Thinking and Doing

What do you think is more important: thinking or doing?

What do you mean?

My mother said that before you do something, you must first think. So I think that thinking is more important because it leads the doing.

Hmmm… makes sense, but on the other hand, why do we also think when there’s no doing to think about?

Well, we can think of all kinds of things, not only of doing something. Take mathematics or logic, that’s only thinking and you do nothing.

What about all these math assignments we got in highschool? We had to DO them, not only think about them!

Hmmm… makes sense. Thinking as a special kind of doing, yes, thinking is also doing, but it’s the only doing that you can do without any help of your body parts, except your brains. But let’s exclude thinking from doing, just for clarity. But in the long run… once you have thought enough about mathematical methods and systems, then you are able to DO something with it, to apply the fruits of thinking to e.g. developing technical instruments. In this way thinking steers doing, too.

OK. Can you also mention an example of the reverse: that doing leads thinking?

Do you mean an activity leading to a thinking process? Without any other thoughts than only the thoughts influenced by that special activity?

Yes, that’s what I mean.

I’m afraid there aren’t any. An activity per se doesn’t generate a thought without help of one or more other thoughts or feelings that you previously had. It can generate feelings, and via these feelings you can start thinking e.g. of how to get rid of this lousy job of cleaning the toilets.

Now I got you! Suppose you clean a toilet and you get an idea of a new kind of toilet seat, then your activity has generated a thought! Or the fly that you see so often in urinals, I bet the inventor got the idea when using one!

Yes, but with the help of other thoughts. Previously you have learnt about toilet seats and spattering by own experience, you know how to use them, how society sees it, etc.

OK you have your point.

Now again, what do you think: what is more important: doing or thinking?

Well, summarizing: our thoughts lead the actions we do, so thinking is more important than doing, and doing only leads to thinking if sustained by previous thinking or feelings.
OK. But if our thinking isn’t followed by resulting actions, does thinking remain more important? Suppose you have all kinds of beautiful thoughts, but you don’t do anything with them, is thinking also in that case valuable, even more valuable than doing?

Hmmm… I won’t think so. What’s the use of thinking if nobody notices anything of it, except the thinker himself?

Isn’t thinking by definition always followed by doing something, influencing many actions of the thinker, in the short run or in the long run, as we noticed? And, on the other hand, aren’t there many actions that aren’t influenced by any thinking, such as eating when hungry, going to bed when you are tired etc.?

Now you ask this… yes, it seems that thinking per definition is followed by actions in the long run. Many activities we do are influenced by cumulative bits of thinking. Many activities are also not influenced by thinking such as you mentioned.

Then this is our conclusion: 1. thinking is more important than doing. 2. thinking is always followed by activities influenced by it. 3. Not all activities are influenced by thinking.

We have been thinking, haven’t we?

I think so.

What’s the purpose? What activity will follow?

Next time we are going to discuss learning and knowing, and their relationship to doing.

Serendipity in photography, science and cooking

My brother Peter made this serendipity-picture. At first he intended to make a still life of salt and pepper flasks. He didn't notice the girl portraits in the picture because his original version was too dark. I made it lighter and the two ladies appeared, which had a revolutionary effect on the picture. It occurred to me too when I shot a light lamp against a white wall that disappeared. Making the picture darker, the lamp appeared and improved the picture remarkably, making it a mysterious top-photograph.

Serendipity is a quite common phenomenon everywhere where people deliberately and systematically try to construct something new: a new insight, a new product, a new theory. Serendipity is the phenomenon in which the constructor or researcher during or directly after his work discovers something he didn’t have in mind while starting or completing his work, but which appears to be very useful for other purposes than he was working for. It can best be illustrated by two examples: one humoristic example and one serious example, both given by professors who tried to explain the phenomenon to students.

