XIV: Value-in-Circulation:
Our Passage through an Inescapable Otherness*

0.    Introduction

	We are constituted by an inescapable otherness, and that inseparable otherness is constituted by us! (0)

	In time and space, in manner and in intensity, in all distinctive phenomenological features we are constituted by otherness. Our sense of self-definition is through a contrasting reversal of the same in an attempt to find the non-otherness of our own identity. But just as no absolute self can be found so too can no absolute other be found (either as an absolutely other non-relational Other nor as an absolute Other [overly] able to enter into all relationships). Some might argue that an ‘other’ should be personified as an ‘Other’ (through its superior epistemological organization) and move Otherness into a theological dimension. However, in this paper let me simply address otherness in a more abstract sense as “that, what ever ‘it’ is or is not, that characterizes identity of a nominated something else by virtue of its relative, non-identical relationship with it or to it”.  E.g., in regard to time, space, intensity and manner…(1)

	“Through time we escape the past at the same psychic speed we enter the future” although we should also note that “we also never ever really escape the weight of our past since it is that same past that continually re-constitutes us in and through its ongoing totality”. Similarly, the future as not-yet-having-arrived is other than our living sense of the present. Can the present also be viewed as some form of otherness? Being a conjunction of ‘a past that is now gone and other than the present’, and, ‘the future as not yet arrived and other than the present’ should we not wonder that ‘the apparently present’ is equally as mysterious as the past that has past and a future that has not yet arrived and can never completely arrive-for-us/me (except in death?). In ‘time’ we are constituted in and through this evascent sense of otherness. (2)

	In space, I am here and not there. But one way or another, I am forced to move either actively and/or passively. I am other than where I once was whether I like that or not, being completely beyond my control. I sit in this chair and go off to sleep watching the television. Both the television and myself have flown through space in the Solar System whilst the Solar System itself is flung through space. Space has constituted me as apparently ‘here’ in contrast to the otherness of all other spatial moments. And yet even this sense of ‘here’ is no longer here as it would have been found a moment earlier. I am continually, each and every moment, other than where I was and forever other than where all else was or is or will be. (3)

*Link to latest version of paper on my Homestead Homepage Site (circulation14.rtf).
www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelshomepage3.html 
	In manner, my being, from moment to moment, is being continually redefined through the adoption and adaptation of different genres and their associated modes-of-life. We are continually ‘fleeing’ from the otherness that is now our past situation to a falling into the otherness of a future equally elusive to us in the very here-and-now. We are surrounded by an elusive otherness in all its variety, yet, an otherness that seeps into the very marrow of our being… untouched and yet embraced..!? ‘Untouched’ in an otherness that appears to be absolutely other, and, ‘embraced’ totally in a sense of otherness that appears to be absolutely non-other or does not permit us to be absolutely non-other..!? (4)

	In intensity (of epistemological integration in an epistemological hierarchy) my gestalt sense of being a person is continually being re-defined as other than it has been. So day by day we wake and sleep, find ourselves alert or drowsy, more perceptive or less perceptive, etc. (5)

	How is it, then, despite this ‘evascent’ sea of otherness, that we do not feel overwhelmed by an objective otherness in an existential sense of complete alienation, isolation, loneliness, confusion and utter, abject terror..? Or, in a subjective non-non-otherness and therein find ourselves completely dominated by an excessive oppression, complete lack of privacy, a thoroughly impersonal surveillance, obsessive ordering and total, mindless banality..? Is otherness basically ‘other than myself’, or, ‘is myself none other than the uniformity of otherness’ (through the universal sense of a non-non-otherness)?? (6) 

	In this paper let me deal with how ‘otherness’ constitutes us, and v.v., yet, how at the same time, the other feels familiar, is pre-negotiated for us… how it is that we feel at-home in-the-world despite this all encompassing, inescapable, inseparable and elusive otherness that completely embraces us… yet does not seem to touch us…? (7)

	In this let me examine the role of localized discontinuity (and a number of other concepts such as emissions, etc., implication of chaotic phenomena, nature of iteration, interaction, etc.). (8)

1.    The Apparent Discontinuity between Otherness and Non-Otherness

	In intentional re-direction we change course. In and through and beyond the discontinuity of the moment we are impelled to change course. How might we come to understand the dialectics of this momentary sense of re-direction? (9)

	We might say, metaphorically, in a process of mere re-direction we merely keep heading off in the same direction as if in the grips of an inertia with its own logic and intentional, intentionally pre-decided directedness. On the other hand, in sudden spontaneous-like acts of re-direction we head off in totally new directions whether that be seen to be incremental or radical in re-orientation. How can such sheer re-direction be accounted for? (10)
	In a previous paper I noted that:

Ultimately there can only be disconformities,
Whereas from the non-ultimate [perspective] they should be expected. [(53)]
 
	By this is meant, from an ultimate, transcendental point of view, that identity is constituted in and through and beyond a series of discontinuities, and, that non-ultimately, and phenomenologically, discontinuities should be expected (from time to time in those natural terms of reference). Can we speculatively examine the latter through a hypothetical investigation of the former? By what model or models can we account for chaotic patterns of re-direction (be they microcosmic or macrocosmic in orientation and/or consequence)? (11)

	First, I would like to refine this distinction between the (intentional and/or non-intentional) inertia of redirection in a radical, innovative sense of re-direction (be that intentional and/or non-intentional in orientation). This distinction is a bit like that between ‘iteration’ and ‘re-iteration’, both are iterative phenomena but the latter suggests some form of discontinuity between acts of iteration in order to take on a re-iterated flavour. Now, with this type of distinction in the background let me speculatively run through these finer subtleties in distinction. Imagine, if you would, that chaotic phenomena are firing at random in all directions (in a weak sense of an unstructured chaos) and that, acting as a form of trigger or seeding phenomenon, occasionally, in a stronger sense of chaos, induce a cascade event of iteration that is achieved in an through an act of bifurcation wherein the pre-conditional situation is such that a weak or ineffective process of iteration is achieved (whose duration is greater than the triggering event). Let us call it a micro-event of iteration. Now, if this event is truly ineffective and ineffectual then for all purposes it could be called a virtual micro-event especially if it were apparently momentary in character, in temporal, spatial, intensive and conditions of manner, etc. On the other hand, if the iterative nature of our event is significantly extended, etc., and phenomenally effective in producing/re-producing changes in identity, state, etc., then we should consider it to be a major-event of re-iteration. Thence we would have, in this scheme, virtual and non-virtual micro-events of iteration and non-virtual macro-events of re-iteration. So, weak chaotic random firings trigger a variety of iterative and re-iterative phenomenal events (in a stronger chaotic sense of a change in re-self-organization). Inertial or inertial-like phenomena being seen merely as macro-events of iteration. (12)

	With this map of distinctions we are in a position to approach the discontinuity of the chaotic moment of re-self-organization. Given random firings, from time to time, and, given the necessary pre-conditions, iterative phenomena are triggered. If only momentary and relatively ineffective we might consider those forms of evascent iteration to be virtual or near-virtual (especially if subject to counter or reactive iteration where the iterative act is undone and reversed back to its pre-conditional stance or similar). On the other hand, if iterative consequences extend beyond a virtual, momentary dimension, then we can consider ourselves as dealing with non-virtual phenomena. Furthermore, if iteration merely continues to represent the situation to hand then we might like to consider the same as merely redirectional phenomena. In contrast, innovative re-presentations (and their iterative representation) can be considered to be re-directional phenomena. Now, such a scheme can be applied to non-intentional and/or intentional systems of phenomenal expression. (13)

	As examined elsewhere, ‘systems’ can be treated as three or more multi-party situations. In contrast, a contrastive situation is effectively productive of a ‘current’, a potential difference that is either (re-constituted,) dissipated or non-dissipated. In a breaking of a current, in its dissipation, we then get the production of an emission (or set of emissions). Hence these three distinctive, but interrelated, systemic aspects of systems, currents and emissions (respectively based on three or four or more parties, based on two parties, and, based on relatively unique parties (or sets of parties). However, these distinctions are more dialectical that phenomenal and/or phenomenological. Symmetry breaking of systems produces currents and/or emissions, and, the symmetry breaking of currents produces emissions. However, such transitions or transformation are merely moving from one systemic framework or set of frameworks to some other systemic framework or set of frameworks. E.g., tritium, hydrogen three, in a radioactive breakdown could split to deuterium (or hydrogen two) or hydrogen (as hydrogen one). One systematic situation has created a new systematic situation with the distinctive emission of particles. Sometimes those emissions are paired and coupled in a form of quantum coupling with elements of uncertainty until we can ‘enter’ into those relationships, directly or indirectly, virtually or non-virtually, when we participate in its own/our relatively internal relationship/s within the essential and holistic ‘space’ of that relationship in question. That in the relational ‘space’ of a relationship, I have argued, there is a holistic essentiality that is equally identical in each and every point or moment that is within the same. Privy to this, non-virtually and/or virtually, gives us an internal perspective on the relational ‘space’ of that relationship. In the formation of currents and/or emissions, effectively, one systemic frame of reference is traded in for some other (if identificationally decoupled from the former). As will be argued, in effect we are dealing with localized forms of discontinutity embedded in hierarchies of enstructuralization (be that epistemological or non-epistemological in orientation). (14)

