Area
Area home

Spring Points

  S/s difference again
gary e. davis
June 2020
 
 
Interest in creativity as such and discovery orients my sense of Self, beyond practical s/p differentiality. I’ve sketch senses of “inspiration irt psychality” and “enspiring Self… lived as the thriving, flourishing generativity of oneself.”

Creative potential lives in an “S/s resonance of self-generativity or differentiated selformativity secured as selfidentity” (I noted last year), at best in practical balance with s/p-differentiated interactive relations.

Recalling intra-psychal differences last month: “a Self/self Difference is as real
as a self/personal difference, but wholly in its own way: Self-differentially self-differencing…. One is reflectively recognizable as vastly mysterious. One’s selfness (-ness?)—oneself—expresses a deeper Selfness…Oneself may easily feel ordinarily as if being inhabited by magical efficacies, about which one understands little, if anything….”

Creativity and potential for Self discovery is concealed by prevailing orientation by practical life. In that case, one “distances aspects of oneSelf,” [ibid.], “in order to live manageably with the Difference (e.g., the self-positing appeal of ideals—the appealingness that’s ‘unrealistic,’ if not intrusive). Or one is anxious for unknown reasons, if not alienated from ‘oneself,’ i.e., actually alienated from aspects of one’s psychality wholly presencing.”

I think that’s apt for the postive-psychological motives of so-called “transpersonal” psychology, which mistakenly regards Self as supervenient relative to “personal” life (thereby implicitly perpetuating egoism—distinct, to my mind, from healthy s/p-differentiated egocentrism or selfidentically-oriented interactive fairness). Transpersonal psychology obscures the S/s difference by way of its obscured s/p difference: s/p differentiality is fused as what’s “personal,” such that potential for self-reflective transcending is “transpersonal.”

Transcendentalism is ultimately confused, categorially concealing one’s potential for discovery and creativity. But that context suggests an appealing psychalana-lytical approach to creative interaction which doesn’t confuse the aura of imputed S/s difference with oneself mirroring itSelf (or Itself, i.e. displaced objectivation).

Practically creative interaction readily learns through the differences (s/S aura of the other through construed p/s differentiation of the other) and uses that fairly, inasmuch as appreciative prospection by oneself is validated, while easily learning from miscarries of understanding (i.e., easily managing misunderstanding of other Itself). “An other’s [inter]personal/self difference is easily experienced (partially accurate, partially questionable)” [ibid].

Personifying actual others is fairly inspiring, if one’s fair, i.e., not confusing one’s own “romance” with the other’s self understanding. So, recalling intra-psychal differences last month, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong in “personify[ing] actual others, too: idealizing others, imagining a reality of them beyond their appearance—projecting aspects into their presence which may not or may be accurate. That personification, imagining, or projecting happens, easily experienced as belonging to the other.” But fair creative interaction doesn’t confound relations by confusing differences (or by not easily learning from miscarries).

Such was less clearly capsulated three years ago, but validly alluding to “…the situation of Self phenomenalizing, such that the aura of the other is selfidentical or Self reflective. Self/self differentiation is always a private resorucefulness (e.g., with creativity and inquirial prospecting)—or a private difficulty, which a clinician may help [resolve] by inferring features of Selfality and S/s differentiation—or [working mutually with] problematic boundaries—in light of much interpersonal rapport.”

This pertains to textuality, as construal and personification of authorship (and likely differences between authorship and authoriality, which I’ll return to later). Indeed, we are, in a sense, texts to each other and to ourselves.




next—> Selfality: phenomenal Selfness

 

 

 
  Be fair. © 2020, gary e. davis