Theorie Praxis Technik Philosophische Praxis als Denken und Sprechen
Philosophische Praxis als Denken und Sprechen als unauflösliche, unanalysierbare Verbindung von logos,Begehren als Bestrebung (Aristoteles) und der techné als analytischer „Technik“ (Freud), die die Verbindung zwischen dem je Theoretischen und dem je Praktischen vollzieht in der temporär wechselhaften Absicht der Einsichtnahme in die Möglichkeiten der Erkundung der diversen Relationen der Philosophie zur Rede, ich möchte lieber sagen, eines partiell und temporär wechselhaften philosophischen Diskurssegments zur Rede des Dekonstruktiven als vielleicht einem Fall von Dekonstruktion. (1)(2)(3)(4)
(1)Verehrte Leser:innen, der oben stehende Satz ist nicht einfach zu erfassen, es war auch nicht einfach, diesen Satz zu verfassen, – immerhin verfolgte er die Möglichkeit der Formation der gesamten metaphysischen Epoche der Trennung von Theorie und Praxis und deren Aufhebung in einem Satz.
(2)Folgende Äußerungen bemühen sich um eine etwas leichtere Lesearbeit. Versprochen!
(3)Nehmen Sie bitte obigen Langsatzals These zur mehrmaligen Rekapitulierung und Wiederaufnahme des Lektürevorgangs für die folgenden Textsequenzen.
(4)Wir werden uns für unser Gespräch hier (besser noch, wir werden uns zu erinnern versucht haben, da es jetzt beim Schreiben dieser Zeilen ja schon zeitlich gesehen hinter uns liegt) immer wieder unserer Publikation aus dem Jahr 1991 (G. Kaucic, Philosophische Praxis Wien. „Zu einem theoretischen Fragmentarium: Das Ende des Kommunizierbaren oder Philos. Praxis als Erbarmen …“, S. 83-89, in: G. Witzany (Hg.), Zur Theorie der Philosophischen Praxis. Essen 1991, Verlag Die Blaue Eule.) zu erinnern versuchen und daraus Energie schöpfen und wir werden uns für diese Zeilen unsere damals publizierten zunutze machen zu wissen und uns ihrer befleißigen und bemächtigen, ohne daß wir das hier genauer markieren wollen.
Wir vier an der Zahl (unsere Gäste, Wissenschaftsredakteur:in aus Belgien, Anna Lydia und ich, – PP im Hotel Hilton Danube in Wien, Mitte März 2025, gleiche Besetzung wie am 01.01.2023, cf. Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff. ), wollen ausgerechnet, beabsichtigt und bewußt in diesem Jahr 2025 (im Anschluß an das Gespräch 2023) nach den vielen Talks in den diversen Medien und außerhalb unsere philosophierenwollende Hin- und Her-Rede hinzufügen, das Thema wiederaufgreifen und gegebenenfalls erweiternd differenzieren und der erwarteten Dekonstruktion aussetzen.
Gewissermaßen eine Anderrede. Eine Sprech- und Denkweise der etwas anderen Art.
Einer Art und Weise des Ungewissen, also der Versuch der Selbstvergewisserung durch möglichst gesicherte Aussagen und die Anerkennung der Grenzen und der Tragbarkeit der verwendeten und überhaupt verwendbaren Begriffe auf der Grundprämisse der Erkennbarkeit von etwas.
Als Text-Grundlage für unser Sprechen und Denken verwenden wir wieder zwei Arbeiten von Jacques Derrida:
a) J. Derrida: La dissémination. Éditions du Seuil, Collection “Tel Quel”, Paris 1972, besonders ab S. 161 ff.
(dt. Ausgabe: J. D.: Dissemination. Wien, Passagen Verlag 1995, bes. ab S. 158 ff., übersetzt ins Deutsche von Hans-Dieter Gondek)
b) J. D.: Théorie et Pratique. Cours de l’ENS-Ulm 1975-1976. Paris, Éditions Galilée 2017.
J. D.: Theorie und Praxis. Seminar 1976-1977. Wien, Passagen Verlag 2021 (dt. ÜS. v. Markus Sedlaczek)
Zuerst noch eine kleine Anmerkung zum Selbstverständnis. Das Denken gilt im Allgemeinen als eine Vorgangsweise in unserem Inneren, genauer in unserem Gehirn und in den Gefühlen. Das Denken wäre eine eigene Sache, ein Ding quasi, das mit dem Sprechen nichts zu tun hätte, außer die technische Fertigkeit der Mitteilung.
Wir hingegen betrachten die Rede als Denke beziehungsweise das Denken schon als Sprechen.
Umgekehrt denken wir nicht, wenn wir das von uns Gedachte nicht benennen könnten. Die Worte liegen dem Individuum voraus. Die Artikulation als zusammenhängende Kette von Worten mit Sinnzusammenhang liegen ebenfalls vor, bevor das Individuum die Worte aufnimmt und sich daran entwickeln wird und kann.
