Project home
a way to fulfilling

  singularity of a comprehending life
gary e. davis
June 9, 2022
Tropes express some degree of isomorphism: Metonymy depends on tangibility which is very “downwardly” abstracted from its higher association (significance), i.e., symbolic in an ordinary sense of iconicity.

Metaphor is analogical (or, for narrative, allegorical), which is probably the most common sense of isomorphism.

Synecdoche expresses a part-for-whole (or whole-for-part) interest in holistic relevance.

Irony expresses a self-undermining boundary condition of given figuration.

The degree of isomorphism in a given figuration may be ambiguous, resonant, or heuristically stipulated by contexted use of the figuration.

For example, the years of generativity in an individuation show as Self capability for appreciation “of” (as if of) “the” (a?) “world” (situational horizon) phenomen-ally mirroring one’s “level” of understanding (e.g., sophistication of flexible perspectivity).

There, ‘Self’ tropes a futural embodiment of lived time (“growing up”) which is mirrored by the world which capability represents. Representation is instrumental for interests of action associable with selfidentical project-ivity, in a life of oneSelf which is, ideally, far horizoned (or AProject-ive).

Interpersonal relations may be ends in themselves (at best: kinship, friendship, solidarity), thereby mirroring part of one’s selfidentity (in a lifetime of oneSelf) which is integrally satisfying, as part of engagement with a fulfilling life.

Within that engagement, interpersonal relations may be instrumental for integral engagements, yet also for projects which are important to oneself (for selfidentity), which involves one’s life beyond any (and all) interpersonal relations. So, inter-
personal relations may be enacted for the sake of satisfactions or fulfillments unrelated to the integral importance of the relations (but not by being exploitive of that integrality!). We commonly cause others to do things for one’s own benefit, just as any action has an intended outcome through means of actualizing intent and satisfying that intent.

All communicative action has an intended effect. That fact doesn’t imply that you’re instrumentalizing the relationship that you integrally value.

So, interpersonal relations figure into the usual interests of action, which have background engagements (Self) served by enacting overt intents by oneself (self) which are satisfying (as part of larger-scale interest in fulfillment, composed of satisfactions which imply such interest in larger-scale fulfillment). Satisfactions trope engagement in fulfillment.

A  near-term self/[inter]personal difference (a liminality of that in specific engagement) tropes a Self/self liminality of the life (I could explicate, detail, clarify).

The generative background of oneSelf is troped by the presencing of a phenomenon (present “now”) which shows as if self-emerging, as if the (specific) phenomenon intends itself—commonly expressed by one’s personifying something by nesting its representation in sentences with verbs that presume intentionality: “The wind blows,” as if the air doesn’t merely behave intensely. “Flowers bloom,” as if not merely turgidly unfolding. A gestalt is there as if belonging to its constellants (a term I just now “coined”).

The presence of the phenomenon tropes the liminality of being (Self) and being (p) as being there to (“for”?) one self.

Very simply (though not constitutively), what’s given leads to enaction seeking satisfaction—> fulfillment as given, a cyclicity of Self/self liminality, self/[inter]personal or present liminality (degree of dis-covering or windowing, degree of Self-reflection of mirroring), and fulfillment of oneSelf (or aggregate of p/S/self liminalities satisfied).

That probably seems strained, pressing a triarchy too much, but S/s liminality (being in Time) and self/personal-present liminalities (being in World) are generative (World in Time, Time in World) which is isomorphic with a leading scientific conception of intelligence (Robert J. Sternberg, to which I’ve alluded,  sketched, and associated with an isomorphic conception of Our evolving), having details that can become intricate in Sternberg’s empirically strong theory: “performance components” (S/s liminality of “encoding and application,” “mapping and justification,” and “inference and comparison”); “knowledge-acquisition components” (s/p liminality of “selective encoding,” “selective combination,” and “selective comparison”); and “meta-components” (p1, p2, …/S liminality of “monitoring,” “planning,” and “evaluation”).

But, my isomorphism may still seem strained, because (I would argue) I’m merely rendering a sense of isomorphism, which (in more detail) is best understood as a continuum of tight-to-loose aptness.

In Sternberg’s theory, the meta-components become highly individuated (recursively “over” “time”) in a way which is congruent with normal senses of differentiating internality (or Selfal innerworldliness: “micro-mentality” with three recursive subcomponents), externality (phenomenal and [inter]personal worldliness: “macro-mentality”with three subcomponents), and living one’s selfidentical balance of generative synergy (“cognitive leaning” with three subcomponents) which advances one’s life. All of Sternberg’s components are strongly corroborated empirically. (Several years ago, I discussed Sternberg’s conception in a more extended, more accessible, but different, way.)

One kind of reason for my broad brush modeling is to give credence to theorizing a continuum of evolving intelligence (of our “second nature”) into Our evolving modernity.

Another kind of reason for that is to continue contributing to senses of wholly flourishing life usefully, where holistic interests of intelligent action balance with focused (goal-oriented) engagements.

What I’ve sketched above might be confusing, but a fair explication could be formally tenable.

Generally, holistic appreciation is better for activity—action is better oriented—when its implicate isomorphisms are more efficacious (felicitous or tightly telic). Tenability or validity of isomorphism evinces from its holding good (fruitful sustaining of the construction, a conceptual “nature”).

But inasmuch as any term can deserve to be asserted in frame-quote marks, then quotationality is likely implicit to every assertion (“so to speak”). Then, overt framing would highlight special attention to a tropical condition of speaking which is really ordinary.

[This remnds me of Heidegger’s ongoing sense of linguistic uncanniness which, in his notebooks, frequently puts words in frame-quote marks. That was integral to developing a critical phenomenology of what “they” say thoughtlessly.

Also, unwitting quotationality of ordinary talk associates, for me, to Derrida’s sense of writing-in-speech.]

The action-oriental appeal which shows better background consideration is better for orienting one’s action (better to follow), compared with less-considerational appeals. Showing better consideration deserves to be the more-appellant option for well-oriented activity. The better consideration is more worthy of support in advocacy and for justifications.

A conceptual heuristic for background credibility is provisional irt more-complex appreciation. Especially for concrete-operational understanding (children, low-literacy persons, and folk psychology), heuristics can be pedagogical hypostases or mimesis/memesis (meme-esis) of more-complex notions; apt, too, for advancing appreciation of scalar relevance (a holistic range of domainal engagement) with respect to audience or student development of appreciability. Indeed, good argument is often basically a good pedagogy.

Discursive scaling down (appropriative work) and scaling up (enabling) can be usefully portrayed as isomorphic pragmatics.

Accordingly, one may care highly for instilling conceptual inclusive fitness which may gain influence (“demic efficacy” [bottom of page]).

One may work to exemplify that well in fidelity to belonging with the futural good of humanity, thus with concerted cultivation (devotion to education) of current generations.

next—> wanting telicity of appellant cohering


  Be fair. © 2022, gary e. davis