XVII: Value-in-Circulation:
Re-Negotiating Existentially with the Other: Part I*

0.    Introduction

	We are constituted by an inescapable otherness, and that inseparable otherness is constituted by us ! However, our relationship with the other, in its existential orientation, is realized only in, through and beyond an ongoing process of re-negotiation! (0)

	In this paper let me examine how this process of re-negotiation is conducted and how it might be subjected to existential augmentation and subsequent existential authentification. In the process, let us look into how the discontinuity between our own overall sense of self and the sense of the other is overcome? In this let me look at both processes of deterministic redirection and chaotic re-direction (whether authored or co-authored). Furthermore, let me re-examine the apparent nature of value-formation in those regards. (1)

	In this paper let me look at these following philosophical puzzles. First, if all intentional processes are the result of self-organized criticality (at the level of neuronal activity) then surely all ensuing responses should be in and through and beyond processes of chaotic re-direction and not mere habitual, deterministic redirection (through a repetition of past performances)? Indeed, all intentional processes, by virtue of such a chaotic mindscape, one would have expected to arise in such a manner so as to exhibit only ‘innovative responses of re-direction’ rather than ‘habitual forms of mere redirection’? Second, given the intentional discontinuity between our own sense of self and the sense of some other, despite, and in spite of, the transcendental unity of the Life-World, how can we overcome this discontinuity and share ‘an intentional life’ with the other when we are not embodied together in this same World-of-Life? Third, even if we were able to account for the intentional life of the individual through individual embodiment how are we to account for a life-with-others and enter into co-authored phenomena along with a sharing of the moral consequences, etc., of such processes of relational interaction? Fourth, given the chaotic complexion of intentional formation and its concomitant sense of existential re-direction of intent how are we to initiate an existentialization of our re-negotiations with the other and distinguish between which attitudes, experiences and consequences have a relatively existential orientation or complexion versus those instances that appear to have less of an existential orientation or complexion? Fifth, and importantly, how do we inaugurate existentially oriented changes in attitudes, experiences and consequences on an individual and a collective basis given this intentional discontinuity between ourselves and others, and, given such phenomena are supposedly initiated only through chaotic processes? Sixth, how can we even think that there could be any sense of human freedom when all intentional activity and value(-in)-formation is merely a chaotically driven creature of pure chance… where all else could only be an illusion of intentional freedom at best? Then, lastly, even if intentional relationships could be entered into, as seems apparent, how do we existentially re-negotiate with the other? By what guidelines might this type of interaction be existentially re-oriented and transformed? 
(2)
*Link to latest version of paper on my Homestead Homepage Site (circulation17.rtf).
www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelshomepage3.html 
1.    Is Intentional Freedom an Illusion?

If all intentional processes are the result of self-organized criticality (at the level of neuronal activity) then surely all ensuing responses should be in and through and beyond processes of chaotic re-direction and not mere habitual, deterministic redirection (through a repetition of past performances)? Indeed, all intentional processes, by virtue of such a chaotic mindscape, one would have expected to arise in such a manner so as to exhibit only ‘innovative responses of re-direction’ rather than ‘habitual forms of mere redirection’? (3)

	The appearance of intentional freedom may well be an illusion, but, then, so too would the appearance of a complete lack of freedom also be an illusion? In empirical terms of reference we speak of ‘freedom’ and we also speak of a ‘loss of freedom’. In such a context we could argue that through the latter a sense of ‘freedom’ is implied; a loss implying its prior existence. Then, the reversal of a loss of freedom would be relatively experienced as a sense of ‘freedom’. Furthermore, in essence, the appearance of freedom is a transcendental phenomenon to that extent we can go beyond the empirical limits attached to a certain situation calling for a process of choice in actions to adopt. ‘Transcendental’ by virtue of the fact that this appreciation of ‘freedom or its loss’ is conducted ‘outside’ those empirical-like terms of reference. To that extent we are free, i.e., as defined by context, we either lose our freedom or gain in freedom, or, preserve that degree of freedom currently enjoyed or suffered. To that extent we can do otherwise, then, to that extent, can we exercise that apparent sense of freedom. I could walk down this side of the street, or, I could walk down that side of the street, or, I could retrace my steps, or, for the moment, sit down on this seat here. These are all possibilities for me at this moment of time. However, as long as I am intentionally aware of these possibilities, through commission and/or omission, I am able to exercise that sense of freedom to chose, or, for that matter, not to chose. If this sense of freedom were only an ‘appearance’ or ‘illusion’ is neither here nor there in those empirical terms of reference.  On the other hand, transcendental terms of reference, as trans-empirical in orientation, could well call for other criteria in this type of investigation. However, under those more abstract considerations, even the sense of ‘self’, ‘cause-and-effect’, ‘deliberative intentional decision’, etc., should also be called into question, etc. (4)

