Tag Archives: Freedom

PP-2025-04

Erfahrung

04/04/2025 admin

Ästhetische Erfahrung (Dewey), Singularität, Das Politische, Raderfahrung, Freiheitserfahrung, Grenzerfahrung Lebenserfahrung

Ästhetische Erfahrung, Lebenserfahrung, Grenzerfahrung, Freiheitserfahrung, die Singularität, das Politische

Ästhetische Erfahrung (Dewey), Zeit, Alter, Lust, Schmerz, Raderfahrung, Radtour, Lebenserfahrung, Körper als Leiberfahrung in Landschaften, Grenzerfahrung, Freiheitserfahrung

Reisen und Erfahrungen aus heutiger Sicht Matrices

Unser Wunsch nach Singularität ist in eine angemessene Relationalität zur Erfahrung mit dem Anderen zu bringen. Das Politische erwächst aus der Erfahrung des Singulären

Körper der Lust, Körper des Schmerzes, Affektionen, Einschreibungen, Wiedererinnerungen

Kaum ein Leben ohne Erlebnisse (!?).

Kaum ein Leben ohne Erfahrung (!?).

Philosophische Praxis immer wieder und immer wieder gerne.

„Was bewirkt die große Attraktivität, bis ins hohe Alter Radreisen zu unternehmen? Was ist es? Was macht es aus? Immerhin ist es immer auch eine Strapaze, der man/frau unterworfen wird.“

Ästhetische Erfahrung!?

Anna Lydia Huber auf Tour

Anna Lydia Huber (Jg. 1959), Radreisende, Freeriderin, Philosophin auf Rad-Tour im gröberen Gelände mit großem Rucksack (12kg) auf ihrem Fully

Anna Lydia Huber (born 1959), bike traveler, freerider, philosopher on bike tour in rough terrain with big backpack (12kg) on her Fully

Anna Lydia Huber, Naturistin, Wildcamperin, Abenteurerin, Naturliebhaberin, Feministin, Philosophin. Autorin, Mediatorin, Radreisende, Enduro-Bikerin,

Gerhard Kaučić (Jg. 1959), Radreisender, Freerider, Philosoph auf Rad-Tour im gröberen Gelände mit großem Rucksack (12kg) auf seinem Fully

Gerhard Kaučić (born 1959), bike traveler, freerider, philosopher on bike tour in rough terrain with big backpack (12kg) on his Fully

Gerhard Kaučić auf Tour

Gerhard Kaučić (Jg. 1959), Radreisender, Freerider, Philosoph auf Rad-Tour im gröberen Gelände mit großem Rucksack (12kg) auf seinem Fully

Gerhard Kaučić (born 1959), bike traveler, freerider, philosopher on bike tour in rough terrain with big backpack (12kg) on his Fully

Anna Lydia Huber ( * 1959 ) Gerhard Kaučić

eine lange Geschichte der Freundschaft

a long history of friendship a long story

Ästhetische Erfahrung Radphilosophie Freiheitserfahrung Grenzerfahrung(en) Lebenserfahrung

Gerhard, Anna Lydia, – wir fahren, wir fuhren, wir werden fahren, – wir pedalieren, wir leben unser Radfahrer:innen-Leben auf unseren Mountainbikes! Jeden Tag (fast). Jedes Jahr. Wir sind auf Tour.

Unser 12 kg – Rucksack auf unserem Rücken. Die Enduro Mountainbikes vorbereitet mit neuen Verschleißteilen. Alles paßt und sitzt. Die Kette, die Hose mit Sitzpolster, die Handschuhe, der Helm. Es läuft. Der Wind streichelt unsere Nasen. Die Sonne scheint. Es wird warm und wärmer. Wir schwitzen. Es geht vorwärts. Jeder Tag ein neues Etappenziel. Jeder Tag viele kleine und größere Erfahrungen. Neue Leute, denen wir begegnen.

Manchmal helfen (bei einer Panne), manchmal plaudern wir einfach nur. Über unsere Erfahrungen in den letzten Tagen. Hören aus dem Leben der anderen. Ihren Leiden und Freuden. Ihren Stürzen. Ihren Bergbezwingungen. Über ihre verfehlten und erreichten Ziele des Tages und des Lebens insgesamt.

Landschaften, Wetterkapriolen, Freuden, Ängste. Jedes Tal, jeder Ort immer wieder anders erfahren, erspürt, erlitten, erschwitzt. Befriedigend erschwitzt, erkämpft. Aus eigener Kraft und Übung!

Allesamt ästhetische Erfahrungen. Lange Anstiege. Applaus von Rennradfahrer:innen, wenn wir mit unseren großen Rucksäcken auf den Hügelkuppen und Alpenpässen bei 35 Grad Sommerhitze ankommen und grinsen mit unseren mittlerweile 66 Jahren und unseren über viele Jahre trainierten Oberschenkel- und Wadenmuskeln. Braun gebrannt an den Beinen und an den Armen. Der Rest unseres Körpers schillert da und dort elfenbeinweiß.

John Dewey, amerikanischer Pragmatist, wollte seinen Lebenssinn darin sehen, den meßbaren Dingen zu entgehen. Er schrieb in Erfahrung und Natur:

„Das charakteristisch menschliche Bedürfnis ist das nach Besitz und Genuß der Bedeutung von Dingen, und dieses Bedürfnis wird im traditionellen Begriff des Nützlichen ignoriert und unbefriedigend gelassen.“ (Frf. 1995, S. 341)

Dewey meint, wir erfahren immer etwas, wenn wir in Bewegung bleiben und interagieren. Gewisse Ereignisse wirken auf uns, nicht alle gleichermaßen.

Genau diese bestimmten Ereignisse meint Dewey, wenn er von ästhetischen Erfahrungen spricht.

Ästhetische Erfahrungen lassen die Welt um uns für uns bedeutsam werden. Sie erscheint uns dann wie verwandelt oder besser als verwandelt. Das hält und macht uns lebendig. Lebenslang.

Solche Erfahrungen sind es auch, was uns nachdenklich macht. Nachdenkend, reflektierend. Reifer!

Die dem menschlichen (Fuß-) Maß noch einigermaßen nahestehende Geschwindigkeit des Fahrradfahrens erzeugt täglich viele kleine Nähe-Ereignisse, die dann im einen oder anderen Fall zu einer ästhetischen Erfahrung führen, die für uns biographieabhängig bedeutsam werden kann.

Glückliche oder auch unglückliche Momente.

Jedenfalls aber ein Leben voller ästhetischer Momente, die uns lebendig bleiben lassen oder werden lassen?! Und das bis ins höchste Alter hinauf bzw hinein.

Bis zu den olympischen Spielen der Hundertjährigen. Kein Schmäh. Die gibt’s wirklich!

Die Erfahrung ist das, was das Subjekt über ein bisher Erfahrbares hinausführt, – quasi entgegen allen und als Überraschung aller Erwartungen, Hoffnungen, Begehrlichkeiten. Das was den Horizont der Wahrnehmung zu übersteigen vermag.

Das Geheimnis haftet an einer solchen „Übersteigung“ von etwas. Das Geheimnis könnte das unmöglich Scheinende, ja das Unmögliche sein, – das Politische werden, als die Erfahrung eines Unmöglichen. Das Unmögliche ist das Singuläre! (vgl. Derrida, Politik der Freundschaft, S. 55 und Die unbedingte Universität, S. 73)

Das Politische erwächst aus der Erfahrung des Singulären aufgrund des Geheimnisses, das die Erfahrung des Singulären zur Voraussetzung hat oder besser noch, diesem anhaftet, als Präsenz der Absenz bleibend.

Lebenslauf Biographie

Körper als Leiberfahrung in Landschaften.

Reisen und Erfahrungen, aus heutiger Sicht Matrices.

Unser Wunsch nach Singularität ist in eine Relation, eine angemessene Relationalität zur Erfahrung mit dem Anderen zu bringen.

Affektionen, Einschreibungen,

Wiedererinnerungen

Ich muß mich berühren lassen! Berühren lassen für diese begrenzte Zeitstrecke! Ohne Bewegung keine Berührung, ohne Berührung keine Rührung, ohne Rührung kein starkes, heißt vivifizierendes, lebendig haltendes Erleben.

Kaum ein Leben! Kaum ein Leben ohne Erlebnisse (!?).

Kaum ein Leben ohne Erfahrung (!?).

Erfahrung erfordert zuallererst Bejahung, sonst ist es keine Erfahrung (!?).

Grünes Denken, Planetarisches Denken und Handeln, Philosophie

Vom Fahrrad aus

Anna Lydia Huber (66, Philosophin) und Gerhard Kaučić (66, Philosoph)

Anna Lydia Huber (66, Philosophin), Gerhard Kaučić (66, Philosoph), Naturist:in, Wildcamper:in, Abenteurer:in, Naturliebhaber:in, Feminist:in, Philosoph:in. Autor:in, Mediator:in, Radreisende/r, Enduro-Biker:in

Grünes Denken, Planetarisches Denken und Handeln, Philosophie

Vom Fahrrad aus

Raumnotwendigkeit, Raumfeeling, (Mountain-)Biking, Bewegung, Lebensqualität, Leben, Lebensraum, Lebensfähigkeit (Plato, Rousseau, Adorno, Foucault, Freud, Lacan, Cixous, Derrida)

Fahrradfahren, Etappenende, Tagesausklang, Freibaden, FKK, FreiKörperKultur, Freiheit, Lebensqualität, Lebenslust, Lebensfreude, Lebensnotwendigkeit, Naturismus, Schönheit, Natur, Kultur, Freundschaft

Freundschaft Freude Freiheit Naturismus

Friendship Joy Freedom Naturism

Cycling, end of stage, end of day, open air bathing, naturism, free body culture, freedom, quality of life, love of life, joy of life, necessity of life, beautyness, aesthetics, nature, culture, friendship

Anna Lydia Huber (geb. 1959, MSc, Philosophin, Naturistin, Freeriderin)

Gerhard Kaučić (geb. 1959, Dr. phil., Philosoph, Naturist, Freerider)

Freundschaft Freude Freiheit Naturismus

Friendship Joy Freedom Naturism

Grünes Denken, Planetarisches Denken und Handeln, Philosophie

Vom Fahrrad aus

Erfahrung erfordert zuallererst Bejahung, sonst ist es keine Erfahrung (!?).

Ich muß etwas bejahen, es loben, es anerkennen, um etwas erkennen und berühren zu können und von etwas berührt werden zu können!

Andernfalls ist es bloß ein mir Zugestoßenes, ein Schmerz, eine unerkannte, vielleicht unerkennbare Be-rührung. Ein Unaussprechbares und Unaussprechliches! Eine Art Trauma.

Der Garten als vorwärtslaufendes Trauma der Landschaft aus der Kindheit. Garten, Landschaften, Politiken, Natur, Wildheit, Kultur, Stadt, Demokratie im Kommen, Parklandschaften des Demokratischen, Kindheitsträume, Kindheitstraumata? Berührungen!?

Ich muß etwas bejahen können, es loben, es anerkennen, um etwas erkennen und berühren zu können und von etwas berührt werden zu können!

Der Mensch als Flüchtling auf dem Weg zur Anerkennung. Den Blick des Anderen bejahen können.

Die Schönheit Das Erhabene Die Wahrheit

Körper als Leiberfahrung in Landschaften

Lebenslang beschäftige ich mich mit der Erfahrung der Grenze, an der traditionelle Schreibweisen(!) noch, gerade noch, möglich sind, – und mit der anderen Seite (wenn man das so ausdrücken will!) dieser Grenze, auf beziehungsweise in(!) der eine veränderte Schreibweise (impliziert Denkweise) statthat, – eine Schreibweise, die die Auswirkungen der Mittel und nachfolgenden Erfahrungen einer technischen Welt in ihre Verfahrens- und Denkweisen einbezieht, mitsamt der notwendigen permanenten Selbstreflexion.

Wie in der neueren Musik seit Cage, Stockhausen und anderen gilt es auch das Schweigen, die Pausen, die Geräusche, die Gesten als ebenso bedeutsam zu nehmen wie das zu Hörende und das (vermeintliche?) Gehörte.

Die ach so wichtigen Pausen, Löcher, Zerbröselungen des Ungehörten und des Ungesagten, worüber das Gesagte, Gedachte, Gehörte unentwegt (leider un-entwegt!) hinwegspringt.

Jeder Satz ein Sprung!

Das gemeine Denken springt im gewohnten Rhythmus von durch Wiederholung, unreflektierter Wiederholung, erzeugten Indexwörtern.

Was sich dabei entfalten kann, dürfte eben eher nur das Geringstmögliche sein.

So war es, so ist es, so wird es sein. So scheint es mir gegenwärtig zu sein! Versuchen wir dagegen zu halten, indem wir uns die Mühe machen, hinterher zu arbeiten. Unsere PPs. Unsere philosophischen Praxen und ihre Praktiken. Ich grüße Sie. Wir grüßen Sie. …………………………………………………………….

Mit freundlichen Grüßen, – Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., Jg.‘59) Ihr Djay PhilPrax, Betreiber und Leiter einer Philosophischen Praxis seit 1989 hier in Wien und fast überall sonst in und auf der Welt gemeinsam mit Anna Lydia Huber (MSc, Jg. 1959).

„… einen Text als Text ablesen können, ohne eine Interpretation dazwischen zu mengen, ist die späteste Form der > inneren Erfahrung < – vielleicht eine kaum mögliche …“ ( Nietzsche )

………………………….. Freud, Modernism, Viennese Modernism, Postmodernism, Viennese Postmodernism, Enlightenment! Freud, Moderne, Wiener Moderne, Postmoderne, Wiener Postmoderne, Aufklärung!

SONNE, KRYPTOGRAPHIE! PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS ALS ÜBERWINDUNG DER ANGST!

Sonne, Kryptographie! Philosophische Praxis als Überwindung der Angst! Der ewige Konflikt mit Autorität als permanent dekonstruktiver Versuch von Kommunikation, – das Geheimnis des Kommunikativen in der andauernd bedrohlichen Inkommunikabilität.

Jacques Derrida bezeichnet die kommende Demokratie als eben solche aufgrund des Geheimnisses (!) als Erfahrung des Singulären (!), aus der das Politische nur erwachsen kann, – und zwar erwachsen in seiner Offenheit. Offen ist kommend.

Die Erfahrung ist das, was das Subjekt über ein bisher Erfahrbares hinausführt, – quasi entgegen allen und als Überraschung aller Erwartungen, Hoffnungen, Begehrlichkeiten.

Das was den Horizont der Wahrnehmung zu übersteigen vermag.

Das Geheimnis haftet an einer solchen „Übersteigung“ von etwas.

Das Geheimnis könnte das unmöglich Scheinende, ja das Unmögliche sein, – das Politische werden, als die Erfahrung eines Unmöglichen. Das Unmögliche ist das Singuläre! (vgl. Derrida, Politik der Freundschaft, S. 55 und Die unbedingte Universität, S. 73)

Das Politische erwächst aus der Erfahrung des Singulären aufgrund des Geheimnisses, das die Erfahrung des Singulären zur Voraussetzung hat oder besser noch, diesem anhaftet, als Präsenz der Absenz bleibend. Eben die kommende Demokratie, die immer erst ankommende Demokratie.

Dies ist der Initialeffekt des Denkens der Singularität und also des Geheimnisses dafür, warum zum Beispiel in der Literatur alles gesagt werden kann und weswegen Literatur mit Demokratie verantwortlich (!) zusammenzudenken ist.

„Und das Geheimnis ist nichts, was ich in mir verberge; es ist nicht Ich.

Das Geheimnis ist nicht das Geheimnis der Vorstellung, die man im eigenen Kopf einschließt und von der man beschließt, sie niemandem zu sagen, es ist eher ein Geheimnis, das der Erfahrung des Singulären koexistent ist.

Das Geheimnis kann nicht auf den öffentlichen Bereich reduziert werden – trotzdem nenne ich es nicht privat -, es kann auch nicht auf die Veröffentlichung oder das Politische reduziert werden, zur selben Zeit liegt dieses Geheimnis dem zugrunde, von dem aus der öffentliche Bereich und der Bereich des Politischen zu sein, und offen zu sein, vermag.“

(( Jacques Derrida: ebda., Bemerkungen zu Dekonstruktion und Pragmatismus, – in: Ch. Mouffe (Hg.): Dekonstruktion und Pragmatismus. Demokratie, Wahrheit und Vernunft. Wien 1999 (Passagen Verlag), S. 178f. ))

Der Sinn der Welt

Die Sinne der Welt

Sense Interlacements Inkommunikabilität

Philosophische Praxis die rätselhafte und verstörende Notwendigkeit

Von Kommunikation

!!! vgl. unbedingt und zuallererst zum Wort „Kommunikation“ und zur Bedeutung und zur Situierung im semantischen Feld von Kommunikation Jacques Derridas „Signatur Ereignis Kontext“ , – in: Randgänge der Philosophie. Wien 1988, S. 291ff. !!!

„Die Suche nach Wahrheit“ (Abraham, Torok, Kryptonymie, S. 109ff.) ein Phänomen der Stadt und des Kollektivs, „Vom Alptraum zur Phobie“ (Abraham, Torok, ebda., S. 123ff.) „Der Traum von den Heiligenbildern“, „Der verklärte Wolfstraum“, „Der Traum vom Wolkenkratzer“, „Der Traum vom Strafgesetz“ (ebda., S. 156- 163)

„Das Wort und der Sinn“ (ebda., S. 174f.)

Philosophische Praxis, Grammatologie und Stadt, + Statt der Träume der Wahn, Stadt der Träume, Philosophische Praxis, Philosophie der Stadt, Stadtphilosophie

Halluzination, Narzissmus, Wahn, Gespenst der Zivilisation, das Andere, Wirklichkeit, Geschichte, Archiv, Aufrufung, Sprachruf, Analyse

Wie wir wissen, kann es keine unmittelbare Selbsterfahrung geben, – wir bleiben immer auf Distanz zu uns selbst ! (vgl. Derrida, Psyche, Erfindungen des Anderen)

Ich selbst bin mir ein bekannter Fremder (!!!)

Ich erinnere an das Potential der Affizierung und Immunisierung beziehungsweise der Auto-Immunisierung (vgl. unser Posting zur Affizierung) !

Die Brücken zum Anderen und zum „eigenen“ Anderen sowie die Passagen, Markierungen, Spurungen, Königswege zum Unbewußten (Ubw) als das Andere, – das gefährliche gefährdete Andere !

Das Unbewußte, das invasive Ubw, die Krise der Hermeneutik !

Das Andere als Öffnung zur „Unentscheidbarkeit“ hin.

Derrida (vgl. „Gesetzeskraft“) spricht von einem „Gespenst“ des Unentscheidbaren, das jedes Entscheidungs-Ereignis heimsucht.

Das Gespensterhafte dekonstruiert jede Möglichkeit von Gewißheit, jede Möglichkeit einer Selbstversicherung, jede Möglichkeit von Gegenwärtigkeitsversicherung, jegliche Kriteriologie zur versuchten und vermeintlichen Absicherung der Gerechtigkeit einer Entscheidung.

Politik kann somit keine Anleitungen in normativer Hinsicht leisten, es herrscht quasi eine normative Unbestimmtheitsrelation zwischen Politik und Gesellschaft vor.

Die Freiheit der Andersheit des Anderen ermöglicht Lebenspraxen des Überlebens, die sich in der Begegnung der „Others of the Other und der Others of myself (J. Butler, Undoing Gender, New York 2004, p. 131ff.) vollzieht.

Das Denken der Schrift (vgl. Blog-Teaser) ereignet sich auch in einer Art „Wiederkehr des Verdrängten“!

Die Kulturleistungen verdanken ihre Kraft und zwingende Macht der Wiederkehr des Verdrängten, besonders gut sichtbar an den Religionen dieser Welt. Es handelt sich um permanente Erinnerungsarbeit, um Wiedererinnerungen von meist sehr alten, sehr effektiven weil sehr affektiven beziehungsweise affizierenden Vorgängen in der Geschichte der Menschheit.

Diese historischen Wahrheiten aufgrund der permanenten Wiederholung machen diese Kulturen so stark, mehr als das reale Ereignis und seine Wahrheit!

Beispiele wie Moses, Jesus oder Mohammed zeigen das in aller Vehemenz bis heute. Mit allen negativen und positiven Wirkungen und Nebenwirkungen. Und wider alle Vernunft! (vgl. Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft )

Die Wiederkehr des Verdrängten ereignet sich individuell, aber auch auf staatlicher Ebene.

Die verdrängten Körper vor der „Festung Europa“ etwa. Die Folgen des europäischen Imperialismus der letzten Jahrhunderte. Die Verschiebungen der durch den Imperialismus gezogenen Grenzlinien.

Grenzlinien von Staaten auf ehemaligen und in Resten noch vorhandenen Stammesgebieten.

Grenzlinien der Macht. „Wo Macht Recht ist.“

Diese Grenzlinien vergangener Mächte, sie brechen auf in die Geschichte der Gegenwart. Das verdrängte Unterdrückte bricht ein in den Alltag der sogenannten zivilisierten Demokratien.

Demokratien, die selbst um ihr Kommen ringen.

Ein Marker für Demokratien im Kommen ist die Abschaffung der Todesstrafe. Ein anderer Marker wäre und ist das Aufnehmen von Flüchtlingen.

Grenzlinien der Macht. Sie brechen auf. Migrationsbewegungen sind das sichtbare Symptom.

Europa und die übrige Welt muß handeln im Sinne der Menschenrechte und im Sinne der Menschlichkeit ! (vgl. meinen Blog-Post „Für eine menschenfreundliche Flüchtlingspolitik“ vom 11. 10. 2013)

Empathie! Hilfe!

Der Andere, – das bin Ich! Und das bist Du!

Die Struktur und die Artikulationsweise des Unbewußten sorgen dafür, daß wir immer im Verzug sind und uns immer etwas vorausliegt.

Unsere Vergangenheit, unsere Geschichte, die sich nie und nirgends in voller Selbst – Gegenwärtigkeit und Selbst – Präsenz erfahren hat lassen und läßt.

Nicht aneigenbar! Kein Eigenes! Ein Fremdes! (vgl. Blog-Teaser!)

Ein Ent-stelltes! Verdichtet, verschoben, nachträglich bearbeitet. Traum – Arbeit!

Achtung! Gefahr der Entstellung!

Auch der Psycho – Analyse! Immer! Überall!

Denken der Schrift. Grammatologie. (vgl. Blog-Teaser)

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Körperphilosophie Demokratiephilosophie

Macht ist Körpern den Zugang zu Räumen versperren zu können!

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

Wunsch, Abwehr, Konflikt, Erinnerungsmaterial, Wahrnehmung, Erfahrung

Sexuelle, ethnische und nationale Identitäten sind nicht körperbiologisch begründbar. Es handelt sich (wie oben dargelegt) um Realitätseffekte performativer Handlungen.

Unsere Körper sind politische!

Mit Turnheim behaupte ich eine grundsätzliche Verwandtschaft von Psychoanalyse und Demokratie und von Dekonstruktion und Demokratie. Alle drei Namen sprechen von der Irreduktibilität der Singularität bei gleichzeitiger versuchter Wiederholbarkeit!

Psychoanalyse und Dekonstruktion behaupten beide eine Irreduzibilität der Hetero-Affektion in der Erfahrung eines „Eigenen“ und beide gehen von einem Wirken eines inneren Fremdkörpers aus!

Der Ort und die Zeit, das Territorium „Wo Macht Recht ist.“

Die Illisibilität eines jeden Textes und seine „Grundlosigkeit“! (vgl. Michael Turnheim, Das Andere im Gleichen, S. 11)

Der Analytiker ist ein Leser, eine Leserin. Und! Der Analytiker wird zum Schreiber, zum Schriftsteller als lesenden.

Die Lekritüre der Grammatologie.

