Graham Harman (2002)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

I. Abstract

Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) posits that reality is composed of discrete, withdrawn objects that forever retreat from direct access or exhaustive relation. Their interactions are not direct but are mediated through sensual caricatures. As mentioned in Methodology, this comparative assessment employs the Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF) to systematically contrast this view with the Condition of Difference (CoD). The OMAF reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of manner-of-existence, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground relationality as the very substance of being, rather than a secondary effect occurring between pre-existing units. Where OOO sees relation as a superficial interplay between sealed entities, the CoD identifies it as the constitutive process of existence itself. This comparison demonstrates how the CoD’s processual framework can account for the dynamism and intrinsic relatedness of the world without positing an inaccessible interiority, thereby offering a more fluid and integrated account of reality.

II. Overview of Object-Oriented Ontology

Emerging in the early 21st century from the Speculative Realist movement, Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) is a radical flat ontology that grants equal existential status to everything from quarks and teacups to corporations and fictional characters. Its core principle is the absolute autonomy and withdrawal of objects. Every real object, for Harman, possesses a deep, private reality that is never exhausted by its relations, perceptions, or descriptions. This leads to OOO's key mechanism: vicarious causation. Objects cannot interact directly, as their real cores are inaccessible. Instead, they relate through sensual objects—the superficial profiles or caricatures they present to each other. Their interaction occurs in a shared 'space' where these sensual proxies meet, a relation Harman metaphorically describes as 'allure'.

In Graham Harman: a CRUP-OMAF case study, his ontology is assessed as follows:

• On primacy-of-existence: it declares object-primacy, asserting that discrete, individual substances are the fundamental units of reality.
• On manner-of-existence: it posits a withdrawn and static essence for objects; their real core is unchanging, even as their sensual relations shift.
• On the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity: OOO is firmly on the side of multiplicity. Any 'unity' is either a larger compound object (which is itself withdrawn) or a temporary, sensual phenomenon. The world is a democracy of objects, all mutually sealed in their private realities, interacting only through indirect, aesthetic mediation.

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 comparison reveals that OOO and the CoD locate the primacy-of-existence in diametrically opposed foundations: for OOO, it is in discrete objects, while for the CoD, it is in the relational process itself.
• OOO's position: OOO unequivocally asserts the primacy of objects. The bedrock of reality is a population of discrete, individual substances. While objects can form larger compound objects, the ontological bias is always towards the individual unit. A sand dune is a real object, but its status is derived from the real objects (sand grains) that compose it, each retaining its own withdrawn reality.^[2]
• CoD's position: The CoD inverts this priority. It posits the primacy of process—specifically, the relational process of the conference of difference. Objects are not the starting point but are secondary stabilizations or persistent patterns within this ongoing, dynamic conference. An object is a 'relational achievement', a temporary equilibrium in the ceaseless transformation of bearing together and bearing apart.^[3]
• Interpretive analysis: This difference is not merely taxonomic but foundational. Where OOO posits objects as primary, the CoD's insistence on relational process allows it to account for emergence and intrinsic change in a way OOO cannot. For OOO, a new compound object has a new withdrawn essence, but the process of its emergence is secondary to the objects involved. For the CoD, the process of conferencing is the emergence; the object is its temporary footprint. The CoD sees becoming as fundamental, while OOO privileges being, albeit a hidden one.

Criterion 2: Manner-of-existence

• Statement: The models present opposing views on the fundamental mode or manner in which things exist.
• OOO'ps Position: The manner-of-existence for any real object is defined by withdrawal and stasis. An object's real core is eternally unchanging and inaccessible. It is a kind of monadic substance, rich and deep, but sealed off from the world. All change, interaction, and perception occur at the level of sensual objects, which are ephemeral and do not touch the real thing-in-itself.
• CoD's position: For the CoD, the manner-of-existence is inherently dynamic, relational, and transformative. To be is to be in a state of active conferencing. As stated in Koan 100.1, existence 'has no beginning or end, only ceaseless transformation'.^[4] An entity's 'is-ness' is precisely its 'does-ness'—its active participation in the conference. There is no hidden, static core; the reality of a thing is its total set of relational capacities and transformations.
• Interpretive analysis: This is the central clash. OOO protects the integrity of objects by placing their reality in a vault. The CoD finds reality in the open, public, and continuous exchange. Think of it not as an object with a secret interior, but as a node in a network whose entire identity is constituted by its connections. The CoD would argue that OOO's withdrawn object is an unnecessary metaphysical posit; all the work of explaining the world is done by the relational, sensual surface, which the CoD identifies as the entirety of existence.

Criterion 3: Relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity

• Statement: The models offer contrasting accounts of how the many and the one interrelate.
• OOO's position: OOO is a philosophy of radical multiplicity. Unity is always provisional. A unified compound object is simply another object added to the multitude, one which itself will be withdrawn from its components and from other objects. The tension between the one and the many is resolved by continually generating new 'ones' that join the 'many'. There is no overarching unity, only a flat plane of mutually enigmatic objects.
• CoD's position: The CoD posits a deep, processual unity underlying all multiplicity. The 'one' is the singular, universal process of the conference of difference. The 'many' are the specific, localized expressions and participants in this conference. As Koan 10.2 suggests, this principle is the singular 'Dao', 'Dharma', or 'Gospel' that manifests through infinite particular forms.^[5] Multiplicity is not a collection of isolated substances but the necessary diversity required for the conference itself to function.
• Interpretive analysis: Where OOO sees a desert of separate grains, the CoD sees an ocean with waves. For OOO, relation is a problem to be solved (via vicarious causation). For the CoD, relation is the solution—it is the given state of affairs. This comparison reveals the CoD as a monism of process, where the unity of the generative mechanism (the conference) gives rise to, and is expressed through, the teeming multiplicity of existents. OOO’s democracy of objects is, from the CoD perspective, a collection of solipsists, while the CoD presents a cosmos of collaborators.

V. Implications

The confrontation with Object-Oriented Ontology throws the CoD's commitment to dynamic, constitutive relationality into sharpest relief. The central insight of this comparison is that an ontology can be robust and account for the autonomy of phenomena without resorting to the metaphysical postulate of withdrawn substances. OOO’s withdrawn object acts as a guarantor of individuality, but at the cost of rendering the world a place of profound isolation where connection is always indirect and slightly unreal.

This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by demonstrating its capacity to solve a core problem left by OOO: the problem of genuine interaction and change. The CoD offers a framework where relation is not a fragile bridge between solitudes but the very ground of being. It opens a new line of inquiry into the quality of relations—the ways in which different conferences of difference produce stability, novelty, or transformation—rather than treating all objects as formally equivalent black boxes. By moving from a substance-oriented to a process-oriented metaphysics, the CoD provides a more continuous and integrated account of a world that appears, in every moment, to be actively and intimately engaged.

Gospel of being

All existence is a conference of
difference

Discover the process

From bosons to the cosmos and beyond.