Episode 2 Life Breathes Scientific Supplement

Scientific Justification for the Life Breathing Together Creation Story

“People…yearn to have a purpose larger than themselves. We are obliged by the deepest drive of the human spirit to make ourselves more than animated dust and we must have a story to tell about where we came from and why we are here. Could holy writ be just the first, literate attempt to explain the universe and make ourselves significant within it? Perhaps science is a continuation on new and better tested ground to attain the same end.  If so, then in that sense, science is religion liberated and writ large. 

Such, I believe is the source of the Ionian enchantment, preferring a search for objective reality over revelation is another way of satisfying religious hunger. It is an endeavor, almost as old as civilization and intertwined with traditional religion, but it follows a very different course. A stoic’s creed; An acquired taste; A guidebook to adventure plotted across rough terrain, It aims to save the spirit not by surrender but by liberation of the human mind. Its central tenant, as Einstein knew, is the Unification of Knowledge. When we have unified enough certain knowledge, we will understand who we are and why we are here. If those committed to the quest fail, they will be forgiven, when lost, they will find another way. The moral imperative of humanism is the endeavor alone, whether successful or not, provided the effort is honorable and failure memorable.”

Quote derived from Chapter 1 of E.O. Wilson’s Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge 

Introduction

There’s a bit of a “chicken-and-egg” problem at the outset of this podcast. As I mentioned in the introduction, my aim is to engage with big questions—and to do so rigorously. More technically, I’m working to curate and synthesize ideas across several interrelated domains: metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, morality, teleology, and anthropology, among others. This project is, in part, a response to a breakdown in shared cultural foundations—something identified by James Davison Hunter in his book Democracy and Solidarity, which played a central role in Episode 1. His thesis—that we are experiencing a crisis in the meaning-making infrastructure of our society—resonates deeply with me. This podcast is, in some ways, my contribution to the larger task of cultural curation and reweaving.

These domains are not neatly separable; they are profoundly self-referential. Progress in understanding one requires at least a cursory grasp of the others—particularly the triad of metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology. (A note for listeners unfamiliar with these terms: I will offer accessible definitions throughout the podcast series. However, in these written supplements, I’ll continue using technical language consistent with philosophical and scientific discourse. I encourage readers to look up these terms—each carries a rich conceptual history and is entangled in networks of meaning that are better explored through multiple sources, rather than by relying solely on my framing.)

In this supplemental text, I begin by laying out the broader epistemological framework introduced in Episode 1, which draws on three distinct yet interwoven ways of knowing: the Objective Way, Nature’s Way, and Spirit’s Way. I then delve more deeply into the Objective Way, offering just enough elaboration to help orient you to its foundational premises. From there, I outline the methods and results of my engagement with current scientific thought—particularly in physics and geology—which informed the creation story offered in the main episode. Finally, I turn toward an ontological question: What is the appropriate boundary condition for defining “life”? This is not only foundational to the creation story itself, but also deeply tied to teleological questions about purpose—especially regarding how we define “progress” and what may be problematic about dominant definitions of that concept today.

A Brief Overview of the Epistemological Framework Informing This Metaphysical (and Ontological) Creation Story

One of the central aims of this podcast is to explore and synthesize ideas, perspectives, and methods across three complementary ways of knowing:

• The Objective Way — grounded in science, technology, and empirical observation, which provides us with capacities to both observe that which is beyond what is perceivable by humans alone and our senses AND our capacity to create representational models and systems to help us to understand reality;

• Nature’s Way — rooted in embodied reciprocity with the natural world, especially as informed by Indigenous wisdom and ecological lifeways that guide us in experientially living in reciprocity with life;

• Spirit’s Way — grounded in ethics, spirituality, and religious traditions drawn from diverse wisdom lineages that help us to experientially know wholeness and oneness.

These epistemologies are not intended to compete with or displace one another. Rather, they function as distinct yet overlapping lenses, each illuminating different dimensions of reality. The goal is not to produce a tidy, puzzle-like consensus where every piece fits seamlessly into place. Instead, I am pursuing what I call consilient resonance: a dynamic, evolving harmony—more like a layered and shifting composition—moving through states of being, becoming, and doing.

This metaphor underscores the interplay of harmonics and dissonances between epistemologies. Crucially, it demands that each way of knowing be engaged on its own terms, with radical empathy and without being subordinated to the logic or authority of another. Their differences are not flaws to be reconciled into sameness, but diverse resonances to be honored and understood.

That said, I want to explicitly acknowledge some likely and valid critiques of this framework—concerns that will be addressed in future episodes but deserve recognition now to foster a transparent line of inquiry.

