As to your question regarding footnote 3, the German word is ‚konkret‘ and it is used in the sense of ‚manifest, really existing‘. Its etymology is based on the scholastic dichotomy concretum / abstractum and I think it is used in exactly the same sense in English as in German (and French). Side note: a long-running hard left magazine in Germany is called konkret, lower-case spelling and all.
>And it was upon that decision of the exception that sovereignty was based and out of which emerged the political and legal order. The order was generated by the decision – ex-nihilo.
The order was *generated* by the decision, or the already existing order was *revealed* by the decision? There is a huge difference between the two. In the second case it seems there is no profound contradiction between that kind of quasi-decisionism and institutionalism.
Michael, I do not fully understand what you are trying to accomplish with your last two posts on connecting Schmitt and Piccone. While reading them I clearly see the parallels between Schmitt and Piccone's essay The Emergence of Federal Populism (the one you linked to in the first post of this series.) Are you just trying to figure out the sources of Piccone's ideas? Or there is more to it?
Thanks for the comment. I'm pretty sure you're not the only one asking questions along those lines, so I'll put together a brief summary of what I think all this has been getting at and post it in a few days.
As to your question regarding footnote 3, the German word is ‚konkret‘ and it is used in the sense of ‚manifest, really existing‘. Its etymology is based on the scholastic dichotomy concretum / abstractum and I think it is used in exactly the same sense in English as in German (and French). Side note: a long-running hard left magazine in Germany is called konkret, lower-case spelling and all.
Thank you!
>And it was upon that decision of the exception that sovereignty was based and out of which emerged the political and legal order. The order was generated by the decision – ex-nihilo.
The order was *generated* by the decision, or the already existing order was *revealed* by the decision? There is a huge difference between the two. In the second case it seems there is no profound contradiction between that kind of quasi-decisionism and institutionalism.
Michael, I do not fully understand what you are trying to accomplish with your last two posts on connecting Schmitt and Piccone. While reading them I clearly see the parallels between Schmitt and Piccone's essay The Emergence of Federal Populism (the one you linked to in the first post of this series.) Are you just trying to figure out the sources of Piccone's ideas? Or there is more to it?
Thanks for the comment. I'm pretty sure you're not the only one asking questions along those lines, so I'll put together a brief summary of what I think all this has been getting at and post it in a few days.