a highness of being high

---

Highness mirrors our diversity of valuing, implicitly, because so many kinds of valuing of something, T, can employ ‘high’ (or ‘highly‘, ‘higher‘) for expressing preference of that T relative to a given or implicit alternative.

We are the deliberately preferring species, beyond impulsively needing. We desire, therefore we prefer.

becoming post-Heideggerian

---

The prevailing sequence in Contributions to Philosophy: from enowning— “echo, playing forward, leap, grounding, ones to come, last god”—is cyclic of being-historical thinking, whereby “Art is history in the essential sense that it grounds history” (end of “Origin of the Work of Art”) generatively. Evolvability is understood by Heidegger as the generative cyclicity of that series.  

Many years ago, I extrapolated from that thinking and relative to a long letter to Richard Capobianco where I had Contributions in mind,
“a Heideggerian individuation.” (He wasn’t later emailed about that.)  

More simply, the Contributions series can be troped relative to “originary flow…” as cyclic ethos-motivated poiesis, poiesis-motivated transformation of logos, and logos-relative transformation (or contributions to transformation) of ethos.  

a note about prospective interest

---

I can be analytical about any conceptual exploration, e.g., in the manner of a discourse on implicature. But analysis always presumes a scale of relevance, especially when one wants to be practical. In particular, what’s accessible to linguistic analysis may axiomatically conceal phenomenological relevance that is ordinary to psychoanalysis.

empathing toward Andromeda

---

Imagine a clear, starry night (probably outside of urban light pollution). The stars are randomly scattered.

But you can see areas of the sky whose stars you regard as a group, and thereby they “belong” together, and are called a constellation.

One oddly-bordered set of stars was called the “Andromeda” constellation by classical Greeks. Why such a jagged grouping?

Someone with lasting influence “saw” the goddess Andromeda spread-
ing her arms across that area of the heavens (here depicted at 90ª rotation). In honor of—in remembrance of, in validation of incompar-
able beauty—the “presence” of the goddess is certified by those stars which belong together, by god, in her name.

OneSelf is not basically a matter of “subjectivity”

---

‘Subjectivity’ is a politically-loaded term—coined in early modernity (from Latin)—which originally pertained to the condition of a person as subject to a lord.

The Greek notion of psyche was something else: a conception of Self (which I discussed briefly, a while ago) or soul. I refer to selfality, self (and selfidentity), self/[inter]personal difference, nebulous Self, and altogether a differentiated conception of oneSelf. Homogenous notions of subjectivity are relatively simplistic (as well as ideologically tinged).

loving mental playces

---

places of play <—> play of places—mental and / or otherwise.

• playing place: Suppose...
• interplacing: We suppose...
• interplaying: We consider...
• playtiming: “Can you come out and play?”
• playing time: In the beginning,…
• interplayce: We loved that…
• playgrounding: It is the case that...
• interplaycing: Are you wholly in play here?

Free association—reverie, “daydreaming”—has integral value for creativity inasmuch as it serves the mental efficacy which is ordinarily necessary for adaptability, for gaining options to prefer, and for shaping purposes, all of which can be individuative through self-reflective learning: advancing flexibility, enhancing scale of value, and inspiring aspiration.

That efficacy released into novel play evinces options, values, directions, etc. which can be importantly novel: creative.

ValueV or Value

---

Some values are integral, even regarded as intrinsic, unlike most values. Integral values have high importance which orient the relevance of other values for action; or override other values in evaluations. Values of one’s mode of life may be understood in light of a specific Value of being one’s life, e.g., integrity. A holism of Values is integrally valuable for wholehearted engagement, commitment, and fidelity to what truly matters.

To preserve the kinship of integral values and other values, I’ve capitalized reference to integral values in my offline notes; so, I’ve done that online. I’ve placed a ‘V’ at the end of ‘ValueV’ when such reference begins a sentence. Better might be to bold the ‘V’.

a singular pluralism of conceptual interests

---

Inevitably, aspiration becomes plural. The singularity of a life may have no comprehensive conception (to observers or readers), but obviously one’s life is a singularity.

But finding a comprehensive comprehension of my conceptual interests is less interesting to me, in the near term, than journeying on, which shared journaling expresses.

posting as themic point

---

Why not ‘themic’ instead of ‘thematic’?

I’ll make—I’m making—posts which are prospective sites (focal points) for under-elaborated conceptions (or unelaborated concepts) which will gain elaboration relative to later discussions elsewhere which use the conception and reference its focal point.

on “belief”

---

placeholder for upcoming development

---

Aug. 26

But my sense of “upcoming” three days ago got pushed into the future. Belief is apposite (funny word, to my ear) for thinking about confidence in the credibility of one’s stances prior to another person’s skepticism.
A position implies validity implicature that a positioner should feel confident about, before offering the position.

what’s ‘good’

---

It promises a better way, relative to other options. It’s an appellant metonym for the way to go.

Historically, the term tropes a concept of appropriateness: fitting, uniting—or fit uniting, fitting unitedness?—cohering?

Its vast range of meaning (52 sub-definitions)—its aura-tic nebulosity
(so dependent on context of use)—is basically and merely twofold:

1: attributive value: favoring, fitting, appealing; being sufficient, valid, or satisfactory

2: exemplary value: being admirable, respectable, or capable.

The better way orients (like a pole star) events of appropriation.

