This is all very interesting. And well done. Quite coherent, to a point, and has definite explanatory power. But…
Life—if by that you mean living things or that which is living—does not necessarily affirm. It does not necessarily grow. Granted, emergent properties, characteristics or qualities arise from specific combinations of different elements informed by context and the environment, internal and external.
Take consciousness, for example. We know what it is by definition, more or less, by what it isn’t. We can describe it. We can differentiate it. But we cannot fully explain it. Not even close, really…
Similarly, we can define life but it is not always sentient. It is not actually always or necessarily “agentic” as the new AI thinkers like to say… So one cannot ascribe progress to it.
Life includes decay. Entropy. Dissolution. Death. And not necessarily renewal. Reincarnation is a nice idea… with no evidence. Just like OBE/NDEs… Wish fulfillment at worst and culminating biological processes at best, based on all decent evidence.
We, as apex agglomerations of conscious physicality, are as you describe. We are good. But also, apparently, bad.
But not life, itself. And while life can indeed be good, as a subjective experience, it is not necessarily so. Relatively? Yes. Inherently? Just because some things which are alive—perhaps even all things—operate on the basis of valuing things in their environment? Moving towards or away from a stimulus, in its most basic expression of valuation. But is life good, necessarily? What if the simplest of organisms with photosensitivity move away from the light to avoid predation only to be preyed upon by whatever was in the dark? Or if moving up towards light and allowing for growth via energy conversion by photosynthesis puts the plant in the path of an ungulate hoof? Or mouth.
Life = Good because it makes value possible? Does it? Really? You do. I do. But do other organisms? Do less complex organisms? That life has emerged from constituent elements across spacetime is wild and wonderful in a myriad of ways, within a very narrow window. If anything was just a bit off from the beginning, if this fine tuning was not so fine, life would be very different, if there was life at all. But life doesn’t make value possible. We do. Ask a snail. A mollusk. A virus. A bird. Do they embody value structures? How do you know? Does a rock have more value than a feather. Is either good? How so?
Humans make a lot up to make life meaningful. And that’s great. But value is a human construct. Not a property of life which allows it to be “Good” in any defined way, as if humans didn’t exist.
You're confusing speaking about value with embodying it.
A bird doesn’t write ethics essays, but it guards its young with its life.
A plant doesn’t debate utility, but it leans toward the sun.
A cell doesn’t vote, but it fights for its boundary.
These are all very simple examples of life affirming itself.
These aren’t opinions.
They’re preferences enacted through structure.
Life selects - that’s what it does. That’s what value is.
You say “only humans make value” - but humans are life. There is no non-living frame from which value could even be imagined.
Life doesn’t need to say “good.” It acts it out. Every time it persists, adapts, protects, grows - it affirms.
Your mistake is simple: You're demanding a linguistic proof from things that demonstrate value structurally. But value existed long before language. That's why you’re here to question it.
It's a very simple thing to show. And a very simple concept. Where is the disconnect here?
I’m not the one confused or wed to some notion and pulling backflips to justify some system as a priori when it isn’t... “Life is.”? That’s apparent. Of course living things, generally speaking, act in ways that perpetuate and preserve themselves. Generally.
“Life = Good” does not follow, linguistically, logically, ontologically or otherwise.
Without life, there is no life, nor anything that is derived from living things. The universe could have been simply helium. A few base elements. Nothing more. So what? The fact that life exists does not in and of itself equal it being “Good” if you are defining “good” as that which can be valued. Just because something can be valued, rank ordered, distinguished, compared, whatever does not mean it is good. It just doesn’t. There is no link.
Good faith engagement is welcome. Never ending semantic sophistry a la RJ Ashfield - not so much...
This is all very interesting. And well done. Quite coherent, to a point, and has definite explanatory power. But…
Life—if by that you mean living things or that which is living—does not necessarily affirm. It does not necessarily grow. Granted, emergent properties, characteristics or qualities arise from specific combinations of different elements informed by context and the environment, internal and external.
Take consciousness, for example. We know what it is by definition, more or less, by what it isn’t. We can describe it. We can differentiate it. But we cannot fully explain it. Not even close, really…
Similarly, we can define life but it is not always sentient. It is not actually always or necessarily “agentic” as the new AI thinkers like to say… So one cannot ascribe progress to it.
Life includes decay. Entropy. Dissolution. Death. And not necessarily renewal. Reincarnation is a nice idea… with no evidence. Just like OBE/NDEs… Wish fulfillment at worst and culminating biological processes at best, based on all decent evidence.
We, as apex agglomerations of conscious physicality, are as you describe. We are good. But also, apparently, bad.
But not life, itself. And while life can indeed be good, as a subjective experience, it is not necessarily so. Relatively? Yes. Inherently? Just because some things which are alive—perhaps even all things—operate on the basis of valuing things in their environment? Moving towards or away from a stimulus, in its most basic expression of valuation. But is life good, necessarily? What if the simplest of organisms with photosensitivity move away from the light to avoid predation only to be preyed upon by whatever was in the dark? Or if moving up towards light and allowing for growth via energy conversion by photosynthesis puts the plant in the path of an ungulate hoof? Or mouth.
I look forward to your reply.
Here's the razor:
If we are good, and we came from life, then life must be good - by definition.
You can’t grant sanctity to the fruit and curse the tree that bore it. That’s not humility. That’s stasis-worship in a human mask.
Life = Good. Not because we are good. But because without life, we could never ask what “good” is.
Life does not affirm anything.
