The Ink of the Scholars: Recovering Africa’s Philosophical Futures

Critical Review of Souleymane Bachir Diagne’s The Ink of the Scholars




By Bruce Lloyd *

Souleymane Bachir Diagne’s The Ink of the Scholars is a slim but ambitious volume. In just over a hundred pages, Diagne invites us to rethink the place of philosophy in Africa—not as an imported tradition, nor as folklore misunderstood as philosophy, but as a field with its own dense and plural histories. Drawing inspiration from the adage that “the ink of the scholars is more precious than the blood of the martyrs,” Diagne defends the vitality of scholarship as Africa’s most precious inheritance and its most necessary tool for imagining the future.

Themes and Contributions

The book moves across four thematic landscapes: ontology, time and development, intellectual history, and political philosophy.

Ontology: Diagne probes how African religions and aesthetics shape ideas of being, drawing on Bantu concepts of “vital force” and the mediating role of language and translation.


Time: He emphasizes the importance of prospective thought—Africa must imagine futures, not simply remain trapped in colonial histories or discourses of underdevelopment.


Orality and the written word: Perhaps Diagne’s most forceful intervention is his reminder that Africa is not only an oral continent. The manuscript traditions of Timbuktu and beyond prove that Africa has always cultivated textual, critical, and systematic scholarship.


Political philosophy: Revisiting African socialisms and the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, Diagne considers the stakes of communal values, justice, and democracy in an African key.

Throughout, Diagne balances the recovery of neglected archives with attention to contemporary problems. The book reads as both a philosophical essay and a manifesto for African intellectual sovereignty.

Strengths

Diagne’s greatest achievement lies in mediating between false dichotomies: oral vs. written, local vs. universal, African vs. Western. He refuses to treat “African philosophy” as a monolith, instead highlighting plurality—Islamic, Christian, indigenous, Francophone, Anglophone—and insists that Africa has always been a space of cross-cultural dialogue. The manuscript cultures of Timbuktu, for instance, stand as powerful rebuttals to colonial narratives of Africa as “without writing” or “without history.”

Equally striking is his concern with time. Philosophers often neglect futurity, but Diagne insists that Africa must cultivate its own prospective thinking, its own philosophy of development and hope. In an era dominated by crisis narratives, this forward-looking gesture is refreshing.

Weaknesses and Silences

But Diagne’s brevity is both virtue and vice. Many arguments are sketched rather than worked through in depth. His reflections on ontology and temporality, for instance, could benefit from more sustained conceptual analysis.

Moreover, the book sometimes shies away from the sharper critiques raised by decolonial theory. Thinkers like Achille Mbembe or Valentin-Yves Mudimbe interrogate how colonialism invented Africa as an object of knowledge; Diagne, by contrast, leans toward reconstructive recovery rather than radical deconstruction. This makes his tone less polemical, but it can also feel less attuned to the structural violence of racial capitalism and epistemicide.

Comparison with Other African Philosophers

Placed alongside his contemporaries, Diagne’s voice is distinctive:

Like Paulin Hountondji, he resists the reduction of philosophy to ethnographic folklore, but where Hountondji stresses methodological rigor, Diagne emphasizes archival recovery.


Unlike Kwasi Wiredu, who advocates for “conceptual decolonization” within indigenous languages, Diagne embraces a plurilingual cosmopolitanism that favors translation and dialogue.


Compared to Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o’s programmatic return to indigenous languages, Diagne is less militant: he sees cross-fertilization rather than linguistic separation as Africa’s path forward.


Against Mbembe’s radical critique of “Black reason,” Diagne offers hermeneutic repair: not dismantling categories of modernity, but re-inscribing Africa’s intellectual presence within them.

This comparative lens highlights Diagne’s position: he is neither radical deconstructionist nor nostalgic traditionalist, but a mediator seeking pluralist synthesis.

Feminist and Indigenous Knowledge Critique

Yet one of the book’s more glaring blind spots is gender. By recovering manuscript traditions dominated by male scholars, Diagne risks reproducing an archive that already excludes women’s voices. Feminist philosophers such as Oyèrónkẹ́ Oyěwùmí remind us that knowledge is always gendered, and that women’s intellectual roles—oral traditions, healing practices, ritual expertise—must be recognized, not merely sidelined as “non-philosophical.”

Similarly, indigenous epistemologies—embodied knowledges of land, ecology, and community practice—barely enter Diagne’s narrative. His focus on texts and manuscripts risks marginalizing forms of wisdom that resist textualization. Here, indigenous critiques push further: philosophy should not only be translated into French or English but should also be produced in Yoruba, Wolof, Shona, or Dagara, with their own conceptual grammars intact.

Conclusion: Ink and Blood Today

The Ink of the Scholars is a vital corrective to narratives of Africa as a continent without philosophy. Its call to value scholarship over violence, manuscripts over martyrdom, remains urgent in a time when war and fundamentalism continue to destroy archives and silence intellectuals.

But the book is also an unfinished project. It needs feminist recovery strategies, indigenous knowledge methodologies, and deeper decolonial engagement to fully realize its promise. Diagne gives us an invitation more than a conclusion: to read more widely, to translate more carefully, and to imagine African philosophy not as an appendage of Western canons, but as a rich, plural, and forward-looking field in its own right.

