The Machine The Man Cyborgs Deconstruction
Gerhard Kaučić
Philosopher, Feminist, Mediator, Author, Freerider, born 1959, Dr. phil., age 66, 2025
Associate in the grammatological philosophical Practice since 2009 in Vienna and beyond
Anna Lydia Huber
Philosopher, Feminist, Mediator, Author, Freerider, born 1959, MSc, age 66, 2025
Gerhard Kaučić, Anna Lydia Huber, Philosophical Practitioners
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić (Anna Lydia Huber, Gerhard Kaucic, *1959), Writer
The Machine The Man
Robots Androids
Cyborgs as subject Deconstruction
Narratives, Reports, Analyses, Reflections from the Practice/from my/our Philosophical Practice
Vienna 36 years of practice jubilee (1989-2025 ff.) jubilee 36 years PP 2025
PHILOSOPHICAL PRACTICE Gerhard Kaučić (Dr. phil., b. 1959) & Anna Lydia Huber (MSc, b. 1959) VIENNA AUSTRIA EUROPE
Some preliminary as well as subsequent, perhaps common, but in any case contradictory thoughts on the subject: „Can the machine, the robot, become human, human-analogous or even the new human?“
I think, those, who think in such a way, are subject to some basic errors due to many false assumptions as a result of unquestioned thinking presuppositions, which do not occur in their horizon of thinking.
Presuppositions whose influence on the possibility of thinking of consciousness will not lie in each scientist’s own consciousness, yes, will not even be found in the axiomatics of these sciences in question.
Why the machine cannot be human. But maybe it can even be a little bit human in the future?
Can we think the event human as machine?
Why the machine will not be able to become human.
Why the machine, the robot, the cyborg will probably never be able to become a human being.
Can man become a machine? Can a machine live?
What does living mean ?
What does thinking mean ?
What does it mean to know ?
What does archive mean ?
What is recollection (memory) ?
What does history mean ?
What does text as con-text mean ?
What does biography/bio-Graphy mean ?
What does it mean, – to be/become an event ?
A non-calculative!?!
A historical being!
A being (!) in being present and absent!
Reflections, interventions and informations in the form of a BlogPosting in my/our blog composition, our philosophy blog on Grammatological Philosophical Practice Vienna on the occasion of a philosophical practice in seven parts.
I like to refer here often to our posting in German from February 11, 2018 https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2018/02/maschine-mensch-roboter-dekonstruktion.html
Derrida denies that the power of history is exhausted in always triggering only transformations of a structure that is identically preserved in depth (spatial metaphor!). On the contrary, the matter is to be thought of in such a way that structures also decompose in their entire depth (! space metaphor!).
Thus, changes are more than just transformations of an „always the same“ (Nietzsche).
Also, the meaning of a structural principle does not escape „the law of determination by opposition“ (Saussure) and can be constituted „thus only in the reference game of the s i g n i f i a n t s of a structure“ (Saussure). So we are all „entangled“ in structures (Derrida) and have no chance of ever getting behind our being entangled in structures. Since structures can only be thought without centres, there can be no text centres and no central interpretation. Without a central sense there is no finding of something (a finding presupposes the presence of the thing to be found!), – it can only be an in-vention of something.
The trace (the being related to each other of different elements), – the trace is neither visible nor invisible. The estate, – the estate is the trace of the trace or the trace of the extinction of the trace. „Thus it can be seen that all the determinations of such a trace – all the names given to it – belong to the metaphysical text that guards the trace and not to the trace itself. There is no trace itself and no real trace.“ (J. Derrida, Randgänge p. 86 and J. D., Schrift und Differenz, p. 308f., 326 and J. D., Grammatologie, p. 83, 108f., 114)
The mirror(s) can be extended at will. One premise(!), one more mirror surface and there is another additional interfering infinite game of signifiers. Every discourse, – every discourse becomes a Dis-Par-course.
All the scientific discourses of this world call themselves at least (only) scientific and not more knowledge. A scientific discourse knows (at least according to the signifier) that it cannot be a discourse of the knowledge.
The „inscription“ is not „forever“, every inscription is finally like the subject himself, whose „archive“ can be destroyed like any archive. Also every media archive.
All our tele-technologies (from TV to drone and beyond) cause a deconstruction, in real practice, of traditional concepts and notions of state, citizen, national, foreigner, tourist, native, naturalized, etc., in so far as they are bound to a concrete territory.
Every country has its history, its memory and its special way of dealing with its archive economy.
Whenever one opens an archive, remembers certain events, one brings up the drama, this event, and brings it back to memory.
One makes „it“ conscious !
But awareness is by no means the only thing that matters ! If one speaks of the Holocaust or the Shoah, one is (whether one wants to or not!) paving the way to the individual as well as the so-called national unconscious!
Through the work of raising awareness, things happen which we cannot plan or control. Affections !
Postmodernism, so my thesis, has something to do with Freud, – with the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud!
I mean the raising of the crisis. An epochal crisis of the „Enlightenment“ of the WRITTEN/Scriptures.
On the question and the word „deconstruction,“ see Jacques Derrida’s „Reflections“ in a 1985 „Letter to a Japanese Friend,“ translated into German and reprinted in: J. Derrida, Psyche. Inventions of the Other II. Vienna 2013 (Passagen Vlg., germ. ed.), pp. 15 – 22.
„The word „deconstruction,“ like any other, derives its value of meaning only from an inscription in a chain of possible substitutions, in what is so calmly called a „context.““ (ibid., p. 21)
„In any case, despite all appearances, deconstruction is neither an analysis nor a critique … It is not an analysis in particular because the decomposition (décomposition) of a structure is not a regression to the simple element, to an origin that cannot be further decomposed. These values, like that of analysis, are themselves philosophies subject to deconstruction.“ ( p. 19)
„Deconstruction has place, it is an event (événement) that does not wait for the reflection, the consciousness or the organization of the subject, not even (for the consciousness of the subject) of the modernism/modernity. It deconstructs itself.“ (p. 20, german ed.)
Paul Virilio, Die Sehmaschine. Berlin 1989 (Merve). This excerpt serves me for further of my preliminaries on the subject and as a statement of my incipient deconstruction of the machine and the increasingly space-grasping notions of possible subjecthoods.
p. 136f.: “ At a time when the automation of perception, the invention of artificial vision, the delegation of the analysis of objective reality to a machine is imminent, one should turn again to the nature of the virtual image, an image world without a visible support, whose persistence is based only on a mental or instrumental visual memory/recollection.
Today, when one speaks of the development of audiovisual media, one cannot do so without at the same time asking about the development of that virtual world of images and its influence on behaviors and, moreover, without pointing to that new industrialization of seeing, to the emergence of a veritable market of synthetic perception.
This gives rise to ethical questions, not only about control and surveillance and the paranoia associated with them, but above all to the philosophical question of the doubling of the point of view, of the division of the perception of the environment into the animate, the living subject, and the inanimate, the object, the seeing machine.
These questions, in turn, lead to the question of „artificial intelligence,“ for there will no longer be any new super-software for solving problems of detail, any fifth-generation computer, that will not be able to grasp and perceive the environment.
These instrumentally generated virtual images, no longer accessible to direct or indirect observation, these synthetic images produced by the machine for the machine, will become for us an equivalent of what are now already the mental images of an alien interlocutor… an enigma.
When there is no longer any graphic or videographic expression, an automatic perceptual device will function like a kind of machine fantasy from which we will then be completely excluded.“
Some preliminary, perhaps common, but in any case contradictory reflections on the subject: „Can the machine, the robot, become human, human-analogous, or even the new human?“
Will robots remain working tools or will they become subjects? Knowing subject, with everything that belongs to it? Thinking ability (What does thinking mean?!) or merely combination ability? Through experience permanently rewriting memory/recollection (Freud) with creative memory work or list archive? Queryology?!
And:
Whose property? The property question! The means of production question! Private or state! Who should benefit from the products produced by robot work and above all from the profits? The society as a community, as a world community ultimately and with priority or the individual, in any case privately organized owners of means of production or owners?
And:
The problem of the future, I even think, the main problem of the long future, – unemployment, free time, a life without work, a good, secure and interesting life without work with intelligent and no one negatively affecting activities!
What to do? Who or what are we (then)?
Questions for philosophical practice! A life with philosophical practice for all!?
I think this will be or become one of the definitive(!) necessities for a fulfilling life.
Things to know and to be known in advance
The European Robotics Research Network (EURON) includes around 200 robotics research centers in universities and companies in Europe.
The declared goal of this network is to promote research, education and trade around robotics within Europe.
As a central contact point and especially as a link bridge to the European Commission, this network EURON has an important international function within the European community.
Proposals for roadmaps and research projects for topics in robotics come from this network.
Depending on how the capabilities of robots are seen, different evaluations of robots in the ethical dimension arise.
According to a Roboethics Roadmap (2006), the following evaluation and order emerges:
I will bundle four ways of looking at or imagining.
On the last formation of a future conception of robotics or of robots with consciousness as a new species I would like to direct above all my focus and my attention.
I think, those, who think in such a way, are subject to some basic errors due to many false assumptions as a result of unquestioned and not in their horizon of thinking lying thinking presuppositions. Presuppositions, whose influence on the possibility of thinking of consciousness will not lie in the respective own scientist consciousness, yes, will not even be found in the axiomatics of these sciences in question.
a) Robots are nothing but machines.
In this case Roboethics is comparable to the ethics of any other mechanical science.
b) Robots have an ethical dimension.
The assumption here is that robots have an intrinsic ethical dimension because, as products of humans, they can extend and enhance humans‘ ability to act ethically.
c) Robots are moral agents.
