HomeTHE SYSTEMS THEORY OF EXISTENCE:
SURVIVAL, DESIRE, CAPACITY
AND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR
A Thesis on the Mechanics of Existence
El
June 2026
Abstract
All living systems exist within a continuous negotiation between internal needs and external conditions. From single-celled organisms maintaining homeostasis against entropic decay, to multinational corporations navigating geopolitical pressures, to individuals constructing identities within social hierarchies, existence is governed by a singular imperative: the pursuit of continuity. This pursuit manifests through self-preservation, which generates survival strategies, which produce desire, which shapes behaviour, and ultimately determines the capacity and position of an entity within a larger system.
This thesis argues that the same fundamental mechanism operates across biological, social, economic, and psychological environments. A predator hunting for food and a human seeking wealth, status, security, or influence are different expressions of the same underlying force: the desire to maintain and expand a state of existence. What differentiates entities is not the presence or absence of this drive, but the complexity of what survival means to them, and the strategies they develop to achieve it.
The central proposition is that organisms are not defined solely by what they possess, but by the repeated patterns they interact with. Environment, conditioning, and learned strategies create behavioural identities. An entity becomes the patterns it continuously practises. This principle has profound implications for understanding human behaviour, institutional design, economic systems, and the trajectory of civilisations.
Drawing on systems theory, evolutionary biology, behavioural psychology, economic analysis, and African philosophical traditions, the thesis constructs a unified framework for understanding how existence generates behaviour, how behaviour generates capacity, and how capacity determines positional outcomes within hierarchies of power and influence.
Chapter 1: The Imperative of Continuation
Before desire exists, before strategy is formed, before identity crystallises, there is a more fundamental condition: existence itself. Every living system, from a prokaryotic cell to a complex adaptive civilisation, is bound by a single non-negotiable requirement: it must continue. This is not a choice. It is the foundational programming layer upon which all subsequent behaviour is constructed.
1.1 Existence as Thermodynamic Resistance
From a physics standpoint, life is an organised rebellion against the second law of thermodynamics. The Nobel laureate Erwin Schrödinger articulated this in his 1944 lectures at Trinity College Dublin, later published as What Is Life?, where he described living organisms as systems that maintain internal order by importing negative entropy from their environment. A cell does not passively exist; it actively maintains its membrane integrity, regulates ion gradients, synthesises proteins, and repairs damage. The moment it ceases this activity, entropy wins and the cell dies.
This thermodynamic framing is essential because it reveals that self-preservation is not an add-on feature of living systems. It is the defining characteristic. A rock does not self-preserve because it has no internal organisation to maintain. A bacterium does, and therefore it must continuously act to sustain the conditions of its own existence. The Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela formalised this insight in their theory of autopoiesis, published in De Máquinas y Seres Vivos (1973). An autopoietic system is one that continuously produces and maintains the components that constitute it. The system produces itself. Self-preservation is therefore not a behaviour that a living system performs among other behaviours; it is the behaviour from which all other behaviours originate.
1.2 Survival as Rebellion: The Push
The Push-Pull Philosophy, a framework within the author’s philosophical practice, names this imperative precisely: existence is not passive. It is seized. Every heartbeat, every breath, every seed pushing through soil is a rebellion against nothingness. The universe trends toward entropy, toward silence, disorder, dissolution. Yet here we are. Life refuses to dissolve quietly. This refusal is the essence of the Push.
Yoruba cosmology carries the same insight in the concept of Àṣẹ (pronounced ah-SHEH), the universal force that animates creation. Without Àṣẹ, nothing moves, nothing breathes. Àṣẹ is not merely energy in the physics sense; it is the power of manifestation, the capacity of existence to insist upon itself. In the philosophy of Àṣẹ–Orí–Ìwà, Àṣẹ is the raw force that must be harnessed consciously rather than allowed to scatter. Self-preservation, in this frame, is not passive defence but active channelling of universal force toward the continuation of one’s own organised existence.
The Stoics arrived at a parallel insight from a different direction. Marcus Aurelius, in his Meditations (circa 170 CE), wrote that the impediment to action advances action, that what stands in the way becomes the way. Survival is not merely enduring obstacles; it is the active transformation of resistance into forward motion. The Push, in both the Yoruba and Stoic traditions, is creative rebellion: the organism does not simply defend against dissolution; it builds against it.
1.3 The Survival Question
Every organism, at every moment, is implicitly answering a single question: What must I obtain, protect, or avoid to continue existing? The answer to this question varies dramatically depending on the organism and its environment, but the question itself is universal.
For a single-celled organism, the answer involves maintaining chemical gradients and avoiding toxins. For a gazelle on the Serengeti, it involves locating water, consuming vegetation, and evading predators. For a human being in a modern economy, the answer extends far beyond physical needs to encompass financial security, social belonging, psychological stability, and symbolic meaning.
The critical insight is that the organism does not first develop morality, philosophy, identity, or preference. It first develops a mechanism to remain. Ethics, aesthetics, social norms, and personal values all emerge later, built on the foundation of a system that has already committed to its own continuation. This does not reduce human experience to mere biology; rather, it identifies the substratum upon which the full complexity of human experience is constructed.
1.4 Self-Preservation Across Scales
The imperative of continuation operates identically across scales of complexity, though its expression becomes more elaborate as systems become more sophisticated.
Scenario: The Fintech Founder in Lagos
Consider Adaeze, a 29-year-old software engineer in Lagos who leaves a stable position at a multinational bank to launch a mobile payments startup targeting underbanked communities across West Africa. Her biological self-preservation is not under immediate threat; she has savings and a family network in Enugu. Yet the moment she founds the company, a new entity comes into existence with its own imperative of continuation. The startup must acquire users, generate revenue, and secure investment to survive. Adaeze’s personal identity becomes entangled with the company’s survival. When a competitor backed by Kenyan venture capital launches a similar product in Ghana, her stress response activates not because her physical safety is compromised, but because the extended system she has created, and which has become part of her identity, is under threat. The survival question has expanded from ‘How do I eat?’ to ‘How does the entity I have built continue to exist?’
This scaling effect explains why CEOs experience physiological stress responses during board meetings, why politicians fight to preserve their party’s dominance even when personal benefit is unclear, and why artists experience genuine grief when their work is rejected. In each case, the imperative of continuation has extended beyond the biological body into systems, institutions, and symbolic structures that the individual has come to identify with.
The biologist Richard Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene (1976), proposed that genes use organisms as vehicles for their own replication. The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, in Distinction (1979), showed that social classes reproduce themselves through cultural capital and habitus. Both frameworks describe self-preserving systems operating through carriers that may not be fully conscious of the preservation logic they serve. The individual believes they are making choices; the system is preserving itself through those choices.
Chapter 2: From Survival to Desire
Survival is not merely the absence of death. It is the active pursuit of conditions that support continued existence. This pursuit creates desire.
2.1 Desire as the Bridge Between Existence and Action
Desire is the psychological experience of a gap between a current state and a required state. The organism perceives that something is missing, insufficient, or threatened, and this perception generates a motivational force directed toward closing the gap. Without desire, there would be no action. Without action, there would be no survival. Desire is therefore not an indulgence or a weakness; it is the bridge between existence and the behaviours that sustain existence.
The neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp, in Affective Neuroscience (1998), identified what he called the SEEKING system as the primary emotional operating system in mammalian brains. This system, mediated largely by dopamine pathways in the mesolimbic circuit, generates a forward-reaching, exploratory, appetitive state. It does not produce satisfaction; it produces the wanting that drives the organism to search, investigate, and acquire. Desire, in this neurobiological framing, is not a higher cognitive function. It is a deep-brainstem programme that evolution has conserved across hundreds of millions of years because organisms that did not seek did not survive.
In the Push-Pull framework, desire is the directional component of the Push. The Push without direction is mere agitation, energy scattered without purpose. Desire provides the vector. It tells the organism not merely to move but where to move, transforming raw survival instinct into targeted action. The Pull, conversely, is what gives desire its moral and strategic quality: the pull toward meaning, connection, and purpose that prevents the Push from becoming blind acquisition. Together, push and pull form the rhythm of existence.
2.2 The Relativity of Necessity
What distinguishes organisms from one another is not the presence or absence of desire but the complexity of what survival means to them. This complexity is determined by the environment, and it creates a phenomenon that might be called the relativity of necessity.
A person born into material scarcity in a rural community develops survival requirements calibrated to that context: food security, physical shelter, protection from environmental hazards. A person born into affluence in a metropolitan centre develops survival requirements calibrated to a different context: professional status, educational credentials, social network quality, and brand of identity.
Both individuals are surviving, but their definitions of necessity have been encoded differently by their environments. What the affluent individual considers a baseline condition of normal life, the person in scarcity considers an extraordinary luxury. Conversely, the resilience and resourcefulness that the person in scarcity has developed may be entirely absent from the affluent individual’s skill set.
Scenario: Two Graduates, Two Continents of Experience
Kwame grew up in Nima, a dense working-class neighbourhood in Accra, the second of six children raised by a single mother who sold kenkey at a roadside stall. He attended a government school, studied by the light of a shared generator, and earned a scholarship to study computer science at the University of Ghana, Legon. For Kwame, survival meant securing a position at a technology company, sending money home, and ensuring his younger siblings could continue school. His desire is shaped by concrete, material urgency. Now consider Amara, who grew up in the affluent suburb of Fann Résidence in Dakar, attended a French-medium private lycée, and studied international relations at Sciences Po on her family’s account. Her material needs were never in question. For Amara, survival meant maintaining her family’s francophone elite social standing, building a career that earned respect from her peer group, and constructing an identity that felt authentic against the expectations of her social class. Both Kwame and Amara are driven by desire. Both are surviving. But the content of their desire, the strategies they deploy, and the psychological weight they carry are fundamentally different, because the environment expanded or contracted their definition of what constitutes necessity.
2.3 Abraham Maslow and the Hierarchy of Needs
The psychologist Abraham Maslow formalised a version of this insight in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation, published in Psychological Review. Maslow proposed that human needs exist in a hierarchy: physiological needs at the base, followed by safety, belonging, esteem, and self-actualisation at the apex. The model suggests that lower-order needs must be substantially met before higher-order needs become salient.
While Maslow’s hierarchy has been criticised for its rigidity (the Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef argued in Human Scale Development (1991) that needs are simultaneous and non-hierarchical, and the Ghanaian philosopher Kwame Gyekye’s communitarian ethics suggests that belonging is not a mid-tier need but a foundational condition of personhood in African societies), the core observation remains useful: the content of desire shifts as survival conditions change. A person who has secured food, shelter, and physical safety does not cease to desire. Instead, the target of desire escalates. Financial freedom, social recognition, creative expression, and legacy all become forms of survival once the more basic requirements have been met.
This escalation is not pathological. It is the natural consequence of a self-preserving system that continuously recalibrates its definition of what constitutes adequate existence. The environment teaches the organism what is possible, and possibility becomes the new floor of necessity.
Chapter 3: Strategies of Acquisition
Once desire has been generated by the survival imperative, the organism must develop strategies for obtaining what it desires. This creates what can be understood as the fundamental behavioural question of existence: How does an organism obtain what it needs?
3.1 Resources and the Field of Interaction
All organisms interact with resources. The definition of a resource, however, is far broader than the material. Resources include food, territory, energy, attention, knowledge, relationships, status, influence, opportunity, information, and time. Each of these represents a form of capital that the organism requires to sustain and expand its existence.
The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu identified four forms of capital in his work: economic capital (financial resources), cultural capital (knowledge, education, taste), social capital (networks, relationships, group membership), and symbolic capital (prestige, honour, recognition). Bourdieu’s framework demonstrates that resource acquisition in human societies extends far beyond material accumulation. A person who accumulates cultural capital through education and social capital through strategic networking may generate greater positional advantage than a person who accumulates only economic capital.
The field of interaction, to borrow another Bourdieuian concept, is the arena within which resources are contested. Every field has its own rules, its own forms of valued capital, and its own hierarchies of position. The strategies that succeed in one field may be irrelevant in another. A trader on the Nigerian Stock Exchange and a community organiser in a rural cooperative in Malawi are both acquiring resources, but the fields they operate in reward entirely different strategies.
3.2 Three Primary Behavioural Orientations
Observation of both natural and human systems reveals three primary orientations toward resource acquisition. These are not fixed personality types but strategic positions that an organism may occupy depending on context, capacity, and environment.
