Make Our Habitat Good Enough
A World Without Boundaries, an Ambiguous Self
Our two eyes take in a vast amount of information about our surroundings. The brain receives and constantly interprets this information—colors, shapes, brightness, depth, movement, and more. In this process, we assign meaning to each perception by linking it to the concepts we already hold, thereby understanding the world.
Of course, we perceive the world not only through vision but through all five senses (and possibly even more). While sensory abilities such as sight and hearing can be measured numerically at any given moment, in reality, we experience and respond to a vast range of information beyond what can be quantified. Even if we are not consciously aware of it, our bodies react. Each of us lives in an ambiguous world that defies clear boundaries.
Thus, we live while projecting ourselves and others into the world we perceive. Feelings of empathy, compassion, justice, and even awareness of social issues stem from this act of projection. At the same time, excessive projection can trap others within our own worldview. Domination and control can occur unconsciously, making human relationships both endearing and complicated.
Needless to say, the concepts we use to link incoming information and the meanings we assign vary. Even when looking at the same thing, interpretations can differ significantly based on cultural background, past experiences, and how memories are organized. Reality is not singular.
When philosopher Markus Gabriel says, "The world does not exist," he likely refers to this notion of "world." However, since the very concept of "world" is multifaceted, interpretations of "the world does not exist" also vary. To understand Gabriel’s argument, one must first grasp the premises of the concepts he employs. Some may see "world" as referring to "others," while others may interpret it as "Earth" or even "the universe." Some may choose to see it as an undefined and unknown entity.
When discussing concepts, if people do not share the same premises, meaningful discourse cannot truly be constructed. In reality, the world is so uncertain that achieving a shared premise seems nearly impossible. In other words, we constantly attempt to grasp this indescribable world by organizing it into concepts. The "shared sensations" we believe we have are actually vague and nebulous. Even if an individual holds certainty, that certainty dissolves the moment it is released. And yet, the world does not collapse. We live with the creativity to continuously weave meaning, despite uncertainty about where we are headed.
Where Do I Belong?
Phrases such as:
"Make America Great Again" "America First"
have become familiar as defining slogans of the era. The stark divide in support or opposition surrounding the Trump administration is widely evident. Beyond "support/opposition," society is filled with binary concepts such as "left/right," "liberal/conservative," "globalist/anti-globalist," and "Global North/Global South." The same applies to discussions about so-called "global crises" like environmental issues, AI, war, and (until recently) pandemics. At times, it may feel as though one must take a definitive stance—despite the fact that such necessity does not actually exist.
I do not advocate for or against any position, but before reflexively agreeing or disagreeing with loud voices, I would like to pose the following questions:
When we say ‘protect nature’, what is ‘nature’, and ‘protect’ mean? When we say ‘for the good of the country’, what is ‘country’ , and 'good'? What is ‘world’ in ‘for the world’? What is ‘you’ in ‘for you’? What is ‘my’ in ‘for myself’? ........
Each individual lives in their own indescribable world.
In many cases, we discuss and interpret ambiguous concepts without fully understanding them, categorizing things as "right" or "wrong." Concepts, being the foundation of meaning, possess the power to create major movements. However, when applied concretely, they often lead to situations where "this wasn’t what I expected." The ideas we thought were shared turn out to be diverse and open-ended, never absolute. That is simply the nature of things.
Humans are sustained by narratives. While this represents human potential, it is also important to remember that narratives are just narratives. Even if governments were to suddenly disappear, birds in the forest would continue, as always, to call out before sunrise and circle freely in the sky.
This is not to suggest abandoning concepts. Like the birds in the forest, we exist here and now, breathing and pulsating with life. If we blindly chase after concepts, we may be manipulated by their meanings. By returning to the "locus of life" where we exist, we can engage with the world of concepts with clarity and awareness.
If it helps loosen pre-existing frameworks, why not call this locus "Habitat"? When each individual fully lives their own Habitat, the concept of "Habitat" will not be something imposed by others but will instead become a collectively and individually created concept. Your Habitat contains your life, and while your networks and surroundings may overlap with those of your partners, they will also differ significantly. Even when conflicting, these networks may connect in unexpected ways, resisting fixed definitions.