Example #1
This is very short and very clear, and contains all elements of a genuine serendipity occurrence. Suppose, you have to search for a needle in a haystack. They told you that this needle is in the haystack and you have to dig it out, for whatever reason (maybe the farmer wants it to remove before it gets into a cow’s mouth). You start digging into the hay, carefully feeling around, prepared to feel something small and sharp. It’s already dark and you have been digging all day, but found nothing up to then. Then all of a sudden you feel something round and soft, completely different from what you are focused on. It appears to be the farmer’s daughter who likes sleeping in the hay and had gone to bed early. You look into each other’s eyes and you fall in love with each other. You think: this is far better than a needle.

Example #2
This is from social science and is described in the book “Social Theory and Social Structure” by Robert K. Merton (1959). He describes how sociologists investigate the living situation of a group of people who recently moved from an old city quarter to a new quarter. They asked about the opportunities to go out for e.g. a party, theatre, cinema etc. in comparison with their previous living quarter. People said: “oh, this is far better here than where we first lived, there are so many more teenagers around who want to babysit, than where we first lived”. The researchers found this strange because statistics showed that in their old neighbourhood the number of teenagers was far bigger than it was here. They researched deeper and found out that it was not the number of teenagers that facilitated the bigger going-out opportunities, but it was the way people dealt with one another. In the new neighbourhood people knew each other better and most people knew more people than before.

Many inventions, especially in medicine and chemistry but also in other disciplines are caused by serendipity. Look for it on Wikipedia for a list of serendipity-discoveries.

Since I am an ethoustiastic amateur photographer I discovered serendipity when I took a photograph in a bus. I have a mini-tripod and I had installed the camera when the bus stopped to let passengers in. It was dark and traffic and lanterns gave interesting lights outside, so I wanted to use the stop for an extended-exposure photo for a nice view of the nightly atmosphere with the bus window as a frame. The camera had to be absolutely motionless for a couple of seconds. My camera was ready, and I pressed the postponed-exposure button because directly pressing the shoot-button causes a very tiny movement which I wanted to avoid. But just during the opening of the shutter the bus started and I considered my attempt as failed. Afterwards the picture appeared to be an interesting abstract “painting”, and I decided to consider it as “succeeded”.

On Wikipedia I read that many researchers are reluctant to admit serendipity-results because they feel that it wasn’t the researcher, but coincidence that achieved the result and of course they want to be good and respected researchers, able to make interesting and useful discoveries. So also a photographer can think: such a “coincidental picture” cannot be ascribed to a competent photographer, my 5 year-old son can take such a picture. So let’s forget it and delete it, it’s not what I wanted, and only results that I wanted in advance, are successful (read: “make me a successful photographer”).

I find that everybody who reasons this way over-estimates his/her capabilities. Like scientists who made their serendipity discoveries public said, they work in a systematic, facilitated environment that gives him/her the opportunities and tools to search for intended results, but also for not-intended results. Seeing a serendipity result also requires a competent and alert eye, it’s easily overlooked. The only thing the photographer does in making a photograph is selecting the topic, and setting the camera in position (point of view, shutter time, etc.) to register the topic in an attractive way that expresses what the photographer sees in his/her subject. All the rest is technology, all the rest is technology. I say this twice to stress the importance. Making yourself important and seeking recognition by camerawork or science is idle, what you do is register beauty or invent recipes for other people to see, to get better. If you do it successfully, then it may raise your self confidence and happiness, but only because you made other people happy by means of technology invented and constructed also by other, anonymous people, registering and manipulating things, materials and situations that you didn’t create by yourself. You are a competent messenger or cook, nothing more and nothing less. (Talking about cooks, do you think that the chef who discovered that chocolate goes very well together with chilli pepper by serendipity – he accidentally took the chilli powder instead of the vanilla – that this cook will admit his lucky error? I doubt this seriously :)

Do you have a serendipity-picture, and are you subscribed to www.aminus3.com? Then please post it, (see my general call for serendipity pictures on my photoblog).

