Each Area includes a listing of previous discussions that are relevant to the Area.
No discussion is listed in two or more Areas, though interlinking within discussions is sometimes repetitious (because I don’t presume that anyone dwells with everything here!).

Much of the “[year] and earlier” pages are documentational, backgrounding what will
be very different, going forward. So, those pages may be basically revised someday, relative to future discussions; or be extracted as drafts of parts of future discussions. This tedious point goes to my interest in being thematic about developmental process, which is integral to The Project as such.

The set of earlier discussions for a given Area may seem arbitrary at times. For example, What does “Toying with the intellectual” have to do with “advancing community”?
Why isn’t “advancing cultural values” in the “good thinking” Area?

The group of future topic rubrics of each Area is more helpful for explaining why earlier discussions are listed in an Area than the nebulous Area name alone is helpful. The intentional vagueness of the Area name unwittingly conceals my sense of each Area that is implicitly premised on unexplicated background. But there’s nothing comprehensive about my view of the site Area expressed by the listing of already-online materials.

In more tedious detail—but to emphasize a kind of engagement with process—by listing, for an Area page, a link to a discussion from a previous project, the previous discussion is figuratively extracted from its initial context in accord with my feeling for which Areas (or thematic region) that the “extracted” discussion may best serve. Thus, the earlier entire project (from which the discussion is extracted—e.g., Habermas studies)
is usefully drawn into the inter-Areality. This is how the entirety of the previous project is antedated: appropriated into The Project as developmental material.

In other words, my selective feeling for each earlier discussion derives from my sense of inter-Areal Project development—an inter-Areality which is only proximal, relative to the unexplicated “deep-structural,” cohering conceptuality of the arrays of topics indicated for each proximal Area. An “extracted” discussion is thereby brought into a proximally-incongruous mix of items for Area development.

This happily begs the question: What is “feeling-for” in conceptual prospecting?
What is Habermas’s “inner compass”? What is Heidegger’s “regioning”?

Anyway, the extracted discussion is to be appropriated in accord with the Areal, regional development. This causes a thematic region or Area to initially look like a rather formless collection of incommensurables. But that’s merely proximal appearance.

That (and the runaround here) tropes a process of development that is integral to the point of The Project itself: presenting a sense of conceptual development eventually
(or, more exactly: a post-metaphysicalist philology of evolving conceptuality) that
will be articulated relative to a large body of others’ research—to be appropriated— which is exemplary of numerous standard academic domains, leading to a conception
of generative interdomainity which is the point (or telos) of The Project.

The “extracted” discussions, as listing of developmental elements, trope an engagement in development process of which the now-“extracted” discussions were already derivative, since my own developmental work is in notes which haven’t been presented. (They wouldn’t make sense, since they depend on concepts that are second nature to me now, but haven’t been explicated for presentation. To do that is to do the Project!)
In other words, the earlier discussions were already derivative, albeit experimentally.