Europeanization Legal Policy Migration Policy Deconstruction
Migration Migration Politics Community Subjects Relations The Other
Narratives, Reports, Analyses, Reflections from the Practice/from my/our Philosophical Practice
Vienna 36 years of practice jubilee (1989-2025 ff.) jubilee 36 years PP 2025
PHILOSOPHICAL PRACTICE Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., b. 1959) & Anna Lydia Huber (MSc, b. 1959) VIENNA AUSTRIA EUROPE
To contact us, please use only these emails:
gack[at]chello.at or/and g.kaucic[at]chello.at
Contemporary Philosophy
Gegenwartsphilosophie
[[ Copyright, Image Rights, Copyright, rights to images, copyright, Picture rights, Copyright, – ALH & GK ]]
Overview / Outline
What is a friend? And what is friendship? And what is the politics of friendship?
Language as a tool of cognition lets us guess reality. Let us be careful! To philosophize with the hammer brings distress and necessity. It is not so simple with the language as Carl Schmitt (concept of the political) means and handles it!
The politics of friendship is a difficult one.
And deconstruction is unfinishably retrospective and provisional(!). Compare Derrida’s concept of the „trace“! The present, no present is ever present and a past has never been fully present as present. This realization also runs via language. We are witnesses and involved in an absolute dislocation (cf. teaser).
I mean the splitting of the structure of an experience of belonging, of a so-called „own“(!). Belongings expressed in terms of family, ethnicity, nation, religion, state or even profession.
These splittings cause discourses of shock. Discourses from Schiller, Kleist, Nietzsche to Derrida (cf. Politics of Friendship), Nancy and others.
And also mini-outbursts like hate postings.
But in their multiplicity they can become dangerously large. Also in their structure!
Their structure of the “ unpresentable community “ (Nancy), the technical devices in the form of Shit-Storms, Cyber-Mobbing etc.. In this, the storm glows. The storm in the water glass sometime as a global tsunami through many / all bodies.
One of the most workable insights into the phenomenon of hate is given to us by psychoanalysis in the Otto Kernberg’s definition:
„Hatred results from the transformation of the transient affect of anger into a permanent, structured affect, which implies a specific internalized object relation. (…)
Whereas anger aims directly at the elimination of the source of an irritation or an obstacle standing between the self and a gratification, hatred implies the consolidation of an internalized object relation between a suffering self and an object that seems to intentionally induce the self’s suffering.“
Coming to the end once more, let us cite J. Derrida’s „democracy to come.“ A democracy in the making (and not only on nation-state ground, cf. Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden) in supranational relations, legal relations, and institutions, – a democracy that, as a coming one, may have hardly begun yet, if at all. This is the theme of love and hate, peace and war, common and solitary, own and other, own and foreign, a theme of possibility, probability and impossibility.
The Political Body and the Other
Affections
Inscriptions
Recollections
In extreme brevity and complication briefly. The political Body!
Self-empowerment! Desire as an effect of socio-historical power relations!
Power and authority relations connect individual, social, physical and virtual bodies with each other.
Everything takes place where the ground opens to the abyss, where the reasoning of something feels attracted by countless abysses. The ParaNoia lives as long as there will be libido. We have to enclose it, not rationalize it, enclose and nurture it, that is, civilize it, educate it.
Desire always moves through all the specific categories of power that make up a geo-historical context (Elspeth Probyn 1996), albeit in defiance of everything unique and singular. Society as a tracing (Derrida) of „relational singularities“ (Probyn).
Identity dislocations, chorology, hyle/morphe structures as actual/not real(!) moments of the experienced (Husserl, Derrida).
The possible Self (Hochschild 1999) is an idealized and unrealized part of one’s existence. The images and models(!) of our cultures form the connection between our possible Selves.
Importantly, although the possible self remains mostly virtual, it is a special moment of self-conception!
In the possible Self an affective occupation takes place. Since this mostly appears desirable (for whatever reason lies alone in the biographical development of the individual), it comes to conceptions and feelings partly of the strangest kind, i.e. the possible Self forms itself to a mode of manifold identifications and formations of the desire.
The European Heritage
Media and world orders! And the geopolitical biopolitical unconscious of the media! We ourselves are medially and medially made!
Mass media have been spreading self-descriptions of a world society or of a world and its diverse societies for decades.
Mass media scripts and inscriptions permanently form the geopolitics of the world.
The European heritage is on the one hand a binding of law and politics to the sovereignty of the „subject“, on the other hand for many subjects (e.g. conservative immigrants) there is the „danger“ and the chance and possibility to be deconstructed.
Means, – the globalization is the Europeanization !
The European heritage are consequently numerous displacements, territorial and deterritorial, individual, ethnic, religious and others.
The European heritage are crises !
Crisis and deconstruction !
Temporary textual configuration !
The European heritage: crisis, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, democracy !
Spaces and borders are not objectively measurable and maintainable realities.
Spaces and borders come and go, always have, through crisis and deconstruction. Effects of psychosocial dynamics, affectation and immunization. Politics !
Since 9/11 2001, an accelerating spiral of anti-terror war and terror, cyber war, drone war, uprisings, revolutions, religions at war, waves of refugees (! waves ?! or a large rush, large numbers of people fleeing !?? ), refugee suffering, refugee tragedies, spectator mentality, rescue operations, tugging and shoving about conventions (Geneva Convention etc.) and agreements, international treaties, refugee distributions or admission quotas, admission crisis ?, death and dying, inability to act from left and right, from Austria to Australia, from Poland to Spain.
Migration flows (flows or rushes of people!?, reception crisis!?!, expulsion crisis!?! or refugee crisis!!!?) at the external borders of „Fortress Europe“, slave trade, terrorism, imperialism. The heritage of Europe.
Create new, fairer relations! New narratives, new images, new self-images, new self-descriptions.
It is about enduring and making live new and old differences!
The posthuman, global One without the Other, without the Other an illusion of cyberspace and its familiar.
The completion of history or Fukuyama’s „end of history“ an ideology from the Pentagon of the 90s of the last century.
A set of terms accompanies these media discourses that promote these ideologies.
Ideologies of the one controllable market by a few giant corporations.
They are: Network Society, World Society, One World, New World Order, TTIP, CETA, ACTA, …, globalization, world communication, World Wide Web, War on Terror, NSA, …
Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, „Was sich nicht wegkommunizieren läßt“/ „What can’t be communicated away“,- in: Communication. Media. Power, ed. by R. Maresch, N. Werber, Frf. 1999, S. 331(germ. Ed.):
„Power is the possibility to occupy spaces with bodies, and that also means: to displace bodies from spaces and to be able to block bodies‘ access to spaces.“
Politics can thus not provide instructions in normative terms; a normative indeterminacy relation between politics and society prevails, so to speak.
The freedom of the otherness of the Other enables life practices of survival, which takes place in the encounter of the „Others of the Other and the Others of myself“ (J. Butler, Undoing Gender, New York 2004, p. 131ff.).
The thinking of writing (cf. blog teaser Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.) also occurs in a kind of „return of the repressed“!
The cultural achievements owe their strength and compelling power to the return of the repressed, especially well visible in the religions of this world. It is about permanent memory work, about re-memories of mostly very old, very effective because very affective or afflicting processes in the history of mankind.
These historical truths because of the permanent repetition make these cultures so strong, more than the real event and its truth!
Examples like Moses, Jesus or Mohammed show this vehemently until today. With all negative and positive effects and side effects. And against all reason! (cf. Kant, The religion within the limits of the bare reason )
The return of the repressed happens individually, but also on state level.
The repressed bodies in front of the „Fortress Europe“ for example. The consequences of European imperialism of the last centuries. The shifts in the borderlines drawn by imperialism.
Boundary lines of states on former and in remnants still existing tribal territories.
Boundary lines of power. „Where might is right.“
These boundary lines of past powers, they break open into the history of the present. The repressed breaks into the everyday life of the so-called civilized democracies.
Democracies that are themselves struggling to come.
One marker for democracies in the making is the abolition of the death penalty. Another marker would be and is the taking in of refugees.
What’s wrong with the mother countries of democracy! What is going on with England? What about the USA? What do their elected leaders think their peoples think?! Regarding this!
Boundary lines of power. They are erupting. Migration movements are the visible symptom.
Europe and the rest of the world must act in the sense of human rights and in the sense of humanity !
Boundary lines of power. They are erupting. Migration movements are the visible symptom.
Europe and the rest of the world must act in the spirit of human rights and in the spirit of humanity !