First, the metaphor of consilient resonance, while evocative, is admittedly light on operational specificity at this stage. Future episodes will examine each epistemic mode in greater depth—clarifying their strengths, limitations, and tensions. I will also introduce a structured process for cultivating consilient resonance, including practical methods for navigating conflicts between ways of knowing. That operational framework is under development and intentionally deferred here to keep the focus on foundational exposition.

Second, I recognize the risk of romanticizing both Indigenous and spiritual epistemologies. This is not a move I want to make. I’ve been working on a framework that seeks to engage these traditions with the respect they deserve, while remaining mindful of their complexity and heterogeneity. My hope is that, through a balanced commitment to the Objective Way’s standards of rigor and critique, I can help navigate that tension without erasing or idealizing.

Third, I want to explicitly note the fluid treatment of “truth” across this framework. In some moments, I draw on truth as correspondence (aligned with the Objective Way); in others, as coherence (aligned with Spirit’s Way); and in yet others, as lived reciprocity or relational adequacy (aligned with Nature’s Way). This is intentional. I am not committing to a singular definition of truth here. Instead, I’m treating it as a triangulated construct—one that emerges from the interplay of these epistemic perspectives. I will return to this question in future episodes, but for now, I wanted to acknowledge the plurality and refrain from prematurely collapsing it into a single frame.

Finally, I want to emphasize my awareness of how systems of power shape which ways of knowing are granted legitimacy and which are excluded from consideration. Epistemic inclusion is not just an ethical imperative—it is necessary for producing trustworthy knowledge. I’ve written about this in my professional work, particularly around increasing the reliability of scientific consensus through inclusive epistemological processes (see here). This concern will also be revisited in greater depth later in the series.

For now, my aim is simply to offer enough conceptual grounding for you to assess whether the creation story presented is coherent, credible, and worthy of engagement. If this epistemological framing resonates—or even if it troubles you—I invite you to stay tuned. This is a conversation I intend to carry forward in active dialogue with others.

Returning to the immediate focus: this supplemental text accompanies the primary episode, Life Breathes, and specifically outlines the epistemic and scientific processes behind the “Life Breathing Together” creation story. It highlights how that story is informed by principles from systems science, cross-disciplinary inquiry, and boundary-thinking—rooted in the Objective Way—while maintaining resonance with Nature’s Way and Spirit’s Way.

I approach this by engaging with science and the Objective Way more generally on its own terms: applying its evidentiary norms and reasoning standards. This allows my assumptions to be scrutinized, my interpretations to be challenged, and my synthesis to be debated in good faith. I see this kind of transparency as essential to any valid claim of knowledge. It’s part of what makes the Objective Way powerful—a power succinctly captured in Jonathan Rauch’s the Constitution of Knowledge, which distills it into two guiding norms:

1. No final say;

2. No personal authority.

Let me state a core assumption explicitly: The Objective Way is a necessary but insufficient means of understanding reality.

This belief is central to the podcast and will be explored in depth—see, for example, Galileo’s Error by Philip Goff. I deeply value science and honor the institutions and methodologies that have enabled humanity to conduct collective, empirical inquiry. As such, I am committed to ensuring that the creation story I offer does not contradict established scientific facts, particularly areas of well-supported consensus.

This commitment stems from a belief I want to make explicit—so it can be evaluated, challenged, or refined:

Assertion: We need a creation story that is:

• Consilient (aligned with the Objective Way),

• Awe-inspiring (in resonance with Spirit’s Way),

• and Guiding (in resonance with Nature’s Way).

Given the focus on the Objective Way here, I’m going to focus on the notion of consilience. 

The concept of consilience—the integration of knowledge across disciplines—first came to me through E.O. Wilson’s Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1998) (which provided the opening quote to this piece, see above). Wilson argued that bridging the physical sciences, social sciences, humanities, arts, and even religion is not only possible but necessary. His work shaped how I understand scientific inquiry—as a modern extension of the Enlightenment's aspiration for unified knowledge, now made more epistemically inclusive.

Wilson drew the term “consilience” from William Whewell, who in The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (1840) defined it as:

“The jumping together of knowledge by the linking of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation... The consilience of inductions takes place when an induction, obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an induction obtained from another, different class.”

Quote derived from Chapter to of E.O. Wilson’s Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1998)

Wilson, building on Charles Sherrington’s Man on His Nature (1941), also invoked Sherrington’s metaphor of the mind as an “enchanted loom,” ever-weaving and reweaving other worlds. He emphasized how the communal mind of culture—through science—has gained the power to map reality far beyond the capacities of any individual. Wilson saw science and the arts as synergistic, both drawing from that same loom.

