 Good evening everyone, on behalf of the Faculty of Arts and the School of Culture and Society, it's a great pleasure for me to welcome you here. I am Ann-Marie Berhus, I am Vice Dean for Research and I am also a philosopher. So I want to welcome you all to today's lecture by Professor Hartmut Rosa, who is Professor in General and Theoretical Sociology at the Friedrich Schiller Universität in Jehne and also in charge of the Advanced Institute at Jehne. We have had the privilege of welcoming Hartmut Rosa several times here in Orhus. We just talked about you were here once in the Business and Social Sciences Department in 2013, but I also know that the publication Alienation Acceleration was actually published at Orhus Universitets for Le in 2010, so even before that. Yes, so through Professor Rosa's insights we are compelled to recognize the profound impact of modern society and capitalism on our lives. Rosa's comprehensive understanding of the dynamics surrounding modern subjectivity draws inspiration from a synthesis of critical thought, existentialism and terminutics. The insightful and sensitive nuances in his understanding of our modern lives is something many of us draw on in our work, our own work across all the disciplines at the university and outside the university. So among the audience today, I know that not only the PhD students that you have just talked to and met with earlier today, they are here. Present is also many of our leading theologians, psychologists, philosophers, anthropologists, sociologists, journalists and many more. Here present is also the people who have translated your work, introduced it to a Danish audience and many, many readers of your work are here. Readers of the work on Acceleration, also to the very rich book on Resonance from 2016, the books on Verfugbarkeit, on why democracy needs religion and also your work on pedagogy. I also want to share with you the public some of the emailing with Hartmut Rosa before today, because I asked you whether you were open to the idea of going back to the love and sympathy, the Draht between people you talked about in an interview with a few years ago. And in that interview, you were asked about the relationship between resonance and love. And I also ask you whether you would accept my invitation to talk about the philosophy of love, friendship, parental love, we talked about next and leave it and also the erotic love and of course, sympathy. I also mentioned to you, and maybe I'm not the first day to mention that to you, but I also mentioned to you that I found some similarities between your thinking and the thinking of the Danish philosophy of theologian Koel Lujström and his, the Etische Forderung. So I attached the text from the German Seidschrift für Theologie und Kirche from 1955, which was integrated later on, actually only a year later in the Ezekiel-Demande as Chapter 7. So I also admit to you that there was, I did say that in this chapter there were some quite weitreichende or religious or metaphysical ideas in that text. But I also told you that there were some quite interesting phenomenological views on love and on loneliness. And human, it's a dependency. You accepted to include Lujström and I'm very grateful you did. So I also promised you back then that there would be, I would find some very good discussions. I found two very good, Professor in Anthropology, Lloyd Minot and Professor in Philosophy, Thomas Schwartz. So you will talk today about your contributions to sociology and maybe touch upon the concept of future even, because it's cause of future lecture, I don't know. It's a series of lectures where some of, I think some of the people you also draw upon, Bruno Latour, Karen Barad, Martha Nussbaum have been here before you. So you will talk about love, friendship and sympathy and even connecting it to Lujström. And thank you. And so much for, I thank you so much for being here and I really look forward to your lecture. Welcome. Right, thank you very much Annemarie, a pause for this very kind introduction and to you and to the dean and the department and the school and the university for inviting me again. I have a bit, I have a bit mixed feelings because I think it's the sixth, the sixth time I'm now in Aarhus and last yesterday when I arrived, I, I thought I was in a hotel I had not been before. And I thought, well, let's see what I can find my way round and I actually could. So I was really proud. It feels a bit like coming home. Right. So I really like Aarhus. But so that's the good part. But the other is that I'm a little scared and nervous because on the one hand, there are so many people here. I think I could never live up to all the expectations. And on the other hand, as you just mentioned, Barad and Latour and all these people. So I'm a little scared. But I will do my very best. The other part why I'm scared is because I have to deal with all of this right with love and with friendship and with Lujström and with resonance and with a future. And I only had 40 minutes. But since I'm an expert on acceleration, I think we will can, I hope we can, we can deal with this. Right. So the idea is actually I want to, to, to move in five, in five, it's five or six, I forgot steps together with you. Right. I want to very briefly outline what I, what I try to do overall. I call it a sociology and a sociology. They're built between, we just talked about it in the masterclass. It's very hard to translate it adequately into English, right? A sociology of self-world relations, you could say, or our relationship to the world. Then I will briefly present the resonance conception, which, which is at the core of how I would think about love and friendship. And then I will really focus on love and friendship as two specific forms of relationship, right? Which I think, of course, they are really, they are essentially forms of resonant relationships. At least we think of them and we try to live them as forms of resonance. And then I would, I think I try to think first about the differences between the two and then about solidarity as one other form, which I think has to do with Lujström, the ethical demand. I think he says, if I read him correctly, I thought it very interesting indeed to think about him. That the ethical demand only becomes kind of relevant when natural love fades or fails, right? So if I'm in love with someone, then actually you don't need an ethical demand. But what if someone is in trouble or asks something of me whom I don't love, right? Whom I rather don't want to have, right? This is when society needs a form of solidarity, for example, and we need it in social groups and in society at all. So what about that? I will try to think about it and then finish with a few considerations of forgiveness, which is very interesting for what I tried to do. And for example, for Kierkegaard, of course, also. So let's start. I mean, I think I want to do a sociology which really starts from the question of relationship. It's already something Lujström would share, right? I think we have to understand that human beings are not just by their nature related to each other and to the world, or maybe by our nature we are related to each other and to the world. But the way we enter into contact, we form relationships, that always depends on social conditions and society, you could say. Nevertheless, I think we could start with Maurice Merleau-Pontier. For example, it's clearly a phenomenological approach, right? He says, I find this very convincing, right? He says the first moment of consciousness, of awareness, either of a baby or when you wake up in the morning or when you were unconscious, right? It's really interesting when you wake up or someone wakes you up in the middle of the night. Then there is an awareness, something is there, something is present, right? The presence is the first moment, right? And this presence, the sense of something is here goes before self-awareness. Oh, it's me, right? You might actually have forgotten who you are, right? You know these rare moments where you don't really quite know who you are and what the world is, right? And then it only develops, the separation between the subject and the object, the me and the world is already kind of a second step, right? The first question is, something is present? One could say this is the first gift moment Leusdrup talks about. And now the interesting question for the sociologist is about the nature of this presence and the nature of this relationship, right? I think this is clearly socially formed, right? Whether the world which you encounter is threatening or dangerous or indifferent and cold or antising and calling or so, that depends on social contexts or prior experiences and so on. But what is important is that I would really claim, and I think with Leusdrup, right, that the relationship, you could say the entanglement or the interwoveness comes before being a subject and an object. So when I talk about self-world relations, it's not that I think there is a self here and there's the world there and now let's see how the two interconnect. But the two are always already kind of interpenetrated and interwoven and it's out of the nature of connection that we develop as self and that the world takes shape outside, right? And then Charles Taylor, the great Canadian philosopher, has a strong influence on me, right? And he would say we are interpretation all the way down and I think what he means is that the relationship between us and the world is not given, at least not just biological, but it's interpretation. So what I am as a subject and what the world is depends on individual and collective processes of interpretation and therefore it's not starting with a subject, object dualism in the Decartian sense, right? I'm not claiming there's the subject here and the object there. There are many forms of interpenetration and what can become a subject or an object forms out of this. And I think our experience to our being in the world has these two sides which we can distinguish, namely an active side, right? You wake up in the morning and there's a world and then either you want to or you have to explore it to move into it to see what's there or to get work done or so. So it has an active side. You approach the world but the world also approaches you, you experience it, right? And it's