XXI: Value-in-Circulation: A ‘Concrete’ Overview:
Living through Our Embodiment with the Other – Part III
And, Re-Negotiating Existentially with the Other: Part IV*

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 all relationships are situated in the world what difference is there, if at all, between the relational embodiment of a relationship, the individual embodiment of its participants, and, the overall embodiment of the world itself (to the extent that the embodiment of the world could be conceived)? When two people shake hands they do so in the world even if they also shake hands in the world of their relationship? How should we deal with this apparent relational difference between an individual relationship and its relational situatedness in the openness of the world? Given that relationships are engineered through interaction, do different exchange mechanisms exist in the constitution of different relationships… even if they overlap? (0)

	In this paper let me explore what is meant by ‘relational situatedness’ from a relatively practical, less theoretical point of view, and, ‘how our interactive re-negotiations are best existentially facilitated?’ To this end, let me examine how our ongoing re-negotiations with others are better facilitated in a more concrete perspective by concentrating our examination on the interactive nature of exchange mechanisms. By ‘concrete’ is meant this attention to emissive content exchanged in the formation and continuation of a relationship. (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. (2)

	In an earlier scenario I looked at a waiting room for job-applicants. Some of those applicants might ignore each other, others might signal their presence by smiling at another but be ignored by the latter, and, others might smile at another person and, in turn, be recognized by that other person smiling back. As indicated, in the instance of a handshake, we have the philosophical problem of needing to ask by what difference, if at all, there might there be in exchange mechanisms expressed between those parties internal to a relationship and those parties externally situated? (3)

*Link to latest version of paper on my Homestead Homepage Site (circulation21.rtf).
www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelshomepage3.html
	This philosophical problem follows from the notion that each relationship is interactively in existence by virtue of its associated exchange mechanisms that give it its distinctive non-absolute uniqueness. Now, in a relationship between two people, and, the relationship between that relationship and its contextual situatedness in the world, should we demand that it follows that each of those relationships, internal to this encounter between two people, and, external to it in its relationship to the world at large, should by necessity have different exchange mechanisms in play? When two people meet and shake hands they establish or re-establish a certain relationship through this measure. Internal to that relationship, the handshake indicates a process of exchange within a certain genre of meeting and greeting. They may speak and smile and, perhaps, offer or share with each other some food and drink, etc. But, at the same time, this relationship between two persons is also in existence between them and the world at large. By what exchange mechanisms does this relationship relate to the world at large in and through and beyond its relational situatedness? This is the philosophical problem we now attempt to resolve. However, as stated “when we shake hands we shake hands in the world,” and, ‘we ‘also’ shake hands in the world of that relationship’ where these two people are meeting and greeting each other. Obviously there is no real problem. It is easy to see that two friends would meet and greet each other in the world and that their handshake must also be between them in the very midst of their relationship. Do we resolve this dilemma by proposing the same handshake throughout, a different handshake in the internal relationship and another handshake in their external relationship to the world, or, that this handshake is both the same and different depending upon what frame of reference is being exercised and examined? (4)

	This ‘problem’ could be re-phrased by asking is there a difference between ‘being embodied in a relationship’ and ‘being embodied in the world’? Or, too, can we stand in an embodied relationship with our own sense of self?  Perhaps a clue can be found by examining the last question? (5)

	How can we stand in relation to our (sense of) self? But we do and must! We address ourselves as ‘I’ or ‘we’; we talk about ‘our’ hands and feet; whether ‘we’ are hungry or satiated; or whether ‘we’ are happy or sad; or feeling old or feeling young; feeling well or, unfortunately, feeling sick today… How do we do this, this act of being able to address ourselves? (6)

	It would seem that we take some aspect of ourselves, in a certain perspective, and compare that with some other aspect or perspective connected with our overall sense of self. We usually have two hands and two feet and, normally, do not confuse them (even though each member normally has five digits). It would seem therefore, that we take some aspect or part of the whole and refer that to some other aspect or part of that whole, or, to the whole itself. Indeed, we are veritable nest of senses of self, each one being connected with its associated sense of a field. Hence an apparent perceiver, an apparent thinker, an apparent remember, etc. This sense of perspective is also something we need to take into account when we review a relationship internally or externally, whether non-virtually or virtually. Let me explain. (7)

	Obviously, when we shake hands one of those hands is ours. But, when we observe in the distance two people shaking hands then neither of those two hands being shaken is ours. When we shake hands, non-virtually one of those hands is ours. When we see other people shaking hands, then non-virtually neither of those hands being shaken is ours. Even in our imagination, virtually, this same internal-external difference is maintained. When I imagine I am shaking hands with President Obama then one of those hands being shaken is mine. Obviously, any handshake in the world has this sense of an internal-external difference. That granted, as we must, it follows that the nature of the exchange mechanism is experienced and treated quite differently depending upon our internal or external status. Moreover, it would appear that the full phenomenological nature of this type of interaction is quite different depending on whether you stand internally in or externally to an act of handshaking. From this we should deduce that the full phenomenological description of this type of action must involve other dimensions of exchange such as obligations, indications of introduction and recognition, etc. In this light we can now see that the handshake for two people involved in that shaking of hands is quite a different affair that that merely observed by a non-participating observer (because of these different dimensions and differences therein). (8)

	Does this solve our problem? Yes. Internal exchange mechanisms have a richer complexion, or, at least, a different complexion from external exchange mechanisms. However, can we correctly talk about exchange mechanisms between a relationship and its relational situatedness? When we observe two people shaking hands what exchange mechanism are being exchanged if at all? Here I would like to tentatively introduce the following principle, namely, that exchange mechanisms are in keeping with the epistemological organization of the relational aspect in question. So, e.g., when we observe two people shaking hands we are operating in a visual field of observation (and cultural interpretation). What we see is the result of exchange mechanisms. So light is received by our eyes and absorbed by the cones and rods in our retina. As with all emissive products, they are emitted into the hyper-relational space of that relationship and then absorbed back into the relationship in question. So, photons are emitted (through reflective re-emission) and then received and transformed into visual data whose relationships are constituted and constructed in processes of simulation to form a process of visual perception (and vice versa for all other parties privy to this same type of perception). Knowing what handshaking usually means (in all its simplexity) is usually all we need to know. If it has to be, it can be a work in progress. (9)

	What this means is that the epistemological organization involved in an act of handshaking for the two persons concerned is a quite a different affair for a third party who is merely observing that same act. Shaking hands with the other party has a different obligational nature or space about it than that had for a third party. E.g., two parties might have a romantic attraction to each other that is covertly recognized. A third party, who knows both of them individually, introduces them and this is the first time they find themselves touching each other. They recognize that they both have a romantic interest in the other all quite unbeknown by this third party who has unwittingly brought them a little closer and to a point in their ‘relationship’ where they can now talk to each other and direct their romantic attachment, possibly, more quickly in a more fruitful direction. The obligational space between our two handshakers and the person who introduced them is different even if it were to overlap. As a general rule we can say that what is ‘entailed’ has a relatively less organized epistemological status and what ‘entails’ has a relatively more organized epistemological status. So, the third parties observations of these two people involved in an introductory shaking of hands is entailed in the relationship entered into by the third party, i.e., that relationally situated is relatively more organized that that which is entailed by virtue of that entailment. Hence the relatively more full phenomenological description(-prescription) of the relational process of entailment will be more organized epistemologically than that being entailed and consequently its relational nature or space will reflect that state of affairs (in terms of its relatively greater epistemological organization). Thus, we can now solve this problem by noting that exchange mechanisms will reflect the nature of those relationships in question and will or should demonstrate a relational nature in keeping with such a relative degree of organization. (10)

	Thus, we can now see how different levels of relationship involve different processes of exchange. Can, or should, we perceive a degree of overlap when, ostensively, the same basic relationship is entailed, being entailed, and such entailment in turn is being entailed, etc? So, the introducer observes these two people shaking hands. Yet, in this instance, is not aware of an embryonic romantic attachment being formed between those two people who have just shaken hands. So, in this light, we might like to tentatively formulate a second principle, namely, that exchange mechanisms internal to a relationship are transformed in an external understanding, and v.v. That such transformations are possible by virtue of a core region of transformational invariance between these levels of successful transformational treatment (and retreatment), etc. and that the same applies to the entailment of external(ly treated) relationships. E.g., I see my friend introducing two people they know to each other. I have asked that person to do this because one of those introduced people is a friend of mine who has confided in me that they have a strong romantic attraction for that other person to whom they were just introduced to. The fact that all parties view each other differently and view their relationships differently and all parties culturally understand what is generally meant in an act of introduction through a handshake we must now ask ourselves do the two parties being introduced actually share the same relationship? By what means can they enter a relationship with each other if see each other as different, as being different to themselves? In and through and beyond that very act of a handshake by such an exchange they engage each other, one with the other. Similarly, through seeing each other, realizing that the other party has a romantic interest in them, that both parties have a common romantic interest in each other, etc. (11)

So, basically, despite a relative difference between internal and external parties, we can tentatively supply a third principle, namely, that in terms of the transcendental nature and possibility of relationships there is no absolute difference between those parties that are related internally and/or those that are related externally in the general terms of the common transcendental nature of any relationship in general, namely that they interact and establish this fact and their facticity through exchange mechanisms. Hence their interaction in a relationship by virtue of such a mechanism (in keeping, as noted, with the epistemological organization of that relationship in question). (12)

	Let me now re-examine how interaction proceeds by virtue of exchange mechanisms. (13)

2.    The Interactive Nature of Exchange Mechanisms 

	So, between the internality of a relationship and the externality of that relationship in its relational situatedness there can be no absolute demarcation. In other words, some exchange mechanisms will be seen to coincide between these two perspectives even if that coincidence is more a coincidence than a symmetrical fact (i.e., with an effective uniformity of value). Reconsider the introduction of our two friends with romantic aspirations for each other. The person who introduces them, at the behest of a fourth party, sees them shaking hands and greeting each other. Similarly, the fourth party sees them do the same. However, these two external parties sees things differently. Unbeknownst, apparently, to the person who conducts the introduction, but known to the fourth party who suggested it, there is a potential romantic involvement in the air. Perhaps, if the third party were to know this they might not have approved and might not have introduced these first two parties. Now, all parties in this instance see the hand shake. Only those two people who shake hands experience the hand of the other party. The third and fourth parties only see this form of an exchange. Moreover, exercised in its apparently associated genres of engagement each action or non-action therein perceived is interpreted in the light of this mix of associated genres. All emissive behaviour entered into in the course of such an exercise needs also to be interpreted in the wake of its associated streams of apparently genre-related engagement. However, from previous principles it follows that our fourth party entails our first three parties and our third party entails our first two who were introduced to each other but our fourth party and the first two parties know there is a romantic element in the introduction whereas our third party is thought to be not aware of this aspect. Entailment must, therefore, be qualified with the limitation to the effect that entailment need not be accompanied by full insight into the nature of the primary or secondary relationships. This is obvious, what occurs in a relatively primary relationship, more or less, is internal to that relationship but is not necessarily evident externally, or, for that matter, internally. The question that now presents itself is this: how do we know what occurs internally to a relationship if we are privy to it directly? (14)

	Imagine the following. Suppose our third party knows there is a romantic element involved in this introduction but for the sake of appearances does not let on nor object to their introduction. Now, under these circumstances, these other three parties are not aware just how aware the third party was after all. Although they would find this romantic relationship objectionable for what ever reason they keep quiet and prefer to let everyone think they just are not aware of what till this point has been kept tacitly understood. In this change of circumstances our limitation, as noted above, still holds. Despite the apparent benefits of entailment and the even greater benefits of direct-internality it is obvious that a deep relational appreciation of all its essential features and nuances is necessary in order to fully appreciate the nature of that relationship. Moreover, such insight needs to be both adequately differentiated and integrated over the apparent course of that relationship within the interactive course of its existential history. Relevant details need to be properly noted and these details need to be appropriately integrated within an apposite narrative or mix of narratives. How are we to become privy to such relevantly integrated-detail in the simulation/re-simulation of an apparent existential history of the relationship in question in its relational-situated? Why call such a history its existential history? (15)

	An existential history by virtue of the detailization and integration of its apparent existential descriptors/axes in the formation of a productive narrative (and/or meta-narrative). Moreover, ‘existential’ by virtue of its apparent identity of that relationship in question by virtue of its distinctive, uniquely invested/re-invested existential excess of its relational difference. The more distinctive a relational identity and the more advanced its epistemological organization the more uniquely distinctive is its associated history. Hence its existential history (as the detailization and integration of its associated existential descriptor/s and existential axis/axes). (16)

