Who Owns the Truth? 

A Provisional, Systematically-Oriented Account
In Sixty Verses
For the Perplexed Philosopher
In Order to Facilitate
Their Passage Through this World-of-Life…

and,

A Series of Comments
In the Form of a Commentary….

N.K.Tointon, 24.2.05/27.2.05.

What’s truth… could it be shown, not shown, mis-shown… 
When true for all who could then own the truth??? (1)

Truth simply is no more and no less than 
“That in conformity with reality!” (2)

In the lived out Life-World before others
Two apples in a bowl remain… till eaten… (3)

But philosophers find perplexity
When all the world for us is well mapped out. (4)

To find a dialectical perplexity 
In mapped out midst of such simplicity. (5)

“Truth is conformity with reality…”
But talk ‘about’ the truth must miss the point..! (6)

All truth is lived, and that discussion too
Must be lived out… as if in a marriage..! (7)

‘Truth’, ‘is’, ‘conformity’, ‘reality’…
This is where you find controversy! (8)

So, in and through a marriage of minds,
Let us unpack this map of the Life-World (9)

‘That’ already embedded there-for-us -
The cultural world of the phenomenal. (10)

That lived out, that focused upon, others…
These three ingredients form a circle. (11)

Just as a gestalt field necessitates
A sense of self, a focus and background. (12)

Intentionality leaves a set of
Traces upon the texture of the world… (13)

Hence the complex interaction between
A non-text, a text and a meta-text… (14)

Sense of self is discovered through reading
When the sense of the text... is overlooked… (15)
That focused upon being the text,
In its meta-textual sense of context… (16)

These three aspects co-defining ‘other’
Through selective promotion, suppression… (17)

These three dialectical facets must
Co-exist and simulate the lived-text! (18)

What is deemed true and what is deemed not true
Is conducted through lived-textual-judgment. (19)

…in and through this hermeneutic circle,
…in and through transcendental suspension! (20)

In and through dynamic balance between
The dialectics of Ego, Object, World… (21)

Whose subtle un-balance re-produces
These six distinctive-like types of judgment – (22)

Essential, aesthetical, ethical,
Pragmatical, hermeneutical, factual. (23)

Mirroring a relative suppression 
Of Ego and World, World, Object and World… (24)

Object, Object and Ego, and Ego;
Thence six different kinds of truth… (25)

Even though you should know the truth of truth has
But one form… one transcendental nature… (26)

By virtue of this Circle functioning 
Through suspension, suspension of the same… (27)

To ask a question is a suspension,
To answer the same is a suspension… (28)

And a question and answer are lived out
Between the balanced suspension of both! (29)

Whilst the suspension of a suspension
Is both our entrance and exit from the same! (30)

Hence the dynamic, complex, balanced nature
Of an overall suspension of all modes. (31)

People are rich with cultural maps, yet…
Poor philosophers meet perplexity. (32)

Through privileging not their choices of maps…
But their poor choice of path between the same! (33)

There’s already cultural maps before you,
Embedded in your projected intent. (34)

The rich person ever follows the same,
But the poorer person follows privilege! (35)

Through overall suspension truth is born,
Yet poor judgment is birthed through miscarriage… (36)

Still, even the still-born is birthed, is born;
So even the miscarriage is born… in part… (37)

That part that is born is born in lived out truth,
That part that is dead is not truly born… (38)

Hence truth is central, not adventitious!
Just as “to lie you first must tell the truth!” (39)

All else is merely a rectification, 
A truer transformation of ‘our vision’. (40)

So, the way is already mapped out for us…
Yet the short-sighted must privilege privilege! (41)

Privilege the object - you get realism,
Privilege the subject - find idealism… (42)

Project designs upon the mere Object…
Become a sheer phenomenologist… (43)

Project designs upon the mere Ego…
Become a bare existentialist… (44)

Project designs upon the social World…
Become one more mere hermeneuticist… (45)

All truth is born through thorough suspension,
Through suspension of privileged prejudice… (46)

Although relations are born in suspension,
Through difference there can be no equality… (47)

Hence this lived world is an ocean of power,
Whose pre-mapping is just not problematic… (48)

But through the privilege of commitments made
A claim for truth is staked right through its heart! (49)

In such commerce the truth is bought or sold,
Given away or lost, mis-shaped when told! (50)

But if truth be known it be known as shared,
Lived out in Life before the other paired… (51)

So, suspend therefore all such commitment,
De-privilege all privilege through suspension. (52)

Once more all kinds of truth are truly shared,
In one transcendental Life left re-formed! (53)

So know, know well, that Truth cannot be sold,
Never bought nor owned, only shown… not told! (54)

Living the good life in conformity…
In the life lived within this World-of-Life… (55)

Showing what is true and what is not so true,
Living through the clarity of such review… (56)

Finding richness in this worldly vision…
And a humbleness in its revision. (57)

So we all own the Truth… but not for sale
Is such integrity… and such beauty… (58)
 
Find conformity in non-conformity… 
And non-conformity in conformity… (59)

Forever seeking such resolution
That builds relationships though harmony…! (60)

