gathering works • gary e. davis • berkeley

	Give me odysseys of gathering works into some happy communions gary e. davis	August 13, 2017

	Suppose three books, three monographic works. The works might be kindred enough to allow a reader to find coherence of them—“of them”? “Among them,” it’s more likely said (one would say; I might be expected to say; we would say). Do the works unwittingly invite their cohering (a cohering of them); or is the integration a matter of selection in light of the reader’s prospective creativity? If the cohering is relative to the conceptuality of each work, does the cohering play belong to the works? Is there some inferrable or projectable conceptuality to be found by the authoriality of the reader? The cohering play is surely not the reader’s fiction (presuming tenability of the play). The authorship of the cohering is not suggestive of simply the authoriality of the reader. So, the integrative cohering belongs to the four: three found foundations for a reader. The integrativity of cohering belongs to the authorship of cohering netweave “living” in the presence of the works belonging together in the same cohering. Yet, reader—> writer (authorial) presencing of cohering netweave is some Work itself prior to any discourse (presentational work) about it, in light of the Work. That later discourse may claim to completely present the Work (full transparency of authoriality in the reader-derived authorship of the discourse). But more likely, the discourse is a stepwise, well-formed derivative that gradually appropriates itself to its anticipated audience— Work of Selfality, projecting an interpersonal scene (or can it be intimately, interSelfal rapport?). The discourse overtly makes sense for a reader in light of the cohering netweave that belongs to authorial Work. The reader then makes sense of the text, re“writing” something. Comprehension is a generative mirrorplay in the text—possibly casual (like solidarities in interpersonal life), possibly “like-minded” (like old friendships), possibly intimate (but probably not—and I’m no romantic about textuality, if you wondered). A self-concealing authoriality (writing to reader, read in anticipation) finds a self reflecting reader writing—and the cohering netweave of phenomenal narrating is itself. Conceptual inclusiveness of cohering netweave among texts (a generative Work of scholarship or strong influence) expresses a mentality which tropes mindality gaining singularity. As basis for later discourse, the Work is a generative cohering, and discourse which is appropriative of the Work shows what David L. Hull calls “conceptual inclusive fitness” (which I’ve elaborated offline beyond his context of philosophy of science) and Csikszentmihalyi calls “domain mastery.” Evolving can be intended, beyond the common understanding of evolving as happenings of progressive change which are retrospectively brought into telic cohering. Actors in enactive evolving have an efficacy that is found to be leading. Leading minds show an appealing singularity that gains lasting influence, which Hull calls “demic efficacy.” A play of works as generative cohering netweave can have lasting efficacy for the reader who “finds” their integrative generativity, thus furthering singular efficacy for generative Work. Whether or not products of the Work become widely and lastingly influential is not in the hands of any singular author. Yet, at best, the author-ity may be a singularity of mindality evolving—excuse the cuteness, but: authoriality can be s. o. m. e. Work. Suppose some Work is emergent from an array of contributions with respect to a single concept: The Oxford Handbook of the Self, example. What may be the Selfality—the integrative cohering—that its editor gathers? What about “self” irt that and the three other works I mentioned? A leading scientific artistry might be prospected there, as if an author-ity belongs to that cohering net. Robert J. Sternberg has accumulated many gatherings of leading minds, each relative to a leading aspect of leading minds (which are also the titles of his gatherings): Giftedness, Creativity, Insight, and Wisdom (and more). His anthological works (focal publications) haven’t attempted a singularity of scientific artistry, but he has done a practical exemplification of that, as a psychology of education: Wisdom, intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized. That might be considered a discourse of a leading scientific artistry. A leading scientific artistry!: Alsa lives. Self-designing appreciability of complex sensibility makes inquirial investment gain unprecedented generativity of conceptual prospecting (the Work), then evincing—through derivative discourse (Janus-faced hermeneutics of presenting: work of “art” )—some highly exemplary enabling. Yet, the artistry of that—gaining the Work, then deriving its presence—is irreducible to any scientificity, because adventuring is merrily itself, then on a way to presence received as some “artistry,” found to further appreciability, enjoying influence, but belonging at heart to unnamably adventurous furthering. Fun of ultimate play may later show as “literary,” yet really being philogenic joy. < previous -\|- Next: showing wholly

Suppose three books, three monographic works. The works might be kindred enough to allow a reader to find coherence of them—“of them”?