	How is the internal disposition of a certain relationship to be appreciated through an appreciation of its relational-situatedness? Through the simulation/re-simulation of its apparent alignment! Just how is that relationship aligned vis-à-vis its positioning in the hyper-relational space of genres of engagement, etc., and, to what degree is our understanding in a similar state of alignment? How is such imputed alignment to be realized? Through an imputation of such alignment! That is achieved though noting relevant genres of engagement, expected and observed processes of emission and their re-integration back into the primary relationship in question in the light of its apparent and expected alignment in hyper-relational space. Let me demonstrate this by re-visiting this complex scenario of introduction. (17)

	In looking at these entailed relationships we are dealing with intentionally oriented relationships and not with non-intentionally oriented relationships (other than a non-intentional reading of the bodies involved and the physical nature of the environmental context these exchanges takes place upon and within). We observe the first two parties shaking each others’ hand and greeting each other given their introduction by a third party at the behest of a fourth. These first two parties shake hand, smile, greet each other and disengage from shaking hands. The third party brings the two parties together while the fourth party looks on after asking the third party o do this simple task. Given genre expectations we suspect that the third party as going to introduce the first two parties and we find such expectations fully met on face value. We also saw a fourth party apparently suggesting just such a meeting with the third party. All actions performed by intentional agents are normally the resolution of a process of intentional deliberations. All intentional deliberations are realized in and through and beyond genres of engagement. Moreover, no one ever starts at complete scratch (except, perhaps, as an embryo) – neither performer nor spectator (as an interpreter). How do we know we have? By working beyond what we have apparently understood to be that boundary where we seem to need to go no further. In the process refining this ongoing work in progress until further investment of our psychic energy in this regard is no long met with some form of a considerable existential excess. Then, if we feel we have made some progress, we accept the merit of our simulations of alignment by noting in what complex dimension this direction of current alignment  appears to be heading (and, in this instance, we see the genres of introduction/introducing and behestment co-occurring). Expectations in these regards along with speculative predictions and noted observations collectively and critically reinforcing that complex perception of alignment and our simulated appreciation of the same!). (18)

	When we feel we have entered into a state of parallel alignment through a process of refined parallel re-alignment it is as if there is a vivid degree of simulated./re-simulated relational transparency and simulated/re-simulated interpretive relational non-resistance. Note, there can be neither absolute transparency nor absolute non-resistance (in interpretation and engagement) however, as an appearance, this phenomenon of co-alignment through co-re-alignment produces/reproduces this type of appearance where we feel at home with the world through our apparent reinforced understanding of the same. We are psychically inserted into a hyper-world of genres. The successful exercise of such means gives us a sense of home or of our being-at-home whose intrinsic complexity is quite beyond our comprehension, but, whose adequate comprehension normally remains a successful work in progress. In this its adopted and adapted narrative explanation is already with us and only in need of refinement. (19)

	We see two people shaking hands. A third seems to be introducing them and a fourth party is present, having just spoken to the third as a person who appears to have suggested this meeting to the third party. The fourth party sees his two friends following on in a subtle romantic mode while our third party does not let on that they know that the real purpose behind this introduction is to pursue this romantic possibility.  At no stage can our four parties not be in some form of alignment with each other as to what is exactly happening both overtly and, even, possibly, covertly. A certain fluctuating degree of simulated, relatively non-obstructed transparency, in effect, is between all four parties. That granted, then processes of alignment are more refinements in re-alignment! (20)

	We could say, that when we are no more correctly re-aligned that this current illusion of alignment will soon, or should soon, disappear. With it our simulated or re-simulated sense of transparency and non-obstructive non-resistance. Suddenly, literally or metaphorically, we find things are not what they seemed and how things seem are no longer to be as they appear to appear. But, not all is lost. We are still presented by a state of apparent translucence. With a certain degree of struggle we find we should again return to this state of apparent parallel re-alignment. (21)

	In China I found my expectations of what is meant there ‘to catch a train needed to be re-aligned’. You do not go on to a platform and wait for your train. You wait in a huge waiting room and ten minutes before your train actually arrives the barrier opens and every one for that train rushes through. Quite a rational approach to crowd control compared to the Indian model where platforms are crowded by people just waiting. Not being able to understand the announcements in Chinese I would produce my ticket and be ‘told’ merely to wait or rush on through. These railway officials understood what I meant by showing them my railway ticket. I was there to catch a train, train number xyz and assisted me accordingly. Officials and travelers in both countries kindly re-directing me on numerous occasions. (22)

	The point or moral of this anecdote is that we never completely misinterpret the other, although it might seem that way. When we are learning to read in a certain language and we turn the page on to a fresh leaf of text and initially find it almost incomprehensible. However, we know we are dealing with a text in that language we are studying and, in time, we will progressively come to comprehend it given diligence on our part, adequate instruction and the presentation of a well-formed and well-preserved text in that language we are studying. Similarly, in our dealing with the other, with some other person or persons, we will find that already there exists much basic ground that we share with them. We have a repertoire of routines that are shared in common… understanding what it means to walk and talk, to eat and drink, sleep and wake, etc., etc. From such basic genre-driven patterns of performance more complex forms of value will be found emerging for us through processes of adoption and adaptation. Through processes of creative-translation (and appropriation and evaluated alignment along with processes of expanded re-alignment) as a continual work in progress we find our hermeneutic passage through the world progressively cleared for us. The re-appearance of this phenomenon of apparent transparency and its non-obstructive non-resistance will alert us to the fact that we are probably, certainly more often than not, making better sense of this section of the world. That we are there in this one-World-of-Life with-others before-others! Working together in an overall process of re-alignment! (23)

	All intentionality is directed (at an intentional objective be that an object, object-state or some intentional goal, etc.). When we observe x doing y we assume they are conforming to a certain genre wherein y-like behaviour is formulated. Even if the person for some reason or other was merely simulating, or dissimulating, they are still involved in y-like behaviour. On the other hand, as for the motivation for performing y-like behaviour we are on more translucent territory, indeed, some might argue opaque territory. Still, in order to perform y-like activity they must also be intending y-like behaviour. What transparency is there in our attempting to read the minds of others? In a conscious-intentional relationship with our own overall sense of self we must ask ourselves how aware are we of our own intentional motivation, and, is not such motivation constructed through simulation, fixed through re-simulation and remembered through resimulation? If that is the case then to what extent is our simulation not simulated? Obviously, therefore, our own motivation, as the apparent result of a resolution of motivational possibilities, is also simulated, albeit directly for-our-own-self by-our-own-self. But, as we all live in the unity of the Life-World to what extent does it follow that the intentional motivation of others, therefore, is also there for us to see, albeit intuitively? Moreover, as the unity of psychic performance is holistically stamped on all our intentional formation and its deposition it follows that to some extent the intentional motivation of others is also there-for-us-to-see as that-there-for-us-to-see! But, just as there is no absolute transparency and non-absolute non-resistance so, too, it is the case that there is no absolute transparency and non-absolute non-resistance in our reading the motivation of both our own sense of self and that of another person or other persons (or, for that matter, the intentional-like behaviour of institutions as well). To some extent we are all in the same boat together. Our motivation can be subject to chaotic perturbation and even our own sense of self may be in the dark as to why we did what we did. However, be that as it may, in a relationship with our own sense of self normally does put us a better position to interpret the course of our own motivational resolution. Still, epistemological entailment and our appreciation of the relational situatedness of that currently or recently entailed can also be an advantageous position to decipher what may or may not motivate either our own sense of an intentional subject or some other set of intentional subjects. To some extent, the sense of a transcendental ego can accomplish this task of epistemological entailment (in and through the open neutrality of an ongoing overall transcendental suspension). We must conclude, therefore, that relative relational internality, epistemological entailment in transcendental and non-transcendental forms of comprehension along with a hermeneutical approach to intentional deposition can all collectively create, and re-create, the transcendental illusion of apparent intentional transparency and non-resistance. Indeed, by such reconstruction we find ourselves maintaining a reasonable degree of considerable alignment through the refinement of an ongoing re-alignment. How else could we be with others, stand before others, understand others! (24)

	Another factor that augments this direct, yet virtual, sense of intentional transparency is an observation of the genre-driven utilization of emissive content. Through a critical examination of the apparent exchange mechanisms seemingly in operation we are also allowed to glimpse how an apparent stream of intentional resolution appears to have come from, with what intentional topics it is currently concerned with, and, in what intentional direction/s it appears to be heading. Fortunately, absolute detail need not detain us and what is of importance is how we come to appreciate the situation-to-hand and in what manner it might be addressed. Let me examine these trails of emissive content as they are appropriated in the contexts of certain relationships and de-appropriated through forms of exchange, taken up through re-appropriation, etc. Just how do we delineate these exchange mechanisms and form and formulate a process of apparent intentional re-alignment? (25)

	To some considerable extent we dance with others and in this ‘dance’ find ourselves continually re-aligning with the general direction that general consensus appears to be taking. Emissions can be linguistic or non-linguistically oriented. Either way this is performed through substitution and deferral. E.g., I demonstrate my affection for my other-half through the thoughtful gift of an object that I believe will be desired or valued by the other. This object is given as a form of substitution. I gave this silver tea-service as an expression of my affection (as a symbolic substitution?). I defer a more direct expression of my affection through the unexpected-expected/expected-unexpected nature of this gift as a substitution of the same. Silver is something that is still appreciated economically. This appreciation and the appreciation expected to be realized through the exchange of this gift is a clue that in and through and beyond processes of exchange there operates an economy of value wherein processes of exchange are going to be evaluated or even re-evaluated. Moreover, passing though this general economy of value, each act of exchange is going to leave in its wake a wake or aura of value in excess of is intrinsic worth. The silver tea-service may have considerable value, its value as a gift will hopefully be greater than its current intrinsic worth by virtue of its being given as a gift from someone significant in our lives. Forever operating in an economy of value, or various economies simultaneously, means that all processes and contents of exchange will be given a value in those terms of reference. Thus emissive content will be given a value realized in accordance with the positive appreciation or negative appreciation of that exchanged as realized in and through and beyond such processes of exchange. (26)

	What role does deferral (substitution, referral, etc.) play in an ongoing inter-personal economy of value shared by the participants of a certain relationship. As long as a specific relationship is in existence, and indicated through the nature of our interaction with it, it follows that through processes of exchange the relationship has been granted a revitalization of its economy with a potential difference across the same that is not allowed to be exactly neutralized as long as that relationship remains viable. Neutralization of a relationship is to risk its viability. In an inter-personal relationship, a differential in value (and power) is allowed to persist through augmentation and/or alternation. By such means we can account for a relationship being in existence in and through and beyond its exchange mechanisms by virtue of this inequality in value-formation. A relationship remains in existence by virtue of this inequality and its distinctive resolution. Every emission can never be just an emission by virtue of its aura as determined in and through the genre or genres of association in which it is appropriated and/or emitted, and, re-appropriated/absorbed back into that relationship in question. E.g., that silver tea-service was appropriated ‘from’ the world at large, and given ‘within’ that relationship wherein it was appropriated by that party accepting this object as a gift and re-placed ‘back in’ this same world at large. E.g., a certain service was rendered, say the saving of a certain person’s life in a coal-mining accident. In gratitude this person and their workmates chip in to buy a tea-service to presented to the heroic person who saved this miner’s life. It just so happens that this service was recently sold and bought by myself, its story engraved upon its surface, and given by myself to my other half. In its ‘lifetime’ this tea service was never ever just a mere tea-service. It was commissioned for or by the silver company in its manufacture. Perhaps sold to a retailer. Bought by the donated subscriptions of the miners. Presented to the heroic miner. Later sold at auction. Re-presented as a gift, perhaps more than once…. I suspect that this tea-service, or pieces of it, if broken up, would become mere items in the world only when they become lost or no longer wanted in any shape or form. The point here to note is that no emission is context free through contextualization and/or re-contextualization. Moreover, in its appropriation, re-appropriation, etc., a complex calculus is entered into where value (and power) become(/s) re-configured through its exchange and acceptance. A calculus whose intuitive current value is generally appreciated by us by virtue of its already pre-negotiated status in an economy of value already associated with its related relationship in question. Does this reading of relational exchange illuminate the controversial issue of an economy of value when value is seen to be realized spontaneously from each and every point in that relationship equally in a non-circulated manner, albeit from the distinctive perspective of each and every point in that relationship in question? How, then, do we define this provisional concept of an economy? (27) 

