Project home

  being with “you”

gary e. davis
May 9, 2024
  You’re a reading, as I do my best to understand.

As author of a life (“my” only life), one (“I,” “you”) provides a reading of oneself
for interpersonal engagement.

Actually, oneSelf (lifecycality) is in play, relative to lifepsychal interest (self-
identical for these times), making interpersonal life so many, so to speak, authorships.

So, everybody’s a text, and I’m truly with your writing-in-speech (Derrida),
I hope.

Indeed, being in relation with you is (should be) the basis for being in relation to whatever’s between us: what matters.

My occasional use of ‘irt’ is usually linked to a posting about that, which has emphasized the short-hand for ‘vis-à-vis’ (respecting the accent mark) as really about being with; and might better have been, over the years, ‘irw’.

Being in relation with you specifically derives from being in relation with my life, world, time through my years. Lifepsychality is as good as its being irw life-
cycality. One’s selfidentity is as good as its intimacy with lifecycal Selfness.

The Self/selfidentical difference is, at best, a fluid interality of being, especially for creativity.

A contiuum of interpersonal life—civility, solidarity, friendship, kinship, and intimacy—is at best a fluid being with (in relation with <—> in relation to).

We may feel identity together in happy difference from each other, differential identity together, surely including non-identical senses of our differences. All lasting marriages would agree—so, too, lasting friendships, long-term profes-
sional partnerships, and constructive political alliances: differential identity of belonging together as complementary singularities.

Proximally for interpersonal relations, we learn of another’s sense of self through the personality of “your” [inter]personal relating with “me.”

I may feel you’re “transparent” (genuine): no intended difference between your evident meaning and privately different meaning—though one’s meaning is always situational.

You may be intentionally non-tansparent in good faith (role-constrained require-
ment) or in bad faith (business duplicity).

You may be unwittingly non-transparent due to immaturity (children) or self-
identical privatism (teens and cliques).

I may want to understand your non-evident senses of selfidentity through inference from what’s evident (common for parents, teachers, and counselors).

You may unwittingly reflect my own issues (ideals, conflicts), such that my im-
plicit Self (nonconscious, easily admitted; or/and unconscious, easily denied)
is mirrored by you, “thrown” by unrealized want (need? desire? both?) as my sense of you: “you.” So, I find mySelf newly through presence you evince.

Being interal can be enthralling delight in being played by love and friendship;
or most of all be love of entranced creatively. Your presence may symbolize
my fabulated muse of mindal free play, but I don’t lose track of the difference
in being with you (genuine presence and inspiration), while the difference stays implicit because basically, we’re truly with each other.

Beyond “everybody’s a text,” one may frame us all as derived modes of artistic living. And there, all life is theater, especially inasmuch as one’s relevant fore-
ground in “personal” presence has inevitable backstage Self/Worldness (life-
psychal lifecycality). Everybody’s a dramatist.

But I can also need to better anticipate misunderstanding. That can dissolve by mutually engaged interaction—discussion, writing for you, to you—where shared interest builds understanding, thus creating promise for later engagement.

next—> reverie of heartfulness


  Be fair. © 2024, gary e. davis