	How is choice formed and exercised? Through an overall transcendental suspension… and the suspension of the same, etc. Do I go this way, or, do I go that way? My response to such choice is ‘to chose’ or ‘to chose not to chose’. By such means there is a resolution of that question of choice in its associated empirical terms of reference. (5)

	Choice is arrived at on a wave of resolving self-organized criticality. Pre-conditionally we come from a certain point with a certain overall attitude, intent is formed, and, through a suspension of the conditional state of the suspension a certain apparent weight of ‘evidence’ is thematized that allows us to adopt and adapt a certain intentional directedness in the post-conditional phase by virtue of that suspension of the conditional moment wherein intent is thematized, i.e., deliberated. Am I to go this way or that way? -  I wish to go that way, and, I shall go that way – and find myself now going in that nominated direction…. (6)

	Resolved bifurcation is realized as an invariant-scale phenomenon, i.e., at whatever intensity, at whatever frequency, in whatever manner or in whatever time and wherever directed… its essential character is the same on whatever scale it is mapped. A small momentary thought has exactly the same character as an intense prolonged set of retained sequential thoughts with the same overall intentional directedness. Each and every thought, is realized and experienced as a similar type of phenomenon. At the neuronal level we find a certain point of discharge is able to induce another point of discharge, on an ongoing one-to-one like basis, not much more nor not much less, for a certain period of time, able to enter into apparent intentionally deliberative consciousness, without the entire system entering into that critical state of ‘intentional wave replication’, i.e., without going completely chaotic (as in an epileptic fit, e.g.). A self-organized criticality is able to initiate and maintain this change of state for a certain small period of time without its immediate dissolution nor the immediate dissolution of that systematic frame of reference. By such a process intentional retention is simulated through its ongoing re-simulation for a short period of time (which we could call the distinctive intentional event). Hence the apparent limited persistence of that temporary intentional event. Now, holistically, that intentional change of state is registered holistically in the background frame of reference through which that event is able to simulate a certain degree of distinctive contrast. Of course too much contrast and no intentional state could be discerned just as too little contrast would equally produce no sense of significant contrast. In this intentional act, this discharge must persist for a certain length of time and with a certain degree of intensity that allows it to be intentionally observed and traced out in and through, or, rather against, but within, that background field. In its wake there is a trail of intentional deposition that incrementally and exponentially over time alters the configuration of that background field through those instances of experiential enrichment. The field is exponentially enriched by such distinctive production and re-production by virtue of ensuing existential richness through cross-relation of those inputs over time. This, in turn, gives that type of immediate intentional tracing within that field of significant contrast an increased degree of recognition. Brought to a relative degree of conscious intentional prominence in its engagement through such a recognized form of intentional encounter. The suspension of that suspension, in turn, producing its own wake, in the form of a discharge, a sense of response, be that active (e.g., deciding to walk down this side of the street) or non-active in character (e.g., deciding to stay put for the moment), and/or, treated virtually (e.g., in a simulated process of non-enacted reflection) or non-virtually in scope (e.g., as an enacted response). (7)

	Now, freedom may well be an illusion from a transcendental perspective being merely a chaotically controlled discharge that is neither immediately dissipated nor dissolved into a pure state of complete systemic chaotic chaos. As a phenomenon, we find intentionally conscious subjects apparently able to exercise a set of decisions within a series of intentional events (as enacted decisions in those terms of reference). I walked down that side of the street, caught the bus at the bottom of the hill, proceeded to this beach where we are now having a picnic as planned last month. I decide that I would go as promised and went! I had enough freedom to persevere with this intended plan. Adopting and adapting along the way what was necessary in order to successfully enact this project. (8)

	Intentionally formulating a project and intentionally enacting that project and intentionally reflecting on the realization or non-realization of that project is evidence enough that I possess the necessary degree of freedom to proceed thus! (9)