While Wilson didn’t make the connection, I also see resonance with Karl Popper’s “ Three Worlds” model. Popper described:

• World 1 as the realm of physical forms,

• World 2 as subjective mental experience,

• World 3 as the world of culture and shared ideas.

In that frame, the Objective Way aligns most closely with Popper’s World 3—for those familiar with the formalism.

This intellectual lineage—linking science and the arts, logic and narrative—forms the foundational basis for what I call the Objective Way: a mode of knowing that seeks to generate reliable explanations through the creation and interrogation of objects, which are representations and representational systems of reality. Wilson’s work remains one of the most compelling articulations of this in my view (though he never used the label “the Objective Way” and likely would challenge some of the assertions here, particularly as he stated a strong commitment to material reductivism, which I am not committed to, but all points we will return to), and I encourage those interested to read his book.

While I will delve deeper into the Objective Way in future episodes, it’s essential to establish it here, as a core pillar of the epistemological foundation that supports the metaphysical creation story I’m offering. Stating these assumptions explicitly allows for transparency—and opens them to critique in terms of how trustworthy the resulting story actually is.

Later in this series, I intend to expand Wilson’s vision by articulating how the Objective Way, Nature’s Way, and Spirit’s Way can operate as complementary epistemologies. Together, they offer a more holistic path to understanding truth and reality via processes that foster consilient resonance (see above, which, for now, I am explicitly only defining in metaphorical rather than operational terms as it would require me to go into greater depth in what I mean by Nature’s Way and Spirit’s Way before being able to properly operationalize the concept).

After we complete this metaphysics series (this being the first of three episodes, aimed at arriving at a six-word metaphysical summary: Life breathes; Islands sculpt; Beings adapt), I’ll return to this epistemological framework in greater depth. Epistemology will follow metaphysics, and then ontology. (And yes, this creation story does raise key ontological questions—more on that soon.)

My motivation for sequencing it this way is grounded in the philosophical principle that a plausible metaphysics is often necessary to justify a plausible epistemology. I recognize this leads us directly into the classic “chicken-and-egg” problem, as per how this supplemental text started. 

Personally, I don’t think that tension needs to be resolved, and, as a brief allusion, I do not actually think it is resolvable when only using the Objective Way, save, perhaps, with an infathomably  robust computational power and artificial intelligence that is light years beyond what currently exists (at least that is my guess as of right now).  

The short reason for this is that the foundation of the objective way is objects.  These objects, by definition, “take things apart,” which is the classic translation, particularly from the Greek, of the work “analysis.”  Even when one seeks to engage in synthesis, literally “putting things together,” the initial boundaries and ways that one cuts some facet of reality/the Universe are important and have an impact. With that, not all objects will “fit” or “resonate” with other objects. 

This creates a certain degree of irresolvability that is inherent to the objective way (hence the rule, no final say). While I am getting ahead of myself, epistemically speaking, there is a need for ways of knowing wholeness and oneness and reciprocity that are not fully beholden to the trappings of objects. They need to be known experientially (a central argument in Michael Polyani’s book, Personal Knowledge, which makes the case that all scientific knowledge is founded, first and foremost, on personal knowledge of humans). 

It is my hunch that, while they both also have their own forms of limitations and those ills can create serious problems, Spirit’s Way and Nature’s Way, offer us pathways of experiencing wholeness/oneness and experiencing living reciprocity, respectively, that is complementary to and, indeed, it is my assertion, can help us to resolve some of the irresolvability issues that arise when only being bound to the Objective Way. This is why, in this creation story, I sought to write a story that is resonant with these other ways of knowing (or now to make it more explicit, “experiencing.”  I promise I will return to all of this in future episodes and work but I just wanted to lay out the basic elements now so you could see the arguments in broad brushstrokes. 

With this, I want to state another key assertion:  I do believe there are both absolute and relative, conditional truths that can be discovered, understood, and used to guide human actions and to offer us teleological guidance.  

With this, while I find deep value and appreciation for the profound critiques offered by post-modernists and post-structuralists as they have helped to uncover parts of our foundational stories that, upon deeper scrutiny, could not withstand the scrutiny.  And yet, I am also not giving up on the aspiration, and feasibly unobtainable goal, of seeking consilient resonance.   Hence, this effort is pluralistic and contextualistic, but not relativistic, in the way that term is used within post-modern lines of inquiry.  

Returning back to the creation story, what I am seeking is a metaphysical story be in right relationship with the epistemological tools used to construct them—and vice versa. As metaphysical clarity emerges, it can also reveal epistemic blind spots that must be addressed to ensure inclusivity and validity.

I’ve applied this logic in more bounded ways in my health science work (see my collaborative paper mentioned above as well for details). The iterative interplay between metaphysical assumptions and epistemological frameworks—something I’ve been working on since at least 2019, as documented in my Medium writings—has led to this latest articulation of a metaphysical creation story, now being shared through the podcast.

