home literary living area

  in a sense
gary e. davis
April 10, 2016

Genderly, opening is archetropally feminine; representing is archetropally masculine. Phenomenality as window is archetropally feminine, as mirror archetropally masculine. Yet, overt receptivity is enacted, so it’s already responsiveness, and of course overt responsivenss is to that which one is already receptive. Window is already mirror, reflecting responsiveness; mirror is already window, expressing prior receptiveness.

In the background of action, each is the pre-face of the other, each faced by the other—responsiveness showing in receptiveness, receptiveness showing in responsiveness. Interdependency and intimacy of prior receptiveness and prior responsiveness dissolves self-reflectively into the ontogeny of each other in there being appealing presence “of” things like living others and a living other like a complement of one self.

Eros is Psyche, Psyche is Eros, like yang and yin without stark positive/negative difference, as masculine and feminine are psychal complements, without primordial opposition.

Ontogenic interdependence and intimacy of each archetropal gendering dissolves self-reflectively into the gendering of each other in there being appealing presence of things as gendered. Primacy of self-differentiating gynandry shows in presence of post-genderal androgyny. Oneself—a psychality, one self—can be primarily and ultimately transgenderal through intimacy of receptivity and responsivity, psychally auratic being.

Yet, a focus on responsiveness implicitly marginalizes its own complement receptiveness (and free association). A focus on receptiveness (free associating) implicitly marginalizes its own complement responsivenss. Yet free association is,
in a sense, responsive; focus is, in a sense, receptive.

In each case, the marginalization expresses a differentiation of oneself, one self. Focusing is self-differentiating; free association is self-constellating. Yet, there’s
self-differentiation in self-constellating (relative transcendentality), self-constell-ating in self-differentiating (relative troping or situated conceptualizing). In other words, focusing on surface (trope) tends to conceal depth self-diffrentially (background comprehending). Focus on depth tends to dissolve surface.

Yet, the concealing and dissolving as such tend to be concealed in focus as such:
self-concealing as clearly focusing. Self-differentiating may tend to self-conceal as focusing—or how about a resonant liminality of there being self-differentiating depth of surface in surface of depth as the present of presencing in presence?

Is that fun or what? Self-differentiality complements itself in there being selfident-ical liminality or identity in difference of presence.

We could regard lucid appreciability as intimacy of free association and focus, centripetality of free association and centrifugality of focus—intimacy of gravity and radiance, dysentropy and entropy, constellating of Earth in dissipation of the Sun.

Breathe in, breathe out.



< previous -|- Next: Sophiana: concerting poiesis, logos, ethos -|- topic: As Aide of Sophiana