“Among them,” it’s more likely said (one would say; I might be expected to say; we would say). Do the works unwittingly invite their cohering (a cohering of them); or is the integration a matter of selection in light of the reader’s prospective creativity?

If the cohering is relative to the conceptuality of each work, does the cohering play belong to the works? Is there some inferrable or projectable conceptuality to be found by the authoriality of the reader?

The cohering play is surely not the reader’s fiction (presuming tenability of the play). The authorship of the cohering is not suggestive of simply the authoriality of the reader. So, the integrative cohering belongs to the four: three found foundations for a reader. The integrativity of cohering belongs to the authorship of cohering netweave “living” in the presence of the works belonging together in the same cohering.

Yet, reader—> writer (authorial) presencing of cohering netweave is some Work itself prior to any discourse (presentational work) about it, in light of the Work.

That later discourse may claim to completely present the Work (full transparency of authoriality in the reader-derived authorship of the discourse). But more likely, the discourse is a stepwise, well-formed derivative that gradually appropriates itself to its anticipated audience— Work of Selfality, projecting an interpersonal scene (or can it be intimately, interSelfal rapport?).

The discourse overtly makes sense for a reader in light of the cohering netweave that belongs to authorial Work. The reader then makes sense of the text, re“writing” something. Comprehension is a generative mirrorplay in the text—possibly casual (like solidarities in interpersonal life), possibly “like-minded” (like old friendships), possibly intimate (but probably not—and I’m no romantic about textuality, if you wondered).

A self-concealing authoriality (writing to reader, read in anticipation) finds a self reflecting reader writing—and the cohering netweave of phenomenal narrating is itself.

Conceptual inclusiveness of cohering netweave among texts (a generative Work of scholarship or strong influence) expresses a mentality which tropes mindality gaining singularity. As basis for later discourse, the Work is a generative cohering, and discourse which is appropriative of the Work shows what David L. Hull calls “conceptual inclusive fitness” (which I’ve elaborated offline beyond his context of philosophy of science) and Csikszentmihalyi calls “domain mastery.”

Evolving can be intended, beyond the common understanding of evolving as happenings of progressive change which are retrospectively brought into telic cohering. Actors in enactive evolving have an efficacy that is found to be leading. Leading minds show an appealing singularity that gains lasting influence, which Hull calls “demic efficacy.” A play of works as generative cohering netweave can have lasting efficacy for the reader who “finds” their integrative generativity, thus furthering singular efficacy for generative Work.

Whether or not products of the Work become widely and lastingly influential is not in the hands of any singular author. Yet, at best, the author-ity may be a singularity of mindality evolving—excuse the cuteness, but: authoriality can be s. o. m. e. Work.

Suppose some Work is emergent from an array of contributions with respect to a single concept: The Oxford Handbook of the Self, example. What may be the Selfality—the integrative cohering—that its editor gathers? What about “self” irt that and the three other works I mentioned? A leading scientific artistry might be prospected there, as if an author-ity belongs to that cohering net.

Robert J. Sternberg has accumulated many gatherings of leading minds, each relative to a leading aspect of leading minds (which are also the titles of his gatherings): Giftedness, Creativity, Insight, and Wisdom (and more). His anthological works (focal publications) haven’t attempted a singularity of scientific artistry, but he has done a practical exemplification of that, as a psychology of education: Wisdom, intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized. That might be considered a discourse of a leading scientific artistry.

A leading scientific artistry!: Alsa lives. Self-designing appreciability of complex sensibility makes inquirial investment gain unprecedented generativity of conceptual prospecting (the Work), then evincing—through derivative discourse (Janus-faced hermeneutics of presenting: work of “art” )—some highly exemplary enabling.

Yet, the artistry of that—gaining the Work, then deriving its presence—is irreducible to any scientificity, because adventuring is merrily itself, then on a way to presence received as some “artistry,” found to further appreciability, enjoying influence, but belonging at heart to unnamably adventurous furthering.

Fun of ultimate play may later show as “literary,” yet really being philogenic joy.

< previous -|- Next: showing wholly