The aim of this essay is to propose a new perspective on human sociality, ethics and communication, starting from several basic intuitions:

1. Everything is relations. Nothing exists outside of relations.

2. Human subjectivity is neither a self-identical essence, nor a simple product of external determination, but represents a mobile node of forces and connections, constantly redefining itself.

3. Meaning does not exist as a representation of a pre-given reality, but arises as an event that transforms the system within which it is produced.

Proceeding from these premises, I will attempt to rethink such concepts as "freedom," "responsibility," "other," "communication." My task is to outline the contours of a new ontology of the social that opens up the possibility for a transformative ethico-political practice.

However, the goal of this study is not simply to propose yet another concept among many, but to try to think through the very possibility and necessity of the ethical in its connection with the fundamental structures of reality. In other words, I set myself the task not only of describing certain principles and values of human existence, but also of rooting them in the basic ontological processes and laws that constitute the world as such.

We proceed from the intuition that ethics and ontology are not two different regions of thought, but two complementary efforts to comprehend a single reality in its concrete givenness and integrity.

That is why throughout the essay I will strive to show how the key concepts and principles of my ethical conception - necessary effort, compositional infinity, the figures of Guest and Host, the dynamics of co-attunement - are rooted in the very "matter" of being, in the processuality and relationality of the world as such. And how, in turn, our very understanding of these ontological dimensions inevitably acquires ethical significance.

In light of the above, our task is not simply to propose a set of concepts, but to develop a holistic way of seeing, rooted in an understanding of the processual and relational nature of being. A way that opens up new perspectives for transformative ethico-political practice. And the first step on this path will be an analysis of the fundamental ontological givens of human existence.

1. Existential freedom

At the basis of the picture I propose lies the concept of existential freedom, which goes back to the philosophy of Sartre. Human existence is not completely determined by any pregiven essence, not wholly subordinate to an external project. We are condemned to be free - in the sense that no external circumstances can completely eliminate the necessity of choice and action.

Existential freedom is inseparable from the facticity of our being-in-the-world and is always realized in dialogue with a concrete situation. To be free means to be able to introduce changes into the order of things, to transform oneself and the world through acts of meaning-making.

A good illustration of this can be dance. Each movement of the dancer is simultaneously limited and unique. Limited - because it always starts from a specific position of the body, follows a certain rhythm and style of music. Unique - because even within a given pattern there is always room for improvisation, for individual expression and style. Dance is always a dialogue between the facticity of the body and the uniqueness of the gesture, between the necessity of form and the freedom of its embodiment. So too our existential freedom - it is not groundless arbitrariness, but always a response to the concrete challenge of the situation, the inscription of a unique trajectory in the field of given possibilities.

In this sense, existential freedom is not merely an anthropological fact, but a fundamental characteristic of being itself as such. The world is not a set of ready-made things and essences, but an open field of possibilities, a horizon of potentiality requiring actualization. And human existence is no exception to this ontological given, but its most explicit and intense expression.

To be means to be the place where being opens up as freedom, as an ineliminable incompleteness and projectivity.

Thus, existential freedom turns out to be not just a human prerogative, but an ontological condition for the very possibility of meaning-making, a dimension of openness and incompleteness inherent in being as such.

Recognition of this ontological dimension of freedom transforms our understanding of ethics. If freedom is rooted in the very structure of being, if it is not just a quirk of human subjectivity, but a fundamental mode of existence as such, then ethics can no longer be thought of as something external and optional.

It appears now not as a set of rules and imperatives imposed on the individual from without, but as an immanent task of creative self-realization, to which we are called by our very participation in reality. To be ethical means to correspond to the ontological vocation of man to be free, to unfold in one's life the openness and incompleteness that permeate being as such.

It is a question of ethics not as an ought, but as a responsible and responsive participation in the processuality of the world, in its never-ending self-transcendence. Of taking upon oneself the burden and joy of free meaning-making, of consciously inscribing one's existence into the common horizon of the possible.


2. Necessary effort

The idea of existential freedom leads us to another key concept - the concept of necessary effort. In the most general sense, necessary effort is the effort we make simply by virtue of our involvement in the processes of the world, regardless of our intentions and desires. It is a kind of "default agency," an ineliminable dimension of our being-in-the-world.

Necessity here is understood in the ontological sense - as that which happens always and inevitably, as a condition for the very possibility of existence. Effort, on the other hand, is treated as the release and application of forces, as an activity directed at something.

Combining these two meanings, we get the idea that our very presence in the world, the very fact of our existence, is already an action that produces certain effects. We cannot not make an effort - it is always already being made as long as we exist. Even our non-participation or passivity turns out to be a special form of participation, a kind of "effort of inaction."

In this sense, necessary effort is rooted in our primordial inseparability from the "dance of the universe," from the dynamics of forces and processes that constitute reality. We are always already "captured" by this movement, woven into the fabric of relations and interactions. Our being is being-in-the-world, and therefore it necessarily presupposes the effort of maintaining and transforming this world.

A good illustration of this can be our own body. Even when we simply stand or sit, our muscles are constantly making micro-movements, maintaining posture and balance. This effort is not something arbitrary; it stems from the very structure of our corporeality, from our being "placed" in the physical world with its gravity, inertia, and resistance of materials.

So too in the ontological plane: necessary effort is not something that we can accept or reject at will, but an ineliminable dimension of our being-in-the-world, of our participation in a processual and relational reality. We do not simply "exist," but are constantly "efforting" in the very act of our existence.

At the same time, awareness of necessary effort paradoxically opens up a space of freedom and creativity. Through critical reflection on our "thrownness" and active self-determination, we can transform the blind facticity of our being into a space of existential project, transform the "givenness" of the world into a "task."

