Tag Archives: Psychoanalysis

PP-2025-03

Affliction

03/30/2025 admin

Affliction Immunization Autoaffection Autoimmunity

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

Gerhard Kaučić (66, Philosoph)

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

Anna Lydia Huber (66, Philosophin)

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

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

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

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

Adresse/Post address/address:

Philosophical Practice/Philosophische Praxis

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber

Gasometer City

Guglgasse 8

1110 Vienna

Austria/Europe

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Contemporary Philosophy

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

What and how would an adequate thinking practice be today.

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

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

Once again to humanism as logocentrism or phonologocentrism.

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

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

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

Cf. you in addition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is the border crossing from animal to human?

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

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

We are animalistic, but not animal alone.

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

And every animal is unique !!!

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

And partly even consciousness!

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

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

Humanism as metaphysics is the enemy of animals.

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

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

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

Contemporary Philosophy

Gegenwartsphilosophie

PHILOSOPHIE DER GEGENWART PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

„Sexual“ is not only „genital“

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

Viennese Modernism, Viennese Postmodernism, Enlightenment!

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

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

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

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

The unconscious interprets as well !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our bodies are political!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore change is possible! !

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

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

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

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

Meaning, – Globalisation is Europeanisation !

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

The European heritage are crises !

Crisis and deconstruction !

Temporary text configurations !

European heritage: crisis, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, democracy !

Spaces and borders are not objectively measurable and preservable facts.

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

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

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

And yes, my friends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here and now!

The world is metaphor.

The world is literature.

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

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

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

Here and now!

The own and the foreign !

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

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

Émile Benveniste shows in his article

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

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

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

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

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

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

People on the one earth!

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

I have already commented on the self above (with Freud)! As we know, there can be no immediate self-experience, – we always remain at a distance to ourselves ! (cf. Derrida, Psyche, Inventions of the Other).

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

I remind of the potential of afficiation and immunization or auto-immunization (cf. Derrida) !

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

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

The Other as an opening towards „undecidability“.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples like Moses, Jesus or Mohammed show this in all vehemence until today. With all negative and positive effects and side effects. And against all reason! (cf. Kant, The Religion within the Limits of the Mere Reason )

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

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

So herewith the iteration starts.

OUR BODIES ARE POLITICAL! CIVILISATION AND THE OTHER!

Contemporary philosophy

Our bodies are political!

Civilisation and the Other!

Contemporary philosophy

Affections, Inscriptions,

Recollections

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

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

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

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

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

You make yourself conscious/aware !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The unconscious interprets as well !

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

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

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

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

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

„Where power is Law/Right.“

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analogically to de Saussures semiotics from the estate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repetition is everything!!!

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

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

Our bodies are political!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore change is possible! !

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

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

Meaning, – Globalisation is Europeanisation !

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

The European heritage are crises !

Crisis and deconstruction !

Temporary text configurations !

European heritage: crisis, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, democracy !

Spaces and borders are not objectively measurable and preservable facts.

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

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

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

Europe’s heritage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The own and the foreign !

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

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

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

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

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

The bridges to the other and to the „own“ other as well as the passages, marks, traces, royal roads to the unconscious as the other, – the dangerous endangered other !

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

The other as an opening to the „undecidability“.

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

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

Therefore, politics cannot give normative instructions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Empathy! Help!

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

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

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

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

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

Attention! Danger of dis-figuration!

Also of psycho-analysis! Always! Everywhere!

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

Contemporary philosophy

Philosophy of Body Philosophy of Democracy

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

Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, „Was sich nicht wegkommunizieren läßt“, – in: Communication. Media. Macht, ed. by R. Maresch, N. Werber, Frf. 1999, p. 331, germ. ed.:

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

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

to speak briefly with Derrida, to remind us again how necessary this will always be: The subject of an utterance can hardly be aware, and must be aware, that all „communication“ is subject to a general graphematic structure.

A consequence of this is that the iteration structure is given and thus the intention of an utterance can never be fully present to itself and its content. That is, iteration always generates a break, iteration structures a p r i o r i .

There always already exists an oratio obliqua, a structural unconsciousness of intention in the actuality of the statement. Never forget to remember that in the thing and the conception of it a ghost is doing its business, – the teleological mirage of consciousness (cf. esp. „Signature, Event, Context“ by J. Derrida, in: Randgänge der Philosophie, german edition).

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

Language is based on a divided, I want to say doubled, essence, an operativum divided in itself. Language is respectively the instrument of statements shares something „essential“ with language, because, precisely because no statement is reducible to its instrument (who wants to dive deeper into this >affair< „language“, read „Limited Inc“ by Derrida together with the texts of the speech act theorists Austin and Searle among others).

Words, phrases, sentences can hurt!

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

When we use language, we inevitably evoke effects in ourselves and in the other. We transform ourselves, but also the other, and we transform the other, the language. Language is a name for what we do, – the action we are doing, – and a name for what we cause, – the action and its consequences.

According to Freud, a forbidden desire shifts in the unconscious from one thing to the next. This infinite transmissibility of desire, seduced by a prohibition, a blockade, a taboo, controls quasi uncontrollably this logic of infection in a so-called metonymic flow (think of your own „desire“ to do forbidden things, – e.g. when changing accustomed circumstances!).

In Freud’s „The uneasiness in culture“ the place of libido is shifted and itself becomes the pleasure place of prohibition. Here repression takes that form in which it itself becomes a libidinous activity.

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

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

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

Democracies educate by means of education, – above all human education in the sense of human rights and human duties. Developing laws along human rights and in the sense of the European Convention.

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

Power-hungry people of all kinds cannot love because they cannot give as a gift without credit and debt. They cannot love without economy. In place of being able to love, the figure of self-empowerment and greed as a desire for power takes place in these. This is the blatant expression of a lack (of doubt) due to a gap in the symbolic order, a dysfunction or parafunction of the unconscious (see above and in postings from recent years).

Giving without economy. Giving in the same(!?) time.

Love. Libido. Sexual economy. Becoming a subject. Education. Giving as a gift.

From dissemination grows the fruitful. Not necessarily, but possibly. Never from pure economics! From there one should always keep the legal and economic terms „freedom, duty, generosity, waste versus thrift, interest, usefulness“ in mind and expose them to a questionable overthinkability.

Marcel Mauss refers to the madness of the gift as giving without an economy of the expectable exchange of. I think he means the act of giving more than the gift as a thing. That which comes back, if something comes back(!), cannot be expected and should not be expected. The giving as a gift as a taking without address for an exchange transaction. The madness of giving and taking, – of taking as giving and giving as taking without return.

If possible. Loving.

The taking and the giving. A cultural transformation. Underlying „communicating vessels“, – the subjects. Starting points: processes of subject formation. Configurations. Transformations. Disseminations (cf. what was said above!).

The gift as an instrument of power. Only those who give in an economically calculating way rule. The power of production. The ownership of the means of production. The power-obsessed.

Further above I spoke of the Other as the stranger and quoted Benveniste with the words, the stranger was always already and a priori the enemy.

Now, to come to an end – by the way, this had also been the content of the end of our philosophical practice recently experienced a few days ago – a few more thoughts from the psychoanalytical field on the subject of xenophobia and violence.

Psychoanalysis is first of all psychoanalysis of the individual and only from the experiences gained from it with the help of psychoanalytic terminology a possibility to open up to social phenomena and descriptions in order to analyze them and afterwards in a third step to deconstruct them as far as possible.

I remind of the “ unfamiliarity “ of the child, – an intrapsychic perception of the non-identity of the stranger with the memory image of the reference person who is absent at the moment (still often and primarily the mother, but not necessarily!).

We all know that this strangeness usually fades away soon and that strangeness experience is an abolishable one, not only between individuals, but also between groups and even whole peoples.

Self-assertion in certain milieus happens by means of demarcation from others, the so-called strangers. And if these strangers are little respected people, this provides the members of groups in these milieus with a certain self-exaltation.

The exclusion of strangers and the exclusion of the stranger in general is often an important part of identity formation and self-stabilization. An affirmation of the self experienced as one’s own.

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

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

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

His stabilization and socialization as a national socialist >anti-socialist<, but above all anti-Semite. In primary socialization often persons with narcissistic wounds and impairments of self-value regulation. In stressful situations, such as puberty, often burdened with feelings of inferiority due to lack of recognition, etc., hopelessness, demotivation and feelings of emptiness. Hardly any bonding ability to immediately existing people. Identification failures with distant, so-called strong personalities. Others are idealized or devalued. Strangers are almost always devalued, especially „foreign“ looking people.

Authoritarian or even totalitarian doctrines and ideologies often catch on with these individuals overnight (cf. youth in Europe and the IS in recent years).

Group cohesion can have a very strong binding effect in the case of a leader whom everyone in the group regards as exemplary and to whom they all submit together, thus creating a quasi covenant.

Adorno’s and others‘ study of the authoritarian personality is familiar to many of us. I do not need to elaborate on this here, merely to express or address the almost truism, namely that the inner-family socialization processes of the petty-bourgeois family are decisive for the formation of the character and especially of the authoritarian character through the lack of emotional warmth to the reference persons, mostly the parents, as well as crises and conflicts solved by force through character-weak father figures, in many cases also the withdrawal of closeness through the absence of at least one main reference person, – that of the father in most cases.

„Authority-bound characters, persons who, under the pressure of childhood experiences, failed to crystallize an autonomous ego, are particularly prone to totalitarian ideologies“ (Adorno 1954).

Very often these young people experienced violence and sexualized violence in their socialization. Social powerlessness is turned into power and violence against others. This so-called „whipping boy mechanism“ is almost only felt by the weaker ones. In such groups, it is also very often directed against foreigners. Self-hatred turns into hatred of others and often ends in an ecstatic orgy of violence with many kicks on people already lying on the ground. No empathy. No imagination about possible suffering of the other. The hullabaloo comedy not infrequently as a real tragedy. Fueled and guided also often by relevant film adaptations of such outbreaks of violence. Unreflectively watched and adopted.

Identity through bodily experience in the form of violence and the experience and self-feeling of one’s own capacity for violence as a feeling of power. Xenophobia and violence as stability factor of the authoritarian developed character. Often also in the form of the exercise of violence against women. A definition of masculinity as lived brutality also with regard to possible disturbing questions about one’s own gender identity.

How one could find one’s way back to a „normal“ life?

A difficult path. Certainly!

But certain therapies describe the possibilities in the form of many conversations that it would be important to lead the „patient“ to the point where he could eventually come into the position to affirm his own imperfection and to learn to love himself as well as the other not for reasons of media-fed, fantasized perfection, but out of an acknowledgement of real and actually experienced imperfection to learn to like and finally even to learn to love him. To want to learn to love the other and finally perhaps to be able to love him and thus to grow into a real partnership – that should be able to make possible the way away from xenophobia and the world of violence towards a path of peace with oneself and thus towards another. Certainly a long, difficult way to go, but a way!

I myself am a stranger to myself! That would be the right spot landing in this terrain. As Freud said in 1933: „We are all foreigners!“.

To be able to accept one’s own „inner foreign country“ (Freud) and one’s own foreignness!

The gift to love! The gift to give. Giving without economic calculation. To love. To give love.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are two! I am two!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Into a beyond of the book!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life ek-sists in deferral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many more Philosophical Practices and practises will be needed. Political theories and politics are all based on the axiomatics and valuations of philosophical provenances.

I thank our guests for the stimulating and hope giving reflections, trains of thought and thought creations, – sometimes and always on the edge of abysmalness.

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

And as always, we have too little time.

Every sentence has too little time. Every sentence displaces by jumping. It displaces many other possible and necessary (!) sentences (for more see my Youtube video on „The Sentence„).

Each sentence, each word, each code drives its being and its mischief in the incommunicability!

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

Every sentence in every setting and every session (also the one in a PP/philosophical practice).

I should always be able to state all the psychoanalytic, economic, political, and juridical implications of what is said/set above.

I refer all readers to my/our publications on the net and to the publications on paper.

The terrain of reading is abysmal(!) and unlimited!

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

CONVERSATIONS ARE EVENTS AS TEXT

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

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

The point is, in my philosophical practice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Come home well.

With best wishes, –

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber

Philosophers

Philosophical Practitioners, Writers (born 1959).

PP Vienna

To contact me/us use only these emails:

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

Anna Lydia Huber (66, Philosophin)

Gerhard Kaučić (66, Philosoph)

Post scriptum/after the bound/Nachsatz:

The tasks of a future democracy/a democracy on the rise/a permanent advent/arrival of democracy/a democracy in the arrival ( Jacques Derrida ), to think the subject as „planetary“ (cf. G. Ch. Spivak, see teaser, – the teaser from my blog; note: the teaser is only visible in the web-version!), – especially concerning the great challenges of politics in the 21st century: Utopia (?!) of reflexive solidarity (Spivak),

analysis of power, gender and governmentality, teletechnology, cyborg technology, political bodies, complexities of rule, citizenship, parliamentarianism, peace policy, institution building and institution maintenance, economically correct and fair redistribution of social wealth, proper management of Migration (Flüchtlinge, Refugees), …

proper handling of migration (refugees), migration and capitalism, Postkolonialismus, neocolonialism, postcolonialism, Kolonialisierung auf allen Ebenen, Kolonialismus, Rassismus, Faschismus, Neo – Kolonialismus, Ökonomismus, Imperialismus,

Ökonomischer Imperialismus (angeleitet durch die Neue Institutionenökonomik, die Transaktionskostenökonomik und die Prinzipal-Agent-Theorie; im Gefolge des New Public Management treten an die Stelle von Handeln nach Maßgabe professioneller Ethiken Kontraktmanagement mit Zielvereinbarungen und anstelle einer Berufsethik Qualitätsmanagement und Benchmarking samt Controlling und Leistungsrechnung mit all ihren Schattenseiten und ungeplanten Nebenwirkungen, – vgl. Richard Münch: Globale Eliten, lokale Autoritäten, Frf. 2009, Suhrkamp, S. 18 vv.ff.),

the world as environment and its destruction, manmade environmental disasters, shipping, esp. container shipping, pollution of oceans, pollution of soil, greenhouse gases, temperature rise, shortage of resources, prosperity gap,

population density, urban development ( e.g. „Gängeviertel“ in Hamburg, the initiative „Komm in die Gänge“ stands for discourse and practice of a different (!) form of urban development and is an example and symbol that gives hope against gentrification and the destruction of old buildings ),

climate wars, climate catastrophes, civil wars, „ethnic cleansing“ (!), genocide, violent conflicts, social questions, ecological questions, planetary principle, tradition history, the question of a global government (!?), social catastrophes, terrorism, natural disasters, migration, unstable states, poverty, wealth, corruption, media policy and presence-ideologies, war and non-war, world order and biopolicy, bioengineering,

robotics, bio-inspired robotics, Robotertechnologien, weapon development, arms delivery, violent and oppressive power politics, religious fanaticism, party political fanaticism, terrorism, biodiversity, standardization, factory farming, animal factories, animal consumption, „meat production“!, animal rights, animal philosophy,

„animal turn“ (vgl. Anne Peters, Tier-Recht im Zeitalter des Menschen, – in: Renn/Scherer (Hg.), Das Anthropozän. Zum Stand der Dinge. Berlin 2015, S. 67ff.),

ethical norms, euthanasia, terminal care, aging, health and sports, sports and age, ethics and medicine, cyber war, cyber crime, technology and space, political demarcation, deterritorialization, tourism, mass media, mass mediality, neoliberalization of the subjects, power,

truth and passion (vgl.: Gabriele Michalitsch: Die neoliberale Domestizierung des Subjekts. Von den Leidenschaften zum Kalkül. Campus Verlag, Frankf. a. M. 2006, bes. S. 29ff. und S. 101ff.),

sex labour, difference and the shaping of the social ( Antke Engel: Bilder von Sexualität und Ökonomie. Queere kulturelle Politiken im Neoliberalismus. Bielefeld 2009, S. 138ff. ),

automobility, digitalia and upbringing, education, unemployment, debt crisis, failing of democratization, neglect of the common good,

production and consumption (David Harvey), globalized consumption, market fanaticism, power of the market, democratization of the market, power of the globally operating financial markets, education, social policy, urban policy, policy of affordable housing, youth unemployment, social inequality, exclusion, individuality, sovereignty, liberalism, egalitarianism, limits of growth, mobility, traffic and communication, ecology, freedom, justice, interests of corporate groups, turbo-capitalism, global tax culture, international tax evasion, tax fraud, Drogierungsverhalten, drug laws, drug culture,

the own and the foreign, fascism, antisemitism, racism, sexism, human trafficking,

modern slavery (cf.: Kevin Bales, dt. Üs: „Die neue Sklaverei“, engl. V.: K. B., „Disposable People. New Slavery in the Global Economy“ und Hanns Wienold ),

„Neger, Rasse, Rassen-Subjekt, Rassismus, Schwarze Vernunft, Versklavung, Sklaverei, Massenversklavung in der Geschichte gestern heute morgen, das Rassensubjekt/Negro, race, racial subject, racism, black reason, enslavement, slavery, mass slavery in history, yesterday – today – tomorrow, the racial subject“

((cf.: Achille Mbembe: Critique de la raison nègre. Paris 2013 ( Orig. fr. ). Achille Mbembe: Critique of Black Reason. Duke University Press Books 2017 (transl., Laurent Dubois). Achille Mbembe: Kritik der schwarzen Vernunft. Berlin, Suhrkamp, 2014 (ÜS aus d. Franz., Michael Bischoff). )),

arms trade, private purchase of weapons, possession of weapons, increase in complexity, knowledge generation, urbanization and population growth, democracy deficit, sustainability crisis, green energy, energy regime, energy crisis, legitimization crisis, territoriality, agricultural policy, fishing policy, famine (cf. Jean Ziegler),

famine and capitalism, „the right to food“

(( human right, UN-social covenant, Article 11 (1) and (2); human dignity ( primary normative principle of human rights, ethical principle, „dignitas“ (Cicero), the „idea of the good“ (Plato), fundamental „equal worth of all human beings“ (Kant), protection of the human dignity in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union )),

need of land, land grabbing, land robbery, justice, human rights, decolonization of thinking, policy of displacement, solidarity across class, race, and national boundaries (Mohanty, passim),

just policy as a policy of strengthening the weak

(( zum planetarischen Subjekt cf. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: Imperative zur Neuerfindung des Planeten – Imperatives to Re-Imagine the Planet (hg. v. Willi Goetschel engl./dt.). Wien 2013, 2. Aufl., Passagen Verlag, S. 49vv.ff.

and Charles Taylor: Multiculturalism and the „Politics of Recognition“. Princeton 1994, p. 28 ))

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Philosophical Practices / Politics / Disseminations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Unsere Aufgabe ist es, die Diskurse der Macht, der Herrschaft, der Autorität – und jeder Diskurs impliziert Machtausübung ! – zu durchkreuzen, logothetisch (im Sinn der Schaffung einer neuen Sprache / einer anderen Sprachverwendung) zu disseminieren, indem wir deren Intertextualitäten, die Kreuzungspunkte vieler anderer Texte in einem jeden Text in viele heterogene Teile auseinander treiben. Der Intertextualität zugrunde liegt die Multiplizität der Codes, die grundsätzlich unbeschränkt ist. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Mise-en-Abyme ……………………………………. mise en abîme ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Abyssos …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. intertextuelle Strukturen als die „Natur“ der Sprache ………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. This reason of understanding, limited by „territory“ (temporally and spatially), the image of temporary textual-configurations ( mise en abyme, picture in picture in picture…), „picture“ as a metaphor of re-flection, the picture of the mirror without tinfoil, the picture of standing behind the mirror as „standing“ in the mirror, – a mirror of distortion and performance/performation (!), a mirror of the initial transformation without origin, – a mirror, which gives the picture ( away ! ?!) for our language, – our language as graphically marked poetics of communication, – literally ! (see J. Derrida, La dissémination, p. 350 und passim) ……………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Jede Lektüre ( auch „Gespräche“ müssen gelesen werden! Gehörtes ist gehört worden und in der verstehenden Verstandestätigkeit „gelesen“ worden. Aus-gelesen! Ausgewählt! Aus-sortiert! Aus der gehörten „Wirklichkeit“ er-hört und ent-hört, ver-hört, verwirklicht, verkettet, sprachverkoppelt, verlesen!, zusammen-ge-lesen!, zusammengesammelt, ver-sammelt, ge-doublet, ge-setzt, produktiv ausgelesen! ) muß erst eine signifikante Struktur produzieren. Es gibt kein Kriterium für die Identität des Sinns eines Ausdrucks: die Interpretation wird im wissenschaftlichen Sinne eine Sache der Unentscheidbarkeit, was nicht gleich heißt, daß man sie nicht in einem passageren Einverständnis vieler LeserInnen vorübergehend quasi-fixieren und ver- und bewerten könnte und sollte. Sogenannte „Verstehens-Inseln“ temporärer Textkonfigurationen! Ver-stehen auch im Sinne von: eine kleine oder größere Gruppe von Diskurspartizipanten „steht“(!) temporär auf temporär gesichertem „Verstehens“- bzw Verständnis-Grund! ………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Dieser Verständnisgrund, dieses „Territorium“ begrenzten (zeitlich und räumlich) Verstehens, das Bildnis temporärer Textkonfigurationen ( mise en abime, Bild im Bild im Bild…), „Bild“ für die Metapher der Re-flexion, das Bild vom Spiegel ohne Stanniol, das Bild vom hinter dem Spiegel stehen als in dem Spiegel „stehen“, – ein Spiegel der Verzerrungen und Performungen, ein Spiegel der ursprünglich ursprungslosen Verwandlungen, – ein Spiegel, der das Bild ab-gibt (!) für unsere Sprache, – unsere Sprache als graphisch markierte Poetik der Kommunikation, – buch-stäblich ! (Vgl. J. Derrida, La dissémination, p. 350 und passim) ………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Philosophical Practices / Politics / Disseminations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Unsere Aufgabe ist es, die Diskurse der Macht, der Herrschaft, der Autorität – und jeder Diskurs impliziert Machtausübung ! – zu durchkreuzen, logothetisch ( im Sinn der Schaffung einer neuen Sprache / einer anderen Sprachverwendung / einer intensivierten Wahrnehmung / einer komplexeren Lesbarkeit ) zu disseminieren, indem wir deren Intertextualitäten, die Kreuzungspunkte vieler anderer Texte in einem jeden Text in viele heterogene Teile auseinander treiben. Der Intertextualität zugrunde liegt die Multiplizität der Codes, die grundsätzlich unbeschränkt ist. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. The intertextuality and its underlying multiplicity of codes is principally unlimited and unlimitable. The growing deconstruction – textualities and their texture of connotation are not includable or even determinable by any context. ……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. More complex readability ! More complicated readability of the world ! Intensified perception ! ! ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……….. ……….. To contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at ……… ………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Adventure Philosophy!

Philosophische Praxis

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

philosophical practices face à face

Gerhard Kaučić,

b. 1959, Philosopher, Writer, 66, 2025

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON II
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON ist ein siebenbändiger Großtext, eine disseminative Lekritüre, dessen zweiter Band der Dekonstruktion von ‚Finnegans-Wake‘ gewidmet ist. Große Literatur ist nicht einfach nur Sprache, die bis zur Grenze des Möglichen mit Sinn geladen ist, wie Ezra Pound meinte, James Joyce verwirklichte, Arno Schmidt und Hans Wollschläger fortführten, sondern sie ist Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas, die diese Grenze ständig verschiebt, verdichtet, entstellt. Der Text besteht aus vielen Buchstaben, aus sehr vielen – und jeder Buchstabe ist ein ganzes Universum an Bedeutungen – mehr noch – an „Zeichen“. Jedes dieser Zeichen ist in Bezug auf sich „selbst“ und in Bezug auf alle anderen Zeichen zu setzen und zu lesen. Kein Zeichen darf nicht gelesen werden. Wie im ‚Book of Kells‘ oder den Handschriften des alten Orients in der „untergegangenen“ Bibliothek Sarajewo.
Dieser Grenzgang durch die Felder von Literatur, Theorie, Informatik, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Sprachen arbeitet in und mit allen Überlieferungen des Orients, des alten Europa, der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und Literaturen sowie der postmodernen Theorie.

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON III
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ ist ein siebenbändiger Großtext, eine disseminative Lekritüre, dessen dritter Band der Dekonstruktion von Wissenschaft und Theorie gewidmet ist. Große Literatur ist nicht einfach nur Sprache, die bis zur Grenze des Möglichen mit Sinn geladen ist, wie Ezra Pound meinte, James Joyce verwirklichte, Arno Schmidt und Hans Wollschläger fortführten, sondern sie ist Schrift im Sinne Jaques Derridas, die diese Grenze ständig verschiebt, verdichtet, entstellt. Konzis arbeitet Inspektor Sem auf dem Strich vor dem Gesetz. Telquel die Bannmeile Europa, Sucht und Seuche, Wissenschaft und Wahrheit, Mikroben, Gene, Spuren zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns.
Dieser Grenzgang durch die Felder von Literatur, Theorie, Informatik, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Sprachen arbeitet in und mit allen Überlieferungen des Orients, des alten Europa, der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und Literaturen, sowie der postmodernen Theorie.

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON I
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ ist ein siebenbändiger Großtext, eine disseminative Lekritüre, dessen erster Band der Dekonstruktion von Religionen und Mythologien gewidmet ist. Große Literatur ist nicht einfach nur Sprache, die bis zur Grenze des Möglichen mit Sinn geladen ist, wie Ezra Pound meinte, James Joyce verwirklichte, Arno Schmidt und Hans Wollschläger fortführten, sondern sie ist Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas, die diese Grenze ständig verschiebt, verdichtet, entstellt.
Dieser Text schreibt in sich einen Roman, ein Gedicht, ein Epos auch. Die Geschichte ist ein Krimi rund um den Helden Sam. Eine Geschichte ein Ro man zum letzten Helden, zum ersten Helden.
„Es“ ist „Ain Traum Booch“ – wie der „Unter-Titel“ sagt. Dieser Grenzgang durch die Felder von Literatur, Theorie, Informatik, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Sprachen arbeitet in und mit allen Überlieferungen des Orients, des alten Europa, der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und Literaturen sowie der postmodernen Theorie.

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON IV
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON ist ein siebenbändiger Großtext, eine disseminative Lekritüre, dessen vierter Band der Dekonstruktion von Sexualität und Sexualisationsprozessen gewidmet ist. Große Literatur ist nicht einfach nur Sprache, die bis zur Grenze des Möglichen mit Sinn geladen ist, wie Ezra Pound meinte, James Joyce verwirklichte, Arno Schmidt, Hans Wollschläger und Oswald Wiener fortführten, sondern sie ist eine Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas, die diese Grenze ständig verschiebt, verdichtet und entstellt.
Inspektor Sem dekonstruiert Rhetoriken, Sexualanthropologien, Psychagogien, erfindet Schnittstellen, Codes von Liebesrelationen, Liebesmodellen, Geschlechterbeziehungen, decouvriert Paradigmen von Geschlechterdifferenz. Differenz zwischen Liebe und Tod.
Dieser Grenzgang durch die Felder von Literatur, Theorie, Informatik, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Sprachen arbeitet in und mit Überlieferungen des Orients, des alten Europa, der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und Literaturen sowie der postmodernen Theorie.

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON V
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Mit dem fünften Band von ‚S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns‘ erscheint ein weiterer Text in der Reihe zur Autobiographie des Agenten Sem. Sem, Privatdetektiv, Inspektor, Geheimagent, ist Akteur im System Sprache. Die Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas ist sein Medium und auszuspionierendes geheimdienstliches Operationsfeld. Das „Echelon-Projekt“ repräsentiert als Ergebnis die Matrix eines großen Lauschangriffs auf das Humanum schlechthin: Identität, Körper, Reproduktion, Sexualität, Macht, Gewalt, Repräsentation, Sprache, Semiotik, Gedächtnis, Wissen, Archiv. Zugleich ist dieser Text vielleicht die Erfüllung der Forderung von Helmut Heissenbüttl nach einer Literatur für intellektuelle LeserInnen und eine Liebeserklärung an Jacques Derrida.

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

In English:

CORONA WHEELING CROWNING

Covidity Virality Virtuality Mediality Metahumanoidity ?!

The leap. Leaving the book. The production, the emancipation, the liberation of writing.

……………………. Semeion Aoristicon oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns …………………..

……. THE SENTENCE ………. the jump ……… the set ……. the leap o f …. The LEAVING of

the BOOK ……….. ?!

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

I ask if Sem VI is not my / our blog composition !?!

I ask (me / us) if Sem VII is not my / our blog.

I ask if my/our blog will not be Sem VI and Sem VII?

And shall be!

Or must be?

Already is, will be or even must be and will have to be !?!

The set. The leaving of the book.

The production, the emancipation, the liberation of the writing.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Semeion Aoristicon or to the autobiography of Sem Schauns

……. THE SET …….. THE LEAVING OF THE BOOK …….. !?

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

Psychoanalyse, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, das Unbewußte

Die Sprache, das Sprechen, das Unbewußte (Ubw)

Der Satz und die Philosophie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement

Gespräche outdoor/indoor: Grammatologien, Kontextualisierungen, Analysen, Komplizierungen, Plurivalenzen, Dependenzen, Interdependenzen, Grammatiken, Aporien, Dekonstruktion…rund um die Uhr…rund um die Welt…

…around the clock …around the world…

GESPRÄCHE sind EREIGNISSE als TEXT

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

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

Cf. list of publications at: https://scholar.google.at/citations?user=wNUSN64AAAAJ&hl=de

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Projekte / Projects (1989 – 2025 ff.) 36 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Wien GK & ALH

Mehr dazu siehe meinen Teaser und meinen Footer sowie die übrigen Postings in diesem Blog! (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)

Homepage:

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

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

PP-2025-03

Philosophical Practice as Training

03/16/2025 admin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gerhard Kaučić

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

Anna Lydia Huber

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

Anna Lydia Huber ( * 1959 ) Gerhard Kaučić

eine lange Geschichte der Freundschaft

a long history of friendship a long story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contemporary Philosophy

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

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

Philosophical Practice as Training / philosophical Practice and the training

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

Lust for the skills and their improvement

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

Trainings – the material of the future?

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

At the beginning was a quote from my last posting:

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

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

Ecology as a necessity of our actions;

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

without nature no freeriding; without freeriding no balanced personality;

without skills no discipline;

without discipline there is no school and no educational ability;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An education that disciplines us and prepares us.

A training of human education.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The development of skills and abilities improves individual identity.

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

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

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

To say it completely simply and briefly:

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

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

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

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

A small insertion for identity formation or insecurity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In schools, universities, academies and also in companies?

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

To criticise and endure criticism?!

Transitions from one situation to another are always critical transitions.

Will I make the transition?

Am I sufficiently trained for the new?

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

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

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

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

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

The difference in the form of education is:

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

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

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

This is the only way fruitful education can take place!

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

Also and especially in the respective futures.

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

Life as Performance!

Life an exercise?!

In(ter)vention

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

Towards the temporary end:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Vivification through deconstruction is necessary.

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

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

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

Aesthetically and ethically at the same time!

Deconstruction has an ethical component !

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

My life’s work – my philosophical practice!

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

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

And this always in the double movement of the Différance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do something with it? Develop passion? Enjoy it?

And still not lose their minds afterwards? Remain critical?

And be or become joyful people?

Artists in your field?!

As an invitation for especially interested people:

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

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

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

Postscriptum as a prescript, – – –

well knowing, – conversations are not summarizable!

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

Mere coarse rudiments are deliverable. Almost dead texts!

first of all, please study:

Grammatologie différance Dekonstruktion (Was ist Dekonstruktion.) Dissemination

Dekonstruktion hat eine ethische Komponente!

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

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

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

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

There’s the time since life has existed.

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

Giving a picture

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

And this always in the double movement of Différance.

Sentences that mean the world!

Sentences that interpret the truth!

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

Deconstruction cannot be included in a „term“ deconstruction.

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

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

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

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

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

Deconstruction has an ethical component !

Dekonstruktion hat eine ethische Komponente !

Freundschaft Freude Freiheit

Freudensprünge

friendship joy freedom

jumping of joy

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Contemporary Philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

„face à face“

face to face / face à face.

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

I cultivate the intellectual intimacy of deconstructive attention.

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

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

The speaking speed! The vocabulary! The digressions!

The exaggerations! The volume!

The ideological minimal racisms!

Certain phrases as microaggressions!

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

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

with open end, –

indoor as well as outdoor

„Conversations,“ „discourses.“

„Deconstructions“,

„Companions.“

„Text“

Arrangements in a work of relating!

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY

PHILOSOPHY OF THE 21ST CENTURY

PHILOSOPHIZING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

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

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

PHILOSOPHIZING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

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

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

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

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

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

And finally …

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

Every sentence a jump!

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

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

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

The Political Body and the Other

contemporary philosophy

Body Philosophy

body philosophy

Let’s not forget! ! !

Psychoanalysis ! ! !

Let’s not forget –

Jacques Derrida! ! !

Deconstruction

grammatology

Philosophical Practice

contemporary philosophy

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

DECONSTRUCTION HAS AN ETHICAL COMPONENT!

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

Conversations in this kind of philosophical practice are confidential!

Conversations are therefore text events without a protocol.

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

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

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

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

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

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

contemporary philosophy

contemporary

philosophy

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

Contemporary

Philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement

Gespräche outdoor/indoor: Grammatologien, Kontextualisierungen, Analysen, Komplizierungen, Plurivalenzen, Dependenzen, Interdependenzen, Grammatiken, Aporien, Dekonstruktion…rund um die Uhr…rund um die Welt…

…around the clock …around the world…

GESPRÄCHE sind EREIGNISSE als TEXT

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

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

Cf. list of publications at: https://scholar.google.at/citations?user=wNUSN64AAAAJ&hl=de

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Projekte / Projects (1989 – 2025 ff.) 36 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Wien GK & ALH

Mehr dazu siehe meinen Teaser und meinen Footer sowie die übrigen Postings in diesem Blog! (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)

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

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

PP-2025-03

Migrationspolitik

03/14/2025 admin

Flucht und Flüchtlinge, Politiken

Subjekte

Gerhard Kaučić

(geb. 1959, Dr. phil., Alter 66, 2025), Philosophische Praxis Wien 1989 ff. Philosoph, Schriftsteller, Übersetzer, Mediator, Feminist, dekonstruierter Hegelianer, Philosophischer Praktiker/Praktische Philosophie, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion,
Philosophische Praxis Wien Österreich Europa

Philosoph des Denkens der Différance, Philosophie der Différance, Praxis der Différance, Arbeit(!) der Différance

( lies dazu „Die différance“, – in: Jacques Derrida: Randgänge der Philosophie, Passagen Verlag, Wien 1988, S. 29-52 )

Anna Lydia Huber

Autorin, Mediatorin, Philosophin (geb. 1959, MSc, Alter, 66, 2025)

Europäische Philosophin, Schriftstellerin, Mediatorin (MSc), Feministin, (die Philosophin als dekonstruierte) Hegelianerin, ,Philosophische Praktikerin/Praktische Philosophie, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion, Philosophische Praxis Wien, Österreich, Europa 1989 ff.

Zuerst und vor allem noch einmal zu >was könnte „Philosophieren heute“ besagen< ! Was und wie wäre eine angemessene Denkpraxis heute.

Worin >ist<(!) Philosophie heute denkbar und wodurch bzw woheraus ist das, was wir mit Philosophie je unterschiedlich meinen, zu praktizieren.

Der Begriff(!) Différance stellt den Menschen in gewissem Sinne in Frage und zeichnet dadurch die Geschichte des Lebens überhaupt.

Noch einmal zum Humanismus als Logozentrismus bzw Phonologozentrismus.

Derrida zeigt, daß die traditionell hierarchische Anordnung der beiden Bestandteile des Z e i c h e n s dekonstruktiv verkehrt werden muß. Bis hinein in die moderne Sprachwissenschaft wird nämlich die ideelle Bedeutung eines Zeichens, S i g n i f i k a t (die Vorstellung) genannt, dem materiellen Träger der Bedeutung, S i g n i f i k a n t (das Laut – oder Schriftbild) genannt, übergeordnet. Stets wird versucht, den äußerlichen Signifikanten, die Schrift, auf ein transzendentales Signifikat hin auszurichten.

Denken Sie an das, was wir vorher über Religion, Gott und Mensch gesagt haben. Vgl Sie dazu: https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2017/04/religion-und-gesellschaft-teil-2.html

Jedes Signifikat (Die Vorstellung!) befindet sich aber (laut Derrida) „immer schon in der Position des Signifikanten“ (Derrida, Grammatologie, S. 129).

Es kann keine Bedeutung geben und keinen Sinn, der der Verräumlichung und Verzeitlichung sowie dem differentiellen Spiel der Signifikantenbeziehungen entgehen könnte.

Die Schrift ist nach dieser Definition Zeichen von Zeichen, Signifikant von Signifikanten.

Mit dieser Verkehrung soll vor allem gezeigt werden, daß die Materialität des Signifikanten zum Sinn nicht etwa nachträglich und äußerlich hinzutritt, sondern umgekehrt, daß der Sinn E f f e k t einer immer schon n a c h t r ä g l i c h e n Signifikation ist. Derrida hat auf diese Weise das Verhältnis von Sprache und Schrift neuformuliert und umformuliert.

Durch Derridas Transformation des Schriftbegriffs geht dieser über den der Sprache hinaus und begreift diesen mit ein.

Aus all dem folgt ein völlig neues, weil mehrfach transformiertes Verständnis und Ereignis von T e x t.

Einem solchen Text(verständnis) ist das „Wesen“, die Praxis der Dekonstruktion, inhärent, also „ein-geschrieben“ (vgl. Derrida, Freud und der Schauplatz der Schrift bzw Freuds „Wunderblock“).

Das Denken der Differänz/différance ist die inhärente Praxis der „Dekonstruktion“.

Es geht darum, es geht mir in meiner Philosophischen Praxis

(( und dazu gehört das Gespräch in dieser, aber auch meine/unsere Schreibpraxis vorher und nachher einer jeden Setzung / Sitzung(!) ))

immer darum, Texte (geschrieben, gesprochen oder Darstellungen(!) z. B. technischer, künstlerischer, ökonomischer, politischer, institutioneller Art) in ihrer inneren Struktur und in ihrem Zusammenwirken mit anderen Texten zu erfassen.

Die Texte sind nicht nur zu analysieren und zu interpretieren, sondern durch die Praxis der Dekonstruktion ihrer Konflikthaftigkeit, ihrer Aggressivität, ihrer verdeckt mitgeführten Gehalte und Intentionen zu enttarnen.