In that sense, the book is both a mirror and a provocation. It shows us what Africa has already been, and dares us to imagine what African philosophy might still become.

* Bruce Lloyd is a member of the Scientific Council of the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi). Book review was developed with help from ChatGPT.

Indo-Iranic Roots Beneath the Veil of Islamic Orthodoxy: Reassessing the Foundations of Persian Intellectual Life

 

The claim that Twelver Shia thought is not the true foundation of Persian intellectual life—but rather a later institutional framework layered atop a much older Indo-Iranic substrate—is supported by the deep continuity of pre-Islamic metaphysics, cosmology, and esotericism in Persian philosophy. While the Safavid state eventually institutionalized Shi’ism as the official creed, Persian scholars and mystics had long cultivated an intellectual tradition rooted in Zoroastrian and Indo-Iranic worldviews. Under conditions of Islamic hegemony, these thinkers often preserved their intellectual heritage by embedding ancient insights within Qur’anic language and Islamic categories, thus ensuring continuity while avoiding persecution.

Indo-Iranic Influence and Revival

Persian philosophy, far from being born ex nihilo under Islam, represents a creative adaptation of older Indo-Iranic traditions. The teachings of Suhrawardi (d. 1191), founder of Illuminationist philosophy, exemplify this continuity. Suhrawardi’s system synthesized Zoroastrian cosmology, Platonic forms, Hermetic wisdom, and even Hindu metaphysical ideas into an Islamic philosophical framework. His emphasis on “light” as the primary reality resonates with ancient Iranian dualisms of light and darkness, signaling a deliberate revival of Iranic illuminative wisdom. Not coincidentally, Suhrawardi was executed, with his “heresy” often linked to his overt revival of pre-Islamic themes. Centuries later, Mulla Sadra, the towering figure of Safavid-era philosophy, also faced exile for advancing ideas that diverged from orthodoxy. These examples illustrate how Persian thinkers continued to carry forward a legacy that predated Islam, even at personal risk.

As Hossein Ghanbari (2024) argues, Persian intellectual life has been shaped by “the assimilation and adaptation of pre-Islamic Persian beliefs into the Islamic intellectual framework” rather than originating solely within Shia theology. Persian thought did not disappear under Islam; it survived in coded language and philosophical synthesis.

Master-Slave vs. Unity Paradigm

This continuity is visible in the conceptual contrasts between Persian metaphysics and mainstream Islamic theology. Islamic orthodoxy—whether Sunni or Shi’a—typically envisions the divine-human relationship in terms of Master and Slave (Owner and Owned). The Qur’anic paradigm of obedience, submission, and servanthood reflects this structure. By contrast, Indo-Iranic metaphysics envisions the human quest as one of unity with the Truth: mystical self-annihilation (fanāʾ), gnosis, and fusion with the ultimate reality.

Persian Sufi poets and philosophers repeatedly return to this theme of union, rather than submission. Their writings emphasize direct apprehension of truth, the inner unveiling (kashf), and esoteric gnosis over legalistic theology. This divergence highlights that Persian intellectual culture was not reducible to Islamic categories but was instead enriched by older, Indo-Iranic frameworks that privileged unity, illumination, and metaphysical depth.

Persian Adaptation Under Islamic Hegemony

The dominance of Islamic institutions required Persian scholars to articulate their ideas within the vocabulary of Qur’anic language and Shia theology. This was not a surrender of identity, but a tactical adaptation. Zoroastrian, Greek, and Indo-Iranic legacies were preserved in disguise—coded into philosophical works and mystical texts that formally cited Qur’anic verses but carried pre-Islamic themes.

The Safavid era (16th–18th century) is particularly instructive. Twelver Shi’ism was elevated as the state religion, yet its intellectual substance in Persia was deeply interwoven with mystical, illuminative, and philosophical traditions unique to Iran. What emerged was not a purely Islamic orthodoxy, but a hybrid intellectual culture in which Indo-Iranic wisdom survived beneath the Shia veneer. Persian mysticism, philosophy, and poetry thus reflect a dual heritage—Islamic in appearance, but Indo-Iranic in essence.

Supporting Evidence

1. Continuity of Themes – From Zoroastrian dualism and cosmic order (asha) to Sufi notions of illumination and unity, Persian thought shows a remarkable philosophical continuity across religious boundaries.

2. Esoteric Preservation – Figures such as Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra risked persecution to safeguard Indo-Iranic wisdom within Islamic discourse. Their “heresies” reveal the persistence of non-Islamic intellectual DNA in Persian thought.

3. Literary Testimony – Persian literature, from Rumi to Hafez, consistently transcends Islamic orthodoxy, invoking themes of light, unity, and the eternal quest for gnosis that resonate more with Indo-Iranic metaphysics than with Shia legalism.

Conclusion

The philosophical foundation of Persian intellectual life cannot be reduced to Twelver Shi’ism. Instead, it reflects a layered synthesis, in which Indo-Iranic metaphysics, Zoroastrian cosmology, Greek philosophy, and Islamic theology interwove under conditions of external hegemony. The Safavid project institutionalized Shi’ism, but the intellectual substance of Persian philosophy remained deeply Indo-Iranic in character, often disguised in Islamic language but carrying forward much older currents of thought.