Geert Wilders' provocations

In our country we have nine members of parliament (out of 150) who are strongly opposed to any Muslim influence in the Dutch society. It’s the PVV (Party for Freedom), which grabs every occasion to criticize Muslim traditions, culture and religion. The Netherlands is a small country with 16 million people, of which about 1 million Muslims. PVV's chairman is Mr. Geert Wilders, who recently declared that the Koran should be forbidden because of its, in his eyes, prescriptions to exert (sometimes lethal) violence to everybody who insults the Prophet Mohammed, to Muslims who leave their religion, and other severe punishments to people criticising Islam, Koran or Mohammed.
It’s true, most Muslims who immigrated into the Netherlands since about 25 years have totally different and often even opposite values and norms and also lifestyles, than the Dutch have. The language is also totally different: mostly Moroccan-Arabic or Turkish. They are very proud people, and where “guilt and forgiving”, “love thy neighbour” and “freedom of speech and writing” are core values in Dutch society, we saw that “upholding respect”, “pride” and “watching your words to avoid offence” are core values of the immigrants. Many small and big conflicts arose, enhanced by nine-eleven (when we asked Muslims why they didn’t protest) and the murder attack on Theo van Gogh because of his insulting Mohammed and Muslims. Everywhere we see how Muslims, full of self-confidence, demonstrate their presence, building mosques, refusing to shake hands with women, organizing their own Muslim schools giving subsidy-money to friends and family by giving them jobs in the schools without any application procedures, etc. etc. When asked, a great deal of them give priority to the Muslim-law “sharia” above Dutch law. Their culture doesn’t know separation between state and religion. If Islam is the only true religion, why shouldn’t government or legal courts obey the Koran? Sounds logical.

We also see how Muslim people protest against any restrictions on their way of life, using “freedom of religion and speech” as an argument, when they are said that Islam also restricts these freedoms severely, they answer that this isn’t true, because Islam is the only justified world religion and within the norms of Islam every speech or act is free.

Many Muslims, however, very well adjust themselves to Dutch society, but these people are the better-educated. For them it’s often impossible to obey norms and traditions of many Muslim brothers and sisters, because their jobs wouldn’t allow them to.

Now Mr. Wilders has announced a film he is making, heavily criticising Islam and Koran. He does so because Theo van Gogh has also been killed because of a film he made, and to make a statement against what he sees as a threat to Jewish-Christian civilisation, and the acquirements of Enlightenment, namely separation of the three forces, separation of church and state and parliamentary democracy. But above all he criticises the Muslim physical violence and death penalties because of religious views people have. Now he says: I have the freedom to make that movie, why should I yield to death threats?

And yet I think he isn’t right in acting this way, he provokes. His message is only negative and appeals to fear. I think it’s far better to identify the differences again and again, but also to call for mutual tolerance. A great deal of mutual mistrust comes forth from ignorance and fear for strangeness. I also think that the Dutch welcome Muslim people: they let them build, because of the freedom of religion, huge Mosques in their cities, they give them Dutch nationality, and accept them as their fellow-countrymen. Mr. Wilders, please point to these positive developments. Islam will eventually shed off violence, taking the Koran that literal isn’t possible in an industrialized, democratic country with many views and lifestyles. People calling themselves “the true Muslims” who refuse to accept this, must be isolated and if they put their opinion into practice by using violence, they must be punished. Mr. Wilders provokes these people deliberately, this solves nothing, but confirms them in their views, they see: there is the enemy, let's burn Dutch flags!

For the rest I find that everybody is allowed to utter his opinion of views. But this is a matter of provoking people who think that everything not fitting in their view, is a provocation. When innocent people are held as hostages, the police or any sensible human will not provoke the hostage-holders with a reference to freedom of speech.

