Publication: The healing-growth future of humanity: regenerative politics and crealectic care

  • Luis de Miranda



pandemic, regenerative politics, crealectics, future, naturing nature, healing growth, Creal


The 2020 coronavirus pandemic served to remind us that despite our Cartesian fantasies of control, naturing nature (natura naturans) is still active in the form of an untamed Other. The dominant reaction on most political sides was anthropocentric: if we do something– a doing generally framed within the scope of technique and management – nature shall go back to the kind and submissive non-viral neutrality that we appreciate in ‘her’ as a supposedly passive resource for productivism. How could humanity – a pandemic species itself and not only metaphorically – be better attuned with the powers of naturing nature, in a posture of co-creation rather than of a reactive technocratic war against the non-periodic or ‘monstrous’ aspects of life? This question is a matter of philosophical health: the future of humanity does not depend on statistics and logistics, but on the possibility of a philosophical (re)generative politics, a trustful care for creative singularity rather than an anxious control and production of regularity. Humanity’s collective health presupposes this reconciliation with naturing nature and the deployment of a global shared cosmology based on the creative healing-growth flux of originative creativity. This regenerative and life-affirming creative Real is here termed ‘Creal’, and we call ‘crealectics’ the generative philosophical health that favours healing growth.

Co-Creating the Real

Announcing the publication of an article written in the form of a dialogue with Vlad Glaveanu. Qualitative Inquiry Journal, accessible here: Co-Creating the Real: A Transdisciplinary Dialogue

Glăveanu VP, de Miranda L. Co-Creating the Real: A Transdisciplinary Dialogue. Qualitative Inquiry. December 2021. doi:10.1177/10778004211063617

The Regenerocene: How Not To “Think Human First” in a Philosophically Healthy World

A talk by Luis de Miranda given at the ECT Lab+ conference Techne logos and the (Neg) Anthropocene 9th – 10th of December 2021 TU Dublin “The first annual conference hosted by the European University of Technology and organized by the European culture and technology Laboratory ‘ECT Lab+’ aims to bring together experts from Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences and Technology discussing on the idea of ‘Thinking Human First’.”

On Destiny, Improvisation and How It Relates to Philosophical Health

Improvisation is an understudied topic in philosophy in general and in philosophical practice in particular. In the context of philosophical counseling and philosophical health, it might be believed that a more reflexive and rationalized form of living might involve less spontaneity. There is a general assumption since Thales that the philosopher is not attentive to present surroundings, and lives in the mind, making all sorts of pragmatic or domestic mistakes for lack of attention. More generally, lack of present awareness and daydreaming is sometimes considered a feature of the human species. In the last decades, psychological experiments showing that most of our awaken behavior is performed in a state of semi-consciousness, or “autopilot” have become popular. If our individual destiny is predetermined by the Heavens, as it was believed in the religious tradition, or by our genetic, neuronal or social determinism, as it is believed in multiple scientific approaches, we might wonder what would be the use of philosophical health practices: should we not spontaneously and “simply” follow our line of life, go with the flow and accept our fate stoically?

In my counseling practice, I often tell my interlocutors that I will help them unveil their highest destiny, and then it’s up to them to embrace it. This suggests that we may have a plurality of destinies available, such that our social or organic conditions can be transcended, sublimated by thoughts, coherent or even systemic choices, a philosophical stance. The existentialist tradition in philosophy, from Kierkegaard to Sartre, advocates that destiny is a creative project, and that we can somewhat generate at least part of the reality we live in. While many people today might accept this idea, it is important to have a conversation, step by step and person by person, on how this might be possible and sustainable.

