The Existential Facilitation of the Re-Negotiation of Complex Narratives:
After the successful critique of both absolutist narratives 
and a relativist attitude to narratives 
how do we positively and practically re-negotiate 
the complexity of those narratives 
that appear to constitute our collective vision/s of the Life-World?

0.    Introduction

With the rejection of both absolutist narratives and a relativist attitude to narratives how do we positively and practically re-negotiate the complexity of those narratives that appear to constitute our collective vision/s of the Life-World? (1)

	Through the positive and practical exercise of a middle path in this regard! (2)

	The question then arises: how is this ‘middle path’ to be put into effect theoretically, practically and critically? (3)

	This last question is answered by being aware of and accepting of the relevant narrative complexity appropriately associated with our current research projects, and, applying an appropriate, open, overall transcendental suspension of the same along with an equal and equally responsible suspension of that same suspension, etc! Hence the formula: position(ing) – suspension – de-suspension – re-position(ing). (4)

	This, then, is the basic motivation of this essay, namely, to explicate a recognition of the relevant pre-negotiated complexity associated with our topic of concern along with an understanding of how a responsible overall transcendental suspension permits us and authorizes us to existentially act in good faith in a re-negotiation of the same when and where necessarily determined as appropriately applicable, etc. (5)

	Note, the philosophical concept of complexity as used in this series of papers invokes both the usual presence of a confluence of multiple genres (meta-textual conventions) or set/sets of genres dealing with that topic of concern under investigation along with a recognition of the chaotic complexion of complexity when and where it is subject to such complexity in this second sense. We should also recognize a third sense associated with the fact that complexity also occurs in complex state/s of affairs where we are dealing, effectively, with ‘complexes’, i.e., a relatively integrated complex state of affairs [realized through processes of resolution be they relatively non-intentional (in the form of causal processes or causations) and/or relatively intentional (in the form of consequential processes or consequences) (as effected through pre-negotiation/re-negotiation)]. (6)
Latest version of paper: www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelshomepage3.html 

1.    The Middle Path

	A middle path is enacted when we accept the pre-negotiated positionings of our prejudices as pre-judgments, subject the same to an adequate overall transcendental suspension, and, then, subject the same, in turn, to a suspension, i.e., a de-suspension, etc. Correctly these moments are dialectical and effectively simultaneous in their realization of our intentional lives as lived in this one-World-of-Life or Life-World. (7)

	Theoretically, the above is an ideal description/prescription of how things appear to operate (in and from a transcendental-phenomenological-hermeneutical-existential frame of reference). On the other hand, practically, we intuitively engage the question-to-hand through its enquestioning, being enquestioned in such a manner that is thought to be adequately productive of value given the nature of that type of investigation. Critically we re-conduct those investigations from a balanced perspective that is simultaneously both theoretical and practical in orientations, etc. Ultimately, an adequate overall transcendental suspension is realized to that current extent possible through the imposition of an ongoing balance of all three orientations of the theoretical, practical and critical! Indeed, our receptivity to all three aspects promotes the productivity of this process of passive-active reflection/s. Because no state of affairs can be approached completely in a non-involved state therefore reflection must also be active, actively enjoin a responsible responsiveness. At the same time through an impossibility of pure activity (through inter-subjective input of pre-negotiations, e.g.) it follows that we should not even attempt to be ‘purely active’ (in a mis-guided, self-directed intentional sense). That enanswering can be neither completely active and absolutely responsible nor completely passive and absolutely resistant to responsibility whenever and wherever our engaged-responsibility is implicated in a co-responding relationship to that same extent of involvement being expressed in and through that relationship (as a complex-complex). (8)

	A method for our theoretical envisioning of this process of an overall transcendental suspension is to treat all intentional productivity as a simulation or imputation, namely, as a simulation invoked in intentional consciousness through a simulation of simulation (and not as a simulation of some pre-simulated non-simulated state of affairs), or, as an imputation of an imputation (and not as an imputation of a non-imputative state of affairs). By reversing this process of imputation, as a process of simulation, we are returning our intentional states of affairs back to the type of engaged phenomenal-phenomenological matrix from which these intentional states of affairs initially originated (and find further processes of iterative retention). Re-iteration of this type of process helping to establish its (hermeneutically complex) theoretical, practical and/or critical complexion, permitting us to exercise itself in the relevant contextual states of affairs thought appropriate in this regard, etc. (9)

