THE TREASURE WHICH IS PRIVACY

As a guest you will only see a limited part of what is going on.
Register now for free and see the whole range of the eMark community!
  • http://pastebin.com/4TkYnLd6


    THE TREASURE WHICH IS PRIVACY
    =============================

    Abstract:

    The Philosophy of Privacy Extremism emphasizes that privacy should be
    maintained in all situations; that if in question, privacy should be given
    preference, unless sufficient arguments to the contrary apply to the specific
    situation.

    Privacy serves as a necessary condition for engaging in meaningful and
    truthful interpersonal relationships.

    Furthermore privacy is a necessary condition under which a person can develop
    a self and embrace individual responsibility for decisions and actions that
    result from them.

    A denial of privacy to the contrary establishes and maintains a lack and loss
    of esteem, respect and value in and for things and other persons.

    Privacy should therefor be the strong standard for personal behavior,
    normative for those that thrive towards personal human positive development.


    The Treasure which is Privacy
    -----------------------------
    The first response to someone who makes an effort to protect his privacy is
    often "I have nothing to hide because I have nothing to fear" - usually
    accompanied by an expression of righteous pride or the blissful presentation
    of carelessness.

    As with most routine responses that have become maxims of contemporary society
    and proverbs uttered in reply to trigger words, this statement is more
    informative about the speaker than of the addressee or the subject of
    discussion.

    More often than not its underlying meaning should be rephrased to read "I am
    uneasy, maybe even afraid, around people that hide something". As such it
    carries the implied request to anyone hearing it, that they shall stop
    covering and hiding things to relieve the speaker of his uneasiness.

    But even when taken at face value, above sentence communicates that it is the
    lack of fear that is the speakers justification for not protecting his
    privacy. Apart from the simple rejection of this statement as being false in
    the light of existing and relevant threats and the reference to the
    blissfulness of ignorance, it is the exclusiveness of fear as the proposed
    reason for privacy that warrants consideration.


    The reference to fear in this context should first be understood as an
    instrument of rhetorics instead of an adequate choice of words in a balanced
    and clearheaded reasoning.
    Fear refers to the emotional response to existential danger and implies the
    lack or loss of courage to confront the danger.
    The sentence under analysis should thus be rephrased to read "You hide things
    because you lack courage in the presence of an imagined existential threat."
    It is therefor a double accusation of both cowardice and delusion.

    Again it is not the focus of this analysis to show that protection of privacy
    and admitting to doing so requires a bit more courage than to repeat common
    proverbs, or that certain dangers exist that can be effectively answered by
    privacy. Nor does it need emphasis that those who protect the privacy of
    others often do so in the face of opponents that go a long way to ruin the
    names, property, freedom and sometimes even health and life of those
    courageous guards of privacy.

    Instead it should be pointed out, that there are for more reasons to protect
    ones privacy, and that of others, than fear of losing freedom or life or even
    good reputation.

    It is interesting to note that an old synonym for 'fear' could e awe,
    admiration or astonishment, even respect.
    Worded this way, one might read above sentence as "I hide nothing, because I
    admire and respect nothing." This way it becomes clear that the denial of
    privacy is often nothing but a lack of things that are valued and the demand
    that others should not value something themselves.
    It thus contains the claim that nothing should be special and set apart.

    Which brings us to the original meaning of the word 'private'. In Latin it
    refers to persons and things that were set apart from what would be available,
    subordinate and used by all persons - the public.

    Thus giving up one's privacy, as in the sentence we discuss, entails nothing
    else but the transformation of the speaker into a not particularly important
    and indistinguishable fragment of the mass. If the speaker is really not in
    fear about anything, it would primarily refer to not fearing to become a
    nothingness in the grey mass - just a grain of dust in the crowd.
    It is safe to say then, that the speaker does not value and respect himself as
    an individual human person, or that he cowardly fears to be recognized as
    such.

    Leaving the analysis of the original statement one should now focus on the
    negation of the privacy opponent's reply while keeping its completed meaning
    in mind:
    "Because I value and respect some things, I hide some things."

    Three areas shall serve as examples of preserving value through hiding:
    Complex minority opinions, relationships between persons, and the human person
    itself.