Metaphysics, epistemology, and ontology are ultimately interacting together and reference one another as critical parts of the Objective Way, particularly drawing from Western Philosophical tradition. Each informs and reshapes the others. We need a metaphysical frame robust enough to support a theory of how we know (epistemology) and of being, becoming, and doing (ontology). At the same time, articulating such a frame requires a working theory of how we know (and now I will also add how we experience) and what is, becomes, and how to act. 

Rather than aiming for some final resolution of this circularity, I argue instead that our metaphysical frameworks must stay in right relation with our epistemologies and ontologies. They should point us toward appropriate ontological orderings of being, becoming, and doing. In practical terms, they should help us identify epistemic or ontological blind spots and prompt reconsideration of assumptions—such as how we define boundaries, derive explanations, or understand relationships of objects.

With this very cursory overview of the epistemological foundation in place, I now turn to the process I used for engaging with scientific literature—especially in fields beyond my core expertise, and then I’ll return to the ontological implications of this line of thought and will offer a justification for the boundary of “life” offered in the creation story, life breathes.

My Process for Engaging Scientific Literature Outside My Field

While my PhD is in clinical health psychology from Rutgers University, and my primary discipline is behavioral science, I’ve spent years developing a strong foundation in multiple scientific methods. At Rutgers, I was trained under a clinical scientist model, which emphasizes research training first, applied to real-world challenges. My work centers on the relationship between human behavior and health outcomes, but spans various domains and draws from their methods:

• Psychology: single-case experimental designs, lab experiments,  

• Health Sciences and Public Health: statistical methods (Bayesian and frequentist), clinical trials

• Digital Health & Behavioral Medicine: optimization trials, system-level interventions

• Design: human-centered and community-centered design

• Systems Science: dynamical systems modeling, system identification, control theory

In these areas, I can engage with primary research literature with confidence and assess methodological rigor.

For fields beyond my direct expertise—like physics and geology—I rely on high-quality popular science books written by leading experts in those disciplines. I made this choice for two reasons:

1. I lack the specialized training to reliably interpret primary research in these fields;

2. Since my audience also includes non-specialists, I wanted to base my work on sources they, too, can engage with directly.

How I Evaluated Sources

For this episode, my first step was to seek out books on the origins of the universe (physics) and the history of Earth (geology) written by credentialed, well-regarded experts. I verified their training, research background, and reputations using several criteria:

• Academic credentials and institutional affiliations

• Research impact metrics (e.g., h-index, total citations)

• Awards from professional societies

• Reputation and public discourse (e.g., reviews of the books, profiles, comparison to any expert consensus statements I could find)

Whenever possible, I began by listening to the audiobook version to absorb the overall message, then followed with a deep reading, taking detailed notes relevant to constructing the “Life Breathing Together” creation story.

Throughout the process, I looked for signs of scientific rigor: engagement with empirical evidence, acknowledgement of debate within the field, presentation of competing hypotheses, and transparency about their own views.

Whenever possible, I read at least two books per topic—ideally offering opposing or contrasting theories. This helped me understand not only the evidence base, but also the range of serious hypotheses in the field.

Physics Books That Informed the Story

Two books were foundational to how I constructed the cosmological portion of the story:

• Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos

• Timothy Palmer, The Primacy of Doubt

Greene, a Professor of theoretical physicist at Columbia, is known for his work on string theory and his skill in communicating complex concepts to the public. His book outlines a view of the universe as one of perpetual expansion, possibly ending in a “cold death” of cosmic silence.

Palmer, a Professor of mathematical physics at the Royal Society  and trained at Oxford under Dennis Sciama (Stephen Hawking’s advisor), offers an alternative theory: the Invariant Set Postulate. His hypothesis draws from fractal geometry, chaos theory, and his expertise in meteorology and climate science. His book presents this as a possible bridge between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Though Palmer’s theory is still developing and lacks a robust empirical test (which, incidentally, is also true of Greene’s hypothesis), it is considered a plausible contender within the physics community (just as the ever-expanding hypothesis is also a contender). 

Critical for the creation story, Palmer’s hypothesis requires a cyclical universe (see picture taken directly from Palmer’s book): 

Between the two, I was more drawn to Palmer’s cyclical model of the universe. This preference is shaped not only by the scientific plausibility of his framework, but by how closely it resonates with the cyclical worldview found in both Nature’s Way and Spirit’s Way, as I understand them. Indigenous cosmologies and spiritual traditions (such as Tibetan Buddhism, described by the Dalai Lama in The Universe in a Single Atom) frequently emphasize cycles of renewal.