	As things stand, to date, it would appear that an economy, or the illusion of an economy, arises or appears to arise in and through the apparent circulation of exchanged material and services given this circulation of goods and services. That in a purely physical realm a similar situation might be able to be envisioned without the intentional directedness of individual or communal forms of identity (as identities-in-formation) in apparent economies of emissive circulation. Hence a gravitational relationship by virtue of the exchange of hypothetical gravitons or similar. Hence, e.g., a chemical relationship by virtue of the exchange of apposite chemical factors, etc. Or, translated back into an interpersonal arena as the circulation of emissive content (as goods and/or services) in a relational space (as defined by such mechanisms). (28)

	Can we define or re-define a relationship in the light of its characteristic emissive content? Only in and through and beyond the lens associated with its genre-driven economy. So my gift of a silver tea-service is not really as a silver tea-service giver, since I might only do this once and a have already given that gift and would be most unlikely to repeat the special magnitude of this gift in a similar format. But, more, as someone who felt they could and should give a gift of this magnitude as a one-off indicator of their affection both to its apparent relational density and its corresponding apparent relational intensity of interconnection. Let me examine this sense of economy, as an arena for the exchange of emissive content appertaining to a certain relationship. The relationship naturally defines its own relational extent or relational space. Exchange mechanisms are a visible indicator of the existence and possible extent of such a relationship. However, directly invisible is the overall effect of the introduction of additional emissive content being exchanged. But, through an understanding of indicated genres and an adequate account of the relevant history of exchange associated with this relationship in question in the (hyper-real) light of our understanding of the pre-negotiated nature of that terrain we should find ourselves in a position to intuitively assess the nature of the overall value most likely being realized in that economy in question (associated with that specific relationship). Usually, such an understanding is already in place and need merely be re-qualified in the light of an appreciation of current or recent history along with the apparent intentional trajectory evident in the coursing of that relationship. E.g., if people were privy to the fact that I gave this tea-service to my other half then they might immediately speculate on the nature of my relationship with my other half and intuit some understanding of both its intensity of expression and density or complexity of interaction. Through a relevant understanding of key-factors an appreciation of that complexity in its more apparent simplicity, or, rather, its simplexity, could be ascertained. Then speculation might be entered into that might believe me to be wealthy and/or over-generous and/or over-infatuated with this other person who was the recipient of my tea-service, etc. Or, then, again, they might think such a present as truly open-hearted, or, in a skeptical vein they might think that I didn’t value silver very highly and was merely giving away a useless tea-set because I was some one who hated having to polish it every month or so, etc. Broadly speaking, however, those close to me would be in a better position to appreciate all these various speculative considerations and may well form a better understanding of my intentional motivation than that currently possessed by myself. Often it is the nature of friendship that we can appreciate the relationships our friends enter into better than that formed by ourselves! Or, friends might just ask an apposite question in this regard and be truthfully answered by myself and through such thematization of that issue realize a deeper understanding of the nature of that relationship under examination. Because of this working of this relatively pre-negotiated territory internal to a relationship and external to the same (in our appreciation of its immediate relational-situatedness). That granted, it follows that we are presented with relatively transparent and non-obstructed grounds upon which to existentially re-enter into negotiations when and where relevant to such an exercise. By such means finding a degree of comprehension that effectively augments our sense of ongoing re-alignment with that relationship whether we be relatively internal or external to the same. An appreciation of patterns of exchange in this regard can be of considerable help. To this type of end, be it phenomenological, hermeneutic and existential in orientation, let me re-visit this topic of emissive-exchange. (29)

Let me state that I believe an appreciation of relational difference establishes our appreciation of value, and, that it is the expression of that difference that establishes the apparent presence of an economy! Let me establish this ‘insight’ through the following arguments. (30)

	Now, this ‘appreciation’ is either internally oriented or externally oriented. From within a relationship we directly intuit that value by experiencing this relational difference. Externally we intuit indirectly this semblance of value by perceiving and apperceiving the overall nature of that relationship by understanding its present status as a relationship by appreciating what type of relationship it is through an understanding of its history, current standing, apparent trajectory along with emissive content appropriated/emitted and/or re-appropriated by participants in that relationship. We must understand that emissive content is never appreciated, internally and/or externally, purely in terms of the nature of its sheer emission. Everything we do, through commission or omission, is read through its associated genres of engaged expression in the light of cultural expectations (as adopted and adapted by the participant or participants in a relationship). A cup of tea is never just a cup of tea. A shared cup of tea is never just a shared cup of tea. Going to the toilet is never just an act of going to the toilet. Every word said and every thoughts spoken or unspoken is never just a mere word spoken or a thought spoken out loud or left unspoken. This difference is its value. And that value is experienced in and through a perceived difference in its associated relationship be that perception apperceived from within that relationship and/or from without that relationship. Let me examine what is meant here. (31)

	First, let me examine the following philosophical problem. If a relationship is founded on reciprocity how does a relationship remain in existence when no acts of reciprocity are taking place? E.g., I give my other half a tea-service as a gift. Once given it is given. Do I need to give a second tea-service. Do we need tea-services. In China people just add tea leaves to their hot water and when the leaves have sunk the green tea is ready to be drunk. Then, if you possess one tea-service do you need another? Of course, if you were a collector you might collect tea-services which reinforces the point that no object, nor service, is just a mere object, is just a mere service. They become, for the collector, items in a collection (demonstrating the range of wares possible in that regard, etc.). So, our puzzle is this. How does reciprocity found and reinforce the persistence of a relationship. Obviously, an act of gift-giving extends beyond the extent of the act of giving itself. Indeed, the object or service given could be destroyed or lost or consumed, still, its gifted significance obviously extends beyond both the act of giving and its appropriation and the maintenance of that appropriation. How could this be? Surely emissive content and the appropriation/re-appropriation of the same is merely the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Perhaps we should see the emissive content as inseparably occurring in an emissive field (as a field of emission) and the consequential interaction with such emissive content as producing a relational difference. However, merely creating a difference would not establish a relationship hence we must also assume a process of resolution as well. Indeed, the sense of resolution (as argued elsewhere) creates the relationship by virtue of such harmonization. Therein, and thereafter, a relationship is fostered by altering this relational difference and resolving such a difference within the harmonized ambit of the relationship. That this harmonization, through foundation and persistence, is the very formation of that very relationship itself as a relational fact, i.e., that extent it is greater than the mere summation of its constituent parts hence this differential or excess as its current facticity. This would also explain why the net value in a relationship cannot be zero other than as a momentary differential in the oscillation in this differential of value. E.g., I give a gift, say this silver tea-service. It is graciously accepted as a very thoughtful birthday present. In the passage of time it is now the day of my birthday and my other half cooks me a very special meal and I am also given a small box of Belgian chocolates. The value of this meal and these chocolates, in the current market, is generally not treated as commensurate with an antique solid silver tea-service, but, the thoughtfulness of the overall act is truly appreciated. As noted earlier, gift-giving in a relationship should never be equalized. When your bills are paid the relationship comes to an end. Hence this differential whose difference is resolved in and through the resolution of that relationship. How does such a difference manifest itself? Is it purely a question of power? An inter-personal relationship is one that occurs in a number of intersecting dimensions. The identities of the persons concerned themselves is a matter of complex pre-negotiations and re-negotiations both internally and externally. A father is a son of his father, and the father of his sons and daughters. That father could be married or not married or un-married or non-conventionally married in some form or other. There could be other ‘marriage’ relationships running concurrently or non-concurrently, in parallel or not in parallel, overtly conducted or covertly conducted, etc. Then there would be differences in power, status, financial standing, education, skills, heritage, etc., etc. All such differences having some degree of impact on that relationship. Then, we need to consider the primary nature of that particular relationship in question. Furthermore, reflected back upon those persons concerned, their individual matrices of relationships in turn could well define those individuals and to some considerable extent define the nature of their relationship in the internality of that relationship itself. Such a process of redefinition, in turn, redefining the nature of their relationships to the wider world both individually and collectively. How is such an infinitely complex calculus to be calculated? Through an adequate intuitive determination of a net resultant relevant to the nature of the relationship in question. Moreover, the range of such a determination is more or less already negotiated on a cultural level, indeed, some might argue establishes, or, pre-establishes the overall nature of that cultural matrix. The specifically called for density and intensity of responses being essentially scripted or calibrated to some considerable extent both in density or manner and intensity (of the relational difference that will ensue). Such complexity of interaction being pre-negotiated and thence adopted and adapted as the situation appears to call for such refinement (in realignment). Such alignment is expected and when such re-alignment as necessary is observed then all parties, both internal to that relationship and external to it, can surmise such a re-alignment has collectively been realized given the necessary degree of cultural knowledge and history had by those parties (regardless of their orientation to that relationship in question) and the expected indications appear to reveal that such re-alignments have taken place. Thence the need for encountering and recognition of such simplexity as called for and called forth in that relationship. Such refined re-alignments, realized through an appreciation of such ongoing differentiated simplexity, indicating an adequacy of engagement in this regard. This understanding granted what should we conclude? (32)

	Given the complexity of a multi-dimensional identity formation and the consequent complexity also associated with relational formation, despite our appreciation of its engaged simplexity, then there can be no simple power spectrum associated with that relationship although the neutralization of key facets of that relationship could well put that relationship into a state of quiescence or stasis, if not relational death. Assuming that that has not happened, then the waxing and waning of relationships will mirror this complexity of interaction that is currently operative. We must assume, therefore, that reciprocity of emissive content is conducted in an overall field of emission, which reflecting the complexity of the relationship in question, will have complex consequences in the formation and functioning of that relationship (both internally and externally). That a simplexity of appreciation through an appreciation of its simplexity could well drive processes of re-alignment and bridge periods of relative non-interaction, etc. By the appropriation of such apparent forces of observed emissive content and the imputed non-apparent forces of obligational consequences, relationships can be evaluated in relative alignment or non-alignment with their existential expressions with the ensuing consequences of acts of resolution and/or non-resolution impacting upon the possible trajectories of that relationship in question. Now, I would like to argue that our appreciation of such relevant simplexity is a feat of judgment realized in and through and beyond the exercise of an adequate overall transcendental suspension as appreciated in the overall matrix of its relevantly associated genres of engagement (where relevance can be defined as those aspects and features that effectively impact upon the primary nature of that appreciation be they actively, reactively and non-actively engaged). (33)

	In summary, therefore, we can make these following points. That no emissive content can be appropriated, emitted, re-appropriated, re-emitted, etc., without its imputation of an associated field of emission whose consequences collectively act during and beyond those acts of emission. That emissive consequences of relationships occur both in the world and in the world of the relationship by virtue of such field effects. That such potential consequences are continually re-constituted collectively by virtue of their impact upon the multi-dimensional relational matrix of the relationship itself as it is collectively re-aligned in the course of its ongoing formation. That an existentially oriented relationship can be ‘observed’ as a relationship in an adequate degree of individual re-alignment with this collective sense of the relationship itself. That this emissive content is absolutely embedded in its associated emissive fields, as associated through genres of engagement, and, that the waxing and waning of relationships is a reflection of the degree that that overall relationship is finding in a sense of self-resolution whose expression in and through its manner of density and intensity of action, reaction and/or non-action or no-reaction, is a current indicator of the facticity of that relationship in question. Obviously, the trajectory of a relationship is constituted through an ongoing re-constitution of just such processes of resolution. That, overall, processes of resolution will call for processes of re-alignment that will either see a non-chaotic re-continuation of direction or redirection of responsiveness, or, a chaotic non-continuation of direction or re-direction of responsiveness. Although, more correctly, because there can be no absolute process of re-direction (in a complex, multi-dimensional field of identity) it follows a mix of redirection and re-direction is actually in place although, overall, as a resultant, the ensuing responsiveness will take on either a relatively non-radical sense of non-chaotic redirection or a relatively radical sense of a chaotic re-direction. That our close appreciation of a relationship should entail an understanding of these aspects of historical continuity/non-continuity, relevant associated genres of engagement, emissive content in their imputed emissive fields in associated with those relevant genres along with an appreciation of intentional and/or non-intentional objectives (in the light of the primary nature of those relationships). Let me exemplify those points (or heading) in this regard. (34)

	In my relationship with my other half I give an antique solid silver tea-service. This is given as a birthday present. It is gratefully received. That gift is not a mere tea-service but a gifted tea-service. Its significance for both parties is that it is seen as something beyond a mere tea-service. Indeed, it may never be used as a tea-service. In some sense it could be seen as symbolic of that relationship. An obligational field, between these two individuals, is augmented. That differential is re-adjusted, when for a birthday present in return, a nice meal is prepared along with the gift of a small box of fine Belgian chocolates is given by the recipient of that tea-service. That acts of gift-giving are experienced as being accompanied by certain senses of obligation that persist after those act have been put into effect. That such content and associated obligations are essentially pre-negotiated prior to such act of giving take place. Adopted and adapted to the situation to hand. Moreover, our individual realignments are readjusted and refined in the collective light and appreciation of the overall relationship itself. That this recognition and ensuing responsiveness is realized through ongoing micro-acts of re-alignment within that collective sense of alignment, and, that the further consequences of such incremental acts of re-alignment can have either non-chaotically redirected impact and/or a chaotically re-directed impact. Such a complex position accepted, if only hypothetically, let us now ask how processes of renegotiation are entered into and how such a process can be existentially attuned and augmented? (35)

