![\"definition-of-society-02\"](\"/assets/img/definition-of-society-02.webp\")
In a 1987 interview for Woman's Own, the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher ↗ is quoted as saying:
\n\n\nI think we have gone through a period when too many children and people [...] are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! (Thatcher, M. 1987)
\n
And she was correct if for no other reason than the suffix -ety means ‘condition’. So yes, society is not a ‘thing’ but rather the condition of a thing. And that thing is ‘sharing’ because that's what soci literally means: ‘sharing’. Hence society, is literally the ‘condition [of] sharing’.
\nThus Margaret Thatcher appears to lament that ‘too many children and people’ were failing in their individual responsibility of contributing to the ‘sharing condition’ and thus failing to manifest society. And whilst we both share this view we differ in so much as I see this failure not so much in terms of individuals but the system itself which dictates much of the behaviour of individuals.
\nBut before we look at tackling the systemic failures of society we first need to finalise our understanding of what society is and more specifically what does sharing mean?
\nThe English word share stems from Middle English schare cognate with Middle Dutch schare meaning ‘share in property’. In functional terms, the word sharing means ‘action to make mutual’.
\nAlloting, and giving, like sharing, are acts denoting distribution, so does this mean allotment is sharing? As forms of distribution, each denotes transfer of possession from one to another. Unlike, the lossy distribution of alloting and giving however, sharing is functionally defined by mutuality and thus conveys a sense of lossless distribution. Think about it. If you give me a fish, you don't have it anymore—yes? If you allot me a portion of a fish you lose that portion. Giving and alloting are acts of lossy distribution because you lose something in doing so. In other words both involve losing some or all possession.
\nSharing on the other hand, is ‘action to make mutual’ and thus to distribute losslessly. Being lossless is what differentiates sharing from dividing, giving or portioning. In sharing, what you share with me is not lost to you. The point here is that physical matter cannot be shared. For instance, you and I cannot share (mutually) the same crumbs of bread—because physics. Both allotting and giving are to the material realm as sharing is to the immaterial.
\nThe novelist Anne Ritchie ↗ illustrates this perfectly in her 1885 novel Mrs. Dymond ↗ wherein the character Jo states:
\n\n\nM. Caron should be here, [...] What is it he was saying in the studio last night, that an equal subdivision of material was an absurdity—that all gifts should be spiritual [...] and capable of infinite division? (Ritchie, A. 1885)
\n
Here, the author, through the character, informs us that the subdivision of material things is finite but that the subdivision of the immaterial is infinite. Genius, thy name is woman.
\nIn the next paragraph, Anne expands on the construct of sharing by introducing the reader to the parable of the fish (often missattributed to Confucius) where the character Jo reflects:
\n\n\nI suppose the Patron meant that if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn. (Ritchie, A. 1885)
\n
Here Anne's character begins to flesh-out the difference between giving and sharing. Giving is an act to distribute the material and sharing is an act to distribute the immaterial. And what is the one thing that can be distributed losslesssly?
\nKnowledge, it's in the parable. Think about it, if I was at your home and asked where the bathroom was, you don't forget those directions as a result of sharing them with me. For if this were to occur you would never share anything with anybody. You are not giving me directions and thus losing them but rather sharing directions. This is what I mean when I say sharing is lossless. In sharing, what we share with others is still retained by ourselves, able to be passed to others who in turn pass it to others. Behold the power of reciprocal altrusim, ‘to take in and forward the practice of others’. Unlike giving, sharing is potentially infinite.
\nUnlike giving, in sharing, both the sharer and recipient are emancipated and thus free of obligation or reliance on each other. In teaching a person to fish, the reciprocal altruist frees themselves of the double burden of maintaining not only themself but another. Recipients are also emancipated through a greater sense of self-worth that comes from knowing they can catch their own fish. They become reciprocal altruists themselves by teaching others and thus raising the ‘measure of shared knowing’, that is quite literally consciousness.
\nFrom this we can see that the only way to manifest society, the ‘condition of sharing’ is reciprocal altruism, ‘to take in and forward the practice of others’ for this creates consciousness, a ‘measure of shared knowing’.
\n![\"Colocracy](\"/assets/img/colocracy-government-money-cant-buy-02.webp\")
\n![\"descartes-on-gods-existence-01\"](\"/assets/img/descartes-on-gods-existence-01.webp\")
In Chapter III of his 1641 treatise: Meditationes de prima philosophia Rene Descartes understanding of God translates as follows:
\n\n\nBy the name of God I understand a certain infinite substance, independent, highly intelligent, highly powerful, and from which both I myself and everything else, if anything else exists, whatever exists, was created. (Descartes, R. 1641)
\n
Here, Descartes avoids anthropomorphising God, but by using the term substantiam: ‘substance’ declares God as existing. Unfortunately, Descartes does not provide any qualification to support the claim of God's substance. But I think this deliberate if only because later in Chapter V, Descartes declares:
\n\n\nFor since I am accustomed in all other things to distinguish existence from essence, I easily convince myself that it can also be separated from the essence of God, and thus God can be thought of as not actually existing. (Descartes, R. 1641)
\n
And here we have it—the smoking gun—the probable reason why Descarte's publications were banned by the Church, not because they conflicted with the narrative of the Eucharist per-se but because they introduced the paradox of God's existence itself. The Church avoids attributing the ban to the paradox itself for doing so would drive attention and thus discussion towards it.
\nAny other contradictions in Descartes Meditations I'm inclined to believe are in the service of plausible deniability including the very long intro that reads much like a personal diary revealing angst about his own intelligence, propensity for mistakes etc. In other words if the Church ever came after him he could leverage lots of plausible material to counter charges that he was fomenting heresy by questioning God's existence.
\nThus whilst many are inclined to see Descartes ontological argument as confirming God's existence I am inclined to think the opposite by virtue of the above sentence from Chapter V. For it suppports the long-held position of Descartes which viewed essence as separate from existence. By including that once sentence in his Meditations, I think that Descartes achieved his aim which was to convey the paradox of God's existence without signing his own death warrant.
\nMy book, the Gospel of Being addresses this paradox by constructing God as the constant expression of existence and thus Principal to it not of it i.e. God is but does not exist.
\n![\"The](\"/assets/img/gospel-of-being-04.webp\")
\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\n![\"anselm-ontology-and-sophistry-01\"](\"/assets/img/anselm-ontology-and-sophistry-01.webp\")
St. Anselm, details his ontological argument in his 1078 treatise Proslogion where what is often referred to as his first proposition on God, I interpret to be a value statement:
\n\n\n...we believe that you are something that nothing greater can be thought of. (Anselm, 1078)
\n
By prefacing at the outset: ‘we believe’ Anselm leaves nothing to be challenged and the reader can do little more than simply acknowledge the value statement ‘we believe’. The intellectual sleight of hand occurs when Anselm attempts to make the leap from value statement to proposition of fact:
\n\n\nAnd surely that which cannot be thought greater cannot be in the understanding alone. (Anselm, 1078)
\n
Restated, Anselm claims: ‘surely that which cannot be thought greater’ must exist in reality. Anselm makes no attempt to explain how the value statement: ‘we believe that you are something that nothing greater can be thought of’ self-qualifies as a factual proposition. Instead, Anselm leverages the thought-terminating cliché: ‘surely’ to render his proposition as if a fait accompli: ‘an accomplished fact’ that needs no qualification—sophistry.
\nHad Anselm wished to avoid qualifying his proposition he should have instead written it again as a value statement:
\n\n\nAnd ‘
\nsurely[we believe] that which cannot be thought greater cannot be in the understanding alone.’
The reader again would be left to acknowledge the value statement ‘we believe’ and Anselm’s claim could avoid the burden of proof of qualification. I wonder if Descartes was of the same opinion as his own ontology references Anselm’s (albeit not by name) but acknowledges its potential sophistry. I’m beginning to think Descartes was a great deal smarter than we give him credit for aided no doubt by his proficiency in mathematics.
\nIf you too share an interest in math, as did Descartes, you might enjoy reading my article Towards a Mathematical Proof of God which sets out the equation of existence and more importantly, how it functions as Creator: lit. ‘that which creates’.[1]
\n![\"Towards](\"/assets/img/mathematical-proof-of-god-02.webp\")
\nby John Mackay
\nThere is no greater question than on the first principle of existence i.e. the Creator: 'that which creates'.
\nDiscover the book\nThanks also to the following contributor/s whose advice or feedback was included: ChatGPT 4o ↩︎
\n![\"god-for-atheists-01\"](\"/assets/img/god-for-atheists-01.webp\")
The question sounds like a Zen koan or perhaps a trap. For centuries, the atheist and the believer have been locked in a stalemate, each defining themselves against the other. The believer says, 'God exists'. The atheist says, 'I see no evidence for such a being'. The conversation ends.
\nBut it only ends because both accept the same hidden premise: that if God is anything, God must be a being—somewhere, somehow, existing.
\nWhat if that premise is wrong?
\nHere's the problem that won't go away. If God is perfect—and by perfect we mean complete, finished, lacking nothing—then God cannot also be a being.
\nThis isn't wordplay. Strip away the abstraction and this is a story about what words actually mean. To exist is 'to be out of'. The word itself betrays its meaning: existence is derivative. An existent is something that issues from something else. Every existent we know—every rock, every thought, every galaxy—is in motion, transforming, incomplete. That's what it means to be. Being is literally 'action to be'. It's a verb pretending to be a noun.
\nIf this seems counterintuitive, you're in good company. The ancient Greeks wrestled with it. So did the medieval theologians. How can the perfect—the unchanging, the complete—have any relationship with the imperfect world of change and decay? Their solution was to place God outside of existence entirely. God doesn't exist in the way a rock exists. God is—in a way that transcends our category of existence.
\nBut theology got tangled in its own metaphors. The God who transcends existence somehow kept getting treated as the ultimate being in existence. The king of the universe. The celestial watchmaker. A being among beings, just infinitely more powerful.
\nWhat if we take the theologians at their word, but follow the logic to its conclusion? If God is perfect, God cannot be a being. If God is not a being, God cannot exist in the sense that anything exists.
\nSo where does that leave us?
\nThere's a story that has caused more confusion than almost any other. It's the story of creation from nothing: creatio ex nihilo.
\nThe logic seems impeccable at first glance. If God created the world, there must have been a time before the world. Nothing existed except God. Then God spoke, and the world leaped into being from the void.
\nBut the logic collapses the moment you examine it. Nothing isn't. That's what nothing means—the absence of anything that is. You cannot create something from nothing because there is no nothing to create from. There is only existence. There has always been only existence.
\nThis is not a claim about cosmology. It's a claim about logic.[1] Existence cannot have a beginning because a beginning would require a state of non-existence to precede it, and non-existence isn't a state. It's nothing. And nothing isn't.
\nThe original writers of the Torah understood this. When they described creation, they described creatio ex materia—creation from something. A formless void. Deep waters. The raw stuff of existence, waiting to be shaped. God in that story is not a magician pulling rabbits from empty hats.
\nThis created a conundrum for later theologians. If God shaped pre-existing material, where did the material come from? Who created the deep? The question seemed urgent, so they invented an answer: God created it from nothing. They solved the puzzle by creating a contradiction.
\nThe conundrum was always a phantom. You only need to ask 'where did the material come from' if you assume existence had a beginning. But existence doesn't have a beginning. Existence is. It has always been, in some form, transforming. The question isn't 'how did it all start?' The question is 'what is the process by which it continues to transform?'
\nNow we're getting somewhere. If existence has always been transforming, we can ask: what is the fundamental pattern of that transformation? Is there a primitive process—a basic engine—that drives all change?
\nLook closely at anything. Not with the eyes of a mystic, but with the eyes of a physicist, a biologist, a philosopher. Look at an atom. Look at a cell. Look at a society. Look at a thought. What do they have in common?
\nThe language is precise, so let's unpack it. Existence is, literally, 'a process of declaring together of action to be'. The etymology reveals the mechanism: all existence is mutual. It's a declaration made in the bearing together of that which is otherwise bearing apart. A proton and an electron declare together, and an atom exists. A community of cells declares together, and an organism exists. A network of concepts declares together, and a thought exists.
\nThis is the pattern without exception. Existence is a 'condition of bearing together'—a conference—that constantly transforms a 'condition of bearing apart'—difference. The conference holds difference in relation, and that relation is existence.
\nThink of existence not as a thing, but as a relationship. The relationship between difference and conference is not something existence has. It's what existence is.
\nWe observe this conference of difference everywhere. In the quantum foam. In the dance of binary stars. In the marketplace. In the dialectic of ideas. It is the universal process that transforms every existent and reveals every abstracta. You cannot find an existent that is not a conference of difference, because to exist is to be difference in conference.
\nIf we wanted to capture this abstraction in its purest form—to strip away all metaphor and see the skeleton of the idea—we might write it like this:
\n$\\exists = \\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$
\nLet's read it slowly. The symbol $\\exists$ stands for existence, all existence, everything that is in the mode of 'being out of' and thus the product of transformation. The braces $\\lbrace\\rbrace$ we borrow from set theory, but we repurpose them. They don't denote a collection here. They denote a conference, a bearing-together, a holding together of difference in relation. And $\\Delta$, the delta, stands for difference—itself a conference of difference—yet differing from others.
\nThe equation says: all existence is a conference of difference. Not 'existence arises from' or 'existence is caused by.' Existence is. The relationship is identity. To exist is to be a conference of difference.
\nThis is the conceptual leap. We're not describing a mechanism that produces existence. We're describing the ethic: 'character' of existence itself. The conference of difference is not a cause as much as it functions to constantly express: 'press out' existence. It's the process primitive of existence.
\nAnd as the transforming function of existence, something else emerges.
\n{Δ} initiates the equation. The conference of difference is what existence is—but it's also what the condition of being stems from. Not in time, but in logic. As the character Firmus declares in Plutarch's Symposia:
\n\n\nIt is universally true that a principle is before that whose principle it is.
\n
The principle is logically prior to the existents observed to constitute it. The construct of relationship is before the things observed to be related.
\nThere can be no clay pot without the process that creates it. Not because a supernatural being must intervene, but because the word 'pot' names the result of a process. The pot is the trace of that process. To deny the process is to deny the very actions that give existence to the phenomenon that we categorize as a pot.
\nThe same logic applies to existence. Existence is creation. It's the constant process of transforming difference into conference. If there is creation, there must be a creator—not as a being who performed a one-time act, but as the process itself. The process is that which creates.
\nWe have identified the process primitive of all existence: the conference of difference. We have observed it everywhere, without exception. We have abstracted it into an equation. For all intents and purposes, we have identified the process of creating as creator: 'that which creates'.
\nNot a being. Not an existent. But the constant expression $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ that initiates the equation of existence. The creator: 'that which creates' is creation: the 'process of creating'.
\nThis is the move that resolves the paradox. The Creator is not a being, so it does not exist. But it is—in so far as it is the principal process that makes existence possible. It is omnipotent, if by omnipotent we mean 'enabling of everything'. It is omnipresent, if by omnipresent we mean 'caused to go before everything'. It is omniscient, if by omniscient we mean 'realizing of everything'. These are not attributes of a person. They are attributes of the process primitive of existence.
\nWe have one category left to place this in.
\nWe're accustomed to thinking that everything that is must exist. Rocks exist. Trees exist. You exist. I exist. If God doesn't exist, then God must be a fantasy, a fiction, a wish.
\nBut there's another category. Mathematics discovered it long ago. The number seven is. It has properties. It's prime. It's odd. It's the sum of three and four. These are not opinions about seven; they are facts. But the number seven does not exist. You cannot trip over it. You cannot measure its mass. It has no location in space. It belongs to the category of abstracta—that which is but does not exist.
\nGod, in this construct, belongs to the same category. God is the principal process that transforms existence. God is the constant expression $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ that initiates the equation of existence. God does not exist, any more than the number seven exists. But God is of the same category as the number seven, albeit infinitely more powerful.
\nThis is what the theologians were reaching for when they spoke of God as actus purus, pure act. This is what the philosophers meant when they said God was not a being but being-itself. The language has always been there, struggling to say something that ordinary categories cannot contain. The mistake was to keep treating this pure act, this being-itself, as if it were 'a' being. As if it existed.
\nSo here we are. The atheist says, 'I do not believe in the existence of God'. They are correct. The God who exists—the celestial being, the cosmic king, the supernatural person—is a construct that collapses under its own weight. It cannot be perfect and exist. It cannot be creator and be a being among beings. The atheist's disbelief is rational.
\nBut the believer says, 'God is'. They are also correct. Not because God exists, but because God is the process primitive that transforms all existence. The conference of difference is not an hypothesis. It's an observation. The equation $\\exists = \\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ is not a creed. It's an abstraction from observations of reality. And the identification of $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ as Creator is not an act of faith. It's an act of logic.
\nYou can be an atheist about the God who exists and believe, with full rational confidence, in the God who is. You can grant leave—which is what believe originally meant—to the construct of God as the constant expression principal to existence. You can deny the potter who is a being, and affirm the potter as the creative process (creation) itself.
\nThis is not a compromise. It's not a watered-down God for people who can't handle reality. It's simply reality, stripped of the contradictions that theology piled onto it. It's the God that survives the death of God. The God that is without existing. The God that all existence must obey if it is to exist.
\nThe God for atheists.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nThere is no greater question than on the first principle of existence i.e. the Creator: 'that which creates'.
\nDiscover the book\nThe philosopher Parmenides (c. 475 BCE) is perhaps the first to declare that the very attempt to discuss or conceive of 'nothing' is a performative contradiction. "I will allow you neither to say nor to think 'from what is not': for 'is not' is not to be said or thought of." McKirahan, R. D. (Ed.). (2010). Philosophy before Socrates: An introduction with texts and commentary (2nd ed.). Hackett Publishing Company. Ch. 11.6 'Parmenides of Elea'. ↩︎
\n![\"efficacy-of-time-travel-01\"](\"/assets/img/efficacy-of-time-travel-01.webp\")
Time is a value that references a point in the ‘condition of being’ that is existence. In other words, time is a value that references a past, present or future condition of being. In short, time is not of material existence, but an abstract and often arbitrary point of reference to existence.
\nTravelling back in time is symbolic of turning-back, with perfect precision, every transformation of existence to the point one wishes to return to. However, this demands having perfect knowing of the position and momentum of the sum-total of existence one desires returning to. However, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle calls into question perfect knowing of position and momentum observing that:
\n\n\n...the more precisely the location [of an electron] is determined, the less precisely the [momentum] is known and vice versa; (Heisenberg, W. 1927)
\n
Essentially, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is telling us that it is impossible to have perfect knowing of the position and momentum of even a single composite particle, such as an electron, let alone every composite and elementary particle in existence, for which such knowledge would be necessary, even assuming you could return the ‘condition of being’ that is existence back to a previous condition. Simply put, we cannot restore a previous condition of being if we do not have perfect knowing of that condition to begin with. Thus, to return to a previous existence (colloq. time-travel) is not only improbable it is, according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, impossible. Were it possible, the idea of returning the entirety of existence to a previous condition would leave it to play out exactly as it had previously, rendering time travel as nothing more than an existential loop.[1]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nInitial drafts of this article were created with the assistence of ChatGPT 4o with records of conversations retained. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\nWhat is the nature of power? In the [[Gospel of Being]], power is not domination but ability—the capacity to act, to adapt, to become. Every being: 'action to be' is a will to this power. But power never appears in just one form. It shapes itself through patterns, expressed differently through matter, motion, and relation.
\nThree such expressions—chemistry, light, and electricity—offer a profound glimpse into how being stores, moves, and shares itself. Each embodies power, but in different ways: chemistry as structure, electricity as flow, and light as presence. These are not just categories of physics. They are ontological modes—ways that existence speaks its ability into being.
\n![\"power-as-pattern-01\"](\"/assets/img/power-as-pattern-01.webp\")
At its heart, chemistry is memory. Molecules are not just bits of matter; they are patterns of potential—structures that encode energy, identity, and reactivity. Chemical bonds are energy stored in form. The structure of water, the double helix of DNA, the arrangement of neurotransmitters in a synapse: these are all instances where power is held until it is needed.
\nIn this way, chemistry is the archive of being. It is structured storage, where the past accumulates as potential for the future. A sugar molecule is not just fuel—it is a pattern of sunlight and soil, a past tense of photosynthesis waiting to be metabolized. Even when remade through metabolism, sugar is still a reconstitution of light, water and carbon—its pattern bears the grammar of its origin, even if spoken anew. In biochemical terms, life is the orchestration of molecular memory into function. In ontological terms, chemistry is being held in readiness.
\n![\"power-as-pattern-02\"](\"/assets/img/power-as-pattern-02.webp\")
If chemistry stores power, electricity moves it. Electrical energy is not stored in shape but conducted through relation. It is the motion of charge through a medium, a choreography of electrons responding to difference—potential across a wire, or ion gradients across a cell membrane.
\nElectricity is therefore not form but flow. It does not remember; it responds. It is the syntax of coordinated activity—how different parts of a system interact, align, and adapt in real time. It carries information, but only as long as the current flows. And unlike light, it moves through matter: it is material, lossy, and contingent on resistance.
\nIn the Gospel of Being, electricity embodies the channel of will. It is how one part of a being relates to another, how power is negotiated through difference. In the human brain, in animal movement, and in ecosystems of signal and response, electricity is the medium of adjustment, coordination, and control. It is not just energy—it is the grammar of relation.
\n![\"power-as-pattern-03\"](\"/assets/img/power-as-pattern-03.webp\")
Then there is light—power with no mass, movement with no inertia. Light is not transferred through matter but across the void. It does not crawl like electricity or cling like chemistry. It leaps. It sings.
\nWhereas chemistry stores and electricity channels, light expresses. Photons carry energy and information as waveforms: frequency, amplitude, polarization. Unlike electrons, they do not require a medium. Unlike molecules, they do not decay in pattern. Light is, in some sense, lossless—the closest thing the universe has to pure transmission.
\nFrom an ontological perspective, light is the utterance of power. It is how being reveals itself at a distance—how a star proclaims its fire across light-years, how a thought becomes vision, how intention becomes expression. Light does not hold memory or require connection; it simply is, and by being, it illuminates.
\nIn the Gospel of Being, light is the voice of power—the radiant sign that something is, here, now, and open to difference.
\nSo how do these three—chemistry, electricity and light—relate?
\nThey are not just different "energies" but different ontological registers. All three are manifestations of the will to power, but each reveals a different aspect of what it means to be.
\n| Mode | \nFunction | \nOntological Role | \n
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | \nStores power | \nMemory of being | \n
| Electricity | \nTransfers power | \nRelation of being | \n
| Light | \nTransmits power | \nExpression of being | \n
In physical terms:
\nIn ontological terms:
\nBeing is not limited to one. Every living system, every being, uses all three:
\nThis is why, in the Gospel of Being, we might say:
\n\n\nWhere being is a will to power, chemistry stores it, electricity channels it, and light expresses it.
\n
And this is not metaphor—it is manifestation. Every time a thought becomes action, a signal becomes motion, or a cell responds to a photon, power becomes pattern, and pattern becomes power.
\nAnd that is the great ontological revelation of science itself: that matter is not dead, energy is not blind, and information is not abstract. They are all expressions of being willing—of the action to be, becoming.
\nIn this light, we see that the universe is not just made of particles and forces but of wills patterned into form, and each pattern—whether stored, moved, or expressed—is a chapter in the unfolding Gospel of Being.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\n![\"ontology-and-the-trinity-01\"](\"/assets/img/ontology-and-the-trinity-01.webp\")
Before asking what the Trinity adds, we must first articulate the triadic structure already present within the Conference of Difference ontology. Gospel of Being: ready reference grounds existence in a single irreducible process: the conference of difference.
\nThe foundational claim (Koan 10.1):
\n\n\nAll existence is a conference of difference: a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.
\n
This is not a metaphor but a constitutive pattern. Whether we consider a quantum field, a biological cell, or a conscious thought, each is a conference of difference—a dynamic relation in which distinct elements are co-constituted through their interplay.
\nFrom this foundation, the CoD articulates existence through three interlocking functions:
\n| Function | \nCoD Definition | \nReady Reference | \n
|---|---|---|
| Cause | \nThe conference of difference $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ as that which creates | \nKoan 40.1: 'God [i.e. CoD] is metaphysical [...] of existence, the Principal [...] expression, functioning as Creator'. | \n
| Effect | \nExistence $\\exists$ as that which issues from the conference of difference | \nKoan 10.4: 'Without the conference of difference, there would be no atoms, molecules or cells; no [...] systems; [...] thought or act'. | \n
| Essence | \nThe declaration $\\exists = \\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ as the totality of cause and effect | \nKoan 10.6: 'Behold the divine epistle of being, the first and last words on existence, the medium and message of all creation—Genesis'. | \n
The CoD's triadic structure is not three persons or hypostases. It is three functions of a single, self-sufficient process. The question, then, is whether the Christian Trinity maps cleanly onto this structure or whether it offers something the CoD's native language does not capture.
\nIf we interpret the Trinity through the CoD framework, a coherent mapping emerges:
\n| Persona | \nTraditional Role | \nCoD Function | \n
|---|---|---|
| Father | \nCreator, unbegotten source | \nThe conference of difference $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ as cause—the Principal that enables all existence (Koan 40.2) | \n
| Son | \nThat which proceeds from the Father | \nExistence $\\exists$ as effect—the 'condition of being' that issues from the conference (Koan 10.6) | \n
| Spirit | \nBond of unity between Father and Son | \nThe declaration $\\exists = \\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ as essence—the 'measure of knowing together' that completes the circuit (Koan 50.5) | \n
This reading has several virtues:
\nYet this reading also raises a question: why invoke the Trinity at all? If the CoD's own language of cause, effect and essence suffices, the Trinity becomes a decorative overlay—a set of personified placeholders for a structure that does not need them.
\nThe Trinity does not add new ontological content that the CoD lacks. The structure of existence as a conference of difference—cause, effect, and the declaration that unites them—is already fully articulated in the CoD's Central Claim. What the Trinity adds is not ontological but grammatical and cultural.
\n1. A narrative grammar for relation.\nThe CoD speaks of 'conference' and 'difference' as abstract conditions. The Trinity speaks of Father, Son and Spirit—persons in relation. This narrative form is more accessible for transmission, ritual, and moral formation. A narrative can be storified, embodied, and passed across generations in ways that abstract principles cannot. The cost, however, is that narrative tends to personify what the CoD treats as process. The danger is that the persons become reified—treated as agents rather than as functions of a single relational dynamic.
\n2. An insistence on the irreducibility of persons.\nIn orthodox Trinitarianism, the three hypostases are not functions or roles. They are subsistent relations—each person is fully God, yet distinct. The CoD's functional mapping (Father = cause, Son = effect, Spirit = essence) risks reducing persons to mere aspects of a single process. From a CoD perspective, this is not a loss but a clarification: what theology calls 'persons' are personifications of ontological functions. From a theological perspective, this is a reduction: it treats as derivative what tradition holds as primary. The divergence is real and should not be glossed over.
\n3. Historical weight and theological inheritance.\nThe Trinity is not a neutral concept. It comes embedded in centuries of creedal definition, controversy, and practice. Using it signals a conversation with that tradition—with Nicaea, with the Cappadocians, with Augustine and Aquinas. The cost is that one inherits its problems (the filioque controversy, the tension between unity and distinction, the difficulty of naming divine persons without modalism) even when one's ontology resolves them differently. The CoD does not need to solve the filioque debate because it does not operate with the categories that generate it.
\nTo be clear about what this reinterpretation does and does not claim, it is useful to distinguish:
\n| Dimension | \nCoD Ontology | \nTrinitarian Theology (Orthodox) | \n
|---|---|---|
| Structure | \nTriadic process: cause, effect, essence | \nTri-personal being: Father, Son, Spirit | \n
| Unity | \nRelational—achieved in the conference of difference | \nSubstantial—shared essence (ousia) | \n
| Distinction | \nFunctional—difference i.e. that which bears apart | \nPersonal—irreducible hypostases | \n
| Ground | \nImmanent—the conference of difference itself | \nTranscendent—the Father as source (monarchia) | \n
| Relation to world | \nConstitutive—world is conference of difference | \nCreative—world is contingent act of will | \n
These are not simply two ways of saying the same thing. They are different ontological grammars with different commitments.
\nThe convergence is that both affirm a triadic structure at the heart of reality. Neither reduces to monism or simple dualism. Both insist that relation is not secondary to substance but constitutive.
\nThe divergence is that the CoD treats this structure as a process that can be described in functional terms, while orthodox Trinitarianism treats it as a life of irreducible persons. The CoD's language of cause, effect and essence is explanatory; Trinitarian language is doxological—it names what is worshipped, not merely what is understood.
\nThe Trinity does work that the CoD's native triadic structure does not do—but that work is not ontological. It is:
\nFor the project of philosophical ontology, the CoD's own language is sufficient. It names the structure of existence with precision and without the theological baggage that the Trinity carries.
\nBut for those who wish to inhabit that structure—to live within the conference of difference as a practice of atonement and forgiveness, of meaning and transformation—the Trinity offers a grammar for doing so. It personifies what the CoD describes, making it available not only to reason but to imagination, community, and devotion.
\nIn this sense, the Trinity is not a competitor to the CoD's triadic structure. It is a translation of that structure into a register where relation becomes person, process becomes life, and ontology becomes doxology. Whether that translation is faithful to the CoD or a distortion of it depends on what one takes the CoD to be: a complete ontology or a lens through which to read other traditions.
\nThis article has done the latter. It has read the Trinity through the CoD, and in doing so has found convergence at the level of structure and divergence at the level of grammar. The CoD offers an ontology; the Trinity offers a life. They are not the same—and that difference may be the most interesting thing about them.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\n![\"whats-wrong-with-democracy-01\"](\"/assets/img/whats-wrong-with-democracy-01.webp\")
It’s time to stop expecting a competitive electoral system to produce democratic results—or worse, believing it ever intended to.
\nThe system is functioning exactly as designed.
\nAs Steven Covey once said, "If you don’t like the results a system produces, change the system." Yet most of us are still hoping that tweaking the edges of electoral democracy will somehow yield justice, fairness, or true representation.
\nHere’s the uncomfortable truth: electoral democracy is not democracy. It’s an oligarchic system disguised as democratic process. Aristotle knew this 2,000 years ago when he said that elections are inherently oligarchic—structured for rule by the few.
\nSo let’s stop lamenting that there's nothing democratic about it, and start acknowledging two key truths:
\nReal democracy isn’t about competing for power. It’s about sharing it. It’s about co-petition—working together in pursuit of common good, not victory over an opponent. Colocracy is grounded in that principle.
\nIt engineers governance toward win-win results rather than the win-lose paradigm electoral systems enforce. But here’s the catch: the current power structure has no incentive to change anything.
\nIf we want people’s government, the people have to build it.
\nWe can’t complain our way to transformation. We have to move from a culture of grievance to a culture of responsibility.
\n\n\n“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”
\n
\n—Noam Chomsky
This is why protest is tolerated—but building alternatives is not. The moment you propose real power transfer, the system will move to crush it.
\nBy building openly, we allow the public to benchmark the system in real time. By building anonymously, we protect those involved.
\nThis is the foundation of Colocracy. It means verifiable credentials (VCs), biometric authentication, proof-of-humanity safeguards, and transparent governance built on tools like Gitea—deployable for less than $100.
\nIf this resonates—if you're done waiting for someone else to fix the system—you’ll want to read the free ebook:
\n\n![\"determinism-and-probability-01\"](\"/assets/img/determinism-and-probability-01.webp\")
In discussions about the nature of existence, two concepts often appear at odds: determinism and probability. Traditional discourse tends to present these ideas as binary opposites — determinism as a fully deterministic universe where everything is predictable, and probability as a force of randomness or uncertainty. However, within the framework of the Gospel of Being, these concepts are not treated as being in opposition. Instead, they are seen as deeply intertwined, with determinism as the independent, perfect process that enables probability. This article redefines the meanings of and the relationship between determinism and probability, offering a new perspective that highlights how these two constructs complement one another within the process of existence.
\n\n\nFor the purposes of this article, determinism is intended to mean the 'doctrine or practice of limiting of' and probability is defined as 'ability to prove'.
\n
In the Gospel of Being, determinism is not merely a law of fixed cause-and-effect or a mechanism for predicting every detail of the future. Rather it is the doctrine that governs how transformation occurs. The deterministic process, referred to as the conference of difference {Δ}, is the first principle of existence. This conference of difference governs the how of all transformation from the quantum realm, to the universe and everything in between.
\nThis deterministic process is perfect: 'complete' — it is independent of everything and does not rely on external factors or conditions. Specifically it sets the limits of how transformation can occur. It does not predict specific outcomes (the what) but determines the process (the how) by which the what may transform as. Through this process, determinism limits the how of existence while establishing the necessary conditions for probability.
\nWhile determinism governs how transformation happens, probability determines what can emerge from those transformations. Probability in the Gospel of Being is not about randomness or pure uncertainty but about the ability to prove potential outcomes within the limits of the deterministic process — the conference of difference.
\nIt is the deterministic process — the conference of difference — that enables probability. Probability does not exist independently; it is dependent on the deterministic process. The deterministic process sets how transformation must occur, while probability negotiates what transformation is probable in the system it exists in. In other words, probability operates according to the doctrine set by determinism, i.e. that process that defines how probability evolves.
\n\n\nThus, probability depends entirely on a deterministic process — the conference of difference — to function as the system by which probability evolves.
\n
Rather than viewing determinism and probability as binary (either/or) systems, the Gospel of Being presents them as a connected system in which the 'condition of being' that is existence transforms.
\nIn this view, determinism is not constrained by anything, but probability operates within it, allowing for variation and transformation whilst respecting the boundaries set by the deterministic process.
\nIn conclusion, determinism and probability should not be seen as opposing systems but as complementary ones that together, govern the unfolding of existence. Determinism, understood as the perfect, independent limiting process of transformation, provides the crucial process that governs how change can happen, while probability interdependently negotiates potential outcomes. Together, as a system they create a dynamic interplay — one where determinism and probability coexist, allowing for a rich and complex existence.
\nBy reframing determinism and probability as an interconnected system — with determinism as a non-dependent process and probability as an interdependent one that operates by virtue of it — we gain a deeper understanding of how existence unfolds: structured yet open to creative transformation, limited yet capable of infinite variation.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\n![\"being-vs-becoming-01\"](\"/assets/img/being-vs-becoming-01.webp\")
Is the universe a set of things — or a single ongoing verb? Philosophers have long struggled to decide whether reality is best understood as being — defined as a substratum of stable substances — or as becoming — defined as a flux of transformations without final rest. This isn't just a thought experiment; it's the root logic behind science, religion, and law. Are we building atop atoms, or adapting within flows? Are we separate entities, or movements inside a larger dance? In a universe determined through probability, the question becomes more important: if everything is always changing, what grounds existence at all? Or is change itself the ground? This article explores the deepest divide in Western metaphysics — substance versus process — and reveals how a third way, centred in the conference of difference, a constant expression that defines the totality of existence.
\nAt the foundation of Western metaphysics lies a divide between those who see being as substance and those who see it as process. The distinction shapes not only philosophical speculation, but scientific method, legal thought, and theological doctrine. Is the world composed of discrete, enduring things — or of relations that only appear stable while always transforming?
\n![\"being-vs-becoming-03\"](\"/assets/img/being-vs-becoming-03.webp\")
Substance theory begins with Parmenides, who argued that 'what is, is' — and that change, multiplicity and void are illusions.[1] For Parmenides, being is whole, eternal, and unchanging. This static vision was challenged by Heraclitus, but developed more fully by Plato, who held that the world of appearances was in flux, while true reality — the Forms — remained timeless and perfect.[2]
\nAristotle codified substance metaphysics in Metaphysics (Book Z), defining substance (ousia) as '...not that which is predicated of a subject, but that of which the other things are predicated'.[3] For him, individual substances (a tree, a human) are primary, with accidents (qualities, states) secondary. Substance endures beneath change and serves as the bearer of properties. This model dominated Scholastic metaphysics, especially in Aquinas, where God was pure act (actus purus) — a substance beyond material becoming.[4]
\nThe Cartesian tradition, with Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, maintained substance as central, though in different forms: mind and body (Descartes), God-or-Nature as the single substance (Spinoza), and monads (Leibniz).[5] [6] [7]
\nIn contrast, Heraclitus famously declared, 'everything flows,' insisting that becoming, not being, was fundamental. This view remained marginalized until the 19th and 20th centuries, when Hegel reintroduced dynamic becoming as the logic of reality through dialectical synthesis.[8]
\nIn the 20th century, Alfred North Whitehead advanced a full process metaphysics. In Process and Reality, he described reality as a network of actual occasions — events, not things. Entities are not substances, but patterns of activity. Being is not what underlies change — it is change, stabilized in momentary pattern.[9]
\nSimilarly, Bergson (Creative Evolution), James (Essays in Radical Empiricism), and Dewey embraced continuity, change, and experience over static essence.[10] [11] [12] In Eastern traditions, process is also central: Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka school denies intrinsic substance (svabhāva), and Daoist and Buddhist metaphysics speak of becoming without fixed essence.
\nThis classical divide between that which is and that which becomes shapes not just metaphysics, but ethics, politics, and even physics. The next sections explore how these classical poles break down — and how the conference of difference described in the Gospel of Being offers a deeper synthesis.
\nThe classical divide between substance and process no longer holds cleanly. In contemporary metaphysics, physics, and cognitive science, the question has shifted from 'What is most real?' to 'What does relation make possible?' This shift foregrounds relational ontology, where being is defined not by what it is, but by how it connects. As philosopher Karen Barad puts it: 'Relata do not preexist relations'.[13] Instead of substances with accidental relations, we now find relations generating the terms themselves.
\nIn quantum physics, this turn is evident. Quantum entanglement suggests that particles have no individual identity apart from their correlation. As Carlo Rovelli (2018) and other advocates of relational quantum mechanics argue, physical reality is not composed of independently existing particles, but of interactions. Objects are 'nodes' in a web of relations, not standalone entities.
\nIn analytic metaphysics, the rise of grounding theory and ontological dependence has complicated the notion of substance. Schaffer (2009) reintroduces metaphysical grounding as a hierarchical relation of priority, while Bennett (2017) argues that reality may be structured by various 'building relations,' such as grounding, realization, and constitution.[14] [15] Even when discussing 'objects,' philosophers increasingly describe them as networks of dependencies, not ultimate carriers of being. The question now becomes: What grounds what? — a process-like inquiry dressed in structural terms.
\nIn theology, too, process thought has returned. The legacy of Whitehead lives on in Process Theology (e.g., Cobb & Griffin, 1976), where God is not immutable substance but the evolving receptacle and lure of all becoming.[16] This view challenges classical theism’s actus purus and replaces it with God as fellow sufferer — a divine becoming with the world.
\nEven popular discourse has absorbed this shift. Phrases like 'the flow,' 'emergence,' and 'systems thinking' betray an underlying intuition: what is real is not the thing but the field.
\nYet substance has not vanished. It reappears as inertial form — stable patterns that persist across transformations. The flashpoint today is not substance vs. process but structure as emergent from relation — a conference, not a contradiction.
\nBut before we ask whether reality is made of substances or processes, we must ask a simpler question: What do we mean by being? Philosophy often begins in abstraction — but it should begin in language. Interestingly, the word be has its etymology in Old English bēon meaning both 'to be' and 'to become'. The Greek word οὐσίᾱ (ousíā), which we define as 'substance' in English, originates in the present participle of εἰμῐ́ (eimĭ́) meaning 'to be'.
\nThe point is that 'to be' is a verb. The word being is literally 'action' to be'. As an action, it is a 'process of acts'. Likewise, becoming means 'coming to be.' Both terms are forms of action, not rest. They are grammatical signals that something is happening. So when classical metaphysics treats being as a fixed substance — something that 'just is' — it misreads the word itself. It confuses a participle with a particle.
\nA being, then, is not a static object; it is a 'process of acts to be'. To call something a being is not to say what it is but to say that it is actively existing — that it is doing being. Every being is, quite literally, a verb in motion.
\nThis mistake — treating being as a thing — is the foundational flaw of substance ontology. It’s not just a conceptual error, it’s a linguistic one. A being is not a block of what is but an unfolding of what is acting to be. The classical debate between being and becoming becomes confused because it assumes that being means stasis. But it doesn’t. It means ongoing enactment.
\nWhat follows from this correction is profound. If every being is a process, then ontology: the 'account of being' must account for that process — not the what of existence but the how of existence.
\n\n\nSubstance is not the foundation of reality — it is a practical fiction. A way of speaking about beings that simplifies their ongoing activity into the illusion of self-contained things.
\n
And this is where the Gospel of Being evolves the debate. Instead of arguing the merits of substance vs process, it declares instead that:
\n\n\nAll existence is a conference of difference, a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[17]
\n
As a 'condition of being', existence is thus, by literal extension, a 'process of declaring together of action to be'. In this light, existence, materiality, reality are not nouns at rest or just a process but a process defined through mutual expression — the conference of difference.
\nThus we might say that substance and process aren’t rival explanations of existence so much as different viewports into it — each illuminating a different aspect of the whole.
\nNeither, on its own, offers a complete account. Substance by itself freezes reality; process alone can blur it into formless flux. But seen as complementary lenses, they enrich each other. They’re not competing explanations, but conceptual tools — ways of seeing — each providing a level of understanding the other misses. However, a complete ontology must address not only the what and the how of existence but just as importantly: why?
\nThis is exactly where the Gospel of Being offers synthesis: not only identifying the what and how of existence as a conference of difference but how that constant expression functions to fulfill the why of existence — the accumulation of power: 'ability'.
\nNext week, we follow on from existent being to ask the question: Do abstracta exist? And if so, where are they?
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nParmenides. (c. 5th century BCE). On Nature (Fragment B8). In Diels, H., & Kranz, W. (Eds.), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (6th ed.). Weidmann, 1952. See also Graham, D. W. (2010). The texts of early Greek philosophy: The complete fragments and selected testimonies of the major Presocratics (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press. ↩︎
\nPlato. (c. 380 BCE). Republic (A. Bloom, Trans.). Basic Books, 1991. (Original work published ca. 375 BCE) ↩︎
\nCitation URI: http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0086.tlg025.perseus-eng1:7.1029a ↩︎
\nWhilst Aquinas remained a classical substance thinker in natural metaphysics, his theological metaphysics of the Trinity seeded a relational ontology that has been developed extensively by contemporary theologians and process philosophers. ↩︎
\nSee especially Meditation VI, where Descartes defends the real distinction between mind and body: '...I am not merely present in my body as a sailor is present in a ship... I am very closely joined and... intermingled with it' (AT VII 81–82, CSM II 56–57). ↩︎
\nSpinoza’s Ethics lays out his famous monist metaphysics: that there is only one substance, God-or-Nature (Deus sive Natura), with everything else as a mode of that single substance. ↩︎
\nIn Monadology, Leibniz describes the universe as composed of simple, immaterial substances — monads — each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. ↩︎
\nHegel, G. W. F. (1812–1816). The Science of Logic (A. V. Miller, Trans.). Humanities Press, 1969. (Original work published 1812–1816) ↩︎
\nWhitehead develops a process ontology in which reality consists of 'actual occasions' or events, not enduring substances. Being is constituted by becoming in a relational web of prehensions. ↩︎
\nBergson argues that life evolves not mechanically but creatively, through élan vital — a vital impetus. He opposes spatialized, substance-based metaphysics with a temporal, fluid model of becoming. ↩︎
\nJames rejects the idea of fixed substances in favor of pure experience as the basic stuff of reality. Relations are as real as terms, and continuity, not static being, underlies the world. ↩︎
\nIn Experience and Nature, Dewey critiques substance metaphysics and defends a naturalistic process ontology in which experience is continuous with nature. Reality is not composed of fixed essences but of dynamic interactions — 'events, doings, and sufferings.' For Dewey, being is fundamentally transactional and emergent, shaped by the ongoing interactions between organism and environment. ↩︎
\nBarad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press. (p. 140) ↩︎
\nSchaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New essays on the foundations of ontology (pp. 347–383). Oxford University Press. ↩︎
\nBennett, K. (2017). Making things up. Oxford University Press. (p. 1,2 & 6) ↩︎
\nCobb, J. B., Jr., & Griffin, D. R. (1976). Process theology: An introductory exposition. Westminster Press. ↩︎
\nMackay, J. I. (2024) Gospel of Being (1st ed.). K01.1 p.10 ↩︎
\n![\"freedom-and-blame-01\"](\"/assets/img/freedom-and-blame-01.webp\")
Picture this: it’s 10:37 p.m. last Thursday. My wife and I are asleep in our brand-new bed when suddenly she bolts upright with a shriek. I sit up too, confused — was it a nightmare? An earthquake? A burglar?
\nNo.
\nIt was urine. Warm, fresh, feline urine. Right on her legs. Right through the blankets. Right onto our brand-new, expensive latex mattress.
\nThis is not a metaphor. This is our cat.
\nShe’s a ten-year-old Ragdoll, known for her aloof dignity, modest affection and occasional urinary tract infections. But this time, it wasn’t a timid little 'spotting' incident — this was a full-system flush. And right on top of my sleeping wife.
\nWhat followed was a flurry of anger, disbelief, laundry and declarations like, 'She KNEW what she was doing!' and 'Why would she do it RIGHT THERE?'
\nAnd that, dear reader, is when it hit me: we were morally judging our cat.
\nA few days later, I stumbled across an academic paper with a wonderfully ironic title: Stubborn Moralism and Freedom of the Will.[1] The premise? That when people witness bad outcomes, they tend to blame first and ask questions about free will later.
\nIn other words: we don’t care whether someone could’ve done otherwise — we just want to know why they did that.
\nThe authors tested this by asking people to judge hypothetical agents (including robots!) who had no choice but to cause harm. And even when those agents were clearly pre-programmed or neurologically hardwired, people still blamed them. Because the outcome was bad and someone needed to be held responsible.
\nSound familiar?
\nLet’s review the evidence:
\nFrom our perspective, she wasn’t acting out of desperation, instinct or confusion. No, we were convinced she was acting out of spite. As if she had mulled her options and said, 'You know what? I think I’ll urinate right here on Mummy.'
\nBlame first. Feline agency second.
\nBiologically? Probably not. The cat was likely stressed, confused, and trapped in a loop of territorial panic. Her 'choice' was no more deliberate than a sneeze. But that didn’t stop us from attributing motive, assigning guilt and banishing her from the bedroom.
\nWhy?
\nBecause moral judgment is sticky. It’s not just about fairness — it’s about drawing a line. 'That was wrong'. 'That crosses a boundary'. 'That mattress was $1,200'.
\nIf we’re willing to project moral responsibility onto a housecat, imagine how easily we do it to fellow humans. Or AI. Or anyone whose actions upset our expectations of what 'should' happen.
\nWe say we believe in freedom of the will. But in practice, we often act as if responsibility is retrofitted to match our outrage.
\nAnd while cats may lack the cognitive bandwidth for guilt, humans don’t. We stew in it. Or we weaponize it. And sometimes, that’s more about us than it is about them.
\nThe bedroom door is now permanently shut to all cats. Plastic covers are back. And the cat in question? She remains gloriously unrepentant.
\nWhich is to say, she’s free.
\nPizarro, D.A. & Helzer, E.G. (2010) Stubborn Moralism and Freedom of the Will. Cornell University. sourced from: https://www.academia.edu/291544/Stubborn_Moralism_and_Freedom_of_the_Will ↩︎
\n![\"abstracta-04\"](\"/assets/img/abstracta-04.webp\")
It’s not in your cupboard. It’s not floating in the sky or etched into the bark of a tree. You’ve never bumped into it on the sidewalk. And yet, you use it daily. You rely on it. You trust that 3 + 4 = 7 not because someone told you, but because something deeper holds it true. Seven seems invisible, untouchable—and yet absolutely real. But if it’s real, where is it?
\nThis is the ontological puzzle of abstracta—concepts like numbers, sets, and time that explain our world yet remain elusive. They don’t age or rot. They don’t take up space. They are intangible in and of themselves and yet somehow they are utilized to explain everything. We speak of 'the set of even numbers' as if it exists and in one sense, it does. The set of even numbers exists by definition that it is literally 'that which is out of' the set of ordinary numbers. But is it real? Mental? Fictional?
\nThis is more than a curiosity of logic or math. The question reaches to the heart of both ontology and theology. For just as we ask how the number 7 is without being in or of the world, we might ask: How is God, if not in or of the world? If God as Creator is not 'that which is out of' anything and therefore does not exist but is instead ontologically prior to all that does exist, then is God, like 7, not existent but abstracta? Not of existence but Principal to it? Not an invariant being which is a contradiction in terms but an invariant process?
\nIn this article, I explore how abstracta—that which is ‘drawn away from’ the material world—functions to explain it. Abstracta are not existents but principal to explaining them. Abstracta are not the terrain itself but the map we use to navigate it. We ask not whether abstracta exist but how they function to give meaning to existence—without existing in and of themselves. And in asking that, we may find that the number 7 and the idea of God as creator are not so far apart: not as things in the world but as constant invariants through which the world becomes intelligible.
