Affliction Immunization Autoaffection Autoimmunity

Immunization techniques, Subject understanding, Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Dream, Dream theory, Unconscious, Psychical Reality, Recollection and Society, Autobiography and Archive 

Gerhard Kaučić (66, Philosoph)

Head of a Grammatological Philosophical Practice since 1989 in Vienna and beyond

Anna Lydia Huber (66, Philosophin)

Associate in the Grammatological Philosophical Practice since 2009 in Vienna and beyond

Narratives, Reports, Analyses, Reflections from the Practice/from my/our Philosophical Practice

Vienna 36 years of practice jubilee (1989-2025) jubilee 36 years PP 2025

PHILOSOPHICAL PRACTICE Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., b. 1959) & Anna Lydia Huber (MSc, b. 1959) VIENNA AUSTRIA  EUROPE

Adresse/Post address/address:

Philosophical Practice/Philosophische Praxis

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber

Gasometer City

Guglgasse 8

1110 Vienna

Austria/Europe

To contact us, please use only these emails:   

gack[at]chello.at    or/and   g.kaucic[at]chello.at

Contemporary Philosophy 

First, lastly and foremost to >what could „philosophize today“ mean< !

What and how would an adequate thinking practice be today.

In what >is<(!) philosophy conceivable today and what or out of what is what we mean by philosophy to practice differently.

The term(!) Différance questions man in a certain sense and thereby draws the history of life in general.

Once again to humanism as logocentrism or phonologocentrism.

Derrida shows that the traditional hierarchical arrangement of the two components of the Sign must be reversed deconstructively. Even in modern linguistics, the ideological meaning of a sign, called S i g n i f i e d (imagination), is superior to the material carrier of meaning, called S i g n i f i e r (sound or writing).

The attempt is always made to direct the external signifier, writing, towards a transcendental signified.

Think of what we said before about religion, God and man.

Cf. you in addition: 

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2017/04/religion-und-gesellschaft-teil-2.html

Each signified (The Imagination!) is however (according to Derrida) „always already in the position of the signifier“ (Derrida, Grammatologie, p. 129).

There can be no meaning and no sense that could escape the spatialization and temporalization as well as the differential play of signifier relations.

According to this definition, writing is a sign of signs, a signifier of signifiers.

The purpose of this reversal is above all to show that the materiality of the signifier does not add to the meaning retrospectively and externally, but vice versa, that the meaning is the effect of an always subsequent / belated signification. Derrida has thus reformulated and reformulated the relationship between language and writing.

Through Derrida’s transformation of the concept of writing, it goes beyond the concept of language and includes it.

From all this follows a completely new understanding and event of T e x t, because it has been transformed several times.

The „essence“, the practice of deconstruction, is inherent in such a text (understanding), thus „inscribed“ (cf. Derrida, Freud und der Schauplatz der Schrift or Freud’s „Wunderblock“).

The thinking of difference/différance is the inherent practice of „deconstruction“.

My philosophical practice is always about understanding texts (written, spoken or representations (!) e.g. technical, artistic, economic, political, institutional) in their inner structure and in their interaction with other texts.

The texts are not only to be analyzed and interpreted, but to be uncovered through the practice of deconstructing their conflict, their aggressiveness, their hidden contents and intentions.

What is meant is the visualization of the duality of the simultaneous presence and absence (!) of truth.

We express sentences of deliberate analytical truth and at the same time displace other possible sentences of truth or falsehood.

Jacques Derrida describes with the invention of his D i f f é r a n c e the process of life (cf. Teaser, Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.), in which man / human being is a special case, a unique case.

A coincidence almost and yet from a certain distance covered in processes of a physical, chemical and then neurological nature then increasingly more stringent, more defined, more fixed.

Where is the border crossing from animal to human?

This is fascinating and exciting. Is there such a thing as a possibility to draw the line?

I ask this question completely without the intention to make man an animal.

We are animalistic, but not animal alone.

And what does animal mean here! (in this Blog, – see my BlogPosting animal philosophy!!! ) Animals are! Are many different individuals!

And every animal is unique !!!

And some animals even possess so-called human characteristics like memory contents, technical ability, special ability, conclusion ability, love, communication etc.!

And partly even consciousness!

Jacques Derridas phonologocentrism means among other things that every humanism is logocentric and every metaphysics is a humanism.

Even if most philosophers do not want to hear that until today.

Humanism as metaphysics is the enemy of animals.

The enemy of animals and finally also the enemy of humans.

I can’t roll everything up here(!) now (it’s always like this for us!), look at my animal philosophy in the blog, – read Derrida’s work on it and pay attention to the „Sins“(!) – catalogue, – my red list on „coming democracy„! (keyword „species extinction“, „climate change“, … etc.; always to be found in the appendix of each posting in red letters, English and German).

If grammatology „cannot be a science of mankind“, then it is precisely because, „from the very beginning, it poses the fundamental question of the name of the human being“ (J. Derrida, Grammatologie, Frf. 1974, p. 148). 

 Contemporary Philosophy 

              Gegenwartsphilosophie
                               

PHILOSOPHIE DER GEGENWART                 PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS 

Every subject tries to obtain a certain presence without delay and detour.

Phenomena of self-affection occupy a weighty role in psychoanalytic thought early on.  Already at the beginning of the 20th century, the psychoanalytic movement devoted many discussions to the phenomena of self-affection, specifically to onanism and suicide („Über den Selbstmord,“ Diskussionen des Wiener Psychoanalytischen Vereins, Wiesbaden 1910, vol. 1 and „Die Onanie,“ Diskussionen der Wr. Psychoanal. Vereinigung, Wiesbaden 1912, vol. 2 ).

The subject imagines itself in hallucinatory (S. Freud, Entwurf einer Psychologie, – in: Gesammelte Werke, Nachtragsband, p.412) form the satisfaction of a desire. The subject procures it for itself. The sexual event as immediate (!) experience, as sensation!

And yes, the subject deprives itself of its own life, – as immediate experience of satisfaction, as experience before being dead!  The death itself(!) it cannot experience, – the subject,- however it has subjected itself to it.

However, – I remind Derrida here, – there is no self-satisfaction without the possibility of an imagining, an imagination, which makes the self-affection, which can never be „pure“(Husserl) (pure would mean the extinction of everything, which would appear strange!), as a result of the simultaneous „madeness“ and „enjoyment“, an „auto-hetero-affection“ (Derrida, Le toucher, Jean-Luc Nancy, p. 206).

The „made“ generates the entrance of a „third“, the entrance of something „other“ (Derrida, De la Grammatologie, Paris 1967, p. 235, fr. Ed.).