( see my blog post Blogspot-Blog 2013 ff. „For a humanitarian refugee policy“ from 11. 10. 2013,
https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2014/12/kaucic-djay-philprax-wien-11.html
https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2014/12/kaucic-djay-philprax-wien-11.html?m=1 ).
Empathy! Help!
The other, – that is I! And that is you!
70 Years of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( cf. Source: United Nations Department of Public Information, NY
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng )
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore,
The General Assembly,
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27
Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29
Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
The Congress of Europe in May 1948 was attended by 650 politicians (few of them were government representatives) of almost all European countries – demand for the political unity of Europe, creation of a Council of Europe and a convention on human rights as the basis of the future community. A commission was established to draft the human rights convention.
With reference to the UDHR adopted in December 1948, it was demanded that there be not only a proclamation of rights but also a corresponding legal protection.
The draft convention was submitted to the provisional Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in June 1949.
Finally, one was not content with a list of human rights, these should also be defined accordingly.
The ECHR (European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) was signed in Rome on November 4, 1950, at the 6th session of the Committee of Ministers, and entered into force on September 3, 1953 (after ratification by 10 member states) (in Austria on September 3, 1958, two years after admission to the Council of Europe, Federal Law Gazette 210/1958); since Federal Law Gazette 59/1964, the ECHR and its 1st CP have had constitutional status; the subsequently ratified CPs (additional protocols) were also enacted with constitutional status.
Civil and political rights and freedoms are found therein, as well as a system for their enforceability against the member states.
However, the Committee of Ministers also decided on 4.11.1950 to draw up an additional protocol to regulate rights that had hitherto been disputed and therefore not included in the convention (property guarantee, parental rights, political civil rights).
The United Kingdom was the first to ratify the ECHR on 8.3.1951, followed by Norway, Sweden, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland and Greece, which withdrew between 1971 and 1974.
Three institutions were established:
The European Commission of Human Rights (1954)
The European Court of Human Rights (1959)
The Committee of Ministers (consisting of the foreign ministers of the member states).
A member state could then file a complaint against another member state for violation of convention rights.
The individual complaint was only possible if the respective member state allowed it.
The Commission examined the admissibility of the complaint; if no amicable agreement was reached, it drew up a report, which was submitted to the Committee of Ministers. Within three months, the Commission and the Member State could bring the case before the Court of Justice; this was not possible for individuals.
If the case was not brought to the Court, the Committee of Ministers decided whether there had been a violation of the Convention and, if so, awarded just satisfaction. The latter also monitored the domestic implementation of the Court’s judgments.
Since then, 14 additional protocols (APs) have been adopted.
Further rights and freedoms are contained in Additional Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13; the 2nd AP empowers the CJ to issue advisory opinions. Since the 9th AP, individual complaints can be brought before the CJ if the respective member state had ratified it and a panel of judges had agreed to it.
The rapid increase in the number of (registered) complaints (1981: 404; 1997: 4750) and the number of cases brought before the CJ (1981: 7 and 1997: 119) made a reform of the procedure necessary.
On 11.5.1994, the 11th Additional Protocol was signed in Strasbourg by all members of the Council of Europe (excluding Italy), which entered into force on 1.11.1998 (with a one-year transitional period – further processing by the Commission of complaints declared admissible until then) and created a single Court sitting permanently. The aim: to shorten the duration of proceedings before the Court and to abolish the jurisdiction of the Committee of Ministers, which is now only responsible for monitoring the execution of the Court’s jurisdiction.
The complainant can now appeal to the Court directly and as the only Convention body; the tasks previously performed by the Commission have been taken over by three-judge committees of the CJ. It is intended to reduce the duration of proceedings to two years in the foreseeable future.
Protocol No. 11, promulgated in Austria by Federal Law Gazette No. 30/1998, has completely restructured the legal protection of the Convention.
The Court of Justice now sits permanently and is staffed by full-time judges. Each of the (then) 40 member states provides one judge, who are appointed by the parliamentary assembly for a term of six years on the basis of tripartite proposals from the governments and are eligible for re-election up to the age of 70.
The Court sits in chambers of seven judges, with the Grand Chamber comprising 17 judges and the Committees comprising three and five judges.
The substantive provisions (ECHR 1950 and Additional Protocols 1, 4, 6 and 7) have not changed as a result; the procedural Protocols Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 8 have been incorporated into the new text of the Convention. Protocol No. 9 has become obsolete.
Complaints are now to be addressed directly to the CJ. Any person, organization or association of persons who considers that a guaranteed right has been violated may lodge a complaint with the CJ.
The new Rules of Procedure have been published in Austria in a German translation in Federal Law Gazette III No. 13/2000.
The official languages of the Court are English and French. However, complaints can be filed in all official languages of the Member States.
Global migration as one of the greatest challenges for all prosperous societies
Entering or settling in the territory of another state has not yet been guaranteed in any human rights document under international law. In the Geneva Convention on Refugees, there is a convention (dated July 28, 1951) on the status of refugees and another paper as a protocol dated January 31, 1967.
The Geneva Convention lists a large number of rights to be granted to refugees in host countries, – e.g. access to educational institutions. Particularly important is Article 33, which prohibits the refoulement and expulsion of refugees when their lives and liberties are threatened. Hannah Arendt complains in her writing „Elements and Origins of Totalitarian Rule. Anti-Semitism, Imperialism, Totalitarianism. Berlin 1986, pp. 601-615“ that minorities and refugees who are stateless (de jure or de facto) are also legally defenceless and the human rights catalog is therefore aporetic in such a case. Which means, these refugees can only appeal to the rights and cannot access the protection status of a citizen.
In political philosophy, the topic of migration has played an increasingly important role since John Rawls‘ „A Theory of Justice“ from 1971, and in the German-speaking political sphere, too, there have been increasingly intensive discourses on the topic of immigration and the migration problem. Once again particularly clearly triggered by Mrs. Merkel’s open borders policy in 2015.
At the center of general attention and philosophical discussion is the controversial question of whether sovereign states can be obliged to open their borders to migrants. And the claim of many states to be allowed to deny access to their sovereign domain to outsiders who do not belong to the state community.
The legitimization of the exclusion of persons who do not belong to the state community!!!???
But hello! People!!! Seriously???
About the self I have already commented above (with Freud)! As we know, there can be no immediate self-experience, – we always remain at a distance to ourselves ! (cf. Derrida, Psyche, Inventions of the Other).
I myself am a known stranger to myself (!!!).
I remind of the potential of affectation and immunization or auto-immunization (cf. Derrida and cf. my so called posting (blogspot-blog 2014 ff.) in January 2022) at the beginning !
The bridges to the Other and to the „own“ Other as well as the passages, markings, tracings, royal roads to the unconscious as the Other, – the dangerous endangered Other !
The unconscious, the invasive unconscious, the crisis of hermeneutics !
The Other as an opening towards the „undecidability“.
It is important to note that although the possible self remains mostly virtual, it is a special moment of the self-conception! In the possible self an affective occupation takes place. Since this mostly appears desirable (for whatever reason lies only in the biographical development of the individual), it comes to ideas and feelings partly of the strangest kind, i.e. the possible self forms itself to a mode of manifold identifications and formations of desire.
Those obsessed with the desire for power would have to rebuild themselves by working on their desires and dreams. On the contrary, they usually work on so-called Cavalieresque contexts of justification to ward off criticism from outside. They form themselves as a possible self mostly in the form of a promise of their specialness. They only mean well, so the outflow of stupid incomprehension culture for humiliations of all kinds (of the respective other).
Every democracy, every coming democracy, will have to struggle with these energy arrangements(!) (libido wasters) of irrational, slightly to heavily paranoid megalomaniac personalities again and again. Not born to the end (cf. Theweleit, Männerphantasien/Male fantasies)!
Body architecture is political ( cf. Monique Wittig’s analysis of heterosexuality as a political regime and M. Foucault’s analyses of the dispositif of sexuality as well as Judith Butler’s analyses of performative identity ).
Bodies are socially constructed texts (cf. Beatriz Preciado’s Contrasexual Manifesto).
Consciousness emerges from bodies in structures.
Actions are grounded in delusions in dreams and as dreams.
In psychosis, the father function is reduced to the image of the father.
The symbolic is reduced to the imaginary. Man lives his dream as madness put into action under certain real conditions,- he follows his puzzled image of the father. His rebus remains closed to him.
He does not know distance to himself. He does not recognize a real self in relation to the others. Relational shifts. Distortions. Delusions of grandeur.
I/me as god!
Self-imagination as imperturbable necessity of his self.
