A Comprehensive Phenomenological Overview of the Phenomenon of Status

0.   Introduction

	In my opinion Alain de Botton in his interesting book Status Anxiety deals with this phenomenon of status in a rather superficial manner philosophically. Admittedly, his discourse has other objectives. However, he does makes some interesting philosophical observations on the nature of ideology, but, unfortunately, seems to go no deeper into trying to understand the phenomenal nature of status itself. In this paper I would like to address this oversight by subjecting this phenomenon of status to the following ‘comprehensive’ overview. I will attempt to do this in a systematic-like fashion, to that extent found practicable, hence the ‘comprehensive’ nature of this sketch. This attempt to be systematic in orientation will utilize the scheme of the hermeneutic circle, as previously discussed elsewhere as central to all epistemological-intentional processes (and which will be briefly re-introduced in paragraph no. 3). This scheme will be utilized as an integrated, interpretative lens through which our topic, therefore, will be ‘comprehensively’ treated (albeit without my being able either to go into too much detail or into greater depth). (1)

First, I will look at this phenomenon from a meta-textual point of view and, therein, try to hermeneutically understand how this phenomenon is ‘read’. Second, from this hermeneutic reading I will then try to attempt a phenomenological reading of it as a text qua text (on the understanding that the phenomenological is essentially the textual in accordance with my own understanding of the hermeneutic circle in this regard). Third, I will try to understand this phenomenon from an existential perspective, i.e., as an experience of power (on the understanding that the non-textual aspect of the hermeneutic circle discerned through its engagement with relative differentials of expressed power [as experienced through harmonic resolution], etc.). Last, I will attempt an overall transcendental suspension of this phenomenon in order to appreciate how this phenomenon can be re-authenticated through a purificational transformation and extensional radiation of its core authenticity (by invoking the aspect of the not-textual). (2) 

	The hermeneutic circle is viewed by myself as a consisting of three dialectical moments, namely, a reductive-analytical phenomenological perspective perceived as the ‘text’, a reconstituted-synthetical, hermeneutical perspective perceived as ‘meta-text’ in which the genre of that textual phenomenon, as a text, is appreciated, and, a non-textual balance of the former two moments which is experienced as a phenomenon of power in both passive and active senses, i.e., as that respectively subjected to an individual act or serial acts of power and that sense of subject that subjects a non-sense of self to an individual act or serial acts of power. When there is a dynamic balance of all three moments we have an overall transcendental suspension through which the phenomenon of authenticity is then directly experienced as an existential rectification of that existential sense of power [a process that is conducted by the nature of that relationship under focus in both passive and active senses, i.e., respectively, that subjected to an individual act or serial acts of power and that sense of subject that subjects a non-sense of self to an individual act or serial acts of power]. (3)

Let me illustrate this scheme in the following diagram, and, then, in the following anecdote charting a less theoretical course in order to illustrate these poly-textual differences in textuality (between the textual, meta-textual, non-textual and the not-textual). (4)

A Diagramatic Representation of the Hermeneutic Circle

*
Non-Textual Existential Moment
(wholes-and-parts)

Not-Textual
Overall Transcendental Suspension
(*)

Textual Phenomenological Orientation       –        Meta-Textual Hermeneutic Moment (parts)                                                                         (wholes)
*                                                       *

	On the piano, already open, you find the music for Boccherini’s famous minuet. Now, you would like to play this piece, but, should you play this minuet as a 'minuet' or as a 'waltz'? In either interpretation exactly the same notes are played (the former in a real time that is 6/8 and the latter in a time that is 3/4, the former phrased in sets of two bars with the bar-lines pulsed in fast fashion whilst the latter treats tempo in a less formal, slower manner, etc.). Now, these conventions of the minuet and the waltz are usually not spelt out in any detail – the performer is expected to know how to play that piece in accordance with their appreciation of its genre; genre usually indicated in the title of that piece of music. However, the same title can mean different things in different eras and it is the training and intuition of the musician that allows them to discern which conventions are appropriate or not appropriate on an individual basis. In this instance Boccherini probably intended his minuet to be played in the manner of a waltz despite being written out like a minuet and titled as a minuet; that new dance form of the waltz just beginning to be fashionable around that period of time. Our appreciation of genre being a meta-textual affair, i.e., an appreciation of the conventions as to how that text is to be performed as a process rather than being merely ‘read’ as a text at face value so to speak (the relative content of that process conducted as an act of performance). Textual instructions to that effect notated in the text qua text being treated as meta-textual insertions, or inclusions, i.e., as parts of the text that are more meta-textually oriented. (5)

