Area	good_ life

	ontogeny...begeny gary e. davis	January 2019 June 2024

begeny (emphasis on first syllable, not capped): Why do we call the retrojective theorization of individuation “ontogeny”? Because the sciences formed in a his- torical legacy of striving to embody ont- (combining form): Greek “present participle of einai to be — more at is.” Yet the Greek meaning—“being”—is about something living: being. Genesis of being (pre-natal onward) gives obvious value to coining ‘begeny’ and preferring that to the biologistic norm of ‘ontogeny.’ Besides (again), ‘ont-‘ doesn’t keep in mind that alive being is the point. Also, the point is person-al: for baby, for interpersonal life, and for philosophy. Thinking of a (“the”?) genesis of one’s being is an abstraction irt (in relation to / with) a living individuation—which, by the way, isn’t fairly appreciated by the notion of development. We say: Children develop, but each would talk like they’re becoming themselves: growing up in a singular way. A genesis of being is an indiv- iduation. And notions of innateness are moot, because individuation of the prenatal brain is unreconstructible for any individual. The main reason I use ‘begeny’ is that I use ‘ontogeny’ in a technical sense that’s very apart from the context of individuation. What’s called ‘ontology’ is actually about the genealogy of so-called “ontic” conceptuality (i.e., conceptuality thinking of itself as rooted in meta-physics). Ontology is intrinsically genealogical—onto- genic—just as phenomenality results from phenomenogenic activity, such that phenomenology is retrojectively, yet essentially, genealogical.

next—> conceptuality of enaction

 

 

 

 

 

Be fair. © 2024, gary e. davis