We enter a vicious cycle


Well, a bit strange year coming to an end, after commencing on September the 8th 2017: taking it as “year” extended by some days, shortened by some events standing in the way of “routine work” in the office at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy in the Amalienstrasse 33 in Munich, standing in the way of life and living … – still several lucky events as concerts, visits of museums … or events in which I had been lucky enough to be able to do at least to some extent what I wanted to do — following the commitment of a dwarf

standing on the shoulders of giants, and even walking some distance with them, side by side.
It proved another time for me that the real – and really exciting – tension of working in academia is not so much about fundamental and applied research but between research and taking position in the biased debates of our times – the times of past, presence and future.
The list below provides gives a more or less small insight into what I could achieve, not mentioning the endless disputes with universities about references for former students, peer-reviewing (though being hesitant when it comes to accepting this task) and also not mentioning the frequent chats with colleagues becoming friends and …, well and friends becoming colleagues.
– The latter may deserve some explanation. While academic work seems to be in some way impersonal, strictly bound to rule and while this is to some extent actually true, it is important to acknowledge the most fundmental rule: any knowledge has to be aobut the acknowledgment of reality as ultimate point of reference. And reality is not primarily what we learn from textbooks, statistics, legal and administrative regulations – even economists, usually at least, do not look at figures for the sake of the figures. Instead, it is about how people act and interact …, and omit (inter)acting. Of course, it is about specific observations and observations of the specific. Nevertheless, it is also about gathering different perspectives, not those expressed in interviews but those expressed in life, or we may say in “open dialogue”. Of course, this is first and foremost a very vague approach. And as much as it may end in accidental contacts – easily ending in accidents of misjudgments due to not knowing background and context of the other – it is also something that emerges naturally when engaging with people around – and this is equally a source of possible accidents due to the limited outreach of contacts.
– Supposedly, the Brandhorsts, before buying paintings for their collection (which then became the Brandhorst museum in the Arts Areal in Munich), borrowed the pieces of art, kept them for a few weeks in their home where they received guests – the purpose was to gather loosely for some chitchat, together exploring the paintings and getting different perspectives. The end result: a new opinion, not algorithmitically defined, but by allowing something to emerge from the unexpected, also from the unknown. it is abitu to gather, merging to something, coming together.
Chats on the corridor of the institute, Wednesday’s for lunch in the Old Simpel or somewhere else: the Vietnamese restaurant next door, Limoni across the street, or the Bavarian around the corner, of course … – with so different people – I guess all this had been like I imagine those visits in the Brandhorst’s home, or like visits to the Arts Areal in Munich, on my own, with others … – always opening the mind …, and asking only to accept one condition: a mind that is sufficiently open to further unfold – the magnificent blood of the orchards needs at least those burgeons that are ready to unravel, the light, seen somewhere in the background …
****
The list of what had been done, though still not all being dusted
Articles/Book Contributions
Books
Reviews:
Others:
see for some:
________
****
Well, the suitcases are packed … – off tomorrow with some hand-luggage, collecting the large bags on Friday …
Now, time to say good-bye – as done so often before, and again and again
and even much later too.
****
There are two things to remember – and I am still grateful to the people teaching me: I will continue being scared; and I will continue even if, or probably better: because there is a light; and I am grateful for to the person that asked me many questions, allowing me to learn about the value of my freedom; and to those who stayed with me while disappearing
– Thank you – 고마워요! – 谢谢 – Köszönöm – Merci – Danke

It requires a lot of …, well, hard to say: naivety (or is it Bavarian nativity?), stupidity, short-sightedness, self-overestimation … or lack of confidence that makes it necessary for politicians to hide behind ‘public acts’ that may have only one purpose: personal profiling in the sense of putting oneself on stage, perform as hero without becoming aware that they change the stage to a place for dangerous tragicomedies, to a place where clowns and comedians make policy in the name of five stars, one cross and an abyss that is guiding their thinking …
Their problem — but also that of each of us, requiring to condemn … also our own faults ….
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
Of course, that, in the case in question, i.e. Mr. Soeder, cannot mean to withdraw from critique – it is about dialectics I guess: accepting the message quoted from John 8.3-11, without following what is stated in Luca 23,34:
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.
Where is the border between forgiving and civil courage? Surely not in retreating into the individuals’ realms …
OPEN LETTER
I regret and feel very sorry: I would have expected that staff working in academic institutions – while we are writing the date of
Il giorno 20/mar/2018, alle ore 04:54,
apparently have to write
• Email submissions: We regret we are unable to accept references emailed to us
It is all about elementary knowledge, back to the real blackboard