Zur Entwicklung eines Menschen gehört, daß ihm immer wieder die Worte fehlen, es, das Indivuum, die Worte nicht finden kann. Dies allerdings nicht, weil sie unserem Denken fehlen würden, sondern vielmehr deshalb, weil unser Denken oft genug das verfehlt, was uns vom Gegenüber, was uns vom Anderen her kommuniziert worden war. Man könnte fast mit Recht behaupten wollen, das Subjekt des Sprechens sei nicht der/die Sprechende, sondern das Gesprochene. Ganz so einfach ist es nicht, wie wir wissen.
Wir operieren immer im Signifikantenfluß und laufen dem Sinn von etwas hinterher. In der Hin und Her – Rede. Wir verwenden die Worte und Wörter (das Bezeichnende) und jagen das versucht Bezeichnete, den sogenannten Sinn von etwas. Zeichen bestehen aus dem Signifikanten und dem Signifikat. Wir befinden uns immer im Reich der Zeichen (Roland Barthes).
Der Sinn entzieht sich immer wieder. Andere Signifikate werden einem Signifikanten untergejubelt. Permanente Bewegung im Reich der Zeichen. Wir müssen immer wieder dazu lernen, uns orientieren. Wir müssen lesen, lernen uns zu bilden versuchen. Mehr oder weniger erfolgreich. Sprachen sind in Bewegung. Individuen sind in Bewegung und erfindungsreich. Lernfähig!
„Durch die Sprache, die er spricht, trägt er selber zum Reklamecharakter der Kultur das Seine bei. Je vollkommener nämlich die Sprache in der Mitteilung aufgeht, je mehr die Worte aus substantiellen Bedeutungsträgern zu qualitätslosen Zeichen werden, je reiner und durchsichtiger sie das Gemeinte vermitteln, desto undurchdringlicher werden sie zugleich. Die Entmythologisierung der Sprache schlägt, als Element des gesamten Aufklärungsprozesses, in Magie zurück.“ (Horkheimer-Adorno: Dialektik der Aufklärung, 147)
„Der Illusionist, der Techniker der Augentäuschung, der Maler, der Schriftsteller, der pharmakeus.
… Die Verzauberung … ist stets die Wirkung einer Darstellung…“ (Derrida, Dissemination, Passagen Verlag, Wien S. 158)
Was ich spreche, was Ich spricht, vergeht in der Zeit. Geht in der Zeit zu dem Andern als Anderes. Das philosophische Gespräch als ein Stimmengewirr oder ein mehrstimmiger Chor. Ein Tanz? Die Philosophische Praxis als ein Ort und eine Situation. Zunächst und zumindest!
Die philosophische Praxis ein Versuch der Sorge (des Selbst). Das Erkennen eines Selbst ereignet sich überwiegend in der Kommunikation mit anderen Menschen.
Das „Selbst“ ein Text, in dem die Geschichte der Philosophie ein gewichtiger Teil eines uneinholbaren „Ganzen“ sein kann, meist aber längst nicht der wichtigste ist. Das Auge, das sich selbst sieht, sieht sich selbst anders.
Das Selbst als nicht von vornherein gegebene Instanz im Menschen, sondern als libidinale Bildung der Sorge durch „Reflexion“.
Die kommunikative Struktur der Reflexion bei Hegel gedacht als die Konstituierung des Bewußtseins als Selbstbewußtsein im Kampf zweier Subjekte um gegenseitige Anerkennung und also auch Erkennung. Die Konstitution des Selbstbewußtseins als Prostitution. Die erotische „Bespiegelung“ der Subjekte durch die „Offenbarung“ der Blicke. Das Selbst als vermeintliches Ich im Augen-Blick des Anderen. Die Philosophische Praxis als Kommunikation durch Prostitution.
Das sokratische Sehen, die opsis, ist ein kratisches Sehen, ein pädagogisches Programm der Engführung in die sokratische Aporie. Der Fragende ist fast immer Sokrates, er fordert, lockt und ködert,zwingt zu einer Antwort. Eine Antwort, die die Frage dadurch erzwingt, wie sie gestellt ist. Eine Antwort, die die „Frage“ bereits selbst beantwortet. Keine rhetorische Frage, sondern eine methodische, eine teleologische. Also kein „Fragen“. Wirkliches als wirkendes Fragen richtet sich an kein Subjekt.
Wirkliches Fragen kennt kein Ziel. Wirkliches Fragen ist ein „Sagen“ im Sinn der Heideggerschen „Sage“,ein Sagen in der Zeit. Ein SagenFragen, das im Raum quert und niemals auf ein „Gegenwort“ treffen kann. Das heißt nicht, daß es keine Antworten im herkömmlichen Sinn geben kann und wird, genauso wie es auch Fragen dieser Art gibt: im Sinne dessen, was da unter Kommunikation verstanden werden kann. Die Suche nach Identität ist noch immer stark im Kommen.
