25 Years Philosophical Practitioner Gerhard Kaucic, Dr. phil., Anna Lydia Huber, MSc, Vienna Austria


Teaser


Philosophische Praxis


Gerhard Kaucic Djay PhilPrax/Anna Lydia Huber

BLOG (German / English)

ISSN 2410-7050

Impressum / publishing information cf. teaser end

Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax (geb.1959 in Kufstein) Grammatologe

Philosoph, Schriftsteller, Philosophischer Praktiker, Wien

Leiter einer grammatologischen philosophischen Praxis seit 1989 in Wien und darüberhinaus

Studium der Literaturwissenschaft, Geschichtswissenschaft, Philosophie und Linguistik

Publikationen im Passagen Verlag



32 Jahre (1989-2021 ff.) Philosophische Praxis


25 Jahre (1989-2014) Philosophische Praxis / Jubiläum 2014

25 years (1989-2014) Philosophical Practice / Jubilee 2014

Homepage

Copyright, Bildrechte, Urheberrecht, rights to images, copyright, Picture rights, Image Rights, Copyright, - ALH & GK




Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber auf dem Weg zu einer PP 2003 (und wie so oft schon im Laufe der vielen Jahre zu zweit, - ach! – wie schön!)


Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber on the way to a PP 2003 (and as so often in the course of many years as a couple, - oh! - how nice!)





Fotos © Anna Lydia Huber, Gerhard Kaučić





Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil.), PP 2004 zum Thema Politische Philosophie und Umweltverschmutzung, ein Gespräch zu dritt, ich, ein Philosophieprofessor aus Barcelona und eine Ökologin aus Deutschland, bei uns in der Loggia in Wien.


Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil.), PP 2004 on the subject of political philosophy and environmental pollution, a conversation between the three of us, me, a professor of philosophy from Barcelona and an ecologist from Germany, in our loggia in Vienna.





Gerhard Kaučić/Djay PhilPrax, PP 2001, Kartographie eines Philosophen, face à face, Philosophische Praxis im Seminar, 2001, Lyon.

Eines Philosophen gezeichnete Bewußtseinskartographie, ein Versuch und eine Versuchung, Lyon 2001, Seminar zum Thema Ubw und die Politik in der Demokratie.

Gerhard Kaučić/Djay PhilPrax, PP 2001, Cartography of a Philosopher, face à face, Philosophical Practice in Seminar, 2001, Lyon.


A Philosopher's Cartography of Consciousness, an Attempt and a Temptation, Lyon 2001, Seminar on Ubw and Politics in Democracy.





Anna Lydia Huber hält ein Seminar bei uns zu Haus zu Mediation und die dritte und die "erste"(!) Welt, etwa 2016/17 und noch ein paar Male (cf. ihre Masterarbeit).


Anna Lydia Huber holds a seminar at our house on mediation and the third and the "first"(!) world, about 2016/17 and a few more times (cf. her master thesis https://www.kaucic-huber.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Masterarbeit_AKH_final.pdf ).




To contact us, please use only these emails: g.kaucic[at]chello.at and gack[at]chello.at



Copyright, Bildrechte, Urheberrecht, rights to images, copyright, Picture rights, Image Rights, Copyright, - ALH & GK




Falls Sie interessiert sind an einer PP mit mir, bitte nur unter dieser Email einen Termin reservieren: To contact me, 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


Kontakt / Adresse:

Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax (Dr. phil.) / Anna Lydia Huber (MSc)

Guglgasse 8

1110 Wien Oesterreich Europa


To contact us, please use only these emails:

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


Philosophie Wien / Philosophy Vienna Austria Europe


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. Plato’s Academy:

ΜΗΔΕΙΣ ΑΓΕΩΜΕΤΡΗΤΟΣ ΕΙΣΙΤΩ


Over the entrance to his Academy Plato had inscribed the words MEDEIS AGEOMETRETOS EISITO (= Let no one unversed in "geometry" / = Plato's "theory" of Matter and Form or theory of Ideas enter here )

(( zur "Historizität" der „Legende“(!?) des Eingangsschildtexts zu Platos „Akademeia“ („Medeis ageometr...“) sowie zu Grund und Ungrund von Historizität überhaupt siehe, vergleiche und lies Elias (Neuplatoniker, 6. Jh.): Aristot. categ., 118,18 und Johannes Philoponos ( Christl. Philosoph, Grammatiker, 6. Jh. n.u.Z.): Arist. de an. 117,19 (zur platon. Akademie vgl.: Der Kleine Pauly, Bd.1, 212 );

Historizität als re-intentionale Indizienverkettung !?

Zum Konzept von "Geschichtlichkeit" (Historizität) vgl. Giambattista Vico, Hegel, Dilthey und etwa die beiden "indizierten" und mindestens temporär infizierten ( im Denken "des Politischen" im "Philosophischen" (!?!) nicht immun gegen Nationalsozialismus, Faschismus, Antisemitismus, Rassismus !!! ) Autoren Paul de Man und Martin Heidegger!

Heidegger auch besonders indiziert (!!) in seiner "ureigenen"(?!) Historizität infolge/mittels seiner ! politischen Faktizität !, seines Handlungstexts ! in der "Historizität" (!?!) seiner Redeauftritte, Vorlesungen, Korrespondenzen und besonders der Schwarzen Hefte !!! Heidegger als unhistorischer Denker!? Ein Denker ohne Denken der Geschichtlichkeit und der Politizität !!! Ein Denker als Undenker, wenn es denn so etwas gäbe (! sic, - vgl. auch "Die Heidegger-Kontroverse").

zum Begriff und zur Begreifbarmachung von "Historizität" als ideologischer Bedeutsamkeitsgebungsfunktion; vgl. dazu: Wolfgang Schmale (Historiker zur Geschichte der Neuzeit) in seinem Blog-Post: „Historizität in der europäischen Kultur und in ‚nicht-schriftlichen‘ Kulturen“ http://wolfgangschmale.eu/historizitaet/ ))


Ein kleiner Hinweis noch zur Ideen- und Erkenntnislehre

PlatonSokrates' (!)

( cf. J. Derrida, Dissemination, Wien 1995, S. 84ff.; J. D., Von der Gastfreundschaft. Wien 2001, S. 20-58; J. D.: Grammatologie, Frf. 1983, S. 459ff.; J. D., Die Struktur, das Zeichen und das Spiel im Diskurs der Wissenschaften vom Menschen, - in: J. D.: Die Schrift und die Differenz. Frf. 1976, S. 422ff.):

cf. esp.: Sonnengleichnis, bes. Liniengleichnis und Höhlengleichnis in: Platon, Der Staat (Politeia VI, 507 – 518) :

die platonische Ordnung des Wissens entlang einer (aufsteigenden?) epistemologischen Linie

( altgrch. γραμμή / grammḗ, - cf. Derrida in "Ousia und gramme" zur Schrift, Linie, Punkt, Zeit, Kreis, Raum anhand einer Fußnote in Sein und Zeit Heideggers und zu "Gramme und Zahl" in Aristoteles' Physik IV; "Eine solche différance würde uns eine Schrift zu denken geben ohne Anwesenheit und ohne Abwesenheit ... Diese Schrift übersteigt alles, was die Geschichte der Metaphysik in der Form der Aristotelischen gramme begriffen hat, in ihrem Punkt, in ihrer Linie, in ihrem Kreis, in ihrer Zeit und in ihrem Raum." Jacques Derrida: Ousia und gramme. Notiz über eine Fußnote in Sein und Zeit, - in: J. D.: Randgänge der Philosophie. Wien 1988, Passagen, S. 84 )

im so bezeichneten Liniengleichnis ( Politeia VI, 509-511 ) der Politeia als Skala von Erkenntnisweisen:

die Stufe der Erkenntnis der eikasia als Meinungs- oder Mutmaßungswissen; Wahrscheinlichkeit! Möglichkeit!

die Stufe der Erkenntnis der pistis als Wahrnehmung der sichtbaren Welt (Tiere, Pflanzen, Artefakte) und der dianoia, dem begrifflichen Verstand (geometrischer Operationen); Verstandesgewißheit!

und die Stufe der Erkenntnis der noesis als die Einsicht durch Vernunft!

( laut Theodor Ebert vertrat Platon keine dualistische Metaphysik mit ontologischer Trennung (Chorismos) zwischen intelligibler und sinnlich wahrnehmbarer Welt; Eberts Auffassung nach handelt es sich nicht um vier, sondern nur um drei Erkenntnisweisen: um wahrnehmende, mathematische und dialektische Erkenntnis in funktionaler Verkettung, - in: Theodor Ebert: Meinung und Wissen in der Philosophie Platons, Berlin 1974, S. 181–193 )

Platons Erkenntnislehre läuft auf das Licht ( „Sonne“, Erhellung, Aufklärung, „Wahrheit“ ) als das „Gute“ zu, - in Analogie zur Sonne. Die „Wahrheit“ hat ihren „Grund“ (!) „im Guten“ und entspringt ihm, so wie das Licht von der Sonne aus strahlt.

Allein durch die Einsicht (!!!! das Problem dabei !?, das Problem der Problematizität von Einsicht !!! cf. Marie-Françoise Plissart / Jacques Derrida: Recht auf Einsicht. Wien 1998) der Vernunft kann das Gute erkannt werden! Das Gute als das Wesen der Ideen! Direkte Einsicht der Vernunft in das Wesen der Ideen. Platons Erkenntnistheorie als buchstäbliche Meta-Physik.


Bedingungen“(!) einer Lektüre der platonisch-metaphysischen Wahrheitsfindung bzw Bedingungen und Bedingtheiten einer Wahrheitsfindungslektüre des Begriffes der „Wahrheit“ bei PlatoSokrates

Vorsatz: Recht auf Einsicht?! „Du wirst niemals, Sie auch nicht, all die Geschichten kennen, die ich mir beim Anschauen dieser Bilder noch habe erzählen können.“ (Derrida, Plissart)

Bedingung 1)

Das Denken der différance (Derrida, Die différance, - in: Randgänge der Philosophie, Wien 1988, S. 29-53) ist ein Denken hin zu dem, was sein kann!

Bedingung 2)

„Eine Verbindung (articulation) … gibt Spielraum.“ (!) (Derrida, passim)

Bedingung 3)

In der Praxis des Sagens steckt die Behauptung von „etwas und etwas“, ein Surplus, ein Exorbitantes (Grammatologie 279f.). Spielraum der Dekonstruktion, - der „Spielraum“ zwischen denetwas“!

Bedingung 4)

Unter différance begreift Derrida das, was im Zwischenraum des etwas als etwas sich ereignet oder ereignen kann. Die Gespenstigkeit von etwas liegt im Spielraum der radikalen Möglichkeit, den die différance zu eröffnen vermag. Derrida zeigt uns die „radikale Möglichkeit“ einer „Gespenstigkeit“ in allem, was wir erleben. (cf. Derrida, Die Stimme und das Phänomen, S. 49ff. und bes. Marx‘ Gespenster, passim)

Bedingung 5)

Derrida macht deutlich, dass die Gegenwärtigkeit der Wahrheit überhaupt in Zweifel zu ziehen sei (vgl. dazu auch Hilary Putnam: Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte. Frf. 1990, stw 853, bes. S. 15ff. u. S. 202ff.; engl. V.: H. Putnam: Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge University Press 1981). Derrida stellt die zentrale Frage nach dem Legitimationsgrund, der es erlaubt, im wissenschaftlichen Rahmen von einer Erfahrung der "Wahrheit" zu sprechen, die grundlegend verschieden ist von den Begriffen und Kategorien wissenschaftssprachlichen Zugriffs. „Unter“(!) einer jeden Textarbeit erscheint durch die Arbeit des Dekonstruierens ein Gleiten von Sinn und vielfach Gefälteltes, Übereinandergeschichtetes an Bedeutungshaftigkeit, das uns immer nur als Spur begreifbar werden kann und nie als ein Text in seiner Präsenzhaftigkeit des quasi endgültigen Ausdrucks.

Bedingung 6)

Die Welt heute ist zu einem einzigen großen Raum geworden, wie es sich Platon und alle seine NachfolgerInnen bis ins 20. Jahrhundert herauf nicht haben erträumen (!) können. Doch hat dieser Raum und darauf verweist Derrida mehrfach, ja vielfach und ausdrücklich, auch eine ihnen unbekannte Qualität: hybrid in all seinen kulturellen Bedingungen, Voraussetzungen, Bestimmungen und Verschiebungen, - allseits sich überlagernd, zuspitzend, überschießend, heterotop, global und vielleicht auch kommend (!?!) planetarisch. (( cf. dazu, - anregend kontrovers: Texte von Chantal Mouffe, Richard Rorty, Simon Critchley, Ernesto Laclau und Jacques Derrida, - in: Chantal Mouffe (Hg.): Dekonstruktion und Pragmatismus. Demokratie, Wahrheit und Vernunft. Wien 1999 (Passagen Vlg.) und Chantal Mouffe: Welche Weltordnung: kosmopolitisch oder multipolar?, - in: Chantal Mouffe: Über das Politische. Wider die kosmopolitische Illusion. Frankfurt am Main 2007, S. 118ff. (edition suhrkamp) und bes.: Jacques Rancière: Der Hass der Demokratie. Berlin, August Verlag 2011; sowie: Colin Crouch: Postdemokratie. Frankf. 2008; und schließlich noch Platons "heikle" und provokative (!?) Formulierungen zur Demokratie als ein politisches Regime, das keines ist (!?!), - in: Platon, Politeia, Buch VIII, 562d ff. ))


Nachsätze:

Judith N. Shklar: „ Dem Liberalismus der Furcht vorzuwerfen, er würde seine Erwartungen zu niedrig ansetzen, hieße, Gefühle für geringer zu achten als Ideen und besonders politische Anliegen und Sachen.“ (S. 50)

„Ein hiermit in Verbindung stehender Einwand gegen den Liberalismus der Furcht lautet, dass er die genuin menschliche durch eine > instrumentelle Vernunft < ersetze (vgl.: Seyla Benhabib: Kritik, Norm und Utopie. Die normativen Grundlagen der Kritischen Theorie. Frf. 1992). Meistens wird die Bedeutung der ersteren im Dunkeln gelassen, aber in der Regel geht es dabei nicht um irgendeine Version des platonischen Idealismus. Der Begriff > instrumentelle Vernunft < bezieht sich auf politische Praktiken, die auf Effizienz aus sind oder nur Zweck-Mittel-Kalkulationen betreiben und dabei weder die Rationalität noch einen anderen möglichen Wert ihrer Ziele oder Ergebnisse hinterfragen. Weil der Liberalismus der Furcht sehr klare Ziele hat – nämlich Furcht und Grausamkeit zu vermindern - , scheint dieses Argument ziemlich irrelevant zu sein.“ (S. 51)

„Jeder Versuch von Bürgererziehung in einer liberalen Demokratie muss das Ziel haben, gut informierte und selbstbestimmte Erwachsene hervorzubringen. Das vollendete Portrait eines mustergültigen Liberalen findet sich in Kants Tugendlehre, die uns detailliert die Gesinnung einer Person beschreibt, die andere Menschen ohne Herablassung, Arroganz, Demut oder Furcht respektiert. Er oder sie beleidigt andere nicht durch Lügen oder Grausamkeit, die den eigenen Charakter nicht weniger verderben als sie das Opfer verletzen.“ (S. 54)

aus: Judith N. Shklar: Der Liberalismus der Furcht. Mit einem Vorwort von Axel Honneth und Essays von Michael Walzer, Seyla Benhabib und Bernard Williams. Herausgegeben, aus dem Amerikanischen übersetzt und mit einem Nachwort versehen von Hannes Bajohr. 176 Seiten, Berlin 2013 (Matthes & Seitz).

John Dunn: „In der Politik ist Demokratie heute der Name für das, was wir nicht haben können – doch was wir uns dennoch sehnlich wünschen.“ ( John Dunn: Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future. Cambridge University Press 1979, p. 27 )

Ingolfur Blühdorn: „Diese Feststellung ist sogar aktueller denn je. Nach der postdemokratischen Wende könnte man allerdings noch pointierter sagen: Demokratie ist heute der Name für das, was wir nicht haben wollen – doch was wir uns dennoch sehnlich wünschen. Diese Neuformulierung würde den postdemokratischen Stand des demokratischen Paradoxes voll erfassen. Und dieses spezifisch postdemokratische Paradox entsteht eben, weil die Modernisierung die Logik des flexiblen und flüchtigen Subjekts (und also die Logik der Postdemokratie) immer schneller vorantreibt, dabei aber die Logik des traditionellen, identischen Subjekts (und also die Logik der Demokratie) keineswegs aussetzt.“ ( Ingolfur Blühdorn: Simulative Demokratie. Neue Politik nach der postdemokratischen Wende. Berlin 2013 (Suhrkamp Verlag), S. 162f. )

Müssen wir, können wir, dürfen wir an die Idee der Demokratie Zweifel setzen ?!? Und an der Demokratiefähigkeit !?! An der Demokratiemöglichkeit ?! Der Demokratizität !?

Am Demokratischen?! An der Frage der Demokratie !? Warum bezeichnet Jacques Derrida die Demokratie als kommende, - die kommende Demokratie !?

Jacques Derrida: "Aufgrund des Geheimnisses möchte ich die Frage der Demokratie abermals aufnehmen, da es ein Konzept der Politik und der Demokratie als Offenheit gibt - wir sind alle gleich und der öffentliche Bereich steht uns allen offen -, was dazu tendiert, das Geheimnis zu negieren, auszustreichen oder zu verbieten; in jedem Fall tendiert es dazu, das Recht aufs Geheimnis auf den privaten Bereich zu beschränken und damit eine Kultur der Privatsphäre zu etablieren. (Ich denke, das ist die vorherrschende und hegemoniale Tendenz in der Geschichte der Politik des Westens.) ... ich habe versucht, gegen eine derartige Interpretation der Demokratie eine Erfahrung des Geheimnisses und der Singularität zu denken, der gegenüber der öffentliche Bereich keine Rechte und keine Macht in Anschlag bringen kann." ( Jacques Derrida: Bemerkungen zu Dekonstruktion und Pragmatismus, - in: Ch. Mouffe (Hg.): Dekonstruktion und Pragmatismus. Demokratie, Wahrheit und Vernunft. Wien 1999 (Passagen Verlag), S. 179. )

Jacques Derrida bezeichnet die kommende Demokratie als eben solche aufgrund des Geheimnisses (!) als Erfahrung des Singulären (!), aus der das Politische nur erwachsen kann, - und zwar erwachsen in seiner Offenheit. Offen ist kommend. Die Erfahrung ist das, was das Subjekt über ein bisher Erfahrbares hinausführt, - quasi entgegen allen und als Überraschung aller Erwartungen, Hoffnungen, Begehrlichkeiten. Das was den Horizont der Wahrnehmung zu übersteigen vermag. Das Geheimnis haftet an einer solchen „Übersteigung“ von etwas. Das Geheimnis könnte das unmöglich Scheinende, ja das Unmögliche sein, - das Politische werden, als die Erfahrung eines Unmöglichen. Das Unmögliche ist das Singuläre! (vgl. Derrida, Politik der Freundschaft, S. 55 und Die unbedingte Universität, S. 73)

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

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

"Und das Geheimnis ist nichts, was ich in mir verberge; es ist nicht Ich. Das Geheimnis ist nicht das Geheimnis der Vorstellung, die man im eigenen Kopf einschließt und von der man beschließt, sie niemandem zu sagen, es ist eher ein Geheimnis, das der Erfahrung des Singulären koexistent ist. Das Geheimnis kann nicht auf den öffentlichen Bereich reduziert werden - trotzdem nenne ich es nicht privat -, es kann auch nicht auf die Veröffentlichung oder das Politische reduziert werden, zur selben Zeit liegt dieses Geheimnis dem zugrunde, von dem aus der öffentliche Bereich und der Bereich des Politischen zu sein, und offen zu sein, vermag." (( Jacques Derrida: ebda., Bemerkungen zu Dekonstruktion und Pragmatismus, - in: Ch. Mouffe (Hg.): Dekonstruktion und Pragmatismus. Demokratie, Wahrheit und Vernunft. Wien 1999 (Passagen Verlag), S. 178f. ))


In der platonischen Ideenlehre ist die Idee des Guten das oberste Prinzip. Ein nicht einfach zu erfassendes Prinzip! Umgelegt auf die heutige Politik möchte ich dieses „Prinzip“(!) anwenden auf die modernen Menschenrechtsformulierungen, nach denen sich heutige Politik und PolitikerInnen zu richten hätten, - also auf das, was gut und richtig ist für alle Menschen auf diesem Globus, das sogenannte „planetarische Prinzip“ (vgl. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak) den „Anderen“ zu denken, im Zeichen der Alterität zu denken,

(( cf. Teaser-Ende zur Spur: "Die Spur, in der sich das Verhältnis zum Anderen abzeichnet, ..." „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 ) ))

ja vom Imperativ(!), das Subjekt als planetarisch zu denken, - auch und besonders auf die großen Herausforderungen der Politik im 21. Jahrhundert gerichtet gedacht: wie Migration (Flüchtlinge, Refugees), 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, Korruption, Waffen(lieferungen), Terrorismus, Artenvielfalt, Biodiversität, Massentierhaltung, Tierfabriken, Tierverzehr, "Fleischproduktion"!, Tierrechte, Tierphilosophie ((...ich beziehe mich in der Hauptsache auf Derrida und seine Texte über „das Tier“, - in: J. D.: „Das Tier, das ich also bin“. Wien 2010.;

…alle Philosophen, von Aristoteles bis Descartes, Kant, Heidegger, Levinas bis Lacan, sprechen von „das Tier“ (cf. S. 58f.);

… alle Tiere werden als Tier zusammengedacht!, - das „Tier als solches“ ! Die berüchtigte Formel, die „Als-solche-Struktur“, das ist das, was Derridas Dekonstruktion zu überschreiten, zu attackieren versucht, - das Einheiten bilden in einem Urteil, z. B. Heideggers Ausdruck „Weltbilden“, das ist das , was der Mensch (die Menschen!) kann und was diesen vom Tier(! welchem?) unterscheide; dieses sei „weltarm“!

Eine Unterscheidung mit vielen Folgen! Diese Tier-Mensch-Unterscheidung ist der Grundstein der abendländischen Metaphysik und ihrer Serien binärer, hierarchischer Oppositionen als Grundlage für Weltaussagen und Urteile (!) über diese (cf. S. 164)

… Derrida spricht von der Teilnahme an einem „veritablen Krieg der Arten, jedesmal wenn „man“ „Das Tier“ sagt ! (cf. S. 58);

das Zusammendenken aller Tiere als Tier!

Mit dem Singular das Tier wird eine metaphysische Formulierung und Denkweise privilegiert, - das Tier als solches ! Was wären die Kriterien für die Zusammenführung aller Tierarten und Tierindividuen unter einen Begriff!? Es kann nur die Fundamentalopposition zum Begriff des Menschen / der Menschen gemeint sein. Eine Abwertung! Das Lebewesen Tier, die Tiere seien weniger als ein Mensch und der Mensch sei mehr als ein Tier! Für Derrida bleibt die Beziehung zum Seienden immer eine tierliche Beziehung, dies gelte auch für uns Menschen.

… Derrida denkt, der durch die metaphysischen Oppositionen bewirkte Separatismus (gegenüber uns Menschen) bedeute die andauernde gedankenlose und brutale Fortsetzung der Gewalt gegen Tiere. Gleichzeitig fürchtet er die Reduzierung des menschlichen Lebens auf tierisches Leben durch viele Biologen bzw Biologisten und damit die Gefahr, daß Menschen der nämlichen Gewalt ausgesetzt sein werden und seien! (ebda.)