Artificial agents can now act as objects of moral action or as moral agents (themselves). In the opinion of most roboethicists, they do not necessarily have to have so-called „free will“ (note: questionable ancient philosopheme! G. K. ) to be considered acting ethically. Here the focus is put on the action itself(!), and not on the decision to act.
d) Robots are a new species.
According to this view robots will not only have consciousness(!, sic, G. K.), but in morality and intelligence(! Sic, which form of intelligence!, G. K.) they will exceed the human dimensions.
Many concepts and attempts of conceptualization from the thinking of metaphysics. Many misconceptions and groundlessnesses (! sic! ground and abyss! Cf. below in the text to it!).
We will try to go into it and to call up, disseminate and deconstruct these terms in the course of this epilogue of my philosophical practice as call.
I consider the above formulation as originating from the foundations and laws of the capitalist market and thus as a „wish machine“ (Deleuze) of property. The technical, artistic or literary imagination always already designs absurd machines. On the one hand by wish-driven overestimation of physical possibilities or by logical impossibilities.
It is no longer about a confrontation of man and machine insofar as one tries to facilitate the life of man by all kinds of extensions, prosthetizations or replacements, no, it is rather about the fact that one connects man with the machine and vice versa, in order to create, to program from it, as it is said above, a new species, – in order to see(!) that from now on it will be or should be about a unity: man as machine or even better(!), the machine as man, as new(!) man! According to this, from then on there shall be human machines and humans!
This wishful thinking regards the man and the machine as a kind of purely evolutionary development in steps without taking all the necessary social conditions into the sight(!).
If we consider the productive forces isolated from the social conditions, there is no possibility for us to observe, to describe or even to regulate these wishful machines in connection with all the realities like violence, oppression, enslavement, scarcity of resources and many other relevant connections together in the course of the setting operations.
The societies of humans, animals, plants are simply left out. One corporation is secretly working on military robots, another on high-tech medical machines with nanotechnology, etc., etc. …
I would like to note here, „freedom“ looks different!
I rarely use the word freedom, because freedom as such cannot exist and never will have existed.
There has always been freedom from and dependence on. Even today we are in a certain way in a game of freedom in connection with and within the respective political machine (cf. my BlogPost in German on the DDR – Rechtsstaat oder Unrechtsstaat).
The word freedom (cf. my/our post on „Freedom and Crisis. Crisis of Freedom) contains numerous metaphysical deposits and sedimentations.
Metaphysical presuppositions, too, which ascribe and attribute a sovereign independence to consciousness with free will, to the subject, more precisely to the egological subject (Husserl), i.e. a subject as thinking I, being as thinking I, one without drives/instincts, without economy and without machine.
This kind of man or this kind of thinking of man would already come very close to a machine.
A man without body, without history, without biography in connection with history and time and above all a man without relation to economies of most diverse provenances.
A thinking without consciousness of self!
A thinking without being present with absences! Without present absent (compare my Blogspot-Teaser and my Blogspot-Blog-Footer 2014 ff. to it!).
We want to remain vigilant against scientistic positivism, although I have great respect for the specialists, – except when they (mostly) in the absence of a philosophical culture try to interfere with it (especially with ethics and philosophy).
In other words, it is always difficult, – I don’t like it if one can’t listen and always leads the big word without preconditions of an adequate reading/lecture.
The scientists damage the reputation of the sciences and do not do a good service to thinking.
The interest in machine-like things and even machines themselves (but what does everything mean here already „machine“) I know quite well at myself (from the bicycle over the society mechanisms up to the space capsule and beyond), however I am not ready to put a pure simple thinking (can one call this „thinking“?) , which links mechanical formations with human states or connects them mentally under-complex or tries to put them into one, that I share such a talking shop in any way or would find interesting.
These models of thinking of „intelligence“ (what is that please?) and complexity do not reach by far to what there is to think about – at the subject complex man/machine, machine_human.
Let’s try a definition of machine.
Freud provides me with some additions in the process! Derrida writes about this in „Freud and the Scene of Writing“. Freud speaks of an economy, of reality, desire, repetition and the compulsion to repeat ( please also see my Youtube videos on „Language and the Unconscious“ ! ).
Freud speaks of unconscious calculation, that is, of an economy of repetition.
As soon as one speaks of calculability and repetition and this is present in something, we are talking about a machine and the reality of a machine!
The calculability of something inevitably includes an incalculable (cf. my two postings on Gezi Park and the incalculability of the Principle/Theorem of Reason).
The incalculable belongs to a different order than the calculable.
All unpredictable/unforeseeable events (keep looking at the metaphor of seeing, the seeing machine!) are represented by the Other! The Other is the unpredictable/the unforeseeable! By definition, the figure and configuration of the incalculable! (cf. my/our teaser on this!)
That which goes or would go beyond the machine is, in its core or essence, an event that is not programmable or an event that does not necessarily have to remain programmable.
A human-machine or a machine-human, – what is that?
What is this event and if so, how to do it count! With a free will!!! With Freud’s economy of unconscious calculation!!! An event with the calculation of the other?! Of repetition! The desire! The compulsion of repetition! A complexity of pleasure!? A complexity without lust?! A robot!
A machine with or without surplus!?
Is there such a machine? Is a machine without surplus imaginable?
Can life come to a standstill? Absolute standstill? That is, death.
Can a machine be?
And what would a human machine be? Man and machine or man as machine?!
We have, I have defined the machine as the dispositive (the dis-positive, not the positive!!!) of calculation and repetition/reiteration.
If something goes beyond that into the incalculable, into the non-programmed and non-programmable, then it should be able to be called the event of life.
Non-programmable is the other order of something that is not foreseeable(!).
It is!,- but not visible, not recognisable, it is absent, still absent, perhaps absent remaining and present at the same time, present absent as a trace.
Not a trace of the visible! A trace of absent present singular remaining difference of elements related to each other.
A trace is neither visible nor invisible. The enactment is the trace of the trace or the trace of the extinction of the trace. „Thus it can be seen that all the determinations of such a trace – all the names given to it – belong to the metaphysical text that guards the trace and not to the trace itself. There is no trace itself and no essential trace.“ (J. Derrida: Randgänge, p. 86, germ. ed.).
The ‚trace‘, – the being related to each other of differentiated elements!!!
A chain of differencing substitutions. Différance (!) The non-full, the non-simple origin of differences.
Freud’s neurological model of the functioning of the psychic apparatus (!) speaks of the origin of the recollection between the trajectories.
The trace as thought of recollection is not a pure trajectory. It is the intangible and invisible (!) difference between the trajectories and there is no pure trajectory without differences. Life protects itself with the help of reiteration, the trace and! … and the deferral/the procrastination (différance).
After all these somewhat more difficult passages on the definition or imagination of man and machine, Freud’s evocations reveal talk of an apparatus, a psychic apparatus with recollection,- something like a machine after all!!!???
Not so quickly and not necessarily.
The human being and his recollection, the human being and his unconscious, the human being and his trajectories of desire and reality, the influences of which permanently influence recollection and thus life, thus change it, permanently change it every second and even less. Shifting and deferring.
Memory and its recollection and language and thinking about oneself and the self. The unconscious!
Let us not forget psychoanalysis when we speak of or even think of the human being!
Let us not forget the unconscious! Language and the unconscious (Please read Alenka Zupancic: Why Psychoanalysis? Berlin 2009, esp. „Intervention II: Freedom and Cause“, pp. 31-55, german ed.).
So let us not forget: what we would have to think here would be the event with the machine!
As an unpredictable/unforeseeable event, no seeing can recognise the arrival of a coming.
No apparatus, no seeing machine, no organ, no brain, no mind can challenge the Other. The Other is always the uncalculable.The other, that which first arrives at us, the incalculable, the unpredictable, that is what underlies the proposition/the principle of the reason with its difficulties and to which this principle of the reason is subject, yes, this knowledge belongs to the responsibility of those who speak of the robot machine, dream of it, imagine it as a desirable machine and, insofar as it is and will continue to be an event, will also have to answer for it.
Also the talk, the extremely (also for me) fascinating chatter and talk about robots, robotics, roboethics, philosophy, science, ethics, scientism, consciousness, artificial intelligence, new species, responsibility, queryology and all the other more or less carelessly used metaphysical terms, – let us never stop thinking about being human, reflecting on it and exchanging ideas in thinking up to the unpredictable/unforeseeable limits of the machine.
And!!! Let us not and never forget psychoanalysis!!!
Once again, as a basic prerequisite and foundation for any serious thinking about the subject and its „humanum„(!): Alenka Zupančič: Warum Psychoanalyse? Drei Interventionen, Berlin 2009, german edition, Verlag diaphanes, Zürich-Berlin, 76 Seiten, – original in English, Why Psychoanalysis? Three Interventions 2008 (more cf. https://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/answers-by-alenka-zupancic/ ).
To be able at some point to bring into the consciousness of the scientists the train of thought that there is an unconscious and that this knowledge of it irritates the philosophy of consciousness, the philosophy of the subject, the philosophy of responsibility and thus tends towards a philosophy of the decentered subject with the intention of creating a consciousness of responsibility with very special caution, Scepticism and careful attention to all the fragility of being human, will never remain for me without hope for improvement, – a hope for science with the most all-embracing prudence, transparency, responsibility and participation in the political and social discourse of our time.
The uniqueness of the human being and of every human being cannot be reduced to machine-like calculation. The Singular is the secret of the human being, of every human being!
The secret clings to such a „transcending“ of something. The secret could be that which seems impossible, even the impossible altogether, – becoming the political, as the experience of an impossible. The impossible is the singular! (cf. Derrida, Politics of Friendship, p. 55 and The Unconditional University, p. 73, germ. ed.)
