XVIII: Value-in-Circulation:
Re-Negotiating Existentially with the Other: Part II*

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. How should such negotiations be existentially engaged?! (0)

1.    Preamble

	In this paper I will demonstrate nothing, no thing will be demonstrated! Rather, in an attempt of ‘demonstrating a radically different way of seeing things’ I hope to be understood, and, in that understanding, hope to re-negotiate a different way of ‘seeing how’ we should interact with others, can interact with the other. (1)

	In this essay, Part II, I will attempt to marshal the insights arrived at in previous papers in order to present in a more systematic-like fashion a different way of seeing things, a radically different way of understanding how we interact with the world at large, how interaction is achieved in our passage through this Life-World, this one World-of Life. However, no revolution can be absolutely radical. Difference can never be absolute. We live in the same world even if it is interpreted differently. This is why, when we live in a certain language or culture, we see others outside that language or culture as ‘different’ even if the human condition is much the same for most people. So, here in Australia, e.g., we mistakenly find the British as ‘class-ridden and ‘stuffy’, the French as ‘rude’ and ‘perfidious’, the Germans as ‘too clinical’ and ‘obsessive’, the Chinese as ‘inscrutable’ and ‘alien’, Americans as ‘naïve’ and ‘brash’, and, Kiwis from New Zealand as ‘genteel’ and ‘civilized’…. (2)

	Immersed in our own culture and language we are a bit like fish in a gold fish bowl. We see out beyond it but we do not see the very water we live in and assume then that the entire world is the same as our watery world. Only when that water is cloudy or troubled do we find an inkling of the nature of the medium we live in. It also has limits. This metaphor has limits too (thence the fallacy of the extended analogy). In many respects we all live in the same gold fish bowl, but, the way we see the world is a more a multi-hued, multi-dimensional mélange of overlapping points of view that may be relatively incommensurable, yet, are never absolutely incommensurable! In our passage through this world with-others we are continually in a process of re-negotiation. Generally, this is smoothed over for us by patterns of behaviour already negotiated for us by the society we live in, through expressions already embedded in our language, our culture, our cultivation of our humanity. In an existentially cooperative and conducive climate, processes of existential augmentation are entered into through a building further upon what we already have. (3)

*Link to latest version of paper on my Homestead Homepage Site (circulation18.rtf).
www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelshomepage3.html 
However, there are times when there is diminution of an existential attitude towards others with an ensuing loss of such negotiated respect for others. Then, there are bumpy times of a more revolutionary-like nature when our world-view is subjected to a process of chaotic re-organization along with a period of serious existential re-negotiations with others. Today, perhaps, is such a time when, through our coming to see the world differently, we must see others differently too. In the following paper let me indicate how, through a re-construction of how we might see the world, I believe some of those changes might come about… might well be re-forming…? (4)

2.    Communication as a Chaotic Process of Re-Vision.

	In a recent paper I proposed that communication, in essence, could not be satisfactorily understood as parties merely sending coded signals to each other and de-coding the same. Rather, communication only takes place when there is a chaotic change of state through a process of re-self-organization with a consequent re-alignment between those parties. In the process ‘communicated’ value is spontaneously realized at each and every point in the relational ‘space’ or ‘body’ of that relationship without any form of circulation. [That phenomenal-phenomenological processes of apparent circulation are more illusions created by sequencing these moments of communication together and re-constructing or re-simulating the same as relative artifacts in their own right without recourse to the chaotic complexion of the relationships in which such values are engendered.] (5)

	I said I have nothing to demonstrate, I would be demonstrating no thing, however, through the use of analogies let me simulate some understanding here as to what is meant by this idea of communication as a chaotic process of re-self-organization and consequent re-alignment (realized through that process of re-negotiation). (6)