Strictly speaking, these are essentially Lacan’s approaches to madness!
Lacan defines psychosis as one of three clinical structures defined by the mechanism of abjection/of warp.
In this mechanism, the „Name-of-the-Father“ (cf. „Introduction to the Names-of-the-Father“, – in: Jacques Lacan: Name-of-the-Father. Vienna 2006, translated from the French by Hans-Dieter Gondek, Vlg. Turia+Kant, pp. 63-102) is not integrated in the symbolic universe of the psychotic, a vacuum remains.
A „warp“ occurred!
In the psychosis there is indeed an unconscious, however according to Lacan a non-functioning unconscious.
So a gap or a hole in the symbolic order for lack of name-of-the-father, a disfunction of the unconscious, perhaps better a parafunction of the unconscious.
The psychotic structure arises because of a dysfunction of the Oedipus complex, a lack of the father function.
„Dream and delusion come from the same source, from the repressed; the dream is the so to speak physiological delusion of the normal human being.
Before the repressed has become strong enough to assert itself as a delusion in waking life, it can easily have achieved its first success under the more favorable circumstances of the sleep state in the form of a dream with a lasting effect.
During sleep, along with the reduction of mental activity in general, there is also a decrease in the strength of the resistance which the ruling psychic powers put up against the repressed.
It is this diminution which makes dream formation possible, and therefore the dream becomes for us the best access to the knowledge of the unconscious soul.
Only that usually with the establishment of the psychic occupations of waking, the dream fades away again, the ground won by the unconscious is cleared.„
(S. Freud, The Delusion and the Dreams in W. Jensen’s Gradiva, Chapter 2)
Compare also and especially Jacques Lacan, Nicolas Abraham/Maria Torok „Kryptonymie. Das Verbarium des Wolfsmanns/ The Wolf Man’s Magic Word. A Cryptonymy “ and Jacques Derrida „Fors“ (trans. from the French into German by Werner Hamacher), Basel 2008 (especially p.71ff. „Einverleibung, interne Hysterie, Kryptonymie/Incorporation, internal hysteria, cryptonymy “ and p. 94 ff. „Die interne Hysterie/The internal hysteria. Aufbau und Funktionieren einer Maschinerie/Structure and Functioning of a Machinery“).
Lacan is not agreed here by Abraham/Torok/Derrida that the wolf-man is only a neurotic, but in truth it is a psychotic, whose “ warping “ is not accessible to the ability of symbolization!
In and through the „cryptonymy“ the questions of philosophy (above all by J. Derrida still visibly extensively and concentratedly disseminated) are put directly and without exception on the level of psychoanalysis and on exactly this level of Psa. the possibility of answer is categorically and grammatologically denied to philosophy.
Intermediate step to the consciousness-expanding reading on the subject!
Let’s consult again and again on the subject of sexism, racism, fascism (!) and let’s not forget them — the fascism analyses and sexual economy theories of Wilhelm Reich ( „Massenpsychologie des Faschismus. Zur Sexualökonomie der politischen Reaktion und zur proletarischen Sexualpolitik“ / Mass Psychology of Fascism. On the Sexual Economy of the Political Right and Proletarian Sexual Politics. 1933 ) and Klaus Theweleit ( „Männerphantasien“ 1980 / Male Fantasies 1987, esp. vol. 2 „männerkörper – zur psychoanalyse des weißen terrors“ / the body of men – on the psychoanalysis of white terror 1978 )
Sexual economics!
Desire and responsibility!
Let’s not forget ! ! !
Psychoanalysis ! ! !
When we use language, we inevitably cause effects in ourselves and in the other. We transform ourselves, but also the other and we transform the other, the language.
Language is a name for what we do, – the action we are doing, – and a name for what we cause, – the action and its consequences.
A sentence does something.
Language is „power to act“. The doing of language is empowering!
Also this setting just and this figuration/configuration (cf. my teaser to it) is “ capacity for action “ and explains just in all brevity the linguistic power for action (cf. teaser blogspot-blog 2014 ff. and my video to the „sentence“!).
Language as a figure for power of action and power of action as a figure of language. The agency of language is not the same as that of the subject, who can do things with language, but also in language (cf. teaser on „deconstruction“ and différance / Derrida!).
Language is based on a divided, I want to say doubled, essence, an operativum divided in itself. Language is respectively the instrument of statements shares something „essential“ with language, because, precisely because no statement is reducible to its instrument (who wants to dive deeper into this >affair< „language“, read „Limited Inc“ by Derrida together with the texts of the speech act theorists Austin and Searle among others).
Wording, words, sentences can hurt!
The subjects, the medium, the language, the statement, the way of statement, what is said, the touched(!) contexts, the readers, the citizens, the laws, the state, the community, the social contract!
Hate formulations, aggressive language or language behavior, can lead to the death of the subject, if this „speech“ gets into the position of domination or can invoke such a position, – then this speech act(!) becomes a form of articulation of the ruling power and thus a kind of reproduction of power (compare for example Chile under Pinochet or Germany and Austria under Hitler or today Syria under Assad; as we know, there would be many more examples).
Repetition of sentences as hate-speech and their publication can (must not! Bridge of speech, subversion is always possible, always linguistically possible!, – cf. Althusser, Foucault, Deleuze, esp. Derrida) and will shape the subjects, the expressing and the invoked. Offensive formulations call upon, they call upon the localization of discursive and physical violence, they precede, attempt, and, as it were, temporize every utterance that enacts them. To the subject, the utterance is present, the subject is formed, and the subject continues the discourse as subjugating.
According to Freud, a forbidden desire shifts in the unconscious from one thing to the next. This infinite transmissibility of desire, which is seduced by a prohibition, a blockade, a taboo, controls quasi uncontrollably this logic of infection in a so-called metonymic flow (think of your own „desire“ to do forbidden things, – e.g. when changing accustomed circumstances!).
In Freud’s „The uneasiness in civilization“ the place of libido is shifted and itself becomes the lust place of prohibition. Here repression takes that form in which it itself becomes libidinous activity.
Every sentence a leap.
A jump that breaks a context.
Every utterance is primarily an assertion and pushes objections aside for the time being.
The power of a performative utterance can be enormous, – in both directions!
Denunciation and self-denunciation!
Depending on the reading and depending on the readership and reader’s location (political, ideological, intellectual).
The break with the context (Derrida) of a performative utterance is always inherent to it, every utterance’s failure is inscribed by the thing „language“. Only many actors do not notice this! Hate-speech-actors apparently notice the self-denunciation almost never or too late.
The history of subjugation is (also) a history of language and speaking.
Consequently, human education is the first matter of every democratic society.
Every culture needs subjectivity, subversiveness, criticism and a large portion of commonality (also in difference).
If envy should be a human constant, then it is necessary to sublimate this envy through the instances of our culture and thus not to want to harm the other, to want to take something away from him etc., but I raise my envy to the level of sporting, professional or intellectual ambition.
So I do not hate because of possible envy of someone, but I convert my envy into special abilities, which I make my own through diligence and practice.
Perhaps this is the incentive for science, art and sport, inventiveness, entrepreneurship, helpfulness and: L o v e (!?) ?!! (cf. Lacan, Seminar X)
Hate is not a concept. Hate is an exaggeration of the envious desire from lack and loss.
Reason is to be able and to want to sublimate this.
Therapies could lead to this understanding (of reason)!!! (Or accelerate this process.) (cf. teaser!).
To speak with Derrida for a moment more, to remind us how necessary this will always be: The subject of an utterance can hardly be aware, and must be aware, that all „communication“ is subject to a general graphematic structure.
A consequence of this is that the iteration structure is given and thus the intention of an utterance can never be fully present to itself and its content. That is, iteration always generates a break, iteration structures a p r i o r i .
There always already exists an oratio obliqua, a structural unconsciousness of intention in the actuality of the statement. Never forget to remember that in the thing and the conception of it a ghost is doing its business, – the teleological phantasm of consciousness (cf. esp. „Signature, Event, Context“ by J. Derrida, – in: Margins of Philosophy).
This is also and perhaps even more true for the actor of a hate-speech than for the addressee. So beware of the always possible boomerang effect of self-harm! In the private as in the public! Whether individual-person-actor or states.
What is a friend? And what is friendship? And what is the politics of friendship?
Language as a tool of cognition lets us guess reality. Let us be careful! To philosophize with a hammer brings distress and necessity. It is not so simple with the language as Carl Schmitt (concept of the political) means and handles it!
The politics of friendship is a difficult one.
