living fruitfully

---

Now done, this longest part of the “conceptuality...” project highlights aspects of living fruitfully, biased toward what I want to dwell with later. Indeed, the entire project feels like a preface (which I say in the discussions too often, maybe).

I recognize that themes are abruptly asserted, including a sometimes-odd mix of common sense and neologism; repetitiousness with non sequiturs. It’s not argumentation. It’s not written to gain audience. I’m sharing aspects of project development online. The Act of doing it all will make more sense up the road, relative to planned work online. And the current sections will be expanded or/and revised. I need to move on to the anticipated work.

I’m anticipating a rigorous cohering in light of fair explication, but my succinct sections currently aren’t that explication. Also, though the themes aren’t improvised, no background for introducing the themes is provided. But I’m not acting out my further development online. I’m sharing a set of baseline themes for more-explicated, yet more abstract, work up the road.

I’m really eager to get back to dwelling with others’ work. The reading list is long, and the agenda is well-structured. Yet, more play is fitting: The last part of the “conceptuality...” project—so-called “Flourishing” (capped: going for a big sense of it)—will be done by the end of the month. Fruitfulness isn’t just a trOpography to write about.

In the process, over the past couple of months, intended material has been shifted ahead, out of the project, especially: intended discussion of chapters from The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and some other work of others directly related to the “conceptuality...” project. (That’s not part of the work alluded to above that “I’m...eager to [be]...dwelling with,” which pertains to other projects up the road.) Consequently, there will be a second part of the “conceptuality...” project later this year, such that the upcoming “last part,” “Flourishing,” ends what has become part 1 of the project. Part 1 has remained independent of other writers’ presence (except for Velleman). Part 2 will particularly address others’ work, but especially relative to part 1 (themes and aspects of part 1 as interpretive frames for readings in part 2). That may also give more rationale to some of my abruptness (and oddness) of themes in part 1.

---