quite interesting and so you can actually distinguish two kinds of people, right? One sort of people, one type starts really with the active part. I want to see the world, I want to explore the world, I want to move in the world, right? So the idea is I move, the world is there but others have the other experience, right? They would say you never know what the world has in store for you, right? What the world does to you. So the dynamics can start on either side but it's always a kind of dynamic, active and passive interpretation of self and world. And what I'm looking for really right now, I think that's a part of the problem we have as a society. That we can think of this relationship to life, to the world only in either I do something, I'm active, I'm the doer or I am the done to, the victim. Something is done to me, I throw or I am thrown. We think really of life, even of social life, of the world, always along these lines, either I do something or something is done to me. While processes of life, particularly in society also, very often you cannot really clearly say who is active and who is passive. It's the in-between, it's being partly active, partly passive, like in a dialogue or in a conversation in such a group. But sometimes you cannot say it's my idea or it's your idea, the idea comes out of the in-between, right? It's kind of circulating social energy, that's what I want to work on next. And you could actually call this media passive. It comes from linguistics, right? It's half active, it's not just half passive, it's also half active. It's having participating in a world. So this is where I want to get at. And the world, of course, can be the world of things, of objects, the social world, of other people and the subjective world. What are the experiences I have with myself? Now, we're already at the second, no, it's still the first step. Yeah, yesterday I changed it and I decided that this is still the first step, right? What is the main relationship we develop in our society? That's the question the sociologists will ask, right? And in order to understand this, I use for quite some time, you find it in the Acceleration Book. No, you find the idea in the Acceleration Book, but the term you find in the Resonance Book. We live in a society which operates in a mode of dynamic stabilization, which means, don't have the time to explore it at length, but it means that we permanently need to achieve growth, economic growth. You know, the Danish government always wants growth, the German governments wants growth, the EU wants growth, the Americans, the Chinese, the everyone, right? We need to grow, not because people are hungry in Denmark or don't have enough clothes or don't have enough cars or don't have enough houses or so, but because otherwise you cannot maintain the system in the sense of the jobs, the healthcare system, the universities, the pension schemes and so on. Of course, you also have people who are hungry and don't have homes, but actually economic growth is not really for them because they can't afford to buy all these things, right? So we have to grow exactly in those segments and elements where we already have too much, particularly too much for the environment. So this is my kind of critical diagnosis of present society. Of course, it has to do with the logic of capital circulation, money commodity, money prime, which means economic activity is only done, money is invested, for example, you open a shop, let's say McDonald's invests money or whoever it might be, right? With the hope that they get more money out of it, right? You invest something with the hope to make more money. So the whole logic of capital investment of economic activity follows this logic, investing something in order to get a prime, a rent, a profit, some form of earnings. However you, a surplus value, however you do it, then we would have to go into economics, which we don't do here. But the logic is that the system only, that's the definition here, stabilizes itself. Society can only stay as it is. Stay as it is means keep our institutions, if we permanently accelerate, innovate and grow. Now that means if, for example, you think that life is stressful right now, I could really predict next year it will be more stressful, right? This is a kind of necessity. It's been going on for 250 years, right? There will never be, there's no limit to it. It's never enough, right? All the technologies are kind of accelerating life, communication, transport and so on. And if you ask when is it enough? Or if you think of economic growth, when do we, when do we produce enough? Then economists will tell you never, we always need to grow. Okay, so that's the logic of our social system, right? So it leads to technological acceleration, the acceleration of social change and the acceleration of the pace of life, right? You could really say it has an escalatory logic and you see the consequences of this escalatory logic everywhere. There are also, there's also talk about the great acceleration in the 20th century, right? Where you really see the use of resources at energy consumption, at coal consumption and all of these things go up all the time. But also the pollution and the emissions and so on, right? So it's a kind of escalatory tendency of our society. But this is the structural side and it's connected to what I call the cultural side, right? We as the selves, it's about self-world relations. I now told you something about my analysis of the structural side of the institutional fabric. But the selves in such systems are driven on the one hand by fear, by the fear of losing out, of not being fast enough. But it's now done through parametric optimization, right? You define parameters of your body, of your mind, of your everything. But particularly also of your capacities and performances in shop, right? In university like Aarhus, there are lots of parameters. How many students do you have? How many research money do you make? How many doctoral degrees do you give per year? How many foreign investments do you have and so on? Lots of parameters and we need to improve and work on all of them incessantly. Otherwise we fall back and we cannot maintain what we have. So selves in this society and organizations are driven by fear. But also we are not just the victims of this institutional logic, right? We are also driven by the hope of expanding our horizon of what we can make available or attainable or accessible in the world. So I call it Weltreichweite, right? So we permanently intend, it's really interesting. You use the word good, think of when do you tell something, oh that's really good. My claim is we always use this term if someone tells you that his or her horizon of availability, attainability, accessibility has grown, right? Someone earns more money if someone has a faster internet access or a bigger house or a new degree or diploma or so. It's always this logic of increasing the horizon of what we can make visible, of what we can make controllable, accessible, usable and so on. Okay, and now my claim is that this actually creates a mode of aggression on the individual and on the collective side towards the world, right? A mode of struggle, right? Individuals in this society and organizations are always in a kind of you could say combat mode in a mode of aggression, right? I mean you see it on the individual side in the morning. I always ask how do you get up in the morning? Not when you slept enough or when the sun comes up or when the cock crows. But you're awoken by the alarm clock, you're alarmed to the world and then you're confront the to-do list, right? You're in a mode of aggression and his mode of aggression has a complementary side in the collective side. In our society, right? We are in a kind of science tries to peer deeper into the universe, deeper into matter and so on. Technology tries to get a better hold of everything. The economy is in a permanent mode of aggression. So individually and collectively we are in a mode of aggression against the world. The world becomes a series of points of aggression. I actually think Lostrup in his ethical demand, he distinguishes between two interpretations of life on the one hand, at least two, maybe more. But also of different forms of, he's always wondering whether we are self-concerned, right? Or this kind of closure in yourself. It reads sometimes a bit like Luther, right? The homo-in-covatos in CX, Ipsum, totally being immersed in oneself. And then you are focused, of course, Lostrup would say even such a self clearly has relations. But these relationships are then based on reciprocity. And I would also say also on responsibility, right? It's your responsibility to do something. And if I do something for you, if you do something for me in return, so you only invest in such a logic into a relationship. We talk like this. I invest into a relationship. If it follows this logic of money commodity, money prime, I invest in a friendship or I invest in love. If I get something back, right? If it's people sometimes talk like this, if I lose, has written a lot of it, right? In par ship or so when you go to the internet and you try to find a partner, right? People might actually say, you know, we are together and as long as you profit from it and I profit from it, let's do it. And if we don't profit anymore, then we finish it, right? That's exactly the mode of, I would say it's the mode of aggression. And it follows this logic of capital accumulation, you could say. I mean, what kind of mode of life is this? It's really one where people have a mindset. And I don't blame them where we all the time try to accumulate, increase. We follow this logic, right? We try to accumulate and increase the capital we have either in terms of money, you have to make money. We have to secure money. Maybe you have to try to get more money. That's economic capital, but also health. Max Weber says, he quotes Walter Benjamin Franklin, remember that time is money, right? And of course people, he says, well, don't sit just lazily around. You could work and make money. And then I thought well, but in modern society, most people young people, for example, are not so much concerned about making money. That's true, but even parents will tell them or they will tell themselves. But remember that time is health. It's bodily capital, right? You