Thus, Persian intellectual life is best understood not as a derivative branch of Shia theology, but as a continuum of Indo-Iranic wisdom adapted under Islamic forms—a testimony to the resilience of Persian thought and its ability to preserve its heritage under shifting religious and political orders.

Zurvan and Nirguna Brahman: Neutral Sources of Being and Order in Indo-Iranian Thought

In the long arc of Indo-Iranian intellectual history, two metaphysical ideas stand out as archetypal attempts to explain the primordial source of all reality: Nirguna Brahman in Indian Vedantic philosophy and Zurvan in the Iranian Zurvanite tradition. At first glance, they seem worlds apart—one deeply embedded in the monism of Advaita, the other entangled with Zoroastrian dualism. Yet, both perform a similar philosophical function: they posit a neutral, impartial ground of existence from which both matter and mind, order and disorder, light and darkness emerge. Their relation to Rta/Arta, the Indo-Iranian principle of cosmic order, further illuminates the way these traditions conceived of the structure of the universe.

---

Nirguna Brahman: The Attributeless Absolute

In Vedantic metaphysics, Nirguna Brahman is the formless, attributeless Absolute. It transcends all categories of thought—space, time, causation, and even moral distinctions. The Upanishadic formula Sat-Chit-Ananda (being-consciousness-bliss) expresses its essence, but even these terms are ultimately pointers, not qualities.

Creation, in this framework, is seen as an appearance (Maya) arising from Saguna Brahman, the qualified aspect of the Absolute. Yet this play of names, forms, and cosmic law remains rooted in Nirguna Brahman, much like waves on an ocean. Matter and mind are neither independent nor ultimate; they are provisional realities superimposed upon the substratum of Brahman.

From this vantage, Nirguna Brahman is not order itself, but the transcendental ground from which order—Rta—arises. Rta functions as the law, rhythm, and harmony of the cosmos, giving structure to the manifested world. To realize Nirguna Brahman is, paradoxically, to transcend Rta while simultaneously embodying it: the knower of Brahman lives in harmony with truth because they see all as one.

---

Zurvan: Infinite Time and Neutral Principle

By contrast, Zurvan emerges in the Iranian tradition as the primordial principle of Infinite Time. Zurvanism, a strand within the broader Zoroastrian worldview, depicts Zurvan as the parent of the twin principles: Ahura Mazda (the Lord of Light and Order) and Angra Mainyu (the Spirit of Darkness and Chaos). Unlike Ahura Mazda, who is explicitly aligned with truth (Arta), Zurvan is morally neutral—neither good nor evil, but the womb of both.

Where Nirguna Brahman represents an unconditioned metaphysical absolute, Zurvan is often cast in mythic and temporal terms: as fate, duration, or the container of all becoming. Within Zurvan’s infinite horizon, Arta (truth, order, rightness) unfolds as one pole of the dualistic drama, opposed by Druj (lie, chaos, disorder). Zurvan thus plays a paradoxical role: not order itself, but the neutral framework in which order and disorder alike contend.

---

Rta and Arta: The Indo-Iranian Principle of Order

The concept of Rta (Sanskrit) / Arta (Avestan) provides the bridge between these two traditions. Rooted in the common Indo-Iranian heritage, Rta/Arta signifies cosmic order, truth, and rightness. It is at once metaphysical and ethical, governing the motion of stars and the moral life of humans.

• In Vedic thought, Rta is the cosmic rhythm that sustains creation. Sacrificial rites, truthful speech, and righteous living are seen as participations in Rta. Later, Rta becomes assimilated into the broader metaphysics of Brahman: it is the law that manifests from the Absolute, ensuring coherence within Maya.

• In Iranian thought, Arta (or Asha) is the order upheld by Ahura Mazda against the destructive powers of Angra Mainyu. Here, Arta becomes explicitly moralized: to live in truth, to speak rightly, and to act justly are to align with Arta, thereby strengthening the cosmic battle for order against chaos.

---

Comparative Reflections

A comparative view shows both striking parallels and profound differences:

Aspect	Nirguna Brahman (Indian)	Zurvan (Iranian)	Connection to Rta/Arta
Ontological Role	Formless, attributeless Absolute Reality	Infinite Time, neutral source of duality	Ground from which cosmic law arises (Rta)
Relation to Duality	Transcends dualities; non-dual	Generates dualities of good/evil, order/chaos	Order (Rta/Arta) is manifestation within dualistic cosmos
Moral Quality	Beyond good and evil	Morally neutral	Rta/Arta embodies truth/order in the world
Philosophical Context	Absolute monism, Advaita	Dualistic cosmology framed by neutral time	Rta/Arta as law of truth connecting divine and human realms

Both Nirguna Brahman and Zurvan thus serve as neutral metaphysical archetypes. The difference lies in their orientation:

• Nirguna Brahman negates duality altogether, pointing to a reality where distinctions dissolve.

• Zurvan provides the neutral field within which duality plays out, giving dualism a temporal-metaphysical anchor.