……^^^!*!^^^……
A Series of Comments in the Form of an Abbreviated Commentary

1.	Three questions are asked! They structure these sixty verses. By owning the truth I am making allusions to Foucault et al. “What is truth?” is answered by verses 2, 6, 8, etc. “Can truth be shown?” is examined in verses 6, 39, 51-57, etc. When truth is lived it is shown, and v.v. (with an allusion to Wittgenstein. My allusions to philosophers, etc., are just that - allusions - and not to be read as interpretations of the same). The last question is a look at the power structures in a culture, etc., that control the formation, dissemination, reception, re-simulation of our experiences of reality. Refer to verses 46-48, 51, 53, 58, etc. 
2.	More or less a semantic theory of truth after Taski. Of course the problematic nature of truth is discovered in the detail (v. 8). This set of verses is to safely get us across this churning lake of controversies to a transcendental position where we can formulate our own take on the same on the shores of the other bank, i.e., beyond the distortion of forms of non-existentially operating/operated privileging as noted in v. 42-46, e.g. , and in this journey to more productive shores one can no longer be a realist or an idealist, etc., etc!
3.	Life-World (also equal to my expression World-of-Life) is a close allusion to Husserl. My adoption of his terminology is to be understood as a re-interpretation and not as an interpretation. The Life-World is the transcendental possibility-actuality of life-worlds; worlds of culture; our world and ‘our’ own individual perspectives upon the same, etc. The ‘unity’ of the Life-World can be given a theologically-oriented interpretation as has been attempted in my own work in that field titled Finding a Place for the Idea of God, Volumes I & II. Living in conformity with the existential nature of the Life-World could be interpreted in a religious-like sense or in an existential-like ethical sense, etc., by the reader. It should be noted that such conformity is not ‘mere’ conformity as hinted at in v. 59 and in the harmonic theory alluded to in v. 60, etc. The word ‘mere’ means repetition merely repeated without a hint of variation in contrast to my use of the expression sheer (and ‘bare’ in the tendency to repeat mechanism for showing truth be it aesthetic terms of reference, ethical terms, or whatsoever). The phenomenologist also attends to the ‘mere object-state’ as a phenomenon through the transcendental suspension of all forms of imputation, i.e., taking all forms of imputation at face value only. Note ‘…’ often means ‘etc.’ and context should allow us to fill in the missing content. In this instance “two apples in a bowl is two apples in a bowl until eaten”. Hence the ‘fact’ p of two apples x & y in that bowl b in place p at time t. The statement p that there are two apples in that bowl is T iff (if and only true if) p1; i.e., the statement p = {([x & y]b)pt} is T (true) iff (if and only if) {([x & y]b)pt.}1; i.e., it is true when the meta-statement p1 can be found in the set of true statements… in a set of statements considered true…
4.	This a true observation, a matter of observed fact: people generally do not have an ethical crisis before breakfast each day! Like getting in our cars and driving safely across town according to conventions for the performance of the same people find most of their ethical landscape already worked out for them, along with how to see this world, how to perform in it, how to see works of art, treat foreigners, etc. The only moments of tension in these pursuits are, first, when we are changing paradigms (be they in ethics or the sciences, be they religious or political, etc.), or, when we begin to be philosophical without being fully philosophical, i.e., conduct our reflections in and through an overall transcendental suspension through a proper, appropriate and valid application of this complex technique of de-privileging the phenomenological material of our intentional re-presentations concerning the prejudicial, pre-judgmental content that must be contained therein!
5.	We just don’t find the world perplexing! How is this the case? This proposition suggests that the world is generally already mapped out (through genres of activity, etc., along with the philosophical frames of reference presuppositionally embedded within the same).
6.	Here we meet the philosophical concept or philosophical doctrine of misrepresentation: any text that discusses, refers to, etc., another text is a meta-text. All meta-textual representation is a misrepresentation of the text since that text is ‘about’ the text in the object(-state) language and is not the text in the object-state even if it is embedded in the object(-state) text like, e.g., a title, a heading sentence (like the first verse in this text), a conclusion, a definition, etc. So when we read a text we must differentiate what parts of it are primarily textual and what parts are primarily meta-textual (by observing which approach releases a greater degree or richness of hermeneutic value).
7.	‘Lived’, that life led in existential ‘conformity’ with the Life-World; that ‘living’ transcendental ‘ground’ of all relationships. The sense of the existential being realized through resolution; that resolutional approach that produces/re-produces the greatest degree of overall existential value (from the context of that relationship in relationship with all other relationships…). Now, my use of the expreession ‘existential’ here has (at least) two senses, namely, that facilitation of our passage through the Life-World realized through the hermeneutic circle subjected to an overall transcendental suspension as a proper, appropriate and valid application of de-privileging, and, as that value that arises through a proper, appropriate and valid privileging of the moment of Ego which gains its contrast from ‘phenomenological value’ and ‘hermeneutical value’ (which both arise through the special privileging of the moments of Object and World respectively) (this special privileging being a special de-privileging of the de-privileging of prejudicial pre-judgmental intentional material, attitudes, etc.).
8.	The devil is in the detail… the interpretation of the simple statement in verse 2 heads us off into the controversial territory of the realists, idealists, etc. Hopefully, this set of verses will help us to bypass this pointless tennis game perpetually played between the realists and the idealists (and their many direct and indirect adherents of those styles of interpretation that effectively privilege the intentional object-state or the intentional subject respectively).