    Complex opinions and bodies of knowledge that are valued highly by their
    bearers are often only communicated under strict conditions to prevent
    misunderstanding, misrepresentation, confusion and disintegration.
    This is especially useful if the opinion is only held by a minority or if the
    potential audience lacks the necessary context of knowledge to integrate and
    consider the new information.
    The strict conditions under which the information will be communicated serves
    herein as the boundary between public and private. The more complex, valuable
    and different from general knowledge the new information is, the stricter the
    conditions of communicating them becomes. This can be seen in various areas.
    Personal political or moral opinions, especially if they are held only by a
    minority, will often not be communicated in situations that only allow
    superficial or time restrained conversation.
    These situations do not allow for the speaker to present and argue for their
    position and thus risk for the information to be misunderstood and
    misrepresented later.
    The consequences of this disintegration of information can be witnessed in the
    effects of hearsay that considers itself with minority groups and opinions,
    leading to widespread false myths that often cannot be corrected afterwards
    because they have become part of common knowledge.
    Thus it is often favorable to conceal personal opinion and deprive the public
    of correct information if otherwise the reinforcement of false information or
    the support of slander are likely.
    The quality of public and political debate as well as the celebrity and gossip
    culture serve as evidence for this.
    Numerous further examples about the protection of ideas through hiding exist
    in history and shall only be mentioned for further reference: Pythagorism and
    Platonism, the Apologists of early Christianity, the Orthodox Church liturgy,
    natural science and political societies of the Enlightenment including Bacon
    and Newton as members, Judaism, early Socialism.
    Privacy in this regard serves to preserve the integrity, and often survival,
    of information, ideas and opinions.

    Another area of interest is privacy and the use of hiding for the sake of
    other persons. To understand what role privacy plays in the context of
    relationships between humans it is necessary to be aware of what communication
    is.
    Communication is any act of a sender to convey information to a receiver. This
    involves forming signs - distinguishable and perceivable features - into
    signals - the message to be transmitted.
    The choice of signs and signals by the sender and their interpretation by the
    receiver depend strongly on the context, what both parties perceive about each
    other, themselves and their environment.
    Another part of this context is the estimation of how difficult a sign is to
    be produced which has an influence on as how truthful and intentional a signal
    (message) is perceived.
    A proverbial example for this is "to preach water and drink wine". One
    immediately understands that abstaining form wine - which is more costly than
    to consume it - increases the credibility of the message (and resolves the
    otherwise apparent contradiction).
    Maintaining privacy, in its various forms of hiding, concealing and silence,
    is such an act of communication, a sign that carries a signal.
    The sign of privacy, as it shall be called for sake of clarity, can carry a
    variety of signals that depend on the context of the communication, and it can
    be intended for a variety of recipients.

    In itself privacy is a signal that discriminates between various degrees of
    relationships, excluding some potential receivers from other intended
    receivers. It is thus communicating which kinds of relationship the sender
    intends to have, which in turn communicates the evaluation of the receiver by
    the sender.
    In blunt words, it separates the receivers into special and common people in
    the eyes of the sender.

    The "hijab" is an example which illustrates this well. Hijab refers to a veil
    worn by many muslim women as soon as they enter marriageable age. It is always
    worn in public and only taken off if no non-related men are present, such as
    in exclusively female meetings or in the family circle. Her husband will be
    the only non-related man that will see her hair, thus keeping her hair
    private.
    The woman, if she chooses to wear the hijab, hereby communicates towards her
    husband and all other men, that she chooses to have an exclusive intimate
    relationship only with her husband and that she values her husband as being of
    a special high value to her. It is a pledge of allegiance to her husband, and
    a separation of herself from the availability to other men.
    As can be seen in this example, hiding becomes a tool to communicate a value
    perception and status of relationship in a discriminatory way.

    Similar signs exist in western cultures as well. For example, the revelation
    of the family's secret receipt towards the fiancee of a child serves as sign
    of acceptance and inclusion into the family.
    Similarly some topics of conversation are usually preserved for the close
    relationship between couples, or that of good friends. This not only is a sign
    of uptightness, if at all, but also a toll to show and maintain the deepness
    of a special and exclusive relationship that is built on the mutual holding of
    the other in high esteem.
    The opposite, divulging information indiscriminately, thus communicates that
    others are not held in high esteem and that the communicating party is
    unwilling or unable to come to different evaluations of others.
    Likewise the sharing of information with the public, if this information was
    gained within a special relationship, should rightly be viewed as an act of
    betrayal since it communicates that the thus damaged person is held in lower
    regard than the receiving masses, even as assured of the opposite.

  • This hints at the reciprocity of these intimate relationships. Communicating
    information, that is viewed as belonging in the private domain of friendship
    or other kinds of deep and special relationship, will also signal to the
    receiver that he should answer in an equally private manner as to return the
    esteem granted to him as well as to save the speaker from embarrassment. It is
    thus a matter of courtesy to not speak about private matters indiscriminately
    since it puts the receiver into a potentially awkward situation.
    However, this does not only apply to situations that imply reciprocity.
    It speaks of equal disrespect of another person to make them part of an
    unasked for communication of subjects that are hurtful, unpleasant or put the
    recipient into a situation where he is challenged to act - if only to escape
    his status of a recipient.
    Instead, a communication that considers the reaction of others by using means
    of privacy signals both intended and accidental recipients that the speaker
    harbors respect for them.
    This is even more true when the subject constitutes a tempting or harmful one
    for the recipient. It shows utter disrespect if someone speaks of the
    exquisite taste and warm feeling in the throat when drinking an alcoholic
    beverage while a known dry alcoholic is addressed or present. It is as unwise
    to flaunt with riches and have them lay around openly in the house since this
    tempts the struggling housekeeper to steal out of impulse, or to communicate
    without regard for potentially causing conflicts of interests in the
    recipients.
    Instead of hiding nothing, it is the hiding of information and actions that is
    grounded in valuing and caring for others and truthfully communicating respect
    and high esteem.

