In hierdie artikel word besin oor die begrip wêreld, die gebruik daarvan, die sin daarvan, die geldigheid en omvang daarvan. Die moontlike diepgaande aard daarvan word ondersoek, asook die aannames wat daaroor geld. 'n Antwoord op die vraag "in watter wêrelde lewe ons?" word gesoek waartydens veral die verband tussen wêreld- en sinskepping bespreek word. Hierbenewens word die onttowering van die wêreld bespreek, die vanselfsprekendhede wat dit huisves, die faktore wat dit verwesenlik, die onvermydelikheid daarvan en die uitdaginge wat dit bied. Daar word eweneens besin oor die mate waartoe die onttowering ons mense se maaksel is en die mate waartoe dit sinverlies en nihilisme verwesenlik omdat die wêreld onleefbaar gemaak word. Sou die herbetowering (skepping, maakbaarheid) van of die luisterverlening aan hierdie wêreld 'n geldige en haalbare en noodsaaklike opsie wees wat ook die skepping en invensie van sin verwesenlik? Indien wel, wat sou die verwagtinge wees? Waarop sou die klem moes val en sou dit wel, soos sommige aandui, die karakter van 'n stryd moes aanneem ten einde wêreldskepping en sinvervulling te verwesenlik?
We live in challenging but also threatening times. The world is becoming a strange place for humans to live in and to feel at home in. Catastrophic consequences or developments are continuously predicted. Special efforts are required to make the world into a better place, into a comfortable and safe dwelling. For this reason it is justified to reflect on what we call world, how the term is used, the meaning of the term, its validity and scope. The deep-seated nature of world needs to be carefully investigated as well as the assumptions that rule this term. It is quite a sensible question to ask: "in what worlds are we living", especially when world and its relation to meaning and the creation of meaning is at issue, since they are intimately connected. It is quite a comprehensive term including humans and the things they encounter as well as the experiences they are subjected to and the dreams they cherish - the fate of the future of humankind and the quality of things. The disturbance of world, its disenchantment therefore, implies in a very direct sense the disturbance of meaning, even the loss or absence of meaning, and eventually the disturbance of life itself. Intimately related to the question regarding the world is the question of its disenchantment. The disenchantment of the world is self-evident from various perspectives with a series of issues contributing to this. Certain identifiable factors are responsible for this - inevitably unavoidable it seems - that create immense challenges: global warming, exploitation of resources, overpopulation, and even non-physical issues like the degradation of spirituality, etc. may play significant roles in the disenchantment. The disenchantment is in a special but also very sad sense to a great extent a human creation. Humans are the great exploiters and destroyers - of themselves, their environment and the earth. But especially the extent to which these developments lead to the loss of meaning and eventually nihilism as the absolute absence of meaning by which the world becomes unliveable makes the disenchantment a tragic and sad event. Matters may be worse: many cultural and social criticisms suggest even the disappearance of the human race as the final catastrophic fate and outcome of disenchantment. The major question is whether the re-enchantment, as the response to the disenchantment, is a valid, achievable and necessary option which includes the creation and invention of a liveable world in which meaning would be fulfilled. On what should emphasis be put and would it really imply the character of a battle for humans to achieve world creation and meaning fulfilment and in the last analysis world enchantment. A battle indeed, especially in view of the fact that the disenchantment is forcefully introduced by those in powerful positions. That requires a battle. Although it may be hoped for and worked towards, the re-enchantment is not a self-evident matter. Too much self-interest is at stake. Re-enchantment would certainly require sacrifices which not many humans are willing to commit themselves to. Are humans really in a capable position of recreating and reinventing the world with a view to its recreation into a dwelling? Perhaps the abilities that contribute to the disenchantment, when transformed in the true sense of transformation into creative and inventive capabilities, may be more than able to bring about the recreation of the world. The implication would certainly be that they must be able to restrain the disenchanting forces and also to overturn these forces into positive energy. The non-negotiable condition, however, of reenchantment will be the respiritualisation of humans and human communities. This would enable humans to recreate the world into a liveable world through compositional thinking by putting and linking together what belongs together in a harmonious way, namely humans and things.