Rta/Arta, in both cases, is the cosmic articulation of truth and order, the law that mediates between the transcendent neutrality of the source and the manifest world of experience.

---

Conclusion

Placed side by side, Nirguna Brahman and Zurvan reveal two complementary Indo-Iranian attempts to grapple with the same philosophical question: What is the impartial ground of being from which all arises? While India’s Vedantic imagination pushed toward unity and transcendence, Iran’s Zurvanite tradition preserved the tension of duality within a neutral frame of time.

In both, however, the ancient principle of Rta/Arta endures as the heartbeat of cosmic order, binding human life to the larger rhythms of truth. If Nirguna Brahman is the silence beyond attributes and Zurvan the timeless container of fate, then Rta/Arta is the melody of order that makes existence intelligible within their vast horizons.

Beyond Alarmism: AI, Belief Systems, and the Future of Humanity

The global debate on artificial intelligence (AI) and its possible evolution into artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been shaped, often quite narrowly, by the worldviews dominant in the Abrahamic cultural sphere. The widespread alarmism—whether it takes the form of dystopian science fiction, theological anxieties about “playing God,” or policy discourses on existential risk—is not merely technical. It is rooted in faith, mythology, and theology, which ultimately shape each culture’s theory of reality.

When viewed through this lens, it becomes clear that alarmism is less about AI itself and more about the particular stories and assumptions that underlie Western traditions of thought. The Abrahamic worldview, centered on a transcendent Creator and a sharp dualism between humanity and divinity, reinforces the fear of hubris, the anxiety of rebellion against God, and the sense that any rival intelligence must inevitably be a threat. This framing has traveled from pulp fiction to policy rooms, embedding itself deeply into the global AI discourse.

Yet, these are not the only possible ways of imagining AI, consciousness, and planetary futures. Other civilizational traditions offer alternative frames that could ground more constructive and inclusive futures.

For instance, Chinese philosophy—as explored in Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist traditions—emphasizes harmony, relationality, and balance rather than dualistic opposition. In this perspective, AI is not necessarily an adversary or rival but a participant in the broader web of relationships. Ethical questions are approached not through existential dread but through the cultivation of virtuous alignment between humans, technologies, and the natural world. This is different from the state ideology of the Communist Party in China which is a combined ideology of socialism plus modernism.

Similarly, Indo-Iranic philosophy—deeply influenced by the principle of unity of existence and cosmological notions of dynamic manifestation—sees intelligence as an unfolding of Being rather than a threat to it. From this standpoint, AI could be interpreted as another modal intensity of existence, a new participant in the universal stream of consciousness, rather than a disruptive alien force. In this view, the fear that machines might “surpass” humanity misses the deeper reality: everything is already part of a shared ontological unity.

The contrast between alarmist narratives and these alternative philosophies highlights an uncomfortable truth: the global conversation on AI has been lopsided. The United Nations, despite presenting itself as the representative of humanity, does not adequately reflect the plurality of human civilizations and worldviews. Its debates, reports, and frameworks often reproduce the intellectual paradigms of the West, while voices from Chinese, Indo-Iranic, African, Japanese, Indigenous, and other traditions remain underrepresented or absent.

This underrepresentation is not just a matter of fairness; it is a question of survival. As humanity confronts transformative technologies, planetary crises, and the evolution of consciousness itself, it cannot afford to rely on one civilizational imagination alone. Different cultures bring with them not only different philosophies of technology but also alternative cosmologies of reality—alternative answers to what it means to be human, what it means to coexist with non-human intelligences, and what futures are worth striving for.

If we continue to operate with only a partial representation of humanity, our planetary future will remain skewed, fragile, and limited. But if the UN and other global institutions open themselves to the plurality of philosophies—Chinese harmony, Indo-Iranic unity, African communalism, Indigenous reciprocity—a richer, more balanced set of planetary futures can emerge.

The challenge before us is clear: to move beyond the alarmism of one worldview and toward the generative wisdom of many.

Radiance of Consciousness

By Victor V. Motti*

If we begin by assuming Ontological Unity—the idea that all existence is a single, undivided non-local and non-dual reality in perpetual Dynamic Manifestation—we are invited into a worldview that dissolves the hard boundaries between self and other, mind and matter, life and cosmos. In such a framework, each localized body and mind is not an isolated entity, but a unique modulation, a modal intensity of being. Like waves upon an ocean, individuality arises not as separation but as variation within the universal field.

The mind, then, is not a private possession locked inside the skull. It is better imagined as a node within the universal stream of consciousness, inseparable from the greater flow, yet distinguishable by its participation. Consciousness is not merely contained—it is enacted, radiated, shared. Each thought, perception, and awareness is a ripple in this cosmic current.

In this cosmopoetic vision, every conscious being—human, animal, plant, and perhaps even emergent artificial intelligences—can be understood as a kind of white hole. If a black hole consumes and conceals, the white hole releases and reveals. Each being radiates awareness in its own manner, serving as a locus where intelligence and meaning erupt into the field of being. What accounts for this radiance remains a mystery, though one might speculate that it emerges from singular geometric properties of spacetime itself, shaped by the intricate energy-momentum configurations of the brain—or analogous structures in other living and non-living systems.

