todaysquestions

Mr. Mladic and Mr. Karremans

2011-06-04T21:05:00.003+02:00

Just a short one in-between.

On TV we could see how lieutenant-colonel Karremans had a toast with Mr. Mladic. We could see how Dutch soldiers shook hands with the Serbian soldiers in Srebenica. We couldn't see any frustration, any silent protest from the Dutch soldiers when they realised that they couldn't fight the Serbians. Now they try to hide behind the NATO (they were guilty, too), but nothing suggests their reluctance to try to prevent the Serbs fromn killing 7,000 men in Srebrenica.

Mr. Mladic will show and use these images, and also the images of himself, reassuring the people of Srebrenica that nothin would harm them and that they would be treated in a friendly way. And also, that he didn't know anything about the massacre that took place.

Unbelievably, Mr. Karremans got a promotion to general after his behaviour in which he didn't even took a neutral position as he was supposed to do as a NATO officer, but he even showed friendship behaviour with Mladic, drinking and exchanging presents. Even though we could see how Mr. Mladic offended him by calling him a lousy piano player. Luckily Mr. Karremans recently told in a radio interview that he felt responsible, co-responsible, for the killings that took place.

If Mr Karremans is a man with balls, then he would leave the army voluntarily by resigning. I feel ashamed to have such military people in the Dutch army, luckily there are examples of other more brave military such as Mr. Marco Kroon, who got the highest order possible in the army for his brave behaviour in Afghanistan, but got prosecuted for alleged possession of drugs, for which he got acquittal.

Apparently, we punish our brave military, and we reward our cowards. It's a shame. The Dutch government should be sentenced to pay compensation to the widows of the killed people of Srebrenica. Maybe they can declare this money partly from NATO who refused to send help forces to support the handful of Dutch soldiers who were supposed to withhold the Serb army from murdering, an impossible task, but not enough to hide behind the broad shoulders of NATO.

2011-06-04T20:36:00.001+02:00

Godsdienst en godsdienstbeleving – enkele persoonlijke ervaringen

Voordat ik hier iets over kan zeggen, moet ik eerst omschrijven wat ik versta onder “gemoedstoestand”. Want het beleven van godsdienst of religie is een gemoedstoestand, een toestand van het gemoed. Het gemoed is het emotionele deel van ons bewustzijn, en onder bewustzijn versta ik datgene wat vele anderen de “ziel” plegen te noemen, en daaronder iets diepers, iets spirituelers dan het bewustzijn verstaan. Velen van hen zijn overtuigd van het bestaan van niet zintuiglijk waarneembare werkelijkheden waarvan zij zelfs ontkennen dat deze niet zintuiglijk waarneembaar zouden zijn. Vooralsnog beperk ik mij tot het zintuigelijk waarneembare, dat door wetenschappers en juristen als zodanig wordt beschouwd.

Dit stuk is dus niet geschreven voor hen die veel waarde hechten aan sprituele werkelijkheden. Zoals iemand mij onlangs, toen ik dit stuk op een lezing voordroeg, meedeelde: “Ik kan hier niets mee”, want hij meende met alles in verbinding te staan en met alles te communiceren, daarom vond hij empirisch onderzoek nutteloos.

Het heeft tot mijn vijfenveertigste levensjaar geduurd, voordat ik mij realiseerde wat voor invloed een godsdienst kan hebben op de gemoedstoestand van een mens. Deze gemoedstoestanden staan bijvoorbeeld prachtig beschreven in het standaardwerk van William James: “The variety of religious experiences”. Echter, lang voordat ik dat boek had gelezen, ontmoette ik rond de tijd van mijn toetreden tot de orde mijn schoonfamilie en maakte ik kennis met de christelijk-orthodoxe manier van denken en voelen. Een manier van denken die wij als democratisch en loiberaal denkende mensen geacht worden te tolereren en te respecteren.

De mensheid wordt steeds meer één grote categorie, één grote groep. Dit gaat gepaard met conflicten en oorlogen, die bijna alle zijn terug te voeren op het willen vasthouden aan oude tradities, die immers door de nieuwe social media zoals pc, mobieltjes, internet, twitter, enz. worden aangetast. Ook de transportmiddelen bevorderen een grote uitwisseling van culturele waarden en tradities, door handelslieden en industriëlen, maar ook door massa’s die een beter bestaan zoeken in de rijkere delen van de wereld. De Nederlandse bevolking bijvoorbeeld is in enkele decennia aangevuld met de bevolking van een stad als Amsterdam aan immigranten, van wie velen met een culturele achtergrond waarin alle dagelijkse en bijzondere handelingen en gebeurtenissen in het leven worden uitgelegd als door God of Allah bestuurd en geregeld. De sociale controle en geestelijk leiders bewaken deze orde in de naam van Allah of God. Slechts langzaamaan en maar voor een deel passen deze waarden zich aan aan de veel meer op individuele vrijheid gerichte waarden van de westerse maatschappij.

Ik voerde ooit een gesprek met een orthodox-christelijke collega, over een berekening die de jonge Goethe had gemaakt over de veertigjarige tocht door de woestijn die het Joodse volk had gemaakt voordat ze met hulp van Jahwe Palestina veroverden. De jonge Goethe had namelijk berekend dat deze tocht nooit veertig jaar geduurd kon hebben, daarvoor waren de afstanden tussen de in de bijbel genoemde plaatsen te kort, en de woestijn veel te klein. Mijn orthodoxe collega verwierp deze berekening van Goethe met citaten uit dezelfde bijbel, en zei niets over de symbolische betekenis van het getal veertig, dat in de bijbel steeds wordt gebruikt als er lange tijd wordt gewacht, het staat voor een wachtperiode. Het leerde me weer iets over de invloed van het geloof op de menselijke gemoedstoestand. Deze kan zover gaan, dat alles wat zweemt naar strijdigheid met verhalen of verklaringen in het heilige boek per definitie wordt verworpen. Ook wordt men doof en blind voor interne tegenstrijdigheden die in dat boek zelf worden aangetroffen, deze worden niet als tegenstrijdigheden gezien, maar als elkaar aanvullende passages en het is aan de gestudeerde schrift-uitlegger om ze te doorgronden. Het lijkt in onze ogen wel of brandstapels, wetenschappelijke algemeen aanvaarde bevindingen enz. deze gelovigen niets hebben geleerd. Zelfs schijnt het zo te zijn dat een filossof als Spinoza niet op hjet Middelbaar Onderwijs wordt onderwezen omdat orthodox-christelijke scholen het niet eens zijn met diens uitleg van de bijbel, die hij beschouwt als een bundel dichterlijke en morele verhalen die vanuit de context van de tijd waarin ze zijn geschreven, gelezen moeten worden, maar die als geheel wel de kern van de waarheid, van het goddelijke, bevat. Zoals bekend, verwerpt Spinoza ook de idee van een persoonlijke God die zijn schepping heeft geschapen, controleert en bestuurt van buiten die schepping af. Toch gebiedt onze constitutie ons dat wij hen in deze opvattingen dienen te respecteren, en dat was ook de mening van Spinoza: laat ieder vrij te denken wat hij of zij wil in deze zaken.

Enkele jaren geleden bezochten een vriend en ik een klooster van de Benedictijnen in Zuid-Limburg. Hier ervoer ik iets totaal anders dan ik bij de weinige orthodox-christelijke mensen in mijn leven had ervaren. Het verschil was, dat ik me hier zeer op mijn gemak voelde en van tijd tot tijd ontroerd was over de gezangen die ik daar hoorde en de ervaringen die ik er opdeed. Bij de orthodoxe protestanten voelde ik alleen maar weerstand. De houding van de monniken straalde uit:”wat zou het”. Er was maar één ding dat belangrijk was en dat was liefde en toewijding, ons geschonken door Jezus Christus, tot uiting komend in het ritme van het etmaal en de werkzaamheden die in het klooster werden verricht. Niks nietswaardige mensen, niks geen kommervol tot stand komende interpretatie van bijbelverhalen, of over bijvoorbeeld de noodzaak van bekering na de doop, waar nog in 1944 de gereformeerden vrijgemaakt zich druk over maakten en waardoor families uit elkaar werden gescheurd, drama op drama.

Dit bezoek deed me terugverlangen naar de kerk van mijn jeugd, de RK kerk. Ik wilde die gemoedstoestand vasthouden en steeds opnieuw beleven. En inderdaad heb ik twee en een half jaar lang de heilige missen bezocht, maar het was anders dan ik had gehoopt. Ik werd overrompeld door de grote nadruk die de leiding van de parochie legde op het meeleven met elkaar door de gelovigen. Er waren clubs, cursussen, vrijwilligers voor dit en voor dat, koffiedrinken na de dienst, enzovoort., en ik ben alles behalve een verenigings- of clubmens. Ook de jeugd werd niet vergeten met projecten en uitzendingen naar ontwikkelingslanden. Ook was er de heilige communie waar ik officieel niet aan mocht deelnemen van de paus omdat ik gescheiden was en in zonde met een andere vrouw samenleefde, maar waarvan de pastoor zei dat hij het me niet zou weigeren. Maar toch. Tijdens de missen was er een koor dat mijn devotie verstoorde door vals en snerpend te zingen, dankzij de te hoog gegrepen liederen die door de dirigente werden uitgekozen, wat een verschil met de scholae cantorum die in Zuid Limburg de gelovigen tot vrome aandacht brachten. Tenslotte miste ik bij mezelf de echte devotie, de echte overgave aan Christus en de Christelijke heilsleer. Steeds was Christus de enige echte heilbrenger voor alle mensen, terwijl toch vele moslims, boeddhisten, ietsisten, atheïsten enzovoort zich zeer gelukkig voelen bij hun waarheden. Deze devotie wilde ik wel opbrengen, maar het bleef bij hevig pogen. Het ging me om de sfeer, het meditatieve, dat ik in het klooster was tegengekomen maar hier nauwelijks of eigenlijk helemaal niet terugzag. Er was bijna geen minuut stilte, alles werd opgevuld met liedjes die me niets zeiden ( behalve het Gregoriaans), gezamenlijke gebeden en woorden van de voorganger. Ik vond de missen eigenlijk veel te protestants geworden, zelfs werden liedjes gezongen uit protestante bundels. Geen wonder, ik was vijfendertig jaar lang buiten de kerk gebleven. In die tussentijd hebben TROS, Veronica en de democratisering van zangbeoefening ook in de kerk toegeslagen.

In deze periode had ik een grote belangstelling voor boeken over de vroege christenheid en over de evolutietheorie. Ook begon ik te lezen over het verschijnsel godsdienst zelf. Het was allemaal literatuur waarin op wetenschappelijke of populair-wetenschappelijke wijze vanaf een afstand werd gekeken naar de schepping of de natuur, naar het leven, de mens, en de godsdienst als maatschappelijk verschijnsel.

Dit nu deed me besluiten de RK kerk weer de rug toe te keren, omdat ik op een goede ochtend overtuigend zag aangetoond dat de evangeliën verzonnen verhalen waren, dat er zelfs geen Jezus Christus heeft bestaan in de tijd van Pontius Pilatus. Ja werd zeer aannemelijk gemaakt in een vuistdik onderzoek met een overvloed aan details, dat alle gebeurtenissen, gelijkenissen en uitspraken in de canonieke evangeliën, gebaseerd zijn op biografieën van schrik niet, Julius Caesar. Bij mijn weten is dit onderzoek nog niet weersproken door gezaghebbende historici. Dat theologen het daarentegen wel weerspreken ligt natuurlijk voor de hand. Ook las ik en moest ik op grond van steekhoudende argumenten aannemen, dat Paulus zijn brieven schreef niet na de evangeliën, maar voordat er ook maar één evangelie was geschreven, en dat hij het had over een veel te abstracte Christus, die mogelijk wel bestaan had, maar in de nevelen van de ongeschreven geschiedenis mogelijk 100 jaar eerder was verdwenen. Mogelijk is hij de rechtvaardige leraar waarvan sprake is in de Qumran-rollen (ook wel genoemd de Dode Zee-rollen). Deze abstracte Christus moest leven worden ingeblazen en tot dat doel werden de evangeliën geschreven, niet alleen de vier die wij kennenals kerkelijk goedgekeurd, maar vele evangeliën, waaronder ook gnostische. Op een of andere wijze werden hiertoe de bekende biografieën van Julius Caesar gebruikt en aangepast, althans zeker in de vier canonieke evangeliën, minder of helemaal niet in andere, meer gnostisch getinte evangeliën zoals het evangelie van Thomas, van Maria Magdalena of het evangelie van de Waarheid.