Das sokratische logon didonai, das Rede-und-Antwort-Stehen ist ein spezieller Typ von Wissen. Ein Wissen, das sagen können muß, warum es was weiß. Sokratisches Wissen muß begründbar sein.
Und als solches setzte es zum Beispiel das traditionelle Wissen (Homer) außer Kraft. Dieses Wissen zerstörte das traditionelle relationale Wissen, das metonymische Wissen. Der Logos als kratistisches seinstheoretisches Logo einer verführten Welt bis heute (cf. Rußlands kolonialistischen Angriffskrieg und Zerstörungsversuch der Ukraine als souveränen, unabhängigen und eigenständigen Nationalstaat und der gerade wieder und wiederholt versuchten Auslöschung der ukrainischen Identität als nunmehr explizit nichtrussischer; ein kurzer Ein- und Überblick zur Geschichte der Ukraine cf. https://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/geschichte/krieg-um-die-ukraine-zerrissenes-land_id_78608994.html ).
Die Welt unterdrückt von der dialektike techne, einer „Kunst“ der GesprächsFührung, die jedes Denken und Wissen abseits eines Onto-theo-logozentrismus ausschließt (vgl. G. Kaučić: Zum Begriff der Schrift, eine Serie als Einleitung in die Ökomaterie.- In: Die Grüne F Abyss. Internationale polylinguale Zeitschrift für Grüne Kultur/Politik. Nr. 3 Oktober 1989, S. 4 ff.).
Die Philosophische Praxis als „Kommunikation“, „Prostitution“ und als Ort der Versuchung anderer Wissensformen. Die Philosophische Praxis als Schriftverkehr. Die Philosophische Praxis als Station der Entdeckung der Inkommunikabilität.
Dieser Text versucht das Fragmentarium der „Theorie“ (vgl. den Langsatz eingangs!) der Philosophischen Praxis. Die Frage ist nicht, was Philosophische Praxis „ist“. Diese Frage wäre relativ leicht zu beantworten. Besuchen Sie Philosophische Praxen und Sie erleben die Antwort.
Die Philosophische Praxis muß Tanz, auch Eiertanz bleiben, sie darf nichtInstitution werden.
Spätestens dann wäre sie nicht mehr Praxis, sondern bloß ein gesellschaftliches Instrument unter vielen. Philosophische Praxis als Institution und Instrument einer inhaltlichen (wie immer auch ideologisch ausgerichtet) Vermittlung von Wissen wäre der Dienstbarkeit verfallen und der Arbeit der Schrift entlaufen. Das Subjekt wäre wieder dem Logos unterworfen und dürfte sich nicht mehr der „Schrift“ aussetzen.
Die Philosophische Praxis als Ort der Textarbeit kennt kein Gesetz. Kein Gesetz wohlgemerkt, das immer und überall Gültigkeit beanspruchen dürfte und also alleinherrschend wäre. Wohl kennt die Arbeit der Philosophischen Praxis Regeln, Methoden, Gesetze, Gebiete. Diese Territorien aber gilt es zu durchqueren, zu erfahren und der Dissemination auszusetzen, nach Relationalität der jeweils Geltung beanspruchenden Regeln, ohne selbst jemals Regeln aufstellen zu wollen und zu können und ohne selbst einer Methode (méthodos, altgrch. „Weg zu etwas hin“, übertragen „Weg oder Gang einer Untersuchung“, „Weg, etwas zu erreichen“, „Grundsatz“, „Methode“ zu altgriech. metá „hinterher, nach“ und hodós „Weg“) hörig zu sein.
Genau das meint auch das sehr häufig falsch verstandene „anything goes“ (P. Feyerabend, Irrwege der Vernunft, 1989).
Nicht alles ist überall und jederzeit erlaubt. Es ist nicht erlaubt, daß Weiße (meist alte weiße Männer!) indigene Kulturen zerstören, nur weil sie ihre Macht vor sich und für andere „begründen“ zu können glauben. Genauso ist es nicht erlaubt, daß ein Staat einen anderen Staat überfällt und militärisch angreift, um ihn zu kolonialisieren und als Staat auszulöschen, nur weil die eine politische Führung der (ideologischen) Meinung ist, sie könne dies für sich „begründen“, in vergangenheitlichen Ideologien vorfinden und in phrasierten und frisierten Geschichtsfragmenten diskursiv, mediokratisch und populistisch oder/und diktatorisch verankern (Serbien, Rußland, Belarus, China, Iran, Nordkorea, Türkei) und dem Rest der Welt dies als „Wahrheit“ auftischen.
Jede Kultur ist gleichwertig. Ein Vergleich ist nicht möglich und auch kein Entscheid. Was ausmachbar ist, ist der bloße „Unterschied“. Es gibt keine Sprache, die die Fähigkeit besitzt, Maßstäbe für andere(s) zu setzen.