… Menschen und Tiere „erleben“(!) den Tod nicht „als solchen“! Die Möglichkeit und die Realität des Todes nehmen wir nicht „als solche“ wahr, sondern nur über den Umweg (!) über andere. Die Menschen genauso wie die Tiere. Das ist „uns allen“(!) gemeinsam, - bei aller Fremdheit, die wir Tieren gegenüber empfinden (sollten! Für Derrida eine Fremdheit, die wir kultivieren sollten. Eine Andersheit, deren Schönheit wir genießen und schützen und bewahren sollten und müssen!)

… wir alle, Tiere wie Menschen, sind körperliche Lebewesen, verletzlich, vergänglich und singulär! Extrem rar! Teil einer kleinen, kostbaren, schützenswerten, permanent gefährdeten Welt. Gewaltminimierung ist Derridas Auftrag an uns!

( Jacques Derrida: Das Tier, das ich also bin. S. 58ff., S. 63ff., bes. S. 67 und ff., S. 79ff., S. 206ff. ); Tierphilosophie also )), Cyber-Crime, Rassismus, Hunger, Landraub (Land-Grabbing), Soziale Ungleichheit, Verkehr, Produktion und Konsum, Gerechtigkeit, ...

( 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 )


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 / Passagen / phrenoplekt / patheticus / leidenschaftlich / emotional contactions / Empathie / Vertrauen / Pathos / Rührung / Bewegung / Bewegtheit / Berühren, Jacques Derrida ( „Dieser Text hat also mehrere Alter. Von einem Satz zum anderen springt er mitunter über Jahre. Ich hätte mit dem Leser ein Spiel spielen und die Schichten eines Archivs so farblich markieren können.“ cf. Zitat aus „Vorrede“ in: Jacques Derrida: Berühren, Jean-Luc Nancy S. 6 )

EINE VIELLEICHT ! AUCH ! FAST ! SCHON ! LÄCHERLICHE ! "GESTE" !! EINES UEBER DIE JAHRZEHNTE TREUEN ! UND LEIDENSCHAFTLICHEN !! LESERS

Le sens du monde“ (J.-L. Nancy)

Der Sinn der Welt

Die Sinne der Welt

Sense Interlacements Inkommunikabilität

Philosophische Praxis die rätselhafte und verstörende Notwendigkeit

Von Kommunikation

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

( cf. Jürgen Habermas‘ „kommunikative Vernunft(( !!?! lies dazu oben im Teaser den roten Textabschnitt zu Platon und "Vernunft" und die genannten sechs (6) Bedingungen einer dekonstruktiv kritischen Lektüre des Wahrheitsbegriffs und des damit "einhergehenden"(!?) Vernunftbegriffs !!! gewissermaßen "als" (!?) Eintrittsticket ! )), - in: J. H.: Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. 1. Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Stw Frf. 1995, S. 533; und vgl. Edmund Husserl: Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlaß. 3. Tl. In: Husserliana XV, 1929/35; sowie J. Fr. Lyotard und Luhmann, Putnam, Derrida )

Phrenoplekt phrenoplex wiederholt

Was tun! Faktizität

Globale Macht-, Informations – und Kommunikationsstrukturen

Logoklonie Klandestinität

Geschichtsmarke Beschichtung der kommunikativen Haut

Lesevermögen

Terroristische Alltagsvertextung

Mutaphysik Sprachtrichterungen Berührungen

Triebverhältnisse

Parekbase Anakoluthon Schrift – Spuren

Sinnwelt

Weltsinn

Emotional Contactions (cf.: Aristoteles, Peri Psyches, De Anima, Von der Seele, Buch I-III, 402 a-435 b )


cf. bes.:

1)

Wenn unsere Augen sich berühren“ (Eine Frage – Von Aristoteles – Signieren), - in: Jacques Derrida: Berühren, Jean-Luc Nancy. Version auf Deutsch, Verlag Brinkmann & Bose 2007, S. 7-15 (cf. engl. Version / Übersetzung / Über – Setzung (!) / Trans – Lation und französisches Original (!) )

2)

DIES IST – VOM ANDEREN I Psyche („UM SIE HERUM, AUS EINEM SO EXAKTEN UND SO GRAUSAMEN WISSEN“), - in: ebda., S. 19-29

3)

PUNKTIERUNGEN: „UND DU“ XII „Sich Dir berühren“ (RÜHREN – AN DIE SPRACHE / ZUNGE UND ANS HERZ), - in: ebda., S. 337 bzw. S. 339-361

4)

Von der absoluten Feindschaft Die Sache der Philosophie und das Gespenst des Politischen, - in: Jacques Derrida: Politik der Freundschaft. Version auf Deutsch, Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft 2002, S. 158-190 (cf. französ. Orig. „Politiques de l‘ amitié“, Éditions Galilée, Paris 1994)

5)

‎‎ADAMI, Valerio - Jacques DERRIDA

‎Paris, Maeght éditeur, 1975. In-folio (380 x 280 mm) en feuilles, 52 pages.

Derrière Le Miroir N° 214. ADAMI Voyage du dessin. Mai 1975. ‎

Text: Jacques Derrida "Le voyage du dessin" (fr. Orig. noch nicht übersetzt!). Exposition de 96 dessins de 1969 à 1975.


Meditationes de prima philosophia / grammatologia



L E I D enschaft e n / Leidenschaften phrenoplex, complicated, Sinnverflechtungen, sense interlacings, implications, Differenz ! Differenzdifferenz ! Différance Fältelung ! reflexive Verdoppelung ! Fältelung ! Com"Pli"cation ! Semantische Markierung-Sem-Verkettung-Zeichengitter ! Appellation unausgesprochener, ansprechbarer Sinnpotentiale ! Falte ! ReImplikationen! Sense Interlacings! Sinnverflechtungen! Sinnlinien (Novalis, Schlegel) als Supplemente! No "real" Signified !!! différ/a/nce Kein Signifikat ohne mehrfach aufeinander bezogene unterschiedene Elemente / Signifikanten / Markierungen ! S p u r Spur (cf. Jacques Derrida,Grammatologie, S. 17, Jacques Derrida, Grammatologe, Philosoph )


ego ego cogito, ergo sum (René Descartes) / extension / complication / implication / Fältelung


"Die Passionen der Seele" (?!!?) (Descartes)


Markierungen Heraufkunft des Selbst S e l f – R e f l e x i v i t y (Paul de Man)

„ICH“ reflektiere leidenschaftlich (!), also „generiere“ ich mein „Ich“ m i t !?

Ich esse, also „bin“(!) ich ( auch leiden-schaftlich ) !?

Auch (!) Pflanzen und Tiere generieren (!) Leiden-schaften !!!


Marks Arrival of the Self S e l f – R e f l e x i v i t y (Paul de Man)

„I“ reflect impassioned, so I generate my „I“ w i t h ?!

I eat, therefore I „am“(!) ( also im-passioned ) !?

Even (!) plants and animals „generate“ „passions“ !!!


Unentscheidbarkeit ? Inkommunikabilität ?

Unentscheidbarkeit ? Inkommunikabilität ?

Inkommunikabilität ? Unentscheidbarkeit ?

Incommunicability !? Undecidability ?!


cf.:

Gerhard Kaucic: Grammatotechnè als Grammatologie der „HERZGEWÄCHSE“ oder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986.

Jacques Derrida: Dissemination. Wien 1995 (Passagen Verlag). (fr. Ausgabe "La dissémination" 1972, Éditions du Seuil)


(Blog: German / English)

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


Philosophische Praxis

Philosophische Praxis Wien (seit 1989)

Philosophical Practice (since 1989)


Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax


Philosoph, Schriftsteller, Philosophischer Praktiker

Philosopher, Writer, Philosophical Practitioner

25 Years (1989-2014, Jubilee) philosophical practitioner, writer, philosopher ...

Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis, gegründet 1989, Dr. Gerhard Kaucic, geboren 1959 in Kufstein / Tirol, Philosophischer Praktiker, Gasometer B, Guglgasse 8, Wien, Austria / Österreich:

Gespräche / talks außerhalb u. innerhalb (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...

( an die 2000 Ge-spräche von 1989-2014, streng nach dem Setting vertrauliches "Einzel-Gespräch", confidential "one-to-one conversation", "face à face" (vgl. Homepage !), mit open end, indoor sowie outdoor; an die 2000 "Gespräche", "Diskurse", "Dekonstruktionen", "Begleitungen", "Text"; ....... (vgl. Bilder auf "facebook" und vgl. unten: Was ist Dekonstruktion?) ....... Subjektivität ..... Spur ... trace ... Singularität )

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


Gespräch / Ge-spräch !!!


Du möchtest DIALOG

Du begehrst Dialog

Was ist, - D i a L o g

Ich als Individuum kann alles, was möglich ist, denken. Aber fast (!) alles ist schon gedacht worden und sogar in Büchern niedergeschrieben worden. Alles Gesagte findest „DU“ in der Sprache. Ohne Quellenangabe. Irgendein Kollektiv verantwortet den Ursprung, die Ursprünge! Niemand kann diese identifizieren. Keine Signatur!

Der Dialog verbindet die Menschen. Immer gibt es viele Meinungen. Immer gibt es viele Voraussetzungen. Die Menschen sind sich dieser meist nicht bewußt!

Menschen im Dialog versuchen ihre Meinungen zu stützen. Sie verteidigen ihre Annahmen. Oft geschieht das unbewußt.

Der Dia-log, der Dialog birgt und gibt einen Widerstand. Dieser Widerstand erfordert Raum. Einen Raum der Verteidigung! Dieser verbraucht Zeit! Beides erzeugt einen Rhythmus des Logos. Vielleicht einen Zauderrhythmus (cf. Freud)!? Und jede und jeder Antwortende ist allein und erhält vielleicht (! Kafkas „Vor dem Gesetz“!?) Zugang.

Zugang zu sich selbst (?) und damit vielleicht zum Anderen! Der Zugang kann nur der eigene sein!

Und dann!!


You want DIALOGUE

You desire dialogue

What is, - D i a L o g ?

I as an individual can think everything that is possible. But almost (!) everything has already been thought and even has been written down in books. Everything has already been said and "you" can find it within the language. Without reference. Any collective is responsible for the origin, the origins! Nobody can identify these origins. No signature!

Dialogue brings people together. There are always many opinions. There are always many conditions. People are mostly unaware of this!

People in dialogue try to support their opinion. They defend their assumptions. Often this happens unconsciously.

The Dia-log, the dialogue contains and puts up a resistance. This resistance requires space. A space of defense! This consumes time! Both generate a rhythm of the logos. Perhaps a Zauderrhythmus (cf. Freud) !? And every respondent is alone and maybe receives (! Kafka's "Before the Law" !?) access.

Access to him/herself (?) And perhaps for others! Access to itself and with it maybe to the other! Access can only be one's own!

And then!!



Jubiläum (2014) 25 Jahre "Philosophische Praxis Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax" ( Wien / rund um die Welt / Vienna / around the world )

Dr. Gerhard Kaucic, Gründer (1989) der ersten grammatologischen philosophischen Praxis weltweit, - 25 years Philosophical Practitioner Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax, Vienna, Austria, Europe

25 Jahre Gespräch, Diskurs, Assoziationen, Analyse, Problematisierung, Identitätsdislokation, Subjektivierung, Formalisierung, Fältelung, Komplizierung, Text, Aporie, Dekonstruktion, Übersetzung, Über - Setzung ... meta-thesis

25 Jahre (1989 -2014) ... und mehr als 2000 Gespräche / talks / conversations / argumentations / dialogues / reasonings / interviews / discussions / consultations / debates / altercations / arguments / meetings / conscriptions / reviews / inductions / deductions / colloquies / converses / text / deconstruction / translation / trans - lation ... Metathesis ...

face à face ... Text

das 25-jährige Jubiläum der „Praxis“ Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax in Wien und darüberhinaus

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

Gerhard Kaucic (geb. 1959), Philosopher, Writer, Trans-lator, Philosophical Practitioner, Queer Theorist, Deconstruction, Queertheoretiker, Philosophischer Praktiker, Schriftsteller, Über-Setzer, Philosoph, Grammatologe, Autor, Wien, Austria, Europe

Grammatologie ......Sprachverkopplungen / Coupling of Languages / Über-Setzung , Trans-Latio , Meta-phorologie, Meta-thesis ..... " S c h r i f t " .... Markierungen ... Passagen .... " T e x t "


Dekonstruktion

Dekonstruktion

Deconstruction


BLOG - Philosophische Praxis Wien

Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax

BLOG - Philosophical Practice Vienna

Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax

(* 1959 )





ISSN 2410-7050

Impressum cf. Teaser-Ende




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





Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis

Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis

Grammatological Philosophical Practice

Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis

Grammatological Philosophical Practice




Postanschrift / Mailing address is:



Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax

Philosophische Praxis

Guglgasse 8/4/80

1110 Wien

Österreich Austria Europe


Homepage

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



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.


BLOG - Teaser

BLOG - Teaser Teaser Teaser Teaser Teaser


Of Grammatology

Grammatologie Sprachverkopplungen Coupling of Languages Deconstruction


ISSN 2410-7050 ( Germ. / Engl. )





BLOG - Teaser Teaser Teaser Teaser Teaser

Philosophische Praxis Wien Philosophische Praxis Wien

Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax

Philosophischer Praktiker seit 1989 / Philosophical Practitioner since 1989

Philosophischer Praktiker seit 1989 / Philosophical Practitioner since 1989


Schrift !

Performativität / Performativity ! ( J. Derrida, "Signatur, Ereignis, Kontext" / J. Butler, "Excitable Speech. A Politics of the Performative" / E. Fischer-Lichte, "Ästhetik des Performativen")


Dem „Kommentarischen“ des "Kommentar" entgehen!

( vgl.: § Para-Graphie : K o m m e n t a r , - in: Gerhard Kaucic: Grammatotechnè als Grammatologie der „HERZGEWÄCHSE“ oder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986, S. 46-71. )


Parekbase, Parabase (Schlegel, Barthes, Derrida, Concic-Kaucic) !

Der Reduzierung, der Verfälschung, der Erniedrigung, der Kastrierung des "Textes" durch den "Kommentar" entgehen!

The "commentary" always restricts the "text"!

The text must be preserved as a text in its performance.


The „Commentaryrestricts 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 (!!!).


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


Performanz / Performance !

Textpolitik !

Textperformanz / Wiederholung / Iterabilität / Iterability / Markierung !

Dissemination / Idiom ! Performativität! Performativity!

( vgl.: § Para-Graphie : D i s s e m i n a t i o n, - in: Gerhard Kaucic: Grammatotechnè als Grammatologie der „HERZGEWÄCHSEoder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986, S. 71-74. )

Textmusik / Textbild / Koloratur / Stimme / Textur !

Textkonfiguration



BLOG /// POST /// BLOG /// POST

Blog - Posts in: // English / German / Deutsch / Englisch //



Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax

Philosophische Praxis / Philosophical Practice / Wien

Grammatologie / Of Grammatology / De la Grammatologie

Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax



Philosophy / Philosophie / Politizität / Politicity

Dekonstruktion / Deconstruction


Schrift / vor dem Buchstaben ... face à face
différance / Dissemination / Aporie / Inkommunikabilität / Über-Setzung / Text


ISSN 2410-7050

Impressum cf. Teaser-Ende


/// Blog /// Gerhard Kaučić / Djay PhilPrax

/für/als/durch/ dekonstruktive Praxis in kulturellen und politischen Reflexionsfeldern (1983ff.) ( Dt. / Engl. )


BLOG "Philosophical Practices / Politics / Disseminations"


Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis / Wien / Grammatological Philosophical Practice / Vienna


Grammatologie als die Schrift vor dem Buchstaben

( J. Derrida, Grammatologie, S. 9ff. )


zum Begriff bzw zum Pro-Gramm von "Schrift"


Grammatology as"Writing before the Letter" (cf. Derrida, of Grammatology, p.3ff.)



vgl. das Video "Was ist Philosophie." https://plus.google.com/+DrGerhardKaucicDjayPhilPrax/videos?pid=6004471385463421170&oid=105536286757184279781

und vgl. den Artikel / Text "Dekonstruktion" von D. Sontag.:

http://web.utanet.at/gack/Dekonstruktion.htm

und vgl. besonders:

J. Derrida: "Freud und der Schauplatz der Schrift", - in: J. D., Die Schrift und die Differenz, Frf. 1976, S. 302-350. ( Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Verlag )


zu "différance" / "Differänz" / Differenz

vgl.:

D. S.: http://web.utanet.at/gack/Dekonstruktion.htm

und:

Gerhard Kaucic, "§ ParaGraphie : D i f f e r ä n z", - in: G. K.: Grammatotechne als Grammatologie der HERZGEWÄCHSE oder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986, S. 74-84.

und bes.:

J. Derrida, La différance, - in: "Randgänge der Philosophie". Wien 1988 (Passagen Verlag), S. 29-52.


zu "Grammatologie"

vgl.:

J. Derrida: Grammatologie. Frf. 1983 (Suhrkamp Verlag)

Gerhard Kaucic: Grammatotechné als Grammatologie der "Herzgewächse" oder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986 (344 S.).

Gerhard Kaucic / Anna Lydia Huber: Die Grüne F Abyss (ZS), Obertrum, Wien 1989ff.



zu Dissemination:


vgl.:

§ Para-Graphie : D i s s e m i n a t i o n, - in: Gerhard Kaucic: Grammatotechnè als Grammatologie der „HERZGEWÄCHSEoder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986, S. 71-74.


vgl bes.:

Jacques Derrida: Dissemination. Wien 1995 (Passagen Verlag). (fr. Ausgabe "La dissémination" 1972, Éditions du Seuil)



zu "Lust der Lektüre, der Kunst des Schreibens und zu Lesbarkeit und Unlesbarkeit bzw Text als Geflecht grammatologischer Kommunikation und semiologischer Signifikation "


vgl.: Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic: /S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns. Wien (Passagen Verlag) 1993-2007 ff. (7 Bde.)


vgl.: Gerhard Kaucic, "§ ParaGraphie : Panglossie, § ParaGraphie : Lukubrationen, § ParaGraphie: Spongismos", - in: Gerhard Kaucic: Grammatotechnè als Grammatologie der „HERZGEWÄCHSEoder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986, S. 150-337.


vgl. bes.:

Roland Barthes: "Die Lust am Text", "Die Vorbereitung des Romans", "Im Reich der Zeichen" und "S/Z" ( alle: Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Verlag )


vgl. bes.:

Jacques Derrida: "Glas". München (Wilhelm Fink Verlag) 2006. Aus dem Französischen von Hans-Dieter Gondek und Markus Sedlaczek (C Éditions Galilée: Paris 1974)



Philosophische Praxis Gerhard Kaucic seit 1989 / Philosophical Practice Gerhard Kaucic since 1989 / Philosophische Praxis Gerhard Kaucic seit 1989 / Philosophical Practice Gerhard Kaucic since 1989 / Philosophische Praxis Gerhard Kaucic seit 1989 / Philosophical Practice Gerhard Kaucic since 1989


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


Teaser Teaser Teaser Teaser


Teaser / about me / über mich / Teaser ( engl. / germ. / Dt. / Engl. ) Gerhard Kaučić (born in 1959), Author, Philosopher, Austria / Österreich, Europe [ kurze Biographie, Vita, Bio siehe unten ! Engl. u. Deutsch ]



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



Bloggen, - eine philosophische Praxis als politische Praktik der Intervention


Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax Wien (*1989)
Grammatological Philosophical Practice Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax Vienna (established 1989)


2000 Gespräche / 2000 talks / conversations / dialogues / interviews / discussions / consultations / colloquies / converses / "text" / deconstruction (1989-2014, 25 Years, Philosophical Practice, Philosophische Praxis, Jubilee, Jubiläum, 2014), streng nach dem Setting vertrauliches "Einzel-Gespräch" / confidential "one-to-one conversation" , "face à face"



und:

Zu Programm und Befindlichkeit von Literatur und Gesellschaft im Allgemeinen und im Besonderen



open end, indoor / outdoor; mehr als 2000 "Gespräche", "Diskurse", "Dekonstruktionen", "Begleitungen", " Text ", " Übersetzung ", " Über - Setzung " ... ( vgl. unten:
Was ist Dekonstruktion? und : Was ist Philosophie.)

Jubiläum (2014) 25 Jahre "Philosophische Praxis Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax" ( Wien / rund um die Welt / Vienna / around the world )

Dr. Gerhard Kaucic, Gründer (1989) der ersten grammatologischen philosophischen Praxis weltweit, - 25 years Philosophical Practitioner Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax, Vienna, Austria, Europe


25 Jahre Gespräch, Diskurs, Assoziationen, Analyse, Problematisierung, Identitätsdislokation, Subjektivierung, Formalisierung, Fältelung, Komplizierung, Text, Aporie, Dekonstruktion, Übersetzung, Über - Setzung ... meta-thesis

25 Jahre (1989 -2014) ... und mehr als 2000 Gespräche / talks / conversations / argumentations / dialogues / reasonings / interviews / discussions / consultations / debates / altercations / arguments / meetings / conscriptions / reviews / inductions / deductions / colloquies / converses / text / deconstruction / translation / trans - lation ... Metathesis ...

face à face ... Text

das 25-jährige Jubiläum der „Praxis“ Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax in Wien und darüberhinaus

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


Gerhard Kaucic (geb. 1959), Philosopher, Writer, Trans-lator, Philosophical Practitioner, Queer Theorist, Deconstruction, Queertheoretiker, Philosophischer Praktiker, Schriftsteller, Über-Setzer, Philosoph, Grammatologe, Autor, Wien, Austria, Europe


Grammatologie ......Sprachverkopplungen / Coupling of Languages / Über-Setzung , Trans-Latio , Meta-phorologie, Meta-thesis ..... " S c h r i f t " .... Markierungen ... Passagen .... " T e x t "

vgl. unten: Was ist Dekonstruktion? ....... Subjektivität ..... Spur ... trace ...

vgl. unten: Was ist Dekonstruktion? ....... Subjektivität ..... Spur ... trace ... Singularität ... Idiom ...différance

vgl. unten: Was ist Dekonstruktion? ....... Subjektivität ..... Spur ... trace ... Singularität ... Idiom ... différance...



