world worlds of and its need?

Just had a qk browse through stuff about procrastination while clearly had to do some other stuff. The article ends with a notion about doing stuff because the World might – or might not – need that. I wonder. Wonder whether the question of the world’s needs – while being apt in the sense that I felt it at times, and others disscussed it too – is actually relevant.
I mean, the world will be fine without each and every one of us – whatever we do or do not. Is it not a question of how we need to be in this world?
This world and others will be fine without this line, however – will I be able to get on with the rest of the day without writing it?
However, perhaps the world/s question is relevant on a different scale? When the need for writing a line is done, and one can move on to the next one. Or when an amoeba splits and can move one with its life – the world, while not requiring that oparticular act perhaps, ispracticing various rhythms and sequences. Perhaps if it did not practice these kind of rhythms, it would have been a very different world, one that would have been much slower in its rhythms, for example. And how on earth do I know whether or not the world needs x rhythm or sequence or another?

One thought on “world worlds of and its need?

  1. Perhaps it is interesting actually from the view of fearlessness. Because this way we can argue that actually, being a conservative allows instant fearlessness kind of freedom. One says that they do X for that is how X is being done and they can allow an instant fearlessness – they do x because x is done by power. They are free because they satisfy power.
    Do stuff for power satisfaction. Do stuff for the world because that is how they know the world. Do stuff even more for power, get rid of all the people who might oppose power in this worlds and beyond – is just a form of violence not radical. It is not an offer of attempting a new species, a different route that was not taken by our account of time or memory. A different route and new sequence, one that is outside of power and questions it. In that sense radical is by nature non-conservative?

Leave a Reply