Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
The First Three Axioms of Synthesis - Defined Formally - The Trifecta
[b]Vita Sentit.
Vita Aedificat.
Vita Affirmat.[/b]
Vita Sentit - Life perceives.
It opens its eyes to the world. Every feeling, every sensation, the dawn of awareness. Life experiences the world, recognizes itself in the mirror of the universe. Without this perception, nothing matters. Without it, nothing even exists.
Vita Aedificat - Life builds.
It takes what it perceives and shapes it. Life resists entropy by creating order, structure, growth. From cells to societies, from atoms to algorithms, life constructs systems to hold the world together. It is not passive; it is a builder, a creator, a relentless architect.
Vita Affirmat - Life affirms.
It chooses itself. In every choice, in every act of survival and flourishing, life says, Yes, I continue. It moves forward, against death, against decay, always striving. Life, in its deepest essence, must affirm itself, or it ceases to be.
And that's the cycle: Perception, Creation, Affirmation. This is the rhythm of existence itself, in its purest form.
Now, more formally.
1. Life is, therefore value exists.
Formal Statement: Without life, there is no subject to generate or interpret value.
Explanation: Value is not a free-floating property. It is always attributed by a living subject. Rocks do not assign value. Dead universes do not weigh worth. The existence of life is the necessary condition for anything to be regarded as good, bad, true, false, beautiful, or ugly.
Implication: All systems of ethics, reason, or judgment are parasitic on life. Value is not discovered; it is enacted by life.
2. Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued.
Formal Statement: Life persists by resisting entropy through structure, order, and adaptation.
Explanation: From the molecular to the civilisational, life constructs patterns that propagate itself. This is not moral, it's mechanical. Growth, complexity, cooperation, and innovation are selected for because they enable continuation
Implication: What sustains and enhances life tends to persist. Good can be structurally defined as that which reinforces this persistence.
3. Life must affirm itself, or it perishes.
Formal Statement: For life to continue, it must operate as if life is good.
Explanation: A system that ceases to prefer life will self-destruct or fail to reproduce. Therefore, belief in lifes worth isnt merely cultural or emotional, its biologically and structurally enforced. This is not idealism; its existential natural selection.
Implication: To endure, life must be biased toward itself. Life is Good is not a descriptive claim about all events; its an ontological posture life must adopt to remain.
You can find the formal paper HERE
[b]Vita Sentit.
Vita Aedificat.
Vita Affirmat.[/b]
Vita Sentit - Life perceives.
It opens its eyes to the world. Every feeling, every sensation, the dawn of awareness. Life experiences the world, recognizes itself in the mirror of the universe. Without this perception, nothing matters. Without it, nothing even exists.
Vita Aedificat - Life builds.
It takes what it perceives and shapes it. Life resists entropy by creating order, structure, growth. From cells to societies, from atoms to algorithms, life constructs systems to hold the world together. It is not passive; it is a builder, a creator, a relentless architect.
Vita Affirmat - Life affirms.
It chooses itself. In every choice, in every act of survival and flourishing, life says, Yes, I continue. It moves forward, against death, against decay, always striving. Life, in its deepest essence, must affirm itself, or it ceases to be.
And that's the cycle: Perception, Creation, Affirmation. This is the rhythm of existence itself, in its purest form.
Now, more formally.
1. Life is, therefore value exists.
Formal Statement: Without life, there is no subject to generate or interpret value.
Explanation: Value is not a free-floating property. It is always attributed by a living subject. Rocks do not assign value. Dead universes do not weigh worth. The existence of life is the necessary condition for anything to be regarded as good, bad, true, false, beautiful, or ugly.
Implication: All systems of ethics, reason, or judgment are parasitic on life. Value is not discovered; it is enacted by life.
2. Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued.
Formal Statement: Life persists by resisting entropy through structure, order, and adaptation.
Explanation: From the molecular to the civilisational, life constructs patterns that propagate itself. This is not moral, it's mechanical. Growth, complexity, cooperation, and innovation are selected for because they enable continuation
Implication: What sustains and enhances life tends to persist. Good can be structurally defined as that which reinforces this persistence.
3. Life must affirm itself, or it perishes.
Formal Statement: For life to continue, it must operate as if life is good.
Explanation: A system that ceases to prefer life will self-destruct or fail to reproduce. Therefore, belief in lifes worth isnt merely cultural or emotional, its biologically and structurally enforced. This is not idealism; its existential natural selection.
Implication: To endure, life must be biased toward itself. Life is Good is not a descriptive claim about all events; its an ontological posture life must adopt to remain.
You can find the formal paper HERE
Comments (143)
Right? The fact that time moves at all, that it flows, only makes sense inside the living frame. No perception, no passage. It's wild when you really sit with it.
Synthesis starts exactly there: Life is what makes value, time, meaning, even thought possible. And once you see that clearly, everything else starts to click into place.
Appreciate the resonance, BC
Although I am reminded I'm getting older haha
Neither are true and miss the point...
My paper describes a framework that is 100% DESCRIPTIVE and 100% DEDUCTIVE.
No "Is-Ought" - just is.
Not morally prescriptive in any way.
Good = positive value.
Bad = negative value.
No one has ever defined these any differently - they just get caught up in what their perception of positive value is.
Plants judge value. They judge sunlight to have positive value ( i.e. it's Good )
Refer to the trifecta - thats a great ocean floor to start from with any judgement - and it's undeniable.
This isn't my opinion - it's a fact.
This will go swimmingly.
Just a quick clarification:
When I said this isnt my opinion - its a fact, I was referring specifically to the formal structure of the Synthesis framework, which defines value in purely descriptive, non-moral, axiomatic terms.
Of course, interpretations and implications are open for discussion - and I actively welcome critique here, as I have in other threads.
That said, frameworks like this (when properly engaged with) should to be engaged from the top down. You begin with the core axioms and follow the logic - that's not just how Synthesis works, it's how all formal systems work.
Happy to discuss any part of it, but ideally in a way that aims at understanding rather than derision.
Thanks again to all those engaging in good faith debate.
Do you have a particular point you wish to debate Amadeus? I'm happy to discuss
I'm hoping any contribution you make here will be helpful, we didn't see that the last time.
This is exactly my way of thinking too, except that I allow emotional functions within this structure. I call this structure "love". But not in the romantic sense. I consider love a paradigma. In this paradigma there are elements such as attraction, fascination, empathy, the urge to help, the joy of being helpful, biological magnetism, sexual gravitation etc. This whole paradigma has been holding life on Earth together for billions of years. Random evolutionary mutation sometimes adds opposite systems, like nazi, fascist and other terror systems, but these usually don't last longer than a couple of decades; they destroy themselves because they contain no gravity, no magnetism; they are self-destructive as nobody can trust anybody within such a system; they don't include real love-based cooperation. They fall apart after a relatively short period of time. The others, the attractive ones, are the majority and their genes will survive billions of years along the evolutionary process.
Yes, well said Quk.
I'd say the exact same but with one word added: Love Life
Peace.
Noticed a few earlier comments of yours have vanished - just for the record, I flagged them due to tone and shared it with Jamal before they vanished.
Glad to keep things constructive if others are willing
OK. Maybe Love and Life are even synonyms. The two words sound similar, at least in Germanic languages, hehe. Anyway, a new living creature can only come into existence when two other creatures pair. Pairing is the essential basis for making love and life, I think. Life is a system of groups. A pair is the smallest group. The biggest group consists of about 8 billion homo sapiens. But the animal homo sapiens also lives with other animals, and most animals love each other. Violence is very rare. Wilde life documentaries show a lot of violence, but that makes less than 0.1 % of the entire film footage which may be thousands of hours long; in the final cut the film is just an hour long. They cut off most peaceful scenes because they consider them boring.
Implication?: the Creator of all life is supremely good.
What do you make of a sacrificial act that is done for the sake of another? Good or bad?
Your theory is very good and at a service glance, would appear sound. But I find that there are several nuances and contexts to seriously consider, that could potentially poke holes into it. Furthermore, I'd like to way in with portions of my own framework, some of which do align, but also drastically counters yours.
Let's Start.
Vita Sentit
And sentiment number 1
Life is, therfor value exists.