The political grows out of the experience of the singular because of the secret that is a prerequisite for the experience of the singular, or better still, that adheres to it, remaining as the presence of absence. This is the coming democracy, the democracy that is always just arriving.
„And the secret is not something that I conceal within myself; it is not me.
The secret is not the secret of the idea that one locks up in one’s own head and decides not to tell anyone; it is rather a secret that coexists with the experience of the singular.
The secret cannot be reduced to the public sphere – yet I do not call it private – nor can it be reduced to the public or the political, at the same time this secret underlies that from which the public sphere and the sphere of the political are capable of being, and of being open.“
(( Jacques Derrida: ibid, Remarks on Deconstruction and Pragmatism, – in: Ch. Mouffe (ed.): Deconstruction and Pragmatism. Democracy, Truth and Reason. Vienna 1999 (Passagen Verlag), p. 178f., germ. ed. ))
René Descartes (1595-1650) attributed self-consciousness to humans and declared animals to be machines. René Descartes considered animals – in contrast to humans – to be reductively explainable automata (De homine ,1622). Read my post on animal philosophy on this.
The machine paradigm appears in the history of the early modern era. The thinking and construction of mechanics and the enthusiasm generated by new inventions and the discovery of new physical laws gave rise to talk of the body without a soul and, as a countermovement, of the soul without a body.
While Descartes excluded man from the machine paradigm, La Mettrie also thought of man as composed like or as a machine.
„Descartes and all the Cartesians, – among whom one counts the Malebranchists, – have made the same mistake. They have assumed two precisely distinguishable substances in man, as if they had seen such and counted them correctly.“ (La Mettrie: Man a Machine. Leiden 1747, p. 17, germ. ed.)
Note also here the index words of the argument: see and count! „Seen“ and „counted“ !
The concept is determined by the growing heuristic significance of descriptive-empirical thinking, which was only really set in motion(!) by mechanics.
As a result of the thesis of a world machine, not only the objects of classical mechanics, such as planetary orbits or inanimate bodies, but also biological organisms including psychological phenomena(!) and including the functioning of society are understood in terms of this concept.
All these areas are in fact thought of as machines!
Metaphysics began to lose influence. Everything began to be subordinated to empiricism and thus to technology.
Only the thinking of the quantum theorists made the thinking of an empiricism (with in each case what presuppositions and conceivable and inconceivable(?!) consequences!?) without self-reflection a perceivable dangerous enterprise (just think of the responsible(!!!) and so terribly misguided nuclear physicists, military leaders and politicians).
„The mind’s thinking invents and makes. Its precepts can be carried out and multiply making by endless repetition. A world constitution is created in which a few minds construct the machines, create, as it were, a second world, in which the masses then serve as the function of execution.
The other thinking, the thinking of reason, does not make possible execution according to instructions in masses, but requires everyone to think as himself, to think originally.“ (Karl Jaspers: The Atomic Bomb and the Future of Man. Munich 1982)
„In view of (1) fascism and Stalinism, the (2) destruction of the environment hitherto also associated with the progress of natural and social technology, as well as the (3) elimination of the critical subject and history carried out in the methodological approach of many sciences and theories of science, it seems a mockery to call the present in relation to the past par excellence progress or even the age of enlightenment.“
(Thomas S. Kuhn, author of: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as the theorist and philosopher of science of the „paradigm shift“ as the basis of any scientific revolution, here operated as a historian of philosophy with an attempt at a critical insight into the relations of science and society).
The urban theorist and sociologist Lewis Mumford describes in his major work „Myth of the Machine. Culture, Technology and Power.“ (1967 Engl. edition, Germ. V. 1974) the emergence and history of Western civilisation as a technocratic culture organised as a global mega-machine.
The thinking of the machine and the thinking of man (or „only“ animals!) as a machine and the thinking of society as a machine already takes a centuries-long path. The way a society of humans deals with animals shows a way of dealing with them as if they were machines to be crammed into garages.
Without empathy. Cruel.
And, we want to remind you of this once again and take it as a warning to us and all of our behaviour towards each other, not that it is not already more than bad enough what we do to the animals, no, let us think with Hans Wollschläger about the animals and the people and the „Potential Mengele“! „Animals look at you“, (in German Original: „TIERE SEHEN DICH AN“ oder Das Potential Mengele. 1987) is the title of his writing and means the mass killings, the slaughters and the keeping of animals in general, the togetherness! The non-togetherness!
The war of the species! (Cf. my/our posting on animal philosophy here in my/our blog).
Devastating(!).
And the Holocaust.
Let us never forget that with all the reasons and justifications that led to it.
Well, the limit of the human being in relation to the animal and in relation to the machine. What is the limit to the robot, the new species proclaimed by some scientists, empiricists, technicians.
Jacques Derrida’s „grammatology“ cannot be a science of man „because from the very beginning it poses the question, fundamental to it, of the name of man“ (J. D.: Grammatology, 1974, p. 148, germ. ed.).
Compare also my teaser to the blogspot-Blog 2014 ff. on this!
Grammatology poses this question by placing man as a unit under suspicion and bringing the concept(!) of différance into play.
Grammatology poses this question by placing man as a unity under suspicion and bringing into play(!) the concept (which cannot be a concept in the conventional sense!, – cf. my post on deconstruction „What is deconstruction“ as well as my teaser and blog footer on it) of différance.
And this d i f f é r a n c e is nothing less than the history and explanation of life.
And since grammatology thinks graphy (cf. my dissertation „Grammato t e c h n e als G r a m m a t o logie der ‚Herzgewächse` oder von der Inkommunikabilität, Salzburg 1986) and since it thereby thinks the name of man, it is compelled to refer the elaboration of the concept of „différance“ to the palaeoanthropology of Leroi-Gourhan.
And this means reading the unity of the human being as a stage or articulation in the history of life as the history of the „gramma“ and thus of the concept of the programme (cf. m. Posts on „Postanthropocene“ and on „Religion and Society“ in 3 parts from April 2017 or the English version „The Religious Deconstruction Religion and Society“ from January 2021, link: https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-religious-deconstruction-religion.html
as well as teaser and footer Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.).
„Undoubtedly, this term is to be understood entirely in the sense of cybernetics, which can only be understood through a history of the possibilities of the trace as the unity of a double movement of protention and retention.
This movement far exceeds the possibilities of >intentional consciousness<, which is itself an emergence that makes the gramma emerge as such (that is, corresponding to a new structure of non-presence) and undoubtedly makes the emergence of writing systems in the narrower sense possible in the first place.“ (J. Derrida: Grammatology 1974, p. 149, germ. ed.)
This means that intentional consciousness and its origins as possibilities predate the emergence of man. The différance is based on the concept of the ProGram as the history of life, i.e. as the general history of the gramma, and because this is older than human graphy in particular, the différance denies the opposition animal/human and the opposition nature/culture.
The history of the gramma is at the same time the history of electronic data processing, reading machines, seeing machines, sensor technology, robotics, and others.
The gramma structures all levels of life as well as the continuation of life by other means: „from gene writing … to the overcoming of alphabetic writing assigned to logos and assigned to a particular homo sapiens“ (J. D. p.149ff.).
And starting from processes of „liberation of recollection/memory“ , which Leroi-Gourhan describes (cf. Bernard Stiegler: Technik und Zeit. Zürich-Berlin 2009, p. 184, germ. ed.) and thus „an exteriorisation of the trace, which has always begun and is constantly increasing, which expands the différance and the possibilities of storage from the elementary programmes of so-called >instinctive< behaviour to the production of electronic data processing and reading machines“. (J. D., p. 149ff.)
The history of man is the history of gramma (including electronic data processing), a history of technology. The invention of man is technology. The inventing as well as the invented technology.
The traditional thinking of technology from Plato to today has thus been shut down.
The “ consciousness “ is to be considered as a stage of différance! It is the transition from the genetic to the non-genetic. (André Leroi-Gourhan: Hand and Word. Frf. 1988, p. 275 u. 285, german edition)
The cultural codes, like the genetic codes, are „behavioural >programmes<; like them, they give form, order and direction to life.“ (Paul Ricœur: Time and Narrative. Vol.1, Munich 1988, p. 96, german ed.)
How to think: such a detachment! Such a transition from one interval to another with a complete reorganisation of the code system!
The unthinkable question!!!
„… the unthinkable question of an absolute past, of an incomprehensible present that can only be an infinite abyss“, a collapse, says Ricœur.
The first man who has been dead >>or rather thought to be dead<< is that of the first present, the first transient ecstasy of the past, the present and the future: a past that has never been present gives a present that is not connected to any past present.
We will find this abysmal question as a paradox of exteriorisation in Leroi-Gourhan. (B. Stiegler: Technology and Time, p. 186, germ. ed.)
Time has existed since life existed.
„… the trace is the différance that opens appearance and meaning as the articulation of the living in the non-living par excellence, as the origin of all reiteration/repetition“. (J. Derrida: Grammatology. p. 114)
It is about the question of the temporality of life. It is about the past, which I have not experienced and yet which is my past and through which I receive something transmitted. A kind of inheritance structure. I inherit a fate, so to speak.
For example, the fate of storing an organ defect in my gene script.
The origin always remains obscured to me. But it is transmitted to me. In the history of the living, the phenomena of life singularise in me as my existence.
Not necessarily a deterministic programme of the biological, but rather a programme that is influenced or can be influenced from outside and afterwards, a kind of tradition, a traditioning of so-called epigeneses, a storage of what has happened and what the past has given me.
