home page button blog button
        sense of site here
gary e. davis
May 4, 2018

This is the same as the Feb. 22 version, but the first eight paragraphs are clearer now, I hope.

The six Areas of the home page are entrances for persons new to the site. Each Area is simply defined, and a link to past work is provided. But the past work—improvisations through 2017 (fun, but serious)—is archive and resource for new explorations. I’ll permanently link to new material from the relevant Area page (or apt blog); and I’ll note all new material at the “new in site” space on my home page for a week or so. And all home page updates are listed at the “recent weeks” link.

Living “up” to being well is valued by everyone, at least implicitly (if not overtly idealized).

The separate “good thinking” Area of the Web site is about what may proceed in light of conceptual inquiry, most relative to interest in interdisciplinary conceptual design. But good thinking is practical; it serves being well, through curiosities to follow diligently, projects to sustain excellently, friends to keep close, valuable time to give....

That’s a simple point about good thinking, not a definition of it. I enjoy a proximal vagueness in the notion of “good thinking.” For example, “being well” (the site Area) implicitly expresses a comprehension of valuing good thinking while overtly attending to themes about individuating capability for thinking about—or theme-ing—whatever. “Being well” anticipates better understanding (in conceptual terms) of whatever interest, by idealizing a wholly flourishing life that may, to my mind, be exemplified by supporting (advocating, working toward) ecologically flourishing humanity, through advancing community; i.e., understanding “advancing community” relative to centripetal high valuing. Meanwhile, life goes on (being in Time), at scales beyond capture.

In other words, the site Areas are proximal entrances into deepening (verb) explorations; and, in doing that, each Area “plays” with proximal themes constructively.

I don’t idealize a technical sense of good thinking for being well as such. But prospects of higher conceptual insightfulness in being well (analogous with higher education) are exemplified by some topics of “being well” (latter topics of that Area), but not necessarily the specific improvisations grouped under a given topic—a distinction which pertains to the entirety of “sundry gardening,” implicitly relative to offline Work. “Higher” insightfulness provides better opportunities for being well than “lower” insightfulness (analogously as a “high school” education is not very high).

A notion of higher versus lower understanding can be detailed non-relativistically which warrants preferring some values, concepts, views over others—given that one can establish an appropriate standard for what so-called “higher” valuation is, of course. Given well-established standards of preference (a difficult venture!), some values are justifiably preferrable to others.

Though such a standard of preference is implicit for my discussions, that hasn’t been made clear, though I’ve intimated that such a clarification can be done, concordant with Hilary Putman (in a post-Kantian sense, beyond Habermas, I believe) and relative to my own explorations). In short, “sundry gardening” implicitly coheres, yet in a very conceptual way. And again, all of that past fun-but-serious improvisation was relative to Work developing offline.

being an intergenric sensibility

I’m here coining an adjectival version of ‘genre’.

Thinking about intergenricality itself has no standard domain—Rhetoric, maybe; classically philological.

I want a high mutuality of love between “the” psychological and the literary, confessional and discursive, “philosophical” and philological, “theoretical” and practical.

I want to associate such thinking with conceptual literary studies; or a 21st century sense of philology.

But such a simple sense of betrothal emerged from improvisation over the years, not that work was predisposed to be “intergenric.”

So, altogether sundry gardening,” as organizational principle for a bricolagy of past writing, is not disoriented (or “cubist”). I’m no dream of Lucian Freud. But I didn’t set out to be “intergenric.” I’m as I am.

I enjoy resonant ambiguity. Isn’t that why we live: to enjoy?

The Project itself

Another era of the life, beginning again, more individuation, major work? (for one’s life—who’s to say what’s Important), graciousness in teaching, genuineness in activism, joy of being—and witnessing another generation growing “up,” ascending, enlightening —witnessing others play a Hermes (so to speak) of their Work. Sailing on, multiple generations in complement (youth needing elders, elders inspired by youth)—We,
rising, flying, cruising, landing—scoping, constellating, deriving preferred discursive shares, not pretending to artistic exemplarity, while insisting on the integrity of going where one may authentically be, doing As If truthfully well, and showing well.

A self-reflectivity of that can be a conception of appreciability precursorily mirrored by constellating, well narrated. Yet, that itself is, to me, precursory for later conceptions of—whatever: telic cohering? Some Grand Way? Having epochal fun, maybe—personal fun, in any event.

The 17 Area senses that were employed for gathering past improvisations into the finished presentation, “sundry gardening,” derive from years of sketches offline that are presently organized into 17 more-abstract Areas (Work called “The Project”), having more-intricate characters, analogous to the presented senses of Area that “sundry gardening” is. I plan to use those “sundry gardening” Areas to orient new presentations over the next year or so, but I won’t amplify “sundry gardening” itself. My organization of improvisations through 2017 is an entity of sorts.

By the way, for many years I’ve been thinking in terms of the scale of themalogy, so to speak, that is now troped as the 17 presentational Areas that “sundry gardening” is.
Such a scale—and nearly all of the work grouped and listed as “sundry gardening”—was already done and near to mind when I improvised 2017’s sense of “The Project itself.”

about topics of Areas: comprised of improvisations apt for that emergent topical focus

The range of topics within an Area doesn’t intend to be comprehensive of the Area. Topics are the foci I want to work with foreseeably. I want to explicate aspects of a continuum of interest that coheres (or is to eventually cohere), labeled by its Area name.

I’m not going to discuss specific topics of an Area on the main page of each Area. Eccentric topics are addressed by existing material; and each topic will eventually have a “topic discussion note” associated with it, but in light of later relevant work, if that’s available. In any case, the discussion note may develop over time. Each will be indicated at the home page “new in site” for a week or so. A given topic may become a separate page, listed on the current Area page (not merely being a listing on the page of 2017-and-earlier discussions that comprises “sundry gardening”). That, too, will be indicated at “new in site.” A topic page that has no link to a correlate topic of “sundry gardening” is not a topic at “sundry gardening”; and won’t be added. “Sundry gardening” is as it is. Ultimately, the scaffolding that is “sundry gardening” has genealogical value for me.
In the long run, The Project will have a different scaffold of cohering.

I know that this probably seems pedantic, but my interest in process and genealogy is integral to my background sense of The Project as such. In a sense, The Project is a process philology.

    Be fair. © 2018, g. e. davis