„On ne sait jamais s’il nomme ou s’il nomme ou s’il nomme ou s’il décrit, ni si ce qu’il décrit – nomme est la chose ou le nom, le commun ou le propre.” (Derrida, Signéponge, p. 119, fr. and engl., frenglish)

Das Er-eignen, das einzige Er-eigen-machen, das, was wir er-eigen, er-äugen (cf. Althochdeutsch und Mittelhochdeutsch: [ir]ougen = vor Augen stellen; ouga = Auge; Englisch eye; Germanisch ago;) – der Staub von Er-eig-nissen.  S p o n g i s m e n . Spongismen. Ereignisse  en ab´i`me. 

“… toujours déjà entamée au moment où ça commence (par le mot  p a r , avec le mot  a v e c , etc), …”  (Derrida, Signéponge, p. 103 f., fr./engl.)

Das Eine ist nicht das eine Andere /  One is not the one other. Spongismos, the dust of events. Scraped off. Uncounted. Uncountable. Picked up. Selected. Read. Wiped. Touched. A name for the unnameable, which acts, touches, affects.

A deferred out reading. A selected reading. Affects. Infects. Immunizes.

Various afflictions and immunizations are uncontrollable. They are based on and happen because of the respective individual biographical pre-inscriptions. One must be very vigilant, – as an individual as well as a society.

The activity of discourses, political actions, rituals of memory, opening of archives and their research has a very limited, superficial effectiveness in this performativity of the unconscious, of a so-called national Ubw.

The state institutions would have to let psychoanalysis work here (cf. Derrida) in the form of a reworking of law, also of international law, also of criminal law !

Not only work with the Psa, but mobilize it in all possible contexts (Derrida, Echographies, p. 153).

Concerning possibilities of affections / of affecting and various techniques of immunisations it would be necessary to gain a serious understanding and a corresponding profound change of the understanding of a subject, in particular an understanding of the freudian conceptualisation of sexuality. Sexuality is an all-inclusive term.

„Sexual“ is not only „genital“

(Freud, Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie, – in: Ges. Werke, Bd. V, S. 98, german ed.).

Viennese Modernism, Viennese Postmodernism, Enlightenment!

„Genital sexual organisation“ is not „natural“, it is the product of a versatile development of phsyiological maturity, especially in regard to cultural-symbolic relations (cf. Freud, Ges. Werke, Bd. V, p. 133, germ. Ed.).

The so-called „normal“ human sexuality is a paradoxically, artificially grown naturalisation of de-naturalised instincts.

The „splitting“ is primal ! (cf. Freud, Lacan, Laplanche/Pontalis, Derrida)

Sexuality or the concept of sexuality in its broader sense opens the royal road to the „unconscious“. The king on this road is the dream (vgl. Felix de Mendelssohn, Der Mann, der sein Leben einem Traum verdankte (approach: „The man who owed his life to a dream“), Salzburg 2014, german ed.).

The unconscious interprets as well !

After finishing a conscious interpretation the unconscious continues to interpret. We can’t prevent it and only limitedly steer it. We are forced to work on it.

Psychoanalysis operates, the dream operates, the unconscious operates. The work of psychoanalysis, as well as in psychoanalysis (sic!) could promote and extend consciousness. There are answers to „Why does he/she do this?“ !

Laplanche emphasises that the „psychic reality“ is not made by oneself, but substantially invasive: It reaches us externally as the unconscious of others ! (cf. A. Zupancic, Warum Psychoanalyse?, S. 40, germ. ed. and cf. my Videos: „Sprache und Unbewußtes“ on Youtube, germ. lang.)

„If anything is to be changed in our unconscious, it must be changed in the structure which supports it.“ (cf. Zupancic, S. 44, germ. Ed.)

The unconscious does not exist as a thing, as something that exists and is observable or even measurable. The unconscious is a scripture from outside of us which generates text (cf. Derrida) or rather „temporal text-configurations“ (see Blogspot-Blog-Teaser 2014 ff. ! ) on the inside.

This text stays unreadable readable ! (vgl. R. Barthes‚ Illisibility)

Dreamwork offers a way of access, not to be confused with the content of the dream! (cf. Freuds „Traumdeutung“, vgl. Rudolf Heinz, Wolfgang Tress (Hg.), Traumdeutung, Zur Aktualität der Freudschen Traumtheorie, Wien 2001, Passagen Verlag und cf. Felix de Mendelssohn, Der Mann, der sein Leben einem Traum verdankte, Salzburg 2015)

Our bodies are political!

In any case there will be work on the available repertoire of historical phantasies.

Moira Gatens „ Cultural Imaginary“ (in: M. Gatens, Imaginary Bodies. Ethics, Power and Corporeality, London/New York 1996, engl. Ed.) provides ideas and images for every subject on which perceptions, sensations of the own body as well as technical and industrial drafts and plans orientate themselves.

Media and world orders! And the geopolitical bio-political unconscious of media! We ourselves are medial and medially made!

For decades mass media has been distributing attempts of self description of a global society or a world and its various societies.

Mass media’s scripts and inscriptions constantly shape the geopolitics of the world.

Convincing (whether it is films, games, series etc.) is what can be regarded as plausible based on space, media and social order.

Sexual, ethnic and national identities are not biologically justifiable. They are (as stated above) reality effects of performative actions.

Therefore change is possible! !

( see my blog posts „Anti-Homosexual-Law in Uganda“, https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2014/12/anti-homosexual-law-in-uganda-engl-germ.html

or „Heterozentrismus Sexualität Anti-Homosexualität Identität“, https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2014/12/heterozentrismus-sexualitat-anti.html   )

On the one hand the European heritage is a connection of law and politics to the sovereignty of the „subject“, on the other hand there is the „danger“ and the possibility for many subjects (e.g. conservative migrants) to be deconstructed.

Freud, Modernism, Viennese Modernism, Postmodernism, Viennese Postmodernism, Enlightenment!

Meaning, – Globalisation is Europeanisation !

Therefore, the European heritage entails various shifts, territorial and deterritorial, individual, ethnical, religious et. al.

The European heritage are crises !

Crisis and deconstruction !

Temporary text configurations !

European heritage: crisis, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, democracy !

Spaces and borders are not objectively measurable and preservable facts.

Spaces and borders come and go and always have through crisis and deconstruction. Effects of psychosocial dynamics, Affecting and Immunisation. Politics! 

Derrida speaks in certain contexts of the threat to democracy (e.g., by attacks such as that of September 11) of the additional danger of an autoimmunitary logic that corrodes democracy. An autoimmunitary process that sets out to destroy its own protection, that is, to immunize itself against its „own“ immunity. Democracy must never surrender to this autoimmunitary logic by disregarding its own foundations, by negating or denying them. Be the attacks on what we call democratic conditions ever so strong. 

Even if it is necessary to react to the worst, despite all possible violations of democracy in the so-called own ranks, one must never renounce to stand on the side of democracy in the name of the political, that is, in the name and in fact of the attempted perfectibility of democracy, of national and international institutions and of international law.