	How are such ideas to be applied to apparent disconformities between relational states of affairs treated in non-ultimate perspectives? Say in the transition from ice to water and thence to steam, or, by metaphorical extension, to decisive moral acts of intentional deliberation, e.g., etc? (15)
	
	In moral deliberations, moral acts are defined as ‘moral’, or ‘immoral’, by virtue of a moral frame of reference inter-subjectively present in which acts are read as moral or immoral, or, more moral or less moral, or, just without moral denotations or connotations. Such frames of reference are genres of engagement (through genres of activity and relatively inversed genres of interpretation). In such a situation the very constitution of the act is construed actively and passively in a similar frame of reference, given that those participants are able to engage, more or less, in such a common frame of reference. Furthermore, one can construe such acts as intentionally deliberative acts that arise through a resolution of intentional preconditions. In introducing a harmonic approach one can view the dialectical pre-requisites of an intentional act of resolution to need three moments consisting of, namely, first, an appropriately associated consonant background field of the relevant inter-subjective genre/s, second, a process introduction of relative dissonance, and, third, a transformation to a process of resolution enacted intentionally. Treating the resolutional transformation as productive of the relational integrity of that moral relationship in question allows us to treat the moment of resolution as systematic or systemic. On the other hand the consonant field is necessary for the instantiation of a current or potential difference between various courses of moral action, whereas, the distinctive uniqueness of the dissonant feature is instrumental of an emissive nature. However, through the dialectics of these three moments, it is better to treat these three aspects each as equally systemic, currents, and spontaneous processes of emission. E.g., the intentional act of resolution can also be seen as emissive, a discharge of intent that is re-iterative and re-directed. Or, the intentional act could be treated as creating a potential difference or ‘current’ between past and present, present and future, etc. Or, as noted, the intentional discharge could be seen as re-presentative of the relationship itself through resolution to the extent that a relationship is in relational existence in and through and beyond ongoing momentary processes of resolution. Similarly, we can have similar permutations from the perspective of the consonant inter-subjectivity of the moral field entailed in such genres, or, from the perspective of the apparently re-iterated resolutional process itself. Needless to say, the simple point to note here is this, namely, that the dialectical nature of relationships lends itself to a harmonic interpretation along dialectical transpositions of reference. Hence moral situations have forms of relational treatment that utilize moral systems, moral currents (through intuitively treated moral potentialities) and moral emissions be that in intentionally resolute moral acts, forms of dissonance or perceived currents between various forms of moral potentiality, etc., etc. There is this important qualification, however, namely, that the nature of the dialectical beast is such that you cannot expect to pin a mere tail to it and expect it not to grow another somewhere else at the same time if not a collection of the same. Indeed, the more subtle the distinctions the more elusive their definition in such dialectically-systematic terms of reference. Hence the acceptance of a philosophical language in this regard that is more general, open, dialectical… merely recognizes a framework of moral systems, moral currents and moral emissions (as defined when thought ‘adequate’ to the particular or specific task/s to hand, i.e., as proper, appropriate and relatively valid in that particular or specific context/s). (16)

	In transitions of phase between ice and water and steam we can note a differences in the absorption, production and emission of energy. This difference, literally or metaphorically, could be treated as also indicative of re-iterative processes of re-direction in and through and beyond such point of relatively radical re-self-organization. (17)

	Collectively and creatively integrating some of the ideas just noted let me sketch a more comprehensive picture of how we might wish to treat and interpret and act upon points of discontinuity in an intentional perspective. (18)

	Random firings, in a weak chaotic sense, trigger iterative acts given the prior pre-conditional formation of such possibilities. Iterative acts that are reinforced and persist in intentional retention are effectively re-iterative in orientation. Initially innovative through inertial persistence they then become effectively representational. Relationships are engendered through ongoing processes of relational resolution. The co-existence of iterative representation and re-iterative re-presentation constituting the current existential character of that corresponding sense of a relationship. Changing the course of that relationship is put in play through an alteration in such parameters. In the light of this series of papers we can also note the role of value-in-circulation in this vexed issue of instituting a sense of re-direction. As value is value-in-circulation it follows that the existential excess of value created in this type of situation is reflective of its matrix of origination. A harmonic understanding helping us to fix this intentional aspect when and where needed (in a manner thought relevant to our investigations). (19)