Text bleibt unlesbar lesbar ! (vgl. R. Barthes Illisibilität)

Die „Einschreibung“ ist nicht „für immer“, eine jede Einschreibung ist endlich wie das Subjekt selbst, dessen „Archiv“ zerstört werden kann wie jedes Archiv. Auch jedes Medienarchiv.

Durch die Bewußtmachungsarbeit passieren Dinge, die wir nicht planen, nicht kontrollieren können.

Affizierungen !

Die diversen Affizierungen und Immunisierungen sind unkontrollierbar. Sie basieren und passieren aufgrund der jeweiligen individuell biographischen Vor-Einschreibungen.

Laplanche betont, daß die „psychische Realität“ nicht von einem selbst geschaffen wird, sondern wesentlich invasiv ist: Sie kommt von außen auf uns als das Unbewußte anderer ! (vgl. A. Zupancic, Warum Psychoanalyse?, S. 40 und vgl. meine Videos zu Sprache und Unbewußtes)

face à face , –

zum je eigenen Narzißmus und zur Situationsgebundenheit in (m)einer Philosophischen Praxis:

Jacques Derrida:

„Es gibt weder den Narzißmus noch den Nicht-Narzißmus; es gibt mehr oder weniger verständnisvolle, freigiebige, offene und ausgedehnte Narzißmen, und was man normalerweise als Nicht-Narzißmus bezeichnet, ist für gewöhnlich nur die Ökonomie eines viel einladenderen und gastlicheren Narzißmus, der offen gegenüber der Erfahrung des Anderen als Anderem ist.

Ich glaube, daß die Beziehung zum anderen ohne die Bewegung der narzißtischen Wiederaneignung vollkommen zerstört wäre, von vornherein zerstört. Die Beziehung zum anderen muß … – selbst wenn sie asymmetrisch bleibt, offen und ohne mögliche Wiederaneignung – sie muß eine Bewegung der Wiederaneignung in das Selbstbildnis skizzieren, damit beispielsweise Liebe möglich ist. Liebe ist narzißtisch.

Da gibt es kleine Narzißmen, da gibt es große Narzissmen, und am Ende steht der Tod als Grenze. Noch in der Erfahrung – wenn es eine ist – des Todes selbst gibt der Narzissmus nicht vollkommen auf.“ (J. Derrida, in „Auslassungspunkte“, S. 212, Passagen Verlag Wien 1998)

[ vgl. S. Freud, Zur Einführung des Narzißmus, 1914; und vgl. bes. :

J. Lacan, Écrits, s. 174 u. 187 u. Lacan, Propos sur la causalité psychique, 1946; ]

Der Narzißmus ist der erotische „Atem“ zum Anderen als sein Spiegelbild zu sich selbst.

(Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic)

face à face:

Die narzißtische Beziehung – und eine „Beziehung“ ohne Narzißmus ist nicht denkbar – begründet die imaginäre Definition einer jeden menschlichen Beziehung (Gerhard Kaucic).

Ich denke, ja, ich bin mir sicher, sicher für mich selbst, – politische Handlungen, Setzungen, Neuerungen, Innovationen, Interventionen, Erfahrungen berühren etwas, was viele von uns als Philosophie verstehen.

Politische Handlungen implizieren Philosophisches. Das Politische deckt sich nicht mit dem Staatlichen. Jede politische Handlung impliziert Philosophie.

Und nochmals hinlenkend zum Schluß unseres Gespräches auf die Thematik Ihres politischen Engagements. Was ich Ihnen mitgeben, mit auf Ihren Heimweg geben möchte.

Jedes politische Engagement, jede innovative oder interventionistische politische Handlung impliziert schon von Anfang an ein philosophisches Moment, eine Art von Drehmoment, welches uns den Zwang einer „inneren“ Verpflichtung auferlegt, nämlich die Verpflichtung der Reflexion über das Politische, das Gesellschaftliche und die Geschichte und die Essenz, das Wesen, den Sinn und den Auftrag des Staates in Hinsicht auf das Demokratische der Idee der Demokratie und die Relationen zu dem, was sich in der Vergangenheit und der Gegenwart unter diesem Namen verbirgt und sich uns fallweise zeigt.

Identität durch Körpererfahrung in der Form von Gewalt und das Erleben und Selberspüren der eigenen Gewaltfähigkeit als Machtgefühl. Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Gewalt als Stabilitätsfaktor des autoritär entstandenen Charakters. Oft auch in der Form der Gewaltausübung an Frauen. Eine Definition von Männlichkeit als gelebte Brutalität auch im Hinblick auf etwaige beunruhigende Fragen nach der eigenen Geschlechtsidentität.

Weiter oben sprach ich von dem Anderen als den Fremden und ich zitiere Benveniste mit den Worten, der Fremde war immer schon und a priori der Feind.

Nun, um zu einem Ende zu kommen, – übrigens, das war auch der Inhalt des Endens unserer kürzlich vor wenigen Tagen erfahrenen philosophischen Praxis gewesen, – noch schnell ein paar Gedanken aus dem psychoanalytischen Feld zum Thema Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Gewalt.

Psychoanalyse ist zuerst einmal Psychoanalyse des Individuums und erst aus den daraus gewonnenen Erfahrungen mithilfe der psychoanalytischen Begrifflichkeit eine Möglichkeit sich gesellschaftlichen Phänomenen und Beschreibungen zu öffnen, um diese zu analysieren und hernach in einem dritten Schritt so weit wie möglich zu dekonstruieren.

Selbstbehauptung in gewissen Milieus geschieht mittels Abgrenzung von anderen, den so genannten Fremden. Und falls diese Fremden wenig geachtete Leute sind, verschafft das den Mitgliedern von Gruppen in diesen Milieus eine gewisse Selbsterhöhung.

Die Ausgrenzung von Fremden und die Ausgrenzung des Fremden generell ist oft ein wichtiger Teil der Identitätsfindung und Selbststabilisierung. Eine Bejahung des als eigen erfahrenen Selbsts.

Wir alle wissen, daß diese Fremdheit meist bald schwindet und daß Fremderfahrung eine aufhebbare ist, nicht nur zwischen Einzelwesen, sondern auch zwischen Gruppen und sogar ganzen Völkern.

Zum Selbst habe ich mich schon oben (mit Freud) geäußert! Wie wir wissen, kann es keine unmittelbare Selbsterfahrung geben, – wir bleiben immer auf Distanz zu uns selbst ! (vgl. Derrida, Psyche, Erfindungen des Anderen)

Kommen Sie gut nach Hause.

Mit den besten Wünschen, –

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber

Philosoph, Philosophin,

Philosophische/r Praktiker:in, Schriftsteller:in (Jg. 1959)

PP Wien

To contact me/us use only these emails: g.kaucic[at]chello.at or gack[at]chello.at

Eine Radtour von Wien bis Livigno und wieder retour! 2000 km. 4 Wochen.

Entlang gut ausgeschildeter Radwege und Radrouten an bekannten Flüssen und Seen, durch Wälder und über Gebirgszüge der Alpen, vorwärts mit Genuß, abwärts und aufwärts, viele Uphills und Downhills mit unseren wendigen, nicht schwer beladenen Enduro-Radgeräten in Österreich, Deutschland, Schweiz, und Italien.

Und drei Einheiten Philosophische Praxis sozusagen am Wegesrand im Zuge dieser Radtour mit drei KollegInnen (aus Österreich, Deutschland, und der Schweiz kommend) zum Thema jeweils etwa 3 Stunden mit open end in Maria Alm, Krimml und Pfunds.

Alter, älter werden wollen, ästhetische Erfahrung nach John Dewey, sinnvolles Leben, bedeutsame Momente, Erfahrungen auf dem Rad. Radtouren.

Radtouren bis ins hohe Alter? Macht das Sinn? Ästhetische Erfahrung? Freud und Leid? Extremismus? Ausgesetztheit?

Fühlen und leben? Bedeutungsvolle Erfahrungen? Besondere Momente? Regen, Wind und Sonne. Berge. Wille. Qualen. Verschwitzte Körper. Erfreute Gemüter.

Körper des Schmerzes. Körper der Lust (cf. Freud)?

Erleben des Leidens. Grenzen. Körpergrenzen. Individuelle Horizonterweiterungen. Anstrengungen. Herausforderungen. Bewältigungen. Ästhetische Erfahrungen. Bedeutungsvollere Existenz ? Ek-sistenz(?!)

„Wer die Musik nicht hört, hält die Tanzenden für wahnsinnig.“

(Ingram Hartinger: Das verschmutzte Denken. Eine Saxofonie. Klagenfurt/Celovec, 2014, Wieser Verlag, S. 273).

4 Wochen. Viele Höhenmeter. Mit 12 kg-Rucksack. Aus eigener Kraft mit Enduro-MTBs.

Eine empfehlenswerte Rad-Weg-Route für den Sommer! Komplett ohne Autoverkehr (mit Ausnahme der Alpenpässe) !

[[ Rad-Tour-Route, Tourlinie, einige erinnerte ausgewählte Orte für Interessierte / Bicycle tour route, tour line, some remembered selected places for those of you who are interested.

Start in Wien (Gasometer) – Tulln an der Donau – Mautern (Donauradweg, Trailwerk Wachau auf Göttweiger Stiftsberg mit kleinem Rucksack) – Melk – Grein – Ansfelden – Wels (Traunradweg ab Asten bei Linz) – Gmunden – Traunkirchen am Traunsee – Ebensee (Salzkammergut-Radweg) – Strobl am Wolfgangsee – Salzburg – Saalfelden (Tauernradweg) – Maria Alm (Trails auf diverse Almen mit bewirtschafteten Almhütten und Berghütten mit kleinem Rucksack) –

Zell am See (Trails auf diverse Almen mit bewirtschafteten Almhütten und Berghütten mit kleinem Rucksack) – Kaprun – Mittersill – Krimml – Gerlospaß – Zillertal – Zell am Ziller – Jenbach – Maurach – Achenkirch am Achensee – Wallgau – Sylvensteinsee – Scharnitz – Seefeld – Mösern – Telfs – Imst – Landeck – Pfunds – Nauders – Reschenpaß – Reschen am See (!)

– Sankt Valentin auf der Heide – Mals – Taufers – Santa Maria – Val Müstair – Ofenpaß – Tunnel mit Bikeshuttle (!!!) rauf nach Livigno (Bikeverbot!!! Tunnel einröhrig!) – Livigno (Tourziel und Umkehrpunkt, Trails auf diverse bewirtschaftete Almhütten und Berghütten mit kleinem Rucksack)

– Zernez – Scuols – Guarda – Finstermünzpaß – Pfunds – Imst – Telfs – Innsbruck (Innradweg) – Wörgl – Hopfgarten – Kitzbühel – St. Johann i. Tirol – Hochfilzen – Leogang (Bikepark und Trails auf diverse bewirtschaftete Almen und Berghütten mit kleinem Rucksack) – Saalfelden am Steinernen Meer (Trails auf diverse bewirtschaftete Almen und Berghütten mit kleinem Rucksack)

– Lofer – Salzburg – Linz (Donauradweg) – Ybbs/Persenbeug – Spitz – Willendorf – Wachau bis Mautern – Krems – Stockerau – Greifenstein/Altenberg (Donauradweg) – Kritzendorf- Klosterneuburg – Wien (Gasometer-City) – Tourende ]]

Erfahrung. Was ist das?!

Nichts ist einfach nur eine Erfahrung. Nicht einmal die Erfahrung. Auf dem Rad.

Ästhetische Erfahrung (Dewey), Zeit, Alter, Lust, Schmerz, Raderfahrung, Radtour, Lebenserfahrung, Körper als Leiberfahrung in Landschaften, Grenzerfahrung, Freiheitserfahrung

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber auf Tour

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber auf Tour

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber auf Tour

Anna Lydia Huber beim Trailen mit kleinem Rucksack

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber auf Tour mit Leichtzeltplane und Schlafsack

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber on tour with light tent tarp and sleeping bag

Freiheit leben, Demokratie leben, in Freiheit leben

Live freedom, live democracy, live in freedom

Gerhard Kaučić, Anna Lydia Huber (Dr. phil., MSc, born 1959, Age 66, 2025)

Europäische PhilosophIn, SchriftstellerIn, FeministIn, dekonstruierte HegelianerIn, ÜbersetzerIn, MediatorIn, RadfahrerIn, FreeriderIn, Radreisende/r, Enduro-BikerIn, ÖkomobilistIn, Überlebende/r

Philosophische PraktikerIn/Praktische Philosophie, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion, Philosophische Praxis Wien Österreich Europa

European Philosophers, Writers, Feminists, deconstructed Hegelians, Translators, Mediators, Cyclists, Freeriders, Bicycle Travellers, Enduro Bikers, Ecomobilists, Survivors

Philosophical Practitioners/Practical Philosophy, Analytical Philosophy of Language, Deconstruction, Philosophical Practice Vienna Austria Europe

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber ganzjährig philosophisch auf philosophischer Tour, – lebenslang

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber year-round philosophical tour, – lifelong

Life tour, love tour

Erfahrung. Was ist das?!

Gerhard Kaučić (geb. 1959), Philosoph, Schriftsteller, Mediator, Dr. phil.

Anna Lydia Huber (geb. 1959), Philosophin, Schriftstellerin, Mediatorin, MSc

Experience. What is it?!

Aesthetic Experience Cycling Philosophy Freedom Experience Border Experience(es)

Aesthetic Experience (Dewey), Singularity, The Political, Cycling Experience, Freedom Experience, Border Experience, Life Experience

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2022/08/aesthetic-experience-cycling-experience.html

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 Heissenbüttel 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

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, Austria, Europe

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

PP-2025-03

The Machine The Man

03/26/2025 admin

The Machine The Man Cyborgs Deconstruction

Gerhard Kaučić

Philosopher, Feminist, Mediator, Author, Freerider, born 1959, Dr. phil., age 66, 2025

Associate in the grammatological philosophical Practice since 2009 in Vienna and beyond

Anna Lydia Huber

Philosopher, Feminist, Mediator, Author, Freerider, born 1959, MSc, age 66, 2025

Gerhard Kaučić, Anna Lydia Huber, Philosophical Practitioners

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić (Anna Lydia Huber, Gerhard Kaucic, *1959), Writer

The Machine The Man

Robots Androids

Cyborgs as subject Deconstruction

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

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

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

Some preliminary as well as subsequent, perhaps common, but in any case contradictory thoughts on the subject: „Can the machine, the robot, become human, human-analogous or even the new human?“

I think, those, who think in such a way, are subject to some basic errors due to many false assumptions as a result of unquestioned thinking presuppositions, which do not occur in their horizon of thinking.

Presuppositions whose influence on the possibility of thinking of consciousness will not lie in each scientist’s own consciousness, yes, will not even be found in the axiomatics of these sciences in question.

Why the machine cannot be human. But maybe it can even be a little bit human in the future?

Can we think the event human as machine?

Why the machine will not be able to become human.

Why the machine, the robot, the cyborg will probably never be able to become a human being.

Can man become a machine? Can a machine live?

What does living mean ?

What does thinking mean ?

What does it mean to know ?

What does archive mean ?

What is recollection (memory) ?

What does history mean ?

What does text as con-text mean ?

What does biography/bio-Graphy mean ?

What does it mean, – to be/become an event ?

A non-calculative!?!

A historical being!

A being (!) in being present and absent!

Reflections, interventions and informations in the form of a BlogPosting in my/our blog composition, our philosophy blog on Grammatological Philosophical Practice Vienna on the occasion of a philosophical practice in seven parts.

I like to refer here often to our posting in German from February 11, 2018 https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2018/02/maschine-mensch-roboter-dekonstruktion.html

Derrida denies that the power of history is exhausted in always triggering only transformations of a structure that is identically preserved in depth (spatial metaphor!). On the contrary, the matter is to be thought of in such a way that structures also decompose in their entire depth (! space metaphor!).

Thus, changes are more than just transformations of an „always the same“ (Nietzsche).

Also, the meaning of a structural principle does not escape „the law of determination by opposition“ (Saussure) and can be constituted „thus only in the reference game of the s i g n i f i a n t s of a structure“ (Saussure). So we are all „entangled“ in structures (Derrida) and have no chance of ever getting behind our being entangled in structures. Since structures can only be thought without centres, there can be no text centres and no central interpretation. Without a central sense there is no finding of something (a finding presupposes the presence of the thing to be found!), – it can only be an in-vention of something.

The trace (the being related to each other of different elements), – the trace is neither visible nor invisible. The estate, – the estate 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 real trace.“ (J. Derrida, Randgänge p. 86 and J. D., Schrift und Differenz, p. 308f., 326 and J. D., Grammatologie, p. 83, 108f., 114)

The mirror(s) can be extended at will. One premise(!), one more mirror surface and there is another additional interfering infinite game of signifiers. Every discourse, – every discourse becomes a Dis-Par-course.

All the scientific discourses of this world call themselves at least (only) scientific and not more knowledge. A scientific discourse knows (at least according to the signifier) that it cannot be a discourse of the knowledge.

The „inscription“ is not „forever“, every inscription is finally like the subject himself, whose „archive“ can be destroyed like any archive. Also every media archive.

All our tele-technologies (from TV to drone and beyond) cause a deconstruction, in real practice, of traditional concepts and notions of state, citizen, national, foreigner, tourist, native, naturalized, etc., in so far as they are bound to a concrete territory.

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

Whenever one opens an archive, remembers certain events, one brings up the drama, this event, and brings it back to memory.

One makes „it“ conscious !

But awareness is by no means the only thing that matters ! If one speaks of the Holocaust or the Shoah, one is (whether one wants to or not!) paving the way to the individual as well as the so-called national unconscious!

Through the work of raising awareness, things happen which we cannot plan or control. Affections !

Postmodernism, so my thesis, has something to do with Freud, – with the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud!

I mean the raising of the crisis. An epochal crisis of the „Enlightenment“ of the WRITTEN/Scriptures.

On the question and the word „deconstruction,“ see Jacques Derrida’s „Reflections“ in a 1985 „Letter to a Japanese Friend,“ translated into German and reprinted in: J. Derrida, Psyche. Inventions of the Other II. Vienna 2013 (Passagen Vlg., germ. ed.), pp. 15 – 22.

„The word „deconstruction,“ like any other, derives its value of meaning only from an inscription in a chain of possible substitutions, in what is so calmly called a „context.““ (ibid., p. 21)

„In any case, despite all appearances, deconstruction is neither an analysis nor a critique … It is not an analysis in particular because the decomposition (décomposition) of a structure is not a regression to the simple element, to an origin that cannot be further decomposed. These values, like that of analysis, are themselves philosophies subject to deconstruction.“ ( p. 19)

„Deconstruction has place, it is an event (événement) that does not wait for the reflection, the consciousness or the organization of the subject, not even (for the consciousness of the subject) of the modernism/modernity. It deconstructs itself.“ (p. 20, german ed.)

Paul Virilio, Die Sehmaschine. Berlin 1989 (Merve). This excerpt serves me for further of my preliminaries on the subject and as a statement of my incipient deconstruction of the machine and the increasingly space-grasping notions of possible subjecthoods.

p. 136f.: “ At a time when the automation of perception, the invention of artificial vision, the delegation of the analysis of objective reality to a machine is imminent, one should turn again to the nature of the virtual image, an image world without a visible support, whose persistence is based only on a mental or instrumental visual memory/recollection.

Today, when one speaks of the development of audiovisual media, one cannot do so without at the same time asking about the development of that virtual world of images and its influence on behaviors and, moreover, without pointing to that new industrialization of seeing, to the emergence of a veritable market of synthetic perception.

This gives rise to ethical questions, not only about control and surveillance and the paranoia associated with them, but above all to the philosophical question of the doubling of the point of view, of the division of the perception of the environment into the animate, the living subject, and the inanimate, the object, the seeing machine.

These questions, in turn, lead to the question of „artificial intelligence,“ for there will no longer be any new super-software for solving problems of detail, any fifth-generation computer, that will not be able to grasp and perceive the environment.

These instrumentally generated virtual images, no longer accessible to direct or indirect observation, these synthetic images produced by the machine for the machine, will become for us an equivalent of what are now already the mental images of an alien interlocutor… an enigma.

When there is no longer any graphic or videographic expression, an automatic perceptual device will function like a kind of machine fantasy from which we will then be completely excluded.“

Some preliminary, perhaps common, but in any case contradictory reflections on the subject: „Can the machine, the robot, become human, human-analogous, or even the new human?“

Will robots remain working tools or will they become subjects? Knowing subject, with everything that belongs to it? Thinking ability (What does thinking mean?!) or merely combination ability? Through experience permanently rewriting memory/recollection (Freud) with creative memory work or list archive? Queryology?!

And:

Whose property? The property question! The means of production question! Private or state! Who should benefit from the products produced by robot work and above all from the profits? The society as a community, as a world community ultimately and with priority or the individual, in any case privately organized owners of means of production or owners?

And:

The problem of the future, I even think, the main problem of the long future, – unemployment, free time, a life without work, a good, secure and interesting life without work with intelligent and no one negatively affecting activities!

What to do? Who or what are we (then)?

Questions for philosophical practice! A life with philosophical practice for all!?

I think this will be or become one of the definitive(!) necessities for a fulfilling life.

Things to know and to be known in advance

The European Robotics Research Network (EURON) includes around 200 robotics research centers in universities and companies in Europe.

The declared goal of this network is to promote research, education and trade around robotics within Europe.

As a central contact point and especially as a link bridge to the European Commission, this network EURON has an important international function within the European community.

Proposals for roadmaps and research projects for topics in robotics come from this network.

Depending on how the capabilities of robots are seen, different evaluations of robots in the ethical dimension arise.

According to a Roboethics Roadmap (2006), the following evaluation and order emerges:

I will bundle four ways of looking at or imagining.

On the last formation of a future conception of robotics or of robots with consciousness as a new species I would like to direct above all my focus and my attention.

I think, those, who think in such a way, are subject to some basic errors due to many false assumptions as a result of unquestioned and not in their horizon of thinking lying thinking presuppositions. Presuppositions, whose influence on the possibility of thinking of consciousness will not lie in the respective own scientist consciousness, yes, will not even be found in the axiomatics of these sciences in question.

a) Robots are nothing but machines.

In this case Roboethics is comparable to the ethics of any other mechanical science.

b) Robots have an ethical dimension.

The assumption here is that robots have an intrinsic ethical dimension because, as products of humans, they can extend and enhance humans‘ ability to act ethically.

c) Robots are moral agents.

Artificial agents can now act as objects of moral action or as moral agents (themselves). In the opinion of most roboethicists, they do not necessarily have to have so-called „free will“ (note: questionable ancient philosopheme! G. K. ) to be considered acting ethically. Here the focus is put on the action itself(!), and not on the decision to act.

d) Robots are a new species.

According to this view robots will not only have consciousness(!, sic, G. K.), but in morality and intelligence(! Sic, which form of intelligence!, G. K.) they will exceed the human dimensions.

Many concepts and attempts of conceptualization from the thinking of metaphysics. Many misconceptions and groundlessnesses (! sic! ground and abyss! Cf. below in the text to it!).

We will try to go into it and to call up, disseminate and deconstruct these terms in the course of this epilogue of my philosophical practice as call.

I consider the above formulation as originating from the foundations and laws of the capitalist market and thus as a „wish machine“ (Deleuze) of property. The technical, artistic or literary imagination always already designs absurd machines. On the one hand by wish-driven overestimation of physical possibilities or by logical impossibilities.

It is no longer about a confrontation of man and machine insofar as one tries to facilitate the life of man by all kinds of extensions, prosthetizations or replacements, no, it is rather about the fact that one connects man with the machine and vice versa, in order to create, to program from it, as it is said above, a new species, – in order to see(!) that from now on it will be or should be about a unity: man as machine or even better(!), the machine as man, as new(!) man! According to this, from then on there shall be human machines and humans!

This wishful thinking regards the man and the machine as a kind of purely evolutionary development in steps without taking all the necessary social conditions into the sight(!).

