Project home

highly minding

  a 3-foldness of evolving life
gary e. davis
January 3, 2019

‘Evolve’ was first used in a transitive (enacting) sense, long before We evolved the meaning to be about progressivity.

We make progress; it doesn’t happen without protracted engagement across lives (high individuation contributing to...), domains (important contributions to...), next generations (lasting influence), and sustaining such a cycle.

Of course, we can understand anything as a mere happening (process), which is the common sense of ‘evolution’ and ‘evolving’. But the latter (passive) is derivative of the former (enactive).

It’s all so complex, we need heuristics to make sense of it. The story above is heuristic. But it also tropes essential features of being in Time, as does Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s (MC’s) conception of creativity (mentioned above at “...real mysteries”), re: actualized talent, domain mastery, and field efficacy.

Truth of actualizing talent: from being well to creativity

There’s no limit to how finely we may articulate sensibility, from infancy onward: theoretically (developmental generality), biographically, poetically.

Most abstractly, that can be conceptually rooted by a conception of individuation as recursive intelligence effecting emergent aspects of sensibility and purposeful, effective, and fulfilling self identity (sketched at “aspects of being well”).

Creative enthrall may feel like channeling truth, possessing one from afar. Yet,
the inquirer, the artist, the researcher learns that truth is at heart truthfulness of being: one’s authentic devotion to one’s capability, channeling enthrall fruitfully. (Failure is something learned!)

That may seem stipulative, but it’s backed by a large literature on “truth” (which I’ll get to, eventually) which supports why a rich sense of ‘truth’ is better than other senses: Other senses can be appropriated in a manifold (pluralist) conception that’s fair to all.

Truth at heart is one’s way of being, which includes “what” (representation) is cogent, true (factual), valuable, or genuine—altogether: being the cohering of what’s valid for one’s world of life. Being the cohering of validity is a way of life,
a flourishing excellence of exemplarity.

Truth at heart is truthfulness: the tenable comprehensiveness of cohering capability (which may look to be admirable exemplarity).

Goodness of domain mastery: from conceptual inquiry to fundamental work

Working lucidly from an interplay of influences toward insightfulness results (one hopes) in a potentially-fulfilling conception (domain of significance), providing for a later artistry (building the presentational work) that has fitting (appropriate) range.

The good of high scale insight is appropriate comprehensiveness that shows promise for fulfilling presentation (artistry? discourse?). The appropriateness fits anticipated efficacy.

Fittingness, by the way, isn’t basically about resilience (let alone ability to resist intrusion). Resilience is derived from appropriateness (fittingness), in my view—from belonging well (excellently, at best)

At best, the constellating conception evinces an appellant horizon of promise (nearing of ultimate cohering?) that, being comprehensive enough, feels telic (oriental) for fulfilling efficacy that will inspire future working.

I call that conceptual inclusive fitness (CIF), isomorphically with philosopher David L. Hull’s scientifically oriented notion of CIF, which I’ll discuss later.

So, I’m shaping a sense of creative individuation (inspired by Robert J. Sternberg’s research on creative intelligence and MC’s prospecting of creative talent) that leads to CIF (Hull as humanist) of domain mastery (MC):

Sternberg <—> MC—> MC <—> Hull, yet to be detailed in terms of the full conceptuality and practice—the telic cohering—of my project.

Beauty of field efficacy: from discursive appropriation to progressive practice

Fundamental Work {a] is usually translated {b] into topically-focused discourse {c] for presentation {d].

The difference between [a] and [c] arises from the tendency of fundamental Work to derive its own conceptuality (terms, shorthands, categorial scaffolds, etc.) for the sake of forming and advancing itself, working more and more comfortably in its own region. The working of the Work is a regioning—selformative, self-developing, evolving—that eventually appropriates itself for appropriate presentation.

That is partly why notions of hermeneutics can become integral to understanding discourse about texts or about work that is to be understood: Translation not only is figurative for mediate interpretation, but also figurative for appropriating Work to topical works.

A high scalarity of Work is likely distant from a useful pedilogy (or curriculum—which any well-formed discursive text is) for clear conveyance relative to a given, time-manageable focus.

The translation which is the forming of a discourse involves authorial dwelling in the [b] <—> [c] difference, for the sake of presentational event (e.g., publication, oral delivery) that is itself an appropriation (c—> d) for an audience (thinking with anticipated others—or actual others as silent listeners).

Actual discussion of a presentation is more-directly appropriative ([d} <—> {e]), at best literally thinking with others as witnessed event.

For the author or presenter, this is a pleasure (we audience presume) of being with “you.” If the presenter says the experience was beautiful, we’re not really surprised: It was a pleasure.

But there’s a potential of beauty here that may only belong to the author presenting an appropriation of his own Work (or textual interpreters dwelling with the difference between authorial Work {b] and received coherence of work across works which constellates a sense of authorship). A common example is the difference between [a} manuscripts and notebooks that precede an array of publications {c], whereby many publications have crystallized a sense of the authorship (“Yeatsian,” “Heideggerian”) which is a literary fiction, to some extent, created by traditions of interpretation.

The authorship is an aggregate character in a theater of the Work that evinces various dramas (texts) which are performed by reading or enacting.

The authorhsip is both with you (through the presentational work {c]) and away (troping a lived difference between [a] and [c]), which may also be newly creative as the presentation (translating further—[c]—> [d]—by performance).

There may be an authorial sense of self withholding (if not self concealing) in the transparency of fully engaging the presentational work.

As I wrote a couple of years ago (vaguely—poetically?), “what’s conveyed may be doubly displaced from the heart of expression because heartful possession shapes its fulfilling conception before necessary translation of that—for there being something to convey—into clear (presumably) presentation, fair presence. The artist channels her possession into insightfulness which is translated for a ‘given’ audience (anticipated or specific)” [Dec. 2016].

Such an aesthetic dynamic—at once an ethicality of genuine conveyance—can be scaled up in terms of large-horizoned domains (e.g., a literary specialty) producing texts aiming for long-range influence for the domain’s field.

Though that usually doesn’t happen with a text, the difference between comprehensive appropriateness (“conceptual inclusive fitness”) and field efficacy—what Hull called “demic efficacy”—is integral to how the works of specialty Work work (effect themselves) for the sake of advancing a field, usually with a range that is intergenerational. We work and teach for the sake of advancing our special field.

So, I add to the above appropriation of Sternberg, MC, and Hull (re: creative individuation and achievment) the third mode of 3-foldness: field efficacy (MC) or “demic” efficacy (Hull).

Isn’t that a little beautiful? Call beauty, always in question: alluring surface of highly intimate, depth of significance?

Truth of creative individuation aspires to achieve a greater goodness in Work that shows itself partially (if not modestly) by an aesthetical ethic that lets it all be rather sublime, eventually, some refined conception of being encycled endlessly in new ways of beginning.

next—> we artful beings



  Be fair. © 2019, gary e. davis