And yes, my friends.

The trace as memory is not a mere facilitation. It is the intangible and invisible difference between the facilitations, there is no pure facilitation without differences.

Facilitation is a term used by Freud when he designs a neurological model of the functioning of the psychic apparatus (1895). In its transition from one neuron to another, excitation has to overcome a certain resistance; when such a transition entails a permanent diminution of this resistance, it is said that there is facilitation; excitation prefers the orbited path to one that is not orbited (Freud, Studienausgabe, Vol. III, p. 236).

So, watch out for the premises of the democratic! No matter how difficult this may be!

„The Self-Affection as Dwelling“ (Luce Irigaray, Sharing the World, p. 115 f.).

„There is in me someone who aspires to the other, condition for the appropriation of a familiarity more familiar than that of the world already known, condition for the experience of an intimacy I do not yet know.

This desire for the other within the horizon of my world, my most personal and inward limits, is called desire.

No world, however perfect and future, should reduce or extinguish the desire for the other. … A culture of desire demands of us to be able to question our world without having to renounce it because of it.“ 

And yes, my friends, beloved esteemed ones of our intellectual cosmos, our global mission, our writing, our inscription desires and demands enlightenment!

Enlightenment along the line of human rights declarations up to the point of the European Convention on Human Rights for the protection of human rights (!!!) and fundamental freedoms and even beyond.

I feel compelled to repeat myself once again. To make it confluent. My inscription as a trial and temptation. An iteration as deviation.

The trace of something is to be thought before the being! (Derrida)

Heraclitus already calls the awake thinkers those who do not „think the things as they meet them“.

Here and now!

The world is metaphor.

The world is literature.

The world is text. „The world“ is imperceptible!

Arrangements in a work of in-relation-setting! Metaphor instead of metaphysics! Literature! Transference!

The metaphor that transfers to a respective other. The beauty of the here and now in transference as a relationship between presence and absence. No projections of another or even a world beyond!

Here and now! 

The own and the foreign !

Husserl, Merleau – Ponty, Levinas, Derrida and many others have worked on this.

Husserl’s strict sentence as paradox of the experience of the foreign as an experience of insurmountable absence was defused or cancelled by himself by the definition of the foreign experience as a modification of the self-experience (! sic).

Émile Benveniste shows in his article

((cf. Émile Benveniste in his „Dictionary of Indo-European Concepts and Society, Chicago 2016 reissued, pp. 289-294; original french edition 1969), translated into English by Agamben).

„The Slave and the Stranger“ exposes the historically unpleasant truth right down to the language, -.

namely, the stranger has always been in the ancient civilizations (e.g., the Sumerian-Akkadian, etc.) also the enemy, and the enemy has necessarily always been a stranger. The stranger came into the city as a prisoner of war from the outside, as a person without rights the prisoner became a slave qua „martial law“. There are no slaves who are citizens!

One may think of today’s refugees on the boats in the Mediterranean, who are partly allowed to drown by not letting them land. They enjoy in this condition quasi no rights and are considered by many people from the right-wing populist spectrum of European politics (e.g. Lega Nord in Italy or CSU and AfD in Germany or also numerous members of the FPÖ and unfortunately also of the so-called Christian (!), conservative ÖVP in Austria) as enemies of Europe!!!

And where they do not say it, their actions show it all the more when they are (with) in power.

If you cannot believe it, imagine once a ship full of tourists on the Mediterranean! These are the free citizens equipped with all rights, – of course equipped with all landing rights.

People on the one earth!

On the one side the „free“ and on the other side the „rightless“, – despite the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (!!!) and Fundamental Freedoms (we write the year 2022!!!, – 74 years European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms / Convention).    

I have already commented on the self 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 afficiation and immunization or auto-immunization (cf. Derrida) !

The bridges to the Other and to the „own“ Other as well as the passages, markings, tracks, royal roads to the unconscious as the Other, – the dangerous endangered Other !

The unconscious, the invasive Ubw, the crisis of hermeneutics !

The Other as an opening towards „undecidability“.

Derrida (cf. „force of law“) speaks of a „ghost“ of the undecidable that haunts every event of decision.

The specterial deconstructs any possibility of certainty, any possibility of self-insurance, any possibility of present-ness insurance, any criteriology for attempted and supposed assurance of the justice of a decision.

Politics can thus provide no guidance in normative terms; a normative indeterminacy relation between politics and society prevails.

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) 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 in all vehemence until today. With all negative and positive effects and side effects. And against all reason! (cf. Kant, The Religion within the Limits of the Mere Reason )

The return of the repressed happens individually, but also on state level.

And please never forget, let’s not forget and never forget to read this blog as a whole. Linear reading of a posting of this blog always only preliminary, always only as an initial entry. Subsequent/deferred reading, perhaps even reading/lecriture begins. In any case,  the reading that has been picked up of something. Not as apodixis!  Not as apodeixis.

So herewith the iteration starts.

OUR BODIES ARE POLITICAL! CIVILISATION AND THE OTHER!

Contemporary philosophy

Our bodies are political!

Civilisation and the Other!

Contemporary philosophy

Affections, Inscriptions,

Recollections

The inscription Europe’s in Europe. Europe possesses inscriptions, engravings!

The „inscription“ does not last „forever“, every single inscription is finite like the subject itself, whose „archive“ can be destroyed like any other archive. Even every media archive.

All of our technologies (from TV to drone and beyond) cause an actually practiced deconstruction of traditional terms and conceptions of nation, citizen, foreigner, tourist, native, naturalized citizen etc., as far as this is linked to a specific territory.

Every country has its history, its memory and its particular way of dealing with its archive-economy.

Every time you open an archive and remember certain events, you recall the drama of these events / (incidents !).

You make yourself conscious/aware !

But awareness isn’t everything that matters ! If you talk about the Holocaust or Shoah, you pave a way (if you want to or not!) to the individual as well as the so-called national unconscious !

By raising consciousness things happen which we don’t plan and can’t control. Affecting / Affections!

Breivik for example is such an affected hominid. The culture of remembrance of Norway and other components developed a psychogram of the desire to kill ! (see Klaus Theweleit, Das Lachen der Täter (approach: „The laughter of the perpetrator“) , St. Pölten 2015, Residenzverlag, germ. Ed.)

The various affections and immunisations are uncontrollable. They are based on/ happen due to individual conditions and inscriptions. You have to be vigilant, – as an individual and as a society.

The activity of discourse, political action, rituals of the memory, the opening of archives and their exploration, has a very limited, superficial efficiency with this performativity of the unconscious, a so-called national unconscious.

The national institutions would have to let psychoanalysis work (see Derrida) on a new development of law, including international law and criminal law !