History. Recollection. Memory. Consciousness. Unconscious. Dreams. Reworking potentials. Filters for my present. Also influenceable, conceivably influenceable by me and my life’s progress (partly fatefully unpredictable/uncalculable).
By no means everything is articulated or articulable.
Epiphylogenesis transmits its identity to the human individual. The physical structure, the gait/way of walking, the tone of voice, the dialect, the gestures in part.
In any case, we hold on to Leroi-Gourhan’s statement, man invents himself in technology by inventing the tool.
The tool is invented and thus, more or less simultaneously, man invents himself and man invents the tool, always back and forth.
I have often spoken in my blog about „adapting the body to its use“!
We do this constantly in our human history. Think of the use of weapons invented to preserve life and power. Or sport. We adapt the body – to use!
Medicine and its manufactured machine parts (e.g. a knee joint, a new heart, the whole implantation complex, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.) help us to live and survive. All these machines are for health, we say. The preservation of the species, perhaps. So we think. Species destruction, perhaps.
And most certainly, our life process today is causing the species extinction of other organisms many times over.
Robots with consciousness! A new species. That is what was said at the beginning of these lines. This species as a new break in the movement of life, a gramma. Androids!
Androids as a further evolution of the living, the half-living? How do we want to name and question this. Androids are human-like without being human. What would that mean? Without human fragility, without human sensitivity, without dreams, without the unconscious, without the past and thus without the present and the presentness.
Wouldn’t the android be a merely(!?) very well programmed calculator. A knower!? Consciousness knows past, present and future. Time.
Consciousness lives from the unconscious and vice versa. Language lists including any situation-calculated combination ability for linguistic interactions are still far from speaking and thinking towards the concrete you, starting from an I with feeling and creative mind potential including awareness of the past, – also a past that will always have arisen in the second after each second of partially realised present and presence including absence effects.
Our overtaxable and often, actually always overtaxed sensory perceptualism with exclusion filter functions for the protection of the brain and its survivability together with the associated sleep phases for reworking the recollection content and the memory household.
Human interaction and communication is very very complex and fascinating. Mechanical engineering and specifically robotics, robotics, information technology, kinetics, etc. are too.
But honestly! Are we still in the 16th, 17th, 18th century of Descartes or LaMettrie with this thinking, – animals, humans even, are machines!!!?
Are we still living techno-philosophically in the thinking of the machine paradigm!!!? (La Mettrie: Man a Machine. Leiden 1747, p. 17, germ. ed.)
Let us not forget psychoanalysis, and by no means psychoanalysis!
Let us not forget the Other!
Let us not forget the unforeseeable, the incalculable, the coming!
The always-arriving future in the present!
Let us not forget psychoanalysis.
„The forgetting of psychoanalysis does not necessarily take place outside psychoanalysis or its institutional space. It can happen right in the heart of psychoanalysis.
So when I say, >> Will we / would we like to forget psychoanalysis?<<, this we is not without including some psychoanalysts.“ (Jacques Derrida: Let us not forget – psychoanalysis! (Suhrkamp), Frankfurt 1998, p. 7, germ. ed.)
And now, towards the forerunning/preliminary end, letting the cyborg logicians have their say.
The typewriter as an invention for the blind to make mechanical writing accessible to them. A prosthesis that greatly changed communication. Everyone eventually had to learn how to use this writing prosthesis without looking at the keyboard. So to speak, an experience of blindness was useful in order to be able to use the accelerating prosthesis.
Every invention challenges our bodies. We adapt them to use.
With the help of a technological supplement, our living organs are changed, very often reinforced or improved. A prosthesis for long distance hearing is the telephone. Television is a prosthesis of the eye and the ears. Likewise, the radio, the bicycle, the automobile, the habitation and many other inventions as interventions of our lives.
La Mettrie’s man-machine (or Descartes‘ animal-machine) are based on the idea of a biological body, which is a complex but mechanical system of corresponding interactions for actions of all kinds.
Albertus Magnus‘ Automaton dreams up a mechanistic model as an equivalent substitute for a human agent, the so-called robot. The 17th and 18th centuries declared man to be a machine, the 19th and 20th centuries speculated and experimented with machines that would know how to behave like humans.
The 21st century talks about a new species with consciousness and free(!) will including decision-making abilities and speaks of culpability, judgement and roboethics.
This creates the image of a threatening living machine. A machine that desires consciousness (cf. Fritz Lang’s Metropolis ) anticipates the cyborg portrayed by Schwarzenegger in Terminator.
The robot as a place of negotiation between the human body and the machine. On the one hand, as a prosthesis for a body part to enhance an ability, and on the other hand, the machine as an organism that uses workers in industry as organs for the production of something.
The cyborg is the prosthetic embodiment taken to the extreme. It is no longer a mechanical system whose organs would have to correspond with each other, but a communicating biological-technological open system, a quasi-living being that is connected to hypertextual networks, acts partly sensorially-visually (Virilio’s vision machine!) and results in a kind of independently(!?) thinking (!?) prosthesis.
A new species(!??!), – as some engineers, cyberneticists and information and communication scientists postulate with great passion (cf. on this the historian of science, women’s researcher and feminist Donna Haraway: The Reinvention of Nature. Primates, Cyborgs and Women. Frankfurt am Main 1995).
The Cyborg as Writing Format. A hypertext-controlled machine with a biotechnologically manufactured body and, within certain (in my opinion narrow) limits of what can be said(!), a communicative buddy of a possible future that is perhaps just arriving.
But beware!
Cybernetic technologies are not neutral or particularly human-friendly.
In truth, they are always about the preservation or expansion of socio-economic structures, almost always about economic imperialism.
In Donna Haraway’s words, cybertechnologies are the result of power structures, but at the same time represent sites of resistance, invention and intervention, a space of reinvention of nature, perhaps also of politics and society as a world community.
Or, with many other critical voices (Josef Weizenbaum, Erwin Chargaff, Peter Singer, Jeremy Rifkin, Barbara Duden, Hartmut Böhme, Renate Genth, Claudia v. Werlhof, Günther Anders, Gerburg Treusch-Dieter, and others) formulated as a warning:
In the interaction of genetic engineering and biosciences, the information sciences and robotics as cybertechnologies, a human-machine monster has just emerged and is emerging, a transformation configuration that attempts to transform the living into the machine or machine-compatible in order to get it under control and power of disposal as „one’s own creation“ – a power over life and death, a power over the consciousness and unconscious of the individual and society.
Robot people, cyborg human machines?! A new species!?! The Supermankind!!! ( see my essay Nietzsche’s Shadow Walker from „The Green F Abyss“ No. 5/6, 1989/90, p.11-17, in german only ).
Are we in a rupture phase as described above the transition from inanimate to animate? Are we just in such a „fold/inflection/pli„, in such an interval of just-not-yet-quite-but-yet-almost-quite?!
Are we again facing an inscription of the animate into the inanimate, of the animate into the inanimate and vice versa?! The new (and perhaps sole !) species of the post-anthropocene!?
Is it conceivable/thinkable!? The order of plants, animals, humans, machine humans!!!
Reversing the order of questions, no longer considering the name crypt to be a metaphor in the common sense, this will perhaps mean moving from psychoanalysis and in it from a new cryptology to an anasemic radical semantic change that psychoanalysis has introduced into language (Nicolas Abraham/Maria Torok: „L’écorce et le noyau“. Paris 1978.).
A new ethics in the history of consciousness?! What ethics? What ethos? What responsibility?
We need laws to make the cyborg at home in a human world, to let it live under human rights conditions and to prevent it from living among us under „inhuman“(!) conditions with all conceivable and unthinkable (cf. science fiction on this) crime situations/misbehaviour in its luggage.
So robot ethics after all?
Everyone talks about ethics. Do robots as cyborgs also have „pleasure“/desire/lust? Pain bodies and pleasure bodies!
Principle of reality! Human rights!? Human duties!? Responsible practice and practices!
In antiquity, it was above all Epicurus who strictly separated human action from divine principles and created a purely materialistic system of ethics. On the basis that the pleasure(!) of the individual was both the origin (!, cf. Freud!) and the path and goal of everything worthwhile, he came to the conclusion that ultimately all actions, even ethical ones, were committed for the sake of personal advantage.
However, the pursuit of pleasure in ethics does not necessarily lead to antisocial behaviour, for it is „not possible to live pleasurably without living rationally, beautifully and justly“ ( Epicurus: Von der Überwindung der Furcht, ed. by O. Gigon, Zurich 1983, S.59, germ. ed. ).
However, since in practice one cannot be sure that this wisdom will reach every individual, according to Epicurus, it is advisable to always conclude contracts in public life. The basis of such contracts is the ethical maxim „neither to harm one another nor to allow oneself to be harmed“ (Epicurus, ibid., p. 64).
There must therefore also be access to reality for cyborgs. Consciousness is not free-floating and independent of reality and perceptual abilities.
According to Freud, the principle of reality is „one of the two principles that dominate psychic processes. It forms a pair with the principle of pleasure, which it modifies. To the extent that it succeeds in asserting itself as a regulatory principle, the search for satisfaction no longer proceeds along the shortest paths, but takes detours and postpones its outcome because of conditions imposed by the external world.
… from the dynamic point of view, psychoanalysis tries to base the intervention of the principle of reality on a certain kind of drive energy that is specifically at the service of the ego (see: ego drives (or instincts)).“ (J. Laplanche, J.-B. Pontalis: The Vocabulary of Psychoanalysis. Frankfurt am Main (Suhrkamp Tb) 1982, Second Volume, p. 427, germ. ed.).
