Anna Lydia Huber Philosophin, Freeriderin, Radreisende/Bike traveler
Anna Lydia Huber (b. 1959, Philosophin, Freeriderin,
Radreisende/Bike traveler)
Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber auf Tour
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
Anna Lydia Huber (Jg. 59) auf kleiner Radtour im vergangenen Herbst
Anna Lydia Huber (Jg. 59) auf kleiner Radtour im vergangenen Herbst, auf gehts zum Braunsberg und darüber hinaus zum Übernachten im Freien, ein Fest für NaturistInnen, 2 Tage, – und nun ab in die Abendfrische der Donauauwälder, Sonne tagsüber, nachts in einem Minusgrade gewohnten Schlafsack im Freien bei etwa + 5 Grad Celsius
Philosophischer Salon Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber
Philosophischer Salon Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber
Philosophischer Salon Gerhard Kaučić Djay PhilPrax & Anna Lydia Huber Gasometer Wien
Gerhard Kaučić (*1959), Leiter einer Philosophischen Praxis seit 36 Jahren in Wien (1989-2025 ff.)
Haus der Geschichte Österreich (Wien) in der Hofburg (Neue Burg)
Gerhard Kaučić/Djay PhilPrax (Dr. phil., 66, 2025) & Anna Lydia Huber/Associate (MSc, 66, 2025)
Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis Wien
Wieder ein weiteres Mal das Thema HdGÖ. Das Thema „Haus der Geschichte Österreich“.
Wieder sitzen wir zusammen mit zwei Interessierten zum oft diskutierten Thema in unserer Wiener Philosophie-Praxis. Wie oft schon in diesen 36 Jahren (!?) Manches scheint uns schon kaum mehr erinnerlich. Wir bemühen uns.
Hier ein paar Einlassungen dazu. Subjektivität und Wahrheit. Aussichten, Einsichten, Identitäten. Erhellungen, Verwerfungen, Gedachtes, Ungedachtes, Brosamen, Ausblicke.
Was waren und sind die Kräfte der Geschichte, die Kräfte des Bruches in der Geschichte, die Übergänge von einer systemischen Kraft zu einer anderen. Was waren die Motive von Verkennungen und Verleugnungen und anschließenden Fehlhandlungen wie etwa das Anordnen von Kriegshandlungen. Manche von uns nehmen hier das Wort Wahnvorstellungen in den Mund. Wahnsinn als Auslöser im Zusammenhang mit systemischen Kräften der großen Ökonomien von Militär, Wirtschaft, Finanz, Politik und etwa mehr oder weniger verdeckter Rassismen und Nationalismen. Was war das Band zwischen Kraft und „Geschichte“!?
Welche waren die Kräfte dieses Erbes?!
Wir sind die erste Generation von Fernsehkindern. Es ist gar nicht leicht sich von diesen punktuellen und synthetischen Sichtbarmachungsversuchen durch TV-Bilder zu lösen. Auf Distanz zu gehen von den halbidiotisch wirkenden kaiserlichen Grüßbilddarstellungen. Der Kaiser auf Besuch bei den Truppen und all das andere sogenannte historische Bildmaterial. Was wollte man damals den Leuten zeigen bzw sagen? Der Kaiser als lieber Besuchonkel mit Schutzcharakter?
Auf uns heute wirkt das alles sehr sehr „jenseitig“, fast etwas vertrottelt. Ich weiß schon, – die Technik damals und heute. Aber genau das meine ich. Mit Charly Chaplin filmtechnisch aus den 40ern sozialisiert via TV-Übertragungen in den 60ern. Die Filmrollen in unterschiedlichen Geschwindigkeiten bei jeder Übertragung, einmal langsamer, einmal schneller, abgespielt. So war das damals. Und es war lustig für uns naive Zuschauerkinder damals in den 60ern.
Heute hätte ich es gerne, diese Bilder und Filmbilder aus Zeiten der Monarchie nur in einem gut kontextualisierten Archiv zu betrachten und in Ruhe und Konzentration zu schauen und die Bildunterschriften studieren zu können. Quasi ich und das Material aus dem Orkus des historischen Archivs. Nicht ich, mein Wohnzimmer und das Fernsehen mit diesen fernen und hoppelnd intimen Bildern des Todes und Tötens und vorherigen Truppengrüßens und Truppenbepredigens.
Das Klima oder das Flair des TV-Zimmers paßt so ganz und gar nicht zum Inhalt des Materials. Das Film- und Fotomaterial greift nicht über auf uns. Unsere Sinne und unser Verstand sind Herberes gewohnt als das, was hier abgebildet werden konnte. Unser trainiertes und dadurch blockiertes Hirn bräuchte viel höhere Dosierungen des sichtbaren Grauens! Nur in einer Archivzelle in der trockenen Einsamkeit mit dem Bildmaterial könnte unser „inneres Auge“ dem Bildinhalt auf die Spur kommen und es auf uns wirken lassen.
Zuhause vor dem TV-Schirm täuscht dieses Material ein Geschichtsbild vor, das von allen wirksam gewesenen systemischen Kräften eher ablenkt. Unser Blick wird ebenfalls „vertrottelt“. Nicht immer, aber sehr oft.
Der Habsburger Mythos unser Erbe? Was machten wir und was machen wir damit, gestern, heute, morgen.
Auf immer eine offene Frage.
Ich fürchte die Kulte der Erinnerung, die Verehrung der Vergangenheit, obwohl auch ich in gewisse Traditionen verliebt sein könnte und vielleicht sogar bin. Ich denke da an gewisse Traditionen des Philosophischen und des Literarischen. Eine Vergangenheit, die so wie ich sie liebe, nie Gegenwart war, sondern eine Art ewige Vergangenheit und somit eine ewige Gegenwart und Zukunft ist. Etwa die Lebendigkeit der Lektüre Platos oder die Lektüre von Cervantes oder auch Wittenwilers und vieler anderer.
Diese Art von Vergangenheit hatte nie eine volle, präsente oder gar systemisch wirksame Gegenwart, immer nur eine Zukunft und vielleicht eine kleine Gegenwärtigkeit im Leser während des Leseaktes, ganz so wie etwa ein Geschlechtsakt eine kurze, kleine, heftige Lebendigkeit als Gegenwart besitzt, die nach dem kleinen Akt zum kleinen Tod sogleich wird (wie das Bonmot in Frankreich weiß).
Jeder Akt eine kleine Vergangenheit. Jede 100-Jahresfeierlichkeit etwa eine kleine Vergangenheit, deren Erbe wir antreten können, – kraft der Möglichkeit der Kraft des Bruches aber nicht unbedingt annehmen müssen.
Die Bruchkräfte können Bedeutsames produzieren helfen. Revolutionen, Verfassungen, Demokratien oder auch gescheiterte Revolutionen (1848!), gescheiterte Demokratien (die 1. Republik). Es liegt an den Kräften des Systemischen und an den Kräften der Überzeugungen, auch an der Höhe des Einsatzes (mitunter des ganzen eigenen Lebens).
Das Erbe und das Erben kann schwierig sein und schwierig werden. Die Masse des Erbes ist fast immer gespalten und vielfältig. Rechts oder links. Mächtig oder ohnmächtig. Organisationsfähig oder eigenwillig.
Es gibt die Grenzen des Begriffes dort wo die Geste des Ergreifens, des Erfassens nachläßt oder überhaupt aufhört und das ist der Moment der über etwas hinausgreifenden Schrift, einer Schrift, die über das Ergreifen oder die begriffliche Bemächtigung im Sinne der Beherrschung hinausgeht. Das könnte die Dekonstruktion von etwas sein. Wenn der „Surplus“ erkennbar wird, das, was darüber hinaus geht, nicht beherrscht werden kann oder nicht mehr begriffen werden kann.
Die Dekonstruktion versucht die Grenze des Begriffs zu denken und somit sichtbar zu machen, ek-statisch zu machen. Dekonstruktorische Texte sind sehr oft ekstatische vivifizierende Texte, deren Ereignishaftigkeit man genießen können sollte.
Und zu diesem Genießen gehört schließlich auch so etwas wie die Bewunderung und die Anerkennung dessen, was dekonstruiert wird oder sich dekonstruiert.
In dieser Bewunderung verbirgt sich selbstredend die Anerkennung und die Notwendigkeit einer gewissen Treue dem Erbe gegenüber, – eine Bejahung, die immer selektiv ist und sich der Gefahr der Verantwortung aussetzt und bewußt sein will und muß. Ich bejahe, was ich bewundere. Was ich nicht bewundere, interessiert mich nicht sehr.
Ich bewundere die österreichische Verfassung. Die moderne Fassung, die Kelsen gelang in einer Zeit des heftigsten Bruches mit dem riesigen und riesig belastenden Erbe der Monarchie oder was davon nach dem 1. Weltkrieg noch übrigblieb. Eine Verfassung, wie es sie damals in der Welt, in Europa, so nirgendwo gab. Das ringt mir Bewunderung ab.
Ein Erbe wie dieses weist uns widersprüchliche Aufgaben zu. Das Erbe empfangen, das Erbe wählen und es neu interpretieren.
Wir empfangen etwas, was größer und mächtiger und älter ist als wir und wir versuchen darauf zu antworten, indem wir möglichst verantwortungsvoll auswählen und auch ausschließen und aus anderen Erbschaften Pfropfungen vornehmen und dafür die Verantwortung übernehmen und zwar im eigenen Namen und im Namen des Anderen.
Und man ist verantwortlich unter dem aufgeklärten Licht der Menschenrechte und der Würde eines jeden Menschen mit der Ausrichtung auf das Gute und Richtige für alle!
Wir sind verantwortlich vor dem, was vor uns kommt und vor dem, was nach uns sein könnte! Und zwar zeugt unsere Signatur Verantwortung für das ganz Konkrete. Der ganz konkrete Text ist gemeint, das genaue jeweilige Textereignis, nicht etwa Nietzsche allgemein und als ganzer Nietzschetext, nein, die ganz genaue Stelle in seinem Werk zu einem möglichst genau zu bestimmenden Zeitpunkt und zur speziellen Konstellation im Kontext seines Werks und seine Verbindungslinien zu den diese Textstelle speisenden Kontexten in und vor seiner Zeit.
Das Haus der Geschichte ist komplex. Der Austrofaschismus ist komplex. Schuschnigg als Name und Text ist komplex. Dollfuß ist komplex. Beide in einem Atemzug, das geht gar nicht. Die Absichten und Handlungen als Setzungen sind genauestens zu erforschen. Und nicht vergleichbar!
Dekonstruktion schafft Unvergleichbares, schafft ek-statische Begrifflichkeiten, schafft komplexe Lektüren, komplexe Idiome, komplexe Singularitäten. Unvergleichliche Textereignisse, zu lesen, auszulesen bis hinein in die Epigenetik, um dieses eine Mal diese Metapher zu bemühen.
Ich sagte oben, das Erbe empfangen und hernach auswählen, entscheiden, verantworten, vivifizieren, dekonstruieren.
Wir müssen alles tun, um uns Vergangenheit anzueignen, gerade weil wir wissen, daß wir die Vergangenheit nie bleibend gegenwärtig machen können. Wir müssen das Erbe annehmen, versuchen es am Leben zu erhalten, erkennbar werden lassen und wirken lassen. Interpretiert! Kontextualisiert! Vivifiziert!
Wir können das Erbe nicht wählen, es erwählt uns aus. Ob wir wollen oder nicht. Die Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, die Shoah und all die anderen Schrecklichkeiten. Auch das gehört zu unserem Erbe! Ob wir wollen oder nicht. Die Gewaltsamkeit des Erbes erwählt uns gewaltsam. Wir verantworten dann, was wir mit diesem Erbe machen. Unsere Signatur! Unsere Entscheidung! Unsere Verantwortung!
100 Jahre Republik! 100 Jahre Republik? Haus der Geschichte!!! Häuser der Geschichte.
Kontinuitäten, Brüche, Konjunkturen, Strukturen, Singularitäten, Geschichte, Unterbrechungen, Kräfte, dieses Band zwischen Kraft und Geschichte, – jeder Text ist heterogen und auch das „Erbe“ ist ein „Text“.
Die Idee des Erbes impliziert zu jedem Zeitpunkt in einem unterschiedlichen Kontext eine Strategie und Entscheidungen mit Verantwortlichkeit.
Weiter oben war die Rede schon von Großökonomien. Kommen wir kurz auf Kräfte wie die Sozialdemokratie und die Unternehmerschaft als Großbourgoisie anhand eines Beispiels, des Unternehmers Karl Wittgenstein, Vater von 8 Kindern, das jüngste der spätere Philosoph Ludwig Wittgenstein. Die Geschichte, die Biographien sind uns einigermaßen bekannt. Der Vater, ein eisenharter Unternehmer und Abenteurer und bildungsbewußt, der sehr schnell in seiner Karriere vorankam, galt als rücksichtsloser Rationalisierer und kapitalistischer Ausbeuter (gleichzeitig Kunstmäzen zur Imageverbesserung), der im triumphalen, rassistoiden Brustton der selbstgewissen Überzeugung von dem „von der Natur Bevorzugten“, „der alle Hindernisse überwindet“ im Gegensatz zu den zurückbleibenden „Brustschwachen“ und „Kränklichen“ (zitiert nach: Jorn Bramann, Karl Wittgenstein, Zeitgeschichte 2, 1974, S. 33) schrieb und den die Sozialdemokratie aufgrund seiner Taten und seiner gefährlichen Einstellung zum Menschen (siehe Zitate) heftig kritisierte.
Hart auch als Vater, der Hochleistungen einforderte, zeugte er acht überlebende Kinder, von denen nicht weniger als drei Söhne Selbstmord verübten. Brutalität, künstlerische Sensibilität und Tragik umschatteten die Familie, in die der österreichische Philosoph Ludwig Wittgenstein 1889 hineingeboren wurde. (Janik/Toulmin, Wittgensteins Wien, Mch. 1984; Mc Guinness, Wittgensteins frühe Jahre, Frf. 1988)
Die Menschenverachtung tritt hier bei Karl Wittgenstein dem rücksichtslosen Unternehmer ganz deutlich an die Oberfläche. Alles Tun dient der eigenen Mächtigkeit und Selbstherrlichkeit.
Schwache, Kranke, Arbeiter. Minderwertigkeit, Ausbeutbarkeit, sozialdarwinistisches Welt-und Menschenbild, Kapitalmaximierung, die Anschlußfähigkeit an faschistisches Gedankengut liegt in Reichweite.
