XIX: Value-in-Circulation:
Living through Our Embodiment with the Other – Part I*

0.    Introduction

	We are constituted by an inescapable otherness, and that inseparable otherness is constituted by us! As all relationships are embodied in relational space, and, emerge in a similar fashion to our physical embodiment, then it follows that our being-with-others is constituted in forms of embodiment as co-constituted by the mutual nature of those relationships. That overall identity is realized as an open resultant of the intersection of these forms of embodiment. From this complex matrix of identity a relatively distinctive sense of identity emerges through localized perspective, richness of inputs, current gestalt integrity, intentional intensity and the existential surplus of value engendered through such a process of personal identity-formation.  (0)

	I wish to explore this concept of relational embodiment and will do so by working through various issues. I will do this under the following five headings. Let me begin with static mapping; then, dynamic modeling; formation through intersection, etc; mutual mirroring and complex emotions, etc; responsibility and general existential re-direction, etc. (1)

1.    Static Mapping

	The person, as a subject, is a complex assemblage of different senses of self all within the generality of an overall sense of self. A person who can hear is a hearer. The person who can see is a visual perceiver. In the latter sense field there are a host of sub-sense fields like colour determination, acuity, determination of linear feature, facial recognition, peripheral movement determination, etc., etc. Then, these sub-fields too could well be treated as an integration of sub-sub-fields, etc; each field, sub-field, etc., being treated as having its own sense of appreciation, i.e., its own (intentional) sense of self. So, within the human ‘complex’ we could discern visual perceivers, hearers, facial recognizers, walkers, runners, whistlers, counters, readers and/or writers, possible poets, potential adventurers, etc., etc., etc! (2)

	Something might strike us as wrong here? A single person, surely, could not possibly have an infinity of senses of self and still be ‘a’ person? So, how should we regard these various senses of self, and, what relationship might they bear with respect to our overall sense of self? Indeed, what is this overall sense of self? (3)

	Now, I have absolutely no desire to sketch out a metaphysical map of the soul in order to answer such questions “what is the soul?”, “does it survive death?” or “what material and/or immaterial form it might take?” However, I would like to approach this topic of what might constitute an overall sense of self and its various possibilities through phenomenological, hermeneutical and existential lenses along with an integration of all three styles of investigation. (4)

*Link to latest version of paper on my Homestead Homepage Site (circulation19.rtf).
www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelshomepage3.html
	The background to this type of investigation is with an intentional model in mind along with various ramifications that extend from it. For a start, an intentional object is examined in an intentional field appropriately associated with the same. So, simplistically, a visual perceiver perceives an intentional object(-ive) in and through and beyond a visual field. Subjected to a(n overall) transcendental suspension, along with a bracketing of all ontological and epistemological commitments, we might say, in essence, the ‘perceiver’ ‘sees’ the relationship between the ‘intentionally focused upon visual objective’ ‘in’ or ‘between’ of  ‘from’ its associated ‘visual field’, etc. Now, extending this idea of a relationship between our focusing upon some ‘part’ of a field and its ‘totality’ is more of a hermeneutic type of investigation. In this a judgment will be made as to whether a positively present or negatively absent feature in the intentional objective is co-expressed in its associated field. E.g., is this apple red or green? In the colour aspect of the visual field “do I find redness in the apple” as “I might find redness in its immediate or not so immediate environment”? Is redness positively present or negatively absent or partially present or generally absent? I have argued elsewhere that judgments can only be between, within or from concepts. Only concepts can straddle this dialectical saddle between parts and wholes. Let me elabourate. “Is this red apple (growing) on this green apple tree?” The red apple stands out on the end of this branch. I see the whole tree and also this individual red apple. But, the more I focus on the apple the less of the tree I see, and v.v. I assume this red apple is (growing) on this apple-tree because it is not found on the ground (and I know apples do not grow on the ground). I can see the apple tree and this red apple, I also ‘see’ the relationship between this apple and its tree (as one of growing on this tree) and also see the relationship between apple-tree with this red apple here and my own sense of self. I find myself in a possible position of acquiring this apple, legally or illegally, and duly pick the same. I ask myself, should I eat it now or later?  All these questions and answers necessitate concepts along with concepts within concepts, etc. Only concepts have this dialectical ability to be seen in contexts of wholes versus parts. This red apple is on this green apple tree… it is both part of the tree and also something that can be focused upon in its own right at the same time. Furthermore, we can intervene in this relationship through some form of an intentional act and in this situation duly do so by picking this apple. This intentional action falls within the genre of fruit-picking, i.e., approaching the focused upon piece of fruit, extending my hand and taking from it the tree by severing its connection to that tree. Genres of engagement are distinctive types of engagement wherein intentional forms of interaction are achieved by virtue of our adopting the genre in question and adapting ourselves to the nature of the text in question. In this instance the text is this red apple as seen visually by ourselves. In the meta-textual genre of picking a piece of fruit we perceive this piece of fruit as something we can pick. We duly did so. Genres of engagement have a double character to the extent that they imply both an active approach to some form of intentional intervention and a passive interpretative process which recognizes which genre is most likely to be invoked (like the parallel between writing and reading). Moreover, we have genres within genres. E.g., I see this as a tree; I see this as a fruit tree, I see this fruit tree as an apple tree, I perceive this apple tree to be with fruit, I see this apple tree has ripe fruit ready to pick, I see that picked apple as delicious and, therefore, as some thing that can be eaten with pleasure, so, I ask myself should I eat it now or later, or, perhaps give it as a gift, or, see it as something merely to throw away… taking pleasure from hurling it…. (5)

	I have also shown that genres are nested within other genres and that some are more general than others. ‘This is a tree’ is a very general genre for distinguishing something like a tree from a field of grass or a short bush or rocks or houses, etc. This is a fruit tree is less general but still more general than seeing this fruit tree as an apple tree. ‘Nesting’ is a dialectical process where we have a complex set of relations interacting by virtue of that conceptual nesting. So, e.g., I have this edible piece of fruit in my hand which is an apple that is red and ripe and just plucked from that tree. (6)

	Nesting also implies a hierarchicalization of the psyche to the extent that these various aspects are intentionally interrelated via processes of overlapping and each type of experience evokes an appropriate sense of self able to intentionally interact with that facet of being both in a potential or passive manner and/or in an actual or active manner. Later we shall investigate the nature of this relationship between passive-and-active aspects of being. Moreover, this nesting also applies to the associated senses of self that is to be found in each and every type of intentional relationship entered into in our phenomenological processes of engagement. (7)

	Just how far should we run with this metaphor of nesting? I, the fruit-tree perceiver see, an apple tree… I, the apple-tree perceiver, see an apple tree… I, the apple perceiver, see this red apple on the end of this branch…. I, the apple-picker, pick this red apple… I, the eater of apples will eat this red apple…. (8)