(cf. ... Gilgamesch, ... cf. ... Homer, ... cf. ... Sappho, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Gorgias, Parmenides, Diogenes (von Sinope), Demokrit, Dschuang - Tzu / Tschuang-tse / Zhuangzi / Zhuang Zhou, Patañjali, Zenon, [ Epikur, Metrodoros, Timokrates, [ Lukrez, Vergil, Horaz, Diogenes Laertios, Poggio Bracciolini, Lorenzo Valla, Pierre Gassendi, Thomas Hobbes, Chr. Martin Wieland (Agathon), Christian Thomasius, La Mettrie, Paul Thiry d’Holbach, Thomas Jefferson, Karl Marx, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Wilhelm Reich, Ludwig Marcuse, Adolf Holl, Howard Jones, Dorothee Kimmich, Avital Ronell, Gerhard Kaucic,...]], Xenophon, Demosthenes, Heraklit, Herodot, Ovid, Plato/Sokrates, Aischylos, Euripides, Sophokles, Aristoteles, Horaz, Antiphon, Alkidamas, Krates, Hipparchia, Flavius Josephus, M. F. Quintilianus, „Die Tropen“, - in: Ausbildung des Redners, Achtes Buch, S. 217ff., Seneca, Cicero, Plutarch, Vergil, Lukrez, Diogenes, Plotin, Augustinus, Boethius, Book of Kells, Notker Labeo, Hildegard von Bingen, Franz von Assisi, Klara von Assisi, Thomas von Aquin, Wilhelm von Ockham, Meister Eckhart, Nikolaus von Kues, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Niccolò Machiavelli, Giordano Bruno, Francis Bacon, Heinrich Wittenwiler ( Markierung ! ), Tommaso Campanella, René Descartes, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Orlando di Lasso, Oswald von Wolkenstein, Dieter Kühn, Dante Alighieri, Boccaccio, Paracelsus, Grimmelshausen, Münchhausen, Gottfried August Bürger, Cervantes, Antoine Arnauld "Über den Satz...", - in: Die Logik oder Die Kunst des Denkens, Kapitel III, S. 105ff. ( Port-Royal), Albertus Magnus, Giambattista Vico, Wilhelm von Ockham, Meister Eckhart, Niccolò Machiavelli, Montaigne, Étienne de La Boétie, Francis Bacon, Giordano Bruno, Johannes Kepler, Pascal, Aretino, François de La Rochefoucauld, Anne Boleyn, William Shakespeare, Martin Luther, Johann Weyer, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Morus, Erasmus von Rotterdam, Machiavelli, Tycho Brahe, Johann Amos Comenius, René Descartes, Giacomo Casanova, Hobbes, Cesare Beccaria, Folter, Todesstrafe ist kein Recht, Jacques Derrida, Manfred Nowak, Heinz Patzelt, Bascale, Montesquieu, Laurence Sterne, Luis de Góngora, Jakob Böhme, Emanuel Swedenborg, Theodor Gottlieb Hippel, Alexandre Dumas, Leibniz, Johann Christian Günther, Diderot, John Milton, Daniel Defoe, Jonathan Swift, William Blake, Jane Austen, Honoré de Balzac, Charles Dickens, Spinoza, Hegel, John Law, Adam Smith, Gottsched, Joseph von Sonnenfels, Beaumarchais, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Charles Fourier, David Hume, Johann Caspar Lavater, Schelling, Herder, Voltaire, Friedrich Maximilian Klinger, Lessing, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, Rabelais, Stifter, Bernard Bolzano, Locke, J. Stuart Mill, Jean Paul, Friedrich Schlegel, Moses Mendelssohn, Karl Philipp Moritz, Herman Melville, J. G. Fichte, Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, Karl Friedrich Gottlob Wetzel, Hölderlin, Immanuel Kant, Auguste Comtes, Charles Darwin, Alexander von Humboldt, Elaine Morgan, Alister Hardy, Bernard Mandeville, Michail Lomonossow, Alexander Puschkin, Michail Lermontow, Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock, E. T. A. Hoffmann, Schiller, Goethe (Wi. Ms. Wanderjahre, West-östlicher Divan), Christoph Martin Wieland, Friedrich Nicolai, Jung-Stilling, Kierkegaard, Johann Georg Hamann, J. G. Herder, K. Marx, Feuerbach, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Carl von Clausewitz, Marquis de Sade, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Jean Genet, Pierre Guyotat, Adolf Wölfli, Antonin Artaud, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Babette Babich, Franz Brentano, Alexius Meinong, Rudolf Haller, Friedrich Stadler, Eduard von Hartmann, George Sand, Adelbert von Chamisso, Novalis, Achim von Arnim, Hoffmann von Fallersleben, Kleist, Clemens Brentano, Heinrich Heine, Charles Dickens, Henry David Thoreau, Knut Hamsun, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walter Whitman, Robert Louis Stevenson, Rudyard Kipling, Georg Büchner, Christian Milz, Joseph von Eichendorff, Friedrich Schleiermacher, J. F. Cooper, Lord Byron, Ludwig Tieck, Francisco de Goya, Emily Dickinson, Rosa Luxemburg, Arthur Schnitzler, Paul Leroy, "Angst und Lachen", Wilhelm Wundt, Sigmund Freud, Francis Bacon, Lucian Freud, Willem de Kooning, Alberto Giacometti, Dostojewski, Turgenew, William Turner, Flaubert, Rimbaud, Nestroy, Émile Zola, Jack London, Gerhart Hauptmann, Hebbel, Hebel, Moritz Hartmann, Alfred Meißner, Siegfried Kapper, Anastasius Grün, Herwegh, Friedrich Engels, Karl Grün, Börne, Annette von Droste-Hülshof, Lenau, Theodor Storm, Bartholomäus Kopitar, Vuk Karadžić, Jacob Grimm, Friedrich Rückert, Franz Grillparzer, Theodor Fontane, Marie Ebner von Eschenbach, Peter Rosegger, Adalbert Stifter, Gottfried Keller, Mörike, Hoffmann von Fallersleben, Gutzkow, Laube, Freiligrath, Hugo, Henri Bergson, Konstantinos P. Romanós, Lautréamont, Charles Baudelaire, Stendhal, Flaubert, Hermann Bahr, André Gide, Michael Amon, André Malraux, Klaus Mann, Nietzsche, Lenin, Leo Trotzki, George Orwell, Robert Frost, Robert Musil (MoE), Clara Zetkin, Hans-Martin Gauger, Mario Wandruszka, Stéphane Mallarmé, Albert Thibaudet "La Poésie de Stéphane Mallarmé", Nicolai S. Trubetzkoy, Louis Hjelmslev, Ernst Robert Curtius, Gaston Bachelard, Michel Serres, Heinrich Lausberg, "Handbuch der Rhetorik", Wolfgang Kayser, "Das Sprachliche Kunstwerk", Emil Staiger, Gérard Genette, Michael Riffaterre, Tzvetan Todorov, Umberto Eco, Antonio Tabucchi, Peter Szondi, Peter von Matt, Hanns Zischler, Grammatologie, Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, René Wellek, Roman Ingarden, Jürgen Trabant, Jean Bollack, Jean Hyppolite, Paul Celan, Claude Ballif, Helmut Lachenmann, Wilhelm Busch, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Pitigrilli, Otto Weininger, Christian Morgenstern, Rainer Maria Rilke, Fernando Pessoa, Joachim Ringelnatz, Georg Trakl, Rosa Mayreder, José Ortega y Gasset, Wilhelm Dilthey, Zlatko Kaučič, Clemens Gadenstätter, György Kurtág, Friedrich Gulda, Christian Scheib, Elke Tschaikner, Renate Burtscher, Otto Brusatti, Daniel Charles, Walter Benjamin, „Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers“, M. Heidegger, Jacques Derrida., Paul de Man, Ernst Toller, Thomas Mann, Peter Altenberg, Géza Csáth, Egon Friedell, Alfred Polgar, Alexandre Kojève, Jean Wahl, M. Blanchot, André Leroi-Gourhan, H. Blumenberg, Anselm Haverkamp, Shoshana Felman, Barbara Johnson, Georges Bataille, Georges Canguilhem, Werner Hamacher, "Was ist ein Satz?", Jean-Marie Zemb, "Satz, Wort, Rede", Charles W. Morris, Max Bense, Gloria Withalm, Jeff Bernard, Eduard Muret, Daniel Sanders, Karl Sachs, Césaire Villatte, W. Pape, Reinhold Klotz, Joseph Maria Stowasser, Wilhelm Gemoll, Johannes Erben, Konrad Duden, Gerhard Wahrig, Friedrich Kluge, Arthur Schnitzler, Karl Bühler, Charlotte Bühler, Harald Weinrich, Rodolphe Gasché, Michael Wetzel, Markus Sedlaczek, Susanne Lüdemann, Marie Françoise Plissart, Wolf Lepenies, Jean Ziegler, Noam Chomsky, August Ruhs, Herwig Friedl, André Karger, Felix de Mendelssohn, Rudolf Heinz, Walter Seitter, Peter Zeillinger, Dominik Portune, Alexander García Düttmann, Gideon Greif, René Major, Leo Truchlar, Jacques Lacan, R. Jakobson, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Marcel Mauss, Algirdas Julien Greimas, R. Barthes, Lewis Mumford, Norman Spinrad, Markus Schroer, Martina Löw, Richard Münch, Detlev Schöttker, William Carlos Williams, Dos Passos, Alfred Döblin, Walter Serner, Ludwig Binswanger, Ferdinand de Saussure, Richard Pinhas, Gilles Deleuze, Sarah Kofman, René Schérer, Alenka Zupančič, Peter Widmer, Alfred Lorenzer, Alexander Mitscherlich, Margarete Mitscherlich, Élisabeth Roudinesco, Walter A. Adams, Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel, Jacques-Alain Miller, Fischer-Lichte, Judith Butler, Lucia Joyce, Nora Barnacle, James Joyce, Harriet Shaw Weaver, Italo Svevo, Michael Hastings, Franz Kafka, William Butler Yeats, T. S. Eliot, Herbert Marshall McLuhan, The Mechanical Bride, Folklore of Industrial Man, 1951, Judy Wajcman, Arno Schmidt, Alice Schmidt, Monika Wollschläger, Hans Wollschläger [ Schibboleth: „medeis apsychologikos eisito“, „Schibboleth - pour Paul Celan“ (Derrida), für „Seelentrottel“ kein Zutritt ! (Musil) ], Lautréamont, Guy de Maupassant, Louis Althusser, Karl Marx, Anton Tschechow, Henrik Ibsen, Louis Althusser, Wilhelm Reich, Monika Seifert, Jacob Levy Moreno, Anna Achmatowa, Marina Zwetajewa, Berta Zuckerkandl, Ossip Mandelstam, Stefan Zweig, Karl Jaspers, Leo Tolstoi, Henry James, Maxim Gorki, Max Adler, Friedrich Adler, Ernst Fischer, Jura Soyfer, Käthe Sasso, Viktor Matejka, Karl Renner, Bruno Kreisky, Simon Wiesenthal, Ernst Bloch, Agnes Heller, Mihály Vajda, Alfred Döblin, Hermann Broch, Ödön von Horváth, Kurt Tucholsky, Karl Kraus, Jean-Luc Nancy, Antonin Artaud, Djuna Barnes, Gertrude Stein, Boris Pasternak, Wladimir Majakowski, Karl May, Wladimir Majakowski, Iwan Gontscharow, Michail Bulgakow, Iwan Bunin, Sergei Eisenstein, Marguerite Duras, Stanislaw Lem, Rolf Gehlen, Carlos Fuentes, Juan Gelman, Nagib Mahfuz, Anis Mansour, Emmanuel Levinas, Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Francis Ponge, Benedetto Croce, Antonio Gramsci, Constantin Noica, Jean-Pol Martin, Domenico Losurdo, Alberto Morawia, P. Bourdieu, Helmuth Plessner, Frederik Buytendijk, Anthony Giddens, Bernard Stiegler, Felicitas D. Goodman, Hans Peter Duerr, Der Mythos vom Zivilisationsprozeß, Elmar Gruber, Wilhelm Gauger, Norbert Elias, Harald Haarmann, Universalgeschichte der Schrift, Aby Warburg, Ernst Gombrich, Manfred Henningsen, Simon Wiesenthal, Jean Beaufret, Robert Walser, Michael Ende, in: "Unter dem Pflaster liegt der Strand" (13, 1983), Mark Twain, Peter Bichsel, Adolf Muschg, Max Frisch, Otto F. Walter, Piscator, Konstantin Stanislawski, Wsewolod Meyerhold, Lion Feuchtwanger, Bertolt Brecht, Albert Camus, Gottfried Benn, Hans Magnus Enzensberger, Wolf Biermann, Robert Gernhardt, Bernd Eilert, Ephraim Kishon, Flann O' Brien, Harry Rowohlt, Eckhard Henscheid, Oliver Maria Schmitt, F. K. Waechter, Otto Waalkes, Helge Schneider, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Bronislaw Malinowski, David Graeber, Tel Quel Gruppe, Jean-Edern Hallier, Julia Kristeva, Philippe Sollers, Jean-Pierre Faye, Jean Ricardou, Jean Thibaudeau, Jacqueline Risset, Michel Deguy, Marcelin Pleynet, Denis Roche, Marianne Fritz, Nathalie Sarraute, Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic, Jean Vodaine, Raymond Federman, Bora Ćosić, Danilo Kiš, William Gaddis, Donald Barthelme, Vladimir Nabokov, E. L. Doctorow, George Saunders, John Barth, Anton Pelinka, Alain Touraine, Timothy Garton Ash, Tony Judt, Marcel Granet, François Jullien, Max Goldt, Uwe Timm, Gerhard Zwerenz, Arnold Stadler, Katharina Hacker, Gabriele Wohmann, Jörg Steiner, Andreas Altmann, Aldous Huxley, Roger Willemsen, Jürg Laederach, Ian McEvan, Julian Barnes, Margaret Atwood, Salman Rushdie, Navid Kermani, "aktiver Nihilismus", John Updike, Saul Bellow, J. M. Coetzee, Michael Cunningham, Zadie Smith, Manfred Deix, a. Okopenko, Kasimir Malewitsch, Oswald Wiener, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Henry James, Oscar Wilde, Samuel Beckett, Eugène Ionesco, Joshua Sobol, Pieter-Dirk Uys, Paulus Manker, Walter Gropius, Gustav Klimt, Oskar Kokoschka, Franz Werfel, Alma Mahler-Werfel, Gustav Mahler, die zweite Wiener Schule / the second Viennese School, Arnold Schönberg, Alban Berg, Anton Webern, Hanns Eisler, Theodor W. Adorno, Egon Wellesz, Ernst Krenek, Glenn Gould, Heimito von Doderer, Frédéric Morton, Arno Geiger, Dorothea Zeemann, Joseph Roth, Elias Canetti, Wiener Gruppe / the Vienna Group, Konrad Bayer, H. C. Artmann, Gerhard Rühm, Oswald Wiener, Friedrich Achleitner, Elfriede Gerstl, Ernst Jandl, Friederike Mayröcker, Gert Jonke, Edmond Jabès, Philippe Sollers, Kathy Acker, Wolfgang Bauer, Hans Arp, Hugo Ball, Max Horkheimer, Heiner Müller, Harald Szeemann, Wolf D. Prix, Hans Hollein, Hans-Peter Wipplinger, Gerald Stourzh, Erika Kronabitter, Eva Scheufler, Helmuth Schönauer, Walter Klier, Stefanie Holzer, Hans Haid, Hannah Arendt, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Dževad Karahasan, Jurij Andruchowytsch, George Bernard Shaw, Giorgio Agamben, Robert Antelme, Timothy Snyder, Jorge Semprún, Simone de Beauvoir, Dylan Thomas, George Grosz, Charms, Philip K. Dick, Georg Erich Schmid, Paul Feyerabend, Ludwik Fleck, Thomas S. Kuhn, Karl Mannheim, Norbert Bolz, Aurobindo Ghose, Reinhard Palm, Peter Strasser, Rudolf Burger, Sonja Puntscher Riekmann, Gesine Schwan, Ulrich Sonnemann, Valéry, Émile Benveniste, Bruno Bettelheim, Wolfgang Sofsky, Yves Michaud, René König, Elie Wiesel, Stéphane Hessel, Gene Sharp, Jacques Bidet, Joseph Schumpeter, Karl Polanyi, John Maynard Keynes, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Herbert Marcuse, Lucien Goldmann, Karl Korsch, Paul Lafargue, Michel Aucouturier, Michail Bachtin, Vladimir Propp, Jan Mukařovský, Andrei Tarkowski, Lars von Trier, Hélène Cixous, Felix de Mendelssohn, Michel de Certeau, Friederike Mayröcker, Georg Simmel, J. Galbraith, J. M. Keynes, Christian Marazzi, László F. Földényi, Barbara Markovic, Libuše Moníková, Benjamin Kunkel, Peter Demetz, Paul Ricoeur, Robert Brenner, Günter Wallraff, Heinar Kipphardt, Ingeborg Bachmann, Thomas Bernhard, Klaus Peymann, George Tabori, Gert Voss, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Klaus Mann, Rolf Hochhuth, Marie Jahoda, Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, Richard Rorty, Robert Pfaller, Fredric Jameson, Hans Jonas, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Charles Taylor, Claus Leggewie, Hans Krämer, Hugo Wolf, Arnold Schönberg, Geoffrey Hartman, Hillis Miller, Terry Eagleton, Helmut Heißenbüttel, Joachim Kaiser, Walter Höllerer, Wolfgang Koeppen, Valerio Adami, Jannis Kounellis, N. Luhmann, Michael Balint, Markus Lüpertz, Alain Ehrenberg, Erich Fromm, Pjotr Kropotkin, Michail Bakunin, Monte Verità, Erich Mühsam, Hans Arp, Hugo Ball, Ernst Bloch, Hermann Hesse, Ernst Toller, Gusto Gräser, Gerhart Hauptmann, Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, Hermann Cohen, Gershom Scholem, Leo Strauss, Emil Fackenheim, Max Weber, Max Brod, Harald Szeemann, Werner Ackermann (Robert Landmann, Rico Gala), Hans Henny Jahnn, Étienne Balibar, Robert Coover, Donald Barthelme, John Barth, Erich Fried, Günther Anders, Gerhard Oberschlick, Michael Guttenbrunner, Şerafettin Yıldız, Franz Schuh, Gerhard Roth, Felix Philipp Ingold, Klaus Theweleit, Serge Leclaire, Jean Laplanche, Jean-Bertrand Pontalis, Alfred Sohn-Rethel, Georg Simmel, Max Weber, Edgar Allan Poe, William S. Burroughs, Ilse Kilic, Elfriede Gerstl, Jean Starobinski, Herbert Schnädelbach, Zygmunt Bauman, Philippe Ariès, Paul Veyne, Wolfgang U. Eckart, Johann Jakob Bachofen, Adolf Holl, René Girard, Ulrich Barth, Gregor Thuswaldner, Renata Schmidtkunz, Bernd Wolf, Iwan Illich, Leopold Kohr, Judith Butler, L. Irigaray, Eva Meyer, Rainer Langhans, Peter Gente, Franco Berardi, Elisabeth Schäfer, Hélène Cixous, Johan Galtung, Marshal B. Rosenberg, John M. Haynes, Sara Greco Morasso, Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg, Josef Duss - von Werdt, Dalai Lama, Robert Jungk, Donna Haraway, Monique Wittig, Judith Halberstam, V. Schmidt-Linsenhoff, Dagmar Heinze, Laura Méritt, Beatriz Preciado, Judy Wajcman, Techno Feminism, Elfriede Jelinek, Tristan Tzara, Gustav Deutsch, Geta Brătescu, Elke Krystufek, Hanna Schimek, René Pollesch, Ewald Palmetshofer, Georg Christoph Tholen, Dirk Mende, Norbert Bolz, Rüdiger Safranski, Karl Heinz Bohrer, Gayle S. Rubin, John Rawls, Isaiah Berlin, Elihu Katz, Gabriella Hauch, Betty Friedan, Herta Nagl-Docekal, Herlinde Pauer-Studer, Teresa de Lauretis, Judith Butler, Martha Nussbaum, Sarah Lucia Hoagland, Shulamith Firestone, Heinz von Förster, Christiane König, Jan Patočka, Jiří Hájek, Pavel Kohout, Václav Havel, Jiří Gruša, Nelson Mandela, Evita Bezuidenhout, Michail Gorbatschow, Andrei Sacharow, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Malala Yousafzai, Raif Badawi, Heinrich Bußhoff, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Angela Davis, Ljudmila Michailowna Alexejewa, Anna Politkowskaja, Zoran Đinđić, Hans Dieter Zimmermann, Jacques Delors, Jean Monnet, Che Guevara, Richard Sennett, Peter Gay, Richard Löwenthal, Regis Debray, Uri Avnery, Jean-Paul Sartre, Philippe Soupault, Paul Lazarsfeld, Ivan Andrić, Harold Brodkey, Raymond Geuss, Henrik Enderlein, Judith N. Shklar, Simon Hardy, Michel Houellebecq, Peter Weiss, John Updike, Paul Auster, Philip Roth, Don DeLillo, Kurt Vonnegut, J. D. Salinger, Charles Bukowski, Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Philip K. Dick, Stanislaw Lem, Thomas Pynchon, Tom Wolfe, Leon Uris, T. C. Boyle, Gabriel García Márquez, Mircea Cărtărescu, Paul Virilio, Oskar Negt, Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Benoít Peeters, Hans Robert Jauß, Jonathan Culler, Wolfgang Hildesheimer, Michel Leiris, Jürgen Habermas, Karl-Otto Apel, Theodor Ebert, Günter Grass, Heinrich Böll, Martin Walser, Hans Mayer, Stephen Holmes, Günter Eich, Paul Celan, Ludwig von Ficker, Georg Kreisler, Hermann Leopoldi, Fritz Grünbaum, Volker Pispers, Matthias Deutschmann, Pieter-Dirk Uys, Max Frisch, Christa Wolf, Paul Watzlawick, Otto F. Kernberg, Anna Freud, Melanie Klein, Elisabeth Roudinesco, Jacques Derrida, Marguerite Derrida, Geoffrey Bennington, Gilgamesch-Epos, Felix Mendelssohn, William Domhoff, Eric Kandel, James Gleick, Donald Winnicott, Peter Fonagy, Federico Fellini, Werner Bohleber, Rudolf Heinz, Sigmund Freud, Die Traumdeutung, Hélène Cixous, Patrick McNamara, Thomas Ogden, Mark Solms, Fred Alan Wolf, Victor Hugo, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Jules Verne, Arthur Conan Doyle, Paulo Coelho, Oscar Wilde, Alexandre Dumas, William Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll, Marcel Proust, Glenn Gould, Louis Aragon, André Breton, Alberto Giacometti, Pablo Picasso, Jean Baudrillard, Vilém Flusser, B. Russell, L. Wittgenstein, Elfriede Czurda, Neue Wiener Gruppe, Liesl Ujvary, Ilse Kilic, Bodo Hell, Vintila Ivanceanu, Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic, Friedrich Hahn, Franzobel, Karin Schöffauer, Clarice Lispector, Felix Mitterer, Herta Müller, Christine Huber, Heidi Pataki, Christian Futscher, Günther Kaip, Margret Kreidl, Karin Spielhofer, Günter Vallaster, Richard Wall, Michael Köhlmeier, Clemens J. Setz, Daniel Kehlmann, Bob Dylan, Marlene Streeruwitz, Monika Helfer, Ginka Steinwachs, K. Popper, W. Quine, P. Strawson, Alfred Ayer, John Langshaw Austin, Maria Sumnina, Eva Jantschitsch, Miles Davis, Trevor Watts, Gilbert Sorrentino, Christoph Ransmayr, Reinhold Messner, Jean Malaurie, Aleister Crowley, David Foster Wallace, Ernest Hemingway, Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen, Heinz Mayer, Cornelia Vismann, Max Weber, Filippo Marinetti, Pjotr Kropotkin, Georges Sorel, Walter Jens, Iring Fetscher, Guy Debord, Emil Cioran, Mircea Eliade, Isou, Ezra Pound, Otto Nebel, Pastior, Gass, Pasolini, Rosa von Praunheim, Axel Honneth, Bernhard Waldenfels, Werner Kofler, Raymond Carver, Hubert Fichte, Klemens Renoldner, Leopold Federmair, Eckhard Schumacher, Agnes Obel, Gustav, Ludger Kühnhardt, Jack Hirschman, Peter Waterhouse, Enno Stahl, Otto Grabner, Karin Ivancsics, Raoul Schrott, Giovanni Sartori, Peter Turrini, Karlheinz Deschner, Arthur Schwaiger, Heinz Dopsch, Erika Weinzierl, Franz Schausberger, Ernst Hanisch, Oliver Rathkolb, Walter Manoschek, Jan Philipp Reemtsma, Wolfgang Ernst, Christoph Leitgeb, Robert Riesinger, Arno Böhler, Markus Mittmansgruber, Heiner Bielefeldt, Gerhard Botz, Brigitte Bailer-Galanda, Gerhard Jagschitz, Günther Ogris, Ingrid Bauer, Theresia Klugsberger, Sigrid Schmid-Bortenschlager, Hanna Bubenicek, Hartmut Böhme, Gernot Böhme, Sigrid Weigel, Walter J. Ong, Emmerich Tálos, Franzobel, Alexander Lernet-Holenia, Erich Kästner, Lewis Carroll, Christian Paul Berger, Steve Reich, La Monte Young, Wolfgang Puschnig, Gotthard Günther, G. Frege, Husserl, Suzanne Bachelard, W. Stegmüller, Saul Aaron Kripke, Friedrich Stadler, Rudolf Haller, Franz Josef Czernin, Georges Perec, Thomas Northoff, Kurt Neumann, Van Morrison, Captain Beefheart, Ulrich Horstmann, Tom Waits, Margit Schreiner, Ludwig Laher, Helmut Eisendle, Reinhard Jirgl, Uwe Tellkamp, Kurt Neumann, Volker Braun, Eugen Ruge, Hans Joachim Schädlich, Kurt Drawert, Günther Grass, Wolfgang Koeppen, Christa Wolf, Adolf Endler, Robert Gernhardt, Wolf Biermann, Rainer Malkowski, Hermann Lenz, Walter Kappacher, Marianne Gruber, Walter Buchebner, Gerhard Fritsch, Hans Lebert, Jörg Mauthe, Christine Busta, Christine Lavant, George Saiko, J. D. Salinger, William Faulkner, Tennessee Williams, Käthe Recheis, Christine Nöstlinger, Johannes Urzidil, Hertha Kräftner, Dine Petrik, Gustav Ernst, Sandra Mitchell, Frank Furedi, Bernard Yack, Frédéric Beigbeder, Reinhard Sieder, Siegfried Mattl, Eric Hobsbawm, Ronald D. Laing, Franco Basaglia, Rolf Schwendter, Gerhard Ruiss, Gottfried Boehm, Georges Didi-Huberman, Jochen Hörisch, Manfred Schneider, Ekkehart Krippendorff, Hans Höller, Manfred Mittermayer, Alfred Pfabigan, Heinz Schlaffer, Albrecht Classen, Bill Readings, Carlo Ginzburg, Patrick Pulsinger, Robert Rotifer, Arthur Kroker, Marilouise Kroker, Marcel Duchamp, Jasper Johns, Joseph Beuys, Marina Abramović, Anselm Kiefer, Donna Haraway, Katharina Rutschky, Wolf Haas, Manfred Rebhandl, Colin Crouch, Christian Kupke, Gerald Posselt, Manfred Frank, Friedrich Kittler, Gerhard Rühm, El Awadalla, Richard Schuberth, Peter Paul Wiplinger, Pierre Alferi, John Zorn, Friedrich Hahn, Ilse Aichinger, Milo Dor, Jorge Luis Borges, Franz Maciejewski, Michael Jursa, Slavoj Žižek, Olivier Douville, Christoph Menke, Bettine Menke, Hans-Dieter Gondek, Henri Lefebvre, Claude Simon, Michel Butor, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Robert Pinget, Jean Ricardou, Igor Caruso, Ernest Borneman, Rolf Dieter Brinkmann, Urs Widmer, Ilse Aichinger, J. Fr. Lyotard, Suleman Taufiq, Andreas Puff-Trojan, Josef Schweikhardt, Vintila Ivanceanu, Michael Rutschky, Samuel M. Weber, Sabine Scholl, Karin Struck, Walter Grond, Thomas Edlinger, Fritz Ostermayer, Dennis Cooper, Egon A. Prantl, Max Riccabona, Imre Kertész, Pierre Guyotat,Wolfgang Borchert, Primo Levi, Ide Hintze, César Aira, Christian Krall-Wartlsteiner, Anselm Glück, H. Geerken, Gerald Ganglbauer, Friedhelm Rathjen, Reto Hänny, Elias Canetti, Virginia Woolf, Anthony Burgess, P. Esterhàzy, Leo Perutz, Claude Lanzmann, Walter Manoschek, Peter Daniel, Dieter Scherr, Christoph Schwarz, Krista Kempinger, Rea Nikonova, Brigitta Falkner, J. Rancière, Michel Foucault, Solschenizyn, Lew Kopelew, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Domenica Sontag, Jean Derrida, Peter Singer, Avital Ronell, Bertha von Suttner, Franz Innerhofer, O. P. Zier, Lydia Mischkulnig, Karin Spielhofer, Dine Petrik, Richard von Mises, Viktor Kraft, Hans Hahn, Herbert Feigl, Kurt Gödel, Rudolf Carnap, Moritz Schlick, Otto Neurath, Wiener Kreis / Vienna Circle, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Paul Feyerabend, Karl Popper, Alfred J. Ayer, Heinrich Gomperz, Imre Lakatos, John Dewey, David Harvey, Georg Lukács, Albert Drach, Robert Spaemann, Peter Engelmann, Peter Heintel, Kurt Salamun, Peter Kampits, Hermann Lübbe, Johannes Heinrichs, Odo Marquard, Paul Sailer-Wlasits, Ernst Tugendhat, Hilary Putnam, Jürgen Mittelstraß, Paul Lorenzen, Friedrich Kambartel, Charles Sanders Peirce, John Searle, (vgl. J. Derrida, Limited Inc.), Daniela Hammer-Tugendhat, Heinz Kimmerle, Norbert Leser, Franz Martin Wimmer, Ram Adhar Mall, Gregor Paul, Hamid Reza Yousefi, Franz Gmainer-Pranzl, Peter Rühmkorf, Wolf Wondratschek, Mark Fisher, Antonio Fian, Friedrich Achleitner, Herbert Josef Wimmer, Heimrad Bäcker, Petra Ganglbauer, Neda Bei, Ernst Jandl, Fritz Widhalm, Peter Henisch, Johannes Grenzfurthner, Walter Pichler, Hermes Phettberg, Anna Kim, Anna Mitgutsch, Ilija Trojanow, Norbert C. Kaser, Heinrich Spaeth, Georg Danzer, Sigi Maron, Roland Girtler, Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, David Nirenberg, Robert Graves, Jan Assmann, Aleida Assmann, Gershom Scholem, Martin Buber, Nicolai Hartmann, Adrien-Marie Legendre, Ernst Mach, Ludwig Boltzmann, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Max Planck, Kurt Gödel, Rudolf Carnap, Willard V. O. Quine, Ludwig Wittgenstein, David Hilbert, Alfred Tarski, Henri Poincaré, Alan Turing, John von Neumann, Douglas R. Hofstadter, Max Planck, Anton Zeilinger, Arkady Plotnitsky, The Differance of the World: Homage to Jacques Derrida, Klaus Laermann, Petra Gehring, Alan Sokal, Jean Bricmont, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, Frank Hartmann, Theodor Herzl, Jules Michelet, Theodor Mommsen, Arthur Koestler, Shlomo Sand, Klaus Heinrich, Raul Hilberg, Doron Rabinovici, Amos Oz, Talcott Parsons, Saul Friedländer, Daniel Goldhagen, Brigitte Hamann, Michael Ley, Irvin Yalom, Regula Stämpfli, Arnd Krüger, Walter Laqueur, George L. Mosse, Reinhart Koselleck, Ulrich Beck, Karl Löwith, Heiko Heinisch, Michael Scharang, Chantal Mouffe, Thomas Macho, Peter Sloterdijk, Jacques Rancière, Wolfgang Welsch, Wolfgang Müller-Funk, Robert Menasse, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Michael Hardt, Alain Badiou, Michel Serres, Arkady Plotnitzky, Quentin Meillassoux, Simon Critchley, Klaus Nellen, Slavoj Zizek, Alain Badiou, Antonio Negri, Ernesto Laclau, Wolfgang Streeck, Stephan Schulmeister, Claus Offe, Blixa Bargeld, Peter Eisenman, Wolf D. Prix, Zaha Hadid, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Rem Koolhaas, Kurt Schwitters, Tex Rubinowitz, Kurt Palm, E. Cassirer, Helmut Zenker, Heiner Goebbels, Gabriel Zucman, Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis, Michael Hudson, Saskia Sassen, Frank Furedi, Manuel Castells, Nam June Paik, Ai Weiwei, Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollock, Egon Schiele, Adolf Loos, Manfred Wolff-Plottegg, Gerwald Rockenschaub, Jacob Burckhardt, Edmund Husserl, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Luciano Berio, Jiannis Xenakis, Benoît B. Mandelbrot, Ari Rath, Immanuel Velikovsky, Elaine Morgan, Alister Hardy, Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela, Heinz von Foerster, Norbert Wiener, Gotthard Günther, Gregory Bateson, Ernst von Glasersfeld, Niklas Luhmann, Edgar Morin, Ilya Prigogine, Fritjof Capra, Jean Piaget, Margaret Mead, Martin Balluch, Rupert Riedl, Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, Konrad Lorenz, Hans Hass, Hans Wollschläger, Tiere sehen dich an, Martin Balluch, Jacques Derrida, Das Tier, das ich also bin, Markus Wild, F. De Waal, M. Tomasello, S. Nichols, Peter Singer, Giorgio Agamben, S. Cavell, Dominik Perler, Markus Wild, Joëlle Proust, R. W. Lurz, Angelika Krebs, Ursula Wolf, Ernst Tugendhat, Hans Jonas, Arne Naess, Bernard Williams, Friedrich Kambartel, Bernd Lötsch, Peter Weish, Helga Kromp-Kolb, Wolfgang Kromp, Hermann Knoflacher, Gerhard Vollmer, Dirk Baecker, Pierre Legendre, Allen Ginsberg, Greil Marcus, André Breton, Luis Buñuel, Peter Greenaway, Pedro Almodóvar, Richard Linklater, Orson Welles, Francis Ford Coppola, John Ford, Woody Allen, Stanley Kubrick, Quentin Tarantino, James Cameron, Cormac McCarthy, Ridley Scott, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, John Cage, Charles Ives, Wolfgang Rihm, Robert Wienes, Valie Export, Jenny Holzer, Kate Millett, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Gustave Le Bon, Serge Moscovici, Thanos Lipowatz, Emmanuel L Roy Ladurie, Jacques Le Goff, Marguerite Yourcenar, Giannis Ritsos, Frank Castorf, Christoph Schlingensief, Peter Stein, Luc Bondy, Martin Kušej, Einar Schleef, Pablo Neruda, Federico García Lorca, James Turrell, Siegrun Appelt, Karl Valentin, Claudia Werlhof, Camille Paglia, Gisela Dischner, Alfred Andersch, Eberhard Schlotter, Max Frisch, Eugen Gomringer, Maxim Biller, Paul Nizon, Vladimir Sorokin, Kamel Daoud, Peter Pessl, Jim Jarmusch, Lars von Trier, Peter Handke, Gerhard Amanshauser, Josef Winkler, Marie-Thérèse Kerschbaumer, Hans Gratzer, Werner Schwab, Thomas Meinecke, Benjamin von Stuckrad-Barre, Dimitré Dinev, Attwenger, Patti Smith, The Slits "Cut", Elisabeth Reichart, Martin Pollack, Reinhard Priessnitz, Kathrin Röggla, Charles Bukowski, John Irving, Erwin Riess, Thomas Kling, Bodo Hell, Alfred Goubran, Richard Wall, Eva Menasse, Elias Schneitter, Simone Solga, Gerburg Jahnke, Georg Schramm, Helge Schneider, Günther "Gunkl" Paal, Alfred Dorfer, Michael Niavarani, Hugo Wiener, Cissy Kraner, Karl Farkas, Ernst Waldbrunn, Lore Krainer, Helmut Qualtinger, Gerhard Bronner, Otto Schenk, John Cleese, Willi Astor, Martin Puntigam, Stephan Eibel Erzberg, Jack Kerouac, Ferdinand Schmatz, Marcel Beyer, Georg Baselitz, Dieter Roth, Arnulf Rainer, Leonardo da Vinci, Christian Ludwig Attersee, Maria Lassnig, Reimo S. Wukounig, Walter Pichler, Oswald Oberhuber, Wiener Aktionismus / Viennese Actionism, Günter Brus, Rudolf Schwarzkogler, Otto Muehl, Hermann Nitsch, Joseph Beuys, Bruce Nauman, Captain Beefheart, Trout Mask Replica, Yoko Ono, VALIE EXPORT, Adolf Frohner, Peter Weibel, Daniel Spoerri, Dieter Roth, Nam June Paik, Ivanceanu/Schweikhardt, Aktionismus all inclusive, Wolfgang Flatz, Nobuyoshi Araki, Lucas Cejpek, Gerald Nigl, Gerhard Jaschke, Margret Kreidl, Volker Demuth, Josef Haslinger, Robert Wilson, Florjan Lipuš, Drago Jančar, Patrick Bahners, Paulus Hochgatterer, Leo Navratil, Robert L. Helvey, Jonathan Schell, Gianni Vattimo, Aldo Giorgio Gargani, Karl-Markus Gauß, Lojze Wieser, Janko Ferk, Carl Emil Schorske, Georg Seeßlen, Franz Theodor Csokor, Helmuth A. Niederle, Tarik Günersel, Harutyun Chatschatryan, Peter Rosei, Ingram Hartinger, Franz Mon, Uwe Lindemann, Rudolf Maresch, Dirk Kretzschmar, Niels Werber, Siegfried J. Schmidt, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Gunnar Heinsohn, Bruno Latour, Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Götz Wienold, Johnny Rotten (John Lydon), Wolfgang Herrndorf, Christa Wolf, Isabel Allende, Hermann Hesse, Khalil Gibran, Sylvia Plath, Haruki Murakami, Paul Auster, Banana Yoshimoto, Yoshimoto Takaaki, Christian Kracht, Durs Grünbein, Ruth Weiss, Julya Rabinowich, Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker, Thomas Stangl, Wilfried Steiner, Christian Teissl, Christiane Funken, Friedrich Balke, Ingo Stöckmann, Eva Horn, Wolfgang Hagen, Francis Fukuyama, Hans Mommsen, Ulrich Brand, Harold Bloom, Heinz Gappmayr, Nora Gomringer, Rainald Goetz, Thomas Glavinic, Milan Kundera, Friedrich Heer, Arthur Miller, Henry Miller, Gore Vidal, Helmut Seethaler, Christian Steinbacher, Hansjörg Zauner, Peter Stephan Jungk, Frank Zappa, Captain Beefheart, Yoko Ono, La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Diedrich Diederichsen, Olga Neuwirth, Philip Glass, Heide Göttner-Abendroth, the Third Viennese School / dritte Wiener Schule, Beat Furrer, Bernhard Lang, Klangforum Wien, Helmut Lachenmann, Friedrich Cerha, Olga Neuwirth, Heinz Karl Gruber, Kurt Schwertsik, Hans Werner Henze, Werner Pirchner, Thomas Larcher, Friedrich Gulda, Joe Zawinul, György Kurtág, Didi Neidhart, Gerwald Rockenschaub, Richard Dorfmeister, DJ DSL, DJ Makossa, MC Sugar B, Douglas R. Hofstadter, Thomas S. Kuhn, Karl Sigmund, Werner DePauli Schimanovich, Werner Pirchner, Karlheinz Essl, Peter Kruder, Ennio Morricone, Werner Geier, Günter Brödl, Michel Onfray, Michael Schrott, Wolfgang Kos, Thomas Mießgang, Peter Stöger, Sebastian Fasthuber, Klaus Nüchtern, Daniela Strigl, Hajo Schumacher, Johann Kneihs, Andrea Schurian, Gerda Elisabeth Moser, Dagmar Travner, Anna Babka, Johanna Krafft-Krivanec, Peter Noever, Peter Weibel, Rudolf Heinz, Christoph Weismüller, Gertrud Lettau, Ellen Harlizius-Klück, Christine Walde, Bernhard Schlink, Mario Erdheim, Paul Parin, Géza Roheim, Georges Devereux, Michael Turnheim, Harald Leupold-Löwenthal, Wolfgang Zinggl, Anton Thuswaldner, Stefan Artmann, Olaf Knellessen, Vittoria Borsò, Wolfgang Tress, Karl Abraham, Samuel Huntington, Emmanuel Todd, Henry Kissinger, Manfred Rauchensteiner, Christopher M. Clark, Frantz Fanon, Stuart Hall, Edward Said, Homi K. Bhabha, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Paul Gilroy, Elena Esposito, Sybille Krämer, Lutz Ellrich, Martin Kippenberger, György Ligeti, Holger Czukay, Can, Einstürzende Neubauten, Laibach, Gottfried Michael Koenig, Andrea B. Braidt, Lynn Hunt, Jörg Metelmann, Arthur C. Danto, Bazon Brock, Meyer Schapiro, Thomas Zaunschirm, Peter Gorsen, Heinrich Wölfflin, Leo Navratil, Federico Fellini, Michelangelo Antonioni, Sergio Leone, Ingmar Bergman, Akira Kurosawa, Hans-Jürgen Syberberg, Herbert Achternbusch, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Jean-Marie Straub, Danièle Huillet, Werner Herzog, Wim Wenders, Volker Schlöndorff, Margarethe von Trotta, Tom Tykwer, Laurie Anderson, Michael Haneke, Peter Zadek, Feridun Zaimoglu, Karl Schlögel, Linda Hutcheon, Johanna Hofleitner, Ursula Bode, Susan Sontag, Ahlem Mosteghanemi, Fatema Mernissi, Assia Djebar, Asma Barlas, Amina Wadud, Leila Ahmed, Nawal El Saadawi, Hanan al-Shaykh, Nawal El Saadawi, Tracey Emin, Elisabeth von Samsonow, George Dyson, Mike Sandbothe, Wolfgang Mommsen, Heinrich August Winkler, Herfried Münkler, Michael W. Doyle, Rosi Braidotti, Homi K. Bhabha, Peter Burke, Masao Miyoshi, Robert J. C. Young, Jürgen Osterhammel, Orlando Figes, Keith Lowe, Zbigniew Brzeziński, Henry Kissinger, Ian Kershaw, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Jürgen Kocka, Eugen Kogon, Jörg Baberowski, David Lynch, Horst Janssen, Paul Krugman, Marcel Ophüls, François Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, Robert Mappelthorpe, Dieter Roth, Marie-Françoise Plissart, Bassam Tibi, Thomas Schmidinger, Gudrun Harrer, Robert Misik, Kathrin Stainer-Hämmerle, Gerd B. Achenbach, Joachim Koch, Shlomit C. Schuster, Gerhard Schwarz, Detlef Staude, Volker Steenblock, Thomas Gutknecht, Claudia Simone Dorchain, Irmgard Klammer, Leo Zehender, Roland Stastny, Michael Niehaus, Alexander Dill, Lou Marinoff, Natalie Knapp, Günther Witzany, Robert Harsieber, Richard David Precht, Jessica Hausner, Gabriele Jutz, Michael Glawogger, Thomas Roth, Ulrich Seidl, Domenica Niehoff, David Schalko, Stefan Ruzowitzky, Götz Spielmann, Hans Weingartner, Andreas Prochaska, Erich Lessing, Axel Corti, Peter Tscherkassky, Peter Kubelka, Kurt Kren, Chantal Akerman, Ferry Radax, Alexander Horwath, Michael Loebenstein, Terry Riley, Vincenzo Vitiello, Peter Bieri, Leo Hemetsberger, David Bohm, John Nash, Dieter Zeh, Ludwig Boltzmann, Albert Einstein, Siegfried Kracauer, Rudolf Bahro, Johanna Dohnal, Johannes Voggenhuber, Peter Pilz, Werner Kogler, Gabriela Moser, Rolf Holub, Karl Öllinger, Wolfgang Zinggl, Dieter Schrage, Rudi Dutschke, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Ernest Mandel, Mikis Theodorakis, Alexander Kluge, Nina Scholz, Noah Klieger, Ruth Klüger, Käthe Sasso, Robert Schindel, Maria Torok, Cengiz Günay, Erwin Ringel, Franz Kreuzer, Günther Nenning, Karl Duffek, Konrad Paul Liessmann, Herbert Hrachovec, Manfred Füllsack, Christian Fleck, Elmar Altvater, Peter Huemer, Isolde Charim, Anton Tantner, Rainer Rosenberg, Andreas Obrecht, Philipp Blom, Nikolaus Halmer, Andrea Maria Dusl, Barbara Albert, Jessica Hausner, Elisabeth Scharang, Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, Ruth Beckermann, Marie Kreutzer, Trautl Brandstaller, Hans Rauscher, Bärbel Danneberg, Lutz Holzinger, Ranga Yogeshwar, Ulrike Poppe, Irene Brickner, Brigitte Voykowitsch, Harish Mangalam, Shalini Randeria, Elfi Geiblinger, Elfriede Hammerl, Irma von Troll-Borostyáni, Barbara Coudenhove-Kalergi, Anneliese Rohrer, Paul Lendvai, Karl Schwarzenberg, Jakob Augstein, Oscar Bronner, Alexandra Föderl-Schmid, Armin Thurnher, Werner Vogt, Manfred Nowak, Alfred Noll, Nadja Lorenz, Florian Klenk, Johann Skocek, Thomas Kistner, Bert Rebhandl, Kurt Langbein, Fritz Hausjell, Matthias Karmasin, Boris Groys, Matthias Dusini, Mary Kreutzer, James Creech, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Nicole Wachter, Antke Engel, Kathrin Passig, V. Spike Peterson, Wolfgang Schmale, Gudrun Hauer, Eva Kreisky, Freda Meissner-Blau, Paul Blau, Nikolaus Dimmel, Peter Filzmaier, Karl Acham, Sylke Tempel, Cornelia Klinger, Claudia Roth, Marieluise Beck, Alev Korun, Alexander Van der Bellen, Jutta Ditfurth, Jürgen Trittin, Marieluise Beck, Rebecca Harms, Anke Domscheit-Berg, Gerburg Treusch-Dieter, Saskia Stachowitsch, Andrea Breth, Gregory Ulmer, Götz Aly, Tariq Ali, Carlo Ginzburg, Maurizio Ferraris, Sarah Kane, Juli Zeh, Joni Mitchell, John Cale, Monique David-Ménard, …, ... )



