XX: Value-in-Circulation:
Living through Our Embodiment with the Other – Part II
And, Re-Negotiating Existentially with the Other: Part III*

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. Given that existential augmentation is an enrichment of those forms of relational embodiment then let us ask how our interactive re-negotiations with others are best existentially facilitated? (0)

	In this paper let me explore what is meant by ‘relational embodiment’, and, ‘how our interactive re-negotiations are best existentially facilitated?’ To this end, let me examine how these two concepts intersect in the notion ‘that existential augmentation is an enrichment of the forms of relational embodiment’. I will do this under five headings: the nature of interaction; the nature of negotiations; the nature of the existential; the nature of existential augmentation; and, the nature of existential negotiations. (1)

1.    The Nature of Interaction

	A relationship is in evidence through its interaction, i.e., through a tracing out of its distinctively associated interactive processes of exchange. Exchange is conducted via emissive content be that intentionally oriented or non-intentionally oriented. (2)

	Imagine a waiting room attached to the office of a large business organization. People are coming to be interviewed for a job and this room is essentially a waiting room. Separately, two individuals are asked to go into this room, be seated on the couches pointed to and to wait their turn to be interviewed. They quietly do so. The last person to enter seats themselves, notices one person sitting near them and smiles. The other person smiles back. (3)

	In this scenario a very basic form of interaction has been entered into, namely, the mutual recognition of another person. No doubt they see each other as people there to be interviewed for a job, perhaps, the same job. However, they recognize the other person there is about to undergo the same ordeal of being interviewed. They merely smile at each other. A process of minimal interaction has been entered into and the evidence for this recognition of the other person can be found in these two people smiling at each other. (4)

*Link to latest version of paper on my Homestead Homepage Site (circulation20.rtf).
www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelshomepage3.html

These two people could have entered that room and ignored each other. They both quickly ascertained that they have never met before, and, are not about to be introduced by a third party, indeed, may never ever see each other. Or, then again, one of the parties could have smiled at the other party to be ignored, more or less, by the other non-smiling party. In looking at these variations let us ask ourselves can a process of interaction non-virtually take place if there is, at the very least, no emissive content as a token of exchange, and, some form of reciprocity in that regard? Just who interacts with whom in these three variations of mutual recognition; non-recognition; and, partial, non-acknowledged recognition? (5)

	A relationship is realized through interaction. The nature of that relationship is expressed through the nature of that interaction. These two persons, unknown to each other, in smiling and smiling back, could be interpreted as initiating a minimal relationship with each other. On the principles that that emissive content is both emitted and exchanged in the formation of a relationship the ‘smile’ could be read as both emitted and returned through the other person ‘smiling back’. Let me examine the theoretical basis for the interactive formation of relational expression (as indicative of relational interaction, i.e., the existence of a relationship). (6)
	
	A distinctions needs to be made between non-intentionally oriented relations and intentionally-oriented relations. The distinction is the addition of an intentionally directed component in the ‘expression’ of the relationship. A distinction expressed through the intentionally directed emission of exchange factors whose trace traces out an intentionally directed form of expression in accordance with a perceived co-associated genre of engagement. People ‘smile’. Non-intentionally oriented ‘non-subjects’ as ‘objects’, or ‘object-states’ do not smile except analogically or through intentional representation. The painting of the Mona Lisa is with the mysterious suggestion of a smile. But that smile was painted by the artist knowing what is necessary to figuratively suggest a ‘smile’ in a representative genre of portrait painting (assuming the painting is a portrait in this instance which it most probably is). On one hand, I would like to outline what is implied in common in a relationship regardless of its intentional or non-intentional status. On the other hand, we need to recognize that intentionally directed relationships are conducted in and through and beyond genres of engagement and the emission of exchanged content is effectively driven by the same along with the non-intentional nature of the physical embodiment of those participants to the extent that forms of contiguity are also necessary in order to establish those intentionally driven forms of interaction. No point smiling in a dark room (unless we be smiling to-ourselves for-ourselves). No point smiling to a blind person if our intent is to convey our recognition of their presence before them. Then, if that were our intent, we might try to do this by some other form of communication like speaking to them and, perhaps, also gently touching them as we exchange some pleasant or humorous comment. (7)

