conceptual creativity • gary e. davis • berkeley


	Project	creative conceptuality

	conceptual creativity: a preface gary e. davis	December 31, 2018

Enthralling aspects of a fine resort begin with giftedness—about which I’d like to know (I’m easy to contact) at heart, if I can.

Do you often think of high importances, like love and mindfulness and creativity?

To my mind, wholly flourishing life (exhilarated autogeny) builds and broadens itself by scaling “up” (out into depths of being alive) as highly isomorphic appreciability (beyond—yet at least in light of—precursory modeling of our adventurous nature).

To my regioning, ideality is aspirational, thereby enactive, thereby processive. No “ultimate” goal state (or Conception) is appealing, save as symbolic of—facilitative for—seeking comprehensive comprehension, a seeking which is generative; for others: witnessing in such aspiring for perfectibility just exemplarity in Our evolving.

Prospected generalizability of comprehension can be beautiful (maybe profound), yet never lasting because, all in all, conceivability evolves (likely not relative to a singularity: a given mind, scholastic name, “genius”).

In any case, the absolutely better way of things is that which is more congruent with true ideality than other ways. The better way is richer irt true ideality.

So, what’s “true ideality”?

I’m glad you ask.

Ultimately, I don’t know. But scaling a way to higher notions can be great fun, albeit philological or “mere” poetization.

For roundabouts of our days, being true to oneself (authentically being well) is admirably ideal: Exemplify curiosity greatly. Good thinking and comprehensively advancing community belongs to true ideality—which, of course, presumes some notion of comprehensiveness.

Bibliophilic (highly evidentiary) free play may evince cohering hybridities (“conceptual blending”)—maybe AErotic spheres of telic phenomenality—that are nonetheless realistic: Audacious conceptual prospecting isn’t fated to be fantastical or hermetic. With epistemic integrity, one can aspire to find “nature’s deep design” or to advance general understanding of extraordinary mind—literary, scientific, aesthetic...

Intimations of highland synergy can be thrilling enough to write home about, even though such would ultimately dissolve into a mere facet of Our evolving.

But writing home is best done by being appropriated to a specific audience. What degree of conceptual isomorphism is adequate: loose tropality? Systemic well-formedness?

Originally under-differentiated conceptual compression (so-called poiesis?) doesn’t inhibit promise of well-formed, but non-logicist conceptual compression (logos?) in pedagogical (rhetorical) terms of highly-differentiated thematics (ethos) that are systematic without implying need for axiomaticity.

Regarding “system” as constellational cohering can be greatly fruitful without algorithmic translatability.

Indeed, the dangers of cavalier technologies should be constrained by conceptions of cultural evolving that stay ideally human and keep algorithmic power enabling better humanity in, say, some truly ideal sense of Anthropcenic, wholly Earthan virtue.

next—> soul of Self interest