The concept of improvisation, musically understood, can provide a good analogy for the kind of agency that a successful destiny might imply. A musical improvisation is never random, it follows a tonality, a rhythm, and it is a crealectic (creatively more-than-dialectic) attunement between fidelity and freedom. Fidelity to what? In the philosophical context, each individual can, with some work and courage, unveil a personal conceptual constellation, a set of connected higher principles (for example Justice-Creation-Listening), or a motto which delivers a personal philosophical tonality. “Attuned destinal improvisation” then becomes a dual attunement to, on the one hand, our philosophical stance, which should be flexibly unshakable and, on the other hand, to the creative variations of life, such that both excessive wandering and rigidity are avoided.

First International Conference on Philosophical Counseling in India

Join us! Join them! Join yourself! Delighted to contribute as a keynote speaker to the International Conference on Philosophical Counseling, University of Delhi, India, 14-16 January 2022, organised by Professor Balaganapathi Devarakonda and colleagues.

Review of Being and Neonness by Professor Jeffrey Meikle

in CHOICE MAGAZINE, Copyright American Library Association.

This slim volume of philosophical musings masquerading as a cultural history of neon lighting is reminiscent of Jean Baudrillard’s America (1988). Like Baudrillard, Miranda draws metaphoric significance from contemporary technology and delivers scintillating but quirky pronouncements. Regarding the incandescent light bulb, for example, he remarks that “by domesticating light, the twentieth century would seek to waylay the sublime and objectify the intimate” (p. 45). Many readers forgave Baudrillard’s verbal excesses because he defined and critiqued a superficial culture they disdained. For Miranda, the bar is higher because he hopes to inspire as well as criticize. After questioning the passive conformity of a clean, well-lighted society–represented by the garish emptiness of the neon sign–he goes further by proposing an ecstatic, visionary alternative to the negativism of postmodern critics. Valorizing uncertainty over certitude, sound’s warm suggestiveness over light’s harsh perspectives, and flow over substance, Miranda urges readers to embrace a provisional, ever-creating reality he refers to as “Creal,” in whose ever-ongoing construction one may participate after freeing oneself from the prison of signs, from the neonness of consumer culture and hierarchical society. Summing Up: Recommended. Graduate students, researchers, faculty. —Jeffrey L Meikle, University of Texas at Austin

To Be Is To Create

Everything is creation. Nothing is inert. Everything is constantly blossoming, not only the flower but also the industrial building that I see outside of the train’s window. The world is anthesis, which means that the synthesis of all beings is blossoming, phaino, crealing. Things and beings are constantly phenomenalizing themselves, not out of themselves, but out of the creal principle in them. Things are also enmeshed in complex creative processes, not just manifesting themselves. To be is to create. 

One may ask: what is the novelty production of an industrial building minute after minute? It looks the same now and one minute ago. How is it creating? Because despite the fact that it looks the same, it is not the same. A closer look, a more artistic attunement, knows that everything is constantly changing in multiple ways. A simple way to understand this constant becoming is to compare it with a time-lapse movie, in which images are highly accelerated such that we discover that everything is in flow. An industrial building is of course producing goods, this is the obvious process, but the industrial and social production is only one part of the multifarious creating process of any actual entity. If we forget about this, there are not only philosophical consequences, but also environmental consequences: an industrial building is also creating nefarious effects.

One may ask: what is the new if creation is everywhere? From the perspective of process philosophy and crealectics, novelty is ubiquitous: it is the effect of creative becoming itself. Every smile is new, every breath you take, and if you look at this cup of coffee, it is constantly manifesting a new state of itself, slightly different from the previous one.

But nothing is new sui generis, out of nowhere: only the Creal is sui generis, self-creating. A human being for example cannot be fundamentally self-creating. This does not mean that we do not have some creative agency: we can orient ourselves, we can shape our intellectual-ethical coherence, our philosophical health, we can be more or less creative, because we are (in) the Creal. The first principle of philosophical health is to accept that the multiverse is constantly creating, that humans do not have the monopoly of creation. Ants create. Plants create. To create is to participate in the actualization of the Creal.

Let me finish this post with an apple tree time-lapse, which manifests the truth that Eve and Adam could have figured out without the input of the snake…