notes home from a wilderness singing

---

Oh, you…

You want an accessibly well-formed narrative which is comprehensively credible (yet not too complex) for serving what most matters.

Too much improvisation intimates too much complexity, which looks ultimately incoherent (thus, losing promise for advancing given understanding), which is annoying (at the least) because you want specific orientation (not too challenging, not tedious) by permanently reliable leads.

You want high confidence in giving time to others’ prospecting.

You want eudaemonic (if not hedonic) pay-off easily.

However, my common linking to earlier improvisations which seem incom-
mensurable with each other does express a sense of genealogy— don’t you think?—which is very relevant at each link point.

There is fundamental well-formedness which occasions short and longer postings.

Rough sketching doesn’t imply that the sketcher isn’t looking at something clearly.

Think of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations. He didn’t offer a fundamental conception of his thought. But scholars found it.

—Not to be pretentious. I’m sharing postcards from the road,
which does have a clear map.

By the way, I’m very engaged offline with conceptions of conceptuality, “naturalism,” “realism,” “truth,” and epistemic confidence..

Climbing slopes is fun. More detail will be posted down the road (or maybe
while I’m still up).

---