Gemeint ist die Sichtbarmachung der Doppelheit des gleichzeitigen An- und Abwesendsein(!) von Wahrheit.

Wir äußern Sätze gewollter analytischer Wahrheit und verdrängen dadurch gleichzeitig andere eventuale Wahrheits- oder Unwahrheitssätze.

Jacques Derrida beschreibt mit der Erfindung seiner D i f f é r a n c e den Prozeß des Lebens (cf. Teaser, Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff., dt. u. engl.), in dem der Mensch ein Spezialfall ist, ein einzigartiger Fall. Ein Zufall fast und doch ab einer gewissen zurückgelegten Strecke an Prozessen physikalischer, chemischer und dann neurologischer Art dann zunehmend stringenter, definierter, festgelegter.

Wo liegt der Grenzübergang vom Tier zum Menschen?

Das ist spannend und aufregend. Gibt es überhaupt so etwas wie eine Grenzziehungsmöglichkeit?!

Ich stelle diese Frage ganz ohne die Absicht, den Menschen zum Tier machen zu wollen.

Wir sind tier – lich, aber eben nicht tierisch allein. Und was heißt hier T i e r ! ( in diesem Blog,- vgl. mein BlogPosting „Tierphilosophie“ !!! )

Tiere sind! Sind viele verschiedene Individuen! Und jedes Tier für sich einzigartig !!!

Und manche Tiere besitzen sogar sogenannte menschliche Eigenschaften wie Gedächtnisinhalte, Technikvermögen, spezielles Können, Schlußfolgerungsfähigkeit, Liebe, Kommunikation u.a.! Und teilweise sogar Bewußtsein!

Jacques Derridas Phonologozentrismus bedeutet unter anderem, daß jeder Humanismus logozentristisch ist und jede Metaphysik ein Humanismus sei.

Auch wenn das bis heute die meisten Philosophen und Philosophinnen nicht gerne hören wollen.

Der Humanismus als Metaphysik ist der Feind der Tiere.

Der Feind der Tiere und schließlich auch der Feind der Menschen.

Ich kann jetzt hier(!) nicht alles aufrollen (das geht uns immer so!), schauen Sie meine Tierphilosophie im Blog an, – lesen Sie Derridas Arbeiten dazu und achten Sie auf den „Sünden“(!) – Katalog, – meine rote Liste zur „kommenden Demokratie“! (Stichwort „Artensterben“, „Klimawandel“, … etc.; immer zu finden im Anhang eines jeden Postings in roter Schrift, engl. u. dt.).

Wenn die Grammatologie „nicht eine Wissenschaft vom Menschen sein kann“ , dann genau deshalb, „weil sie von Anfang an die für sie grundlegende Frage nach dem Namen des Menschen stellt“ (J. Derrida, Grammatologie, Frf. 1974, S. 148).

Philosophie … Dekonstruktion … „Recht auf Einsicht, oder die Erfindung des anderen“ (cf. J. Derrida, Psyche. Erfindung des Anderen, Wien 2011)

Zur Frage und zum Wort „Dekonstruktion“ vgl. Jacques Derridas „Überlegungen“ in einem „Brief an einen japanischen Freund“ aus dem Jahr 1985, übersetzt ins Deutsche und abgedruckt in: J. Derrida, Psyche. Erfindungen des Anderen II. Wien 2013 (Passagen Vlg.), S. 15 – 22.

„Das Wort „deconstruction“ bezieht, wie jedes andere auch, seinen Bedeutungswert nur von einer Einschreibung in eine Kette möglicher Substitutionen, in das, was man so seelenruhig einen „Kontext“ nennt.“ (ebda., S. 21)

„Allem Anschein zum Trotz ist die Dekonstruktion jedenfalls weder eine Analyse noch eine Kritik … Eine Analyse ist sie insbesondere deshalb nicht, weil die Zerlegung (décomposition) einer Struktur kein Rückgang zum einfachen Element, zu einem nicht weiter zerlegbaren Ursprung ist. Diese Werte, wie der der Analyse, sind selbst der Dekonstruktion unterworfene Philosopheme.“ ( S. 19)

Flüchten und Fluchten der europäischen Flüchtlingspolitik

Zur Logik des Einzäunens, über den Stachel bzw das vorverurteilende Vor-Urteil des „Fremden“ als Feindliches und die „Migrationspanik“ der boulevardesken Medien als Einspänner der Populisten

Grundsätzliches vorab:

Die Dekonstruktion ist und bleibt stets die Befragung der Ursprünge, der Grundlagen und der Grenzen unseres begrifflichen, theoretischen und normativen Apparates.

Und dies immer in der doppelten Bewegung der Différance.

Die Dekonstruktion, die Praxis der Dekonstruktion, ist nicht zu denken, ist nicht „denkbar“ ohne die „différ/a/nce“, – nicht denkbar ohne das Denken der Differ/ä/nz.

Unter différance begreift Derrida das, was im Zwischenraum des etwas als etwas sich ereignet oder ereignen kann.

In der Praxis des Sagens steckt die Behauptung von „etwas und etwas“, ein Surplus, ein Exorbitantes.

Das Spiel des Texts der Welt als das Spiel der Arbeit eines In-Beziehung-Setzens von Anwesenheit und Abwesenheit in Sinnarrangements und Bedeutungskonfigurationen.

Offen, transparent, kritisierbar, justierbar, verschiebbar, endlich, temporär, spatial und im Etwas von Jetzt und Jetzt und Jetzt und etwas und etwas …

Die Moderne liegt im „und“ von etwas und etwas! Das Und kennt keinen Beginn von etwas, kein anfängliches Erkennen, kein ursprüngliches Beginnen.

Die Spur von etwas gilt es vor dem Seienden zu denken! (Derrida)

Heraklit schon nennt die wach Denkenden die, die die Dinge nicht „so denken, wie sie ihnen begegnen“.

Hier und Jetzt!

Die Welt ist Metapher.

Die Welt ist Literatur.

Die Welt ist Text. „Die Welt“ ist unwahrnehmbar!

Arrangements in einer Arbeit des In-Beziehung-Setzens! Metapher statt Metaphysik! Literatur! Übertragung!

Die Metapher, die hinüberträgt auf ein je Anderes. Die Schönheit des Hier und Jetzt in der Übertragung als Beziehung zwischen Anwesenheit und Abwesenheit. Keine Projektionen einer anderen oder gar jenseitigen Welt!

Hier und Jetzt!

Das Eigene und das Fremde !

Husserl, Merleau – Ponty, Levinas, Derrida und viele andere haben sich daran abgearbeitet.

Husserls strenger Satz als Paradox von der Erfahrung des Fremden als eine Erfahrung unüberwindlicher Abwesenheit wurde von ihm selbst entschärft bzw aufgehoben durch die Definition der Fremderfahrung als Abwandlung der Selbsterfahrung (! sic).

Émile Benveniste zeigt in seinem Artikel

((cf. Émile Benveniste in seinem von Agamben ins Englische übersetzte „Dictionary of Indo-European Concepts and Society, Chicago 2016 wiederaufgelegt, S. 289-294; original french edition 1969))

„The Slave and the Stranger“ die historisch unangenehme Wahrheit bis in die Sprache hinein auf, –

nämlich, der Fremde war immer schon in den alten Zivilisationen (z.B. die Sumerisch-Akkadische u.a.) auch der Feind und der Feind war notwendigerweise immer ein Fremder. Der Fremde kam als Kriegsgefangener von außen in die Stadt, als ein Mensch ohne Rechte wurde der Gefangene zum Sklaven qua „Kriegsrecht“. Es gibt keine Sklaven, die Bürger sind!

Man darf an heutige Flüchtlinge auf den Booten im Mittelmeer denken, die man zum Teil ertrinken läßt, indem man sie nicht anlanden läßt. Sie genießen in diesem Zustand quasi keinerlei Rechte und gelten für viele Menschen aus dem rechtspopulistischen Spektrum der europäischen Politik (z.B. Lega Nord in Italien oder CSU und AfD in Deutschland oder auch zahlreiche Mitglieder der FPÖ und leider auch der sogenannten christlichen (!), konservativen ÖVP in Österreich) als Feinde Europas!!!

Und dort, wo diese es nicht sagen, zeigen es umsomehr ihre Handlungen, wenn sie (mit) an der Macht sind.

Wenn Sie es nicht glauben können, stellen Sie sich einmal ein Schiff voller Touristen auf dem Mittelmeer vor! Das sind die mit allen Rechten ausgestatteten freien BürgerInnen, – selbstverständlich ausgestattet mit allen Landerechten.

Menschen auf der einen Erde!

Auf der einen Seite die „Freien“ und auf der anderen Seite die „Rechtlosen“, – trotz der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte (!!!) und Grundfreiheiten (wir schreiben das Jahr 2025!!!, – 77 Jahre Europäische Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten / Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms).

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)

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

Ich erinnere an das Potential der Affizierung und Immunisierung bzw der Auto-Immunisierung (vgl. Derrida) !

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

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

Das Andere als Öffnung zur „Unentscheidbarkeit“ hin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was ist los mit den Mutterländern der Demokratie?! Was ist los mit England? Was mit den USA? Was denken deren gewählte Führer, was ihre Völker denken?! Diesbezüglich!

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

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

Empathie! Hilfe!

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

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

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

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

Ein Ent-stelltes! Verdichtet, verschoben, nachträglich bearbeitet. Traum – Arbeit! Traum und Wahn aus ein- und derselben Quelle! (cf. Freud und weiter unten in meinem Posting dazu Lacan!)

Achtung! Gefahr der Entstellung!

Auch der Psycho – Analyse! Immer! Überall!

Denken der Schrift. Grammatologie. (vgl. Blog-Teaser, Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)

77 Jahre Europäische Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte ( cf. Source: UN Department for General Assembly and Conference Management German Translation Service, NY https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=ger )

Resolution 217 A (III) vom 10.12.1948

Präambel

Da die Anerkennung der angeborenen Würde und der gleichen und unveräußerlichen Rechte aller Mitglieder der Gemeinschaft der Menschen die Grundlage von Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit und Frieden in der Welt bildet,

da die Nichtanerkennung und Verachtung der Menschenrechte zu Akten der Barbarei geführt haben, die das Gewissen der Menschheit mit Empörung erfüllen, und da verkündet worden ist, daß einer Welt, in der die Menschen Rede- und Glaubensfreiheit und Freiheit von Furcht und Not genießen, das höchste Streben des Menschen gilt,

da es notwendig ist, die Menschenrechte durch die Herrschaft des Rechtes zu schützen, damit der Mensch nicht gezwungen wird, als letztes Mittel zum Aufstand gegen Tyrannei und Unterdrückung zu greifen,

da es notwendig ist, die Entwicklung freundschaftlicher Beziehungen zwischen den Nationen zu fördern,

da die Völker der Vereinten Nationen in der Charta ihren Glauben an die grundlegenden Menschenrechte, an die Würde und den Wert der menschlichen Person und an die Gleichberechtigung von Mann und Frau erneut bekräftigt und beschlossen haben, den sozialen Fortschritt und bessere Lebensbedingungen in größerer Freiheit zu fördern,

da die Mitgliedstaaten sich verpflichtet haben, in Zusammenarbeit mit den Vereinten Nationen auf die allgemeine Achtung und Einhaltung der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten hinzuwirken,

da ein gemeinsames Verständnis dieser Rechte und Freiheiten von größter Wichtigkeit für die volle Erfüllung dieser Verpflichtung ist,

verkündet die Generalversammlung

diese Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte als das von allen Völkern und Nationen zu erreichende gemeinsame Ideal, damit jeder einzelne und alle Organe der Gesellschaft sich diese Erklärung stets gegenwärtig halten und sich bemühen, durch Unterricht und Erziehung die Achtung vor diesen Rechten und Freiheiten zu fördern und durch fortschreitende nationale und internationale Maßnahmen ihre allgemeine und tatsächliche Anerkennung und Einhaltung durch die Bevölkerung der Mitgliedstaaten selbst wie auch durch die Bevölkerung der ihrer Hoheitsgewalt unterstehenden Gebiete zu gewährleisten.

Artikel 1

Alle Menschen sind frei und gleich an Würde und Rechten geboren. Sie sind mit Vernunft und Gewissen begabt und sollen einander im Geist der Brüderlichkeit begegnen.

Artikel 2

Jeder hat Anspruch auf die in dieser Erklärung verkündeten Rechte und Freiheiten ohne irgendeinen Unterschied, etwa nach Rasse, Hautfarbe, Geschlecht, Sprache, Religion, politischer oder sonstiger Überzeugung, nationaler oder sozialer Herkunft, Vermögen, Geburt oder sonstigem Stand.

Des weiteren darf kein Unterschied gemacht werden auf Grund der politischen, rechtlichen oder internationalen Stellung des Landes oder Gebiets, dem eine Person angehört, gleichgültig ob dieses unabhängig ist, unter Treuhandschaft steht, keine Selbstregierung besitzt oder sonst in seiner Souveränität eingeschränkt ist.

Artikel 3

Jeder hat das Recht auf Leben, Freiheit und Sicherheit der Person.

Artikel 4

Niemand darf in Sklaverei oder Leibeigenschaft gehalten werden; Sklaverei und Sklavenhandel sind in allen ihren Formen verboten.

Artikel 5

Niemand darf der Folter oder grausamer, unmenschlicher oder erniedrigender Behandlung oder Strafe unterworfen werden.

Artikel 6

Jeder hat das Recht, überall als rechtsfähig anerkannt zu werden.

Artikel 7

Alle Menschen sind vor dem Gesetz gleich und haben ohne Unterschied Anspruch auf gleichen Schutz durch das Gesetz. Alle haben Anspruch auf gleichen Schutz gegen jede Diskriminierung, die gegen diese Erklärung verstößt, und gegen jede Aufhetzung zu einer derartigen Diskriminierung.

Artikel 8

Jeder hat Anspruch auf einen wirksamen Rechtsbehelf bei den zuständigen innerstaatlichen Gerichten gegen Handlungen, durch die seine ihm nach der Verfassung oder nach dem Gesetz zustehenen Grundrechte verletzt werden.

Artikel 9

Niemand darf willkürlich festgenommen, in Haft gehalten oder des Landes verwiesen werden.

Artikel 10

Jeder hat bei der Feststellung seiner Rechte und Pflichten sowie bei einer gegen ihn erhobenen strafrechtlichen Beschuldigung in voller Gleichheit Anspruch auf ein gerechtes und öffentliches Verfahren vor einem unabhängigen und unparteiischen Gericht.

Artikel 11

Jeder, der wegen einer strafbaren Handlung beschuldigt wird, hat das Recht, als unschuldig zu gelten, solange seine Schuld nicht in einem öffentlichen Verfahren, in dem er alle für seine Verteidigung notwendigen Garantien gehabt hat, gemäß dem Gesetz nachgewiesen ist.

Niemand darf wegen einer Handlung oder Unterlassung verurteilt werden, die zur Zeit ihrer Begehung nach innerstaatlichem oder internationalem Recht nicht strafbar war. Ebenso darf keine schwerere Strafe als die zum Zeitpunkt der Begehung der strafbaren Handlung angedrohte Strafe verhängt werden.

Artikel 12

Niemand darf willkürlichen Eingriffen in sein Privatleben, seine Familie, seine Wohnung und seinen Schriftverkehr oder Beeinträchtigungen seiner Ehre und seines Rufes ausgesetzt werden. Jeder hat Anspruch auf rechtlichen Schutz gegen solche Eingriffe oder Beeinträchtigungen.

Artikel 13

Jeder hat das Recht, sich innerhalb eines Staates frei zu bewegen und seinen Aufenthaltsort frei zu wählen.

Jeder hat das Recht, jedes Land, einschließlich seines eigenen, zu verlassen und in sein Land zurückzukehren.

Artikel 14

Jeder hat das Recht, in anderen Ländern vor Verfolgung Asyl zu suchen und zu genießen.

Dieses Recht kann nicht in Anspruch genommen werden im Falle einer Strafverfolgung, die tatsächlich auf Grund von Verbrechen nichtpolitischer Art oder auf Grund von Handlungen erfolgt, die gegen die Ziele und Grundsätze der Vereinten Nationen verstoßen.

Artikel 15

Jeder hat das Recht auf eine Staatsangehörigkeit.

Niemandem darf seine Staatsangehörigkeit willkürlich entzogen noch das Recht versagt werden, seine Staatsanghörigkeit zu wechseln.

Artikel 16

Heiratsfähige Frauen und Männer haben ohne Beschränkung auf Grund der Rasse, der Staatsangehörigkeit oder der Religion das Recht zu heiraten und eine Familie zu gründen. Sie haben bei der Eheschließung, während der Ehe und bei deren Auflösung gleiche Rechte.

Eine Ehe darf nur bei freier und uneingeschränkter Willenseinigung der künftigen Ehegatten geschlossen werden.

Die Familie ist die natürliche Grundeinheit der Gesellschaft und hat Anspruch auf Schutz durch Gesellschaft und Staat.

Artikel 17

Jeder hat das Recht, sowohl allein als auch in Gemeinschaft mit anderen Eigentum innezuhaben.

Niemand darf willkürlich seines Eigentums beraubt werden.

Artikel 18

Jeder hat das Recht auf Gedanken-, Gewissens- und Religionsfreiheit; dieses Recht schließt die Freiheit ein, seine Religion oder Überzeugung zu wechseln, sowie die Freiheit, seine Religion oder Weltanschauung allein oder in Gemeinschaft mit anderen, öffentlich oder privat durch Lehre, Ausübung, Gottesdienst und Kulthandlungen zu bekennen.

Artikel 19

Jeder hat das Recht auf Meinungsfreiheit und freie Meinungsäußerung; dieses Recht schließt die Freiheit ein, Meinungen ungehindert anzuhängen sowie über Medien jeder Art und ohne Rücksicht auf Grenzen Informationen und Gedankengut zu suchen, zu empfangen und zu verbreiten.

Artikel 20

Alle Menschen haben das Recht, sich friedlich zu versammeln und zu Vereinigungen zusammenzuschließen.

Niemand darf gezwungen werden, einer Vereinigung anzugehören.

Artikel 21

Jeder hat das Recht, an der Gestaltung der öffentlichen Angelegenheiten seines Landes unmittelbar oder durch frei gewählte Vertreter mitzuwirken.

Jeder hat das Recht auf gleichen Zugang zu öffentlichen Ämtern in seinem Lande.

Der Wille des Volkes bildet die Grundlage für die Autorität der öffentlichen Gewalt; dieser Wille muß durch regelmäßige, unverfälschte, allgemeine und gleiche Wahlen mit geheimer Stimmabgabe oder in einem gleichwertigen freien Wahlverfahren zum Ausdruck kommen.

Artikel 22

Jeder hat als Mitglied der Gesellschaft das Recht auf soziale Sicherheit und Anspruch darauf, durch innerstaatliche Maßnahmen und internationale Zusammenarbeit sowie unter Berücksichtigung der Organisation und der Mittel jedes Staates in den Genuß der wirtschaftlichen, sozialen und kulturellen Rechte zu gelangen, die für seine Würde und die freie Entwicklung seiner Persönlichkeit unentbehrlich sind.

Artikel 23

Jeder hat das Recht auf Arbeit, auf freie Berufswahl, auf gerechte und befriedigende Arbeitsbedingungen sowie auf Schutz vor Arbeitslosigkeit.

Jeder, ohne Unterschied, hat das Recht auf gleichen Lohn für gleiche Arbeit.

Jeder, der arbeitet, hat das Recht auf gerechte und befriedigende Entlohnung, die ihm und seiner Familie eine der menschlichen Würde entsprechende Existenz sichert, gegebenenfalls ergänzt durch andere soziale Schutzmaßnahmen.

Jeder hat das Recht, zum Schutz seiner Interessen Gewerkschaften zu bilden und solchen beizutreten.

Artikel 24

Jeder hat das Recht auf Erholung und Freizeit und insbesondere auf eine vernünftige Begrenzung der Arbeitszeit und regelmäßigen bezahlten Urlaub.

Artikel 25

Jeder hat das Recht auf einen Lebensstandard, der seine und seiner Familie Gesundheit und Wohl gewährleistet, einschließlich Nahrung, Kleidung, Wohnung, ärztliche Versorgung und notwendige soziale Leistungen gewährleistet sowie das Recht auf Sicherheit im Falle von Arbeitslosigkeit, Krankheit, Invalidität oder Verwitwung, im Alter sowie bei anderweitigem Verlust seiner Unterhaltsmittel durch unverschuldete Umstände.

Mütter und Kinder haben Anspruch auf besondere Fürsorge und Unterstützung. Alle Kinder, eheliche wie außereheliche, genießen den gleichen sozialen Schutz.

Artikel 26

Jeder hat das Recht auf Bildung. Die Bildung ist unentgeltlich, zum mindesten der Grundschulunterricht und die grundlegende Bildung. Der Grundschulunterricht ist obligatorisch. Fach- und Berufsschulunterricht müssen allgemein verfügbar gemacht werden, und der Hochschulunterricht muß allen gleichermaßen entsprechend ihren Fähigkeiten offenstehen.

Die Bildung muß auf die volle Entfaltung der menschlichen Persönlichkeit und auf die Stärkung der Achtung vor den Menschenrechten und Grundfreiheiten gerichtet sein. Sie muß zu Verständnis, Toleranz und Freundschaft zwischen allen Nationen und allen rassischen oder religiösen Gruppen beitragen und der Tätigkeit der Vereinten Nationen für die Wahrung des Friedens förderlich sein.

Die Eltern haben ein vorrangiges Recht, die Art der Bildung zu wählen, die ihren Kindern zuteil werden soll.

Artikel 27

Jeder hat das Recht, am kulturellen Leben der Gemeinschaft frei teilzunehmen, sich an den Künsten zu erfreuen und am wissenschaftlichen Fortschritt und dessen Errungenschaften teilzuhaben.

Jeder hat das Recht auf Schutz der geistigen und materiellen Interessen, die ihm als Urheber von Werken der Wissenschaft, Literatur oder Kunst erwachsen.

Artikel 28

Jeder hat Anspruch auf eine soziale und internationale Ordnung, in der die in dieser Erklärung verkündeten Rechte und Freiheiten voll verwirklicht werden können.

Artikel 29

Jeder hat Pflichten gegenüber der Gemeinschaft, in der allein die freie und volle Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit möglich ist.

Jeder ist bei der Ausübung seiner Rechte und Freiheiten nur den Beschränkungen unterworfen, die das Gesetz ausschließlich zu dem Zweck vorsieht, die Anerkennung und Achtung der Rechte und Freiheiten anderer zu sichern und den gerechten Anforderungen der Moral, der öffentlichen Ordnung und des allgemeinen Wohles in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft zu genügen.

Diese Rechte und Freiheiten dürfen in keinem Fall im Widerspruch zu den Zielen und Grundsätzen der Vereinten Nationen ausgeübt werden.

Artikel 30

Keine Bestimmung dieser Erklärung darf dahin ausgelegt werden, daß sie für einen Staat, eine Gruppe oder eine Person irgendein Recht begründet, eine Tätigkeit auszuüben oder eine Handlung zu begehen, welche die Beseitigung der in dieser Erklärung verkündeten Rechte und Freiheiten zum Ziel hat.

Am Europakongress im Mai 1948 nahmen 650 Politiker (die wenigsten davon waren Regierungsvertreter) fast aller europäischen Länder teil – Forderung der politischen Einheit Europas, Schaffung eines Europarates und einer Menschenrechtkonvention als Grundlage der zukünftigen Gemeinschaft. Es wurde eine Kommission eingerichtet, welche die Menschenrechtskonvention entwerfen sollte.

Mit Bezugnahme auf die im Dezember 1948 beschlossene AEMR wurde gefordert, dass es nicht nur der Proklamierung von Rechten bedarf sondern eines entsprechenden Rechtsschutzes.

Der Konventionsentwurf wurde dem vorläufigen Ministerkomitee des Europarates im Juni 1949 vorgelegt.

Schließlich begnügte man sich nicht mit einer Liste der Menschenrechte, diese sollten auch entsprechend definiert werden.

Die EMRK (Europäische Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten) wurde am 4.11.1950 in Rom in der 6. Sitzung des Ministerkomitees unterzeichnet und ist am 3. September 1953 (nach Ratifikation durch 10 Mitgliedstaaten) in Kraft getreten (in Österreich am 3.9.1958, zwei Jahre nach Aufnahme in den Europarat, BGBl. 210/1958); seit BGBl. 59/1964 ist die EMRK und deren 1. ZP in Verfassungsrang; die nachfolgend ratifizierten ZP (Zusatzprotokolle) wurden ebenfalls in Verfassungsrang erlassen.

Zivile und politische Rechte und Freiheiten finden sich darin, ebenso ein System für deren Durchsetzbarkeit gegenüber den Mitgliedstaaten.

Das Ministerkomitee hat am 4.11.1950 aber auch beschlossen, ein Zusatzprotokoll auszuarbeiten, das die bislang strittigen und daher nicht in die Konvention aufgenommenen Rechte regeln sollte (Eigentumsgarantie, Elternrecht, politische Bürgerrechte).

Das Vereinigte Königreich hat die EMRK als erster am 8.3.1951 ratifiziert, dann folgten Norwegen, Schweden, die BRD, Irland und Griechenland, welches zwischen 1971 und 1974 ausgetreten war.

Drei Organe wurden eingerichtet:

Die Europäische Kommission für Menschenrechte (1954)

Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (1959)

Das Ministerkomitee (bestehend aus den Außenministern der Mitgliedstaaten)

Ein Mitgliedstaat konnte danach Beschwerde gegen einen andern Mitgliedstaat wegen Verletzung von Konventionsrechten einlegen.

Die Individualbeschwerde war nur möglich, wenn der jeweilige Mitgliedstaat diese zugelassen hat.

Die Kommission prüfte die Beschwerde auf ihre Zulässigkeit, kam es zu keiner gütlichen Einigung, erstellte sie einen Bericht, der dem Ministerkomitee übergeben wurde. Binnen drei Monaten konnte die Kommission und der Mitgliedstaat den Fall vor den Gerichtshof bringen; dies war Einzelpersonen nicht möglich.

Wurde der Fall nicht an den Gerichtshof herangetragen, entschied das Ministerkomitee über die Frage des Vorliegens einer Konventionsverletzung und sprach allenfalls eine gerechte Entschädigung zu. Dieses überwachte auch die innerstaatliche Umsetzung der Urteile des Gerichtshofs.

Seither kam es zur Verabschiedung von 14 Zusatzprotokollen (ZP).

Weitere Rechte und Freiheiten sind in den Zusatzprotokollen Nr. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 und 13 enthalten, das 2. ZP ermächtigt den GH, Gutachten zu erstellen. Seit dem 9. ZP können Individualbeschwerden vor den GH gebracht werden, wenn der jeweilige Mitgliedstaat dieses ratifiziert hatte und ein Richterausschuss dem zustimmte.

Der rasante Anstieg der Anzahl der (registrierten) Beschwerden (1981: 404; 1997: 4750) und die vor dem GH gebrachten Fälle (1981: 7 und 1997: 119) machte eine Reform des Verfahrens notwendig.

Am 11.5.1994 wurde das 11. Zusatzprotokoll in Straßburg von allen Mitgliedern des Europarate (ohne Italien) unterzeichnet, welches am 1.11.1998 (bei einer einjährigen Übergangsfrist – Weiterbehandlung der bis dahin zulässig erklärten Beschwerden durch die Kommission) in Kraft trat und einen einzigen ständig tagenden Gerichtshof schuf. Ziel: Verkürzung der Verfahrensdauer vor dem GH und Abschaffung der Rechtsprechung des Ministerkomitees, dieses ist nur mehr für die Überwachung der Durchführung der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofes zuständig.

Der Beschwerdeführer kann nun den Gerichtshof direkt und als einziges Konventionsorgan anrufen; die bisher von der Kommission wahrgenommenen Aufgaben wurden von Dreirichter-Ausschüssen des GH übernommen. Es ist beabsichtigt, die Verfahrensdauer in absehbarer Zeit auf zwei Jahre zu verkürzen.

Das Protokoll Nr.11, in Österreich kundgemacht durch BGBl.Nr. 30/1998, hat eine völlige Umstrukturierung des Rechtsschutzes der Konvention gebracht.

Der GH tagt nun ständig und ist mit hauptberuflichen Richtern besetzt. Alle (damals) 40 Mitgliedstaaten stellen einen Richter, welcher über Dreiervorschläge der Regierungen von der parlamentarischen Versammlung für eine Amtsdauer von sechs Jahren bestellt werden und bis zu einer Altersgrenze von 70 Jahren wiederwählbar sind.

Der GH tagt in Kammern von sieben Richtern, die große Kammer umfasst 17 Richter, die Ausschüsse drei und fünf Richter.

An den materiellen Bestimmungen (EMRK 1950 und die Zusatzprotokolle 1, 4, 6 und 7) hat sich dadurch nichts geändert, die verfahrensrechtlichen Protokolle Nr. 2, 3, 5 und 8 wurden in den neuen Text der Konvention eingebaut. Das Protokoll Nr. 9 ist hinfällig geworden.

Beschwerden sind jetzt direkt an den GH zu richten. Jede Person, Organisation oder Personenvereinigung, die sich in einem garantierten Recht verletzt erachtet, kann Beschwerde an den GH erheben.

Die neue Verfahrensordnung ist in deutscher Übersetzung in Österreich im BGBl. III Nr. 13/2000 kundgemacht.

Die Amtssprachen des GH sind Englisch und Französisch. Beschwerden können aber in allen Amtssprachen der Mitgliedstaaten eingebracht werden.

Die globale Migration als eine der größten Herausforderungen für alle wohlhabenden Gesellschaften

In das Hoheitsgebiet eines anderen Staates einzureisen oder sich anzusiedeln ist bis heute in keinem Menschenrechtsdokument völkerrechtlich verbrieft. In der Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention gibt es ein Abkommen (vom 28. Juli 1951) über die Rechtsstellung der Flüchtlinge und ein weiteres Papier als Protokoll vom 31. Jänner 1967.

Die Genfer Konvention führt eine große Zahl von Rechten an, die Flüchtlingen in Aufnahmeländern zugestanden werden sollen, – z. B. der Zugang zu Bildungseinrichtungen. Besonders wichtig der Artikel 33, der die Zurückweisung und die Ausweisung von Flüchtlingen verbietet bei Bedrohung von deren Leben und Freiheiten. Hannah Arendt moniert in ihrer Schrift „Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft. Antisemitismus, Imperialismus, totale Herrschaft. Berlin 1986, S. 601-615“, daß Minderheiten und Flüchtlinge, die staatenlos (de jure oder de facto) sind, auch rechtlich schutzlos seien und der Menschenrechtskatalog daher in so einem Fall aporetisch sei. Was bedeutet, diese Flüchtlinge können nur an die Rechte appellieren und nicht auf den Schutzstatus eines Staatsbürgers zugreifen.

In der politischen Philosophie spielt das Thema Migration seit John Rawls‘ „Eine Theorie der Gerechtigkeit“ aus dem Jahr 1971 eine zunehmend größere Rolle und auch im deutschsprachigen politischen Raum gibt es zunehmend intensivere Diskurse zum Thema Einwanderung und der Migrationsproblematik. Noch einmal besonders deutlich angestoßen durch Frau Merkels Politik der offenen Grenzen im Jahr 2015.

Im Zentrum der allgemeinen Aufmerksamkeit und der philosophischen Diskussion steht die kontroversiell geführte Frage, ob denn souveräne Staaten dazu verpflichtet werden können, ihre Grenzen für Migranten zu öffnen. Und der Anspruch vieler Staaten, Außenstehenden, die nicht der staatlichen Gemeinschaft angehören, den Zutritt zu ihrem Herrschaftsbereich verweigern zu dürfen.

Die Legitimation der Exklusion von Personen, die nicht der staatlichen Gemeinschaft angehören!!!???

Aber hallo! Leute, im Ernst???

Zur Sache, jetzt, im Ernst, hier:

DER POLITISCHE KÖRPER UND DAS ANDERE

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Der Politische Körper und das Andere

Affektionen,

Einschreibungen

Wiedererinnerungen

Die Einschreibung Europas in Europa. Europa besitzt Einschreibungen, Inskriptionen, Gravuren!

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.

Alle unsere Teletechnologien (vom TV bis zur Drohne und darüberhinaus) bewirken eine real praktizierte Dekonstruktion traditioneller Begriffe und Vorstellungen von Staat, Bürger, Staatsbürger, Ausländer, Tourist, Einheimischer, Eingebürgerter etc., soweit diese an ein konkretes Territorium gebunden sind.

Jedes Land hat seine Geschichte, sein Gedächtnis und seinen speziellen Umgang mit seiner Archiv-Ökonomie.

Immer wenn man ein Archiv öffnet, sich gewisser Ereignisse erinnert, bringt man das Drama, dieses Ereignis, zur Sprache und holt es ins Gedächtnis zurück.

Man macht „es“ sich bewußt !

Bewußtwerdung ist aber noch lange nicht alles, worum es geht ! Spricht man vom Holocaust oder der Shoah, so bahnt man (ob man will oder nicht!) einen Weg zum jeweils individuellen wie auch zum sogenannten nationalen Unbewußten !

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

Breivik z. B. ist so ein affizierter Hominide. Bei ihm entwickelte die Erinnerungskultur des Staates Norwegen und anderes ein Psychogramm der Tötungslust ! (vgl. Klaus Theweleit, Das Lachen der Täter, St. Pölten 2015, Residenzverlag)

Die diversen Affizierungen und Immunisierungen sind unkontrollierbar. Sie basieren und passieren aufgrund der jeweiligen individuell biographischen Vor-Einschreibungen. Man muß sehr wachsam sein, – als Einzelner wie als Gesellschaft.

Die Aktivität der Diskurse, des politischen Handelns, der Rituale des Gedächtnisses, der Öffnung der Archive und deren Erforschung hat eine sehr begrenzte, oberflächliche Effektivität bei dieser Performativität des Unbewußten, eines sogenannten nationalen Ubw.

Die staatlichen Institutionen müßten hier die Psychoanalyse arbeiten lassen (vgl. Derrida) in der Form einer Neuerarbeitung des Rechtes, auch des internationalen Rechtes, auch des Strafrechts !

Nicht nur mit der Psa arbeiten, sondern diese in allen möglichen Zusammenhängen mobilisieren (Derrida, Echographien, S. 153).

Was die Affizierungsmöglichkeiten und ebenso die diversen Immunisierungstechniken angeht, wäre ein ernsthaftes Verständnis und eine damit einhergehende tiefgreifende Änderung des Subjektverständnisses notwendig, damit insbesonders ein Verstehen der freudschen Konzeptualisierung der Sexualität.

Sexualität ist ein allumfassender Begriff. „Sexuell“ ist nicht bloß „genital“ (Freud, Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie, – in: Ges. Werke, Bd. V, S. 98).

Die „genitale sexuelle Organisation“ ist nicht „natürlich“, sie ist das Produkt einer vielstufigen Entwicklung physiologischer Reifung, – besonders in Bezug auf kulturell-symbolische Relationen (ebda., S. 133).

Die sogenannte „normale“, menschliche Sexualität ist eine paradoxale, künstlich gewachsene „Naturalisierung“ der immer schon de – naturalisierten Triebe.

Die Spaltung ist ursprünglich !

Die Sexualität bzw der Sexualitätsbegriff in diesem umfassenden Sinn eröffnet den Königsweg zum „Unbewußten“. Der König auf diesem Weg ist der Traum (vgl. Felix de Mendelssohn, Der Mann, der sein Leben einem Traum verdankte, Salzburg 2014).

Das Unbewußte interpretiert mit !

Nach Beendigung einer bewußten Interpretation fährt das Unbewußte fort zu interpretieren. Wir können das nicht verhindern und nur begrenzt steuern. Wir sind gezwungen daran zu arbeiten. Die Psychoanalyse arbeitet, der Traum arbeitet, das Unbewußte arbeitet. Die Arbeit der Psychoanalyse auch in der Psychoanalyse (sic!) könnte das Bewußtwerden fördern und erweitern. Antworten auf „Warum macht der das?“ gibt es !

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)

„Wenn etwas in unserem Ubw verändert werden soll, muss es in der Struktur , die es stützt, geändert werden.“ (ebda., S. 44)

Das Ubw quasi als Ding, als Vorhandenes, gar Beobachtbares oder Messbares, gibt es nicht. Das Unbewußte ist eine Schrift von außen, die einen Text bzw eine „temporäre Textkonfiguration“ ( vgl. Blog-Teaser ! ) innen in uns erzeugt.

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

Einen Lesezugang bietet die Traumarbeit, nicht zu verwechseln mit dem Trauminhalt! (vgl. Freuds „Traumdeutung“, vgl. Rudolf Heinz, Wolfgang Tress (Hg.), Traumdeutung, Zur Aktualität der Freudschen Traumtheorie, Wien 2001, Passagen Verlag und vgl Felix de Mendelssohn, Der Mann, der sein Leben einem Traum verdankte, Salzburg 2015)

„Wo Macht Recht ist.“

Freud spricht von einer Zeichenbeziehung (G. W. II/III, 283f.) und deren Bedeutung in der Sprache der Traumgedanken.

Also nicht der „bildliche“ Inhalt der Traum-Zeichen bestimmt den Wert für die Analyse, sondern deren Beziehungen zu anderen Zeichen.

Die signifikanten Elemente in dieser Logik bzw Graphik der Relationen eines Traums sind oft räumliche, gleichsam syntaktische Relationen einzelner Signifikanten. Freud spricht von einem logischen Zusammenhang, der im Traum als Gleichzeitigkeit wiedergegeben wird.

Einander räumlich nahe gelegene bzw markierte Elemente bestimmt Freud als innige!

Innig bedeutet hier zusammengehörig, aufeinander verweisend und also signifikant und dies wieder und immer im Zusammenhang mit anderen ebenso markierten Elementen. So entsteht beim Analytiker bei großer Aufmerksamkeit („frei schwebender Aufmerksamkeit“ oder „gleichschwebender Aufmerksamkeit“ nach Freud) der „Text“ des Traumes.

Analog zu F. de Saussures Semiotik aus dem Nachlaß.

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

Die Lekritüre der Grammatologie.

Die Unauslesbarkeit als Paradox des Traums.

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

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

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

In psychoanalytischen Denkfiguren spielen die Phänomene der Selbstaffektion eine sogenannte wesentliche Rolle.

Freud schreibt im „Entwurf einer Psychologie“ in den gesammelten Werken im Nachtragsband auf Seite 412, daß er nicht daran zweifelt, daß die „Wunschbelebung zunächst dasselbe ergibt wie die Wahrnehmung, nämlich eine Halluzination“. Das Subjekt stellt sich selbst in halluzinatorischer Art und Weise die Befriedigung eines Wunsches vor.

