Area home

aspects of being well

  higher individuation
gary e. davis
February 16, 2019
“Mature” adulthood is usually understood relative to a person’s 20s. Yet, obviously, succeeding years provide opportunity for individuational engagement to continue, apart from the default accumulation of experience (e.g., pragmatic efficacy) and so-called “wisdom” of passing through the years.

Commonly, accomplished persons continue their “growth” beyond the break-out years that secure their careers (or first career). No highly-creative person in their 40s, say, looks back on their 20s as their peak (if they bother to look back at all, at such a relatively young age—on the way to 90 year of life?).

Though C. G. Jung introduced a notion of higher individuation early in the 20th century (as part of a notion of “the second half of life”) and Erik Erikson brought into salience conceptions of the life cycle that included distinct “stages” of life beyond one’s 20s, developmental psychology as such (not psychoanalytical extrapolations from clinical experience) has been largely about getting beyond adolescence well, for the sake of “maturity” (the “age of majority,” it’s classically called) and in the most generalizable terms at that (common denominators of being “adult” which are applicable to educational systems and clinical baselines of mental health). Only in recent years have models of adult development become detailed (especially thanks to the Journal of Positive Psychology).

So, if one considers being human at anthropological scale as an evolutionary-developmental happenstance—calling that “evo-devo” theory of individuation—one might consider individuation itself as having a devo2 potential that can’t be understood in anthropological terms, except as possibly prospecting some horizon of humanity itself, requiring a devo1-devo2 sense of “development” (which is always a generalizing-observer stance on individuations).

Higher individuation itself has no theory other than articulation of its own individuating (classically expressed in literary terms). The authenticity of that would implicate the entire Selfality of being, horizonally futural and episodically retrojective about its path.

A fair notion of flourishing involves the full temporality of being well. Ideally, authentically being one’s Time is a wholly flourishing engagement in one’s open potential.

Especially-creative lives rely on horizonal appeals mirroring engagements of being wholly attuned, of oneSelf phenomenally. The terms of that include any mode of actualization, pertaining to whatever domain and range of conceptuality, science, art, technicity, algorithmicity, or mathesis.

One’s childhood, intrinsic appeal of play, imagination, pretending, fabrication, and so on, may stay with creative sensibility like an inner child in horizonal appeals. That is, depth of phenomenality (dynamic richness, “deep structuringof itself) is the venue of one’s own temporal intelligibility.

Potentials of that may become highly differentiated from oneself in interpersonal life. An overtly lived difference between Self (wholly felt) and selfidentity relative to interpersonal life expresses an already always implicit feature of every person, every being oneself: of oneSelf understanding itself (selfidentity) relative to many modes of interpersonal life, yet primordially finding itSelf in, if you will, Its Earthanity, Its Heavens, Its Mortality, and more tropality, singularly.

next—> genuinely being interpersonal



  Be fair. © 2019, gary e. davis