A Phenomenological Approach To The Theory Of Value Creation

I.	Introduction

	In this paper on the subject of value-creation I shall attempt to phenomenologically describe the creation and transformation of value. Value can be seen as that meaning and meaningfulness for the person that arises in the exercise of intentional activity. In a later paper this theoretical approach will be given a practical grounding in an examination of various hypothetical case-studies  dealing with the question of inauthenticity and the means open to us for the transformation of inauthentic value into authentic value. This process of authentication necessitating our recognition of value and our being able to evaluate its status. Hopefully a clarification of this important field will be able to assist the person in society in their relationship with themselves and others helping them to find the type of existential value they wish to realize and correctly deserve through their type of engagement sought in their respective projects or areas of pursuit. In turn such modification of behaviour must reflect the quality and level of the understanding they have into the ecology of their personal environment along with, therein, an appreciation of the process nature of value in its creation, recognition, evaluation and transformation.

	All action or inaction conscious and deliberate in its intention is value creating to some degree or other. The positivity or negativity of that created value is dependent respectively upon its authenticity or inuathenticity. However, it is to be noted as an observation, that much human activity is more often than not nothing more than purely spontaneous responses to the environment with no great importance one way or the other, with no great degree of forethought and of no great consequence. The person is seen to scratch their head, a nose is blown, people sit down, people stand up, people walk about, look out the window, when they first meet tell each other how nice it was to have met, when they part they wish each other well, etc., etc. So although all forms of activity and inactivity may be value creating a lot of that value is practically neutral?
	At the stroke of six the notorious spy known as Madame X scratches her head whilst standing under the clock in the reading room of the State Library as arranged. In recognition of this pre-arranged signal the infamous secret agent Z there to meet her blows his nose. They leave the main room for a smaller room in the library, go over to a couple of chairs and sit down to talk in a low whisper for a few moments. The right passwords are said and the right replies returned. They get up and walk around the room and secret information is passed from one to the other via a rolled up newspaper full of photographic microdots. They look nervously out the window. They know the police from the secret intelligence and counter espionage division will one day soon discover the nature of their secret mission. They are pleased to see each other without witnesses to the event being present and they wish each other well knowing that the game of international espionage is fraught with more danger than the glamour associated with it, a glamour brought to the profession by the CIA in their successful recruitment campaigns masterfully advertised through their shrewd financial backing of the acclaimed James Bond series of movies.
	Actions like scratching one's head or blowing one's nose, etc. appear to have little intrinsic value or worth? How then does one realize whether such innocuous actions have a meaning other than as they appear? Obviously our two spies realized in the context they were in the value of such a set pattern of activity that allowed them to met each other for the first time and discharge their secret mission.
	Again, if a context is necessary in order to allow one, as a background, to interpret a deliberate pattern of activity how does one know what background context to choose from when there is an infinity of possibilities?
	No doubt in communication there is a pre-selectivity in reference frames. Or if a common language is already in use the opening conversation will title the rest of the intended conversation and will give or ask for some form of mutual assent as to the continuation of the conversation. Then there are those occasions when assent is taken for granted and a monologue is gone through. Such a one sided conversation must have satisfied the speaker, give them some sense of value that motivated them in the first place to continue in such a vacuum of response, in such an inauthentic manner of imposition or intrusion.
	So the question can be asked what has value and how is it evaluated? Then assuming there can be no intrinsic value, no value without a context, ask ourselves how positive value can become negative value and v.v.? In essence this paper concerns itself with the creation, recognition, evaluation and transformation of value.