Es nimmt sich selbst das Leben. Es tötet selbst. Das jeweilig so disponierte, also inskribierte Subjekt versucht, sich möglichst ohne Aufschub und ohne jegliche Umwege Gegenwärtigkeit (vgl. Blog-Teaser!) zu verschaffen.

Trotz der versuchten Herstellung von Gegenwärtigkeit leidet das Subjekt an einem kleinen Rest von Widerstand, einem kleinen Bestand an Unreinheit der Selbstaffektion. Es spürt den „Fremdkörper“ im eigenen Inneren, das Subjekt gewahrt das Gemachte!

Es ahnt, daß das Zustandekommen der scheinbar unmittelbaren Selbstaffektion nicht ohne die Möglichkeit eines fremdbleibenden Dritten, einem Äußeren zustandekommen kann und zur „Auto-Hetero-Affektion“ verkommt.

Nichts geht ohne Körper und nichts geht ohne „Vorstellung“ (vgl. Blog-Teaser!) und nichts geht ohne Vorstellung des sogenannten eigenen Körpers. Diese Spaltung ist der Widerstand und gleichzeitig der Aufruf zu einem immer wieder neuen Anlauf zur Wiederholung der Selbstaffektion als Halluzination.

Die reine Selbstaffektion gibt es nicht und gerät immer wieder zur Auto-Hetero-Affektion!

Wir kennen das Beispiel des Norwegers und anderer Serienkiller. Wiederholung ist Alles!!! Die „reine“ Selbstaffektion bedeutete die Auslöschung des „Fremden“, des „Fremdkörpers“ (auch als eigenem)! (vgl. Derrida, Le toucher, Jean-Luc Nancy, p. 206 u. passim und Melanie Klein, Das Seelenleben des Kleinkindes, S. 133)

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

Unsere Körper sind politische!

In jedem Fall wird es eine Arbeit am verfügbaren Repertoire historischer Phantasien geben.

Moira Gatens „kulturelles Imaginäres“ (in: M. Gatens, Imaginary Bodies. Ethics, Power and Corporeality, London/New York 1996) stellt Vorstellungen und Bilder für jedes Subjekt bereit, an denen sich Wahrnehmungen, Empfindungen des eigenen Körpers orientieren ebenso wie Entwürfe und Planungen technischer und industrieller Art.

Medien und Weltordnungen! Und das geopolitisch biopolitische Unbewußte der Medien! Wir selbst sind medial und medial gemacht!

Massenmedien verbreiten seit Jahrzehnten Selbstbeschreibungsversuche einer Weltgesellschaft oder einer Welt und ihrer diversen Gesellschaften.

Massenmediale Skripten und Einschreibungen prägen permanent die Geopolitik der Welt.

Überzeugend (ob Filme, Spiele, Serien etc.) ist, was aufgrund von Räumen, Medien und sozialen Ordnungen für plausibel gehalten werden kann.

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

Infolgedessen ist Veränderung möglich! ( vgl. meinen Blog-Post „Heterozentrismus Sexualität Anti-Homosexualität Identität“, https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2014/12/heterozentrismus-sexualitat-anti.html )

Das europäische Erbe ist einerseits eine Anbindung von Recht und Politik an die Souveränität des „Subjekts“, zum anderen besteht für viele Subjekte (z.B. konservative Zuwanderer) die „Gefahr“ und die Chance und Möglichkeit dekonstruiert zu werden.

Bedeutet, – die Globalisierung ist die Europäisierung !

Das europäische Erbe sind infolgedessen zahlreiche Verschiebungen, territorial und deterritorial, individual, ethnisch, religiös u.a.

Das europäische Erbe sind Krisen !

Krise und Dekonstruktion !

Temporäre Textkonfiguration !

Das europäische Erbe: Krise, Psychoanalyse, Dekonstruktion, Demokratie !

Räume und Grenzen sind keine objektiv messbaren und erhaltbaren Gegebenheiten.

Räume und Grenzen kommen und gehen, immer schon, durch Krise und Dekonstruktion. Effekte psychosozialer Dynamiken, Affizierung und Immunisierung. Politiken!

Seit 9/11 2001 eine sich beschleunigende Spirale von Antiterror-Krieg und Terror, Cyber-War, Drohnen-Krieg, Aufstände, Revolutionen, Religionen im Krieg, Flüchtlingswellen (! Wellen ?! oder ein großer Andrang, eine hohe Anzahl von Menschen auf der Flucht !?), Flüchtlingsleid, Fluchttragödien, Zuschau-Mentalität, Rettungsaktionen, Gezerre und Geschiebe um Konventionen (Genfer K. etc.) und Abmachungen, internationale Verträge, Flüchtlingsverteilungen bzw Aufnahme-Kontingente, Aufnahmekrise!?, Sterben und Tod, Handlungsunfähigkeit von links und rechts, von Austria bis Australia.

Migrationsströme (Ströme oder Andrang von Menschen!?, Aufnahmekrise!?!, Vertreibungskrise!?! oder Flüchtlingskrise!!!?) an den Außengrenzen der „Festung Europa“, Sklavenhandel, Terrorismus, Imperialismus. Das Erbe Europas.

Neue, fairere Verhältnislagen schaffen! Neue Narrative, neue Bilder, neue Selbstbildnisse, neue Selbstbeschreibungen.

Es geht um das Aushalten und Lebbarmachen neuer und alter Differenzen!

Der posthumane, globale Eine ohne den Anderen, ohne das Andere eine Illusion des Cyberspace und seiner Vertrauten.

Die Vollendung der Geschichte oder Fukuyamas „Ende der Geschichte“ eine Ideologie aus dem Pentagon der 90er Jahre des vorigen Jahrhunderts.

Ein Set an Begriffen begleitet diese Mediendiskurse, die diese Ideologien befördern.

Ideologien des einen beherrschbaren Marktes durch einige wenige Riesen-Konzerne.

Sie lauten: Netzwerkgesellschaft, Weltgesellschaft, One World, Neue Weltordnung, TTIP, CETA, ACTA, …, Globalisierung, Weltkommunikation, World Wide Web, War on Terror, NSA, …

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

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

Ich erinnere nur an Australien, Stichwort „Aborigines“, an die USA, Stichwort „Indianer“ und an Europa, Stichwort „Festung Europa“ !

Das Eigene und das Fremde !

Husserl, Merleau – Ponty, Levinas, Derrida und viele andere haben sich daran abgearbeitet.

Husserls strenger Satz als Paradox von der Erfahrung des Fremden als eine Erfahrung unüberwindlicher Abwesenheit wurde von ihm selbst entschärft bzw aufgehoben durch die Definition der Fremderfahrung als Abwandlung der Selbsterfahrung (! sic).

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

Ich erinnere an das Potential der Affizierung und Immunisierung bzw der Auto-Immunisierung (vgl. Derrida) zu Anfang !

Die Brücken zum Anderen und zum „eigenen“ Anderen sowie die Passagen, Markierungen, Spurungen, Königswege zum 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.

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

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

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

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.

Was ist los mit den Mutterländern der Demokratie?! Was ist los mit England? Was mit den USA? Was denken deren gewählte Führer, was ihre Völker denken?! Diesbezüglich!

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

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

Empathie! Hilfe!

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

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

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

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

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

Achtung! Gefahr der Entstellung!

Auch der Psycho – Analyse! Immer! Überall!

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

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Philosophische Praxis

Flucht und Flüchtlinge, Politiken, Ethik, Zeit, Geben

Zur selben Zeit denken wir das Unmögliche und das (dieses >zur selben Zeit<) ist das Unmögliche! (Derrida, Donner le temps I)

Weiters dort, – die Gabe gibt, verlangt und nimmt Zeit. Fiduziarische Vorgänge oder ökonomische. Eine Gabe verlangt Zeit und Dauer, ein Warten, das nicht vergißt. Es bedarf einer inneren Notwendigkeit, um aus einem Geben eine Gabe zu machen, es bedarf des Unterschieds zur Schuld und zur Bezahlung. Es braucht einen Unterschied zur Ökonomie des Tausches. Es braucht die Dauer mit open end. Vielleicht ohne Ende. Ohne eine Logik des Kredits. (cf. M. Mauss im Gegensatz zu Marx).

Die Gabe wäre ein Ereignis ohne Kreditverschreibung, das dadurch sogar aus dem Gedächtnis verschwinden könnte, also nie zurückkehrt. Also keine Belohnung für eine Gabe und sei es irgendwann. Die Gabe als „wirkliche“ Gabe wäre also in unseren Gesellschaften unökonomisch, – ohne Aufzeichnung und ohne Rückgaberecht! Disseminativer Wahnsinn!? Gabe als reines Geben (cf. Derrida, La dissémination, passim). Die Gabe dieses Gebens entspricht somit einem gewissen Wahnsinn der Gabe! Keine Rückkehr zu einem Vater! ( Vgl. Lacan, Mauss, Derrida und meinen Text zu Charlie Hebdo in diesem Blog! ) Dies ist vorerst einmal alles zur ersten Eingabe zum disseminativen Wahnsinn des Sinns „Gabe“.

Aus der Dissemination erwächst das Fruchtbare. Nicht unbedingt, aber möglicherweise. Nie aus der reinen Ökonomik! Von da her sollte man die rechtlichen und ökonomischen Begriffe „Freiheit, Pflicht, Freigebigkeit, Großzügigkeit, Verschwendung versus Sparsamkeit, Interesse, Nützlichkeit“ immer im Auge behalten und einer fraglichen Überdenkbarkeit aussetzen.

Mauss bezeichnet den Wahnsinn der Gabe als Geben ohne Ökonomie des erwartbaren Tauschens von. Ich denke, er meint den Akt des Gebens mehr als die Gabe als Ding. Das, was zurückkommt, falls etwas zurückkommt(!), kann nicht erwartet werden und soll auch nicht erwartbar sein. Das Geben als Gabe als ein Nehmen ohne Adresse für ein Tauschgeschäft. Der Wahnsinn des Gebens und Nehmens, – des Nehmens als Geben und des Gebens als Nehmen ohne Rückkehr.

Wenn wir Geflüchteten (als ein besonderes Beispiel) etwas geben, dann die Gabe der Zeit. Alle andere Gabe als ökonomisches und notwendiges(?) Kalkül. In derselben Zeit leben! Leben wir in der selben Zeit, die unmöglich ist!?

Zur selben Zeit denken wir das Unmögliche und das (dieses >zur selben Zeit<) ist das Unmögliche! (Derrida, Donner le temps I)

Der Versuch zu geben, – die Gabe zuallererst (!?)

Die sadistische Agressivität gegenüber den Gabenempfängern!!!

Läßt sich die Gabe nicht mit Recht der Wahnsinn des Tages nennen? (cf. M. Blanchot, La folie du jour)

Lesen Sie meine Posting-Texte zu Charlie Hebdo, zu Trump und zum Attentat und auch die zu Religion und Gesellschaft hier in diesem Blog!

Der Vatersignifikant hat kein Einspruchsrecht, – die alltägliche Psychose und die allüberall alltägliche Paranoia, – kein Einspruchsrecht mehr, weil keine angemessene Einschreibungsfähigkeit mehr (?!).

Vergleichen Sie meine Posts und deren Endigung im Thema Traum und Wahn aus derselben Quelle (vgl. Freud)

Die Einschreibung Europas in Europa. Europa besitzt Einschreibungen, Inskriptionen, Gravuren!

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.

Jedes Land hat seine Geschichte, sein Gedächtnis und seinen speziellen Umgang mit seiner Archiv-Ökonomie.

Immer wenn man ein Archiv öffnet, sich gewisser Ereignisse erinnert, bringt man das Drama, dieses Ereignis, zur Sprache und holt es ins Gedächtnis zurück.

Man macht „es“ sich bewußt !

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

Breivik z. B. ist so ein affizierter Hominide. Bei ihm entwickelte die Erinnerungskultur des Staates Norwegen und anderes ein Psychogramm der Tötungslust ! (vgl. Klaus Theweleit, Das Lachen der Täter, St. Pölten 2015, Residenzverlag)

Die staatlichen Institutionen müßten hier die Psychoanalyse arbeiten lassen (vgl. Derrida) in der Form einer Neuerarbeitung des Rechtes, auch des internationalen Rechtes, auch des Strafrechts !

Nicht nur mit der Psa arbeiten, sondern diese in allen möglichen Zusammenhängen mobilisieren (Derrida, Echographien, S. 153).

Sexualität ist ein allumfassender Begriff. „Sexuell“ ist nicht bloß „genital“ (Freud, Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie, – in: Ges. Werke, Bd. V, S. 98).

Die sogenannte „normale“, menschliche Sexualität ist eine paradoxale, künstlich gewachsene „Naturalisierung“ der immer schon de – naturalisierten Triebe.

Die Spaltung ist ursprünglich !

Die Sexualität bzw der Sexualitätsbegriff in diesem umfassenden Sinn eröffnet den Königsweg zum „Unbewußten“. Der König auf diesem Weg ist der Traum (vgl. Felix de Mendelssohn, Der Mann, der sein Leben einem Traum verdankte, Salzburg 2014).

Das Unbewußte interpretiert mit !

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)

„Wenn etwas in unserem Ubw verändert werden soll, muss es in der Struktur , die es stützt, geändert werden.“ (ebda., S. 44)

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

„Wo Macht Recht ist.“

Freud spricht von einer Zeichenbeziehung (G. W. II/III, 283f.) und deren Bedeutung in der Sprache der Traumgedanken.

Also nicht der „bildliche“ Inhalt der Traum-Zeichen bestimmt den Wert für die Analyse, sondern deren Beziehungen zu anderen Zeichen.

Einander räumlich nahe gelegene bzw markierte Elemente bestimmt Freud als innige!

Analog zu F. de Saussures Semiotik aus dem Nachlaß.

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

Die Lekritüre der Grammatologie.

Die Unauslesbarkeit als Paradox des Traums.

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

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

In psychoanalytischen Denkfiguren spielen die Phänomene der Selbstaffektion eine sogenannte wesentliche Rolle.

Die reine Selbstaffektion gibt es nicht und gerät immer wieder zur Auto-Hetero-Affektion!

Wir kennen das Beispiel des Norwegers und anderer Serienkiller. Wiederholung ist Alles!!! Die „reine“ Selbstaffektion bedeutete die Auslöschung des „Fremden“, des „Fremdkörpers“ (auch als eigenem)! (vgl. Derrida, Le toucher, Jean-Luc Nancy, p. 206 u. passim und Melanie Klein, Das Seelenleben des Kleinkindes, S. 133)

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

Unsere Körper sind politische!

In jedem Fall wird es eine Arbeit am verfügbaren Repertoire historischer Phantasien geben.

Medien und Weltordnungen! Und das geopolitisch biopolitische Unbewußte der Medien! Wir selbst sind medial und medial gemacht!

Massenmedien verbreiten seit Jahrzehnten Selbstbeschreibungsversuche einer Weltgesellschaft oder einer Welt und ihrer diversen Gesellschaften.

Massenmediale Skripten und Einschreibungen prägen permanent die Geopolitik der Welt.

Überzeugend (ob Filme, Spiele, Serien etc.) ist, was aufgrund von Räumen, Medien und sozialen Ordnungen für plausibel gehalten werden kann.

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

Bedeutet, – die Globalisierung ist die Europäisierung !

Das europäische Erbe sind infolgedessen zahlreiche Verschiebungen, territorial und deterritorial, individual, ethnisch, religiös u.a.

Das europäische Erbe sind Krisen !

Krise und Dekonstruktion !

Temporäre Textkonfiguration !

Das europäische Erbe: Krise, Psychoanalyse, Dekonstruktion, Demokratie !

Räume und Grenzen sind keine objektiv messbaren und erhaltbaren Gegebenheiten.

Räume und Grenzen kommen und gehen, immer schon, durch Krise und Dekonstruktion. Effekte psychosozialer Dynamiken, Affizierung und Immunisierung. Politiken!

Seit 9/11 2001 eine sich beschleunigende Spirale von Antiterror-Krieg und Terror, Cyber-War, Drohnen-Krieg, Aufstände, Revolutionen, Religionen im Krieg, Flüchtlingswellen (! Wellen ?! oder ein großer Andrang, eine hohe Anzahl von Menschen auf der Flucht !?), Flüchtlingsleid, Fluchttragödien, Zuschau-Mentalität, Rettungsaktionen, Gezerre und Geschiebe um Konventionen (Genfer K. etc.) und Abmachungen, internationale Verträge, Flüchtlingsverteilungen bzw Aufnahme-Kontingente, Aufnahmekrise!?, Sterben und Tod, Handlungsunfähigkeit von links und rechts, von Austria bis Australia.

Neue, fairere Verhältnislagen schaffen! Neue Narrative, neue Bilder, neue Selbstbildnisse, neue Selbstbeschreibungen.

Es geht um das Aushalten und Lebbarmachen neuer und alter Differenzen!

Der posthumane, globale Eine ohne den Anderen, ohne das Andere eine Illusion des Cyberspace und seiner Vertrauten.

Die Vollendung der Geschichte oder Fukuyamas „Ende der Geschichte“ eine Ideologie aus dem Pentagon der 90er Jahre des vorigen Jahrhunderts.

Ein Set an Begriffen begleitet diese Mediendiskurse, die diese Ideologien befördern.

Ideologien des einen beherrschbaren Marktes durch einige wenige Riesen-Konzerne.

Sie lauten: Netzwerkgesellschaft, Weltgesellschaft, One World, Neue Weltordnung, TTIP, CETA, ACTA, …, Globalisierung, Weltkommunikation, World Wide Web, War on Terror, NSA, …

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

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

Ich erinnere nur an Australien, Stichwort „Aborigines“, an die USA, Stichwort „Indianer“ und an Europa, Stichwort „Festung Europa“ !

Das Eigene und das Fremde !

Husserl, Merleau – Ponty, Levinas, Derrida und viele andere haben sich daran abgearbeitet.

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

Ich erinnere an das Potential der Affizierung und Immunisierung bzw der Auto-Immunisierung (vgl. Derrida) zu Anfang !

Die Brücken zum Anderen und zum „eigenen“ Anderen sowie die Passagen, Markierungen, Spurungen, Königswege zum 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.

Wichtig dabei ist, obwohl das mögliche Selbst meist virtuell bleibt, so ist es doch ein besonderes Moment des Selbstverständnisses! Im möglichen Selbst erfolgt eine affektive Besetzung. Da diese meist begehrenswert erscheint (warum auch immer liegt allein in der Biographiewerdung des Individuums), kommt es zu Vorstellungen und Gefühlen teils absonderlichster Art, d.h. das mögliche Selbst formiert sich zu einem Modus vielfältiger Identifizierungen und Formationen des Begehrens.

Vom Begehren nach Macht Besessene müßten sich umbauen durch Bearbeitungen ihrer Wünsche und Träume. Im Gegenteil, sie arbeiten meist an sogenannten kavalieresken Begründungszusammenhängen zur Abwehr von Kritik von außen. Die Formung als mögliches Selbst bilden sie sich meist in der Form eines Versprechens ihrer Besonderheit. Sie meinen es ja nur gut, so der Ausfluß dümmlicher Unverständniskultur für Erniedrigungen aller Art (des je Anderen).

Jede Demokratie, jede kommende Demokratie, wird sich mit diesen Energiearrangements(!) (Libidoverschwendern) von irrationalen, leicht bis schwer paranoid größenwahnsinnigen Persönlichkeiten immer und immer wieder herumschlagen müssen. Nicht zu Ende Geborene (cf. Theweleit, Männerphantasien)!

Die körperliche Architektur ist politisch ( vgl. Monique Wittigs Analyse der Heterosexualität als polit. Regime und M. Foucaults Analysen des Dispositivs der Sexualität sowie Judith Butlers Analysen der performativen Identität ).

Körper sind sozial konstruierte Texte (vgl. Beatriz Preciados Kontrasexuelles Manifest).

Bewußtsein entspringt Körpern in Strukturen.

Handlungen sind gegründet in Wahnvorstellungen in Träumen und als Traum.

In der Psychose ist die Vaterfunktion auf das Bild des Vaters reduziert.

Das Symbolische wird auf das Imaginäre reduziert. Der Mensch lebt unter gewissen Realvoraussetzungen seinen Traum als Wahnsinn in Handlung gesetzt,- er folgt seinem Vexierbild des Vaters. Dessen Rebus bleibt ihm verschlossen. Distanz zu sich selbst kennt er nicht. Er erkennt kein reales Selbst in Beziehung zu den/dem Anderen. Relationsverschiebungen. Verwerfungen. Größenwahn. Ich/ICH als Gott! Einbildung als unerschütterliche Notwendigkeit (s)eines Selbst.

Genaugenommen handelt es sich im Wesentlichen um Lacans Annäherungen an den Wahnsinn!

Lacan definiert die Psychose als eine von drei klinischen Strukturen, die durch den Mechanismus der Verwerfung definiert ist.

In diesem Mechanismus wird der „Name-des-Vaters“ (cf. „Einführung in die Namen-des-Vaters“, – in: Jacques Lacan: Namen-des-Vaters. Wien 2006, übersetzt aus dem Französischen v. Hans-Dieter Gondek, Vlg. Turia+Kant, S. 63-102) im symbolischen Universum des Psychotikers nicht integriert, es bleibt eine Lücke. Es kam zu einer „Verwerfung“!

In der Psychose gibt es zwar ein Unbewußtes, allerdings gemäß Lacan ein nicht funktionierendes Unbewußtes. Also eine Lücke oder ein Loch in der symbolischen Ordnung mangels Name-des-Vaters, eine Disfunktion des Unbewußten, vielleicht besser eine Parafunktion des Ubw. Die psychotische Struktur entsteht aufgrund einer Fehlfunktion des Ödipuskomplexes, eines Mangels der Vaterfunktion.

„Traum und Wahn stammen aus derselben Quelle, vom Verdrängten her; der Traum ist der sozusagen physiologische Wahn des normalen Menschen. Ehe das Verdrängte stark genug geworden ist, um sich im Wachleben als Wahn durchzusetzen, kann es leicht seinen ersten Erfolg unter den günstigeren Umständen des Schlafzustandes in Gestalt eines nachhaltig wirkenden Traumes errungen haben. Während des Schlafes tritt nämlich, mit der Herabsetzung der seelischen Tätigkeit überhaupt, auch ein Nachlaß in der Stärke des Widerstandes ein, den die herrschenden psychischen Mächte dem Verdrängten entgegensetzen. Dieser Nachlaß ist es, der die Traumbildung ermöglicht, und darum wird der Traum für uns der beste Zugang zur Kenntnis des unbewußten Seelischen. Nur daß für gewöhnlich mit der Herstellung der psychischen Besetzungen des Wachens der Traum wieder verfliegt, der vom Unbewußten gewonnene Boden wieder geräumt wird.“ (S. Freud, Der Wahn und die Träume in W. Jensens Gradiva, Kapitel 2)

Vergleichen Sie auch und besonders Jacques Lacan, Nicolas Abraham/Maria Torok „Kryptonymie. Das Verbarium des Wolfsmanns“ und Jacques Derrida „Fors“ (ÜS aus dem Französischen Werner Hamacher), Basel 2008 (vor allem S.71ff. „Einverleibung, interne Hysterie, Kryptonymie“ und S. 94ff. „Die interne Hysterie. Aufbau und Funktionieren einer Maschinerie“).

In und durch die „Kryptonymie“ werden die Fragen der Philosophie (vor allem von J. Derrida noch zusehends extensiviert und konzentriert disseminiert) beinhart auf der Ebene der Psychoanalyse gestellt und auf eben dieser Ebene der Psa. wird der Philosophie die Antwortmöglichkeit kategorisch und grammatologisch bestritten.

Zwischenschritt zur bewußtseinserweiternden Lektüre zum Thema!

Ziehen wir beim Thema Sexismus, Rassismus, Faschismus (!) immer wieder zu Rate und vergessen wir sie nicht, — die Faschismusanalysen und Sexualökonomietheorien von Wilhelm Reich ( „Massenpsychologie des Faschismus. Zur Sexualökonomie der politischen Reaktion und zur proletarischen Sexualpolitik“ 1933 ) und Klaus Theweleit ( „Männerphantasien“ 1980, bes. Bd. 2 „männerkörper – zur psychoanalyse des weißen terrors“ 1978 )

Sexualökonomien!

Begehren und Verantwortung!

Vergessen wir nicht ! ! !

Die Psychoanalyse ! ! !

Wenn wir Sprache benützen, rufen wir unweigerlich Effekte bei uns und beim Anderen hervor. Wir verwandeln uns, aber auch den Anderen und wir verwandeln das Andere, die Sprache. Sprache ist ein Name für unser Tun, – die Handlung, die wir gerade tun, – und ein Name für das, was wir bewirken, – die Handlung und ihre Folgen.

Ein Satz tut etwas.

Sprache ist „Handlungsmacht“. Das Tun der Sprache ist handlungsmächtig! Auch diese Setzung gerade und diese Figuration/Konfiguration (vgl. meinen Teaser dazu) ist „Handlungsmacht“ und erläutert grade in aller Kürze die sprachliche Handlungsmacht (vgl. Teaser und mein Video zum „Satz“!).

Sprache als Figur für die Handlungsmacht und Handlungsmacht als Figur der Sprache. Die Handlungsmacht der Sprache ist nicht dieselbe wie die des Subjekts, das Dinge mit der Sprache tun kann, aber auch in der Sprache (vgl. dazu Teaser zu „Dekonstruktion“ und différance / Derrida!).

Sprache gründet sich auf eine geteilte, ich möchte sagen, gedoppelte Wesensart, ein in sich geteiltes Operativum. Sprache ist bzw das Instrument der Aussagen teilt etwas „Wesentliches“ mit der Sprache, weil, gerade weil keine Aussage auf ihr Instrument reduzierbar ist (wer tiefer eintauchen möchte in diese >Angelegenheit< „Sprache“, lese „Limited Inc“ von Derrida samt der Texte der Sprechakttheoretiker Austin und Searle u.a.).

Worte, Wörter, Sätze können verletzen!

Die Subjekte, das Medium, die Sprache, die Aussage, die Aussageweise, das Ausgesagte, die berührten(!) Kontexte, die LeserInnen, die BügerInnen, die Gesetze, den Staat, das Gemeinwesen, den Gesellschaftsvertrag!

Haß-Formulierungen, aggressive Sprache bzw Sprachführung, können zum Tod des Subjekts führen, wenn dieser „Sprech“ in die Position der Herrschaft gerät oder eine solche aufrufen kann, – dann wird dieser Sprechakt(!) zur Artikulationsform der herrschenden Macht und also zu einer Art Reproduktion der Macht (vgl. etwa Chile unter Pinochet oder Deutschland und Österreich unter Hitler oder heute Syrien unter Assad; wie wir wissen, gäbe es noch viele Beispiele).

Wiederholungen von Sätzen als Haß-Sprech und deren Veröffentlichung können (müssen nicht! Brücke der Rede, Subversion ist immer möglich, immer sprachmöglich!, – vgl. Althusser, Foucault, Deleuze, bes. Derrida) und werden die Subjekte formen, die äußernden und die angerufenen. Anstößige Formulierungen rufen auf, sie rufen auf die Lokalisation diskursiver und physischer Gewalt, sie gehen jeder Äußerung voraus, die sie in Szene setzt, versuchen und zeitigen diese gleichsam. Dem Subjekt liegt die Äußerung als vorhanden vor, das Subjekt wird geformt und das Subjekt führt den Diskurs als unterwerfenden fort.

Nach Freud verschiebt sich ein verbotenes Begehren im Unbewußten von einem Ding auf das nächste. Diese unendliche Übertragbarkeit des Begehrens, die verführt wird über ein Verbot, eine Blockade, ein Tabu, steuert quasi unkontrollierbar diese Logik der Infizierung in einem sogenannten metonymischen Strömen (denken Sie an Ihre eigene „Lust“ Verbotenes zu tun, – z. B. bei Veränderung gewohnter Umstände!).

In Freuds „Das Unbehagen in der Kultur“ wird der Ort der Libido verschoben und selbst zum Lustort des Verbots. Hier nimmt die Unterdrückung jene Form an, in der sie selbst zur libidinösen Tätigkeit wird.

Dies gilt für den banalen Haßposter wie für den im zivilen Leben als Anwalt arbeitenden Freizeit – Hooligan wie für den sadistisch besetzten Mörder / Lustmörder / Serienmörder / Massenmörder oder den theologisch bearbeiteten Jugendlichen (u.a.) für Mordattacken (wie im Bataclan etc., vgl. meine Posts „Charly Hebdo“ und „Attentat“ in diesem Blog).

Jeder Satz ein Sprung.

Ein Sprung, der einen Kontext sprengt.

Jede Aussage ist primär eine Behauptung und schiebt Einwände vorerst beiseite.

Die Kraft einer performativen Äußerung kann enorm sein, – in beide Richtungen!

Denunziation und Selbstdenunziation!

Je nach Lesart und je nach Leserschaft und Leserstandort (politisch, ideologisch, intellektuell).

Der Bruch mit dem Kontext (Derrida) einer performativen Äußerung ist immer dieser inhärent, einer jeden Äußerung Mißlingen durch die Sache „Sprache“ eingezeichnet. Nur merken dies viele Akteure nicht! Haß-Sprech-Akteure merken die Selbstdenunziation offenbar fast nie oder zu spät.

Die Geschichte der Unterworfenheit ist (auch) eine Geschichte der Sprache und des Sprechens.

Menschenbildung ist daraus folgend die erste Angelegenheit einer jeden demokratischen Gesellschaft.

Jede Kultur benötigt Subjektivität, Subversivität, Kritik und eine große Portion an Gemeinsamkeit (auch in der Differenz).

Sollte der Neid eine menschliche Konstante sein, dann gilt es diesen Neid zu sublimieren durch die Instanzen unserer Kultur hindurch und also den anderen nicht schaden wollen, ihm was wegnehmen wollen etc., sondern ich hebe meinen Neid auf die Stufe sportlichen, beruflichen oder intellektuellen Ehrgeizes.

Ich hasse also nicht aufgrund etwaig vorhandenen Neides auf jemand, sondern ich münze meinen Neid um in besondere Fähigkeiten, die ich mir durch Fleiß und Übung zu eigen mache.

Vielleicht ist das der Ansporn für Wissenschaft, Kunst und Sport, Erfindungskraft, Unternehmertum, Hilfsbereitschaft und: L i e b e (!?) ?! (vgl. Lacan, Seminar X)

Haß ist kein Begriff. Haß ist eine Übertreibung des Neidbegehrens aus Mangel und Verlust.

Vernunft ist dies sublimieren zu können und zu wollen.

Therapien könnten zu dieser Einsicht (der Vernunft) führen!! (Oder diesen Vorgang beschleunigen.) (vgl. Teaser!)

Um noch kurz mit Derrida zu sprechen, um uns daran zu erinnern, wie notwendig das immer sein wird: Das Subjekt einer Äußerung kann kaum gewahr sein und muß gewahr sein, daß jede „Kommunikation“ einer allgemeinen graphematischen Struktur unterliegt.

Eine Konsequenz daraus ist, daß die Iterationsstruktur gegeben ist und also die Intention einer Äußerung niemals sich selbst und ihrem Inhalt zur Gänze präsent sein kann. Das bedeutet, die Iteration erzeugt immer einen Bruch, die Iteration strukturiert a p r i o r i.

Es existiert immer schon eine oratio obliqua, eine strukturelle Unbewußtheit der Intention in der Aktualität der Aussage. Vergessen Sie nie daran zu erinnern, daß in der Sache und der Auffassung davon ein Gespenst sein Wesen treibt, – das teleologische Trugbild des Bewußtseins (vgl. bes. „Signatur, Ereignis, Kontext“ von J. Derrida, in: Randgänge der Philosophie).

Das gilt auch und vielleicht noch mehr für den Akteur eines Haß-Sprechs, denn für den Adressaten. Also Obacht auf den immer möglichen Bumerang-Effekt der Selbstbeschädigung! Im Privaten wie im Öffentlichen! Ob Einzel-Person-Akteur oder Staaten.

Es gilt immer auch die Lektüre und die Lekritüre der Konnotationen eines Textes.

Jacques Derrida hat darauf hingewiesen, daß Artaud mit seinem dramatischen Atmen, Schreien, Bewegen nicht nur an Rousseaus Ursprache der Affekte anschließt, sondern auch an Freuds Konzeption der Traumsprache, die aus „Rücksicht auf Darstellbarkeit“ die Wortvorstellungen zugunsten einer Art unmittelbarer Bilderschrift aufgibt (ebda., S. 365ff. und bes. J. D.: Artaud Moma. Ausrufe, Zwischenruf und Berufungen, Passagen Verlag, S. 13ff. u. vgl. auch Concic-Kaucic, Sem II, Passagen Verlag, 1994).

Artaud sucht das Reale, das rohe Fleisch.

Dieses Design sehen wir auch im Netz, in den sozialen Medien sehr häufig. Das Rohe! Nicht sehr oft das Gekochte!

Das Rohe! Der Haß – Sprech! Das Rohe! Die Vergewaltigung! Das Rohe! Das Attentat!

Paranoia! Sinnkonspirationen! Krankheiten im Kopf! (Kant)

Geschichte schreiben ohne Leistung! Den eigenen Namen der Geschichte als Geschichtsschreibung einschreiben, einbrennen.

In der Geschichte auftauchen. Vorkommen. Hervorkommen. Sich zeigen. Sich präsent machen wollen.

Viele und immer mehr Haß-Sprech-Akteure! Sie wollen sich zeigen, so wie sie sind. Häßlich! Haßerfüllt. Immer öfter mit dem bürgerlichen Namen. Die Signatur. Die schauerliche Herrschaft des Unsinns und Zufalls (Leibniz).

Gruppenkohärenz. Kollektive Gewalterscheinungen (Fanon). „Gewalt tritt auf den Plan, wo Macht in Gefahr ist.“ (H. Arendt)

Gefühle wie Neid, Haß, – oder auch Liebe sind eine integrale Disponiertheit eines unbewußten Triebsystems, welches nach Lacan geschichtlich, zivilisatorisch mehr oder weniger / so oder so sozialisiert wird und ist.

Bildungserfahrungen u. a. in der früheren Kindheit bilden das temporäre Substrat für spätere Gefühle, scheinobjektive Logiken und rationale irrationale Handlungen (Dschihadisten, Attentäter, Amokläufer, Folterer, Mörder, Vergewaltiger, Hasardeure jeder Form).

Handlungen wie Äußerungen des Hasses aufgrund fehlenden Empathievermögens infolge zunehmender neoliberaler Realitäten aller Art (ökonomisch, sozial, existenziell) gibt Anlaß zur Sorge um die Gegenwart und Zukunft folgender Generationen und deren Lebensspielräume.

Gefühlskälte, destruktive Exzesse, Schmähungen, Verletzungen, Ressentiments, die anderen entgegenschlagen, führten schon oft und besonders in der Nazizeit (durch rassistisch rationalisierten Haß) zur beherrschenden Klimatik und Großstimmung und ebendort und ebendann zur Lagerpolitik und zur Shoah (Holocaust), zur industriell durchgeführten Massenvernichtung in den Konzentrationslagern.

Was ist ein Freund? Und was ist Freundschaft? Und was ist die Politik der Freundschaft?

Die Sprache als Erkenntniswerkzeug läßt uns Wirklichkeit erahnen. Seien wir vorsichtig! Mit dem Hammer zu philosophieren bringt Not und Notwendigkeit. So einfach ist es nicht mit der Sprache wie Carl Schmitt (Begriff des Politischen) das meint und handhabt!

Die Politik der Freundschaft ist eine schwierige.

Und die Dekonstruktion ist nachträglich und vorläufig(!). Vergleichen Sie das Konzept der „Spur“ Derridas! Die Gegenwart, keine Gegenwart ist jemals präsent und eine Vergangenheit ist nie als Gegenwart vollpräsent gewesen. Auch diese Erkenntnis läuft via Sprache. Wir sind Zeugen und Involvierte einer absoluten Dislokation (vgl. Teaser).

Ich meine die Spaltung der Struktur einer Erfahrung der Zugehörigkeit, eines sogenannten „Eigenen“(!). Zugehörigkeiten ausgedrückt in den Begriffen wie Familie, Ethnie, Nation, Religion, Staat oder sogar Beruf.

Diese Spaltungen bewirken Diskurse der Erschütterung. Diskurse von Schiller, Kleist, Nietzsche bis Derrida (vgl. Politik d. Freundschaft), Nancy u. a.

Und eben auch Miniausbrüche wie Haß-Postings.

Die aber in ihrer Vielzahl gefährlich groß zu werden vermögen. Auch in ihrer Struktur!

Ihrer Struktur der „undarstellbaren Gemeinschaft“ (Nancy), der technischen Vorrichtungen in Form von Shit-Storms, Cyber-Mobbing etc. Darin leuchtet der Sturm auf. Der Sturm im Wasserglas irgendwann als globaler Tsunami durch viele / alle Körper hindurch.

Eine der praktikabelsten Einsichten in das Phänomen des Hasses gibt uns die Psychoanalyse in der

Definition von Otto Kernberg:

„Haß ergibt sich aus der Transformation des vorübergehenden Affekts der Wut in einen dauerhaften, strukturierten Affekt, welcher eine spezifische internalisierte Objektbeziehung impliziert. (…)

Während die Wut unmittelbar auf die Beseitigung der Quelle einer Irritation oder eines zwischen dem Selbst und einer Gratifikation stehenden Hindernisses zielt, impliziert der Hass die Konsolidierung einer internalisierten Objektbeziehung zwischen einem leidenden Selbst und einem Objekt, das absichtlich das Leiden des Selbst zu induzieren scheint.“

Zum Ende kommend noch einmal sei angeführt die „kommende Demokratie“ J. Derridas. Eine Demokratie im Werden (und nicht nur auf nationalstaatlichem Boden, vgl. Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden) in den überstaatlichen Beziehungen, Rechtsverhältnissen und Institutionen, – eine Demokratie, die als kommende noch kaum bis gar nicht begonnen haben dürfte. Das ist das Thema von Liebe und Haß, Frieden und Krieg, Gemeinsames und Einsames, Eigenes und Anderes, Eigenes und Fremdes, ein Thema der Möglichkeit, Wahrscheinlichkeit und Unmöglichkeit.

Die Demokratie als philosophischer Begriff, die immerwährend im Kommen bleibt (vgl. Teaser und meinen BlogPost zur Demokratiephilosophie).

Die Gefühle des Hasses als Aporetikum, als Aporieaffekt des Demokratischen! Vielleicht auch das Kuckucksei einer jeden Revolution?!

