woods of lifeworld project-ivity — gary e. davis

	woods of lifeworld project-ivity gary e. davis	May 6, 2017

	Brief fairness to purposefulness of lives merely tropes the grand scale that dwelling with this can have—so much so that brevity can seem arbitrary—abstract, as cari-cature. Any narrative path from a given life in a lived world to a useful conception of the (?) lifeworld deserves to be long. A “good” life may be a manifold joy of being that is concealed by distillation, which is an abstraction of tangibility, like metonymy in tropology. Assertion as such, perhaps, becomes metonymic as enstanced distillation or enframed focus, as if all assertion is a trace (a Derridean point—you reall maybe?). What is “the” joy of being? What is relevance and importance in “valuing”? What is the scalarity (grandness of holism—potential) of “feeling”? What calls for thinking? How sensuous can be your intuition? How perceptive your valuations? A clinically well-established personality typology (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) parses selfality into eight ways (concepts of being) of preferring to be, each partly composing one’s selfidentifying (“process”: modes of enactiveness): extraversion, introversion, thinking, feeling, intuiting, sensing, judging, and perceiving. What processual concepts these are! Distinctions between sensing and perceiving, etc. have been criteriologically defined and methodically normed (Keirsey Personality Test); and are used in human services professions. The typography tropes an 8-fold way of lifeworlding (so to speak), which is proximaly useful for better understanding one’s sense of situations: how one enframes (being receptive) and enstances (being responsive) relative to project-ive purpose or life span era. But regarding that wholly synchronically conceals the intrinsically temporal (enactive) nature of a purposive life which is always futurally interested (even in retrospection: for the sake of—). We’re always enactively oriented by values, desires, prospects, engagements, and so on, which pertain to every mode of being, orienting oneself by futures relative to which one later “writes” relevant pasts, developmental-ities, or conceptions of self formation that are drawn into “my” ownmost, ongoing futurity. In light of such, a life may be fairly portrayed in those terms of being well, of devoting oneself to good thinking, and advancing one’s life in fidelity to Our advancing humanity. An 8-fold personality typography which is well-validated may be not only proximally good for a holistic sense of being well, but is deeply validated clinically (Analytical Psychology: a post-Jungian approach to individuational teaching), thus pertinent to empirically-relevant developmental theory. We are the human way—grandly evolved—of burgeoning: budding, sprouting, growing, vining. We enown woods through interplays of habituation (prevalently receptive) and domestication (prevalently responsive)—the latter more than the former? No, both, variably. Yet, we come into the world soon alive with imaginability (desire to play and make—to be responsive self formatively) more than alive with need to adapt (desire to conform, though that too, of course)—or, at best, the need and conformance serve being on one’s way to self formative desire and design. But that depends on initiative, curiosity, persistence, and other virtues of individuating well (which I briefly prospected years ago). Appropriating one’s life is an interplay of adapting matters to one’s own designs (transitive sense of ‘adapting’—responsive) and adapting oneself to matters of life (intransitive sense of ‘adapting’—receptive). Truth of the matter lives in the flexibility of interplay, being apt situationally (openly receptive) and perspectivally (enframally, enstantially responsive) . One might heuristically model (conceptualize) the “axial” holism of a good life, relative to the above 8-fold typography (and my earlier “F-G-E” aesthetic of enaction), as ongoing appropriative desires (G), engagements (E), and enjoyments (F) in flows of receptiveness (rc: feeling, sensing, perceiving) and responsiveness (rs: thinking, intuiting, valuing)—being well abstracted as a mirrorplay of dyads mapped into each other, “perpendicular” to each other, as it were—an 8-dimensionality of being well jointured by phenomenal receptiveness and responsiveness, like a pragmatically transcendental dynamic of dyadic 4-foldingness (or 4-dimensional transcendental pragmatic?) essentially oriented by an archetrope of rc/rs presencing with each other, in each other, and to each other. < previous -\|- Next: presencing abstractly -\|- topic: for love of conceptual inquiry

Brief fairness to purposefulness of lives merely tropes the grand scale that dwelling with this can have—so much so that brevity can seem arbitrary—abstract, as cari-cature. Any narrative path from a given life in a lived world to a useful conception of the (?) lifeworld deserves to be long.