9.	My allusion is to Shakespeare… Let us unpack this ‘map’ of the life-World. In the next verse we are told we find that in our intentional projects. My habit of enclosing a word in single quotation marks usually means two things, first, that the expression is meant in a more metaphorical sense or in a double sense and our treatment of that expression nears some care, or, second, I am treating that expression to a meta-textual level of treatment in my defining it, highlighting it, etc. Key terms are also placed in italics, especially terms taking from my work but not literally cited in this particular text but noted in this series of comments. Hopefully, a differential sense of the delivery of a hermeneutic excess will assist my reader in determining what type of significance is being placed upon that isolated expression by this use of single quotes.
10.	This ‘unpacking’ noted in the previous verse being primarily determined through the valid invocation of the genres of activity apparently being invoked through the text under examination. E.g., the lengthy subtitle of this text apparently addresses itself to the ‘perplexed philosopher’ so, hopefully, it would be read in and through a philosophical attitude as a philosophical type of text. The word ‘map’ is to be treated more in a metaphorical sense hence the single quotation marks. This ‘map’ being essentially how we go about the Life-World from a phenomenological perspective, i.e., how we culturally divide that world into its lexical fragments from ‘our’ phenomenal point of view (hence the phenomenological determination of sense as opposed to hermeneutical meaning and existential meaningfulness; e.g., clean water is normally a liquid that is poured and drunk – this is its phenomenological sense, ‘water’ has that meaning, and, existentially, it satisfies thirst and can be a symbol, amongst other things of ‘purity’, etc., hence its meaningfulness).
11.	Now my re-interpretation of the hermeneutic circle is introduced (dealing, in effect, in general, universal, transcendental-psychological terms of reference with the relationship between parts and whole, and v.v.). As noted it has three dialectical moments. For the main part these three moments (treated in a gestalt perspective) of sense of self (as the Ego moment), a focus (as the Object moment) and background (as World moment) mirror non-text, text and meta-text, etc., etc. In my re-interpretation of the hermeneutic circle I am effectively arguing for three moments, namely, a part, a whole and the necessary moment of a relationship for an ‘entrance’ and ‘exit’ from the same (hence the problem “which comes first, the part or the whole?” is obviated!).
12.	The hermeneutic circle is treated from a gestalt point of view. To focus on something you need a background field of contrast. Plus this meta-sense of being able to review this relationship between that intentionally focused upon and that field against which it receives its dialectical sense of contrast. As a dialectical consequence of this insight into the transcendental constitution of intentionality we come to recognize that all moments, all things, etc., are ‘orientations’ and, therefore, cannot be treated as self-existent, substantial, non-empty (in the Buddhist sense), completely self-contained, absolutely independent, etc! This insight teaches us that the deeper we ply our reflections into the constitution of reality the more we must respect it as truly dialectical in the nature of its constitution and that logic, etc., must reflect this ‘philosophical fact’, i.e., ensure that expressions, etc., can no longer function in an independent fashion as isolated non-co-dependent ‘entities’. So, e.g., the divide between meta-textual inter-subjectivity and textual subjectivity can no longer be treated as a fundamental dichotomy (hence putting paid to all such nonsense erected on some ‘real’ body-mind divide [and all its many variants like brain/mind, body/soul, subjective/objective, the material versus the immaterial or spiritual, etc., etc.])!
13.	Intentionality leaves a set of traces deposited upon the fabric of the world. There is always a set. E.g., you walk along the beach and you leave a trail of footprints, and a trail of sweat and bodily scents, a series of memories are formed in the brain, someone may see you walking on that beach, you write a poem about the same, etc., etc. Intentional deposition is never a single act but a multiple series of depositional acts that may or may not be useful for the theoretical work of a hermeneuticist, or the applied work of a hermeneut (of a particular text), or an historian trying to trace and interpret various seemingly parallel traces of the past…
14.	Intentionality formed in and through the hermeneutic circle is deposited upon the fabric of the world, hence the world is textured. Hence the overall relationship between text, etc, is deposited upon this fabric of the world. This implies that meta-textual aspects, etc., are also to be read in our reception of a text. Indeed, that text could not be perceived as a ‘text’ without some degree of a recognition of this aspect of its genre of functional activity. So, a letter is read as a ‘letter’ (through a perception of its literary form) even if it is in another language unknown to ourselves, and, consequently, presents a letter whose epistolary detail cannot be read in detail, e.g.
15.	Hence we look into the phenomenon of non-textuality. When we are reading we are ‘reading’ and this absorption is accomplished without a thought of self intruding upon that act. As soon as we reflect upon our reading this meta-sense of self intrudes upon this sense of self and we are no longer ‘mere readers’ but someone thinking about our act of (non-current) ‘reading’. From the point of view of the (performance of the) overall transcendental suspension/hermeneutic circle I have also proposed a not-textual sense of self.
16.	That focused upon being the text, i.e., the part, that analyzed from/against the synthesized whole. This part-whole interaction occurring within the text and between the text and its associated genre of literary activity, etc. Hence the meta-textual is contextual (e.g., the book in one’s hand), meta-textual (the genre of literary activity associated with the reading of that book) and inter-textual (how books are treated in general, etc.). Since genres of activity are hierarchically nested, this, in effect, is our psychic mapping of the Life-World!
17.	By ‘other’ is meant both ‘each other’ and all sense of ‘the other’. The sense of ‘otherness’ contrasted and/or focused upon is realized through a special de-privileging of de-privileging realized through a relative promotion of some dialectical modes and a relative suppression of other dialectical modes (associated with the full thematization of that under examination). So, e.g., focus on the Object moment and you take on a phenomenological like attitude. Soon, I will note six relatively (and non-absolutely) distinctive types of judgment derived from just such relativity of promotion/suppression.
