I've been trying to find, among many other things, places where I can do some work in the more formal style, as opposed to the desert-island apodictics (which sometimes actually turn out well). In particular, I think this would be the time to look at a legal history of the corporate form -- in the Hegelian sense of the history; analyzing what we thought we were doing when we unleashed the forms of these companies of discovery and invention, derogating or devolving their power from the monarchs. One of the interesting untold stories of early modern England is how many people were digging up their estates in commercial frenzy in Leicester's Commonwealth. In addition to companies sent off to Muscovy and the Indies, and the monopolies that consolidated trade, mineral development of land assets was very much on the uptick. Some interesting cases about which of the rocks inherently belonged to the freshly protestant throne.
It seems that we're presently on the brink of a sort of axial shift away from the world of public law and towards the corporate state model. Populating social forms of industry from among the population, as opposed to structuring the republic. But people still seem to behave politically as if the state were distinct from corporate interests. This isn't a question of corruption, it's a shift in the nature of the state. And now, we're to the point at which people think it right that those excluded from the social forms of industry have no productive place in the society. Which would be all well and good, if that were to be the ordained and established rule of the society, but I can't help but think that at some level, the people are still mentally, despite the economic reality, within an ordered republic, or even a kingdom. (The old Roman epitaph for the generals: "They did not despair of the republic.") Perhaps the modern voters even make the current politics into a semblance of a kingdom in order to ratify that belief against economic reality.
The real scholarship on the corporate form, reaching to its earliest antecedents in the context of natural law, is Gierke, mostly untranslated, although Maitland famously translated one of the books.
Just one of the things percolating in the mind. As the semaphores from the passing academic ships grow less frequent, I'm actually shifting my thoughts to more essential thoughts. Fleshing out the philosophical worlds that I made quick tracings of in the dissertation, keeping connected to the theatre as a sort of touchstone. German enlightenment, and its correlates in modern analytic philosophy. And that's probably the right way to continue, as the essential nature of the thought keeps the mind focused on a day-to-day basis.
The received wisdom in most fields is that if you're not in one of the top few programs in a field, it really doesn't matter what you write about in school. And if people had the slightest notion of what happens, given that license, at the state universities, we'd likely go back to having normal schools only (schoolmarm training). But, despite the fact that I found myself in a bit of a swamp in my department, I took enough classes across campus in philosophy and history to develop the sensibilities and research skills sufficiently so that I know what to look for, and how to think about it when I find it.
So I do have a principal project in the mind, should the opportunity arise. But for now, continuing the more essential philosophy, faith, and aesthetics (theatre). Given my druthers, I'd like to think about these things and shape them to a coherent form. I would read, write, and think about these things if I found myself on a desert island with no prospect of leaving. But if I were to play a more formal part in the academic industry, I certainly would know what I would want to bring to their attention, and could likely put something worthwhile together.
On the other hand, perhaps, like Auerbach and Adorno, I should write as if there would be readers, even in the present peripatetic times. And if I were still in the city, I might do that. The Rose room would be a congenial place for such a thing--there are probably a dozen such projects being pursued in it every day. But there are certain differences between the cases of Auerbach and Adorno and my present situ. For the nonce, at least, I should probably continue to work according to transcendent principles. Those of which I can honestly say I can do no other. Actually learning quite a bit about both the older philosophies and the more recent thoughts along those lines.