II. The Creation of Value

1.	On the Nature of value

	It would seem that the creation of value is naturally given to any action, or non-action, that has a deliberate intent and is exercised in a certain frame of reference that gives to that value its intensity and its sign as to its general positivity, neutrality or negativity? Thus in this analysis we have an event or non-event, its conscious exercise, its deliberate intent as to be so exercised and be placed in a certain context that gives to it a value that has both an intensity and a sign as to its intended positivity, near neutrality or negativity. But it is one thing to presuppose that the value a person gives to that event has a value in reality equal to that thought to be so donated to the same by the executer or organizer of that event. Judgments of value are notorious as a continual subject for controversy. Can we find some stable objective ground for the exercise of our discrimination? It will be argued later that the very nature of judgment properly analyzed, and treated in an act of judgment, would necessitate an acceptance of such a ground or possibility.
	Let us consider the following situation. A certain person may hold up a bank and think they are great when successfully able to do so. Let us assume that in this process they treat this act of stealing as morally neutral and consider the whole event as positive as far as they are concerned even though the weapons they used in the event could have killed people in the course of that robbery. Then does this difference in opinion as to the merit of the event entitle us to either still believe that there is some value intrinsic to this particular event or that there can be no objectivity in our moral judgment? That, on one hand, value is set in its determination and that this objectivity is there for us to discover or reveal, or on the other hand, that value is only subjective and is nothing more that what we wish to make of it?
	What we are asking for here is that the real intentional value behind the organization and exercise of the event and the intentional value placed upon the event are not only connected but can actually coincide and that as a rule should be seen to coincide.  That the value placed on the event effectively can and can be seen to coincide with its actual value and that this discovery or recognition, according to some process of reflection, can realize or reveal this possible state of judgmental objectivity in our evaluation?
	As I have argued elsewhere value is discovered in a personal dimension, in a world of dasein to use the Heiddigarian expression or in a lebenswald  or world of life or life-world to treat the Husserlian expression as an effective conceptual equivalent. Value is not found, therefore, in the atomic realm, or in a physical world, that has no presence of the involved person operating within its ambit.
	What is value, or, what is the value of value? Not so long ago I made the bold statement that all action or inaction deliberate in its intent possessed value. Let me take myself up on this point and enquire, as trivial as it may seem, into the value possessed by the action of scratching our heads, or an itch whose disruptive tickling demands we scratch it in order to relieve ourselves of its persistent immediacy. If we can discover value in the trivial then we might find ourselves in a better position to understand value in that which may be more meaningful to the individual person. At least finding some value in the otherwise practically valueless may help us to circumvent the distorting influences of our prejudices and at the same time circumnavigate those regions inhabited by the savage seas of controversy?
	Let us imagine ourselves writing a letter. Its a task that absorbs much of our attention although we might also be listening to a record or cd more or less at the same time. Suddenly one is aware of a tickling sensation behind the left ear. It is both insistent and persistent. We do what we normally do. We scratch it without much forethought. The tickling sensation is thankfully relieved and we return to the writing of our letter. What value does the scratching of this itch possess for us? 
	The itchiness itself as it presented itself to us must possess no value as it has no intent. However once the tickling sensation has presented itself to our consciousness its must then possess some form of value in its own right as an awareness of a sensation that informs us of our-left-ear-being-tickled. Then our intent to remove the pressing urgency of the tickling sensation must also add to the value of this tickling through the successfulness or otherwise in its removal from the focus of our attention. Now here we have a clue. The itch disrupted the functioning of our present project, namely, writing a letter (whilst also perhaps listening to some music perhaps). The value of our scratching resides in the successfulness of the relief obtained through the itch being scratched. Slight as it might seem the authenticity of this relief resides in the fact that it allows us to return to the integrated functioning being entertained as necessary for the present project to hand. On the other hand the relative disvalue of the itch lies in its disruptive ability to de-center the focus of our attention on the current course or passage of our project. We might tentatively conclude therefore that authenticity is found in value that integrates or further concentrates the focus of our attention and that inauthenticity is the converse of the same, namely, that which de-integrates or disrupts the focus of our attention. We can extend this definition by treating the focus of our attention to include the general overall gestalt integration of our being, that which promotes the depth and richness in our psychological functioning and overall integrity in psychological organization. 
	Of course this analysis is not without some problems. You might like to imagine the following situation. You are in a position to successfully assassinate the wicked tyranical ruler of a country. In the process of aiming your weapon of choice you are seized by a tickle behind the left ear that demands your more immediate attention. Can we say that the tickling sensation is inauthentic and that both the act of assassination and the scratching are relatively more authentic? Are we forced to make the distinction that the tickling experience as a tickling experience is authentic but that in the context of the psyche in its involvement in various projects this annoyance potentially threatens our overall psychic authenticity? Let us provisionally accept this interpretation as it stands, namely, that authenticity promotes the integration of the psyche. This, however, does not imply the converse, namely, that integration of the psyche per se is automatically authentic but that this provisional definition would appear to indirectly have this reversed facet as one of the more necessary strands in its possible overall construction?

2. The Structure of Value

	The individual can be seen as a complex of drives and tensions in varying states and degrees of resolutional successfulness. Can we transfer our model of the itch to apply to a number of other types of pursuit where the sense of value is more prominent and obvious. Traditionally value is found in the world of ethical interaction, in the world of the aesthetic, in the world of the relatively real, in the world of the pragmatical, in the world of the mathematical or scientific, etc. (that sees the thematic identification of an identity of partial non-comprehension through some form and degree of correspondence). All these fields of focus involve a search for meaning derived from the successful completion of an act or process of judgment. I have argued elsewhere that all types of judgment have the same essential Trans-Cognitive form, i.e. have a psychic organization that is effectively trans-conceptual and trans-perceptual in function. Using adequately thematized conceptual material (through the exercise of previous judgmental processes) the conditional process of the judgment itself must effectively transcend the epistemological organization of conceptual content and activity in order to be able to appreciate this pre-conditional conceptualized material. Effectively the act of judgment is conducted in relational terms of reference, a state of reflection that investigates the essential nature of that relationship to hand under current review. Without complicating this paper much further in this direction let us ask ourselves in simple terms what fundamental component entity-types we might conceptually conceive as part of a relationship? I believe in this regard we can entertain basically three types of items, namely, ego's, objects or states and some particular or general sense of a world as a background or field. Now we can define the nature or type of the relationship by considering what entities are under the prime consideration of the relationship. In all this gives us six combinations, namely, ego-ego, ego-object, ego-world, object-object, object-world, and world-world type interactions. This gives us the following fields of value, respectively, ethics, aesthetics, pragmatics (or domestics, namely, our existential at-homeness-in-the-world), thematics (subdivided into logic, mathematics, perceptual and scientific-like observation), ontics (namely that determination that seeks the ontical reality of the object-state under investigation), and trans-thematics (that considers various types of metaphyisical polarities). In essence there are these six types of value although as stated before all types or fields of value have the same underlying judgmental form. Moreover, these six fields have their own distinctive subdivisions, e.g. in the ego-ego interaction we can distinguish between a person's interaction with themselves (as in the case of a person experiencing an itch, undergoing a personal dilemma, experiencing pain, feeling happy, etc.), those types of relationships between two individual egos or agents, or that which involves an agent versus a group of individuals or a collective institution, a group of individuals or collective institutions versus another group of individuals or collective institutions, etc.
	Let me quickly analyze these six kinds of value expression. Each of these six fields can be entertained in three modes of emphasis, namely, an emphasis on the first or second party or a mutuality in emphasis between the same. Although, I might add, in accordance with my own analysis of the act of reflection and its processes of judgment conducted therein through the ongoing psychic balance of the relationship we can only correctly entertain the mode of the mutual implying that differences in emphasis must be brought to the relationship prior to its active examination.

