Adaptation of the classic "poem" on collective responsibility [see comment on original]
When? | Who? |
Where? |
An initiative of global importance requires engagement Everytime | Everybody is called upon to engage in an initiative of global importance | An initiative of global importance requires engagement Everywhere |
Everytime implies that it should at least happen Sometime | Everybody is sure that Somebody would do so | Everywhere implies that it will at least happen Somewhere |
It could happen Anytime, but not when there is Notime. | Anybody could do so, but Nobody does | It could happen Anywhere, but is now happening Nowhere. |
Anger arises Sometime because engagement should happen Everytime. | Somebody is getting angry because it is Everybody's responsibility. | Anger arises Somewhere because engagement should happen Everywhere. |
Everytime implies that it could happen Anytime, but it takes Notime to realize that Sometime will not do. | Everybody knows that Anybody could do so, but Nobody realizes that Somebody will not. | Everywhere it is known that it could happen Anywhere, but Nowhere is it realized that Somewhere it is not. |
Everytime blame is assigned Sometime because it takes Notime to do what could have been done Anytime. | Everybody blames Somebody because Nobody did what Anybody could have done. | Everywhere blame is assigned Somewhere because Nowhere has happened what could have happened Anywhere. |
***
Why? | What? | How? | Which? |
An initiative of global importance calls for justification on Every-ground | An initiative of global importance should take account of Every-issue | An initiative of global importance requires engagement in Every-way possible | An initiative of global importance should emerge from consideration of Every-choice possible |
Every-ground implies that it should at least be justified on Some-ground | Every-issue implies that it should at least take account of Some-issue | Every-way implies that it should at least be done Some-way | Every-choice implies that it should at least be based on Some-choice |
It could be justified on Any-ground, but has as yet been justified on No-ground. | It could take account of Any-issue, but not when No-issue is considered | It could be done Any-way, but as yet has been done No-way. | It could be based on Any-choice, but not when No-choice is possible. |
Anger is evoked by its justification on Some-ground only because it should be justified on Every-ground. | Anger is evoked by considering only Some-issue when account should be taken of Every-issue. | Anger is evoked by doing it Some-way because it should be done Every-way. | Anger is evoked by restriction to Some-choice because it should emerge from consideration of Every-choice. |
Every-ground implies that it could be justified on Any-ground, but on No-ground is Some-ground how it should be justified | Every-issue implies that account should be taken of Any-issue, but consideration of No-issue cannot be considered as taking account of Some-issue. | Every-way implies that it could be done Any-way, but in No-way is Some-way how it should be done. | Every-choice implies that it could be result from Any-choice, but No-choice is not the basis for Some-choice. |
Every-ground renders justification on Some-ground questionable because that is No-ground on which to justify what could have been justified on Any-ground. | Every-issue aggravates Some-issue when No-issue is taken into account in considering Any-issue. | Every-way challenges Some-way because that is No-way to do what could have been done Any-way. | Every-choice undermines Some-choice because that is No-choice for what could have been based on Any-choice. |
The 6 adaptations of the original ("Who?") variant are inspired by the set of so-called "WH-questions" and their previous use in exploring world problems and global strategies:
See also the diagram: Sustaining the Quest for Sustainable Answers
For further updates on this site, subscribe here |