If we consider the productive forces isolated from the social conditions, there is no possibility for us to observe, to describe or even to regulate these wishful machines in connection with all the realities like violence, oppression, enslavement, scarcity of resources and many other relevant connections together in the course of the setting operations.

The societies of humans, animals, plants are simply left out. One corporation is secretly working on military robots, another on high-tech medical machines with nanotechnology, etc., etc. …

I would like to note here, „freedom“ looks different!

I rarely use the word freedom, because freedom as such cannot exist and never will have existed.

There has always been freedom from and dependence on. Even today we are in a certain way in a game of freedom in connection with and within the respective political machine (cf. my BlogPost in German on the DDR – Rechtsstaat oder Unrechtsstaat).

The word freedom (cf. my/our post on „Freedom and Crisis. Crisis of Freedom) contains numerous metaphysical deposits and sedimentations.

Metaphysical presuppositions, too, which ascribe and attribute a sovereign independence to consciousness with free will, to the subject, more precisely to the egological subject (Husserl), i.e. a subject as thinking I, being as thinking I, one without drives/instincts, without economy and without machine.

This kind of man or this kind of thinking of man would already come very close to a machine.

A man without body, without history, without biography in connection with history and time and above all a man without relation to economies of most diverse provenances.

A thinking without consciousness of self!

A thinking without being present with absences! Without present absent (compare my Blogspot-Teaser and my Blogspot-Blog-Footer 2014 ff. to it!).

We want to remain vigilant against scientistic positivism, although I have great respect for the specialists, – except when they (mostly) in the absence of a philosophical culture try to interfere with it (especially with ethics and philosophy).

In other words, it is always difficult, – I don’t like it if one can’t listen and always leads the big word without preconditions of an adequate reading/lecture.

The scientists damage the reputation of the sciences and do not do a good service to thinking.

The interest in machine-like things and even machines themselves (but what does everything mean here already „machine“) I know quite well at myself (from the bicycle over the society mechanisms up to the space capsule and beyond), however I am not ready to put a pure simple thinking (can one call this „thinking“?) , which links mechanical formations with human states or connects them mentally under-complex or tries to put them into one, that I share such a talking shop in any way or would find interesting.

These models of thinking of „intelligence“ (what is that please?) and complexity do not reach by far to what there is to think about – at the subject complex man/machine, machine_human.

Let’s try a definition of machine.

Freud provides me with some additions in the process! Derrida writes about this in „Freud and the Scene of Writing“. Freud speaks of an economy, of reality, desire, repetition and the compulsion to repeat ( please also see my Youtube videos on „Language and the Unconscious“ ! ).

Freud speaks of unconscious calculation, that is, of an economy of repetition.

As soon as one speaks of calculability and repetition and this is present in something, we are talking about a machine and the reality of a machine!

The calculability of something inevitably includes an incalculable (cf. my two postings on Gezi Park and the incalculability of the Principle/Theorem of Reason).

The incalculable belongs to a different order than the calculable.

All unpredictable/unforeseeable events (keep looking at the metaphor of seeing, the seeing machine!) are represented by the Other! The Other is the unpredictable/the unforeseeable! By definition, the figure and configuration of the incalculable! (cf. my/our teaser on this!)

That which goes or would go beyond the machine is, in its core or essence, an event that is not programmable or an event that does not necessarily have to remain programmable.

A human-machine or a machine-human, – what is that?

What is this event and if so, how to do it count! With a free will!!! With Freud’s economy of unconscious calculation!!! An event with the calculation of the other?! Of repetition! The desire! The compulsion of repetition! A complexity of pleasure!? A complexity without lust?! A robot!

A machine with or without surplus!?

Is there such a machine? Is a machine without surplus imaginable?

Can life come to a standstill? Absolute standstill? That is, death.

Can a machine be?

And what would a human machine be? Man and machine or man as machine?!

We have, I have defined the machine as the dispositive (the dis-positive, not the positive!!!) of calculation and repetition/reiteration.

If something goes beyond that into the incalculable, into the non-programmed and non-programmable, then it should be able to be called the event of life.

Non-programmable is the other order of something that is not foreseeable(!).

It is!,- but not visible, not recognisable, it is absent, still absent, perhaps absent remaining and present at the same time, present absent as a trace.

Not a trace of the visible! A trace of absent present singular remaining difference of elements related to each other.

A trace is neither visible nor invisible. The enactment 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 essential trace.“ (J. Derrida: Randgänge, p. 86, germ. ed.).

The ‚trace‘, – the being related to each other of differentiated elements!!!

A chain of differencing substitutions. Différance (!) The non-full, the non-simple origin of differences.

Freud’s neurological model of the functioning of the psychic apparatus (!) speaks of the origin of the recollection between the trajectories.

The trace as thought of recollection is not a pure trajectory. It is the intangible and invisible (!) difference between the trajectories and there is no pure trajectory without differences. Life protects itself with the help of reiteration, the trace and! … and the deferral/the procrastination (différance).

After all these somewhat more difficult passages on the definition or imagination of man and machine, Freud’s evocations reveal talk of an apparatus, a psychic apparatus with recollection,- something like a machine after all!!!???

Not so quickly and not necessarily.

The human being and his recollection, the human being and his unconscious, the human being and his trajectories of desire and reality, the influences of which permanently influence recollection and thus life, thus change it, permanently change it every second and even less. Shifting and deferring.

Memory and its recollection and language and thinking about oneself and the self. The unconscious!

Let us not forget psychoanalysis when we speak of or even think of the human being!

Let us not forget the unconscious! Language and the unconscious (Please read Alenka Zupancic: Why Psychoanalysis? Berlin 2009, esp. „Intervention II: Freedom and Cause“, pp. 31-55, german ed.).

So let us not forget: what we would have to think here would be the event with the machine!

As an unpredictable/unforeseeable event, no seeing can recognise the arrival of a coming.

No apparatus, no seeing machine, no organ, no brain, no mind can challenge the Other. The Other is always the uncalculable.The other, that which first arrives at us, the incalculable, the unpredictable, that is what underlies the proposition/the principle of the reason with its difficulties and to which this principle of the reason is subject, yes, this knowledge belongs to the responsibility of those who speak of the robot machine, dream of it, imagine it as a desirable machine and, insofar as it is and will continue to be an event, will also have to answer for it.

Also the talk, the extremely (also for me) fascinating chatter and talk about robots, robotics, roboethics, philosophy, science, ethics, scientism, consciousness, artificial intelligence, new species, responsibility, queryology and all the other more or less carelessly used metaphysical terms, – let us never stop thinking about being human, reflecting on it and exchanging ideas in thinking up to the unpredictable/unforeseeable limits of the machine.

And!!! Let us not and never forget psychoanalysis!!!

Once again, as a basic prerequisite and foundation for any serious thinking about the subject and its „humanum„(!): Alenka Zupančič: Warum Psychoanalyse? Drei Interventionen, Berlin 2009, german edition, Verlag diaphanes, Zürich-Berlin, 76 Seiten, – original in English, Why Psychoanalysis? Three Interventions 2008 (more cf. https://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/answers-by-alenka-zupancic/ ).

To be able at some point to bring into the consciousness of the scientists the train of thought that there is an unconscious and that this knowledge of it irritates the philosophy of consciousness, the philosophy of the subject, the philosophy of responsibility and thus tends towards a philosophy of the decentered subject with the intention of creating a consciousness of responsibility with very special caution, Scepticism and careful attention to all the fragility of being human, will never remain for me without hope for improvement, – a hope for science with the most all-embracing prudence, transparency, responsibility and participation in the political and social discourse of our time.

The uniqueness of the human being and of every human being cannot be reduced to machine-like calculation. The Singular is the secret of the human being, of every human being!

The secret clings to such a „transcending“ of something. The secret could be that which seems impossible, even the impossible altogether, – becoming the political, as the experience of an impossible. The impossible is the singular! (cf. Derrida, Politics of Friendship, p. 55 and The Unconditional University, p. 73, germ. ed.)

The political grows out of the experience of the singular because of the secret that is a prerequisite for the experience of the singular, or better still, that adheres to it, remaining as the presence of absence. This is the coming democracy, the democracy that is always just arriving.

„And the secret is not something that I conceal within myself; it is not me.

The secret is not the secret of the idea that one locks up in one’s own head and decides not to tell anyone; it is rather a secret that coexists with the experience of the singular.

The secret cannot be reduced to the public sphere – yet I do not call it private – nor can it be reduced to the public or the political, at the same time this secret underlies that from which the public sphere and the sphere of the political are capable of being, and of being open.“

(( Jacques Derrida: ibid, Remarks on Deconstruction and Pragmatism, – in: Ch. Mouffe (ed.): Deconstruction and Pragmatism. Democracy, Truth and Reason. Vienna 1999 (Passagen Verlag), p. 178f., germ. ed. ))

René Descartes (1595-1650) attributed self-consciousness to humans and declared animals to be machines. René Descartes considered animals – in contrast to humans – to be reductively explainable automata (De homine ,1622). Read my post on animal philosophy on this.

The machine paradigm appears in the history of the early modern era. The thinking and construction of mechanics and the enthusiasm generated by new inventions and the discovery of new physical laws gave rise to talk of the body without a soul and, as a countermovement, of the soul without a body.

While Descartes excluded man from the machine paradigm, La Mettrie also thought of man as composed like or as a machine.

„Descartes and all the Cartesians, – among whom one counts the Malebranchists, – have made the same mistake. They have assumed two precisely distinguishable substances in man, as if they had seen such and counted them correctly.“ (La Mettrie: Man a Machine. Leiden 1747, p. 17, germ. ed.)

Note also here the index words of the argument: see and count! „Seen“ and „counted“ !

The concept is determined by the growing heuristic significance of descriptive-empirical thinking, which was only really set in motion(!) by mechanics.

As a result of the thesis of a world machine, not only the objects of classical mechanics, such as planetary orbits or inanimate bodies, but also biological organisms including psychological phenomena(!) and including the functioning of society are understood in terms of this concept.

All these areas are in fact thought of as machines!

Metaphysics began to lose influence. Everything began to be subordinated to empiricism and thus to technology.

Only the thinking of the quantum theorists made the thinking of an empiricism (with in each case what presuppositions and conceivable and inconceivable(?!) consequences!?) without self-reflection a perceivable dangerous enterprise (just think of the responsible(!!!) and so terribly misguided nuclear physicists, military leaders and politicians).

„The mind’s thinking invents and makes. Its precepts can be carried out and multiply making by endless repetition. A world constitution is created in which a few minds construct the machines, create, as it were, a second world, in which the masses then serve as the function of execution.

The other thinking, the thinking of reason, does not make possible execution according to instructions in masses, but requires everyone to think as himself, to think originally.“ (Karl Jaspers: The Atomic Bomb and the Future of Man. Munich 1982)

„In view of (1) fascism and Stalinism, the (2) destruction of the environment hitherto also associated with the progress of natural and social technology, as well as the (3) elimination of the critical subject and history carried out in the methodological approach of many sciences and theories of science, it seems a mockery to call the present in relation to the past par excellence progress or even the age of enlightenment.“

(Thomas S. Kuhn, author of: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as the theorist and philosopher of science of the „paradigm shift“ as the basis of any scientific revolution, here operated as a historian of philosophy with an attempt at a critical insight into the relations of science and society).

The urban theorist and sociologist Lewis Mumford describes in his major work „Myth of the Machine. Culture, Technology and Power.“ (1967 Engl. edition, Germ. V. 1974) the emergence and history of Western civilisation as a technocratic culture organised as a global mega-machine.

The thinking of the machine and the thinking of man (or „only“ animals!) as a machine and the thinking of society as a machine already takes a centuries-long path. The way a society of humans deals with animals shows a way of dealing with them as if they were machines to be crammed into garages.

Without empathy. Cruel.

And, we want to remind you of this once again and take it as a warning to us and all of our behaviour towards each other, not that it is not already more than bad enough what we do to the animals, no, let us think with Hans Wollschläger about the animals and the people and the „Potential Mengele“! „Animals look at you“, (in German Original: „TIERE SEHEN DICH AN“ oder Das Potential Mengele. 1987) is the title of his writing and means the mass killings, the slaughters and the keeping of animals in general, the togetherness! The non-togetherness!

The war of the species! (Cf. my/our posting on animal philosophy here in my/our blog).

Devastating(!).

And the Holocaust.

Let us never forget that with all the reasons and justifications that led to it.

Well, the limit of the human being in relation to the animal and in relation to the machine. What is the limit to the robot, the new species proclaimed by some scientists, empiricists, technicians.

Jacques Derrida’s „grammatology“ cannot be a science of man „because from the very beginning it poses the question, fundamental to it, of the name of man“ (J. D.: Grammatology, 1974, p. 148, germ. ed.).

Compare also my teaser to the blogspot-Blog 2014 ff. on this!

Grammatology poses this question by placing man as a unit under suspicion and bringing the concept(!) of différance into play.

Grammatology poses this question by placing man as a unity under suspicion and bringing into play(!) the concept (which cannot be a concept in the conventional sense!, – cf. my post on deconstruction „What is deconstruction“ as well as my teaser and blog footer on it) of différance.

And this d i f f é r a n c e is nothing less than the history and explanation of life.

And since grammatology thinks graphy (cf. my dissertation „Grammato t e c h n e als G r a m m a t o logie der ‚Herzgewächse` oder von der Inkommunikabilität, Salzburg 1986) and since it thereby thinks the name of man, it is compelled to refer the elaboration of the concept of „différance“ to the palaeoanthropology of Leroi-Gourhan.

And this means reading the unity of the human being as a stage or articulation in the history of life as the history of the „gramma“ and thus of the concept of the programme (cf. m. Posts on „Postanthropocene“ and on „Religion and Society“ in 3 parts from April 2017 or the English version „The Religious Deconstruction Religion and Society“ from January 2021, link: https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-religious-deconstruction-religion.html

as well as teaser and footer Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.).

„Undoubtedly, this term is to be understood entirely in the sense of cybernetics, which can only be understood through a history of the possibilities of the trace as the unity of a double movement of protention and retention.

This movement far exceeds the possibilities of >intentional consciousness<, which is itself an emergence that makes the gramma emerge as such (that is, corresponding to a new structure of non-presence) and undoubtedly makes the emergence of writing systems in the narrower sense possible in the first place.“ (J. Derrida: Grammatology 1974, p. 149, germ. ed.)

This means that intentional consciousness and its origins as possibilities predate the emergence of man. The différance is based on the concept of the ProGram as the history of life, i.e. as the general history of the gramma, and because this is older than human graphy in particular, the différance denies the opposition animal/human and the opposition nature/culture.

The history of the gramma is at the same time the history of electronic data processing, reading machines, seeing machines, sensor technology, robotics, and others.

The gramma structures all levels of life as well as the continuation of life by other means: „from gene writing … to the overcoming of alphabetic writing assigned to logos and assigned to a particular homo sapiens“ (J. D. p.149ff.).

And starting from processes of „liberation of recollection/memory“ , which Leroi-Gourhan describes (cf. Bernard Stiegler: Technik und Zeit. Zürich-Berlin 2009, p. 184, germ. ed.) and thus „an exteriorisation of the trace, which has always begun and is constantly increasing, which expands the différance and the possibilities of storage from the elementary programmes of so-called >instinctive< behaviour to the production of electronic data processing and reading machines“. (J. D., p. 149ff.)

The history of man is the history of gramma (including electronic data processing), a history of technology. The invention of man is technology. The inventing as well as the invented technology.

The traditional thinking of technology from Plato to today has thus been shut down.

The “ consciousness “ is to be considered as a stage of différance! It is the transition from the genetic to the non-genetic. (André Leroi-Gourhan: Hand and Word. Frf. 1988, p. 275 u. 285, german edition)

The cultural codes, like the genetic codes, are „behavioural >programmes<; like them, they give form, order and direction to life.“ (Paul Ricœur: Time and Narrative. Vol.1, Munich 1988, p. 96, german ed.)

How to think: such a detachment! Such a transition from one interval to another with a complete reorganisation of the code system!

The unthinkable question!!!

„… the unthinkable question of an absolute past, of an incomprehensible present that can only be an infinite abyss“, a collapse, says Ricœur.

The first man who has been dead >>or rather thought to be dead<< is that of the first present, the first transient ecstasy of the past, the present and the future: a past that has never been present gives a present that is not connected to any past present.

We will find this abysmal question as a paradox of exteriorisation in Leroi-Gourhan. (B. Stiegler: Technology and Time, p. 186, germ. ed.)

Time has existed since life existed.

„… the trace is the différance that opens appearance and meaning as the articulation of the living in the non-living par excellence, as the origin of all reiteration/repetition“. (J. Derrida: Grammatology. p. 114)

It is about the question of the temporality of life. It is about the past, which I have not experienced and yet which is my past and through which I receive something transmitted. A kind of inheritance structure. I inherit a fate, so to speak.

For example, the fate of storing an organ defect in my gene script.

The origin always remains obscured to me. But it is transmitted to me. In the history of the living, the phenomena of life singularise in me as my existence.

Not necessarily a deterministic programme of the biological, but rather a programme that is influenced or can be influenced from outside and afterwards, a kind of tradition, a traditioning of so-called epigeneses, a storage of what has happened and what the past has given me.

History. Recollection. Memory. Consciousness. Unconscious. Dreams. Reworking potentials. Filters for my present. Also influenceable, conceivably influenceable by me and my life’s progress (partly fatefully unpredictable/uncalculable).

By no means everything is articulated or articulable.

Epiphylogenesis transmits its identity to the human individual. The physical structure, the gait/way of walking, the tone of voice, the dialect, the gestures in part.

In any case, we hold on to Leroi-Gourhan’s statement, man invents himself in technology by inventing the tool.

The tool is invented and thus, more or less simultaneously, man invents himself and man invents the tool, always back and forth.

I have often spoken in my blog about „adapting the body to its use“!

We do this constantly in our human history. Think of the use of weapons invented to preserve life and power. Or sport. We adapt the body – to use!

Medicine and its manufactured machine parts (e.g. a knee joint, a new heart, the whole implantation complex, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.) help us to live and survive. All these machines are for health, we say. The preservation of the species, perhaps. So we think. Species destruction, perhaps.

And most certainly, our life process today is causing the species extinction of other organisms many times over.

Robots with consciousness! A new species. That is what was said at the beginning of these lines. This species as a new break in the movement of life, a gramma. Androids!

Androids as a further evolution of the living, the half-living? How do we want to name and question this. Androids are human-like without being human. What would that mean? Without human fragility, without human sensitivity, without dreams, without the unconscious, without the past and thus without the present and the presentness.

Wouldn’t the android be a merely(!?) very well programmed calculator. A knower!? Consciousness knows past, present and future. Time.

Consciousness lives from the unconscious and vice versa. Language lists including any situation-calculated combination ability for linguistic interactions are still far from speaking and thinking towards the concrete you, starting from an I with feeling and creative mind potential including awareness of the past, – also a past that will always have arisen in the second after each second of partially realised present and presence including absence effects.

Our overtaxable and often, actually always overtaxed sensory perceptualism with exclusion filter functions for the protection of the brain and its survivability together with the associated sleep phases for reworking the recollection content and the memory household.

Human interaction and communication is very very complex and fascinating. Mechanical engineering and specifically robotics, robotics, information technology, kinetics, etc. are too.

But honestly! Are we still in the 16th, 17th, 18th century of Descartes or LaMettrie with this thinking, – animals, humans even, are machines!!!?

Are we still living techno-philosophically in the thinking of the machine paradigm!!!? (La Mettrie: Man a Machine. Leiden 1747, p. 17, germ. ed.)

Let us not forget psychoanalysis, and by no means psychoanalysis!

Let us not forget the Other!

Let us not forget the unforeseeable, the incalculable, the coming!

The always-arriving future in the present!

Let us not forget psychoanalysis.

„The forgetting of psychoanalysis does not necessarily take place outside psychoanalysis or its institutional space. It can happen right in the heart of psychoanalysis.

So when I say, >> Will we / would we like to forget psychoanalysis?<<, this we is not without including some psychoanalysts.“ (Jacques Derrida: Let us not forget – psychoanalysis! (Suhrkamp), Frankfurt 1998, p. 7, germ. ed.)

And now, towards the forerunning/preliminary end, letting the cyborg logicians have their say.

The typewriter as an invention for the blind to make mechanical writing accessible to them. A prosthesis that greatly changed communication. Everyone eventually had to learn how to use this writing prosthesis without looking at the keyboard. So to speak, an experience of blindness was useful in order to be able to use the accelerating prosthesis.

Every invention challenges our bodies. We adapt them to use.

With the help of a technological supplement, our living organs are changed, very often reinforced or improved. A prosthesis for long distance hearing is the telephone. Television is a prosthesis of the eye and the ears. Likewise, the radio, the bicycle, the automobile, the habitation and many other inventions as interventions of our lives.

La Mettrie’s man-machine (or Descartes‘ animal-machine) are based on the idea of a biological body, which is a complex but mechanical system of corresponding interactions for actions of all kinds.

Albertus Magnus‘ Automaton dreams up a mechanistic model as an equivalent substitute for a human agent, the so-called robot. The 17th and 18th centuries declared man to be a machine, the 19th and 20th centuries speculated and experimented with machines that would know how to behave like humans.

The 21st century talks about a new species with consciousness and free(!) will including decision-making abilities and speaks of culpability, judgement and roboethics.

This creates the image of a threatening living machine. A machine that desires consciousness (cf. Fritz Lang’s Metropolis ) anticipates the cyborg portrayed by Schwarzenegger in Terminator.

The robot as a place of negotiation between the human body and the machine. On the one hand, as a prosthesis for a body part to enhance an ability, and on the other hand, the machine as an organism that uses workers in industry as organs for the production of something.

The cyborg is the prosthetic embodiment taken to the extreme. It is no longer a mechanical system whose organs would have to correspond with each other, but a communicating biological-technological open system, a quasi-living being that is connected to hypertextual networks, acts partly sensorially-visually (Virilio’s vision machine!) and results in a kind of independently(!?) thinking (!?) prosthesis.

A new species(!??!), – as some engineers, cyberneticists and information and communication scientists postulate with great passion (cf. on this the historian of science, women’s researcher and feminist Donna Haraway: The Reinvention of Nature. Primates, Cyborgs and Women. Frankfurt am Main 1995).

The Cyborg as Writing Format. A hypertext-controlled machine with a biotechnologically manufactured body and, within certain (in my opinion narrow) limits of what can be said(!), a communicative buddy of a possible future that is perhaps just arriving.

But beware!

Cybernetic technologies are not neutral or particularly human-friendly.

In truth, they are always about the preservation or expansion of socio-economic structures, almost always about economic imperialism.

In Donna Haraway’s words, cybertechnologies are the result of power structures, but at the same time represent sites of resistance, invention and intervention, a space of reinvention of nature, perhaps also of politics and society as a world community.

Or, with many other critical voices (Josef Weizenbaum, Erwin Chargaff, Peter Singer, Jeremy Rifkin, Barbara Duden, Hartmut Böhme, Renate Genth, Claudia v. Werlhof, Günther Anders, Gerburg Treusch-Dieter, and others) formulated as a warning:

In the interaction of genetic engineering and biosciences, the information sciences and robotics as cybertechnologies, a human-machine monster has just emerged and is emerging, a transformation configuration that attempts to transform the living into the machine or machine-compatible in order to get it under control and power of disposal as „one’s own creation“ – a power over life and death, a power over the consciousness and unconscious of the individual and society.

Robot people, cyborg human machines?! A new species!?! The Supermankind!!! ( see my essay Nietzsche’s Shadow Walker from „The Green F Abyss“ No. 5/6, 1989/90, p.11-17, in german only ).

Are we in a rupture phase as described above the transition from inanimate to animate? Are we just in such a „fold/inflection/pli„, in such an interval of just-not-yet-quite-but-yet-almost-quite?!