3.    How Are these Processes of Re-Alignment Existentially Augmented?

	This heading assumes that all processes of alignment are existential in orientation. To some considerable extent that is correct. One might say that the formation and preservation of the identity of a relationship demands a certain apposite degree of existential appropriateness to already be in place in the appropriation, emission, etc., of that relationship in question. An existential orientation in that light is more a process of augmentation, i.e., refined re-alignment with its primary existential nature of that relation (unless it be in a transition of identity and such a transformation is being aptly assisted and being realized?). (36)

	A number of issues need to be addressed. E.g., in what manner do emissions reflect upon the nature of the relationship under examination, and v.v? Then, how do we determine the multi-dimensional nature of the emissive field in the perceived light of its associated genres of engagement, and v.v? Such questions are best intuitively appreciated along the lines of simplexes of value. E.g., two people seen shaking hands might first be treated as two individuals just having met each other. However, if they were being observed on a field of sport, say tennis or cricket, we might assume instead they were demonstrating their good sportsmanship where the loser shakes the hand of the winner in a sign of good faith as expected in accordance with unwritten rules of that game. Obviously emissive content gives us a direct approach to the nature of that relationship, an interpretation best appreciated contextually. A degree of harmony between emissive content and context reinforcing our interpretive work in progress. So, our two sportsmen have just concluded their game and the loser has extended their hand to be shaken by the winner, the winner graciously extending his hand at the same time and giving the conclusion of the game a sense of sportsmanlike spontaneity. Obviously, under these circumstances they have not just met each other. How do we test our interpretations? We could ask others as to what they might think. Ask the people themselves who are internally interacting in that relationship under examination. Observe by what genre-rules they appear to be following, etc. Examine possible motivation (as textually evinced directly or indirectly), appeal to recent history (as to what facts appear to be in the public arena, etc.). In our final analysis, we seek a relevant, harmonized version of that relational situation as it has become described, imputed, inferred, deduced, extrapolated, etc., etc. (37)

	In the example of my birthday gift of an antique solid silver tea-service, the apparent magnitude of this gift does not make me merely an antique solid silver tea-service giver. We are known by our fruits and our textual trails of depositions, but, we are never merely known purely by the same! This gift was a birthday gift. That makes me a birthday gift-giver. But that gift could not be just purely a birthday present. It occurs in the context of a unique relationship (since all relationships between specific parties result in unique relationships). Still, certain general-particulars control the nature of that interaction in accordance with the adoption and adaptation of genre-rules and so an appreciation of likely genre-rules of redirection and re-direction should help us to apprehend the distinctive nature of that relationship in its more apparent simplexity! Furthermore, on such grounds, some form of an appreciation of the overall complexity of that interactive situation should also be in evidence by virtue of the relatively unique characteristics of that relationship as discerned in and through its relational situatedness. Moreover, by participating in the transcendental unity of the Life-World some degree of access must also be made available by virtue of our relationship to that relationship in question in and though its relational situatedness. Emissive content is found and thrown back into the world so to speak. Thence our ability to attune ourselves to this relationship between its relational situatedness and its relationship to-us with-us. Such engagement being an embodied engagement, an engagement whose intensity is dependent upon the confluence of factors that support the mutual extent of our interaction in that regard. So, e.g., my friend and myself conspire to celebrate their birthday. A group of friends are also present. We all know why we are there, more or less, and what motivates us, more or less; be it the company, the fine conversation or the fine food and drink or the recognition of the strengths of our collective relationships. How can this type of interactivity be evaluated? As noted previously, I believe this can be conducted under the four heading of the temporal-spatial, and, density-intensity of (overall) engagement. The former pair can be articulated through an abbreviation of the existential descriptors and axes, and, the latter pair note density of active modal operation along with the individual intensity uptake of those relatively operative modes (i.e., those modes open to such interactions and not closed to certain aspects of interaction expected to be engaged in the light of the relevant genres of engagement). E.g., when two people are playing a serious game of chess, face to face, they do not normally sing, watch television, telephone their friends, write letters and attend to their email. They might, but if they did one would call into question the seriousness of their commitment to playing a game of chess. (38)

	Now, let us attend to the following two considerations. How do we adequately negotiate and renegotiate the manner of our interactions, and, how do we existentially augment such practical considerations? (39)

	The essential intent behind negotiation is to clarify the nature of our interaction, and, produce the greatest degree of practical re-alignment. ‘Re-alignment by virtue of the fact that we must already be in some form of alignment in order to interact with other party or parties, and, be aware that this type of process is already in progress (hence a process of re-alignment in a certain degree of alignment that must already be in place in order for those parties to interact and see themselves as interacting). Again, our appreciation of the same will hone(/home) in on key features associated with those demonstrated genres of engagement. (40)

	Now, genres of engagement have dual aspects, namely, as parallel genres of expression and genres of interpretation, e.g., writing and reading (of a letter or some other form of text). A certain degree of harmony is necessary between these parallel genres before they can effectively function. E.g., to write a letter you must be able to read what you have written, and v.v. (with your writing what you wish to read). There is a necessary degree of cooperation between these two active-passive modalities before a process of textual production/reproduction can effectively take place. Harmony on this level of the active and passive aspects of engagement is necessary in order for a process of alignment to proceed. Then alignment is between potential and actual features currently in play, whilst a process of re-aligning refinement is proceeded with through a progressive refinement of the same (or by co-opting what other processes might assist in this same task of re-alignment). A recognition of progressive re-alignment being realized in an increasing sense of interpretative harmony and existential alignment through the phenomenological state of relative interactive transparency coupled with a parallel degree of relative non-obstructive resistance in and through and beyond such focused, selectively engaged intentional interaction. That, in essence, such interaction ‘feels’ in alignment through the re-simulation of the degree of harmony already at the core of this relationship under simulation, and, at the same time in the core of this simulative process of re-simulation itself along with a sense of empowerment through a relative, inverse diminution of obstructive resistance. The appearance of transparency and non-obstruction reinforcing this perception and appreciation of rapport whose existential excess in value production/re-production augments the relative successfulness of this process of comprehension…. (41)

	Without a doubt our world is engaged as a transparent world! When our experience of the world is experienced as ‘obstructed’ then we find our engagement is no longer so sure-footed. But, our engagement with the world can never be completely obstructed for if it were we would no longer experience a sense of world. What is meant by ‘transparent’, ‘obstructed’, ‘feeling at home in the world’, etc? (42)

	Let us be clear ‘transparency’ is both a metaphor and a type of phenomenological experience that grounds our everyday being-in-the-world. For a start we must accept the fact that the world is not seen as if ‘looking through a sheet of clear glass’ or ‘reflecting upon the surface of a clear mirror’. Our eyes do allow light through but we definitely do not see through them as if ‘looking through a window’. That metaphor might work in other-worldly poetry or worldly prose, such a metaphor has little merit in philosophical circles. We definitely do not just look through our eyes and just see! Our sense of vision is constructed and highly processed. We see as if seeing a simulation where even that ‘seeing’ is simulated for us. The world is re-created for us through a ‘simulation of a simulation’ – in and through and beyond a semblance of re-simulation. Through re-simulation what has become processed is ‘fixed’ for us in such a manner as ‘to come before’ intentional consciousness and our intentional appreciation of the same. We selective ‘see’ what we intend to see and ‘see’ what has become intentionally fixed for us through simulation hence the conscious need for such ongoing re-simulation. Moreover, through an ongoing re-qualification of such re-simulation the world takes on a ‘moving panorama’, albeit in terms of what is being looked for. Through the ‘simulation of reality’ there is the ‘reality of the simulation’. In the classic experiment of being told to concentrate carefully on a short video and count the number of goals scored in a basketball game only one in two observers notice the man in a gorilla suit who wanders on to the court and a few minutes later leaves. If you were not looking for men in gorilla suits you probably will not notice one especially if you are looking intently at other features of the perceptual field. We do not just see what is there for we simulate it through incrementally simulated adjustment (and such simulation is fixed in intentional consciousness only through selectively focused re-simulation). Indeed, a hermeneutic dimension channels our very intent upon seeing. So we are counting goals in a basketball match. Or, we are watching players in a basketball game. Or we might notice non-players on the basketball court dressed in gorilla suits. Looking too intently is one way not to see other things upon which we are not hermeneutically focusing. Two morals to be noted here, among many that could be developed, is, first, that we construct what we intentionally set out to see, and, second, we see only that which we intentionally understand through the utilization of various genres of engagement already developed for such seeing and seeing as… E.g., in seeing x-like objects, and ‘seeing x’ [as ‘x’] can only be done so in the light of understanding what is meant in ‘our seeing x’ through ‘seeing x-like objects’. In other words, only with the development of the genre for ‘seeing x-like objects’ can we see x-like objects (when there are x-like objects to be seen). All of this is also hierarchically constructed. We already know what is meant in seeing objects. In seeing x-like objects we append this ability to recognize those objects that are x-like. That x-likeness is to be defined both positively and negatively in such a manner that we come to distinguish between what is x-like and what is not x-like. Our epistemological derivation of this perceptually discerned category is such that through the thematization of the category there is the thematization of objects that appropriately fall within it, and v.v. That not only is perception constructed but its categories are also constructed (in time) (given such experience and our ability to appreciate such types of experience). Moreover, because these genres are pre-developed in our languages and cultures (already the conception of) ‘similar things’ are simulated in similar ways… through the adoption and adaptation of these inter-subjectively accessible genres of engagement. (43)

	Construction of perceptual experience granted then it follows that the phenomenological experience of transparency is not meant to be philosophically treated as if literally looking through transparent glass because the world can never be ‘transparent’ in this sense (nor as if looking at the world in a perfectly clear mirror). However, we do have the phenomenon of transparency and it is in this sense, metaphorically, that this expression is to be understood. Now, when things appear transparent to us it is as if we see things clearly. No experience can be absolutely indubitable but can be indubitable-like. In such a state we feel at home in our understanding. In such seeming transparency we do not experience a sense of obstruction as if our ‘understanding of the world’ and the ‘world of our understanding’ were not in harmony with each other so to speak. However, if we find we might be mistaken an element of discordance creeps into our experience. We might understand that we do not quite understand what is going on. Or, that things are found to be at variance with our prior understanding of them. Or, we encounter something we cannot quite name, or, experience a sense of dis-ease in our current attributions, etc. We no longer feel quite so at home. Of course our discomfit is probably not too great, hopefully, and with some extra concentration on our part we might be able to puzzle out why things are puzzling for us in the first place, or, why things no longer seem as clear as they did when we first approached that situation under examination… This is bit like not quite being able to name a person whose name we already know but cannot for the moment recall. Or, going to a foreign country and observing some practice we cannot quite understand. Or, think we understand a certain situation to find out that our understanding was not accurate or was, indeed, quite mistaken. However, like lying, we cannot tell an absolute lie. Indeed, our hermeneutic appropriations are never absolutely mistaken! Truth values can be diametrically construed, deliberately or non-deliberately. In the former we tell a lie when we report such a state of affairs in the manner we wish to re-form it. To tell a lie we report a certain situation and misconstrue certain details of our report. But, in order to convincingly tell a lie we must honestly report much of that state of affairs truthfully in order to alter some small details of our account. Of course the consequences of such small alterations, wittingly or unwittingly made, can be quite profound (and unsettling or disruptive of future projects, etc.). Consider the following statement. “No, I didn’t steal that Picasso from the National Gallery of Victoria!” This could be broken up into the following statements as propositions asserted as true. “Yes, there is a National Gallery of Victoria. Yes, they do have a Picasso oil-painting that got stolen. Yes, I was in Melbourne when it got stolen. But, no, I did not steal that Picasso!” For a Picasso to be stolen from that art-gallery the first two propositions must be true. For this person to physically steal this paint this person must have been in Melbourne during the theft. However, our thief only lies in their fourth statement when they assert they did not steal that Picasso. To lie in that fourth statement they must be telling the truth about the first three statements. Liars are basically truth-tellers in all but small, yet crucial, details! Hermeneutically, anomalies are approached in a similar incremental fashion. When trying to understand how the Chinese railway system worked I had some solid bedrock to work from. You bought tickets of a certain class to go from A to B at a certain time. When you went to catch your train you did so through these huge waiting rooms. I was to soon realize that only when your train was almost due would they let you on to the platform in order to catch that train. Once you realized you only had to wait in the waiting room until ten minutes or so before your train arrived would you understand how trains are caught in China. Very much a theme with variations. Of course the problem was knowing when your train was arriving if it were late, and, which waiting room to wait in. But, as previously recounted, railway officials were only too helpful in this mission, still, a couple of trains were caught at the very last moment. Thankfully, I got to understood very quickly when ‘speed’ on my part was called for, when it was indicated to me that I should hurry. (44)

