A debate on whether humanity’s transformation must begin with a unitive cosmology or a strict material ethic of life-coherence. This episode examines quantum physics, interdependence, structural violence, spiritual bypassing, living autonomy, correctable institutions, and why cosmic belonging must ultimately become material responsibility. Read More
A deep dive into why systems sacrifice life for metrics. This episode explores the mechanistic worldview, the Great Inversion, proxy capture, unitive science, living boundaries, structural violence, institutional self-preservation, correctability, and the transition toward a civilization governed by life-capacity rather than abstract institutional success. Read More
Humanity’s ecological, political, technological, and social crises are increasingly recognisable as symptoms of a deeper disorder in how reality, knowledge, and value are understood. Jude Currivan’s unitive science of a living universe responds by proposing that the universe is relational, informational, interconnected, and evolutionarily emergent. This offers a powerful cosmology of belonging, but also raises scientific and philosophical questions. Quantum entanglement does not by itself demonstrate universal consciousness; the global topology and finitude of the universe remain unresolved; and holographic cosmology remains a developing research programme rather than an established description of our universe (Nobel Prize Outreach, 2022; European Space Agency, 2001; Perimeter Institute, n.d.).
This paper brings Currivan’s proposal into constructive dialogue with Humberto Maturana’s biology of cognition, John McMurtry’s life-value ontology, Johan Galtung’s analysis of violence, and the developing concept of institutional autopoietization. It argues that unitive science and life-coherence are mutually corrective. Unitive science enlarges life-coherence by locating living beings within a cosmological narrative of emergence, participation, wonder, and belonging. Life-coherence strengthens unitive science by supplying an explicit value criterion, preserving the autonomy and boundaries of living beings, distinguishing life-serving from pathological forms of coherence, and translating worldview transformation into institutional practice.
The proposed synthesis moves from separation to relationality, from relationality to living autonomy, from autonomy to life-value, and from life-value to corrigible institutions and civil commons. Its central claim is that relational unity becomes ethically meaningful only when relationships, technologies, and institutions are evaluated by whether they protect, restore, and enlarge the capacities of living beings and the systems that sustain them, without transferring disabling costs to other persons, species, ecosystems, or future generations.
This white paper offers a paradigm-shifting critique of the global sustainability industry through the evaluative and philosophical lens of Life-Value Onto-Axiology (LVOA). It argues that the prevailing sustainability regime, despite its aspirational rhetoric, is structurally embedded in colonial, extractive, and technocratic systems that continue to disable life capacities across ecological, cultural, and political domains.
Building on the groundbreaking analysis in Colonial Sustainability (Sayson et al., 2024) and practitioner reflections such as Bjørkskov’s We Can’t Manage Decline and Call It Justice, the paper diagnoses five domains of systemic life-incoherence — ecological, economic, cultural, technocratic, and political. It then articulates a life-coherent alternative rooted in LVOA, including principles for regenerative design, bioregional governance, communal sovereignty, and systems transformation.
This is not a reformist proposal but a life-centered civilizational pivot: from greenwashed empire to biocultural regeneration. It calls for the hospicing of dominant sustainability paradigms and the seeding of coherent futures grounded in reciprocity, responsibility, and relational repair.
