Evolutio Unfolding Theory and “Platonic Space”: Anatomy of a Conceptual Appropriation, Renaming and Rebranding

Agustín Ostachuk

EVOLUTIO Research Center

1. Introduction

In April 2020, I published A theory of evolution as a process of unfolding in the peer‑reviewed journal Cosmos and History (Ostachuk, 2020). The article laid out a complete theoretical framework: evolution as the sequential unfolding of pre‑existing virtual forms, guided by teleological‑purposeful agents operating within morphogenetic fields. It was a radical departure from both Darwinism and Intelligent Design, and it was supported by later empirical work published in Nature Scientific Reports (Ostachuk, 2021, 2024).

Five years later, in February 2025, a preprint appeared under the title Ingressing minds: causal patterns beyond genetics and environment in natural, synthetic, and hybrid embodiments, authored by Michael Levin of Tufts University (Levin, 2025). This preprint introduced a framework called “Platonic Space”, and it was presented as an original and unprecedented novelty in biology. Surprisingly, the “original” and “unprecedented” framework reproduced the exact core explanatory architecture of the Evolutio Unfolding Theory, using just a different terminology. In other words, same conceptual structure but renamed. More surprisingly, it did not even cite my 2020 work.

This article is a forensic reconstruction. It documents the sequence of events and the communications that preceded and surrounded the appearance of the “Platonic Space” framework. It shows that the appropriation was not a coincidence, nor an “independent discovery” nor an “conceptual convergence”, but a pattern made possible by structural and power asymmetries in the global academic system. The goal is to set the historical record straight—with evidence.

2. The Machinery of Conceptual Appropriation and Amplification

The “Platonic Space” framework was launched by one person, but backed by a well-funded system embedded in networks of power and influence. Its promotion depended on a tightly interconnected core institutional triad:

• Tufts University: a private university located in Medford, Massachusetts, United States. It was founded in 1852 by the Universalist Church. Tufts officially ended its formal affiliation with the Universalist Church, but maintains its Universalist heritage through its values and the University Chaplaincy. Ranked approximately 300th in the U.S. News & World Report’s Best Global Universities list. Michael Levin’s institutional home.
• California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS): a private graduate school in San Francisco, California, United States, that blends academic scholarship with spiritual transformation. It is not ranked in the U.S. News & World Report’s Best Global Universities list. Matthew Segall teaches at this institution and was the co-host of the conference held there that gave rise to the anthology.
• Center for Process Studies (CPS): an independent research center based in Claremont, California, United States, dedicated to the study of process philosophy (especially Whiteheadian philosophy) to address interdisciplinary issues in science, religion, and society. Until 2023, it was a faculty center of the Claremont School of Theology, a Methodist-affiliated graduate school. Andrew Davis is affiliated with this center and was a co-organizer of the same conference.

This triangle functioned as a machine of epistemic appropriation and amplification: a well‑funded laboratory, a philosophy department with a strong presence in process theology, and a research center devoted to process philosophy and theology. Together they provided legitimacy, editorial control, and a built‑in audience for the renamed framework.

3. Anatomy of an Intellectual Violation: From Priority to Rebranding, from Collaboration to Appropriation

The following table details the key events from 2020 to 2026. It shows that I established priority, repeatedly notified Levin of my work, and systematically exposed the appropriation through institutional channels. All dates and documents are verifiable; links to the original materials are provided where necessary.

All newsletters were sent to a list of over 1,200 academics and thinkers; Levin was on the list. Open and click data confirm receipt and engagement. The March 5, 2026 Evolutio Newsletter was sent one day after the third Tufts notification. Follow this link to see the complete list of newsletters sent to Michael Levin and his engagement activity.

4. The Dynamics of Strategic Silence, Hidden Consumption, and Epistemic Parasitism: A New Research Program

Levin’s behavior fits very well with a pattern I have analyzed in my new research program “Epistemic Pathologies”:

• Strategic Silence: Despite receiving multiple newsletters, emails, and direct notifications, Levin never acknowledged my work, never responded to my communications after 2021, and never cited me. Silence was his strategy.
• Hidden Consumption: The Evolutio Newsletter analytics prove he opened and clicked. He consumed my work, but the consumption was hidden—it never entered the public record.
• Epistemic Parasite Complex: He absorbed the conceptual architecture of the EUT, renamed it, and presented it as his own. The parasite does not acknowledge its host; it merely feeds and grows.

This triad—strategic silence, hidden consumption, epistemic parasitism—is not a coincidence. It is a systematic and systemic device for appropriating ideas, whose short-term effectiveness is proportional to the degree of distance from the inner circles of academic power. You can watch the video lectures of the open-access course “Epistemic Pathologies” by accessing the following link.

