A systems approach to animals, organizations and humans

In the nineties of the last century the so-called “systems approach” was a trend in management literature. It had been originated from the so-called “systems theory”, formulated by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a biologist. I was reminded of it reading a commentary on an Internet blog where somebody used the word “outlet centre” Such an centre exists in Lelystad and is a kind of shopping mall for luxury goods and clothing.. In Dutch an outlet centre, or better: uitlaat-centrum, could be a shop where you can buy a new or second hand exhaust-pipes for cars, and is also not associated with luxury goods, only with men with dirty hands and blue garage clothing. Or maybe a terrain where you can let your dog out. So it’s better not to translate the word, and let it remain English.

The Internet blog where I read the word gives the opportunity to give comments. So I gave a comment: “Your use of the word “outlet centre” to indicate a shopping mall reminds me of a group of shops that relieve their nature and of potential customers who are sniffing around to smell something they might like. Because outlets are also more or less outputs, it reminds me also of systems theory, and I you made me intend to investigate how shops run by humans and animals can be approached by this theory”. It came up in my mind how I once used rabbits as an example (not real rabbits of course but only the drawing of a rabbit on a whiteboard) to explain systems theory to a group of students. As said, the father of systems theory is Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972). He discovered that there are entities such as organisms that didn’t obey to the general physics law that all things tend to decay and fall apart until a state of equilibrium is reached. Example: an apple fallen from a tree will rot and eventually totally integrate into its environment. Also so-called “closed systems” such as car engines, clocks, TV sets, mobilephones, buildings etc. when left at their own, will wear out and get “out of order” After hundreds of years nothing will be left from any mobilephone. Bertalanffy discovered that so-called “open, self-regulating systems” escape from this fate when left at their own, because they have built-in monitors that give them “instructions” to keep them functioning. All living organisms are open, self-maintaining systems. A general model (the core of systems theory) for a system is the so-called input – transformation – output – feedback communication model. The input is everything that comes into the system, intended or un-intended. The output is everything that leaves the system, and everything in-between is called transformation of the input to a desired output (notice the doubtful word “desired”). If the output is not within certain measurable measures (too hot, too cold, too heavy, too light, too etc.) then the feedback mechanism takes care that this info is communicated to the input and/or the transformation department of the system, where it is corrected (think of a central heating system with a thermostat). This is the model as it is described in management-textbooks.

Our management textbooks we use in our school give a clear description of this all, and everybody who reads them can imagine an organisation or a company as an open, self-regulating or self-maintaining system. Of course, its outputs are its products (often sold via outlets). That’s what companies are for. The output of a school is knowledge and competence, but also graduated students in which these are incorporated, because knowledge and competence can only be wrapped in humans. (there are books “full of knowledge” but if nobody reads them there is still no knowledge). These books locate the feedback mechanisms at the output hole (its outlet): the output has to meet criteria and norms, and the output is constantly monitored if these criteria and norms are met. If not, a feedback communication will start. So when I was talking with the students about feedback in the rabbit-system, I also put the feedback monitor at the output. Of course you can imagine the laughter when I was hesitating about the “product” of the rabbit at its outlet, and I was really confused. If the rabbit had a diarrhoea, would there be a feedback communication between its output opening and its inside? But I soon realized our mistake. A rabbit’s system output is not its excrements but a rabbit-friendly feeling. The system “rabbit” looks for a “product” that best maintains it, and that best suits its chances to survive. Then it feels “happy” and quiet. Of course a rabbit doesn’t produce this happy feeling just like a factory produces goods, its production process consists of looking for and searching. The product is what it finds after that looking for and searching.

Many management textbooks tend to blind us by emphasising that the product of a firm is its desired output, namely its products and services. It’s totally different: its products are part of its transformation sub-system and not its output. Its output is the “feeling” of the firm, namely that its management and staff are happy with their market position, revenues, profits, earnings and social status it gives when having a respected job. The feedback monitor is located at the place where this output, this environment can be monitored. These monitors are the market research function, the legal affairs, human resources and financial specialists etc. They are “the eyes and ears” of the firm. When Europe becomes an uneasy place for a firm then it moves to another part of the world, just like an animal moves to a place where there is more food or better shelter, or where costly resources are more efficiently acquired.

This leaves an important question unanswered: if you state, like management theory does, that an organisation is an open, self-regulating system, where do you put its products? What are the “products” of comparable open systems such as animals? If we look at animals then we see that they produce three things: offspring, waste and maintenance of the eco-system they live in. They contribute to the welfare, the economy of their environment by maintaining it un-intendedly by catching, eating, producing dung and dying. By creating offspring they maintain their species, also un-intendedly, and by fighting and defending behaviour they take care that their environment is not taken over by others. If needed, however, if their environment is damaged they can look for another environment or take action to maintain its current situation, but only as far as their competencies will allow. In principle the same is the case with companies. Companies merge or change their shapes and structures to maintain their species, they catch, eat, they produce waste. They even fight (with financial and/or legal weapons). The problem with companies, considered from a systems view, i.e. considered from a view of nature, is that most of their products are waste, not contributing to a natural eco-system. They contribute to a psychological, human eco-system, which is of no positive relevance to nature, but has indeed serious effects on the physical natural environment. An automobile factory produces waste. The waste is not only the by-products, but also the sellable products themselves. A company feels fine and happy when “the demand” asks for enough products, slightly more than they can produce, because then there’s growth. This “demand” is purely human, never animal or natural, and humans are also open, self-regulating systems of their own. They differ from animals like organisations also differ from animals in producing (far) more waste than nature can bear, in their striving for a satisfying output, namely a condition in which they can operate satisfactorily. How does this work out in humans? The answer is important to understand why business organisations produce too much waste, without the feedback from their monitors that their output (their “healthy” condition) telling them that they have to change their transformation system, part of which are their production system and their products.

Animal organisms can have feelings. We don’t know if one-nucleus organisms such as amoebas have feelings, but rabbits, horses, birds, and probably also fish have feelings of satisfaction. Even very primitive organisms strive for a state in which they can function optimally, i.e. when there are enough resources around them to make themselves able to function optimally. They search, they move around, travel, sniff, feel, etc. for food and mating partners. They hunt, graze, fight, protect, build nests and holes and do everything they can to reach and maintain that situation. This way so-called eco-systems are created. Within natural boundaries “natural states” are created such as woods, parts of a sea, maybe for certain species whole continents, these eco-systems for the natural environment of the organisms that live in them. An eco-system, considered this way, is also an open, self-regulating system. But only as far as its competencies allow it. An eco-system can be damaged or devastated by natural forces, after which new eco-systems will arise. These processes can take hundreds, thousands, millions of years. Not couples of years or dozens of years at its most, like human or organizational systems. Unconsciously (as far as we know) alle living organisms contribute to the emergence and maintenance of these eco-systems, their outputs are fully in line with the output of the eco-system they live in, until forces from outside the system cause changes. We must assume that this was the way the earth as one grand super-eco-system operated before humans entered it. Evolution theory describes how the transformation processes went on within these eco-systems, bounded by physical events and situations.

At a certain point in the development of species, humans emerged from them. How these first humans originated and found their way in this world is nowhere better described than in the Genesis-book of the Bible. They learned the difference between “good” and “evil”. (Did they? Even now philosophers and scholars cannot give an exact definition of the two concepts. But we have to assume this difference, and they are described in theology and morality). In a more or less simultaneous process, their brains developed the possibility to separate an immediate situation they are in, from the imagination of that situation. I think that this process was a result of naming. A name is the symbol, the sign of the object it refers to and this way people could give each other information about things that are not immediately present. Take e.g. a dog. When you call the name of his boss in the presence of the dog while his boss is away, the dog assumes immediately that he is at the front door. He is not able to think of his boss as somebody being somewhere else. Humans can think of anything which isn’t in the immediate here-and-now, they simply imagine it. Simultaneously with the development of this ability humans developed language, a series of auditory (later also visual) signs by means of which they could combine images, situations and cause-and-effect relations that not really take place, but only in their minds. However, this language originated from its practical applicability, and not (as e.g. Plato thought) from innate ideas and concepts. They could give each other information and instructions, and they could construct instruments and weapons, and better shelters and fire. Hereby the humans became “masters of the universe”. Their outputs began to match a far wider eco-system than the eco-systems of their competing living organisms. Other than animals, humans eventually could construct their own eco-systems with dykes, acres, and hunting habits. They were much, much faster than the processes of evolution that determined the development of earthly systems up to then. They became like little gods, creating and exerting power over things and creatures that lied outside the reach of any other organism. So far so good. However, this new option of thinking, imagining, using language and power-exertion was not in line with other features and abilities that organisms possess for creating a good output for themselves. Such feature is the signal that the system has reached a satisfactory output in which it can optimally function and operate. Men are often insatiable. Animals have built-in mechanisms that tell them that they have done enough for their feeling of wellbeing, men live in a spiral of never-enough. Only their own mistakes or refusal of physical nature can stop them. This is because of their faculty of thinking, using language and imagination. Next to these, men have kept their feelings and emotions that animals also have, some psychologists have explored this mismatch as a result of evolution. Men feel anger, fear, love, loss, joy, etc. and of course they want to reach a state in which non-pleasant emotions and feelings will not occur, and pleasant feelings and emotions will be there, just like animals. We deliberately use our brains to improve our situation and to protect our possessions. We invent cars, not one car for ourselves, but millions of them because they can be sold. We invent markets. Our leaders proclaim that markets are needed, and we believe them. We are employees of a factory that produces cookies and our target is to make and sell as many cookies as possible. We write books about how to run such factories, calling them open systems and their output cookies, and their environment markets and competitors. In fact these factories are kind of temples. Closing them means great disaster because it causes unemployment and loss of money, the cookies themselves become at once unimportant, they are now only a means to keep a factory running. Please buy our cookies!