Hierdoor, en door mijn kennisname van de stand van de wetenschap inzake aard, omvang en geschiedenis van het universum en het ontstaan van het leven, dingen die wij nog lang niet kennen maar waarover in vele godsdienstige heilige boeken mooie sagen en legenden zijn geschreven, besloot ik pantheïst te worden in de zin van Spinoza, met hem verontwaardigd over de intolerante houding waarmee zij, die menen het ware geloof te bezitten andersdenkenden veroordelen.. Ik schreef de pastoor een brief met mijn bevindingen en ging niet meer naar de kerk. Daarna kreeg ik nog bezoek van de vrouwelijke pastor, die het nota bene met mij eens was, maar volhield dat geloven niet een kwestie is van verstand, maar van gevoel. Ik had ook nog gesprekken met enkele vrienden, die mij verzekerden dat er meer waarheden waren dan een, en dat ik heus wel naast een orthodoxe katholiek die ondermeer de maagdelijkheid van Maria voor onomstotelijke waarheid hield, de twaalf artikelen van het geloof kon staan liegen, samen met hem in een en dezelfde kerkruimte, terwijl hij ze niet loog maar voor waar hield. Helaas is deze houding voor mij nog niet mogelijk. Ook werd mij geadviseerd om de rituele handelingen en gebeden dan maar als symbolisch te zien, maar ik word dan meteen gekweld door de leer van de kerk, die zegt dat ze niet symbolisch zijn en dat alles echt en werkelijk is wat er gebeurt, gezegd en voorgelezen wordt.. Maar misschien kan men ook betogen, dat de werkelijkheid van een symbool een hogere werkelijkheid is of aanduidt dan de zintuigelijk waarneembare, historische of juridische waarheid, en dan de officiële leer van de kerk naast zich neerleggen, wetende dat je dan maar een minderheid binnen de kerk vertegenwoordigt en dat je niet in staat zult zijn om binnen de kerk je mening te uiten zonder meteen je plaats te worden gewezen.

Nu iets over onze zintuigen waarmee wij het goddelijke al dan niet kunnen waarnemen.

Wat zeggen mij deze zintuigen? Allereerst, dat ik alleen dat kan kennen, zien en voelen wat ik met mijn zintuigen waarneem. Deze zintuigen kunnen reacties oproepen in gevoel en lichaam zoals honger, nieuwsgierigheid, drang tot vervulling van biologische functies, vreugde, verdriet, kortom alles wat wij daadwerkelijk beleven. De Friese filosoof Hemsterhuis toont aan, dat er buiten wat wij zintuiglijk kunnen waarnemen, het materiële dus, er ook een immateriële werkelijkheid bestaat, maar dat doet hij niet op echt overtuigende wijze. Hoogstens toont hij aan dat er een immateriële werkelijkheid mogelijk is, en niet noodzakelijk er moet zijn. Ook latere wetenschappers van naam zoals Carl Jung gaan ervan uit dat er bijvoorbeeld zoiets als een ziel bestaat.

Wat zien we nu echter met godsdiensten? We zien om ons heen dat door ons gewaardeerde mensen zoals opvoeders, leraren en mensen uit de gemeenschap verhalen als leidraad nemen, die ons vertellen hoe we moeten leven, en dat de onzichtbare, immateriële wereld concreet wordt geduid met genade, bekering, paradijs, verzoening, zonde, heiligheid, enzovoort in de christelijke godsdiensten. In de Islam zien we ook een paradijs, een zeer aanwezige persoonlijke God Allah, dingen die halal zijn en dingen die haram zijn, een noodzakelijke bedevaart naar Mekka, engelen, martelaren, ramadan, enz. Doen we dat niet op die manier, en hechten we geen geloof aan die verhalen, dan betekent dat rampspoed, niet alleen voor ons, maar ook voor de mensen om ons heen. Deze verhalen hebben namelijk te maken met de diepste reden van bestaan, met onze bestaansgrond, en die is immaterieel, niet direct met de zintuigen waar te nemen. Maar die wel de wereld heeft doen ontstaan, en ons opdraagt hoe wij ons moeten verstaan met die wereld in ons denken, voelen en handelen.

In elk geval, godsdiensten bestaan niet uit analyses, zoals de pastor ook zei, maar uit min of meer symbolieke verhalen, die door de leidende elites in de godsdienst per definitie als waarheid worden geproclameerd en uitgeroepen, als werkelijke voorvallen,, geschiedenissen en verklaringen. De gelovigen worden geacht dank zij deze verhalen door te dringen tot het wezen van alles en op een of andere manier sterker en gelukkiger te worden, en hulp te ontvangen in dit benarde bestaan op aarde. Veel gelovige mensen passen ook het analyseren toe op deze verhalen, zoals bijvoorbeeld Calvijn zijn aanname van de predestinatie poneerde, beïnvloed door methoden die in de toenmalige wetenschap in opkomst waren - geen Middeleeuwer maakte van die predestinatie een probleem. Zij is een van de vele tegenstrijdigheden in het christelijk geloof die wij tegenkomen als we hun verhalen met de instrumenten van de logica of de natuurkunde te lijf gaan. Doordat echter Calvijn als een soort Mohammed wordt gezien door vele protestanten, heeft hij deze pseudo-analyses aan hun geloof toegevoegd, tot het ongeluk van zeer velen, zoals ook in andere godsdienstige richtingen mensen ongelukkig worden doordat hun leven hen in omstandigheden heeft gebracht die als zondig of afvallig worden aangemerkt door de officiële leer.

Ik heb inderdaad moeite met een God die ons wereld en leven laat zien als plan van hem en dat wij volgens Zijn plan moeten leven. Er is in mijn ogen geen plan, alles wat er is, is er zoals het is. Alles wat er is, is onderdeel van de Godheid en vertegenwoordigt de Godheid in al Zijn aspecten. Wat door Spinoza in koele redenering is ontdekt, dat wordt door de moderne natuurkunde empirisch bevestigd doordat zij steeds weer op niet te doorgronden verschijnselen stuit, die door geen rekenmethode of welk model dan ook te bevatten zijn. Dat stelt mij voor de opgave om de achterhaalde visie op een Godheid anders te herzien, niet als een model waarin een superwezen dat ooit alles heeft geschapen, aan de knoppen zit om zich alles te laten ontwikkelen zoals het zich ontwikkelt, terwijl wij stervelingen hem helpen om zijn doelen te bereiken, volgens instructies ons aangereikt in heilige boeken.

Het grootste deel van zich christelijk noemende mensen gaat echter nog steeds hiervan uit, en daarin verschilt m.i. het Christendom van de Islam. De Islam specificeert veel minder wat Allah precies “wil”, en draagt haar aanhangers op zich aan Zijn wil te onderwerpen, niet zozeer eraan mee te werken of Hem te helpen. Weliswaar is de Islam een missionerende godsdienst en streeft ze evenals het Christendom naar verbreiding van haar godsdienst over de hele wereld, en doet ze dat om Allah te dienen, maar veel minder vanuit de idee dat wij mensen zouden weten Wat God van ons wil, en/of dat Hij een plan met ons zou hebben, waarvan wij ook kennis hebben. Onderwerp u aan Allah en alles zal goed komen, zo is de boodschap. En als het niet goed komt, is ook dat Allah’s wil en hebben wij ons er aan te onderwerpen.

Het ziet ernaar uit dat wij de enige wezens zijn in het hele universum dat denkt en voelt zoals wij dat doen. Op het bekende microscopisch kleine, nietige stofje dat aarde heet, en dat elk moment vernietigd kan worden door een rondvliegend stuk steen uit de Oortwolk, een in onze ogen gigantische, maar op kosmologische schaal enorm klein wolkje van cirkelmatig rondvliegende rotsblokken tussen Mars en Jupiter. Hahaha, lijkt de de Godheid te lachen, en hij laat ons zien hoe volgens zijn plan zo’n rotsblok uiteengescheurd wordt in kleinere brokjes, die elk op de superplaneet Jupiter neerplonzen en daar gaten veroorzaken in de stroperige atmosfeer, die groter zijn dan de aarde. Zoiets is in de geschiedenis van de aarde al diverse keren op die aarde gebeurd, gelukkig maar waren de rotsblokken kleiner dan die enkele jaren geleden op Jupiter neerploften. Hahaha, lacht hij nogmaals, en laat ons de zonnevlammen zien die groter zijn dan enkele tientallen doorsneden van de aarde zelf. Let op mensjes, dat jullie je beschermende atmosfeertje niet beschadigen, want dit zonnetje zal jullie roosteren met zijn straaltjes. Let ook op dat jullie niet teveel aan de gang gaan met atoomsplitsing, kijk maar wat er in Japan gebeurt met een paar van jullie atoomfornuisjes.

De mens bestaat volgens de nieuwste inzichten reeds ongeveer 250.000 jaar. Toch is die periode maar een uiterst klein deel van de geschiedenis van het leven op aarde. Als we die geschiedenis voorstellen als een tijdbalk over twee gestrekte armen van een man die zijn armen gestrekt houdt, dan is die periode slechts het randje van de nagel van zijn vinger, dat hij van tijd tot tijd afknipt. Laten we het dan maar niet hebben over de geschiedenis van de aarde in zijn totaliteit, waarop het leven twee miljard jaar begon, en anderhalf miljard jaar voortsudderde in de vorm van bacterie-achtige wezentjes, opgevolgd door kleine schaaldiertjes, die het ook al heel lang uithielden. Tweehonderdvijftigduizend jaar. De stichters van de moderne godsdiensten kwamen lach niet vijftienhonderd tot drieduizend jaar geleden op de proppen. Heeft de de Godheid ons zo lang in onzekerheid gehouden? Volgens veel orthodoxe christenen is de wereld zoals wij die kennen, vierduizend jaar geleden geschapen, er zijn er zelfs die archeologische en natuurkundige vondsten en theorieën geheel in die zienswijze weten om te buigen, hun gehoor is enthousiast en wil van geen andere kijk op de wereld weten, en zeker ook niet van de evolutie-theorie, die in zijn moderne vorm met wiskundige zekerheid heeft aangetoond dat elke nieuwe soort gebaseerd is op toeval, en niet op een of ander plan van de Great Architect. Een toevallige mutatie, die juist in die natuurlijke omgeving meer geschikt bleek tot overleven en voortplanting dan andere, niet-gemuteerde soortgenoten. Toevallig, omdat juist zij geschikter bleek onder de veel grotere aantallen mutaties die tot ondergang waren gedoemd.

Blijft er dan slechts domme godloochening over? Nee, ik weet zeker van niet, ook Spinoza was geen domme godloochenaar zoals zijn tijdgenoten hem graag afschiderden.

Ooit heb ik een zelfvoldane kunstenaar horen zeggen: de mensen zien mijn werken niet, omdat ze overal zo overduidelijk aanwezig zijn. De de Godheid zou die kunstenaar kunnen zijn. Het is het wonder niet dat de de Godheid liefde zou zijn of de totale goedheid, immers een dergelijke opvatting kan alleen maar teleurstelling opwekken, maar het wonder is dat wij als mensjes hem mogen vertegenwoordigen, zelf weerspiegelend al wat we met onze zintuigen om ons heen zien. Een vis is een groter wonder dan de wonderbare visvermenigvuldiging. Het lot van de mens is net als bij de rest van de levende natuur zelfbehoud en streven naar welzijn, dat is wat we na moeten streven willen we onszelf behouden. Dat kan alleen door mededogen, meewerken aan het heil van onszelf en daardoor ook van de ander. Dat is precies wat ook Spinoza bedoelde: hij erkende ons streven naar wat wij “het goede” noemen, maar koppelde dat los van dogma’s en leerstellingen. De natuur in zichzelf is niet het goede, maar onze opdracht, zo we van een opdracht kunnen spreken, is het goede nastreven. In mijn ogen is dat een noodzakelijkheid die door een natuurwet aan ons is opgelegd anders sterven wij uit. God is volgens Spinoza gelijk aan de bestaansreden van de natuur, en ligt dus ook ten grondslag aan de evolutie, net zoals aan de zwaartekracht en het e=mc2 door Einstein ontdekt.

