How can life-value become operational without reducing life to the metrics it opposes? This critique proposes three improvements: integrate the epistemic triad earlier, anchor the mathematics in a continuous human example, and strengthen the framework’s defenses against metric gaming and institutional capture. Read More
Can Life-Value Onto-Axiology acquire enough structure to guide real institutions without becoming a new technocratic orthodoxy? This debate tests its operational architecture against metric gaming, administrative paralysis, institutional capture, and the irreducibility of lived experience. Read More
Why do official measures of success rise while workers burn out, patients remain unwell, and ecosystems collapse? This Deep Dive contrasts the money sequence with the life sequence of value and examines how capacity, regenerative margin, life capital, and the civil commons can reorient institutions toward life. Read More
Life-Value Onto-Axiology (LVOA), developed by John McMurtry, offers a universal criterion for evaluating claims, practices, institutions, and economic systems according to whether they enable or disable life-capacities. Its central concepts — the life-ground, universal human life necessities, life capital, civil commons, the life sequence of value, and the money-sequence inversion — provide an unusually powerful basis for diagnosing contemporary social and ecological crises. Yet universal evaluative adequacy does not automatically provide a process ontology, causal model, measurement architecture, decision procedure, or domain-specific research method. This white paper proposes a minimal completion of that unfinished operational program.
The proposed reconstruction preserves McMurtry’s Primary Axiom while adding five connected layers: a process-relational account of living unities and objective need; an account of how significance, felt valence, and reflective meaning emerge in life-processes; a minimal grammar that prevents unmarked crossings among biological, experiential, institutional, and normative domains; a dynamic Need–Satisfier–Provision–Assimilation–Capacity–Margin–Viability model; and a threshold-sensitive decision procedure incorporating non-displacement, distribution, reversibility, and epistemic uncertainty. It further specifies life capital and civil commons as institutional forms for reproducing life goods and capacities through time.
The paper argues that LVOA can be considered conceptually complete only in an open sense: it now possesses the minimum constitutional architecture required to guide empirical inquiry and public action, while remaining corrigible by lived experience, causal evidence, adversarial testing, and affected communities. Applications are developed for health care, education, economics, and governance. The paper concludes with falsifiable middle-range hypotheses, safeguards against doctrinal closure, and a research program for canonicalization, instrument development, paradigm studies, comparative institutional testing, and plural governance of a Life-Knowledge Commons.