The Taker: Expansion Through Acquisition
The taker’s primary orientation is toward the environment as a source of resources to be obtained. Their instinct asks: What can I acquire? The taker moves toward resources. Their strategy is expansion. They compete, negotiate, innovate, create, and, in some cases, dominate or manipulate.
The taker is not inherently moral or immoral. A venture capitalist deploying capital into emerging markets is a taker. An apex predator on the savanna is a taker. A researcher pursuing a breakthrough that will secure tenure and funding is a taker. The orientation is defined by directionality, not by ethics.
In organisational psychology, Adam Grant’s research, published in Give and Take (2013), identifies takers as individuals who aim to get more than they give in professional interactions. Grant’s data showed that takers often rise quickly in hierarchies but also tend to provoke resistance, which can undermine long-term position.
Scenario: The Mining Conglomerate Executive
Consider Mutale, a Zambian-born executive leading copper extraction operations across the Copperbelt. Mutale’s entire professional identity is structured around acquisition: acquiring mining concessions, acquiring capital from London and Shanghai investors, acquiring regulatory clearances from the Ministry of Mines, acquiring skilled geologists from South Africa and Australia, and acquiring market share against competitors in the DRC. When a community in Solwezi organises resistance to a new open-pit site, Mutale does not interpret this as a moral challenge. He interprets it as a resource problem: how does he acquire the social licence necessary to proceed? His response—whether he chooses negotiation, compensation, legal action, or political leverage through the provincial governor—is determined not by moral philosophy but by which strategy of acquisition he calculates will yield the greatest return relative to cost. The taker’s framework is fundamentally transactional: every interaction is evaluated through the lens of what can be obtained.
The Yielder: Survival Through Adaptation
The yielder’s primary orientation is responsive rather than controlling. Their instinct asks: What can I receive? The yielder survives by adapting to external conditions, accepting the terms of the environment, and extracting what is available within those terms.
The yielder is not passive. Adaptation requires sophisticated reading of environmental signals, flexibility in strategy, and often considerable endurance. In ecological terms, many of the most successful species on Earth are yielders: organisms that thrive not by dominating their environment but by fitting into ecological niches that larger, more aggressive species overlook.
In human contexts, the yielder pattern is common among individuals and populations that have been shaped by constrained environments. A domestic worker in a wealthy household in Nairobi, a junior civil servant navigating a rigid bureaucracy in Abuja, or a smallholder farmer dependent on the short rains in northern Tanzania are all operating from a yielder orientation. Their survival depends on reading the signals of the system they inhabit and extracting what value they can within its constraints.
The Holder: The Hybrid Strategist
The holder combines acquisition and preservation. Their instinct asks: What must I obtain, maintain, and exchange to preserve my position? The holder understands when to advance, when to adapt, and when to protect. They operate in the space between predator and prey, between aggression and receptivity, and they tend to be the most strategically flexible of the three orientations.
In practice, the most durable institutions and individuals tend to operate as holders. They acquire when opportunity presents itself, they defend when threats emerge, and they yield when the cost of resistance exceeds the value of the contested resource. The holder’s core competence is strategic assessment: knowing which mode to activate in response to which conditions.
Scenario: The Market Trader in Kumasi
Akosua runs a textiles stall at Kejetia Market in Kumasi, one of the largest open-air markets in West Africa. She operates as a holder. She acquired her initial stock through a combination of savings, a contribution from her mother’s susu group, and a line of credit from a Chinese wholesaler in Accra. She maintains her customer base through credit extension to trusted buyers, personal relationships cultivated over a decade, and an instinct for which ankara and kente patterns will sell each season. She yields to market pressures by adjusting her margins when cheaper imports flood the market from Togo. And she protects her position by forming alliances with other stall holders to negotiate collectively with market association officials on levy increases. Akosua does not have the capital to be a pure taker, and she is too entrepreneurial to be a pure yielder. Her survival depends on her ability to read the environment, make strategic calculations, and shift between acquisition, preservation, and adaptation as conditions demand. In the Yoruba tradition, this strategic flexibility would be recognised as an expression of ìwà pẹ̀lẹ́: not merely gentle character, but the disciplined intelligence that knows when to push and when to pull.
Chapter 4: Capacity as Positional Force
Every organism exists within a hierarchy of capacity. Capacity is the ability to influence outcomes. It determines not merely what an organism possesses at any given moment, but what it is capable of producing, defending, and sustaining over time.
4.1 The Anatomy of Capacity
Capacity is constituted by multiple interacting factors: knowledge, resources, skills, intelligence, relationships, environment, adaptability, and time. These factors do not operate in isolation. They multiply or constrain one another in ways that produce non-linear outcomes.
A person with extensive knowledge but no relationships through which to deploy that knowledge has constrained capacity. A person with vast financial resources but no skill in deploying them will see those resources erode. Conversely, a person with modest resources but high adaptability, strong networks, and deep domain knowledge can generate capacity that far exceeds their material starting position.
4.2 The Triangular System: Àṣẹ, Orí, and Ìwà
The philosophy of Àṣẹ–Orí–Ìwà provides a framework for understanding capacity that is both ancient and structurally precise. In this system, capacity is not a single dimension but a triangle of three interdependent forces.
Àṣẹ is the raw force of manifestation: the energy, resources, skill, and power that an organism brings to bear on its environment. Without Àṣẹ, nothing moves. It corresponds to what the systems analysis literature would call active capacity: the ability to produce output. A person with great Àṣẹ has the energy, the resources, the skills, and the drive to act on the world.
Orí is the inner compass, the personal destiny. It is not fate in the deterministic sense but a potential: a road that becomes clearer the more one walks in alignment with it. Orí determines direction. A person with enormous Àṣẹ but unclear Orí will scatter their force across targets that do not serve their actual purpose. They will be busy without being effective, powerful without being significant. Orí corresponds to what the Xyztems Analytrix framework calls Purpose: the anchor force that does not amplify output but validates direction. A system with maximal capacity aimed at the wrong purpose is the most dangerous configuration possible, what the framework terms the Illusion archetype: capable, efficient, and catastrophically misdirected.
Ìwà is character, moral discipline, the bridge between force and destiny. Without Ìwà, Orí is corrupted and Àṣẹ becomes destructive. Ìwà corresponds to what systems theory would call constraint forces: the boundaries and gateways that regulate how much of the system’s capacity is permitted to flow. Ìwà is not limitation; it is intelligent containment. A person with vast Àṣẹ and clear Orí but degraded Ìwà will eventually destroy what they build, because their character cannot sustain the weight of their power. This is visible in the trajectory of every leader, entrepreneur, or institution that rose spectacularly and collapsed from within.
