Area	tropology

	themization gary e. davis	June 2020

To bring something into a themic frame is perspectival, expressing interest-oriented selectivity of relevances or traits. So, something regarded themically (or thematically) tropes the kind or type of interest that the something tokens (synecdochy?) (‘Theme’ is lexical; so, why isn’t ‘themic’ in the Unabridged? ‘Thematic’ derives from Greek thematikos, but that derives from Greek thema + ikos for ‘-ic’.) A theme can be usefully regarded as a modal gravity for constellating items as relatively kindred, implying an appeal of modality as themic model. Is themization, as type of notion, analogous to concepting (conceptualization)? The question matters because studying concepts is integral to philosophy—or is that better associated to philology, understood to be basically beyond themiza-tion? There’s nothing especially “philosophical” (loving sophistication) about conceptual inquiry, though the normality of conceptual inquiry in philosophy suggests that the “queen of the sciences” was always philology. (After all, phil-osophy was originally about conceptual education in classical Athens, dissemin-ating love of gaining sophistication. But hunger for science—Aristotle onward— thus, mastery of nature, transformed conceptual education to aspire for complete conceptual science.) Is conceiving something—in an art or specialist domain—the same as concepting? Not normally: Conceiving a solution to some problem isn’t the same as conceptu-alizing a given solution. So, what’s conceiving such that concepting follows? What’s the basis for evaluating the aptness of a theme or conception? How is that question in literary “theory” analogous (and not) to questions of “theory” in science? What makes both “theory”? next—> textualization of experience

 

 

Be fair. © 2020, gary e. davis