	From a non-ultimate (natural, phenomenal-phenomenological) context, as a non-absolute frame of reference, we should expect patterns of discontinuity to appear. So when water boils the temperature stays at boiling point until all the water is boiled. Then the temperature can increase, whereas, until that point in time when all the water has boiled away, the increased supply of energy went into merely assisting this transition between the liquid phase and the phase of steam. Can such an understanding be metaphorically transferred to a more experiential context? Perhaps not in such a clinical manner? However, similar principles seem to be operating when social phenomena take on an innovative practice and seek to disseminate the same in a relative successful process of extended dissemination. (20)

2.    The Reciprocal Nature of Interaction and Constitution

	The world is a place where both meaning and meaningfulness can walk together along the same street. What we do in the world carves out a hierarchical priority of privilege with varying degree of authenticity. Exercising that privilege allows us to enjoy and/or suffer that type of constitution and its powers of re-constitution. In all of this a core mutuality of reciprocity is both recognized and entered into. How does the other constitute the non-other, and v.v?  (21)

	By virtue of an extension of its sense of identity through re-self-organization of its effective sense of self in that context of re-presentation. So, a king can command and makes their commands known through the court and its dissemination of the same beyond the confines of the court. In this contract, unreasonable demands will normally find forms of obstruction. So, even though the king commands, the nature of those commands is limited by the reasonableness of that king and their court. The impossible to perform does not happen. Re-self-organization, and its iteration/re-iteration, establishes this disseminative process, a process limited by the nature of those parties in interaction and the limited nature of their interaction. The latter being limited by the degree re-self-organization is able to be put into effect. Perpetuation by iteration to the extent that a continuation of the same processes of re-self-organization is able to be maintained, whereas, in contrast, relatively innovative processes would arise through the instantiation of novel processes of re-self-organization (and their iterations). (22)

	As transcendental phenomenologists we can claim that identity, etc., by implication is a communal affair by virtue of the constitutive nature of genres. As the latter are inter-subjective, hence their inter-subjective processes of constitution(al iteration/re-iteration). Furthermore, the innovative formation of identity and the extension of personal identity through a dissemination of power is totally assisted by processes of discontinuity, or, rather, overcoming process of discontinuity, without the disruption and dissipation of such identity. How is such an affair orchestrated?  (23)

	In and through and beyond processes of re-self-organization(al re-iteration and iteration) that are relatively promoted and not relatively demoted by counter-reactive forces operating in the same or similar terms of reference all situated in a nested hierarchy that effectively compartmentalizes the formation of discontinutities, localizes the same in this sense of localization! (24)

	Indeed, there could be no effective identity without this unified dissemination of power within that relationship of identificational constitution as inter-subjectively enstructured hierarchically. That granted, it then follows that in a further dissemination of power the same type of pre-conditions needs to apply and be applied! And in this the same, more or less, must also apply to all other relational components (imputed in those relationships) that appear to phenomenally and/or phenomenologically enter into forms of direct interaction in that same situation or context. And from this follows a hierarchical assembly of overlapping relational spheres of influence (in much the same fashion, but to different degrees, as manifested in the epistemological organization of personal identity and its formation of intentional patterns of expression). (25)

	Discontinuities in this light, therefore, are not disruptive if successful in the iteration and/or re-iteration of apparent identity, etc., being hierarchically localized. Thence the instantiation of overlapping spheres of existential excess, albeit with their re-directed re-investment back into those relational matrices of origination. Because those matrices are hierarchically organized, discontinuities are never absolutely disruptive and only relatively disruptive (in the transformational creation of transpositional systems, i.e., new systems in transposition). So, e.g., hydrogen three becomes hydrogen two or one with the distinctive emission of associated products of emission in keeping with the nature of those emissive acts. (26)

	So, discontinuities are relative and never absolute, even though some discontinuities are effectively disruptive of their closely associated systems. However, as systemic hierarchies are never absolutely disrupted in whole (transcendently) or in part (immanently) (being both context creating and contextually dependent) it implies processes of change occur, be that intra-systemically and/or extra-systemically in orientation. E.g., when ice melts we get water and systems of icebergs become absorbed in the wider system of the ocean into which they melt. Or, clouds form from vapour and come from and return to their encompassing system of the atmosphere. (27)

	So, hence, the limited creation of relative identity through discontinuity, and, the limited destruction of relative identity through discontinuity dependent upon one’s interpretative frame/s of reference and one localization/s of intentional interest (be that active and/or passive in nature)! (28)