And the deconstruction is deferred and provisional(!). Compare Derrida’s concept of the „trace“! The present, no present is ever present and a past has never been fully present as present. This realization also runs via language. We are witnesses and involved in an absolute dislocation (cf. teaser).
I mean the splitting of the structure of an experience of belonging, of a so-called „own“(!). Belongings expressed in terms of family, ethnicity, nation, religion, state or even profession.
These divisions cause discourses of shock. Discourses from Schiller, Kleist, Nietzsche to Derrida (cf. Politics of Friendship), Nancy and others.
Coming to the end, once again the „coming democracy“ of J. Derrida is mentioned. A democracy in the making (and not only on nation-state ground, cf. Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden) in the supranational relations, legal relations and institutions, – a democracy which, as a coming one, has hardly or not at all begun. This is the theme of love and hate, peace and war, common and lonely, own and other, own and foreign, a theme of possibility, probability and impossibility.
Democracy as a philosophical concept that remains perpetually in the making (see teaser and my/our BlogPost (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.) on the Philosophy of Democracy).
The feelings of hate as aporetic, as aporia affect of the democratic! Perhaps also the cuckoo’s egg of every revolution?!
Destructive developments are not only to be eliminated(!) repressively, but to be pedagogized and civilized through communicative inclusion.
Philosophical Practice can make a weighty contribution to this, I think, we think.
Franz Kafka wrote in his diary in 1911, „the hidden in a conundrum is clear and invisible. Clear to him who has found what he was asked to look for, invisible to him who does not even know that there is something to look for.“
Politics of love and friendship. Only those who love can know what it means to love.
Paranoids, autocrats and fascists love very quickly and very violently. They love first and foremost their own conundrum. Their narcissism says, love what the stuff holds. Tell the people often and again that and how much you love them. They will eventually believe you.
Every democracy, every coming democracy, will have to struggle with these energy arrangements(!) (libido wasters) of irrational, slightly to severely paranoid megalomaniac leaders over and over again. Not born to the end (cf. Theweleit, Male Fantasies)!
On the fragile surfaces (without railings) of interstate relations, this problem is always posed anew.
To this day, democracy is a national, inner-state model of political organization. The borders of the state system are still not crossed and as it looks tomorrow even less than before (keyword: right-wing populism).
The planetary subject(!) is becoming even more distant, or so I get the feeling. To treat the questions of foreign policy as a question of domestic policy still does not occur in the „Contrat social“ or is further postponed, even almost canceled.
Trump wanted to ignore and delete all(!?) existing treaties. Trump wants to destroy the European Union. He helps Putin to achieve his priority goals.
Kaczyński, Orban, Fico, Janša, Erdogan and all the other right-wing populists, right-wing extremists and fascists are helping the two aforementioned. Perhaps even some without intentional reflectorium.
We will see what we will see. Are you sure? Are you sure of yours?!
Everything takes place where the reason opens to the abyss, where the reasoning of something feels attracted by countless abysses. The ParaNoia lives as long as there will be libido. We have to enclose it, not rationalize it, enclose and care for it, i.e. civilize it, educate it.
Democracies educate by means of education, – above all human education in the sense of human rights and human duties. Developing laws along the lines of human rights and in the sense of the European Convention ( 70 years European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms / Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Text on this: see above in this post ).
Once again to our Bad Couple Trump-Putin as a demonstrative of a particular political
(think of the formula „our bodies are political“, bodies are socially constructed texts, consciousness emanates from bodies in structures)
action and thought and their presuppositions and determinations:
Aristotle tells us in the „Eudemic Ethics“ that it is better to love than to be loved.
It is about politics and justice. It is about friendship. What is appropriate for friendship? What is the just thing in it?
Trump called Putin his friend. Does he love him? And if so, in what way does he love him? How much does his narcissism guide him? He does not love him in the usual sense; again, he loves only his conundrum (cf. above). I am convinced of that. He cannot really love at all, except himself and this again only as his conundrum of himself.
The Trumps and the Putins of all kinds cannot love, because they cannot give as a gift without credit and debt. They cannot love without economy. In place of being able to love, the figure of self-empowerment and greed as desire for power took over in these. This is the very blatant expression of a lack (of doubt) due to a gap in the symbolic order, a dysfunction or parafunction of the unconscious (cf. above).
Before any other question, there is the question of what is appropriate, the question of what is just. The question about justice defines a behavior in a friendship. What necessity has the question of what is appropriate and what is just in a friendship.
Let us not forget, it is about politics. About political friendship. What is a friend? What is friendship? Can there be a friendship at all in the reality of interests? What is the meaning, – better, what will be the meaning in this speech of friendship. I mean Trump’s speech about Putin, his friend!
There are aporetics on this way to friendship or from(!) the friendship special number.
Aristotle reminds us in it (in his eudemic ethics!!!) and quite weightily that the „work of the political“, the so-called political act, consists exactly in generating as much(!) friendship as possible(!).
Quantities of friendship thus. As many as possible.
Friendship is without perceptive doubt quasi unquestionably(!) a form of love. To be a friend means to love. This act of friendship as love is more inherent(!) to a friendship, that is, more consubstantial, closer to the essence than the situation of those who (must!!!) let themselves be loved.
Putin waits and is pleased, basically and for the time being. Trump loves his conundrum, his narcissistic self-image in the „referent“ Putin. Trump wants to be Putin as himself. An even more enormous Trump-putin. A Trumputin. The conundrum is an enigma.
A rebus
(cf. for this „dream interpretation“ of Sigmund Freud, – there also more to „dream thoughts“ and „dream content“ etc.- see in the posting
https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2018/06/migrationspolitik-subjekte.html https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2018/06/migrationspolitik-subjekte.html?m=1 ).
So much for the time being to the presupposed political action and its personnages.
In his work on the birth of biopolitics, Michel Foucault writes that the liberalism of Western democracies maintains a relationship to the production and destruction of freedom (cf. M. F., Die Geburt der Biopolitik. History of Governmentality II, Frf. a. Main 2004, p. 98, germ. ed.).
The production of freedom is based on the calculus of security and protection. The power economy of liberal democracies is based on the interplay between freedom, security, and protection against present or media-politically insinuated threats, risks, and dangers.
These threats to freedoms can be homemade or of external origin. According to certain theories of a politological nature, antagonism is needed to maintain an order as an anchor of meaning. The tenor is that difference politics do not work.
One of the driving forces of a liberalism of this definition is the scaremongering of tabloid media and other agitation machines à la social media.
Shitstorms etc. are popular instruments of certain governments to create general uncertainty and a culture of fear. For this purpose, they particularly like to make use of the so-called refugee waves and streams.
These figurative expressions of force function particularly efficiently in the free media to track politicians‘ behavior.
Racism has always been one of the pillars of this kind of liberal democracy or so-called liberal democracy (cf. USA).
One consequence of this culture of fear was the artificially high state of excitement of the tribal minds, including the appendage of functionaries, with the consequent enormous expansion of procedures of control, restriction and coercion, all of which form the counterpart to freedoms.
The refugees and the media-heated and subsequently and in advance party-politically instrumentalized racism via integration hysteria, blanket suspicions of young foreign men and blanket suspicions of religious communities as well as blanket individual attacks by non-nationals, i.e. by „foreigners“, form the driving forces of this policy of fear and lack of freedom.
And this policy is to serve above all the destruction of the European values and the return to the so-called nation-state with isolation and small sinecure rule and associated bondage with so-called folk culture care and intellectual hostility free of charge.
This right-wing populist policy follows a logic of fences and a logic of enclosure with all its consequences, such as censorship, the grossest restriction of the freedom of the critical spirit and the arts, as well as the exact definition of borders of the spaces of movement of different groups of the population (e.g. Roma, Sinti, migrants, refugees, foreigners, the unemployed, educational rights, women’s rights, police violence, justice, jurisdiction, etc., just look at Poland ( before Tusk’s time), at Hungary, at Turkey and elsewhere).
This is followed, as always in history, by restriction of freedom of movement, imprisonment and deportation.
Racism and xenophobia are more widespread phenomena than some among us might believe.
The attempts of isolation and not wanting to see will not solve the problems. Neither will the hard-heartedness.
There will continue to be large numbers of refugees and people migrating for various reasons all over the world, that much is certain.
The causes are the growing number of failed states and the resulting lawless warlord territories. Chicanery, threats, robbery, enslavement, murder, mass killings, endless wars between diverse factions, hunger, unemployment, persecution, rape, suppression of attempted self-reliance, lawlessness, unleashed violence exercised completely arbitrarily.
All of this leads to increased flight or increased attempts at migration to a better life elsewhere, such as Europe.
