healthy living • gary e. davis • berkeley


	Project	high appreciability

	in healthy living appreciating intelligent life as fidelity to healthy living gary e. davis	November 21, 2025

Good fidelity to better values leads to better life.

Relative to subtleties of flourishing (ownmost purposefulness or highly being oneSself), thriving might seem easy. But fidelity to healthy living is statistically uncommon. It’s commonly difficult, for developed societies (metabolic syn-
dromes, etc.), as well as for developing societies (sustainability).

Our worlds lack enough fidelity to being well, which I want understood as an eco-
logical holism of aspects, requiring a mindfulness of fitness fitting well for a good_ life thanks to better parenting and teaching.

But person-al worlds lack enough professional caring and leadership to ensure goodG living generally

The better view of healthy living is intelligent life, relative to a sense of intelli-
gence (there in semantic compression) which Values thriving above all other Values, not as some survival of the fittest (mere sustainability), rather as a thriv-
ing of fittingness (and belonging)—natural goodness—in an ecology of good life.

Living intelligently is at least about better valuing, better belonging, better-oriented action, and better exemplifying for and to others.

Better values are those which serve better interests. We exalt the better values because they are relatively integral values: Values.

Claiming what “is” more valuable for flourishing (e.g., “healthy” living) is an appeal for oriental efficacy by those values because they deserve prevailing preference, due to the meaning of those values (e.g., what being healthy, at best, is: serving poential for flourishing, in the best sense of the notion: good* sense, I venture).

Relatively better values imply their deserved preference (relative to other present options) because they are more integral to given Valuing (e.g., good_ life) than other values under consideration, relative to a given situation of deciding to prefer.

For example, fulfillment in the long view is better than satisfaction soon which has no long view orienting one’s preference. Or/And, one conception of the long view may be better than an alternative view, due to the Value of happy old age, relative to a better idea of elderly life.

The better interests are innumerable. But they include integral interest in truth, “the definite interest of inquiry,” interests of community development, and advancing conceptions of shared humanity which promise to benefit our heirs.

Who doesn’t want to be a good ancestor, oriented by the best of humanity?

Who exemplifies that, what exemplifies that? What “nature” best serves the better angels of Our person-ality?

Better valuies imply appeals of better being.

This is served by the better values which orient fidelity to one’s Path (purpose-
fulness) of long-life being well.

Better valuing serves better action-oriental holism (general/“PCS” horizonal mindfulness) which, entails belonging by design.

The better parent, teacher, or leader exemplifies or models better being well.

What matters for advancing what’s better is better employed by exemplars; so, ability to locate them and orient action in light of them better serves individu-
ational flourishing than pretending that one has no precedents.

College students sometimes believe that their “eureka!”s may be generally original, which deserves appreciation as life-centered “originality”; but, scop-
ing out leading minds saves a lot of time. That’s why research is commonly
a matter of scholarship prior to investing great time in one’s own prospecting
or experimentation.

Eventually, though, one may be in a wilderness, while still believing that some new exemplarity is somewhere, but hasn’t been found yet. Recognizing that one’s in wilderness may be invigorating, but also disorienting: Now, “you” have to make the path, no longer hoping to discover a branch that’s new merely for you.

That shows in conceptual work inasmuch as appeals of comprehensive com-
prehension face the evolutionary relativity of constellative capability. Paradigm relativity in research implies that the boundary of the guiding pardigm may the leading issue; hence, conceptual inquiry may be fundamentally prospective of the truly Ungiven, not merely explorative of the Given not yet understood.

So, wiser old minds never give up believing that they’re students.

Anyway, the proximal point of research is: Who are the leading minds? Are they always widely recognized? Many admirable ventures are discovered post-
humously. Those venturers must have sustained fidelity to the appeal of the Work for its own sake. In fact, many recognized originators will say that the Work itself, not recognition, draws them into emergent horizons.

Having ventured to convene a specific constellation of humanity for one’s venture as most relevant, exemplary, or leading for that, is commonly implied by bibliographies of research appreciated.

But convening in a wilderness is a kind of wager about the venturer’s appre-
ciability. How dare a prospector hope that a conception of better humanity expresses more than singular preference?

But no authentic researcher would claim exemplarity. That valuation belongs
to others.

However, thinking of Our humanity is vital for good ancestry, whatever one’s preferred conception may be.

Prospecting better conceptions of humanity is Valuable. Sharing a sense of better humanity is what a person can do, as part of an implicit, albeit articu-
lately prospected “Conversation of Humanity” which global humanities of the university seek to sustain and promote across generations.

next—> with conscience