home page button sense of site here
        the topic arrays
gary e. davis
April 8, 2017

The Area topics list (key concepts, rubrics, tropes, themes, neologisms,...) don’t yet link to any separate discussion page (inquiry page, analysis page, etc.), but eventually each topic will have its own page.

Why those? They’re derived foci that suit anticipated presentation—windows, gravities, key notions to me now—that emerge from working at a “level” (in modes of height/depth, not yet rendered online) that is cohering of them all, “down” from which my sense of the practical foci (“topics”) emerged, there to be demonstrably appropriated for a given (presumed) audience and, relative to that, drawn into explication of—if you will—The Cohering (The Project “as such”).

Obscure, that may seem, but it’s actually a simple rendering of hermeneutical pragmatic thinking, which appropriates a “given” discourse into interaction which, then, may bring interaction into the “givenness” (which was actually a long road “up” to what could be derivatively appropriated as given).

The topic arrays trope what theory or conceptual inquiry is generally for: useful conceptual explication, sophistication, interrelating, and employing. The six-fold Project set of arrays express a pointillism (a singular topography, relative to the points) of The Project itself. How The Cohering goes is all the fun.

There’s an intentional uncanniness about some topic names in each Area group. In a sense, topic names may be better regarded as questions. ambiguities to be dwelled with: topic name as genuine (already-clear, normal or normative) topic; or/and name as so-called (as if in quote marks, taken-for-granted as normal or normative; a “facticity”); or/and name as obscure concept (as if being a neologism).

I want to discuss the process of developing topics: the crystallization of innumerable notes into specific topics of an Area. But doing so generally wouldn’t make much sense, I’m afraid. It’s like mapping any developmental process as a generality. What is literary research as such? Insert a discourse on what literary creativity is as such. (Do conceptual fiction.)

So, I abstain because do that in a general way requires clarification of terms that I need to first clarify (terms that emerged because I didn’t find available terms that were satisfactory, unless re-definition became neologism; ergo, new terms needing explication). Perhaps more sense would be usefully conveyed relative to development of one topic—which would only be cogent relative to the topic as developed enough to reconstructively examine.

I’ll see what I feel like doing down the road (after more work up the road).

Isn’t this fun?




    Be fair. © 2017, g. e. davis