could do something for your health, go for a walk, go to the gym, try mindfulness or something else, right? So I would really say if people are not obsessed with money, they are very often obsessed with their bodily capital and to the bodily capital or embodied capital. It's not just health. It's also the good looks, right? Try to have more muscles and I don't know what else you could somehow get an operation to get away, do away with the wrinkles or so on. So that's another form of capital. Then the body becomes really a field of aggression too. And the logic is you accumulate bodily capital or embodied capital. And you might, if you sit at home, right? And you're not working and you're not going to the gym, you might think that time is social capital. You could actually call your older colleagues and see maybe he has got a good job offer for you or so, right? I mean, social capital and relationships are always a form of capital because as Bourdieu reminds us, right? We can always draw on those we know whom we can call if we need or so. We are investing either in economic capital or in health, in embodied capital or in social capital or in cultural capital in the form of education or in a symbolic capital trying to improve on our recognition of scale. So that's one form of leading a life and one form of forming relationships. The relationships then follow this logic of accumulation and are basically driven by a mode of aggression, right? And I think on the collective level or on all three levels, my claim is that this is leading to a huge problem why we need the ethical demand and maybe lustrup. Because in the end, in this way we realize a form of life, a collective form of life in Denmark and in Germany and the EU, which we can define as a mode of aggression on three levels. On the macro level, we are in aggression towards nature, right? You see it with the extractive industries, we have to have more and more, even Alaska is no longer sure and so on. And maybe we need Mars and the moon to extract things, increasing the horizon of availability, attainability, accessibility. And thereby we pollute it and we heat it up. I really want to look at the energy. I think my next book will be on social energy, so circulating social energy, but also on how social energy relates to psychic energy, of course, but also to the physical energy we use up. And I think we have an energy problem, right? Because heating up the climate actually means, by burning it up, it means even accelerating the atmosphere, right? So we burn up the atmosphere and we burn out from the inside on the micro level, which comes here, right? It's interesting, right? We have a heat problem down here and we have a heat problem up there. And wherever you go in the world right now, people tell you that we have incredible mental health problems, right? There's a new study in Germany, which says in our spot, it's way beyond 40% who say they are close to burnout. But when you look to the data on young people, it's really, really frightening, right? I think this is, for me, burnout is a consequence of the mode of aggression, as are maybe the fact that the autoimmune deficiencies are increasing. Maybe even this is a sign of auto-aggression. And I think we definitely see there's empirical data, which proves it, increasing aggression on the social level, between people, for example, politically, right? The Trump fans are ready to kill the liberals and the other way around. And the Brexiteers are ready to kill the remainers and the Germany, those who are in favor of vaccination, those who are against it and so on. And even in Brazil or in India, you see this kind of polarization, which might now also take hold in Denmark and on the middle level. And even war has come back to our society. I find this really threatening and frightening and frustrating, right? In the 21st century, we are back to a situation where the plague, the pandemics, which is a form of the plague, and the war are our worst problems, right? Those have always been the problems of mankind. So actually, I think we didn't move a step ahead since man came along on Earth. But in addition to these problems, plague and war, we also have the climate crisis and the nuclear threats. So it doesn't look like we have made much progress with this form of life and this form of relationship. So now interestingly, along all these levels, nature, social relationships and even self-relationships, we do have counter-concepts, right? We do have the idea of a different form of relationship. And this is why I think we do not have to invent something new. It's already there. I find this really interesting. We have it on all forms, right? So when people think of love, the modern conception of love is not in a form of aggression. It's not in a mode of capital accumulation, right? It's not that you want something through love. The idea is that love is a pure form of relationship in itself, right? And it's the same with the family ties, right? You don't want to capitalize on your kids. At least you shouldn't, right? I mean, it's quite interesting that we see that it's not true that family ties and family relations are immune to the logic of aggression and accumulation. They're very much infused and penetrated with it. But our conceptions of how you should raise your children, right? And I think it's not just lip service. It's true. The idea is that we relate to the children as a pure relationship. You want to develop them, right? To give them their voice, to see them grow independent of making use of them, of increasing your horizon. I will come back to this in a second. I mean, I find this interesting when you watch Hollywood movies, right? You can really see it's always the same story. I mean, it's interesting to think about it sociologically. Why do they only have this one message? Family ties, right? It always comes back to the family ties, right? And the world is getting bleaker and bleaker and darker and darker. It's full of thugs and warlords and criminals and everything is bad. But there is the family. So modern society really has... We construe the family as this counter-world to the logic of accumulation and aggression, right? And there's also... There is an amazing amount of conceptions of friendship as a counter-sphere, right? True friendship. I mean, the modern notion of friendship is in the same sense, right? It's not putting each other to use. It's not a kind of capital investment. But it's the antonym of an instrumental relationship. You might know the in touchables, the DVD or the movie, the film, I mean, right? It even says the different approaches to the different forms of... I would say, or Band of Brothers or the World Cup wishes. It's two other interesting books where you just can see that we have very vibrant and alive conceptions of true friendship. What it means to have a true friend. Sheila, for example, you might know Sheila, the pledge, right? He says friendship is the highest form of relationship in this world. So we have other forms of intimate family relations and friendship. But there's also this idea of solidarity. Young people, when they are frustrated, I mean, there's so much anger in the world, right? And then you think, what would you want to have different? Probably they wouldn't talk about love and friendship, but about solidarity between human beings, right? And there's a little strong conception that there should not be just competition, but solidarity. And I think solidarity clearly is a form of relationship that is beyond. It's non-aggressive and it's not in this alternative logic, right? And we have this strong sense that our relationship to nature is wrong, right? So this is why sustainability has an attractive force and a deep environmentalism and things like that, right? A different form of relating to nature, not just using it. You see it in animal protection, but also in people caring about the glaciers or about the forests. It's a different sense of relating to nature, right? And then we have things like mindfulness. It's the yearning for a different form of relating to ourselves, not in the mode of aggression. I have to become slimmer and tenor and more athletic. And I don't know anything else and I don't know what else. But it's the idea of mindfulness, a different form of relating to the self and with the self to the world, right? So what I want to say is that in all the spheres which I just tried to present to you as spheres of aggression, we have counter-conceptions, right? There are different forms of relationship, different forms of self-relationship, different forms of social relationships, different forms of relationships to the environment and different forms of intimate relationships. And I think this is what I tried to present as two different forms of self-world relationships. You find the Leustrup as two conceptions of life or the two dominant conceptions of life. Now of course you might already guess. My idea is that we can actually define this other form of relating to the world as resonance. Resonance is a different form of relating to the world by its very nature. That's not so good. Is it just on my screen? But I don't know. But you will deal with this. I can actually go through resonance without looking at it. So it's a different form of relationship which is not in itself in any form aggressive. I mean, if you look at it philosophically, of course it's close to what Adorno and Horkheimer say, that this modern way of being in the world and to the world is trying to gain control, make the world verfugbar in all its aspects, to dominate and to control. And what I just said about these other forms of relationships, they do not, by their very definition, cannot ask for controller domination. Resonance is a different form of relating to things to people and it has four elements. And the first element is affection. Something speaks to me. All of a sudden you are touched by something. It can be something you hear, music for example, or a talk. It can be someone you meet. Of course it can be erotic attraction or whatever. It can be erotic or just someone you find interesting. Or a child that comes up to you or even a cat that is around your feet. All of a sudden you are touched by something. So the interesting thing is that for me resonance starts at least conceptually, not with