A constructive critique of From Regenerative Cultures to Life-Coherent Bioregioning, examining how the paper can strengthen its transition from philosophical foundations to practical governance while integrating digital sovereignty, AI, and bioregional resilience into one coherent framework. Read More
Can local resilience alone create a just society? This debate examines whether regenerative cultures require only place-based participation—or whether they also demand explicit ethical criteria, multiscale governance, and safeguards against hidden forms of systemic injustice. Read More
A Deep Dive into the shift from crisis management and scalable “solutions” toward life-coherent bioregioning, where governance, economy, education, technology, and belonging are reoriented around the living conditions that enable people and places to thrive. Read More
This spoken monologue is adapted from my 2017 article, Sitting in the Right Pew but Wrong Church, written shortly after encountering the work of philosopher John McMurtry and his life-value onto-axiology.
The central message is simple but urgent: humanity’s mistake was not that we valued growth, but that we confused the growth of money with the growth of life. True economy means the wise stewardship of the household — our bodies, communities, ecosystems, and Mother Earth. A civilization becomes life-coherent only when its religions, politics, economics, sciences, laws, and technologies are answerable to the conditions that make life possible.
This video is a call to move from money-value accumulation to life-capital regeneration; from scarcity and violence to care, provision, and right relationship; from “Take care” to “Give care.”
Dedicated in gratitude to Professor John McMurtry, whose work on life-value, universal human life necessities, and the civil commons offers an anchor, compass, and steer for a more life-coherent world.
This excerpt extends the Beyond GDP agenda by shifting the question of progress measurement from technical correction to relational responsibility. Drawing on Humberto Maturana’s relational biology, it argues that indicators are not neutral mirrors of reality but acts of distinction made by observers within particular histories, institutions, languages, and emotional orientations. Measurement therefore does not merely describe a world; it helps bring forth and conserve a way of living. While Beyond GDP frameworks rightly expand attention toward well-being, equity, sustainability, social trust, and ecological integrity, a life-coherent approach asks whether these indicators remain answerable to life or become new instruments of control, ranking, and institutional self-legitimation. The excerpt reframes progress measurement as a participatory, ethical, and reparative practice grounded in organism–niche relations, legitimate coexistence, and collective learning. Its central claim is that the purpose of measurement should not be to compare, rank, and manage societies, but to reflect, converse, repair relations, protect life-enabling commons, and conserve the conditions for human and planetary flourishing.
Gross domestic product has long functioned as the dominant shorthand for national progress, yet it was designed to measure economic activity, not the full conditions of human and planetary flourishing. Economic growth can coexist with inequality, ecological degradation, declining trust, poor health, social fragmentation, and the erosion of future viability. The United Nations High-Level Expert Group on Beyond GDP has therefore made an important contribution by proposing that progress be measured as equitable, inclusive, and sustainable well-being, supported by a dashboard of indicators covering foundational principles, current well-being, equity and inclusion, and sustainability and resilience (High-Level Expert Group on Beyond GDP, 2026).
This white paper argues that the Beyond GDP agenda is necessary but incomplete if it remains primarily a measurement framework. A wider dashboard can make visible many harms that GDP conceals, but it cannot by itself transform the social, economic, ecological, technological, and institutional relations that generate those harms. The next step is a life-coherent framework for progress: one that asks whether the dominant arrangements of society enable or disable the life-capacities required for persons, communities, ecosystems, and future generations to live, heal, participate, repair, and flourish.
The paper integrates four complementary streams of thought. The UN Beyond GDP agenda provides the institutional opening. John McMurtry’s life-value onto-axiology provides the normative criterion: value consists in what enables more coherently inclusive ranges of thought, feeling, and action, while disvalue consists in what reduces, disables, or destroys such ranges (McMurtry, 2011a, 2011b, 2018). Johan Galtung’s peace theory deepens peace beyond the absence of direct violence toward the reduction of structural and cultural conditions that constrain life. Humberto Maturana’s relational biology reminds us that worlds are brought forth through distinctions, language, emotion, and recurrent relations of coexistence.
Building on these foundations, this white paper proposes a life-coherent deepening of Beyond GDP. It reframes progress as the expansion of life-capacity; wealth as life capital; peace as the reduction of avoidable life-harm; efficiency as the increasing provision of life goods with diminishing life-loss; and governance as the coordination of life-enabling conditions through the legitimate coexistence of all those affected, including those unable to speak for themselves. The aim is to move from measuring economic output, to measuring multidimensional well-being, to transforming the conditions through which life is enabled or disabled.
Contemporary global systems exhibit converging failures across biological, social, and ecological domains, manifesting as chronic disease, institutional instability, and environmental degradation. These phenomena are typically addressed as discrete problems; however, this manuscript advances the thesis that they arise from a common underlying condition: the loss of coherence across systems. Coherence is defined as the dynamic alignment of processes that enables living systems to sense, respond, and sustain their functional integrity over time.