Philosopher Philip Goff’s Why? The Purpose of the Universe also influenced me here, reinforcing my commitment to epistemic pluralism (but, we’ll return to this when we return to epistemology). Since physics currently lacks the data to definitively prove or disprove either theory, I find Palmer’s view more compelling when seen through a consilient resonance lens, as I am seeking to enact a process of consilience across the objective way, spirit’s way, and nature’s way.

This is why the story opens with: “Before the beginning…”—a framing consistent with a cyclical universe.

To summarize, I chose to center his model not because it is more “true” in on objective sense, but because it offers:

1. Narrative coherence with cyclical motifs from Nature’s and Spirit’s Ways;

2. A resonant metaphor for renewal and interdependence;

3. A framework that, while speculative, remains within the bounds of scientific plausibility.

This is not a claim of objective fact, but a synthesis grounded in epistemic pluralism towards consilient resonance.

Geology Books That Informed the Story

In contrast to the cosmological debate, the geology was far less contentious. I drew on two primary texts:

• Andrew Knoll, A Brief History of Earth

• Marcia Bjornerud, Timefulness

Knoll, a professor at Harvard University and a veteran researcher with NASA's Mars mission team, is an award-winning geologist whose work focuses on early life and planetary evolution.

Bjornerud, a Professor at Lawrence University and structural geologist, studies the physics of earthquakes and tectonics and is known for making geoscience accessible to wider audiences.

In Knoll’s book, I found a valuable chronology of time, starting from the Big Bang to the present, with its critical moments and cycles.  In Bjornerud’s book, I found not only a replication of the same basic elements of a story and explanation, I also learned of the very human endeavor, a process of scientific consilience, that produced this objective knowledge.  Critically, this objective knowledge is hard-won and only manifests across space and time of a collection of humans working together towards a common purpose, in this case, what Bjornerud names the still-unfinished Atlas of Deep Time. To illustrate, here is a quote from Chapter 1.  

“But the story of how the still-unfinished Atlas of Deep Time has evolved, from Siccar Point to Chicxulub to Jack Hills, makes it clear that mapping time has been a very human endeavor that requires just this kind of give-and-take. It has involved a great variety of minds - visionary thinkers like Hutton and Lyell not too obsessed with details; attentive fossil-hunters like William Smith who are; polymats like Darwin and Holms who see connections across disciplines; fastidious instrumentalists like Nier and Patterson; bureaucracies like the International Commission on Stratigraphy; and legions of hardy, anonymous field mappers (including a few jocks) who understand both chronos and kairos, and how to turn rocks into verbs.”

• Marcia Bjornerud, Timefulness: How Thinking Like a Geologist Can Help Save the World

Beyond this, Bjornerud’s concept of “timefulness”—the deep appreciation of geological time—helped frame the story’s portrayal of Earth as a living, evolving system. Both authors align closely in their views, suggesting their conclusions reflect broad scientific consensus on our understanding of geologic time.

Reimagining the Boundary of the Concept "Life”

With these core sources, I was personally struck at just how important all these self-regulatory complex adaptive systems are, from cosmic to geologic, for our very lives.  It struck me so much that it got me to think differently about what the right boundary is of the concept, “life.”

We now enter more speculative ontological territory that undergirds the creation story.  One could read the creation story using the term “life” as an analogy or metaphor.  With this, the Sun, the Earth, and other factors are not truly alive; they are merely complex adaptive systems and labeling them as alive is just a helpful analogy. This, also, is true, by extension, for the notion of “breath.” 

If you would like to engage with the creation story this way, treating both life and breath, as metaphors and analogies, then I want you to know that I support you in engaging with them in that way. I think engaging only in this way as metaphor is definitely a justifiable stance that I would personally honor. 

With that said, in this section, I’m going to go a step further. I’m going to make a claim that the boundary of the concept of life should be extended to include three broad sub-categories of types of life that interact together: cosmic life, geologic life, and biological life.  WIth this, I’ll then explore the implications of this, particularly on exploring a critical issue raised in the first episode, how do we define progress?  

To support this proposal, I’ll first outline the structure and principles I’m using to guide this inquiry. My framing draws from systems thinking and systems science, particularly as articulated in Principles of Systems Science by Mobus and Kalton—an introductory text I often use in my teaching.

Principles of Systems Science I’m using

While the book covers much ground, I want to focus on two central concepts:

1. Systemness—the inherent qualities that make something a system

2. Boundaries—the importance of defining and redefining what lies inside or outside a system

Mobus and Kalton describe systemness as the essential features that constitute a system. They provide mathematical formalism for those who want a deep dive,pasted below.