2.    How is the Intentional Discontinuity between Self and Others Overcome?

Given the intentional discontinuity between our own sense of self and the sense of some other, despite, and in spite of, the transcendental unity of the Life-World, how can we share ‘an intentional life’ with the other when we are not embodied together in this same World-of-Life? (10)

	As noted in a previous paper, I shake hands with a friend and find that I experience my hand differently from the other person’s hand. Between me and them, there is an apparent discontinuity in my intentional life. ‘Their hand’ is experienced differently from my experience of ‘my hand’. At the same time we both know we are both ‘shaking hands’. The other person’s hand is not something completely alien. In an inter-subjective genre of interactive engagement I encounter and recognize the other person’s hand as a ‘hand’ and as ‘a hand being shaken by my hand’. (11) 

	In a sense we could say ‘we are all embodied within the very transcendental boundaries of the Life-World itself’! However, this inter-subjective form of embodiment is experienced in a different manner to our own individual sense of embodiment. Moreover, we should recognize and do recognize that in an overlap of engagement this difference between a subjective sense of embodiment and an inter-subjective sense of embodiment is not an absolute one, indeed, there is much that is held in common albeit from a difference in perspective. I see this as my hand, I see that as the other person’s hand, I perceive that we are shaking hands and safely assume that the same is more or less seen and perceived from the other person’s point of view in a mutuality of recognition that ‘knows’ we are more or less ‘shaking hands’ along with all that culturally entails… as a form of introduction, signaling our peaceful intentions towards each other, along with a complexity of other possible intentions such as friendliness, mutual permission to share our intentional worlds through communicated expression in a verbal or non-verbal form or format, etc., etc. (12)

	Can we extent this metaphor of an inter-subjective embodiment in a more literal direction? What is this inter-subjective embodiment? ‘Our’ relationship as expressed materially and experientially! The apparent facticity of this relationship expressing that degree this relationship is a fact in the world before all other relational facts. The relationship coming into ‘experiential existence’ as a residue above and beyond the mere materiality of our individual existences. The manner and intensity of this experiential co-existence reflecting that manner and intensity of resolution entered into in the formation of that sense of a relationship. Effectively, the degree of harmony realized in our relationship with each other. A state of affairs, with its own value-in-circulation, that can be comparatively assessed and evaluated either internally and/or externally; i.e., non-virtually by the participants in that relationship itself and virtually by participants not directly participating in that relationship in question. This manner and intensity in question creating an existential residue above and beyond the mere inputs into that relationship and therein defining directly or indirectly its relative facticity, i.e., its ability to be validly treated as a ‘fact’ in its own right. (13)

	By such means this discontinuity between subjectivity and inter-subjectivity is overcome. Moreover, through inter-subjective forms of cross-fertilization the very subjectivity of our experience is formulated in and through inter-subjective, meta-textual genres of engagement (with their co-operative forms of genres of action and interpretation) (and their associated modes-of-life). Indeed, without such cross-fertilization, without this sense of the other, there could be no subjective modes of intentional-life! (14)

3.    How are Co-Authored Phenomena Possible?

Even if we were able to account for the intentional life of the individual through individual embodiment how are we to account for a life-with-others and enter into co-authored phenomena along with a sharing of the moral consequences, etc., of such processes of relational interaction? (15)

	As just argued, our intentional-life is the enriched, cross-fertilized result of our interaction of our being-in-a-world with-others, indeed, being-in-the-same-world-with-others! Through relationships with others, through our interactions whether culturally oriented or inter-culturally oriented, we find a world already mapped out for-us in which ‘we’ adopt and adapt as we find our needs are found being expressed within it. This is our inter-subjective sense of embodiment as a cultural person embedded within a matrix of cultural phenomena that is, in turn, embedded in an inter-culturally constituted sense of world. Embedded in this matrix of (a matrices of) relationships we find a sense of home be that relatively anomalous for us or relatively non-anomalous for us depending on our current situatedness with-others. More correctly, we inhabit an inter-tidal zone between ‘feeling at home’ and our ‘not feeling at home’; in a sense of self-possession in possession or self-dispossession in dispossession. Various psychological mechanisms necessarily being in place for the maintenance of some sense of being-at-home in-the-world through a still-being-at-home in-the-world or just-being-at-home in-the-world depending upon our material and non-material circumstances in this world-with-others.  (16)