Was ich zugebe ist, daß die „Wiederholbarkeit“ von Zeichen und also Äußerungen eine strukturelle Möglichkeit des regelgesteuerten Sprechens ist und der Logik eines rekursiven Modells gehorcht, in dem beliebig viele Ereignisse die Einheit des zugrundeliegenden „Type“ nicht gefährden, wie das die Sprechakttheorie formuliert (Searle). Dieses Modell verlangt allerdings eine gewisse Abstandnahme des Sprechers von seinen Äußerungen. Nur unter der Bedingung ihrer relativen(!) Unabhängigkeit von der individuellen, aktuellen und historischeinzigen Sinnintention der Sprecher:innen können die Ereignisse, die diese wiedergeben(!) wollen, zu wiederholbaren Elementen einer überindividuellen Konvention (die types) werden. Das jeweilige Sprecherindividuum nimmt Abstand, geht in „Absenz“, um der Allgemeinheit des Systems Platz zu machen.
Wenn die Abwesenheit und die Wiederholbarkeit Möglichkeiten logischer Ordnung darstellen, dann lassen sie sich mit de-facto-Argumenten, etwa dem Hinweis auf die tatsächliche Einmaligkeit einer situierten Äußerung oder der Gegenwart des Sprechenden beim Äußerungsakt, nicht abtun.
Iterabilität ist nicht notwendig Iteration und absent sein können ist nicht notwendig abwesend sein. Was als Möglichkeit nicht ausschließbar ist, muß nicht notwendigerweise Notwendigkeit werden. Sobald aber kodifizierte Typen ausgetauscht werden, „gibt es“ die Möglichkeit, eine erste Artikulation durch eine zweite zu ersetzen und also von der immer virtuell abwesenden Konvention abzurücken. Das heißt, es besteht immer die Möglichkeit der Markierung der Markierung. Selbst wenn „Sender“ und „Empfänger“ dieselbe Person (juristisch betrachtet) ist, ist das „Zeichen“ nach der Wiederholung nicht mit sich identisch. Aus diesem Zusammenhang einer logischen Ordnung betrachtet, kann zum Beispiel selbst eine kritische Werkausgabe von etwas nicht immer herangezogen werden, um daraus zitierend ein „gewichtiges“ sogenanntes starkes Argument abzuleiten. Das Anarchiv ist gegenüber dem Archivierten meist in einer zu starken Position der Ungewißheitshaltung. Ein Brief heute ist morgen schon nicht mehr der Brief mit derselben Intention selbst des Absenders, geschweige denn erst recht nicht der Leseintentionalität des Empfängers.
Jede Form des Gegenwärtigseins-bei hat die Struktur einer Differenzierung. Die Gegenwart trennt. Und ein auch noch so minimaler, aber nie insignifikanter Abstand ist. Der Sinn wird von sich getrennt, er wird ent-stellt.
Das ist die Zeit und das Band des ein anderes Mal.
Nach dem Durchgang durch die Lücke der Iteration( lesen Sie hierzu auch und besonders den „Vater-Text“ Namen-des-Vaters von J. Lacan! Deutsche Version im Verlag Turia + Kant, Wien 2006, franz. Original Des Noms-duPère, Éditions du Seuil, Paris 2005 )– wer kennt den markierten „Sinn“!
Wie die Identität beweisen? Jede Gegenwart zeitigt sich, verkoppelt ihr Moment der Zukunft mit ihrer Vergangenheit, ohne daß deswegen beide dasselbe wären. Die Identität des Zeichens selbst, durch das es sich oder etwas anderes/und etwas anderes kennzeichnet, erweist sich als vermittelt durch die Kluft eines Abstandes – die Differenz.
Eine Differenz ist zu überwinden, ein Aufschub zu überbrücken, bevor das Zeichen seine Gleichheit mit sich selbst bewähren kann. Das sokratische Auge, das sich selbst in einem anderen sieht, ist ein Auge, das die Differenz überwinden muß. Niemals kann es sich „selbst“ sehen, immer nur vermittelt über ein anderes, und also ist es selbst ein anderes.
Dieser Unterschied, diese Differenz in allem und überall zu „sehen“, das könnte die Aufgabe einer Philosophischen Praxis sein, die sich nicht vereinnahmen und nicht instrumentalisieren läßt.
Nie handelt es sich um fugenlose Unmittelbarkeit. Die Unmittelbarkeit ist ein Mythos.
Es gibt keinen Sinn zuvor, der sich dann in der Kette der Zeichen authentisch wieder-vergegenwärtigt.
Der Sinn „spielt“ zwischen Markierungen als ein Spiel von Beziehungen und Verweisungen. Er sitzt in den Lücken des Schweigens (Adorno). Ein „Inhalt“ vorher und nachher bleibt „sich“ nicht gleich. Die Philosophische Praxis besetzt (vielleicht) die Lücken des Schweigens und verleiht der Dialektik des Nichtidentischen Stimmen. Stimmen ohne Führung. Stimmen, die Tonleitern aufundnieder tanzen, ohne jemals die Leiter (um nur kurz L. Wittgenstein zu erinnern) wegwerfen zu müssen, die es vielleicht gar nicht mehr gibt oder die es so gar nie gab.