Not only work with psychoanalysis, but mobilise it in various contexts (Derrida, Echographien, p. 153, germ. Ed.).

Concerning possibilities of affections / of affecting and various techniques of immunisations it would be necessary to gain a serious understanding and a corresponding profound change of the understanding of a subject, in particular an understanding of the freudian conceptualisation of sexuality. Sexuality is an all-inclusive term. „Sexual“ is not only „genital“ (Freud, Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie, – in: Ges. Werke, Bd. V, p. 98, germ. edition).

„Genital sexual organisation“ is not „natural“, it is the product of a versatile development of phsyiological maturity, especially in regard to cultural-symbolic relations (cf. Freud, Ges. Werke, Vol.. V, p. 133, germ. Ed.).

The so-called „normal“ human sexuality is a paradoxically, artificially grown naturalisation of de-naturalised instincts.

The „splitting“ is primal ! (cf. Freud, Lacan, Laplanche/Pontalis, Derrida)

Sexuality or the concept of sexuality in its broader sense opens the royal road to the „unconscious“. The king on this road is the dream (vgl. Felix de Mendelssohn, Der Mann, der sein Leben einem Traum verdankte (approach: „The man who owed his life to a dream“), Salzburg 2014, germ. Ed.).

The unconscious interprets as well !

After finishing a conscious interpretation the unconscious continues to interpret. We can’t prevent it and only limitedly steer it. We are forced to work on it. Psychoanalysis operates, the dream operates, the unconscious operates. The work of psychoanalysis, as well as in psychoanalysis (sic!) could promote and extend consciousness. There are answers to „Why does he/she do this?“ !

Laplanche emphasises that the „psychic reality“ is not made by oneself, but substantially invasive: It reaches us externally as the unconscious of others ! (cf. A. Zupancic, Warum Psychoanalyse?, p. 40, germ.ed.,  and cf. my Videos: „Sprache und Unbewußtes“ on Youtube, in German only)

„If anything is to be changed in our unconscious, it must be changed in the structure which supports it.“ (cf. Zupancic, p. 44, germ. Ed.)

The unconscious does not exist as a thing, as something that exists and is observable or even measurable. The unconscious is a scripture from outside of us which generates text (cf. Derrida) or rather „temporal text-configurations“ (see Blog-Teaser ! ) on the inside.

This text stays unreadable readable ! (vgl. R. Barthes‘ Illisibility)

Dreamwork offers a way of access, not to be confused with the content of the dream! (cf. Freuds „Traumdeutung“, vgl. Rudolf Heinz, Wolfgang Tress (Hg.), Traumdeutung, Zur Aktualität der Freudschen Traumtheorie, Wien 2001, Passagen Verlag und cf. Felix de Mendelssohn, Der Mann, der sein Leben einem Traum verdankte, Salzburg 2015, germ ed.)

„Where power is Law/Right.“

Freud talks about a relationship of signs (G. W. II/III, 283f.) and its meaning in the language of the dream-thoughts.

Thus, not the „visual“ content of the dream-sign determines the value for the analysis, but its relation to other signs.

The significant elements of this logic or rather this graphic of relations of a dream are often spatial syntactic relations of individual significants.

Freud speaks of a logical connection which is expressed as simultaneity in the dream.

Freud determines spatially close elements or rather marked elements as intimate!

Intimate means connected, referring to each other as well as significant and this always in relation to other marked elements. Thus, the dream „text“ is generated in case the analyst pays considerable attention / „free floating attention“ („frei schwebender Aufmerksamkeit“ oder „gleichschwebender Aufmerksamkeit“ nach Freud). (cf. Freud, Laplanche)

Analogically to de Saussures semiotics from the estate.

The analyst is a reader. And! The analyst becomes a writer, an author as a reader.

The „Lécriture“ of Grammatology. The infinite un/readability as a paradox of the dream. The Illisibility of every text and its „groundlessness“! (cf. Michael Turnheim, Das Andere im Gleichen (approach: „The Other as the almost Same“), p. 11, germ.ed.)

In regards to Turnheim I claim a fundamental affiliation of psychoanalysis and democracy and of deconstruction and democracy. All three names speak of the irreducibility of singularity with simultaneous repeatability!

Psychoanalysis and deconstruction both claim an irreducibility of hetero-affections in an experience of the „own“ and both assume the work of an internal foreign substance!

In psychoanalytical figures of thought phenomenons of self-affection play a vital role.

Freud writes in „Entwurf einer Psychologie“ in the supplementary volume of the collected works on page 412 that he has no doubt that „Wunschbelebung zunächst dasselbe ergibt wie die Wahrnehmung, nämlich eine Halluzination“. (… that he has no doubt that the emergence /enlivenment of desire initially produces hallucination in the same way perception does.)

The subject imagines the satisfaction of a desire in a hallucinatory way.

It takes its own life. It kills itself. The respective inscribed subject tries to obtain presence (see Blog-Teaser!) without delay and without any detour.

Despite the attempted creation of presence the subject suffers from a small amount of resistance, a small part of impurity of self-affection. It feels the „foreign object“ in its own self, the subject is aware of the „made“! It suspects that the occurrence of a seemingly immediate self-affection cannot be accomplished without the possibility of a third party that stays foreign and external and therefore, degenerates into „Auto-Hetero-Affection“. (cf. Derrida)

Nothing works without the body and without „imagination“ (see Blog-Teaser) and nothing works without the imagination of the so-called own body.

This split(ting) is the resistance and at the same time the call for a new attempt of the repetition of self-affection as hallucination.

There is no absolute self-affection and it repeatedly turns into Auto-Hetero-Affection!

We know the example of the Norwegian and of other serial killers.

Repetition is everything!!!

„Pure“ self-affection means the extinction of the „foreign“, the „foreign body“ (also as own)! (cf. Derrida, Le toucher, Jean-Luc Nancy, p. 206 u. passim und Melanie Klein, Das Seelenleben des Kleinkindes, p. 133, germ. Ed.)

Place / Space and time, the territory „Where Power is Law/Right.“

Our bodies are political!

In any case there will be work on the available repertoire of historical phantasies.

Moira Gatens „ Cultural Imaginary“ (in: M. Gatens, Imaginary Bodies. Ethics, Power and Corporeality, London/New York 1996) provides ideas and images for every subject on which perceptions, sensations of the own body as well as technical and industrial drafts and plans orientate themselves.

Media and world orders! And the geopolitical bio-political unconscious of media! We ourselves are medial and medially made!

For decades mass media has been distributing attempts of self description of a global society or a world and its various societies.

Mass media’s scripts and inscriptions constantly shape the geopolitics of the world.

Convincing (whether it is films, games, series etc.) is what can be regarded as plausible based on space, media and social order.

Sexual, ethnic and national identities are not biologically justifiable. They are (as stated above) reality effects of performative actions.

