A Phenomenological Re-Definition of Freedom, etc.,
and,
Its Application to the Spheres of the Political, etc.*

Introduction

	In this paper I concentrate on two interrelated problematic issues, namely, how do we achieve a deeper understanding of the nature of human freedom, and, how do we augment this sense of freedom in the spheres of the personal (or psychological), sociological, political, etc. Just how does an individual achieve a greater degree of freedom in their passage through this World-of-Life, and, how is this to be gained, and not diminished, when entered into on our behalf in the political realm, etc., in our interactions with different political institutions and their ‘interactions’ among themselves. Given that these ‘entities’ are relatively incommensurable how, e.g., should the Australian states interact with Federal government, and v.v., in the controversial areas of health, water management, education, etc? To what extent is human freedom intertwined, augmented and/or diminished, in these multi-polar interactions entertained between the realms of the personal, the local or council, the federational and the national (and by extension, the inter-national?)? (1)

	To approach a resolution of this complex set of issues I will first attempt a phenomenological re-description of the phenomenal nature of freedom in order to elucidate its general character along with its invocation of a set of associated concepts such as, e.g., opportunity, obligation, responsibility, etc. In this process of re-description I wish to bypass entrenched misperceptions I believe have coloured, or rather discoloured, our conventional understanding of this concept of freedom which I would rather re-define (in an existential frame of reference) as ‘opportunity’ (in various fields of opportunity that demarcate modes-of-life). In the process I would like to bypass the relatively unfruitful controversy of freedom versus determinism (which, I believe, should not be allowed to continue to operate in such shallow and seemingly incommensurable terms of reference as reflected through the mirror or prism of the so-called Enlightenment, etc). (2)

	Secondly, I would like to apply these acquired insights into this philosophical problem of how people interact with institutions, and v.v., and, how institutions might interact among themselves (and thence influence prescribed forms of human interaction)? We should not talk, I believe, about human freedom without understanding the existential obverse of this phenomenon and its implication in a field of necessarily associated obligations and responsibilities, etc. Then, how are we to understand so-called institutional ‘rights’ when such phenomena cannot be reduced merely to their current human participants? In this sense, should we be allowed to talk about institutional ‘rights’ such as, e.g., ‘state’s rights’ and the ‘rights of federal government,’ etc? To what extent can this metaphor operate beyond the boundaries of the individual? (3)

	To these ends, let me first supply some definitions; then, phenomenologically examine this existential phenomenon of human freedom; extend these insights beyond simples forms of human interaction; and, hopefully offer some provisional conclusions on the controversial nature of this topic of existential opportunity? (4)

* For latest version of this paper: www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelshomepage3.html 
1.   Definitions (As Appertaining to the Title of this Paper)

	By phenomenological is meant ‘that phenomenon or set of phenomena treated as a phenomenon or set of phenomena qua phenomenon or set of phenomena through the invocation of a transcendental phenomenological attitude towards that distinctive sense of a phenomenon or set of phenomena’. That a transcendental phenomenological attitude is invoked through the use of an implicit and/or explicit overall transcendental suspension (as defined elsewhere), the application of an eidetic reflection or set of eidetic reflections, and other transcendental-phenomenological procedures (such as transcendental reduction or transcendental analysis, or, transcendental synthesis or transcendental re-constitution, etc., through the application of an overall hermeneutic circle, etc.). Broadly speaking, in such an investigation we seek to determine essential features of that ‘type’ of phenomenon or set of phenomena. Thence our aspiration in our transcendental investigations to produce/re-produce and examine/re-examine phenomenological descriptions/phenomenological re-descriptions. (5)

	By re-definition is meant ‘a phenomenological description/re-description-prescription/re-prescription of this phenomenon of existential opportunity or emergent opportunity a.k.a. freedom’. (6)

	By freedom, or, rather, opportunity, is meant ‘our ability to function in a manner beyond our current level of actively available functionality’. Opportunity here is defined in an existential sense in and through an overall existential excess to the extent this sense of ‘opportunity’ avails us of a greater degree of an existential excess. Let me define this sense of an overall opportunity as F equals our set of current functional possibilities f plus our newly acquired opportunities x minus all previous opportunities y lost (through acquiring x). When F is positive then we come to possess an overall existential excess of opportunity. On the other hand, negative territory is traversed when, overall, there is a relative deficit of opportunity.

				F = f + x - y

	…and this sense of augmented/diminished opportunity F’ = (f + x – y) – (f) (7)

	The question immediately arises, how are such actual-possibilities to be quantified? Indeed, can qualities be quantified, and, quantities and qualities be made commensurate? This is a vexed topic! However, as previously examined elsewhere, I would just like to say that as I perceive all acts of judgment to have the same deep transcendental form or phenomenological nature then on a deep level of phenomenological analysis they can be shown to be commensurate in and on those deeper terms of reference. This seems to be embedded in the intuitive idea that we can quantify quality even if left in metaphorical-like terms in so far as we say “this is ‘much’ better” or “that is ‘less’ good,” etc. In other words, comparisons can be conducted, and, comparisons between comparisons might also be able to be conducted, etc., and therein evaluated and metaphorically quantified (if only in broad comparative terms of reference and coupled with the associated conventional rules already in operation that allow such accommodations and transformations, etc, to be conducted between such relatively non-commensurable states of affairs when superficially treated from a conventional point of view). (8)

	By freedom, etc., is meant ‘the inter-associated or allied phenomena that accompany an act of existential freedom or emergent opportunity. Here I need to note obligations, responsibilities, motivations, resolutions, consequences, mutuality of exchange, etc.’ (9)

	By application is meant the utilization of such insights, approaches, attitudes, etc., to the topic to hand in theoretical and/or practical and/or critical spheres of investigation. In other words, the relevance such procedures produce and re-produce through their iteration and re-iteration. (10)

	By spheres of the political, etc., is meant the psychological or personal level of mental-somatic interaction; and, interpersonal or sociological interaction; and, political levels of interaction including local levels of government, e.g., town councils; confederational levels of government as represented by states; federational or national levels of government; and, international levels of interaction between relatively sovereign states or countries, such as occurs through the functions of the United Nations, treaties, economic blocs, the operation of international law, etc. (11)