Die wirtschaftlichen Modernisierungsprozesse am Ende der Monarchie und ihre Opfer, die ArbeiterInnen (auch und besonders in der Zukunft der 2 Weltkriege). Die künstlerische Moderne als Wiener Moderne, die zum Teil auch von den Modernisierungserträgen lebte (Wittgenstein finanzierte die Secession u.a.) verwies auf diese negative Seite, die Kehrseite der Modernisierung.
Das Bildungsbürgertum blieb unter sich, wenn es um den Kampf der Geschlechter ging. Die Diskurse über die Frau (Weininger, Mayreder, Druskowitz, Schnitzler u.a.) und diverse Kunstskandale (Schiele, Kokoschka, Klimt, vgl. Schorske) hatten auf der realen Alltagsebene immerhin das Fundament mit ersten Freiheitsbestrebungen die sich zunehmend formierende Frauenbewegung in mehreren Frauenvereinen (Arbeiterinnenbildungsverein 1890, Allgemeiner österreichischer Frauenverein 1893, Bund österreichischer Frauenvereine 1902).
All das und noch viel mehr als unser aller Erbe.
Fortschrittliche Bewegungen, organisierter Kapitalismus, schweigendes Militär, stockkonservativer Adel, wirtschaftlich drängende, großenteils konservative Bourgoisie, privatim familiär zerrissen in der „Frauenfrage“ Typus Mutter und Hure (vgl. Musils Zögling Törleß 1906). Musils „Törleß“ als kurzer kompakter Umriß samt Einblicke in die Machtmechanismen und Zivilisationsbrüche des 20. Jahrhunderts und darüberhinaus!
Viele dieser Brüche geschahen nicht von heut auf morgen, waren lange Haarrißarbeiten im Material des Gebäudes Habsburger Monarchie infolge zuwiderlaufender Spannungen im Großen (Staat, Regierung, Parlament, Klassen-Gesellschaft,) und im Kleinen (Familien, Individuen) zwischen Traditionalismus und Modernismus.
Zum „Rätsel Weib“ ein Zitat von Robert Musil, das auch heute (Stichwort Kopftuch, Burka etc.) noch oder wieder akut geworden ist und in diversen Weltgegenden dem gleichen Kampf ausgesetzt ist (von Malala bis zur verurteilten und kürzlich freigelassenen und vom Volkszorn bedrohten Christin Asia Bibi in Pakistan).
Musil: „Damals trugen die Frauen Kleider, die vom Hals bis zu den Knöcheln geschlossen waren, … Mit dem großen Kleid, seinen Rüschen, Puffen, Glocken, Glockenfällen, Spitzen und Raffungen, hatten sie sich eine Oberfläche geschaffen, die fünfmal so groß war wie die ursprüngliche und einen faltenreichen, schwer zugänglichen, mit erotischer Spannung geladenen Kelch bildete, der in seinem Inneren das schmale weiße Tier verbarg, das sich suchen ließ und fürchterlich begehrenswert machte“ (Robert Musil, Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften, Hamburg 1987, S. 279).
Moderne und Traditionalismus.
Der Vielvölkerstaat zerbrach. Der kaiserliche Mythos war zerbrochen.
Den Sozialdemokraten, obwohl nicht die Mehrheit, fiel die politische Führung zu.
Vom 21. Oktober bis zum 12. November dauerte es.
Dann wurde die übrig bleibende westliche Reichshälfte, das deutschsprachige Österreich, zur Republik Deutsch-Österreich, noch ohne feste Grenzen. Überall die alten Erbschaften, die alten Konflikte des gemischtsprachigen Mitteleuropa. Nationalpolitische Konflikte, die „nationale Revolution“ von Otto Bauer (O. B., Die österreichische Revolution, Werkausgabe Bd. 2, Wien 1976, S. 614). Die nichtdeutschsprachigen Völker wollten keinesfalls mehr in einen Bund, der gewünschte Anschluß an Deutschland von den Alliierten untersagt, so wurde die Option Deutsch-Österreich die einzig mögliche. Politische Träume werden weiter geträumt, noch lange. Der Traum vom Donaureich von den Monarchisten, dem Großkapital und Teilen der Christlichsozialen, der Traum vom Deutschen Reich (!) besonders damals bei den Deutschnationalen und den Sozialdemokraten(!).
Renners Parole lautete ab sofort „Arbeiten, arbeiten und nicht verzweifeln.“
Otto Bauers “demokratische Revolution“ (O. B., Die Österreichische Revolution, Werkausgabe Bd. 2, Wien 1976, S. 624) durchdrang die Gesellschaft.
Frauenwahlrecht ab sofort (1918).
1918 hatte die Demokratie über die autokratische Monarchie die Oberhand gewonnen. Große Worte!
Und Taten!
Hans Kelsens „legalistische Revolution“ (Österreichisches Staatsrecht, Tübingen 1923, S. 79), die erste Verfassung wurde beschlossen am 30. Oktober von der Provisorischen Nationalversammlung und das war Bauers „parlamentarische Revolution“ (Österr. Revolution, S. 588). Starke Parlamentsherrschaft im Gegensatz zur schwachen Stellung in der Monarchie.
Ein großer wichtiger Bruch! Die Rechtskontinuität mit dem alten Staat wurde zerbrochen.
Unser aller Erbe.
Hans Kelsen hat Jahre später nebst vielen anderen Schriften in den USA einen bis dato gültigen Kommentar zum Recht der Vereinten Nationen verfaßt.
Wir Erben.
Ein Bruch mit etwas hat oft auch negative Folgen.
Der ökonomische Strukturbruch war keine ökonomische Revolution und zeitigte langreichende Folgen. Der Wirtschaftsraum der ehemaligen Habsburger Monarchie wurde empfindlich getroffen.
„Zurück blieb eine Wirtschaft, die vom bisherigen Inland (den Nachfolgestaaten) abgesperrt und mit zahlreichen Strukturschwächen behaftet war: eine schmale Energiebasis, abhängig von den tschechischen Kohlenlieferungen, die zunächst gestoppt waren; eine unterentwickelte Landwirtschaft, die das Land nicht ernähren konnte; eine hochentwickelte Rüstungsindustrie rund um Wien, die die Arbeit einstellte und sich nicht rasch genug auf Friedensprodukte umstellen konnte; disproportionale Industriestandorte etwa im Textilsektor; ein überbesetzter tertiärer Sektor, vor allem ein aufgeblähter Bankenapparat; und schließlich ein gewaltiger Überhang im öffentlichen Dienst (10 Prozent der Beschäftigten).“ (Ernst Hanisch, Der lange Schatten des Staates. Österreichische Gesellschaftsgeschichte im 20. Jh.Österreichische Geschichte 1890 – 1990, Wien 1994, S. 277)
Produktionskrise, Stagnation, Hyperinflation und Währungsentwertung, riesiges Budgetdefizit infolge Lebensmittelstützung durch den Staat, Spekulation auf das schnelle Geld, Anschwellen des Bankenapparats
Bankensterben, Krisenzone Bankwesen, Kapitalknappheit, hohe Zinsen
Weltwirtschaftskrise von außen
Dauerdruck auf das demokratische politische System
Innere Spannungen, aufstrebende Heimwehr rief zum Staatsstreich auf
Konfliktkonfiguration sozialdemokratische Arbeiterschaft versus Bürgertum, danach Heimwehr und Schutzbund und schließlich militante Nationalsozialisten contra „ständestaatliches“ Machtpotential
Der originär österreichische Nationalsozialismus
( ganz im Gegensatz zum Staatsgesetzblatt Nr. 1 als Argumentationskonstrukt für eine Geburtsstunde Null der Zweiten Republik als aktive Grundsteinlegung zum Aufbau einer nationalen Identität, in dem die „Tatsache, daß der Anschluß des Jahres 1938 … durch militärische Bedrohung von außen und den hochverräterischen Terror einer nazifaschistischen Minderheit eingeleitet, einer wehrlosen Staatsleitung abgelistet und abgepreßt, endlich durch militärische und kriegsmäßige Besetzung des Landes dem hilflos gewordenen Volke Österreichs aufgezwungen worden ist“ )
wurde von Anfang an ausgeblendet:
„Bei den letzten freien Landtagswahlen im April 1932 in Wien, Niederösterreich und Salzburg hatte die NSDAP insgesamt 336.000 Wählerstimmen (16 Prozent der Gesamtstimmenzahl) erzielt und war zu einer Mittelpartei aufgestiegen. … Nicht nur durch sie gestaltete sich >>die militärische und kriegsmäßige Besetzung des Landes<< durch das >>Deutsche Reich<< zu einem >Blumenkrieg<, der selbst die deutschen >Besatzer< verblüffte.“
(zit. nach: Walter Manoschek, Verschmähte Erbschaft, Österreichs Umgang mit dem Nationalsozialismus 1945 bis 1955, in: Österreich 1945-1995, Gesellschaft Politik Kultur, Reinhard Sieder, Heinz Steinert, Emmerich Tálos [Hg.], hgg. v. Verein Kritische Sozialwissenschaft und Politische Bildung, Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik, Wien 1996, S. 96 f.
Legitimitätskrise der Ersten Republik
Die Republik im Bettelkleid
Krise der Identität, Deutsche oder Österreicher
März 1938 Ausnützung der Identitätskrise, Definition der Österreicher als Deutsche
Wohin uns diese Vorgänge führten, ist jedem Menschen bekannt.
Neuerlich Krieg, Mord, Vernichtungslager, Massenmord, Holocaust, Tod allüberall
Wir alle sind bemüht und gespannt auf die Zukunft! Sind wir?
Jedenfalls, – die 4 Stunden Gespräch waren eine angemessene Wahrnehmung, Erinnerung, Ermahnung und Vivifizierung für uns und selbstredend durch uns,- denke ich.
Ich danke Ihnen. Ich danke Euch.
MfG
GerhardKaučić und Anna Lydia Huber
Zur weiteren kritischen Vertiefung anläßlich der Feierlichkeiten rund um 100 Jahre Republik Österreich und Haus der Geschichte Österreich sowie zum Gang der Geschichte zum Komplex Rassismus, Faschismus, Nationalsozialismus versus Demokratie, Menschenrechte, Menschenwürde, Singularität
1)
Die österreichische Revolution
KOMMENTAR DER ANDEREN
WOLFGANG MADERTHANER
9. November 2018, Der Standard „Kommentare der Anderen“
Die österreichische Revolution war eine politische, ein Prozess der Defeudalisierung, dem Momente des sozialen Umsturzes und des spektakulären Eintritts der Massen in die Geschichte unterlegt sind.
Wolfgang Maderthaner (71) war Generaldirektor des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs
2)
Wegschauen bei antijüdischer Gewalt
KOMMENTAR DER ANDEREN
GERHARD BOTZ
9. November 2018, Der Standard „Kommentare der Anderen“
Ein Blick auf die andere Seite der österreichischen Geschichtsjubiläen: den Judenpogrom am 10. November 1938. Eine Ergänzung zu den Feierlichkeiten anlässlich hundert Jahre Republik.
Gerhard Botz (84), Prof. emeritus f. Zeitgeschichte an d. Univ. Wien
3)
Expeditionen zum Ursprung des Rassismus
DORIS GRIESSER
15. November 2018 – der Standard „Forschung Spezial“
Wo liegen die Wurzeln der Diskriminierung? Auf ihrer Suche danach landet die Künstlerin und Forscherin Belinda Kazeem-Kamiński immer wieder in der Kolonialzeit.
Doris Griesser (59) Dr. phil., Wissenschaftsjournalistin, Der Standard
Belinda Kazeem-Kamiński (45) ist als Künstlerin, Autorin und Sozialwissenschafterin tätig. In ihrer Arbeit erforscht Kazeem-Kamiński die Wurzeln von Rassismus. Für ihr Projekt „The Letter“ ist die Künstlerin Belinda Kazeem-Kamiński kürzlich mit dem Cathrin-Pichler-Preis ausgezeichnet worden.
Gerhard Kaučić (*1959), Leiter einer Philosophischen Praxis seit 36 Jahren in Wien (1989-2025 ff.)
Haus der Geschichte Österreich (Wien) in der Hofburg (Neue Burg)
Dr. Gerhard Kaučić (Philosoph, Jg. 1959), Leiter Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis Wien
Haus der Geschichte Österreich (Wien) in der Hofburg (Neue Burg)
Schaffen Museen Identität? Ist Geschichte darstellbar?
Welche Akteure schreiben welche Geschichte? Kann Geschichtsschreibung Geschichtswissenschaft sein und was wäre dabei Wissenschaft, was Geschichte und was die Wissenschaft der Geschichte(n).
Wer benennt diverse Prämissen und wer verdeckt welche? Und warum?
Kann man darüber ein Haus bauen?! Ein Geschichtshaus als Museum?!
Wieviele Häuser braucht ein Land wie Österreich und seine politische Landschaft. Und kennt die Geschichtsschreibung ihre Axiome und Theoreme?
Oder anders gefragt, kann die Geschichtsschreibung als Wissenschaft die Kriterien der „Vollständigkeit“ und der „Widerspruchsfreiheit“ erfüllen?
Ich vermute fürs Erste eher Geschichtsschreibung als wissenschaftliche Versuchsanordnungen zur kritisierbaren Erprobung von Zeitgeschichten als Geschichten zur Zeit, zum Raum und zur Machtausübung in einem definiert begrenzten polit-geographischen Zeitraum nachträglich formuliert nach Einsicht und qualifizierter Durchsicht und Wertung aller jeweils zur Verfügung stehenden Medien als Aussagen-Texte zu diesem erkannten und erkennbaren „Werk“ der Geschichte als Vorgänge und Handlungen sogenannter systemischer Kräfte.
Was war das Band zwischen Kraft und „Geschichte“!? Welche waren die Kräfte dieses Erbes?!
Das Haus der Geschichte Österreich ( Kürzel HdGÖ ) ist ein österreichisches Zeitgeschichtemuseum in der Neuen Burg (Hofburg) in Wien. Gründungsdirektorin ist die Historikerin Monika Sommer-Sieghart.
Das erste Museum für Zeitgeschichte der Republik Österreich wurde am 10. November 2018 rund um die Feierlichkeiten zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Gründung der Republik Österreich eröffnet.
( Die Historikerin Mag. Dr. Monika Sommer-Sieghart wurde die erste Direktorin des Hauses der Geschichte Österreich (HGÖ), das 2018 in der Neuen Burg am Heldenplatz eröffnete.
Dies teilte Generaldirektorin Dr. Johanna Rachinger am Donnerstag, 26. Jänner 2017, bei einer Pressekonferenz mit. Ihre Entscheidung basiert auf einem Dreier-Vorschlag, den der Wissenschaftliche Beirat des HGÖ unter Vorsitz von Univ.-Prof. DDr. Oliver Rathkolb erstellt hat.