18.	Although relative promotion/suppression gives us a different distinctive flavour in our non-critical and critical passages through this World-of-Life all dialectical facets must co-exist in the simulation of any text (and this ‘ground’ is the transcendental form inherent in all types of textual simulation/re-simulation). The simulation of text, effectively, is a living/re-living of that text.
19.	I am making an allusion to Kant here. All processes of intentionality are channeled through deliberate and not so deliberate (more habitual) acts of differentiation achieved through processes of judgment. In this what is deemed true or not so true is realized through such momentary processes of judgmental deliberation. I am not saying here there is absolute truth or absolute non-truth since in the next moment our deliberations may re-evaluate our current attitudes towards the same. Hence the concept(s) of revision, that re-formed or rectification as noted in v. 57, 53 & 40. However, truth-like experiences are experienced in indubitable-like types of experience (as after Husserl?) (through their realized investment surplus of an existential excess whose differential is experienced as a provisional assurance that that experience is ‘valid’ within those provisional terms of reference)!
20.	This ‘circle’ (noted in v. 11) is now referred to as ‘this hermeneutic circle.’ By ‘this’ is meant my tri-modal re-interpretation of the hermeneutic circle as discussed by someone like Heidegger, e.g. The second line introduces the concept of the transcendental suspension with an immediate allusion to the work of the transcendental phenomenologist Edmund Husserl. It is not my intention to interpret the work of this great philosopher but to offer my re-interpretation of a number of his concepts as they have become re-constituted and re-structured in the evolution of my own thinking. Hence my introduction of the concept of the overall (transcendental) suspension in v. 31. A transcendental suspension, briefly put, is a theoretical, practical and critical technique for dealing with philosophical issues by confronting the phenomenon-to-hand in a transcendental phenomenological attitude realized through the proper, appropriate and valid imposition of a thorough transcendental suspension. This sense of ‘suspension’ is the desire to reduce that phenomenon-to-hand to its constitutive elements, i.e., as an appearance minus its ontological commitments, epistemological beliefs, etc. In this state of transcendental reduction we are then allowed to investigate the essential features of that phenomenon or set of phenomena. Without those essential features that previous phenomenon ceases to be that phenomenon-currently-to-hand. This transcendental reduction is prepared for-us through the transcendental suspension… an expression which has been equated with the terms epoché, bracketing, etc. Through a reduction of the suspension we have a transcendental reduction. To comprehend this reduction the third ingredient of a counter-reductive moment of synthesis, in an act of transcendental reconstitution, is necessary in order to co-define the former two moments. Hence the hermeneutic circle! In other words, lived-textual-judgment is realized through the hermeneutic circle which operates through a variety of transcendental suspensions. That, overall, the hermeneutic circle operates under an overall transcendental suspension. In the next verse I note that a suspension is a balance of one aspect with another, etc. This ‘dynamic’ balance is fundamentally between the three moments of Ego, Object, World which parallel the three moments of our hermeneutic circle, namely, suspensional balance between analysis and synthesis, analysis (parts) and synthesis (wholes). The details of these parallel equations are sketched out in the future verses. E.g., special, relatively micro-disruptions of this balance between these three moments produces six relatively distinctive types of judgment (as noted by the order-judgments listed in v. 23, explained and defined in v. 24 &25; essential judgment being treated as epistemologically prior to aesthetical judgment hence essential judgment being given a first order status and aesthetical judgment being give a second order status, even though as noted in v. 26, all forms of judgment have a deeper coincidence in one transcendental form of judgment, namely, that as expressed in and through the hermeneutic circle…). These types of suspension are sketched out for us in v. 28-31. Collectively they constitute the dynamic functions of the overall transcendental suspension as noted in v. 31. At this point the reader might like to refer to the Appendix where this vision of the hermeneutic circle and some of these paralleled cross-relationships, etc. are diagrammatically represented. Lastly, what is the sense of this expression transcendental? Strong allusions are made to both Kant and Husserl. This sense of definition might best be approached through noting the contrasts that I intend to make or imply with this expression and the qualifications that operate at the same time. For a start, transcendental opposes the sense of the natural wherein in the latter there is no active interest in bracketing out our ontological commitments, epistemological beliefs, etc. I see a painting before me and read it as beautiful, as a beautiful painting. It hangs on this wall in the Prado in a beautiful gilt frame. It is of the Mona Lisa (La Gioconda) and I know that the original is in the Louvre at this moment in time. So I question this picture more closely and realize it to be a very good copy, indeed one, in my estimation, painted by Leonardo himself and note that this ascription has been made in the past from time to time. Then, I ask, maybe this painting is the original and that its more famous counterpart is more correctly a copy of this ‘initial study’? By ‘questioning’ I am not taking things at face value. In this I am conducting (a kind of) transcendental suspension. A question entertains an either/or, i.e. a suspension. The answer of a question is a metaphorical state of likeness. Are there two apples in the bowl of the kitchen table – I go and have a look – and find that there are two apple-like phenomena in that bowl… and assume that they are apples! The answer of a question is, at least initially, a metaphorical state of affairs. A metaphor is a conjunctive suspension between the metaphorical ‘like’ and the ‘not like’… The moon is like cheese, i.e., is both ‘like’ and ‘not-like’ cheese. But we know the moon is not a cheese so we can also obtain a literal answer when we find that the metaphorical ‘like’ just does not completely apply phenomenologically in this situation. But to arrive at that situation the metaphorical link is a necessary presupposition in our evaluation. Thence the answer of a rhetorical suspension, i.e., a question, is initially a metaphorical construction (that only becomes literal and definitively negative through the removal of the option of mere ‘likeness’ as an actualized possibility, or, definitely positive through the removal of the option of mere ‘not-likeness’… since the complete coincidence of the intentional objective ‘x’ with either mere ‘a-likeness’ or mere ‘not-a-likeness’ implies directly that if were the case that x is both merely a-like and not merely not-a-like that x must = a, and, if those two conditions were not met then that x is  ~a). This interplay between question-and-answer is noted in v. 28. The sense of the transcendental also contrasts this critical divide between the transcendental and the natural. Yet, the natural is born in the transcendental dynamics of the hermeneutic circle, and, the sense of transcendental can only be realized through the non-destructive bracketing of this naïve sense of natural. Effectively they co-define each other. Moreover, this co-definition is furthermore, essentially, the ‘divide’ between ‘the cognitive intentional material of a judgment’ ‘conducted in a judgmental process through an overall transcendental suspension’. Critical attention to the overall transcendental suspension realizing a critical appreciation of this transcendental dimension in the intentional constitution of experience. By ‘transcendental’ is also meant those presuppositional necessities before an act of intentional significance can arise in non-transcendentally aware consciousness (such as the sense of [natural] world being born in transcendental consciousness to begin with, etc.).
21.	The hermeneutic circle operates through a set of dynamic balances between these three archetypal moments of Transcendental Ego, etc., i.e., the unobtainable pole/polarity of transcendental subjectivity, etc. Because the phenomenal presentation/re-presentation is constituted by-us (textually by our own sense of self and meta-textually through intersubjective to a varying range of genres, etc.) it implies that no phenomenon is without this subjective and intersubjective ingredients. At the same time the phenomenon, as an intentional object-state being focused upon and therein thematized in through this hermeneutic circle it follows that the intentional act is in phenomenal existence by virtue of these three polarities of the subjective, etc., and hence its dependence/inter-dependence upon the same. Thence polarities in their pure expression and experience remain unobtainable other than as approximated idealities (which merely re-states this point). Hence the dialectical nature of consciousness and all senses of reality reflected therein…
22.	Now I argue that in this state of transcendental balance subtle, special micro-acts of disruption through a micro-de-privileging of de-privileging realizes six distinctive-like types of judgment as listed in v. 23. This effect is realized through relative promotion/relative suppression of these polarities either individually or collectively. In a relative promotion of Ego, Object or World we have, respectively, existential engagement, phenomenological reflection and hermeneutical anticipation. In their collective promotion (and/or suppression?) we realize the proper, appropriate and valid functioning of the hermeneutic circle… 
23.	In the relative suppression of these moments we find this list of (the orders of) the essential, etc. The essential deals with lexical equations and operates through correspondence between lexical-like items. The essential also deals with phenomenologically distinctive phenomenologically treated object-states… identities, states, grouped correspondences, etc., given or ascribed with the same phenomenological sense in our psychic mapping of the Life-World (such as, e.g., the ultimately indefinable distinctive phenomenological states of our experience of ‘saltiness’, ‘redness’, ‘ambition’, ‘love’, ‘face’, etc.) (as found in ‘our’ thematization of the cultural hierarchicalization of genres of activity as realized in ‘our’ own experience of this World-of-Life with-others before-others).
24.	E.g., a promotion of the moment of Ego produces/re-produces a sense of the existential (in our active engagement with others). On the other hand the relative suppression of the Ego moment produces/re-produces a sense of the factual…
25.	Six different kinds of truth. To confuse them is to make an ordered mistake! E.g., we should not confuse a deontological sense of the ethical with a pragmatic oriented ethical calculation. No doubt they have a part to play in our overall ethical considerations (just as a determination of what is factual and that which is not factual, etc. must also play its part in that kind of judgment, and, to some extent, in all other judgments). On the other hand a deontological judgment is different from a pragmatic one. To confuse them is to make a mistake and commit yourself to a fallacious argument in your support for the same. On the other hand the next verse tells us…
26.	That the transcendental nature of (of our experience of) truth has but one form, i.e., that reflecting the overall dynamics, etc., of the hermeneutic circle! Thus to over-stress these distinctive differences between the essential, aesthetical, etc., is to overlook their common transcendental ground as ‘judgments performed by the totality of the hermeneutic circle’! Right transcendental discrimination is our ability to exercise this subtle point in our research into the phenomenal-phenomenological constitution of the Life-World!!
27.	Now we are told how these types of judgement, judgment in its transcendental ideality, are realized. Through an ideal, modal, dialectical succession of different types of suspension which altogether constitute the imposition of the overall transcendental suspension…
28.	To ask a question is to invoke a dis-conjunctive suspension, namely, some rhetorical sense of an either/or. It is the case (or it is not the case) that x is a or x is not-a. Both possibilities have to be ‘given’ together for the question to be asked, entertained as a transcendental possibility. The answer is initially expressed in the form of a metaphor… it is like a or it is like not-a… Suppression of the of the ‘is like’ or the ‘is not-like’ and you realize a literal answer (if that metaphor could be treated in this literal fashion, since correctly, metaphors cannot be treated literally and remain metaphors!)…