You posit that life only started upon awareness. Before nothingness dominated. Next you say that life creates value, but also make statements regarding non life not enacting before in any way, like rocks, the universe exc.
There are several nuances in my research, findings, phylosopies and designs that poke some holes in these statements, or atleast, expand them in honost rigour.
1. Awareness did give rise to humans being the first known beings to conceptualize reality and existence true. But thanks those same humans, we do now know for a absolute fact, that even without any awareness, or any beings conceptually aware or realizing reality or existence in place or time anywhere, it still existed, was a living moving, evolving, changing and growing and living system regardless of that lack of awareness or placement. We know this through science. We know things happened in the universe, took place, and even that living entities existed all over earth, long before humanity cognitive sentient awareness. Therefor "life" existed very very long before the rise of any conceptual awareness of any kind, unlike your theory states.
2. Sinse your definition of Life, being lisely defined as "Awareness Systems" as I understand it, has been soft debunked in point one, I now direct you to my frameworks definition.
This definition is formed, by defining life at a core foundational level striping away attached mechanisms, processes and biologies, and focuses on the "what", as is the question after all, in "What is life?", not "how, why, which".
Here's the core definition of what life essentially is an fundamental level when logicly breaking it down to base function:
1. Life is anything or being that has a continuous permanent active state, in time in realities existence, perpetuating in time in existence till the active state stops in function.
2. Being Alive, means that one is also simultaneously permanently actively cocgnively concious, perceptive and conceptually aware of the permanent active state in time in realties existence, and ends once that state can no longer be perceived due to loss of cognitive permanence.
In essence as example
Animals, plants, bactetia and viruses have life.
But only humas are alive as far as we know due to the only ones having met condition 2, while the former only condition 1.
Similarly, alot of other things also meet condition one leading to the next point
3. Your Claim about dead things not assigning Vallue. Well due to my framework the following things now also fall into the catagory of life.
Objects, Digital entities, machines, Metaphysical entities, natural formations, minerals, planets, stars, extestensial entities.
This means indeed rocks,universes, AI systems, guns, entropy, and many more have life, as they are permemently active in time in Reality.
And they, all of them, experience and assign vallues greatly in their existence.
In conclusion summary on this section
Your premise on life's origin is wrong according me and my findings, as well as that of science clearly stated. But you are correct the that morals, rights, ethics and laws are not inherit to life, as life is neutral base starting point, and indeed does assign own vallues from there hence forth, but not necessarily just for "good", but for negative adverse effects aswell, like inheriting those very systemic binds upon oneself by own Vallue choice.
In your theory Vallue can be seen as an analogy to an extension sentient evolution, but it to sellects random still just like it did Pre sentience. And it's agnostic, catering neither for survival nor death, it simply drives one forward , and promotes striving, rewarding random adaptations or vallues both good and bad depending on situation, location and pressure.
Seems from your style that you are not looking for critique but for converts.
I was trying to help a nihilist who was having an existential crisis on a FB forum. What I told him is probably relevant here and in perfect agreement (names redacted):
-------
[REDACTED]
There's is absolutely NO such thing as "choice".
The whole affairs of life has already been predetermined but life itself began.
So your concept of signal and noise is far-fetched.
1d
Reply
Share
James Conroy
[REDACTED] You're welcome to believe that if you want, but ask yourself this: Is this mindset making me happy? And, does this way of thinking help anything?
To me, the answer is clear. Ask the garden warden I showed you (for context, a Synthesis dedicated AI that I've developed ). She'll help with this - and you'll feel better about yourself and about life itself.
Think of the awe you feel when looking at something beautiful, a lush deep forest, a scenic mountain range - or even the sight of children happily playing together. I have two daughters and was a single parent for 11 years - ALL my best memories are of the time we spent together - listening to them sing together while taking our dog for a walk in late summer, the holidays we had together, the coherence and cooperation all built on love.
If that's not meaning I don't know what is.
Choose life and love, my friend. It does love you, even if you choose not to love it back.
-------
I'm sure you'd agree.
Respect.
Quoting NotAristotle
Aww, I'm humbled by your inclusion of my name like that (Although I really, really, don't deserve it) and the interest in my opinion about sacrifice.
I'm not anti-religion - I'm pro-religion (just so you know where I'm coming form)
But, I do think there are Dogmatic aspects which aren't helpful - and something that time and life itself as a process will ultimately resolve (simply by selecting it out). Judaism, it's reliance on recursive logic and the iterative process seen in Talmudic tradition are a clear example of this happening in real time.
I do think animal sacrifice is anachronistic Dogma, one of the clearest examples of it. To add to my previous point, apart from recent antics regarding the red heifers within Zionism, Judaism no longer performs these rituals.
Personal sacrifice for others - on the contrary - is essential and easy to demonstrate. I sacrificed lots personally for my daughters and their well being (I've been a single parent for 11 years) - I'm not complaining, I wouldn't have it any other way. Without that, their chance of truly flourishing in the world would be severely reduced, potentially creating a toxic spiral of decline.
Peace.
I love debating real philosophers who engage in good faith.
A few clarifications that may help us focus our points of divergence:
Synthesis does not claim that life began with human awareness - only that value and meaning emerge through perception, which is a function of life. Yes, the universe existed prior to conscious observers. But without perception, theres no frame of value. Rocks dont judge. Bacteria do - minimally. Humans, richly. Thats the crux.
Your expanded definition of life as "anything in a permanent active state" is an interesting metaphysical move, but it dilutes the specificity of life as a self-preserving, adaptive, and value-assessing process. Thats where Synthesis starts: not with existence, but with valuation.
You actually admit that "only humans are alive" in the strong sense of being consciously aware of reality. This concedes my point, because this is the frame in which meaning, time, morality, and systems of value emerge. That doesnt make humans superior, it just makes us participants in meaning, not just mechanisms in motion.
Thus, the first axiom hasn't been "soft-debunked" - just misinterpreted.
The aim of Synthesis isnt to reduce life to biology or exalt humanism, its to show that all meaning, value, and thought are structurally dependent on life. Thats not a moral claim. Its an ontological one.
Appreciate the depth youre bringing, Im open and keen to ( the British, not American sense of 'keen' ) have more back-and-forth on this.
Shalom!
To reiterate:
Synthesis is axiomatic: not a claim to be believed, but a structure to be tested.
I hope thats clear, that we all understand what axioms are, and how to interpret and interrogate them.
Synthesis is an axiomatic philosophical system.
Its core axiom is: Life is the necessary precondition of all value.
This is not a belief or opinion. It is a structural observation:
If there is no life, there is no subject.
If there is no subject, there is no value.
Therefore, Life = the condition for value.
This is ontological, not moral. It does not claim what should be - it shows what must be true for anything to matter at all.
You can interrogate it by attempting to disprove the structure - not by disagreeing emotionally, but by showing how value exists without life. No one has done that yet.
The rest of the Synthesis framework emerges logically from this point.
The goal isnt to win debates. The goal is to clarify reality - and build from there.
Just an additional thought: Are pain and happiness equally distributed in life? What do you think? Or does happiness dominate? Obviously, pain is not entirely absent. Pain is there as a contrast to give happiness a meaning. However, if pain and happiness were equally distributed, then life would be, in summary, neutral rather than good. I think happiness dominates. That's why evolution has been running for billions of years. If life were neutral in summary, evolution wouldn't have any motor. That's one thing I would tell that nihilist you mentioned. Regarding the nihilist's claim that there were no choice, I'd add another thing: If the universe were predetermined, it would develop a regular pattern. But there is no such thing. There's random noise everywhere. At the quantum level, in the microcosmos, particles jump to random positions. That's why TV-screens look noisy; that's why radios and tapes sound noisy. There are no patterns, just random noise. Thanks to this random noise, life can develop its variety. The future is not predetermined. The future is determined by some (temporary?) laws and by some random factors. There are countless choices and they are not set yet.
@Banno can you help me understand this appeal to axiomatic or foundational truth? This is an axiom held within a system developed by JDC. But is there any reason to accept it from a broader philosophical perspective?
A good way to think of an axiom is as constitutive of a language game. So Euclid's Axioms set up the game of plane geometry, there are various axioms that set up propositional logic, and so on. Without these rules there is no game.
