Wednesday, April 28, 2010
I’m most certainly no masochist, but I get warm fuzzies from a put-down by someone who has clear warmheartedness with me, such that the tease might seem otherwise (to someone just entering the room) dismissive or coldhearted. I love being teased by a friend.
For example, I say: “I didn’t know the software could do that,” and my friend replies: “There’s lots of things you don’t know.” I get a good laugh. The retort can be taken as a compliment, if my friend has previously expressed admiration for how much, in their view, I seem to know. The tease is a backhanded admiration—maybe a little reminder that I might show more humility. Anyway, it’s cute ribbing, good for my health.
But if the retort comes from someone who never speaks to me or it’s said without good reason to assume warmheartedness, the retort would be unwelcomed. Or the retort could be coldhearted.
However, the retort could be from someone who wants friendship; or who wishes that our past warmheartedness was still alive. Then, their retort could be nostalgic, maybe heartrending, about what’s been lost.
There’s too much pretense of warmth in daily life without genuineness, lacking authentic feeling. So many relations pretend solidarities or rapports that I call “InCrowdy”: phony uses of warmhearted ways.
-- gary e. davis --- 7:00 AM
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
What is the developmental basis of a very good sense of self, independent yet easily empathic? A well-enabled sense of self avoids habitual and extreme egoism. Egoism expresses, ironically, disabled self sense. How goes developmental avoidance of egoistic personality, resulting in strong, constructive self efficacy with very good empathy?
Those questions occur to me because I’m wanting to do my intended 12 sections of a discussion of child development—the horizoning child who doesn’t “love” unhappiness.
The “conceptuality...” project (which will be “completed”) presumes ontogenic background that isn’t yet discussed, which I chose to postpone in order to provide a prospective sense of life that my approach to ontogeny would be reconstructively about (based on a very longstanding engagement with theory of child development). A discussion of smart-child development might be especially about how egoism is avoided in formation of good capability for creativity, having a highly enabled sense of self (vital for high creativity) with the empathy that is integral to ethical life.
-- gary e. davis --- 10:16 AM
Friday, April 16, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
revised Saturday, 4/17 — 10:24 am
I make notes offline to a variably larger extent than writing online (let us hope). I sometimes put here what interests me during the day to have online (daynotes), and postings are part of a piecemeal journal toward actualizing a large-scale project (or Project) already largely realized, yet not actualized online. My web pages sometimes echo the Project—accessibly, I hope (though one might smirk at my sense of accessibility sometimes). I’m quite aware, posting here and there, of being drawn into trying to represent conceptual aspects of the Project, rather than staying within the anticipated scope of the posting. Postponing that gratification is like distancing any gratification for the sake of greater pleasure or reward (as investment) up the road to my back as I write for posting. It’s an Appropriative condition (now quite distanced from Habermasian sociocentrism), a midlanding relative to a sense of developmental climb that any discursive venture is, if only as a matter of coherent presentation, but also with respect to an unknown reader living, like any of us, amid developmental eras of understanding, higher in one domain than another, yet all weaving your individuality.
Anyway, this blog, other blogs, and the website are vinings centripetally drawn to weave an emergent pathway unpresumed; so, to that extent written for a future reader that I am not yet.
The ongoing, though piecemeal, emergence is not the road—at best an introduction, yet always a reminder that, for my part, learning draws me neverendingly.
-- gary e. davis --- 10:28 AM
X amount of force in a depth of water may cause a serene flow where that same amount of force in shallow water causes a frenzied flow (same energy; less space for it to flow in). The frenzied energy of a young mind (having a relative thinness of neural connectivity for given available energy) may be serene in later years, as the older mind (so rich in density of associativity) is actually doing more with given energy than the younger mind can, but far less overtly, maybe appearing passive to youth. The attention span of the young mind may be very episodic; its listening shallow, where the much-older mind may seem passive (even inattentive) when such a mind is deeply receptive.
