Categoria: thoughts on life and its philosophy

Cats and Enlightenment

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, general, thoughts on life and its philosophy, works, projects, publications

The other day I sent a mail to a colleague and friend: after he let me know about the “very latest” Apple’s laptop; and after I came across the very latest software (OS) …. and after I sent him a devastating negative critique on that software I saw by accident – he replied, saying that he could not share  the critique after installing the OS … Fair enough – maybe that I install it soon myself …, but …: there is a more complicate answer to it, one that is not really about computers …. – so here it is:

Take your point, Kenneth; and not knowing the Lion, the cat itself had not been really my point. Nor Mac/apple or any special brand … . However, I am already since some time and receptively concerned about all these “the latest” and “the best”, quickly moving on to “very latest and the very best” and moving on to … – take food, take washing powder, take computers …, well, and take education and financial markets (of course, subsequently the crisis from 2007, though predictable since 2??? – not sure when exactly in the early 2000s I published something predicting its emergence), getting obvious in 2008, being bemoaned in 2009 (after overcoming the first shock) and now a matter of usage or something like it [perhaps even habit]. Due to the complete crash of my database which until today is not sorted, I installed office I don’t know what (the latest version) – it is so complicated that I cannot handle it, things are so easy, so much “supported” with macros etc. that many things are awkward … – I am now back to the previous version, and for mail I am using mail … – this apparently doesn’t allow me to use BE, at least the spellcheck highlights everything as wrong that doesn’t follow “big brothers” AE-rule.

Talking about rule – brings me to my current position, working on law. Though most of my own work is around philosophy of law, a look at more current issues has to be part of it. As usual, I forgot the figures. Roughly then just one example: the German Social Code – BSHG – had been established in 1962, serving as foundation for the area until 2004. Be assured, there had been many serious problems around the law, and with the BSHG itself and also with the implementation. I remember my own engagement on relevant issues – criticising relevant issues …, long stories, I could tell many and long stories (though I cannot tell you out of hand the dates). At stake had been very fundamental, systemic questions, matters of implementation – and all in between. – Still, for the good or bad this law had been in place until 2004 – changes had been made but only relatively few and not changing fundamentals. In 2005 Hartz-IV changed fundamentally the entire situation. I would be the last who would say: Oh, good old times – why should we change anything? But there is something which really is of concern for me: The same minute when the institutions of the parliamentary democratic system approved Hartz-IV, the very same law had been already discussed in the special committees – and the important point is: they discussed the need for fundamental changes.

As said, I would be the last who would say: Oh, good old times – why should we change anything.

And I surely would be the last who would say: Oh good god. There is no divine power to trust:

No Saviour from on high delivers

No faith have we in prince or peer

….

[You’ll find it somewhere here ;-)]

But the reason had been – so far I am indeed not too far from the humanist thinking as it finds its roots in the citoyenitée, revolutionary at its time, though at the end conservative in its idealism – the force to be guiding: guiding by circumspection, at least striving for providence.

Further a brief note on the law: legal provisions in the US (laws, acts …) are enacted and remain in place for a very short term only – the European had been different and increasingly changes, developing an ever shorter time of turn over. in in some way o the same point: Yesterday I have had a lengthy talk with Lorena, a colleague from Brazil who works here at the institute (really enjoyed it, really brought me forward in my own thinking. We discussed a text which I wrote as part of the book mentioned the other day.

As said, I would be the last who would say: Oh, good old times – why should we change anything. But something is surely remarkable. At one stage she said: most of the literature you refer to, are the classics. There is not much you use from what had been published more recently [though I actually made reference to Hart, Luhmann and other youngsters ;-)]. She mentioned – as missing – for instance Habermas. Sure, I could have included part of his work – but what did and does he really say what had not been said much better already by Kant, Weber … ?

There is good reason for change – but it should be reasoned, not rushed ….

But I have to rush now …, going to the bookshop, getting something to read when I don’t have the privilege of the use of the library here anymore.

And have to read, red, read and write, write, write … – but all with the one point in mind: it is not anout another interpretation, it is about change – that is then the focus next week ….