	But, we could well argue, that each of these senses of self is also the same sense of self that thinks it has done all these types of intentional acts –  from seeing fruit trees to eating red apples. Hence the complexity and simplicity of this overall sense of self that seems to thread this infinite variety of associated senses of self. How do we dialectically account for this parallel complexity and simplicity of agency? By invoking a hierarchicalization of possible senses of self in an actual overall sense of self without having to invoke any form of metaphysical commitment by limiting our egology to phenomenological-particularity and/or hermeneutical synthesis and/or existential forms of intentionally directed intervention in accordance with genres of engagement. Now, hierarchicalization theoretically lends itself to its hierarchical mapping. A state of affairs employed by hermeneuts in examining the apparent logic entailed in a certain type of engagement as entailed in a certain co-genre of activity with its parallel co-genre of interpretation. In this there are an infinite variety of styles. We have atlases, dictionaries, manuals, grammars, encyclopaedias, menus, sets of instructions, indexes, catalogues, etc., etc. Our language is also a complex synthesis of attitudes as expressed through the former. Indeed, its totality is indicative of a culture be that internationally oriented or nationally oriented, along with an aesthetic sense of ethos be that of the époque or the organization or group, a person’s own attempt through life to make sense of the world, etc. (9)

	By ‘mapping’ what is meant, what is entailed? A distinction of some form or other to some extent or other as standing in a relation to some other facet closely related to the same, be that as two distinctions of a similar (meta-)status, by virtue of an internal operation (within that distinction), by virtue of a transformation between distinctions and/or meta-distinctions, by virtue of accommodations within this hierarchy of relatively distinctive identity-formation. E.g., visual focusing on a nearby state of affairs is accommodated within the overall visual field. Then, the overall visual field is entailed within the overall sense of an intentional subject (who is able to act within that visual field, by picking pieces of fruit, e.g.). Hence a variety of relations, i.e., e.g., as pertaining to identities within their associated distinctions, operations within distinctions, transformations between distinctions, accommodation of distinctions, meta-textual clarifications of the same, etc. (10)

	These mappings reflect relatively natural and artificial processes of classification. All classifications, theoretically, being formed from subdivisions of entailment and/or super-divisions of accommodation (and thence their hierarchical emplacement within this overall hierarchicalization of identity). However, no degree of effort can accomplish the perfect, all embracing accommodation of these hierarchically interrelated classifications, sub-classifications, etc. However, languages, e.g., could be broadly treated as entailing their distinctive forms of classification with its linguistic members in that culture intuitively having a broad idea as to how that systematization operates through a pre-negotiated transmission of genres of engagement (uniquely adopted and adapted, on a situation by situation basis, by the members of that culture in their conceptual appropriation of the world-as-shared in it being approached in that cultural manner by-those members of that same culture in question). More useful, from a philosophical point of view, e.g., is to merely note the relationships between various intentional acts and how they were comparatively described by different members of that culture under examination. In this we assume that the human condition is such that basic phenomenological units of meaning are often realized in different cultures and linguistic communities, and, that from such simplicity more complex forms of meaning can be synthesized, and, that processes of linguistic translation can be achieved by virtue of these basic phenomenological units, demonstrating how they can be synthesized in more complex genre-settings, and, that processes of translation can be achieved if not perfectly at least adequately (with ongoing processes of possible refinement). Translation also acting in a synthetic direction through assumed paralleled genre appropriation. E.g., I see these people ‘eating this type of food’ and assume it is ‘edible’. They offer me some and I try it in the belief that ‘I can eat what they eat’. However, one mustn’t assume that all genres are absolutely equivalent. I might discover, e.g., that these people also believe in the power of purging and that I too share this belief by partaking what they have just offered me with that intent. Or, this meal had religious overtones with the result I had just been inducted into their religious community now as a fully paid up member. Or, a host of other possibilities that might immediately be understood by an English speaker or might need to be explained through some form of a narrative…. (11)

	All genres of engagement (and their parallel co-genres of activity and interpretation) are the result of pre-negotiations and can, to some extent, be re-negotiated. However, such refining of genres is normally a matter of detailization or specification. However, from time to time, through chaotic processes of re-direction we find the splitting of genres to form new genres, processes of genre accommodation, hybridization of genres, novel borrowing of genres inter-culturally, genres being translated from one language and/or culture to some other (often with associated words from the host culture or some form of sonic assimilation of the same especially if navigating novel conceptual territory). Forms of metaphorical association can also form that may or may not lend themselves to forms of interpretative assimilation in some form or other. (12)

	Now, what goes for relatively natural and artificial forms of intentionally directed classification can also be made to apply to a mapping of our relationships, and, by extension, their interactive forms of relational embodiment. Let me examine this comparison (in the light of my treatment of relationships as forms of shared ‘embodiment’ with others). (13)

	First, let me note that our relationships could be mapped in time, space, manner and intensity. The last two classifications representing richness in its two senses, namely, a quantitative sense of the number of modalities actively being engaged, and, a qualitative sense, in the apparent intensity of its invocation and exercise. E.g., two friends might meet once a week or so, ring each other a couple of time in between, live not too far away, meeting usually in the town center, meeting to have a coffee, go to the pictures, share a meal in a restaurant by themselves or with mutual friends, etc. One of those friends might have another friend not too far away whom they might see once a month, and, another friend, also not too far away, whom they see once or twice a year. By such observations, both objective and subjective in nature, a map could be formed of the relationships enjoyed, or suffered, by all of the parties concerned. Noting instances of overlapping as mutual friends are found to be shared to varying degrees of intensity, frequency, etc. (14)

	An implication that can be drawn from this static mapping of interactions is that relational embodiment is also hierarchically overlapping. However, in situ, relationships appear to come in two alternating flavours, namely, currently engaged or currently disengaged. With a loss of friendship or death we might add expiring or expired as well. How do we account for an active relationship being enjoyed or suffered, or, a potential relationship not currently being enjoyed or suffered? (15)

	Perhaps by non-virtual and/or virtual sharing of the same space and time? Non-virtually we meet them, enter the same physical space-region. Virtually we contact them by some non-virtual method, e.g., by ringing them or sending them an email, etc. By either means, a process of psychic contiguity is set up (non-virtually or virtually). In such an overlap of relational resources in time and space, a process of interaction is set up either further enriching that relational matrix or also signaling a diminution of the intensity of that relationship (through a comparative loss of intensity, etc.). (16)

	However, all of this is a rather static modeling of our topic in this regard. Let me now broach a more dynamic approach. (17) 

2.    Dynamic Modeling

	In taking a dynamic point of view what do we need to note? That we are now centered on the relationships themselves! However, as discovered (earlier in this series of papers) the center of a relationship is at each and every point in the relational ‘space’ or ‘body’ of that relationship in question. Hence my concept of relational embodiment. Furthermore, some attention to intent or its non-intentional equivalent needs to be noted. What is motivating the direction that that relationship seems to be unfolding, and, what directions do the participants in that relationship seem to be heading? In taking a dynamic perspective we can also note a number of other features such as potentiality, actuality and activation, satisfactory descriptions(-prescriptions) of  current, past and/or future states of self-organized criticality or near criticality. We could also note trigger phenomena, either potential or actual whether past, present or future in temporal orientation. Let me examine a series of specified relationships from a dynamic point of view through a phenomenological/hermeneutical/existential lens in order to clarify what we need to note in this type of simulation or modeling. (18)

	E.g., two friends met once a month for a meal. How do we dynamically model this type of relationship? (19)