	Through co-relational embodiment, to that extent this is a fact though relational facticity, we are able to enter into the expression of co-authored phenomena (and their deposition of trails of co-authored texts). From an intentional point of view, how could this state of affairs be explained? What ‘nervous tissue’ exists between individual subjects or collections of individuals either metaphorically or non-metaphorically?! (17)

	Intentional phenomena can be treated as emergent chaotic phenomena grounded upon chaotic neuronal activity. By extension, our lives as lived with-others can be treated as emergent phenomena that are also chaotically constituted in their own terms of reference (and non-reductively treated in pre-conditional terms of reference, i.e., not merely reduced to their individually subjective intentional elements of subjective individuals). Just as the ‘intentional life of an individual’ is realized through chaotic emergence so, too, is the ‘life of the community’ realized in and through and beyond the chaotic interaction of its indispensably associated elements of participation, namely, interacting individual subjects. On one hand, all this is a mystery, the mystery of life, yet, on the other hand, all this is as familiar as our just being-with-others! Furthermore, the chaotic nature of subjectivity is re-expressed in and through the chaotic complexion of inter-subjectivity. Intentional phenomena are chaotically grounded, psychological phenomena being an expression of the same. Similarly, inter-personal phenomena are equally chaotic in their own terms of reference. Because reality is basically chaotic in complexion it follows that both personal and inter-personal phenomena are chaotic in complexion. Indeed, we my well ask, can our engagement in and through such phenomena be other than chaotically driven? Is there any place whatsoever for deterministic phenomena other than non-intentional processes of an inertial nature? Then, given that chaotic phenomena determine a sense of innovative re-direction we need to ask ourselves to what extent a sense of the habitual or deterministic could be manifested in subjective and inter-subjective experience? Then, in the same vein of questioning, we need to ask to what extent the existential or the non-existential, along with a contrast between the same, could come into existence, be experienced and be transformed in one direction or the other? (18)

4.    How do We Initiate an Existentialization of Negotiations?

Given the chaotic complexion of intentional formation and its concomitant sense of existential re-direction of intent how are we to initiate an existentialization of our re-negotiations with the other and distinguish between which attitudes, experiences and consequences have a relatively existential orientation or complexion versus those instances that appear to have less of an existential orientation or complexion? (19)

	As just noted, we have a philosophical problem, namely, if all intentions are chaotically initiated and driven along with their distinctive sense of an innovative existential re-direction then how is it possible to make a distinction between the existential and the non-existential, between re-direction and redirection, between non-deterministic and the deterministic? Let us address this puzzle first before we discuss how the sense of the existential can be initiated, etc! (20)

	All intentional processes can be treated (metaphorically and literally) as processes of intentional discharge. This ‘discharge’ being viewed as chaotically initiated and driven (to the extent such a process is able to replicate its existence across a period of time). However, such a manifestation of discharge is a field phenomenon and not merely a pure act of emission since pure acts of emission are not possible (given the creation of bi-polar currents in tri-polar field and a breaking of the former in the apparent formation of an uni-polar emission). Now, all that granted, how can we account for the appearance of habitual, non-existential, deterministically oriented behaviour? E.g., what guarantees the relative stability of inter-subjective genres of experience (and their co-genres of activity and interpretation)? Or, what ensures the relative stability of intentional directedness once initiated? Or, what establishes the apparent stability of subjective identity (and inter-subjective identity of couplings, communal organizations, institutions, etc.)? Chaotic bifurcations once initiated persist to that extent they are retained in and through processes of iteration whether non-intentional or intentional in orientation. Similarly, the accumulative nature of field-formations is maintained until they too, in turn should undergo a chaotic phase transition and transformation. Again, subjective (and inter-subjective) forms of identity as a type of field-phenomenon maintain a sense of identity until they too find themselves undergoing the transformation of a chaotic phase-transition. Therefore, there is a certain degree of transformational invariance maintained throughout the course of a process of chaotic transition and transformation. The process of transformation is never an absolute affair! Hence this non-absolute spectrum of relative discontinuity between these elements of chaotic discontinuity and non-chaotic continuity. Into such a matrix the intentional act is born and all else that emerges or de-emerges from the same. In this complex complexion we could say, as a rule of thumb, that a relative sense of sheer re-direction is relatively existential in orientation and that a sense of mere redirection is relatively otherwise. That, both aspects are necessary in order for there to be sense of a relationship, its harmonic processes of interaction, the emergence of innovative instances of re-iterated re-direction in a relatively greater matrix with a relatively more stable sense of iterative redirection. So, that in essence, the existential flavour is that state of affairs arrived at chaotically through innovative instances of re-direction within a more stable sense of field that maintains a background sense of non-emergent redirection. That emergence is expressed hierarchically through these instances of harmonic resolution and, therefore, all expression of a relational state of affairs is realized in and through such processes of innovative re-direction. (21)

