When we returned from our holiday trip to Denmark I noticed on the dashboard of our car that we had driven more than 3,000 kilometres. For one reason or another I wondered how many millimetres this was. A match’s diameter is about one millimetre, how many matches have to be laid down next to each other in order to obtain this distance? Three billion. A seemingly nonsense question suddenly appears to give insight into the quantity of “one billion”. Three billion is in millimetres twice the distance to North Denmark plus a number of drives in the environment. In the same time, one gets an idea of:
The number of Euro’s the government wants to save in expenses (x billion)
The number of people on earth (8.5 billion)
How rich a billionaire is
The number of stars (suns) in the Galaxy (somewhat more than 100 billion)
The number of years ago that life started to develop on earth (3 billion)
To elaborate on this last point: humanity was developing into existence about one million years ago. Translated into distance in millimetres this is 1 kilometre. This means that returning from Denmark I could see the sign with the name of my village appear alongside the road when our first ancestors walked on the earth. Up to then, during the whole trip to and from Denmark the earth could live perfectly without this natural plague. And what about my own age? This is comparable to the width of the stopping line before the traffic light, as a part of this whole holiday journey.
But what can I do with this information? As a matter of fact: nothing at all, and that is exactly the point: this kind of knowledge should in fact guide my whole behaviour. Almost anything you strive for seems to become totally unimportant when one is aware of one’s little tiny ego. This ego is only big in our own experience. Outside it, it means nothing. It can only cause damage when 8.5 billion nothing-meaning ego’s want to strive for “results” on this small, tiny planet (not even a star) in this Galaxy with its 100 billion stars.
This is what I thought of when I watched a broadcast on TV about a Dutch ex-UN soldier visiting Lebanon. In this broadcast the two big cultural differences between West and East that seem to cause so much conflict and misery in our century, became unintendedly visible: the value attached to individual freedom of the West and the value attached to community loyalty of the East. The soldier was visiting a Lebanese village where he had been during his peace-keeping activities in the eighties. Of course, now he was wearing civilian clothes. I saw how a small group of men ordered the camera crew to stop filming in the streets. The soldier got very angry, because there was no law prohibiting filming in public streets, but a Lebanese man told him: government is far away; here the decisions are taken by our chief. The “chief” appeared to be an elder member of the community, informally endowed with much authority. He also added: “when you were here as a military, we had to obey you, now you have to obey us”. I could imagine that the ex-soldier was outrageous, because this was just the situation he fought for: for giving these men the “freedom” to make their own laws and let each other live in “freedom”. Now they obeyed a local old man and didn’t ask themselves if his wishes were in line with national laws. Although less extreme, it resembled the situation of American “liberators” in Iraq and Somalia. Western politicians think they can achieve a Western state model in Eastern countries. Eastern politicians and clan leaders think they have to challenge Western influence in their countries. The concept of the modern, parliamentary ruled state is a Western phenomenon, intended (roughly speaking) to unite millions of individuals with their own strivings, opinions, situations, etc. Millions of ego’s are thus bound together to preserve everybody’s right to take pictures in streets. This is not what Easterners want, they want a sense of belongingness in everyday life. Exaggerated by big ego’s, both sides try to impose their view on the other side. This, they think, is their very, very important mission. In the West many people think that co-operation is only recommended when we benefit individually from it. In the East people think that individual activities are only important if they sustain and support group values. This way ego’s build caricatures of values that are really worthwhile in themselves. The Lebanese man added: then we obeyed you, now you obey us! He showed his offended ego and his pleasure to take revenge. The soldier got angry because his ego had told him that he had “helped” these people to “return” to free speech and movement-values. How important are we? How to change this battle of the ego’s?
The number of Euro’s the government wants to save in expenses (x billion)
The number of people on earth (8.5 billion)
How rich a billionaire is
The number of stars (suns) in the Galaxy (somewhat more than 100 billion)
The number of years ago that life started to develop on earth (3 billion)
To elaborate on this last point: humanity was developing into existence about one million years ago. Translated into distance in millimetres this is 1 kilometre. This means that returning from Denmark I could see the sign with the name of my village appear alongside the road when our first ancestors walked on the earth. Up to then, during the whole trip to and from Denmark the earth could live perfectly without this natural plague. And what about my own age? This is comparable to the width of the stopping line before the traffic light, as a part of this whole holiday journey.
But what can I do with this information? As a matter of fact: nothing at all, and that is exactly the point: this kind of knowledge should in fact guide my whole behaviour. Almost anything you strive for seems to become totally unimportant when one is aware of one’s little tiny ego. This ego is only big in our own experience. Outside it, it means nothing. It can only cause damage when 8.5 billion nothing-meaning ego’s want to strive for “results” on this small, tiny planet (not even a star) in this Galaxy with its 100 billion stars.
This is what I thought of when I watched a broadcast on TV about a Dutch ex-UN soldier visiting Lebanon. In this broadcast the two big cultural differences between West and East that seem to cause so much conflict and misery in our century, became unintendedly visible: the value attached to individual freedom of the West and the value attached to community loyalty of the East. The soldier was visiting a Lebanese village where he had been during his peace-keeping activities in the eighties. Of course, now he was wearing civilian clothes. I saw how a small group of men ordered the camera crew to stop filming in the streets. The soldier got very angry, because there was no law prohibiting filming in public streets, but a Lebanese man told him: government is far away; here the decisions are taken by our chief. The “chief” appeared to be an elder member of the community, informally endowed with much authority. He also added: “when you were here as a military, we had to obey you, now you have to obey us”. I could imagine that the ex-soldier was outrageous, because this was just the situation he fought for: for giving these men the “freedom” to make their own laws and let each other live in “freedom”. Now they obeyed a local old man and didn’t ask themselves if his wishes were in line with national laws. Although less extreme, it resembled the situation of American “liberators” in Iraq and Somalia. Western politicians think they can achieve a Western state model in Eastern countries. Eastern politicians and clan leaders think they have to challenge Western influence in their countries. The concept of the modern, parliamentary ruled state is a Western phenomenon, intended (roughly speaking) to unite millions of individuals with their own strivings, opinions, situations, etc. Millions of ego’s are thus bound together to preserve everybody’s right to take pictures in streets. This is not what Easterners want, they want a sense of belongingness in everyday life. Exaggerated by big ego’s, both sides try to impose their view on the other side. This, they think, is their very, very important mission. In the West many people think that co-operation is only recommended when we benefit individually from it. In the East people think that individual activities are only important if they sustain and support group values. This way ego’s build caricatures of values that are really worthwhile in themselves. The Lebanese man added: then we obeyed you, now you obey us! He showed his offended ego and his pleasure to take revenge. The soldier got angry because his ego had told him that he had “helped” these people to “return” to free speech and movement-values. How important are we? How to change this battle of the ego’s?
1 comment:
In the struggle to find the right balance between the communal and the individual, I lean toward protecting individual rights. In a choice between communities that are repressive and individuals who are obnoxious, I generally find the latter less dangerous to everyone's well-being.
Everyone is connected in and dependent upon communities, so the importance of groups cannot be overlooked. On the other hand, individuals need freedom to develop their unique capacities, as it is frequently the unique contributions of individuals that enrich communities.
I think Western and Eastern cultures can learn from each other. Too many Western societies have lost an appropriate sense of communal values. And too many Eastern societies have been hindered by their fears of individual variations.
Tough questions without easy answers.
Post a Comment