something I do but with something that is done to me, something that affects me. All of a sudden Bruno Latour who has already given a future series, a lecture in the future series, he says, hearing a call. You feel called by something. I think this is the psychological crisis of our time. We lost the capacity to hear a call. We think I have to do this, I have to do that. There is this parameter and that parameter which I need to optimize. You never feel called by something. It starts with really, it is a world relationship. The world, something, some part is calling me. That is the first part of resonance. The second is you answer it. You reach out to it. You seek to connect to it. I think that is also the core of building, of education. What young people are asking for, this form of relationship. Why do you come to such a lecture? I really claim it is the hope for some form of resonance that something might happen. It doesn't have to be me. One of the other, the discussions or someone your neighbor says or some idea you get when you walk out or so. But something that speaks to you. Something that somehow affects you. Something that seems significant to you. The interesting part, it only becomes resonance when you answer it. You do something with the idea. It affects you. You react to it and it might change you. By the way here, the affection that you kind of feel affected because it's important to you, of course. That I think is what Löstrup tries to capture with natural love. What he says we have to the people we love or our children. It's a kind of naturally feel affected to them. But I think actually what I think in resonance course, maybe beyond Löstrup, at least I didn't read it in the parts I've read. It's a kind of double. For me it's a kind of resonance. It's a movement. It's a dynamics which always has this two sides. Something moves in and something moves out. That is what creates the dynamics. And this opposing what I call emotion from imovere moving outward has this sense of self-efficacy. I have the capacity to reach out to the other. This is what Löstrup discusses when he says when I love someone I have the hope that I'm loved back, that I'm loved too. But I think there he constructs kind of two. I'm not sure. I think two equivalent parts. It's almost he says himself. It's a form of reciprocity. But I think it's a process. Something going in and something moving out from both sides. That's the nature of resonance. And again, of course, it has a dialogical side. We discussed it this morning. Buber writes on this in the Ich du Beziehung. It's this form of something is moving inward, it's catching me. It's moving me. It's gripping me. And I answer it. I move out to it. And if this happens, I'm not staying the same. It's what people say when they make experiences, strong experiences of resonance. They would say after that I was a different person. When you do biographical interviews, this happens very often. People tell their life and say something happened to me. And after that I was a different person. I was transformed. Then the fourth and the final point is what I call unverfügbarkeit. And this is why resonance is a kind of add-ons with the modern logic of control, of verfügbarkeit, verfügbarmachung. Because you cannot buy resonance. You cannot bring it about. You cannot engineer it. You never know when it happens. You go to such a talk, but maybe there is no resonance. You find it totally boring. Rosa said all of this already last year. I will move to the new parts in a minute. So maybe there is no resonance. It's the same you go to a museum. You hope that one of the paintings will speak to you, but maybe it doesn't. Or maybe you go on a holiday trip. You hope that you will really get into a new form of experience with nature or with a different form of culture. But maybe it's boring. You find the same boring hotel which you've always found. So you don't know whether it happens and what is worse. If it happens you don't know what it is. Maybe there is a new idea today which you have not heard before. But you have no clue what it is and what it does to you and what the result will be. So resonance is essentially unpredictable. Unverifiable. This is totally important for me. Now I actually will go over this very quickly. I just claim that these forms of resonance can come in four axes or four dimensions. One is resonance between human beings. And this is where I will go next with love and friendship. As I've already said, we think of a love relationship as a resonant relationship and a friendship as a resonant relationship. And I believe that democracy only works if there is some assumption of it. I'll come back to it with a solidarity point, right? But then we also have resonances with things with objects, with objects of art. But in fact also with the objects, there is some no problem. Actually that's alienation, right? So we have it with objects we work on. For example, if actually I have a doctoral student working on trucks and the truck driver. The truck drivers really develop a form of resonance with their cars, right? You have to listen to the engine. You have to develop a feel for it. You have to answer it and so on. So that's what I call the diagonal or material forms of... Yeah, good. And then I think there is a kind of what I call vertical or existential form. It's a connection of resonance to life or nature as a whole. Lustrup writes about this. He uses really life, trust in life, relationship to life overall. And there can be something like the opposite of self-objectification or reification. When you do parametric optimization, you actually consider yourself as a couple of parameters, as a whole sum of parameters and then you work on them. Then you're not in resonance, right? Being in resonance with your soul, your psyche or your body means listening and answering. That's the mindfulness part, right? In this sense, right? So this is mindfulness and sustainability which actually... I'll come back to that in a second on this count, right? So as I always say, resonance is not harmony. Actually resonance requires... and Lustrup says this very clearly. He insists that we never feel what the other feel, the one we love, for example, right? Or we are friends with it. There remains essential difference because I do not completely feel what you feel. Even if I'm in love with you, there can be resonance between the two. You can relate with something that is other, that is perceived as other. So difference is a necessary requirement, right? I claim... It's not creating identity. It's not creating fusion, right? Resonance lives on the fact that you encounter some other which you accept as an other, as a difference. But then you can bridge the difference at the price of changing who you are, right? So I think we have theories of identity and we have theories of difference. And resonance is kind of bridging the gap temporarily at the price of changing who one is. And by the way, I find this quite interesting when Lustrup contemplates on loneliness. You can really see or at least my interpretation is that there are two forms of loneliness in German. The language is quite nice. One is einsamkeit and the other is alainsein, right? And you know what the difference is. I mean, if you're isolated, the bad form of the einsamkeit is being cut off from everything, which means nothing resonates. I'm totally alone. It's the empty... Lustrup talks about this story, right? It's the empty, silent universe world you live in. Alainsein is the opposite experience, right? He's an Indian psychoanalyst. He says there are moments of alainsein which creates a kind of erotic field between the subject and the world. It's like hundreds of threads which are calling you. You feel in a kind of resonance with the universe or with nature, with life, with your surroundings, right? So there are two forms of connecting to the world. So now let's look at love and friendship. Now, as I already said, I think that love is really defined along the four elements of resonance. Something affecting you and it's incomplete love if only I love someone but the other person does not love you back. I mean, right? As we know, this can be quite hurtful. I would say it's incomplete resonance. But if it's a real resonance, then it's the exactly consisting of those four elements. It's not just that I'm deeply affected by someone. I have the capacity to answer and to reach out and to actually touch the other too. And this always has a transformative effect. The art of love, as Fromm would say. And of course, uncontrollability is an essential feature of love. If you can control the other, love is dead. But nevertheless, people try to seek about it and there's also a problem of looking for the partner through the tinder or something, right? You want to have complete control about whom you meet, right? This is kind of killing the uncontrollability requirement in love. Okay, and for Lüsterbothu talks about the relationship to children, of course, we have this what he calls natural love. The idea is that you develop a resonant relationship to your child. You want to listen as closely, as purely as possible and to answer with your own voice in order to allow this child to develop, right? And to develop his or her voice in a kind of constant dialogue with you, right? So we think of, as I already said, intimate relationships as well as relationship to children as forms of pure love, right? So love is our and it's so hard to realize it, to achieve it in a world that is running on parametric optimization and dynamic stabilization. And it has a number of psychological preconditions and dispositions, right? You have to accept your vulnerability. I mean as we all know, falling in love means making yourself vulnerable in many aspects and respects, right? And this is why Lüsterup talks a lot about the necessity of trust, right? You have to kind of make a jump because as I said, you know, resonance the logic of a resonant relationship is you let yourself be affected and touched by something which you cannot control and this means you will be transformed in a way you cannot control. And this is super risky. And I would actually say in a society in a social structures where you have to optimize and where you are in permanent competition it's an irrational behavior. You should not actually enter