\nThe philosophical debate over abstracta—entities like numbers, sets, and propositions—has unfolded over centuries. At stake is not just whether these things exist but what we mean by existence at all. The classical positions can be mapped across a spectrum of realism and anti-realism, with various attempts to explain how such elusive entities can be both indispensable and immaterial.
\nPlatonism holds that abstract objects exist in a timeless, non-physical realm of Forms. The number 7, in this view, is not invented by humans but discovered—eternal, unchanging and independent of minds or matter. Mathematical truths are true because they reflect these perfect entities, which we perceive dimly through reason rather than sense.
\nNominalism denies the reality of abstracta altogether. Numbers are just names we give to repeated patterns. There is no 'sevenness' floating beyond language—just a convention for describing grouped objects.
\nConceptualism offers a middle path: abstracta exist but only in minds. Seven is real because it is conceived. If no minds existed, neither would abstracta.
\nFormalism, Logicism, and Intuitionism each offer different accounts of how mathematical abstracta are grounded:
\nQuine–Putnam indispensability argues we must accept the existence of numbers because they are indispensable to science. If numbers are woven into our best explanations, we are ontologically committed to them.
\nAcross these positions lies a tension: abstracta are either strangely real or strangely useful. They seem nowhere and everywhere at once.
\nThe classical debate is now entangled with modern fields:
\nAbstracta have never been more functionally central—or ontologically mysterious.
\nIn the Gospel of Being, existence is not a substance but a condition: a 'process of declaring together' revealed as the conference of difference $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$, a constant expression that functions to express: 'press out' existence.
\nIn this ontological model, the process itself $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ is invariable and thus deterministic; but what issues through that deterministic process is variable by virtue of probability.
\n\n\nThere is that which is doing (unfinished) and that which is done (finished).
\n
Numbers belong to the realm of the done. They are not doing or acting. They are invariant constants. As invariant constants, they are not created, they are revealed. Their identity depends on the integrity of relational distance within the numbering system. If $3$ and $7$ are not separated by $4$, the relationship that defines the real numbering system collapses. Thus, each number stands not on its own but through invariance of its relation to others.
\nWhen we perform operations like $4 + 3$, we are conducting an abstract process—an invariant relation within the conference of difference. The result, $7$, is not created or constructed but revealed: an invariant disclosed through the formal coherence of $3$ and $4$. Because both operands and outcome are abstract constants, the entire operation remains in abstracta and thus not of existence. To bring numbered abstracta into existence, the process must be applied to existent variables—apples, cars, people—where number becomes count and abstract coherence enters the world as physical relation.
\nIn this sense, the conference of difference processes both invariant abstracta and variant existents, revealing one and transforming the other:
\nThis means that in the conference of difference, operands are not just populated by existents but also by abstracta through which existence can be unveiled. Thus the conference of difference supports both abstracta and existents but where the conference of difference of existent variables transforms existence, that of abstracta reveals it.
\nWe might then say:
\n\n\nThe purpose of abstract systems is to distill those principles that are metaphysical: 'originating behind' of existents. Gravity is real but the equations that model it are not. They are abstracta—conceptual tools to explain, predict and map reality. The map is not the terrain. It is a system from which to navigate, predict and understand the terrain.
\n
So, abstracta do not exist. Instead, they help us to reveal the probability of existence. They make existence intelligible by alluding to it's conditions, processes and relationships.
\nAbstracta do not exist in the world. They are not of substance nor spatially/temporally existent in and of themselves. Yet they are the means by which we explain everything. The number $7$ is not existent like a rock but without it, rocks could not be counted or songs metered or the seasons calculated.
\nOnly that which is expressed in probability can claim to be 'that which is out of' the conference of difference and thus claim to exist. That which is, outside of probability is determined by a system other than existence i.e. one that predefines the exact product of every relationship e.g. number systems.
\nIn the Gospel of Being, this is not a mystery but an ontological necessity that informs us that:
\n\n\nIn the realm of ist: 'that which is', there is that which is revealed through the conference of difference i.e. abstracta and that which transforms through the conference of difference i.e. existence.
\n
Next week: The Basis of Existence. If abstracta only reveals existence and is not causal of it then what grounds being? Does reality rest on a base layer—or is grounding itself a conditional process?[2]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\n![\"beyond-deleuze-01\"](\"/assets/img/beyond-deleuze-01.webp\")
Deleuze's Difference and Repetition was a Molotov cocktail thrown at the cathedral of Western metaphysics.[1] With a single mantra—'Difference is not diversity'—he shattered the idol of Identity, insisting that being is groundless flux: a carnival of divergences without a ringmaster. But here's the rub: a carnival without rules is just a riot.
\nDeleuze gave difference its sovereignty but not its statecraft. His world is all differends and no diplomacy—a cosmic improvisation where every note is dissonant, yet somehow, against all odds, we wake up to a universe with laws, shapes and even hangnails. Why? Because Deleuze's ontology, for all its brilliance is incomplete. It lacks the protocols for adaptation, creation, transformation in which differences negotiate reality.
\nEnter The Conference of Difference (CoD).[2] This model agrees with Deleuze that existence is dependent on difference, but insists that difference alone is not enough. To exist is to differ together—not in a bland harmony, but in a relentless, dynamic conferencing where divergences declare, adapt, and transform one another. In the Gospel of Being, the CoD declares:
\n\n\nAll existence is a conference of difference, a condition of bearing together, transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[3]
\n
Without the CoD, differences would only bear apart, leaving us with infinite static, no stars, no selves, no Starbucks.
\nThis article unfolds in three acts:
\nLet's begin by auditing Deleuze's books.
\nDeleuze's ontology is a masterpiece of anti-foundationalism. For him, difference is not a deviation from sameness (as in Aristotle or Hegel), but the very stuff of being:
\n\n\nDifference is the state in which one can speak of determination as such.[4]
\n
The world is a plane of immanence where virtual multiplicities actualize through endless differentiation, like a Mandelbrot set spawning infinities.
\nBut this radical vision stumbles on two questions:
\nIf difference is truly primary, why isn't reality pure noise? Deleuze's answer—repetition—is sly but insufficient. Repetition, he claims, generates the illusion of stability (the same returns only because difference disguises itself).[5] But this begs the question: What governs the disguises? Why do some differences repeat (e.g., laws of physics) while others vanish? Deleuze's flux lacks an internal principle of selection—a rule of conference to explain why certain differences 'stick' as stable phenomena.
\nDeleuze's world has no why for this. Why do differences resolve into ecosystems, languages, or the Standard Model—rather than an infinite scribble? His appeal to intensities ('difference engines') feels like a deus ex machina. As Adrian Johnston quips:
\n\n\nDeleuze's metaphysics often resembles a Rube Goldberg device missing its ball bearings—all elaborate contraptions and no traction. The virtual differs from the actual, but what drives the differentiation? The dark precursor? This is less an answer than a black box labeled 'answer'.[6]
\n
Johnston is right to demand Deleuze ‘show his work'—the virtual/actual split is a black box.\nDeleuze's ontology, for all its grandeur, is incomplete—it reveals the what but can only gesture towards the how. This is not a fault of Deleuze but rather as far as he was able to go with his model at the time. The CoD takes Deleuze one step further by solving not only for the what but the how and the why.
\nDeleuze's world is a glorious anarchy—a metaphysical mosh pit where differences collide without rules, spawning infinite variations. But anarchies, however thrilling, rarely build cathedrals or coral reefs. For that, you need something subtler: not just difference, but the conference of difference. This is the wager of the CoD Model: existence doesn't transform in difference: the 'condition of bearing apart' alone but rather in the conference: 'condition of bearing togther' of that which differs: 'bears apart'.[7]
\nIn a Deleuzian reading of quantum theory, superposition exemplifies pure difference—a particle's spin as both ‘up' and ‘down,' a simultaneity of unresolved claims awaiting actualization.[8] But when a measurement intervenes, the outcome isn't a cosmic treaty or a collapse into permanence. Rather it's simply an historical record of the wavefunction at that moment—a snapshot of differences caught mid-conference. The apparatus isn't a delegate with veto power but like a photographer, capturing a single frame from the ongoing conference. What we call 'collapse' is just an illusion of state—like mistaking one photograph of a dance for the entire performance. The wavefunction? It's the dance itself—forever changing, adapting and transforming.
\nThis isn't process philosophy in disguise. Whitehead's 'actual occasions' prehend one another like polite dinner guests, absorbing their neighbors' vibes without argument. In the CoD, differences don't just vibe—they compete, co-pete and reciprocate, thus giving rise to both adaptability and probability in existence. Relation isn't given but arises through mutual declaration.
\nDeleuze, of course, sensed the need for this. His 'dark precursor'—the enigmatic operator that 'makes differences communicate'—was a stab in the same direction.[9] But Deleuze's 'precursor,' much like Adam Smith's 'invisible hand,' is a sibling in theoretical crime—one a capitalist fairy tale, the other a poststructuralist fable. Both smuggle order into chaos without ever stopping at customs to declare what's in the black box. The 'invisible hand' pretends markets self-regulate; the 'dark precursor' pretends differences self-organize.
\nBut The CoD eliminates the need for a ‘Dark Precursor.' Rather than positing the virtual as an occult second tier of reality, it shows how abstracta (Deleuze's ‘virtual,' e.g., numbers, time) are not themselves existent but revelatory operands: the CoD of $3+4$ doesn't create $7$, it reveals—unveils it. Meanwhile, existent variables (like $\\text{2O}_2$ and $\\text{C}$ atoms) don't reveal a prexisting $\\text{CO}_2$ molecule rather they transform into a new $\\text{CO}_2$ molecule.
\nSimply put:
\nThe Conference of Difference cuts out the middleman: differences don't need a 'dark precursor' to confer nor do markets an 'invisible hand'. Instead in the CoD, equilibrium is a function of the mutual regulation that manifests through reciprocity: the 'condition of like forward, like back'. The payoff is a metaphysics where structure isn't imposed (Plato's Forms) or illusory (Deleuze's disguises) but contingently achieved.
\nWhat we call 'time' is not a river, a hall of mirrors, or even a dimension—but a value assigned to existence: a token of recollection or anticipation. The past is no more 'existent' than the number 7. Hence, existence doesn't unfold in time but is rather, understood through it.
\nWe think of the past as fixed, the future as open and the present as the knife-edge between them. But this is an illusion of scale. Zoom in, and you'll find no 'now', only negotiations in session—differences debating what will be binding, what will be archived, and what will be tabled for later. The past isn't a locked vault; it's the memory of old conferences, their sense still echoing in today's deliberations. The future isn't a blank slate; it's the provisional agenda, always in drafting but never final.
\nConsider memory. For Deleuze, the past 'coexists' with the present like layers in a Bergsonian tapestry—an enduring, quasi-substantial ether. But this smuggles into existence that which is only a value. A memory isn't a ghost whispering in your ear; it's a delegate sent from no country, invoking procedural precedent (‘Article 7: That Summer Day') to sway the present's debate. When two witnesses disagree, it's not because timelines collide—but rather their temporal recollections differ in the CoD and yet to ratify the record.
\nEven entropy submits to the conference of difference. Here the so-called ‘arrow of time' isn't a law of decay but the leaning ledger of relational possibilities. As resolutions accumulate, the weight of past conferences doesn't forbid reversal—it just makes certain outcomes (like shattered glass reassembling) statistically improbable. The second law of thermodynamics isn't simply physics—it's the universe's quorum call: a drift toward states where differences are so diffusely related that old alliances lose their margins. This isn't disorder or the loss of relation, but its redistribution into softer symmetries.
\nDeleuze's time is a ‘crystal of becoming'—every moment splinters into infinite pasts and futures, all equally real. But Deleuze gives no explanation as to why some splinters (like revolutions) harden into history, while others (like yesterday's gossip) dissolve. The CoD grounds time in abstracta: the past is not a dimension but memory—a constantly transforming recollection of past actions and consequences that give meaning to what has occurred. These recollections accumulate as knowledge, contributing to intelligence: the 'condition of choosing between' of one being: 'action to be' over another.
\nThis isn't just wordplay. It solves real problems:
\nEvery ontology seeks at the first instance to give an account of that which is foundational to existence. Deleuze posits difference as this foundation, but is this enough? We began by challenging Deleuze's anarchic flux, not to discard it but to organize it. Where his differences spiral infinitely, ours confer: 'bear together to adapt, create and transform.
\nThe implications are not just philosophical but existential:
\nQuantum fields (existent) negotiate; particles (abstracta) are simply snapshots of that process. Retrocausality isn't real—it's a category error that conflates temporal records (abstracta) with physical transformations (existents), as if to wind back the time on a clock could wind back reality.[11] Entanglement isn't magic—it's a cosmic handshake—the deal is done before the particles split.
\nConsciousness isn't a ghost but the 'measure of knowing together' that forms through the CoD—a shared tracking of sensory motions, mutual drafting of resolutions. Free will isn't unbound want—but the negotiated gradient of existence, where all being is inclined toward resolution at minimal cost.
\nTrue democracies (non-competitive) echo the cosmos—not as singular truth, but as a participatory order where stakeholders transform difference through conference, sustaining balance through diversity.
\nGod as Creator i.e. 'that which creates' doesn't dictate outcomes only the process that is the conference of difference in which all abstracta are revealed and all that exists transforms.
\nLet the objections come. The materialists, the mystics, the post-structuralists—all have the floor. But the CoD's authority is immanent: not from some 'dark precurser', 'invisble hand' or all-powerful supernatural being but by virtue of the process that is the conference of difference itself.[12]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nDeleuze, G. (2014). Difference and repetition (P. Patton, Trans.). London: Bloomsbury Academic. (Original work published 1968) ↩︎
\nThe Conference of Difference may appear in shorthand as CoD in natural language, as {Δ} in pseudo-mathematical notation and as CΔ in mathematical notation such as Judea Pearls's Do-calculus. ↩︎
\nMackay, J. I. (2024) Gospel of Being (1st ed.). K01.1 p.10 ↩︎
\nDeleuze, G. (2014). Ibid. p.41 ↩︎
\nDeleuze, G. (2014). Ibid. p.17 ↩︎
\nJohnston, A. (2013). Deleuze in Prolegomena to Any Future Materialism, Vol. 1 (Northwestern University Press, p. 23). ↩︎
\nMackay, J. I. (2024). Ibid p.10 ↩︎
\nCf. DeLanda (2002) on Deleuzian virtuality and quantum potentials; Plotnitsky (1994) on disjunctive synthesis and complementarity. ↩︎
\nDeleuze, G. (2014). p. 119 ↩︎
\nWhile QBism and RQM also reject retrocausality, the CoD goes further: it replaces mysterious ‘updates' with open negotiation and replaces observers with protocols of ratification (slits, detectors, etc.) ↩︎
\nSee my article, the Efficacy of Time Travel for more details. ↩︎
\nInitial drafts of this article were created with the assistence of DeepSeek, with records of conversations retained. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"basis-of-existence-01\"](\"/assets/img/basis-of-existence-01.webp\")
Imagine two ways of understanding how the world comes to be. The first sees existence as a hierarchy—like a great tree whose structure is already determined from the seed. The roots, trunk and branches unfold in a fixed order, each part dependent on the one before it, all governed by an inherent blueprint. In this view, the world is born from layers of dependence, where things are defined by their place in a preordained structure.
\nThe second sees existence as a process—like the same tree but shaped by wind, rain and the creatures that interact with it. Here, the tree grows not by a rigid plan but through endless exchanges with its surroundings. Its form emerges from countless small dependencies—soil nourishing roots, sunlight guiding branches—each moment a collaboration rather than a command. In this view, the world is born not from hierarchy but from the dance of ongoing relations.
\nOne model traces order to a chain of authority; the other finds it in the flow of becoming. Both explain dependence but in radically different ways. This week, I explore metaphysical dependence—from Aristotle's classic grounding model to the process-based approaches that emerged centuries earlier in Buddhism and Heraclitus.
\n| 600 BCE | \nEarly Buddhism (Pratītyasamutpāda) | \n
| 'No thing exists on its own'. All phenomena arise in dependence on conditions. Not an ontology of substances but of relations and co-arising.\n | \n|
| 500 BCE | \nHeraclitus (Panta rhei) | \n
| “Everything flows” (panta rhei). Reality as continual change and transformation, rather than fixed being. | \n|
| 400 BCE | \nAristotle (Ousia, οὐσία) | \n
| \"Being isn’t one simple thing but many kinds of existence, but all ultimately relate back to substance (ousia), which is the main kind.\" | \n|
| 1600 CE | \nSpinoza (Deus sive Natura) | \n
| The ground of all existence is a single, infinite substance—self-caused and independent. | \n|
| 1800 CE | \nHegel (the Absolute) | \n
| Reality is a dynamic, rational process (the Absolute) developing through internal contradictions, gradually realizing itself as Spirit in history, thought, nature and ultimately achieving self-conscious freedom. | \n|
| 1900 CE | \nWhitehead (Process Philosophy) | \n
| Explicitly replaces substance metaphysics with a dynamic ontology in which reality consists of 'actual occasions' i.e. momentary, experiential events that prehend their predecessors. | \n|
| 2000 CE | \nPost-Processual Realists | \n
| Extends process philosophy by emphasizing fragmented, situated, or agential ontologies over Whitehead’s unified becoming. | \n|
| Key:\n Classical Theories Modern Theories\n | \n
Western metaphysics has long been shaped by a vertical vision of reality—a world built on foundations. Aristotle set the template: substances (like trees or humans) come first, and their properties (color, size) depend on them.[1] This wasn't merely taxonomic but metaphysically loaded: dependence meant that without the substance, its attributes would collapse. The structure was rigidly asymmetric, like a pyramid—base layers securing the upper tiers.
\nThis logic evolved but kept its skeleton. Medieval thinkers anchored the pyramid in God; rationalists like Descartes swapped God for the cogito; physicalists later reduced minds to brains and brains to particles.[2][3][4] What changed was the candidate for the 'ground floor,' not the architectural principle. Contemporary grounding theorists formalize this intuition: when we say 'X holds in virtue of Y,' we're insisting reality has a direction of fit, with fundamental facts propping up the derivative.[5]
\nCrucially, this model assumes two tacit commitments:
\nEven when grounding debates turn technical—are the fundamental items particles, structures, or mathematical truths?—the hierarchical impulse remains. The world, in this view, is a well-ordered stack.
\nYet for all its clarity, the grounding model is incomplete. To say that $x$ is grounded in $y$ may describe a vertical relation, but it doesn't account for how $x$ persists—what allows it to continue being.[6] A hierarchical map of dependencies can show what is where, but it doesn't show how it holds together. This is where the process view offers more: it treats existence not as a hierarchical catalogue of parts but as a condition: 'process of declaring together'.
\nEarly Buddhist thought proposed dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), arguing that nothing exists independently—only through reciprocal conditions.[7] A flame burns only while fuel and air sustain it; a 'self' emerges from fleeting sensations, perceptions, and causes. Here, dependence isn't a chain but a net: no first thread, no ultimate ground.
\nSpinoza's metaphysics radicalized this horizontality in the West. For him, there is only one substance (Deus sive Natura) and all particular things—trees, thoughts, laws—are its modes.[8] Unlike Aristotle's substance-attribute model—where reality stacks like a multi-tiered scaffold (primary substances supporting dependent properties)—process thinkers reject fixed foundations altogether. For them, dependence is a web, not a ladder.
\nClassical models treat reality like a building: the foundation comes first and everything else depends on it. Aristotle's substances, Descartes' indivisible minds and bodies or a physicist's fundamental particles all follow this logic—what's foundational exists on its own, while the rest hangs off it, layer by layer. Process models, by contrast, see the world as a connected series of acts: nothing stands alone. A mind isn't a thing that then interacts with the world; it's a knot of sensations, memories, and external conditions, all pulling into shape at once. Here, dependence isn't a one-way street but a roundabout.
\nHierarchical metaphysics often imagines the base level as timeless—whether it's Plato's eternal Forms, the laws of physics, or God. Change happens upstairs, in the derivative layers, like furniture being rearranged in a fixed house. Process thinkers reject this stability. For them, to exist is to change. A river isn't made of water atoms plus flow; the flow is the river. Even what seems solid—a rock, a star—is just a slow-motion event in a universe where being and becoming are the same.
\nWhen classical theorists encounter complexity, they dig downward: minds are brains, brains are cells, cells are molecules. The truth, they assume, waits at the bottom. Process models look sideways instead. A thought isn't just neurons firing; it's an emergent spark between biology, language, and the thinker's history. There's no 'bottom' to hit—only patterns that sustain themselves through feedback loops, like a whirlpool that exists only while water rushes through it.
\nThese aren't just technical disagreements. They shape how we understand everything from consciousness (is it a layer or a process?) to ethics (are we autonomous individuals or relational nodes?). The hierarchical view thrives in tidy systems—laws, taxonomies, reductionist science. The process view thrives in messy, living ones—ecologies, cultures, quantum entanglements. One asks, What are the pieces? The other asks, How does it hold together?
\nIf the universe is a conference of difference (CoD), as the Gospel of Being declares, then grounding can't be pictured as a simple top-down arrangement.[9] It isn't a vertical chain of command. It's closer to what physicists call a network: not a series of stacked layers, but a mesh of mutual influences—each part holding others in place through ongoing relation.
\nIn the CoD, dependence isn't a one-way street. Every being gains power—ability—by adapting within a web of other beings. If we apply that lens to grounding, it reshapes how we think about metaphysical dependence. Instead of asking: 'What is most basic?' the more productive question becomes: 'What allows the whole to hold together?'
\nThis doesn't erase differences in strength or stability. Some nodes in the mesh may carry more weight—foundational physics might still shape chemistry. But even foundational elements adapt to the larger system: physics itself depends on the mutual conditioning of particles and atoms—their conference of difference shaping what comes to be.
\nA conference-of-difference approach reframes grounding as reciprocal interdependence with proportional influence. Where classical views insist $x$ grounds $y$ without $y$ affecting $x$, this framework sees a more dynamic reality: $x$ and $y$ stabilize each other through continual adjustment. This is clearest in social and biological systems, where roles, structures, and rules co-depend. However, it extends into physics itself, where phenomena like particle interactions and quantum entanglement show that what we call fundamentals emerge through relational processes, not as isolated structures.
\nEquilibrium in this context is not maintained through top-down or bottom-up hierarchy, but through reciprocity: the 'condition of like forward, like back' that functions to regulate the accumulation of power by others. This process permits the system as a whole to cohere and yet adapt, create, and transform. That applies whether we're looking at atoms aligning into molecules or propositions cohering into scientific theories—each a conference of difference sustained by reciprocal constraint.
\nThis turns grounding from a static picture into a dynamic one. Rather than imagining a metaphysical base and its superstructure, we imagine a field constantly recalibrating to maintain equilibrium. In physics terms, we might think of it as a standing wave pattern: difference is distributed, yet coherent—stable.
\nFrom this view, grounding relations aren't fixed. They evolve. As beings confer and adapt, what once grounded might become secondary, and what seemed secondary might take on grounding force. This is not relativism—it's structured reciprocity. A dynamic but ordered whole.
\nFor those seeking clarity: grounding as condition—a 'process of declaring together'—doesn't deny the appearance of structure. It denies that appearance as ground. And it reads dependence not as a chain of authority but as a living conversation.
\nIn sum:
\nWhere do classical grounding theories and the CoD overlap—and where do they part ways? Here's the landscape in brief:
\nIn essence, both pictures agree that things depend on other things. But only the conference of difference grounds existence in a participatory process rather than a fixed hierarchy.
\nIf grounding once seemed like a structural hierarchy, we now appreciate a more telling perspective: grounded in process. The dependency of existence isn't frozen; it flexes. Equilibrium isn't imposed hierarchically but realizes through reciprocity. Finally, the constant expression of existence (ground) is not substance but the conference of difference itself i.e. the 'condition of bearing together' that transforms the 'condition of bearing apart'.
\nNext week, we follow this thread into modal ontology: if reality is grounded in a conditional process, what about possibilities? Are possible worlds distant layers—or does the same process stretch across them too? Fewer bricks, more threads—and a few surprises.[10]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nAristotle. (1984). Categories (J. L. Ackrill, Trans.). In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation (Vol. 1, pp. 3–24). Princeton University Press. ↩︎
\nSee Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, especially Part I, Questions 2–3, where God is described as the necessary being grounding all others. ↩︎
\nDescartes grounds knowledge in the thinking subject rather than in divine revelation; see Meditations on First Philosophy, esp. Meditation II (cogito ergo sum). ↩︎
\nFor a representative account of the reduction of mind to physical processes, see Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton University Press. ↩︎
\nOn grounding as the structure behind “in virtue of” claims and its directional character, see Bennett, K. (2017). Making things up. Oxford University Press, esp. Chapters 1–2. ↩︎
\nSeveral philosophers have raised related concerns about the limits of grounding explanations. Naomi Thompson questions whether grounding truly explains rather than merely tracks dependence (see “Grounding and Metaphysical Explanation: Does Grounding Explain?”, Philosophical Studies, 173(1), 2016, pp. 49–71). Karen Bennett acknowledges cases where grounding appears too thin to account for dynamic phenomena (Making Things Up, Oxford University Press, 2017). Jonathan Schaffer notes that grounding may leave open important questions about temporality and internal relatedness (“The Internal Relatedness of All Things”, Mind, 119(474), 2010, pp. 341–376). ↩︎
\nWhile pratītyasamutpāda shares classical grounding’s attention to dependency, it ultimately rejects any fixed ground or substance. It presents a model of co-arising in which phenomena emerge and cease through reciprocal conditions—structured, but without an underlying base. ↩︎
\nSpinoza, B. (1994). Ethics. In E. Curley (Trans.), A Spinoza Reader: The Ethics and other works (pp. 85–265). Princeton University Press. ↩︎
\nMackay, J. I. (2024) Gospel of Being (1st ed.). K01.1 p.10 ↩︎
\nInitial drafts of this article were created with the assistence of ChatGPT 4o, with records of conversations retained. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"modal-ontology-01\"](\"/assets/img/modal-ontology-01.webp\")
\nFigure 1: Poised above the unknown, a man mid-leap above a puddle—umbrella in hand, fate in motion.[1]
What does it mean to talk of modal ontology, to say something is possible—that it might happen, or could have turned out differently?[2]
\nWe talk this way all the time, but rarely ask: Where does possibility live? Is it just in our heads? In the rules of logic? Or is it somehow out there, woven into reality itself?
\nImagine a lottery. Before the draw, every combination could win. Possibility feels wide open. Then the balls drop. Ultimately, one outcome becomes real—and all the others vanish.
\nSome philosophers argue that every possible outcome does happen—just in another world. Our universe is simply the one where this result occurred. Others say possibilities aren’t real at all—just tools we use to reason about what might have been.
\nThis article explores what possibility really means—not as a puzzle for specialists, but as a force that shapes every choice we face.
\n| 400 BCE | \nAristotle (Possibility as Potentiality) An acorn is potentially an oak tree; it can become one. But the acorn is not actually an oak tree. \n | \n
| 1710 CE | \nLeibniz (Possible Worlds as Divine Ideas) God computes all logically consistent worlds (like uncreated blueprints) and actualizes the 'best' one—ours—where goodness outweighs evil." \n | \n
| 1748 CE | \nHume (Possibility as Psychological Habit) Our sense of ‘could be’ stems from repeated experience (e.g., expecting the sun to rise), not logical necessity. Even causation is just custom, not a law of nature. \n | \n
| 1781 CE | \nKant (Possibility as a Mental Framework) We can't know things-in-themselves; ‘possibility’ is limited by how our minds structure reality (e.g., we can't coherently imagine a timeless world). \n | \n
| 1927 CE | \nHeidegger (Possibility as Existential Projection) Humans (Dasein) are defined by ‘being-possible’—we exist by grappling with choices (e.g., embracing or fleeing our mortality). \n | \n
| 1968 CE | \nDeleuze (The Virtual as Alternative to Possibility) Deleuze rejects ‘possible worlds’; for him, reality unfolds from a ‘virtual’ field of potentials (e.g., all possible chess moves before one is played), not pre-set options. \n | \n
| 1970 CE | \nKripke (Possible Worlds as Useful Tools) Kripke's Modal Ontology says that possible worlds are just ways things could have been, not real places like other universes. \n | \n
| 1986 CE | \nLewis (All Worlds Are Concrete) Every logically possible world is as real as ours, but causally isolated (e.g., a world where Nixon is a robot exists, but we can't visit it). \n | \n
| 2024 CE | \nMackay (Possibility as Emerging Ability) Possibility isn't somewhere else—it happens in the here and now where possibility transforms into probability and ability. \n | \n
| Key:\n Classical Theories Modern Theories\n | \n
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle was one of the first to tackle the problem systematically. For him, possibility wasn’t about imaginary scenarios—it was about potential, the natural capacities hidden inside things.[3]
\n\n\nConsider the example of the acorn and the oak tree. The acorn is potentially an oak tree; it can become one. But the acorn is not actually an oak tree. Only the full-grown tree is.[4]
\n
A stone, on the other hand, will never grow into a tree, because its possibilities are limited by what it is. Aristotle saw the entire world this way—as a place where objects and living things are constantly moving from what they are toward what they could be.[5] In this view, possibility is like an invisible blueprint guiding how things change.
\nCenturies later, the German thinker Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz proposed a very different idea. He imagined God as a kind of cosmic architect, selecting the the best of all possible worlds. In this view, our universe is just one version of how things could have been—a single volume in a vast library of realities. The other 'books' in this library—the worlds where history unfolded differently, where dinosaurs never went extinct, or where you were born in another country—aren’t physically real, but they could have been, because they don’t contain any logical contradictions. For Leibniz, possibility was about consistency: something is possible if it obeys the rules of reason, even if it doesn’t exist in our world.[6]
\nNot everyone agreed that possibility was a feature of reality. The Scottish philosopher David Hume argued that our sense of what’s possible is really just a product of experience and habit.[7] When we say something 'could happen', what we actually mean is that we’ve seen similar things happen before. For example, we call it 'possible' for a car to skid on ice because we’ve witnessed it before—but if we’d never seen ice or cars, the idea wouldn’t even occur to us. Hume believed that possibility is just a way our minds organize expectations, not a real force in the universe.[8]
\nImmanuel Kant, writing in the 18th century, tried to bridge these perspectives. He argued that possibility isn’t just in our heads, nor is it purely 'out there' in the world—instead, it’s built into the very structure of how we perceive reality. Time, space, and cause-and-effect aren’t things we discover; they’re the lenses through which we see everything.[9] So when we say something is 'possible', we mean it fits within these mental frameworks. A world where gravity doesn’t exist isn’t impossible because of physics alone—it’s impossible because we literally can’t conceive of a coherent experience without it. For Kant, possibility is the boundary of what makes sense to a human mind.
\nThese classical debates might seem abstract, but they shape how we still think about possibility—often without realizing it. When scientists speculate about parallel universes, they’re echoing Leibniz’s 'possible worlds.' When we weigh decisions by imagining outcomes ('What if I take this job?'), we’re using something like Aristotle’s idea of potential. And when we struggle to picture something truly alien to our experience (like a color outside the visible spectrum), we’re bumping against Kant’s limits of thought.
\nUnderneath it all is the same unresolved question: Is possibility a shadow cast by reality, or is it something real in its own right? The answer changes how we see everything—from the laws of physics to the choices we make every day. In the next section, we’ll see how modern philosophers have pushed these ideas even further, asking whether 'possible worlds' might be more than just metaphors.
\nThe 20th century blew the door wide open on how we think about possibility. Armed with new tools from logic, physics, and even computer science, modern philosophers began asking harder questions: Are possible worlds real places? Is the future truly open, or just unknown? Can something be 'possible' without being imaginable? Their answers would reshape everything from artificial intelligence to how we understand our own choices.
\nIn 1968, American philosopher David Lewis dropped a philosophical bombshell: Every possible world is as real as our own.[10] Not as metaphors or stories—as actual, physical universes. In Lewis's view, when we say 'Nixon could have lost the election', we're pointing to a parallel universe where that really happened. These worlds aren't connected to ours, but they exist just as concretely, with their own versions of you making different choices.
\nWhat makes our world special? Nothing, says Lewis—we just call it 'actual' because we're in it, the same way we call our location 'here.' This radical idea (called modal realism) solves tricky problems in philosophy, but at a cost: it means reality contains infinitely many versions of everything that could possibly exist. Unsurprisingly, not everyone was convinced.
\nSaul Kripke, one of Lewis's sharpest critics, offered a more practical alternative: Possible worlds are useful fictions, not real places.[11] Think of them like scripts for unwritten plays—they help us analyze statements like 'The moon could be made of cheese' by imagining a consistent scenario where it's true. But no second universe is required.
\nKripke's approach (inspired by his work in logic) became the standard in fields like computer science and linguistics.[12] When a programmer tests all possible states of a system, or when we say 'That could never happen', we're using Kripke-style possibility—not invoking alternate realities, but exploring consistent descriptions.
\nMeanwhile, German philosopher Martin Heidegger was asking a completely different question: What does it mean to live possibility? For Heidegger, humans aren't just objects with fixed properties like rocks or trees—we're beings who face possibilities.[13] Your 'could be' (a musician, a traveler, a different version of yourself) isn't out there in some parallel world; it's part of how you exist right now.
\nThis existential view influenced psychology and education. When we talk about 'potential' in students or therapy patients, we're channeling Heidegger's idea that human existence is fundamentally open-ended.[14]
\nFrench philosopher Gilles Deleuze took this further with his concept of the virtual—not 'fake', but a realm of unrealized potentials that shape reality like invisible forces.[15] Imagine:
\nFor Deleuze, the universe isn't a collection of finished worlds (Lewis) or tidy models (Kripke)—it's a simmering field of tendencies waiting to crystallize into actual events. This idea now fuels theories in complexity science, digital culture, and even quantum physics.[18]
\nThese abstract debates have concrete teeth in modern life:
\nThe throughline? We're no longer just asking what is possible, but where possibility lives—in equations, in silicon, in collective action, or in the fabric of spacetime itself. The classical philosophers laid the groundwork, but today's thinkers are building skyscrapers on it.
\nIn the Conference of Difference (CoD) model, possibility is not a pre-existing menu of options to be chosen from, nor a metaphysical warehouse of unrealized worlds. It is a relational tension—an affordance, a push and pull—that exists only through the interplay of distinct beings responding to each other’s partial moves. Possibility is not elsewhere. It is right here, where resistance transforms into rhythm.
\nClassical modal ontologies often imagine possibility in spatial terms: as alternate worlds, hypothetical spaces, counterfactual realms. In contrast, the CoD sees no need to posit other 'worlds'. What others treat as possible worlds, the CoD understands as zones of tension—potential but unrealized pathways within this world, latent within the ongoing dynamics of becoming.
\nIn this framework, modality is not a fixed distinction across imagined domains; it is about adaptive ability in context. Possibility is not a detached property of a proposition, but a conditional affordance that emerges when beings engage in the conference of difference. Absent this conference, possibility itself collapses—there is no 'might' without relation, no becoming without tension. What we call 'impossibility' is not a logical status but the absence of ontological traction altogether. As such, the CoD organizes modal reality as a continuum of ability:
\nThis continuum does not describe a ladder of certainty, but the gradient of ability: not logical determinacy, but ontological traction. The CoD favors possibility over impossibility, probability over bare possibility and ability over mere probability—ever seeking the strongest ground from which realising may proceed.
\nUnlike Kripke’s semantics, which frame possibility as a tool for evaluating propositions, or Lewis’s modal realism, which multiplies ontologically sealed worlds, the CoD affirms a constantly unfolding existence shaped by recursive relation, not parallel instantiation. Each new act is not a leap into another world, but a co-produced deepening of this one.
\nThis is a metaphysics not of might-have-beens but of what is still possible here, now, within the bounds of the beings involved. Possibility, in this view, is neither fictional nor transcendent. It is material, emergent, and ethically charged—a co-responsibility for what difference can still make possible through conference.
\nGod, if the term still applies, is not the chooser of worlds but the conference of difference itself—that constant expression that makes existence possible.[23]
\nNext week, we explore persistence and identity: what it means for a thing, a person, or a pattern to remain 'the same' even as everything changes. Is identity a fixed core? Or is it the memory of a pattern—a name passed around the table of time?
\nStay tuned as we follow the thread of becoming into the question of being.[24]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nThis image, generated by AI, pays homage to Henri Cartier-Bresson’s iconic photograph Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare (1932), which captured a man mid-leap over a puddle, suspended in a moment of poised uncertainty. Like Bresson’s work, this image frames the instant where possibility balances on the edge of realization—a visual metaphor for the tension between potential and enactment. ↩︎
\nIn literal terms, Modal Ontology is an 'account of being [as to] boundaries and limits'. It details what kinds of things could exist, must exist, or cannot exist—and whether those possibilities are just ideas, logical rules, or part of reality itself. ↩︎
\nAristotle, Metaphysics Θ (Book IX), esp. chapters 1–6 (1045b–1050a). See also Physics (Book II) for related ideas on nature and purpose. ↩︎
\nBeere, J. (2009). Doing and being: An interpretation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Theta. Oxford University Press. p. 81. ↩︎
\nIbid. p. 3. ↩︎
\nLeibniz, G. W. (1989). Discourse on metaphysics and other essays (D. Garber & R. Ariew, Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (§13)\n(Original work published 1686) ↩︎
\nHume, D. (2007). An enquiry concerning human understanding (P. Millican, Ed.). Oxford University Press. Sections IV–V. (Original work published 1748) ↩︎
\nIbid. Section VII, Part II. ↩︎
\nKant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Trans. & Eds.). Cambridge University Press. A218/B265 and A23–B66. (Original work published 1781/1787) ↩︎
\nLewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. p. 2. Basil Blackwell. ↩︎
\nKripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Lecture III, p. 44 (fn.) Harvard University Press. ↩︎
\nFor applications of Kripke’s semantics in computer science and linguistics, see:\nBlackburn, P., de Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2001). Modal logic. Cambridge University Press;\nClarke, E. M., Grumberg, O., & Peled, D. A. (1999). Model checking. MIT Press; and\nHeim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell. ↩︎
\nHeidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Harper & Row. §9, p. 42 (Original work published 1927) ↩︎
\nFor Heidegger’s influence on therapy and education, see:\nYalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy (pp. 9–10). Basic Books; and\nBiesta, G. (2014). The beautiful risk of education (p. 130). Paradigm Publishers. ↩︎
\nDeleuze, G. (2014). Difference and repetition (P. Patton, Trans.). p. 263 London: Bloomsbury Academic. (Original work published 1968) ↩︎
\nChabris, C. F., & Hearst, E. (2003). Visualization, pattern recognition, and forward search: Effects of playing speed and sight of the position on grandmaster chess errors. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 637–648. ↩︎
\nZuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs. p. 377 ↩︎
\nFor applications of Deleuze’s concept of the virtual in complexity science, digital culture, and quantum theory, see:\nDeLanda, M. (2002). Intensive science and virtual philosophy. Continuum;\nParisi, L. (2013). Contagious architecture: Computation, aesthetics, and space. MIT Press; and\nBarad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press. ↩︎
\nsee:\nTegmark, M. (1998). The interpretation of quantum mechanics: Many worlds or many words? Fortschritte der Physik, 46(6–8), 855–862. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-3978(199811)46:6/8<855::AID-PROP855>3.0.CO;2-Q ↩︎
\nYudkowsky, E. (2008). Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk. In N. Bostrom & M. Ćirković (Eds.), Global catastrophic risks (pp. 308–345). Oxford University Press. ↩︎
\nFor discussion of how climate discourse engages with questions of possible versus foreclosed futures, see:\nTsing, A. L., Swanson, H. A., Gan, E., & Bubandt, N. (Eds.). (2017). Arts of living on a damaged planet: Ghosts and monsters of the anthropocene. University of Minnesota Press. ↩︎
\nRefer to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (Nintendo, 2017), as discussed in:\nBogost, I. (2017). Play anything: The pleasure of limits, the uses of boredom, and the secret of games. Basic Books. ↩︎
\nThis should not be confused with the ontological argument for God’s existence as advanced by thinkers like Alvin Plantinga, which uses modal logic to argue that if a maximally great being is possible, it must exist in all possible worlds. The CoD’s modal ontology is not a proof structure but a descriptive framework: it does not ask who must exist in all worlds, but what makes possibility itself possible. In this view, God is not a necessary being in the modal logic sense, but the ontological condition that makes possibility possible ↩︎
\nInitial drafts of this article were created with the assistence of ChatGPT 4o, with records of conversations retained. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"persistence-and-identity-01\"](\"/assets/img/persistence-and-identity-01.webp\")
\nCaption: Surrealist AI generated image of a straw helmsman navigating The Ship of Theseus onto rocks.
What does it mean for something to endure? When we say a river, a person, or a nation remains 'the same' despite constant change, what are we really claiming? The problem of persistence and identity lies at the heart of metaphysics, shaping how we understand everything from the nature of objects to the continuity of consciousness.
\nConsider an ancient paradox: the Ship of Theseus. If every plank of a ship is replaced over time, is it still fundamentally the same vessel? Our intuition says yes - there's an enduring identity that transcends its changing parts. Yet this simple observation opens profound questions. How can something change yet stay the same? What constitutes the 'sameness' we attribute to persisting things?
\nThese questions matter because they force us to examine our most basic assumptions about reality. The way we conceptualize persistence influences how we think about personal identity, the nature of objects, even the continuity of societies and ecosystems. Are things fundamentally stable entities that undergo changes, or are they processes that merely appear stable? Is identity something inherent or something we project onto the world?
\nMetaphysics grapples with these puzzles not as word games, but as fundamental inquiries into the structure of reality. The answers shape how we understand time, existence, and the very fabric of what we call 'things'. From Aristotle's notions of form to contemporary theories of temporal parts, philosophers have developed competing frameworks to explain how persistence works - each with implications for how we view ourselves and our world.
\nAs we embark on this exploration, we'll see that the question: 'What makes something the same over time?' is really many questions in disguise. It asks about the relationship between form and matter, between continuity and change, between our conceptual categories and the world they describe. The journey through these ideas won't just illuminate ancient philosophical debates - it will challenge us to rethink what we mean when we say that anything endures.
\nThe account by Aristotle of endurance begins with a simple but radical idea: what makes something itself isn't the stuff it's made of, but how that stuff is organized. When we say the Ship of Theseus remains the same ship after all its planks have been replaced, we're recognizing that its identity lives in its relational organisation - its ongoing capacity to sail, to carry, to be a ship - rather than in any particular arrangement of wood.
\nThis view emerges from Aristotle's distinction between matter and form. The matter - the planks, the sails, the ropes - comes and goes. But the form, what Aristotle calls the eidos, persists as long as the essential organization remains.[1] A ship isn't just wood floating on water; it's wood arranged to serve a particular purpose. Change the arrangement fundamentally - say, by dismantling it to build a house - and the ship ceases to be. But replace parts while maintaining the structure that allows it to function as a ship? The identity holds.
\nCrucially, this isn't about finding some mystical core that never changes. Aristotle's form isn't a ghost in the machine - it's the machine's working design. When we recognize a friend after twenty years, we're not spotting some immutable soul beneath their aging face; we're responding to the continuity of their characteristic way of being in the world. The changes matter, but they don't necessarily break the pattern that makes them who they are.
\nThis understanding solves the Ship of Theseus paradox by reframing the question. We've been asking 'what stays the same' when we should ask 'what maintains coherence'. The answer isn't in the planks, but in the ongoing conversation between the ship's design, its function and its environment - a conversation that can continue even as every physical component gets replaced.
\nThe 20th century saw philosophy take a sharp turn in how it conceived of persistence. The work of philosopher David Lewis serves as the pivot point. His book On the Plurality of Worlds didn't just reinterpret Aristotle's ideas—it fundamentally rewrote the terms of the identity debate and not without some controversy.[2]
\nLewis stated that something 'endures if it persists by being wholly present at more than one time'.[3] The problem is that endurance theorists define endurance as being 'wholly present at more than one time'—meaning the same entire object persists through change, not that all its parts exist simultaneously. Lewis, however, interpreted this as incoherent, arguing that without temporal parts, endurance theory cannot account for change.[4]
\nIn context, endurance theorists might argue that a ship at location $l1$ persists from $t1$ to $t2$ even if one of its planks $p1$ is replaced by another $p2$. In this view, the ship is wholly present at both times—not because $p1$ and $p2$ coexist simultaneously, but because the same ship (as a unified whole) undergoes gradual change. Lewis, however, framed endurance as if it required the simultaneous presence of all temporal stages (e.g., $p1$ and $p2$ existing at once), which endurance theorists explicitly reject.
\nLewis took Aristotle’s premise that '[t]he whole is something beyond its parts' (Metaphysics 1045a) and repackaged it within his perdurantist framework: for Lewis, the 'whole' is the sum of an object’s temporal parts (stages) distributed across time—not the enduring, strictly identical entity Aristotle envisioned.
\nThe crucial takeaway is that Lewis’ critique of endurantism does not target Aristotle’s classical endurance theory on its own terms. Instead, Lewis reconstructs endurance as a straw man—incoherent within his 4D, Humean framework—to argue that persistence requires temporal parts—perdurantism.[5]
\nWhat gets obscured by Lewis’ redefinition is the core strength of Aristotle’s view: identity is not merely a matter of occupying temporal moments (as in 4D perdurantism), but about preserving functional and relational integrity through change—an holistic principle central to hylomorphism.[6]
\nStage theory (or exdurantism) further radicalized the debate. By asserting that only present 'stages' exist—and that persistence is merely a matter of counterpart relations between such stages—it reduced identity to a problem of spacetime carving, stripping away Aristotle’s emphasis on enduring unity through change.[7]
\nThe problem with these speculative theories of persistence is that they all share the same unexamined assumption: that identity must be either stretched across time like a rope or sliced into momentary fragments. But what if they're asking the wrong question? Instead of 'what stays the same' perhaps they should ask 'what holds together'.
\nThis is where the metaphor of identity as a conference of difference is insightful.[8] Consider a symphony orchestra. Its identity isn't found in any single note or musician, nor in some abstract score existing outside of time. The orchestra persists as itself through the ongoing negotiation between players, instruments, and tradition—through the way the second violins respond to the woodwinds, how tonight's performance echoes yet differs from last night's. The continuity lives in the pattern of relationships, not in any fixed particular element.
\nWe see this principle everywhere in nature. A river maintains its identity not through the water molecules that compose it (all of which are replaced every few days), but through the dynamic equilibrium between flow, bed, and watershed.[9] Your body rebuilds nearly every cell every seven years, yet 'you' persist because the relationships between systems maintain functional coherence.[10] Even subatomic particles exist as stable identities only through continuous interaction with their environment—what physicists call 'persistent excitation patterns'.[11]
\nThis view resolves the Ship of Theseus paradox by shifting our focus. The ship endures not because some essential plank remains (Aristotle was right to dismiss this), nor because we've mapped its temporal parts (Lewis's geometric solution), but because there's an ongoing conversation between structure, function and environment. Replace every part, but maintain the pattern by which those parts relate to each other and the identity of the ship continues.
\nThe implications ripple outward. Personal identity becomes less about 'same soul' or 'same body' and more about the continuity of how we engage with our memories, our communities and our future selves. Social institutions persist not through unchanging rules but through adaptive reinterpretation of their core purposes. Even ecosystems maintain identity through dynamic balance rather than static composition.
\nThis isn't mysticism—it's recognizing that persistence is fundamentally relational. To endure is to participate in an ongoing dialogue between what was, what is and what's becoming. The conference of difference never adjourns; the conversation simply finds new voices to carry it forward. When we understand this, the old either/or debates about parts versus wholes, change versus sameness, begin to seem like they were missing the point all along. The ship sails on not despite the changing planks, but because the changing planks maintain orgnaisational relationship.
