Straipsnyje grindžiama nuomonė, jog postmodernybė yra iš modernybės kylantis kapitalizmo sistemos būvis, kuriam būdinga gyvybės suprekinimas ir suišteklinimas. Postmodernybę charakterizuoja populiariosios ir medijų kultūros išplitimas. Tos kultūros apima ne tik kultūros prekes, bet ir vartojimo būdus, įgūdžius ir jų lavinimą. Pastaruoju metu jos kuria nemirtingumo vaizdiniams bei nuojautoms palankią kultūrinę, intelektinę ir pasaulėvaizdinę terpę, kurioje struktūriškai įsitvirtina genetinis diskursas ir jo nustatomos žmogaus ir jo gyvenamo pasaulio aiškinimo gairės. Svarbus šio diskurso bruožas yra technologinis inžinerinis jo pobūdis, išryškėjęs susiejant (...) nano ir biotechnologijas, kuriomis tikimasi įveikti gyvąją ir negyvąją gamtą skiriančią prarają, iš reikalingų atomų bei molekulių kuriant reikalingų ląstelių dalis ir klonuojant gyvas būtybes. Gyvybė suprekinama ir suišteklinama patentuojant gyvybės elementus – genus ir su jais susijusius procesus. Daroma išvada, jog visi genetikos, informatikos ir kitų mokslų laimėjimai, teikiantys žmogaus gyvenimo ilginimo galimybių, kurios palaiko gundančią nemirtingumo idėją, jau yra persmelkti prekinių santykių, tad ir pats nemirtingumas įmanomas tik kaip prekė. Aptariami kai kurie evoliuciniai ir religiniai techno sapiens sampratos aspektai. Detaliau gvildenamos dvi „nemirtingumo“ versijos: Z. Baumano, kuris nemirtingumo pažadą sieja su kompiuterinės technikos plėtra prasidėjus „Antrajai medijų erai“, ir J. Baudrillard’o, tegiančio, jog klonavimo technologijos „apgręžia“ evoliuciją ir žmogų gundo virusiniu ar vėžiniu belyčiu nemirtingumu. Pagrindiniai žodžiai: genetinis diskursas, klonavimas, medijų kultūra, nanobiotechnologijos, nemirtingumas, suprekinimas. Genetic Discourse in Media Culture: Temptation by Commodified Immorality Vytautas Rubavičius Summary Postmodernity is maintained as a stage of the development of capitalism. The difference between modernity and postmodernity is explained in relation to the new sphere of commodification and resourcification, namely, that of life and of all natural living processes. Postmodern media culture, or popular culture, is peopled by signs of immortality and various kinds of immortals – cyborgs, clones, zombies, immortal human beings and others. Thus, culture accustoms a consumer to immortals and immortality which is concidered as the main goal of a human being and evolution. By nano-bio-technologies and genetic discourse this goal is made scientifically valid, thus reachable. Genetic discourse is becoming the fundamental world-view providing focal landmarks for the emerging future. Media culture supports the spreading of genetic discourse and facilitates its understanding. The temptation by immortality can be considered as a version of modernist ideology of human liberation from various natural, social and heavenly bonds. This liberation, and also secularization, is supported by a scientific genetic technological discourse which is becoming a stimulating factor of postmodern media production. The genetic explanation of the world is particularly handy for technological reflexivity: the entire world is as if encapsulated into human genes, which become the principle explaining the mystery of life, evolution and the future of humanity, thus rendering power to produce the human proper form and the future of people. All the possibilities stemming from the new genetic and biotech discoveries fell under the regulation of property relations by patenting, thus making “immortality” – as a temptation and brand – not only an exeptional commodity, but also a political tool and a commodifying force. As the relationships of private property have penetrated natural biogenetic diversity and, having turned it into a resource, the cognitive subject has reached the goal to secularise the Universe, which he has set for himself: only he as the owner and producer of genes lures people with the eternal shapes of the clones and their genetic information, which will be sustained in any location of the Universe. The temptation by “immortality” will become even stronger when the genetic code is mastered. The future of humanity is related to the mixed forms of life, trans-genic or otherwise genetically modified organisms and techno-human forms that will help to postpone, and later to conquer, death. Even thinkers with religious tendencies perceive the technological improvement of human beings as their evolution towards the techno sapiens and consider such a development as an advancement towards the Kingdom of God. The technologization of human beings is imagined in terms of their divination. Yet in this case the character of contemporary science secularising God and obliterating the perception of divinity is overlooked. Two versions of immortality are analyzed more closely – that of Z. Bauman, who links it with the development of computer technologies, and that of J. Baudrillard, who gives a warning that by cloning technologies humanity is trying to inverse the evolution and to return to the undifferentiated state of cells. The conclusion is drawn that regardless of how we understand ‘immortality,’ argue over its reality or unreality, all possibilities to prolong human life granted by genetics, informatics and other advances in science and technologies, which support the tempting idea of immortality, have already been penetrated by commodity relationships; therefore, “immortality” itself will be available only as a commodity. Keywords: cloning, commodification, genetic discourse, immortality, media culture, nano-bio-technologies. (shrink)

