VII.  A Series of Monographs on the Nature-and-Circulation of Value*

0.    Introduction

	In a seventh paper on the ‘circulation of value’, in the form of a series of monographs, I would like to follow up a number of threads previously introduced along with some themes not yet introduced. I will do this under the following headings: Understanding Value-Recognition; General, Particular and Specific Principles that Amplify Existential Augmentation; The Intentional Nature of an Existential Excess; and, Critical Ramifications of an Existential Philosophy? (1)

1.    Understanding Value-Recognition

In previous papers I have asked “what is value?” I have addressed this theme on many occasions. Let me just say that value is the result of a particular type of judgment in accordance with its specific context or specification. In general it has the same in depth transcendental (trans-judgmental/trans-cognitive) form of a particular type or set of types in accordance with its specific context. E.g., this is an instance of beauty, being a beautiful painting, namely, this one on this wall in this art gallery in its associated world-of-art. However, in phenomenal-phenomenological reality there can be no real division or divisions between the general, particular(ity of type) and specific(s). Hence there exists a diverse dialectic between the commonality of the same transcendental machinery of judgment versus levels and distinctions of our engagement as formed in our appreciation, and re-appreciation, of that in question. In value-formation there are also other cognitive tensions, e.g., between apparent constitution and in-depth constitution; forms of competition (to varying degrees) between various genres of activity and interpretation that appear relevant; questions of accommodation or hybridization, apparent intent, etc., etc. Overall, for all forms of intentional constitution, I argue, we have the same all pervasive, deeply constituted transcendental machinery, yet, moment by moment we are presented with a uniqueness in value-formation. (2)

	Means and measures for dealing with the diverse manifestation of a value include ordered analysis as well as including distinctions; the nomination of logical subjects; operations (within the distinctions); accommodations (between logical subjects and distinctions); transformations; meta-transformations, etc. In essences, all forms and aspects of transformation. (3)

*Link to latest version of paper on my Homestead Homepage Site (circulation7.rtf).
(www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelshomepage3.html) 
	In the light of recent work on the nature of communication, as a chaotic change in re-self-organization, I shall now return to this topic in the same vein. My chief emphasis will be on (epistemological models for an understanding of the process of value) recognition and associated (manner and degree of) insightfulness (into the same). (4)

	In essence I will run the following argument. We live in one world and one world only. What ever representation we make of it, it will represent to some extent this same world. Moreover, all representation is basically holistic since we are part of this same world and all representation is realized through re-presentation (as there would be nothing there without some form of retention). Representing this same world it cannot absolutely not represent it. However, in our awareness and interpretation and attention our insight cannot be perfect, only adequate or inadequate to the task in hand. In such a frame of reference, insight is always there-to-be-had if not to-hand. However, what might need to be sought might not be before full awareness, or, if in awareness it might not be filtered out in the genres of activity and interpretation invoked, or, our attention might be focused elsewhere. And so what is to hand, is already to-hand theoretically, may well not be to-hand in a practical sphere. A metaphor springs to mind. It is as if we were all radio transmitters and receivers at the same time. But, we need to tune in to that program relevant to our current aspirations and ambitions. So, if aware of this need, we find the channel. Still, the program might be entertained as a mere background through distraction and our concentration on other tasks. Then, we might well be listening to it but it must be in a language we clearly understand and in an appreciation of context that makes sense of that broadcast. Our awareness needs to find the right channel, then our attention needs to be focused so that we do not entertain this transmission and reception as mere background; hopefully finding the program in a language that can be adequately comprehended. So much for the metaphor. Where does it break down? ‘Radios’ do not normally tune into other ‘radios’. Although the entire world can be found theoretically in a grain of sand, a mere drop of water, a simple snowflake in all its crystalline complexity, still, we can never expect any person could read the entire world clearly by attending to such a microcosmic reflection of the macrocosm. Moreover, the appropriate direction of interpretation needs to be directed through a progressive establishment of the relevant information, etc. E.g., if we were intently looking at basket-ball players and asked to keep an accurate account of the goals scored, etc., there is a high probability that most people will just not see the man in a gorilla suit wandering around the players for a few moments. A classic example of inattentional blindness. In this general account it would seem that adequate insight is an enterprise in the concentration of our focus that is fraught with difficulty given the impact of distraction and the more likely absence of the necessary degree of awareness, motivation, ability and opportunity to realize adequate insight into the situation to-hand. Hence this weak thesis, namely, that insight is-already-to-hand and only needs to be seen as that already-to-hand if this avenue of possibility can be entered and traveled upon. (5)

	How does the practical hermeneut (and theoretical hermeneuticist) show that insight is-already-to-hand and only needs to be seen as that already-to-hand? In a sense, the person in need of insight is to attend in the right manner to what there is there-for-them through, in effect, asking the right questions in a valid, appropriate progressive order. Furthermore, they only need to attend, finally, to what is relevant might be relevant for-them to the extent that such insight be insightful when obtained. E.g., we might ask “do you know where you are?.”  Normally we have an accurate mental map of where we are currently. But if we were in a new foreign city, the sky is overcast and the street signs are all in a language not known to us then we might well need to ask ourselves that question too. Well, we might note in reflection, that we left the railway station two hours ago. We merely wandered around and did not stride off in the same direction with a vigorous pace, so, we must be still near that same railways station to some extent. We note the train-lines are near by. Now we need to ask ourselves should we go in that direction along these lines or in the other direction to return to this railway station (virtually or non-virtually). We see the buildings are higher in that direction and remember the buildings were much higher in the vicinity of that railways station, that station being in the center of this city. So, now, we know which direction we should be heading in order to return to this same railway station. Here our insight has been progressively constituted/re-constituted. Or, we might have remembered the path we took and thence we would have progressively reconstituted that same insight. Insight, too, is a progressive affair. What is relevant to-us is built up on prior relevant criteria. We know we are currently in city X; near the main railway station; now ascertained as more or less in that direction. Each twist and turn in our development of sense is built up on a similar type of trajectory. If the substructure is adequate then additional superstructure is either presuppositionally valid or invalid, or, adequate or inadequate to the task to hand. Hence the progressive nature of insight as to both its constitution and re-constitution. The implication being that insight to be relevant already is considerably pre-specified by virtue of this presuppossitional organization of our intentional awareness. Now, we are in a position to understand the nature of recognition since to recognize something implies some ‘thing’ is recognized as ‘that something’ in question, i.e., as a potential co-incidence between the constitution and the re-constitution of that under investigation in the appropriate context for basically a comparative process of evaluation. In asking a rhetorical question, if we were to find a match, then we must assume, for the moment, that we are already insightfully further along a path to a state of verified recognition. (6)

