A section that may continue to take apart New Historicism

I may not be altogether clued up on this so I'm going to start, I write this only to note the below, this entry as one that gets updated (yes I know that is possibly remote possibility).

The Dr Stock matter. If the dr is convinced of New Historicism then the dr has made it god and, as I tweeted long ago (@247ofthat previously 247humanLuhmann), the dr has a complicated relationship with a deity force. Though obvious in the participants of NH, it may be, there is that deconstruction to be made of what is it that a monocultural account of living, of something in fantasy yet for reality to capable of (a suitable term) engendering fantasy? I do mean the phrase in its plurality. So much I expect has opened on this already. Not least the historical growth of "white" as ethnos largely through the Macaulayian I suspect. We cannot overlook the impression made on other societies by the technological advantages a faith (where doubtless the hypocriscy was noted as mysteriously part of the central dogma) that was conquering them. I'm pointing to a universality that the dr has ambivalence in. We all do, it just depends on our command of leisure utilitising psychoses. I think, in Veblen way, that leisure and Horney neurosis are the same thing - I cannot state they are synonomous given that I've no desire to bring a utilitarian ethic over the definitions.
You may guess correctly that existential questions are the matter, especially as to the way the agent, the subject, suffers a moral journey - one we cannot save them from, as it were - through this complex I'd guess is the animal element, of many or the only, that makes us a different animal.

Whilst saying pluralism, and nothing of science.
I do commend the Praeger view to replace the Baconian so far as any life science goes. The blue skies of physics and chemistry, however, needing for their own purposes methodological experiments (no, not on animals either) are more Praeger-like because the distinctly human control of material is really their pursuit. Plurality of analyses of data, of methods, is as far as science can allow that, and especially on anything living. Allowing algorithms into the wild of the web or releasing traceable contaminants into populations or even allowing microwave technologies or other electromagnetic systems to be deployed on the grounds that there is no sure connection with biological harms.
I'm not going into STS beyond this, which I use Metho-Presentism to argue for.
Praeger was an irish founder of the British Ecological Society. Presently I fear I don't have the literature to back up my claim on observing the life form as it is niche making, with that being what is living.

(tired)