A “good” life may be a manifold joy of being that is concealed by distillation, which is an abstraction of tangibility, like metonymy in tropology. Assertion as such, perhaps, becomes metonymic as enstanced distillation or enframed focus, as if all assertion is a trace (a Derridean point—you reall maybe?).

What is “the” joy of being? What is relevance and importance in “valuing”? What is the scalarity (grandness of holism—potential) of “feeling”? What calls for thinking?
How sensuous can be your intuition? How perceptive your valuations?

A clinically well-established personality typology (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) parses selfality into eight ways (concepts of being) of preferring to be, each partly composing one’s selfidentifying (“process”: modes of enactiveness): extraversion, introversion, thinking, feeling, intuiting, sensing, judging, and perceiving.
What processual concepts these are!

Distinctions between sensing and perceiving, etc. have been criteriologically defined and methodically normed (Keirsey Personality Test); and are used in human services professions. The typography tropes an 8-fold way of lifeworlding (so to speak), which is proximaly useful for better understanding one’s sense of situations: how one enframes (being receptive) and enstances (being responsive) relative to project-ive purpose or life span era.

But regarding that wholly synchronically conceals the intrinsically temporal (enactive) nature of a purposive life which is always futurally interested (even in retrospection: for the sake of—). We’re always enactively oriented by values, desires, prospects, engagements, and so on, which pertain to every mode of being, orienting oneself by futures relative to which one later “writes” relevant pasts, developmental-ities, or conceptions of self formation that are drawn into “my” ownmost, ongoing futurity.

In light of such, a life may be fairly portrayed in those terms of being well, of devoting oneself to good thinking, and advancing one’s life in fidelity to Our advancing humanity. An 8-fold personality typography which is well-validated may be not only proximally good for a holistic sense of being well, but is deeply validated clinically (Analytical Psychology: a post-Jungian approach to individuational teaching), thus pertinent to empirically-relevant developmental theory.

We are the human way—grandly evolved—of burgeoning: budding, sprouting, growing, vining. We enown woods through interplays of habituation (prevalently receptive) and domestication (prevalently responsive)—the latter more than the former? No, both, variably. Yet, we come into the world soon alive with imaginability (desire to play and make—to be responsive self formatively) more than alive with need to adapt (desire to conform, though that too, of course)—or, at best, the need and conformance serve being on one’s way to self formative desire and design.

But that depends on initiative, curiosity, persistence, and other virtues of individuating well (which I briefly prospected years ago). Appropriating one’s life is an interplay of adapting matters to one’s own designs (transitive sense of ‘adapting’—responsive) and adapting oneself to matters of life (intransitive sense of ‘adapting’—receptive). Truth of the matter lives in the flexibility of interplay, being apt situationally (openly receptive) and perspectivally (enframally, enstantially responsive) .

One might heuristically model (conceptualize) the “axial” holism of a good life, relative to the above 8-fold typography (and my earlier “F-G-E” aesthetic of enaction), as ongoing appropriative desires (G), engagements (E), and enjoyments (F) in flows of receptiveness (rc: feeling, sensing, perceiving) and responsiveness (rs: thinking, intuiting, valuing)—being well abstracted as a mirrorplay of dyads mapped into each other, “perpendicular” to each other, as it were—an 8-dimensionality of being well jointured by phenomenal receptiveness and responsiveness, like a pragmatically transcendental dynamic of dyadic 4-foldingness (or 4-dimensional transcendental pragmatic?) essentially oriented by an archetrope of rc/rs presencing with each other, in each other, and to each other.

< previous -|- Next: presencing abstractly -|- topic: for love of conceptual inquiry