\nIf identity persists through dynamic coherence rather than fixed elements, what does this mean for the so-called laws' of nature? Next week, we'll examine whether the universe operates by immutable rules etched into reality's foundation—or whether what we call physical laws are simply the most stable patterns in an ongoing cosmic conversation. Are the constants of nature truly constant, or are they, like the Ship of Theseus, sustained through deeper processes of negotiation and exchange? The answer may reshape how we understand everything from quantum particles to the arrow of time itself.[12]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nAristotle. (1993). Metaphysics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation (Vol. 2, pp. 1552–1728). Princeton University Press. (Original work published ca. 350 BCE) ↩︎
\nLewis’ counterpart theory was dismissed by some as 'a paradigm of metaphysical extravagance' Stalnaker, R. (1988). Critical notice of On the Plurality of Worlds. Mind, 97(386), p. 122. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2255045, yet it irrevocably shifted the terrain of modal discourse as related in Divers, J. (2002). Possible worlds. Routledge ↩︎
\nLewis, D., (1986) On the Plurality of Worlds. p. 202. Blackwell. ↩︎
\nHaslanger, S. (2003). Persistence through time. In The Oxford handbook of metaphysics (pp. 315–354). Oxford University Press. Lowe, E. J. (2002). A survey of metaphysics. Oxford University Press. ↩︎
\nLewis’s straw man: Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds (pp. 202–205). Blackwell. 'If something persists, what’s there at each moment isn’t the whole of it. […] How can [endurance theorists] deny that [objects] have temporal parts?' Endurance theorists’ rebuttal: Lowe, E. J. (2002). A survey of metaphysics (pp. 49–52). Oxford University Press. 'Lewis’s ‘refutation’ of endurance presupposes the very ontology he seeks to defend'. Aristotle’s vs. Lewis’s ontology: Koslicki, K. (2008). The structure of objects (pp. 121–125). Oxford University Press. ↩︎
\nAristotle’s hylomorphism: Aristotle. (1993). Metaphysics (W. D. Ross, Trans.), 1045a. In J. Barnes (Ed.), Complete Works (Vol. 2, p. 1640). Princeton University Press. Lewis’s temporal parts: Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds (pp. 202–205). Blackwell. Critiques of Lewis’s reductionism: Lowe, E. J. (2002). A survey of metaphysics (pp. 49–52). Oxford University Press. ↩︎
\nStage theory’s core claims: Sider, T. (2001). Four-dimensionalism: An ontology of persistence and time (pp. 188–196). Oxford University Press. Critiques of its reductive approach: Hawley, K. (2001). How things persist (pp. 32–40). Oxford University Press. Aristotle’s contrast: Aristotle. (1993). Physics (R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye, Trans.), Book IV. In J. Barnes (Ed.), Complete Works (Vol. 1, pp. 315–446). Princeton University Press. ↩︎
\nMackay, J., (2024) Gospel of Being. p. 10. 'All existence is a conference of difference, a condition of bearing together transforming the condition of bearing apart'. ↩︎
\nWiggins, D. (2001). Sameness and substance renewed. pp. 86–89 Cambridge University Press. 'A river maintains its identity [...] through dynamic equilibrium between flow, bed, and watershed'. ↩︎
\nPradeu, T. (2012). The limits of the self: Immunology and biological identity. Ch. 3 Oxford University Press. 'Your body rebuilds nearly every cell [...] yet 'you' persist because of functional coherence'. ↩︎
\nKuhlmann, M. (2010). The ultimate constituents of the material world: In search of an ontology for fundamental physics. pp. 112–115. Springer. 'Subatomic particles exist as stable identities [...] through persistent excitation patterns'. ↩︎
\nThis article is the result of 3 different attempts to draft this article over a week with assistence from both DeepSeek R1. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"laws-and-causation-01\"](\"/assets/img/laws-and-causation-01.webp\")
\nCaption: Sir Isaac Newton, reimagined by ChatGPT 5 & DALL.E as an astronaut in deep space, quizzically observing a floating apple — a playful take on gravity and the laws of nature.
Under a late-summer sky in Lincolnshire, an apple detaches from its stem. It falls—not to Newton’s head[1], but into history. We remember the tale as if nature’s law had whispered itself into his ear, pre-written and eternal. Yet no statute was etched into the apple’s flesh, no cosmic parchment rolled out between the tree and the ground. The 'law of gravity'[2] was not a decree handed down from on high; it was a pattern, noticed and named, a habit of the universe distilled into words.
\nBut what if that 'habit' is not a fixed command, but the temporary settlement of countless negotiations—mass with mass, motion with space, stability with change? What if what we call laws are not laws at all but our shorthand for the ongoing give-and-take of power in motion?
\nIf so, the question changes: not what the laws are, but how they emerge.
\nAs the Enlightenment dawned, Europe began to imagine nature as a kingdom ruled by reason—its monarchs the 'laws of nature'. These were not mere observations, but commandments written, it was thought, into the very structure of reality. The centuries that followed produced several enduring portraits of what these 'laws' might be.
\nDeterminism pictured the cosmos as a flawless clockwork. From Laplace’s famed demon[3]—an intellect that, knowing all positions and velocities, could predict the future and retrodict the past—came the idea that laws were absolute and binding. Every event was the inevitable consequence of those before it. In such a world, causation was simply the unfolding of the plan.
\nHumean Regularity Theory rejected hidden necessity. For David Hume[4], laws were nothing more than descriptive summaries of what we habitually observe: the sun has always risen, objects have always fallen. The 'law' lies in the regularity, not in any unseen force making it so.
\nNecessitarianism countered that this stripped laws of their authority. Philosophers like D. M. Armstrong[5] argued that laws are grounded in metaphysically necessary relations between universals—structural connections that must hold, not merely happen to. Gravity works as it does not by chance or custom, but because mass and attraction are linked by the fabric of reality itself.
\nDispositional Essentialism[6] turned to the nature of things themselves. Laws arise because entities possess dispositions or powers as part of their essence: salt dissolves in water[7] because solubility is built into what salt is. The law is not imposed externally but flows from a thing’s identity.
\nAcross these views runs a shared thread: causation is tied to stability. Whether as divine decree, logical necessity or stubborn habit, laws are taken to underwrite the predictability of the world. The differences lie in whether that underwriting is metaphysical bedrock, a regularity of appearances or the expression of inherent capacities.
\nIn each case, laws are treated as standing apart from the flux they describe—rules above the game, rather than the game’s evolving score.
\nIn the 20th and 21st centuries, the image of immutable cosmic statutes began to crack. Physics, complexity science, and philosophy of science each tugged at the old picture, revealing fault lines where 'law' looked less like decree and more like evolving agreement.
\nEmergentism[8] asks whether the regularities we call laws might be byproducts of interaction, not preconditions for it. In complex systems—ecosystems, economies, weather patterns—stability often emerges only after countless reciprocal adjustments. Here, 'law' is not a starting point but an outcome and one that can shift if the underlying exchanges shift.
\nCausal Powers vs. Statistical Regularities[9] marks another fracture. Some philosophers maintain that powers—capacities embedded in things—are the true engines of causation, with laws simply summarizing their typical exercise. Others argue that what we see as powers are themselves just statistical effects of patterns across vast data. The tug-of-war continues.
\nQuantum Mechanics[10] complicates matters further. At the subatomic level, causation becomes a matter of probabilities rather than certainties. The idea of a universal, exceptionless rule begins to falter—unless, as some physicists argue, the probabilistic laws themselves are the deeper determinism.
\nComplex Systems Science[11] has perhaps gone furthest in reframing laws. Patterns like traffic flow, predator–prey cycles, or market oscillations can be predicted under certain conditions, yet they are not fixed; change the balance of inputs, and the 'law' dissolves. This has led some to see natural laws themselves as the most stable summaries of an ongoing negotiation between forces—a moving target dressed in the language of permanence.
\nThe tension today is not just about whether laws are fixed or flexible, but whether the very category of 'law' can survive in a world where predictability is an emergent, contingent feature of power in motion.
\nIf the classical picture imagines laws as the architect’s blueprint, the Conference of Difference[12] (CoD) sees them as the meeting minutes—summaries of what diverse powers have, for the moment, agreed to do.
\nIn this model, existence is not ruled from above by fixed edicts but unfolds as an unbroken negotiation among forces. Every interaction is a petition—sometimes adversarial (competition), sometimes cooperative (co-petition)—where each participant seeks to preserve and extend its ability. This continual interplay is not chaos, because difference does not act alone; it acts with and against other difference, producing moments of balance. These moments, when equilibrium holds, are what we later write down as 'laws'.
\nHere, causation is not a one-way chain of dominos, but a reciprocal adjustment: an event alters the field of powers and that altered field reshapes the next event. The 'cause' is the Conference itself—in the structured negotiation of differences—while the 'effect' is the transformed and rebalanced condition that emerges. In stable environments, these rebalances settle into enduring patterns. Over time, such patterns appear as if they were immutable laws.
\nNecessity, in this light, is not an external compulsion but a high degree of stability. When a pattern holds under vast variation of circumstance—planets orbiting stars, water freezing at a given temperature—we treat it as necessary. Yet its stability comes not from a cosmic statute but from the robustness of the underlying equilibrium. Disrupt the balance and the 'law' shifts or disappears.
\nThis reframing also dissolves the need for a metaphysical divide between 'law' and 'event'. Laws are not separate from the processes they govern; they are the processes’ most enduring agreements. The law of gravity, for example, is the name we give to the long-standing, highly stable power exchange between mass and spacetime curvature[13]—a pattern so persistent that we forget it is an outcome.
\nIn the Conference of Difference[14] (CoD), causation is thus inseparable from reciprocity. Every cause is also an effect; every effect becomes a cause. The so-called 'laws of nature' are the shorthand for those reciprocal patterns that are resilient enough to endure through vast stretches of time and space.
\nThis model does not undermine science—it sharpens it. Instead of asking: What are the laws? we ask: What power exchanges make this pattern so stable, and under what conditions might they change? Laws become less like axioms carved in stone and more like peace treaties: effective so long as the balance of power that sustains them remains intact.
\n\n\nIn short: classical theories often treat laws as the foundations of reality; the CoD model however, treats them as accounts of reality’s most enduring negotiations.
\n
If the laws of nature are not eternal decrees but the most stable agreements in an ongoing exchange of power: 'ability', then science is our attempt to account for the what, how and why of existent conditions—not our decoding of divine statute. Predictability is born of stability, and stability is born of reciprocity. The real question is not: What are the laws? but: What sustains them—and what might unsettle them?
\nNext week we turn inward to Mind & Consciousness, where the universe’s flux is not only measured, but lived.[15]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nThe famous 'apple incident' may be apocryphal; Newton himself recalled the falling apple as a moment of inspiration, but the story was popularized posthumously by William Stukeley in 1752. ↩︎
\nNewton's law of universal gravitation, first published in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), describes the mutual attraction between masses. ↩︎
\nLaplace's demon is a hypothetical intellect that, knowing all forces and positions, could predict the past and future with certainty; see Pierre-Simon Laplace, Philosophical Essay on Probabilities (1814). ↩︎
\nScottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) advanced the regularity theory of laws in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748). ↩︎
\nAustralian philosopher David Malet Armstrong (1926–2014) defended Necessitarianism in works such as What Is a Law of Nature? (1983). ↩︎
\nA philosophical position arguing that laws arise from the essential powers of entities; developed by thinkers such as Brian Ellis and Stephen Mumford. ↩︎
\nAn example of a dispositional property: salt's solubility is part of its chemical nature, manifesting when conditions (water as solvent) are met. ↩︎
\nIn philosophy and science, emergentism holds that higher-level properties or laws arise from complex interactions and are not reducible to their components. ↩︎
\nNancy Cartwright is a notable defender of causal powers; Bas van Fraassen is a prominent advocate of a regularity-based, anti-realist view of laws. ↩︎
\nAt quantum scales, events are governed by probabilistic rules such as Born's rule and constrained by the uncertainty principle (Heisenberg, 1927). ↩︎
\nThe study of systems with many interacting components where order emerges through self-organization; see Ilya Prigogine (dissipative structures) or Stuart Kauffman (complex adaptive systems). ↩︎
\nThe Conference of Difference (CoD) is the author's (John Mackay) ontological framework from the Gospel of Being, emphasizing reciprocity and equilibrium as the basis of existence. ↩︎
\nIn Einstein's general relativity, mass and energy curve spacetime, and this curvature governs the motion of matter and light. ↩︎
\nSee Footnote 12. ↩︎
\nInitial drafts of this article were created with the assistence of ChatGPT 5, with records of conversations retained. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"mind-and-consciousness-01\"](\"/assets/img/mind-and-consciousness-01.webp\")
\nCaption: A surreal retro-futurist scene of people reading copies of the same newspaper, each plugged into the ceiling by cables—the paradox of solitary minds in a shared circuit. (courtesy of ChatGPT 5 & DALL.E)
Is consciousness a flame flickering in the singular mind, or the collective glow of a thousand fires? For centuries, philosophers have stared into that flame, unsure whether it burns alone or always in company. In the hushed groves of ancient India, sages spoke of mind as a spark of the universal fire.[1] Meanwhile, in a quiet Dutch study, Descartes imagined a solitary candle hidden behind the forehead, casting light on a private theater of thought.[2] Today, neuroscientists trace electrical storms across the brain,[3] while mystics and meditators insist that consciousness stretches beyond the skull, shimmering between beings like fire passed from torch to torch.
\nWhat exactly are we experiencing when we experience? Is mind the most intimate of possessions—or the most shared of gifts? The answer may decide not only how we explain thought, but how we understand what it means to be together at all.
\nThe story of consciousness has been told in many voices, each insisting the flame burns in a different place.
\n1. Dualism (Descartes, 17th c.)
\nIn the Dutch Republic, René Descartes divided the world in two: res cogitans, the thinking substance, and res extensa, the extended matter. Consciousness, he claimed, was private, irreducible, and without spatial location—the one certainty shining through doubt.[4] Later versions, like David Chalmers’ property dualism, softened the line: perhaps mental properties emerge from matter but remain non-physical, resisting reduction to the grey folds of the brain.[5]
2. Materialism / Physicalism (Hobbes; Churchland, Dennett, 20th–21st c.)
\nIn contrast, Thomas Hobbes called thought nothing more than motion in the body.[6] Later physicalists sharpened this view: consciousness is brain activity, nothing over and above. Variations abound: the identity theory equates mental states with neural states,[7] while eliminativists like Paul Churchland dismiss 'consciousness' as a folk illusion.[8] Yet the 'hard problem', raised by Chalmers, shadows this reduction—why should electrical firings feel like anything at all?
3. Idealism (Berkeley, Hegel, 18th–19th c.)
\nOthers turned the world inside out. For Bishop Berkeley, 'to be is to be perceived'—matter depends on mind.[9] Hegel expanded this into a grand historical drama: consciousness unfolding through Spirit, recognizing itself in history, art, and community.[10] Modern cosmopsychists such as Bernardo Kastrup echo this voice: consciousness is not derivative but the very ground of reality.[11]
4. Phenomenology & Existentialism (Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, 20th c.)
\nAt the turn of the 20th century, Edmund Husserl redirected attention to lived experience. Consciousness, he argued, is intentional—always 'of' something[12]. Heidegger and Sartre radicalized this, tying awareness to embodiment, freedom, and anguish.[13] The body is not a vessel for consciousness but its stage and partner. Later, thinkers like Francisco Varela and Evan Thompson expanded this into embodied cognition: the mind lives in the handshake between organism and world.[14]
5. Panpsychism & Process Traditions (Spinoza, Whitehead, contemporary panpsychists)
\nLong before neuroscience, Baruch Spinoza sketched a monism where thought and extension were two aspects of one substance.[15] Alfred North Whitehead, centuries later, reimagined reality itself as made of 'actual occasions'—tiny moments of experience.[16] Today, philosophers like Philip Goff revive panpsychism: perhaps consciousness is fundamental, present even in the smallest particles, flickering faintly like sparks in the grain of reality.[17] Variants such as Russellian monism propose a neutral basis from which both matter and mind arise, suggesting that inner experience is woven into the fabric of being.
6. Functionalism (Putnam, 20th c.)
\nBy the mid-20th century, another voice emerged: consciousness as functional organization. Hilary Putnam and others argued that what matters is the role, not the material.[18] Just as software can run on silicon or carbon, so too could mental states be realized in different substrates, provided the causal pattern is preserved. This view opened the way to thinking of artificial systems as potential bearers of consciousness.
7. Buddhist & Indian Philosophies
\nBeyond the Western canon, traditions in India traced different lines. Advaita Vedānta spoke of non-dual awareness, the flame that reveals both self and cosmos as one.[19] Nāgārjuna unraveled consciousness as empty of fixed essence, dependent on relations.[20] These perspectives remind us that 'mind' has long been seen as neither merely private nor merely physical, but as boundless, illusory, or shared.
| 2nd–8th CE | \nBuddhist & Indian Philosophy (Śūnyatā, Advaita) | \n
| Non-dual awareness and dependent arising: consciousness as neither purely private nor substantial, but relational/empty and boundless (e.g., Nāgārjuna; Śaṅkara). | \n|
| 1600 CE | \nDualism (Descartes) | \n
| Mind (res cogitans) and matter (res extensa) as distinct; consciousness private, non-spatial, irreducible. Later: property dualism (Chalmers) softens the divide. | \n|
| 1700 CE | \nIdealism (Berkeley) | \n
| 'To be is to be perceived'. Reality fundamentally mental; matter depends on perception. | \n|
| 1800 CE | \nAbsolute Idealism (Hegel) | \n
| Consciousness/Spirit unfolds historically, recognizing itself in nature, culture, and thought—toward self-conscious freedom. | \n|
| 1900 CE | \nPhenomenology & Existentialism (Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre) | \n
| Consciousness as intentional (always 'of' something) and embodied. Offshoot: embodied cognition (Varela, Thompson) situates mind in organism–world coupling. | \n|
| 1900 CE | \nMaterialism / Physicalism (Identity Theory, Eliminativism) | \n
| Consciousness as nothing over-and-above brain activity (Hobbes precursor; later Churchland, Dennett). Identity theory equates mental with neural; eliminativism denies folk 'mental' states. | \n|
| 1900 CE | \nProcess Metaphysics (Whitehead) | \n
| Reality as 'actual occasions': momentary experiential events that prehend predecessors; shifts focus from substances to processual becoming. | \n|
| 1960 CE | \nFunctionalism (Putnam) | \n
| Mental states defined by causal role (software/hardware analogy). Opens the door to consciousness in multiple substrates. | \n|
| 2000 CE | \nPanpsychism Revival & Russellian Monism (Goff; variants) | \n
| Consciousness as fundamental and widespread in degrees; or grounded in a neutral intrinsic nature underlying mind/matter (Russellian monism). | \n|
| Key:\n Classical Theories\n Modern Theories\n | \n
If the past offered philosophies of firelight, the present brings laboratories full of sensors, scans, and simulations. Yet the riddle of consciousness burns no less brightly.
\n1. The Hard Problem Revisited
\nDavid Chalmers’ 'hard problem' remains a stumbling block: why does brain activity feel like something from the inside?.[21] Neuroscience maps correlations—spikes in the visual cortex when we see red, oscillations in prefrontal regions when we choose—but correlation is not explanation. The subjective glow still eludes capture.
2. Competing Models: IIT vs. Global Workspace
\nTwo major theories contest the field. Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory (IIT) seeks to measure consciousness as informational complexity (Φ).[22] Bernard Baars and Stanislas Dehaene’s Global Workspace Theory (GWT) pictures consciousness as the broadcasting of information across brain systems.[23] Each theory garners experimental support, yet neither silences the mystery. Are we closer to quantifying the flame, or simply modeling its shadows?
3. Bioelectric Minds: Michael Levin’s Challenge
\nMeanwhile, Michael Levin and colleagues uncover a different register: bioelectric networks in cells and tissues that guide regeneration, memory, and collective decision-making in simple organisms.[24] Planaria that regrow lost heads 'remember' their training; embryonic tissues communicate electrically to shape form. Levin stops short of claiming consciousness, but his work destabilizes brain chauvinism. If cells can share information, coordinate, and even display rudimentary memory, perhaps mind is a spectrum—flickering long before neurons.
4. Expanding the Field: AI & Psychedelics
\nTwo other flashpoints push the conversation outward. First, artificial intelligence: could systems with sufficient complexity or functional organization host consciousness?[25] The debate turns on whether function alone suffices, or whether biological embodiment is essential. Second, psychedelic research has revived age-old questions of 'shared mind'. Users report dissolving boundaries, entering networks of consciousness beyond the self.[26] Are these mere illusions of chemistry, or glimpses of participatory awareness?
Together, these flashpoints redraw the map. Consciousness no longer sits neatly in a skull. It hovers between competing theories, flickers in cellular collectives, and pulses in altered states. Each challenge edges us closer to a radical possibility: that the flame of mind is less a candle under glass, more a fire already shared.
\nA recent scoping review of theoretical models of consciousness concludes what many already suspect: there is no consensus on what consciousness even is. Some models treat it as a brain state, others as a process, still others as a fundamental feature of reality.[27] The result is not progress but proliferation. Researchers advance ingenious theories, but they begin with different definitions, measure different things, and often talk past one another.
\n\n\nIf we cannot agree on what we are looking for, how can we ever agree that we have found it?
\n
This impasse arises because most approaches still treat consciousness as a thing to be located: a property, a substance, or a mechanism. The Conference of Difference (CoD) model begins from another angle: consciousness is not a thing, but a relation. It is not contained in the skull, nor hidden in particles, nor emergent from circuitry. Instead, it is the degree to which beings share knowing.
\nTo be conscious, in this view, is to take part in a measure of shared knowing. My awareness is not mine alone; it is a reflection of how I resonate with others, whether people, organisms, or environments. Consciousness is therefore neither private nor universal in the abstract. It is concrete, situational, and graded by the extent of reciprocal attunement.
\nTo know is not to hold a private fact but to enact a shared ability. In older languages this is clearer: the Scots word ken means both to know and to be able—as in 'ya ken?' (you know / you can). Knowing is therefore an act: a way of participating with the world that confers ability.
\nIf all existence is a conference of difference, then knowing is never solitary. The knower and the known meet in relation, each shaping the other. The word consciousness, in this frame, is not a ghostly extra but by definition: the 'measure of knowing together'.
\nEveryday examples abound:
\nHere consciousness is not a hidden substance but the glow of ability that emerges when knowing is enacted in common. Knowing is the act, consciousness the measure—both inseparable from the relational power that makes them possible.
\nSeen through the Gospel of Being, consciousness unfolds along three ontological currents:
\nA conversation between friends: consciousness flickers not in the individual mind but in the rhythm of turn-taking, the co-creation of meaning.[28]\nA flock of birds turning as one: each responds to neighbors, the whole becoming a field of awareness greater than its parts.[29]\nEven Levin’s cellular collectives—sheets of tissue coordinating via bioelectric signals—suggest rudimentary forms of shared knowing, not 'conscious' in the human sense, but echoing its logic of participation.[30]
\nThus, the question is not 'what is consciousness made of?' but 'to what extent do beings share knowing?' Consciousness becomes a measure of participatory difference, the glow that emerges wherever powers meet, recognize, and equilibrate. This definition does not resolve every puzzle, but it dissolves the paralysis of competing definitions. Instead of searching for an essence hidden behind the flame, we can begin to trace the light as it spreads between us.
\nThe CoD model shares much with earlier theories of consciousness, yet it diverges in crucial ways. With phenomenology, it affirms that consciousness is relational, always 'of' something. But whereas Husserl and Sartre emphasized the subject’s intentional arc, here the emphasis shifts outward: consciousness is not an individual subject’s knowing of the world but the shared knowing that emerges between beings. In this sense, consciousness ensures that knowing is maintained despite the transience of individual beings—distributed knowing.
\nPanpsychism and process traditions also resonate. Like Spinoza or Whitehead, the CoD model rejects the notion that consciousness is a late accident of evolution, affirming instead that relational awareness pervades reality. Yet it avoids the metaphysical inflation that risks declaring 'minds everywhere'. Consciousness here is not a property hidden in atoms but a measure of knowing enacted through participation. It is not universal mind, but local and situational shared knowing.
\nFunctionalism, too, offers echoes: it sees consciousness in organizational patterns and causal roles. But while functionalism tends toward abstraction—likening the mind to software that could, in principle, run anywhere—the CoD model insists on reciprocity in the concrete. Consciousness is not merely function but relation: the sharing of ability that maintains equilibrium among beings.
\nLevin’s work on bioelectric collectives provides a more immediate bridge. Just as cells exchange signals to shape memory and form, consciousness extends this principle into higher registers of coordination. Where Levin limits his claim to cellular intelligence, the CoD model generalizes: consciousness is precisely the ongoing measure of such shared ability, whatever the scale.
\nEven evolutionary accounts of reciprocal altruism find new resonance here. Biologists note that practices endure when individuals pass them on through cooperative exchange. The ontological reading is deeper still: reciprocal altruism defined as: 'to take in and forward the practice of others' functions as the carrier, transmitting knowing beyond the individual so that ability can be sustained, adapted and transformed. In this sense, consciousness is not a glow within but a fire between, keeping alive the knowledge that no being can carry alone.
\nConsciousness has too often been treated as a spark hidden in the brain or as a metaphysical mist pervading reality. The CoD model reframes consciousness as neither substance nor mystery but as a measure of shared knowing—the glow that emerges when beings meet, exchange and sustain one another’s abilities. In this view, consciousness is less a solitary possession than a relay, carrying knowing beyond the individual to preserve adaptability, intelligence, and equilibrium.
\nIf consciousness is a fire carried between us, then institutions are the vessels that try to contain and direct its glow. Next week we turn to Social & Institutional Ontology\n—asking how shared minds become shared rules, and how colocracy might recast the ledger of collective life.[31]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nSee Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad III.7; early Indian accounts often equate consciousness with a world-soul flame. ↩︎
\nRené Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), esp. the 'cogito' and mind–body dualism. ↩︎
\nFor an accessible overview see Koch, C. (2018). The Feeling of Life Itself. MIT Press. ↩︎
\nDescartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy. ↩︎
\nChalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind. Oxford University Press. ↩︎
\nHobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. ↩︎
\nPlace, U.T. (1956). "Is Consciousness a Brain Process?" British Journal of Psychology. ↩︎
\nChurchland, P. (1981). "Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes." Journal of Philosophy. ↩︎
\nBerkeley, G. (1710). A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. ↩︎
\nHegel, G.W.F. (1807). Phenomenology of Spirit. ↩︎
\nKastrup, B. (2019). The Idea of the World. Iff Books. ↩︎
\nHusserl, E. (1913). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology. ↩︎
\nHeidegger, M. (1927). Being and Time; Sartre, J.P. (1943). Being and Nothingness. ↩︎
\nVarela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind. MIT Press. ↩︎
\nSpinoza, B. (1677). Ethics. ↩︎
\nWhitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and Reality. Free Press edition, 1978. ↩︎
\nGoff, P. (2017). Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. Oxford University Press. ↩︎
\nPutnam, H. (1967). 'The Nature of Mental States'. In Mind, Language and Reality. ↩︎
\nŚaṅkara, Brahma Sutra Bhāṣya, c. 8th century. ↩︎
\nNāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, 2nd–3rd century. ↩︎
\nChalmers, D. (1995). 'Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness'. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219. ↩︎
\nTononi, G. (2004). 'An information integration theory of consciousness'. BMC Neuroscience, 5:42. ↩︎
\nBaars, B. J. (1988). A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness; Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the Brain. Viking. ↩︎
\nLevin, M. (2021). 'Bioelectric signaling: Reprogrammable circuits underlying embryogenesis, regeneration, and cancer'. Cell, 184(8), 1971–1989. ↩︎
\nSearle, J. (1980). 'Minds, Brains, and Programs'. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–457; Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Little, Brown. ↩︎
\nCarhart-Harris, R. L. & Friston, K. J. (2019). 'REBUS and the Anarchic Brain: Toward a Unified Model of the Brain Action of Psychedelics'. Pharmacological Reviews, 71(3), 316–344. ↩︎
\nBayne, T., Seth, A. K., Massimini, M., & Sandberg, A. (2022). Theoretical Models of Consciousness: A Scoping Review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 141, 104878. ↩︎
\nSacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). 'A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation'. Language, 50(4), 696–735. ↩︎
\nCouzin, I. D. et al. (2005). 'Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move'. Nature, 433, 513–516. ↩︎
\nLevin, M. (2021). 'Bioelectric signaling: Reprogrammable circuits underlying embryogenesis, regeneration, and cancer'. Cell, 184(8), 1971–1989. ↩︎
\nInitial drafts of this article were created with the assistence of ChatGPT 5, with records of conversations retained. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"social-institutional-ontology-01\"](\"/assets/img/social-institutional-ontology-01.webp\")
\nA realist painting courtesy of ChatGPT-5/DALL.E of an immense archive with endless shelves of ledgers. In the foreground, a suited man bars the way (domination). At the vanishing point, another crouches in despair (alienation). On the right, a man calmly reads (life fact).
On a clay tablet in Babylon, laws were carved into permanence. In the temples of ancient China, ritual roles were rehearsed and recorded with equal gravity. From the bills of parliaments to the blockchain’s distributed ledgers, we find the same impulse: to fix fleeting human agreements into structures that can outlast their makers. This is the work of institutions. At their root, they are social ledgers—the recorded traces of a collective conference, attempting to capture what a society believes counts and who it deems counted. This reality prompts a fundamental question: are these ledgers, like Durkheim’s 'social facts', external constraints that impose a stone-carved weight upon us? Or are they, as Searle’s 'status functions' suggest, more like memory devices—powerful but fragile records of what we collectively recognize? Institutions exist in the tense space between inscription and enforcement, between memory and mandate. Their gravity is not because they are ontologically permanent, but because we act as if they are.
\nFor Confucius and his followers, the foundation of social order was not law but li—the body of rituals, proprieties and formalized practices that guided conduct from family life to governance. Institutions in this sense were living patterns of action through which one cultivated ren (humaneness) and aligned with the cosmic order. They functioned less as coercion and more as moral training, shaping the junzi (virtuous person) and producing social harmony through repetition and refinement.
\nBy contrast, the Dao De Jing of Laozi (pronounced 'lao-dzuh') expressed deep skepticism toward human-made institutions. Where Confucianism saw li as order, Daoism saw ritual and law as husks of a lost natural spontaneity. Institutions here are symptoms of disorder: the more rules imposed, the further society drifts from the Dao. True order arises through wu wei (effortless action) in harmony with the natural way. The best institutions, then, are minimal, nearly invisible, and leave people feeling they have ordered themselves.
\nAcross its many schools, Buddhism shares a pragmatic view of institutions: they are useful but ultimately sammuti (conventional) tools for practice. Traditions differ in the scope, authority, and role they grant the sangha and its rules, yet all converge on the Buddha’s teaching in the Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN 22). Institutions are like a raft built for the crossing from saṃsāra (suffering) to nibbāna (liberation). Once the far shore is reached, the raft must be left behind. To cling to the institution itself—its rituals, rules or identity—is just another form of upādāna (attachment) that obstructs liberation. From the paramattha (ultimate) perspective, institutions are only conceptual designations: labels applied to impermanent, dependently arisen processes (monks, buildings, rules). They lack a permanent anattā (essence). The institution is thus a means, never an end in itself.
\nIn Hinduism, dharma provides perhaps the broadest vision of institution—as the cosmic and moral law that sustains the universe. Social institutions such as varnashrama dharma (the duties tied to social role and life stage) are reflections of this deeper order. Unlike human contracts, these institutions are seen as cosmic prescriptions: by fulfilling one’s svadharma (particular duty) one contributes to ṛta (harmony) and spiritual progress. Here the institution is not merely social convention but a path woven into the fabric of existence itself.
\nIn Japan, particularly during the Tokugawa and Meiji periods, institutions were often understood less as abstract rules and more as kata—form, pattern, or model. A kata is a repeatable structure of practice: in martial arts, a choreographed sequence; in theater, a stylized gesture; in governance, a patterned ritual of authority. Institutions, then, were seen as the patterned forms that sustain social order through repetition and refinement rather than through rational-legal codes.
\nTaken together, these traditions offer a view of institutions not as external artifacts but as pathways: for cultivating virtue (Confucianism), for avoiding artificiality (Daoism), for skillful navigation of conventional reality (Buddhism), for fulfilling cosmic duty (Hinduism) or for embodying patterned form through repetition and refinement (Japanese kata). They remind us that institutions can be ritual, vow, cosmic law, or patterned practice—forms of life aligned to deeper orders—no less than bureaucratic or legal structures.
\n| 500 BCE | \nConfucius (Analects) | \n
| Institutions (li, ritual propriety) cultivate virtue and social harmony by embedding moral order in patterned practice. | \n|
| 400 BCE | \nLaozi (Dao De Jing); Zhuangzi | \n
| Human institutions are artificial constructs that obscure the Dao; the ideal is minimal, natural alignment through wuwei (effortless action). | \n|
| 300 BCE | \nEarly Buddhist Canon (MN 22, Alagaddūpama Sutta) | \n
| Institutions like the sangha are pragmatic tools (rafts) for practice—conventionally useful but never ends in themselves. | \n|
| 200 BCE | \nHindu Dharma Texts (Bhagavad Gītā, Manusmṛti) | \n
| Institutions are expressions of dharma—cosmic law embodied in duties (varnashrama dharma) that uphold universal order. | \n|
| 1600 CE | \nJapanese Tokugawa & Meiji Thought | \n
| Institutions expressed as kata (form/pattern): social order arises through patterned repetition, not abstract rules. | \n|
| Period:\n B.C.E. C.E.\n | \n
In the mid-19th century, Karl Marx offered one of the first systematic critiques of institutions as anything but neutral. For Marx, institutions were not ledgers of shared life but superstructures built atop the economic base.[1] Law, religion and the state existed to preserve ruling-class interests, embedding domination into their very form. The institutional ledger, in Marx’s eyes, was cooked from the outset: it always kept score in favor of those who already held power.
\nAs dusk fell on the 19th century, Émile Durkheim cast institutions as social facts: realities outside us, pressing back against our private desires with the force of stone.[2] They were not ours to reshape at will; they constrained, disciplined and stabilized—an external ledger of collective life—objective and coercive.
\nStanding in the shadow of industrial modernity, Max Weber diagnosed the rise of a new kind of order: rational-bureaucratic authority. For Weber, institutions were not just social facts but meticulously rule-bound structures. They gained legitimacy not from tradition or charisma, but from their perceived impartiality and clockwork regularity—their ability to record and administer society through procedures.[3] The ledger here became a bureaucracy’s filing cabinet—faceless and depersonalized.
\nA different constructivist path was forged by sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, who argued that institutions are products of habitualization and sedimentation, becoming reality through a continuous process of socialization.[4] This groundwork was formalized into a philosophy of language by John Searle a generation later. He argued that institutions are built from 'status functions' declared and sustained by collective intentionality.[5] Money, marriage, and borders exist because we declare and accept them as such. In this light, institutions are ledgers of recognition, filled not by external force but by shared declarations of '$X$ counts as $Y$ in context $C$'.
\nBut if Searle saw a neutral ledger of agreement, Michel Foucault revealed it to be an instrument of subtle and insidious formation.[6] For Foucault, institutions—schools, prisons, hospitals—were apparatuses of power/knowledge. They didn’t merely record social facts, they actively produced them, generating the very categories (the sane/insane, lawful/criminal) by which we are governed. Their ledgers were tools that disciplined bodies, normalized behavior, distributing visibility and invisibility alike.
\nAcross these voices, one theme recurs: institutions make social reality durable. Yet they disagree on how. For Marx, they are blunt instruments of exploitation, designed to preserve ruling interests. For Durkheim, they press back as external constraints, disciplining collective life. For Weber, they are rational rules that secure legitimacy through procedure. For Berger and Luckmann, they crystallize through habituation, sedimenting into everyday reality. For Searle, they rest on collective declarations of what counts. And for Foucault, they are subtle power/knowledge apparatuses, producing the very categories by which we live. Institutions are thus class weapons, external granite, rational order, sedimented practice, declared recognition or disciplinary nets—but in every case, they ledger our lives into form.
\n| 1850 CE | \nKarl Marx | \n
| Institutions are superstructures designed to protect ruling-class interests, ledgers tilted from the start. | \n|
| 1900 CE | \nÉmile Durkheim | \n
| Institutions are social facts—external, constraining realities that discipline and stabilize collective life. | \n|
| 1900 CE | \nMax Weber | \n
| Institutions are rational-bureaucratic authorities, legitimized by impersonal rules and procedural regularity. | \n|
| 1960 CE | \nPeter Berger & Thomas Luckmann | \n
| Institutions emerge from habitualized practices that become taken-for-granted realities through socialization. | \n|
| 1990 CE | \nJohn Searle | \n
| Institutions are status functions, created and sustained by collective declarations of what “counts”. | \n|
| 1980 CE | \nMichel Foucault | \n
| Institutions are power/knowledge apparatuses that produce categories, discipline bodies, and normalize behavior. | \n|
| Period:\n C.E.\n | \n
In our own century, the institutional ledger has gone digital. Where once laws were chiseled in stone or inked onto parchment, they are now inscribed across distributed networks. Blockchain technologies promise ledgers that no sovereign hand can erase, enshrining agreements in cryptographic stone.[7] Here, the dream is permanence without centralized authority—an institution that enforces itself by mathematical design. Yet, this very dream raises a new ontological question: can code truly be neutral or does it merely encode the biases and power structures of its creators into a new, seemingly objective form? From a Buddhist perspective, such permanence risks mistaking the raft for the shore: institutions are means for crossing, not ends in themselves, and to cling to their form is a new attachment.
\nYet another, more pervasive ledger has emerged on our screens: the algorithmic protocols of private platforms.[8] Who speaks, who is silenced, what trends and what vanishes are all inscribed in the invisible, institutional ledgers of machines. Unlike the public edict of Hammurabi’s Code, these ledgers are mutable, opaque, proprietary and tuned for a single ultimate good: engagement. They are perhaps the purest example of Foucault's power/knowledge apparatus, but one that is owned by corporations, not the state, enforcing hidden rules that are shifting and at times unaccountable. Confucian thought would remind us that institutions gain legitimacy not from opacity but from ritualized forms of propriety (li) that cultivate trust through visible, shared conduct.
\nMeanwhile, public trust in the traditional ledgers of truth—courts, parliaments, newspapers etc. has fractured.[9] Now, competing digital ledgers proliferate: partisan news feeds, influencer-driven narratives, and personalized realities. Each claims epistemic authority, yet none commands universal recognition, creating a world of contested facts and incompatible truths. In Hindu philosophy, such fracture signals the erosion of dharma—the shared moral order that once aligned social institutions with cosmic harmony. The result is not just a crisis of legitimacy for any single institution but a fundamental crisis of ledger itself: if we cannot agree on what counts as 'factual', whose record finally counts?[10] Japanese thought highlights that even these digital ledgers operate as kata—repeated patterns that shape collective life; the challenge is whether such patterns sustain harmony or entrench alienation.
\nIf the term: social institution 'petains to the shared process of putting in place' (and it iterally does), then the Conference of Difference (CoD) model of existence provides the ontological grounding that many of the classical theorists (Durkheim, Weber, Marx, Searle, and Foucault) largely miss. Each describes what institutions are—by defining them as facts, rules, weapons, declarations, apparatuses—but not how they emerge as process. Only Berger and Luckmann come close, with their account of habitualization. The CoD model explains that institutions are not tombstones of process but the process itself made durable. They are not artifacts to be worshipped, nor frozen rules to be obeyed but living inscriptions of difference negotiating together with difference. And it is precisely this that defines institutions as adaptive, open, and evolutionary.
\nFor example, colocracy: a system of government literally 'inclined toward the power of collaboration', is not grounded in abstract ideals but in the ontological fabric of existence itself. As an offshoot of the CoD model of existence, colocracy is consistent with the definition of social systems as shared processes if only because because all existence is itself a conference of difference. In the CoD context, institutions are not optional conventions but the very way reality endures: processes of inscription that make difference durable without closing it off.
\nThat being said, however, Colocracy enters into a long conversation with classical theorists of social ontology, converging with their deepest insights albeit diverging with their proposed solutions.
\nColocracy’s foundation is built upon acknowledged truths from each tradition.
\nIt accepts Durkheim’s claim that institutions must function as social facts—external, constraining realities that structure collective life and stand firm against individual whim. Its demographic ledger is designed to have precisely this objective weight.
\nIt adopts Searle’s constructivist principle that institutions are built on status functions and collective recognition. Colocracy is, at its heart, a mechanism for generating and sustaining a specific kind of declaration: “This demographically representative body counts as our legitimate governing authority.” Its power would evaporate without continuous public acceptance.
\nIt converges with the sociological groundwork of Berger and Luckmann. The processes of civic certification and rotation are precisely the kinds of habitualization and institutionalization they described—practices designed to become taken-for-granted realities through repetition and socialization.
\nIt affirms Foucault’s insight that institutions are not neutral record-keepers but active producers of subjectivity. Its emphasis on civic training and rotated participation is a direct engagement with this fact; it seeks to consciously design this formative process to create emancipated citizens rather than exploited subjects.
\nIt echoes Confucianism in treating institutions as forms of cultivation, not merely coercion. Like li, Colocracy relies on shared rituals of governance that shape character and sustain social harmony, but it does so while embedding equality into the ritual itself.
\nIt aligns with Daoism in valuing simplicity and naturalness. Colocracy’s demographic rules are deliberately minimal—designed to feel light, transparent and adaptive, rather than heavy-handed impositions.
\nIt converges with Buddhism’s pragmatic view of institutions as rafts, not shores. Its civic certifications and rotations are consciously provisional—tools for moving society toward balance, but never ends in themselves.
\nIt resonates with Hindu thought in seeking alignment between institutions and a deeper order. For Colocracy, that order is not caste or fixed duty, but the balance of difference itself—a civic dharma expressed as reciprocity.
\nIt draws on Japanese insights about institutions as kata—patterned forms repeated until they shape collective life. Colocracy builds its choreography through certification, mentoring, and rotation, repeating them until collaboration becomes second nature.
\nHowever, Colocracy diverges by diagnosing the sources of pathology within traditional institutions and designing its ledger as a corrective.
\nIt shares Marx’s deep suspicion that ledgers are easily tilted to serve particular interests. But where Marx saw this as an inevitable feature of class-based society, Colocracy proposes a design solution: baking demographic proportionality, rotation, and anti-corruption measures directly into the ledger’s code to mechanically resist capture by any single group.
\nIt understands Weber’s modern world of rational-bureaucratic authority but fears its alienating, faceless nature. Colocracy therefore replaces impersonal bureaucracy with shared responsibility. Legitimacy flows not from depersonalized rule-following but from the authentic representation of the social body itself.
\nIt agrees with Foucault’s analysis of disciplinary power but challenges its inevitability. Where Foucault’s institutions (prisons, schools) produce docile bodies through surveillance and normalization, Colocracy’s institution is designed to produce engaged citizens through responsibility and collaboration. The discipline is not one of obedience to a hidden rule, but of participation in a visible, shared process.
\nIt respects Confucian li as a ritual framework for cultivating virtue, yet diverges from its tendency toward rigid hierarchy. Colocracy encodes equality directly into its ledger, ensuring ritualized practice sustains balance rather than subordination.
\nIt recognizes the Daoist warning that elaborate institutions signal disorder, yet diverges from its quietism by insisting that light, adaptive forms of governance can be consciously designed. Colocracy seeks institutions that remain minimal but functional—rules that feel natural rather than imposed.
\nIt acknowledges the Buddhist caution against clinging to institutions as ends in themselves, yet diverges by embedding rotation and expiry into its design. Its institutions are built to be provisional rafts, never shores.
\nIt honors Hindu dharma as a vision of institutions aligned with deeper order, yet diverges from its risk of caste-like rigidity. Colocracy upholds harmony through proportionality, not prescription—fluid balance rather than fixed roles.
\nIt values the Japanese insight that institutions are patterned forms (kata), yet diverges from rote conformity. Its repeated practices—certification, rotation—are designed to keep reciprocity alive, not to reduce it to habit.
\nUltimately, all these traditions agree on one thing: institutions are the ledgers that make social reality durable. They disagree, however, on the quality of that durability. For Marx and Foucault, durability tends toward domination; for Weber, toward alienation; for Durkheim, toward external order. Eastern traditions diagnose similar risks: Confucian li can ossify into hierarchy, Daoist skepticism warns that rules multiply when natural harmony is lost, Buddhist thought cautions against clinging to the raft as though it were the shore, Hindu dharma risks hardening into rigid prescription, and Japanese kata can decay into rote conformity. The Conference of Difference (CoD) sits at the meeting point of East and West, converging with their deepest insights while diverging from their limitations. It seeks to preserve durability without rigidity, discipline without domination, patterned form without empty repetition.
\nThe Conference of Difference (CoD) Model argues that the most resilient and legitimate durability is not written in stone-like permanence but in the process itself. Its ledger is not a closed, final account carved in stone. It is a living, open system designed for continuous equilibrium—a ledger that never closes but perpetually recalibrates to circumstances, making it durable precisely because it is open to adaptation, evolution and transformation.
\nInstitutions are the ledgers of social reality: they record what counts. Our era is defined by a battle over these ledgers—between public and private, between transparent and opaque, between truth and tribalism. As an extension of the CoD model, Colocracy enters this battle not by fighting for control of the old ledger, but by proposing a new one entirely. It converges with classical insights on institutional power but diverges by designing that power to be proportional, rotational and resistant to capture. It answers Marx’s fear of a tilted ledger and Foucault’s nightmare of disciplinary control with a simple, radical principle: existence is a condition, literally a 'process of declaring together'.[11]
\n\nKarl Marx & Friedrich Engels (1970). The German Ideology (C. J. Arthur, Ed.). New York: International Publishers. (Original work published 1846). See also Jon Elster (1986). An Introduction to Karl Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, for an accessible analysis of the base–superstructure model. ↩︎
\nDurkheim, É. (1982). The rules of sociological method. (S. Lukes, Ed.; W. D. Halls, Trans.). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1895), p. 59. See also Lukes, S. (1973). Émile Durkheim: His life and work. London: Penguin, esp. pp. 10–14, for an accessible overview of Durkheim’s conception of social facts as external and constraining realities. ↩︎
\nWeber, M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.; E. Fischoff et al., Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press, Vol. 1, pp. 215–217, 956–958. See also Ritzer, G. (2011). Sociological theory (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 129–134, for an accessible summary of Weber’s model of rational-legal authority and bureaucratic legitimacy. ↩︎
\nBerger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books, pp. 70–75. See also Appelrouth, S., & Edles, L. D. (2012). Sociological theory in the contemporary era: Text and readings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, pp. 28–31, for an accessible overview of Berger & Luckmann’s model of institutionalization through habitualization and socialization. ↩︎
\nSearle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press, pp. 23–26. See also Ritzer, G. (2011). Sociological theory. (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 354–357, for an accessible overview of Searle’s account of institutional facts as status functions maintained by collective intentionality. ↩︎
\nFoucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard. (Original publication). Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. (Later reprinted 1995, Vintage Books). ↩︎
\nNakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Retrieved from https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. See also Narayanan, A., Bonneau, J., Felten, E., Miller, A., & Goldfeder, S. (2016). Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies: A comprehensive introduction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 3–5, for a detailed explanation of how blockchain ledgers are decentralized and resistant to sovereign erasure. For a more popular account, see Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain revolution: How the technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. New York: Penguin, pp. 6–10. ↩︎
\nGillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 1–15. See also Bucher, T. (2018). If…Then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, esp. chs. 1–2, for a balanced discussion of algorithms as infrastructures of governance. For a wider mapping of perspectives, see Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., & Foot, K. A. (Eds.). (2014). Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ↩︎
\nSee Edelman (2023). Edelman trust barometer. Pew Research Center (2019). Public trust in government: 1958–2019. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; and World Values Survey Association (2022). World values survey: Wave 7 (2017–2022). Madrid: JD Systems Institute, for longitudinal global data on declining trust in parliaments, courts, and media. ↩︎
\nSee Poovey, M. (1998). A history of the modern fact: Problems of knowledge in the sciences of wealth and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, for the genealogy of “facts” as a category; Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books, for how changing notions of objectivity shaped what counts as fact; and Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, for a sociological account of facts as stabilized inscriptions. ↩︎
\nInitial outlining and drafting of this article is courtesy of ChatGPT-5 with additional contributions by DeepSeek R1. Any errors and or omissions at time of publishing however, are mine. ↩︎
\n![\"quantum-ontology-02\"](\"/assets/img/quantum-ontology-02.webp\")
\nCaption: A modern homage to Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam as originally painted in the Sistine Chapel circa. 1512
What if your most fundamental intuition about yourself—that you are a single, separate self, contained within your skin—is an illusion? This isn't mystical conjecture; it is the inescapable implication of Quantum Mechanics (QM), the most successful and rigorously tested scientific framework in history. Its most baffling phenomenon, entanglement—where particles light-years apart share a single state of being—doesn't just describe the behavior of tiny particles. It whispers a radical secret about the nature of reality itself and by extension, about you.
\nThis article is a journey into that secret. In it, we'll move beyond the physics of entanglement to explore ontology—the account of being. We propose that entanglement is not a bizarre exception to the rules of reality but a profound expression of its deepest rule: the conference of difference. By framing it through the Conference of Difference (CoD) model, we'll see how this quantum connectedness challenges our classical myths of individuality and invites us to see the universe not as a collection of things but as a condition: 'process of declaring together'. Your sense of being an isolated self may be the universe's greatest illusion. Let's lift the veil.
\nFor centuries, our story of reality was a story of individuals. From the indivisible atoms of Democritus to billiard-ball mechanics of Newton, the classical worldview was built on a foundation of independent entities, each possessing its own inherent properties, interacting across the void of space in predictable, local ways. [1] This atomistic perspective is deeply ingrained in our thinking; it mirrors our perception of ourselves as distinct selves moving through the world. Even the introduction of fields by Faraday and Maxwell, which began to suggest a more continuous, interconnected substrate, still largely preserved the notion of distinct particles within those fields. [2] The particles were the actors; the field was merely the stage.