i	The Ego-Ego Relationship (Ethical Value)

	Under this heading we can note the general idea of a Transcendental Ethics, that field of ethical judgment entered into that is allowed to follow the intersubjective objectivity of its own course through the historical sense of time to some degree or other. Key words in this field of activity are harmony and cooperation in the resolution of interpersonal interaction. The field of the ethical including all the types of possible ego-ego interaction as already noted.

ii	The Ego-Object Relationship (Aesthetical Value)

	Under this heading we can note the general idea of a Transcendental Aesthetics. Again the key word is harmony, that objective-like response created in the reception of the artwork and the experience therein of its conflicting set of essential structures constructed and resolved in the body of that artwork under review. Artforms involving various individual sensory modalities and/or the interaction between various sensory modalities. Good art utilizing the cognitive channeling or control and interaction of emotional or sentic forms in close cooperation with an intersubjective world of culture in all its richness (of classical and non-classical forms of allusion). 

iii	The Ego-World Relationship (Pragmatical Value)

	In this type of relationship the individual or institution discover their existential worth, their sense of realness or reality, their degree of feeling at home in the world, a feeling characterized by a sense of personal or institutional authenticity in conjunction with a world that enforces a certain degree of appropriateness, conformity and pragmatism.

iv	The Object-Object Relationship (Thematical Value)

	This type of relationship is essentially a subject for the complex field of logic, mathematics, physics, perceptual and historical identity. However, there is an emphasis in this field of endeavour on the correspondence rather than the coherence between conceptually interpreted and treated components. In many ways it is the foundation for a field of judgment as no form of judgment could take place if the situation does not declare first what object-states are actually present or not present.

v	The Object-World Relationship (Ontical Value)

	Under this heading our appreciation of the ontical merit, or the physical reality, of a particular situation is to be realized through an appreciation of both the genesis of the judgmental determination and through an appreciation of the coherence or harmony such an evaluation has with the world as understood by the person concerned.

vi	The World-World Relationship (Trans-Thematic Value)

	Under this heading various aspects or polarities in an overall world-view, or contextual fields, are re-compared giving us in the process a number of metaphysical orientated insights into the nature and aspects of world-experience. Considerations such as possibilities/actualities, particular/general distinctions, background-contexts/ context-backgrounds, organized/disorganized states, integrated/non-integrated fields, cause/effect considerations, etc.

3.	The Equivalence and Stratification of Value-Structure

	These six types of value judgment I would argue have the same underlying judgmental structure and only differ in terms of the nature of the parties concerned and the subtleties therein. However in matters of organizational complexity I would place the relationship between object- states as having a priority through the epistemological fact that an act of judgment must have content first in order to proceed. E.g. in the aesthetic appreciation of a painting the person must first realize that they are looking at a painting, what the painting may appear to represent, symbolize, etc. Likewise in an ethical relationship the person or persons concerned must realize the thematic nature of the parties in the relationship in order to proceed. Conversely, our sense of the world-world relationship must, in terms of the necessary epistemological development, practically follow our other types of value construction hence its trans-thematical appellation.
	Three of these types of value judgment are concerned with a direct sense of the personal, namely, the ethical, aesthetical, and what I refer to as the pragmatical or domestical, i.e. the existential nature of our relationship in the world as a person. In our at-homeness-in-the-world authenticity is experienced as an increased sense of integration with the world. Without a doubt, however, in the creation of personal value a large proportion of the population must find themselves heavily dependent upon the evaluation of others for a sense of self-identity, indeed it is only in recent history that this state of affairs started to change to included sources of value other than how others see us. Let us now discuss the creation of value in the light of this current exposition.

4.	The Construction of Value

	The creation of value like any process is dependent upon the necessary preconditions that ensure the activation, development and fruition of the process. All processes involve the interrelationship between these necessary pre-conditions and all other parties directly and indirectly involved once the process is in process.
	Essentially value is created in relational consciousness in terms of that relationship or relational situation under such review. As I will soon show this relational point of view is radically different from that associated with cognitive processes and the discourse that articulates such a province of the psyche. The materialistic or intellectualist attitudes exercised by cognitively dominated thinking must be suspended in order to appreciate both the processes of relational thought and its concomitant judgmental content and its process-consequences. As a phenomenon the entertainment of the relational environment necessitates trans-conceptual appreciation, an area of thought that surpasses the logical and historical limitations imposed upon concepts whether they be treated in a dynamic mode or in a static mode. Appreciation always necessitates higher terms of reference in order to reflect upon that area of concern with the correct degree of depth, distance, detachment, etc. Consequently the relational perspective is open to post-judgmental mistreatment through the recognitivization of the evaluational process being naturally forced back into a cognitive mould of conceptual and perceptual terms of reference. Moreover, the expression of thought to one's self or to some other person through the use of language and its conceptual machinery must further damage this openness to the trans-conceptual. However, it should be noted that the richness of language as an expression of the total psyche includes in its cognitive apparatus special language aspects, or sub-languages, that indirectly recognize these other areas of experience organizationally transcendent (and thence transcendental) or immanent to this cognitive level of intellectual functioning. In the next section of this paper let me deal with a number of attitudes towards the experience of the relationship.