In management literature there was a debate about “the goals of the business firm”: was it production of the items it produces or was it gaining profits? Mr. Iacocca, the GM of Chrysler, spoke the famous words: “If it were money, then I know better ways of making money than producing cars”, thus indicating that he found the product the most important goal. It also illustrates how humans think in goals, destinations, purposes, intentions, functions etc. Every activity must be purposeful, and we seldom realize that most things are there just because of themselves. Systems theory is adopted by management to make their processes going on better. In debates it’s forgotten that business firms, just like so many other organizations, are just there for their own sake, because people working in them use their work to reach and maintain a state of happiness. The managers and CEO’s think too often about their wallets and bank accounts, and the profits of the firm are there to ensure this goal. Lower-ranking workers use their work for social contacts and positions, for fulfilling the need to be busy with what they and their relations find meaningful things.

It’s the human drama. Everything we invent is wonderful and often miraculous. But does it contribute to something else than mankind and market? Do the products, the output of all those organisational efforts contribute to some eco-system? Rationally speaking we cannot assume that mankind lives in an eco-system of its own, different from the eco-systems of other living organisms. It’s the same planet, the same universe that we are both dependent on. Now we enter the realm of ethics. Knowing the distinction between good and evil, together with the possession of language, symbols and imagination, makes us different from the animal world, let alone from the world of plants. We must conclude that only humans have morality which tells us what is good and what is evil. We must also conclude that there are only a few moral or ethical laws that are lived up to by most people. Many moral prescriptions and ideas are different from one era to another, from one group of people to another. I think these moral laws and guidelines are there because humans feel their lack of determining ultimate goals for activities. All human activities have some goal or purpose, or can be ascribed to some goals or purposes. But these goals and purposes are almost always limited in their scope, and when pursued, often clash with other goals and purposes of other people and organisations. Humans need morality so badly that activities are shared under the flag of a moral principle or view while a period later they are assessed as immoral, human history is full of examples. We say: people want to justify behaviour that could be seen as immoral by non-group members. So how do these moral principles and views fit into our open, self-regulating system called human being? I think that one way or another humans want to come in terms with their unique and lonely position in the universe. They see that people can damage themselves or other people by pursuing goals. They are aware that they form such an open, self-regulating system but that they cannot function like that by simply leaving everything as it goes, like animals do. Animals have no problem in damaging or devastating things, it’s in the order of nature. Men see what the effects are of their conduct, they plan and draw conclusions. Men have possessions and “vested interests”, they feel responsible for other people, for events, for the consequences of their behaviour. But in pursuing the protection of possessions, events and regulating the behavioral consequences, they are urged to pursue, again, goals and objectives, which cannot always be in line with the same valuables cherished and pursued by others. Ethics, and part of religion, is there to remind us of the Ultimate Goal: self-regulation of our System, i.e. not getting worn out and falling apart as everything else in nature.
Nothing that humans produce has a contribution to any natural eco-system, except for some organisms that feel well in the presence of humans. Which cannot be said about animals. They are fully integrated into their eco-systems. Humans produce for other humans and when they form organisations such as business firms, political parties, religious organisations etc. these organisations tend to maintain themselves, just like regimes and power-exerting systems. The goals they pursue are often empty words, hallelujah-ed by many people, despised by many others. What product is better: cookies or cars? Is it “good” to produce and sell them? Or neutral? It cannot be neutral because cars use a lot of physical space, accidents, pollution. Cookies: the same answers. Most other products: the same. Power-exerting organisations and institutions tell s what is good or bad in laws and regulations, but these organisations and institutions are influenced by vested interests: if something appears to be bad, then stopping that bad will create a still bigger bad. I’m afraid that Western society is captured in its own vested interests and manipulated moralities. Other societies have other problems, all have the problem of men that want to be free in pursuing the own goal of self-regulation, i.e. achievement of a state of satisfaction. That’s also what morality tells us, but we are too often inclined to adjust morality to vested interests we are imprisoned in. Satisfaction means literally: “done enough”. Like the cow in her meadow, chewing her meal. We don’t want to be like her. And yet…

Pictures of God

Of course we don’t know how God looks like (suppose that He “exists”). There are however images of old wise men with yet powerful body appearances that are intended to represent “God”, the most famous of which is the Great Creator by Michelangelo portrayed while He is creating Adam and Eve. In the Jewish and Islam religions and some orthodox Christian denominations it is forbidden to make representations of God in pictures or sculptures, or sometimes even to picture people.
Nowadays many people believe there’s no God. There are even people who say they believe in a God who doesn’t exist. Many other people believe in a really existing, personal God who guides them through their lives and listens to their prayers. Of course, they also want to have some message of this God, and they find it in the Holy Books (I’m only talking now about the three great monotheistic world religions). The Holy Books are written thousands of years ago and especially the Bible (Old Testament) is a collection of stories and reportages. The Quran is more a collection of admonitions and promises, with less stories. Christians, Jews and Muslims who call themselves “believers” are supposed to believe in these stories and admonitions. And here the great theatre is starting. There are many different ways to believe, also within each religion. Performance of religion has much in common with theatre play, and this need to play has to do with the needed respect people must have for each other to keep a community, society or group peaceful. Although any monotheistic religion with a Holy Book claims monopoly for itself, the faithful believers must come to terms with the existence of other religions or branches of religions with the same claim. The official ways of performing religious acts and duties are a form of theatre to express one’s faith, and also to keep control over the “pureness” of the own religion by enhancing and reinforcing the truth in the stories and admonitions in the Holy Books. But, as said, this resembles a theatre play. It isn’t equal to a regular theatre play because the latter maintains full distinction between the role player as a person and the played role. In a religious ceremony the role player is far more the played role itself. At least, is supposed to be. Be honest, many will experience some religious functions or acts as a little bit of pretending, even if they are deep-religious persons. In Christian churches the “Twelve articles of Faith” (the “Credo”) are recited by many people without any conviction that what they recite is really their deeply-felt faith. They are reciting “dogma’s”, i.e. facts that they are supposed to believe, that they “must” believe as a condition for their religion. In the past people who were not brought up with these mixed feelings, could get heavy struggles with their conscience. When they told their doubts to a priest they got as an answer that these were sinful thoughts and a proof that they only were bad human beings. Only the elite, the upper classes knew that you were supposed not to have problems with these doubtful feelings, but simply to play the game for the sake of order and control.

In her book “The History of God” Karen Armstrong elaborates on the dogma principle. We in the West, she says, are looking at dogma’s as imposed-on facts that we must believe in, whereas in the Eastern Christian churches a dogma is more considered as “mystery”, which protects us for feelings of guilt if we are not inclined to believe in their historical or physical truth. This leaves room for contemplation on symbolic and/or more abstract meanings of what is taught by e.g. the Credo, or other facts of faith, such as the Resurrection, the virginity of Mary, the Holy Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus, etc. As a mystery, they keep their unshakable truth and at the same time don’t need to have “happened” or to be “measured” as physical sequences of facts like required in a court session (even there it isn’t often clear what the meaning of historical facts is).