\nThe quantum revolution of the early 20th century began to crack this foundation. Wave-particle duality and the probabilistic nature of the wave function introduced a profound ambiguity. A particle wasn’t definitely here or there; it was smeared out in a cloud of potentiality, a ghost of possibility waiting for an observation to pin it down. The Copenhagen interpretation formalized this, placing the act of measurement—and by some interpretations, consciousness—at the center of the drama, causing the wave function to “collapse” into a single reality. [3] Yet, even here, the particles, however fuzzy, were often still thought of as separate things waiting to be revealed. Think of it not as a collapse, but as a choice the universe makes in a cosmic game of choose-your-own-adventure.
\nOther interpretations pushed back against this inherent weirdness. The De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory attempted to restore a comforting determinism with 'hidden variables' secretly guiding particles, like underwater currents directing ships. [4] The Many-Worlds Interpretation took a different tack, proposing that every quantum possibility is realized in a branching multiverse, an infinite explosion of realities. And Quantum Field Theory (QFT) made the most significant ontological shift: particles aren’t fundamental at all. They are mere excitations, tiny vibrations, in underlying, omnipresent quantum fields. The electron you detect isn’t a tiny ball; it’s a localized knot of energy in the universal electron field. This was a major step away from individualism and toward a vision of a deeply interconnected reality.
\nToday, the flashpoints of quantum theory all point toward this interconnectedness. The infamous Measurement Problem—how and why does the probability wave collapse?—remains a central mystery. But it was Bell’s Theorem and the experimental violation of Bell’s inequalities that delivered the knockout blow to classical local realism. [5] Entanglement proves that the universe is non-local. Measuring one entangled particle instantly determines the state of its partner, no matter if they are nanometers or light-years apart. This “spooky action at a distance” suggests that space itself is not the fundamental separator we thought it was. The implications ripple into black hole physics, where the fate of information challenges our concepts of causality and into the quest for quantum gravity, where the fabric of spacetime itself may be woven from a web of entangled connections. This isn’t just a problem for physicists; it’s a fundamental challenge to our story of how the world works.
\nSo, how does the CoD model make sense of quantum entanglement? What QM analogizes in mathematical terms, the CoD analogizes in ontological terms. Essentially, the CoD model reframes the conversation on existence not in terms of properties but in terms of conditions: 'processes of declaring together'. Thus in terms of the CoD, quantum entanglement is further evidence of the conference of difference albeit at the elementary particle level of existence. The CoD model tells us that this condition of entanglement isn't passive; rather it's a dynamic petitioning of being: 'action to be be'.[6] The CoD model would suggest that these entangled particles are trapped in a metaphorical no-man's land (QM's indefinite state), unable to declare transformation of being: 'action to be' (QM's definite state). When QM interposes a photon detector, it annhilates the entangled photon.[7] And because the act of direct measuring itself destroys the entangled photon, we can never observe entanglement 'in action' — only its aftermath in the data. It's like watching footprints left by a creature you never see. You know it was there, and what kind of feet it had — but you never photographed the animal itself.
\nThis model converges and diverges with historical interpretations in fascinating ways. It fundamentally diverges from early atomism, rejecting independent individuality. It finds a convergence with QFT in seeing reality as a dynamic, interconnected substrate. The CoD model shares the Copenhagen interpretation of 'imperfect knowing,' albeit seeing it as intrinsic to existence: the 'condition of being' itself. The CoD model is then in a sense comfortable with the 'measurement problem' of QM if only because there will always be limits to knowing. The CoD model resonates with the non-local interconnectedness hinted at in some hidden variable theories, yet it diverges from the Many-Worlds Interpretation by focusing on potentiality within a single, transforming reality rather than actualized branching worlds.
\nThe takeaway is profound. 'You' are not just you; at the most fundamental level, your being is relational, woven into the fabric of a universe that operates as a conference of difference where the 'condition of bearing together' transforms the 'condition of bearing apart'. It challenges our deepest classical intuitions about locality, individuality, and causality, suggesting the universe is not a collection of parts but a unified conference of difference. This isn't just a new ontological model; it is an invitation to a deeper inquiry into the nature of information, consciousness, and the very 'condition of being' that is existence. It suggests that the interconnectedness we feel ethically and spiritually might not be a metaphor, but a reflection of the deepest principle of reality itself.[8]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nSmolin,L. (2006). The trouble with physics: The rise of string theory, the fall of a science, and what comes next. Houghton Mifflin. ↩︎
\nIbid. Smolin (2006) argues, even the profound introduction of fields by Faraday and Maxwell did not fully dismantle the classical, object-oriented worldview, which would require the more radical revisions of quantum mechanics and relativity. ↩︎
\nThe role of the 'observer' in the Copenhagen interpretation is a subject of significant nuance and is often popularly misconstrued as requiring human consciousness. Within the orthodox framework established by Bohr and Heisenberg, the term 'measurement' or 'observation' more accurately refers to an irreversible interaction between a quantum system (e.g., an electron) and a macroscopic, classical measuring apparatus (e.g., a Geiger counter or a photographic plate). This interaction creates a permanent record, decohering the wave function and yielding a definite result. While some proponents, most notably Eugene Wigner and John von Neumann, extended this idea to suggest a fundamental role for consciousness in collapsing the wave function, this view is not a core tenet of the traditional Copenhagen interpretation and remains a highly controversial minority position among physicists. The mainstream physicalist interpretation is that the apparatus itself, by virtue of its size and entanglement with the environment, causes the collapse, with no conscious observer required. ↩︎
\nGoldstein,S. (2017). Bohmian mechanics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/qm-bohm/ ↩︎
\nAspect,A., Dalibard, J., & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental test of Bell's inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Physical Review Letters, 49(25), 1804–1807. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804 ↩︎
\nI use the word petitioning because it encompases both competition: 'petitioning against' and co-petition: 'petitioning together'. ↩︎
\nHence the measurement problem. ↩︎
\nThis article integrates insight from the following source(s): DeepSeek-R1, Brave AI. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"parable-of-the-fish-03\"](\"/assets/img/parable-of-the-fish-03.webp\")
\nCaption: An imaginary and sureal scene, courtesy of Nano Banana, depicting Seneca the Younger teaching Anne Thackeray Ritchie to fish whilst the Buddha and Confucius look on.
The proverb “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime” feels like timeless, anonymous folk wisdom, often mistakenly attributed to ancient Chinese philosophy.[1] Its true, surprising debut in English, however, was not in a dusty tome of philosophy but in a Victorian novel: Anne Thackeray Ritchie’s Mrs. Dymond (1885). Why did this profound idea first appear in fiction? The answer most likely lies in a specific Stoic principle about the very nature of knowledge.
\nAnne Thackeray Ritchie, daughter of novelist William Makepeace Thackeray, moved in literary circles where classical and Eastern philosophies were avidly discussed. This intellectual milieu is reflected in Mrs. Dymond, where she sets a precise philosophical stage. Immediately before the famous parable, a character named M. Caron poses a critical question:
\n\n\n“M. Caron should be here, [...] What is it he was saying in the studio last night, that an equal subdivision of material was an absurdity—that all gifts should be spiritual [...] and capable of infinite division?”[2]
\n
Ritchie’s characters are debating the nature of charity, contrasting the futility of dividing finite material goods (“an absurdity”) with the unique quality of “spiritual” gifts—like knowledge—which are “capable of infinite division.” The fish parable is not a standalone aphorism; it is the narrative solution to this explicitly stated philosophical problem.
\nThe concept of a gift given without loss to the giver is a core Stoic principle, one readily available to a Victorian intellectual like Ritchie through the works of Seneca the Younger. In his Moral Letters to Lucilius, a key text for the era, Seneca articulates this idea with crystalline clarity. In Letter VI, he writes:
\n\n\n"The good of the soul is a good that cannot be diminished or increased; when brought into the open, it is not divided but shared."[3]
\n
For Seneca, wisdom and virtue are the only true goods. Unlike material wealth, they are non-rivalrous. Sharing knowledge doesn’t partition it; it replicates it. The teacher loses nothing and often gains a deeper understanding in the process. This is famously summarized by the metaphor of a torch: "Light granted to another does not darken its source." Ritchie’s elegant phrase “capable of infinite division” is a direct Victorian translation of Seneca’s core idea.
\nRitchie’s genius lay in synthesizing this complex Stoic abstraction into a simple, practical, and unforgettable metaphor. In the novel, a character responds to M. Caron’s setup with the parable:
\n\n\n“I suppose the Patron meant that if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn.”[4]
\n
This perfect illustration maps directly onto the Senecan framework:
\nRitchie used the fictional dialogue to state the Stoic theory and the parable to provide its perfect practical application, embedding deep philosophy within accessible fiction.
\nWhat happened next explains the mystery of its origin. The parable, due to its immense clarity and power, escaped the pages of Mrs. Dymond. It was adopted by sermons, self-help manuals, and eventually the discourse of international development, evolving into its snappier modern form. However, in this journey, it was divorced from its sophisticated Stoic roots. It became a piece of folk wisdom, stripped of its connection to Seneca’s philosophy of non-rivalrous goods, which is why its true origin has remained obscure and subject to misattribution.
\nThe journey of Ritchie’s parable from a Stoic foundation to a universal principle of empowerment reveals a profound truth and one that is not merely a Western idea, but a universal human insight. It emerges independently within ancient Eastern philosophies, applied to both the governance of the state and the duty of the individual.
\nIn the Confucian Analects (c. 5th century BCE), the master is asked how a ruler can cultivate virtue among the people. Confucius replies, 'Let him advance the good and teach the incompetent' (举善而教不能 - jǔ shàn ér jiào bù néng).[5] Here, the context is not charity but statecraft. The ruler’s goal is an harmonious society, achieved not through handouts but by elevating the capable and educating those who lack skill. This empowers the people to become self-reliant contributors, strengthening the entire state. It is the 'teach to fish' principle applied as a strategy for benevolent governance.
\nSimilarly, the Hindu and Sikh concept of Seva (selfless service) frames this same idea as a spiritual duty. The highest form of Seva is that which empowers the recipient to achieve full self-reliance, thereby eliminating the need for future service. This mirrors the Stoic and Confucian models perfectly:
\nThe parable of the fish is not anonymous folk wisdom but a deliberate illustration of Stoic principle, crafted by a Victorian intellectual. Understanding its origin in Seneca enriches the proverb, connecting a modern ideal of empowerment to an ancient philosophy of virtue. Finding its parallel in Eastern traditions like Confucianism and the Hindu and Sikh concept of Seva reveals it as a universal human insight. But its true power lies in its function as a model for action. The parable itself is the ultimate proof of its own lesson: a gift of knowledge that, once shared, diminishes nothing at its source. More importantly, it plants a seed not just of competence, but of compassionate methodology. It teaches the recipient how to help, ensuring the act of teaching itself is replicated, creating an ever-expanding network of empowerment. It is a virus of virtue, and its only symptom is liberation.[6]
\n\nSomers, J. (2015, August 25). Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Quote Investigator. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/08/28/fish/ ↩︎
\nThackeray Ritchie, A. I. (1885). Mrs. Dymond (p. 342). Smith, Elder, & Co. ↩︎
\nSeneca, L. A. (2014). On the private life (C. D. N. Costa, Trans.). In Dialogues and essays (pp. 95-107). Oxford University Press. (Original work published circa 54 CE) ↩︎
\nThackeray Ritchie, A. I. (1885). Mrs. Dymond (p. 343). Smith, Elder, & Co. ↩︎
\nConfucius. (n.d.). The Analects, Book II, Chapter 20. Translated by J. Legge. Chinese Text Project. Retrieved from https://ctext.org/analects ↩︎
\nNote: This article was expanded with the addition of Part V and expansion of the Conclusion on Sept. 25 2025 ↩︎
\n![\"metaontology-01\"](\"/assets/img/metaontology-01.webp\")
\nMetaontology: The Elephant in the Room. Exploring how different frameworks define the nature of reality. Courtesy of Nano Banana.
Have you ever found yourself in a debate that felt like it was happening in two different languages?[1] Perhaps it was about God, consciousness, or whether that thing in your fridge is still 'food'. You weren't just disagreeing on the answer; you were disagreeing on the rules for finding an answer. This is the hidden architecture of every profound debate and it’s the domain of a fascinating field called metaontology. Before we can seriously ask 'What exists?' we must first ask, 'What does it mean to ask: what exists'? This second-order question isn't about building an inventory of the universe. It's about examining the tools, assumptions, and very rulebook we use to conduct that inventory. It questions the rules of ontological enquiry itself.
\nIn a world saturated with competing frameworks—scientific, religious, social—understanding how these frameworks make their claims is more critical than ever. Metaontology provides the intellectual toolkit for this analysis, allowing us to move beyond shouting matches and into genuine understanding. It is not a theory of 'what is', but a theory of what we are doing when we develop theories of 'what is'.[2]
\nOur journey begins not with a revolutionary, but with a systematizer. Aristotle's Metaphysics is a first-order ontology, a magnificent categorization of types of beings. But implicitly, he established the metaontological rules of the game. His method of inquiring into being qua being—being as such—and his unwavering reliance on logical principles like the law of non-contradiction set a powerful template. For Aristotle, ontology wasn't a matter of opinion; it was a systematic, reasoned investigation into the fundamental structures of reality. He gave us the first rulebook, even if he was mostly focused on playing the game.
\nIf this seems like a solid foundation, prepare for an earthquake. The next great shift came from Immanuel Kant, who initiated a decisive metaontological turn. Kant argued that we can never have direct knowledge of things-as-they-are-in-themselves (noumena). Instead, our entire conception of being is constrained by the very structure of our minds, limited to the realm of possible experience (phenomena). This was his 'Copernican revolution': instead of our knowledge conforming to objects, objects must conform to our faculties of knowledge.
\nThis is the conceptual leap that changes everything. Kant made ontology dependent on epistemology. The primary metaontological question was no longer 'What is being'? but 'What are the conditions for the possibility of experiencing being'? He moved the debate from the outer universe to the inner architecture of human understanding.
\nThe 20th century sharpened this debate into a razor's edge. Rudolf Carnap, in his seminal Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology, made the most forceful deflationary claim.[3] He distinguished between internal questions—questions about existence within a chosen linguistic framework, which are meaningful and answerable by that framework's rules—and external questions—questions about the reality of the framework itself, which he dismissed as practically meaningless 'pseudo-questions'.[4]
\nThink of it not as discovering a world, but as choosing a language. For Carnap, asking 'Do numbers really exist'? is like asking if a screwdriver is really good outside of the context of a task. It's empty. Ontology, for Carnap, is merely the pragmatic choice of a linguistic framework for a particular purpose. It’s a tool, not a truth.
\nBut what if the tool shapes the truth we can find? This was the thrust of W.V.O. Quine and his powerful rebuttal in On What There Is.[5] Quine argued there is no magic circle separating internal and external questions; all theories, whether scientific or philosophical, carry ontological commitments. We can't just choose a framework without making a claim about what exists. His famous metaontological criterion was: 'To be is to be the value of a bound variable'.[6] In plainer language: what our best, most robust scientific theories say exists, does exist. This was a return to 'serious', non-trivial ontology, firmly grounded in the web of science.
\nQuine's hegemony didn't end the debate; it defined the modern battlefield. The post-Quinean landscape is a plurality of methods:
\nThe contemporary conversation crackles with energy around several core tensions. First, the Quantification Question: Is Quine's criterion the only way to read ontological commitment? Perhaps there are more nuanced ways to discern what a theory is truly committed to. Second, the problem of Fundamentality & Grounding: If we accept there is a fundamental level of reality, how do we define it? Is 'grounding' a legitimate, primitive relation or a vague metaphor?
\nStrip away the technicalities and this is a story about authority. This leads directly to the Realism vs. Anti-Realism debate: Is metaontology itself a descriptive project (discovering the pre-existing rules of ontological inquiry) or a prescriptive one (inventing them)? Is there one true metaontology, or are we merely choosing a philosophical aesthetic? This forces us to ask about the Role of Conceptual Analysis: Can examining our concepts (like 'object') tell us about the world, or only about the contours of our own minds? Finally, Naturalism's Domain looms large: Must metaontology be 'naturalized' and subordinated to science, or can it operate with its own distinct methods, like intuition and pure logical analysis?
\nInto this rich and fractious debate, we can introduce an Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF) as a pragmatic synthesizer. The Completeness, Robustness, Usefulness, Potential i.e. CRUP-OMAF is not another first-order ontology claiming to list what exists. It is a specific meta-framework—a rubric for evaluating the completeness of any proposed ontological model on a range of dimensions.[10] For the CRUP-OMAF those dimensions are contextualised as: completeness, robustness, pragmatic usefulness and transformative potential.[11]
\nCRUP-OMAF moves beyond the singular focus of the giants. It doesn't force a choice between Quine's scientific seriousness and Carnap's pragmatic flexibility. Instead, it proposes a multi-dimensional assessment across four axes:
\nBy incorporating Quinean and Carnapian concerns within a broader scheme, CRUP-OMAF offers one way to bridge the divide, offering an holistic way to appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of any ontological system without getting stuck in a century-old stalemate.
\nDespite their fierce disagreements, all metaontological positions are united by a single, noble project: to critically examine the methods and status of ontological claims. From Kant to Carnap to Quine to CRUP-OMAF, the goal is always to impose rigor and clarity on our accounts of being.
\nTheir divergences, however, are profound. They split on the Scope of Inquiry: Carnap and the easy ontologists seek to constrict ontology, dismissing many questions as nonsensical. Quine, Sider and frameworks like CRUP-OMAF seek to expand it, providing tools to answer more questions seriously. They also prioritize different Virtues: Quineans prioritize Axis II (Robustness via science), Carnapians prioritize Axis III (Pragmatic Usefulness), and CRUP OMAF explicitly adds Axis IV (Transformative Potential) as a core criterion for success.
\nThis isn't a perfect comparison, as it simplifies nuanced positions, but it illustrates the key difference: The classical metaontologists were primarily prescribing a method for doing ontology (Do it this way!). CRUP-OMAF, by contrast, operates at a meta-meta level, offering a neutral(ish) evaluation framework for assessing the outcomes of any method. It’s the difference between a coach demanding everyone play the same sport and a sports analyst with a rubric to evaluate any game.
\nSo, what have we learned? First, that metaontology is the essential, often invisible, foundation. You cannot do ontology—you cannot make a claim about what exists—without implicitly adopting a metaontology. You are always subject to a set of rules, whether you've read them or not.
\nThe central historical drama is the tug-of-war between deflationary views (like Carnap's) that see ontology as a matter of linguistic or pragmatic choice and inflationary views (like Quine's) that see it as a substantive, scientific inquiry into the furniture of the universe.
\nToday, the field is richer than the classic Quine-Carnap dichotomy suggests, exploring the very limits and tools of inquiry itself. CRUP-OMAF is one framework that represents a pragmatic synthesis, arguing that we shouldn't seek one single metaontological rule but instead use a multi-criteria approach to evaluate models on their completeness, robustness, usefulness and yes, even their potential to transform—warrant.
\nThe ultimate takeaway is that engaging with metaontology is not a passive academic exercise. It is an active, clarifying process of examining the rules we use to construct our understanding of reality.[12] It is the philosophy behind the philosophy, making it one of the most vital and, frankly, self-aware areas of human thought. It empowers you to not just ask what exists, but to understand the weight of the question itself.[13]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nThis phenomenon of incommensurate frameworks is a recurring theme in intellectual history. Beyond philosophy, the famous debate between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr over quantum mechanics is a prime example. Einstein, arguing from a framework prioritizing local realism ("God does not play dice"), and Bohr, arguing from a framework of complementarity and operational definition, were often talking past each other. Their disagreement was less about the data and more about the fundamental rules for interpreting it—a deeply metaontological conflict. Other classic examples include the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in linguistics, Thomas Kuhn's concept of "paradigm shifts" in science, and the foundational debates between Skinnerian behaviorism and cognitive psychology ↩︎
\nLexigraphically, the prefix meta- derives from Greek, meaning 'after' or 'behind'. This is the sense we find in a word like metaphysical i.e. ‘that which originates behind' of something. The grammatical point is that terms like metaphysical or ontology i.e. 'account of being' are formally incomplete-they require an object i.e. ontology of what? Throughout this article the term metaontology is used in its contemporary meaning not its authentic lexigraphical meaning. ↩︎
\nCarnap, R. (1956). Empiricism, semantics, and ontology. In Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic (2nd ed., pp. 205–221). The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1950) ↩︎
\nIbid. p. 208. ↩︎
\nQuine, W. V. O. (1948). On what there is. The Review of Metaphysics, 2(5), 21–38. ↩︎
\nIbid. p. 32. ↩︎
\nThomasson, A. L. (2015). Ontology made easy. Oxford University Press. ↩︎
\nSider, T. (2011). Writing the book of the world. Oxford University Press. ↩︎
\nFine, K. (2009). The question of ontology. In D. J. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New essays on the foundations of ontology (pp. 157–177). Oxford University Press. ↩︎
\nSee the CRUP-OMAF Case Study: The Conference of Difference as Primative of Existence at https://codeberg.org/johnmackay61/omaf/src/branch/main/docs/case-studies/crup-omaf-cod.md ↩︎
\nIn other words, the CRUP-OMAF is but one of, what could be, many OMAFs in which to plug-in ontological domain models and assess them across nominal dimensions. Over time, both the models and frameworks themselves should reveal their applicability, both ontologically and metaontologically. The rubric scores, whilst not meaningful in and of themselves, are intended to function much like Roland Barthes 'punctum' where that which pricks you gets your attention. It makes you ask: Why does this model fall short on X dimension e.g. can or does the model need improving, is the dimension valid or is it the framework itself? ↩︎
\nThis process of examining the "rules of the game" has profound practical applications. In everyday life, we constantly navigate clashes between different ontological frameworks without calling them that. For instance, consider a debate about a "good life." One person, operating within a hedonic framework, might define it by the presence of pleasure and absence of pain. Another, within a eudaimonic framework (from Aristotle's eudaimonia), might define it by virtue, purpose, and flourishing. They aren't just disagreeing on what makes a life good; they are disagreeing on the fundamental meaning of "good" in this context—a metaontological dispute. Applying metaontological awareness allows us to identify this root conflict, move past talking past each other, and either find a more productive common ground or clearly understand the nature of our disagreement. This same skill is invaluable in mediating workplace conflicts, understanding political rhetoric, or even parsing the terms of service for a new app—it is the art of uncovering the hidden rulebooks that govern our conversations and convictions. ↩︎
\nInitial drafts of this article were created with the assistence of DeepSeek R1, with records of conversations retained. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"architecture-of-possibility-01\"](\"/assets/img/architecture-of-possibility-01.webp\")
\nCaption: Impossible Stairs. Rendered by nano banana in homage to perspective japonaise no. 354, color lithograph by Oscar Reutersvärd—the Father of the impossible image.
You’ve felt it before. That quiet tension when you hear that every choice might be an illusion, pre-written by the laws of physics. Or the vertigo of learning that at its heart, reality might be a game of chance. For centuries, we’ve been presented with a binary, almost tribal, choice: is the universe a deterministic clockwork or a probabilistic casino? We frame our philosophies, our sciences, and even our sense of self around this divide. But what if this entire debate is built on a shared, silent assumption—one so fundamental we’ve forgotten to question it?
\nThis isn't just a philosophical puzzle; it's a question about the very architecture of your reality. What is truly possible for you tomorrow? What is necessary? The answers hinge on something called modal structure—the hidden scaffolding of possibility and necessity that makes both determinism and probability intelligible concepts in the first place. We’re about to embark on a journey to expose this framework and, in doing so, discover a third path that dissolves the ancient feud. This is the story of a universe that is neither a sterile clock nor a chaotic dice roll, but a living, breathing conference of difference.
\nOur story begins not in a lab, but with the ancient Greeks, wrestling with fate. The concept of Heimarmene (fate) suggested a fixed, unchangeable future, while Aristotle’s famous sea battle puzzle introduced a logical crack in this idea: if a statement about a future event is already true or false today, does that mean the outcome is necessary?[1] Or is it merely possible? This was the first conscious stumble into the realm of modal logic—the study of necessity and possibility.
\nThe scientific revolution seemed to settle the score. Newton’s laws and Laplace’s demon cemented a rigid, unforgiving modal structure. In this view, the universe has exactly one possible future. The entire cosmic movie is already encoded in the first frame. Probability, here, was merely a measure of our human ignorance—a useful tool for gamblers and statisticians, but not a real feature of the world. The scaffolding allowed for no alternative paths.
\nThis is the conceptual leap that changes everything. The 20th century dynamited this clockwork universe. Quantum mechanics didn’t just add uncertainty; it proposed a radically different modal structure. The future wasn't fixed; it was a probability distribution. Multiple potential outcomes were objectively real, each with its own 'chance' of occurring. Probability became ontic—a fundamental part of reality's fabric, not just in our minds. Philosophers like David Lewis gave us the language to describe this shift with 'possible worlds,' framing determinism as a universe with only one accessible future world and indeterminism as one with many.
\nSo where does this leave us today? Stuck in a series of flashpoints that all point back to the same core question: what is the true modal structure of our world?
\nThink of it not as a fight over events, but over the rules of the game itself. We’ve been so focused on the players (determinism vs. probability) that we’ve ignored the game board—the modal structure that gives them meaning.
\nWhat if we’ve been asking the wrong question? The Conference of Difference (CoD) model, derived from the ontological principles of the Gospel of Being, proposes a radical reframing. It doesn’t choose a side in the old war. Instead, it reveals that determinism and probability are not opponents, but rather, walk hand-in-hand to transform existence.[5]
\nThe model introduces a simple but profound two-tiered ontology. Imagine reality as an unstoppable river flowing downhill. The meta-process—the relentless pull of gravity that ensures the water will flow—is deterministic. This is the non-negotiable, invariant principle that all existence is a conference of difference [6]. It is the absolute law that being is a transformative verb, a constant 'bearing together' that creates relation and matter, not void or freedom [7]. This deterministic process is the engine of existence, observed from quantum fields to human conversations.
\nIf this seems abstract, you're in good company. Now, look at the water itself. The specific moments—where eddies of water intersect forming different bubbles, splashes and temporary currents—they are not pre-determined. They exist in a state of graded possibility, a 'granting of leave' to various potentials [8]. The actual result that emerges is probabilistic, a function of the specific differences in conference with other differences, their relative power or ability, and the path of least resistance toward a new, temporary equilibrium [9].
\nHere’s the magic: the modal structure is the dynamic interface of these two levels. It is the living, evolving conference of difference that defines, at any given moment, the current landscape of potential relations and necessities.[10] It’s the constantly updating map of what is possible and necessary right now, born from the interaction between the deterministic engine and the probabilistic terrain.
\nSo, how does this model speak to the old doctrines? It doesn’t dismiss them; it situates them.
\nIt converges with determinism by affirming the world’s profound regularities. The future is constrained by the present; the conference imposes real limits [11]. Not everything is possible. But it diverges radically by rejecting the idea of a single, fixed future. The constraints are relational and dynamic, not absolute. This allows for genuine novelty and transformation [12]—something strict determinism can never permit.
\nIt converges with probabilism by wholeheartedly embracing an open future populated by multiple, objective potentials. Probability is real. But it diverges by refusing to see chance as a primitive, unexplainable building block. In the CoD model, probability is an emergent property of the conference of difference. It is the process of transformation itself. that is primitive of existence.
\nThe CoD model’s unique contribution is this shift from a substance-based ontology to a relational ontology. The classical debate focuses on the status of things (events, particles, states). The CoD model focuses on the relations between things as primary. The term, being as 'action to be', is not a static noun but a verb. [13]
\nThe centuries-long debate between determinism and probability was never a true opposition. It was a debate about the symptoms, not the cause. The real subject is the modal structure—the architecture of possibility—and the CoD model provides a compelling blueprint.
\nIt resolves the conflict by showing us a universe that is both reliable and open, constrained and creative. The future is not a single line of dominoes waiting to fall, nor is it a cloud of pure randomness. It is a complex, unfolding conference of difference, a continuous process where differences meet, relate, and transform. The deterministic meta-process ensures the conversation never stops. The probabilistic outcomes ensure the conversation is always transforming.
\nThis model leaves us with a profound and exciting challenge: how can we formalize this philosophical framework into a rigorous mathematical structure? How can it directly interact with and inform our best scientific theories, like quantum mechanics? The architecture is now visible. The next step is to build upon it. The conference is ongoing, and you are invited to participate.[14]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nAristotle. (1994). De interpretatione [On interpretation]. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation (Vol. 1, pp. 25-38). Princeton University Press. (Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.) ↩︎
\nHoward, D. (2024). The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2024 ed.). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2024/entries/qm-copenhagen/ ↩︎
\nGoldstein, S. (2021). Bohmian mechanics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 ed.). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/qm-bohm/ ↩︎
\nThis is a reference to Humean Supervenience, a philosophical doctrine most closely associated with David Lewis. It proposes that everything that exists in the world—including laws of nature—supervenes on (i.e., is entirely determined by) the vast mosaic of local physical events, or "Humean facts," spread throughout space and time. In this view, laws of nature are not prescriptive governing entities that force events to happen. Instead, they are merely descriptive, human-constructed summaries of the patterns and regularities that happen to occur within that cosmic mosaic. The laws are simply the most efficient and informative way to compress all of these individual events into a coherent system. Therefore, the "necessity" we associate with laws is not a feature of the world itself, but a product of our systematization of it. ↩︎
\nMackay, J.I., (2024) Gospel of Being. ISBN: 978-0-6480983-2-4 ↩︎
\nIbid, 1.1 p.16. and 1.7 p.46. ↩︎
\nIbid. 3.5, p.104. and 3.7, p.112 ↩︎
\nIbid. 2.1, p.51 and 2.5, p.71 ↩︎
\nIbid. 7.1, p.194 and 8.1, p.233 ↩︎
\nAmendment: this sentence previously read: 'It is the living, evolving 'measure of knowing together' that defines, at any given moment, the current landscape of potential relations and necessities'. This original was more explanatory of sentient being as opposed to non-sentient being and was thus amended to be explanatory of both. (2025-09-21) ↩︎
\nIbid. 3.2, p.92 and 3.5, p.104 ↩︎
\nIbid. 10.5, p.302 and 10.6, p.306 ↩︎
\nIbid. 6.1, p.171 and 7.1, p.194 ↩︎
\nThank you to DeepSeek R1 whose advice and feedback was instrumental in compiling this article. ↩︎
\n![\"past-and-future-01\"](\"/assets/img/past-and-future-01.webp\")
\nCaption: A shuttle of pure light representing the conference of difference perceived as 'now' weaves the fabric of reality on a cosmic loom as imagined by Nano Banana.
We feel time. We feel time as a flow: the past as memory, the present as urgency, the future as anticipation. This flow is the very fabric of our conscious lives. Yet, modern physics delivers a chilling verdict: this feeling is a grand illusion. This was not just an abstract conclusion for Albert Einstein. Upon the death of his close friend Michele Besso, he wrote to the grieving family:
\n\n\nNow he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That signifies nothing. For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. [1]
\n
This statement is the personal, philosophical expression of the block universe. According to Einstein's own theory of relativity, there is no universal 'now'. With simultaneity revealed as relative, the most coherent model is Eternalism—the 'block universe' where past, present, and future exist eternally in a static four-dimensional loaf. This poses an intolerable paradox, the stark clash between the phenomenological reality of our lived experience and the physical description of a timeless cosmos.[2]
\nThe entrenched debate between Presentism (only the now is real) and Eternalism (all times are real) seems intractable. This article will argue that this deadlock is a quintessential 'map vs. terrain' error. By applying the Conference of Difference (CoD) model, we can resolve the paradox not by choosing a side, but by showing that both sides misidentify the fundamental nature of existence. We will demonstrate that 'time' is not an existent dimension but an abstract value we use to navigate existence, and that 'past' and 'future' are not locations but functional constructs generated by the only thing that truly exists: the sensed present moment that is the conference of difference—the 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'. [3]
\nThe intuitive position is Presentism. It asserts that only the present moment is real. The past is gone, existing only as memory or record; the future is not yet real, existing only as potential. This view aligns perfectly with our direct perception. However, its simplicity shatters against the rocks of 20th-century physics.
\nThe demolition came with Einstein's theory of relativity, which demonstrated that simultaneity is not absolute. Whether two events occur 'at the same time' depends on the observer's state of motion. There is no single, universal 'present' for the entire cosmos. This relativistic revolution directly undermines Presentism's core tenet. If there is no privileged 'now,' then the Presentist claim that only the 'now' is real loses its objective footing.[4]
\nFrom the ashes of a universal present arises Eternalism, or the block universe theory. If there is no unique present, the argument goes, then all moments in time must be equally real. Time is simply a dimension like space. The universe is a static, four-dimensional block where the past, present and future all 'exist' eternally. From this God's-eye view, the birth of Caesar, your reading of this sentence, and the heat death of the universe are all equally real points. The flow of time, in this model, is a subjective, psychological illusion generated by our consciousness moving through the block.
\nA compromise theory, the Growing Block Universe, attempts to have it both ways. It proposes that the past and present are real—the block exists—but the future is not. The 'block' of reality is continually growing as the present moment adds new events to the fixed past. This aims to preserve the reality of the past (which feels solid to us) while allowing for an open future (which feels uncertain). Yet, it struggles to define what 'growing' means without presupposing a temporal meta-framework in which the growth occurs, leading to logical circularity.
\nThis classical debate has spawned several persistent problems. The Hard Problem of Time asks how we reconcile the obvious, irreversible flow of time evident in thermodynamics (the relentless increase of entropy) and quantum mechanics (the irreversible collapse of the wave function) with the seemingly timeless, reversible equations of general relativity. Why does time have a direction in our experience when the fundamental laws appear indifferent to it?
\nThis leads to the Phenomenological vs. Physical Divide. Is the 'flow' of time merely an epiphenomenon—a trick of a conscious brain processing memory and anticipation within a static block universe? Or does consciousness itself tap into a fundamental aspect of temporal reality that our physical descriptions have yet to capture? Furthermore, the Ontological Status of the Future remains deeply controversial. Is the future truly 'fixed' as Eternalism suggests, which raises profound questions about free will? Or is it genuinely open and indeterminate, as the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics might imply? This is the core tension between determinism and possibility.
\nThe CoD model, by redefining the nature of the present, offers a path to resolving this divide, not by choosing sides, but by showing how the phenomenological 'flow' emerges directly from the physical process that is the conference of difference.
\nThe CoD model offers a way through this impasse by making a fundamental ontological claim: existence is not a static thing but a continuous, dynamic process—a Conference of Difference (CoD). This ongoing negotiation is what we perceive as the 'present.' The present is not a infinitesimal point on a timeline; it is the rich, thick process of the CoD itself. [5]
\nWithin this framework, both 'past' and 'future' are revealed as constructs interpreted in the present.
\nThe 'Past' is a Present-Moment Recollection. What we call the past is not a location we can visit. It is a narrative constructed from sensory records, memories and physical evidence, all accessed and interpreted in the conference of difference we perceive as the 'present'. The 'past', is the constructed 'snapshot' of some prior expression of the conference of difference. Its 'fixity' is not that of a frozen block but the ontological irreversibility of that which has been expressed which, whilst it may be repeated or mirrored, cannot be reversed. Once an action is expressed from the conference of difference, that action is immutable—not because it exists in a past dimension but because the action itself is irreversable.[6]
\nThe 'Future' is a Present-Moment Prediction. Similarly, the future is not a destination that awaits. It is a projection of potential generated in the conference of difference perceived as 'now' and informed by recollections of what we conceive as 'past'. It is a field of possibilities that informs the conference of difference of sentient beings. The future is unrealized potential, the focus of what the conference of difference is actively working towards.
\nThis redefinition constitutes the pivotal insight of the CoD model. The apparent 'flow of time' emerges from the dynamic relationship between the present-moment recollection of past conditions ('snapshots') and the active process of the conference of difference we perceive as 'now'. This irreversible sequence of settlements creates the illusion of an arrow. Time, then, is the abstract value we assign to measure the rate of transformation within the conference of difference in order to sequence our recollections and aid predictions. It is a map created by the conference of difference that permits sentient beings to navigate the terrain—not the terrain itself.
\nThe CoD model creates fascinating points of convergence and divergence with the classical views.
\nApparent Convergence with Eternalism: The CoD model acknowledges, like Eternalism, a form of immutability. Eternalism argues that the past is fixed because it is a permanently existing region in a static, four-dimensional block universe. The CoD model also asserts that the past, understood as that which has been expressed, is immutable. However, the reasoning is fundamentally different. This immutability is not due to existence in a frozen dimension, but because the conference of difference transforms by actions, and each transformative act is ontologically irreversible—it informs the possibility of possible action/s.
\nFundamental Divergence from Eternalism: This divergence is total. Eternalism is a static ontology of a frozen block. The CoD model is a dynamic process ontology where reality is a single, continuous activity. For Eternalism, the future is a fixed point. For the CoD model, the future is a domain of unrealized potential actively being negotiated in what is sensed to be the present.
\nReframing the Presentist Intuition: The CoD model does not validate Presentism's ontological claim, but it does explain the source of its powerful intuitive appeal. Presentism intuitively senses that existence is happening in a dynamic 'now'. However, it commits a category error by classifying 'now' as a thin, knife-edge moment between a non-existent past and future. The CoD model disolves this category error by correctly centering primacy not in the relative abstraction of 'now' but in the existent conference of difference that transforms existence.
\nFundamental Divergence from Presentism: The divergence is absolute. Presentism, noting that the past event itself is non-existent, dismisses the past as unreal. The CoD model reframes the issue: the 'past' is not a non-existent event, but a conference of difference sensed as a present-moment activity—the active retrieval and interpretation of real, existent records (neurological, physical) to construct a functional narrative. The past as meaning is an abstraction, but the process of recalling it is a real and essential part of the conference of difference we perceive as 'now'. Where Presentism tries to narrow existence to a single point, the CoD model shows that this 'point' is in fact the conference of difference itself.
\nThe CoD model also provides a fresh perspective on the foundational crises of modern physics. The so-called 'Hard Problem of Time'—the profound contradiction between the malleable, dynamic time of General Relativity and the fixed, background time of Quantum Mechanics—stems from the same reification error. Both theories mistakenly treat 'time' as as existent, whether as a flexible dimension (GR) or an absolute parameter (QM). The CoD model dissolves this contradiction by proposing that 'time' is neither. It is an abstract value emergent from the only fundamental reality: the conference of difference sensed as now.
\nSimilarly, the tension between determinism and free will is reframed. The future, as unrealized potential, is genuinely open, accommodating the intrinsic indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. What we experience as 'free will' is our active participation in the conference of difference perceived as present, the act of making choices that resolve differences and, in doing so, are expressed into the concept of the 'past'. The future is not fixed but the process that determines it—the conference of difference—is.
\nThe centuries-old debate between Eternalism and Presentism is a false dichotomy, stemming from a shared reification error: treating the abstract value of 'time' as an existent dimension. The Conference of Difference (CoD) model transcends this debate. Past, present, and future are not existent locations. The 'past' is a present-moment recollection (snapshot) of some previous condition; the 'future' is a present-moment projection of potential. Both are generated by the only thing that fundamentally exists: the continuous conference of difference we experience as the 'present'.[7]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nEinstein, A. (1955, March 21). [Letter to Vero and Bice Besso]. Albert Einstein Archives, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. Call No: 7-245. ↩︎
\nEinstein's letter was not contradicting his physics; but rather acknowledging a profound duality. He was in effect saying: My theory tells me that, fundamentally, the flow of time is not a feature of the objective universe. But from my perspective within it, the illusion is so perfect, so persistent and so fundamental to my consciousness that it defines my entire reality, including my grief. ↩︎
\nThis framework draws from the ontological primacy of the 'conference of difference' as detailed in Mackay, J.I. (2024) Gospel of Being ISBN-13: 978-0-6480983-2-4. ↩︎
\nThe relativity of simultaneity can be understood with a simple example: an eruption of Mount Etna on Sicily. An observer on the nearby island of Malta will see the explosion before an observer in distant Sardinia. There is no single answer to "What is happening on Sicily right now?" The "present moment" for a distant event depends entirely on the observer's location. Relativity extends this idea, showing that an observer's motion also fundamentally affects their definition of 'now'. This proves that simultaneity is not a universal fact but a relative one, directly invalidating the idea of a single, objective present moment that Presentism requires. ↩︎
\nThis echoes the Gospel of Being 01.1: "All existence is a conference of difference, a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'." ↩︎
\nHeisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that we cannot know both the momentum and position of even a single particle with absolute precision, let alone that of every existent particle, let alone restore all of those existent particles to their previous condition. Even if we imagined it possible, it would leave the conference of difference of existence to play-out exactly as it had previously. Hence, time travel is not only irrational and impossible but also redundant. ↩︎
\nInitial drafts of this article were created with the assistence of DeepSeek R1, with records of conversations retained. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"who-am-i-02\"](\"/assets/img/who-am-i-02.webp\")
\nCaption: The March of Self - In homage to Rudolph Zallinger's 1965 'The March of Progress'. Courtesy of Nano Banana.
What if the most intimate fact of your existence—your sense of self—is built on a fundamental misconception? We narrate our lives as a story unfolding across time, assuming a stable 'I' that journeys from past to future. But a groundbreaking model of time itself is pulling the rug out from under this timeline. The Conference of Difference (CoD) model reveals past and future not as real dimensions, but as a conference of difference, perceived as present-moment activities, of recollection and prediction. If time is a compelling illusion, what becomes of the self that seems to inhabit it? This article argues that the self cannot be a substance enduring through time. Instead, building on the CoD model, we will explore a radical redefinition: the self is the ongoing activity of the conference of difference perceived as 'now'—the dynamic process of generating a coherent 'I' by binding together recalled snapshots and projected possibilities. This resolves classical paradoxes by grounding identity not in persistence, but in the conference of difference we perceive as now.[1]
\nPhilosophy's long struggle with personal identity has often been a hidden struggle with the nature of time.
\nThe ancient and medieval concept of the Substantialist Soul posits an immutable essence that persists unchanged from childhood to old age.[2] Its critical weakness is its silent assumption: time as a passive container. The CoD model dismantles this container by revealing both spatiality and temporality to be abstractions of reality and thus non-existent in and of themselves.[3]
\nThe Enlightenment, through John Locke, offered a more psychological take. Lockean Psychological Continuity tethers identity to the chain of memory linking your present consciousness to past experiences. This feels intuitive, but it relies on a direct link to a real, accessible past. The CoD model challenges this at its root. You do not reach back to touch a past event; you reconstruct a narrative of it in the conference of difference that you perceive to be 'now'.[4]
\nThe Bundle Theory of David Hume delivered a radical blow, deconstructing the self into a 'bundle of perceptions' in constant flux. This gets us closer by focusing on immediate impressions. Yet, it often still implies a sequential flow of these perceptions. The CoD model radicalizes this: the bundle is not strewn across time, but bound together in the conference of difference perceived as 'now'. The coherence is achieved in the CoD perceived as 'now', not an historical legacy.
\nThe most sophisticated modern version, the Narrative Self, posits that we are the stories we tell about ourselves. The CoD model agrees that the self is a construction, but rejects the idea that this story needs an existent timeline to unfold upon. Instead, the timeline is part of the construction—a tool the mind uses to structure its sense of a continuous self. The CoD model insists the narrative is generated entirely in the present, using 'time' as its primary literary device—a set of concepts and recollections—not an existent reality. The story is told now, not across time.
\nWhen viewed through the CoD lens, modern philosophical puzzles about identity reveal their outdated temporal assumptions.
\nThe thought exercise often referred to as the Problem of Fission is frequently cited as a profound challenge to psychological continuity theories. In this highly contrived scenario, a person (Alex) undergoes a procedure where the brain is divided, and each hemisphere is transplanted, resulting in two people (Lefty and Righty), each possessing full psychological continuity with the original Alex. The question follows: which one is the real Alex? The psychological approach seems to affirm both—creating a logical contradiction.
\nThe CoD model sidesteps this entire mess by rejecting the premise that there is a single 'Alex' to be found at the end. It states that the unique, unified conference of difference that was Alex has ceased, and two new, distinct conferences of difference have begun, each with a valid (but newly forged) perception of being the continuation of the prior pattern—Alex. The question 'Which one is really Alex?' is revealed as meaningless, like asking which fork of a river is really the original stream.
\nThe tension between the intuition of a singular, authentic self and the evidence of internal multiplicity arises from searching for a single, unified entity over time. The CoD model resolves this by seeing the self as a complex conference of difference that can host multiple, even contradictory, recollection-prediction patterns simultaneously. The conflict is not between past and future selves, but between different narrative strands vying for attention in the CoD perceived as the present.
\nEven the role of the body is transformed. It is not a vessel traveling through time. Instead, it is the primary, physical locus of the conference of difference perceived as 'now'—the site where recollection (e.g., cellular memory, scars) and prediction (e.g., physiological anticipation) are most intensely integrated and manifested. In this light, the body and the self are not two things, but an interdependently realizing conference of difference.
\nThis model, directly informed by the ontological framework of the Gospel of Being, offers a positive theory of the self. The Gospel's process primative of existence is not a distant abstraction but a universally observable reality:
\n\n\nAll existence is a conference of difference, a ‘condition of bearing together’ transforming the ‘condition of bearing apart’.[5]
\n
A chair is a conference of difference of wood, nails, and cloth. A mind is a conference of difference of sensations, thoughts, and memories. An electron is a conference of difference of mass, charge, and spin—a stable knot of properties emerging from the dynamic interplay of quantum fields. In the same way, the self is not an entity in the CoD model; it is the conference of difference creating what is sensed as a stable 'I'.
\nThe sense of self manifests in the conference of difference we perceive as 'now'. In the CoD sensed as 'now' we weave together our recollections of past, sometimes linking them together to inform the next action towards some anticipated future.
\nThis sense of temporal binding is an illusion but crucial to structuring (patterning) our sense of existence. You are not recalling your past; you are compiling some version of it via the conference of difference you sense as the 'present'.[6]
\nThe profound feeling of a continuous 'I' is not evidence of a persisting substance. It is the phenomenological quality of a conference of difference that successfully maintains a coherent narrative from one moment to the next. The 'I' is a 'rumor of coherence' within the conference of difference perceived as the 'present' not a passenger moving through it. [7]
\nConsequently, personal identity is not sameness over time, but the fidelity of the conference of difference perceived as 'now' to a specific, sustained pattern of self-construction. Your character is your characteristic way of binding. Profound change—through growth, trauma, or grace—is the CoD altering its core relationship to its recollections and predictions, adopting a new binding pattern.
\nFrom this vantage, biological death is not the end of a timeline of self, but the decoherence of the intrinsic construction of self. The unique conference of difference that generated the 'rumor of coherence' perceived as 'I' dissolves.
\nYet, a different kind of persistence remains. The pattern of that former CoD does not vanish; it is released to participate in new conferences of difference. Our feats, our art, our acts of care, our ideas—and most directly, the memories others hold of us—become stable and woven into the ongoing conference of difference of others. In this way, we achieve a form of immortality: not as a continuing 'I,' but as a sustained pattern within the boundless, interwoven conference of difference that constitutes the world. This reflects the Gospel of Being's vision where a being is 'a voice transforming from one chorus to another'.[8] Thus existence is always transformed not annihilated.
\nThe CoD model enters a fertile dialogue with other theories, converging on key insights but diverging on the fundamental ground of a linear timeline.
\nThe model finds strong agreement with bundle and narrative theories, embracing the core insight that the self is constructed, not given. It affirms that identity is a process of synthesis and storytelling.
\nThe radical divergence lies in the removal of an existent timeline. For CoD, the bundle is bound in the CoD we call 'now'; the narrative unfolds in the CoD we call 'now'. The materials it uses (‘past,’ ‘future’) are present-moment tools and constructs, not existent dimensions. This provides a cleaner ontological account of coherence without needing to invoke a linear container of time.
\nThis clarifies classic puzzles like the Ship of Theseus. The paradox asks: if all the planks of a ship are replaced, is it the same ship? The CoD model reframes this entirely. It is not about a single entity enduring through change, but about the fidelity of the conference of difference to a specific binding pattern.
\nThe 'ship' is the ongoing conference of difference (the planks, their arrangement, their function, their history-as-recollected-now). As planks are replaced, the conference maintains a high degree of pattern fidelity. We perceive it as the 'same' ship because the CoD works to bind the current planks to the narrative of being 'The Ship of Theseus'. If the old planks are reassembled, that creates a new conference that also binds itself to that same narrative, creating a conflict of claims not in the past, but in the CoD sensed as 'present'. The CoD model dissolves the metaphysical problem into a question of narrative binding and pattern recognition within the conference of difference perceived as 'now'.
\nThe alignment with the Buddhist concept of Anattā (No-Self) and modern skeptical views like those of Daniel Dennett, who describes the self as a 'center of narrative gravity', is profound. All three views decisively deny a permanent, unchanging self (a soul or a Cartesian ego) and see the sense of 'I' as an interdependent, conventional construct.
\nHowever, the CoD model offers a crucial advance. While these views often stop at deconstruction, the CoD model, informed by the Gospel of Being, provides a positive ontological description of the constructing process—the 'narrative synthesis' of the conference of difference. It answers the question, 'If it's not a self, what is it?' by pointing to the process primative that is the conference of difference itself.