Species, consciousness and ethics, human rights, contracts, man and society, desire and reality, – also and especially from a legal point of view no easy-to-handle terms and comprehensibilities in association with a proclaimed new species.
And towards the provisional end as guilt and gift: responsibility!
Deconstruction has an ethical component, perhaps even a purposefulness (without wanting or being able to be method or critique), a purposefulness towards responsibility for the other!
Deconstruction could be a certain destabilisation in things, in the conditions of something. Every progress needs destabilisation of existing solidifications, first in real existing relations of power forces, accompanied by a destabilisation in the hitherto used supposedly firmly defined concepts, and again accompanied by a shift in the concepts, relations through inscriptions and thus accompanying rewritings of political evaluations and, as a consequence, transformations of real power relations, structures and power differences.
Deconstruction maintains a relationship to the Other. In the relationship to the Other, responsibility arises and the attempt as a temptation of justice.
Lévinas defines the encounter with the other person (face à face) from face to face as the moment in which responsibility can arise under the presupposition that the other is always allowed to be different and wants to be recognised as such an other. In other words, also recognised in its otherness!
The encounter with the Other makes me responsible! Responsible for the singularity of the Other. For the unpredictability of the Other in otherness.
This is what I try to do in my responsible philosophical practice of thinking and acting. I try to take the other as the other is and I try to recognise, to see(!) what the other is or what it can say to me (could say to my otherness).
The deconstructive state of thinking makes me different and an Other. Maybe I encounter the Other more „really“, maybe that means more honestly, maybe more ethically(!). I am trying.
This respective Other could also be a cyborg! ?
Perhaps every human being has a piece of cyborgism in/on him/herself as the other.
What would that be? Perhaps a piece of relative irresponsibility? Threateningness? Fearfulness? Situational and contextual strangeness? For the time being! Or at all?!
Depending on the displacement activity as deconstruction of inscription.
Deconstructions are the movements of what Derrida calls the „de-appropriation“.
But one is mistaken if one thinks one has appropriated something like deconstruction in the singular.
One would have appropriated something like the deconstructions (in the plural) when a system, an individual, an institution is changed or not by what it thinks it appropriates or has appropriated. Inscriptions change and are changed.
This is perhaps also the aversion to deconstruction of so many who (entered or) step into the picture as opponents of deconstruction. Deconstruction is not a seeing machine!
Notice!
The transformation of „consciousness“ is too little!
Guilt and gift ?! Responsibility!
Deconstruction enables the relationship to the Other and the relationship to the Other enables (perhaps) deconstruction. Différance as a game of freedom and liberation.
Becoming time of space and becoming space of time and being different, being recognisable, not being identical! Only the one who is not the same as all the others is recognisable as one, as aAnother!
Otherness of the dissimilar logically requires that between the distinguishable units or elements, interval, distance, spatialisation arise in persistent repetition (Derrida, Randgänge, p. 33, germ. ed.). Other, Other, aOther, …
Time has had existence ever since life has existed.
But Derrida also writes in Grammatology on page 114 (germ.ed.) that „the trace is the différance that opens appearance and meaning as the articulation of the living in the non-living par excellence, as the origin of all reiteration/repetition“. Absolute past, incomprehensible present and an infinite abyss.
A past that has never been present generates a present that is not connected to any past present.
The concept of différance (which can never be entirely a concept, not a concept of all or nothing) and the rupture in différance is an attempt and a temptation to ‚grasp‘ this transition.
The meaning of death lies within and outside the economy of life in general. Life, after the rupture, is the economy of death. Logically. Life is thus inscription into death! Inscription into the non-living. The most exciting question here. The brain.
Everything that happens in the human body is just as mechanical as what happens in a clock, Leibniz wrote. Today, a somewhat less naïve comparison is used, that with the cybernetic calculating machine. The comparison of the brain with the computer, however, is no less naïve. Why?
The so-called „cerebral machine“ has two internal systems. On the one hand, the coding of the connections by a neuron network, on the other hand, the coding by patterns of electrical impulses and chemical signals.
And the human brain can autonomously develop strategies for action. Our brain reacts to the outside and anticipates future event-creating possibilities and creates its own programmes.
It is made for „self-organisation“ and thus developed for thinking, if thinking means: to grasp/conceptualise, to open up new spaces, to be able to open up; to think could mean to grasp a geography without a map. Knowledge is not thinking! We know a lot, but we don’t think very well today.
Thinking also exists in other mammals. For example, when animals develop and adapt hunting strategies or know how to vary them.
Our brain can produce ideas independently of the visible outside world and use them strategically for our own survival. Our brain obviously(!) does not correspond to any conventional and conceivable(!) kind of machine imagination.
The imprinting by the physical and socio-cultural world remains for years, some even for a lifetime.
Each generation experiences this process anew. The ever-repeated learning process is therefore subject to a time limit.
The death economy of life. Man is born with a brain that reaches the maximum number of its cells before birth. It enables humans to perform mental operations that are denied to other living beings.
The essential elements of the brain structure, which provide for the unity of the human being and are subject to the power of the genes, also signify an „inner representation“ of the world.
It has evolved over the course of generations through the evolution of the genome of its ancestors! (cf. Jean-Pierre Changeux: The Neuronal Man, p. 348, germ. ed.).
You notice the significant differences to the so-called „artificial intelligence“ of robots and cyborgs! ?
Consequently, the human brain harbours or generates at least three forms of an internal representation of the world, whose emergence and lifespan span time spans from a tenth of a second to several hundred million years.
Each of these modes of representation expands the „field“ of the represented world.
The ability to produce impermanent representations „opens“ the brain organisation to the social and cultural environment.
In contrast, a genetically completely determined brain would probably not have survived for lack of successful adaptability to world conditions and world changes.
These changing „new worlds“ of impermanent representations of world in the brain then continue to develop on their own, albeit according to rules that are linked to the capacity of the brain structure (J.-P. Changeux, ibid.,).
The idea of spontaneous multiplication through recombination of neuron complexes, followed by selection through resonance, is captivating.
I hope I have been able to bring to your attention some criteria that I consider decisive for daring to define a new species or for considering it impossible.
More of this in my Philosophical Practice as Grammatological Philosophical Practice!
Finally, here are a few rounding tactical thrusts concerning our lives (perhaps also as survival!).
Our world. Our brain. Our life. Our environment.
The capitalist mode of production and consumption!!!
The production and consumption model in the capitalist Metropolises!!!
According to Karl Marx, interest-bearing capital is „the mother of all mad forms“ (MEW 25, 483, germ. ed.).
Keywords: Rising mass consumption! Rising mass consumption of limited land and raw materials!!! Throwaway society!
Monocultures! Extinction of species! Biodiversity! Hunger! System collapse!? Or radical cure including redirection and radical change of global economic geography!!???
Regulation of capitalism a way out or a wrong way or an aporia!?
What is economic freedom?!
Is it in any way related to freedom of speech, press or assembly, i.e. the freedoms that relate to the right to participate in political life and to shape public policy?!
Does economic freedom satisfy basic needs that could be the prerequisite for being able to participate in cultural and political developments? Also an important criteriology for being a human being as a political being – as a political being who can think freely!
Milton Friedman is not a follower of John Dewey’s democratic ideals. He wants freedom of choice and by that he means the freedom to do the buying, i.e. to spend money (he only means those who have some!).
Friedman speaks of freedom beyond state control, i.e. of an „economic landscape“ in which only and really only private forces (should) call the shots.
Freedom as economy and life beyond state and thus social (even communal!) control!
Freedom as the freedom to want to buy better clothes, food! Consumption! ?
Freedom to demand as much money for public schools and universities as the so-called „market“ allows. That is, to the maximum!
Profit maximisation everywhere! Whether school. Whether prison. Whether choice of profession. Whether sperm bank.
The choice is free because it is only, almost only, a matter of money, a question of money as a matter of money management.
The others – those who have no money or too little for housing, education, food – are of no interest from this point of view.
And!, – the freedom of shopping(!) also includes the possibility to buy and sell other people’s livelihood!!!
Also and especially the livelihood(!) of the new species(!) robotic human machine Cyborg.
That means the capital markets are in command. Wall Street.
They alone then decide whether a company is to be continued, where it should be able to develop or whether it should be allowed to go under and be summarily locked up!
Keyword: Rust Belt! Reagan. Thatcher. Bush. Industrial policy no longer exists. Trade unions have to be toothless, if at all. No voice any more. Consumers? Of no interest. Environment! A lie of the left! See Trump, Bannon etc.
The investment banks like Goldman Sachs call the shots. Criticism of this is unwelcome. Many are of this opinion. They advocate freedom of shopping!
Keynes theories need to be reanimated. The leading role of the democratic state and higher public spending financed by a different tax policy (far higher taxation of wealth, machine tax, financial transaction taxes, Yanis Varoufakis‚ „general basic dividend“, cf. Der Standard Sat./Sun., 4/5 March 2017, „Machines, robots and other taxpayers“, in: Der Standard „Commentary of the others“, p. 39 etc., in german) to increase distributive justice on a global scale, – as a result increased opportunities for participation in the political process for as many/all as possible and perhaps still the chance to preserve and protect the life of the still existing species,- also and especially for the benefit of all of us!!!!
We humans also depend on the life of the many insect species. According to a new study, 80% of all insects have been wiped out in the last 20 years!!!!!
Does that make it easier to think of a new species that probably wouldn’t care!!!?
Philosophical practices will need many, many more. Political theories and policy(s) are all grounded in the axiomatics and appreciations of philosophical provenances.
I would like to thank my guests for their inspiring and hopeful reflections, trains of thought and creations of thought – sometimes and always on the edge of the abyss.
