Area	tropology

	textualization of experience gary e. davis	June 2020

Experience itself is like a text: calling for interpretation (apt frame relevance) in simple discernment of a phenomenon, which appears derivatively (as if translated) irt its background horizon (its maybe-reconstructible genealogy, pre-discerned involvements of its “own,” prior to one’s attentions). That’s different than linguistic representation of “given” (interpreted) experience, which is meta-“textual” irt the interpretivity of discernment, then linguistified. “Differentiation of experience into literal elements,” I wrote last month, “makes those elements metonymic of their meaning and significance [or maybe synec-dochic] of continuing experience, just as extracted words mean relative to their sentences. Ordinary specification of an experience requires a differentiation from ongoing time (being) like decontextualized words imply read sentential meaning.” I might better have said that enstancing is the complement to enframing. Enframing has its own background horizon, be it brought to text or experience (enstancing a frame out of one’s capable interpretability). So, there’s appropri-ation (hermeneutical of oneSef) irt one’s background large-scale interests for the sake of fairness to situated new experience, to be interpreted relative to its own integrity (being with the other aptly). Why does one ever want an interplay of horizons in phenomenal appeal to become a “fusion” (Gadamer)? Isn’t the dynamic of interplay more appealing? (creativity!) Why does one want mutuality to become formal unity? (Systematic needs.) Why does one ever want intimacy to become interSelfal merger? (a fantasy of primal loss is repaired? a sublime idea of completion is not a death wish?) next—> personification of textuality

 

 

Be fair. © 2020, gary e. davis