Towards an abiogenetic understanding of the legal system

Coluna Poiesis – Encontros da Literatura e do Direito

OFICINA DO CES – UNIVERSIDADE DE COIMBRA

Towards an abiogenetic understanding of the legal system

 

ABSTRACT

In brief, this article aims to verify how much the comprehension of fiction in law and also of law as fiction, and an abiogenetic approach, can contribute for a new view of the legal system, in order to reinforce the necessity to have a paradigm shift towards an immunological approach, as an unfolding of the autopoietic social systems theory of Niklas Luhmann, as it has being discussed in the Humanities by authors like Willis Santiago Guerra Filho[1], Roberto Esposito and by others.

RESUMO

Em suma, este artigo tem como objetivo verificar o quanto a compreensão da ficção em direito e também do direito como ficção, e uma abordagem abiogênica, podem contribuir para uma nova visão do sistema legal, a fim de reforçar a necessidade de uma mudança de paradigma, em direção a uma abordagem imunológica, como um desdobramento da teoria dos sistemas sociais autopoiéticos de Niklas Luhmann, como tem sido discutido nas Ciências Humanas por autores como Willis Santiago Guerra Filho, Roberto Esposito e por outros de diferentes áreas de pesquisa.

KEYWORDS: Entropy. Effectiveness of law. Imaginary.  Autopoiesis. Autoimmunity crisis.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Entropia. Eficácia do direito. Imaginário. Autopoiese Crise de autoimunidade.

 

The main purpose here is to bring in collaboration such ideas to end up with the proposal of a paradigm shift into the autopoietic systems theory towards an immunological approach, also by using some of the concepts and reflexions obtained in other disciplines[2], as it has being discussed in the Humanities by authors like Roberto Esposito[3] and also by others from different fields of research.

It aims to continue eliciting consequences from this perspective, in which the law is to be viewed with the same character of dreams, as a fiction, which means, that it could never be, properly, conceived as positive, since it is always “in fieri”, on the way to be established, built, rebuilt, renovated, from its interpreters as real creators, to be seing as poets, and not mere operators, technicians. Aiming to do so we employed the concept of “entropy” developed by Erwin Schrödinger  and also by Michel Serres,  and the concepts of “neighbor”, “strange”, “the other” from Levinas and Derrida, in order to have some possible answer to what is considered as an autoimmunity crisis of the legal system, in connection with an abiogenetic undersanding of the legal system. The present research therefore intends to be understood as an sort of an offspring of the theoretical framework about the imaginary knowledge of law.

It aims also, in addition, to attempt to answer to the following questions:

If the meaning of the term entropy understood as perturbation could be redefined, in order to be understood not as a maximum of disorder, but as the maximum of power/potentiality, that encouraged creation and become productive. Is the order produced by perturbation, by disturbation?

Maybe those questions could help to find a way to an experimental, experiential and theoretical research powered by a philosophical work oriented toward process, dynamic, transformation, ontogenesis, abiogenetic and to find another development and understanding to the legal system, seeking to bring contributions to a Literary and Hermeneutics criticism – a poetics of Philosophy of Law and the State.

Book “What is life?”

To begin I would like to refer to a remark from Erwin Schrödinger, in his book “What is life”[4], in the first page, about Spinoza’s reflexion:

SPINOZA’S Ethics, Pt IV, Prop. 67: “There is nothing over which a free man ponders less than death; his wisdom is, to meditate not on death but on life”.