Mens als ik ben, blijf ik voorlopig geërgerd worden door orthodoxe vroomheid, misschien komt er een tijdstip waarop ik dat niet meer doe. Ik ben geen esoterist, geen kabbalist, niets van dat alles, ik ben een ietsist in de positieve betekenis van het woord, er is een iets dat wij niet kennen en niet kunnen kennen, we moeten het doen met de zintuigen en met het bewustzijn, dat meer esoterisch of religieus ingestelde mensen ziel noemen. Het bewustzijn of zo u wilt de ziel is de ontvanger van de berichten die de zintuigen aan mij toesturen, de zintuigen zijn stoffelijk-biologisch aanwijsbaar, terwijl velen menen dat het bewustzijn of de ziel dat niet is, hoewel ik er voorlopig van uitga dat ook de ziel in materie besloten ligt.. Of deze ziel na de dood blijft voortbestaan, met onze stoffelijke zintuigen nemen wij niets waar dat daar ook maar enigszins op wijst. Wat wel blijft voortbestaan, dat is bijna net zo zeker waarneembaar en voorspelbaar als de dood zelf, dat is het voortbestaan van datgene wat het voortbestaan van het universum en de natuurwetten garandeert. Dat bestaat voort, en dat ik geboren ben is eindig toeval. Ik heb twee broers die tweeling zijn, de een is ernstig verstandelijk gehandicapt en de ander een intelligente man vol talenten die hij goed gebruikt. Ik vroeg hem onlangs: heb je er nooit bij stilgestaan dat jij misschien je tweelingbroer bent, en dat hij eigenlijk jou is? Ik vond de vraag eigenlijk absurd en bijna ongepast, maar ja, daar had hij als kind van een jaar of tien vaak aan gedacht. Maar omdat ze tweelingen waren, ligt zo’n vraag meer voor de hand dan bv. bij mij en een vrouw in Tibet of Siberië. Lezer, zoals u daar zit, u had mij kunnen zijn, misschien bent u mij wel, en ik had u kunnen zijn, en misschien ben ik u wel. Als dat zo is, en waarom zou dat niet zo zijn, dan blijf ik na mijn dood in u voortleven, en sterft u als ik doodga, terwijl u denkt nog te leven.

Helaas grijpen mensen dikwijls godsdienstige motieven aan om elkaar te bestrijden en ongelukkig te maken. Want hoevelen menen niet dat zij hun eigen ik zijn, dat zij eigenstandige wezens zijn met een opgedragen edele en hoogverheven taak, namelijk het behoud of de verspreiding van wat in hun ogen waardevol is, maar wat in feite relatief is of zelfs ronduit schadelijk. Wanneer iets waardevol is dan zal het ook aangenomen worden en gezien worden door velen, met hun zintuigen, zoals Jezus zei: “aan de vruchten herkent men de boom”. Helaas gebruiken velen niet hun zintuigen, maar laten zij zich leiden door verhalen en heilige instructies. Zij juichen het ontstaan van een echte mensheid, de hele aarde omvattend, niet toe, maar bestrijden dat juist, in de blinde en dove mening hiermee de mensheid te redden.

Intermezzo

2011-04-17T20:21:00.000+02:00

Intermezzo Ik sta voor de etalage van een boekwinkel en zie diverse katholieke en christelijke titels. Hier hub ik dus afscheid van genomen. Bibliotheken vol boeken zijn er geschreven aangaande alle theologische onderwerpen die je maar kunt bedenken, het is een wereld van waarheidsvinding, ethiek, vroomheid en uitleggerij (eschatologie). Nadat ik na tien jaar het boek van Carotta had gelezen, stortte deze wereld compleet voor mij in. In die tien jaar bekeerde ik mij weer tot de RK kerk, en werd weer gelovig. Na drie jaar kerkgang en het ondanks inspanning niet kunnen vinden van religieuze inspiratie in de kerk, las ik opnieuw Carotta en nog enkele andere werken aangaande de eerste eeuw van het christendom. Daarnaast had ik ook Daniel Bennett gelezen over de evolutietheorie en geluisterd naar de hoorcolleges op CD van Herman Philipse over godsdienst-filosofie. Wanneer het evangelie gebaseerd is, geplagieerd op, de levensgeschiedenis van Julius Caesar, en wanneer zeer vele christenen geloven dat de gebeurtenissen die in het evangelie worden beschreven gebaseerd zijn op een kern van waarheid, en dan met name die welke genoemd worden in de twaalf artikelen van het geloof, is dat niet iets dat mij kan inspireren tot op het bot van mijn religieuze gevoelens. Anderen kunnen daar blijkbaar wel in meegaan, want mensen die ik hierover sprak reageerden met een “nou en” en bleven gewoon naar de kerk gaan. Weer anderen, uit de orthodoxe hoek, wilden er niet eens naar luisteren, en vonden elke vergelijking tussen hun Jezus en Julius Caesar een ongehoorde godslastering. Ik schaar mij achter Spinoza en Goethe enerzijds, en achter de evolutionisten zoals Bennett, anderzijds. Inmiddels heb ik ook afscheid genomen van de Vrijmetselarij. Hun beroep op de Opperbouwmeester des Heelals, hun oproep zich op te maken tot de bouw van leven en wereld, die deze Opperbouwmeester ons laat zien als een te voltooien bouwwerk, ook daarin kan ik mij niet vinden. Maar dat zou nog tot daaraan toe zijn, en ik respecteer hun streven dan ook, maar ik ben onmachtig om van harte mee te doen aan hun bijeenkomsten als een broeder onder hen, want ik voel me er een vreemde eend in de bijt. Dat ligt niet aan hen, maar aan mij, want mijn hele leven heb ik al moeite gehad bij te “gedragen” in drukke gezelschappen en echte vrienden heb ik nog nooit kunnen maken. Er blijft mij weinig “geestelijks” en/of “spiritueels” over, en ik kan me er dan ook niet meer mee bezighouden omdat het mijn belangstelling niet meer heeft. In de volgende hoofdstukken van deze blog zal ik proberen uit te leggen hoe dat komt.

2011-04-14T09:33:00.000+02:00

Evolutietheorie en godsdiensten

Charles Darwin en geleerden na hem, hebben de evolutietheorie ontwikkeld tot een theorie die alleen maar kan concluderen dat alle levensvormen zoals we die nu kennen, het gevolg zijn van reeksen toevalligheden. Toevallig ontstonden er individuele dieren, planten enz. die geschikter waren om te overleven in hun omgeving dan andere van dezelfde soort, waardoor die soort zich meer aan die omgeving ging aanpassen. Andere individuen lukte dat minder of niet, en stierven uit. Drie bedreigingen moeten alle individuele schepselen het hoofd bieden: de natuur, roofdieren en ziektekiemen (die dus eigenlijk ook roofdieren of parasieten zijn). Deze bedreigingen doen zich overal in allerlei vormen in meer of mindere mate voor, en alle aanpassingen moeten dus de soort bestand maken tegen, of profijt leren trekken van, levende wezens, microben en natuurlijke omstandigheden zoals bodemgesteldheid, temperatuur e.d. in de omgeving. De soorten die daarin slagen, overleven, de soorten en individuen die dat niet lukt, gaan te gronde.

We moeten volgens de evolutietheorie afleren om te denken in termen van doelgerichtheid, nuttigheid, planmatigheid enzovoort in de natuur. De natuur heeft geen doel dat wij als mensen kunnen waarnemen.. Een mooi voorbeeld daarvan zijn de tepels op de mannenborst. Die dienen geen enkele functie, hoe hard sommige onderzoekers er ook naar gezocht hebben. De verleiding om te denken in die termen is erg groot, mensen vinden het makkelijk om aan te nemen dat alles in de natuur een functie heeft, en als die niet meteen waarneembaar is, er dan ook naar te zoeken.

Natuurlijk heeft de evolutie van de soorten geleid tot een systeem waarin alles “een functie heeft”: vogels verzamelen takjes om een nest te bouwen, het hart is er om bloed rond te pompen, pijn heeft als functie ons te waarschuwen voor beschadiging van het lichaam, enzovoort. Het is moeilijk aan te nemen, dat al deze nuttige uitwerkingen het gevolg zijn van een miljarden jaren durend proces van vallen en opstaan. We kunnen ons immers ook geen voorstelling maken van hoe lang een miljard jaar duurt. Toch zijn er ook voorbeelden van zeer snelle evolutie, waarin we duidelijk kunnen zien hoe soort-aanpassing verloopt. Fruitvliegjes en bacteriën worden in laboratoria blootgesteld aan wisselende omstandigheden, waardoor dankzij de snelle voortplanting verandering in soort waargenomen kan worden. En denk ook aan de strijd tegen virussen en bacteriën, die maar enkele jaren nodig hebben om zich aan te passen aan onze bestrijdingsmiddelen en dan in een gemuteerde versie weer opduiken, soms gevaarlijker dan de vorige versie.

Enkele malen is geprobeerd om deze evolutietheorie ook toe te passen op de menselijke wereld, zoals de ontwikkeling van ideeën en door mensen bedachte systemen, zoals organisaties. De geschiedenis van de mens, de concurrentiestrijd tussen bedrijven en machtspolitieke gevechten en samenwerkingsvormen geven daartoe aanleiding. We zien dan, dat net als in de natuur, die ideeën en organisatie- en samenlevingsvormen overleven en succes hebben, die het beste aansluiten bij de omgeving van andere ideeën en andere samenlevings- en organisatievormen.. En tot onze verrassing merken we, dat zelfs wapengeweld en oorlogsoverwinningen niet in staat zijn om dat evolutieproces tegen te houden, op lange termijn wel te verstaan.

Een cruciale rol hierbij vervult de wetenschap, zoals we die nu kennen en zoals ze zich sinds de tijd van de Romeinen in het westen heeft ontwikkeld. De mens, die (zoveel als mogelijk is) afstand neemt van zichzelf, van de eigen vooringenomenheden en emoties, en zijn zintuigen gebruikt als waarnemingsinstrument, met wiskunde en waarschijnlijkheidsrekening als hulpmiddelen.

De wetenschap is op zichzelf ook een ideeën- en organisatiesysteem temidden van andere ideeënsystemen en organisatievormen., die zich bedreigd kunnen voelen, denk maar aan vorsten en religie. Vorsten en staten kunnen de wetenschap voor eigen doelen aanwenden, en dat zijn dikwijls niet de doelen die de eigen bevolking het meest dienen, maar de overleving en het succes van het vorstenhuis of de staatsvorm. Zo zijn bijvoorbeeld mensen in oosterse landen erg goed in mathematische wetenschappen, maar veel minder in psychologie en andere menswetenschappen: oosterse staten hebben meer belang bij de beta-wetenschappen dan bij de menswetenschappen. Zo zijn bijvoorbeeld mensen uit de meeste Afrikaanse landen erg goed in het leggen en onderhouden van contacten en relaties, en veel minder goed in het zich als individu handhaven in een anonieme stad, of het kiezen van de juiste man op de juiste plaats in een bedrijf. Dat laatste is slechts goed mogelijk in westerse landen, waar de ontwikkeling en maatschappelijke groei van de wetenschappen in het verleden heeft plaatsgevonden.

Laten we na deze korte inleiding de godsdiensten eens nader bekijken.

Godsdiensten zijn denksystemen die inspelen op de behoefte van de mens om zichzelf een beredeneerde plaats geven in de wereld om hem heen. Er zitten twee mentale eigenschappen in deze definitie (die eigenlijk geen complete definitie is) die strijdig zijn met elkaar: namelijk “beredeneerde” en “wereld om hem heen”. De wereld om je heen ervaar je niet als een computer of robot, maar als gevoelswereld. Je hebt een bepaald karakter, met dingen die je leuk, mooi, aantrekkelijk, of juist lelijk, afstotend en saai vindt. In ieder mens zijn deze verschillend, en kunnen in de loop van de tijd veranderen. De cultuur waarin je leeft en de opvoeding (of het gebrek daaraan) zijn van grote invloed op het leerproces waarin je dingen voelt zoals je ze voelt. Het eerstgenoemde element in de definitie, “beredeneerd” geeft aan dat je die gevoelens probeert te beredeneren. Want zonder die beredenering, of liever gezegd “zingeving” heb je het gevoel dat je niet meer weet waar je mee bezig bent, het is als het ware een soort automatisme. Je vindt jezelf prima, en geen doelloos dolend wezen in het leven van alledag. Alles moet een doel hebben, of een reden.