Therefore change is possible! !

( see my blog posts „Anti-Homosexual-Law in Uganda“, https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2014/12/anti-homosexual-law-in-uganda-engl-germ.html

or „Heterozentrismus Sexualität Anti-Homosexualität Identität“, https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2014/12/heterozentrismus-sexualitat-anti.html  )

On the one hand the European heritage is a connection of law and politics to the sovereignty of the „subject“, on the other hand there is the „danger“ and the possibility for many subjects (e.g. conservative migrants) to be deconstructed.

Meaning, – Globalisation is Europeanisation !

Therefore, the European heritage entails various shifts, territorial and deterritorial, individual, ethnical, religious et. al.

The European heritage are crises !

Crisis and deconstruction !

Temporary text configurations !

European heritage: crisis, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, democracy !

Spaces and borders are not objectively measurable and preservable facts.

Spaces and borders come and go and always have through crisis and deconstruction. Effects of psychosocial dynamics, Affecting and Immunisation. Politics!

Since 9/11 2001 an accelerating spiral of antiterror-war and terror, cyber-war, drone-war, uprisings, revolutions, religion in war, waves of refugees, suffering of refugees, tragedies of escape, spectator-mentality, rescue missions, tugging and shoving of conventions (Geneva Convention etc.) and agreements, international treaties, distribution of refugees or rather refugee quotas, dying and death, inability to act from the left and right, from Austria to Australia.

Migration flows on the borders of the „Fortress Europe“, slave trade, terrorism, imperialism.

Europe’s heritage.

Create new and fair conditions! New narratives, new images, new self-images, new self-descriptions.

It is about making new and old differences bearable and livable!

The post-human, global „one“ without the other is an illusion of cyberspace and its familiar associates.

The completion of history or Fukuyama’s „end of history“ is an ideology of the Pentagon of the 90s.

A set of terms accompanies these media discourses which carry these ideologies. Ideologies of the one controllable market, controlled by a few giant corporate groups.

They are: network society, world society, One World, new world order, TTIP, CETA, ACTA, …, globalisation, world communication, World Wide Web, War on Terror, NSA, …

Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, „Was sich nicht wegkommunizieren läßt“, – in: Kommunikation. Medien. Macht, hg. v. R. Maresch, N. Werber, Frf. 1999, germ. Ed., p. 331:

„Macht ist die Möglichkeit, Räume mit Körpern zu besetzen, und das heißt auch: Körper aus Räumen zu verdrängen und Körpern den Zugang zu Räumen versperren zu können.“

(Transl.: Power is the possibility to occupy spaces with bodies, and that also means: to displace bodies out of spaces and to be able to deny them access to spaces.)

Let me just remind you of Australia, keyword „Aborigines“, of the United States, keyword „Indians“ and of Europe, keyword „Fortress Europe“ !

The own and the foreign !

Husserl, Merleau – Ponty, Levinas, Derrida and many others have worked on it.

Husserl’s strict sentence as a paradox of the experience of the foreign as an experience of an insurmountable absence has been defused or even annulled by himself through the definition of foreign experience as a modification of self-awareness (! sic).

I already commented on the self in the paragraphs above (referring to Freud)! As we know, there is no immediate self-awareness, – we always stay distant to ourselves ! (cf. Derrida, Psyche)

I myself am a known stranger to myself (!!!)

Let me remind you of the potential of Affection and Immunisation or rather the auto-immunisation (cf. Derrida) at the beginning !

The bridges to the other and to the „own“ other as well as the passages, marks, traces, 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 to the „undecidability“.

Derrida (see „force of law“) talks about the „ghost“ of undecidability, which haunts every decision-event.

The ghostlike deconstructs every possibility of certainty, every possibility of self-insurance, every possibility of present insurance, every set of criteria for an attempted and alleged insurance of a just decision.

Therefore, politics cannot give normative instructions.

There is a certain normative uncertainty relation between politics and society.

The liberty of the otherness of the other offers living practices of survival, which fulfill itself in the encounter of „Others of the Other and the Others of myself (J. Butler, Undoing Gender, New York 2004, p. 131ff.).

The thinking of writing (see Blog-Teaser) takes place in a sort of „reoccurrence of the repressed“!

The cultural achievements owe their power and compelling force to the return of the repressed, particularly visible in religions of the world. It is permanent work of remembering, Wiedererinnerungen / re-recollections of mostly old, very effective due to affective or rather affecting processes in the history of mankind.

These historic truths due to permanent repetition make these cultures so strong, more than the real event and its truth!

Examples like Moses, Jesus or Mohammed show this vigorously to this day. With all negative and positive effects and side effects.

And against all reason! (see Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft , Kant, Religion within the Bounds of bare Reason)

The return of the repressed happens individually, but also on a national level.

For example the repressed bodies in front of the „Fortress Europe“. The consequences of the past centuries european imperialism. The shift of borders drawn by imperialism.

Borders of nations on former or partially still existing tribal areas.

Borders of power. „Where Power is Law / Right.“

These borders of past powers break through to the present. The repressed suppressed breaks into everyday life of so-called civilised democracies.

Democracies which struggle themselves with coming out. Democracies which struggle themselves with coming in into democratisation.

A marker for upcoming democracies is the abolition of the death penalty. Another marker would be and is to accommodate refugees.

What is going on with the motherlands of democracy?! What is going on with England? With the United States? What do their elected leaders and their people think about this?!

Borders of power. They burst open. Migration movements are the visible symptom.

Europe and the rest of the world have to act in line with human rights and in line with humanity ! (see my Blog-Post „Für eine menschenfreundliche Flüchtlingspolitik“ vom 11. 10. 2013)

Empathy! Help!

The other, – this is me! And this is you!

The structure and the articulation of the unconscious ensure that we are always in default and that there is always something ahead of us.

Our past, our history, which never and nowhere has been experienced and is being experienced in its full self – presence.

Not appropriable! No own! A foreign! (see Blog-Teaser!)

A disfiguration! Condensed, shifted, subsequently edited. Dream – work!

Attention! Danger of dis-figuration!

Also of psycho-analysis! Always! Everywhere!

The thinking of writing. Grammatology. (see Blog-Teaser)

Contemporary philosophy

Philosophy of Body   Philosophy of Democracy

Power is to be able to block the access of bodies to spaces!

Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, „Was sich nicht wegkommunizieren läßt“, – in: Communication. Media. Macht, ed. by R. Maresch, N. Werber, Frf. 1999, p. 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.“

Dear guests of my/our Philosophical Practice, dear readers,

to speak briefly with Derrida, to remind us again 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 mirage of consciousness (cf. esp. „Signature, Event, Context“ by J. Derrida, in: Randgänge der Philosophie, german edition). 