Geschichtswissenschaft als historisches Fragen und Forschen mit welchem Subjektverständnis?
Der Analytiker ist ein Leser, eine Leserin. Und! Der Analytiker wird zum Schreiber, zum Schriftsteller als lesenden.
Die Lekritüre der Grammatologie.
Die Unauslesbarkeit als Paradox des Traums.
Die Illisibilität eines jeden Textes und seine „Grundlosigkeit“! (vgl. Michael Turnheim, Das Andere im Gleichen, S. 11)
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!
In psychoanalytischen Denkfiguren spielen die Phänomene der Selbstaffektion eine sogenannte wesentliche Rolle.
Freud schreibt im „Entwurf einer Psychologie“ in den gesammelten Werken im Nachtragsband auf Seite 412, daß er nicht daran zweifelt, daß die „Wunschbelebung zunächst dasselbe ergibt wie die Wahrnehmung, nämlich eine Halluzination“. Das Subjekt stellt sich selbst in halluzinatorischer Art und Weise die Befriedigung eines Wunsches vor.
Es nimmt sich selbst das Leben. Es tötet selbst. Das jeweilig so disponierte, also inskribierte Subjekt versucht, sich möglichst ohne Aufschub und ohne jegliche Umwege Gegenwärtigkeit (vgl. Blog-Teaser!) zu verschaffen.
Trotz der versuchten Herstellung von Gegenwärtigkeit leidet das Subjekt an einem kleinen Rest von Widerstand, einem kleinen Bestand an Unreinheit der Selbstaffektion. Es spürt den „Fremdkörper“ im eigenen Inneren, das Subjekt gewahrt das Gemachte!
Es ahnt, daß das Zustandekommen der scheinbar unmittelbaren Selbstaffektion nicht ohne die Möglichkeit eines fremdbleibenden Dritten, einem Äußeren zustandekommen kann und zur „Auto-Hetero-Affektion“ verkommt.
Nichts geht ohne Körper und nichts geht ohne „Vorstellung“ (vgl. Blog-Teaser! Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.) und nichts geht ohne Vorstellung des sogenannten eigenen Körpers. Diese Spaltung ist der Widerstand und gleichzeitig der Aufruf zu einem immer wieder neuen Anlauf zur Wiederholung der Selbstaffektion als Halluzination.
Die reine Selbstaffektion gibt es nicht und gerät immer wieder zur Auto-Hetero-Affektion!
Wir kennen das Beispiel des Norwegers und anderer Serienkiller. Wiederholung ist Alles!!! Die „reine“ Selbstaffektion bedeutete die Auslöschung des „Fremden“, des „Fremdkörpers“ (auch als eigenem)! (vgl. Derrida, Le toucher, Jean-Luc Nancy, p. 206 u. passim und Melanie Klein, Das Seelenleben des Kleinkindes, S. 133)
Der Ort und die Zeit, das Territorium „Wo Macht Recht ist.“
Unsere Körper sind politische!
In jedem Fall wird es eine Arbeit am verfügbaren Repertoire historischer Phantasien geben.
Moira Gatens „kulturelles Imaginäres“ (in: M. Gatens, Imaginary Bodies. Ethics, Power and Corporeality, London/New York 1996) stellt Vorstellungen und Bilder für jedes Subjekt bereit, an denen sich Wahrnehmungen, Empfindungen des eigenen Körpers orientieren ebenso wie Entwürfe und Planungen technischer und industrieller Art.
Medien und Weltordnungen! Und das geopolitisch biopolitische Unbewußte der Medien! Wir selbst sind medial und medial gemacht!
Massenmedien verbreiten seit Jahrzehnten Selbstbeschreibungsversuche einer Weltgesellschaft oder einer Welt und ihrer diversen Gesellschaften.
Massenmediale Skripten und Einschreibungen prägen permanent die Geopolitik der Welt.
Überzeugend (ob Filme, Spiele, Serien etc.) ist, was aufgrund von Räumen, Medien und sozialen Ordnungen für plausibel gehalten werden kann.
Sexuelle, ethnische und nationale Identitäten sind nicht körperbiologisch begründbar. Es handelt sich (wie oben dargelegt) um Realitätseffekte performativer Handlungen.
Das europäische Erbe ist einerseits eine Anbindung von Recht und Politik an die Souveränität des „Subjekts“, zum anderen besteht für viele Subjekte (z.B. konservative Zuwanderer) die „Gefahr“ und die Chance und Möglichkeit dekonstruiert zu werden.
Bedeutet, – die Globalisierung ist die Europäisierung !
Das europäische Erbe sind infolgedessen zahlreiche Verschiebungen, territorial und deterritorial, individual, ethnisch, religiös u.a.
Das europäische Erbe sind Krisen !
Krise und Dekonstruktion !
Temporäre Textkonfiguration !
Das europäische Erbe: Krise, Psychoanalyse, Dekonstruktion, Demokratie !
Räume und Grenzen sind keine objektiv messbaren und erhaltbaren Gegebenheiten.
Räume und Grenzen kommen und gehen, immer schon, durch Krise und Dekonstruktion. Effekte psychosozialer Dynamiken, Affizierung und Immunisierung. Politiken!
Seit 9/11 2001 eine sich beschleunigende Spirale von Antiterror-Krieg und Terror, Cyber-War, Drohnen-Krieg, Aufstände, Revolutionen, Religionen im Krieg, Flüchtlingswellen (! Wellen ?! oder ein großer Andrang, eine hohe Anzahl von Menschen auf der Flucht !?), Flüchtlingsleid, Fluchttragödien, Zuschau-Mentalität, Rettungsaktionen, Gezerre und Geschiebe um Konventionen (Genfer K. etc.) und Abmachungen, internationale Verträge,
Flüchtlingsverteilungen bzw Aufnahme-Kontingente, Aufnahmekrise!?, Sterben und Tod, Handlungsunfähigkeit von links und rechts, von Austria bis Australia.
Migrationsströme (Ströme oder Andrang von Menschen!?, Aufnahmekrise!?!, Vertreibungskrise!?! oder Flüchtlingskrise!!!?) an den Außengrenzen der „Festung Europa“, Sklavenhandel, Terrorismus, Imperialismus. Das Erbe Europas.
Neue, fairere Verhältnislagen schaffen! Neue Narrative, neue Bilder, neue Selbstbildnisse, neue Selbstbeschreibungen.
Es geht um das Aushalten und Lebbarmachen neuer und alter Differenzen!
Der posthumane, globale Eine ohne den Anderen, ohne das Andere eine Illusion des Cyberspace und seiner Vertrauten.
Die Vollendung der Geschichte oder Fukuyamas „Ende der Geschichte“ eine Ideologie aus dem Pentagon der 90er Jahre des vorigen Jahrhunderts.
Ein Set an Begriffen begleitet diese Mediendiskurse, die diese Ideologien befördern.
Ideologien des einen beherrschbaren Marktes durch einige wenige Riesen-Konzerne.
Sie lauten: Netzwerkgesellschaft, Weltgesellschaft, One World, Neue Weltordnung, TTIP, CETA, ACTA, …, Globalisierung, Weltkommunikation, World Wide Web, War on Terror, NSA, …
Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, „Was sich nicht wegkommunizieren läßt“, in: Kommunikation. Medien. Macht, hg. v. R. Maresch, N. Werber, Frf. 1999, 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.“
Aktivismen und Theoriebildungen. Queer theories? „What is queer today is not queer tomorrow.“ (Titel einer Ausstellung der neuen Gesellschaft für bildende Kunst in Berlin 2014). Signaturen unter Theorie-Ereignissen: Monique Wittig, Luce Irigaray, Judith Butler, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Paul B. Preciado, Marie-Hélène Bourcier, Hanna Hacker u.a.
Trans*reading als Weiterführung von queer reading ?
Historisches Forschen als Entzifferung verschwiegener oder nicht wahrgenommener und nicht wahrnehmbarer (zeitlich/örtlich) Trans*Präsenz in historischen (Kon-) Texten.
Queere Lesarten als dekonstruktive inkludieren die Reflektivität qua Reflexion von Geschichte(n) und Geschichtsforschung samt dem Zeitpunkt und dem Ort der GeschichtsforscherInnen in eine multidirektionale trans*positive Konstellation von zu erforschendem Feld und eigenem Erfahrungswissen als mitzureflektierende Medien.
Heißt immer auch affektives(!) Lesen und Schreiben >am und im Haus der Geschichte< mit einem Körper als einem politischen und einem zeiträumlichen Ich des permanenten Übergangs bzw Übergehens(!).
„Das Haus der Geschichte“ ist permanenter Übergang im global zu denkenden Bewußtseinskontext und seinem Unbewußten, – seinem trans*ing von Grenzen und Grenzüberschreitungen und deren Theoretisierungen sowie deren Aktivismen und vice versa.
Dekonstruktionen als sich radikalisierende Verschiebungen im Geschichtswissenschaftsfeld und in den geschichtswissenschaftlichen AkteurInnen. Wechseldynamische Beziehungen zwischen Körper und Raum, Subjekt und Ort, Landschaft und Leib, Werk und Wahrheit, – trans studies unverzichtbar antirassistisch, dekolonial und whiteness-kritisch. Transfeminist turn. Trans*reading. Dekonstruktive Aufmerksamkeit!
Mehr dazu siehe meinen Teaser und meinen Footer sowie die übrigen Postings in diesem Blog! (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 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
/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.
/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.
/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.
/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.
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.
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
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 )
Most of all I like to „cycle around“, – to preserve my „soul“,
my mood, my reflexes, my mind, my health and „the world“ !
Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber auf Tour
Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber on tour with light tent tarp and sleeping bag
Philosophical Practice, Head Gerhard Kaučić & Associate Anna Lydia Huber
Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., born 1959), Anna Lydia Huber (MSc, born 1959)
First contact please only under these e-mails:
g[dot]kaucic[at]chello[dot]at or gack[at]chello[dot]at
Opening hours: Mon – Sat: 11 am – 8 pm
Contemporary Philosophy
Gegenwartsphilosophie
1) The question of death and the question of birth
Sociologies of religion can be deconstructed. They all undermine their declared goal. They are all overtaxed in the attempt to answer the question of the nature of religion.
They all try themselves(!) not to be religious in their attempts to describe the religiousness of religion, because that is the essence(!) of religion.
Religion states(!) religious by restriction and exclusion! Is insofar not every description of religion(s) automatically(!), inevitably religious itself?! The description of religious facts (!), rituals, events, descriptions, communications (like prayers!), phenomena (!) must itself be religious! Otherwise it could not describe religion (!).
These sociologies and phenomenologies include and exclude! As it suits them or is possible.
Both is paradox! In the straight literal sense para-dox! Close to something!
Paradoxical distinctions, explanations produce paradoxical descriptions.
Science as paradoxical statement ?!
Religion defines itself.
Makes itself free from the judgment of others!
Religion judges only(!) itself about other(s).
The system religion, if I may call it so, because strictly speaking, scientifically speaking (cf. Luhmann), it is not a system, rather a system delusion, a psychosis (cf. Lacan, Abraham/Torok) as an institution in the form of e.g. the churches.
The system R e l i g i o n is only as such(!) independent (!?), if it is put into the position to co-control, what it all is not.
Psychoses and religion(s) have something in common, – namely the ability to give meaning to something, to make something special, thus a kind of doubling of reality (( e.g. the burning thorn bush! Only or more?! Surpluseffects, where there is (almost) nothing at all of something that is supposed to be there (!) )).
Paradoxical statements are also frequent in the history of philosophy. The history of metaphysics is one of paradoxes.
Mostly as a result of the almost imperceptible change from one level of reality (or a statement about it) to another. Hegel, Heidegger, Wittgenstein. They all speak of being, which does not exist at all. Of being as suchness or of „could“ in the word „to be“.
Marx considers the critique of religion as the premise of every critique of ideology!
Now, however, in my opinion, there is in every critique a certain
(( determinable (!), to be determined (!) spirit (!), – a ghost better (as Derrida formulates) ))
ghost spirit(!), the ghost of the sentence, of every sentence, the ghost of the jump between sentences and as the jump from sentence to sentence.
The ghost of a heterogeneity between belief and knowledge. A ghost of religion perhaps (or rather psychosis?) at the borders of mere reason?
The exclusion of the religious of religion as recourse and descent or repeated return of the principle (!) of faith and the eternal (?) return of religion qua „religious“.
How to think religion today without being/becoming religious. After all what has been said before.
Can the further above stated assertion with question marks of a „civil religion“, which we would need, perhaps also only need in the meantime, be justified at all somehow, at least filled/fulfilled with plausibility of today’s enlightened thinking?
Meaningful ? Not ?!
What would be the purpose ? And is thinking to a purpose religion-friendly and capable of majority ? And if yes, what would be the consequences!
Spaghetti – monsters ?
Voodoo – parties ?
Martial – Arts – cages as church ?
Uniform clothing?
Collective suicide?
Flying carpets?
LSD for all on prescription ?
Latin masses as vegan gala dinners ?
Continuation by every self-thinker !
Is religion absurd ? The absurd as basic substrate of every religion ?
Kierkegaard interprets a purpose into religion. Into the act of faith.
He thinks that Abraham would have known in his heart that God would not take Isaac as a sacrifice in the end. He would merely(!) test him. And if he does, the Lord will give him a new(!) Isaac, a new son. Power of the absurd !
Abraham is absolutely and totally bound to his God. To the absoluteness of the religious bond (both Abraham as the progenitor/forefather of Israel and as the progenitor of the Arabs).
Also the Christian (the third Abrahamic religion beside Judaism and Islam, which refers to Abraham and Isaac) and all other (known to me!) religions and faiths know absurd irresponsible (!) sentences like „The Lord gives, the Lord takes away“.
Sentences surrendered to fate. A self-protection formula. From the history of the sufferings and the suffering quite understandable.
Thinking does not always help!
Reciting formulas sometimes does ! In the form of the negation of thinking!
Understanding working through situations, events and processes must be learned.
Order schemes like psychologies create them are in the end also only „frames„, – not much different than prayers (!).
„Originally“(!) prayers were supplications and petitions to the Lord (!)
! More precisely: absurd, because not on eye level dialogue attempts, trial arrangements of D i a – l o g. Interchange speech! Back and forth – speech (cf. m. BlogPost on „dialogue“, „entering into a dialogue“, blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.).
Dialogue demands entry. Entering! To be able to enter! From both sides the willingness and ability where(!) to enter !
Education ! Attention, education as a necessity! (cf. Quintilian, 1st century, Institutio oratoria)
In reality (also today) often domination language.
The irony of incomprehensibility ! Absurdities. In religions! In philosophies !
Absurdities also at an overdose of the interpretative.