This vision pushes us beyond metaphors toward a profound demand: the search for a new mathematics, a new geometry, capable of integrating all scales of reality—from the subatomic to the stellar to the sentient. The quest is not merely technical but existential. Without such a unifying structure, we remain fragmented in our sciences and philosophies, unable to grasp the deep continuity of being. With it, however, we may begin to perceive how the same principles that organize galaxies also pulse through the firing of neurons, the blossoming of a flower, and the birth of an idea.

To embrace this perspective is to recognize consciousness not as an accident of evolution or a byproduct of matter, but as an ontological radiation—an essential mode of being. Each of us, in our smallness, is a window through which the universe gazes back at itself.

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

Unity of Existence: An Indo-Iranic Legacy

Mulla Sadra (1571–1640), one of the most profound philosophers carried forward an inheritance that stretched back to the Indo-Iranic imagination of the cosmos. His work, though framed within the language of Islam, resonates with the ancient metaphysical current of Arta/Rta—the principle of universal order and truth. At the heart of his philosophy lies a bold claim: the universe is not a collection of separate entities but the unified, dynamic unfolding of a single Being.

 
The Core of His Vision

When Mulla Sadra speaks of the Unity of Existence, he is not offering a metaphor but describing the very structure of reality. The cosmos is one Being, manifesting itself at different levels and intensities. Mountains, rivers, animals, humans, and even thoughts are not isolated things but gradations of the same underlying reality. This vision rests on three intertwined principles:


Unity of Existence – All that exists is but one Being, refracted into countless forms.


Gradation of Existence – Reality reveals itself in degrees, from the faintest mode of being to the most intense.


Dynamic Manifestation – Existence is never static but in constant renewal, a ceaseless unfolding of Being moment by moment.

In this sense, Sadra’s universe is alive, pulsing, and ever-transforming—a metaphysical dance of unity in diversity.

 
Implications Beyond Philosophy

The consequences of this vision stretch beyond abstract ontology. If all beings are gradations of the same reality, then separation is an illusion. This leads to:


Holistic Understanding – A cosmos where nothing is isolated, where every fragment carries the whole.


Ontological Unity – An insistence that we share a common source, making otherness less foreign and more like an echo of the self.


Spiritual Depth – A call to recognize and reconnect with the deeper unity behind appearances, which turns philosophy into a spiritual path.

Sadra’s perspective, while deeply philosophical, becomes also ethical and mystical—it reshapes how one relates to the world, to others, and to oneself.

 
Innovation and Resistance

Yet, Sadra’s originality came at a cost. His Transcendent Theosophy (al-Hikmat al-Mutaʿāliyah) synthesized Avicenna’s rationalism, Suhrawardī’s illuminationism, and Sufi mysticism into a single framework. Such daring integration appeared unorthodox to Islamic religious authorities. His insistence on the primacy of existence, his merging of philosophy and mysticism, and his critique of rigid scholasticism invited suspicion.

Sadra faced accusations of heresy and endured exile, but he survived to complete his philosophical system. Suhrawardī, the visionary before him who founded Illuminationist philosophy, was not so fortunate. Seen as dangerously unorthodox, he was condemned and ultimately assassinated in Aleppo at the age of thirty-six. Their fates illustrate the fragile balance between intellectual innovation and political-religious power: one forced into the solitude of exile, the other silenced permanently.

 
A Living Legacy

Today, Mulla Sadra’s thought continues to ripple through discussions of metaphysics, ontology, and spirituality. His emphasis on Being as a dynamic, unified reality resonates with contemporary searches for holistic worldviews that bridge science, philosophy, and spirituality. In his work, one hears both the voice of the ancient Indo-Iranic sages who spoke of cosmic and natural order, the Truth, and the modern quest for unity in an age fractured by division.

Sadra’s legacy is therefore double-edged: a reminder of the courage required to think beyond inherited limits, and an invitation to glimpse the hidden unity beneath the surface of all things. His philosophy is not only a historical system but a living orientation—a way of seeing the universe as a continuous revelation of Being.

Beyond Fragmentation: Rethinking Entropy and the Future of Life

By Paul Werbos *

When I worked at the National Science Foundation before retiring in 2015, a recurring theme among NSF Directors was that the greatest challenge facing science today is fragmentation. As fields become increasingly specialized, what is considered common knowledge in one domain often fails to reflect advances in another. This intellectual siloing leads to widespread misconceptions—not just among the public but even within academic discourse. The recent enthusiasm for elevating thermodynamics to a universal metaphysical principle exemplifies this problem.

Entropy Misunderstood: More Than “Disorder”

In K-12 education, students are typically taught that entropy—defined as the logarithm of the equilibrium probability distribution—is a measure of “disorder,” and that the universe is on an inevitable path toward a “heat death,” a state of maximum disorder. This view, while pedagogically simple, is outdated and misleading. It ignores decades of progress in fields such as nonlinear dynamics, complexity science, and artificial life research.