Later on Erwin Schrödinger[5] explains the concept of entropy as following:

(…) Life seems to be orderly and lawful behaviour of matter, not based exclusively on its tendency to go over from order to disorder, but based partly on existing order that is kept up. (…). The general principle involved is the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy principle) (…).
if living matter evades the decay to equilibrium.
What is the characteristic feature of life? When is a piece of matter said to be alive? When it goes on ‘doing something’, moving, exchanging material with its environment, and so forth, and that for a much longer period than we would expect of an inanimate piece of matter to ‘keep going’ under similar circumstances. When a system that is not alive is isolated or placed in an uniform environment, all motion usually comes to a standstill very soon as a result of various kinds of friction; differences of electric or chemical potential are equalized, since substances which tend to form a chemical compound do so, and temperature becomes uniform by heat conduction. After that the whole system fades away into a dead, inert lump of matter. A permanent state is reached, in which no observable events occur. The physicist calls this the state of thermodynamical equilibrium, or of ‘maximum entropy’. Practically, a state of this kind is usually reached very rapidly. Theoretically, it is very often not yet an absolute equilibrium, not yet the true maximum of entropy. But then the final approach to equilibrium is very slow. It could take anything between hours, years, centuries, (…) It is by avoiding the rapid decay into the inert state of ‘equilibrium’ that an organism appears so enigmatic.

And the author continues:

(…) How does the living organism avoid decay? The obvious answer is: by eating, drinking, breathing and (in the case of plants) assimilating. The technical term is metabolism.
The Greek word means change or exchange. Exchange of what? Originally the underlying idea is, no doubt, exchange of material.

In other words, decay is death, is equilibrium, and also the state of maximum entropy, when there is no movement, any exchange, any relationship, and the way to avoid it is from “assimilating”, “metabolism”, “change or exchange”.

In another part of the text the author completes the thought by saying that the living being can only keep alive, by continually drawing from its environment negative entropy[6].

This exchange of material, the “change and-or exchange” can be interpreted as the need for interdisciplinarity, and for openness and exchange between different systems. Maybe the research moved by the objective of finding practical strategies for achieving resilience and adaptability in states of disequilibrium, such as those currently occurring in the natural environment, could help also in the legal system, in the sense that the law can overcome the crisis of autoimmunity that occurs today, since these could help the living organism to achieve resilience and adaptability in states of disequilibrium, in other words, adaptability and transformation.

The author also says:

(…) in a word, everything that is going on in Nature means an increase of the entropy of the part of the world where it is going on. Thus a living organism continually increases its entropy -or, as you may say, produces positive entropy -and thus tends to approach the dangerous state of maximum entropy, which is death. It can only keep aloof from it, i.e. alive, by continually drawing from its environment negative entropy. (…) What an organism feeds upon is negative entropy. Or, to put it less paradoxically, the essential thing in metabolism is that the organism succeeds in freeing itself from all the entropy it cannot help producing while alive. Organization maintained by extracting ‘order’ from the environment.  How would we express in terms of the statistical theory the marvelous faculty of a living organism, by which it delays the decay into thermodynamical equilibrium (death)? We said before: ‘It feeds upon negative entropy’, attracting, as it were, a stream of negative entropy upon itself, to compensate the entropy increase it produces by living and thus to maintain itself on a stationary and fairly low entropy level. If D is a measure of disorder, its reciprocal, l/D, can be regarded as a direct measure of order. (…). Hence the expression ‘negative entropy’ can be replaced by a better one: entropy, taken with the negative sign, is itself a measure of order. Thus the device by which an organism maintains itself stationary at a fairly high level of he orderliness (= fairly low level of entropy) really consists continually sucking orderliness from its environment.[7]

The physicist calls this the state of thermodynamical equilibrium, or of ‘maximum entropy’, and the maximum of entropy (as a ‘negative entropy’) would be death.

Perhaps the second law of thermodynamics could be reinterpreted, not in utilitarian terms, as a foundation for capitalism, but in the sense instead of the evolution to the dissolution, to the transformation. Dissolution as transformation, then also as repetition.