	Insight, therefore, must involve some form of an established comparison or coincidence between (a fifth order) potential and its (sixth order) actualization or actuation (i.e., considered as a confirmed fact[ual]). Let me elabourate. (7)
	A fifth order considers possibility, whereas, in contrast, a sixth order considers actuality, i.e., a fact that can be confirmed or is treated as confirmed in a systematic framework or history. E.g., Caesar crossed the Rubicon en route to Rome (in an act of warlike provocation, etc., in order to confront and defeat Pompey). The fifth order and sixth order status of both  ‘Caesar’ and ‘Rubicon’ must be first satisfied in our ordered analysis before we can examine and confirm the sixth order status of this fact, namely, that Caesar did indeed cross the Rubicon (in the historical context as noted). How we confirm this fact (for ourselves and/or before others and/or for others to confirm this for-us) is another matter. However, possibility must first be established. Yes, Caesar did exist, and, yes, the Rubicon does exist, and, yes, it is possible that Caesar could have crossed this river being in the north of Italy (and not some place Caesar never ventured or could never have ventured). Our understanding of this ‘fact’ is progressively simulated and/or re-simulated. Recognition being of what is entailed and that our shifts in meaning are entertained in a same or similar manner as intended. A history of this person Caesar is sketched out for us. The historian or recounter of a history sketches out for-us the significance of this fact within its relevant history. That history being subsumed in a wider history, etc., etc. Progressive subsuming, or subsumation or substantiation, establishing a history treated as factual, more or less, in part or in whole. Histories, therefore, are constructed/re-constructed and transmitted as enterprises with certain permissible functions (and acting as genres of re-simulated historical activity and simulated/re-simulated interpretation). (8)

	The progressive linear-like construction of histories and their subsistent factual content can also be treated in a circular ordered fashion by analyzing historical content through a non-integrated pre-essential and integrated essential universal lenses. E.g., in regard to the history just alluded to we find the universals of a person specified as ‘Caesar’, a certain river specified as the ‘Rubicon’ and that both could stand in a relationship to each other and did (in the re-specification of our history, namely, ‘Caesar crossed the Rubicon en route to Rome’, etc.). Thence the circular nature of our orders (and by those means we can re-trace in greater hypothetical detail the dialectical moments of our simulations/re-simulations be they histories or act of perception, conception, thinking and all of their associated trans-cognitive acts of judgment and their expressions of associated forms of value (within the relevant overall situation to-hand). Needless to say, most of this is treated as pre-suppositionally sixth order in order for the historian, etc., to focus on what is more-to-hand (namely, this transition from an interpreted fifth order to an acceptable/accepted sixth order history). (9)

	Now, with the above sketched out as a background, let me examine the phenomenological nature of recognition in order to establish this thesis that insight is a recognition of what is already-to-hand in some sense or other. (10)
	Basically, an act of recognition determines a strong degree of identity between two previously treated disparate elements. In this task we essentially move from a first order of a non-integrated treatment to a second order of integrated treatment (be that then placed in a third order cognitive field of conception; a fourth order sense-field in sense perception or imagination or memory; or a field of historical treatment that is either hypothetical [fifth order] or non-hypothetical [sixth order] in orientation). Basically, this lexical identity is to be treated as identical with some other lexical identity. E.g., this historical identity that confronted Pompey and defeated him was a person later know as ‘Caesar’. A process of identity taking place between names and/or descriptions. At core we have lexical items enwrapped in a progression in and through the orders to a status of a historical fact in a certain history should they be able to progress to that extent. So, in a ‘real world’ we do not normally look for square-circles, red-scents, dead personalities as if still alive, Santa Claus, unicorns, etc. These ‘entities’ for a variety of reasons not being able to reach and be entertained in a sixth order (as a certain current fact in a certain reputable current history). (11)

	Identity can also be recognized in terms of value treated through phenomenal-phenomenological sense, hermeneutical meaning and existential meaningfulness. E.g., there exists a certain railways station in City X in China (sense), a place to which I wish to return (meaning), and wish to return now in order to travel on to the next destination in China (meaningfulness, i.e., as its current existential meaning for-me). (12)

	In the light of the above we could propose that recognition is a recognition of our ability to successfully progress from one order to another. Let me examine this thesis. (13)

	E.g., this city is called ‘X’. Fortunately, the name of the main railways station, written both in Chinese and English, is named after the city I think I have just arrived at, namely, ‘X’. Recognition here takes on a number of inter-ordered progressions. E.g., this lexical entity ‘this city’ is called this lexical entity ‘X’. Here we confirm a first order and through integration give it also a second order status. This process being conceived of in an active process of conception (along with its deontological associations). Such status then being now ‘examined ’ in and from a third order of conception or conceptual imagination or re-conceptualized memory. Then we find we can move to a fourth order of sense-perception or imagination or memory (along with its pragmatical associations such as “I need to re-find this railway station in order to catch a certain train traveling to…” ). Then, in reflection we can state this memory of being in X was an event that actually happened, i.e., possessed a sixth order status and that I can personally recognize such a form of identification as valid for-me). (14)

	From a recognition of recognition is realized insight (as the insightfulness of a process of insight)! (15)

	In what manner can we claim insightfulness is always to-hand in some form or other? (16)

	Insightfulness is to-hand through facilitated progression through our orders in such a manner that a comparatively richer existential surplus is realized through such successfully realized acts of progression. As we live in the transcendental unity of the Life-World and all relationships are holistically emergent for us it also follows that all parts under focus must re-present that totality, albeit in part, from the perspective of that point of view even if theoretically-to-hand and not (yet) practically-to-hand. That granted, it follows that our progression on this topic is orderly (through the necessary presuppositional ground for this state to be as proposed and understood as proposed along with all orders in a manner in keeping with this presuppositional ground as we come to progressively thematize the same). Let me examine this complex proposal or thesis in greater detail (namely, that insight is always to-hand-theoretically if not practically-to-hand). (17)

	In the form of an objection let me ask the following. How could the historical Caesar be theoretically-to-hand let alone practically-to-hand? By virtue of the imputational nature alone of that to-handedness under consideration! In all of this we are only interested in the nominal value of those relationships. All else is a bonus if and when available. E.g., one can still visit the Rubicon in north Italy but visit only those monuments and other textual traces left by the imputed ‘intentional power’ of this historical entity called ‘Caesar’ (as the first in long succession of rulers of the Roman Empire with the same title). Where, then, does a purely nominal realm reside in the phenomenal-phenomenological reality of the Life-World? As a fifth order of existence, namely, as a possibility, i.e., as ‘having had’ or ‘currently having’ or ‘might have a future existence’ for-us in this World-of-Life there-for-us to that extent this possibility can be currently entertained as a possibility for-us in ordered existence! Thence, e.g., the ordered difference between a ‘Santa Claus’ and a ‘Caesar’. The former inhabits a nominal mythological realm of imagined existence (as a sixth order fact in that mythological frame of reference even though that mythological ‘realm’ itself has no sixth order of existence or appellation) whereas the latter had existence once in a sixth order realm of factual actuality as discerned in the appropriate history associated with the same (given its adequacy and acceptability/acceptance in this regard). (18)