	The question now arises, in the light of the above context, how an existential orientation is engineered? (22)

	As noted in a previous paper, deliberatively planned acts of existential transformation are entered into through a recognition of relatively greater points of self-organized critically, and, noting what seed-phenomena would initiate intentionally desired states of change in such a complex context. In other words, significantly investing in the engineering of a potential state of self-organized criticality, and, minimally investing in those trigger phenomenon or phenomena that ensure the desired sense of re-direction when and where sought in that envisaged transformation phase-transition. How do we shift such pre-conditional theoretical attitudes into conditional forms of practical realization and critical processes of post-conditional appreciation? Through the (craft and) art of existential transformation! Let us now examine how this type of possibility might be orchestrated? (23)

5.    How is an Existential Inauguration of Re-Negotiations Engineered?

Importantly, how do we inaugurate existentially oriented changes in attitudes, experiences and consequences on an individual and a collective basis given this intentional discontinuity between ourselves and others, and, given such phenomena are supposedly initiated only through chaotic processes? (24)

In, through and beyond an adequate process of transcendental-non-transcendental engagement! I.e., ‘through’ a pre-understanding of what is relevant to the situation to-hand in question, then ‘in’ an adequate exercise of an overall transcendental suspension, and, thence ‘beyond’ an adequate post-conditional reflection and its transcendental processes of consequential analysis. When these three time orientations are in an adequate degree of harmony we should find our path in that regard has been adequately mapped out; at least to our best ability in that regard. Where by ‘adequate’ is meant theoretically proper, practically appropriate and critically valid means are engaged in, through and beyond such ‘engaged’ interactions. By such means establishing our existential credentials. (25)

	In essence, through a careful convergence and coincidence between a set of relevant texts, their relevant genres of engagement and relevant critical re-expressions of existential re-direction the existential status of that process of engagement in that relational context is maintained or built upon. The effective process of existential treatment always being a process of existential augmentation hence this need to recognize prior negotiations and the need, when and where relevant, for their existential re-negotiation, i.e., re-augmentation! But does an existential process of treatment merely depend upon a process of a rectification of prior negotiations and/or a process of existentially directed re-negotiation through existential augmentation? But, then, how is a novelty of situation or response, or, a lack of precedent to be confronted and dealt with? (26)

	Novelty, for-us, is never experienced as an absolute novelty. Only through what we already know can the relatively unknown be approached and appropriated. Then, through the formation of relatively new concepts, we find ourselves being able to ‘map’ that sense of novelty and incorporating it into our vision of the world. Much of this work is already done for us through the accumulated cultural and inter-cultural  weight of language. Against this weight of collective experience we find the incremental creation of novel concepts emerge, generally, on a need-to-know-and-use basis. Then, in the goodness of time such conceptual accumulations are able to orchestrate chaotic transformations in our psychic mapping of the world along with the emergence/re-emergence of new interpretations of old concepts and revolutionary-like emergence of additional concepts through reflective thematizations of such newly emergent/re-emergent systems. Into such a re-organized mix of concepts, negotiations, etc., relatively new genres of negotiation emerge through hybridization, emergence and/or re-emergence (of systematic ways of re-thinking forgotten concepts or inadequately thematized structures, etc.). (27)

	Now, let me answer this question “how is an existential inauguration of re-negotiations engineered? By means of an adequate process of relational engagement, and re-engagement, an adequate process of relational response is called for, called forth. Through such a process of existential re-direction prior negotiations are re-noted, rectified, and/or re-directed through a re-thematization of genres or a hybridization of genres or the relatively novel emergence of new genres of engagement. Thence is a process of existential re-negotiation entered into in a manner that is hopefully called for and successfully called forth. (28)