	This ongoing refinement of our prior hermeneutic appreciation is what is suggested in my concept of re-alignment. When we become more aligned with the situation to hand then, usually, that situation becomes more ‘transparent’ to-us for-us. On the other hand, when we meet with some degree of at variance with the way we think things are or might be then, usually, we find ourselves experiencing a sense of obstruction, a sense of anomaly, an inability to easily appropriate what is thought to be to hand, or, some such like experience, etc. In all of this our appreciation of the situation-to-hand can be psychotically dealt with or non-psychotically approached. However, I do not wish to follow up this type of distinction in this particular essay. Suffice to say that even in psychotically influenced hermeneutic treatment much of reality has to be sensibly treated in order to mis-interpret a small section of it, be that through psychotic appropriation or mis-appropriation, through conscious lying or not so consciously conducted confabulation, through deceptive embroidery be that through omission and/or commission, etc., etc. However, be that as it may, in our dealings with the world-to-hand, deceptive practices taken at face value can also be experienced as anomalous, as obstructed, mis-appropriated, etc., even if such a ‘disturbed’ state of affairs is not whole-heartedly admitted and accepted. So, dreams, e.g., can be experienced as ‘strange’ whether well-formed in apparent clarity or ill-formed in a diminished sense of clarity, etc. Or, the process of lying can be experienced as discomforting (unless such fabrications are accepted at face-value by their fabricators despite elements of disconformity erupting into or intruding upon their official versions of reality). Then, again, as our hermeneutic appropriations of the world-at-large are an ongoing work in progress we should also claim that these interconnected senses of transparency and non-obstructiveness are also forever relatively provisional even if most the time the world is encountered in the same manner as it is recognized, and v.v. In other words, as a work in progress, the world forever is engaged, but, for all the provisional treatment that may be philosophically supplied still, usually, we find ourselves feeling at home in this world-at-large. (45)

	A number of question now need to be addressed in the light of these qualified concepts of transparency, non-obstructiveness, alignment and re-alignment, etc. How do such concepts influence our critical reading of phenomenal processes of truth determination, processes of re-alignment, processes of negotiations and re-negotiations, and, our existential treatments of the above? Should we treat processes of re-alignment as processes of re-negotiation, and v.v? Or, furthermore, are processes of such ongoing ‘enlightenment, with their provisional transparency, etc., merely simulations of existential conformity or are they indicative of processes of an actual realization of existential conformity prompted and promoted through existential augmentation. In other words, is existential augmentation instrumental in a process of apparent re-alignment or merely an artifact of this process of re-negotiation? (46)

4.    The Existential Treatment of Our Re-Negotiations?

	Does this concept of re-alignment imply a two-world or multi-world metaphysics? What is meant here? That our thinking about the world, in a so-called internal world of representation, should mirror a so-called external world? No! In explaining why a representationalist perspective is not called for, should not be called for, let me also examine what is meant in the use of the related concepts of the existential and existential augmentation. (47)

	If an earnest empiricist were to tell you that a representationlist vision of reality is a philosophically tenable position to hold and uphold ask them to explain how that might be the case? Paraphrasing Locke they might say something to the effect that our ideas in our head represent things in the world as some sort of copy of the same. Then let us ask how they might know this? Now, if they were to claim, more or less, that our ideas are copies of things in the world and that we are only privy to the former then we should further enquire as to how they might possibly know this? Can they ‘see’ that our ideas are copies of things in the world represented by such ideas? Surely they would no longer be ‘empiricists’ if they were to claim that they can ‘see’ that these ‘ideas’ adequately or inadequately represented the things in the world that can only be seen through their representations… That type of philosophical position is ludicrous. We have extended a simple metaphor well and truly beyond its logical realm of deployment. It is true to say that one idea might be found to be represented by another idea, just as names and concepts and images can all be linguistically linked, however it is another thing to demand something that is quite impossible, namely, to empirically see what cannot be empirically seen. Let me proffer an alternative and viable way of ‘seeing reality’. (48)

	How might we differentiate between a ‘dream apple’ and a ‘non-dream apple’? Both are apple-like experiences. However, there is a difference, and, we know there must be a difference. A dream apple might or might not be tastier than a non-virtual apple yet given a certain time we quickly should find that it has no non-virtual nutritiousness, absolutely no nutrition! Pangs of hunger cannot be properly assuaged by eating dream apples. Through the neutrality of an adequate overall transcendental suspension we should be able to differentiate dream apples from non-virtual apples. Additional modes of engagement should be able to be discerned when we are dealing with non-virtual apples. Hence a greater density of modalities actively engaged in our experience with non-virtual apples. Moreover, normally, we would expect such modalities overall to be engaged with a greater sense of intensity. Overall, we would expect non-virtual experiences to be engaged with a comparatively greater sense of immediacy, existential discovery, complexity, symplexity, etc. In this light ‘reality’ is determined through a comparatively greater richness of modal expression as intentionally formed in our reflective engagement with the same (be that superficially acquired or intuitively realized, or, focused through the lens of a critical phenomenological appreciation). Hence ‘richness’ in this double sense of comparatively co-opting more actively operated modalities of intentional engagement and their engagement therein being conducted with a greater overall sense of intensity. Such richness being reflected back upon their phenomenological descriptions as found in their spatio-temporally delineated existential descriptors and existential axes. In our ongoing engagement with a specific phenomenon or (particular) set of phenomena we progressively arrive at some understanding of the same. All this is a work in progress whose progression normally is concluded or suspended when we no longer find an adequate dividend being produced in our ongoing investment of investigative attention being placed upon the same. This excess of value is something we savour. It is something that naturally energizes our search or research into that topic of interest. However, at that point we no longer find much of a ‘return’ upon our ‘investment’ a new field of endeavour is focused upon in its place or we rest from our hermeneutic labours and lapse into a state of reverie or sleep. At this point we can re-introduce these concepts of alignment and re-alignment. In the progressive nature of our research we should find a greater degree of alignment with that phenomenon or set of phenomena currently to hand. It is as if this density of modalities being engaged and their operative intensities is mapped out in the form of a matrix whose phenomenological assessment is found to be iteratively stable. I.e., in our phenomenological appreciation we find our essential comprehension of that phenomenon or set of phenomena to be effectively stable, i.e., able to be replicated non-obstructively. Hence our progressive re-alignment with that apparent phenomenon or set of phenomena to hand. That this process of re-alignment, through a refinement in our appreciation of alignment, realizes a point of relative stability (along with a diminution in an excess of value currently being realized over that currently being invested in such research). Moreover, a general process of re-alignment is also occurring as a work in progress the more we assess and reflect upon our understanding of the world, etc. The realization of this excess of value can be treated as an existential phenomenon, as a process of existentialization wherein our understanding and appreciation of the world is undergoing progressive re-alignment with the way things truly are in this one-World-of-Life. In this approach to truth determination, etc., we have no need for so-called external worlds and so-called internal worlds. Merely a recognition of the existential fact that our appropriation of the world is a work in progress; a process that releases greater degrees of value through alignment in this process of ongoing re-alignment, which as a process of refinement must effectively be a process of re-alignment. (49)

	Turning this understanding of re-alignment around, we can now provisionally define an existentially oriented process as a process of re-alignment. That in a process of re-alignment there is a refinement of alignment and the release of an excess of value over and beyond that merely invested in this process of re-alignment. Hence the existentialization of our understanding is also a process of existential augmentation. Moreover, the existential can be treated as that value released through our re-alignment with the relationship to hand. Let me explore further what is implied in such a perspective of re-alignment in order to examine and explicate the nature of an existential philosophy constructed along these lines (of a ‘closer reading’ of phenomenal-phenomenological reality). (50)

	One might say that from closer insight into a certain situation we should find ourselves in a more powerful position in our dealing with the same (hence this position of a relatively non-obstructed empowerment). If we knew a certain cage in a zoo has a lion in it, because we can see them, then we know not to go into that cage should we accidentally find ourselves about to go into such a den because the gate is currently unlocked or for whatever other reason. Realizing our mistake we should quickly retrace our steps, making sure the doors and gates we inadvertently went through are now shut or locked with ourselves on the right side of the same. Such a mistake on our part should be reported to the appropriate authorities lest other people should make the same mistake. To some extent “knowledge is power, and, power is knowledge.” Understanding a relationship equips us better for dealing with or within such a situation. Then, we could also add, that when a relationship is allowed to function more effectively, is able to ‘expand’, that we then have here a relative existentialization of that situation to hand. However, a fully existential approach to our topic of concern should also take into account the relational situatedness of that to-hand. E.g., we could be walking along a river bank minding our own business and come upon a child almost about to fall in. Its parents could be more preoccupied looking after another child at the same time or admiring the scenery in another direction or just involved in an animated conversation and have temporarily overlooked the immanent danger for their charge. You see this child about to fall into the river, you reach over and prevent them from doing so. You do not need to have relationship with that child, nor do you need to have a relationship with its distracted parents nearby. But we would be failing in our existential sense of duty if we were to ignore the immanent danger faced by that child obviously about to fall in and be surely swept away to certain death from drowning. So, the moral of revisiting this anecdote, borrowed from the Chinese philosopher Mencius, is this. Our existential appreciation need not be of a relationship per se, nor the relational situatedness per se of a certain relationship, but, would seem to be applied to our openness to the entire world-at-large. That such an openness ensures either an existential augmentation of value or the preservation of the current manifestation of value by virtue of our prevention of its diminution. Or, this idea amplified – our bringing relationships into existence and/or preserving their inherent value and/or amplifying such value as already resident… either within a certain relationship or within its relational situatedness in the world or with respect to the relational situatedness of the entire world-at-large. In this broad light the existential can now be seen as a relative augmentation of value through its creation, prevention or preservation and/or amplification both within and without the nomination of a particular relationship but expressed through the nomination of the apposite relationship which in this specific instance is suddenly with the immanently drowning child and later with its parents). How is such a vast openness, on our part, to our experience of the value of our living-in-the-world to be facilitated? By means of our transcendental intuition wherein our intuitive appreciation of the world is found to be receptively attuned to these imminent possibilities of relative augmentation (through creation, etc.). What might be entailed in our creative rapport with the world-at-large in our existentially receptive passage through this one World-of-Life, this Life-World as shared with-others before-others? (51)

	In our attention to a relationship we find its existentialization would occur, from a source sited internally or externally to that relationship, through either its creation, preservation and/or amplification of value as realized therein. This would be measured in terms of its overall matrix of density of operative modalities and the intensity of those operative modes as found to be engaged therein. Extrapolating from the relationship considered internally to its relational situatedness the same considerations could be made to apply as to its richness of environmental interaction. Similarly, we can move our center of gravity to a consideration of the relational situatedness in its overall generality. Thus, in this expanded vision we can now treat the existential more broadly as an enhancement of value as found in the world. Hence this concept of existential augmentation. Now, given these wider terms of reference, what general principles could be formulated in order to assist us in this overall task of an existentialization of our passage through this world-of-Life? (52)

	I could return to my positive and negative concepts of ‘watering’ and ‘weeding’ respectively, i.e., giving to a relationship or the world-at-large what is found to be need, and, taking away from this focus in our garden of the world those weeds that prevent a more full existentialization of value. Or, instead, I could concentrate upon the negotiated nature of our engagements in the arena of the world. To this end let me now focus on an existentialization of ongoing re-negotiations in our relationships as we make our passage through this one World-of-Life with-others before-others. (53)

	Broadly speaking this takes place through a re-simulation of our relationships and allows them to effectively re-engineer themselves either through non-chaotic, linear processes of redirection and/or chaotic, non-linear processes of re-direction. Basically, such relational units and/or their relational contexts, are treated as simply-integrated simplexes. When our refined re-simulations are considered, as viable through critical processes of re-alignment, an existential attitude of openness then allows us to critically represent and re-present the same. (54)