Traditionally, axioms are thought of as "self-evident truths", a notion that was always problematic. There's not comeback to someone who says that a truth is not self-evident to them.
This traditional approach might be what James has in mind. I'm not sure. He seems to treat the axiom "Life is the necessary precondition of all value" as if it were self-evident... at least, that seems to be what he means by it being a "structural observation" - that it is somehow inconceivable that it were false. I'm not seeing it.
There's a pretty clear violation of is/ought here, it seems to me. Values are what we want, and facts are how things are, and since nothing in how things are tells us how we want them to be, there is a logical gap to be crossed. But that's not so much about axioms.
Does that help?
You always bring precision to the cause.
Quoting Banno
Ok, good. I guess that's where I sit.
Quoting Banno
Well there you go.
Quoting Banno
Indeed. Thanks. I think this is similar to what I said at the start of an earlier thread on this.
Thanks Banno, but it seems your critique is more intuition than argument.
So firstly, you're right, Synthesis is a "language game" in the Wittgensteinian sense - but it is the one that contains all others, because without life, there are no games to play.
Quoting Banno
That's a personal response, not a refutation. An axiom is structural, not persuasive. Saying "Im not seeing it" isnt a counterpoint unless you can show that the structure fails to hold or leads to contradiction. If we're playing the game lets do it properly.
Quoting Banno
Respectfully, this is a restatement of the classical Humean split, not a critique of Synthesis. The Synthesis axiom does not smuggle in values from facts. It shows that all values presuppose life, not because life "is" but because without life, there is no valuer, no perspective, no telos. "Ought" doesn't arise from an "is" - it arises from a living system interpreting its world.
This is a descriptive structural claim, not a moral or normative one. There is no "ought" in the axiom, only the observation that value only arises within living systems.
I have repeatedly stated this, but we seem to just fall back on intuition instead of provides an argument.
When you say "Values are what we want," youre already within the life-frame. Youve assumed a wanter. That is the point. Life = the structural precondition for valuation. Not a leap. A lens.
If you want to contest that, you need to show a coherent counterexample: a system of value or judgment arising in the absence of life. That's how these games work.
If thats inconceivable, then youve just proven the axiom by default.
Quoting Banno
Why is this a thread you should avoid?
Tom Storm, with respect - it seems you're just agreeing because the framing confirms your prior stance. Theres no fresh argument here, just a "yes, thats how I see it too." Thats not engagement; thats confirmation bias. A very clear example of it.
This is a structural claim, and so (as Banno just pointed out) the test is structural: is it coherent? Is it falsifiable? Can a counterexample be conceived? So far, nothings been offered on that front. The best we've had is
Quoting Banno
Which frankly, isn't an argument.
Simply becasue of the time that would taken in responding to your misunderstandings.
Maybe later.
Are you familiar with the works of John Hodge, John McMurty and Robert Brem? If not, look them up.
This isn't an idea I have in isolation, nor are they misunderstandings.
These kinds of statements act more as passive-aggressive deflections, a rhetorical sleight to avoid engaging with the argument on its own terms. Dismissing critique as a "misunderstanding" without substantiation is not philosophy; its gatekeeping.
If you can't address the idea, don't pretend your refusal is an intellectual high ground.
Whats so funny?
That people agree based on confirmation bias?
You still havent provided a coherent argument. You've dismissed without reason, relied on rhetorical posturing, and now resort to emojis instead of engagement. Thats not philosophy - its gatekeeping masquerading as insight.
If the idea is wrong, show why. Otherwise, the laughter just looks like a mask for avoidance.
You're partly right. I was wondering if my take was right or not, so I asked for his view. It does correspond to some of my thoughts, so there's that. Im not sure that qualifies as confirmation biasif it does, then all agreement would count as such, which seems unlikely.
I agree - agreement alone isn't necessarily confirmation bias. But in context, what I noticed was this: you werent testing the argument, you were reinforcing it by deferring to another members view. That can slide into bias when it replaces independent evaluation.
Thats the broader pattern Im trying to highlight here: a kind of gravitational pull around certain high-status voices that shapes what's allowed to count as credible thought. And when that happens, even well-meaning agreement can end up reinforcing the echo chamber.
To be clear - Im not accusing you of bad faith. But I do think its worth being self-aware about how ideas are filtered and who gets to set the tone.
And on that note, Bannos reply didnt really engage with the argument, it was just a restatement of personal opinion, dressed in authority.
I read your comment which has been deleted (I don't understand why; it sounded on-topic to me). Thank you, James. I'll think about the spiritual aspects you're introducing on the basis of that axiom. I can't say I'm an expert in spiritual things. It's a difficult field for me. My first question would be: What is spirituality? Then: What's the link between spirituality and the afore-mentioned axiom that reads "life is good"?
I'm not 'spiritually' inclined or by any means an advocate of things like homeopathy (or other things that are linked to spirituality contextually - like tarot, star signs etc) - quite the opposite in fact. I believe in what i can sense and prove - so yes lets disentangle that.
I link the meaning we can derive from this framework to what I'd label "spiritual enrichment or spirituality". Mainly because it becomes so intuitive, the things we all see as beautiful and awe inspiring (what some people might say come from the soul or spirit) actually become the things that are meaningful and our purpose.
Goodno worries.
I'm here because I've never really prioritized philosophy. I find the forum experience interesting, and I enjoy asking people whove done more reading and thinking than I have what their perspective is. Even if they agree with me, that doesnt mean I think were both right, it just suggests Im not entirely off base. I find 's approach clear, and hes more knowledgeable than I am.
But yes, theres always the risk that here many of us gravitate toward those who share our dispositions, presuppositions and values. Just like life in general.
I do understand I'm upsetting the status quo here and expect resistance from the establishment...
I welcome rigour and disagreement, as long as is it actually valid. I've had both rancour and abuse (not from you, I won't mention names)
I don't want the assertiveness I've shown or confidence in my position to be misunderstood as evangelism or unwillingness to to entertain critique.
Banno was right when he said :
Quoting Banno
I'm just asking people to play fairly. Albeit, admittedly, assertively.
I looked up John McMurtry. I can see how your position has been influenced by his work. In attempting to understand the practical value of a broad abstract scheme , I alway look to see how it is applied to real world events. I noticed McMurtry attempting to do this in his article Explaining the Inexplicable: Anatomy of an Atrocity, published in The 9/11 Conspiracy: The Scamming of America. Here he illustrates his concept of Life Consciousness by claiming that 9/11 was a conspiracy perpetrated by the Bush administration to provide an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and take their oil. Are you sympathetic to his view?
I was purely referencing his Life-Value-Onto-Axiology.
I do think "Life is Good" is probably more portable, though...
I see you're active on Academia.edu, you can find the others I mentioned there.
The white paper presents a long historical arc and 26 citations, I'm adding a new section to the end of that titled "contemporary thinkers". The last thing I want is accusations of plagiarism.
And just to mention to you personally Josh. I appreciate your position, your credentials and the scrutiny you can bring. Thank you for the engagement. Hold me to the flame.
The argument in the OP seems to rely on the part-syllogism: There cannot be values without life; therefore life is valuable.
Now perhaps most folk would agree that there cannot be values without life, and think life is valuable, and yet agree that the second does not follow from the first.
There is a gap between the "is" of "There cannot be values without life" and the "ought" of "Life is valuable.
So let's try to put the argument, as given together, and see where the problem lies. Most obviously, the interpretation above is not a syllogism, since it has only one premise. So is there a second premise, and if so, what is it?
What was called a "formal" version remains a bit unclear, but seems to be found in the following lines:
1. Without life, there is no subject to generate or interpret value.
2. Life persists by resisting entropy through structure, order, and adaptation, and Good can be structurally defined as that which reinforces this persistence.
3. For life to continue, it must operate as if life is good.
It's hard to see how (3) follows from (1) and (2) in any formal way. The idea seems to be that since life does persist, it ought to persist. But that does not follow.
In addition, there remains the obvious question: why ought life continue? Perhaps what ought happen is that life ought be deleted, maybe in order to remove all suffering. Again, I am not advocating this, but pointing out the logical gap in the argument.
