Library Naming — Candidates
A consolidated framing-set holding v5’s naming candidates for the body of work — what AA calls the Big Book, what EPI has been calling that placeholder for. v5 proposes Coming Home as a working title and brainstorms a wide alternate set. All held as
candidate; none canonical until the team converges.
What’s being named
The canonical reference text that holds the practice — the archive and the navigation layer. From v5, “It is an archive … a complete, stable, authoritative capture of the practice … It is a navigation tool … a living reference a practitioner can navigate, meeting them where they are.” Same body of knowledge, multiple access patterns.
The Library does not yet exist as a wiki container; this framing-set holds the naming brainstorm until the body of work is drafted and gets its own container.
Working title (v5)
Coming Home. Captures returning to the body when lost in story, returning to presence when caught in Reactive Brain, returning to essence after the personas have had their day, returning to the group, to practice, to something larger than the isolated self.
Candidates from v5
Plain and functional
The Practice · The Practitioner’s Book · The Handbook · The Field Guide
Library-oriented
The Library · The Compendium · The Codex · The Archive
Evocative and invitational
Coming Home · The Return · Ground · The Opening
EPI-flavored
The Evolutionary Power Handbook · The Six Facets · Evolutionary Practice
Naming the essential teaching
Notice and Choose · The Practice of Return · Moving From Stuck
Related principles
- principle-24 — Institutional Independence. Whatever the body of work is called, it belongs to no one and is designed to outlast EPI the organization. Naming should not bind to a current institutional identity (favors more general names over EPI-flavored ones).
- principle-9 — Spiritual, Not Religious. Naming should not pattern toward religious / scriptural framing (which would compromise the non-denominational stance). Big Book itself is fine as a placeholder because of its origin in AA; an EPI equivalent should be chosen for EPI’s own reasons, not borrowed.
What would move this to canonical
- Team conscience that lands on a name with reasons recorded.
- Practical test: does a newcomer hear the name and want to pick the book up? (v5’s framing for the question.)
Status notes
candidate — naming question open per v5. Held as a framing-set
rather than 17 separate framing pages because v5 itself surfaces these
as a brainstorm list, not as separately-drafted candidates. Each
candidate can be extracted into its own page if and when the team takes
it seriously enough to make a case for it.
The body of work itself is needs export from the team’s existing materials regardless of what it’s called — naming the container is a separate question from drafting its contents.