Saturday, April 8, 2017
creative process, event of appropriation
My landscape of topics ahead feels so rich that I want to enjoy not yet deciding where to go next. Like having a clear conception of a painting, which doesn’t determine what part to begin with or to work on next, a story may be written from scenic designs that pop up with no hint yet where in a grand narrative they are to belong. Voices play around. A jazz of characters play their lives, while the painter-writer-composer documents in witness...
In recent years, I’ve sought an accessible ground (tropography) for ambitious work to come. But, you know, accessibility is a relative thing, depending on fictions about audience.
To some sensibilities, talk of “lifeworldliness” is interesting. To most persons, I suppose, such talk isn’t interesting.
A sense of cohering scale, high and broad, may actually be a fine degree of practicality. Better conceptuality enables better whatever that pertains. Yet, such rings true selectively.
Granting an ambitious project’s purpose as open, like any experimentalism, then a clear conception of conceptuality may provide telic integration of literatures in service to the Openness, like the mystery of an upcoming great dinner party of audacious voices or seminar of inquirial happenstances.
Theory in the humanities is like that: The point of “theory” (non-empirical conceptual modeling, e.g., “social” theory) is to integrate appealing activities (e.g., literatures, projects, organizations) in fruitful, progressive ways, as broadly and as highly as is good.
What better could intelligent virtue be for? progressive virtue, virtuous progress!
Here’s a less verbose version of my previous update sketch: The home page Areas tend toward a philosophical venue that will be integrative of all, analogously as a natural ecology of compatibles (a bricolagy) all imply the “same” bioscience (in different ways). But that’s just an analogy. I don’t think biologistically. Yet, the specific conceptual design work that I want to convey will be singularly philosophical (a high congruence), including formalisms, but not be ultimately formalistic.
sense of site: April 8, 2017 version (likely to change)
Each of the six Areas of the project—The Project (as proper name; I’ll find another someday)—have listed a group of topics that will be developed; and a listing of earlier discussions that are associated with the Area, mainly relative to the topics to develop that define an Area (an Areality). In the meantime, earlier discussions serve to give an Area an initial character. Altogether, The Project presents itself proximally as six characters of discursive engagement in a singular identity.
Ultimately, I enjoy pure prospectivity. But this site is intended to be relatively practical, in terms of concepts, issues, etc. that standardly matter (for the most part: I also play easily—but with all due respect, I hope).
The following short discussions are not necessary for making good use of the site. Each Area page speaks accessibly enough to be useful.
New topic pages, topic developments, and major revisions will be noted on my home page at the upper left “new in site” point. The upper right “recent weeks” link on the home page covers the current season.
So, going further now, I’ll be a little tedious (anxiously) and a little excessive (happily)....
somewhat tedious short discussions:
somewhat excessive short avowal