Necessary effort, thus, turns out to be the point of intertwining of freedom and necessity, the place of their paradoxical encounter and mutual transition. It simultaneously limits us and opens up new horizons for us, inscribes us into the order of being and allows us to creatively transform this order.

In this sense, necessary effort is not just an ontological fact, but a kind of ontological condition of our freedom, of our ability to be not just a "part" of the world, but co-participants in its becoming. It is precisely by virtue of our initial "affectedness" and involvement in being that we gain the possibility of meaningful and responsible action within it.


3. Compositional infinity

In the most general form, compositional infinity is the idea that each object or phenomenon represents a unique composition, irreducible to a simple sum of parts, fundamentally unclosed and always permitting further complexification and transformation.

The uniqueness of each object stems from the process of its formation under the influence of a special constellation of internal and external forces, unfolding in specific spatio-temporal circumstances. This process is always concrete and contextual; it necessarily generates ontological differences between compositions, even if minimal. Absolute identity is impossible precisely because of the uniqueness of the very conditions of becoming.

At the same time, the integrity of an object is not reducible to a simple sum of its constituent elements. In the process of composition, a complex network of relations and interactions arises between the elements, generating qualitatively new, emergent properties at the level of the whole. It is the dynamics of relations, not the substantial characteristics of the parts, that determines the specificity of the composition. Each object appears as a potentially infinite reservoir of differences, containing within itself a countless multitude of possible aspects and levels of organization.

It is important to note that the logic of compositional infinity applies not only to physical objects, but also to phenomena of meaning - concepts, statements, texts. Each idea, each concept also represents a unique composition, arising from the combination of a multitude of heterogeneous elements in a specific context.

Compositional infinity is not just a feature of our perception or description of reality, but its fundamental ontological characteristic. The very "matter" of being appears here as an infinite play of differences, as an incessant process of differentiation and composition, where each actual form conceals a potential infinity of possible transformations. In this sense, the world is never "ready," but is always in a state of dynamic becoming.

At all levels of reality - from subatomic particles to cosmic structures, from the simplest organisms to human societies - we discover the same dynamics of composition and decomposition, in which the whole is never reducible to the sum of its parts, but always represents an emergent effect of their complex interaction. The infinite diversity of the world proves to be an inexhaustible source of new forms and patterns of organization.

In this light, the principles of compositional ontology outlined in our analysis can serve as a general conceptual framework for understanding a wide range of phenomena - from physical processes to sociocultural transformations. The very idea of compositional infinity becomes a kind of "cross-cutting" intuition, allowing us to grasp the universal processuality and relationality of being in all the diversity of its manifestations.

Now we must take the next step and see what ethical consequences follow from these ontological premises. In the three subsequent chapters, we will attempt to rethink the fundamental dimensions of human being-with-others - the phenomena of otherness, responsibility, communication - in light of the ideas developed earlier. This will allow us to lay the foundations for a new ethical perspective, more attentive to the processuality and relationality of being.

1. The Other and the Guest

If we accept the ideas of existential freedom and compositional infinity, if we think of subjectivity not as a frozen substance, but as a process of constant self-determination, then the Other also appears not simply as an alternative version of myself, but as a radical otherness that eludes any attempt at categorization and appropriation. The absolute I, capable of containing the Other within itself, turns out to be an illusion. The encounter with the Other is always an event that interrupts the usual course of things, that calls into question established patterns of meaning-making.

This radical otherness of the Other finds its expression in the figure of the Guest. And the Guest here is not simply one who empirically arrives in another's home, but a fundamental ontological mode of our being-in-the-world. After all, if we think about it, we are all always already "thrown" into a world that precedes and exceeds us. In which we are all temporary. We find ourselves in the element of language, culture, social relations, which were not instituted by us and which set the horizon of our understanding. In this sense, to be human means to be a "guest," to be initially involved in something foreign, external, not coincident with oneself.

And here we encounter a paradox: it is precisely by recognizing and affirming our "unrootedness," our initial "guestness" in the world, that we gain the possibility of a genuine relationship to the Other. For as long as we think of ourselves as the "masters" of being, as sovereign subjects, we cannot help but reduce the Other to our expectations and projections. Only by realizing our own otherness, our "not-being-at-home," can we open ourselves to the radical otherness of the Other, enter into a genuine Dialogue with him.

To accept the Other as Guest means to allow him to be Other in all his unpredictability and irreducibility. It means giving him the right to enter our world without demanding that he renounce his own world. Genuine hospitality is a gift that does not expect a reciprocal gift, an effort of acceptance that does not demand assimilation.

It is important to emphasize that such hospitality is by no means passivity and self-denial. It is not a willless dissolution in the Other, but a co-creative effort to create a common space. To be hospitable means not simply to "let" the other into one's territory, but to actively build relationships in which otherness is not erased, but becomes a resource for mutual growth and transformation.

In light of the processual ontology developed earlier, a hospitable attitude toward the Other appears as a paradigmatic example of that "play" of differences, thanks to which reality remains in constant becoming. The encounter between "Guest" and "Host" is always an event of mutual positing and transformation, giving birth to new worlds and meanings. It is in this dynamic "between," in the very "gap" of non-coincidence between I and Other, that the truth of being as difference is articulated.

Thus, the ontology of the Other and the Guest opens up new perspectives for understanding the ethical dimension of human existence. The imperative here is not the subjection of the Other to some universally valid Law, but the hospitable acceptance of his otherness, participation in the complex dynamics of differences. The ethical challenge facing us is to cultivate openness to the event of encounter, to assert the primacy of relationship over substance, of process over result.