    To conclude the use of privacy for the sake of others, one should also
    consider the effects of actions on observers. As mentioned before, the
    interpretation of signs as signals depends, among other things, on the
    receiver's perception of the sender. This becomes relevant for the question of
    privacy especially if the sender is perceived as a role model or bad example.
    Here the behavior is a sign easily interpreted by the observer as sanctioning
    of the action or its proscription if the action is not considered separately
    from the sender.
    Examples of this can be seen when bad actions of public figures are used as
    justification for one's own actions, when otherwise laudable behavior is
    viewed with suspicion when associated with persons of disgrace or when people
    imitate celebrities even in their failures and bad judgement.
    For additional consideration on privacy for the sake of others, an old book
    shall be mentioned as reference: "Ueber den Umgang mit Menschen" by Freiherr
    von Knigge.


    The last area to examine here as an example of preserving value through hiding
    is the human person itself.
    At the core of this matter lies the question of what makes a person a "self"
    instead of "an-other", and how this self can refer to itself over time as in
    "I myself went to the park yesterday". What is this "I" or "self" we refer to,
    and how does it come to be what it is instead of being something else.
    There is no current consensus how to answer these questions, nor should it be
    the task of this text to present and weigh the different views, nor to fully
    develop a theory of personhood on its own.

    Instead it will touch the process of the change of a person. How has a person
    become what it is now, and how will it become what it will be in the future?
    How does the process differentiate the self from another?

    The popular answer is that genes, upbringing and society are the shapers of
    persons, in different proportions depending on who one asks. Nevertheless
    individuals are treated as moral agents, acting by decision and responsible
    for the decisions made. It is a person who is punished for a crime, and not
    schools, parents, evolution or society.
    It is persons that are persuaded by others, asked to consider moral and
    ethical categories, respected or disgraced for individual actions.
    Clearly it is understood by most that a person is not shaped exclusively by
    that which is not part of him, but also by himself.
    Certainly genes, upbringing, society and the situative environment are
    influences, but it is also the self that forms the self.
    This self-forming takes place with every decision made, changing the status,
    the shape of oneself, the individual path of the person through life.

    Some might argue that every decision made is already and exclusively
    determined by the previous state of the person and its environment, and that
    as such no real decision is made because there is no choice but only the
    effect of the cause which is the state of the universe.

    Instead of refuting the deterministic and probabilistic denials of free will
    as being ultimately self-contradictory, it shall be asserted that free will -
    non-deterministic and non-probabilistic - is a required fact if rationality,
    ethics and morality - all three - are in any way justifiable.
    However small free will, that hard to grasp grain that tips the scales of our
    decisions, might be, it plays the central role in the person becoming a Self.

    For this to be effectually true, the influence of free will in the person's
    decisions must be maximized so that it is will that dominates the decision in
    freedom.
    At that point privacy achieves its ultimate importance. Only in privacy can a
    decision be contemplated in separation from the influence of other persons and
    the own person, the self, actualized freely.
    Hiding in privacy removes the tainting of the decision through outside
    preselection of facts, outside censorship, the promise of reward and
    punishment by other humans, hubris, pride and shame. Here honesty towards
    one's self is possible.
    It is only through and in privacy where a potential equilibrium of choices can
    be discovered, just to be resolved through the action of the free will of the
    Self.

    If one is in any way determined to work on one's own self and aware of the
    responsibility this entails, then privacy in this regard must be maintained.
    Though even through giving up to develop one's self, a choice has been made
    with the responsibility for it as it's consequence - except that this choice
    is to be a product determined by others instead of a self.
    A disregard for maintaining privacy in this area thus equals the utter
    disrespect for the Self one is, and the potential selves one could become. It
    is the denial and defiling of oneself as an individual person.

    In conclusion the proposition is, that:
    Only in privacy the "self of now" transcends itself to actualize "the self of
    the future" through every decision made, integrating the "self of the past"
    fully and becoming more of a Self by removing the influence of an Other.