The Àṣẹ–Orí–Ìwà triangle, enclosed within the circle of Olódùmarè (the Universal Container), is therefore a complete model of capacity: force, direction, and discipline, operating within a field of existence that holds and circulates all energy. The individual sits at the centre of the triangle, the navigator, responsible for keeping all three forces in alignment. When they align, capacity compounds. When they fracture, capacity collapses.
4.3 Inherited Position Versus Learned Capacity
A critical distinction in understanding capacity is the difference between inherited conditions and learned capacity. Inherited conditions provide starting position. They include the family one is born into, the economic class of that family, the geographic and political context, genetic endowments, and the cultural capital transmitted during childhood socialisation.
Learned capacity, by contrast, is developed through interaction with the environment over time. It includes acquired skills, accumulated knowledge, forged relationships, and the adaptive strategies refined through experience. The distinction matters because inherited conditions and learned capacity produce different qualities of positional advantage.
A person who inherits a position but lacks the capacity to maintain it will lose that position. This pattern is well-documented in the wealth management literature: research by the Williams Group and others has estimated that roughly seventy percent of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, and ninety percent by the third. The Igbo proverb captures it: Nwa afù na-erú ògè ekwesíghí na ugwu dí n’ògè, meaning the child born at the peak of the hill does not know the effort of the climb. The mechanism is clear: the founding generation possessed learned capacity. Subsequent generations inherited the position but not the capacity that produced it.
Conversely, a person who develops capacity through learning, practice, and strategic interaction can construct positional advantage from modest starting conditions. This is the mechanism behind social mobility, and it is why learned capacity is, over time, more durable than inherited advantage.
Scenario: The Divergent Siblings in Dar es Salaam
Consider two siblings, Baraka and Rehema, born to a successful hotelier in Dar es Salaam who built a chain of guesthouses serving the Zanzibar-bound tourist corridor. Both inherit equal shares of the portfolio. Baraka, however, was mentored closely by their father from age fifteen, worked reception desks, learned to negotiate with tour operators, managed staff rosters, and studied hospitality management at a polytechnic in Arusha. Rehema pursued music and had little engagement with the business. Within five years of inheriting their shares, Baraka has expanded his properties to Moshi and Arusha, capitalising on the Kilimanjaro trekking market. Rehema has leased two of her guesthouses to an operator at below-market rates and a third is generating negative cash flow due to poor maintenance oversight. Both started with identical inherited conditions. Their divergent outcomes are entirely a function of learned capacity. Baraka possesses the capacity to reproduce and expand his position. Rehema possesses the position but not the capacity to maintain it. In the Àṣẹ–Orí–Ìwà framework: Baraka’s Àṣẹ (force), Orí (direction), and Ìwà (discipline) are aligned. Rehema has Àṣẹ (inherited resources) but unclear Orí and undeveloped Ìwà in the domain where her assets sit.
4.4 Capacity and Power
Power, understood as the ability to influence outcomes in contested fields, is a direct function of capacity. The political theorist Steven Lukes, in Power: A Radical View (1974), distinguished three dimensions of power: the ability to prevail in direct conflict (first dimension), the ability to set agendas and control which issues are considered (second dimension), and the ability to shape desires and perceptions such that conflict does not arise (third dimension). Each of these dimensions requires capacity, but of different kinds.
First-dimensional power requires resources, organisation, and the willingness to deploy them. Second-dimensional power requires institutional knowledge, procedural expertise, and network position. Third-dimensional power, the most potent, requires cultural influence, narrative control, and the ability to shape what people consider normal, desirable, and possible. This third dimension maps directly onto the concept of Orí at the societal scale: the capacity to set the direction not merely for oneself but for entire communities, determining what they perceive as achievable, valuable, and necessary.
Chapter 5: The Ratchet of Expansion
Existence does not settle. It escalates. The moment a living system achieves one level of survival, the next level becomes visible, and the survival imperative recalibrates to target the new horizon. This creates what can be understood as a ratchet mechanism: the standard of survival only moves in one direction.
5.1 The Expansion Cycle
The cycle operates as follows. The imperative of self-preservation generates a survival strategy. The survival strategy produces desire directed at a specific target. Desire drives acquisition behaviour. Successful acquisition develops capacity. Increased capacity establishes a new survival standard. The new standard generates new desire. The cycle repeats.
This is not unique to humans. A territorial animal that successfully defends and expands its territory does not then relax its vigilance. It patrols a larger boundary. A corporation that captures market share does not then become complacent; it identifies adjacent markets. A nation that achieves energy security does not then cease to invest in energy infrastructure; it pursues energy dominance. The target changes, but the mechanism remains.
In the Push-Pull framework, this cycle is the endless loop described in its ninth chapter: the universe does not wait for observers. The loop of polarity plays endlessly — creation and destruction, expansion and collapse, push and pull. The wise do not attempt to escape the loop. They learn to pace themselves within it, to harmonise push and pull so they neither burn out from relentless expansion nor stagnate from passive acceptance.
5.2 Hedonic Adaptation and the Moving Baseline
The psychologists Philip Brickman and Donald Campbell coined the term hedonic treadmill in their 1971 paper Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society. Their research demonstrated that human beings rapidly adapt to changes in circumstance, both positive and negative. Lottery winners, within a relatively short period, reported happiness levels not significantly different from those of control groups. Accident victims who experienced significant physical impairment showed a similar pattern of adaptation over time.
The hedonic treadmill is the psychological mechanism that drives the ratchet of expansion. Once a new standard of living, status, or achievement is normalised, it ceases to generate satisfaction and instead becomes the baseline from which the next desire is calculated. The person who once desired food security now desires financial independence. The person who achieves financial independence desires influence. The person with influence desires legacy. Each achievement, rather than producing lasting contentment, produces a recalibrated definition of what constitutes adequate existence.
