home conceptual adventuring

  scaffolding psychality
gary e. davis
May 8, 2017

My F-G-E model of intelligent action could be played into my [somewhat improvised] 4-dimensional transcendental pragmatic (sketched above in “woods of lifeworld project-ivity,” last paragraph) to prospect an evocative approach to enaction, in terms of desire (G-E), engagement (E-F), and enjoyment (F-G), which would be isomorphic with modes of Sternberg’s strongly-corroborated triarchic model of intelligence (mentioned earlier), including an intensification of the 3-fold trope (desire, engagement, enjoyment) in terms of Sternberg’s model of love: passion, commitment, and intimacy, which he directly integrates with his theory of intelligence; and furthers (over a career of several decades—he’s elderly now) relative to convenings of research on mind, giftedness, personality, cognitive development, competence, insight, narrativity, practical reason, creativity, wisdom, educational psychology, and psychology generally (as unifiable profession).

His example as leading mind is exemplary, even paradigmatic for what might be usefully called philological psychalogy.

I’m staying brief with my modes of conceptual play—little discussions that can be later transposed into parts of something generatively consilient (I hope). My interest now is not to passionately commit to a crystallized theory to which I’m intimately invested. My own evolving sense of things is very hybrid, engaging a larger scale of literature than Sternberg’s psychological interests involve (and beyond my sense conveyed so far of rc/rs liminality, a neo-Jungian 8-fold, and neo-Heideggerian 4-folding).

I’m anticipating a large body of literature that I’m looking at (literally in front me), but haven’t mentioned (and won’t get to here, during the entirety of “for love of conceptual inquiry”). But I think I’m well on the way here to showing how an eros, if you will, of literary and scientific conception (tropical concepting) can be valuably and validly prospected.

Here ( generally!), I’m merely exemplifying how conceptual prospecting may intimate credible grand cohering in philological play, without implying some Grand Conception awaiting disclosure and to become established (which is standardly proffered in step-wise presentation of analytical discourse that reads like a narrative curriculum intimating ontological pretenses of categoriality and conceptuality).

Any credible grand evolutionarity of conceptual venturing has no final peak. At best, Our evolving is supplemented by individual ventures (such as this entire website) in the great convening that is our intergenerational continuity, which only gains narrative coherence—only gains coherence narratively—in retrospect, since we stay most interested in playing onward as best we can (while we still can)—“we”: whomever enjoys this.

Ultimately, we’re all a life in a time that has no basis for clairvoyence, hoping at best to contribute to some permanence of The Coversation about where we want to go.
To my mind, exemplifying some ventures in a boundless ecogeny of conceptual play is “for the good of the order”—and fun.

Anyway, this apparent detour of confession reflects the whole venture, made of daypaths (side trips) weaving into a living singularity whose direction is evolving
(and whose happenstantial pretense of telelogical infatuation is tropilogical, if not tropigenic).

The most nebulous horizon of inquiry expresses the limits of capable comprehen-sibility that psychageny (individuation of mind) has so far afforded. (They say that String Theory is untestable.) The grand scale—the scalarity of sensibility—is endlessly appealing for better comprehension, calling for better capability (comprehensibility) through which discovery and creation can better flourish.

Loving the adventure feels like beholding the cosmos through eyes of the evolving archetropal child. We are children of a galactic region with much older habitable planets—millions of them! Imagine: Given how we’ve grown in several centuries (exponentially!), what may have become of intelligent life elsewhere that is millions of years older?

All we can imagine is that we continue to evolve imaginability, like classical Greek intimations that divining poiesis as the horizon of consolidative logos sees a beautiful ethos—echoing logos channeling divined poiesis—draw gods to Earth.

That said, this is no closure. There’s no ending.


< previous -|- Next: complex conceptions -|- topic: for love of conceptual inquiry

  Be fair. © 2017, gary e. davis