Communicative collateral damage of the interpretation of irrationality. The „holy“, the „transcendent“, the „divinity“ as interpretations of an unattainable, of an unattainability by current knowledge, which as non-knowledge always (also for the sciences!) constitutes the greater part of the empirical.
The medium of the „miracle“ serves here for the communication of an at the moment ( = ev. also f. centuries! ) not solvable riddle of eventfulness(!).
Of all things the book religions with their countless rules of life, which want to pretend to be so rational (?).
Their rituals serve the collective function maintenance of further life in any form, whether here on earth or elsewhere.
A clever way of self-insurance in agreement with the others of your kind. Also and especially as making sense of suffering and death. And not merely purely coincidentally on the side of the respective politically-socially prevailing powerful ones gladly seen as in the nucleus uprooters of possible uprisings or revolutions from below. Such a thinking and doing does not come there at all to its birth.
Closely with the question of the death, the being dead (!) and its place the question of the communication from the beyond is connected. I mean the so-called „revelations“. Miraculous signs as messages. Codes.
A wonderful (!) field for exchange of opinions almost without borders. And the countless legitimate interpreters. Apostles, prophets, popes and others.
All of them scholars of the Scriptures, spun into a centuries-old inscrutable tangle of texts and admissible or also inadmissible interpretations of rational kind (rational, because it follows criteria). Rational interpretation of the codes of the irrational.
Today, this is no longer as easy as it was in past centuries. Even theologians of all kinds and provenance are under a certain pressure to learn from modern science.
Even the Near East in the meantime, although very very sluggishly and with blatant setbacks (cf. IS et al.). So-called „counter-reformations“ will always be attempted from the lines of the religious communities. Pius brothers, Salafists, Ayatollahs and many others.
Just we all now might be in the wave of a counter-reformation offensive. An attempt to bring about/initiate/set in motion the so-called „return of religion(s)“.
The „negative freedom of religion“ (= the right not to belong to any religion, cf. human rights! , – and cf: The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has affirmed the negative freedom of religion in November 2011.) does not exist in many countries of this earth.
In Islam today nowhere, as far as I know. But also here in Europe there are states, whose laws expressly forbid this (want!)! I would like to refer here only to Poland. One would like it almost not „believe“, – this knowledge! An E U – country!
The civilizational way is a hard way! These one – God – teachings work with the same perfidious(!) means as the star – blockbusters from Hollywood. The star is everything. All eyes are directed simplified on this one hero. One follows him. He is the one we believe in. We identify with him (passionately).
Unfortunately for all of us.
Man as Contingency. The birth of man and the death of God. I don’t want to list here a hero cult, a hero worship of the human being and the human being as a human being I am, – so I think (!).
And I don’t want to be understood polemically and to be considered as God despiser.
I just don’t believe in a cult of God. God, if there is such a one (!), does not need us. Some of us need this imaginings (and this theater of cults), there are such ones as beings, some even believe, there is a personification of essences.
Sometime the birth of the human(!) happened. Not yet immediately the human being in form of the individuals. A birth of millions of years was, a phase of thousands of years of the end will be.
The end of the human being(s) is certain. We make some, I hope, interesting thoughts about this with the help of Derrida and Leroi-Gourhan, and since I myself am what everyone defines as human, thoughts out of this being human.
Thoughts about the beginning of human life and about the end.
Now I could also call that (slightly frivolously) „r e l i g i o n„. But I am not a slave to any church faith, nor do I want to place my thoughts in what is commonly called a religious context.
All I have tried to do in this posting(!) „Religion and Society“ so far (and based on my/our practice work between Vienna and Paris and emanating from this very practice!), was to show, was to say, – by drawing on various mutually influencing contexts like politics, jurisprudence, sociology, sociology of religion, history, political science, psychoanalysis, philosophy etc etc., – look here, let’s see what religion and faith is and could be and what weight these things(!) have for our society(s) today.
2) The Deconstruction of the Religious
What can it do, – religion !
Can it still do anything ?
Does it do us all good ?
Or what is the mishap, the handicap, the crux, the exhausted.
Where would be the mistake in the construction, if there is a mistake !
And we phoned and tried to reflect in our philosophical practice about it, over it and through it.
Completely casually and purely coincidentally out of interest and without time pressure.
From it become (and became then also) 4 x 4 hours in the friendly and inclined, critically intellectual being together via tele-phone, us consciously of the importance and meaning of the European(!), the Enlightenment and the philosophy and the philosophical as well as the political and its freedoms on this old continent Europe.
This section on „Religion and Society“ I could now also call a chapter on a „Civil Religion“ ( cf. M. Ley, Lübbe, Watzinger, P. Zulehner, U. Barth and others). But I don’t.
I want to leave the religious out of my text here as much as possible.
Perhaps this is then what I would like to call here now the deconstruction of the religious and of religion in general (no matter in which concrete form).
To the heart(!) put, try it but then not to take it too seriously (for you)! That would be now here(!) for the time being only once my expression of will.
And please listen up !
These lines are „only“ a preparation and post-processing (m)of a grammatological philosophical practice of deconstruction from face to face and in actu from ear to ear.
Both, – the preparation and the conversational practice, – constitute the attempted double thinking. The practice of deconstruction in practice.
Thinking(!) (alone and conversationally together) about the end, – death(!), – also generates a thought process about birth. What is our relationship to death. I am not asking, do we have a relationship with death, no, rest assured, we/you do!
Almost a Gretchen question! „How do you stand with religion?“ But just almost !
When does the human being become a human being? When was the human being invented?
When quasi embryonal!
Since Darwin at the latest we all know, the man has found to his being. No idea!
Almost none.
And! Is his end already inaugurated? This is no science fiction and no end time story.
No, are we still human beings and how long will we be? Quite seriously, – the time of the earth is limited.
But before that, – before the end of the earth, – before that, we must go ! Perhaps even already long before. Who knows. Je ne sais pas.
Jacques Derrida describes with the invention of his D i f f é r a n c e the process of life (cf. Teaser, blogspot-Blog 2014 ff., German and English), in which man is a special case, a unique case. A by accident almost and nevertheless from a certain covered distance of processes of physical, chemical and then neurological kind then increasingly more stringent, more defined, more fixed.
Where is the border crossing from the animal to the human being?
That is exciting and thrilling. Is there even such a thing as a borderline possibility!
I ask this question without the intention to make the human being an animal.
We are animal-like, but just not animal alone. And what does animal mean here ! (Cf. my blogpost „animal philosophy“ in this blogspot-blog 2014 ff.).
Animals are! Are many different individuals! And each animal for itself unique !!!
And some animals possess even so-called human characteristics like memory contents, technique ability, special ability, conclusion ability, love, communication etc.! And partly even consciousness!
Jacques Derrida’s phonologocentrism means among other things that every humanism is logocentristic and every metaphysics is a humanism.
Even if until today most philosophers do not like to hear this.
Humanism as metaphysics is the enemy of the animals.
The enemy of the animals and finally also the enemy of the people.
I can’t roll up everything here(!) now (that always happens to us!), have a look at my animal philosophy in the blog, – read Derrida’s works on it and pay attention to the „sins“(!) – catalog, – my red list to the „coming democracy“! (Keyword „extinction of species“, „climate change“, … etc.; always to be found in the appendix of each posting (blogspot-blog!) in red letters, English and German).
If grammatology „can not be a science of man“ it is precisely because „from the very beginning it poses the question, fundamental to it, of the name of man“ (J. Derrida, Of Grammatology, 1974, p. 148, germ. ed.).
The name, the birth, the end, the signature of man !
The event man !
The context of the man !
The concept(!) Différance questions man in a certain sense and thereby draws the history of life in general.
Once again briefly to the humanism as logocentrism or phonologocentrism.
Derrida shows that the traditionally hierarchical arrangement of the two components of the sign must be deconstructively reversed. Up to modern linguistics, the ideal meaning of a sign, called s i g n i f i e d (the idea), is superordinated to the material carrier of meaning, called s i g n i f i e r (the sound or written image). At all times there is an attempt to orient the external signifier, the writing, toward a transcendental signified.
Remember what we said before about religion, God and man.
But every signified (The Imagination!) is (according to Derrida) „always already in the position of the signifier“ (Derrida, Of Grammatology, p. 129, germ. ed.).
There can be no meaning and no sense that could escape spatialization and temporalization and the differential play of signifier relations.
Writing, according to this definition, is sign of signs, signifier of signifiers.
The main purpose of this inversion is to show that the materiality of the signifier is not added to the sense in a retrospective and external way, but vice versa, that the sense is e f f e c t of a signification that is always already retrospective. In this way, Derrida reformulated and reframed the relationship between language and writing/scripture.
Through Derrida’s transformation of the concept of writing, this concept goes beyond that of language and at the same time conceptualizes this concept of language.
From all this follows a completely new, because multi-transformed, understanding and event of
T e x t .
Inherent in such a text (understanding) is the „essence,“ the practice of deconstruction, that is, „inscribed“ (cf. Derrida, Freud and the Scene of Writing, or Freud’s „Wunderblock“).
The thinking of différance is the inherent practice of „deconstruction“.
It is always about, i.e. it is always about for me in my philosophical practice -.
and this includes the conversation in this, but also my/our writing practice before and after each setting/session(!), –
to comprehend texts (written, spoken or representations(!) e.g. technical, artistic, economic, political, institutional) in their inner structure and in their interaction with other texts.
The texts are not only to be analyzed and interpreted, but through the practice of deconstruction to be de-veiled of their conflictuality, their aggressiveness, their covertly carried contents and intentions.
What is meant is the visualization of the duality of the simultaneous presence and absence(!) of truth.
We utter sentences of intentional analytic truth and thereby simultaneously displace other eventual truth or untruth sentences.
Cuttings/settlements punctuate, jump from something to something and thereby lose „something“(!) from view (!) by wanting to take something else ( even as the presumed „same“(!) ) into view as access.
Even such a „wanting“ already leads to shifts in the perception of truth in time and space.
Such a practice leads to a whole new interpretation of all the contexts of these textual formations, – to new configurations in politics, law, literature, philosophy, art, institutions, economies, life as a whole.
There is never and nowhere the possibility of a clear „presence“ or „presentation“. Every representation (re-praesentatio = making something present again !) is contaminated by alterity and affected by moments of absence.
There will never have been „presentative simplicity“, but always another fold/pleat, another non-representable difference. „What is it about this non-presentable or non-representable? How do we think/comprehend it?“ (Derrida, Psyche I, p. 122)
Structurally unfinishable „Nachträglichkeit” [1] (see Derrida) and an eternal game of signifiers create temporary textual-configurations, which are exposed to the permanent activity of translation, interpretation and „deconstruction“ (see details later in this section: “deconstruction as a philosophical practice” ! ).
In his description of the two tempi, which are on the one hand staged/arranged by the death-instinct / death-drive ( cf. J. Lacan, „pulsion de mort“,- in: Se 2, 375 ; in: Se 11, 232; in: Écrits, 848 ) and on the other hand by the life instincts, Freud talks about a „Zauderrhythmus“ in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, which is the result of these two encounters.
The death-instinct / death-drive blindly follows its primary tendency to lead the organic system to its entropic ending. The life instincts on the other hand secure and transmit the kind of knowledge that organisms acquire over millions of years on their way to death.
The beginning of life and its signs lies in the almost nothingness of one pleat / fold, of an interval, which Derrida moved into the position of all origin, – différance ( J. Derrida, La différance ).
Apart from that: Every everyday utterance ( and every everyday action ) has always required an act of trans-lation !
1 In the English language the term „deferred action“ has become established, in French most suitably après-coup (researched by Lacan and even more by Laplanche), the Freudian expression „Nachträglichkeit“ is not transferable, its multi-dimensionality is not reached in other languages! See particularly Derrida, „la différance“!
The „Commentary“ restricts the open semantic game by means of identity, repetition and the attempt of representing „the same“. In doing so it turns itself into a mechanism of control and order by restricting and limiting discourse in order to generate unambiguity (!!!) .
A translation is never a replacement ! Every placement is already a translation of the already imagined and the unimagined. A translation changes the location, it relocates and changes and, therefore, it always is a different text. Thus, only an approximate signified can be saved.
Every Reading (even „conversations“ have to be read) ! Things that have been heard are being „read“ by a comprehending intellect. Read-out ! Singled out! Sorted out! Out of the heard „reality“ ! Every reading must first produce a significant structure !
There is no criteria for the identity of the meaning of an expression/a term: the interpretation in its scientific sense turns into a thing of indeterminacy. This does not mean, that you shouldn’t quasi-fixate, utilize and evaluate it for some time with the consent of a wide range of readers. So-called “islands of understanding” of temporary textual-configurations! Understanding also in the sense of:
a small or larger group of participants of discourse “stands”(!) temporarily on a temporary safe ground of understanding!
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)
The comment places the author as the highest principle of the order of discourse (see M. Foucault, Ordnung d. Diskurses) and provides itself authority.
„We“ (!) represent the task of disseminal critical communication as an open text of writing to elope the exegesis and re-presentation of the commentary.
The task is „to first understand speech as well and later better than the author/originator“ (approach in engl.: Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik und Kritik, S. 94).
To us the only acceptable critique is a constantly critical critique, i.e. a constantly deconstructing critique, whose object is the writable of a text, a constantly multiplying text.
A signifier is from the very beginning the possibility of its own repetition, of its own image or resemblance. It is the condition of its ideality, what identifies it as signifier, and makes it function as such, relating it to a signified which, for the same reasons, could never be a „unique and singular reality.“ From the moment that the sign appears, that is to say from the very beginning, there is no chance of encountering anywhere the purity of „reality“, „unicity“, „singularity“. (Derrida, of Grammatology, p. 91)
The authority of the Logos, the Commentary, the domination of the interpretation of Writing with focus to its origin, has been, for quite some time, exposed to the critical critique of deconstruction and herein lies the chance for Democracy on the rise (Derrida).
All this refers to a common and radical possibility that no determined science, no abstract discipline, can think as such. (Derrida, of Grammatology, p. 93)
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.
The beginning of life and its signs lies in that almost nothingness of a fold , an interval, which Derrida has put in the place of all origins, – the d i f f é r a n c e ( Derrida, La différance,- in: Randgänge der Philosophie, Vienna, Passagen, 1988 ).
Derrida writes d i f f é r a n c e and not d i f f é r e n c e. His invention, the difference between e and a cannot be heard in French, it is silent but present without being there, it is only graphically there as a difference.
Derrida thus wants to express, in purely factual terms, the phonetically incomprehensible peculiarity of writing.
The French verb d i f f é r e r, to which the expression différance refers, means a twofold, a double (!).