It is this shift from an "ontology of the existent" to an "ontology of relations" that will define the further course of our inquiry. In the following chapters, we will attempt to show how the idea of hospitality to the Other is refracted in specific dimensions of human existence - in the phenomena of responsibility, communication, in the very "matter" of sociality. This path will lead us, ultimately, to a new understanding of ethics - a processual ethics of participation and co-creation.


2. Responsibility

Existential freedom, understood as a fundamental condition of human existence, is inseparable from primordial responsibility. Since we are always already involved in the world, since our being is being-in-relations - we cannot evade responsibility for the form of these relations, for the direction of the processes unfolding through us.

To clarify the nature of this responsibility, it is necessary to recall two key concepts developed earlier - existential freedom and necessary effort. Freedom here is understood as the possibility of self-determination in the face of the facticity of the world, as the ability to initiate new dimensions of meaning. But this freedom is inextricably linked to necessary effort - the effort of self-realization that we are always already making by virtue of our involvement in the processes of reality.

Responsibility is the flip side of existential freedom, its necessary correlative. We are responsible insofar as we are free - insofar as we have the ability to begin something new and unpredictable. Responsibility is a kind of authorial signature, a sign of our participation in the co-creation of being.

Imagine a dancer performing an improvisation. Each of his movements is an expression of his existential freedom - the ability to introduce unprecedented configurations into the space of dance. But this freedom is inseparable from responsibility for the overall pattern of the dance, for the conjunctions and contrasts that arise between the elements. To dance means to freely respond to the call of the plastic element and to take responsibility for the transformations produced.

To be free and responsible means to consciously take on the effort of co-creation, to transform the blind givenness of our involvement into a meaningful project aimed at enriching the process of joint creation of reality. Responsibility turns out to be the highest mode of human freedom - freedom as participation, as a response to the call of being.

Unlike traditional models, where responsibility is thought of as subordination to an external ought, limiting the freedom of the individual, processual ontology understands it as an immanent dimension of our very existence, flowing from the fact of our initial involvement in the dynamics of the world.

We are responsible not because we must follow some predetermined law, but because our very mode of being is already an action that entails certain effects. Each of our gestures, each choice participates in the becoming of the world. We are responsible for our very presence, for the way we enter into the unfolding being and participate in its self-transcendence.

In this light, responsibility appears not only as an ethical, but also as an ontological phenomenon. It turns out to be the force that connects us with the world and with others at the deepest level, thanks to which we acquire our singularity in living conjunction with the other.


3. Communication

The phenomenon of communication acquires special significance in the context of the ontology we are developing. If reality is understood as a process, as a play of differences and relations - then communication appears not simply as an external exchange of messages between subjects, but as the very space of the unfolding of meaning, the very condition of our being-in-the-world.

At the basis of our understanding of communication lies the semiotic approach, which considers any interaction as an exchange of signs. The sign here is treated as a unity of the signifier (material form) and the signified (conceptual content), and its meaning is not thought of as something pregiven and unambiguous. Rather, it is produced anew each time in the event of interpretation, through the collision and resonance of different perspectives and contexts.

However, the production of meaning is not an arbitrary process. It is always mediated by the compositional infinities that enter into communicative interaction. On the one hand, these are the participants in the dialogue themselves - always excessive in relation to any actual identity and role, always permitting a multiplicity of readings and responses. On the other hand, these are the concepts and notions that language operates with.

Each concept, each element of our conceptual repertoire is not a frozen essence, but an open set of virtual meanings, references, connotations. It is a compositional infinity, unfolding and transforming depending on the context of its use. And it is precisely because two consciousnesses, two conceptual schemes cannot be completely identical that communication always requires the work of translation and co-attunement.

Even if the interlocutors speak the same language, they inevitably invest words with slightly different meanings, resonating with their unique experience and worldview. Therefore, there is always a gap, a gap between non-coincident perspectives, in the dialogue.

However, this gap is not an obstacle, but a condition for the productivity of communication. It is the non-coincidence of points of view that creates the space of tension in which a new meaning can be born. Colliding, interfering with each other, the linguistic worlds of the interlocutors generate a semantic surplus, grow with unexpected conceptual couplings and differences. Communication, thus, turns out to be not a simple transmission of available messages, but a productive event of meaning-genesis.

Imagine, for example, a dialogue between two scientists - a theoretical physicist and a biologist. Both of them operate with the concept of "energy," but obviously invest it with different content. For the physicist, energy is a fundamental quantity associated with work and heat transfer. For the biologist, it is a property of living systems that ensures their functioning and reproduction. The collision of these perspectives may initially cause misunderstanding, a feeling of rupture and inconsistency of meanings.

But it is in this rupture that the possibility of enrichment and transformation of the initial concepts lies. Trying to translate the concept of "energy" from the physical language into the biological one and vice versa, our scientists unwittingly expand the horizon of its meanings. They discover unexpected parallels and consonances between distant subject areas, reveal hidden dimensions and overtones of familiar terms. Thus, in the gap between disciplinary vocabularies, in the effort to create a common semantic territory, the prerequisites for a new, deeper understanding of the phenomenon of energy are born.

However, such productivity of communication is not guaranteed. For the gap of misunderstanding to become a source of semantic increment, the interlocutors must perform a special work - the work of co-attunement.

co-attunement is a collective effort aimed at building a common conceptual space through a series of mutual adjustments and clarifications. It is not a one-time act, but a process unfolding in time, during which the participants in the dialogue gradually "adjust" their languages and worldviews, grope for points of their productive intersection.

