home conceptual adventuring

  Do we need ‘is’ in phenomenality
of stancing and framing as?

scaffolding presence, part 4 of 6
gary e. davis
April 28, 2017

being with another: letting oneSelf be wholly with letting the other be wholly.

receptiveness in oneSelf as resonance of phenomenalities: Enstancing oneSelf in phenomenality as a resonance of Self (channeled in there being of Flow implied by phenomenality) and accurate perception (one hopes) of actual phenomenality of the other, of things.

responsiveness of oneself to phenomenalities by enstancing the difference between oneself (overt intent) and oneSelf (phenomenal “self-presenting”); and enframing the difference between a present and its self-presenting (presence of the other), altogether as a phenomenality of presence, mutually the other (resonantly), oneSelf and oneself. (Are you uncomfortable with the absence of ‘is’?)

One’s enframing as no better than one’s enstancing.

Coherence as constituted in a biway of granting and bearing, one’s receptiveness with the other’s responsiveness, one’s responsiveness with the other’s receptiveness.

Mapped into non-humanly intentional “others” and non-intentional life or things (not reduced to objects, i.e., to manipulables—not denied their integrity as things, granting that a work of art lives anywhere), the framing/stancing analogy as especially epistemic.

‘Is’ just as enstantial or enframal.


< previous -|- Next: triarchic presencing -|- topic: for love of conceptual inquiry

  Be fair. © 2017, gary e. davis