Buying Ecstasy Nakhchivan

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Buying Ecstasy Nakhchivan

More about: Emotions. Kazakhstan reaffirms role as mediator in Armenia-Azerbaijan peace talks. Biden: US stands ready to support durable peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. State budget bill for submitted to Azerbaijani Parliament. Four years pass since liberation of Azerbaijan's Fuzuli from Armenian occupation. Four years pass since liberation of Zangilan's Minjivan from Armenian occupation. USD 1. The 'Untranslatable'emotions you never knew you had 12 April Read: Perhaps a little kilig — the jittery fluttering feeling as you talk to someone you fancy? How about uitwaaien — which encapsulates the revitalising effects of taking a walk in the wind? These words — taken from Bantu, Tagalog, and Dutch — have no direct English equivalent, but they represent very precise emotional experiences that are neglected in our language. And if Tim Lomas at the University of East London has his way, they might soon become much more familiar. Learning these words, he hopes, will offer us all a richer and more nuanced understanding of ourselves. It was 'untranslatable' in the sense that there was no direct or easy equivalent encoded within the English vocabulary that could capture that deep resonance. Intrigued, he began to hunt for further examples, scouring the academic literature and asking every foreign acquaintance for their own suggestions. The first results of this project were published in the Journal of Positive Psychology last year. Lomas readily admits that many of the descriptions he has offered so far are only an approximation of the term's true meaning. But studying these terms will not just be of scientific interest; Lomas suspects that familiarising ourselves with the words might actually change the way we feel ourselves, by drawing our attention to fleeting sensations we had long ignored. Her research was inspired by the observation that certain people use different emotion words interchangeably, while others are highly precise in their descriptions. Importantly, she has found that this then determines how well we cope with life. If you are better able to pin down whether you are feeling despair or anxiety, for instance, you might be better able to decide how to remedy those feelings: whether to talk to a friend, or watch a funny film. Or being able to identify your hope in the face of disappointment might help you to look for new solutions to your problem. In this way, emotion vocabulary is a bit like a directory, allowing you to call up a greater number of strategies to cope with life. Sure enough, people who score highly on emotion granularity are better able to recover more quickly from stress and are less likely to drink alcohol as a way of recovering from bad news. It can even improve your academic success. Marc Brackett at Yale University has found that teaching 10 and year-old children a richer emotional vocabulary improved their end-of-year grades, and promoted better behaviour in the classroom. They might even inspire us to try new experiences, or appreciate old ones in a new light. In the meantime, Lomas is still continuing to build his lexicography — which has grown to nearly a thousand terms. Tell me about Azerbaijan. Armenian Aggression. No comment. Azerbaijan in Focus.

Provocation As Communication

Buying Ecstasy Nakhchivan

By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy. To browse Academia. Its theoretical angles come from studies of communi-cation as a community practice a form of society , psychoanalysis Freud, Lacan, Deleuze , semiotics and philosophy. Despite multiple uses, the concept of provocation is undertheorized and underinvestigated. Theorizing provocation narratives as communication strategies, this article shows that what is at stake in provocations are crucial issues of intentionality, accountability, and blame. While some provocations elicit reactions that are beneficial to the parties involved, others may incite violence. The second part of our study focuses on the latter because of their potential for shifting blame to victims. To deconstruct the mechanism by which provocation introduces this type of bias, we use Labov's method of narrative analysis and apply it to two news items. We conclude on how provocation can serve as a theoretical framework and methodological tool for narrative analysis in many communication contexts and fields. The author tends to analyse the man-media as the latest media in the field of current media, a phenomenon that does not belong to civic nor participative journalism, nor can its media activity be subsumed under UGC user generated content. The question of whether the man-media in reality is a media and its role in the public sphere are the focus points of consideration of man as media. The man-media is considered an informative-oriented individual, interested in public matters and its own active engagement in public affairs, independently producing and placing the media content: news, information, reports, comments, stories, and analytical articles. The author uses the same name for a group or multitude of individuals with the same goals, taking both journalism as a