Are we again facing an inscription of the animate into the inanimate, of the animate into the inanimate and vice versa?! The new (and perhaps sole !) species of the post-anthropocene!?

Is it conceivable/thinkable!? The order of plants, animals, humans, machine humans!!!

Reversing the order of questions, no longer considering the name crypt to be a metaphor in the common sense, this will perhaps mean moving from psychoanalysis and in it from a new cryptology to an anasemic radical semantic change that psychoanalysis has introduced into language (Nicolas Abraham/Maria Torok: „L’écorce et le noyau“. Paris 1978.).

A new ethics in the history of consciousness?! What ethics? What ethos? What responsibility?

We need laws to make the cyborg at home in a human world, to let it live under human rights conditions and to prevent it from living among us under „inhuman“(!) conditions with all conceivable and unthinkable (cf. science fiction on this) crime situations/misbehaviour in its luggage.

So robot ethics after all?

Everyone talks about ethics. Do robots as cyborgs also have „pleasure“/desire/lust? Pain bodies and pleasure bodies!

Principle of reality! Human rights!? Human duties!? Responsible practice and practices!

In antiquity, it was above all Epicurus who strictly separated human action from divine principles and created a purely materialistic system of ethics. On the basis that the pleasure(!) of the individual was both the origin (!, cf. Freud!) and the path and goal of everything worthwhile, he came to the conclusion that ultimately all actions, even ethical ones, were committed for the sake of personal advantage.

However, the pursuit of pleasure in ethics does not necessarily lead to antisocial behaviour, for it is „not possible to live pleasurably without living rationally, beautifully and justly“ ( Epicurus: Von der Überwindung der Furcht, ed. by O. Gigon, Zurich 1983, S.59, germ. ed. ).

However, since in practice one cannot be sure that this wisdom will reach every individual, according to Epicurus, it is advisable to always conclude contracts in public life. The basis of such contracts is the ethical maxim „neither to harm one another nor to allow oneself to be harmed“ (Epicurus, ibid., p. 64).

There must therefore also be access to reality for cyborgs. Consciousness is not free-floating and independent of reality and perceptual abilities.

According to Freud, the principle of reality is „one of the two principles that dominate psychic processes. It forms a pair with the principle of pleasure, which it modifies. To the extent that it succeeds in asserting itself as a regulatory principle, the search for satisfaction no longer proceeds along the shortest paths, but takes detours and postpones its outcome because of conditions imposed by the external world.

… from the dynamic point of view, psychoanalysis tries to base the intervention of the principle of reality on a certain kind of drive energy that is specifically at the service of the ego (see: ego drives (or instincts)).“ (J. Laplanche, J.-B. Pontalis: The Vocabulary of Psychoanalysis. Frankfurt am Main (Suhrkamp Tb) 1982, Second Volume, p. 427, germ. ed.).

Species, consciousness and ethics, human rights, contracts, man and society, desire and reality, – also and especially from a legal point of view no easy-to-handle terms and comprehensibilities in association with a proclaimed new species.

And towards the provisional end as guilt and gift: responsibility!

Deconstruction has an ethical component, perhaps even a purposefulness (without wanting or being able to be method or critique), a purposefulness towards responsibility for the other!

Deconstruction could be a certain destabilisation in things, in the conditions of something. Every progress needs destabilisation of existing solidifications, first in real existing relations of power forces, accompanied by a destabilisation in the hitherto used supposedly firmly defined concepts, and again accompanied by a shift in the concepts, relations through inscriptions and thus accompanying rewritings of political evaluations and, as a consequence, transformations of real power relations, structures and power differences.

Deconstruction maintains a relationship to the Other. In the relationship to the Other, responsibility arises and the attempt as a temptation of justice.

Lévinas defines the encounter with the other person (face à face) from face to face as the moment in which responsibility can arise under the presupposition that the other is always allowed to be different and wants to be recognised as such an other. In other words, also recognised in its otherness!

The encounter with the Other makes me responsible! Responsible for the singularity of the Other. For the unpredictability of the Other in otherness.

This is what I try to do in my responsible philosophical practice of thinking and acting. I try to take the other as the other is and I try to recognise, to see(!) what the other is or what it can say to me (could say to my otherness).

The deconstructive state of thinking makes me different and an Other. Maybe I encounter the Other more „really“, maybe that means more honestly, maybe more ethically(!). I am trying.

This respective Other could also be a cyborg! ?

Perhaps every human being has a piece of cyborgism in/on him/herself as the other.

What would that be? Perhaps a piece of relative irresponsibility? Threateningness? Fearfulness? Situational and contextual strangeness? For the time being! Or at all?!

Depending on the displacement activity as deconstruction of inscription.

Deconstructions are the movements of what Derrida calls the „de-appropriation“.

But one is mistaken if one thinks one has appropriated something like deconstruction in the singular.

One would have appropriated something like the deconstructions (in the plural) when a system, an individual, an institution is changed or not by what it thinks it appropriates or has appropriated. Inscriptions change and are changed.

This is perhaps also the aversion to deconstruction of so many who (entered or) step into the picture as opponents of deconstruction. Deconstruction is not a seeing machine!

Notice!

The transformation of „consciousness“ is too little!

Guilt and gift ?! Responsibility!

Deconstruction enables the relationship to the Other and the relationship to the Other enables (perhaps) deconstruction. Différance as a game of freedom and liberation.

Becoming time of space and becoming space of time and being different, being recognisable, not being identical! Only the one who is not the same as all the others is recognisable as one, as aAnother!

Otherness of the dissimilar logically requires that between the distinguishable units or elements, interval, distance, spatialisation arise in persistent repetition (Derrida, Randgänge, p. 33, germ. ed.). Other, Other, aOther, …

Time has had existence ever since life has existed.

But Derrida also writes in Grammatology on page 114 (germ.ed.) that „the trace is the différance that opens appearance and meaning as the articulation of the living in the non-living par excellence, as the origin of all reiteration/repetition“. Absolute past, incomprehensible present and an infinite abyss.

A past that has never been present generates a present that is not connected to any past present.

The concept of différance (which can never be entirely a concept, not a concept of all or nothing) and the rupture in différance is an attempt and a temptation to ‚grasp‘ this transition.

The meaning of death lies within and outside the economy of life in general. Life, after the rupture, is the economy of death. Logically. Life is thus inscription into death! Inscription into the non-living. The most exciting question here. The brain.

Everything that happens in the human body is just as mechanical as what happens in a clock, Leibniz wrote. Today, a somewhat less naïve comparison is used, that with the cybernetic calculating machine. The comparison of the brain with the computer, however, is no less naïve. Why?

The so-called „cerebral machine“ has two internal systems. On the one hand, the coding of the connections by a neuron network, on the other hand, the coding by patterns of electrical impulses and chemical signals.

And the human brain can autonomously develop strategies for action. Our brain reacts to the outside and anticipates future event-creating possibilities and creates its own programmes.

It is made for „self-organisation“ and thus developed for thinking, if thinking means: to grasp/conceptualise, to open up new spaces, to be able to open up; to think could mean to grasp a geography without a map. Knowledge is not thinking! We know a lot, but we don’t think very well today.

Thinking also exists in other mammals. For example, when animals develop and adapt hunting strategies or know how to vary them.

Our brain can produce ideas independently of the visible outside world and use them strategically for our own survival. Our brain obviously(!) does not correspond to any conventional and conceivable(!) kind of machine imagination.

The imprinting by the physical and socio-cultural world remains for years, some even for a lifetime.

Each generation experiences this process anew. The ever-repeated learning process is therefore subject to a time limit.

The death economy of life. Man is born with a brain that reaches the maximum number of its cells before birth. It enables humans to perform mental operations that are denied to other living beings.

The essential elements of the brain structure, which provide for the unity of the human being and are subject to the power of the genes, also signify an „inner representation“ of the world.

It has evolved over the course of generations through the evolution of the genome of its ancestors! (cf. Jean-Pierre Changeux: The Neuronal Man, p. 348, germ. ed.).

You notice the significant differences to the so-called „artificial intelligence“ of robots and cyborgs! ?

Consequently, the human brain harbours or generates at least three forms of an internal representation of the world, whose emergence and lifespan span time spans from a tenth of a second to several hundred million years.

Each of these modes of representation expands the „field“ of the represented world.

The ability to produce impermanent representations „opens“ the brain organisation to the social and cultural environment.

In contrast, a genetically completely determined brain would probably not have survived for lack of successful adaptability to world conditions and world changes.

These changing „new worlds“ of impermanent representations of world in the brain then continue to develop on their own, albeit according to rules that are linked to the capacity of the brain structure (J.-P. Changeux, ibid.,).

The idea of spontaneous multiplication through recombination of neuron complexes, followed by selection through resonance, is captivating.

I hope I have been able to bring to your attention some criteria that I consider decisive for daring to define a new species or for considering it impossible.

More of this in my Philosophical Practice as Grammatological Philosophical Practice!

Finally, here are a few rounding tactical thrusts concerning our lives (perhaps also as survival!).

Our world. Our brain. Our life. Our environment.

The capitalist mode of production and consumption!!!

The production and consumption model in the capitalist Metropolises!!!

According to Karl Marx, interest-bearing capital is „the mother of all mad forms“ (MEW 25, 483, germ. ed.).

Keywords: Rising mass consumption! Rising mass consumption of limited land and raw materials!!! Throwaway society!

Monocultures! Extinction of species! Biodiversity! Hunger! System collapse!? Or radical cure including redirection and radical change of global economic geography!!???

Regulation of capitalism a way out or a wrong way or an aporia!?

What is economic freedom?!

Is it in any way related to freedom of speech, press or assembly, i.e. the freedoms that relate to the right to participate in political life and to shape public policy?!

Does economic freedom satisfy basic needs that could be the prerequisite for being able to participate in cultural and political developments? Also an important criteriology for being a human being as a political being – as a political being who can think freely!

Milton Friedman is not a follower of John Dewey’s democratic ideals. He wants freedom of choice and by that he means the freedom to do the buying, i.e. to spend money (he only means those who have some!).

Friedman speaks of freedom beyond state control, i.e. of an „economic landscape“ in which only and really only private forces (should) call the shots.

Freedom as economy and life beyond state and thus social (even communal!) control!

Freedom as the freedom to want to buy better clothes, food! Consumption! ?

Freedom to demand as much money for public schools and universities as the so-called „market“ allows. That is, to the maximum!

Profit maximisation everywhere! Whether school. Whether prison. Whether choice of profession. Whether sperm bank.

The choice is free because it is only, almost only, a matter of money, a question of money as a matter of money management.

The others – those who have no money or too little for housing, education, food – are of no interest from this point of view.

And!, – the freedom of shopping(!) also includes the possibility to buy and sell other people’s livelihood!!!

Also and especially the livelihood(!) of the new species(!) robotic human machine Cyborg.

That means the capital markets are in command. Wall Street.

They alone then decide whether a company is to be continued, where it should be able to develop or whether it should be allowed to go under and be summarily locked up!

Keyword: Rust Belt! Reagan. Thatcher. Bush. Industrial policy no longer exists. Trade unions have to be toothless, if at all. No voice any more. Consumers? Of no interest. Environment! A lie of the left! See Trump, Bannon etc.

The investment banks like Goldman Sachs call the shots. Criticism of this is unwelcome. Many are of this opinion. They advocate freedom of shopping!

Keynes theories need to be reanimated. The leading role of the democratic state and higher public spending financed by a different tax policy (far higher taxation of wealth, machine tax, financial transaction taxes, Yanis Varoufakis‚ „general basic dividend“, cf. Der Standard Sat./Sun., 4/5 March 2017, „Machines, robots and other taxpayers“, in: Der Standard „Commentary of the others“, p. 39 etc., in german) to increase distributive justice on a global scale, – as a result increased opportunities for participation in the political process for as many/all as possible and perhaps still the chance to preserve and protect the life of the still existing species,- also and especially for the benefit of all of us!!!!

We humans also depend on the life of the many insect species. According to a new study, 80% of all insects have been wiped out in the last 20 years!!!!!

Does that make it easier to think of a new species that probably wouldn’t care!!!?

Philosophical practices will need many, many more. Political theories and policy(s) are all grounded in the axiomatics and appreciations of philosophical provenances.

I would like to thank my guests for their inspiring and hopeful reflections, trains of thought and creations of thought – sometimes and always on the edge of the abyss.

No reason without an abyss!? Philosophical practice as a construction site with building blocks, ruins, gravel, scrap and techné and as a free experimental laboratory for walks of thought in thought buildings and ruins, also of an 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“).

Every sentence, every word, every code has its being and its monstrousness in incommunicability!

Every sentence greets a ghost. Every sentence is a ghost.

Every sentence in every setting and every session (even 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!

Can our brain keep up with this speed of destruction and develop sufficient counter-strategies in time? Or are we entering the post-anthropocene?! The cyborgs probably don’t care. I do! (cf. m. Posting „Anthropocene, Postanthropocene“ here in this weblog)

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 ))

And towards the end, more reading for those who want to delve deeper into the practice(!) of deconstruction and world events.

I have found three essay texts from our journal for culture and politics and grammatology „Die Grüne F Abyss“ (1989ff.), which we published in the 1990s, in our Viennese archive and I am happy to make the convolute available in photographed form.

Again and again I receive enquiries about this. I am now meeting the friendly demand for these still very lively texts.

I think they can be studied and read quite well in this form and, if desired, also quoted. As far as I know, 14 numbers of our publication are archived in the Literaturhaus Wien and copies are made available or sent to interested readers on request.

Essay texts (in German) from: Die Grüne F Abyss Nr. 3: Zum ökonomilitärischen Komplex „Psa – Gentechnologie – neuronale Hirnforschung auf dem Weg zur „Spur“ oder was die Gentechnik(er) so gefährlich macht von Domenica Sontag, Die Grüne F Abyss Nr. 3, October 1989, p. 38ff (ed. by Gerhard Kaucic u. Anna Lydia Huber, graphics by Sepp Winter (St. Johann im Pongau)

F Abyss No. 4: „Computer Sprache Übersetzen oder Fragmente zu einer Theorie der ÜS by Gerhard Kaucic, in Die Grüne F Abyss No.4, November 1989, pp. 36 – 41 (Essay in German).

F Abyss No. 5/6: „Nietzsche Schattenwanderer oder Unlesbarkeit dieser Welt“ by Gerhard Kaučić, in: The Green F Abyss No. 5/6 Dec. ’89 / Jan. ’90, pp. 11 – 17 (Essay in German ).

Attention! Text-Pictures better readable: cf.: https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-machine-man-cyborgs-deconstruction.html?m=1

Attention! Text-Pictures better readable: cf.: https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-machine-man-cyborgs-deconstruction.html?m=1

Please refer to Jacques Lacan.

And start right here in this blog at and with my/our teaser, Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.!

Desire works towards an outside. And desire needs as constant food this outside. To be read by Alenka Zupancic in „Why Psychoanalysis?“

And in Monique David-Ménard (2009) in „Deleuze and Psychoanalysis.“ Especially the chapter „Does a Conceptual Invention Bring the Infinite into Play? >>Finishing the Judgment<< (1993),“ pp. 132ff.

I thank my guests for the inspiring and hopeful reflections, trains of thought and thought creations, – sometimes and always also on the edge of the abyss.

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!

Kind regards!

Gerhard Kaucic

Anna Lydia Huber

The Machine The Man

Robots Androids Cyborgs as subject Deconstruction

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-machine-man-cyborgs-deconstruction.html

Best regards!

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber

PP Wien/Vienna/Austria/Europe

philosophical practices face à face

„face à face“, confidential one-to-one conversation,

around the clock … around the world

Grammatological Philosophical Practice

Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax Vienna (established 1989) & Anna Lydia Huber, MSc, associate in the grammatological philosophical Practice since 2009 in Vienna and beyond

Adventure Philosophy! JEDES JAHR EIN JUBILÄUM / JEDES JAHR BEWUSST LEBEN …………… Abenteuer Philosophie ……. Abenteuer Leben !!!

……………………………………… Grammatologische Praxis, Philosophische Praxis, Philosophie, was ist Philosophie?, das Verstehen, das Begehren, Verknotung, Knoten von Leben und Schrift u. von Leben als Schrift, Semiologie wird zur Grammatologie, Philosophie als Wissenschaft, differ/a/nce, Sokratismus als Verdummung, Theoria als höchste Form der Praxis. ……………………………………………….

Die Schrift (vgl. Teaser), die Sprache, der Satz, das Wort. Jeder Satz ist ein Sprung!

Persönliche Geschichte und Allgemeingeschichte; Sprache Bewußtsein Unbewußtes; was hat das mit der Allgemeingeschichte, der Erfahrung, der Phänomenologie (z. B. die von Merleau-Ponty), dem Begehren (z.B. Freud, z.B. Lacan, z. B. Melanie Klein), der Bearbeitung, der Wirklichkeit, der „psychischen Realität“ (Freud) zu tun (?!) ……………………………………………………..

SPRACHE, DENKEN, PHILOSOPHIE, UBW: …………. GASTFREUNDSCHAFT PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS ……

……………………………………………………………………….. Gastfreundschaft Philosophische Praxis ……………………………………………………………………. ich versuche darzulegen, warum ich Anfragen nach Vorträgen, Seminaren oder Diskussionen permanent und beharrlich (fast) verneinend beantworte; meine grammatologische philosophische Praxis bedingt Dekonstruktion. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Und diese bedingt Rücksichtslosigkeit und Unabhängigkeit und höchste Aufmerksamkeit ! …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Zu einem Menschen, dem man zuhören können möchte und dessen Worte man wahrnehmen können möchte, in aller Offenheit, zu einem solchen Menschen sollte man eine Liebe, eine Leidenschaft, wenigstens aber eine Zuneigung entwickeln wollen und können.

Dabei sollte der Körper nicht nur nicht ignoriert werden, sondern offenen Blickes wahr und für wert genommen werden, – in aller Gebrechlichkeit, Fragilität und Verletzlichkeit ! ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Körper bedeutet auch Stimme, Farbe der Stimme, Tonfall, Rhythmus, Tempo, Gestus, Bewegung, Gesicht, Augen, Blicke, Ausdruck etc. ……………………………………………………. der Körper ist etwas Schönes, – …………… …………………………………………………….

(die Kunst zeigt uns den Körper, traditionelle Stammeskulturen in Afrika, Australien und Amerika ebenfalls; man hat Lust am Körper als Text und “beschreibt” ihn auch oftmals mittels Tattoos), ……………………………………………………., – heute

und in früheren Kulturen. …………………………………………………….

Der Körper ist die Grundlage für jede Strukturalität gelingender intellektueller Intimität einer jeden philosophischen Praxis als Gespräch.

PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS WIEN PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS ÖSTERREICH PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS OESTERREICH EUROPA

Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis, Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax, Anna Lydia Huber, Wien

DR. GERHARD KAUČIĆ / DJAY PHILPRAX (JG. 1959) LEITER EINER PHILOSOPHISCHEN PRAXIS SEIT 1989

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

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

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

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

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

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, Austria, Europe

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

Öffnungszeiten / Hours of opening: Mo – Fr: 11 – 20 Uhr

Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement

…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

PP-2025-03

Philosophical Practice as Training

03/16/2025 admin

Philosophical Practice as Training / Philosophical Practice and Training
Boredom Freedom to work free from the need to work Training Education Future Humanity Democracy

Text/Translation Gerhard Kaučić, Anna Lydia Huber (Dr. phil., MSc, born 1959, Age 66, 2025)

European Philosophers, Writers, Feminists, deconstructed Hegelians, Translators, Mediators, Cyclists, Freeriders, Bicycle Travellers, Enduro Bikers, Ecomobilists, Survivors

Philosophical Practitioners/Practical Philosophy, Analytical Philosophy of Language, Deconstruction, Philosophical Practice Vienna Austria Europe

Europäische PhilosophIn, SchriftstellerIn, FeministIn, dekonstruierte HegelianerIn, ÜbersetzerIn, MediatorIn, RadfahrerIn, FreeriderIn, Radreisende/r, Enduro-BikerIn, ÖkomobilistIn, Überlebende/r

Philosophische PraktikerIn/Praktische Philosophie, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion, Philosophische Praxis Wien Österreich Europa

Gerhard Kaučić

(Dr. phil., born 1959, Age 66, 2025)

Anna Lydia Huber

(MSc,, born 1959, Age 66, 2025)

Anna Lydia Huber ( * 1959 ) Gerhard Kaučić

eine lange Geschichte der Freundschaft

a long history of friendship a long story

Adventure Philosophy! AN ANNIVERSARY EVERY YEAR / LIVING CONSCIOUSLY EVERY YEAR …………… Adventure Philosophy ……. Adventure Life !!!

……………………………………… Grammatological Practice, philosophical practice, philosophy, what is philosophy, understanding, desire, knotting, knots of life and writing and of life as writing, semiology becomes grammatology, philosophy as science, differ/a/nce, Socratism as stultification, theoria as the highest form of practice. ……………………………………………….

Writing (cf. teaser), language, the sentence, the word. Every sentence is a leap!

Personal history and general history; language consciousness unconsciousness; what does this have to do with general history, experience, phenomenology (e.g. that of Merleau-Ponty), desire (e.g. Freud, e.g. Lacan, e.g. Melanie Klein), processing, reality, „psychic reality“ (Freud) (?!) ……………………………………………………..

LANGUAGE, THINKING, PHILOSOPHY, UBW: …………. HOSPITALITY PHILOSOPHICAL PRACTICE ……

Sprache, Denken, Philosophie, Ubw: …………. Gastfreundschaft Philosophische Praxis ……

SPRACHE, DENKEN, PHILOSOPHIE, UBW: …………. GASTFREUNDSCHAFT PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS …

……………………………………………………………………….. Gastfreundschaft Philosophische Praxis ……………………………………………………………………. ich versuche

……………………………………………………………………. I try to explain why I answer requests for lectures, seminars or discussions permanently and persistently (almost) in the negative; my grammatological philosophical practice requires deconstruction. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… And this requires ruthlessness, independence and the utmost attention! …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..To a person to whom you want to be able to listen and whose words you want to be able to perceive, in all openness, to such a person you should want to and be able to develop a love, a passion, or at least an affection.

The body should not only not be ignored, but should be perceived and valued with an open mind – in all its frailty, fragility and vulnerability! ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Body also means voice, color of voice, tone of voice, rhythm, tempo, gesture, movement, face, eyes, looks, expression, etc. ……………………………………………………. the body is something beautiful, – …………… …………………………………………………….

(art shows us the body, as do traditional tribal cultures in Africa, Australia and America; people enjoy the body as text and often „describe“ it with tattoos), ……………………………………………………., – today

and in earlier cultures. …………………………………………………….

The body is the basis for any structurality of successful intellectual intimacy of any philosophical practice as conversation.

Contemporary Philosophy

The invention of reality, the truth of a work, whether a philosophical, literary, artistic or a scientific, architectural, photographic work or a political, military, economic work or an artificially-naturally brought about reality as the truth of a work of climate change and consequences, – – – – the truth of a work (!!!) only reveals itself in the recognized and recognizable (!) history of its effects.

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

Philosophical Practice as Training / philosophical Practice and the training

Boredom Freedom to Work Trainings Education Future Human Being Democracy Philosophical Practice as Training
Free from having to work / free from the need to work / joblessness / work-free Education Humanity Future

Lust for the skills and their improvement

„Future, boredom, work-free, training, education, being human, democracy“.

Trainings – the material of the future?

Skills Discipline School Training and the Work Free Society in the Future!

At the beginning was a quote from my last posting:

„Cycling: Philosophy for Everyone / Philosophie des Radfahrens“ https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2019/04/cycling-philosophy-for-everyone.html

„Physical Presentation as perfection of the personality as philosophia perennis;

Ecology as a necessity of our actions;

we do it in nature, – at least in culture-nature;

without nature no freeriding; without freeriding no balanced personality;

without skills no discipline;

without discipline there is no school and no educational ability;

without the will to educate no education, no civility, no civilization, no constitutional state, no democracy!“

Truth? Assertion?! Provocation?! Necessity? Illusion?! Utopia?! Dystopia?! Desire?! Hypertrophy?! Becoming democracy! Democracy on the rise?!

