Friday, September 23, 2016

the last apology for trivial update notes

Every day (nearly) gives me fun learning, fun developing themes (conceptual trekking, tripping), and writing freely, in my own idiom (privately—sorry). Enjoyment is its own reward. I’m working 8-or-more hours per day, making steady progress.

What’s here so far (via blog and Web pages—as of summer 2016) are improvised episodes in an introductory sense of what interests me for my Project, that so far has no description, no synopsis.

What’s here so far all coheres (to my mind), but specific postings/pages were occasioned by events, not part of The Plan (apart from the general site areas).

But the site’s no mere archive of whatever I’m writing; it’s not a manifold blog.
It so far intimates an intentionally-cohering sense of The Project, though no one could see that unless they dwelled with everything (and probably not even then).
I haven’t intended that a cohering conception would be evident.

The site is a montage so far, expressing a small fraction of the kinds of themes that I’m intending to explicate in accord with an explicit plan (like a many-leveled syllabus) and in light of very detailed sets of notes—to become readings of others’ research.

Conceptual tenability is proximally a presentational issue that brings thinking into modes of authorial inquiry, relative to particular interests. So far, the site provides a preliminary sense of conceptual regioning that I’ll bridge with what’s to come online (beginning next month? early 2017? I can’t say) which—like anything narrative—can be presented only a piece at a time (section by section by section...), apart from abstract overviews (which I won’t venture online because they would likely confuse more than help). My Project is in an idiom of my own, which is good for me, but would seem jargonistic to anyone else, unless I lengthily explicate.

No possible iconography, no imagism, exists that suddenly captures a conceptual “gestalt”—which is misleading to mention, since I’m more interested in dynamics of gestalting (so to speak—or conceptions of generativity). Gestalts necessarily derive from dynamics of gestalting (as far as that term pertains). Gestalts should be regarded as complements to the dynamics from which they derive. Regarding gestalts too strongly conceals interest in openness of inquiry, imagination, and discovery.

So, the conceptual mountaineering is going so well in my own idiom that I want to keep doing it without giving time to doing post cards of brief display, otherwise as if rigorous pretense could make sense briefly, like tropes in meditated poetry or an axiomatic dream: “These are the Terms. All flows into this.”

The flow of It All is a long story. My trusting in the climb (around [circumspective], up [abstract], down, more around [consolidating]...) is the best ensurance that substantive presentation, eventually here, won’t be disappointing. I don’t want to hastily distill some part of what I’m developing into a brief, impersonal capsule just to meet a self-imposed deadline.

I feel guilty about that, because I want to please. I want promised updates to be non-trivial. Presentation is a narrative campsite whose shared spirit around the text can be fun. That’s the ideal of life, isn’t it?: to have fun—forever.