	Over the years a relationship has developed. Then once a month the two friends share a meal together. How do we model this relationship. Obviously, once a month they become non-virtually contiguous at the same time and place. Phenomenologically, we could say that that relationship during that period is in an apparently active phase with the basic intent of sharing a meal. Hermeneutically, we would note this sharing a meal as a dominant framing feature of this relationship – our two friends don’t climb mountains but sit down together to share a meal, chat, and all else associated with that genre of engagement. But, in between such encounters how is the relationship to persist given their non-engagement for most of the month. The same way, one might guess, if we one of those friends should leave the table during the meal in order to go to the bathroom. Continual engagement is not necessary for a relationship to persist in time, in a potential or passive state. How might one describe this passivity of a relationship through a phenomenological-hermeneutic-existential lens? (20)

	Perhaps we could treat the relationship in question as an economy with its own distinctive phenomenology, namely, our two friends meeting once a month, more or less. Now, an economy is a simulate/re-simulated circulation of simulated value (hence our concept of simulated value-in-circulation). We could say that during the encounter, centered on a meal, there is an enrichment of that relationship by virtue of an existential investment of value being invested within the same, this investment being treated as simulated in experience and re-simulated in intentional reflection be it from an internal perspective for those two friends or an external perspective for all others looking at or envisaging such a relationship. (21)

	Now, how does this existential enrichment form and how is it invested in that relationship during its actual realization and in its passive recall (be that internally or externally)? Just how does a relationship persist when it is seemingly hibernating. Obviously a good relationship is built on good will, and, in time, expressed through obligations, processes of gift-giving (sacrifices and acceptance of gifts, etc.) and other forms of reciprocity. Just how does this relational embodiment manifest itself in the world with-others before-others? (22)

	We could commence this examination by noting positive attributes, noting negative attributes (along the lines of a negative theology by noting what relational embodiment is not) and we could note what metaphorical language appears to illuminate our topic (although one would suspect in this type of investigation that all aspects of this topic are metaphorically based and treated). (23)

	For a start, we should note that without some form of direct or indirect presence in the world that relational embodiment could not be presented to-the-world in-the-world. E.g., our two friends who regularly have a meal together on a monthly basis. If one should move away geographically from that locality then they might not be able to interact in the manner as previously entertained. Or, if that relationship should expire or either of those two parties should expire then that relationship would no longer be present in the world, be found present in our two friends having a meal together. Interestingly, on those occasions a third or a fourth party were also present one might suspect the dynamics of the original relationship to find a slightly different expression. Indeed, different topics might be discussed, certain topics might find themselves being suppressed and the general flow of interaction would take a different dynamic as perceived by either or both of the original two members of this relationship. Such considerations should ‘earth’ this type of examination since in examining a relational residue or relational difference that emerges from the development and expression of an existential surplus we should not forget that relationships should also have their ‘feet’ in the world and stand on the ground so to speak! In other words, have a phenomenological presence in the world (since that which cannot be there for us cannot be there-for-us!). Just what might be entailed in this concept of a relational difference? (24)

	A first thing we might note is that relationships, despite having a phenomenal-phenomenological relationship in-the-world, cannot be merely reduced to the participants in this relationship as found in the world! A relationship cannot be reductively reduced to its phenomenal basis be that phenomenally oriented or phenomenologically oriented (i.e., as a natural type of phenomenon and/or its intellectual translation or inhabitance in an intellectual world of life). Basically this distinction is one between, e.g., bodies as not much more than ‘animated corpses’ and bodies as ‘lived-in-this-world with-others before-others’. Strictly speaking, however, there can be no absolute distinction along this (or any other line) by virtue of the fact that our encountering of bodies as bodies or corpses, correctly, is as phenomenological as it is phenomenal (since the phenomenological is equally an engagement with the phenomenon of an intentional object[ive]). Let me look more closely at this phenomenon of this existential residue, i.e., the nature of relationships as-lived that cannot be reduced merely to physical-physiological type of basis/bases (but remembering that their embodied basis equally cannot be dismissed). (25)

	We have a number of ways we might analogue an existential residue as a relational difference, i.e, as the difference between the mere embodiment of the parties of that relationship and the overall nature of that relationship itself. In essence this value, this source of value, is multi-dimensional. Any one thing can be seen in and through and beyond an infinitude of possible frames of reference just as the relatively non-relational basis of the relationship can be seen the same way. E.g., this specific male person could be seen as a son, a father, grandfather, husband, company director, unemployed executive, etc. In the same way, our perception of a relationship should be aware of the subtle nuances that allow us to re-perceive a certain object-state in a variety of different ways. That we can go from one perspective dealing with a certain state of affairs to some other by invoking an isomorphic, relatively invariant transformational core that allows us to phenomenologically transition from one perspective to another when dealing ostensively with the same object or object-state. What are the ramifications of this multi-dimensional approach? We might say that for every exercised hermeneutic frame of reference there is a corresponding frame or frame that best represents the finished product. Moreover, the same can be applied in a more metaphorical context. (26)

	Examining our two friend’s relationship we can note that these individuals would also have other relationships a few of which might overlap. In each of these relationships the embodiment of the individuals concerned are therein configured. So, it follows that these individuals are also relationally embodied in a set of relationships, a set that uniquely defines each person. One form of description (in a ‘horizontal’ orientation) we could call an existential descriptor, i.e., the dynamic history of an individual as they pass geographically and temporally across the social landscape with uniquely described engaged forms of phenomenal-phenomenological richness (in accordance with its quantitative manner and qualitative intensity as differentiated temporally and spatially and integrated within this sense of a unique descriptor). A second type of description (in a ‘vertical’ orientation) could be called an existential axis or existential integrator wherein overarching and subsumed relationships are all integrated in a vertical-like sense. E.g., these two friends could be citizens of the same country; but not members of the same religious denomination despite belonging to the same religion; then, one of them could have children from a wife now deceased while the other has no children and has just married; both parties having pets, namely, a cat for the first party and a dog for the second. A moral is intended here – that all relationships are subsumed by a set of overarching relationships and, in turn, subsume a set of relationships (that, they in turn, overarch). Now, one could speculate that the relationship between our individual ‘horizontally’ complex descriptors in their respective ‘vertically’ complex integrators sketches out the embodied relational space of those individuals as exercised by them in the world. That granted, we now need to understand how a dynamic modeling of the same can be philosophically undertaken. I have suggested that a chaotic lens is a good place to start. First, though, let us attempt to understand the energy or power of a relationship along with nature of its phenomenal-phenomenological existence. (27)

	Now, suppose one of our two friends rings up the other to say they can no longer meet as they are sick and have retired to bed for the next few days. The other friends might find some time on their hands and sitting in their favourite leather chair contemplate what they might do instead over a strong cup of tea. They could visit the Museum or they could go to the beach if it remains hot and doesn’t look like it’s going to rain, or, they could just stay at home and finish that large novel they have started reading. The point I am making here is that in their imagination they can entertain a number of scenarios but when it come to enact something they can only enact one of those scenarios if it were to have a conflicting existential descriptor-composition (that cannot be conducted in parallel and/or sequentially and/or periodically [respectively like walking down both sides of a street, like going from A to C and having to pass B without passing B, like making toast without the bread]). Now, this friend with time on their hands could go the Museum in the morning and then go to the beach after lunch as long as it doesn’t rain. However, they cannot go to the beach and the Museum at the same time! In our conceptual imaginations we can run things in parallel more or less. However, intentionally all enactment must be sequentially configured in such a manner that allows us to do as intended. No point wanting to go to the moon for lunch when you have no way to get there. Similarly, if I wanted to go to New York and I am in Sydney the practicalization of this plan must be properly conducted, namely, correctly paid for, with papers in order, bookings made, myself transported to the airport at the right time in a manner able to board that right plane. Following successfully through on these steps will get me to New York. But I must start from where I am and set up the situation that this possibility actually can eventuate. Possibilities can be entertained in parallel, more or less, but actualities cannot be so entertained (except in a quantum state of coherence). From this understanding it follows that embodied histories should be uniquely described in a conjunction of existential descriptors and existential integrators. Similarly, in an understanding of the apparent motivational history enacted one would expect that the possibilities experienced in and through an overall transcendental suspension are effectively suspended in order for this realized history to be successfully enacted. Moreover, the same path should show the requisite resolutions of those competing claims upon one’s time in our dealings with our own projects and those co-projects shared or not shared with certain others. We have here a complex picture but, also, the integration of this plethora of intentional possibilities, competing with our time and energy, etc., as realized, being realized and to be realized (28)

	Reference to a non-mutual and/or mutual transcendental suspension seems to suggest that by such chaotic-like means a pathway in some form or other, through omissions and commissions, finally arrives at that destination desired more than any other be that through omission or by commission. Effectively, we enter into situations with elements planned by ourselves or planned for us, with our permission or without our consent, and an accompanying set of features neither desired nor planned by ourselves and/or others. As one can see, our destiny is part deliberately pre-constructed and part serendipitous or non-serendipitous, and, realized either by our active commission or by default or omission, but, generally, the result of our net interactions with others. Effectively, in a mix of deterministic and non-deterministic factors interactively realized between subjects and objects in association with our own senses of self, a path or passage through the Life-World is realized never absolutely of our own making. However, a certain responsibility must be accepted by-us to that extent our motivational history is consequentially responsible for the situation as realized in proportion to that degree of influence intentionally exercised by us. As embodied beings, how are we able to align the world and find ourselves equally in an alignment with it in such a manner and with such an intensity of thematized desire that intentional programs can find some degree of realization? Undoubtedly this must co-occur with others to some considerable extent! (29)

	Our sick friend recovers. They arrange to meet the next day for lunch. This possibility is intentionally enacted by both parties (as a co-authored performance) but can only be successfully enacted through the cooperation of others. The restaurant must be open, these two customers must be served, otherwise their desire to have lunch together there could not be realized. So, enactment, ultimately, is rooted in the embodiment of the Life-World itself. Hence, through implication, this concept of alignment must also be taken into account to the extent we are able through alignment to realize that degree of our ambitions which can be realized. This brings us to an examination of potential and actual energy in the realization of our empowerment. Our two friends on the telephone discuss their meeting on the next day at a certain coffee shop. At that time it is only a possibility. A possibility to be enacted would automatically discount all other possibilities not coherent or consistent with those plans. So, one friend could go to the beach in the morning and the other friend could go to the Museum around the same time, but, by lunch-time, they have seen to it that they duly arrive at this coffee shop in order to have lunch together. How is it that as an intention our plans can both be imagined and then set about to be realized? The possibility is a possibility that can be enacted, that possibility is then enacted and becomes an actuality. How does possibility get translated into actuality? To some extent possibility is already actualized. Our two friends are already in existence, the coffee shop already exists, these two friends have already mutually signaled their intentions to meet, the possibility that they can meet tomorrow is something that could be realized. Through a series of incremental re-alignments, intentional processes are put into effect that ensure a positive co-enactment in that regard. In all of this a consideration of embodiment is very important because processes of re-alignment here must also be found. E.g., those friends need to get out of their beds, get dressed, find their way to this coffee shop and meet at the agreed time. In this they must find an alignment between their intentionality in that regard and their physical embodiment and find their intentions being realized increment by increment. A baby learns to synchronize their intent with their embodiment, and v.v. This harmonization becomes learnt and subconsciously directed; a fact that is most truly a mystery to us and more noted in its defective commission or absence than in its non-defective and successfully recognized exercise. In all of this it would seem reasonable to suppose that on all levels of intentional being and its exercise there is an alignment through incremental re-alignment between intent and the realization of that intent. By ‘intent’ is meant an intentional objective intentionally focused upon where that objective is a distinctive type of process to-be-realized as framed in its associated adoption and intentionally adapted exercise in accordance with the requisite genre. In all of this we should be able to discern a role for potential energy and possibility, and actualized energy and actuality, and the differentially changing relationship between the same. So, how can one be converted into the other and v.v., and, should we also not recognize the relationship between the two as a third type of energy, say along existential lines? Then, we would need to ask ourselves can the relational difference between the mere embodiment of a person or persons in a certain situation and the existential excess of that relationship itself be directly related and proportional.? I believe that the answers here are all “yes”. We could say that existential energy is in existence both potentially and actually, and, that the existential energy of a relationship is a measure of the existential excess realized in that relationship expressed through that relational event or set of events under consideration. Then, through chaotic conversion, almost as a catalyst, we find a conversion of one form of energy to other, and v.v., in the chaotic moment of the intentional decision our two friends decide to meet the next day. This possibility is co-accepted as realizable. Near the time of the meeting both parties intentionally re-direct themselves, increment by increment, in the direction of the coffee shop in question and find themselves meeting at the time decided. We might say that through mutual intentional resonance there is not only a series of incremental alignments realized on a physiologically embodied basis but that the same sort of process must also be co-occurring on a relationally embodied basis. So, by such forms of re-alignment they were able to re-direct themselves in accordance with their co-formulated intent. (30)

	How do we go about dynamically modeling these activations of intentionally formulated and co-intentionally formulated patterns of intent? (31)

	First, let me re-examine the nature of the relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy in the hope we can find a parallel between potential intentional energy and actual intentional energy (by modeling this metaphorically). Then, let me examine this relationship and its possible relationship to speculative proposal of existential energy as just previously proposed. Lastly, let me re-examine this problem between intentional re-direction and the persistence of redirected intentional habits that may or may not get re-directed on a chaotic-like level of re-formation. (32)

	I have thought long and hard on trying to understand this topic of what is the relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy in the hope that we can see some parallel relationship between intentional potential and actual intentional discharge. Whether I have been successful or not remains to be seen? Re-thinking this problem has led me to see potential energy as inertial (be that relatively in motion or relatively stationary), i.e., as merely redirected and not re-directed (with a hyphen). Then, kinetic energy or its intentional discharge equivalent, metaphorically, could be seen as the result of a chaotic re-arrangement that realizes a sense of re-direction. However, the net result of an intentional discharge need not be a chaotic re-formation of the immediate intentional landscape, so to speak, unless that landscape itself be in a pre-critical state and that intentional discharge was sufficiently able to act as a trigger phenomenon on that landscape. However, let me re-address these features in more detail later in this section. What I would like to do now is to propose a third energy of an existential nature. (33)

	This proposal of a third intentional energy mirrors work done previously in the parallel fields of the overall transcendental suspension and the overall hermeneutic circle of comprehension. Both of these heuristic devices are constructed on three dialectical moments. I believe I can parallel such an archetypal-like device by invoking a third element of the existential in what I would propose as supplying a sense of gravity or gravitas to a phenomenal presentation, its emergent psychic weight or hyle, its sense of presence; albeit as seen in and through a phenomenological lens (as well, also, through both a hermeneutic lens and an existential one). Through emergence a sense of presence is realized with a sense of non-direction (paralleling to some extent the idea of the non-textual experience where, e.g., we read without focusing on this idea “I am reading”, in an effortless state of ‘bare’ reading, with a received sense of apparent textual transparency [not that I am arguing a text can ever be non-virtually transparent]). In this instance, through non-redirection or non-direction, a sense of textual mass has built up through emergence and upon whose stage processes of potential intentional redirection and actual intentional re-direction are allowed to act by virtue of its non-redirection/non-re-direction. Through ongoing epistemological hierarchicalization and relational stratification (of the existential descriptor/s in question in their existentially integrated role as presented by its associated existential axis/axes) there interactively emerges a sense of psychic presence able to be entered into from an intentional perspective. To some extent, metaphorically, we might like to see the existential sense of non-energy as the relational difference realized. In this we might also like to define an overall existential difference as an overall relational difference and this aspect as that transcendental residue that cannot be reductively treated as the mere addition of the phenomenological orientation of re-direction, the hermeneutical orientation of redirection and the existential orientation of non-direction (or non-redirection/non-re-direction). One could also add that it is as if the confluence of the existential descriptor/s and the associated existential axis/axes produces/re-produces an emergent sense of an overall emergent existential difference or overall emergent relational difference with is associated sense of not-direction (or not-re-direction/not-redirection). Taking an existentially integrated perspective of an existential axis, we can also explain why intentional acts of re-direction generally do not cause chaotic states of re-alignment despite the chaotic nature of the intentional discharge (as a result of an intentional state of re-self-organization). Habitual states have merely a redirected inertial sense of intentional input, whereas, in contrast, pre-critical states will chaotically re-self-organize given a sufficient trigger phenomenon perhaps in the form of an additional intentional contribution. By extension, extra-subjective or inter-subjective states of affairs should respond in a similar fashion. Let me re-iterate what is being sketched out here. (34)

	The inertial nature of the consonant background field is instrumental in the reformation of redirection only. Whereas, the intentional act of focus is relatively dissonant and instrumental in the re-formation of re-direction. On the other hand, the non-directed nature of an existential dimension contributes to the overall psychic mass of a presentation and through intensity and modes of presentation can present as a state with a relatively greater sense of gravitas. Finding an overall existential difference as an overall relational difference in and through and beyond the projected sense of presence associated with that apparent intentional presentation in its associated intentional context. Chaotic contribution only causing a super-structural, a structural and/or sub-structural process of re-formation to occur when a pre-critical state of affairs is arrived at and a sufficient phenomenological trigger is applied to the same. We are now in a position to oversee a dynamic modeling of the same given its adequate representation, i.e.,  in a virtual and/or non-virtual process of simulation/resimulation and re-simulation (be that in historical terms of reference, direct and/or indirect present terms of reference or thematized forms of prospective visualization or calculated future probability. (35) 

	How is dynamic modeling to be performed? Through virtual and/or non-virtual forms of simulation/resimulation/re-simulation. By what means? Through the invocation of appropriate genres via forms of extrapolation, crystallized projections of trends, anticipated discernment of probable courses of responsible envisualization, action, reaction, reflection, etc. (36)

3.    Formation through Intersection, etc.

	Let us now attend to the problematic thematization of self-identity by means of linguistic and/or non-linguistic forms of interaction. Essentially, identity and self-identity are arrived at through processes of interactive enrichment that emerge through forms of thematized interaction. Interaction is achieved through (the phenomenal-phenomenological) simulation/resimulation/re-simulation of processes of interactive intersection. Be that on a ‘horizontal’ level of the transcendental treatment of existential descriptors and/or on a ‘vertical’ level of the transcendental treatment of existential axes. Basically, they interact through forms of intersection! Even if only metaphorically modeled. Let me elabourate. (37)

	From a hypothetical transcendental point of view there is no actual sense of self other than as a phenomenal presentation in accordance with its comparative richness or poverty of phenomenological input. However, as an imputation on to a non-transcendental, empirical level of engagement, a sense of self-identity necessitates the requisite emergence of self-consciousness. A conscious sense of self-consciousness can only arise in and through and beyond contrasting senses of the other or otherness given the requisite degree of epistemological organization. Hence the necessity for the intersection of some other sense of otherness, and, this is metaphorically modeled through the relevant forms of intersection. Such modeling being dynamically oriented when simulated/re-simulated in and through and beyond a non-empty field able to thematize such associated modes of value. The circulation of this economy necessitates the adequate requisition and simulation of the relevant field/s, relevant identities, along with intersected forms of identity, and, the necessary degree of overall gestalt integration able to simulate/re-simulate this process of ongoing intentional thematization. Let me examine this concept of intersection. (38) 

	In my work on transformation (as examined in Treatment-Retreatment Theory, e.g.) three forms of totally non-exclusive identity-transformation were noted, namely, synthetical, analytical, and identificational styles of identity-formation. Identities either aggregated through a process of fusion, dis-aggregated through processes of fission, or, maintained their overall semblance of identity through processes of continual reconstitution. (39)

	I believe we can also look at this phenomenon of identity-formation through forms of emissive reciprocity (be that in a physical-ontological domain or an epistemological subjective-inter-subjective arena). A relationship is in existence through its distinctive processes of simulated/re-simulated exchange and the implication of intersection and changes therein when relationships are chaotically re-directed. Let me outline my arguments for the same (assuming that all economies of exchange, as exchange economies, are virtually and/or non-virtually simulated/re-simulated). (40)

	Let us briefly re-visit our two friends who are about to meet again for lunch. Unfortunately, one of these people is accidentally hit on the head by small pot-plant falling off a fourth floor balcony of a high-rise block of flats. They are temporally knocked to the ground. They quickly pick themselves up and, not being able to guess from which balcony this missile might have fallen, proceed onward. However, during this meal this person is starting to show signs of a brain hematoma. They have already related how a pot plant had fallen on them on their way to this meeting. The effected person is starting to show signs of a clouding of consciousness, they become irritable in manner and uncharacteristically swear abuse at the other party before looking as if they were about to lose their sense of balance. The other friend realizes what is actually happening is most likely some form of a brain injury having seen this very same sort of thing on a television sitcom the night before. They decide to ring for an ambulance. They inform their groggy friend that they are calling an ambulance immediately and does so using their mobile. The ambulance quickly arrives and its medical team concur that they probably have a head injury and not just a diner who has drunk too much wine for lunch. The site of that injury is still evident in the clotted blood still present in the hair. They are rushed to hospital and successfully treated. What, may you well ask, is the moral of this story? (41)

	When the nature of a relationship changes the nature of its interaction and reciprocity also changes, has changed. In this situation the reciprocity between these two friends is uncharacteristically different. One friend is now irritable, abusive and definitely not the same person who dined last month. The nature of the reciprocity has changed. In conversation the injured party is one minute conversing, the next swearing, a few moments later looks like falling over even though seated at the table. As for the other party, the stream of conversation has become erratic, almost a farce. A different relationship is being entered into. The friend correctly infers that a brain injury is the most likely cause. The abused friend quickly ceases to take things at face appearance and takes up on the behalf of their friend both their concern and care. When you are eating with a friend who is uncharacteristically abusive you do not normally call for an ambulance. However, in this particular case, it was well-called and well-called for. (42)

	At the start of this meal the friend seemed ok. They related the incident of the falling pot-plant. The person in question looked a little hung-over and from there seemed to go down hill. The relationship seemed to be entering new territory. For the other party, the course of conversation meets abuse, irritability and periods of inattention. The non-injured party felt that the relationship was intersecting new territory but soon realized that they would need to act on the behalf of their friend by calling for an ambulance. (43)

	In the light of a transformational philosophy, relationships are either preserved, enter processes of fusion or enter processes of fission. It is perhaps true to say that all relationships have a life and death of their own. Preservation is achieved through a preservation of current forms of reciprocity. Fission demonstrates itself through a withdrawal be that gradual or abrupt. Then, sometimes, relationships are enlarged through the entrance of new members (much like the formation of families, e.g.). (44)

	How should we understand this concept of intersection? In a relatively radical change of relational state (through chaotic processes of re-self-organization) there are differences in reciprocity, exchange of emissive content. Emissions are relatively univocal discharges through the breaking of a bi-vocal current within the polarization of multi-vocal relationships. Emissions effectively travel between different relationships even though subsumed by a wider relational sphere of influence. As noted in the previous section, relationships are either subsumed, subsuming or interacting on the same meta-level (and/or distinction) of relational interaction. Hence the range or scope for different types of identity-formation. Let me examine these three types of possibility. If, e.g., we were growing grapevines on the slopes of Mount Vesuvius just before an eruption of a magnitude similar to the one that buried Pompeii and Herculaneum. Now it just so happens that we are of to see a bottle merchant to inspect the latest designs they have for bottling the next vintage. Except, because of this latest explosion, there now is no harvest and no wine to bottle. The vineyard is now no more. Shredded, vaporized and buried! Good wine depends on good soil, good sunlight, good rainfall and drainage. All of that is now blown away by the emissive content of that volcanic explosion. The relation of the vineyard to the mountain is now one of destruction of the former by the latter. (45)

	In a certain country with a very despotic form of government a large number of people are ordered to congregate in front of president’s palace to hear him make one more speech. However, a few people start jeering and before too long most of the people in this mass rally have turned into an angry mob, attack the palace and depose that government by beating to death this despot, his family assembled with him and the many important members of his hated government. In this instance, the subjugation of the many by a few is turned around. They chose a person famous for his subversion of the government. In his first speech to this same crowd he rails against despotism and insists that democracy be inaugurated as soon as possible. Here we have a more synthetic form of government, a government that is better able to represent the overall ambitions of its people in contrast to the previous government where the needs of the elite were elevated above the common good. (46)

	In the relationship between our two friends who like to eat together once a month the thoughtful actions of one of them ensured the continued wellbeing of the other party. In effect, continuing the identity of this relationship. In our second example, the relationship of the vintner to their vineyard on the mountainside was shattered. When the volcano settles, however, they might start again and plant new vines and reform that relationship. In our last example, we have a chaotic transition with the transformation ensuring a more integrated and representative body politic through the inauguration of a democratic style of government as an instance of fusion through a greater degree of political integration or synthesis (through a greater degree of political participation and representation, etc.). (47)

	Using these three examples let me now demonstrate the various types of role played in processes of intersection. In our first instance expressions of emissive content (conversation, irritable gestures, abusive language, apparent disinterest in conversational dialogue, etc.) were not taken at face value but as representative of adverse changes in the subjectivity of the possibly injured party. This interpretation was confirmed by medical tests and the person in question was suitable treated with this relationship being able to reconstitute itself in a similar direction over time beyond that period of injury. On the other hand, emissive content in our volcanic explosion is very quickly and thoroughly destructive of this vineyard. The entropic organization of that vineyard has been reduced back to a level representative of the environment from which it was emergently cultivated and nurtured. In our last example, the entropic organization has been democratically augmented; political obstruction to this form of progress had finally been removed. Intersection has been effectively widened or deepened, with a greater degree of integration in the manner of the political reciprocity demonstrated by that new government. Emissive content being exchanged between external relationships and internal relational facets as a result of those extended acts of emission (along with new forms of emission such as, perhaps, monitored voting, e.g.). Such processes of exchange determining chaotic re-direction and non-chaotic redirection; establishing pre-critical states of potential self-re-organization and the triggering phenomena necessary to make that type of transformational-transition (be that on levels that subsume, super-assume and/or consume such transformational styles of expansive re-direction and/or a contractive redirection). (48)

	Relationships are realized through reciprocity, reciprocity demands exchange factors. In an apparent economy of value, we perceive this as its value-in-circulation. Exchange factors are emissions through re-arrangement of the primary relationship in question in the world of relationships (whose actualized transcendental possibility is accounted for in the Life-World). Emissions entering and leaving these primary relationships thence the relationships in question. An ongoing reconstituted relationship maintaining an identificational balance in this regard, whereas, in contrast, expansion or contraction of the primary relationship (being that relationship under investigation) (whether virtually envisaged and/or non-virtually engaged) is to be seen accounting for forms of fusion or fission in identity-formation. Intersection being accounted for through the apparent discharge and/or absorption of apparent exchange factors. Incremental changes contributing to the redirection of identity-formation with chaotic bifurcations occurring in and through and beyond critical points of self-organized criticality in acts of relatively radical re-direction through re-self-organization of those primary relationships under examination. An existential excess as an overall relational difference or overall existential surplus of value being realized through ongoing iteration of that relationship. This differential of value being integrated back into its relational basis through forms of re-investment. The iteration of relational-formation and its re-iteration of forms of re-direction constituting a greater complexity of value (which, on an emotional level, realizes a complexity of emotional identity-formation, e.g.). We live in a rich complex of multi-dimensional relationships whose emergent complexity is enriched through iterative redirection and re-iterative re-direction. (49)

	Three identificational styles of relationship were noted and exemplified. What exchange factors were present in these three examples? In our relationship between our two friends who dine once a month together, exchange factors would be or might be good conversation (on specific topics of interest to these two parties), one paying for the meal of the other and v.v., taking an interest in each others work and welfare, a communicated enjoyment taken in the company of the other party, etc. In the example of the vintner there is a relationship between them and their harvest of grapes, etc. through ‘watering’ and ‘weeding’, i.e., ‘giving to the vines what they need’ and ‘taking away from the same what they don’t need’. In the advent and aftermath of the volcanic explosion the farmer loses his vineyard for the immediate present and for some time in the foreseeable future. In this there has been a complete fission in identity in this regard. In our last example of the democratic revolution in government there has been an integration of the body politic by virtue of the increased representation of the population in and through and beyond this successful and fruitful change of government. In effect, a greater fusion of identity has occurred through a greater degree of political integration being achieved in that successful transition to a more representative government. This is found to be in evidence, e.g., through a properly conducted and supervized exercise of a process of election that is not just pre-ordained in pre-selection, is equitably exercised in selection, and, is more representative in its post-selectional consequences. Hopefully, through greater representative democracy, transparency, adequate regulation and enforcement of the same, the political and non-political economy of that state will prosper at a greater rate. A dichotomy between political and non-political economies not being tenable, neither in the short term, the medium term nor in the long term. Such considerations, and re-considerations, effecting flows of information, processes of exchange, distributions of an existential growth and profit, etc. Such flows either being relatively obstructed or non-obstructed given regulations and their apparent enforcement or non-enforcement. Let me say that freer flowing processes of exchange should contribute to a differentially greater degree of productivity, satisfaction, economic depth, a broadened scope for successful innovation, etc. (along with their mutual, differentially augmented political and economic augmentation!). (50)

	Through intersection of exchange factors and the intersection of their respective relationships a greater complexity of value can be arrived through such cross-fertilization. Let me now examine this intersection of intersection and its consequential emergence of greater degrees of integrated-complexity in value-formation and its subsequent presentation of apparent identity-formation. (51)

4.    Mutual Mirroring and Complex Emotions, etc.

	In the midst of processes of interaction (be they subsuming, super-assuming and/or consuming in the same genre or on a similar level or meta-level) we get processes of mirroring (implicated, e.g., in complex emotions, etc.). Let me now examine this aspect of relationships. (52)

	E.g., in the prolongation of a conversational stream we should find that one party adds adequately associated content to this recycling of conversational content and that the other party does the same sort of thing during the iteration of that overall conversational engagement. Opening conversational gambits between two friends or two strangers might be: “the weather looks like it is going to rain soon”. The other party replying, “yes, indeed, looks like it might be a downpour at any moment”.  The initial content exchanged is that it ‘looks like it is going to rain’, and, this is met by two more pieces of information, namely, ‘yes’, in agreement, and, ‘looks like it might be a downpour at any moment’. Without additional content being introduced and/or recycled, the conversational stream would surely come to an immediate end. Then, that conversational relationship would then meet a moment or period of disengagement along with a general disinclination to be recommenced sometime in the near future. (53)

	Let me now look at complex motions as an example of interactive enrichment through forms of intersectional mirroring. One could define complex emotions as either ‘a complex of simple emotions integrated emotionally and/or intentionally on a subjective basis’, or, ‘a complex of simple emotions integrated emotionally and/or intentionally on an inter-subjective basis’. E.g., I would perceive subjective enrichment occurring through the distinctive combination of simple emotions (e.g., love hate, fear, etc.) forming more subtle emotions (like, perhaps, melancholia, compassion, guilt, etc.). In a subjective (re-)invagination, or metaphorical folding over, of simple emotions (and their intentional states) more complex emotions can be realized and, perhaps, melancholia and other subtle emotions could be nominated here. In contrast, in a process of inter-subjective re-invagination of simple emotions (and their intentional states) complex emotions can be synthesized and simulated through such processes of reflected mirroring. E.g., the experience of guilt would be a prime candidate to examine here. Perhaps someone does something they know they should not do but go ahead and do it. They hope no one sees them do this wrong deed or comes to find our about the same. Unfortunately, they are seen, worse, they see that they have been seen, and, even worse, is the fact that the guilty party knows that the other party knows they were seen doing this wrongful act (ether through an act of commission or through an act of omission). A complexity of emotion results from this mirroring of the initial form or forms of intersection. These two senses of emotional-complexity being distinctively different but non-exclusive in simulated manifestation. (54)

	Would it be safe to say that intersection, correctly, only manifests itself through ‘emissive-reflection’ and that relational reciprocity is an indication of this reflectivity of intersection. That, simplicity is more an artifact of imputational projection rather than a merely unadorned presentation of simple non-complexity. This apparent reflected economy, therein and thereafter, through iteration and re-iteration establishes a relative complexity of intentional states (given that that the same type of process applies to all intentional states and guarantees their eventual conscious thematization). That, in effect, through epistemological integration, all sense of simplicity, or complexity, is retrospectively realized through indirect imputed, extrapolation and/or direct imputational introspection and projection. Either way, a complexity is arrived at that cannot be reduced to its relational basis or artifacts thematized therein. Thence an enrichment of intentional processes through such reflected economies, and, this state of affairs is reflected back and forth in the constitution of that manifested relationship. Indeed, epistemological emergence and the emergence of consciousness and self-consciousness are predicated upon such a basis. That all forms of intentionality are realized and simulated in and through and beyond such metaphorical mirroring of modes of intersection, formation of displacements, the thematization of apparent simplicity and complexity, etc. Elements of inter-subjectivity being guaranteed through the invocation of inter-subjective meta-textual genres of engagement. (55)

	Thence the emergence of interactive complexity along with its styles of identity-formation through redirection and/or re-direction. (56)

5.    Responsibility and General Existential Re-Direction, etc.

	From complexity arises an awareness of response along with a consciousness and self-consciousness of the same. From such a process emerges an awareness of responsibility. Let me now examine the phenomenal-phenomenological arising of responsibility (through response and/or counter-response and out complex awareness into this transcendental form of response). (57)

	I have introduced the concept of emissive-reflection. Let me examine what is implied in this concept and its relation to the complex experience of responsibility. A relationship is in phenomenal-phenomenological existence as long as it is able to continually re-constitute itself. It does so, or, rather, is seen to do so, through emission as a continual stream of emission, i.e., as an emission-stream. Emissions that are reflected back-and-forth produce/reproduce a more complex state of affairs through emergence and hence this concept of emissive-reflection. Emissions are emitted artifacts that intersect relationships within the World-of-Life. One relationship erupts into another and v.v. by such means or through the signs of such ‘intersections’. An emission-stream is a uni-vocal affair that relatively trades one systematic relationship for another. We could metaphorically compare this to a child born to a family of a mother and father with their child growing up and then leaving that family and entering the world to found their own family. Or, in reverse, in the relational acceptance of an adopted child by a family. Usually familial connections are never absolutely lost so these two metaphors of ‘leaving home’ or ‘adoption’ should not be taken too literally. Moreover, usually, an adopted child also leaves home on reaching adulthood. It would be stretching these two metaphors somewhat by running them back to back to the extent that ‘leaving home be equally seen as being adopted into a new family’. Emissions are never absolute and merely enrich inter-relational connection (in a fleshing out of the world as found by-us for-us). Intersection being where one relationship is interacting with some other relationship. A web of such interaction forming an associated sense of world (where worlds can also be seen to interact in their own right). Hence modes-of-life and their intersection with other modes-of-life, e.g., in the chess world we have books on chess hence an intersection between the ‘world of chess’ and the ‘world of printing’. Now, the concept of reflected-emissions is to be understood as such a process of emission that is re-emitted back to its original relationship or world. From there we have a number of variations to consider, namely, the termination of this process, the continuance of this process in an oscillation between these two relational states, or, an oscillation process that involves additional parties along with an emergence of value non-reductively produced by such a process of thematization. Hence my concept of value-in-circulation as introduced earlier in this series of papers and its associated concepts of a simulation/resimulation/re-simulation of an economy of value. The apparent reality of such simulation, etc., reflecting is the quantitative and qualitative richness and enrichment of modalities therein engaged. Thus, it should be seen, that all phenomenal-phenomenological presentation can be treated as a process of simulation, etc. That all such economies are likewise presented/represented/re-presented through these emergent processes of intersection. (58)

	Let me give an illustrative instance of a multi-dimensional process of emergent-interaction. Returning to our complex concept of guilt we could envisage doing a wrong deed through omission or commission, being seen to do the same, seeing ourselves being seen, knowing that the reviewer of our misdeed knows that we have been seen being seen, etc. Hence the understated expression of ‘the look’ of the other. (59)

	Let me proffer a first definition of responsibility: as ‘a complex response that reflects and/or enact a state of alignment or re-alignment in keeping with the nature of the overall relationship concerned’. Imagine the following scenario. We are at a funeral service for Aunty Beryl. The religious officiant is declaiming a eulogy. They do not really know this person and have made some brief enquiries about the deceased from family and friends. In this eulogy they say the decease liked to go shopping on a Friday… Knowing members of the audience nearly convulse with laughter as they know the deceased liked to go shopping nearly everyday of the week and not just on Fridays. However, it would not be very ‘responsible’ to burst out laughing at this innocent mistake of the officiant. However, at the wake afterwards, Aunty Ruby relates how this innocuous statement nearly caused her to burst out laughing. Relaying these reflections to the assembled mourners is seen as a great joke all round and everyone gets to see the humour of this incongruent comment. The same people are more or less present. It is still an event concerned with the burial of the same deceased so why should it be irresponsible for members of the audience to the eulogy to burst out laughing when they can do so at the wake? Let me return to my provisional definition. Responsibility is a ‘complex response’. There is a certain genre of engaged behaviour expected at funeral services and during orations. We are suppose to be respectful, quiet, mourning, and, if not actually mourning ,at least not visibly celebrating the death of the deceased party. To burst out laughing would be seen as disrespectful, we know that would be disrespectful and do not want to be seen as disrespectful (even if we do find that innocent comment as comically incongruent in the life of the deceased). Our outward deportment at least must be respectful. In this regard our deportment is in alignment with our relationship to this world of these mourners gathered in that space of mourning. Of course in alignment with our true feeling at that moment in time we should be laughing loudly, but, in alignment with our relationship to this wider relationship of membership with these mourners we responsibly suppress such irreverence. Or, if we were about to start convulsing with mirth we must quickly re-align ourselves in tune with this wider relationship of being a mourner or an apparent mourner. (60)

	However, if responsibility is a complex experience, perhaps a complex emotion, how is it to be experienced as ‘our’ responsibility, as ‘a’ responsibility not just as an arbitrary set of complex considerations necessitating a complex set of reflections, etc. How can we account for the apparent simplicity of responsibility, an intuitive feeling that we have it right when we feel we are being responsible… that we have made a responsive and responsible judgment whose enactment is non-calculative and spontaneous, apt, appropriate and proper, indeed, as valid given our appreciation of the circumstances and all the meta-textual conventions that we should need to note? For that matter, how do we navigate this world of responsibility given a complexity of pre-negotiations and negotiated adaptations given our ongoing appreciation of current circumstances. How do our reflections quickly find this eventual ease of comportment, an effortless enactment of responsibilities or duties in that regard? Through reflection! Relationships are made to coincide through intersection, emergent reflections are thematized and whose adequate enactment is experienced, therein and thereafter, as correct (given our relevant transcendental appreciation of that situation). It is as if the tide comes in and out at the same time, indeed, many times, back and forth, and in the process realizes its own sense of how we should be there… in this steam of events.  In the ripples of this wash, our judgment is attuned to a process of alignment or ongoing re-alignment. Enactment being in harmony with the desired outcome, in harmony with expectations of a conventional nature as we come to understand, even if that be at variance with a more conventional wisdom. Sticking our neck out, so to speak, when we feel in the greatest relevant relationship or world of relations that the adopted behaviour is truly doing our duty… even at the expense of our social sanding, our existence itself. Hence the conformity and/or non-conformity, even our dis-conformity, with all lesser senses of doing our duty in this reflective world of the deontological. Such resolution settled upon striking us with a simplicity despite a recognized complexity of origination, genesis and enactment…. (61)

	When we feel we are being irresponsible or not quite responsible enough we are struck with a sense of disharmony. Rectification of this sense of anomaly can be experienced as doing our duty. In this discharge of our duty, responsible-responses (through reflective-emissions) may be either pragmatically oriented or deontologically oriented. There can be no absolute demarcation here as I have argued that all judgment has the same transcendental form or process on its most deepest level of enactment and explication (although explication usually takes note of only key features that represent our situation-to-be-responsibly-responded-to). ‘Responsible-responses’ reflects this sense of reflection as just explicated. Enactment being discharged through emissive-reflections intentionally thematized and articulated in and through and beyond enactment. In our consequential analyses, our processes of enactment must be attuned to a temporal horizon that encompasses both the past the present and the future. This complexity also usually finding some form of resolution and relief when the dilemma of ‘our’ situation finds an acceptable and adequate course of enactment or action. Normally, all of this ‘complexity’ is effectively pre-negotiated for us. In meeting relatively novel situations we adopt former precedents or propose new ones and adapt our enactment in the light of the same. Even here the shifts in ‘attitude’ are incrementally redirected. Occasionally we might be called upon to adopt a more innovative course of re-direction. Then, incremental adoptions and adaptations of micro-readjustments in behaviour can also be instrumental in chaotic forms of relatively radical innovation. Reaching such critical points through incremental approach and/or the adoption of additional trigger phenomena that re-set the landscape. Decisions being like icebergs above a sea of pre-intentional, intentional and speculative post-intentional emergent-reflections (wherein we adduce the apparent consequential merit of our decisional-formations and decisions to enact or non enact the same, etc.). (62)

	What relevance has this theoretical explication to our relational-embodiment with others? First, let me recount this explication under the following headings: 

1.	
‘Embodiment’ is to be seen in a relational setting. 
2.	Like epistemological organization, it too is hierarchically organized.
3.	Complexity is simplified through emissive-reflection.
4.	The net result of this is the formation of a harmonically attuned response. 
5.	This enactment is naturally integrated and relatively prioritized.
6.	That re-direction of behaviour can only re-direct redirection.
7.	Thence either its chaotic and/or non-chaotic routinization through habit.
8.	Hence an inherent dialectical mix of complexity-and-simplicity.
9.	Phenomenological complexity is an expression of that.
10.	Hermeneutic simplicity is its overall background.
11.	The existential supplying an innovative aspect when and where necessary, etc.
12.	Transcendental balance and enaction through their interactive combination. (63)

6.    Provisional Conclusions

Ultimately, there can be neither pure simplicity nor pure complexity. In phenomenal-phenomenological reality of experience there can only be degrees of simplicity-in-complexity and their associated experiences of harmonic resolution and enactment. Generally, our passage through the world is pre-negotiated for-us, albeit for-us by-us to some extent or other. Still, we need to adopt relevant precedents and adapt them to the situations to-hand all framed in a viable consequential analysis. By such means we enter into an overall economy with-others. An apparent economy of embodiments with their associated expressions of value-in-circulation. Our relationships forming expressions of our multi-dimensional embodiment with-others. The relative reality of those relationships being reflected in their emissive-reflections that constitute their apparent economies whether treated internally and/or externally. Such economies reflecting the priority of the relative richness of modalities actively engaged and the intensity with which such modalities are actually engaged. (64)

	In effect, our relationships are to be seen as forms of relational-embodiment. In such frames of reference we enter into processes of re-negotiation. In the next paper in this series let me look into the overall existential nature of this interaction between relational-embodiment and ongoing processes of re-negotiation. Hence a second paper on relational-embodiment, and, a third paper on the existential nature of re-negotiation. (65)
						    	    Noël Tointon, Sydney, 8.8.09.