The work, as we know it today, organizes for the most part in the employee formation, this work or this „essential action of man“ (Marx) will be lost or taken away from us at least in the simpler forms.

This is ensured by computer and robot technologies (cf. my posting: „MASCHINE MENSCH Roboter Androiden Cyborgs als Subjekt Dekonstruktion“)

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2018/02/maschine-mensch-roboter-dekonstruktion.html).

Education or even better „training“ is the word of the hour. (!?)

We need skills and training in order to find our way in the world as >unemployed<(!)/work-freed (in the conventional form understood also economically a particularly difficult way of survival!).

A world without conventional work for us humans. A life in a world that we do not have to earn with our hands work.

The economic basis for our life is provided by the means of production and wealth taxation (90%, Piketty) and their just and fair political and legal design (cf. Thomas Piketty, Kapital und Ideologie, fr. edition 2019, german ed. 2020;

https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000108752814/staroekonom-piketty-fordert-vermoegenssteuer-von-90-prozent?ref=nl ).

In the future, we must shape our own lives, recognize our desires and learn to assess their realization possibilities. For this we need a good, contemporary education.

An education that prepares us for the complexity of the world as ecological.

An education that disciplines us and prepares us.

A training of human education.

A training especially on the behavioural level in interaction with cognition.

Perception, attention, concentration, argumentation, expansion of imagination.

A training for embedding into the various attractions of society and their intelligent and disciplined handling.

A relatively new field of activity here would be the gaming of e-athletes, a longer invented field the freeriding in various disciplines, to name only two recent inventions or developments, which show a life outside the world of workers and employees.

The future might have many fields of activities of this or similar kind.

Children, pupils, people acquire knowledge in one or more fields, which enables them to strengthen their own individual identity.

At the same time, they acquire knowledge that enables them to adapt individually to the situation that has arisen as a result of their activity knowledge.

Knowledge, empowerment, skills develop their own personality through training and its improvement.

The development of skills and abilities improves individual identity.

The ability and the willingness to change in a disciplined way means the processing of the individual and the processing of knowledge.

We found an example of such a way of life in Reinhold Messner’s person – the three of us quickly agreed on that.

In our small group of three I took the liberty of modestly pointing out that my now 66 years of life and perhaps my way of life as a philosopher, writer and head of a philosophical practice (philosophical practitioner for more than 36 years) could also provide an example of how people as humanity could spend their lives in the medium to distant future, perhaps also in many individual cases.

To say it completely simply and briefly:

A happy, – on all or at least many levels, – and very satisfying life with and through practice, training, experience, reflection and self-reflection and not least through a well-dosed interaction with relatively many, but not too many, passionate and thinking people!

According to various studies, this is only true for a few people in a population like Austria.

Accordingly, almost 70 percent are dissatisfied with their professional activities – their jobs!

The ability and the readiness for disciplined change means the processing of the individual and the processing of knowledge!

A small insertion for identity formation or insecurity:

Already in the family we have a small social structural framework, which is again and again in danger of dissolution, e.g. by the addition of new brothers and sisters or for instance by worse accidents etc..

According to Luhmann, the child already arrives at school structurally dissolved, meaning that the child has had to make challenging experiences that have put the familiar structure of a social situation at risk of (perhaps even total) dissolution or a dissolution that is actually taking place (cf. Niklas Luhmann, „Strukturauflösung durch Interaktion: Ein analytischer Referenzrahmen“, Soziale Systeme 17, 2011).

Children are confronted with many interactions and interventions. Adults too.

But are these children adequately (!) trained in our schools and homes today and are they trained at all?

Are our children trained in seeing through and recognizing people and their actions? Are they trained, educated, taught in respect and relativity with a factual argumentative background?

Have we been and are we being trained for mobility in respectful argumentation due to an improved imagination and inventiveness.

In schools, universities, academies and also in companies?

Have we been encouraged and trained to be critical in both directions?

To criticise and endure criticism?!

Transitions from one situation to another are always critical transitions.

Will I make the transition?

Am I sufficiently trained for the new?

Have we been able to do trainings of this and other kinds in school?

Our societies are media societies, made medially and medially. We as individuals are made medially and medially (cf. Moira Gatens). Our societies need critical citizens, otherwise the many media changes in the current situation cannot be mastered. Is our school knowledge and our school training (e.g. in project group dynamics) critical enough for this?

Have we learned which contexts are necessary to classify certain information? Have we designed the education sufficiently for the training for the handling, the critical handling, with the electronic media?

Do we attach enough importance to the acquisition of critical comparative knowledge, to respectful interaction with others and respectful interaction with tradition and knowledge authority?

(cf. also N. Luhmann, The Educational System of Society)

The difference in the form of education is:

a) hardly any exercises in and on the technological medium, i.e. more or less unintentional socialisation mostly through oral instructions as abstract content for the classroom, or

b) education through training of all kinds for self-education as disciplined adaptation, – a kind of self-formatting (whether through well-founded acquired knowledge of self-chosen/discovered reading for further trained ability to differentiate, competence responsibilities and motivation intensification or through project development together with other non-dominant participants under the premise of free will with consciousness including beginning and end freely according to the opinion of all motivated participants).

This is the only way for disciplined adaptation to sometimes complex situation relations to occur.

This is the only way fruitful education can take place!

In the family constellation or relationship constellation of any kind, in schools and also in companies.

Also and especially in the respective futures.

Exercise, training, awareness of mediality, skills, abilities, competence, capability, education, awareness/knowledge (also about the „ghost“(!) of the Ubw (cf. Freud, Lacan, Derrida), decision-making ability, critical criticism awareness, training, exercise, practice.

Life as Performance!

Life an exercise?!

In(ter)vention

All of us practicing individuals? All of us in the future? No work?! Free from economic survival care?? Free and safe!!???? Before death????!!! Life is an exercise-out/exertion.

Towards the temporary end:

Training and its effects on the human being arise from the interplay of stimuli from outside (events diffusing outside the human body and their recognizable or perceptible and ever-changing stimulus of experience) and from inside (stimuli arising inside the human body).

Desirable things thus arise and set us in motion. Training is a passing and past movement.

Targeted training – training with recognizable and formulationable intention can form us. In the positive as in the negative! How and whether the individual knows how to distinguish between these depends very much on the upbringing, the education, the practice – in total on the surrounding „world“ and its realities.

If my little remarks and remarks on the subject of our longer conversation on the subject of „Philosophical Practice and/as Training“ are of any of you, I mean you as a reader, as a reader of this little text here, – so some of you should seem incomprehensible to some here, you may be right about that.

I would like to encourage you then to a training in reading and understanding and invite you to Paul de Man and his „Allegories of Reading“ (Frf. 1988, Suhrkamp).

In this book and his essays you will find explanations and citations on the complex of „reading“ and „understanding“ and their presupposition in the „incomprehensibility“ of communication as „text“.

And now, still for the time being, quoting Niklas Luhmann once again in conclusion, for him unsuccessful communication is the normal case and an „improbability that has become invisible in everyday understanding“ (cf. Niklas Luhmann, Social Systems. Outline of a general theory. rf. 1984, p. 216f., germ. ed.).

For the time being, however, I will end these few hints about the future, training, practice in democracy as a successful education and disciplined adaptation to situations of higher complexity with a few quoted lines from Peter Sloterdijk (from: P. Sl., Du mußt dein Leben ändern. Über Anthropotechnik. Frankfurt 2009, (Suhrkamp) p. 14) and thank my two engaged guests for the passionate conversation in my philosophical practice here in Vienna in the past days.

Quote:

„The one who speaks of man’s self-generation without speaking of its formation in the exercising life has missed the subject from the beginning. We must therefore suspend practically everything that has been said about man as a working being in order to translate it into the language of exercising or self-forming and self-enhancing behavior. …

It is time to reveal man as the living being that arises from repetition. As the 19th century was cognitively marked by production, the 20th by reflexivity, the future was to present itself under the sign of exercises/exertions.“

Vivification through deconstruction is necessary.

The liberation from the melancholy of the closeness of the word, the simplicity of words, the totality of beliefs, the meaningfulness of non-contextualized sentences.

Mistrust the slogans! Mistrust the sentences! Every sentence a leap.

Worlds between the sentences. Worlds in the sentences. World in every sentence, – in every jump!

Aesthetically and ethically at the same time!

Deconstruction has an ethical component !

Deconstruction has an ethical component, – perhaps even a goal orientation (without wanting or being able to be a method or criticism), – a goal orientation towards responsibility for the other!

My life’s work – my philosophical practice!

LIFE’S WORK PHILOSOPHICAL PRACTICE GERHARD KAUČIĆ (*1959)

Deconstruction is and always will be the questioning of the origins, the foundations and the limits of our conceptual, theoretical and normative apparatus.

And this always in the double movement of the Différance.

This is exactly what I am trying to achieve in my decades of work in my practice.

Now already 36 years, – almost my adult life long, 1989 – 2025 ff., deconstruction, – means: 36 years, open end, indoor / outdoor, more than 3500 conversations, discourse, associations, analysis, problematization, identity dislocation, subjectivation, formalization, folding, complication, aporia, deconstruction, supporting/concomitement/accompaniment.

And many, many journeys and just as many guests in my long practice time.

I must let myself be touched! Let myself be touched for this limited period of time! Without movement there is no touch, without touch there is no emotion, without emotion there is no strong, vivifying, living experience. Hardly a life! Hardly a life without life experiences (!?). Hardly a life without some kind of experience (!?).

Experience first and foremost requires affirmation, otherwise it is not experience (!?). I have to affirm something, praise it, recognize it in order to be able to recognize and touch something and to be touched by something! Otherwise it is merely something pushed towards me, a pain, an unrecognized, perhaps unrecognizable touch. An inexpressible and unspeakable thing! A kind of trauma.

In his “Rhetoric”, Aristotle writes that we should praise the virtues and, above all, the successes of those we admire. He believes that by praising things and events, we give them “beauty and meaning” (! ) and Aristotle also believes that the trope of amplification is appropriate for this – that is, the expressive, passionate mode of expression that lifts the “hero”, the “heroine”, the “artist”, the ‘artiste’, out of the everyday and the commonplace and thus at the same time also allows the spectator to participate in a kind of “sublimity” (cf. Kant, Lyotard).

This participation perhaps increases the perceived intrinsic value by being part of the party. The feeling of the beauty ( cf. Goethe ) of something. The beauty of art. The beauty of sport – of the sporty. The beauty of movement and those in motion. The beauty of the practiced. The beauty of the well-trained. The beauty of the artist. The beauty and meaningfulness of the artistic! That which can only be achieved through extraordinary physical effort. The unattainable! For almost everyone (!?).

However, by practicing and exercising something, some people can attain a little of this kind of “sublimity”/being elevated (from the multitude of the ordinary) and enjoy it and about it and through it. Can man rejoice in himself/through himself?

I think I can. I am happy when I can and am allowed to move. I am happy when I experience sport (whether cycling, soccer, handball, basketball, tennis, badminton, swimming, boxing, aikido, floor and apparatus gymnastics, weightlifting, 100-meter runs, cross-country skiing, marathons, etc.) – as a spectator. As a spectator and as a practitioner. I enjoy others who are better than me (at something) and I enjoy my own abilities.

I’m talking about my physical abilities in particular – my “artistic” abilities, so to speak. I’m referring in particular (today and here) to my cycling, my ability on a bike. I enjoy it. I enjoy this kind of movement and the movement it triggers.

I need the repetition of this movement. I need the power, the strength of the body. I appreciate the characteristics of the machine, my bike. It can’t be often enough for me. I never get bored.

Every repetition is different and, strictly speaking, not repetitive. I use different bikes ( see What is Philosophical Practice? (II) Part 2 ) and I always take different paths. Each time a different topography, a different and differently challenging terrain. I love that. And I especially love riding my Enduro at the moment, my “fun work”! Those in the know know what that means.

I need the repetition of this movement. I need the power, the strength of the body. I appreciate the characteristics of the machine, my bike. It can’t be often enough for me. I never get bored.

Every repetition is different and, strictly speaking, not repetitive. I use different bikes ( see What is Philosophical Practice? (II) Part 2 ( cf. Was ist Philosophische Praxis? (II) Teil 2 )) and I always take different paths. Each time a different topography, a different and differently challenging terrain. I love that. And I especially love riding my Enduro at the moment, my “fun work”! Those in the know know what that means.

This bike is the all-rounder, the all-rounder that makes almost everything possible, even if the rider (bike rider) that I am is far from being able to do everything.

„Sport and fun, passion, philosophy and fun, humor, fear, seriousness and skill, body, strength, finesse and mechanics. What does that do to modern, risk-taking people!“

Can philosophy do anything with this? Can philosophers do anything with it?

Do something with it? Develop passion? Enjoy it?

And still not lose their minds afterwards? Remain critical?

And be or become joyful people?

Artists in your field?!

As an invitation for especially interested people:

What is philosophical practice as deconstruction and how „goes“ my deconstructive PP or how goes deconstruction as philosophical practice .

(( See: Part I, Part II and Part III in this blog ))

Part 1 Teil I, Part I Part 2 Teil II Part II Part 3Teil III Part III

Postscriptum as a prescript, – – –

well knowing, – conversations are not summarizable!

Conversations are con – versations and live only by the actionality!

Mere coarse rudiments are deliverable. Almost dead texts!

first of all, please study:

Grammatologie différance Dekonstruktion (Was ist Dekonstruktion.) Dissemination

Dekonstruktion hat eine ethische Komponente!

To contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at

Deconstruction enables the relationship to the other and the relationship to the other enables (perhaps) deconstruction. Différance as a matter of freedom and liberation.

Time becoming of space and space becoming of time and being different, being recognizable, not being identical! Only he who is not equal to all others is recognizable as one, as another!

Otherness from the dissimilar logically requires that between the distinguishable units or elements interval, distance, spatialization emerge in persistent repetition (Derrida, Randgänge, p. 33, german edition!). Other, Other, Other, …

There’s the time since life has existed.

To contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at

Giving a picture

„You’ll never know, you won’t know, all the stories I could tell myself while looking at these pictures.“ (Derrida, Plissart)

And this always in the double movement of Différance.

Sentences that mean the world!

Sentences that interpret the truth!

What the philosophical practice wants and can do – in search of the true life, „the true life“.

Deconstruction cannot be included in a „term“ deconstruction.

And deconstruction opens up or opens up an access to the other through discoveries of the unknown or the previously unthought.

Deconstruction cannot be defined or completed (cf. J. Derrida, Limited Inc, p. 171 ff., germ. edition).

Deconstruction is and always will be the questioning of the origins, the foundations and the limits of our conceptual, theoretical and normative apparatus. And this always in the double movement of the Différance / Différance .
A text that perhaps consists of habitual (binary) thesis and antithesis, when deconstructed, reveals, for example, a multitude of perspectives that exist simultaneously – often in conflict with each other.

This conflict, however, only becomes visible through deconstruction.
Deconstruction has an ethical component, since it opens the relationship to the other, insofar as it finds access to the previously unimagined or the previously excluded and possibly invents or finds new social, new interpersonal, new political, new scientific, new legal, new technical, new philosophical and artistic ways of thinking and acting (cf. E. Lévinas and J. Derrida).

Philosophical practice could make a not insignificant contribution to this, I think.

Deconstruction has an ethical component !

Dekonstruktion hat eine ethische Komponente !

Freundschaft Freude Freiheit

Freudensprünge

friendship joy freedom

jumping of joy

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Contemporary Philosophy

to contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at

Practice and Practices: What happens in a philosophical practice like ours. What happens in a philosophical practice? What is a philosophical practice? What is philosophical practice? ( see below in this blog post and see especially above in the teaser ! ) What happens in my philosophical practice.

The compact citation context text „Corpus“ here (!) is owed to a lucid, precise and concise reading accuracy and reading simultaneity (strictly speaking only almost / nearby!) – a kind of grammatological necessity of thinking!

In my grammatological philosophical practice we do not formulate about something, not about texts (said / unsaid / thought / interpreted / written / drawn / filmed / meant / mediated / realities of any kind) // (in relation and reference to supposed truths of reality), but we work as precisely as possible as readers of a text passage by reading it and subsequently analysing the concrete (!) ( and only these!). ) linguistic units and perpetual incessant interrelation (!) of the analyzed and its decoding by deconstruction of all (!) implications, references, (un) thoughts and the thinking of the trace ( cf. teaser on grammatology and on the trace: „The trace in which the relationship to the other emerges expresses its possibility in the whole realm of the existing, which metaphysics has determined from the hidden movement of the trace as being present. It is necessary to think the trace before the existing. … Op. cit., Jacques Derrida: Grammatologie, Suhrkamp, pp. 81-88 ).

And all this almost in the form of the locally almost tangible „simultaneity“ (!), – thus in the form of highest attention to the text just read and in question now (!).

After all, in quite a considerable and appropriate topicality and freshness of the respective present time and as present ego (!), – thus of a bold and courageous kind of acuteness (!) in the time of a present and present and present as well as in the formatting/configuration of a space of the desired, ( perhaps „dreamed“! ), and as realistically first of all unthought through presence of ego and ego.

„face à face“

face to face / face à face.

To contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at

I cultivate the intellectual intimacy of deconstructive attention.

The various propositional forms in discussions, lectures, lessons, assignments, meetings, critiques, interjections, pleas, assembly speeches, meetings, service meetings, supervisions, conferences, presentations, talks, interviews, conversations, entries in social media, etc. mostly erase attention to this micrology and reduce much of what language conveys.

The beat! The tone of voice! The facial expressions! The gestures!

The speaking speed! The vocabulary! The digressions!

The exaggerations! The volume!

The ideological minimal racisms!

Certain phrases as microaggressions!

Strictly according to the setting confidential „individual conversation“, –

confidential „one-to-one conversation“, „face à face“, –

with open end, –

indoor as well as outdoor

„Conversations,“ „discourses.“

„Deconstructions“,

„Companions.“

„Text“

Arrangements in a work of relating!

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY

PHILOSOPHY OF THE 21ST CENTURY

PHILOSOPHIZING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

The Heir to Philosophy. The heritage of Greek philosophy. The heritage of Greek philosophy as a European Philosophy a paradox.

The philosophical work, the work of the différance, means for us the recognition of the own borders, the ethnocentric, the geographical, the politgeographical and the linguistic borders and at the same time the permanent exceedance of these borders without defaming or discriminating against them.

PHILOSOPHIZING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

The legacy of Greek philosophy is the incessant process of universalization. Hence the universalization of human rights, the expansion and thus the liberation of ethnic, political, cultural and linguistic borders.

Greek philosophy and its legacy as European thought is a thinking of the critical critique of reason, of displacement, indeed of identity dislocation as a kind of change of consciousness, of transformation and of temporary uprooting and redesign.

The design or the possibility – first the mental possibility of a new design of one’s own (!) self.

The European descent of philosophy as overcoming this European and Eurocentric limitation. The liberation also from European centrism. The constant development of universalization as liberation and self-break. This is the contradiction of Europe itself. Europe and universalization as the deconstruction of one’s own restriction, of one’s own restriction, of colonization and imperialization – also of economic imperialization.

The heritage of Greek philosophy a universalization. The heritage of Greek philosophy a liberation from constraints and limitations of cultural, political, ethnic, sexual and linguistic nature(!). Infinite perfection, for example, and above all the infinite perfection of the human rights.

And finally …

As in the newer music since Cage, Stockhausen and others, silence, pauses, noises, gestures are just as important as what you hear and what you (supposedly?) hear. The oh so important pauses, holes, crumbling of the unheard and the unsaid, over which the said, thought, heard jumps incessantly (unfortunately incessantly!).

Every sentence a jump!

Common thinking jumps in the usual rhythm of index words generated by repetition, unreflected repetition. What can unfold in the process is more likely to be the least possible.

Let us try to hold against it by taking the trouble to work behind it. Our PPs. Our philosophical practices and their practicings. I salute you. Stay cool and considerate.

With kind regards, – Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., age 66, born 1959) Djay PhilPrax, operator and head of a philosophical practice since 1989 here in Vienna and almost everywhere else in and around the world.

The Political Body and the Other

contemporary philosophy

Body Philosophy

body philosophy

Let’s not forget! ! !

Psychoanalysis ! ! !

Let’s not forget –

Jacques Derrida! ! !

Deconstruction

grammatology

Philosophical Practice

contemporary philosophy

to contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at

DECONSTRUCTION HAS AN ETHICAL COMPONENT!

Conversations are events of a very or more or less intelligent being together of two or more people on a topic to be determined.

Conversations in this kind of philosophical practice are confidential!

Conversations are therefore text events without a protocol.

Conversations in my philosophical practice result in this blog as a further text event (and at the same time as a presupposition!).

For the question and the word „deconstruction“ see Jacques Derrida’s „Reflections“ in a „Letter to a Japanese Friend“ from 1985, translated into German and reprinted in: J. Derrida, Psyche. Inventions of the Other II. Vienna 2013 (Passagen Verlag.), pp. 15 – 22.

„The word „deconstruction“, like any other, draws its meaning value only from an inscription into a chain of possible substitutions, into what is so calmly called a „context“. (ibid., p. 21)

„Despite all appearances, deconstruction is in any case neither an analysis nor a critique … It is not an analysis, particularly because the decomposition of a structure is not a decline to a simple element, to an origin that cannot be further decomposed. These values, such as that of analysis, are themselves philosophemes exposed to deconstruction“. ( S. 19)

„Deconstruction is in place, it is an event (événement) that does not wait for the reflection, the consciousness or the organization of the subject, not even of modernity. It deconstructs itself.“ (S. 20)

Philosophy … Deconstruction … „Right to Insight, or the Invention of the Other“ (cf. J. Derrida, Psyche. Erfindung des Anderen, Vienna 2011)

contemporary philosophy

contemporary

philosophy

To contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at

Contemporary

Philosophy

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, Austria, Europe

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

Öffnungszeiten / Hours of opening: Mo – Fr: 11 – 20 Uhr

Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement

…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

PP-2025-03

Philosophische Praxis als Training

03/15/2025 admin

Zukunft, Langeweile, Arbeitsfreiheit, Trainings, Bildung, Menschsein, Demokratie.

Trainings, – der Stoff der Zukunft?!

Skills Disziplin Schule Training und die arbeitsfreie Gesellschaft in der Zukunft!

Lust an den skills/Fertigkeiten und ihrer Verbesserung, – zwei Gäste aus Deutschland und Luxemburg

Zitat aus einem meiner/unserer Postings aus unserem Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.:

„Cycling: Philosophy for Everyone / Philosophie des Radfahrens“ https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2019/04/cycling-philosophy-for-everyone.html

„Körperliches Sichzeigen/Sichdarstellen/Sichpräsentieren als Vervollkommnung der Persönlichkeit als philosophia perennis;

die Ökologie als Notwendigkeit unseres Tuns;

wir tun es ja in der Natur, – zumindest in der Kultur-Natur;

ohne Natur kein Freeriding; ohne Freeriding keine ausgeglichene Persönlichkeit;

ohne Skills keine Disziplin;

ohne Disziplin keine Schule und keine Bildungsfähigkeit;

ohne Bildungswillen keine Erziehung, keine Gesittetheit, keine Zivilisation, kein Rechtsstaat, keine Demokratie!!!“

Wahrheit?! Behauptung?! Provokation?! Notwendigkeit?! Illusion?! Utopie?! Dystopie?! Begehren?! Hypertrophierung?! Demokratiewerdung!? Demokratie im Kommen?!

Die Arbeit, so wie wir sie heute kennen, organisiert zum großen Teil in der Angestelltenformation, diese Arbeit bzw diese „wesentliche Handlung des Menschen“ (Marx) wird uns zumindest in den schlichteren Formen abhanden kommen bzw abgenommen werden.

