Ahistorical histories of ideas: Teleological progression and Discursive formation

Portrait Source: Google Books

If you were asked which knowledge do you trust? first, which is practiced in actions, second, which is enunciated in speech, third, which is a part of oeuvre of an author, fourth, which represents a homogeneous account of ideas with strange continuity, fifth, which shows the limitations and conditions for discourse and discursive practices; strategically maneuvered to demonstrate regularity and continuity, a systemization of ideas, normalization of speech and conduct, a formalized universality, a grandiose of teleology. You may guess, where does knowledge reside? Whether knowledge is cognitive or psychological phenomenon? Whether it demonstrates the presence of an author in a setting of discourse? Whether or not all discourses are contingent, temporal, non-repetitive, a lived reality, which is lived again, but with a different orientation, in quest of regularity and continuity, which makes possible to the appearance of a teleological discourse? What significance a written note has of an author in the appearance of a systemized work, like Nietzsche wrote a few with laundry bills? What role a fanciful imagination has in the grand genre of an artist? I don't have one answer. It can't be. There are many incoherent and paradoxical thoughts; may be systemized after the practice of choosing a few regularity, for the appearance of discourse, and beneath it, the vast array of silences, remain there, live its own oblivion, wait for its moments to be a part of future discourses. History of ideas is ahistorical, discontinuous, non-circular. History is a strategic unity in Foucaudian sense, beneath it, the vast possibilities of marginal discourses appear and remain there in silences. These sentences, being written here, in a spatial and temporal dimension, are, in fact, the  lived realities for the moment, being a part of the larger setting of the theme, in which every sentences follow a few grammatical rules, every proposition is weighed at par logical structure, every sentence may or may not be referential to any independent object to represent, it may or may not symobolize what I intend to do. But above all, and beneath every sentence, there is a strategic structure, the pre-existing conditions, for the possibility of statements and speech act. My sentences may be grammatically incoherent or coherent, logically illogical or illogically logical, but these conditions are not quintessential for the possibility of discourse. It appears with a default setting of formative practices, which are lived for the moments, but thought later, criticized later, analyzed later, to cohere a possibility of knowledge, which is unlikely to be written in coherence and continuity, it is simply made as a regular progression, a strategic possibility, which appears to be revelatory and objective, but it can't be divorced from the formative practices, which make the discourse possible in the first place.