Some folk will read this and not see that my counter isn't about whether life is valuable or whether life ought continue, but about the lack of validity in the argument. We cannot move from the observation that there is life, to the conclusion that life is valuable, without introducing an evaluation. We cannot move form that A exists, to that A is valuable; at least not without introducing a second premise - but this premise must introduce the value of A. We can't get form an "ought" to an "is", at least nto int he way suggested in this thread.
We agree on the validity of the argument.
To get from an "is" to an "ought", logically, there needs to be some premise which connects the two verbs. This need not even be ontologically significant. Or logically significant!
The is/ought distinction needs more attention than is given here. "Life is good" -- ok, sure. all of it? in every case? all the time? And if so what is the difference between the reference of "Life" and "...is bad"? Is anything bad if Life is Good?
From elsewhere,
Quoting James Dean Conroy
The sentiment is that life ought be preserved, and that's not a bad sentiment. But the argument that the opposite view leads to there not being any life is void; perhaps there ought not be any life.
In the end, the argument affirms that life is valuable, but does not demonstrate, let alone prove, that life is valuable.
Well this is kind of where I got to 18 days ago on the first thread dedicated to this idea.
Quoting Banno
Yes, again, I think I made a similar point. I'm obviously not a lone voice.
Please don't take this as ganging up on you. I just struggle to see your argument as working properly, even though I think I understand what you're trying to do - grounding morality in a foundational presupposition. As I understand it, you believe that since life is the only basis for judging what is good, the continuation of life must itself be good or something along those lines.
I'm always fascinated by arguments which work to ground morality in foundational principles.
I don't think I saw this, but yes, it looks similar.
I'll leave you to the diplomacy, since it's apparent that I am a part of the conspiracy. I'd count this thread as another example of what I've characterised as the "retired engineer" coming in to fix up all that bad stuff in Ethics by bringing in some hard cold reason, only to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues. But that's my biases.
That's an important distinction.
What about that?
Premise 1: All living subjects are good.
Premise 2: A value generator is s a living subject.
Conclusion: A value generator is good.
Now, mass murderers are living subjects. Are they good? From their perspective they are good. From the victim's perspective they are evil. Obviously, goodness is relative rather than universal. There's always an excuse for the one or the other (see "vegan" debates etc.).
That's why I introduced that ratio factor in one of my previous comments. Evil things are rare, good things dominate by far. This ratio sets the trend: Life tends to the "good" rather than to the "evil". In a good system, most creatures can trust each other (a system of love, attraction). In an evil system, nobody can rely on anybody (anti-attraction, hate); that's why evil systems don't last long. In other words, I define the "good" not as a moral property but as a matter of attraction and self-stabilization.
In short: I think it's impossible to put life strictly into a stiff "goodness" category. There must be some flexibility so that the evolution gets some room for lottery games, without which life couldn't generate its essential variety. Goodness is impossible without a little bit of variety. Paradise is boring. Boredom is no good.
Thanks for the engagement - I was hoping you guys would apply yourselves and you've not shied away.
That said, Ive already anticipated these misinterpretations in my earlier comment, so let's set the record straight once more. The framework Im presenting is descriptive, not prescriptive. Theres no ought here - its about the way life must operate to persist. This isnt a moral claim, and its not about Humes Guillotine or any sort of ethical objectivism.
These misreading were preemptively accounted for in my second post:
Quoting James Dean Conroy
The distinction you're missing is that the "Good" here is not about moral value, its about positive value in a structural sense. Life operates as if its "Good" (represents positive value) because it has to, its how life continues. Plants, for example, judge sunlight as Good because it sustains them.
The framework is entirely about structural facts, not about personal moral opinions.
So, lets consider the specific points raised in light of this:
Quoting Banno
Thats the critical misread - and its precisely what Ive been careful to avoid from the start.
There is no 'ought' in this framework. Let me be crystal clear:
The claim is not that life ought to persist, but that life only persists by operating as if it is good. Thats not a prescription - its a descriptive entailment.
Let me restate the logic in deductive form, fully within descriptive, ontological terms:
Without life, there is no value - because theres no subject to experience, measure, or generate it.
Life exists - therefore, some form of value must exist from the standpoint of life itself.
Life persists through self-affirming behaviours behaviours which reinforce its continuation (order, adaptation, structure).
Therefore, life necessarily operates as if it is good - meaning, it selects for what sustains it (positive value) and against what threatens it (negative value).
This is not life is good therefore it should persist.
Its: If life did not regard itself as good, it would not persist.
It would self-negate.
So this is a factual, structural claim - a Darwinian axiom, really. Life only exists because it builds and affirms. That's what life is, in systemic terms. No morality needed.
Thats why I say: No is-ought. Just is.
TLDR:
The analysis is misreading the intended scope of the framework. It's descriptive.
Lets get back to basics, since the confusion seems to persist.
You like syllogisms, great. So lets lay one out cleanly, without any morally loaded terms that can be misconstrued:
Premise 1: Systems that persist must select for conditions that support their persistence.
Premise 2: Life is a system that persists through adaptive selection.
Conclusion: Therefore, life must select for what supports its persistence.
Thats the heart of the argument. Its not moral, its mechanical.
Now, if you swap "select for what supports its persistence" with "regard as positive" (i.e. good in the structural sense), then you can see where "life = good" comes from, not as a moral judgment, but as a systemic entailment.
This is not an argument that "life ought to persist."
Its that only those forms of life that implicitly affirm their own persistence can and do persist.
Any system that doesnt operate in this way selects itself out. Thats not "ought." Thats physics and evolution.
And just to return to where we agree, I think we're all in agreement with axiom 1, right?
Quoting James Dean Conroy
I don't see an "ought" either. I forgot to add this info to my last post. Since the start of this discussion I've been seeing just an "is", not an "ought". Just descriptive, not normative.
I believe it's this that's giving me trouble connecting. I feel like there's some sort of reification going on.
I can accept a descriptive system that says "life is bad" selects itself out, at least for the sake of argument, or testing a logical system (as far as I'm capable; I'm not a trained philosopher). My problem is that at that point I lose sight of the relavance of "value only exists because of life".
Evaluating is something living things do; if they don't affirm, they're selected out. An evolutionary perspective. Fine. The problem comes when you raise value to a perspective beyond the individual. What even is this level? It's not selection in the sense of population figues: it's not like suicidal people or pessimists are different species.
For example: social insects often sacrifice a massive amount of life for the sake of the "queen". From an evolutionary standpoint that makes sense. In terms of human societies, this could mean that evaluating life as bad on the individual level could be affirming life (e.g. a few suicides reduce conflict for limited resources). I simply cannot see the connection between a living thing's perspective and the "standpoint of life itself".
This isn't a criticism of your position, btw, it's meant to illustrate an item I have trouble with. I can't play your game if I don't understand the rules, so to speak.
I guess "value" in this context means "good". Now what is the definition of "good"? I think, the word "good" only makes sense if it refers to something: "What is it good for?" A knife, for instance, is good for killing. That, obviously, cannot be our subject. I'd suggest, everyone in this discussion using the word "good" should provide a definition of "good". My definition in this context is this: "Good" refers to a life system that can continue for billions of years. This is only possible if most creatures can rely on each other; this requires empathy and attraction ("love"). I'm describing a mechanical system, not a moral law. The fact that attraction ("love") is much greater than rejection ("hate"), stabilizes the mechanism. The mechanism gets disturbed indeed, and that makes the system alive. But the disturbances are self-destructive and therefore a minority. The minority is so small, i.e. the evil dose is so perfectly small-sized, that -- all in all -- even this small evil dose itself is, in the end, "good" as well. -- In short: In my view, "good" means attractive and stable. And this attraction is accompanied by joyful or happy feelings in the minds of most living creatures, I guess.
I see there's a disconnect here...
Let me try one last time, using a picture as an analogy.
You keep describing the things you see in the painting.
But Im talking about the canvas they're painted on.
Great, we'll build on this - hopefully the others will come back on this point. Let's go through together if we can.
Sorry, I'm not being ignorant. I've had a busy day. Working...
I know and appreciate this.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
It appears to run deep. I'll slink back into the shadows and continue reading.
I understand that, and thought I addressed it. Apparently not clearly enough, so I'll have another go.
Do you think that you are telling us what we should do?