Die Philosophische Praxis als erotische, durch libidinale Energie gespeiste, Sorge der Differenz auf der Leiter der Versuchung der Kommunikation in der Inkommunikabilität läßt uns vielleicht den Unterschied beherzigen und mit unseren Gesprächspartner:innen erleben, was der „Maßstab“ für eine bessere Welt sein kann und werden könnte.
Ein Anliegen der Philosophischen Praxis wäre demnach der Versuch der Einschätzung dessen, wie weit es gehen „darf“ und wie weit es gehen „muß“. Was zuallererst die Frage nach meinem ICH aufruft mit dem Ansinnen nach einer Einschätzung, einer Abwägung, wie weit ich auf diesem Weg, diesem Méthodos kommen darf, kommen will, kommen kann, kommen soll oder sogar kommen muß.
„Man kann, wenn man in einer Kerkerzelle kauert, nicht mehr aufs Wort vertrauen. Dieses liefe Gefahr, nur mehr klingende Verlautbarung des Nichts zu sein. Das Wort entfaltet sich am heiterhellen Tag. Jedoch das Schweigen? Wer wagte es, sich mit ihm anzulegen? Bündnis. Zähne zusammenbeißen. Dem Wort Einhalt gebieten. Verschwiegen sein. Festhalten. Durchhalten. Das Schweigen ist gleich der restlosen Verwerfung unwählbarer Worte; nicht Negation, vielmehr Disqualifizierung.“ Edmond Jabès, für nelson mandela
„Denken, das heißt sprechen, befindet sich vielleicht immer in dieser unbequemen Situation, dem gemurmelten Sinn sein Ohr leihen zu müssen, um ihn nicht zu verfälschen, und ihn in eine artikulierte Rede verwandeln zu müssen, wenn er sich nicht verlieren soll. (…) Damit Denken wahr sein kann, darf es keine denkende Substanz, kein Denkvermögen, keine Denktätigkeit unabhängig vom Gedachten geben. Wahr ist es insofern, wie die gedachte Sache selbst, leibhaftig, wie Husserl sagte, zur Sprache kommt.“ (…)
„Sprechen heißt kommunizieren.“ (…)
„Unsere Erfahrung lebendiger Rede ist nicht die der Wiedergabe eines vorgefertigten Diskurses. Es ist die einer Einstellung auf den Gesprächspartner, auf die Fragen, die er uns stellt und die er uns in Bezug auf das von uns Gedachte, auf unsere eigene Botschaft oder auf das, was wir dafür hielten, zu stellen zwingt. Es ist die eines Spiels, eines Austauschs, eines Zirkulierens von Zeichen.
Kommunikation setzt voraus, damit dieser Austausch nicht zur bloßen Wiederholung wird, zur Versteifung der Gesprächspartner auf ihre jeweilige Position, dass ich nicht nur ich selbst mit meinen Gründen und Gefühlen, sondern auch der andere mit den seinen bin. Sie setzt auch voraus, dass der andere ich selbst, also der Andere seiner selbst ist.
Dann können wir miteinander eine Rede und, wie Heraklit gesagt hätte, ihre Harmonie herstellen, ihre Einheit mit dem Krieg, den wir gegeneinander führen.“ ( Jean-François Lyotard, Wozu philosophieren? ÜS Thomas Laugstien, diaphanes, Zürich-Berlin 2013, S. 63 f. )
Von dieser „Harmonie“, die Lyotard hier, Heraklit zitierend, aufruft, sind wir heute in der Welt sehr weit entfernt worden. Die russischen Armeen auf den ukrainischen Schlachtfeldern und die russischen Raketenangriffe auf die Zivilbevölkerung der Ukraine und auf deren Infrastruktur inmitten eines kalten Winters läßt uns den stalinistischen Holodomor (ÜS: Tötung durch bewußte Aushungerung, Tötung durch Hunger) als Wiederholung, verursacht durch Putin und die Putinisten, im Jahr 2023 befürchten. Es „sprechen“ zurzeit leider nur die Waffen ihre todbringende Sprache in der Ukraine.
Die Voraussetzungen für Verhandlungen sind nicht gegeben. Putin „muß“ die richtigen Schritte machen. Er darf, soll, kann und muß! In Richtung Waffenstillstandsverhandlungen und anschließende Friedensgespräche. Es liegt an ihm. Nur an ihm!
In der zweiten Reihe an der russischen Bevölkerung, sowie an deren Voraussetzungen zu einem Überleben und einem in der Folge vernünftigen Leben in Würde, Ehre und Anstand. Wo ist der russische Anstand hin? Was ist der russische Mensch in seiner Mehrheit heute? Wir wissen es nicht. Vielleicht haben wir es noch nie gewußt.
Das Zirkulieren der Zeichen ist zum Stillstand gekommen. Die Kommunikation aus Rußland hat zurzeit keine zu erbringende Voraussetzung. Putin ist. Militär überall und über die Maßen. Und sonst?