	Let us also consider the following. That intentional functioning of an individual is a psychological affair for investigation to that extent such ‘intentionality’ can be studied, i.e., through intentionally formed depositions be they self-reports, articulated statements in general, observational reports made by others, etc. Then, the same intentional activity between two or more individuals is a sociological affair for investigation. Again, here, intentional ‘behaviour’ or ‘activity’ can only be examined through the retrospective examination of the textual depositions or ‘droppings’ of such individuals and their interactions so to speak. To this, let us say, a political dimension is realized when such sociological interactions become hierarchicalized and, therein, instituted through the constitutional formation and preservation of allied institutions and their associated modes-of-life as well, etc. So, in this regard my interaction with my local council, and v.v., might take the form of paying my rates, receiving letters of information, etc. Similarly, my interaction with the State of New South Wales might take the form of receiving letters of information, voting in the state elections, etc. And, my interaction with the Federation of Australia, and v.v., might take the form of paying my taxes, voting on a federal or national level, receiving letters of information, etc. By extension we could say various institutions interact in a similar fashion, i.e., by the exchange of various textual depositions, etc. ‘History’ therefore would be a retrospective examination of these textual trails of exchange in textual depositions between individual and/or institutions. Now, I would like to add the following insight. History can be conducted either relatively superficially or relatively non-superficially. In the former, in a style of surface history, we form various factological inventories of textual depositions, create various hermeneutic interpretation using the former along with an overall critical assessment of the same in a sub-discipline I have titled stylistics. However, when I examine the resolution of intentional motivation I find there is a dialectical-like level of analysis/synthesis that cannot be completely explained in a relatively superficial manner or surface sense. These existential discrepancies high-point areas of chaotic-like eruptions into the usually smoothly running world of the meta-textually determined conventions called genres and which relatively (and non-absolutely) demarcate modes-of-life from whose interaction we must ask how such a state of accommodation could be reached (as practically observed in our non-virtual modes of life as lived-before-each-other)? In these depths of ambiguity; parallel and conflicting intensions; relatively incommensurable world-positions; parallel and discordant beliefs, etc., we will need to ask “just how is this process of relative accommodation to be realized in the very midst of the reality of our engaged existence with-others?” (12)

2.   The Phenomenological Nature of Existential Opportunity

	Too often philosophers and others either absolutely contrast ‘freedom’ from ‘determinism’, or, completely conflate them! Obviously, freedoms are constrained by the sheer fact of our being embodied before others. On the other hand, our entry into a variety of modes-of-life avails us of an overall existential sense of opportunity by virtue of the fact that they cannot be reduced to the mere summation of their materially-oriented inputs, etc. These genres of activity usually lend to us a certain relative degree of freedom within each sphere of operation. E.g., in marriage or similar, the life of those two individuals concerned can achieve a greater degree of overall freedom if certain mutual conditions are found to prevail. Say one party does the shopping and the cleaning while the other party does the cooking and the laundry. Assuming both parties individually would have to do all these chores of daily living then we might perceive a certain greater degree of freedom to arise for those individuals as a couple when various tasks and their allocation are mutually taken up or individually shared out. We could, e.g., define this emergent freedom or emergent opportunity in terms of the overall time saved by this re-division of labour or in terms of satisfaction achieved in choices adopted, or to be calculated by some other means, etc. In this functional orientation (and holistic sense) in regards to the experiential nature of freedom we should refuse to adopt either extreme definitions or a lack of definition in our contemplation of this topic (whether our focus be theoretical, practical and/or critical in orientation). Opportunity is seen as emergent by virtue of these overall additional functions that arise within our entry to each additional mode-of-life metaphorically entered into (through our engagement with the same through our adoption and adaptation of the terms of reference associated with such meta-textual genres of activity that define our 'entry', active and/or passive participation, and exit from the same). (13) 

In experiencing this existential excess associated with our psychic entry or re-entry into a mode-of-life, these additional opportunities simulate a greater sense of freedom providing they are treated in an existential manner, i.e., as forms of value to be experienced and enjoyed in an existential attitude of openness to the same in keeping with their existential manner of introduction as found in their presentation to us! To inappropriately and addictively grasp after such forms of value is to transform their relative existential openness into a relatively closed state of inauthenticity! Authenticity re-continuing this engaged sense of an existential excess, whereas, in contrast, inauthenticity is realized through a non-existential sense of non-engagement along with a consequent loss of overall value (through the defective imposition of an inadequate overall transcendental suspension and/or the relative de-imposition of an adequate overall transcendental suspension, etc., i.e., in effect through a relative privileging and/or relative non-privileging of factors comprising that process-content under examination)! (14)

	Let me now examine how I perceive this semblance of emergent opportunity to arise? (15)

	Emergence implies ‘our non-ability to reduce the overall nature of our opportunity to a mere summation of its process-factors and the content-factors associated with that state of affairs’. Moreover, opportunity implies that it can be both perceived and enjoyed; i.e., potentially recognized and actually realized. (16)

	Let me now examine the following puzzle. There is an existential saying to the effect “that what you gain with one hand you lose with the other.” Let us say for the sake of argument we were to enter the chess mode-of-life to play a game of chess with a friend. Obviously my ‘entry’ there means I cannot now go and read a book (unless it be directly related to my current game of chess, say a book on the rules of chess or opening moves or similar). My ‘entry’ into this ‘world’ finds for me the existential excess and enjoyment of chess-playing through my engagement in that manner. However, it means that I now cannot carry out a series of intentions not directly related to this game of chess currently being played. Have I gained some freedom at the expense of a greater loss of freedom to that extent that entry into a particular mode-of-life means I now cannot enter into any other mode-of-life to the depth of their engagement required? Opportunity gained and opportunity lost. Of course I have the ‘freedom’ to immediately cease playing chess if I were to decide to do that. To what extent does opportunity avail itself in the form of an excess of value when my entry and passage through a mode-of-life is more the apparent curtailing of a sense of freedom once we have decided to enter and engage therein within a certain mode-of-life? Because in this instance I experience an excess of value, and enjoyment, in and through my playing this particular game of chess with my friend. (17)

	How does one resolve conflicting forms of motivation, indeed, formulate any form of motivation (especially in the light of the transcendental fact that all forms of judgment and motivation are conducted in and through the auspices of an overall transcendental suspension)? Just how does one become resolute, resolve the variety of dilemmas that might confront us? To this end I would like to propose a harmonic theory of intentional resolution. (18)

