normativity is about temporal reliability for interaction space

---

It’s action orienting, not as such regulative.

What am I going to do about having thousands of notes that only I understand?

To wit: Planning and policy belonging to ordinary action orients at best by setting purposive temporal continuity openly (i.e., flexibly, sensitively, adaptively), thus gaining and expressing a “normativity” of self efficacy for one’s Project-ive life.

about psychological exploration

---

Psychological reflectivity as conceptual prospecting is based in psychal (¶ 12) self-understanding, which is ontogenic. Conceptual prospecting is pre-ontological, i.e., not yet venturing to claim a primordial focus. Inasmuch as such prospecting has constitutive merit for ongoing inquiry, then the prospecting might be appropriately called ontic (and its aspects ontical), but that’s about a provisional efficacy of conceptuality for discursive inquiry. It’s no metaphysicalism, to my mind. Onticality is a relative notion of inquiry, as a topography may be relative to a preceding topology, which is developed from evolving backgrounds. The nature of developmental evolving (presently: a humanistic phenotype—this writer—in a historizing ecology, so to speak) is a primordial interest of inquiry in itself (as discursive inquiry, not exemplifying the writer as such—not merely self serving).

designing minds

---

I can free associate irt someone else’s work. I can free associate irt a sequencing of recent themes from my writing. Such exploratory work might be useful for design—terminological design, thematological design, literary design—psychological design?—conceptual design.

Aspects of a critique of the “positive” psychology of self efficacy

---

M.A. Cohn and B.L. Fredrickson,“Positive emotions” (ref.3), whom I’ve discussed recently (A, B, C) are modest in their terms, relative to how teachers and counselors might be expected to understand their short-term opportunities. Building “personal resources” results from “increases in daily positive emotion” (18) because reliably-recurrent good feelings lead to enjoyable “broaden-and-build” (generative) processes or developmental activities, thereby (I add) self-nurturing talents, self-cultivating interest, and honing one’s own skills (but how such recursive efficacy works remains mysterious in their research summary). C&F attend to a behavioral process happening that seems magically lacking life-centered minds or individuational enactivity: desire, aspiration, purpose, and identity (though all that is easily implied by them—just not focal, which all that should be for a theory of learning, which they claim to be conceptualizing).

mindality

---

I need ‘mindality’ relative to terms—mentality and mind—that don’t work for what I have in mind.

When one says that something is “mental,” likely meant is that the something is brainy content or a piece of mind. Using ‘mentality’ likely doesn’t mean the condition of something’s being mental; ‘mentality’ usually means something like a frame of mind. There’s a gestaltism, if not holism, implied by “mentality.”