becoming post-Heideggerian

---

The prevailing sequence in Contributions to Philosophy: from enowning— “echo, playing forward, leap, grounding, ones to come, last god”—is cyclic of being-historical thinking, whereby “Art is history in the essential sense that it grounds history” (end of “Origin of the Work of Art”) generatively. Evolvability is understood by Heidegger as the generative cyclicity of that series.  

Many years ago, I extrapolated from that thinking and relative to a long letter to Richard Capobianco where I had Contributions in mind,
“a Heideggerian individuation.” (He wasn’t later emailed about that.)  

More simply, the Contributions series can be troped relative to “originary flow…” as cyclic ethos-motivated poiesis, poiesis-motivated transformation of logos, and logos-relative transformation (or contributions to transformation) of ethos.  

That is congruent with a scientific conception of evolving in terms of (a) leading creativity, (b) conceptual inclusive fitness, and (c) demic efficacy, which I’ve outlined relative to other researchers: “3-foldness of evolving life” as (a) Truth of actualizing talent: from being well to creativity; (b) Goodness of domain mastery: from conceptual inquiry to fundamental work; (c) Beauty of field efficacy: from discursive appropriation to progressive practice.  

My various cycles of projects implicitly gravitate toward the above kind of 3-fold generative cyclicity, which is corroborated by specific researchers in humanistic sciences and science-informed humanties.  

Yet, these days I’m usually “lost” to creative pleasure which probably seems ultimately aimless.

However, what I’m doing ultimately coheres with a preferred manifold of others’ research which allows for prospecting Our evolving conceptually, as a conception of conceptuality evolving.

Yet, such a sense of being happens for a life relative to the Flow of being (which is primally, primarily, and primordially interal).  

---