conceptual play home
still-flowering life

  deep heights appealing to low shallows
preface to a farthering

gary e. davis
May 21, 2022
  The older I grew, over decades, the more that young others’ confidence about how the world goes (works, is ordered, etc.) became humorous—or, as a matter of interaction with “youth”: a condition to humor. (When I was young, I resented much-older persons putting me into their category called “youth.”)

My humoring is gracious: Being young isn’t a fault! But my humoring has a nebulous boundary: others’ resistance to fair interaction (presumig their interest, sometimes lacking) causes me to move on.

That’s never about initially not taking another’s automatic opinion seriously
(I hope); rather, it’s about appreciating the developmental relativity of their confidence (and belief—and sense of validity and value). Sometimes, I want to turn perspectival sharing into a teachable moment; and hope to be useful.

Sometimes that instead creates a chance to realize I’m the one who’s primarily learning. I’m the student—which is great, because I’m always better off by learning a better view.

Sometimes openness is the others’ attitude, sometimes not. In simple analogy,
a 10 year- old accepts that he doesn’t understand a teen sibling’s point of view because he’s merely 10. He’s probably open to the older person because he recognizes that the older view has been better in the past.

Contrarily, a 16 year old may resist an adult’s recommendation because her sense of self can’t yet afford to admit that the older perspective is better—or that the older view is, so far, beyond her “insulted” level of understanding.

Analogously, middle-aged adults sometimes respond as if they’re still teens, maybe because their sense of selfidentity is attached to formations (understandings, worldview) that were secured—finished, not outgrown—when they were, say, 19.

So, there’s a continuum of situations where you can’t convey the relativity of the other’s understanding (i.e., “you” having a perspective beyond that relativity, presumably) to the other, because a developmentality (or “stage” of development, relative to some feeling of different “level” of understanding) has no perspectivity outside itSelf. One’s stage of understanding is the basis (implicit frameworking) for making any sense of implicit perspectivity: The “level” is the constitutive basis for one’s understanding of constitutivity, thus perspectivity. (To a stage, there’s no theater beyond its Act.)

In other words, one’s sense of Self and world mutually support each other. That’s traditionally conveyed as one’s having a “worldview” to which one’s selfidentity may be strongly bonded.

More conceptually: Constitutivity is ultimately Self-positing in terms of the understanding of constitutivity which that constitutivity can disclose about itself— oneself relative to one’s best, most lucid capability (capable Self) for reflective articulation for and to oneself; or as understandable Self mirroring.
(This is not basically a matter of “subjectivity”.)

So, self-understanding of constitutivity (i.e., individuated capability over many years applied to understanding oneSelf ) is ordinarily (usually) regarded as “transcendental”: Relative to one’s easily-discerned self understanding, its background basis (capability for-and-of understanding oneSelf) is indeed relatively transcendent (and largely obscure, if not ultimately obscure, as is the case for psycho-metaphysicalists, including Kantists). Indeed, ‘transcendental’ is commonly a term for “beyond comprehensibility.”

However concealed that transcendentality is, there’s no alternative to regarding understanding as having a background basis (whatever it is), which is, figuratively speaking, “transcendent” to usual understanding.

An academic sense of transcendentality has been some ultimate structuralism, classically as some essence (or essentialism) which unfolds: an already fully-formed homunculus which enlarges into maturity—as if, genetically speaking, one’s Self is enscribed in the regulatory genome.

Yet, any structural transcendentalist can’t account for the development—the genesis—of its own articulability: how a 10 year-old can’t yet understand a high school teen’s self-understanding, who can’t yet understand a 20-something adult’s engagement with life.

Retrojective articulation of a genealogy (e.g., a developmental psychology) may meld into autobiography of the genealogist, but that doesn’t account for the capability for melding which is employed—or, if the conceptual venture claims to do so, it finds itself in a rare conceptual pretense which is likely ontologistic. Individuation—from prenatality through curent conceivability—was indeed a constituting, which is not captured by post facto genealogy of its intelligibility.

A structuralist readily admits that earlier conceptions of its generativity have been outgrown—otherwise there would be no retroactively discerned genealogy of itSelf to articulate.

And by historical analogy, one easily makes sense of transitions from pantheistic through Platonic… Cartesian… Kantist…?... comprehensibility.

But in each case—as historicity melds into historicality—one reaches a Final Point which happens to be the articulability—the intelligibility—which one self-reflec-
tively (Self mirroringly) is—with complementary conception of somehow-Self-affirming reality, but which doesn’t account for its genesis of complementarity
(a sophisticating individuation into Our cultural evolving).

The ultimate conception may not be exactly Hegelian, but there seems to be no alternative to such Self-positing figuration: that a conceptuality of recursively-reflective comprehensiveness shows itSelf as the mirroring conception of articulability: one’s best endeavor of articulating. Explanation mirrors explainability learning (perhaps) to advance its intelligibility.

Yet, a retrospective genealogy—a structural dynamic—is not thereby a conception of its generativity. It’s a genealogy of a conception of comprehending. (Hegel’s pre-evolutionist ultimate vanity set the conceptual stage for apocalypse.)

In principle, learning never ends: A given Articulability may continue to develop—or not, but always implies living potential for furthering its intelligibility.

In any case, learnability among Us continues to evolve. Always, learnability is evolving. Some new ways of conceiving are always available.

Openness is always a chance for newfound fascination, curiosity, exploration, primordial learning, even participation in evolving intelligence.

The appeal of evolving conceptuality is an ever-receding horizon of intelligibility.
A great journey may yield wonders, but the evolutrionary horizon is always receding.

The few and the rare who may be contributing to the evolution of intelligibility,
in light of ways which became canonical, remain to be found farther on.

next—> loving mental playces




  Be fair. © 2022, gary e. davis