	Some might argue, with much reason, that an ongoing process of re-negotiation is forever call for, should be called forth! That through the non-ceasing of change our situatedness is forever undergoing subtle and/or not so subtle processes of difference which much call for subtle and/or not so subtle processes of adaptation, their nuances finding an expression as thought proper, appropriate and valid in the light of such changing circumstances. Thence the need for ongoing processes of re-negotiation in the light of the evolving nature of that situation in question. (29)
	The question that now follows on from a recognition of this need for ongoing re-negotiation is “is human freedom an illusion, an artifact of our chaotic intentional existence wherein we merely ride waves of change where we are swept along completely beholden to this realm of the chaotic that thoroughly underlies all false semblances of stability in the formation of identity?” (30)

6.    Is Human Freedom an Intentional Illusion?

How can we even think that there could be any sense of human freedom when all intentional activity and value(-in)-formation is merely a chaotically driven creature of pure chance… where all else could only be an illusion of intentional freedom at best? (31)

	The chaotic is neither absolutely pre-determined nor absolutely determined. History is not pre-ordained! Neither is the chaotic moment determined in that moment of bifurcation! Into this most narrow of mere crevices, that which inhabits the sheer ghost of the moment, therein and there between, we are laid bare, stand naked with absolute choice. And we seize it or it seizes us! Either way we are taken in its grip and grasp – a creature who must continually re-negotiate its own existence, finding, therein, our existence through such re-negotiations. But, if that were to be granted, how do explain that for the most part we are creatures of habit, content to merely be redirected in old directions already carved our for us? (32)

	Every moment should be rippling with brilliant opportunities, yet, for the most part, we merely continue falling into the same routines as if trains on tracks following timetables more often than not, not of our own making. How do we account for this difference between this existential ideal of continual re-constitution and the practical reality of our existence with-others and our dependence upon a habitual sense of self, the expected habitual nature of our relationships and the generally predictable routinization of our institutions, etc? (33)

	What we need to realize is that our intentional life is not led in a vacuum. Our intentional decisions are not absolutely independent emissions of re-directed intent. All emissions occur in systems and reflect the general tenor of those systems. More often than not a path of least effort or resistance is adopted and adapted. If there is no need for change we do not normally change for the sheer sake of change. If we find we are bored and desire some form of a change then there is now a need for change and we may or may not seek some form of re-direction. Even if we do desire to seek a new sense of direction it is always from where we have arrived in that very moment of time. For my next holiday I would like to go to a tropical beach and swim in the heated waters of some blue lagoon with its crystal clear waters, vividly colored fish  and corals. However, no amount of thought is going to instantly get me from this winter clime to that summer resort. It will take a lot of planning, a program of seriously exercised intent. For the moment it remains only a possibility. (34)

	Everything we do is conducted within its associated genres of engagement. Repeated patterns of behaviour become habitual, and, habitual practices become habits. Choice is between different habits and how we will exercise or not exercise the same. Our default mode is for more of the same. However, the world is never just the same and variation becomes the name of the game. A theme in variation, or, rather, sets of themes in sets of variations all competing for our time and energy and other resources like money, etc. To expedite matters, make decisions and get value for our decision-making we often prioritize our apparent priorities and in a hierarchy of the same learn to exercise the more pressing; be they short term in planning and execution or longer in term and later in realization… should they be attainable and eventually attained. In, through and beyond this matrix of value-formation all intentional re-direction is channeled. We chose to chose, but, more often, chose to not chose and merely head on in time tested avenues of possibilities tempered by practical expectations of success, hopefully, with a diminished sense of risk and a minimization of potential failure. Without habits we could not conduct adequate overall transcendental suspensions! Because through habits we understand where we have arrived and where we might wish to be. Without such information a suspension could not be entered into. Without a relevant understanding of the current situation-to-hand we could not proceed to the next type of situation-to-hand that exists there-for-us as a realizable possibility. Thankfully, we are creatures of habit for without habits we could not break out of the same and form new habits. So, to be honest, we must say we operate, moment to moment, on a spectrum of choice between innovative re-direction or habitual redirection. Hence this dialectic of our situatedness, namely, that there can be no absolutely innovative sense of a radical re-directing of our intent, nor can there be, despite falling into mere habitual patterns of performance, an intentional act of mere redirection. We always operate somewhere in between. We always have a choice to chose or not to chose to conform or not to conform to expected patterns of behaviour. With powers of (transcendental) reflection we will always have that degree of freedom. But, normally, we set our sails in a complex mix of directions and work away at achieving a number of those ambitions given opportunities, manifested needs, development of requisite skills and carefully directed exercise of our intent in those desired directions. Sometimes we are assisted by that random element of luck, other times we are thwarted by that same element of randomness. However, with adequate preparation, such goals that are desired are more easily realized and those goals not desired are more easily avoided. Furthermore, through the fruitfulness of our honed intent, we usually discover the associated objectives of our genres of engagement more easily encountered and recognized; the enriched development of the associated background better facilitating such intentional processes and more effectively ensuring their fruitful realization. Without habit there could be no re-direction of intent! Without apposite processes of reflected upon re-direction there could be no formation of new habits! (35)