Die Theorie wurde abgesagt. Praxis von etwas kann also keine erfolgen. Technik? Militärtechnik!
Gesellschaftsmechaniken?
Null. Nada. Niente. Rien ne va plus. Nichts geht mehr.
Là ils se rendent compte que rien ne va plus. Dort merken sie, dass nichts mehr stimmt.
Nichts von Harmonie (Lyotard, Heraklit) in Sicht. Reine Opsis. Kratisches Sehen. Nur mehr. Überall in diesem Territorium Russische Föderation.
Der Fragende ist versteift, hat sich verrannt, verrennt sich immer weiter, ward pathologisch, ward und ist diktatorisch, er wird zum Alleinherrscher. Er ist Alleinherrscher. Er ist allein. Er hat seine väterliche Stimme verloren. Seines Vaters Stimme. Seines Vaters Stimme. Das Gesetz des Vaters vergessen! (Lacan)
Er fordert, lockt und ködert, zwingt zu einer Antwort. Eine Antwort, die die Frage dadurch erzwingt, wie sie gestellt ist. Eine Antwort, die die „Frage“ bereits selbst beantwortet. Keine rhetorische Frage, sondern eine methodische, eine teleologische. Der Weg, eine Sackgasse. Kein Ausgang. Kein Fortkommen. Bildungswege? Wege?
(…) (…) (…) #
Gerhard Kaučić, –
Head of a Grammatological Philosophical Practice since 1989 in Vienna and beyond
Wie wir wissen, kann es keine unmittelbare Selbsterfahrung geben, – wir bleiben immer auf Distanz zu uns selbst ! (vgl. Derrida, Psyche, Erfindungen des Anderen)
Ich selbst bin mir ein bekannter Fremder (!!!)
Ich erinnere an das Potential der Affizierung und Immunisierung beziehungsweise der Auto-Immunisierung (vgl. unser Posting zur Affizierung) !
Die Brücken zum Anderen und zum „eigenen“ Anderen sowie die Passagen, Markierungen, Spurungen, Königswege zum Unbewußten (Ubw) als das Andere, – das gefährliche gefährdete Andere !
Das Unbewußte, das invasive Ubw, die Krise der Hermeneutik !
Das Andere als Öffnung zur „Unentscheidbarkeit“ hin.
Derrida (vgl. „Gesetzeskraft“) spricht von einem „Gespenst“ des Unentscheidbaren, das jedes Entscheidungs-Ereignis heimsucht.
Das Gespensterhafte dekonstruiert jede Möglichkeit von Gewißheit, jede Möglichkeit einer Selbstversicherung, jede Möglichkeit von Gegenwärtigkeitsversicherung, jegliche Kriteriologie zur versuchten und vermeintlichen Absicherung der Gerechtigkeit einer Entscheidung.
Politik kann somit keine Anleitungen in normativer Hinsicht leisten, es herrscht quasi eine normative Unbestimmtheitsrelation zwischen Politik und Gesellschaft vor.
Die Freiheit der Andersheit des Anderen ermöglicht Lebenspraxen des Überlebens, die sich in der Begegnung der „Others of the Other und der Others of myself (J. Butler, Undoing Gender, New York 2004, p. 131ff.) vollzieht.
Das Denken der Schrift (vgl. Blog-Teaser, Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.) ereignet sich auch in einer Art „Wiederkehr des Verdrängten“!
Die Kulturleistungen verdanken ihre Kraft und zwingende Macht der Wiederkehr des Verdrängten, besonders gut sichtbar an den Religionen dieser Welt. Es handelt sich um permanente Erinnerungsarbeit, um Wiedererinnerungen von meist sehr alten, sehr effektiven weil sehr affektiven beziehungsweise affizierenden Vorgängen in der Geschichte der Menschheit.
Diese historischen Wahrheiten aufgrund der permanenten Wiederholung machen diese Kulturen so stark, mehr als das reale Ereignis und seine Wahrheit!
Beispiele wie Moses, Jesus oder Mohammed zeigen das in aller Vehemenz bis heute. Mit allen negativen und positiven Wirkungen und Nebenwirkungen. Und wider alle Vernunft! (vgl. Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft )
Die Wiederkehr des Verdrängten ereignet sich individuell, aber auch auf staatlicher Ebene.
Die verdrängten Körper vor der „Festung Europa“ etwa. Die Folgen des europäischen Imperialismus der letzten Jahrhunderte. Die Verschiebungen der durch den Imperialismus gezogenen Grenzlinien.
Grenzlinien von Staaten auf ehemaligen und in Resten noch vorhandenen Stammesgebieten.
Grenzlinien der Macht. „Wo Macht Recht ist.“
Diese Grenzlinien vergangener Mächte, sie brechen auf in die Geschichte der Gegenwart. Das verdrängte Unterdrückte bricht ein in den Alltag der sogenannten zivilisierten Demokratien.