	So, a relationship, be it intentionally oriented or non-intentionally oriented is in evidence, and, hopefully, actually in existence, by the emission of interactive exchange factors that are in some form or other actually exchanged in exchanged emissions or emissions of intentional response. Where, by ‘intentional response’, is meant the deliberative element of an intentionally oriented process of response in contrast with non-intentional reactions and/or reactions realized in non-intentionally oriented forms of life. In other words, a relationship is usually regarded as in evidence when emissions and reactions have the same ontological character (in terms of their existential descriptors and/or axes) and, when relevant, the same or similar epistemological orientation in terms of organization. A ‘smile given’ and a ‘smile returned’ have the same epistemological level of organization which is another way of saying that value is refracted through a similarity of genre or genres of engagement instrumental in writing that expression and reading the same. (8)

	We have two other types of situations in that interview waiting-room. We have one person smiling and the other person ignoring this small sliver of a communicative act. If the smiling party thought they were being actively ignored, they might feel hurt or they might not take too much from this act of omission. On the other hand, if the other party just does not see them then our emissive act of smiling will also fall on stony ground. In the other type of ‘relationship’ we merely have two people in a room at the same time with no intentionally directed behaviour operating between them. Could we call it a relationship? Yes, on non-intentionally oriented grounds. There is here merely a geographical orientation in which physical objects and states interact purely in terms of sheer physicality. Or, might the lack of communication by both parties be perceived as an intentionally enacted absence of communication rather than as a purely non-desired, non-intended process of interaction? Still, through contiguity, forms of physical embodiment will ensure a minimal form of interaction if only on a gravitational level or similar. (9)

	In an archetypal sense, with or without recourse to an intentional frame of reference, what exactly are exchange factors/exchanged factors or interactive emissive content? The apparent process of interaction is signaled by the presence of reciprocated emissive content. Through chaotic re-self-organization, through a point of bifurcation, an emission is discharged (from the embodiment of that relationship of the mere emitter into a wider frame of context). In that nominated relationship (within that wider frame of reference) that emissive content is absorbed by another party or parties in that associated relationship that forms that nominated relational embodiment between emitters and emittees). Emission is outside the relationship of mere participant embodiment. As a signal, in some form or other, it is received (within its nominated relational embodiment). This transmission is received, effectively, through a de-transformation of its transformational emissiveness. However, there is never a perfect process of symmetry here hence the engagement of an emissive difference or emissive residue. By engagement is meant both a process of ontological-like encounter and epistemological-like recognition. A smile is seen as a physical sign and is engaged. We smile back in the process establishing or completing a process of exchange. In this instance of engagement we have an ‘ontological encounter’ of the smile and our ‘epistemological recognition’ of this as a smile and our reciprocity of a smile in turn (expressed both ontologically and epistemologically). However between the first smile and the returned smile there is a difference or existential residue, namely, a sense of recognition and co-associated obligation of being in a room with a stranger not met before but signaling friendliness and, perhaps, given the nature of this room as a waiting room prior to a formal interview there is also a recognition of the reason why the other person is there too. Perhaps a sense of solidarity is being expressed with the other person and whole plethora of other simple and complex emotions and subtle understandings, etc. Because the relational field of embodiment established through interaction has its own distinctive uniqueness and integrity then the relational impact of exchange factors should be read in terms of that relational embodiment and not merely in terms of the pre-relational nature of their relatively pre-relational embodiment of the mere human body. A smile is a physical phenomenon but cannot be reduced to this pre-relational basis if we sincerely wish to understand its significance in and through and beyond its relational embodiment. As a field whose ontological and/or epistemological organization must be greater than its mere participants it follows we must read such phenomena through the appropriate lens, namely, its relevant level of relational embodiment. I.e., as an inter-subjective, social phenomenon (or phenomena since some sociologists, etc., argue that there are twenty different forms of smiling, more or less, each type having a different type of reading when closely read). (10)