craft and the media as an institution, and uniting them in their own, individual and autonomous activity. That line of research is now focused on the explosion of social networking media. As in the rest of the social sciences, we are forced to innovate, at least partially, our models and methods of analysis. That road cannot but be considered other than useful and necessary, although challenging and questioning. In this article we will present a synthesis of the moment in semiotics of mediatizations of a coexistence between the broadcasting and networking models called, at least for now, postbroadcasting. We will then present a review of some of the innovative movements happening now: not only by confronting the new mediatizations but also new perspectives that arise from the study of previous mediatizations and their audiences. We will focus on two mediatizations that are seldom present at the centre of media studies: graphics in public places and the media of sound — both of which, from our point of view, make up the background of the new mediatizations. Katz, D. Ariel, S. Sadeh and M. Segal eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls also edition. METra 2. Epica e tragedia: una mappatura, a cura di A. Rodighiero, A. Maganuco, M. Nimis, G. Log in with Facebook Log in with Google. Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Need an account? Click here to sign up. Provocation As Communication Novica Milic. Provocation \[2\] Talk Giuseppe Schembri Bonaci. Communication and Media as Culture Anecita Altis. Provocation in Philosophy and Art Dan Egonsson. Semiotics and interstitial mediatizations Jose Luis Fernandez. Its theoretical angles come from studies of communication as a community practice a form of society , psychoanalysis Freud, Lacan, Deleuze , semiotics and philosophy. Time in Plato\] Provocation remains the general topic of the seminar. You previously heard several lectures on provocation from the historical perspective, from the point of view of jurisprudence, i. After all these weighty topics and approaches — philosophy of law and politics, ancient Rome, ethics and representation of minorities; violence and sexuality — I am left with a somewhat easier path, a more lighthearted approach although, lightheartedness is sometimes the hardest to achieve. I remember your laughter — a healthy laughter, for laughter is always healthy — and I would like that sign of cheerfulness to mark our beginning. Therefore, I will first talk about the miniskirt as provocation, as a communicative sign. You will see why. But before my first case, what is communication, what does it mean to view things from the perspective of communication? Schematically speaking, there are two basic meanings of the term communication. First, I will give you five definitions, the way they are noted in the beginning of the university textbook Communication Studies1 by Sky Marsen, and penned by five communication theorists all of these definitions have emerged in the last fifteen years. So, to the question what is communication, the following answers are given: 1. Looking at these five definitions of the term communication — the way it is used in the field of studies, especially academic studies — from the period between and , I thought at first that those studies were headed in the right direction. Why structural or mathematical? These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages. This is, from the mathematical-engineering standpoint, the basic definition of communication as transmission of the message, and, as such, it was, with certain 1 Claude E. XI This has enormous significance, which can hardly be overemphasised. But, what is the problem today with that definition, with that foundation, if we no longer want to design technology, emitters, transmitters, receivers, telecommunication devices of all sorts, especially not computers, but want to use them, and, along the way, want to ponder that use? Especially if we want, like I do now, to process a sign such as the miniskirt according to that definition? And it is precisely those identities that have become problematic in the contemporary practice of communication, and therefore in the theories or philosophies of communication in the last fifty or sixty years. It would be an erotic invitation, a sexual challenge, and not much more. When miniskirts first appeared, somewhere in the mids, they were at first that type of sign — erotic, or sexual — and for that reason banned in some countries, because it was thought that they were an invitation to violence, rape, that ultimately they legitimized violence — from verbal to actual one. It is not only the matter, or the world around us, that is multitudinous, but we as a world are multitudinous. Both a unit and a flux — that is the subject. In short, the figure of the subject first became double — both a point and the energy, an object and an act, an instance and an event — in order to later become multiple — a set of different actions that it sets in motion and that set it in motion. It took long time for the metaphysics of subjectivity to come to this image of the subject, and that image has not yet prevailed in the philosophies that deal with this matter. Among the