Language as a figure for agency and agency as a figure of language. The power of action of language is not the same as that of the subject, who can do things with language, but also in language (cf. teaser, blogspot-blog 2014 ff. 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).

Words, phrases, sentences can hurt!

The subjects, the medium, the language, the statement, the way of saying, what is said, the touched(!) contexts, the readers, the citizens, the laws, the state, the community, the social contract!

When we use language, we inevitably evoke 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.

According to Freud, a forbidden desire shifts in the unconscious from one thing to the next. This infinite transmissibility of desire, 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 culture“ the place of libido is shifted and itself becomes the pleasure place of prohibition. Here repression takes that form in which it itself becomes a libidinous activity.

The rupture with the context (Derrida) of a performative utterance is always inherent to it, to every utterance failure is marked by the thing „language“.

And the deconstruction is retrospective/deferred and provisional(!). Compare Derrida’s concept of „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).

Everything takes place where the ground opens to the abyss, where the justification 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 human rights and in the sense of the European Convention.

„Our bodies are political“, bodies are socially constructed texts, consciousness arises from bodies in structures.

Power-hungry people 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 a desire for power takes place in these. This is the blatant expression of a lack (of doubt) due to a gap in the symbolic order, a dysfunction or parafunction of the unconscious (see above and in postings from recent years).

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, generosity, waste versus thrift, interest, usefulness“ in mind and expose them to a questionable overthinkability.

Marcel Mauss refers to the madness 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 madness 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!).

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.

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 philosophical practice recently experienced a few days ago – a few more 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 it with the help of psychoanalytic terminology a possibility to open up to social phenomena and descriptions in order to analyze them and afterwards in a third step to deconstruct them as far as possible.

I remind of the “ unfamiliarity “ 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-exaltation.

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.

In his time, Nietzsche already spoke of „those who got off badly“ and meant above all the anti-Semites (cf. Nietzsche’s Nachlaß).

Later on, Hitler’s assumption of power led to a true national self-inflation and each of those „badly off“, as Nietzsche, Hitler,

called them earlier, experienced thereby his „own“ self-inflation.

His stabilization and socialization as a national socialist >anti-socialist<, 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 quasi covenant.

Adorno’s and others‘ study of the authoritarian personality is familiar to many of us. I do not need to elaborate on this here, merely 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 crises and conflicts solved by force 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 turns into hatred of others and often ends in an ecstatic orgy of violence with many kicks on people 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 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 learn to love himself as well as the other not for reasons of media-fed, fantasized perfection, but out of 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 myself 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.

Bodies need to be able to regenerate. Among other things, they need sleep to do this. A good sleep needs trust and reliability, security and protection. As Vilém Flusser thinks (see Luce Irigaray above on this!), housing is a prioritized anthropological imperative or, in other words, a habitual structure for the individual feeling of being lifted up, a kind of „home“. This meant the exposed self-evidence of being able to be at home with oneself as a prerequisite for openness to the world and philanthropy.

Derrida sees all the paradoxes of the autoimmunitarian, all these terrible perversions of the immunitarian to the autoimmunitarian enacted in the „self-writing of the living (l’écriture de soi du vivant),“ the „trace of the living for itself,“ in „autobiography“ (Derrida, The Animal That Therefore I Am, german ed., p. 78 f.).   

„The autobiography, the self-writing of the living (l’écriture de soi du vivant), the trace of the living for itself, the being-for-itself, the self-affection (auto-affection) or self-infection as recollection or archive of the living would be an immunitary movement (i.e., a movement … of the immune, of the intact …), but an immunitary movement that is always in danger of becoming autoimmunitary, like every autos, every selfhood, every automatic, automobile, autonomous, autoreferential movement. Nothing threatens to be as poisoning as an autobiography, poisoning first of all for oneself, self-infectious for the presumed signatory who thus afflicts / attacks (auto-affecté) himself“ (Derrida, Animal, ibid., pp. 78, 79, german ed.).

The designated idea, the concept, is never sufficiently present to itself, in sufficient presence, which only refers to itself.

„Every concept is inscribed according to its law in a chain or in a system, in which it refers to the other, to the other concepts, through the systematic play of differences. Such a game, the différance , is not simply a concept, but the possibility of conceptuality, of the conceptual process and system in general. For the same reason, différance, which is not a concept, is also not a simple word that can be represented as the calm and present unity, referring to itself, of a concept and a sound.“ (Derrida, Margins of philosophy, p. 16, german ed.) 

„The différance is the non-full, non-simple origin of differences. Consequently, the name ‚origin‘ no longer belongs to it.“ (Derrida, Margins of phil. , p. 17)

„Life undoubtedly protects itself by means of repetition, trace, and deferral (différance).  … Life must be thought as trace before being is determined as presence.“ (Derrida, Writing and Difference/Schrift und Differenz p. 311, germ. ed.)

The trace is neither visible nor invisible. The presence is the trace of the trace or the trace of the extinction of the trace. „Thus it can be recognized that all the determinations of such a trace – all the names that are given to it – belong to the metaphysical text that guards the trace and not to the trace itself. There is no trace itself and no trace proper.“  (Derrida, Margins of phil., p. 86 and Derrida, Writing and Diff, pp. 308f., p. 326 and Derrida, Grammatology, pp. 83, 108 f., 114, german editions).

Thus, there is also no ‚Freud trace‘, there is only the name I give it. The ‚trace‘ (the being related to each other of distinguished elements), the Freud – trace, whose fabric/texture grows in a myriad of markings („marque restante„, Derrida, Marges, p. 378, french ed.) through the textual worlds of the last 150 years, >differentiates< in the writing of the text.   Marques restantes, „minimal lead of the sign-shell“ (Frank, Neostructuralism, p. 511, germ. ed.), effects of meaning that flash what we commonly refer to by the word „communication.“

By positing the name, I surrender it to knowledge of mastery, to a possible discourse, to an univocally making and assigning practice.

For this reason I practice „deconstruction“ in permanence. For example, I use terms from semiology, reshape them, shift them, dislocate them, in order to escape, if possible, the metaphysical logocentric implications.

Escape, because these are not to be avoided, since without terms thinking is not to be thought. They are set and at the same time unsettled.  

As already mentioned above (quoting V. Flusser), many of us are losing the „feeling of home“ or, better, our emotional world is not even getting close to the emergence of such an emotional impressionability.

„The most striking feature of the current world situation in terms of the history of the humanities and technology is precisely that the culture of technology produces a new aggregate state of language and writing that has little in common with their traditional interpretations by religion, metaphysics and humanism. The old >>House of Being<< (Heidegger’s term for language) turns out to be something in which a stay in the sense of dwelling or bringing distant things into proximity is hardly possible anymore.“ (P. Sloterdijk, Not Saved, Essays after Heidegger, p. 212, german ed.)