	In the above illustrations we noted, more or less, that the same text could be read in two different ways depending on how one were to understand the meta-textual conventions brought to bear upon its performance. ‘Text’ and ‘meta-text’ represent the first two moments in this phenomenological appreciation of the hermeneutic circle (and its relation between internal intra-textual parts and wholes and inter-textual relations with other texts specifically, in particular with respect to genre or in general). Now, text and meta-text need to be read in conjunction with each other, i.e., in parallel. In and through this act of balance these two facets feed into each other like ‘a key in a lock’, in the process ‘unlocking’ this ensuing meaning of its performance and, therein, realizing the semblance of the transformative power emitted in that process of textual reading (an experience that has been described by myself as relatively non-textual in orientation since in the act of reading there is an element of self-absorption, our ‘forgetting that we are reading’. However, the moment we forget that ‘forgetting’ being the very moment that reading is effectively disrupted (temporarily or permanently). The dynamic balance engaged between all three moments realizes an overall sense of a transcendental suspension and, therein, the semblance of an authenticity through the rectification and extension of the degree of authenticity already necessarily present for there to be this relationship of an act of ‘reading’, etc. (6)

	Hence the qualified, i.e., limited, and, the relatively systematic nature of this presentation on the phenomenal-phenomenological nature of status, i.e., its ‘comprehensive’ treatment through this lens of the hermeneutic circle. (7)

	Status has both a denotative sense and a connotative sense. Our investigations will be concentrating on the former whilst perceiving an excessive preoccupation with the latter as being produced in a relatively inauthentic treatment of this phenomenon. Status will also be perceived, in this denotative sense, as a necessary ingredient in all inter-personal relationships by virtue of the fact that these relationships, and their interrelationships, appropriately function through an appropriate perception of this element of status. Furthermore, this sense of status is experienced as a power-phenomenon, i.e., as a differential in power between the parties in a relationship and between relationships, i.e., as a differential between those passive and non-passive modes involved in the experience of the power ensuing from that specific act of reading. That, since power is not an absolute phenomenon, in all relationships there must be this semblance of a differential from different points in that relationship [despite the existential uniqueness of each and every relationship being the same in flavour; and, despite the omnipresence of such differential differences (indeed, such differences could not exist if this pre-condition of a distinctly unique sense of a core relational flavour did not effectively pre-exist dialectically as that non-difference into which a qualified, limited degree of difference can be superimposed]). (8)

1.   A Hermeneutical Meta-Textual Reading of Status

	To begin with we should note that the recognition of status is a social phenomenon - that the perception of status is a genre of activity and as such invokes a meta-textual orientation. Even if we were the only person on an island and were to revel in our self-appointed status as 'king of that island' our self-perception of our status is still an inter-subjective-like phenomenon since it is 'our' perception of ourselves as if it were conducted 'before others'. Of course, a true king in some form or other rules over his subjects and as this person has no subjects whatsoever to rule over they therefore cannot be a real king as things currently stand. However, be that as it may, in imagining themselves to be a king they are behaving in accordance with a certain genre of activity, namely, that of being a king or being in some manner as if a king. Genres of activity are inter-subjectively recognizable modes of behaviour. Different types of relationships, between others and the world, in being understood automatically allows us to understand these relative differentials in power, i.e., allowing us to understand these differences in terms of status (and their expression through the nature of those differences in power). Such differentials in power being inherent in all relationships; all such possibilities being appreciated primarily in meta-textual terms of reference (in our recognition and understanding of the role of relational-genre)! (9)