Dat doel en die reden biedt de godsdienst. De wereld is niet zoals zij is, maar gewild, door een hogere macht. Een hogere macht, want geen mens kan het laten stormen en geen mens kan een zee maken of bergen, of bomen laten groeien, enzovoort enzovoort. Wijzelf zijn het product van onze voorouders, en we weten dat die zichzelf ook niet hebben gemaakt. Noodlot of geluk dat ons overkomt, en waarvoor wijzelf geen vinger hebben uitgestoken om het te veroorzaken, moet ergens anders vandaan komen. We hoeven ons niet eens de vraag te stellen waarom de wereld is zoals ze is, we hoeven alleen maar aan te nemen dat alles een oorzaak heeft met een vooropgezet doel. Het nare is nu, dat we die oorzaken niet kunnen zien of vinden, de hogere machten laten zich niet zien. Het is dus wel duidelijk dat we ze maar beter te vriend kunnen houden, want dat ze machtig zijn is wel gebleken en blijkt elke dag opnieuw.

Dan staat er iemand op die op een of andere manier (meditatie, openbaring) contact heeft gehad met de hogere machten. Of wij menen aan sommigen onder ons te zien dat zij goed met de hogere machten kunnen opschieten. Want we zijn mensen, nietwaar, en mensen leggen er zich niet zomaar bij neer dat ze iets niet kunnen beïnvloeden. De hogere machten moet je te vriend houden en dat kan alleen door die dingen te doen die zij graag zien, en die dingen te laten die zij verafschuwen. Vaak zijn dat dingen die wij zelf ook wel minder graag zien zoals stelen, zomaar doden van bekenden en familieleden, liegen, bedriegen, overspel, mishandeling enzovoort. En wat wij ook graag zien is hulpvaardigheid, je aanpassen zoals je mening opschorten, vrijgevigheid, vriendelijkheid, gastvrijheid, je verantwoordelijkheid nemen voor je kinderen en ouders, en ook voor je verdere familie, trouw zijn, enzovoort. Een hogere macht die ons beveelt te stelen of te moorden, dat zou kunnen, want die dingen gebeuren gewoon ook, maar dat noemen we liever een kwade macht, die “bezworen” moet worden, d.w.z. wel te vriend houden, maar op zodanige manier dat hij onze deur voorbijgaat.
(wordt vervolgd)

Religion and worshipping I

2011-01-12T11:31:00.000+01:00

In some languages (e.g. Dutch) there are two different words for “religion”: religion (Dutch: “religie”) as an internationally recognised word, and “worshipping God” (Dutch: godsdienst). In this contribution to my blog I want to elaborate this difference, thus making clear the significance of religion for people as human beings. We will discover that religion is a deep-rooted psychological need of most normal humans (I exclude mentally damaged people, and also extremely “religious” people) First of all, what does religion really mean?

According to Christian churches (I heard it many times) “religion” is derived from the Latin word “religare” which would mean: “restoring the connection” (“ligare” means “binding”, and “re-” is a suffix that means a repeat). This would be the connection between God and men, which has been broken by sin and evil. But I looked it up in my Latin dictionary and found that “religio” originally means “serious concern, serious objection”. Only later it got the meaning of religion which it has in English, namely “a more or less coherent set of ideas, symbols and stories intended to give meaning to the existence of mankind in his social and natural world, and which is sustained by a more or less official set of rituals, rules and norms of behaviour reinforced by officials appointed by the adherents of one particular set of ideas, symbols and stories, and/or by their representatives (priests, vicars, imams, etc.) or education role tenants (parents, teachers)”. (definition by me).

The abovementioned meaning which Christian interpreters attach to the word “religion” is coloured by Christian religion itself, which pre-supposes a separation between an almighty and all-good God and men, a separation that can be restored by practicing faith in an honest and integer way. Christians, Muslims and Jews (Jews to a far less extent) see their religions as the only way to completely fulfil the human need to give meaning to their existence in this world.They see religion as “worshipping God” (godsdienst). If you don’t worship God you are a heathen, a “non-believer”, an “atheist”. Muslims and Christians have got a divine assignment to strive for the convertion of these non-believers, or at least let them know that they don’t belong to the “right” group, which is the group of believers they themselves belong to, by hindering their “wrong” rituals, symbols and ceremonies, by discriminating them in social en economic life etc. Examples: forbidding women to wear Muslim clothing in Western countries, official and open discrimination of non-Muslims in most Muslim countries. Looking back into history, and a few Muslim countries today, one sees even punishment to death of behaviour which is considered as offensive to the officially recognised worship or rules.

To be religious, in my view, it isn’t needed to belong to such a religious worshipping group, which call themselves “church”, “brotherhood” etc. I experienced this when I, as a Roman Catholic, repeatedly had to cite the “Twelve Articles of Faith” during the Holy Mass. I noticed that most of these articles I didn’t believe in, and yet I continued being moved by religious feelings during the Mass. I knew that these articles had been written down and issued like a kind of law, during the reign period of the first Christian emperor Constantine. I also noticed that I had a strong conviction that the examples (not the miracles but the teachings and actings) of Jesus Christ, as described in the Gospels, were the most important and perfect description of how a human had to live. Not in order to gain eternal life in heaven (I don’t believe in life after death), but to acquire a less imperfect world than we had up to now.

On top of that, I felt I had read more books and articles about early Christianity than my fellow-worshippers gathered in the Holy Mass, maybe except for the celebrating priest. Gradually I got convinced that the gospels were “only” myths and that nothing told to us in the Gospels, was real history. Even the historical existence of Jesus is severely doubtful. Nowhere in what historical document whatsoever, his important and world-shaking deeds, wonders or preachings, nor his death at the cross, are reported. Only the “Christians” are mentioned, and in two places (Tacitus, Flavius Josephus) something of the stories they believe in. There are scholars who are almost 100% sure, based on meticulous study and research, that “Christ” (the Christ Paul is preaching) was a mythical figure, seated in heaven and as a martyr punished to death, who had to be brought to life as a human person, preaching to real humans, in order to spread Christianity as a worshipping church over the world, and this was accomplished in the gospels. There were many, many gospels, an only four of them have been selected as the official gospels at a meeting of Christian bishops, centuries after Christ would have lived. Also the gospels themselves have been written decades after life and death of Jesus. The letters of Paul, included in the Christian Bible, have been written long before any gospel had been written, which explains that Paul nowhere refers to wonders or events in the gospels, except to what it’s all about, namely his death as a divine martyr, and his presence in heaven from where he will return to judge the living and the death.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe states in his “Dichtung und Wahrheit” (Poetical fabrication and Truth), that a beginning religion is a wonderful phenomenon. He takes the religion of Zoroaster, practiced in Persia, as an example. The misery, he says, starts when “official” religious leaders take over the power in determining what behaviour is according to the rules, and what behaviour isn’t. They state the laws and rules of the details of ceremonies, rites etc., in modern words: the religion becomes an official worshipping group, with rules and regulations. Zoroaster was a very poetical founder of his religion, and we may doubt if he himself wanted such an organisation as Goethe saw. Goethe found the core of the matter, namely worshipping light and purity, and the existence of two equal and counterbalancing forces in nature namely Good and Evil, especially valuable, but why this circus of detailed and obliged rites and ceremonies? I think Goethe hit the core of the matter. The rules and ceremonies, one and only prescribed interpretation of a Holy Book, the power exerted by many priests, imams, shamans, bishops, ayatollahs, muftis etc. lead only to drifting away from the core of the matter. Did Jesus order the building of enormous church in Rome in all its pump and circumstance? Yes, did Jesus even order his followers to constantly praise and glorify God whom he called his father? He only taught to us one simple prayer.

I will continue next time, otherwise this blog item will be too long.

Halal hamburgers en onderwijs

2010-09-09T10:56:00.001+02:00

In de Bijbel en Koran zijn eetvoorschriften te vinden. Net als veel andere voorschriften, zoals besnijdenis, het nemen van een rustdag, het in acht nemen van een seksuele discipline en dergelijke, waren deze vele eeuwen geleden nuttig (wat o.a. seksuele discipline betreft nog steeds), maar nu niet meer. Vooral hygiëne en gezondheid in een warm woestijnklimaat met vijandige stammen om je heen, waren met deze voorschriften gediend. Veel eetvoorschriften betreffen het eten van vlees. Vlees eten was destijds een feestelijke gebeurtenis, en werd ervaren als een luxe. Voor belangrijke gasten werd speciaal een geit of zelfs een rund geslacht. Nooit een varken, dat is smerig en wordt zowel in de Koran als de Bijbel verboden, hoewel veel christenen wel varkensvlees eten.

Talloze argumenten kunnen worden aangevoerd om te betogen dat deze voorschriften nu niet meer gelden als middel die de gezondheid bevorderen. Wat nu geldt is overdaad. Als er nu een godsdienstig openbaringsboek met eetvoorschriften zou worden geschreven, zouden dat waarschijnlijk geboden tot matigheid zijn. Tenminste, als het in een Westers land zou worden geschreven. In de tijd van waarin Bijbel en Koran werden geschreven, bestond er voor degenen voor wie het boek bestemd was, slechts één cultuur en dat was de eigen cultuur, die zich afspeelde in woestijn-achtig gebied waar stammen elkaar bevochten en waar het continu onveilig was. Er was een grote bewondering voor kostbaarheden zoals goud, zeldzame houtsoorten, en het Paradijs was letterlijk een lusthof met genoeg water, een rijke plantengroei en zonder gevaren of ontberingen, precies het tegenovergestelde van een woestijn.

Toch worden deze voorschriften door orthodoxe gelovigen nog steeds streng nageleefd. Wie aangaande het nut van eetvoorschriften wil discussiëren met bijvoorbeeld een orthodoxe moslim, krijgt een verhandeling over de eeuwigheidswaarde daarvan en met graagte worden moderne onderzoekingen aangehaald die de schadelijkheid van varkensvlees aantonen (bv. http://www.overislam.nl/va/11VARKENSVLEES%20VERBODEN.html ). Tussen haakjes: deze verhandelingen laten ook weer zien dat orthodoxe gelovigen niet in staat of bereid zijn om de boodschappen in hun Heilig Boek allegorisch op te vatten, ze hebben eeuwige geldigheid, en de gebeurtenissen en uitspraken moeten letterlijk worden genomen. Dikwijls botst dat met moderne opvattingen die in onze westerse rechts- en staatsbestellen zijn opgenomen. (bv. het fokken van varkens voor consumptie is in de westerse wereld niet verboden, en je mag je buurman er niet op aankijken dat hij varkensvlees eet). De Westerse gelovige lost dit op door in zijn/haar denk- en gevoelsleven geloof en staatsbestel te integreren als “een van God gegeven situatie” waarin hij/zij is geplaatst en met in achtneming van Zijn geboden een plaats moet vinden. De orthodoxe moslim zal veeleer geneigd zijn tot het tonen van openlijke afkeuring en het met hart en ziel ondersteunen van overheidsregels die de Koran-voorschriften naleven, zoals religieuze politie, het voorschrijven van kleding die je in het openbaar wel of niet mag/moet dragen, verbod op de verkoop van alcohol, enz.

Dit verschil, dat ik in mijn vorige bijdrage heb benadrukt, zorgt mede voor de grote spanningen tussen islamitische en westerse manieren van denken ten aanzien van mondiale machtsvraagstukken, maar ook ten aanzien van het leven van de gewone mensen in de woonbuurten van steden. Veel moslims kunnen niet leven met wat zij zien als de bandeloze vrijheden in het westen, gesteund door regeringsverkiezingen, en veel westerlingen kunnen niet leven met wat zij voelen als onaanvaardbare dwang van individuele keuzen, opgelegd door potentaten die zonder verkiezingen of met schertsverkiezingen in het zadel worden gehouden.