Scenario: The Serial Entrepreneur in Kigali
Mutesi started her first business at twenty-four, a mobile-based delivery service in Kigali, ferrying parcels between the city’s hills. Her initial desire was simple: generate enough income to rent her own apartment outside her aunt’s compound. Within two years, the business was profitable and she had her own place in Kimironko. But rather than experiencing satisfaction, Mutesi found her attention drawn to a larger opportunity: a logistics management platform serving the entire East African Community corridor from Mombasa to Bujumbura. She raised seed funding from a Nairobi-based venture fund, hired a small team, and within three years had built a company with operations in three countries. By thirty, Mutesi’s survival standard had shifted so dramatically that the delivery service that once represented liberation now seemed trivial. Her desire had escalated to building a company that could become the continent’s logistics backbone. At each stage, the previous achievement became the invisible floor beneath her feet, and the next level became the ceiling she needed to break through. The Push never stops; the question is whether the Pull — purpose, meaning, alignment with Orí — keeps pace with it.
5.3 The Ratchet in Civilisational Context
The ratchet of expansion operates not only at the individual level but at the civilisational level. The historian Arnold Toynbee, in A Study of History (1934-1961), documented the rise and fall of twenty-six civilisations and observed a consistent pattern: civilisations grow through successful responses to challenges, but each successful response generates new challenges at a higher level of complexity. Growth itself creates the conditions for the next test.
The same pattern is visible across the African continent. Rwanda’s post-genocide reconstruction produced one of Africa’s most efficient governance systems, but that efficiency now generates new challenges: managing the expectations of a young, digitally connected population whose definition of adequate existence has expanded far beyond basic stability. Ethiopia’s industrialisation push attracted foreign investment and created a manufacturing base, but also produced urbanisation pressures, ethnic tensions amplified by displaced populations, and environmental strains. Each stage of development is simultaneously an achievement and a platform for new forms of desire and new forms of threat.
Chapter 6: Cooperation and Its Corruption
Cooperation is not separate from survival. It is itself a survival strategy. Groups, ecosystems, civilisations, and economies exist because cooperation creates greater capacity than isolated individuals. The question is not whether cooperation is valuable; it is whether cooperation can remain stable when the individuals within it are simultaneously pursuing their own survival imperatives.
6.1 The Evolutionary Logic of Cooperation
The biologist Robert Trivers, in The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism (1971), provided the foundational theoretical framework for understanding cooperation in evolutionary terms. Trivers demonstrated that altruistic behaviour can evolve in populations where individuals interact repeatedly, can recognise one another, and can remember past interactions. Under these conditions, reciprocal cooperation produces greater fitness outcomes than pure self-interest.
The political scientist Robert Axelrod extended this analysis in The Evolution of Cooperation (1984), using iterated prisoner’s dilemma tournaments to show that a simple strategy of tit-for-tat, beginning with cooperation and then mirroring the other player’s previous move, outperformed more complex and more exploitative strategies over repeated rounds. The key finding was that cooperation does not require altruism, morality, or enforcement. It requires only repeated interaction, recognition, and memory.
African societies have practised sophisticated cooperative structures for centuries. The Yoruba àjò (communal labour), the Igbo isusu (rotating credit), the Kikuyu ngwatī (mutual aid), and the Southern African stokvel all represent institutionalised forms of the same logic Axelrod’s tournaments discovered mathematically: cooperation emerges when interaction is repeated, participants are identifiable, and defection carries social memory and cost.
6.2 The Corruption Mechanism
However, cooperation becomes unstable when desire exceeds contribution. The moment an individual discovers they can extract more from the system than they put into it, the cooperative structure begins to function as an extraction system.
The economist Mancur Olson formalised this insight in The Logic of Collective Action (1965). Olson demonstrated that in any cooperative arrangement producing a public good, individual members have a rational incentive to free-ride: to benefit from the collective output while minimising their own contribution. As the group grows larger, this incentive intensifies because each individual’s contribution becomes a smaller proportion of the total, making free-riding less detectable and less costly.
In the Universal Flow framework, this corruption is understood as a blockage in the circulatory system of energy. Wealth, in this philosophy, is not a possession but a current. Hoarding blocks flow; generosity multiplies it. When an individual within a cooperative system begins to hoard — extracting energy without returning it — they do not merely weaken the system. They disrupt the universal flow of which the system is a part. The energy does not disappear; it is redistributed, often chaotically, creating the conditions for the system’s collapse and eventual reconstitution in a new form.
Scenario: The Cooperative Collapse in Kitwe
Consider a chama savings group of fifteen women in Kitwe, Zambia, each contributing 500 Kwacha per month into a rotating pool. For the first two years, the system works well: each member receives 7,500 Kwacha in their designated month, enabling them to make purchases they could not afford from monthly income alone — a sewing machine, school fees for a term, stock for a market stall. In the third year, one member, facing pressure from a husband’s medical bills, begins defaulting on contributions while still expecting her payout month. Two other members, observing this and feeling the burden of continued contribution without reciprocity, begin paying inconsistently. Within six months, the system has effectively collapsed. Those who continued contributing feel exploited. Those who stopped justify their behaviour by pointing to the original defaulter. The extraction of one individual, when left unchecked, cascaded into a systemic failure. The cooperative was not destroyed by external threat but by the internal logic of desire exceeding contribution. In the language of Àṣẹ–Orí–Ìwà: the Ìwà (discipline, character) of the system degraded, and without Ìwà, the collective Àṣẹ (force, resource) dissipated.
6.3 The Stability Condition
A cooperative system survives when exchange remains balanced enough to sustain participation. This does not require perfect equality. It requires perceived fairness, which is a subjective assessment that varies across cultures and contexts. The behavioural economist Ernst Fehr, in research published across multiple papers with colleagues at the University of Zurich, demonstrated through ultimatum game experiments that human beings will reject offers they perceive as unfair even at cost to themselves. This willingness to punish unfairness, even when punishment is personally costly, is the enforcement mechanism that sustains cooperation in the absence of external authority.
The Ubuntu philosophy, found across Bantu-speaking societies from the Great Lakes to the Cape, articulates this principle: umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu — a person is a person through other persons. This is not merely a moral sentiment; it is a structural claim about the conditions under which individual existence is sustainable. The individual who extracts from the collective without reciprocating is not merely unethical; they are undermining the system upon which their own existence depends. The stability condition, in both Fehr’s experimental data and in Ubuntu’s philosophical framework, is that individuals must perceive themselves as embedded in systems of mutual obligation, not as isolated agents optimising against a background of exploitable others.