Destruktive Entwicklungen sind nicht nur repressiv zu eliminieren(!), sondern durch kommunikative Inklusion zu pädagogisieren und zu zivilisieren.

Philosophische Praxis kann dazu einen gewichtigen Beitrag leisten, denke ich.

Ich möchte hinweisen auf die allgemeine Beunruhigung in den Wissenschaften vom Menschen, wenn man eine Logik des Unbewußten anspricht oder sogar darauf setzt (wie ich z.B.).

Eine Logik des Unbewußten, die uns im Bewußtsein der Freiheit (!), die dann also immer Verantwortung impliziert, jede Gewißheit und Versicherung (auch unserer selbst!) unterläuft.

Hier wird sofort der Vorwurf laut, daß damit (mit der Inkludierung dieser Logik des Ubw) jegliche Verantwortung und Ethik in Zweifel gezogen werden würde und also jede Entscheidung (und auch ein Quäntchen Nichtentscheidbarkeit in sich bürge).

Ich sage denen, die diesen Vorwurf erheben, immer wieder, daß ja gerade das Gegenteil der Fall sei, daß doch genau dieses Faktum des Zweifels an Verantwortung, Entscheidbarkeit und einem eigenen Ethisch-Sein das unbestimmbare Wesen(!) der Verantwortung, der Entscheidung und der Ethik ausmache.

Wir reagieren nicht nur, wir antworten. Sprachlich, semiotisch.

Die Funktion der Sprache besteht nicht nur in der Information.

Im Sprechen suche ich die Antwort des anderen. In meinem Sagen und Fragen und in meinem Zweifeln liegt die Möglichkeit der Subjektwerdung.

Menschen (und zum Teil Tiere) sind keine cartesischen Tier-Maschinen (!). Lebewesen haben kein vollkommen vorprogrammiertes Verhalten und Interagieren (schon gar nicht bei Verlängerung des Beobachtungszeitraums über Generationen!).

Jedes gefestigte Wissen, jede unbezweifelte theoretische Sicherheit würde die alten metaphysischen Vorurteile von der bloßen „Reaktion“ anstelle einer Möglichkeit zu antworten(!)

(d. h. „lesen“(!) können, – bedeutet Spielraum, also Freiheit, nicht festgelegt sein als bloße Tiermaschine, als bloßer Reaktionsapparat)

nur weiter behaupten und bekräftigen.

Die Dominierung des Anderen als Konsequenz des Mangels an Zweifel.

PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS DIE RÄTSELHAFTE UND

VERSTÖRENDE NOTWENDIGKEIT … VON KOMMUNIKATION

P.S.:

„ >>Es gilt, die Spur vor dem Seienden zu denken.<<

Dieser grammatologische Imperativ gilt auch für Bilder: Es gilt, die Spuren vor den existierenden Bildern zu denken – genauer: die Spuren, die denjenigen Bildern, die wir sehen, vorausgehen. Mit einer Grammatologie der Bilder soll die Aufmerksamkeit auf die Spuren desjenigen gelenkt werden, was vor dem Bild liegt, auf das, was sich (noch) nicht in ikonischer oder piktorialer Gestalt – oder auch als Denkbild – darstellt oder in Erscheinung tritt: das Andere oder auch Unähnliche des Bildes.“

Op. cit., Sigrid Weigel: Grammatologie der Bilder. Berlin 2015 (Suhrkamp Tb Wi), S. 9

„Es gilt, die Spur vor dem Seienden zu denken.“ (J. Derrida, op.cit., Grammatologie, S. 82)

„The trace must be thought before the entity.“ (J. Derrida, op. cit., of Grammatology, p. 47)

„ Il faut penser la trace avant l’étant.“ ( Jacques Derrida, op. cit., DE LA GRAMMATOLOGIE, p. 69 )

Der Politische Körper und das Andere

Affektionen

Einschreibungen

Wiedererinnerungen

In äußerster Kürze und Kompliziertheit kurzgefaßt. Der politische Körper!

Selbstermächtigung! Begehren als Effekt soziohistorischer Machtverhältnisse!

Macht- und Herrschaftsverhältnisse verbinden individuelle, soziale, physische und virtuelle Körper miteinander.

Alles spielt sich dort ab, wo der Grund sich zum Abgrund öffnet, wo das Begründen von etwas sich von zahllosen Abgründen angezogen fühlt. Die ParaNoia lebt, solange es Libido geben wird. Wir müssen sie einhegen, nicht rationalisieren, einhegen und pflegen, sprich zivilisieren, bilden.

Begehren bewegt sich immer durch all die spezifischen Machtkategorien, die einen geo-historischen Kontext ausmachen (Elspeth Probyn 1996), wenn auch trotz allem einzigartig und singulär. Gesellschaft als Spurung (Derrida) „relationaler Singularitäten“ (Probyn).

Identitätsdislokationen, Chorologie, hyle/morphe-Strukturen als reelle/nicht reale(!) Momente des Erlebten (Husserl, Derrida).

Das mögliche Selbst (Hochschild 1999) ist ein idealisierter und nicht realisierter Teil der eigenen Existenz. Die Bilder und Vorbilder(!) unserer Kulturen bilden die Verbindung zwischen unseren möglichen Selbsten.

Wichtig dabei ist, obwohl das mögliche Selbst meist virtuell bleibt, so ist es doch ein besonderes Moment des Selbstverständnisses!

Im möglichen Selbst erfolgt eine affektive Besetzung. Da diese meist begehrenswert erscheint (warum auch immer liegt allein in der Biographiewerdung des Individuums), kommt es zu Vorstellungen und Gefühlen teils absonderlichster Art, d.h. das mögliche Selbst formiert sich zu einem Modus vielfältiger Identifizierungen und Formationen des Begehrens.

Adventure Philosophy!

Dr. Gerhard Kaučić / Djay PhilPrax ( geb. 1959 ), Wien, Philosophische Praxis 1989 ff.

Diskursraum, Arbeitszimmer, Gesellschaftszimmer, Arbeitsraum, Philosophischer Salon Philosophische Praxis Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax Gasometer City Wien Österreich Europa

Und wie immer haben wir zu wenig Zeit.

Jeder Satz hat zu wenig Zeit. Jeder Satz verdrängt, indem er springt. Er verdrängt viele andere mögliche und notwendige (!) Sätze (mehr vgl. mein Youtube-Video zu „Der Satz“).

Jeder Satz, jedes Wort, jeder Code treibt sein Wesen und sein Unwesen in der Inkommunikabilität!

Jeder Satz grüßt ein Gespenst. Jeder Satz ist ein Gespenst.

Jeder Satz in einer jeden Setzung und einer jeden Sitzung (auch der in einer PP/Philosophischen Praxis).

Ich sollte immer die Möglichkeit haben, alle psychoanalytischen, ökonomischen, politischen und juridischen Implikationen des oben Gesagten/Gesetzten darzulegen.

Ich verweise alle LeserInnen auf meine/unsere Publikationen im Netz und auf die Veröffentlichungen auf Papier.

Das Terrain der Lektüre ist abgründig(!) und unbegrenzbar!

P.S.1.:

a In der Psychose ist die Vaterfunktion auf das Bild des Vaters reduziert.

Lacans Theorem vom Borromäischen Knoten!

Die drei Ringe des Knotens stellen die drei Ordnungen dar.

Das Reale, das Symbolische, das Imaginäre.

Diese drei zusammenhängenden Ringe lösen sich in der Psychose voneinander. Welten tun sich auf. Wahnsinn in personam. Autokratische bis faschistische „Großpolitiker“! Autokratismus. Faschismus. Tod. Horribilität.

Verfassungen sind nur dann gute, wenn sie das Aufkommen von (größenwahnsinnigen) Politikern als Psychotiker in staatliche Führungspositionen verhindern helfen können.

(( Vergleichen Sie auch und besonders Jacques Lacan, Nicolas Abraham/Maria Torok „Kryptonymie. Das Verbarium des Wolfsmanns“ und Jacques Derrida „Fors“ (ÜS aus dem Französischen Werner Hamacher), Basel 2008 (vor allem S.71ff. „Einverleibung, interne Hysterie, Kryptonymie“ und S. 94ff. „Die interne Hysterie. Aufbau und Funktionieren einer Maschinerie“);

Lacan wird hier von Abraham/Torok/Derrida nicht zugestimmt, daß es sich hier beim Wolfsmann um bloß einen Neurotiker handle, sondern in Wahrheit handelt es sich um einen Psychotiker, dessen „Verwerfungen“ dem Symbolisierungsvermögen nicht zugänglich seien!!! ( Stichwort Trumputin! ). In und durch die „Kryptonymie“ werden die Fragen der Philosophie (vor allem von J. Derrida noch zusehends extensiviert und konzentriert disseminiert) beinhart auf der Ebene der Psychoanalyse gestellt und auf eben dieser Ebene der Psa. wird der Philosophie die Antwortmöglichkeit kategorisch und grammatologisch bestritten .

„Was ist eine Krypta? (selbiger Band S. 11, 12) …

…….

Die Ordnung der Fragen umkehren, den Namen Krypta nicht mehr für eine Metapher im geläufigen Sinne halten, das wird vielleicht heißen, von der Psychoanalyse und in ihr von einer neuen Kryptologie zu einer anasemischen Retranskription sämtlicher Konzepte überzugehen, zu jener <<radikalen semantischen Veränderung, welche die Psychoanalyse in die Sprache eingeführt hat>> (Nicolas Abraham/Maria Torok: „L’écorce et le noyau“. Paris 1978.). ))

Kryptologie Philosophische Praxis Gerhard Kaucic Djay PhilPrax (*1959)

Die Ordnung der Fragen umkehren

das ewige Rätsel Kommunikation, die Notwendigkeit von philosophischer Praxis

Dr. Gerhard Kaucic (geb. 1959), Philosophische Praxis Wien 1989ff

PP, – von einer neuen Kryptologie zu einer anasemischen Retranskription sämtlicher Konzepte

übergehen }}}

Franz Kafka schrieb in seinem Tagebuch 1911, „das Versteckte in einem Vexierbild sei deutlich und unsichtbar. Deutlich für den, der gefunden hat, wonach zu schauen er aufgefordert war, unsichtbar für den, der gar nicht weiß, daß es etwas zu suchen gilt.“

Politik der Liebe und der Freundschaft. Nur wer liebt, kann wissen, was Lieben heißt.

Paranoiker, Autokraten und Faschisten lieben sehr schnell und sehr heftig. Sie lieben zuallererst ihr je eigenes Vexierbild. Ihr Narzissmus sagt, liebe, was das Zeug hält. Sag dem Volk oft und immer wieder, daß und wie sehr Du es liebst. Es wird Dir schließlich Glauben schenken.

Jede Demokratie, jede kommende Demokratie, wird sich mit diesen Energiearrangements(!) (Libidoverschwendern) von irrationalen, leicht bis schwer paranoid größenwahnsinnigen Führungspersönlichkeiten immer und immer wieder herumschlagen müssen. Nicht zu Ende Geborene (cf. Theweleit, Männerphantasien)!

Auf den fragilen Oberflächen (ohne Geländer) zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen stellt sich diese Problematik stets von neuem. Bis heute ist Demokratie ein nationales, innerstaatliches politisches Organisationsmodell. Die Grenzen des Staatswesens werden nach wie vor und wie es aussieht morgen noch weniger als bisher (Stichwort: Rechtspopulismus) nicht überschritten. Das planetarische Subjekt(!) gerät in noch weitere Ferne, so bekomm ich das Gefühl. Die Fragen der Außenpolitik als eine Frage der Innenpolitik zu behandeln kommt im „Contrat social“ noch immer nicht vor bzw wird weiter aufgeschoben, ja sogar fast aufgehoben. Trump will alle(!?) bestehenden Verträge ignorieren und löschen. Trump will die Europäische Union zerstören. Er hilft Putin seine prioritären Ziele zu erreichen.

Kurz, Seehofer, Orban, Salvini und all die anderen Rechtspopulisten, Rechtsextremen und Faschisten helfen den beiden Vorgenannten dabei.

Wir werden sehen, was wir sehen werden. Sind Sie sicher? Seid Ihr Eurer sicher?!

Alles spielt sich dort ab, wo der Grund sich zum Abgrund öffnet, wo das Begründen von etwas sich von zahllosen Abgründen angezogen fühlt. Die ParaNoia lebt, solange es Libido geben wird. Wir müssen sie einhegen, nicht rationalisieren, einhegen und pflegen, sprich zivilisieren, bilden.

Demokratien bilden mittels Bildung, – vor allem Menschenbildung im Sinne von Menschenrechten und Menschenpflichten. Gesetzesentwicklungen entlang den Menschenrechten und im Sinne der Europäischen Konvention ( 70 Jahre Europäische Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten / Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Text dazu: siehe weiter oben in diesem Post ).

Yes, we can!?

Post scriptum/after the bound/Nachsatz:

borders of a planet (John Bellamy Foster et al. (Ed.): The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth, 2011), deconstructive politics as an ideological-critical reading of the imperial archive, geopolitics, geopolitical involvement, geopolitical interest driven policy and/as value policy, power, morals and human rights, analysis of power, gender and governmentality, teletechnology, political bodies, complexities of rule, citizenship, parliamentarianism, peace policy, institution building and institution maintenance, economically correct and fair redistribution of social wealth, proper management of Migration (Flüchtlinge, Refugees), …

urban development towards a green city, urban philosophy, reddening of the city, city of dreams, madness and society, madness and city, city and sexuality, desire and city, city as text, city and writing, city as writing, the city and the divided I, the city and the power, the city and the political, the city as a mechanism of discipline, the city as a social testing lab, the city and the philosophical practice with many practices, the world as a city and the other, water wars, religious wars, climate change, climate consequences, global warming, nuclear relicts, climate wars, climate catastrophes, civil wars, „ethnic cleansing“ (!), genocide, violent conflicts, social questions, ecological questions, planetary principle, tradition history, the question of a global government (!?), social catastrophes, terrorism, natural disasters, migration, unstable states, poverty, wealth, corruption, media policy and presence-ideologies, war and non-war, world order and biopolicy, weapon development, arms delivery, violent and oppressive power politics, religious fanaticism, party political fanaticism, terrorism, biodiversity, standardization, factory farming, animal factories, animal consumption, „meat production“!, animal rights, animal philosophy,

„animal turn“ (vgl. Anne Peters, Tier-Recht im Zeitalter des Menschen, – in: Renn/Scherer (Hg.), Das Anthropozän. Zum Stand der Dinge. Berlin 2015, S. 67ff.),

truth and passion (vgl.: Gabriele Michalitsch: Die neoliberale Domestizierung des Subjekts. Von den Leidenschaften zum Kalkül. Campus Verlag, Frankf. a. M. 2006, bes. S. 29ff. und S. 101ff.),

sex labour, difference and the shaping of the social ( Antke Engel: Bilder von Sexualität und Ökonomie. Queere kulturelle Politiken im Neoliberalismus. Bielefeld 2009, S. 138ff. ),

automobility, digitalia and upbringing, education, unemployment, debt crisis, failing of democratization, neglect of the common good,

the own and the foreign, fascism, antisemitism, racism, sexism, human trafficking,

modern slavery (cf.: Kevin Bales, dt. Üs: „Die neue Sklaverei“, engl. V.: K. B., „Disposable People. New Slavery in the Global Economy“ und Hanns Wienold ),

famine and capitalism, „the right to food“

need of land, land grabbing, land robbery, justice, human rights, decolonization of thinking, policy of displacement, solidarity across class, race, and national boundaries (Mohanty, passim),

just policy as a policy of strengthening the weak

and Charles Taylor: Multiculturalism and the „Politics of Recognition“. Princeton 1994, p. 28 ))

P.S.2.:

Auch in der Demokratie sind die Ideen von Vaterland, Nation und Männerfreundschaft und Brüderlichkeit noch existent und relevant (vor allem im rechten Spektrum des parteipolitischen Feldes).

In solchen politischen Räumen der Hierarchien gibt es nach wie vor die Regeln des Ausschließens, gibt es die geschlechtsspezifischen Diskriminierungen, die Gewalt in den Ehen und die verkrampften Sexualpraktiken mit allen Folgen für Politik, Arbeit und Recht.

Aber immerhin haben in Demokratien die Söhne das Ende des Patriarchats zu träumen begonnen, mit gleichzeitiger Diskursführung samt schon lange erhoffter (hierzulande etwas zögerlicher) Verrechtlichung.

1938 schreibt Freud im Abriß der Psychoanalyse: „Der Traum ist eine Psychose, mit allen Ungereimtheiten, Wahnbildungen, Sinnestäuschungen einer solchen.“ (Freud, Abriß d. Psa., S. 98).

Und auf Seite 92 schreibt Freud, der Traum sei eine „Wunscherfüllung“. Diese vom ICH zugestandene und aufgehobene (!) Wunscherfüllung gilt es umzusetzen in der Gesellschaft und somit ins Recht zu setzen. Die Beendigung des Patriarchats in all seinen Strukturen, – die Auslöser für Wahnbildungen im Bewußtsein.

Ich fürchte, es kommt noch eine lange Zukunft brüderlicher (Kain/Abel) Pathologien.

Körper sind sozial konstruierte Texte (vgl. Beatriz Preciados Kontrasexuelles Manifest).

Bewußtsein entspringt Körpern in Strukturen.

Handlungen sind gegründet in Wahnvorstellungen in Träumen und als Traum.“

In der Psychose ist die Vaterfunktion auf das Bild des Vaters reduziert.

Lacan diskutiert die Psychose in seinem Seminar „Die Psychosen“ von 1955-56.

Version Miller/Turnheim:

Das Seminar, Buch 3 (1955 – 1956). Die Psychosen. Übersetzt von Michael Turnheim nach dem von Jacques-Alain Miller hergestellten französischen Text. 1. Auflage. Quadriga, Weinheim u.a. 1997.

Genaugenommen handelt es sich im Wesentlichen um Lacans Annäherungen an den Wahnsinn!

Lacan definiert die Psychose als eine von drei klinischen Strukturen, die durch den Mechanismus der Verwerfung definiert ist.

In diesem Mechanismus wird der „Name-des-Vaters“ (cf. „Einführung in die Namen-des-Vaters“, – in: Jacques Lacan: Namen-des-Vaters. Wien 2006, übersetzt aus dem Französischen v. Hans-Dieter Gondek, Vlg. Turia+Kant, S. 63-102) im symbolischen Universum des Psychotikers nicht integriert, es bleibt eine Lücke. Es kam zu einer „Verwerfung“!

Philosophische Praxis, Grammatologie und Stadt

( ( zur „Lichtung“ vgl. Heidegger und zu Heideggers Lichtung vgl. Peter Sloterdijk: Domestikation des Seins. Die Verdeutlichung der Lichtung, – in: P. Sl.: Nicht gerettet. Versuche nach Heidegger. Frf. a. Main (Suhrkamp) 2001, S. 142 – S. 234. , darin unter anderem die Sujets Homo Sapiens, Sorgetier, Selbstsorgesysteme, Stadt/Land, Technikkulturen, Gesellschaft der Zukunft, Wohnlichkeit, zu Hause sein, menschliche face-à-face Sexualität, Gesicht, Lichtung als Epidermis, Organe der Lichtung (bes. S. 194f.), Zerebralität, Produktion des Menschen, Menschwerdung, conditio humana, Lichtung als Menschwerdung (S. 159), Welt und Umwelt, „Um den Menschen herum wird alles zur Welt … weil seine Positionalität monströs ist.“ … „Was Heidegger die Lichtung nennt … ist Teil der Logik und Poesie des Monströsen.“ (S. 164f.), Mensch-Tier, Onto-Anthropo-Monstrologie, … ; vgl. dazu die Monstrologie (!) NancyDerridaNancys, – in: J. D.: Berühren, Jean-Luc Nancy. Bln. 2007, S. 66-86, bes. S. 80-83 und J.-L. Nancy: Corpus, S. 9-10 und Ego sum sowie „Les Muses“, 1994, S. 35ff. ) )

Stadt und Religion, Stadt und Traum, Stadt und Verdrängung, Stadt und Wahn.

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

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

Nun stelle man sich vor, die Traumbilder seien die sozusagen physiologischen Wahnschöpfungen des Menschen, die Kompromißergebnisse jenes Kampfes zwischen Verdrängtem und Herrschendem, den es wahrscheinlich bei jedem, auch tagsüber völlig geistesgesunden Menschen gibt.“ ( S. Freud, Der Wahn und die Träume in W. Jensens Gradiva, Kapitel 2) )

Macht der Sozialisation, Gewalt der Sozialisation, Verdrängung, Einschreibung, Trauma, Halluzination, Narzissmus, Wahn, Gespenst der Zivilisation, das Andere, Traum und Wahn, der Traum und der Wahnsinn, Wirklichkeit, Geschichte, Gedächtnis, Erinnerung, Archiv, Umschreibung, Aufrufung, Sprachruf, Analyse, Dekonstruktion

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

„ … scheint gewußt zu haben, daß das Verdrängte bei seiner Wiederkehr aus dem Verdrängenden selbst hervortritt.“ (S. Freud, Der Wahn und die Träume in W. Jensens Gradiva, Kapitel 1)

Noch einmal zu unserem Bad Couple Trump-Putin als Demonstrativum eines bestimmten politischen

(denken Sie an die Formel „Unsere Körper sind politische“, Körper sind sozial konstruierte Texte, Bewußtsein entspringt Körpern in Strukturen)

Handelns und Denkens und deren Voraussetzungen und Bestimmtheiten:

Aristoteles erklärt uns in der „Eudemischen Ethik“, daß es besser sei zu lieben als geliebt zu werden.

Es geht um Politik und Gerechtigkeit. Es geht um Freundschaft. Was ist einer Freundschaft angemessen? Was ist in ihr das Gerechte?

Trump nannte Putin seinen Freund. Liebt er ihn? Und wenn ja, auf welche Weise liebt er ihn? Wie sehr lenkt ihn sein Narzissmus? Er liebt ihn nicht im üblichen Sinn, auch hier liebt er nur sein Vexierbild (cf. weiter oben). Davon bin ich überzeugt. Er kann gar nicht wirklich lieben, außer sich selbst und dies auch wieder nur als sein Vexierbild von sich selbst. Die Trumps und die Putins aller Arten können nicht lieben, denn sie können nicht geben als Gabe ohne Kredit und Schuld. Sie können nicht lieben ohne Ökonomik. An die Stelle des Liebenkönnens trat bei diesen die Figur der Selbstermächtigung und die Gier als Begehren nach Macht. Dies ist der eklatante Ausdruck eines Mangels (an Zweifel) aufgrund einer Lücke der symbolischen Ordnung, eine Disfunktion oder Parafunktion des Unbewußten (vgl. weiter oben).

Vor jeder anderen Frage stellt sich die Frage nach dem Angemessenen, die Frage nach dem Gerechten. Die Frage nach der Gerechtigkeit definiert eine Verhaltensweise in einer Freundschaft. Welche Notwendigkeit hat die Frage nach dem Angemessenen und dem Gerechten in einer Freundschaft.

Vergessen wir nicht, es geht um Politik. Um politische Freundschaft. Was ist ein Freund? Was ist Freundschaft? Kann es eine Freundschaft überhaupt geben in der Realität der Interessen? Was ist die Bedeutung, – besser, was wird die Bedeutung sein in dieser Rede von der Freundschaft. Ich meine die Rede Trumps über Putin, seinen Freund!

Aporetisches gibt es auf diesem Weg zur Freundschaft oder von(!) der Freundschaft sonderzahl.

Aristoteles erinnert uns darin (in seiner eudemischen Ethik!!!) und ganz gewichtig daran, daß das „Werk des Politischen“, der sogenannte politische Akt, genau darin besteht, soviel(!) Freundschaft wie möglich zu generieren(!).

Quantitäten an Freundschaft also. So viele wie möglich.

Freundschaft ist ohne scharfsinnigen Zweifel quasi fraglos(!) eine Form der Liebe. Freund sein heißt lieben. Dieser Akt der Freundschaft als Liebe ist einer Freundschaft inhärenter(!), also wesensmäßiger, wesensnäher als die Situation derjenigen, die sich lieben lassen (müssen!!!).

Putin wartet ab und ist erfreut, grundsätzlich und vorerst einmal. Trump liebt sein Vexierbild, sein narzisstisches Selbstbildnis im „Referenten“ Putin. Trump möchte Putin sein als er selbst. Ein noch gewaltigerer Trump-putin. Ein Trumputin. Das Vexierbild ist ein Rätsel. Ein Rebus (cf. dazu „Traumdeutung“ von Sigmund Freud, – dort auch mehr zu „Traumgedanken“ und „Trauminhalt“ etc.- siehe weiter oben in diesem Posting).

Soviel vorerst zum Vorauszusetzenden politischen Handelns und seiner Personnages.

P.S.3.:

In seiner Arbeit zur Geburt der Biopolitik schreibt Michel Foucault, der Liberalismus westlicher Demokratien unterhält ein Verhältnis zur Herstellung und zur Zerstörung von Freiheit (cf. M. F., Die Geburt der Biopolitik. Geschichte der Gouvernementalität II, Frf. a. Main 2004, S. 98).

Die Herstellung der Freiheit beruht auf dem Kalkül von Sicherheit und Schutz. Die Machtökonomie liberaler Demokratien beruht auf dem Wechselspiel zwischen Freiheit, Sicherheit und Schutz vor gegenwärtigen oder medialpolitisch insinuierten Bedrohungen, Risiken und Gefahren.

Diese Bedrohungslage der Freiheiten kann hausgemacht sein oder äußeren Ursprungs sein. Nach gewissen Theorien politologischer Art bedarf es des Antagonismus zur Aufrechterhaltung einer Ordnung als Sinnanker. Differenzpolitik funktioniere nicht, so der Tenor. Zu den Triebkräften eines Liberalismus dieser Definition gehört die Panikmache boulevardesker Medien und anderer Erregungsmaschinen à la soziale Medien. Shitstorms etc. sind beliebte Instrumente gewisser Regierungen zur allgemeinen Verunsicherung und zur Erzeugung einer Kultur der Angst. Dazu bedient man sich besonders gern der sogenannten Flüchtlingswellen und –ströme. Diese bildhaften Kraftausdrücke funktionieren in den Gratismedien besonders effizient zur Spurung von PolitikerInnenverhalten. Der Rassismus bildete immer schon eine der tragenden Säulen dieser Art liberaler Demokratie bzw sogenannter liberaler Demokratie (cf. USA). Eine Folge dieser Kultur der Angst war der künstlich hochgehaltene Erregungszustand der Stammtischgemüter samt Funktionärsanhang mit folgerichtiger enormer Ausweitung von Verfahren der Kontrolle, der Beschränkung und des Zwangs, die allesamt das Gegenstück zu den Freiheiten bilden. Die Flüchtlinge und der medial aufgeheizte und hernach und im Vorhinein partei-politisch instrumentalisierte Rassismus via Integrationshysterie, Pauschalverdächtigungen junger ausländischer Männer und pauschal verdächtigte Religionsgemeinschaften sowie pauschalisierungsfähige Einzelattentate von Nichtinländern, also von „Fremden“ bilden die treibenden Kräfte dieser Politik der Angst und Unfreiheit. Und diese Politik soll vor allem der Zerstörung der europäischen Werte dienen und der Rückkehr zum sogenannten Nationalstaat mit Abschottung und kleiner Pfründenherrschaft und zugehöriger Hörigengefolgschaft mit sogenannter Volkskulturpflege und Intellektuellenfeindlichkeit gratis dazu.

Diese rechtspopulistische Politik folgt einer Logik der Zäune und einer Logik der Einzäunung mit allen Folgen wie Zensur, gröbster Einschränkung der Freiheit des kritischen Geistes und der Künste sowie genauer Festlegung von Grenzen der Bewegungsräume verschiedener Bevölkerungsgruppen (z. B. Roma, Sinti, Migranten, Flüchtlinge, Ausländer, Arbeitslose, Bildungsrechte, Frauenrechte, Polizeigewalt, Justiz, Gerichtsbarkeit etc., man schaue nur nach Polen, nach Ungarn, in die Türkei und anderswo). Es folgen wie immer in der Geschichte die Einschränkung der Bewegungsfreiheit, die Inhaftierung und die Deportation. Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit sind weiter verbreitete Phänomene als so mancher unter uns glauben mag.

Die Versuche der Abschottung und des Nichtsehenwollens werden die Probleme nicht lösen. Die zugelegte Hartherzigkeit auch nicht. Flüchtende Schutzsuchende und aus diversen Gründen migrierende Menschen wird es in großer Zahl weltweit weiterhin geben, soviel steht fest. Die Ursachen sind die wachsende Zahl gescheiterter Staaten und die daraus resultierenden gesetzlosen Warlord-Territorien. Schickanierung, Bedrohung, Ausraubung, Versklavung, Ermordung, Massenmorde, endlose Kriege zwischen diversen Gruppierungen, Hunger, Arbeitslosigkeit, Verfolgung, Vergewaltigung, Unterdrückung versuchter Eigenständigkeit, Gesetzlosigkeit, entfesselte Gewalt vollkommen willkürlich ausgeübt. All das führt zu vermehrter Flucht oder vermehrten Migrationsversuchen in ein besseres Leben anderswo, z. B. in Europa.

In großem Ausmaß handelt es sich um die Folgen fehlgeleiteter militärischer Unternehmungen seit Jahrzehnten und besonders in Afghanistan und dem Irak mit Unterstützung einer gierigen meist westlichen Rüstungsindustrie samt politisch unkontrollierter Konzernsöldner.

Die daraus folgende ansteigende Migration aus armen Ländern in reiche Länder bezeichnet die Zahl von 20 auf 60 Millionen in den Jahren 1960 – 2000. Dieser Anstieg dürfte in diesem Ausmaß anhalten bis sich vielleicht irgendwann die Wohlstandsniveaus angeglichen haben werden.

Seit Beginn der Moderne fliehen Menschen vor Kriegsgräueln und Despotien aller Arten und erhoffen sich Frieden und Wohlstand in Ländern anderer Völker. Für die Menschen in diesen anderen Ländern waren sie immer Fremde. Und viele, relativ viele Fremde lösen Ängste aus. So war es in Österreich und Deutschland auch 2015. Wobei zu sagen ist, ein nicht kleiner Teil dieser Bevölkerungen war sehr hilfsbereit und ist es zum Teil noch.

Viele vertrauten allerdings nicht ihrem Gewissen und ihren Gebensimpulsen, sondern ließen sich von den Panikmedien und den diese bedienenden rechten PolitikerInnen ins Bockshorn jagen und gegen „die Fremden“ aufhetzen. Die Fremdenfeindlichkeit wuchs und viele BürgerInnen wählten dann auch die sich als Sicherheitspartei gerierende rechtspopulistische FPÖ bzw den türkis bewegten fremdenfeindlichen Außenminister der ÖVP, Herrn Kurz, zum Bundeskanzler. Kurz an der Macht und schon begann die Politik der Streichung, Kürzung und Einengung, territorial wie finanziell. Die Deckelung der Mindestsicherung, die Kürzung der Grundversorgung, die Indexierung der Kinderbeihilfe, die beabsichtigte Einschränkung des Bewegungsraumes von im Asylverfahren befindlichen asylsuchenden Flüchtlingen auf ein Bundesland.

Das städtische Leben ist sicher nicht einfacher geworden und Teile der städtischen Bevölkerung in ärmeren Stadtvierteln bezeichnen die vermehrte Einwanderung als das größte Problem für die EU und für sich selbst. Sie sprechen von verstärktem Ressentiment und höheren Aggressionspotentialien. Subjektiv oder auch objektiv, wer will das messen können.

Das in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten entstandene sogenannte Prekariat fürchtet (teilweise zurecht!) um seine ohnehin schon geringen Besitzstände und die gefährdeten sozialen Positionen. Eine linke Politik könnte bessere Umverteilungsmechanismen schaffen. Unterstützt die Benachteiligten. Besteuert die Wohlhabenden. Viele würden sogar freiwillig mehr geben wollen. Wählt nicht rechts! Rechts war und ist immer gegen die Kleinen! Immer schon! Die Rechte schürt den Groll gegenüber Flüchtlingen und sogenannten Wirtschaftsmigranten. Die Rechte nützt die Angst um den möglichen Verlust des eigenen Einkommens und Auskommens zu ihren Gunsten und zu Ihrem Nachteil. Die Rechte ist nicht auf Ausgleich aus. Sie ist immer unfair neoliberal und spricht von Leistungsträgern. Nicht jeder kann dieser Leistungsdefinition entsprechen. Leben ist vielfältiger. Leistung ist nur eine Dimension und eine Dimension führt nicht zu einer ausgeglichenen politischen Räumlichkeit, sondern zum sozialen gesellschaftlichen Tod, zum Kältetod. Auch der menschlichen Regungen und Gefühle. Kurz zum Faschismus. Letztlich immer.

Die Politik der Abschottung, die Politik der Einzäunung und Mauern führt nur in die weitere Verschärfung der Haßpotentiale auf allen Seiten. Es ginge und geht vielmehr um die Verbesserung der Lebensumstände und die dafür notwendige möglichst ungestörte individuelle und gesamtgesellschaftliche Kommunikation und einen plausiblen Problemlösungsoptimismus mit guten menschlich angemessenen Realverbesserungen abseits aller Verzerrungen der Realitäten durch Hetze und Panikmodus.

Der Kontakt mit den anderen ist unausweichlich. Ein Planet. Eine Menschheit. Eine Herausforderung. Nicht Spaltung! Vereinigung. Empathie. Hilfe. Auf den Anderen achtgeben.

Gabe ohne Ökonomik. Geben in derselben(!?) Zeit.

Liebe. Libido. Sexualökonomie. Subjektwerdung. Bildung. Geben als Gabe.

Marcel Mauss bezeichnet den Wahnsinn der Gabe als Geben ohne Ökonomie des erwartbaren Tauschens von. Ich denke, er meint den Akt des Gebens mehr als die Gabe als Ding. Das, was zurückkommt, falls etwas zurückkommt(!), kann nicht erwartet werden und soll auch nicht erwartbar sein. Das Geben als Gabe als ein Nehmen ohne Adresse für ein Tauschgeschäft. Der Wahnsinn des Gebens und Nehmens, – des Nehmens als Geben und des Gebens als Nehmen ohne Rückkehr.

Wenn möglich. Lieben.

Das Nehmen und das Geben. Eine kulturelle Transformation. Zugrundeliegende „kommunizierende Gefäße“, – die Subjekte. Ausgangslagen: Subjektbildungsprozesse. Konfigurationen. Transformationen. Disseminationen (cf. weiter oben Gesagtes!).

Zum „vorläufigen“ Enden der philosophischen Praxis und zur kommenden (?) Transformation des Menschenrechts auf Asyl und den Problemen der Migrationspolitiken politologisch formuliert hindurchgehend durch die politische Philosophie folgendes:

Die Gabe als Machtinstrument. Nur, wer ökonomisch kalkulierend gibt, herrscht. Die Macht der Produktion. Das Eigentum an den Produktionsmitteln. Die Macht-Besessenen. Und die Krise der globalen und europäischen Asyl- und Migrationspolitik. Die Lippenbekenntnisse zu einer „Europäisierung“ des „Migrationsproblems“ bei gleichzeitiger Weigerung, die daraus resultierenden Pflichten für das jeweils eigene Land zu akzeptieren.

Die deutsche Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel ist in diesen Tagen zu ihrer vielleicht letzten einschlägigen Mission unterwegs, um die europäischen Regierungen auf ihre Linie zu bringen. Stichworte sind die Sicherung der europäischen Außengrenzen, die Verteilung der Flüchtlinge einem Schlüssel gemäß im Inneren der EU und die Finanzierung und vertragliche Bindung vor allem afrikanischer Staaten zur Errichtung von Camps außerhalb der EU.

Kein Wort zu den eigentlichen Ursachen der globalen Flucht- und Migrationsbewegungen und deren Bekämpfung.

Als da wären:

a) die wachsende ökonomische Ungleichheit als Folge einer verfehlten neoliberalen Wirtschaftspolitik der letzten vier Jahrzehnte (cf. Manfred Nowak, Human Rights or Global Capitalism. The Limits of Privatization, Pennsylvania Press, Pittsburgh 2017 und ders., Responsibility to Protect. Is International Law Moving from Hobbes to Locke?, in: Gerhard Hafner u.a., Hg., Völkerrecht und die Dynamik der Menschenrechte, Wien 2012, S. 342-369).

b) die Rüstungsindustrie und deren gigantische Waffen- und noch wichtiger fast Munitionslieferungen an terroristische Gruppen und kriegsführende Parteiungen und Staaten mit Bürgerkriegen und Warlords.

c) = b) der russische Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine, die bewaffneten Konflikte und der Terrorismus im Nahen Osten und in Afrika.

d) der Klimawandel und die Folgen als Konsequenz aller möglichen menschlichen Fehlentscheidungen, Fehlhandlungen, Fehlverhaltensweisen und Fehldenkungsarten soll hier jetzt nur mal kurz Erwähnung finden. In der Zukunft vielleicht der größte Fall unter den Kriegsursachen und darausfolgenden Flucht- und Migrationsbewegungen.

Die vier großen Krisenherde der Welt, die die meisten Flüchtlinge produzieren(!), sind in der Ukraine, sind in Syrien (Assad, IS und al-Nusra Front), sind in Somalia (Shabab-Milizen) und im fast vergessenen Sudan.

Die 2005 von den Vereinten Nationen verabschiedete Doktrin der Responsibility to Protect (R2P) zum Schutz der Bevölkerung gegen schwere und systematische Verletzungen der Menschenrechte (Völkermord, ethnische Säuberungen, Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit und Kriegsverbrechen) hätte in Syrien zur Anwendung kommen müssen, wenn der Sicherheitsrat nicht durch das Veto Rußlands und Chinas blockiert gewesen wäre. Der Menschenrechtsrat und die Generalversammlung der UNO haben wiederholt auf diese Verantwortung hingewiesen.

Mit dieser Struktur sind die Vereinten Nationen eine globale Institution, ein Völkerechtssubjekt mit fallender Anerkennung (von den Bevölkerungen dieser Erde betrachtet mit Mißtrauen, wenig Respekt und geringem Ansehen bedacht) und können so die Aufgabe der Friedenssicherung als ihre Kernaufgabe nicht wahrnehmen.

Die Eigeninteressen der Großmächte gehen weit vor den Menschenrechten und dem Schutz gegen Menschenrechtsverletzungen.

Ist das der bleibende Zustand, gehen die Wachstumsraten der globalen Migrations- und Fluchtbewegungen weiter nach oben. So die Aussichten auf das Flüchten und die Fluchten der Migrationspolitiken.

Weiter oben sprach ich von dem Anderen als den Fremden und zitierte 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 zwei 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 psa 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.

Ich erinnere an das „Fremdeln“ des Kindes, – eine intrapsychische Wahrnehmung der Nicht-Identität des Fremden mit dem Erinnerungsbild der grad im Moment abwesenden Bezugsperson (immer noch häufig und in erster Linie die Mutter, aber nicht notwendigerweise!).

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.

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.

Schon Nietzsche sprach seinerzeit von „Schlechtweggekommenen“ und meinte damit vor allem die Antisemiten (cf. Nietzsches Nachlaß).

Später dann führte Hitlers Machtübernahme zu einer wahren nationalen Selbstaufblähung und jeder dieser vorhin von Nietzsche so genannten „Schlechtweggekommenen“ erfuhr dadurch seine „eigene“ Selbstaufblähung.

Seine Stabilisierung und Sozialisierung als nationalsozialistischer >Anti-Sozialer<, vor allem aber Antisemit. In der primären Sozialisation vielfach Personen mit narzißtischen Wunden und Beeinträchtigungen der Selbstwertregulation. In Belastungssituationen wie z. B. in der Pubertät häufig beladen mit Minderwertigkeitsgefühlen infolge nicht vorhanden gewesener Anerkennung etc., Hoffnungslosigkeit, Demotiviertheit und Leere-Gefühlen.

Kaum Bindungsfähigkeit an unmittelbar vorhandene Menschen. Identifikationsfehlschläge mit entfernten, sogenannten starken Persönlichkeiten. Andere werden idealisiert oder abgewertet. Fremde werden fast immer abgewertet, vor allem „fremd“ Aussehende.

Autoritäre oder sogar totalitäre Doktrinen und Ideologien verfangen bei diesen Personen oft über Nacht (cf. Jugendliche in Europa und der IS in den letzten Jahren).

Gruppenkohäsion kann sehr stark bindend wirken im Falle einer Führergestalt, die alle in der Gruppe als vorbildlich ansehen und der sie sich alle gemeinsam unterwerfen und so quasi einen Bund stiften.

Adornos und anderer Studie zur autoritären Persönlichkeit ist vielen von uns bekannt. Ich brauche das hier nicht näher ausführen, bloß die beinahe Binsenwahrheit auszusprechen bzw anzusprechen, nämlich daß die innerfamiliären Sozialisationsprozesse der kleinbürgerlichen Familie ausschlaggebend seien für die Bildung des Charakters und besonders des autoritären Charakters durch fehlende emotionale Wärme zu den Bezugspersonen, meist den Eltern, sowie gewaltsam gelöste Krisen und Konflikte durch charakterschwache Väterfiguren, in vielen Fällen auch der Näheentzug durch Abwesenheit mindestens einer Hauptbezugsperson, – die des Vaters in den meisten Fällen.

„Autoritätsgebundene Charaktere, Personen, denen unter dem Druck von Kindheitserlebnissen die Kristallisation eines autonomen Ichs mißlang, neigen besonders zu totalitären Ideologien“ (Adorno 1954).

Sehr häufig erfuhren diese Jugendlichen in ihrer Sozialisation Gewalt und sexualisierte Gewalt. Soziale Ohnmacht wird in Macht und Gewalt gegen andere verkehrt. Diesen so genannten „Prügelknabenmechanismus“ kriegen fast nur die Schwächeren zu spüren. Es richtet sich in solchen Gruppen auch sehr oft gegen Ausländer. Selbsthaß wird zum Fremdhaß und endet oft in einer ekstatischen Gewaltorgie mit vielen Fußtritten auf schon am Boden Liegende. Keine Empathie. Kein Vorstellungsvermögen über mögliches Leid des Anderen. Die Haudraufkomödie nicht selten als reale Tragödie. Angeheizt und angeleitet auch oft durch einschlägige Verfilmungen solcher Gewaltausbrüche. Unreflektiert angeschaut und übernommen.

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.

Wie man da wieder zurückfinden könnte zu einem „normalen“ Leben?

Ein schwieriger Weg. Gewiß!

Aber gewisse Therapien beschreiben die Möglichkeiten in Form vieler Gespräche, daß es darauf ankäme, den „Patienten“ dorthin zu führen, wo dieser irgendwann in die Lage kommen könnte, seine eigene Unvollkommenheit zu bejahen und sich selbst wie den anderen nicht aus Gründen der medienunterfütterten, herbeiphantasierten Vollkommenheit zu lieben, sondern aus einer Anerkenntnis realer und real zu erlebender Unvollkommenheit zu mögen lernen und ihn schließlich sogar zu lieben lernen imstande wäre.

Den Anderen lieben lernen wollen und schließlich vielleicht auch einmal lieben können und so in eine echte Partnerschaft hineinwachsen können, – das müßte den Weg weg von der Fremdenfeindlichkeit und der Gewaltwelt hin zu einem Friedensweg mit sich selbst und damit zu einem Anderen hin ermöglichen können. Mit Sicherheit ein langer, schwierig zu gehender Weg, aber ein Weg!

Ich selbst bin mir ein Fremder! Das wäre die richtige Punktlandung in diesem Gelände. Wie Freud 1933 sagte: „Wir sind alle Ausländer!“.

Das eigene „innere Ausland“ (Freud) akzeptieren können und die eigene Fremdheit!

Die Gabe zu lieben! Die Gabe zu geben. Geben ohne ökonomisches Kalkül. Lieben. Liebe geben.

Jetzt schließe ich aber schnell und abrupt!, … ich spreche beinahe schon wie der Papst … haha

Der Humor hat uns wieder! Der wohl einzige gewinnende „Feind“ des Furor.

Der Humor macht den Menschen zum Menschen.

Gegenwartsphilosophie

………………………………… Philosophische Praxis …………………………..

Ein paar Worte als Wörter eines kleinen Vorworts als Nachwort dieser Blogkomposition zu einer Versuchsanlage von Vergegenwärtigung von Präsenz einer Gegenwartsphilosophie als philosophischer Praxis von heute (2018 vv.ff.) Gegenwart Philosophie Der Schock der Gegenwart.

Gegenwart kann schockieren, kann schockierend sein, kann schockierend werden in der Folge von Aufklärung, Ent-täuschung(!), Wahrheit, wahr sein(!).

Ich hielt mich und ich halte mich von den akademischen Zwängen meiner Zeit fern. Warum? Um mich entwickeln, – mich entfalten zu können! Im deutschsprachigen Raum ein Muß für persönliche, individuelle (vielleicht singuläre!) Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten. Die Trägheit gerät hier nur allzuoft zur Trögheit.

Meine Diagnose: Denkfäulnis im Plapperstil. In meiner avancierten ökonomischen Wahrnehmung von Welt geht es in Wahrheit immer um die Unterscheidung zwischen der unüberschreitbaren und der überschreitbaren Grenze von und zu etwas.

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

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

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

Jeder Satz ein Sprung!

Das gemeine Denken springt im gewohnten Rhythmus von durch Wiederholung, unreflektierter Wiederholung, erzeugten Indexwörtern. Was sich dabei entfalten kann, dürfte eben eher nur das Geringstmögliche sein.

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

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

Der Traum(!) von einer konfliktfreien Welt(?!) als Wahn(!?) einer nachträglichen Struktur der Dekonstruktion!!!

Begehren und Verantwortung!

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

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Adventure Philosophy!

Philosophische Praxis

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

philosophical practices face à face

Gerhard Kaučić,

b. 1959, Philosopher, Writer, 66, 2025

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON II
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON III
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON I
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON IV
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON V
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Mit dem fünften Band von ‚S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns‘ erscheint ein weiterer Text in der Reihe zur Autobiographie des Agenten Sem. Sem, Privatdetektiv, Inspektor, Geheimagent, ist Akteur im System Sprache. Die Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas ist sein Medium und auszuspionierendes geheimdienstliches Operationsfeld. Das „Echelon-Projekt“ repräsentiert als Ergebnis die Matrix eines großen Lauschangriffs auf das Humanum schlechthin: Identität, Körper, Reproduktion, Sexualität, Macht, Gewalt, Repräsentation, Sprache, Semiotik, Gedächtnis, Wissen, Archiv. Zugleich ist dieser Text vielleicht die Erfüllung der Forderung von Helmut Heissenbüttel nach einer Literatur für intellektuelle LeserInnen und eine Liebeserklärung an Jacques Derrida.

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

In English:

CORONA WHEELING CROWNING

Covidity Virality Virtuality Mediality Metahumanoidity ?!

The leap. Leaving the book. The production, the emancipation, the liberation of writing.

……………………. Semeion Aoristicon oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns …………………..

……. THE SENTENCE ………. the jump ……… the set ……. the leap o f …. The LEAVING of

the BOOK ……….. ?!

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

I ask if Sem VI is not my / our blog composition !?!

I ask (me / us) if Sem VII is not my / our blog.

I ask if my/our blog will not be Sem VI and Sem VII?

And shall be!

Or must be?

Already is, will be or even must be and will have to be !?!

The set. The leaving of the book.

The production, the emancipation, the liberation of the writing.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Semeion Aoristicon or to the autobiography of Sem Schauns

……. THE SET …….. THE LEAVING OF THE BOOK …….. !?

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

Psychoanalyse, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, das Unbewußte

Die Sprache, das Sprechen, das Unbewußte (Ubw)

Der Satz und die Philosophie

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

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

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

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

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

Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement

…around the clock …around the world…

GESPRÄCHE sind EREIGNISSE als TEXT

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

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

Cf. list of publications at: https://scholar.google.at/citations?user=wNUSN64AAAAJ&hl=de

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Projekte / Projects (1989 – 2025 ff.) 36 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Wien GK & ALH

Mehr dazu siehe meinen Teaser und meinen Footer sowie die übrigen Postings in diesem Blog! (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)

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

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

PP-2025-03

The concept of freedom and its freedoms

03/13/2025 admin

On the concept and comprehensibility of freedom

Gerhard Kaučić

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

Head of a Philosophical Practice in Vienna (Austria) since 1989

Anna Lydia Huber

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

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

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

The concept of freedom and its freedoms

On the concept and comprehensibility of freedom

We are not primarily concerned with the question of “free” will. This metaphysical approach fails in all discourse alleys due to the reality of every present and present-ness. Constitutional, political, sociological, psychoanalytical. So-called free will can only ever be understood within the certain framework conditions of politics and economics.

Under transparent, constitutional and democratic conditions, we are thus able to recognize to some extent the extent of our subjectively perceived freedom and then define our so-called scope for action in relation to our economic circumstances.

Within this space of reality and cognition, we could ideally shape our lives according to our reason and rationality in accordance with our will as an appropriately free will (to the survival situation!). However, the degree of our subjectively diverse reasonableness repeatedly places a multitude of obstacles and difficulties in the way of all of us (towards each other and among ourselves). Meeting and possibly overcoming these requires all our strength.

The (in the European-influenced) philosophical discourses and trains of thought on “free will”, which are usually not grounded in reality in the philosophical traditions and legacies (up to the present day), must be reminded of Kant, that the freedom in question would have to prove itself in “objective reality” (Kant) and in the successful individual case is even necessary as the reason and first prerequisite for the existence of philosophy itself.

A free philosophy, i.e. a philosophy that realizes itself according to the respective singular free will, always has as a prerequisite a democracy in the coming (Derrida), a democracy in development and determination for the better in the sense of freedom under a constitutional democratic framework. The same applies to literature in any form of performance. Including, of course, the arts, the sciences, journalism, the speech of all.

In the course of history, or rather in the course of the often enough eruptive changes in human living conditions, there have always been smaller, more or less randomly occurring conditions of freedom (free from directly oppressive rule, free from economically oppressive poverty) in which individuals were able to surrender to thinking, to philosophizing thinking.

Examples of spaces of a not yet tangible, not yet visible democracy in the making. Even if only conceivable and recognizable in the distant future. Often enough, such lives ended through forced killing or lifelong survival. Examples of this: Socrates, Boethius, Thomas More, Rousseau, Marx, …

Freedom and crisis. A crisis of freedom.

A world of freedom! ? Which one?

Here are some crumbs towards a philosophical practice and from one of these some notes, digressions and crumbs on the possible rethinking and thinking of a “different” political theory and practice.

Without so-called free exchange on the market, our current economic system would be inconceivable.

All producers and consumers meet as free and equal and make the best decisions for them in their own specific interest in realizing their individual interests.

According to the classical school of economics, the free meeting of supply and demand on the market simultaneously serves society’s interest in the best possible supply of goods.

According to Adam Smith, this is the so-called “invisible hand” of the market.

Does this “invisible hand” really exist?

We think no. This trade relationalism is ideology, attempted mythology and also a bit of “dumbing down of the people” (?!)

The orientation towards market-specific logics of action, more or less hidden logics of exploitation and countless disparities has become more and more dominant in the course of the history of political as well as economic power and even if today Donald J. Trump has canceled the Pacific trade agreement TPP and the transatlantic free trade agreement TTIPP (officially: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) is no longer being negotiated for the time being, the “logic”(!?) of the “free market economy” will continue to be a cornerstone of the Western promise of freedom – personal freedom and individuality. With all the democratic values of Western democracies.

That’s no small amount.

But I always like to ask for whom?

Undoubtedly for a relatively large number of people in these countries with democracy and the rule of law. I’m happy to admit that. And that is important and should not be minimized. But the many thousands and millions of people who are not included here in these Western countries, even in the much-discussed Germany! What about them! Our politicians are quick to ignore them and most of us are quick to look the other way.

Little thought is given to it. And that pleases and benefits the political far right and plays with it in the social and political arena. The right is growing. Relative poverty remains and is even growing considerably here and there. In France, for example. The redistribution machine distributes upwards!!!

This feeds the fascists and racism just like the wealth multipliers everywhere. Globally. The number of billionaires worldwide is increasing by almost 20% every year!

At the same time, the rapidly increasing destruction of life resources is taking place globally. Land is becoming scarce here and there due to land grabbing. Water is becoming extremely polluted everywhere and our corporations are producing in non-European countries in a way that is not permitted in Europe, plundering states and entire societies and destroying their future basis for life and survival.

Flight movements due to wars of scarcity, power instabilities with the most atrocious excesses and no chance of improvement in this life.

And in Europe, the exploiters of the feeling of foreignness and producers of racism of all kinds towards immigrants.

So-called “democracies of freedom, equality and fraternity” are wavering and walling themselves in. The danger of right-wing populism mutating into fascism is growing and growing until the tipping point is reached. And an end to individual freedoms and the rule of law along with human rights (see Slovakia, Hungary, Georgian, Turkey, Russia,… – and: USA!(?) … – and Israel! (?) ).

Where is the freedom for all! And above all which ones?

Social freedom, economic freedom, political freedom, freedom of expression, …

Where do they exist and for whom? And for how long!

For the Roma in Slovakia or the Czech Republic? For the impoverished in Greece? For the increasingly impoverished (“Hartz IV-ers”) in Germany! For the terrorized and bombed-out Syrians? For the imprisoned or otherwise harassed and threatened political opposition thinkers in Turkey? For the war-torn(!) people in Ukraine? In Gaza? In Israel? And! and! and!

The crisis of neoliberal capitalism?

The global financial crisis caused billions and trillions in losses. Mass incomes fell, jobs were lost in large numbers, entire sectors of industry disappeared.

At the same time, sensational publications and research on climate change . The living conditions of millions of people are under threat. And everywhere and again and again, on both a small and large scale, a simple-minded or even completely ignorant policy. Just look at Germany and the neglect of the rail infrastructure for years, even decades. And. And. And.

The capitalist mode of production and consumption !!! The production and consumption model in the capitalist metropolises!!!

According to Karl Marx, interest-bearing capital is “the mother of all crazy forms” (MEW 25, 483).

Keywords: Rising mass consumption! Increasing mass consumption!!! Of limited land areas and raw materials!!!

Monocultures! Species extinction! Biodiversity! Hunger! System collapse!? Or radical cure including redirection and radical change of the global economic geography!!!????

Regulation of capitalism – a way out or a wooden path or an aporia?

What is economic freedom?

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

Does economic freedom satisfy basic needs that could be the prerequisite for being able to participate in cultural and political developments?

Milton Friedman is not a supporter of John Dewey’s democratic ideals. He wants the freedom of choice and by this he means the freedom to shop, i.e. to spend money (he only means those who have some!). Friedman speaks of a freedom beyond state control, i.e. of an “economic landscape” in which only and really only private forces (should) have the say. Freedom as economy and life beyond state and thus social (even communal!) control! (cf. the billionaires Thiel, Musk and others)

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

The freedom to charge as much money for private schools and universities as the so-called “market” allows. In other words, the maximum allowed!

Profit maximization everywhere!!! Whether school. Whether prison. Whether career choice. Whether sperm bank.

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

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

And – the freedom to shop(!) also includes the opportunity to buy and sell other people’s livelihoods!!!

This means that the capital markets are in charge. Wall Street. They alone decide whether a company should continue to operate, where it should be able to develop, or whether it should be allowed to go under and closed down without further ado! Keyword: Rust Belt! Reagan. Thatcher. Bush. There is no industrial policy any more. Trade unions have to be toothless, if at all. No more voice. Consumers? Uninteresting. The environment! A lie of the left! See Trump, Bannon etc.

Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs call the shots. Criticism of this is unwelcome. Many are of this opinion. They support the freedom to shop!

Freedom rules where money rules !!! To paraphrase Frank Stronach, a well-known billionaire in Austria, “he who has the gold makes the rules”!

Keynes‚ theories must be reanimated. The leading role of the democratic state and higher public spending financed by a different tax policy (much higher taxation of wealth, machine tax, financial transaction taxes, Yanis Varoufakis‚ “general basic dividend”, see Der Standard Sat./Sun, March 4/5, 2017, “Maschinen, Roboter und andere Steuerpflichtige”, in: Der Standard “Kommentar der Anderen”, p. 39 etc.) to increase distributive justice on a global scale, – as a result, increased opportunities for participation in the political process for as many as possible and perhaps the chance to preserve and protect the life of the remaining species, – also and especially for the benefit of us all !!!! ( Read also: Thomas Piketty: Das Kapital im 21. Jahrhundert. C.H. Beck Verlag 2014 and Stephan Schulmeister: Der Weg zur Prosperität. EcoWin publishing house 2018 )

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

A great many philosophical practices will still be needed. … Hm! Yes, as I said, many philosophical practices will still be necessary.. Political theories and policies are all based on the axioms and values of philosophical provenances.

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

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

And: As always, we have too little time!

Every sentence has too little time. Every sentence displaces by jumping. It displaces many other possible and necessary (!) sentences (for more, see my YouTube video on “The sentence”).

Every sentence, every word, every code drives its essence and its mischief in incommunicability!

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

Every sentence in every setting and every session (including those in a PP/philosophical practice).

I should always have the opportunity to explain all the psychoanalytic, economic, political and juridical implications of the 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 contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Together with the processes of history, we must think the singularity.

((( Additional remark on the following “Mundus Corpus” as an insertion and grafting:

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

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

In my grammatological philosophical practice, we do not formulate about something, not about texts (what is said / not said / thought / interpreted / written / drawn / filmed / meant / mediatized / realia of any kind) // (in relation and reference to supposed truths of reality), but we process as precisely as possible as readers of a text passage by reading it and subsequently analyzing the concrete (! ) ( and only these! ) linguistic units and perpetual incessant interrelation (!) of what is analyzed and its decoding by deconstructing as many (!) implications, references, (un)thoughtfulnesses and the thinking of the trace ( cf. teaser on grammatology and the trace:

“The trace, in which the relationship to the other emerges, expresses its possibility in the entire realm of being, which metaphysics has determined as present-being from the hidden movement of the trace.

It is necessary to think the trace before the existing. …“ Op. cit., Jacques Derrida: Grammatology, pp. 81-88, germ. ed. ).

And all of this almost in the form of “simultaneity” (!), which can almost be grasped locally – that is, in the form of maximum attention to the text currently(!) being read and in question.

After all, in a fairly and appropriate actuality and freshness of the respective now-time and as now-me (!), – that is, a bold and courageous kind of acute (!) in the time of a now and now and now as well as in the formatting of a space of the desired, ( perhaps “dreamed”! ), and as realistically at first unthought-of presence of I and me.

“face à face” )))

MUNDUS CORPUS

“The Sense of the World” (Jean-Luc Nancy)

“Responsibility of the Sense” ( in: J.-L. Nancy, Das nackte Denken, Zurich, Berlin 2014, pp. 201-213 )

“Corpus” ( cf.!, read!,- absolutely !: J. – L. Nancy ! )

“This thinking is maddening. … the repulsion of the world is the world. Such is the world of bodies. It has in itself this disarticulation, this inarticulation of the corpus.” (Corpus, p. 94) !!! Violence and the body !!! Violence and impossible thinking !!! Body-speaking !!! Touching !!! Madness !!! Delusion !!! Sense !!! Paranoia ???

“The Primacy of the Same or Narcissism” (Emmanuel Lévinas: The Trace of the Other, p. 167, p. 217, germ. ed.). “The senseless suffering” (hes., – in: Between us. Mch. 1995, p. 117ff., germ. ed.). “Touch anxiety” as the cause of the lack of a consciousness of plurality and otherness (Antje Kapust: Berührung ohne Berührung. Mch. 1999, germ. ed.).

For something to make sense, I have to be able to acquire it. To be able to acquire it through iterability. I need repetition (!). I have to learn to distinguish. I must be able to recognize it. I must be able to identify it. Appropriation processes are educational processes! Something only makes sense under this condition. I do not determine the meaning. I only desire it. I strive for what I am able to recognize. I need perspectives!

I need perspectives for a limited appropriation. I must be able to appropriate meaning and thus a conscious existence in relation to others.

In other words, based on Heidegger’s Being and Time, I must be able to live my “Being to Death”(!) as full of meaning as possible (cf. my blog post on “Charlie Hebdo”) and consciously and creatively.

A life full of meaningful moments! (cf.: John Dewey, Experience and Nature)

Deconstruction is permanently engaged in the struggle to limit violence, a violence that is inseparable from the discourse of human rights.

( see “Teaser” Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff. on the question of deconstruction, on the question: What is deconstruction? What “is” deconstruction. On the question: What is “here” deconstruction ?, – and how does deconstruction happen, how does deconstruction occur, what does the deconstructing practice do, compare blog post: “POÉSIE ENGAGÉE Sprachruf Rufsprache https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2015/02/poesie-engagee-sprachruf-rufsprache.html?m=1

Ingenuity Invention” )

Deconstruction and/or invention and/or intervention.

Dekonstruktion und/als Invention und/als Intervention.

ΜΗΔΕΙΣ AΨYXOΛOΓIKOΣ EIΣITΩ

Medeis apsychologikos eisito

Let no one unversed in „psychoanalysis“ enter here

ΜΗΔΕΙΣ ΑΓΡΑΜΜATIKÓΣ EIΣITΩ

Medeis agrammatikos eisito

Let no one unversed in „grammatology“ enter here

ΜΗΔΕΙΣ AΦPENÓ-ΠΛHKTOΣ EIΣITΩ

Medeis aphrenoplektos eisito

Niemand ( m / f / o ), der nicht „leidenschaftlich“ ist, sollte Eintritt suchen !

No „passion“ ( cf. Nietzsche ! Rousseau, Freud, Artaud, Derrida ! ) no entree !

(( Cf. Teaser !!! Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff. ))

ΜΗΔΕΙΣ AΨYXOΛOΓIKOΣ EIΣITΩ

Medeis apsychologikos eisito

Let no one unversed in „psychoanalysis“ enter here

ΜΗΔΕΙΣ ΑΓΡΑΜΜATIKÓΣ EIΣITΩ

Medeis agrammatikos eisito

Let no one unversed in „grammatology“ enter here

P A S S I O N / passion / passages / phrenoplekt / patheticus / passionate / emotional contactions / empathy / trust / pathos / emotion / movement / motion / touching, Jacques Derrida ( „So this text has several ages. From one sentence to another it sometimes jumps for years. I could have played a game with the reader and marked the layers of an archive in colour.“ cf. quotation from „Preface“ in: Jacques Derrida: Touching/Berühren, Jean-Luc Nancy p. 6 )
:
:
I play this game as desire and necessity and as desire need:

I

ONE PERHAPS ! ALSO ! Almost ! GREAT ! LAUGHABLE ! „GESTURE“ !! ONE about TIME OF YEAR ! AND PASSIONATE !! READERS
A reader who has been faithful and passionate for decades!

see/look/reflect teasers (of the blog) and its color mark(s) color mark(s) color mark(s) color mark(s)color mark(s) color mark(s) color mark(s) color mark(s) color mark(s) color mark(s) color mark(s) color mark(s) color mark(s) color mark(s)!

(( small instruction / Hint(!):

The „Book of Kells„, Wittenwilers „Ring“ about, fine arts, „holy“(!) writings, medieval rare splendor copies of „Book“(!), compositions, language(s) / metaphors like sun>light>illumination>enlightenment etc.., Architecture (facades and plans), Geographical maps, globes, corrected school notebooks, shopping lists, stage directions, margin notes, secret files, confidential files, blackened files(!), >>> Arno Schmidt „Zettels Traum„(!), Lawrence Sterne „Tristram Shandy“(!), „Rom Blicke“(R. D. Brinkmann), Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic „/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/“(!!!) etc. et cetera !

All these and even more are objects, realities with reference surplus, significant and semantic surpluses/added values/added value. Additional markings as second and third level of contexts and denotation potentials. Color marking! Color markings!

Double and doubling reading! Cf. the side lines at the beginning of Heinrich Wittenwilers „Ring“. The reading including the color lines as interpretations of the second level enables whole text logic cancellations across and contrary to the first simple recording of meaning and sense of the first reading!!!

There is no literal sense/(meaning!) – those who think this succumb to the power of habit and thus to their own reading laziness.

Everything that appeals to you(!) should be read at least seven times !!!
Please always pay attention to the colour markings! Especially the markings in the teaser! An additional interpretation level, deconstruction level and reading link! ))
:
:
„Le sens du monde“ (J.-L. Nancy)

The meaning of the world

The senses of the world

Sense Interlacements Incommunicability

Philosophical practice the enigmatic and disturbing necessity

Of communication

Grammatological Philosophical Practice the Enigmatic Necessity

of communication

!!! cf. first and foremost to the word „communication“ and to the meaning and situation in the semantic field of communication Jacques Derrida’s „signature event context“ , – in: Randgänge der Philosophie. Vienna 1988, p. 291ff. (german edition) !!!

Short Inductio on Philosophical Practice with Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil.) and Anna Lydia Huber (MSc), born ’59 Conversation, Discourse, Deconstruction

Dissertation/Doctoral thesis Gerhard Kaučić Paris Lodron University Salzburg 1986

Gerhard Kaučić: Grammatotechnè as grammatology of the “Herzgewächse” or of incommunicability. Dissertation Salzburg 1986.

https://permalink.obvsg.at/AC02072855 On Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction and Hans Wollschläger’s “Herzgewächse” (novel), deconstruction of the problematic nature of communication including “illegibility” / “illisibility” (R Barthes, Hamacher, Paul de Man) … 1986

cf.:

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2018/02/grammatotechne-als-grammatologie-der.html

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2018/02/grammatotechne-als-grammatologie-der.html?m=1

Url, pdf, Phil. Diss. Gerhard Kaučić, Salzburg 1986

https://kaucic-huber.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Diss.1986_G.Kaucic_Grammatotechne_als_Gr.pdf

Url pdf Diss. G. Kaucic 1986 on “Internet Archive Wayback Machine”:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180225025656/https://kaucic-huber.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Diss.1986_G.Kaucic_Grammatotechne_als_Gr.pdf

The trace of something must be thought before the existing! (Derrida)

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

” the secret of the communicative in the constantly

threatening incommunicability”

Performativity / Performativity ! ( J. Derrida, “Signature, Event, Context” / J. Butler, “Excitable Speech. A Politics of the Performative” / E. Fischer-Lichte, ‘Aesthetics of the Performative’)

Escaping the “ commented ‘ of the ’commentary”!

( cf.: § Para-Graphie : K o m m e n t a r , – in: Gerhard Kaučić: Grammatotechnè als Grammatologie der “HERZGEWÄCHSE” oder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986, pp. 46-71., german ed. )

Parekbase, Parabase (Schlegel, Barthes, Derrida, Cončić-Kaučić) !

Escape the reduction, the falsification, the humiliation, the castration of the “text” by the “commentary”!

The “commentary” always restricts the “text”!

Performanz / Performance !

Text politics !

Text performance / repetition / iterability / marking !

Dissemination / Idiom ! Performativity !

( cf.: § Para-Graphie : D i s s e m i n a t i o n, – in: Gerhard Kaučić: Grammatotechnè als Grammatologie der “HERZGEWÄCHSE” oder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986, pp. 71-74., german ed. )

Text music / text image / coloratura / voice / texture !

Text configuration

What is information? What is a sentence? What is a question? What determines a question?

Philosophical practice as overcoming fear! The eternal conflict with authority as a permanently deconstructive attempt at communication – the secret of the communicative in the constantly threatening incommunicability. Our task is to thwart the discourses of power, of domination, of authority – and every discourse implies the exercise of power! – by analyzing and deconstructing the ideologems and their codes.

Every sentence has too little time. Every sentence displaces by jumping. It displaces many other possible and necessary (!) sentences (for more see my/our YouTube video on “The sentence”).

Every sentence, every word, every code drives its being and its mischief in incommunicability!

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

Every sentence in every setting and every session (including those in a PP/philosophical practice).

I should/we should always have the opportunity to explain all the psychoanalytic, economic, political and juridical implications of the 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!

Philosophical practice

the enigmatic and disturbing necessity

of communication

undecidability ? Incommunicability ?

Emergence of the self! Markings!

S e l f s t – R e f l e c t i v i t y

Reflectivity

Self-reflectivity

Gerhard Kaučić, “§ ParaGraphie : Différance/D i f f e r ä n z”, – in: G. K.: Grammatotechne als Grammatologie der HERZGEWÄCHSE oder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986, pp. 74-84. (germ. ed.)

and esp:

J. Derrida, La différance, – in: “Randgänge der Philosophie”. Vienna 1988 (Passagen Verlag), pp. 29-52. (germ. ed.)

What and how would be an appropriate thinking practice today

In what >is<(!) philosophy conceivable today and through what or from where is that which we mean differently by philosophy to be practiced.

The term(!) différance questions the human being in a certain sense and thereby draws the history of life in general.

Once again to humanism as logocentrism or phonologocentrism.

Derrida shows that the traditionally hierarchical arrangement of the two components of language must be deconstructed. Right up to modern linguistics, the ideal meaning of a sign, called s i g n i f i c a t (the conception), is placed above the material carrier of the meaning, called s i g n i f i c a n t (the sound or written image). An attempt is always made to align the external signifier, the writing, with a transcendental signified.

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

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Adventure Philosophy!

Philosophische Praxis

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

philosophical practices face à face

Gerhard Kaučić,

b. 1959, Philosopher, Writer, 66, 2025

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON II
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON III
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON I
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON IV
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON V
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

In English:

CORONA WHEELING CROWNING

Covidity Virality Virtuality Mediality Metahumanoidity ?!

The leap. Leaving the book. The production, the emancipation, the liberation of writing.

……………………. Semeion Aoristicon oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns …………………..

……. THE SENTENCE ………. the jump ……… the set ……. the leap o f …. The LEAVING of

the BOOK ……….. ?!

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

I ask if Sem VI is not my / our blog composition !?!

I ask (me / us) if Sem VII is not my / our blog.

I ask if my/our blog will not be Sem VI and Sem VII?

And shall be!

Or must be?

Already is, will be or even must be and will have to be !?!

The set. The leaving of the book.

The production, the emancipation, the liberation of the writing.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Semeion Aoristicon or to the autobiography of Sem Schauns

……. THE SET …….. THE LEAVING OF THE BOOK …….. !?

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

Psychoanalyse, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, das Unbewußte

Die Sprache, das Sprechen, das Unbewußte (Ubw)

Der Satz und die Philosophie

GESPRÄCHE sind EREIGNISSE als TEXT

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

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

Cf. list of publications at: https://scholar.google.at/citations?user=wNUSN64AAAAJ&hl=de

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Projekte / Projects (1989 – 2025 ff.) 36 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Wien GK & ALH

P.s.:

Gerhard Kaučić

(Mountain Bikers, Freeriders, Turbo Levo s works)

Anna Lydia Huber

Trailen auf den und auf dem Kahlenberg (Wien, Weidring, Klosterneuburg). Dornröschentrail, Südtiroler Uphill-Trail etc. Wir hatten einen guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr 2025. Ich hoff, Ihr auch.

We are trailing on the Kahlenberg. Dornröschentrail, South Tyrolean Uphill Trail etc. We had a good start to the year 2025. I hope you did too.

Gerhard Anna (66) auf den und auf dem Kahlenberg im Nebel und bei leichtem Schneegestöber, – 3 Grad Celsius

Gerhard Anna (66) up and down the Kahlenberg in fog and light snow flurries, – 3 degrees Celsius

Gerhard Kaučić

(Mountain Bikers, Freeriders, Turbo Levo s works)

Anna Lydia Huber

Trailen auf den und auf dem Kahlenberg. Dornröschentrail, Südtiroler Uphill-Trail etc. Wir hatten einen guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr 2025. Ich hoff, Ihr auch.

Gerhard Anna (66) auf den und auf dem Kahlenberg im Nebel und bei leichtem Schneegestöber, – 3 Grad Celsius

Trailen auf den und auf dem Kahlenberg (Wien). Dornröschentrail, Südtiroler Uphill-Trail etc. Wir hatten einen guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr 2025. Ich hoff, Ihr auch.

We are trailing on the Kahlenberg. Dornröschentrail, South Tyrolean Uphill Trail etc. We had a good start to the year 2025. I hope you did too.

Gerhard Anna (66) auf den und auf dem Kahlenberg im Nebel und bei leichtem Schneegestöber, – 3 Grad Celsius

Gerhard Anna (66) up and down the Kahlenberg in fog and light snow flurries, – 3 degrees Celsius

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

Winter-Biker / Winter bikers

Winter-Biker / Winter bikers

Gerhard Kaučić

(Dr. phil., b. 1959), European Philosopher, Writer, Freerider

Winter-Biker:in / Winter bikers

Anna Lydia Huber

(MSc, b. 1959), European Philosopher, Writer, Freerider

Gerhard Kaučić (Mountain Bikers, Freeriders, Turbo Levo s works) Anna Lydia Huber

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Philosophische Praxis

GESPRÄCHE sind EREIGNISSE als TEXT

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

Gerhard Kaučić, Alter 66, 2025, Anna Lydia Huber, age 66, 2025

Philosoph:in des Denkens der „différance“ (cf. J. Derrida, La dissémination. Collection „Tel Quel“ aux Éditions du Seuil, Paris 1972)

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

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

Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement

…around the clock …around the world…

Conversations outdoor/indoor: grammatologies, contextualizations, analyses, complications, plurivalences, dependencies, interdependencies, grammars, aporias, deconstruction…around the clock…around the world…

Landschaft und Leib

Landscape and body

Anna Lydia Huber (66, philosopher) & Gerhard Kaučić (66, philosopher)

Summer/winter bike tours 2024/25 (previous and following)

der Philosoph/die Philosophin als Radfahrer:in, die Philosophin/der Philosoph als Radfahrende, der Philosoph/die Philosophin als Fahrende, der Philosoph/die Philosophin als Bewegte und Bewegende, die Philosophin/der Philosoph als Scout ……. trace ……. Spur ……. Grammatologie ………. Dekonstruktion

the philosopher as cyclist, the philosopher as bicycle rider, the philosopher as traveler,

the philosopher as moved and moving,

the philosopher as scout … …. ….. trace ……. trail ……

Grammatology …….

Deconstruction

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

The concept of freedom and its freedoms

On the concept and comprehensibility of freedom

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-concept-of-freedom-crisis-of-freedom.html

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-concept-of-freedom-crisis-of-freedom.html?m=1

https://web.archive.org/web/20250109013450/https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-concept-of-freedom-crisis-of-freedom.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20250109013440/https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-concept-of-freedom-crisis-of-freedom.html?m=1

Freiheit und Krise. Krise der Freiheit

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2017/03/freiheit-und-krise.html

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2017/03/freiheit-und-krise.html?m=1

Freedom

Freedom for all

Gerhard Kaučić and Anna Lydia Huber (born 1959, Philosophers) skating and classic cross-country skiing on the cross-country ski trail in Saalfelden am Steinernen Meer in January 2025

Freedom

Freedom for all

Mehr dazu siehe meinen Teaser und meinen Footer sowie die übrigen Postings in diesem Blog! (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)

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

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

PP-2025-03

The Religious Deconstruction

03/11/2025 admin

The Religious Deconstruction Religion and Society

The Religious

Deconstruction Religion and Society

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

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

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

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

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

Gerhard Kaučić, – Head of a Grammatological Philosophical Practice since 1989 in Vienna and beyond

Gerhard Kaučić

Philosopher, Feminist, Mediator, Author, born 1959, Dr. phil.,

age 66, 2025

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

Anna Lydia Huber

Philosopher, Feminist, Mediator, Author, born 1959, MSc,

age 66, 2025

Gerhard Kaučić, Anna Lydia Huber,

Philosophical Practitioners

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

(Anna Lydia Huber, Gerhard Kaucic, *1959), Writer

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

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

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

Adresse/Post address/address:

Philosophical Practice/Philosophische Praxis

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber

Gasometer City

Guglgasse 8

1110 Vienna

Austria/Europe

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

Contemporary Philosophy

Gegenwartsphilosophie

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

Anna Lydia Huber, MSc, Jg.’59, 66, 2025

(b. 1959, Philosophin, Freeriderin, Radreisende/Bike traveler)

Anna Lydia Huber ( * 1959 ) Gerhard Kaučić

eine lange Geschichte der Freundschaft

a long history of friendship a long story

Anna Lydia Huber ( * 1959 ) Gerhard Kaučić

eine lange Geschichte der Freundschaft

a long history of friendship a long story

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.

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.

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-Gourhan questions 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!

Religion and Society Part 1 (in German)

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2017/04/religion-und-gesellschaft-teil-1.html

Religion and Society Part 2 (in German)

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

Religion and Society Part 3 (in German)

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2017/04/religion-und-gesellschaft-teil-3.html

Kind regards!

Gerhard Kaucic

& Anna Lydia Huber

PP Vienna

The Religious Deconstruction Religion and Society

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-religious-deconstruction-religion.html

Philosophical Practice on the topic „Religion and Society„, G. K., ALH, PPs

Gerhard Kaučić

(born 1959, Dr. phil., Age 62, 2021), Philosophical Practice Vienna 1989 ff.