A necessary condition for co-attunement is the ability to direct and concentrate the necessary effort - the energy of self-actualization that constitutes our very mode of being. By engaging in dialogue, we must be ready to mobilize this effort, to invest it in building semantic bridges, in clearing the space of play and exchange of differences.

This readiness requires a certain courage - the courage to put one's conceptual self-identity at stake, to risk established schemes in view of the unpredictability of the communicative event. For co-attunement is not just a clarification of vocabularies, but a potentially transformative process, fraught with the loss of familiar supports of thought and self-understanding.

In terms of our ontology, co-attunement can be described as a dance of the positions of Guest and Host. To be a Guest means to enter the other's linguistic world, to try on an unfamiliar system of differences and categories, to be ready for a restructuring of one's own conceptual framework. To be a Host means to invite the Other into one's semantic space, to make it open to questions and alternative articulations, to give a place to otherness in one's discourse.

Let us return to our example with the dialogue between the physicist and the biologist. At certain moments, the physicist takes the position of Guest - trying to understand how the concept of energy works in the biological universe, what specific meanings and functions it acquires there. At other moments, he acts as a welcoming Host - explaining to the interlocutor the theoretical-physical implications of this concept, without insisting on their obligatoriness and exhaustive character. In turn, the biologist makes a reciprocal movement - being now an inquisitive Guest in the world of physics, now an inviting Host, ready to let a new visitor into his conceptual home. It is in the dance of these reversible positions, in the process of mutual movement toward each other, that the event of communicative co-attunement takes place.

Thus, the unfolding of dialogue appears as a series of oscillations between the poles of hospitality and guesting, between the effort to understand the other's language and the readiness to share one's own. In this reciprocal movement toward the unpredictable semantic event, a special communicative space is born - a space of play of differences, a region of co-possibility of conceptual worlds.

At the same time, the dance of co-attunement is not just a procedure of mutual informing, but a transformative practice, fraught with the loss of initial self-evidences. By allowing the other's language to resonate within one's own, we thereby agree to the risk of dis-identification with ourselves. We open the boundaries of our symbolic universe to the invasion of otherness.

This readiness for self-transformation, however, has its existential price. It requires a certain courage - the courage to recognize the initial vulnerability and incompleteness of one's position, to appear before the Other in one's fragility and non-self-sufficiency. Only by risking the loss of symbolic guarantees, only by sacrificing self-identity for the sake of the unpredictable outcome of the encounter, do we gain the chance to touch the truth of the communicative event.

In this sense, the dance of co-attunement is a kind of existential challenge, a test of the strength of our thought and value systems. It presupposes a readiness for self-giving, for investing one's existential effort in building a common semantic space. And only by accepting this challenge, only by entering the communicative game without guarantees of ultimate success, do we realize our vocation as co-creators of being, actualize our inherent capacity for meaning-generation.

Ultimately, such an understanding of communication calls into question the very idea of an enclosed subjectivity, a self-identical ego opposed to the external world. If language and thought are from the very beginning involved in the dynamics of difference, if meaning is born only in the gap between perspectives - then any claim to final autonomy and sovereignty turns out to be illusory.

We are always already captured by the play of signifiers, always already involved in the symbolic exchange that precedes any fixed subject-object opposition. Our very I is nothing more than a derivative of this exchange, its crisscrossing and elusive effect. And the awareness of this circumstance is the first step towards overcoming the phantasm of the self-identical subject.

To take communication seriously means to assert the primacy of relation, difference, gap in relation to any substance and self-identity. And that means being ready to put one's own I at stake, dissolving it in the play of mutual reflections and projections. To be ready, again and again, to set out for the unknown lands of the other's language, risking not returning to one's former self.

Ultimately, the dance of co-attunement, the dance of Guest and Host, is not just one of the techniques or practices of communication. It is the very mode of existential self-realization in the conditions of the radical relationality of being. A mode that asserts the primacy of the event over substance, of difference over identity, of openness over closure.

And perhaps only by cultivating such an ethos of communication, only by immersing ourselves again and again in the element of exchange of signifiers, can we grasp the elusive rhythm of togetherness, grope for the timid sprouts of commonality on the other side of one's own and the other's. That fragile commonality which does not abolish differences, but gives them a space of play. Does not synthesize, but juxtaposes, holds in mobile unity. Commonality as dance.

The concepts presented above - existential freedom, necessary effort, compositional infinity, the figures of the Other and the Guest, their dance of co-attunement, the transformative understanding of communication - form a kind of conceptual framework for rethinking the nature of the ethical.

Traditional ethics relies on the idea of an autonomous subject capable of making a rational choice based on universal principles. It seeks to formulate an immutable moral law, a criterion for distinguishing between good and evil.

But in a mobile, ever-becoming, changing world, where objects are not identical to each other, such a substantialist project turns out to be deeply problematic. If there is no self-identical subject, if our freedom is inseparable from our situation, then ethics can no longer claim to be absolute and universal. It must become situational, contextual, open to the dynamics of becoming - or risk turning into violence against a reality that does not fit into the Procrustean bed of abstract imperatives.

The key to a new understanding of ethics can be the distinction between compositional processes. Composition is the process of assembling, integrating, creating new wholes. The continuous work of affirming the coherence and coherence of the elements of the system. Since we are in a moving world, the compositional process is necessary to maintain the whole; it is a kind of food, that which preserves the emergent.

The opposite of composition is decomposition - the process of decay, fragmentation, dissipation of unity. The accumulation of contradictions, the misalignment of elements, the loss of coherence leading to the disintegration of wholeness. The decomposition process is opposed to composition; it is entropy, poison, that which causes the emergent to break down into parts. From an ethical point of view, decomposition is the destruction of the very fabric of sociality, the creation of poisonous relationships, all forms of violence.