„When Heidegger called language the >>House of Being<<, he prepared the insight into language as the general organon of transmission. With it people navigate in the spaces of similarity. What is important about it is not only that it appropriates the near world, assigning reliable names to things, persons and qualities, and entangles them in stories, comparisons, series. The crucial thing is: it >>approaches<< the strange and uncanny in order to include it in a habitable, understandable sphere that can be lined with empathy. It makes human exposure to the open world liveable by translating ecstasy into enstasy. The >>tendency toward proximity<< establishes itself in human speech from the very first word; language is always already proximity-poetry.“ (Sloterdijk, Not Saved, p. 210, germ. ed.) 

„Language is – or was – the general medium of world-befriending to the extent that it is – or was – the agent of the transmission of the domestic to the non-domestic.“ (Sloterdijk, ibid., 210, germ. ed.)

This „tendency to nearness“ should not be able to become often and easily the attainable and achieved goal of my desire? The relationship, every relationship to another, opens other spaces of experience for me, which shakes my familiarities. I myself am no longer the center of a single worldliness.

My desire draws me towards the other and this one towards me as a trial and temptation.

The distance that lies between me and the other cannot be reduced by me alone. It becomes complicated. Two desires exist. Two intentionalities. Two politics as well. Affection and self-affection simultaneously.

The desire-space of the other is only conditionally accessible for me. Proximity arises and at the same time there is always distance. Markable and marked by codes of the speakable and the thinkable. It is always due to language and especially to writing (cf. Derrida’s concept of writing). The other moves away near or approaches distantly. The other does not inhabit my world.

Intersubjectivity as an economy of affect requires the clear ability to distinguish between being affected by the other and one’s own self-affection.

Our self-affection disposition must be cultivated, must be recognized. We have to protect it, our self-affection, in order not to lose ourselves to the other. The possibility to return to oneself(!) must be maintained.

We are two! I am two!

Only in the libidinous love-imagination we lose ourselves for a temporal spatial limitedness. And for the repetition and repeatability of this temporal-spatial act. Of the sexual act.

The beloved other appears in my world when he/she can be recognized. The other and the other open up new insights, new perceptions of world.

A world that perhaps I had not yet known in this way. The entering and the possibility to enter into another world (than before) means to us only at all the possibility(s) to exist, – to ek-sist. To be different and to be able to be different.

Language and writing/scripture do not show the reality of things. Language and writing show possibilities. Through language, the things we encounter can be conceived of in one way or another, and thus engaged in the most diverse ways. And language and writing themselves belong to the reality of things (cf. Derrida, différance).

To be able to think this, thus to live, could mean to exsist/ek-sist!?

„By daring to attempt to penetrate more deeply into the psychology of dream processes, I have undertaken a difficult task, which even my art of representation is hardly equal to. To reproduce the simultaneity of such a complicated connection by a succession in the description and thereby to appear presuppositionless in every presentation, wants to become too difficult for my forces. … The points of view for the conception of the dream were given to me by previous works on the psychology of neuroses, to which I shall not refer here and yet must refer again and again …“ (Freud, Interpretation of Dreams, Studienausgabe, vol. II, p. 559, germ. ed.).

Exactly this problematicity of simultaneity as unrepresentability of complicated connections in a „succession“ (as Freud says), – a linearity of the reading and writing process, of the lecriture (cf. Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading) means itself here in our blog at least as the attempt to transform the approximation at least, to form this impossible in the same time (Derrida, see below!), into an approximated „ek-sistence“ of reading and writing.

Into a beyond of the book!

To think and live connections in many (also) different (ver-schiedene/departed) and differentiated directions linking and connected.  And to bring to the representation!

At the same time we think the impossible and that (this >at the same time<) is the impossible! (Derrida, Donner le temps I)

Living in the same time!!! Do we live in the same time, – which is impossible?!?

The ‚trace` (the being related to each other of distinguished elements), the Freud – trace whose texture wafts and grows in a myriad of markings (Derrida, Marges, p. 378, fr. ed.) through the texts, differentiates in the writing of the text.

The trace is neither visible nor invisible. The entity is the trace of the trace or the trace of the extinction of the trace. Thus it can be seen that all the determinations of such a trace – all the names given to it – belong to the metaphysical text that guards the trace and not to the trace itself. There is no trace itself and no trace proper.“ ( Derrida, Randgänge, p. 86, Schrift und Differenz, pp. 308 f., 326, Grammatologie, pp. 83, 108 f., 114, german editions; R. Barthes, Reich der Zeichen, p. 55, germ. ed., R. B., S/Z, p. 25, germ. ed.; Kristeva, Revolution, p. 148, germ. ed.; Leclaire, Psa. Prozeß, p. 60, g. ed.; Heidegger, Unterwegs zur Sprache, pp. 117, 131, ge. ed.; G. Schmid, Kaleidoscope, p. 35, germ. ed.; H. and G. Böhme, Das Andere der Vernunft, p. 103, germ. edition).

Life must be thought as trace long before being is determined as presence!

„Life undoubtedly protects itself by means of repetition, trace and deferral (différance). … Deferral constitutes the essence of life.“ (Derrida, Writing/(Scripture) and différence, p.311, germ. ed.)

Since „the deferral (différance) is not an essence because it is nothing, it is not life if being is determined as ousia, presence, essence/actuality, substance, or subject. Life must be thought as trace before determining being as presence.“ (Derrida, ibid.)

Life ek-sists in deferral.

Language and writing do not show the reality of things. Language and writing show possibilities. Through language, the things we encounter can be conceived of in one way or another, and thus engaged in the most diverse ways. And language and writing themselves belong to the reality of things (cf. Derrida, différance).

This means, among other things, that today we cannot think the Enlightenment, the clearing, without technogenic origins.

Singularity always escapes the concept of conceptuality. Singularity always has as prerequisite affliction and immunization, until life tips over into the autoimmunitary and lives itself out by exceeding the immunitary and attacking it to death. The „cancer“ in the society. And the cancer in the individual.

An autoimmunitary process (Derrida) that sets out to destroy its own protection, that is, to immunize itself against its „own“ immunity. Democracy must never surrender to this autoimmunitary logic by disregarding its own foundations, by negating or denying them. And be the attacks on what we call democratic conditions however strong.

Derrida on the violence of a „desperate (auto-immune) gesture“ of our „religious wars“: „The archaic and apparently cruder radicalization of „religious“ violence wants to cause, in the name of „religion“, that the living community takes root again, that it finds again its place, its body, its idiom, untouched, holy, secure, pure, original. Everywhere it brings death and unleashes, with a desperate (auto-immune) gesture, a self-destruction that takes damage from the blood of its own body, as if it were a matter of uprooting the uprootedness and reappropriating the untouched and secured sanctity of life.“ (J. Derrida, Faith and Knowledge, The Two Sources of „Religion“ at the Limits of Mere Reason; – in: Derrida, Vattimo: Religion. Frankfurt am Main, 2001, p. 87 f., german ed.).