forces that mediate the subject, those that belong to the field of communication are almost the most important ones. Foremost, the liberation of women: Mary Quant was a fashion designer, an entrepreneur, and a woman inclined to feminism. The first event took place on October 30, , in Melbourne, Australia. It was the Derby Cup, attended by the jet set of the whole Commonwealth, a rather important occasion for the Anglo-Saxon elite. Soon afterwards was the famous Dior to design his collection of minis, and the thing was to spread everywhere. Codified or coded. This process of decodingrecoding is very important and has significant ramifications for the contemplation of the structure of the provocative sign in general. To cut it short, here are, given schematically, a few questions raised by the complexity of this sign: a If it is no longer just a sign of sexual provocation, while it can remain a sign of erotic provocation, what would that mean for the structuring of the difference, so important nowadays, between sexuality — taken in a physical, instinctual, or narrowly defined genital reaction — and the erotic field which has become rather diversified, where sex is no longer the same thing as gender, and which makes us consider Eros not just according to anatomy, nature, but according to the model of culture? Or as an aesthetic sign? Or as a sign that hides and discloses at the same time? But how? How can we deal with the obvious complexity of this sign as a sign of provocation if it has lost its monosemy and gained, produced meanings that can now be disparate, in a strange way even opposite both to provoke and not to provoke, for example, or to be the sign of youth and old age, or to disclose and hide, etc. In order to answer these questions, in order to start over with communication and our subject of provocation, I will go back to the term itself, communicatio, which comes from Latin. This word has the resources that have not yet fully been exploited, but which can be very useful to us. It could be of great, even crucial importance. It is not erroneous, although it leads us in a theoretically unproductive direction, because it implies that a message is only being stated. Their existence is now due to the difference within — between connotation and importance, signification and value — things that even Shannon had to take into account. This conception of communication, aimed at categories such as community and society, was developed by German sociologist and theoretician Luhmann, for whom communication is a form of society, i. Would it be an invitation or a challenge — we will see soon that these are not the same thing — to a communio, to speech, to a game of speech, an invitation or a challenge that has more than one meaning? Or, if communication is an event that establishes one community, that produces the participants at the very moment in which they are producing the 1 Niklas Luhmann: Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, I Frankfurt am Main, , What is responsibility? Responsibility when it comes to communication, especially in the case of provocation as communication? We must postpone the answer to the question of response and responsibility. In order to discuss it, to be able to describe responsibility from the perspective of our topic — provocation as communication — we must first collect more elements. This motif of responsibility will have its day at the very end of these lectures, as if they were all aimed at it, to their distant impetus, as a horizon of this addition of mine to this seminar. This meaning of the word provocatio is legal, legal-political, and it was lost with the disappearance of the right which it signified, namely the right to appeal, to have an additional, supplementary, appellate legal proceeding. He is a challenger, not only, and not even primarily, of other fighters, his potential enemies, but just as much of the spectators watching their fights. His intention is to excite them, make them stand up, invest their passions in the event that follows. Cicero and other authors use this meaning of the term, which is also the one that was passed on as tradition. It is in this way that, throughout Latin medieval times until the modern era, provocation has come to mean, above all — a challenge. For the moment, I will stick to the semantics of this term. And it will remain so. It will have its wider, somewhat shifted meanings, or it will at least undergo a certain metamorphosis to some of its variations and nuances, but its core will maintain the meaning of a challenge which generates or is supposed to generate an affective reaction, a reaction that is equivalent to an emotional or bodily or even somatic excitement. The so-called political provocateur is a case in point — being a person who at a political gathering uses a gesture — and here a gesture, an act, is very important, given that it almost goes beyond the spoken words I will come back to this below — trying to provoke a more intense or even exaggerated reaction, so that that which exists latently, as an emotional correlate of a political stance the so-called political charge could be rendered visible, manifest, or so that this correlate could be used for accelerating the