terms of venturing • gary e. davis • berkeley


	Area

	terms of venturing gary e. davis	January 12, 2023

These sections will become separate pages which elaborate and expand
what’s here.

phenomenality as lifepsychal

We’re each living singularly into our futurities: fascinations, ideals, aspirations, purposes.

Time draws us into gaining a depth of life history. We’re a sensibility
(a psychality) beyond any present sense of Our worlds. More than being a “lifeworld,” we’re SelfWorldliness, a worlding lifepsychality, a generative singularity in manifold humanity.

The values orienting one’s life are ultimately the values of one’s life as such.
In the phenomenal mirrors of what appeals, “I am that—really. That I am is there. I am that I am,” which expresses an appreciated difference between being and being, i.e., articulate self-reflective capability.

I’ll call the appealing horizons lifal values, of being well—which is better oriented when well defined: organized flourishing (which I intend to examine in detail).

Being oneself is primally (from birth), primarily (for individuation), and primordially (for conceptuality) relational. Phenomena “there” mirror being with them (whoever, whatever), as if they are also with oneself, personified with Meaning or valuable sense (personified things, doubly another person),
as if Meaning is born from the thing itself, certainly born from persons there with you—or this text here with you there.

Interacting interpersonally in interrelational mutuality—well, it’s all interal. Lifal psychality is interal: from inspired conception to high horizons, from facing one’s mortality to comprehending Our planetary relativity.

Being is manifold interality of lives evolving.

From daily civility through solidarities, friendships, family, intimacy, and selfidentity to depths of SelfWorlding, we’re being mirrored here and there, differentiated in our differentiating inasmuch as that can be fruitful, though possible fruitfulness is relative to one’s era of mental individuation (so-called “stage of development”).

a preface to reading others

Who’s the author here?

An authorship is construed. The author is conceived to be the authorship here construed. Yet, the difference between construed authorship and authoriality gave us literary criticism. Philosophers still disagree about what Kant was doing.

Is there being Heidegger always someone’s “Heidegger”?—a difference which Heidegger makes thematic, from time to time; e.g., when he alludes to “the tears of Odysseus” in his 1933 lecture course on “the essence of truth” (mid-page here, at paragraph beginning: “My friend’s passage begins there, here...”); or when he refers to himself in third person, writing to Wm. J. Richardson, 1962, about what “Heidegger” is doing.

How might we best understand understanding the other—conceive under-standing, understand conceiving—in an embrace of reading fairly?

How might we best embody flexible perspectivity in good-faith caring about
an author’s integrity of venture?

organized flourishing

Capturing the flourishing character of a well-organized life is relative to some singular life, yet its element is a conception of well-oriented enaction, also relative to a life.

But some minds prospect transpersonal conceptions (“theory” of action), which gives gainful employment to psychologists, philosophers, and other kinds of conceptual venturers (conceptual philology?: more below).

At the least (to my mind, of course), well-oriented action enjoys an importance reliably.

I venture that the better conception of reliability is relative to a conception of validity.

I venture that the better conception of importance is relative to conception of lifal belonging (or authentic life Purpose).

I venture that the better conception of enjoyment is relative to a conception of fulfilling pleasure (i.e., fulfillment is served by enjoyment).

Reliability is ideally truthful, in a rich sense—beyond, but including, factuality; yet, also being about truthfulness (genuineness) and worthy standards (normativity).

Importance is ideally good, in a rich sense—beyond, but including, usefulness, yet also being about life-oriental purposes and belonging with the good of one’s world and fidelity to the promise of humanity.

Enjoyment is ideally beautiful, in a rich sense—beyond, but including, aesthetic experience, yet also being about the appellant gravity of conceiving itself, which is generative for artistry.

Commonly in “positive psychology” (generative psychology, to me), flourish-ing is characterized as a twofold of “eudaimonic” and “hedonic” being. I think that eudaimonia (“good spirit”) is adequately understood as flourishing of reliable importance (or important reliability). Hedonia is adequately understood as a scale of enjoyment.

Organized flourishing can be intricately articulated. Indeed, prosperous lives usually have a calendaring and scheduling ecosphere which is effective, but not addictive; and which serves reliabily important enjoyment well.

Yet, a wholly flourishing life can be much more than well-organized enjoyment of reliable importance. High individuation can involve protean degrees of creativity yielding unprecedented fruits. And leading minds—exemplars for inquiring into the potential of humanity—may appeal in original ways (beyond anyone’s paradigms).

I’ve loved to gather some of the best texts, hoping to constellate their con-vening in new ways of cohering potentials of individuation, scales of concep-tion, continua of relationality (interality), mindful caring, lifal value (ValueV), loves, heights of partnership, and senses of Our humanity evolving.

generative humanism (for humanities)

I prefer developing a notion of personism rather than (and beyond) any notion of humanism because only persons express humanity, and “humanism” of that is relative to potential for individuation which is singular in terms of person-ally presented (performing) lives, more than being about exemplifying general conceptions (token/type interests). The virtue of individuation is beyond exemplary categoriality.

(Biologically speaking, we are the species—the intelligent beings— whose phenotype can intend to transform Our genotype; i.e., we can permanently progress by design.

We progress and institute progress, then map notions of progressive change—especially better adaptability (not merely change of adaptation)—into other ecological conditions whose adaptability usually doesn’t notably affect ecological stability.

Mere “natural selection” influences ecospheres’ homeostasis, causing disequilibrial modes, but ecospheres always entropically return to homeostasis.

We are intentionally disentropic beings, actually wanting better designs, tending to create them, then institute that.)

We distinguish ourselves through ingenuity, creativity, and innovation, which implies individuation of talent (“human potential”) which gains influence of its ecosphere (extended family, professional organization, the profession itself, community, permanent archive, etc.)

So, actualized personal (SelfWorlding) potential can be more than “positive,” relative to “positive psychology.” We are generative persons potentially oriented by chosen horizons which are evolving, in a specie-al sense of ment-ability beyond all biological paradigms.

Our capacity for capable mindfulness is integral to the reality of our mental being. We have highly articulable Self interest in there being better humanity, better futures to endow for our heirs. That’s integral to Our being.

Being more meliorist is integrally better than being less so, such that concept-ions of value are thereby better oriented. We create sacredness and sustain it. We create real engagement, caring, goodness, Purpose, and conceptions of wholly being well, cohering it all in appealing ways that entail telic efficacies.

We are minds beyond the brain that evinces a recursive individuation of the emergent mental organism, integrally belonging in itself by choice and in possibly vast interal communions of embodied mentability comprehensible only conceptually, thanks to the long-term recursivity of individuation, in really evolving communions (specialties, genres, constellating inquiries, canonical standards).

The love of higher education—a high education of aims—that originated as philo-sophy (love of sophisticating) evolved itself in the 20^th century beyond all notions of -ologies (all coherings as Logos), I venture, to be better under-stood as a 21^st century conceptual philology whose potential for generative consilience may prospect the evolutionarity of evolving itself only conceptually.

Sophisticating, good higher education, continues, obviously: Philosophy has its vital place in cultivating humanity. The humanity of higher education is integrally philosophical.

Yet, evolving conceptuality of evolving -ologies belongs to conceptual venturing: being a philogenic process of loving conceptual creativity.

In the adventure, one never reaches the horizon, which is always receding like the appeal of a rainbow. But much may be fruitfully conceived in the following.