 For our purposes here, I’ll draw on the simpler, elegant definition from Donella Meadows, which Mobus and Kalton also initially used:

“A system isn’t just any old collection of things. A system is an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something. If you look at that definition closely for a minute, you can see that a system must consist of three kinds of things: elements, interconnections, and a function or purpose… A system is more than the sum of its parts. It may exhibit adaptive, dynamic, goal-seeking, self-preserving, and sometimes evolutionary behavior.”—Donella Meadows, Thinking in Systems, pp. 11–12

This systems perspective emphasizes interactions and emergent properties, which are foundational to how I approach the redefinition of life.

Boundaries: The Hidden Architecture of Systems (and the defining feature of any “object”)

With systemness established, we can now examine boundaries—a concept central to the development of Life Breathing Together.

In systems science, boundaries aren’t just physical—they’re conceptual tools that define what counts as part of a system and what does not. In Mobus and Kalton’s formalism, one component—labeled "B"—represents:

“A complex object that will vary based on details. Fundamentally, it is a description of the set of boundary conditions that maintain the system identity.”

Critically, boundaries are not fixed. Mobus and Kalton stress that they are shaped by the observer’s purpose and by the specific system being studied. As our knowledge or goals evolve, so too can the boundaries we draw.

This point is essential for understanding the ontological move I’m proposing: to redefine the boundary of what we consider to be "life."

Let’s walk through this using the concept of life itself.

Life, Defined (and Re-Defined)

A natural place to begin is the Taxonomy of Life—rooted in Linnaean classification and developed over centuries. This taxonomy has provided a valuable framework for categorizing biological life, with increasing granularity as scientific methods have progressed.

Today, thanks to advances in genetics and microbiology, we now recognize that most biodiversity—by genetic count—is microbial and was completely invisible to Linnaeus and early taxonomists. Modern trees of life reflect this shift. We, and the animals we typically associate with life, make up just a narrow sliver of the full picture. This alone reveals how much observer perspective and available tools shape what we include or exclude from our definitions.

Which leads us to a crucial insight: the boundaries of concepts like “life” are not eternal truths. They are constructed—shaped by intent, perception, and purpose. The concept of “life” is, thus, an ontological object. It is a representation of some facet of reality meant to help us represent some critical distinction that matters, based on intent and perception. 

Returning to Mobus and Kalton, they provide guiding principles for boundary setting:

• Purpose and Function: The function of a system can determine its boundary—and that function may evolve.

• Hierarchical Structure: Systems are composed of nested subsystems. Recognizing this helps illuminate interrelationships and complexity.

• Emergence: New properties arise at higher levels of the system, prompting reevaluation of existing boundaries.

• Adaptivity: Systems change with context; boundaries may shift as systems reorganize.

• Feedback Loops: Circular inputs and outputs can blur traditional divisions.

These principles shape my re-imagined boundary for life.

Let me be clear: this redefinition does not negate the enormous value of the classical biological taxonomy. Quite the opposite. The boundary drawn around biological life—defined as emergent systems based on genetic material like RNA and DNA—has generated immense insight for it’s purpose and focal area, in the realm of the biological sciences. I rely on and build upon this scientific foundation.

Extending the Frame

But I also ask: are there other complex, adaptive, self-regulatory systems that are essential for biological life to exist?

If the answer is yes, then might it be valuable to expand our concept of life to include them?

If biological life depends on these systems to survive, then from a systems perspective, they may qualify as necessary conditions and thus, on the continuum of life—even if they fall outside the traditional biological boundary.

This is the line of thinking that led to my early creation ‘stories” I tried (first shared on Medium around 2019–2020; again, those were more systems thinking formalisms…now with this background on systemness and playing of boundaries, I hope those write-ups might make more sense to you, particularly if you aren’t a systems scientist), and which I continue to evolve here.

Instead of defining life only in biological terms, I propose a systems view:The boundary of life includes all self-regulating, adapting systems that establish the dynamic conditions necessary for the sub-class of biological systems to exist. 

In this framing, Earth’s geological processes, the Sun’s radiative dynamics, and even cosmic gravitational flows become are the higher order layers of a continuum of life. 

This leads to a higher-order taxonomy of life that would go above the Taxonomy of life’s categorization level of empires (and for which all empires would be within the category her “biological life”, while opening the view towards geological and cosmic life, existing on their own terms, not anthropomorphized, nor biologicalized (a term I think I am making up right now, but meant to represent a continuation of the bias towards seeing things not only in human terms but now also biological terms):

• Biological Life — traditional lifeforms based on genetics

• Geological Life — Earth’s self-regulating systems: volcanism, tectonics, biogeochemical cycling

• Cosmic Life — stellar and planetary-scale systems governed by fusion, gravity, and entropy

This reframing is not arbitrary. It follows the same boundary-setting logic that expanded life’s definition over time—from macro-animals to microbes to synthetic biology. It’s speculative, yes—but grounded in systems science and open to empirical probing.