On Reason and Peace

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in quotes, thoughts on life and its philosophy

Something we may have to think about as well when we look at the terrible incidents that happened in Norway the last days – I had been re-reading Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason while working on defintional issues of law. I found something that is important enough to be thought about, also as matter of thinking about the connection between ‘managerialism’ (as another form of ‘pure reason’) and the (re-)emergence of (here: Christian) fundamentalism and neo-fascism:

Philosophical cognition, accordingly, regards the particular only in the general; mathematical the general in the particular, nay, in the individual. This is done, however, entirely a priori and by means of pure reason, so that, as this individual figure is determined under certain universal conditions of construction, the object of the conception, to which this individual figure corresponds as its schema, must be cogitated as universally determined.

The essential difference of these two modes of cognition consists, therefore, in this formal quality; it does not regard the difference of the matter or objects of both. Those thinkers who aim at distinguishing philosophy from mathematics by asserting that the former has to do with quality merely, and the latter with quantity, have mistaken the effect for the cause. The reason why mathematical cognition can relate only to quantity is to be found in its form alone. For it is the conception of quantities only that is capable of being constructed, that is, presented a priori in intuition; while qualities cannot be given in any other than an empirical intuition. Hence the cognition of qualities by reason is possible only through conceptions. No one can find an intuition which shall correspond to the conception of reality, except in experience; it cannot be presented to the mind a priori and antecedently to the empirical consciousness of a reality. We can form an intuition, by means of the mere conception of it, of a cone, without the aid of experience; but the colour of the cone we cannot know except from experience. I cannot present an intuition of a cause, except in an example which experience offers to me. Besides, philosophy, as well as mathematics, treats of quantities; as, for example, of totality, infinity, and so on. Mathematics, too, treats of the difference of lines and surfaces—as spaces of different quality, of the continuity of extension—as a quality thereof. But, although in such cases they have a common object, the mode in which reason considers that object is very different in philosophy from what it is in mathematics. The former confines itself to the general conceptions; the latter can do nothing with a mere conception, it hastens to intuition. In this intuition it regards the conception in concreto, not empirically, but in an a priori intuition, which it has constructed; and in which, all the results which follow from the general conditions of the construction of the conception are in all cases valid for the object of the constructed conception.

Kant, Immanuel: Critik der Reinen Vernunft; Zweyte hin und wieder verbesserte Auflage; Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, 1787 (erste Auflage: 1781); Wiesbaden: Insel Verlag: 1956: 614) (I did not check the English translation reproduced here.)

Human Rights – Law and Economy

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, contemporary socio-economic situation, thoughts on life and its philosophy, works, projects, publications

But I wouldn’t start from here … – Contribution to Theorising Human Rights

Indeed, it is easy to say what we frequently suggest as solution to some of the problems – the Irish way: “But I wouldn’t start from here!” And indeed, it seems to be a simple thing, just starting from somewhere else and going a smooth part, just forward. The one thing is, of course, that we frequently do not really have a choice: we are just thrown into something, 18th Brumaire: history as nightmare, made by us but under conditions we find, that out of reach for us. But for the sake of truth, don’t we have to admit that we don’t think much about from where we start – not taking account of the variety of options as conceptualised by way of a counter-reality by Musil in his  “Mann ohne Eigenshaften” (“The Man without Qualities”)?

Human Rights – Law and Economy

is the title I gave to a public lecture I had been invited to give in the series of lectures at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy, a lecture which is part of my stay in Munich – generously supported by the MPI (and giving work-opportunities in the library that are tempting to stay there over night) – will present some of the tentative results of the on-going research. The aim is to see the connection between Human Rights (legislation) and economy not in terms of the need to strive for just distribution of the wealth of this planet. Rather, at the core of the work are conceptual considerations. Sure, it is correct to say Human Rights begin at the breakfast table, the need to avail of sufficient resources for everybody. But we should not forget that the greatest ‘injustice’ is a system that can claim justice on the formal level. Although this is an underlying topic of the current research – and the presentation – at its heart stands the question of different modes of production and the way in which this has repercussions in the reflection on human rights and vice versa: in which way human rights perspective may impact on developments of the mode of production.

On a very pragmatic and really trivial level, working here again for a while, one has to strive with the every day’s decision from where to start: the library, the desk work (including the need to do the homework, following from teaching in Finland, Hungary and Ireland) or with meeting colleagues for shoptalk or simply for gossiping.