Demokratien, die selbst um ihr Kommen ringen.
Ein Marker für Demokratien im Kommen ist die Abschaffung der Todesstrafe. Ein anderer Marker wäre und ist das Aufnehmen von Flüchtlingen.
Grenzlinien der Macht. Sie brechen auf. Migrationsbewegungen sind das sichtbare Symptom.
Europa und die übrige Welt muß handeln im Sinne der Menschenrechte und im Sinne der Menschlichkeit ! (vgl. meinen Blog-Post „Für eine menschenfreundliche Flüchtlingspolitik“ vom 11. 10. 2013)
Empathie! Hilfe!
Der Andere, – das bin Ich! Und das bist Du!
Die Struktur und die Artikulationsweise des Unbewußten sorgen dafür, daß wir immer im Verzug sind und uns immer etwas vorausliegt.
Unsere Vergangenheit, unsere Geschichte, die sich nie und nirgends in voller Selbst – Gegenwärtigkeit und Selbst – Präsenz erfahren hat lassen und läßt.
Nicht aneigenbar! Kein Eigenes! Ein Fremdes! (vgl. Blog-Teaser!, Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)
Ein Ent-stelltes! Verdichtet, verschoben, nachträglich bearbeitet. Traum – Arbeit!
Achtung! Gefahr der Entstellung!
Auch der Psycho – Analyse! Immer! Überall!
Denken der Schrift. Grammatologie. (vgl. Blog-Teaser)
Gegenwartsphilosophie
Körperphilosophie Demokratiephilosophie
Macht ist Körpern den Zugang zu Räumen versperren zu können!
Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, „Was sich nicht wegkommunizieren läßt“, – in: Kommunikation. Medien. Macht, hg. v. R. Maresch, N. Werber, Frf. 1999, S. 331:
„Macht ist die Möglichkeit, Räume mit Körpern zu besetzen, und das heißt auch: Körper aus Räumen zu verdrängen und Körpern den Zugang zu Räumen versperren zu können.“
(Transl.: Power is the possibility to occupy spaces with bodies, and that also means: to displace bodies out of spaces and to be able to deny them access to spaces.)
Sexuelle, ethnische und nationale Identitäten sind nicht körperbiologisch begründbar. Es handelt sich (wie oben dargelegt) um Realitätseffekte performativer Handlungen.
Unsere Körper sind politische!
Mit Turnheim behaupte ich eine grundsätzliche Verwandtschaft von Psychoanalyse und Demokratie und von Dekonstruktion und Demokratie. Alle drei Namen sprechen von der Irreduktibilität der Singularität bei gleichzeitiger versuchter Wiederholbarkeit!
Psychoanalyse und Dekonstruktion behaupten beide eine Irreduzibilität der Hetero-Affektion in der Erfahrung eines „Eigenen“ und beide gehen von einem Wirken eines inneren Fremdkörpers aus!
Der Ort und die Zeit, das Territorium „Wo Macht Recht ist.“
Die Illisibilität eines jeden Textes und seine „Grundlosigkeit“! (vgl. Michael Turnheim, Das Andere im Gleichen, S. 11)
Der Analytiker ist ein Leser, eine Leserin. Und! Der Analytiker wird zum Schreiber, zum Schriftsteller als lesenden.
Die Lekritüre der Grammatologie.
Text bleibt unlesbar lesbar ! (vgl. R. Barthes Illisibilität)
Die „Einschreibung“ ist nicht „für immer“, eine jede Einschreibung ist endlich wie das Subjekt selbst, dessen „Archiv“ zerstört werden kann wie jedes Archiv. Auch jedes Medienarchiv.
Durch die Bewußtmachungsarbeit passieren Dinge, die wir nicht planen, nicht kontrollieren können.
Affizierungen !
Die diversen Affizierungen und Immunisierungen sind unkontrollierbar. Sie basieren und passieren aufgrund der jeweiligen individuell biographischen Vor-Einschreibungen.
Laplanche betont, daß die „psychische Realität“ nicht von einem selbst geschaffen wird, sondern wesentlich invasiv ist: Sie kommt von außen auf uns als das Unbewußte anderer ! (vgl. A. Zupancic, Warum Psychoanalyse?, S. 40 und vgl. meine Videos zu Sprache und Unbewußtes)
face à face , –
zum je eigenen Narzißmus und zur Situationsgebundenheit in (m)einer Philosophischen Praxis:
Jacques Derrida:
„Es gibt weder den Narzißmus noch den Nicht-Narzißmus; es gibt mehr oder weniger verständnisvolle, freigiebige, offene und ausgedehnte Narzißmen, und was man normalerweise als Nicht-Narzißmus bezeichnet, ist für gewöhnlich nur die Ökonomie eines viel einladenderen und gastlicheren Narzißmus, der offen gegenüber der Erfahrung des Anderen als Anderem ist. Ich glaube, daß die Beziehung zum anderen ohne die Bewegung der narzißtischen Wiederaneignung vollkommen zerstört wäre, von vornherein zerstört. Die Beziehung zum anderen muß … – selbst wenn sie asymmetrisch bleibt, offen und ohne mögliche Wiederaneignung – sie muß eine Bewegung der Wiederaneignung in das Selbstbildnis skizzieren, damit beispielsweise Liebe möglich ist. Liebe ist narzißtisch.