	How do we read a paragraph of text, say a paragraph printed on this page, e.g? Say this very paragraph. We see the page, perhaps already perceive it as an essay? We note the title on page one, etc., find it falling into a second section… apparently on a philosophical theme. Then, as to the paragraph itself, we read the words found there, recognize them as English. Read those words individually and in combinations as sequenced on the page, in phrases and, then, in sentences. Then we find we have read the paragraph. At each stage we incrementally build up an understanding, hopefully, of what is being discussed (as if the text could also be read out aloud). Words are sequenced in sentences and sentences are sequenced in paragraphs. When we feel we understand a section of text, increment by increment, there is also a sudden incremental shift in understanding. A series of mini-revolutions are undergone, some more major than others, some merely supplying additional detail… the overall paragraph, when understood, being a more major shift in our apparent coming to understand the text of this paragraph. Each increment, when understood, being understood in an experiential instant. What is that word, in this context what does it mean..? ah! What does this sentence mean..? Ah! And this paragraph..? AH! We work for these understandings, that overall understanding in a process whose calculation takes time but whose understanding effectively is understood in an instant. When a reader understands the writer of this text there is an effective process of apparent re-alignment in understanding. The text seems to take on an apparent transparency. When a second person reads this text, and also comes to an adequate understanding of it, they too enter this ongoing state of micro-re-alignments/major-overall-re-alignment, etc. ‘Understanding’ is an existential excess that cannot be reduced merely to its incremental parts. Moreover, it is eventually realized in a re-organization of understanding, in a series of spontaneous realizations when we suddenly ‘see’ what appears to be meant. Parties privy to this provoked suggestion of meaning enter a state of relative alignment in and through such a similarity of provoked and re-directed understanding. A horse is led to the trough to drink but cannot be made to drink. But, if there it can decide to drink and all parties there that decide to drink will drink the same water. Or more or less… all analogies, all metaphors can only go so far. In understanding a text we usually take the path of least resistance. If we are reading a novel we read it as a novel. If it is a poem we read it as a poem. Of course we can make mistakes (like the proverbial ‘laundry list that inadvertently got itself printed in a book of poetry). Then, we can read it other ways too. That novel might have philosophical overtones. The poem might seem to suggest some hidden political message or point. So, we also can over-read that text and find other forms of value apparently embedded within it, claims that may or may not be disputed. However, on a basic level the text re-directs our understanding from knowing we are dealing with a text in English to a paper or novel or poem, etc., to what that text appears to basically mean. When we reach that point of understanding we have radically altered our understanding to the extent that text appears to have taken us somewhere distinctive, somewhere significant. Of course, we could also well argue that we have merely filled in the detail. We know it was a philosophy paper or a novel or a poem. On the other hand, such detail takes us somewhere specific… much further than merely appreciating a philosophy essay just as a philosophy paper, a novel just as a novel, a poem just as a poem… When understood, the text has transported us, transforms our understanding, we have made a distinctive transition from ‘finding’ a text to ‘finding out’ what that text apparently seems to mean. Of course we can be mistaken. Or, the text may have messages only the more initiated could discern additional to its more superficial semblance of meaning. Indeed, a ‘rich’ text is one that provokes a greater surplus of meaning, often on a number of levels, more as a symbolic expression of the human condition itself…. (7)

	Let me explore the following scenario. Imagine finding a piece of paper with “oil can” typed on it. What would it mean? Now, you belong to a spy agency and you have been instructed to ask the cleaners in a certain hotel, where foreigner stay, to collect all documents disposed of in the rubbish bins. The pieces of paper found are all transcribed and appended to files on the hotel guests and it is your job to make sense of these files. Apparently there are sensitive price negotiations going on and it is the job of the government to arrive at a price acceptable to it for the next year in certain commodities like oil, iron ore, copper, etc. Spying on the communications emitted by these foreigners is all part of the ‘background’ to these negotiations for this totalitarian government. So, you look at the other pieces of paper transcribed and filed in this file. In another transcribed document you find “s delivered”, and, in a further transcribed document you read “greatly promote the GNP of a small country”. So from these three scraps, in a pair, could be read “oil can…s delivered” or “oil can… promote the GPS of a small country”…. So what was meant? How does it all fit together? And that is what the analyst has to do – retrieve all the pieces of paper and fit them back together, like a jigsaw puzzle, and hopefully find the restoration of a coherent document. The moral of this analogy, if you haven’t guessed it, is this: words have a range of meanings, words put together focus the range of those possibilities, and, it is the contextual framing of a document that focuses and recreates or better indicates the apparently intended significance of a document or an associated set of documents, and, that our understanding is ‘progressively arrived at’ in a series of greater jumps of re-direction and smaller jumps of redirection… like doing a jigsaw puzzle. (8)

