Wednesday, August 25, 2021

an individual pluralism of conceptual interests



Inevitably, aspirations become plural. The singularity of a life may have no comprehensive conception (to observers or readers), but obviously one’s life is a singularity.

But finding a comprehensive comprehension of my conceptual interests is less interesting to me, in the near term, than journeying on, which shared journaling expresses.

Sharing implies no expectation of regular interest by others. I’m not promoting what I’m doing beyond sharing some of it. I hope it’s useful.

What matters is to get on with the Work (not to seem pretentious). I love my Work, while I’m also highly interested in learning from others. Contacting me is easy.

Down the road (beyond my upgoing road and venturing), I’ll want to promote and defend views—and, I anticipate, revise my thinking in light of others’ response.

Anyway, I do have comprehensive comprehension of what I’m doing (capable of rigorous formality—which will not lead to foundationist logocentrism!), but my sense of clarity currently has semantic compres-
sion (and vocabulary) which requires explication to be useful for others.

The hundreds of pages online, as of 2018, which I playfully called “sundry gardening” loosely organizes a holism, but that and the succeeding “Project currently” don’t imply any conceptual comprehen-
sivness, which would be (when prospected online) relative to inquirial (inquiry oriented) relevance relative to my example of inquirial interest.

There is, to my mind, a clarifiable ultimate cohering which is openly evolving: a possibly lucid conception of conceptual evolving (an enactive, transitive sense) which is evolving (intransitive sense). Ultimacy (a conceptuality) is relative to leading intelligibility, which is evolving.

So, what makes intelligibility leading? Sense of that is always relative to one’s own capability for appreciating conceptual appeal, which advances by pursuit of the question, like appealing horizons.

There’s no way beyond an uncanny literarity (tropology) in sharing the pursuit because being is beyond the linguistic relativity of sharing. There’s a virtue of creative intimacy in evolving mind, prospecting better ways worth one’s high fidelity.

A clear cohering of perspectives is relative to first indicating perspectives to constellate. That might be posed as a credible post-metaphysicalist standard for appreciating the conceptuality of others’ work, relative to a conception of personist (¶s 3 and 4) evolving conceptuality which a comprehensive cohering expresses.

Practically, my constellatable horizon of prospective interests draws me into the conceptuality of interdomainal, scientifically astute humanities, prospecting a 21st century sense of philology—while at least mirroring mySelf (¶7 here: an horizonal singularity) as example of conceptual inquiry.

Anyway, We are faced with a perpetual future shock of techno-global metropolia whose wealthy “solution” to global warming seems to be: Let humanity dwindle for the sake of air conditioned convenience.

My challenge is to show how a large-scale convening of leading ideas can be credibly constellated usefully in open telic cohering which is humanistically (person-ally, personist-ly) progressive.