appealing comprehensiveness • gary e. davis • berkeley


	Area	Spring Points

	prospecting a scale of appealing comprehensiveness gary e. davis	June 2020

childsplay in the good night

A rendering of creative process is beyond intimations of formal structure
(let alone some Originist myth of constitutivity out of Deep Time).

Joys of curiosity and awe, senses of wonder are easily traced back to our Inner Child, which traces back into appealing night skies—which can be speculatively terrifying because there’s no reason why the cosmos is there—no point to there being anything—except that Our form of life loves making a point: forming grand purposes and explorations, if only to see what stories can be sustained to inspire more grand ventures. Such is the kind of beings we are, children of
4+ billion year-old Gaia.

What difference can be made by knowing whether or not the the Higgs Boson energy implies multiple universes? (That’s currently undecidable: there being Supersymmetry or not?) Inquiring minds want to know!

We are the highest intelligibility of the known universe, so far. We desire to know—we must know—what has flourished elsewhere in “Our” galaxy millions of years beyond we Earthans. (What’s the galactic scale of intelligence?)

This universe gives way to beings hungry for ultimate comprehension.

Perhaps, knowing that the branes of another universe bump Ours (the especi-ally entropic [blue] area of in the COBE image) will lead to discerning a pattern in the interface that suggests intelligence billions of years beyond ours on the other side of spacetime.

Do Absolute Others in this universe know something of that? If there’s no evi-dence of wherefrom the Big Bang came, We still may find Absolute Others in Our galaxy for collaborative gardening of intelligibility.

“Your being, in Time, will find us,” the interface of branes might “say,” by
some mathematic grammar through quantum stringing. “Then, you’ll learn wherefrom the Big Bang came.”

Of course not?

Science fiction delightfully mirrors evolving conceivability.

Anyway, we will keep Earth flourishing for contact competence to learn
from Absolute Others millions of years beyond us.

We will here keep Our emerging Singularities highly humanistic.

from aspiring to convening

ASPIRING

Life matters better relative to appealing projects. Being in the flowing appeal of that is project-ivity, showing project-iveness. Relatively grand Projects easily evince lasting exuberance. Feeling one’s era of life oriented by senses of singularly cohering appeal I’ve called A-Project-ivity.

Calling our kind Homo sapiens tropes idealizing comprehensive comprehen-sion as definitively specieal (species-al).

But we’re fundamentally beyond practical flourishing (i.e., beyond “sapiens”: wisdom). We’re creative explorers (Homo partum rimor?), anciently troped by constellating gods into a singular estate, now mathematizing the universe, and still endlessly prospecting centripetal futures of being.

Pragmatic parsing of mindfulness into aesthetic, ethical, and scientific modes (isomorphic with a manifold conception of intelligence), expressed in discur-sive formations (philological, ethical, epistemic), is mere tropology for holis-tic orientation by many-layered investments portending grand horizonality (an archetrope for high/deep scalarity of appeal). It all models the self-potentiating nature of our being.

CONVENING

Part 3 of “Spring Points” dwells improvisationally with a distilled set of voices that I’ll eventually consider thoroughly. This and that continues an inspiring appeal that has been with me for a long time, coming into synoptic focus more than a decade ago (as a matter of brief sharing, not yet trying to express a comprehensive conception): “...gathering understanding into cultural heights.... our autogenic capability to design;... engaging oneSelf in a mani-
fold ideality of our growing humanity,” where “mind” reflects conceivability emergent from interdomainal inquiry. A poiesis of it all has been delightful; and remains good fun in an utmost sense of full creativity facing high scale prospects of being.

from prospecting to conceiving

PROSPECTING

Venturing comprehensive comprehensibility is fated to remain centripetally open-ended because Our evolving opens for intrinsically open-ended life. One fulfills self-transformative conceiving relative to The Dark.

Mind is essentially generative, constituting mentalities relative to interests. That’s generative mentability, minding.

Though other animal species show generative mentability, according
hard-wired, specieal interests, few show individuated interests (the more-intelligent mammals and primates). Humans mind, i.e., shape Self-selective, individuative preferences into extended projects. Only humans Selfidenti-cally mind minding. I call that mindality because human generative ment-ability minds itself singularly.

Accordingly, mindal individuation is essentially interested in mindfulness born of itSelf, properly named. Mindality is essentially post-biogenic, and begeny (“ontogeny”) is post-metaphysicalist (as research in metaphysics
has integrity within conceptual venturing).

When I asked “Are biogenic autogeny and mindal individuation two kinds
of ontogeny?” and “Is ‘ontogeny’ really (‘really’?) tropogeny?,” I implicitly associated to the mythical nature of the prefix ‘ont-‘, which tropes desire
for disclosable deep/high origins, like the magical seed regarded in conceal-ment of the futural ecospheric conditions for phenogeny (i.e., generation of the phenotype) whose intrinsic futurity is a function of adaptability to chang-ing environmental conditions. The “real” evo-devo background of begeny
is retrojective, in terms of evolving scientific prospectibility:

“I use ‘ontogeny’ in a technical sense that’s very apart from the context of individuation. What’s called ‘ontology’ is actually about the Ontogeny of ontic conceptuality (i.e., conceptuality thinking of itself as rooted in meta-physics). Ontology is intrinsically genea-logical, just as phenomenality results from phenomenogenic activity,… ”

An “-ism” is a domainal conceptuality, an evolved regioning of comprehen-sive relevance whose singularity in name implicates the evolving of its consti-tutive conceptuality. So, “what may a discursive domain tenably become,”
I asked, “without conceptual mythology (without ontolog-ism)?” “How may
‘-ology’ be extensively comprehended?”