Philosopher, Writer, Translator, Mediator, Feminist, deconstructed Hegelian, Freerider, Bicycle Traveller, Enduro-Biker, Ecomobilist, Survivor, Philosophical Practitioner/Practical Philosophy, Analytical Philosophy of Language, Deconstruction, Philosophical Practice Vienna, Austria, Europe

PP, – from a new cryptology to an anasemic retranscription of all concepts

Philosopher of the Thought of Différance, Philosophy of Différance, Practice of Différance, Work(!) of Différance

Anna Lydia Huber

(born 1959, MSc, Age 62, 2021), Philosophical Practice Vienna 2009 ff.

PP, – from a new cryptology to an anasemic retranscription of all concepts

Philosopher of the Thought of Différance, Philosophy of Différance, Practice of Différance, Work(!) of Différance

The Religious Deconstruction Religion and Society

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-religious-deconstruction-religion.html

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.

Religion und Gesellschaft Teil 1 (in German)

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2017/04/religion-und-gesellschaft-teil-1.html

Religion und Gesellschaft Teil 2 (in German)

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

Religion und Gesellschaft Teil 3 (in German)

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2017/04/religion-und-gesellschaft-teil-3.html

Best regards!

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber

PP Wien/Vienna/Austria/Europe

Psychoanalyse, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, das Unbewußte

Die Sprache, das Sprechen, das Unbewußte (Ubw)

Der Satz und die Philosophie

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

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

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Adventure Philosophy!

Philosophische Praxis

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

philosophical practices face à face

Gerhard Kaučić,

b. 1959, Philosopher, Writer, 66, 2025

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON II
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON III
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON I
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON IV
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON V
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

In English:

CORONA WHEELING CROWNING

Covidity Virality Virtuality Mediality Metahumanoidity ?!

The leap. Leaving the book. The production, the emancipation, the liberation of writing.

……………………. Semeion Aoristicon oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns …………………..

……. THE SENTENCE ………. the jump ……… the set ……. the leap o f …. The LEAVING of

the BOOK ……….. ?!

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

I ask if Sem VI is not my / our blog composition !?!

I ask (me / us) if Sem VII is not my / our blog.

I ask if my/our blog will not be Sem VI and Sem VII?

And shall be!

Or must be?

Already is, will be or even must be and will have to be !?!

The set. The leaving of the book.

The production, the emancipation, the liberation of the writing.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Semeion Aoristicon or to the autobiography of Sem Schauns

……. THE SET …….. THE LEAVING OF THE BOOK …….. !?

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

Psychoanalyse, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, das Unbewußte

Die Sprache, das Sprechen, das Unbewußte (Ubw)

Der Satz und die Philosophie

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

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

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

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

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

Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement

…around the clock …around the world…

GESPRÄCHE sind EREIGNISSE als TEXT

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

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

Cf. list of publications at: https://scholar.google.at/citations?user=wNUSN64AAAAJ&hl=de

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Projekte / Projects (1989 – 2025 ff.) 36 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Wien GK & ALH

Mehr dazu siehe meinen Teaser und meinen Footer sowie die übrigen Postings in diesem Blog! (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)

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

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

PP-2025-03

Heterozentrismus

03/09/2025 admin

„Sexualität Anti-Homosexualität Identität“

ein Beitrag zum Diskurs „Anti-Schwulen-und-Lesben-Gesetze“

Zur Frage und zum Wort „Dekonstruktion“ vgl. Jacques Derridas „Überlegungen“ in einem „Brief an einen japanischen Freund“ aus dem Jahr 1985, übersetzt ins Deutsche und abgedruckt in: J. Derrida, Psyche. Erfindungen des Anderen II. Wien 2013 (Passagen Vlg.), S. 15 – 22.

Diese Werte, wie der der Analyse, sind selbst der Dekonstruktion unterworfene Philosopheme.“ ( S. 19)

„Die Dekonstruktion hat Statt, sie ist ein Ereignis (événement), das nicht erst auf die Überlegung, das Bewußtsein oder die Organisation des Subjekts, nicht einmal der Moderne, wartet. Es dekonstruiert sich.“ (S. 20)

Philosophie … Dekonstruktion … „Recht auf Einsicht, oder die Erfindung des anderen“ (cf. J. Derrida, Psyche. Erfindung des Anderen, Wien 2011)

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Heterozentrismus

Welche historischen und sozialen Umstände verantworten die Produktion und Ausformung unserer Sexualität ?

Gerhard Kaučić

Erzählungen, Berichte, Analysen, Reflexionen aus der Praxis/aus meiner Philosophischen Praxis

Wien 36 Jahre Praxis Jubiläum (1989-2025) Jubilaeum 36 Jahre PP 2025

PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS Gerhard Kaučić / DJAY PHILPRAX WIEN ÖSTERREICH EUROPA

Dr. Gerhard Kaučić / Djay PhilPrax (*1959), Philosopher, Writer, Philosophical Practitioner, Vienna, Austria, Europe

Gerhard Kaučić (*1959), Leiter einer Philosophischen Praxis seit 36 Jahren in Wien (1989-2025 ff.)

Gespräche, Analyse, Diskurs, Problematisierung, Identitätsdislokation, Subjektivierung, Formalisierung, Fältelung, Komplizierung, Aporie, Dekonstruktion

mehr vgl.: Was ist philosophische Praxis?

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

Kulturphilosoph, Sprachphilosoph, Religionsphilosoph, Politischer Philosoph, Sozialphilosoph, Pop-Philosoph, Gesellschaftsphilosophie, Politische Philosophie, Demokratiephilosophie, Religionsphilosophie, Philosophie der Technik und Techné, Technikphilosophie, Sportphilosophie, Pop-Philosophie, Kulturphilosophie, Kunstphilosophie, Philosophie der Kunst und des Körpers, Körperphilosophie, Sprachphilosophie, Dekonstruktion, Poststrukturalist

Philosoph des Denkens der Différance, Philosophie der Différance, Praxis der Différance, Arbeit(!) der Différance

( lies dazu „Die différance“ in: Jacques Derrida: Randgänge der Philosophie, Passagen Verlag, Wien 1988, S. 29-52 ), – –

streng nach dem Setting vertrauliches „Einzel-Gespräch“ /confidential „one-to-one conversation“, „face à face“

… philosophical practices …

Kontinentale Philosophie (continental philosophy, german philosophy, contemporary austrian philosophy), Europäische Philosophie, Deutsche Philosophie, Französische Philosophie, Österreichische Philosophie, Philosophie Wien/Vienna, Österreich/Austria, Europa/Europe, Deutsche Philosophen heute, Deutschsprachige PhilosophInnen, Österreichische Philosophen/Philosophinnen des 20. Jahrhunderts und des 21. Jh., Philosophen und Philosophinnen der Gegenwart, Philosophierende der Gegenwart in Österreich/Europa und in der Welt

Philosophische Praxis als grammatologische philosophische Praxis als österreichische(!) Philosophie der Gegenwart! Philosophie heute. Philosophieren. Dekonstruieren im Gespräch. Dekonstruktion. Deconstruction. Wien, Österreich, Europa, Welt. Regional und global. Im Sinne des Denkens eines „planetarischen Subjekts“ (cf. Spivak, weiter unten) mit regionalen, kulturellen Wurzeln. Regional, kontinental, global.

Österreichische Philosophie der Gegenwart. Philosophien der Gegenwart. PhilosophInnen heute. Österreichische Philosophen und Philosophinnen heute, in der Gegenwart, in Österreich und in der Welt. Die Dekonstruktion als philosophische Praxis und Haltung. Wien, Österreich, Europa, Welt. Geophilosophie. Kritische Geophilosophie. Interkulturelle Philosophie. Intercultural Philosophy, Konvivialismus, Convivialism, Intercultural Philosophy, Multikulturalismus, Multiculturalism, Interkulturalismus, Interculturalism, Kosmopolitanismus, Cosmopolitanism, New Cosmopolitanism, World Philosophy, Weltphilosophie, Interculturality, Interkulturelle Kommunikation, Intercultural Communication, Inkommunikabilität, Incommunicability, individual, familial, lokal, regional, global (!!!???)

Ausgew. neueste Literatur:

Dominic Busch (2016): Rethinking Interculturality Will Require Moral Confessions: Analysing the Debate Among Convivialists, Interculturalists, Cosmopolitanists and Intercultural Communication Scholars.

Interkulturalität neu denken erfordert moralische Bekenntnisse. Die Analyse einer Debatte zwischen Vertreter*innen von Konvivialismus, Interkulturalismus, Kosmopolitismus sowie Autor*innen zur interkulturellen Kommunikation. interculture journal 15/26 (2016)

www.interculture-journal.com/index.php/icj/article/download/273/366 · PDF Datei

Centre for Global Cooperation Research (2014): Convivialist Manifesto. A declaration

of interdependence (Global Dialogues 3), with an introduction by Frank Adloff, translated

from the French by Margaret Clarke.

Duisburg: Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK / GCR21). URL:
https://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-39520/Convivialist_Manifesto_2198_0403_GD_3.pdf

Alexander, B. K. / Arasaratnam, L. A. / Avant-Mier, R. / Durham, A., et al. (2014): Defining and Communicating What “Intercultural” and “Intercultural Communication”Means to Us. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 7(1), pp. 14-37.

Geophilosophie, Geophilosophy, Ecopsychoanalysis, ( Rousseau, Kant, Nietzsche, Philosophie und Bewegung im Raum, Nietzsches philosophische Geographie, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Horkheimer, Adorno, Foucault, Lyotard, Deleuze, Guattari, Derrida, Fr. M. Wimmer, St. Günzel, D. Harvey, K. Schlögel, S. Weigel, B. Neumann, Spivak : Raumtheorien, Geographien, Politiken, Denkweisen, Kommunikationshandlungen, Territorialisierungen, Deterritorialisierungen, Dekonstruktivismen, Konstruktivismen, kritische Geopolitiken(!), Dehierarchisierungen, Verschiebungen, Identitätsdislokationen, Chorologie, hyle/morphe-Strukturen als reelle/nicht reale(!) Momente des Erlebten (Husserl, Derrida), sinnliche(!) in der différance erlebte(!) bzw gestaltete Materie(!),

„planetarisches Subjekt“, „animal turn“, „spatial turn“, Demokratiephilosophie, Interkulturelle Philosophie, Menschenrechte, Menschenpflichten )

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

Heterozentrismus

Welche historischen und sozialen Umstände verantworten die Produktion und Ausformung unserer Sexualität ?

Sexualität / Anti-Homosexualität / Identität/en

Anti-Schwulen-und-Lesben-Gesetze / Anti-Homosexual-Laws

Part 1)

Welche historischen und sozialen Umstände verantworten die Produktion und Ausformung unserer Sexualität ?

Der heterozentristische Sozialvertrag schreibt unsere biologische „Wahrheit“ in unsere Körper ein. Die Gleichwertigkeit aller Körper-Subjekte sollte heute überall selbstverständliches Recht (Menschenrecht) sein, um Lust und Wissen frei leben und erforschen zu können.

Anti-Homosexuellen-Gesetze sind unwürdig, niederträchtig und völlig inakzeptabel. In Rußland, in Uganda, in Ungarn, in Saudi-Arabien, in Iran, in Serbien, in Ägypten, in China, in Afrika, Südamerika, Europäische Union, Indien, Australien (bes. Canberra), u.a.

a) Identität ist ein Effekt von Zuschreibungsprozessen. Es gibt keine „Natürlichkeit“ als Identitätsgrundlage.

Zweigeschlechtlichkeit und Heterosexualität sind weltweit dominierende und diskriminierende Bezeichnungspraxen.

Diese Zu- und Einschreibungspraktiken generieren (vermeintliche) Identitäten.

Diese Inskriptionen mittels und infolge historischer und sozialer Zuschreibung erzeugen den Schein von „natürlich“ und „normal“.

b) Die dominant gemachten / erzeugten „Normen“ sind für den Einzelnen oft nicht als solche und als gemachte erkennbar.

Dies verunmöglicht für das Individuum meist die Möglichkeit freier Erkenntnis und Erforschung und vor allem das damit einhergehende (Er-) Leben „anderer“, – also „abweichender“ Lebensformen, Liebeskonzepte und Identitäten.

Diese Macht- und Herrschaftsformation qua Geschlechterdualismus unterdrückt das „Andere“, den Anderen, die Anderen.

Part 2)

Ein besonders negatives Beispiel unter vielen:

Das schon mehrfach wiedereingeführte ( und unter dem Druck der internationalen Öffentlichkeit vorläufig wieder zurückgenommene ) Anti-Schwulen-und-Lesben-Gesetz in Uganda.

c) Damit entfernt sich Uganda, – „der“ (!) Partnerstaat vieler westlicher Demokratien in Afrika -, sehr weit von rechtsstaatlichen Konzepten individueller Freiheit (im Sinne der Lebensgestaltung) in einer Demokratie und „beschreibt“ sich als Unrechtsstaat.

Eine wider die Menschenrechte gerichtete juristische Definition heteronormativer „Wahrheiten“ mittels Homogenisierung und Ausschluß erzeugt eine gesellschaftlich vergiftete und politisch mißbrauchte Identitätsfindung jedes Einzelnen bis hin zu Krankheit und Selbstmord der als „anders“ Definierten sowie Mordbegehrlichkeit und Kriegserregbarkeit auf der Seite der Mehrheitsgesellschaft.

d) Rassistische Normierung heterosexueller Zweigeschlechtlichkeit durch anti – homosexuelle Gesetzgebung in Uganda ( ebenso wie etwa auch in Rußland, [vgl. m. Anmerkungen zu „Sotschi“ u. d. russ. Gesetzgebung] und vielen anderen Ländern, siehe oben! ) erzeugt durch (meist gewaltvolle) Abstützung und permanenter Wiederholung pogromgestimmte Verhaltensweisen von einzelnen Gruppen und sogar ganzen Gesellschaften.

Anti-Homosexual-Law in Uganda

What historical and social circumstances are responsible for the production and implementation of our sexuality?
The hetero-centristic social contract inscribes our biological “truth” into our body.
The equality of all body-subjects should be recognized everywhere as a self-evident right (human right), to live and discover pleasure and knowledge freely.
Uganda’s Anti-Homosexual-Law is unworthy, vile and completely unacceptable.

1) Identity is an effect of processes of attribution. There is no “naturalness” as a basis for identity. Two sexes and heterosexuality are globally dominating and discriminating labels of signification/marking/description.
These practices of attribution/”attributioning” and inscriptions generate (alleged) identities.
These inscriptions by means of and as a result of historical and social attribution generate the illusion/pretense of “natural” and “normal”.

2) The dominantly made/generated „norms“ are often not recognizable as such for the individual.
This makes the possibility of free realization and exploration impossible for the individual, especially the experience of “others”, that is “differing” life forms, concepts of love and identities.
This power and domination qua the dualism of sexes suppresses the “Other”.

Gerhard Kaučić ( Gerhard Anna Cončić–Kaučić )
Writer, Author, Queer-theorist, analytic, philosopher, feminist, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, Vienna, Austria (Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis Wien)

Part 2) Translation in English (approach) (original text in German)

Gerhard Kaučić, Vienna, 25. 02. 2014
Anti-Homosexual-Law in Uganda

3) With this Uganda distances itself, – „the“ (!) partner country of many western democracies in Africa -, greatly from constitutional concepts of individual freedom (in the sense of a way of life) in a democracy and “describes/defines” itself as an illegitimate state/rogue state.
A legal definition of heteronormative “truths”, which is directed against human rights, through homogenization and exclusion, generates a search for identity of each and every one, which is politically abused and poisoned by state/laws/society. This goes as far as resulting in illness and suicide of the so called “others”, which at the same time produces a desire for murder and an excitability of warfare of heterocentristic mainstream society.

4) Racist standardization of heterosexual two-sexuality through an anti-homosexual legislation in Uganda (as well as for example in Russia, [cf. my Remarks on “Sochi” and the Russian laws] and in many other countries) is generated by a (mostly violent) support and permanent repetition of pogrom-tempered behavior of individual groups and even whole societies.

Gerhard Kaučić ( Gerhard Anna Cončić–Kaučić )
Schriftsteller, Queer Theorist, philosopher, feminist, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, Vienna, Austria (Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis Wien)

Original Text in German:
Teil 1)
Gerhard Kaučić, Wien, 25. 02. 2014
Anti-Schwulen-und-Lesben-Gesetz in Uganda
Welche historischen und sozialen Umstände verantworten die Produktion und Ausformung unserer Sexualität ?
Der heterozentristische Sozialvertrag schreibt unsere biologische „Wahrheit“ in unsere Körper ein. Die Gleichwertigkeit aller Körper-Subjekte sollte heute überall selbstverständliches Recht (Menschenrecht) sein, um Lust und Wissen frei leben und erforschen zu können.
Ugandas Anti-Homosexuellen-Gesetze sind unwürdig, niederträchtig und völlig inakzeptabel.

1) Identität ist ein Effekt von Zuschreibungsprozessen. Es gibt keine „Natürlichkeit“ als Identitätsgrundlage.
Zweigeschlechtlichkeit und Heterosexualität sind weltweit dominierende und diskriminierende Bezeichnungspraxen.
Diese Zu- und Einschreibungspraktiken generieren (vermeintliche) Identitäten.
Diese Inskriptionen mittels und infolge historischer und sozialer Zuschreibung erzeugen den Schein von „natürlich“ und „normal“.

2) Die dominant gemachten / erzeugten „Normen“ sind für den Einzelnen oft nicht als solche und als gemachte erkennbar.
Dies verunmöglicht für das Individuum meist die Möglichkeit freier Erkenntnis und Erforschung und vor allem das damit einhergehende (Er-) Leben „anderer“, – also „abweichender“ Lebensformen, Liebeskonzepte und Identitäten.
Diese Macht- und Herrschaftsformation qua Geschlechterdualismus unterdrückt das „Andere“, den Anderen, die Anderen.

Gerhard Kaučić ( Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić )
Schriftsteller, Queertheoretiker, Analytiker, Philosoph, Feminist, Psychoanalyse, Dekonstruktion, Wien, Österreich (Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis Wien)

Teil 2)
Gerhard Kaučić, Wien, 25. 02. 2014
Anti-Schwulen-und-Lesben-Gesetz in Uganda

3) Damit entfernt sich Uganda, – „der“ (!) Partnerstaat vieler westlicher Demokratien in Afrika -, sehr weit von rechtsstaatlichen Konzepten individueller Freiheit (im Sinne der Lebensgestaltung) in einer Demokratie und „beschreibt“ sich als Unrechtsstaat.
Eine wider die Menschenrechte gerichtete juristische Definition heteronormativer „Wahrheiten“ mittels Homogenisierung und Ausschluß erzeugt eine gesellschaftlich vergiftete und politisch mißbrauchte Identitätsfindung jedes Einzelnen bis hin zu Krankheit und Selbstmord der als „anders“ Definierten sowie Mordbegehrlichkeit und Kriegserregbarkeit auf der Seite der Mehrheitsgesellschaft.

4) Rassistische Normierung heterosexueller Zweigeschlechtlichkeit durch anti – homosexuelle Gesetzgebung in Uganda (ebenso wie etwa auch in Rußland, [vgl. m. Anmerkungen zu „Sotschi“ u. d. russ. Gesetzgebung] und vielen anderen Ländern) erzeugt durch (meist gewaltvolle) Abstützung und permanenter Wiederholung pogromgestimmte Verhaltensweisen von einzelnen Gruppen und sogar ganzen Gesellschaften.

Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis Wien

Gerhard Kaučić (Gerhard Anna Cončić–Kaučić) Schriftsteller, Queertheoretiker, Analytiker, Philosoph, Feminist, Psychoanalyse, Dekonstruktion, Wien, Österreich

Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis

Post scriptum/after the bound/Nachsatz:

The tasks of a future democracy/a democracy on the rise/a permanent advent/arrival of democracy/a democracy in the arrival ( Jacques Derrida ), to think the subject as „planetary“ (cf. G. Ch. Spivak, see teaser, – the teaser from my blog; note: the teaser is only visible in the web-version!), – especially concerning the great challenges of politics in the 21st century: Utopia (?!) of reflexive solidarity (Spivak),

borders of a planet (John Bellamy Foster et al. (Ed.): The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth, 2011), deconstructive politics as an ideological-critical reading of the imperial archive, geopolitics, geopolitical involvement, geopolitical interest driven policy and/as value policy, power, morals and human rights, analysis of power, gender and governmentality, teletechnology, political bodies, complexities of rule, citizenship, parliamentarianism, peace policy, institution building and institution maintenance, economically correct and fair redistribution of social wealth, proper management of Migration (Flüchtlinge, Refugees), …
proper handling of migration (refugees), migration and capitalism, (colonialism, Kolonialismus, Imperialismus, Ökonomismus, Postkolonialismus, Postcolonialism, Dekolonisierung, Eurozentrismus, Neokolonialismus, Antikolonialismen),

Ökonomischer Imperialismus (angeleitet durch die Neue Institutionenökonomik, die Transaktionskostenökonomik und die Prinzipal-Agent-Theorie; im Gefolge des New Public Management treten an die Stelle von Handeln nach Maßgabe professioneller Ethiken Kontraktmanagement mit Zielvereinbarungen und anstelle einer Berufsethik Qualitätsmanagement und Benchmarking samt Controlling und Leistungsrechnung mit all ihren Schattenseiten und ungeplanten Nebenwirkungen, – vgl. Richard Münch: Globale Eliten, lokale Autoritäten, Frf. 2009, Suhrkamp, S. 18 vv.ff.),

the world as environment and its destruction, manmade environmental disasters, shipping, esp. container shipping, pollution of oceans, pollution of soil, greenhouse gases, temperature rise, shortage of resources, prosperity gap,

population density, urban development ( e.g. „Gängeviertel“ in Hamburg, the initiative „Komm in die Gänge“ stands for discourse and practice of a different (!) form of urban development and is an example and symbol that gives hope against gentrification and the destruction of old buildings ),

urban development towards a green city,

urban philosophy,

reddening of the city, city of dreams, madness and society, madness and city, city and sexuality, desire and city, city as text, city and writing, city as writing, the city and the divided I, the city and the power, the city and the political, the city as a mechanism of discipline, the city as a social testing lab, the city and the philosophical practice with many practices, the world as a city and the other, water wars, religious wars, climate change, climate consequences, global warming, nuclear relicts, climate wars, climate catastrophes,

civil wars, „ethnic cleansing“ (!), genocide, violent conflicts, social questions, ecological questions, planetary principle, tradition history, the question of a global government (!?), social catastrophes, terrorism, natural disasters, migration, unstable states, poverty, wealth, corruption,

media policy and presence-ideologies, war and non-war, world order and biopolicy, weapon development, arms delivery,

violent and oppressive power politics, religious fanaticism, party political fanaticism, terrorism, biodiversity, standardization, factory farming, animal factories, animal consumption, „meat production“!, animal rights, animal philosophy,

„animal turn“ (vgl. Anne Peters, Tier-Recht im Zeitalter des Menschen, – in: Renn/Scherer (Hg.), Das Anthropozän. Zum Stand der Dinge. Berlin 2015, S. 67ff.),

ethical norms, euthanasia, terminal care, aging, health and sports, sports and age, ethics and medicine, cyber war, cyber crime, technology and space, political demarcation, deterritorialization, tourism, mass media, mass mediality, neoliberalization of the subjects, power,

truth and passion (vgl.: Gabriele Michalitsch: Die neoliberale Domestizierung des Subjekts. Von den Leidenschaften zum Kalkül. Campus Verlag, Frankf. a. M. 2006, bes. S. 29ff. und S. 101ff.),

sex labour, difference and the shaping of the social ( Antke Engel: Bilder von Sexualität und Ökonomie. Queere kulturelle Politiken im Neoliberalismus. Bielefeld 2009, S. 138ff. ),

automobility, digitalia and upbringing, education, unemployment, debt crisis, failing of democratization, neglect of the common good,
production and consumption (David Harvey), globalized consumption, market fanaticism, power of the market, democratization of the market, power of the globally operating financial markets, education, social policy, urban policy, policy of affordable housing, youth unemployment, social inequality, exclusion, individuality, sovereignty, liberalism, egalitarianism,

limits of growth, mobility, traffic and communication, ecology, freedom, justice, interests of corporate groups, turbo-capitalism, global tax culture, international tax evasion, tax fraud, Drogierungsverhalten, drug laws, drug culture, the own and the foreign, fascism, antisemitism, racism, sexism, human trafficking,
modern slavery (cf.: Kevin Bales, dt. Üs: „Die neue Sklaverei“, engl. V.: K. B., „Disposable People. New Slavery in the Global Economy“ und Hanns Wienold ),

„Neger, Rasse, Rassen-Subjekt, Rassismus, Versklavung, Sklaverei, Massenversklavung in der Geschichte gestern heute morgen, das Rassensubjekt/Negro, race, racial subject, racism, enslavement, slavery, mass slavery in history, yesterday – today – tomorrow, the racial subject“

(( cf.: Achille Mbembe: Critique de la raison nègre. Paris 2013 ( Orig. fr. ). Achille Mbembe: Critique of Black Reason. Duke University Press Books 2017 (transl., Laurent Dubois). Achille Mbembe: Kritik der schwarzen Vernunft. Berlin, Suhrkamp, 2014 (ÜS aus d. Franz., Michael Bischoff). )),

need of land, land grabbing, land robbery, justice, human rights, decolonization of thinking, policy of displacement, solidarity across class, race, and national boundaries (Mohanty, passim),

just policy as a policy of strengthening the weak

and Charles Taylor: Multiculturalism and the „Politics of Recognition“. Princeton 1994, p. 28 ))

Nachsatz:

Die Aufgaben einer kommenden Demokratie ( Jacques Derrida ), das Subjekt als „planetarisch“ (cf. G. Ch. Spivak) zu denken, – auch und besonders auf die großen Herausforderungen der Politik im 21. Jahrhundert gerichtet gedacht: Utopie (?!) reflexiver Solidarität (Spivak), Grenzen des Planeten ( John Bellamy Foster u.a. (Hg.): Der ökologische Bruch. Der Krieg des Kapitals gegen den Planeten. Hamburg 2011.),

dekonstruktive Politik als ideologiekritische Lesart des imperialen Archivs, Geopolitik, geopolitische Einbindungen , geopolitische Interessenspolitik und/als Wertepolitik, Macht, Moral und Menschenrechte, Teletechnologie, Politische Körper, Komplexitäten der Herrschaft, Bürgerpolitik, Parlamentarismus, Friedenspolitik, Institutionenbildung und Institutionenpflege, ökonomisch richtige und faire Umverteilung des gesellschaftlichen Reichtums, richtiger Umgang mit Migration (Flüchtlinge, Refugees) Migration und Kapitalismus, Welt als Umwelt und deren Zerstörung, Treibhausgase, Temperatur(anstieg),

Ressourcenknappheit, Wohlstandsgefälle, Bevölkerungsdichte, Wasserkriege, Religionskriege, Klimawandel, Klimafolgen, Erderwärmung, Atomare Überbleibsel, Klimakriege, Klimakatastrophen, Bürgerkriege, „ethnische Säuberungen“ (!), Völkermord,

Gewaltkonflikte, soziale Katastrophen, Terror, Naturkatastrophen, Bevölkerungswanderungen, instabile Staatsgebilde, Armut, Reichtum, Korruption, Medienpolitik und Gegenwärtigkeitsideologien, Krieg und Nichtkrieg, Weltordnungen und Biopolitik, Waffenentwicklung, Waffen(lieferungen),

gewalttätige und unterdrückerische Machtpolitik,

religiöser Fanatismus, parteipolitischer Fanatismus, Terrorismus,

Artenvielfalt, Biodiversität, Standardisierungen, Massentierhaltung, Tierfabriken, Tierverzehr, „Fleischproduktion“!, Tierrechte, Tierphilosophie, Ethische Normen, Euthanasie, Sterbebegleitung, Cyber-War, Cyber-Crime, Technik und Raum, Politische Grenzziehungen, Deterritorialisierungen, Tourismus, Massenmedien, Massenmedialität,

Neoliberalisierung der Subjekte, Macht, Wahrheit und Leidenschaften (vgl.: Gabriele Michalitsch: Die neoliberale Domestizierung des Subjekts. Von den Leidenschaften zum Kalkül. Campus Verlag, Frankf. a. M. 2006, bes. S. 29ff. und S. 101ff.),

Sexuelle Arbeitsverhältnisse, Differenz und die Gestaltung des Gesellschaftlichen ( Antke Engel: Bilder von Sexualität und Ökonomie. Queere kulturelle Politiken im Neoliberalismus. Bielefeld 2009, S. 138ff. ),

Queering economy (ebda., S. 156ff. ),

Automobilität, Digitalia und Erziehung, Bildung, Arbeitslosigkeit, Schuldenkrisen, Demokratisierungsscheitern, Gemeinwohlvernachlässigung, Produktion und Konsum (David Harvey), globalisierter Konsum, Marktfanatismus,

Macht der Märkte, Marktdemokratisierung, Macht der global agierenden Finanzmärkte, Bildung, Sozialpolitik, Jugendarbeitslosigkeit, Soziale Ungleichheit, Exklusion, Individualität, Souveränität, Liberalismus, Egalitarismus, Grenzen des Wachstums, Verkehr und Kommunikation, Ökologie, Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit, Konzerninteressen, Macht der global agierenden Konzerne, Turbokapitalismus, globale Steuerkultur, internationale Steuerflucht, Steuerhinterziehung, Drogierungsverhalten, Drogengesetze, Drogenkultur, Das Eigene und das Fremde, Faschismus, Antisemitismus, Rassismus, Sexismus, Menschenhandel,

Moderne Sklaverei (cf.: Kevin Bales, dt. Üs: „Die neue Sklaverei“, engl. V.: K. B., „Disposable People. New Slavery in the Global Economy“ und Hanns Wienold ), Waffenhandel, Privater Waffenerwerb, Waffenbesitz, Komplexitätszunahme, Wissensgenerierung, Urbanisierung und Bevölkerungswachstum, Demokratiedefizite, Nachhaltigkeitskrise, Energieregime, Legitimationskrisen, Territorialität, Agrarpolitik, Fischereipolitik,

Hunger (cf. Jean Ziegler), Hunger und Kapitalismus, „Recht auf angemessene Ernährung“ (( Menschenrecht, UN-Sozialpakt, Artikel 11, Absatz 1 und 2; Menschenwürde (oberstes normatives Prinzip der Menschenrechte, ethisches Grundprinzip, „dignitas“ (Cicero), die „Idee des Guten“ (Plato), prinzipielle „Gleichwertigkeit aller Menschen“ (Kant), Schutz der Menschenwürde im Art. 2 des Vertrags über die Europäische Union )), Landnot, Land Grabbing, Landraub, Gerechtigkeit, Menschenrechte, Dekolonisierung des Denkens, Policy of displacement, Solidarity across class, race, and national boundaries (Mohanty, passim), Gerechte Politik als Politik der Stärkung der Schwächsten.

(( zum planetarischen Subjekt cf. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: Imperative zur Neuerfindung des Planeten – Imperatives to Re-Imagine the Planet (hg. v. Willi Goetschel engl./dt.). Wien 2013, 2. Aufl., Passagen Verlag, S. 49vv.ff.

und Charles Taylor: Multiculturalism and the „Politics of Recognition“. Princeton 1994, p. 28 ))

P.S.:

Zur Begründung der Disseminierung meiner philosophischen Praxis als Blogger:
Gerhard Kaucic :

Jacques Derrida und die Dekonstruktion als philosophische Praxis

Die Dekonstruktion nach Derrida ist zu beschreiben als eine Praxis der Annäherung an die Grenzen, die das menschliche Subjekt zum Maßstab des Angemessenen und des Unangemessenen, des Gerechten und des Ungerechten machen im Namen einer Gerechtigkeitsforderung, die nicht und nie zufriedenzustellen ist.

Die Aufgabe der Dekonstruktion ist es, die Grenzen der Begriffe der Gerechtigkeit, des Gesetzes, des Rechts, der wissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildungen, die Grenzen der Werte und Normen und Vorschriften (wieder) ins Gedächtnis zurückzurufen. Die Grenzen der Begriffe und der Werte, die sich im Laufe dieser Geschichte durchgesetzt und die als selbstverständlich (als „natürlich“) betrachtet und verstanden werden (vgl.Derrida, Gesetzeskraft, Der „mystische Grund der Autorität“).

Genau das versuche ich in meiner nun schon jahrzehntelangen Arbeit in meiner Praxis zu erreichen. Ein kleiner Hinweis in eigener Sache zur Dekonstruktion muß erlaubt sein. Ich feiere den Namen, „die Signatur“ (vgl. J. Derrida) „Derrida“ (und Dekonstruktion) in vielen verschiedenen Zusammenhängen (auch) in diesem Jahr 2025. Das 36-jährige Jubiläum einer „Praxis“ im „Namen“ und durch die „Signatur“ J. D.!
36 Jahre philosophische Praxis GK, 36 Jahre Dekonstruktion, 36 Jahre Gespräch , Diskurs, Assoziationen, Analyse, Problematisierung, Identitätsdislokation, Subjektivierung, Formalisierung, Komplizierung, Dekonstruktion . G. K.

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

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Adventure Philosophy!

Philosophische Praxis

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

philosophical practices face à face

Gerhard Kaučić,

b. 1959, Philosopher, Writer, 66, 2025

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON II
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON III
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON I
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON IV
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON V
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Mit dem fünften Band von ‚S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns‘ erscheint ein weiterer Text in der Reihe zur Autobiographie des Agenten Sem. Sem, Privatdetektiv, Inspektor, Geheimagent, ist Akteur im System Sprache. Die Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas ist sein Medium und auszuspionierendes geheimdienstliches Operationsfeld. Das „Echelon-Projekt“ repräsentiert als Ergebnis die Matrix eines großen Lauschangriffs auf das Humanum schlechthin: Identität, Körper, Reproduktion, Sexualität, Macht, Gewalt, Repräsentation, Sprache, Semiotik, Gedächtnis, Wissen, Archiv. Zugleich ist dieser Text vielleicht die Erfüllung der Forderung von Helmut Heissenbüttel nach einer Literatur für intellektuelle LeserInnen und eine Liebeserklärung an Jacques Derrida.

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

In English:

CORONA WHEELING CROWNING

Covidity Virality Virtuality Mediality Metahumanoidity ?!

The leap. Leaving the book. The production, the emancipation, the liberation of writing.

……………………. Semeion Aoristicon oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns …………………..

……. THE SENTENCE ………. the jump ……… the set ……. the leap o f …. The LEAVING of

the BOOK ……….. ?!

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

I ask if Sem VI is not my / our blog composition !?!

I ask (me / us) if Sem VII is not my / our blog.

I ask if my/our blog will not be Sem VI and Sem VII?

And shall be!

Or must be?

Already is, will be or even must be and will have to be !?!

The set. The leaving of the book.

The production, the emancipation, the liberation of the writing.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Semeion Aoristicon or to the autobiography of Sem Schauns

……. THE SET …….. THE LEAVING OF THE BOOK …….. !?

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

Psychoanalyse, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, das Unbewußte

Die Sprache, das Sprechen, das Unbewußte (Ubw)

Der Satz und die Philosophie

Gegenwartsphilosophie

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

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

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

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

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 )

Gerhard Kaučić, Alter 66, 2025, Anna Lydia Huber, age 66, 2025

Philosoph:in des Denkens der „différance“ (cf. J. Derrida, La dissémination. Collection „Tel Quel“ aux Éditions du Seuil, Paris 1972)

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

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

Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement

…around the clock …around the world…

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Contemporary Philosophy

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber ( geb. 1959) Philosophische Praxis 1989 ff.

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

Cf. list of publications at: https://scholar.google.at/citations?user=wNUSN64AAAAJ&hl=de

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Projekte / Projects (1989 – 2025 ff.) 36 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Wien GK & ALH

Mehr dazu siehe meinen Teaser und meinen Footer sowie die übrigen Postings in diesem Blog! (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)

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

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

PP-2025-03

Violence

03/07/2025 admin

Violence Politics Subject

Politics Confusion Violence Physical attacks Assassinations

Gerhard Kaučić

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

Head of a Philosophical Practice in Vienna (Austria) since 1989

Anna Lydia Huber

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

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

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Violence Politics Subject

Politics Confusion Violence Physical attacks Assassinations

MISLEADED and CONFUSED, sexists, racists, fascists, attackers, assassins, AN ATTEMPT.

Misguided and confused harassers, sexists, users of (sexual) violence, ideologically religious fanatics, racists and humiliators, assassins, misanthropists, fascists of all countries, go into meditation, reflection and analysis!

Sexual economies, desire, willingness to use violence, perpetration, responsibility!!!

Desire and responsibility!

Sexual economies! The possibilities of being born to the end!!!

the secret of the communicative in the constantly

threatening incommunicability

Sexism. Racism. Religious fanaticism. Fascism. Murder.

Adaptations.

Philosophical processes.

Slow, concentrated reading.

Analysis. Reflectorium. Psychoanalysis.

Possibilities for identity dislocation. Deconstruction.

Becoming a subject.

Being born to the end.

Repeated !

Dear readers

Dear visitors to our Grammatological Philosophical Practice in Vienna and everywhere else:

This is a construction project in the midst of an ocean of countless trains of thought, explorations, reconnaissance missions, illuminations, consolidations, dis- and parkurses, analyses, tasks, target explorations, planning, localizations, dislocations, deconstructions and attempted climbs to sometimes unimagined heights far beyond the general horizon of the conceivable. It is always a great pleasure for us.

Best regards

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

(( More in the posts here and in the blog Blogspot 2014 ff. on the subject of the assassination and on the subject of sexism

( https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com

oder die mobile Version / or mobile version:

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/?m=1

und unsere Publikationsliste / and our list of publications:

https://scholar.google.at/citations?user=wNUSN64AAAAJ&hl=de )

and in the magazine (online) Freitag ))

Briefly outlined in extreme brevity and complexity. The political body !

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

Power and domination relations connect individual, social, physical and virtual bodies.

Everything takes place where the ground opens up to the abyss, where the justification of something is attracted by countless abysses. ParaNoia lives as long as there will be libido. We must contain it, not rationalize it, contain and nurture it, in other words civilize and educate it.

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

Identity dislocations, chorology, hyle/morphic structures as tangible/not real(!) moments of experience (Husserl, Derrida).

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

For example, you can drink up your courage in company and “let off steam” when drunk, the possible self of a macho man as a “drunken assailant” and “aggressor”. The heroes(!) of touching and groping, of mocking and raping, of self-empowerment intoxication and the sadistic pleasure of humiliating and distressing, of torturing and murdering!