Nevertheless, leaders of religious groups and organizations such as churches, rabbis and the Muslim Brotherhood stress the historicity of facts that must be believed such as the fact that Allah wrote the Quran by the hand of Mohammed, that Mary was a virgin (papal decree), that Jesus’ corps really resurrected from death, etc. etc. There is however a trend to question or to ignore all these facts. Take for instance the Evangelical movements among Christians. It seems as if for them, only two facts are important: Jesus, God’s Son, saves us from evil and prayer is the only way to improve things. Has he resurrected from death? OK, but if he wouldn’t , also OK. But resurrection is better because it tells us that death can be defeated and we must not despair. They don’t even seem to ask themselves if things such as these are true, they simply adopt it in their mindsets. Other people, especially those who have been brought up in a Christian environment and acquired knowledge by later education and life experience in a non-orthodox environment (such as myself), have doubts. They often go through a dozen or more years of doubts and negligence in their religious lives, don’t practice their religion anymore (because they “tell lies and sell myths as truth”). When I was a kid I asked my mother a very difficult question: “mother, tell me, grandma never goes to church and believes nothing, but she is always so good and lives exactly how the gospel and the pope tells us to live, will she go to hell?” Our religion teacher (the parish chaplain) at the primary school explained that we live further after our death, either in heaven (good heavens, we had to look at God eternally, and that was supposed to be delicious!) or in hell (worse than that) or in the purgatory, a kind of waiting room for heaven, where our minor sins would be burnt away. I remember having raised my hand and asked: “Sir, so in fact we are half-eternal, because we do have a begin, but no end?” which was confirmed by the chaplain, I remember that he smiled after my question, and I was reassured that we were not that good as God, who had neither begin nor end. I also remember having been bothered by the pressing question how astronauts who got an accident in space and would never return to earth, would get a so-called “delighted body” and get up from their earthly graves when Christ would return to judge the living an d the death. Didn’t their corpses wander somewhere between Mars and Jupiter? Or lie still on the moon? This problem kept me from my sleep, because I told it to my parents after I went down from my bedroom to look for consolation in this difficult matter. Of course this was in a time when in the R.C. Church cremation wasn’t done, that was something for the heathen.

Anyway, my point is that there are many ways to be religious, to pray and to experience the presence of God, and that nevertheless churches and mainstreams in monotheistic religions proclaim a historical, physical series of wonders and happenings which must be believed in to be a good religious person, and a series of acts and ceremonies you have to participate in, also to be a good believer. So: what is the picture of God? Can be expanded to what is the picture of religion? I think we have to back to the core of the matter, despite all attempts by leaders and officials of churches and faiths to keep their sheep within the fences. The core of the matter lies outside these fences. Let’s start with my personal experiences and feelings.

I have been brought up in Roman Catholic tradition, went to R.C. primary and secondary schools and even the first two years of my academic study. My parents had been converted to the R.C. religion I think because shortly after World War II they moved to South Limburg in the Netherlands where 99% of the population was R.C. at the time. Our family wasn’t very pious, they lacked the R.C. tradition, so we went to church every Sunday, but not every day like in many other families. In short: if a religious R.C. performance demanded too much time or effort in our 5-children household it wasn’t practiced. In the seventies my parents said goodbye to the R.C. church and became “nihilists” or at its best “agnosticists” with some kind of belief in life after death. I think they said goodbye because they couldn’t come to terms with all these stories and myths, those saints and above all, the arrogance and dominant behaviour of priests. Priests were part of the elite, they were represented in the boards of all associations, schools, institutions, clubs etc. as “spiritual advisors”. My parents found that priests lacked life experience, they were educated in religious matters and always single, so how could they tell mothers and fathers how to raise and educate their children? Or how could they be trainers and educators for young people wanting to get married (in the so-called “courses for engaged couples”). Nevertheless they acted as if they represented and knew about the one and only truth they had to teach you. It was also a time in which there was much status difference among people: there were labourers, office clerks, educated people, government officials etc. Sociologists made studies of these class differences that now seem to have almost totally denuded from their intrinsic value, nowadays differences are more based on career achievements and material possessions. The goodbye to church was a goodbye to hierarchy for most people and to dominance of the priests, vicars, imams and rabbi’s.

Doubt was en is a reason to make one’s own choices, especially when one has the freedom to do so and would not expect punishment from family or community for the act of leaving the traditional religious performance culture. One leaves the stage on which the play is performed. However, in the meantime many others continue to play despite their doubts, separating their true feelings and beliefs from the rites and symbols they are participating in. A third group, the group who isn’t bothered by doubts for whatever reason became more outspoken and found a refuge in Pentecostal movements (I wouldn’ t call them churches) or right-wing parts of churches. In Islam and Judaism we see this development in fundamentalism and ultra-orthodoxism. The traditional religions without extreme orthodox or fundamentalist wings don’t seem to appeal to many people anymore, which on its turn seems to strengthen the orthodoxes and fundamentalists in their zeal. E.g. in the Netherlands it has become extremely difficult to recruit young people to become a priest. So the reverse of the situation of 100 years ago takes place here: we import priests from South America and Sout-East Asia to perform the priest office here. They can hardly speak Dutch and, above their lack of life experience as a married or semi-Christian person, they are supposed to perform pastoral duties, with their background of working in a far more orthodox, 95% R.C. country, now in a country where the R.C. church has become an almost ridiculous institute, thanks to Rome’s policy to appoint orthodox bishops whose main characteristics are offending pastoral volunteers who try to compensate the lack of “genuine” appointed priests, and stressing the church truths as historical and physical truths, only referring to their symbolic meanings as explanatory circumstances. In fact, they despise the connotations of the word “symbol” when it comes to religion, in religion everything is fact and truth and you have to believe it. I am my self a divorced man and for that reason I’m excluded from the holy sacrament of the Communion. A divorced man remains excluded, certainly when he is re-married again outside the Church with a woman of another confession, and refuses to ask permissions and licenses to the Church Court. In most other Christian churches I would be welcome and get support for the difficulties in my life. Which also caused me to think about how people are religious: are they dependent on a Book with stories, what do these stories tell them, are they dependent on an institution, staffed with divinely-powered leaders and guides, founded by the Son of God Himself? Are they dependent on habits and rites observed by the community in which they live, e.g. a village in Iran or Brasil? I think the latter is the case in most situations.
Resuming: In the Netherlands and also other Western and Islam-countries numerous people leave the churches because of the discrepancy between on the one hand the “truths of faith” and on the other hand the meaning that these truths are (were) intended to convey. In general, religious leaders and orthodox believers support the historical and physical “truth” of the book stories and admonitions. In Western countries, and far more so in Islam-countries because of heavier community pressure, many experience religious performances as role play-rites with valuable symbolic connotations without the need to be true as factual happenings or to be observed admonitions. I returned to the R.C. church because after reading some literature about the gospels and about symbols and their meanings I found much truth in the many parables and words of Jesus Christ: yes, that’s how we are supposed to live. I found many parallels with day-to-day life, which is too much permeated by economical, instrumental and political reasonings and decisions and avoids moral issues as topics to be dealt with. Thoughts and actions that are considered ethically justified or necessary by non-church members are often considered very ethical by orthodox church members “because the Bible says so”, and/or because people have an interest in them. Take e.g. the fishermen of Urk, a Dutch fisherman’s village where far more fish was caught than legally allowed, although the Urk people are orthodox Christians who are not supposed to steal or who agree that “what belongs to the emperor, should be left to the emperor”, the classical gospel-quote about taxes and government rules concerning profit. Or take the Muslim leaders of Somalia who forbade pirating because Islam forbade it, but after some successes of pirates became strong supporters of pirating, sharing its financial benefits.
What’s also striking is that believing in the twelve articles of faith (the “Credo”) as established during the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., only applies to the status of God, His Son and the Holy Ghost . Nowhere it refers to how one should live, like the ten commandments do. Church schisms are always caused by interpretations of historical or factual events or situations, never by moral issues. However, for orthodox people morality and factual truth are inextricably interwoven. They see symbols and rites as reinforcements of the historical truth of their faith, and, as a consequence in the second place, as guidelines for their ways of life, derived from this historical truth. A striking example is the resurrection of Christ after His death. The papal hierarchy, referring to St. Paul, claims that if this historical fact didn’t take place, our whole faith would be in vain and useless. Fact is that only orthodox Christians believe this resurrection really took place. Non-orthodox believers such as I am, believe that Christ’s resurrection fits in a whole series of resurrections throughout mankind’s religious and mythical world. They refer to a fact of faith, namely that mankind can only survive thanks to a positive view on life in which death always will be followed by new life, yes, even that new life needs death and destruction. Not by causing death and destruction by mankind itself, on the contrary, but that we have to both avoid and fight it on the one hand, and accept and resign ourselves in them if inevitable, in the view that after it new life will follow. Maybe not in heaven as a place where our souls go to, but in the universe of all that exists, which is a universe broader and larger than we will ever be able to observe with our human biological senses (maybe that is what is meant by “heaven”). This is maybe the crucial fact of life, and the reason why Christ’s resurrection is considered the most important fact of faith (historical or symbolic) in Christian churches. Claiming it as a historical fact means reinforcing the differences between religions and people.