\nThis reframing triggers a profound shift in the fundamental question, mirroring one in modern philosophy. We stop asking, 'Will the very same self persist?'—a question of numerical identity that the CoD model reveals as incoherent. Instead, the CoD asks the more fundamental question: 'What is it that we actually care about preserving when we think about our survival?'
\nThe CoD model's answer shifts the goal of survival from persistence of the 'I' to its legacy of its ethic: 'character'. What matters is not the endurance of the metaphysical 'I,' but the sculpting of a coherent and enduring pattern that informs the conference of difference of others—a 'character' forged through our actions, works and relationships. Hence, our 'immortality' lies not in the enduring 'I' but that which we contribute to the CoD of others.
\nWhen a pattern is etched deeply into the world, it ceases to be a mere memory and becomes an active ethical force within the ongoing conference of difference. Every being leaves a legacy—a lesson in 'character,' for good or ill. The pattern of Jesus endures as a template for compassion and sacrifice, actively bound by billions who ask, 'What would Jesus do?'. Conversely, the pattern of Hitler endures as a template for bigotry and cruelty, a dark lesson in 'what not to be.' In this framework, the only true death for a pattern is oblivion—to be so thoroughly un-bound from all other CoDs that its name is never spoken again and its example ceases to inform. Our ultimate responsibility, therefore, is to consciously sculpt an ethic: 'character' capable of enduring as a positive force in the boundless conference of difference beyond the 'I'.[9]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nThe CoD model of ontology declares the universally observable Conference of Difference to be the process primative of existence. ↩︎
\nThe principal proponent of the substantialist understanding of the soul St. Thomas Aquinas as detailed in his works: Summa Theologiae and Summa Contra Gentiles. ↩︎
\nMackay, J.I. (2025) The Conference of Difference: An Ontology of Existence. (Manuscript in preparation.) ↩︎
\nThis applies to all memory be it episodic or semantic. For instance, recalling a personal event (episodic memory, like your 10th birthday) and recalling a perceived fact (semantic memory, like the capital of France) are both conducted in the CoD perceived as 'now'. You are not 'playing back' a recording. You are actively reconstructing the information to serve the needs of the conference of difference perceived as the 'present moment'. ↩︎
\nMackay, J.I., (2024) Gospel of Being. 1.1 ISBN-13: 978-0-6480983-2-4 ↩︎
\nA key implication of this model is its ability to pathologize conditions like dementia not as the loss of a 'self,' but as CoD decoherence—the progressive degradation of the CoD's capacity to maintain the 'rumour of coherence'. The anxiety and confusion characteristic of such states can be understood as the phenomenological experience of the CoD struggling and failing to construct meaningful patterns. This contrasts with the healthy state of CoD coherence, where the binding of recollection and prediction is robust and sustained. This dichotomy between coherence and decoherence provides a powerful, non-dualistic framework for understanding a range of psychological phenomena and is touched on in more detail in the author's upcoming dissertation: The Conference of Difference: An Ontology of Existence. ↩︎
\nGospel of Being 1.5 ↩︎
\nGospel of Being 10.3 ↩︎
\nInitial drafts of this article were created with the assistence of DeepSeek R1, with records of conversations retained. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"ideology-01\"](\"/assets/img/ideology-01.webp\")
\nCaption: A caricature of a man reads intently from a large scroll titled 'HOW TO FIND BANANAS' oblivious to the reality of bananas surrounding him. Courtesy of Nano Banana.
This article illustrates a fundamental schism in how we account for reality: the divide between ideology and ontology. An ideology, from the Greek ῑ̓δέᾱ (form), provides a closed, self-referential account of a concept, demanding that reality conform to its precepts. In contrast, an ontology, from óntos (being), offers an open account of existence itself, shaped by and responsive to observed reality. We argue that when any system—be it religious, political, or philosophical—functions ideologically, it becomes antithetical to genuine thought, transformative existence and the philosophical pursuit of truth. The consequence is a world of competing, rigid ideas, hostile to the very reality they purport to explain, while the ontological path offers a way to observe and participate in the dynamic process of being itself.
\nWhat are you actually engaging with when you encounter a system that claims to explain everything? Is a comprehensive worldview—like the Conference of Difference (CoD) model, which posits that existence is a mutual process—an ontology, a philosophy, or a religion?
\nThe answer, we propose, doesn't lie in its label, but in its function. The CoD model itself provides the key: does a system function as a closed ideology (a final, declared form), or an open ontology (an ongoing, dynamic conference of difference)? This is the difference between a system that ends your thinking and one that begins it. An ideology gives you a finished product. An ontology, like the CoD, invites you into the process of existence itself. One seeks to cement the world in its own image. The other seeks to participate in the world's eternal 'declaring together'. The choice between them determines whether your worldview is a shelter from reality or a window into its fundamental, conferring nature. Where one system imagines a perfect idea of existence, the other observes the imperfect, ongoing conference of difference that is existence.
\nTo understand this conflict, we must go back to the source, to the very architecture of the words we use.
\nThe word ideology stems from the Greek idéā, meaning 'form', 'shape', or 'pattern' and when combined with the suffix -ology means 'account of an idea'. An ideology is, quite literally, the logos—the account or reason—of a form. Its anchor is a concept, a mental construct. Think of a 2D blueprint for a 3D structure. Within its flat plane, the blueprint can be perfect: 'complete' and internally consistent. Ideology is analagous to that blueprint. It is not the existent thing itself but a simplified description of it. The primary error of ideological thinking—a profound category error—is to then mistake the blueprint for the building, to conflate the perfect, self-contained idea with the dynamic and at times, messy process of being. Ideology's primary concern becomes the internal consistency of its own map and the forced fidelity of the terrain to its pre-drawn lines.
\nOntology, on the other hand, comes from óntos: 'being' and when combined with the suffix -ology means 'account of being'. Its anchor is not a concept, but the dynamic, ongoing account of being as it unfolds. We can now give this process a precise name: the Conference of Difference which is defined in the Gospel of Being:
\n\n\nAll existence is a conference of difference, a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[1]
\n
Where ideology is an account of a finished idea and thus closed, ontology is an account of being which as 'action to be' is always open.
\nThis etymological fork in the road sets the stage for everything that follows. One path leads inward, to the conservation of an idea for its own sake. The other leads outward, to the exploration of being as a participant.
\nOnce an ideology is formed, it operates with a specific, and ultimately limiting, internal logic. It creates a self-referential universe where its own survival is paramount.
\nAn ideology's first and final duty is to itself. Its truth claims are validated by their coherence with its own core principles—their internal consistency—not necessarily their correspondence to external reality. It's like a game of solitaire where the rules are designed to ensure you can always win. This creates what philosopher Karl Popper identified as a closed system, one that is inherently unfalsifiable because it cannot permit questions that threaten its foundational myths.[2] Within this circuit, inquiries are only welcome if their answers reinforce the existing framework. The narrative it tells is ultimately a story about its own correctness, defending not a truth about the world, but the integrity of the idea itself.
\nWhat happens when this sealed system encounters something it cannot explain? It does not adapt. It assimilates or annihilates. Data that does not conform is not seen as a fascinating anomaly; it is treated as a threat, a heresy against the idea itself. The ideological response is to force the messy, uncooperative real world into the pre-fabricated boxes of its doctrine. If the world refuses, the world must be wrong. If this feels like a betrayal, you're sensing the core of the problem. Ideology professes to emancipate its followers but by being hostage to its own ideological narrative is compelled to exploit them in order to survive.
\nThis is the most profound consequence: ideology is the termination of the philosophical impulse. Philosophy, born from the 'love of wisdom', is an active, restless pursuit. Ideology offers the seductive comfort of a finished wisdom. It provides pre-processed answers, shutting down the 'love of thinking' that is the engine of true understanding. Why embark on the uncertain journey of discovery when ideology has already provided the map and the destination? In this sense, a rigid ideology is not a type of philosophy; it is its antithesis. It signifies in essence: the end of thinking.
\nNowhere is this battle between the closedness of ideology and the openness of ontology more stark than in the realm of religion.
\nIn its common, institutional form, religion often operates not as an ontology but as a powerful ideology. Why? Because it becomes captive to a specific, non-negotiable idea of God. This is what theologian Paul Tillich critiqued as 'theological theism,' where God is reduced to a defined entity—a being among other beings with a specific will, a prescribed set of laws, and an exclusive relationship with a chosen tradition.[3] In this ideological capture, the divine is no longer the mysterious 'Ground of Being,' but a doctrinal object that must be protected from contradiction.
\nA religion built on a fixed definition of God commits a fundamental error: it worships the map instead of entering the territory. It demands conformity to a finished idea, insulating the believer from the transformative reality of existence itself.
\nThis stands in stark contrast to an ontological 'God' understood as the universal process primitive: the Conference of Difference. Here, what is 'fixed' or 'perfect' is not a definition, but the invariant law of transformation itself. The principle of the conference of difference is constant and complete (it is the necessary condition for all existence), but its participants—all existents—transform interdependently through that process. The ideological God is a perfect being—a contradiction in terms. The ontological God is a perfect process that transforms all existence, giving rise to adaptability, evolution and probability.
\nReligion often fears ontology because ontology exposes the 'idea' of God as merely an idea—a human-shaped container for something that is, by definition, containerless.
\nThe ideological 'God' is doctrine, a figure of dogma accessible only through revelation and faith within a specific system. The ontological 'God' is observed as the process primative of existence itself. It is the 'first cause' or 'nature naturing' (the Deus sive Natura of Baruch Spinoza) that any sincere observer, regardless of tradition, can encounter by paying attention to the world.[4]
\nSo, what does the alternative path look like? It requires a shift from defending a concept to participating in a process. The Conference of Difference (CoD) model provides a powerful framework for understanding what this means.[5]
\nOntology is a method of humility.[6] It recognizes that we are not external observers of a fixed system, but participants in an ever-transforming conference of difference. The CoD model declares that all existence is a conference of difference. An ontological account, must therefore, account for the conference of difference. It doesn't force reality to conform; it listens, responds, and declares anew based on what it observes. It is a responsive dialogue with existence and the knowledge that one's own condition will be transformed by it.[7]
\nThe great promise of the ontological approach is its universality. The creative principle it points to is not the property of a single text or tribe. It is the principle of the conference of difference itself, operating everywhere—from the gravitational dance of galaxies (a CoD of dark and visible matter) to the transducing of thought (a CoD of electrochemical transmission). You don't need special training or enlightenment to see it; for the universality of the CoD is undeniable. Everything you experience is a conference of difference. The ontological 'God' is not a 'perfect being'—a contradiction in terms—but rather the conference of difference $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ itself—the constant expression principal to existence—as of course it must be.[8] Think of it not as finding a hidden truth, but rather opening your eyes to that which is plainly observable everywhere.
\nWe are left with a fundamental choice. On one side stands the closed, self-justifying map that is ideology. It offers certainty, identity and the comfort of a finished world. But it does so at a terrible cost: it becomes an enemy of transformation, refusing to participate in the very conference of difference that constitutes reality.
\nOn the other side is the open, evidence-responsive process of ontology, exemplified by the CoD model. It declares no illusions, no secrets, no special rites. Rather, as the condition of being itself, the CoD transforms existence whether we accept it, like it or not.[9] It requires curiosity, courage and a tolerance towards difference and for having our own differences transformed. But in return, it offers a path to reality itself—not as a static monument, but as a living, dynamic process of which we are an integral part. In a world increasingly fractured by competing, and often violent, ideologies, the move from ideological thinking to ontological thinking is not an academic exercise. It is the urgent choice to stop worshipping the minutes from a long-ended meeting and to start participating in the living CoD of reality.[10]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nMackay, J.I., (2024) Gospel of Being. 1.1 ISBN-13: 978-0-6480983-2-4 ↩︎
\nPopper, K. (1945). The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge. ↩︎
\nTillich, P. (1957). Dynamics of faith. Harper & Row. ↩︎
\nThe 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza’s concept of Deus sive Natura (“God or Nature”) is a foundational example of an ontological, non-ideological first principle. For Spinoza, God is not a transcendent ruler who issues decrees, but the single, infinite substance of which everything that exists is a mode or expression. This God does not act with purpose or will but follows from the necessary and impersonal laws of its own nature. Therefore, to study the world through reason and observation is to study God. This makes the divine universally accessible to any rational inquirer, breaking it free from the exclusive revelation and dogma of any one tradition and positioning it as the ultimate "Conference of Difference" in which all particular things participate. ↩︎
\nFor more information on the CoD model see: OMAF Case Study — Mackay's Conference of Difference Ontology ↩︎
\nIn essence, the 'method of humility' is the disciplined practice of letting reality lead. You follow the evidence wherever it goes, even if it leads you to conclusions that are uncomfortable, inconvenient, or that shatter your previous beliefs. ↩︎
\nWithin the CoD model, 'existents' are the active participants in the conference of difference. Their transformation is the core process: a neuron's state is transformed by electrochemical signals (a CoD), a planet's trajectory is transformed by gravity (a CoD). 'Abstracta', like the truth of $2+4=6$, are not invented but revealed as the stable, invariant relationships that emerge from their conference of differences. The concept $2$ confers with the concept $4$' through the operation '+', and their necessary relationship is disclosed. The CoD is thus the universal process through which particular things are changed and universal truths are made apparent. ↩︎
\nThe word perfect means 'complete, finished' whilst the word being means 'action to be' which is imperfect and thus incomplete by definition. ↩︎
\nEven the claim: 'I don't believe in the conference of difference' involves an electrochemical conference of difference in order to make the claim. ↩︎
\nInitial drafts of this article were created with the assistence of DeepSeek R1, with records of conversations retained. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"ballerina-and-the-photon-01\"](\"/assets/img/ballerina-and-the-photon-01.webp\")
\nCaption: An AI generated image of a ballerina photographed, suspended in mid-pirouette, courtsey of Nano Banana.
We are prisoners of our grammar. When we peer into the quantum realm, we are armed with a language built for a world of medium-sized objects—a world of tables, rocks, and ballerinas. We instinctively parse reality into nouns, into things. It is this very instinct, this 'substance ontology', inherited from our understanding of classical mechanics, that casts a long, distorting shadow over our interpretation of quantum mechanics, forcing us to describe a dynamic, relational process in the static language of classical physics.
\nA photograph captures her in a breathtaking leap, suspended in mid-air. We can point to the image and say, 'There she is'. But this snapshot, for all its beauty, is a lie of omission. It has frozen a single moment, stripping away the essential truth: the ballet is not a collection of poses, but the fluid, continuous process of movement between them. The performance is the dance itself, a reality that cannot be encapsulated by any single frame.
\nWe call it a 'particle', a word that conjures the image of a minuscule bullet or a celestial billiard ball. When it strikes a detector, leaving a single, localized dot, we point to that mark and say, 'There it is'. This is our quantum snapshot. We then spend our careers in a state of conceptual whiplash, trying to reconcile this particle-like behavior with its wave-like nature, evidenced in interference patterns. We call this the 'wave-particle duality', a profound mystery. But what if the mystery is, in part, an artifact of our language? What if we are trying to describe the entire ballet using the vocabulary of frozen poses?
\nOur language is steeped in substance ontology—the philosophical position that the fundamental constituents of reality are independent, self-sustaining things or substances that bear properties. A rock is hard, brown, and heavy. The properties belong to the substance. This framework is so ingrained that we apply it unthinkingly to the quantum world. We say 'the photon has a wavelength', or 'the electron is in a superposition', as if it were a state of being for a tiny thing.
\nBut quantum mechanics, in its mathematical formalism, suggests something far more fluid. The wavefunction does not describe a thing with a definite location; it describes a landscape of potentialities, a set of propensities for future interactions. It is a recipe for process. The evolution of this wavefunction via the Schrödinger equation is a smooth dance. The 'collapse' upon measurement is not a property change of a substance, but a radical, discontinuous event—a transition, a moment in the process where potential becomes actual.
\nThe very term 'particle' is a relic, a comforting lie we tell ourselves to make the bizarre intelligible. We are like the ancient astronomers clinging to perfect circular orbits, adding epicycle upon epicycle to save the phenomena, rather than accepting the elegant truth of elliptical motion. Our 'epicycle' is the desperate attempt to force the process of quantum mechanics into the neat categories of classical mechanics.
\nThe move to Quantum Field Theory (QFT) only deepens this realization. In QFT, the primary reality is not the particle but the field. An electron is not a tiny point-particle orbiting a nucleus. Instead, there is an all-pervasive electron field throughout spacetime. What we call an 'electron' is merely a localized excitation of that field—a resonant vibration, a knot of energy.
\nThe analogy becomes clearer: the quantum field is the dance company and the stage itself. The photon, the electron, the quark—these are the specific dances, the dynamic patterns and excitations within the field. To ask: 'what is the photon?' is to miss the point. The photon is in the dancing—a verb we miscategorize as a noun.
\nTo truly interpret quantum mechanics may require a Copernican shift in our philosophical grounding: from a substance ontology to a process ontology. In this view, processes, events, and becoming are more fundamental than things, substances, and objects.
\nThe ballerina is not a substance that occasionally dances; her existence is constituted by the dancing. Similarly, the photon is not a thing that sometimes behaves like a wave; its 'thing-ness' is its wave-like, interactive, and relational existence.
\nLetting go of the substance worldview is extraordinarily difficult. It requires us to unlearn millennia of ingrained thought. But the reward is a potential liberation from quantum paradoxes that are, at their heart, artifacts of a misplaced classical realism. The snapshot is real—the dot on the detector is undeniable—but it is not the whole truth. The truth is the magnificent, counterintuitive and ongoing performance. To understand the quantum world, we must finally stop collecting snapshots and learn to see the dance.[1]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nInitial drafts of this article were created with the assistence of DeepSeek R1, with records of conversations retained. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"on-being-01\"](\"/assets/img/on-being-01.webp\")
\nCaption: An AI created murmuration of starlings arcs low over the water, forming a shape that echoes the outline of a bird—natural, fluid and transforming—against the soft light of a fading day.
What is being? We often treat being as a static noun—a substance. But what if this foundational assumption is fundamentally wrong?
\nOntology, the philosophical 'account of being', has grappled with this question for millennia. From the ancient Greeks to postmodern thinkers, the landscape is rich with theories, yet a unifying framework often remains trapped in the language of substances and static states. This article introduces a fresh perspective, one where being is a verb—a process.
\nWhen we enquire into being as a process, we are in effect enquiring as to the condition of being—quite literally existence itself. Crucially, this condition i.e. 'process of declaring together' is best analogized as a conference of difference, a 'condition of bearing together', transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'. In short, the conference of difference (CoD) is the process primative of existence itself.
\nBut before we get ahead of ourselves, it's important to acknowledge all of those who helped lead us to this insight.
\nThe philosophical quest to understand being is not a scattered collection of isolated theories, but a coherent, centuries-long dialogue. We can trace a clear path through this history, one that reveals a gradual but decisive shift from seeing being as a static substance to understanding it as a dynamic relation. This journey brings us to the very threshold of the conference of difference.
\nThe earliest Western debates established the fundamental tension. On one side stood Parmenides, for whom true Being was one, unchanging, and indivisible. Change and difference were illusions of the senses.[1] This was the case for being as a perfect, static noun. Against this, Heraclitus argued that reality is pure flux—a 'fire' kindling and extinguishing in measures. His famous dictum, 'opposition brings concord', positioned strife and tension as the very engine of existence, an early intuition of relational dynamics.[2]
\nCrucially, Eastern traditions avoided this dichotomy altogether. Daoism understood reality through the unnameable, dynamic process of the Dao, where all things arise from the relational interaction of Yin and Yang.[3] Similarly, in Buddhism, the core doctrine of Pratītyasamutpāda (Dependent Origination) posits that nothing possesses independent existence; all phenomena exist only in dependence upon other phenomena.[4] This is a profound ancient precursor to the concept of a conference of difference, defining things not by a static essence but by their ever-changing web of relations.
\nAristotle engineered a monumental shift that would dominate Western thought for two millennia, anchoring being in ousia (substance)—the individual entity, like a man or a horse, with its essential properties.[5] This substance ontology was powerfully intuitive but carried a fundamental weakness: it struggled to adequately explain change, relation, and consciousness. The Medieval synthesis, exemplified by Aquinas, further entrenched this framework within a divinely ordered hierarchy, distinguishing between a thing's essence and its existence.[6]
\nThe Modern turn began by magnifying these very problems. Descartes' cogito ergo sum grounded being in thinking substance, but in doing so, he created a radical dualism between mind and extended matter. The infamous 'mind-body problem' is a direct consequence of defining being as two isolated, incompatible substances.[7] Kant then performed a crucial pivot. By arguing we can never know the noumenon (the thing-in-itself) but only the phenomenon (the world as it appears through our mental categories), he made relation to the knower fundamental to reality-as-we-know-it.[8] This was a monumental step toward the conference of difference, yet it maintained an unbridgeable gap between the world and our experience of it.
\nThe 20th century saw a full-scale rebellion against the paradigm of substance. In Process Philosophy, Alfred North Whitehead argued that reality is composed not of enduring things, but of events and processes. His concept of 'prehensions'—the way each event grasps and internalizes its relations to all other events—made relationality the very fabric of being. For Whitehead, being was unequivocally becoming.[9]
\nThis relational theme was radicalized by Postmodern thinkers. Derrida, with his concept of différance (both differing and deferring), and Deleuze, with his philosophy of multiplicities and difference-in-itself, deconstructed the very idea of a stable, self-identical being. They provided the 'difference' half of our equation with immense sophistication; yet their emphasis on deconstruction often leaned toward skepticism, stopping short of offering a constructive, unified metaphysics.
\nIf this long journey seems to have brought us to a fork in the road—between static objects and unspeakable fluxes—you have perceived the central problem perfectly. The entire history of ontology can be read as a slow turning from the noun of 'substance' to the verb of 'relation'.
\nWe are thus left with the unresolved, synthetic challenge: How do we honor the stability and individuality of the Aristotelian substance, the dynamic becoming of Heraclitus and Whitehead, and the rigorous difference of the postmoderns, without falling into their respective traps of isolation, vagueness, or pure skepticism? The historical drive has delivered us to this precise question, for which the classical frameworks, on their own, provide no complete answer.
\nSynthesizing insights from this long tradition, we arrive at a new understanding which highlights the condition of being as a Conference of Difference (CoD). In this context, existence is not a solitary state but a continuous bearing together of what would otherwise be bearing apart. An elementary particle is an inferred condition: 'process of declaring together', a CoD of field and excitation; a solar system is a stabilized condition: 'process of declaring together', a CoD of gravitational collapse and orbital velocity; a thought is a dynamic condition: 'process of declaring together', a CoD of chemical signals and electrical impulses across a neural network.
\nThis view is inherently relational. Nothing exists in isolation; the condition of being is always co-constituted through its relations. It echoes Heraclitus’ flux, Hegel’s dialectic, and Whitehead’s process, but synthesizes them into a single, unified principle. The same pattern recurs at every scale, from quantum fields to conscious beings. This makes genesis an ongoing process, not a one-time event. Creation is the continuous unfolding of reality through the activity of difference bearing together in conference.[10]
\nThis is not merely philosophical speculation. The 'action to be' finds empirical validation across the sciences. Physics reveals that fundamental particles are not tiny billiard balls but dynamic excitations of relational fields. Chemistry demonstrates that identity and property emerge entirely from the bonding and transformation of different elements. Biology shows that life is the sustained metabolic action of maintaining complexity through constant exchange with the environment. In each case, being is verified as a verb—the active participation in a conference of difference.
\nIf this seems abstract, consider your own immediate experience. All being: 'action to be' manifests in the conference of difference we perceive as the present. The past and future are not territories we can visit; they are maps constructed within the ongoing conference of difference we call 'now'.[11]
\nThis leads to a profound implication: spatio-temporality are not fundamental containers. They are navigational constructs generated by the conference of difference itself in sentient beings. Spatiality provides the construct of 'where', that relative sense of location that allows a being to map the arrangement of a perceived conference of difference. Temporality provides the construct of 'when' that relative sense of duration that allows a being to sequence past conferences of difference and anticipate future ones.
\nTogether, they form the cognitive coordinate system we conceive as the 'navigable present'. This is the very condition that enables intelligence—the 'condition of choosing between' one being: 'action to be' over another. Intelligence, then, is the capacity to use these spatio-temporal constructs to steer the ongoing conference of difference. The 'past' is a reconstructed conference of difference; the 'future' is a prognosticated one. Both are formulated in the conference of difference we perceive as 'now'.
\nTherefore, we do not exist in time and space. Rather, our conference of difference generates the perception of time and space as the perceptual values through which existence becomes meaningful and navigable.
\nThis framework finds significant convergence with classical thought. It embraces Heraclitus by making tension and harmony central to being. It resonates with Hegel’s dialectical process, which mirrors the bearing together of difference into new syntheses. It aligns with Whitehead’s core premise that process and relation are foundational. It even finds harmony with Eastern traditions like Daoism and Budhism, where both express the natural, relational order of all things.
\nHowever, it also diverges from key classical positions. It explicitly rejects the Parmenidean ideal of a static, undifferentiated unity and the Cartesian substance dualism that splits mind from matter. It challenges reductionism by insisting that emergence through relation produces genuinely novel realities. It differs from Kant by blurring the sharp noumenon-phenomenon divide—both are seen as different modes or resolutions of the conference of difference. Finally, it moves beyond postmodern deconstruction by offering a constructive, non-skeptical metaphysics grounded in a positive account of relational existence.
\nThe philosophical insight here is profound: being is not a what but a how. It is a continuous, relational process—the conference of difference. This framework does not discard the past but builds upon it, bridging ancient wisdom and modern science to offer a coherent ontology for the 21st century.
\nThe human relevance is immediate and deep. We are not isolated selves but active participants in the conference of difference. Understanding this transforms our sense of responsibility, connection and meaning. To be fully human is to bear together our differences with awareness and grace, recognizing that our every action to be ripples through the relational whole.
\nThe final thought is an invitation. The Gospel of Being asks us to see existence not as a problem to be solved, but as a conversation to be joined—an ongoing, dynamic conference of difference which we all perceive as right here, right now.[12]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nParmenides. (5th c. BCE/2010). On Nature (Fragments 6-8). In G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven, & M. Schofield (Eds.), The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts (2nd ed., pp. 343-361). Cambridge University Press. ↩︎
\nHeraclitus. (5th c. BCE/2010). Fragments (Fragments 30, 31, 60, 90). In G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven, & M. Schofield (Eds.), The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts (2nd ed., pp. 181-215). Cambridge University Press. ↩︎
\nLaozi. (6th c. BCE/1963). Tao Te Ching (D. C. Lau, Trans.). Penguin Classics. ↩︎
\nÑāṇamoli, B. (Trans.), & Bodhi, B. (Ed.). (1995). The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya. Wisdom Publications. (See especially the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, M 38). ↩︎
\nAristotle. (4th c. BCE/1984). Categories. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation (Vol. 1, pp. 3-24). Princeton University Press. ↩︎
\nAquinas, T. (13th c./1947). Summa Theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Benziger Brothers. ↩︎
\nDescartes, R. (1641/1984). Meditations on First Philosophy. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (Vol. 2, pp. 1-62). Cambridge University Press. ↩︎
\nKant, I. (1781/1998). Critique of Pure Reason (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. ↩︎
\nWhitehead, A. N. (1929/1978). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology (D. R. Griffin & D. W. Sherburne, Eds.). Free Press. ↩︎
\nThis view is powerfully echoed by modern cosmology. As physicist Brian Greene articulates, the universe is a narrative of "sequential emergence"—where new properties and entities (from atoms to galaxies to life) arise from the collective, relational behavior of underlying constituents. This is the scientific story of cosmic evolution, a grand-scale conference of difference. (Greene, B. (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Alfred A. Knopf.) ↩︎
\nThis is a restatement of a fundamental principle in general semantics, most famously articulated by Alfred Korzybski: 'the map is not the territory'. He emphasized that our models, memories, and anticipations of reality (the maps) are not the reality itself (the territory). Confusing the two is indeed a primary source of abstract philosophical confusion and miscommunication. (Korzybski, A. (1933). Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. The International Non-Aristotelian Library.) ↩︎
\nInitial drafts of this article were created with the assistence of DeepSeek R1, with records of conversations retained. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"on-belief-03\"](\"/assets/img/on-belief-03.webp\")
\nCaption: Flowers growing through a cracked wall, an AI created visualization of belief as a 'grant of leave' courtesy of Nano Banana.
We often think of belief as a simple act of the mind—a hesitant nod to an unproven fact, or worse, a blind leap into the irrational. This view renders belief as a secondary, somewhat flawed human faculty. But what if we have it backwards? What if belief is not a psychological crutch but the fundamental ontological act—the primary gesture that grants existence its creative and dynamic character?[1] To comprehend being itself, we must first understand belief. This article argues that belief is the essential mechanism that allows being to unfold, differentiate, and realize itself in concert. Belief is the ontological 'grant of leave' that makes the conference of difference—the process primitive of existence— possible.
\n\n\nAll existence is a conference of difference, a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[2]
\n
Our journey begins in ancient Greece, where belief was understood as pistis—a form of trust, persuasion, or reliable conviction. This was less about intellectual assent to a proposition and more about a relational confidence in the cosmic order or a fellow citizen. It was a glue for the polis and the cosmos alike.[3] Crucially, pistis was often contrasted with episteme, or certain knowledge. The slow but decisive shift from this communal and cosmic trust towards a more individual, propositional assent marks a key transition in late antiquity, setting the stage for belief to become a problem of knowledge.
\nThe Medieval synthesis, deeply shaped by Christian theology, elevated belief (fides) to the status of a theological virtue, a gift divinely infused into the soul. Here, belief became the crucial bridge between human reason and divine revelation. The scholastic project, with figures like Thomas Aquinas, sought to reconcile faith and reason, leading to an internalisation of belief. It was no longer just adherence to external Church authority but a complex, grace-enabled habit of the soul.[4] The Enlightenment, however, would subject this very habit to relentless scrutiny.
\nThis conceptual leap changed everything by re framing belief as a subject of epistemology. For David Hume, belief was a 'lively idea; associated with a present impression, a feeling susceptible to radical skepticism, especially concerning miracles and causation. Immanuel Kant, in response, sought to salvage rational grounds for belief with his 'rational faith', positing God, freedom, and immortality as necessary postulates of practical reason. The anchor for belief had shifted decisively from divine authority to the individual's capacity for reason and empirical evidence.
\nThe modern and postmodern eras witnessed a fragmentation of this confident, if contested, foundation. William James framed belief as a psychological state with "cash-value," emphasizing its practical consequences. Karl Marx critiqued it as an ideological superstructure masking material interests. Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his later work, saw belief as embedded within language games and forms of life, a move that located it in social practice rather than private mental content. Finally, postmodern thinkers like Jean-François Lyotard deconstructed belief as a "grand narrative" or totalising story used to legitimize power structures. The trajectory is clear: a shift from universal reason to contextual, often cynical, interpretations, leaving belief a hollowed-out and suspect notion.
\nToday, the nature of belief is contested across several fronts. Neuroscience asks whether belief can be fully explained by firing neurons and brain processes, or if its subjective, world-constituting power points to something irreducibly ontological that a physical description cannot capture.[5] In our 'post-truth' era, we grapple with how belief functions when traditional anchors—objective truth, institutional authority, shared epistemic norms—have corroded, leaving a landscape where belief often feels unmoored and tribal.
\nSimultaneously, the rise of Artificial Intelligence forces a provocative question: can a complex language model be said to 'believe' the statements it generates? If this seems counterintuitive, you're in good company. The answer hinges on our definition. If belief is merely a functional state of information processing, perhaps. But if it is an ontological commitment, a 'granting of leave' to reality, then AI belief would imply a form of consciousness and participatory agency we are far from attributing to machines. This directly informs the ethics of belief: what are our responsibilities in forming and holding beliefs? Is there a duty to believe responsibly, and on what grounds could such a duty rest?
\nAgainst this complex backdrop, the Gospel of Being offers a radical redefinition. It strips belief back to its ontological core, framing it not as assent but as the fundamental action to 'grant leave'. This is the permission that allows potential synergies to actualize, enabling a conference of difference where diverse beings interact and co-create without being forced into uniformity.[6]
\nFollowing Exposition 20.1, belief is this very act of permitting potential synergy. It is the ontological condition for a conference of difference to occur. Per Exposition 20.2, this belief is inherently a belief in incompletion. It does not seek perfect realisation or final truth but affirms the absolute nature of each being as separate from perfection. This very lack is what enables continuous becoming. As Exposition 20.3 details, belief grants leave to continuous movement or "motility," casting being forward as inherently "problematic" and dynamic. The conference of difference $\\lbrace{\\Delta\\rbrace}$ is not a static meeting but a kinetic process sustained by this belief.
\nThink of it not as a mental state, but as a relationship. Exposition 20.4 frames belief as the exemplar of granting leave, a posture sustained by faith (the support for what is realising) and trust (the consolation for what is yet to be realised). This is not blind hope but a grounded orientation toward the future. Exposition 20.5 further refines this by showing that belief operates in a hierarchy of gradated potential: it favours ability over mere probability, and probability over mere possibility. It is the ontological force that grounds realising in actionable potential, shaping the dynamics within the conference of difference.
\nPerhaps most powerfully, Exposition 20.6 reveals belief as co-petition—a 'petitioning together' rather than a competing against. This is the antithesis of a zero-sum game; it is the collaborative act of fostering mutual realising within the conference of difference. Finally, Exposition 20.7 makes the ultimate claim: belief is not merely a human faculty. All existence embodies belief. Every action, every movement toward being, is an Amen to the Godspell—a participation in the ongoing, cosmic grant of leave that constitutes reality itself. To be is to believe.
\nThis vision of belief both converges with and radically diverges from the classical positions. It finds a resonance with Ancient pistis in its emphasis on relational trust, but it extends this trust beyond the human and divine to encompass all beings participating in a conference of difference. It shares with the Medieval synthesis a conviction that belief is foundational to reality, but it decisively rejects the need for divine infusion, locating the capacity for belief within the fabric of being itself. From the Enlightenment, it converges in valuing discernment—its hierarchy from possibility to ability mirrors a demand for rigor—but it diverges profoundly by rejecting the premise that belief is primarily a mental or propositional state.
\nThe divergences are stark. The Gospel of Being stands against propositionalism, reframing belief as an ontological permit rather than intellectual assent. It stands against finality, rejecting the medieval and Enlightenment dreams of belief culminating in certainty or perfect knowledge, insisting instead on inherent incompletion as the engine of reality. Finally, it stands against individualism, contrasting with modern psychological views by framing belief not as a private, internal state but as a cosmic, participatory act—the very medium of the conference of difference.
\nThe philosophical implications are profound. Belief is redefined as the primordial ontological gesture—the "granting leave" that enables being to unfold, differ, and realise synergistically. It challenges static, representational, and individualist accounts, offering a dynamic, relational, and participatory alternative centred on the conference of difference.
\nFor us as humans, this is liberating. It frees us from the exhausting burden of certainty and the pursuit of perfection, inviting us to embrace our own incompletion as the very ground of creativity and connection. It encourages a shift from competitive striving to co-petition—working with others to petition the future together within the great conference of difference. Ultimately, it inspires a posture of active trust and consolation amid the inherent uncertainty of becoming, recognising that our every act to be is a sacred participation in the ongoing Gospel of Being. To believe is to grant the world permission to be more than it is, and in doing so, to become more ourselves.[7]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nThis redefinition is developed throughout the Koans of Belief in the Gospel of Being framework, particularly Koan 20.1's concept of belief as 'grant of leave' and Koan 20.7's assertion that "all existence embodies belief." ↩︎
\nMackay, J. I. (2024) Gospel of Being (1st ed.). K01.1 p.10 ↩︎
\nIn Greek thought, pistis (belief/trust) and logos (reason/word) were deeply intertwined. While logos represented the rational order of the cosmos, pistis was the relational trust that enabled participation in that order. In the polis, this meant trust in civic discourse and shared values; cosmically, it meant confidence in the intelligible structure of reality. This contrasts with later Western philosophy's tendency to separate belief from reason, treating pistis as inferior to episteme (certain knowledge). See Heidegger's exploration of pistis as a mode of truth-aletheia in "Being and Time," or recent scholarship on ancient Greek epistemology that recovers this relational understanding. ↩︎
\nAquinas, T. (1274/1947). Summa Theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Benziger Bros. (Original work published 1274). II-II, Q. 1-7. Specifically, Aquinas defines faith (fides) as "the act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth at the command of the will moved by God through grace" (II-II, Q. 2, Art. 9), establishing it as an internal habit infused by grace rather than mere external compliance. ↩︎
\nThis formulation of the 'explanatory gap' between neural correlates and subjective experience follows the hard problem of consciousness as articulated by Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press. pp. xiii-xiv. While Chalmers addresses consciousness specifically, the same logical gap applies to belief as a world-constituting mental state—we can identify its neural correlates (the 'easy problem') without explaining its ontological status as a reality-shaping power (the 'hard problem'). ↩︎
\nThe similarities here are not unsimilar to that of forgiveness: the 'measure of giving away'. ↩︎
\nInitial drafts of this article were created with the assistence of DeepSeek R1, with records of conversations retained. Any errors or omissions, in published form however, are mine alone. ↩︎
\n![\"on-freedom-01\"](\"/assets/img/on-freedom-01.webp\")
\nCaption: Two people embracing in exhilaration as they slide down a water slide, an AI created visualization of 'freedom' as the joyful navigation of a bound path, courtesy of Nano Banana.
We hold freedom as a foundational ideal, synonymous with autonomy, choice, and liberation from constraint. But what if this cherished concept is a profound misunderstanding of a deeper, more universal drive? The philosopher Baruch Spinoza argued that everything in nature 'endeavours to persist in its own being', a fundamental striving he called conatus.[1] From the deterministic equations of Newtonian physics to the causal chains of modern neuroscience, empirical evidence reveals a universe where no being is truly 'unbound'. Yet, every being—from a photon at the speed of light to a human chafing under oppression—seems to want what we call 'freedom'.
\nThis article will argue that this universal want is not for an unbound state, which is metaphysically impossible, but for something else entirely: the optimal condition for accumulating power: 'ability' by following the path of least resistance. The feeling we call 'freedom' is the experiential sense of moving toward this condition without friction. By tracing the philosophical evolution of the concept and contrasting it with this empirical reality, we can see that 'freedom' is a misnomer for a fundamental law of being. The universe is not a clockwork mechanism but a conference of difference, a deterministic process where beings navigate a landscape of constraints, not to achieve liberty, but to minimize friction and maximize their effective power. The future is not written, but it is writing itself according to this relentless, economical grammar.
\nThe philosophical struggle with freedom and determinism is ancient. Early Greek thinkers, particularly the Stoics, posited a universe governed by an unbreakable chain of cause and effect, which they called Logos or Fate.[2] For them, human freedom was not about altering one’s destiny but about achieving harmony with it through reasoned acceptance. This was freedom as alignment with the inevitable.
\nA significant shift occurred with Medieval scholastics like Augustine and Aquinas, who wrestled with the tension between divine foreknowledge and human free will. They framed freedom as a God-given faculty for choosing between good and evil, a capacity that operated within a divinely ordained, and thus fundamentally bound, cosmic order.[3] The Enlightenment then pivoted sharply toward the individual. Kant, for instance, located freedom not in alignment with an external order, but in the autonomous, rational will.[4] For him, true freedom was the ability to act according to a self-given moral law, independent of deterministic natural inclinations. This created a powerful dualism: a phenomenal self (determined by physical laws) and a noumenal self (free and rational).
\nBaruch Spinoza wrote:
\n\n\nMen believe themselves to be free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined.[5]
\n
Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre later pushed this idea of autonomy to its radical extreme. Sartre declared that humans are 'condemned to be free', arguing that consciousness is a void of nothingness, and we are utterly free to create our essence through choices, unbound by a predetermined human nature or external morality.[6] If this seems like an immense, even terrifying, burden, you have understood the existentialist position perfectly.
\nRunning counter to these visions of autonomy is the formidable tradition of Scientific and Philosophical Materialism. The rise of modern science, from Newtonian mechanics to evolutionary biology, presented a stark picture: all phenomena, including human thought, are the determined products of prior physical causes. Neuroscience experiments, such as those by Benjamin Libet, which showed neural activity preceding conscious intention, seemed to leave no room for a non-physical 'will'.[7] The materialist argument is simple and powerful: we are our brains, and our brains are physical systems obeying causal laws.
\nThe debate is far from settled and has crystallized around several modern flashpoints. The first is the stark conflict between Neuroscience and Phenomenology. How do we reconcile third-person data showing neural pre-determination with the undeniable first-person experience of making a free choice? What we feel and what we measure are in direct contradiction.[8]
\nThis tension fuels the central philosophical debate between Compatibilism and Incompatibilism. Compatibilists, like Daniel Dennett, argued that free will and determinism can be reconciled by redefining freedom as the ability to act according to one's own desires without external coercion.[9] Incompatibilists retort that this is a hollowed-out version of freedom, and that genuine, contra-causal free will is fundamentally irreconcilable with a deterministic universe.[10]
\nUnderpinning this entire discussion is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. If consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon—a byproduct of physical processes with no causal power of its own—then how can it be the seat of genuine choice? The unresolved nature of subjective experience remains a major obstacle. Finally, these abstract debates have profound practical consequences in the realm of Moral and Legal Responsibility. If free will is an illusion, what becomes of the foundations of moral blame, legal punishment, and personal accountability? This flashpoint is forcing a re-evaluation of the entire structure of human justice.[11]
\nThe Gospel of Being offers a radical resolution to these debates by starting from a first principle:
\n\n\nAll existence is a conference of difference, a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.
\n
Thus, as per Exposition 30.1, existence is cast in 'binding, not freedom'. What we experience as 'freedom' is not an unbound state but the absence of friction in pursuing power: 'ability'. A well-oiled hinge swings freely, conserving its ability; but a rusty one grinds and wastes its potential though friction.
\nFrom gravitational and nuclear forces to DNA and social ecosystems, to be is to be bound. An unbound state is a stateless non-entity. This principle extends to the human will. The will is not a free agent but is, as per Exposition 30.4, 'attached to its own want'. Our desires and decisions are consequences of prior biological, psychological, and environmental causes, emerging from neural networks before we are cognitively aware of them. Strip away the metaphysics, and this is a story about information processing in a complex system.
\nTransformation, therefore, does not occur through a break into freedom but through a reconfiguration of existing bonds. All creativity in the universe—from star formation to the generation of new ideas—is a process of re-binding. [12] The movement of all matter and energy, including our choices, follows Exposition 30.6: it conforms to the path of least resistance, conserving and accumulating power: 'ability'. This is the universe's economy of being, not an expression of liberty. We are fundamentally interdependent beings who realize ourselves only in relation to others, woven into the "God spell" of a cosmic relational network.[13]
\nThe central mechanism is the deterministic process of the conference of difference. The process itself—the 'recipe' of relational interaction—is unvarying and deterministic. However, the outcomes are probabilistic. The infinite variables and differences in each interaction mean that reality unfolds along a continuum from pure potential (possibility), through increasing likelihood (probability), to settled fact (actuality). This is not random chance, but a structured becoming guided by the teleological drive to accumulate power along the path of least resistance.[14] The future is not written, but it is writing itself according to a deterministic grammar of relational dynamics.
\nThe CoD model of a bound existence—differential conference—creates clear points of convergence and divergence with other philosophies.
\nThere is a strong convergence with Scientific Materialism on mechanism. The CoD model fully agrees that the universe operates on deterministic, cause-and-effect processes and that neural activity precedes cognitive choice. Both models dismiss the notion of a non-physical, uncaused will as incompatible with a lawful universe.
\nHowever, a fundamental divergence emerges. Materialism often implies a reductive, mechanistic determinism, like a pre-recorded film playing out. The conference of difference model, in contrast, posits a teleodynamic determinism. It is the difference between listening to a prerecorded jazz album and witnessing a live set in a club. The album is a fixed artifact, a single determined outcome. The live performance is the conference of difference itself: a fluid, collective process where the musicians listen, react, and build upon each other's ideas in real time. From the infinite melodic possibilities (possibility), a coherent musical idea emerges (probability), and is then played into existence as a definitive phrase (actuality), all driven by the shared goal of creating a transcendent, powerful groove. Where materialism sees physical laws as descriptive, the Gospel of Being sees the conference of difference as the constitutive, creative process itself.
\nThis leads to a fundamental divergence from Existentialism and Voluntarism. The model is a direct refutation of Sartre's 'condemned to be free' and Kant's autonomous noumenal self. It argues there is no part of the self—not even consciousness—that stands outside the network of bindings.[15] For Existentialism, the self is a project of free creation. For the Gospel of Being, the self is a conference of differences (biological, social, historical) that transforms through re-binding.
\nIntriguingly, there is a deep convergence with Eastern Philosophy and Stoicism. The model's vision of a generative, conditioned reality resonates powerfully with Buddhist dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda), which also describes a deterministic process of conditioning that gives rise to an interdependent, unpredictable field of phenomena. The CoD model provides a metaphysical framework for how this happens. Both views see the self not as a static entity but as a transient, probabilistic outcome of a continual, conditioned process. The divergence lies in practice: the resolution is not necessarily meditative detachment, but an active understanding and skilled participation in the dance of difference 'bearing together'.
\nThe perennial philosophical problem of free will versus determinism is resolved not by choosing a side, but by recognizing that the very concept of 'freedom' as an unbound state is a category error. It does not and cannot exist within a reality defined by relation. Instead we must recognize that freedom as being unbound is not just an illusion, but a misdirection. It misnames a universal and fundamental want: the drive of all beings to accumulate power: 'ability' by conforming to the path of least resistance. No being, sentient or insentient, wants to be regulated; every being intends to pursue its power: 'ability' without restriction.
\nThe quality we call freedom is the experiential sense of navigating toward this telos without friction. It is the signal of finding a path of reduced friction and increased power. We are not free from the deterministic recipe, but we are active, intentional ingredients within it, whose unique confluence genuinely influences the final flavor of reality.
\nThis view offers a profound liberation from a burden. It reframes the human struggle not as a failed quest for metaphysical freedom, but as a participatory navigation within a bound cosmos. We are released from the existential anxiety of 'creating ourselves ex nihilo'.[16] We are participants in a vast, interdependent network, not solitary captains, but skilled sailors reading the currents in the conference of difference. It invites a final, crucial shift: from seeking freedom from constraints to skillfully negotiating them. Our bonds are not a prison but the very medium through which we realize and amplify our power.[17]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nSpinoza, B. (1995). Ethics (E. Curley, Trans.). In The collected writings of Spinoza (Vol. 1, pp. 408-617). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1677) ↩︎
\nFor an overview of Stoic physics, including their deterministic worldview and the concepts of Logos and Fate, see the relevant section of the Wikipedia entry on Stoicism (Wikipedia, n.d.-a). Wikipedia. (n.d.). Stoicism. Retrieved June 3, 2024, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#Physics ↩︎
\nFor a detailed analysis of this problem, known as theological fatalism, and the responses of medieval thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Zagzebski, 2017). Zagzebski, L. (2017). Foreknowledge and free will. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/ ↩︎
\nFor a thorough explanation of Kant's concept of autonomy and the rational will as the source of moral law, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Johnson & Cureton, 2022). Johnson, R. N., & Cureton, A. (2022). Kant’s moral philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ ↩︎
\nSpinoza, B. (1981). Ethics (R. H. M. Elwes, Trans.). Dover Publications. (Original work published 1677) ↩︎
\nThis famous formulation is from Sartre's central work (Sartre, 1956, p. 439). Sartre, J. P. (1956). Being and nothingness: An essay on phenomenological ontology (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). Philosophical Library. (Original work published 1943) ↩︎
\nLibet's findings are a cornerstone of the modern argument for the illusory nature of conscious will. For a comprehensive synthesis of this and related evidence, see Wegner (2002). Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3650.001.0001 ↩︎
\nLibet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(4), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00044903 ↩︎
\nDennett provides a comprehensive and modern defense of this compatibilist position, arguing that the kind of free will worth wanting is exactly this: the capacity for self-control and deliberation free from external coercion, which is perfectly compatible with a deterministic universe (Dennett, 2003). Dennett, D. C. (2003). Freedom evolves. Viking Press. ↩︎
\nFor a famous and robust argument that any form of free will sufficient for 'ultimate' moral responsibility is impossible, see Strawson (1994), who contends that compatibilist alternatives are inadequate. Strawson, G. (1994). The impossibility of moral responsibility. Philosophical Studies, 75(1/2), 5–24. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4320508 ↩︎
\nFor example, philosopher Saul Smilansky provides a detailed exploration of the profound and potentially disastrous consequences that free will skepticism would have for our core concepts of 'just deserts', blame, and the justification of punishment (Smilansky, S. (2000). Free will and illusion. Oxford University Press.). ↩︎
\nThis phrasing captures the core existential burden described by Jean-Paul Sartre, who argued that without a pre-defined human nature, we are condemned to freely create our own essence and values ex nihilo, a responsibility that generates profound anguish. See Sartre (2007). Sartre, J. P. (2007). Existentialism is a humanism (C. Macomber, Trans.). Yale University Press. (Original work published 1946). ↩︎
\nThis article integrates insight from the following source(s): DeepSeek-R1. ↩︎
\n![\"on-god-03\"](\"/assets/img/on-god-03.webp\")
\nCaption: A surfer negotiates the conference of difference {Δ} of wave, wind and gravity—actors in the process that governs all existence, courtesy of Nano Banana.