5.	Miscellany of Misconceptions About The Nature of Value

i	The Search For Value

	In the creation or construction of value value cannot be sought! In truth it seeks us! We don't find it, it finds us! 
	The logical nature of conceptual thinking takes in the relational totality bit by bit, part by part. In this sequential process a resultant forms that has some shadowy resemblance to the relationship itself. Because the experiential whole is greater than the experiential parts when the relationship informs us of its essential constitution it has the power to enact that relative superiority over the parties encompassed by that relationship.
	How then do we search for value if we cannot `search' for it? How can life be given meaning or does such a task have no meaning? My answer to this important philosophic puzzle is as follows.
	As limited finite individuals we must come to recognize to the best intuitive ability we have to answer the question under what conditions would value recognize, seek out and find us? We cannot and should not set out to seek value but, instead, arrange our lives in such a manner that it finds us. In some measure this would seem to involve a materialization of thought, an actualization of the potential sought by and for ourselves. Through entering a relationship with this vision or goal by establishing a common ground with this objective, through thought, simulation, desire, visualization, etc. the potential gap between its possibility and actuality is narrowed so that in some existential manner in accordance with its own wishes we find ourselves allowed to cross over and meet the objective of our aspiration along with all the consequences of such a transition or transformation. No doubt a token search is undergone but in the final analysis it is through the existential being of that value itself that value finds us and allows us to share the authenticity at the center of the relational situation or situations involved in its discovery of us. In our coming closer to the center of the relational situation of our interest we move closer to participating in the authenticity of that relationship. This centering necessitates the resolution of relational difference and through the resulting harmony we experience the authenticity of the relationship in its discovery of us.

ii.	 The Possession of Value

	Value is not something that can be possessed! Correctly it is something that is shared, or more correctly, something that the relationship shares with us!
	For the sake of argument, or as an illustration, let us suppose we seek the friendship of a certain person we have come to know or know about and desire the value we believe that would be conferred by such a relationship. Perhaps this person is admired for their warmth of personality, their wit, their qualities as a conversationalist or whatever. Once some degree of friendship is established can we then turn around and say that we now have a friend, have a friendship with this particular person? Use of the expression have would in this type of analysis be misleading. We may have some coins in our pocket, we may have a cold but do we possess a friendship in the same manner? Put that way we should perhaps see something odd about such an expression, at least see a logical type difference in operation here. In existential terms of reference we might translate this term have by share. i.e. we don't have a friend or friendship but we share a friend, share in a friendship. However, as the relationship is treated as a totality in this type of philosophy and is perceived to be greater than the sum of its relational parties it would be more correct to say that the friendship shares us. In a like manner value cannot be something had or taken but shared or more correctly it shares us in its evaluation, in its value of us. It would follow therefore that the outright possession of value, the taking of something that is valued is correctly counter-productive to the true possession of value or its self-possession through its possession of self. Value therefore cannot be something possessed but something that possesses us.

iii.	 The Donation of Value

	Value is not something that can be owned or had like the spare change in our pocket. Likewise it cannot be something given or donated like the giving of alms to some institution or person! 
	As value is to be found in the midst of the relationship itself and shares itself therein it is correctly through those means that value is authentically `donated!' An act of giving defined within the terms of reference of that action cannot be authentic unless dictated by the relationship itself. It is through the fact that the subjective relationship cannot be defined in terms of its own pure subjectivity, through the co-presence of an other, that its experiential intersubjectivity or objectivity allows us to experience this donation of value by the relationship on the behalf of that relationship.

iv.	 The Demand for Value

	The demand as a demand for value cannot be met! 
	Value can not be given nor received, neither donated nor taken as it is created in and through the center of the relationship itself. That demand that demands value will meet value in direct inverse proportion to the degree of that demand. In this type of existential philosophy we might say that although reality cannot be raped it can be seduced, wooed with gifts or sacrifices and gently won with passionate persistence, resignation and patience. The demand for care, or love, or understanding, etc. cannot be properly won through their institutionalization. Rather, it is through the caring of the relationship itself that a demand for value is existentially met and although it is natural to desire value in our daily lives, a loss experienced through the taste of inauthenticity, value is won when we demand an openness to the value already present to hand in the world of life about us.

