Presence is a universal concept, witnessing is not

When transposing a concept like Witnessed Presence from one culture to another some tuning is acquired, according to Vibodh Parthasarathi. When one takes the two words separately, presence could be more universal where the idea of witness and witnessed presence could be more particular and therefore non-universal.

What is considered to be evidence or how one becomes a witness may be different across cultures. An early technology like the fingerprint does not distinct between identities of people. But when two people meet the context of the occasion, be it formal or ritual or just in the street, will deeply influence how one person witnesses another. People read the cues in each others appearances - styles, heritage, cues of community traditions, professional attributes - and this results in a judgement on the other persons identity, be it falsely informed and/or based on prejudice or not. Only when those cues are equally and fully understood can there be a space for dialogue and transaction. This raises the question whether one can be a witness without dialogue and transaction. Is transaction important for witnessed presence?