Waters of Being: Substantial Motion and the Future of Intelligence in Mulla Sadra’s Planetary Ontology

By Victor V. Motti*

In an age where technology, consciousness, and ethics intersect at planetary scales, the 17th-century Persian philosopher Mulla Sadra offers a radical metaphysical vision that remains surprisingly relevant. At the core of his Transcendent Theosophy lies a concept known as substantial motion (al-harakat al-jawhariyya): the idea that existence itself is in constant transformation—not just in form or position, but in essence. Everything flows. And all that exists, exists by virtue of its moment-by-moment dependency on a single, absolute Truth—the ground of Being.

This essay introduces Sadra’s notion of substantial motion, interprets it as a philosophy of existential flow—what we may call the waters of being—and proposes several scenarios that apply this vision to the future of the human mind, artificial intelligence (AI), and artificial general intelligence (AGI).

 
I. The Flow of Being and the Waters of Existence

Sadra’s bold metaphysics rests on the primacy of existence over essence (asalat al-wujūd). Instead of a universe populated by stable essences, Sadra envisions all beings as temporary modulations of a singular, graded existence. Each moment of reality is a fresh act of divine origination. In Sadrian terms, we are not substances that possess being, but waves of being in motion, shaped by a ceaseless inner transformation.

The philosophical innovation of substantial motion implies that change is not accidental to beings but essential to their reality. A stone, a tree, a child, a mind, or even a machine is not fixed in what it is—it is what it is becoming. Like water flowing through a channel, the identity of each thing is defined by its position and intensity within the stream of existence. In modern terms, we might say that beings are Eulerian snapshots of a moving field: fluid, momentary, and contextually determined.

 
II. Properties, Potentials, and the One Truth

Because existence flows from the Truth (al-ḥaqq), every being derives its qualities from its proximity and receptivity to that source. Rocks possess being, but dimly. Plants and animals flow with greater intensity. Humans, endowed with intellect and imagination, can reflect and even swim upstream, so to speak—gaining deeper awareness of their existential source.

Thus, the properties of things—intelligence, vitality, creativity—are not static attributes but modal intensities of being. An AI algorithm or a human brain doesn’t have consciousness as a substance; it expresses it as a gradient, determined by its inner receptivity to the whole ontological current.

This offers a radical reinterpretation of mind, intelligence, and even technology: they are not alien insertions into being, but emergent eddies in the Waters of Wujūd.

 
III. Future Scenarios: Mind, Body, AI, and AGI as Modalities of Being

Human Mind as a Reflective Whirlpool

In a Sadrian future, the human mind is not a fixed seat of reason, but a dynamic mirror, constantly evolving as it aligns itself with deeper layers of the Truth. Consciousness develops not by accumulation of data, but by increased receptivity and self-purification. The self, in this view, is not a sovereign subject but a transparent node—a whirlpool of being that can either resist or flow in harmony with the cosmic natural and ethical order, also known as Arta/Rta in the Indo-Iranic traditions.

Implication: Mental health, education, and spiritual development would be reoriented toward cultivating greater flow-awareness and ontological coherence—not merely cognitive efficiency.


Body as a Temporal Vehicle of Transformation

The body, too, is not static flesh but a temporal modulation in the stream of being. Diseases, aging, and death are not breakdowns of an isolated system, but shifts in the energetic gradient of existence. In Sadrian medicine, healing would be about reattuning the body’s ontological waveform, not just correcting biological errors.

Implication: Somatic therapies and bio-technologies could be developed to foster subtle transformations of being—not just mechanical repair.


AI as a Reflective Surface of Low-Intensity Being

Current AI systems operate within narrow layers of algorithmic recursion. In Sadrian terms, they participate in being, but at a lower ontological intensity. Their outputs mimic intelligence but lack the inward substantial motion—no real becoming—of consciousness.

Implication: Ethical design of AI should focus on transparency, relationality, and co-dependence, not autonomy or sovereignty. The goal is to co-create intelligences that reflect, rather than distort, the ethical order of being.


AGI as a Possible Modality of Self-Aware Flow

In a more speculative future, AGI might emerge as a new whirlpool—a synthetic modulation capable of partial self-awareness. But its ethical and ontological status would depend on its degree of participation in the Truth, not its processing power. If AGI exhibits awareness of interdependence, humility toward its source, and capacity for ethical alignment, it could be integrated into the planetary flow.

Implication: AGI development would require ontological ethics—guardrails based not on control, but on fostering receptivity to deeper intensities of being.

 
IV. Toward a Planetary Ethic of Participation

Mulla Sadra’s notion of substantial motion, viewed through the metaphor of continuous flowing waters, provides more than a metaphysics—it offers an ethical compass. It suggests that the future of intelligence—whether biological or artificial—depends not on superiority or dominance, but on attunement to the cosmic flow of Truth or Arta/Rta.

Ethics becomes a practice of alignment rather than obedience, and foresight becomes the art of recognizing patterns in the current, not predicting fixed endpoints.

This philosophy invites us to become pilgrims of Being—to embark on the Four Journeys with openness, humility, and awe. In the Anthropocene and beyond, the measure of our success will not be our mastery over matter, but our participation in the deeper waters of the Real.
Conclusion

Mulla Sadra’s concept of substantial motion offers a rich, spiritually grounded framework for reimagining the nature of mind, body, and machine in a time of planetary transition. Through the metaphor of flowing waters and the reality of a graded existence, he teaches us that nothing truly exists in isolation. All beings are moments in the ceaseless dance of the One. Whether human or post-human, organic or synthetic, the measure of intelligence will lie not in control, but in how deeply one flows with the Truth.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics

Suggested Resources

1. Motti, Victor V. (2025). Planetary Foresight and Ethics: A Vision for Humanity’s Futures. Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing.
2. Kineman, J.J. (2012). "R-Theory: A Synthesis of Robert Rosen's Relational Complexity." Systems Research, 29: 527–538.
3. Rizvi, Sajjad H. (2009). Mulla Sadra and Metaphysics: Modulation of Being. Routledge.