29.	Next, we note that the process of the question-and-answer itself has to be jointly entertained with an appropriate balance between these two dialectical parties. Too much emphasis upon the question there is no answer, etc. So, our third ideal suspension is a (dynamic transcendental) balance between the dis-conjunctive suspension of the question and the conjunctive suspension of the answer. From this third suspension arises a sense of a judgment, a judgmental response, indeed a response (whose existentiality is a reflection of how that questioning was asked, i.e., either realized authentically or inauthentically in our existential attitude and orientation towards this topic of phenomenal-phenomenological interrogation…)… hence the internal dynamics of the hermeneutic circle and its distinctive set of dialectical suspensions...
30.	But the hermeneutic circle itself must also be suspended otherwise we would be trapped therein! The mechanism invoked is a suspension of the suspension, a suspension of the previous suspension (which, also, of course, realizes our internal dynamics of the hermeneutic circle) and a suspension too of the overall transcendental suspension… thence our being thrown back into the natural world… where through response we respond to others… However, an inability to properly suspend in some manner or other realizes a deficit in our critical thinking and existential being in this World-of-Life. On a more extreme level it reveals itself as a process of stasis, neurosis, or, finally, as a psychosis… corresponding to that facet or those facets of the psyche disrupted, blocked, diverted, etc., by such relative dysfunction. As suggested our transcendental reflections, indeed our reflections in general, both take up from this world and throw us back into the same (to adopt this Heideggarian metaphor). The same door through which we enter we must also exit…
31.	Through the exercise of these ‘ideal’ dialectical suspensions a proper, appropriate and valid, overall transcendental suspension is entered into (and left). Such is not just a global suspension (after Husserl) of our ontological commitments but a thorough suspensions of all forms of prejudicial prejudgment. This is realized dynamically through a balance of all such modalities whether contrasted bi-modally or tri-modally, etc.
32.	In my use of the expression ‘poor’ I am making a Biblical-like allusion. Normally, we just do not meet absolute perplexity throughout the day except when we put on our heads the hat of a philosopher. Why is this?! My answer here is this: the world is well mapped out through an already worked out hierarchical nexus of praxis through an assortment of genres-of-activity-to-hand. They have already mapped out the world for us. In a philosophical dilemma we are merely questioning which map to adopt and/or questioning a map already adopted and/or questioning some map in the light of some  other… But a truly philosophical attitude is exercised when conducted through the overall transcendental suspension (as when we authentically, and inauthentically, live out our non-philosophical lives in a veritable orgy of intentional decision making conducted through series of micro judgmental acts, most of which are habitual and almost reflexive or instinctual in their [lack of] quality). These maps should not be treated literally, they should be treated pragmatically and with a sense of transcendental perspective (i.e., that realized through an engaged transcendentally absorbed detachment realized through a ‘purification’ of ontological commitments, etc.). By ceasing to make such ontological imputations, etc., we put ourselves in a position to more effectively read the appearance/s of that to hand under examination. With this in mind let us, therefore, become rich philosophers!
33.	How do we become rich philosophers? This verse tells us not to (over-)privilege the path we adopt between maps, a path mapped out, effectively, by incontinent prejudice. Genres of activity are just that, genres of activity! Try a different activity and you adopt and adapt a different genre to hand or a different set of genres to hand. To insist on ‘one map fits all’ is stupid! On the other hand, this meta-point of view that ‘there is no map fits all’ is a meta-mapping of the Life-World that allows us to be intuitively aware of just what is or are the most appropriate map or maps to currently adopt and adapt in the light of our current project/s. Then, through an adequately exercised overall transcendental suspension we become aware of the cultural mapping of this Life-World which then allows the discriminating philosopher to operate from a clarified appreciation of the ground beneath them so to speak. Indeed, prejudice as a prejudgment, as per Gadamer, is the beginning material/point of departure for a complex process of suspensions (v. 46) on this existential-philosophical path of a continual intentional re-clarification.
34.	In the intentional constitution of an intentional project we find a mapping of territory is already present through the adoption and adaptation of those genres to hand involved in that current project. That is where we begin, that is what we must clarify… There is no erection of some philosophical edifice and a straining of our experience of the world through the same. However, our philosophical awareness must be an awareness of these genres of activity currently to hand along with a viable critique of the same! So, by what ever means we adopt and adapt a philosophical paradigm, e.g., we should not be mesmerized by that technique itself but be truly engaged by involving it in a dialectical process of transcendental clarification and exercise through the critical invocation of an overall transcendental suspension.
35.	Indeed, the rich person intuitively follows this sense of technique, being receptive to the transcendental. On the other hand, the poor person follows privilege and hence, through such distortion in their ‘reading’ of the Life-World, becomes imbued with a poverty of awareness, an existential poverty of being-before-others..!
36.	Truth is born through the overall transcendental suspension; but not absolutely. In comparison, all else is a relative miscarriage.
37.	But even ‘miscarriage’ is a form of birth, unfortunately a defective form (as a non-open, self-limited and self-disrupting orientation).
38.	That part of this birthing of truth that is authentically oriented is that central to the phenomenal-phenomenological process itself! All else is relatively adventitious! So truth is a process of clarification of this central aspect of the phenomenal-phenomenological presentation/re-presentation ‘minus’ this relatively adventitious concretion wrapped around this living existential core… 