Schrift ! Geheimnishaftigkeit ! Ikonizität / Iconicity / Schrift !

Performativität / Performativity !

Dem „Kommentarischen“ des "Kommentar" entgehen!

Performanz / Performance !

Textpolitik !

Textperformanz / Wiederholung / Iterabilität / Iterability / Markierung !

Dissemination / Idiom ! Performativity ! Textkonfiguration / Stimme !


Textmusik / Textbild / Koloratur / Textur !



Es findet sich nie und nirgends die Möglichkeit einer reinen „Präsenz“ oder „Präsentation“. Jede Re-präsentation ( re-praesentatio = wieder präsent machen ! ) ist kontaminiert durch Alterität und affiziert durch Momente der Abwesenheit.

Nie wird es "präsentative Einfachheit gegeben haben", sondern immer wieder eine weitere "Falte", eine weitere nicht-repräsentierbare Differenz. "Was hat es auf sich mit dem Nicht-präsentierbaren oder Nicht-repräsentierbaren? Wie es denken?" (Derrida, Psyche I, S. 122)

Strukturell unabschließbare Nachträglichkeit ( vgl. Derrida) und unendliches Spiel der Signifikanten errichten temporäre Textkonfigurationen, die der permanenten Arbeit der Übersetzung, der Interpretation und der „Dekonstruktion“ ( siehe dazu weiter unten: „Dekonstruktion als philosophische Praxis ! ) ausgesetzt sind.