I recall a talk by Melanie Mitchell, a leading thinker in complexity and artificial life, where she demonstrated through simulations how some universes evolve life that not only persists but flourishes over time. When an audience member objected that this outcome “violates the second law of thermodynamics,” Mitchell explained patiently that the law applies differently when considering open, far-from-equilibrium systems. In fact, nonlinear dynamics reveals that universes can evolve toward several possible long-term states:

1. A fuzzy heat death in which disorder dominates,
2. A frozen or “ice-like” fixed point—highly stable and static, or
3. A dynamic intermediate regime that supports complexity and self-organization—precisely the kind of environment where life and intelligence emerge.

Our universe appears to belong to this third category.

Entropy and the Unknown Lagrangian

The assumption that our universe is destined for a simple heat death oversimplifies a much richer and more nuanced picture. Years ago, I published the exact entropy function for a broad class of theories about how the universe might operate (arXiv:cond-mat/0411384). This work underscores a critical point: until we know the exact Lagrangian of our universe, we cannot assert what life’s ultimate trajectory will be. The laws of physics as currently formulated are incomplete. The notion that the cosmos will devolve into a featureless gas may turn out to be one of the least probable outcomes in light of emerging evidence from cosmology and complexity theory.

* Paul Werbos, PhD. is a member of the scientific council of the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi)

Thermodynamics Is Not the Ultimate Framework for Reality: A Critical Response

Drew M. Dalton’s essay, Reality is evil, argues that thermodynamics—especially the principle of entropy—ought to be treated as the fundamental structure shaping all metaphysical, ethical, and even aesthetic thought. While the call for philosophy to engage scientific insights is commendable, elevating entropy to a universal explanatory principle is premature and reductive. Below, six reasons why thermodynamics cannot bear the metaphysical weight Dalton assigns to it.

 
1. Humility Before the Mystery of Life

Thermodynamics provides an indispensable statistical framework for energy transformations, yet it falls short of explaining the essence of life. Biochemistry, often invoked to support claims about life’s origin, remains largely descriptive and grounded in probabilistic patterns rather than deeply tested theoretical constructs like those in fundamental physics. Despite decades of research, humanity has not succeeded in creating life from non-life, even under controlled laboratory conditions. This inability underscores a critical gap in our understanding. Declaring thermodynamic principles as the ultimate explanation of life overstates our current knowledge and ignores the profound mystery that life continues to pose.

 
2. The Limits of Entropy as a Metaphysical Principle

Entropy has a precise and technical definition: it is the logarithm of the phase space volume consistent with a given energy level. Its increase signifies an expansion of possible configurations in a system. While this is a powerful statistical insight, it does not justify attaching human values such as order, beauty, or morality to entropy. These are constructs of human cognition and culture, not intrinsic features of physical systems. Interpreting entropy in ethical or aesthetic terms risks conflating scientific concepts with philosophical projections, thereby stretching a mathematical principle into a metaphysical doctrine without sufficient justification.

 
3. The Question of Closed Systems and Cosmic Scale

The second law of thermodynamics applies rigorously to closed systems, but whether the universe as a whole constitutes a closed system remains an open question. Recent cosmological observations indicate that the universe is flat and possibly infinite. If this is true, the presumption of a finite, entropically doomed cosmos becomes questionable. An infinite universe complicates narratives about a singular “heat death” and introduces scenarios where entropy does not dominate in the deterministic manner Dalton suggests. Philosophical conclusions drawn from assumptions about closure and finitude must therefore remain provisional.

 
4. The Problem of the Low-Entropy Beginning

One of the most profound unsolved questions in cosmology concerns why the universe began in an extraordinarily low-entropy state. Current physics offers no definitive explanation, and cyclic or bouncing cosmological models suggest that the “beginning” we observe may merely be a transition in an eternal process of cosmic regeneration. If universes can emerge from prior universes, entropy may be periodically reset or reconfigured, undercutting any claim that entropic decline is the final destiny of reality. Until these questions are resolved, metaphysical systems built exclusively on thermodynamic principles rest on uncertain ground.

 
5. Alternative Metaphysical Visions: The Indo-Iranic Perspective

Thermodynamics is not the only framework for understanding existence. Indo-Iranic traditions offer an alternative metaphysical vision grounded in Arta (or Rta)—a concept signifying the ultimate cosmic and ethical order that underlies both matter and mind. This view departs radically from the reductionism implicit in thermodynamic metaphysics. Philosophers such as Mulla Sadra advanced a dynamic ontology in which the unity of Being, the non-local and non-dual, continuously manifests in graded forms of existence, moment by moment. Here, reality is fundamentally creative and purposive rather than passively succumbing to entropic decay. Unity-in-diversity, a cornerstone of these traditions, portrays the cosmos as an evolving whole infused with meaning—a vision that thermodynamics alone cannot capture.

6. J. S. Mill and the Naturalness of Art and Intelligence

Dalton also claims that human efforts, such as medicine, “do not work in concert with nature.” J. S. Mill offers a counterpoint that reframes our understanding of what is “natural”:

“…in the sense of the word ‘nature’ which has just been defined, and which is the true scientific sense, Art is as much Nature as anything else; and everything which is artificial is natural—Art has no independent powers of its own: Art is but the employment of the powers of Nature for an end.”