Anthropology and more

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, general, thoughts on life and its philosophy

Anthropology – how it works or: once it is always the first time

Create an image of your superiority; then behave according to the image and confront with “the other” – but do so after creating the other as inferior. If you do not make a mistake on the way you will be in (I guess) 80+ percent of the cases be able to maintain your prejudices.

Advanced version: To show your superiority return to your own tribe of white people and say that “the other” also should have rights – refer to the universal declaration and highlight the importance of article 23 and 25, especially highlighting the implication of a capitalist system, based on employment etc..

Further possible advancement: upload this proof of your superiority on youtube (or the like) to let the world know about your wisdom – as the world won’t be able to follow the entire story, make sure that you tell only half of it – don’t worry that it may cause some disorientation as half of the truth may be a complete lie.

Peak of wisdom: you do it not as anthropologist but as school and advise your government – as Mr. Rostow (and many others) did in the spirit of a non-communist manifesto. Even go a step further: Rather than accepting the need for real and critical confrontation you declare your work as part of the war against evil and terror.

NB: working as academic, make sure to use fancy titles and expressions like Clash of Civilisations or End of History. By such (sometimes publisher-provoked) modes of flattening actually highly interesting arguments you will lessen the impact on truly academic debates but you will increase sales figures and you will also scale up on impact  and ranking lists.

Conclusion: this principle pattern can be used in various situations, not only the one depicted inn the clips. It can also be applied in debates on religion, ethnicity, social class and not least in justifying the lack of democratic processes. As Nira Yuval-Davis writes

Different social divisions, such as class, race and ethnicity, tend to have certain parameters. They tend to be ‘naturalized’, to be seen as resulting from biological destiny linked to differential genetic pools of intelligence and personal characteristics*

Recommendation: make sure that you avoid education.

___________________________

* Yuval-Davis, Nira, 2006: Intersectionality and Feminist Politics; in: European Journal of Women’s Studies; London et altera: Sage; 13/3: 193-209: here: 199, with reference to Cohen, Philip, 1998: The Perversions of Inheritance; in: Cohen, Philip/Bains, Harwant S. (eds.) Multi-Racist Britain; London: Macmillan

It could be different …

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, Peter's Log, thoughts on life and its philosophy, works, projects, publications

It could be different, but it is possible this way too ….

These are words of the last e-mail before the INKRIT-meeting, gathering for some general debates, and mainly working on the Historical-Critical Dictionary Marxism, referring to Brecht’s Three-Penny Opera.

The location of a rather intense couple of days: Esslingen, a small town, or even village in the proximity of Stuttgart, in Southern German. Writing: or even village means that I actually didn’t see it. Arriving there by train Wednesday night, I took the bus to a remote conference-hotel, not really seeing anything of the place. And remote means remote, giving an exciting view: the (low) mountains, the valley covered by the raising fog – a carpet – seen from the height, a ceiling from the other side … It actually is different, depending on the side from which we look.

The usual ‘regular verb’ behaviour, the meeting in of the editorial board of The Argument as new field of activities and then the workshops. A rather interesting, not to say exciting work. Discussions that seem to be as remote even from our daily academic work as the Jaegerhof and even Esslingen. And although the debates are intense, it is in some way relaxing: concentrated on such a wide range of areas as Human Rights to Laughing, as life conduct to courtesan ….. And ranging as wide rural exodus – a term in itself so varied if looked at by the colleagues from Germany or Cuba and Brazil.

And relaxing in any case, being directly engaged – ex officio so to say – with Étienne Balibar on whose draft I comment or as listener, just ordinary participant. And as relaxed as all this is, as open the debate is there is surely also the tension. How to describe it? Between those who own all the experience simply due to age and those who have all impartiality on their side – sure one may also say: the claim of authority versus, or going hand in hand with gormlessness, and the deadlock engaging with innovativeness. The productive tensions as well, growing out of so different people meeting there: Brasil, Cuba, Germany, Italy, France …; villages, large cities ….