	In the light of the above preamble we need to note that the perception of status too is an inter-subjectively-oriented activity and hence its meta-textual orientation. Hence its primary phenomenological description-prescription must be meta-textually oriented! So, with this particular insight to hand let us now attempt to sketch out some of the essential features that appear to constitute of this type of phenomenon. (10)

	In directly attempting to determine the apparent status of a person it would appear that we must first determine the nature of the relationship we have with them, or might have with them, and, the nature of the possible range of functions they might have with us in that relationship in the light of our/their perceptions of their own possible roles they might adopt with ‘others’ in general in the light of our probable assessment as to which types of behaviour might be considered more appropriate or more likely. Such speculations are rooted in reality when we observe, directly or indirectly, the current manner of their involvement with the world. So, e.g., the President of The United States of America might arrive by helicopter whereas your humble self may merely walk to the location where he will be addressing his next audience. In many respects the power of the President is displayed and expressed by their wider range of options on how to arrive at this meeting although some of those options may be considered to be unwise for a person of such a status to exercise, such as, e.g., walking to this meeting with or without the presence of his minders and armed guards, etc. In reflection upon this differential of possibilities available and not available between yourself and the President. We should perceive a difference in the rights-and-obligations able to be exercised and experienced by these two different sorts of party. Neither rights nor obligations can be treated as absolute hence their co-mutual implication. If, e.g., an absolute monarch or dictator commanded, in the form of a public decree, that his subjects must commit suicide the next day or be killed by his army for non-compliance (and who in turn must then commit suicide) such a ruler would not be ruling for long. And, equally, if an absolute monarch or dictator decided to just enjoy the perks of office without making any decisions on ruling this state then, again, such a rulers days as a ruler would probably be numbered if he had not already sensibly delegated such powers. Then, again, such a delegation of authority is also not wise given that this ruler's place in their world is defined through their direct exercise of such power, and, to not exercise such power is often a recipe for eventually loosing access to the same. (11)

	What is being attempted here? The concept of status has been already experienced in the course of our passage through the Life-World. In our tentative explorations we are exploring facets of this phenomenon that have already been encountered and engaged. Then, we can test these tentative observations by eidetic reflection in order to imaginatively appreciate the reality and extent of such proposals. Lastly, we can assume a degree of systematicity in our reflections when those proposals are run through this scheme of the hermeneutic circle and its four types of textuality, etc. (12)

	What descriptions could be put forward for scrutiny in this manner? That status is primarily an inter-subjective phenomenon and, therefore, primarily meta-textual in orientation. That status in a non-evaluative sense is the distinctive nature of that type of relationship as expressed through its extensions of power, privilege, rights and obligations. Moreover, it can act as a motivational factor, and reward, in the desire to transform the nature of ones’ relationship with the world, others and our overall sense of self. Lastly, for consideration we should also note that miscellaneous types of status are fashionably structured in various hierarchies of positiveness/negativeness of appropriation/dis-appropriation. In this light we also need to note that status can be subverted as either the desired means or desired goal of certain activities when it should more correctly merely reflect the nature of the current relationship/s being undergone. This subversion of status will be looked at in our examination of the authenticity versus the inauthenticity of this phenomenon (Section 5. and 6.). (13)

	As noted status is expressed through the inter-subjective aspect of relationships and therefore intimately coupled with the nature of their type or genre. Status being expressed through their power, privilege, rights and obligations as experienced by the participants directly or indirectly associated with those types of relationships. So, e.g., various kings are accorded with the status of ‘king’ along with the powers, etc., associated with the same. Naturally, various kings invite comparison and a comparative kingly status can be accorded through the adoption of a mix of various standards, such as, e.g., the size of their realm, the wealth of their possessions, how absolute-like their powers appear to be, whether they are good at doing what they do and don’t do, the success or otherwise of their rule, whether they act as a unifying factor in their realm, etc., etc. All these considerations leave quantifiable textual traces, so, let us now proceed to explore, in the form of a brief sketch, this dimension of the textual. (114)

