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.

Let’s 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 doesn’t lead to any selective advantage with respect to the long-term survival of the simple bacterium?

Let’s 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 don’t 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?

A system that ceases to prefer life will self-destruct or fail to reproduce. Therefore, belief in life’s worth isn’t merely cultural or emotional, it’s biologically and structurally enforced. This is not idealism; it’s existential natural selection.
Implication: To endure, life must be biased toward itself. “Life is Good” is not a descriptive claim about all events; it’s an ontological posture life must adopt to remain. — 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 doesn’t ‘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 isn’t 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.

Hi Josh - thanks for this - you raise some interesting points and I'm happy to go through them.

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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

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 doesn’t lead to any selective advantage with respect to the long-term survival of the simple bacterium — 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.

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? — Joshs

Again, a similar point. Higher and higher order. More, bigger, more expression, more vivid/vibrant/varied = better.

I noticed in your writing that you believe growth of complexity and order generally enhances survival, but you don’t seem to make becoming a fundamental principle of life as Nietzsche does. If growth of complexity usually but doesn't always enhance survival then it cannot be treated as a fundamental axiom. Isnt that correct? — 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.

rather than privileging the good over the bad, order over chaos, Nietzsche finds affirmation in both. — Joshs

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.

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. — James Dean Conroy

In some respects, I am reminded of Piaget’s genetic epistemology. Consistent with complexity theory, he argues that the equilibration of cognitive structures (via assimilation of events into the system’s 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 doesn’t 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 isn’t, 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 I’m 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, don’t look for anything within a worldview other than its pragmatiic ability to guide a person’s 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.

Additionally, people like Jim Morrison found literally pursuing death life affirming. I can understand that, and so I can't quite understand the premises here in the same way.

Thanks for your thoughtful engagement here. I can appreciate the point you're making about the pragmatics of worldview - especially your emphasis on the adaptability of systems in their respective contexts. It’s clear that these systems serve a practical purpose in their cultural settings, and they have their own form of life-affirmation, albeit often quite narrowly defined - as you noted

However, I would argue that the framework I’m 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", it’s not about denying the complexity of suffering, confusion, or hardship. It’s not an abstract moral or metaphysical proposition, it’s a recognition of what life needs to persist and flourish on a deeper level. Synthesis, in that sense, asks: How can life’s inherent order and creative potential be maximised? It doesn’t 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. It’s 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.

You’re absolutely right that worldviews evolve - i'd advocate that too, and people shift to new paradigms when they’re ready. The framework I propose isn’t about imposing something externally, it’s 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.

It’s not about “which system is better” based on survival or short-term utility (although i can forgive that potential misreading) - it’s 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 doesn’t judge, but it does raise the question of how systems of thought or culture can guide us toward something greater than mere survival.

something greater than mere survival — James Dean Conroy

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.

I think they are risks of survival. It's about great adventures. What might top that? — Quk

Survival is boring. Re-invention, becoming something you are not, is exciting and audacious. Nietzsche wrote:

“Physiologists should think twice before positioning the drive for self preservation as the cardinal drive of an organic being. Above all, a living thing wants to discharge its strength – life itself is will to power –: self preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent consequences of this. – In short, here as elsewhere, watch out for superfluous teleological principles! – such as the drive for preservation…(Beyond Good and Evil)

“Darwin absurdly overestimates the influence of 'external circumstances'; the essential thing about the life process is precisely the tremendous force which shapes, creates form from within, which utilizes and exploits 'external circumstances' ... -that the new forms created from within are not shaped with a purpose in view, but that in the struggle of the parts, it won't be long before a new form begins to relate to a partial usefulness, and then develops more and more completely according to how it is used.” “Everything that lives is exactly what shows most clearly that it does everything possible not to preserve itself but to become more ...” (Last Notebooks)

To wish to preserve oneself is a sign of distress, of a limitation of the truly basic life-instinct, which aims at the expansion of power and in so doing often enough risks and sacrifices self-preservation.

becoming something — Joshs

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 ...

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 ... — 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:

What you're describing is survival+, plus awareness, or survival imbued with intent, creativity, connection, risk, and rapture. — 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 just see waves at variable wavelengths and variable amplitudes. The wavelengths are the "moments" and the amplitudes are the intensity of the "plus". — Quk

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 I’m modelling in math, you nailed in metaphor.

And to loop it back to the thread: what we’re calling “survival” is never just mechanical persistence. It’s 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.

That’s the real adventure. The becoming.

Panta rhei indeed.

I might borrow what you've said if ok. — James Dean Conroy

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 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 — Quk

I'm onboard. I've been thinking a lot this morning about how this ties the two (coherence and synthesis) together.

Yes -

Darmok: "Temba, his arms wide." — Quk

Thanks, Quk.

I'm onboard. I've been thinking a lot this morning about how this ties the two (coherence and synthesis) together. — James Dean Conroy

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:

Brain storm mode ...

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. It’s 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.

So here's the real convergence:
The universe is a metaphorical system, and coherence is its grammar.

Particles, people, philosophies - all survive by staying coherent with their environment. Metaphors are just as real as molecules, because they pattern life’s 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.

Some information more coherent than other information.

Reading this whole thread will illustrate that :lol: