Slash-and-blur worldculture part 2

This is part two, so if you are beginning… —maybe start over at Slash-and-blur worldculture part 1 which introduces the slash, the blur and the contronym as the main tools in a good worlding culture.

More on the slash and the blur.

The slash lists things into a chunk, and in chunking, it blurs… —while our attention finds another focus: a distraction, an urgency, a pot on the backburner brought forward. While blurred, but held in mind, the elements factor together, for the moment, and perhaps later, will be unpacked and later/drilled down into/like in a deep dive, or even reframed.

Slept on. Until…

Now. The members of the list may or may not otherwise have anything in common, outside of being in the world. The chunking does not imply a super-set will be found.

The usage itself can thus become a useful cognitive blur. (We have jargon in our lives we cannot always recognize their gamey-ness.) It can raise into notice what we have taken for granted in our overly confident clear definition.

There is no romance here, remember though, movement precede the categories.

As already said, the words so slashed in a blur may be related or not. The purpose of the blur is not to reintegrate what the world differentiates (if only), but more to basket them in a use that is part-list/part/union/part\parenthesis. The blur is a crude “mash up” that things thing anew, see ① below .

It’s a way to engage in thinging, by chunking bits (back) together.

The slash does not cut but “somehow” joins, or at least indicates the recently subdivided, like breaking pieces of bread to share out on a platter. It's all there… —but. The slash is the meal, it is the meeting at the meal we share. The slash is the movement, not the outcome. The activity, the verb, not the result.

The how is to be “determined”. Decided. It is a meeting after all. What do you bring to the table?

See other contronyms like “fast” as examples of a word with usages “meaning” their opposite, due to the similarity of action or motion and not the outcome. Like bound, clip, weather or seed. The action is 'blurring things', the focus now in using the slash is then not on the outcomes. The outcomes train us. The slash and blur allows us to learn anew.

Outcomes are distracting, like shiny fetishes, and other dark mirrors for our souls.We often idolise them, name gods after them like bonnie bairns.

All our hopes.

Hopefully these blurs will be more/less than some list of connotations and cognates, at least the slashed group may indicate a co-evolving set or a hint of co-relatedness, for example:

predator/prey/parasite/body/terrain/landscape

In a way the blur indicates that things are/may-be less than the sum of their parts. All those bits where we live our lives.

In slashing together, the “blur” thus formed/thought is not a holism, and not a reductionism. It seeks to do more than those approaches by doing less than either claim. As a re-framing it answers/questions and asks/slaps mu (see ②).

I use the slash to indicate these slashed elements or items are outcome/s of some other process or thing— that, perhaps, we can only see the ashes or remains of, the maybe ghosts of/fossilised-absence/spaces in the stone-work where the original wooden church was built against in building the new stone church that is now a thousand years old. The ghost of echoes. See Devining the… —gap.

When we slash a blur, when we mindfully chunk, we epistemologically hold a fossil in our hands, like a thought on our tongues unspoken, again.

Words, as an example of this, are fossils of their usage in grammaticalisation. Usage maintains them, usages changes them, usage wears them out, usages fills the gaps with sediment and the remains of the routine of the day, usage fossilises this in turn, usages changes usage, and sets them into grammar, and that is all we have of the past that we hold in our tongues in the world we live in where we hold meetings every live long day.

A taphonomy of sound and kisses, lips smacking at a meal.

Smacznego!

The world goes on, and this blurring of hard won divisions allows an examination of the processes in evolution/history by which those divisions arose and evolved/become-useful and/or extinct, or not/not-even not/wrong.

For example, reconsider:

world/morality/religion/state/country/landscape.

Once upon a time they were all the same ‘thing/meeting’.

History determines otherwise. It’s a problem, it’s a thing now. It's political.

Anthropological and historical literature seem to constantly point this out. But 'this' has little input into our culture, the number of peeps trying to explain each element on their lonesome-ownsome. This is partly the result of specialization and publisher and platform penchants for wanting a category-killer, or just departmental politics as middle-managers sastifice their arses in a race to the bottom of the tragedy of the anti-commons. But these killers are right mothers-of-all-categories. There's an app for that, a gender for this. A parasite that see you as a good fit.

In no time you have a hereditary caste system.

Even then, we all do our best, if we do it for the best.

That's worlding the world with no loss of self.

I hope to provide hints of a worlding methodology to do the slash-and-blurring of categories. Categorical thinking grow like weeds in disturbed soil of our thinking/moving/making/doing. Some of the weeds we can eat, others are just invasive.

① The usage thus blurred can become a thing: worklife balance, when the slash is no longer there. These things are unlikely to be objects per se, but are their furry animist mind-thing the “concept”, which the slash joins in a blur to newness/oneness. However the slash can also blur into oldness. Blurring into oldness-es in the ancestor undifferentiates the god/giant\monsters, the ancient, out of which the process of individuation comes later. In the ancient nothing is special, that comes later, in the now perhaps, as that “then-ness” it has come before and is unknown. See Raymond Williams Keywords. With/in these two usages of the slash/e\s — novelty and ancienty can be a bit of a blur themselves.

② My usage of mu comes from reading, in 1984, Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Penguin, 1980.

The image of the table with many dishes is from or via 25 Polish birthday party dishes to celebrate with Written by jan vasil :https://tasteisyours.com/25-polish-birthday-party-dishes-to-celebrate-with/

Slash-and-blur worldculture part one and two  follows up from Cormac Orthography, more or less.

(NOTE TO SELF: I’ll have a whole section on the blur at some later stage.)