2.   A Phenomenological Textual Reading of Status

	Status is deposited in the form of status-oriented objects/states and/or status-oriented processes and such items or artifacts are ‘consumed’ by the same. So, e.g., the President of the United States of America travels in a private Air-force jet, in a variety of prestige automobiles, by helicopter, etc. They get to eat well-prepared meals and banquets, stay in prestigious forms of accommodation, etc. Various items are ‘signed’ by such persons such as medals, citations, decrees, stamps, coins, photographs, treaties, etc., and, in general, more highly valued because of the ‘status’ of that signature. All in all, a set of textual traces they could be read as implying that such and such a person enjoyed that associated type of status such as being the President of the United States of America, e.g. Such possibilities now expressed as tangible textual traces of the distinctive power of that person given that type of status. (15)

	The textual traces of status can also be recycled in new economies of status. E.g., I recently noted in a prestigious fine-arts auction catalogue a rather higher price was being estimated for a particular type of Sung dynasty tea-bowl and questioned why the estimate was much greater than that given to other similar artifacts. On reading the description of this tea-bowl I discovered that engraved on the bottom of it were the words imperial tribute, or an expression to that effect. It would appear that this item was especially commissioned by the imperial family to be given as tribute or as a gift in recognition of tribute from some other country. The only difference between this tea-bowl and other tea-bowls, ostensively the same in quality, were these two characters delineating the role of that item to be as luxury gift to be given by the emperor, who commissioned it, to some other monarch or person of high status. In the overall economy of the collection of Chinese ceramics the presence of those two characters engraved on the underside of that tea-bowl were enough to accord it a higher status, a greater degree of desirability; a fact expressed in the relatively higher estimate, etc. (16)

	Of course, this economy of status can also work the other way in so far as it re-values the status of various objects and processes, either devaluating its perceived desirability or augmenting the same. So, e.g., a Victorian stamp that could have been purchased for a mere penny now sells for thousands of dollars, etc. On the other hand, various items desired by the art market in one decade can be virtually forgotten about in some other implying that status cannot merely be an intrinsic phenomenon, indeed, is a meta-textually oriented social phenomenon, and, is situated in an economy of (e)valuation (that to some extent can be provisionally quantified in relative terms of reference textually through mechanisms such as price, e.g.). (17)

	The relative nomination and elevation (of the desirability) of a prestige item is performed in this economy of (e)valuation, effectively branding this item or branding the contextual presentations of the same (in forms of advertising, dissemination, etc.). So, e.g., the prestige item is signed by the designer, the name of the designer is placed on the outside of a garment and the same name repeated (and disseminated through other forms of semiotic repetition, such as the manner of its presentation by means of its wrapping, use of a designer bag to carry it, etc.). All this occurs, as noted, in an economy of (e)valuation wherein the relative status of the object or process can be determined in accordance with the nature of that economy adopted and adapted for that task (although correctly the so-called apparent existential merit of that economy is primarily determined in and through an overall transcendental suspension, i.e., on a not-textual level of engagement [and thence translated into existential terms of reference in a non-textual mode of expression dealing more with the semblance of meaningfulness (rather than with textual sense and meta-textual meaning)]). (18)

	One should also note that these various economies (of interpretation) overlap with varying degrees of cross-influence, and, that no status item or process is immune from fluctuations in relative desirability/non-desirability. Hence this cultural-intercultural ability to redefine what is currently being promoted or demoted as a status artifact, although, correctly, all artifacts are treated and regarded in exactly the same manner (in this denotative sense of status). This communal ability to define/re-define this aspect of status being, essentially, a collective co-authored phenomenon, i.e., as a phenomenon constituted collectively and not by an individual per se. (19)