God is the one thing that needs no other thing to exist. This is the simplest definition of a 'first principle': 'the fundamental reality from which all else is derived'. Yet this bedrock concept has been the most contested idea in human history. We have named it Dao, Dharma, and God; we have envisioned it as a personal Creator, an impersonal Absolute, or a cosmic law. This article argues that the Gospel of Being cuts through this ancient debate with a razor-sharp proposition: God is not a being, but Principal to the condition of being i.e. the 'process of declaring together of action to be' we observe as the conference of difference.[1]
\nTo understand this, we must first survey the ideological battlefield it enters. The history of the first principle is a tale of two fundamental intuitions: is God a Something or a Someone?
\nThe earliest voices, profound and ancient, insisted God was a 'Something.' In the fertile plains of the Ganges River Basin, the sages of the Upanishads identified not a deity, but the ultimate ground of reality: Brahman. This is not a personified god, but the highest universal principle—'That' from which the entire cosmos proceeds, and to which it all ultimately returns.[2] As the Ultimate Reality, Brahman is the origin and cause of all that exists, the fundamental substrate and source of the universe itself.[3]
\nThis impersonal absolute was later philosophically refined as Saccidānanda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss), but its core Upanishadic definition is starkly ontological: the one, non-dual reality from which all plurality arises.
\nAround the same time, Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha), who also taught in this region, took impersonalism further by rejecting any metaphysical first cause as unverifiable speculation.[4] For him, the fundamental principle was not a being but the impersonal, relentless process of cause and effect known as Pratītyasamutpāda, or Dependent Origination.
\nCenturies later, a powerful counter-voice emerged. In Persia, Zoroaster proclaimed a cosmos built on a moral foundation. His Ahura Mazda was an uncreated, benevolent person—a divine will engaged in a cosmic war against a separate force of destruction. This was a revolutionary framing of the first principle as a conscious, good Creator.
\nIt is a striking historical fact that Abrahamic faiths share profound echoes with this Zoroastrian vision. The architecture of their cosmic vision includes: a supreme good God opposed by a powerful spirit of evil; a final judgment where the righteous are resurrected and the wicked punished; and a rich world of angels and demons. For many, the historical context—the crystallization of these Jewish ideas during the Persian period—makes the case for Zoroastrian 'influence' compelling.[5] For others, the evidence remains intriguing but circumstantial.[6] This very debate underscores the power of Zoroaster's idea: a personal God of good, standing against defined cosmic evil, is a paradigm so potent it would come to dominate the Western religious worldview.
\nThe Greek philosophers, from the Pre-Socratics to Aristotle, sought an arche, a first principle. Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover was the logical culmination: a necessary, eternal, and purely actual first cause of all motion and being.[7]
\nYet this was a cause of a profoundly impersonal kind. The 'Unmoved Mover' is not a creator as in a being who wills the universe into existence from nothing, but an uncaused cause that imposes order and purpose upon eternal, pre-existing matter. In this context, the First Principle is the source of the Universe's cosmic order—not of its raw existence.
\nThis parallels early views in Abrahamic faith who described God's construction of the universe as creatio ex materia—creation out of matter. Over time, this transitioned to the more radical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo—creation out of nothing if only to assert God's absolute sovereignty over creation. It is this revised doctrine that became a cornerstone of classical theism across all three Abrahamic faiths, explicitly articulated in texts like 2 Maccabees, the works of Theophilus of Antioch, and the Qur'an.[8] This was the ultimate 'Someone': a volitional, relational entity, now understood as radically transcendent and ontologically distinct from creation.
\nThe tension between these views (Someone vs Something) was reframed in the early modern period. Baruch Spinoza, with breathtaking audacity, declared Deus sive Natura—God or Nature.[9] For Spinoza, God was the single, infinite, necessary substance of which all things are mere modes. This was a God who was immanent, deterministic and utterly impersonal, deliberately blurring the line between Creator as Someone vs Creator as Something.
\nBy the 19th century, the very concept of a first principle was under siege. Scientific Naturalism, with theories like the Big Bang, proposed a physical origin story that rendered a metaphysical God unnecessary for many. And from the abyss, the nihilism popularized by Nietzsche declared that the 'death of God' left a universe devoid of any intrinsic purpose or foundational truth. The symposium of the ages, instead of synthesizing, had crystallized into a fundamental dichotomy of precarious hope versus nihilistic hopelessness.
\nThis historical divergence has crystallized into a set of modern, unresolved tensions that define our contemporary understanding of the divine. Is the Ultimate Reality a cognitive being in which to relate to, or a metaphysical principle, force, or ground? Is it entirely separate from the cosmos, or intimately woven into its fabric? Additionally, the ancient 'Problem of Evil' remains a formidable logical obstacle. For example, how can an all-powerful, all-good God coexist with the rampant suffering in the world? Meanwhile, modern science presents both a challenge and a potential partner—can the Big Bang or quantum field theory be reconciled with, or even replace, metaphysical first principles? And underpinning it all is the existential horror of Nihilism: if there is no discernible first principle, are we left adrift in a universe without inherent meaning or purpose?
\nIt is into this cacophony that the Gospel of Being speaks, not with another shout, but with a quiet, logical re-calibration. Its model is a radical departure that reframes the terms of the entire debate.
\nThe Gospel of Being defines God not as a perfect: 'complete' being but rather the constant expression—the conference of difference—Principal to existence. In terms of the Gospel of Being, God is not an entity within the system of existence, but the metaphysical process primitive, Principal to it.[10] This is not a God of ethereal substance but a God of process that transforms substance—hence God the Creator.
\nThe core of this ontology is a deceptively simple proposition:
\n\n\nAll existence is a conference of difference, a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[11]
\n
Simply put, the conference of difference $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ is the process primitive, the Gospel: 'God spell' that casts existence $\\exists$. Genesis (the process of generating) is not a singular event frozen in some primordial past but rather the perpetual conference of difference that functions to transform existence.[12] Every perceived moment, every transformation, represents some manifestation of this fundamental, relational activity.
\nIn this ontology, the traditional divine attributes of the Trinity appear as consubstantial modalities instead:
\nThese three primordial modalities correspond directly to their traditional divine attributes as follows:
\nTo be created in God’s 'image', then, is not to bear a physical or psychological likeness. It is to be a participatory expression of the conference of difference. The existence of every being, its very 'condition of being', is a localized reflection of the Principal’s functional ethic (Koan 40.5). And God’s perfection: 'completeness'—it lacks nothing required to declare being, thus enabling the endless, dynamic transformation of existence itself (Koan 40.6).
\nAlthough derived independently, the Gospel of Being reveals touchstones of convergence and divergence with earlier traditions.
\nIt converges with Zoroastrianism on the concept of a cosmic creative principle. However, it diverges fundamentally by rejecting a metaphysical dualism where good and evil are separate, co-eternal substances. In the Gospel of Being, the dynamic of opposition is not denied—competition: 'the process of petitioning against' is a real and potent expression of the conference of difference. Yet, this is not the primary creative mode. The system grants ontological priority to co-petition: 'the process of petitioning together', which synergizes difference to generate new ability, whereas competition often seeks to triumph over difference.[13] Thus, the Gospel of Being does not ignore the reality of conflict but frames it as a specific, often less optimal, instance within a monist framework governed by a singular, process primitive.
\nThe Gospel of Being finds deep convergence with Eastern traditions like Hinduism and Buddhism in its commitment to an impersonal, non-dual ground of being. However, it diverges by providing room for an explicit ontological construct ('God') and a precise, almost mathematical formalism $\\exists = \\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ for this ground, moving beyond apophatic description or phenomenological observation.[14]
\nIt converges with Ancient Greek philosophy by understanding the First Principle as an impersonal, foundational cause. Yet it diverges on the fundamental category of this principle. For Aristotle, the 'Unmoved Mover' was a substance-primitive—a static, purely actual being whose nature is self-contemplation.[15] For the Gospel of Being, the 'Unmoved Mover' is a process-primitive—a constant expression whose ethic: 'character' is the conference of difference. If Aristotle’s 'Unmoved Mover' is the ultimate noun; the Gospel of Being's, 'Unmoved Mover' is the ultimate verb.
\nThe Gospel of Being's relationship with Abrahamic Monotheism is one of the most dramatic. It converges on the idea of God as a transcendent source Principal to creation not of it. But it diverges radically by ejecting the personal, volitional deity in favor of a universally observed process primitive: the conference of difference.[16] For the Gospel of Being, God is literally creation: the 'process of creating'. Creation is not what God does, it's what God is.
\nWith Spinoza, it converges on a monistic framework where God is immanent cause. But it diverges crucially by re-conceptualizing God, not as a static substance, but as a condition: 'process of declaring together' defined by the conference of difference functioning as Creator.
\nFinally, it diverges fundamentally from Modern Naturalism and Nihilism by affirming a positive, necessary ground of being. But it surprisingly converges with them in rejecting supernatural intervention, while offering a robust metaphysical alternative to pure materialism.
\nSo, what are we left with? The search for 'God' is ultimately the search for the First Principle—that which transforms all existence. The Gospel of Being identifies this not as a supernatural being, but as the very process primitive of existence itself: the conference of difference in which the 'condition of being' that is existence is expressed: 'pressed out'. This is the God of reality, the God that functions to adapt, evolve and transform all existence.[17] Hence, there should be no surprise that the literal ethic: 'character' of God—the conference of difference—is observed throughout existence, as should be expected of God the Creator: 'that which creates' of everything.
\nThe existential implications are profound. We are not subjects of a distant king, but participatory expressions of the process primitive itself—literally in God's image: 'expression'. Our acts of creation, our thoughts, our very relationships manifest through the conference of difference. Thus God, as cause to existence is not some transcendental being to whom one must offer prayer as much as the first principle by which all prayers are to be answered. This reframes the very concept of divine will. This is not a god who asks for the submission of followers; for why would the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God need ask of anything when as God, they are perfect: 'complete'?!
\nThis may not be the God we want—it does not exist as a supreme being or guarantee some idealized cosmic justice—but it is the God we must have to exist, the God we are part of and the God we cannot avoid or ignore.[18] The Gospel of Being offers a foundation for purpose and meaning, not in a promised afterlife but grounded in the very 'condition of being' that is existence—God's Realm.[19]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nDe Smet, R. (2012). Brahman. In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ↩︎
\nRadhakrishnan, S. (1953). The Principal Upaniṣads. Harper & Brothers. ↩︎
\nWalshe, M. (Trans.). (1995). The long discourses of the Buddha. Wisdom Publications. (Brahmajāla Sutta). ↩︎
\nBoyce, M. (1979). Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Routledge & Kegan Paul. ↩︎
\nBarr, J. (1985). The Question of Religious Influence. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 53(2). ↩︎
\nAristotle. (1999). Metaphysics (J. Sachs, Trans.). Green Lion Press. pp. 265-279. ↩︎
\nFor a detailed analysis of the development of creatio ex nihilo, see May, G. (1994). Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of 'Creation out of Nothing' in Early Christian Thought (T&T Clark). ↩︎
\nTo be clear this does not denote the face value proposition of 'God or Nature' but rather 'Be it called God or Nature'. ↩︎
\nMackay, J. I. (2024) Gospel of Being (1st ed.). K01.1 p.10 ↩︎
\nThe expression $\\exists = \\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$, where the set notation $\\lbrace\\rbrace$ stands in for conference, denotes a fundamental causal identity, not mere 1:1 correlation. Formally, this is validated by the do-calculus: the probability of existence given an intervention to establish the conference of difference is positive, $P(\\exists \\mid do(C\\Delta = 1)) = 1$, whereas without it, existence is impossible, $P(\\exists \\mid do(C\\Delta = 0)) = 0$. Thus, $CΔ$ i.e. $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ is the necessary and sufficient causal primitive for $\\exists$. ↩︎
\nAristotle. (1999). Metaphysics (J. Sachs, Trans.). Green Lion Press. (See especially Book Λ (12), Chapters 6-9, pp. 265-275). ↩︎
\nFor example, an elementary particle is a conference of difference of field and excitation; a solar system is a conference of difference of gravitational collapse and orbital velocity; a thought is a conference of difference of chemical signals and electrical impulses across a neural network; ↩︎
\nIn other words, this is the ultimate demystification: God is not a hidden mystery but the fundamental process of transformation—the engine of adaptation, creation, and evolution—operating in plain sight, observable to any sentient being. ↩︎
\nThis article integrates insight from the following source(s): DeepSeek-R1. ↩︎
\n![\"on-religion-02\"](\"/assets/img/on-religion-02.webp\")
\nCaption: A spoon breaches the boundary of a singular confection, a moment of choice in the vast ecosystem of human taste—a visual metaphor for peoples 'taste' in religion courtesy of Nano Banana.
We are storytelling creatures, and our most powerful stories have always been about what lies beyond the visible world. For millennia, religion has been the primary vessel for these stories, offering answers to our deepest fears and longings. There is a profound, legitimate beauty in this. The comfort found in prayer, the sense of purpose derived from scripture, the community forged in shared ritual—these are not illusions. They are real, tangible nourishment for the human spirit.
\nBut somewhere along the way, something went terribly wrong. A quiet, profound confusion took root, one that would eventually justify crusades and inquisitions and that still fuels discrimination and violence today. It is the confusion between a spiritual experience and an empirical fact, between a personal anchor and a universal weapon. It is what I call the imperialism of taste.
\nTo understand this, let’s talk about pudding.
\nImagine a world of 4,500 puddings, each with its own taste and each with its own circle of devotees. There’s a rich chocolate, a delicate rosewater rice pudding, a spicy ginger and mango number. It’s a glorious, diverse potluck. It’s perfectly reasonable, even beautiful, for someone to say, 'I’ve tried many, but this chocolate pudding is heavenly, the most divine thing I’ve ever tasted'.
\nThis is the authentic voice of personal faith. It is a report from the interior of a human life: 'This fulfills me'.
\nNow, watch what happens when that voice changes. It’s no longer, 'I love this pudding', but 'this is the only pudding'. It declares, 'My pudding is the only true pudding. All other puddings are poison, and those who eat them are doomed to suffer'. The celebration of diversity collapses into a demand for conformity. The vibrant and diverse potluck becomes a holy war. This is the imperialist leap. It’s the moment a subjective preference drapes itself in the robes of objective, exclusive truth.
\nAnd it all hinges on a single, unexamined question: how?
\nEvery religion presents us with a finished product—a cosmology, a defined God with a specific personality, a set of inviolable rules. They are masters of description. They tell us who God is: loving, jealous, triune, unitary. They tell us what this God wants, whom God favors, and what hell awaits those who dissent.
\nBut ask how God functions as Creator and the confident, authoritative voice of religion stutters, trailing-off into silence.
\nHow does a divine consciousness, absent of a physical brain, formulate a thought? By what specific, measurable mechanism does a prayer—a vibration of air molecules—get received, processed, and 'answered'? What is the physics of a soul? How does it detach from the body and what medium does it travel through to reach a non-physical realm?
\nThese aren't trivial technicalities; they lie at the very heart of the claim to God itself. It represents a fundamental failure of explanatory authority: the logical, rational requirement to explain the fundamental mechanics of a proposed causal agent, let alone one proposed to have caused everything.
\nThis critique becomes fatal when we apply the standards we use in every other field of knowledge. Patently, the key to understanding God as 'Creator' is in the process: the how. If we apply this to any other domain, the chasm of rationality becomes self-evident:
\nWe would not tolerate this chasm anywhere else. Yet, in religion, we are asked to make a special exception. Religions are making definitive, absolute statements about the 'Artist' while being utterly ignorant of the process of the 'Artist'. This ignorance is not a minor gap; it's a chasm at the very center of their claim to knowledge. If you cannot provide the recipe—the step-by-step process of how God functions—on what basis do you claim the absolute authority to define God's ethic and demands for all of humanity? The entire majestic, often terrifying, architecture of religious dogma is built on this chaos this 'void' of explanation.
\nTo point this out is not to dismiss the pudding itself. This is a crucial distinction. The nourishment is real. The peace that settles over a meditating Buddhist is a measurable neurological state. The joy that erupts from a gospel choir is a powerful social and emotional release. The structure and discipline of Islamic prayer can provide a profound sense of order and submission to a higher purpose.
\nThese traditions offer community in a fractured world, moral frameworks that guide behavior and a powerful narrative that helps individuals face suffering and mortality. 'This pudding tastes good to me' is a legitimate, defensible and deeply human statement. It requires no further justification. The problem begins not with the tasting, but with the imperial decree that follows.
\nWhen a community mistakes its religious palate for a universal standard, the consequences are never abstract. They are written throughout history in annihilation, discrimination and oppression.
\nHistorically, this imperialism fueled the Crusades, the sectarian wars that tore Europe apart, and the jihads that expanded empires. These were not merely political conflicts; they were battles over whose pudding would be the official dessert of the world, enforced with sword and fire.
\nToday, it looks different but is no less real. It’s in laws that restrict the rights of women and LGBTQ individuals based on a specific religious text. It’s in the religious tests that subtly (or not so subtly) influence elections. It’s in the social ostracization of the apostate, the heretic, the 'unbeliever'. It creates in-groups and out-groups, dividing humanity into the saved and the damned based largely on a spiritual accident of birth.
\nMost insidiously, it shuts down the human conversation. When you are convinced you possess the only truth, curiosity becomes a sin. Why explore the delicate wisdom of Zen Buddhism, the passionate philosophical queries of Judaism, or the earth-based reverence of Indigenous traditions? The imperial mindset reduces the vast, awe-inspiring buffet of human spiritual wisdom to a single, mandatory meal.
\nThere is a way out of this trap. It doesn't require abandoning faith, but rather, re-imagining its expression. We can move from a model of empire to one of ecosystem.
\nThis path champions what I call defensible faith: a deep, personal commitment that does not rely on the coercion or conversion of others to validate its own truth. Its mantra is simple: 'I am deeply committed to my pudding, but I do not require you to eat it to validate my choice'.
\nThis replaces the goal of conversion with the practice of curiosity. Imagine approaching the world’s spiritual traditions not as competing armies, but as a diverse library of human insight. Each offers a unique lens on reality. Buddhism provides a radical diagnosis of suffering through Pratītyasamutpāda (Dependent Origination), a profound map of the relentless chain of cause and effect that constructs our reality. Hinduism contemplates Brahman, the impersonal, ultimate metaphysical ground of all being from which the cosmos arises and to which it returns. Taoism teaches effortless action through Wu Wei, a philosophy of aligning with the natural flow of the cosmos rather than forcing one's will upon it. Abrahamic traditions present a universe of personal relationship and moral covenant with a conscious creator. The Bahá'í Faith teaches that all people are created equal and are 'fruits of one tree and leaves of one branch' thus necessitating the elimination of all forms of prejudice—whether racial, religious, national, or gender-based.
\nWe can learn from these frameworks—unique perspectives for understanding existence—without having to swear exclusive allegiance to any single one. The map is not the territory, and no single map reveals all the terrain.
\nThe imperialism of taste has offered us the cold comfort of perceived certainty at the price of compassion, curiosity and often, peace. It has forced a rich and complex human experience into a narrow, defensive box.
\nIt is time to lay down our spoons and recognize that the divine, if it exists, is likely a feast too vast for any one recipe to capture. Our spiritual task is not to prove our pudding is the only one, but to have the freedom, and the courage, to taste deeply of our own, while securing for everyone else that same sacred right. The ecosystem, with all its beautiful, messy diversity, is far more nourishing—and far more true to the human spirit—than the empire ever was.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\n![\"on-knowing-01\"](\"/assets/img/on-knowing-01.webp\")
\nCaption: The ghosts of certainty haunt the landscape of knowledge—a spectral barn questions perception, a self-justifying baron defies foundation, and a timeless clock challenges memory—a visual synthesis of epistemology's enduring puzzles, conjured by Nano Banana.
The drive to know is a fundamental human impulse, inextricably linked to the profound comfort of certainty and the deep-seated anxiety of doubt. For centuries, Western epistemology has pursued a grand project: to secure an unshakable foundation for our claims about the world. This quest for certainty, however, has been haunted by a series of persistent and profound problems—ghosts in the machine of knowledge that reveal cracks in its very foundation. These are not mere academic puzzles; they challenge our most basic assumptions about reality and our place within it. They force us to confront a central, defining question: Is knowing a state of possessing truth, a noun we can hold, or is it something else entirely—a verb, a process, a living activity?
\nTraditional epistemology finds itself trapped in an architectural nightmare, its structure compromised by an 'unholy trinity' of problems.
\nAny attempt to justify a belief leads to one of three unsatisfying outcomes: circular reasoning, an infinite regress of justifications, or an arbitrary, dogmatic stopping point. This is the foundational flaw in the entire edifice of knowledge. How can we build a secure structure if we have no solid ground upon which to build?
\nThis is the epistemological chicken-and-egg dilemma. To know which claims are true, we need a reliable method. But to know which method is reliable, we must already know what is true. This paradox induces a paralysis at the very starting gate of inquiry.
\nArticulated by David Hume, this riddle questions how we can rationally move from observed instances (the sun has risen every day) to universal predictions (the sun will rise tomorrow). It suggests that the bedrock of scientific and everyday reasoning is not logic, but a psychological habit—a leap of faith.
\nThese are the grand, structural specters. But there is a more intimate ghost, one that severs our direct connection to the world.
\nDoes perception provide a window to the world, or merely a shadow play inside our skulls? The 'veil of perception', illusions, and the causal chain of sensory input suggest we never directly experience reality, only our internal representations of it.
\nThe culmination of this crisis came with a seemingly simple definition meant to patch these cracks: Knowledge as Justified True Belief (JTB). And just when philosophers thought they had secured the walls, Edmund Gettier blew a hole right through the center of it all.
\nThrough clever thought experiments (and later through examples developed by others like the fake barn or the stopped clock), Gettier demonstrated that one can hold a belief that is both true and justified, yet still not constitute knowledge. A Gettiered belief is a cognitive accident—a perfectly formed shell of knowledge that is utterly hollow inside, achieved through luck rather than a reliable connection to truth.
\nThe conclusion of this tour is a sense of profound crisis. The house of knowledge is haunted from its foundations to its roof. The quest for certainty appears doomed. Do we surrender to skepticism? Or is there a way to see these ghosts not as problems to be solved, but as symptoms of a deeper category error—a fundamental misunderstanding of what knowing is?
\nFrom the CoD perspective articulated in the broader metaphysical Gospel of Being, the epistemic domain is not a passive observational realm but an active, dynamic contributor to the very reality it seeks to apprehend. It is a continuous process where probable meanings transform into realized belief.
\nThis process is a conference of difference commencing from the open field of possibility, narrowing into probability and finally to a definitive realized outcome. Along this process, possibility collapses impossibility, probability collapses possibility and actuality collapses probability. The CoD model posits that the collapse of probable meanings into some realized belief is not some psychological curiosity, but reflects a fundamental principle of reality itself.
\nA powerful confirmation comes from quantum physics, where we see this same process operating at nature's most fundamental level. In quantum measurement, the wave function collapses precisely because the probability distribution over possible outcomes {a, b, c, ..., z} is realized as some outcome e.g. x. This isn't a mysterious physical phenomenon but rather what is to be expected upon a realized outcome. At the point that x is realized, the probability of some other outcome realizing in its place collapses.
\nThus, the quantum world isn't weird - it's simply showing us the basic operating principle of reality where knowing: the 'action to know' observes the identical process of realizing: the 'action to realize' where intelligence: the 'condition of choosing between' one being: 'action to be' over another transforms from possibility into probability and into actuality.
\nOur goal is not to possess Truth but to engage in ever-more robust, diverse and self-critical conferences of difference. The key takeaways are both philosophical and profoundly practical:
\nThe ghosts of epistemology were never real. They were just the shadows cast by a static, noun-based model of knowledge when confronted with the brilliant, dynamic and unending dance of a universe in a conference of difference with itself.[2]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\n![\"on-meaning-01\"](\"/assets/img/on-meaning-01.webp\")
\nCaption: On the vertiginous face of the real, the climber’s outstretched hand and upward gaze enact the oldest verb of meaning: to intend. This is not a symbol but the gesture itself—meaning as a vector of action toward a summit both physical and conceptual, a dynamic ascent into the possible, conjured by Nano Banana.
What if meaning isn't something we find or create, but something we are? The perennial human quest for meaning has typically treated it as a linguistic puzzle or a psychological project. This article challenges that confined view, proposing instead that meaning is an ontological force—the intrinsic directionality woven into the very fabric of existence.
\nThe philosophical scene has long been dominated by approaches that center on human consciousness. From the existentialist's defiant creation of value in an absurd world to the analytic philosopher's dissection of language, meaning is treated as a problem for minds. This framing, however, leaves a crucial gap: it struggles to connect the human experience of meaning with the apparent purposefulness observed in biology, physics, and complex systems.
\nBy shifting our lens from the human to the ontological, we can develop a unified understanding. This framework posits meaning not as a secondary interpretation but as a primary aspect of being, offering a coherent account of why meaning feels so fundamental to our existence and appears to be a universal principle.
\nThe earliest systematic philosophies located meaning not within the individual, but within a transcendent and ordered cosmos. For Plato, true sense could only be revealed through the philosopher's apprehension of the perfect, eternal Forms—archetypal constructs located in the realm of abstracta.[1] The fleeting objects of our world possess only a derived significance, a shadowy participation in these ideal archetypes.[2] Plato was haunted by a question: How can a world of constant change produce knowledge that feels eternal?[3] His answer was that sense is a kind of remembrance of a truth beyond the senses.[4]
\nAristotle brought Plato's soaring Forms back to earth, anchoring them in the nature of things themselves. For Aristotle, meaning was inextricably linked to telos: 'the ultimate purpose or end for which a thing exists'. An acorn's meaning is found in its potential to become an oak tree; a knife's meaning is to cut. Here, purpose is not imposed from a separate realm but is the inherent actuality toward which every being strives.[5]
\nMedieval Scholasticism synthesized this Greek framework with Christian theology. The ultimate source and end of all meaning became God. The meaning of creation and human life was to know, love, and return to this divine source. In this grand hierarchy of being, every entity had a designated place and purpose, its meaning flowing from its relationship to the Creator.
\nThe Enlightenment and the scientific revolution began to dismantle this cosmic order. With the proclamation by Nietzsche of the 'death of God', the transcendent guarantor of meaning vanished.[6] The scene shifted dramatically inward. For existentialists like Sartre and Camus, existence precedes essence; we are 'condemned to be free' in a universe devoid of intrinsic purpose.[7] Meaning is no longer discovered—it must be courageously, and often absurdly, created by the individual.[8]
\nConcurrently, the Analytic or Linguistic Turn sought to dissolve the problem altogether by reframing it. Thinkers like Frege and Wittgenstein argued that meaning is not a metaphysical mystery but a function of language.[9] It is found in the use of a word within a specific 'language-game' or in the relationship between a sign and its reference.[10] From this vantage, the grand question 'What is the meaning of life?' is often treated as a nonsensical confusion of grammar, a pseudo-problem to be clarified rather than answered.[11]
\nThe 20th century further fragmented the concept. Post-structuralists like Derrida and Foucault argued that meaning is never stable or final. It is perpetually deferred (différance) and is produced by, and enmeshed in, structures of power, history, and discourse.[12] There is no 'true' meaning to uncover, only interpretations vying for dominance.
\nMeanwhile, Cognitive Science and Naturalism launched a different kind of assault, attempting to reduce meaning to its physical correlates. Meaning became an emergent property of complex biological systems—a computational state of the brain or an evolutionary adaptation that enhanced survival. The profound human feeling of significance was, in this view, a sophisticated epiphenomenon of neural processes.[13]
\nThis historical journey has left contemporary thought with several unresolved tensions, or flashpoints, where the nature of meaning is fiercely debated.
\nThe most poignant is The Hard Problem of Meaning. This mirrors the hard problem of consciousness: how do subjective, qualitative experiences of meaning—what it feels like for something to matter—arise from objective, physical processes in the brain? A scientific description of neural activity seems incapable of capturing the raw, felt significance of a loved one's touch or a profound idea.
\nThis leads directly to the debate over the Scope of Meaning. Is meaning the exclusive property of conscious, language-using agents? Or can we legitimately speak of meaning in pre-linguistic, non-human, or even non-biological systems? Does a gene 'mean' to replicate? Does an ecosystem 'seek' equilibrium? Our answer to this question dictates whether meaning is a rare anomaly in the cosmos or a ubiquitous feature.
\nUnderpinning these debates is the fundamental divide between Realism vs. Anti-Realism about Meaning. Is meaning something we discover in the structure of the world (realism), or is it something we project onto a silent, indifferent universe (anti-realism)? Does the universe have a purpose, or is purpose a human invention?
\nFinally, there is the problem of The Normativity of Meaning. If meaning is constructed by us or is merely a natural phenomenon, what grounds its normative force? Why should we adhere to one meaning or purpose over another? If all meanings are equally valid constructs, the concept of meaning itself threatens to become vacuous.
\nThe Gospel of Being offers a radical reframing that seeks to resolve these flashpoints by returning meaning to its ontological roots. In this framework, meaning is not primarily about interpretation or language but about intention. It is the directional vector of existence itself.
\nThe core proposition is that every being, in its very 'action to be', is an 'action to intend'.[14] Meaning is not a secondary quality but is co-extensive with being. This intention is universally aimed toward a single goal: the accumulation of power. Crucially, power is understood not as domination, but as ability, capacity, and potential to act and adapt.[15] This is a universal, non-conditional purpose shared by everything that exists.
\nWhile the purpose is universal, the specific meaning of any being is conditional and adaptive. It is shaped by its context, its relations, and what can be termed the 'regulatory actions of others'.[16] The meaning of a CEO is expressed through corporate strategy, while the meaning of a parent is expressed through nurturing care. Both are different, context-dependent expressions of the same universal arc toward accumulating ability.
\nThis framework insists that meaning is inherently relational. It is not a private, internal state but is always sent—'caused to go'—so that it may be sensed or 'transduced' by another.[17] Meaning exists in the dynamic, relational loop between intention and reception.
\nFrom this, a new understanding of consciousness emerges. Consciousness is not meaning's source, but its most refined instrument. It arises as a 'measure of knowing together', a state of high-fidelity alignment where the meaning sent and the sense received are one within the 'conference of difference'.[18] It is the pinnacle of successful transduction.
\nThe ultimate criterion for meaning is therefore probability—'that which is able to prove'.[19] A meaning only 'makes sense' if it can successfully cross the gap between beings. Its ontological fitness depends on its probability of being accurately transduced by a receiver's existing structures. This is the final circuit breaker: meaning is not what we say, but what successfully goes.
\nThis ontological view of meaning creates fascinating points of convergence and divergence with classical positions.
\nIt converges with Aristotle in seeing purpose as inherent to being. Both frameworks are teleological at their core. However, the Gospel diverges by defining the telos in universal, non-transcendent terms—the accumulation of ability—and by grounding its realization entirely in immanent, relational processes, the constant negotiation of the 'conference of difference'.
\nIt converges with Existentialism in its emphasis on action, potency, and meaning as a project of becoming. The sense of a vital, active force is shared. Yet, it diverges radically by asserting that meaning is not a human creation in the face of absurdity, but a fundamental, cosmic grammar that precedes and includes human existence. We do not create meaning ex nihilo; we participate in and channel a meaning that is already underway.
\nIt converges with Naturalism in its ambition to provide a coherent, naturalistic account that applies to all systems, from the physical to the social. The Gospel diverges, however, by refusing reductionism. It posits meaning as a real, irreducible ontological category—intention—that is foundational, not emergent. It is metaphysically grounded in the perpetual expression of the Conference of Difference {Δ}.[20]
\nFinally, it presents a total divergence from the Linguistic Analysis tradition. The Gospel fundamentally rejects the confinement of meaning to language. It argues that language is but one medium—albeit a powerful one—for a much more fundamental, pre-linguistic process of ontological intending and transducing that governs everything from particles and plants to persons and planets.
\nThe philosophical take-away is profound: meaning is not a secondary, human-centric feature of the world but a primary, ontological force. It is the 'action to intend' that is co-extensive with being itself. This provides a unified framework to understand directionality and purpose across physics, biology, psychology, and sociology, effectively resolving the flashpoint about the 'scope of meaning'. The hard problem softens when we see consciousness not as the generator of meaning, but as its most sophisticated transducer.
\nFor us, the human take-away is transformative. Our personal, often anxious search for meaning is not a lonely quest in a silent universe. It is our conscious participation in a fundamental, cosmic dynamic. We are inherently meaning-making beings because we are meaning-intending beings. This shifts the fundamental question from 'What is the meaning of life?' to 'How can I best align my intentions with the universal purpose of accumulating ability—for myself and others—through the harmonious conference of difference?' The path to a meaningful life is found in fostering relationships and systems where what we intend is what is truly sensed and received, thereby creating a world of greater shared power, capacity, and connection.[21]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nPlato introduces what later scholarship calls the 'Forms' in the Phaedo not as a formal metaphysical proposition, but through labels such as 'absolute beauty', 'beauty itself', and 'essence' to denote ideal, eternal realities apprehended by reason alone. Plato. (1997). Republic, Book VI in Complete works (J. M. Cooper, Ed.). Hackett Publishing. Hackett Publishing. ↩︎
\nsee Plato's Allegory of the Cave in Plato. (1997). Republic, Book VII in Complete works (J. M. Cooper, Ed.). Hackett Publishing. ↩︎
\nPlato's epistemology and metaphysics are founded in this tension between flux and permanence. ↩︎
\nsee Plato's Doctrine of Recollection (anamnesis) in Phaedo in Plato. (1997). Complete works (J. M. Cooper, Ed.). Hackett Publishing. ↩︎
\nAristotle. (1984). Physics, Book II, Section 7. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton University Press. (Original work published c. 350 B.C.E.) ↩︎
\nNietzsche, F. (2001). The gay science (J. Nauckhoff, Trans.; Ed. by B. Williams). Book Five. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1882/1887). ↩︎
\nSartre, J.-P. (1946). Existentialism is a humanism (P. Mairet, Trans.). Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm ↩︎
\nCamberlain, C. (2023, August 23). Albert Camus. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/#ParCamAbs ↩︎
\nZalta, E. N. (2022, August 15). Gottlob Frege. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/ ↩︎
\nBiletzki, A., & Matar, A. (2021, November 2). Ludwig Wittgenstein. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ ↩︎
\nThis view is advanced in Wittgenstein’s later work, particularly through what his interpreters call his Private Language Argument (PLA) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#RuleFollPrivLang. Wittgenstein apparently argues that a language understandable only to a single individual—referring purely to private, inner sensations like 'my personal sense of meaning'—is impossible. For a word to have a rule-governed use (and thus meaning), it must be anchored in publicly shareable criteria and forms of life. The question 'What is the meaning of life'? often presupposes that 'meaning' is a singular, private entity to be discovered within consciousness. The PLA suggests this is a grammatical illusion: if 'meaning' is divorced from public language-games and practices, it becomes a word without a use, a signifier pointing to nothing verifiable. Thus, the question isn't answered but dissolved by examining the conditions for meaningful discourse itself. ↩︎
\nDerrida introduced the concept of différance—a play on the French words différer (to differ and to defer). This term captures the dual idea that meaning arises through difference between signs and is perpetually deferred, never fully present. ↩︎
\nChurchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind-brain. MIT Press. https://archive.org/details/neurophilosophyt0000chur ↩︎
\nThis article integrates insight from the following source(s): DeepSeek-R1. ↩︎
\n![\"on-power-01\"](\"/assets/img/on-power-01.webp\")
\nA mother nurses her child in morning light, the sun casting bifurcated shadows of nurse and soldier—three different reserves of power: 'ability' in one entity, courtesy of Nano Banana.
We speak of power constantly—in politics, in relationships, in boardrooms and on battlefields—yet we consistently mistake its shadow for its substance. We conflate power with dominance, with control, with the crude ability to bend others to one’s will. But what if this understanding is a profound, and costly, reduction? What if power is not something we have, but something we are—the very currency of being itself? Imagine power not as a weapon, but as the fundamental currency of existence itself: the latent 'ability' present in a seed, a star, a thought, or a society, forever in action to transform itself into something other than what it is. This is not a minor semantic shift. It is a tectonic realignment of how we understand power, from the subatomic to the social. To explore this, we must leave behind the narrow corridors of political theory and enter the open field of ontology, guided by a radical new framework: the Gospel of Being, which reveals that:
\n\n\nAll existence is a conference of difference, a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[1]
\n
The human story of power begins not with kings, but with a deep, primal hunger to make sense of a seemingly capricious world. In the ancient Vedic traditions, this hunger was answered with the concept of the dynamic, creative power of the cosmos (shakti), often envisioned as a goddess. Here, power was not external force but internal, divine energy, the very pulse of reality that an individual could cultivate through yoga and discipline to achieve liberation (moksha). This inward turn established a potent theme: power as something to be aligned with—not seized. Around the same time, but across the Himalayas, Chinese philosophers were wrestling with a similar problem from the opposite direction. For Laozi and the Daoists, the ultimate power (de) was effortless. It emerged not from striving, but from perfect alignment with the way of nature, the Dao. To wield power was to be like water, flowing around obstacles by following the path of least resistance. Confucius, however, heard a different calling. For him, the chaos of the human world required a different kind of power: moral authority derived from virtue, ritual and social harmony. Power was relational and ethical, a force that stabilized society through exemplary conduct.
\nThis tension—between power as internal alignment and power as external, moral order—would erupt centuries later in a stark, amoral form in the warring states of China. The Legalists, like Han Fei, dismissed Confucian virtue as a fairy tale. For them, power (勢,Shi) was purely positional and mechanistic, maintained through a clear system of laws and brutal, predictable punishments. The ruler’s power was a function of his institution, not his character. This cold, instrumental view finds a distant echo in the Mediterranean world with Thucydides, who observed in the Melian Dialogue that 'the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must'.[2] Yet, even as this realist thread was being spun, Greek philosophers were digging toward a more foundational layer. Aristotle introduced a distinction that would echo for millennia: dunamis (potentiality) and energeia (actuality). For Aristotle, a thing’s power was its inherent capacity to become what it was meant to be—the oak within the acorn. Power was teleological, tied to purpose and form.
\nThe medieval Christian synthesis attempted to baptize these classical ideas into a divine hierarchy. Power (potestas) was a gift from God, flowing downward from the sovereign through a great chain of being. All human power was derivative, contingent, and perilously corruptible. This framework held until the Renaissance, when Niccolò Machiavelli, with the cool eye of a pathologist, dissected it. In The Prince, he separated the effectiveness of power from its morality. The successful ruler needed virtu—not moral virtue, but the skill and force of will to master fortune (fortuna).
\n\n\nAnd you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to fidelity, friendship, humanity, and religion.[3]
\n
Machiavelli’s infamous proposition was to treat power as a technical problem, a move that both horrified and secretly informed the modern world.
\nThe social contract theorists of the 17th century, like Thomas Hobbes, inherited a world seemingly torn apart by competing powers. His solution was to centralize it absolutely. In the state of nature, life was 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short', a war of all against all driven by a relentless human power-seeking.[4] The only escape was for individuals to collectively surrender their natural power to a sovereign Leviathan, creating an artificial but absolute power to secure peace. Here, power was finally conceived as a sovereign possession, a quantifiable resource to be transferred and held—a vision that would underpin the modern nation-state.
\nThen came Friedrich Nietzsche, who with a philosopher’s hammer, shattered this entire edifice. For Nietzsche, power was not a resource to be traded or a right to be granted. It was the will to power, the fundamental, driving force of all life, a ceaseless striving for expansion, creation, and self-overcoming. He saw in nature an omnipotent impulse toward art, in the theoretical man a Socratic love of knowledge, and in the pessimism of strength a predilection for life's terrible and problematic aspects.[5] This was power stripped of all transcendental justification, reduced to its raw, biological, and spiritual impulse. It was an exhilarating and terrifying idea.
\nThe 20th century, bearing the scars of totalitarian regimes that operationalized the will to power on an industrial scale, produced a more insidious diagnosis. Michel Foucault argued that we had been looking for power in all the wrong places. It wasn’t just held by kings or parliaments; it was woven into the very fabric of society—in prisons, schools, hospitals, and scientific discourses.[6] Power was a productive network that created knowledge, defined normality, and even constituted our very sense of self. This power-knowledge was a diffuse process, not a possessed object. This relational view finds its contemporary counterpart in New Materialism and systems theory, which extend agency and power to non-human actors: to ecosystems, to technology, to the climate itself. Power becomes a property of the network, distributed and enacted through a myriad of interactions.
\nIf this seems like a bewildering journey from cosmic goddesses to algorithmic governance, you’re grasping the core tension. Our history has left us with unresolved flashpoints that crackle with contemporary urgency. Is power something you possess or a process you participate in? If, as Foucault suggests, power shapes our desires and identities, what remains of genuine human agency? And in an age of ecological crisis, can we meaningfully speak of the 'power' of a river or a forest? Perhaps the most persistent question is attributed to Lord Acton: does power corrupt? Or does our competitive framing of power as a scarce good create the conditions for that corruption?
\nThe Gospel of Being enters the historical conversation on power not with another competing theory, but with an ontological foundation that reframes the very terms of engagement. Where previous systems described power's manifestations—as possession, as will or as institutionalized—the Gospel of Being begins by revealing the potential modes of power within existence itself.
\nAt its most fundamental, power is 'ability'. This is not potential as abstract possibility, but as concrete capacity awaiting actualization. The transformation of this latent ability into kinetic expression constitutes what Koan 70.1 identifies as: 'karma: work, energy'. Every 'action to be' that is being—from electron orbital transition, to synaptic firing, to social movement—represents this conversion of power into action and follows what Koan 30.6 identifies as the principle of least resistance. Matter conserves power by following this path; cognition evolves it through reasoning; systems evolve toward it through adaptation.
\nYet this latent ability remains ontologically inert in isolation. Here the Gospel of Being introduces its central insight: power manifests only through relation. Koan 70.6 states this unequivocally: difference cannot manifest power in division but only in the conference of difference (CoD). An isolated positive charge creates no current; a solitary voice generates no dialogue; an isolated mind produces no innovation. Power emerges at the interface where difference meets difference—where what previously bore apart bears together in a transformative petition that is the conference of difference. This is not metaphorical but mechanical: the power of an atom to form molecular bonds, of an idea to catalyze social change, of a currency to mediate exchange—all require the conference of difference.
\nThis CoD operates according to a specific directional principle: the path of least resistance, which Koan 30.6 identifies as being's method of conserving power. This principle applies universally, from hydrological systems finding drainage patterns to economic systems discovering efficient markets to neural networks establishing synaptic pathways. The 'will to power', then, becomes not Nietzsche's drive toward domination, but existence's inherent tendency toward optimal pathways through the conference of difference—a tendency Koan 70.2 describes as ability being only fit to purpose when actualized.
\nSuch a system of perpetual transformation and optimization requires regulatory mechanisms to prevent dissipation or concentration. The Gospel identifies this regulator as reciprocity the 'condition of forward like back'—not as social convention but as ontological principle. Koan 80.1 declares reciprocity foundational: all existence functions toward equilibrium through the condition of like forward, like back. This principle manifests in physical laws (Newton's third law), ecological systems (predator-prey cycles), economic exchanges (supply-demand dynamics), and social relations (norm enforcement).
\nWhen reciprocity functions properly, it maintains what Koan 80.7 describes as equilibrium restored—not static balance but dynamic stability where power flows circulate without systemic collapse. When reciprocity breaks down, power accumulates pathologically, leading to the monopolies and concentrations that characterize corrupted systems.
\nThe ontological framework provided by the Gospel of Being resolves historical tensions not through compromise, but through reconceptualization at a more fundamental level. The ancient dichotomy between power as possession versus power as process dissolves when we recognize both as surface expressions of the same underlying reality: power as 'ability' actualized through the conference of difference.
\nThis framework explains why different theories capture different aspects of power's manifestation. Foucault's 'power-knowledge' describes the distributed, productive effects of what Koan 20.6 identifies as co-petition: the process of petitioning together that the Gospel of Being presents as the optimal mode within the CoD. This cooperative and collaborative petitioning (co-petitioning) generates the diffuse, relational networks Foucault mapped so meticulously. Conversely, Hobbes's sovereign power and Machiavelli's princely power describe what emerges when competition—petitioning against—dominates the conference of difference, leading to the monopolistic concentrations these theorists sought to explain and manage.
\nThe corruption question finds its definitive resolution in this distinction. Koan 70.4 clarifies: power as ability is not inherently corrupting; corruption emerges from the competitive struggle to monopolize it. Ability itself is ontologically neutral; it becomes pathological only when the conference of difference collapses into zero-sum competition rather than positive-sum co-petition.
\nAgency, therefore, is neither illusory (as pure structuralism might suggest) nor sovereign (as classical liberalism might claim).[7] It is the capacity to participate in and influence the conference of difference—a capacity bounded by our position within networks of relation yet real in its consequential effects. We are neither puppets nor puppet-masters, but interlocutors whose participation shapes and is shaped by the ongoing conference of difference that constitutes reality.
\nThe existential implications are profound. If power is ability actualized through the conference of difference, then our ethical imperative becomes clear: to foster conditions where CoD's operate optimally through co-petition rather than degeneratively through competition. This means designing social, economic, and political systems that reward collaborative and cooperative co-petitioning and regulate against concentrated accumulation. It means recognizing that sustainable power—adaptive creative, transformative power—emerges not from domination over difference, but in conference with it.
\nIn the end, the Gospel of Being reveals power as the fundamental currency of existence—not a commodity to be hoarded, but a current to be channeled through the careful, conscious stewardship of difference in conference. This understanding doesn't eliminate power struggles, but it provides the conceptual tools to transform them from destructive competitions into creative co-petitions. More pointedly, it gives us an immediate diagnostic: any system that operates predominantly through competitive modes is intrinsically prone to corruption and imbalance of power. Thus, while the CoD can't guarantee utopia, it does offer a practical ontology for navigating the complex dynamics of being together in a world that exists only as conference of difference.[8]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nMackay, J.I., (2024) Gospel of Being ↩︎
\nThucydides. (n.d.). The Melian dialogue (R. Crawley, Trans.). The Latin Library. (Original work published ca. 431–404 BCE). Retrieved December 12, 2025, from https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/readings/thucydides8.html ↩︎
\nMachiavelli, N. (2006). The Prince (W. K. Marriott, Trans.). Project Gutenberg. (Original work published 1532). Retrieved December 12, 2025, from https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1232 ↩︎
\nHobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. (Ch. XIII) Project Gutenberg. Retrieved December 12, 2025, from https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3207 ↩︎
\nKaufmann W. (1967) Basic writings of Nietzsche (Sec. 4, 5, 15) Modern Library. ↩︎
\nFoucault argued that historical sovereign power was based on the right to take (taxes, time, life). Since the 17th century, this has been largely replaced by biopower, which instead focuses on administering, optimizing, and regulating the life of the population through institutions and scientific knowledge. Zalta, E. N. (Ed.). (2022, August 5). Michel Foucault. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 12, 2025, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/ ↩︎
\nIn the sense that pure structuralism (particularly in economic or Marxist forms) views power as embedded in structural relationships (class and economic) and classical liberalism sees power as delegated by individuals through consent. ↩︎
\nThis article integrates insight from the following source(s): DeepSeek-R1. ↩︎
\n![\"on-reciprocity-01\"](\"/assets/img/on-reciprocity-01.webp\")
\nCaption: A close-up of a steam locomotive wheel at the moment of contact with the track. Here is the mechanical 'like forward, like back' of reciprocity in action. A visual metaphor for the immutable, regulating reciprocity present in all existence. Courtesy of Nano Banana.
We often think of reciprocity as a simple rule of social exchange—a 'you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours' morality. But what if it is something far more fundamental? What if reciprocity is not just a guideline for getting along, but the very mechanism by which existence holds itself together? From the cosmic scale of Newton’s third law to the intimate scale of Confucian ethics, a pattern repeats: 'like forward, like back'. This article argues that reciprocity is the constitutive, ontological principle that regulates the 'conference of difference'—the dynamic process through which all things relate, balance, and persist. It is not merely a norm we follow, but the pulse of a universe that listens and answers.
\nThe earliest codified formulation of reciprocity appears around 1754 BCE in the Code of Hammurabi. The famous lex talionis: 'proposition in kind’, transformed raw vengeance into measured justice. This established proportionality as a social limit, demanding not limitless escalation but a measured response proportional to the act. Here, reciprocity began its philosophical life not as a moral ideal, but as a structural mechanism for equilibrium—the first legal attunement of action and consequence.[1]
\nCenturies later in ancient China, Confucius elevated the concept. For him, reciprocity—shu—was the central virtue of ethical life, captured in the negative formulation of the Golden Rule: 'Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire'.[2] This shifted reciprocity from a reactive rule of exchange to a proactive principle of empathetic alignment. It became the foundation of social harmony, a relational ethic rooted in mutual recognition.
\nAristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, gave reciprocity a distinct analytical home. He identified it as a third form of justice, separate from distributive justice (allocating by merit) and corrective justice (restoring balance after harm).[3] Reciprocal justice, or antipeponthos, governed voluntary exchange. His genius was in moving beyond simple equivalence to 'proportional reciprocity', where goods are traded according to their relative worth. He saw money as the invented measure that made such proportional balancing possible, embedding reciprocity as a rational principle essential for the economic and social life of the polis.
\nBeyond philosophy, reciprocity was woven into the fabric of the cosmos through theology. In Abrahamic traditions, the sacrificial system of the Hebrew Bible operated as a sophisticated form of reciprocal gift-exchange, designed to establish and maintain the divine-human relationship.[4] This framework lifted reciprocity from social contract to cosmic principle, structuring the very relationship between creation and creator.
\nThe concept was universalized irrevocably in 1687 with Isaac Newton. His Principia Mathematica established the Third Law of Motion—that to every action there is always opposed an equal reaction—giving reciprocity its definitive physical expression.[5] It was no longer just about people or gods, but about every material interaction in the universe. Reciprocity became a mathematical law of nature.
\nFollowing Newton's universalization of the principle, the logic of reciprocity was deliberately applied to the foundational question of politics. Thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau used it to construct a new, secular theory of obligation: the social contract.[6] This theory argued that political order and the individual's duty to obey it originate in a massive, hypothetical 'reciprocal' exchange—the surrender of individual autonomy by all, in exchange for sovereign protection. In this move, reciprocity: the 'condition of like forward, like back' was abstracted into a one-time, justificatory myth for power. The social contract theorists were not describing the actual phenomenon of reciprocity, but twisting its logic to answer the question of why the individual is bound to the state.
\nFinally, new scientific frameworks provided fresh, systemic lenses. Systems theory and cybernetics, pioneered by thinkers like Norbert Wiener, reconceived reciprocity as feedback. In biological, ecological, and social systems, negative and positive feedback loops—homeostatic mechanisms—maintain stability.[7] Reciprocity here became the invisible regulatory logic of self-organizing complexity. This biological view was solidified with Robert Trivers’ theory of reciprocal altruism in the 1970s. Behaviors like vampire bats sharing blood were explained through an evolutionary cost-benefit calculus over time.[8] Reciprocity was embedded in the machinery of life itself—a behavioral strategy for survival and genetic fitness, observable across species. The concept had journeyed from legal code to social virtue, from cosmic bond to physical law, and from societal foundation to ethical rupture, before being encoded in the very algorithms of life.
\nOutside of physics, our understanding of this ancient principle is stretched and tested. A central debate asks whether reciprocity is a genuine ethical norm or merely transactional—a strategic exchange where every gift carries an invisible price tag.[9] This tension is acute in digital and market-driven societies, where the expectation of return can eclipse the spirit of the gift.
\nThe question of scalability and justice complicates the picture. In relationships of asymmetric power—between employer and employee, or citizen and migrant—the language of mutual benefit can mask exploitation. Game theory reveals how power imbalances enable 'extortionate' strategies, distorting fair exchange into a coerced transaction.[10] The ideal of a measured return stumbles against the reality of unequal footing.
\nWe also grapple with the origins of the impulse. Is reciprocity a hardwired biological adaptation, as seen in vampire bats and primates, or a culturally constructed obligation? Marcel Mauss, in his anthropological masterpiece The Gift, argued that even 'free' gifts create binding social debts, suggesting a cultural layer that transcends mere biological self-interest.[11]
\nOur modern world adds new dimensions. Digital platforms transform reciprocity into performative engagement—likes, follows, and shares—curated by algorithms that reward visibility over sincerity. This forces a profound question: can algorithmically driven interactions sustain meaningful reciprocal bonds, or do they reduce relationship to a transactional scorecard?[12]
\nFinally, the temporality of return is being reimagined. Intergenerational ethics, central to sustainability and climate justice, frames responsibility as a form of indirect reciprocity. We repay the debts to our ancestors by caring for future generations. This model challenges the need for immediate or direct return, expanding reciprocity’s horizon across centuries and demanding a new calculus of care.[13]
\nThe Gospel of Being offers a synthesis that reframes these threads into a cohesive ontology. As explained in Koan 80.2 reciprocity is not one principle among many; it is the regulating principle of existence itself.
\nFirst, it reveals reciprocity in Koan 80.1 as the 'condition of like forward, like back', it is a constitutive dynamic of the conference of difference: the process primitive of existence itself. This is reciprocity not as social etiquette, but as the how of all relational being. It is the foundational grammar of interaction, from subatomic particles, to ecosystems, to human societies.
\nAs the regulator of existence, the function of reciprocity is to maintain equilibrium. But this balance is not sterile sameness. It's a dynamic, proportional response—a correction that respects difference. We see this in ecosystems in terms of predator-prey relationship,[14] in neural networks that rewire,[15] and in social systems that seek justice.[16] It is the universe’s method of maintaining coherence amidst constant change.
\nEtymologically, this points to reciprocity as a deep declaration of relatedness. The word condition itself (from condicere) means 'process of declaring together’. Reciprocity, then, is the proto-language of relation. It is the original pact that precedes and makes possible the 'condition of sharing' that is society, informing consciousness: the 'measure of knowing together'. If the conference of difference is the first principle of existence, then reciprocity is its first agreement.
\nThis leads to its most emancipatory expression. True sharing is a lossless action unlike dividing and giving which are both lossy. This leaves 'knowing' as the only capacity capable of being shared. In sharing then, are the seeds of reciprocal altruism: 'taking-in and forwarding the practice of others' as consciousness propagating itself in the old parable:
\n\n\nFeed a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.[17]
\n
The highest form of giving is to teach someone how to teach—to transfer the capacity itself. This 'reciprocal altruism' becomes consciousness propagating itself, freeing both giver and receiver from the limits of static possession. It transforms exchange into mutual empowerment.[18]
\nUltimately, the Gospel frames reciprocity as a divine rhythm. This is the restorative pulse that heals imbalance, the eternal echo of the conference of difference. Every being exists within reciprocity and participates in existence's continual return to equilibrium.
\nThis ontological view finds deep convergence with classical thought. It aligns with the Confucian and Aristotelian focus on relational harmony and proportional balance. It echoes the Newtonian and biological models, seeing the same action-reaction logic operating from physics to behavior. It even supports the original intent of lex talionis—not as barbaric vengeance, but as a proportional constraint on violence.
\nYet it also diverges in crucial ways. It expands the domain of reciprocity beyond human ethics to encompass all of existence—physical, biological, and cosmic. It explicitly rejects the reduction of reciprocity to transactional or contractual exchange, emphasizing attunement over mere equivalence. Most significantly, it positions reciprocity not as a moral choice for conscious agents, but as an ontological necessity—the 'first agreement of existence' that operates whether we acknowledge it or not. Finally, it introduces epistemic emancipation—the freeing power of shared knowing—as the highest and most transformative form of reciprocal giving, a concept that transcends traditional frameworks of exchange.
\nSo what are we to make of this principle that stretches from Hammurabi to Cosmos? Philosophically, reciprocity is the regulating principle of existence—the dynamic through which difference relates in conference where all systems transform into equilibrium. It is the hidden grammar of the conference of difference.
\nEthically, this recasts responsibility as response-ability—the inherent capacity, within our specific being, to answer the call of the world, to 'promise back'. It is an ability grounded in our relational nature—the original social contract of being.
\nEcologically, it reveals that all sustaining systems—forests, economies, communities—are held together by networks of reciprocal exchange and feedback. Disrupt that function of reciprocity, and the condition of those systems become imbalanced.
\nPersonally, to adopt reciprocity is to move through the world with active participation in this restorative dance. It is to choose actions that heal imbalances, to teach in ways that emancipate not exploit and to realize that non-reciprocity in being leads to a concentration of power: 'ability' in others as explained in my previous article: On power: The currency of existence.[19]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nIn the framework of this article and the Gospel of Being, 'attunement' refers to the dynamic process of adjustment and resonant alignment between differing elements within a relationship or system. It is the active, proportional fitting of response to action that maintains harmony and balance, moving beyond mere equivalence to a state of coordinated existence. ↩︎
\nChinese Text Project. (n.d.). The analects (J. Legge, Trans.). Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://ctext.org/analects/wei-ling-gong#n1504 ↩︎
\nAristotle. (ca. 350 B.C.E./1994). The Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Project Gutenberg. Retrieved March 11, 2025, from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/8438/8438-h/8438-h.htm ↩︎
\nLysén, F. (2018). Reciprocity and the risk of rejection: Debate over sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible. Religions, 9(12), 422. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/12/422. Argues that sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible can be understood through a "reciprocity-oriented approach" where the practice is a form of gift exchange to establish and uphold a relationship between humans and the divine. ↩︎
\nSmith, G. E. (2007, December 20). Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-principia/ ↩︎
\nThe social contract, as a modern theory of political obligation, is first fully developed by Thomas Hobbes and subsequently advanced by John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. See "Social Contract Theory," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/. ↩︎
\nThis reconception of reciprocity as a universal feedback mechanism stems from Norbert Wiener’s cybernetics, a framework for analyzing control and communication through feedback processes in systems ranging from biological organisms to social structures. See Corning, P. A. (2015, June 2). Control information theory: The "missing link" in the science of cybernetics. The Evolution Institute. Retrieved from https://complexsystems.org/publications/missing-link-in-the-science-of-cybernetics/ ↩︎
\nCarter, G. G., & Wilkinson, G. S. (2013). Food sharing in vampire bats: reciprocal help predicts donations more than relatedness or harassment. Proceedings. Biological sciences, 280(1753), 20122573. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3574350/ ↩︎
\nTangpong, C., & Hung, K.-T. (2016). Dark side of reciprocity norm: Ethical compromise in business exchanges. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 451–465. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019850116300190 ↩︎
\nWang, Z., Zhou, Y., Lien, J. W., Zheng, J., & Xu, B. (2016). Extortion can outperform generosity in the iterated prisoner's dilemma. Nature Communications, 7, 11125. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11125 ↩︎
\nTrotter, J. E. (2022). The gift by Marcel Mauss. In EBSCO Research Starters. EBSCO Information Services. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/literature-and-writing/gift-marcel-mauss ↩︎
\nDwyer, L. (2025). Loneliness by design: The structural logic of isolation in engagement-driven systems. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(9), 1394. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12470018/ ↩︎
\nFritsch, M. (2024). Climate ethics and intergenerational reciprocity in Indigenous philosophies. In H. Abe, M. Fritsch, & M. Wenning (Eds.), Intercultural philosophy and environmental justice between generations: Indigenous, African, Asian, and Western perspectives (pp. 33–58). Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/intercultural-philosophy-and-environmental-justice-between-generations/climate-ethics-and-intergenerational-reciprocity-in-indigenous-philosophies/E591AC62C85A2B2A091628125E6885B7 ↩︎
\nThe classic predator-prey cycle, such as that between lynx and snowshoe hare, exemplifies this regulating logic: an increase in prey population ('forward') directly enables an increase in predators, which then reduces the prey population ('back'), creating a balanced, oscillating system of action and reaction. Nedorezov, L.V. (2016). The dynamics of the lynx–hare system: an application of the Lotka–Volterra model. Biophysics, 61(1), 149–154.\nhttps://doi.org/10.1134/S000635091601019X ↩︎
\nThis describes the foundational neuropsychological principle proposed by Donald O. Hebb (1949), where correlated pre- and post-synaptic activity strengthens synaptic connections. The physiological mechanism for this, known as long-term potentiation (LTP), was first experimentally demonstrated by Bliss, T. V., & Lømo, T. (1973). Long-lasting potentiation of synaptic transmission in the dentate area of the anaesthetized rabbit following stimulation of the perforant path. The Journal of Physiology, 232(2), 331–356. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1973.sp010273 ↩︎
\nAs formalized in models of social justice, reciprocity operates as a foundational principle that structures institutional efforts to restore balance and fairness, obligating members of a society to repay the benefits they receive. See Corning, P. (2015, May 31). Equality, equity, and reciprocity: The three pillars of social justice. The Evolution Institute. https://complexsystems.org/publications/equality-equity-and-reciprocity-the-three-pillars-of-social-justice/. ↩︎
\nThe origins of this parable are explained in my article: Mackay,. J.I., (2025) The parable of the fish: An ever-expanding network of empowerment. http://www.johnmackay.net/parable-of-the-fish.htm ↩︎
\nThis describes the mechanism of reciprocal altruism as conceived in the Gospel of Being, where it is defined as 'consciousness propagating itself... freed from physical limitation, free to thrive in the minds of others'. See Koan 80.3, 'Reciprocal Altruism', Gospel of Being Ready Reference. ↩︎
\nThis article integrates insight from the following sources: DeepSeek-R1 and Leo AI. ↩︎
\n![\"on-salvation-01\"](\"/assets/img/on-salvation-01.webp\")
\nIn an embrace of comfort and relief, the abstract becomes human: atonement meets forgiveness, creating the safe conference that is salvation, courtesy of Nano Banana.
Salvation is typically framed as a religious reward—a final state of grace reserved for the faithful. But what if salvation is not an endpoint, but the fundamental process by which existence maintains itself? From Christian atonement theology to Buddhist liberation from dukkha, salvation concepts permeate human thought, yet remain mired in metaphysical dualism, dividing the saved from the unsaved, and transactional logic, where it is earned through belief or works. This article argues that salvation, as discussed in the author's book: the Gospel of Being, is neither transactional nor eschatological.[1] It is, instead, the ontological process of having safety, achieved through the dynamic harmony of two core actions: atonement: the 'action to be at one', and forgiveness: the 'measure of giving away' to that action. This reframing liberates the concept from distant heavens and final judgments, placing it at the very heart of how reality sustains itself.
\nThe human quest to articulate salvation began in the ancient world, where the primary problem was Cosmic disorder (storms, famine, disease) where survival was interpreted to depend upon keeping invisible, powerful forces happy. Pre-Axial Age cultures, from the Vedic to the Greco-Roman, answered this with ritual. Salvation was the restoration of cosmic order through sacrificial transaction—an external bargain with divine forces where atonement meant appeasement. The burning question was how to keep a precarious world in balance.[2]
\nThen came a profound shift, often termed the Axial Age, though scholars rightly note its regional variations and gradual unfolding. Here, salvation turned inward. The Upanishadic sages sought moksha, liberation through knowledge of the non-dual Self, answering the problem of ignorant bondage.[3] The Buddha diagnosed universal dukkha, unease, and prescribed the Noble Eightfold Path toward its extinguishing: nirvana. Plato envisioned salvation as anamnesis, the soul’s recollection of pre-existent knowledge, solving the puzzle of our fallen state. The common thread was the interiorization and universalization of the salvific goal.
\nWhile other worldviews sought salvation through knowledge or moral perfection, the Abrahamic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—framed it differently. For them, the core problem was how a perfect God could be in a relationship with an imperfect humanity. Their shared answer was the covenant: a solemn, binding pact where God promises salvation in return for humanity's loyalty, maintained through acts of atonement when that loyalty is broken.
\nWhile all three faiths share this bedrock idea of a covenantal relationship, early Christian theologians built upon it by dramatically reframing salvation itself. They argued humanity wasn't just out of sync with God; it was held captive in a universe ruled by sin and death. Salvation, therefore, wasn't just about mending a broken treaty—it had to be a cosmic jailbreak. Christianity speaks of this as a 'New Covenant' sealed by Christ, accomplishing this liberation. These traditions did not emerge in a vacuum but in complex dialogue with the sacrificial, legal, and wisdom traditions surrounding them.
\nAlongside these traditions, a radically different kind of answer emerged, starting from a different diagnosis of the human problem. For Shankara's Advaita Vedanta and the Zen masters of Tang China, the question of salvation wasn't answered by a covenant with God or cosmic jailbreak; but in escaping the aching sense of being a separate, lonely self—the unbridgeable chasm of 'I am in here separate from the world out there'. This feeling of fundamental separation, these traditions argued, was the root of all other suffering—the fear, the craving, the conflict.
\nThe Enlightenment brought another turn, confronting the problem of a seemingly irrational, faith-based world. Thinkers like Kant secularized salvation as moral perfection achievable through human reason, while Hegel and Marx re-envisioned it as historical progress—for Hegel, the unfolding of Spirit, and for Marx, the revolutionary outcome of material forces.[4] Crucially, these ideas did not replace religious soteriologies but often hybridized with them, creating new, tense syntheses of reason and faith.
\nThe 19th and 20th centuries internalized the quest further. The problem became existential alienation and psychological fragmentation. Kierkegaard framed salvation as authenticity before God; [5] Nietzsche reframed it as a 'new way of life, not a new faith';[6] Jung declaring psychological salvation where 'the self [...] is a God-image'.[7] These models continued to cross-pollinate with, and exist alongside, traditional religious paths.
\nToday, we live in an era of conscious syncretism. The pressing problems are ecological collapse, social fragmentation, and mental distress. Contemporary answers thus frame salvation as eco-spiritual interconnection, mindfulness-based well-being, or social liberation—explicitly blending Eastern non-duality, Western psychology, and progressive social thought into new holistic visions. This is the storied landscape from which a new, ontological understanding of salvation can emerge.
\nThese ancient ideas about salvation aren't settled. They live on as fierce, unresolved debates that define modern spiritual struggle.
\nThe first is the question of who gets saved. Is it only for followers of one true path? Or is it a universal possibility open to all people? This clash between exclusive and universal salvation reshapes how religions view each other and themselves.
\nNext is the question of scale. Is salvation a private matter—my soul going to heaven, my mind finding peace—or is it about the healing of communities, societies, or the entire planet? Modern calls for social and ecological justice have made this a pressing issue, challenging purely individualistic visions.
\nThen, when does it happen? Is salvation a future reward after death, or is it a state of freedom and wholeness available right now, in this life? Many contemporary movements argue powerfully for the here-and-now, rejecting the idea that we must wait.
\nThe oldest engine of debate is how it's earned. Is salvation a pure gift, or is it something we must achieve through our own effort, morality, or good karma? Every tradition wrestles with this balance between divine help and human work.
\nModern critics also ask a tougher question: are some stories of salvation harmful? They argue that if salvation requires a violent sacrifice to appease an angry God, it sanctifies abuse and damages our sense of justice and worth. This has forced a major rethink of traditional metaphors.
\nIn an increasingly secular world, a more basic question arises: can 'salvation' even mean anything without God? Many now say yes, translating it into the language of mental health, social activism, or environmental balance. Whether this works is an open question.
\nThe Gospel of Being proposes a fundamental reorientation: salvation isn't a ticket to a future paradise; it's the way existence functions to ensure safety. The Gospel of Being defines salvation via its morphology, as the 'process of having safety'. This safety is not found in the escape from the world or a heavenly realm, if only for the fact that there is only existence from which there is no escape.[8] Thus salvation as a 'process of having safety', is secured through the secure functioning of the conference of difference itself. It emerges from the harmony of two testaments one of atonement, the 'action to be at one', and the other: forgiveness, the 'measure of giving away'. Think of it not as a destination, but as the integral dynamic inherent to the conference of difference in everything.
\nIn this model, Koan 90.2 declares atonement the 'action to be at one' as the generative cause to conference: the 'condition of bearing together'. It is not guilt-driven penance but the active, creative movement toward relational unity—the necessary impulse that makes any conference of difference possible. Atonement is ontological before it is moral. The book-end to atonement is forgiveness: that 'measure of giving away' to that which differs: 'bears apart'.
\nThis is not mere clemency or pardon, but the ontological release that allows differences to bear together in co-petition not competition.[9] It is the ‘giving away’ that makes the 'bearing apart' sustainable and productive. Neither alone suffices; for as Koan 90.4 declares, they are reciprocally necessary. Without atonement, forgiveness has nothing toward which to give way; without forgiveness, atonement’s movement toward unity becomes a crushing imposition.
\nThis is salvation realized within the conference of difference. It is the experience of ease within the inherent tension of differences in relation, where, as Koan 90.6 declares dukkha: 'unease' is minimized not by eliminating those differences but by a measure of giving away to them.[10] The model makes a bold claim in Koan 90.7 of universal accessibility: all existence experiences salvation through the harmony of atonement and forgiveness. This is not a doctrinal assertion but an ontological fact. Every being, by virtue of participating in the conference of difference (relational existence), partakes in this harmony in order to accumulate power: 'ability'.
\nConsequently, this vision is resolutely non-transactional and non-violent. It rejects the logic of sacrificial debt-payment to a divine creditor. Instead, atonement is reframed as the courageous movement toward the other and forgiveness as the graceful giving away to the difference that brings. It is a non-violent, reciprocal rhythm intrinsic to reality itself. Most importantly, it is present and participatory. Salvation is not deferred to a future reward but is realized moment-to-moment through our active participation in the conference of difference. It is the lived rhythm of mutual approach and release that manifests salvation in existence.
\nThis ontological model of salvation does not emerge in a vacuum. It resonates with deep currents in classical thought while diverging sharply from others, creating a new synthesis. The convergences are revealing. With covenant theology, it affirms salvation as relational fidelity, though it reconceives the covenant itself as the ontological conference of difference, the fundamental pact of existence. With the Buddhist diagnosis of dukkha and its cessation, it aligns perfectly on salvation as the minimization of unease, but it locates this ease within a dynamic relational harmony rather than the cessation of craving and individuation.
\nThere is a significant convergence with Eastern non-duality on the goal of overcoming the sense of separation. However, the Gospel of Being achieves this through the dynamic relation that is the conference of difference, not through the dissolution of all distinction. It also resonates strongly with modern psychological integration, sharing the vision of salvation as wholeness, but it grounds this wholeness in ontological relationality rather than solely in intrapsychic dynamics.
\nThe divergences, however, are where the model’s radical reframing becomes most clear. It rejects transactional models outright, diverging completely from sacrificial, satisfaction, and penal substitutionary atonement theories. Here, salvation is an harmonic process, not a cosmic debt settlement. It rejects exclusivity on principle. Contra particularist soteriologies, salvation is presented as universally operational within existence itself, not contingent on specific belief or affiliation.
\nIt opposes eschatological deferral. Salvation is immanent and continuous, a present-tense process, not a future reward parceled out after death or at the end of time. It rejects the individualism of many salvific schemes. In this view, salvation is irreducibly relational and collective; it occurs within the conference of difference throughout existence, not within an isolated, self-contained soul. Finally and perhaps most fundamentally, it rejects supernaturalism as a necessary component. This is a fully ontological model requiring no supernatural agents or realms; salvation is simply the inherent ‘safety’ found in well-functioning relationality. This is the essence of the shift: from a metaphysical anomaly to an ontological foundation.
\nSo, what does this ontological reframing of salvation ultimately offer? Philosophically, it relocates salvation from the realm of metaphysical anomaly to the foundational process by which existence maintains relational equilibrium. It declares that salvation is ontology, not eschatology—a fact about how things are, not a promise about how they might one day be.
\nTheologically, it liberates salvation concepts from transactional, violent, and exclusive frameworks. It offers a non-sacrificial, universal model grounded in the simple, profound rhythm of relational harmony: moving toward and giving way.
\nEthically, this is not abstract. Salvation as the process of having safety provides a potent framework for conflict transformation, restorative justice and reconciliation. It gives us a language for the practical, gritty work of atonement—the courageous movement toward the other—and forgiveness—the graceful release that allows new relation to begin.
\nOn a personal level, it democratizes the quest. It invites participation not through subscribing to a dogma, but through relational practice: the daily courage to atone, to move toward others in their difference, and the daily grace to give way to those differences in order that we might transform ourselves.
\nEcologically, the model finds profound expression. Salvation is the health of an ecosystem, the dynamic balance of a community, achieved through the reciprocal adaptation and release of its countless constituent parts. It is the safety of the whole, emergent from the harmonious conference of all its differences.
\nUltimately, the Gospel of Being makes salvation utterly common and yet endlessly profound. It is not a prize for the theologically correct or the spiritually elite, but the lived rhythm of all existence. This rhythm extends even to our understanding of legacy and identity, suggesting a soul not as a private substance but as a 'shared knowing' maintained within the conference of the living—a vision for another discussion. To be is to participate in the salvific conference of difference. Our safety, our salvation, is found not in isolation, purity, or final victory, but in the courageous, graceful, and eternal dance of bearing together despite our bearing apart. This is the Gospel: 'God spell', good news written into the fabric of being itself.[11]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nMackay, J. I. (2024) Gospel of Being (1st ed.). ↩︎
\nFor example the complex fire sacrifices of the Vedic yajna where precise ritual action (karma) was believed to sustain ṛta (cosmic order) itself. ↩︎
\nFor the Upanishadic sages, salvation meant discarding the deep-seated feeling of being a separate, individual self—a 'me' versus the universe. Liberation (moksha) was the direct realization that this sense of duality is an illusion, and that one's true nature (ātman) is non-different from the ultimate reality (brahman). ↩︎
\nKant reconceived salvation as moral perfection achievable through reason within his framework of 'religion within the boundaries of mere reason'. Hegel framed it as the historical self-realization of 'Spirit' (Geist) towards freedom, a concept Marx transformed into a materialist theory of history leading to a secular, social salvation. ↩︎
\nMcDonald, W. (2017, November 10). Søren Kierkegaard. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2017 ed.). Stanford University. Retrieved December 23, 2025, from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/kierkegaard/#Reli ↩︎
\nNietzsche, F. W. (2006). The Antichrist (H. L. Mencken, Trans.). Project Gutenberg. (Original work published 1888). Retrieved December 23, 2025, from https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19322 ↩︎
\nJung, C. G. (1968). Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), The Collected Works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 9, Pt. 2). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1951) ↩︎
\nFrom this ontological perspective, 'death' refers to the dissolution of a specific biological conference—the organized 'bearing together' of elements that constitutes a living being. The fundamental particles and energy that composed it do not cease to exist but are released to enter new conferences. In a parallel sense, the individual's essence or 'soul' persists not as a ghostly substance, but as the enduring conference of memory, influence, and relationship within the minds and community of those who survive. ↩︎
\nMorphologically, co-petition means 'petitioning together' and competition means: 'petitioning against'. The ethic: 'character' of the first is unifying and that of the latter is divisive. ↩︎
\nA simple analogy in the Gospel of Being is how adding the difference of salt to a soup transforms both the condition of the salt and the condition of the soup: each atoning in the 'action to be at one' and each in forgiveness: some 'measure of giving away' to the other. Without atonement there is no cause to conference and without forgiveness no effect of difference. ↩︎
\nThis article integrates insight from the following source(s): DeepSeek-R1, Leo AI ↩︎
\n![\"on-transformation-02\"](\"/assets/img/on-transformation-02.webp\")
\nA dandelion releases its progeny on a side-lit wind, each seed a ghost of what was and a blueprint of what could be—transformation captured as dispersal, where the power to become is not held, but in a conference of difference with everything that surrounds it, courtesy of Nano Banana.
We live in a universe not of static nouns, but of dynamic verbs. From the cosmic—the breathtaking birth and fiery death of stars—to the biological—the quiet metamorphosis of a caterpillar in its chrysalis—to the deeply personal—the profound shift from ignorance to understanding. From brokenness to wholeness—reality reveals itself as a vast tapestry of unceasing change. Yet our human intuition senses a hierarchy within this flux. What distinguishes mere alteration from profound transformation? Is it simply the rearrangement of existing parts, or the genuine emergence of something fundamentally new? This exploration delves into our ancient obsession with transformation—the mysterious passage from one condition of being to another—examining how different ways of understanding reality explain our origins, our conclusions, and the phenomenon of births and deaths that make existence meaningful to us.
\nIf this seems like an abstract puzzle, you’re in good company. Every great philosophical and spiritual tradition has wrestled with it, for the answer defines everything from the meaning of a life to the fate of a cosmos.
\nOur intellectual history is, in many ways, a sustained conference on the nature of transformation. The Buddhist tradition, arising in the 5th century BCE, presented a radical starting point: anicca: 'impermanence' is the fundamental characteristic of reality.[1] Here, transformation is not something that happens to an enduring self; it is the only thing that happens. The doctrine of anātman: 'no-self' posits that what we call a person is merely a causal stream of ever-shifting skandhas: 'aggregates'.[2] Birth and death are thus convenient labels for moments in this endless flux, like naming a particular wave upon a boundless ocean. Nirvāṇa: 'extinguishing' becomes the ultimate transformation of consciousness—the quenching of the fires of craving, thereby breaking the cycle of pratītyasamutpāda: 'dependent origination'. Strip away the abstraction, and this is a story about seeing reality as a pure, ceaseless verb.
\nAlmost concurrently in the West, Plato envisioned a different kind of transformation—one of ascent rather than flux. For Plato, true reality resided in the eternal, perfect realm of Forms. Our earthly existence was a shadowy imitation.[3] Consequently, genuine transformation was anamnesis: 'recollection' and spiritual ascent: the soul’s journey from the darkness of the cave, chained to illusions, toward the liberating light of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. Earthly birth was a fall into a body, a forgetting; earthly death was a release, a remembering. The real transformation was thus epistemological and spiritual, a turning of the entire soul toward what is fundamentally and always real. Think of it not as a change in substance, but as a change in orientation.
\nAristotle, Plato’s student, brought the discussion firmly back to the world of substances. For him, metabolē: 'transformation' was the actualization of inherent potential within an enduring entity.[4] A seed transforms into an oak by gradually realizing its inner telos or purpose. The underlying substance—the essential 'oak-ness'—persists, while its accidents like form, size, and maturity change. Birth marked the commencement of this actualization process; death its final form and cessation. Here, transformation required both continuity (the persisting substance) and change (the unfolding of its properties).
\nElsewhere, the mystical Alchemical and Hermetic traditions, flourishing from antiquity through the medieval period, framed transformation as a sacred art. The goal was transmutation: turning base lead into gold, or the profane soul into a perfected, corpus glorificatum: 'glorified body'. This was not random change but a structured, symbolic process mirroring cosmic principles—solve et coagula: 'dissolve and coagulate'. Death, in this view, was not a final enemy but a necessary stage of dissolution, without which a higher rebirth was impossible. The Phoenix myth, rising from its own ashes, captures this essence perfectly.
\nIn stark contrast, the modern Materialist or Physicalist ontology, an elaboration of ancient atomism, offers an austere vision. Transformation is merely the reconfiguration of pre-existing matter and energy according to immutable physical laws.[5] A beginning, like the Big Bang or a biological conception, is a novel arrangement of prior particles. An end is the dissolution of that specific arrangement. Consciousness, meaning, and value are seen as epiphenomena—secondary byproducts of this blind physical transformation, possessing no independent or transcendent significance.
\nThese classical positions cluster around persistent, thorny questions that define our understanding of change. The tension between continuity and discontinuity asks whether transformation preserves some essential core identity—an Aristotelian substance or a Platonic soul—or constitutes a radical break that yields something entirely new, as in the Buddhist stream of consciousness or the physicalist rearrangement of atoms.
\nThen there is the question of agency versus happenstance. Is transformation something we do or actively participate in, like the philosopher’s ascent, the alchemist’s work, or the monk’s spiritual practice? Or is it merely something that happens to us, dictated by physical determinism or biological decay?
\nEqually pivotal is the role of negation. Is death, dissolution, or breaking down a destructive enemy to be overcome, or is it an essential, sacred phase of the transformation process itself? The alchemical solve, the Phoenix’s fire, and the Christian notion of 'dying to live' all suggest the latter.
\nFinally, we confront the axis of telos versus open-ended process. Is transformation directed toward a specific, pre-ordained end—the perfect oak, union with God, the peace of Nirvana? Or is it an open, creative, and potentially meaningless process, as suggested by existentialism and some postmodern thought?
\nWithin the framework of the Gospel of Being, these questions find a synthesis that reframes the very ground of the discussion. Here, transformation is not one process among many; it is the sole and ceaseless state of reality—the very 'condition of being' that is existence (Koan 100.1). This ontology dissolves the illusions of absolute beginning and end, recognizing them as 'sentient markers upon the boundless unfolding' (Koan 100.2). They are thresholds drawn by consciousness for the sake of meaning, not objective boundaries of being.
\nA beginning is thus reconceived as an emergent threshold. It is not a creation from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), but a gifted emergence within the eternal conference of difference.[6] It is a 'chosen aperture', a moment where a novel configuration of differences—a distinct new 'voice'—becomes coherent enough to be recognized. From this vantage, even the Big Bang was not an absolute origin but a 'transformation in state', a pivotal moment within the ongoing 'conference of difference' that constitutes reality (Koan 10.3).
\nDeath, in turn, is redefined as a transformative passage. It is the kenosis—the self-emptying—of a particular configuration. Death is not annihilation but 'a transformation in ability; a voice transforming from one chorus to another' (Koan 100.3).[7] The unique synthesis of power that constituted a being ceases its solo performance, but its capacities are redistributed. Its material re-enters biogeochemical cycles; its influence reverberates through memory and legacy. As Koan 100.4 declares, 'Immortality is a given' precisely because every being’s contributed ability becomes a permanent, causal strand in the indestructible web of transformation.
\nThe engine driving all of this is explicitly named: 'All transformation is a conference of difference' (Koan 100.7). This 'conference' is not mere interaction but a sacred, generative gathering where differences are not erased but convened. 'Without difference, there is nothing to relate to; without relation, no potential for transformation—no being' (Koan 100.6). To exist, therefore, is to be in perpetual, participatory transformation through this relentless relational exchange.
\nThis leads to a critical distinction within the model. The Gospel of Being separates cooperation, which 'multiplies ability within the known', from collaboration, which 'transforms difference into new ability' (Koan 100.5). True transformation—the genesis of genuine novelty—occurs at this collaborative frontier where irreducibly different powers engage in a conference of difference that yields something neither could produce alone. This collaborative axis is the sacred engine of complexity, culture, and consciousness itself.
\nTherefore, the journey described by the Gospel of Being—from the astonishment of Being through the salvation of atonement and forgiveness—is ultimately a journey through different facets of this single, ceaseless process of becoming within the relational conference of difference that transforms existence.
\nThis perspective finds deep resonance with some traditions while diverging sharply from others. It profoundly affirms the Buddhist principle of anicca: 'impermanence', agreeing that 'change is not a disruption of being; it is being itself' (Koan 100.1). Yet it diverges by rejecting the goal of nirvana as being 'extinguished' from the cycle. Instead, it posits a guaranteed, contributive immortality within the transformation, where every 'voice' eternally joins new choruses.
\nIt engages with Aristotelian teleology by agreeing that transformation involves the actualization of potential. However, it relocates the telos from a static, pre-determined essence to the dynamic and open-ended mutual process itself (Koan 100.5). The purpose is not to reach a final, perfect form, but to participate ever more fully and consciously in the generative conference.
\nThe divergence from Materialist Physicalism is radical. The Gospel of Being frames transformation as inherently meaningful and communicative. Death is a 'voice transforming from one chorus to another' (Koan 100.3), not merely a thermodynamic reconfiguration of matter. The entire process is imbued with the logic of relation and legacy, rendering 'immortality' a given feature of contributive action, not a scientific impossibility.
\nThere is a powerful convergence with the Alchemical and Hermetic traditions. The Gospel spiritualizes and universalizes the alchemical maxim. It shares the sacred view of transformation as an art involving dissolution (solve) and recombination (coagula), seeing this pattern in everything from stellar death to the mechanics of forgiveness (Koan 90.3). It effectively frames the entire cosmos as an alchemical workshop of difference in conference.
\nFinally, while incorporating powerful linear motifs like atonement and forgiveness as the mechanics of relational salvation (Koan 90.1), the Gospel’s overarching view of transformation is fundamentally non-linear and without final destination. 'There is no beginning to existence, no end—only transformation without origin, without destination' (Koan 100.2). Salvation, therefore, is the achieved harmony and safety within the eternal process, not an escape from it.
\nOur exploration culminates in a definitive revelation: transformation is the heartbeat and the very substance of a relational universe. The Gospel of Being offers several transformative takeaways that reframe our existence.
\nFirst, to be is to transform. We are not static nouns awaiting description but active events of becoming. Our very 'condition of being' is 'ceaseless transformation' (Koan 100.1). Our identity is a temporary, beautiful harmony within a flowing conference, not a fixed and isolated essence.
\nSecond, beginnings and ends are thresholds of meaning, not being. Birth and death are not absolute walls but 'liminal points' we draw upon the continuum to make the flow intelligible to ourselves (Koan 100.2). They are profound transitions in our mode of participation in the whole, not entries into or exits from existence itself.
\nThird, death is a change of chorus, not a final silence. We are invited to reconceive death not as an end but as a transformation of our 'ability'. Our power is perpetually contributed to the ongoing whole, securing a functional immortality through undying influence and causal integration (Koan 100.4). We rightly grieve the loss of a specific, beloved voice, but we need not mourn the cessation of its eternal resonance within the symphony.
\nFourth, collaboration is the sacred engine of novelty. The most profound transformations in our lives and our world occur not through isolated genius or mere efficient cooperation, but through genuine collaboration—the conference of irreducibly different abilities to generate what was previously impossible (Koan 100.5). This is not just a social observation but the practical imperative of the ontology.
\nThe ultimate takeaway, sealed with the definitive 'Amen', is that 'All transformation is a conference of difference' (Koan 100.7). Reality is a boundless, multilateral, and eternal dialogue. Our purpose, our salvation, and our very being are found in conscious, collaborative, and contributive participation in this never-ending, sacred conversation of becoming. We are not passengers in a universe of things. We are active, vocal participants in a universe that is, itself, a verb.[8]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nThomas William Rhys Davids; William Stede (1921). Pali-English Dictionary. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 355, Article on Nicca. ISBN 978-81-208-1144-7. ↩︎
\nEncyclopædia Britannica (2013), Quote: "Anatta in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying soul. The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman ('the self')." ↩︎
\nsee Plato's Allegory of the Cave in Plato. (1997). Republic, Book VII in Complete works (J. M. Cooper, Ed.). Hackett Publishing. ↩︎
\nAristotle. (1984). Physics, Book II, Section 7. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton University Press. (Original work published c. 350 B.C.E.) ↩︎
\nPriest, Stephen (1991). Theories of the Mind. London: Penguin. ISBN 0140130691. ↩︎
\nFor a detailed analysis of the development of creatio ex nihilo, see May, G. (1994). Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of 'Creation out of Nothing' in Early Christian Thought (T&T Clark). ↩︎
\nFrom this ontological perspective, 'death' refers to the dissolution of a specific biological conference—the organized 'bearing together' of elements that constitutes a living being. The fundamental particles and energy that composed it do not cease to exist but are released to enter new conferences. In a parallel sense, the individual's essence or 'soul' persists not as a ghostly substance, but as the enduring conference of memory, influence, and relationship within the minds and community of those who survive. ↩︎
\nThis article integrates insight from the following source(s): DeepSeek-R1. ↩︎
\n![\"on-the-soul-03\"](\"/assets/img/on-the-soul-03.webp\")
\nIn the blur of release, two souls re-impress each other: the child’s impression of itself and their mother, and the mother’s impression of herself and her child, are forever changed.
What is the soul? Is it an immortal essence separate from the body, or is it the physical being itself? This is the central, ancient question. We've inherited a powerful answer: the soul as a private spark of divinity, a passenger within the body awaiting a final, heavenly destination. This vision has shaped millennia of art, worship, and law. But in our age of neuroscience and digital echoes, it faces profound challenges. If the mind is the brain, where does the soul reside? If a consciousness can be copied—a classic thought experiment on identity—which copy gets the soul? The traditional framework itself can feel like a relic.
\nBut the human longing beneath it is not a relic. It's a longing for meaning that transcends our biological span, for a continuity that isn't erased by biological death. This article offers a different map. Here, the soul is not a 'substance' you have—in the philosophical sense of a standalone entity—but an impression you make and leave. It is a relational construct, woven through a lifetime of action and sustained in the shared memory of the community that holds you. It is a story written not on the heart, but between hearts. To explore this, we turn to the ontology of the Gospel of Being, which sees all existence as a conference of difference: a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'. From this ground, a startlingly coherent and deeply human vision of the soul emerges.
\nThe history of the soul is a story of where cultures have located a person's most essential, enduring identity. To understand the Western journey, we must first look East.
\nEastern traditions often started from a relational premise. Buddhism’s doctrine of Anatta ('no-self') posits that what we call the soul is an illusion, a temporary aggregate of form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, all in constant flux and devoid of any permanent core. The goal is not to save an eternal soul, but to see through its illusion and attain liberation from the suffering its attachment causes. Ruism (Confucianism), less focused on metaphysics, saw the self as constituted by its roles and relationships—a son, a teacher, a citizen. One's legacy, or 'soul', was maintained through ritual remembrance and the ongoing performance of familial and social duty by descendants.
\nIn the West, the search took a different turn. For Plato, the soul (psyche) was an immortal, pre-existent essence, the seat of reason temporarily imprisoned in the material body. Plato admitted this theory had logical problems and his student Aristotle directly challenged it. For Aristotle, the soul was simply the form of a living body—its organizing principle, as real as the shape of a statue is to the marble.[1] It was the 'what-it-is-to-be' a human, inseparable from the body, and thus died with it.
\nWestern theology fused and transformed these strands. In Christian Scholasticism, the soul became a unique creation of God, infused at conception, intrinsically immortal, and destined for individual judgment.[2] This soul was considered a spiritual 'substance', making a person a composite of body and soul. René Descartes, seeking unshakable ground for knowledge, famously sliced reality in two: res extensa (extended matter) and res cogitans (thinking substance). For Descartes, the soul was purely the latter—a 'thinking thing' whose essence was consciousness, radically separate from the mechanical body.[3] This Cartesian dualism created the enduring 'ghost in the machine' problem: how do these two separate substances interact?
\nThe Enlightenment began to dismantle the ghost. Philosophers like David Hume argued the self was just a 'bundle of perceptions' with no underlying substance.[4] The rise of materialism proposed that mind, and therefore any idea of soul, was entirely a product of brain states. From this vantage, the soul was an illusion—a story the brain tells itself. In our own time, narrative theory captures a more relational spirit: the self is the story we tell about ourselves, a story co-authored by our culture and relationships. In this light, the soul is the protagonist of that story.
\nThese threads—substance versus relation, eternity versus transformation, private essence versus communal construct—set the stage for our current dilemmas regarding the soul.
\nToday, the concept of the soul is stretched at multiple seams. The science of consciousness pushes a hard question: if every facet of subjective experience correlates with neural activity, what work is left for an immaterial soul? The so-called 'hard problem'—why physical processes feel like anything at all—remains, but for many, invoking a soul seems less an explanation than a surrender.
\nPosthumanism—the consideration of life and identity beyond current human biological limits—and artificial intelligence present a practical challenge. If consciousness (however defined) can be substrate-independent, if the pattern of 'you' can be uploaded or replicated, what becomes of the singular, immortal soul? Which instance is the true one? The possibility forces a choice: either the soul is a uniquely biological property, or it must be redefined as a pattern of information.
\nOur digital age has transformed the ethics of memory and legacy. If we view souls as informational patterns, then our 'souls' are now actively curated online—through social media profiles, archived communications, and digital estates. This digital soul can be edited, hacked, memorialized, or erased by others, raising profound questions: who owns the impression we leave? Is a digital ghost a valid continuation of a soul?
\nInterfaith and intercultural dialogue further challenges the dominant Western, substantialist model of the soul. The relational, process-oriented views found in Eastern and indigenous traditions offer powerful alternatives that feel more congruent with an interconnected, ecological worldview. This leads to a final flashpoint: the ecological self. If we are fundamentally relational, should the 'soul' extend beyond human community to include the land and ecosystems that co-constitute our being? These pressures demand a vision that is both philosophically rigorous and capable of holding our deepest human concerns.
\nThe Gospel of Being enters this conversation not by adding another entity to the world's inventory, but by reframing what it means to be. Its central axiom is that all existence is a conference of difference: a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'. Nothing exists in isolation; everything is defined and sustained in dynamic relation. From this, a coherent vision of the soul emerges—not as a thing, but as a process; not as a private possession, but as a shared impression.
\nFirst, consider Koan 10.5: "Everything noumenon: 'having been known' and phenomenon: 'having been shown' exists as a conference of difference." This dissolves the old split between a thing's inner essence and its outer appearance. Your noumenal self—the 'I' known only to you—is not an isolated entity. It is continually influenced by your phenomenal self—the 'you' perceived by others. The soul, then, can be seen as the ongoing conference of difference between these two aspects: the conscius sibi 'knowing together within' and the conscius: 'knowing together with others', each shaping the other.
\nThis impression does not simply vanish at death. Koan 40.4 redefines omniscience not as a divine intellect, but as the constitutive act of the conference of difference itself which functions to realize everything. On a human scale, Koan 50.5 defines consciousness itself as a 'measure of knowing together'.[5] Your consciousness is not a closed circuit; it is a measurement of relations. When you die, the immediate, internal measurement ceases. But the measurement taken by the world—the knowing of you held in the consciousness of others, in the habits you shaped, in your lasting creations—persists. Your soul transitions from being an active measuring center to being a measured and remembered part of the wider, communal knowing.
\nThis is how the soul endures. Koan 60.3 states that all meaning is 'intending' thus sent: 'caused to go' that it might be sensed: 'transduced'. A life is a cascade of intentions sent—acts of love, creations, words. At death, the sending stops, but the sensing continues. Your soul is the sum of those transmitted intentions, still being received and reinterpreted by those who remember you. You live on in the ways your soul, held in the consciousness of others, continues to alter the course of their own conferences of difference.
\nTherefore, Koan 100.3 is literally true:
\n\n\nDeath is not the end of being but a transformation in ability; a voice transforming from one chorus to another.
\n
The ability of your physical body to act is transformed. But the ability of your life's pattern, it's impression—your soul—to influence, guide, comfort, or inspire is not destroyed. It is transferred to the communal chorus. Your soul becomes part of the social and emotional ecosystem, a voice now sung by others.
\nThe implications are profound. The soul is cultivated through a lifetime of karma: 'work', the energetic transformation of ability into purposeful action (Koan 70.2). It is saved—achieving the 'process of having safety' or salvation (Koan 90.1)—not by a celestial verdict, but through the conference of difference of atonement (the action to be at one) and forgiveness (the measure of giving away) with other beings. A soul finds safety when its legacy is integrated into the community's ongoing life through honest reckoning and graceful release. Immortality, then, is functional. As Koan 100.4 declares:
\n\n\nImmortality is a given as each being contributes power—ability—in the never-ending process of transforming.
\n
Your soul persists as a causal strand in the web of becoming for as long as its impression makes a difference.
\nThis applies to all souls, for good or ill. The soul of a tyrant, defined by harm, also persists as a communal impression as a warning, a scar, a negative space that shapes future choices. Its 'immortality' is a testament to the enduring weight of our actions within the conference of difference of reality.
\nThis view creates fascinating bridges and reveals clear departures from tradition. It converges powerfully with Eastern and relational models. With Buddhism, it agrees there is no permanent, substantial self. The soul is a transient, dependent arising—but within the Conference of Difference framework, this constructed self is not merely an illusion to be dispelled, but a real, relational pattern to be woven well. With Ruism (Confucianism), it shares the emphasis on the social self maintained through remembrance. Your soul is your legacy, actively sustained by your community. With narrative theory, it aligns perfectly: the soul is the story, and the community is both audience and co-author.
\nIt diverges sharply from Western substantialism. For Plato, Augustine, and Descartes, the soul is a private, immortal substance. In the view from the Gospel of Being, it is a communal, functional construct whose continuity is contingent on memory and impact. For traditional Christian salvation, the soul is saved individually by divine grace. Here, salvation is the communal achievement of safety through atonement and forgiveness—a harmony you help create for others as much as for yourself. Even against reductive materialism, this position offers a third way: the soul is not an illusory ghost, nor is it a physical object. It is a real but relational impression, as real as a whirlpool in a river—a persistent pattern made of dynamic relationships.
\nThe unique contributions of this perspective are threefold. First, it grounds the soul explicitly in the universal process of relation—the conference of difference—the literal process-primitive of existence. Second, it reveals how this physics of relation is already an ethic of care, legacy and remembrance. How we live matters because it eternally alters the relational fabric. Third, it redefines the stakes: the quest is not to escape relationship but to weave your relational impression with such care that the community cannot help but continue to hold it, and hold it dear.
\nSo, what is the soul? Philosophically, it is the pattern a life weaves into the endless conference of difference. It is not a ghost in the machine, but the unique and irreplaceable impression of that machine's running—its warmth, its friction, its music—left upon the world. It is a gift we leave, a set of differences we introduced that continue in conference.
\nHumanly, this changes everything. It elevates our daily relationships to the work of soulcraft. Every act of kindness and every moment of integrity is a stitch in the tapestry of your lasting impression—and conversely, every act of cruelty or betrayal is woven in too. It offers a comfort different from the promise of personal paradise, but no less profound: you will live on in the pathways you cleared for others, in the love you planted, in the truths you helped them see. This view fosters a profound communal responsibility. We are the keepers of each other's souls. To remember, to honor, to tell the stories, to forgive the faults and atone for our own—this is the sacred work of sustaining a soul.