	This is our human freedom to chose or not to chose either ‘to chose’ or ‘not to chose’. Such choice is forever with us even before the insistent face of habit. From successful patterns of previously enacted and reflected upon processes of choice we arrive at a greater sense of human identity, and identity exercised in and through and beyond this metaphorical body of our relationship to our relationship with all other relationships placing a premium on those relationally closer to us. So, I can say “hello” to a friend of mine that is passing by and perhaps a friend of theirs passing by with them, but, might have little opportunity to say “hello” to the friends of the friends of such a friend, etc. Access and opportunity, etc., tempers our freedom. We can only do and think what we can do and am able to think. The truly impossible cannot be contemplated except perhaps in mere simulation as long as such a scenario could be encountered and recognized, i.e., perceived as something that could be engaged even if not possible at this moment in time from this point in space. (36)

	However, let us conclude that freedom, whether of the individual or a set of individuals, from a transcendental point of view is indeed, an intentional illusion even though from an empirical, non-transcendental, natural perspective freedom is that apparent sense of freedom currently available to us given our current circumstances, etc. Let me explain. (37)

	The simple concept of freedom demands an individual or set of individual who is or are able to exercise that degree of freedom characterized as a developed sense of freedom. But, from a transcendental perspective, in transcendental terms of reference, there is no real sense of self or self-agency and no communal sense of a set of entities able to ‘make collective decisions’! There just is no self or set of selves matching this nominated sense of self or sets of selves. Apparent senses of agency but no absolute non-nominated senses of self-agency. The self is a fiction, a fruitful fiction, but, nevertheless, a non-existent entity in pure transcendental terms of reference. From a transcendental perspective a nominated sense of agency or set of agencies can be nominated but not be pre-nominated, neither trans-nominated nor super-nominated, nor post-nominated! This nominated entity is a fiction in extra-nominated terms of reference. Those points of view that we can adopt and exercise are a transcendental perspective upon the relatively non-transcendental, a non-transcendental perspective upon the relative transcendental, and, importantly, the overall transcendental suspension of both attitudes. Armed with such limitations we must accept such limitations. Finding freedom from such limitation in and through and beyond processes of choice by virtue of our ability to enter and leave the overall transcendental suspension. (38)

	In our reflections, through post-conditional appreciation, we come to understand the wisdom or non-wisdom of our choices enacted through commission or non-enacted through omission. Re-iteration of iterative patterns of behaviour lend themselves to the formation of habits. Patterns of behaviour thought conducive to our existence become habituated. Preferably, the time-frames of such processes of post-conditional reflection are a healthy mix of short-term, medium term and long-term objectives. An overall transcendental suspension of these time-frames futher enhancing our ability to operate with an increased degree of facility in this World-of-Life. Therein, reinforcing this culturally acquired sense of freedom to be both ourselves with-others and be ourselves before our-own-senses-of-self. Freedom may be a transcendental illusion (from an impossible to realize transcendental perspective), still, we are permitted to find an ongoing sense of freedom in our passage through this one-World-of-Life with-others before-others. Our transcendental sense of freedom in-the-world is exercised within the natural range of everyday experience, through the lens of expectations as pre-determined through genres of engagement, from the perspective of where we currently stand before-others with-others. There we either chose or not chose either to chose or not to chose… Such choices being exercised through ongoing re-negotiations with others. Whether we are aware or not of the input of others, all choice is forever a process of re-negotiation with others either directly, face to face, or indirectly through the mere adoption and adaptation of genres of engagement already carved out for-us by-others! (39)

7.    Are there Guidelines for Existentially Oriented Re-Negotiation?

Then, lastly, even if intentional relationships could be entered into, as seems apparent, how do we existentially re-negotiate with the other? By what guidelines might this type of interaction be existentially re-oriented and transformed? (40)