On the other hand, Willis Santiago Guerra Filho explains the autoimmunity crisis of the legal system and its contradiction: [8]

(…)Based on the metaphorical matrix to have emerged from biology that facilitated a theorization of such systems as being autopoietic, the legal system was characterized as responsible for the immune function. In the constitutional, national and transnational courts, legal systems merge with the political system, with this fusion able to influence other partial systems, un-differentiating them, and this collapse threatening to liquidate the already debilitated social global system, in producing something similar to the syndromes of autoimmune deficiencies. Autoimmunity is an aporia: what aims to protect us is what destroys us. To duly confront it, we suggest examining whether an immunological shift has occurred to the autopoietic paradigm, in which artificial intelligence systems would also be integrated with the biological and social systems, which does in fact appear to be on the rise in global society, in its post-industrial or so-called informational phase.

Project Living Architecture Systems Group.

The conceptual approach on abiogenesis, the origin of human life from the inorganic, aims to answer the questions posed by the research group called “Living Architecture Group”, such as, “Can architecture integrate living functions? How can living architecture engages with visitors during extended interactions and enhances human experience in an immersive environment? How do humans respond to these evolving interactions, in a process of mutual adaptation? Could future buildings think, and care?” Those questions also can bring important reflections about the legal system.

Keen to the reflection on the question of the origin of human life arising from the inorganic is the psychoanalytic hypothesis of the drive to return to inorganic, also related with entropy. Based upon some thinkers such as Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche we may conclude that the latter’s idea of eternal recurrence among with the phenomena of the drive to repetition occurring in the human being, resets the clash between “Eros” and “Thanatos”, and uphelds the human being’s unconscious intention to return to the inorganic, that is, to death. We maintain, then, that what is at stake here is ultimately a return to the inorganic, to the inanimate, or, in other words, to death. But this return only happens, paradoxically, through life. Traumatic repetition tends to the inorganic, which is anterior to the organic; if it returns to the inorganic, here again there is a return.

Does repetition give up certainties, opening up possibilities for the new? Is repetition then something that allows one to become oneself?

Nietzsche in his reflections on the thought of the eternal return, playing the master of the eternal return, considers this “the highest form of affirmation that can be attained at all” (“Thus spoke Zarathustra”, §1), since it implies the acceptance of everything life brings about, no matter good or bad as it might be, including destruction and death: amor fati. The question of repetition is recurrent in Philosophy, since it would be the fundamental question of life, to the human being, and therefore, of Philosophy itself, as it relates to life and death, the drive to life (to live), “Eros” and the drive to death (to die), “Thanatos”. Repetition is then the new category that must be discovered: – the repetition and confluence between instant and eternity as the great problem of philosophy and human existence. For Slavoj Žižek[9], only through repetition comes the new.

On the basis of Zarathustra’s text, Michel Haar believes that the doctrine of the eternal return imposes itself first and foremost as an experience: multiple experience, for it presents itself at the same time as a pure rehearsal of thought, as a proof, as a particular lived moment and, finally, as an attempt of ethical character.[10]

There would be a similarity of Nietzsche to Freud in mentioning that the sexual instincts, in their endless struggle to preserve life, cooperate simultaneously and ambivalently with the drives of death and destruction. When we analyze the repetition in Nietzsche, Freud and Marx, which are considered authors that break the normality of the discourse we can observed that the obsession of repetition is the journey to the inorganic, to death.

Levinas also introduces in a congenial mood the concept of the absolute other, when we have the relation face-to-face, so through it we can see the absolute other, and infinity. It is like a prayer, and this other is an element of disturbance, that breaks me, and it makes possible to atain the death of the ego[11]. In his words:

The self, a hostage, is already substituted for the others. “I am an other,” but this is not the alienation Rimbaud refers to. I am outside of any place, in myself, on the hither side of the autonomy of auto-affection and identity resting on itself. Impassively undergoing the weight of the other, thereby called to uniqueness, subjectivity no longer belongs to the order where the alternative of activity and passivity retains its meaning. We have to speak here of expiation as uniting identity and alterity. The ego is not an entity “capable” of expiating for the others: it is this original expiation (…).[12]

Jacques Derrida on his turn affirms that “an act of hospitality can only be poetic”. Moreover, he says that hospitality carries its own contradiction incorporated into it, a word that allows itself to be parasitized by its opposite, “hostility”.[13]

Foto: Unsplash

“The other” is the strange, the alien, the neighbor, and with a relation “face-to-face”, how Levinas explains, we can have a religious relation, and get a little bit closer to infinity and to God.