Bei seiner Beschreibung der beiden Tempi, die der "Todestrieb" ( vgl. auch bes. J. Lacan, zu "pulsion de mort",- in: Se 2, 375 u. in: Se 11, 232 u. in: Écrits, 848 ) einerseits und die Lebenstriebe andererseits veranstalten, spricht Freud in Jenseits des Lustprinzips von einem "Zauderrhythmus", der das Resultat dieser zwei Bewegungen darstellt.

Der Todestrieb folgt blind seiner prioritären Tendenz, das organische System an sein entropisches Ende zu bringen. Die Lebenstriebe dagegen sichern und übertragen jenes Wissen, das die Organismen in Millionen von Jahren auf ihrem Weg zum Tod erwerben.

Der Anfang des Lebens und seiner Zeichen liegt in jenem beinahe Nichts einer Falte, eines Intervalls, das Derrida an die Stelle aller Ursprünge gerückt hat, - der différance ( J. Derrida, La différance, - in: Randgänge der Philosophie, Wien, Passagen, 1988).

Und im Übrigen: Auch jede Alltagsäußerung ( und jede Alltagshandlung ) (er)fordert immer schon eine Übersetzungsarbeit !


Der „Kommentar“ beschränkt das offene semantische Spiel mit den Mitteln der Identität, der Wiederholung und der Versuchung der Repräsentation des Gleichen. Er macht sich dadurch zum Mechanismus einer Kontrolle und einer Ordnung, indem er den Diskurs beschränkt, eingrenzt und Eindeutigkeit herzustellen versucht.

Eine Übersetzung ist niemals eine Er – setzung ! Eine jede Setzung ist schon eine Über-Setzung von Gedachtem und Ungedachtem. Eine Übersetzung verändert den Ort, verschiebt und wechselt und ist somit immer ein anderer Text. Nur ein ungefähres Signifikat kann so hinüber(!) gerettet werden.

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)


Der Kommentar setzt den Autor als oberstes Prinzip der Diskursordnung (vg. M. Foucault, Ordnung d. Diskurses) und generiert sich seine Autoritäten.

„Wir“(!) vertreten die Aufgabe der disseminalen kritischen Kommunikation als offener Text einer Schrift, entlaufend der Exegese und der Re-präsentation des Kommentars.

Die Aufgabe ist auch so auszudrücken, „die Rede zuerst ebensogut und dann besser zu verstehen als ihr Urheber“ (Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik und Kritik, S. 94).

Als einzig zu akzeptierende Kritik gilt uns die permanent kritische Kritik, d. h. eine permanent dekonstruierende Kritik, deren Gegenstand das Schreibbare des Textes, eines sich permanent multiplizierenden Textes, ist.

„Ein Signifikant ist von Anfang an die Möglichkeit seiner eigenen Wiederholung, seines eigenen Abbildes oder seiner Ähnlichkeit mit sich selbst. Das ist die Bedingung seiner Idealität. Was ihn als Signifikant ausweist und ihm als solchem seine Funktion gibt und ihn auf ein Signifikat bezieht, kann aus denselben Gründen niemals eine ‚einzigartige und besondere Wirklichkeit‘ sein. Von dem Augenblick an, wo das Zeichen in Erscheinung tritt, das heißt seit je, besteht keine Möglichkeit, die reine ‚Wirklichkeit‘, ‚Einzigartigkeit‘, und ‚Besonderheit‘ ausfindig zu machen.“ (Derrida, Grammatologie, S. 165)

Die Autorität des Logos, des Kommentars, die Herrschaft der ursprungsvernagelten Interpretation von Schrift ist seit geraumer Zeit der kritischen Kritik der Dekonstruktion ausgesetzt und somit die Chance der Demokratie im Kommen (Derrida) .

All das verweist auf eine radikale Möglichkeit, die von keiner Einzelwissenschaft und keiner abstrakten Disziplin gedacht werden kann (Derrida, Grammatologie, 168f.).

Die Intertextualität und die ihr zugrundeliegende Multiplizität der Codes ist grundsatzmäßig unbegrenzt und unbegrenzbar. Die erwachsenden Dekonstruktionstextualitäten und deren Konnotationstextur sind von keinem Kontext einschließbar oder gar determinierbar.


in Engl.:


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 „Commentaryrestricts 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.



25 Years philosophical practitioner, writer, philosopher ...

Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis, gegründet 1989, Dr. Gerhard Kaucic, Philosophischer Praktiker, Gasometer B, Guglgasse 8, Wien, Austria / Österreich:

Gespräche außerhalb u. innerhalb (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...

( an die 2000 Ge-spräche von 1989-2014, streng nach dem Setting vertrauliches "Einzel-Gespräch", confidential "one-to-one conversation", "face à face" (vgl. Homepage !), mit open end, indoor sowie outdoor; an die 2000 "Gespräche", "Diskurse", "Dekonstruktionen", "Begleitungen", "Text"; ....... (vgl. Bilder auf "facebook" und vgl. unten: Was ist Dekonstruktion?) ....... Subjektivität ..... Spur ... trace ... Singularität )

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



Selected Publications / Ausgewählte Publikationen

Bio-Bibliographie / Bio-bibliography


Gerhard Kaucic: Grammatotechne als Grammatologie der "Herzgewächse" oder von der Inkommunikabilität. Salzburg 1986 ( Wollschläger, Barthes, Derrida ).

Gerhard Kaucic / Anna Lydia Huber (Hg.): "Die Grüne F Abyss" (Internationale Polylinguale ZS für Kultur und Politik. Blattlinie: Dekonstruktion, Postmoderne) Obertrum bei Salzburg, Wien 1989ff. http://www.onb.ac.at/oe-literaturzeitschriften/Gruenefabyss/Gruenefabyss.htm


Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic: "/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns", Wien 1993 -2007, Passagen Verlag ( Dekonstruktion Roman Dekonstruktion, Bd. V (Wien, 2007) zu "Echelon", "UKUSA" (NSA) , EU bzw Dekonstruktion d. Kommunikationsproblematizität inkl. "Unlesbarkeit" / "Illisibilität" (vgl. R. Barthes), 7 Bde. geplant).


GACK: Paradies verloren. Wien 1991 (Das fröhliche Wohnzimmer).

Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic über James Joyce: Dekonstruktion Fin-negans-Wake als Post-Korrespondenz § 11, - in: Textwechsel, hg. v. Andreas Puff-Trojan u. H. G. Ganglbauer, Wien 1992, Sonderzahl Verlag.

GACK: Baalpeorade die Ballade. (Dekonstruktion Lyrik), -in: 10 Jahre: Wohnzimmer, das "fröhliche", Wien 1996, S.31ff.

Gerhard Kaucic: "Zu einem theoretischen Fragmentarium: Das Ende des Kommunizierbaren oder Philosophische Praxis als Erbarmen der Philosophie als Onto-Theo-Logo", - in: Günther Witzany (Hg): "Zur Theorie der Philosophischen Praxis", Essen 1991 (Verlag Blaue Eule), S. 83ff.

Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic: "Schlaf-Gedächtnis der Schrift". Für Malala Yousafzai. Für das freie Wort und das Menschenrecht auf Bildung. PEN-Club Austria, Wien 2013 ( Löcker Verlag und online: http://ttsn.penclub.at/concic-kaucic/ ).

Aufsätze / Texte (sic!) zu Themen wie Schrift, Grammatologie, Feminismus, Klonierung, Ökologie, Japan, Judentum, Arabische Kultur und Literatur, Religion, Kabbalah, Musik, Architektur, Film, Netzwerkgesellschaft, Sport, Verkehr, Politik, Sexualität, Philosophische Praxis, Literaturtheorie, Postmoderne, Semiotik, Rationalismus, Konstruktivismus, Dekonstruktion, Différance / Differänz, Psychoanalyse, Kant, Hamann, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Benjamin, Freud, Wollschläger, Derrida u.a.

Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax: Videos und Fotos (samt Zuschriftungen), - siehe "Youtube", "Google+", "LinkedIn", "Facebook", "Pinterest", "Picasa", "Cylex", "google maps", "bing maps" "Guardian", "Taz", "Zeit online", "Freitag", "Cartoon Movement" u. a. 2007ff.

Ich verstehe mich nicht als "Lebensberater" und Coach.


Meine Praxis befaßt sich eher mit theoriegesättigten oder zumindest theorieinteressierten Anliegen und meine Aufgabe ist es, diese Theorien bzw deren Träger (also meine GesprächspartnerInnen , Klienten oder Gäste) zu dekonstruieren , d. h. unter anderem diese/deren Theorien in die Aporie zu führen und so das Denken meiner GesprächspartnerInnen zu entriegeln, was auch heißt, diese Menschen, die meist sehr theorietrainiert sind, wieder frei zu machen für Neues.

P.S.:
Selbstverständlich gibt es viele Philosophische Praktiker und Praktikerinnen, die sich als " Lebensberater " / Lebensberaterin verstehen.
( die website " philosophers today " u. a. verzeichnet da eine große Auswahl )

I would prefer not to be a life-coach !

( in Abwandlung u. Anverwandlung v. H. Melville: "Bartleby, the Scrivener" )


There are many Practices and all of them are different.

I don’t see myself as a “life-coach” or a coach of any kind.

My practice concerns itself more with theory-based subjects and my objective is to deconstruct these theories and providers of theories (my clients or guests), which means among others, to lead these/their theories towards aporia and in doing so, to unbolt the processes of thinking of my clients. This also means to open up these people, who are often very trained in these theories, to new ways of looking at things and relations.

P.S.: Of course there are a lot of philosophical practitioners who see themselves as life coaches.
( the website " philosophers today " i. a. lists a great deal )
I would prefer not to be a life-coach !” ( in a modification and adaptation of H. Melville: " Bartleby , the Scrivener" )

mehr zum Thema Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis“ unter der Rubrik „Aus dem Leben eines Fauns“ von Gerhard Kaucic , - in: „DIE GRÜNE F ABYSS“, Internationale polylinguale Zeitschrift für Grüne Kultur/Politik, Nr. 1 / August 1989, S. 5f. (hg. v. Gerhard Kaucic und Anna Lydia Huber, Obertrum bei Salzburg, Wien, 1989ff.) und Gerhard Kaucic : „Zu einem theoretischen Fragmentarium: Das Ende des Kommunizierbaren oder Philosophische Praxis als Erbarmen der Philosophie als Onto-Theo-Logo“ , - in: Günther Witzany (Hg.): Zur Theorie der Philosophischen Praxis . Essen, Verlag Die Blaue Eule, 1991, S. 83 - 89.


Übersetzer, Translator, Redakteur, Herausgeber, Editor, Wissenschafter, Schriftsteller, Writer , Analytiker, Feminist, Queer Theorist, Philosophischer Praktiker, Blogger , Philosophical Practitioner, Philosopher, feminism, of grammatology, semiology, psychoanalysis, deconstruction ( ...rund um die Uhr, ...rund um die Welt...
... around the clock ...around the world ...)....( Kontaktaufnahme: siehe e-mail /// Honorar: nach Vereinbarung /// Bezahlung: Bargeld u. Rechnung /// Payment: Cash and invoice ), Dekonstruktivist, Feminist, Grammatologe, Semiologe, Kulturtheoretiker, Poet, Lyriker, Buchautor, Romanschriftsteller, ...)



Philosophische Praxis, ....Philosophischer Praktiker,...Philosophical Practitioner Dr. Gerhard Kaucic
To contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at



in German: Kurzbiographie / Curriculum Vitae / Bio / Vita / Lebenslauf / Karriere / Lebensgeschichte / Lebensgangschreibung / Lebensgang - Beschreibung / Lebensgangerschreibung / Lebensbeschreibung / Lebensschreibung / Biographie / Biografie / Resümee / ( CV ):

Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic (Schriftsteller, writer, écrivain, Wien, Vienna, Austria, Österreich),
( "GACK" =
Anna Lydia Huber und Gerhard Kaucic ),

geboren 1959
in Österreich, leben in Wien.

Jugend in Salzburg, Falkenhof (Mühlviertel), Linz (Oberösterreich), Paris und Zell am See sowie Saalfelden am Steinernen Meer ( Pinzgau, Salzburg ) und Kufstein ( Tirol ).

1978 Reifeprüfung / Matura / Abitur

Studium (1978-86) der vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft, Geschichtswissenschaften, Philosophie und Linguistik in Salzburg und Paris, seit 1983 freie Schriftsteller und ÜS.

Zahlreiche Abenteuerreisen mit dem Fahrrad bis heute.

Doktorat / Promotion zum Dr. phil. 1987.

1986 / 87 / 88 / Kinder (3)

1989 Gründung einer „Grammatologischen Philosophischen Praxis“ in Salzburg, Obertrum am See und Wien.

1989ff. Herausgabe einer ( grammatologischen ) Zeitschrift ( Die Grüne F Abyss ) für Literatur, Kultur und Politik.

Vertreter der „
Wiener Postmoderne “, einer wienerischen Spielart der „ Dekonstruktion “ ( Jacques Derridas ). Erzähler, Lyriker, Übersetzer, Romanschriftsteller, Kulturtheoretiker, Philosoph.

Verfasser eines auf verschiedenen Sprach-, Realitäts- und Bewußtseinsebenen spielenden
Dekonstruktionsromans in 7 Bänden, - veröffentlicht im Passagen Verlag, Wien, 1993-2007. (7 Bde. geplant, Band V publiziert 2007 ).



in English: Short Biography / Curriculum Vitae / Bio / Vita / Course of Life / Personal Record / Career / Autobiographic(al) Statement / Résumé / Life Story / short curriculum vitae / ( CV ):

Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic ( writer , Vienna, Austria ),
(GACK = Anna Lydia Huber and Gerhard Kaucic),

born in 1959 in Austria , living in Vienna.

Grown up in Salzburg, Falkenhof ( Upper Austria ) , Linz (Upper Austria ), Paris, Zell am See, Saalfelden am Steinernen Meer (Pinzgau , Salzburg ), and Kufstein ( Tyrol).

Comparative literature, history , philosophy and linguistic studies in Salzburg and Paris, since 1983, writer and translator . Many adventurous trips by bicycle .

1989 Founding of a " Grammatological Philosophical Practice" in Salzburg, Obertrum and Vienna.
1989 ff Editors of a ( grammatological ) Magazine ( " Die Grüne F Abyss" ) for literature, culture and politics.

Representatives of the " Wiener Postmoderne ," a Viennese variety of " deconstruction " ( in the sense of Derrida ) . Storyteller, poet, translator , novelist and cultural theorist .

Author of a deconstructive novel in seven volumes ( Volume V published in 2007 by „Passagen Verlag“ Vienna Austria ).

Essays on topics such as writing, grammatology , feminism , cloning , ecology , Japan , Judaism, Arab culture and literature, religion , Kabbalah , music, architecture, film, network society , sports, traffic , politics, sexuality , Philosophical Practice , literary theory , postmodernism , semiotics, rationalism , constructivism , deconstruction , différance / Differänz, psychoanalysis, Kant, Hamann , Nietzsche, Heidegger, Benjamin, Freud , Wollschläger , Derrida, etc.

Jubilaeum, - 25 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Gerhard Kaucic, - Jubiläum (1989-2014)

25 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Gerhard Kaucic, - Jubiläum
( 25 Jahre ) Wien

Das 25-jährige Jubiläum der „Praxis“ Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / 25 Jahre Gespräch, Diskurs, Assoziationen, Analyse, Problematisierung, Identitätsdislokation, Subjektivierung, Formalisierung, Fältelung, Komplizierung, Aporie, Dekonstruktion ... 25 Jahre ... und mehr als 2000 Gespräche ... face à face


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



Ein besonders häufig nachgefragtes Feld an Problematizität:

Erklärung aa))) : Neben dem Thema „Euthanasie, Selbstbestimmung, Ökonomie“ (inkludierend die Sujets Sterbehilfe, Hilfestellung, Unterstützung beim Sterben, Sterbehilfe aktiv, passiv, indirekt, Beihilfe zur Selbsttötung , assistierter Suizid , Problematizitäten etc.)

https://plus.google.com/+DrGerhardKaucicDjayPhilPrax/videos?pid=5854176979025912818&oid=105536286757184279781

Erklärung ff.))) :... rangiert das Thema „J. Derrida , Grammatologe, Philosoph, Begründer der Dekonstruktion , Unverständnis seiner Gegner, Dis- und Mißverständnisse seiner Anhänger“ und das zugehörige eine/n jede/n angehende Subthema „Über:Leben ! Nahrung Ernährung Speisen Genießen Tier Bewußtsein Unbewußtes Ethik Reflexionsmöglichkeiten Aporien Dekonstruktion“ in meiner Grammatologischen Philosophischen Praxis in Wien , - und darüberhinaus (weltweit), - ganz oben unter den am meisten nachgefragten Reflexions- und Dekonstruktionsfeldern .

Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis
im Hamburger Hotel Kempinski an der Alster (( Hamburg, Blicke ! und Einblicke sowie Aussicht auf Einsicht und vivifizierende Umsicht samt Skyline als topophotographisches Ereignis "Metropole am Wasser" , - das Gefühl einer Raumverschaffung durch die Produktion von " Zeitlosigkeit des Unbewußten " und einer un/gehörigen Portion gut schmeckenden gebratenen Tierfleisches!) Man kann ja immer träumen vom Tier und vom Ich , dem Ubw und dem Überich, dem Begehren, der Psychoanalyse und ihrer Ethik ! Von der Wahrheit des Enthüllens! Vom "Recht auf Einsicht, oder die Erfindung des anderen" (vgl. J. Derrida in "Psyché")) zu "Jacques Derrida, Begründer der Dekonstruktion , Unverständnis seiner Gegner, Dis- und Mißverständnisse seiner Anhänger" ( 07-2014 )

Dr. Gerhard Kaucic (1959), Autor, Écrivain, Writer, Literary Translator, Philosopher (Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic),


Philosophischer Praktiker, Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis, Österreich, Wien, Bibliothek,... vgl.: https://picasaweb.google.com/105536286757184279781/DrGerhardKaucicPhilosophischerPraktikerWienAutorBibliothek?noredirect=1#5854791718543460706


Gerhard Kaucic "Was ist Philosophie."



..........
Was i s t Philosophie ? ... Was ist Philosophische ..."Praxis" ? ... Was ist philosophische Praxis. ..... Was ist philosophische Praxis? ..... Was i s t ? ... Was ist ist? ...... Was ist "ist" ? (vgl. Hegel!) ..... ((...!Zeit!!!..."in" der Zeit !...).....!!Affirmation!!, ... als vielleicht nicht bewußte!... notwendig !...je vorgängige Setzung!!!...)....."Was" "ist" eine "F r a g e "?...... Was ist eine Frage? Was hat diese zur Voraussetzung ?...Wodurch wird sie bedingt?...Wo heraus entwickelt sie sich? ...

Vgl.: Video auf Youtube: ( Jacques Derrida,
"What comes before the Question ?") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2bPTs8fspk

..
.Welche "Kontexte" führen zu dem, was wir "F r a g e" nennen ? ... Unter welchen Umständen, in welcher Situation, durch wen, mit welchen Intentionen und aufgrund welcher stillschweigender und unhinterfragter Voraussetzungen und aufgrund welcher Retentionen (vgl. Husserl, Freud, Lacan, Derrida) stellt sich bzw ergibt sich das, was wir "F r a g e" nennen bzw so etwas wie "Die Politik des Fragens" !... ) Und ! - Ist ..."Denken" ...fragen !?...Beantwortet die "Philosophische Praxis" ... Fragen...?...!... Antwortet ... "Philosophie" ... auf Fragen ? ... Beantwortet Philosophie Fragen?

( vgl. J. Derrida zur Frage des Fremden als die Frage des Fragens, - in: J. D. : Von der Gastfreundschaft. Wien 2001, S. 13-59; fr. Version: J. D. : De l'hospitalité. Paris 1997; und E. Lévinas zur Gerechtigkeit und die Situation des Dritten als "die Geburt der Frage", - in: Emmanuel Lévinas: Jenseits des Seins oder anders als Sein geschieht. Freiburg/München 1998, S. 342 )


in Engl.:

..........What is philosophy ? ... What is philosophical ...“practice“?............... What is? ......... What is „is“ ? (see Hegel) ..... ((.....!time!!!...“in“ time !...)......!!affirmation!!, ... maybe as a not conscious! ...necessary ! ... prior implementation!!!...).... „What“ „is“ a „question“?....... What is a question? ..... What does it have as a prerequisite ?... What are its conditions?... Out of what does it develop? ...

See:.....( Jacques Derrida, ...What comes before the Question ?......Derrida: "What Comes Before The Question?" ...)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2bPTs8fspk

... What „contexts“ lead up to what we call a „question“ ? ... Under what circumstances, in what situation, through whom, with what intention and based on what silent and unquestioned condition and based on what retentions (cf. Husserl, Freud, Lacan, Derrida) does something arise that we call a „question“ or even a „policy of questions“ !... And ! – Is ... „thinking“ ... questioning !? ... Does a „philosophical practice“ answer ...questions...?...!... Does philosophy answer questions? ..... Does „philosophy“ answer ...questions ?

( ! cf. J. Derrida and E. Lévinas ! )


Grammatological Philosophical Practice Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax Vienna Austria Europe



Gerhard Kaucic, "Am Schreibtisch",
"Derrière le miroir" (Jacques Derrida) ........"Semeion Aoristicon"....." /S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ " (Concic-Kaucic) ......

cf.: Sem V:
cf.: Probe - Lesung:
cf.: Poésie engagée

Philosophische Praktiken.....Politiken......Disseminationen.........


Was ist ein "Satz" ? Was ist ein Satz?
"Probenmitschnitte" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBPkOJyFMJs ( vgl. Aristoteles, Organon II, Lehre vom Satz, Peri hermeneias, Quintilian, Antoine Arnauld, I. Kant, Fr. Schlegel, Fr. Schleiermacher, G. W. Fr. Hegel, J. G. Fichte, R. Carnap, M. Schlick, O. Neurath, L. Wittgenstein, W. Quine, P. Strawson, N. Chomsky, W. Hamacher, J.-M. Zemb, M. Foucault, G. Deleuze, R. Barthes, J. Derrida, G. A. Concic-Kaucic )

vgl.: Gerhard Kaucic, "Der Satz": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOsBfh3yPgk

und:

Gerhard Kaucic, "Sprache und Unbewußtes":
und


Blogger Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax , Blog Philosophische Praxis Wien und darüberhinaus Dissemination (vgl. J. Derrida)


vgl. unten: Was ist Dekonstruktion? ....... Subjektivität ..... Spur ... trace ...


Was ist Dekonstruktion ? (Ich zitiere: frag.wikia.com)


vgl. unten: Was ist Dekonstruktion? ....... Subjektivität ..... Spur ... trace ...



