There is good reason why one might look around and feel beleaguered and ill-equipped to
countenance the world as it appears before us. The challenges are too numerous and
fraught to name here. But let us simply consider the scale of many of the challenges before
us: if we take climate change, political polarisation, or social inequality, poverty, war, or mass
migration, the weaponisation of technology, addictive consumerism, or the spread of
misinformation, most of us would agree that none of these challenges can be solved by the
individual alone. Nor were they meant to be. For none of them are properly within reach of
the individual, at least in the way that they appear. And yet, we are still called to relate to
them in one way or another.
Being embedded and embodied beings, we need to acknowledge, on one level, the very
localised nature of our agency, and seek ways to relate to what is already ‘at hand’ in the
conventional sense. By acting from our situatedness, and working to refine our agency in
a granular way, it could be said that we are exercising the only real agency we have. Prof
Tim Lenton has spoken compellingly of the tipping points, both negative and positive, that
result from an accumulation of localised, grassroots efforts, and this is particularly true in an
age in which we are as intensely networked as we are today. Moreover, to suppose we can
abide purely in a ‘view from nowhere,’ as Thomas Nagel has suggested, strips us of the
only concrete engagement we can have with the world. The fact is, we always begin from a
situated perspective — our firsthand experience — and to deny it puts us at risk of
perpetuating erroneous assumptions.
But what if we were to nuance the above and question the very premise of a world existing
‘out there,’ as separate from the lone self ‘in here’. If we take the ‘view from within’ — an
enactive, organism-centred perspective — things begin to look quite different. For example,
we begin to see that self and world are co-constructed and co-evolving, and that even to
speak of the ‘world(s) at hand’ is somewhat of a misnomer. Because of our intimate
entanglement with the world, the world is in some sense always, already at hand, particularly if we understand the processes that make self and other possible as in-between
and all around (E. A. Di Paolo), rather than in here and out there (as Cartesian dualism
would have us suppose). In this view, acting from a situated perspective necessarily affects
a much larger field — beyond, precisely, what is perceptually ‘at hand.’
If this is the case, on what can it be said that we are acting? Where does our agency lie if we
are so inextricably bound up with the world? What would prevent us from simply resigning
ourselves to passive disengagement, precipitous relativism (“anything goes” or “everything is
equally valid”), or spiritual bypassing (“all is well” or “all is one”)? How can we live in a way
that honours the imminence of the world and our entanglement with it, while also
taking personal responsibility for effecting change in the world? Moreover, how can we
honour the plurality of the many life-worlds that are at play when we consider how to act?
Can we imagine “liv(ing) in one world that includes a multiplicity of worlds,” as Gábor Karsai
spoke of in our November 2024 MLE Community Call? Can we work from the premise of
“difference without separability” (Édouard Glissant), a vector of heterogeneity, rather than homogeneity? Is there a “lived, living logic” (Hanne De Jaegher) we can draw upon to
honour both entanglement and differentiation, immanence and otherness?
The panelist in MLE’s 2025 Inaugural Panel will be invited to reflect on these questions from their particular horizon of inquiry and life experience, seeing where they might lead the discussion — not simply as theoretical questions but as lodestars for orienting to a more awakened, equanimous, and compassionate life. Let’s reflect together on what “Relating to the Worlds at Hand” might mean for the future of our work together and for the future of life on this planet.