theorizing research in the humanities

---

How can conceptual inquiry most fruitfully constellate or cohere qualitative research?—that is: to importantly bridge evidentiary research with cultivation of humanity? I asked this relative to Habermas, but the question belongs generally to philosophy—indeed, belongs to Habermas’s own sense of philosophy in higher education.

The future of philosophy is at least service to cohering interdisciplinary studies, at best in a leading way—to my mind.

---

2-fold, 3-fold, 4-fold—onefold?

---

2-fold: enacting the act: Acting is done and witnessable, by others and by oneself. But immanence of self-witnessing as one goes along in activity is essentially different from another’s continuing to witness the activity. Enactivity has a potential recursiveness (responsiveness, adaptability) that belongs solely to intentionality, not observation. Yet, interaction embodies both for each actor. So, a dyad of interaction is immediately a 3-fold of what “we” both share along with our psychally-separate engagements: two selves in a shared event that is also observable by a non-participant, which is less than being a participant in the mirrorplay of interacting time.

So, a heuristic 3-fold is easily associable with the presence of two 2-fold actors. This “lateral” or horizontal 3-fold has no ontic overtones. A “vertical” one might credibly be: “a 3-fold ambiguity of ‘cognitivity’.”