v.	 The Dispossession of Value

	Value cannot be given and it cannot be taken away! 
	Value is not something we can directly take away or diminish. However, the dispossession of value is an act dispensed by the relationship itself through the attitude we have to the nature and experience of that relationship. It is through a process that increases the degree of inauthenticity in our relationships that we must find a proportional lose of value in our daily lives. Conversely it is through a process of authentication that value is restored to our daily lives. Authentication is taking those relationships to hand and letting them speak with their own voice, letting them declare their own relative worth and giving them permission to take us where they will. Through the spontaneity and serendipity discovered in the experience of the relationship itself an existential richness is allow to pervade the being of our life in this world. On the other hand when we cease to let the relational environment create value, when we cease to recognize value through its re-creation, when we obstruct value in its self-evaluation and block its self-transformation that we must meet an effective dispossession of value.

vi.	 The Simulation of Value

	Can real value be simulated? 
	Never, since the authenticity of caring can never be simulated in the relationship itself. Only outside that relationship can the pretense of caring be entered into! 
	For the careful person, the person who cares and allows the relationship to care for them, must find themselves in a position to appreciate and realize the nature of the apparent interaction under their current examination. It is under such reflection that that person in their engagement with that relationship is in a position to know immediately through their relational intuition as to whether or not the other party or parties involved in that engagement within that relationship enter into the spirit of the occasion with the necessary degree of authenticity. An exercise done in bad faith is always committed outside that relationship and never from within it.

vii.	 The Addition of Value

	Can added value be added to some product that is seen to already possess a certain degree of value. 
	The simple answer is no! The discovery of added value is the realization of the relationship to discover such an enlargement of value in and through the relationship itself!
Therefore value cannot be merely added to the products and processes of that relationship but must arise through the natural nature of that relationship itself to so oblige us. We find the manufacture and value-enhancement of goods through the processes conducted on the factory floor, in a like manner all value is created in process and not through the mere act of addition. The magnification of value occurs as a function of the relational situation that is capable of overseeing such a development and is an internal reflection of that type of state of affairs and not some influence directly external to the same.

viii.  The Division of Value

	If value is shared, or although more correctly value shares us in the richness and enrichment of the relationship, then can we divide value into separate lots?
	No! Value is not something that is spatially and temporally confined in the same manner e.g. as money taken out of a pouch full of gold coins. Moreover, on the principle that if something can halve then it can effectively disappear we would then see value through division making in time its disappearance. 

ix.	  The Obstruction of Value

	As value is derived in process we might ask ourselves can value be obstructed in its creation, recognition, evaluation and transformation?
	No! As value is found in and through the nature of the relationship concerned then it follows that as long as we can place ourselves psychically in the relationship the process of value-creation, etc. can never be for us obstructed.

x.	  The Preservation of Value

	Can the value realized be preserved, maintained like gold bullion in the vaults of a bank? 
	Again the answer is no! Value must be continuously re-realized and reconstructed in the immediacy of the relationship itself otherwise there can be no effective preservation of identity, etc. To that degree value is preserved is to that same degree value is effectively lost. Through the ongoing resolution of relational difference within a relationship can that relationship herald the effective preservation of such value. Value can only be re-constituted in and through the relationship on an ongoing basis. Once value is created by the relationship it can only unwind or unravel without its continuous reconstitution. As the process of the relationship unwinds so too must the value of that relationship. Like a valuable painting in an environment without a process of conservation the painting must deteriorate to the exact degree it stands outside that process of conservation. Therefore, correctly, conservation of value is an illusion.

xi.	 The Loss of Value

	Can value be lost? 
	No! The appearance of loss is manifested when we loose contact with the source of the value concerned, i.e. when we loose contact with the relevant relationship, when our involvement becomes dis-engaged and more distant. However this does not imply that value can be directly lost. What cannot be obtained in the first place cannot be lost. Indirectly, however, value has the appearance of being lost when we remove ourselves from a particular relational environment. Under such circumstances our dis-engagement, whether in tune with the teleological history of the relationship itself or not, manifests itself as an apparent loss. Value itself can never be lost as its forever resident in the potentiality of the life-world itself.

xii.	 The Destruction of Value

	Value is forever present in the life-world and oscillates between the potential or the actual poles of the 
relationship concerned. Thus value itself can never be destroyed!
	Because the ideality of the potential or the actual can never be fully realized therefore value can never be completely potentialized even in the apparent death of the relationship concerned.
	Even the loss of a beautiful painting can never be absolute through the continuing influence of that masterpiece in and through other works by that master or through the effects had upon other painters and peoples' ways of seeing the world thereafter. 