3.   An Existential Non-Textual Reading of Status

	This poly-textual reading of the hermeneutic circle now brings us to consider the contributions of a non-textual reading. This aspect is existential, centered in a spontaneous, immediate sense of time, allows us to experience the existential excess that flows from the whole-part relationship when applied to a text or set of texts. In effect we are focusing on the (probable range of) meaningfulness to be expressed in a proper, appropriate and valid reading of that text [as (most likely to be) experienced by a reader (specifically w.r.t. a specific text, particularly with that particular type of genre or mix of genres, and, generally w.r.t. the phenomenon of reading itself from a general, universal point of view as it configures all types of intentional experience)]. Effectively, this facet of ‘reading’ is experienced and reflected upon through it’s application of a meta-textual performance in conjunction with the textual contents of that text or those texts under such consideration. The experienced existential excess establishing its apparent meaningfulness; the inter-subjective-stability of those structural-processes on re-iteration establishing the effective semblance of stable interpretations ensuring, w.r.t. artifacts of status, the maintenance of a reasonable degree of continuity in their re-interpretation when applied in the same manner. This evaluation of ‘status’, whether evaluated as either positive or negative in orientation, applying to all cultural objects and processes, i.e., all cultural artifacts. That overall, the relevant economies or economies in the ascription of this experiential facet of status, and, the all other relatively competing economies, whether relatively influential or not, collectively conspire to form this spectral dimension of desirability of all intentionally and non-intentionally delineated artifacts as ‘perceived’ in their cultural-intercultural settings (from personal to inter-personal point of view). Perceived ‘desirability’ itself being a complex phenomenon reflecting our perception of personal and interpersonal hierarchies of local-cultural-intercultural forms/formations of sedimented privilege. (20)

	What are the distinctive hallmarks of this type of phenomenon involved in the universal ascription and experience of status? (21)

	Our phenomenological explorations are essentially that, explorative, a state of affairs that is forever ongoing and can never be absolutely terminated. However, the practical phenomenologist recognizes a need for conclusions, albeit argued for determinations forever provisional and couched in the mantle of overall transcendental suspensions. Still, they also realize that their conclusions do take on a definitive form when processes of eidetic reflection, etc., apparently reinforce their provisional conclusiveness and they meet that same test in a sympathetic, inter-subjective community exploring the same type of phenomena within similar economies of interpretation (i.e, involved in the rule-bound performances associated with similar modes of life, such as found e.g., in the life of the transcendental phenomenologist). Fortunately, explorations of this aspect of an existential excess can be evaluated in terms of their met-satisfaction or relative lack of a met-satisfaction to be found in those investigations in the light of the terms of reference that we find socially-oriented expectations already set out prior to such explorations. Here we have, to some extent, a phenomenon of recall and recognition. We must already have some idea what constitutes the object or goal of our explorations and when that object or goal is adequately realized we feel the motivation behind those specific explorations to have been specifically met, i.e., satisfied. Without a doubt a similar type of process is behind the universal ubiquity of this experience of status (whether we like to admit that fact or not). The implication being that all intentional behaviour is read through a variety of economies one of which is this complex existential sense of desirability, an economy that will impinge, to some degree, on all other invoked economies of interpretation. That to isolate this aspect of our cultural behaviour would necessitate its effective suppression, in effect, an inverse form of status-ascription, i.e., we recognize its specific, particular and/or general cultural interpretations and de-value (or dis-value) such valuations accordingly. The transcendental phenomenologist doing this same type of manoeuvre albeit in order to arrive at an ongoing ‘transcendental’ balance between positive and negative ascriptions and their associated degrees of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. (22)

	It not possible, therefore, to lead our lives outside this overall economy of valuation and its ongoing re-evaluation? Indeed, the Life-World is a complex ocean of value and our apparent exit from the same can only be arrived at through processes of overall transcendental suspension. But, paradoxically, our very transcendental ‘exit’ can only throw us immediately back into this seething sea of valuation. The transcendental is co-relatively defined through its interactive-contrast with the relatively non-transcendental, i.e, the effectively phenomenal. But, our reading of phenomena is only through this hermeneutic circle of comprehension and its implicit ongoing process of an overall transcendental suspension, therefore, we are immersed in such reflections of value and the value of such reflection, i.e., along with our ongoing experience of status, etc. (23)

	At this point it behooves us to ask: how do we go about experiencing and recognizing a relatively (more) authentic experience of status? I.e., since authenticity is central to all forms of experience, how do we transform relatively less authentic experiences into relatively more authentic experiences, and, w.r.t. status, how do we transform the experience of status into a relatively more authentic expression of that type of phenomenon? To achieve this type of task necessitates a relatively not-textual type of reading (in accordance with my understanding of the not-textual experience of the hermeneutic circle). (24)

