Waymaking
exploring spaces beyond either/or in philosophy and the cognitive sciences
“Way-making blunts the sharp edges and untangles the knots;
it softens the glare and brings things together on the same track.”
Way-making is a general term for a new approach to philosophy.
As a term, it offers an alternative to binary linguistic assumptions and either/or choices in the philosophical and cognitive sciences. It does this by holding contrasting sides without trying to be rid of one or the other, allowing that from each position, there are distinctions that are irreconcilable. It also acknowledges that there is a space holding these conflicting positions—a dynamic process beyond those contrasts that also allows them.
When we stop trying to dissolve one side into the other, when we stop trying to force one side into the winning position, we may find that further contradictory nodes open beyond what first felt like binaries. The point is not to stop the discussion and debate, but to orient it out of the loop of competing philosophies and towards common challenges that philosophical thinking addresses in unique ways.
So, for example, we can use the term way-making to point to the process that is holding both ‘mental’ and ‘physical’ in traditional philosophical and neuroscientific discourse without losing the meaning of those terms. Instead, they become ways of assessing what is held in common process.
Similarly, and directly related to my work with the hippocampus, we can discuss ‘our locomotion’ and ‘our thinking and imagining’ as ways we make, ways which are irreconcilable assessments (as we measure), but which are also held as the same dynamic process (as they happen). See here for more.
In other words, we can discuss ‘mind’ and ‘body’ as different ways we make to understand this ongoing movement, a movement which is both ‘us’ and what we are assessing, even as it holds both. We can do this for any two terms that represent oppositional assessments.
This is way-making. It takes a bit of getting used to, which is partly the point—it is itself a practice gently moving us into another realm of movement and perception, without destroying our usual ones.
In their translation of the Tao Te Ching, Ames & Hall translate ‘tao’ as ‘way-making’, writing that: “Way-making blunts the sharp edges and untangles the knots; it softens the glare and brings things together on the same track.” (2003). This gives us the general feeling of the orientation we are exploring here.
I have been working many years to find ways of expressing this through neuroscience and traditional philosophical routes. Opening this space (or noticing it) is helpful for traditional issues of mental/physical or mind/body or idealism/materialism or instrumentalism/realism, or any of the other binary contrasts that scaffold our discussions. These terms are important and point to important work being done, but so long as they are turned against one another, they force choices that keep us from moving into new potentials. Such contrast has been important, but now we have come to a time for those scaffolds to shift into nested notions rather than binary ones.
Something similar happens in cognitive neuroscience where research can be stymied through confusions of terms and assumptions of what is or is not inside a brain. Way-making allows these ‘sides’ to be what they are so that we can stop trying to push them into one another. In so doing, multi-dimensional paths might open for further pattern recognition and shift path dependencies towards a more desirable unknown.
All this can sound a bit indulgent and obscure to many outside of these bubbles of reference, and indeed sometimes, it is.
Still, the work many people are doing towards holding this space does matter because it sets scaffolds and patterns that radiate out and expand the adjacent possible, shifting the unknowns that will eventually become our present condition.
In other words, it matters for our path dependencies and the small iterations of today that become the large, lived spaces of tomorrow. It matters for the ways we make, which are also the ways we give one another to be and to change in common movement.
If you think about it, most problems at various levels of our lives, from our individual ways of assessing ourselves (that ‘voice in your head’), to the ways we asses ourselves as groups and communities, are often about this same stuck-ness in contrast, and the drive for two contrasts to have reconciliation.
Most of what we take for granted these days is rooted in an old worldview that depends on making choices between contrasts, or trying to reconcile those contrasts, trying to find ‘the one’ that is real, or ‘the one’ that is right, or the one that wins; trying to be what others are rather than being ourselves as others.
This way of living might have served us well up till now. It might even be that, up till now, we have been trying to get to a point where we can handle more complexity, to sense the world in more depth and dimension. Today, however, the old binary either/or scaffolding that steers everything from our work to our identity, can be sensed and seen as the point to nudge, the fulcrum of change—if we move through this portal, we will perceive differently.
Way-making offers language for easing ourselves gently from our usual rigidities. It gives us a place to step for a moment and notice what has been structuring us. We can find our balance and support one another as we learn to sense the world differently, to be alive in new ways. In so doing, what seem like ‘either/or’ choices or contrasts might instead open into what is fractal and kaleidoscopic.
One reason I have so many conversations about love is because this process is so challenging. Way-making is the practice of holding space for one another as best we can:
Love is the primary power we share to steer together into new worlds of connection, sensuality, and care.
Thank you for being here.
Your writing doesn’t just explain way making, it embodies it. Thank you for sharing. ♥️
I also have a personal question I wanted to ask, I left it inbox, when you have time please check it out.
Your exploration of waymaking as a way to hold contrasting perspectives without forcing one to win is so inspiring, and it really clicks with Buckminster Fuller’s idea of precession I mentioned in my comment on your recent interview with Professor Hayles. Fuller described precession as setting out toward a goal—like a bee seeking nectar—but along the way creating unexpected ripple effects (like pollination) that end up being just as important. This resonates with waymaking’s “blunting the sharp edges” and bringing things together on the same track, as you quote from the Tao Te Ching.
It also reminds me of the edge effect in ecology: those vibrant border zones where two habitats meet, where diversity and vitality surge precisely because differences overlap and intermix. Waymaking seems to work the same way—at the “edges” between mind and body, imagination and movement, culture and nature—where new stories, meanings, and connections emerge.
As someone writing "Aussie Dreamers," a magical realism book for kids that weaves deep ecology and Indigenous wisdom, I see this in how stories can guide young readers through complex connections—between humans, nature, and culture—without reducing them to either/or choices. Your idea of waymaking as a dynamic process that holds both “mind” and “body,” or “locomotion” and “imagination,” mirrors how my bird characters (and Indigenous children) navigate their world, finding paths through the land’s stories and spirits, not by resolving contrasts but by moving with them in harmony. This approach feels like precession—and like the edge effect—in action: aiming to spark wonder and care in kids, but along the way, fostering a deeper sense of connection to the planet and each other.
It’s exciting to think of waymaking as a storytelling tool that can help kids embrace this kaleidoscopic view, nurturing love and care as they explore their place in a living, breathing world.