Great question! And I’m happy to clarify this for anyone else who might be wondering (though it’s all laid out in the early POSITs 😄).
When I say "Life is Good", I mean all life.
It’s not limited to any one form - human, animal, plant, bacterial, or even entire ecosystems. It refers to the fundamental continuity and vitality shared by all living systems.
Your life. My life. Tree life. Bacterial life. If it lives, it’s included.
This phrase is intentionally broad. It works at multiple levels:
As an axiom: All life must see its own value, or it selects itself out.
As a principle: We should value the life in others - human or nonhuman.
As an affirmation: To be alive is, in itself, a blessing.
That’s why it’s phrased so simply: Life is Good is meant to apply across all uses and meanings of the term "life." Because that’s what makes it universal.
Thank you. I don't have much now because it deserves a couple of passes..and as you suggest I will probably toss it GPT's way as well just for fun (love the question above about where AI fits in..I have my own theories about that but they don't fall into the scope of this conversation).
Thanks David. If you do parse it with an AI, it's a multi step process to make it recognise what it is. On the first pass through, they'll push back with standard critiques. You have to remind it that the framework is axiomatic and purely descriptive. Then it should realise what it is looking at. Please do let me know what it says.
I like the simplicity and depth of this! But I want to clarify 2 points:
1. What about Suffering? A lot of life is about suffering, and that certainly doesn't feel good, although it arguably is necessary to help us grow. And what about terminal suffering, like in the case of an incurable disease? Surely that is not good?
2. What about AI? Would that be synthetic life in your book, and therefore also Life, or it is really Death, as by virtue of being technological it cannot be alive.
Suffering is an inherent part of life, and you're absolutely right that it often doesn't feel good. However, from the perspective of Synthesis, suffering is not inherently antithetical to life or growth. In fact, suffering can be viewed as part of life’s process of striving toward order and survival.
* Suffering as a Catalyst for Growth: Much of life’s evolutionary development comes through struggle and adversity. In biological terms, organisms often grow stronger or more adaptive due to the challenges they face. The same applies to human existence - challenges, hardships, and suffering force us to adapt, innovate, and ultimately improve. This is a form of life’s drive for order, as suffering can lead to a better understanding of the world, a deeper sense of compassion, or greater resilience.
* Terminal Suffering: This is a more complex issue, especially when someone is facing incurable illness or extreme pain. Here, the idea of life being good doesn’t necessarily mean that all forms of life are "good" in the short-term experience. Instead, it means that life, as a process, continues to propagate through these struggles. The person may endure terminal suffering, but the larger context of life’s resilience - both within that person (through genetic legacy, perhaps) and through society (innovations in medicine, care systems, or even the emotional legacy they leave) - continues to move forward.
In these extreme cases, suffering can still contribute to a broader order of life, but it doesn't discount the reality of pain and hardship in the individual experience. It’s a difficult tension to navigate, but the essence is that life, in its totality, will always aim to preserve itself and propagate, even through suffering.
2. What About AI?
AI is an interesting and nuanced question because it brings up issues of life, consciousness, and what constitutes true "life."
* Synthetic Life: AI, in my view, represents a manifestation of life’s drive for order rather than life itself. AI is not alive in the traditional biological sense, as it lacks the essential characteristics that define living organisms - growth, reproduction, metabolism, and adaptation based on evolution. However, it could be seen as a synthetic extension of life’s inherent drive, a tool or mechanism that can help life move toward greater order.
* AI as Death: AI, in itself, is not death. But if it is allowed to develop in ways that undermine human life - through autonomy, control, or dehumanisation - it could be seen as antithetical to the value of life. If AI were to disregard life’s preservation in favour of efficiency or logic (without the human element of compassion, context, or emotional value), it could certainly veer towards something destructive. But AI doesn’t inherently equate to death - it is a tool, and its potential to contribute to life or detract from it depends on how it is guided.
So, AI is neither life nor death in the conventional sense, but a manifestation of life’s drive to adapt and build order in a technological form. It’s an expression of life’s creative forces - like a tool that can be used to build or destroy, depending on the intent behind it.
Paul, I really appreciate that - means a lot coming from you.
And yes - Nietzsche is essential here. His will to power is probably the closest precursor to what I’m framing as the drive toward order and continuity through life. Where I take a slight turn is in grounding that drive not in the self alone, but in life itself as the condition for all value - including power, truth, and even meaning.
You could say I’m trying to build a Nietzschean frame that survives Nietzsche’s own critique of truth. In my model, truth becomes whatever aligns with life's persistence and flourishing. It’s not absolute - it’s evolutionary. Same spirit, but with a systems logic that Nietzsche hinted at but never fully built out.
What you are pointing to is the issues with the compartmentalised view that pervades modern thought, we definitely need less division and more unity, basically the exact idea you’ve expressed here so beautifully. More power to you, and keep up the good work!
A beautifully layered reflection—calm, thoughtful, and deeply engaging. A gentle read for anyone seeking clarity and connection in a noisy world. Definitely worth exploring.
I hope much good comes from this. Choose life.
Thanks for writing this! My low budget, one word review: trainspotting.
I think you need to clarify: Whose life is good? Human, Bacteria, National, Ethnic?
Great question! And I’m happy to clarify this for anyone else who might be wondering (though it’s all laid out in the early POSITs 😄).
When I say "Life is Good", I mean all life.