	Harmony, be it intimately connected with aesthetical considerations or ethical concerns (or some other form or combination of ordered judgment be it [pre-essential] essential, pragmatical, hermeneutical or factual processes of judgmental determination in orientation) from a transcendental perspective the same tripartite dialect is at work. Let me explain. Dissonance is experienced as relative difference from the rest of that associated field of phenomenological experience. For it to be perceived as relatively different implies that the overall tonality of that field is consonant, thence the apparent integrity of that field qua field. Hence the dialectical relationship between this point-focus of difference or dissonance and its background field of relative consonance. Now, how can there be a process of interaction assuming this state of difference or relative incommensurability? By recognizing that this difference is not absolute but only relative and, thereby, non-absolute. Thus, in the realization of a process of accommodation this dialectical tension can be resolved. In an oil painting with an overall blue background, say a work from Picasso’s Blue period, a splash of red would be perceived as foreground and an obvious point of focus. How might the painter resolve this tension (between this illusion of foreground and background?)? What tricks can they find with their brushes? The artist might put a little bit of blue into the red splash and some small patches or traces of red into the background. Thereby, that red-splash can then be related to the blue background by virtue of its traces of blue, and, the blue background can be related to the psychic foreground of the red splash by virtue of the traces of red in the former, etc. Other devices being utilized to connect and resolve other forms of relative dissonance in shape, texture, subject matter, etc. Let me put this in slightly more technical terms of reference. (19)

	Hypothetically, I consider the process of resolution to involve three dialectical moments, namely, consonance, dissonance and resolution. I would argue that all forms of intentional motivation are realized through this type of circular dance (superimposed upon my understanding of the overall hermeneutic circle). Consonance is established through the relative uniformity of meta-textual activities associated with a certain genre or mode-of-life. Dissonance is textual and becomes a point of focus. Through suspension we balance both focus with background, and v.v., in the intentional context of a certain genre of activity (as an entered mode-of-life). Put another way, difference is resolved through some form of an accommodation that allows us to entertain both divergent aspects simultaneously within this process of harmonization. This harmonization being experienced with a sense of resolution, the creation of a directed intentional act hence response and responsibility, resolution and a sense of resoluteness, etc., when this degree of harmonization is realized. As argued elsewhere, through a suspension of the (overall) transcendental suspension passive reflection becomes active (through the asymmetry of the response), and so the process then continues through a re-imposition of the overall suspension, etc., etc. These ‘dialectical’ moments being both sequential and co-temporal as well as atemporal. (20)

	In our observations and examinations of our perceptions of this phenomenon of an existential excess what allied conceptual-descriptions/prescriptions seem to necessarily co-occur in our experience of the same? (21)

	For a start, we might conceive of this harmonic overflow of a net additional value to be the result or fruit of that very relationship itself in which it arose and found itself developed or cultivated. Herein we have a first clue in the form of the necessary degree of mutuality that must exist in order for that relationship both to arise in the first place and be preserved during that segment in the lifetime of that relationship in question. Thus, in this regard there must arise a certain mutuality of regard between the parties concerned. However, in an engaged relationship within our own sense of self how could this mutuality of participation be envisaged if at all? By perceiving a mutuality of participation (and not merely a mutuality between participants). This sense of mutuality being cashed out between potential senses of self and actualized senses of self realized in the matrix of that relationship as a reflection of its authenticity, or, more correctly, as an augmented sense of authenticity realized therein! Let me examine how this type of a process might occur. (22)

	A person might perceive a certain need, thereafter formulating a certain strategy for the acquisition of the necessary inputs to assuage that same need. Meanwhile, certain other needs co-existent with the same will need to be relatively suppressed. Other drives will need to be activated in order to acquire the necessary inputs that need to be acquired in meeting that need. In this regard this need is privileged and strategies for its acquisition will be promoted. The positivity or negativity of the resultant sense of additional value realized is F’ as previously defined. However, consequential analysis would be better served if a comparative approach were adopted. At the juncture of decision making what if we were to go in a certain direction rather than some other – could we approximately evaluate the relative excess of value that might devolve from those more prominent possibilities currently to hand for that particular individual (in the light of our current progress in our ambitions)? I believe this is possible, to a reasonable extent, by virtue of the fact that our intentional behaviour is exactly that – a series of pragmatic calculations in the formulation and simulation, calibration and re-direction of our intentional objectives. Success being pre-defined by our meeting those objectives envisaged in regards to the degree of success thought achievable in that regard. If a certain goal is thought only partly achievable and you succeed to the degree envisaged then you may well feel you have been successful, indeed, going further beyond such partial limits being deemed as being even more successful in that regard. Moreover, competing strategies and competing objectives are going to complicate this intuitive type of calculation. However, on the other hand, a harmonized essentialization of goals and methods would allow us to envisage what measures would be needed to attain such intentional aspirations. The same approach being mirrored in our transcendental-phenomenological investigations (albeit conducted virtually be they held prospectively, contemporarily and/or retrospectively in temporal orientation). (23)

	Let me illustrate this type of evaluation. There has been much discussion lately on the topic of emotional intelligence, the role of emotions in decision making, etc. Just as a simple act of judgment is realized when relevant information is bought to bear and we find ourselves affirming (or not affirming) a certain judgment one way or the other re this situation (and this type of situation). Similarly, when we entertain a complex decision-process we are effectively looking at the relationship between a series of judgments in the light of other judgments rather than mere factors to be taken into account within a single judgmental act. Our judgment is now more between a set of judgments rather than within any particular judgmental act itself. We look for a resolution of the problem to hand whether it be simple and intra-judgmental or complex and extra-judgmental in nature. In the later, various emotive-like weightings attached to various judgments already made are sorted vis-à-vis a relatively final judgment and its associated emotive-weighting as realized in this meta-judgmental act through its overall transcendental suspension and the suspension of the same that realizes that relatively final act of judgment. An apparently satisfactory judgment re-weighting that relatively final-like act of meta-judgment. So, e.g., with an array of desserts and cakes to chose from to accompany my cup of coffee at afternoon tea in my imagination I weigh up which one or ones from the hotel buffet counter I will put on my plate taking into account how hungry or how not hungry I am, how much they might cost, what is considered appropriate under these circumstances, etc. This series of judgments forming the material basis for my final judgment as to what cake or cakes I will chose if any from among this selection on offer. My final choice may take a few seconds longer than if I were merely presented with but one choice and then merely whether to take it up or pass it by. Indeed, even a single, simple act of judgment of the kind just noted is itself still a series of judgments before we make a relatively final act of judgment – is this a cake, this is a cake but is this a cake I would like to have with my coffee, should I have one piece or two pieces, etc. (24)