D i f f é r e r in the sense of postponement and detour means temporization, „means to recur, consciously or unconsciously, to the temporal and delaying mediation of a detour which suspends the execution or fulfillment of the desire or will and also realizes it in a way that suspends or tempers its effect“ (Derrida, Randgänge …).
A second meaning is the well-known „to differ“, to be different and distinct.
In this sense, a distance, a „fold“ (pli), an i n t e r v a l l or spatialization, is created between the various elements. These two processes, temporalization (of space) and spatialization (of time), form the formal structure of any Scripture. They are the enabling ground of the sign at all.
Thus also the presence, which is to experience its privileged expression in the self-interrogating voice, cannot do without this basic structure.
No presence is ever completely punctual and identical with itself; it must always refer to something other than itself.
„An interval must separate it (the respective present element) from what it is not, so that it may be itself, but this interval, which constitutes it as present, must at the same time separate the present in itself, and thus separate with the present everything that can be thought from it. (…) This dynamically constituting, dividing interval is what one can call spatialization, space – becoming of time or time – becoming of space (temporization).“ (cf. Derrida, Marginal Passages, p- 39)
„A signifier is from the beginning the possibility of its own repetition, its own likeness or resemblance to itself. This is the condition of its ideality. What identifies it as a signifier and gives it its function as such and relates it to a signified can never be a ‚unique and particular reality‘ for the same reasons.
From the moment the sign appears, that is, since ever, there is no possibility of locating pure ‚reality,‘ ‚uniqueness,‘ and ‚particularity'“ (Derrida, Of Grammatology, p. 165, germ. ed.).
Never will there have been „presentational simplicity,“ but always another „fold,“ another non-presentable difference.
„What is it about the non-presentable or non-representable ? How to think it?“ (Derrida, Psyche I, p. 122)
Structurally inconclusive post-compatibility/deferred action/Nachträglichkeit (cf. Derrida passim, the Freudian expression „Nachträglichkeit“ is not transferable, its multi-dimensionality is not reached in other languages! See particularly Derrida, „la différance“! ) and infinite play of signifiers erect temporary textual configurations that are exposed to the permanent work of translation, interpretation, and „deconstruction“ (see my blog teaser „Deconstruction as Philosophical Practice“).
Underlying intertextuality is the multiplicity of codes, which is fundamentally unrestricted.
The „text“ has ceased to be an object in itself.
The permanently absent presence of I n t e r t e x t u a l i t y (this applies to every text, – and since time immemorial), in which the power of rupture with its contexts has always been structurally immanent in every sign of a writing as a voice of never quite present presences, has always determined writing, – scripture without origin and destination (arche, telos).
All this points to a radical possibility that cannot be shouldered by any single science (Derrida, Gram., p. 168f., germ. ed.).
My task, our task, is to thwart all discourses of power, of domination, of aberrant presumption of authority, by driving apart their intertextualities, the points of intersection of many other texts in each text into many heterogeneous parts.
In this case, here the knotting of the discourses and views of religion and society.
And by driving apart the intersections of the discourses of religion and their play (!) in the most different directions like the constitution of society and state, society and democracy, society and human rights, society and ethics, society and religiosity, society and churches, society and politics, society and philosophy and society and psyche (Ubw/unconscious).
Texts of this kind and their connotation texture are not enclosable by any context, determinable or even politically manageable in the form of imperative statement politics and announcement politics.
And !
„A text is a text only if it conceals from the first glance … the law of its composition and the rule of its play“ (Derrida, Plato’s Pharmacy, – in Dissemination, p. 71, germ. ed.).
The „phono-logocentrism“ is always an anthropo-logocentrism.
To contrast the word with the Scripture is always to contrast man with the animal (!, cf. m. Post on the singular „animal“ in „animal philosophy“ here in this blog) and thus also the question of technology.
The grammatology creates the expression „Différance“ and writes with it the work(!) of the life !
When grammatology thinks the graphy, which it undoubtedly aspires to do, and when it thereby thinks the name of man(!), it does so by elaborating a notion of différance as a stage in the development of the history of life as the history of g r a m m a and thus of the notion of p r o g r a m m (!).
I refer here simultaneously to a kind of trinity of authorship, namely to Leroi-Gourhan, Jacques Derrida, and Bernard Stiegler.
The gramma, these say, structures all levels of life from the writing of genetics to the overcoming of logos.
From the basic programs (!) of instinctive(!) behaviors to the expansion of memory through the production of electronic data processing and diverse information machinery (Derrida, Grammatology, pp. 149ff., germ. ed.).
I thank my guests for the stimulating and hope-making reflections, trains of thought and thought creations, – sometimes and always also at the edge of the abyss.
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 unlimitable!
As I said, I refer here simultaneously to Leroi-Gourhan, Jacques Derrida and Bernard Stiegler.
The gramma, these say, structures all levels of life from genetic writing to the overcoming of logos.
From the basic programs (!) of instinctive(!) behaviors to the expansion of memory through the production of electronic data processing and diverse information machinery (Derrida, Grammatology, pp. 149ff.).
Derrida bases his thinking of différance on the concept of program in the sense of epigenetics.
Programs, pro-grams(!) with fraying(!).
Because the g r a m m a is older than the human graphy and the trace has always started from an essentially non – anthropocentric notion of anthropology, which does not run in the template of the division between animality and being human/ the being of human.
And consequently also the différance, the thinking of différance, which undermines and rejects the opposition (!) animal(s)/human(s) and nature/culture.
What this means for the thinking of an expression of r e l i g i o n is not yet to be imagined !
The so-called religious return applies to me here rather as an act of the desperation of a small thinking. A small attempt of home in the delicate security of wanted unquestionability of authority in God (!?).
The history of gramma is a history especially of technique. Both the inventing and the invented techné. The techné.
The great question of the t e c h n é, which resolves the traditional thinking of technique from Plato to Heidegger and beyond, complicated and largely redeemed (!) (cf. B. Stiegler, Technik und Zeit, p. 185).
The différance, the history of life, stages of life with articulation of „consciousness“.
The emergence of a new type of g r a m m a and prog r a m m .
The cultural behavioral programs, the cultural codes, like the genetic codes, are life-determining, in order and direction.
This new type gramma / program is the transition from the genetic to the non-genetic (cf. A. Leroi-Gourhan, Hand and Word, pp. 275ff., german edition).
New code systems, customs and rituals largely take the place of the genetic codes (cf. P. Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, p. 96, germ. ed.).
The story of this transition, the story of an uncanny abyss, – a past that was never present, leads to a present that is connected to many pasts and connected to no past present.
Différance helps us to understand what this transition means as a gap and a folding.
Differentiation and Spatiotemporalization.
Derrida writes that „the trace is the différance that opens appearance and meaning as an articulation of the living in the non – living par excellence, as the origin of all repetition“ (Derrida, Grammatology, p. 114, germ. ed.).
What is meant is a structure of transmission, the inheritance of a past which I have not experienced, but which is nevertheless my past. And which is the foundation of facticity itself.
What we call past is the storage, an epigenetic sedimentation (Stiegler, Technik u. Zeit, 189), of what has happened.
An epiphylogenesis (Stiegler, ibid.,) of the living, as taught by embryology (Fr. Jacob, The Logic of the Living, The History of Heredity 2002, p. 11, german ed.).
Leroi-Gourhan tries to solve the paradox of becoming alive. Only so much: L. – G. speaks of an intermediate period, already(?) man and yet not yet. A „quasi – zoology“ ! And it is already no more.
In this intermediate period a kind of coupling of living matter/unliving matter, Cortex/Silex, arises, in which a double plasticity develops.
The hardness of the mineral matter gives a form and forms at the same time at the fluidity of the „spiritual“ im-matter (( which is still(!) a „differentiating matter“ (B. Stiegler, p.191), – immaterial-material )), a still genetic work and already epigenetically (= here „culturally“!) determined / co-determined, and which takes its course as epiphylogenesis, – by an epigenesis, which conserves the carpet pad of the flint (silica, „flint“ diagenesis).
„The Silex is the first reflecting memory, the first mirror“ (B. Stiegler, 191).
In the time of corticalization as the earliest stage in human development, a process proceeds as a reflection of a conservation of epigenesis, which is itself already a reflection (Stiegler, ibid., 192).
Leroi-Gourhanquestions the division of the empirical and the transcendental, as Bernard Stiegler correctly notes, and this brings us back to our main thematic concern.
Religion and Society !
Do we need religion to understand becoming human and being human. I mean, I have already said it, no aggression and disparagement of religion and believers. As a social ritual community, religion still has its intellectual justification and often even necessity.
The only question important to me now is/was, however, – do we need religion in order to say and think M e n s c h / m a n .
The belief in a creator is permissible, but not compelling, I think.
About freedom of faith (like freedom of opinion!) and free exercise of religion we do not need to talk further in liberal democracies. Nor about „negative religious freedom“. And also not about separation between state and church (although in Austria, e.g., a real separation has not been carried out until today!).
All this is clear to us here, at least theoretically and legally. The last point not yet clear everywhere. But I am confident! Keyword: fundamental rights, human rights.
The request for protection and security ( immunization! Cf. Derrida, Glaube und Wissen/Belief and knowledge , and passim ), the prayer for oneself or someone as self-insurance „works“ only in a magic space (of thinking) or in the protection of the possibility of religious thinking.
The rest of us stick to state, faith in the rule of law(!), democracy, health care, insurance system, palliative care, funeral system and if available to loving fellow men, friendship, partnership/sociality , as well as art, literature, media, sport and music, science, politics, philosophy, light drugs well dosed like alcohol or all kinds of smoking stuff and nature and adventure.
But! Are we really ready, being completely with ourselves and asking ourselves, – are we able to accept our death simply as I indicated earlier?
Can we really think death and accept it?
Or is it the unacceptable par excellence, the totally unacceptable !
Our real scandal !
Our real fire of narcissism up to the moment of being dead as a not-being, our not-being ! Scandal! Scandal ! Scandal ! Our narcissism with the many many almost senseless enterprises until the end (almost) ! To postpone the end as long as it is possible!?
In this however perhaps completely hidden non-acceptability, because simply not receivability of death, – we are then no longer present with our death !, – there is the contagiousness, the contagion(!), our all contagion(?) with the spark (virus?) of the religiousness !
The trigger of a „religious“, of a religiosum (still without full-blown religion in full incubation!) and fascinosum(!) at least very close to the border of death !?!. Perhaps also frequently as fascinosum of the power !!! (Cf. Elias Canetti!). The power of death and (as) the power of God!?
And in our feelings and ideas of wanting to leave something behind. The concern of the inheritance as a trace!
The passing on! Genetically and culturally up to economically as trace and writing !?
Or still differently asked !
Does our narcissism carry us until death (or even beyond that ?!), – until death ?!
Clandestine, – a fold of respect ?
Of fear ?
I said feelings. Feelings, because intellectually comprehensible, I mean the dying event with the death as end and nevertheless not completely up to the end definable as point. The end of a line as point and not even a point anymore. There also the interval of the transition!
The transition and break of the life towards the death, the last part of this break process as the death !
What is this? What does it tell us. Does it say something. First of all no more „and something“ ?! Intellectually considered ! But our feeling ?! What does it want to force us survivors to do again and again ? We think and keep silent. Forever. ( ! ? )
We have talked about it(!). Many times. And also recently again. Here in Paris and in Vienna. Yesterday. Today. Tomorrow. And very extensively.
Why I wanted to write about it (!) later, I was asked. Already often asked !
And why I wrote something before,- quasi before the event of speaking to each other! Before the „dialogue“! The conversation. The con-versation. Already often asked ! Already so often again calmed down! Remain(!) calm. (?)
My answer (sometimes !):
With Derrida in memory. In passionate memory. Now I remember by reproducing his almost last words (in/from a conversation of J. D. with Jean Birnbaum some weeks before his death in 2004 in the night of October 9) here and retrospectively to our conversation today in Paris a few days ago, re-set here, because I answered so or so similar to it, almost always answered so, when I am asked about the why !
The why >actually< !
I answer in full passion to Derrida and his work, whose heritage I study and enjoy incessantly (!), whose heritage I try to carry on in my own way in and through my (!) philosophical practice. Ever mindful of him. Mindful of his lines, some of which I know by heart(!) almost like an actor, to quote them as here and now.
By heart! Par cœur! Outside of me, although I speak of love and passion along with sorrow, when I speak of him from and about him (( who has long ceased to live among us and lives a little through us (?) And we live and consume and pine for him, – more or less desperately ! )). By heart !
Am I then with this almost(!) by heart and speaking through the heart with me and with my death ?!!
Or do I flee myself and my ( some day ) oncoming death ? Am I only(!) intellectually with me when quoting? Am I then with me (( myself (!?) )) ? Or perhaps only afterwards! After these words of speaking? After such a practice! And being in contact?! When I am alone. In the hotel room. Alone again! Perhaps feeling lonely ? Sometimes at least. Thinking of „my“(!) death! My(!) death! Is my death mine? Does it be mine or does it belong to me. Will it be part of me(!). The „myself“ will then no longer be in the world!
Am I then not free of religiosity after all? Am I religious? Religious without being religious? Then! And otherwise? What would that mean ?
But now Derrida from „Life is Survival“.
Page 62 f. (germ. ed.) the lines on the last two pages of this book !
„We are structurally survivors, marked by the structure of the trace, of the will. When I say this, however, I by no means want to give free way to that interpretation according to which survival is more on the side of death and the past than on that of life and the future.
No, deconstruction is always already on the side of the yes, of the affirmation and assertion of life. ( … )
Survival, that is life beyond life, more life than life, and my speech is not a death-defying speech but, on the contrary, the affirmation of a living person who prefers life (le vivre) and therefore survival (le survivre) to death, because survival, that is not simply what remains, it is life in its greatest possible intensity.
I am never so afflicted by the need to die than in moments of happiness and enjoyment.
Enjoyment and lamenting the impatiently lurking death are one and the same for me.“
And still paraphrased. He like me, we are grateful (!) for our beautiful and happy moments, – even in retrospect for our less happy moments.
We are grateful means we bless them! Because I can be grateful only to someone to whom I owe something, to whom I am grateful, whom I perhaps therefore even love for it, to whom I would therefore be addicted and whom I would thus bless with my love! As some say, their love belongs only to Jesus!
That I call the libido in the narcissism dissolve!
Here the distance between I and you becomes so narrow that almost only the I remains.
A small distance must remain for a self-determined life, for a happy life in moments, means in interruptions of felicity.
When some religious people (and only such people say that, – sometimes) say that they belong to Jesus, they belong only to themselves.
This is the problem of religion. There this becomes pure ideology and often pure demonstration of power (often in association with state power) and as a consequence violence, violence and again violence!