Een prachtig voorbeeld dat het bovenstaande illustreert, kwam ik tegen in Trouw. In Frankrijk is er een populaire fastfoodketen genaamd Quick (de naam zegt het al) die zogenaamde “halalburgers” is gaan verkopen. Dat wil zeggen hamburgers gemaakt van runderen die halal zijn geslacht, dat wil zeggen middels het doorsnijden van de keel. In een woestijnklimaat is het zeer schadelijk voor de gezondheid om een dier eerst te doden, dan het risico te lopen om het slachten uit te stellen (de vijand komt er aan, of een stofstorm, nu even geen tijd) en zodoende het vlees snel te laten bederven. Dus stond in de religieuze wetten (lees: samenlevingswetten, staatswetten) dat de slacht onmiddellijk op het doden van het dier diende te gebeuren. Wat zie je nu in Frankrijk gebeuren in 2010? Veel moslims bezoeken daar geen hamburgertenten, maar zouden dat wel doen als ze wisten dat het vlees daar halal zou zijn. De klant is koning, dus Quick bouwt een groot aantal aparte halal-tenten. De regeringspartij UMP is daar “zeer verontrust” over, want zij ziet dit als een schending van de scheiding tussen geloof en staat, en Quick is een particuliere onderneming. Een Nederlander zou zich afvragen waarom, want je hebt toch de vrije keus om al of niet een halal-zaak te bezoeken? Bovendien, zou de nuchtere atheïst zeggen, smaak en kwaliteit van het vlees worden niet beïnvloed door de wijze waarop het dier is gedood, dus geef mij ook maar halal als dat het enige is wat je in huis hebt, als ik met vakantie naar Tunesië of Marokko ga eet ik het ook..

Het probleem van de scheiding tussen geloof en staat is voor UMP echter, dat de staat groot-aandeelhouder is van Quick, en Quick bij moskeeën Islamitische keurmeesters moet inhuren om een halal-certificaat voor een geslacht dier te verkrijgen. Zodoende worden geloof en staat op voor UMP onaanvaardbare wijze verstrengeld. (Dat de Islamitische consumentenbond Quick afraadt voor moslims omdat er niet genoeg keurmeesters beschikbaar zijn om al de halal-hamburgers te garanderen als echt halal, is vers twee).

Voor een Nederlander is dit muggenzifterij, want in Nederland zorgt de staat ervoor dat er scholen op godsdienstige basis wijd en zijd door het hele land kunnen functioneren, dat is nog eens wat anders dan hamburgers. De staat als groot-aandeelhouder in het op godsdienst gebaseerde onderwijs. Maar deze drastische ingreep in het staatsbestel zorgt er wel voor, dat de christelijke staatsburger minder moeite heeft met het individueel integreren van zijn loyaliteit aan zowel de staat, als aan zijn geloof. Hoe lang nog, met de voortschrijdende ontkerkelijking in zicht en het sluiten van de ene islamitische school na de andere wegens het niet voldoen aan de eisen van de staat, die ook gelden voor op godsdienst gebaseerde scholen?

Oost en West in de ogen van oprechte moslims en oprechte westerlingen

2010-09-08T12:02:00.001+02:00

Gisteravond zag ik hoe knap een zeer orthodoxe Moslim door Pauw en Witteman soms met de mond vol tanden zat, toen hij verdedigde hoe wij ons niet moesten bemoeien met de steniging van de weduwe in Iran, die na de dood van haar man een nieuwe relatie had gevonden. De discussie legde ook weer keihard de verschillen bloot tussen “het Westen” en de zogenaamde Islamitische broederschap. De man ontkende de universele geldigheid van de Verklaring van de Universele Rechten van de Mens, omdat het een “product van westers denken” was. Ook had hij het herhaaldelijk over de uitgespeelde rol van “het westen” in de wereld.

Het Islamitische oosten kwam niet aan bod, dat was namelijk de vanzelfsprekende denkwereld waar de man van uitging. De verschillen tussen West en Oost werden dus ook niet door hem besproken, maar overduidelijk bleek hoezeer de Islamitische denkwereld wordt bepaald door “het welzijn van de groep” , met als tegenhanger “het welzijn van het individu” dat in het Westers denken centraal staat.

Aan de orde was de petitie die door velen was ondertekend, gericht aan de Iranese regering. Deze petitie werd door de man een inmenging in de binnenlandse aangelegenheden van Iran gevonden. Men kwam er niet uit, de man bleef op zijn standpunt staan, hoewel ook hij het stenigen als straf smakeloos vond naar zijn zeggen. Maar hij was loyaal de groep, en de groep was “de moslims” in zijn algemeenheid, en “Iran” als staat met een wetgeving waar helaas pindakaas ook steniging van een relatie hebbende weduwen een wettig vonnis was, en waar advocaten niet werden gewenst en op de vlucht gejaagd. Dit punt werd door hem steeds uitgebreid met het thema “het zich superieur voelende Westen” tegenover de miskende rest van de wereld.

Zo zie je wat godsdienst vermag. Hoe uniek en nieuw in de wereldgeschiedenis is de westerse opvatting dat godsdienst en staat gescheiden moeten zijn. Onze TV-moslim was ervan overtuigd dat Allah de hoogste wetgever aan de mensen was, en dat zijn wetten in de Koran stonden verwoord. Geloof en staat kunnen dus niet gescheiden zijn.

Wat zelden wordt ingezien, is dat geloof en staat alleen in het openbare leven te scheiden zijn, maar niet in iemands hoofd. In het Westen wordt onder “scheiding tussen geloof en staat” verstaan de scheiding tussen enerzijds wetten en openbare regels, en anderzijds de manier waarop elk individu die beleeft en integreert met zijn levensopvatting en / of geloof. De wetten worden zo gemaakt, dat dit voor de meeste individuen zonder al te veel problemen zal gaan. In het Oosten is dit omgekeerd: elk individu maakt een onderscheid tussen “geloof en staat” in zijn denk- en gevoelsleven, en weet dat het geloof nu eenmaal “hoger” is dan de staat. Het is daarom logisch dat de staat zich richt naar de geloofswetten, ook al zijn die hard en wreed.

De Westerse oplossing voor het geloofs- en staatprobleem heeft dat Westen een voorsprong gegeven op het Oosten op het gebied van economie en technologie. Niet de hiërarchie in de staat, maar bruikbaarheid op de markt en vindingrijkheid van individuen bepalen het handelen en, vooral, het zich organiseren van mensen in bedrijven, bonden en verenigingen. De afhankelijkheid van het Westen van de grondstof olie werd steeds groter, en dit vergrootte de invloed op het wereldtoneel van de veelal olierijke Islamitische staten, die jaloers werden op het Westen en zich ertegen afzetten, maar ook hun materiële gedrag gingen nadoen om hun rijkdommen tonen. Vooral wordt nadruk gelegd op de “zedeloosheid” en “bandeloosheid” van Westerse staten, mogelijk gemaakt door niet het juiste Islamitische geloof aan te nemen, maar in werkelijkheid dus door de scheiding tussen geloof en staat, waarbij het aan het individu werd overgelaten hoe hij of zij zich zou gedragen, en niet aan de staat die de van God gegeven wetten diende uit te voeren. De levensstandaard en welvaart voor de diverse bevolkingen waren de Islamitische staten een gruwel, want was dat de zogenaamde beloning die die goddelozen toekwam?

In dit hele discours komt Islamisme naar voren als wanhoop, waarbij moordpartijen als martelarendom wordt verheerlijkt. Ook de arrogante, superieure houding van veel moslims die zich continu op hun geloof beroepen, is op die afgunst gebaseerd. Miljoenen arme, ongeletterde mensen gaan de straat op in een aantal Islamitische landen, wanneer in Amerika een handjevol zogenaamde christenen onder veel publiciteit Korans gaat verbranden, of wanneer een Deense krant een “beledigende” cartoon publiceert. Groepen zijn makkelijk te mobiliseren in die landen, zondenbokken makkelijk aan te wijzen en zich onttrekken aan de groepsdruk komt niet voor in het denkraam van de eenvoudige moslim in Afghanistan. Alles wordt bepaald door wat de gezaghebbers als wetgeving zien in de Koran.

Dit moet allemaal in aanmerking worden genomen als je het hiermee niet eens bent. Niet roepen dat je je ondergeschikt maakt aan een vreemd soort godsdienst, maar vermijden te provoceren met anti-islam-uitspraken en handelingen. Die worden alleen maar gebruikt om de vooringenomenheid van veel moslims tegen het rijke “Westen” (voorbijgaand aan de exorbitante rijkdom en uitbuiterij in sommige oliestaten in eigen gelederen) te voeden en haat aan te wakkeren. Tact en respect zijn hier aan de orde in het Westen, niet populisme en islam-haat, daarvoor biedt onze wetgeving de ruimte gelukkig.

Ietsisme deel III

2010-07-08T16:45:00.001+02:00

(deleted - in revision)

Ietsisme

2010-06-29T19:57:00.002+02:00

(deleted - in revision)

Godsdienst

2010-06-25T12:18:00.003+02:00

deleted (in revision)

Het Christelijk geloof

2010-06-22T13:53:00.002+02:00

deleted (in revision)

het politieke correctisme

2009-12-10T15:36:00.000+01:00

Islam in Nederland: wat is politiek-maatschappelijk correct?

Gisteren zag ik een interview van Andries Knevel met Geert Wilders, en daarvoor had ik een uitgebreid artikel gelezen in HP-De Tijd over Wilder’s ideologische bronnen in Scandinavië. Hij is voor de rechter gesleept vanwege het beledigen van bevolkingsgroepen.

Men kan zeggen dat ’s mans methoden en aanpak niet de schoonheidsprijs verdienen, maar in de kern wijst hij op een reëel gevaar. Zijn tegenstanders doen geen enkele moeite zijn argumenten te ontkrachten, maar maken hem belachelijk. Veel goed-geïntegreerde moslims reduceren hem tot een “klein mannetje naar wie het niet de moeite waard is te luisteren”, intellectuelen en politici noemen hem een opruiende populist, en sommigen noemen zijn partij een soort NSB. Toch haalt hij 20-30 kamerzetels in de virtuele verkiezingen.

Toch zijn het diezelfde tegenstanders, te zoeken in vooral PvdA-kringen en verlichte moslims, die het beeld oproepen van gevaar, Wilders verwoordt het alleen. De jeugd ziet dat gevaar niet, die ziet in de Islam een manier om zich te profileren en af te zetten tegen de “gevestigde orde” en genieten volop van de vrijheden in dit land. Onlangs zag ik op een weblog een foto van twee vrolijk de camera inkijkende, hoofddoekjes dragende jongemeiden, die zich er blijkbaar niet van bewust waren dat het zich zomaar op de foto laten zetten door een onbekende fotograaf op straat totaal niet haram is, zeker niet voor vrouwen. De Islam is voor hen hoogstens een spirituele verrijking, en zeker geen schrikbeeld, vandaar hun hoofddoekje.

Wilder’s tegenstanders roepen dat Wilders de Islam demoniseert. Heus, het maakt niet uit of je moslim bent, je bent ook Nederlander en je eerbiedigt dus de Nederlandse wetgeving. Zij keren zich ook tegen “moslim”-jongeren die zich misdragen. Echter, nooit zul je van hen een woord van kritiek horen op moslimgebruiken, op de Islam of de Koran, zoals veel Nederlanders dat wel doen. Hoe verklaren zij dat overal in het Midden-oosten christenen worden gediscrimineerd, het leven zuur gemaakt en weggepest door moslimbroeders? Waarom dragen zij hoofddoekjes in een soort masochisme, want ze weten dat ze hierover op straat en openbare ruimten opmerkingen krijgen? Zo van lekker puh, ik draag als een soort martelares een hoofddoekje, een soort vlag op mijn hoofd? Hoe verklaren zij de opmerking die je vaak hoort van moslims: wacht maar, straks zijn wij de baas want we krijgen veel meer kinderen dan jullie en we blijven immigreren, straks zal ook hier sharia heersen? Hoe verklaren zij de onmogelijkheid voor westerse vrouwen om in landen als Pakistan blootshoofds over straat te gaan, laat staan dat een christelijk priester dat doet in zijn ambtsgewaad? Het verbod op het importeren van een bijbel, de doodstraf of uitstoting en verbanning als men zich bekeert tot een ander geloof? Het strenge verbod om een ander geloof te prediken dan de Islam, behalve voor eigen geloofsgenoten in de kerk? Is dat niet in naam van de Islam, of is dat een ander soort Islam, waar zij dus geen, ik herhaal geen afstand van nemen, maar alleen van zeggen: in dit land moet men de wetten van dit land naleven om er vervolgens achteraan te denken: tot ook hier de sharia zal zijn ingevoerd.