Now considering these discrepancies and concluding that orthodoxism is keeping us away from the truth that we all are put on this ball of matter travelling in circles through space. That a general moralism is needed to guide our behaviour. That men are essentially religious because any human gifted with senses must ask: why has our life an end? Why do we exist? Why does nature favor us sometimes and why does nature strike us with disasters at other times?, and that these are religious questions, leading to the question: how must we live to survive? Well, I think the truly religious human will conclude that there must exist a non-written moral system we have to pursue, and that orthodox people are free to believe what they think is good, but must refrain from imposing their truth on us, because they divide humanity in a way that we cannot afford to, namely the true believers (their “we”) and the non-believers (their “they”). On this small planet there cannot be a they and we in the long term, we all are we. Which leads us to an answer to the question with which we started namely : does God exist and if yes, what is His picture? I think God is the wording (John also says in his gospel that God is the Word) of the good, of our wanting to avoid death and disaster wherever possible, and accepting it and resigning ourselves to it in a positive way. The best way to do so is starting with respecting each other and wipe away feelings of superiority, of revenge and own glory and achievement. That’s what God is, the Highest we as humans could achieve, if we only were able to, but we aren’t, we can only strive for it. I purposely avoid the term, “love”, and used “respect” instead, because I think that true love can only exist if we respect each other first.

Seeing God as a mighty person creating and ruling everything is more nonsense than the God spoken to in a prayer of a child asking for recovering his very ill father or mother. Prayer is a mystical act, addressing to the Universe which in itself is neither good nor evil, but in which we poor mortals are suffering and create our goods and evils ourselves. Prayer gives consolation, not in the way of being aware that there are worse things and around and don’t worry, but in a way that gives strength and power to cope with our existence. That’s how God is working.

The Shared Meal

Most people who don’t live alone share their meal for at least once a day. When we go out eating we prefer restaurants that are already occupied by a number of guests, and we avoid empty restaurants. Once inside, we try to find a place for our own because we want to have some privacy amidst the other guests. We observe table manners: we don’t eat potatoes with our bare hands, we (at least up until some 20 years ago) can (could) identify “social class” from the table manners: low social class eat by handling the fork or spoon by their right hand, leaning with their left elbow on the table, or (worse!) on their knees. Before eating they first cut everything into small pieces or and/or mash everything together into a smooth porridge. Higher class people eat with their fork in their left hand, and the knife in their right hand. This difference in table manners often spoil the dinner when lower-class people dining together with higher class people desperately try to imitate the eating techniques of their high-class table companions, and/or when the high-class people are irritated by the low-class techniques. Nowadays these class differences aren’t that important anymore in the Netherlands because it’s not correct to show disapproval of somebody else’s cultural background or to emphasise class differences. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist anymore, but that’s something beyond the scope of this writing.
How come that eating in all cultures is a kind of ritual with prescribed manners? Why is it that e.g. in China physical expression of satisfaction by the food is appreciated while in Western countries it’s forbidden? How come that in Iran emptying your plate totally is prescribed while in other cultures you have to leave something on your plate? Why is it that we prefer to eat together instead of eating alone?

When we eat we are vulnerable to attacks from outside. Look at the animal world, eating there is a matter of life and death, and all species have developed techniques and methods to be protected from surprising attacks from outside. Some eat in groups (e.g. lions), other drag their prey to a hidden or high place, birds eating worms always look around while eating, etc. Men, like most apes, are group animals. Like apes, we prefer to eat individually, as long as we stay within the group. Chimps and gorillas eat their leaves and fruits in a group and observe strict “table rules” which have to do with hierarchy: the leaders get the best pieces, and begging is an accepted habit and a way to express obedience and favors. Apes not belonging to the eating group are chased away or killed when they persist. Everybody stops eating when a sudden danger appears, and there are always group members in charge with looking out for dangers. Do you notice the parallels with human eating habits? Of course we don’t beg during meals, but we give favors and express who’s most important at the table. When in a restaurant a group is dining, it’s unthinkable that a stranger will also sit down there without being invited. In short, eating is a necessity, we simply have to, but eating itself also threatens our lives. Is that a reason why eating rituals and manners are experienced as so extremely important and embarrassing if not observed? Are they the remnants of the old life-protecting habits from the time when we were still apes? Eating… it’s one of the most important events we experience each day. It forms even part of religious rituals. The quality of the food comes far second, most important are the manners and the ritual performance.

Economists and historians use to make a classical distinction between hunting and collecting societies, agricultural societies, trading and industrial societies and service societies (still debatable if there is a “service society”, only our grandchildren can assess this). In the hunting and collecting society we see one common pattern as far as eating is concerned. First, collecting and acquiring food is something the whole tribe or village community is occupied with during 80% of the day. It’s simple but tough: groups of men go out hunting and collecting, women stay at home to make preparations while looking after the children whom they often bear on their backs while working. There’s only one time per day (if food is collected for that day) during which the community can be together: to consume the food. That moment gets a special name: dinner. Eating is a biological function, and everybody is eager to have the most nutritious pieces and bits, so rules have to be settled to make sure that the group will not fall apart in struggle and fights. (Already the apes have found methods for it), and the table rules were born.

This division of tasks and duties before and during the meal were the origin of all table manners in all cultures, and of course during the millennia they developed into very different behaviour in the several cultures, but they are all directed to show respect for each other’s needs and rights. First, people who are weak, sick or disabled get the pieces they need (e.g. pregnant or feeding women, recovering from illness, etc.). Second, people higher in hierarchy are offered the best pieces (which they are sometimes supposed to refuse to show respect, in other cases they must accept them to show respect). Third, everybody is supposed to show gratefulness to the “masters of the meal” who is the host, the owner of the ingredients, the people who prepared the meal, or otherwise paid effort to the production of the food. By the way, according to my opinion this is also expressed in the prayer we use to say before and after a meal. Fourth, we show respect to our dish companions in general. E.g. taking a piece from your neighbour’s plate, as children sometimes do, is in most cultures considered as a rude embarrassment, equivalent to an insult. All behaviour is directed towards the goal of respecting the eating enjoyment of your table companions, and for every culture an encyclopaedia of manners could be written. Fifth, when there are guests, then the guest is the top of the hierarchy. He is somebody from outside the group, and is permitted by invitation to share this intimate and important group moment.

When you, appreciated reader, would not be familiar yourself with all these rules, taboos and restrictions in which the shared meal is embedded, then you would easily wonder if there is any occasion left to enjoy the food in a relaxed manner. You have constantly to be alert if you are not trespassing some rule. Don’t go to the toilet during dinner, don’t blow your nose without turning off your face, don’t burp, don’t take too much on your plate, (or are you supposed to put food on your neighbour’s plate first, or do you have to wait until you are being served?), when somebody holds a speech, you have to stop eating. Don’t talk about matters that could spoil a relaxed food consumption, don’t talk too much, don’t talk too less, don’t be silent at all. Use the usual fork-and-knife techniques, don’t make stains or spill food, etc. etc. Only guests are allowed to make slight mistakes, first they are the highest in rank, second they cannot know our manners one hundred percent. An anecdote of this is the following small story: Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands had invited Paul Kruger, the leader of the South African Dutch-origin colonialists (the “Boeren” or “Farmers”) to an official dinner when he was in the Netherlands seeking support for his war against the British colonialists. Kruger was a Boer and didn’t know much of the table manners of the European elite. So when he discovered a small bowl filled with water and a slice of lemon next to his plate, he thought that it was a refreshment and drunk it, while it was intended to wash your fingers in it. As a guest he was sitting next to the queen, who noticed his “indecent” behaviour. Instead of whispering the right way into her guest’s ear, which would be very embarrassing for him, she took her own bowl and also drunk its content. Nobody at the table dared wash his or her fingers in the bowl after the example the queen had given, and the guest was spared the shame of not knowing table manners.

The sociologist Norbert Elias made a study of tablemanners in Europe throughout the centuries and it appears that everywhere the lower classes try to imitate the higher classes, and also that in Europe manners developed into a ceremony of restrictions and discipline. One is supposed to just show the contrary of what one would do if eating alone with no restrictions. Respected reader, think of yourself: what do you do when being at home and alone, and you get hungry because it’s eating time? Right: prepare something with a minimum of effort, put it on a plate which you put on a plank. Then you put the plank on your lap with the food on it and you switch on the TV. You burp when you feel the need to, and do everything else which would be a crime when eating in a group together.