To test this idea, again, returning to systems science fundamental, requires an exploration on its implications in relation to the goals and objective of the group using the boundary and the sorts of empirical assertions, particularly the potential inter-relationships between systems, that are implied by such a boundary.  I will address the empirical assertions first. 

An empirical test implied by this inclusive boundary of life. 

Here’s one way to probe the potential veracity, from a perceptional test this idea:Can biological life -  which is currently agreed fits into the definition of the bounds of the concept of “life”  -  exist independently of solar energy? Or gravity? Or Earth’s nutrient cycles?

If not, then these higher order systems—though not “alive” in the biological sense—are still required for biological life to persist and, “alive” in their own unique ways, but display “life” as a type of  self-regulatory complex adaptive system. That dependency itself makes a compelling case for including them within the system boundary of life. I think more tests and explorations like this could be formulated but, given that this is already quite long, I would invite others who might have extensions to this line of thought to share. 

This ontological move is not mainstream, but it mirrors patterns in the evolution of biological classification and fits within a broader scientific discourse. As such, I believe it is valid to incorporate into a scientifically grounded creation story. And, with it now stated, I also invite, in the spirit of the Objective Way, challenge, critiques, and otherwise. 

With this, I now turn to the question on the impact of intent. In my view, this is where the broadened definition of life becomes valuable as it offers some valuable options that are not as obvious using the definition of life as only encompassing biological life.  This is in relation to: 

1.  the the way in which this broader boundary could be helpful tool to support the types of actions we need to be engaging in right now. 

2. It’s resonance with Spirit’s Way and Nature’s way and their experiential “knowing” of wholeness/oneness and living reciprocity respectively.

3. Invites a redefinition of the notion of “progress” away from one defined by accumulation of “non-life.” 

Boundaries Are Tools, Not Absolute Truths

Let me also be clear: I’m not suggesting we abandon scientific definitions. Rather, I invite us to examine when and how different boundaries serve us—and when they might not.

One danger we face is treating boundaries and definitions, devised for past contexts, as inviolable truths rather than functional tools. We risk reifying concepts that were always meant to be provisional—helpful models, not sacred doctrines. This is the critical insight from systems thinking and systems science that is often not well recognized using more of a purely reductive scientific approach. 

This is especially urgent when our current definitions hinder our ability to respond to complex realities. Rigid conceptual boundaries can limit imagination, ethics, and action. In that sense, redefining life is not just an academic move—I argue that it just may be a civic, spiritual, and ecological necessity.

By expanding the boundary of life, we create room for broader ethical frames, more adaptive policies, and deeper systems-level responsibility. Psychologically, this shift could cultivate greater care, humility, and stewardship. And from a consilient perspective, it aligns with frameworks like the Stockholm Resilience Institute’s planetary health model and other systems-oriented approaches to vitality.

Alignment with Nature’s Way and Spirit’s Way

This reframing also aligns with Nature’s Way and Spirit’s Way, and, as I alluded to, I think their inclusion helps us to select boundaries of objects in a less arbitrary way as they provide a referent to wholeness and oneness that is not as easily achieved using the Objective Way alone. With this though, given that this is already way too long, I’m not going to go into depth and, particularly here with the cursory review, I want to restate the risk of romanticizing Spirit’s Way and Nature’s Way to the point of not viewing them as they are.  All of this is very fair critique and important to remember.  And, for now, just so I can move to finalizing this, I will just briefly allude to an example in each, with recognition that these are areas that I will need to return to and for which I would invite negotiation episodes about with others who wish to debate this in good faith (meaning a commitment to seeing reality as holistically as possible) and in good will (meaning a commitment to, at minimum, not increase suffering and, ideally, foster mutual benefit). 

In Braiding Sweetgrass, Robin Wall Kimmerer shares that the Potawatomi language distinguishes not between subject and object, but between animate and inanimate. Within that frame, all the entities I include in this expanded concept of life fall on the animate side. This linguistic pattern reflects a broader Indigenous worldview—one that recognizes the vitality and agency of the more-than-human world.

From the perspective of Spirit’s Way, this systems view of life resonates with ethical distinctions made in traditions such as Buddhism, where sentience plays a central role in guiding moral obligation (this is discussed in the Dalai Llama’s book I already mentioned, The Universe in a Single Atom). I won’t go into depth here, but future episodes will explore these connections more fully.

So What Isn’t Life?

If we expand the concept of life, we must also ask: What is not life?