	As just noted, our re-negotiations are either direct, face to face, or, indirect through the adoption and adaptation of genres of engagement already carved out for us. Let me examine some of the rules that seem to allow this type of transformational practice to be performed. Indeed, the only type of practice! (41)

	We gain our senses of identity, and their associated senses of freedom, through this meta-textual aspect in this living realm of value-formation whose transcendental possibility is the Life-World. In understanding this apparent circulation of value-in-circulation we need to re-evaluate the very dynamics of this realm of value-formation. Indeed, we need to turn things on their head in order to acquire a deeper understanding of this realm of the chaotic. Let me briefly sketch out this radical revision then observe some theoretical rules that might be able to existentially augment our paths through this World-of-Life with-others before other! (42)

	Nothing occurs except within the transcendental moment of the overall transcendental suspension. Therein our entry and, thereafter, our exit. From this potential point of bifurcation a trail of intentional actions is enacted; either through processes of relative re-direction or relative redirection, such choices being relatively expected and conformational to habitual practices or non-expected and non-conformational to the novel formation of reformational habits. (43)

	Relationships are relative forms of embodiment which may be treated either literally or metaphorically. Such ‘bodies’ emergently arising though processes of simulated/re-simulated engagement. Engagement being conducted through co-genres of associated encounter and recognition. This adoption and adaptation of genres being exercised in, through and beyond chaotic moments of bifurcation able to transmit a certain stability of enacted response. (44)

	All responses are initiated equally, at every point in that relationship, on an invariant scale, throughout the natural ambit of that relationship in question. Therefore, there can be no real circulation of value, only a phenomenal appearance to that end! (45)

	Discontinuities occur through processes of re-direction but always within encompassing non-discontinuities. Since we can only change direction from where we have arrived, and, we can only arrive at where we wish to arrive at by minimizing those non-ultimate discontinuities that would disrupt our progress in that direction intended and harnessing those ultimate discontinuities of the moment that might ensure such a process of transformation and transition. (46)

	Without absolute freedom, being constrained through embodiment, be that individually and/or communally, we can only be seen to exercise a limited degree of freedom. (47)
	A relative sense of freedom devolves from the relationship itself to that extent it is able to spontaneously erupt from the interactive matrix of that relationship itself. As a chaotic phenomenon (although correctly all phenomena are chaotically arranged) it occurs in a moment of self-organized criticality wherein, in the moment, there is a process of re-self-organization. (48)

	In an adaptive recognition of such chaotic transformational-transitions mechanism of change can be entered into that effectively augment our current sense of relative freedom (and relative non-freedom). (49)

8.    Provisional Conclusions?

	A number of conclusions were reached as we progressed through this paper. Such provisional conclusions included a nested sense of identity wherein a relational form of embodiment was proposed for each and every relationship entered into. Some relationships having a closer proximity to our path and passage through this World-of-Life. That ultimate and non-ultimate forms of discontinuity (entered and left through chaotic moments of re-direction) were never absolute through being nested in relative non-discontinuities. Even though all moments of choice are processes of relative ‘re-direction’, such emissive acts of intentional re-direction are channeled through genres of engagement and hence take on a habitual appearance. Paths of least effort and resistance naturally being adopted and adapted more often than not. However, be that as it may, both in theory and in practice, we possess the transcendental ability to chose or not to chose either ‘to chose’ or ‘not to chose’. Hence our lives are ongoing processes of re-negotiation with-other before-others be that directly or indirectly enacted. Such intentional processes of enaction simultaneously occurring throughout the relational extent of those relationships. Processes of existential augmentation enriching those relationships through such well re-directed, self-critical processes of re-self-organization. Thence our apparent sense of freedom and the possible means for its re-self-organized augmentation – thence our relative sense of freedom (and the relative loss of freedom when adversely influenced by the relative isolation of others and/or the relative oppression of others). Such insights and intuitions being beneficial when conducted and orchestrated in processes of existential augmentation. (50)

	In Part II let me marshal these insights collected in this paper in a more integrated fashion in order to establish how revolutionary the implications of these intuitions are in how we come to ‘re-see the world’ and ‘re-enact the world of our relationships’ as we continually enter into relatively existential, and, also, alas, relatively non-existential, modes of interaction. (51)

						               Noël Tointon, Sydney, 23.7.09.