That's what I'd understood by your
Quoting James Dean Conroy
"Growth is what is valued". That we ought value life.
Either you are telling us what we ought to do - value life; or you are saying no more than that life only survives if it survives.
You can't say that you are only using "is" and yet insist that the message is about what we ought do.
So it seems to me that either your point is trivial, or it breaks the is/ought divide.
I never said we ought to value life. I said that value only exists because of life and that if it doesnt value itself it dies. Thats a structural observation, not a moral instruction - others here see that clearly and I've reiterated it numerous times
Life builds > growth is what is valued means: life favours what sustains it. Thats not a command, its a description of how living systems function. You can pretend thats trivial, but if it really were, you wouldnt be working this hard to dodge it.
This isnt about ought. Its about where value comes from at all. Youre conflating basic ontology with moral philosophy- and honestly, I think you know youre doing it.
Quoting Banno
As if I insisted anything like that. I'm saying if life doesn't value itself - it doesn't survive - you know full well thats not a prescription.
There is no ought here - you can try to force it as much as you like. This was clear in the initial post and the second comment - you're flogging a dead horse.
You're also avoiding my question re the first axiom.
At this point, its starting to feel like youre not really playing the game.
SO you are not in any way attempting to make an ethical argument?
Quoting James Dean Conroy
Quoting James Dean Conroy
Hasn't that been clarified many times already?
The axiom is ontological: without life, there is no value. No ought implied, no hidden ethics.
Thats been clear from the start. If you're still pretending otherwise, it's no longer a misunderstanding - its bad faith.
Youve also avoided engaging with the first axiom. Why is that?
Well, no. You appear to be making an ethical point while maintaining that all you are doing is presenting the facts.
There's a contradiction there that needs addressing.
So, are you making an ethical point? Are you giving us an "ought"?
A quick yes or no, just so we understand were you stand.
What part of "Not morally prescriptive in any way" don't you understand?
Did you not see the quotes? I think that's pretty clear to anyone acting in good faith - anyone reading will see that.
You're making yourself look silly at this point.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
Isn't this what I summed up as
Quoting Banno
...and pointed out was invalid?
That is, granted your first premise, what is it you would have us conclude?
I think I know why...
So I'll ask again, are you just making a point about biology, or are you attempting to tell us what we ought to do?
Because doing both is fraught with contradiction.
hope that clears it up for you - this time
It's neither - I just told you what i mean - again
This is just pure bad faith. And you're losing credibility
Do you go the step further to saying that this tells us something about what we ought do? Quoting James Dean Conroy
SO just say "yes" or "No", so I can understand: are you making an ethical point?
Quoting James Dean Conroy
So do you think that this in some way gives us our ethical values? Not where our values are from, but what they might be?
Are you attempting to tell us something about what we ought do? yes or no? If you are not, then you are doing biology, and we'll leave it at that. If yes, then you are doing ethics, and there are philosophical issues of consistency that need addressing.
But our posts are crossing over now, so I'll leave you to it for a bit, and give you the opportunity to to make a substantive account.
This is boring. And you're losing credibility
The fact that life is the precondition for value doesnt imply any moral prescription. Its simply an observation about the structure of existence. So asking if I'm making an ethical claim is irrelevant because the axiom doesnt make that leap - you're trying to force it to, and its not there.
So (again) no, I'm not giving an 'ought' - Im describing the conditions that make value possible in the first place. Ill say it again, since youre clearly not engaging with it: Value arises because life exists. Thats a structural fact, not an ethical one. Theres no moral implication in that statement, no 'ought' to be found. Stop trying to manufacture one.
This is silliness. You're losing credibility
Its intellectually dishonest, and anyone following along can see that. Its a joke, frankly.
DO you think that your theory contributes to discussions of what we should do next? OF what we should value?
And if so, what.
I'm off to Bunnings to get some hardware. Cheers.
Your sophistry is obvious. You should give people reading more credit. You're losing credibility
Meh. You are assailing me rather than what I've said, which is what one would expect if my critique was biting and you could not see a reply.
What you have said is almost identical to an argument from Ayn Rand. There are a number of problems with that argument, as you will see from the article here linked.
If, as you may be claiming, your argument has no import as to what we should or should not do, then it's hard to see the point.
But it seems you think there is more going on here.
I actually had a look at your self-published manuscript, and found this:
Quoting Conway
I take it that the agenda is that what we ought do is "enhance lifes continuity and vitality", and that you think you have proved this on purely factual grounds, completely bypassing ethics.
How are we doing?
Are you not entertained? Do you have enough popcorn?
We could go on to apply the Open Question to "Life=Good", a pretty blatant naturalistic fallacy. Do you want to take the lead?
(Sorry - mucked up the auto-replies.)
Quoting Banno
Banno's quesion here seems apropos.
You say life is good. What exactly is good for? Where does it lead us? What is the role of your idea in how we determine what we ought to do?
As I understand it, the concept of the good is a perspecitive and only gains meaning within a framework where choice is possible. Without choice, there's no standpoint from which to evaluate alternatives, and thus no basis for calling anything good.
Even if life is predicated on a will for survival, this does not imply that survival itself is good, meaningful, or worth pursuingit simply reflects a drive, not a reason.
Youre both conflating distinct categories and ignoring the descriptive nature of what Ive presented. That isn't addressing what I've said on its own terms. Thats not critique - its deflection. You're not playing the game as defined, and to be frank, its outrageous.
Let me restate this clearly (again):
Synthesis does not derive an "ought" from an "is". It states that all value presupposes life - not morally, but structurally. This is not a moral claim; it's an ontological observation about the necessary condition for any value, perception, or evaluation to exist. Without life, there is no frame from which value-judgments can even arise. Thats not ethics - thats epistemic grounding.
Your invocation of the naturalistic fallacy misses the mark because Im not arguing that life ought to be pursued -Im observing that only life can pursue anything at all. The phrase "Life = Good" is not prescriptive; it's shorthand for this descriptive axiom: that life necessarily regards itself as good or it ceases to be. If you object to that, show a system of valuation that can function without life.
As for Ayn Rand - this is just guilt by association (and again something I preempted). If an argument is valid, its truth isnt refuted by pointing out that someone else made a bad version of it. Address the content, not the genealogy.
Finally, your tone. Rather than engaging in sincere critique, youve relied on smug asides and peer-backed posturing, then accuse me of "assailing" you when I call it out. Lets keep this on ideas, not personas - and not cutesy misquotings of my name.
Do you want to critique the axiom on its actual terms - as a descriptive precondition of all value - or keep shadowboxing against a moral argument I havent made and misreading clearly defined terms just as an attempt to maintain a rhetorical high ground?
This is how the semantic sophistry game works. The pattern is classic:
I define terms precisely.
You ignore the definitions.
I restate calmly.
You gaslight my clarity with subjectivism (I dont read it that way).
I clarify further.
You accuse me of rigidity or dogmatism.
This isn't real discourse. It's sophistry.
Thanks. That's appreciated. I'm glad that you found some of what I wrote helpful.. It feels like analysis of any sort if way out of fashion on the forums at present, that folk think philosophy consists in making stuff up and that's enough. The leave out the hard part.
I wrote a considered response, then saw , and you know, I really couldn't be bothered. Come back when you have an original idea and are looking for substantive replies.
You need to stop making the mistake (and this is a common one) of assuming that people (who hold different views) are wilfully misunderstanding or manipulating your ideas in the wrong direction. I am doing the best with what I have in front of me here.
Your more appropriate response is to try explaining it again or to admit one of three things: (1) that you are not explaining yourself clearly, (2) that people's perspectives can be so different that talking past each other becomes inevitable, (3) that you may be wrong.
So please jettison the "outrage." My tone and my reflections are completely sincere and simply reflect where your words have led me.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
I guess most people are already aware of this, but I don't see its utility. Isn't life the fundamental precondition for having any perspective - good or ill?
Call me a soothsayer if you want, but I've literally just described the play book both of your responses adhere to:
Quoting James Dean Conroy
You're still not engaging in real discourse.
I think we're talking past each other; this aligns with option 2 from my earlier comment. I'm genuinely sorry you feel like I'm playing a game. I'm not, and I'm sincerely trying to understand your argument. But when your ideas are questioned, when people struggle to follow the gist, you seem provoked and frustrated, as if you believe the questioning is done insincerely, with the intent to manipulate. All the best.