In this framing, the boundary of life excludes human-invented technologies, tools, and objects. 

Thus, life is NOT that which:

• Requires external maintenance from a human to persist;

• Lacks self-regulating, adaptive flows;

• Are purely symbolic, like language, mathematical models, and other objects (including this text)

These fall into the inanimate category—consistent with Potawatomi grammar and many spiritual traditions that distinguish between sentient and non-sentient entities. (See also Philip Goff’s work on the ontology of consciousness in Galileo’s Error.)

With this definition now set up, particularly on what is NOT life, I want to return to the first episode and, in particular, the definition of progress that is commonly used in today’s Modern Culture. 

There are many examples of this, but to point to one, I’d suggest Francis Fukuyama’s classic book, The End of History and the Last Man. In it, Fukuyama claimed that the end of history was reached because of the world dominance of liberal democracy, which he argued manifested through the process of technological innovation and the power of free market capitalism.  This book was a telling story and a foundational explanation that justified neoliberalism and its offshoots.  

As quoted in episode 1,  Daniel Schmachtenberger, alludes to thus idea but situates it into our current context and its implications: 

"We're at The End of History…meaning we're at the end of a human civilization defined by [this pattern]… The thing that has been more successfully dominant, extracted more, grown its population more, increased its violence capability [more] wins… That thing with exponential Tech [when bounded by] planetary boundaries self-terminates. So either we're at the end of our species or we're at the end of our species being defined by those parameters."

—Daniel Schmachtenberger, An Introduction to the Metacrisis, Stockholm Impact/Week 2023

Schmachtenberger and others extend this line of thought in their piece entitled: Development in Progress. This article critiques the dominant cultural narrative of progress—one that equates human advancement with technological innovation and economic growth—as developmentally immature and dangerously narrow. While many envision a future of abundance driven by science and engineering, the current trajectory of progress largely ignores the cascading, long-term side effects it produces, including harm to ecosystems, human health, and future generations. The article argues that we must redefine progress in a more mature and integrated way, one that acknowledges complexity, internalizes externalities, and evaluates success not just by immediate gains but by long-term planetary viability.

Drawing on interdisciplinary research and historical case studies—such as the invention of artificial fertilizers—the article reveals how well-meaning innovations can produce widespread unintended consequences. It calls for a shift from simplistic narratives of linear improvement to a deeper, more systems-aware conception of progress. This mature vision insists on anticipating and mitigating side effects and proposes practical methods for doing so. Ultimately, the piece is a hopeful yet grounded invitation: to evolve our understanding of progress in ways that respect both the known and the unknowable, enabling humanity not just to continue—but to flourish.

Returning back to the exploration here… the boundary of the concept of life, in my view, this boundary has implications on how definition of “progress” and, indeed, could be helpful for contributing towards maturing our notion of progress as well. 

In particular, this expanded definition invites us to ask a deeper question:

Why do we define progress in terms of the accumulation and advancement of non-life?

While we have received a great deal from Modernity, this, to me, is its central trap. Mistaking our non-living creations for progress.

If much of what we call "progress" is centered on the growth of the inanimate—detached from the living systems that sustain us—then perhaps it’s time to reconsider what we mean by progress at all.

This is the boundary that is used within the  creation story.  Using this perspective, and now returning again to work to the Stockholm Institute and the nine planetary health vital signs (see here: https://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org/), this more inclusive definition of life is aligned with this line and thinking. As this website highlights, they are literally talking about the “health” of our planet, thus highlighting a “living” notion when understanding our planet.  

Thinking now as a psychologist, I think there is great benefit, psychologically speaking, for inviting an active embrace of an inclusive understanding of life and our role within it.  This definition invites actions of care, concern, reciprocity, and the like, with all else that is seen as part of what is life.  

Thus, the proposal that the universe fits into that which is “life” —and excludes only human-made technologies and other objects—is a conclusion supported by all three ways of knowing, though, here, I am primarily justifying it as being resonant with the Objective Way. It is, in other words, consilient resonance, as I seek to advance it in this podcast.

---

In Summary

The creation story I offered is not offered as dogma or as settled science. It is an invitation: to explore the implications of the boundaries we invent around critical concepts, such as life, and their implications on how that might guide us to act in relation to other living beings.  I see this type of exploration, one that is seeking to create a healthy resonance between the objective way, nature’s way, and spirit’s way, can, I hope, help us to get a bit unstuck from the current trappings of our present worldviews and, with that, cultivate an integrative imagination that can meet this planetary moment.

It is, above all, an attempt at consilient resonance about questions of metaphysics.

With this methodological and philosophical foundation laid out in accordance with the Objective Way, I now invite critique, comment, and peer review.