Chapter 7: Abstract Survival and the Human Difference
Humans are unique among living systems in that survival extends beyond the body. While all organisms self-preserve, humans alone attempt to preserve entities that are not physically part of them: identity, reputation, beliefs, achievements, influence, memory, and legacy.
7.1 Symbolic Immortality
The cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker, in The Denial of Death (1973), which won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction in 1974, argued that the awareness of mortality is the fundamental human problem and that the vast majority of human culture, religion, art, and ambition is driven by the need to transcend death symbolically. Becker proposed that humans manage the terror of mortality through what he called immortality projects: cultural systems that offer a sense of enduring significance.
A monument, a company, an invention, a published work, or a lineage of descendants all function as extensions of the individual into a future they will not personally inhabit. The survival imperative, having secured the continuation of the body through material acquisition, now redirects its energy toward the continuation of meaning. The human does not only fear physical death. They fear becoming irrelevant.
Yoruba culture embeds this principle deeply. The concept of orúkọ (lineage name) is not merely a family identifier; it is a vessel of accumulated reputation that the living are expected to maintain and enhance. The greeting ‘Kí l’orúkọ ẹ?’ (What is your family name?) is not idle curiosity; it is a request for your positional coordinates within a network of ancestral achievement. The ancestors are honoured not by worship but by remembrance: telling their stories, learning from their errors, amplifying their wisdom. The Egúngún masquerade tradition is, at its root, a technology for making the dead present among the living — for ensuring that the survival of identity extends beyond the biological lifetime of any single individual.
7.2 The Five Phases of Ascension
The expansion of survival from body to legacy follows a developmental pattern. A framework developed within the author’s philosophical practice describes five phases of ascension from pure survival to sovereign existence:
The first phase is the Chameleon: the stage of adaptation and learning. The individual blends in, gathers data, studies the rules of the environment, and builds perception. The survival strategy here is observation and mimicry. The second phase is the Snake: the stage of transformation and self-actualisation. The individual confronts their shadow, sheds old patterns, and develops internal control. Survival shifts from external fitting-in to internal becoming.
The third phase is the Cat: the stage of re-emergence and self-mastery. The individual re-enters the world with composure, confidence, and clarity. The survival strategy is now projection of presence rather than concealment. The fourth phase is the Eagle: the stage of elevated perception and strategic vision. Emotion no longer dictates choices; perspective does. The individual sees patterns others miss and operates from strategic altitude.
The fifth and final phase is the Lion: the stage of sovereign command and legacy building. The individual no longer chases power; they embody it. Their existence is itself a statement of authority. They build systems, mentor successors, and protect their domain. This is not the rejection of survival but its ultimate expression: the individual has become a system that can perpetuate itself beyond their physical lifetime.
Crucially, each phase contains all previous phases. The Lion has not abandoned the Chameleon’s capacity for adaptation or the Snake’s discipline of transformation. True mastery is not abandoning lower forms but wielding them consciously as the situation demands. As the Yoruba proverb holds: Àgbà tí ó dá bì ọmọdé kì í kú — the elder who retains the flexibility of youth does not perish easily.
Scenario: The Documentary Filmmaker Across Borders
Amina, a Tanzanian-born, Nairobi-based documentary filmmaker, began her career as a production assistant, observing and learning the craft from established directors at a Kenyan production house (Chameleon). After five years, she confronted the realisation that she had been mimicking others’ styles and began the painful process of developing her own cinematic voice, discarding techniques that felt borrowed and building a personal aesthetic rooted in East African storytelling traditions (Snake). She re-entered the industry with a debut documentary on pastoralist communities in northern Kenya that won attention at the Zanzibar International Film Festival, projecting a quiet confidence that attracted collaborators, funders, and a distribution deal with a South African broadcaster (Cat). Over the following decade, she developed a reputation for seeing patterns in social phenomena that others missed, producing work that anticipated cultural shifts across the continent before they became visible to mainstream media (Eagle). Now in her fifties, she runs a production house in Nairobi that has trained over forty emerging filmmakers from twelve African countries, her work is archived at the Africa Media Centre in Accra, and her name is invoked as a benchmark of quality in African documentary cinema (Lion). Her survival has expanded from personal financial stability to the continuation of a creative legacy that will outlast her physical life.
Chapter 8: Identity as Practised Pattern
The strongest force shaping identity is repetition. The environment provides patterns. The individual practises patterns. Patterns become habits. Habits become character. Character becomes identity. You do not only operate inside systems. Systems operate inside you.
8.1 The Neuroscience of Habit Formation
The neuroscientist Ann Graybiel, in research conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and published across multiple papers in journals including Science and Nature, demonstrated that habitual behaviours are encoded in the basal ganglia, a brain region distinct from the cortical areas responsible for deliberate decision-making. As a behaviour is repeated, its neural representation migrates from cortical circuits (which require conscious attention and energy) to basal ganglia circuits (which execute automatically and efficiently).
This neural migration has profound implications for identity. Once a behavioural pattern has been sufficiently repeated, it no longer requires conscious decision to execute. It becomes automatic, effortless, and, critically, resistant to change. The pattern has been literally wired into the brain’s hardware. The individual does not choose to enact the pattern; the pattern enacts itself through the individual.
This is the mechanism by which the environment shapes identity. A person repeatedly exposed to scarcity develops scarcity strategies: vigilance, short-term thinking, resource hoarding, and risk aversion. A person repeatedly exposed to competition develops competitive strategies: assertiveness, strategic deception, alliance-building, and performance optimisation. A person repeatedly exposed to creative environments develops creative strategies: pattern recognition, divergent thinking, tolerance of ambiguity, and iterative experimentation.
8.2 Habitus, Ìwà, and the Sociology of Pattern
The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu formalised this insight through the concept of habitus, developed across multiple works including Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977) and The Logic of Practice (1980). Habitus is the set of durable, transposable dispositions that an individual acquires through their social conditioning. It shapes perception, appreciation, and action without the individual being consciously aware of its operation. Habitus is not a set of rules that the individual follows; it is a generative grammar that produces behaviour in the same way that linguistic grammar produces sentences, without the speaker needing to consciously apply grammatical rules.