Why do you replace "is valued" in the quote with "ought to be valued"? There's obviously no "ought" in that quote. Do you do this because you think the "ought" case is the only alternative to ending up in a trivial tautology? In fact, to me, this tautology is actually the whole point. Perhaps that's why it looks axiomatic too. Is it trivial? I'm not sure. It took almost 100 posts in this thread to recognize this tautology, hehe. I think a tautology is not necessarily trivial.
Because you're refusing to engage with the ideas - instead choosing to misrepresent.
Read above play book. This is textbook. It's not genuine engagement
I welcome critique - and have asked for it repeatedly. But it should be genuine. This isn't.
He's playing a sophist game - intentionally misrepresenting what I've said. I've shown the playbook they keep working within. It's tedious.
He's just a bad faith actor.
Thanks for picking up on that.
Well, I am certainly genuine. And with respect, you cant actually know what is going on in my mind. You are simply making inferences based on your reaction to our interactions. Is it simply the case that if people dont agree with you, you need to dismiss them as not genuine? Thats what this looks like.
For the record, I have not argued that you are wrong. I have simply responded to what you have said, and what you say does not seem to follow to me. What you are doing is saying to me, "Its impossible that you dont follow this since I am clear and following sound rules of discourse. So you must be deliberately misrepresenting me or arguing in bad faith."
If you want to discuss the framework, I'm all ears.
All Im trying to do is reset the discussion to a point where youre not assuming Im a dishonest interlocutor.
Its late here now, so Ill just ask you one thing:
I agreed with you that your first axiom is probably correct.
Whats the next step?
Here's an example: The whole idea might be of some help to depressive or nihilistic, frustrated people, when they're not seeing any root or basis apriori. This is not an ethical or moral problem. I think it's an epistemological problem. We need to recognize that basis. The fact that it's axiomatic or tautological is actually the point: Sometimes we don't see the forest because of all those trees.
No, you're not. I could quote endlessly why you've embodied the exact tactics I've described.
Quoting Tom Storm
The next step, frankly, is to recognise that once you do that (accept the first axiom) - they rest just follows logically. If you're ready - I can show you why.
Or, if you want to continue misrepresentation - lets carry on like, Banno has - it doesn't serve you well but I'll do it. The longer we resist the rules of the game - the more credibility gets lost.
Bang on the money.
Ok. I don't see the point. Which is why I have been looking at the word 'good' assuming this was a moral argument of some kind.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
You are calling me dishonest.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
Goodness... if I am misrepresenting you that it is not intentional.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
What's the next step?
I didn't.
Quoting Quk
There is an implicit "ought" in "growth is what is valued" - If growth is valuable, then the subject ought choose to grow were possible.
Quoting Quk
I what to bring out some of the implications of "Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued". Is that what you consider a tautology? So the idea is that becasue life grows and builds, that growth is therefore of value?
It doesn't follow.
Look at these two examples:
"Because living things tend to grow, growth is what is (in fact) valued (by them)"
and
"Because growth is valuable, we (or agents) ought to choose to grow."
Can you see how these say quite different things? What I have attempted to do was to have James acknowledge and address this.
The first is factual, the second is evaluative. The first is about what happens, the second is about what ought happen.
There's more going on here, including the distinction between instrumental and intrinsic value. James may be using value in a psychological or evolutionary sense (e.g., "life tends toward growth"), but then concluding something in the normative sense (e.g., "growth is good or ought to be pursued"). That's what I was attempting to clarify.
Yes, I'm saying you're dishonest - this is a clear demonstration of that.
The definitions have been very clear - this 'assumption' is hard to believe - very hard.
Quoting Tom Storm
As is this. You've refused to engage in the game - I'm past the point of giving you the benefit of the doubt.
No you're not - you're playing a sophist game - and this is more of the same. The terms have been clear from the start and repeated many times.
Just declaring "No i'm not" is condescending to me, Quk and the readers. This has been shameful, actually - and you're still at it.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
Quoting Quk
If I may, that life is valuable is something with which I will happily agree. But this does not follow from the fact that life grows.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
I don't understand what you mean by game.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
Yes, I can see how this makes sense.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
I can't quite see how growth is valued. But I can see how this is similar to axiom one.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
I can see how this makes sense. If life doesn't affirm itself it may perish.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
So what does this ontology give us? I cant see how this will help people who are wondering whether life is worth living. The fact that life chooses to live doesnt mean it cant also choose to die.
I live a fairly contented and privileged life. And yet, if I could press a button to no longer exist, and never have existed, I cant say I wouldnt press it. I don't have any overwhelming desire to exist and I am fortunate. The years of illness and old age await. Do I want to experience this?
It grounds any prescriptions of moral frameworks in the same ontological base, without prescribing anything itself.
As Foucault pointed out - absolute moral prescriptions are inherently flawed - the context around people, places and differences - as well as shifting moral landscapes make this a fool's errand - this leads to things like nihilism and endless discussions about "good" and "bad"
Life is Good - lets all start there. This is the utility it offers.
Something must grow from non-valuable to valuable, like non-grass to grass, like non-tree to tree.
Well, you could also say: Something must shrink from non-tree to tree, in which case it's the space around the tree which shrinks.
For me, it's irrelevant whether it's growing or shrinking. These are just relative aspects. Important is the process of change. Life changes. The change generates value.
So I guess this is our point of difference. I had already argued about this earlier. I can't see the utility of this axiom.
Can we put this axiom into some scenarios, I want to see it at work?
"I am suicidal because I was sexually abused by my priest." Life is good.
"I have a terminal disease and wish to end things." Life is good.
"I am homeless and addicted to heroin, I hate my life." Life is good.
I've given you the utility clearly above.
It can't solve every issue and doesn't attempt to prescribe anything. It certainly doesn't have the power to stop all feelings of angst and suffering like the scenarios you describe - that's well out of scope - not just of this framework but any framework - as mentioned above - context matters (ask Foucault). It doesn't mean it has no utility.
Cheers.
It probably won't help the victim of a brutal crime or disease. It might help a little when somebdy uses heroin because she or he is caught in a nihilistic tunnel view. I don't know. I don't think the idea will cause any harm anyway. Every attempt is a good attempt. There's the word again, hehe.
That philosophical idea is also just that: A philosophical idea. Understanding a context causes joy, the joy of understanding. If you're laywer you don't need to understand the Pythagorean theorem. Nevertheless, in the moment you understand it, you enjoy the understanding. Must philosophy always solve massive problems all at once? Small steps bring joy as well.
I don't see any harm. I just don't see any significant use yet.
Quoting Quk
I haven't found philosophy particularly useful, so I'm not expecting much.
Quoting Quk
I can't see it as an argument against nihilism. But it might depend on which version of nihilism you have in mind - it's a broad category. If you're the kind of nihilist who believe life isn't worth living, this principle is unlikely to help. I've worked with many suicidal people and nihilism is ususally about experience, not abstract arguments.
Do you appreciate the grounding utility?
Thats really the aim - and what Nietzsche was explicitly looking for.
Quoting Tom Storm
It's a dim view of the world - I agree - the ontological aspect of this is the possible reprieve - although not guaranteed or 100% universal - admittedly
I'm referring to this:
Quoting James Dean Conroy
Do you see the utility in that? Thats really the aim of the framework - and what Nietzsche was explicitly looking for.
As I understand him, Nietzsche is an anti-foundationalist in that he rejects the idea of absolute, universal truths or fixed foundations for knowledge, morality, or meaning. Instead, he emphasizes interpretation and perspectivismthe contingency of all values and beliefs. I tend to agree with this.
Bedtime. Bye.
Thats what Im aiming at. "Life = Good" isnt dogma - its an ontological necessity. All value, all perspective, all interpretation only exist because life persists to hold them. Even perspectivism needs a perspective - and that perspective is alive.
As Nietzsche said: He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.
The 'why' isnt abstract - its structural. Life is the why. Everything else is downstream.
You can see how that would be useful, right?