To a large extent, these are the consequences of misguided military undertakings for decades and especially in Afghanistan and Iraq with the support of a greedy mostly Western arms industry including politically uncontrolled corporate mercenaries.
The resulting increase in migration from poor countries to rich countries has increased from 20 million to 60 million between 1960 and 2000, and is expected to continue at this rate until perhaps at some point the levels of prosperity will be equalized.
Since the beginning of the modern era, people have fled war atrocities and despotisms of all kinds, hoping for peace and prosperity in countries of other peoples. For the people in these other countries, they have always been strangers. And many, relatively many strangers trigger fears. This was also the case in Austria and Germany in 2015, although it must be said that a not insignificant part of these populations was very willing to help, and in some cases still is.
However, many did not trust their conscience and their impulses to give, but allowed themselves to be fooled by the panic media and the right-wing politicians who served them and incited them against „the foreigners“.
Xenophobia grew and many citizens then also voted for the right-wing populist FPÖ, which presented itself as a security party, or for the turquoise xenophobic foreign minister of the ÖVP, Mr. Kurz, as chancellor.
Kurz was in power and the policy of cuts, reductions and constrictions, both territorial and financial, began. The capping of the minimum security, the reduction of basic services, the indexation of child benefits, the intended restriction of the movement of asylum-seeking refugees in the asylum process to one province.
Urban life has certainly not become easier, and parts of the urban population in poorer neighborhoods describe increased immigration as the biggest problem for the EU and for themselves.
They speak of increased resentment and higher potentials for aggression. Subjectively or even objectively, who wants to be able to measure that.
The so-called precariat, which has emerged in the last two decades, fears (partly rightly!) for its already small vested interests and endangered social positions.
A left-wing policy could create better redistribution mechanisms. Support the disadvantaged. Tax the wealthy. Many would even want to give more voluntarily. Don’t vote right!
The right has always been and is against the small! Always has been!
The right stokes resentment against refugees and so-called economic migrants.
The right uses the fear about the possible loss of their own income and livelihood to their advantage and to your disadvantage.
The right is not out for balance. It is always unfairly neoliberal and talks about achievers.
Not everyone can meet this definition of achievers.
Life is more diverse.
Performance is only one dimension and one dimension does not lead to a balanced political space, but to social death, to cold death. Also of human impulses and feelings.
In short, to fascism. In the end, always.
The policy of isolation, the policy of fencing and walls only leads to the further aggravation of the hate potentials on all sides.
It would be and is rather about the improvement of the living conditions and the necessary for it as undisturbed as possible individual and overall social communication and a plausible problem-solving optimism with good humanly appropriate real improvements apart from all distortions of the realities by agitation and panic mode.
The contact with the others is inevitable. One planet. One humanity. One challenge. Not division! Unification. Empathy. Help. Taking care of the other.
Giving without economy. Giving in the same(!?) time.
Love. Libido. Sexual economy. Becoming a subject. Education. Giving as a gift.
From dissemination grows the fruitful. Not necessarily, but possibly. Never from pure economics! From there one should always keep the legal and economic terms „freedom, duty, selflessness, generosity, waste versus thrift, interest, usefulness“ in mind and expose them to a questionable overthinkability.
Marcel Mauss refers to the craziness of the gift as giving without an economy of the expectable exchange of.
I think he means the act of giving more than the gift as a thing. That which comes back, if something comes back(!), cannot be expected and should not be expected.
The giving as a gift as a taking without address for an exchange transaction. The craziness of giving and taking, – of taking as giving and giving as taking without return.
If possible. Loving.
The taking and the giving. A cultural transformation. Underlying „communicating vessels“, – the subjects. Starting points: processes of subject formation. Configurations. Transformations. Disseminations (cf. what was said above!).
To the „preliminary“ ends of philosophical practice and to the coming (?) transformation of the human right to asylum and the problems of migration policies politologically formulated through political philosophy the following:
The gift as an instrument of power.
Only those who give in an economically calculating way rule. The power of production. The ownership of the means of production. The power-obsessed. And the crisis of global and European asylum and migration policy.
The lip service paid to a „Europeanization“ of the „migration problem“ while at the same time refusing to accept the resulting obligations for one’s own country.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is on what may be her last relevant mission these days ( long gone, those days!) bring European governments into line.
The key words are securing Europe’s external borders, distributing refugees according to a key within the EU, and financing and contractually binding primarily African states to set up camps outside the EU.
Not a word about the actual causes of global flight and migration movements and how to combat them.
These are:
(a) the growing economic inequality as a consequence of failed neoliberal economic policies of the last four decades (cf. Manfred Nowak, Human Rights or Global Capitalism. The Limits of Privatization, Pennsylvania Press, Pittsburgh 2017 and M. Nowak, Responsibility to Protect. Is International Law Moving from Hobbes to Locke?, in Gerhard Hafner and others, eds, International Law and the Dynamics of Human Rights, Vienna 2012, pp. 342-369, german ed. and engl. partly).
b) the arms industry and its gigantic supplies of weapons and, more importantly, almost ammunition to terrorist groups and warring factions and states with civil wars and warlords.
c) = b) the armed conflicts and terrorism in the Middle East and Africa.
d) the climate change and the consequences as consequence of all possible human wrong decisions, wrong actions, wrong behaviors and wrong ways of thinking should be mentioned here now only briefly.
In the future, perhaps the biggest case among the causes of war and the resulting flight and migration movements.
The three major trouble spots in the world that produce the most refugees(!) are in Syria (Assad, IS and al-Nusra Front), Afghanistan (al-Qaeda) and Somalia (Shabab militias).
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine adopted by the United Nations in 2005 to protect the population against serious and systematic violations of human rights (genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and war crimes) should have been applied in Syria if the Security Council had not been blocked by the veto of Russia and China.
The UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly have repeatedly pointed out this responsibility.
With this structure, the United Nations is a global institution, a subject of international law with falling recognition (regarded with distrust, little respect, and little prestige by the populations of the world), and thus cannot perform the task of peacekeeping as its core mission.
The self-interests of the major powers take precedence over human rights and protection against human rights violations.
If this is the permanent state of affairs, the growth rates of global migration and flight movements will continue to go up.
Thus the outlook for the fleeing and the alignments of migration policies.
Further above I spoke of the Other as the stranger and quoted Benveniste with the words, the stranger was always already and a priori the enemy.
Now, to come to an end, – by the way, this had also been the content of the end of our recently two days ago experienced philosophical practice, – still quickly a few thoughts from the psychoanalytical field on the subject of xenophobia and violence.
Psychoanalysis is first of all psychoanalysis of the individual and only from the experiences gained from this, with the help of psychoanalytic terminology, a possibility to open up to social phenomena and descriptions in order to analyze them and then, in a third step, to deconstruct them as far as possible.
I remind of the “ strange feeling “ of the child, – an intrapsychic perception of the non-identity of the stranger with the memory image of the reference person who is absent at the moment (still often and primarily the mother, but not necessarily!).
We all know that this strangeness usually fades away soon and that strangeness experience is an abolishable one, not only between individuals, but also between groups and even whole peoples.
Self-assertion in certain milieus happens by means of demarcation from others, the so-called strangers. And if these strangers are little respected people, this provides the members of groups in these milieus with a certain self-enhancement.
The exclusion of strangers and the exclusion of the stranger in general is often an important part of identity formation and self-stabilization. An affirmation of the self experienced as one’s own.
Already Nietzsche spoke at his time of „Schlechtweggekommenen / more disadvantaged“ and meant thereby above all the anti-Semites (cf. Nietzsche’s Nachlaß).
Later, Hitler’s assumption of power led to a true national self-inflation and each of these „Schlechtweggekommenen“, so called by Nietzsche earlier, experienced thereby his „own“ self-inflation.
His stabilization and socialization as a nazi >anti-Social<, but above all anti-Semite.
In primary socialization often persons with narcissistic wounds and impairments of self-value regulation.
In stressful situations, such as puberty, often burdened with feelings of inferiority due to lack of recognition, etc., hopelessness, demotivation and feelings of emptiness. Hardly any bonding ability to immediately existing people.
Identification failures with distant, so-called strong personalities.
Others are idealized or devalued. Strangers are almost always devalued, especially „foreign“ looking people.
Authoritarian or even totalitarian doctrines and ideologies often catch on with these individuals overnight (cf. youth in Europe and the IS in recent years).
Group cohesion can have a very strong binding effect in the case of a leader whom everyone in the group regards as exemplary and to whom they all submit together, thus creating a kind of covenant.