whole process, possibly also to its excessive forms. Generally speaking, the existence of political provocateurs of one or another type demonstrates that politics has become an arena, that it has come out of the context of ordinary, peaceful debate or discussion and shifted towards the street, where it is not only a confrontation of political ideas, but has become — or is at least on the verge of becoming — a physical clash. Provocation has come to modern sport from the sporting practices of Roman times. If someone provokes me, and if they are successful, than I lose my temper. Or the role of the psyche which is there as an experience, as an event, as an intermediary or a medium for the body. If provocation is a challenge to the latent to become manifest, if we are in the field of symptoms, than we are not far from the field of psychology, or more accurately, psychoanalysis. I am only trying here to offer some food for thought, to map various possible paths. II, , V , In what follows, I will try to analyse provocation as communication along these lines: 1. In doing this, my reference to psychoanalysis will be methodological because the transfer from the latent to the manifest is a hermeneutical and methodical transfer and not specifically psychoanalytic. In short, I will try to discuss the topic of provocation as communication from an angle where psychoanalysis, semiology, theories of communication and media ethics intersect. All these questions that have opened up for us and invited us to give responses transcend the standard mathematical, i. They block the questions that call for responsibility, because they give us predetermined answers. And therefore, instead of the traditional model of media communication, relying on content, representation, meaning and ideo1 See: F. For example, how does one communicative sign establish itself as polysemic? Why is the space of traditional media seamless, and the space of new media, mainly digital ones, creased with cracks, reticulate and decentralized? Finally, where are the boundaries of media communication, and in what measure are those boundaries subjugated to a communicative interiority ra1 N. See also: Holmes, op. Crang, P. Crang, J. More precisely, to provoke means to stimulate desire. Desire is the way in which the body addresses the subject, the consciousness. It is the central point of all three psychoanalyses that we inherited from the twentieth century. There is, first of all, the psychoanalysis of its founder Sigmund Freud. Then there is the theoretical psychoanalysis of Jacques Lacan. In the history of thought, all the way from Plato and Aristotle, who were the first to think about desire, it has been defined by way of lack, or shortage, by way of absence. I am hungry because I lack food. I want a Porsche because I cannot have one. And so on. Desire is still understood along the axis of a lack or absence, but Freud tries to make a shift and think desire from the angle of its fulfilment, from the angle of pleasure. Desire is no longer a void or a lack, but instead a hurdle or a gap that is to be overcome. That is, above all, a methodological move: if a scientist wants to explore his subject, he must approach it from there where it is most visible, where it reaches its climax. For Freud, that is the field of sexuality. To say that desire is a caprice or whimsical passion is not to say that it is something strong, but that such a strength has its own way, that it escapes control — where this control would be the control of the conscious, that is to say, there is a portion of desire which belongs to the nonconscious, to the unconscious. How can we reach that realm? Freud at first reached it by studying dreams. I dream of water if I am thirsty. In my dreams, I eat chocolate or drive a Porsche. Desire is still related to a lack, which means that dreams are an illusory, simulacrum-like, phantasmal fulfilment, a fulfilment which does not fulfil, except merely temporarily and in a twisted manner, unreal from the point of view of consciousness — non-real and therefore unconscious. What is this dream about? An old man, who had been installed as a watcher, sat beside the body, murmuring prayers. Rushing in, he found that the old man had fallen asleep, and the sheets and one arm of the beloved body were burnt by a fallen candle. It is quite possible that he had taken into his sleep his anxiety lest the aged watcher should not be equal to his task. We shall then note that even this dream is not lacking in a wish-fulfilment. It was for the sake of this wish-fulfilment that the father slept a moment longer. What is it that is lacking here, what is deficient about this interpretation? It is complete, it explains all the elements of the dream, but it does not provide the key to a theory of dreams as wish-fulfilment. From the point of view of dream hermeneutics, the dream is transparent; but from the point of view of psychoanalysis, it is provocative. It is actually provocative to the extent 1 S. The first of these is the one which Freud developed in relation to the Oedipus complex, invoking the mythical story in which Oedipus kills his father in order to marry his mother. Through his belated waking, one must say, when the child