Sophiana: concerting poiesis, logos, ethos • gary e. davis • berkeley

As Aide to Sophiana

	Sophiana: concerting poiesis, logos, ethos gary e. davis	April 12, 2016

	So, in a sense, genderal archetropality is primarily phenomenological. And tropal phenomenology is ultimately gynandral (more than androgynal because receptive-ness is more primordial than responsiveness). A poiesis of Sophia (archetropal) is complemented by a logos of Sophia (phenomen-ological) such that she symbolizes (tropes) a poietic logos of—well, I want to say: of evolving humanity. In other words: While archetropal Eros is born from primordially open longing, its gynandral Self only finds identity in Psyche’s constellating aura, like individuating love of evolving Sophia. But the way to her full presencing may be like the evolving distance from gnostic genius to Renaissance humanism (historicity troped by historicality). In the beginning (Latinate times), genius was marginal: “an attendant spirit of a person or place” (M-W Unabridged), yet a long way from “extraordinary creative activity,” hallmarking modernity. Centripetal genius of Sophia, showing through inquirers, explorers, diviners, artists, wise elders, and the like was originally forced (by centrifugal Catholicism) to keep Its potential for protean psychality marginal— preserved and advanced in secret highlands of divining union. Orders of initiates (thanks to literacy!) became monastic retreats (unwittingly sponsored by the church) and artistic estates (sponsored by enlighrened royalty), thus evolving their own way through long dark eras, as if the entire gestation of modernity was at heart an alchem-ical school of divining generativity across nine-or-so centuries on the way to elite colleges (first: Oxford, 11^th century), altogether evolving enabling embraces of higher centralities (academics), i.e., teligenies of primordial centripetality (prospective research), far beyond Athenian notions of philosophy. In light of initial academia, another millennium would pass before Sophiana (gynandral protean psychality) would evolve beyond the Renaissances into the conceptuality of wholly flourishive life that generic modernism affords: evolving individuation as perpetually self-renewing sensibility, self formativity as protean capability for highly flexible being. Such self-renewability in the face of one’s times (flexible being) complements poietic genius for evolving centripetal logos. That is, capability for flexible being is the downway side of the upway logos (which is of highland poiesis). Such tropality is expressed in folklore as the return from heights: The Buddha descends to assume his given station as royal exemplar. The Platonic philosopher returns to assume his (his) given station as king. The downway is appropriative: lucidly appreciative of common centrality, accomodating developmentalities and those who can’t reciprocate (including lives of persons with disabilities and persons living with poverty). A staple of folklore is that alleged enlightenment engages in events of appropriation. No wonder, then, that protean humanity (highlanding, midlanding) is so marginal to the mainstream: Downway centrifugal ethos of Sophia is post-religious, post-theocentric, and archetropally teaching (enabling development), like all historical humanities, all education. It is a tw0-way appropriativity: Radiance of Sophia (or the allegedly enlightened one) is a comprehensive appropriativity of others’ potential for wholly flourishive being brought into the appropriation. Enabling appropriates capability for self-appropriation (or self-determining, self-designing individuation) into higher education. Sophiana of protean humanism becomes humanism of appropriative Sophiana. Centripetal genius plays into centrifugal genius. Creative audacity of Gaia’s appreciable intelligence gathers wholly flourishive life into bearing Open telos. Archetropal poiesis and archetropal logos gynandrally conjoin for the sake of enablative ethos which evolves humanity and transforms Its own evolving (or something like that). < previous -\|- Next: a dove so filial

So, in a sense, genderal archetropality is primarily phenomenological. And tropal phenomenology is ultimately gynandral (more than androgynal because receptive-ness is more primordial than responsiveness).

A poiesis of Sophia (archetropal) is complemented by a logos of Sophia (phenomen-ological) such that she symbolizes (tropes) a poietic logos of—well, I want to say: of evolving humanity.

In other words: While archetropal Eros is born from primordially open longing,
its gynandral Self only finds identity in Psyche’s constellating aura, like individuating love of evolving Sophia.

But the way to her full presencing may be like the evolving distance from gnostic genius to Renaissance humanism (historicity troped by historicality).

In the beginning (Latinate times), genius was marginal: “an attendant spirit of a person or place” (M-W Unabridged), yet a long way from “extraordinary creative activity,” hallmarking modernity. Centripetal genius of Sophia, showing through inquirers, explorers, diviners, artists, wise elders, and the like was originally forced (by centrifugal Catholicism) to keep Its potential for protean psychality marginal— preserved and advanced in secret highlands of divining union. Orders of initiates (thanks to literacy!) became monastic retreats (unwittingly sponsored by the church) and artistic estates (sponsored by enlighrened royalty), thus evolving their own way through long dark eras, as if the entire gestation of modernity was at heart an alchem-ical school of divining generativity across nine-or-so centuries on the way to elite colleges (first: Oxford, 11^th century), altogether evolving enabling embraces of
higher centralities (academics), i.e., teligenies of primordial centripetality
(prospective research), far beyond Athenian notions of philosophy.

In light of initial academia, another millennium would pass before Sophiana (gynandral protean psychality) would evolve beyond the Renaissances into the conceptuality of wholly flourishive life that generic modernism affords: evolving individuation as perpetually self-renewing sensibility, self formativity as protean capability for highly flexible being.

Such self-renewability in the face of one’s times (flexible being) complements poietic genius for evolving centripetal logos. That is, capability for flexible being is the downway side of the upway logos (which is of highland poiesis). Such tropality is expressed in folklore as the return from heights: The Buddha descends to assume his given station as royal exemplar. The Platonic philosopher returns to assume his (his) given station as king. The downway is appropriative: lucidly appreciative of common centrality, accomodating developmentalities and those who can’t reciprocate (including lives of persons with disabilities and persons living with poverty). A staple of folklore is that alleged enlightenment engages in events of appropriation.

No wonder, then, that protean humanity (highlanding, midlanding) is so marginal
to the mainstream: Downway centrifugal ethos of Sophia is post-religious, post-theocentric, and archetropally teaching (enabling development), like all historical humanities, all education. It is a tw0-way appropriativity: Radiance of Sophia (or the allegedly enlightened one) is a comprehensive appropriativity of others’ potential for wholly flourishive being brought into the appropriation. Enabling appropriates capability for self-appropriation (or self-determining, self-designing individuation) into higher education.

Sophiana of protean humanism becomes humanism of appropriative Sophiana. Centripetal genius plays into centrifugal genius. Creative audacity of Gaia’s appreciable intelligence gathers wholly flourishive life into bearing Open telos. Archetropal poiesis and archetropal logos gynandrally conjoin for the sake of enablative ethos which evolves humanity and transforms Its own evolving (or something like that).

< previous -|- Next: a dove so filial