Wat heeft Geert Wilders nu eigenlijk misdaan? Ik heb hem nog nooit op een racistische opmerking betrapt zoals Hitler en kornuiten dat deden bij de Joden of Amerikanen en Afrikanen bij zwarten, integendeel, hij put zich uit in pleidooien voor godsdienstvrijheid, om meteen daarna te zeggen dat godsdienstvrijheid voor de Islam niet bestaat. Het is dus onzin om dezelfde vrijheden toe te staan aan een godsdienst die zichzelf superieur acht, en die zelfs het wetsysteem wil veranderen, d.w.z. staatsgevaarlijk is, als aan andere godsdiensten die je nooit hoort over het aantasten van onze wetten. Is dat logisch of niet?

Nu hoor je als tegen-argument dat lang niet alle moslims zo zijn. Wil de burgemeester van Rotterdam de Nederlandse wetten vervangen door de sharia en is hij daar in zijn ambt mee bezig? Hoe zit het met de plaatselijke politici in de grote steden die toch ook voor een groot deel moslim zijn? Een ervan beweert zelfs dat hij “de Islam thuislaat” als hij met zijn werk bezig is. En we hebben Tariq Ramadan, de bruggenbouwer. Ik ben het nog steeds niet eens met zijn ontslag, maar zie hem wel als een intellectueel die veel doet voor vooral de Islam en ook het propageren van een meer westers-georienteerde Islam. Maar hoe je het ook wendt of keert, per definitie streeft de Islam naar onderwerping, want zij acht zichzelf zonder enige tegenspraak of kritiek te dulden, het enig juiste systeem. Islam betekent ook letterlijk “onderwerping”.

Jezus Christus zei: als u mijn boodschap verkondigt, en de mensen willen niet luisteren, klop dan het stof van uw sandalen en vervolg uw weg. Wat zegt Mohammed en wat zegt de Koran? Dood hen of onderwerp hen. Of is dat enkel symbolisch bedoeld? De Christenen en Joden hoeven niet dood, maar moeten hun godsdienst in het verborgene beoefenen, extra belasting betalen, en worden geweerd uit openbare ambten. In de praktijk gaat dit nog verder, maar dat is iets van de laatste jaren, sinds de opkomst van het fundamentalisme.

De Islam belemmert ook de ontwikkeling van mensen. Studeren is immers niet nodig, want de Koran heeft overal een antwoord op, zoals op TV tijdens een debat een overtuigde moslim glimlachend hoorde zeggen, en die glimlach was niet omdat hij het ironisch bedoelde, maar het was de glimlach van de wijze alweter. Moslim-studenten, knoop dat in uw oren. En zeker geen menswetenschappen (sociologie, psychologie, laat staan godsdienstpsychologie) of letterkunde van een westerse cultuur. Op de hotelschool heb ik lesgegeven aan moslimstudenten, die vrolijk alcohol dronken tijdens de lessen in wijnkunde, en bier op studentenfeestjes, maar diep beledigd waren toen ik een geschilderd portret van Mohammed liet zien. Wel de vrijheden die men hier geniet, maar niet de inhoud van de godsdienst. In islamitische landen kent men dat onderscheid helaas niet. Kritiek op de Islam is hier in het land een groot taboe, respect is wat geëist wordt, ook voor daden, gebruiken en gewoonten in islamitische landen, het “huis van de Islam”.

Hubble's law and beyond

2009-11-25T13:35:00.004+01:00

A TV program and a book made me decide, once and for all, that at the borders of the observable the laws of logic are no longer valid. Maybe they will be replaced there by other laws, which we don’t know (yet), but probably they will, if they exist, be beyond the scope of human capabilities to understand. For the time being we ‘ll have to live with ignorance about any systems, logic, or predictability in this world around the borders of observation.

When I read that an observation itself influences the behaviour of a tiny hardly observable particle, like if I observe a tree and make it suddenly appear at farther or nearer distance from me, just because of my observation, or when I read that half a particle, separated from the other half, influences the behaviour of the other half, even at a distance of billions of light years, then I try to understand that further research will be needed to explain these magical phenomena.

But there is more: take the cosmological “law” of Hubble. It assumes that objects in the universe are moving away from each other. This finding is based on the observation that the color of far-away galaxies shows a shift to red which can only be attributed to the fact that it moves from us, like the sound of a train shows a shift in pitch when it moves away from us standing along the railway (the “Doppler effect”). The farther away the galaxy, the more red-shift it shows, so the faster it moves from us. Hubble’s law says that the distance from the earth at which a galaxy is located, divided by the speed at which it moves from us, is constant. In other words, there is a linear correlation between distance and speed: the farther away a galaxy is located from us, the faster it moves from us.

We don’t talk here about miles or even parsecs (= the distance between Earth and Sun) but about millions of Megaparsecs, billions of light-years (a light year is the distance that light travels in one year). We talk about the borders of the universe, the borders of the observable things and events. The Andromeda galaxy, for instance, is located four million light-years away from us, and it moves towards us instead of away from us. This is “allowed” by Hubble’s law, because the distance to our own galaxy is too small (!), and gravity overrules Hubble.

So far, so good. We have to take into account that this knowledge about the universe is very, very recent. People like Einstein gave a boost to cosmology. Before him, we thought that the universe consisted of only the galaxy where we live in, our Milky Way, and in the nineteenth century we were, despite the invention of telescopes, still at about the same level as the ancient Arabs or the Greek (the Middle Ages saw a decrease in knowledge because the Bible was propagated as the ultimate source of all insights).

So the danger is exists that our scientists rely too much on a scientific construction that is built on too weak assumptions. Calculation and logical construction of formulas is patient, computers will always do their work, neatly and correctly according to the rules of mathematics and logic. But we already discovered that on cosmological scale, Euclidian (=traditional, generally understood and accepted ) mathematics don’t work, e.g. the shortest distance between points is, on cosmological scale, not the straight line between the two points, as we all accept it is. Don’t ask me why, I’m not a mathematician or cosmologist.

Now I’m approaching my point, my big question. There is a big anomaly in this story of far-away galaxies that move away from each other (and, according to another cosmological law, by consequence, also from us on Earth). In several publications that try to explain the findings of scholars to us lay-people, I have read that the farther we look into the cosmos, the farther we look into the past. So when I see the planet Mars, I don’t see Mars in its present situation, but in the situation it was twenty minutes ago. The image of Mars takes twenty minutes to travel from Mars to my eyes, at light speed. The same must hold for a galaxy at 10 billion light years away, or a galaxy at 10 million light years away.

Referring to Hubble’s law, scientists discovered around 1990 that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Note well, that the expansion speed already accelerates according to Hubble's law itself in a linear correlation with distance, but now it had been discovered that it also accelerates as a total, so Hubble's acceleration has to be multiplied by a certain factor. Up to then, Hubble’s law was helpful to reason that this expansion rate would be decreasing in time, because of the gravity force. Then there would be a period of balance, after which the universe would start to shrink, ending up in the “Big Crunch”. A nice, symmetrical theory which would explain for a periodic sequence of several universes one after the other: after the “Big Crunch” or maybe even simultaneously, there would be a new “Big Bang”. But now this whole beautiful theory had to be overhauled and replaced by the view on a completely dead and cold universe in the far future with extinguished stars (not stars anymore) moving away from each other, dark and not “aware” of each other, in an unimaginably big empty space without any light or whatever: the almost complete nothing would be achieved, absolute minimal temperature (zero degrees Kelvin) would rule everywhere. So this idea of an expanding universe is not the whole story, it’s also expanding at an accelerating rate. The scientists try to explain the aberration from the laws of gravity by introducing a new force, so weak, that it only works at cosmological scale. It’s more or less the opposite of gravity, it’s pushing objects away from each other.

But my point is: OK, so far so good, but if we are looking back into the past, don’t we have to conclude then that this accelerating speed also took place in the past? Why do cosmologists shout from the roofs that our universe “is expanding at an accelerating rate” when they observe this rate in situations that have been millions, billions of years ago? The closer we get to our Earth, the more recent observations we make, and we see that not that long ago, this speed of moving away objects and galaxies is gradually slowing down, neatly according to Hubble’s law. Preliminary conclusion: the universe is expanding at a decreasing rate, just the opposite of what cosmologists are concluding.

I said “preliminary conclusion” because we also must conclude that we cannot observe things or events beyond the border of the speed of light. We are not able to observe the here and now elsewhere, because of the speed of light, just like we are not able to hear the hammer fall on the pole the moment it hits the pole, when the pole is being hammered a few hundreds of meters away from us. We hear this a second or so after we have seen the hit. We don’t even see it the moment it hits the pole, but the time it takes for the image “pole-hitting hammer” to reach our eye is so extremely short that it’s not observable (although it exists). The only thing cosmologists can do is writing the history of the universe, and extrapolations to the future are doubtful. It’s already impossible to imagine a universe that is distributed evenly all around us, and that looks alike regardless of any location in the universe, with no observable centre or clustering of matter indicating a centre where the Big Bang could have taken place some 13 billion of years ago as the scientists have calculated with the aid of Hubble’s law.

I find myself alone in this question, I read about it nowhere . Everybody seems to take for granted what the scientists proclaim. Either I am struggling with a question just like an ignorant student who still has to see the light, or I’m just concluding something very simple, not by formulas and arithmetic, but by reasoning. But maybe there is a third explanation for my question, the one I referred to in the beginning: we are confronted with the borders of our observable world, and then all kinds of anomalies and illogical phenomena will appear. I think that’s the area where creation starts. Creation isn’t an event that took place in the past, it’s still going on, and we are trying to catch its mechanisms, but must admit we are restricted in our observation and calculation capacities. It’s hard to accept, but true.

Hoofddoekjes en boerka's: onbenullig of belangrijk?

2009-09-29T12:47:00.003+02:00

Dit is de eerste van een reeks korte opstellen waarin overeenkomsten en verschillen tussen enerzijds de christelijk-liberale Nederlandse cultuur, en anderzijds de Islamitisch-theocratische moslimcultuur worden belicht.

Ter toelichting op de titel: in de pers maar ook in de literatuur (bv. Joris Luyendijk in zijn boek "Tipje van de sluier") wordt betwist dat er een "Nederlandse" of een "Islamitische" cultuur zou bestaan. Natuurlijk zijn er binnen de Islam en binnen Nederland verschillende culturen te onderscheiden, maar al die culturen en subculturen hebben toch elementen die hen tot één nationale c.q. internationale cultuursamenbinden. In een van de volgende bijdragen kom ik daar op terug.