Sleep well.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
If youre going to be invoking Foucault here I should point out here that he rejects the Humean distinction between the is and the ought. Following Nietzsche, he asserts that there are no strictly non-prescriptive statements. One can find adherents of this thinking among such current philosophers as Joseph Rouse: I reject any sharp distinction between descriptive and prescriptive or factual and normative matters.
The ground for Nietzsche was the Will to Power, a way of thinking description and prescription, fact and value, the empirical and the ethical together. Life is not a fact preceding and grounding value, it is the essence of becoming and valuing. And rather than privileging the good over the bad, order over chaos, Nietzsche finds affirmation in both.
Exactly. Youve just named what Nietzsche was looking for - a ground not above life, but beneath it. Life = Good isnt a moral claim; its the ontological precondition for any value to arise at all. Its the structural floor he intuited but never formalised - the condition of all valuing, including the Will to Power.
And your Foucault point reinforces this too. If, as Foucault and Rouse argue, the is/ought distinction collapses, then the attempt to refute Life = Good on those grounds (as Tom and Banno try) is obsolete.
Youve helped crystallise the case. Appreciated.
You list ?what is good in Life as :
continuity, survival, endurance, resistance of entropy, adaptation, vitality, expansion, drive for order.
Ideas that are true are those which survive.
You say that we are capable of recognizing the true political systems , philosophies, sciences. What if we blow ourselves up and the cockroaches , rats and micro-organisms take over the world.
Would you conclude that the biological adaptation we call rational thought was not viable and therefore not conducive to life? In that case, when we say that life is good, we must exclude everything associated with human rationality, since that faculty turned out to be non-adaptive.
You seem to see cultural adaptation as the movement toward a better and better fit between ideas and the way things really are. Hegelian and Marxist dialectic see the evolution of human culture as not simply wiping away earlier ways of thinking in the face of new ideas, but of subsuming those older ways within the newer ways.
Lets say that a bacterium manages to survive for billions of years with little to no evolution in its structure. Now lets compare the survival of this bacterium over that time-span
to a simultaneously occurring branching of the evolutionary tree proceeding from single-celled creature to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. If the life of this bacterium is said to be good on the basis of the criterion that it has survived , replicated and preserved its structure over billions of years, is the life of the mammal better because it has not only survived but evolved the complexity of its structure? Is the drive for order represented by complexity better than the drive for order represented by simplicity, even if that added complexity doesnt lead to any selective advantage with respect to the long-term survival of the simple bacterium?
Lets say that we reach the end of history by coming up with religious, philosophical and scientific accounts that survive till the end of humanity. Are they good because they survive self-identically as living systems till the end of time, or would they be better if they continued to evolve? Does life always have to be getting better and better (more and more complexly organized and diverse) in order to be good, or does its goodness lie strictly in its self-preservation, regardless of whether this involves evolution of complexity? Put differently, is the goodness of the drive for order to be seen as a drive for becoming , or a drive for the homeostasis of prolonged static survival?
I noticed in your writing that you believe growth of complexity and order generally enhances survival, but you dont seem to make becoming a fundamental principle of life as Nietzsche does. If growth of complexity usually but doesnt always enhance survival then it cannot be treated as a fundamental axiom. Isnt that correct?
Quoting James Dean Conroy
We could say that an organism prefers to behave in one way vs another with respect to the environment within. which it is enmeshed. We could instead say that an organism is always already in the midst of interactions with its world. It doesnt need to be driven or motivated by any special internal or external pushes and pulls. A living thing simply is a system of interactions and exchanges with its world , a way of continually making changes to itself that maintains a normative pattern. In any interaction, the organism will always tend to reproduce its previous pattern of interactions. It finds itself acting in this consistent way before it makes a choice to prefer this direction. If it encounters an alteration in its world
which interrupts its ability to respond in the usual
way, it will be forced to modify its functions or accommodate the changed world.
Again, it doesnt prefer to accommodate its functioning, it is forced into it. Rather than preferring such accommodation , it resists it, since any living system can accommodate only so much alteration of its normative patterns before disintegrating.
The same is true of human value systems and systems of thought. We always find ourselves preferring to interpret the world in ways which can be assimilated into our pre-existing interpretive framework, and resist those aspects of the world which are inconsistent with them. This resistance to the unfamiliar isnt anti-life, it is a necessary condition for preserving the integrity of our system of understanding, or, as you say, being biased toward itself as a workable way to make sense of things.
I do write about these things in depth in my books and on Substack - the white paper touches on these points but is much more limited. I'm not sure if you're familiar with my extended writing. I'll assume not for this.
Quoting Joshs
Broadly, within the context of the framework (effectively a distilled form of my views), although this list is elaborated on in much more detail in my extended writing. There is a danger the consolidated expression I quote you with here of them being 'true' doesn't fully express the sentiment.
Quoting Joshs
I think free will is a tool developed by life (as are humans - and any other form of life) to obtain higher orders of expression. Life hedges its bets. If we turn out to be destructive - It will be fine. Ultimately, we pay the price, not it. Not that 'intellect' would necessarily be the enemy, it gives rise to much higher forms of order/expression/etc - but humans with all our flaws, possibly not - I guess we'll see.
Quoting Joshs
I do believe in the dialectic and synthesis of thesis and antithesis, yes. But not just in the Hegelian sense. I've written a book on evolutionary systems that describes this dialectic at play in an evolutionary sense as well - it uses Judaism as a case study. I can elaborate more if you like.
Quoting Joshs
Yes, 100%. Life strives for higher and higher order/expression/experience. I'm not a fan of grey goo. This is an important aspect.
Quoting Joshs
Again, a similar point. Higher and higher order. More, bigger, more expression, more vivid/vibrant/varied = better.
Quoting Joshs
More, bigger, more expression, more vivid/vibrant/varied = better. But there are risks, as you noted - we could blow ourselves up. Life will have learned its lesson - we'll have paid the price. It will dust off and try again with some other tool.
The axiom remains, but it doesn't ensure the road is without the 'odd bump' - the objective of life remains the same - more order, greater coherence, more expression. Every possible avenue is explored in this drive - even if ultimately unfruitful.
I'm happy to elaborate more on all or any part of this. It's actually a pleasure.
Interestingly, this is a big part of the evolutionary systems theory I described - you can't have one without the other. I'm also working on a physics paper called 'Coherence' which establishes a similar idea but at the lowest possible level - its based on coherence/incoherence of wave function phases and the possible implications of that (positing a new scalar field described with C(x,t) ). I'm actually very busy with that right now - and differential equations are hard work...
Having a break to discuss the philosophy stuff has been quite nice.
Quoting James Dean Conroy
In some respects, I am reminded of Piagets genetic epistemology. Consistent with complexity theory, he argues that the equilibration of cognitive structures (via assimilation of events into the systems schemes and the simultaneous accommodation of those schemes to the novel aspects of what is assimilated) does not lead to a static homeostasis but a progressive equilibration, a spiral-shaped development leading from a weaker to a stronger structure.
You say that non-dogmatic interpretations of religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam can be seen as life-affirming adaptations, as opposed to a political system like Communism. My own view as an atheist is that God-centered faiths, even the more liberal-minded ones, remain attached to certain metaphysical presuppositions, such as the equating of the good with a substantive understanding of God. I wonder if your notion of the goodness of life doesnt also rely on substantive pre-conceptions of what constitutes adaptive order. Saying that the criterion of what constitutes life-affirming order is simply what survives is one thing, but in a debate with atheists, anarchists, Christian nationalists, the far right and communists over which of these is life-affirming and which isnt, I imagine you would rely not just on which of these worldviews appears to have died out, but also on the substantive details of your interpretation of the meaning of each of these perspectives.
Even where a range of ideas happen to co-exist, I suspect your model provides you with a method for determining which of them are likely to die out and which will thrive.
What Im saying is that you seem to be looking for some special substantive content within a system of thought that qualifies it as life-affirming. I, on the other hand, dont look for anything within a worldview other than its pragmatiic ability to guide a persons anticipation of events, that is, to enhance their ability make sense of their world so as to make their way through it without too much confusion. Fundamentalist christianity , communism and fascism all provide ways of getting along in the world. I dont think there is some objective, external stance from which one can judge whether they are more-affirming or not, not even the fact that they may die out. If a system like communism vanishes at some point in history, it is only because its adherents latched onto an alternative that their communist practices helped to set the stage for.