These are the consequences of invocable and invoked God power! The individual saturates his narcissism with the invocation of God for his (the individual’s) purposes. God is private! A kind of private property!
Then the social bond breaks. Then it is said, – believe! Believe, what I tell you! Believe in the miracle! Witness it!
This faith in miracles, – and every faith is a faith in miracles! A faith in divinity! In your(!) appropriating(!) divinity! In holiness! Already the possibility of the canonization of a person sets the premise for the faith (the faith in holiness).
A community(!?) without interruption, without distance. A fusion(!) without air to breathe independently. The sacral comes into being.
That is the dangerous !
The (sometimes) death-bringing even !
Benveniste refers to it with the reference to the Hebrew and the distinction or separation(!) made there between the naturally sacred, which lies in the things, – and the holiness of the institution or the law.
This interruption and disengagement of contemporaneity opens, as it were, space for faith activities, rituals and perhaps faith ability on this side and beyond miracle faith. Simply because the Scriptures say so, and not just say so, the Torah (תורה), the Mishnah (Hebrew מִשְׁנָה, „repetition“), the Talmud, and most excitingly the Sohar (the Sefer haSohar, Hebrew זֹהַר), – writings that discuss(!). In fact, everything!
Texts as commentaries on the Torah, texts on the origin and structure of the universe, on the nature of the soul, on redemption, to the nature of man and the human and on the nature of God.
Everything that is human. Everything that is conceivable. And not only always in the sense of the connservative-canonical tradition. Also subversive, brushed against the current!
Let come together in the house of prayer and discuss. These writings even discuss the discourse of not believing and not having to believe.
The holiness of the covenant as a bond of the community (and as a marker of this the male circumcision!), that is enough.
The consequence, which becomes clear to us with it, – and does not want to please. Born a Jew, he can never cease to be a Jew. He belongs to the covenant forever. Compulsion of the holy institution.
( ( Only in passing two extraordinary works are mentioned here, which had raised a lot of dust and which deal with the „collective imagination of the Jewish people“, its origin, its bond and its covenant and especially with the question of the chosenness and the historical provability of the relationship(! ?) of Khazars and Judaism and the problems with the „mythohistory“ of the Bible, – in short with all the extremely >libidinous< questions of identity and memory and identity politics in Israel:
a) Shlomo Sand: The Invention of the Jewish People. Israel’s founding myth put to the test. Berlin 2010 (original edition in Hebrew 2008).
b) Arthur Koestler: The Thirteenth Tribe. The Empire of the Khazars and its Legacy. Bergisch Gladbach 1989 (original English edition 1976). ) )
The ritual of circumcision as a sign etc etc.
Again, no negative religious freedom (not even in Israel today!, – a lack of democracy in Israel!). One cannot leave the community. Also and especially Islam forbids that. Even under threat of death penalty!!!
Like the blessing, prayer belongs to the core of a true faith. Also the belief in a radical evil, a deeply theological pair of terms, is always at the beginning of something religious. We said it already at the beginning.
The evil deed as the origin of prayer, as the founder and promoter of the religious.
Co-founder of the religious is the ignorance about processes, e.g. about processes in the run-up of acts, – of acts in the sign (!) of a radical evil!
One is not evil, one becomes it! And one could start to understand instead of praying. Understanding and acting.
Let us think again of Aristotle (as we did at the beginning).
According to Aristotle, the truth of prayer is beyond the true and the false, beyond the concept of judgment. The prayer as murmur of a madness (?).
However ! Not always the worst ! Not in every case ! But most of the time. The pure madness of pure faith. And also far too often the worst violence !
Just think of Charlie Hebdo et al (cf. m. post on this).
Incidentally, Emile Benveniste notes in „Indo-European Institutions“ (pp. 433ff.) that there is no common expression in Indo-European to denote religion. Their rituals and practices were mixed up with other social duties.
However, it can be read from the writing of Benveniste that religion was formed on the known double track, – on the one hand securing or insurance against a danger of death or life and on the other hand calming by healing. In Latin also marked by the pair „salva“ and „sana“ or „sacer“ and „sanctus“. Both originate from „sancio“ (to make unbreakable).
The attempt through a libation to the gods to immunize oneself or another, by saying a prayer asking the deity to preserve the integrity.
„The deity possesses this gift of integrity, of salvation, of felicity by nature, and can make men ( … ) partakers of it“ (Benveniste, p. 440).
Likewise, when forbidden things have been done ( s a n c t u s ! ), the sanction, – that is, threat of penalties and punishment.
Affirmation and negation.
Inclusion and exclusion. Carrot and stick. S a c e r and s a n c t u s.
Sanctum is the wall, it is the enclosure of the sacred, of a holy place that must not be entered. Sanctum is that which is forbidden under threat of certain sanctions (E. Benv. ibid., p. 443).
The sacred place is always consecrated, reserved to the gods.
An assertion of a divine !
The belief in this assertion is demanded as normativity of power.
Benveniste elaborates on this. For us it is important to show how religiosity has been put in the service of „worldly“ power, – which, however, is not worldly, but can be called and described as divine, given by God ( until today, by the way ! ).
I would even say, religiosity was invented exactly for such purposes and it was soon forgotten afterwards and believed quasi „honestly“. Also by the authorities.
Traditions serve the belief (in them) and thus the ever current power.
So also the still today often articulated sentence: „But ‚we‘ live in a Christian tradition and culture“. Who is WE ?!
And who refers to the Christian tradition for which purposes ? !
For example, I much prefer to refer to the values of the Enlightenment !
Immunize the hierarchy, the law, the power of the powerful ! This is what it is all about in the first place.
Most clearly to notice today in the Arab-Islamic countries. What is perceived as threatening is the relation or the contamination of one’s own identity by the alterity of the others. The law, the right protects against something that constitutes or could constitute a community.
Law immunizes by including, confining (!) and excluding others from something. Divine right, a right and law established by God, here takes precedence over the secular.
No Community without immunity, – but!, – also no immunity without auto-immunity! (cf. Derrida, Religion and Knowledge, p. 85 u. passim). Only because there is the possibility of contagion, of infection, there is the possibility of community, of communion.
Every community requires justice if it wants to survive in the long run. But justice can only be, who opens and exposes himself to the other in his own singularity (!) and his always threatening alterity (!). The other (as well as the other) can always become dangerous, dangerously contagious and the own is always exposed to this danger and immunizes itself and at the same time autoimmunizes itself. Therefore, the destruction of immunity as a threat to community (or state) simultaneously guarantees the possibility of justice.
Even believers in Islam living in European countries answer (according to surveys) in majority like this and think that the words of the Koran are above the constitutional rights ! Majority! But just a part of the still existing community does not mean this! Attempts of the immunization on the one hand and at the same time auto-immunization!
And in fact in all interests, not only in relation to the practices of the religious practice.
Also the today’s government in Turkey tries to profit from these immunization effects.
Kemal Atatürk has lost terrain for the time being.
Without autoimmunity, nothing would come to pass! (cf. Derrida, Schurken. Zwei Essays über die Vernunft, Suhrkamp 2003, p. 207, german ed.)
Here we see a „freedom“ at work that no longer limits the power of a subject.
Derrida writes that here it is necessary to think the unknowable, a kind of hyper-politics that exceeds the limits of „what one knows one has to do“ (… ) „this surplus of a reason that transcends itself and thus opens itself to its future and its becoming“ (ibid., p. 207) ( … ) „For insofar as reason does not close itself off to the (coming) event of what … is coming, … , then alone the infinite possibility of the worst and of perjury can confirm the possibility of the good … . This possibility remains infinite, but precisely as the possibility of an autoimmunitary finitude.“ (ibid., p. 208) (Cf. also my teaser on the idea of the good in Plato and beyond).
„A new violence announces itself and will indeed rage for a long time, a violence that will rage suicidally and autoimmunitarily to a significantly greater degree than ever before. This violence no longer falls under the concept of world war or of war at all, certainly not under that of any law of war. And there is nothing reassuring about that, on the contrary.“ (Derrida, Villains, 2003, p. 211)
And for a preliminary conclusion, a few words on „r e l i g i o“ and its double etymology, – spoken with Émile Benveniste and Roberto Esposito (Immunitas. Schutz und Negation des Lebens, Engl. ed. 2004, pp. 81 u. 82, germ. Ed.).
Two etyms are connected more or less subliminally in the term „religion“.
One is the etymology of the term r e l i g i o, which goes back to Cicero and sees a connection with r e l e g e r e (to gather, to unite), and the other, attested by Lactance and Tertullian, which emphasizes the association with r e l i g a r e (to bind, to connect).
Benveniste favors the first assumption when he writes: „On the whole, r e l i g i o represents a hesitation that holds someone back, a scruple that prevents something, rather than a feeling related to a (cultic) action.“
Esposito sees it more like Derrida, and glimpses an „underground“(!) coexistence of r e l e g e r e and r e l i g a r e .
„The >re<, the repetition, the replication, the reiteration. Religion – one could say – is the non-practicability of the n o v u m, the impossibility of man being his own beginning, his constant re-inscription in a predetermined framework that makes of every beginning a re-beginning, a re-absorption of something that is always already included in what precedes and predetermines it“ (Esposito, Immunitas, p. 82, germ. ed.).
Remember the section on genetics and inheritance/heredity !
And to the immunitary logic ! The slightly clogged relationship, I want to say, of life and death, of birth and death.
To this immunitary logic, of which Derrida also speaks so often, belongs the search for an answer to the question of the victim! Why kill in order to live?
Why is sacrificare meant „to kill“ when it actually (!?) means „to make sacred“ (cf. sacrificium), Benveniste asks (p. 441, engl. version).
Apparently (after much research on „sacrifice“) sacralization implies crossing a threshold, crossing a boundary! The border between life and death.
Something that is no longer perceptible, the separation in two worlds. The preservation of life by the production of death. „To make the animal >holy< it must be excluded from the world of the living and must cross the threshold that separates the two worlds; this is the purpose of killing“ (so Benveniste, p. 441).
„This aporetic linking of life and death, of momentum and inhibition, of openness and boundedness, belongs to every religion. Indeed, it constitutes the necessary condition for it…“ (Esposito, 83).
Whether this aporetic linkage of life and death as a presupposition of religion, and thus whether religion belongs to society (today?), should belong to it, should still belong to it tomorrow, or must belong to it, that was one of the main concerns in our philosophical practice between Paris and Vienna , between the four of us, the two couples.
As a last little remark for the time being, a slightly digressive addition to the topic: What does the often radically rising value curve, the steeply rising appreciation, homage, yes quasi – sanctification(!), of a deceased (accidental!?, killed!? suicidal!?)/accidental(!) pop star figure like e.g. Falco, John Lennon, Kurt Cobain mean to us.
I strongly suspect it has something to do with „sacrifice“ and „religion“, with the intangible (!), the incomprehensible(!) link between life and death.
With the no longer accessible, – also not theoretically accessible.
Quasi almost something like a holy place, an overstepping of one’s self and a forbidden, – because absolutely (!) absent. A (now) inaccessible !
Unattainable for humans. The death and especially the death of a star (quasi(!?) of a Beloved !) an unthinkable and unacceptable. The unacceptable as sacrilege.
P. S.
A sacrilegium (temple robbery) ! Sacer and legere (to take away, steal).
Sacrificium (sacrifice, to sacrificare „to offer a sacrifice“).
Sacrosanct (highly sacred, inviolable).
The injured pop star.
The pop star killed.
The sacred pop star.
The fictional „highly sacred“, „inviolable“ pop star in the memory truly present and in reality as a sacred person eternally absent.
Example „Elvis“ lives (!).
Thus the call of the eternal „revival“ of all believers. I cry, if I only hear and think!
The religious man as a different-believer (!) in a >reduced< way an „untouchable“ (!?), – a „homo sacer“ (!) ! (( ancient Roman legal figure “ h o m o s a c e r“, outlaw and holy! Killing without punishment, but not sacrifice! Therefore killing senseless(!), thus quasi „untouchable“(!) S a c e r accursed and holy at the same time!
A short look into the history (also of the present) would be helpful !?!
The question about man is inevitably also a question about belief, faith, religion, religiosity and politics.
Religion is not only also, but especially an element in the context > of the political < ! And the place of the political is called „psyche“.
The „origin“ of the human being also as a question of descent (meant as a question of genus) forms the present by producing permanently effects, genetically, non-genetically thus culturally and politically.
Almost as if out of nowhere the sword of faith, no matter now which faith, which belief, rushes down on the people (e.g. Daesch) and turns neighbors into enemies or „friends“.
Simply because something came in motion (e.g. globalization) and someone looks into history, looks at a certain section and rationally irrationally wants to (expand) a state, an empire (compare Putin, Erdogan et al.).
The origin, especially the cultural origin is never merely a past. These pasts shape the present. A simple publication like the Koran co-shapes the present.
Humans are small and love (!) the big, especially the big in itself, – the exaggeration and exaltation of the I in the transcendence.
Also these religions from the Near East, these developed monotheisms fulfill in full passion the motive of the exceeding. They lure their members in this way, keep them so in the loyalty.Think calmly „flagpole“ ! Always it was and is campaigns, missions, battles and religious zeal. The origin is the Occident! Promise and danger of nihilism in global proportions.
If people tie their identity strongly to religion and the community of believers, they quickly perceive criticism and questioning of their religion as a personal slight.
Accordingly, the feelings of believers can be instrumentalized easily and simply by leaders and organizations. Threatening gestures are quickly at hand – see, for example, Salman Rushdie or the cartoon controversy, etc., etc.! !
The „Organization of the Islamic Conference“ (OJC) and the „Arab League“ have been trying for years to enforce an international ban on „defamation of religions“.
Fortunately, our fundamental rights explicitly recognize the right to be able and allowed to express criticism even in the clearest and sharpest form.
I already said, the origin is the Occident, which concerns Christianity in particular. The Orient was also formed. After that !
It seems to me that the main axiom (basic truth which needs no proof!) of all 3 monotheisms gives the promise! The promise develops a program for the future. The functionaries/functionalists of the earthly world vouch for this unprovable truth, a world, a kingdom of God, which should/will come. They quote persons, sons of God, prophets, in whom they express their confidence as a result of this long tradition, and thus bind the faithful who trust and believe in the > functionaries <, the priests and other representatives of God on earth, and in the Word of God proclaimed by them, – and above all obey.
This obeying is perhaps the great and greatest challenge for the rest of us. The rest of us who believe in human rights and democracy with the rule of law.
Our trust and hope hangs on these formations of the modern world and civilization. Criticism and the ability to criticize are among the first/supreme principles.
Philosophy as a deconstructive practice is our freedom to defend, – we who have long stepped out of the religious (at least in the monotheistic context).