CONCEIVING

I’m not venturing a resolution of that question here. The point is a challenge of conceiving generative comprehensive relevance importantly enough to advance domains lastingly, which belongs to emergent telic cohering of in-quiry that is receptive enough and responsive enough to help advance its domain.

The nebulous lexicality of ‘conceive’ was, at first, about receptiveness:
“2 a : …be affected by” (M-W. Un.), kindred with “4 : to be of the opinion,” which uses ‘of’ genitively.

To have a conception of X is phenomenally due to X itself. The etymology traces back to Latin for “taking” and “receiving.” (No wonder the notion of gods was so appealing.) “3 a archaic : to apprehend (something) by reason
or imagination; “b : comprehend” is primarily receptive. Even the first use for pregnancy was receptive (my italics): “1 a : to become pregnant with : be with (child or young).”

The originist meaning is cognate, but not primal: “1 b : to cause to begin : originate…”; “2 b : to form in the mind (as a concept or idea : evolve mentally…: form a conception of…”

So, nebulous rc/rs dyadity is integral to the phenomenon metonymed by
the lexical item.

Intelligibility depends on conceivability, because the former is “2 : capable of being understood or comprehended” (1 is “obsolete : intelligent”), which
is more than “3 a : apprehensible by intellect only…” because “intellect” is misleadingly epistemic/cognitive: “1 a : the power or faculty of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will” (which has given Aristotel-ian, Scholastic, and Thomistic correleates). That being “apprehensible by intellect only” is also “… : purely conceptual,” but a prevalently cognitivity conceals the potential of conceptuality to pertain to “2 a : a person given
to reflective thought or reasoning” (my italics).

So, a conceptual analyst stays away from all of that in the first place, select-ing an authorial conception of conceiving for working (normal philosophy
of proper-named philosophies); or the analyst authors a conception.

On what basis, in each event?

‘Appreciation’ is lexically aestheticist (and valulogical—i.e., “axiological,”
an infelicitous term, if ever I saw one), as if mindfulness isn’t relational, cognitive, and/or projective.

There’s no ‘appreciability’ in the Unabridged. I want to proffer a notion of protean appreciability backing conceivability (another term missing from the dictionary).

So, on my refreshing way to satisfaction, I’m wholly on my own.

An authentically valid conception of conceiving is beyond its communicative representation, just as artists’ or scientists’ Work is beyond self-referentiality in artwork expressed or by the model-theorized methodology reported.

Enlanguaging self-conceals its generativity in the definiteness of its com-municating terms. That is, a Work/works wayfaring difference is integral
to conveyed conception.

What “is” the conception of cyclical continuum here (part 2)?: from aspiring through anticipated fulfilling return to The Dark?—then, parts 1 through 3: from phenomenal appeal through a play of voices and anticipated compre-hensive adequacy to worthwhile usefulness?

from transforming to fulfilling

TRANSFORMING

Humanity remains largely possessed by the tropology of vision: imagining, envisioning—as if to unwittingly conceal the potential scale of breakthrough conceiving through wholly engaging appreciability in high plays of voices, frames, and stances. Imaginability’s part of full creativity facing high scale prospects of being. Creativity at heart surpasses imagism and the envisional archetrope of possibility.

Practical conceptuality—the focus of upcoming Part 3.1: “progressing lifeworldliness”—is ecological: culturally, biospherically, and socially. Comprehensive comprehension is no better than its appreciability for life-worldliness. Lives and worlds can be transformed inasmuch as conceptions can be practically ecogenic.

FULFILLING

“From protean aspiration to a sense of Anthropocenic virtue,” I noted last year, “The Project has been—is—centripetally prospecting a comprehensive-ness of discourse that idealizes the good* of life as ecologically flourishing humanity.”

still in dark Opening

Always implicitly in frame marks,“being” is a trope of living, inquiring, exploring, prospecting, creating, discoursing, and appropriating.

“Yet the further (deeper, higher) one delves,” I concluded in mirroring…, “into either tropogeny (and genesis) or tropology (phenomenality, differentiation; outer, inner; other, self; bearing, granting; being, letting; and so on) and conceptual archaeology (standard conceptual analysis), the more that one becomes a self-formative ecogeny of conceptual sense, mirroring one’s capability for generative horizoning and differentiation through the pheno-menal window of discovery and disclosure—which may become mysteries of how there is anything at all.”

That was merely transitional, there and three years later now—facing, by
the way, another good night.

next—> prelude to Part 3