4.   A Not-Textual Reading of the Current Authenticity of Status.

	The word ‘status’ has an unfortunate press in so far as its connotation is often treated as negative (for a variety of social reasons such as, e.g., religious forms of dis-valuation, cultural disquiet at forms of excessive consumption, annoyance by members of a cultural elite being effectively usurped by parties that are not members of that particular class, etc.). But, as has been argued in this paper, status is primarily a meta-textual, social phenomenon and one that cannot be isolated (and can only be accepted, augmented, suppressed, or transcendentally balanced). Be that as it may, we now need to ask how is such a ubiquitous phenomenal facet of human experience to be existentially approached, i.e., in an authentic disposition that authentically transforms the relatively inauthentic? In other words, how do we live with this facet of status in a relatively more authentic manner? (25)

	My previous phenomenological explorations of the hermeneutic circle as a phenomenal-phenomenological process has forced me to recognize the existential ‘fact’ that degrees of authenticity are always present in our-living-with-any-form-of-phenomenon. The process of authenticity, therefore, is metaphorically more a process of purification, a process that is put into effect to that extent an ongoing overall transcendental suspension is allowed to properly, appropriately and validly operate. Through a process of a (transcendental) balance of all forms of valuation that are either evaluated in relatively privileged formats or non-privileged formats as read in and through the appropriately situated economy or economies of interpretation. This process of transcendental rectification merely restoring a sense of transcendental balance to our investigations, and, therein, removing those non-existential forms of distortion attendant upon forms of excessive privileging/de-privileging that are allowed to enwrap that state of affairs currently focused under such an act of judgmental transcendental discrimination. This process of transcendental discrimination being no more than how our processes of judgment are normally arrived out minus this de-centering of prior privileging, de-privileging, etc. Although a (continually re-constituted) hierarchy of such privileging, etc., is a cultural fact of our existence, still, we have the freedom to relatively re-authenticate our-existence-before-others in and through the ongoing rectification of the overall transcendental suspension (resident at the very center of all epistemological processes and modeled by our understanding of the hermeneutic circle and its naturally associated poly-textual readings of phenomena). This theoretical exposition attempting to help us to understand what is, more often than not, already natural to our coursing though this World-of-Life with-others-before-others. (26)

	How is authenticity recognized and realized? Then, how is this inescapable cultural-intercultural realm of status to be approached in an authentic manner? What existential insights do the answers to such questions supply to the manner we should disport ourselves in our passage through this World-of-Life? (27)

5.   The Existential Ramifications of this Poly-Textual Reading of Status?

	Obviously, leading a life over-devoted to the chasing of artifacts of status and involving oneself in displays of excessive consumption are, by definition, inauthentic because authenticity is realized through processes of transcendental balance. However, on the other hand, because I have argued that status is culturally ubiquitous and an inescapable cultural phenomenon it follows that we must fully lead our lives as a life-to-be-lived in this social-dimension of status. How, then, are we to effect a proper, appropriate and valid sense of transcendental balance in this regard? In other words, how should we live in this cultural world of status? (28)

	Our very being in this world is re-cycled, our sense of being a person is fashioned and re-fashioned through a complex set of interacting economies of interpretative value. Already there is some degree of balance and natural navigation already in place between these various overlapping economies of evaluation. By invoking a desire to establish a healthy balance between these competing dimensions of being we naturally move ourselves psychically towards such an end. But, a transcendental balance is also a balance between ‘ends’ and ‘means’ without a disruptive, non-existential sense of privileging or non-privileging of either type of possibility in intentional direction/re-direction. The maintenance of such a balance is an intuitive process already established through precedence, etc., and merely needs to be more closely attended to in a general state of state of critical reflection; a state of affairs intuitively re-realized through an open mindfulness to excessive preoccupation of intentional interest… the type of process already resident in acts of judgment… and effectively already supervised in an ethical dimension of our being as a person-with-other-before-others…. (29)