1. Dekonstruktion ist nicht was Du denkst. [...] 1.3. Dekonstruktion ist nicht was Du denkst - wenn das, was man denkt, ein Inhalt ist, dem Gehirn gegenwärtig, "in the mind's presence-room" (Locke). Aber daß man denkt, könnte schon Dekonstruktion sein. 2. Dekonstruktion ist nicht (was Du denkst, wenn Du denkst es sei) essentiell eine Angelegenheit der Sprache. 2.1. Nichts ist gewöhnlicher als die Beschreibung von Dekonstruktion als abhängig von einer "Erweiterung des linguistischen Paradigmas". Derridas "Es gibt nichts außerhalb des Textes" beweist das ja offensichtlich. 2.1.1. Jeder weiß aber auch, daß das nicht ganz stimmt. "Text" ist eigentlich keine Erweiterung eines bekannten Konzepts, sondern dessen Verschiebung oder Wiedereinschreibung. Die besten Ausführungen zu diesem Thema findest Du bei Geoffrey Bennington und Domenica Sontag:

Vgl.:
und:


Was und wie "ist"(sic!) Dekonstruktion bzw dekonstruierende Praxis in der Praxis?
( Bei-spiel: DDR-Diskurse, Rechtsstaat / Unrechtsstaat ? )

Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax:
"Zur Dekonstruktion eines polarisierenden Begriffs"

( cf. auch Blogpost "Poésie engagée" hier zu Dekonstruktion und/als Invention bzw Intervention )




Zur Differenzierung der Auffassung meiner Vorstellung / Repräsenz / Repräsentation (! re-praesentatio !, "wieder präsent machen" , Jacques Derrida, "Sendung", - in: J. D.: Psyche. Erfindungen des Anderen I, S. 109f.) von grammatologischer philosophischer Praxis (Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax Wien):


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 2014. Das 25-jährige Jubiläum einer "Praxis" im "Namen" und durch die "Signatur" J. D.!
25 Jahre ( 1989 - 2014 ) philosophische Praxis GK, 25 Jahre, 1989 - 2014 ff. Dekonstruktion, 25 Jahre Gespräch, Diskurs, Assoziationen, Analyse, Problematisierung, Identitätsdislokation, Subjektivierung, Formalisierung, Komplizierung, Dekonstruktion . G. K.

Jacques Derrida and the deconstruction as philosophical Practice.

Deconstruction according to Derrida is described as a practice of approaching the borders which make the human subject the standard of the appropriate and the inappropriate, the just and the unjust, in the name of a demand for justice, which aren’t and never will be satisfied.

The task of deconstruction is to recall to the mind the limits of the terms/concepts of justice, the law, the right, the scientific conceptualization, the limits of values and standards and rules.

The limits of concepts and values which gained ground over time and which are considered and understood as „natural“ ( see J. Derrida, Force of Law. The »Mystical Foundation of Authority« / Gesetzeskraft, Der "mystische Grund der Autorität").

It is exactly this which I am trying to achieve in my practice

A small remark in my own interest on deconstruction has to be allowed. I celebrate the name, „the signature“ (see J. Derrida) „Derrida“ (and deconstruction) in many different contexts (also) in 2014. 25 years (1989-2014 ff.) of a „practice“ in the „name“ of and through the „signature“ J. D.!

25 years, - 1989 - 2014, - Philosophical Practice GK, 25 years of deconstruction, 25 years of conversation, discourse, association, analysis, problematization, identity-dislocation, subjectification, formalisation, complication, deconstruction. G.K., 1989-2014 ff. Philosophical Practitioner GK




face à face , -
zum je eigenen Narzißmus und zur Situationsgebundenheit in (m)einer Philosophischen Praxis:


Jacques Derrida:

„Es gibt weder den Narzißmus noch den Nicht-Narzißmus; es gibt mehr oder weniger verständnisvolle, freigiebige, offene und ausgedehnte Narzißmen, und was man normalerweise als Nicht-Narzißmus bezeichnet, ist für gewöhnlich nur die Ökonomie eines viel einladenderen und gastlicheren Narzißmus, der offen gegenüber der Erfahrung des Anderen als Anderem ist. Ich glaube, daß die Beziehung zum anderen ohne die Bewegung der narzißtischen Wiederaneignung vollkommen zerstört wäre, von vornherein zerstört. Die Beziehung zum anderen muß … - selbst wenn sie asymmetrisch bleibt, offen und ohne mögliche Wiederaneignung – sie muß eine Bewegung der Wiederaneignung in das Selbstbildnis skizzieren, damit beispielsweise Liebe möglich ist. Liebe ist narzißtisch.
Da gibt es kleine Narzißmen, da gibt es große Narzissmen, und am Ende steht der Tod als Grenze. Noch in der Erfahrung – wenn es eine ist – des Todes selbst gibt der Narzissmus nicht vollkommen auf."

(J. Derrida, in „Auslassungspunkte“, S. 212, Passagen Verlag Wien 1998)

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

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

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

(Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic)

face à face:

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

und zusätzlich (als Zu-satz!) noch :
Peter Widmer, - in:

"Angst", Erläuterungen zu Lacans Seminar X, Bielefeld 2004, transcript, S.29, zu "Spiegelstadium":

"Wenn wir noch einmal davon ausgehen, dass das Spiegelstadium eine illusionäre Erfüllung der Ganzheit ist, so kann ich diese Ganzheit auch im anderen sehen.."

Philosophische Praxis, ....Philosophischer Praktiker,...
To contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic@chello.at



Info-Erweiterung ))):
Djay PhilPrax' *Themata on Pinterest* : Dr. Gerhard Kaucic' Pins auf Pinterest https://www.pinterest.com/gerhardkaucic/pins/
und
Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic auf Pinterest


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


Gerhard Kaucic (1959), Philosoph, Grammatologe, Autor, Philosophischer Praktiker, Wien

*Das 25–jährige Jubiläum der „Praxis“ Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / 25 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Gerhard Kaucic, 25 Jahre grammatologische philosophische Praxis Gerhard Kaucic, 25 Jahre Dekonstruktion Gerhard Kaucic, 25 Jahre Gespräch, Diskurs, Assoziationen, Analyse, Problematisierung, Identitätsdislokation, Subjektivierung, Formalisierung, Fältelung, Komplizierung, Aporie, Dekonstruktion ……. 25 Jahre ……. und mehr als 2000 Gespräche* ..... ...face à face ...( 25 Jahre ) Wien Oesterreich Europa ....... 25 Years Philosophical Practitioner Vienna Austria Europe .......



Impressum

Weblog:

"Philosophical Practices / Politics / Disseminations"

ISSN 2410-7050

/// Blog /// /für/als/durch/ dekonstruktive Praxis in kulturellen und politischen Reflexionsfeldern

Verantwortlich:

Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax ( Autor, Philosoph, Philosophische Praxis )

Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic ( AutorIn, Grammatologie )

Unsere Beiträge (blog-posts) erscheinen in unregelmäßiger Reihenfolge.

Bloglinien Problematizitäten Reflexionsfelder

Praxisfelder :

Problematizitaet (vgl. zumindest Fichte, Hegel, Luhmann, Derrida), Philosophie, Grammatologie, Dekonstruktion, Wissenschaft, Semiologie, Sprachphilosophie, Philosophy of Language, Texttheorie, Literaturtheorie, Feminismus, Religion, Sexualität, Sexismus, Narzißmus, Gewalt, Gewaltverhältnisse, Terror, Terrorismus, Fundamentalismus, Religiöser Wahn, Fernliebe, Heldenmut, Blindheit der Gefühle, Ideologisierung, Idolisierung, Widerstand, Diktatur, Hass, Augenblick des Todes, Mord, Faschismus, Faschismustheorien, Netzwerkzentrierte Kriegsführung, Militarisierung ohne Soldaten, Grenzen des Maschinisablen, Kultur Kunst, Literatur, Film, Kino, Politik des Bildes, Blicke, Normativität, Normalität, Heteronormativität, Heterosexismus, Politik, Politische Philosophie, Politische Theorie, Ideengeschichte, Psychoanalyse, Revolutionstheorie, Demokratietheorie, Queertheorie, partizipative Revolution, emanzipatorisch – partizipatorische Revolution, NGOs, Europäische Union, Medien, Medienpolitik, Machtpolitik, Staat, Demokratie, Freiheit e n, Zivilgesellschaft, Lebensformen, Migrationen, Körperpolitik, Geschlechterpolitik,

Politik, Europa, EU, Europäische Union, Frankreich, Deutschland, Skandinavien, Italien, Großbritannien, Spanien, Japan, USA, China, Rußland, Südamerika, Argentinien, Indien, Österreich, Schweiz, Israel, Naher und Mittlerer Osten, Parteien, NGOs, Zivilgesellschaft, Institutionen, Normen, Finanzierungen, Das Politische, Demokratie, Das Demokratische, Politische Theorie, Ideengeschichte, Postdemokratie, Kommunitarismus, Liberalismus, Marxismus, Kapitalismus, Politische Philosophie, Marxismus, Sozialismus, Liberalismus, Neoliberalismus, Politische Ökonomie, Gerechtigkeit und Recht, Philosophie des Bewußtseins, Naturrecht und Revolution, Menschenrechte und Bürgerrechte (Rousseau, Hegel und Marx), Rechtsstaat und Demokratie, Menschenrechte und Regierungspflichten, Schurkenstaaten, Menschenrechte und Politik, Menschenrechte und Demokratie, Die Rechte der Frau und Bürgerin (Olympe de Gouges), Politisches Subjekt und Menschenrechte, Menschenwürde, Menschenpflichten, Internationale Politik und Fairness, Globalisierung, Mondialisierung, Planetarisierung, Politiken und Richtigkeiten, Orthopraktik, Orthopraxis, Schuld, Schulden, Schuldenkrise,

EU, Geopolitik, Parteien, NGOs, Subkulturen, Globalgeschichte, Kolonialismus, Xenophobie, Genozid, Zivilgesellschaft, Das Politische, Demokratie, Das Demokratische, Kapitalismus, Armut, Reichtum, Richtiges Leben (Adorno !), Gutes Leben, Schönes Leben, Soziales Leben, Rassismus, Egoismus, Altruismus, Kommerzialismus, Konsumismus, Verführungspotentiale, Übertragungsphänomenalität, Cliquenbildungsformate, Exklusion, Inklusion, Multitude, Integration, Vereinnahmung, Vereindeutigung, Logozentrismus, Intellektualität, Mystik, Glauben, Religion, Gläubigkeit, Vernunft, Urteilskraft, Vorstellungsvermögen, Schauspielkunst, Theater,

Cyberspace, Internet, Zeit, Raum, Biopolitik, Körperpolitik, Reproduktion, Performativität, Aktualität, Pop, Philosophie des Pop, Narzissmus,

Subversionen, Müßiggang, Netzwerkgesellschaft, Technikphilosophie, Wissenschaftsphilosophie, Philosophische Anthropologie, Praktische Philosophie, Wissenschaftstheorie, Methodologie, Wider den Methodenzwang (P. Feyerabend), Wahrheit und Methode (Gadamer), Erkenntnistheorie, Epistemologie, Wissen, Meinungsphilosophie, Firmenphilosophie, Markenphilosophie, Lebensphilosophie, Hausverstand, Gewißheit (Wittgenstein), Wahrnehmung, Traum, Wahn, Ratio und Rationalismus, Ethik und Ethikkommissionen, Verkehr, Verkehrspolitik, Architektur, Fotographie, Film, Literatur, Lesekrise, Roman (Kunkel u.a.), Blog-Lektüre, Blog-Reflex (Greif u.a.), Gegenwärtigkeit, Ökonomie der Aufmerksamkeit, Tele-Kommunikation, Kommunikation, Inkommunikabilität (Concic-Kaucic, Luhmann), Religion, Sport, Theater, Genderforschung, Sexualität, Kontrasexualität (Preciado), Begehren, Gender ("Mark of Gender", Wittig), das Andere, das Fremde, das Eigene, das Selbst, Gerechtigkeit, Utopie, Dekonstruktivismus, Postmoderne, Kritischer Rationalismus, Radikaler Konstruktivismus, Strukturalismus, Poststrukturalismus, Systemtheorie, Partizipation, Ideologie, Identität, Performanz, Sprache und Unbewusstes, Aussage, Frage, Satz, Zeichentheorien, Signifikation, Semantik, Grammatiken, Bewußtsein, Unbewußtes, Ubw, Psychoanalyse, Gedächtnis, neuronaler Mensch, Bildung Wissen Wahrnehmung Verstehen,

Sport, Psychoanalyse, Metaphorologie, Poetologie, Autobiographie, Autobiographisches Schreiben, Idiomatik, Einschreibung, Moderne, Psycho-Schrift, Lesen, Unlesbarkeit, Universität, Illisibilität, Mitteilbarkeit, Schweigen, das Sagbare, das Lesbare, das Sichtbare,

Geschlechterpolitik, Queerness, Macht, Gewalt, Trauer, Politik, Autopoiesis, Ästhetik des Performativen, Rhetorik des Bildes, Stimme und Buchstabe, Spur in der/die Zukunft, Reiseverhalten, Abenteuerlust, Extremsport, Geschwindigkeit, techne und Erfindungsmaschine, Recht auf Raum und Automobil, Beschleunigung und Zeit, Bewegung, Bewegungen, Rationalität und Selbstzerstörung, Ökologie als Ökonomie, Alles zur Hand haben und Thanatologie, Euthanasie, assistierter Suizid, Chronologie, Dromologie, Überlieferung und Antizipation, Gedächtnis, Philosophische Anthropologie, Phänomenologie, Archiv und Anthropologie, Derrida und die Technologie, Grammatologie als die Schrift vor dem Buchstaben

Begehren, Bildung, Universität, Wissen, Wissenskulturen, Tierschutz, Tierrechte, Tierverzehr, Kannibalismus, Essen, Nahrung, Ernährungswissenschaften, Politische Verrechtlichung, Bewusstsein, Leid und Leidensfähigkeit, Medizin als Wissenschaft, Medizingläubigkeit, Medizinmißbrauch, Drogierung, Arzt, Patient, Krankheit, Gesundheitspolitik, Studiennotwendigkeit, Studiengläubigkeit, Akademischer Kapitalismus, Akademischer Tribalismus, Akademischer Markt, Wahrnehmung, Verstehen verstehen (Schlegel) , Archivologie, Radikaler Konstruktivismus, Semiologie (Barthes), Logozentrismus, Phallogozentrismus, différance, (Derrida), Text, Schrift, Ironie, Witz, Humor, Unbewußtes, (Freud, Lacan, Derrida, Turnheim, Zupancic), Aporie, Dissemination, Fältelung (Derrida)…….

( an die 2000 Ge-spräche von 1989-2014, streng nach dem Setting vertrauliches "Einzel-Gespräch", confidential "one-to-one conversation", "face à face" (vgl. unsere Homepage dazu !), mit open end, indoor sowie outdoor; an die 2000 "Gespräche", "Diskurse", "Dekonstruktionen", "Begleitungen", " Text "; ....... (vgl. Bilder auf "facebook" und vergleiche oben: Was ist Dekonstruktion? .......Subjektivität..... Singularität ... )

Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis Wien Österreich

Adresse:

Dr. Gerhard Kaucic

Guglgasse 8/4/80

( "Gasometer B" , "Schild" - Gebäude )

1110 Wien


Kontakt

http://web.utanet.at/gack

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


Information:

Blogs sind urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke, - genauso wie Romane, Erzählungen, Gedichte, wissenschaftliche Arbeiten, Zeitungsartikel, Website-Texte, oder etwa auch Computerprogramme etc. !

Der Schöpfer eines Werks wird als sein Urheber bezeichnet. Gesetzliche Grundlage ist das Urheberrechtsgesetz. Es gewährt dem Urheber die Möglichkeit, selbst über die Verwendung des von ihm geschaffenen Werkes zu entscheiden. Er hat das Recht zu bestimmen, ob und wieweit sein Werk etwa vervielfältigt, veröffentlicht oder bearbeitet wird.

Achtung: Bereits mit der Schaffung ist ein Werk durch das Urheberrecht geschützt. Eine spezielle Registrierung, Copyright-Vermerk o.ä. ist nicht notwendig!

Unsere Texte und Bilder dürfen unter Anführung unseres Namens und unter Einhaltung der üblichen wissenschaftlichen Zitat-Konventionen zitiert oder auch registriert werden.

Die Weiterverbreitung unserer Posts ist nur erlaubt mit ausdrücklicher Genehmigung der AutorInnen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax

Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic

Philosopher, Writer, Philosophical Practitioner, Blogger, Feminist, Queer Theorist, Literary Translator, Trans-Lation, Meta-Thesis, Deconstruction, Wien / Vienna, Oesterreich / Austria ( *1959 )

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


Schrift !

Performativität / Performativity !

Dem „Kommentarischen“ des "Kommentar" entgehen!

The "commentary" always restricts the "text"!

The text must be preserved as a text in its performance.


The „Commentaryrestricts 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 (!!!) .


Performanz / Performance !

Parekbase, Parabase (Schlegel, Barthes, Derrida, Concic-Kaucic) !

Der Reduzierung, der Verfälschung, der Erniedrigung, der Kastrierung des "Textes" durch den "Kommentar" entgehen !

Textpolitik ! Temptation ! Tempus ! Temporalität !

Textperformanz / Wiederholung / Iterabilität / Iterability / Markierung !

Dissemination / Idiom ! Performativität !

Textmusik / Textbild / Koloratur / Stimme / Textur !

Textkonfiguration




BLOG - Teaser - Ende


BLOG Blog - Teaser - Ende - Teaser - Ende

T

Ende




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


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 / Erfahrung / 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.

Eine komplexere Lesbarkeit der / von Welt ! ( Aristoteles, Quintilian, Rousseau, Hamann, Hegel, Nietzsche, Saussure, W. Benjamin, H. Blumenberg, P. de Man, R. Barthes, A. Haverkamp, W. Hamacher >>> > > > >>> >> > >


>>> Jacques DERRIDA


SCHRIFT vor den/dem Buchstaben

….. SPUREN SPUREN …..

GrammatoLogie



"Schönes"(!?) Leben / "Erfülltes"(!?) Leben / Bewegtes Leben / Passioniertes Leben / Leidenschaftliches Leben / Leben voller bedeutungsvoller Momente (cf. Dewey, Rousseau)

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 / experience (cf. Dewey, Rousseau) ! ! !

Beautiful Life / Passionate Life / Life full of meaningful Moments cf. John Dewey Experience And Nature“ and cf. Jean-Jacques Rousseau mile ou De l’éducation



Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax, Grammatologe


Philosoph, Schriftsteller, Philosophischer Praktiker


Philosopher, Writer, Philosophical Practitioner


Trans-lator, Übersetzer, Redakteur, Herausgeber, Editor, Wissenschafter, Schriftsteller, Writer, Analytiker, Netzaktivist, Blogger, Feminist, Queer - Theoretiker, Philosophischer Praktiker,

Philosoph, Grammatologe,

Feminismus, Grammatologie, Semiologie, Psychoanalyse,

Dekonstruktion

Dekonstruktion ,

Deconstruction

philosophische Praxis, philosophische Praktiken,

philosophical practices, politics, disseminations

rund um die Uhr, ... rund um die Welt

around the clock, ... around the world

Kontaktaufnahme: siehe e-mail

Honorar: nach Vereinbarung

Bezahlung: Bargeld u. Rechnung

Payment: Cash and invoice

Dekonstruktivist, Feminist, Grammatologe, Semiologe,

Kulturtheoretiker, Poet, Lyriker, Buchautor, Romanschriftsteller,

Leser



zum nahenden vorläufigen Enden des Teasers zur Philosophischen Praxis als Vorspann und Aufgabe (!)


to a provisional ending of the teaser for grammatological philosophical Practice as assignment / question / responsibility / exercise / task / abandonment / mission / challenge



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



zum nahenden vorläufigen Ende des Teasers als Vorspann (!) noch ein etwas längeres Zitat aus der „Grammatologie“ von Jacques Derrida (Suhrkamp stw Erste Auflage 1983, S. 51ff.; engl. Version "Of grammatology", The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London 1976, p. 28ff.; La version originale: J. Derrida: DE LA GRAMMATOLOGIE, Paris 1967, Les Éditions de Minuit, p. 43 sq.):


„Was ist die Schrift?“ … Die Frage nach dem Ursprung der Schrift und die Frage nach dem Ursprung der Sprache lassen sich nur schwer voneinander trennen. Aber die Grammatologen, die von ihrer Ausbildung her für gewöhnlich Historiker, Epigraphen oder Archäologen sind, bringen ihre Untersuchungen nur in den seltensten Fällen mit der modernen Linguistik in Verbindung. Das ist umso erstaunlicher, als man unter den „Wissenschaften vom Menschen“ gerade der Linguistik nachdrücklich und einmütig wissenschaftlichen Charakter zubilligt. …

Die Linguistik bestimmt in letzter Instanz und in der irreduziblen Einfachheit ihres Wesens die Sprache – den Bereich ihrer Objektivität -, als die Einheit von phone, glossa und logos.

Selbst der Versuch, die Lautlichkeit auf die Seite des sinnlichen und kontingenten Signifikanten zu beschränken, wäre schlechthin unmöglich, denn formale, in einer sinnlichen Masse voneinander abgegrenzte Identitäten sind bereits nicht bloß sinnliche Idealitäten; und man wäre immer noch gezwungen, die unmittelbare und privilegierte, die Signifikanz und den Sprechakt begründende Einheit als artikulierte Einheit von Laut und Sinn in der Verlautbarung anzusehen. Im Hinblick auf diese Einheit wäre die Schrift immer eine abgeleitete, hinzugekommene, partikulare, äußerliche, den Signifikanten verdoppelnde – phonetische Schrift. „Zeichen der Zeichen“, sagten Aristoteles, Rousseau und Hegel.

Dennoch bleibt diese Intention, welche die allgemeine Linguistik zur Wissenschaft erhebt, widersprüchlich: Die Unterordnung der Grammatologie und die historisch-metaphysische Verkürzung der Schrift zu einem bloßen Instrument für eine erfüllte und im originären Sinn gesprochene Sprache ist eine erklärte und gewissermaßen selbstverständliche Absicht. Eine andere Geste jedoch (nicht eine andere Absicht, denn hier wird unausgesprochen vollzogen, was nicht selbstverständlich ist, und geschrieben, was ungesagt bleibt) ist Wegbereiter für eine künftige Allgemeine Grammatologie; die phonologische Linguistik stellte dann nur eine begrenzte, von ihr abhängige Regionalwissenschaft dar. …

Unerträglich und doch faszinierend ist … diese intime Verknüpfung von Bild und Ding, Graphie und Phonie; sie geht so weit, daß das gesprochene Wort durch eine Spiegelung, Verkehrung oder Perversion seinerseits zum Spekulum der Schrift zu werden scheint, wobei diese „die Hauptrolle usurpiert“. Die Repräsentation verflicht sich mit dem, was sie repräsentiert; dies geht so weit, daß man spricht wie man schreibt, daß man denkt, als wäre das Repräsentierte lediglich der Schatten oder der Reflex des Repräsentierenden. … In diesem Spiel der Repräsentation wird der Ursprungspunkt ungreifbar. Es gibt Dinge, Wasserspiegel und Bilder, ein endloses Aufeinander-Verweisen – aber es gibt keine Quelle mehr. Keinen einfachen Ursprung. Denn was reflektiert ist, zweiteilt sich in sich selbst , es wird ihm nicht nur sein Bild hinzugefügt. Der Reflex, das Bild, das Doppel zweiteilen, was sie verdoppeln. Der Ursprung der Spekulation wird eine Differenz. …


Es kann eine ursprüngliche Gewalt der Schrift nur geben, weil die Sprache anfänglich Schrift in einem Sinne ist, der sich fortschreitend enthüllen wird. " (!!!)