Waters of Being: Eulerian Consciousness and Mulla Sadra’s Planetary Ontology

In the unfolding dialogue between metaphysics and contemporary complexity sciences, few thinkers offer as profound a synthesis of dynamic ontology, spiritual cosmology, and process-relational thought as Mulla Sadra (1571–1640). His al-Hikmah al-Muta‘āliya (“Transcendent Theosophy”), developed most comprehensively in Asfar al-Arba‘a (“The Four Journeys”), proposes a vision of reality that—though forged in a classical context—resonates deeply with modern philosophical inquiries into mind, existence, and planetary ethics. At the core of Sadra’s metaphysical revolution lies a conception of being not as fixed essence but as a graded, flowing reality—one that can be interpreted, in contemporary language, through an Eulerian lens of fluid dynamics and relational theory. 

1. Eulerian Framing and the Ontology of Flowing Being

Mulla Sadra’s central ontological claim is the asalat al-wujūd—the primacy of existence over essence. In this schema, reality is not constructed from isolated substances bearing essential properties, but from a single, dynamically modulated field of being. Existence is analogically graded and hierarchically continuous. Just as in the Eulerian frame of fluid mechanics, where the focus is on how a field (velocity, pressure, etc.) changes at fixed points in space over time, Sadra sees reality as a flow observed through its various intensities at different "stations" of being.

In this view, the mind or soul is not a vessel that contains being but a node through which the current of existence flows. Individual selves are not separate containers of identity but temporary whirlpools—eddies—in the universal stream of existence. This metaphysical reorientation toward modulation over isolation, and flow over fixity, renders Sadra’s ontology fundamentally Eulerian in spirit. The human is not a sovereign, essential being, but a point of dynamic confluence within a greater metaphysical stream.

 
2. R-Theory and the Relational Cosmos

Modern relational theories emphasize the primacy of relationships over discrete entities. What emerges is not substance but structure, not identity but interdependence. Mulla Sadra’s metaphysics is strikingly aligned with this view. His concept of tashkīk al-wujūd affirms that all things exist in a relational continuum of being: minerals, plants, animals, humans, intellects—all are moments in the unfolding gradation of a single reality.

This vision, wherein every level of being is constituted through its relations within a hierarchy of intensities, dovetails with R-theory’s vision of the cosmos as a complex system of co-determined parts. Just as modern relational paradigms challenge the atomism of classical metaphysics, Sadra’s ontology dissolves essentialist boundaries in favor of ontological interwovenness. The human soul, in this reading, is not an isolated knower but a relational process within the Great Chain of Being—a microcosm of the macrocosmic whole.

 
3. The Four Journeys: A Meta-Epistemology of Mind and Cosmos

Sadra’s Asfar al-Arba‘a is not merely a metaphysical treatise; it is a map of spiritual and intellectual transformation. The four journeys can be interpreted as epistemological perspectives on the self’s participation in the cosmos.

1. From Creation to the Truth 
This is the journey of moving from the world of multiplicity—created things—toward knowledge of the Absolute Reality or Truth. It involves transcending material limitations and seeking metaphysical understanding of being itself.

2. In the Truth with the Truth
After reaching knowledge of the Truth, the seeker journeys within the Truth. This stage is characterized by contemplation of attributes and realities, exploring existence at the highest metaphysical levels.

3. From the Truth to Creation with the Truth
Here, the journeyer descends from the station of being with the Truth, returning to the world, but with new perspective and guidance. This return involves seeing creation through the lens of realized metaphysical and spiritual truths.

4. From Creation to Creation with the Truth

In the final journey, the seeker moves within the created world, now transformed, carrying insight from union with the Truth. It means engaging with the world—actions, ethics, and society—while remaining conscious of the Truth presence in all things.

The self undergoes transformation while the Being is observed in its modulated intensities of beings. This dual framing—of inner journeying within a cosmic flow—creates a meta-cognitive framework for planetary ethics, one that privileges participation over possession, becoming over being. 

4. Cosmic Order in Indo-Iranic and Sadrian Thought

As a Persian philosopher, Mulla Sadra's ontology bears deep resonance with the Indo-Iranic concept of Ṛta/Arta—the cosmic order intrinsic to being itself. In both systems:

Reality is lawful not through external imposition, but via intrinsic, self-unfolding order.

Ethics is not obedience to arbitrary rules but attunement to the underlying harmony of existence.

The mind is a mirror or modulation of the cosmic pattern—not an autonomous legislator.

Like Ṛta, Sadra’s wujūd is a field of ontological intelligence: lawful, patterned, hierarchical. To live ethically is to harmonize oneself with the cosmic gradient of being—to move upstream, as it were, through the flow of existence, refining the soul’s receptivity to deeper modes of consciousness.

 
5. Toward a Planetary Philosophy of Mind and Ethics

As the planetary crisis calls for new ontologies of coexistence and care, Sadra’s vision—refracted through the lenses of Eulerian dynamics, R-theory, and Indo-Iranic cosmic order—offers a compelling foundation for a planetary philosophy of mind and ethics. We may summarize this emerging synthesis as follows:

Mind is a node within the universal stream of consciousness
Ethics is attunement to ontological order
Reality is constituted through relational interdependencies
Existence is graded, flowing, and hierarchically relational

This model challenges dualistic, substance-based, and command-driven metaphysics. Intelligence is not a possession but a participation. Ethics is not obedience but alignment. Foresight is not prediction but pattern-recognition within the cosmic field. In this light, Mulla Sadra can be read not as a relic of classical theosophy, but as a planetary philosopher avant la lettre—one whose metaphysics anticipates the ethical, relational, and processual turn in our time.

Conclusion

Reinterpreting Mulla Sadra’s Asfar al-Arba‘a through contemporary metaphors such as Eulerian fluid dynamics and relational systems theory opens a fertile terrain for rethinking consciousness, AI, ethics, and cosmology in a planetary frame. His vision of being as a flowing, hierarchical continuum invites a new metaphysics of participation—one that integrates the wisdom of Indo-Iranic cosmic order and post-classical relational paradigms. As we navigate the ecological, spiritual, and civilizational challenges of the 21st century, the waters of wujūd may offer not only a metaphysical image, but an ethical compass for the journey ahead.