Adorno’s and others‘ study of the authoritarian personality is familiar to many of us.
I don’t need to elaborate on it here, just to express or address the almost truism, namely that the inner-family socialization processes of the petty-bourgeois family are decisive for the formation of the character and especially of the authoritarian character through the lack of emotional warmth to the reference persons, mostly the parents, as well as forcibly solved crises and conflicts through character-weak father figures, in many cases also the withdrawal of closeness through the absence of at least one main reference person, – that of the father in most cases.
„Authority-bound characters, persons who, under the pressure of childhood experiences, failed to crystallize an autonomous ego, are particularly prone to totalitarian ideologies“ (Adorno 1954).
Very often these young people experienced violence and sexualized violence in their socialization.
Social powerlessness is turned into power and violence against others.
This so-called „whipping boy mechanism“ is almost only felt by the weaker ones. In such groups, it is also very often directed against foreigners.
Self-hatred becomes hatred of others and often ends in an ecstatic orgy of violence with many kicks on those already lying on the ground.
No empathy.
No imagination about possible suffering of the other.
The hullabaloo comedy not infrequently as a real tragedy. Fueled and guided also often by relevant film adaptations of such outbreaks of violence. Unreflectively watched and adopted.
Identity through bodily experience in the form of violence and the experience and self-feeling of one’s own capacity for violence as a feeling of power.
Xenophobia and violence as a stability factor of the authoritarian developed character.
Often also in the form of the exercise of violence against women. A definition of masculinity as lived brutality also with regard to possible disturbing questions about one’s own gender identity.
How one could find one’s way back to a „normal“ life?
A difficult path. Certainly!
But certain therapies describe the possibilities in the form of many conversations that it would be important to lead the „patient“ to the point where he could eventually come into the position to affirm his own imperfection and to love himself as well as the other not for reasons of media-fed, fantasized perfection, but from an acknowledgement of real and actually experienced imperfection to learn to like and finally even to learn to love him.
To want to learn to love the other and finally perhaps to be able to love him and thus to grow into a real partnership – that should be able to make possible the way away from xenophobia and the world of violence towards a path of peace with oneself and thus towards another. Certainly a long, difficult way to go, but a way!
I am a stranger to myself! That would be the right spot landing in this terrain. As Freud said in 1933, „We are all foreigners!“.
To be able to accept one’s own „inner foreign country“ (Freud) and one’s own foreignness!
The gift to love! The gift to give. Giving without economic calculation. To love. To give love.
Now I close quickly and abruptly!, … I’m almost talking like the Pope … haha
The humor has us again! Probably the only winning „enemy“ of the furor.
The humor makes the man to the man.
Many more Philosophical Practices and practises will be needed. Political theories and politics are all based on the axiomatics and valuations of philosophical provenances.
I thank our guest for the stimulating and hope giving reflections, trains of thought and thought creations, – sometimes and always on the edge of abysmalness.
No reason without abyss!? Philosophical practice as a construction site with building blocks, ruins, gravel, scrap and techné and as a free experimental laboratory for thought walks in thought buildings and ruins also of archaeological nature.
And as always, we have too little time.
Every sentence has too little time. Every sentence displaces by jumping. It displaces many other possible and necessary (!) sentences (for more see my Youtube video on „The Sentence“).
Each sentence, each word, each code drives its being and its mischief in the incommunicability!
Every sentence greets a ghost. Every sentence is a ghost.
Every sentence in every setting and every session (also the one in a PP/philosophical practice).
I should always be able to state all the psychoanalytic, economic, political, and juridical implications of what is said/set above.
I refer all readers to my/our publications on the net and to the publications on paper.
The terrain of reading is abysmal(!) and unlimited!
Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber
Philosophers
Philosophical Practitioners, Writers (born 1959)
PP Vienna Austria Europe
Gerhard Kaučić
Philosoph, Schriftsteller, Mediator, Dr. phil.
Anna Lydia Huber
Philosophin, Schriftstellerin, Mediatorin, MSc
Post scriptum/after the bound/Nachsatz:
Post scriptum/after the bound/Nachsatz:
The tasks of a future democracy/a democracy on the rise/a permanent advent/arrival of democracy/a democracy in the arrival ( Jacques Derrida ), to think the subject as „planetary“ (cf. G. Ch. Spivak, see teaser, – the teaser from my blog; note: the teaser is only visible in the web-version!), – especially concerning the great challenges of politics in the 21st century: Utopia (?!) of reflexive solidarity (Spivak),
borders of a planet (John Bellamy Foster et al. (Ed.): The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth, 2011), deconstructive politics as an ideological-critical reading of the imperial archive, geopolitics, geopolitical involvement, geopolitical interest driven policy and/as value policy, power, morals and human rights, analysis of power, gender and governmentality, teletechnology, cyborg technology, political bodies, complexities of rule, citizenship, parliamentarianism, peace policy, institution building and institution maintenance, economically correct and fair redistribution of social wealth, proper management of Migration (Flüchtlinge, Refugees), …
proper handling of migration (refugees), migration and capitalism, Postkolonialismus, neocolonialism, postcolonialism, Kolonialisierung auf allen Ebenen, Kolonialismus, Rassismus, Faschismus, Neo – Kolonialismus, Ökonomismus, Imperialismus,
Ökonomischer Imperialismus (angeleitet durch die Neue Institutionenökonomik, die Transaktionskostenökonomik und die Prinzipal-Agent-Theorie; im Gefolge des New Public Management treten an die Stelle von Handeln nach Maßgabe professioneller Ethiken Kontraktmanagement mit Zielvereinbarungen und anstelle einer Berufsethik Qualitätsmanagement und Benchmarking samt Controlling und Leistungsrechnung mit all ihren Schattenseiten und ungeplanten Nebenwirkungen, – vgl. Richard Münch: Globale Eliten, lokale Autoritäten, Frf. 2009, Suhrkamp, S. 18 vv.ff.),
the world as environment and its destruction, manmade environmental disasters, shipping, esp. container shipping, pollution of oceans, pollution of soil, greenhouse gases, temperature rise, shortage of resources, prosperity gap,
population density, urban development ( e.g. „Gängeviertel“ in Hamburg, the initiative „Komm in die Gänge“ stands for discourse and practice of a different (!) form of urban development and is an example and symbol that gives hope against gentrification and the destruction of old buildings ),
urban development towards a green city, urban philosophy, reddening of the city, city of dreams, madness and society, madness and city, city and sexuality, desire and city, city as text, city and writing, city as writing, the city and the divided I, the city and the power, the city and the political, the city as a mechanism of discipline, the city as a social testing lab, the city and the philosophical practice with many practices, the world as a city and the other, water wars, religious wars, climate change, climate consequences, global warming, nuclear relicts, climate wars, climate catastrophes, civil wars, „ethnic cleansing“ (!), genocide, violent conflicts, social questions, ecological questions, planetary principle, tradition history, the question of a global government (!?), social catastrophes, terrorism, natural disasters, migration, unstable states, poverty, wealth, corruption, media policy and presence-ideologies, war and non-war, world order and biopolicy, bioengineering, robotics, bio-inspired robotics, Robotertechnologien, weapon development, arms delivery, violent and oppressive power politics, religious fanaticism, party political fanaticism, terrorism, biodiversity, standardization, factory farming, animal factories, animal consumption, „meat production“!, animal rights, animal philosophy,
„animal turn“ (vgl. Anne Peters, Tier-Recht im Zeitalter des Menschen, – in: Renn/Scherer (Hg.), Das Anthropozän. Zum Stand der Dinge. Berlin 2015, S. 67ff.),
ethical norms, euthanasia, terminal care, aging, health and sports, sports and age, ethics and medicine, cyber war, cyber crime, technology and space, political demarcation, deterritorialization, tourism, mass media, mass mediality, neoliberalization of the subjects, power,
truth and passion (vgl.: Gabriele Michalitsch: Die neoliberale Domestizierung des Subjekts. Von den Leidenschaften zum Kalkül. Campus Verlag, Frankf. a. M. 2006, bes. S. 29ff. und S. 101ff.),
sex labour, difference and the shaping of the social ( Antke Engel: Bilder von Sexualität und Ökonomie. Queere kulturelle Politiken im Neoliberalismus. Bielefeld 2009, S. 138ff. ),
automobility, digitalia and upbringing, education, unemployment, debt crisis, failing of democratization, neglect of the common good,
production and consumption (David Harvey), globalized consumption, market fanaticism, power of the market, democratization of the market, power of the globally operating financial markets, education, social policy, urban policy, policy of affordable housing, youth unemployment, social inequality, exclusion, individuality, sovereignty, liberalism, egalitarianism, limits of growth, mobility, traffic and communication, ecology, freedom, justice, interests of corporate groups, turbo-capitalism, global tax culture, international tax evasion, tax fraud, Drogierungsverhalten, drug laws, drug culture,
the own and the foreign, fascism, antisemitism, racism, sexism, human trafficking,
modern slavery (cf.: Kevin Bales, dt. Üs: „Die neue Sklaverei“, engl. V.: K. B., „Disposable People. New Slavery in the Global Economy“ und Hanns Wienold ),
„Neger, Rasse, Rassen-Subjekt, Rassismus, Schwarze Vernunft, Versklavung, Sklaverei, Massenversklavung in der Geschichte gestern heute morgen, das Rassensubjekt/Negro, race, racial subject, racism, black reason, enslavement, slavery, mass slavery in history, yesterday – today – tomorrow, the racial subject“
((cf.: Achille Mbembe: Critique de la raison nègre. Paris 2013 ( Orig. fr. ). Achille Mbembe: Critique of Black Reason. Duke University Press Books 2017 (transl., Laurent Dubois). Achille Mbembe: Kritik der schwarzen Vernunft. Berlin, Suhrkamp, 2014 (ÜS aus d. Franz., Michael Bischoff). )),
arms trade, private purchase of weapons, possession of weapons, increase in complexity, knowledge generation, urbanization and population growth, democracy deficit, sustainability crisis, green energy, energy regime, energy crisis, legitimization crisis, territoriality, agricultural policy, fishing policy, famine (cf. Jean Ziegler),
famine and capitalism, „the right to food“
(( human right, UN-social covenant, Article 11 (1) and (2); human dignity ( primary normative principle of human rights, ethical principle, „dignitas“ (Cicero), the „idea of the good“ (Plato), fundamental „equal worth of all human beings“ (Kant), protection of the human dignity in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union )),
need of land, land grabbing, land robbery, justice, human rights, decolonization of thinking, policy of displacement, solidarity across class, race, and national boundaries (Mohanty, passim),
just policy as a policy of strengthening the weak
(( zum planetarischen Subjekt cf. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: Imperative zur Neuerfindung des Planeten – Imperatives to Re-Imagine the Planet (hg. v. Willi Goetschel engl./dt.). Wien 2013, 2. Aufl., Passagen Verlag, S. 49vv.ff.