	In the light of the above analysis what allied values seem to be conceptually aligned with this concept of an existential excess and it’s allied sense of existential opportunity? In the above example I am making a series of judgments with a variety of judgmental types. E.g., is this cake-like object a cake, does it look tasty from memory and as an act of speculation, should I chose one cake or two, how much might this choice cost, do I have enough money or credit to pay for the same, how am I going to pay for it, etc. In this relatively simple ‘act’ of a series of judgments I am interested in matters of identity, memory and speculation, pragmatics, numerical calculations, certain performances of communication, judgments on the adequacy of such communications (asking have I been understood?), etc. Even within this relatively simple ‘act’ of judgment there are a plethora of judgmental steps before I am able to make a relatively final act of judgment, itself, in turn, initiating a variety of judgmental acts that allow me to entertain how I am going to interpret the same in practice, evaluate their adequacy, etc., etc. Even though we must utilize an overall suspension in each judgmental step and in the relatively final act of judgment our pathway through such complexity is smoothed for us by an emotive weighting of these factors and through an attachment of an emotive weight to the relatively final judgmental decision. In our general, phenomenological reflections upon the complexities of judgment in our experience of freedom, or emergent opportunity, what other features seem to necessarily accompany this distinctive type of experience (both phenomenally and phenomenologically [in and through our experience of and reflections upon the same])? Therefore, too, any loss of augmentation by any one factor must also reflect a loss of freedom or opportunity within that relational field overall. That either the complete loss of the freedom/s in question or the apparent complete gain of the freedom/s in question by any party or parties at the expense of any other party or parties must signify the sheer end of that relationship as understood in the general essential form had till that point in time it were to possess such a description, or, at least, radical re-direction. Thus, in augmentation there is a mutuality of augmentation to some degree or other since not all parties might be able to benefit and enjoy that increased degree of augmentation in the same manner to the same degree. Still, this implication must follow that the augmentation of opportunity, if only in potential terms of reference, is experienced in and through a certain relationship in which there is mutuality of augmentation of opportunity for all contributing parties, parts or factors, etc., and v.v. E.g., if I were to put a lion in a much bigger cage then that lion now has a greater degree of freedom, albeit limited by the walls of the cage. Similarly, if I were to put two lions in a very large cage or park then those two lions now experience a greater degree of freedom than previously had immediately prior to their removal from a smaller cage or park. It also follows that all factors, what ever their kind, associated in an augmentation of opportunity are still party to that augmentation of opportunity even if such greater ‘access’ is there in potential terms of reference (and merely recognized without being taken up). Let us say for the sake of argument we have two male lions in a large enclosure who are threatening each other for dominance. That to avoid their injuring each other and the death of one or both parties we remove one lion from that enclosure. The lion left now has a greater degree of freedom (albeit still confined by the limits set by that enclosure). Does the other lion also share in that same sense of augmentation? Not necessarily. No longer being in a direct relationship with the lion left behind in the enclosure, the lion that has been removed from that enclosure, in effect, has left that relationship (circumscribed by that initial enclosure). The lion that has been removed might experience a similar degree of freedom by being directed to an enclosure of a similar size or an enclosure that is bigger or smaller with degrees of freedom, in this sense of movement, in direct proportion to the size of the enclosure entered and now occupied. But, if that is the case, surely both lions are then the center of their own respective augmentation/equality/diminution of freedom? No! Because the center of their relationships within their enclosures is now merely centered in ‘their participation as a party within-the-confines-of-that-enclosure’. Similarly, the relatively internal augmentation of opportunity within the psyche of a single person effectively is between their virtually envisaged sense/s of self and their realistic assessment of self-value as currently realized, and, thus, not a state of affairs purely imposed upon their merely current, realized sense of self, etc. Hence mutuality implies that there is a certain mutuality of sharing in facets to be examined within a relationship between those facets implicated within that same particular relational field. In other words, mere opportunity and it augmentation is experienced in and through the entire field of that relationship. So, it must follow that all aspects of that relationship in augmentation must share somewhat in that same sense of augmentation in the same potential manner to some extent even if that potential cannot be completely taken up within the field of that particular relationship to some degree or other. What are the ramifications of this transcendental insight? (25)

	Through the use of a transcendental argument (or a transcendental-like argument) let me show that through an augmentation of opportunity there is also an augmentation of mutuality to some degree or other within that particular relationship between the relevant parties concerned within that relationship under question, and, that from an understanding of mutuality we can derive a number of necessary features that accompany the emergence of freedom as a field of opportunity (to be taken up or not taken up as desired). Imagine, if you would, that through an extension of the range of that particular judgmental process opportunity is therein augmented, and v.v. That the power of that relationship, its facticity, i.e., the extent to which it is a psychic fact beyond the mere ‘materiality’ of its constituent parts or factors is augmented about the psychic center of that relational field. Now, the center of the relationship, therefore,  cannot be centered in or on any one or more or all of its contributing factors by virtue of the fact that there is a relationship ‘between’ this set of factors. The necessary implication follows that as that relationship is augmented that augmentation must mutually apply to each of those factors to some extent or other. (26)