	What other things can we say about relationships in general. Interaction is in evidence with exchange mechanisms when the exchange is taken up. Could we have an interaction in that regard if the exchange is not taken up? I believe not (or, only to the extent that type of exchange was not entered into). So by not smiling back in that interview room this form of a relationship was circumvented either intentionally or unintentionally, or, perhaps, non-intentionally. Then, when exchanges are taken up we need to note whether this up-take was simultaneous or successive, sequential orchestrated or not repeated, subject to other forms of iteration (through other co-associated exchange mechanisms) along with noting the full import of the exchange w.r.t. to co-associated phenomena such as obligations, other forms of potential-actual intentional re-direction, etc. Moreover, we might surmise that in the continuation of a relationship a certain existential excess in the form of an existential residue is both created, continued and re-invested back into the ‘material body’ of that relationship or emitted and re-directed elsewhere (like, e.g., an economic surplus being charitably donated to others less well off), and, also a differential in power potential across that relationship that either alternates and/or non-alternates, and/or, is amplified or diminished in the course of time. E.g., an unexpected gift is given. The gift is gratefully and graciously accepted. The donor is expressing their affection or gratefulness or some other reason  through the gift. The gift could be received without a sense of obligation or with a sense of obligation. If you had done, say, a kind, unsolicited service to the acceptor of that gift that person who accepts your gift may feel less under some form of an obligation. On the other hand, accepting the gift may well have you feeling under some form of an obligation, that the gift has strings attached so to speak. Then, the magnitude of the gift could well impinge on this sense of an obligation. A small gift might seem insignificant, merely signaling an intent to continue with that relationship or have it take a slightly different course. Then, again, a gift of great value may put the acceptor of the gift under too great a sense of obligation. As a consequence the gift may well be reluctantly accepted and with that reluctance being directly or indirectly indicated. We may have a trouble trying to understand in what genre of giving this gift has been given? If you were to receive a non-anonymous Valentine card and something more than just friendship was apparently intended then it would be read along those lines. However, accepting such a card need not imply undying love on your part for the giver of such a token of love. Or, if you were a politician and someone comes to your office with a brown paper bag with $10,000 in it, how pleased would you be to see it? Would you be pleased to see them? It may well be that in the current political system that is normal practice, or, it may well not be normal practice and you would strongly stress that you cannot accept such a generous and unrequested gift. Perhaps they could give it to the Party Office and fill in the documentation that publicly registers such donations. Or, they might like to give it to a nominated charity. The list of possibilities is endless. The problem would be securing the ‘right’ genre whether it be outright rejection of that donation or some form of acceptance. The uptake of a gift or the non-uptake of a gift still leaves a relative power differential in that relationship in question. Let me explore this aspect more closely. (11)

	The problem of a gift that has an inappropriate magnitude is that it can ‘wreck’ the relationship as much if not more than the absence of a process of gift-giving. On the principle that all relationships are in evidence through exchange mechanisms, and the nature of those mechanisms is a key expression of the nature of that relationship in question we also need to note the nature of its current, past, future and overall power potential. To do this we need to look beyond the mere evidence of processes of exchange. Hence our need to take into account obligations as read within their respective genres. So, e.g., a Valentine card might be accepted but without obligation. Or, a political donation might be accepted with or without overt and/or covert sense of obligation. Or a thoughtful gift might be gratefully received or thoughtful gifts might well be swapped. However, it might be safe to say that in any act of giving there is a change in the power potential in that relationship. You may not even know to whom you are obligated but a sense of obligation may well transpire. Imagine, one must suppose from a multi-millionaire, that a million dollars has been given to you anonymously, could you accept it without some form of obligation. Perhaps you feel a certain portion of it, and from any income realized through its investment, that you too in turn should anonymously or non-anonymously donate something in turn? Or perhaps you feel you are being patronized in order to perfect some valuable skill, say, that of a philosopher, and that you should perfect your art of being a philosopher and as a consequence should give up your day job… or your night job…? It is probably safe to say, generally, that power potentials in a relationship are never constant. How should we read fluctuations in the same? (12)