	However, the mere practicing of the transcendental suspension as a suspension is a recipe for disaster since, as previously noted, to merely reside within the transcendental suspension is to merely inhabit a relativist world where all positions have an equal value (and no existentially differentiated commitment on our part [and certainly, therein, no form of over-commitment]). Moreover, such psychic residence, should it occur without an equal exit, is also a process of absolute entrapment! By definition, we would then not be practising a middle path. So, we also need to remove ourselves (from the mere transcendental complexion) of the suspension and responsibly return ourselves to the world as lived, as existentially to-be-re-engaged. This is to be put into effect through suspending the suspension and taking on board the existential response developed through such a (complex) manoeuvre. By attending to the weight of evidence, the overall propriety of our envisaged (and to-be-envisaged) response, etc., by engaging such an open and responsive course of action promoted through such ongoing suspension, re-suspension, re-re-suspension, etc. This intuitive type of approach, through the adequate imposition of an overall transcendental suspension as developed intuitively can be better approached, collectively, through our theoretically, practically and critically oriented processes of responsive-responsible transcendental-phenomenological reflections (be they subtly privileged in an ordered perspective in the formation of simple or complex forms of ordered value [such as de-ontological, aesthetical, etc.], and/or phenomenological/hermeneutical/existential orientations, and/or with an emphasis upon the theoretical, etc., and/or with an emphasis of retrospectivity/simultaneity/prospectivity,  etc., etc). Let me broadly unpack what is implied here. (10)

	In an adequate state of an overall transcendental suspension all psychic factors encountered and recognized, and therein engaged, are run in balanced-parallel simulations from when the transcendental productivity realized ensures our existential re-engagement with the world from that same mode-of-life/lives operated in or operated between. Thence an ongoing, dynamic balance between process and content; analytical, retrospective phenomenological factors versus synthetical prospective hermeneutical factors versus identificational, immediate existential factors; various readings of ordered possibilities (through subtle privilegings/de-privilegings of the aspects of the hermeneutic circle/overall transcendental suspension; etc.); through a balancing of theoretical, practical and critical orientations, etc. Intuitively we find ourselves actively and passively ‘enjoying’ the existential excess released in the course of our transcendental reflections. (11)

	A ‘middle path’ is arrived at through the ongoing balance of this even-handed approach which through de-suspension responsively breaks the relativistic symmetry of the suspension. That response being responsible when an adequate overall transcendental suspension (and de-suspension) has been properly, appropriately and validly put into effect. (12)

	How are such processes to be examined through the integrated tri-partite lens of the theoretical, practical and critical? (13)

2.    Theoretical, Practical and critical Orientations

	The theoretical aspect of our engaged progress, I believe, is realized through a generalization of our intent (be that in intentionally aware and/or non-intentionally aware terms of reference). (14)

	The practical aspect of our engaged progress, I believe, is realized through a particularization of our intent (be that in intentionally aware and/or non-intentionally aware terms of reference). (15)

	The critical aspect of our engaged progress, I believe, is realized through a relatively definitive specification of our intent (be that in intentionally aware and/or non-intentionally aware terms of reference, although, more correctly, critical intent is realized through the course of its exercise to that extent it can be intentionally thematized or rationalized in critically acceptable terms of reference). (16)

	Let me exemplify the above. Let us ask ourselves ‘is this object in front of us a painting’ and ‘is it a beautiful painting’ and ‘a good example of the style of a certain artist’? From an acquaintance with art-objects in an art-world we know that this object in a picture frame on a wall in front us is a painting, let us say a landscape. Our intuition might tell us it is well done and that this is a painting by a certain artist well know to us whose style we recognize and find this confirmed for us by the artist’s signature on this same picture. That our belief is that this is a landscape painting, a well painted picture in keeping with the style of the artist whose signature is appended to this same painting. All of this is our ‘position’. This sense of position is entertained in general terms of reference. In practical terms of reference we find a particularization of this theoretical framework. This is a painted landscape by so-and-so. In critical terms of reference, to that extent possible for-us, we critically evaluate this sense of a particularized generalization. Yes, this is a painted landscape (and not a print or mere reproduction). Yes, it does appear to be well-painted (for a certain number of reasons). Yes, it is both in the style of a certain artist and genuinely appears to be an artwork by that same artist. Critically, we have been able to definitively specify the apparent whatness of that under critical focus to that extent we are able to conduct this type of examination. Hence this process from the theoretically general to the practically particular and the critically specified (in its correct ascertainment whose validity must now be accepted until this specification is further re-specified or re-ascribed). In all of this our utilization of an overall transcendental suspension has gone through the motions of the overall hermeneutic circle from a theoretical level to a practical level to a critical level of thematization. Moreover, in the course of such investigation our positioning has been critically re-positioned and may or may not coincide effectively with our initial positionings in this regard. In a relatively radical course of re-positioning, effectively, we find ourselves being passively re-directed/actively re-directing the course of our responsive engagement therein. All of this being dialectically engaged through a simultaneity of moments, i.e., without a definitive boundary between theory, practice and critique and an absolute division between the theoretical form of our intent and the responsive filling of the same in practice (in a second sense of intent) and its perceived affirmation in our critical re-positionings, etc. (in a third sense of intent wherein we hope to realize the reality or truth of the relationship between our first two sense of intent). However, much of this is intuitively conducted and confirmed through the received presence of an existential excess in keeping with our expectations, etc. (17)

