Jean-Paul Sartre (1943)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

I. Abstract

Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism posits the core ontological claim that for human reality, 'existence precedes essence', meaning individuals are radically free to define themselves through their choices and actions, absent a predetermined nature or divine blueprint. As mentioned in Methodology, this comparative assessment employs the Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF) to systematically contrast this view with the Conference of Difference (CoD) model. The OMAF reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of manner-of-existence, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground relationality as the constitutive process of all existence, from quantum phenomena to conscious experience. Where Sartrean freedom is a burdensome human condition, the CoD recasts it as a specific, probabilistic expression of a universal, binding ontological conference. This chapter’s contribution is to demonstrate how the CoD resolves the Sartrean tension between the free pour-soi (for-itself) and inert en-soi (in-itself) by framing all being as dynamic, interdependent transformation.

II. Overview of Sartrean Existentialism

Emerging in mid-20th century France, Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialism is a philosophy of radical freedom and responsibility, developed against the backdrop of World War II and the collapse of traditional moral certainties. Its core principle is that for human beings, 'existence precedes essence'. Humans are not born with a pre-defined purpose or nature (essence); instead, they first exist, and through their choices and actions, they define their own essence. This freedom is not a blessing but a condemnation, as it comes with the absolute weight of responsibility for oneself and, effectively, for all humanity, since in choosing for oneself, one chooses a model for all.

The key mechanisms of this ontology are the distinction between two modes of being: the en-soi (in-itself) and the pour-soi (for-itself). The en-soi is the mode of non-conscious beings, like a rock or a table; it is solid, self-identical, and simply is. It is 'full of itself', with no internal differentiation or relation. The pour-soi is the mode of human consciousness. It is defined by a 'nothingness' at its core; it is not what it is (it is not a fixed identity) and is what it is not (it is perpetually projected toward future possibilities). This negation is the source of human freedom but also of anguish, as we are constantly forced to choose and create ourselves in a world without pre-given justification.

In the Jean-Paul Sartre: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:

• For Sartre, the primacy-of-existence is absolute for the pour-soi, whose free projection is the ultimate ontological fact, while the en-soi is a brute, inexplicable presence.
• Sartre’s model posits a manner-of-existence that is bifurcated: a static, non-relational en-soi and a dynamic, negating pour-soi.
• For Sartre, the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity is such that multiplicity is the default state, and unity is an unattainable ideal.

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.^[1] 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: Manner-of-Existence

• Statement: The OMAF assessment identifies a profound divergence on the fundamental character of existence.
• Sartre's Position: Sartre’s ontology presents a dualistic manner-of-existence. Being is split between the inert, self-identical en-soi and the dynamic, negating pour-soi. The en-soi exists without relation or potentiality, while the pour-soi exists as a perpetual flight from identity, defined by its relation to what it is not. This creates an ontological chasm between human consciousness and the rest of the world.
• CoD's Position: The CoD posits a unified manner-of-existence grounded in a single, constitutive process: the conference of difference. All existence, from a subatomic particle to a human thought, is a 'condition of bearing together' that transforms a 'condition of bearing apart'. There is no fundamental split; a rock is as much a conference of its mineral composition and environmental interactions as a human is a conference of biological, social, and cognitive differences.^[2]
• Interpretive Analysis: This difference is foundational. Where Sartre sees a fractured reality of static objects and restless consciousness, the CoD sees a spectrum of relational complexity. The CoD’s insistence on universal relationality allows it to account for the emergence of consciousness from the material world as a shift in the type of conference, not a leap into a different ontological category, thereby offering a more continuous and integrated picture of reality.

Criterion 2: Primacy-of-Existence

• Statement: The models clash on what constitutes the primary, grounding fact of existence.
• Sartre's Position: For Sartre, the primacy-of-existence is located in the radical, unconditioned freedom of the pour-soi. Human consciousness, through its project and choice, is the ultimate source of meaning and value in a universe that otherwise has none. The en-soi is a contingent, 'de trop' (in excess) presence that simply is, without explanation.
• CoD's Position: The CoD locates primacy in the conference of difference itself. This process is the Principal 'unvaryingly foremost' condition that enables all specific entities, properties, and actions, including human freedom. Freedom is not a primary, abyssal condition but a derived 'ability' that emerges within and is constrained by the binding relations of the conference of difference.^[3]
• Interpretive Analysis: Sartre places an immense, almost divine burden on human consciousness to create meaning ex nihilo. The CoD, by locating primacy in an impersonal, universal process, redistributes this creative agency across the entire fabric of reality. It reframes the human condition from one of solitary meaning-making to one of participatory meaning-discovery within a generative cosmos.

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

• Statement: The most significant action in this comparison is on the relationship between the many and the one.
• Sartre's Position: In Sartre's framework, unity is a project of the pour-soi and is never achieved. The pour-soi seeks to synthesize itself with the self-coincidence of the en-soi to become a 'God' (a causa sui), a being that is both free and self-identical. This synthesis is impossible, and the self remains a fragmented, 'useless passion'. Multiplicity is the default state, and unity is an unattainable ideal.
• CoD's Position: The CoD posits that unity and multiplicity are co-constitutive and emergent through the conference itself. 'Unity' is the temporary, stable state of 'bearing together', while 'multiplicity' is the 'bearing apart' that provides the fuel for transformation. They are not opposed but are the two poles of the single process of existence.^[4]
• Interpretive Analysis: Sartre’s model is defined by a tragic, unresolvable tension between the for-itself and the in-itself. The CoD dissolves this tension by showing that the 'unity' the pour-soi craves is not a static self-identity but is, in fact, the dynamic, relational coherence it already is. The self is not a failed substance but a successful, ongoing conference of difference.

V. Implications

The central philosophical lesson from confronting Sartre with the CoD is that an ontology of dynamic becoming need not be grounded in a negative freedom defined by lack and anguish, but can instead be grounded in a positive, generative relationality. Sartre’s universe is haunted by the ghost of a missing God, leaving humans with a freedom that feels like abandonment. The CoD, by identifying the conference of difference as the 'Godspell' or foundational creative process,^[5] recasts the cosmos as inherently meaningful and creative, with human freedom as a privileged, highly complex node within the network of universal relations.

This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by demonstrating its capacity to solve a core problem in Sartrean metaphysics: the inexplicable coexistence and interaction of two radically different kinds of being. The CoD provides a unified ontological field that can accommodate both the relative stability of objects and the transformative capacity of consciousness without positing an unbridgeable gap. It opens a new line of inquiry by suggesting that existential themes of choice, responsibility, and meaning are not solely human struggles but are local expressions of a universal ontological principle of conferencing difference and transformation.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book