	How is such a nominally treated phenomenal-phenomenological state of affairs to be regarded? Be that mythological, verified history or an unconfirmed version or vision of the ‘historical’? As holistically expressed in and through the transcendental unity of the Life-World. Therefore, always theoretically-there-for-us even if not practically-there-for-us in this moment or period of time. That granted, what difference is there between my relationships with Santa Claus, Julius Caesar and this person sitting beside me called Tony. In a mythological relationship our relationship can only be nominal and mythological. In a relationship with a historical person who was born and who died before me there can only be a nominal and historical relationship. However, with a person beside me that relationship is altogether nominal and factual and is currently empirical in its ascertainment. I can see this person called Tony and can speak to them, etc. So my relationship with this person Tony sitting beside me is one that is collectively nominal, historical and empirical. My recognition is of this complex flavour, and, my insight has exactly the same tenor iterated and re-iterated through my appreciation of complex processes of recognition! Although all recognition is complex by various comparative degrees of interaction, still, the vividness or vivacity of such acts of recognition is exponentially reinforced through empirical association (especially in a process of direct coincidence of existential streams and axes). Indeed, the existential richness discovered in a process of appreciation informs the course of our existential attitudes towards the same. So, I cannot shake the hand of Julius Caesar but could have quite easily shaken the hand of this friend now sitting beside me. (19)

If insight is the recognition of an act of recognition and its appreciation, how is insightfulness, in turn, to be appreciated? (20)

	By reference to the productive harmony of the same! To often in conspiratorial narratives or narratives produced by people suffering delusional thinking although individual propositions might be believable the summation of the narrative takes some additional psychic energy to accept its integration as positively factual. E.g., it is quite possible my telephone is being bugged by … (fill in the agency you might be thinking is doing this), and it is quite possible that I am being watched by… (by this same agency or some other), and that I am being followed by… (again by this same agency or some other), and might be killed by hired assassins who are hired by … (this or some other agency already nominated) still one must wonder why this degree of activity is being focused on yourself if you cannot demonstrate a reasonable reason why certain powers might want to eaves drop on your telephone usage, etc., especially if no good reason could be given to one’s self in this regard or to some other person. Then the entire narrative is starting to be ‘felt’ as a bit ‘forced’ and ‘look’ ‘contrived’ and not harmoniously integrated in to a more general, communal way of seeing the world. It could all be true, but, there is little real evidence for this interpretation, and, if we also find a general psychotic disposition open to such paranoid narratives we then suspect, rightly, that this narrative fails to find a sixth order of satisfaction. Our acceptance of this narrative as packaged is treated as not harmonically productive of this degree and manner of value. We have to force ourselves to believe it, and, its not found to be as productive of value, indeed, more likely the opposite, namely, as disruptive of value-formation and the existential augmentation of the same. However, it must also be said that no interpretation of the world can be neutral of value formation or possess a negative degree of equity so to speak. We cannot absolutely lie. To lie we must first tell the truth, and, then, in a few small details, non-align ourselves with our tacit understanding of that reality-to-hand. In effect, our progression of the presuppositional ground that we will base our exposition and interpretation of the world must to a considerable extent be in alignment with the world-as-found-to-hand. Similarly, delusional thinking is still grounded on this same presuppositonal territory. To tell a narrative, recount a history, we must be able to affirm a certain currently invariant historical understanding that is in keeping with a general understanding of reality. Then, in only a few superficial details we can, wittingly or unwittingly, micro-rewrite that tacit background. Not that any exposition whatsoever of the life-world can be perfectly coincident with the reality of that reality-to-hand as we make our passage through this World-of-Life! Still, a more coincident reading, through engagement, will be both harmonically productive of value and found to be productive of value in its textual environment. Moreover, an ongoing self-reinforced coincidence in reading with the apparent reality-to-hand is able to help us determine the better course of action in our passage through this World-of-Life. Thence the more productive nature of a text or set of texts when found to be in an adequate (general, particular and specific) conformity with that reality as found-to-hand. (21)

	Is there a real problem with this understanding of recognition, insight and the holistic nature of insight? In recognition we realize that some aspect of reality for-us is to-be-integrated with some other aspect of reality in such a manner that through their integration we find a more integrated state of affairs. In insight we recognize the ramifications of this alteration in our perception of reality. This discerned manner and degree of integration, in effect, contributes to the greater existential richness of our appreciation in this regard. Then, through a holistic degree of coincidence between this ‘simulation of reality’ and the ‘reality of that simulation’ we find in our progressed understanding in and through its apparently constituted progression that there is a degree of alignment that is more productive of both its internal harmonization (as narrated) and its external harmonization (as narrated) through this augmented degree of alignment realized in its closer appreciation. In other words, truth is released in and through this apparent transformational alignment both recognized and insightfully appreciated. Processes of constructive and disruptive re-alignment always being, to some degree, relatively superficial in our reconstitution of the apparent constitution of such states of affairs being examined. Furthermore, such tested progressions more firmly reflecting this holistic alignment between our textual representations of reality and the reality of our textual representations. The je ne sais quoi and serendipity of such apparent alignments also being evoked in their existential frisson (just as a ‘good’ poem sparks an existential excess of value from apparently within its textual confines [even though a text can only be read in its appropriate genre setting and existentially appreciated in a non-textual moment of hermeneutic appreciation within the confines of a hermeneutic circle of comprehension that in turn is not-textual in orientation from the perspective of the overall hermeneutic circle of comprehension]). In a ‘world of being’ we find our ‘being in a world’ constituted for-us by-us in such a manner that non-superficially we cannot escape a certain minimum degree of coincidence and alignment. Insight, I have argued is our recognition of this alignment, and, that can never be absolutely absent. Hence our progression through this World-of-Life is also an insightful progression through this same Life-World! Thence this relationship between recognition, insight and holistic insightfulness into our alignment within this same World-of-Life with-ourselves with-others! That alignment is forever a holistic matter of degree and can never be either completely absent or completely present.(22)

	Thus, our theoretical appreciation of the world remains open to us given its practical recognition. However, despite our limitations, be they historical or non-historical in orientation, insight remains forever theoretically-to-hand even if it can never be practically realized! (23)

	What are the ramifications of this position of the eternal theoretically-to-hand nature of insightfulness given that most people are never aware of this fact of our existence? That insightfulness is actually to hand already and that we need only construct the necessary connections for this to be made manifest even though such a task (of essential recollection) is more often than not beyond us. Still, in our progression through this same World-of-Life those aspects of reality we find in question for-us cannot be that too far away from resolution given our ability to frame just that question and thence its imminent resolution (as pre-defined by its enquestioning). However, a difference must remain between our enquestioning and the enquestioning of some other person given that our constitution of reality is not exactly the same constitution for some other person. Still, through the intersubjective genres of interpretation and activity there-for-us it implies this gulf neither be absolute in extent nor too great in extent. So, insightfulness is always to-hand, both subjectively and intersubjectively, even if it were to remain not practically to-hand, in a form that could be meaningfully approached. (24)

2.    General, Particular and /Specific Principles that Amplify Augmentation

	Existential augmentation of value is just that, namely, an augmentation of existing value and never the pure importation or pure exportation of value. (25)

	As I have argued elsewhere, existentialization is always of the relatively non-existential and never of the relatively existential. Similarly, non-existentialization is always of the relatively existential and never of the relatively non-existential. Thence existential augmentation must be of the existentialization of the relatively non-existential! What are the ramifications of this general insight? (26)

	In other words value is an augmentation of what value is already-to-hand (even if we were non-insightful into the existence or nature of this value already resident in that relational situation). Therefore, this granted, such value cannot be additionally donated through importation nor subtracted through exportation. Resident value can only be existentially augmented or non-existentially de-augmented. (27)