De vrijheid van godsdienst is een beginsel dat de vrijheid van een individu of gemeenschap ondersteunt om haar of zijn godsdienst of levensovertuiging te uiten in onderwijs, handelingen, eredienst en en voorschriften. (Artikel 18 van de Universele Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens). Het hoofddoekje is in een aantal Europese landen en Turkije zelf een heet hangijzer geworden. Een hangijzer, omdat hier een concreet en tastbaar onderwerp voorhanden is om te “getuigen”. Des te meer geldt dit natuurlijk voor de boerka. Volgens het bovengenoemd artikel is iedereen vrij om een hoofddoekje of boerka te dragen, toch levert het blijkbaar problemen op in landen die van oudsher bekend staan om hun tolerantie voor de diverse godsdiensten. In België bijnvoorbeeld is het hoofddoekje onderwerp van politieke en maatschappelijke discussie, terwijl de lange rokken van de pastoors en de hoeden en vlechten van orthodoxe Joden daar nooit een probleem waren. Voor België en Frankrijk betekent “scheiding van Kerk en Staat” en “godsdienstvrijheid” dat de openbare ruimte vrij zou moeten zijn van godsdienstige uitingen. Dat is dus niet overeenkomstig de Universele Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens, en bovendien inconsequent want tot de massale immigratie van moslims gold dit blijkbaar niet voor priesters en orthodoxe Joden.
Nederland kent sinds de Verlichting eveneens een intolerante traditie, maar hier was het tonen van godsdienstige tekens en symbolen in de openbare ruimte uitsluitend toegestaan aan protestanten in het midden en noorden van het land, slechts in het zuiden eveneens aan de Rooms-Katholieken. In de tijd die aan de verzuiling voorafging, was de Nederlands Hervormde Kerk de bevoordeelde kerk, d.w.z. hoge ambtenaren moesten Nederlands Hervormd zijn, zelfs de koning (Willem I) bemoeide zich met het opstellen van regels voor deze kerk. Nog tot de grondwetswijziging van 1989 bestond in Nederland het processieverbod voor protestantse gebieden. De Hoge Raad achtte dit in 1962 niet in strijd met het hierboven aangehaalde artikel uit de Universele verklaring van de rechten van de mens, ondanks ook de in de Grondwet verankerde vrijheid van godsdienst.
Ten tijde van de Republiek, toen de Gereformeerde Kerk (de voorloper van de Nederlands-Hervormde kerk en de veelheid van denominaties die wij “protestanten” noemen) een geprivilegieerde positie innam, benaderde ons land het staatskerksysteem. Volgens artikel 36 van de Nederlandse geloofsbelijdenis (1561) was het de taak van de overheid ‘om te weren en uit te roeien alle afgoderij, en valse godsdienst, om het rijk des antichrists te gronde te werpen’. In 1796 werd de scheiding van kerk en staat een feit. De ﬁnanciële gelijkstelling van openbaar en bijzonder onderwijs bij de grondwetsherziening van 1917 markeerde het begin van wat de verzuiling is gaan heten. Het betekende dat vier levensbeschouwelijke hoofdstromingen elkaar particulier verketterden, maar in het openbare leven en in het landsbestuur elkaar gedoogden en zelfs samenwerkten. Twee van die stromingen waren religieus (“confessioneel”) van karakter, twee seculier: Rooms-katholiek, protestants, liberaal en socialistisch. De twee seculiere overlapten ook nog eens voor een groot deel de twee confessionele, en binnen de vier waren ook diverse afsplitsingen en varianten te onderkennen.
Vooral de godsdienst bleek een splijtzwam. Orthodoxe dominees gruwden van het rooms katholicisme, en brachten dit over op de geloofsgenoten. Pastoors waren veel milder in hun oordeel over de protestantse orthodoxie, mogelijk vanuit de defensieve houding die zij in Nederland waren gewend aan te nemen tegenover de “officiële godsdienst”, de godsdienst van de watergeuzen en de Oranjes. Het dédain voor het Rooms-Katholicisme dat Willem I aan de dag legde was ook een belangrijke aanleiding tot de afsplitsing van België van Nederland. De tolerante Willem II kon dit niet meer goedmaken. België beschikte over een invloedrijke katholieke elite, die in Nederland lang zo sterk niet was. Deze elite moest weinig hebben van de protestantse machthebbers uit het noorden. Mogelijk vreesden zij ook het respect voor het gewone volk, eigen aan het protestantisme, en machtsverlies van de kerk die hen steeds ondersteunde. Zo heeft de katholieke bevolking in de provincies Limburg en Noord-brabant zich steeds moeten verdedigen en pas na 1917 verwierven de katholieken officieel volledig erkenning.
Sinds de zestiger jaren heeft een gestage afname plaatsgevonden van het gevoel bij een kerk of godsdienst te horen. Volgens het onderzoek Godsdienstige Veranderingen in Nederland (SCP, 2006) blijkt dat in het jaar 2000 62% van de Nederlanders niet verbonden was met een of andere kerk of godsdienst. Dit percentage loopt in 2020 op naar 72%. De Islam echter blijkt jaarlijks te groeien. In 2000 is 5% van de Nederlanders islamitisch. Dit loopt op naar 8% in 2020, een percentage dat nog 4 maal kleiner is dan dat van de christelijke kerken, en 9 maal kleiner dan het percentage onkerkelijken, die zichzelf overigens voor een onbekend, groot deel nog steeds “religieus” blijven noemen.
De Islam, zoals die beleden wordt door de meeste immigranten, verschilt wezenlijk van het christendom, niet alleen qua inhoud, maar ook qua beleving. De Islam komt voort uit de traditie van volkeren waar men zeer sterk op elkaar en op traditie is aangewezen. Familie en lokale overgeleverde gewoonten en gebruiken spelen een grote rol, er wordt sterk gehecht aan de groep waarvan men lid is, en (misschien wel daardoor) “voorkomen van gezichtsverlies” en “respect” zijn er belangrijke waarden. Dat gezicht wordt al snel verloren, want het aantal regels waaraan “men” zich te houden heeft, en die hun oorsprong vinden in de Koran (althans volgens de gangbare interpretaties onder het volk) is groot. Overtreding ligt steeds op de loer. Waarden die respect afdwingen en het groepsgevoel benadrukken, zijn veel sterker dan in Nederland van oudsher het geval was.
Deze islamitische instroom heeft bij binnenkomst en ook lang daarna geen enkel besef van de waarden en de geschiedenis ervan in Nederland. In Nederland worden elkaars godsdiensten, evenals het atheïsme, gerespecteerd, en houdt de staat zich buiten godsdienstige kwesties. In Nederland is men zeker niet gewend aan het opleggen van gedragsregels aan elkaar, behalve in de van oudsher orthodox-protestante dorpen in de Bible Belt. In de meeste Islamitische landen ziet een groot deel van de bevolking de sharia als ideale rechtssysteem, en de overheid als hoeder van de godsdienst, dus precies andersom als in ons land. Een aantal regeringen van die landen modelleert zich graag als Westerse democratie, maar moet wat dat betreft op eieren lopen om zich niet de woede van het volk op de hals te halen. In Irak, Iran en Afghanistan worden bv. verkiezingen gehouden, maar verkiezingen horen niet tot de culturele traditie van die landen, dus eindigen ze steevast in strijd vanwege vervalsingen en fraude, volkomen te goeder trouw begaan door mensen die vinden dat ze de duivel niet mogen helpen door hem de verkiezingen te laten winnen. In Egypte werden tijdens de afgelopen ramadan mensen gearresteerd omdat ze op straat overdag stonden te eten, hoewel in de Egyptische wet (naar westelijk model ingericht) niet staat dat dit verboden is.
In West-Europa wordt gegruwd bij de gedachte dat er door een overheid of geestelijkheid gedragingen worden opgelegd aan de hele bevolking, die gemotiveerd zijn vanuit een bepaalde godsdienst. De Islam wemelt van verplichtingen en verboden, en de overheid wordt geacht een aantal daarvan actief te ondersteunen door wetgeving, het liefst zagen velen in die landen dat de sharia onverkort zou worden aanvaard als de wetgeving van het land. Met name Iran heeft een revolutie doorgemaakt die precies omgekeerd was aan de Franse revolutie. In de Franse revolutie werden de priesters opgeknoopt door ongelovigen, in Iran knoopten de geestelijken de ongelovigen op.
De immigratie door de Islam heeft in West-Europa in het algemeen, en in Nederland in het bijzonder, gezorgd voor heroverweging van de Universele Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens. Moet het een godsdienst worden toegestaan zich te uiten, als die godsdienst zich niet kan of wil verenigen met eveneens diezelfde Universele Verklaring in haar verplichtingen en geboden? Het hoofddoekje en de boerka worden gebruikt als tastbaar en dankbaar discussie-object. Dat veel moslims geen kaas hebben gegeten van godsdienstvrijheid als staatsrechtelijk principe, wordt duidelijk als men ziet dat men de gang naar de rechter en naar de Commissie Gelijke Behandeling wonderwel weet te vinden, en men zich beroept op vrijheden die men in eigen kring aan de eigen leden ontzegt. De rechter en de Commissie moeten moslims dikwijls in het gelijk stellen, zij moeten zich houden aan de Nederlandse wet. Veel Nederlanders reageren allergisch als zij merken dat, om enkele voorbeelden te noemen, een moslim-advocaat weigert op te staan voor een rechter (zijn geloof zou hem dat verbieden), een moslim-man weigert een vrouwelijke minister de hand te schudden (idem), een gesluierde vrouw wel uitkering ontvangt, maar weigert met onbedekt gelaat te solliciteren (idem).
Binnen de Nederlandse politiek en media woedt een discussie over het al dan niet tonen van begrip voor deze op zichzelf genomen onbenullige zaken. Ze zijn niet onbenullig, omdat ze een sterke symboolwerking hebben, namelijk minachting (zo voelen veel Nederlanders dat) voor de Nederlandse cultuur en geschiedenis. Het aantal gesluierde vrouwen is miniem, het krijgen van een hand volstrekt onbelangrijk en de rechter zal zich niet beledigd voelen als een advocaat weigert voor hem op te staan. Het gaat om de symboolwerking: jullie Nederlanders zijn onwetend en moeten je maar aan ons aanpassen, het gaat om ons heilig geloof, trouwens wij zijn ook Nederlanders. De strijd om het begrip hiervoor wordt ook gevoerd door de verschijning van een groot aantal boeken over wat de Islam en de Koran nu eigenlijk inhouden, en het opduiken van vele voorlichtende internetsites. Deze zijn alle bedoeld om begrip te kweken voor de Islam. De boeken en de sites gaan ervan uit dat een Nederlandse onkerkelijke of gelovig-christelijke lezer begrip kan opbrengen voor de vele riten, voorschriften en gebruiken zonder welke men geen goed mens zou kunnen zijn, en die zorgen voor het zielenheil van degene die ze navolgt. De ongelovige zegt dat allemaal niets en hij wil zich er ook niet in verdiepen, omdat hij geen persoonlijk probleem ervaart als hij ze niet kent, laat staan niet navolgt. Hij zal terecht zeggen dat in dit land vrijheid van godsdienst bestaat, en dat de moslim thuis en in de moskee mag doen wat hem goeddunkt, maar dat op het werk, op straat, in de omgangsvormen, in de winkels, op TV, in de restaurants en in het bank- en verzekeringswezen de wetten van ons land gelden en niet die van de Islam.
De aversie tegen landgenoten en immigranten die zich in hun kleding overduidelijk als moslim presenteren, ligt mijns inziens niet in de eerste plaats in de overlast door Marokkaanse jongens in de grote steden, maar vooral ook in het gebrek aan belangstelling die moslims aan de dag leggen voor Nederlandse cultuur, waarden en historie enerzijds, en anderzijds de Islam op een hautaine manier propageren als de grote heilscultuur voor individu en samenleving. Ideeën waarvan men in het westen reeds lang afscheid heeft genomen. Bovendien zien Westerlingen hoe moslims elkaar vermoorden (Sjieten en Soennieten) en in hun landen de niet-moslims het leven zuur maken.
Vandaar dat een hoofddoekjesverbod geen zin heeft. De moslimwereld zal zich door haar nadruk op respect en gezichtsbehoud, beledigd voelen en geen milliseconde nadenken over hoe een dergelijk verbod past binnen een welwillende, Westerse traditie. De jonge schoolgaande meisjes zullen ook hun hakken in het zand zetten, eventueel samen met hun ouders. Een hoofddoekjesverbod werkt polariserend. Ook wanneer zoals in Antwerpen er nog maar één middelbare school is die ze toestaat, moet ze blijven toegestaan. De school die het betreft, doet er beter aan de leerlingen op te voeden tot respect voor Westerse waarden en andere godsdiensten dan de Islam, dan roepen dat ze een “Islamitische school” dreigt te worden als ze het hoofddoekje niet verbiedt.
Het toestaan van hoofddoekjes past in een cultuur waarin de UVRM wordt gerespecteerd, en ook RK religieuzen en orthodoxe Joden hun kledij wordt toegestaan. Een uitkering aan een boerka-draagster moet m.i. worden geweigerd, evenals vrouwen uit banen kunnen worden geweerd waarin het niet-dragen van een hoofddoekje of de boerka, of het geven van een hand, als noodzakelijk wordt gezien voor het uitvoeren van het werk waarvoor men is ingehuurd.

