cohering.net home conceptual adventuring

  rc/rs differeniation
self-differentiability of presencing
scaffolding presence, part 3 of 6
gary e. davis
April 27, 2017
 


Initially, a presence may be nebulous, but analysis doesn’t dissolve the pres-ence“ness” of there being that. Presence isn’t just a nebulousness of what’s present. The presenting, showing as present—be it by another’s responsiveness or/and by one’s own receptiveness—may be ambiguous because (1) that present of presenting together—presenting the present—make the presence (the presence is of a present presented); and (2) the location of presenting can be “ours,” as much due to receptiveness as to the other’s responsiveness (presenting).

What I call window-mirroring works both ways: your “writerly” responsiveness in receptive reading enactively construes a cohering intent of a literally-absent author—not just construing text, but construing as other-writerly intent (which I’ve commonly called “writing in reading”). My writerly responsiveness (as the writing here) presumes my own sense of reader, my receptiveness, which is “readerly” responsiveness in writing, as if I’m also constructing my reader in writing to her or him, construing a literally-absent recipient or receptively construing the presence of the other.

All listening/reading involves a kind of speaking/writing; and conversely—potent-ially, at least. Lucid listening/reading is responsive. Open speaking/writing is receptive. Potentially, each of us is presenting “the” present between us, being each other through presence, accessing a real other through the other’s presenting-as-received, each of us receptively responding in light of responsive reception.

The writerly/readerly trope models the general condition of there being phenomenality, always possibly as if the other is autogenous (thus, merely enstancing—to what degree in difference from their full understanding?), always possibly as if something has intention (receptively being unwittingly personified, i.e., projectively intentionalized).

The presenting present (received after presenting, as presented present) is the 2-fold presence of the present, being as being gave way and enstancing. Yet, this 2-fold “as if” self-generativity of the present (implying its self-concealing presenting in “being” merely present) is regarded altogether as presence of presenting (because all presents “have” a genesis), a 3-fold regard (2-fold: presence as presented present) with its own integrity regarded as 2-fold resonance (identity in self-differentiation): 3-fold presencing of 2-fold presenting/presented present.



In playing a game (tennis, let’s say) with intensity—with intent to perform one’s personal best—there’s flow of play, no representation to oneself of the play as such, the flow as such, or intensity of performing as what’s playing.

Or improvisational theater: being the play. One is the playing, as if being directed by a depth of Self that leads oneself showing as the sharply focused playing, exactly, well—Self leading oneself, as if high depths of being prevail over oneself as wholly now.

What others see played tropes playing (inferred) only there as playing for the player. The playing shows as the play.

She secretly stops a moment to assess what she’s doing as if assessing how she’s being done, then back to playing. Or he doesn’t stop—doesn’t need, doesn’t desire to stop—because comfort In The Zone proves itself “now” again. I’m yes and there, on, feeling Flow truly moving, yes as what moves, done.



By the way, that kind of thing is integral to true creativity (beyond being novel). One’s flowing with the throw of there being what’s born of being, as if one’s stance, one’s appearance is entailed by being possessed, in which “I’m” the channel.

Yet, so too for the other—as far as one can “see”: letting be (being of being): granting bearing, whereas the letting/granting (showing) is “proven” (mirrored) by the efficacy (fruitfulness) of beings (shown) being (self-showing).

Innerworldliness enstancing outward and granting that to others (outerworldly enframing graciously) is together a biway of letting oneself be (as best one can) and letting others be, as best they can. There, one’s in an interplay of innerworldly and outerworldly self-letting—granting, beingand letting be bearing as wholly as the other wants.

Articulation about innerworldly enstancing is “other” than innerworldly entailing itself. Construction about outerworldly enframing is other than performing a partially-self-reflective prospecting of another’s Self implicature.

And so-called representation of that—which I’m doing here (for the most part)—is different from doing (being) that. Moreover, I prospect that the notion of representation is phenomenalogically antiquated, because its genealogy is objectivist, especially relative to mentality that is egoist (the Cartestian legacy—quasi-, crypto-, and unabashed). Mutuality of disclosure and openness is concealed in the single-minded notion of representation. A biway of enstancing and enframing is better: appropriately mutualist and appreciative of self-differentiated presence—even for things: as if they are enactively participating with one’s receptiveness.

So, I’ll stipulate that ‘rc/rs-differentiated’ is short for biway self-differentiability of presencing.

I suppose that rings obscure. So, the rubric is at least a trope for a nebulosity of there being phenomena which we can always reconsider better in terms of specific phenomena. An aura-ic (auratic?), potentially-numinous liminality can be as now receptiveness (enframing) / responsiveness (enstancing), there being “here.”

 

< previous -|- Next: Do we need ‘is’...? -|- topic: for love of conceptual inquiry

   
 
  Be fair. © 2017, gary e. davis