	Existentialization could be claimed to have taken place when this matrix of density and intensity is enriched and that such enrichment has essentially altered the function of that relationship under examination in the world? Let us call this that relationship’s footprint or sense of presence in the world. Indeed, we could turn this around and say that by virtue of this footprint and its sense of presence that that relationship is bought into existence in a more practical sense (since one could argue that all possible relationships cannot exist merely in a potential state, through the sheer impossibility of pure potentiality, then their being brought to life would then be more a process of augmentation). Effective existential augmentation of a relatively latent relationship would suggest that it has now embarked upon a course of relative and effective re-direction? Or, that its relational impact upon its immediate relational environment has the same effect. So, the relationship of the person with the child they save from immanent drowning is brought into practical existence through the selfless actions of that person. That relationship was always there but in this moment of re-direction the persistence of the life of that child is preserved through such actions. Overall value, on one hand, is enhanced through the prevention of this accident, and, on the other, preserved through the preservation of this existence. It may well also be augmented through the parents’ gratefulness (verbally and perhaps non-verbally) and the enrichment of relationships that ensue from this responsive-responsible type of action in the world (especially if multiplied in other situations and returned in kind through thoughtful actions by the recipients in other scenarios of existential responsiveness). (55)

	Could one calculate this increase in enriched value formation? The simple answer is most probably “no.” However, in intuitive terms of reference, through appreciation of the differential richness and enrichment and/or de-enrichment of a demarcated simplex qua simplex (in and through our intuitive determination of its complex-integrity) this might well be something that could be done in less calculative terms of reference (through a double differential and integrated appreciation of its intuitive sense of presence as might occur in an overall transcendental suspension). Then, such an intuitive assessment might be able to be thematized and evaluated (and more closely appreciated) through an integrated-and-differential inspection of its associated emissive economy. As a rule of thumb one might say that increased relational interaction is accompanied by an increase in the emissive economy associated with that relationship under examination as located, furthermore, in the environment of its relational situatedness. Again, one would determine such an evaluation in terms of its joint impact (through integration) of its (differentially examined) emissive densities and intensities. New modes of interaction and/or increased evidence of modal interactivity implying a relatively proportional increase in relational interactivity. Such considerations being economic (in our specialized philosophical sense). Then, in the light of our understanding of genres of engagement and their associated forms of emission we might well be able to make a quantitative and qualitative assessment of this state of affairs in which our intuitive appreciation would otherwise stand naked and make a stand in such nakedness. The dialectical nature of this relationship between intuitive appreciation and close examination of the apparent emissive economy or economies present may well be able to reinforce our appreciation of this differential sense of appreciation (and fine-tune acts of response, responsiveness and responsibility as existentially exercised in and through and beyond the effective utilization of an adequate overall transcendental suspension). Such understandings also refining our appreciation of these associated genres of engagement and their inherent matrix or matrices of negotiations that in their core must have an existential basis (through the ongoing persistence of such relatively efficient forms of productive behaviour; processes that should also be amenable to refinement through processes of negotiated augmentation). (56)

	How, then, do we examine a specific emissive economy in its particular relational environment? And, that persistent question: what is the relationship between a relational economy and the formation of value given our understanding of the latter as non-circulatory (now that we are in a better position to understand the nature of the associated emissive economy associated with a specific relationship in its particular relational environment/)? (57)

	“You shall know them by their fruits” is perhaps a good place to start. In a relationship there must be an emissive economy for that relationship to have an effective presence in the world. Moreover, as already noted, no emission are pure emissions per se. All emissions occur in their respective emissive fields as more tips of an iceberg with that part unseen being the obligational fields, etc., that cannot be seen but only externally inferred and/or directly experienced through the internality of that relationship itself. Between people gift-giving, exchanges in verbal and non-verbal formats, promises and other forms of obligation are all effectively formed through an intentional appreciation of the genre rules associated with that relationship in those characteristic types of interaction along with the processes of adaptation specific to that relationship in question. Usually, we know what genres are being utilized through the apparent emissive output in evidence. E.g., when people thank each other they usually smile, demonstrate their appreciation through certain verbal and non-verbal formulae. Inconsistencies observed or inferred altering our interpretative appreciation of the same. An aggressive handshake by one party is not generally being perceived and interpreted to indicate a certain expected degree of civil politeness; an act that might reflect badly on its maladroit instigator. On the other hand equally aggressive handshakes by two parties might well be construed as two very good friends demonstrating a masculine and humorous side to their relationship along with backslapping and derogatory statements. It would be true that emissive content does indicate something about the nature of the relationship in which it occurred. However, it would also be true to say that a relationship cannot be merely reduced to its emissive content. Remember the gift of the antique solid silver tea service by myself. How could I be permanently characterized as a giver of such a gift when the occasion for this type of gift-giving is most likely once and has already occurred. A better understanding would come from an appreciation of the motive or motives for such a gift. I may hate polishing the inherited silverware and cannot give it away quickly enough? Or, I may feel it is going to a ‘better home’ (even if under the same roof)? How could either of these motivational patterns be differentiated when in this instance they both could co-occur, or, for that matter, have no occurrence whatsoever? On the other hand, some things can be discerned. Ostensively it was a birthday gift. Then, we could ask the giver of this gift, namely myself, as to why I gave this generous gift. My explanations might well be honest and truthful, or, then again, they might be deceptive or even self-deceptive. At the end of the day we hope to find or intuit an account that is internally and externally consistent with that relationship in its relational situatedness. So, it was silver anniversary gift (but, unfortunately, that would not be quite correct as the relationship would have to be twenty-five years in duration and can you have silver birthdays?)? No, the service was innocently admired and later given to that person because I knew they would appreciate it which leads me to examine the nature of equality-inequality in a relationship. (58)

	Undoubtedly there are power differentials in a relation. Even between two friends who consider each other as equals there will be differences in power, albeit on a smaller scale either oscillating or non-oscillating in nature. On the other hand, one might also consider these differences could well balance out over time. These two friends go to their local pub. Today it is the turn of one of them to buy the first round of drinks. Three rounds might be bought. The next time they go to the pub it would be the turn of the other person to buy the first round of drinks. In this relationship, as far as buying a round of drinks goes, it will even itself out. However, at no point in their relationship will they see this balance as something desired. No doubt, between good friends, this concept and practice of the shout could well extend to other things like bought meals and sharing other things, giving up time to see their friend in hospital, drive them to work if their car is out of action, etc., etc. In a different type of relational situation bills are paid up and that is the end of the relationship (which might explain part of the reason why tips might be given to prevent the relationship from ceasing altogether and as a recognition of the workmanship of that tradesperson in well-fulfilling their brief, etc.). Such static equality is usually the death knell for that relationship. However, in contrast but with a similar result, excessive gift-giving can also be disruptive of relationships. E.g., a certain politician does us a great favour by lobbying on our behalf. To express our gratitude we visit them in their office and deposit a large brown paper bag full of high denomination bills. It I were that politician I would not be very pleased at such a compromising practice suggestive of corruption on my part. Appropriateness of gift-giving, in accordance with the spirit of the relevant genre or genres is also a pre-requisite for a successful relationship. Most of expected practice usually is already pre-negotiated for us. Adaptation of expectations in this line is possible but within certain limits. A large bag of money is not politically correct in this modern age of democratic government (where direct patronage is generally frowned upon). Of course, even a small bag of money is problematic. There are other ways and means for showing our gratitude. I believe a small openly displayed gift, say of a large box of chocolates might be acceptable, which that politician might like to share with their staff, other members of their party, even members of the opposition or some other party. Or, a donation could be given in accordance with the official rules for the acceptance of donations is anther avenue. Voting for them at the next election would also be acceptable. Appropriateness of gift-giving could be looked at through the lens of density and intensity. I.e., the modality of the gift-giving process and its relative intensity of expression. Inappropriate gift-giving can also indicate a defective relationship or a relationship that cannot last for a greater length of time. I.e., giving a gift in an inappropriate modality of exchange and/or in an inappropriate intensity of expression. A corrupt politician might prefer a brown-paper bag filled with money. Or, the indicated expectation of a large donation to be given to their party. I am sure inappropriate gift-giving in the political arena and their acceptance is a recipe for the de-existentialization of governance what ever complexion that form of government were to take. It is sad that many politicians in numerous countries have to spend a large proportion of their professional time raising money for future elections in order to outspend their opponents. I am sure more of a level playing field, without an intensification and acceleration in political donations, would be more productive for all parties concerned including, especially, the electorate at large. Other examples of inappropriate density and/or intensity in or through the exchange of emissive content might be a reluctance to share a meal or an over instance on sharing all meals, inappropriate gift-giving (e.g., giving a gun to a depressed and suicidal person), etc. How long would a romantic relationship last if you were to enter into a relationship as two equals but the other party always insisted on paying for everything? Would the sense of an increasing obligation placed upon oneself be experienced as so great as to completely unbalance that relationship and finally disrupt it? On the other hand, if you entered that relationship with the expectation that you were going to be ‘kept’ then such an imbalance may well be desired. It wasn’t too long ago that through an inequality in wages between the genders, various chivalrous concepts dealing with romantic pursuit and the ideal of a mother staying at home that that type of arrangement may well have been the norm. However, today, with different expectations such inequalities between exchange and obligation are no longer so extreme. Still, in all inter-personal relationships a balance to some extent must be observed even if a certain degree of mediated inequality is also the natural norm, indeed, de rigeur. Genre conventions dealing with the mediation of this inequality initiating, maintaining and preserving relationships (and, no doubt, coupled with certain general rules for the cessation of relationships that might well also be observed, more harmoniously when this exit is equally desired by all parties concerned as experienced, e.g., when we pay our bills, etc.). (59)

	Why do processes of defective exchange eventually de-stabilize a relationship? As already noted, all emissive content is never just that emissive content. All emissive content is intentionally conceived and exercised within its associated fields of obligation and similar. But emissive content both initiates and/or represents that relationship in question. Correctly, it does both (if only through the re-continuation of that relationship). Initiating or re-initiating the relationship in question. Representing its very essential character through processes of deferral, substitution, instigated expression, etc. In this light, defective exchange, outside the limits pre-imposed through the latest examination of genre, is indicative of this sense of initiated disruption/representing a process of disruption already in play. To properly address these dynamics of disruption one would need to examine disturbances in the formation and continuation of obligational fields and similar. To this end, I am sure, there are many insightful-forming stratagems that could be exercised in this regard. When a relationship is disrupted there is an emission beyond its relational space, and, when it is de-disrupted there is a re-absorption of those same emissions back into that relational space. In this light disruption occurs through non-reabsorbed emissions where emission and non-re-absorption occurs beyond a certain critical level (as a product of emissive density and emissive intensity). A classic example could well be a company with too great a degree of debts. Unable to withstand a certain degree of financial shock it collapses. In contrast, a well-run company with an acceptable degree of debt in the light of a range of variously projected credit streams in income in likely adverse scenarios might well be in a better position to survive a limited period of financial instability. Basically, financial health is usually dependent upon turning a profit where overall output is greater than overall input. In effect a type of existential excess an existential augmentation of what was originally to hand. Also conceivable, too, is the very slow decrease in profitable augmentation albeit with a progressive loss that merely slowly shrinks its economy without impairing it in the short-term or medium-term. In all of this critical levels of emissive disruption and disruption in re-absorption defining chaotic points of relational collapse. In our foremost relationships are we not already effectively aware of such limits in emission and re-absorptive uptake (as to the product of density and intensity?)? (60)

	In what manner do our relationships, in our understanding of their pre-negotiated genre conventions, assist us in this ability to appreciate what is called for in the initiation and continuation of certain specific relationships along with a general recognition at what point our relationships apparently seem to be failing? In other words, granted that our relationships in their existential expression have a life and death in phenomenal-phenomenological terms of reference, between their initiation and actualization and their de-actualization and cessation, how is it the case that relationships appear to persist? In my opinion we need to invoke this concept of relational embodiment along with the understanding that value is expressed in that relationship spontaneously and equally at each and every point in that relational through our the natural extent of its relational embodiment. Value is not circulated but the pre-conditions of circulation are necessary for the emergent spontaneity of value-formation to arise in and through this relational embodiment. This pre-condition is essentially the ongoing harmonic resolution of dissonance within the body of that relationship. The overall intensity of harmonic expression must be directly related to the psychic mass of that relationship coupled with the intensity of resolution and this is basically expressed in and through an existential excess which metaphorically bubbles over into the formation of that semblance of value. The relative measure of that excess being the intensity of value in formation divided by the psychic mass or extent of that relationship in question. Now, the relationship between circulation and value-formation could be related as follows. Emissive-content is created in a simple or complex obligational field or its equivalent (with complex fields intersecting in this regard) with the re-absorption of emissive material creating an obligational differential or its equivalent. The resolution of this relationship between emission and obligational appropriation or its equivalent creates a sense of harmonic redirection or re-direction (although, more correctly, a mixture of redirection and re-direction is realized) where an excess of value is directly related to the degree value is arrived at in by such an ongoing process. That excess of value, minus the value of its prior investment is released as the current resident expression of value within the internality of that relationship. Similar considerations being made to apply in our treatment of the externality of a relationship in its relational situatedness. That, correctly, the overall emission, obligation, resolution and power of a relationship is more fully expressed within the context of its relational situatedness. Indeed, we could say that it is this harmonic balance between relational internality and relational externality that allows it to relate to us, and v.v., by virtue of this realm of relational situatedness given the relatively fundamental transcendental unity of the Life-World in that regard. To put this again, in the form of abbreviated formula, what could be said: Emissions are realized through the disruption of a bi-polar current within the systematization of that system as a net field, the appropriation of emission or emissive-like material is realized through the instigation of a bi-polar current within the systematization of that system as a net field hence the realization of obligations or their equivalent, moreover, an ongoing balance must be maintained both internally and externally through a sense of an open resolution that establishes that sense of relational embodiment in its relational situatedness. Or, emission and de-emissions create an economy whose differential simplexity (internally and externally) induces the formation of value and thence the surplus necessary for processes of re-direction and consequent processes of transformation that appertain therein! (61)