6.	The Quest For Value

	In this miscellany of misconceptions on the nature of value I have argued that value cannot be sought nor found, can be neither possessed, donated, demanded, dispossessed, simulated, added to, preserved, divided, obstructed, lost nor destroyed. On the other hand we take for granted that the quest for value is a genuine task that confronts the person in their search for meaning and meaningfulness in the world. How do we resolve this tension between the fact, as I have presented it, that value cannot be searched for even though the quest for value is a task that naturally confronts the person living in the world.
	To begin with we must first realize that the relationship cannot and must not be materialized nor conceptualized if we wish to understand the fundamental and essential nature of the relationship as lived out in the world, if we wish to comprehend the phenomenological nature of the phenomenon of relational being. It was argued that as judgmental consciousness entertains relational consciousness and as the former transcends its preconditional cognitive foundations then the nature of a relationship as a relationship in experience must transcend the perceptual and conceptual nature of cognitive or intellectual thinking. Consequently the essential nature of relational consciousness can not be read in material and intellectual terms of reference. 
	Moreover, as the quest for value in the world is relatively an unproblematic task for the individual it follows that as philosophers, and more specifically as phenomenologists, this natural state of affairs must somehow be sufficiently accounted for. In the light of such an endeavour I would like to propose the following grounds for the possible solution of this dilemma. On one hand we have the innate urgency of a quest for value in our daily lives and on the other the philosophical awareness to be realized that in accordance with this type of position value can be neither searched for nor found. It would follow that any search for value, its obtainment, loss, etc. would be that of an appearance and thus we can now make a distinction between the reality of value as a phenomenon and the illusion of various material modes of appearance in our non-existential treatment of the same.
	Therefore the searching and finding of value is more correctly an illusion from the point of view of the relationship itself. Likewise the possession, donation, demand, dispossession, simulation, addition, preservation, division, obstruction, loss and destruction are correctly forms of an illusion in the quest for and intellectual treatment of value. 
	Value may appear to be possessed, but correctly that would be a mistaken point of view. It follows, therefore, that in an authentic quest for value these invalid forms of treatment must not be adopted if we wish to genuinely succeed? On the contrary to succeed we must turn these attitudinal misconceptions on their head and then twist them inside out in order to appreciate their full subtlety, the powers of our insight, their application and performance in the light of this existential philosophy and the manner of its treatment (or more correctly non-treatment). 
	So value is not searched for, and it is not found, rather, it finds us, and it finds us when we metaphorically place ourselves near the psychic or experiential center of the relevant relationship. In a like fashion we don't possess value it possesses us in the course, evaluation and consequential performance of its process. Then again value is not some thing that can be given, or given away, like a few miserable coins to an unkempt beggar. Moreover, we cannot demand its institutional instantiation, fear its dispossession, be fooled by its simulation, add value to it, preserve it, divide it, obstruct it, loose or destroy it. All in all value has an existential nature to it that allows us to come face to face with a real world of meaning and meaningfulness. Through such an awareness a world of value is opened up to our involvement and active engagement. No longer can we be fooled by an inadequate appreciation of the nature of value. Authenticity and its authentication of the individual, etc. is now met in the spontaneity of the relevant relational situation that we find ourselves immersed in along with all the appropriateness of the action and inaction that the power of the relationship has to unfold before us. This power coming from the fact or facticity of the relationship itself being the resolution of the relational dissonance that constitutes the nature of the relationship in the first place. Value being therefore nothing other than the ongoing resolution of the relationship as it enters into the history of the world.
	Having established an introduction to the nature of value our next question would most likely be how do we recognize the presence of value?

III.	The Recognition of Value

	Without wasting time I would like to state that the recognition of value is realized through the re-creation of the relevant relational situation to hand. 
	Through a re-creation of the relational environment the value embedded in the being of that relational situation, the situation as experienced in relationally orientated consciousness, lets us enter into its active engagement and therein realize the self-judgment of that type of situation as it unfolds in the world.
	Now the question arises as to how we go about the recognition of value? 

1.	The Re-Creation of Value

	Between the process of creation and re-creation there can be no difference other than the retrospectivity of the latter. This retrospectivity, however, must be conducted along phenomenological-like lines of reference, i.e. in such a manner as to note and then re-create the essential pre-conditions, conditions and post-conditions that accompanied the original relational situation under investigation. A relational situation, in distinction to a situation, is defined by myself as a situation in experience at the level of relational consciousness. Such a mental state of affairs is then treated in the phenomenological mode to a transcendental suspension and reduction in order to expose the essential process-elements and content that constituted the original creation of value. Let us therefore propose the following rules and guide lines in the re-cognition of value, i.e. those measures that ensure an appreciation of the re-creation of that original situation.

2.	Rules to Assist the Re-Creational Recognition of Value

	In order to ensure an adequate appreciation of the relational situation all essential pre-conditions must be attended to in our re-creation of that event-process. Post-conditional consequences are practically realized through a 
free, historical or controlled simulation of the relational-event under examination. In this context by essential is meant those factors that have some noticeable influence over the course of the simulated situational-process under review. Possible chaotic tendencies in the situational event can be taken into account by making slight alterations to the historical factors in a controlled state of simulation and re-simulation. If the situation is potentially chaotic re-simulated outcomes will show a pronounced variability. Initially a free simulation that lets the situational process simulate itself in such a way that approximates with its current historical treatment allows us to consider our historical appreciation as generally valid and adequate. A creative control over the situational simulation and re-simulation allows us to access other possible modalities that might have been present in the original course of events in the original situation.
	All in all there is an intimate cross checking between pre-conditional, conditional and post-conditional factors (although in the re-creation itself the first two should generate an appreciation of the latter). When our intuition perceives a harmony between our historical understanding and the insights given to us through the re-creational simulation then we can come to a degree of existential certainty in the appreciation of our historical re-creation.
	Only in the midst of the creation of value or its re-creation can we come to a position where we can appreciate the value resident in the relational situation under review. How do we come to this appreciation that allows us to evaluate the nature of the value generated in the course of the phenomenal event under our consideration? Basically evaluation is exercised either in the very course of the event itself or retrospectively through the re-creation of the situation under investigation. The power of the relational process itself, greater than the power of the parties present, has within itself the ability to unfold in accordance with the teleology of that relationship (with an acceleration in the unfolding of that teleology in accordance with our own investigational objectives). Put simply when we experience the relational event as it unfolds or how it might through our accelerated simulation of the same then our evaluation of the value embedded in the situation is determined through the adequacy and accuracy of our own reflections upon it. Therefore evaluation is an appreciation of the creation or re-creation of the value generated in and through the relational situation itself as it is allowed and allows itself to unfold before our critical inspection. 