	Mutuality implies both acts of mutuality and acts of non-mutuality by virtue of the fact that mutuality can be neither absolutely shared nor absolutely non-shared (in the potentiality of recognition and ability of realized uptake) (and to the same degree and in the same manner by virtue of the point/s of view shared by the factors or parties within that relationship)! Let me elaborate upon this theme. Just as augmentation is shared (with the qualifications of uptake as noted) so too all other transcendental features of that relational field are also ‘shared’ (with similar qualifications of uptake as noted). Thus, allied to the formation of conditions (in a certain field subjected to augmentation of opportunity) the same must apply to both pre-conditions and post-conditions (along with the same type of qualifications about the uptake of that opportunity). Now, appropriateness within a certain relationship, for a conscious participant, an intentional, well-intentioned agent, implies that they must generally operate within the same genres of expectation associated with that particular set of conditions and attitudes experienced therein. Hence post-conditional responses, e.g., must generally operate appropriately within a field of propriety and thus a sense of responsibility is born along with responses, and v.v., in that same field of operation (given its inhabitation with intentional agents such as humans, e.g.). In turn the reinforcement of responsibility (in keeping with the nature of that field) preserves the existential continuation of that field and therein enables its augmentation should that be able to be realized by one or more of the agents within that field of responsibility. All this is mediated by processes of exchange as exchange-processes. Let us envisage a group of friends. Let us say one of those friends wins the lottery and their winnings are considerable. That person’s sense of freedom then, in that regard, is augmented. Is the overall freedom of those friends also augmented? Only to the extent that there is a process of exchange in which those winnings are shared with those friends in part or in whole. If the friend who wins this lottery keeps this information to themselves and does not direct any of this new found wealth to their friends directly or indirectly then these friends do not participate in this augmentation of opportunity realized by that fortunate person in that circle of friends. Without the necessary requisite exchange of wealth in some form or other by that lottery winning member with some or all of his friends in this circle of friends then these other members are not participating in an augmentation of freedom of opportunity that is or could be experienced by that winning member. Its as simple as this! For a certain relationship to be augmented in the availability of opportunity that could be experienced by its members then all of those members need to possess access to the same in some form or other (through a general process of exchange appropriate to the nature of that process of augmentation). Without such processes of exchange, directly or indirectly achieved, then the effected members are no long party to that same relationship considered to be subjected to that process of augmentation. Different relationships are under examination if augmentation and/or preservation and/or diminution of possibility are not shared to some extent or other. Thus, we can also conclude, that the nature of the exchange processes within a certain relationship defines the nature of that relationship, and, also defines the participants in that relationship (by virtue of this commonality of potential/actual exchange). In this light, with respect to relationships between intentionally conscious agents, what other factors of relational augmentation can be noted? Working within the appropriate propriety of a relationship, in terms of its relational expectations in keeping with its genre expectations, we have a sense of responsibility. Another factor that apparently co-exists with existential opportunity and its augmentation, etc., is that of obligation as a set of obligations. Can we also ‘transcendentally’ derive the same from our analysis to date into our examination of the nature of the relational dynamics involved in an augmentation of existential opportunity in a particular relationship? I believe this is possible. In a relationship between intentional agents the conscious awareness and acceptance of a process of exchange must also involve an awareness of the obligations entailed therein through an awareness of the nature of the act of acceptance entertained by the passive party or parties in that process of exchange. The very nature of a relationship reflects its exchange mechanisms operating within the range of that relationship, indeed, thereby characterizing its essential nature. Friends are realized through acts of friendship, e.g. The very acceptance of a gift as a gift qua gift implies the acceptance of obligations through the acceptance of that gift as a ‘gift’; in the mutual sense of gift-giving-and-gift-acceptance. If gifts were merely given or accepted as objects (and without any sense of obligation), i.e., given or received without a sense of responsibility for that act of acceptance, there then is no true relationship being formed or preserved in the manner as apparently intended by that ‘donor’ if they were to be properly and appropriately making a donation in accordance with the genre of gift-giving as conventionally understood [even if that gift were anonymously given in accordance with the conventions of making an anonymous donation]). If a pile of expensive books were merely left on your doorstep with no clue as to their ownership and you accepted them, then or later, as now yours, you do not find yourself in any real form of a relationship with the ‘donor’ of those books since that ‘gift’ was entered into not only anonymously but without any sense of obligation. Thence, in a relational process, a mutuality of exchange is also met in a mutuality of obligational uptake (wherein non-obligational-like entities as gifts, etc., and context-dependent obligations are mutually exchanged, and v.v., even though such distinctions cannot be absolutely drawn between these two facets of exchange processes of actual gifts and potential obligations). That, similarly, in an augmentation of opportunity within a certain relationship there is also a consequent augmentation in exchange processes along with its attendant senses of mutuality, obligation, responsibility, etc., in keeping with the phenomenal/phenomenological nature of that relationship. And what determines (internal) propriety (within a certain relationship) and (external) appropriateness (outside a relationship or between relationships)? None other than the genres of expectations already to hand in our adoption and adaptation of the same! Then, how do we know what sort of relationship we are in and what is expected of us? By our acceptance of these genre conventions (and any relevant re-writing co-authored by us of the same within that relationship). Similarly, the nature of our relationships is a direct reflection of the manner of exchange processes therein realized in keeping with those genres expectations as met or not met (or in non-agentally implicated relationships, by virtue of their exchanges mechanisms alone, etc., as found in a realm of physics or mechanics or similar). Moreover, our ability to interpret textual depositions allows us to relate to the nature of those relationship involved, and v.v. (by virtue of our ability to understand the genres of operation apparently in effect in the formation, preservation, augmentation and/or diminution of the apparent phenomenal-phenomenological reality of those relationships under examination). Let me simplify my arguments here in order to demonstrate why emergent freedom in the form of an increased existential opportunity is also accompanied by corresponding senses of mutuality, obligation, responsibility, etc. (27)

	First, mutuality is ensured by a commonality of exchange mechanisms. Moreover, any augmentation, etc., within a relationship implies its de-centered range with respect to all participants or factors within that relationship since they can only experience that augmentation, etc., purely from their point of view within the range of that relationship or relational ‘space’ since no participant is at the very center of that relationship! In this regard, to this extent, a relationship can be treated as having a mind or life of its own. Second, genre expectations determine how exchange mechanisms that define that relationship are to be understood from an intentional point of view. Intentions being interpreted from an understanding of the textual nature of deposition along with an understanding of genre implicit and/or explicit in such understanding. Third, a reinforced recognition and understanding of genre expeditions makes us privy to the mutual consequences of relational exchanges within those genres of expectation. Thence emergent freedom and existential augmentation of opportunity alerts us to attendant concepts of mutuality, obligation, responsibility, etc., that co-exist with and equally define the nature of that attendant opportunity within that kind of relationship under intentional focus in that regard. That, in effect, emergent or existential opportunity arises through this ability of not being able to be merely reduced to all or any of its participating factors or members. Thus ‘freedom’ should also always be ‘seen’ as circumscribed by the very nature of the constraints imposed upon the relative finiteness of that relationship, and, its ‘emergence’ or ‘existential’ orientation should be ‘seen’ as a reflection of the nature of that relationship as a relational form of existence above and beyond the relative materiality of its mere participants (in this psychic region of a differential facticity, i.e., is greater than the sum of its material-oriented imprint in the Life-World). So, in this light, freedom through opportunity should always be seen as co-existing with an equivalent relational form of expression that is relatively limited (albeit both transcendent and immanent to that relationship and thence), mutual, obligated and responsible, etc. (28) 