Dafür sorgen Computer- bzw Robotertechnologien (vgl. mein Posting: „MASCHINE MENSCH Roboter Androiden Cyborgs als Subjekt Dekonstruktion https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2018/02/maschine-mensch-roboter-dekonstruktion.html).

Erziehung bzw noch besser „Training“ ist das Wort der Stunde. (!?)

Wir brauchen Skills und Trainings, um uns in der Welt als >Arbeitslose<(!) (in der herkömmlichen Form verstanden auch ökonomisch eine besonders schwierige Überlebensweise!) zurecht zu finden.

Eine Welt ohne herkömmliche Arbeit für uns Menschen. Ein Leben in einer Welt, das wir uns nicht mit unserer Hände Arbeit verdienen müssen.

Die ökonomische Basis für unser Leben verschaffen uns die Produktionsmittel und die Vermögensbesteuerung (90%, Piketty) und deren gerechte und faire politische und rechtliche Ausgestaltung (vgl. Thomas Piketty, Kapital und Ideologie, fr. Ausgabe 2019, dt. 2020; https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000108752814/staroekonom-piketty-fordert-vermoegenssteuer-von-90-prozent?ref=nl ).

Wir müssen in der Zukunft unser Leben selbst gestalten, unsere Wünsche erkennen und deren Realisationsmöglichkeiten abschätzen lernen. Dafür benötigen wir eine gute, zeitgemäße Erziehung.

Eine Erziehung, die uns vorbereitet auf die Komplexität der Welt als ökologische.

Eine Erziehung, die uns diszipliniert und uns vorbereitet.

Ein Training der Menschenbildung.

Ein Training besonders auf der Verhaltensebene im Zusammenspiel mit Kognition.

Wahrnehmung, Aufmerksamkeit, Konzentrationsfähigkeit, Argumentation, Erweiterung der Vorstellungskraft.

Ein Training zur Einbettung in die diversen Attraktionen der Gesellschaft und deren intelligente und disziplinierte Handhabung.

Ein noch relativ neues Betätigungsfeld wäre hier das Gaming der E-SportlerInnen, ein schon länger erfundenes Feld das Freeriding in diversen Disziplinen, um nur zwei jüngere Erfindungen bzw Entwicklungen zu nennen, die ein Leben außerhalb der Arbeiter- und Angestelltenwelt aufzeigen.

Die Zukunft dürfte viele Felder an Betätigungen dieser oder ähnlicher Art aufzuweisen haben.

Kinder, Schüler, Menschen erwerben ein Wissen in einem oder mehreren Feldern, das ihnen die Stärkung ihrer je ganz eigenen individuellen Identität ermöglicht.

Zur gleichen Zeit erwerben sie damit ein Wissen, das die individuelle Anpassung an die jeweilige Situation, die durch das Tätigkeitswissen entstanden ist, möglich macht.

Wissen, Befähigung, Skills (Fertigkeiten) entwickeln so die eigene Persönlichkeit durch das Training und dessen Verbesserung.

Die Entwicklung von Fertigkeiten und Fähigkeiten verbessert die individuelle Identität.

Die Fähigkeit und die Bereitschaft zur disziplinierten Änderung bedeutet die Bearbeitung des Individuums und die Bearbeitung des Wissens.

Ein Beispiel für solch eine Lebensweise als Lebensart fanden wir in der Person Reinhold Messners, – darin waren wir drei uns sehr schnell einig.

Ich erlaubte mir in unserer kleinen Runde zu dritt bescheiden darauf hinzuweisen, daß auch mein nun schon 60 Jahre währender Lebensweg und vielleicht auch meine Lebensart als Philosoph, Schriftsteller und Leiter einer Philosophischen Praxis (philosophischer Praktiker seit mehr als 30 Jahren) ein Beispiel abgeben könnten, wie die Menschen als Menschheit in mittlerer bis fernerer Zukunft ihr Leben verbringen könnten, vielleicht auch in vielen Einzelfällen verbringen werden.

Um es ganz einfach und kurz zu sagen:

Ein glückliches, – auf allen oder doch zumindest vielen Ebenen, – und sehr befriedigendes Leben mit und durch Übung, Trainings, Erfahrung, Reflexion und Selbstreflexion und nicht zuletzt durch eine gut dosierte Interaktion mit relativ vielen, aber nicht zu vielen, leidenschaftlichen und denkenden Menschen !

Gewissen diversen Studien zufolge trifft das heute nur auf wenige Menschen, in einer Bevölkerung wie der österreichischen, zu.

Demgemäß sind knapp 70 Prozent unzufrieden mit ihren beruflichen Tätigkeiten, – ihren Jobs!

Die Fähigkeit und die Bereitschaft zur disziplinierten Änderung bedeutet die Bearbeitung des Individuums und die Bearbeitung des Wissens!

Ein kleiner Einschub zur Identitätsbildung bzw Verunsicherung:

Schon in der Familie haben wir einen kleinen gesellschaftlichen Strukturrahmen, der immer wieder in Auflösungsgefahr begriffen ist, z. B. durch Hinzukommen von neuen Geschwistern oder etwa durch schlimmere Unfälle etc.

Das Kind kommt nach Luhmann schon strukturell aufgelöst in die Schule, heißt, das Kind hat herausfordernde Erfahrungen machen müssen, die die bekannte Struktur einer sozialen Situation in die Gefahr einer (vielleicht sogar totalen) Auflösung oder in eine real sich ereignende Auflösung gebracht hat (vgl. Niklas Luhmann, „Strukturauflösung durch Interaktion: Ein analytischer Bezugsrahmen“, Soziale Systeme 17, 2011).

Kinder werden mit vielen Interaktionen und Interventionen konfrontiert. Erwachsene auch.

Werden diese Kinder in unseren heutigen Schulen und Elternhäusern aber auch adäquat(!) trainiert und werden sie überhaupt trainiert?!

Werden unsere Kinder trainiert im Durchschauen und Erkennen von Menschen und deren Handlungen? Werden sie trainiert, geschult, unterrichtet im Respektieren und Relativieren mit sachlich argumentativem Hintergrund?

Wurden und werden wir trainiert zur Beweglichkeit im respektvollen Argumentieren aufgrund einer verbesserten Vorstellungskraft und Erfindungskraft.

In den Schulen, Hochschulen, Akademien und auch in den Betrieben?

Sind wir zur Kritikfähigkeit in beide Richtungen ermuntert und ausgebildet worden?

Kritik ausüben und Kritik aushalten?!

Übergänge von einer Situation in eine andere sind immer kritische Übergänge.

Schaffe ich den Übergang?

Bin ich ausreichend trainiert für das Neue?

Konnten wir in der Schule Trainings dieser und anderer Art machen?

Unsere Gesellschaften sind Mediengesellschaften, medial und medial gemacht. Wir als Individuen sind medial und medial gemacht (vgl. Moira Gatens). Unsere Gesellschaften brauchen kritische BürgerInnen, ansonsten sind die vielen Medienwechsel in der jeweils akut-aktuellen Situation(sveränderung) nicht zu bewältigen. Ist unser Schulwissen und unser schulisches Training (z.B. in Projektgruppendynamiken) kritisch genug dafür?

Haben wir gelernt, welche Kontexte etwa nötig sind, um gewisse Informationen einzuordnen. Haben wir die Erziehung ausreichend auf das Training für den Umgang, den kritischen Umgang, mit den elektronischen Medien, ausgelegt?

Legen wir genug Wert auf den Erwerb kritischen Vergleichswissens, auf einen respektvollen Umgang mit Anderen und einen respektvollen Umgang mit Tradition und Wissensautorität?

(vgl. auch N. Luhmann, Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft)

Der Unterschied in der Form der Erziehung ist:

a) kaum Übungen im und am technologischen Medium, also mehr oder weniger absichtslose Sozialisation meist durch mündliche Anweisungen als abstrakter Inhalt für den Unterricht oder

b) Erziehung durch Trainings aller Arten zur Selbsterziehung als disziplinierte Anpassung, – eine Art Selbstformatierung (ob durch begründet erworbenes Wissen selbst gewählter/entdeckter Lektüre zur weiter trainierten Differenzierungsfähigkeit, Kompetenzzuständigkeit und Motivationsintensivierung oder durch Projekterarbeitung zusammen mit anderen nicht dominierenden Beteiligten unter der Prämisse des freien Willens mit Bewußtsein samt Anfang und Ende frei nach dem Dafürhalten aller motiviert Beteiligten).

Nur so ereignet sich disziplinierte Anpassung an mitunter komplexe Situationsrelationen.

Nur so geschieht fruchtbare Erziehung!

In der Familienkonstellation oder Beziehungskonstellation jedweder Art, in den Schulen und auch in den Betrieben.

Auch und besonders in den jeweiligen Zukünften.

Übung, Training, Medialitätsbewußtheit, Skills, Fertigkeiten, Kompetenz, Fähigkeiten, Können, Erziehung, Bewußtsein/Wissen (auch über das „Gespenst“(!) des Ubw (cf. Freud, Lacan, Derrida), Entscheidungsfähigkeit, kritisches Kritikbewußtsein, Training, Übung, Exerzitien

Das Leben als Performance!

Das Leben eine Ausübung?!

In(ter)vention

Wir alle übende Individuen? Wir alle in der Zukunft? Arbeitsfrei?! Frei von ökonomischer Überlebenssorge?? Frei und sicher!!!??? Vor dem Tod???!!! Das Leben eine Aus-Übung.

Zum vorläufigen Ende hin:

Training und seine Effekte auf den Menschen entstehen aus dem Wechselspiel der Reize von außen (außerhalb des menschlichen Körpers diffundierender Ereignisse und deren erkennbarer bzw wahrnehmbarer und immerwärts vergehender Erfahrungsreiz) und von innen (innerhalb des menschlichen Körpers entstandene und entstehende).

Begehrenswertes entsteht so und setzt uns in Bewegung. Training ist vergehende und vergangene Bewegung.

Gezieltes Training, – Training mit erkennbarer und formulierbarer Intention kann uns bilden. Im Positiven wie im Negativen! Wie und ob das Individuum das zu unterscheiden weiß, hängt wiederum sehr von der Erziehung, der Bildung, der Übung, – insgesamt von der es umgebenden „Welt“ und deren Wirklichkeiten ab.

Falls meine kleinen An- und Ausführungen zur Thematik unseres längeren Gespräches zum Thema „Philosophische Praxis und/als Training“ einigen unter Ihnen, ich meine jetzt Sie als LeserIn, als Leser dieses kleinen Textes hier, – also sollte einigen von Ihnen manches hier unverständlich erscheinen, so haben Sie vielleicht Recht damit.

Ich möchte Sie dann dazu ermuntern zu einem Training im Lesen und Verstehenkönnen und Sie zu Paul de Man und seinen „Allegorien des Lesens“ (Frf. 1988, Suhrkamp) einladen.

In diesem Buch und seinen Essays finden Sie Ausführungen und Anführungen zum Komplex „Lesen“ und „Verstehen“ und deren Voraussetzung in der „Unverständlichkeit“ von Kommunikation als „Text“.

Und jetzt immer noch vorläufig abschließend noch einmal Niklas Luhmann zitierend, für ihn ist nicht gelingende Kommunikation der Normalfall und eine im alltäglichen Verstehen „unsichtbar gewordene Unwahrscheinlichkeit“ (vgl. Niklas Luhmann, Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frf. 1984, S. 216f.).

Ich beende vorläufig aber jetzt doch diese wenigen Andeutungen zu Zukunft, Training, Übung in Demokratie als gelungene Erziehung und disziplinierte Anpassung an Situationen mit höherer Komplexität mit ein paar zitierten Zeilen Peter Sloterdijks (aus: P. Sl., Du mußt dein Leben ändern. Über Anthropotechnik. Frankfurt 2009, (Suhrkamp) S. 14) und bedanke mich bei meinen beiden engagierten Gästen für das leidenschaftliche Gespräch in meiner Philosophischen Praxis hier in Wien in den vergangenen Tagen.

Zitat:

„Wer von der Selbsterzeugung des Menschen spricht, ohne von seiner Formung im übenden Leben zu reden, hat das Thema von vorneherein verfehlt. Wir müssen folglich praktisch alles, was über den Menschen als Arbeitswesen gesagt wurde, suspendieren, um es in die Sprache des Übens bzw. des selbstformenden und selbststeigernden Verhaltens zu übersetzen. …

Es ist an der Zeit, den Menschen als das Lebewesen zu enthüllen, das aus der Wiederholung entsteht. Wie das 19. Jahrhundert kognitiv im Zeichen der Produktion stand, das 20. im Zeichen der Reflexivität, sollte die Zukunft sich unter dem Zeichen des Exerzitiums präsentieren.“

Deconstruction has an ethical component, – perhaps even a goal orientation (without wanting or being able to be a method or criticism), – a goal orientation towards responsibility for the other!

My life’s work – my philosophical practice!

LIFE’S WORK PHILOSOPHICAL PRACTICE GERHARD KAUČIĆ (*1959)

Deconstruction is and always will be the questioning of the origins, the foundations and the limits of our conceptual, theoretical and normative apparatus.

And this always in the double movement of the Différance.

This is exactly what I am trying to achieve in my decades of work in my practice.

And many, many journeys and just as many guests in my long practice time.

Ich muß mich berühren lassen! Berühren lassen für diese begrenzte Zeitstrecke! Ohne Bewegung keine Berührung, ohne Berührung keine Rührung, ohne Rührung kein starkes, heißt vivifizierendes, lebendig haltendes Erleben. Kaum ein Leben! Kaum ein Leben ohne Erlebnisse (!?). Kaum ein Leben ohne Erfahrung (!?).

Erfahrung erfordert zuallererst Bejahung, sonst ist es keine Erfahrung (!?). Ich muß etwas bejahen, es loben, es anerkennen, um etwas erkennen und berühren zu können und von etwas berührt werden zu können! Andernfalls ist es bloß ein mir Zugestoßenes, ein Schmerz, eine unerkannte, vielleicht unerkennbare Be-rührung.

Ein Unaussprechbares und Unaussprechliches! Eine Art Trauma.

Aristoteles schreibt in seiner „Rhetorik“, wir sollen die Tugenden und vor allem aber die Erfolge derer, die wir bewundern, loben. Er meint, wir gäben den Dingen und Ereignissen durch das Lob „Schönheit und Bedeutung“ (!) und Aristoteles meint auch, daß die Trope der Verstärkung dafür angemessen sei, – also die expressive, leidenschaftliche Ausdrucksweise, die den „Helden“, die „Heldin“, den „Artisten“, die „Artistin“, aus dem Alltag und dem Alltäglichen heraushebt und damit zeitgleich auch den Zuschauenden als eine Art Teilnehmenden / Teilhabenden, die Zuschauenden an einer Art „Erhabenheit“ ( vgl. Kant, Lyotard ) teilhaftig werden läßt.

Dieses Teilhaftigwerden erhöht vielleicht den empfundenen Eigenwert durch ein Mit-von-der-Partie-gewesen-Sein. Das Gefühl der Schönheit ( vgl. Goethe ) von etwas.

Die Schönheit der Kunst. Die Schönheit des Sports, – des Sportlichen. Die Schönheit der Bewegung und der Bewegten. Die Schönheit der Geübten. Die Schönheit der Vielgeübten. Die Schönheit der ArtistInnen.

Die Schönheit und Bedeutungshaftigkeit des Artistischen! Des nur durch außergewöhnlichen Aufwand von Körperlichkeit Erreichbaren. Das Unerreichbare! Für fast alle (!?).

Durch Ausübung und Übung von etwas kann aber so manche/r ein bißchen etwas von dieser Art „Erhabenheit“/ Herausgehobensein (aus der Vielzahl der/des Gewöhnlichen) erlangen und sich daran und darüber und dadurch erfreuen. Kann der Mensch sich freuen an sich selbst/durch sich selbst?

Ich denke, ich kann es. Ich freue mich, wenn ich mich bewegen darf und kann. Ich freue mich, wenn ich Sport ( ob Radsport, Fußball, Handball, Basketball, Tennis, Badminton, Schwimmen, Boxen, Aikido, Boden- und Geräteturnen, Gewichtheben, 100-Meter-Lauf, Langlauf, Marathon etc. ) erlebe, – als Zuschauer und als Ausübender. Ich erfreue mich an den anderen, die besser sind als ich (in etwas) und ich erfreue mich an meinen eigenen Fähigkeiten.

Ich spreche jetzt vor allem von meinen körperlichen Fähigkeiten, – quasi von meinen „artistischen“ Fähigkeiten. Ich meine da besonders (heute und hier) mein Radfahren, mein Können auf einem Rad. Ich genieße es.

Ich genieße diese Art von Bewegung und die davon ausgelöste Bewegtheit. Ich brauche die Wiederholung dieser Bewegung. Ich brauche die Power, die Kraft des Körpers. Ich schätze die Eigenschaften des Gerätes, meines Fahrrads. Es kann für mich nicht oft genug sein. Es wird mir nie langweilig. Jede Wiederholung ist anders und wiederholt genau genommen nicht.

Ich benütze verschiedene Räder ( vgl. Was ist Philosophische Praxis? (II) Teil 2 ) und ich fahre immer andere Wege. Jedesmal ein anderes Topographikum, ein anderes und anders herausforderndes Gelände. Ich liebe das.

Und besonders liebe ich es zurzeit mit meinem Enduro zu fahren, meinem „Spaßwerk“! Die Eingeweihten wissen, was das meint.

Dieses Rad ist der Alleskönner, das Alleskönnende, das fast alles Ermöglichende, auch wenn der Rider (bike rider), der ich bin, lange nicht alles kann.

„Sport und Fun, Leidenschaft, Philosophie und Spaß, Humor, Angst, Ernst und Geschicklichkeit, Körper, Kraft, Raffinesse und Mechanik. Was macht das mit den modernen, risikobegabten Menschen!“

Kann die Philosophie damit etwas anfangen? Können die PhilosophInnen da mit?

Damit etwas anfangen? Leidenschaft entwickeln? Genießen?

Und trotzdem hernach den Verstand nicht verlieren? Kritisch bleiben?

Und freudvolle Menschen sein oder werden?

ArtistInnen Ihres Feldes?!

As an invitation for especially interested people:

What is philosophical practice as deconstruction and how „goes“ my deconstructive PP or how goes deconstruction as philosophical practice .

(( See: Part I, Part II and Part III in this blog ))

Part 1 Teil I, Part I Part 2 Teil II Part II Part 3Teil III Part III

Postscriptum as a prescript, – – –

well knowing, – conversations are not summarizable!

Conversations are con – versations and live only by the actionality!

Mere coarse rudiments are deliverable. Almost dead texts!

first of all, please study:

Grammatologie différance Dekonstruktion (Was ist Dekonstruktion.) Dissemination

Dekonstruktion hat eine ethische Komponente!

To contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at

Deconstruction enables the relationship to the other and the relationship to the other enables (perhaps) deconstruction. Différance as a matter of freedom and liberation.

Time becoming of space and space becoming of time and being different, being recognizable, not being identical! Only he who is not equal to all others is recognizable as one, as another!

Otherness from the dissimilar logically requires that between the distinguishable units or elements interval, distance, spatialization emerge in persistent repetition (Derrida, Randgänge, p. 33, german edition!). Other, Other, Other, …

There’s the time since life has existed.

To contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at

Giving a picture

„You’ll never know, you won’t know, all the stories I could tell myself while looking at these pictures.“ (Derrida, Plissart)

And this always in the double movement of Différance.

Sentences that mean the world!

Sentences that interpret the truth!

What the philosophical practice wants and can do – in search of the true life, „the true life“.

Deconstruction cannot be included in a „term“ deconstruction.

And deconstruction opens up or opens up an access to the other through discoveries of the unknown or the previously unthought.

Deconstruction cannot be defined or completed (cf. J. Derrida, Limited Inc, p. 171 ff., germ. edition).

This conflict, however, only becomes visible through deconstruction.
Deconstruction has an ethical component, since it opens the relationship to the other, insofar as it finds access to the previously unimagined or the previously excluded and possibly invents or finds new social, new interpersonal, new political, new scientific, new legal, new technical, new philosophical and artistic ways of thinking and acting (cf. E. Lévinas and J. Derrida).

Philosophical practice could make a not insignificant contribution to this, I think.

Deconstruction has an ethical component !

Dekonstruktion hat eine ethische Komponente !

Freundschaft Freude Freiheit

Freudensprünge

friendship joy freedom

jumping of joy

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Contemporary Philosophy

to contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at

Begehren und Verantwortung!

DR. GERHARD KAUČIĆ / DJAY PHILPRAX (JG. 1959) LEITER EINER PHILOSOPHISCHEN PRAXIS SEIT 1989

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

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

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

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

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

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, Austria, Europe

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

Öffnungszeiten / Hours of opening: Mo – Fr: 11 – 20 Uhr

Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement

…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

PP-2025-02

Europeanization Legal Policy Migration Policy Deconstruction

02/23/2025 admin

Europeanization Legal Policy Migration Policy Deconstruction

Migration Migration Politics Community Subjects Relations The Other

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

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

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

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Contemporary Philosophy

Gegenwartsphilosophie

[[ Copyright, Image Rights, Copyright, rights to images, copyright, Picture rights, Copyright, – ALH & GK ]]

Overview / Outline

What is a friend? And what is friendship? And what is the politics of friendship?

Language as a tool of cognition lets us guess reality. Let us be careful! To philosophize with the hammer brings distress and necessity. It is not so simple with the language as Carl Schmitt (concept of the political) means and handles it!

The politics of friendship is a difficult one.

And deconstruction is unfinishably retrospective and provisional(!). Compare Derrida’s concept of the „trace“! The present, no present is ever present and a past has never been fully present as present. This realization also runs via language. We are witnesses and involved in an absolute dislocation (cf. teaser).

I mean the splitting of the structure of an experience of belonging, of a so-called „own“(!). Belongings expressed in terms of family, ethnicity, nation, religion, state or even profession.

These splittings cause discourses of shock. Discourses from Schiller, Kleist, Nietzsche to Derrida (cf. Politics of Friendship), Nancy and others.

And also mini-outbursts like hate postings.

But in their multiplicity they can become dangerously large. Also in their structure!

Their structure of the “ unpresentable community “ (Nancy), the technical devices in the form of Shit-Storms, Cyber-Mobbing etc.. In this, the storm glows. The storm in the water glass sometime as a global tsunami through many / all bodies.

One of the most workable insights into the phenomenon of hate is given to us by psychoanalysis in the Otto Kernberg’s definition:

„Hatred results from the transformation of the transient affect of anger into a permanent, structured affect, which implies a specific internalized object relation. (…)

Whereas anger aims directly at the elimination of the source of an irritation or an obstacle standing between the self and a gratification, hatred implies the consolidation of an internalized object relation between a suffering self and an object that seems to intentionally induce the self’s suffering.“

Coming to the end once more, let us cite J. Derrida’s „democracy to come.“ A democracy in the making (and not only on nation-state ground, cf. Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden) in supranational relations, legal relations, and institutions, – a democracy that, as a coming one, may have hardly begun yet, if at all. This is the theme of love and hate, peace and war, common and solitary, own and other, own and foreign, a theme of possibility, probability and impossibility.

The Political Body and the Other

Affections

Inscriptions

Recollections

In extreme brevity and complication briefly. The political Body!

Self-empowerment! Desire as an effect of socio-historical power relations!

Power and authority relations connect individual, social, physical and virtual bodies with each other.

Everything takes place where the ground opens to the abyss, where the reasoning of something feels attracted by countless abysses. The ParaNoia lives as long as there will be libido. We have to enclose it, not rationalize it, enclose and nurture it, that is, civilize it, educate it.

Desire always moves through all the specific categories of power that make up a geo-historical context (Elspeth Probyn 1996), albeit in defiance of everything unique and singular. Society as a tracing (Derrida) of „relational singularities“ (Probyn).