No reason without an abyss!? Philosophical practice as a construction site with building blocks, ruins, gravel, scrap and techné and as a free experimental laboratory for walks of thought in thought buildings and ruins, also of an archaeological nature.
And: As always, we have too little time!
Every sentence has too little time. Every sentence displaces by jumping. It displaces many other possible and necessary (!) sentences (for more see my Youtube video on „The Sentence“).
Every sentence, every word, every code has its being and its monstrousness in incommunicability!
Every sentence greets a ghost. Every sentence is a ghost.
Every sentence in every setting and every session (even the one in a PP/philosophical practice).
I should always be able to state all the psychoanalytic, economic, political and juridical implications of what is said/set above.
I refer all readers to my/our publications on the net and to the publications on paper.
The terrain of reading is abysmal(!) and unlimited!
Can our brain keep up with this speed of destruction and develop sufficient counter-strategies in time? Or are we entering the post-anthropocene?! The cyborgs probably don’t care. I do! (cf. m. Posting „Anthropocene, Postanthropocene“ here in this weblog)
Post scriptum/after the bound/Nachsatz:
The tasks of a future democracy/a democracy on the rise/a permanent advent/arrival of democracy/a democracy in the arrival ( Jacques Derrida ), to think the subject as „planetary“ (cf. G. Ch. Spivak, see teaser, – the teaser from my blog; note: the teaser is only visible in the web-version!), – especially concerning the great challenges of politics in the 21st century: Utopia (?!) of reflexive solidarity (Spivak),
borders of a planet (John Bellamy Foster et al. (Ed.): The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth, 2011), deconstructive politics as an ideological-critical reading of the imperial archive, geopolitics, geopolitical involvement, geopolitical interest driven policy and/as value policy, power, morals and human rights, analysis of power, gender and governmentality, teletechnology, cyborg technology, political bodies, complexities of rule, citizenship, parliamentarianism, peace policy, institution building and institution maintenance, economically correct and fair redistribution of social wealth, proper management of Migration (Flüchtlinge, Refugees), …
proper handling of migration (refugees), migration and capitalism, Postkolonialismus, neocolonialism, postcolonialism, Kolonialisierung auf allen Ebenen, Kolonialismus, Rassismus, Faschismus, Neo – Kolonialismus, Ökonomismus, Imperialismus,
Ökonomischer Imperialismus (angeleitet durch die Neue Institutionenökonomik, die Transaktionskostenökonomik und die Prinzipal-Agent-Theorie; im Gefolge des New Public Management treten an die Stelle von Handeln nach Maßgabe professioneller Ethiken Kontraktmanagement mit Zielvereinbarungen und anstelle einer Berufsethik Qualitätsmanagement und Benchmarking samt Controlling und Leistungsrechnung mit all ihren Schattenseiten und ungeplanten Nebenwirkungen, – vgl. Richard Münch: Globale Eliten, lokale Autoritäten, Frf. 2009, Suhrkamp, S. 18 vv.ff.),
the world as environment and its destruction, manmade environmental disasters, shipping, esp. container shipping, pollution of oceans, pollution of soil, greenhouse gases, temperature rise, shortage of resources, prosperity gap,
population density, urban development ( e.g. „Gängeviertel“ in Hamburg, the initiative „Komm in die Gänge“ stands for discourse and practice of a different (!) form of urban development and is an example and symbol that gives hope against gentrification and the destruction of old buildings ),
urban development towards a green city, urban philosophy, reddening of the city, city of dreams, madness and society, madness and city, city and sexuality, desire and city, city as text, city and writing, city as writing, the city and the divided I, the city and the power, the city and the political, the city as a mechanism of discipline, the city as a social testing lab, the city and the philosophical practice with many practices, the world as a city and the other, water wars, religious wars, climate change, climate consequences, global warming, nuclear relicts, climate wars, climate catastrophes, civil wars, „ethnic cleansing“ (!), genocide, violent conflicts, social questions, ecological questions, planetary principle, tradition history, the question of a global government (!?), social catastrophes, terrorism, natural disasters, migration, unstable states, poverty, wealth, corruption, media policy and presence-ideologies, war and non-war, world order and biopolicy, bioengineering, robotics, bio-inspired robotics, Robotertechnologien, weapon development, arms delivery, violent and oppressive power politics, religious fanaticism, party political fanaticism, terrorism, biodiversity, standardization, factory farming, animal factories, animal consumption, „meat production“!, animal rights, animal philosophy,
„animal turn“ (vgl. Anne Peters, Tier-Recht im Zeitalter des Menschen, – in: Renn/Scherer (Hg.), Das Anthropozän. Zum Stand der Dinge. Berlin 2015, S. 67ff.),
ethical norms, euthanasia, terminal care, aging, health and sports, sports and age, ethics and medicine, cyber war, cyber crime, technology and space, political demarcation, deterritorialization, tourism, mass media, mass mediality, neoliberalization of the subjects, power,
truth and passion (vgl.: Gabriele Michalitsch: Die neoliberale Domestizierung des Subjekts. Von den Leidenschaften zum Kalkül. Campus Verlag, Frankf. a. M. 2006, bes. S. 29ff. und S. 101ff.),
sex labour, difference and the shaping of the social ( Antke Engel: Bilder von Sexualität und Ökonomie. Queere kulturelle Politiken im Neoliberalismus. Bielefeld 2009, S. 138ff. ),
automobility, digitalia and upbringing, education, unemployment, debt crisis, failing of democratization, neglect of the common good,
production and consumption (David Harvey), globalized consumption, market fanaticism, power of the market, democratization of the market, power of the globally operating financial markets, education, social policy, urban policy, policy of affordable housing, youth unemployment, social inequality, exclusion, individuality, sovereignty, liberalism, egalitarianism, limits of growth, mobility, traffic and communication, ecology, freedom, justice, interests of corporate groups, turbo-capitalism, global tax culture, international tax evasion, tax fraud, Drogierungsverhalten, drug laws, drug culture,
the own and the foreign, fascism, antisemitism, racism, sexism, human trafficking,
modern slavery (cf.: Kevin Bales, dt. Üs: „Die neue Sklaverei“, engl. V.: K. B., „Disposable People. New Slavery in the Global Economy“ und Hanns Wienold ),
„Neger, Rasse, Rassen-Subjekt, Rassismus, Schwarze Vernunft, Versklavung, Sklaverei, Massenversklavung in der Geschichte gestern heute morgen, das Rassensubjekt/Negro, race, racial subject, racism, black reason, enslavement, slavery, mass slavery in history, yesterday – today – tomorrow, the racial subject“
((cf.: Achille Mbembe: Critique de la raison nègre. Paris 2013 ( Orig. fr. ). Achille Mbembe: Critique of Black Reason. Duke University Press Books 2017 (transl., Laurent Dubois). Achille Mbembe: Kritik der schwarzen Vernunft. Berlin, Suhrkamp, 2014 (ÜS aus d. Franz., Michael Bischoff). )),
arms trade, private purchase of weapons, possession of weapons, increase in complexity, knowledge generation, urbanization and population growth, democracy deficit, sustainability crisis, green energy, energy regime, energy crisis, legitimization crisis, territoriality, agricultural policy, fishing policy, famine (cf. Jean Ziegler),
famine and capitalism, „the right to food“
(( human right, UN-social covenant, Article 11 (1) and (2); human dignity ( primary normative principle of human rights, ethical principle, „dignitas“ (Cicero), the „idea of the good“ (Plato), fundamental „equal worth of all human beings“ (Kant), protection of the human dignity in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union )),
need of land, land grabbing, land robbery, justice, human rights, decolonization of thinking, policy of displacement, solidarity across class, race, and national boundaries (Mohanty, passim),
just policy as a policy of strengthening the weak
(( zum planetarischen Subjekt cf. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: Imperative zur Neuerfindung des Planeten – Imperatives to Re-Imagine the Planet (hg. v. Willi Goetschel engl./dt.). Wien 2013, 2. Aufl., Passagen Verlag, S. 49vv.ff.
and Charles Taylor: Multiculturalism and the „Politics of Recognition“. Princeton 1994, p. 28 ))
And towards the end, more reading for those who want to delve deeper into the practice(!) of deconstruction and world events.
I have found three essay texts from our journal for culture and politics and grammatology „Die Grüne F Abyss“ (1989ff.), which we published in the 1990s, in our Viennese archive and I am happy to make the convolute available in photographed form.
Again and again I receive enquiries about this. I am now meeting the friendly demand for these still very lively texts.
I think they can be studied and read quite well in this form and, if desired, also quoted. As far as I know, 14 numbers of our publication are archived in the Literaturhaus Wien and copies are made available or sent to interested readers on request.
Essay texts (in German) from: Die Grüne F Abyss Nr. 3: Zum ökonomilitärischen Komplex „Psa – Gentechnologie – neuronale Hirnforschung auf dem Weg zur „Spur“ oder was die Gentechnik(er) so gefährlich macht von Domenica Sontag, Die Grüne F Abyss Nr. 3, October 1989, p. 38ff (ed. by Gerhard Kaucic u. Anna Lydia Huber, graphics by Sepp Winter (St. Johann im Pongau)
F Abyss No. 4: „Computer Sprache Übersetzen oder Fragmente zu einer Theorie der ÜS by Gerhard Kaucic, in Die Grüne F Abyss No.4, November 1989, pp. 36 – 41 (Essay in German).
F Abyss No. 5/6: „Nietzsche Schattenwanderer oder Unlesbarkeit dieser Welt“ by Gerhard Kaučić, in: The Green F Abyss No. 5/6 Dec. ’89 / Jan. ’90, pp. 11 – 17 (Essay in German ).