Yes, I would have presumed the ability to deal with simple information technologies instead of uploading the burden on academics who surely have other and better things to do.
What actually is the meaning of it: [s]election – Wahl – [s]elezione?
Reading Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s ‘Wahlverwandtschaften’, the issue came up – in a very succinct way, though at first glance as mysterious obfuscation. Here it is, at the end of chapter five
“The Captain said there might be danger in that, but Eduard exclaimed: ‘You just be careful of the D, my friend! What would B do if C were torn from him?’
‘I would have thought the answer to that was obvious,’ Charlotte replied.
‘It is!’ cried Eduard: ‘It would return to its A, to its A and O, its alpha and omega!’ he cried, leaping up and pressing Charlotte hard against his breast.”

But before, in chapter four, we read about the kernel of the brute:
“It is a metaphor which has misled and confused you,’ said Eduard. ‘Here, to be sure, it is only a question of soil and minerals; but man is a true Narcissus: he makes the whole world his mirror.”
****
[By Phil Squattrito – Flickr: Undercarriage, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17586908 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#/media/File:Tridge_Undercarriage.jpg%5D
What we have today is in effect a dual system, the official one of the “national economies” of states, and the real but largely unofficial one of transnational units and institutions . . . [U]nlike the state with its territory and power, other elements of the ‘nation’ can be and easily are overridden by the globalization of the economy. Ethnicity and language are the two obvious ones. Take away state power and coercive force, and their relative insignificance is clear.
(Hobsbawm, Eric, The Nation and Globalization; in: Constellations, 5_1.1998: 4f.)
Towards the end of chapter 42 of Montaigne’s essays we read
In Anacharsis’ opinion, the happiest state of government would be where, all other things being equal, precedence should be measured out by the virtues, and repulses by the vices of men.
When King Pyrrhus prepared for his expedition into Italy, his wise counsellor Cyneas, to make him sensible of the vanity of his ambition: “Well, sir,” said he, “to what end do you make all this mighty preparation?”—“To make myself master of Italy,” replied the king. “And what after that is done?” said Cyneas. “I will pass over into Gaul and Spain,” said the other. “And what then?”—“I will then go to subdue Africa; and lastly, when I have brought the whole world to my subjection, I will sit down and rest content at my own ease.”
“For God sake, sir,” replied Cyneas, “tell me what hinders that you may not, if you please, be now in the condition you speak of? Why do you not now at this instant settle yourself in the state you seem to aim at, and spare all the labour and hazard you interpose?”
“Nimirum, quia non cognovit, qux esset habendi Finis, et omnino quoad crescat vera voluptas.” [“Forsooth because he does not know what should be the limit of acquisition, and altogether how far real pleasure should increase.” —Lucretius, v. 1431]
Reading it, I remembered the story explaining the Irony of the Rat: the Mexican fisherman, who was approached by the highly business-qualified American tourist who knows all about how one gets rich by working enduringly hard over many years …, finally accumulating enough wealth to relax … at the beach of a small Mexican village.
And today? The Measuring the World takes new forms again, it is about data, the collection of everything that can be counted, and the deformation of everything in order to make it countable …. entire libraries, galleries, landscapes and cities, people alone and in their encounters … all is just a mouse-click away.
*****
It was Sunday morning, when I read Montaigne, remembered the Mexican fisherman’s story and thought about the new turn of human-kind’s perpetuated existence as hunter&gatherer to data-obsessed beings …
… it was the very same Sunday in the tenth month of the year, well deserving the name golden October, when I met later the day a friend, should I even say: a golden encounter, ‘autumnous spring’** – not counting minutes or hours, going to the gallery, taking account of the non-digitalised treasures of the gallery, the original paintings and joining the special exhibition that brought music and the magnificent painter Botticelli together
– an encounter of people, bringing centuries and continents together.
*****
Well, when it comes to numbers and accounting, there are surely Limits to Cheating History and there is surely the need for Changing the Reference. Check for a revised and edited version of the article the International Journal of Social Quality.
**
Botticelli’s painting reproduced below is titled Primavera
Nothing is older than yesterday’s newspapers