My several discussions of this (typically here—but also prospected in earlier years more casually) haven’t mentioned that interesting etymological and lexical character of ‘good’. So, here you have it,
brief and non-tedious.

---

ensouled worldliness of a singularity

---

This is part 14 of “soul of Self interest”

---

High flourishing prospects the scalarity of engaged aspiration, beyond an appeal of exemplary humanity, beyond passed heuristics of some wholly flourishing interplay with pretentions of constellating proteany. Radiant gravity of futural Appeal is the point.

---

next—> “divining stars”

---

being “conventional”

---

This is part 1 of “being an American (with conceptual issues)”

---

I guess that one’s first take on the meaning of ‘conventional’ is like “being conformative” or customary—and passive irt a convention.
(My use of ‘irt’= “in relating to” has become so customary for me in writing that I no longer define ‘irt’; I just use it.)

But the first meaning of ‘convention’ stood for something active: “1 : a: an agreement between persons or parties” (M-W. Unabridged). Being conventional, beginning for English in the 15thC, was something “1 : a: based on, settled by, or formed by agreement or compact.”

The agreement can be with/to oneself: resolved, self-realization, appreciating who “I” am, truly, to-and-for myself.

A convention is an action-orienting value that makes one’s action worthwhile.

vistas of blobs: gathering satisfaction in a hunt

---

To call motion a hunt implies intent in the motion. The moving thing hunts because eventually a capture is seen, after which the moving settles, evidently satisfied. That which moves captures and settles, showing intent.

But there can’t be intent without intelligence. So, the moving capture that settles itself is intelligent.

Formation of clouds in a humid sky gravitates toward concentration of moisture into precipitous portent. The air shapes itself as if drawn to concentrate moisture—as if centripetality of temperature differences in barametric pressure prefers entropic condensation—because entropy prevails “above” all.

Time lapse video of cloud formation over a plain looks like an awesome formation by intent. Analytically, there is physical “prevailing” with results being centripetally drawn into self-precipitating vortexes.

historical “psyche”

---

‘Psychal’ and ‘psychalness’ also allows more-direct association with its classical Greek root, psyche, which is revealing of the Self/self Difference.

The combining form ‘psych-‘ originally meant “life, spirit, soul, self” (M-W Unabridged). All of that! life itself? life as “spirit”? essentially spirit, but life apart?

Greek psyche is “akin” to Greek psychein: to breathe, blow. I blow, but do I breathe?: Forgetting that I breathe, by attending to anything in my day, “I” continues to breathe, as if there is another I within me: spirit, like the wind of Nature breathing.

recalling intra-psychal differences

---

1 | When a child personifies a toy, their enjoyment of actual interpersonal relations is mapped into relating to the toy (creating a “real” relation-
ship). Multiple toys, multiple personified relations; but the child has a dim conception of being one self having multiple personified relations.

2 | Likewise in actual interpersonal relations. Being personal is relative to relations with actual others; and multiple relationships are multiple interpersonal relations that don’t clearly cohere. To be “personal” is ordinarily to be [inter]personal variably.

psychalness again

---

I posted over a year ago that “I began using ‘psychal’ in mid-March, 2011, because I wanted a correlate of my term ‘mindality’,” which is “associable with phenomenological interest.” [“psychalness,” Jan. 2019]. “…Psychal interest in mind or psyche is experiential (or phenomenological). Psychological interest in mind is methodic, structural, or conceptual...” (sweet transgression, Mar. 2011).

The middle ’o’ of ‘psychological’ is merely a conventional connector between the root ‘psyche-’ and ‘-logical’. I substitute ‘a’ for inquirial (inquiry-al) interest in psychalness: psychalogical interest.

I mentioned in November, 2011 that “...my preference for ‘psychalogical’ over ‘psychological’…is analogous to a difference between [interest in] phenomenal experience and systematically-interpreted experience” (“...developmental interest”). But that is better represented as two kinds of inquirial interest: phenomenological and empirical.

---

foresting life

---

This is a letter emailed to the author of a NY Review of Books review of three books about Charles Darwin. I’m musing across a scale of interest from cellularity to facing the black cosmos.

A couple of “[…]” points in the letter refer to irrelevant chat-level content. [Bracketed text is slight amplification or explanatory indications of content that a reader might not be familiar with.]

---

praise for gifted longevity

---

Freeman Dyson died this week, age 96.

I commented at the NYTimes obituary.

I’m noting that here because I’ll soon prospect at length about giftedness as model for understanding the nature of intelligence, which is to be employed for a realistic idealism about human potential, which will serve prospecting notions of highly flourishing life.

There’s a typo in my NYT comment I can’t correct there: We “mis-imagined that heaven as someplace else.” I meant: We mis-imagined that heaven is someplace else. We mis-imagined heaven as someplace else. We’re the diasporic (diaspora-ic) species, hungry for greener pastures.

Dyson’s last article for the NY Review of Books notes that, in the beginning. “the universe was divided into earth and sky, the earth made of perishable stuff in constant turmoil, the sky made of immortal stuff, serene and ageless” (January 2020).

Yet, alas: We’re all children of the pale blue dot.

Freeman Dyson exemplified the leading edge of Our evolving. | March 19: And more today from Edge.org.

---

psychalness

---

Evidently, I began using ‘psychal’ in mid-March, 2011 because I wanted a correlate of my term ‘mindality’ and which was to be associable with phenomenological interest, differing from standard “psychological” (scientized) interest.