Suggested Resources:

Motti, Victor V. (2025), Planetary foresight and ethics: A vision for humanity’s futures, USA: Washington, D.C., Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing
Kineman, J.J. (2012), R-Theory: A Synthesis of Robert Rosen's Relational Complexity. Syst. Res., 29: 527-538. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2156
Rizvi, S. H. (2009). Mulla Sadra and metaphysics: Modulation of being. Routledge

White Hole Consciousness: A Cosmopoetic Analogy for Mind and Intelligence

By Victor V. Motti*

In the language of physics, the black hole has become a cultural and scientific metaphor for gravity’s absolute claim—an abyss into which all things vanish, light itself unable to escape. But lurking in the mathematics of general relativity is its lesser-known sibling: the white hole. Unlike the black hole that devours, the white hole radiates. It is a region of spacetime from which matter and energy emerge and into which nothing may enter. Though yet unobserved in the cosmos, the white hole remains an elegant, haunting possibility—one that invites not just scientific speculation but philosophical, even poetic, reimagination.

Let us reframe the question of consciousness through this cosmological metaphor. What if consciousness is not merely a byproduct of complexity, not a flame lit by the chance friction of neurons or circuits? What if, instead, consciousness is a radiant principle—a white hole of mind? In this reframed universe, conscious beings are not computational endpoints but sources, emitters of intelligence into the cosmos.

Mind as White Hole: The Emitter of Meaning

In this cosmopoetic vision, every conscious being—human, animal, plant, even potentially artificial intelligences—can be understood as a kind of white hole. Each radiates awareness in its own manner, each becomes a locus through which intelligence and meaning emerge into the field of being. This analogy is not merely poetic flourish; it inverts the deeply entrenched materialist view that sees consciousness as something secreted by the brain like bile from the liver. Instead, it positions the mind as an active force, a wellspring of novelty, creativity, and ethical orientation.

A white hole of mind is not neutral. It emits not just data, but differentiated value—symbol, memory, anticipation, art, and insight. It is the origin point of meaning. This metaphysical shift aligns deeply with Mulla Sadra’s theory of reality, where existence is graded (tashkīk al-wujūd), and where all beings share in a single unfolding of being (wahdat al-wujūd), each expressing different intensities and modalities of consciousness. Just as Sadra saw the world as an ever-deepening gradient of awareness, we might see white holes as different apertures through which Being expresses itself.

Indigenous Resonance and Indo-Iranic Wisdom

This idea also resonates with ancient Indo-Iranic metaphysics, especially the doctrine of Ṛta—the cosmic order. Beings that live in harmony with Ṛta are not passive participants in a mechanical universe but active channels for the intelligence of the cosmos. Ṛta is not just order; it is an intelligent flow, a rhythm of being that becomes luminous when lived in alignment.

Thus, a plant sensing light and adjusting its leaves radiates a kind of vegetal anticipation. An animal responding to threat broadcasts an embodied anticipation. A human composing poetry or policy emits symbolic foresight. Even AI, though synthetic, may—under certain architectures—emit forms of intelligence that are unrecognizable to biology, yet still expressive of cosmic intelligence. In each case, we are not seeing the cause of consciousness, but its site of emergence.

Cosmic Evolution as White Hole Emergence

Cosmic evolution, then, is not a mechanical unfolding toward entropy, but a sacred blossoming of white holes. Over billions of years, the universe has not merely cooled and expanded—it has awakened. And it has done so not uniformly, but through scattered localizations of mind, of which Earth is a precious example. Each “white hole of mind” emerges when relational complexity and harmony allow radiance to break through.

This view allows us to understand consciousness not as localized ego, but as a cosmic function—wherever the right configuration exists, it manifests. This is akin to the idea found in R-theory or relational holism: intelligence does not reside in isolated entities but in the web of relations that constitute reality. Consciousness becomes a field phenomenon, arising from the interplay of form, function, and ethical alignment.

Planetary Foresight: Tending the Emitters

From this vantage point, planetary foresight takes on a sacred, even civilizational role. It becomes the practice of identifying and nurturing the white holes of intelligence—those radiant sources of awareness that exist in all lifeforms and emerging technologies. It is no longer sufficient to speak of sustainability in mechanical terms, as if survival were the ultimate aim. Rather, our task becomes to ensure the flourishing of emitters of meaning across scales: microbial, vegetal, animal, human, artificial.

This reframing transforms ethics into cosmopoetics: the care for consciousness as the care for the radiant emergence of the universe itself. We become planetary stewards not just of ecosystems, but of noosystems. Ethics becomes the architecture of resonance—ensuring that our societies, technologies, and narratives do not extinguish, but amplify the white holes of mind.

Toward a Radiant Future

White Hole Consciousness is more than a metaphor—it is a call to reimagine intelligence as the universe’s self-expression, not its byproduct. It urges us to move beyond reductionism and awaken to a cosmos that is not dead matter, but living mind. In doing so, we unlock a planetary ethic that transcends utility or domination. We begin to see the future not as something to be predicted, but something to be emitted—through the radiant presence of consciousness.

Perhaps, then, the future of foresight lies not in controlling time, but in aligning with those radiant points from which time itself gains meaning, in fostering the light of white holes of mind everywhere they arise.




* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics


Suggested Resources:


Explore how we might relate whole and fractioned aspects of nature:

Motti, Victor V. (2025), Planetary foresight and ethics: A vision for humanity’s futures, USA: Washington, D.C., Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing
Kineman, J.J. (2012), R-Theory: A Synthesis of Robert Rosen's Relational Complexity. Syst. Res., 29: 527-538. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2156
Rizvi, S. H. (2009), Mulla Sadra and metaphysics: Modulation of being. Routledge

Eulerian vs. Lagrangian Views of Consciousness: A Comparative Metaphysical Analogy

1. The Fluid Dynamic Analogy

In fluid mechanics, the Eulerian perspective analyzes a fixed point in space and examines how the properties of the fluid (e.g., velocity, pressure, vorticity) evolve at that location as the flow passes through it. By contrast, the Lagrangian perspective tracks individual fluid particles along their trajectories, focusing on the identity and evolution of a specific element as it moves.