had been already, or at least partially, burnt. In the same vein, he does not kill his father, Laius, because he hates him, but he kills him because Laius attacked him as a stranger. Neither at that moment nor later did Oedipus know that the person attacking him was his father — he only subsequently learnt this. Oedipus — that is the destiny of the subject and his desire in the father-mother-child triangle. The dream, however, interferes with the Oedipal model and thus provokes a revision of psychoanalysis. And as much as the introduction of the Oedipal libido — and particularly its presence in children — was a provocation for the bourgeois culture, in the same way the introduction of the death drive as primordial was a provocation for the so-called humanistic culture. Thought could not remain the same after these provocations perpetrated by Freud. In both of these cases we again touch upon the topic of provocation. But if in our conscious life, signs are there instead of objects, the unconscious knows about the images in which the relations are reversed, where the objects have become signs, symbols, discourses. For Deleuze and Guattari, desire is not a lack or shortage, desire is, on the contrary, a surplus: it is productive; desire induces the subject to create something there where that something is lacking. And this does not apply solely to dreams. In the cracks of being, in the creases and abysses of the actual, they uncover the being that could be expressed, created, or realised in various, multiple ways; like question marks, they are in search of their exclamation marks. Finally, I would like to emphasise to what extent psychoanalysis, as postulated by Freud, Lacan, Deleuze and Guattari, has changed our understanding of communication. The concept of communication, which we still need to construct, must comprise the discovery of the unconscious, new conceptions of desire, i. The analysis of provocation as a kind of communicative sign should make us appreciate the role of the bodily — the role which has until now, almost without exception, been neglected in communication theories. And that medium, most certainly, is television. Its communication is centralised, its emission is unidirectional and creates a seamless space without emptiness. In that sense, television does not offer images of reality, but the images with which imagination suppresses reality, all along believing that it is exactly reality that it deals with. And while television remains a global panopticum used to surveil those who stare at it, digital communications create a space with numerous cracks, disruptions, without a centre, a rhizome which we can join in fragmentized times, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes in delayed, almost random successions. In all these cases, integration is based on interaction, and not vice versa, like in the case of television. There is one parallel that enables this kind of functioning of the digital world, and therefore, the digital subject. The decentralized, fragmented, rhizomatic web of technology corresponds to fragmentation — or, even better — fractalisation of desire which is constantly being recoded and transcoded. These 1 S. Which is exactly a trait of every communio, every communicatio. Until next Monday. November 26, 1 M. III, What are tabloids? How do they provoke and what do they employ for that purpose? It is believed that it came from pharmaceutics. The father of this term would appear to be a certain Henry Wellcome, an Englishman that, together with an American, Silas M. Tabloid journalism has three key informational characteristics, and three clear aims which define its teleology, its profile: 1. This last aim is particularly important. It leads us to provocation as our general topic. The sued company based its defence on the fact that the term had already been used in many different fields, and that with the lawsuit Bourroughs Wellcome was trying to stop the development of the English language. The first statement testifies of a general acceptance of the term to designate a newspaper — at first it was a newspaper of a smaller format, with short stories told in a simplified manner, with pages dedicated to sports and most general subjects, introducing — and this is very significant — a special page dedicated to the female readership. The second statement opened a question that is current to this day: is it possible, and to what extent, with what rights, to take a word from everyday speech and trademark it, thus stopping competitors from using it? It is a derogatory term, because in some cultures — the western ones especially — yellow is related to excrement, and, indirectly, with something that is cheap or even without value. What was hiding behind this designation? In the journalistic sense, it was a turn of journalism towards the masses — newspapers in general had before that time counted on more educated, wealthier classes — and that turn followed the tastes of the masses, their literacy, their horizon of expectations, etc. One quarter of the Journal was filled with stories on crimes, told in a moralistic manner, and for the first time the front pages were showing by the standards of the time adultery and nudity. Outcault to