Deutschsprachige Ausgabe der Grammatologie v. J. Derrida im Suhrkamp Verlag Frankfurt, Berlin 1983, übersetzt von Hans-Jörg Rheinberger und Hanns Zischler, S. 66


((empfohlen!, leidenschaftlich (zur Écriture (!) >leidenschaftlich< cf.: Saussure!, Nietzsche!!!, Blumenberg!!, Sappho!, Epikur, Plato/Sokrates!, Aristoteles!, Cicero, Quintilian, Ulpian, Augustinus, Petrarca!, Maimonides!, Maciejewski, Scholem!, Arendt!, Salomon Maimon, Thomas!, Eckhart!, Spinoza!, Bruno, Machiavelli!, L. Strauss, Comenius, Descartes!, Hobbes!, Charles Fourier, Jean Jacques Rousseau!, Montaigne!, Pascal, de Sade!, Lichtenberg, Kant!, Hegel!, Schelling!, Novalis!, Schlegel!, Baumann, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard!, Stendhal!, Baudelaire!, Jean Paul!, Marx!, Brecht!, Hölderlin!, Dostojewskij!, Bergson!, Freud!, Joyce!, Wittgenstein, Peirce!, H. Plessner, Artaud!, Genet!, Derrida!, Duerr!, Marcuse!, Bataille!, Lacan!, Caruso!, Althusser!, Foucault!, Benjamin!, Concic-Kaucic, McLuhan!, Wiener, Kittler!, M. Frank, M. Schneider!, Feyerabend!, Ficino, M. Weber!, Jaspers!, Deleuze!, Theweleit!, Akerman!, Cixous!, Wollschläger!, Rorty, Tress, H. Lang, M. Brusotti, Luhmann!, Zizek!, Waldenfels!, McDowell, Sloterdijk!, J. Hörisch!, H. U. Gumbrecht, J.-L. Nancy!, G. Dischner!, C. Klinger, J. Butler!, Rancière!, B.Preciado, Fr. Jullien, A. Ronell, Blanchot !!, G. Granel, … )

"ans Herz gelegt"!!!, Grammatologie, ebda., S. 66ff. ))


Of Grammatology by Jacques Derrida, translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, 1976 by The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, p. 37:

„There is an originary violence of writing because language is first, in a sense I shall gradually reveal, writing.“ (!)


Derrida’s Écriture DE LA GRAMMATOLOGIE, 1967 by Les Éditions de Minuit, Paris, p. 55:

„Il y a une violence originaire de l’écriture parce que le langage est d’abord, en un sens qui se dévoilera progressivement, écriture.“


„Noch bevor er mit der Einkerbung der Gravur, der Zeichnung oder dem Buchstaben, einem Signifikanten also, in Verbindung gebracht wird, der im allgemeinen auf einen von ihm bezeichneten Signifikanten verweist, impliziert der Begriff der Schrift(graphie) – als die allen Bezeichnungssystemen gemeinsame Möglichkeit – die Instanz der vereinbarten Spur ( trace instituée ). …

Die vereinbarte Spur läßt sich ohne den Gedanken an die Retention der Differenz in einer Verweisstruktur nicht denken, …

Die Spur, in der sich das Verhältnis zum Anderen abzeichnet, drückt ihre Möglichkeit im ganzen Bereich des Seienden aus, welches die Metaphysik von der verborgenen Bewegung der Spur her als Anwesend-Seiendes bestimmt hat. Es gilt, die Spur vor dem Seienden zu denken.

Auch ist die Spur, von der wir sprechen, so wenig natürlich (sie ist nicht das Merkmal, das natürliche Zeichen oder das Indiz im Husserlschen Sinne) wie kulturell, so wenig physisch wie psychisch, so wenig biologisch wie geistig. Sie erst ermöglicht das Unmotiviert-werden des Zeichens und damit alle späteren Gegensätze zwischen der physis und ihrem Anderen. …

Die Unmotiviertheit der Spur muß von nun an als eine Tätigkeit und nicht als ein Zustand begriffen werden, als eine aktive Bewegung, als eine Ent-Motivierung und nicht als eine gegebene Struktur. Als Wissenschaft von der Arbitrarität des Zeichens, Wissenschaft von der Unmotiviertheit der Spur, Wissenschaft von der Schrift ( vor der Rede und in der Rede ) würde die Grammatologie einen sehr umfassenden Bereich bedecken, von dem die Linguistik per abstractionem den ihr zustehenden Raum mit den Grenzen umgeben könnte, welche Saussure ihrem inneren System vorschrieb. Dieser Raum aber müßte für jedes Rede/Schrift-System, in der Welt und in der Geschichte, von neuem überprüft werden.“

Op. cit., Jacques Derrida: Grammatologie, S. 81-88 (engl. Version, p. 46-51; fr. Original, p. 68-74)

„ >>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 )


Philosophische Praxis

Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax


Kontakt /Adresse:

Gerhard Kaucic (Dr. phil.) / Anna Lydia Huber (MSc)

Guglgasse 8/4/80

1110 Wien Oesterreich Europa

To contact us, please use only these emails:

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



To contact us, please use only this email: gack[at]chello.at




[[ Gerhard Kaučić Djay PhilPrax (born 1959), Anna Lydia Huber (born 1959), Philosophers, Writers, Feminists, Freerider, Philosophical Practice, Vienna, PP since 1989, Dr. phil., MSc, ---
(
Copyright, Bildrechte, Urheberrecht, rights to images, copyright, Picture rights, Image Rights, Copyright, -

Blog - Fotos © Anna Lydia Huber, Gerhard Kaučić, 01. Jan. 2013 ff. ) ]]



more cf.:
a)

Lebenslauf Biographie Gegenwartsphilosophie

Anna Lydia Huber (born 1959), Gerhard Kaučić (geb. 1959)
Philosophin, Philosophische Praktikerin, Philosoph, Philosophischer Praktiker, FeministIn, PhilosophInnen, SchriftstellerInnen, FeministInnen, Philosophers, Writers, Feminists, Freeriders
Short Biography / Curriculum Vitae / Bio / Vita / Course of Life / Personal Record / Career / Autobiographic(al) Statement / Résumé / Life Story / short curriculum vitae / ( CV ):


b)
Biographisches Vita Bio


Gerhard Kaučić (geb. 1959), Anna Lydia Huber (born 1959)
Philosoph, Philosophischer Praktiker, Philosophin, Philosophische Praktikerin, FeministIn, PhilosophInnen, SchriftstellerInnen, FeministInnen, Philosophers, Writers, Feminists, Freeriders
Kurzbiographie / Curriculum Vitae / Bio / Vita / Lebenslauf / Karriere / Lebensgeschichte / Lebensgangschreibung / Lebensgang - Beschreibung / Lebensgangerschreibung / Lebensbeschreibung / Lebensschreibung / Biographie / Biografie / Resümee / ( CV ):





Philosophical Practices / Politics / Disseminations Philosophische ...



Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić ( geb. 1959, - Anna Lydia Huber & Gerhard Kaučić ), AutorIn



1.bp.blogspot.com/-DKw3BEvcDF8/XrIGeGhDO9I/AAAA...





Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić ( geb. 1959, - Anna Lydia Huber & Gerhard Kaučić ),

AutorIn,

Lesung/Aufführung/Performance dann und wann, da und dort, -

häufig in der eigenen Philosophischen Praxis im Gasometer (Guglgasse 8) in Wien

auf Wunsch von PP - GästInnen bzw KlientInnen

(( aus „/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns“ (Passagen Verlag Wien ), aus „Paradies verloren“ (Verlag Das Fröhliche Wohnzimmer Wien) oder aus unserem sonstigen, über die vielen Jahre unseres SchriftstellerInnenlebens hinweg entstandenen, Manuskripteschatz, interimistisch geführt unter dem Namen „Semeion Aoristicon“ )).

in English:

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić ( born 1959, - Anna Lydia Huber & Gerhard Kaučić ),

author,

performance/reading/lecture now and then, here and there, -

often in our own Philosophical Practice in the Gasometer (Guglgasse 8) in Vienna

at the request of PP guests or clients

(( from "/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ or on the autobiography of Sem Schauns", "Paradise lost" or our other manuscript treasure, which has been created over the many years of our writers' lives, and which is currently called under the name "Semeion Aoristicon" )).








Fotos © Anna Lydia Huber, Gerhard Kaučić





Falls Sie interessiert sind an einer PP mit mir, bitte nur unter dieser Email einen Termin reservieren: To contact me, 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



IMPRESSUM ... IMPRESSUM ... IMPRESSUM

Impressum/Imprint:

Weblog

Philosophical Practices / Politics / Disseminations

ISSN 2410-7050

Verantwortlich:

Gerhard Kaučić / Djay PhilPrax ( Dr. phil., Autor, Philosoph, Feminist, Praktische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion, Philosophische Praxis )

Anna Lydia Huber ( MSc, Autorin, Mediatorin, Philosophin, Feministin, Praktische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion, Philosophische Praxis )

Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić ( SchriftstellerIn, Writers )

Unsere Beiträge (blog-posts) erscheinen in unregelmäßiger Reihenfolge.

Our contributions (blog-posts) appear in irregular order.

Kontakt/Contact

Adresse/Postanschrift/address:

Philosophische Praxis/Philosophical Practice

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber

Guglgasse 8/4/80

1110 Wien

Austria/Europe

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

Gegenwartsphilosophie / Contemporary Philosophy

Copyright, Bildrechte, Urheberrecht, rights to images, copyright, Picture rights, Image Rights, Copyright, - ALH & GK



Dienstag, 5. Januar 2021

The Religious Deconstruction Religion and Society


Text/Translation Gerhard Kaučić, Anna Lydia Huber (Dr. phil., MSc, born 1959, Age 62, 2021)

 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 62, 2021

 

 

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

 


                                                 Anna Lydia Huber

Philosopher, Feminist, Mediator, Author, born 1959, MSc, age 62, 2021

 


                                Gerhard Kaučić, Anna Lydia Huber, Philosophical Practitioners

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

 

 

 

The Religious   Deconstruction   Religion and Society    

 

Das Religiöse   Dekonstruktion    Religion und Gesellschaft

 

 

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

 

Vienna 32 years of practice jubilee (1989-2021) jubilee 32 years PP 2021

 

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 ]]

 

Four (4) sessions of 4 hours each of philosophical practice by telephone (Corona Virus because of!) from Vienna, -

 

 

our guests/interlocutors were:

a pair of French philosophy professors in Paris between January 1 and 4, 2021 (4 practice units each from 3:00 p.m. to approx. 7:00 p.m.)

 

It was a pleasure for us as an intellectually challenging pleasure. And a challenge in view of the seriousness of the situation of European societies in relation to religions, faith, beliefs, education and lack of education and the rampant fanaticism in its most diverse manifestations.

 

A telephone protocol is not created and would not be accepted by the vast majority of the guests of our confidential philosophical practice.

 

The fields of knowledge and reflection touched upon in the four conversations/telephone calls as well as the preparatory literature used is well reported or pointed out in my/our three postings published in German in 2017.

 

I mostly stick to these texts/analyses/reflections made in German at that time in my English-language posting today (retrospectively reminded of the conversation conducted in English, German and French).

 

 

cf: 

Religion und Gesellschaft/Religion and Society Part 1

http://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2017/04/religion-und-gesellschaft-teil-1.html 

 

Religion und Gesellschaft/Religion and Society Part 2

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

 

Religion und Gesellschaft/Religion and Society Part 3 

http://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2017/04/religion-und-gesellschaft-teil-3.html 

 

more cf: What is philosophical practice?

http://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2016/03/was-ist-philosophische-praxis-iii-teil-3.html   

 

 

 

          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").

 

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, 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 blog).  

 

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 in red letters, English and German). 

 

If grammatology "can not be a science of man" it is precisely because "from the very beginning it poses the question, fundamental to it, of the name of man" (J. Derrida, Of Grammatology, 1974, p. 148, germ. ed.).

 

The name, the birth, the end, the signature of man ! 

The event man ! 

The context of the man ! 

 

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

 

Once again briefly to the humanism as logocentrism or phonologocentrism. 

 

Derrida shows that the traditionally hierarchical arrangement of the two components of the sign must be deconstructively reversed. Up to modern linguistics, the ideal meaning of a sign, called  s i g n i f i e d (the idea), is superordinated to the material carrier of meaning, called s i g n i f i e r  (the sound or written image).    At all times there is an attempt to orient the external signifier, the writing, toward a transcendental signified. 

 

Remember what we said before about religion, God and man. 

 

But every signified (The Imagination!) is (according to Derrida) "always already in the position of the signifier" (Derrida, Of Grammatology, p. 129, germ. ed.). 

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

Writing, according to this definition, is sign of signs, signifier of signifiers.

 

The main purpose of this inversion is to show that the materiality of the signifier is not added to the sense in a retrospective and external way, but vice versa, that the sense is   e f f e c t   of a signification that is always already retrospective.  In this way, Derrida reformulated and reframed the relationship between language and writing/scripture. 

 

Through Derrida's transformation of the concept of writing, this concept goes beyond that of language and at the same time conceptualizes this concept of language.  

 

From all this follows a completely new, because multi-transformed, understanding and event of 

T e x t .

 

Inherent in such a text (understanding) is the "essence," the practice of deconstruction, that is, "inscribed" (cf. Derrida, Freud and the Scene of Writing, or Freud's "Wunderblock").

 

The thinking of différance is the inherent practice of "deconstruction".   

 

It is always about, i.e. it is always about for me in my philosophical practice -. 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

The texts are not only to be analyzed and interpreted, but through the practice of deconstruction to be de-veiled of their conflictuality, their aggressiveness, their covertly carried contents and intentions.

 

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

 

We utter sentences of intentional analytic truth and thereby simultaneously displace other eventual truth or untruth sentences.

 

Cuttings/settlements punctuate, jump from something to something and thereby lose "something"(!) from view (!) by wanting to take something else ( even as the presumed "same"(!) ) into view as access. 

 

Even such a "wanting" already leads to shifts in the perception of truth in time and space. 

 

Such a practice leads to a whole new interpretation of all the contexts of these textual formations, - to new configurations in politics, law, literature, philosophy, art, institutions, economies, life as a whole. 

 

There is never and nowhere the possibility of a clear „presence“ or „presentation“. Every representation (re-praesentatio = making something present again !) is contaminated by alterity and affected by moments of absence.

 

There will never have been „presentative simplicity“, but always another fold/pleat, another non-representable difference. „What is it about this non-presentable or non-representable? How do we think/comprehend it?“ (Derrida, Psyche I, p. 122)

 

Structurally unfinishable „Nachträglichkeit” [1] (see Derrida) and an eternal game of signifiers create temporary textual-configurations, which are exposed to the permanent activity of translation, interpretation and „deconstruction“ (see details later in this section: “deconstruction as a philosophical practice” ! ).

 

In his description of the two tempi, which are on the one hand staged/arranged by the death-instinct / death-drive ( cf. J. Lacan, "pulsion de mort",- in: Se 2, 375 ; in: Se 11, 232; in: Écrits, 848 ) and on the other hand by the life instincts, Freud talks about a "Zauderrhythmus" in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, which is the result of these two encounters.

 

The death-instinct / death-drive blindly follows its primary tendency to lead the organic system to its entropic ending. The life instincts on the other hand secure and transmit the kind of knowledge that organisms acquire over millions of years on their way to death.

 

The beginning of life and its signs lies in the almost nothingness of one pleat / fold, of an interval, which Derrida moved into the position of all origin, - différance ( J. Derrida, La différance ).

 

Apart from that: Every everyday utterance ( and every everyday action ) has always required an act of trans-lation !

 

1 In the English language the term „deferred action“ has become established, in French most suitably après-coup (researched by Lacan and even more by Laplanche), the Freudian expression „Nachträglichkeit“ is not transferable, its multi-dimensionality is not reached in other languages! See particularly Derrida, „la différance“!

 

 

The „Commentary“ restricts the open semantic game by means of identity, repetition and the attempt of representing „the same“. In doing so it turns itself into a mechanism of control and order by restricting and limiting discourse in order to generate unambiguity (!!!) .

 

 

A translation is never a replacement ! Every placement is already a translation of the already imagined and the unimagined. A translation changes the location, it relocates and changes and, therefore, it always is a different text. Thus, only an approximate signified can be saved.

 

Every Reading (even „conversations“ have to be read) ! Things that have been heard are being „read“ by a comprehending intellect. Read-out ! Singled out! Sorted out! Out of the heard „reality“ ! Every reading must first produce a significant structure !

 

There is no criteria for the identity of the meaning of an expression/a term: the interpretation in its scientific sense turns into a thing of indeterminacy. This does not mean, that you shouldn’t quasi-fixate, utilize and evaluate it for some time with the consent of a wide range of readers. So-called “islands of understanding” of temporary textual-configurations! Understanding also in the sense of:

 

a small or larger group of participants of discourse “stands”(!) temporarily on a temporary safe ground of understanding!

 

This reason of understanding, limited by „territory“ (temporally and spatially), the image of temporary textual-configurations ( mise en abyme, picture in picture in picture...), „picture“ as a metaphor of re-flection, the picture of the mirror without tinfoil, the picture of standing behind the mirror as „standing“ in the mirror, - a mirror of distortion and performance/performation (!), a mirror of the initial transformation without origin, - a mirror, which gives the picture ( away ! ?!) for our language, - our language as graphically marked poetics of communication, - literally ! (see J. Derrida, La dissémination, p. 350 und passim)

 

 

The comment places the author as the highest principle of the order of discourse (see M. Foucault, Ordnung d. Diskurses) and provides itself authority.

 

„We“ (!) represent the task of disseminal critical communication as an open text of writing to elope the exegesis and re-presentation of the commentary.

 

 

The task is „to first understand speech as well and later better than the author/originator“ (approach in engl.: Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik und Kritik, S. 94).

 

 

To us the only acceptable critique is a constantly critical critique, i.e. a constantly deconstructing critique, whose object is the writable of a text, a constantly multiplying text.

 

 

A signifier is from the very beginning the possibility of its own repetition, of its own image or resemblance. It is the condition of its ideality, what identifies it as signifier, and makes it function as such, relating it to a signified which, for the same reasons, could never be a „unique and singular reality.“ From the moment that the sign appears, that is to say from the very beginning, there is no chance of encountering anywhere the purity of „reality“, „unicity“, „singularity“. (Derrida, of Grammatology, p. 91)

 

The authority of the Logos, the Commentary, the domination of the interpretation of Writing with focus to its origin, has been, for quite some time, exposed to the critical critique of deconstruction and herein lies the chance for Democracy on the rise (Derrida).

 

All this refers to a common and radical possibility that no determined science, no abstract discipline, can think as such. (Derrida, of Grammatology, p. 93)

 

The intertextuality and its underlying multiplicity of codes is principally unlimited and unlimitable. The growing deconstruction- textualities and their texture of connotation are not includable or even determinable by any context.

 

The beginning of life and its signs lies in that almost nothingness of a fold , an interval, which Derrida has put in the place of all origins, - the d i f f é r a n c e ( Derrida, La différance,- in: Randgänge der Philosophie, Vienna, Passagen, 1988 ). 

 

Derrida writes d i f f é r a n c e and not d i f f é r e n c e. His invention, the difference between e and a cannot be heard in French, it is silent but present without being there, it is only graphically there as a difference. 

 

Derrida thus wants to express, in purely factual terms, the phonetically incomprehensible peculiarity of writing. 

The French verb d i f f é r e r, to which the expression différance refers, means a twofold, a double (!).

 

D i f f é r e r in the sense of postponement and detour means temporization, "means to recur, consciously or unconsciously, to the temporal and delaying mediation of a detour which suspends the execution or fulfillment of the desire or will and also realizes it in a way that suspends or tempers its effect" (Derrida, Randgänge ...). 

 

A second meaning is the well-known "to differ", to be different and distinct.

 

In this sense, a distance, a "fold" (pli), an i n t e r v a l l or spatialization, is created between the various elements.   These two processes, temporalization (of space) and spatialization (of time), form the formal structure of any Scripture. They are the enabling ground of the sign at all. 

 

Thus also the presence, which is to experience its privileged expression in the self-interrogating voice, cannot do without this basic structure. 

No presence is ever completely punctual and identical with itself; it must always refer to something other than itself.  

 

"An interval must separate it (the respective present element) from what it is not, so that it may be itself, but this interval, which constitutes it as present, must at the same time separate the present in itself, and thus separate with the present everything that can be thought from it.  (...) This dynamically constituting, dividing interval is what one can call spatialization, space - becoming of time or time - becoming of space (temporization)." (cf. Derrida, Marginal Passages, p- 39) 

 

"A signifier is from the beginning the possibility of its own repetition, its own likeness or resemblance to itself.   This is the condition of its ideality.   What identifies it as a signifier and gives it its function as such and relates it to a signified can never be a 'unique and particular reality' for the same reasons.  

 

From the moment the sign appears, that is, since ever, there is no possibility of locating pure 'reality,' 'uniqueness,' and 'particularity'" (Derrida, Of Grammatology, p. 165, germ. ed.). 

Never will there have been "presentational simplicity," but always another "fold," another non-presentable difference.  

 

"What is it about the non-presentable or non-representable ?  How to think it?" (Derrida, Psyche I, p. 122) 

 

Structurally inconclusive post-compatibility/deferred action/Nachträglichkeit (cf. Derrida passim, the Freudian expression „Nachträglichkeit“ is not transferable, its multi-dimensionality is not reached in other languages! See particularly Derrida, „la différance“! ) and infinite play of signifiers erect temporary textual configurations that are exposed to the permanent work of translation, interpretation, and "deconstruction" (see my blog teaser "Deconstruction as Philosophical Practice"). 

 

Underlying intertextuality is the multiplicity of codes, which is fundamentally unrestricted. 

 

The "text" has ceased to be an object in itself.  

 

The permanently absent presence of I n t e r t e x t u a l i t y (this applies to every text, - and since time immemorial), in which the power of rupture with its contexts has always been structurally immanent in every sign of a writing as a voice of never quite present presences, has always determined writing, - scripture without origin and destination (arche, telos).

 

All this points to a radical possibility that cannot be shouldered by any single science (Derrida, Gram., p. 168f., germ. ed.). 

 

My task, our task, is to thwart all discourses of power, of domination, of aberrant presumption of authority, by driving apart their intertextualities, the points of intersection of many other texts in each text into many heterogeneous parts. 

 

In this case, here the knotting of the discourses and views of religion and society.  

 

And by driving apart the intersections of the discourses of religion and their play (!) in the most different directions like the constitution of society and state, society and democracy, society and human rights, society and ethics, society and religiosity, society and churches, society and politics, society and philosophy and society and psyche (Ubw/unconscious). 

 

Texts of this kind and their connotation texture are not enclosable by any context, determinable or even politically manageable in the form of imperative statement politics and announcement politics. 

 

And ! 

 

"A text is a text only if it conceals from the first glance ... the law of its composition and the rule of its play" (Derrida, Plato's Pharmacy, - in Dissemination, p. 71, germ. ed.). 

 

The "phono-logocentrism" is always an anthropo-logocentrism. 

 

To contrast the word with the Scripture is always to contrast man with the animal (!, cf. m. Post on the singular "animal" in "animal philosophy" here in this blog)  and thus also the question of technology. 

The grammatology creates the expression "Différance" and writes with it the work(!) of the life !  

 

When grammatology thinks the graphy, which it undoubtedly aspires to do, and when it thereby thinks the name of man(!), it does so by elaborating a notion of différance as a stage in the development of the history of life as the history of g r a m m a and thus of the notion of p r o g r a m m (!). 

 

I refer here simultaneously to a kind of trinity of authorship, namely to Leroi-Gourhan, Jacques Derrida, and Bernard Stiegler. 

 

The gramma, these say, structures all levels of life from the writing of genetics to the overcoming of logos.  

 

From the basic programs (!) of instinctive(!) behaviors to the expansion of memory through the production of electronic data processing and diverse information machinery (Derrida, Grammatology, pp. 149ff., germ. ed.). 

 

 

I thank my guests for the stimulating and hope-making reflections, trains of thought and thought creations, - sometimes and always also at the edge of the abyss.