Life = Good because it makes value possible? Does it? Really? You do. I do. But do other organisms? Do less complex organisms? That life has emerged from constituent elements across spacetime is wild and wonderful in a myriad of ways, within a very narrow window. If anything was just a bit off from the beginning, if this fine tuning was not so fine, life would be very different, if there was life at all. But life doesn’t make value possible. We do. Ask a snail. A mollusk. A virus. A bird. Do they embody value structures? How do you know? Does a rock have more value than a feather. Is either good? How so?
Humans make a lot up to make life meaningful. And that’s great. But value is a human construct. Not a property of life which allows it to be “Good” in any defined way, as if humans didn’t exist.
You're confusing speaking about value with embodying it.
A bird doesn’t write ethics essays, but it guards its young with its life.
A plant doesn’t debate utility, but it leans toward the sun.
A cell doesn’t vote, but it fights for its boundary.
These are all very simple examples of life affirming itself.
These aren’t opinions.
They’re preferences enacted through structure.
Life selects - that’s what it does. That’s what value is.
You say “only humans make value” - but humans are life. There is no non-living frame from which value could even be imagined.
Life doesn’t need to say “good.” It acts it out. Every time it persists, adapts, protects, grows - it affirms.
Your mistake is simple: You're demanding a linguistic proof from things that demonstrate value structurally. But value existed long before language. That's why you’re here to question it.
It's a very simple thing to show. And a very simple concept. Where is the disconnect here?
I’m not the one confused or wed to some notion and pulling backflips to justify some system as a priori when it isn’t... “Life is.”? That’s apparent. Of course living things, generally speaking, act in ways that perpetuate and preserve themselves. Generally.
“Life = Good” does not follow, linguistically, logically, ontologically or otherwise.
Life = Bad just as often.
Life does not affirm.
Life is not for life.
Life has value, relatively speaking.
But that does not necessarily make it “Good.”
So you agree, life does in fact, affirm itself.
You’re still mistaking experience for structure.
You're saying "life can feel bad" - which is true in lived experience.
But that doesn’t change the structural reality:
Value requires a valuer.
Only life can value.
Therefore, life is the precondition of value.
That’s what “Life = Good” means. It’s not a moral claim. It’s an ontological axiom:
Without life, there’s no possibility of value - no good, no bad, no meaning, no judgment. Nothing matters.
Even your statement “Life = Bad” requires a living frame to say so.
You’re not refuting the axiom - you’re proving it. And this is now back pedalling.
Morality isn't the same thing as value. Value is structural. Morality is merely a late expression (a human one) of value.
You know what a solipsism is right?
Without life, there is no life, nor anything that is derived from living things. The universe could have been simply helium. A few base elements. Nothing more. So what? The fact that life exists does not in and of itself equal it being “Good” if you are defining “good” as that which can be valued. Just because something can be valued, rank ordered, distinguished, compared, whatever does not mean it is good. It just doesn’t. There is no link.
You affirm value in “apex conscious agglomerations” like us, but deny it to life itself, which made us possible?
That’s the essence of stasis worship: Elevate the self, dismiss the source.
But consciousness is a late emergence. Life came first.
And only life makes value possible at all. We aren’t the good. We are an expression of it. Because Life = Good. Always was.
To clarify:
Life = Good isn’t a claim within the Synthesis framework, it’s the reason any framework is possible at all.
Without life, there is no value, no meaning, no good, no bad.
There is no perspective. No judgment. No criteria. No anything that can matter.
Life is the only frame for value. No other frame exists.
That’s not subjective. It’s ontological. Axiomatic.
Everything else depends on that.
Synthesis just says it plainly.
The concept is pretty simple. No life = no value.
Thanks for the comment.
You’re right to point out that life includes decay, death, entropy. But here’s the key distinction:
Life does not deny entropy.
Life resists it.
Not perfectly. Not permanently. But structurally, directionally.
Let’s unpack the core misunderstanding:
You're evaluating life based on its outcomes - decay, predation, death -
But I’m talking about its architecture.
Life is not good because it always thrives.
Life is good because it is the precondition of value itself.
Life affirms itself structurally - through adaptation, persistence, reproduction, resistance, growth.
Even the simplest organism exhibits this bias: it moves, consumes, adjusts, repairs.
When it stops doing that, it’s no longer alive.
You also mention sentience and agency.
That’s not required.
The axiom “Life is Good” is not about consciousness, pleasure, or moral goodness.
It’s ontological:
Life is the only frame in which value can emerge.
Without life, there is:
No perception
No stimulus-response
No meaning
No “good” or “bad”
You can’t ascribe value to non-life without borrowing from the very thing you're questioning.
On death, dissolution, and failure:
Yes - life fails. Constantly.
But that doesn’t disprove the axiom. It proves it.
Because the failure of life is framed by life’s attempt to continue.
Predation, competition, death - all exist within life’s arena.
The organism that tries and fails is still an instance of affirmation through action.
So here’s the pivot:
Life is Good doesn’t mean life is always pleasant, fair, or successful.
It means that life is the only thing that affirms value at all.
Without it, nothing matters. Literally.
Your examples of darkness, destruction, error - they’re valid.
But they happen inside a system that is structurally biased toward continuity.
That's why the axiom holds.
It’s not subjective. It’s pre-subjective.
The very idea of “good” only exists because life does.
Synthesis doesn't say life is nice.
It says life is the only reason anything can matter.
And that’s not opinion.
That’s the foundation beneath all experience, judgment, and value.
Happy to go deeper if you want. You’re asking the right questions but I’m saying they all presuppose the one truth you’re circling:
Life = Good.
Not because it always wins.
But because it’s the only thing trying.