The Yoruba concept of Ìwà converges with habitus but carries a normative dimension that Bourdieu’s concept deliberately avoids. While habitus describes what is (the patterns one has absorbed), Ìwà prescribes what should be (the character one must cultivate). Both frameworks agree that identity is constituted by practised pattern. But Ìwà adds a critical directive: the individual is not merely shaped by patterns; the individual has a responsibility to select, refine, and discipline the patterns they practise. Ìwà pẹ̀lẹ́ (gentle, noble character) is the result of deliberate cultivation, not passive absorption. The system you repeatedly participate in becomes the system you embody, but Ìwà insists that you choose that system with intention.
Bourdieu’s concept maps directly onto the thesis’s central proposition: the system you repeatedly participate in eventually becomes the system you embody. A person raised in a context of communal obligation and reciprocity does not merely learn communal behaviours; they internalise a communal way of perceiving, evaluating, and acting that feels natural, inevitable, and chosen, even though it was produced by conditions largely outside their control.
8.3 Breaking the Pattern
If identity is constituted by practised pattern, then identity can be reconstructed by changing the patterns one practises. This is the basis of cognitive behavioural therapy, deliberate practice methodologies, and organisational change management. It is also the mechanism underlying the Chameleon-to-Lion developmental path described in the previous chapter: each phase transition requires the deliberate adoption of new patterns and the equally deliberate abandonment of old ones.
However, pattern change is not simply a matter of willpower. Because habitual patterns are encoded in brain structures that operate below conscious awareness, the individual may not even recognise the patterns that constitute their identity until those patterns are made visible through external feedback, crisis, or structured reflection. This is why environmental change is often a more effective catalyst for personal transformation than conscious intention alone. Placing an individual in a new environment exposes them to new patterns, disrupts old ones, and creates the conditions for neural reorganisation.
The daily ritual practices described in the Àṣẹ–Orí–Ìwà framework, the four cardinal rituals of ablution, posture, chant, and silence performed at dawn, midday, dusk, and night, are precisely this: a technology for deliberate pattern installation. By practising alignment four times daily, the practitioner is not merely expressing devotion; they are rewiring habitus. They are installing patterns of discipline, humility, directional awareness, and energetic recalibration into their basal ganglia through repetition, exactly as Graybiel’s neuroscience would predict. The ritual does not work because it is sacred. It works because it is repeated. The sacredness is a framework that sustains the repetition.
Scenario: The Migration Effect Across Borders
Consider Chukwuemeka, a young man from Nnewi in southeastern Nigeria who moves to Addis Ababa for a position with an African Union-affiliated development agency. In Nnewi, Chukwuemeka’s identity was shaped by patterns of Igbo commercial culture: the apprenticeship system (imu ahia), the expectation of visible material success, and the strong pressure to establish oneself as an ‘Ogaranya’ (person of means) within the community. Within eighteen months of arriving in Addis, exposure to the Ethiopian professional class, the pan-African diplomatic milieu, the Amharic social norms of restraint and formality, and the internationalist ideology of the AU bureaucracy has begun to reshape his habitus. He finds himself thinking differently about display versus discretion, about individual achievement versus institutional contribution, and about the relationship between personal ambition and continental purpose. Chukwuemeka has not undergone a philosophical conversion. His neural architecture is reorganising in response to new patterns of repeated interaction. The new environment is literally rewiring his identity. The question the Ìwà framework would pose is: is this reorganisation deliberate? Is he selecting the patterns that serve his Orí, or is he simply absorbing whatever the new environment provides?
Chapter 9: Transcendence and Systems Consciousness
The highest developmental stage is not unlimited acquisition. Unlimited acquisition is still controlled by the survival instinct. It is the Lion fighting to expand its territory indefinitely. The deeper transformation occurs when the individual expands their definition of self to include the systems they are part of.
9.1 From Self-Preservation to System Preservation
The question that governs ordinary existence is: How do I preserve myself? The question that governs transcendence is: How do I preserve and influence the larger system I am part of?
This shift is not the rejection of survival. It is the expansion of survival. The self becomes the collective. The individual becomes the ecosystem. The leader who builds an institution that will outlast them, the parent who sacrifices personal ambition for their children’s development, the scientist who publishes findings openly rather than hoarding proprietary advantage, and the community builder who invests in infrastructure they will not personally use are all operating from an expanded definition of self.
The Universal Flow Philosophy articulates this principle through the concept of the Universal Container: a field of existence in which all energy circulates, transforms, but never disappears. In this framing, the individual is both a current and a channel. Life is meaningful not because the individual owns, hoards, or clings, but because they participate consciously in the flow of energy, resources, and knowledge through systems larger than themselves. The Manifesto of Universal Flow extends this further: human energy management is mastery of flow over ownership. Love expressed freely transforms into memory, loyalty, and influence. Wealth treated as fluid rather than possession multiplies through circulation. Ideas shared openly evolve faster than ideas hoarded. Power exercised consciously produces ripples that persist long after the individual’s authority has passed.
9.2 Systems Consciousness in Practice
Systems consciousness is not mysticism. It has practical, measurable implications. An individual operating from systems consciousness makes decisions that optimise for the health of the whole system, not merely for their personal position within it. This does not mean self-sacrifice; a healthy system benefits all its components. It means understanding that one’s own long-term survival is inseparable from the survival of the systems one inhabits.
In the Xyztems framework, this corresponds to the Purpose force. Purpose does not amplify system output; it validates direction. A system with maximal capacity but misaligned purpose is the most dangerous configuration possible. Purpose ensures that the system’s considerable capacity is directed toward an objective that serves the broader context, not merely the immediate interests of its most powerful components.
In the Àṣẹ–Orí–Ìwà framework, transcendence corresponds to the circle of Olódùmarè that encloses the triangle. The individual (the dot at the centre) begins by aligning force, destiny, and character within themselves. Transcendence occurs when they recognise that the circle, the Universal Container, is not merely a backdrop but the actual medium of their existence. Their Orí does not belong to them alone; it is a thread in a larger weave. Their Àṣẹ is not their private resource; it is a current borrowed from the universal field. Their Ìwà is not personal virtue in isolation; it is the quality of their contribution to the collective flow. The Push-Pull Philosophy names this recognition directly: the highest form of ego is not isolation but expansion into the collective. When the ‘I’ expands to include family, community, humanity, even nature, the push aligns with the pull.