	But, as we live in the transcendental unity of one and only one Life-World does it not follow that value could be directed and donated from elsewhere or re-directed away and excised from that relationship in question? Consider this apparent objection: A rich person knows of and secretly observes a sick person who is the bread winner for their family but who needs a certain amount of money to pay for an immediate and necessary medical operation and who has no money to pay for this operation. This rich person pays the surgeon who can conduct this operation on the understanding that they are not to reveal who paid for this operation. The operation is successfully conducted and the person is able to resume their support for their family. Is it not the case that that rich person’s charity ensured the wellbeing of both that bread-winner and their family (through a donation of value)? However, let us ask “in what relationship did this augmentation of value take place?” The money was not to be found with the bread-winner and their family. Nor was it to be found with the surgeon until they agreed to the terms of the rich person that the finance for this operation was from an unknown benefactor. This augmentation of value is only effective in that relationship that includes the sick bread-winner (and their family) and this surgeon and the unknown benefactor. Is it an augmentation of value? Surely the rich person loses that amount of money equal to the cost of that operation? However, from an intentional perspective, the rich benefactor desires the well-being of the sick bread-winner and finds value in their recovery. Augmentation is such that all members in that relationship in question benefit from an existential augmentation of value. Augmentation is primarily centered in that relationship that includes the sick-bread winner (and their family), the surgeon and the benefactor. Not in any other relationship since it is in no other relationship that this successful operation would occur within! Only in this wider relationship is there this transformational augmentation of value through an apparent circulation of value within its ambit. The sick person recovers (and can continue to support their family), the surgeon is happy the operation is successful and is paid, and the rich benefactor is happy all parties are happy with this outcome. (28)

Is it possible that the following counter-objection might succeed? The sick bread-winner or a member of their family find a suitcase of money or win the lottery and, subsequently, now find themselves with adequate finances in this regard? Again, what or which relationship are we focusing upon? The sick bread-winner and their family have a certain relationship to the world. If in its environmental confines they prove to find or obtain through chance the necessary finance for that operation then it follows that an augmentation of value has occurred but only in that wider relational context. It is in that context that there is an augmentation of value. Is that augmentation truly a process of augmentation, is it not possible that the re-distribution of funds, overall, is merely a neutral outcome in terms of the resident net value entailed within that entire relationship in question? No! Funds have been re-distributed but the net result is greater than the provisionally adopted initial state since the funds are not lost but merely circulated and the resultant of such circulation is also a successful operation, etc. Value is enhanced in its corresponding relationship through transformational augmentation! (29)

	This principle granted, how is value non-existentially de-augmented? What defines augmentation, de-augmentation, existential and non-existential, etc? Imagine, if you would if that operation were not successful and the bread-winner died on the operating table? Here we have a loss of value in that relationship. Should we read that loss of value as non-existential in orientation? Yes. We can define non-existential in two senses, first, as that result that follows on from deliberate sabotage of that relationship in question, or, as that loss of value that resulted from chance factors or influences that conspired against the successfulness of that operation. So, again, we can see that de-augmentation arises too in its respective relational situation. In all of this, therefore, what defines the difference between the (relatively) existential and the (relatively) non-existential? The relative augmentation of value versus the relative de-augmentation of value? Those factors and influences that assist augmentation or is-able such augmentation. By ‘factors’ let us note non-intentional features that essentially figure in the relationship in question, whilst, on the other hand, ‘influences’ can be treated as intentionally directed factors that augment and/or de-augment the relationship in question. To refine this point we should note that intentionally directed influences are directed or mediated through factors (as tokens of exchange in intentionally directed processes of exchange). So, the money to pay for this successful operation was a factor exercised through the influence of the rich benefactor. (30)

	So, value is enhanced or de-enhanced through existential enhancement and de-existential non-enhancement respectively in the relevant relational situation or relationship in question. Let us now seek to understand how, in principle, augmentation can be enabled (and, in reverse, disenabled)? (31)

	We might first, like, to estimate and appreciate the relative value resident in a certain relationship. This could be approximately quantified and/or qualified through respectively noting the net current quantity of value and/or the net intensity of the current quality of value apparently resident in that relationship in question. This, in some overall comparative sense, would be determined as augmentative or non-augmentative in orientation. Furthermore, such value could be noted, where relevant, as either general, particular and/or specific in its relational location. E.g.,  generality applies to the phenomena-phenomenological nature of relationships in general, whereas, in contrast, particularity applies to phenomena-phenomenological type, and, specificity applies to the apparent uniqueness of that relationship in question (in terms of the temporal, spatial, identification and contextualization associated with that instance of type).  (32)

	On a priori-like grounds, what principles seem to announce themselves as generally augmentative in orientation? In other words, what principles exercised through influences assist the existential augmentation of a relationship in general (in particular and/or specifically)? In effect, what principles augment the richness of a relationship (as an apparent relational economy)? (33)

	What exactly is a process of augmentation? Primarily it is an enrichment of that relationship. ‘Richness’ as a concept previously has been meant in two senses, namely, as a greater cooption and activation of modes of engagement, and, a greater degree of activity engaged within those modes. The same applies to this concept of existential enrichment through existential augmentation. In this regard we might see it as a greater density and greater intensity of engagement. More modes are enlisted and those same enlisted modes are more intently engaged. Hence this enrichment of density and intensity. (34) 

In our example of the sick bread-winner and the anonymous benefactor how might we apply this insight of richness in order to determine the relative presence (or absence) of existential augmentation? Although all subjects have a limited life and are fated for demise, still, in their endurance and subsequent duration we have the continued existence of those relationships that engage that subject. The demise of a subject automatically registers a loss of value for some other subject or group of subjects by virtue of their inability to engage that subject as it might have been conducted formerly. One must qualify that, however, and note that the quality of that value could well be negated through the existence of the former subject by virtue of the nature of their interaction with other subjects, etc. E.g., in war a person who is pointing a gun at you could well imply your imminent demise and from your perspective their demise first would be an advantage for yourself. Or, the impact of an unpleasant person having an undesired and non-mutual power over yourself could well be read as a loss of value for yourself from your own perspective. Generally, however, a greater enrichment of value is to be engaged through an enrichment of our relationships. In our example the anonymously paid-for medical intervention enables the bread winner of that family to continue to support their family. In the process the benefactor takes a certain satisfaction through their intervention. Then the surgeon is financially better off and satisfied the intervention was successful. Whilst the family can be happy that their overall situation is no longer in a stat of crisis. Overall, the entire relationship has been of a win-win complexion for all of the parties engaged therein. Hence this overall sense of a mutual enrichment of value. How does this relate to a density of modalities engaged and intensity of their respective engagements? The total number of the parties concerned is not reduced in number, and the avenues of engagement are equally not diminished but intensified and/or merely restored. Restoration itself is a relative enrichment be that in the form of density of relations or their intensity of expression/re-expression. Normality in the life of that family in question is restored and preserved. The currency, or rather currencies, in this overall economy have been augmented, namely, satisfaction, individual health of personal influences (the bread-winner, e.g.) and the collective health of social influences (the family in question, e.g.), money has past hands from one party to another (and thereby ensuring the persistence of that medical economy and the wellbeing of the surgeon) are signs that a certain degree of relative enrichment of relations has taken place through the economic transformations entailed. Hence the preservation of subjective influences in a relationship and their mutual economic enrichment normally signifies a process of transformational augmentation. Furthermore, the mechanisms for these processes of transformation have already been negotiated or re-negotiated. Through re-negotiation the surgeon co-opts the sick bread-winner as a candidate for surgery, and, through re-negotiation the wealthy benefactor insists on anonymity, etc. Through mere negotiation the straightforward process of surgery is conducted. All in all, in this instance, a potential loss of value has been prevented and restored. From this example and general reflection what principles might one conjecture are productive of existentialization, promote this relatively greater degree of density and intensity in relational engagement? (35)