and Charles Taylor: Multiculturalism and the „Politics of Recognition“. Princeton 1994, p. 28 ))
philosophical practices face à face
„face à face“, confidential one-to-one conversation,
around the clock … around the world
Grammatological Philosophical Practice
Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax Vienna (established 1989) & Anna Lydia Huber, MSc, associate in the grammatological philosophical Practice since 2009 in Vienna and beyond
The mobile version of our Blogspot-Blog (2014 ff.) shows the postings pure, – without teaser and footer.
This reading of the pure postings you get faster, – however this approach to my/our blog lets you also miss many tidbits/delicacies from the performance of a long philosophical practice and experience.
You can access the blog archive at the end of the footer or at the end of the sidebar gadgets next to the respective blog post beginnings (after the end of the teaser). Also you can find these gadgets only in the web version.
And:
Please always pay attention to the color marking / color markings! Especially the markings in the teaser and footer (of our Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)!
An additional interpretation level, deconstruction level and reading link!
You can find more detailed hints in this regard in my/our blogpost on the philosophy of democracy as well as in the teaser and footer of our Blogspot-Blog (2014 ff.).
Yours sincerely, –
Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., born ’59), Anna Lydia Huber (MSc, b. 1959)
Your Djay PhilPrax,
Head of a Grammatological Philosophical Practice since 1989 in Vienna and beyond & Anna Lydia Huber, MSc, born 1959, Associate in the grammatological philosophical Practice since 2009 in Vienna and beyond
DR. GERHARD KAUČIĆ / DJAY PHILPRAX (JG. 1959) LEITER EINER PHILOSOPHISCHEN PRAXIS SEIT 1989
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Philosophical Practices / Politics / Disseminations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Unsere Aufgabe ist es, die Diskurse der Macht, der Herrschaft, der Autorität – und jeder Diskurs impliziert Machtausübung ! – zu durchkreuzen, logothetisch (im Sinn der Schaffung einer neuen Sprache / einer anderen Sprachverwendung) zu disseminieren, indem wir deren Intertextualitäten, die Kreuzungspunkte vieler anderer Texte in einem jeden Text in viele heterogene Teile auseinander treiben. Der Intertextualität zugrunde liegt die Multiplizität der Codes, die grundsätzlich unbeschränkt ist. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Mise-en-Abyme ……………………………………. mise en abîme ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Abyssos …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. intertextuelle Strukturen als die „Natur“ der Sprache ………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. This reason of understanding, limited by „territory“ (temporally and spatially), the image of temporary textual-configurations ( mise en abyme, picture in picture in picture…), „picture“ as a metaphor of re-flection, the picture of the mirror without tinfoil, the picture of standing behind the mirror as „standing“ in the mirror, – a mirror of distortion and performance/performation (!), a mirror of the initial transformation without origin, – a mirror, which gives the picture ( away ! ?!) for our language, – our language as graphically marked poetics of communication, – literally ! (see J. Derrida, La dissémination, p. 350 und passim) ……………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Jede Lektüre ( auch „Gespräche“ müssen gelesen werden! Gehörtes ist gehört worden und in der verstehenden Verstandestätigkeit „gelesen“ worden. Aus-gelesen! Ausgewählt! Aus-sortiert! Aus der gehörten „Wirklichkeit“ er-hört und ent-hört, ver-hört, verwirklicht, verkettet, sprachverkoppelt, verlesen!, zusammen-ge-lesen!, zusammengesammelt, ver-sammelt, ge-doublet, ge-setzt, produktiv ausgelesen! ) muß erst eine signifikante Struktur produzieren. Es gibt kein Kriterium für die Identität des Sinns eines Ausdrucks: die Interpretation wird im wissenschaftlichen Sinne eine Sache der Unentscheidbarkeit, was nicht gleich heißt, daß man sie nicht in einem passageren Einverständnis vieler LeserInnen vorübergehend quasi-fixieren und ver- und bewerten könnte und sollte. Sogenannte „Verstehens-Inseln“ temporärer Textkonfigurationen! Ver-stehen auch im Sinne von: eine kleine oder größere Gruppe von Diskurspartizipanten „steht“(!) temporär auf temporär gesichertem „Verstehens“- bzw Verständnis-Grund! ………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Dieser Verständnisgrund, dieses „Territorium“ begrenzten (zeitlich und räumlich) Verstehens, das Bildnis temporärer Textkonfigurationen ( mise en abime, Bild im Bild im Bild…), „Bild“ für die Metapher der Re-flexion, das Bild vom Spiegel ohne Stanniol, das Bild vom hinter dem Spiegel stehen als in dem Spiegel „stehen“, – ein Spiegel der Verzerrungen und Performungen, ein Spiegel der ursprünglich ursprungslosen Verwandlungen, – ein Spiegel, der das Bild ab-gibt (!) für unsere Sprache, – unsere Sprache als graphisch markierte Poetik der Kommunikation, – buch-stäblich ! (Vgl. J. Derrida, La dissémination, p. 350 und passim) ………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Philosophical Practices / Politics / Disseminations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Unsere Aufgabe ist es, die Diskurse der Macht, der Herrschaft, der Autorität – und jeder Diskurs impliziert Machtausübung ! – zu durchkreuzen, logothetisch ( im Sinn der Schaffung einer neuen Sprache / einer anderen Sprachverwendung / einer intensivierten Wahrnehmung / einer komplexeren Lesbarkeit ) zu disseminieren, indem wir deren Intertextualitäten, die Kreuzungspunkte vieler anderer Texte in einem jeden Text in viele heterogene Teile auseinander treiben. Der Intertextualität zugrunde liegt die Multiplizität der Codes, die grundsätzlich unbeschränkt ist. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. The intertextuality and its underlying multiplicity of codes is principally unlimited and unlimitable. The growing deconstruction – textualities and their texture of connotation are not includable or even determinable by any context. ……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. More complex readability ! More complicated readability of the world ! Intensified perception ! ! ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……….. ……….. To contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at ……… ………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben
Gegenwartsphilosophie
Adventure Philosophy!
Philosophische Praxis
Gegenwartsphilosophie
Adventure Philosophy!
