gedavis.com home page button sense of site here
        The Project itself
gary e. davis
June 5, 2017
     
     

Coherence of the six Areas as singularity will be in terms of integrating the topics that are to compose each Area. That integrating will derive from inter-textual work with others’ research that has been influential in recent years but not yet appropriated for presentation. The appropriate consolidation will evolve relative to development of those listed topics, through appropriation of others’ work, emergence of new relevant work by others, and the effect of all that on my developing sense of appropriation (fruitful practicality) that I have at whatever period along the way.

No wonder, then, that articulation of processes of development—reconstructive and reflective—might be (is) integral to my conception of The Project. That is, The Project is also about itself, as is conceptual inquiry—and being well, etc.

The Areas are proximal entrances into a highly conceptual venture that is beyond the scope of any one Area (or any subset of Areas...). The cohering of It all is necessarily a future discursive formation to be parsed into a cogent path (via topics), while implicitly being a comprehensively evolving conceptuality, presentably attuned fruitfully with how humanistic world and human life evolves. In short, presentation would seek to express a hermeneutical pragmatics that is integral to the conceptuality of The Project.

The Project may seem to be too expansive, too abstract, even foolish, suggestive of fantasized ontologism. But I don’t believe so. Tendencies toward ontologism belong to common stances toward familiar topics, thereby themes for deconstructive work. Such tendencies are a “client” to work with, since someone’s ontologism is always the issue; e.g., Habermas’s “ontological monism” may be ultimately untenable, but fruitfully prospective for an “evo-devo” approach to conceptual inquiry. Through deconstructive work, specific ontologisms can be shown to be developmental (or ontogenic) precursors of better ways of thinking, which ontologisms anticipate.



P. S. Wanting formalizability in aiming for careful expression serves formal interests, which may be appropriate. But aiming for formality tends to be unduly logocentric in exploratory inquiry, thus risking exclusion of potential for discovery and insight. Logocentric desire excludes that which is incongruent with such desire for formality, thereby self-concealing that which would frustrate some implicit value of technical efficacy (e.g., valuing pyramidal organization, values of axiomization—which indeed have an appropriate place in systemic action). Careful attention to conceptual meaning is not equivalent with working toward formalistic analysis. But desire for formalism has its place—which I do enjoy, too. But I’m into another story.

 

 

 




   
    Be fair. © 2017, g. e. davis