	In general terms of reference one might say those factors and influences that assist in the preservation or cooption of the number of relational parties concerned in a certain relationship usually promotes and/or restores the density of engagement therein whilst those factors and influences that promote a more intense form of interaction also assist in this process of relative augmentation. But, in qualification, one must add that augmentation is existentially conducted if adequate in its enacted expression, i.e., is conducted with propriety, appropriately and validly. Such qualifications reflecting the existential nature of that overall economy. I.e., supplying what is proper, appropriate and (empirically) valid for the continued existence of that overall relationship, and, removing (or neutralizing) those factors (and influences) that are improper, inappropriate, and not valid (for the restoration and/or advancement of that overall relationship). In the light of such constraints we could positively rewrite the same as those factors and/or influences that promote the restored and/or greater presence of an existential excess in that relationship in question. Effectively, seeking those factors and/or influences that restore and/or advance the presence and non-absence of an existentially productive relationship. (36)

	Another method for determining the existential merit of a relationship in its progress through time might be to imagine its complete absence from the world of engagement as-engaged-by-us. To what extent would a loss of value be registered? To what extent might its absence be missed and be felt as being absent rather than merely as just-not-there in comparison to being just-not-there-for-us? Or, to what extent might a relationship be augmented or could have been augmented but was not engaged more intensely (and densely)? (37)

	Are there certain principles here that could be inferred (on a deeper, more transcendentally oriented basis?)? To what extent might such inferences be general, particular and/or specific in orientation? (38)

	The continued presence of existentially rich relationships for-us, generally, is something to be desired thence their restoration and/or advancement. Thence their particular and specific restoration and/or advancement of those factors and influences that preserve and promote those relationships so earmarked. The same reasoning applying to those relationships that are embryonic and self-deserve fostering, etc. How might such enriched forms of engagement be realized? By what existential rules might this promotion be promoted in our encountering of others in this World-of-Life? (39)
	
	We could turn this around and ask instead, with respect to a certain relationship what general, particular and specific factors and influences would adequate augment the expression of that relationship in question? In other words, in our simulation/re-simulation/resimulation of a certain relationship how might we intuit the presence and/or absence of those intentional and/or non-intentional forces that would augment that relationship? Or, more succinctly, how do we intuit the addition and/or subtraction of such forces? How might we go about such a process of existential promotion? (40)

	In metaphorical terms of reference we must be able to ‘taste’ the essential flavour of that relationship, and, then, acting of its behalf, enact those courses of action that we envisage and ‘feel’ would promote that relationship (as determined through our simulation/re-simulation/resimulation of the essential aspects of that relationship). Such a process, therefore, taking on both a phenomenological orientation (through a determination of essence) and a hermeneutical orientation through a concern with potentiality and possibility. Moreover, an existential orientation would ensure from attempting to determine those courses of engagement that would promote the augmentation of that relationship in question. In other words, through engaged simulation the reality of the relationship is actively potentiated and potentially activated. And this must co-opt a thorough overall transcendental suspension (through its fleshed out overall hermeneutic circle of comprehension as realized through analysis, synthesis, etc.) and its continual suspension, etc. In other words, through enlisting an existential dimension and therein, and thereafter, co-opting a ‘spiritual’ or psychic attitude open to the possible potentiality of that relationship in question (through an active and passive reading of the life of that relationship in this dimension of the not-textual). But, let it be asked and answered “in what manner is such a relationship with that relationship nothing other than an existentially open appreciation of the same?” In asking this question our reply should be “none, no difference whatsoever assuming our existential openness to it!” Indeed, such augmentation is merely working with what is already to-hand, namely, that which is practically-to-hand (in the hope of realizing that which is theoretically to-hand but not yet currently to-hand practically). (41)

	Thence our sensitivity to the essential-progressive nature of a relationship in and through our acting on its behalf (through a process of transcendental reservation). In such an attitude of existential openness we identify with that relationship by experiencing the essential holistic nature of that relationship. By such means recognizing what forces are more likely both to promote its enrichment and de-mote that same process of enrichment with an intentional privileging of the former. Therein, and thereafter, engaging those courses of action or inaction that adequately promote that relationship in terms of its general, particular and specific requirements. In effect, promoting an existential excess of value through a transformation of those forces that ensure the same. Let me now examine more closely what is entailed in an existential excess of value and its transformational augmentation. (42)
3.    The Intentional Nature of an Existential Excess

	I have used the metaphor that intentionality spills over on to the fabric of the world. In acting intentionally I argued that a choice has being made, we become resolute through a resolution of the overall transcendental suspension that would constitute the intentional basis of that act of choice. E.g., at a crossroad I ask myself “do I go left?” or “do I go right?” Such a choice is dependent on it being written that way, i.e., that I go either left or right and not retrace my steps or proceed in some other fashion. Indeed, a series of choices have got myself at this crossroad. Now I must chose between going left or going right. In effect, I have presented myself with a disconjunctive suspension of the either/or. The ‘either’ and the ‘or’ cancel each other out and my decision, once made, through a suspension of that suspension constitutes the form and practice of my decision, my ‘intent’ in this regard. This additional input, this resolution, is in itself an excess. How can we perceive it, or whatever else attends that decision, as an existential excess of value? Through the transformational ramifications and consequences of that choice (minus the adverse ramifications and consequences of its unintended consequences if and when they should occur)! Let me examine the complexity of this position. (43)