Finally, the third key process turns out to be deconstruction - the critical transformation, reinvention of social forms. Deconstruction is the work of identifying and activating the potentials for change inherent in the very structure of the existing order. If necessary, deconstruction allows the emergent to change, with a minimum of or without decomposition processes. Deconstruction allowed the ship of Theseus to be preserved by replacing all its parts. Deconstruction allows us to be preserved by completely changing. We can say that deconstruction is in the service of becoming.

In this perspective, ethics appears not as a system of rules or imperatives, but as a special mode of relations - relations aimed at maintaining and developing compositional processes and counteracting decomposition processes. To be ethical means to contribute to the coherence of the social whole, to create spaces of assembly and mutual understanding.

At the same time, it is not a question of imposing unity, but of a complex play of consonances and dissonances, similarity and difference. In a moving world, any whole is a composition, and by virtue of its becoming, two identical objects are impossible. Compositional processes do not suppress otherness, but allow it to be productive, to generate new meanings and forms of life. They create the conditions for the coexistence of multiplicity within a single problematic field.

How can this be achieved in practice? One option may be the application of "co-attunement" - the collective action necessary to maintain communication or accumulate the composition of relationships. co-attunement takes place through individual actions of reconciliation, clarification of signs, as well as the compilation of a common vocabulary. It is a complex play of attractions and repulsions, resonances and interferences.

co-attunement not only helps to maintain and accumulate the composition of relationships, but also allows us to see the other. It opens access to the other, to that which lies beyond your ideas and projections. In the process of co-attunement, each element retains its peculiarity, but at the same time is modified, transformed through interaction with others. This is a kind of "individuation through co-creation," becoming oneself through a relationship to the other. To be ethical in this context means to be open to transformation.

The key figure of co-attunement is the dance of Guest and Host - two complementary roles, the visiting and receiving sides, between which there is a constant circulation. The Guest is the one who comes from outside, brings otherness, shifts the usual framework. The Host is the one who provides space for this otherness, allows it to resonate within his world.

In the dance of Guest and Host, there is no leader and no follower. It is an encounter of two sovereign instances, each of which sets the impulse and responds to the impulse of the other. The Guest creates a message, the Host accepts it - and in this movement new configurations of meaning are born.

To be a Guest means to be a messenger of the other, a bearer of difference. It means asking questions, problematizing the obvious, introducing a break in the fabric of everyday life, but at the same time maintaining sensitivity to boundaries. To be a Host means to give a place to this questioning, to be hospitable, to provide security. It means being ready for the transformation of one's own world under the influence of the question.

The dance of Guest and Host, thus, turns out to be an ethical matrix underlying any compositional process. It is a dialectical dynamic structure that ensures the circulation of meaning and the productivity of difference. Without the figure of the Guest, the composition risks stagnating, losing touch with the external other. Without the figure of the Host, it risks falling apart, losing all coherence.

Why is it important to allow the other to be Other, the other to be other? Because through dialogue, through the recognition and retention of differences, we create compositional processes, processes of enriching the world. On the contrary, when we stretch the net of pre-given categories over the other, ascribe fixed roles and identities to him - we thereby launch decomposition processes, destroy the very fabric of sociality. To avoid this, we must cultivate an attitude of hospitality - a willingness to let the other into our world without demanding that he renounce his otherness. Only in this way - through responsible participation in the dance of Guest and Host - will we be able to maintain the complexity and coherence of being.

Recognition of the centrality of compositional processes for the ethical dimension of our existence requires of us an increased responsibility for the form and direction of the relationships we enter into, for the nature of the signs and meanings circulating in the social space. Since any of our interactions, any communicative act participates in the production of the social fabric, triggering processes of composition or decomposition, we cannot evade responsibility for the "ecology" of collective being. We are always already involved in a complex web of mutual affectations and dependencies, always already participating in the creation of a common world - and therefore called to cultivate attentiveness to the systemic effects of our actions.

All of the above leads us to the realization of the fundamental unity of the ethical and ontological dimensions of reality. The way we treat ourselves, others, and the world turns out to be inseparable from the very structure of being, from the processual and relational nature of all that exists.

The "Guest-Host" dyad is not just a convenient metaphor, but a dynamic structure that constitutes the very space of ethical relation. The figure of the Guest embodies the principle of otherness, introduces into the situation a moment of unpredictability and difference. The Guest is the one who comes from outside, violates the habitual order of things, calls into question established rules and identities.

The figure of the Host, on the contrary, refers to the dimension of continuity, the preservation of a certain basic integrity. The Host is the one who receives the Guest, gives him a place in his world, allows the foreign and strange to enter the limits of the habitable universe of meaning. The Host provides the possibility of dialogue, outlines the space of co-possibility of differences.

The encounter of Guest and Host, understood as an ethical event, is always an experience of the "borderland," a transition to a liminal zone in which established identities are called into question. This requires a certain courage - the courage to be affected by the other, to entrust oneself to the experience of difference, to risk oneself for the sake of the unpredictable outcome of the dialogue.

Thus, the dance of Guest and Host becomes a general paradigm of our relation to the world and others. To be ethical ultimately means to cultivate a special mode of openness - an openness that does not demand reciprocity, that does not count on an equivalent exchange. To be ready to accept the Other without preconditions, to allow him to be Other even when he does not meet our expectations.

But no less does it mean being open to one's own transformation, being ready to call into question the boundaries of one's world in the act of hospitality. Not simply to graciously allow the Other to remain himself, but to be affected by otherness, to let it into the flesh and blood of one's existence.