At least, that’s how we think.
Or so I think.
Perhaps we are, I am still and only more „Christian“ in quotation marks, Christian in the sense of Jean-Luc Nancy, who characterizes Christianity as „a deconstruction and an autodeconstruction“ (cf. J.-Luc Nancy, Deconstructing Christianity, p. 58, germ. ed.).
This would help explain an often uttered and usually unreflective phrase, – the phrase „after all, I grew up in a Christian ‚culture‘ (!) and was socialized there (!).“ And further: „Because Christianity in its monotheistic form is where I received (!?) my culture as an Austrian and European.“
Yes and no at the same time.
Yes: weak involvement due to formulas and forms no longer (graspable) for me as an awake(!) spirit/intellect (!).
No: early decision of an awake person with many interests to leave the religious territory(!) of fear and bondage !
From the origin, from the heritage, yes, – from the promise and realization of a self-built future as present, no !
We have left! State and society with rights enabled me/us to make a decision and to take the right „to leave the religious community, to use, in use.
If we let the transcendental-theoretical background apply, as Husserl states or elaborates it in the Phenomenology as a basic premise, then the justification for generality lying in the transcendentality of consciousness is still valid, – which means that statements must be possible which are valid for every empirical consciousness.
The concept of religion of the tradition(s) holds on to a reference to the personal being of man.
As a result, religion is in contact with what is said about man in the sciences (of man) and elsewhere.
Especially Christianity maintains these connections and contacts and thus stands in a process of deconstruction with the danger of dissolution in the sense of human rights.
Jean – Luc Nancy formulates this in his second „autodeconstructionist trait,“ namely, the „demythologization“ brought about by contact with world (and its discourses of science, law, etc.) as the „unique development“ of a self-interpretative history.
„Tendentially, Christianity erases every religious mark and sacrality in favor of what Kant called a > religion within the limits of mere reason <. ( … ) Henceforth, the democratic ethics of human rights and solidarity … ultimately constitutes the permanent sediment of Christianity“ (J.- Luc Nancy, Deconstructing Christianity, pp. 60f., germ. ed.).
„In one way or another, what is at stake is nothing other than how monotheism produces itself as humanism and how humanism confronts the finitude that has thus entered history“ (ibid., p. 64).
With the scheme „consciousness“(!) (subject/object, observer/object or thing) religion cannot really be grasped.
Religion is not a mere reflection performance of consciousness, – because that would mean to be able to make the „self“ of consciousness an „object“ and to describe it with terms (!?) like soul or spirit. Quasi as a „thing“!
Theory of religion must be led as theory of communication and not as anthropological theory of religion.
The question of the „essence“ of religion thus becomes detached and deconstructable. Means also as already said (with Nancy), autodeconstruction / dissolution / undermining.
Religion constitutes itself until today by exclusion. That is religious and that is not!
The sociology of religion describes the forms defined in this way more or less unasked. Where is its epistemological location?
Is it thereby not itself religiously bound?
Religion defines itself and excludes everything that does not go together with it !
Self-thematization makes sense only if I include what I exclude. Only in this way can I distinguish, for example, religion from religion or religion from non-religion.
As soon as someone says what religion is, what is religious or non-religious, the other comes to say, no, it is not.
Think of the definition „non-believer“ !
Pure criterionless self-empowerment! Strife, war, slaughter, god of slaughter!
Hate! Hate politics!
Exclusion policy ! Exclusion – politics !
Religion has not only something to do with „consciousness“(!)!
Religion has to do with desire (and desirability). And desire is a sphere for the Psa.
Please refer to Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan.
And start right here in this blog at and with my/our teaser!
Desire works towards something outside. And desire needs this outside as constant fodder. To be read in Alenka Zupančič 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? >>Stop judging, stop the judging, stop the judgment<< „, (1993, pp. 132ff., German Edition).
In this it is G. Deleuze’s attack on Kant’s philosophy of judgment. In it it is not only about making an end with the judgment of God, but with judgment and judging in general. Please remember what has already been said above about judgment.
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.
No reason without abyss!? Philosophical Practice as a construction scene 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.
Do we need religion(s)?
Is there such a thing as religion?
What is religiosity?
The word religion comes from the Greek-Latin language area!(?)
Do we need „fear of God“ and „worship of God“?
What kind of word is God?
Has God always existed?
Does „God“ never exist!?
Since Friedrich Nietzsche!?
One thing is/seems to be sure, – also „God“ is „only“(!) a word! For the time being!
And:
I don’t want to instruct anybody or even prescribe something.
I also do not speak (with pleasure) about the advantages and disadvantages of cultus, rites and cults.
And also not to the possibility, necessity or superfluity of rite as glue for social cohesion.
But:
I may be talking about naiveté, faith naiveté, anxiety and fear of authority, and the instrumentalizability of faith.
And I may be talking about birth, breeding, ideologization and content of faith and belief. And that with renewed emphasis here at the end of the posting.
When I write here I do not talk about, I do not mean that I do not talk !
I talk about everything to what and about what you want ! But I speak then perhaps in the form of to and about something in the direction of „towards a running trace of something“.
And what you will read here about(!) what might have been spoken there a few days ago and might have been meant is not necessarily what you read (!) and of which you think you know now what is said here and would be to be read! Just do not be too sure, but full of courage! Have many thanks!
Religion and Society.
This „here“ and this „now“.
Living in the here and now. Life. A certainty? To unfold from a so-called „immediacy“?
We live in the here and now and we, most of us, trust this felt immediacy.
We trust in the world in „good faith“ (Jacobi). And live!
But how to hold on to the moment? (Goethe)
In the „Phenomenology of the Mind/Spirit“ Hegel answers Jacobi. Right at the beginning he shows us the fragility of this „immediate“ relation to ourselves and to the world. The now is always already gone. The negation always already plays along. The now is always immediately gone again. Our senses are unsteady.
We try to trust in it and are disappointed. We always try the communication „about“(!) an immediate. And it fails.
A specific now put into words becomes a general. The concrete is always already gone, as soon as we only blink and move. All the time. Every second. Every day.
The mediation of language lets me fall, topple, tumble, jump into the generality.
Every sentence a jump.
How naive we are when we „believe“!
To live faith in direct openness to the world for the world.
How naive is that! To trust in the sensual! Trusting in the word! Trusting in the literalness! To trust in the literalness(!) of „religion“ and „faith“.
Hegel’s teleology of „absolute knowledge“ prescribes us an access to language with the aim of a general reconciliation of all contradictions between world and I, – a kind of promise of salvation. The „access“ to the immediate by means of words as the strategy (Hegel’s) of the imaginability of „uniqueness“ (Hyppolite).
Hegel’s fear of unsayability! Of incommunicability! His apotheosis of a universal through all contradictions. Up to the now of identity! How naive we are to live this faith on discursivity. To trust the word! To trust the word „God“! And thus even the word of one(!) God!!!
Our use and setting of words must interrupt, shift, cross these discursive formations of word-trust, of consciousness-belief. Thus an immediacy rises directly in the midst from deconstruction. Directly out of the signature. Out of the subsequentness/postponed subsequent action/aprés coup/Nachträglichkeit (Freud) and its trace. Out of the „how“ of the mediation itself ! Out of the text itself ! As far as the rule of the game and the composition remain imperceptible. At least during a first conscious reading.
Here arises to us (!) the perception and perceptibility of a real here and now, which is always already changed and will be different and could be different.
The blossoming of a sensation by remembering an impression in the permanent shift in the supposed „presence“ (of something and something and something; cf. teaser of my blog and my videos on language and the unconscious) and a supposed but real „absence“ of something and vice versa.
The care of a present and the poison of a past that one awaits, contemplates, and perhaps even confuses the senses, in the case of adherence to a belief in literalness and unity of meaning. The unification!
The vivification through deconstruction is necessary. The liberation from the dreariness of the single-mindedness of the word „God“ and consequently „God’s word“.
Aesthetically and ethically at the same time. Configurations of knowledge and worthiness.He who knows nothing (!) must believe everything (!) !
He who believes nothing, must (want to) know much!
Who wants to know, must set doubt. Who doubts, must think critically. Who thinks critically, must practice critical criticism !
Who practices, will perhaps learn deconstruction and learn to walk independently and upright. However, always remain relegated to post-sustainability/subsequentness/postponed subsequent action/aprés coups/Nachträglichkeit (Freud).
Along human right set and to be set laws! Laws!
Arrangements in a work of in-relation-setting! Metaphor instead of metaphysics! Literature! Trans-latio! Transference!
The metaphor that transmits to another. The beauty of the here and now in transference as a relationship between presence and absence. No projections of another or even otherworldly world!
Here and now!
The world is metaphor.
The world is literature.
The world is text. „The world“ is imperceptible!
The play of the text of the world as the play of the work of an in-relation-setting of presence and absence in arrangements of sense and configurations of meaning.
Open, transparent, criticizable, adjustable, shiftable, finite, temporary, spatial and in the something of now and now and now and something and something …
Modernity lies in the „and“ of something and something! The and knows no beginning of something, no initial recognition, no original beginning.
The trace of something is to be thought before the being! (Derrida)
Heraclitus already calls the awake thinkers those who do not „think things as they encounter them“.
Those who do not live (believe to want) only and merely in the here and now, but who live and think between the „something“, „present-absent“, never knowing/thinking themselves completely present.
Consciousness in the Unconsciousness/Ubw (Freud, Das Unbewußte!).
Life is (!), when the one illuminates itself in the other.
Then one has discovered „the true life“. One does not have to search for it desperately somewhere else or to hope for it in a beyond of here (and now).
The question of „God
The questions about God are by no means only, if at all, questions of faith.
They have always been questions of power and politics. So also today in the modern age.
Europe marks the intersection of three world religions and stands in a strong tension with the Islamic tradition and civilization together with all irrational excesses (Islamism as continuation of Islamic beliefs into the real extremist as literal!?).
A „religous revival“(!?) in a mixture of old and new forms of religious interpretations of reality show their effects on the respective current political processes.
The most urgent and forward pushing conflict potentials might lie in the mostly former colonized countries in their „religious revival“ and the heterogeneity of civilizations that goes along with it.
New nationalisms and intra-national conflicts between liberal non-religious or differently religious movements with established power structures (usually supported by the West) usually end in so-called political religions and the state leaderships that grow out of them.
Modern totalitarianisms thus undermine the course of civilization in the direction of a broader distribution of power up to pre-democratic or quasi-democratic conditions.
In many cases, the modern separation of politics and religion is rolled back or even erased altogether (see, for example, Erdogan’s policies in Turkey).
Political opponents are demonized as the embodiment of „evil“(!) and suspected of terror across the board. Such decivilizing processes arrange sufficient conditions for totalitarian extermination fantasies and extermination policies.
In non-Western countries as well as in Europe itself and in the U.S., the intensified transformation to pluralistic and multi-religious societies (believe your faith unwaveringly but privately), accelerated by globalization, technologization and mediatization as well as increased migration movements and subsequent alienation effects and affects, generates religiously motivated fundamentalisms and policies.
These patterns of action and thought can now be found at all levels of political action and influence the relationship between the state and religious communities (politics and religion) as well as the significant levels of peace, security and tolerance.
One of the pillars of European identity is the most important achievement in the development of history towards modernity (with all individual-liberal legislation), – namely the separation of politics and religion, especially the separation of state and church.
The detachment of the social processes from the word = power of God. God no longer commands (since Nietzsche). God does not need us. Some of us try to use him again and again for their own purposes.
The civilization project Europe knows its heritage (also its religiously motivated), and tries to live this separation of politics and religion in a liberal way.
Liberal, because human rights and not religious fundamentalist or even extremist. Political liberalism gets along without the word of God.
God is or is not. No one can know.
Human rights and human dignity are to be demanded for all and thus globally (planetary).
No instrumentalized faith in God may rule into the human and reasonable reason (Kant) of the political.
Europe’s future and „soul“ is a „civil religion“ (!?).
I put sentences like these for the time being simply as you read them just now. But reading means to connect the later lines with the preceding ones and to try to illuminate the read with the own thought pictures. And vice versa.
And not only once, but until you will have come to a green branch with yourself and the reading. As an author of deconstructive lines, you can also escape the simultaneity of running processes in the brain and out of the memory as little as the reader.
I am just like Freud and others on the „consideration of representability“
(( analogous to Freud’s concept and description of the consideration of representability of the „dream work“ , – so here the text work(!); this >text work< is like the „dream work“ not or only limitedly „detectable(!), controllable or decipherable, because exactly that makes a >written< , – whether literary, cinematic or philosophical, – only a „text“(!);
„A text is a text only if it conceals from the first glance,…, the law of its composition and the rule of its play. A text, moreover, always remains imperceptible.“ (cf.: Derrida, Dissemination, p. 71, germ. ed.) ))
instructed, referred and reduced!
Subsequent can infect, immunize, annul, erase or also infiltrate and deconstruct as context preceding. The same in this statement as announcement is always valid also in the reverse direction as well as at all in every transverse direction read as always.
All these reading lines as understanding operations with references to present absent (always with regard to possible other lines of understanding and critical reading) form the spatial structure as a spatial net of meaningful meanings and possible differences and form what we call and think „text“.
A structure with very many nodes!
Points of condensation by overlapping reading lines in one and the same space in which we (must) find ourselves as readers. Otherwise there would hardly be the possibility of understanding and understanding communication (possibility). To „written“(!), – to the concept of „writing/Scripture“ a little later in this BlogPosting.
Civil religion! Do we still need such vocabulary?! Soul. Religion.
The politics of religion speaks to them. Of necessity. History speaks with them for a long time in the present.
I plead for the abandonment of the Christian appropriation of the Platonic ideal of reason.
For too long we have been troubled, worried and poisoned by political totalitarianism.
A „return of the religious“ can be observed, I said. Many write and think so.
But what does „the religious“ mean?
Does it mean the frequently reported fanaticism, extremism, fundamentalism of the Salafists (some!), the IS (Daesh) or Iran in the form of the policy of the Ayatollahs („sign of God“, pers. and Arab.)?
Does this concern us?
I do not mean migration. I mean our thinking!
Let’s become religious again, if we have not always been and are perhaps to some extent. (!?)
Were or are A. Schopenhauer, Fj. M. Dostojewski, Fr. Nietzsche, K. H. Deschner, A. Schmidt, H. Wollschläger, E. Drewermann, A. Holl, U. Ranke-Heinemann, F. Mernissi, Ayaan H. Ali, or for instance H. M. Broder, M. Brumlik and others religious?
What kind of question!?
Were (Are!) they fanatical?
What does fanatic mean here!
Perhaps one must and can consider and recognize such eminent questions only in the field of the political?