Who are the beings that inhabit Habitat? What constitutes a subject?
By acknowledging that the world we see is only our own perception, we can fully experience being here with our senses (and beyond). With this foundation, even when choosing a path forward, we do not have to surrender our existence to any particular ideology or philosophy. Habitat naturally includes "this" and "that," its boundaries constantly shifting and expanding.
In response to Markus Gabriel’s "The world does not exist," we might say, "Habitat exists, yet it is as if it does not." The key is recognizing that concepts such as "society," "world," "comrades," and "home," which we so casually use, were always meant to be fluid in nature.
From Habitus in Habitat
Today, we can use VR to view Earth from space. Soon, we may walk through virtual space cities. We may even experience moving our tails through the perspective of a dolphin. To engage in such novel experiences, our sensory faculties—our existence as beings with bodies, perception, and sensitivity—are essential.
Walking on a beach for the first time allows us to feel the texture of the sand, the flow of the wind, and the memory of the land. Our bodies interact with the invisible microorganisms of that land. It is through such accumulated experiences that VR connects us to the unknown. The setting does not have to be a beach. No special conditions are required. Our present environment is enough. Our senses, sensitivity, and bodies are nurtured within the stage of life—our Habitat.
What nurtures us is "Habitus"—the daily practices that form our existence, much like how birds naturally call out before sunrise. Cleaning, for instance, is a series of concrete interactions with the beings that compose our Habitat. The more we engage in it, the more we perceive relationships and networks. These experiences further cultivate our Habitat. Savor the sensations.
This world is designed to be in constant disarray. Cleaning is never complete, and there is no single correct method. Every day allows for free improvisation. Since there is no "goal," there is no competition. If one finds oneself competing or striving, it reveals an internalized concept of "competition" or "completion." There is nothing wrong with striving or competing, but awareness of our own actions helps us avoid imposing our worldview onto the world. With space for revision, there is no coercion.
Cleaning, anywhere and anytime, nurtures both our Habitat and ourselves through Habitus.
Lastly, I would like to introduce "Actor-network theory" which supports the concept of "Habitat."
Actor-network theory is a methodology of the "sociology of associations" which views all entities (actors) as interconnected and interdependent. French philosopher Bruno Latour proposed "Reassembling the Social" in response to the limitations of dualistic frameworks. In this theory, an actor is not the source of action but rather "moving target of a vast array of entities swarming toward it". Actors are positioned as nodes within networks where agency—the capacity to act—is exercised. These actors are not limited to humans; objects are also included. The theory does not establish divisions between humans and non-humans, society and nature, or subjects and objects, but rather treats all elements equally. It understands "society" as a complex network of various intertwined actors.
We tend to perceive events as the results of structural influences when discussing concepts such as society and the world. However, this theory seeks to trace the associations by examining what specific elements are connected and how they are assembled to form the world as we see it.
For those who want to explore this topic further, I highly recommend reading “Reassembling the Social” (Oxford University Press; 2005).
Notably, Bruno Latour received the Kyoto Prize in 2021.
Here is an excerpt from the award citation:
"In recent years, he has argued that environmental issues are a prime example of the collapse of modern dualistic frameworks and that addressing these issues requires taking the perspective of the Anthropocene seriously. He points out that concepts such as 'nature' as an object acted upon by human subjects and 'environment' as something surrounding humans are extensions of the dualistic thinking inherent in modernity, which has led to environmental problems and climate change. Latour proposes that we must shift to a new world-nature perspective, one that recognizes the biosphere as a thin layer of a few kilometers on the Earth's surface—a terrestrial world interwoven with not only humans but also plants, animals, climate, weather, and various material entities. This shift, he argues, is essential for reconfiguring political and social systems. "
If there is a conflict between advocates of “Make America Great Again” and those of “Make the World (or this Planet) Cool Again,” I would like to propose “Make Our Habitat Good Enough” as a reconciliation.