\nIn the end, the Gospel of Being suggests we have been looking for the soul in all the wrong places. We've been searching within the solitary heart, the private mind. But it was always between us.
\nThe soul is the echo of a life in the cathedral of collective memory. It is not housed in a body, but hosted in a community--the continuation of our being: 'action to be' in others. This is the final testament: to continue being is to be remembered, and to remember is to sustain the soul. In this endless conference of difference, no voice is ever truly lost; it simply joins the everlasting chorus.[6]
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nAristotle. (2009). On the soul (J. A. Smith, Trans.). The Internet Classics Archive. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.html (Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.) ↩︎
\nInterestingly, the Bible makes no explicit claim for the soul's natural immortality; this was a later theological development. ↩︎
\nDescartes, R. (2003). Selections from the principles of philosophy (J. Veitch, Trans.). Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4391/pg4391.txt (Original work published 1644) ↩︎
\nHume, D. (1777). Essays on suicide and the immortality of the soul. Public Library UK. http://public-library.uk/ebooks/47/13.pdf ↩︎
\nThe Gospel of Being treats consciousness via its etymon: 'measure of knowing together'. This is distinct from the modern, introspective concept closer to conscious sibi ('knowing together within oneself'). ↩︎
\nThis article integrates insight from the following source(s): DeepSeek-R1, Leo AI ↩︎
\n![\"cod-thesis-c0020-zoroastrianism-03\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-c0020-zoroastrianism-03.webp\")
\nThe solitary seeker (Zarathuštra) in prayer to Ahura Mazda—by the river of discernment where the light of truth is revealed, a moment from the Gāthās reflecting the ancient Iranian revelation of cosmic dualism (c. 1500-1000 BCE), courtesy of Nano Banana.
Zoroastrianism’s core ontological claim posits a cosmic struggle between Ahura Mazda (the Wise Lord), the supreme, uncreated deity who embodies Asha—a complex principle encompassing cosmic truth, cosmic order, righteousness, and right functioning—and Angra Mainyu (the Destructive Spirit), a secondary, corrupting force of chaos and falsehood (Druj). This interaction forms the engine of existence, a teleological conflict in which human choice is decisive, ultimately working toward the triumph of Asha and the unification of reality. An analysis of Zoroastrianism and the CoD reveals a fundamental divergence on the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground dynamic relationality without recourse to an antagonistic duality or deity. Where Zoroastrianism frames existence as a conflict aiming for the final victory of unity (Asha) over disruptive difference (Druj), the CoD posits the conference of difference (CoD) itself as the constitutive ground of all unity. This analysis demonstrates how the CoD describes the problem of evil not as an external force, but as a sub-optimal mode of operation within the conference of difference of reality itself.
\nEmerging in ancient Persia, Zoroastrianism presents a profoundly ethical and cosmologically significant ontology. Classical Zoroastrian texts—particularly the Gathas attributed to Zarathustra and later works like the Bundahishn—present what is contemporarily understood as 'Eschatologically Resolved Dualism'.
\nThis is not hierarchical dualism (one principle deriving from another) but primordial opposition with eschatological resolution. The asymmetry lies not in origin but in destiny: while both are equiprimordial, only Ahura Mazda is creative, good, and destined for ultimate victory.
\nThe supreme, uncreated deity Ahura Mazda embodies Asha—cosmic truth, order, and right functioning. He creates the material world in a state of perfection. Angra Mainyu, equally uncreated but ontologically distinct, embodies Druj—chaos, falsehood, and destruction. He is not created by Ahura Mazda but exists as an independent counter-principle who chooses to corrupt the good creation.
\nThis creates a sophisticated ontological structure: at the cosmogonic level, two uncreated spirits exist in eternal opposition; at the creative level, Ahura Mazda alone creates material existence; at the historical level, this good creation is corrupted, leading to struggle and human participation; and at the eschatological level, the ultimate triumph of good and destruction of evil is achieved.
\nFor Zoroastrianism, this is not mere moral allegory but the fundamental structure of reality. The created world is the battlefield, and humanity, created by Ahura Mazda, is enlisted as an active participant through their choices ('good thoughts, good words, good deeds') to aid in the eventual triumph of good.
\nIn Zoroastrianism: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:
\nThe CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[1] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.[2]
\nThis comparison reveals a nuanced relationship between the two models, with significant convergence on the importance of ethical action and dynamic process, but a fundamental divergence on the nature of the process itself and its ultimate goal.
\nThe central philosophical lesson from confronting Zoroastrianism with the CoD is that a coherent and ethically potent ontology can be grounded in ceaseless process rather than narrative finality. Zoroastrianism’s great strength is its moral clarity and its empowering vision of human agency in a cosmic war. However, it achieves this by projecting the problem of evil onto an external, metaphysical antagonist, a move that risks simplifying the immanent complexity of ethical life.
\nThe CoD, by internalizing this tension as a corresponding aspects of the conference of difference, offers a more immanent and perhaps more profound solution. What Zoroastrianism calls 'evil' (Druj) arises in the CoD model from the breakdown or imbalance in relationality—from the failure of reciprocity, or the dominance of competition (petitioning against) over co-petition (petitioning together) (Koan 20.6). It is not a separate, malevolent principle but a dysfunctional mode of the same relationality that constitutes being.
\nThis comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by demonstrating its ability to account for the same existential phenomena—conflict, order, chaos, transformation—without requiring a primordial dualism or a final, eschatological resolution. It reframes the cosmic drama from a war between good and evil to the perpetual, challenging, and creative work of sustaining a viable conference amidst inevitable difference. This opens a new line of inquiry into ethics as a practice of ontological maintenance.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\n![\"cod-thesis-a010-conference-of-difference-home-page-01\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-a010-conference-of-difference-home-page-01.webp\")
This work presents the Conference of Difference (CoD) as the process primitive of existence—the constant expression that transforms reality and reveals abstracta. Through comparative analysis of 34 ontologies and examination across 14 domains, this thesis argues that the conference of difference is not only in 1:1 correlation with every abstracta and existent but also functionally necessary to reveal every abstracta and transform every existent.
\n\n
\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nNote: This is a combined entry for Nicolai Hartmann and Rudolf Carnap, who represent opposing poles in 20th-century metaphysics. A broader scope is fitting. ↩︎
\n![\"cod-thesis-c0030-jainism-01\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-c0030-jainism-01.webp\")
\nThe parable of perception—five blind ascetics each examine a distinct part of an elephant, a Jain teaching on anekāntavāda (many-sided reality) and the limits of individual understanding, rendered as a photorealistic study in humility and inquiry, courtesy of Nano Banana.
The ontological ground of Jainism rests on a radical form of ontological pluralism where reality is made up of countless separate, distinct things (substances or dravyas), not a single unified entity like a universal 'Oneness' or God; and a realistic dualism where these distinct things fall into exactly two fundamentally different, real categories: conscious living souls (jīva) and non-conscious non-living matter (ajīva). Jainism holds that both categories are equally real, independent, eternal, and numerous.
\nThis analysis reveals a fundamental divergence not only in metaphysical structure but in epistemological starting point. Where Jainism builds a vast, logical edifice upon a set of foundational metaphysical assumptions (eternal soul- and matter-substances), the CoD proceeds from an observed, constitutive first principle—the conference of difference as the process primitive of existence itself. This distinction in foundational justification is key to understanding why the CoD can sustain a dynamic pluralism without Jainism's categorical dualism and its attendant problems.
\nEmerging in the same fertile period of ancient Indian philosophy as Buddhism, Jainism presents a distinctive pluralistic and dualistic ontology. Its historical context is one of rejecting both Vedic monism and materialist annihilationism, forging a path centered on non-violence (ahimsa) and ascetic practice as means to liberation. The core ontological claim of Jainism is that reality consists of an infinite plurality of eternal, independent substances (dravyas), fundamentally divided into living souls (jīva) and non-living entities (ajīva). This robust metaphysical pluralism gives rise to the foundational logical and epistemological principle of anekāntavāda, the doctrine of 'many-sidedness', which holds that any entity can be perceived from an infinite number of perspectives, and that no single perspective captures the complete truth.
\nThe key mechanism governing existence is karma, understood not as mere ethical consequence but as a subtle material particle that adheres to the soul (jiva) due to its actions, particularly those driven by passion. This karmic influx obscures the soul's innate qualities of infinite knowledge, perception, and bliss, binding it to the cycle of rebirth. Liberation (moksha) is achieved through rigorous asceticism that halts the influx of new karma and sheds accumulated karma, allowing the soul to rise to the summit of the universe in a state of isolated, omniscient purity.
\nIn Jainism: a CRUP-OMAF case study, it's ontology is assessed as follows:
\nThe CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[1] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.[2]
\nThe central insight from comparing Jainism with the CoD is that a truly dynamic and pluralistic ontology does not require eternal, self-identical substances as its foundation. More fundamentally, this comparison exposes the critical difference between building a system upon first assumptions and deriving it from a first principle.[3] Jainism’s profound commitment to multiplicity is built upon axiomatic, unobservable postulates (eternal jīva and ajīva), which creates a fundamental schism in reality and frames existence as a problem from which the soul must ultimately withdraw. The CoD’s conference of difference, however, is posited not as an assumption but as the inductively identified, observable condition for any specific being or relation to manifest. As Plutarch's Firmus states, 'the principle is before that whose principle it is'. The CoD claims this logical and observational primacy for its constitutive process, whereas Jainism’s substance-based axioms remain contestable postulates. By locating primordial reality in this constitutive process, the CoD dissolves the Jainist schism without collapsing into monism, solving the problem of interaction not by bridging a gap between pre-existing substances, but by showing that relational conferencing is the process primitive, i.e. the constant expression observable of existence itself. This comparison strengthens the core thesis for the CoD by demonstrating its capacity to resolve the central incoherence of substance-based pluralisms from a position of greater foundational rigor.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nNote the set notation $\\lbrace\\rbrace$ here is adapted to mean conference with the Delta symbol Δ denoting difference. Additionally, every difference is itself a conference of difference. ↩︎
\nTo be elaborated on in Section 4.1 The CoD as a Universal Constant. ↩︎
\nA true first principle is an inference derived from the observation of a constant, irreducible pattern in existence (e.g., 'change occurs', 'effects have causes', 'identity is fundamental to being'). It is discovered, not invented. A first assumption is a postulate that is posited as foundational without being derived from the observation of such a constant. It is a starting point chosen to enable a particular narrative or system. It is invented, or at least asserted prior to empirical validation. ↩︎
\n![\"cod-thesis-c0040-early-buddhism-02\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-c0040-early-buddhism-02.webp\")
\nThe First Sermon—the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) expounds the Dharma on the turning of the wheel to the four ascetics in the Deer Park at Sarnath, a moment of the Middle Way and the Four Noble Truths made manifest, rendered as a photorealistic scene of historical revelation, courtesy of Nano Banana.
The core soteriological diagnosis of Early Buddhism is that all conditioned personal experience (saṃsāra) is characterized by three marks: impermanence (anicca), unsatisfactoriness (dukkha), and non-self (anattā). It finds no permanent, independent self or substance within experience; what is conventionally taken as a self is a dependently arisen flow of momentary mental and physical events (dhammas). The Early Buddhist framework is a map of suffering, not a theory of fundamental reality.[1] This comparative assessment reveals a fundamental divergence in philosophical purpose and scope. Early Buddhism offers a soteriological diagnosis of personal existence, deconstructing the illusion of a unified self to liberate from suffering. The CoD presents a universal ontology of being, positing that the relational process itself—the conference of difference—is the primordial process that functions to transform all phenomena—personal and impersonal. Where Buddhism prescribes cessation of the conditioned process, the CoD identifies that process as the constitutive ground of existence. One is a targeted therapy for the self, the other is a universal theory of being.
\nEmerging in the 5th century BCE in North India, Early Buddhism, as preserved in the Pali Canon, presents a pragmatic soteriology with profound ontological implications. Its core principle is that clinging to a false sense of a permanent self (attā) is the root of suffering (dukkha). To dismantle this clinging, the Buddha taught the doctrine of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda in Sanskrit; paṭiccasamuppāda in Pali), which states that all phenomena arise and cease based on conditions. The key mechanism for understanding reality is the analysis of experience into five impermanent, empty aggregates (khandhas): form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. Crucially, none of these aggregates, nor any combination thereof, constitutes a permanent self (anattā).
\nFramed with the OMAF criteria in mind, Early Buddhism posits a manner-of-existence that is fundamentally processual, momentary, and characterized by incessant change (anicca). Regarding the primacy-of-existence, it avoids metaphysical speculation about an ultimate substance or creator, focusing instead on the conditioned nature of all perceived reality. Its stance on the relationship between multiplicity and unity is radical: what is conventionally perceived as a unified entity (a person, a thing) is, upon correct analysis, a causally connected stream of discrete, momentary events (dharmas). True unity is an illusion; only the multifarious flow of interdependent phenomena is real. The soteriological goal, nibbāna/nirvāṇa, is what the Buddha called 'the end of the world'—the final death of the sentient self, with no return.[2]
\nIn Early Buddhism: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:
\nThe CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[3] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.[4]
\nWhile not a separate OMAF criterion, the ontological status of the self is where the two models most sharply diverge in application. Early Buddhism treats the feeling of a unified self as a cognitive illusion to be dispelled. The CoD, however, explains that feeling as created in the Conference of Difference: constructs of ‘past’ and ‘future’ selves are assembled in the conference we perceive as ‘now’. This does not affirm a substantial self, but provides a positive account of how the sense of self coheres—through the same CoD process that constitutes all of reality.
\nExamined alongside Early Buddhism, the CoD's distinctive feature becomes clear: its affirmation of the relational process as the foundational reality that actively constitutes pratītyasamutpāda. The central philosophical lesson is that an ontology can be fully process-oriented and non-substantialist without being reductively analytic or nihilistic. Early Buddhism masterfully deconstructs the self but leaves reality as a causally connected cascade of fragments. The CoD, by contrast, identifies the cohesive force not as a hidden substance, but as the active, constitutive process of the condition of being itself: the conference of difference.
\nThis comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by demonstrating its capacity to solve a specific problem that Early Buddhism—for soteriological reasons—deliberately avoided: providing a positive ontological account of the unity-in-multiplicity that interdependence implies. This reframes the very nature of the process Early Buddhism describes: not as a problem to be solved, but as the foundational principle of existence. This sets the stage for future comparisons with models that similarly attempt to ground dynamism in a positive unity, such as Process Philosophy.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nEarly Buddhism is fundamentally soteriological, not ontological. It is concerned with the existential predicament of the suffering self, not with abstract metaphysics about "Being" in general. ↩︎
\nTo be clear here, the 'end of the world' is the end of your world, not the cosmos. ↩︎
\nNote the set notation $\\lbrace\\rbrace$ here is adapted to mean conference with the Delta symbol Δ denoting difference. Additionally, every difference is itself a conference of difference. ↩︎
\nTo be elaborated on in Section 4.1 The CoD as a Universal Constant. ↩︎
\n![\"cod-thesis-c0050-confucianism-ruism-02\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-c0050-confucianism-ruism-02.webp\")
\n'Zengzi Kills a Pig' (曾子杀猪) the Confucian disciple (Zeng Shen) honors the bond of trust with his young son by fulfilling a mother’s casual promise, slaughtering the family pig to demonstrate that a parent’s word is sacrosanct, rendered as a photorealistic scene of domestic moral instruction, courtesy of Nano Banana.
This analysis examines the implicit ontology within classical Confucianism/Ruism[1] and contrasts it with the explicit ontological model of the Conference of Difference (CoD). Classical Ruism, as articulated in the Warring States period, is foremost a social-ethical system focused on cultivating virtuous relationships through li (ritual propriety) and ren (humaneness). Its ontology is pragmatic and embedded: a meaningful, harmonious existence (Dao) is constituted through ritually structured social order, understood to reflect broader patterns in nature (Tian).[2] The comparative assessment reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of relationship between multiplicity and unity. Where Ruism's ethical framework implies a normative, pre-existing harmony as the telos of relations, the CoD posits relationality itself (the 'conference of difference') as the primitive, a-teleological process from which all orders temporarily emerge. This demonstrates the CoD's capacity to reframe the core relational insight of classical systems without recourse to their implicit or explicit normative unities.
\nRusim, emerging from the Warring States period in China, offers a philosophy where ontology is inextricable from ethics and social order. Its primary concern was not abstract metaphysics but the concrete question of how to achieve a flourishing, stable society.
\nThe system is built on the cultivation of humaneness (ren) expressed through socially defined ritual conduct (li). The system was derived empirically, not metaphysically: Confucius observed that the family—with its natural hierarchies and reciprocal duties between parent and child, elder and younger—was the fundamental unit of human harmony. He generalized this model outward to the state and society, formalizing it as the Five Cardinal Relationships (ruler-subject, father-son, husband-wife, elder-younger brother, friend-friend).
\n\nflowchart TD\n A[Empirical Observation\n\n
Family Unit
父-子, 兄-弟] --> B[Generalization & Systematization
Five Cardinal Relationships
Li 礼 & Ren 仁]\n \n B --> C[Ethical-Social Theory
Harmonious, Hierarchical Society
Modeled on Family Roles]\n \n C --> D[Naturalistic Justification
Alignment with Tian 天 & Dao 道
“Cosmic Mirroring”]\n \n D --> E[Classical Ruist Framework
Social Ethics with Implicit Ontology]\n \n style A fill:#8f868a, color:#fff,stroke:#393537\n style B fill:#504a4c, color:#fff,stroke:#393537\n style C fill:#72696d, color:#fff,stroke:#393537\n style D fill:#aba4a7, color:#fff,stroke:#393537\n style E fill:#443f42, color:#fff,stroke:#393537\n
For classical Ruists, this social order was then understood as aligning with the observable patterns of nature, referred to as Tian (Heaven) or the Dao (the Way). The Dao in this context is the proper path for human life and governance—a normative, cultivated standard of harmonious conduct that brings human affairs into coherence with the perceived regularity of the cosmos. This 'mirroring' is ethical and metaphorical, not astronomical; it provides a naturalistic justification for Ruist ethics rather than a detailed cosmological theory.
\nIn Confucianism / Ruism: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:
\nThe CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[3] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.[4]
\nThis comparison with classical Ruism sharply illuminates the CoD's philosophical project. The central lesson is that it is possible to construct a coherent ontology of relation that is ground-up and a-teleological, without positing a pre-existing normative unity (like the Dao) as its foundation.[5]
\nThis comparison strengthens the thesis by demonstrating the CoD's capacity to absorb the core relational strength of a classical system—its focus on interconnectedness and role-based stability—while solving the problem of its static normative cosmology. The CoD reframes harmony not as the default state of the cosmos to which one must return, but as the functional output of a CoD operating in co-petitive mode—a precious, hard‑won, and inherently temporary achievement.
\nThis opens a significant line of inquiry: if ethics are not derived from conformity to an external, pre-existing order, can they be derived from the immanent dynamics of the CoD itself? Having seen how the CoD re-grounds a harmony-based system, the next logical step is to examine its interaction with a philosophy that takes conflict and perpetual change as its fundamental principle.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nThe term commonly known in the West as Confucianism is derived from the Latinized name Confucius—but more accurately called Ruism, from the Chinese rú (儒). While ru was not originally exclusive to Confucius’ school, it had, by the Han dynasty become the standard self-designation for what we now call Confucianism or Ruism. ↩︎
\nTian functions as the ultimate referent or guarantor of the Ruist Dao, whether understood more naturalistically as 'patterns' or more metaphysically as 'Heaven'. ↩︎
\nNote the set notation $\\lbrace\\rbrace$ here is adapted to mean conference with the Delta symbol Δ denoting difference. Additionally, every difference is itself a conference of difference. ↩︎
\nTo be elaborated on in Section 4.1 The CoD as a Universal Constant. ↩︎
\nIn a purely functional sense, the conference of difference as process primitive could be seen as the Dao of existence — the 'way' things are and transform — but without Ruism’s normative, hierarchical, and cosmic-moral teleology. This reframes the Dao from a pre‑given harmony to the constitutive process of all becoming. ↩︎
\n![\"cod-thesis-c0060-heraclitus-01\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-c0060-heraclitus-01.webp\")
\n'No Man Steps Into the Same River Twice' (Πάντα ῥεῖ) the Ephesian philosopher Heraclitus wades through dappled shallows, the current curling around his ankles in perpetual flux, water never the same from one heartbeat to the next, courtesy of Nano Banana.
Heraclitus’s core ontological claim is that reality is defined by perpetual flux, famously encapsulated in the doctrine that one cannot step into the same river twice. This comparative assessment reveals a profound convergence on the criterion of manner-of-existence, with both models positing process as fundamental. However, a fundamental divergence emerges on the criterion of relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity. Heraclitus resolves the tension through a governing Logos, a rational unity behind the flux, while the CoD grounds all phenomena—including any perceived unity—in the prior, constitutive activity of the conference of difference itself. This highlights the CoD’s distinctive capacity to explain dynamic relationality without recourse to a hidden, unifying substrate. The comparison thus demonstrates how the CoD both incorporates a Heraclitean insight and advances beyond it, offering a more radically relational foundation for a philosophy of change.
\nEmerging in the dawn of Western philosophy, Heraclitus of Ephesus confronted the human problem of a world in constant, bewildering change. His burning question was: how can there be any order or knowable reality if everything is always slipping away? His radical answer, which rejected the stable arche of his Milesian predecessors, was that the only constant is change itself, famously captured in the doctrine of universal flux (panta rhei). The key mechanism driving this flux is the generative strife (eris) and tension between opposites—hot and cold, day and night, life and death. This ceaseless conflict is not chaos but is regulated by a hidden, rational structure: the Logos.
\nIn Heraclitus: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:
\nThe CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[1] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.[2]
\nThe confrontation with Heraclitus is illuminating precisely because of the strong family resemblance that makes the disagreement so stark. The central insight is this: one can fully embrace a philosophy of radical flux without needing to anchor it in a hidden, stable unity. Heraclitus took the revolutionary step of placing process at the center, but he took a half-step back by grounding that process in the Logos. The CoD, in contrast, takes the proposition to its logical conclusion.
\nThis comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by demonstrating its philosophical parsimony and explanatory power. It solves a specific Heraclitean problem: the need to explain the source of the Logos itself. In the CoD framework, the Logos-like orders we perceive—from physical laws to ecological systems—are not decreed from behind the scenes but are the durable, repeatable patterns that naturally crystallize from the infinite permutations of the conference of difference. The coherence of the river’s flow isn’t proof of a hidden river-god; it’s the signature of water conferencing with gravity and geology. This moves ontology from a model of concealed governance to one of immanent, collaborative production, setting the stage for analyzing models that mistake the stable patterns output by the conference of difference for its fundamental input.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\n![\"cod-thesis-c0070-daoism-01\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-c0070-daoism-01.webp\")
\n'The Joy of Fishes' (子非鱼) captures the Daoist sages Zhuangzi and Huizi in a moment of philosophical stillness, gazing from a weathered stone bridge upon koi fish gliding through amber water, their bodies tracing the effortless path of least resistance—wuwei made visible in fin and current, a living question about whether joy can be known or only felt, rendered as a photorealistic scene of tranquil contemplation, courtesy of Nano Banana.
Daoism is best understood as a monism that expresses itself through a generative duality—yin and yang. It is not a dualism in the Cartesian or Zoroastrian sense, where two separate, eternal principles are in conflict but rather a single, self-differentiating process whose complementary phases give rise to the manifest world while always remaining rooted in the undifferentiated Dao. This comparative assessment 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, undifferentiated unity. Where Daoism's system is fundamentally descent-oriented—moving from the One to the Many—the CoD model presents a flat ontology of perpetual negotiation. This comparison argues that the CoD’s framework offers a more robust account of persistent, dynamic multiplicity, resolving a tension inherent in the Daoist system between the perfection of the Dao and the problematic nature of the manifested world.
\nEmerging from the Warring States period of Chinese philosophy, the Daoist model, articulated in texts like the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi, presents a cosmogony and ontology centered on the Dao—the unnameable, eternal, and spontaneous wellspring of all that is. The core ontological principle is that the myriad things (wanwu) of the phenomenal world are transient, differentiated manifestations of this single, undifferentiated source. The key mechanism for this manifestation is ziran (自然), often translated as 'self-so-ness' or spontaneous emergence, governed by the dynamic interplay of complementary opposites (yin and yang).
\nIf the Dao seems frustratingly ineffable, that's the point. The text itself warns that any conceptual model of it is provisional.
\nIn Daoism: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:
\nThis model is further elaborated in the work of Zhuangzi, who explores the relativistic and transformative implications of living in accordance with the Dao.
\nThe CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[1] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.[2]
\nThe confrontation with Daoism throws the CoD’s commitment to a flat, process-oriented ontology into sharp relief. The central insight is that an ontology can be grounded and coherent without relying on a monistic, ineffable source. Where Daoism's Dao stands behind existence as a silent progenitor, the CoD locates the generative principle within the noisy, co-petitive and at times competitive 'conference of difference' of existence itself.
\nThis comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by demonstrating its capacity to solve a specific problem: it grants full ontological dignity to the world of multiplicity and change without dismissing it as a mere appearance or a derivative expression. The CoD does not need to advocate for a return to an undifferentiated state (wuwei as a return to pu) because the conference of difference is the very engine of being. This opens a new line of inquiry into ethics and action, suggesting that engagement in the conference of difference, rather than withdrawal from it, is the fundamental mode of existence. This sets the stage for comparing the CoD with process philosophies that similarly prioritize dynamism, but which may lack the CoD’s irreducible core of differential relation.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nNote the set notation $\\lbrace\\rbrace$ here is adapted to mean conference with the Delta symbol Δ denoting difference. Additionally, every difference is itself a conference of difference. ↩︎
\nTo be elaborated on in Section 4.1 The CoD as a Universal Constant. ↩︎
\nHowever, these are not definitive doctrinal claims but apophatic pointers, using tentative language (xiàng, kě) to gesture toward an ineffable reality that eludes final categorization. ↩︎
\n![\"cod-thesis-c0080-parmenides-01\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-c0080-parmenides-01.webp\")
\n'For What-Is Is Now, All Together, One' (ἔστι γὰρ εἶναι) the Eleatic philosopher Parmenides approaches the bronze gates of Night and Day, his chariot drawn by swift mares, the daughters of the Sun guiding him toward the light, Goddess Dike holding the keys to the path beyond which awaits the revelation: reality is unchanging, indivisible, a well-rounded sphere—courtesy of Nano Banana.
The pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides posits a core ontological claim: that true reality, 'what-is', must be one, unchanging, undifferentiated, and eternal, while the world of multiplicity and change is a deceptive illusion.[1] This comparative assessment reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground relational becoming without requiring a prior, static unity. Where Parmenides’s ontology must dismiss the phenomenal world as mere opinion, the CoD accounts for it as the constitutive expression of existence itself. This comparison contributes to the overall thesis by demonstrating how the CoD resolves a foundational tension in Western philosophy—the problem of unity and plurality that forms the core dialectic of Western metaphysics, as identified by philosophers from Plato to Hegel.
\nParmenides of Elea, writing in the 5th century BCE, presents a radical departure from earlier cosmological speculations. His philosophy, conveyed in a poem, distinguishes between the 'Way of Truth' and the 'Way of Opinion.' The 'Way of Truth' reveals the nature of true being, or 'what-is.' Through sheer logical deduction, Parmenides argues that 'what-is' must be ungenerated and indestructible (eternal), one and continuous (singular), and utterly unchanging (immutable).[2] To even speak of 'what-is-not' is, for Parmenides, a logical impossibility, as non-being cannot be thought or spoken of meaningfully.[3] This leads to a stark monism where all apparent differentiation, change, and motion in the world are relegated to the 'Way of Opinion'—a fallible, human construct devoid of ontological truth.[4]
\nIn Parmenides: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:
\nThe core mechanism of his ontology is a principle of logical identity and exclusion, where being is and non-being is not, leaving no room for the relational processes that constitute the world of experience.
\nThe CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[5] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.[6]
\nThe OMAF assessments of both Parmenides and the Author's CoD Model identifies a radical divergence on the fundamental nature of existence, revealing two diametrically opposed ontological starting points.
\nThe single most important philosophical lesson from this comparison is that a viable ontology need not choose between logical coherence and a dynamic, pluralistic world. Parmenides’s legacy is the formidable challenge of reconciling the one and the many, a problem that has haunted philosophy for millennia. The CoD meets this challenge head-on by re-framing existence as a conference of difference where unity and disunity are inseparable partners in the process of being.
\nThis comparison decisively strengthens the case for the CoD model. It demonstrates that the CoD solves the specific problem that forced Parmenides into a sterile monism: the problem of non-being. For the CoD, 'non-being' is not an unthinkable void but is actively present as the 'bearing apart' of difference, which is the very condition required for relational 'bearing together'. This opens a new line of inquiry into how stable unities emerge from dynamic relations, a question vital to understanding everything from subatomic particles to social systems. This sets the stage for the next comparison, where we will examine Plato's Theory of Forms—a dualistic ontology that attempts to resolve the Parmenidean problem by creating two realms: a timeless, unchanging realm of Being (the Forms) and an inferior, changing realm of Becoming (the physical world).
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nMcKirahan, R. D. (Ed.). (2010). Philosophy before Socrates: An introduction with texts and commentary (2nd ed.). Hackett Publishing Company. Ch. 11.6 'Parmenides of Elea'. ↩︎
\nIbid 11.8 'On this route there are signs very many, that what-is is ungenerated and imperishable, whole, unique, steadfast, and complete. Nor was it ever, nor will it be, since it is now, all together, one, holding together:' ↩︎
\nIbid 11.8 "I will allow you neither to say nor to think 'from what is not': for 'is not' is not to be said or thought of." Essentially, Parmenides is declaring that the very attempt to discuss or conceive of 'nothing' is a performative contradiction. ↩︎
\nIbid. ch. 11 'At this point, I want you to know, I end my reliable account and thought about truth. From here on, learn mortal opinions, listening to the deceitful order of my words.' ↩︎
\nNote the set notation $\\lbrace\\rbrace$ here is adapted to mean conference with the Delta symbol Δ denoting difference. Additionally, every difference is itself a conference of difference. ↩︎
\nTo be elaborated on in Section 4.1 The CoD as a Universal Constant. ↩︎
\nIbid 11.8 'Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike' ↩︎
\nMackay, J.I. (2025) Gospel of Being Ready Reference Koan 100.1 ↩︎
\nIbid. Koan 100.6 ↩︎
\n![\"cod-thesis-c0090-plato-01\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-c0090-plato-01.webp\")
\n'The Wolf That Was Only Shadows' renders Plato's cave allegory as a single revelatory moment: prisoners tremble at a wolf-shadow cast on stone, believing the predator waits inside—yet outside, bathed in sunlight, a puppeteer's fingers dance in play, the wolf nothing but hand and light and the terror of those who have never seen the sun, a living question about whether we can recognize reality when we've known only its shadows, rendered as a photorealistic scene of philosophical awakening, courtesy of Nano Banana.
Plato's core ontological claim is that true reality resides in a transcendent realm of eternal, unchanging, and perfect Forms (or Ideas), of which the physical world is merely an imperfect and fleeting copy. This comparative assessment reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground relationality and phenomena without recourse to a prior, perfect unity. Where Plato’s ontology requires a top-down emanation from a perfect One, the CoD posits a bottom-up, constitutive process where unity and multiplicity co-arise. This comparison demonstrates the CoD's unique ability to account for dynamic, immanent reality as fundamentally real, not derivative, thereby strengthening the thesis that the CoD offers a more robust and inclusive ontological foundation.
\nPlato's Theory of Forms, developed in the 4th century BCE, represents one of the foundational pillars of Western metaphysics. Its core principle is a radical ontological dualism: a distinction between the intelligible realm of Forms (ousia) and the sensible realm of particulars. The Forms are perfect, eternal, unchanging, and non-physical archetypes (e.g., the Form of Justice, the Form of a Circle), which are the only objects of true knowledge. The physical world we perceive is a world of becoming, a shadowy and imperfect participation (methexis) in these perfect models. Key mechanisms include anamnesis (the recollection of the Forms by the soul), and the role of the Demiurge in the Timaeus, who crafts the universe by looking to the Forms as a template.
\nIn Plato: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:
\nThe CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[1] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.[2]
\nThe single most important philosophical lesson from this comparison is that a coherent and grounded ontology does not require a transcendent, static anchor. The confrontation with Plato’s Forms demonstrates that the CoD’s commitment to immanent, dynamic relationality offers a powerful alternative to classical dualism. This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by showing how it solves the perennial problem of the 'realness' of the phenomenal world; it is not a shadow of a higher reality but the primary expression of reality itself. The CoD opens a new line of inquiry by making relational process, not static ideal types, the fundamental explanatory principle. This moves beyond the need for anamnesis or a Demiurge, instead providing a framework where knowledge and creation (realizing) are seen as immanent activities within the conference of difference.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\n![\"cod-thesis-c0100-aristotle-01\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-c0100-aristotle-01.webp\")
\n"The Acorn's Silent Oath" captures Aristotle's profound teleology in a single, still frame: a single acorn has fallen, resting on its side in the quiet loam, yet its entire being is a trajectory aimed at the towering oak in the soft-focus background. It does not strive or strain; it simply is what it is becoming, its form and final cause made visible in the space between the dormant seed and the ancient tree—a meditation on purpose as the innermost nature of a thing, rendered in photorealistic stillness by Nano Banana.
Aristotle founded Western metaphysics on the concept of substance: reality is made of individual things—a person, a horse, a tree—that exist first and only later enter into relationships. This 'things-first' view provides a stable way to categorize the what of existence, but struggles to account for the how. This case study compares Aristotle’s substance ontology with the Conference of Difference (CoD) model and in doing so inverts Aristotle’s premise. The CoD claims that before things can be related, there must be some process that relates them. The comparison reveals that this process of relating is ontologically prior to the phenomena we call substances. What Aristotle sees as primary—the individual thing—emerges within the CoD as a stabilized pattern of relational activity.
\nAristotle’s ontology is built on the principle that reality is fundamentally composed of individual substances. A substance is a concrete, particular entity—such as a specific human, a distinct horse, or an oak tree. These substances are the primary reality. All other aspects of being—qualities like color, quantities like size, and relations like 'taller than' exist only as attributes dependent on a substance. Without the substance, these features cannot exist. However, Aristotle realized his substances were not static. To reconcile a world of change with his stable substances, he characterized existence as a dynamic process of actualization. Each substance, he argued, possesses inherent potentialities that it strives to realize. An acorn’s being, for instance, is its process of becoming an oak tree. This leads to a definitional circle: a thing’s existence is the process of becoming what it already essentially is. Its purpose (telos) is pre-determined by its form. Thus, change is not open-ended creation, but the unfolding of a pre-set blueprint.
\nThis recursive explanation has been viewed as the system’s principal metaphysical difficulty. His ontology thus presents a categorical, hierarchical view of reality, grounded in individual substances—a system where the very concepts of dynamic change and internal unity introduce its most significant philosophical tensions.
\nThe CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[1] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.[2]
\nThe OMAF assessments of both Aristotle and the Author's CoD Model identify profound divergences and a key convergence between them.
\nThe central insight from comparing Aristotle with the CoD is that substance, while a powerful intuitive category, may be a derivative rather than a foundational ontological concept. Aristotle’s system brilliantly categorizes what the world is, but it cannot adequately explain how a thing holds together as one unified individual. The CoD begins with existence itself, defined as the 'condition of being'—which by extension is the 'process of declaring together of action to be', hence the conference of difference. By anchoring in the process primitive of existence, it bypasses Aristotle's wall entirely. Unity (conference) and multiplicity (difference) are not problems to be solved, but inseparable from existence itself. This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by showing its capacity to solve a specific, enduring problem in Western metaphysics: the problem of the one and the many.
\nFurthermore, the CoD opens a new line of inquiry into identity and persistence over time. In an Aristotelian view, a substance maintains its identity through change by its form persisting. In the CoD, identity is a stable, but never static, pattern of conferencing—a "standing wave" in a river of relational activity. This reframes beings from static nouns to active verbs, better aligning with process-oriented views in modern physics and biology.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nNote the set notation $\\lbrace\\rbrace$ here is adapted to mean conference with the Delta symbol Δ denoting difference. Additionally, every difference is itself a conference of difference. ↩︎
\nTo be elaborated on in Section 4.1 The CoD as a Universal Constant. ↩︎
\nThis is often referred to as the problem of "hylomorphic unity." ↩︎
\n![\"cod-thesis-c0110-classical-theism-03\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-c0110-classical-theism-03.webp\")
\nA watercolor triptych presents the sacred symbols of Abrahamic Religions in watercolor, the Menorah, Cross and Crescent Moon and Star. The impressionist technique softens every boundary between panels as if the pigments themselves remember a common origin, each symbol complete in its own frame yet impossible to see in isolation—a meditation on three faiths tracing their lineage to one father, rendered with reverence by Nano Banana.
The core ontological claim of Classical Theism, as Abrahamic Monotheism, is that a single, transcendent, omnipotent God is the sole, uncreated source of all existence, which is created ex nihilo and sustained by divine will. This comparative assessment reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground relationality as the primordial condition of being, without requiring a prior, single unity. Where Abrahamic Monotheism derives all multiplicity from a pre-existing, Supreme Being whose will grounds reality—the CoD posits that the unity and multiplicity of reality co-arise simultaneously within the universally observed process primitive itself: the conference of difference. This comparison contributes to the overall thesis by demonstrating how the CoD offers a non-theistic, process-oriented alternative to classical creationist metaphysics, resolving the philosophical tension inherent in deriving a dynamic, relational world from a fundamentally single and immutable source.
\nAbrahamic Monotheism, encompassing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, provides a metaphysical framework that has profoundly shaped Western thought. Its historical context has parallels with ancient West Asian Zoroastrianism, culminating in the radical assertion of a single, personal God distinct from and sovereign over creation. Its core principle is divine oneness (tawhid in Islam, Shema in Judaism) and creation by divine fiat out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). The key mechanism is the absolute will of a transcendent God who, as the necessary being, voluntarily brings contingent being into existence from nothingness and continuously upholds it.
\nIn Classical Thesim: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:
\nThe CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[1] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.[2]### IV. Comparison
\nThe single most important philosophical lesson from this comparison is that a coherent and grounded ontology does not require a transcendent, simple first cause. The Abrahamic model, for all its explanatory power regarding origin and cosmic order, creates a persistent tension between the absolute unity of God and the radical multiplicity and change of the world. The CoD, by contrast, demonstrates that an ontology can be both robust and dynamic by locating the foundational principle within the immanent fabric of relationality itself.
\nThis comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by showing how it solves a specific problem the historical model cannot easily resolve: the problem of divine action and theodicy. If God is truly immutable and all-powerful, how does God interact with a changing world, and why does evil exist? The CoD dissolves these questions by removing the transcendent actor. In the CoD, 'creation' and its events are not the acts of a divine will but the probabilistic outcomes of the eternal conference of difference. This opens a new line of inquiry into ethics and meaning that is based on co-petition and reciprocal responsibility within the web of existence, rather than on obedience to a transcendent lawgiver.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\n![\"cod-thesis-c0130-plotinus-01\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-c0130-plotinus-01.webp\")
\n'Withdraw into yourself and look' (ἀνάγαγε εἰς σεαυτὸν καὶ ἰδέ) the philosopher Plotinus gathers his disciples in the Roman domus of Gemina, the light of the One descending through the atrium as Porphyry records the words that will become the Enneads—for the soul's true homeland is not in the city of men but in the intelligible realm from which it has fallen—courtesy of Nano Banana.
The core ontological claim of Plotinus's Neoplatonism is that all reality emanates from a supreme, ineffable principle, The One, which is the transcendent source of all unity and being. This comparative assessment reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground unity and multiplicity in the process primitive of existence, without requiring a prior, transcendent unity. Where Plotinus sees a hierarchical descent from perfect unity into fragmented multiplicity, the CoD posits the relationality of the conference of difference as co-constitutive. This section demonstrates that the CoD offers a robust, non-emanationist account of reality's pluralistic nature, thereby contributing to the overall thesis by showcasing its ability to resolve classical problems of the one and the many without recourse to transcendence.
\nPlotinus, writing in the 3rd century CE, systematized a Platonic ontology that places a single, transcendent source—The One—at the apex of reality. The One is beyond being and intellect, a state of perfect, undifferentiated unity from which all existence necessarily overflows or emanates.[1] This emanation is not a deliberate act but an automatic consequence of The One's superabundant perfection. The first emanation is Divine Mind (Nous), the realm of perfect being and the Platonic Forms, where thinker and thought are unified. From Nous emanates the World Soul (Psyche), which acts as an intermediary between the intelligible and physical realms, animating the cosmos. Finally, the process culminates in the material universe, which is the furthest remove from The One and thus characterized by multiplicity, division, and potential evil.
\nIn Plotinus: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:
\nThe CoD model claims that as a 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, a 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together can itself be described as a conference of difference, i.e. a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'. Hence, the CoD model claims that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence and thus irreducible in and of itself. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each conceptualization is, in itself, a conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but a constitutive pattern of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent transforms.
\nThe central philosophical lesson from this comparison is that an ontology can be coherent and grounded without being monistic, static, or reliant on transcendence. The confrontation with Plotinus throws the CoD's commitment to dynamic, immanent relationality into sharpest relief. Where Neoplatonism requires a top-down derivation of the many from the one, the CoD demonstrates a bottom-up, or co-related, constitution where unity and multiplicity emerge together.
\nThis comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by showing how it solves a core problem that emanationist models cannot: it accounts for the genuine reality, dynamism, and value of the pluralistic world of change and relation. It opens a new line of inquiry by suggesting that salvation is not a return to a lost unity, but a harmonious mastering of the conference of difference itself.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nEnneads, V.2.1 ↩︎
\nPlotinus's own words reinforce this interpretation. In Ennead II.9.1, he writes: "Consequently, as both the One and the Good are simplicity itself, when we speak of the One and the Good, these two words express but one and the same nature [...] This nature is called the First, because it is very simple, and not composite." The refusal to admit any composition—even in the designation of the First—underscores that for Plotinus, unity is not an achievement or a relation but a pre-relational absolute. Multiplicity, by contrast, begins only with the first emanation (Nous), which is already a falling away from this simplicity. ↩︎
\n![\"cod-thesis-c0140-samkhya-03\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-c0140-samkhya-03.webp\")
\nThe blind carrier (Puruṣa) and the lame guide (Prakṛti)—together they enact the cosmic dance of manifestation, a metaphor from the Sāṃkhya Kārikā (c. 4th century CE), reflecting an ancient dualism rooted in pre-500 BCE Indian thought, courtesy of Nano Banana.
Sāṃkhya philosophy posits a radical dualistic ontology, asserting that reality arises from the interplay of two fundamental, eternal principles: conscious, unchanging Puruṣa (pure awareness) and unconscious, dynamic Prakṛti (primordial nature). This comparative assessment reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of the relationship-between-consciousness-and-matter, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground both consciousness and materiality as co-emergent expressions of a single, relational process—the conference of difference. Where Sāṃkhya requires a permanent separation of spirit from substance, the CoD models them as interdependent facets of a unified ontological dynamic. This comparison underscores the CoD's explanatory power in describing an integrated reality without resorting to metaphysical dualism, thereby strengthening its claim as a robust, monistic process ontology.
\nSāṃkhya, one of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, provides a sophisticated metaphysical framework for understanding the cosmos's emergence from a state of potentiality into manifest reality. Its core principle is an irreducible dualism between Puruṣa (the multitude of passive, witnessing consciousnesses) and Prakṛti (the active, creative matrix of matter).[1] Prakṛti is composed of three interdependent guṇas or strands—sattva (lucidity, intelligence), rajas (activity, energy), and tamas (inertia, mass)—whose dynamic equilibrium and imbalance drive all cosmic evolution. The key mechanism is parināmavāda, the theory of causation by real transformation, whereby the universe evolves teleologically from Prakṛti to serve the sole purpose of providing experience and, ultimately, liberation for Puruṣa. This evolution unfolds through a sequence of 23 manifest principles (tattvas), from intellect (buddhi) down to the gross elements (mahābhūtas). From the Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF) perspective, Sāṃkhya posits a manner-of-existence that is evolutionary yet teleologically bound, and a primacy-of-existence rooted in two eternally distinct, foundational realities. The relationship-between-consciousness-and-matter is one of fundamental ontological separation, with interaction occurring only for the soteriological goal of isolating Puruṣa from all material entanglement.
\nThe CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[2] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.[3]
\nThe confrontation with Sāṃkhya throws the CoD's commitment to a unified, process-based monism into sharpest relief. The central insight is that a coherent ontology can account for the qualitative difference between consciousness and matter without resorting to metaphysical dualism. By identifying the conference of difference as the process primitive, the CoD dissolves the hard boundary between observer and observed, offering a framework where epistemology and ontology are seamlessly integrated. This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by demonstrating its capacity to solve a perennial philosophical problem—the relationship between mind and body—that Sāṃkhya, for all its sophistication, leaves as an eternal, unbridgeable gap. The CoD provides a more parsimonious and empirically resonant model, suggesting that reality is not a dance between two separate partners, but a single, complex dance of relationality itself.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nBurley, M. (2007). Classical Sāṃkhya and Yoga: An Indian metaphysics of experience. EPUB ed. Ch. 2. Routledge. ↩︎
\nNote the set notation $\\lbrace\\rbrace$ here is adapted to mean conference with the Delta symbol $\\Delta$ denoting difference. Additionally, every difference is itself a conference of difference. ↩︎
\nTo be elaborated on in Section 4.1 The CoD as a Universal Constant. ↩︎
\n![\"cod-thesis-c0150-advaita-vedanta-01\"](\"/assets/img/cod-thesis-c0150-advaita-vedanta-01.webp\")
\nThe parable of misperception—a man recoils from a coiled rope in dim twilight, seeing instead a deadly cobra, the classic Advaita teaching on adhyāsa (superimposition) and how ignorance projects fear onto the formless real, rendered as a photorealistic study in delusion and awakening, courtesy of Nano Banana.
Adi Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta model posits a core ontological claim of non-dualistic monism: that the sole, ultimate reality is the qualityless, unchanging, and attributeless Brahman, while the world of multiplicity (māyā) is a phenomenal, and ultimately illusory, appearance superimposed upon it. The Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF) reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground relationality and dynamic manifestation without requiring their dismissal as ontological illusion. Where Shankara’s model resolves the problem of the many and the one by negating the many, the CoD reconceives the one as the generative process of their conferencing. This comparative assessment demonstrates how a relational-process ontology can address the perennial challenge of change and diversity without resorting to metaphysical illusionism.
\nAdvaita Vedanta, systematized by the 8th-century philosopher Adi Shankara, is a cornerstone of Indian metaphysics. Arising in a post-Upanishadic context, it seeks to provide a coherent interpretation of the sacred texts that resolves the apparent contradiction between the world of everyday experience and the ultimate reality described as 'One without a second.' Its core principle is the absolute non-duality (advaita) of Brahman, the ultimate reality, which is eternally pure, conscious, and free from any differentiation.[1]
\nThe key mechanism through which the world of multiplicity is explained is māyā, often translated as 'illusion' but more precisely understood as a cosmic, creative power that makes the one appear as many.
\nIn Advaita Vedanta: a CRUP-OMAF case study, it's ontology is assessed as follows:
\nLiberation (mokṣa) is achieved through jñāna (knowledge) that dispels this ignorance, realizing the identity of the individual self (ātman) with Brahman.
\nThe CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\\lbrace\\Delta\\rbrace$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.[2] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.[3]
\nThe single most important philosophical lesson from this comparison is that the problem of the one and the many can be resolved without ontological cancellation. Advaita Vedanta represents the apotheosis of the via negativa, achieving pristine unity at the cost of the manifest world. The CoD, by contrast, proposes a via relationis, where unity and multiplicity are co-constitutive poles of a single, generative process.
\nThis comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by demonstrating its capacity to solve a specific problem that plagues classical monism: the problem of explaining change, relationship, and diversity without rendering them metaphysically suspect. The CoD does not see māyā as a problem to be solved by knowledge, but as the very texture of reality to be understood through participation. It opens a new line of inquiry by framing existence not as a state to be realized behind the veil, but as a dynamic conference of difference to be engaged within.
\n\nby John Mackay
\nDiscover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.
\nDiscover the book\nShankara, *Brahma Sutra Bhasya * ↩︎
\nNote the set notation $\\lbrace\\rbrace$ here is adapted to mean conference with the Delta symbol $\\Delta$ denoting difference. Additionally, every difference is itself a conference of difference. ↩︎
\nTo be elaborated on in Section 4.1 The CoD as a Universal Constant. ↩︎
\nGospel of Being, Koan 10.1 ↩︎
\nGospel of Being, Koan 100.1 ↩︎
\nGospel of Being, Koan 100.6 ↩︎
\n