	In focusing upon our relationships, with the world, others and an overall sense of self, the perception and exercise of status, without a doubt, should be read as (our immersion in the exercise of) a power phenomenon. Power, in accordance with our scheme, is correctly a dialectical navigation between the poles of synthesis (wholes) and analysis (parts). This experience of power is transformative and can never be entirely neutral, either taking us in the direction of an increased sense of authenticity or in the opposite direction in a decreased sense of authenticity. Correctly, neither absolute integrity can be realized nor its complete loss in conscious life. The degree of integrity being experienced being equally reflected in our psychic world as that current degree of gestalt integrity being enjoy by ourselves. Now, although each relationship has its own unique ground and flavour, a differential power situation is set up between the participants in that relationship and the relationship itself, and, between that relationship, and all other relationships that constitute the rest of the Life-World. Our relatively accurate recognition of status recognizing this current differential in power; a sense of lived-difference expressed through differences in engagement, etc. All our engagements being lived authentically, in relative terms of reference, when we balance all relevant forms of perceived privilege both within that relationship and between all relevant relationships at that moment in time. This existential process of rectification being experienced in and through the expression of harmony entered into in that situation of harmonization. Effectively, being not much more than a continuance of such practices that recognize such healthy attitudes! Avoidance of such processes of rectification re-introducing status in its non-existential, connotative sense. In effect, our dialectical passage between an over-emphasis upon the relevant detail at the expense of the relevant totality or vice versa. Transcendental balance ensuring that this sense of a dialectical cooperation takes place… in the process allowing ourselves to extend ourselves in this World-of-Life, an augmented state of affairs that can only take place in and through this sense of a transformation of our relationships. The realization of this existential excess embedded in the potential fabric of each and every relationship when properly, appropriately and validly read being viewed/re-viewed as a critical state of affairs advanced through our appreciation, intuitively or otherwise, of the poly-textual dimension of the overall hermeneutic circle as it comprehensively permeates the entirety of the Life-World! This realization of an existential excess allowing us to existentially transform the ongoing nature and signature of that relationship. (30)

6.   Conclusion

	Let me list some of my finding:

1.	Our perception of status is primarily as a social phenomenon and hence its meta-textual orientation implies that status must be read more as a collectively co-authored phenomenon.
2.	An overall sense of status is derived from an overall economy of competing economies of (e)valuation, and, therefore, status is a phenomenon that is socially constructed.
3.	The perception of status, therefore, can be re-constructed by invoking changes in those relevant economies or changing the nature of that mix of competing economies.
4.	Status can be ‘systematically’ read using our device of the hermeneutic circle of comprehension and hence our readings of it as a complex poly-textual phenomenon.
5.	Textually, status is perceived as depositing textual artifacts; meta-textually we perceive economies of interpretation; non-textually we experience an existential excess through the interaction of these two former types of textuality; not-textually we experience the authenticity of that event or situation as a status phenomenon in a phenomenological dimension of status, etc.
6.	Although status, in its denotative sense, is an inescapable, ubiquitous facet of our social existence, through the re-imposition of a sense of a transcendental balance we can re-experience that facet of our existence in a relatively more authentic mode of being.
7.	Privileging and/or de-privileging various aspects of our social existence realizes a sense of status in a more connotative sense.
8.	However, acts of privileging and/or de-privileging are not in and of themselves inauthentic acts of being since to act in an intentional manner necessitates their existence, but, that an ongoing, excessive loss of transcendental balance can only result in an inauthentic mode of being.
9.	Authenticity being established through the ongoing re-imposition of an ongoing, thoroughly re-balanced transcendental attitude towards the manner we disport ourselves in our passage through this World-of-Life.
10.	Hence the need for a transcendental balance between the correlatives of means and ends, self and other, content and processes, rights and obligations, etc., etc., wherein a healthy sense of status can be reinvested, re-defined, refined and re-disseminated… 
11.	Being in an existential conformity with the nature of our relationships allows us to both correctly perceive their nature and experience that nature through an authenticity of being as an existential re-normalization of that relationship.
12.	Status is a recognition that between and within all relationships there is a differential power spectrum that effectively expresses the nature of the status between those parties and between other relationships! (31)

    Noël Tointon, Sydney, 10.9.05.