What is it about Islam, one of the three Abrahamic religions in the midst of numerous political upheavals including daily „fundamentalist extremism“?
May or must we use the word, the name I s l a m for it?
A reference to Islam is made wherever extreme physical acts of violence by „Islam“ are directed against the model and reality of a certain liberal democracy.
Does the whole thing have geopolitical premises?
Did the Iraq war intensify, if not cause, the pushing of the Islamic world (at least in the form of the transfer of physical violence to Europe and the USA, keyword 9/11).
Is this form of Islam in the formation I s l a m i s m going after entities of liberal democracy (cue: satire, cartoons, comics, literature, cf. Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie, etc., etc.).
We have to make distinctions. Islam, Islamism, – a question of the „name“!
The name „God“!
The name „Islam“!
The name “ Non-Believer „!
What the word „faith“ says. What the word „religion“. What the word „God“?!
Do we understand the powers and forces in the place where this name ( in the name(!) of I s l a m ) has the power it has or triggers.
Are these names and concepts like religion, democracy, literature after all of Greek-Roman and Greek-Christian origin!
I do something in the name of! A name belongs to a language.
Questions arise. Questions about the relation between the name and the one who makes claims in this name. An invocation executes !!!
An invocation e.g. of God for the accomplishment of a political task „in the name of God“!
This performative invocation, an act of address to another, which is to cause to the testimony of something or to a fidelity.
This is a point of faith, a place where prayer is neither true nor untrue, as Aristotle puts it. The invocation of a testimony of something, an act of faith.
If one follows such, one follows blindly. Blind in faith and blind with faith and fidelity and vow and oath.
All names of immanent unreason. Things of faith. Things of not knowing. Foundations for fanaticism. Neither true nor untrue.
Enlightenment as light, enlightenment, education, knowledge as form of a brightness, a visibility, a visualization.
Benveniste writes that in the Indo-European language there was no uniform term „to designate the religion itself, the cultus“, not even the name of a personal God, but the collective term „God“ (deiwos), the sense of which is said to have been „luminous and heavenly“.
May it have been exactly the same or not. I do not know to prove it. Because it is also not strongly provable.
Strong provability is doubtful everywhere in human and scientific matters. Therefore it is valid also always and everywhere: Caution is required. And consideration! God as light.
Pure light is not visible for us, not visible. Only provable.
Light of God is: is not scientific.
We are left with the attempt of approaching clarification. The approach to clarification. The approach to democracy. The democracy that can always be better. A coming democracy. This is not a belief. It is a process of knowledge development. Permanent illumination of knowledge by knowledge. A u f – k l ä r u n g ! En-lightenment!
Clarification, clearing as light. Making consciousness.
Following in a name of, – that does not exist in enlightened societies. But we always have to think about the >still< unenlightened and the permanently unenlightened, – thus also the unenlightened in the enlightened societies and beyond.
We are also not looking for an „other“ society! The „true life“! We already have that (cf. the first paragraph).
What would be the civil religion here. The faith in the coming democracy? The freedom of literature. The liberal democracy. Human rights. Rule of law. Human duties. Human dignity. Animal Charter etc.
Faith as knowledge? „Faith and Knowledge. The two sources of >religion< at the limits of mere reason“ (Derrida).
Civil religion. Civilized religion!?
„How should or how can one talk >about religion<?“ (Derrida)
Neither true nor untrue (Aristotle)!
Is there anything to be gained by „morality“?
Is it not a moral way of life as the only thing that God
(( (according to old writings!). Who or what guarantees their appreciation as a condition for moral regulations to be derived from it? And which morals under which customs, laws and which rule of law!? What means rule of law alone! Compare my post to DDR! What is morality. What ethics. Which? Under which conditions? Economic, political, social, legal, psychoanalytical, religious!? ))
demanded from humans and the only thing that could be derived from God „in good faith“ as „pure religious faith“ (Kant).
But what is a morally good way of life !?
This cannot be derived or defined from pure religious faith on the basis of old books. The world plays purely and must purely, otherwise the whole is a hung thing and the people does not care it further.
However, a certain moral way of life can be enforced by order of the authorities and by force (e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.).
Certainly not in modern liberal democracies.
„The constitution of every church always starts from some historical (revelation) faith, which can be called the church faith, and this is best founded on a holy scripture“ (Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft, Der Philosophischen Religionslehre Drittes Stück. Erste Abteilung, V, 2nd edition as the basis of Kant’s text).
The faith of the people alone seems to have always been under suspicion and distrust. Institutionalization had to come. So a church. A boss of bosses. Exclusively male. Eh clear!
Clear?
Reason !!! ???
Clever for the preservation of power, anyway.
Perfidiously(!) suitable for enormous(!) and permanent suppression.
Freedom. Freedom of opinion!?
Tolerance!?
Pluralism!?
The general human rights put the dignity of the individual human being and its protection in the focus of the consideration and the discourses and these human rights form the basis of a legal system (as) in the states of the European Union and in the Treaty on the European Union (Art. 2).
The question of dignity
The right to freedom of religion, which is anchored in human rights, guarantees the free practice of a religion. Some people who call themselves religious (I don’t doubt that!) understand this right to free exercise to include a kind of right to protection from discourse and criticism.
Criticism and insult are two separate things. However, I understand that some people feel „offended“ by criticism of their idea of religiosity(!).
This feeling can come up, since criticism is, after all, to some extent denying the so-called „full“ recognition of something. Criticism of something means, after all, a possible solution or even dissolution of something. In any case, however, a (rightly or wrongly) impairment of a fully comprehensive sovereignty of opinion.
Critical ability is a small art and the antidote, if there is one, is the criticism of the criticism or the frank assumption and integration including possible adaptations of the respective facts by the criticism.
But that’s just the way it is in life! A way of dealing with criticism must be acquired by each person himself. This is not always easy. Each of us has prejudices and the criticism of them can be painful. There can be no legal protection against it. That would be absurd.
Human rights protect the individual in what he or she does, but not religion(s) itself.
It must expose itself to criticism like any other knowledge or procedure. Also every criticism must expose itself to further criticism. Maybe a more critical critique or even deconstruction!
Who identifies himself completely with something is a fundamentalist.
These usually do not stand criticism at all. In the scientific age every human being must learn to acquire distances.
Distance is play space, – to the things, to the others and also to oneself. This is the art of life. Nothing is safe from anything. Critical judgment can haunt you at any time! And the chance for change. The chance for new insights.
Also for this the „Philosophical Practice“ was developed (over the millennia) and revitalized again by us practitioners worldwide.
The „Déclaration des Droits de l`Homme et du Citoyen“ of 1789 speaks of the forgetting and the disregard of the rights of man and the necessary remembrance that it is nothing new from the year 1789, but that these rights are quasi (qua reason recognizable and self-evident) always already a „natural“ given of man,- namely the right of man to be and to be „like this“(!), since „man“ exists.
And this declaration of human rights explains and clarifies about the fact that it is and has to be, what it always already was and never almost brought to the presence, – thus consequently this publication and declaration of the rights of the human being calls these so to speak into the memory and brings out from the oblivion.
And that with this publication and remembrance of the always-been of these rights and their rightfulness, the „sole causes of public unhappiness and of the depravity of governments“ are to be removed.
And the „Universal Declaration of Human Rights“ of 1948 proclaims that the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaims human rights „since the recognition of human dignity“ is the basis of „freedom, justice and peace in the world“.
Important to note here, this declaration is a decision, that is, a conscious decision by and for something.
It is an agreement of an assembly (first of the French, then of the UN) about what is called „human being“ and the recognition and proclamation as well as the political-legal enforcement of it.
The knot(!) here is of the greatest importance! First the ontological (thus also l o g i c !) form of the determination of the essence of man and this knotted with the explicit, thus the elaborated form of the knowledge which is in the recognition(!) with its public proclamation.
This sentence, this published sentence, this statement in the form of a declaration, thus a consensual and concluding form, – this knotting/connection/connection with the „recognition“ of the human dignity (art. 2), – thus of the freedom , – is the „basis of the freedom, the justice and the peace in the world“, this sentence means the most important and thus literally(!) most essential grasp of a being human in freedom and peace.
And that means no war! No subjugation! No exploitation! No corruption!
No offence to the dignity of man means the dignity of every single human being and of all human beings worldwide !!!
This declaration is a revelation(!) of man as a human being (with rights and duties!!).
At the same time this declaration means a juridification of the human being.
The human being as an object of the right in his humanity, – not merely in his appropriations and characteristics or ownerships.
To recognize this humanity of man and to judge about it and about it in court are two different worlds.
The veiled man and the naked man. The rich man as appropriated man (full of things etc.) and the always already disappropriated man (e.g. without education and education possibility).
Plato’s Gorgias tells about it. Let him who dares to judge throw the first stone!
The verdict on people. One of the most delicate matters in the world.
Psychoanalysts know about it (and are hardly consulted!).
The sight of the eyes.
The sight of the soul.
The duo soon cancels out all judgments including the philosophy of law!
„Visible is everything at the soul“ (Plato 524d).
The philosophy of right is a philosophy of property (comes second to freedom).
John Locke thinks life itself as property, not merely the material possessions. And therefore the reason of all right to property would have to be an inalienable property, – according to Locke the property of the own person!
The basic right to the own person a property right!
What means here e.g. the sentence: „My belly belongs to me!“ (?!)
Dangerous danger of splitting and splitting off! (compare the right to abortion e.g. in Ireland !!! )
Basic rights as a negotiating mass?
Man against man!? Competition of the property of the one to the other!
Plato speaks in his court of the dead (judges as well as defendants are naked!, cf. Rousseau) nowhere of property.
The judges of the dead call all „externals“, all conventions, fortune, appearance etc. a misleading cover, a veiling.
The naked judgment event and mere responsibility of the one for the other without right (claim)! (cf. Levinas discussion of the Gorgias myth in „Autrement qu‘ être, p. 204, fr. ed.).
The crisis of judging ( krisis = judgment ) as infinite judging means in relation to human rights (also in relation to human rights!) necessary (perhaps arising in the future!) adjustments, shifts due to insufficiencies, insufficiencies becoming recognizable.
E.g. the right to property can be/is forfeited; or the right to change all rights knows no natural limit; or all rights are transitional rights, open for more just rights and! (already Hans Kelsen in the 50s) for a justice beyond the right!; and the inclusion of the right not to use the individual rights, the human rights!
This is the reason for the right of mercy. „Let mercy go before right!“
The principle renounceability of the use of rights and the whole legal sphere means probably also the possibilities of the political for the politics?
This pre-right not to use rights is probably therefore not unfolded in any constitution, but implied as freedom before the law and before the right to freedom (cf. Werner Hamacher, „Vom Recht, Rechte nicht zu gebrauchen“, – in: Die Revolution der Menschenrechte, Suhrkamp, p. 235, germ. ed.).
The freedom of the renunciation of use, this connection of right(s) and the non-use, that is the infinite c r i s i s of judging and condemning!
Judgments do not necessarily lead to more justice. And rights do not serve it from the outset.
Nor does the „mere“(!) formulation and proclamation of human rights.
Justice requires also human duties! One thinks only of Climate Change among other things.
But all this cannot mean, not to help the right to the breakthrough and not to promote rights!
The right is to be improved, to promote. Justice does not come by itself.
Not terms count for me in the first place, but sentences.
Sentences as minimal constructs of a „higher“ unit(!) of text.
Countless sociologies of religion entwine around a concept that is none. Religion is rather a field of attraction for those whose desire thirsts for complete suspension. Yes, thirsts!
A rigorism of restriction is inherent in the religious.
On the one hand lifted up in a protective cloak of the confidence of the fear and on the other hand lifted up in a collective of the expectation.
Both can be justified badly or not at all.
Luhmann, Durkheim, Weber, Girard, Simmel et al. They all avoid conceptual definitions of the so-called „essence“(!) of religion and they all lie in wait when observing what people consider to be religion or religious.
Lousy empiricism to nowhere!
Also the phenomenological analysis of Husserl as an attempt to access „the thing itself“ and thus to think uninfluenced by social and historical things and processes in flux (in time and their time of consciousness!?) in order not to become relational, creates one aporia after the other when it comes to the attempt to comprehend religion, seems to me almost more than a madhouse!
From a psychoanalytical point of view, a well-founded and at least plausible statement can be made about it.
The messianic principle of redemption has done it to many of us.
A principle (both Freud, Fromm, Derrida and others have written about it and remained silent).
A certain infantilism seems to me necessary to approach liberation and emancipation in a liberation-theological way, without permanent reflection of the economic-political and the political-economic relations on each other.
That is why there were always the excesses of violence in all theologically, better ontotheologically motivated revolutions and counter-revolutions.
Always blood flowed. Always blood flows.
That which really demonstrably emancipates is, in my opinion, the thinking of the coming(!) democracy.
This does not utopize a revolution towards a paradise, is not subject to a patriarchal leader principle and does not work with the crude club of putting concepts into the world.
The coming democracy, the thinking of the always coming democracy as a progress of an increase in justice that can be realized does not need a utopia, not a concept of utopia that is necessarily misunderstood and to be misunderstood, but this thinking of the democratic is the thinking of sentences, of texts (especially also of the legal text), whose discourses surrender themselves to deconstruction and yes, must surrender themselves.
As already said, even human rights and their catalog of individual rights can always be improved (see Kelsen et al.).
The dangerous thing is always the „sacred“! The untouchable! The „divine“!
Something indefinable, which can be instrumentalized wonderfully(!). And always! – I emphasize, always, has been and will be instrumentalized !!!
Religion has not only something to do with „consciousness“(!)! Religion has to do with desire (and desirability). And desire is a sphere for the Psa.
Please refer to Jacques Lacan.
And start right here in this blog at and with my/our teaser!
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.
In this it is G. Deleuze’s attack on Kant’s philosophy of judgment. In it it is not only about making an end with the judgment of God, but with judgment and judging in general.
Please remember what has already been said above about judgment.
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!
To the provisional (probably never-ending!?) conclusion, a small, serious, non-serious reading tip for the heart and the brain from my long-term friend Adolf Holl, who more than thirty years ago already once introduced me(!?) to transcultural psychiatry(! ) and ethnopsychoanalysis (cf. especially Michel Foucault’s „Madness and Society“ and „The Abnormals“ as well as Ronald D. Laing’s „The Divided Self“ and Mario Erdheim’s „The Social Production of Unconsciousness“):
Adolf Holl: How to found a religion. Residenz Verlag St. Pölten 2009.
In the German original:
Adolf Holl: Wie gründe ich eine Religion. Residenz Verlag St. Pölten 2009.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 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
/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.
/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.
/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.
/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.
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.
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
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 )
