Project

	a literarity of dramactional dailiness as living theater gary e. davis	January 11, 2026

‘Literarity’ is a coinage (literary-ness), and ‘dramactional’ too (action given s/p-diferential character of scenic engagement). Idioms, stereotypes, and clichés populate scripts we live daily, games we play. Fabulations about the ways of the world cohere clarity of mind, thus integrating daily self-efficacy. For the sake of purposes of the day, the year, a person lives impliict storying, implying selfidentity as the story of one’s life, or love as a story “we” became. Fictions are everywhere of every day: public relations scenes for news media, public relations scenes for professional life, scenic rationalizations for others, scenic reconciliations for peace of mind. Our implicit plots among others—friends, kindreds, family, intimates—easily evince implicit, unsettling incongruities, indecisiveness, if not regrettably devaluing another person’s stance. Competing worldviews are brought into dramatic (scenic, serial life-eraic [era-like]) contest by invested interpersonal scenes striving for a prevailing sense of what’s relevant in “our” theater, implying a wanted conception of horizonal cohering which may gain durable normative merit for one’s invested life. In principle, we all want to live beyond ambivalences (beyond “truth” as reconciliation) to enjoy the truthfulness of authentic fidelity to one’s ownmost aspiration. So, ordinary interpersonal investments of oneself make life quasi-dramatically actional. Everyone makes scenes (usually non-framed as such, unless they’re conflictual). In the theater of daily life, everyone’s an actor (s/p-differentially dramactional), playing “transparently.” All the world’s in play. Theaters of life can be embraced as narrative potential of there being so much implicit drama, there being a textuality of ordinary interaction: “reading” the other; distinguishing the authorship (persona) of a scene from that authorial life (person) of an instanced, en-stancing person-ality. There is the textuality of speech: being read as authoring one’s ephemeral presence in a shared world of lives’ shared times. A phenomenology of our ordinary interactions easily evinces frames of under- standing as integrally textual (“writing in speech,” Derrida proffered): self (in- stanced) through interpersonal presence, background Self in reserved self- identity, sometimes reflected by projective “reading,” especially in literal reading of a text where we readers invoke the implied authorship of a particular text. (Do any two persons read the same “Heidegger”?) At best, lives among so many voices, so many living texts (and texts brought to life) are unwritten literatures, best enframed for being moved and for remem- brance by literary sensibility. We are all potentially living literarity. We all may live stories of flourishing.

next—> a dramactional condition

 

Be fair. © 2026, gary e. davis