Scenario: The Divergent Agricultural CEOs
Consider two CEOs managing large-scale agricultural operations in the East African highlands, both of comparable scale. The first, a Kenyan operating in the Rift Valley flower export industry, runs his operation from pure acquisition logic. He maximises short-term returns by suppressing worker wages, using aggressive pesticide regimens that boost yield, and undercutting competitors on price by externalising environmental costs onto Lake Naivasha’s deteriorating ecosystem. His quarterly results are excellent. Within five years, however, soil toxicity has reduced yields, the lake’s ecosystem services (water filtration, fish stocks, tourism revenue) have declined to the point of regulatory intervention, key workers have left for competitors offering better conditions, and European buyers are imposing sustainability certifications he cannot meet. The second CEO, an Ethiopian managing teff and coffee operations in Sidamo, operates from systems consciousness. She invests in soil health through crop rotation, pays workers above market rates and provides housing, funds a primary school in the adjacent community, and accepts marginally lower quarterly returns. Within five years, her soil is more productive, her supply chain is resilient because workers are loyal and skilled, community relations are excellent, and her products command a premium on European specialty markets because of verified sustainability credentials. The first CEO understood his company as a machine for extracting value from an environment. The second understood her company as a node in a living system whose health determines the node’s long-term viability. The Transience Principle of the Universal Flow Philosophy applies here: everything in the Universal Container exists in a transient state. The first CEO’s wealth is not destroyed; it is redistributed, chaotically, to competitors, regulators, and environmental remediation costs. The second CEO’s apparently slower returns compound because they flow with the system rather than against it.
9.3 The Paradox of Transcendence
The paradox of transcendence is that expanding the definition of self does not diminish the individual; it amplifies them. The person who invests in systems larger than themselves gains access to the resources, resilience, and capacity of those systems. The leader who builds an institution inherits the institution’s collective capacity. The parent who invests in children’s development gains a support network for their own old age. The community builder who invests in infrastructure lives in a better neighbourhood.
This is not altruism in the sentimental sense. It is enlightened self-interest operating at a systems level. The individual has not ceased to self-preserve. They have recognised that the most effective form of self-preservation is system preservation, because the system is the environment within which the self exists. To damage the system is to damage the conditions of one’s own existence. To strengthen the system is to strengthen the foundation upon which one’s own survival stands.
The Yoruba proverb captures it with characteristic precision: Agá tí ó dúró níkan ọjà dá a sílẹ̀ — the chair that stands alone, the storm knocks it down. The individual who operates in isolation, however powerful, is structurally fragile. The individual who is embedded in systems of mutual reinforcement has the resilience of the collective behind them. This is not a moral instruction. It is a structural observation about the conditions under which capacity is sustained.
Conclusion: The Question of Position
Every organism exists somewhere within the hierarchy of survival strategies. The question is not whether you take or give. Every living thing does both. The question is: What is your relationship with resources, power, environment, and capacity?
This thesis has traced a single thread through biology, psychology, economics, sociology, and philosophy: the thread of continuation. From the cell maintaining its membrane against entropy, to the entrepreneur recalibrating their ambitions after each achievement, to the civilisation navigating the challenges generated by its own growth, the mechanism is the same. Existence generates self-preservation. Self-preservation generates survival strategy. Survival strategy generates desire. Desire generates acquisition behaviour. Acquisition develops capacity. Capacity determines position. Position creates a new survival standard. The cycle repeats.
The three behavioural orientations, taker, yielder, and holder, are not fixed identities but strategic positions that shift with context, capacity, and environment. The taker expands. The yielder adapts. The holder navigates between both, and this flexibility makes the holder the most durable orientation over time.
Capacity, not possession, determines enduring position. The Àṣẹ–Orí–Ìwà triangle reveals that capacity is not a single dimension but the alignment of force (Àṣẹ), direction (Orí), and discipline (Ìwà). Inherited advantage provides starting conditions; learned capacity, cultivated through deliberate Ìwà, determines trajectory. This is why wealth without competence decays within generations, while competence without wealth can generate it.
Cooperation is the most powerful survival strategy available to human beings, but it is inherently unstable because individual desire continuously tests the boundaries of collective contribution. Systems survive when exchange remains balanced enough to sustain participation. When extraction overwhelms contribution, systems decay. Ubuntu and the Universal Flow Philosophy both articulate this structural truth: the individual is sustained by the system, and the system is sustained by the discipline of its participants.
The human difference is abstract survival: the extension of the survival imperative beyond the body into identity, reputation, achievement, and legacy. This creates higher-order desire and drives the construction of institutions, cultures, and symbolic systems that outlast individual lifetimes.
Identity is constituted by practised pattern, not by intention or declaration. The system you repeatedly participate in becomes the system you embody. Ìwà adds the directive: choose those systems with intention, and cultivate the patterns that serve your Orí.
The highest developmental stage is not unlimited acquisition but systems consciousness: the expansion of the definition of self to include the larger systems one inhabits. This is not the rejection of survival but its most sophisticated expression, because the individual’s long-term viability is inseparable from the health of the systems within which they exist. The Push-Pull Philosophy names this the highest form of ego: not isolation but expansion into the collective.
The patterns you repeatedly interact with become the patterns you eventually become. Existence is not static. It is a continuous negotiation between what you are, what you desire, and what you have the capacity to become.
The question remains: are you shaped by the system, or shaping it? Are you operating from survival, desire, expansion, or transcendence? And can you hold all four simultaneously, deploying each as conditions demand, the way the Lion retains the Chameleon’s stealth, the Snake’s discipline, the Cat’s composure, and the Eagle’s vision?
That is the question of position. And it is the question that existence, in every moment, is asking you to answer.
References
Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.
Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. Free Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1979). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.
Brickman, P. & Campbell, D.T. (1971). Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society. In M.H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-Level Theory. Academic Press.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.
Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments. American Economic Review, 90(4), 980-994.
Grant, A. (2013). Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success. Viking.
Graybiel, A.M. (2008). Habits, Rituals, and the Evaluative Brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 359-387.
Gyekye, K. (1997). Tradition and Modernity: Philosophical Reflections on the African Experience. Oxford University Press.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. Macmillan.
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1973). De Máquinas y Seres Vivos: Autopoiesis, la Organización de lo Vivo. Editorial Universitaria.
Max-Neef, M. (1991). Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections. Apex Press.
Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press.
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. Oxford University Press.
Schrödinger, E. (1944). What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Cambridge University Press.
Toynbee, A.J. (1934-1961). A Study of History (12 volumes). Oxford University Press.
Trivers, R.L. (1971). The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35-57.