Yes, all could be different. And perhaps that is what makes it so inviting: A tension one can perceive as relaxing in its open way, as it aims on producing something new, aims on making a difference rather than continuing to move along, the dogtrot. So remote, even the tensions being so remote that I only mentioning its actual meaning after Mehmet dropped me at Stuttgart’s train station. First plans for future collaboration – the hug when we say farewell – knowing it is this way possible too. And emerging in relaxed atmosphere around Stuttgart’s train-station: people enjoying the sun, licking ice or sitting in the sun” the German Sunday-tradition: “coffee and cake” ….

… and the flowers in front of the station:  a reminder: Stuttgart 21 – not always as peaceful as it appears on the Sunday afternoon, not always as remote from daily quarrels as it suggests this sunny afternoon. And I feel as well how important all these apparently purely academic debates are in order to make sense, to change such reality. 

It could be different, but it is possible this way too …. – and to make it possible that the daily, centered around commodities, consumption, so-called performance possible in everyday’s life we need the remoteness: clear, concise thinking: exhausting, focused, provoking to contradict and not allowing any contradiction.

It is also something that is so simple, and so difficult to achieve. An excellent, energising experience – though showing how remote we are ourselves from really living it, maintaing so many illusions, voluntarily chosen subordinations and authoritative deification. But at least there is an open field for contest – from which academic life distanced itself so much.

All has to be different, it only pretends to be possible this way too …

 

 

 

 

 

Breaks – Still on the Way to Modernity

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in joys - what we usually take for it, thoughts on life and its philosophy

Pioneer of Modern Art – the English translation doesn’t catch the ambiguity of the German title of the exhibition of the work of Max Liebermann to which I went during the lunch break: Wegbereiter der Moderne. It could also be translated just as Pioneer, trailblazer of modernity, emphasising that he had been a pioneer not just as somebody who did something before others did the same, but underlining his proactive role, the ‘fight for something’. And it doesn’t limit the something to arts but leaves it open for a much wider scope.

I do not want and cannot engage in Max Liebermann’s complex and contradictory personality: citoyen and demotic; orderly, like the lanes in the part of his villa and allowing, provoking and even planning the impressionistic as seen in the flowerbeds on the roadside of the little palace ….

Surely as such – as other representatives especially of the citoyenitée of the time (see Thomas and Heinrich Mann, read the Buddenbrooks, The Small Town Tyrant, The Forsyte Saga ….) – reflecting very much the contradiction of the time.

One thing is sure: in life and in general there is surely not one pioneer – it is people as groups, peoples and personalities …

…. and it is about movements, ‘inventions of acceptance’. Entering the exhibition had been already exciting by looking at the plain pictures of life – ‘socialist realism’ came to my mind. Looking at his depiction of the twelve year old Jesus in the Temple – emerging as another simple life: simplicity of deification without simplifying the apotheosis; and then looking at her, looking into her face: Eva. It is a painting from 1882. And the way she looks says it all: No need, Adam. Not for you. And though I my not look like it. I have the apple, I eat the apple and I enjoy eating it.

Giving the impression of weakness and happiness, of inferiority and forcefulness … – modernity.

Not November …. – On Path Dependency

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in Peter's Log, thoughts on life and its philosophy

It hadn’t been often that I had been in Bonn – and I do not want to be negative. It is a nice, placid village, once the capital of Germany, hosting that part of Germany, better: German mentality which had been twice the cradle of a World War

I hadn’t been many times in Berlin – the first time I arrived there in the ‘new era’ had been some strange experience – the government had not yet moved to the new centre, but part of it and as had been on government-meeting then, I experienced the tension between the old: the West, and the new, the East. It is a difficult to tell story too interesting to put into a nutshell. When I returned later I had been impressed, the feeling of …, well, perhaps the best term to be used is: the feeling of mental suppression. Again, I do not want to be negative, knowing about the stirring figures as Friedrich Wilhelm Humboldt, having lived mentally side by side with notable people as Helene Weigel and having known extraordinary colleagues as Juergen Kuczynski …, and having enjoyed the great Jazz-festival, the theaters, parks …. of this city which than later showed so open its difficult to figure-out hegemonic spirit of violence and mental control – mentor of Otto von Bismarck’s policy which became known as cradle of the social state and which had been in some way the accoucheur of the first world war.

