Adventuring, gardening, prospecting…conceptual work which long ago outgrew desire for foundational structure (implicitly wanting a metaphysicalism, “ont-
ology“) faces Our evolving with no seafarer map for how best to understand
the ultimate Openness of being and humanity’s futuring,

So, conceptual inquirers improvise as wisely as they can, which implies a humility that entails occasioned lightness (reconciliation to one’s finitude). Even survivors of tragedy may gain a rather weird sense of humor and creative license in freedom to flourish.

Besides, wanting more intelligent life, more intelligent worldliness is how desire for more humanity of being shows itself.

So, what are better ways of understanding, given the “nature“ (the intrinsic humanity) of Our evolving, which is becoming the Self-designing form of life?

Wanting to understand a “best“ manifoldness of capability as “protean“ is not fabulative (‘fabulation’ as adjective), just as wanting to conceptualize creativity becomes creative, as best one can, in prospecting its own capability, which is always a matter of occasion: a new improvisation of some mere part of a house of being, an archetexture of gardening conceptual designs.

That makes ultimacy of narrativity a kind of conceptual confession which may embarrass itself in a self-serving mirror of its apparent pretentiousness, as if “Ultimacy“ never was more than the authorship of someone prospecting.

The credibility of that someone is relative to the conception of humanity which they imply or address.

Any “humanism“ of that is inevitably conceptual—and expressive of its intellig-
ibility, which is always merely Earthan intelligibility shielded by accident from
the absolutely cold vacuum of the cosmos (and maybe protected by the Great Silence of intelligent life millions of years older than Us).

“Appealing ways of understanding, 2019—22“ is a simpler organization of most
of my conceptual excursions during that period (more transparent than the initial listing), and it separates pages which are part of autonmous projects (e.g., “summer constellation,“ “a creative life,“ and “spring points“).

But that results in a table of contents which may seem overwhelming. It’s also art-
ificial, because most of the topics (as listed there) aren’t chronologically adjacent. The sequencing is heuristic. That can be confusing because the listed pages which were originally part of sub-projects are sometimes linked at the bottom to the next page in their sub-project. So, clicking back to the news listings page is practical because there is themic adjacency.

The listing is useful for providing a reader an easy sense of what I’ve been generally doing conceptually during the past several years; and it’s useful for me, since I’ve had difficulty locating topic pages which were part of autonomous projects or were blog postings which weren’t itemized in any light-heartedly named Area of the initial 2019-22 Project.

So, the sequencing isn’t pedagogical. For example, the second discussion of “relationality” (June 2020) may be difficult to read because it presumes a sense
of phenomenality which is discussed in later pages (the section on “especially conceptual interest”), but relationality—“cognativity” there, “interality” more recently (ending of “relationality”)—is primal and integral to there being any experience. “Especially conceptual interest” backgrounds everything listed (and
“a 3-foldness of evolving life” is integral for all else that is especially-conceptual interest). The sequencing of listed topics is improvised, practical. Later items are easy. Most of the pages are easy reading.

There’s ultimate coherence of it all, but that’s not yet detailed online—and does require methodic presentation which is rigorous (of which I’m capable, despite appearances).

“Appealing ways…” isn’t comprehensive of the initial 2019-22 Project because
I’ve selected what’s pertinent to going forward, for developing Cycle 5 of the Project, which is barely begun (presently).

So, I’ve added the complement to “appealing ways...”: “designing and remem-brance,” which is diary-ish creative writing, mostly postings from various blogs during the past five years.” Its preface discusses the two modes heuristically as two-fold inner-oriented complements of outer-oriented gedavis.com, most of which isn’t part of either listing.

Conceptual interest tends to override (“transcend”) the inquiring life which is also integrally conceptual in Self understanding. Creative interest tends to express the singular life which may also exemplify Our evolving.

Desire for comprehensive complementarity shows conceptuality evolving itSelf through tropical narratives (discursive living?) of evolving humanity.

Thanks for your interest!

P.S. “to cell phone readers” | Google Drive links may need repair.