Drawing from systems biology, developmental neuroscience, ecological theory, and socio-economic analysis, this work establishes a unifying framework in which value is grounded in the enhancement of life capacities. It demonstrates how modern economic and governance systems, through abstraction, metric substitution, and feedback distortion, have become decoupled from the conditions they depend upon, resulting in systemic incoherence. The concept of the “Ruling Group Mind” is introduced as a distributed structural pattern that perpetuates this misalignment.
The manuscript develops a multi-level architecture of coherence spanning biological regulation, developmental conditions, relational systems, emotional sentience, institutional design, economic provisioning, governance frameworks, and the stewardship of the commons. It articulates a set of design principles for coherent systems, emphasizing feedback integrity, distributed power, temporal alignment, and adaptive capacity. These principles are operationalized through a redefinition of the economy as a living system of provisioning and the commons as the foundational substrate of collective life.
Finally, the work addresses the processes of transition, healing, and systemic transformation, integrating structural redesign with the cultivation of individual and collective capacities required for sustained coherence. The concept of a “field of coherence” is proposed to describe the emergent alignment of systems across scales.
This framework provides a basis for reorienting policy, practice, and institutional design toward the conditions that sustain life, offering a unifying lens for addressing complex, interdependent challenges in the 21st century.
Modern societies possess unprecedented technological power, yet remain vulnerable to systemic instability, conflict, and ecological degradation. Traditional analyses often treat violence and conflict as primary phenomena arising from political disagreement, ideological rivalry, or geopolitical competition. This paper advances an alternative systems interpretation: violence is better understood as a downstream manifestation of deeper misalignments between civilizational institutions and the ecological life-support systems upon which societies depend.
Building on Johan Galtung’s violence triangle and John McMurtry’s life-value onto-axiology, the paper introduces the concept of a Violence–Viability Architecture. This framework integrates ecological foundations, institutional governance, cultural narratives, and regulatory dynamics into a unified model explaining how civilizations maintain or lose stability. Cultural attractors such as Chosenness–Myth–Trauma, Dualism–Manichaeism–Armageddon, and Repression–Projection are examined as narrative mechanisms that shape societal responses to systemic stress.
The paper further introduces analytical tools — including a civilizational stability landscape, a viability phase diagram, and a diagnostic policy worksheet — to help policymakers evaluate how governance decisions influence long-term societal resilience. The central thesis is that the fundamental task of governance is not merely conflict management but the maintenance of alignment between institutions, culture, and the life-ground that sustains human life.
This three-volume encyclopedia develops a unified life-grounded framework for diagnosing and resolving contemporary global crises. It argues that modern philosophy, economics, and political theory have abstracted from the material and biological conditions that make life possible, generating a ruling value syntax that privileges money-value accumulation over life-value realization.
Volume I reconstructs the foundational problem of value by distinguishing life-value from desire-value and market-value, and articulates a life-coherence principle as the missing criterion of moral philosophy.
Volume II extends this analysis into justice theory, rights discourse, and political economy, exposing the structural conflict between corporate person rights and embodied human life requirements. It develops the concept of the civil commons and re-grounds justice in universal life necessities.
Volume III situates these analyses within broader philosophical traditions and global life-support systems, confronting mechanistic reductionism, ecological collapse, and the fragmentation of knowledge.
Together, the three volumes offer a systematic onto-axiological framework for evaluating institutions, policies, and cultural paradigms according to whether they enable or disable the reproduction and flourishing of life-support systems across time.
This work advances a minimal structural thesis: living systems are bounded, history-sensitive dynamical systems whose continued existence depends on preserving connected viable futures under finite constraint. Drawing on dynamical systems theory, stress physiology, ecology, economics, and governance theory, the book formalizes viability topology as the minimal metaphysical structure underlying living systems.
Persistence requires sustained interiority within a viability set K. Repeated imbalance encodes structural deformation, producing curvature, tipping points, hysteresis, and basin multiplicity. Reachable future space V(s) defines optionality. Control processes function to preserve or expand this space. Ontology, epistemology, and axiology are therefore dynamically unified: boundary defines being, constraint forecasting defines knowledge, and preservation of viable futures defines minimal value.
The framework is applied across scale. In medicine, chronic disease is interpreted as entrenchment-induced basin narrowing. In economics, growth detached from regenerative capacity is shown to steepen curvature and increase instability. In governance, cross-scale integration is evaluated according to preservation of coupled viable space across time.
The result is a unified grammar of viability capable of diagnosing structural fragility in biological, institutional, and civilizational systems. The central evaluative question becomes: does a given action widen or narrow the space in which the future remains possible?