	How might we abbreviate this formula further? A relationship is able to be identified by virtue of the formation of an excess of value. The emissive nature of that value as re-appropriated within its relational field determines the nature of that relationship and its relational expression. Moreover, a relationship is able to persist given an ongoing dynamic balance between its internal economies and its external economies. Let me examine what is entailed here. (62)

	First, the relationship between economic circulation and the formation of value is that the former is necessary but not reductively in and of itself sufficient. Only through relational resolution is there the formation of value and that realization is based upon the utilization of an existential excess of value. Now, is there a difference between ideally discriminated relationships and those relationships that seem able to maintain themselves and their relational forms of expression. Imagine say our perception of three remnant trees on a piece of disused farmland, and, also imagine an intact forest of the same kind of trees a few kilometers from these three lonely trees. We see three trees and see a relationship between them. We see three of the same species standing together. Do we have much more? Left to their own devices it could well be the case that in the shade of those three trees we have a subtle micro-climate able to support the germination of seedlings. For what ever reason, that land has been taken out of service. Cattle or sheep no longer run on it nor the growing of crops. These seedlings eventually become a grove of trees and after some time a forest is re-established on that piece of land. In the goodness of time other tree species become established too, along other plants, insects, birds and animals and, so, the land eventually reverts to its natural state of vegetation, etc. On the other hand, we could imagine just two remnant trees not being able to support a viable crop of seedlings and eventually keeling over in the wind to leave that field bereft of trees for quite some time into the future. We see a relationship between two remnant trees but there is not much more. With three trees a forest is able eventually to re-establish itself. Obviously, some relationships are more ideal than actually viable, i.e., able to realize their full intrinsic nature and expression. Whereas those three trees could re-form a forest in contrast our two trees by themselves were not able to do so. Normally, it is the nature of a tree to be able to propagate itself. In this regard we find three trees close enough together were able to re-vegetate that landscape whereas two trees were not able to do so by themselves (given the absence of this necessary feature of an appropriate micro-climate created in their shade). Our seeing two trees as a relational unit was not able to be cashed out upon the landscape as a source for forest regeneration. On the other hand, our seeing three trees as a relational unity had a greater potential in this regard for regeneration of forest. Although seeing two trees as a relational unit is not much different from seeing three trees as a relational unit on the ground, so to speak, there was a world of difference. It was noted that three trees were found to be able to create an adequate and appropriate micro-climate for tree regeneration. Obviously, an examination of the emissive economy might be able to establish this for us. Under three trees we see seed germination and seedling preservation, whereas, in contrast, under only two trees very little seed germination and no seedling preservation was generally observed. The difference in relational status can be observed in their respective emissive economies. Our merely seeing a number of objects and relating them could well be regarded as an artificial relationship or a constructed relationship whereas a relatively non-constructed relationship could be regarded in that light by virtue of our demonstrating a relatively non-constructed economy! (63)

	As noted, I perceive emission as taking place through the breaking of a current between two parties in a system, and, in reverse, de-emission as taking place through the instigation of a current between two parties in (th)a(t same) system through some form of appropriation/re-appropriation. Emissive contents are materials and services, etc., already appropriated or services that can be appropriated prior to and during emission (and their uptake/re-uptake). E.g., if I were to give an antique solid silver tea-service to my other-half and it were to be accepted by my other-half. My ownership of this set of silverware is disrupted through the act of gifting. In being accepted an obligational differential is created through its modification of that sense of overall obligation already present, being expressed through a sense of gratitude, expressions of pleasure, etc. As a gift given without covert strings it more or less merely reinforces the circulation of power already resident and expressed within that relationship. Having a relatively better financial position, currently, it is accepted that I have the greater means to give gifts of a greater financial value. When my birthday comes round that sense of obligation is re-expressed through a recognition of my birthday (something I would rather not have to face being a reminder of our all too human mortality). In turn this might well be expressed through a thoughtfully chosen token, say a box of fine chocolates, and a wonderful meal, perhaps a birthday cake being made as well, etc. Over time an institution in this regard has been established through adoption and adaptation of certain pre-existing conventions in that regard. To some extent, perhaps, everyday should be celebrated along with an enrichment of all of our more important relationships through processes of existential augmentation. Indeed, even more importantly, all relationships through our relational situatedness in the world-at-large could and should be celebrated and existentially augmented if only in the hope that all recipients would do the same thing too for all others and, therein and thereby, and thereafter, re-create a better world for-others by-others through such enrichment of the Life-World. That, in turn, this evident enrichment and surplus of value, already present and in the world-at-large, has expressed itself in and through various senses of community and its variety of institutions, the existence and preservation of language and the persistence of culture, the development of inter-cultural dialogues and the ensuing development of a sense of a world-culture as a truly promising work-in-progress? I will examine these altruistically founded features of the Life-World later in this essay. (64)

	So, in an existent relationship, the de-emissive uptake of emissive content is instrumental in the modification of an already pre-existent field of obligations or their equivalent. Thus emissive content emitted and/or de-emitted is never merely that content pure and simply. Indeed, obligation fields, etc., define and determine emissive/de-emissive content, and v.v. Hence this dialectic, instrumental in the formation of a circulation which acts as a prerequisite for the formation of value as it arises spontaneously from each and every point in that relationship. (65)

	Armed with such insights let us now re-attend to the nature of negotiations and their existential re-negotiation. (66)

	In effect, a transformation of conventions ensue through relational emission and appropriation, etc. The net result of such interaction is the formation of an enriched field that existentially augments both the internality of a relationship and the externality of its relational situatedness (since a seriously imbalanced relationship on any level of organization is eventually disruptive of that relationship). To stave of such an eventuality we resort to existential augmentation and its enrichment of the world of relationships (in its transcendental ideality and its non-transcendental practicality in and through acts of overall existential propriety). (67)

	Just how is a relationship able to conduct this juggling act between its internality and its externality? Through the existentialization and re-existentialization of its relationships and maintaining an effective presence in the world-at-large! Indeed, through processes that mirror the dynamic balance of an overall transcendental suspension this balance between internality and externality could well be maintained. In a sense the relationship in question then is the relationship that relationship has to the world-at-large. Processes of redirection and re-direction taking place as a resultant of all the forces working for and/or against that relationship both internally and externally. Such resultants effectively establishing the phenomenal-phenomenological life and death of relationships as we come to experience the same. (68)

	How are simple and complex relationships appreciated in their totality? Through an appreciation of their sense of presence in the world, i.e., through an integrated understanding of their resultant complexity. Complexity is appreciated through noting what is relevant, and, then, what is more or most relevant to a general consideration of that relationship in its collective integrity from that perspective or those perspectives from which or through which that relationship is to-be-examined (through re-examination). Moreover, this understanding is refined through a process of re-alignment, hopefully finding a close(r) degree of alignment with that relationship as it appears to find itself in the world and as we appear to find it so aligned. E.g., our two friends head off to the pub. One of them declares the other as the person whose shout it is. This other friend thought it was the other’s shout but acquiesces as it is no big deal whose shout it is – over the years it has all evened out. By such formation of consensus a process of re-alignment is entered into. In this situation both parties know what is entailed in a ‘shout’, agree as to whose turn it is, and, through such resolution, find a harmonious path in their ongoing re-negotiations. What makes these re-negotiations existential in flavour if at all? A willingness on the part of both of these two parties to coincide in their collective alignment and operate in and through and beyond such re-alignment. What lessons could we learn from an analysis of such a simple situation? For a start let me examine this relationship between emission, say the shouting of a beer for your mate, and, the sense of obligation under which both of these two parties feels as to whose turn it will be to conduct the shout. What is the nature of this relationship between obligations and emissions? (69)

	Obviously obligations are framed by genres of engagement hence particular obligations are framed by particular genres and specific instances of the same are realized in and through their unique specification. Moreover, all intentionally formulated possibilities and actually executed intentional intent, as an intentional process, is realized through the resolution of the current intentional landscape shared by the participating parties in that respect. In the situation of the shout two (more) beers are bought from the counter through the use of money (through the use of currency or a tab or similar [transactions that in themselves also entail obligations of financial worth]). The beers are appropriated as through exercising a service in the world of the pub. The emissive content is two beers bought through trading in some form of a financial transaction. In the aforementioned gift of the antique solid silver tea-service, the set remains my property until that moment my right to it is handed over to my other-half. As fate would have it, my other-half particularly loathes having to polish silver from past experience and told me in no uncertain terms they were only joking when they expressed an admiration for it (knowing how much I particularly enjoyed this relatively inexpensive and recently obtained acquisition). The point being made here is that although the tea-service is in-the-world it is not correctly in-the-world-at-large through being legally acquired by myself at a recent auction (when it was at-large so to speak to a certain extent). It is not as if I put the tea-service on the brick fence outside my home and an hour later go to get it to give to my other-half. I doubt very much it would stay on the fence that long to still be mine to give from ‘current possession’. In the shout a service is co-opted through a financial transaction in order to acquire two beers. In the hypothetical gift of the silver tea-service the objects concerned are in-the-world but not in-the-world-at-large. Now, if the two of us were out for a walk and I were to find a tea-service fortuitously sitting on a fence, saying “please take me” and I was first to get it then it would be mine through possession to give to my other-half. Thankfully, and hopefully, they would decline such a gift (but, then, again, they could insist it be sold at auction in order to split the money realized since, to some extent, we both came upon it?). The point being made is that emissive content, or potential content for an emissive act, can be found in-the-world but not necessarily found in the-world-at-large. Services may or may not be co-opted in order to emit such content. That services could well be the emitted content. That, perhaps more correctly, some form of service is being conducted in order to emit emissive content or the service itself may well be the primary target of co-option and emission. I complain that my back muscles are a bit sore after digging in the garden and I am given a backrub. In this instance there is no emissive content per se but a service is rendered in its place. Now, all of this occurs in and through its appropriate genre or mix of genres, adequately or inadequately invoked, in what we might like to call an obligational field or an emissive field. However, obligation is not quite the right expression as sometimes, perhaps quite often, people spontaneously go out of their way to express emissive content or express an emissive service without invoking or attempting to incur any sense of obligation before, during or after that emissive act. Let us, therefore, instead of an obligational field, refer to it as an emissive field in order to be more comprehensive in this regard. However, in our examination let us first examine this type of field in terms of obligations. E.g., in the example of the shout, if the first friend conducts the last shout then if one more round is called for the second friend would conduct it… our two friends not driving home as they only have short distances to walk. In conducting the shout by one party an obligation is given to the other party to conduct the next. When both parties understand this and conform to this understanding then they could be said to be in alignment on this issue. Such alignment means it is no longer an issue or not an issue. A sense of resolution is realized or just met in this regard. In essence, consensus forms an overall emissive field (of obligation) through the alignment of the two parties in this regard. The first party’s sense of obligation (to conduct or not conduct the next shout) is in effective alignment with the sense of obligation felt by the second party (to not conduct or to conduct the next shout). Between the two parties a certain differential is experienced, in this instance of a sense of obligation on the same pre-decided party to conduct the next shout, and, our two parties are in alignment when they concur in this regard. (70)

	Interestingly, we might surmise that an emissive field is realized through a concurrence of a set of emissive fields experienced by the relevant parties in the relationship in question. Hence the thematization and realization of this overall inter-subjective emissive field is put into effect through this process of re-alignment. How is such re-alignment to be realized. Through communication, running parallel histories subject to inter-communicative refinement, processes of observation, inference, imputation, etc. If I were to join these two friends in the pub if I was invited over one of these two friends might shout, or, if I invited myself over it would probably be expected that the next shout would be mine? The shout then going around the table, more or less, in a clockwise or anticlockwise direction. Here alignment is relatively easy to ascertain as the rules are not too complex. If it were obvious I was not completely au fait with such conventions it might be explained for me but more likely it would become self-evident from observation and inference. (71)