What is important here is that although the possible self usually remains virtual, it is nevertheless a special moment of self-understanding! An affective occupation takes place in the possible self. Since this usually appears desirable (for whatever reason, this is solely due to the biographical development of the individual), ideas and feelings of the most peculiar kind arise, i.e. the possible self is formed into a mode of diverse identifications and formations of desire.

The absurd train of thought of religious fanatics to be able to do justice to God, to be able to enter his “eternal”, his paradise, yes, to save themselves from hell and to be able to erase their own previous misdeeds (such as criminal offenses) through the “heroic”(!!!) act of murdering so-called non-believers or people of other faiths.

And this is just one variant of crude thought processes and the resulting acts or assassinations among many other self-seductions with underlying afflictions

( cf. our Posting on Affizierung:

Affizierung Immunisierung Autoaffektion Autoimmunität

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2022/02/affizierung-immunisierung-autoaffektion.html?m=1

engl. Version:

Affliction Immunization Autoaffection Autoimmunity

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2022/02/affliction-immunization-autoaffection.html?m=1 )

Gropers, mockers, humiliators, rapists, murderers and assassins should learn to rebuild themselves by working on their desires and dreams and thus learn to see their own past in a different light and, above all, learn to see themselves in the light of others.

On the contrary, they usually work on so-called cavalier justifications to ward off criticism from the outside. They usually form themselves as a possible self in the form of a promise of their specialness. After all, they only mean well, according to the outflow of a stupid culture of incomprehension for humiliations of all kinds (of the other). Trumpism! The new vocabulary for this kind of posturing.

They don’t want to be able to recognize that they have turned their “normal lives” into deviance and depravity.

Individuality and responsibility!

Not an easy path. Not a very difficult path!

Desire and responsibility!

Possible careers from thoughtlessness(!?), rudeness, being rejected(!), feelings of hatred, exclusion, sexism, sexual harassment, coercion, the crude, racism, hate speech, violence, rape, cruelty, torture, fascism, inclusion, mobbing to murder (?!!!), serial murder, mass murder, genocide, extermination!!!

The dominance of the other as a consequence of the lack of doubt.

The Political Body and the Other

Afflictions

Inskriptions

Recollections

Individuality and responsibility! Not an easy path. Not a very difficult path!

Politics, ways of thinking, acts of communication, territorializations, deterritorializations (cf. Deleuze!), deconstructivisms, constructivisms.

Dehierarchizations, displacements, identity dislocations, chorology, hyle/morphe structures as tangible/not real(!) moments of experience (Husserl, Derrida), sensual(!) matter experienced(!) or shaped(!) in différance.

The Political Body and the Other

Affections

Inscriptions

Recollections

Every democracy, every democracy to come, will have to deal with these energy arrangements(!) (libido wasters) of irrational, slightly to severely paranoid megalomaniac personalities over and over again. Not born to the end

(cf. Theweleit, Männerphantasien)!

The bodily architecture is political (cf. Monique Wittig’s analysis of heterosexuality as a political regime and Michel Foucault’s analyses of the dispositif of sexuality as well as Judith Butler’s analyses of performative identity).

Bodies are socially constructed texts (cf. Beatriz/Paul Preciado‘s Contrasexual Manifesto).

Consciousness arises from bodies in structures.

Actions are founded in delusions in dreams and as dreams.

In psychosis, the father function is reduced to the image of the father.

The symbolic is reduced to the imaginary. Under certain real conditions, the person lives his dream as madness set in action – he follows his puzzling image of the father. His rebus remains closed to him. He does not know distance to himself. He does not recognize a real self in relation to the other. Relational shifts. Distortions. Delusions of grandeur. I/ME as God! Imagination as the unshakeable necessity of a self. Trumputinism.

Lacan defines psychosis as one of three clinical structures defined by the mechanism of decomposition.

In this mechanism, the “name-of-the-father” (cf. “Introduction to the name-of-the-father”, – in: Jacques Lacan: Name-of-the-Father. Vienna 2006, translated from the French by Hans-Dieter Gondek, Vlg. Turia+Kant, pp. 63-102, german edition) is not integrated into the psychotic’s symbolic universe; a gap remains. There was a “rejection/decomposition”!

In psychosis there is indeed an unconscious, but according to Lacan a non-functioning unconscious. In other words, a gap or a hole in the symbolic order for lack of the name-of-the-father, a dysfunction of the unconscious, perhaps better a parafunction of the unconscious. The psychotic structure arises due to a dysfunction of the Oedipus complex, a lack of the father function.

“Dream and delusion come from the same source, from the repressed; the dream is the physiological delusion, so to speak, of the normal person. Before the repressed has become strong enough to assert itself as a delusion in waking life, it can easily have achieved its first success under the more favorable circumstances of the sleeping state in the form of a dream with a lasting effect. For during sleep, with the reduction of psychic activity in general, there is also a reduction in the strength of the resistance which the prevailing psychic powers put up against the repressed. It is this reduction that makes the formation of dreams possible, and it is for this reason that the dream becomes for us the best access to knowledge of the unconscious sphere (of the soulic/the psychical). The only difference is that the dream usually vanishes again with the establishment of the psychic occupations of waking, the ground won by the unconscious is cleared again.” (S. Freud, The Delusion and the Dreams in W. Jensen’s Gradiva, Chapter 2)

(( Compare also and especially Jacques Lacan, Nicolas Abraham/Maria Torok “Kryptonymie. Das Verbarium des Wolfsmanns” and Jacques Derrida ‘Fors’ (tr. from the French Werner Hamacher), Basel 2008 (especially p.71ff. ‘Einverleibung, interne Hysterie, Kryptonymie’ and p. 94 ff. ”Die interne Hysterie. Structure and functioning of a machinery” (germ. Ed. ))

Lacan is not agreed here by Abraham/Torok/Derrida that the wolf-man is merely a neurotic, but in truth a psychotic whose “distortions” are not accessible to symbolization!!!! ( keyword Trumputin! ).

In and through “cryptonymy”, the questions of philosophy (especially those of J. Derrida, which are still being increasingly extensified and disseminated in a concentrated manner) are posed as hard as nails on the level of psychoanalysis, and it is precisely on this level of psychoanalysis that philosophy is categorically and grammatologically denied the possibility of an answer.

Possible careers from thoughtlessness(!?), rudeness, being rejected(!), feelings of hatred, exclusion, sexism, sexual harassment, coercion, the crude, racism, hate speech, violence, rape, cruelty, torture, fascism, inclusion, mobbing to murder (?!!!), serial murder, mass murder, genocide, extermination!!!!

Democracy, politics and society are threatened by assassination, by the assassins. Threatened by border crossers of an erroneous belief, trapped in the paranoia of fatal certainties up to a megalomania of a historically invented IS state (Kant’s “false poetic imagination” in the interpretation, assessment and interpretation of signs of realities; see Immanuel Kant: Anthropologie in pragmatischer Absicht, 1798, § 49, germ. ed.).

In his writing, Kant speaks of a “methodical madness”, of the ability to “race with reason”, of the paranoia of the soul and the mind, which would be able to think according to the laws of logic with the wrong “data” in the form of hyper-reason.

And if only to understand how to move in traffic with an automobile and pull the lever of an automatic rifle.

How can the reasonableness of reason be provided in contrast to crazy ideas and actions? In Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” (Darmstadt 1983, vol. 3, p. 35, germ. ed.) there is a criterion of “self-knowledge”, the critical examination of ideas.

So-called critical reason places itself in a relationship to itself, in particular in order to “cut off the root of enthusiasm and superstition” (ibid.). According to Kant, this kind of rapture is “a delusion” (I. Kant, Kritik der Urteilskraft, vol. 8, p. 366, germ. Ed.) beyond all limits of sensuality.

Reason must therefore keep this process of paranoia, i.e. the “rush of reason”, under control or prevent it (ibid.).

Pardon!

Intermediate step towards consciousness-expanding reading on the topic!

When it comes to sexism, racism, fascism (!), let us always consult and not forget — the fascism analyses and sexual economy theories of Wilhelm Reich („Massenpsychologie des Faschismus.

Zur Sexualökonomie der politischen Reaktion und zur proletarischen Sexualpolitik“ 1933 ) and Klaus Theweleit (”Männerphantasien” 1980, esp. vol. 2 ‘männerkörper – zur psychoanalyse des weißen terrors’ 1978 )

Pardon!

Once again on the possible career on the road to death:

Read slowly! With caution and measuring the weight of the words!

Sexism debates! Sexism! And!

– the secret of the communicative in the constantly

threatening incommunicability

Inconsiderateness(!?), rudeness, being rejected(!?), feelings of hatred, exclusion, sexism, sexual harassment, coercion, the crude, racism, hate speech, violence, rape, cruelty, torture, fascism, inclusion, mobbing, murder, serial murder, mass murder, genocide, extinction, death, social death, self-extinction, silence,

eternal silence

inhumanity

no soul

finis terrae

fin

f abyss ??? !!!

“What is a crypt? (same volume p. 11, 12) …

…….

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

The politics of love and friendship. Only those who love can know what it means to love.

Respect, —

from a new cryptology to an anasemic retranscription of all

concepts

Lost and confused people of all countries, practise the geography

of respectful behavior!

Sexual economies!

Desire and responsibility!

“The Sense of the World” (Jean-Luc Nancy)

“Responsibility of Sense” ( in: J.-L. Nancy, Das nackte Denken, Zurich, Berlin 2014, pp. 201-213 )

“Corpus” ( cf.!, read!,- absolutely !: J. – L. Nancy ! )

“This thinking is maddening. … the repulsion of the world is the world. Such is the world of the body. It has in itself this disarticulation, this inarticulation of the corpus.” (Corpus, p. 94) !!! Violence and the body !!! Violence and impossible thinking !!! Body-speaking !!! Touching !!! Madness !!! Delusion !!! Sense !!! Paranoia ???

“The Primacy of the Same or Narcissism” (Emmanuel Lévinas: The Trace of the Other, p. 167, p. 217, germ. ed.). “The senseless suffering” (hes., – in: Between us. Mch. 1995, p. 117ff.). “Touch anxiety” as the cause of the lack of a sense of plurality and otherness (Antje Kapust: Berührung ohne Berührung. Mch. 1999).

“But a twofold law: YOU MUST TOUCH; YOU MUST NOT TOUCH AT ALL.” ((Jacques Derrida: Touching, Jean-Luc Nancy. Bln. 2007, p. 2, pp. 87-94 “For there is a law of tact. … This law of the law … What thus commands us respect, and above all respect in the Kantian sense, … where it is first of all respect for the law, … ”; p. 117 “Separation of the Other”; — cf. on this “The Separation of Lovers” by Igor A. Caruso; — and further in touching on JacquesDerridaJean-LucNancy through reading and lekriture: p. 145ff., p. 277ff., p. 339ff., germ. ed. )).

“… Consequence of the castration fright …” (Sigmund Freud: Die Ichspaltung im Abwehrvorgang, – in: S. Freud, Das Ich und das Es. Metapsychological Writings. Frf. a. Main 2010, p. 339 prev.f., germ. ed.).

For S. Freud, too, the moment of the “prohibition”(!) of touch is considered to be the predominant cause of neurosis (S. Freud, Totem und Tabu, – in: S. Freud: Werkausgabe in 2 Bden, ed. by Anna Freud, Frf. 1978, II, P. 224, germ ed.).

The touch through “oneself”(!) The touch of the other without touch. Touching by the other without touching! Bodies speak body-speak. Sense of sense and sense of the senses. Sense of the world. Writing of the world. Violence of writing. Writing of violence ( see teaser and our blog posts, – especially: “Charlie Hebdo” ! cf. Blogspot-Blog! ).

The writing of the “soul” as a tendentially boundless “body of pleasure” and “body of pain”! — cf. Jean-Luc Nancy in “Ausdehnung der Seele” (Zurich-Berlin 2015, germ. ed.), p. 33ff. “Der Lustkörper”; p. 39: “The pleasure body (and the pain body as its counterpart) delimits the body. It is its transcendence.” … p. 39: “In sex, bodies express a vocation to transcend all destiny that would be subject to a given order.” !!! …

“That is why sex is the place of creation: … And this starting from nothing, that is, solely through the wide opening of that which in itself is nothing other than opening: mouth, eye, ear, nose, sex, anus, skin, skin endlessly repeated and reopened through all its pores. Distancing, wasting, taking and detaching, coming and going, masturbating: always the syncopated cadence of a process that drives towards the limits of what first and foremost limits a body.”

Relationality between fear of touching and touching. Relationship. Body language. Sense of sense and sense of the senses. Sense of the world. Writing of the world. Lovers! Killers! Violence of scripture! The writing of the soul!

[ This is a construction site, see more in the posts on the assassination and on sexism in the Blogspot-blog and in the magazine Freitag ]

Vergessen wir nicht ! ! !

Let us not forget ! ! !

Die Psychoanalyse ! ! !

The Psychoanalysis ! ! !

P.s.: (in German)

[[ als kleine Info hinzugefügt am Schluß:

Nicht jeder Mensch kann und will in die Öffentlichkeit mit persönlichen und gleichzeitig politisch-gesellschaftlichen Leidensthematiken.

Die Philosophische Praxis bietet hierfür den geeigneten Ort und wie ich denke eine geeignete, weil angemessene intellektuelle Intimität des behutsamen, mikrologischen Gespräches zwischen zwei Menschen. Face à Face. Open End. ]]

P.s.: (in English)

[[ as a little info added at the end:

Not everyone can and wants to go public with personal and at the same time political-social issues of suffering.

Philosophical practice offers a suitable place for this and, in my opinion, an appropriate intellectual intimacy of careful, micro-logical conversation between two people. Face to face. Open End. ]]

To speak briefly with Derrida, to remind us how necessary this will always be:

The subject of an utterance can hardly be aware, and must be aware, that all “communication” is subject to a general graphematic structure.

One consequence of this is that the iteration structure is given and thus the intention of an utterance can never be fully present to itself and its content.

This means that the iteration always produces a break, the iteration structures

a p r i o r i.

There is always already an oratio obliqua, a structural unconsciousness of intention in the actuality of the statement.

Never forget to remember that in the matter and the conception of it a ghost is at work – the teleological illusion of consciousness (cf. esp. “Signature, Event, Context” by J. Derrida, in: Randgänge der Philosophie).

This also applies, and perhaps even more so, to the actor of a hate speech than to the addressee.

So watch out for the always possible boomerang effect of self-harm! In private as well as in public!

Whether individual person-actor or states.

It is always important to read and critique the connotations of a text.

For Rousseau, as for Artaud, words are “corpses of psychic language”.

The theater of cruelty calls from the grave. The phenomena of this theater are screams, pantomimes, glossopoeias and onomatopoeias, which perhaps make the human body visible in its misery.

This visibility (!?) shows us an early human era as Rousseau tried to imagine it. No paradisiacal world, no lovable “natural man”(!).

Articulation is no longer a cry, but neither is discourse, where repetition, and with it language itself, is almost impossible (cf. Derrida, Die Schrift und die Differenz, p. 362f., germ. ed.).

Jacques Derrida has pointed out that Artaud, with his dramatic breathing, screaming, moving, not only follows on from Rousseau’s primal language of affects, but also from Freud’s conception of dream language, which, out of “consideration for representability”, abandons word concepts in favor of a kind of immediate pictorial writing (ibid., pp. 365ff. and especially J. D.: Artaud Moma. Ausrufe, Zwischenruf und Berufungen, Passagen Verlag, p. 13ff., germ. ed. and see also Concic-Kaucic, Sem II, Passagen Verlag, 1994, germ. ed.).

Artaud seeks the real, the raw flesh.

We also see this design very often on the net, in social media. The raw! Not very often the cooked!

The raw! The hate – speak! The raw! The rape! The raw! The assassination!

Paranoia! Conspiracies of meaning! Diseases in the head! (Kant)

Pardon! Once again to the possible career on the way to death

eternal silence

inhumanity

no soul

finis terrae

fin

f abyss

Destructive developments are not only to be repressively eliminated(!), but also to be pedagogized and civilized through communicative inclusion. Philosophical Practice could make a not insignificant contribution to this, I think.

I must also briefly mention >responsibility< (!). This touches on becoming a subject, the ability to be a subject, thus also the discourses on the demarcation between humans and animals (see teaser!).

I would like to point out the general disquiet in the human sciences when one addresses a logic of the unconscious or even relies on it (as I/we do, for example).

A logic of the unconscious that undermines every certainty and assurance (including our own!) in the awareness of freedom (!), which then always implies responsibility.

Here the reproach is immediately raised that (with the inclusion of this logic of the unconscious) all responsibility and ethics would be called into doubt and thus every decision (and also a little bit of non-decidability) would be guaranteed.

I keep telling those who make this accusation that the opposite is precisely the case, that it is precisely this fact of doubt about responsibility, decidability and one’s own ethical being that constitutes the indeterminable nature(!) of responsibility, decision and ethics.

We not only react, we respond. Linguistically, semiotically. In a certain way, this response (with certain signs, codes) should also apply to certain animals

(see also my/our teaser in the Blogspot-Blog https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com ).

The function of language is not only to provide information.

In speaking I seek the answer of the other. The possibility of becoming a subject lies in what I say and ask and in my doubts.

Humans (and to some extent animals) are not Cartesian animal machines (!). Living beings do not have completely pre-programmed behavior and interaction (especially not when the observation period is extended over generations!).

Animals also possess subjectivity and even to some extent a subconscious!

Any established knowledge, any undoubted theoretical certainty would only further assert and reinforce the old metaphysical prejudices of the mere “reaction” instead of a possibility to respond(!) (i.e. to be able to “read”(!) – means leeway, i.e. freedom, not being fixed as a mere animal machine, as a mere reaction apparatus).

The dominance of the Other as a consequence of the lack of doubt.

The Political Body and the Other

Afflictions

Inskriptions

Recollections

Please recognize this truth(!), –

the factuality of your behavior and that means

that you must bear responsibility at all times and without interruption for possibly tipping your completely “normal life” into deviance and depravity by virtue of your behavior and according to your actions.

In the negative as well as in the positive!

The world today has become a single large space, the likes of which Plato and all his successors up to the 20th century could not have dreamed of (!).

But this space, as Derrida points out several times, indeed many times and explicitly, also has a quality unknown to them: hybrid in all its cultural conditions, preconditions, determinations and shifts, – overlapping on all sides, intensifying, overshooting, heterotopic, global and perhaps also coming (!?!) planetary.

(( cf. on this, – stimulatingly controversial: texts by Chantal Mouffe, Richard Rorty, Simon Critchley, Ernesto Laclau and Jacques Derrida, – in: Chantal Mouffe (ed.): Dekonstruktion und Pragmatismus. Democracy, Truth and Reason. Vienna 1999 (Passagen Vlg., german ed.) and Chantal Mouffe: Welche Weltordnung: kosmopolitisch oder multipolar?, – in: Chantal Mouffe: Über das Politische. Against the Cosmopolitan Illusion. Frankfurt am Main 2007, p. 118ff. (edition suhrkamp, germ. ed.) and in particular: Jacques Rancière: Der Hass der Demokratie. Berlin, August Verlag 2011, german edition; and: Colin Crouch: Postdemokratie. Frankf. 2008; and finally Plato’s “delicate” and provocative (!?) formulations on democracy as a political regime that is not one ( !?!), – in: Plato, Politeia, Book VIII, 562d ff. ))

The thinking of différance (Derrida, Die différance, – in: Randgänge der Philosophie, Vienna 1988, pp. 29-53, german ed.) is a thinking towards what can be!

[[ read our postings (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.) on attacks in Paris (Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan), violence and sexism (debates), – perhaps something else should be added here (after Orlando June 12, 2016, after Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023 (massacre during the Supernova Festival), et alii., …, et alii …, — after Magdeburg, after Munich, after Aschaffenburg, after Vienna, after attack in New Orleans in January 2025, after Villach February 2025) ]]

The world is changing. Always has been. Paranoia (in Kant’s sense) has always been unable to cope with this. Paranoiacs with TNT belts, knives, pipe bombs and cars are scaring us today.

The unresolved conflicts in the Middle East, the Far East and Africa, continental plate shifts in the post-colonial or neo-colonial (!?) age are coming to us in the flesh (!). The Russian invasion of Ukraine. The long war against Ukraine. Perhaps against Northern Europe. Perhaps against Eastern Europe. Maybe again in the Balkans? New problems and new questions, new readings, new interpretations every day.

Hundreds of thousands of dead in the wars. 100s of deaths in the assassinations. Dozens killed in the assassination. Each time the singularity of murder!

Together with the historical processes, we must think the singularity.

No logic of the simulacrum can make us forget this.

Being at home or wanting to be at home is in danger of deterritorialization, even the danger of expropriation.

A decomposition of our sense of security.

Also a certain devaluation of the state, insofar as sovereignty is linked to the rule over a territory – and thus also the guarantee(ing) of security(s).

It happens to me as a sceptic of the state – as someone who always tends to see the state as someone who wants to block or roll back individualization, legalization and democratization – that I am currently a little more on the side of the state. Especially on the side of Europe, the European Union, to be precise!

In any case, one thing seems obvious to me: without the desire “to be at home with oneself” (Kant), there would be no hospitality ( cf. Jacques Derrida, This crazy “truth”: the “right name” of friendship, – in: J. D.: Politik (sic!, cf. French original: Politiques …) der Freundschaft. Frankf. 2002 (Suhrkamp, germ. ed.), p. 80ff. and: J. D.: Von der Gastfreundschaft. Vienna 2001 (Passagen Verlag, german ed.), p. 53ff. ).

We should retain this vital desire without dragging the concepts of nationalism or even fundamentalism of any kind through life with us.

The assassination. The madness. The singularity.

The work of mourning. Telegrief. The assassination. The murderers. The victims. Me. Subjects. Touching. Sad. In mourning.

Geophilosophy, Ecopsychoanalysis, ( Rousseau, Kant, Nietzsche, philosophy and movement in space, Nietzsche’s philosophical geography, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Horkheimer, Adorno, Foucault, Lyotard, Deleuze, Guattari, Derrida, Fr. M. Wimmer, St. Günzel, D. Harvey, K. Schlögel, S. Weigel, B. Neumann, Spivak : spatial theories, geographies, politics, ways of thinking, acts of communication, territorializations, deterritorializations, deconstructivisms, constructivisms, critical geopolitics(! ), dehierarchizations, displacements, identity dislocations, chorology, hyle/morphe structures as tangible/not real(!) moments of experience (Husserl, Derrida), sensual(!) matter experienced(!) or shaped(!) in différance,

“planetary subject”, ‘animal turn’, ‘spatial turn’, philosophy of democracy, intercultural philosophy, human rights, human duties

Philosophical Practice as grammatological philosophical Practice as Austrian(!) Philosophy of the present! Philosophy today. Philosophizing. Deconstructing in conversation. Deconstruction. Vienna, Austria, Europe, the world. Regional and global. In the sense of thinking of a “planetary subject” (cf. Spivak, below) with regional, cultural roots. Regional, continental, global.

Austrian philosophy of the present. Philosophies of the present. Philosophers today. Austrian philosophers today, in the present, in Austria and in the world. Deconstruction as a philosophical practice and attitude. Vienna, Austria, Europe, the world. Geophilosophy. Critical geophilosophy. Intercultural Philosophy, Convivialism, Multiculturalism, Interculturalism, Cosmopolitanism, New Cosmopolitanism, World Philosophy, World Philosophy, Interculturality, Intercultural Communication, Incommunicability, individual, familial, local, regional, global (!!!????)

No historical process (of freedom, the Middle East, Europe, America, wars, oil, money, weapons, colonialism, imperialism, religions, cultures, hegemonies, uprisings, iterabilities of events of murder, expulsions, fleeing, reception and rescue / non-rescue of refugees, mass murderers, war-lords, Taliban, IS (Daesh), Arab Wahabism, Salafism / Salafism, Russism and other death ideologies etc.) can make us forget the event / events. Wahhabism), Salafism / Salafism, Russism and other death ideologies etc.) can make us forget the event / events.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths in the wars. 100s of deaths in the assassinations. Dozens of deaths from the assassination. Each time the singularity of the murder!

Together with the processes of history, we must think the singularity.

((( Additional remark on the following “Mundus Corpus” as an insertion and grafting:

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

In my/our grammatological philosophical practice, we do not formulate about something, not about texts (what is said / not said / thought / interpreted / written / drawn / filmed / meant / mediatized / realia of any kind) // (in relation and reference to supposed truths of reality), but we process as precisely as possible as readers of a text passage by reading it and subsequently analyzing the concrete (! ) ( and only these! ) linguistic units and perpetual incessant interrelation (!) of what is analyzed and its decoding by deconstructing as many (!) implications, references, (un)thoughtfulnesses and the thinking of the trace ( cf. teaser on grammatology and the trace: “The trace, in which the relationship to the other emerges, expresses its possibility in the entire realm of being, which metaphysics has determined as present-being from the hidden movement of the trace.

It is necessary to think the trace before the existing. … Op. cit., Jacques Derrida: Grammatology, pp. 81-88, germ. ed. ).

And all of this almost in the form of “simultaneity” (!), which can almost be grasped locally – that is, in the form of maximum attention to the text currently(!) being read and in question.

After all, in a fairly and appropriate actuality and freshness of the respective now-time and as now-me (!), – that is, a bold and courageous kind of acute (!) in the time of a now and now and now as well as in the formatting of a space of the desired, ( perhaps “dreamed”! ), and as realistically at first unthought-of presence of I and me.

“face à face” )))

MUNDUS CORPUS

“The Sense of the World” (Jean-Luc Nancy)

“Responsibility of the Sense” ( in: J.-L. Nancy, Das nackte Denken, Zurich, Berlin 2014, pp. 201-213 )

“Corpus” ( cf.!, read!,- absolutely !: J. – L. Nancy ! )

“This thinking is maddening. … the repulsion of the world is the world. Such is the world of bodies. It has in itself this disarticulation, this inarticulation of the corpus.” (Corpus, p. 94) !!! Violence and the body !!! Violence and impossible thinking !!! Body-speaking !!! Touching !!! Madness !!! Delusion !!! Sense !!! Paranoia ???

“The Primacy of the Same or Narcissism” (Emmanuel Lévinas: The Trace of the Other, p. 167, p. 217, germ. ed.). “The senseless suffering” (hes., – in: Between us. Mch. 1995, p. 117ff., germ. ed.). “Touch anxiety” as the cause of the lack of a consciousness of plurality and otherness (Antje Kapust: Berührung ohne Berührung. Mch. 1999, germ. ed.).

I need perspectives for a limited appropriation. I must be able to appropriate meaning and thus a conscious existence in relation to others.

In other words, based on Heidegger’s Being and Time, I must be able to live my “Being to Death”(!) as full of meaning as possible (cf. my blog post on “Charlie Hebdo”) and consciously and creatively.

A life full of meaningful moments! (cf.: John Dewey, Experience and Nature)

Deconstruction is permanently engaged in the struggle to limit violence, a violence that is inseparable from the discourse of human rights.

( see “Teaser” on the question of deconstruction, on the question: What is deconstruction? What “is” deconstruction. On the question: What is “here” deconstruction ?, – and how does deconstruction happen, how does deconstruction occur, what does the deconstructing practice do, compare blog post: “POÉSIE ENGAGÉE Sprachruf Rufsprache https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2015/02/poesie-engagee-sprachruf-rufsprache.html?m=1

Ingenuity Invention” )

Deconstruction and/or invention and/or intervention.

Dekonstruktion und/als Invention und/als Intervention.

My mourning is for the survivors as the creators of sense and for all victims of the confused.

ΜΗΔΕΙΣ AΨYXOΛOΓIKOΣ EIΣITΩ

Medeis apsychologikos eisito

Let no one unversed in „psychoanalysis“ enter here

ΜΗΔΕΙΣ ΑΓΡΑΜΜATIKÓΣ EIΣITΩ

Medeis agrammatikos eisito

Let no one unversed in „grammatology“ enter here

ΜΗΔΕΙΣ AΦPENÓ-ΠΛHKTOΣ EIΣITΩ

Medeis aphrenoplektos eisito

Niemand ( m / f / o ), der nicht „leidenschaftlich“ ist, sollte Eintritt suchen !

No „passion“ ( cf. Nietzsche ! Rousseau, Freud, Artaud, Derrida ! ) no entree !

(( Cf. Teaser !!! Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.! ))

ΜΗΔΕΙΣ AΨYXOΛOΓIKOΣ EIΣITΩ

Medeis apsychologikos eisito

Let no one unversed in „psychoanalysis“ enter here

ΜΗΔΕΙΣ ΑΓΡΑΜΜATIKÓΣ EIΣITΩ

Medeis agrammatikos eisito

Let no one unversed in „grammatology“ enter here

Small Inductio to the

Dissertation/Doctoral thesis Gerhard Kaučić Paris Lodron University of Salzburg 1986

Gerhard Kaučić: Grammatotechnè as grammatology of the “Herzgewächse” or of incommunicability. Dissertation Salzburg 1986.

cf.:

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2018/02/grammatotechne-als-grammatologie-der.html

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2018/02/grammatotechne-als-grammatologie-der.html?m=1

Url, pdf, Phil. Diss. Gerhard Kaučić, Salzburg 1986

https://kaucic-huber.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Diss.1986_G.Kaucic_Grammatotechne_als_Gr.pdf

Url pdf Diss. G. Kaucic 1986 on “Internet Archive Wayback Machine”:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180225025656/https://kaucic-huber.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Diss.1986_G.Kaucic_Grammatotechne_als_Gr.pdf

The trace of something must be thought before the existing! (Derrida)

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

” the secret of the communicative in the constantly

threatening incommunicability”

Performativity / Performativity ! ( J. Derrida, “Signature, Event, Context” / J. Butler, “Excitable Speech. A Politics of the Performative” / E. Fischer-Lichte, ‘Aesthetics of the Performative’)

Escaping the “ commented ‘ of the ’commentary”!

( cf.: § Para-Graphie : K o m m e n t a r , – in: Gerhard Kaučić: Grammatotechnè als Grammatologie der “HERZGEWÄCHSE” oder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986, pp. 46-71., german ed. )

Parekbase, Parabase (Schlegel, Barthes, Derrida, Cončić-Kaučić) !

Escape the reduction, the falsification, the humiliation, the castration of the “text” by the “commentary”!

The “commentary” always restricts the “text”!

Performanz / Performance !

Text politics !

Text performance / repetition / iterability / marking !

Dissemination / Idiom ! Performativity !

( cf.: § Para-Graphie : D i s s e m i n a t i o n, – in: Gerhard Kaučić: Grammatotechnè als Grammatologie der “HERZGEWÄCHSE” oder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986, pp. 71-74., german ed. )

Text music / text image / coloratura / voice / texture !

Text configuration

What is information? What is a sentence? What is a question? What determines a question?

Every sentence, every word, every code drives its being and its mischief in incommunicability!

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

Every sentence in every setting and every session (including those in a PP/philosophical practice).

I should/we should always have the opportunity to explain all the psychoanalytic, economic, political and juridical implications of the 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!

Philosophical practice

the enigmatic and disturbing necessity

of communication

undecidability ? Incommunicability ?

Emergence of the self! Markings!

S e l f s t – R e f l e c t i v i t y

Reflectivity

Self-reflectivity

Gerhard Kaučić, “§ ParaGraphie : D i f f e r ä n z”, – in: G. K.: Grammatotechne als Grammatologie der HERZGEWÄCHSE oder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986, pp. 74-84. (germ. ed.)

and esp:

J. Derrida, La différance, – in: “Randgänge der Philosophie”. Vienna 1988 (Passagen Verlag), pp. 29-52. (germ. ed.)

What and how would be an appropriate thinking practice today

In what >is<(!) philosophy conceivable today and through what or from where is that which we mean differently by philosophy to be practiced.

The term(!) différance questions the human being in a certain sense and thereby draws the history of life in general.

Once again to humanism as logocentrism or phonologocentrism.

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

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Adventure Philosophy!

Philosophische Praxis

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

philosophical practices face à face

Gerhard Kaučić,

b. 1959, Philosopher, Writer, 66, 2025

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON II
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON III
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON I
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON IV
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON V
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

In English:

CORONA WHEELING CROWNING

Covidity Virality Virtuality Mediality Metahumanoidity ?!

The leap. Leaving the book. The production, the emancipation, the liberation of writing.

……………………. Semeion Aoristicon oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns …………………..

……. THE SENTENCE ………. the jump ……… the set ……. the leap o f …. The LEAVING of

the BOOK ……….. ?!

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

I ask if Sem VI is not my / our blog composition !?!

I ask (me / us) if Sem VII is not my / our blog.

I ask if my/our blog will not be Sem VI and Sem VII?

And shall be!

Or must be?

Already is, will be or even must be and will have to be !?!

The set. The leaving of the book.

The production, the emancipation, the liberation of the writing.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Semeion Aoristicon or to the autobiography of Sem Schauns

……. THE SET …….. THE LEAVING OF THE BOOK …….. !?

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

Psychoanalyse, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, das Unbewußte

Die Sprache, das Sprechen, das Unbewußte (Ubw)

Der Satz und die Philosophie

Philosophische Praxis

GESPRÄCHE sind EREIGNISSE als TEXT

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

Gerhard Kaučić, Alter 66, 2025, Anna Lydia Huber, age 66, 2025

Philosoph:in des Denkens der „différance“ (cf. J. Derrida, La dissémination. Collection „Tel Quel“ aux Éditions du Seuil, Paris 1972)

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

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

Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement

…around the clock …around the world…

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Contemporary Philosophy

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber ( geb. 1959) Philosophische Praxis 1989 ff.

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

Cf. list of publications at: https://scholar.google.at/citations?user=wNUSN64AAAAJ&hl=de

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Projekte / Projects (1989 – 2025 ff.) 36 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Wien GK & ALH

Mehr dazu siehe meinen Teaser und meinen Footer sowie die übrigen Postings in diesem Blog! (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)

Homepage:

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

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

PP-2025-02

Europeanization Legal Policy Migration Policy Deconstruction

02/23/2025 admin

Europeanization Legal Policy Migration Policy Deconstruction

Migration Migration Politics Community Subjects Relations The Other

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

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

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

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Contemporary Philosophy

Gegenwartsphilosophie

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

Overview / Outline

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

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

The politics of friendship is a difficult one.

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

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

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

And also mini-outbursts like hate postings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Political Body and the Other

Affections

Inscriptions

Recollections

In extreme brevity and complication briefly. The political Body!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European Heritage

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

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

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

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

Means, – the globalization is the Europeanization !

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

The European heritage are crises !

Crisis and deconstruction !

Temporary textual configuration !

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

Spaces and borders are not objectively measurable and maintainable realities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracies that are themselves struggling to come.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Empathy! Help!

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

70 Years of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( cf. Source: United Nations Department of Public Information, NY

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng )

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

Everyone has the right to a nationality.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

The Congress of Europe in May 1948 was attended by 650 politicians (few of them were government representatives) of almost all European countries – demand for the political unity of Europe, creation of a Council of Europe and a convention on human rights as the basis of the future community. A commission was established to draft the human rights convention.

With reference to the UDHR adopted in December 1948, it was demanded that there be not only a proclamation of rights but also a corresponding legal protection.

The draft convention was submitted to the provisional Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in June 1949.

Finally, one was not content with a list of human rights, these should also be defined accordingly.

The ECHR (European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) was signed in Rome on November 4, 1950, at the 6th session of the Committee of Ministers, and entered into force on September 3, 1953 (after ratification by 10 member states) (in Austria on September 3, 1958, two years after admission to the Council of Europe, Federal Law Gazette 210/1958); since Federal Law Gazette 59/1964, the ECHR and its 1st CP have had constitutional status; the subsequently ratified CPs (additional protocols) were also enacted with constitutional status.

Civil and political rights and freedoms are found therein, as well as a system for their enforceability against the member states.

However, the Committee of Ministers also decided on 4.11.1950 to draw up an additional protocol to regulate rights that had hitherto been disputed and therefore not included in the convention (property guarantee, parental rights, political civil rights).

The United Kingdom was the first to ratify the ECHR on 8.3.1951, followed by Norway, Sweden, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland and Greece, which withdrew between 1971 and 1974.

Three institutions were established:

The European Commission of Human Rights (1954)

The European Court of Human Rights (1959)

The Committee of Ministers (consisting of the foreign ministers of the member states).

A member state could then file a complaint against another member state for violation of convention rights.

The individual complaint was only possible if the respective member state allowed it.

The Commission examined the admissibility of the complaint; if no amicable agreement was reached, it drew up a report, which was submitted to the Committee of Ministers. Within three months, the Commission and the Member State could bring the case before the Court of Justice; this was not possible for individuals.

If the case was not brought to the Court, the Committee of Ministers decided whether there had been a violation of the Convention and, if so, awarded just satisfaction. The latter also monitored the domestic implementation of the Court’s judgments.

Since then, 14 additional protocols (APs) have been adopted.

Further rights and freedoms are contained in Additional Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13; the 2nd AP empowers the CJ to issue advisory opinions. Since the 9th AP, individual complaints can be brought before the CJ if the respective member state had ratified it and a panel of judges had agreed to it.

The rapid increase in the number of (registered) complaints (1981: 404; 1997: 4750) and the number of cases brought before the CJ (1981: 7 and 1997: 119) made a reform of the procedure necessary.

On 11.5.1994, the 11th Additional Protocol was signed in Strasbourg by all members of the Council of Europe (excluding Italy), which entered into force on 1.11.1998 (with a one-year transitional period – further processing by the Commission of complaints declared admissible until then) and created a single Court sitting permanently. The aim: to shorten the duration of proceedings before the Court and to abolish the jurisdiction of the Committee of Ministers, which is now only responsible for monitoring the execution of the Court’s jurisdiction.

The complainant can now appeal to the Court directly and as the only Convention body; the tasks previously performed by the Commission have been taken over by three-judge committees of the CJ. It is intended to reduce the duration of proceedings to two years in the foreseeable future.

Protocol No. 11, promulgated in Austria by Federal Law Gazette No. 30/1998, has completely restructured the legal protection of the Convention.

The Court of Justice now sits permanently and is staffed by full-time judges. Each of the (then) 40 member states provides one judge, who are appointed by the parliamentary assembly for a term of six years on the basis of tripartite proposals from the governments and are eligible for re-election up to the age of 70.

The Court sits in chambers of seven judges, with the Grand Chamber comprising 17 judges and the Committees comprising three and five judges.

The substantive provisions (ECHR 1950 and Additional Protocols 1, 4, 6 and 7) have not changed as a result; the procedural Protocols Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 8 have been incorporated into the new text of the Convention. Protocol No. 9 has become obsolete.

