intending to write of lifeworldliness

---

I look at a bunch of organized notes for writing about the lifeworld and recognize that the thematic specificity is really a schematic that doesn’t foretell at all where I might go by writing from that path. A discursive concern for structured presentation is almost contrary to the body of living a world, as if the lifeworld itself (contrary to thematized representation) requires a narrative of living or confessional. To write about “the lifeworld” (a rubric that only theorists or philosophers use) is like writing about the narrativist (doing biography): likely distant from the living. Quite simply, the ultimacy of the lifeworld is the living, the enactivity of being alive.

What does it mean that I’m alive? Why should you care what it means to me that I’m alive—except inasmuch as the “I” may belong to both of us in this space of reading—that you find yourself in me or enlarge yourself through the reading (thus, indirectly, through me)?

Look at your attraction to what might get very personal. We can’t get enough of it. The theorist of the lifeworld may share something with a displaced voyeur—which is very attractive to say?, as it hints of entering into enmeshed idiosyncrasy (inflated to general theme?), a displacement from your life that you can admit, to whatever degree suits your mood.

The Lifeworld!

---