a note on phenomenology

---

I’m writing here. There’s writing here. Here in the writing, with the action, it’s there for reading, to myself as reader. One reads what’s there. I’m here with what’s there. You’re “here” (for yourself) for what’s there. For me, you’re there for what’s here.

In writing here, I’m writing, here-ing, making here—hereing? Hering?—pronounced not like the fish, but like cohering. Reading is a re-hering through what’s there, a cohering of earlier hering—your hering with mine, a cohering of what’s [t]here.

We are the beings that cohere there better than any other intelligent life. We are the “highest” witnesses on Earth of what is there, what there is. But we are also of Earth, of what there is. We are beings of what’s there, yet the beings for which most highly on Earth there is anything. In a sense, we’re there beings. Our nature is our intelligent life, being here as there being our hering, cohering, therebeing.

So, for any waking moment, there’s something there to here, for therebeing: a phenomenon—perceived?, projected?; belonging to me as and in what’s there?, belonging to the other?, us? The narrative line is expression? stance construction? I wonder. “I wonder, ” I read, he says.

In any case, there is what’s there, seeming, really, a mix of appearance and reality, projection (largely born from here) and perception (really there), writing in reading, a resonance of here and there in first writing, self-expression here revised after being there in stance, becoming a better stance representing what was here.

The story is ours, written by writing reading of the written? The text belongs to phenomenal resonance?

Inasmuch as poetics is about ambiguity, then experience itself, understanding itself may be inhabited by ambiguity, and “poetic” potential inhabits any beginning?

A fictional character is posed as said, a figure in our figural space—trOpical, potentially thematological, potentially discursive (archetypal)—vertiginous across modes of therebeing.

---