IV. 	The Evaluation of Value

	As just stated evaluation is a critical appreciation of the creation or re-creation of value in a relational situation. Assuming the same dynamics in play and an invariance in the fundamental mechanics in the machinery of judgment given an adequate phenomenological description of the relational situation the same appreciation or judgmental discrimination should be generated assuming our proper attention to the nature and function of judgment. In this we make the assumption that there is a definative resolution when for that matter there might be no resolution possible. Then again there might be a number of appropriate resolutional modes that could be equally adopted. This still makes and accepts the presupposition that there is an objectivity of ground for value evaluation even if that objectivity is not always obtainable or is polymorphous in its responsiveness. This ground of potential evaluational objectivity accepted how de we know if our attention to the nature and function of the judgmental-process has been correctly applied? As the recognition of value is generated through an appreciation of its creation or re-creation and as the creation of value, the recreation of the same and their appreciation are relational phenomena it follows that as judgmental evaluation is also a relational phenomenon that the same pre-conditions, conditions and post-conditions apply to the exercise of our evaluational discrimination.
	In other words the very means that allow us to experience value, recognize value and appreciate or evaluate value are the same and conducted under the same conditions. In effect judgment conducted in terms of reference of the relational or the judgment itself allows us to experience, recognize and evaluate value as we find it in the world of relational being. Let me therefore later spell out in this paper clearly and simply a precise canon of procedures that would ensure our successful creation, recognition and evaluation of this phenomenon of value. Moreover, as the power of the relationship is such, through the resolutional discharge of dissonant tension, as to effect its own post-conditional consequences it follows that the same rules must apply to the transformation of value into more authentic forms of expression. The power of the relationship is such that it can effect its own consequences either retrospectively in the form of evaluation and postspectively in the form of a transformation of the value creating process. This insight applies to the nature of all relational phenonema whether to a world of physical phenomena treated as physical phenomena or to a world of mental phenomena treated as mental phenomena. With this desire in mind to positively transform the value creational process in order to establish an authentication of being let me discuss this precise canon of rules and in the process bring this paper to a satisfactory conclusion. 
	Lastly, objectivity is put in place by the very nature of phenomenal being itself. The relational situation having both an area of focus and a context in an intimate relationship with the same and assuming that both the gound of that focus and the context of that situation are both essentially structured then it follows that the dissonance in that focal-contextual relationship is also essentially structured implying a possible objectivity in the resolutional prossibilities open to that particular event. This has been discussed in previous papers with regards to aesthetical and ethical value. The concept of transformation recognizing this phenomenal structuring and allowing, or enpowering, the relational situation to refine and realize its resolutional objectivity or authenticity.

V. 	On the Authentic Transformation of Value, etc.

1.	On a Philosophy of Transformation

	First let me discuss what value is or might be before we list the necessary factors that allow an authentic creation of value, an authentic recognition of value, an authentic evaluation of value and an authentic transformation of value in our quest for positive value or authentic value.
	Authenticity is considered to be at the heart of all value, inauthentic or authentic. The process of authentication would therefore be conceived of as a clarification and expansion of that core of authenticity at the center of all being, at the center of all relationships and at the center of all relational situations. As the world of value-for-the-person inhabits a personal dimension, the world of dasein or life-world, a world of living, it follows that value can not exist for itself. Value can only exist for the person, or more correctly, for the being of the relationship of the person in the world.
	Value is therefore experienced through the process-creation or re-creation of the relationship, and its distinctive character is discovered at the psychic center of that relationship.
	The nature of value is unique to each relational situation because it reflects the common nature or transformational ground between the interacting parties in their uniqueness and also reflects, as a consequence, the distinctive integrity of that relationship. This integrity is established through the ongoing discharge of relational tension between those parties which in turn establishes the fact or facticity of that relationship to exist and express itself above and beyond the mere summation of its participants factors.
	The degree of authenticity in a relationship is equivalent to that degree the relationship is allowed by the person or persons to operate from the point of view of the relationship itself. This measure is equivalent to the degree of non-ego-intervention present. Large measures of ego-intervention are experienced as a certain degree of unsatisfactoriness or bad taste experienced in the creation or recognitional re-creation of this value. Positivity of value is the degree of authenticity present. On the other hand negativity is equivalent to the degree of unsatisfactoriness experienced in the relevant relationship or relational situation.
	In a value relationship there can never be absolute absolutivity or negativity of value generated in that relationship. Moreover, positivity is realized through the ongoing transformation of the potentially inauthentic. Taking note of the fact that some degree of relative or potential inauthenticity must be present in order for the relationship to be able to transform that ground into the ongoing being of that relational situation. However relative authenticity in a relationship is effectively realized when the relationship is allowed to exercise itself in good faith, i.e. when the relational situation is allowed to be itself in accordance with the context or contexts it finds itself engaged in.
	The transformation of value occurs when there is decrease in the degree of ego-intervention taking place. However, a relationship in the world of dasein even though conducted to a certain degree from the point of view of itself must still also be experienced through the point of view of a person or persons therein engaged.
	Effectively all processes of value creation, recognition, evaluation and transformation must be seen to be self-conducted from the point of view of that inter-dependent relationship itself. Therefore all value cannot be sought or found, possessed, demanded, donated, dispossessed, simulated, added to, preserved, divided, obstructed, lost or destroyed. In like fashion the transformation of value cannot be sought or found, etc. That effectively the quest for value is an illusion when treated from the center or point of view of the relationship itself.