	I would like to use the metaphor of a card game, in general, to illustrate this relationship between systems, currents and emissions and their limited localization in a complex systemic hierarchicalization of intent. (29)

	In a card game the pack is usually shuffled (otherwise we might have to shuffle our rules instead). A series of actions, represented by individual cards, is entertained. This rule directed process continues until a discontinuity in play is arrived at. In this certain value/s is/are arrived at that are either cashed out at that point or/and added to the ongoing value of the overall game. Discontinuity is arrived at in and through play but not at the level of the cards themselves in this instance nor at the level of the game itself as long as that game is in play. A conclusion in that game incurs a discontinuity in the playing of that game itself. Therefrom and thereafter, the old game ceases and a new game is commenced or some other activity is entered into. Obviously, discontinuities are points of value production, signal limited transitions between individual games themselves or the overall game, and, other forms of game-play. They are never absolute in intensity and are hierarchically localized in the complexity of phenomenal-phenomenological structure being focalized upon. In Poker we play various hands, at the end of the game we count our winnings or loses. We then enter into other forms of game-play, e.g., talking about the various hands we played; deciding to play another hand or start a new game altogether; finding something to eat; deciding to go home, etc. All these changes in intentional direction/re-direction not disrupting our existence but either relatively augmenting its value or de-augmenting its value. (30)

	This evaluation of value brings us to a philosophical crossroad. Understanding the role of chaotic phenomena and successfully using such insights could well be instrumental in the augmentation of the value of our own existence and the lives of others. By such means we would be able to make a difference, whereas, in contrast, the mere redirection of phenomena is not able to harness this possibility that small investments of value can be instrumental in the discontinuous production of much larger existential surpluses. Hence a desire to change things for the better needs to co-opt chaotic phenomena in such a manner that our causal consequences (minus the adverse impact of unintended consequences) are exponentially greater in this re-production of an existential excess in value-formation. The other aspect of our crossroad is the formation of an existential understanding into the very dynamics of our relationships with the other (as a cipher for all forms of relative otherness). In this we need to know why the experience of otherness is neither alienating, isolative and lonely nor oppressive, without privacy and destructive of a personal sense of space. In this regard I would like to propose three senses of otherness, the first two being inauthentic in orientation and the third sense being existentially authentic in orientation. Let me define and demonstrate these senses of otherness. (31)

	Perception and treatment of the other as ‘wholly other’ would be to perceive it in and through a lens of alienation. On the other hand, to perceive the other as ‘wholly non-other’ would be to overwhelm us by the sheer magnitude of its imputed dominance! Happily, there is a Middle Path here for-us by, in and through our adoption of the overall transcendental suspension. Therein, the imputation of otherness is seen as a dialectical source of value-in-circulation. In this attitude, ‘self’ is seen as ‘non-otherness’, and, that ‘non-non-otherness’, effectively, is the ‘world-at-large’. That in this dialectical interplay, with insight, we have a greater opportunity to live in re-productive harmony with the world-at-large (as we find ourselves living within the Life-World and in a more full sense of alignment with the same)! (32)

3.    Provisional Conclusion/s

	The otherness of the other is constitutive of all forms of non-otherness, and v.v. Moreover, as the non-otherness of personal and communal identity is defined in and through and beyond the interaction of our relationships it follows that the sense of the other can never be absent and hence the inescapable nature of the other. Through processes of discontinuity, forms of re-iteration and iteration are, respectively, re-presented and represented (the later in a non-novel, inertial-like sense). That granted, we are now in a position to understand more effective disseminated processes of intentionally directed patterns of personal-interpersonal expression, and, how we don’t normally find ourselves experiencing profound forms of alienation and/or oppression, etc. Let me address these two problematic issues in the next two papers respectively. (33)

							      Noël Tointon, Sydney, 4.7.09.

Appendix A

	One could chart three ways of seeing each of these three dialectical aspects that constitute the phenomenal-phenomenological appearance of a harmonic process. We could do this by reading each of three dialectical moments through the systematic number of 3, the contrasting current of 2, and, the relative emissive uniqueness of 1:

Consonance				Dissonance				Resolution

3.	Systematic integrity            Dissonance sparking	         Systematization
               of field.			a system.		           through resolution

2.	Current between field	        Current between dissonance   Current created in
                     and dissonance   	and field.			resolution.

1.	Unique nature of 	         Distinct nature of	          Unity of discharged
                field.			dissonance.		             emission. (34)