home mind evolving home

  opening again
gary e. davis
July 14, 2017

No one should want another’s life to be one’s own. So, what details of another’s life matter?

Entertainment’s enjoyable—also being possibly enhancive.

Life enhancing enjoyment! There’s reason to love others’ lives in which one’s own hasn’t a part.

Admirable exemplarity of others’ lives matters because advancing one’s own life is what we are to do. To truly advance a life as one’s own, loved (mostly—reconciled too, inevitably), is vital to aging happily.

But that makes the ongoingness of others’ lives more important than their details. What character, what appeal of flourishing, appreciability, graciousness, or hope, and so on does the life display? What kinds of experiences, what quality of processes show durable promise for our shared gift of living as if learning never ends?

Now for me, pretending to progress as if I have endless life is more important than presenting entertainments. So writing for myself is more important than shaping that into presentations which are appreciative of others’ likely understanding, thereby becoming rather curricular.

But the difference—self-enhancive progress irt aiming to be worth others’ time—is present in every shared sentence of mine, including surmises of myself as later reader (writing to myself) who’ll likely have forgetten his own presumptions, thereby needing the writer’s earlier consideration for lost mindfulness that was merely troped by private cogency—the text available later, here—pretending to be clear.

So, the writer reads as if he’s some future other, the writer who also forgets that he’s already said “that” in an earlier trace of mindfulness.

Aging bears self possession increasingly lost in joys of finding oneself again “freshly,” notwithstanding that, for the most lucid (if not jaded) of mentalities, every day is a new story.

“You’ve already said that.”

“Yes, but life tends toward the archetropal.”

I feel as if I never forget that I’m to be found dead, such that the ultimate worth here is life enhancing enjoyment, presuming others’ posthumous interest (which is my happy fiction), now a living graciousness (he hopes) of not imposing himself unduly into another’s life.

Now, you find me here, good.

I didn’t expect you, let alone find. Yet, I hope.

We grow up. Researchers, teachers, and clinicians call that “development.” Lived individuation is observers’ development. We individuate; we become irreplicable individuals. And observers model that.

But what is individuation enough to say that one is fully “developed,” fully individuated? There are models which aim to have standard merit, such that one can apply a model to a life and gauge a degree of development toward the highest state modeled (cognitive modeling, grade-level modeling, life stage modeling, “adult” competence modeling, etc.). But individuation beyond that would be highly individual, e.g., what notable talents show in science and arts. That is assayed in individual works about individuals, standardly as biographies and scholarship about careers.

A model of inquiry or creativity pretends to paradigmicity at its peril, for what makes inquiry or creativity notable is its unique significance or durability.

As modeling goes, I call the former development-1 (or devo1, for short). I call the latter devo2.

We are evolved beings, in some sense of ‘evolving’ that’s ultimately theoretical. Whatever one’s understanding of ‘evolving’, it’s proffered as the background of normal development (devo1). In biological science, it’s now common to prospect “evolutionary-developmental” modeling—presented as so-called “evo-devo” discourse.

Yet, beyond capture by theories of background development-1, our evolving is ongoing, which we prospect in notions of progress and idealized humanity.

I call the former sense of evolving “evo1”; the latter sense “evo2.”

The interface of devo1 and devo2 is, to my mind, what psychology of inquiry and creativity is essentially about: How goes devo1 flourishing into devo2? How may “positive psychology” be fundamentally generative psychology?

I claim that interest in high individuation (devo2, “protean” self, Individuation capped—IndividuationI) creates the appeal of “positive psychology” as such (as proffered by the conceptual work of the actual field of “Positive Psychology,” e.g., theoretical articles of the Journal of Positive Psychology).

Then: How may protean aspirations of IndividuationI contribute importantly to durable progress that we pretend to envision and prospect usefully?

Finally: What are the best prospects for human life? What is the most admirably exemplary work of the best inquirers—the better Earthlings, “better angels of our nature”—being (doing) better envisioning to be The Open, the wind?

The “mind evolving” Area of is the last of the five (so far) Areas of the 2017 cycle of prospecting. I’m looking at 17 more sections of this Area for Cycle 2 of This section, “opening again,” is transitional. The upcoming sections are thematically “focused” (more or less—more about that in a moment).

Presently, there are three more Cycles (thematically designed already) for the website. But who knows what’ll happen. [Jan. 21, 2018: My current merger of and relative to 16-or-so Areas is being regarded as Cycle 3. Cycle 4 will develop work relative to the given Areas. This will take several years. Cycle 5 will be the most challenging, but will take only a year or so.]

Each of the 17 sections of “mind evolving” (which may become fewer sections or more
[Aug.20: it’s more, but I’ll let what’s here stay]) is a set of themes which have gravitated to become a section through a sense of belonging together or regioning that gained their particular section title last, as if the thematic title is emblematic of a centripetal process. [Jan. 21, 2018: The divisions of “mind evolving”—this mid-2017 project—are not anticipatory of the 16-or-so of Cycle 3 and 4. In a sense, though, my entire Project—Cycles 1 through 5— is, of course, of one mind, more or less allegorical of a conceptual evolutionarity, but, at least, developing enjoyably.]

Writing in view of a set will not be trying to capture the entirety of its prior constellating through brief transpositional writing. Rather, I want to exemplify
17 challenges of gatheral presenting that are fair to prior creative process.

Differences between creative work and cogent presentation—the challenge of transposition—is different than prior challenges of creative development which involve differences between creativity itself (process) and resultant work, which models of generativity prospect.

So, the content of upcoming sections is essentially provisional, not only relative to the constellation that presentation’s in light of, but also as a placeholder for later extension relative to later notes and reading. Each section will be emblematic of ongoing process, articulated at present like progress notes (postcards home) on an excursion that has a proper name (the emblematic title of the section). Later updating may include links to directly-related later excursions. (In any case, updates will be noted along the way of the “life world” blog.)

If I sought to capture a comprehensiveness of a section’s themalogy in cogent presentation, my “story” would be very different than what I’m intending to prospect briefly, which is more like extended abstracts of upcoming essays (which standardly mean exactly what they say, but clarity of that results from the essay). However, I’m sure to discover things that may read as if I’m merely representing previously articulated obscurities (or not obscure?: Maybe things will be “perfectly” clear to you).

< previous -|- Next: enspiration