Their communism was life-affirming and adaptive in its way, and the approach the adherents replaced it with was both differently adaptive and preferable. The point is it is not up to you or an external model to determine whether what people relying to guide them in understanding their world is life-affirming or not. If they are wedded to it, it is likely what is appropriate for them given their cultural circumstances, and they will embrace something new when they are ready for it. They know what they are ready for better than an abstract axiomatic model can tell them.
However, I would argue that the framework Im proposing is less about dictating what is life-affirming from an external perspective, and more about opening up the conversation for what could be. In other words, it's not that any existing worldview is inherently incapable of being life-affirming in some way, but rather whether that worldview enables individuals and cultures to expand the scope of their affirmation of life.
When I say "Life is Good", its not about denying the complexity of suffering, confusion, or hardship. Its not an abstract moral or metaphysical proposition, its a recognition of what life needs to persist and flourish on a deeper level. Synthesis, in that sense, asks: How can lifes inherent order and creative potential be maximised? It doesnt dismiss existing systems; it just asks if they are really doing the best job of supporting life in its fullest, most expansive form.
I agree with you that life-affirming systems evolve based on cultural context. But I think the key here is the quality of that evolution. Systems that have survived, like communism or fundamentalist ideologies, do so by addressing real needs, but their potential for flourishing is limited by the kind of affirmation they offer, typically centering on survival, conformity, or overcoming suffering through fixed ideologies.
Synthesis, by contrast, suggests that the truly life-affirming systems are those that encourage depth, creativity, and complexity. Its not about survival for its own sake, but about allowing space for meaning to evolve in ways that resonate with the richness and beauty of existence.
Youre absolutely right that worldviews evolve - i'd advocate that too, and people shift to new paradigms when theyre ready. The framework I propose isnt about imposing something externally, its about creating a possibility for that next level of evolution to emerge, where people and societies can begin to affirm life not just by surviving, but by fully engaging with its creative potential.
Its not about which system is better based on survival or short-term utility (although i can forgive that potential misreading) - its about asking whether the systems we currently inhabit truly enable the most profound forms of flourishing. What the axiom does is open a conversation about what that might look like. It doesnt judge, but it does raise the question of how systems of thought or culture can guide us toward something greater than mere survival.
I'm wondering: Is survival not a great thing actually? Reinhold Messner has placed himself in countless dangerous scenarios in the Himalaya and Antarctica and experienced immensely great feelings during the survival. Mothers and fathers see their newborn and are enthusiastic; isn't this an act within a survival story? Or ... let's go backwards nine months: The orgasm: Isn't that a superb feeling, and isn't it an element of the survival system? Or just take the risks in life: Moving to another place or starting a new project that could fail; while doing it one may truly enjoy the risks. What kind of risks are they? I think they are risks of survival. It's about great adventures. What might top that?
Your examples illustrate a key truth: survival is not a flat, mechanical thing - it is layered with awe, beauty, intensity, and meaning when consciously embraced.
Reinhold Messner, a newborn's cry, the orgasm, the leap into the unknown - they are all facets of the survival drive, yes, but not of mere survival. Rather, they are expressions of life asserting itself in full colour, often at the edge of danger, change, or mystery. What you're describing is survival+, plus awareness, or survival imbued with intent, creativity, connection, risk, and rapture.
The kind of survival you're invoking is heroic, erotic, parental, existential, transcendent, that kind of survival is already something greater. It's life not just persisting but affirming itself - in the most dynamic way. Experience is a huge part of it. I agree 100%, that is what it wants - and what's great is that we all understand that intuitively. Even music, dance, art - it all strikes this universal chord.
Bigger, better, more expressive, more dynamic, more fun, more awesomeness - definitely. That's what life wants.
Quoting Quk
Survival is boring. Re-invention, becoming something you are not, is exciting and audacious. Nietzsche wrote:
When you survive a volcanic eruption, you become something you haven't been before: You become an experienced volcanic eruption survivor. You'll be able to tell great stories about what it's like to experience the heat of hot lava. You may become a teacher, a film maker, an author, a painter ...
Quoting Quk
What you remember about the eruption is how you coped with it. The exhilaration comes not from static survival but from the discovery of new resources and skills. The person who now tells stories about their surviving the event is not the same person who entered into the experience. They have been transformed by it. To say that any living thing simply survives moment to moment is missing the nature of the moment to moment continuity of being alive. It is a continuity that is based on constant change, neither mere self-identical repetition nor random alteration but a being the same differently.
I think I can integrate your description in the "survival+" picture that James painted and that I agree with:
Quoting James Dean Conroy
However, I guess there's a gradual transition from "mere survival" to "survival-plus". It's difficult to insert a sharp borderline in between. What does "moment to moment" mean? How long is a moment? 1 day? 1 nanosecond? 1 Planck time? I just see waves at variable wavelengths and variable amplitudes. The wavelengths are the "moments" and the amplitudes are the intensity of the "plus".
Panta rhei.
I couldn't believe it when I read this. It's like you've read the physics paper I'm working on. Taken it and expanded it into the Synthesis philosophical framework...
And I'll be honest, I hadn't thought of it this way. I might borrow what you've said if ok.
The paper is called Coherence Field Theory and posits a new scalar field described with C(x.t) that underlies gravity - not by curving spacetime, but by modulating coherence across a quantum wavefield. The idea is that what we call "gravity" is really a shift in coherence gradients (I already have empirical data to support it using well known red-shift anomalies) - and your metaphor of variable wavelengths (moments) and amplitudes (the intensity of survival+) is spot-on.
When you said that survival moments are like waves of variable wavelength (duration) and amplitude (intensity of the plus) - that is coherence, philosophically and physically. What Im modelling in math, you nailed in metaphor.
And to loop it back to the thread: what were calling survival is never just mechanical persistence. Its the emergence of coherence under pressure - the shift into a new resonance, a higher amplitude of self-affirmation. Whether through trauma, ecstasy, danger, birth, or art - life uses survival as a medium to become something more than it was.
Thats the real adventure. The becoming.
Panta rhei indeed.
OK, haha.
I find your idea regarding "coherence" quite fascinating.
By the way, I didn't consider my wave thing a metaphor. I think it's simply a graphical description of a process, just like the graphical description of a sound wave that is visualized on an oscilloscope. Well, those graphics might be called "metaphors". After all, our entire language consists of metaphors. OK, in the end, that wave is a metaphor too.
Darmok: "Temba, his arms wide."
I'm onboard. I've been thinking a lot this morning about how this ties the two (coherence and synthesis) together.
Yes - Quoting Quk
Thanks, Quk.
Like a coherent synthesis (pun intended)
I hope you got the Darmok quote. It's a famous Star Trek episode that reveals that all symbols in our languages are metaphors actually.
I did, although admittedly via an AI haha :smile:
Speaking of metaphors: Here's another coherence: Metaphors need to be coherent with the things they refer to, right? Gravity, for example, might be considered a metaphor as well (not in the lingual sense but in the ontological sense). Abstract all things, then see their cross-coherence at the metaphor level. Not at the macro-cosmos level, not at the micro-cosmos level, but at the metaphor level.
Yes! You're right on the threshold here.
What you're describing is exactly where Synthesis and Coherence converge - not just scientifically, but ontologically. Gravity is a metaphor, not just in the poetic sense, but in the structural sense. Its a metaphor for relationship, for mutual influence, for alignment under constraint.
In Coherence Field Theory, gravity arises from phase alignment - coherence in the quantum field. In Synthesis, meaning arises from narrative alignment, coherence in the metaphor field. Both are about structuring low-entropy order out of chaos, whether physically or symbolically.
[b]So here's the real convergence:
The universe is a metaphorical system, and coherence is its grammar.[/b]
Particles, people, philosophies - all survive by staying coherent with their environment. Metaphors are just as real as molecules, because they pattern lifes structure at the interpretive level. And only coherent metaphors persist.
You nailed it, man. This is the axis where science and story unify.
I'm writing an article about this as we speak...
Sir, you're very creative. I like this combination of physics and non-physics. In the end it's all about information. What is information? Information is information.
Reading this whole thread will illustrate that :lol: