"Mapping," or organizing our labels with background information, producing concepts as models, is supposed to cover all our thinking, regardless of the subject matter. We map both our external and our internal domains.

"Non-life" is just a highly general way of referring to most of the universe which, presumably, isn't alive. That label is as objective as ordinary concepts can be. It's just that that label is negative, so it's not that informative. A more positive label I use to refer to the same thing is "outer wilderness" or the physical, zombified, re-enchanted, objectified universe.

Kant's overall perspective is compatible with what I'm saying here, but he gets bogged down in greedy system-building, making claims about the necessary foundations of knowledge. Much of Baudrillard's oeuvre is gibberish or excrutiating prose poetry, as far as I can tell. I don't know much about Wilber. Is he supposed to be a Hegelian mystic? He seems like another system-builder.

But why is the "next logical step" to follow someone else? Am I not allowed to speak for myself? Where I go philosophically is largely where I've already gone, which is to have written hundreds of interconnected articles, as presented below.

https://benjamincain8.medium.com/a-trove-of-my-philosophical-writings-2ab1bc5fe64c

http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2013/02/map-of-rants.html