	What can we say collectively about these co-existing facets that accompany and enrich our understanding of this concept of emergent opportunity? Although arisen with the mutuality of a relationship each has its own point of view within that relationship in the same manner as participants 'see' that relationship from their own point of view. However, despite such basic mutuality, each factor or participant is therefore asymmetric in its phenomenal-phenomenological imprint within that relationship (and our phenomenal-phenomenological perception/apperception of the same both directly and indirectly recognized and realized). Moreover, being intentionally thematized, through processes of relational resolution and exchange mechanisms in keeping with the nature of that relationship, in principle these factors and participants can be subjected to processes of a more deliberate thematization in order to reveal their contribution to the phenomenal/phenomenological nature of that relationship. However, the richness of field thematization will act as a limit in these types of investigation to the extent that the richness of focus can neither approach nor be equal to nor greater than the received and acquired richness of that associated field or fields under such focus. An example of this asymmetry of participant or factorial perspectives is that of a family, say mother and father, two children, a grandparent and other some relatives. The relationship between mother and father is different from their relationship with their children, etc., even though all participants ‘live’ within that same family. Moreover, there is an asymmetry within each relationship or sub-relationship. Furthermore, a recognition of the preservation of an overall relationship effectively recognizes this consonant relational field as that aspect that is mutual or common to that relationship; thence the preservation of ‘family’ despite the existence of different sub-relationships and/or the geographical and temporal dislocation of its membership from time to time. (29)

	But, all this granted, how do acts of resolution arise between competing and conflicting emotions, intentions, aspirations, etc? Or, how do competing individual and/or institutions manage some form of a successful and efficient accommodation, manage to realize a process of productive cooperation? To this end let me now examine the application of our understanding to this process of resolution. (30)

3.   The Application of Our Understanding of Existential Opportunity

	By application is meant ‘the utilization of a certain attitudinal directive wherein resolution is realized in order to achieve the ends desired behind the particular intentional motivation of that application.’ In other words, how are the ends of a certain application to be realized in practice (be that theoretical, practical and/or critical in orientation)? (31)

	With these insights to hand, etc., such as, e.g., our harmonic understanding of resolution, how do we account for the manner of this dialectical process of resolution, and, the active possibility of a qualitative improvement in its existential productivity (and its re-iterated re-productivity in its conventional condensation as an expected mode of activity)? Just as ethical dilemmas are usually the result of paradigm shifts or conflicts in motivation rather than as a continual series of ethical crises on a day-to-day, moment-by-moment, moral terrain, so, too, genres of activity more or less carve out the main details of our moral landscapes associated with particular modes-of-life (and in their collective generality). In this regard, to understand processes of accommodation one need merely re-direct our gaze to how past activities appeared to be so successfully resolved and operate through an extension of precedence or the considered establishment of a new sense of precedent if and when called for! Let us examine this retrospective establishment of expected genre-related activity in more detail. (32)

	As already noted, interactions are intentionally directed, and, leave intentional trails of intentional depositions. To understand these processes of accommodation, in effect, all we need to do is to attend to these actively intersecting and virtually interacting trails of intentional deposition. Then, interpreted as facts, and their collective interpretation in the form of a hermeneutic program, we can then re-assess the same through forms of stylistic re-assessment, etc. By such means attempt to understand the processes at work that establish/dis-establish these dialectical forms of interaction and relationships. Let me illustrate this type of historical research (as it would find itself being condensed and sedimented [and often submerged] in our passage through this World-of-Life). (33)

	As already noted, I have presented this philosophical problem of the interactive commensuration between disparate entities, say a rate-payer and their city council, or, a town council and a state or federal government. My simple solution to this problem is that pathways of interaction have already been worked out for us through conventional practice and we need merely to attend to their manner of exercise in the world about us. That to do this we need merely to attend to the trails of intentional deposition that map out for us these conventional pathways already in use. In this light, therefore, we can note the nature of such interactions to be generally textual, in particular through various modes of activity already conventionally formulated utilizing specific texts (such rate notices, e.g.). Examining such processes of textual deposition what might we be able to say in general in this regard? (34)

	On first appearances much of the textual interaction is directly or indirectly mutual to the extent that texts often call for a response. I am sent my rate demands and duly pay them. A circular informs me of something the council wants to tell me with the indirect implication that someone else has informed them of this or they have formulated the same, or, some other person or persons or organization in the future might wish to re-inform them or be re-informed on the same topic, etc. This element is an indication of textual mutuality. Asymmetries occurring in the intentional direction of that document or set of documents, differences in power between the authorizer of that document or set of documents and the intended receivers of such texts, etc. So, in the example alluded to, I pay my taxes to the Council, not the other way round; unless I am to get a rebate or refund for some reason or other, etc., (which reinforces this point in power-relations). Hence the asymmetries in this type of text, e.g. On the other hand, ‘the Council sends me this rate demand and I duly pay it’ is an instance of textual mutuality to the extent that that text is also issued with the intention of obtaining a certain response, etc. (35)

	By such an observation we can see how relatively disparate entities with differences in levels and styles of power can be seen to interact, intersect and be mutually inductive of the formation and preservation of certain types of relationships that one might have thought to have been otherwise incommensurate. Let us now attend to how these processes of intentional interaction via textual depositions are both emitted and better augmented (in terms of an existential excess of value). (36)