Me and my guitar

During my study years I started to study guitar. I took lessons from another student who studied guitar at the Tilburg Conservatory. I owed my initiative to my father who sent me to guitar lessons in Leyden, but like so often happens, I didn’t continue my practice. Guitar, and especially “classical” guitar, is far more difficult than most non-guitarplayers think. What you see on TV and what you listen to on CD’s are the top talents, cherished and nourished by parents and teachers, gifted with great motivation and self-discipline. They were my inspirators, too. I reached a lower-middle class level because other activities and gifts pushed me into another direction. But what I have is the sense of dedication when I’m studying a piece. It’s almost meditation, and that’s the reason why after several years I picked up the guitar again. Attention is the key word. Every note has its own character, and fits harmonically into the series that form the piece. The music must be produced by pure attention. The whole body is involved by this spiritual effort. Islam to music. This way my performance differs to performance of more talented musicians who play as kind of self-expression (they use the instrument and the music to express something of themselves) or as a kind of “interpretation”: they interpret the music and produce it like they feel it. So Alfred Brendl playing Beethoven is different from Bernstein playing the same Beethoven piece, while both are masters. It’s not said that these people pay less attention than I do, but they are far less involved with playing technique than I am. Sometimes my fingers press another string than intended and it is hearable as a loud curse in the church. When this happens I say: shit, and my wife has forbidden me to say it during guitar study.
Like so many hobbies, playing music is expensive: you must buy a good instrument, don’t say to yourself: I’m only an amateur so a cheap one will do. On the contrary, a good instrument is far better to practice on than a cheap instrument.
Years and years ago I fell in love with the lute, and wanted to own one. The problem was that I had no money for it. Well there was enough money of course but I was married and you know the priorities: car, house maintenance, washing machine, TV, all these are more important than a lute. (The same thing I now feel with my new hobby: photography, but that’s another story). What’s so special about a lute as compared to a guitar? Lute tones are clearer, more honest. They sound like crystal. A guitar is, in my opinion, a more convenient-to-handle variety of the lute and this greater convenience has been achieved by compromising with sound quality. It has fixed bars, it’s flat so easier to transport and to hold whilst playing, it has a straight neck, etc. The sound is also louder than the lute sound which makes it more suitable for concerts.
So I wanted to have a lute and decided to build one myself. I succeeded in constructing something resembling a lute, but the sound was far from what I heard on LP’s (the predecessors of CD’s) and performances. I also used guitar strings, and after several months of playing efforts I put it away and now it hangs in our bedroom as a wall decoration. Building lutes is a craft of its own, I learned, although I used selected wood and had consulted a lute building construction manual.
I also discovered the blessing of YouTube where I found several performances by Valéry Sauvage, excellent! I’m almost jealous of this gentleman because he has so much that I miss (that’s mostly the case with being jealous: a splendid view from his window, several lutes and guitars, an outstanding playing technique etc., and also equipment and skills needed to broadcast yourself the way he does. So I need all my philosophical competencies to keep jealousy out of my door. Let’s be happy with such people because jealousy is a form of disrespect, and that’s what it is! I wrote to him (also an Internet blessing!!) a message in which I compared him with John Willams and Julian Bream, but he found them of a much higher level than he. I find him on the same level because these top-artists often over-play their music: the pieces sound more polished and “techniqued” than they used to be played. This holds especially for old folk tunes and non-pretending but beautiful pieces from centuries ago. It doesn’t hold for Bach, his lute pieces or transcriptions from violoncello or violin for guitar cannot be played with enough virtuosity, and it doesn’t hold either for more modern or romantic compositions by e.g. Villa-Lobos, Brahms or the famous “Clair de Lune” by Debussy. Virtuosity is not what it’s all about, E.g. Franz Liszt and Paganini composed many things for virtuosi, but is this music “better” in that it evokes more or deeper musical emotions in the audience? I doubt.
So now I’m preparing myself on playing music with a talented friend playing flute. I look forward to our first study session.

The unquestionable question - part II

A place of silence where the light isn't comprehended by darkness...