The life exists and eksists in the movement without goal. The goal of a body is the movement towards death (cf. Freud). Towards death with deferral. Life, in this conception, is the deferral. The Différance. The trace of the trace and the trace of the extinction of the trace. The archives.

Texts written alphabetically and / or texts as a sequence of events and its attempts at description, whether autobiographies, whether poetry, whether artifacts of life (for the museums), they almost inevitably end up in our archives. Archives form the shell as repositories for the writings that life has left behind. Archives of life!

The autobiographical text has always worked for the archives. Texts of famous people have always been intended and formed by them and the present structure of collecting (by the archives) for being archived. In the age of digital archives, or better the digital as archive, this configuration is already true for almost all people. Global. Everything is literature.

All that is to be said about life, that has been said about life and will still be said or could still be said, is literature. Life and writing. Life as writing. I may humbly refer here and for the repeated time to my little videos. (https://www.youtube.com/user/gack157/videos)

Literature is a part of life and at the same time a movement (sometimes conscious) towards death. This is exactly the reason for the existence of archives at least for those of the last 500 years.

The literature of life serves the distinction. The distinguishability of presences and the respective I and the others. Literature is subject to the current of desire for resurrection.

A resurrection through and in reading. The I and its body will have passed away. The archive continues to speak. The archive and its recollection „lives“ the last deferral of the body as fragmented in the formation of the voice (e.g. sound archive content) and the possibility of repetition in the reading of texts (whether alphabet, whether film, whether architecture, whether political system, institutions, etc.). The real is retrospective/deferred. The real is the being read.

A small >>review<< of Freud and his sessions, the so-called „analytic situation,“ may be allowed me here (after all, I too maintain a form of practice in the form of a philosophical practice as deconstruction!) as a suggestion of an „other“ archive.

How would the psychoanalytic archive have looked like or could have looked better if Freud and all his „collaborators“ had found a different communication situation and a different archiving landscape?

I am referring to today’s digitized and electronic world instead of handwritten letters.

Perhaps, if you like, this blog of ours can help you a bit to run your thought processes about this and that.

The archiving technology makes the „recording“ of events possible and at the same time it underlies and precedes the event and in a way also brings it to the appearance.

 Just think of politics, the subsequent investigative committees together with the media coverage of them and the political production of events due to such underlying and preceding structuredness and their subsequent/deferred readings as interpretations.

The transformation of the private, the secret, and the public is immense and drastic, and the transformation of the entire space, public as well as private, of all humanity is palpable, effective, and affective for every subject.

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 guests 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! 

Grammatological Philosophical Practice, Gerhard Kaučić / Djay PhilPrax & Anna Lydia Huber, Vienna, 1989 – 2025 ff.

CONVERSATIONS ARE EVENTS AS TEXT

My blog as a text event in the interaction between my Philosophical Practice as a text event without protocol and my philosophical practice as a „protocol“ between archive and anarchive.

The invention of reality, the truth of a work, whether a philosophical, psychoanalytical, literary, artistic or a juridical, medical, technical, sporting, inventive, organizational, bureaucratic, scientific, architectural, photographic work or an economic, entrepreneurial, political, military, economic work or an artificially-natural reality as the truth of a work of climate change and consequences, – – – the truth of a work (!!!) is revealed only and explicitly in the recognized and recognizable (!) history of its effects.

The point is, in my philosophical practice

(( and this includes the conversation in this, but also my/our writing practice before and after each setting / session(!) ))

is always about capturing texts (written, spoken or representations(!) e.g. technical, artistic, economic, political, institutional) in their inner structure and in their interaction with other texts.

The texts are not only to be analysed and interpreted, but also to be unmasked through the practice of deconstructing their conflictual nature, their aggressiveness, their hidden contents and intentions.

What is meant is the visualization of the duality of the simultaneous presence and absence (!) of truth.

We express sentences of desired analytical truth and thereby simultaneously repress other possible sentences of truth or untruth.

And once again, at the end of our conversation, I would like to turn to the subject of your political engagement. What I would like to give you to take home with you.

I think, yes, I am sure, sure for myself, – political actions, settings, innovations, interventions, experiences touch something that many of us understand as philosophy.

Political actions imply the philosophical. The political does not coincide with the state/the statelike. Every political action implies philosophy. Every political involvement, every innovative or interventionist political action implies from the very beginning a philosophical moment, a kind of torque/angular momentum that imposes on us the constraint of an „internal“ obligation, namely the obligation of reflection on the political, the social and history and the essence, the nature, the meaning and the mission of the state in terms of the democratic of the idea of democracy and the relations with what is hidden under this name in the past and the present and that shows itself to us case by case.

Come home well.

With best wishes, –

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber

Philosophers

Philosophical Practitioners, Writers (born 1959).

PP Vienna

To contact me/us use only these emails:

g.kaucic[at]chello.at   or   gack[at]chello.at

Anna Lydia Huber (66, Philosophin)

Gerhard Kaučić (66, Philosoph)

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 )) 

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

Gerhard Kaučić / Djay PhilPrax, Wien ( Dr. phil. ), Philosophical Practitioner, Writer

philosophical practices face à face

Gerhard Kaučić,

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.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

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 

Philosophical Practice Vienna 1989 ff. Analysis Complication Aporia Identity Dislocation Meta-thesis Deconstruction

Falls Sie interessiert sind an einer PP mit mir/uns, bitte nur unter dieser E-mail einen Termin reservieren: To contact me/us, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at

If you are interested in a PP (Philosophical Practice) with me, please reserve an appointment only under this email: To contact us, please use only this email: gack[at]chello.at

Philosophers, Writers, Philosophical Practitioners, Mediators, Translators, Feminists, Freeriders, (Wild) Camping Enthusiasts, Survivors Vienna

Philosophical Practice weltweit … rund um die Uhr … rund um die Welt, … „face à face“, … confidential one-to-one conversation, … around the clock … around the world

Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax ( geb. 1959, Autor, Philosoph, PP seit 1989 ) Gespräch, Analyse, Diskurs, Problematisierung, Identitätsdislokation, Subjektivierung, Formalisierung, Fältelung, Komplizierung, Aporie, Dekonstruktion

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…

GESPRÄCHE sind EREIGNISSE als TEXT

cf. Jacques Derrida, Signatur Ereignis Kontext, – in: Randgänge der Philosophie, Wien 1988, S. 291-314 ( Französische Originalausgabe: Marges de la philosophie, Paris 1972 )

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.) 

Homepage: 

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2016/03/was-ist-philosophische-praxis-iii-teil-3.html

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2016/03/was-ist-philosophische-praxis-iii-teil-3.html?m=1