Identity dislocations, chorology, hyle/morphe structures as actual/not real(!) moments of the experienced (Husserl, Derrida).

The possible Self (Hochschild 1999) is an idealized and unrealized part of one’s existence. The images and models(!) of our cultures form the connection between our possible Selves.

Importantly, although the possible self remains mostly virtual, it is a special moment of self-conception!

In the possible Self an affective occupation takes place. Since this mostly appears desirable (for whatever reason lies alone in the biographical development of the individual), it comes to conceptions and feelings partly of the strangest kind, i.e. the possible Self forms itself to a mode of manifold identifications and formations of the desire.

The European Heritage

Media and world orders! And the geopolitical biopolitical unconscious of the media! We ourselves are medially and medially made!

Mass media have been spreading self-descriptions of a world society or of a world and its diverse societies for decades.

Mass media scripts and inscriptions permanently form the geopolitics of the world.

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

Means, – the globalization is the Europeanization !

The European heritage are consequently numerous displacements, territorial and deterritorial, individual, ethnic, religious and others.

The European heritage are crises !

Crisis and deconstruction !

Temporary textual configuration !

The European heritage: crisis, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, democracy !

Spaces and borders are not objectively measurable and maintainable realities.

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

Since 9/11 2001, an accelerating spiral of anti-terror war and terror, cyber war, drone war, uprisings, revolutions, religions at war, waves of refugees (! waves ?! or a large rush, large numbers of people fleeing !?? ), refugee suffering, refugee tragedies, spectator mentality, rescue operations, tugging and shoving about conventions (Geneva Convention etc.) and agreements, international treaties, refugee distributions or admission quotas, admission crisis ?, death and dying, inability to act from left and right, from Austria to Australia, from Poland to Spain.

Migration flows (flows or rushes of people!?, reception crisis!?!, expulsion crisis!?! or refugee crisis!!!?) at the external borders of „Fortress Europe“, slave trade, terrorism, imperialism. The heritage of Europe.

Create new, fairer relations! New narratives, new images, new self-images, new self-descriptions.

It is about enduring and making live new and old differences!

The posthuman, global One without the Other, without the Other an illusion of cyberspace and its familiar.

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

A set of terms accompanies these media discourses that promote these ideologies.

Ideologies of the one controllable market by a few giant corporations.

They are: Network Society, World Society, One World, New World Order, TTIP, CETA, ACTA, …, globalization, world communication, World Wide Web, War on Terror, NSA, …

Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, „Was sich nicht wegkommunizieren läßt“/ „What can’t be communicated away“,- in: Communication. Media. Power, ed. by R. Maresch, N. Werber, Frf. 1999, S. 331(germ. Ed.):

„Power is the possibility to occupy spaces with bodies, and that also means: to displace bodies from spaces and to be able to block bodies‘ access to spaces.“

Politics can thus not provide instructions in normative terms; a normative indeterminacy relation between politics and society prevails, so to speak.

The freedom of the otherness of the Other enables life practices of survival, which takes place in the encounter of the „Others of the Other and the Others of myself“ (J. Butler, Undoing Gender, New York 2004, p. 131ff.).

The thinking of writing (cf. blog teaser Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.) also occurs in a kind of „return of the repressed“!

The cultural achievements owe their strength and compelling power to the return of the repressed, especially well visible in the religions of this world. It is about permanent memory work, about re-memories of mostly very old, very effective because very affective or afflicting processes in the history of mankind.

These historical truths because of the permanent repetition make these cultures so strong, more than the real event and its truth!

Examples like Moses, Jesus or Mohammed show this vehemently until today. With all negative and positive effects and side effects. And against all reason! (cf. Kant, The religion within the limits of the bare reason )

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

The repressed bodies in front of the „Fortress Europe“ for example. The consequences of European imperialism of the last centuries. The shifts in the borderlines drawn by imperialism.

Boundary lines of states on former and in remnants still existing tribal territories.

Boundary lines of power. „Where might is right.“

These boundary lines of past powers, they break open into the history of the present. The repressed breaks into the everyday life of the so-called civilized democracies.

Democracies that are themselves struggling to come.

One marker for democracies in the making is the abolition of the death penalty. Another marker would be and is the taking in of refugees.

What’s wrong with the mother countries of democracy! What is going on with England? What about the USA? What do their elected leaders think their peoples think?! Regarding this!

Boundary lines of power. They are erupting. Migration movements are the visible symptom.

Europe and the rest of the world must act in the sense of human rights and in the sense of humanity !

Boundary lines of power. They are erupting. Migration movements are the visible symptom.

Europe and the rest of the world must act in the spirit of human rights and in the spirit of humanity !

( see my blog post Blogspot-Blog 2013 ff. „For a humanitarian refugee policy“ from 11. 10. 2013,

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2014/12/kaucic-djay-philprax-wien-11.html

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2014/12/kaucic-djay-philprax-wien-11.html?m=1 ).

Empathy! Help!

The other, – that is I! And that is you!

70 Years of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( cf. Source: United Nations Department of Public Information, NY

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng )

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

Everyone has the right to a nationality.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

The Congress of Europe in May 1948 was attended by 650 politicians (few of them were government representatives) of almost all European countries – demand for the political unity of Europe, creation of a Council of Europe and a convention on human rights as the basis of the future community. A commission was established to draft the human rights convention.

With reference to the UDHR adopted in December 1948, it was demanded that there be not only a proclamation of rights but also a corresponding legal protection.

The draft convention was submitted to the provisional Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in June 1949.

Finally, one was not content with a list of human rights, these should also be defined accordingly.

The ECHR (European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) was signed in Rome on November 4, 1950, at the 6th session of the Committee of Ministers, and entered into force on September 3, 1953 (after ratification by 10 member states) (in Austria on September 3, 1958, two years after admission to the Council of Europe, Federal Law Gazette 210/1958); since Federal Law Gazette 59/1964, the ECHR and its 1st CP have had constitutional status; the subsequently ratified CPs (additional protocols) were also enacted with constitutional status.

Civil and political rights and freedoms are found therein, as well as a system for their enforceability against the member states.

However, the Committee of Ministers also decided on 4.11.1950 to draw up an additional protocol to regulate rights that had hitherto been disputed and therefore not included in the convention (property guarantee, parental rights, political civil rights).

The United Kingdom was the first to ratify the ECHR on 8.3.1951, followed by Norway, Sweden, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland and Greece, which withdrew between 1971 and 1974.

Three institutions were established:

The European Commission of Human Rights (1954)

The European Court of Human Rights (1959)

The Committee of Ministers (consisting of the foreign ministers of the member states).

A member state could then file a complaint against another member state for violation of convention rights.

The individual complaint was only possible if the respective member state allowed it.

The Commission examined the admissibility of the complaint; if no amicable agreement was reached, it drew up a report, which was submitted to the Committee of Ministers. Within three months, the Commission and the Member State could bring the case before the Court of Justice; this was not possible for individuals.

If the case was not brought to the Court, the Committee of Ministers decided whether there had been a violation of the Convention and, if so, awarded just satisfaction. The latter also monitored the domestic implementation of the Court’s judgments.

Since then, 14 additional protocols (APs) have been adopted.

Further rights and freedoms are contained in Additional Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13; the 2nd AP empowers the CJ to issue advisory opinions. Since the 9th AP, individual complaints can be brought before the CJ if the respective member state had ratified it and a panel of judges had agreed to it.

The rapid increase in the number of (registered) complaints (1981: 404; 1997: 4750) and the number of cases brought before the CJ (1981: 7 and 1997: 119) made a reform of the procedure necessary.

On 11.5.1994, the 11th Additional Protocol was signed in Strasbourg by all members of the Council of Europe (excluding Italy), which entered into force on 1.11.1998 (with a one-year transitional period – further processing by the Commission of complaints declared admissible until then) and created a single Court sitting permanently. The aim: to shorten the duration of proceedings before the Court and to abolish the jurisdiction of the Committee of Ministers, which is now only responsible for monitoring the execution of the Court’s jurisdiction.

The complainant can now appeal to the Court directly and as the only Convention body; the tasks previously performed by the Commission have been taken over by three-judge committees of the CJ. It is intended to reduce the duration of proceedings to two years in the foreseeable future.

Protocol No. 11, promulgated in Austria by Federal Law Gazette No. 30/1998, has completely restructured the legal protection of the Convention.

The Court of Justice now sits permanently and is staffed by full-time judges. Each of the (then) 40 member states provides one judge, who are appointed by the parliamentary assembly for a term of six years on the basis of tripartite proposals from the governments and are eligible for re-election up to the age of 70.

The Court sits in chambers of seven judges, with the Grand Chamber comprising 17 judges and the Committees comprising three and five judges.

The substantive provisions (ECHR 1950 and Additional Protocols 1, 4, 6 and 7) have not changed as a result; the procedural Protocols Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 8 have been incorporated into the new text of the Convention. Protocol No. 9 has become obsolete.

Complaints are now to be addressed directly to the CJ. Any person, organization or association of persons who considers that a guaranteed right has been violated may lodge a complaint with the CJ.

The new Rules of Procedure have been published in Austria in a German translation in Federal Law Gazette III No. 13/2000.

The official languages of the Court are English and French. However, complaints can be filed in all official languages of the Member States.

Global migration as one of the greatest challenges for all prosperous societies

Entering or settling in the territory of another state has not yet been guaranteed in any human rights document under international law. In the Geneva Convention on Refugees, there is a convention (dated July 28, 1951) on the status of refugees and another paper as a protocol dated January 31, 1967.

The Geneva Convention lists a large number of rights to be granted to refugees in host countries, – e.g. access to educational institutions. Particularly important is Article 33, which prohibits the refoulement and expulsion of refugees when their lives and liberties are threatened. Hannah Arendt complains in her writing „Elements and Origins of Totalitarian Rule. Anti-Semitism, Imperialism, Totalitarianism. Berlin 1986, pp. 601-615“ that minorities and refugees who are stateless (de jure or de facto) are also legally defenceless and the human rights catalog is therefore aporetic in such a case. Which means, these refugees can only appeal to the rights and cannot access the protection status of a citizen.

In political philosophy, the topic of migration has played an increasingly important role since John Rawls‘ „A Theory of Justice“ from 1971, and in the German-speaking political sphere, too, there have been increasingly intensive discourses on the topic of immigration and the migration problem. Once again particularly clearly triggered by Mrs. Merkel’s open borders policy in 2015.

At the center of general attention and philosophical discussion is the controversial question of whether sovereign states can be obliged to open their borders to migrants. And the claim of many states to be allowed to deny access to their sovereign domain to outsiders who do not belong to the state community.

The legitimization of the exclusion of persons who do not belong to the state community!!!???

But hello! People!!! Seriously???

About the self I have already commented above (with Freud)! As we know, there can be no immediate self-experience, – we always remain at a distance to ourselves ! (cf. Derrida, Psyche, Inventions of the Other).

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

I remind of the potential of affectation and immunization or auto-immunization (cf. Derrida and cf. my so called posting (blogspot-blog 2014 ff.) in January 2022) at the beginning !

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

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

The Other as an opening towards the „undecidability“.

It is important to note that although the possible self remains mostly virtual, it is a special moment of the self-conception! In the possible self an affective occupation takes place. Since this mostly appears desirable (for whatever reason lies only in the biographical development of the individual), it comes to ideas and feelings partly of the strangest kind, i.e. the possible self forms itself to a mode of manifold identifications and formations of desire.

Those obsessed with the desire for power would have to rebuild themselves by working on their desires and dreams. On the contrary, they usually work on so-called Cavalieresque contexts of justification to ward off criticism from outside. They form themselves as a possible self mostly in the form of a promise of their specialness. They only mean well, so the outflow of stupid incomprehension culture for humiliations of all kinds (of the respective other).

Every democracy, every coming democracy, will have to struggle with these energy arrangements(!) (libido wasters) of irrational, slightly to heavily paranoid megalomaniac personalities again and again. Not born to the end (cf. Theweleit, Männerphantasien/Male fantasies)!

Body architecture is political ( cf. Monique Wittig’s analysis of heterosexuality as a political regime and M. Foucault’s analyses of the dispositif of sexuality as well as Judith Butler’s analyses of performative identity ).

Bodies are socially constructed texts (cf. Beatriz Preciado’s Contrasexual Manifesto).

Consciousness emerges from bodies in structures.

Actions are grounded in delusions in dreams and as dreams.

In psychosis, the father function is reduced to the image of the father.

The symbolic is reduced to the imaginary. Man lives his dream as madness put into action under certain real conditions,- he follows his puzzled image of the father. His rebus remains closed to him.

He does not know distance to himself. He does not recognize a real self in relation to the others. Relational shifts. Distortions. Delusions of grandeur.

I/me as god!

Self-imagination as imperturbable necessity of his self.

Strictly speaking, these are essentially Lacan’s approaches to madness!

Lacan defines psychosis as one of three clinical structures defined by the mechanism of abjection/of warp.

In this mechanism, the „Name-of-the-Father“ (cf. „Introduction to the Names-of-the-Father“, – in: Jacques Lacan: Name-of-the-Father. Vienna 2006, translated from the French by Hans-Dieter Gondek, Vlg. Turia+Kant, pp. 63-102) is not integrated in the symbolic universe of the psychotic, a vacuum remains.

A „warp“ occurred!

In the psychosis there is indeed an unconscious, however according to Lacan a non-functioning unconscious.

So a gap or a hole in the symbolic order for lack of name-of-the-father, a disfunction of the unconscious, perhaps better a parafunction of the unconscious.

The psychotic structure arises because of a dysfunction of the Oedipus complex, a lack of the father function.

„Dream and delusion come from the same source, from the repressed; the dream is the so to speak physiological delusion of the normal human being.

Before the repressed has become strong enough to assert itself as a delusion in waking life, it can easily have achieved its first success under the more favorable circumstances of the sleep state in the form of a dream with a lasting effect.

During sleep, along with the reduction of mental activity in general, there is also a decrease in the strength of the resistance which the ruling psychic powers put up against the repressed.

It is this diminution which makes dream formation possible, and therefore the dream becomes for us the best access to the knowledge of the unconscious soul.

Only that usually with the establishment of the psychic occupations of waking, the dream fades away again, the ground won by the unconscious is cleared.„

(S. Freud, The Delusion and the Dreams in W. Jensen’s Gradiva, Chapter 2)

Compare also and especially Jacques Lacan, Nicolas Abraham/Maria Torok „Kryptonymie. Das Verbarium des Wolfsmanns/ The Wolf Man’s Magic Word. A Cryptonymy “ and Jacques Derrida „Fors“ (trans. from the French into German by Werner Hamacher), Basel 2008 (especially p.71ff. „Einverleibung, interne Hysterie, Kryptonymie/Incorporation, internal hysteria, cryptonymy “ and p. 94 ff. „Die interne Hysterie/The internal hysteria. Aufbau und Funktionieren einer Maschinerie/Structure and Functioning of a Machinery“).

Lacan is not agreed here by Abraham/Torok/Derrida that the wolf-man is only a neurotic, but in truth it is a psychotic, whose “ warping “ is not accessible to the ability of symbolization!

In and through the „cryptonymy“ the questions of philosophy (above all by J. Derrida still visibly extensively and concentratedly disseminated) are put directly and without exception on the level of psychoanalysis and on exactly this level of Psa. the possibility of answer is categorically and grammatologically denied to philosophy.

Intermediate step to the consciousness-expanding reading on the subject!

Let’s consult again and again on the subject of sexism, racism, fascism (!) and let’s not forget them — the fascism analyses and sexual economy theories of Wilhelm Reich ( „Massenpsychologie des Faschismus. Zur Sexualökonomie der politischen Reaktion und zur proletarischen Sexualpolitik“ / Mass Psychology of Fascism. On the Sexual Economy of the Political Right and Proletarian Sexual Politics. 1933 ) and Klaus Theweleit ( „Männerphantasien“ 1980 / Male Fantasies 1987, esp. vol. 2 „männerkörper – zur psychoanalyse des weißen terrors“ / the body of men – on the psychoanalysis of white terror 1978 )

Sexual economics!

Desire and responsibility!

Let’s not forget ! ! !

Psychoanalysis ! ! !

When we use language, we inevitably cause effects in ourselves and in the other. We transform ourselves, but also the other and we transform the other, the language.

Language is a name for what we do, – the action we are doing, – and a name for what we cause, – the action and its consequences.

A sentence does something.

Language is „power to act“. The doing of language is empowering!

Also this setting just and this figuration/configuration (cf. my teaser to it) is “ capacity for action “ and explains just in all brevity the linguistic power for action (cf. teaser blogspot-blog 2014 ff. and my video to the „sentence“!).

Language as a figure for power of action and power of action as a figure of language. The agency of language is not the same as that of the subject, who can do things with language, but also in language (cf. teaser on „deconstruction“ and différance / Derrida!).

Language is based on a divided, I want to say doubled, essence, an operativum divided in itself. Language is respectively the instrument of statements shares something „essential“ with language, because, precisely because no statement is reducible to its instrument (who wants to dive deeper into this >affair< „language“, read „Limited Inc“ by Derrida together with the texts of the speech act theorists Austin and Searle among others).

Wording, words, sentences can hurt!

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

Hate formulations, aggressive language or language behavior, can lead to the death of the subject, if this „speech“ gets into the position of domination or can invoke such a position, – then this speech act(!) becomes a form of articulation of the ruling power and thus a kind of reproduction of power (compare for example Chile under Pinochet or Germany and Austria under Hitler or today Syria under Assad; as we know, there would be many more examples).

Repetition of sentences as hate-speech and their publication can (must not! Bridge of speech, subversion is always possible, always linguistically possible!, – cf. Althusser, Foucault, Deleuze, esp. Derrida) and will shape the subjects, the expressing and the invoked. Offensive formulations call upon, they call upon the localization of discursive and physical violence, they precede, attempt, and, as it were, temporize every utterance that enacts them. To the subject, the utterance is present, the subject is formed, and the subject continues the discourse as subjugating.

According to Freud, a forbidden desire shifts in the unconscious from one thing to the next. This infinite transmissibility of desire, which is seduced by a prohibition, a blockade, a taboo, controls quasi uncontrollably this logic of infection in a so-called metonymic flow (think of your own „desire“ to do forbidden things, – e.g. when changing accustomed circumstances!).

In Freud’s „The uneasiness in civilization“ the place of libido is shifted and itself becomes the lust place of prohibition. Here repression takes that form in which it itself becomes libidinous activity.

Every sentence a leap.

A jump that breaks a context.

Every utterance is primarily an assertion and pushes objections aside for the time being.

The power of a performative utterance can be enormous, – in both directions!

Denunciation and self-denunciation!

Depending on the reading and depending on the readership and reader’s location (political, ideological, intellectual).

The break with the context (Derrida) of a performative utterance is always inherent to it, every utterance’s failure is inscribed by the thing „language“. Only many actors do not notice this! Hate-speech-actors apparently notice the self-denunciation almost never or too late.

The history of subjugation is (also) a history of language and speaking.

Consequently, human education is the first matter of every democratic society.

Every culture needs subjectivity, subversiveness, criticism and a large portion of commonality (also in difference).

If envy should be a human constant, then it is necessary to sublimate this envy through the instances of our culture and thus not to want to harm the other, to want to take something away from him etc., but I raise my envy to the level of sporting, professional or intellectual ambition.

So I do not hate because of possible envy of someone, but I convert my envy into special abilities, which I make my own through diligence and practice.

Perhaps this is the incentive for science, art and sport, inventiveness, entrepreneurship, helpfulness and: L o v e (!?) ?!! (cf. Lacan, Seminar X)

Hate is not a concept. Hate is an exaggeration of the envious desire from lack and loss.

Reason is to be able and to want to sublimate this.

Therapies could lead to this understanding (of reason)!!! (Or accelerate this process.) (cf. teaser!).

To speak with Derrida for a moment more, to remind us how necessary this will always be: The subject of an utterance can hardly be aware, and must be aware, that all „communication“ is subject to a general graphematic structure.

A consequence of this is that the iteration structure is given and thus the intention of an utterance can never be fully present to itself and its content. That is, iteration always generates a break, iteration structures a p r i o r i .

There always already exists an oratio obliqua, a structural unconsciousness of intention in the actuality of the statement. Never forget to remember that in the thing and the conception of it a ghost is doing its business, – the teleological phantasm of consciousness (cf. esp. „Signature, Event, Context“ by J. Derrida, – in: Margins of Philosophy).

This is also and perhaps even more true for the actor of a hate-speech than for the addressee. So beware of the always possible boomerang effect of self-harm! In the private as in the public! Whether individual-person-actor or states.

What is a friend? And what is friendship? And what is the politics of friendship?

Language as a tool of cognition lets us guess reality. Let us be careful! To philosophize with a hammer brings distress and necessity. It is not so simple with the language as Carl Schmitt (concept of the political) means and handles it!

The politics of friendship is a difficult one.

And the deconstruction is deferred and provisional(!). Compare Derrida’s concept of the „trace“! The present, no present is ever present and a past has never been fully present as present. This realization also runs via language. We are witnesses and involved in an absolute dislocation (cf. teaser).

I mean the splitting of the structure of an experience of belonging, of a so-called „own“(!). Belongings expressed in terms of family, ethnicity, nation, religion, state or even profession.

These divisions cause discourses of shock. Discourses from Schiller, Kleist, Nietzsche to Derrida (cf. Politics of Friendship), Nancy and others.

Coming to the end, once again the „coming democracy“ of J. Derrida is mentioned. A democracy in the making (and not only on nation-state ground, cf. Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden) in the supranational relations, legal relations and institutions, – a democracy which, as a coming one, has hardly or not at all begun. This is the theme of love and hate, peace and war, common and lonely, own and other, own and foreign, a theme of possibility, probability and impossibility.

Democracy as a philosophical concept that remains perpetually in the making (see teaser and my/our BlogPost (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.) on the Philosophy of Democracy).

The feelings of hate as aporetic, as aporia affect of the democratic! Perhaps also the cuckoo’s egg of every revolution?!

Destructive developments are not only to be eliminated(!) repressively, but to be pedagogized and civilized through communicative inclusion.

Philosophical Practice can make a weighty contribution to this, I think, we think.

Franz Kafka wrote in his diary in 1911, „the hidden in a conundrum is clear and invisible. Clear to him who has found what he was asked to look for, invisible to him who does not even know that there is something to look for.“

Politics of love and friendship. Only those who love can know what it means to love.

Paranoids, autocrats and fascists love very quickly and very violently. They love first and foremost their own conundrum. Their narcissism says, love what the stuff holds. Tell the people often and again that and how much you love them. They will eventually believe you.

Every democracy, every coming democracy, will have to struggle with these energy arrangements(!) (libido wasters) of irrational, slightly to severely paranoid megalomaniac leaders over and over again. Not born to the end (cf. Theweleit, Male Fantasies)!

On the fragile surfaces (without railings) of interstate relations, this problem is always posed anew.

To this day, democracy is a national, inner-state model of political organization. The borders of the state system are still not crossed and as it looks tomorrow even less than before (keyword: right-wing populism).

The planetary subject(!) is becoming even more distant, or so I get the feeling. To treat the questions of foreign policy as a question of domestic policy still does not occur in the „Contrat social“ or is further postponed, even almost canceled.

Trump wanted to ignore and delete all(!?) existing treaties. Trump wants to destroy the European Union. He helps Putin to achieve his priority goals.

Kaczyński, Orban, Fico, Janša, Erdogan and all the other right-wing populists, right-wing extremists and fascists are helping the two aforementioned. Perhaps even some without intentional reflectorium.

We will see what we will see. Are you sure? Are you sure of yours?!

Everything takes place where the reason opens to the abyss, where the reasoning of something feels attracted by countless abysses. The ParaNoia lives as long as there will be libido. We have to enclose it, not rationalize it, enclose and care for it, i.e. civilize it, educate it.