-- gary e. davis --- 9:08 AM
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Someone was talking annoyingly about “neediness” a few days ago, and it got me thinking more about need vs. desire, as I’ve been assuming I’d focus on desire for the “living fruitfully” part of the “conceptuality…” project, but I haven’t dwelled in writing with my presumed sense of difference between need and desire. So, I’ve done that today.
-- gary e. davis --- 8:06 PM
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Thursday morning, 4/1
The New York Times reports on recent interest in bridging cognitive psychology and literary studies, something that’s been going on for many years. But commonly in interdomainal inquiry, there are new vistas to explore. I think it’s a can of worms, but I wouldn’t want less for my leading edges. The Times article has many aspects that are valuable to me, so I’m going to use themes from the article for a series of five postings.
The first part is titled “Self/personal difference irt multiple perspectivity.”
The second part is titled “textual intimacy.”
I’ve decided to do the remaining parts after finishing the “conceptuality...” project, probably early May.
From earlier daynotes leading to parts 1 and 2...
Thursday, 4/1, afternoon
I recall a posting of mine from 2005, “evolving in ‘Literature’” that’s inspired by one of the authors back then who is featured in the Times article today.
In 2005, I was making a connection to evolutionary psychology that’s central to today’s Times article, but I was back then implicitly interested in memes, though in terms of re-conceptualizing archetypal literary criticism. It was just a posting—but prescient (I’ll show).
That’s very different from the kind of discussion I want to do soon—and very distant from my near obsession with narratability mentioned lately.
Anyway, there’s a lovely context to cross-pollinate soon.
My interest has flowered a bit unmanageably. Could I pursue it in terms of several projects I’m fermenting? Some short storyline?
Now’s coming the weekend, whose free time I’ve expected to use for the “conceptuality …” project.
I stay away from autobiographical things, confession. My days are barely suggested here, deliberately. That’s a story, the days themselves, this staying away that becomes a narrative motif of its own.
O dear, wouldn’t it be sweet to die happy you’re a lasting motif.
Part 1 was done this morning, part 2 this evening.
Saturday evening, 4/3
I recognize now that the appeal of the Times article was what made the general area interesting to me four-plus years ago: the same as what made the crude idea of literary anthropology interesting in my ‘20s! It implies the humongous conditions of bridging the human sciences and humanities that has been with me most of my adult life, an interest which looks very different to me now than it did five years ago. I feel desire to account for the difference, but that would be to just continue with what I’m doing, without giving special attention to the inspiration of a newspaper article. The article is affirming in ways I don’t want to take time to detail. It’s self esteeming, which is great.
So, an intent to do brief response grew into five parts, but the anticipated third part implies such a large portion of what I’m generally giving free time to that I just want to move on. I can’t just use the article to inspire interesting commentary. The appeal is insatiable.
But I’ll finish it, later than I anticipated.
I bother with all this process commentary because it’s pertinent to my standing intent to write generally about project development.
Monday evening, January 2, 2012
Over a year and a half has passed. The improvised intention of this little project flowered into major projects on literary discourse, intimacies of flourishing, and discursivity (as such) that I haven’t fleshed out into presentational parts yet, and may not do so for some years. But all that will come to fruit online. The entire point of developing things is a furthering.
Anyway, it’s now part of the larger Project of the past decade, which I discussed briefly today on a page titled “singularity,” which ends this project’s inspiration: “intimacies.”
-- gary e. davis --- 9:22 PM
Thursday, April 01, 2010
‘irt’ means “in relation to.” It’s easier to keystroke than ‘vis-à-vis.’
[Nov. 13, 2011: Excuse my linking to this posting so often
from other pages, if that has become tedious for you.]
I think so much vis-à-vis things being vis-à-vis that I always use ‘irt’
in my notes. I might as well use it online, and have this little posting.
Besides, I don’t do French, so ‘vis-à-vis’ feels unduly pretentious,
even though it’s now common for English (and I commonly have
no compunction about being pretentious).
Basically, though, ‘irt’’s a time saver for someone obsessed
with interfacing, interplay, inter-intering (recursive potential),
and so on.
[revised February 15, 2016.]
-- gary e. davis --- 9:00 PM