Ultimately, hospitality turns out to be not a condescending gesture of the sovereign subject, but a mutual recognition of fragility and finitude - the limits that define our very being. The dance of Guest and Host unfolds in the gaps of meaning, in the clearings of uncertainty - where any guarantees of understanding fail, where the original vulnerability of existence is laid bare.

As if each one here dares to leave the cozy cocoon of his identity, to expose himself to the winds and currents of otherness. As if only in the infinitely repeated gesture of such self-abandonment can the event of co-being, of mutual standing before the face of the unpredictable, truly take place.

Therefore, the ethics of process, the ethics of the dance of Guest and Host, is an ethics without reliable landmarks and predetermined regulatives, without universal maxims and unconditional imperatives. It is rather an invitation to a journey along the edge, a call to entrust oneself to the play of differences, to take upon oneself the risk of exposition to the unknowable.

Its focus is not on norms and prescriptions, but on the ontological texture of relations, on modes of conjunction and dissociation of singularities. It cultivates not unconditional values, but a readiness for responsible improvisation, an ability to respond to the call of a concrete situation.

This, of course, does not mean that all moral distinctions are erased here, that we fall into groundless relativism. It is rather a matter of the radical contextualization of the ethical - of understanding the fragility and non-finality of any landmarks in the face of openness.

Processual ethics of the extra-moral dimension, ethics of ontological intensity of relations. Its stakes are connected not with the transcendent Good, but with the this-worldly effort to liberate the potential of composition, to assert the primacy of the singular event over substantial community.

So far we have spoken of relations and processes as if they unfold between pregiven subjects or objects. But in light of what has been said, the subjects and objects themselves appear not as initial givens, but as products or effects of relations. They do not precede the process, but arise in its course, through the stabilization of certain patterns of interaction.

Here we come to the key concept for contemporary thought of autopoiesis - self-production, self-creation. Originally introduced in the context of biology and systems theory, it has become a powerful conceptual tool for taking a fresh look at the problems of subjectivity, sociality, and meaning-formation.

In the most general form, autopoiesis can be defined as a process by which a system produces and reproduces itself, its components and its boundaries. An autopoietic system does not simply interact with the environment, but constitutes itself through this interaction. Its identity, its "selfness" is not an initial essence, but an emergent effect of its operations.

However, autopoiesis is not a closed self-reproduction, but a dynamic process that presupposes a structural coupling of system and environment. Through its internal operations, the system selectively "resonates" with certain external influences, adapts to the dynamics of the environment. It is this "open systemness" that ensures the viability and evolution of autopoietic wholes.

But not only biological, but also social and semantic systems possess autopoietic properties. According to Niklas Luhmann, social systems produce and reproduce themselves through their own recursive communications. Society appears here as a continuous process of circulation and transformation of messages, generating emergent social structures and meanings.

The key point is the understanding of communication not as the transmission of information between pregiven subjects, but as a self-referential process that constitutes the participants in the interaction themselves. The signs and texts circulating in the social space acquire a quasi-autonomous existence, programming the thinking and behavior of individuals. We are formed as social agents through immersion in the environment of always-already circulating meanings.

However, it would be a mistake to view social autopoiesis as an impersonal process that completely determines individual consciousness and action. Rather, it is a complex dialectic of the subjective and the social, of point interactions and supraindividual patterns.

Each of our statements or gestures, being rooted in the history of previous communications, simultaneously introduces moments of difference and novelty into it. Resonating with the available semantic structures, they gradually shift the trajectory of their evolution, open up a space for alternative articulations. At the point of a singular communicative act, the social order is affirmed - and called into question.

In other words, we are not simply "captured" by the dynamics of social autopoiesis, but actively participate in its realization. We are not passive transmitters of circulating social codes, but their co-creators, agents of their continuous reinvention. Each time, producing certain signs and gestures, we thereby make our unique contribution to the (re)production of the common world, take responsibility for the form of social connectedness.

And here the concept of necessary effort developed by us comes into play, but now in the register of an ethical imperative. As free existential projects, we always have the opportunity - and the obligation - to work on the quality of the communicative effects we produce. Through a conscious effort to cultivate certain modes of social exchange, we are able to actively influence the "ecology" of collective being.

This means striving to minimize the circulation of "toxic" interactions that trigger processes of social decomposition: disunity, enmity, violence. And vice versa - to do everything possible to promote communications that work to strengthen the coherence of the social whole, to multiply its creative potential and internal diversity. The necessary effort here is the effort to affirm compositional logics in the polyphonic play of social autopoiesis.

Of course, it is not a question of imposing some normative ideal of "correct" communication. Rather, the ethical task is to keep the space of social interaction open, hospitable to difference, unfinished. To cultivate modes of communication that allow others to be others, not reducing them to one's expectations and projections. To assert the priority of the event-encounter over reifying categories and exclusionary hierarchies.

This is, in essence, a call for a permanent "micropolitics" of everyday life - for painstaking work to reinvent the very texture of our being-with-others. Work carried out not on the scale of global institutional transformations, but at the level of situational configurations of desire and connectedness. Through a multitude of molecular displacements in the way of living togetherness.

Ultimately, conscious participation in social autopoiesis turns out to be for us both an ontological given and an ethical imperative. A given - because we are originally "thrown" into the element of circulating social meanings, there is no "outside" of symbolic exchange. An imperative - because we are called to be co-creators, and not just translators of the social order, to be responsible for the "choreography" of the collective dance.

