Willard Van Orman Quine (1948)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

I. Abstract

Willard Van Orman Quine’s core ontological claim is encapsulated by his doctrine of ontological relativity, which argues that there is no unique, privileged translation of one conceptual scheme into another, and thus no fact of the matter to what our terms refer outside of the background theory we adopt. Our ontology is ultimately a posit, justified by its efficacy within our overall web of belief. As mentioned in Methodology, this comparative assessment employs the Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF). The OMAF reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of manner-of-existence, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground a dynamic, processual reality where existence is an active conference, whereas Quine’s model, for all its pragmatic virtues, remains tethered to a static, object-oriented ontology of physical particles. This comparison strengthens the thesis by demonstrating how the CoD resolves the tension between relational meaning and physical postulation that Quine’s web of belief articulates but cannot fundamentally reconcile.

II. Overview of Quine's Model

Willard Van Orman Quine, a dominant figure in 20th-century analytic philosophy, sought to naturalize epistemology, bringing philosophical inquiry in line with scientific practice. His core principle is the rejection of the analytic-synthetic distinction, arguing that our knowledge is a 'web of belief' where no statement is immune to revision. This leads to his ontological position: to be is to be the value of a bound variable. In simpler terms, what we claim exists is determined by the quantifiers of the scientific theories we accept as best describing the world. This is not a discovery of pre-existing entities but a pragmatic commitment. His key mechanism is the 'indeterminacy of translation', which argues that from an external standpoint, multiple, incompatible manuals for translating one language into another can be consistent with all possible behavioral evidence. This extends to reference itself, leading to 'ontological relativity'—the meaning of existence is relative to a background language, and there is no Archimedean point from which to ask what objects really are.

In the Willard Van Orman Quine: a CRUP-OMAF case study, his ontology is assessed as follows:

• on primacy-of-existence: Quine's ontology is physicalist; the ultimate furniture of the universe consists of physical objects;
• on manner-of-existence: entities exist as the static, countable referents of our best scientific theories;
• on the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity, Quine is a pluralist, but his unity is provided by the single, overarching web of physical science that subsumes all particular entities into one coherent, if revisable, system.

This primes the reader for a comparison with a model where existence is not a matter of postulation but of constitutive, dynamic process.

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: Primacy-of-Existence

Statement: The OMAF assessment identifies a fundamental divergence on what is ontologically primary.

• Quine's Position: For Quine, the primacy-of-existence is granted to physical objects, as posited by our best and simplest scientific theories. His famous slogan 'to be is to be the value of a bound variable' means existence is a consequence of our linguistic and theoretical commitments within a naturalistic framework. The primary existents are the particles and fields of physics.^[2]
• CoD's Position: The CoD posits that the conference of difference itself is primary. Existence is not a property of pre-defined objects but is the active process of their relational declaration. The 'action to be' is more fundamental than any 'thing' that is said to be.^[3]
• Interpretive Analysis: This difference is not merely technical but foundational. Where Quine posits physical objects as primary, the CoD's insistence on the relational process allows it to account for the very act of theoretical postulation that Quine describes. The CoD sees Quine's 'web of belief' not as a web about objects, but as a web that is a conference of differences, thereby grounding the process of science itself in the ontological primitive.

Criterion 2: Manner-of-Existence

• Statement: The models offer starkly different accounts of the manner in which things exist.
• Quine's Position: Entities in Quine's universe exist as discrete, countable units that are the referents of successful theory. Their manner-of-existence is static; an electron is an electron, a set is a set. While our theories about them change, their ontological status, once posited, is fixed within that conceptual scheme.
• CoD's Position: For the CoD, the manner-of-existence is inherently dynamic and processual. Every being: 'action to be', a continuous performance within the conference of difference. A particle is not a static point but a sustained, transformative relation.^[4]
• Interpretive Analysis: Quine’s static ontology of objects struggles to accommodate process and becoming as fundamental, often relegating them to derivative status. The CoD, by making dynamic relation its core, seamlessly integrates change, interaction, and transformation as the very substance of reality, not emergent properties of it.

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

• Statement: The OMAF reveals a nuanced relationship regarding the one and the many.
• Quine's Position: Quine finds unity in the physicalist fabric of the world. The multiplicity of objects—from mental states to mathematical sets—is ultimately unified by their reducibility to, or supervenience upon, the physical entities described by fundamental science. The web of belief provides the unifying structure.
• CoD's Position: The CoD posits that unity and multiplicity are co-constituted in the conference itself. The 'bearing together' is the unification, while the 'bearing apart' is the differentiation; one cannot exist without the other.^[5]
• Interpretive Analysis: Here we find a meaningful convergence on the importance of a unifying structure (Quine’s web, the CoD’s conference), but a radical divergence in its nature. Quine’s unity is an external, theoretical framework we impose to make sense of multiplicity. The CoD’s unity is an internal, constitutive process of the multiplicity itself. The CoD thus grounds relationality without requiring a prior, assumed unity, as the unity is perpetually generated by the dynamic interplay of differences.

V. Implications

The confrontation with Quinean ontology throws the CoD's commitment to a dynamic, process-based metaphysics into sharpest relief. The central philosophical lesson is that while Quine brilliantly exposes the pragmatic and relative nature of our ontological commitments, his model remains trapped within a paradigm where 'what exists' are static objects. The CoD solves this by identifying the very process of relating and declaring—the conference of difference—as the fundamental existent, of which objects are transient, stabilized expressions.

This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by demonstrating its capacity to solve a specific problem Quine could not: providing a genuine ontological ground for the process of theory-making itself. Quine explains how we choose ontologies, but the CoD explains what an ontology is at the most fundamental level—a particularly potent conference of difference. This opens a new line of inquiry into the metaphysics of science, where scientific revolutions are not merely changes of reference but transformations in the very structure of ontological conferencing.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book