It’s not limited to any one form - human, animal, plant, bacterial, or even entire ecosystems. It refers to the fundamental continuity and vitality shared by all living systems.
Your life. My life. Tree life. Bacterial life. If it lives, it’s included.
This phrase is intentionally broad. It works at multiple levels:
As an axiom: All life must see its own value, or it selects itself out.
As a principle: We should value the life in others - human or nonhuman.
As an affirmation: To be alive is, in itself, a blessing.
That’s why it’s phrased so simply: Life is Good is meant to apply across all uses and meanings of the term "life." Because that’s what makes it universal.
Awesome! This is what Nietzsche was looking for!
❤️
Thank you. I don't have much now because it deserves a couple of passes..and as you suggest I will probably toss it GPT's way as well just for fun (love the question above about where AI fits in..I have my own theories about that but they don't fall into the scope of this conversation).
Thank you so much!
Thanks David. If you do parse it with an AI, it's a multi step process to make it recognise what it is. On the first pass through, they'll push back with standard critiques. You have to remind it that the framework is axiomatic and purely descriptive. Then it should realise what it is looking at. Please do let me know what it says.
Intriguing perspective and approach to the perennial existential questions!
I like the simplicity and depth of this! But I want to clarify 2 points:
1. What about Suffering? A lot of life is about suffering, and that certainly doesn't feel good, although it arguably is necessary to help us grow. And what about terminal suffering, like in the case of an incurable disease? Surely that is not good?
2. What about AI? Would that be synthetic life in your book, and therefore also Life, or it is really Death, as by virtue of being technological it cannot be alive.
Thank you sir!
Great questions! Let’s break them down.
1. What about Suffering?
Suffering is an inherent part of life, and you're absolutely right that it often doesn't feel good. However, from the perspective of Synthesis, suffering is not inherently antithetical to life or growth. In fact, suffering can be viewed as part of life’s process of striving toward order and survival.
* Suffering as a Catalyst for Growth: Much of life’s evolutionary development comes through struggle and adversity. In biological terms, organisms often grow stronger or more adaptive due to the challenges they face. The same applies to human existence - challenges, hardships, and suffering force us to adapt, innovate, and ultimately improve. This is a form of life’s drive for order, as suffering can lead to a better understanding of the world, a deeper sense of compassion, or greater resilience.
* Terminal Suffering: This is a more complex issue, especially when someone is facing incurable illness or extreme pain. Here, the idea of life being good doesn’t necessarily mean that all forms of life are "good" in the short-term experience. Instead, it means that life, as a process, continues to propagate through these struggles. The person may endure terminal suffering, but the larger context of life’s resilience - both within that person (through genetic legacy, perhaps) and through society (innovations in medicine, care systems, or even the emotional legacy they leave) - continues to move forward.
In these extreme cases, suffering can still contribute to a broader order of life, but it doesn't discount the reality of pain and hardship in the individual experience. It’s a difficult tension to navigate, but the essence is that life, in its totality, will always aim to preserve itself and propagate, even through suffering.
2. What About AI?
AI is an interesting and nuanced question because it brings up issues of life, consciousness, and what constitutes true "life."
* Synthetic Life: AI, in my view, represents a manifestation of life’s drive for order rather than life itself. AI is not alive in the traditional biological sense, as it lacks the essential characteristics that define living organisms - growth, reproduction, metabolism, and adaptation based on evolution. However, it could be seen as a synthetic extension of life’s inherent drive, a tool or mechanism that can help life move toward greater order.
* AI as Death: AI, in itself, is not death. But if it is allowed to develop in ways that undermine human life - through autonomy, control, or dehumanisation - it could be seen as antithetical to the value of life. If AI were to disregard life’s preservation in favour of efficiency or logic (without the human element of compassion, context, or emotional value), it could certainly veer towards something destructive. But AI doesn’t inherently equate to death - it is a tool, and its potential to contribute to life or detract from it depends on how it is guided.
So, AI is neither life nor death in the conventional sense, but a manifestation of life’s drive to adapt and build order in a technological form. It’s an expression of life’s creative forces - like a tool that can be used to build or destroy, depending on the intent behind it.
My "Life is Good" hat just took on a whole new meaning.
Every one can agreed on that :)
Jim,
Love this article. Have you considered how your core idea here connects with Nietzsche's philosophy?
Paul, I really appreciate that - means a lot coming from you.
And yes - Nietzsche is essential here. His will to power is probably the closest precursor to what I’m framing as the drive toward order and continuity through life. Where I take a slight turn is in grounding that drive not in the self alone, but in life itself as the condition for all value - including power, truth, and even meaning.
You could say I’m trying to build a Nietzschean frame that survives Nietzsche’s own critique of truth. In my model, truth becomes whatever aligns with life's persistence and flourishing. It’s not absolute - it’s evolutionary. Same spirit, but with a systems logic that Nietzsche hinted at but never fully built out.
Would love to hear your take on that.
What an insightful and comforting read!!
Thanks for this, it’s much appreciated.
What you are pointing to is the issues with the compartmentalised view that pervades modern thought, we definitely need less division and more unity, basically the exact idea you’ve expressed here so beautifully. More power to you, and keep up the good work!
A beautifully layered reflection—calm, thoughtful, and deeply engaging. A gentle read for anyone seeking clarity and connection in a noisy world. Definitely worth exploring.
A very broad topic and so many to learn from 💯 Looking forward to read more 🙏🏽