Project	philological play

	conceptual love gary e. davis	January 11, 2019

In the beginning, philology was broadly literary, but oddly became supplanted by linguistics. So, too, philosophy, as scientistic dreams inflated linguistic relativity of articulation, presentation, and communicative interaction to ontological proportions. But linguistic relativity is fundamentally a matter of mental science, whose manifold intelligence includes linguistic well-formedness (the more so that interests are linguistic), but whose creativity of mind quite loves mental fluidity (called to clarify itself in standardly well-formed ways), including ordering plays of linguistic items in nebulously grammatical ways (called to translate itself into standardly well-formed ways), and all other forms of fluid intelligence inform the ordering plays. So, what is “Literature”? Can semiotic love essentially trope the nature of humanism? What may be the mindfulness of loving a domainal engagement? What, these days, is conceptualizing research in the humanities as such, if not a new philology? Appropriately conceived phil-ology is love of conceptuality: inquirial beyond scientificity, while including that (so many theaters of research enterprise), relative to humanism and humanities (unlike standard metascience, which is physicalistic—as if without enterprise). Philology is implicitly philogeny, an endeavor of mind evolving, evolving mind which gains cogency only relative to exemplarities of that: a selectivity of others’ inquirial projects. Of course, selectivity is an implicit confession of conceptual importance—an at-least-implicit philogeny, so to speak (relative to the practice of conceptual inquiry itself). What standard academic program is the master of interdomainal studies across the humanities and sciences? It’s not standard philosophy. I would rather understand philosophy as derivative of conceptual loves (not to seem precious), whose extended prospecting ventures are largely taken for granted by analysis (the paradigmatic disposition of historical philosophy). I love living in a nebulous region of prospecting the humanity of humanities, exemplified in others’ singular literary (conceptual, discursive) pretenses, as if essence lost from dead ontologism can be regained in autopoietic discursiveness of leading minds. Yes: interdomainal studies across the encyclopedic university can become fruitfully exemplary for Our evolving. To wit: Upcoming “discursive moments” trope long-term inquirial ventures of group theory in the humanities. next—> philology: conceptual literary studies

 

 

Be fair. © 2019, gary e. davis