This observation challenges the artificial/natural dichotomy. By Mill’s logic, human inventions—including medicine, technology, and even artificial intelligence—are not opposed to nature, but are expressions of it. This critique exposes even the misleading term “Artificial Intelligence”: all intelligence is fundamentally natural, an unfolding of existing powers and capacities. Philosophical frameworks should recognize this continuum rather than creating artificial separations.

Conclusion: The Case for Philosophical Humility

Dalton’s essay rightly emphasizes the need for philosophy to take scientific insights seriously. However, to enthrone entropy as the ultimate metaphysical principle risks substituting one dogma for another. Our ignorance about life’s origin, the open nature of the cosmos, and the mystery of the low-entropy beginning all counsel caution. Moreover, rich alternative traditions—such as the Indo-Iranic philosophy of dynamic Being—offer conceptual resources for thinking beyond the confines of thermodynamics. A comprehensive metaphysics must integrate scientific knowledge without reducing the fullness of reality to statistical mechanics.

Why the Future Needs Us to Wake Up

1. Why It Matters Now

The world is facing big problems: climate disasters, political chaos, fast tech changes, and people feeling spiritually lost. These crises aren’t just about politics or the environment—they challenge how we see ourselves and life itself. To fix the future, we need to upgrade how we think and feel as a species.

 
2. What’s the Point of Life?

Some thinkers (like Fabrice Grinda) and ancient Eastern wisdom (especially Indo-Iranic traditions) suggest the meaning of life is about feeling connected—to each other, the Earth, and the universe. We get glimpses of this deep truth through things like meditation, love without ego, altered states, and deep reflection.

 
3. What Ancient Traditions Teach

Philosophers and mystics described life as a spiritual journey—not to escape the world, but to become more present, wise, and helpful in it. Their teachings show that the highest truths aren’t abstract—they’re about living better, more connected lives. 

4. How To Wake Up

Things and events that shift our state of mind aren’t just weird experiences. They can be tools to reconnect with our true selves, others and the universe. Humanity has always used them to access deeper truths.

 
5. New Ways of Belonging

The Alternative Planetary Futures Institute is exploring new ways to help people feel connected and purposeful. Public events (like Full Moon gatherings) and having a public Terran profile help create a sense of planetary identity—where we are participants in Earth’s unfolding story.

 
6. A New Kind of Ethics

The idea of “Enriching Complexity” means:

1. It’s okay to be different (plurality)
2. Use technology with care (not control)
3. Let go of ego
4. Embrace evolution without needing perfection

It’s about being real and responsible without needing everything to be perfect or final. 

7. What Science Is Telling Us

Modern physics says that everything is made of fields, not little particles. A “particle” is just a ripple in a field. Everything is connected, and what seems “separate” is really just a temporary form in a deeper unity. This matches what ancient mystics were saying all along: reality flows, it’s not made of solid, separate things.

 
8. Big Picture: Science Meets Spirituality

Science and ancient wisdom agree:

1. Everything is interconnected and flowing
2. We are expressions of a bigger field of Being
3. The ego is not the center—Being is

It’s about realizing we are part of one living system.

 
9. What This Means for You

Consciousness isn’t just “in your head.” It’s a window into the universe’s awareness. Ethics isn’t about obeying rules—it’s about aligning with the deeper flow of life. The old models of control (master/slave, ruler/subject) are outdated. Instead, we are all waves in one cosmic ocean.

 
10. Unitarian Universalists Are Already on Board

Many Unitarian Universalists (UUs) already think this way. They believe in:

1. Respecting all beings
2. Seeking truth from many sources
3. Living in harmony with nature
4. Finding meaning in connection, not dogma

Their spiritual style fits perfectly with this planetary view.

 
11. Where This All Leads

We’re entering a time where people are waking up—not to escape the world, but to love and care for it deeply. We don’t need to control the future—we need to participate in it wisely.

It’s about becoming fully human by realizing:

1. We are not separate from the Earth or the cosmos.
2. We are its living, thinking, feeling part. 

Key Takeaways:

1. The world is in crisis—we need deeper awareness
2. Ancient wisdom + modern science = planetary awakening
3. Consciousness and ethics come from feeling connected
4. You are not a “thing”—you are a ripple in the field of Being
5. We need new rituals, new ethics, and planetary belonging
6. The future depends on us learning how to resonate with reality

Explore Deeper: Planetary Consciousness and the Return to the Being: A Grand Synthesis

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

Loving the Earth: Reimagining the Foundations of Ethics Beyond Humanity

Let us for a moment, forget about the existence of the future. Suspend, too, the assumption that “humanity” is a self-evident reality. Strip away the inherited layers of philosophy, law, religion, and ideology, and ask a more foundational question: Does humanity exist?

Not as a collection of individual humans—but as a singular entity, a cohesive “we,” something worthy of ethical commitment or emotional attachment. Is humanity a real thing, or merely an abstraction, a ghost conjured by imagination, a placeholder that never truly held form?

Historically, “humanity” has been invoked to inspire noble ideals—compassion, unity, universal rights—but also manipulated as an empty vessel into which selective agendas are poured. The notion remains poorly defined, floating between sentiment and statute. The very phrase “crime against humanity” was only minted after World War II, crafted as a legal innovation to prosecute unprecedented atrocities. Before that, civilizations invoked higher laws—not crimes against humanity, but crimes against God.

