relationality • gary e. davis • berkeley


	Area	Spring Points

	relationality gary e. davis	June 2020

Phenomenal relationality is expressed in appellant phenomenality (and implicitly mirrored, former by latter). Articulation about that relationality as such (rather than attending to, say, a murmuration of starlings) is articulative relationality about relational appeal.

One’s receptiveness as enacting desire shows as the “responsiveness” of being there: present.

One’s responsiveness as enacting desire shows as the “receptiveness” of being there: presence.

Present (receptive) responsiveness (appellant bearing, being) reflects open (responsive) receptiveness (granting appeal, letting): presencing.

A present of presencing has presence.

The degree of phenomenal appeal is relative to the temporal depth of appreci-ability brought to phenomenality, either by temporality of one’s life or time of relationality itself (e.g., being with “us” for a “long” time). Temporal depth is integral to any degree of meaning in phenomenal appeal, thus for meaning of ‘degree’ in appealing.

Relational cohering biways (is biwaying: mutuality of) granting and bearing in/over time: one’s receptiveness with the other’s responsiveness, one’s responsiveness with the other’s receptiveness—or better: one’s [responsive] receptiveness in/over time with the other’s [receptive] responsiveness in/over time.

I’ve coined this term to name relational phenomenality.

Lexical background (‘cognate’) only serves to indicate that I’ve adapted an existing term for naming relational phenomenality. Cognativty isn’t defined by its stipulated kinship with ‘cognate’: being lineally akin. Yet, all life has lineality. Cognative ability individuates itself from the primal appeal of attachmental bonding, transposed in/over maturing time to different kinds of relations that individuation grows to appreciate (in varying degrees, inasmuch as kinds are validly comparable).

Lexicologically, cognates are etymological (lineal) kindreds, belonging together in such sameness. (Lexicology is, to me, a regarding of the relation between lexicality of an item and its etymology.) So, lexically, ‘cognation’ is about relationality of words given found lineality that is imputed (evidently—evidentiarily) to each, thereby “having” shared lineage, according to etymologists, doing the work of etymology (lexical anthropology).

‘Cognative’ generally names appellant relationality individuated from primal attachmentality (attachmental bonding) irt anything wanted. Psychalanalysis of
a life can disclose the historicity of relationality brought to phenomenal appeal.

Intrinsic is want of trust: in/with oneSelf, others, and [personified—> personalized] things. Matured notions of genuineness and authenticity are individuations of trust in Self, others, and things.

Dwelling with textuality of cognativity is philological, at best in light of Literary appeal (i.e., the appeal typified my canonical literary art), and genealogy serves enablative (educational) interests through discourse.

I first used ‘cognative’ because it’s phonetically kindred with ‘cognitive’, as I wanted to express a liminal intimacy of difference (e.g., being/being).

Writing about such difference conceals basically phenomenal liminality through this self-differential liminality of reading text. Appreciable textuality is implicated by appreciable phenomenality in its own way.

Anyway, for textual appeal as well as for basic phenomenal appeal, cognative efficacy tends toward more capability for appreciation, whereas cognitive efficacy tends toward more capability for comprehension.

Cognativity tends to be disclosive; cognitivity tends to be representative. Enframing is interpretive (of another or of oneself as if being another).
Enstancing is positional (of oneself or of another as if being oneself).

Relationality is bi-liminal inter-ness: being self-differential, bi-liminally inter-al. Interality is bi-liminal.

next—> flexibility of relational differences