To me, linguistic relativity isn’t an unwieldy constraint; it’s a medium we evolve through conceptual capabilities that are at once pre- and post-linguistic, a keynote of “cognitive science”—which I call mental science, because feeling for relationality—so-called “emotional inteligence”—is partner to cognition (ontogenically intimate with representability), not derivative—unless you trivially mean by ‘cognitive’ “all things mental.” But then, you’d have to give up epistemic conceptions of cognition. Mentability is vastly tropical or isomorphic, calling for senses of mental cohering (I like ‘mindality’) that aren’t about “grammar” in any standard sense, nor dominantly about representations (epistemic).

I’d like to feel comfortable giving up reminders of the difference between use and mention that quote marks frame, because all read terms are already always enframed by enstanced usage; thus, no term is especially so, except for particular focus on a term’s implicit difference between its (2) actual use (interpersonal / authorship) and (1) background (lifeworld investment; or authoriality—or reading as also thereby “writing”).

What is “the” “ultimate” “nature” of conceptual promise? We don’t give up wanting to discern the nature of things, inasmuch as we still wonder what the want truly is—and make it something prospective (beyond metaphysicalism). Likewise with ‘ultimacy’ and want of high singularity (“the”).

Language is essentially tropological because conceptuality is always multi-horizoned, such that presentation is always contained by implicature (significance) beyond definite reference (meaning), while significance too is always potentially definite (in light of analytical disclosure), but likely merely echoed in interpersonal (or textual) reference.

Isomorphism in thinking is inevitable, if only because actions are always interested beyond and before an action, always part of implicit activites, which serve a project. Meaning always has unrepresented significance. Beyond that, what’s said always implies (or conceals) “the” unsaid, distinct from the evident significance of discrete meaning (even highly self-implicative Unsaid of life-general Selfality may be in play). Action is always performance, always part of a theater. Scientific expression always implies metascientific presumptions about model-theoretical relativities and research enterprise investments.

Some notion of ultimate being always implies Earthan relativity, i.e., we—We—are living relatively early eras of Our evolving. (Imagine trying to explain to classical Greeks—a mere 2.4+ millennia ago—that their Logos is “evolving”—transitively, as well as intransitively.)

Retrospective reflection is also a retrojective window. (In a 20^th century idiom: Phenomenological reduction is always constitutive.)

We evolve conceivability in prospecting our “Given” (yet implicit) conceptuality. As Heidegger was fond of indicating in late life, German “Es gibt” (understood by Germans as we understand ‘there is’) literally means “it gives” (which Heidegger sought to have Germans take to heart: anewly, evincively hear in common sense). “It gives being,” he’d convey. “It gives time.”