	As noted, excessive gift-giving, with some exceptions, otherwise, e.g., with the perception of an excessive sense of obligation, are just as able to wreck a relationship as opting out of some form of an exchange mechanism? Given changes in circumstances, fluctuations in this power potential would be expected to manifest themselves in our interpretations of that relationship be it relatively internally by participants in that relationship or externally from without. In other words, power cannot be adequately understood merely in terms of its apparent gift-giving but must be understood through the lens of that type of relationship and do this we must understand the mix of genres being adopted and adapted in that regard. Furthermore, it is safe to say that an ongoing equality of power is also potentially destructive of a relationship. When a tradesperson does a ask and you pay them that is the end of your relationship. Perhaps you are grateful of the quality of their service and give them a tip in recognition of that. Or, you might also give them a tip in order to ensure their possible service at some future point in time should you need to re-employ them. The exception, to just paying your bill, by giving an extra amount, proving just this point? So, in this regard, we have a number of possible styles of relational dislocation, namely, excessive gift-giving, cessation of gift-giving, inappropriate forms of gift-giving, and keeping a relationship in a state of absolute power equality. Navigation and nuancing of this relational terrain would appear to be a difficult task to carry out. However, such negotiations are usually worked out for us through genres of engagement already pre-constructed in this regard. Then, we merely need to be aware of the selection to hand, adopt and adapt the same. Or, occasionally, we need to refine our genres and this can only be done through the appropriation of types of genre that appear to be relatively more close to this task to hand. Such innovations replicating themselves socially when conditions are pre-critically favorable to such a transformational-transition in practice. Novel and successful innovations spreading as ‘memes’, and, acting as a basis for future patterns of innovation in turn. (13)
	
	Let me now look at the nature of negotiations. (14)

2.    The Nature of Negotiations

	Obviously, negotiations operate in an intentional mode of interaction, however, such negotiation can never be absolutely relational in orientation, i.e., they must operate in terms of our embodiment in the world (both from a relational perspective and a pre-relational participant perspective). Let me explain. (15)

	Relationships are never absolutely self-contained (hence they cannot be internally-externally absolutely exclusive). Perceived in hermeneutic frames of reference (in hermeneutic genres) they both contain participants in relation in such a manner that constitutes that relationship in question as that relationship-in-that-genre-frame-of-preference and, in turn, is contained in the hyper-relational ‘space’ that situates that relationship in question. So, all relationships are embodied in the world, and, the net transcendental possibility of the same is the Life-World as one-open-World-of-Life. Thence our transcendental embodiment in that Life-World. (16)
	Now, all negotiations are re-negotiations! We never start from scratch since the associated genres of engagement need to be invoked. There we find the apparent net result of past negotiations. (17)

	Negotiations establish degrees of alignment. Preferably in agreement with phenomenal-phenomenological reality as currently understood. Alignment is to be understood in a multi-dimensional sense. For a start, we need to ascertain a reasonably adequate and accurate understanding of the phenomenal situation in question. This is facilitated by a relevant representation of its current stance. This is better appreciated from a past perspective in order to understand current trends. Furthermore, the point of negotiations is to achieve a better perspective on where the current situation appears to be heading through redirection and where it is thought to be better headed through re-direction. Moreover, all negotiations will entail understanding relevant participating intentional agency and relevant, non-intentional associated content (be that money, hours of work or operation, tools, etc., etc.). Furthermore, the critical negotiator/s (whether non-virtually involved directly in that relationship or non-virtually involved externally to that relationship in question or virtually non-involved (or involved) need to ascertain, differentiate and evaluate both approachable critical chaotic points of bifurcation and non-chaotic points of mere redirection; where novel chaotic input/output is realized in a relatively deterministic, redirected frame of non-novel redirected input/output. Then, too, the negotiator or negotiators need to ascertain the wisdom of approaching certain critical points of chaotic re-direction. They need to decide whether to approach or initiate, go in reverse or obstruct, or, to merely delay or wait from contributing to such decisive input. Then, lastly, the negotiator or negotiators need to ascertain the existential nature of their redirected/re-directed input/s, either acting on behalf of that relationship in question or not acting on the behalf of that relationship in question. Preferably, a democratically oriented approach should facilitate our critical input in that regard. All in all, a complex multi-dimensional approach is called for. (18)