5. Structural Appropriation, Not “Independent Discovery” or “Conceptual Convergence”

The “Platonic Space” framework is not a “parallel development”. It is a restatement of the EUT’s core architecture using a different vocabulary. The following table—adapted from my detailed comparative essay (Ostachuk, 2025a)—shows the functional equivalence of the key concepts.

The structural identity is unmistakable. The only changes are terminological.

6. Levin’s Strategy Exposed: the Birth of a New Method of Scientific Documentation

From August 2024 onward, I systematically notified Levin of my work through the Evolutio Newsletter. From February 2026, I notified his institution, the conference host, and the preprint server. Each step added a layer of documentation:

• 2021 emails: Direct contact, explicit invitation to collaborate.
• 2024–2026 newsletters: Repeated delivery of publications, essays, and comparative analysis, all of which Levin opened or clicked.
• February–March 2026 Tufts RIO letters: Three communications stating that a formal complaint would follow if the framework was officially published, the fourth and last explicitly demanding that all promotion and publication of the contested framework stop.
• March 2026 CIIS letter: Formal notice to the institution that hosted the conference and employed Segall, requesting identification of the publisher, halt of publication, and an internal review.
• March 2026 OSF complaint: Plagiarism claim filed with the preprint server.

These actions are not speculative; they are documented. They show that Levin and his network have been repeatedly placed on notice, and that their continued promotion of the framework occurs in full knowledge of the conflict. In this sense, this article is not merely an academic text, but rather the birth of a new method of scientific documentation: a forensic meta-scientific article. It is an empirical study based on evidence from the very activity of the scientific-academic system. This new method of scientific documentation simultaneously gives rise to a new supervisory body for the activity of the scientific-academic system, the “Conceptual Lineage Ethical Observatory”, which will be launched soon at the EVOLUTIO Research Center.

7. Conclusion: The Dilemma of Denial

After all the evidence presented in this article and the previous comparative essay, Levin may continue to promote his “novel framework”. But he will only succeed in giving greater visibility to a conflict whose evidence is already clear. Each new public appearance of “Platonic Space” now carries with it the weight of the documentation laid out here: the priority of the EUT, the prior contact, the newsletters opened, the institutional notifications.

The dilemma facing Levin and the institutions involved is this: they can press forward, ignoring the evidence and banking on the inertia of academic machinery. Yet every step they take will further expose the gap between their claims of integrity and their actions. The internal control systems—university ethics offices, research integrity protocols, platform moderation—will have been activated and shown to be, at best, sluggish and inertial, and at worst, performative or accomplice.

In persisting, they will not erase the original work. Instead, they will make visible the very decay of the academic system (as developed in my analysis of the system’s structural decay in Ostachuk, 2025b): its preference for protecting insiders over upholding principles, its structural blindness to ideas that originate from the periphery, and its reliance on a facade of ethics that crumbles under the weight of documented evidence.

This article is a contribution to the historical record. The evidence is public, timestamped, and verifiable. Levin may own a powerful amplifier, but he does not own the facts. And in the long run, facts outlast amplification.

8. References

Ostachuk, A. (2020). A theory of evolution as a process of unfolding. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy. 16(1): 347-379.

Ostachuk, A. (2021). A network analysis of crab metamorphosis and the hypothesis of development as a process of unfolding of an intensive complexity. Scientific Reports. 11(1): 9551.

Ostachuk, A. (2024). A network analysis of early arthropod evolution and the potential of the primitive. Scientific Reports. 14(1): 503.

Ostachuk, A. (2025a). Evolutio Unfolding Theory and “Platonic Space”: on conceptual priority and lineage. The Unfolding. 2025: EM43145180.

Ostachuk, A. (2025b). The Life-Centered Science: building a new knowledge ecosystem. Evolutio Journal. 2025: EJ82584529.

Levin, M. (2025). Ingressing minds: causal patterns beyond genetics and environment in natural, synthetic, and hybrid embodiments. OSF Preprints. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/5g2xj

[1] Levin organized this symposium as a platform to amplify the “Platonic Space” framework before any official publication. The event brought together 28 contributors to discuss the concept, with the intention of establishing it as a legitimate area of ​​research through collective validation, despite the complete absence of peer-reviewed literature on the framework.

One of the participants, Denis Noble, had been receiving the Evolutio Newsletter since March 2023—meaning he was on a distribution list that regularly featured the Evolutio Unfolding Theory. His participation, along with that of other established scholars, contributed to the aura of legitimacy that Levin sought for his renamed framework. This dynamic exemplifies the operation of power and influence networks described in my research program “Epistemic Pathologies” and in Ostachuk (2025b).