a note about prospective interest

---

I can be analytical about any conceptual exploration, e.g., in the manner of a discourse on implicature. But analysis always presumes a scale of relevance, especially when one wants to be practical. In particular, what’s accessible to linguistic analysis may axiomatically conceal phenomenological relevance that is ordinary to psychoanalysis.

So, narrating in terms which may beg questions of usefulness doesn’t entail insensitivity to audience or to importances of analytical attention (which are best pursued situationally, typified by the common resort of conceptual analysts to orient their inquiry relative to simple examples).

Equally important is derivation of terms with congruent sense across prospective contexts, such that incongruent uses in inquiry (discerned retrospectively) express developing horizons which later, reconstructive  inquiry may make more formal. Conceptual prospecting is not categor-
ial engineering (or immanent conceptual design), though that’s import-
ant for pedagogy and for occasioned appropriations (actual discursive interactions).

But conceptual prospecting best avoids the appeal of formal determin-
ation too early, because the classical appeal of systemic closure leads to self-undermining congestions of the venture; e.g., excessive corrollaries about exceptions which make pretenses of formality increasingly approximative, allusive, and figurative or “literary.” Indeed, a literary condition may be ultimately unavoidable.

Most important is that the inquirer prospects with interest in preserving congruence across contexts, in order to make appealing formality later more feasible, inasmuch as that’s practical.

So, I don’t apologize for continuing as I may: being suggestive of themes, because I can easily provide detail later.

---