home conceptual adventuring

  turning to say: “there as no ending”
gary e. davis
April 20, 2017

He said “such and such.”

Or a narrator says “He said ‘such and such’.”

I say what I say, yet often feeling immediately afterward that it’s said as if I’m merely a reader, and he said...

In any case, it’s said: here, text, indicated, readable—authored? (more than mere articulation, more than mere indication); read? (by more than the articulator: some generalizable readiness? [nice pun?])

The articulation is played through (played out) as indication, mirrorable for the writer and replayed by a reader, yet mirroring the reader in some sense only s/he knows (including how gender enters into reading).

So, any text is a potential mirrorplay—a mirrorplay of potential, as one is a reader in writing, and re-writing in reading.

“For me, valuing large-scale potential in understanding (high rhetoric)...” begins a note from early April. I forget the occasion of it. Many notes emerge every week, very often many emerge in one day. There, I’m thinking something about a potential rhetoricality of presentation (i.e., presented “understanding”), something more, signaled to me, but nonevident to any other reader (without authorial explication—or scholarly explication, if the authorship becomes a subject).

The note is not only implicitly invoking a distinction between high and low rhetoric (between, say: poetic resort vs. instrumental point). It’s about an interest in large-scale potential in proximal phenomenality that’s implicitly conceptual, like a high-trOpical presentation that’s deliberate (as received from a mysterious source), as if phenomenality itself is translational, and a rhetoricality of simple presence is in play to imply a condition of conceptuality preceding the phenomenality (implicit constitutivity, that would be)—a conceptuality that’s efficacious for the “author” (as if) of phenomenality received like a literally-authorial translation of given authorially-given conceptuality into relatively high scale accessibility, just as neologisms in literal authoriality may be categorial “functions” for the authorial reader; or rubrics may have a formulaic efficacy in exploratory notes composed for oneself (as if the authorial moment will die to remembrance), though (in the present case) received by authorial later reading in a self-begettingness of authoriality: proximal phenomenality “in understanding (high rhetoric)—naming our compass and discerning its Point for one’s life span, one’s era, the week, or a day—is very enjoyable.”

So, simple phenomenality can feel revelatory of general value, like an appealing horizon reflecting desire for high scale telic cohering (if not reliably expressing a teleological Peak)?

For a person, “valuing large-scale potential in understanding (high rhetoric)—naming our compass and discerning its Point for one’s life span, one’s era, the week, or a day—can be very enjoyable.“

But if he doesn’t take time to explicate, what’s the point of sharing?

Unclarified point gets to be called “poetic,” giving integrity to a trOpical presence—a trOpical leap, an obscure liminality, that may be read however one chooses (which normally means: not read at all).

“Far peaking evolves, such that a return from there to recount a way up is always anticipatory of what was still ongoing when I came back here.”

I don’t know when I wrote that. Out of a mass of notes brought together for a sequenced bricolage of manageable recalling, he decided to next note that apparent teleology turns out to trope a teligenesis that’s ever ongoing, but making itself presentable while moving on, like stopping and turning to write home about endless odyssey.

Everyone has their projects—which might be endless Project-ing, except that one dies someday.

But I should say that I seem to be in excellent health and quite happy to carry on.

< creativity venturing -|- Next: Project-ivity -|- topic: for love of conceptual inquiry

  Be fair. © 2017, gary e. davis