Ðio straipsnio pavadinime uþkoduota ir tyrimo problema. Èia bus svarstomas filosofijos ir literatûrossuartëjimo prieigø dekonstrukcinis tyrimas Jacques Derrida postfilosofijoje. Kantas simbolizuoja klasikinæ filosofo, Kafka – literato laikysenà. Taèiau tai tik straipsnio autorës iðmonë. Bus atsispirta nuo to,kaip Derrida perskaito Kafkos parabolæ Prieð ástatymà romane Procesas. Autorë pripaþins, kad ið tiesøsodieèio kaip kantininko ir durininko kaip paties Derrida suprieðinimas leidþia geriau suvokti Derridaiðrastos sàvokos différance konotacijas. Kita vertus, taip suprasta skirtis iðveda á singuliarumo, paraðo,paslapties sàvokø judëjimà Derrida tekstuose. Taèiau lieka neaiðku, (...) ar ið tiesø Derrida neprieðtaraujasavo teiginiui, kad raðymas vyksta anapus filosofijos ir literatûros, kai prieina prie iðvados, kad sodietis--kantininkas negalëjo suprasti jam skirto áëjimo singuliarumo, nes turëjo problemø su literatûra. Ar taireiðkia, kad literatûra, skirtingai nei filosofija, lieka atvira paslapèiai ir neþinojimui? O filosofija tampasusijusi su þinojimu ir paslapties áminimu? Autorës nuomone, paties Derrida hermeneutikos dekonstrukcija knygoje Pentinai: Nietzsche’s stiliai tokiai iðvadai prieðtarautø.Pagrindiniai þodþiai: differénce, Derrida, Kafka, sodietis-kantininkas, filosofija ir literatûra. (shrink)

The article focuses on the new institute of the Lithuanian law of constitutional justice procedure – the dissenting opinion of a Constitutional Court justice as it is consolidated in the Law on the Constitutional Court. It is argued that the current statutory regulation is defective in essence because it creates preconditions for diminishing the quality of both the final act of the Constitutional Court (especially when the dissenting opinion is to be filed by the judge rapporteur) and the dissenting opinion (...) under preparation. The narrative is half-normative and half-behavioural: the institute is analysed in the context of established procedural practice of the Constitutional Court as an extremely collegial institution (also due to the statutory regulation), as well as in the context of the current condition of the public discourse in Lithuania. Namely, statutory regulation allows filing a dissenting opinion (which is not distinguished from the concurring opinion) within three working days after the public announcement of the decision (ruling, conclusion) of the Constitutional Court. Consequently, it is hardly possible to argue that the justice who filed the opinion did not do this in view of the immediate reaction to the decision by the media, the society, or the establishment, and even that he or she did not do this because such reaction took place. Also, the three-day period mentioned above puts any justice ready to file a dissenting (or concurring) opinion into the position where he or she simultaneously needs to participate in the collegial activity of the Court in deciding cases, as well as to write the dissenting (concurring) opinion. In the article, the legislative proposal is presented that the Law on the Constitutional Court should be amended so as to allow for a relatively long time span between the adoption of the decision (ruling, conclusion) and its announcement to the public at large. However, it is not suggested that the general mode of collectivism as dictated by the Law and as implemented in the established practice of the Constitutional Court shall be abandoned. By this article, the author continues his research on the matter as commenced in his two earlier articles (of 2011 and 2012). (shrink)

The constitutional right to self-expression, used by societies professing democratic values (Constitution, Article 25), is a highly important feature for forming the political will of the citizenry. A broad, multi-sided public discussion on all issues of public interest is only possible with the existence of an appropriate amount of freedom of information. A strong mechanism for disseminating information that operates between citizens and the parliament is able to generate a sphere for discussion and mutual influence which are essential for indirect (...) democracy. A discussion’s depth, quality and comprehensiveness constitute important factors which determine the correctness of choices made by citizens and politicians. Mainly, it is the free press which fosters communication between political parties and citizens. The role of the “watchdog” is fundamental to revealing the circumstances under which politicians or other public persons make different political and administrative decisions. This is what permits the identification of motives for rulings and the circumstances under which they were approved. (shrink)

Freedom of speech has been essential in building democracy in Lithuania after regaining its independence. Exercise of the constitutional freedom of expression within the societies following constitutional values is the major factor shaping the political will of citizens. Wide-ranging, all round public discussion about all public interest issues is possible only when it is subject to due freedom of information. In indirect democracy, strong disseminator of information acting between citizens and the Parliament able to create the field for discussion and (...) mutual impact is a necessity. Significance, quality, all-roundedness of discussion on all public interest issues is the major factor determining correct choices of citizens and politicians. Restriction of freedom of expression and information or prohibition of free search, receipt and dissemination thereof shall be considered as subjugation of a human being as a free and autonomous creature. Freedom of speech is a highly important feature in building democracy. The media in Lithuania during two decades of democracy building has actively made the use of freedom of self-expression. The courts have solved a lot of case-laws, where freedom of speech, honour, dignity and private life were at stake. The Parliament, the Constitutional Court, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg, the Government, the Inspector of Journalist Ethics and the Commission on Journalists and Publishers Ethics, the courts of Lithuania – all institutions took part in the process of defining freedom of speech and its limits in Lithuania during two decades of its independence. The purpose of this publication is to identify if the case-law of Lithuania’s courts in balancing the contradictions between the freedom of self-expression and personal dignity, honour and private life is in line with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, jurisprudence of the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg. Defining if the case-law of Lithuania’s courts are in line with the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, the research is concentrated on legal tests applied in the case-law of freedom of speech – distinguishing between public and private figures, estimating disseminated information as facts or value-judgments, freedom of speech decriminalization problems, compensation in respect of pecuniary damage. (shrink)