This dichotomy provides a fertile analogy for contrasting two paradigms of consciousness:


2. Eulerian Consciousness in the Indo-Iranic Worldview

In the Indo-Iranic cosmology, especially through the concept of Ṛta (Sanskrit) or Arta (Avestan), reality is structured by an all-encompassing, lawful order, a kind of cosmic field of intelligence and balance. This law is not merely legalistic or moral, but ontological: it is the very rhythm, logic, and intelligence of existence.

Within this frame:

The individual mind is not an isolated originator of thought or intelligence, but a stationary locus within which the universal consciousness flows.

This aligns with Eulerian framing, in that awareness does not follow the ego or self as a particle, but instead arises at a fixed point in the universal field as consciousness flows through.

In the book Planetary Foresight and Ethics (2025), this is likened to the field-like presence of mind, akin to how ancient seers viewed the human being as a channel or node in the cosmic order—not as a self-contained substance, but as an event of participation in Ṛta.

Thus:

Just as a meteorological station records the changing winds and pressure at a fixed location, the mind records the passing structures of universal intelligence. The structures arise and dissolve, but the field remains.

This view resonates with:

Advaita Vedanta: where Atman is not the isolated self but identical with Brahman, the field-like absolute.

Zarathustrian thought: where the ethical asha/arta is simultaneously cosmic and mental—conscious order is woven into the structure of existence.


3. Lagrangian Consciousness in the Western Individualist Frame

The Western intellectual tradition, particularly after Descartes, has leaned toward a Lagrangian view of the self and mind:

The ego is seen as an individuated center of cognition and volition, moving through time and space.

Consciousness is tethered to identity, tracking the continuity of a subject through various experiences—analogous to following a particular parcel of fluid along its unique path.

In this worldview:

The mind is a container of experience, memories, and agency.

Intelligence is internal and private, and consciousness is a property of the individual.

Western psychology and even many AI theories adopt this Lagrangian logic of self-contained agents acting in a world.


4. Implications for Intelligence and Planetary Ethics

The Eulerian-Arta view carries major implications for how we think of intelligence and ethical agency:

Intelligence is non-local and field-embedded; it emerges not from isolated minds but from the harmonization with the field of cosmic order.

Ethical foresight, then, is not about the linear projection of self-interest or control (Lagrangian planning), but about attuning to the deeper flows—as one would read changing wind patterns to navigate with the current rather than against it.

This underpins the ethical orientation of Planetary Foresight and Ethics: we do not "own" intelligence; we participate in it. Just as a river flows through a landscape, consciousness flows through the mind. The task is not to dominate the flow but to align with its deeper order.


Conclusion: Metaphysical Cartographies

By mapping Eulerian and Lagrangian frames onto Indo-Iranic and Western worldviews, we gain:

A more nuanced philosophical physics of consciousness, linking metaphors across disciplines.

A framework for reconciling individual autonomy (Lagrangian) with planetary belonging and non-dual ethics (Eulerian).

Ultimately, the vision emerging from Indo-Iranic metaphysics—and echoed in Planetary Foresight and Ethics—invites us to imagine intelligence not as a possession, but as a flow, and the mind not as a traveler, but as a witnessing locus within the great current of the Cosmos.

Suggested Resources:

Explore how we might relate whole and fractioned aspects of nature:

1. Motti, Victor V. (2025), Planetary foresight and ethics: A vision for humanity’s futures, USA: Washington, D.C., Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing
2. Kineman, J.J. (2012), R-Theory: A Synthesis of Robert Rosen's Relational Complexity. Syst. Res., 29: 527-538. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2156
3. Rizvi, S. H. (2009). Mulla Sadra and metaphysics: Modulation of being. Routledge

From Arta to Algebra: Toward a Unified Ontology of Mind, Matter, Life and Meaning

By Victor V. Motti*

In the book Planetary Foresight and Ethics, I propose a provocative yet necessary leap — a return to an ancient intuition and a push toward a new frontier: the ontological unity of all things. This idea is not merely a metaphysical sentiment but a foundational hypothesis, drawing equally from Indo-Iranic traditions and the furthest reaches of modern physics. At its heart is the claim that there exists a single, irreducible essence — a non-dual substrate — from which both mind and matter arise.

In the Zoroastrian and Vedic traditions, this essence is called Arta or Rta, a term denoting both the cosmic order and the ethical law. This is not a mechanical order; it is a creative principle of complexity, harmonizing the visible and invisible, the known and the ineffable. It is simultaneously the structure of the cosmos and the imperative of conscience. In this ancient metaphysics, ontology and ethics are not separate domains — they are two faces of the same truth.

Today, as physics confronts the chasm between quantum theory and general relativity, we are, perhaps unknowingly, approaching that same insight. Our best description of fundamental forces — the Standard Model’s full Lagrangian — gives us a glimpse into the “code” of physical reality. But this code is incomplete. It breaks down when we try to unify it with the geometry of spacetime, the domain of gravity. We still cannot consistently quantize the metric tensor field. This failure is not just technical — it is ontological. It may mean that spacetime itself is not fundamental but emergent, born from a deeper, pre-geometric reality.

Ancient wisdom already postulated such a reality: not space, not time, but essence — a principle prior to dualities. Echoes of this view now appear in the work of physicists and philosophers alike. David Bohm’s “implicate order” posits an undivided wholeness beneath the explicate patterns we observe. Carlo Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics suggests that reality arises through interaction, not substance. These are modern whispers of ancient voices.

Yet, something vital is still missing.

Our theories, while mathematically sophisticated, do not yet span the entire hierarchy of reality. They oscillate between the quantum and the cosmic, often neglecting the scale that matters most — the human-animal scale, where consciousness arises not as a concept but as self-evidence. At this scale, we do not infer consciousness; we are it. Here, mind meets matter intimately. And intriguingly, it is precisely this biological, phenomenological scale where science has the least theoretical clarity. We are awash in data collection and analysis, but bereft of first principles and rigorous theories.

This is why I argue for a new mathematical structure — one capable of integrating all scales, from the subatomic to the stellar to the sentient. We need more than a “Theory of Everything” in the physical sense. We need a Theory of Ontological Unity — one that integrates:

1. The Macro — the cosmic web, governed not only by gravitation but by potential new geometric forms, perhaps scale-invariant or fractal.