draw the cartoon of the boy in the yellow 1 D. The culmination was in , when the war over Cuba broke out between the United States and Spain. Hearst made headway then. The stories on abuses, on humiliations accompanied, for example, by drawings of Spanish soldiers taking off the clothes of American women , on robberies — once again, most of these stories were made up — had electrified the public to such a point that America entered a war in which it occupied Cuba and ended the Spanish involvement in Latin America, thus finishing off Spain as an imperial power. During the 20th century, the press, yellow or not, would 1 G. That pattern would repeat itself in all the wars of the XX century and the wars at the beginning of the XXI century, with different variations. Or the press service within the ministry of defence, whose job is to inform, or misinform, would decide to use total censorship, like in the case of the first Gulf war in , when the only reporter left in Baghdad was the reporter from CNN, used by both sides to send to the world their version of events — the American side being far more successful. Smith ed. Sensation comes from sensatio, which in turn comes from sensus, a sensation or a sense, an expression of affectivity. To create or make a sensation, in a journalistic sense, would mean to 1 R. In fact, the old Latin word sensus designated on the one hand sense, feeling, affectivity, and on the other thought or meaning. And, of course, yellow journalism is not limited only to the press, newspapers, it is increasingly present in other media as well: radio, television, and, as of late, the Internet. The intellect, a tool which, according to Nietzsche, enjoys playing tricks on us when it comes to the matter of its own importance, and especially so when it uses stereotypes, is being satisfied on its most superficial level — the level of its own egoism. As a matter of fact, the intellect becomes a surface for its own affect of importance — it self-affects with itself, that is, by the image of its own grandeur — and that disables its most important and most valuable function: the power of innovation and invention, the ability to ask questions. I would choose only two examples of yellow journalism. The first is represented by the front page of the British tabloid Daily Express. And the government are paying them, says the subheading, also large. Because the state of the media today — their overall tabloidisation — can best be represented through the factor of time. Its compression: ever since the lapse of the informational distribution of the image of an event, under the influence of technology, went from a day in the press to a few hours on the radio , and then to a few seconds, so that the reproduction is happening in so-called real time, quasi-momentarily, almost instantly, the media have strived to match the time of recording with the time of receiving. It is the other way around: something that is public wants to penetrate the private, and the provocation comes from that direction. And what rights does that which defines itself as public suppose? What special rights does it have over what is private or 1 J. And what is the boundary between those two fields, the public and the private? I have always considered it to be a provocation and that that type of provocation should be refused, that it is even our duty to refuse it. We are talking about the poetics of television as a medium. What are the main features of that poetics? First of all, that poetics requires something to be said shortly. This is interesting from at least two angles. The type of attention that has to be stimulated every few seconds obviously has something to do with the concept according to which the audience is likely to fall asleep or change the channel at any given moment. The cognitive apparatus that shapes attention and understanding in this way is completely reduced, diminished, letting understanding just brush over the surface of words and images, and then demanding to be reawakened. Because of its demand for shortness, this type of discourse can only correspond to short fragments of, say, Heraclitus, or speech in maxims, gnomes, proverbs. However, this is opposed by the second rule of the poetics of television. Besides the fact that something has to be said shortly, it also has to be said clearly. Or, as it is often put, simply. Personally, I am a big supporter of clarity, even simplicity in speech, but clarity and simplicity most often do not go hand in hand with shortness: in order to clarify something, it has to be analysed, which, in turn, asks for time. Or, they could, but they would most certainly lose all meaning. While the rule of shortness refers to the amount, the quantity of discourse, and is on the side of the signifier, the rule of clarity refers to the signified, the semantics and its quality. As a rule in this case, the demand for quantity and the demand for quality are in conflict. Two arguments are being offered by theorists of television poetics. The first bases itself on the nature of the medium itself. It is said, for example, that television is the medium of the picture, the moving picture, and that the speech which accompanies that picture should, as its