it requires a living organism) but introduces new categorical properties (consciousness, intentionality) that cannot be reduced to organic processes.

The manner-of-existence for any entity is thus categorical and determined by its stratum. To exist is to occupy a specific place within this layered architecture and to be subject to its categorical laws. Existence is a dynamic state of being-something (Sosein) within a fixed categorical structure—a processual state where entities are subject to both the laws of their stratum and the processes that constitute real becoming. Hartmann's ontology thus occupies a middle ground: reality is neither a static block nor a pure flux, but a structured dynamism where categorical laws govern processual becoming.^[4]

The relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity is stratified. Each layer has its own internal unity and its own multiplicity of elements. The unity of the whole is a unity of composition—layers stacked upon layers, with higher layers dependent on but irreducible to lower ones.^[5]

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.^[6] 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 foundational divergence on what constitutes the fundamental ground of reality.
• Hartmann's Position: Hartmann posits the stratified structure of being itself as primary. Reality is a given, layered architecture. The Dasein (existence, the 'that' of being) of each stratum is primary, and its Sosein (essence, the 'what' or 'how' of being) is discovered through categorical analysis.^[7]
• CoD's Position: The CoD locates primacy in the constitutive relational process—the conference of difference itself. There is no pre-existing architecture; architecture emerges from the ongoing conference of difference. Relation precedes relata.
• Interpretive Analysis: This is a confrontation between Structured Dynamism (Hartmann) and Pure Relational Process (CoD). Hartmann's ontologist is an architect surveying a building that is itself in motion—discovering its categorical structure while observing its dynamic processes. The architecture is not static; it is a dynamic structure where laws govern processes and processes instantiate laws. The CoD's ontologist, by contrast, is a jazz musician improvising within a changing ensemble, where structure emerges from the interplay (conference) of differences rather than being discovered as a pre-existing architecture.

Criterion 2: Manner-of-Existence

• Statement: The models diverge sharply on the fundamental character of how things exist.
• Hartmann's Position: The manner-of-existence is categorical and dynamic. To exist is to occupy a specific place within a stratum and to be subject to its categorical laws. Existence is a state of being-something (Sosein) within a structured architecture—a structure that is discovered, not created.^[8]
• CoD's Position: The CoD posits a manner-of-existence defined by dynamic, transformative binding. To be is to be in a state of 'bearing together' and 'bearing apart'—an active, participatory condition. Existence is not a state but an ongoing action, a continuous negotiation that defines the 'condition of being' that existence literally is.
• Interpretive Analysis: This is the Processual State vs. Pure Process distinction. Hartmann's being is a verb-noun hybrid: a state of dynamic process governed by categorical laws. His beings are not static entities but dynamic structures—processes that have stable, discoverable categorical properties. The CoD's being is a pure verb—an ongoing action of relating with no pre-existing categorical structure to govern it. The CoD does not deny that things exhibit stable properties, but argues that those properties are stabilized patterns of process emergent from conferential relating, not categorical laws embedded in a pre-existing architecture. Hartmann would agree that properties emerge and change, but would insist they do so within discoverable categorical constraints.

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

• Statement: The most significant divergence in this comparison concerns how each model reconciles the one and the many.
• Hartmann's Position: Unity is stratified. Each layer has its own internal unity and its own multiplicity of elements. The unity of the whole is a unity of composition—layers stacked upon layers, with higher layers dependent on but irreducible to lower ones. Unity is a given structure to be discovered.^[9]
• CoD's Position: The CoD synthesizes unity and multiplicity without subordinating one to the other. Unity is not a given structure but an ongoing achievement—the 'bearing together' that emerges from and is constituted by multiplicity (the 'bearing apart'). The conference is their relational nexus. Unity is immanent, continuous, and fragile; it must be constantly achieved through the ongoing conference of difference.
• Interpretive Analysis: Hartmann's unity is a tower—stable but static, composed of distinct layers. The CoD's unity is a symphony—dynamic but coherent, composed of the interplay of differences. The CoD's model accounts for the reality of both unity and multiplicity without subordinating one to the other. Unity is not prior to multiplicity (as in Hartmann's stratified composition) but constitutive of it. The universe is a unified whole not because it is composed of layers, but because it is a single, boundless Conference of Difference.

V. Implications

The central philosophical lesson from confronting the CoD with Nicolai Hartmann's stratified ontology is that ontology need not choose between a static, categorical architecture and a fragmented, relativistic flux. The CoD provides an immanent ground in relational process itself, solving the specific problem that vexes Hartmann's model: how to account for the dynamic, transformative character of reality without abandoning the coherence of a unified ontology.

Hartmann's world is a dynamic tower—stable in its stratified categorical laws yet processual in its real becoming, a hybrid architecture where process and substance are inseparable. The CoD's world is a symphony—dynamic, participatory, and continuously achieved, where the interplay of differences in conference is the very condition of its unified existence, with no categorical structure separate from the relational process itself.

This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by showing its capacity to:

1. Resolve Hartmann's boundary ambiguities: Where Hartmann struggles to clearly distinguish between psychic and spiritual strata, the CoD offers a continuous, relational process where boundaries are not fixed but emergent.
2. Account for both dependence and autonomy: Where Hartmann's 'law of strength' and 'law of freedom' create tension, the CoD's relational process shows how dependence and autonomy are not opposing forces but complementary aspects of conferential binding.
3. Embrace dynamism without losing coherence: Where Hartmann's stratified model risks rigidity, the CoD offers a dynamic, processual account that still maintains unity through its constitutive relationality.

It opens a new line of inquiry into a metaphysics of participation, setting the stage for further comparisons with process-oriented models—such as Deleuze's ontology of difference—that similarly seek to take becoming and relationality seriously.

In short: where Hartmann sees a dynamic stratified structure—real process occurring within discoverable categorical laws—the CoD sees a pure relational process where structure is emergent rather than pre-given. Where Hartmann contains multiplicity and transformation within categorical bounds, the CoD makes them the very conditions of a unified, participatory existence.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book