home page confessions section  
line1
 

“romantic” love of the day
september 18, 2011

  line1
 

For some years, I’ve been rather obsessed to ensure that my anticipated conceptual venturing (which would be considered extravagant to common sense) is understood to be appropriately appreciative of good common sense. Now, that said may seem extravagant. But I’ve also rendered (well-formedly, I think, yet not excursively) an overt sense of good common sense, appreciation, appropriation, and conceptual venturing, without yet (to my mind) doing much of the conceptual venturing I anticipate (via elaborate notes offline), apart from what’s been done (which I consider preliminary or proximal venturing).

Part of this involved a beginning difference between a creative ethic and an ethic of responsibility, which I’ve implicitly gone beyond variously, like vining that’s loosely weaving with its kindreds into some way.

Before that, I wrote Ana (private blog): “I’ve wanted to gain a good sense of how a creative ethic and an ethic of responsibility can live well together,” at first (frankly), wanting to rationalize drawing her into marital transgression (away from her proffered unhappiness) as an ethical thing to want (with all due respect for her love of her partner, but whom hardly seemed, through her eyes with me, to really appreciate her).

I quickly gave up that self-serving rescue play (but not my desire to find an original spin on the common story). Valid things had been expressed about one’s entitlement to authentic happiness, whatever that is. So, what is authentic happiness? For my own sake, I’ve explored that, too, in preliminary ways (including aspects of child development) which draws me into my own desire, which is, more or less, philosophical, in a sense that is years away from singular representation, but which was more or less conceptually clarified some years ago (before Ana came along—before Janna left life).

So my expressed loves of the day and vivacities were little cultivations on a way to Aletheia.

Call it romantic, but look: What was “romantic” always about? We can diminish aspiration with dismissals of “romanticism” or we can enhance the potential of “romance” ambitiously. (After all, Romantic artfulness was audacious and exploratorily transgressive.) What we always wanted at heart is veiled from us by cultures of mere “romance.”

We arose from a deep history of longing for heights, comprehensive and lasting, like the angels we fabricated to express perfectibility (that is ultimately our shared evolving), never reaching the best of all stars while learning a universe.

And making constellations, from so much bricolagic play, through countless kinds of artful life, toward (to my mind) boundless conceptual ambition.


That’s part 1 of “elations of solitude.” Here’s part 2.


  line1
  Be fair. © 2017, gary e. davis