The relation with the Other, the absolute Other, is a conversation, which requires you to take a risk. Different from a dialogue relation, it is a non-allergic relation, since it is an ethical relation; it is also a teaching (enseignement), different from the maieutics, because it is an equal relation, a non-violent transitivity, and in this face-to-face relation it produces an epiphany, an ecstasy. For Levinas, the essence of discourse is prayer, and this is what he calls religion. There is an element of disturbance that disturbs order, and his is only possible through an intervention, a stranger, one who has come, ab-solute in his manifestation[14].

To communicate is indeed to open oneself, when you do not need a recognition. It is complete in becoming a responsibility for the other (119), and this other is the stranger that introduces an element of disturbance that disturbs order, when you are no longer your own master. The face of the Other destroys and overflows my idea about him and even about myself. The face brings a notion of truth.

The relation with the Other, or Conversation, is a non-allergic relation, in other words, it is a no violent one, a not dominated relation, since it is an equal relation, also simetrical, reciprocal, as an ethical relation.

It comes from the exterior and brings me more than I can contain. In its non-violent transitivity, it is an epiphany of the face, it is an extase, a mistical experience, when we have a sublime trauma, and the death of the ego.

Michel Serres, on the other hand, seems to have a different understanding, when commenting on the decay of an organism, explaining that there is an uniformity, and that decadence may be either delayed or averted. Ruin here is contemporaneous with plenitude elsewhere, following the understanding of Lucretius, but that would never mean the eternal return. In his words:

(…) the death of a world is offset by the birth of another, and destruction by a corresponding growth. Decadence maybe either delayed or averted, ruin here is contemporaneous with plenitude elsewhere. This uniformity never means the eternal return. Return to dust and return do chaos. The process can begin again. No. (..) this does not necessarily means that nature is here reborn. Equilibrium is global and distributed by chance in space and time. (…) born of the clinamen, this place declines, drifts (…)[15].

And he continues, affirming that women are a form of discrepancy, through which the equilibrium is disturbed, and goes on affirming that we need to begin again in order to reestablish lost isonomy:

(…) the clinaments, a fluctuation in the flow. It involves as order through it, an order that tends in the end, to return to equilibrium: the cortical conjunction returns to chaos (…). By what complex paths will there be a return to equilibrium? (…) an exception, nonetheless. As she is at the beginning of the poem, Venus is there, at the beginning of history (…).[16]

In conclusion, the author comments again on the expression “clinamen” that is always there, thus we no longer find a statics of equilibrium, but a dynamics of movement. Verbis:

(…) before verse, one must choose between two laws. The law of Eros or the law of death. (…) Neither straight nor curved: a spiral. Return to declination. The new is born of the old, the new is just the repetition of the old (…). Death at the end of entropy (…).Reason is the fall. The reiterated cause is death (…) listen to the rolling spiral line (…) this is the revolution of pleasure. This is the physics of Venus chosen over that of mars (…) declination interrupts this model and this theory. Is disturbs them, it introduces a turbulence (…). Now the laws of necessity remains those of fall and equilibrium. And so living beings live in deviation. (…). Turbulence is a deviation from equilibrium. If the living beings disturb the order of the world, then this means that living beings are primarily turbulence. (…)the minimal solid angle of deviation from laminar flow required to create turbulence, which is the condition for atoms to meet and combine and it there fare also (paradoxically) a stimulus for the emerge of order. (…). Declination interrupts the universality of the laws. It opens the closed system. It places the physical laws under the rule of exception.[17]