complement, submit to it. The picture, however, is taken as something self-explanatory. But that leads to new questions or new assumptions. It can be relatively explanatory only under certain circumstances, when something that had already been given to our perception, our understanding, our cognition, is being recognised: the picture is only re-cognitively explanatory. Also, the picture becomes much clearer — more explanatory — only when it is accompanied by words, when it is provided with the discursive, most often verbal context. One and the same picture can be accompanied by different verbal discourses, and therefore have different connotations, or, more precisely, different meanings — which leaves an overly wide and overly dangerous margin for image-manipulation. Although the pictures have the advantage from the technological aspect — allegedly, the television principally records and transmits moving pictures; allegedly, because it also records and transmits the sound — on television, speech is at least equally important as pictures; it is not a mere complement, assistant, supplement or compensation. The other argument also bases itself on technology. It is said that the advantage of television comes from the fact that it can instantaneously transmit the image and the sound, meaning that it can be a direct witness of events. It is a significant advantage, and should not be undermined, under the condition that the live transmission of an event is not a simulation of that event, nor a simulation of the alleged instantaneity alleged again, because sometimes a choice of an angle can disrupt this instantaneity. In the domain of politics, those are mainly so-called live debates i. It is a form of the interview, or a form of an expanded interview where several guests are expected to engage in a verbal dispute. Who authorizes them for such a role? Well, the media for which they work. That is a rather poor legitimisation, just like calling upon 1 This technique of media manipulation was best described by Pierre Bourdieu - P. The need for simplification presupposes a certain vulgarity in its recipients. And, once again, it is not about the intellectual abilities or the cognitive capacities as much as it is about the manipulation of our attention, it is about lulling the viewers, in a rhythm that is calculated and can psychologically be established with more or less precision, into sleep and then reawakening them, awakening them and putting them to sleep again, undulating this mediatic drowsiness in which suggestiveness would be at its peak because it is taking place at the very threshold of perception and its dis continuity. And that is where we meet, once again, the topic of provocation, of provocative communication. The difference is irrelevant, because his job too consists of provoking and generating attention. Attention can be defined as a disposition of perceptive, sensory, and therefore also bodily capacities in time. The intellect is also being reduced to a sense, i. Deontology speaks of duties. The first and foremost duty is responsibility. But as much as it could be said that responsibility monitors those duties, it could to a greater extent be said that it entices them, that it serves them as a pillar or a foundation. I will rather try, as much as it is in my power, to say something about the duty, responsibility that is not normative, or, in other words, responsibility which, although universal, is not predetermined a priori determined. I allow myself, and in this I am far from being the only one, to doubt the historical achievements of these efforts, no matter how nice — or, better yet, sublime — they may seem. And, just as higher education oriented itself towards the formation of professionals, experts, with the aim of achieving a qualified workforce capable of improving economic performances improving the input-output ratio , or as the intellectuals in the media are either an ornament or an alibi for the bad conscience of those media, so is the universal subject a project of the past. Why do I then point out the duty of responsibility as a value? Because that value constantly reevaluates other values, overlooking and stimulating them. But also because responsibility — particularly as an ethical duty — can be used as an analytical lever for a revolution in the understanding of communication, even communication as provocation. It is, before all, an effort to give a response. Of course, there are many types of questions, and even such questions — quite a few of them, actually — that assume or have answers beforehand, where nothing is actually being asked, where all that is asked for is a confirmation for the already existing, pre-prepared, or even long since given answers. A question appears only when one reevaluates the existing answers, and it especially appears — it is not often the case, but still happens occasionally — when there are no answers. Paradoxically, if you will, responsibility is constituted in an absence of responses, and not by way od responses themselves. This is just another way of saying that it is constituted by a question. So, whenever the media — whichever they may be — bombard us with their answers, whenever they try to instil in us those