	Let me say that from a transcendental perspective, i.e., the phenomenology of relationships as entertained intentionally, there can be no real transcendental difference between intentions as mental states directed towards their intentional object-states or objectives, and, intentions as performances to be intended as certain states of affairs whose realizations are to be desired, etc. A sense of intentional resolution is enacted behind both practices, both elicit acts of judgment and both leave intentional trails of textual deposition, etc. On the other hand, on a more conventional or natural or genre-oriented level of exposition there is a difference since the former are directed towards intentional objectives and the latter towards the performance of certain actions or non-intentional objectives. I desire a cup of coffee in the first sense would not give me a cup of coffee. On the other hand, without the former the latter would not be entertainable nor realizable. This distinction aside, what needs to be said on these processes of simulated formulation, re-iterated preservation and augmentation? (37)

	In theory and in practice the noted observation of ‘differences in power’ is a necessary fact of life, but, how are those differences to be rendered mutual and authentic between disparate entities with disparate power relations? Just how should the individual ‘stand’ before the state, or, just how should local councils, state and federal organs of power interact and interact authentically and with augmentations in authenticity? In other words, how are intentions exercised by an individuals or a group of individuals either on their own behalf or on the behalf of an institution or set of institutions to be authentically enacted on the behalf of that individual or group of individuals or institution or set of institutions? Through acting on the behalf of that relationship involved through a simulation of the same that ‘intends’ its augmented benefit (in both senses of the ‘intentional’ as ‘intentions directed towards their intentional objectives’ and as intentional acts intended to be performed and brought to fruition). To achieve this type of phenomenal understanding (theoretically, practically and critically) let me examine the overall relationship between the following three facets that seem to be involved in this type of process, namely, that authenticity is trans-intentionally enacted, that authenticity is effectively realized on a simulated relational basis, and, an augmentation in authenticity generally realizes an augmentation in the freedom to be experienced by that individual or those individuals involved therein, i.e., that a greater sense of emergent or existential opportunity is mutually realized therein. (38)

	That, in effect, existential opportunity is generally realized through an augmentation of authenticity already to-hand in its associated relationship! (39)

4.   Authenticity and its Augmentation

	How are we to define authenticity? Through its equation with facticity! I.e., to that extent a certain state of affairs is established in the world-for-us with a greater degree of value than that merely resident in its constituent parts. E.g., a broom is a broom-head and a broom-handle. However, a broom is something ‘greater’ in psychic value-for-us by being more than just a broom-head and a broom-handle. That difference in value can be defined by the differences in function realized between its constituents (and factors) and that which devolves from the utilization of their totality. E.g, with a broom we can sweep a much greater area of floor area than that which could be done using merely a broom-head without a handle. A boom elicits a greater degree of opportunity in sweeping floors in this instance. We can sweep more floor and/or conduct the same more quickly. Hence our relative freedom of opportunity in this regard; that this type of task can be done more quickly and/or with less effort (than that which would devolve from merely using a broom-head, e.g.)! (40)

	But authenticity is also realized in a matching of means and ends, an augmentation in the same realizing a better match between those same means and ends! (41)

	This sense of matching is either synthetically open or defined as analytically closed. Let me examine this example of ‘my paying my rates’. Authenticity here is in a sense already pre-defined to the extent that if I were to pay my rates in full I am being authentic in the discharge of my duties (assuming I have no dispute with the council re their calculation of those rates, etc.). Imagine, however, the following. Suppose I were to pay those rates immediately I received that notice but left myself without money to buy food for a whole two weeks. There was no need to pay so promptly as I could have done it by the due date and had money for food in the meantime. Internal to that relationship of rate-paying, the discharge of my duties is already pre-defined and my discharge thereof is analytical prescribed when the full amount is paid in full as prescribed. In this sense there can be no augmentation of authenticity. This we could describe as being conduced in an authenticity of propriety. On the other hand, taking all current relevant issues to hand external to that relationship it would not be appropriate for me to immediately pay my rates. By waiting till my next pay or some other form of income is received my behaviour is conducted in a relative authenticity of appropriateness. By waiting, deferring my payment, I might be able to say that the authenticity of my being in the world has been relatively augmented. That it is between these two forms of authenticity, should a relative authentic authenticity already be in place, that an authenticity-of-being-in-the-world is usually to be determined and therein realized. What does this sense of authenticity-of-being-in-the-world generally entail? Surely, one might protest, if I am already in-the-world how can I be more (embedded) in-the-world or less (embedded) in-the-world? (42). 

	The difference is qualitative and devolves about this sense of an existential, emergent sense of opportunity, i.e., our freedom to be in-the-world. In the example just noted, I avail my self of a greater sense of freedom by deferring the payment of my rates. On the other hand, to completely defer the payment of my rates is not a wise choice either given this asymmetry in power-relations between myself and the council concerned. In essence, life is spent in a process of deferring and non-deferring through an appropriate openness to all our relationships (as modes-of-life) that we find ourselves ‘entering’ as those relationships-to-be-lived-in-the-world. Each and every relationship, as an entered mode-of-life, needs to be navigated and arbitrated in the contextual light that all our other entered modes-of-life also need to be navigated and arbitrated both individually and, more importantly, collectively or contextually. How is such a feat to be performed and performed satisfactorily? Indeed, how is our authenticity of being in-the-world both to be exercised and augmented when and where appropriate? Just how does one live one’s life in-the-world with-others authentically and find therein and there between a degree of augmentation in the same that is both proper and appropriate (besides being valid and/or self-validating)? (43)

	I suspect some people might already have guessed what the solution to this puzzle might be. None other than our-life-lived with-others being-lived through the proper, appropriate, valid, or, i.e., adequate, exercise of the overall transcendental suspension! In this adequacy is defined as ‘the minimum attention that needs to be brought to bear upon our understanding of a certain defined situation in order to obtain sufficiency of value that is proper(ly constituted internally to that relationship as simulated through our conscious, intentional enactment/re-enactment of that relationship in our full engagement with that relationship) and is appropriate(ly constituted externally to that relationship in the overall light of all our other relevant relationships to be-considered in that moment or period of time). Furthermore, this process of intentional constitution/re-constitution is relatively valid when there is this matching of means and ends in an existentially open manner in keeping with the nature of that primary mode-of-life in question). Then, this achieved, augmentation of value is realizable when a greater degree of integrity is found to be both possible and achievable (in those situations as analytically defined or to be synthetically re-defined)! (44)

