presencing abstractly — gary e. davis

	presencing abstractly gary e. davis	May 7, 2017

	Being faced with someone, something—a phenomenon—is brought by your attention. Something is like someone inasmuch as it’s granted as-if self-presenting of itself—personification, there being presence of the thing, its self-presenting. Saying that may seem extreme to ordinary sensibility, but it’s natural for creative process (explorations and discovery). Something “has” rich implicature or entailment by letting it “be.” It shows itself unwittingly in being there, as if being there of its own accord. Other persons may be presumed to be literally presenting themselves relative to their reading of “our” situation (enstancing) and their interest in reading (enframing). So, there’s liminality of that (their self/personal differentiating) imputed to them interfacing with liminality for oneself, together creating a liminality of presence between us, re: what’s ours, what’s “yours,” “mine.” One’s own self-differentiating (one’s enstancing situationally, relative to holistic lifeworld background; enframing situated presence, relative to focal interest) evidences itself in pretenses of there being self-presenting, as well as evidencing itself through one’s own, self-reflective lucidity about one’s enactivity. Even possibly, self-presenting of the other mirrors self-reflectivity of oneself while the other also shows itself like unconcealing or opening a window into (or out to?) itself, an innerworldly environs evincing richer realization of us. Such complex potential that’s literal between persons may be “found” of things as ordinary personification. Our idioms are full of intentionalization of processes and presence of things: “The sun rises.” “Clouds are foreboding.” “Branches sway in wind blowing.” We commonly imply intention in natural behavior. A liminality of receptiveness (enframing) and responsiveness (enstancing) to-and-for each other in interaction creates liminality of interfacing phenomenality as interfacial presence of what’s “here.” An aura of resonance may be numinous, implying “dark” feeling or thoughts (belonging to whom?); marginalized sensuousness or intimations; difficult revelations or realizations; “violated” boundaries between self (introversional) and personality (extraversional). Another’s nebulous Self/self differentiality (protected by clear self/personal differentiality of persona-l presence) may show as the other’s implied or entailed misleadingness; or their confusedness of self (if not hiding a duplicitous Self), which is clinically familiar as projective identification. Something may face oneself personified, symbolizing [as if] by its own intent, salient with significance that it doesn’t “deserve” to have—or beautifully “has” by way of its “own” character. The “irt” of phenomenality is an easy nebulosity of implicature (associable enstancing) and entailment (associable situating or enframing), as if being is wholly an intersection of relations or vortex of associability, essentially metonymical glyph (if ostensible) or metaphorical (if self-displacive) or synecdochal (if self-positing) or ironical (if self-undermining). An aura of “our” interface may be passively present (irt/being what’s up to us, down to us, left to us, right to us); asserting itself (irt/being overt interplaying); concealing itself (irt/being withdrawn from interplay, as if being mysteriously instrumental, even duplicitous); or moderating itself (irt/being enstancing and enframing, like a restrained “self-withholding” of “setting forth” what has been “set up” or “sent”— here paraphrasing Heidegger on truth, which was always basically about “us”— “therebeing” as being-with—more than about derivative attention to things in “mirrorplays” of “granting” and “bearing” as self-displaying things—and endless flow of association). “Seeing you, after so long, was a windowmirror of discovery, a mirrorwindow of remembrance that stays with me in your phenomenal name.” < previous -\|- Next: scaffolding psychality -\|- topic: for love of conceptual inquiry

Being faced with someone, something—a phenomenon—is brought by your attention. Something is like someone inasmuch as it’s granted as-if self-presenting of itself—personification, there being presence of the thing, its self-presenting.

Saying that may seem extreme to ordinary sensibility, but it’s natural for creative process (explorations and discovery). Something “has” rich implicature or entailment by letting it “be.” It shows itself unwittingly in being there, as if being there of its own accord.

Other persons may be presumed to be literally presenting themselves relative to their reading of “our” situation (enstancing) and their interest in reading (enframing). So, there’s liminality of that (their self/personal differentiating) imputed to them interfacing with liminality for oneself, together creating a liminality of presence between us, re: what’s ours, what’s “yours,” “mine.”

One’s own self-differentiating (one’s enstancing situationally, relative to holistic lifeworld background; enframing situated presence, relative to focal interest) evidences itself in pretenses of there being self-presenting, as well as evidencing itself through one’s own, self-reflective lucidity about one’s enactivity.

Even possibly, self-presenting of the other mirrors self-reflectivity of oneself while the other also shows itself like unconcealing or opening a window into (or out to?) itself, an innerworldly environs evincing richer realization of us.

Such complex potential that’s literal between persons may be “found” of things as ordinary personification. Our idioms are full of intentionalization of processes and presence of things: “The sun rises.” “Clouds are foreboding.” “Branches sway in
wind blowing.” We commonly imply intention in natural behavior.

A liminality of receptiveness (enframing) and responsiveness (enstancing) to-and-for each other in interaction creates liminality of interfacing phenomenality as interfacial presence of what’s “here.” An aura of resonance may be numinous, implying “dark” feeling or thoughts (belonging to whom?); marginalized sensuousness or intimations; difficult revelations or realizations; “violated” boundaries between self (introversional) and personality (extraversional). Another’s nebulous Self/self differentiality (protected by clear self/personal differentiality of persona-l presence) may show as the other’s implied or entailed misleadingness; or their confusedness of self (if not hiding a duplicitous Self), which is clinically familiar as projective identification.

Something may face oneself personified, symbolizing [as if] by its own intent, salient with significance that it doesn’t “deserve” to have—or beautifully “has” by way of its “own” character.

The “irt” of phenomenality is an easy nebulosity of implicature (associable enstancing) and entailment (associable situating or enframing), as if being is wholly an intersection of relations or vortex of associability, essentially metonymical glyph (if ostensible) or metaphorical (if self-displacive) or synecdochal (if self-positing) or ironical (if self-undermining).

An aura of “our” interface may be passively present (irt/being what’s up to us, down to us, left to us, right to us); asserting itself (irt/being overt interplaying); concealing itself (irt/being withdrawn from interplay, as if being mysteriously instrumental, even duplicitous); or moderating itself (irt/being enstancing and enframing, like a restrained “self-withholding” of “setting forth” what has been “set up” or “sent”—
here paraphrasing Heidegger on truth, which was always basically about “us”— “therebeing” as being-with—more than about derivative attention to things in “mirrorplays” of “granting” and “bearing” as self-displaying things—and endless flow of association).

“Seeing you, after so long, was a windowmirror of discovery, a mirrorwindow of remembrance that stays with me in your phenomenal name.”

< previous -|- Next: scaffolding psychality -|- topic: for love of conceptual inquiry