	In the same vein, let me explore the following anecdote. A famous Chinese novelist, in Communist China, wrote in one of his novels something to this effect, namely, ‘that when he got off the train in Beijing he loved the smell of oranges being sold in the station as he moved through it.’ At the time there was strict censorship and all literature was heavily censored. This sentence seems simple enough, and, its meaning seems obvious. Indeed, nothing untoward seems to be said and was passed by the censors as unproblematic. But what does it really mean? Every hardworking Chinese person who passed through that railway station would know that at that time there would be no oranges for sale in the Beijing Railway Station. The workers’ paradise was just not able to centrally plan for such a simple thing, or, perhaps, the Cultural Revolution had severely disrupted the distribution of food. People reading that sentence, acquainted with the reality of Beijing at that time, realized the author was being ironic, and, meant exactly the opposite of its overt denotation. This was very embarrassing for the authorities. When they realized they had overlooked this satirical point, in reprinting a second edition of this novel, a few years later, they felt it better to leave the sentence in lest they look like they had made a mistake by not removing it in the first place. This veiled point of criticism, that had escaped censorship, had well and truly circulated beyond the mere readership of this novel. The moral of the story, as re-presented here, is that an appropriate understanding of context must also extend beyond the genre adopted and adapted by that text, and, the framing totality of that document itself. Hence in a careful reading of a text we need to properly understand cultural context, meta-text (of [the mix of]genre[s] adopted and adapted) and the totality of the form of that text as emitted…. (9)

	There is also another moral being implied here. That understanding, intentional experience, communication, etc., are all arrived at through a phenomenological process of stringing together of a series of psychic discontinuities, existentially arrived at ‘moments’, ‘moments between moments’ where and when we must ‘jump’ from a certain level of understanding to another. As I have already noted, communication is realized in an instant and is not something directly arrived at through mere circulation or through mere calculation. There may well be parties emitting coded messages received by other parties who must decode these perceived messages and then make sense of the same. This ‘making sense’ is not something that is process-oriented (even though it is arrived at through our reading of a sequence of events). This external ‘machinery’ may well be necessary, but, in and of itself, is not sufficient without this transformational-transition of the existential moment itself! At the same time, these discontinuities are not absolute discontinuities. They are incremental jumps, but psychic jumps all the same. In reality they are discontinuities within greater relatively non-discontinuities, or, discontinuities-within-continuity. They have a dialectical character, a chaotic complexion, re-alignments within broader states of alignment, etc. Let me examine this dialectical character in the context of a resolution of the following puzzle: given the chaotic complexion of all intentional decision making, interpretation, expressions of intent, etc., then how is it the case, more often than not, we merely conform to routines mostly tried and tested. Surely, in the chaotic birth of the moment, we would be totally re-directed in different directions, moment by moment? How could we account for this default position of a general conformance with habit? How, therefore, could we ever re-negotiate with the other? (10)

3.    Is the Existential Moment Habit Forming, Addictive and Harmful?

	In previous papers I have presented a distinction between mere redirection where we follow the same directions again, and, sheer re-direction where we head off in a totally new direction. According to my understanding of the chaotic complexion of the moment, we should find ourselves being re-directed in a new direction each and every moment. So much for theory! In reality, we find ourselves conforming to past habits. Normally, we do not find our existence existentially problematic, moment by moment, continually surprised by the sheer novelty of the moment, moment by moment! We are creatures of habit. We usually do not suffer existential dilemmas, persistent crises of conscience. And even if we did, their ‘unusualness’ is more a cause for concern both for ourselves and others. How do we square the circle here between theory and practice?! (11)