answers as sole and definitive ones, every time that those answers are meant as eternal solutions, definitive solutions to the questions, dilemmas, ambivalences and even aporias, in all those instances we are dealing with provocation that closes, and not opens communication. But what about real bombardment, the bombardment of the real, and how does it interact with this informational, mediatic, semiotic one? The governments have to do something or face a public relations disaster. Gow, R. Paterson and A. Preston: Bosnia by Television London: Verso, , Following the already established 1 A. Hooper: The Military and the Media Aldershot, , Minear, C. Scott and T. Weiss, eds. Badsay, ed. Balabanova: Media, Wars and Politics — Comparing the Incomparable in Western and Eastern Europe Hampshire, , xvii-xviii, 76, 79, 80, 84, 86, 89, 92, , , , , See: S. As we know, the latter ensued, which led to the crash of Serbian military resistance. Given that the military intervention was dubious from the standpoint of international law without an explicit authorisation from the UN Security Council, led by a regional military alliance whose members had not been attacked, etc. The war had to have a moral justification. See: J. See also: N. Can this assertion be applied more widely, to the structure of provocation in general, to provocation as a type of a communicative event? I think it can: whenever and wherever communication unfolds in a way that it comes down to just one, predetermined answer, despite the fact that the participants in that communication have at their disposal enough room to reexamine that answer, or maybe seek a new one, or at least reevaluate the validity or justifiability of what is predetermined and supposed as the sole, than we can talk about provocation. The linguistic ambivalence is disrupted by violence, and speech becomes an event of ambiviolence. Provocation is exactly that point or moment of causing and inviting force — coercion — into the realm of speech. That does not mean that the body is of the culprit for provocation, just that it is the last polygon of the reaction caused by the reduction of communication to yielding a single, mandatory answer, designed to annul the possibility of communication as reexamination. And, to revoke the question is to revoke freedom. Why freedom? For example, whenever I invoke historical circumstances, I transfer responsibility from myself to another, or others, or the other, i. And historically responsible, or responsible for history. After these few passages — onerous ones, I admit it, and I am sorry I cannot dedicate them more than this obviously insufficient and overly dense scheme — where do we stand with provocation as communication regarding the question of responsibility, i. It becomes obvious that provocation, as a type of communication, can be viewed from at least two angles. The structure of that provocation is the same for the media tabloids, and war politicians, for aggressive marketing and for propaganda agents. It has structurally expanded to all the spheres of public life, and we are only left with the possibility to evaluate its degree and its tempo. Provocation can also be viewed from a different perspective. Every sign, every word or every expression that would reinforce the suppressed side or even set as opposed, according to the previous perspective , the side of the question the questioning, the alternative, the dilemma, the ambivalence , can also be taken as a provocation. It is a provocation of the provocation, a challenge to what is challenging us to consent. Or, if you like, between the signs, words, expressions themselves, in silence that always brings time, the time for reconsideration, reexamination, reevaluation. I would give just one example, if that could be said of something that is more than an example. The culture that we live in, in the sense of a social habitus and a value disposition, has ceased to be a mercantile culture: it has become a marketing culture. Clashes, contradictions, reluctances have become part of the motorics of such culture so it could reinforce its marketing provocation, the challenge for its signs-objects. Hence responsibility as a response to provocation rather than reaction as reaction ressentiment. Responsibility is in its basis the freedom to search for answers. But in order to search for them — in order to keep this plurality which will not be abolished by giving a single answer as the definitive solution — one has to search for the question. One has to question. There are, of course, circumstances, pragmatics, necessities even, that not infrequently require a single, urgent answer; in some situations it is necessary to respond instantly — forever, it would seem, although this is temporary as well — with one or only one answer. Napomene i bibliografske reference uz tekst. SR-ID Articular lo simple. Angel Xolocotzi. Coins Donald T. Lessico e metafora tra Omero ed Eschilo: due casi di studio dalla parodo dei Persiani Margherita Nimis. Grammar and vocabulary Uliana 36,6. Winter Torsten Leuschner. Choledochal cyst in adults Gary Ghahremani. Narendra Bael-9 Dr. Govind Vishwakarma. Related topics Psychoanalysis Communication Deconstruction.

Buying Ecstasy Nakhchivan