	How is complexity negotiated? Through the adequate invocation of associated genre or genres dealing with the same! (19)

	How is a democratically oriented approach to be accessed, and, why does a democratic approach better facilitate a relatively more successful process of negotiations? (20)

	For a start let us note that we have four relatively different types of positions that become privileged in this regard, two existentially oriented and two non-existentially oriented. If there is an existential democratic spirit in those engaged negotiations then, normally, we are presented with the most favorable positions to negotiate within. Otherwise the key negotiator or negotiators need to operate on the behalf of that relationship in an existentially relative non-democratic fashion. Our other two non-existentially oriented positions are that of a group of negotiators operating on their own behalf without real reference to the relationship in question, or, one negotiator or a key set of negotiators primarily operating non-existentially on their own behalf. The existential is oriented towards the present, a surplus of value and an appropriate and proper enlarging of that source of value in the world and is the ongoing relationship between retrospective material and prospective genre orientations. As noted before, our distinction of the overall existential is oriented towards a non-historical, living sense of the eternally ongoing sense of the living present (without or with theological implications although the latter need not be invoked). (21)

	A democratically oriented perspective better facilitates that intuitive realization of the distinctive ‘living’ essence of our understanding of the phenomenal-phenomenological situation-to-hand as bound within the parameters of that relationship in question. Our engagement with a surplus of value is better facilitated under such circumstances. In such a receptive climate a greater set of existential connections ensures a greater degree of existential attunement with that relationship in question. Otherwise, we must hope for an existential negotiator willing and able to operate skillfully on the behalf of that relationship. And attunement is an existentially augmented alignment with the experiential reality of that situation-to-hand. (22)

	Understanding the essential ‘bones’ of the relationship in question along these lines allows us to existentially operate in that distinctive process of relational engagement currently in place. And this always occurs through a refinement of our prior negotiations as found already in place in our investigations. Thence such interconnected complexity and simplicity operative in our engagement of that relationship in question. Thence a dialectics of negotiations in a recognition of the genre or genres necessary to invoke or re-invoke in our facilitation of those negotiations. (23)

	The democratic element advances our negotiations and vice versa. This can be seen to operate under four headings, namely, representation, transparency, regulation and enforcement of the former be that representation, transparency or regulation. (24)

	Representation is advanced through alignment, namely, representing and acknowledging agental input, and, an adequate representation of the effective and relevant totality of that relationship in question both internally and externally. Transparency is best engaged by those existential participants in that relationship and ensuring this existential element is effectively maintained and enlarged. Such transparency promotes alignment and re-negotiated processes of a productive re-alignment. Regulations are those mechanisms set out to initiate, maintain and augment a set of current existential practices already operating in that regard. Enforcement being seen to operate in that manner that best promotes such regulations (through metaphorical processes of a negative ‘weeding’ and a positive ‘watering’ of that relationship). (25)

	Hence the multi-dimensional nature involved in re-negotiations, but, the productive simplicity of resultant intervention should that be necessary! (26)