Philosophische Praxis
Gerhard Kaučić / Djay PhilPrax, Wien ( Dr. phil. ), Philosophical Practitioner, Writer
philosophical practices face à face
b. 1959, Philosopher, Writer, 66, 2025
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić
Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.
Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić
S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON II
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns
Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON ist ein siebenbändiger Großtext, eine disseminative Lekritüre, dessen zweiter Band der Dekonstruktion von ‚Finnegans-Wake‘ gewidmet ist. Große Literatur ist nicht einfach nur Sprache, die bis zur Grenze des Möglichen mit Sinn geladen ist, wie Ezra Pound meinte, James Joyce verwirklichte, Arno Schmidt und Hans Wollschläger fortführten, sondern sie ist Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas, die diese Grenze ständig verschiebt, verdichtet, entstellt. Der Text besteht aus vielen Buchstaben, aus sehr vielen – und jeder Buchstabe ist ein ganzes Universum an Bedeutungen – mehr noch – an „Zeichen“. Jedes dieser Zeichen ist in Bezug auf sich „selbst“ und in Bezug auf alle anderen Zeichen zu setzen und zu lesen. Kein Zeichen darf nicht gelesen werden. Wie im ‚Book of Kells‘ oder den Handschriften des alten Orients in der „untergegangenen“ Bibliothek Sarajewo.
Dieser Grenzgang durch die Felder von Literatur, Theorie, Informatik, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Sprachen arbeitet in und mit allen Überlieferungen des Orients, des alten Europa, der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und Literaturen sowie der postmodernen Theorie.
Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić
S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON III
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns
Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ ist ein siebenbändiger Großtext, eine disseminative Lekritüre, dessen dritter Band der Dekonstruktion von Wissenschaft und Theorie gewidmet ist. Große Literatur ist nicht einfach nur Sprache, die bis zur Grenze des Möglichen mit Sinn geladen ist, wie Ezra Pound meinte, James Joyce verwirklichte, Arno Schmidt und Hans Wollschläger fortführten, sondern sie ist Schrift im Sinne Jaques Derridas, die diese Grenze ständig verschiebt, verdichtet, entstellt. Konzis arbeitet Inspektor Sem auf dem Strich vor dem Gesetz. Telquel die Bannmeile Europa, Sucht und Seuche, Wissenschaft und Wahrheit, Mikroben, Gene, Spuren zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns.
Dieser Grenzgang durch die Felder von Literatur, Theorie, Informatik, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Sprachen arbeitet in und mit allen Überlieferungen des Orients, des alten Europa, der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und Literaturen, sowie der postmodernen Theorie.
Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić
S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON I
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns
Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ ist ein siebenbändiger Großtext, eine disseminative Lekritüre, dessen erster Band der Dekonstruktion von Religionen und Mythologien gewidmet ist. Große Literatur ist nicht einfach nur Sprache, die bis zur Grenze des Möglichen mit Sinn geladen ist, wie Ezra Pound meinte, James Joyce verwirklichte, Arno Schmidt und Hans Wollschläger fortführten, sondern sie ist Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas, die diese Grenze ständig verschiebt, verdichtet, entstellt.
Dieser Text schreibt in sich einen Roman, ein Gedicht, ein Epos auch. Die Geschichte ist ein Krimi rund um den Helden Sam. Eine Geschichte ein Ro man zum letzten Helden, zum ersten Helden.
„Es“ ist „Ain Traum Booch“ – wie der „Unter-Titel“ sagt. Dieser Grenzgang durch die Felder von Literatur, Theorie, Informatik, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Sprachen arbeitet in und mit allen Überlieferungen des Orients, des alten Europa, der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und Literaturen sowie der postmodernen Theorie.
Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić
S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON IV
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns
Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON ist ein siebenbändiger Großtext, eine disseminative Lekritüre, dessen vierter Band der Dekonstruktion von Sexualität und Sexualisationsprozessen gewidmet ist. Große Literatur ist nicht einfach nur Sprache, die bis zur Grenze des Möglichen mit Sinn geladen ist, wie Ezra Pound meinte, James Joyce verwirklichte, Arno Schmidt, Hans Wollschläger und Oswald Wiener fortführten, sondern sie ist eine Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas, die diese Grenze ständig verschiebt, verdichtet und entstellt.
Inspektor Sem dekonstruiert Rhetoriken, Sexualanthropologien, Psychagogien, erfindet Schnittstellen, Codes von Liebesrelationen, Liebesmodellen, Geschlechterbeziehungen, decouvriert Paradigmen von Geschlechterdifferenz. Differenz zwischen Liebe und Tod.
Dieser Grenzgang durch die Felder von Literatur, Theorie, Informatik, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Sprachen arbeitet in und mit Überlieferungen des Orients, des alten Europa, der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und Literaturen sowie der postmodernen Theorie.
Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON V
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns
Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm
Mit dem fünften Band von ‚S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns‘ erscheint ein weiterer Text in der Reihe zur Autobiographie des Agenten Sem. Sem, Privatdetektiv, Inspektor, Geheimagent, ist Akteur im System Sprache. Die Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas ist sein Medium und auszuspionierendes geheimdienstliches Operationsfeld. Das „Echelon-Projekt“ repräsentiert als Ergebnis die Matrix eines großen Lauschangriffs auf das Humanum schlechthin: Identität, Körper, Reproduktion, Sexualität, Macht, Gewalt, Repräsentation, Sprache, Semiotik, Gedächtnis, Wissen, Archiv. Zugleich ist dieser Text vielleicht die Erfüllung der Forderung von Helmut Heissenbüttl nach einer Literatur für intellektuelle LeserInnen und eine Liebeserklärung an Jacques Derrida.
Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.
In English:
CORONA WHEELING CROWNING
Covidity Virality Virtuality Mediality Metahumanoidity ?!
The leap. Leaving the book. The production, the emancipation, the liberation of writing.
……………………. Semeion Aoristicon oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns …………………..
……. THE SENTENCE ………. the jump ……… the set ……. the leap o f …. The LEAVING of
the BOOK ……….. ?!
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/
I ask if Sem VI is not my / our blog composition !?!
I ask (me / us) if Sem VII is not my / our blog.
I ask if my/our blog will not be Sem VI and Sem VII?
And shall be!
Or must be?
Already is, will be or even must be and will have to be !?!
The set. The leaving of the book.
The production, the emancipation, the liberation of the writing.
Semeion Aoristicon or to the autobiography of Sem Schauns
……. THE SET …….. THE LEAVING OF THE BOOK …….. !?
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/
Psychoanalyse, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, das Unbewußte
Die Sprache, das Sprechen, das Unbewußte (Ubw)
Der Satz und die Philosophie
To contact us, please use only these emails:
g.kaucic[at]chello[dot]at or gack[at]chello[dot]at
Philosophische Praxis
GESPRÄCHE sind EREIGNISSE als TEXT
Translation into English, Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., b. 1959), European Philosopher, Writer, Feminist, Translator, Freerider , Europäischer Philosoph, Philosophische Praxis/Praktische Philosophie, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion, PP Wien, Österreich, Europa
Gerhard Kaučić, Alter 66, 2025, Anna Lydia Huber, age 66, 2025
Philosoph:in des Denkens der „différance“ (cf. J. Derrida, La dissémination. Collection „Tel Quel“ aux Éditions du Seuil, Paris 1972)
To contact us please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at
Öffnungszeiten / Hours of opening: Mo – Fr: 11 – 20 Uhr
Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement
Gespräche outdoor/indoor: Grammatologien, Kontextualisierungen, Analysen, Komplizierungen, Plurivalenzen, Dependenzen, Interdependenzen, Grammatiken, Aporien, Dekonstruktion…rund um die Uhr…rund um die Welt…
…around the clock …around the world…
To contact us, please use only these emails:
g.kaucic[at]chello[dot]at or gack[at]chello[dot]at
Gegenwartsphilosophie
Contemporary Philosophy
Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber ( geb. 1959) Philosophische Praxis 1989 ff.
Philosophical Practice Vienna 1989 ff. Analysis Complication Aporia Identity Dislocation Meta-thesis Deconstruction
Cf. list of publications at: https://scholar.google.at/citations?user=wNUSN64AAAAJ&hl=de
To contact us, please use only these emails:
g.kaucic[at]chello[dot]at or gack[at]chello.at
Projekte / Projects (1989 – 2025 ff.) 36 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Wien GK & ALH
Mehr dazu siehe meinen Teaser und meinen Footer sowie die übrigen Postings in diesem Blog! (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)