home mind evolving home

gary e. davis
August 12, 2017

I baldly assert that “mind” (i.e., some so-called, inherited notion of mind) is an observer stance (albeit self reflective) toward Selfality: highly-individuated mentability.

Intrinsic reflectivity of oneself easily appreciates that somehow “I” is irreducible to ventures of neuroscientic representation (let alone biologistic theories of mind).

I prospect that “mind” is an historical concept about Selfality’s self-comprehens-ibility. How that’s best understood in detail is a horizon worth pursuing indeed.

I’ll explicate myself later, relative to a comprehensive psychology (generative psychology, I’ll call this). Little manifestos do nothing more than beg issues that I’m going to avoid for now by promising to amply warrant the plausibility (and credibility) of my bald assertion relative to leading (to my mind) works; e.g., Antonio Damasio’s Self Comes to Mind (2010), Micharl Ganzzaga’s Who’s In Charge? (2011), Evan Thompson’s Mind in Life (2007), The Oxford Handbook of the Self (2011)—and other works, which will be fun foci.

‘Mind’ tropes the enactiveness of minding—being mentability, posturable as mentality (being). But, “mentality” is normally a rather constrained sense of mentability.

Thinking may scale a conception to any horizon one chooses, but at best relative to tenability—which might indeed be a scholarship of awesome proportions; or some vast philological enterprise that draws others’ thinking into amazing topogenies of scientific artistry.

I wish. But given such a tenable prospect, for what purpose may heights of speculative joy best be worth others’ time? What non-hegemonical importance—some love of enhancing humanity, some radiant gravity?—calls for such scholarship or scientific artistry?

Anyway, that properly dramatizes the notion of mentality as possibly beyond, say, some approach to historiology as mentalités.

mind: a conceptuality—conceptual inquiriality—of Selfality mentalized (objectiv-ating itself).

Minding the world can be a venture of pretending to capture whatever mentability of comprehension (minding, in a cognitive sense) that one cares to horizon (minding, in a relational or comportmental sense).

Say Selfality is the futurity of one’s humanity, i.e., one’s “being”: humanity of oneself as being human. Say mindfulness is humanity of one’s futurity.

Actually, presence of mind (beyond a pragmatic sense of ‘mindfulness’) may be one’s world itself in the whole gravity of going on conceivably. In worlding of “the” world, high Selfality (mentability beyond any mentality, aspiring to be comprehensive of “all” mentalities)—Mindality?—shows Itself finding ultimate play in generativity of incomprehensibility, as if an Intimacy of Mystery is the Siren of intelligence in any galaxy.

So what? So, what capaciousness of minding can a living scale of inWorldness be?

Silly humans: We pretend to embody eras, if not all Time. Big History becomes Life Of The Universe—though we barely understand our little region of one solarity.

The bounds of comprehensibility have always been the implicit calling of minding Our potential, making ourSelves into philologies (beyond the pedagogical mandate of philosophy), now pretending to scientific artistry that’s without genre and properly nameless.

Oh, how did the “selfish gene” gain power of CRISPR/Cas9 redesign efficacy in so few millennia, as Earthlings already learn to search for intelligence countless millennia beyond us?

So, ‘mind’ is what one can make of it. Mentality is what one can make of mentability. Mindality is an idealization of self-comprehensibility, cohering mentalities the best way one can (which discourse proffers)—designing The Way of humanity enhancing itself? leading to leading minds designing Our evolutionarity?

What’s the best possible conceptuality of the best selection of voices (whose library constellates grand extensions of remembrance, an elating appeal of reserves) in some exemplary seminar—an estate? (a university research enterprise)—of Our millennium, some possibly grand communion of inter-textuality that we singularites aspire to embody—keeping it all finite enough to be manageable by finite mentability, as if choosing a conception of “extended mind” that merely captures, at best, a wee singularity hunting for leading humanity but gathering merely oneSelf to be re-fictioned—reincarnated, resurrected—through readerly writing of one’s pretentious Selfality—one text that says it all (the dream of metaphysicalism, it was), as if we become some philological god of textual intimacy—though it’s ultimately your heartfulness reincarnating the dead, your Self reflection of capability beyond mine—and thank goodness you found this: that I was useful, that your mentability transcends mine because I gave time to challenging your aspirability by sharing my ventures.

Rhetoric can be a fine thing, entwining beauty of good (some Good?) in truth, ever Open.

But, inevitably, heights of speculative joy bring conceptual adventuring back to mortal innerworldliness: finitude of being well, comprehensibility aging and waning, no less enjoying all one is, too early in the evolution of biotechnology for being possibly post-centurian—or someday multicenturian?, like gods Out There, staying Silent at other stars until we learn to find them.


< previous -|- Next: gathering works