	Through a matching of theoretical generalization of essential phenomenological intent with a practical realization of motivated intent and their mutual harmonization through a critical sense of intent (and its drive to find a greater degree of reality-realization) we find a broad sense of deliberative and intuitively arrived at intent, or overall intent through its overall satisfaction through a full saturation of intent. Meeting all our objectives in this regards, in effect, can be seen as a mission accomplished (along with its incorporation into a received-body-of-truth which is for-us this one-World-of-Life)! Thence an ongoing sense of a re-positioning of ourselves in conformity with this World-of-Life within this same World-of-Life. A middle path, therefore, is adopted and adapted, between an absolutist sense of over-commitment and a relativist sense of non-commitment. Through such ongoing balance we find ourselves exercising a sense of responsible-responsiveness coupled with a deeper awareness of the ensuing consequences of such coinciding with this vision of the ‘reality of reality’, be that existentially in our favour or existentially not in our favour! (18)

	How do these insights relate to a process of simple or complex narrational-re-negotiation? (19)

3.    The Re-Negotiation of our Narratives

	In our positionings within the embrace of the Life-World we already find a process of narrative negotiation has already occurred if not even further processes of narrative re-negotiation (be that relatively radical in orientation or merely a re-defining of minor details). We cannot operate in a private psychic vacuum, in this regard, by virtue of this pre-determined inter-subjectively  that is there already for-us to re-adopt and adapt… and further re-adapt, etc. In the existential course of our investigations and engagements we find ourselves being passively re-positioned and/or an active re-positioning of ourselves. A course of responsiveness and responsibleness that by its very nature as an existential refinement finds itself more closely coinciding with the reality of reality as experienced from within the living existential centrality of the Life-World. In this we suffer in the course of this narrational refinement a greater psychic sense of coincidence with the ‘reality of our existence’ and the ‘existence of our reality’ as carved out in this reclaimed sense of our being as re-realized in this re-engaged openness to this World-of-Life. (20)

	Our re-negotiations being incrementally re-directed. All forms of responsiveness being consequential in this regard rather than merely causative. Incrementally adjusted input taking on a more radical sense of re-direction when chaotically induced. The causative always being re-directed (in either a process of linear redirection or a process of non-linear re-direction). To what extent is intentional realization and satisfaction/saturation of intention expectations realized or not realized? (21)

4.    Unintended Consequences

	To what extent could our enacted intentions be unintended or have unintended consequences? Is this a contradiction in terms since ‘unintended’ is not ‘intended’? In what sense of ‘intent’ are we dealing with? (22)

	Because we can never be in absolute control of our intentional processes to that same extent they can have unintended consequential ramifications! (23)

	At the same time we are never completely at the mercy of such processes of consequence, intended or unintended, since the course of our actions is to some extent intentional wherein we redirect or re-direct processes of causation-to-hand that appear to be able to possibly satisfy such objectives. This existential dimension is more fully realized in a critical perspective! Because it is in a critical dimension where we can more fully specify the course of our intent and evaluate the degree to which we have met an adequate saturation of that intent and, therein, our satisfaction (through an overcoming of any apparently unintended consequences that might have prevented our meeting such satisfaction be that as pre-defined, defined and/or re-defined). (24)

