3-fold of intelligent life • gary e. davis • berkeley


	Project	iso-belonging

	a 3-fold spirit of intelligent life gary e. davis	September 3, 2025

A vagueness of isomorphism may trope implicit articulability, according to interest in explicitness, just as emergent trends are ambiguous but definite within a degree of confidence (relative to the specificity—“coarse-grained,” “fine-grained”—of proximal discernment); or traits of something living are ill-defined, yet very specifiable.

Person-al intelligence tropes that reality: Fluid intelligence crystallizes relative to enactional interest over time, paradigmatically as capabilities, but also as long-term memories (lasting appeals), preferences (values), and reliable beliefs (knowledge).

How definite a morphism is may depend on the definite interest of inquiry (especially as a function of available instrumentation, which has been more important for the advancement of science than theories).

No one would disagree that action can be modeled in terms of want, engagement, and satisfaction. Yet, a richer sense of action is purpose, enactivity, and fulfillment.

Dim-minded behaviorism models that “there is” stimulus, response, and reward; but that’s due to prevailing interest in accessible quantifiability which can’t yet understand that it is concealing the character of intelligent action, e.g., preferring one appeal over another; preferring reliable belief.

The literal acting of action is not the whole of action, since background interest (implicating one’s investment in a project, one’s life) precedes the acting (the literal enaction), then afterward discerns (evaluates) whether the interest has been satisfied. Investment in background interest and preferred values are integral to daily activity. All in all, givenness of a life focuses enactivity for the sake of anticipated fulfillment.

So, due to the lifeworldliness of activity (orientation by long-term interest), we
can make good sense of how purpose is more than want (within a hierarchy of activities serving a hierarchy of projects or projectivities). The purposive enactivity is more than actional engagement. Seeking fulfillment is more than near-term satisfaction.

However, a 3-fold model of enactivity is isomorphic with an empirically-validated conception of intelligence, which I’ve rendered variably (better recently than earlier, perhaps: May 2017, April 2017, and 2011).

“Minding is intelligent” action of mindfulness.

Love (ardent caring) is a way of life whose want (passion), engagement (intimacy), and fulfillment (commitment) is somewhat “isomorphic with Sternberg’s leading conception of intelligence action..”

Sternberg associates modes of intelligence with “thinking styles” which have governmental overtones: creative (legislative), project-ive (executive), and evaluative (judicial).

Given high indiviudation of talent, enactively prospecting project-ivity may lead to high-scale fulfillment. Individuation of talent (purposive interest) leads to constructive engagement (project-ivity) which is fulfilling (efficacious).

A recursive generativity of that (from satisfaction or fulfillment back to newly purposed engagement in light of discerned efficaciousness) is like a well-known model of creativity as (G) individuation of talent gaining (E) “domain mastery” which has (F) “field influence,” isomorphic with modeling conceptual progress in terms of leading minds (G) gaining (E) “conceptual inclusive fitness” (prospected domain mastery of Enactivness) which may gain (F) “demic efficacy” (field influence of fulfillment).

That’s at least “a pragmatic isomorphism,” good for philosophy of education, which tropes a cogency of conceptual modeling across a PCS continuum.

next—> degree of tropality