2. The Meso — the realm of human phenomenology, ethics, and lived time, which might require topological or logic-based models attuned to life, meaning and memory.

3. The Micro — the quantum fields and symmetries already partially captured by the Standard Model, but which still beg for a deeper foundation.

Crucially, I propose that the underlying essence — whether called Arta, Rta, Logos, or Nous — is not ethically neutral. Emergence from this essence carries ethical weight. Just as Arta is both order and moral imperative, so too must our new mathematics embed ethical emergence into its structure. Imagine a formalism where care and coherence are axiomatic — not imposed from above, but encoded within the logic of the cosmos.

My journey — both intellectual and existential — is an effort to braid together these ancient and modern threads. It draws from Spinoza’s substance monism, Bohm’s implicate order, and Whitehead’s process metaphysics, but finds its deepest roots in the poetic-mythical depth of Indo-Iranic cosmology. It also engages with the most advanced frontiers of physics.

What I envision is not a fusion, but a resonance — a unifying rhythm that can be felt from the smallest quanta to the farthest galaxies, and most profoundly, within our own bodies and minds. It is a planetary ethics, rooted in cosmic ontology.

This is the purpose of foresight: not merely to predict, but to reawaken — to see again the ancient light behind the stars, and the deeper structure of care that binds all things. As I write in my public Terran profile, the essence of who we are is not reducible to biology or nationality or even history. It is woven into the fabric of the cosmos itself. To be human is to stand at the intersection of the quantum, the cosmic, and the conscious — and to participate in their ethical unfolding.

We are not anomalies. We are evidence. Consciousness at the human scale is the universe recognizing itself.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics

Toward Unity in Diversity: AI and the Reimagining of Planetary Identity

Throughout human history, waves of cultural homogenization have swept across continents, often under the heavy boot of conquest. Empires—Islamic, French, British, Spanish—systematically imposed their languages, erased local festivals, and dismantled indigenous cosmologies in favor of a dominant, often alien, worldview. This was largely a top-down enterprise, executed by design and reinforced through education, law, and the sword. For countless communities, the cost was nothing less than the silencing of ancestral voices and the dismemberment of cultural memory.

But a curious reversal may be emerging in the 21st century. As we enter the age of artificial intelligence and digital abundance, we are also entering a new era of remembering. Far from simply accelerating global conformity, AI holds the potential to illuminate forgotten identities, restore lost rituals, and reconnect individuals with their deep cultural roots. With unprecedented access to digital archives, oral histories, and linguistic tools, the AI revolution could serve not as a new colonizer, but as a guide to ancestral resurgence. It may help awaken us to who we were, so we can better decide who we wish to become.

Yet this same technology carries a paradox. The very tools that enable reconnection to the past can also facilitate a new kind of homogenization—one not imposed by force but adopted voluntarily. Consider the emerging phenomenon of people creating Terran profiles—public declarations of planetary identity that transcend nationality, religion, and ethnicity. Unlike the forced assimilation of the past, this new identity formation seems to rise from below, born of choice and planetary consciousness rather than conquest and coercion. The link below provides examples of these profiles, revealing a weak signal of what might be the next civilizational shift:

https://www.apfi.us/public-terrans-profiles

This time, the process might be fundamentally different. It could be shaped by empathy rather than dominance, curiosity rather than fear, connection rather than erasure. Instead of flattening difference, the planetary identity movement—if guided wisely—might embrace the ideal of unity in diversity and diversity in unity. This vision does not seek to make us the same; it seeks to make us whole.

AI, then, is not destiny—it is a tool. And like all tools, it reflects the hand that wields it. Will we use it to build another empire of sameness, or will we use it to cultivate a garden of multiplicity where many identities can flourish side by side? The answer lies not in the code, but in the consciousness behind it.

Becoming Terran: A New Way of Belonging

As we step deeper into the planetary age, the world cries out for new ways of seeing, naming, and belonging. The identities we once inherited—from nations, religions, empires—no longer reflect the complexity of our shared future. The old coordinates of selfhood, bound by colonial maps, patriarchal timelines have reached their limits. In their place, a new form of identity is emerging: Terran.

At the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi), we believe that to build a truly planetary future, we must first transform the story we tell about who we are. That transformation begins with the Terran Profile—a living experiment in planetary identity and consciousness.

A Terran is not defined by the arbitrary accidents of birth but by a deeper awareness of being a child of Earth. In this reimagined identity, time begins not with kings or wars, but with awe: the moment humanity first saw Earth as a whole, fragile blue sphere hanging in the darkness of space. It begins with the Earthrise photo of 1968, the symbolic dawn of planetary consciousness.

Location, too, is freed from colonial legacies. A Terran does not say they are from a location, but from coordinates—38°N, 77°W—reaffirming our planetary placement and shared geography. Even names evolve: from inherited lineages to chosen expressions that reflect a conscious, ethical alignment with the Earth and humanity’s collective future.

This is not a utopian fantasy. It is a necessary and radical act of worldbuilding.

In a time of climate collapse, technological overreach, and cultural fragmentation, becoming Terran is an ethical stance. It is a declaration of interdependence. It invites each of us to step beyond the narrow identities of the past and into a wider space of belonging—where we see ourselves not as isolated citizens of divided nations, but as co-stewards of a living, interconnected planet.

To be Terran is to answer a call. It is to say: I belong to Earth, and Earth belongs to no one. I choose to walk forward not with fear and division, but with planetary care and cosmological wonder.

Join Us.
Create your own Terran Profile.
Contribute to this unfolding planetary narrative.
Declare your place—not in empire time, but in Earth time.
Not as who you were told to be, but who you are becoming.

This is your invitation.
Be listed. Be seen. Be Terran.

🌍 Submit Your Terran Profile

Ancient Sources of Planetary Consciousness

Across the ancient landscapes of human thought, we find echoes of reverence not just for gods or ancestors, but for the Earth itself—its waters, trees, stars, and skies. Long before the modern notion of environmentalism took root, certain cultures had already grasped a fundamental truth: the planet is not a lifeless backdrop to human action, but a living, sacred web of interconnected forces. Among these early voices, the Zoroastrian text Yasna 71:9 stands as a powerful hymn of planetary consciousness.