into resonance but this creates the tension of modern life, right? On the one hand learning for resonant relationships. On the other hand the structural logic which actually says it's mad, don't do it, right? It's also because you don't know the outcome of such a relationship and this is why people of course try to control whom they fall in love with. You do this through Tinder and other things, right? And they say well it will only last as long as we both profit from it along the parameters. That's very difficult, right? And it's clear that if you are traumatized if you have made the experience that being touched is being hurt then you will not enter into such a relationship, right? So basic trust is a psychological and existential requirement which is quite difficult. And as I said as we all know we cannot enforce love. If no one loves you or you don't love anyone you cannot bring it about. And certainly you cannot bring it about that you fall in love with that person because he or she has the highest form of capital for you. That doesn't work at all, right? Alright. This is why I like to talk about the guitar model of the self, right? A self is only capable of love if it's open enough to be touched or affected, right? But closed enough to answer in his or her own voice, right? It's this dual, it's actually it's a dual condition, a dual requirement. Being open enough and being close enough for being open enough for touched and being open enough to be informed but being close enough to answer. So you have to have the capacity to let yourself be touched and you have to have enough trust in self-efficacy that you will be capable in answering. And I really think there is a lack in the self-efficacy individually and socially, right? But sometimes people ask me after I give a talk, well what do I do if someone lacks the capacity of resonance, right? And I think it's not so much a lack in the capacity of being affected but it's a lack in the capacity of answering self-efficacy, right? You see it in social discourse when people say if we let all the foreigners, the migrants come to Denmark or Germany then we will be transformed where the thing is yes, then Denmark will change but it's not just something that will happen to the Danes and they will be the victims, right? It's a process of transformation but you need to have self, the trust in self-efficacy. We will be capable of answering and dealing with it and developing. Okay. And as I already said, the relationship is essentially open-ended. You don't know what the result is and when it will end in these forms, right? But what I really find interesting, you know, I mean loving someone is very interesting. Is this active or passive? Think of it. I love you. Is it active or passive? Of course we would say it's active because I do love is beyond my doing, right? It's kind of, it's affection. It's done to me. So I would really say love in itself is a kind of it's in between active and passive. It's something that happens to me, right? This is why we say I was falling in love, right? I was falling in love doesn't sound like something I'm actively doing, right? So love and all forms of resonance, right? Already forms of mediopassivity. It's like you listen to music. I mean it is already interesting. Listening to music is that active or passive? Again the grammatical form is active. I listen but in fact you hear, right? Something is calling you. It's very hard to not listen to it. I mean you could decide I won't listen. I will follow my own thoughts. But listening to music is already, is also in a mediopassive voice, right? Something is done to you. Something is you do. So and this I find really interesting because YouTube really talks a lot about whether it's self-regarding or other regarding we have in sociology and in economics of course, all the time we have discussions about egoism or altruism right? Do you do it for yourself or do you do it for others? And I think the whole text of Lustru, for me this is the strongest sense can I do something against just press? Okay, okay fine. Whatever. So I think I always thought so too. It's just wrong to ask. It's in love right? Do you love for yourself or for the other? I mean of course you could say you do it for yourself. But it's when you love someone you are ready to do everything for this other person, right? So he says, Lustru says it's one act and I think this is really important when I prepared this lecture. I realized it for the first time, right? That my idea with the, I was always fighting this idea of egoism and altruism, right? And I thought well if you really, you know if resonance works right? It's kind of something going on between us and it's good for me and good for you and Lustru really is very good in explaining. You don't think of it. What do I gain? What do you gain? It's so stupid, right? I mean the good thing is in between it's the interconnection and of course if a mother loves the child or a father, of course parents love their children. Do they do it for themselves or do they do it for the children? And he says it's stupid question, right? I mean they do it for themselves and for the children, right? Because it's the relationship which is the which is the good they are aiming at and I think this is really true for all forms of resonance but you see it clearly in love. The question is love self-regarding or other regarding is a non-question, right? It's wrong and you know I mean even, I mean I do okay when I do for example, when I do something even in I do summer camps for highly talented, I always come back to this example for highly talented students so it's about 100 students, right? And all the time I think it's a kind of it's a resonance explosion that happens every summer, right? So if I ask do I do it for me or do I do it for them? I think that's a stupid question too, right? I mean I do it because it's such a great experience for me and for them. So it's the media passivity and this overcoming of egoism versus altruism is important and Leuchttrub says it's wrong to think it's not just an action where I gain something and you gain something and then we can see what I gain and what you gain but the gain is in between it's the relationship itself, right? And there are other forms of this relationship but my favorite form is dancing. I have to make it again even so I think I did it last year here. When two people dance, right? You could say it's a kind of media passive in the sense it depends on what dance it is but it's a dance it's a Lindy hop I think which is a variation of tango and the thing is that it's not always the man leading or not always the woman leading it's a kind of in between and therefore you could say it's a media passive dance at one point the one person is leading at the other point the other person is leading but the dance is at its best at the climax when you cannot tell who is leading it's as if the dance leads, right? What's going on but it's in between. We know we also know this from making music when people in, oh no it's not true oh fuck when I should have already done it okay I swear I'll be done quickly so Hannah Arendt so I really want to go to Hannah Arendt at this point because she says that's the moment of natality that's when the new is born, right? It's starting in this interspace in the in between, right? And now the point I really want to make is that for me resonance implies an ethics of care which is something we want to get at collectively. Why is this? It's because when you're in resonance with something this can be a person it can be a child, it can be the person you love but it can be a piece of music maybe I'm in resonance with Beethoven right? Let's assume this because in the other times it's clear when I'm in resonance with Beethoven I somehow will not like it if Beethoven is played in the supermarket or in the elevator or so, right? I think that's not doing justice to it, right? It's this sense of I want to kind of preserve it in its own voice in its own reality, right? Resonance is it's the experience that something out there is really important it's a source of value in itself it's not because I like it but it's really important it's like people want to preserve ice bears or glaciers not because they have good resources for us that's what Leusdrup says, right? but because it's the feeling but it's important in itself, right? and therefore you want to preserve it without being paternalistic it's not I know what's good for you in ethics of care which is paternalistic I know what's good for you that's not resonance, right? Resonance is I want to preserve the voice of the child of the person of the homeless whoever it is in itself and as of itself you will never hurt or destroy it it's kind of impossible because resonance is the experience of a source of value outside of yourself what Charles Taylor calls a strong evaluation I don't know how I managed to get up to do so much time I think it's basically the same with friends friendship has the same nature but there are a few differences friendship for example family is what we do deal with in the everyday life while friends are in the non-extra in non-everyday life in the extraordinary moments where you go for a walk or so it's not institutionalized of course they can become witnesses of our lives particularly when families break apart it's very important to have that, right? so you could actually say they gain in importance here it's interesting that there seems to be there seems to be a limit to care we have for friends because you would not kind of have bodies when they fall sick while we do it with family members and this I find interesting I just wrote a book on heavy metal and it's interesting a rock band is conceived as a resonance system and there you see that resonance is not Charles Tarmany between Ian Gillan and Blackmore and John Lord there was a kind of resonance going back and forth and it's what Hannah Arendt calls Natality the creativity was in the in-between like between Paul McCartney and John Lennon or Roger Waters and Pink Floyd and it's interesting readers or rock fans they always care that the band is preserved that even if members change it's a kind of resonance unity like in theology it's the Trinity which needs to be resided and so I know it's all the same I'm sorry you will clearly have whoever is interested