Methodology

What, how and why?

...

1. Why this methodology?

Every ontology is proposed from within a methodology, but few make their methodology explicit. The result is a hidden asymmetry: ontologies that inherit the dominant assumptions of their tradition appear more 'natural' or 'rigorous' than ontologies that begin elsewhere. They are not more rigorous; they are playing on home ground. The Rationale argues that this asymmetry runs deeper than method—that substance grammar is embedded in the language of ontology, and that the CoD requires a process lingua franca in which its central tenets are coherent. If that argument holds, it has a methodological consequence: any assessment of the CoD must avoid importing the substance grammar the CoD denies. A method formulated in substance-laden terms would subsume the CoD rather than explicate it, translating it into a vocabulary that is antithetical to process ontology itself. The assessment would foreclose this thesis before it began—not by argument, but by grammar.

This is the asymmetry OMAF is designed to correct. Its criteria—completeness, robustness, usefulness, potential—are formulated at a level of abstraction that does not presuppose any particular primitive. Completeness, robustness, usefulness, and potential are questions any ontology must answer, whether it begins from substance, process, relation, or event. The level playing field is not neutrality—no vocabulary is neutral. It is a counter-weight to the substance tilt built into the language in which ontologies are written. Two things should be noted about OMAF's limits. The first concerns its criteria: two of them lean substance-ward in their wording. Persistence should be read as stability or recurrence rather than identity across time, and integrability mildly favors ontologies that already fit the substance-shaped disciplines. The second caveat concerns its scope: CRUP-OMAF can establish the CoD's adequacy but not its distinctive advantage. The latter requires the comparative positioning of the Comparative analyses in Section 2. The CRUP-OMAF Hybrid Rubric levels the playing field for ontological assessment without conferring an advantage due to choice of vocabulary.

The rest of the methodology follows from this. Because ontologies of existence are not empirical theories, comparison must be qualitative and hermeneutic rather than metric: it identifies resonances, divergences, and innovations across 38 historical and contemporary ontologies, but does not pretend to rank them on a single scale. The goal is positioning, not scoring. And because the methodology does not claim a view from nowhere, it is reflexive about its interpretive dimension and vulnerable in principle to failure. If independent research across multiple domains consistently required concepts the CoD cannot accommodate without ad hoc distortion, that would count against the CoD as an ontology. This is not a weakness of the method; it is what distinguishes a genuine methodology from a rhetorical frame.

The rationale for this methodological pluralism is not ecumenicism for its own sake. Existence as such does not come with a ready-made method. The CoD's method therefore assumes as little as possible—only the minimal apparatus needed to assess any ontology on its own terms—and makes that minimal apparatus explicit.

2. Internal evaluation: the OMAF framework

The CRUP Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF) serves as the primary tool for assessing the internal coherence of an ontology across a range of criteria. It is not used to compare ontologies externally, but to rigorously assess the CoD against a standardized set of criteria:

OMAF evaluation results are presented in summary tables and radar charts in the Formal Evaluation section, providing a transparent self-assessment of the CoD’s strengths and limitations.

3. Comparative positioning: qualitative hermeneutic analysis

The CoD framework shares family resemblances with several existing approaches, including Carlo Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics (which treats properties as relative to interactions), David Bohm's implicate order (which posits an undivided wholeness underlying manifest reality), and even certain strands of process philosophy in the tradition of Whitehead. However, the CoD distinguishes itself through its single primitive $\lbrace\Delta\rbrace$, its recursive structure, and its application across all domains of existence.

To situate the CoD within the broader philosophical tradition, a qualitative comparative analysis of 38 historical and contemporary ontologies is conducted. This approach acknowledges that:

The comparative analyses follow a structured yet flexible pattern for each ontology:

4. Domain-based evidence mapping

To demonstrate the CoD's applicability across both physical and abstract layers, evidence is organized into 12 distinct domains, grouped into three tiers:

4.1 Fundamental domains (grounding layers)

The first four domains are not presented as isolated categories. Instead, they are understood as a nested hierarchy of conferences of differences, where each subsequent domain emerges from, depends upon, but is not reducible to, the one before it. They represent increasing orders of organizational complexity, all by virtue of the same core process—the Conference of Difference (CoD):