In our time table manners are disappearing. Many people have jobs, and are called during dinner because others know this is a time that one is supposed to be at home. “Grazing” spoils the appetite when it’s dinner time. Those same jobs often prevent fathers and mothers to be at home during dinner. TV invites you to share the meal while watching a show or sports event. Fast food doesn’t encourage experiencing dinner as a social event anymore. I don’t know what influence this has on pour lives and on education of children, I think it’s a self-reinforcing process: food is available too easy in Western societies, and we can afford quick and too nutritious food. We don’t have time to prepare meals and it’s not necessary anymore because industry prepares it for us. The market offers what the customers asks for and has no educational function: suppliers simply offer what we find convenient and attractive. The food and meals market follow this rule as mandatory as any other market. We maybe have to reconsider market mechanisms I think. But, on the other hand, what technologically and economically is possible, will happen anyway, ethics and “good manners” always come second. Berthold Brecht, the famous German theatre author, already knew: “Erst das Fressen, dann die Moral”, “Food comes first, morality second”. I think I’ll have to think this over.

Knowledge centres, knowledge circles, knowledge companies and knowledge management.

Clouds of knowledge are spread over the environment by Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden

Read this morning in the “Metro”, a for-free distributed daily Dutch newspaper: “The knowledge company (kennisbedrijf in Dutch) DelftTech will investigate the murder on Prince William of Orange again with modern technological equipment”. Again it confronted me with the meaning of the word “knowledge”. We are often confused about it because knowledge can have different meanings, ranging from broad to narrow, and from external to internal. I have a feeling that, since one or two of these meanings are associated with power and importance, they will be exploited by commerce and politics. The problem is that we are often unaware of our confusion, we think we know what knowledge is. Smart politicians and managers know this and stealthily impose their definitions on society, totally according to Norbert Elias’ definition of the “meaning” of social concepts (see below, Elias, N.(1991): Symbol Theory; Sage, London).
Why is the meaning of a concept so important? Can’t you simply state that a meaning is the description a dictionary or Google gives to it? I follow the wisdom of Norbert Elias who states that a meaning of a social concept is always the meaning most common people attach to it. This is the meaning a culture, a society attaches to a concept, and not the meaning some scientists or scholars try to propagate. Huh? Do we not consult dictionaries because in our school assignments and academic papers we first have to define (=give the meaning) of the items we are writing about? Yes, that’s because science has developed into a jungle of concepts and theories and most scientifically constructed concepts are not used by the men in the street. If you write about “knowledge” you first have to define it. OK, but most articles, messages and scribblings (such as the one quoted from “Metro”) don’t define it because they assume that the reader already knows the meaning, and isn’t “knowledge” a very frequently used word, and doesn’t it sound important and valuable? Defining it would be like inventing the wheel again. This way readers and clients become vulnerable of the way commercial and powerful elements such as politicians and media try to impose a certain meaning. And since a school or university is supposed to work with “knowledge” as their core product, it’s important to know what they are dealing with, and what politics and general opinion assume they are dealing with.
I will try to give an overview of the different meanings it can have. I do this because I find that not only science but also commerce and many people who (find that they) work with knowledge try to influence readers, clients and customers with their vision on what “knowledge” is. So first of all, Norbert Elias has said (and he is right) that the meaning of a concept such as “knowledge” (not of a chemical compound or a biological process) is determined by its users, and not by sociologists or philosophers or whatever scholars. Second, I will try to do this by using the two dimensions: from broad to narrow, and from external to internal.
In ancient antiquity knowledge was a very broad concept. In Latin it is “scientia” (from “scire” = “to know”), in Greek it is “gnosis”. There is a famous old saying in Greek “Know yourself” (gnothi seauton). This is thé example of the broad, and at the same time internal, definition of “knowledge”. In English we often say: “he knows the ropes”. This is an example of a broad, external definition (which by the way, is not in line with the meaning of knowledge used in the “competence learning” theory): knowing the ropes is having good professional competence. In competence learning theory “knowledge” is only part of “knowing the ropes” because it has to be integrated with attitude, affinity and other personality traits. For knowing the ropes all this is “knowledge”. Knowing the ropes is broader.
Then we have our knowledge centres, knowledge campuses, knowledge circles, knowledge industry and knowledge companies. They are called that way by policymakers, board members, managers, etc. and never by the scholars or “knowledge workers” themselves. These knowledge producers or, better, “knowledge generating institutions” can be split up into two groups: one part is intended to “spread knowledge” over its environment which is mostly meant to be the local small business, and politicians want to raise the employability figures this way. The other part is intended to enhance application of scientific research in the areas of business & industry, “sustainability”, energy saving, environmental pollution, building and construction, and ICT innovations and applications. Knowledge is always used in relation to application when you hear a politician or manager speak about it. Knowledge without direct application is useless, is no knowledge at all in their eyes. It is highly external and moderately narrow. External because knowledge of oneself is not the issue (or at most only supporting the external knowledge, like a student has to know his/her own strengths and weaknesses as a support, a means to learning the ropes of his/her study discipline), and narrow because it entails limited knowledge on specialist areas.
Then there is knowledge in what I would like to call knowledge in its spiritual meaning. This knowledge is both external and internal, and broad. It comes close to the ancient meaning of knowledge and is universal. The Greek called it “gnosis” (= “knowledge”). It comes also close to religion. We call e.g. somebody an “agnostic” (= “not-knower”) if (s)he is convinced that (s)he doesn’t know if there exists a God or not. It’s also knowledge in the meaning of “life experience” as we see it in the Dutch proverb: “Who collects knowledge, collects sorrow”, meaning that the more you know about life and world, the more sorrow there is you know about.
Now I hope I have explained to the reader and to myself why I get a bit irritated hearing the word “knowledge” pronounced by a politician or manager. Knowledge spread in a “knowledge market”(183,000 hits on Google) by an army of knowledge managers (“knowledge management”: 17.6 million hits on Google). After “hospitality” and a number of other meaningful social concepts, now also “knowledge” is going to be absorbed by business. An impoverishment.

The Party Snacks (True Story)

Jan and Marie would celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary and a lot of guests had been invited for a tremendous party at their home. Fine snacks and delicacies had been ordered at a catering firm. These were delivered during the day and were intended to be served in the late evening. Jan didn’t have enough storing space to keep them cool and fresh, so he decided to store them in the garage (in the Neteherlands garages are mostly cool due to the cool weather) covered by plastic sheet, until the time was there to serve them. So far so good. After an hour or so Jan went to the garage to get a hammer to attach some decorations on the wall. He was astonished to see that Pedro, the cat, was eating from the delicacies!! Luckily enough, only a small part was eaten and Jan put the parts eaten at in the garbage container, and chased the cat away out of the garage.

That evening they had a wonderful party and nobody worried about this small cat-incident. When all guest had left Gerrie, Jan and Marie’s daughter helped to clean up the mess and Jan said: put those clean bowls and plates in the garage, then the caterer will come and collect them tomorrow. Gerrie started to bring the things there. After a while Jan and Marie heard a loud scream from the garage, and they hurried to see what was going on there. They didn’t need to ask because they saw immediately Pedro lying before the garage door. The poor animal was dead. Jan was the only one knowing about the illegal nibbling by the cat, and after the family recovered a bit after the shock, he told what happened. The family was struck by a second shock: everybody had eaten from the snacks, and Jan decided to call all guests out of their sleep to tell them what danger was threatening them. He himself didn’t feel sick already but he decided to go to the hospital first thing in the morning. Some of the guests couldn’t wait and went that same night. It was an awful night!

That morning the little family went outside to get into the car to the hospital. Jan had wrapped some of the leftovers in plastic so that they could be analysed, you never can tell. Also the dead cat had been put into a board box, maybe the doctors could use the remains to investigate. Then the neighbour came outside and asked “Well, folks, did you have a nice party yesterday night?” Jan started to think: don’t come up with complaints about the noise, we can’t use that now. But the neighbour said: “I knew your were having a party and didn’t want to disturb the festivity. But when I came home after walking the dog I saw how your cat was hit by a car, the poor animal was dead, and I couldn’t do anything but laying him down before your garage door, then you would see him after the party without startling the visitors going home, they wouldn’t see it in the dark”.

This story is true, only the names and cause of celebration have been changed.

Everybody their own State, at what costs?