39.	To demonstrate this finding of the centrality of the existential I invoke the phenomenon of lying. To tell a lie you must first tell the truth. Only in some small, but essential, detail or details you erect your lie as a micro-adjustment in your representation of reality (a process that usually has consequences not proportionate to the adjustment itself). “No. There are no apples in the bowl on the kitchen table” you tell your flatmate (as you mentally contemplate eating that last apple by yourself). To put this lie into existence you must first, truthfully, refer to a kitchen, that there had been some apples there, some apples in that kitchen bowl, etc. Truth, therefore, is central - whilst the lie is adventitious to the truth; superimposed upon this truthfully represented state of affairs that must first necessarily be in place before one can intentionally tell a lie!
40.	Hence the doctrine of rectification is noted here: the process of philosophy and all else is a rectification, a re-vision of our vision of the world. I am making a faint allusion to the Confucian rectification of names (that a spade should be called a spade and that everyone as a result in knowing the essential nature of their relationships in society, as ‘brothers’, ‘fathers’, etc., would, indeed, know their place in society and respond accordingly). This sense of vision can be re-shown, is something intersubjective and hence ‘our vision’ and not just ‘my vision’ alone!
41.	The word ‘Way’ suggests a Taoist allusion (and, conversely, a way of reading the expression of the ‘Way’ in Taoist texts?). But, by focusing merely on that-to-hand we adopt a ‘short-sighted’, non-existential, inauthentic approach to reality and the determination of that truth-as-lived… upon this insightful path of continual enlightenment... since authenticity is the ongoing authentification of the relatively inauthentic and not an ongoing rectification of the relatively authentic. 
42.	People, being who they are, usually have a preference for either the concrete sense of the object or an overall sense of self or as a result becoming, through habit, either realists or idealists (whether that orientation of awareness is thematized or not thematized as such by that person concerned [and/or recognized as such by their audiences])!
43.	Then, again, a habitual preference for the Object realizes a phenomenological preference in our investigations… In this modality there is an emphasis on the non-complete replication of iteration hence my use of the world ‘sheer’.
44.	And a habitual preference for Ego realizes an existential preoccuational preference in our investigations… through the repetition of process-patterns of showing in order to reinforce what is being shown hence my use of this expression ‘bare’ to alert the reader to the fact that the same type of analogy, etc. is being re-shown (and by such statistical reinforcement reinforcing one’s intended point through processes of ‘bare’ replication; i.e., replicated patterns reduced to their same ‘bare’ essentials).
45.	And habitual preference for World realizes an hermeneutical preoccuational preference in our investigations… the consonant uniformity of the world arising though processes of mere replication… In this modal orientation there is a tendency for uniformity, a preference for no change or an overlooking of the same…
46.	Now new ground is approached in order to resolve our first question on the topic of “who owns the truth?” (since the powerful have a habit of forever attempting to re-define what is ‘true’, ‘noble’, etc., and appropriating/mis-appropriating the same, etc.). The transcendental suspension is noted as arising essentially through a dynamic state of balance, albeit, through minor, mirco-acts of disruption that realize distinctive forms of value, such as, e.g., essential value, aesthetical value, ethical value, etc. However, through (all forms of) difference a sense of a power differential should be experienced as being present by all the participants in that relationship in question, and, as that to be perceived by each of those participants as different in quantity and quality even if there is the illusion that power is being shared ‘equally’! Even between two friends who treat each other as virtual equals there will be processes of a deferring to each other from time to time. Effectively, in a so-called equally powered relationship these fluctuating differentials will more or less balance themselves out… In this observation I am influenced by Foucault et al. Even though the same essential transcendental nature of that relationship is equally diffused through out the entire extent of that relationship at no point in that relational field is there an equality of power between any of the relevant participants! The overall suspension of the overall suspension reveals in part or in whole the nature of those inequalities in those respectively particularized  power differentials…
47.	Hence the important point of this verse! Between subjects, objects, etc., there can be no actual, current equality in a relatively particularized power differential even though they might be practically equal at that moment in time or effectively become equal over a period of time…
48.	Hence this world is an ocean of power relations that, on the whole, we have little difficulty negotiating, re-negotiating, utilizing, re-storing, etc., etc. However, put on our philosopher’s hat and without a sense of transcendental perspective we meet, instead, only a stormy sea of perplexity… This sense of perplexity also happens when confronted with competing, yet apparently non-incommensurable, paradigms, etc. My favourite anecdote here is the group of Japanese business men with their wives and European business men with their wives tying to sort out who goes into the waiting lift first since the Japanese convention as to precedence of entry is the exact opposite of the Western one (that [once] preferred the woman to enter first). But such perplexity is mild compared to that experienced by the ‘poor’ philosopher who must insist on ‘belting themselves over the head’ with the consequently ensuing distortions attendant upon their non-critical re-exercising of their ontological commitments, epistemological beliefs, religious persuasions, etc.