Thus, reflection on the dynamics of social systems leads us to a paradoxical ethical maxim: to be free means to consciously accept one's unfreedom, one's original involvement in the historical process of meaning-production. And from the depth of this involvement, to make efforts to transform the existing social patterns - in the direction of greater coherence, openness, ability to self-differentiate.

This is perhaps the ultimate point at which the ontology of autopoiesis merges with processual ethics - an ethics of responsible participation in the never-completed dance of co-creation of social worlds. A dance that embodies the very openness and incompleteness of human existence, its irreducibility to any actually given forms and identities.

The conceptual framework presented above carries a number of significant implications for understanding the place and role of the individual. First of all, it requires a rethinking of the very idea of an autonomous, self-identical subject opposed to the external world of social relations. If our subjectivity is constituted through participation in the processes of communication, if our identity is a dynamic effect of the meanings circulating in the social field - then any claim to complete independence and sovereignty turns out to be illusory.

Rather, we always already find ourselves involved in networks of social ties and dependencies, always already shaped by the discursive and symbolic structures in which we move. Our composition is not some pregiven essence, but the result of a specific interweaving of forces and influences, our positionality in the common field of relations.

Recognition of this primordial sociality, however, does not mean a simple dissolution of the individual in impersonal structures. On the contrary, it is precisely through the awareness of our deep connectedness with others, our ineliminable co-being, that we paradoxically gain the possibility for self-determination and transformative action. Only by accepting our conditionality, by making it the object of critical reflection, can we begin to responsibly work with it.

In this context, the key ethical task for the individual becomes the cultivation of the ability to question the social patterns and roles that define our subjectivity. This means developing a sensitivity to the gaps and ruptures in the existing order of meanings, to the points of its possible transformation - without breaking the fabric of social ties. This means asserting the right to otherness - in oneself and in others.

One of the central aspects of this practice of self-determination is building a conscious relationship to the boundaries of one's own identity. On the one hand, a clear understanding of one's limits, one's basic value and existential orientations, is necessary in order not to be passively carried away by destructive patterns of sociality. The ability to say "no," to protect one's life territory from invasive intrusions, is an important condition for maintaining personal autonomy.

On the other hand, excessive rigidity and closedness of boundaries is no less dangerous, since it blocks the possibilities for growth and transformation through contact with the other. In a world where everything is in continuous becoming, an attempt to fix one's identity once and for all, to achieve absolute immunity from change, inevitably turns into stagnation. By freezing into self-identity, we paradoxically lose ourselves, for our being is always being-in-process, being-in-transformation. Refusal of becoming triggers destructive processes of decay and decomposition at the ontological level. Therefore, no less important is the ability to strategically open one's boundaries, to make them permeable to those forces and influences that can enrich our composition, expand the horizons of our experience.

Thus, work with boundaries appears not as a one-time act of self-determination, but as a constant process of negotiation requiring attention and flexibility. It is an incessant navigation between the protection of sovereignty and the acceptance of the external, between fidelity to oneself and readiness for self-transformation in the horizon of various relations.

Another key point is the need for an active attitude toward one's own being. As we have seen, the idea of necessary effort implies that the very fact of our existence is already an action that entails consequences. We cannot withdraw from the processes of the world, we cannot fail to influence its course. Even our refusal to participate paradoxically turns out to be a form of participation, affirming a certain ethico-political position.

Awareness of this circumstance imposes on us an increased responsibility for the nature and direction of our involvement. We should transform the blind necessity of our presence into a meaningful project, make an effort to determine the trajectory of our own movement. It is a question of responsibility not only for specific actions, but for the very mode of our being-in-the-world, for what possibilities we actualize by our life.

In practice, this means first of all developing awareness in relation to those forces and processes that shape our subjectivity. It is necessary to constantly ask the question of what flows of desire, what structures of attention stand behind our habitual patterns of thinking and behavior. What values and imperatives guide our activity, where do they come from, how do they participate in individual and general autopoiesis?

Attentiveness to the micropolitics of one's own life makes it possible to begin strategic work on reorienting desire, on redirecting effort from reactive and decompositional trajectories to those that enhance coherence and productivity. This presupposes both the practice of disinvestment from toxic relations and decompositional self-identifications, and the active cultivation of those connections and self-perceptions that nourish our composition.

It is a question, thus, of an ethics of selective investment of desire - of directing life energy into those areas that increase the compositional intensity of our existence. For the nature of our world, ultimately, is determined by what we invest our attention and effort in. By investing in relationships and projects that enhance the growth and coherence of the social whole, we thereby participate in creating a more hospitable and inclusive environment. For the nature of our world, ultimately, is determined by what we invest our attention and effort in.

In light of the above, for the individual ethics can turn into a special practice of navigation in the space of social relations. By producing certain types of relationships, entering into the cycle of communicative exchange, we thereby join an extensive network of autopoietic interactions. And the nature of our behavior, the specificity of the signs and gestures we produce, inevitably affects which segments of this network we will be involved in.

By cultivating certain patterns of self-expression and interaction, we unwittingly gravitate toward those contexts where these patterns are most appropriate and in demand, where they resonate with the responses of the environment and other participants in communication. Thus, through structural coupling with a complementary environment, our individual practices acquire stability and reinforcement.

This principle also works in the opposite direction: by directing our necessary effort to the development of those qualities and abilities that are in tune with the desired environment, we thereby increase the probability of fitting into the corresponding social niches. Our inner world and external circumstances enter into a relationship of co-evolution, mutually adjusting and enriching each other.

Of course, such navigation cannot be completely calculated and programmed. The dynamics of social systems are too complex and nonlinear, and individual trajectories are too diverse and changeable. But the general principle remains the same: by practicing a certain style of behavior and communication, we gravitate toward its environmental reinforcement, moving toward the most favorable contexts for its unfolding.