	Earlier in this essay I discussed the importance of context. This is more a hermeneutic element in our reading of a text (be it a document, a photograph, even our admiration of the scenery of the countryside, etc.). Under ‘context’ we can also note appropriately associated meta-textual genres and the overall presentation of the text in question (by noting its apparent textual form and the manner of its textual presentation). Focusing our attention on the bits and pieces, its textual elements as a text, arrived at through the sequencing of those textual elements, is more a phenomenologically oriented process where we treat the presented appearance of those elements that appear to constitute that text as ‘appearances qua textual appearances’. I would argue that there is a chaotic frisson between these ‘parts’ and ‘totalities’ that create or recreate existentially oriented moments where and when we become essentially re-aligned. However, as noted, there are no absolute anomalies, no absolute discontinuities, no absolute re-alignments, and, so, these moments of re-alignment are effectively ‘re-alignments within much more broader and more stable states of alignment’. (12)

	How does this help us resolve this puzzle as to why habits persist when the existential novelty of the moment should continually re-direct us in novel directions, moment by moment? (13)
	This hermeneutically-oriented framing of the moment is a clue. To make sense of an intentional thought, intentionally directed action, our interpretation of an adequately well-formed text, etc., we would find it all depends on the relative stability of genre and our appreciation of that relative stability. We ask what is it, what is this text, what ‘type’ of text is it? Determination of genre tells us this and that is to be determined through an inspection of the context of that text, its manner of presentation and the form of that presentation. This aspect of a relative totality must be present and its presence frames that text and answers this question. So it is a photo, or, a landscape, or, a letter, etc., etc. This persistence of form, etc., is necessary otherwise the relative totality of that textual presentation could not be properly placed and evaluated. Therefore, more often than not, a sequence of moments merely reinforces our overall sense of alignment. However, the incremental piling up of moments, moment by moment, can cause more palpable experiences of a relatively radical sense of re-direction. In a chaotic re-organization of material we get the emergence of new states of being, a new sense of re-direction, sometimes, even a compete reversal of meaning. E.g., our Chinese novelist depended on his Chinese readers knowing that ‘oranges could not be found in the Beijing Railway Station’ and that they would not read him literally but ironically. In this instance we have a reversal of meaning which illustrates this dialectical concept of ‘re-alignment within a broader sense of the relative persistence of an overall alignment’. ‘Oranges’ and ‘Beijing Railway Station’ as elements are still understood, just that the former cannot be found in the latter (even though the statement literally states the opposite). ‘Change-and-non-change’, then, can be seen to characterize the phenomenological nature of the existential moment. So, most moments incrementally do not generally disturb the more overall sense of the presentation and effectively represent it as a representation, whereas, a critical moment is experienced as a relatively novel re-presentation of the same. Thence the persistence of habits and the occasional unexpected non-persistence of habits in moments of a more existential import. Thence the emergence or re-emergence of new behaviour and their persistence in the formation of new habits. (14)

	Discontinuities, therefore, are not experienced as absolute discontinuities. No absolute discontinuities can be engaged, neither (ontologically) encountered nor (epistemologically) recognized! At the same time, each and every moment is never a mere representation! In our passage through this World-of-Life we only move in this in-between-realm of ‘mere representation and sheer re-presentation’. Armed with the ‘normality’ of this dialectical insight, this theoretical understanding, can we solve this philosophical problem of the other, as to how we engage the other, just how can we re-negotiate with them given this discontinuity between our ‘own overall sense of self’ and the appearance of ‘some other overall sense of self’? (15)

4.    Overcoming the Discontinuity between Self and Other?

	In an earlier paper I discussed the phenomenological nature of ‘shaking hands with another person’. In this intentionally directed act I find I experience my hand quite differently from the hand of the other person. Between these two types of experience, experienced in the act of shaking hands, we feel there is an effective discontinuity, indeed, a quite radical sense of discontinuity. I experience my hand as ‘my hand’, but, the other hand is experienced as that ‘other hand’. Still, we do not have an absolute discontinuity here! That other hand, other than mine, is perceived as a ‘hand’ and we both seem to understand what is intentionally meant in the act of ‘shaking hands’. So, how do we overcome this discontinuity to perceive ourselves in a relationship with each other? (16)