	In making a decision we contribute an increase in information. ‘Am I to go left or am I to go right’ in effect cancels out, but, once a decision is made and enacted an apparent unit of information is deposited upon the face of the world. However, what makes a decision, as an excess of intentional information and action, also an existential excess? How could one unit of information be augmented? Each intentional act of resolution is merely the tip of a metaphorical iceberg. No decision in itself could be a mere decision in itself! Each apparent decision is made in its associated decisional context that is also pre-suppositional or pre-conditional, conditional and post-conditional in its orientations. There are a concatenation of complex links (through a cooption of parallel existential streams [descriptors] and existential axes [contextors]). Pre-suppositionally there is the progressive structural basis upon which current decisions are based and made. In arriving at our ‘crossroads’ a series of prior decisions have brought us to that point of bifurcation. Conditionally, we co-opt a resolution of the relevant forces, as factors and influences, that ‘essentially’ colour that imminent decision (and whose individual absence could radically alter that decision or at least the reasons behind the making of that decision). A number of these forces are operating in parallel and not necessarily in tandem. E.g., at this crossroad I could calculate along the following lines: I am hungry, if I go left I would get home for diner somewhat earlier, or, if I were to go right I could go to a café and have a snack to eat now, and, if I were to go left I could also say hello to a friend but get home later whereas if I were to go right I would also most likely go to that bookshop that I like to go to and have not been to recently and consequently too will be home a bit later. How does one calculate a complex set of possibilities? One could factor in an approximate emotional intensity with each of these decisions and then let the ensuing calculation solve itself, or, make some form of an overall decision as to how one should act and promote that course through re-registering our emotional responses to their envisaged consequences, or, entertain both approaches more or less at the same time. The point I am trying to make is that decision making may appear simple, through the apparent simplicity of the either/or, whereas, in equal contrast, as each decision is made in a decisional context or field of concern it follows that no decision can be merely an either/or on the grounds that it is formulated in the complexity of the decisional field or context (and the complexity therein entailed and arrived at through progressive appropriation of prior decisions). So, existential augmentation must recognize that it is this complexity that would be subjected to a process of existential augmentation if and when it should it occur. Furthermore, all intentional calculi have ramifications both initially envisaged and eventually unintended and these possible possibilities will also enter into the equation of the process of making a decision to the extent they can be recognized. However, as argued elsewhere, a process of decision making is not so much calculated in and through a process of time as arrived at in a chaotic moment of bifurcation that is essentially spontaneous and holistically arrived at in and through its associated relationship as lived through engagement. What then is the relationship between an apparent pre-conditional process of calculation and the immediacy of its resolution? The ‘simulation of the suspension’ and the ‘suspension of the simulation’! Through the simulation of the suspension we have the ‘psychic material’ for an act of suspension, which, when conducted, realizes a process of relative harmonic resolution. Into the complexity of this mix what constitutes a basis for the existential augmentation of that ensuing intentional act in that relationship (as [ontologically] encountered and [epistemologically] engaged)? (44)

	Previously, I have argued, that it is the enrichment of that decisional process that establishes this relativity of augmentation. “Richness’ meant in the double sense of an increased density (of modal engagement) and an increased intensity (of those individual modal engagements). A transformational process that realizes a relatively greater degree of engaged enrichment. As just noted, no decision is ever made in a vacuum, and, the field of concern must be a complex basis for any decision however simple in appearance. Thence, in our progressive appropriation of the decision making basis and process, a degree of complexity will automatically be present, which, in practice, could offer itself to a process of relative augmentation. Furthermore, in an array of multi-possibilities the privileging of some of those possibilities would produce the associated thematization of a comparative field of possibilities with different degrees of existential value hence a range of comparative augmentation (to the extent comparisons can or could be made). In describing various possibilities for an existential descriptor (and examining its streams and axes of intersection and non-intersection) how could we possibly evaluate one set of choices versus some other set of choices (when our actual intentional process of choice could only, more or less, pick out one set of possibilities)? (45)

	In our example of the sick breadwinner and the rich benefactor how might we perceive this existential enrichment of value, and, why call it existential? (46)

	In the virtual relationship of a sick breadwinner and person who could be a rich benefactor but doesn’t act in that manner and that same person who does act as a benefactor we find a greater existential richness in the latter relationship by virtue of the fact that the breadwinner does not die and leave a dependent family to find their own way through the world. The benefactor has used a small portion of their money without much real inconvenience and also takes a refined form of pleasure in acting as a benefactor (who hopes that if other benefactors would act like themselves the world overall would be a much better place for all people to live in). Through successful medical intervention there remain certain modes of interaction which, in turn, are allowed to operate in a normal manner. Hence the comparative maintenance of density and intensity of existential interaction. Why call it ‘existential interaction’? By virtue of this maintenance in richness both in terms of density and intensity. Could maintenance be seen as an augmentation of value? In comparative terms of reference we can answer “yes!” Therefore, ‘existential’ by virtue of this comparative maintenance of richness versus a relative poverty ensuing form the death of that breadwinner. In this regard ‘richness’ is a comparative concept. We could use this same example and run it an augmentative frame of reference beyond levels of mere maintenance. E.g., say our rich benefactor notes that this particular breadwinner has a great aptitude for painting and that two or three years at the local art school would make all the difference for this person to change careers. The breadwinner is sent a scholarship anonymously paid for by this benefactor with enough funds entailed for this breadwinner to still support their family. They avail themselves of this opportunity and in the goodness of time, with much hard work and thorough study, become an exceptional painter who soon comes to earn a much greater amount of money through this new livelihood. With some of their new wealth they, in turn, could start a scholarship for other students of great promise in the arts. Here we have an example of an augmentation of value beyond mere maintenance (here paralleled, in part, by the financial flows entailed) and one that also disseminates a replication of its enriched modal engagement (through the creation of a new scholarship or a series of new scholarships). Still, why call this relative excess (or maintenance) of value ‘existential’? (47)

	‘Existential’ by virtue of this augmentation (or maintenance) of resident value! Being an augmentation (or maintenance) of that value that is already to hand in that relationship. I.e., through an existentialization of the relatively non-existential. In that relationship, in our example, money is already resident in the wider relationship. It is directed towards the benefit of the breadwinner be that for a recovery of health and/or a scholarship at the local art-school. In this role, money acts as a factor which is utilized as a transformational mechanism instrumental in the realization of various desired goals. The net result is a process of existential enrichment, being either a maintenance of current relationships or their comparative augmentation. (48)

	It also follows that a relative existential enrichment must also act as an intentional act of resolution with a more pronounced entracement of that intentionality. Is there a direct relationship between richness and richness of entracement? More or less “yes!” But value can only be delivered in and through resolution! Relatively richer acts of resolution more richly entracing themselves out upon the fabric of the world to be effectively lost in the progression of time and place (even though no deposition is absolutely lost whilst its matrix of origination and deposition is apparently maintained). (49)

	What are the ethical ramifications of this type of position? Postmodernity does not seem able to re-constitute a viable ethical account of the world? Yet, as all forces from our perspective are directly and/or indirectly influenced by intentionally subjective influences it follows that an ethical de-ontological position must always be resident in all forms of value as they arise for-us. Obviously some situations are more redolent of ethical value than others. Still, it could also be argued that all phenomenological situations, by virtue of an interaction with an intentional subject or subjects, would imply this element of the ethical along with all other forms of ordered value, such as, e.g., the pragmatical, factual, aesthetical, etc. And how might we account for deontological value (or any other form of ordered value?)? By the appropriate manner of privileging that ensures the ensuing value is simulated and/or re-simulated. In this instance by de-privileging Object and World moments, i.e., phenomenological focalization and hermeneutical contextualization respectively, and, promoting the moment of Ego through our thematized meta-attention upon simple sense or complex senses of transcendental subjectivity. Assuming the appropriate degree and manner of pre-conditional appropriation is conducted we should then find ourselves engaging the simulation/re-simulation of an ethical sense of the deontological in and through our ability to focus on this subjective/inter-subjective aspect of the transcendental dimension. Textual traces relevant to this task being re-read through this deontological lens (to that extent this is a current possibility for us through encountered ontological identification and engaged epistemological recognition). (50)