Da gibt es kleine Narzißmen, da gibt es große Narzissmen, und am Ende steht der Tod als Grenze. Noch in der Erfahrung – wenn es eine ist – des Todes selbst gibt der Narzissmus nicht vollkommen auf.“ (J. Derrida, in „Auslassungspunkte“, S. 212, Passagen Verlag Wien 1998)
[ vgl. S. Freud, Zur Einführung des Narzißmus, 1914; und vgl. bes. :
J. Lacan, Écrits, s. 174 u. 187 u. Lacan, Propos sur la causalité psychique, 1946; ]
Der Narzißmus ist der erotische „Atem“ zum Anderen als sein Spiegelbild zu sich selbst.
(Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic, = Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber)
face à face:
Die narzißtische Beziehung – und eine „Beziehung“ ohne Narzißmus ist nicht denkbar – begründet die imaginäre Definition einer jeden menschlichen Beziehung (Gerhard Kaucic).
Ich denke, ja, ich bin mir sicher, sicher für mich selbst, – politische Handlungen, Setzungen, Neuerungen, Innovationen, Interventionen, Erfahrungen berühren etwas, was viele von uns als Philosophie verstehen.
Politische Handlungen implizieren Philosophisches. Das Politische deckt sich nicht mit dem Staatlichen. Jede politische Handlung impliziert Philosophie.
Und nochmals hinlenkend zum Schluß unseres Gespräches auf die Thematik Ihres politischen Engagements. Was ich Ihnen mitgeben, mit auf Ihren Heimweg geben möchte.
Jedes politische Engagement, jede innovative oder interventionistische politische Handlung impliziert schon von Anfang an ein philosophisches Moment, eine Art von Drehmoment, welches uns den Zwang einer „inneren“ Verpflichtung auferlegt, nämlich die Verpflichtung der Reflexion über das Politische, das Gesellschaftliche und die Geschichte und die Essenz, das Wesen, den Sinn und den Auftrag des Staates in Hinsicht auf das Demokratische der Idee der Demokratie und die Relationen zu dem, was sich in der Vergangenheit und der Gegenwart unter diesem Namen verbirgt und sich uns fallweise zeigt.
Identität durch Körpererfahrung in der Form von Gewalt und das Erleben und Selberspüren der eigenen Gewaltfähigkeit als Machtgefühl. Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Gewalt als Stabilitätsfaktor des autoritär entstandenen Charakters. Oft auch in der Form der Gewaltausübung an Frauen. Eine Definition von Männlichkeit als gelebte Brutalität auch im Hinblick auf etwaige beunruhigende Fragen nach der eigenen Geschlechtsidentität.
Weiter oben sprach ich von dem Anderen als den Fremden und ich zitiere Benveniste mit den Worten, der Fremde war immer schon und a priori der Feind.
Nun, um zu einem Ende zu kommen, – übrigens, das war auch der Inhalt des Endens unserer kürzlich vor wenigen Tagen erfahrenen philosophischen Praxis gewesen, – noch schnell ein paar Gedanken aus dem psychoanalytischen Feld zum Thema Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Gewalt.
Psychoanalyse ist zuerst einmal Psychoanalyse des Individuums und erst aus den daraus gewonnenen Erfahrungen mithilfe der psychoanalytischen Begrifflichkeit eine Möglichkeit sich gesellschaftlichen Phänomenen und Beschreibungen zu öffnen, um diese zu analysieren und hernach in einem dritten Schritt so weit wie möglich zu dekonstruieren.
Selbstbehauptung in gewissen Milieus geschieht mittels Abgrenzung von anderen, den so genannten Fremden. Und falls diese Fremden wenig geachtete Leute sind, verschafft das den Mitgliedern von Gruppen in diesen Milieus eine gewisse Selbsterhöhung.
Die Ausgrenzung von Fremden und die Ausgrenzung des Fremden generell ist oft ein wichtiger Teil der Identitätsfindung und Selbststabilisierung. Eine Bejahung des als eigen erfahrenen Selbsts.
Wir alle wissen, daß diese Fremdheit meist bald schwindet und daß Fremderfahrung eine aufhebbare ist, nicht nur zwischen Einzelwesen, sondern auch zwischen Gruppen und sogar ganzen Völkern.
Zum Selbst habe ich mich schon oben (mit Freud) geäußert! Wie wir wissen, kann es keine unmittelbare Selbsterfahrung geben, – wir bleiben immer auf Distanz zu uns selbst ! (vgl. Derrida, Psyche, Erfindungen des Anderen)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 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 )
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 )