	I would like to propose that each and every relationship is embodied within its own sense of relational ‘space’. That sense of ‘space’ is its literal embodiment. In that sense of embodiment, value is realized, moment by moment, is chaotically re-configured through a succession of critically re-self-organized states. Between the impossible parameters of absolute change and absolute non-change these transformational-transitions oscillate between resimulations and re-simulations of what appears to follow before and after each moment. An overall sense of alignment that is either relatively realigned (in the same ‘direction’ through redirection) or relatively re-aligned (in a different direction through a novel sense of re-direction). How does this help us to overcome this apparent discontinuity between one’s own sense of self and the sense of some other person with whom we appear to be in some form of a relationship, say, having just met and been introduced and our shaking hands (with all the complexity of meaning inherent in that simple act)? (17)

	As just noted, if every relationship is ‘literally’ embodied within its own sense of relational space then our being in that same form of embodiment overcomes that sense of discontinuity if we were no longer merely subsume our existence as just embodied in a physical body. In our wider frame of reference, our experience of that other person is now ‘embodied’ in this wider sense of our-being-engaged with another person or persons. By such means we engage, we encounter and recognize, the other person as a person not totally other than our own sense/s of self. In this manner, new relationships appear to emerge, we become re-aligned, old relationships are found to re-emerge… in and through and beyond this multi-dimensional, overlapping plurality of inter-subjective senses of self. Hence through others we are enriched, and, further re-enriched through an ongoing, mutual series of re-negotiations with others. A sense of the other that cannot be totally other! This understanding granted, if only hypothetically, how then do we interact with others, how is value experienced in and through and beyond our complex sense of embodiment, how do we negotiate with the other, and, importantly, how do we existentially negotiate with the other? (18)

5.   The Existential Nature of Embodiment

	Earlier, I alluded to the existential nature of the relationship between hermeneutically treated ‘wholes’ and phenomenologically treated ‘parts’. This relationship I envisage as ‘existential’. A re-directed sense of the present (between the synthetic prospectivity of the whole and the analytic retrospectivity of parts). Like the type of experience we find when we insert a key within its associated lock and turn it in order to move from one room to some other, a sense of freedom that is often more noticed through its absence, when, e.g., we find that the lock is rusty or the key is the wrong key for that lock, or, we just do not have a key currently to-hand to open that door. The encountering and recognition of this sense of an obviated point of possible resistance to our path and passage through this World-of-Life being engaged in an existential sense of freedom. (19)

	The existential is also experienced as a surplus of value. We could also think of it as an interesting conversation. When we say “hello” and find we are not met with just a mere “hello” in return, or, worse, by sheer silence. It is nice when we find the other person also ‘smiles’, says something in addition, a comment perhaps about the weather or the surrounding environment… then finding ourselves freely communicating in a fashion both of us take some delight in… in the process discovering new things about each other and about others and about other things, etc. Finding a surplus of meaning being released in our fruitful engagement, in an open meeting of minds, in a mutual sharing of our being with-the-other before-the-other. (20)

	Finding ourselves embodied in this ‘relationship with-the-other, how do we re-negotiate with others, and, how do we go about those negotiations in an existential manner? (21)

6.   How do We Re-Negotiate Existentially with the Other?

	In a previous paper I examined how an existential sense of the other is to be found between the extremes of an ‘absent sense of the other’ and an ‘oppressive sense of the other’ who is only too present and never absent in any real sense. Between these extremes of ‘isolation’ and ‘oppression’ there is a another sense of self, a more earthed sense of self, a sense of self that in taking a middle path, between extremes, may well find some degree of existential augmentation through a greater, more beneficial sense of re-alignment with their own sense of self and/or with that other person or with that group or association of other people. Just as no absolute discontinuity could be experienced, as argued, so, too, therefore, no absolute sense of isolation could be allowed to prevail, neither, too, can there be any sense of self subject to an absolute oppression of that same sense of self along with its consequent complete loss of self. In the former extreme there could be no relationship, no relational ‘body’ emerging between a completely absent sense of the other and one own sense of self. Equally, there could be no sense of self if, through oppression, one’s own embodied sense of self were to be metaphorically and/or literally ‘smothered’ or ‘murdered’ and denied an opportunity and in whose ‘death’ they were found to be completely unable to express themselves through its relationship with that which has completely oppressed them! (22)