Serres believes that the most important is the deviation and not the regularity of the processes, questioning the sustainability of closed systems. In all communication, there is noise, that is essencial and which is uselessly attempted to close, close the system, try to make communication without losses. Noise is the third element, so that there is communication, when a system does not close in on itself. The viability and vitality of science depend on the degree to which it is open to another poetics, that is, the opening of science to intervention, translation, communication and interference are an essential condition for its survival and strengthening, which takes place through the networks that are formed among the various branches of knowledge. Intertwined, intending each other, finding connections and becoming stronger. The places of these connections, of these relations, of the passages are the places of mestizaje, a zone of intersection, of interference between sciences and arts, between sciences and humanities. The invention occurs not in the known paths, but in the intersections, in the third paths, in the third places, places of contact between science and poetry, places of real inventiveness.

It is an interdisciplinary approach that is needed, in other words, just as there is no closed culture in itself, there is also no closed science in itself. What matters are the interconnections, the membranes, the neighborhoods, the crossings and the crossroads, all of them essential to bring the autopoiesis to work.

The deviation is the principle of life. To exist, before being something that signals to stability, permanence, fixation, is a deviation of balance. It is necessary to disjunte, separate and dissolve. However, neither the permanent nor the unstable survives (Heraclitus), nothing is fixed either in a straight line or in a circle. There are retakes, feedbacks. Existence is declination, since existence, other than something stable and fixed, is a deviation from equilibrium. To decline in the sense of “descending to a sunset”, to approach an end, a declive. Nature declines and this act is the birth of the world, of objects, of bodies, which it creates and brings to decay, to die. Objects, bodies, all are drifting, i.e., deviate from course, since birth itself is drifting, also signifying to deviate, to leave its course, to cross existence to death.

This is something different from entropy: entropy would be what propagates, which becomes probable, falling into regularity; instead, the improbable, what fights the undifferentiated, the diffuse disorder, is information, is non-entropy. Serres postulates a new science that speaks of the knowledge of life, of a not guilty knowledge, based on Eros, on Venus and not on Thanatus, and on Mars, based not only on reason, but on the senses.

CONCLUSION

It is a radicallly interdisciplinary approach, in other words, that is needed, for just as there is no closed culture in itself, there is also no closed science in itself. We can say in conclusion that while Erwin Schrödinger maintains that the living organism avoids decay and maximum entropy, which is death, removing order from the universe, whereas Michel Serres seems to have the opposite view, in the sense that for him with only one element of disturbance, of imbalance, the organism remains alive.

For Serres it is something different from entropy that is at stake: entropy would be, according to it, what propagates, which becomes probable, falling into regularity; on the other hand, the improbable, what fights the undifferentiated, the diffuse disorder, is information, is neguentropy. Neguentropy, which corresponds to the negation of entropy, means in biology “a function that represents the degree of order and predictability in a system”. Neguentropic element means one that contributes to balance and organizational development. Although both authors affirm the need for changes and exchange, so that the organism stay alive, for Serres what matters are the interconnections, the membranes, the neighborhoods, the crossings and the crossroads.

The deviation, rigorously, is the principle of life. To exist, before being something that signalizes stability, permanence, fixation, is a deviation of balance. It is necessary to disjunte, separate and dissolve. Existence is declination, since existence, other than something stable and fixed, is a deviation from equilibrium. It is to decline in the sense of “descending to a sunset”, to approach an end, a declive. Serres postulates a knowledge of life, a not guilty kind of knowledge, as it is based on Eros and Venus, not on Thanatus and Mars, which means based not only on reason, but also on the senses.

A deviation, which consists in nothing more than the tiniest inclination of some atom, caused by the clinamen. We are encouraged to recognize that this could also be understood as the other, like it is developed by Levinas and Derrida, that provokes a deviation, a break from biological stasis, who introduces a disorder, a turbulence, a confusion, a disruption or, as we might say, a perturbation. Disorder emerges from order, and the human being as well as the legal system needs an element of turbulence and transgression.