2. 	Rules for the Critical Transformation of Value, etc.

	Rules for the critical treatment of the relational situation will be conducted under the following headings, namely, Principle of Equivalence, Preparational Procedures, Pre-Conditional Research, Conditional Entertainment, Post-Conditional Consequential Analysis and Rectification.

i.	The Principle of Equivalence

	That the creation of value, the recognitional re-creation of value, the evaluation and transformation of value are the same, namely, the relational situation in process. Moreover, relational resolution, facticity, existential merit, authenticity, etc. are also equivalent (in their conceptual referentiality) i.e. these expressions point to the same phenomenon of a particular relational situation.

ii.	Preparational Procedures

	The guided cognitive and affective preparation for the establishment of value and its transformation, etc. as an experience resides in a specific area of consciousness, namely, the Trans-Cognitive? Noting that the relational in the terms of reference of itself can never be treated as a concept, etc. except retrospectively. However the ground of the relational situation is resident in its cognitively translated preparation. 

iii.	Pre-Conditional Research

	Analysis of the relational pre-conditions demands the attitude and exercise of a transcendental suspension and reduction or description in tune with that relational situation.

iv	Conditional Entertainment

	Analysis of relational conditions demands the attitude and exercise of a transcendental suspension and reduction or description in tune with the processes of that relational situation in either a free, historically simulated or controlled relational environment. A list of factors necessary for the adequate functioning of a critical conditional process could well be...

	a)	Correct exercise of adequate research,
	b)	Engineered balance between affective aspects,
	c)	Engineered balance between cognitive aspects,
	d)	General freeplay between relevant parties,
	e)	Withdrawal of ego-intervention,
	f)	Full cognitive absorption,
	g)	Exercise of a transcendental suspension,
	h)	Exercise of a transcendental reduction,
	i)	Realization of a dialectical treatment,
	j)	Realization of a consequential rectification,
	k)	Re-emphasis on weighted propabilities
	m)	Adequate re-cognitivization.

v.	Post-Conditional Consequential Analysis

	In the post-conditional exercise of the transcendental suspension and reduction attention must be paid to the consequences and possibilities proffered by the relational
situation and theoretically this is aided thought the essential nature of the distinctive resolution engineered by that relational situation and revealed to the being of that relationship. 

vi.	Rectification

	In Rectification we concern ourselves with the dialectically qualified treatment of a relational-process and its transformation-content in terms of its inevitable re-conceptual translation. This process of materialization being also extended, when appropriate, into perceptual terms of reference with all the inherent distortions, illusions and philosophical misinterpretations possible in that re-cognitive transformation or retreatment.

VI.	Conclusion

	The title of this paper was A Phenomenological Approach to the Theory of Value Creation. In discharging this intention we might best attend briefly to the nature and exercise of the transcendental suspension and reduction with its essential description of the products and processes involved in our creation, recognition, evaluation and transformation of relational value.
	Through a balanced, spontaneous, absorbed detachment we allow the phenomenal world to speak to us in its own terms through the categories developed in the situation to hand. All predetermined forms of judgment and evaluation are noticed if they occur in processes of our reflection but 
are put out of action in so far as they can distort that process of judgment. Along with the distortions of pre-determined forms of value judgment ego-intervention must also be subjected to some form of transcendental suspension, etc. that a balance may be entered into between all senses of self and all senses of world or other without necessarily dismissing the same. The paper by implication noted six forms of pre-determined value judgment to be avoided in the phenomenological investigation of value, etc., namely, thematical, ethical, aesthetical, pragmatical, ontical,    and trans-thematical.
	Finally this paper noted that the quest for value was an intrinsic part of the individuals living in this world but that this quest for value could not include and should not involve the illusory forms of value manipulation of searching, possession, donation, demand, dispossession, addition, preservation,division, obstruction, diminishment or loss, and destruction.

	That in the final analysis we cannot directly search for value but that instead we should open ourselves up to just letting the value of the relationship find us. That this discovery of the individual by value itself was indirectly facilitated through our engaged involvement with the relationship itself in an attitude of implcit patience, reverence, perseverance, concern and openness to the mystery of that relational situation in all its explicit majesty, power, spontaneity, existential richness and serendipity. Indeed the fluctuations in the unfolding of reality as a living stream of structured chaos are more often than not like a rich tapestry full of novelties and surprises, insights and transformation. Moreover, this fabric of the life-world has an implicit value already present for the individual to recognize and accept or to use as the basis for an existential transformation in the light of that person's personal environment and the many meaningful projects that could be found there ready to hand.

   		     Noël Tointon, Sydney and Leura, 12.4.90.