    ---

    In passing by it should be noted that the practice of hiding things because of
    their value, especially if it the hiding of information about something, must
    be subject of consideration as well.
    It cannot be argued for using lies as the method of concealment, since this
    would often result in doing a disfavor to the thing valued and respected. Nor
    can a life of lies result in a positive development of the Self.
    Instead it is the concealing of information, without replacing them with a
    false statement that is communicated as the whole truth only, that should be
    chosen as a means.
    Which however presents another problem:
    As much as the presence of a sign can be a signal, its absence can be one too.
    Indeed it is the presence of some signs that can signal the meaning
    communicated by other signs.
    Selective privacy might as such communicate the content of what should have
    been concealed.
    For example, if one is asked for one's favorite color and presented with a
    series of potential answers, it is the denying of the incorrect answers and
    the silence towards the correct answer that communicates what was intended to
    remain hidden.
    It should thus be noticed, that the hiding of one thing necessitates the
    hiding of other things of the same context. As a means thereof it is
    preferable to keep silent instead of lying, as stated above.

    ---

    So far, the privacy opponent's reply "I have nothing to hide because I have
    nothing to fear" has been shown to be a rhetoric trap, or at least an
    insufficiently contemplated cultural maxim. It has also been shown that there
    exist good reasons to embrace privacy, hiding and concealment.
    However, this text cannot be complete without some short answers to those,
    that identify privacy and secrecy as roots of evil in society that erode every
    social and political system and relationship.

    Their primary argument is, that privacy encourages and facilitates all kinds
    of corruption and abuse of power.
    Furthermore they claim that privacy results in the disintegration of the
    interpersonal bonds that hold society together.

    To the first, two replies shall be given:
    For one, it has long be understood that abuse of power and corruption are
    systemic to power and delegation themselves, and that transparency and
    accountability are mere interventions to limit the spread of these flaws at
    the root of the problem.
    Instead of attacking privacy as being the problem, one should think about
    alternative methods of cooperation and organization that are free of these
    negative systemic tendencies in themselves.
    On a more shallow note it should be pointed out that the people active in
    positions and offices have given up their status of private persons in
    exchange to be leaders and representatives of the public - the masses.
    Instead of developing themselves and their relationships they have chosen to
    become instruments of the public, or at least they pretend as much.
    How can such an argument against privacy then be used against the privacy of
    people that remain private instead of public? This appears to be fallacious.

    Towards their second argument, the "disintegration of interpersonal bonds that
    hold society together", it should be be understood both what "society" is, and
    what "interpersonal bonds" may refer to.
    Society is not a collective of interdependent persons connected b shared
    emotional states and intimacy, that would be what is commonly referred to as
    "family".
    Instead, society is the cooperative organization of persons that is held
    together by norms of interaction and shared understanding of necessary and
    useful methods of cooperation.
    It is thus the actions toward society in the realm of society and not the
    totality of actions and knowledge that constitute these bonds in practice.
    The partaking in society is thus a voluntary, freely chosen and limited
    activity by each of its members for the purpose of cooperation with all other
    others in society.
    Privacy only becomes erosive to societies that intend to regulate and organize
    even those individual activities that neither rely nor influence all of
    society. These societies are commonly identified with Totalitarism.
    Instead of relying on a bonding through a shared experience off weakness and
    lack of self, or directing society to be bound by the smallest - and lowest -
    common denominators, a society of privacy allows for the progression of all
    members to actualize higher potentials without replacing the individual person
    with the collective Other of society.
    Privacy thus nurtures societies that thrive for improvement.
    This might even hold the potential for individual actors to integrate
    justifiable norms of social interaction into their Selves through independent
    contemplation and decisions instead of understanding these norms as being
    imposed by an Other.
    Does this hold the promise of social interaction to become more reliable and
    truthful? Answering affirmative seems to be more justifiable than the
    negation.

    However, one warning against privacy is appropriate.
    Be it a personal lifestyle or a culture of privacy, both demand personal
    improvement from each partaking individual.
    This is the result of privacy to allow for, and supporting of, discriminatory
    relationships and the decoupling from the influence of others.
    Privacy thus removes many opportunities to blame others and to excuse oneself
    in light of personal error. Nevertheless, privacy also allows for many
    justified second chances and true forgiveness.

    In summary it can be concluded that maintaining privacy and hiding of things
    serves well in preserving and expressing the values one attributes to things
    and other persons.
    Furthermore privacy is a necessary condition for the continual development of
    the Self and the sustentation of truthful and honest interpersonal
    relationships by means of communicative discrimination.
    In turn, the denial of privacy must be realized to be unjustified and even
    harmful. The presented arguments for the allegedly negative impact of privacy
    have been found to be without merit or even supporting the strong use of
    privacy in society.

    The conclusion drawn is therefor that opposition to privacy as in "I hide
    nothing because I have nothing to fear" cannot be a default behavior.
    Instead the use and support of privacy in the form of "Because I value many
    things, therefor I hide many things"
    should be the standard unless it clearly
    needs to be abandoned for specific situations
    , if at all.