King Willem I of the Netherlands (including Belgium)

In 1813 Napoleon got defeated by the world powers of the time and all countries he had conquered had to be re-distributed. This was done at the Congress of Vienna (1814 – 1815). The Kingdom of the Netherlands was born anew, with king William I of Orange-Nassau as the ruling king. His territory comprised the present independent states of the Netherlands and Belgium. In 1832 Belgium wanted to be independent of the Northern half of the new kingdom and started a separation movement, supported by France that felt punished by the large kingdom at its Northern border. The separation reasons were not formed by ratio, but by feelings. The North was mainly protestant, the South Roman Catholic. The Southern people had a more or less Roman lifestyle, the Northern people were more Calvinistic. In the South nobility, clergy and elite were still powerful forces, in the North merchants and elite were more enlightened and more “democratic” (although not comparable to what today is understood by that concept). It would however have made far more sense if the states remained together. Together they had everything a modern state needed to develop: raw materials, infrastructure (heavily supported by the new king), ports and harbours, colonies, a developed agricultural sector, cities such as Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Liege, etc. But no, the elites of both parts of the country despised each other and found the others dumb and not reliable. A theatre play in Brussels in 1832 was the spark in the powder barrel. The audience got inspired to raise an uprising movement. The Northern answer was sending an army but neighbouring countries put pressure to withdraw the army, and king William II lost his Southern part of the kingdom. Negotiations followed, and the South had to leave the provinces of North Brabant and Limburg to their Northern neighbours although these provinces had the cultural traits of Belgium: Roman Catholic and a Southern lifestyle. Otherwise the North half would be smaller than the South half and that wasn’t considered “fair”.

I tell this story because of the striking resemblance with “modern” conflicts such as in Georgia, where people from different cultures don’t want to live with each other in one state. Such conflicts are never rational, and are exploited and encouraged by more powerful nations who see this as an opportunity to increase their own power. The same holds for the Kosovo-conflict and other conflicts.

Suppose that one day Belgium would claim the South bank of the river Schelde which is the access to the harbour of Antwerp, and is Dutch territory. The Dutch have obliged themselves to scoop out the Dutch part of the Schelde, but are sometimes slow with performing this duty, and always are accused by the Belgians of slowness, and that they want to protect the interests of the competing harbour of Rotterdam. Suppose that one day the people of the Dutch province of Limburg would be “fed up” with the “Hollandse” exploitation of their province, and want to be part of Belgium, and Belgium would support their claim. Numerous other such examples could be mentioned in Europe, of parts of countries that would like to be independent or belong to another country: maybe Alsace would like to be German (their previous country), maybe Friesland would like to be independent, etc. In fact, Sweden would not hinder their Southern part to become Danish again, as I read a couple of years ago in the newspapers, but this isn’t realized yet. The Basks would also like their own republic, and maybe also other provinces of Spain and Italy. These strivings are not taken seriously because of arguments of reason, of ratio. Except in some rare instances (the Basks) this never leads to war-like situations.

After the fall of communism, it seems as if history repeats itself in countries formerly dominated by communism and, consequently, by the Soviet Union. This “union” appeared to be an imposed union, enforced by Russian power. Now Georgia shows that Russia wants to gain back part of this old power, if not by a communist ideology, then otherwise. Georgia itself had to deal with a similar claim by the Ossetians and other small nation-like groups within and around their young country. Everybody seems to want to have their country, and is prepared to shed blood for it. What this means to welfare and prosperity, doesn’t seem to be of interest. This way a conflict becomes a real conflict because of feelings of misery and revenge for lost house and family. It escalates, former friends and family become mutual enemies, within only a week or so.

Just like in the case of Belgium and the Netherlands, the Georgians and Ossetians would have done better to co-operate, just like all other small countries around the Russian Empire, and don’t give super-powers the alibi to interfere and take advantage from their quarrels. But this seems to be asked too much. It’s not Estonia, Georgia or Poland that Russia wants to “teach a lesson”, what they fear is USA-, NATO- and European influence in these young states. Russia is at this moment the most capitalist country in the world. Former party coryphées are now the billionnairs because they became the president-directors of oil and gaz firms and rule the country still more autocratic than even under communist regime. They don’t want to loose this wealth overnight, and know that many Russians are longing to the time in which they were a superpower, and will forget about the drawbacks. If these super-rich élite can help, then many “common” Russians want to remain poor and pay for protection by the rich, exactly like the Medieval farmer was protected by the count or duke. A dream world, don’t forget that Russia knew centuries of serfship, prolongated in the kolkhozes. Many Russian country people take life as it is, the last thing they long for is democracy, let alone they want to die for it. They only fear it because it belongs to non-Russian lifestyles, and the modern rich will do everything to let them keep this belief. They themselves fear it, too.

In 1813 Napoleon got defeated by the world powers of the time and all countries he had conquered had to be re-distributed. This was done at the Congress of Vienna (1814 – 1815). The Kingdom of the Netherlands was born anew, with king William I of Orange-Nassau as the ruling king. His territory comprised the present independent states of the Netherlands and Belgium. In 1832 Belgium wanted to be independent of the Northern half of the new kingdom and started a separation movement, supported by France that felt punished by the large kingdom at its Northern border. The separation reasons were not formed by ratio, but by feelings. The North was mainly protestant, the South Roman Catholic. The Southern people had a more or less Roman lifestyle, the Northern people were more Calvinistic. In the South nobility, clergy and elite were still powerful forces, in the North merchants and elite were more enlightened and more “democratic” (although not comparable to what today is understood by that concept). It would however have made far more sense if the states remained together. Together they had everything a modern state needed to develop: raw materials, infrastructure (heavily supported by the new king), ports and harbours, colonies, a developed agricultural sector, cities such as Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Liege, etc. But no, the elites of both parts of the country despised each other and found the others dumb and not reliable. A theatre play in Brussels in 1832 was the spark in the powder barrel. The audience got inspired to raise an uprising movement. The Northern answer was sending an army but neighbouring countries put pressure to withdraw the army, and king William II lost his Southern part of the kingdom. Negotiations followed, and the South had to leave the provinces of North Brabant and Limburg to their Northern neighbours although these provinces had the cultural traits of Belgium: Roman Catholic and a Southern lifestyle. Otherwise the North half would be smaller than the South half and that wasn’t considered “fair”.

I tell this story because of the striking resemblance with “modern” conflicts such as in Georgia, where people from different cultures don’t want to live with each other in one state. Such conflicts are never rational, and are exploited and encouraged by more powerful nations who see this as an opportunity to increase their own power. The same holds for the Kosovo-conflict and other conflicts.

Suppose that one day Belgium would claim the South bank of the river Schelde which is the access to the harbour of Antwerp, and is Dutch territory. The Dutch have obliged themselves to scoop out the Dutch part of the Schelde, but are sometimes slow with performing this duty, and always are accused by the Belgians of slowness, and that they want to protect the interests of the competing harbour of Rotterdam. Suppose that one day the people of the Dutch province of Limburg would be “fed up” with the “Hollandse” exploitation of their province, and want to be part of Belgium, and Belgium would support their claim. Numerous other such examples could be mentioned in Europe, of parts of countries that would like to be independent or belong to another country: maybe Alsace would like to be German (their previous country), maybe Friesland would like to be independent, etc. In fact, Sweden would not hinder their Southern part to become Danish again, as I read a couple of years ago in the newspapers, but this isn’t realized yet. The Basks would also like their own republic, and maybe also other provinces of Spain and Italy. These strivings are not taken seriously because of arguments of reason, of ratio. Except in some rare instances (the Basks) this never leads to war-like situations.

After the fall of communism, it seems as if history repeats itself in countries formerly dominated by communism and, consequently, by the Soviet Union. This “union” appeared to be an imposed union, enforced by Russian power. Now Georgia shows that Russia wants to gain back part of this old power, if not by a communist ideology, then otherwise. Georgia itself had to deal with a similar claim by the Ossetians and other small nation-like groups within and around their young country. Everybody seems to want to have their country, and is prepared to shed blood for it. What this means to welfare and prosperity, doesn’t seem to be of interest. This way a conflict becomes a real conflict because of feelings of misery and revenge for lost house and family. It escalates, former friends and family become mutual enemies, within only a week or so.

Just like in the case of Belgium and the Netherlands, the Georgians and Ossetians would have done better to co-operate, just like all other small countries around the Russian Empire, and don’t give super-powers the alibi to interfere and take advantage from their quarrels. But this seems to be asked too much. It’s not Estonia, Georgia or Poland that Russia wants to “teach a lesson”, what they fear is USA-, NATO- and European influence in these young states. Russia is at this moment the most capitalist country in the world. Former party coryphées are now the billionnairs because they became the president-directors of oil and gaz firms and rule the country still more autocratic than even under communist regime. They don’t want to loose this wealth overnight, and know that many Russians are longing to the time in which they were a superpower, and will forget about the drawbacks. If these super-rich élite can help, then many “common” Russians want to remain poor and pay for protection by the rich, exactly like the Medieval farmer was protected by the count or duke. A dream world, don’t forget that Russia knew centuries of serfship, prolongated in the kolkhozes. Many Russian country people take life as it is, the last thing they long for is democracy, let alone they want to die for it. They only fear it because it belongs to non-Russian lifestyles, and the modern rich will do everything to let them keep this belief. They themselves fear it, too.

