home page inworldness  

entranced by the road so far
october 9, 2011

1 | “‘Romantic’ love of the day” began in an implicit sense of difference between inner writing and outer writing, as if to implicitly emphasize how overtly writing to one (to another, an other, any audience, an Other: you) can seem as if writing to oneself when it’s exactly not that yet. So, what can be said about writing to oneself better than writing to oneself (textual intimacy in itself) and sharing that, which easily looks to be regardless of you, though it may become shameless generosity, shameless confession, whatever.

2 | We readily grant genric ambiguity to narrative as “Literary,” granting the voice license that would evince something hidden or innerworldly (or/and we want exciting outerworldliness, but it’s the inner that draws me here). A poet—acknowleged as such (by writing verse)—is indulged by the reader through some granted aura of transportation witnessed in reading (or prose with figural obliquity retains tenability as a proem—or proemtry, proemetry?).

3 | Everybody’s got a story, whether or not one’s narrative implies that (i.e., overtly being a story or seeming to be a story). When not, some story is no less implicit. Anyway, we always want juicy details, because we want to be enchanted, excited, aroused, or transported.

4 | We may be easily and gladly drawn in, seduced, even subjected, like surrendering to a lover. We engulf to be engulfed, relative to our capability for transportation—a psychal faculty that would transcend the subjectivity we open to, opening to subjection in order to transcend, like climbing a hill in order to release ourselves to a vastness before us. The artist invites subjection to materials for the sake of autonomous discovery or constructiveness (if not originality—relative to one’s life, at least: Novelties for self formation are original to the life, being unprecedented for that life, if not unprecedented to precursors “discovered” in history as if waiting to seduce you into transportation).

5 | I readily admit that I’m writing obscurely when (at part 2 of “Elations...”) I assert such “things” as “Non-egoistic subjectivity is ultimately (and freely) expressionist. Post-subjective egocentrism is ultimately (and creatively) constructivist.” Look at it this way: Exuberant creativity may be gladly subject to inspiration, yet still thereby know how to focus fruitfully when that’s called for (a “telic efficacy” mentioned at the end there, entailing targeted goals with “deliverables” susceptible to “metrics”). Surrendering to feeling or intuition can be the way to fruitful discovery (feeling, for the artist; intuition, for the inquirer).

6 | It’s easy for me to write obliquely, you see, re: part 2. That may easily seem inconsiderate (egoistic), when actually (as I read part 2 again and have no need to revise) it’s exactly what I thought, relative to its brevity (its compression, i.e., the narrative still looks “right” or apt). It’s egocentric, but not egoistic—performing there a difference that the narrative is about. I’m easily possessed by familiar, unreconstructed concepts.

7 | The following may seem obscure (indulge me for one paragraph), but re-reading part 2 of “Elations...” evinces this: Subjectivism which doesn’t appreciate itself as such tends to assimilate itself (its self understanding) to an objectivism of the world (as if there’s no subjection, just objective perceptiveness), as if its efficacious presumptiveness—afforded by earlier-others’ lack of presumptiveness (parents, teachers, admirers, “servers,” securing one’s confidence as being without presumption)—validates the “objectivity” of one’s world (the self-assertive confidence): assimilation of oneself to an objectivism toward the world as assimilating “the world” in an unwitting subjectivism about what matters. So, preferably (for this unconscious mirrorplay), there “is” nothing more than what reflects one’s preferred “world.”

8 | But subjectivism is just a presumptuousness about lack of differences between self and world (self relative to a given world, world relative to a presumptive sense of self). An egoistic mirrorplay presumes there’s no mirror. An egocentric mirrorplay gladly appreciates that mirrors are everywhere (to learn through and to dissolve, finding the hidden and the inner).

9 | But the little narrative of part 2 is also introducing a pragmatic difference (not yet elaborated) between worldly mind and mindal world that, I plan, will later be dissolved into more-differentiated narrative (discursive waymaking).

10 | A difference between inner- and outer-directedness of attention is one differencing that contributes to the more-manifold discourse I’m designing (for the near term, before swimming in others’ texts overtly). And a difference between given and hidden is analogous to that.

11 | Though (as I said earlier) I’m generally (now and upcoming) writing to an “innerdirected sensibility” (beginning of part 3), I want here to write more specifically about differences associable with inner- and outer-directedness.

12 | That difference is a vague trope which can be symbolic of a rich dynamic of differentiation or differencing (which will be to not yet dwell with Derridean différance—his textualist sense of implicature of the hidden, if not the excluded, in the given). But I have trouble shaking off sociocentrism (dominations of shallow dailiness). Writing to another can feel like an endless prefacing. The entire “Elations...” project is motivated by this feeling. I have yet to really Begin.

13 | My way out of that—call it a sense of others’ mental tourism—is the way most of us go, when we can: seeking privacy—more specifically: getting away from mere civility through solidarities, seeking kindreds, and intimates. Anyway, we always desire more solidarity, relative to given civility; want more kindredness, relative to given solidarities; long for intimacy irt mere kindredness (the lover irt family). Integral to our being human (our “humanity,” in this living, embodied sense) is wanting more innerworldliness—interpsychal bonds over interpersonal relations, and appreciation of our most intimate innerworldliness, if not finding oneself truly mirrored in the other’s open—so to speak—heartfulness (a fullness of mindal feeling?).

So, I long for so much of our humanity, and never have enough.

14 | At part 5, I suggested a large scale of the outer/inner trOpicness (a high analogicality or transcendent isomorphicity): cellular outside/inside, what’s tangible/intangible, one’s body/self, the public/private, outsider/insider, politics/psychology.

15 | But temporality expresses incongruous, primordial differences: anticipation and recall, futurity and legacy, prospects of capability mirrored in appeals and developmental trace mirrored in the given.

16 | Where in the play of differences are self and other, I and “you”? What can we have?
In any event, we are archives of our times, and some of us face the funny condition of too much archive (The Library) that is at once a hidden futurity and a given trace.

17 | But it’s all for the good, I think, as a newly horizoning child of one’s time unwittingly may contribute to evolving our general humanity, thanks to available archives—given gardens to play—though one’s “own” child is very unlikely to be one’s ownmost heir, yet somewhere one is found and flourishes in light of the given, thereby enacting, eventually fulfilling (recalling my “GEF” model of intelligent endeavoring).

Next: section 3 of “a sense of inworldness”


  Be fair. © 2017, gary e. davis