It is a matter of maintaining the autopoiesis in the global system, if we consider the legal system as proposed by Luhmann in “The Law of Society,” that is, as a type of society’s immune system, with the task of vaccinating it against social illness that would be the social conflicts, and the biggest risk it has to face is that of self-immunity. Now the main question is: how the global social system, the world society, will survive from the attack by components of itself, when any person can become suspicious and be considered an enemy, and so can even be killed, as a kind of generalization of a figure typical of the ancient Roman criminal law, called “homo sacer”, as described by Giorgio Agamben, and among with it brings about a generalization of the state of exception and of stasis, in the sense of a worldwide civil war.

Maybe the meaning of the term entropy understood as perturbation, could be redefined, in order to be understood not as a maximun of disorder, but as the maximum of power/potentiality, that encourages creation and become productive of variety. In this sense, an element of disorder is a way to multiply things as a mean to the (auto)production of life, thoughts and society. Those reflections could help to find an experimental, experiential and theoretical research powered by philosophical work oriented toward process, dynamics, transformation, ontogenesis, abiogenetic aiming to find another development and understanding to the legal system, seeking to bring contributions to a Literary and Hermeneutics critical – a poetics to Philosophy of Law and the State.

From this perspective, in which the law is to be considered with the same nature of dreams, as essentially a fiction, that could never be, properly, conceived as positive, fixed, since it is always “in fieri”, on the way to be built, rebuilt, renovated, from its interpreters as creators, to be seing as poets, and not mere operators, technicians. The need for interdisciplinarity, mutual fertilization between the various fields of knowledge and disciplines, are essential for a truly scientific research in law, and for ensuring its autopoiesis, as well as the recognition of the fictional, imaginary nature of law, and its more creative, poetical features.

 

REFERENCES

ESPOSITO, Roberto (2010).  “Filosofia e Biopolítica”. In Ethic@, Florianópolis, v. 9, n.  2.

GUERRA FILHO, Willis Santiago, “Immunology: Has A Shift Occurred To The Autopoietic Paradigm?”, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4863215.pdf, Passagens. Revista Internacional de História Política e Cultura Jurídica Rio de Janeiro: vol. 6, no.3, setembro-dezembro, 2014, p. 584-603, “Immunological Theory of Law”, www.academia.edu/7583019/Immunological_Theory_of_Law.

HAAR, Michel, “Nietzsche et la métaphysique “, Ed. Janvier, 1993.

DERRIDA, Jacques,  “Of Hospitality”, Publisher: Stanford University Press, Year: 2000.

Holland, J. H. (1998). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. 5. ed., Boston: MIT Press.

LA COURS, Anders; PHILIPPOPOULOS-MIHALOPOULOS, Andreas (Ed.) (2013). Luhmann Observed: Radical Theoretical Encounters, Londres e Nova York: Palgrave Macmillan.

LEVINAS, Emmanuel, “Phenomenon and Enigma”, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 62 (1957).

________________, “Découvrant l’existence avec Husserl et Heidegger, 2e éd. Paris: Vrin, 1967.

__________________, “Otherwise Than Being Or Beyond Essence”, Duquesne University Press 600 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1988.

_________________, “Totality And Infinity An Essay On Exteriority”, Martinus Ni]Hoff Publishers The Hague/ Boston/ London, 1979.

LUHMANN, N. (1981). “Positivität des Rechts als Voraussetzung einer modernen Gesellschaft”. In Ausdifferenzierung  des  Rechts: Beiträge zur Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp

___________ (1983). Sistema Juridico y Dogmatica Juridica. Trad. Ignacio de Otto Prado, Madrid: Centro de Estúdios Constitucionales.

__________ (1987). Soziale  Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie, 3. ed., Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

SCHRÖDINGER, Erwin, “What is life”, Publisher: Cambridge University Press, Year: 1992.