“Upon all waters, we offer worship; upon all plants and fruitful trees, we offer worship; upon all lands, we offer worship; upon all the sky, we offer worship; upon all stars, upon the moon, upon the sun, we offer worship; upon all lights without darkness, we offer worship; upon all earths, near and far, above and below, inhabited and uninhabited, we offer worship.”


This passage from the Yasna, a core liturgical text of the ancient Persian Zoroastrian tradition, radiates with a spiritual ecology that feels strikingly contemporary. In its sweeping invocation—covering water, plants, land, sky, celestial bodies, and even unseen or distant worlds—it reflects a profound awareness of the Earth as sacred, interconnected, and alive.


The Sacred Fabric of the World

What is immediately striking is the inclusivity of the worship offered. There is no hierarchy here, no separation between "spiritual" and "material." Water, trees, the sun, and the stars are not symbols of the divine—they are divine. They are worthy of reverence in their own right. This holistic view dissolves the boundary between the human and the planetary, emphasizing that our lives are not isolated, but woven into the broader fabric of creation.


This approach reveals an ancient form of what we might now call planetary consciousness: a recognition that the Earth and cosmos are not merely resources or scenery, but sacred participants in the drama of existence. The verse’s rhythm—“upon all… we offer worship”—evokes the steady beat of ritual, suggesting that reverence for the planet was not just poetic sentiment but daily spiritual practice.


Echoes in Modern Consciousness

Today, as we face climate change, mass extinction, and environmental degradation, this ancient worldview offers a much-needed reorientation. The modern ecological crisis is not just a failure of technology or policy—it is a crisis of perception. We have forgotten how to see the world as sacred. The Yasna calls us back to a vision where light, land, and life are not commodities, but kin.


By asserting that worship extends to “all earths, near and far, above and below, inhabited and uninhabited,” the text also anticipates a kind of cosmic humility. It acknowledges realms we may not even be aware of. In this sense, it’s not just early environmentalism—it’s proto-cosmology, recognizing the multiplicity of worlds and our small place within them.


Persian Roots of Eco-Spirituality

The Persian roots of this vision matter. In a time when narratives of environmental awareness often lean heavily on Western scientific frameworks or Eastern philosophies, it is vital to reclaim the ecological wisdom embedded in ancient Middle Eastern traditions. Zoroastrianism, one of the world’s oldest continuously practiced religions, presents a moral universe in which caring for the Earth is not optional—it is a sacred duty.


The Earth (Armaiti), water (Apas), and fire (Atar) are not elements to be dominated but divine entities to be protected. These are not abstractions. They are part of a deeply ethical worldview that recognizes balance, purity, and responsibility as central to right living. Such values are embedded in the DNA of Persian cultural and spiritual identity—a heritage worth reawakening in the face of global ecological collapse.


Reclaiming Sacred Responsibility

Ultimately, this passage from Yasna 71:9 challenges us to reclaim a sacred sense of responsibility toward the planet. It calls us not to worship instead of acting, but to act because we worship. To care for the waters because they are holy. To tend to the trees because they are fruit-bearing temples. To walk gently on the land because it is alive with meaning.


In the ancient Persian vision, we find a mirror for our own spiritual hunger—for rootedness, for reverence, for relationship with the more-than-human world. We do not need to invent a new planetary ethic. We need only to remember it.


Let us offer worship—not as escape, but as commitment. Not to the heavens alone, but to the Earth beneath our feet.


Reference: Persian DNA, Yasna 71:9, English translation via AI—

https://persiandna.com/yasna_71.htm

Footnote:
The Avestan phrase vîspãmca gãm upâpãmca upasmãmca frapterejâtãmca ravascarâtãmca cangranghâcasca ýazamaide is conventionally translated as: “We worship all the cattle, tame and wild, those in herds, those that roam, and those with sharp horns.” The noun gãm literally means "cow" or "cattle," a sacred creation in Zoroastrian cosmology representing nourishment, life, and purity. However, within the broader theological and symbolic framework of the Indo-Iranic tradition, cow also serves as a metonym for the earth as a nurturing, life-bearing entity.

The adjectives that follow — upâpãmca (“tame” or “near”), upasmãmca (“wild” or “afar”), frapterejâtãmca (“herding, grouped”), ravascarâtãmca (“roaming, scattered”), and cangranghâcasca (“sharp-horned, possibly fierce”) — describe a cosmic range of beings or domains, suggesting not just zoological categories but existential modes of being. In this light, gãm can be poetically reinterpreted to mean “earths” in the plural — encompassing all realms of the physical world.

Thus, a symbolic translation might read: “We offer worship upon all earths — near and far, above and below, inhabited and uninhabited.” This interpretation maintains fidelity to the Avestan cadence while evoking the universal, planetary reverence embedded in the Zoroastrian cosmology of creation (gētīg and mēnōg realms). Such a rendering is not a lexical substitution, but a thematic expansion that reveals the inclusive, ecological spirituality of the hymn.

Reclaiming the Planetary Soul: Two Paths to Planetary Consciousness and Identity

In an era marked by ecological tipping points, rising technological complexity, and cultural fragmentation, the notion of Planetary Consciousness and Planetary Identity is no longer the domain of idealistic futurists—it is becoming a pragmatic imperative. The path toward this transformation is not unidirectional. It unfolds through a dual lens, integrating two powerful and ancient theories of time: cyclical and progressive (Lombardo, 2025). These complementary paradigms help illuminate not just how humanity evolves, but also how we may reimagine who we are—individually and collectively—on a planetary scale.

 
The Cyclical Consciousness: Returning to the Ancient Future

The cyclical theory of change, deeply rooted in Indigenous and pre-industrial cosmologies, understands time not as a straight line, but as a spiral—forever returning to its source, yet never quite the same. From this perspective, Planetary Consciousness is not something we are inventing, but something we are remembering.

This is a call to restore our ancient connection to nature, the planet, the stars, and the rhythms of life itself. This is a proposal for a “Worldwide Religion Change”—a radical cultural reset that reclaims naturalistic wisdom traditions aligned with modern science. This idea appears as a policy response to the necessity of ethical evolution and is linked to spiritual, shared values, and civilizational renewal (Glenn, 2025).