Complaints are now to be addressed directly to the CJ. Any person, organization or association of persons who considers that a guaranteed right has been violated may lodge a complaint with the CJ.

The new Rules of Procedure have been published in Austria in a German translation in Federal Law Gazette III No. 13/2000.

The official languages of the Court are English and French. However, complaints can be filed in all official languages of the Member States.

Global migration as one of the greatest challenges for all prosperous societies

Entering or settling in the territory of another state has not yet been guaranteed in any human rights document under international law. In the Geneva Convention on Refugees, there is a convention (dated July 28, 1951) on the status of refugees and another paper as a protocol dated January 31, 1967.

The Geneva Convention lists a large number of rights to be granted to refugees in host countries, – e.g. access to educational institutions. Particularly important is Article 33, which prohibits the refoulement and expulsion of refugees when their lives and liberties are threatened. Hannah Arendt complains in her writing „Elements and Origins of Totalitarian Rule. Anti-Semitism, Imperialism, Totalitarianism. Berlin 1986, pp. 601-615“ that minorities and refugees who are stateless (de jure or de facto) are also legally defenceless and the human rights catalog is therefore aporetic in such a case. Which means, these refugees can only appeal to the rights and cannot access the protection status of a citizen.

In political philosophy, the topic of migration has played an increasingly important role since John Rawls‘ „A Theory of Justice“ from 1971, and in the German-speaking political sphere, too, there have been increasingly intensive discourses on the topic of immigration and the migration problem. Once again particularly clearly triggered by Mrs. Merkel’s open borders policy in 2015.

At the center of general attention and philosophical discussion is the controversial question of whether sovereign states can be obliged to open their borders to migrants. And the claim of many states to be allowed to deny access to their sovereign domain to outsiders who do not belong to the state community.

The legitimization of the exclusion of persons who do not belong to the state community!!!???

But hello! People!!! Seriously???

About the self I have already commented above (with Freud)! As we know, there can be no immediate self-experience, – we always remain at a distance to ourselves ! (cf. Derrida, Psyche, Inventions of the Other).

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

I remind of the potential of affectation and immunization or auto-immunization (cf. Derrida and cf. my so called posting (blogspot-blog 2014 ff.) in January 2022) at the beginning !

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

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

The Other as an opening towards the „undecidability“.

It is important to note that although the possible self remains mostly virtual, it is a special moment of the self-conception! In the possible self an affective occupation takes place. Since this mostly appears desirable (for whatever reason lies only in the biographical development of the individual), it comes to ideas and feelings partly of the strangest kind, i.e. the possible self forms itself to a mode of manifold identifications and formations of desire.

Those obsessed with the desire for power would have to rebuild themselves by working on their desires and dreams. On the contrary, they usually work on so-called Cavalieresque contexts of justification to ward off criticism from outside. They form themselves as a possible self mostly in the form of a promise of their specialness. They only mean well, so the outflow of stupid incomprehension culture for humiliations of all kinds (of the respective other).

Every democracy, every coming democracy, will have to struggle with these energy arrangements(!) (libido wasters) of irrational, slightly to heavily paranoid megalomaniac personalities again and again. Not born to the end (cf. Theweleit, Männerphantasien/Male fantasies)!

Body architecture is political ( cf. Monique Wittig’s analysis of heterosexuality as a political regime and M. Foucault’s analyses of the dispositif of sexuality as well as Judith Butler’s analyses of performative identity ).

Bodies are socially constructed texts (cf. Beatriz Preciado’s Contrasexual Manifesto).

Consciousness emerges from bodies in structures.

Actions are grounded in delusions in dreams and as dreams.

In psychosis, the father function is reduced to the image of the father.

The symbolic is reduced to the imaginary. Man lives his dream as madness put into action under certain real conditions,- he follows his puzzled image of the father. His rebus remains closed to him.

He does not know distance to himself. He does not recognize a real self in relation to the others. Relational shifts. Distortions. Delusions of grandeur.

I/me as god!

Self-imagination as imperturbable necessity of his self.

Strictly speaking, these are essentially Lacan’s approaches to madness!

Lacan defines psychosis as one of three clinical structures defined by the mechanism of abjection/of warp.

In this mechanism, the „Name-of-the-Father“ (cf. „Introduction to the Names-of-the-Father“, – in: Jacques Lacan: Name-of-the-Father. Vienna 2006, translated from the French by Hans-Dieter Gondek, Vlg. Turia+Kant, pp. 63-102) is not integrated in the symbolic universe of the psychotic, a vacuum remains.

A „warp“ occurred!

In the psychosis there is indeed an unconscious, however according to Lacan a non-functioning unconscious.

So a gap or a hole in the symbolic order for lack of name-of-the-father, a disfunction of the unconscious, perhaps better a parafunction of the unconscious.

The psychotic structure arises because of a dysfunction of the Oedipus complex, a lack of the father function.

„Dream and delusion come from the same source, from the repressed; the dream is the so to speak physiological delusion of the normal human being.

Before the repressed has become strong enough to assert itself as a delusion in waking life, it can easily have achieved its first success under the more favorable circumstances of the sleep state in the form of a dream with a lasting effect.

During sleep, along with the reduction of mental activity in general, there is also a decrease in the strength of the resistance which the ruling psychic powers put up against the repressed.

It is this diminution which makes dream formation possible, and therefore the dream becomes for us the best access to the knowledge of the unconscious soul.

Only that usually with the establishment of the psychic occupations of waking, the dream fades away again, the ground won by the unconscious is cleared.„

(S. Freud, The Delusion and the Dreams in W. Jensen’s Gradiva, Chapter 2)

Compare also and especially Jacques Lacan, Nicolas Abraham/Maria Torok „Kryptonymie. Das Verbarium des Wolfsmanns/ The Wolf Man’s Magic Word. A Cryptonymy “ and Jacques Derrida „Fors“ (trans. from the French into German by Werner Hamacher), Basel 2008 (especially p.71ff. „Einverleibung, interne Hysterie, Kryptonymie/Incorporation, internal hysteria, cryptonymy “ and p. 94 ff. „Die interne Hysterie/The internal hysteria. Aufbau und Funktionieren einer Maschinerie/Structure and Functioning of a Machinery“).

Lacan is not agreed here by Abraham/Torok/Derrida that the wolf-man is only a neurotic, but in truth it is a psychotic, whose “ warping “ is not accessible to the ability of symbolization!

In and through the „cryptonymy“ the questions of philosophy (above all by J. Derrida still visibly extensively and concentratedly disseminated) are put directly and without exception on the level of psychoanalysis and on exactly this level of Psa. the possibility of answer is categorically and grammatologically denied to philosophy.

Intermediate step to the consciousness-expanding reading on the subject!

Let’s consult again and again on the subject of sexism, racism, fascism (!) and let’s not forget them — the fascism analyses and sexual economy theories of Wilhelm Reich ( „Massenpsychologie des Faschismus. Zur Sexualökonomie der politischen Reaktion und zur proletarischen Sexualpolitik“ / Mass Psychology of Fascism. On the Sexual Economy of the Political Right and Proletarian Sexual Politics. 1933 ) and Klaus Theweleit ( „Männerphantasien“ 1980 / Male Fantasies 1987, esp. vol. 2 „männerkörper – zur psychoanalyse des weißen terrors“ / the body of men – on the psychoanalysis of white terror 1978 )

Sexual economics!

Desire and responsibility!

Let’s not forget ! ! !

Psychoanalysis ! ! !

When we use language, we inevitably cause effects in ourselves and in the other. We transform ourselves, but also the other and we transform the other, the language.

Language is a name for what we do, – the action we are doing, – and a name for what we cause, – the action and its consequences.

A sentence does something.

Language is „power to act“. The doing of language is empowering!

Also this setting just and this figuration/configuration (cf. my teaser to it) is “ capacity for action “ and explains just in all brevity the linguistic power for action (cf. teaser blogspot-blog 2014 ff. and my video to the „sentence“!).

Language as a figure for power of action and power of action as a figure of language. The agency of language is not the same as that of the subject, who can do things with language, but also in language (cf. teaser on „deconstruction“ and différance / Derrida!).

Wording, words, sentences can hurt!

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

Hate formulations, aggressive language or language behavior, can lead to the death of the subject, if this „speech“ gets into the position of domination or can invoke such a position, – then this speech act(!) becomes a form of articulation of the ruling power and thus a kind of reproduction of power (compare for example Chile under Pinochet or Germany and Austria under Hitler or today Syria under Assad; as we know, there would be many more examples).

Repetition of sentences as hate-speech and their publication can (must not! Bridge of speech, subversion is always possible, always linguistically possible!, – cf. Althusser, Foucault, Deleuze, esp. Derrida) and will shape the subjects, the expressing and the invoked. Offensive formulations call upon, they call upon the localization of discursive and physical violence, they precede, attempt, and, as it were, temporize every utterance that enacts them. To the subject, the utterance is present, the subject is formed, and the subject continues the discourse as subjugating.

According to Freud, a forbidden desire shifts in the unconscious from one thing to the next. This infinite transmissibility of desire, which is seduced by a prohibition, a blockade, a taboo, controls quasi uncontrollably this logic of infection in a so-called metonymic flow (think of your own „desire“ to do forbidden things, – e.g. when changing accustomed circumstances!).

In Freud’s „The uneasiness in civilization“ the place of libido is shifted and itself becomes the lust place of prohibition. Here repression takes that form in which it itself becomes libidinous activity.

Every sentence a leap.

A jump that breaks a context.

Every utterance is primarily an assertion and pushes objections aside for the time being.

The power of a performative utterance can be enormous, – in both directions!

Denunciation and self-denunciation!

Depending on the reading and depending on the readership and reader’s location (political, ideological, intellectual).

The break with the context (Derrida) of a performative utterance is always inherent to it, every utterance’s failure is inscribed by the thing „language“. Only many actors do not notice this! Hate-speech-actors apparently notice the self-denunciation almost never or too late.

The history of subjugation is (also) a history of language and speaking.

Consequently, human education is the first matter of every democratic society.

Every culture needs subjectivity, subversiveness, criticism and a large portion of commonality (also in difference).

If envy should be a human constant, then it is necessary to sublimate this envy through the instances of our culture and thus not to want to harm the other, to want to take something away from him etc., but I raise my envy to the level of sporting, professional or intellectual ambition.

So I do not hate because of possible envy of someone, but I convert my envy into special abilities, which I make my own through diligence and practice.

Perhaps this is the incentive for science, art and sport, inventiveness, entrepreneurship, helpfulness and: L o v e (!?) ?!! (cf. Lacan, Seminar X)

Hate is not a concept. Hate is an exaggeration of the envious desire from lack and loss.

Reason is to be able and to want to sublimate this.

Therapies could lead to this understanding (of reason)!!! (Or accelerate this process.) (cf. teaser!).

To speak with Derrida for a moment more, to remind us how necessary this will always be: The subject of an utterance can hardly be aware, and must be aware, that all „communication“ is subject to a general graphematic structure.

There always already exists an oratio obliqua, a structural unconsciousness of intention in the actuality of the statement. Never forget to remember that in the thing and the conception of it a ghost is doing its business, – the teleological phantasm of consciousness (cf. esp. „Signature, Event, Context“ by J. Derrida, – in: Margins of Philosophy).

This is also and perhaps even more true for the actor of a hate-speech than for the addressee. So beware of the always possible boomerang effect of self-harm! In the private as in the public! Whether individual-person-actor or states.

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

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

The politics of friendship is a difficult one.

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

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

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

Coming to the end, once again the „coming democracy“ of J. Derrida is mentioned. A democracy in the making (and not only on nation-state ground, cf. Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden) in the supranational relations, legal relations and institutions, – a democracy which, as a coming one, has hardly or not at all begun. This is the theme of love and hate, peace and war, common and lonely, own and other, own and foreign, a theme of possibility, probability and impossibility.

Democracy as a philosophical concept that remains perpetually in the making (see teaser and my/our BlogPost (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.) on the Philosophy of Democracy).

The feelings of hate as aporetic, as aporia affect of the democratic! Perhaps also the cuckoo’s egg of every revolution?!

Destructive developments are not only to be eliminated(!) repressively, but to be pedagogized and civilized through communicative inclusion.

Philosophical Practice can make a weighty contribution to this, I think, we think.

Franz Kafka wrote in his diary in 1911, „the hidden in a conundrum is clear and invisible. Clear to him who has found what he was asked to look for, invisible to him who does not even know that there is something to look for.“

Politics of love and friendship. Only those who love can know what it means to love.

Paranoids, autocrats and fascists love very quickly and very violently. They love first and foremost their own conundrum. Their narcissism says, love what the stuff holds. Tell the people often and again that and how much you love them. They will eventually believe you.

Every democracy, every coming democracy, will have to struggle with these energy arrangements(!) (libido wasters) of irrational, slightly to severely paranoid megalomaniac leaders over and over again. Not born to the end (cf. Theweleit, Male Fantasies)!

On the fragile surfaces (without railings) of interstate relations, this problem is always posed anew.

To this day, democracy is a national, inner-state model of political organization. The borders of the state system are still not crossed and as it looks tomorrow even less than before (keyword: right-wing populism).

The planetary subject(!) is becoming even more distant, or so I get the feeling. To treat the questions of foreign policy as a question of domestic policy still does not occur in the „Contrat social“ or is further postponed, even almost canceled.

Trump wanted to ignore and delete all(!?) existing treaties. Trump wants to destroy the European Union. He helps Putin to achieve his priority goals.

Kaczyński, Orban, Fico, Janša, Erdogan and all the other right-wing populists, right-wing extremists and fascists are helping the two aforementioned. Perhaps even some without intentional reflectorium.

We will see what we will see. Are you sure? Are you sure of yours?!

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

Democracies educate by means of education, – above all human education in the sense of human rights and human duties. Developing laws along the lines of human rights and in the sense of the European Convention ( 70 years European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms / Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Text on this: see above in this post ).

Once again to our Bad Couple Trump-Putin as a demonstrative of a particular political

(think of the formula „our bodies are political“, bodies are socially constructed texts, consciousness emanates from bodies in structures)

action and thought and their presuppositions and determinations:

Aristotle tells us in the „Eudemic Ethics“ that it is better to love than to be loved.

It is about politics and justice. It is about friendship. What is appropriate for friendship? What is the just thing in it?

Trump called Putin his friend. Does he love him? And if so, in what way does he love him? How much does his narcissism guide him? He does not love him in the usual sense; again, he loves only his conundrum (cf. above). I am convinced of that. He cannot really love at all, except himself and this again only as his conundrum of himself.

The Trumps and the Putins of all kinds cannot love, because they cannot give as a gift without credit and debt. They cannot love without economy. In place of being able to love, the figure of self-empowerment and greed as desire for power took over in these. This is the very blatant expression of a lack (of doubt) due to a gap in the symbolic order, a dysfunction or parafunction of the unconscious (cf. above).

Before any other question, there is the question of what is appropriate, the question of what is just. The question about justice defines a behavior in a friendship. What necessity has the question of what is appropriate and what is just in a friendship.

Let us not forget, it is about politics. About political friendship. What is a friend? What is friendship? Can there be a friendship at all in the reality of interests? What is the meaning, – better, what will be the meaning in this speech of friendship. I mean Trump’s speech about Putin, his friend!

There are aporetics on this way to friendship or from(!) the friendship special number.

Aristotle reminds us in it (in his eudemic ethics!!!) and quite weightily that the „work of the political“, the so-called political act, consists exactly in generating as much(!) friendship as possible(!).

Quantities of friendship thus. As many as possible.

Friendship is without perceptive doubt quasi unquestionably(!) a form of love. To be a friend means to love. This act of friendship as love is more inherent(!) to a friendship, that is, more consubstantial, closer to the essence than the situation of those who (must!!!) let themselves be loved.

Putin waits and is pleased, basically and for the time being. Trump loves his conundrum, his narcissistic self-image in the „referent“ Putin. Trump wants to be Putin as himself. An even more enormous Trump-putin. A Trumputin. The conundrum is an enigma.

A rebus

(cf. for this „dream interpretation“ of Sigmund Freud, – there also more to „dream thoughts“ and „dream content“ etc.- see in the posting

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2018/06/migrationspolitik-subjekte.html https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2018/06/migrationspolitik-subjekte.html?m=1 ).

So much for the time being to the presupposed political action and its personnages.

In his work on the birth of biopolitics, Michel Foucault writes that the liberalism of Western democracies maintains a relationship to the production and destruction of freedom (cf. M. F., Die Geburt der Biopolitik. History of Governmentality II, Frf. a. Main 2004, p. 98, germ. ed.).

The production of freedom is based on the calculus of security and protection. The power economy of liberal democracies is based on the interplay between freedom, security, and protection against present or media-politically insinuated threats, risks, and dangers.

These threats to freedoms can be homemade or of external origin. According to certain theories of a politological nature, antagonism is needed to maintain an order as an anchor of meaning. The tenor is that difference politics do not work.

One of the driving forces of a liberalism of this definition is the scaremongering of tabloid media and other agitation machines à la social media.

Shitstorms etc. are popular instruments of certain governments to create general uncertainty and a culture of fear. For this purpose, they particularly like to make use of the so-called refugee waves and streams.

These figurative expressions of force function particularly efficiently in the free media to track politicians‘ behavior.

Racism has always been one of the pillars of this kind of liberal democracy or so-called liberal democracy (cf. USA).

One consequence of this culture of fear was the artificially high state of excitement of the tribal minds, including the appendage of functionaries, with the consequent enormous expansion of procedures of control, restriction and coercion, all of which form the counterpart to freedoms.

The refugees and the media-heated and subsequently and in advance party-politically instrumentalized racism via integration hysteria, blanket suspicions of young foreign men and blanket suspicions of religious communities as well as blanket individual attacks by non-nationals, i.e. by „foreigners“, form the driving forces of this policy of fear and lack of freedom.

And this policy is to serve above all the destruction of the European values and the return to the so-called nation-state with isolation and small sinecure rule and associated bondage with so-called folk culture care and intellectual hostility free of charge.

This right-wing populist policy follows a logic of fences and a logic of enclosure with all its consequences, such as censorship, the grossest restriction of the freedom of the critical spirit and the arts, as well as the exact definition of borders of the spaces of movement of different groups of the population (e.g. Roma, Sinti, migrants, refugees, foreigners, the unemployed, educational rights, women’s rights, police violence, justice, jurisdiction, etc., just look at Poland ( before Tusk’s time), at Hungary, at Turkey and elsewhere).

This is followed, as always in history, by restriction of freedom of movement, imprisonment and deportation.

Racism and xenophobia are more widespread phenomena than some among us might believe.

The attempts of isolation and not wanting to see will not solve the problems. Neither will the hard-heartedness.

There will continue to be large numbers of refugees and people migrating for various reasons all over the world, that much is certain.

The causes are the growing number of failed states and the resulting lawless warlord territories. Chicanery, threats, robbery, enslavement, murder, mass killings, endless wars between diverse factions, hunger, unemployment, persecution, rape, suppression of attempted self-reliance, lawlessness, unleashed violence exercised completely arbitrarily.

All of this leads to increased flight or increased attempts at migration to a better life elsewhere, such as Europe.

To a large extent, these are the consequences of misguided military undertakings for decades and especially in Afghanistan and Iraq with the support of a greedy mostly Western arms industry including politically uncontrolled corporate mercenaries.

The resulting increase in migration from poor countries to rich countries has increased from 20 million to 60 million between 1960 and 2000, and is expected to continue at this rate until perhaps at some point the levels of prosperity will be equalized.

Since the beginning of the modern era, people have fled war atrocities and despotisms of all kinds, hoping for peace and prosperity in countries of other peoples. For the people in these other countries, they have always been strangers. And many, relatively many strangers trigger fears. This was also the case in Austria and Germany in 2015, although it must be said that a not insignificant part of these populations was very willing to help, and in some cases still is.

However, many did not trust their conscience and their impulses to give, but allowed themselves to be fooled by the panic media and the right-wing politicians who served them and incited them against „the foreigners“.

Xenophobia grew and many citizens then also voted for the right-wing populist FPÖ, which presented itself as a security party, or for the turquoise xenophobic foreign minister of the ÖVP, Mr. Kurz, as chancellor.

Kurz was in power and the policy of cuts, reductions and constrictions, both territorial and financial, began. The capping of the minimum security, the reduction of basic services, the indexation of child benefits, the intended restriction of the movement of asylum-seeking refugees in the asylum process to one province.

Urban life has certainly not become easier, and parts of the urban population in poorer neighborhoods describe increased immigration as the biggest problem for the EU and for themselves.

They speak of increased resentment and higher potentials for aggression. Subjectively or even objectively, who wants to be able to measure that.

The so-called precariat, which has emerged in the last two decades, fears (partly rightly!) for its already small vested interests and endangered social positions.

A left-wing policy could create better redistribution mechanisms. Support the disadvantaged. Tax the wealthy. Many would even want to give more voluntarily. Don’t vote right!

The right has always been and is against the small! Always has been!

The right stokes resentment against refugees and so-called economic migrants.

The right uses the fear about the possible loss of their own income and livelihood to their advantage and to your disadvantage.

The right is not out for balance. It is always unfairly neoliberal and talks about achievers.

Not everyone can meet this definition of achievers.

Life is more diverse.

Performance is only one dimension and one dimension does not lead to a balanced political space, but to social death, to cold death. Also of human impulses and feelings.

In short, to fascism. In the end, always.

The policy of isolation, the policy of fencing and walls only leads to the further aggravation of the hate potentials on all sides.

It would be and is rather about the improvement of the living conditions and the necessary for it as undisturbed as possible individual and overall social communication and a plausible problem-solving optimism with good humanly appropriate real improvements apart from all distortions of the realities by agitation and panic mode.

The contact with the others is inevitable. One planet. One humanity. One challenge. Not division! Unification. Empathy. Help. Taking care of the other.

Giving without economy. Giving in the same(!?) time.

Love. Libido. Sexual economy. Becoming a subject. Education. Giving as a gift.

From dissemination grows the fruitful. Not necessarily, but possibly. Never from pure economics! From there one should always keep the legal and economic terms „freedom, duty, selflessness, generosity, waste versus thrift, interest, usefulness“ in mind and expose them to a questionable overthinkability.

Marcel Mauss refers to the craziness of the gift as giving without an economy of the expectable exchange of.

I think he means the act of giving more than the gift as a thing. That which comes back, if something comes back(!), cannot be expected and should not be expected.

The giving as a gift as a taking without address for an exchange transaction. The craziness of giving and taking, – of taking as giving and giving as taking without return.

If possible. Loving.

To the „preliminary“ ends of philosophical practice and to the coming (?) transformation of the human right to asylum and the problems of migration policies politologically formulated through political philosophy the following:

The gift as an instrument of power.

Only those who give in an economically calculating way rule. The power of production. The ownership of the means of production. The power-obsessed. And the crisis of global and European asylum and migration policy.

The lip service paid to a „Europeanization“ of the „migration problem“ while at the same time refusing to accept the resulting obligations for one’s own country.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is on what may be her last relevant mission these days ( long gone, those days!) bring European governments into line.

The key words are securing Europe’s external borders, distributing refugees according to a key within the EU, and financing and contractually binding primarily African states to set up camps outside the EU.

Not a word about the actual causes of global flight and migration movements and how to combat them.

These are:

(a) the growing economic inequality as a consequence of failed neoliberal economic policies of the last four decades (cf. Manfred Nowak, Human Rights or Global Capitalism. The Limits of Privatization, Pennsylvania Press, Pittsburgh 2017 and M. Nowak, Responsibility to Protect. Is International Law Moving from Hobbes to Locke?, in Gerhard Hafner and others, eds, International Law and the Dynamics of Human Rights, Vienna 2012, pp. 342-369, german ed. and engl. partly).

b) the arms industry and its gigantic supplies of weapons and, more importantly, almost ammunition to terrorist groups and warring factions and states with civil wars and warlords.

c) = b) the armed conflicts and terrorism in the Middle East and Africa.

d) the climate change and the consequences as consequence of all possible human wrong decisions, wrong actions, wrong behaviors and wrong ways of thinking should be mentioned here now only briefly.

In the future, perhaps the biggest case among the causes of war and the resulting flight and migration movements.

The three major trouble spots in the world that produce the most refugees(!) are in Syria (Assad, IS and al-Nusra Front), Afghanistan (al-Qaeda) and Somalia (Shabab militias).

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine adopted by the United Nations in 2005 to protect the population against serious and systematic violations of human rights (genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and war crimes) should have been applied in Syria if the Security Council had not been blocked by the veto of Russia and China.

The UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly have repeatedly pointed out this responsibility.

With this structure, the United Nations is a global institution, a subject of international law with falling recognition (regarded with distrust, little respect, and little prestige by the populations of the world), and thus cannot perform the task of peacekeeping as its core mission.

The self-interests of the major powers take precedence over human rights and protection against human rights violations.

If this is the permanent state of affairs, the growth rates of global migration and flight movements will continue to go up.

Thus the outlook for the fleeing and the alignments of migration policies.

Further above I spoke of the Other as the stranger and quoted Benveniste with the words, the stranger was always already and a priori the enemy.

Now, to come to an end, – by the way, this had also been the content of the end of our recently two days ago experienced philosophical practice, – still quickly a few thoughts from the psychoanalytical field on the subject of xenophobia and violence.

Psychoanalysis is first of all psychoanalysis of the individual and only from the experiences gained from this, with the help of psychoanalytic terminology, a possibility to open up to social phenomena and descriptions in order to analyze them and then, in a third step, to deconstruct them as far as possible.

I remind of the “ strange feeling “ of the child, – an intrapsychic perception of the non-identity of the stranger with the memory image of the reference person who is absent at the moment (still often and primarily the mother, but not necessarily!).

We all know that this strangeness usually fades away soon and that strangeness experience is an abolishable one, not only between individuals, but also between groups and even whole peoples.

Already Nietzsche spoke at his time of „Schlechtweggekommenen / more disadvantaged“ and meant thereby above all the anti-Semites (cf. Nietzsche’s Nachlaß).

Later, Hitler’s assumption of power led to a true national self-inflation and each of these „Schlechtweggekommenen“, so called by Nietzsche earlier, experienced thereby his „own“ self-inflation.

His stabilization and socialization as a nazi >anti-Social<, but above all anti-Semite.

In primary socialization often persons with narcissistic wounds and impairments of self-value regulation.

In stressful situations, such as puberty, often burdened with feelings of inferiority due to lack of recognition, etc., hopelessness, demotivation and feelings of emptiness. Hardly any bonding ability to immediately existing people.

Identification failures with distant, so-called strong personalities.

Others are idealized or devalued. Strangers are almost always devalued, especially „foreign“ looking people.

Authoritarian or even totalitarian doctrines and ideologies often catch on with these individuals overnight (cf. youth in Europe and the IS in recent years).

Group cohesion can have a very strong binding effect in the case of a leader whom everyone in the group regards as exemplary and to whom they all submit together, thus creating a kind of covenant.

Adorno’s and others‘ study of the authoritarian personality is familiar to many of us.

I don’t need to elaborate on it here, just to express or address the almost truism, namely that the inner-family socialization processes of the petty-bourgeois family are decisive for the formation of the character and especially of the authoritarian character through the lack of emotional warmth to the reference persons, mostly the parents, as well as forcibly solved crises and conflicts through character-weak father figures, in many cases also the withdrawal of closeness through the absence of at least one main reference person, – that of the father in most cases.

Very often these young people experienced violence and sexualized violence in their socialization.

Social powerlessness is turned into power and violence against others.

This so-called „whipping boy mechanism“ is almost only felt by the weaker ones. In such groups, it is also very often directed against foreigners.

Self-hatred becomes hatred of others and often ends in an ecstatic orgy of violence with many kicks on those already lying on the ground.

No empathy.

No imagination about possible suffering of the other.

The hullabaloo comedy not infrequently as a real tragedy. Fueled and guided also often by relevant film adaptations of such outbreaks of violence. Unreflectively watched and adopted.

Identity through bodily experience in the form of violence and the experience and self-feeling of one’s own capacity for violence as a feeling of power.

Xenophobia and violence as a stability factor of the authoritarian developed character.

Often also in the form of the exercise of violence against women. A definition of masculinity as lived brutality also with regard to possible disturbing questions about one’s own gender identity.

How one could find one’s way back to a „normal“ life?

A difficult path. Certainly!

To want to learn to love the other and finally perhaps to be able to love him and thus to grow into a real partnership – that should be able to make possible the way away from xenophobia and the world of violence towards a path of peace with oneself and thus towards another. Certainly a long, difficult way to go, but a way!

I am a stranger to myself! That would be the right spot landing in this terrain. As Freud said in 1933, „We are all foreigners!“.

To be able to accept one’s own „inner foreign country“ (Freud) and one’s own foreignness!

The gift to love! The gift to give. Giving without economic calculation. To love. To give love.

Now I close quickly and abruptly!, … I’m almost talking like the Pope … haha

The humor has us again! Probably the only winning „enemy“ of the furor.

The humor makes the man to the man.

Many more Philosophical Practices and practises will be needed. Political theories and politics are all based on the axiomatics and valuations of philosophical provenances.

I thank our guest for the stimulating and hope giving reflections, trains of thought and thought creations, – sometimes and always on the edge of abysmalness.

And as always, we have too little time.

Every sentence has too little time. Every sentence displaces by jumping. It displaces many other possible and necessary (!) sentences (for more see my Youtube video on „The Sentence“).

Each sentence, each word, each code drives its being and its mischief in the incommunicability!

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

Every sentence in every setting and every session (also the one in a PP/philosophical practice).

I should always be able to state all the psychoanalytic, economic, political, and juridical implications of what is said/set above.

I refer all readers to my/our publications on the net and to the publications on paper.

The terrain of reading is abysmal(!) and unlimited!

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber

Philosophers

Philosophical Practitioners, Writers (born 1959)

PP Vienna Austria Europe

Gerhard Kaučić

Philosoph, Schriftsteller, Mediator, Dr. phil.

Anna Lydia Huber

Philosophin, Schriftstellerin, Mediatorin, MSc

Post scriptum/after the bound/Nachsatz:

Post scriptum/after the bound/Nachsatz:

The tasks of a future democracy/a democracy on the rise/a permanent advent/arrival of democracy/a democracy in the arrival ( Jacques Derrida ), to think the subject as „planetary“ (cf. G. Ch. Spivak, see teaser, – the teaser from my blog; note: the teaser is only visible in the web-version!), – especially concerning the great challenges of politics in the 21st century: Utopia (?!) of reflexive solidarity (Spivak),

borders of a planet (John Bellamy Foster et al. (Ed.): The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth, 2011), deconstructive politics as an ideological-critical reading of the imperial archive, geopolitics, geopolitical involvement, geopolitical interest driven policy and/as value policy, power, morals and human rights, analysis of power, gender and governmentality, teletechnology, cyborg technology, political bodies, complexities of rule, citizenship, parliamentarianism, peace policy, institution building and institution maintenance, economically correct and fair redistribution of social wealth, proper management of Migration (Flüchtlinge, Refugees), …

Ökonomischer Imperialismus (angeleitet durch die Neue Institutionenökonomik, die Transaktionskostenökonomik und die Prinzipal-Agent-Theorie; im Gefolge des New Public Management treten an die Stelle von Handeln nach Maßgabe professioneller Ethiken Kontraktmanagement mit Zielvereinbarungen und anstelle einer Berufsethik Qualitätsmanagement und Benchmarking samt Controlling und Leistungsrechnung mit all ihren Schattenseiten und ungeplanten Nebenwirkungen, – vgl. Richard Münch: Globale Eliten, lokale Autoritäten, Frf. 2009, Suhrkamp, S. 18 vv.ff.),

urban development towards a green city, urban philosophy, reddening of the city, city of dreams, madness and society, madness and city, city and sexuality, desire and city, city as text, city and writing, city as writing, the city and the divided I, the city and the power, the city and the political, the city as a mechanism of discipline, the city as a social testing lab, the city and the philosophical practice with many practices, the world as a city and the other, water wars, religious wars, climate change, climate consequences, global warming, nuclear relicts, climate wars, climate catastrophes, civil wars, „ethnic cleansing“ (!), genocide, violent conflicts, social questions, ecological questions, planetary principle, tradition history, the question of a global government (!?), social catastrophes, terrorism, natural disasters, migration, unstable states, poverty, wealth, corruption, media policy and presence-ideologies, war and non-war, world order and biopolicy, bioengineering, robotics, bio-inspired robotics, Robotertechnologien, weapon development, arms delivery, violent and oppressive power politics, religious fanaticism, party political fanaticism, terrorism, biodiversity, standardization, factory farming, animal factories, animal consumption, „meat production“!, animal rights, animal philosophy,

„animal turn“ (vgl. Anne Peters, Tier-Recht im Zeitalter des Menschen, – in: Renn/Scherer (Hg.), Das Anthropozän. Zum Stand der Dinge. Berlin 2015, S. 67ff.),

truth and passion (vgl.: Gabriele Michalitsch: Die neoliberale Domestizierung des Subjekts. Von den Leidenschaften zum Kalkül. Campus Verlag, Frankf. a. M. 2006, bes. S. 29ff. und S. 101ff.),

sex labour, difference and the shaping of the social ( Antke Engel: Bilder von Sexualität und Ökonomie. Queere kulturelle Politiken im Neoliberalismus. Bielefeld 2009, S. 138ff. ),

automobility, digitalia and upbringing, education, unemployment, debt crisis, failing of democratization, neglect of the common good,

the own and the foreign, fascism, antisemitism, racism, sexism, human trafficking,

modern slavery (cf.: Kevin Bales, dt. Üs: „Die neue Sklaverei“, engl. V.: K. B., „Disposable People. New Slavery in the Global Economy“ und Hanns Wienold ),

famine and capitalism, „the right to food“

need of land, land grabbing, land robbery, justice, human rights, decolonization of thinking, policy of displacement, solidarity across class, race, and national boundaries (Mohanty, passim),

just policy as a policy of strengthening the weak

(( zum planetarischen Subjekt cf. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: Imperative zur Neuerfindung des Planeten – Imperatives to Re-Imagine the Planet (hg. v. Willi Goetschel engl./dt.). Wien 2013, 2. Aufl., Passagen Verlag, S. 49vv.ff.

and Charles Taylor: Multiculturalism and the „Politics of Recognition“. Princeton 1994, p. 28 ))

philosophical practices face à face

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

around the clock … around the world

Grammatological Philosophical Practice

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

The mobile version of our Blogspot-Blog (2014 ff.) shows the postings pure, – without teaser and footer.

This reading of the pure postings you get faster, – however this approach to my/our blog lets you also miss many tidbits/delicacies from the performance of a long philosophical practice and experience.

You can access the blog archive at the end of the footer or at the end of the sidebar gadgets next to the respective blog post beginnings (after the end of the teaser). Also you can find these gadgets only in the web version.

And:

Please always pay attention to the color marking / color markings! Especially the markings in the teaser and footer (of our Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)!

An additional interpretation level, deconstruction level and reading link!

You can find more detailed hints in this regard in my/our blogpost on the philosophy of democracy as well as in the teaser and footer of our Blogspot-Blog (2014 ff.).

Yours sincerely, –

Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., born ’59), Anna Lydia Huber (MSc, b. 1959)

Your Djay PhilPrax,

Head of a Grammatological Philosophical Practice since 1989 in Vienna and beyond & Anna Lydia Huber, MSc, born 1959, Associate in the grammatological philosophical Practice since 2009 in Vienna and beyond

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

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Adventure Philosophy!

Philosophische Praxis

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Adventure Philosophy!

Philosophische Praxis

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

philosophical practices face à face

Gerhard Kaučić,

b. 1959, Philosopher, Writer, 66, 2025

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON II
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON III
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON I
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON IV
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON V
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns

Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm

Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.

In English:

CORONA WHEELING CROWNING

Covidity Virality Virtuality Mediality Metahumanoidity ?!

The leap. Leaving the book. The production, the emancipation, the liberation of writing.

……………………. Semeion Aoristicon oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns …………………..

……. THE SENTENCE ………. the jump ……… the set ……. the leap o f …. The LEAVING of

the BOOK ……….. ?!

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

I ask if Sem VI is not my / our blog composition !?!

I ask (me / us) if Sem VII is not my / our blog.

I ask if my/our blog will not be Sem VI and Sem VII?

And shall be!

Or must be?

Already is, will be or even must be and will have to be !?!

The set. The leaving of the book.

The production, the emancipation, the liberation of the writing.

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Semeion Aoristicon or to the autobiography of Sem Schauns

……. THE SET …….. THE LEAVING OF THE BOOK …….. !?

/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/

Psychoanalyse, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, das Unbewußte

Die Sprache, das Sprechen, das Unbewußte (Ubw)

Der Satz und die Philosophie

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Philosophische Praxis

GESPRÄCHE sind EREIGNISSE als TEXT

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

Gerhard Kaučić, Alter 66, 2025, Anna Lydia Huber, age 66, 2025

Philosoph:in des Denkens der „différance“ (cf. J. Derrida, La dissémination. Collection „Tel Quel“ aux Éditions du Seuil, Paris 1972)

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

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

Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement

…around the clock …around the world…

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Gegenwartsphilosophie

Contemporary Philosophy

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber ( geb. 1959) Philosophische Praxis 1989 ff.

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

Cf. list of publications at: https://scholar.google.at/citations?user=wNUSN64AAAAJ&hl=de

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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

Projekte / Projects (1989 – 2025 ff.) 36 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Wien GK & ALH

Mehr dazu siehe meinen Teaser und meinen Footer sowie die übrigen Postings in diesem Blog! (Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.)

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

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

Affliction Immunization Autoaffection Autoimmunity

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

Contemporary Philosophy

Gegenwartsphilosophie

PHILOSOPHIE DER GEGENWART PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Contemporary Philosophy

Philosophical Practice as Training / philosophical Practice and the training

Vivification through deconstruction is necessary.

Flucht und Flüchtlinge, Politiken

Subjekte

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

On the concept and comprehensibility of freedom

Freedom and crisis. A crisis of freedom.

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

The concept of freedom and its freedoms

On the concept and comprehensibility of freedom

The Religious

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

„Sexualität Anti-Homosexualität Identität“

Zur Frage und zum Wort „Dekonstruktion“ vgl. Jacques Derridas „Überlegungen“ in einem „Brief an einen japanischen Freund“ aus dem Jahr 1985, übersetzt ins Deutsche und abgedruckt in: J. Derrida, Psyche. Erfindungen des Anderen II. Wien 2013 (Passagen Vlg.), S. 15 – 22.

… philosophical practices …

Anti-Homosexual-Law in Uganda

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Violence Politics Subject

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić

Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen

Philosophical Practices / Politics / Disseminations Philosophische Praxis