The idea of the ‘generic’ is still too much of an anthropic nostalgia.
The notion of ‘world’, whether as ‘totality’, or ‘infinite multiplicity of totalities’, because this is what actually occurs through any delimitations asserting alleged ‘totalities’; is not so much a nostalgia, but rather the incessantly dramatic preoccupation or even obsession, constituting inordinate inflation, with parochial conceptions thereof. This inordinate inflation is perhaps more mundane, or ‘worldly’, than any alleged ‘transcendence’, or the ‘spirit of such’, in which or for which, it might claim to speak.
You’re very much engaged phenomenological-metaphysical tracing of the ‘messianic’ with regard to the sedimentary assumptions of mundane convention, parallel somewhat and bring into relief certain aspects of ‘vectors’, as you would put it, or ‘tendencies’, of my own involvements over the years, perhaps even since I was 11 years old.
The dialectical details are somewhat parallel, but I think for my own history of approaches, both in theorisation and vitality, they form a subsection of possibilities within probably a personalised realm that began from a perspective of science-fiction expansions, together with the suggestion of a theological seed.
The jumping from dialectical horizon to dialectical horizon, from one concept-world to another, perhaps as in a kind of cosmological Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (“the world shifts from tongue to tongue”), is the ‘natural’ result of growing up with ‘immediately universal’, intuitive consideration? Metaphysical possibility becomes lived process, the somatic tracing of speculation. All this proliferation, of course, though it might seem to occur with respect to a ‘positivist’ horizon, need not emphasise that horizon, nor its ‘negative’ image, both of which are merely the binary tracing of the assumption of ontological constitution, belonging to an, or the, unquestioned modality of ontological apprehension. That game of assertion and denial need not be overly emphasised by a contemplation exceeding its operations and closures. It’s obvious to me, from that perspective, that Hegel has already done considerable work in that respect for the Occidental tradition. In a way, Derrida, Deleuze, and Laruelle, can be considered to be merely working within that Hegelian problematic, emphasising against this or that image of Hegel, the very tendencies which he developed. For instance, the idea of the ‘generic’, is Hegel, through and through, as is ‘difference’.
Don’t get me wrong, I think all of these people have done work of value,
Your tracing of the messianic image follows this formula: “You get the picture. A few negativistic indications of the arcanum, a sort of indication by elimination, and also the revelation, by means of apparent contradiction, that the arcanum is the Reality behind all appearances.” (“ANALECTA ALOGICA: FRAGMENTS WITHOUT ORDER (1989ish, not sure, though)” http://visionfiction.theotechne.com/WordPress/?p=1352).
It’s actually the ‘dialectic of the messianic’; the imaging of necessary negations arising through rejections of habitual convention; the tracing of an image of openings. using the pointillism of rejected, closural dogmatics. In line with the ‘neti neti’.
One of the mechanisms, that of ‘superposition’, is merely an obvious corollary concept arising within the Hegelian ‘identity of opposites’.
The concept of “insufficiency” loses its constitutive support, if absolute conceptual culminations cannot be found elsewhere. If the absolute is merely ‘ideal’, then the attribution of ‘insufficiency’ is ideal, as well. Likewise, the notion of the ‘ideal’, ‘itself’ is susceptible to the same disappearance of inflationary or absolutising constitution, to the degree that that constitution supervenes on what it allegedly opposes.
One should add, that the logic of appearance and disappearance, are similarly susceptible, lol.
I like the word, “heartwave”, reminds me of M John Harrison’s “The Course of the Heart”.
There’s a lot more to say, I think your master’s thesis conclusion is very good, very well written, and very well thought! I’ve only read it once through, a quick scanning, but I’ll try to address it more, when I get time to do so.