It is important to emphasize that such work on emancipatory self-determination cannot be done once and for all. Due to the processual and unfinished nature of our subjectivity, it requires constant renewal of effort, vigilance to changing circumstances. It is a kind of existential practice that accompanies us throughout our life path. A compositional process.

Moreover, in the context of the vision we are developing, this practice cannot be a purely individual enterprise. Since our subjectivity is formed from the very beginning in the space of social ties and mutual affectations, work on oneself inevitably turns out to be work on the transformation of the collective conditions of existence. Taking care of oneself is inseparable from taking care of others, the striving for one's own emancipation is intertwined with the effort to jointly construct a freer world.

In this sense, the ethics stemming from our ontology is not only a personal choice, but also a political project. It is an invitation to experiment with forms of sociality, to collectively invent new ways of being-together beyond the usual structures of domination and subordination.

Of course, such a transformation cannot be a matter of heroic voluntarism. We are not able to single-handedly change the entire system of social relations, to overcome the inertia of established institutions and practices. But we can start small - with the "micropolitics" of everyday life, with the specific ways in which we build connections with others and with ourselves. To pay attention to what we produce.

By cultivating attentiveness and responsiveness in interpersonal communication, by practicing hospitality and co-attunement in communication, by affirming the value of difference in collective interactions, we thereby make our contribution to the creation of a different social ecology. Through a multitude of molecular shifts in the way of living togetherness. And although the effect of each individual effort may seem negligible, it is precisely from such microscopic shifts that macroscopic historical transformations are ultimately born.

In this sense, the ethical position affirmed by our approach is a position of transformative participation, combining a critique of the existing order with an affirmation of the possibilities of overcoming it. It is not an escape from the world or a naive belief in its revolutionary transformation, but a patient work of constructing "lines of escape" within the very everyday practices and relations. It is an invitation to experiment with one's own life as a field of liberating creativity.

Of course, on this path there are no final guarantees of success. The work of individual and collective liberation is always fraught with the risk of failure, with the inevitability of partial compromises and setbacks. There is no universal formula - there are only unique trajectories of self-invention, drawn in specific circumstances.

But even in the But even in the face of this inevitable uncertainty and incompleteness of the ethical effort, we have no right to retreat. For it is only through the constant exercise and renewal of this effort that we can remain true to ourselves - not as a frozen self-identical essence, but as an infinite movement of self-transcendence. Only through a willingness to call ourselves into question again and again do we paradoxically acquire the authenticity of our being.

Throughout the essay, I have tried to show how the ethical perspective in philosophy necessarily goes back to its ontological foundations - and how, in turn, ontological questioning discovers its original ethical burden and orientation.

The fundamental lesson we can draw from this is the inseparability of thought and existence, knowledge and action, theory and practice. To ask the question of being means to always already be in a certain ethical relation to the world. And to build one's life in accordance with the ethical imperative means to participate in the unfolding of the very ontological structures of reality.

Unfolding the network of concepts associated with this intuition - existential freedom, compositional infinity, the figures of the Other and the Guest, their dance of co-attunement, autopoiesis - we come to a vision of reality as an open and dynamic field of relations, constantly transforming itself through singular events of meaning-production. In this reality, nothing exists as a frozen given - everything is involved in a dance of infinite becoming and self-differentiation.

This vision carries essential implications for understanding the nature of ethical and political action. It invites us to reinvent the very coordinates of our togetherness, to communicate in the mode of critical openness and responsiveness to the otherness of the other. To be ethical here means to support the processes of composition of social worlds, to resist the forces of disunity by practicing hospitality at the very limit of the possible.

For the individual, this presupposes the cultivation of a special form of subjectivity based on conscious responsibility for the trajectory of one's own becoming. It means developing a sensitivity to the social determinations of our experience, as well as the ability to act strategically within them. To work on oneself, building connections and self-identifications that increase the compositional power of our life, and disinvesting from those that lead to disunity and degradation.

At the same time, this work is inseparable from participation in the collective effort to create a different social ecology. Taking care of oneself is intertwined with taking care of the world, striving for personal emancipation - with the struggle for other forms of togetherness. Ultimately, it is in the space of co-being with others, in the openness to the infinite play of differences, that our existence is rooted.

Ultimately, the key pathos of the philosophy presented is the pathos of affirming openness and becoming, of refusing any forms of substantialization of the social. It is a call to think human reality beyond the oppositions of actual and potential, real and possible. It is an invitation to co-creative participation in the never-completed process of producing meanings and relations.

Such thinking does not give us firm guarantees and does not relieve us of the burden of responsibility. But it endows us with courage in the face of the indeterminate, encourages ethical and political creativity. It teaches us to live in a world that is never finished and never predetermined, but always open to transformative participation.

And it is in this participation in the infinite play of differentiation, perhaps, that the highest meaning of human freedom and solidarity consists. Not as conformity to a given model and not as the self-will of atomized individuals - but as a dance of singularities finding themselves only in the openness of co-being with others. To be means to be captured by this dance and to be responsible for it.

In this perspective, this philosophy appears not so much as a set of doctrines as an invitation to experiment with the very modes of thinking and existence. An invitation to cultivate new forms of connectedness with the world, with others and with oneself - forms in which the very irreducibility of difference would be affirmed as a condition of genuine community.

The path to such a transformation can never be completed; it is always fraught with risk and unpredictability. But the very effort to keep this path open is already a value and an event. In this effort of challenging, reinventing and affirming, perhaps, lies the true essence of the philosophical and ethical gesture - a gesture always referring beyond the present.