Area home

Spring Points

  a heuristic mindfulness
gary e. davis
June 2020
Commonly, ‘mindfulness’ is understood structurally—a “quality or state of being” (Unabridged), being aware fully; or “the practice of maintaining a…state…,” caring to keep a circumspective, conscientious wholeness—“-ness“—near to mind in action. Yet, for what purpose? The “practice” is not basically homeostatic (as if to keep oneself in balance stably or securely).

Mindfulness is better understood as a way of being. That’s the disposition of “spiritual” literatures. But I’m not going to associate to such literature here in any detail (which may be interesting later, in light of the approach I’m developing).

Mindfulness as way of being involves ongoing [re]orienting of oneSelf relative to important engagements that one lives with. One’s Selfal/selfidentical relationality (ever-learning, still individuating minding fully) is appropriated validly to self/ [inter]personally-differentiating (other oriented) interacting.

Of course, minding fully implies a full sense of minding. My sense is always
(in principle) individuating relative to changing lifeworldliness.

Mirroring…” noted that “a psychagraphy is somewhere discernible everywhere, where liminality of other and self is nebulous. Various psychalogical models can be brought to bear.” The model that I’m growing is process oriented, but relies on others’ extensive empirical and clinical support for the structural elements (from Sternbergian psychology of intelligence and Analytical Psychology) in my prag-matic synthesis of elements (phenomenalogical and conceptual, as introduced earlier) backgrounding scenic interaction. Usefulness of my model will show later, relative to practical discussions and readings of others.

Psychal depth shows as “highly” implicit horizonality in phenomenal appeal, where ‘highly’ associates to constitutive tropality, i.e., the analyzable conceptual implicature of lived phenomenality (not intimating a mental science of concept-uality, which involves empirically model-theoretic prospecting of conceptual mentability, like seeking to formally ground an enriched sense of enlanguaging empirically, which I’ll discuss later).

Phenomenality implies responsiveness (‘rs’ below) and receptiveness (rc) for each relational dimension: affective, conative (intending), and cognitive, each of which are involved in introversional (i) and extraversional (e) leaning; and associate to dyadic modes (leanings) of Jungian personality theory (Myers-Briggs typology). And each of the three associates toward standard kinds of discursive formation:

  • cognative: relationality of being: Extraversional (e) / Introversional (i)
  • affective: Feeling (rc/e) irt Valuing [Judgement] (rs/i)—> aesthetic / valuational
  • conative: Perception (rc/e) irt Thinking (rs/i)—> ethical / philological
  • cognitive: Sensation (rc/e) irt Intuition (rs/i)—> scientific / epistemic

The tropographic character of the colon is in-relation-to; and the slash seems
to be a variable tropographity or bi-directional isomorphity, like ‘irt’ above.
(I’ve switched Valuing and Thinking in the M-B pairing.)

‘—>’ tropes scaling “up” from categoriality to conceptual domain.

So, the implicitly troped dynamic is a variable scaling of mutual relating, as if
the concepts intend—which, in a manner, they “do,” because they gain active sense only by someone making relative sense through them of things.

Yet all of that is skeletal—a scaffolding (albeit research based) whose lifeworld-liness is rich with project-ive interests, manifold understanding, relational involvements, sensing, feeling, perceiving, intuiting, thinking, and valuing of others, experiences, and things. Ultimately, fulfilling life is The Point. Mindful-ness is a so-called “existential” matter.

The model can be enriched with Sternberg’s leanings in Thinking Styles, which is based in his vastly research-based 3-fold theory of intelligence. His work is iso-morphic with an integration of the constellative model above with the notion
of appropriativity which I discuss in the next section.

When I noted at “mirroring” that “constructible genealogies of lives are
‘there’…,” I had in mind the constructivist approach to “there” that I’ve taken here. “A genealogy of psychalogical models is constructible,” relative to the historicity of an inquirial life and/or relative to the history of modeling (like the history of modeling human intelligence). “Kinds of genealogies may merge into kinds of individuations to which genealogies appeal.” By “merge,” I had in mind the practice of appropriating theory that is mindful toward validity.

next—> validity of appropriative engaging



  Be fair. © 2020, gary e. davis