	Furthermore, we are usually given a window of opportunity in which to realize our intent even though on some occasions we might be unable to overcome this natural disruption of our progressive realization of that intent (in a conjunction of all three senses of intent). However, when our theoretical envisioned intent is not clear and distinct in its general ambitions then we assist the possibility of unintended consequences non-intentionally re-directing our passage through this World-of-Life. Similarly, through an inability to practicalize the instantiated course of that overall intent through a particularized specification of detail we also invite a much greater degree of intentional non-coincident in practice! Similarly, in a critical realization of intent, a non-clarity of critical evaluation must also invite a greater degree of unintended consequences and consequential non-realization of our intent. Then, there are the additional factors of non-chaotically intervening events and/or the factors of chaotically intervening events (through the appearance of chance phenomena or inputs). (25)

	E.g., we are driving a car and we turn left as we normally do instead of going right on this particular occasion. Or, we are driving a car and a car unexpectedly crashes into us for no fault of our own. Is there a difference between unintended consequences? Yes – but only in a mater of degree to that extent they cannot be undone. In the first instance we can re-trace our journey and then take the appropriate turning. In the second example we may not survive the accident, or, the car may not survive such an occurrence. (26)

	How do we escape the perturbations from the dimension of unintentional consequences? (27)

5.    The Rectification and/or Overcoming of Unintended Consequences

	In our first example, where we went left in our car through habit when we should have gone right in that instance, we can merely re-trace our steps. Hence re-tracement. (28)

	In our second example, re-tracement may not be a possibility. Or, complete disruption might entail our non-ability to overcome such unintended consequences through complete destruction of that car and/or the compete disruption of our apparent intentional existence through death. (29)

	Unintended consequences can also be proactively evaluated as possibilities and/or actualities, and, when and where possible, obviated through a normal course of proactive and/or reactive actions or non-actions. (30)

	However, can the consequences of unintended actions be adequately obviated when even our reactive responses to such unintended consequences themselves can also initiate unintended consequences, etc., etc? From a non-ultimate point of view we can answer “yes” since disruption need not necessarily be immediate and final. However, from an ultimate point of view the answer must be “no” since death is a change of state that cannot be finally obviated! (31)

	Conventionally, we could add, that our current negotiations normally take into account certain perturbations in behaviour from either causational directions and/or consequential directions. E.g., in a soccer match if a team does not show then the other team, if having shown up, is considered as having won that match (even though that match was not contested). E.g., you are expected to attend work as contracted in your current workplace. However, though sickness you are instead not expected to turn up if your illness is such that you could not function appropriately, etc., in your work, and, its was found to be deleterious to your health (and thence impacting your prospects for future employment in the same workplace and in the same capacity [along with the possibility of certain legal ramifications of associated liability, etc., if your workplace insisted upon your working whilst ill and in such a manner as to further impact upon your current state of ill-health]). E.g., the proliferation of rules in developed societies is usually a practice that attempts to insulate us from the negative, unintended consequences of our actions be they our own or those of others that adversely intersect with us (or the defined interests of others). (32)

	Again, a re-negotiation of such negotiations could be of assistance to us in this endeavour to insulate ourselves from adverse unintended consequences of our own actions and the actions of others. Hence a rectification of practice in theory and a practical overcoming of the same in practice! Critical evaluations possibly assisting us in the exercise of such options through responsive and responsible actions and non-actions as existentially determined within the complexity of each situation, etc. (33)

6.    The Existential Facilitation of Re-Negotiations   

	What is meant in the expression ‘the existential facilitation of the re-negotiation of complex narratives?’  In a circulation of value, in what sense do the existential ramifications of our interventions turn meanings in an object-oriented language on its head, so to speak, in attempting to deal with a relational perspective from an existential point of view? (34)

	In a recent paper on the topic of communication an act of communication was re-interpreted as a ‘re-self-organized change of state’ rather than the ‘classical model of the emission and reception of a series of signals interpreted as an act of communication’. Instead, a change in a complex state of affairs on the level of complexity was read as the completion of an act of communication (within that relationship by that relationship). In effect, value (of communication, as an act of communication) was more accurately translated in a relational-oriented language rather than in an object-oriented language. Can we effect the same sort of translation here in order to better understand the nature of the existential and its facilitation of this communicative process of re-negotiation? I believe so. (35)

