Life itself is not an apparition, by definition.Performance is the primary apparition, by the function of social consciousness.
Every act of a performance is quintessentially liminal, at the edge of category, because every experience is unique by degrees (the logarithm) of complexity.
Thus, behavioral syntax, the unique interface between mind and environment, as a potentially unfiltered, still composed, output of life’s performance, naturally pushes the boundaries of categories.
It follows, we can define a scheme that adopts traditional categories of experience, yet supports the emergent, liminal quality of behavioral syntaxes.
This scheme is an extension of the zeroeth, and primary apparitions:
A hierarchical tree of categories approximates points in the liminal space, much like rational numbers approximate irrational numbers between natural integers.
This definition allows for the “counting” process to begin at any category, and proceed by layers of categorical prominence.
In contrast, a sophomoric interdisciplinary scheme of definition would formerly place the union of two behaviors at equal prominence; whereas, it is clear that two modes of behavior cannot average into a new activity, but one subsumes the other, becoming more nuanced. Hence, we derive a hierarchical scheme.
Of course, this method assumes we are dealing with a finite ontological scheme, a system of categories. From this point of view, the ontological scheme asks, what sort of behaviors are possible? Our own language, with Greek, Latin, and Germanic, among other roots, deals with a finite set of root categories from which to derive new words, and thus categorical schemes. On this basis, we prove the limitations of language in practice, solidifying our thesis of perpetual categorical approximation of raw experience. In this new sense, we speak of another level of approximation, first within a set categorical scheme, and then within all possible categorical schemes within our linguistic reach.
Here is the potential for behavior syntax to push, to pull as a gravitational force against categories, to break and force new organizations, reassessments of linguistic syntax. In my own case, it is not ironic that I write in a liminal fashion, because this activity simply denotes a close interplay between behaviors and linguistics. The act of writing, if I may use a well defined category, is both a deconstruction, and synthesis. In my own theoretical model, this performance of writing is an experiment in communication; since my original purpose was to contact John Wilson, after seeing him in person, whilst not being able to establish a communication. Because I am considering the effectiveness of my communication, while also synthesizing new ideas, and refining older ones, we can say this is an act of creation. What apparitions are at play? Philosophy, Art, Science?
Given your implicit recognition of this paralogistic process of definition, we choose that which is most relevant to the communication. For our purposes, we are expanding the reach of artistic practice; therefore, we may choose Philosophy, with a tertiary apparition Drawing, on the resources of Linguistics. A performance of philosophy, using the linear capacity for motion of drawing in neural circuits using the medium, or space of linguistic terms. This is a mere approximation, a representation. Definition is a craft in itself.