	How does this implicate an existential dimension? Having constructed epistemological theory in such a manner as the confluence of three dialectical moments (of the phenomenal-phenomenological, the hermeneutical and the existential) we can define these orientations through their correlative contrasts. In this instance the existential dimension (of the non-textual) is realized in equal de-privileged contrast to the phenomenological and the hermeneutical orientations. The latter two modes are respectively textual, analytical and retrospective in temporal orientation versus meta-textual, synthetical and prospective in temporal orientation, etc. An existential orientation explores the sense of the non-textual (when we meet with little or no effective resistance in a reading of a text with a resultant sense of apparent transparency) in the spontaneity of an intensive or current temporal orientation. These three orientations combining to form our not-textual appreciation of the Life-World in which we find a form of direct interaction in this World-of-Life (by virtue of the fact that there can be only one-world-for-us)(and whose ongoing unity and integrity through relative harmonization demonstrates a sense of a trans-existential surplus of value when we insist upon an existential sense of the non-textual versus the trans-existential sense of the not-textual). Thence the implication of this aspect of the existential with its primary sense of the deontological and its secondary senses of the aesthetical and the pragmatical). Because all phenomena for-us are influenced by our constitution of these events by-us it follows that all forms of value must implicate an existential dimension even if only indirectly. What are the indications of this aspect, dimension or orientation? Through a determination of its existential hallmarks indicative of a relationship regarded in that ‘light’. What are these existential features one should look for? All aspects of subjectivity, engaged relational totality, etc., etc., along with those features more closely associated with subjectivity such as the de-ontological and complementary aspects of the aesthetical and pragmatical. We can note here too all those aspects considered to be existential hallmarks implicated in the direct experience of the chaotic complexion of subjectivity such as, e.g., an existential excess or maintenance in value, a relational centering in the holistic de-centering of the relationship, spontaneity, augmented empowerment, a sense of existential freedom, etc., etc. (although we should also note where relevant any differences between these senses of the existential and the trans-existential [given their hierarchical difference in epistemological organization]). (51)

	To conclude let me demonstrate or indicate these qualities of experiential augmentation that indicate an existential tenor in phenomenological experience. (52)

E.g., in the situation of the sick breadwinner and the rich benefactor the wealth of the latter is anonymously instrumental in the restoration of the health of the former. Hence a recovery of the existential freedom of the former to continue as a breadwinner. Then, in our altered situation, the proffered scholarship enabled the breadwinner to become an artist who was also able to expand their financial earning power and in the process acquiring an augmentation of their sense of freedom (by being able to be a better artist, by being better able to support their family, etc.). At the same time the benefactor was able to exercise their existential sense of freedom by being instrumental in a qualitative advancement of the relational richness of the world, etc. In essence, promoting the existential facticity of their relationships with the world through this augmented sense of empowerment be it directly acquired and/or indirectly acquired (through the consequences of others be they intended or unintended in orientation). All in all, realizing a sense of self equal to and/or above and beyond its current levels of faciticity (as measured through its current degree and manner of modal enrichment). (53)

	Let me borrow and re-paraphrase an anecdote from Martin Buber. Two people are sitting on a couch in a café. They have acknowledged each other’s presence and are happy to be in each other’s company even if only to read a book or a newspaper, to watch people in the café and as they pass along the street. On leaving they signal their silent pleasure in each other’s company with a mutual smile of recognition. On another occasion one of these same individuals returns to this café and sits on that same couch. Unfortunately, this time, a certain individual joins them and continually attempts to engage them in a conversation merely about themselves, about how happy thy are or how unhappy they are and all other conversational topics being conducted only from a perspective of sheer uncaring curiosity. The second party has not truly acknowledged the presence of the first party since if they had they would have recognized the relative inauthenticity of their involvement, their non-mutually ‘shared’ topics of conversation, the detraction from a chance for quiet reflection for the first party, an inability to be a person engaged in having a quiet coffee in the encountered presence of others, etc. In which ‘encounter’ would you have rather participated in. Sat with someone who was there-for-each-other or to ‘share’ time with someone merely there for-themselves? (54)

	In effect, our involvement in a world-with-others is one with varying degrees of mutuality, existential encountering and co-empowerment. An enriched relationship mutually maintained or mutually augmented (not at the general expense of others) is an existentially oriented relationship, a relationship in which a sense of existential freedom is augmented just as a successful marriage gives a greater sense of freedom to those mutually interacting parties overall without an accompanying sense of a loss in freedom or as a lost freedom. In effect, through our more mutual relationships with others and our very own sense/s of self permits us to enter into a relationally oriented dimension find ourselves centered therein in such a manner as to existentially experience its holistic de-centering and subsequent empowerment. Hence this superficial paradox: that we can only gain our freedom through others, through wholly engaging with the other… in what ever form we find that sense of the other might take…! (55)

	That granted, we now must face another problem, namely, how do we navigate between competing and overlapping relationships in our determination of an existential course of action to enact, to find for ourselves being enacted? Of course such mediation, normally, is usually pre-negotiated for us. But, still, this does not answer how such pre-negotiation could have been existentially mediated in the first place? How, then, are such negotiations to be pre-determined, re-determined and post-determined (in retrospective critical appreciation, e.g?)? (56)

	In the same fashion that one relationship is simulated or re-simulated for appreciation so too in that same manner are the relationships between relationships equally given to some form of self-appreciation. Let us assume, if only on intuitive grounds, that such appreciation cannot be determined merely through sheer calculation. Instead, let us propose a holistic state of affairs through the simulation of the simple or complex relationship in question as it incrementally and momentarily expresses itself through re-self-organization and its consequent (and subsequent) changes in state entailed therein through such processes of bifurcated transformation. In essence, I would be proposing a non-calculative-calculation whose resultant is realized through the corresponding bifurcation. However, I would also like to argue that all of this re-self-organization might be better facilitated by prospective channels of pre-negotiated meta-textual-like genres of performance to the extent that change can only be mediated incrementally and only in certain directions. A pig remains a pig even if you were to cut its tail off! ‘Re-self-organization but never radical re-self-organization’ even though small incremental differences can instigate subsequent radical shifts in direction once undertaken and proceeded with. (57)

In this fashion, it could be argued, that our entire existence before-others with-others is incrementally re-directed moment by moment in accordance with its natural period of apparent pulsation (as a basis for its expression or communication)… so one foot follows after the other, the eye blinks, a tap drips, a thought takes shape within a second, an action is enacted a moment later, quantum changes take place within or between Planck moments, etc! The pre-negotiated being negotiated, re-negotiated, etc. Incremental differences producing/re-producing either subsequently small incremental differences in time or radical differences in time! That from an intentional perspective, it is only in and through relationships (with some sense of the ‘other’) that an existential excess is able to instigate a non-radical or radical process of change, and, that to some extent such change must (informatively) remain that (by virtue of its differentiation in and through time whether induced non-chaotically or chaotically)! (58)

4.    Critical Ramifications of an Existential Philosophy?

	If all intentions spill over from an existential excess how could we differentiate an existentially oriented performance from a non-existentially oriented performance? Would it not be the case that there could be no difference between the inauthentic and the authentic? Consequently, this granted, would an existential philosophy have critical ramification? (59)