 

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

 

And: As always, we have too little time!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

As I said, I refer here simultaneously to Leroi-Gourhan, Jacques Derrida and Bernard Stiegler. 

 

The gramma, these say, structures all levels of life from genetic writing to the overcoming of logos.  

From the basic programs (!) of instinctive(!) behaviors to the expansion of memory through the production of electronic data processing and diverse information machinery (Derrida, Grammatology, pp. 149ff.).  

 

Derrida bases his thinking of différance on the concept of program in the sense of epigenetics. 

Programs, pro-grams(!) with fraying(!). 

 

Because the g r a m m a is older than the human graphy and the trace has always started from an essentially non - anthropocentric notion of anthropology, which does not run in the template of the division between animality and being human/ the being of human.

And consequently also the différance, the thinking of différance, which undermines and rejects the opposition (!) animal(s)/human(s) and nature/culture.  

 

What this means for the thinking of an expression of r e l i g i o n is not yet to be imagined ! 

 

The so-called religious return applies to me here rather as an act of the desperation of a small thinking.  A small attempt of home in the delicate security of wanted unquestionability of authority in God (!?). 

 

The history of gramma is a history especially of technique.  Both the inventing and the invented techné.  The techné. 

 

The great question of the t e c h n é, which resolves the traditional thinking of technique from Plato to Heidegger and beyond, complicated and largely redeemed (!) (cf. B. Stiegler, Technik und Zeit, p. 185). 

 

The différance, the history of life, stages of life with articulation of "consciousness".

 

The emergence of a new type of g r a m m a and prog r a m m . 

The cultural behavioral programs, the cultural codes, like the genetic codes, are life-determining, in order and direction. 

This new type gramma / program is the transition from the genetic to the non-genetic (cf. A. Leroi-Gourhan, Hand and Word, pp. 275ff., german edition). 

New code systems, customs and rituals largely take the place of the genetic codes (cf. P. Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, p. 96, germ. ed.). 

 

The story of this transition, the story of an uncanny abyss, - a past that was never present, leads to a present that is connected to many pasts and connected to no past present. 

 

Différance helps us to understand what this transition means as a gap and a folding. 

Differentiation and Spatiotemporalization. 

 

Derrida writes that "the trace is the différance that opens appearance and meaning as an articulation of the living in the non - living par excellence, as the origin of all repetition" (Derrida, Grammatology, p. 114, germ. ed.). 

 

What is meant is a structure of transmission, the inheritance of a past which I have not experienced, but which is nevertheless my past.  And which is the foundation of facticity itself.  

 

What we call past is the storage, an epigenetic sedimentation (Stiegler, Technik u. Zeit, 189), of what has happened. 

An epiphylogenesis (Stiegler, ibid.,) of the living, as taught by embryology (Fr. Jacob, The Logic of the Living, The History of Heredity 2002, p. 11, german ed.). 

 

Leroi-Gourhan tries to solve the paradox of becoming alive.   Only so much: L. - G. speaks of an intermediate period, already(?) man and yet not yet. A "quasi - zoology" !   And it is already no more. 

 

In this intermediate period a kind of coupling of living matter/unliving matter, Cortex/Silex, arises, in which a double plasticity develops.  

 

The hardness of the mineral matter gives a form and forms at the same time at the fluidity of the "spiritual" im-matter (( which is still(!) a "differentiating matter" (B. Stiegler, p.191), - immaterial-material )), a still genetic work and already epigenetically (= here "culturally"!) determined / co-determined, and which takes its course as epiphylogenesis, - by an epigenesis, which conserves the carpet pad of the flint (silica, "flint" diagenesis).

 

"The Silex is the first reflecting memory, the first mirror" (B. Stiegler, 191). 

 

In the time of corticalization as the earliest stage in human development, a process proceeds as a reflection of a conservation of epigenesis, which is itself already a reflection (Stiegler, ibid., 192). 

 

Leroi-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. 

 

ut!   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)

http://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2017/04/religion-und-gesellschaft-teil-1.html

 

Religion and Society Part 2 (in German)

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

 

Religion and Society Part 3  (in German)

http://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2017/04/religion-und-gesellschaft-teil-3.html

 

 

Kind regards!

Gerhard Kaucic

& Anna Lydia Huber

PP Vienna

Call/conference 


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, PP,

Paris and Vienna, call,  1. – 4. Ja. 2021

 

      


 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. 


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 


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)

http://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2017/04/religion-und-gesellschaft-teil-1.html

 

Religion und Gesellschaft  Teil 2 (in German)

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

 

Religion und Gesellschaft  Teil 3 (in German)

http://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2017/04/religion-und-gesellschaft-teil-3.html

 

Best regards!

Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber

PP Wien/Vienna/Austria/Europe   

 

 

philosophical practices    face à face 

 

 

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

 

 

around the clock … around the world

 

Grammatological Philosophical Practice

 

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

 

The mobile version of our blog 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!

 

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 this blog.

 

Yours sincerely, -

 

Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., born '59)

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

 

Fee payment: cash and invoice

 

Confidential individual conversation/meeting

 

Confidential one-to-one talk/conversation

 

A conversation in my/our philosophical practice lasts 55 minutes and costs between 35 and 90 Euro, depending on the needs ( keywords: indoor/outdoor and depending on whether both practitioners are required to be present or only one practitioner) and socially staggered.

 

A double hour depending upon requirements between 70 and 120 Euro. A three-hour discussion unit between 105 and 170 Euro and a four-hour conversation unit 250 Euro. 

 

Setting, - confidential "single talk", confidential "one-to-one conversation"

 

Up to two people can go into a conversation with me/us together. The fee is then calculated according to the number of participants.

 

 

If you are interested in a PP (Philosophical Practice) with me/us, please reserve an appointment only under these emails: To contact me/us, please use only these emails: g.kaucic[at]chello.at    or   gack[at]chello.at 

 

The Religious   Deconstruction   Religion and Society    

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-religious-deconstruction-religion.html


 

                   

                                Anna Lydia Huber, Associate PP Vienna, MSc, b. 1959

 

         „Punk Lady“ Anna Lydia Huber (62), slightly greying, today, recently diverse again

 



                              Gerhard Kaučić, Head PP Vienna, Dr. phil., b. 1959

 

         „Old Hippie“ Gerhard Kaučić (62), slightly greying, today, recently diverse again

 




Austrian Philosopher/Österreichischer Philosoph, Europäischer Philosoph, Schriftsteller, Feminist, Hegelianer, Übersetzer  

Mediator 

Freerider, Radreisender, Enduro-Biker 

Ökomobilist, Überlebender 




Philosophical Practitioner/Philosophischer Praktiker/Praktische Philosophie 


Sprachanalytische Philosophie 


Dekonstruktion 


                              Philosophical Practice/Philosophische Praxis        Wien Österreich Europa                 



Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., born 1959, Age 62, 2021) 






                To contact us,  please use only these emails:  


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




    The Religious   Deconstruction   Religion and Society    

 

Das Religiöse   Dekonstruktion    Religion und Gesellschaft

 



                    To contact us,  please use only these emails:  


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







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 

  

( read in addition "La différance", - in: Jacques Derrida: Randgänge der Philosophie, Passagen Verlag, Vienna 1988, pp. 29-52, german edition )


in German: 

Gerhard  Kaučić (geb. 1959, Dr. phil., Alter 62, 2021), Philosophische Praxis Wien 1989 ff.  

Philosoph, Schriftsteller, Übersetzer, Mediator, Feminist,  dekonstruierter Hegelianer, Freerider,  Radreisender,  Enduro-Biker, Ökomobilist, Überlebender, Philosophischer Praktiker/Praktische Philosophie, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion, 
Philosophische Praxis Wien Österreich Europa 

PP, - von einer neuen Kryptologie zu einer anasemischen Retranskription sämtlicher Konzepte 

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, 62, 2021)


Europäische Philosophin, Schriftstellerin, Mediatorin (MSc), Feministin, (die Philosophin als dekonstruierte) Hegelianerin, Ex-Managerin (Software-Haus in Wien, Managerin und Prokuristin, Kollektivprokura), Ökomobilistin (seit 38 Jahren!), Freeriderin, Enduro-Bikerin, Radreisende (seit 40 Jahren!), leidenschaftliche Wild-Camperin (seit 43 Jahren), Überlebende, Mutter von drei Kindern, urbane Landwirtin, Freiberuflerin, Philosophische Praktikerin/Praktische Philosophie, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion, Philosophische Praxis Wien, Österreich, Europa  1989 ff. 






Anna Lydia Huber, Autorin, Mediatorin, Philosophin (Alter, 55, 2014)


Anna Lydia Huber (Alter, 55, 2014)

Feministin, Mediatorin (MSc),  Schriftstellerin, Philosophin, dekonstruierte Hegelianerin, Philosophische Praktikerin/Praktische Philosophie, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion, Radreisende, Ökomobilistin, Freeriderin, Enduro Bikerin, Überlebende, PP Wien 1989 ff. 


Anna Lydia Huber (Age, 55, 2014)


Feminist, mediator (MSc), writer, philosopher, deconstructed Hegelian, Philosophical Practitioner/Practical Philosophy, deconstruction, bicycle traveller, ecomobilist, freerider, enduro biker, survivor, PP Vienna, Austria, Europe 1989 ff  





To contact us, please use only these emails: 


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


Gegenwartsphilosophie 


Contemporary Philosophy

Nicht vollständige Liste unserer Publikationen seit 1986 cf. „Google Scholar Profil“: Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil.), Anna Lydia Huber (MSc) https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=de&user=wNUSN64AAAAJ

 

Non-complete overview of our publications since 1986 cf. "Google Scholar Profile": Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil.), Anna Lydia Huber (MSc) https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=de&user=wNUSN64AAAAJ


PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS WIEN PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS ÖSTERREICH PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS OESTERREICH EUROPA 


Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis, Gerhard Kaučić / Djay PhilPrax, Wien


                                         Philosophischer Praktiker, Grammatologe, Autor, Radfahrer, Ökomobilist, der Philosoph als Radfahrer, der Philosoph als Freerider, der Philosoph als Radfahrender, der Philosoph als Fahrender, der Philosoph als Bewegter und Bewegender, der Philosoph als Scout   .......   trace ....... Spur .......   Grammatologie  différance  Dekonstruktion   .......  



The Machine The Man

Robots Androids Cyborgs as subject Deconstruction 


 THE DOCTOR, HIS PATIENT AND THE DISEASE 

Der Arzt, sein Patient und die Krankheit 

(German / English)




Gerhard  Kaučić (*1959), Leiter einer Philosophischen Praxis seit 32 Jahren in Wien (1989-2021 ff.)



Gespräche (etwas über 3470), Analyse, Diskurs, Problematisierung, Identitätsdislokation, Subjektivierung, Formalisierung, Fältelung, Komplizierung, Aporie, Dekonstruktion 


Gerhard Kaučić (*1959), Head of a philosophical practice for 32 years in Vienna (1989-2021 ff.)


Conversations (slightly over 3470), analysis, discourse, problematization, identity dislocation, subjectivation, formalization, folding, complication, aporia, deconstruction 

[[ Gerhard Kaučić Djay PhilPrax (born 1959), Philosopher, Writer, Feminist, Freerider, Philosophical Practice, Vienna, PP since 1989, Dr. phil., --- 
  ( Blog - Fotos ©  Anna Lydia Huber, Gerhard Kaučić, 01. Jan. 2013 ff. ) ]] 





                                             To contact us, please use only these emails: g.kaucic[at]chello.at  and  gack[at]chello.at                                        



   Gerhard Kaučić (geb. 1959), Philosopher, philosophical Practitioner 1989 ff., grammatologist, author, feminist, translator, cyclist, freerider, ecomobilist, the philosopher as cyclist, the philosopher as freerider,  the philosopher as circulator, the philosopher as mover, the philosopher as scout ........   trace....... Trace ........    


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



Philosophers1989 bis heuteWien
Philosophische Praxis Gerhard Kaučić / Djay PhilPrax (Dr. phil.) & Anna Lydia Huber (MSc), geb. 1959, gemeinsamer Praxis-Sitz Wien (seit 1989 ff.) / joint practice location in Vienna

cf.:
mehr siehe Lebenslauf, Bio, Vita, Biographisches:
https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2017/10/lebenslauf-biographie.html

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



Anna Lydia Huber (geb. 1959, OÖ), Autorin, Österreichische Philosophin (Alter 62, 2021), Feministin, Hegelianerin, Mediatorin (MSc), Schriftstellerin, Übersetzerin, Philosophische Praktikerin/Praktische Philosophie, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion, Philosophische Praxis Vienna Austria Europe




Gerhard Kaučić (geb. 1959, Tirol), Österreichischer Philosoph (Dr. phil., Alter 62, 2021), Autor, Feminist, Hegelianer, Mediator, Schriftsteller, Übersetzer, Philosophischer Praktiker/Praktische Philosophie, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion, Philosophische Praxis Wien Österreich Europa



more information ad personam

cf.: 

Biographisches, Bio, Vita, Biographie

https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2017/09/biographisches-bio-vita-biographie.html

 

 

 more cf.: 

BioBibliographie Unvollständige Publikationsliste Literatur - Liste 1986 - 2021ff 

Non-complete overview of our publications since 1986 cf. "Google Scholar Profile": Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil.), Anna Lydia Huber(MSc)



Google-Scholar-Profil BioBibliographie Literatur - Liste 1986 - 2021ff Lebensreise Lebensweise


google scholar-Profil-Kopie v. G Kaucic & A L Huber

Nicht vollständige Liste unserer Publikationen seit 1986 cf. „Google Scholar Profil“: Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil.), Anna Lydia Huber (MSc) https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=de&user=wNUSN64AAAAJ

Non-complete overview of our publications since 1986 cf. "Google Scholar Profile": Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil.), Anna Lydia Huber(MSc)

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=de&user=wNUSN64AAAAJ



(( Translation into English, Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., born 1959, Age 61, 2020),

European Philosophers, Writer, Feminist, deconstructed Hegelian, Translator, Mediator, Freerider, Bicycle Traveller, Enduro Biker, Ecomobilist, Survivor, Philosophical Practitioner/Practical Philosophy, Analytical Philosophy of Language, Deconstruction, Philosophical Practice Vienna Austria Europe

Europäischer Philosoph, Schriftsteller, Feminist, dekonstruierter Hegelianer, Übersetzer, Mediator, Freerider, Radreisender, Enduro-Biker, Ökomobilist, Überlebender,
Philosophischer Praktiker/Praktische Philosophie, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, Dekonstruktion, Philosophische Praxis Wien Österreich Europa ))



Nicht vollständige Liste unserer Publikationen seit 1986 cf. „Google Scholar Profil“: Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil.), Anna Lydia Huber (MSc) https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=de&user=wNUSN64AAAAJ

Non-complete overview of our publications since 1986 cf. "Google Scholar Profile": Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil.), Anna Lydia Huber (MSc) https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=de&user=wNUSN64AAAAJ



Literaturliste Literaturverzeichnis Bibliographie Publikationsliste

Bibliography Literature Bibliography Publications List



GESPRÄCHE sind EREIGNISSE als TEXT         TALKS ARE EVENTS AS TEXT

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

Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis, Gerhard Kaučić / Djay PhilPrax & Anna Lydia Huber, Wien, 1989 - 2021 ff.

LIEBLINGSZITAT    Favourite quote

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

(Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic)



Knoten von Leben und Schrift und von Leben als Schrift   

Knots of life and writing and of life as writing 

Die Nachträglichkeit (cf. Freud)

L’après-coup / deferred action / afterwardsness (cf. Freud, Lacan, Derrida, Laplanche, Dahl)


Gerhard Kaučić Was ist Philosophie I (2010)





Knoten von Leben und Schrift und von Leben als Schrift

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; Adorno, Blumenberg, Benveniste, Levinas, Sloterdijk, Spaemann, Deleuze, Derrida, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Aristoteles, Sokrates, Russell, Nietzsche, Aristoteles, Husserl, Heidegger, Marquard, Rancière, Kant, Lacan, Valéry …


In English:


Grammatological Practice, Philosophical Practice, Philosophy, what is philosophy?,


understanding, desire, knotting, knotting of life and writing and of life as writing, semiology becomes grammatology, philosophy as science, differ/a/nce, Socratism as stultification, Theoria as highest form of practice; Adorno, Blumenberg, Benveniste, Levinas, Sloterdijk, Spaemann, Deleuze, Derrida, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Aristotle, Socrates, Russell, Nietzsche, Aristotle, Husserl, Heidegger, Marquard, Rancière, Kant, Lacan, Valéry …



Gerhard Kaučić / Was geschieht in meiner philosophischen Praxis (in German)

(Videoaufnahme 2014, Zeitlänge 2' 13'')




Gerhard Kaučić / What happens in my philosophical Practice (in English )

(Video 2014, time 1' 21'')






Anna Lydia Huber, Philosophin, FeministinMediatorinAutorin, (geb. 1959, MSc, Alter, 62, 2021)




Gerhard Kaučić, Philosoph, FeministMediatorAutor(Dr. phil., born 1959, Age 62, 2021)

Notwendigkeit einer radikal kritischen Medienphilosophie, - einer Medienphilosophie der Dekonstruktion 

Necessity of a radically critical media philosophy, - a media philosophy of deconstruction







Der ökologische Bruch, der grüne Bruch, die errötete Stadt (!), die Welt im Umbruch, das Denken im Umbruch, das Subjekt als "planetarisch" (cf. G. Ch. Spivak, vgl. Teaser!) denken, - die großen Herausforderungen der Politik im 21. Jahrhundert annehmen: die Utopie (?!) reflexiver Solidarität (Spivak), die Grenzen des Planeten ( vgl. u. a. John Bellamy Foster (Hg.): Der ökologische Bruch. Der Krieg des Kapitals gegen den Planeten. Hamburg 2011 )

Grünes Denken, Planetarisches Denken und Handeln, Philosophie
Vom Fahrrad aus
à propos! Ökologischer Fußabdruck !!!
Radfahren in Wien und überall sonst, - Fahrradfahren geht immer und überall !
Radfahren in Wien, Mountainbiken in Wien, Rennradfahren in Wien, Fahrrad in Wien, Fahr Rad in Wien, Philosophie in Wien, Philosophie und Sport
Abenteuer Philosophie  
Abenteuer Philosophische Praxis 

The ecological rupture, the green rupture, the reddened city (!), the world in upheaval, thinking in upheaval, thinking the subject as "planetary" (cf. G. Ch. Spivak, cf. teaser!), - taking up the great challenges of politics in the 21st century: the utopia (?!) of reflexive solidarity (Spivak), the limits of the planet ( cf. among others John Bellamy Foster (ed.): The Ecological Rupture. Capital's war against the planet. )
Green thinking, planetary thinking and action, philosophy.









Starting from the bicycle

















à propos. Ecological footprint !!!
Cycling in Vienna and everywhere else, - Cycling goes always and everywhere !
















Cycling in Vienna, Mountain biking in Vienna, Road biking in Vienna, Bicycle in Vienna, Ride a bike in Vienna, Philosophy in Vienna, Philosophy and Sports
         Adventure Philosophy            Adventure Philosophical Practice 





The idea that the structure necessarily has a center was recognized by Derrida as metaphysical, i.e. as also belonging to the knowledge of domination and thus to the "will to power" in the form of the "will to truth".



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

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



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



The trace (the being related to each other of different elements), - the trace is neither visible nor invisible. The estate, - the estate is the trace of the trace or the trace of the extinction of the trace. "Thus it can be seen that all the determinations of such a trace - all the names given to it - belong to the metaphysical text that guards the trace and not to the trace itself. There is no trace itself and no real trace." (J. Derrida, Randgänge p. 86 and J. D., Schrift und Differenz, p. 308f., 326 and J. D., Grammatologie, p. 83, 108f., 114)



I use terms from, for example, semiotics or Barth's semiology, but immediately reshape them, I move them to escape the metaphysical logocentric implications. I cannot bypass concepts, because without concepts it is impossible to think. We try to set them and at the same time to de-set them!



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



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


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



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



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



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



One makes "it" conscious !



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



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


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


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

 

 You're seriously asking what my favorite thing to do is? …

 

 Body as physical experience in landscapes ! 




Contemporary Philosophy




The Political Body and the Other




Affections, Inscriptions,




Remembrances





I have to let myself be affected! Let me be affected for this limited stretch of time! Without movement there is no touch, without touch there is no emotion, without emotion there is no strong sensation, which means vivifying, keeping alive.



Hardly a life! Hardly a life without sensations (!?).




Hardly a life without experience (!?).




Experience requires first of all affirmation, otherwise it is no experience (!?).





The work and the truth / landscape and body




Post/anthropocene ( !? ) philosophy and practice



Life Biography



 You're seriously asking what my favorite thing to do is? …

 

Du fragst ernsthaft, was ich am liebsten tu? …

Am meisten mag ich es "herumzuradeln", - meine „Seele“, meine Laune, meine Reflexe, meinen Verstand, meine Gesundheit und „die Welt“ zu bewahren !

Most of all I like to "cycle around", - to preserve my "soul", my mood, my reflexes, my mind, my health and "the world" !


In the long run the probably(!) the only possible(!) and probably(!) the only imaginable(!), because under inclusion of all factors known to us logically derivable and thus perhaps realistic rescue of the earth as a living planet and the preservation of body and life and lust for life and thus the further witness of time, life, work and history !!!

 

 Most of all I like to "cycle around", - to preserve my "soul", my mood, my reflexes, my mind, my health and "the world" ! 



Cycling goes almost always and almost everywhere in the world! And philosophizing is also possible almost always, if you reserve the time for it ! 




 Anna Lydia Huber on MTB 


Anna Lydia Huber here in the popular wodemaking with bike and with backwheelie, doing the popular logging of several logs/tree trunks placed one behind the other, pulling up and jumping from one to the next with the rear wheel, then 180 degree turn in the air and back the same way



Anna Lydia Huber on MTB 


Anna Lydia Huber on MTB 



Gerhard Kaucic on MTB


Gerhard Kaučić  doing the popular logging of several logs/tree trunks placed one behind the other, pulling up and jumping from one to the next with the rear wheel, then 180 degree turn in the air and back the same way 



Gerhard Kaucic on MTB

Gerhard Kaucic on MTB


Most of all I like to "cycle around", - to preserve my "soul", my mood, my reflexes, my mind, my health and "the world" ! 


Cycling goes almost always and almost everywhere in the world! And philosophizing is also possible almost always, if you reserve the time for it ! 



 Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax (*1959), Philosopher, Writer, Philosophical Practitioner, Vienna, Austria, Europe  



Kurzbiographie / Curriculum Vitae / Bio / Vita / Lebenslauf / Karriere / Lebensgeschichte / Lebensgangschreibung / Lebensgang - Beschreibung / Lebensgangerschreibung / Lebensbeschreibung / Lebensschreibung / Biographie / Biografie / Resümee / ( CV ):

Short Biography / Curriculum Vitae / Bio / Vita / Course of Life / Personal Record / Career / Autobiographic(al) Statement / Résumé / Life Story / short curriculum vitae / ( CV ): 
Kürzestbiographie  in wenigen mageren Daten und Stich- und Schlagworten (Deutsch):

Gerhard Kaucic , -
geb. 1959 in Kufstein ( Tirol );
aufgewachsen hpts. in Saalfelden am Steinernen Meer ( Salzburg );
1976 erste schriftstellerische Versuchsanordnungen und Reflexionen samt autodidaktischem Sprachenlernen ;
1978- 1986 Universität Salzburg;
1977/78 Beginn der intellektuellen Auseinandersetzung mit der Freudschen&n