SERRES, Michel, “The Birth of Physics”, Publisher: Clinamen Press Ltd., Year: 2001.

ŽIŽEK, Slavoj, Seminar at EGS- European Graduate School, 06.2018.

[1] Willis Santiago Guerra Filho, “Immunology: Has a Shift Occurred to the Autopoietic Paradigm?”, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4863215.pdf, Passagens. Revista Internacional de História Política e Cultura Jurídica Rio de Janeiro: vol. 6, no.3, setembro-dezembro, 2014, p. 584-603, “Immunological Theory of Law”, www.academia.edu/7583019/Immunological_Theory_of_Law.

[2] Willis Santiago Guerra Filho. “Immunology: Has a Shift Occurred to the Autopoietic Paradigm?”, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4863215.pdf, “Immunological Theory of Law”, www.academia.edu/7583019/Immunological_Theory_of_Law.

[3] Esposito, Roberto (2010).  Filosofia e Biopolítica. In Ethic@, Florianópolis, v. 9, n.  2, p. 369 – 382.

[4] Erwin Schrodinger, What is Life?, Cambridge: Cambrige University Press, 2013,  p. 76 e ss.

[5] Ibidem. p. 08 e ss.

[6] Ibidem, p.67-71.

[7] Ibidem, p.67-71.

[8] Willis Santiago Guerra Filho, “Immunology: Has a Shift Occurred to the Autopoietic Paradigm?”, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4863215.pdf, Passagens. Revista Internacional de História Política e Cultura Jurídica Rio de Janeiro: vol. 6, no.3, setembro-dezembro, 2014, p. 584-603, “Immunological Theory of Law”, www.academia.edu/7583019/Immunological_Theory_of_Law.

[9] Slavoj Žižek, Seminar at EGS- European Graduate School, 06.2018.

[10]  Michel Haar, Nietzsche et la métaphysique, Paris: Janvier, 1993, p. 54 ss.

[11] Emmanuel Levinas, Otherwise Than Being Or Beyond Essence, Pittsburgh, Pensilvânia: Duquesne University Press, 1988, p. 118 e ss.

[12] Ibidem.

[13] Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality, Publisher: Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000.

[14] Emmanuel Levinas, Phenomenon and Enigma, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 62 (1957), pp. 241–53, and reprinted in Emmanuel Levinas, En découvrant l’existence avec Husserl et Heidegger, 2. ed., Paris: Vrin, 1967, p. 66-68. Totality And Infinity An Essay On Exteriority, The Hague/ Boston/ London: Martinus NijHoff, 1979.

[15] Michel Serres, The Birth of Physics, Manchester: Clinamen Press Ltd., 2001, p. 172, 173.

[16] Ibidem, p. 174, 176, 177, 178.

[17] Ibidem, p. 109-110, p. XVI.

*Paola Cantarini é advogada, professora universitária, artista plástica e poeta. Possui pós graduação em direito empresarial, direitos humanos, direito constitucional, mestre e doutora (Filosofia do direito) pela PUC-SP com doutorado sanduíche na Uminho (Braga, Portugal), doutora pela Unisalento (Lecce, Itália). Visiting Researcher na Universidade Scuola Normale de Pisa, com tutoria do professor Roberto Esposito. Pós doutorado na Univ. De Coimbra -CES, Tutor Boaventura de Sousa Santos. Pós doutorado na Unicamp, tutor Oswaldo Giacoia. Possui diversos artigos jurídicos e filosoficos e cinco livros publicados com destaque para “Teoria Poética do Direito com coautoria de Willis S. Guerra Filho e Teoria Erótica do direito.
Se você deseja acompanhar as notícias do Jornal Estado de Direito, envie seu nome e a mensagem “JED” para o número (51) 99913-1398, assim incluiremos seu contato na lista de transmissão de notícias.

Comente

Comentários

  • (will not be published)

Comente e compartilhe