“So, I modulate myself...”

Odd? Yet, we do it all the time: acting appropriately—having a good sense of address, let’s say. Our sense of identity commonly presumes different basic senses of being with others as integral to being one self, not just having degrees of role: public persona, private identity.

Our sense of relationship may be highly individuated, such that one’s identity is very like being various characters in the theater of one’s life, not just one character with aspects. Persons commonly distinguish outerworldliness and innerworldliness (extraversion, introversion), yet a continuum of appreciation may be more appropriate.

For now, I’ll distinguish outerworldly, near-worldly, and innerworldly. Nearworldliness sounds strange, yet ethical theory commonly distinguishes general caring from caring for one’s “near and dear.” This shows in compassion fatigue for relatively-distant others, relative to one’s limited resources, compelling preference for the needs of persons closer to one’s life. But very commonly it shows in one’s sense of differences between “close” relations and not-so-close.

This may seem trivial, but it bears vitally on understanding how highly individuated persons live well (or what makes the admirable richness of literary characters).

A cool trope is: being at home variably. Outside the gate, so to speak, we may be in solidarity (friend-ly) and surely civil (decent). Around the house, in the garden, and in some parts of one’s home, we’re very “familiar,” like family, kindred (gracious). Yet, being with dear friends and intimates is special.

Another way to regard the continuum is in terms of narrative register. For example, Dennis Overbye, NYTimes, writes about astrophysics, having to keep in mind a general reader (outsiders) while wanting to be worthwhile for non-specialist but sophisticated readers, and needing to actually understand the physics (insiders) that he’s “translating.”

A fourth way of understanding the continuum involves addressing a work of “art”(research, creativity, etc.) which derives from its unrepresented Work. A book doesn’t represent the development of itself (which is “translated” into the presentable work). Meta-narrative simulates a self-reflexvity of its individuation, but that’s another register of the work deriving from the Work. Teaching a work is another register of translation (or appropriation). Discourse about well-formed presentation appropriates what is already an appropriation of the Work.

The Work (I’ll drop the bolding—but use ‘WorkW’ at the beginning of sentences later) may involve free-form conceptual individuation that is basically about its own process of self-formation, recapitulating itself tropically as the so-called Work that is formed into well-formed presentation. Individuation of the Work results in the well-formed work that is appropriated.

The Work grows up, achieves Itself (a high individuation), pays forward (presents Itself, publishes), then the authoriality moves on, into new Work.

A freedom of conceptual venturing may become rigorous in terms of its well-individuated concepts (called “well-formedness” in logical analysis). But that isn’t self-evident by formal consistency of conceptuality.

Unintended obscurity is awfully easy when you’re at home in your garden.
(I resist comical resignation toward feeling idiosyncratic, but often relent by becoming the character of my authoriality enframed: the authorship—with you, ever there.)

“Gary’s like that, you know: Talk about being a continuum shows as a continuum of being.”

Being shown through being here—being as being.