Area	appropriativity

	critical practice gary e. davis	January 26, 2019

I’ve been involved with critical practice for so many years that I’m going to say very relatively little now (but link to much, later). But this gets a little intense. Evaluation of something by way of a criterion is less than full criticism, which is mainly about interpretation (enframing variably) and employment (enlisting something for enstanced intents variably). Criticism is mainly appreciative and enriching, not critique. Academic fashions of advancing critique have been overbearing for appreciation, be it sciences or humanities. More importantly, critique that exemplifies negative stancing conceals (thus fails to appreciate) that manifold potential of differential practice, relative to comparative developments. For example, a writer’s exemplarity for her/his era is more important than the inapplicability of the work for contemporary work because the evolutionarity of culture is Our prevailing reality, and The Point is: Where are we going that the past work can be brought to be part of? What unwitting contribution to the future can past work be appropriated to offer? Youth now unwittingly recapitulates past insight because a kind of fate embodies mindal development. Undergraduates are likely Platonists unwittingly longing to become Kantian. It’s no fault of conventional thinking that it hasn’t yet developed flexible perspectivity. What can appreciation do to facilitate growth? That’s so much more interesting than certifying the other’s provincialness. Evident subjectivism is an opportunity to facilitate self-differentiation (appreciation of self/interpersonal difference, interpersonal/other difference, Self/self difference mirrored by misreading of the Other; that is, projected other-Self [seen to be] backing another’s authorship (inferred selfidentity) of “the” author—via their personal or textual presence to oneself in reading or interpersonal relations. Each of us are always possibly texts for the other. Psychoanalytic criticism has far more potential than Derrida writing “Freud,” because the aspects of “Object relations” psychodynamics are greatly post-Freudian. And post-Jungian archetropal literary work can gain wonderful potential in light of conceptual tropologies. I haven’t even hinted at the potential of that, in earlier discussions of this January. But it’s deliciously available to me for later fun. Thinking highly, I want a promise of astute conceptual inquiry to arise from criticism, convening texts and conversations into more-comprehensive engagement—as if life is a party of upscale venturing, and its playful highland easily becomes so many focused seminars—vistas of prospective promise.

next—> philosophy21

 

 

 

 

 

Be fair. © 2019, gary e. davis