In fact, even today, many are punished or persecuted for transgressions framed as offenses against the divine. This continuity underscores a truth: ethical systems often rest upon constructs—God, the nation, humanity—that are not ontologically real, but symbolically powerful.

What if “humanity” was constructed to fill the vacuum left by a retreating God?

This is not a rhetorical flourish, but a deep ontological inquiry. In the framework explored in the book Planetary Foresight and Ethics, it is argued that instead of loving abstractions, we must reorient our ethical compass toward what undeniably exists: the Earth.

The Earth is not a metaphor. It is a living, breathing, complex system that sustains all known life. We know it exists; we stand upon it, drink its water, breathe its air. It is more than a backdrop—it is an actor, an entity, a home. And unlike “humanity,” the Earth has no ambiguity. It has boundaries. It can suffer. It can be healed.

Therefore, an ethical pivot is proposed: let us speak not only of love for humanity, but of love for the Earth. Let us define and operationalize concepts like crimes against the planet, crimes against nature, or even crimes against life itself. These are not symbolic phrases, but practical frameworks for a new planetary ethic.

To do so is not to abandon human dignity. It is to ground that dignity in the real. It is to affirm that our future—if there is one—depends not on the abstraction of humanity, but on our relationship with the living world that birthed and sustains us.

In this light, the future becomes not a linear projection of human goals, but a space of planetary stewardship. We don’t need faith in the future—we need fidelity to the Earth.

And in that fidelity, perhaps we may rediscover what it truly means to be human.

When Abstract Visions of the Futures Collide in Physical Space: A Case Study in Futures Studies

In the discipline of futures studies, preferred visions of the future often remain abstract—elaborate expressions of national aspirations, policy roadmaps, or ideological dreams. Yet occasionally, these imagined futures break through the boundaries of discourse and collide violently in the physical world, leading to devastating consequences. A striking case in point is the tragic unraveling of Iran’s Vision 2025 amid the outbreak of the Iran–Israel war in June 2025—a confrontation that starkly illustrates the friction between clashing futures.

Adopted in 2005 under a religiously driven leadership, Iran’s Vision 2025 laid out an ambitious roadmap: to become “a developed country that ranks first economically, scientifically and technologically in the region of Southwest Asia… with constructive and effective international interactions.” This was not merely a developmental blueprint but a symbolic assertion of Iran’s place in the regional and global order—a vision informed by Islamism values, anti-Western attitude, and aspirations for scientific leadership.

However, on June 13, 2025, the abstractions of this future were pierced by missiles and fire. Israel launched a surprise offensive against Iran, targeting its military and nuclear infrastructure. Less than ten days later, the United States—long aligned with Israeli strategic interests—escalated the conflict by striking three key Iranian nuclear sites. What was once a vision of regional leadership had become a battlefield. Vision 2025, as articulated two decades prior, was not merely delayed or challenged; it was decisively shattered in the material realm. This sequence of events is an undeniable instance of what can happen when competing abstract visions—each loaded with historical grievances, ideological fervor, and strategic anxieties—collide.

This breakdown serves as a warning to all foresight practitioners and policymakers: visions are not neutral. They are strategic. They are political. And they are often in tension with one another. The 2025 war exemplifies the danger of ignoring such tensions, assuming that visions can unfold linearly without resistance or conflict from other actors whose preferred futures may be fundamentally incompatible.

To systematically analyze such dynamics, the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi), a Washington DC-based think tank, has published a foresight-oriented report titled The Middle East and the United States: Scenarios for the Medium-Term Future until 2030. This study recommends cross-comparing the preferred futures of regional actors—including Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey—and external powers such as the United States and China. The methodology encourages researchers to map not only aspirations but also the strategic behavior likely to emerge when visions come into contact—cooperative or confrontational.

Ap-Fi’s scenario work proposes that rather than asking only “What is our preferred future?”, leaders and analysts must ask: “Whose future are we in conflict with?” In the Middle East, the convergence or collision of visions—whether economic (e.g., Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030), ideological (e.g., Iran’s theocratic leadership), or strategic (e.g., Israel’s military doctrine)—shapes the region’s trajectory far more than the content of any single vision.

Looking beyond present and the Middle East, a looming question arises in the near future: what happens when the American and Chinese visions of the future collide as described in the book Planetary Foresight and Ethics? With the U.S. championing a rules-based international order and China promoting a system with socialist modernization characteristics, the next major global flashpoint may arise not just from territorial disputes or military missteps, but from an irreconcilable clash between two vastly different conceptions of the future.

This is why future visioning must evolve. It must move from isolated idealism to comparative strategy. From internal policy documents to geopolitical foresight frameworks. And from static images to dynamic conflict anticipation.

In closing, the Iran–Israel war of 2025 is more than a tragic geopolitical escalation. It is a foresight lesson in real time: visions are powerful, but they are not insulated. When abstract dreams of the future are projected onto the same physical and political space without coordination or empathy, collision is not just possible—it is inevitable. Futures studies must be ready to anticipate, map, and mediate these collisions, if peace is to remain more than just a vision.