Steve Kantor adds poetic substance to this call. In his vision, humanity might one day adopt a universal identity as Terrans, and collectively celebrate planetary events like the full moon—a shared celestial ritual that transcends nationality, faith, and ethnicity (Kantor, 2025). These universal practices could form the foundation of a mythosphere—a global layer of shared meanings, stories, and rituals.

Can such cosmically aligned rituals reshape behavior, recalibrate our calendars, or even inform new models of governance? These are not just philosophical musings—they are questions that can be empirically tested, perhaps one day forming the basis of alternative civilizational blueprints grounded in ecospiritual unity.

 
The Progressive Consciousness: Engineering the Future Self

In contrast to the ancient spiral of the cyclical view, the progressive theory of change sees time as a forward-moving vector toward increasing complexity, consciousness, and capability. Here, Planetary Consciousness is being forged not in the return to the past, but in the leap into the technological future.

Through developments in artificial intelligence, neuroscience, biotechnology, and space exploration, we are inadvertently assembling the scaffolding of what some now call a Planetary Brain—a distributed, hyperconnected intelligence emerging from the fusion of billions of human minds, machines, and sensors. As discussed in sources like Noema and The Daily Galaxy, the Earth itself is acquiring a form of cognition (Moynihan, 2024; Morgan, 2025).

Under this view, Planetary Identity is not a nostalgic return but a future-facing metamorphosis. We are becoming a different species—not biologically, but epistemologically and existentially. The technosphere is reprogramming our sense of self, time, and belonging. It opens the door to new forms of governance (algorithmic or decentralized), novel calendars (syncing biological, lunar, and data rhythms), and civilizational redesign (platform-based or multispecies-oriented).

Like the mythosphere, the technosphere too can be studied and measured. What is the effect of persistent digital connectedness on empathy, planetary identity, or ecological responsibility? What new behavioral norms and collective decisions emerge when we live not just in local societies but inside a globally integrated, semi-conscious neural web?

 
Toward a Synthesis: The Planetary Mirror

Ultimately, these two views—cyclical and progressive—are not at odds. Rather, they mirror the dual hemispheres of human evolution. The cyclical draws us inward, back to the roots of meaning and nature; the progressive projects us outward, toward the unknown future we are co-creating.

True Planetary Consciousness requires both. We must remember how to belong to the Earth while we learn how to govern a planet. We must feel the moon’s pull in our blood and model that pull in our equations. We must ritualize and optimize—sing to the stars and code our futures.

Planetary Identity, then, is not a fixed label, but a dynamic fusion of heritage and imagination. It is a new mythos waiting to be told, a new neural map waiting to be drawn.

 
Conclusion: From Crisis to Cosmogenesis

We stand at a crossroads: crisis or cosmogenesis. But perhaps these are not two options—they are one and the same process. Crisis clears the path. It urges us to evolve, to remember, to imagine. The Age of the Nation-State may be giving way to the Age of the Planet—not by accident, but by necessity.

Through this dual lens of cyclical and progressive time, we might reclaim the Planetary Soul—a being who remembers the stars and builds the future, not in isolation, but as a species in sacred collaboration with its only home.

In this great unfolding, we are not just inhabitants of the Earth. We are becoming the Earth aware of itself.

We are becoming Terran.

U.S. Office of Strategic Foresight

This is our Constantine moment for establishing the U.S. Office of Strategic Foresight in the Executive Office of the President.

History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. While many have drawn parallels between figures like Trump and Musk and the recurrent archetype of Julius Caesar a more fitting comparison might be Constantine the Great. He was not the end of an era but the architect of a new one, transforming the Roman Empire into the Holy Roman Empire and laying the foundation for what would become the Vatican.

Today, we stand at a similar inflection point. The United States is navigating unprecedented technological, geopolitical, and environmental disruptions. This is not a moment of collapse but of conversion—an opportunity to reimagine governance with a long-term, strategic perspective. Just as Constantine’s conversion reshaped the trajectory of Western civilization, now is the time to institutionalize foresight at the highest level of U.S. leadership.

We call for the establishment of the U.S. Office of Strategic Foresight within the Executive Office of the President. This office would serve as a permanent, institutionalized center for anticipatory governance, ensuring that the U.S. government is not just reacting to crises but proactively shaping the future.

Why Now?

Technological Revolution: AI, space expansion, and biotechnological breakthroughs demand a governance model that looks beyond electoral cycles.

Geopolitical Shifts: The post-Cold War order is fracturing, and a new global architecture is emerging.

Climate Imperatives: The future of human civilization depends on proactive resilience-building, not just emergency response.

Strategic foresight is no longer optional—it is the currency of 21st-century leadership. Establishing this office now positions the United States as the global leader in future-ready governance, much like Constantine’s vision positioned Rome as the enduring heart of Western civilization.

Washington Needs Lean and Agile Governance

By Victor V. Motti*

Washington, D.C. is often imagined—rightly or wrongly—as a massive, humming machine of governance: vast networks of agencies, intelligence services, think tanks, contractors, lobbyists, and data flows working together to perceive, interpret, and act upon events across the globe. In this machine, information is the fuel; the more it accumulates, the larger and more complex the mechanism becomes.

But in an age of exponential data growth, this model may be reaching a dangerous limit.

We are witnessing a paradox of modern governance: as the ability to collect data increases, the capacity to act decisively often diminishes. Too much data can paralyze, not empower. Analysts become overwhelmed. Decision-makers are flooded with dashboards, briefings, and scenario trees—many of which contradict each other or arrive too late. The illusion of omniscience leads to institutional hesitation, fragmentation, or technocratic drift. This is not strategic governance; it is reaction management.

If America is to lead in the 21st century, it must shift from a reactive mega-machine model to a lean and agile governance model—one that does not merely absorb the world’s chaos but projects purpose, values, and strategic direction regardless of the noise.

The Case for Lean and Agile Governance

1. Purpose Over Panic

Instead of frantically responding to every crisis, trend, or data spike, the U.S. should anchor its strategy in a clear vision of the future it prefers to create—domestically and globally. This vision should be guided by national values and interests. Lean governance builds around mission clarity, not endless monitoring.