	Facilitation is communicated in two senses. Facilitation is desired through intentional intervention. And, through intervention, facilitation is expressed through a process of re-self-organization. In effect, the organization of the complex is re-self-organized. Facilitation merely assists this process. In other words, pre-conditions for a certain change are met and initiated in a process of change with, as a result, the realization of changed state of affairs as desired or not desired, in part or in whole. How does our relational understanding differ from an object-language oriented translation of the same? Furthermore, how might a transcendental translation differ from a non-transcendental translation? (36)

	From a transcendental point of view, implying our review of the relatively non-transcendental, we examine the apparent intentional formation of that under examination. On the other hand, from a conventional point of view we merely, but not absolutely, examine our conventional understanding to date. Or, a transcendental re-examination of either a transcendental format or a conventional format merely examines the apparent intentional formation of that text or set of texts to hand. In an absolute mode, the transcendental cannot absolutely examine the transcendental qua transcendental, just as, from a non-transcendental conventional point of view we cannot merely examine non-transcendental conventional treatment of a text or set of texts. That understood, a transcendental perspective is effectively a relational point of view, whereas, in contrast, a conventional point of view is merely a non-relational, objet-oriented reading of the text or set of texts in question. Hence the interrelationship between these two sets of reading, namely transcendental and/or relational, and, conventional and/or object-oriented. Now, as these two fundamental types of texts can be referred and translated it follows that we should be able to move from one to the other, v.v. What might this shift entail? (37)

	In a relational perspective our emphasis is upon process and the totality of a relationship from the central holistic perspective of that relationship. Furthermore, processes of re-self-organization therein are viewed as spontaneous and co-occurring from every point in the psychic extent of that relational space. Whereas, in contrast, in an object reading, we have a sense of reality more familiar to us, as conceived in and through terms of cause and effect, etc. In a dialectical realization of identity and transformation, isolation of identities is more sensibly (and philosophically) avoided. These processes of more subtle translation in an object-mode preparing us for the transition to a relational-language translation (and a greater appreciation of the transcendental dynamics of the overall transcendental suspension/overall hermeneutic circle). What are the ramifications of these processes of translation? (38)
 
	A first ramification of such increasing subtlety is a greater awareness of philosophical pitfalls that accompany cruder object-language-oriented translations of phenomenal/phenomenological situations and events, etc. (39)

	With increasing insight into a relational perspective, certain object-language problems are dissolved, resolved, recognized as insoluble, etc, etc. (40)

	Moreover, there is a radical overturning of perspectives and expectations that accompany an object-language orientation (in both complimentary and supplementary senses). In effect, such situations and events are both radically re-written but also non-radically re-written in the sense that they are commented upon from a transcendental perspective (in either a complementary sense of a parallel reading or in a supplementary sense in the form of an existential surplus of value, as a supplement, etc.). (41)

	In a shifting of perspective, relationship are seen dynamically as processes, and, as holistically permeating their relational spaces essentially through an ongoing resolution of internal relational dissonance. Indeed, relationship in this sense of perspective are more intimately acquainted (given a direct recognition of the direct nature of relationships and the transcendental unity of the Life-World). Furthermore, such a existential recognition of a directly acquainted relationship is experienced through an existential lens (and its association with a lived sense of meaningfulness and participation, etc.). Suffice to say, as to be expected, that a relational reading can be radically different and upsetting from a more conventional, object-language point of view. Such an attunement is more insightful, such insight flowing back over into our more conventional readings of the same phenomena (and proffering secondary senses of the complementary and supplementary). (42)

	How radical can be this process of translation from an object-reading to a relational reading? Quite shattering – the difference between being inside a relationship and merely trying to read it from the outside! An external perspective offering a set of mis-readings that can only be rectified in and through a critical relational reading. Such readings also proffering an existential surplus of value that can be re-invested back into a more insightful, external object-language oriented reading of the phenomenological-phenomena under investigation. In the process overturning various forms of mistake, mistranslation, misinterpretation, misunderstanding, etc., etc! (43)

