Saturday, May 20, 2006

toward a comprehensive comprehension going forward

I should imagine (and post) a comprehensive sense of this blog project, which generally here is meant to complement Webpaged discussions that are developing. I can imagine an integrated sense of the early postings relative to a conceptual projection (comprehensive prospectus) of this project that now seems fairly definite (as my motto that "learning never ends" pertains to conceptuality, too—even especially).

Comprehensive conceptualization is prospective, relative to unmet others' profound influence, such that a retrospective interest (inevitably reconstructive) is destined to be so relative. Any sense of the past is at best led by its background futurity, itself at best evolving—so too, thereby (at best), any sense of developmentality, historicity, or historicality.

What is envisioned "now" cannot validly revoke its background emplacement in evolution, in an evolved historicity of ontogeny—the life of inquiry—which may nonetheless be led by self-directed learning.

How well can that be fairly appreciated?

At best, one's work evolves, beyond developing (which as such presumes an unfolding origin, apart from considering the implied origin's evolutionarity).

So, at best one's work exemplifies its evolutionarity (but exemplification is not itself comprehension—"exemplifying what?," one asks) and may thereby (again, at best) advance our capability for self-comprehension via the ambition of its ongoing self-conceptualization (dying in the inevitably incompletable process, inherited by others), thereby ultimately exhibiting an excursion among humanity's excursions of facilitating its evolution—here idealizing some singularity (evolution, rather than evolutions interplaying without ultimate cohering) whose emergently telic cohering, of—and for—its Time (a progressivity inherent to the notion of evolution), is validly articulable, albeit belonging only retropectively to future historians (though one may play usefully, insightfully—even profoundly?—with conceptions of telic cohering about the Time that one's Of).

Amid the emergent wisdom of a Time's goods—call it an intellectual estate (itself amid the noise of the planet's communicative lives, muzak of The Commons), as if the university could be a planetary singularity with a topography of partial instances (great and modest, highland, midland, lowland)—one may try to write the whole Story of an (the?) estate, philosophy of philosophies, though ultimately ever failing—yet in the journey maybe contributing to our species capability for conception (which only philosophy has aimed to do, as a matter of self-conception)—not that I presume capability for that, but I can commit (and have sustained commitment) to doing my best to contribute something to the Good of the order— "the" Good of our designing "nature" ever evolving, an interplay of estates (epistemic domains, disciplinarities) that may be ultimately self-designing: the universCity of discursive inquiry, thereby evolving our unrepresentable evolutionarity in evermore comprehensive comprehensions of one's capabilities in play.

As if philosophy could be really fairly planetary—but who needs it?

What has the philosophical canon really done that's lastingly efficacious, as the world sustains itself without functional appreciation of the intellectuals (let alone conceptual designers of "philosophy"). Stuff happens, and the world adjusts. Whatever humanity does, the planet will adjust. Our evolving flourishes without governing conception, while we are ever learning Gaia's singularity (whatever the future results of astrobiology) in a centerless universe, whereby we have made the Meaning that sustains us across generations (with potentially evolutionary efficacy); and we are making the Meaning that will sustain our beautiful singularity on this heavenly planet relative to some SETI result awaiting our evolution to that epochal Day: threshold, portal granted at last by the ultimate internet, archival intelligence of our relatively local region.