When’s the last time we took a step back and considered the privilege it is to be part of this world? It’s not perfect. But should that be an excuse for complacency and compromise?  

A defining (core?) characteristic of humanity is the propensity to create until we see good in a thing. 

First, the emphasis is on creativity as a process, it’s not just about a spark “to get the fire going” but also tending the fire. Second, the creative process of “until we” assumes that the capacity to see good is not merely an individual perspective but a collaborative discernment. Third, creativity as a collaborative process requires that it’s not merely the ability to see good objectively, from afar, detached from what is out there or what happens eventually. Rather, collaborative discernment calls for an openness to evaluate my individual sense of good as it relates to the views and purposes of others.

A mechanistic or functionalist worldview can support a one-way perspective, where creativity measured primarily or solely in terms of imperialistic ethic-parameters can amount to ethnocentrism (my cultural best over the rest).    

Rather, seeing good in and through the collaborative process includes the art of recognizing and reimagining, in bold and ultimate terms, that such goodness must reside in some sense within the creator. Only then can the creator see good in other created beings and things.

But the question to ponder is who really is good? That good. What is or where do we get our capacity for good—not merely as an aesthetic (our sense of good) but good as a core human characteristic? 

Questions to ponder for a Friday work-lunch discussion:

What’s good for you? Is it good for me? Should it be good for us?

It’d be great to hear your brief take on this first of a five-part series.