  • Anleitung zur „Dekonstruktion“ beliebiger Gedankengebäude
    Version 1.42, © April 2006-September 2007, Guido Stepken


    Quote

    „Dekonstruktion öffnet Texte für andere, unterdrückte oder widersprüche Wahrheiten und
    Bedeutungen. Sie sagt nicht, daß Wahrheit oder Bedeutung unmöglich wäre, sondern eher,
    daß Texte viele und sich immerwährend ändernde Wahrheiten und Bedeutungen enthalten, die
    ein spitzfindiger und kundiger Leser stets erkennen kann“ [José Borghino]


    In „Notiz über den Wunderblock” (1925) beschreibt Siegmund Freud ein Kinderspielzeug,
    bestehend aus Zelluloid, einer Papierschicht, einer Wachsschicht, darunter eine schwarze
    Schicht. Schreibt man auf dem Wunderblock, erscheint dort, wo der Stift in das Wachs
    eindrückt, der schwarze Untergrund durch. Die Schrift kann man wieder löschen, indem man
    den Wachsabdruck glättet. Hebt man die in das Wachs eingeritzte Schicht ab, so kann man
    diese auf anderen Hintergründen wieder sichtbar machen (rot, blau, bunt, Bilder, Stoff...)


    Derrida inspirierte dies zu seiner Art der Interpretation, nur die inneren Logiken der Schrift auf
    anderen Inhalte, Hintergründe „abzubilden”. Die Basis des Dekonstruktivismus war geboren.
    Der Kern Derridas Denkens war die Annahme, dass es keine absolute Wahrheit gibt, Subjekt
    „Mensch“ grundsätzlich nicht zu „Objektivität“ fähig ist, siehe auch „radikaler
    Konstruktivismus“ [Ernst von Glasersfeld]. Derrida betrachtete daher grundsätzlich auch sich
    „widersprechende Deutungen“ gleichzeitig als wahr. Die uns kulturell über die Denkschule
    „Mathematik“ antrainierte Logik [aristoteles'sche, klassische Logik] des „Tertium Non Datur“,
    den „Satz vom ausgeschlossenen Dritten“ stellte er in Frage
    , weil die Möglichkeiten des freien
    Denkens enorm einschränkt.
    Daher der Tip: „Wenn Du dich zwischen zwei Wegen nicht
    entscheiden kannst, wähle den Dritten!“. Siehe hierzu auch Gotthard Güther's
    Polykontextualität (PCL) Seine Lösung aus dem Dilemma ist die Grundlage für Derrida's
    Auffassung. Er entwickelte eine Logik, welche vor dem Hintergrund mehrerer Kontexte
    gleichzeitig wahr und falsch sein kann.
    So kann z.B. eine Entscheidung wissenschaftlich/logisch falsch, jedoch emotional genau richtig sein. Für ihn gibt es außer der dialektischen Denkweise von „Satz“ und „Gegen-Satz“ noch das „Sowohl - als - auch“ und das „Weder – Noch“.




    Betrachtet man diese vier Möglichkeiten gleichzeitig noch vor verschiedenen Hintergründen
    (Kontexten), so erscheinen Diskussionen, welche auf „dialektischen Prinzipien“ basieren, völlig
    absurd. So diskutieren Politiker stets nach dem Prinzip von „These“, „Antithese“ und einigen
    sich auf der Mitte, der „Synthese“, nennen es „Kompromiß“.
    Siehe auch
    http://www.little-idiot.de/tea…AmbivalentDialektisch.pdf