  1. Physical domain: The first-order CoD. This is the 'bare conference' of fundamental physical differences (e.g., particle/field, mass/energy) that constitutes the substrate of all reality. It is the domain of physics and chemistry, where relations are governed by physical law.
  2. Vital domain: The second-order CoD. This is the conference of biological differences (e.g., organism/environment, metabolism/information) that enables self-maintenance, adaptation, and reproduction. It emerges from, and is constrained by, the physical domain, but adds the novel property of directed persistence.
  3. Psyche domain: The third-order CoD. This is the conference of interior differences—qualitative differences or qualia—into a unified, self-referential process. It emerges from the vital domain in sufficiently complex nervous systems and constitutes the domain of sentience and subjective experience.
  4. Social domain: The fourth-order CoD. This is the CoD of multiple, distinct psyche CoDs (i.e., multiple cognisances) into a shared, intersubjective reality. It emerges from the interaction of sentient beings and constitutes the phenomenons of language, culture, and institutions.
Important
The third and fourth orders, while sequentially emergent, admit of degrees. A minimal third-order CoD (simple sentience as found in insects and many vertebrates) provides sufficient interiority for coordinated collective behavior that qualifies as a minimal fourth-order CoD. A maximal third-order CoD (reflective self-consciousness as found in humans) enables the recursive intersubjectivity of culture, law, and science. The hierarchy is therefore not a binary ladder but a field of intensities. The threshold remains: no fourth-order CoD is possible without some third-order CoD to draw upon. But the richness of the Social Domain CoDs directly reflects the richness of the Psyche Domain CoDs that constitute it.

4.2 Derived domains (cross-cutting interactions)

4.3 Meta-domains (reflexive layers)

Domain Interactions are examined through case studies (e.g., AI Ethics = Psyche + Technological + Ethical) to demonstrate the CoD's integrative explanatory power across disciplinary boundaries.

5. Causal argumentation via do-calculus

To move beyond correlation and suggest causal primacy, the thesis employs Judea Pearl's do-calculus as a formal framework for causal reasoning:

The do-calculus is employed to model the structural logic of the CoD's causal claims, not to generate mechanistic predictions testable by a single experiment. The interventions described are structural (what happens when boundary maintenance is present or absent?) rather than mechanistic (which specific molecule or institution performs the maintenance?). The former is the work of ontology; the latter, of domain-specific science. See Section 7.1 (The Ontology–Science Distinction) for the epistemological limits of this approach.

This formal approach provides a structured argument for why the CoD might be considered not merely descriptive but causally generative in ontological processes.

6. The what–how–why triadic structure

All analyses follow a consistent tripartite pattern:

This structure ensures both analytical rigor and narrative coherence throughout the thesis.

7. Reflexive and critical integration

The methodology incorporates several layers of self-reflection:

7.1 The ontology–science distinction

This thesis proposes an ontology—a way of seeing what is. It does not propose a scientific theory that generates testable predictions about mechanisms. The distinction matters. An ontology orients inquiry; it does not dictate results. An ontology of existence must, by definition, address all that is. But accounting for what exists is not the same as predicting what will occur. The former is the work of ontology; the latter, the work of empirical science.

The CoD framework is offered as a lens through which findings from physics, biology, neuroscience, and social science might be interpreted and integrated post hoc—after those findings have been arrived at independently, within their own disciplinary methodologies. It is not offered as a blueprint that pre-determines what those findings must be, nor as a ground from which experiments should be designed.

This is a hedge against confirmation bias and ideological capture. The risk of any ontology is that it becomes self-confirming: if it can absorb any finding as consonant with its claims, it ceases to be a useful lens and becomes a closed system. The CoD avoids this not by narrowing its scope—an ontology of existence cannot—but by distinguishing between accounting for existence and predicting phenomena. Its validity is tested not by experiment but by coherence, breadth, and the quality of questions it opens. And it remains vulnerable in principle: should independent research across multiple domains consistently require concepts the CoD cannot accommodate without ad hoc distortion, that would constitute meaningful failure of the CoD as an ontology.

8. Serialized presentation and cumulative development

The thesis has been published serially throughout 2026, employing a modular yet cumulative structure:

9. Practical validation through applied case studies

Beyond theoretical validation, the methodology includes practical testing:

10. Methodological summary

This methodology is consciously pluralistic yet structured:

  1. It uses OMAF for internal rigor without claiming cross-ontological quantitative comparison.
  2. It employs qualitative hermeneutics for philosophical positioning without pretending to scientific objectivity.
  3. It maps evidence across domains to demonstrate breadth without reductionism.
  4. It incorporates causal formalisms to strengthen argumentation without mathematical pretense.
  5. It maintains reflexive awareness of its own interpretive and speculative dimensions.
  6. It validates through both theoretical coherence and practical relevance.

The result is a methodological approach that respects the interpretive nature of ontology while demanding rigorous internal standards, acknowledges philosophical pluralism while advancing a specific thesis, and bridges abstract speculation with concrete application.

License: JIML v.1