49.	With allusions to the myth of Dracula I make this point: if a claim for truth is improperly, inappropriately and non-validly ‘staked’ then, to the same extent, your truth-claim is effectively ‘staked through the heart’! Indeed, such an approach effectively deconstructs your own research although I would like to claim that all forms of research do not result in a negative sense of an existential surplus, only, that that surplus is effectively diminished to the same extent you insist on operating inauthentically through the promotion of such prejudice (when such prejudice should be the ‘means’ for that research and not its ‘end’ as per v. 46!)!
50.	In this world of non-equal and inequitable power relations ‘factions’ try to promote their visions of the truth and at the same time, actively or by de fault, suppression competing visions of the same. E.g., newspapers sell their vision of the truth. Sometimes that vision is heavily distorted by management, irresponsible journalists, etc. Then, again, what ever vision of truth that is promulgated some degree of distortion must be present – the import point being to what degree is that present and, conversely, to what degree is the truth not being over-distorted too! Hence there is a need for some degree of transparency, or rather, translucence. Moreover, the operative intentional motivation should also be notified, signaled by some means or other. Moreover, some degree of access to the relevant facts should be made directly or indirectly available along with a properly argued (set of) interpretation(s), etc.
51.	But truth is correctly a phenomenon that is ‘shared’. It is something that is done collectively, it cannot be the sole province of the individual. Through our education in this world our viewpoint is never entirely that of our own (even though, ultimately, as an empirically embodied sense of person we must still primarily view the world in and through our own points of view). In this there can be no private truth (after Wittgenstein)! Then, again, we must existentially be responsible for our own responses and non-responses in this-world-as-we-stand-before-others (whether other people are currently standing in front of us or not). Even if alone in a cave snowed in on the top of a mountain we must still see the world through ‘the eyes of others’; although this is meant more metaphorically than literally, although, from a meta-textual point of view I am also speaking literally here since the ‘presence’ of the other is eternally embedded, albeit virtually). By ‘other’ is meant all senses of contrast psychically experienced whether subjectively, intersubjectively and objectively. These contrasts being experienced dialectically, i.e. both distinctively and through accommodation (and hence ‘dialectically’, i.e., co-definitionally).
52.	 Hence the injunction to suspend all our commitments, etc., ‘de-privilege all (forms of) privilege’! This is my ‘take’ on Postmodernism’s insistence on recognizing all forms of privilege (redolent in the world of the Modern, etc.) by suspending the same! Hopefully moving us into an era of the Contemporary.
53.	Again, truth is shared. Truth is a phenomenon that is ‘shared’! Thus it cannot be correctly owned by some individual party (when its ‘showing’ is ‘re-perceived’ through that re-enacted ‘act of showing’). Through this process of ‘sharing’ and ‘showing’, transcendental ‘Life’ is ‘re-formed’ in both senses of that expression). A Life that continually re-invests itself in an authenticity of spirit…
54.	Truth, thus, can only be shown… not bought and sold, etc. All else is a distortion of the central truth contained therein. What is meant here by ‘showing’? If one were to confront a text, let us say a book written in a foreign language, how is it approached? This text is not read as a pure text, a text qua text. You have already perceived it to be a book, so, already, you have adopted the genre of booklikeness in order to understand what this non-natural-like object is? Obviously, the next questions to ask are “what sort of book is it?” and “what language is it written in?” The phenomenon of ‘showing’ is realized when the hermeneutic circle is fully engaged, etc. In the realized integrity of the complex rhetorical treatment of a complex metaphor or set of metaphors in the lived context of the hermeneutic circle we are directly entertained with the simulation, or re-simulation, of that text. A text is never perceived as a mere text, to be seen as a text it must show itself through this dialectical encircling of text, meta-text, and lived-non-textual experience wherein that text progressively reveals itself to us and to others. Hence this concept of showing…
55.	In such authenticity we live the ‘good life’ (as thematized and re-thematized in the ‘received’ texts of Greek philosophers, etc.). Conformity is with that spirit of the Life-World as divined by ‘us’.
56.	Through processes of rectification we practice a process of review, revision, an ongoing re-vision of what is asked for in being authentic before others and before our own sense/s of self. This being seen as a process of clarification. If we can question we already to some extent have some understanding of the answer…
57.	We recover (as philosophers, etc.) the already present existential richness of our being in this World-of-Life and a humbleness to face what we currently are not in a position to face…
58.	We all have a stake in this vision of the Truth! So we all ‘own it’ in this special sense. This ‘Truth’ is experienced through integrity, as something beautiful, through a sense of goodness (that a traditional theologian would want to capitalize)… because the truth is intentionally realized through a process of harmonic resolution (involving a series of questions and answers through the mechanism of the hermeneutic circle subjected to an overall transcendental suspension)…
59.	Finding conformity (read meta-textual consonance) in non-conformity (read textual dissonance), and v.v… in other words in order to find the harmony present and to be revealed in their interaction, make their interaction possible… allows us to read the texts of the world and the world as a text…
60.	By such a process of harmonization forever seeking processes of resolution that existentially re-establish our relationships with the world, ourselves and each other… in effect, continually re-establishing us as centred within this one, wonderfully rich World-of-Life and All it entails!!!

Appendix – A Diagrammatical Representation of the Hermeneutic Circle

3.Ethical Judgment
(Existential Moment)
Ego

2.Aesthetical Judgment                            4.Pragmatical Judgment

[Overall transcendental Suspension]
*

Object                                                                  World
(Phenomenological Moment)                                 (Hermeneutical Moment)

    1.Essential judgment                                                         5.Hermeneutical Judgment

6.Factual Judgment