    So wird Text erst vor dem Hintergrund des Erlernten, der Erfahrung zu einer Information
    „interpretiert“. Um dies zu beweisen, wendete Derrida eine Methode an, die als
    „Dekonstruktivismus“ bekannt wurde. Dabei werden Texte so zerlegt, dass keine „wahre
    Interpretation“ mehr möglich ist. Die Dekonstruktion hat den Diskurs der siebziger und
    achtziger Jahre geprägt, ist jedoch heuzutage in Frankreich und U.S.A., dort vornehmlich bei
    den Juristen aktueller den je. Derridas Texte, die Denk- und Gattungsgrenzen in Frage stellen,
    mit Begriffen spielen, wurden von vielen als unverständlich angesehen.
    In seinen Hauptwerken „De la Grammatologie“ und „Différance“ dekonstruiert er den
    abendländischen Logozentrismus, befragt Texte unnachgiebig.
    Er stellt scheinbar sichere Bedeutungen, Erkenntnisse, Überzeugungen in Frage und entlarvt sie schlicht als „Setzungen“. Geschichte und Herkunft existieren ihn dabei nicht, sodaß auch das Subjekt verschwindet. „Identitätsdenken“ wird durch „Differenzdenken“ abgelöst. Dem allgemeinen Streben nach selbstbestimmter, bewusster Individualität in der Philosphie wird eine Grenze gesetzt,
    indem die Dekonstruktion erlaubt, das der Text von anderen durchkreuzt wird.
    Die Hermeneutik [Hans Georg Gadamer] basiert auf Vorwissen und deren „impliziten
    Logiken”, welche dann in der Folge oft unbemerkt sich durch die Interpretation
    hindurchziehen. Sie verhindern die Entdeckung bisher „verdeckter” Logiken, die dem Text
    immanent sind. „Verschiebung der Logik“ vor den Hintergrund anderer Kontexte ist damit so
    nicht zulässig, sodaß Mensch im Denken festgelegt, begrenzt ist.
    „Die Behauptung von Gegensätzen dient dazu, uns darauf festzulegen, entweder das eine oder
    das andere zu sein. Weiß oder Schwarz, Mann oder Frau, eindeutig männlich oder bzw.
    weiblich oder „gestört“, heterosexuell oder homosexuell, nicht behindert oder behindert ... sind
    Einteilungen die asymetrische Machtverhältnisse verkörpern, da jeweils eine Kategorie des
    Gegensatzpaars die andere dominiert.“ [Jaques Derrida]
    Der erste Schritt bei der Dekonstruktion ist die Entdeckung und Umkehrung von versteckten,
    „impliziten Logiken“, z.B. von binären Unterscheidungen (Satz vom ausgeschlossenen Dritten,
    „tertium non datur“, T.N.D.), die zweite die Verschiebung der ganzen Logik. Beispiel eines
    Drogendealers: Er behauptet, daß er mit dem Verkauf von Marihuana (aus natürlichem Anbau)
    an Jugendliche diese davor bewahrt, Drogen zu nehmen (er meint natürlich härtere,
    synthetische). Es gibt also außer Dealer und Nichtdealer noch eine dritte Möglichkeit, nämlich
    denjenigen, der den Umgang mit „weichen” Drogen „schult”, welche dem Alkohol
    gleichzusetzen seien (sind?). Denn – nur - „Wer zuviel Gras frißt, wird zum Esel!“ (altes
    marokkanisches Sprichwort)
    „Die Dekonstruktion muß, durch eine doppelten Geste, eine doppelte Schreibweise, eine
    Umkehrung des klassischen Gegensatzes und eine generelle Deplazierung des Systems
    praktizieren. Der Praktiker der Dekonstruktion arbeitet innerhalb eines Begriffssystems, aber
    in der Absicht, es aufzubrechen.” [Jacques Derrida]
    Was Derrida als „Logozentrismus” bezeichnet, sind Konstruktionen oder ideologische
    Auflagen, die auf binären Oppositionen sowie auf einem externen Referenzpunkt, einer Präsenz
    wie Gott, Wahrheit, Ursprung, Ursache, Transzendenz oder einem Zentrum beruhen, wobei all
    diese Begriffe lediglich Metaphern füreinander, ohne eigentlichen Inhalt sind, weil das
    transzendentale Signifikat, auf das diese Signifikanten jeweils verweisen, nicht darstellbar, also
    sinnlos ist.
    Die différance ist eine Struktur oder eine Bewegung, die sich nicht mehr von dem
    Gegensatzpaar Anwesenheit/Abwesenheit her denken läßt. Die différance ist das
    systematische Spiel der Differenzen, der Spur von Differenzen, mittels derer sich die Elemente
    aufeinander beziehen.
    Eine dekonstruktive Lektüre ist dann das, was ein Text „sagt” oder „bedeutet” und nicht das
    'Set der Operationen', das an einem Text entfaltet worden ist. Speziell in den USA kursiert der
    Terminus in Oppositionsbewegungen im Umkreis von Multikulturalismus und Feminismus auch
    als Inbegriff einer (ideologie)kritischen Methode, genauer jedoch muß man sie als Praxis