Somethingism and world religions

Picture of the "Four Crowned", four martyrs who refused to make a statue for a Roman Emperor that would be used as a worshipped image. In their hands they hold the instruments of building and construction, symbols to make a better world in accordance with God's master plan.

The above stone plaque hangs in the workplace of this Benedictine monk (Benedictusberg, Vaals) who is working on a statue for a customer's garden, symbolizing the world upheld by people from very different cultures and religions. His face expression tells us that he is working on something very difficult :).

This week I read in the Newspaper that a previous TV anchorman had established a website for adherents of “Somethingism”. Somethingists are people who don’t call themselves atheists but won’t belong to a church, because don’t want to buy the dogmas and truths a church imposes (in their vision) on the members. Also they don’t want to be evangelicals or Pentecostists because they don’t feel these deep emotional streams that these people strive for or acknowledge. They find sermons and preaches useless, they don’t “buy” it anyway. In general they are tolerant towards traditionally-religious people, also for Muslims Buddhists and other religions, but find themselves not appealed by any of them. And yet, they are convinced that there must be “Something”.
During all history since the Bible has been written, millions and millions of people have been slaughtered, humiliated, expelled, embarrassed etc. just because they had an other religion than the dominant religion of the area. Is that the purpose of religion?
Now in the Western countries we see how in less “developed” countries religion becomes more intolerant and more orthodox, especially towards homosexuals, women in priest-functions, and evolutionists. They “cling” to the one and only truth found in the Holy Book which they read as literal truths. They simply deny that it isn’t possible to read it as “the truth” because if somebody from whatever modern culture really would live up to the Biblical prescriptions he would have no life at all. Furthermore, they throw simply away decades, centuries of scientific research with one move of the Bible. And last but not least they sin (in their own terminology) against the commandment of Love. Aggressive Muslim fundamentalism seems to create a Christian response in the sense that Christianity grows more to orthodoxy.

These two things: preaching and dogmas on the one hand, and intolerance often ending up in bloodshed and war, creates an image of religion that deters many people from adhering to it. In modern Western countries they can easily discard religious adherence because of the freedom of religion and viewpoints. People are not dependent anymore on a religion or on churches. In other cultures such an attitude will be severely punished by becoming an outcast or worse. This creates an a-religious society where, in the words of Nietzsche, God is dead.

This is such a shame: religion, and especially Christianity, reflects the deepest desires and wants of men. In all cultures, Christian or not, there is a desire for love and being involved with each other’s wellbeing, for honesty, for hospitality, for helping family and neighbors in need. All Jesus did and said comes down to these things. Also the Somethingists adhere to these values. He even said to his disciples when sending them to bring the Gospel in the world: Wherever they mock with you and don’t want to receive you, wipe off the dust from your shoes and continue your path. That’s something different from the recommendations of the Quran on how to deal with non-believers! Yet, the core of also the Quran is love. Only the way, the method on how to spread Islam over the world, differs. Millions of Christians were driven out of Turkey by killing them, charging them with unpayable taxes and expelling them, because they didn’t convert to Islam which is such a crime that even death penalty is required by the Quran.

So I think there is only one solution: On the level of the United Nations freedom of religion should be recorded as an obligation for all nations. In the accompanying text it should be emphasised that although one is free to consider the own religion as the one and only truth, one is not free to require by force from others also to obey that religion, because the inner drive is inherent to religion.

Of all Islamic countries, there is only one which could undersign (up to now!!) such a declaration, and that is Indonesia. I don’t have much hope about a- or anti-religious states such as China and Cuba. But in the end, maybe when climate and pollution dangers seriously jeopardize our capitalistic economy and living environment, I hope that religion will not be used (as traditionally) to put the blame on the “others” but will serve as a source of spirit and power for humanity, totally on a voluntary basis. We’ll see where the Somethingists will stay: in their own “reasonable” area or will join a religion, no matter what, as long as it reflects the religious core given to us by Jesus, and will not have yielded to intolerance and fundamentalism.

Religious doubts...

Pavement graffiti in our neighborhood in Hurdegaryp, a Friesian village (Netherlands)

Before I go on with my football-deliberations in connection to the doctrines of Mr. Stephen Covey, I first want to share my thoughts about the Dutch developments in religion. Thank you for reading.



As I’m subscribed to the Dutch newspaper Trouw, which is a Christian-oriented newspaper with an open ear and eye for Islamic developments in the Netherlands, I try to form an opinion, nor better a belief in what is exactly the true faith. I see at least six or seven different religions which stress each other’s wrongness:

The Roman Catholic Church which says that the reasons for protest have come to an end, that protestants are not a “church” but that they are welcome now to join the Roman Catholic Church again.
The “liberal protestants” united in the Dutch Protestant Church and are deterred by the the obsolete and unjustified Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood.
The orthodox protestants who are not united in a church but scattered over several little churches each of which find only themselves adhering to the True Word of God, and absolutely find the Roman Catholic Church a sinful and heathen-like association of image-worshippers. About Islam, well they know it exists but it’s far from their minds.
The evangelicals who find churches obsolete organisations that hinder people to receive and spread the Holy Ghost among the people as Jesus has told to do.
The agnosticists who are deterred by the dogmas and prescriptions of churches (e.g. the numerous truths advocated by the Roman Catholic Church, the absolute negative standpoints about abortion, homosexuality, marriage, euthanasia etc.). They are not anti- or even a-religious but don’t want to join any religious organisation.
The absolute anti-religionists who say there’s no God or Upper Being.
The Muslims who find Christians non-believers, no matter what specific denomination they adhere to. As long as Christians don’t offend Muslims or hinder them in their religion, it’s OK that they are no-believers, although some Muslims find they should be killed or fought against, because they find proofs that Christians = Capitalism = anti-Islam.

The agnosticists, the anti-religionists, the liberal protestants and part of the Roman Catholics find themselves united in the value they attach to a parliamentary democracy with freedom of religion, freedom of speech / press, and a strict division between state and religion: religion should not interfere in religious matters, nor should religion impose preferences or impacts upon state affairs. Most evangelicals and some Christian groups (e.g. the Witnesses of Jehova) are not interested in this value, and orthodox-Christian churches find that the Government is “God’s servant”, and what the Government does wrong in their eyes (e.g. legitimization of homosexual marriages) is an error of this servant which they don’t need to follow. In fact, they get always dispensation in legally prescribed matters for religious reasons. The same holds for all churches and religious groups.

The Islam is a special case for most Dutch Muslims come from cultures with one dominant religion (namely Islam) that always has preached that state and religion are not separated, and that other religions are tolerated as long as they recognize Muslim bosshood in the form of special taxes and not being admitted to important government positions and jobs. (Comparable to the position of Jews in Europe in the periods and areas outside progroms). They must have experienced it as a shock coming into a culture which they must have considered a non-culture: everything seems to be allowed, there’s no “hidden culture” but the hidden culture comes loudly into the open, like gayness, nudity, sexual intercourse outside marriage, use of alcohol and religions criticizing each other (is allowed) including Islam (is not allowed). They came here for better economical conditions to maintain their families, at a price they are not willing to pay, so many of them kept isolated in their immigrant cultures, as kind of colonies from a better world in a not-hospitable but profitable environment. Many of their youngsters either integrated into the new culture, understanding it and using it for better progress of their home culture and the host culture, or fell back to the edges of society, even to criminality. But many Muslims in the Netherlands cannot understand why a politician such as Geert Wilders can remain unpunished after he called the Koran a fascist book and recommended to forbid it, like also “Mein Kampf”(“My Struggle”) by A. Hitler is forbidden. Hundreds of juridical lawsuits were submitted against him by Muslims, but none of them were rewarded. Also the Bible has been offended hundreds of times by atheists, but none of these cases caused a lawsuit by orthodox Christians, these are used to the Dutch culture of freedom and speech and accountability for God alone in religious matters.

It seems as if religion is rooted in peoples’ minds via rules of conduct and tradition. A member of a religious community feels himself attached to his religion by golden chains: the rules and prescriptions are sacrosanct and cannot be trespassed because they are unshakably linked to his/her religious experiences. These experiences are formed according to character, personality and social influences. Somebody from an orthodox family can develop either into the same kind of orthodoxy, formed, nurtured and grown during education and adolescence, but also into agnosticism or even strong anti-religiousness. All kinds of development are possible, and many of them cause much grief and bitterness with people who remain faithful to the tradition. I know what I’m writing about because in my and my wife’s family I witnessed those miseries. Taking some distance, what would an outsider find if a son from an orthodox Christian family would marry to a Roman Catholic girl? In a Roman Catholic Church? They would not attend the ceremony. If the reverse would be the case, the Roman Catholic family would attend the ceremony but they would get a very cold reception, hardly tolerated in the protestant church, and the vicar would say that it’s still time to be saved, addressing the Roman Catholics among the audience. Marrying to an Islamic girl, or, worse, to an Islamic boy, combined with a conversion to Islam would be a family tragedy. In the reverse case, marrying to a Christian boy by a Muslim girl, it would often be, and actually is, a reason for “revenge of honor”, i.e. murder. The distance-taking outsider would wonder why people make it so difficult for themselves. One doesn’t bother about so many other differences between people, why then especially about religion?