Sure, globalisation, postmodernisation …. – the entire world changed and so did the country of which Bonn had been and Berlin is the capital. And so did the cities themselves.

Still – if you look for synonyms you may find for placid: introspective and you may find for impressing: imposing.

It is impressive, arriving here and there always reminds me of Heinrich Heine – and his return to Germany. It had been a long time ago, it had been November.

See here for more.

But I am here to talk about Human Rights – perhaps it is a different thing …, perhaps ….

END OF HISTORY OR IS IT A NEW BEGINNNG?

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in Peter's Log, thoughts on life and its philosophy

No sign’s descended from the sky about the days to come

We’ve promised those days to ourselves.

I want a song about the days after we win …

‘Who knows, maybe tomorrow …’

(Nazim Hikmet)

It is a fascinating story, indeed.

 Turkey is undoubtedly the country of the future, but will it always be? Can it ever become what it hopes to be, or is it condemned to remain an unfulfilled dream, an exquisite fantasy that contains within it the seeds of its own failure?

There are as yet no answers to the questions, and therein lies the Turkish conundrum. This nation is still very much the a work in progress, a dazzling kaleidoscope of competing images and ideas. …

This is taken from Stephen Kinzer’s book.* May be something had been lost during the writing and/or revision? “We” are perfect, reached the end of history, are not work in progress, and “we” found all the answers? The cowboy speaks of the prevalent

 primitive mentality of rural peasants.

__________________

I am sitting on the 9 o’clock flight to Istanbul, later continuing to Bonn where I will have to speak the next day on the conference on Human Rights in a Globalized World – Challenges for The Media.

A modern aircraft – and of course I feel somewhat relieved – rather than being “the other”, barely being able to really thank Mehmet in Turkish words for all his kindness throughout my time at ODTUe (but words are surely not all – we developed an excellent relation of understanding; he will be surely one of those who would offer me asylum if needed), now being able to speak agin with words, most likely being understood by “the other”, just being an other, able to merge with others. And I still feel well looked after – sure, staff being paid – being paid by THY, but still not having lost their ‘natural friendliness’, a mentality of …, being human, being humane, being together – at least for the time of the flight, and with this at least for some time together in a limited space with a vast array of options: the most likely a safe landing, the unlikely but possible the end of …., well: personal history, of life as consequence of a ‘simple crash’, of being victim of any kind of politics …; and possibly also the beginning of a new history: lasting friendships can develop everywhere and anywhere where we still find humans, humane beings …

…. primitive mentality of rural peasants.

May be – finally we cannot simply shake-off our history, in political science we call it path dependency. And there had been countries of peasants and other countries may be seen as countries of cowboys. At least the first sort of countries never went to real war and pretended to be world gendarmes …

I remember some figures from Kinzer’s book:

A public opinion survey taken after Clinton’s visit found that 52 percent of Turks had a favourable opinion of the United States; by 2006 the number had fallen to an abysmal 12 percent. When asked in the 2006 poll which countries they believed threatened world peace, 60percent of Turks named the United States. (Only 16 percent named Iran, which George W. Bush was thendenouncing as part of the global ‘axis of evil.”)**

And shortly after presenting these results he states

This

particular reference is made to the anti-Islamist war of the Bush administration

produced a broad national consensus that Turkey needed to break out of Washington’s orbit and pursue an independent foreign policy – something Turkish leftists had been urging for years without success.***

Is it really by chance that around this year Turkey took over the Presidency of the Organization of the Islamic Conference?

And is it by accident that Turkey took also a leading role in the Economic Cooperation Union, for instance by co-founding the Economic Cooperation Organization Trade and Development Bank?

__________________

Later the day: I think it is the third time in my life that I am in Bonn – former capital of my former home-country – I stayed more often in most of the other capitals of the EU-member states than here. And the two times I had been here before “I came from Europe”, having been there in connection with some EU-business around asylum seekers and anti-social policy. Now I come from another perspective – a little bit another perspective: Human Rights.

On another occasion I will come back to it: unconditional, undeniable and indivisible. And as such only then meaningful, only then a matter of guaranteeing fundamental rights if it is possible to rebuke fundamentalism: the ruling of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s and  Ahmet Davutoğlu’s move towards tolerance and even supp-ort of Islamist fundamentalism and George Walker Bush’s Christian fundamentalism alike, the latter claiming according to the Guardian that

God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq.