    bezeichnen. In USA gibt es keinen Juristen, der nicht in der Denkweise der Dekonstruktion
    unterrichtet wird. Man kann nämlich vor Schöffen durch geschickte Wahl des
    Argumentationspfades, bzw. suggestive Veränderung des Hintergrundes/Kontextes den
    Ausgang des Urteils beeinflussen. Grund: In einem fehlerhaften Axiomensystem, wie Sprache,
    ist alles „beweisbar“, wenn man nur einen geeigneten Argumentationspfad findet, siehe
    http://www.little-idiot.de/tea…chenverstandIrrtImmer.pdf
    „Die Dekonstruktion erhebt das Lesen in den Rang eines erkenntnistheoretischen Problems
    und profiliert sich damit sowohl gegenüber der philosophischen Hermeneutik wie der
    weltanschaulich gebundenen Ästhetik“ [Nikolaus Wegmann]
    Die Dekonstruktion verwirft nicht das Kausalprinzip (siehe auch Strukturalismus, F.d.
    Saussure) insgesamt, sondern vollzieht die Umkehrung der Gegensätze innerhalb des
    Systems. Dies führt jedoch dazu, daß der Ursprungsbegriff seine „metaphysische Qualität”
    verliert, als bloßes gedankliches Konstrukt denunziert wird. Beispiel „Liebe”: Was ist Ursache,
    was Wirkung? Siehe auch
    http://www.little-idiot.de/tea…rnetikGesetzeDerNetze.pdf
    Sprachgebrauch des Wortes SPUR: „Wenn man die Wörter, die man auf den Schreibblock
    geschrieben hat, löscht, bleiben auf der Oberfläche leichte Kratzer oder Spuren zurück. Freud
    vergleicht dies damit, wie 'die Wahrnehmungen, die an uns herankommen, ... in unserem
    psychischen Apparat eine Spur' hinterlassen“ [Derrida 1972a, 330].
    Die Wahrnehmungen sind aber mehr als nur Spuren: Sie bestehen in der Beziehung dieser
    Spuren zu dem, was diese sichtbar werden lässt.
    Am Ende dieses Abstracts findet sich eine Rede von Jaques Derrida in Montreal. Sehr
    lesenswert, weil es aufzeigt, wie sehr - durch geschickte Argumentation - sprachlich begabte
    Menschen es verstehen, dem Leser bzw. Zuhörer das Hirn zu verdrehen, wobei man auch den
    „kreativen Aspekt“ gegen „eingefahrene Denkweisen“ sehen sollte:
    Die verwendete Technik ist bekannt unter dem Namen „transderivationale Prozesse“, welche
    Nominalisierungen, Kategorienfehler, Tilgungen, Verallgemeinerungen, Verzerrungen, und eine
    ganze Reihe von Logiken (Logik ist die Lehre der bedingten und unbedingten
    „Folgerichtigkeiten“), sprich eine Umkehrung der Sprachmuster nach dem „(inversen) Meta Modell“ und dem „Milton-Modell“, verwenden, um damit durch „Vagheit“ (Unbestimmtheit
    in den impliziten Logiken und Kategorien, welche den Zuhörer/Leser auf die Suche nach dem
    Sinn schickt) den Fokus der Aufmerksamkeit beim Leser/Zuhörer nach innen hin umzulenken.
    Der Leser/Zuhörer fällt in eine Art Trance auf der Ebene der unbewußten Sprachverarbeitung
    (Hidden Markov Chains, siehe die Spracherkennungs-Software IBM Voicetype, welches
    darauf beruht), läßt seine Gedanken schweifen, wobei nun der Vortragende die Auswahl der
    Gedankenpfade in den Köpfen der Zuhörer/Leser nach seinem Belieben steuern kann, um
    „Gedankenkeime“ ins Hirn seiner Leser/Zuhörer zu pflanzen. Dieses Prinzip ist es, welches
    hinter Begriffen, wie „Propaganda“, „Werbung“, „Menschenführung“, „Überredungskunst“,
    „Manipulation“, „Suggestivmethoden“, „Gehirnwäsche“, „Motivationstraining“ steckt.
    Schneeball – Vertriebssysteme, wie z.B. dasjenige von F.L.P. (Aloe Vera) sowie z.B. „Zeugen
    Jehovas“ nutzen die ansteckende Gruppendynamik in großen Veranstaltungen, um die Leute
    emotional zu manipulieren, und für ihre „Sache“ zu gewinnen. Dabei wird bei F.L.P. -
    Veranstaltungen natürlich immer betont, daß dies kein verbotenes Schneeballsystem sei,
    jedoch entgeht den Teilnehmern, welche für 160 Euro dann das „Händler-Set“ erwerben, daß
    der Teilnehmer an dieser Veranstaltung, also der „zukünftige, erfolgreiche, vermeintliche
    Händler“ dann mit dem Endkunden identisch ist ...
    Die logische Trennung von „impliziten Logiken“ der Information der Wachsschicht des
    Freud'schen Wunderblocks von dem Hintergrund, den „impliziten Logiken“ der
    Gesellschaft/Wirtschaft/Politik, der vielen Denkmodelle, Theorien, Gedankenkonstrukte erlaubt
    eine neue Art der Analyse der eigenen Gedankenwelt, wo man automatisch das „kritische
    Hinterfragen“ eigener Handlungsnormen, Werte, Verhaltensweisen erlernt, und somit erst eine
    Chance hat, die gedankliche Vorstellung von Wirklichkeit, seine eigene, persönliche „Realität“
    und „Idealitäten“ methodisch korrekt mit der tatsächlichen Wirklichkeit abzugleichen.
    Die Geschichte zeigt, daß ganze Berufsgruppen ausgestorben sind, aufgrund von
    Veränderungen in der Technik, siehe
    http://www.little-idiot.de/tea…ng/ProzessualesDenken.pdf
    Heutzutage kann mit dieser Methode ebenso der Sinn und Unsinn ganzer Berufsgruppen in
    Frage gestellt werden, vor allem die Psychologie und Soziologie, welche fast krampfhaft Mitte
    der 70er Jahre, weil Gelder der Regierung gestrichen wurden, durch die Hinzunahme der
    „Statistik“ und „Methodologie“ einen „seriösen Anstrich“ zu geben, woraufhin sich die Zahl der
    Studenten in wenigen Jahren verzehntfacht hatte. Speziell diesen Berufsgruppen muß man
    vorwerfen, daß sie ihre eigenen Gedankenmodelle nicht ständig immer wieder in Frage stellen,
    vor dem Hintergrund der sich ständig verändernden „impliziten Logiken“ der Gesellschaft...
    und neueren „Theorien“. Dies betrifft aber auch die sog. „Wissenschaften“ der Theologie und
    Philosophie, welche im Gegensatz zu den echten Naturwissenschaften (Physik) ihre
    Gedankenmodelle weder selbstkritisch hinterfragen, noch veraltete Denkmodelle „ausmisten“,
    welche nicht auf den modernen Erkenntnissen z.B. der Kybernetik oder dem „radikalen
    Konstruktivismus“ (siehe Glasersfeld) beruhen. Weder Philosophie, noch Psychologie und
    Soziologie wenden ihre eigenen Methoden konsequent und vollständig auf ihre eigenen
    „Erkenntnisse“ an, weswegen sie damit ihre selbsterklärte „Wissenschaftlichkeit“ in Frage
    stellen.
    Derrida ist bei Philosophen sehr unbeliebt gewesen, weil sie seine Intention mißverstanden
    haben: „Für mich ist unter allen philosophischen Tugenden Jacques Derridas die
    wertvollste seine Fähigkeit, einen kritischen Blick auf die Philosophie zu werfen.“
    [Pierre Bourdieu]
    Sein Anliegen war stets nur, die Fülle von „stillschweigenden Setzungen“, welche vor dem
    Hintergrund des Kontextes in idealisierender Weise „verschwiegen werden“, aufzudecken.
    Angesichts der Fülle von „verallgemeinernden Aussagen“ vieler Philosophen hat Derrida durch
    seine „Praxis“ der Dekonstruktion bei „Idealisten“, welche auf der Suche nach gedanklicher
    Ordnung sind, oder diese vermeintliche Ordnung herbeireden, vornehmlich den großen
    Idealisten, Philosophen, Politiker ... oft für Unverständnis gesorgt. Die gedankliche Ordnung,
    welche wir in unserer gedanklichen Realität oft so zusammendenken, ist oft in Wirklichkeit
    nicht vorhanden:
    „When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you sometimes
    find that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it
    gets out into the open and has other people looking at it“ [Winnie the Pooh]
    Eine vermeintliche Erklärung entpuppt sich oft als „Erfindung“. „Kann nicht kommen, Lüge
    kommt später!“ - Dieses Zitat von Ernest Hemmingway trifft die Wirklichkeit recht genau –
    Zuerst tun wir was dummes, und hinterher erst überlegen wir uns eine Pseudo-Erklärung
    dafür, warum wir gerade das wohl tun mußten (Ausweichlogiker). All diese Merkwürdigkeiten
    sind bauartbedingt im Menschen fest verankert: Wir können nur diese Muster wiedererkennen,
    welche uns zuvor antrainert wurden, sprich positive Muster-Übereinstimmung. Ein „trainiertes“
    Auge findet im Wald überall Pilze, übersieht dadurch schnell alle anderen, schönen Dinge, ein
    untrainiertes Auge findet keine... Und so scheint die Aussage des Soziologen und
    Kybernetikers Niklas Luhmann durchaus zuzutreffen, wenn er behauptet, daß das Erkennen
    der Wirklichkeit einem Flug über eine fast geschlossene Wolkendecke gleicht, welche nur
    sporadisch einen Blick auf die Erde freigibt.
    „Nichts ist wichtiger als die Methode – wir müssen sie ab-und zu wechseln“ [Nicolás Gómez
    Dávila]
    Dieser Beitrag ist unter


    http://www.little-idiot.de/tea…tungZurDekonstruktion.pdf nachlesbar.


    Siehe auch
    http://www.little-idiot.de/teambuilding/ImpliziteLogiken.pdf und
    http://www.little-idiot.de/derrida/
    Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Guido Stepken
    „Was nicht auf einer einzigen Manuskriptseite zusammengefaßt werden kann, ist weder
    durchdacht, noch entscheidungsreif.” (Dwight David Eisenhower, 34. Präsident der USA
    1953-1961; *14.10.1890, † 1969