	Obviously, a mutual experience of the other is found in a formation-of-being as an opening-of-being, or openness of being, experienced in our being-with-the-other, in this widened and emergent sense of our being embodied-with-others… a psychic state of affairs that is found as far away as possible from both an isolation from the other and our being oppressed by the other. I.e., some where in between and found to operate in a completely different dimension. And this is a clue. (23)

	Through adopting a thorough middle path, in effect, we enter and exercise an overall transcendental suspension! Then, through a suspension of the same, we find ourselves exiting that balanced sense of suspension. From there we ‘find ourselves’ existentially putting into practice that mode and manner of life that now is in a greater degree of harmony within this broader sense of embodiment. Promoting those features of a relationship that promote the potential development of that relationship is to experience the existential power of that relationship. A power that can enact itself in the world through this form of embodiment. The intentional facticity of this relationship being expressed in and through and beyond that relational embodiment, and, is to be found in an equal measure to the experiential presence of an existential surplus; a consequential surplus of value that is able to re-direct our intentional life and in the process possibly augment that sense of existential value. In this regard, our experience of value is either existentially augmented or non-existentially diminished. (24)

	How does this effect our being able to re-negotiate with the other? (25)

	We interact with others through adopting and adapting a plethora of genres of engagement (which, in turn, are twinned with co-genres of interpretation and activity). In an ongoing process of open interaction, these genres are mutually adopted in order for all the parties to just understand each other in those regards. When this process is mutually undertaken, automatically an ongoing process of re-negotiation takes place through chaotically inspired moments of relative re-direction. Otherwise, through relative redirection, habits are reinforced in the interim. That accepted, how does one operate in a less existentially aligned relationship, how does one operate on the behalf of the other? Is such a possibility possible given the relative discontinuity between the sense of an ‘other’ and our own overall sense of ‘self’? People may appear to be like inscrutable islands, blank walls or spaces wildly advertising and promising much more than could ever be delivered. However, our apparent discontinuity with another person cannot be engaged in an absolutely discontinuous fashion! All islands are rooted in the same earth itself, upon the very Earth itself. All souls are rooted in this same World of-Life, and, various bridges are already in place upon which we can build closer processes of mutual re-alignment. A ‘process’ of existential augmentation positively building on an existential core situatedness of that relationship [through its resonant-amplification] and negatively proceeding through an existential ‘process’ of rectification and re-normalization. (26)

However, failing a demonstrable degree of mutual re-alignment, one can still operate on behalf of that relationship through a process I have nominated as an act of transcendental reservation. Through suspending our own sense/s of self and suspending all sense/s of the other we should find ourselves able to existential act on the behalf of that relationship through our sense of emergent embodiment we already have with that sense of the other and on whose behalf we find ourselves acting for. Witness the role of parents, priests, teachers, doctors and nurses, and miscellaneous other professions. Or witness the extent a good friend, hopefully, might go out of their way, and your way, to remonstrate with you, or vice versa. (27)

7.    Is this a Revolutionary New Way of Seeing the World?

	I would not claim that this ‘new’ way of seeing things is absolutely revolutionary. Which is just as well since most revolutions are complete failures, trading one elite with another, and, notoriously causing disruption, destruction, misery, sickness, endless suffering and needless death. On the other hand, we do have a philosophical revolution even though embedded in our language we already existentially understand much of what has been here radically re-interpreted. Alas, philosopher are generally a blind and slow lot, and, more often than not, all such things have to be painfully re-described to them, and properly re-argued endlessly, before they come to realize what most of us already dialectically know! (28)

In my provisional conclusions let me demonstrate this general existential awareness. Of course, without demonstrating any one thing, indeed, only ‘demonstrating’ a ‘demonstrating that in its to-be-demonstrated we should find already demonstrated’, albeit, more often than not, through our already present ‘recognition’ of a covert existential codedness inherent already in the processes of intentional expression to-be-found in all cultures and all languages!? (29)

8.    Provisional Conclusions?

	I argued that value cannot be circulated as it arises spontaneously, and, arises spontaneously at each and every point in the relational ‘space’ of that ‘embodied relationship’! (30)

	In a common, yet profound, understanding of the world, we often find ourselves saying to each other: “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” or “that two heads are better than one” or “two minds think alike” or “bravo” when we find a artistic performance is done in a wonderful manner or much better than some other performance, etc. Then, listen to an audience worked by a very successful stand-up comic. Hear how people spontaneously laugh at the same time. Amazing isn’t it! A counter to any philosopher who even remotely suggests we are all trapped in a solipsistic world, or, stuck in an ‘inner world’ before the absolute discontinuity of a so-called ‘external world’. (31)

	I have also argued that we are in an ongoing process of re-negotiation with the other, with others, but, that when and where called for, we mutually innovate new senses of re-direction with-others before-others. Otherwise, we mutually consent to follow normal practices, expected negotiations, as already generally pre-negotiated. Thank goodness for that! Would you want to drive a car when all rules have no current currency. Even in Italy, even in India…where road rules look chaotic… they follow a local logic of their own. (32)

	Through the relative embodiment of a relationship it has the power to enact its own course of apparent intent. It does this through a process of re-alignment, a re-simulation of a re-simulation, i.e., the re-alignment of previous processes of re-alignment. Similarly, we may think that “the eyes are windows to the soul” we should realize that this metaphor of ‘windows’ cannot be philosophically taken too far. What is seen is emergently constructed across and within that infinitude of discontinuities found between all subjective and objective points in a relationship, the plurality of perspectives in a relationship and the very momentary nature of that relationship itself. Nothing is demonstrated – all subjects and objects are ‘empty’, merely the illusion of nominative content in varying degrees of existential richness (in the quantity of modalities apparently present and in the apparent quality of those aspects apparent in those presentations)! Only cracks and crevices, dialectical experiences of slippage and quantum jumps can be found – nothing more and nothing less. Consequently, the world is merely simulated through a re-simulation of re-simulation. In reality, in the reality of that reality, no different from a dream, but, usually, much more interesting than mere dreams, indeed, cannot be reduced to the same (in a literal sense), but, nonetheless, found to have a life of their own in proportion to that existential richness presented in and through and beyond that apparent presentation. (33)

	Could we not say “all things have a life and death of their own in accordance with their apparent nature,” in accordance with their existential character and complexion? (34)

	Lastly, I have argued that we can mutually re-negotiate with the other, either ‘face-to-face’, or, either on their behalf or our behalf, through transcendental processes of enacted reflection. How else would a mother look after her infant charge? How could a teacher teach? How could friends negotiate or re-negotiate what they might do next… what restaurant to go to for a meal, what movie to see, etc? How else could we attempt to plan for a fruitful future if the world were already purely determined or if the world were pure chaos (in a non-scientific and/or a non-philosophic sense)? Even in politics, a dictator needs to find some core agreement as ‘to what they can do’ and as ‘to what they cannot do’ and well do they need to know that they should not cross over to the latter however malevolent their disposition and adherence to the non-existential exercise of their political practice. (35)

So, if this ‘understanding’ applies to perceptive despots how much more in our humane hands can such insights be used to promote an ongoing existentialization of the Life-World, with-others before-others, through its ‘own’ ‘self-re-directed’ re-existentializations! A mutual state of affairs promoted through a receptiveness to our embodied-relationships, a receptiveness in turn, that assists us in their ‘own’ existential re-augmentation through a relative re-direction of intent existentially orchestrated in and through and beyond that relationship in question... ultimately by that relationship itself, in our receptiveness to the ‘call’ of that relationship! Something, I am sure, most of us already know and take this implicit understanding for granted. But, as I have said, most philosophers are a little slow on the uptake… and we must all first crawl before we can walk… alas…. (36)

	Finally, the question must be asked: how do we orchestrate an existentialization of our passage through this world-of-Life with-others before-others? Through ensuring an adequate degree of informed transcendental balance and responsibe enaction! How are we to achieve this existentially augmented state of affairs? Though the use of adequate overall transcendental suspensions central to the exercise of (the hermeneutic circle of comprehension and) a well-managed life-process (which will be looked at more closely in a future paper)!! (37)
						    	    Noël Tointon, Sydney, 25.7.09.