In this complex, a number of associated thoughts: the Satrean ideal of the "active man", politically resolute and got it together ala Che Guevera, say. This linked with the business of the "presentation of philosophy" as "the book" (leaving aside, if it is possible, the issues of the death of the author and whatever massive capitalized enterprises there are long those lines), and dialogue.
With some interactions on reddit, I am finding that on the on hand as usual, dialogue doesn't go that far, on the other hand, it does, occasionally, go somewhere. But the issues what would it mean for there to emerge a more substantial "philosphical" trajectory that really does arise in dialogue? And perhaps this could like with the idea of the opening of thought in the likewise disruption of the notion of the book as such and the whole business of "thinking through being only to enter right back into it 'whole'" ala, again, the Satrean idea. Or a Foucauldian one, etc.
Rather, I favor a concept of thoughtaction that can never fully "return to the world" whole, and which has an inherent critique of that very "wholeness", holisim, "completeness" and the manners in which the sense of the "arena of being" is constituted. This includes the "post-postmodern" questions of how and nonviolence.
This makes so much sense to me, and feels at the same time to a tremendous "assault on", or divergence from, so many of the major assumptions of the world. And yet so right...