Area	Spring Points

	appellant phenomenality gary e. davis	June 2020

Phenomena show themselves (“vistas of blobs…”)—or rather as if having intent (“showing”), the appearing is theirs there; or as if theirs, as if “having,” which is actually oneself giving sense, as if the appearance owned what it’s showing. Letting be its “self,” itself shows as if bearing for one witnessing. Beyond mere appearance, sense of there being phenomenality “has” depth: ascribable context, imputable importance, if you’re responsively receptive. That’s an active receptiveness which may find potential meaning and significance to phenomenality beyond mere appearance (or literal behavior). Phenomena show as if self-differentiating their appearance and depth, meaning and significance—except inasmuch as one comes to the moment with a frame of objectification that is post-phenomenal, so then the abstract object of experience is “known” to essentially mean nothing, having no importance, except what is in one’s own frame prior to meeting the object. In other words, meaning and significance are regarded as supplements to brute fact. But that’s not experience happening for young children (and for creativity): Phenomena are intending their appeal (though a young child doesn’t yet make a difference between phenomena and intending). Things themselves are appealing as such, like persons are appealing before there’s any difference between alive moving and not alive moving. A moving thing there is phenomenally being itself by way of responsive receptive-ness being itself. Being shows as what is. Being implies (and mirrors) being there. -Ing—experiencing, acting, seeing, etc.—pre-reflectively shows as what “has” (as if owning) sense, context, depth (mystery), and/or importance, resonantly of experience, of acting, of being seen, touched, heard, imagined, remembered. Proximally as if there’s no being at all, appellant phenomenality’s there sensibly, mysteriously, importantly. Being with another is primal, primary, and—for creative life—primordial as there being phenomenal appeal. In a way, something appeals as if making itself be with you, bearing itself to be granted attention, sense, and importance: “I am” (for children and creators, proximally). Phenomenality happens primarily with what’s happening (for children, for creat-ivity), then reflectively as what’s in that happening, distinguishable from the happening itself. Attending to difference primarily (rather than being primarily with), there being different from there being phenomenality is retrospective, normally called self-reflective, though self-reflectivity is immanent to phenomenality: Given, primarily, being-with entailing being with (primacy of relating), that can be represented as: being with implies (as if mirroring) being-with. So, self-differentiation distinguishes a twofold dyadity (i.e., two dyadic differ-ences): futural [a1] experiencing and present [a2] experience; futural [b1] self with present [b2] other (not self distinct from other, which is derivative; and not self vs. object, which is instrumentalist)—as if [1] is “perpendicular” to [2] (because futural [a] mentally precedes present [b], as if—retrospectively—transcending [b]). (The trope perpendicular maybe isn’t felicitous.) For ordinary dailiness, primary phenomenality is concealed in habituated practicality: Daily life requires given (“natural”) self/other distinctions which easily instrumentalize what serves given goals. But that’s derivative—long individuated—from potentials of experiencing (in creativity, self-discovery) born from one’s potential for responsive receptiveness in relation to (irt) phenomenal appeal. next—> relationality

 

 

Be fair. © 2020, gary e. davis