I will give you the slides for this I'm sorry I spoke for so long but let me finish with this with solidarity I find this really interesting you could say okay resonance theory might be good for having friends and even a rock band but what about the people of the other rock band I don't like the other band because I compete with them or with the people I dislike the migrants they should stay away we have a great resonance in Denmark or Germany or whatever it is so the migrants should be away so this is where I think Leustru would say that's where the ethical demand counts but in my view and I think he has a similar idea if you do this I mean you could say the affection is missing I'm not affected by the homeless person or by the by the migrant so it would mean resonance does not imply care for the others but my claim is if you look into the eyes of someone or you hear the voice of someone a living being there is a kind of call emanating it's an idea you also find in Adorno Minima Moralia sometimes it's literally someone calling out when you walk through arrows someone might say oh can you share a dime can you give me some food or so and then you really see how you have to dispositionally close or no go away whatever you do to strike him or her off you see it's a dispositional closure right and if as a society for example we say oh we don't care about the migrants they should stay away right then you really see in the voice in the eyes in the hand in the gesture this kind of closure I call it dispositional closure so I would really say the price of closing yourself off against the call of living beings it's true for animals too if the industrial farming is closing our eyes and ears against the pain of the animals for example we can do this right we can make more profits right and get me be a cheaper meat and tasteful meat maybe but the price is closing off right to a living animal to a part of life which is calling us and this as a society this closure to the call right this closure to affection comes at the price of our loss of resonability this is why I want to say that we have the ability being capable I call it dispositional resonance individually and so socially that we are capable of being resonant beings and a resonant society means we need to be callable and able and willing to answer and this has something to do with attentiveness right what are we attentive to what are we listening to this is why I think what we need to become is a listening society right right now we have this kind of closed angle attention you could call a concentration on the parameters oh this parameter and that parameter and a little better there and some more steps and a little more mindful and so on which means we are kind of totally non attentive to a calling world outside and we pay the price of becoming less and less callable and in that sense we lose our capacity to resonate which would be very bad but now we have two discussions and all the open questions we can answer then thank you very much sorry for being too long thank you Lotte and Thomas please come to the scene Lotte maybe first yes Lotte is professor of anthropology working on you've worked quite a lot in Africa and the themes that you're working on is trust forgiveness also and time and temporality and Thomas Schwartz-Winzer is professor in philosophy working on the philosophical anthropology existentialism or existential philosophy and hermeneutics so and you're also interested in forgiveness but particularly Lotte and I we have worked quite closely on Hannah Arendt's concept of natality and forgiveness so I'm afraid we cannot miss that part so please Hartmut can you say a few words about forgiveness the forgiveness but I think residents because of its kind of essential unfulfilling as I said it makes us always vulnerable and in the interaction in the relationships we are always hurt it's kind of impossible to not get hurt in this process there are always moments of friction and some of those frictions hurt and our normal reaction to hurt is closure so if something hurts I kind of try to close against the other and therefore I think individuals as well as societies can only remain resonant if they overcome this process of closure you actually see it in an argument which people have in love or in friends let's say lovers or friends they reach a point where they argue and then the argument gets somehow bitter it's very interesting where you actually could see how you fall out of resonance because at first you are kind of deeply arguing arguing is not a problem but there's a point where it hurts and I say what did you just say just fuck off or something there you see the moment of closure and you really see this in the eyes and in the face and you see it everywhere and you hear it in the voice and in the words it's kind of now I no longer want to be in this open process of which I cannot control I want to dominate and actually I want to hurt at this point and the question is how can we overcome it and it's really interesting of course it requires a moment of forgiveness of starting anew and I find it, I would really like to do a phenomenology of it you can really see if two people are in a kind of hostile if a relationship turns hostile when it changes back you see it starts with the eyes the glance changes you see the openness comes back you try again it's a change in the voice it's a change in the gesture it's a change in the voice in the eyes and in everything being ready to kind of make a cut and start anew this is what Hannah Arendt calls natality that we are not forced as human beings to simply continue a long change of interaction which then gets more and more bitter but to make a break and to get this process started again and maybe why this restored is trust and trust is the essential element I was in Holland recently and I gave talks on unverfugbarkeit and there was a theologian who said he thinks the main problem of society is that we lack trust and I think that's so true we lack trust in life but it really means trust in others even trust in our own body for example if I get a cut here people have the tendency oh a doctor needs to look at it I think this is already a sign of not trusting life not trusting others, not trusting the body we don't even trust our breathing I could pollute, I could kill myself by breathing, I could I'm not against wearing masks I think it was definitely necessary at this time but it somehow has kind of materialized our distrusted world even the basic process of breathing in and breathing out could kill ourselves at least I invite you in now Lotte wow thank you very much well I think I'd like to start with a question that does not follow on the forgiveness thing but about time and temporality and I thought there were certain signs on the computer saying risk of burnout update the battery is slow take that seriously and just slow but I thought I would give you a little break by telling a story of how I got to know your work students had told me read this book, this is very important I looked at it and I thought I don't have time for that who has time to read sick academic books these days and then the corona epidemic happened and we all had to leave universities I went to our summer house with the family with our dog, sat by the fire Boschen was there and there was suddenly time to read through big books and engage and this is it is that precondition of having time that I want to discuss with you because you on the first page of your book you say acceleration is the problem for us also here but then resonance is the solution and I think you do that very convincingly but I'm just thinking isn't there something about the preconditions for resonance for love for those you know deep emotions and actions to actually happen that needs a kind of slow down and I know you don't want to be called the deceleration guru but I am also interested in why this fear of deceleration it's almost like societal fear that we don't we are so brainwashed with gross gross more more publications every year bigger grants every year we want more better to a degree where we almost cannot even think even you our great brain here that's not true I mean yeah I'm totally accelerated I always said so I agree with the diagnosis I think but I nevertheless have changed the diagnosis a bit because I would say acceleration is not perceived it's not the structural problem the internet connection is not perceived bad it's bad where it goes together with the dynamic stabilization this need that you can only keep what you have through acceleration so if the doctor comes faster in the case of emergency that's not the problem either and by the way it's very interesting bore out has exactly the same it bore out when everything is too slow you sit in a workplace and nothing happens then you suffer the same problems at burnout so I would say it's not just that speed is always bad and slowness is always good that's what I necessarily what I wanted to say and I wanted to say that slowness is not an end in itself it's as you just said but slowness might be or deceleration might be a precondition for being capable of getting into resonance and I totally agree with this because I always say time pressure resonance killer number one it's really true I always use the same example if I have to catch the plane at the airport I may not listen to your argument or listen to the music that comes from somewhere or watch this beautiful image I have to become deaf literally to catch the plane at the airport and we're always catching the plane at the airport all the time so I agree that it would help a lot to slow down but it's not an end in itself and I would also say we cannot just slow down if you slow down in an acceleration society you just pay the price so we have to change the social mode which is dynamic stabilization which we have to overcome right but we are also you write about this yourself that we are at a point of planetary burnout democratic burnout auto burnout so many people suffer from burnout and other kinds of stress related so there's just something about still being stuck in this cycle then we have to jump to a whole other area of resonance and love and the economists will be happy with us because then we can run and raise and love more and feel more solidarity but we're still running that's