My basic position for worlding
premises arising
If we can find a term or phrase that describes what we do without a focus on ‘its’ outcomes of :
(religion/polity/art/morality-plex and its instantiations tribe/club/religion/) or even just
practices (ritual/performance/sport/mindfulness) then we will be able to talk about 'it' sensibly and reasonably, or at least provide a pathway for us to negotiate our way.
This is not about creating a universal solution that finally does away with differences by unifying or dissolving them into one outcome (the imperial/totalitarian impulse) but recognizes that meetings make us human. This recognises that the negotiations of our lives present all our opportunities… —and that risks to us, where this does not happen with such considerations, is much greater.
This is why decreative self-fulfilling paranoid that eats away at the means (trust/nurturing/routine/celebration) by which we negotiate our way into tomorrow, based our all our yesterdays, is the worst evil we can have.
Currently I call this ability we feel when 'we should' is "worlding". The verb "to world" is open enough to include any practice, belief or conceptual system of any
(religion/polity/art/morality-plex)might have. It would be wrong to pick one and name this 'it' after this ‘implementation. (i.e. the ‘moral urge’, which is where I started).
Why we should, as a blog, is an attempt to explore various implications of this worlding framework, as well as illustrating the steps to this basic position of worlding (from considering the moral urge via worldbuilding to ‘worlding).
As such it can be both a premise and an outcome of creative research.
Follows from a comment at
Crossposted at whyweshould.loofs-samorzewski.com
I really like this proposal for using the ‘worlding’ verb (ing?)—if it has enough ambiguity/ fuzziness, it may have enough semantic plasticity to supply the necessary dynamics of process description. ( a reflection of projecting our mindsets)
Does it?