This morning I read in the newspaper that there was a legal conflict going on in Malaysia. According to the newspaper, the government had prohibited Christians to use the name of Allah in their magazines and newspapers, and the editors had started a lawsuit to remain allowed to use the name of Allah. The reasoning behind it was that the God of the Christians wasn’t Allah. It reminded me of our R.C. bishop Muskes who is now retiring and had suggested that we as Christians could use the name “Allah”, and the protests he received from orthodox-Catholic Christians against this suggestion. He replied that in Java it was quite common for Christians to call God Allah, because in the Malay language (a version of it is spoken in Indonesia) the word for “God” is “Allah”. At first reading it made me smile, and then I remembered bishop Muskes’ story from which one could conclude that this was so since Christianity was first introduced in Indonesia, and probably was also a habit in Malaysia. Simply a tradition, tolerated by both Islam and Christian people: God is Allah and Allah is God. Then I realized the differences: Allah had revealed the Koran to Mohammed, and not to Jesus Christ or the Evangelists. Allah has no son, and God has a Son. But there are also similarities: Both Allah and God are unique, there is only one God and only one Allah. They created the universe, rule everything and are omni-present. Within human communities non-believers are not tolerated. Changing Allah for God is in many countries forbidden by law and a shame for the community. Changing God for Allah also occurs, although with less severe consequences. So when Christians call God “Allah” it could cause confusion. Probably the tradition is broken now by the new fundamentalists in Islam who preach return to the “pure” Islam from Mohammed’s time. Returning to the topic of my story, for these people raising the unquestionable question: “Does God (Allah) exist?” is just like asking: “Does or did my mother exist?”, or even more serious because my mother isn’t holy and God (Allah) is. For millions of people God is anchored in their existence, in their identity. Like the chairman of the Dutch Foundation or Islam and Citizenship says: “One’s personal identity is in the first place a social identity”, quoting a Scottish philosopher. People who grow up in big cities and take part in city life by higher education, a job, a social network etc. come into touch with many, many religions, views on life, life situations, and many many people they don’t know from before. These people get doubts about these religious stories and truths and find a way to reconcile themselves with God or Allah in a way strongly disapproved by e.g. Taliban Muslims or orthodox Christians. They aren’t used to, and refuse to accept, that other people have other social identities. They see God’s name as a brand name, and they are the only people who are authorized to use it.
Who is God, who is Allah? I can refer to the paragraph in the Bible where Moses met God in a burning shrub. Moses asked who it was that spoke to him, and God answered: “I am that I am”. Although the bible book Exodus (3,14) runs like an epic story, this answer tells me everything about the Supreme Being. Tells ME, which means that others might understand otherwise. I cannot experience God with my human senses, as something identifiable: “this is God, and that isn’t”, just like we can identify everything this way. What I observe is that some people think that God can be spotted and is maybe hidden somewhere. Goethe was looking for God, he wrote, under leaves and behind stones. The first Russian (communist) cosmonauts were mocking with God when they reported to earth that “they didn’t see a sign of God”. Spinoza was accused of atheism, repelled from his Jewish community and also not accepted by Christians, because he concluded that God was in everything, everywhere and refused to accept God as kind of Supreme Personality. I think Islam comes closer to this conception of God than Christianity, although it assumes as a natural, physical fact that God (Allah) gave guidelines to people about how to live in a book written by Himself through the hand of His Prophet. Again, one has to use his own personal compass, formed by one’s own (social) identity, for an image of God. Books give metaphors, reflections. God is everywhere, also within myself, where I can recognize His workings, e.g. by recognizing the meaning of what the book says and acting accordingly. We can see around us how people are confused about God, and I think by myself they don’t need to. There are people who call themselves atheists because they don’t accept “all those stories and obligations” as true and binding. There are people who find themselves elected or doomed because they assess themselves according to the true stories and binding obligations in the Holy Book. Among them, there are people who want to urge other people also to believe in the stories the way they do. For me, God or Allah or JW speaks to me via the Holy Book in metaphors, just like the silent fir wood I walk through is a metaphor of His Existence. God is Existence, He is Who He is. He is the rock in the ocean of existence, and also the ocean.