	The question now behooves us: how is this authenticity to be intuitively determined in the course of our passage through the Life-World? In and through, as stated, the adequately conducted overall transcendental suspension! Let me conclude my exposition by noting key points in this regard. (45)

5.   Provisional Conclusions?

	The intentional course of our existence is already being conducted through the auspices of a series of ongoing overall transcendental suspensions through the very acts of judgment that allow us to make and find our passage through this World-of-Life as lived-with others before-others. Authenticity is already to be found in this stream of existence by virtue of the fact that existential facticity of that stream-of-being is greater that the mere sum of the factors that constitute its ‘material’ ‘substrate’. Thus, it follows, that augmentation of opportunity, when and where possible, is realized through a transcendental purification of this relatively non-transcendental intentional ‘material’ already to-hand. And how is this to be achieved? Through the intuitive questioning and openness to an endeepened sense of integrity, resolution, resoluteness, propriety, appropriateness, etc., with attention to the sense of the valid and self-validating! The realization of authenticity and its augmentation better assisting us in the mutual facilitation of our passage through this World-of-Life. Moreover, through this sense of augmentation, emerges this greater sense of freedom as a greater degree of opportunity. Thence our life lived in a world of value, a sense of value that is collectively open to its augmentation. And how is such augmentation, as a process of amplification and rectification, to be applied in the world of the political, etc? (46)

	Our internal sense of self/selves is psychological in orientation (and can be divided between the Transcendental Aspect of Judgment and the Non-Transcendental Aspects as a psychic ‘place’ where the material for processes of judgment is presented for judgment (even though although prepared in and through series of subsidiary judgmental processes). Thence the domain of Psychology. (and its division between Non-Transcendental Psychology and Transcendental Psychology; the latter being centered in Judgmental Psychology albeit from a trans-phenomenological perspective). Sociology concerns the general nature of relations conducted between different psychologically constituted entities. Politics concerns the hierarchical stratification of the latter. Now, as already noted, commensuration between different centers and types of political power can be understood as being put into effect by noting the textual course/s of those types of interactions. Such practices forming consolidating and sedimenting genres of expectation wherein mutual modes of interaction are already in place of which we can investigate by an examination of these ‘mutual’ but asymmetrical trails of textual deposition. By attending to these streams of textual deposition, and effectively interpreting the same, we are given access to a better understanding of how we interact in this World-of-Life with others and other institutions, etc. These courses of action-and-response being adequately engaged through those centers of authenticity already in place in a manner in keeping with the nature and degree of authenticity and augmentation already to-hand! Therefore, let us attend to this formation and simulation, preservation and augmentation of authenticity in order to refine that degree of mutuality already present in our relationships. That by such means, we discover a greater sense of freedom-in-the-world through this augmentation of our intentional-existences before-other with-others! Thence authenticity and its augmentation along with their devolution of an emergent process of expanded opportunity in the form of an existential sense of freedom! (47)

	To finish, let me examine the validity of claims that either argue for the existence or non-existence, e.g., of a state’s ‘rights’ or a nation’s ‘rights’, and, that such ‘rights’ psychically inhabit the same logical and phenomenological ‘space’ as the ‘rights’ possessed by an individual. Are we a victim of language here, or, is it the case that such a ‘metaphor’ really does point to some existential insight that allows us to treat the rights of an individual as on a par with those of a state or of the nation? (48)

	First, we should note that the inclusion of different types of parties to a relationship must alter the nature of that relationship (and the nature of the exchanges entertained within that relationship in the light of changes in its material complexion). To this extent there is a relative incommensurability. On the other hand, an absolute incommensurability is never ruled out! Thence the effective operation of this metaphor of ‘rights’. Thus on the controversial nature of this topic we should take a middle position and a dialectical stance to the effect that a certain commonality or mutuality exists even though we should also not confuse the different logical status that those different types of rights appear to operate under (in terms of their descriptive/prescriptive domains, e.g.). That, furthermore, upon this mutual ground, transformational rules should be able to be formulated that would allow us to move from one state of affairs to the some other, and v.v.  That the transcendental commonality of the Life-World will guarantee this possibility of accommodation, and transformation therein, even though the value of our efforts in this regard need not equal the value of the effort that might have to be invested in the realization of this form of accommodation. However, we are saved to some extent by merely following the textual trails dealing with this topic albeit scrutinized through a critical philosophical lens open to the dialectical points as noted above; that although individual rights are not the same as state rights, etc., rules or connections between the same can be called into focus by virtue of this fact that, transcendentally, processes of accommodation would assist us in a practical resolution, case by case, in this regard! Thus, obviously, care and attention must be exercised in how we should treat these relatively different states of affairs despite the presence of a degree of commonality. A state of comparison, again, that can be reconciled through the genres of expectation that adequately deal with the same; i.e., properly, appropriately and validly in the light of such an already established practice! A process that is dependent upon an adequate exercise of an overall transcendental suspension that is well-informed (pre-conditionally) and authentically allowed to run its own course (post-conditionally)! A complex balancing act deftly handled through an adequately pre-informed acquaintance with precedent in this regard, and, one that should be coupled with a degree of vigilance that ably discounts those logical and linguistic manoeuvres that are defective in the details of their formulation and the manner of their promulgation! (49)

	Lastly, let me highlight the existential nature of freedom. Emergent opportunity has two faces – on one hand it is constrained or limited, and, on the other, in reference to its material basis through an existential excess of value we are permitted to go well beyond such a basis through processes of emergence. Moreover, those constraints can also be moved on, re-written, by-passed, expanded, etc., through a process of transcendental purification and augmentation (although that process too is not without its own intrinsic guidelines and limits). And how do we achieve such an ‘exalted’ task? By attending to the simulated, existential ‘life’ of that relationship. By discerning a phenomenal-phenomenological distinction between the relatively non-transcendental and the transcendental within the psychic body of that relationship in question and through a process of an atunement both within that relationship and between its own relational context (in its own contextualization), in turn realize a self-process of self-augmentation or auto-amplification of value in keeping with the existential nature of that relationship-in-its-own-relational-context. Thus freedom is lived and is life itself, a life as lived by-us before-others in the Life-World, this World-of-Life as an existential world of value which, through emergence, continually offers us an expansive world of opportunity, and therein, a sense of relative freedom!! (50)

							      Noël Tointon, Sydney, 9.9.07.