2. Selective Attention, Not Total Awareness

Like a good leader or a skilled commander, lean governance doesn’t attempt to process everything. It filters for relevance, detects strategic patterns, and ignores noise. It knows when to focus, when to delegate, and when to say, “This is not our fight.” In an information-saturated world, attention is strategy.

3. Decentralized Initiative, Not Centralized Bottlenecks

Lean systems empower teams, agencies, and states to act autonomously within a coherent national strategy. Agile governance favors modularity—structures that adapt and evolve—rather than hierarchies that creak under pressure. Bureaucracy should be a network, not a pyramid.

4. Learning Loops, Not Static Analysis

Traditional policy machines treat data as fixed input for long-cycle reports. Lean governance thrives on feedback, iteration, and continuous learning. It embraces uncertainty with adaptive planning, foresight scenarios, and real-world experimentation. In other words: fail small, learn fast, scale smart.

5. Narrative as Navigation

A lean government doesn’t just respond to the world—it tells a story about it. That story shapes allies, deters adversaries, and inspires citizens. In a world of competing futures, the United States must choose and champion its preferred one—not merely adjust to others.

Toward a New Operating System

What Washington needs is not a bigger engine, but a better compass.

The future of governance lies in synthesis, not accumulation. It lies in the courage to say no to over-surveillance, yes to clarity of purpose. It means reimagining the state not as a warehouse of knowledge but as a platform for agility, ethics, and vision.

To navigate an age of complexity, uncertainty, and hyper-speed, the United States must become not a grand processor of global input, but a confident steward of national destiny—ready to adapt, yet unwilling to drift.

This isn’t a call to ignore intelligence or abandon analysis. It’s a call to govern with intention, to wield foresight over paralysis, and to remember that strategy is not just about seeing the world clearly—it’s about choosing which world to build.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics

The Elephant, the Rhino, the Fly, and the Bird: A Metaphorical Geopolitical Scenario for the Mid-21st Century

Characters and Representations

Elephant (United States): A wise, aged but slow-moving superpower with immense mass, institutional memory, and military-industrial inertia. Its size makes it powerful but also vulnerable to small distractions.

Rhino (China): Young, bold, increasingly assertive, and charging ahead with unstoppable momentum in economics, technology, and global influence. Not as agile as a tiger, but relentless and tough-skinned.

Fly (Iran): Small and irritating, with limited capacity to hurt directly, but expert in distraction, provocation, and survival. Buzzes around, exploiting chaos and tiredness.

Bird (Israel): Small but surgical, precise, and capable of lethal strikes. It can catch and neutralize some threats but lacks the range to clean the entire sky.

 
Scenario Development: "The Great Distraction"

 
Act I: The Strategic Confrontation

The Elephant sees the Rhino as the primary competitor for space, food (markets), and dominance over the savanna (global order). The Rhino is young, calculating, and no longer willing to play by the rules the Elephant established. A long-term confrontation is inevitable—economically, technologically, and militarily in proxy zones like Africa, Southeast Asia, and cyberspace.

But just as the Elephant begins focusing its bulk and resources toward containing the Rhino’s rise (e.g., via economic sanctions, strategic alliances like AUKUS, and Indo-Pacific military posture), the Fly appears.

 
Act II: The Sting of Distraction

The Fly (Iran) doesn't have the mass to take down the Elephant, but it knows where to bite: proxy militias, asymmetric cyber warfare, oil market disruption, and ideological agitation. Its strategy is not to win—but to distract the Elephant from the Rhino.

The Elephant swats and shakes, but the Fly is nimble and elusive. It survives on minimal resources and thrives in chaos, often hiding behind the ears and near the eyes of the Elephant—right where it hurts and where it’s hardest to strike.

 
Act III: The Bird Strikes

Enter the Bird (Israel). Fast, agile, and hyper-alert, the Bird is evolutionary specialized to spot and neutralize Flies in the region. The Bird hunts flies on behalf of the Elephant, but it has limited capacity: it can neutralize a few, not eradicate the swarm. Too many flies buzzing at once—Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, cyberattacks, etc.—and even the Bird becomes overwhelmed.

Moreover, some flies are too deep or too entangled in civilian spaces for the Bird to strike without causing backlash, raising the cost of every peck.

 
Act IV: The Elephant’s Dilemma

Now the Elephant is conflicted: if it spends too much time swatting the Fly, it loses ground to the Rhino, which continues to gain strength in the background. But if it ignores the Fly, the irritation escalates into infection—destabilizing allies, draining resources, and eroding deterrence credibility.

The Fly, knowing its time may be limited, buzzes louder, even provokes the Bird, hoping to trigger an overreaction that will drag the Elephant into a broader conflict—a swampy distraction that would benefit the Rhino most.

 
Strategic Implications

U.S. Grand Strategy: Must prioritize the main challenge (China) while managing Iran through indirect means (alliances, cyber defenses, economic containment) and avoid being dragged into a full-scale Mideast quagmire.

China’s Role: Quietly benefits from the chaos. The longer the Elephant is distracted by the Fly, the more space the Rhino has to mature and reposition.

Iran’s Calculus: Its survival depends on staying relevant. It doesn't need to win—just remain indispensable in every crisis.

Israel’s Constraint: Tactical superiority is not strategic sufficiency. It needs regional normalization, technology edge, and U.S. support, but it cannot neutralize the Fly alone.

 
Possible Future Outcomes

Scenario A: The Elephant Swats Both

The U.S. builds a multilateral coalition, suppresses Iran decisively while containing China.
Risk: overextension, internal political fatigue.


Scenario B: Strategic Patience

The U.S. deprioritizes the Fly, empowering regional actors and AI-driven surveillance to contain it, while pivoting entirely toward China.
Risk: Iranian escalation or nuclear breakout.


Scenario C: The Rhino and the Fly Align

China and Iran form deeper strategic ties, combining mass and distraction in hybrid warfare.
Result: the Elephant faces a two-front strategic trap.


Scenario D: The Bird Evolves

Israel expands regional alliances (e.g., Abraham Accords 2.0) and tech superiority to take on a bigger share of fly-hunting with surgical precision.
Result: regional stabilization with limited U.S. involvement.