	In this day and age of computers, in all their guises, we need to know an inordinate large number of passwords and codes. It could be a terrifying prospect for a large number of people as they head off into the sunset years of old-age and retirement and becoming pensioners or retirees. However, such codes are nothing to the number of intersecting genres we need to know in order to find a smooth passage, or a relatively less rough passage, through this complex World-of-Life with-others before-others. Usually, such complexity is pre-negotiated for us through these genres of engagement. However, such simplification must also deal with the problematic intersection of genres. And here, too, we have meta-genres for dealing with such processes of arbitration, etc! We drive down the left hand side of our streets in Australia and New Zealand but in America or China, e.g., they drive down the other side of the street. No problem here – we do as the natives do. To ascertain what rule applies we need only observe the traffic for a few moments. In India, on the other hand, there are times when they can drive down the middle of the street if they propel a very fast vehicle and there are lots of slow vehicles around proceeding in either direction. Possibilities are usually limited in range by the logical nature of the intentional process undertaken as an action-in-the-world (either through commission or omission). Normally, if you are driving, you drive somewhere and somehow down a street. Hopefully without colliding with other forms of vehicular traffic or pedestrians or other obstacles, animate or inanimate, on that street in front of you. (72)

	These pre-negotiated manoeuvres are normally non-controversial in being spelt out for us either explicitly or implicitly. The question now remains: how do we existentially orchestrate such a process? In other words, how do we existentially augment our passage through this World-of-Life with-others before-others? I would suggest we do this through a receptivity to conducting mutual processes of closer re-alignment; individually or collectively conducted process of redirection and/or re-direction; conducting hypothetical processes of consequential analysis; the expression or suppression of emissive exchange in keeping with the nature of the relationship in question, etc. In effect, those acts of commission or omission that enhance the value-formation of the relationship in question. In such a pursuit an economy needs to be actively put in place, and, adequately conducted, i.e., properly (internally), appropriately (externally) and validly (through an existential cooperation between all internal senses of the relationship with all external senses of the relationship in the form of an existentially productive transcendental balance between these two non-absolute orientations of the internal and the external. Furthermore, in such a suspension all relevant material needs to be put forth, and, such a process needs to be conducted with a sufficient degree of authenticity in order to establish the apparent truthfulness of such pursuits (i.e., their validly in the light of their examination). How is authenticity to be realized? Hopefully you can guess my reply to this rhetorical question? By conducting an adequate overall transcendental suspension in a manner apposite to a determination of the path required in that regard (be it a theoretical concern, a practical and/or a critical concern [in which prior theoretical, practical and/or critical determinations are then under such critical re-determination]). (73)

	As re-negotiation is conducted through re-alignment, and v.v., how is such a pursuit to be existentially conducted in general terms of reference? By what rules of thumb could we bring to bear upon this type of critical task, a task in which we wish to express the greatest degree of apposite attunement to the situation-to-hand? By what guidelines is this process of alignment existentially realized and through such existential augmentation therein and thereafter enhanced? (74)

5.    Existential Guidelines for Re-Negotiating Processes of Re-Alignment

	Ultimately, a process of an overall transcendental suspension needs to be invoked even if we are unaware as to how such a process of judgment is to be critically conducted! (75)

	All processes of judgment automatically invoke embedded transcendental suspensions. However, not all processes of judgment are conducted existentially and authentically. How, then, is inauthenticity realized and, hopefully, from such understanding, work out how we can steer an opposite course towards the existentially authentic? In inauthenticity this existential orientation is realized, negatively, through non-mutuality and, positively, through the pursuit of a sheer selfishness tainted by egologically formed commitments that do not take one’s own self and the selves of others into account. In such a perverse direction, re-alignment is either desired in order to manipulate such an end, as desired, or to suppress an end not desired, or, re-alignment is not desired in order purely to achieve ends as defined without recourse to the welfare of others. Either others are not taken into true account and bypassed or others are seen as stepping stones to the realization of one’s own aims and goals. In other words, our relational situatedness is non-existentially and inauthentically engaged and re-engaged. Basically, this type of inauthenticity is in existence to that degree we hold certain (ontological/epistemological) commitments that are not adequately subjected to overall transcendental suspensions! (76)

	As argued elsewhere, transcendental suspensions, even if overlooked, are not mysterious spiritual processes even if their apposite utilization can realize spiritual or spiritual-like responses (as in, e.g., altruistic behaviour). When we question something we conceptually put it into a state of suspension [as dis-conjunctive suspensions]. [When an answer to a question is determined it, too, is initially put forth as a metaphorical response, say the resolution of this question is like x rather than like y or z.. where metaphor are another type of suspension, namely a conjunctive suspension?] Is x an instance of a or non-a or something else? Is x good or bad? Is this mathematical calculation just conducted correctly or incorrectly, etc? In a suspension we have two or more possibilities all equally arrayed before us. Is this question true or false or not able to be decided (as intrinsically indecidable or inapplicable through defective pre-suppositional construction?)? Arrayed like this we might find after we suspend that suspension that one of these possibilities is adopted. That “yes, it is my shout”; or, “no, it is not my shout”; or, “that the last digit of pi just cannot be ascertained”; or, “that bachelors just cannot beat their wives”, etc. (77)

	Obviously, the very rules for determining a successful resolution of a question, when and where possible, are the same (type of) rules for existentially determining an adequate course of action, etc. Briefly, mentioned under a series of headings, how are processes of re-negotiation existentially conducted and, therein, augmented in their value-formation? Let me supply the following outline: pre-conditionally, we need to possess an adequate essential understanding of the situation-to-hand; conditionally, our research needs to be adequately constructed or reconstructed and placed under an effectively comprehensive suspension; and, post-conditionally, we need to be aware of most likely ensuing consequences, and, an ability to critically suspend the whole process in order to re-evaluate the critical progress of our ‘transcendental’ investigations! (78)

	Such investigations are transcendental by virtue of being trans-conceptual in orientation. When we ask a question effectively we are asking for a trans-conceptual appreciation of the same. That is the nature of judgment – a trans-conceptual examination of the interaction of a collected-series of concepts whose relationships must, initially, be trans-conceptual in orientation. The results of such a transcendental trans-conceptual form of appreciation can then be subjected to a process of re-conceptualization (through a process of transformational treatment-retreatment as discussed elsewhere). Suffice to say we are dealing with a process of transformation that looks at the transcendental treatment of those relevant concepts assembled in such a manner so as to represent the situation-to-hand under examination, and, the transformational process of re-treatment where we re-conceptualize our findings, if any, in that regard. Asking a question is not something difficult to do. Questions asked may be difficult or not so difficult to perform, still, they are all epistemological processes that, in my opinion, possess the same transcendental form, namely, as a trans-conceptual appreciation of a collective array of concepts hopefully representing adequately the questioned state-of-affairs under examination (and thence able to bring our understanding into a greater degree of alignment). Nothing more and nothing less! As the nature of the relationships between concepts is initially realized in trans-conceptual terms of reference it follows that the expression of our transcendental research is approached through a re-conceptualization of our findings, i.e., meta-transformational retreatment. Now, under our heading of the pre-conditionsal, etc., we must assemble a representative mix of concepts that adequately represent the topic of our (transcendental) research, hence the assembly of the relevant material, or, merely, the assembly only of the more or most relevant material. Conditionally, we need to ensure a thoroughly balanced transcendental suspension (by mentally balancing all input be that perceptual, emotional, historical, etc., in orientation). Post-conditionally, we need to suspend the suspension and critically re-examine the fruits of our judgmental appreciation in the light of an additional (series) of suspension(s) (along with a suspension of such suspensions in a return to the world of our relationships and our relational situatedness in this shared world-at-large). Effectively, all this is done in a process of re-alignment wherein through a few adjustments of redirection and/or re-direction we essentially realize and practicalize an adequate understanding of that situation-to-hand. Then, acting on its behalf (through a process of transcendental reservation) or mutually acting in concert with-others this process of re-alignment is not only realized passively or potentially or theoretically but also actively or non-virtually or practically. Our, critical re-positioning being arrived at through a balance of the former (as part of the critical transcendental process re-conducted). (79)

	How do we know our processes of re-negotiation and judgmental evaluation are existentially conducted and realize a greater degree of existential augmentation? Through the intuition of the realization of a great degree of re-alignment along with an increased sense of transparency in the functioning of that relationship and its consequent and commensurate increase in its experiential non-obstructiveness. Effectively, an increased semblance of being at home in the world is re-experienced along with a sense of intentional resolution that appears to assist us in this passage through this world before-others with-others. (80)

	To some extent, our relationships have life of their own and in non-obstructively going with their existential unfolding we more or less arrive at those destinations desired or thought desirable. In seeking a smooth passage through this world we generally comply with the wishes of others and hope others generally comply with our wishes and in the process harmoniously proceed to our various destinations. However, general compliance is realized more through processes of resolution in which the rules of the game (as per genres) are enacted. That, from time to time, this calls for innovative instances of re-direction which may or may not be viewed as non-disruptive by ourselves and others. Generally, however, processes of re-alignment are usually not so disruptive in a more final analysis (by virtue of their existential nature and to the extent that the existential is ‘life-supporting’ through supporting the continued existence of our relationships (within the extent of their natural limitations). (81)

6.    Provisional Conclusions

	What provisional conclusions can be reached in the course of this analysis? What light is thrown on this concept of relational-embodiment with others, and, this process of existentially conducted re-negotiation? (82)

	Our relationships, in all their variety, in all their density of modal interactions and intensity those modes find forms of expression, are all found as simplexes in the world where each relationship becomes embodied in the world to that extent that that relationship has a sense of ‘presence’ in this world-at-large (within the transcendental possibility of the Life-World). This sense of presence is given a tangible expression through emissive content that is both exercised and re-understood in terms of that emissive field; be that, usually, through various kinds of obligation (and non-obligation). How is this attunement realized – through processes of a re-attuned re-alignment! And how is this state of affairs realized? Through an ongoing realization of the necessary degree of rapport that supervises such re-alignment! Such re-alignment demonstrating an increased sense of transparency and non-obstructiveness. Furthermore, re-alignment is an indication of an increased existential augmentation and increased existential augmentation is equally an indication of a progressive realization of re-alignment through a re-negotiation of the conventions at the very core of our cultured life in ‘this’ one-world-at-large as transcendentally grounded (as an actual-possibility/possible-actuality) in and through and beyond a living sense of the Life-World itself!! (83)

	How do we account for emissive actions that are ostensively conducted without obligations? Why do we bother to save the child about to drown or any other person who is about to drown or is drowning? Then, at the other end of the spectrum, why do people continue with obligations that entail a great degree of sacrifice indeed may well entail the sacrifice of their very own life? (84)

	Actions entail actors. However, actors need not operate purely in terms of their own self-reference. Indeed, the very inter-subjective nature of genres demands that we co-operate with others. If I do this – you do this, and, if you do this – I do that, etc. Hence, in this light, it is also the case that our sense of subjectivity is not only subjective but also trans-subjective, i.e., inter-subjective. I think as a subject but can refer to myself equally as both “I” and “we”. Or, you might address yourself as “you” or ourselves as “you”. Or, more interpersonally, we might generalize and say “one” or “they’. This linguistic ambiguity reveals this ambiguous sense of self. That our transcendental subjectivity is not solipsistic even though we obviously privilege a perspective centered in and through and beyond our own sense of a physical embodiment, called either “mine” or “ours”, in-the-world and in the world-at-large. Now, it seems to me that there are times when we existentially operate from our relational-situatedness in the world rather than purely through an internal sense of being merely embodied. In such an orientation, the logical (and ‘spiritual’) end of existentialization, realizes a sense of an emissive field that is no longer so partisan. In effect, obligations are experienced and enacted on the behalf of others without any sense of obligation (in any partisan fashion). To some extent we all operate in this manner of being-with-others. That being-before-others is also instrumental in inducing this openness of attitude, of our being-there for-others before-others. However such a stance, whether adopted willingly or insisted upon, our willingness to-be-with-others need not be operating in an existential environment. All too often processes of institutionalization can subvert what is existentially more proper or more appropriate. Then, we have institutions that can become beholden to the ontological or epistemological commitments of a person or persons that are out of alignment with the nature of that institution. Existentialization is a process that restores such alignment, and v.v. In the next paper let me examine this process of existentialization from a more practical point of view. (85)

   Noël Tointon, Sydney, 12.9.09.