	In utilizing these dimensional modalities, when and where necessarily, i.e., when relevant, the relational matrix becomes re-negotiated. A further set of dimensions of the possibly conceivable being entertained with the existentially preferable modalities or options being adopted or incrementally progressed towards. Thence by such means, incrementally assembled in representation, transparently approached and maintained, with necessary regulations and their relevant enforcement hopefully facilitating the existentially conducted negotiated pathway or pathways considered optimal both internally and externally, i.e., relatively internal to its apparent relational boundaries and relatively external to its  relational context or relational situatedness. An existential course ultimately re-negotiating a harmonious approach to this relationship between the relational space of the relationship in question and its relationship to its relational situatedness in the Life-World. Again, this is conducted through existential re-negotiations that advance the resident existential value of that relationship but not at the expense of the world at large in that same regard. (27)

	The trending course of that re-negotiated relationship in question being existentially re-directed when and where thought necessary as appreciated in and through and beyond that same relationship in question. Our intuition usually determining an existential augmentation in that regard. In discerning a greater degree of overall harmony and our ability to incrementally realize the same. (28)

	Let me now examine and define the general nature of the existential. (29)

3.    The Nature of the Existential 

	The existential is rooted in special senses of the present. As previously noted, I differentiate between an existential perspective and an overall existential perspective. Theoretically, this is arrived at along the following lines. The balance and suspension of text versus meta-text, retrospective versus prospective, focus versus background, dissonance versus consonance, etc., realizes the existential as a momentary sense of the present in a dynamic, non-historically oriented mode. Then, reincorporating this lesser sense of the existential back into a balanced suspension (as a third moment in either an overall transcendental suspension or the overall hermeneutic circle of comprehension) establishes a greater sense of the overall existential (and its semblance of an ongoing sense of the eternally present, the living moment, etc.). However, the general sense of the existential can also be approached from a more practical point of view. First, let me introduce or reintroduce a number of concepts, namely, chaos, complexity, simplexity and complicity. (30)

	In an ordered linear system chaotic elements are manifested in a non-linear complex fashion hence chaos (and its incorporation philosophically and/or mathematically in an umbrella expression of chaos theory). Complexity is that degree of disorder or non-order that is arrived at through the chaotic interaction of relatively simple inputs or rules. From the chaotic integration of complexity, emergent aspects of a system, new systems, are arrived at. Hence simplexity. Then, through the non-chaotic/chaotic interaction of systems new areas of complexity emerge hence complicity. (31)

	In the light of the above, we can re-define the experience of the existential in and through the emergent simplicity of a system, i.e., our experience of its simplexity. In this we experience the existential excess of value or relational difference of a system. Because the existential is rooted in a momentary non-historical sense of the present (through a balanced suspension of the retrospective and the prospective, etc.) it follows that we gain the semblance of a non-historical sense of the moment, and thence, the eternally ongoing moment (when our third moment, in turn, is balanced in the triadic constitution and formation of the overall transcendental suspension, etc.). In an existentially oriented experience we experience the nature of that relationship in question as if to-hand and the power of that relationship to inform and re-inform its own course and destiny (within the redirected streaming of possibility and its chaotic intervention in moments of re-direction). Despite its complexity it is experienced with a certain degree of integrity, i.e., simplexity. Experientially, the overall existential dimension is experienced as a relative integrated excess of value in output over the investment of its input, and, therein, our experience of a seemingly living relational difference. The dynamic nature of this coursing of experience taking on the metaphorical appearance of an ‘eternally living moment’ (along with its apparent sense of a distinctive uniqueness in its formation of identity and value, etc.). (32)

	Let me now examine the nature of existential augmentation wherein the value of a certain experiential value is (metaphorically) folded over and enriched. (33)

4.    The Nature of Existential Augmentation 

	The existential experience as a value, in turn, can be re-valued, and, therein, re-enriched thence its existential augmentation. (34)

	In reality, the existential moment cannot be conserved, only apparently conserved, augmented or diminished in time (through processes of re-iteration and/or non-iteration ). Experienced is enriched through its multi-dimensional reiteration/re-iteration, and, is lost, through mere reiteration or relative non-iteration; thence its production/re-production, diminishment and cessation. (35)

