home page -literary living area


        so to speak
gary e. davis

March 20, 2016

part 7 of 8

     
     


Phenomenality is preliminarity for reverie, giving—for ones given to romances in things—theme-ing. Presence “there” appeals in itself. It gives way to its dwelling, landscape, ecosphere, ecology, ecogeny, evolving.

Fun finding flowers, perhaps, into wonder drawn and furthered through a generative aura of presence. Things, themes of things, and manifolds of themes make themselves figural focalities embodying plays of enplacement, a muse emergent from a thicket or woody wording, a tropography engaging and enplacing one: tropology, topology, topogeny.

How many modes of intelligence (all sensibility and capability for conception—modes of “light,” of being brightly) are there to be wholly enthralled? How intimately comprehensive can a wholly flourishive literary mind be adventuring?

Then, what can be said of wholly living how it is that the possible interfacing, playing, and recursively transporting voices cogently and evincively? Can some conception of evolutionary fruitfulness be made comprehensively teleological validly?

Presumably, no. So, what’s desire’s excessiveness, if not most exemplary excellence,
of conceivability that can be worthwhile?

What telos can be constellated reflects an appeal that’s always evolving, a high angel of Earthliness with her back to the future, loving to draw brightest life into enhancing all humanity. (And beings eons beyond us don’t wait to be found.)

Tropes are invitations to better conceptuality. Metonymy invites nearing metaphoricity, which appeals for intimacy with irony, which would hold us in generative namelessness: primordiogeny?

Geogeny of life is likened to an eonically emergent bushiness of varietal lastingness. The array of flora on campus is a topogenic dreamscape. Yet, the “logos” of regulatory genomes—eonically derived (mostly kindred between humans and fruit flies—and pill bugs that are visual homologs of the earliest fossils—and birds, heirs of dinosaurs)—eludes us, so far.

What’s the ontogenic “nature” of how childish appreciating (e.g., enchantment) may flower into high tropologies?

However that’s found to go, evolutionary efficacy of the finding as such will always stay ahead of computable formalization (i.e., computational neuroscience, artificial intelligence, global Singularity).

So, the literary mind (as generic mode of comprehensibility) embodies the greater conceptuality of being time, eonic Earthlings, including all self-designing exuberance about how our minds are, relative to how we may conceivably become all intelligibility
of “the” cosmos, originally giving way to us.

Any scale of conceptual scaffolding never captures the freedom of mind in play with it—like a Gödelian destiny of humanity: evolutionary openness unto itself.



Coincidently, I received today from the journal Astrobiology a “state of the art survey of the field...understood as the study of the origin, evolution, and distribution of life in the context of cosmic evolution.” So, what is “context” here and “evolution” there such that there is, so to speak, evolution-L in context of evolution-C? Nice tropes.

But evolution is something other than merely change—like natural selection. A sense of progress is implicit in the notion, but there is no progress in stars that burn out and explode, nor galaxies speeding further and further from each other.

Evolution belongs to lasting diversification, enduring varietals, only recognized by the intelligent life that retrospectively conceives a genesis, recognizes beauty, and progresses to design Its—Our—evolving as, to my mind, a wholly demophilic concertedness of flourishing humanity.

Our destiny seems to be self-enhancive desire: contain The Singularity, then terraform Mars? Evolve to become as unrecognizable to us now as we are now to squirrels? Ship ourselves to another star before ours inflates to consume the Earth?—becoming “like” the Absolute Others, presumably, who casually note us learning how to lead our own form of life in our ownmost way that They could not possibly facilitate by responding. They check in periodically, Silently, then move on.




next: a happy peak, part 8 of 8



   
    © 2016, gary e. davis