Well, I think that’s exactly the core of the matter: many people just want to be different. It’s the core of the so-called religions of revelation, that only members of the own group are right in their conduct and thinking, and others are not. Christianity and Islam both prescribe to expand the own group’s viewpoints, authority and beliefs (which they don’t consider beliefs but truth and knowledge) among non-believers. The Koran says that the truth of Islam must be offered to non-believers, and if non-believers refuse to accept it, then they should be punished. In Islamic countries trying to promote Christian truth is an outright crime. Only the Jewish people, probably because they consider themselves as a “people” with natural bonds, don’t have that urge to expand the Jewish religion. (For that reason they are often accused of being racists, sic!).
Enough elaboration on these differences. What is going on here? And to what does it lead?

There is a trend noticeable in Dutch society to retreat in traditional fortifications. Islam has brought to us so it seems, a revival of also Christian-religious values. In politics an outspoken Christian party has reached the velvet of the Government seats, for the first time since WW II. outspoken non-christian and/or liberal people (liberal means here: freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and absolute division of religion and state) also turn themselves more intensely against threatening these values by Christians and Muslims. We are a people of deliberation and discussion, so all these differences are broadly discussed. We are also a small people in a small country, so when an important person says something controversial in this area, it mostly causes a long discussion in the media and the house of parliament. We have to see, how strange it may sound, how developments will proceed in Turkey. Also there we notice a clash between state and religion, between what people are used to in their families and tradition, and what rulers think is best for the people: freedom of choice in as many areas of life as possible. But what if freedom of choice also means freedom to choose a tradition with limited freedom, namely the rules of religion? In the Netherlands many people are afraid that Muslims take advantage of this freedom to impose in the end the sharia which doesn’t know a codified law system, but is based on interpretation by authorized religious experts. Gone with the freedom of choice by means of which this sharia could be established. Also the Nazis made use of this freedom-of-choice system to establish their rule. But Nazis and Muslims cannot be compared, it’s only to illustrate how a democratic system can be replaced by a theocratic or whatever-cratic system just because of its freedom of choice it tries to maintain. We cannot close our eyes for this. The religious or worldview-groups in our country differ crucially from Muslim culture on that issue: they have learned to co-operate to avoid energy consuming struggles and fights leading to bloodshed and misery. In Islamic countries it’s just the all-encompassing rule of Islam which is used to avoid these things.

Only leaders who understand this can lead developments in the desired way: a peaceful co-operation of all adherers of any religion. Not the differences, but the similarities should be stressed. Every religion, as I said, preaches their differences with outsiders. You see that the elites (the top) and the rank-and-file if I may call them that way, are strikingly similar in their ideas and thoughts about this. In the middle you see how educated people who get used to socialise with out-group people challenge traditional values. Only the poorly educated, vulnerable people adhere strongly to the rules dictated by religious leaders. The middle rankers act accordingly, but in secret or inconspicuously act differently. Go through Internet-blogs from Islamic countries and you see what I mean. Poor and non-educated people have no blogs, and the educated young people use it in huge numbers.

That’s why I’m optimistic that it all will lead to more mutual understanding and co-operation. Especially the Roman Catholic Church is often accused by our protestant compatriots, that their members act so differently from what the pope and the bishops preach. There was a time, in the fifties, that masses of people and also the middle rankers, obediently followed these rules. Now we see that inconspicuously many Catholics, approved by their pastors, act differently, despite the stricter rules and emphasis on old and medieval rules. The protestant: ”let your yes be a yes and your no be a no” is becoming obsolete. Where doubt arises, let there be doubt. Jesus was full of doubt about the Pharizean rules, the only security he could offer was: love, love and again love. Apparently Islam needs armies of imams and mullahs to interpret the Koran. Let doubt rule, and only love remain. God is love.

Covey and Soccer

Leeuwarden in hip-hip-hurray mood for the Dutch national team. If they would know how it would end...

After being away for a long time, I'm so happy to return. I have been (and still am) imprisoned in the claws of photoblogging and negelected the verbal communication. I hope I will return more often and discuss with people who have comments.

My contributions for the coming four posts will be in te realms of sports, management and religion. This is the first one:

Covey and soccer

I saw on TV how the Dutch national soccer team, so surprisingly achieving during the first round, got beaten up by the Russian team, also very surprisingly: 3-1. What remained was a bit of national pride because the coach of the Russian team was also Dutch. He had said: if they call me a traitor, that’s fine with me, and I hope I’ll be an excellent traitor. Was I disappointed? No. I’m not a soccer fan and the national soccer fever urged me to watch some matches (which I never do on other occasions). And believe me or not, I got fascinated by the game. At the same time I read an article by the German philosopher with (again) the Dutch name Peter Sloterdijk who analysed the meaning of sport in European history since ancient Greek and Roman times. There are some striking differences in the way the ancients viewed their sports: between the Romans and the Greek there were big differences. The Greek considered their sports as something semi-religious, their arenas were next to their temples. They only recognized winners, first places, the second and third place were of no value. They were exclusively practiced by naked men, presence or watching by women was strictly forbidden. The nakedness was a consequence of their adoration of the beauty of the male nude. I was remembered of it when I saw on TV the naked upper halves of the players’ bodies, so different from my own. I would like to have such a body! Yes, says Sloterdijk, and that was also the intention of the Greek: making the watcher feel guilty and encourage him to get such a body, too. For me I think it’s too late, and when I was between my twenties and thirties, I wasn’t interested and found female bodies more important than the shapes of my own as compared to other young mens’ bodies. Repent comes after sin. Sloterdijk notices also another difference: Greek sports were more sophisticated, Roman sports were cruel and relentless. They served an un-democratic goal: bread and games. In our modern sports, we have incorporated the values of enlightenment: fair play, teamwork, scientific research and last but not least money and marketing. The aim of winning has remained. Fair play also includes some recognition that the numbers two and three made also a good achievement. We abandoned the punishment for the looser namely death (Roman view on sports), and we don’t see sports anymore as a religious cult (Greek view). What also remains is the emotion. The tension during the penalties at the end of the match Russia-Netherlands reached heights that one normally feels only a few times in a lifetime. The euphoria after a goal is immense. After the match we could see how the Russian star-player burst out in tears, not tears of grief but of joy and relief. Not tears that quietly crawled down his cheeks, but his whole face looked like a baby crying.
I realized all of a sudden that emotions like these are sought for and exploited also in business, religion and politics more and more. It’s not sports that serves as an example, but sports is only one of the realms of society in which it manifests itself. Think of the way election campaigns are held, of populist leaders, think of how evangelical movements experience their religious services, etc. In previous decennia we saw this with pop artists (Elvis Presley, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones) and now it seems to have expanded to all other human activities in which motivation and achieving something are important. Everything within the rules, nowhere in lawless let-it-go. Rules of the game, rules of the company, rules of the music culture, rules of the religious movement (churches with their inner-directed inspirational traditions are becoming out-dated), but vehement and all-encompassing.

Mr. Stephen Covey fits exactly in this social movement with his “seven steps of very effective people”. I refer to Stephen Covey to websites with information about him. He is one of the most succesfull management “gurus” in the USA and he, and later his son who is also in his training business, visited our school during last year. His training programs have been incorporated in our curricula and a number of colleagues have become “certified” Covey-trainers. What bothers me a bit, but this off the record, is that his theories and viewpoints have been introduced in the school not by the teaching staff but by members of the board who are supposed not to interfere with curricula. Our professional discipline “Business Ethics” has been replaced by what I call “Coveyology”. His teaching materials are also “for sale”, everything that comes from or is derived from one of his books or courses, must be paid for. Even his seven “Steps of Very Effective People” have a trade-mark sign behind each of them. But apart from this, for many students and teachers it seems to work, to be effective. This cannot be said about the discipline of “Ethics” which consists of book theory and group discussion materials. All he says and recommends is picked up and brought together from all kinds of religious and spiritual movements of mankind during history. Tao, Christianity, Buddhism, Greek philosophy, Hinduism, are his main sources. There is no theory, only short explanations and practical exercises. His books flow over by one-liners and examples (also taken from existing cultural realms). Effectiveness that’s what it’s all about.

After the soccer match I saw suddenly the applicability of his seven steps on soccer. Next time more about it.