Democracies educate by means of education, – above all human education in the sense of human rights and human duties. Developing laws along the lines of human rights and in the sense of the European Convention ( 70 years European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms / Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Text on this: see above in this post ).

Once again to our Bad Couple Trump-Putin as a demonstrative of a particular political

(think of the formula „our bodies are political“, bodies are socially constructed texts, consciousness emanates from bodies in structures)

action and thought and their presuppositions and determinations:

Aristotle tells us in the „Eudemic Ethics“ that it is better to love than to be loved.

It is about politics and justice. It is about friendship. What is appropriate for friendship? What is the just thing in it?

Trump called Putin his friend. Does he love him? And if so, in what way does he love him? How much does his narcissism guide him? He does not love him in the usual sense; again, he loves only his conundrum (cf. above). I am convinced of that. He cannot really love at all, except himself and this again only as his conundrum of himself.

The Trumps and the Putins of all kinds cannot love, because they cannot give as a gift without credit and debt. They cannot love without economy. In place of being able to love, the figure of self-empowerment and greed as desire for power took over in these. This is the very blatant expression of a lack (of doubt) due to a gap in the symbolic order, a dysfunction or parafunction of the unconscious (cf. above).

Before any other question, there is the question of what is appropriate, the question of what is just. The question about justice defines a behavior in a friendship. What necessity has the question of what is appropriate and what is just in a friendship.

Let us not forget, it is about politics. About political friendship. What is a friend? What is friendship? Can there be a friendship at all in the reality of interests? What is the meaning, – better, what will be the meaning in this speech of friendship. I mean Trump’s speech about Putin, his friend!

There are aporetics on this way to friendship or from(!) the friendship special number.

Aristotle reminds us in it (in his eudemic ethics!!!) and quite weightily that the „work of the political“, the so-called political act, consists exactly in generating as much(!) friendship as possible(!).

Quantities of friendship thus. As many as possible.

Friendship is without perceptive doubt quasi unquestionably(!) a form of love. To be a friend means to love. This act of friendship as love is more inherent(!) to a friendship, that is, more consubstantial, closer to the essence than the situation of those who (must!!!) let themselves be loved.

Putin waits and is pleased, basically and for the time being. Trump loves his conundrum, his narcissistic self-image in the „referent“ Putin. Trump wants to be Putin as himself. An even more enormous Trump-putin. A Trumputin. The conundrum is an enigma.

A rebus

(cf. for this „dream interpretation“ of Sigmund Freud, – there also more to „dream thoughts“ and „dream content“ etc.- see in the posting

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2018/06/migrationspolitik-subjekte.html https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2018/06/migrationspolitik-subjekte.html?m=1 ).

So much for the time being to the presupposed political action and its personnages.

In his work on the birth of biopolitics, Michel Foucault writes that the liberalism of Western democracies maintains a relationship to the production and destruction of freedom (cf. M. F., Die Geburt der Biopolitik. History of Governmentality II, Frf. a. Main 2004, p. 98, germ. ed.).

The production of freedom is based on the calculus of security and protection. The power economy of liberal democracies is based on the interplay between freedom, security, and protection against present or media-politically insinuated threats, risks, and dangers.

These threats to freedoms can be homemade or of external origin. According to certain theories of a politological nature, antagonism is needed to maintain an order as an anchor of meaning. The tenor is that difference politics do not work.

One of the driving forces of a liberalism of this definition is the scaremongering of tabloid media and other agitation machines à la social media.

Shitstorms etc. are popular instruments of certain governments to create general uncertainty and a culture of fear. For this purpose, they particularly like to make use of the so-called refugee waves and streams.

These figurative expressions of force function particularly efficiently in the free media to track politicians‘ behavior.

Racism has always been one of the pillars of this kind of liberal democracy or so-called liberal democracy (cf. USA).

One consequence of this culture of fear was the artificially high state of excitement of the tribal minds, including the appendage of functionaries, with the consequent enormous expansion of procedures of control, restriction and coercion, all of which form the counterpart to freedoms.

The refugees and the media-heated and subsequently and in advance party-politically instrumentalized racism via integration hysteria, blanket suspicions of young foreign men and blanket suspicions of religious communities as well as blanket individual attacks by non-nationals, i.e. by „foreigners“, form the driving forces of this policy of fear and lack of freedom.

And this policy is to serve above all the destruction of the European values and the return to the so-called nation-state with isolation and small sinecure rule and associated bondage with so-called folk culture care and intellectual hostility free of charge.

This right-wing populist policy follows a logic of fences and a logic of enclosure with all its consequences, such as censorship, the grossest restriction of the freedom of the critical spirit and the arts, as well as the exact definition of borders of the spaces of movement of different groups of the population (e.g. Roma, Sinti, migrants, refugees, foreigners, the unemployed, educational rights, women’s rights, police violence, justice, jurisdiction, etc., just look at Poland ( before Tusk’s time), at Hungary, at Turkey and elsewhere).

This is followed, as always in history, by restriction of freedom of movement, imprisonment and deportation.

Racism and xenophobia are more widespread phenomena than some among us might believe.

The attempts of isolation and not wanting to see will not solve the problems. Neither will the hard-heartedness.

There will continue to be large numbers of refugees and people migrating for various reasons all over the world, that much is certain.

The causes are the growing number of failed states and the resulting lawless warlord territories. Chicanery, threats, robbery, enslavement, murder, mass killings, endless wars between diverse factions, hunger, unemployment, persecution, rape, suppression of attempted self-reliance, lawlessness, unleashed violence exercised completely arbitrarily.

All of this leads to increased flight or increased attempts at migration to a better life elsewhere, such as Europe.

To a large extent, these are the consequences of misguided military undertakings for decades and especially in Afghanistan and Iraq with the support of a greedy mostly Western arms industry including politically uncontrolled corporate mercenaries.

The resulting increase in migration from poor countries to rich countries has increased from 20 million to 60 million between 1960 and 2000, and is expected to continue at this rate until perhaps at some point the levels of prosperity will be equalized.

Since the beginning of the modern era, people have fled war atrocities and despotisms of all kinds, hoping for peace and prosperity in countries of other peoples. For the people in these other countries, they have always been strangers. And many, relatively many strangers trigger fears. This was also the case in Austria and Germany in 2015, although it must be said that a not insignificant part of these populations was very willing to help, and in some cases still is.

However, many did not trust their conscience and their impulses to give, but allowed themselves to be fooled by the panic media and the right-wing politicians who served them and incited them against „the foreigners“.

Xenophobia grew and many citizens then also voted for the right-wing populist FPÖ, which presented itself as a security party, or for the turquoise xenophobic foreign minister of the ÖVP, Mr. Kurz, as chancellor.

Kurz was in power and the policy of cuts, reductions and constrictions, both territorial and financial, began. The capping of the minimum security, the reduction of basic services, the indexation of child benefits, the intended restriction of the movement of asylum-seeking refugees in the asylum process to one province.

Urban life has certainly not become easier, and parts of the urban population in poorer neighborhoods describe increased immigration as the biggest problem for the EU and for themselves.

They speak of increased resentment and higher potentials for aggression. Subjectively or even objectively, who wants to be able to measure that.

The so-called precariat, which has emerged in the last two decades, fears (partly rightly!) for its already small vested interests and endangered social positions.

A left-wing policy could create better redistribution mechanisms. Support the disadvantaged. Tax the wealthy. Many would even want to give more voluntarily. Don’t vote right!

The right has always been and is against the small! Always has been!

The right stokes resentment against refugees and so-called economic migrants.

The right uses the fear about the possible loss of their own income and livelihood to their advantage and to your disadvantage.

The right is not out for balance. It is always unfairly neoliberal and talks about achievers.

Not everyone can meet this definition of achievers.

Life is more diverse.

Performance is only one dimension and one dimension does not lead to a balanced political space, but to social death, to cold death. Also of human impulses and feelings.

In short, to fascism. In the end, always.

The policy of isolation, the policy of fencing and walls only leads to the further aggravation of the hate potentials on all sides.

It would be and is rather about the improvement of the living conditions and the necessary for it as undisturbed as possible individual and overall social communication and a plausible problem-solving optimism with good humanly appropriate real improvements apart from all distortions of the realities by agitation and panic mode.

The contact with the others is inevitable. One planet. One humanity. One challenge. Not division! Unification. Empathy. Help. Taking care of the other.

Giving without economy. Giving in the same(!?) time.

Love. Libido. Sexual economy. Becoming a subject. Education. Giving as a gift.

From dissemination grows the fruitful. Not necessarily, but possibly. Never from pure economics! From there one should always keep the legal and economic terms „freedom, duty, selflessness, generosity, waste versus thrift, interest, usefulness“ in mind and expose them to a questionable overthinkability.

Marcel Mauss refers to the craziness of the gift as giving without an economy of the expectable exchange of.

I think he means the act of giving more than the gift as a thing. That which comes back, if something comes back(!), cannot be expected and should not be expected.

The giving as a gift as a taking without address for an exchange transaction. The craziness of giving and taking, – of taking as giving and giving as taking without return.

If possible. Loving.

The taking and the giving. A cultural transformation. Underlying „communicating vessels“, – the subjects. Starting points: processes of subject formation. Configurations. Transformations. Disseminations (cf. what was said above!).

To the „preliminary“ ends of philosophical practice and to the coming (?) transformation of the human right to asylum and the problems of migration policies politologically formulated through political philosophy the following:

The gift as an instrument of power.

Only those who give in an economically calculating way rule. The power of production. The ownership of the means of production. The power-obsessed. And the crisis of global and European asylum and migration policy.

The lip service paid to a „Europeanization“ of the „migration problem“ while at the same time refusing to accept the resulting obligations for one’s own country.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is on what may be her last relevant mission these days ( long gone, those days!) bring European governments into line.

The key words are securing Europe’s external borders, distributing refugees according to a key within the EU, and financing and contractually binding primarily African states to set up camps outside the EU.

Not a word about the actual causes of global flight and migration movements and how to combat them.

These are:

(a) the growing economic inequality as a consequence of failed neoliberal economic policies of the last four decades (cf. Manfred Nowak, Human Rights or Global Capitalism. The Limits of Privatization, Pennsylvania Press, Pittsburgh 2017 and M. Nowak, Responsibility to Protect. Is International Law Moving from Hobbes to Locke?, in Gerhard Hafner and others, eds, International Law and the Dynamics of Human Rights, Vienna 2012, pp. 342-369, german ed. and engl. partly).

b) the arms industry and its gigantic supplies of weapons and, more importantly, almost ammunition to terrorist groups and warring factions and states with civil wars and warlords.

c) = b) the armed conflicts and terrorism in the Middle East and Africa.

d) the climate change and the consequences as consequence of all possible human wrong decisions, wrong actions, wrong behaviors and wrong ways of thinking should be mentioned here now only briefly.

In the future, perhaps the biggest case among the causes of war and the resulting flight and migration movements.

The three major trouble spots in the world that produce the most refugees(!) are in Syria (Assad, IS and al-Nusra Front), Afghanistan (al-Qaeda) and Somalia (Shabab militias).

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine adopted by the United Nations in 2005 to protect the population against serious and systematic violations of human rights (genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and war crimes) should have been applied in Syria if the Security Council had not been blocked by the veto of Russia and China.

The UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly have repeatedly pointed out this responsibility.

With this structure, the United Nations is a global institution, a subject of international law with falling recognition (regarded with distrust, little respect, and little prestige by the populations of the world), and thus cannot perform the task of peacekeeping as its core mission.

The self-interests of the major powers take precedence over human rights and protection against human rights violations.

If this is the permanent state of affairs, the growth rates of global migration and flight movements will continue to go up.

Thus the outlook for the fleeing and the alignments of migration policies.

Further above I spoke of the Other as the stranger and quoted Benveniste with the words, the stranger was always already and a priori the enemy.

Now, to come to an end, – by the way, this had also been the content of the end of our recently two days ago experienced philosophical practice, – still quickly a few thoughts from the psychoanalytical field on the subject of xenophobia and violence.

Psychoanalysis is first of all psychoanalysis of the individual and only from the experiences gained from this, with the help of psychoanalytic terminology, a possibility to open up to social phenomena and descriptions in order to analyze them and then, in a third step, to deconstruct them as far as possible.

I remind of the “ strange feeling “ of the child, – an intrapsychic perception of the non-identity of the stranger with the memory image of the reference person who is absent at the moment (still often and primarily the mother, but not necessarily!).

We all know that this strangeness usually fades away soon and that strangeness experience is an abolishable one, not only between individuals, but also between groups and even whole peoples.

Self-assertion in certain milieus happens by means of demarcation from others, the so-called strangers. And if these strangers are little respected people, this provides the members of groups in these milieus with a certain self-enhancement.

The exclusion of strangers and the exclusion of the stranger in general is often an important part of identity formation and self-stabilization. An affirmation of the self experienced as one’s own.

Already Nietzsche spoke at his time of „Schlechtweggekommenen / more disadvantaged“ and meant thereby above all the anti-Semites (cf. Nietzsche’s Nachlaß).

Later, Hitler’s assumption of power led to a true national self-inflation and each of these „Schlechtweggekommenen“, so called by Nietzsche earlier, experienced thereby his „own“ self-inflation.

His stabilization and socialization as a nazi >anti-Social<, but above all anti-Semite.

In primary socialization often persons with narcissistic wounds and impairments of self-value regulation.

In stressful situations, such as puberty, often burdened with feelings of inferiority due to lack of recognition, etc., hopelessness, demotivation and feelings of emptiness. Hardly any bonding ability to immediately existing people.

Identification failures with distant, so-called strong personalities.

Others are idealized or devalued. Strangers are almost always devalued, especially „foreign“ looking people.

Authoritarian or even totalitarian doctrines and ideologies often catch on with these individuals overnight (cf. youth in Europe and the IS in recent years).

Group cohesion can have a very strong binding effect in the case of a leader whom everyone in the group regards as exemplary and to whom they all submit together, thus creating a kind of covenant.

Adorno’s and others‘ study of the authoritarian personality is familiar to many of us.

I don’t need to elaborate on it here, just to express or address the almost truism, namely that the inner-family socialization processes of the petty-bourgeois family are decisive for the formation of the character and especially of the authoritarian character through the lack of emotional warmth to the reference persons, mostly the parents, as well as forcibly solved crises and conflicts through character-weak father figures, in many cases also the withdrawal of closeness through the absence of at least one main reference person, – that of the father in most cases.

„Authority-bound characters, persons who, under the pressure of childhood experiences, failed to crystallize an autonomous ego, are particularly prone to totalitarian ideologies“ (Adorno 1954).

Very often these young people experienced violence and sexualized violence in their socialization.

Social powerlessness is turned into power and violence against others.

This so-called „whipping boy mechanism“ is almost only felt by the weaker ones. In such groups, it is also very often directed against foreigners.

Self-hatred becomes hatred of others and often ends in an ecstatic orgy of violence with many kicks on those already lying on the ground.

No empathy.

No imagination about possible suffering of the other.

The hullabaloo comedy not infrequently as a real tragedy. Fueled and guided also often by relevant film adaptations of such outbreaks of violence. Unreflectively watched and adopted.

Identity through bodily experience in the form of violence and the experience and self-feeling of one’s own capacity for violence as a feeling of power.

Xenophobia and violence as a stability factor of the authoritarian developed character.

Often also in the form of the exercise of violence against women. A definition of masculinity as lived brutality also with regard to possible disturbing questions about one’s own gender identity.

How one could find one’s way back to a „normal“ life?

A difficult path. Certainly!

But certain therapies describe the possibilities in the form of many conversations that it would be important to lead the „patient“ to the point where he could eventually come into the position to affirm his own imperfection and to love himself as well as the other not for reasons of media-fed, fantasized perfection, but from an acknowledgement of real and actually experienced imperfection to learn to like and finally even to learn to love him.

To want to learn to love the other and finally perhaps to be able to love him and thus to grow into a real partnership – that should be able to make possible the way away from xenophobia and the world of violence towards a path of peace with oneself and thus towards another. Certainly a long, difficult way to go, but a way!

I am a stranger to myself! That would be the right spot landing in this terrain. As Freud said in 1933, „We are all foreigners!“.

To be able to accept one’s own „inner foreign country“ (Freud) and one’s own foreignness!

The gift to love! The gift to give. Giving without economic calculation. To love. To give love.

Now I close quickly and abruptly!, … I’m almost talking like the Pope … haha

The humor has us again! Probably the only winning „enemy“ of the furor.

The humor makes the man to the man.

Many more Philosophical Practices and practises will be needed. Political theories and politics are all based on the axiomatics and valuations of philosophical provenances.

I thank our guest for the stimulating and hope giving reflections, trains of thought and thought creations, – sometimes and always on the edge of abysmalness.

No reason without abyss!? Philosophical practice as a construction site with building blocks, ruins, gravel, scrap and techné and as a free experimental laboratory for thought walks in thought buildings and ruins also of archaeological nature.

And as always, we have too little time.

Every sentence has too little time. Every sentence displaces by jumping. It displaces many other possible and necessary (!) sentences (for more see my Youtube video on „The Sentence“).

Each sentence, each word, each code drives its being and its mischief in the incommunicability!

Every sentence greets a ghost. Every sentence is a ghost.

Every sentence in every setting and every session (also the one in a PP/philosophical practice).

I should always be able to state all the psychoanalytic, economic, political, and juridical implications of what is said/set above.

I refer all readers to my/our publications on the net and to the publications on paper.

The terrain of reading is abysmal(!) and unlimited!

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber

Philosophers

Philosophical Practitioners, Writers (born 1959)

PP Vienna Austria Europe

Gerhard Kaučić

Philosoph, Schriftsteller, Mediator, Dr. phil.

Anna Lydia Huber

Philosophin, Schriftstellerin, Mediatorin, MSc

Post scriptum/after the bound/Nachsatz:

Post scriptum/after the bound/Nachsatz:

The tasks of a future democracy/a democracy on the rise/a permanent advent/arrival of democracy/a democracy in the arrival ( Jacques Derrida ), to think the subject as „planetary“ (cf. G. Ch. Spivak, see teaser, – the teaser from my blog; note: the teaser is only visible in the web-version!), – especially concerning the great challenges of politics in the 21st century: Utopia (?!) of reflexive solidarity (Spivak),

borders of a planet (John Bellamy Foster et al. (Ed.): The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth, 2011), deconstructive politics as an ideological-critical reading of the imperial archive, geopolitics, geopolitical involvement, geopolitical interest driven policy and/as value policy, power, morals and human rights, analysis of power, gender and governmentality, teletechnology, cyborg technology, political bodies, complexities of rule, citizenship, parliamentarianism, peace policy, institution building and institution maintenance, economically correct and fair redistribution of social wealth, proper management of Migration (Flüchtlinge, Refugees), …

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.),

„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.),

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,

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 ),

famine and capitalism, „the right to food“

need of land, land grabbing, land robbery, justice, human rights, decolonization of thinking, policy of displacement, solidarity across class, race, and national boundaries (Mohanty, passim),

just policy as a policy of strengthening the weak

(( zum planetarischen Subjekt cf. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: Imperative zur Neuerfindung des Planeten – Imperatives to Re-Imagine the Planet (hg. v. Willi Goetschel engl./dt.). Wien 2013, 2. Aufl., Passagen Verlag, S. 49vv.ff.

and Charles Taylor: Multiculturalism and the „Politics of Recognition“. Princeton 1994, p. 28 ))

philosophical practices face à face

„face à face“, confidential one-to-one conversation,

around the clock … around the world

Grammatological Philosophical Practice

Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax Vienna (established 1989) & Anna Lydia Huber, MSc, associate in the grammatological philosophical Practice since 2009 in Vienna and beyond

The mobile version of our Blogspot-Blog (2014 ff.) shows the postings pure, – without teaser and footer.

This reading of the pure postings you get faster, – however this approach to my/our blog lets you also miss many tidbits/delicacies from the performance of a long philosophical practice and experience.

You can access the blog archive at the end of the footer or at the end of the sidebar gadgets next to the respective blog post beginnings (after the end of the teaser). Also you can find these gadgets only in the web version.

And:

Please always pay attention to the color marking / color markings! Especially the markings in the teaser and footer (of our Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)!

An additional interpretation level, deconstruction level and reading link!

You can find more detailed hints in this regard in my/our blogpost on the philosophy of democracy as well as in the teaser and footer of our Blogspot-Blog (2014 ff.).

Yours sincerely, –

Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., born ’59), Anna Lydia Huber (MSc, b. 1959)

Your Djay PhilPrax,

Head of a Grammatological Philosophical Practice since 1989 in Vienna and beyond & Anna Lydia Huber, MSc, born 1959, Associate in the grammatological philosophical Practice since 2009 in Vienna and beyond

DR. GERHARD KAUČIĆ / DJAY PHILPRAX (JG. 1959) LEITER EINER PHILOSOPHISCHEN PRAXIS SEIT 1989

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Adventure Philosophy!

Philosophische Praxis

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Adventure Philosophy!

Philosophische Praxis

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

philosophical practices face à face

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

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

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

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

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

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Philosophische Praxis

GESPRÄCHE sind EREIGNISSE als TEXT

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

Translation into English, Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., b. 1959), European Philosopher, Writer, Feminist, Translator, Freerider , Europäischer Philosoph, Philosophische Praxis/Praktische Philosophie, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion, PP Wien, Österreich, Europa

Gerhard Kaučić, Alter 66, 2025, Anna Lydia Huber, age 66, 2025

Philosoph:in des Denkens der „différance“ (cf. J. Derrida, La dissémination. Collection „Tel Quel“ aux Éditions du Seuil, Paris 1972)

To contact us please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at

Öffnungszeiten / Hours of opening: Mo – Fr: 11 – 20 Uhr

Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement

Gespräche outdoor/indoor: Grammatologien, Kontextualisierungen, Analysen, Komplizierungen, Plurivalenzen, Dependenzen, Interdependenzen, Grammatiken, Aporien, Dekonstruktion…rund um die Uhr…rund um die Welt…

…around the clock …around the world…

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Contemporary Philosophy

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber ( geb. 1959) Philosophische Praxis 1989 ff.

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

Cf. list of publications at: https://scholar.google.at/citations?user=wNUSN64AAAAJ&hl=de

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Projekte / Projects (1989 – 2025 ff.) 36 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Wien GK & ALH

Mehr dazu siehe meinen Teaser und meinen Footer sowie die übrigen Postings in diesem Blog! (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)

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

Philosophische Praxis Gerhard Kaučić und Anna Lydia Huber

Tag Archives: Freedom

Erfahrung

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Philosophical Practice as Training

Contemporary Philosophy

Philosophical Practice as Training / philosophical Practice and the training

Vivification through deconstruction is necessary.

Philosophische Praxis als Training

Zukunft, Langeweile, Arbeitsfreiheit, Trainings, Bildung, Menschsein, Demokratie.

Trainings, – der Stoff der Zukunft?!

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Europeanization Legal Policy Migration Policy Deconstruction

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Philosophical Practices / Politics / Disseminations Philosophische Praxis

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

The Machine The Man Robots Androids

The Machine The Man

Robots Androids Cyborgs as subject Deconstruction

SPRACHE, DENKEN, PHILOSOPHIE, UBW: …………. GASTFREUNDSCHAFT PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS ……

PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS WIEN PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS ÖSTERREICH PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS OESTERREICH EUROPA

Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis, Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax, Anna Lydia Huber, Wien

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Contemporary Philosophy

Philosophical Practice as Training / philosophical Practice and the training

Vivification through deconstruction is necessary.

Zukunft, Langeweile, Arbeitsfreiheit, Trainings, Bildung, Menschsein, Demokratie.Trainings, – der Stoff der Zukunft?!

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Philosophical Practices / Politics / Disseminations Philosophische Praxis

The Machine The Man

Robots Androids

Zukunft, Langeweile, Arbeitsfreiheit, Trainings, Bildung, Menschsein, Demokratie.

Trainings, – der Stoff der Zukunft?!