But the really dangerous fundamentalism is the one onto which both obviously merge: the fundamentalism fundamentalism of unbridled market capitalism.

And this is surely exactly today, on the occasion of being here in order to discuss Human Rigths of special relevance

In 2009, UNCTAD, stated in a document titled

The Global Economic Crisis: Systemic Failures and Multilateral Remedies

Market fundamentalist laissez-faire of the last 20 years has dramatically failed the test

__________________

It is a long time ago – I arrived in the German capital – probably in the 1970s.

Sure, many things went wrong, showing – possibly – even disastrous consequences. But there had been one thing we knew during that meeting: Human Rights is surely not least about something different: rather than being a matter of “granting rights”, Human Rights are about another society. And that will be a topic that is more likely to be discussed during the workshop in Esslingen next week, the adage Humane Standards and Capitalist Greed****

 _____________________________________________

**********************

_____________________________________________

* Crescent & Star. Turkey between two worlds: NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001/2008 (revised edition): 28

Leaving the cowboy aside, from my perspective it is – with all caution that is always required – a book that is worthwhile reading. A kind of rough guide to Turkey – though not as rough as the touristy thing with that name.

** 217

*** 219

**** actually it cannot be properly translated: Menschliches Maß und kapitalistische Maßlosigkeit – it could mean humane standards but also standards of humanity or standards defined by human beings …

The Game is Over or: Strawberry Cake

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in joys - what we usually take for it, Peter's Log, thoughts on life and its philosophy

I remember Niklas Luhmann once writing or telling this little anecdote: a couple, married since many years … – and the housewife (well, yes, it had been last century, and not at its very end), so: the housewife made every year a “birthday surprise cake” for her husband: strawberry cake. He enjoyed every year, showed his pleasure by indulging into it … Well, and then it happened once up a time … – Listen to her: “darling, I am so very sorry but you know, I have had these problems, couldn’t …, well, to cut a long story short: I had not been able to have your favourite cake for today’s birthday.” She was near to crying, but he approached her tenderly, saying: “Listen, love. To be honest, I don’t really like strawberry cake. But seeing you every year, looking at you how much you enjoyed seeing me eating the cake …, well I didn’t want to take this joy from you.”

The game was over, of course.

And so is my game here – a different one, but still similar to the life of the couple and also with that of my highly esteemed colleague Immanuel, occasionally seen as  “regular verb” not least on grounds of his legendary daily walk.

More or less the last day – and despite some irregularities: wrapping up stuff, final discussions, posting some stuff to Ireland before carrying it with be over the next months the regularities. And in this light, I had been over the last days getting increasingly aware of the play-fullness of many things: breakfast: Gülistan bringing me the most beautiful Turkish coffee, Yusuf getting later the simit for me, and a tea, the daily swim, after the first four hour shift between 6: 30 and 10: 30; going afterwards grabbing something to eat, walking back to the office, eating, drinking the lovely Ayran, getting another tea from Mehmed, before heading to the library …

Later back – “in the public”, there it is where at least for me the routines are getting so clear – clear to me and to the others and in the interaction with the others . The routines getting clear by the questions that do not need to be asked …, and that nevertheless are asked. Tea? Coffee? These questions are asked and they evoke a smile when the reply is the one that bad been expected. …

The end of the game … – no coffee, no tea anymore …. – only breakfast in the morning before a irregular day: going to Ankara, meeting friends.

No, in the simit restaurant here on the campus people didn’t know it –from where should they, we could speak just by gestures, smiles, signs … “This is Yusuf” – the first day I am told his name. “And I am Suleyman. What is your name?” “I am Peter”. Yusuf stretches the had out to me. Gülistan smiles at me.

No, they do not know – Mehmet knows .. . We meet later, this day I had to return to the office, clear up in the office. Mehmet knows. We embrace, kiss the cheeks, like “real men” … güle güle ….  The game is over … . And we both new: not a game – it never had been a game and it never will be a game. And only when we pretend things being one, we can get aware of how serious it actually is.

… like being stuck in strawberry cake.

But I am first stuck in further work for a while …