	Can general rules for augmentation be pronounced? (36)
	Existential augmentation is realized through an enrichment of the relationship through the (‘psychic’ or) relational nature of the relationship itself to that extent it is internally harmonized in its relational embodiment and externally harmonized in its relational situatedness. In effect, rules or observations that promote the continuation and enrichment of a relationship are existential in orientation. In the streaming simplexity of relationships their coursing is promoted and augmented, or de-augmented if called for, in our existential engagements with that relationship to-hand. Ideally and practically, such interventions are correctly called for and called forth through the embodiment of that relationship itself to that extent we can act as agents for it. Hence our existential receptivity to the ideality of that relationship when we are aware of this relational dimension. The realized value, in such a harmonized relationship, arising at each and every point spontaneously in the relational embodiment of that relationship in its relational situatedness. Existential augmentation enriching the course of that relationship to-hand through our receptivity to it and its receptivity to us. Such a relative transformation being brought about through our pre-conditional appreciation of the redirection of that relationship and our incrementally arrived at re-direction of the same. Our appreciation of this subtlety being assisted by our appreciation of past trends, speculative evaluation of fruitful possibilities and our incrementally working towards the same in an existential spirit  of awareness. How is such ‘awareness’ to be arrived at? In and through and beyond the relevant overall transcendental suspension that assists us in simulating/re-simulating that same relationship albeit in its essentially simulated configuration. The existential being inaugurated through a suspension of that same suspension (as noted elsewhere). (37)

	In general, such rules can be hierarchically classed under the instantiation of an informed overall transcendental suspension, and, therein and there under, by whatever means facilitate such an expression (as an existentially oriented expression). An expression of value, and its augmentation or de-augmentation, in keeping with the nature of that relationship to-hand. The dynamic simplexity of that relationship and its social insertion into a meta-textual system of value-formation, through an apparent value-in-circulation generally assisting us in this otherwise complex task. Indeed, we are driven to conclude in such a manner if it is in harmony with our overall agenda (as intuitively evaluated and to that extent this agenda is in harmony with the nature of that relationship in its relational-situatedness). That, such a realization of the existential expression of the relational situation to-hand is essentially the realization of a re-alignment of that relationship with its own sense of self in the light of our understanding of its relational situatedness. Closer alignment through a closer re-alignment of that relationship with respect to its own sense of ‘self’.… (38)

	How is such a re-alignment existentially facilitated? (39)

5.    The Nature of Existential Negotiations

	All negotiations are re-negotiations, and all re-negotiations are existential to the degree that relationship is able to preserve its apparent sense of continuity, i.e., its current simplexity. (40)

	Not all relationships are equal. I.e., the value existentially overflowing from a relationship may or may not be commensurate with its ambitions and objectives as potentially found-in-it or found-for-it. On the other hand, a relationship in its relational situatedness might well be self-meant to be downgraded and cease. In our existentially receptive negotiations we need to be able to discern in what manner re-alignment through negotiation should or should not proceed! (41)

	Ultimately, we need to be in tune with the relational embodiment of that relationship to-hand as found in its relational situatedness. Effectively, the relationship in question should be able to do this for us through our atunement with the dynamic nature of its unobstructed simplexity. To reach such an intuitive appreciation of the relationship itself we can receptively follow any number of strategies that, through adoption and adaptation, we find successfully working for us. Let me non-systematically indicate some of these possible strategic manoeuvres under the following headings of dynamic simulation; democratic representation; self-critical assessment; practical re-alignment; genre-refinement, etc. (42)

	In a dynamic modeling of the relational situation-to-hand we attempt to informatively assess that situation from a retrospective position, a current sense of perspective (in the light of the former), and practicable future course of possible engagement or re-engagement (in the light of the former). All in all, opening ourselves up to a dynamic modeling through simulation and/or re-simulation of the very course and coursing of that relationship itself (albeit in the phenomenological directness of its simulated/re-simulated ideality). Essentially appreciating the dynamic nature of its relationally inherent simplexity. (43)