the huge danger I mean I cannot work this way I totally agree with you I mean I agree with this kind of burnout and it has to do with the futures by the way I did not talk about that but I really think we are approaching a state of collective burnout this society is in a state of burnout not just because of ecological reasons and you can actually see it one symptom of it's really interesting on an individual level depression and burnout are very close you don't know pathologies it's a disease of our sense of time and when you're in the depression you lose the sense of moving towards a future a meaningful future and even of having a meaningful past you're kind of disconnected you're kind of suffocating intemporarily and I think this is exactly what we have as a society we no longer see a meaningful future we want to move to and there is no exception of the future which we want to have I mean there is the climate disaster there is the war there is the plague there is the economic breakdown lots of apocalyptic images but for quite some time we lost the future we want to move to and I think right now we're also losing the past because we realize the past is not the enlightenment to story of progress it's also the story of colonialism racism sexism and other things and we have lost this temporal sense connecting to the past and connecting to the future so what we need at this point is really what the german word says to stop really means listen up it's interesting the german word is quite nice it means literally to stop no it means it means to stop but literally it means hearing is listening and auf is upward but I would say become callable again so in that sense I would go for a stop for a break I think we have the same word in danish uphör stop I like this let yourself be called but I'm also very glad that you mentioned this and you talked about it the mental health crisis and also I'm wondering if we can connect that crisis with the global care crisis and migration not that you talked about in Denmark and the global north we really do see a serious mental health crisis and we're realizing now that we need to invest in it but it seems almost too late because the money is being given there aren't enough nurses there aren't enough hands to help on the other side of the globe global south we have quite a lot of people with time lots of time and care capacities we don't want to let them in there's something about the balance in the world regarding this that seems and I think it's quite interesting that you mentioned this film The Intouchables with a white man in France who's been taken care of by a black man from Senegal or somewhere which I think in a way creates some hope for the scenarios we might see in the future if we want to yeah but I totally agree with the care crisis I would agree it has the same root like the mental health crisis and it's a loss of this it's a loss of the resonance capacity being caring for someone this is really important for me I have a doctoral dissertation also kind of be written about care and resonance but I really think the decisive point is this attentiveness care has a lot to do with attentiveness being capable of receiving the care needed by the others but of course the answer cannot be I mean on the one hand for the shortage of flavour power of course I would say immigration seems to be a good solution but you know the problem with the care chains then for example women are taking care of white old men and they are missing in their own so that certainly will not be the complete solution there I think my hope really is the other point you raise quite rightly how do we cannot leave the society as it is and just create individual oasis of resonance this is exactly what we try to do I have my oasis of my family as a safe haven or my friends which I cherish and we leave the structure attacked and there are enough studies which prove this does not work it doesn't work in love if I lose it's really good to read but it doesn't work with families either and we are really killing our young people with this we train them into this mode of aggression which makes them incapable of resonating and therefore they have burned out their depression you know I find the most telling example is really from South Korea and there the pressure is highest I would say from all we know they are so hard pressed for getting the high school diploma and getting them a good high degrees and so on and for a number of reasons the pressure is really highest there is a kind of some of the young people really commit crimes to be imprisoned and they tell you and this is we really have to think of this they tell you only in prison I can really be free for a moment I would think of this it's so paradoxical but it's so easy to understand right and why is it because I mean of course the world Reichweite is reduced at maximum that is the horizon of what is available accessible is almost zero and therefore for a moment you can free yourself from this kind of pressure right so we have to change the structures and this we cannot do individually and but I believe that resonance can be the yardstick because we know what a resonance school looks like what resonance in education is we know what resonance in care is we know what resonance in dealing with animals and plants is we know what resonance in politics and even in the media is this is why I insisted in the beginning we have this sense of what it would mean to be in resonance right so I want to use the idea to reform our institutions but it's hard enough say more about that what say more about yeah maybe I also want to include Thomas here resonance as a yardstick yes yeah thank you so much that might link to to the very last remark I mean I'm so impressed by your ambition in resonance book and acceleration book coming from philosophy you know when Hegel said philosophie ist ihre Zeit in Gedanken gefasst then you were doing a perfect philosophical job in the sense that you're telling what time it is it's acceleration time stupid would have said right so it's you really put the nail on the top but you're also not but and you're also add a normative dimension to the to to to the notion of resonance and that's why I know where I now jump in with Adorno you mentioned him at the real last slide es gibt kein richtiges Leben in falschen famously a quote in minimal Moralia and instead of now developing another Adorno lecture or something no I want to to tell a story from Denmark you know in 1996 there was the eagle of herning Pianaris oh yeah Pianaris racer cycle right and he won the Tour of Horses the first time ever a Danish sportsman did this and the whole country was in your theory the Diagonal Sphere of Resonance and you do it in the book with the summer mansion I take it it's it's probably women's imagine Denmark right we won the Tour of Horses and people who despite the differences had this fellow feeling the solidarity this resonance with Pianaris with us the yellow shirt and he even got a celebration with the prime minister celebrating that this was by far the most impressive achievement an individual if I was taken then rumors came up maybe he was dope right maybe it was fake maybe and he said no it was or at least I wasn't tested positive ten years later he admitted I took all the shit he was cheated yeah if resonance as you're writing in a strong reading in your book is the sole criterion for a normative assessment of well-being and a resonant life then the Danes in 1996 were in the state of resonance at least as an experiential quality they believed to be so but now ten years later it has no hold I mean it's difficult it's at least against my ethical intuitions hence if resonance is a criterion of evaluation for social cultural practices and life forms as such as with Rahel Jagi in the book also would insist I would I cannot see it as more than just in quotation marks a necessary condition for well-being not a sufficient condition because for instance as the example could show and in terms of love and solidarity I could also have framed the example with the informal informants in the DDR where even marriages as you know in Eastern Germany just later you find out that the person you love with was an informal NIM from the Stasi who just told the authorities what you have done so the example shows or wants to ask you whether resonance is these are two questions connected is resonance only a necessary condition and if it is only necessary what is the sufficient condition and here again coming from philosophy I would suggest something like justice or other ethical criteria at least as a fallible and not substantial the other thing is who is in charge to to assess if it is an experiential quality then the subject him or herself then the people in 96 were resonant or it is the social expert the theorist of resonance who is capable of assessing life forms and structures also with the historical distance and assess them whether or not these really are genuinely resonant or not but then the notion of resonance loses its experiential character which was so strong in the first place also so convincing by the way in the acceleration book because with both concepts you try to gap or to close the gap between micro and macro sociology between the actor-agent perspective and the systemic perspective right but here I see a problem I don't convince me yeah I mean obviously I think this is a very important point and I think of course a lot of arguments are I can see the strength of your argument and the problem right but I still have the hunch I want to try to be kind of monomaniac and claim no I would really still at least I would try giving you the point maybe I'm totally wrong but I want to try to say no resonance is the criterion and actually a life in resonance what is a good life is a life which is a kind of able to establish and sustain axis of resonance in all four dimensions socially, materially existentially and in the cell freedom right but then that is a good life and I do not I claim I do not need additional criteria and let me take your example right I mean the question would be with Björnaris right whom do we claim resonance for right I mean so was there for a moment kind of resonance within the Danish people well maybe right with a sub I mean not for everyone of course yeah but that's the point many