Attention! Text-Pictures better readable: cf.: https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-machine-man-cyborgs-deconstruction.html?m=1
Attention! Text-Pictures better readable: cf.: https://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-machine-man-cyborgs-deconstruction.html?m=1
Please refer to Jacques Lacan.
And start right here in this blog at and with my/our teaser, Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.!
Desire works towards an outside. And desire needs as constant food this outside. To be read by Alenka Zupancic in „Why Psychoanalysis?“
And in Monique David-Ménard (2009) in „Deleuze and Psychoanalysis.“ Especially the chapter „Does a Conceptual Invention Bring the Infinite into Play? >>Finishing the Judgment<< (1993),“ pp. 132ff.
I thank my guests for the inspiring and hopeful reflections, trains of thought and thought creations, – sometimes and always also on the edge of the abyss.
And: As always, we have too little time!
Every sentence has too little time. Every sentence displaces by jumping. It displaces many other possible and necessary (!) sentences (for more see my Youtube video on „The Sentence“).
Each sentence, each word, each code drives its being and its mischief in the incommunicability!
Every sentence greets a ghost. Every sentence is a ghost.
Every sentence in every setting and every session (also the one in a PP/philosophical practice).
I should always be able to state all the psychoanalytic, economic, political, and juridical implications of what is said/set above.
I refer all readers to my/our publications on the net and to the publications on paper.
The terrain of reading is abysmal(!) and unlimited!
Kind regards!
Gerhard Kaucic
&
Anna Lydia Huber
The Machine The Man
Robots Androids Cyborgs as subject Deconstruction
Best regards!
Gerhard Kaučić & Anna Lydia Huber
PP Wien/Vienna/Austria/Europe
philosophical practices face à face
„face à face“, confidential one-to-one conversation,
around the clock … around the world
Grammatological Philosophical Practice
Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax Vienna (established 1989) & Anna Lydia Huber, MSc, associate in the grammatological philosophical Practice since 2009 in Vienna and beyond
Adventure Philosophy! JEDES JAHR EIN JUBILÄUM / JEDES JAHR BEWUSST LEBEN …………… Abenteuer Philosophie ……. Abenteuer Leben !!!
……………………………………… Grammatologische Praxis, Philosophische Praxis, Philosophie, was ist Philosophie?, das Verstehen, das Begehren, Verknotung, Knoten von Leben und Schrift u. von Leben als Schrift, Semiologie wird zur Grammatologie, Philosophie als Wissenschaft, differ/a/nce, Sokratismus als Verdummung, Theoria als höchste Form der Praxis. ……………………………………………….
Die Schrift (vgl. Teaser), die Sprache, der Satz, das Wort. Jeder Satz ist ein Sprung!
Persönliche Geschichte und Allgemeingeschichte; Sprache Bewußtsein Unbewußtes; was hat das mit der Allgemeingeschichte, der Erfahrung, der Phänomenologie (z. B. die von Merleau-Ponty), dem Begehren (z.B. Freud, z.B. Lacan, z. B. Melanie Klein), der Bearbeitung, der Wirklichkeit, der „psychischen Realität“ (Freud) zu tun (?!) ……………………………………………………..
SPRACHE, DENKEN, PHILOSOPHIE, UBW: …………. GASTFREUNDSCHAFT PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS ……
……………………………………………………………………….. Gastfreundschaft Philosophische Praxis ……………………………………………………………………. ich versuche darzulegen, warum ich Anfragen nach Vorträgen, Seminaren oder Diskussionen permanent und beharrlich (fast) verneinend beantworte; meine grammatologische philosophische Praxis bedingt Dekonstruktion. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Und diese bedingt Rücksichtslosigkeit und Unabhängigkeit und höchste Aufmerksamkeit ! …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Zu einem Menschen, dem man zuhören können möchte und dessen Worte man wahrnehmen können möchte, in aller Offenheit, zu einem solchen Menschen sollte man eine Liebe, eine Leidenschaft, wenigstens aber eine Zuneigung entwickeln wollen und können.
Dabei sollte der Körper nicht nur nicht ignoriert werden, sondern offenen Blickes wahr und für wert genommen werden, – in aller Gebrechlichkeit, Fragilität und Verletzlichkeit ! ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Körper bedeutet auch Stimme, Farbe der Stimme, Tonfall, Rhythmus, Tempo, Gestus, Bewegung, Gesicht, Augen, Blicke, Ausdruck etc. ……………………………………………………. der Körper ist etwas Schönes, – …………… …………………………………………………….
(die Kunst zeigt uns den Körper, traditionelle Stammeskulturen in Afrika, Australien und Amerika ebenfalls; man hat Lust am Körper als Text und “beschreibt” ihn auch oftmals mittels Tattoos), ……………………………………………………., – heute
und in früheren Kulturen. …………………………………………………….
Der Körper ist die Grundlage für jede Strukturalität gelingender intellektueller Intimität einer jeden philosophischen Praxis als Gespräch.
PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS WIEN PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS ÖSTERREICH PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS OESTERREICH EUROPA
Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis, Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax, Anna Lydia Huber, Wien
DR. GERHARD KAUČIĆ / DJAY PHILPRAX (JG. 1959) LEITER EINER PHILOSOPHISCHEN PRAXIS SEIT 1989
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Philosophical Practices / Politics / Disseminations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Unsere Aufgabe ist es, die Diskurse der Macht, der Herrschaft, der Autorität – und jeder Diskurs impliziert Machtausübung ! – zu durchkreuzen, logothetisch (im Sinn der Schaffung einer neuen Sprache / einer anderen Sprachverwendung) zu disseminieren, indem wir deren Intertextualitäten, die Kreuzungspunkte vieler anderer Texte in einem jeden Text in viele heterogene Teile auseinander treiben. Der Intertextualität zugrunde liegt die Multiplizität der Codes, die grundsätzlich unbeschränkt ist. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Mise-en-Abyme ……………………………………. mise en abîme ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Abyssos …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. intertextuelle Strukturen als die „Natur“ der Sprache ………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. This reason of understanding, limited by „territory“ (temporally and spatially), the image of temporary textual-configurations ( mise en abyme, picture in picture in picture…), „picture“ as a metaphor of re-flection, the picture of the mirror without tinfoil, the picture of standing behind the mirror as „standing“ in the mirror, – a mirror of distortion and performance/performation (!), a mirror of the initial transformation without origin, – a mirror, which gives the picture ( away ! ?!) for our language, – our language as graphically marked poetics of communication, – literally ! (see J. Derrida, La dissémination, p. 350 und passim) ……………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Jede Lektüre ( auch „Gespräche“ müssen gelesen werden! Gehörtes ist gehört worden und in der verstehenden Verstandestätigkeit „gelesen“ worden. Aus-gelesen! Ausgewählt! Aus-sortiert! Aus der gehörten „Wirklichkeit“ er-hört und ent-hört, ver-hört, verwirklicht, verkettet, sprachverkoppelt, verlesen!, zusammen-ge-lesen!, zusammengesammelt, ver-sammelt, ge-doublet, ge-setzt, produktiv ausgelesen! ) muß erst eine signifikante Struktur produzieren. Es gibt kein Kriterium für die Identität des Sinns eines Ausdrucks: die Interpretation wird im wissenschaftlichen Sinne eine Sache der Unentscheidbarkeit, was nicht gleich heißt, daß man sie nicht in einem passageren Einverständnis vieler LeserInnen vorübergehend quasi-fixieren und ver- und bewerten könnte und sollte. Sogenannte „Verstehens-Inseln“ temporärer Textkonfigurationen! Ver-stehen auch im Sinne von: eine kleine oder größere Gruppe von Diskurspartizipanten „steht“(!) temporär auf temporär gesichertem „Verstehens“- bzw Verständnis-Grund! ………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Dieser Verständnisgrund, dieses „Territorium“ begrenzten (zeitlich und räumlich) Verstehens, das Bildnis temporärer Textkonfigurationen ( mise en abime, Bild im Bild im Bild…), „Bild“ für die Metapher der Re-flexion, das Bild vom Spiegel ohne Stanniol, das Bild vom hinter dem Spiegel stehen als in dem Spiegel „stehen“, – ein Spiegel der Verzerrungen und Performungen, ein Spiegel der ursprünglich ursprungslosen Verwandlungen, – ein Spiegel, der das Bild ab-gibt (!) für unsere Sprache, – unsere Sprache als graphisch markierte Poetik der Kommunikation, – buch-stäblich ! (Vgl. J. Derrida, La dissémination, p. 350 und passim) ………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Philosophical Practices / Politics / Disseminations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Unsere Aufgabe ist es, die Diskurse der Macht, der Herrschaft, der Autorität – und jeder Diskurs impliziert Machtausübung ! – zu durchkreuzen, logothetisch ( im Sinn der Schaffung einer neuen Sprache / einer anderen Sprachverwendung / einer intensivierten Wahrnehmung / einer komplexeren Lesbarkeit ) zu disseminieren, indem wir deren Intertextualitäten, die Kreuzungspunkte vieler anderer Texte in einem jeden Text in viele heterogene Teile auseinander treiben. Der Intertextualität zugrunde liegt die Multiplizität der Codes, die grundsätzlich unbeschränkt ist. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. The intertextuality and its underlying multiplicity of codes is principally unlimited and unlimitable. The growing deconstruction – textualities and their texture of connotation are not includable or even determinable by any context. ……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. More complex readability ! More complicated readability of the world ! Intensified perception ! ! ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……….. ……….. To contact me, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at ……… ………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Jedes Jahr ein Jubiläum / Jedes Jahr bewußt leben
Gegenwartsphilosophie
Adventure Philosophy!