	In a democratic representation, to that extent inter-subjectively possible, we existentially attempt to appreciate the possible course or courses of a certain relational situation. We attempt to do this existentially on behalf of that relationship through those subjects internally privy to that relationship and/or effectively act on the behalf of that relationship through some form of a transcendental reservation wherein the power of the relationship is able to express itself through us by virtue of our existential receptivity to the same. A receptive state of affairs wherein we find atunement and the possibility of its re-alignment through our re-alignment with it, and v.v. As noted, a democratic spirit being advanced through an existential understanding of representation, transparency, regulation and enforcement. (44)

	Self-critical assessment operates through self-critical re-assessment! A state of affairs advances through the proper utilization of an overall transcendental suspension. Hence essentially relevant pre-conditional information, an understanding of its current place in the world, and, our devotion to such an intuited objective or goal through defining such an objective and defining how we might successfully proceed to more or less realize that project (given the sometimes serendipitous nature of our receptivity to a current state of play). In the process of defining objectives as possibly approachable and the incremental plans needed to arrive at such an objective). (45)

	In a project of practical alignment/re-alignment, we attempt to realize our goals in such a manner that intuitively sets us up to intuitively appreciate their dynamic nature (as modeled and experienced through possible dynamic modeling) (along with an appreciation of the necessary steps that need to be traversed in such a defined objective)! (46)

	In our last project, of genre-refinement, we note the nature of current pre-negotiated patterns of simulated behaviour as exemplified in current patterns of genre negotiations along with a definition of (definitive) goals and (general) objectives. In coming to understand the conventions being currently adopted we can then go about adapting the same in a refinement of those negotiated expectations. An appreciation of the simplexity and dynamic directioning of those negotiations assisting us in this fine-tuning and re-aligning of objectives, etc. (47)

	Thus by these means we open ourselves up to a refinement of our negotiations in such a manner that we become more existentially in tune with their relational embodiment as situated in the Life-World along with the insights and benefits accompanying such increased re-alignment! (48)

6.    Provisional Conclusions
	
	By a variety of strategies an intuitive appreciation of how our negotiation can be existentially augmented has been outlined. This was done non-systematically under the heading of dynamic simulation; democratic representation; self-critical assessment; practical re-alignment; genre-refinement. (49) 

	In this paper I first looked at the nature of interaction and noted that it would involve exchange factors emitted and taken up in a relationship as situated in its relational situatedness. Emission, effectively, is into this sphere of relational situatedness and the uptake of the same exchange factors effectively re-integrates the asymmetric nature of that relationship both relatively internally and relatively externally. (50)

	In looking into the nature of negotiations, among other things, it was noted that they were basically processes of re-negotiation. Moreover, these relationships were advanced when more closely re-aligned with the very phenomenal-phenomenological nature of their reality. It was also noted that a greater sense of democratic representation, etc., usually advancing the overall import of those negotiations and their associated set or sets of relationships. (51)

	The nature of the existential was noted as being rooted in special senses of the present. The existential being defined as the balanced suspension of past and future in a non-historical (or ahistorical) sense of time. Moreover, an overall sense of the existential was realized in and through the adequacy of the overall transcendental suspension. Furthermore, in an overall sense of the existential we experience the relationship from its own point of view, experienced its own sense of a dynamic simulation of its own situatedness along with an appreciation of the existential excess currently being either diminished, conserved or augmented. (52)

	Then, essentially and effectively, existential augmentation was noted as proceeding through a closer re-alignment of the relationship with its own ideality as realized through the simplexity of its own relational situatedness. (53)

	That existential augmentation of our negotiations meet a refined process of incremental self-re-alignment of that relationship in its relational situatedness. (54)
   Noël Tointon, Sydney, 21.8.09.