yeah that's the I mean that's the point right you would in forms of resonance you would never say for everyone you would just have to look at it you know my main my first answer really would be that I say resonance for me is not just subjective experience I always say resonance in the first place is not an an equality of the subject it's a form of relationship right and I can actually measure I can you probably I can measure these relationships along the four criteria right so for example my favorite example is if we to discuss right and I say after the discussion it was such a resonant conversation and you say it was the total opposite right he never listened once right he just he never listen to my arguments he didn't even understand it right I think actually people could judge or if you could have a camera you could see were the criteria of resonance satisfied which means listening and responding taking up the arguments being transformed by it right so I would because you are said who judges I think there is some in between right not just the subject because I said I say it's all resonant right I might be wrong it wasn't resonant I was talking to myself right I was kind of convincing myself but no one else I'd never listen to you so I was wrong in my judgment I think that's possible that doesn't necessarily mean that you or someone else is in a better condition but it's possible right to say that to to judge it from the outside you know what I mean I mean I mean it's possible to be self delusion to the death delusions about oneself even though it's hard to say someone else the expert can do it right and look I mean what is wrong with this beyond a reasoning I mean what I mean I would say it's possible that for a certain segment of society at least they got a kind of resonance in the sense of being an answering I react to it and then I go out to the street and I met people I'd never met before and we talked to each other and actually I learned things about my neighbor I had known I would say that's resonance right and it's not non-resonance because Pianaris was dope right so and I would actually I would ask you back what was wrong with the doping exactly yes yeah it's I think I find this really interesting and because I would say the criteria you would then have to bring in right I don't think it's justice right but I would say of course I'm not against justice but I really think there are two problems with doping one is a kind of self instrumentalization what Pianaris does is non-resonant to his body a kind of it's an aggressive self relationship the other is his lying to the others to his conceptators yes and the lying is a non-resonant relationship so what you criticize is the total lack of resonance between Pianaris and you know lying is killing resonance and that's the same in this you know the second I'm done in a second the other example is very interesting you said in East Germany let's say two people in love I would say there are two possibilities if the one person only faked love right then of course that's a crime then it wasn't resonant because I only try to convince you you are so nice I love you and I think that's not resonance because clearly it does not satisfy the four criteria right being but if they really were in love and the other person just wasn't I am which they didn't know that it was still resonance I would say but would it then also be a lie a good life I mean consider I mean that that's the Adorno quote right a skip kind richtiges Leben in falschen let's say that that those that the couple both of them sincerely love each other they are affected in love but still one is cheating to on a different scalar of very important values would we really mean that this life is a good life I mean I don't know I mean I find the Adorno quote quite convincing in a certain sense not in a complete sense I would really say what you said what we said we live in a system of dynamic stabilization I see it in my life you all see it in your life right we are all the time we have to make kind of compromises between optimization and resonance all the fucking time I would say and I really I even think I can become a theologian too when I sit in an examination in my office right I really think that's probably what the Christians mean with original sin because there is a student in front that's in front of me and I think I know for this person if I now give him an A or her right it would really help him or her so much right it would really probably kind of I don't know let's dramatize it and say save her life but on the other hand I don't want to cheat on the criteria for an examination and all sociology so I cannot give her an A she didn't know anything right so I should give her a D so I would say that's what it means there is no right there's no right in the wrong conditions I mean I think we permanently have to live in that sense I think that this I am thing I mean you know I don't know the problem I see is only just that that resonance is the soul in the book you would all even use the monism of resonance at some point as the self-critique yes it is the soul criteria now I have the answer I really think you know I insist on the soul criteria because I think whenever you have the feeling there is something else I can really show now it's resonance and now let's look at I think I was confused by your question because there are two questions one is is it still true love the other is is it a good life and I would say the the I am the the stasi person is not leading a good life because in so many situations it's exactly closure right I cannot really speak my voice and I cannot be honest with you and I have to be careful against transformation so I would say this is a kind of clearly damaged life so this I am person I mean if you have to fake your identity right to try to get information from others I mean he might not do it in the loving relationship and others it's so clearly permanently violating the logic of resonance that he is not having a good life but that does not I would have to know more about the relationship he is having with the or she is having my intuition would be that this strikes back to the ignorant person who all through her life thought that she was engaged with a different person and this kind of betrayal then backwards from historical experience and new knowledge okay okay I see evaluates what I thought to be resonance so that there what was experienced in T1 as resonance is not resonance any longer in T2 and that means that you have to account for true resonance or non-genuine or fake resonance and hence we have we are in need of more criteria half a mass for instance would take you know this sorry normative right and that would be three possibilities to tune the resonance criterion to make it really successful in my view yeah substitute for philosophical ethics thank you I'll bring Latin and then open for influence not half a mass but rather minor well thank you and I don't think I'm not going to continue we already had a discussion about the dark side of the possible dark side of resonance that you are rejecting and we might invite you a little more often to always to convince you that maybe maybe the theory would be even more strong if you could include this but my question I'm an anthropologist I work in Africa and so far most of your work and your thinking is receiving quite a lot of resonance from this quite white audience here I'm just wondering how is your work being received in the global south and is this I mean sometimes acceleration is not exactly the problem there sometimes stagnation is a problem but is this a universal theory for all of us or is it something very specific historically maybe even you know a little bit romantic middle class question Europe yeah I know I mean let me say maybe one sentence on the dark side I mean I just want to I mean there are lots of dark sides in our lives right and in society right and there are a lot of dark sides connected to phenomena of resonance the only thing I think is that the criteria of judgment is itself resonance right that the capacity to resonate I think I would exist on this well when it comes to the global south I mean it's quite funny I was invited to China a few quite some time ago to speak about how they can accelerate development and other things and I thought well no that's not the right word but no but the fact is I mean I think I mean the fact is I think it's really true now actually the acceleration stuff are best sellers in China because they suffer exactly the same problem right but I would really say exactly the same problems and even then I was just in Brazil and you know I was invited by the psychiatrist conference their association their congress on mental health problems in accelerated crisis times and they actually claim that it's worse in Brazil than in Europe because they do not have the welfare state or at least the remnants of a welfare state right kind of and by the way even in Abidjan I got an invitation I was really surprised in the Ivory Coast right the French institute had 40 lectures on resonance which is Africa and I wanted to go there but it took too long I have to speed up okay I think probably the perception of the acceleration as a problem is a kind of middle class problem but it's a kind of almost globalized middle class problem but the two connected problems burn out right alienation and suffering from competition is something that the underprivileged know very much and very well and sense of resonance everyone has I mean that's really what distinguishes me from Adorno I think we have this sense of resonance which is a kind of true sense and he would say no it's just the wrong side of a wrong society but I believe that forms of resonance ideas of resonance practices of resonance you find all over the world and it connects quite interestingly with when we via conceptions in Latin America or with Chinese conceptions so I'm quite hopeful and I'd like to know more about Africa actually and I think also you're working on the what makes sound into music and I imagine that the music that interests you is music from all over the world absolutely because then it becomes interesting when do people perceive sounds as a kind of source of resonance but that's another lecture that's another lecture so we'll open up for questions