	Because genres are adopted, negotiations can never be completely novel and radically different. The very nature of the problem to hand is defined by the genre/s-to-be-adopted and the process of adaptation that follows there after, all these facets mutually defining each other in and between their respective meta-levels of textuality. E.g., imagine the complexity involved in formulating policies w.r.t. bushfires. Already various practices and policies are in place with a variety of inputs from communities, local councils, state and federal bodies besides various organizations that lobby for a variety of issues from the establishment of new parks, to the organized burn-offs that occur in winter months, etc. Now, certain policies may be effective in the event of an average bushfire whereas in the event of a bush-firestorm different policies might need to be considered, disseminated and enacted. Either way, transitions between these two types of eventuality would probably differ little other than an assertion or negation of pre-existent practices thought expedient in the light of the requisite policy. So, one could be permitted to defend one’s property in the middle of winter if the bush-fire were not being promoted by adverse hot weather, high winds and the like. On the other hand, without adequate protection (e.g., in the form of a bunker) then perhaps it would be more expedient to just abandon the property in an orderly fashion in an appropriate timeframe. The point I am making here is that re-negotiation is almost always relatively superficial and/or accumulatively incremental. In firestorms we might want to deny owners the right to defend properties if they cannot show a defensible fallback position. Here a previous positive assertion is negated. In contrast the introduction of an early warning system linked to telephones and mobiles would be seen as an additional policy feature (and relatively incremental on early-warning systems already in place). Even though processes of re-negotiation might be relatively superficial, yet, through chaotic input of a bifurcational disposition, small inputs can make for quite different responses, sometimes responses of a radical nature despite minor adjustments in prior processes of re-negotiation. (44) 

	Given that processes of re-negotiation are often minor adjustments and/or minor incremental adjustments, how might this process of re-negotiation be existentially facilitated? (45)

	The existential surplus of our relationships has a certain power of investment, a certain power of redirection/re-direction that can be invested in their dynamic interrelationships. Recognition of this dynamic approach allows us to perceive a variety of trends in identity-formation within and between relationships. Furthermore, through the transcendental unity of the Life-World, the directness of relational interaction and the non-existence of absolutely polarized loci of identity, it follows that a fluidity of identity expression can be expressed through those apparent loci. Now, it behoves us to be intuitively aware of these dynamic trends that are apparently operating phenomenally (though causation) and phenomenologically (through conditions and consequences) in order to existentially re-direct such activity or incipient activity in a manner that augments the relational existence of that relationship within its relational context in such an attitude of attunement that promotes the augmented value for the entirety of the Life-World, this World-of-Life. Such considerations being the province of an evaluation of overall value-formation. An evaluation of processes of feedback in surplus value-formation assisting us in this task of a responsible-responsiveness. (46)

7.    Some Provisional Conclusions on the Nature of Re-Negotiation. 

	Re-negotiations are always re-negotiated both before and after all instances of re-negotiation. Because genres are pre-determined for-us, and, we can never be in full active control, be that in either appropriative or adaptive modes of orientation. (47)

	Negotiations, in their existential core, are conducted through a middle path of intuitive and/or deliberative intervention. I.e., position, suspension/de-suspension, re-position, etc., etc. (48)

	Negotiations, in their superficial non-existential core, are not overtly conducted through a deeper middle path of intuitive and/or deliberative intervention. I.e., position, suspension/de-suspension, re-position, etc., etc. Rather, through mis-appropriation, sequential mistakes (as noted in previous papers), etc., ensure a mis-direction of intent (be that intended and/or unintended in orientation) (through an inadequate invocation of this existential core of transformation). (49)

	Unintended consequences, normally, in a window of opportunity, can be ameliorated through re-tracement, proactive/reactive redirection/re-direction of intent, etc., etc. (50)

	Even though, ultimately, failure is assured, non-ultimately failure is not assured! Thence the necessity for our existential attunement in order to proactively/reactively obviate the unintended consequences (and intended consequences) of our intentions (in all three senses)! (51) 

	A middle path between an excessive absolutist over-commitment and non-decisive relativist under-commitment is put in play through the adequate imposition of an overall transcendental suspension! (52)

	Theoretical, practical and critical dimensions being realized through ongoing specification of phenomenal-phenomenological sense detail, hermeneutical conventions of meta-textual meaning, and/or existential delivery of meaningfulness through the direction of targeted intent in such a manner as to augment the everyday perception of value along with its regulation, rectification, regularization, proactive/reactive re-negotiation, etc. (53)

	Existential, by virtue of that fact that all processes of relational re-organization are initiated and re-directed through the relational complexity of that associated relational complex as a complex-complex of parallel causation and intentional consequences complicated by unintended consequences (along with unexpected processes of causation)! (54)

	Existential re-direction by virtue of the fact that an existential surplus is able to be re-invested in the intentional course of our passage through this World-of-Life in such a manner as to re-direct causative processes with an overlay of deliberative intent with recognizable consequential overflows…. (55)

						                Noël Tointon, Sydney, 12.2.09.