Philosophische Praxis
Gerhard Kaučić / Djay PhilPrax, Wien ( Dr. phil. ), Philosophical Practitioner, Writer
philosophical practices face à face
b. 1959, Philosopher, Writer, 66, 2025
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić (geboren 1959, Schriftsteller:in – Wiener Postmoderne – Dekonstruktion – Wien – Vertreter:in der Wiener Spielart der Dekonstruktion im Sinn Jacques Derridas)
Titel von Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić bei Passagen
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić
S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON II
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns
Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON ist ein siebenbändiger Großtext, eine disseminative Lekritüre, dessen zweiter Band der Dekonstruktion von ‚Finnegans-Wake‘ gewidmet ist. Große Literatur ist nicht einfach nur Sprache, die bis zur Grenze des Möglichen mit Sinn geladen ist, wie Ezra Pound meinte, James Joyce verwirklichte, Arno Schmidt und Hans Wollschläger fortführten, sondern sie ist Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas, die diese Grenze ständig verschiebt, verdichtet, entstellt. Der Text besteht aus vielen Buchstaben, aus sehr vielen – und jeder Buchstabe ist ein ganzes Universum an Bedeutungen – mehr noch – an „Zeichen“. Jedes dieser Zeichen ist in Bezug auf sich „selbst“ und in Bezug auf alle anderen Zeichen zu setzen und zu lesen. Kein Zeichen darf nicht gelesen werden. Wie im ‚Book of Kells‘ oder den Handschriften des alten Orients in der „untergegangenen“ Bibliothek Sarajewo.
Dieser Grenzgang durch die Felder von Literatur, Theorie, Informatik, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Sprachen arbeitet in und mit allen Überlieferungen des Orients, des alten Europa, der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und Literaturen sowie der postmodernen Theorie.
Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić
S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON III
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns
Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ ist ein siebenbändiger Großtext, eine disseminative Lekritüre, dessen dritter Band der Dekonstruktion von Wissenschaft und Theorie gewidmet ist. Große Literatur ist nicht einfach nur Sprache, die bis zur Grenze des Möglichen mit Sinn geladen ist, wie Ezra Pound meinte, James Joyce verwirklichte, Arno Schmidt und Hans Wollschläger fortführten, sondern sie ist Schrift im Sinne Jaques Derridas, die diese Grenze ständig verschiebt, verdichtet, entstellt. Konzis arbeitet Inspektor Sem auf dem Strich vor dem Gesetz. Telquel die Bannmeile Europa, Sucht und Seuche, Wissenschaft und Wahrheit, Mikroben, Gene, Spuren zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns.
Dieser Grenzgang durch die Felder von Literatur, Theorie, Informatik, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Sprachen arbeitet in und mit allen Überlieferungen des Orients, des alten Europa, der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und Literaturen, sowie der postmodernen Theorie.
Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić
S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON I
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns
Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ ist ein siebenbändiger Großtext, eine disseminative Lekritüre, dessen erster Band der Dekonstruktion von Religionen und Mythologien gewidmet ist. Große Literatur ist nicht einfach nur Sprache, die bis zur Grenze des Möglichen mit Sinn geladen ist, wie Ezra Pound meinte, James Joyce verwirklichte, Arno Schmidt und Hans Wollschläger fortführten, sondern sie ist Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas, die diese Grenze ständig verschiebt, verdichtet, entstellt.
Dieser Text schreibt in sich einen Roman, ein Gedicht, ein Epos auch. Die Geschichte ist ein Krimi rund um den Helden Sam. Eine Geschichte ein Ro man zum letzten Helden, zum ersten Helden.
„Es“ ist „Ain Traum Booch“ – wie der „Unter-Titel“ sagt. Dieser Grenzgang durch die Felder von Literatur, Theorie, Informatik, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Sprachen arbeitet in und mit allen Überlieferungen des Orients, des alten Europa, der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und Literaturen sowie der postmodernen Theorie.
Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić
S/E/M/EI/O/N/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON IV
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns
Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON ist ein siebenbändiger Großtext, eine disseminative Lekritüre, dessen vierter Band der Dekonstruktion von Sexualität und Sexualisationsprozessen gewidmet ist. Große Literatur ist nicht einfach nur Sprache, die bis zur Grenze des Möglichen mit Sinn geladen ist, wie Ezra Pound meinte, James Joyce verwirklichte, Arno Schmidt, Hans Wollschläger und Oswald Wiener fortführten, sondern sie ist eine Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas, die diese Grenze ständig verschiebt, verdichtet und entstellt.
Inspektor Sem dekonstruiert Rhetoriken, Sexualanthropologien, Psychagogien, erfindet Schnittstellen, Codes von Liebesrelationen, Liebesmodellen, Geschlechterbeziehungen, decouvriert Paradigmen von Geschlechterdifferenz. Differenz zwischen Liebe und Tod.
Dieser Grenzgang durch die Felder von Literatur, Theorie, Informatik, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Sprachen arbeitet in und mit Überlieferungen des Orients, des alten Europa, der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und Literaturen sowie der postmodernen Theorie.
Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.
Gerhard Anna Cončić-Kaučić
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON V
oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns
Reihe Passagen Literaturprogramm
Mit dem fünften Band von ‚S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/ oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns‘ erscheint ein weiterer Text in der Reihe zur Autobiographie des Agenten Sem. Sem, Privatdetektiv, Inspektor, Geheimagent, ist Akteur im System Sprache. Die Schrift im Sinne Jacques Derridas ist sein Medium und auszuspionierendes geheimdienstliches Operationsfeld. Das „Echelon-Projekt“ repräsentiert als Ergebnis die Matrix eines großen Lauschangriffs auf das Humanum schlechthin: Identität, Körper, Reproduktion, Sexualität, Macht, Gewalt, Repräsentation, Sprache, Semiotik, Gedächtnis, Wissen, Archiv. Zugleich ist dieser Text vielleicht die Erfüllung der Forderung von Helmut Heissenbüttl nach einer Literatur für intellektuelle LeserInnen und eine Liebeserklärung an Jacques Derrida.
Gerhard-Anna Concic-Kaucic, geboren 1959, Schriftsteller, Wien.
In English:
CORONA WHEELING CROWNING
Covidity Virality Virtuality Mediality Metahumanoidity ?!
The leap. Leaving the book. The production, the emancipation, the liberation of writing.
……………………. Semeion Aoristicon oder zur Autobiographie Sem Schauns …………………..
……. THE SENTENCE ………. the jump ……… the set ……. the leap o f ….
The LEAVING of
the BOOK ……….. ?!
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/
I ask if Sem VI is not my / our blog composition !?!
I ask (me / us) if Sem VII is not my / our blog.
I ask if my/our blog will not be Sem VI and Sem VII?
And shall be!
Or must be?
Already is, will be or even must be and will have to be !?!
The set. The leaving of the book.
The production, the emancipation, the liberation of the writing.
Semeion Aoristicon or to the autobiography of Sem Schauns
……. THE SET …….. THE LEAVING OF THE BOOK …….. !?
/S/E/M/EI/ON/ /A/OR/IST/I/CON/
Psychoanalyse, Sprachanalytische Philosophie, das Unbewußte
Die Sprache, das Sprechen, das Unbewußte (Ubw)
Der Satz und die Philosophie
Falls Sie interessiert sind an einer PP mit mir/uns, bitte nur unter dieser E-mail einen Termin reservieren: To contact me/us, please use only this email: g.kaucic[at]chello.at
If you are interested in a PP (Philosophical Practice) with me, please reserve an appointment only under this email: To contact us, please use only this email: gack[at]chello.at
Philosophers, Writers, Philosophical Practitioners, Mediators, Translators, Feminists, Freeriders, (Wild) Camping Enthusiasts, Survivors Vienna, Austria, Europe
Philosophical Practice weltweit … rund um die Uhr … rund um die Welt, … „face à face“, … confidential one-to-one conversation, … around the clock … around the world
Grammatologische Philosophische Praxis Dr. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax ( geb. 1959, Autor, Philosoph, PP seit 1989 ) Gespräch, Analyse, Diskurs, Problematisierung, Identitätsdislokation, Subjektivierung, Formalisierung, Fältelung, Komplizierung, Aporie, Dekonstruktion
Öffnungszeiten / Hours of opening: Mo – Do: 11 – 20 Uhr
Honorar nach Vereinbarung / Charge by arrangement
Gespräche outdoor/indoor: Grammatologien, Kontextualisierungen, Analysen, Komplizierungen, Plurivalenzen, Dependenzen, Interdependenzen, Grammatiken, Aporien, Dekonstruktion…rund um die Uhr…rund um die Welt…
…around the clock …around the world…
GESPRÄCHE sind EREIGNISSE als TEXT
cf. Jacques Derrida, Signatur Ereignis Kontext, – in: Randgänge der Philosophie, Wien 1988, S. 291-314 ( Französische Originalausgabe: Marges de la philosophie, Paris 1972 )
Philosophical Practice Vienna 1989 ff. Analysis Complication Aporia Identity Dislocation Meta-thesis Deconstruction
Cf. list of publications at: https://scholar.google.at/citations?user=wNUSN64AAAAJ&hl=de
To contact us, please use only these emails:
g.kaucic[at]chello[dot]at or gack[at]chello.at
Projekte / Projects (1989 – 2025 ff.) 36 Jahre Philosophische Praxis Wien GK & ALH
Mehr dazu siehe unseren Teaser und unseren Footer sowie die übrigen Postings im Blogspot-Blog 2014 ff.
Homepage:
