XXV: Value-in-Circulation: Postlude:
Squaring the Circle, or, Having Our Cake and Eating it!*

	In this set of essays one problem above all the others has remained a pressing preoccupation for resolution whether treated overtly or covertly, namely, how do we resolve this dilemma between ‘the spontaneity of value formation’ and ‘the apparent dependence upon a circulation of value in an economy of value’? Let me attempt to offer a more convincing resolution of this conundrum. (1)

	First, let us assume the existence and co-existence of this ‘spontaneity of value’ and its ‘apparent circulation’. Let us assume only that such assumptions are imputed. That either side of this puzzle is only an imputation. This manouevre immediately puts this ‘phenomenon (or phenomena) in question’ in a state of an overall transcendental suspension. Moreover, it should also be recognized that by ‘holding both spontaneity and circulation’ within brackets we have effectively reinforced the nature of this suspension by balancing such polar opposites, i.e., immediate ‘spontaneity’ with the mediated temporality of ‘circulation’. (2)

	Being in a state of suspension, how do we exit from the hypothetical paralysis of such a state and make good our philosophical escape. Through ‘the suspension of the suspension’! But, it was pointed out in the last essay that such a manoeuvre should be declared illegal. The ‘x of the x’ made no sense if left in terms of ‘x’ when correctly it should be read through the lens of ‘non-x-ness’. And that is our solution, since the suspension of the suspension, correctly, is not a suspension, indeed, frees us from the suspension thence its role as a non-suspension, at least our delivery from this psychic state of the suspension! Which is what we desire, namely our release, if in a state of suspension. (3)

	How should we make sense then of this double suspension? By seeing both ‘spontaneity’ and ‘circulation’ as imputations puts us in a suspension. A deeper suspension by virtue of the fact that we are also running them in parallel at the same time. Furthermore, we can remove ourselves from this suspension, hypothetically and experientially, by virtue of the suspension of the suspension which is not a suspension, indeed, frees us from that prior parallel suspension! What are the ramifications of such parallel manoeuvres? (4)

	Now, by treating the nature of ‘spontaneity’ as ‘transcendentally oriented’, and, by treating ‘circulation’ as ‘phenomenally (and non-transcendentally) oriented’, and as imputations only, allows us to further resolve this puzzle through the realization that as imputations they cannot have an isolated existence in that orientation treated both in an imputed state of absolute non-independent identity and in an imputed purity of phenomenological-essential form be that through ‘immediacy’ or as ‘mediated’. Hence, this problem is more apparent than real or ideal since only as imputations could they co-exist in a state of value-formation wherein value is spontaneously formed in the midst of an economy of circulation wherein both facets of this phenomenon of value-formation can be seen as respectively transcendentally oriented and phenomenally oriented, but, most importantly, as dependent upon each other since without such a polarity no apparent value could form in the first place! (5)

*Latest version: www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelshomepage4.html 
	What entitles me to equate ‘immediacy’ with a transcendental orientation and that ‘mediated’ with a phenomenal/phenomenological orientation and, then, to parallel both? A series of complex arguments could be proposed here. For the sake of simplicity let me say that the ideality of phenomenal form, appreciated phenomenologically, through mediation of consciousness, etc., in an overall transcendental suspension reveals to some degree its (imputed) transcendental form as constituted in phenomenological consciousness as thematized in and through and beyond such a process of judgment (itself an act of transcendental appreciation). That granted, be this hypothetically and/or experientially, we now need to note that value-formation (in appreciation) is spontaneous and relatively non-mediated through its effective immediacy of presentation. However, transcendental appreciation can only be of that which is relatively non-transcendental, i.e., the natural or phenomenal (as represented/re-presented) in and through and beyond phenomenological consciousness, i.e., in and through and beyond intentionally constituted consciousness. Hence this intimate rapport between the transcendental appreciation of the relatively non-transcendental which could be re-translated to read, from a phenomenal perspective, as the phenomenlogicalization of that transcendental ideality realized in and through the immediacy of the judgmental process. I.e., the inherent parallelization between the phenomenologically mediated and its transcendental immediacy of constitution (be that for-appreciation and/or under-appreciation). Thence their co-dependence, orientations and parallelization. (6)

	Thence the resolution of this puzzle. That value-formation is essentially a transformative phenomenon in and through and beyond an apparent dependence upon a transcendental spontaneity of value-formation in the midst of its mediated phenomenologically-oriented circulation. That ‘the suspension of the suspension’ is a ‘non-suspension’ wherein we directly engage this phenomenal expression of value-formation. That such formation is realized in and through and beyond a process of transformation and this aspect of our (transcendental) research is to be the focus of a second set of essays. In those investigations I shall be looking into the nature of non-chaotic redirection and chaotic re-direction, the role of re-self-organization initiated by the latter, and, how such insights might be better harnessed in the beneficial engineering of social change (in the light of genres of pre-negotiated engagement, behaviour and expectation, etc.)…. (7)
					
							      Noël Tointon, Sydney, 6.1.10.