	It has been argued that existentialization is of the relatively non-existential, and, that authenticity is maintained and/or augmented through modal enrichment, i.e., through a relatively increased density of actively encountered modalities and their relatively increased intensity of engagement respectively. Thence the difference between ‘a dream apple’ and ‘an apparently real apple’. Thence, also, the same type of relative difference between an inauthentic act and an authentic act. Integrity is not an absolute affair and neither is non-integrity an absolute affair. Integrity is realized through ongoing harmonization that can never be either completely present nor completely absent! However, increasing harmonization is productive/re-productive of increasing integrity and, therein and thereby, an increasing authenticity. Therefore, authenticity could be defined as a(n inter-subjectively treated) performance with a greater relative degree of harmonic integrity. How might we go about this relative determination of authenticity? (60)

	One method could entail an appreciation of the relative absence or relative presence of existential hallmarks (as indicators of relative existentialization)! (61)

	What are these so-called existential hallmarks? Just as British silver-marks are usually a sign of quality in a similar fashion existential hallmarks can be viewed as indicators of a relative existential orientation. E.g., authenticity versus inauthenticity – in what regard would we expect these orientations to be differentiated? Again, there would be, or should be, a differential difference in the quantitative density of modal encountering and a qualitative difference in modal intensity (in favour of the relatively authentic). How might this be exhibited? In the simulation and/or re-simulation of a certain specific interaction certain expectations might already be pre-registered that would automatically define the relatively authentic from the relatively inauthentic in terms of the expected measures for density and intensity that would differentiate what otherwise might be merely a spectrum of difference? In what manner, therefore, would we expect to see this degree of spectral difference (and subsequent progression)? In this we need to return to the generality of this sense of difference and the particularity of type using a number of heading such as, e.g., the temporal; spatial; identificational; interactional; causal; along with other headings such as the phenomenological, hermeneutical, existential; our ordered divisions; in terms of power, mutual power and empowerment; being adequately emplaced; the nature of encountering and engagement; the relative presence or absence of a harmonized integrity of experience and expression, etc. Let me exemplify this provisional list. (62)

	The (relatively) existential orientation has been described as centered in the holistic non-centering of the relationship with an emphasis upon the current moment, an ongoing sense of the present, spontaneity, etc. Exhibition of such a temporal orientation being more easily read in and through an existential lens (as delineated, e.g., by such philosophers as Buber, etc.). (63)

	Just as there are relative temporal differentia so too would one expect a difference in its treatment/our treatment of spatial considerations. E.g., as being centered and integrated in and through the relationship itself even though within the relationship itself we have a holistic non-centering of self-organization equally throughout the spatial embodiment of that relationship. Such an orientation more easily being able to tune into momentary periods of chaotically oriented transformation. (64)

	That identified, when identified as relatively more existential, taking on existential hallmarks of the variety as noted in this section of essay, e.g., as under the headings of the temporal, spatial, etc. (65)

	The characteristics of the interaction of existentially oriented states of affairs exhibiting existentially oriented characteristics in keeping with an existential complexion if it were to be present as demonstrated, e.g. in terms of a mutuality in interactivity, a presence of interactive spontaneity, etc. (66)

	Causal demonstrations exemplifying the relatively existential through the presence of spontaneous re-self-organization, etc. (67)

	Under the headings of the phenomenological, etc., we would note a phenomenological differentiation (or hermeneutical differentiation or existential differentiation) in keeping with an overall existential orientation, etc., and the subsequent differentiations and integrations entailed along with all limitations in keeping with the nature of that under examination! (68)

	Under the heading of the orders we would note what to expect in that regard and ascertain the relative presence or absence of the same. (69)

	In an existential orientation there are also differences in the experience and expression of power. In a greater sense of freedom there is a directly related sense of increased empowerment. Such expression also demonstrates either a higher degree of mutuality or transcendental reservation (wherein we existentially act on the behalf of that relationship). Hence differences in such terms of power, mutuality of power and empowerment, etc. (with a corresponding existential transformation of the relational situations as found entailed). (70)

	A difference in emplacement being encountered and engaged in the existentially oriented, namely, a more profound sense of embodiment in, within and throughout the totality of the relationship in question, etc. (71)

	An existentially oriented relationship also being ontologically encountered and epistemologically engaged in a distinctly different manner as befits that orientation and emphasis upon the holistic de-centering of that relationship throughout the psychic extent of that relationship. (72)

	Also quite characteristic of an existentially maintained and/or augmented relationship is the degree of harmonized integrity therein exhibited. (73)
	
	We should also note to what extent a directness of interaction is evident within that relational situation and in our interaction with the same. (74)

	All in all, looking for these differentials in spontaneity, spatial expression, mutuality, empowerment, harmonized integrity, etc. Furthermore, as all of these indicators are direct and indirect expressions of this relatively existential state of affairs one would suspect, and expect, that their density and intensity to be equivalent in terms of their density of encountered modal engagement and intensity of modal expression individually engaged therein. One could, theoretically, comparitively determine this degree of harmonization through the degree and adequacy of the resolution of the relative dissonance entailed in that relationship. Furthermore, through an amplification of such transformational pathways in that process of harmonization one might be able to further maintain and/or augment that specific state of affairs. Then, from a critical perspective, within an adequate overall transcendental suspension, one might be able to find oneself in a position where one could critically ascertain the progressive nature of that transformational process. Indeed, as it is said, “by their fruits you shall know them”, and, in reflecting ask “to what extent one is in conformity with the ways of the world…” (75)

	Alignment and conformity are two interrelated concepts that can be of much use in this type of research. In an alignment of pre-conditions, conditions and post-conditions, and, in a conformity between ends and means, the world more happily expresses itself despite the intervening advent of intended and unintended adversity. Like the automobile, and despite its inevitable obsolescence, as long as we learn to adequately stay on the road then our course through this World-of-Life is more likely to be a more pleasant excursion with a fulfillment and serendipity to be found in our travels, and, consequently, our travels are more likely to be found to be more fruitful as we live our lives before-others with-others… (76)

	Value is created and re-created in, between and from a transcendental dimension! However, this dimension is the result of a maintenance and/or augmentation of value through an existentialization only of the relatively non-existential. There, therefore, can be no absolute difference nor absolute distance between and betwixt the relatively transcendental and the relatively phenomenal-phenomenological (etc.). However, through an adequate degree of existentialization there is a world of difference!! All know this, but, the wise are they who both would seek to know this and would adequately act from such insightfulness!!! (77)

5.    A Brief Conclusion in the Form of a Provisional Critique

	Examination of existential hallmarks is both productive in a critical research program and instrumental in the formulation of the same. In an alignment between theory and practice we can thematize a critical approach, and v.v., yet, at the same time, through an inability for there to be an absolute alignment in and through such dialectical frisson critical insights can also be developed to supplement our overall critique! Just as a frisson between the general, the particular and the specific, or, that between past, future and present, or, self, non-self and other, all, together can enrich our understanding of how, ultimately, reality cannot be cognitively understood and only lived… encountered and engaged… and best encountered existentially and existentially engaged… as we stand and fall with-others before-others… as we find our sense, meaning, and meaningulness… all semblance of value… in our collective passage through this one, wonderful World-of-Life… despite, and in spite of, the inevitable obsolescence of all finite things … where directly through a general resistance that we continually experience this sense of an embraced Other and its encountered appropriation of us and our engaged appropriation of it… thence our experience of a circulation-of-value both in its transcendental semblance of spontaneity and its non-transcendental semblance of duration! (78)

							    Noël Tointon, Sydney, 24.5.09.