Hoofddoekjes en de strijd erom zijn tegelijk ook een wapen in de handen van de algemeen-fundamentele, kosmopolitische stroming in de Islam die de verschillende subculturen in Islamitische landen aan het afzwakken is: overal hetzelfde model hoofddoekje, overal dezelfde jurken en kalotjes voor mannen, overal dezelfde strenge en zo letterlijk mogelijke interpretatie van de Koran. Een verbod van hoofddoekjes werkt deze stroming in de hand, ze wakkert onlustgevoelens en strijd aan en verhindert communicatie.

Nogmaals het rookverbod in de horeca.

2009-07-14T15:20:00.003+02:00

Andries de Vries uit Lelystad geeft eigenlijk alleen maar argumenten waar je het eens mee kunt zijn. Dat komt omdat hij natuurlijk opgelucht is als niet-roker, en blij is met elke vermindering van rook in zijn omgeving. Roken is slecht dat weet ik ook, en in deze tijd moet alles wat slecht is voor de gezondheid worden teruggedrongen. Neem bv. ook al die mensen met overgewicht, waaronder veel kinderen, en het alcoholprobleem dat van alle tijden schijnt te zijn. Ook moet het autorijden met veiligheidsvoorschriften omgeven worden en moeten we ons houden aan de verkeersregels.

Waar het mij echter, en met mij velen, over de schoenen loopt is de steeds groter wordende bedilzucht van de overheid. Ik schrijf dat toe aan vier dingen, die min of meer met elkaar samenhangen.

1. de golf van privatisering in het recente verleden

2. de steeds toenemende vrees voor aansprakelijkheid bij instanties en organisaties (waaronder de overheden zelf)

3. de toegenomen criminaliteit en oncontroleerbaarheid van grensverkeer en

4. de toegenomen politieke macht van pressiegroepen

Omdat ik roker ben ondervind ik de directe gevolgen van de regelzucht. Verder ben ik ook gastouder voor een jeugd-hulpverleningsinstantie. Daardoor word ik geconfronteerd met vele bezoeken van begeleidende mensen die meer bezig zijn met het invullen van formulieren en het maken van verslagen voor de overheid, dan met hulp-werkzaamheden. Zelf moet ik die verslagen ook invullen. Hetzelfde zie ik ook bij de instelling waar mijn verstandelijk gehandicapte broer woont. Aanleiding hiertoe zijn enkele voorvallen uit het verleden waarover nogal wat te doen is geweest in de politiek, en dus worden er nieuwe verantwoordingsregels gecreëerd.

Nu moeten we straks allemaal vingerafdrukken afstaan als we een paspoort aanvragen, die komen in een gigantische databank. Gelukkig zijn hier al juristen in het geweer gekomen. Op mijn werk, een HBO-instelling, worden we helemaal doodgeregeld. Docent ben je niet meer, je bent onderwijskundig medewerker (de woorden van een staatssecretaris). Als je vindt dat een werkstuk een 5 waard is en geen 6, moet je dat uitgebreid verantwoorden met procedures waar de student recht op heeft. Dus moeten de beoordelingen worden ingevuld op grote lijsten met nauw sluitende, gedetailleerde criteria, zogenaamde “scoring rubrics”. Niemand van mijn collega’s volgt die nauwgezet, omdat je dan een dubbele dagtaak hebt. Verantwoording geschiedt dan noodgedwongen achteraf als het nodig is.

We zien het ook in de taxiwereld. Ook daar wordt nu geroepen om meer en strengere regels, nadat het taxi-wezen eerst was geprivatiseerd, dwz aan de marktwerking overgelaten.

Kortom, nadat in de vijftiger en zestiger jaren de overheid, de vakbonden in de SER en enkele zeer grote (staats)bedrijven degenen waren die in dit land de lakens uitdeelden, is deze macht nu versnipperd over velen dankzij de privatisering en de pers die breed alle kleine en grote misstanden als rode-orenverhalen uitmeet. Nu geen krachtdadige overheid meer maar een parlement dat schijnt te bestaan bij gratie van de vele, vele vragen die individuele kamerleden stellen over wat er nu weer voor ergs is gebeurd. De vroegere pressiegroepen, die toendertijd als vervelende luizen in de pels werden gezien, zijn nu evenwaardig geworden aan de vele organen en instanties die de overheid als adviseur dienen. Zo ook de anti-rooklobby, die nu dus het horeca-rookverbod erdoor heeft gekregen. Rokers worden nu gezien als meelijwekkende verslaafden die hier en daar nog een hoekje mogen hebben, zelfs op de stations dienen zij zich in de open lucht te scharen rond speciale asbakken, zodat de rookhaters weten dat ze daar niet moeten komen.

Privatisering oké, maar de overheid blijft wel verantwoordelijk voor het welzijn van de burgers. Vandaar de berg regels die over ons wordt uitgestort, want de verzelfstandigde scholen, ziekenhuizen, zorg-instellingen en vervoersbedrijven moeten wel blijven doen waarvoor ze bestaan, en wel zo dat de rijken niet worden bevoordeeld. We krijgen dus nog meer regels, en nog meer medewerkers die daar formulieren en verslagen voor moeten invullen. Bestaande medewerkers let wel, want er mogen er niet meer bijkomen want dat is natuurlijk te duur. Daarnaast krijgt ook de individuele burger de regels voor zijn kiezen, want we moeten met ons allen gezonder gaan leven en er mogen niet teveel criminelen en illegalen het land binnenkomen. Het opengooien van grenzen dient de marktwerking, maar de ongewenste neven-effecten moeten met regels worden gedicht waar we allemaal last van hebben.

De regels die er van oudsher zijn blijven natuurlijk van kracht, zelden wordt er een regel afgeschaft. De regel die het roken verbiedt in alle horecagelegenheden heeft ertoe geleid dat ik alleen maar in een café of restaurant kom als dat niet anders kan, net zoals vroeger de niet-roker dat deed, en wat ik zie zijn verontschuldigende gezichten en opmerkingen van de horeca-eigenaar, die van alles doet om het “leed” te verzachten. Ik zie nog steeds niet in waarom een horeca-baas die geen personeel heeft, desalniettemin toch een rookverbod moet hebben in zijn café, uit concurrentie-overwegingen? Kom nou, dat is toch tegen de marktwerking?

Ik pleit niet voor een terugkeer naar een sterke alles omvattende overheid, met cafés en huiskamers die blauw stonden van de rook. Dat ik op school niet mag roken is alleszins begrijpelijk, ik ken de situatie van rokende leraren maar al te goed. Maar of het nu zó moet, dat is vragen om burgerlijke ongehoorzaamheid.

Tot slot nog twee voorbeelden van regels die zijn afgeschaft die ik mij voor de geest kan halen:

Uit de standaard-algemene politieverordening is sinds zo’n 25 jaar afgeschaft de regel dat paarden niet zichtbaar vanaf de openbare weg de liefde mogen bedrijven en ook is afgeschaft het verbod op religieuze processies buiten de traditioneel-katholieke provincies (zodat in Dokkum de Bonifatiusprocessie gehouden kan worden en de “stille omgang” in Amsterdam niet meer als een zwijgende stoet ’s nachts zonder enig vertoon hoeft plaats te vinden. Ik zou zeggen: noem mij eens een afgeschafte regel, waar heel veel mensen wat aan hebben, en die niet vervangen is door nieuwe regels die minstens even hinderlijk zijn. Misschien zijn die te vinden, maar het is zoeken als naar een regel in de Verzameling Koninklijke Besluiten.

Het rookverbod in de horeca: een zegen voor een ieder…

2009-07-14T14:22:00.001+02:00

Andries de Vries wilde reageren op mijn artikel over het rookverbod in de horeca, maar zijn bijdrage werd geweigerd omdat het te lang was. Vandaar dat hem hier opneem. Ik ben nog aan het schrijven om hem van repliek te dienen.

Toen op 1 juli 2008 het rookverbod in de horeca van kracht werd, haalde ik opgelucht adem. Wat fijn. Eindelijk horeca-gelegenheden bezoeken zonder last te hebben van die hinderlijke tabaksrook.Dat er verzet was en zou zijn, heeft me niet verbaasd. Ook niet dat die komt uit de hoek van de kleine horeca en met name de café’s op de hoek. Vaak zonder personeel. Is het dan niet betuttelend van de overheid om een algeheel rookverbod in te voeren, waardoor deze kleine horeca-ondernemers onevenredig hard getroffen worden? Ik vind van niet.De werknemersAls het gaat om de bescherming van werknemers, had het rookverbod helemaal niet ingevoerd hoeven te worden. Op grond van het Burgerlijk Wetboek dient een werkgever te zorgen voor een arbeidsplaats die geen nadelige invloed heeft op de gezondheid van de werknemer. Als hij daarin niet slaagt en de werknemer leidt schade bij de uitvoering van zijn werkzaamheden, is de werkgever aansprakelijk voor deze schade.Wellicht rookt de werknemer in de horeca zelf. Maar ook als hij als roker even niet rookt, wordt hij blootgesteld aan schadelijke stoffen, omdat hij voortdurend werkt in een ruimte waar gerookt wordt. De Arbowet gebiedt de werkgever maatregelen te nemen die gericht zijn op de bron van het risico. In dit geval het wegnemen van schadelijke tabaksrook. Dat betekent de werknemer laten werken in een ruimte waar die stof zich niet bevindt. Simpel gezegd: niet roken in ruimtes waar horeca-medewerkers werken.Nu is de horeca in de aanloop naar het rookverbod creatief geweest. Ze creëerde ruimten waar wel en ruimten waar niet gerookt mocht worden. Werknemers dienden echter wel de rommel van de gasten in de rookruimten op te ruimen. Dus sluitend was deze maatregel niet. Het rookverbod helpt de werkgevers in de horeca om aan de eisen van de Arbowet te voldoen en dit in een periode, waarin de overheid stelt dat werkgevers en werknemers dit beter zelf samen hadden kunnen oplossen. Op dit punt kunnen zij dit niet en dus helpt de overheid een handje.Nu kun je zeggen dat je kunt weten, als je in de horeca gaat werken, dat je met tabaksrook te maken krijgt. Maar dat is een argument dat geen hout snijdt. Een directeur van een ICT-bedrijf zei eens tegen mij dat, als je niet tegen RSI kunt, je beter niet in de ICT kunt gaan werken. Een gekke opmerking als je weet dat langer dan 5,5 uur beeldschermwerk per dag schadelijk is voor de gezondheid en veel mensen met RSI-gerelateerde klachten in de WAO/WIA zitten. Een oplossing voor het voorkomen van gezondheidsschade is simpel: niet meer dan 5,5 uur beeldschermwerk per dag en regelmatig op tijd pauzes inlassen.Roken en meeroken schaadt de gezondheid. Moet je daarom maar stellen dat je dat als (meestal jonge) werknemer die in de horeca gaat werken had kunnen weten? Nee. Juist deze werknemers dienen daartegen beschermd te worden. Dat is geen betutteling, maar verantwoording nemen.Wat dacht je van deelname aan het verkeer. Dat is, zie de cijfers, een riskante bezigheid. Daarom rijden we ook in auto’s die goed beschermd c.q. beveiligd zijn. Hebben we een prima systeem van regels, waaraan iedere verkeersdeelnemer zich dient te houden. Maar waarom gaat het vaak op fatale wijze mis? Om dat laatste: het niet houden aan de regels en het eigen vermogen overschatten. De Wegenverkeerswet is geen betutteling, maar bittere noodzaak, omdat de regel: “we lossen het samen wel op” in het verkeer niet werkt. En dat doet het in de horeca ook niet.Het rookverbod is niet betuttelend. Het laat zien dat de overheid een stap zet, die betrokken partijen niet durven te zetten, terwijl ze dat wel zouden moeten doen. Het rookverbod toont een moedige overheid en daar is altijd verzet tegen.En de gasten dan?Als rokende gast word ik belemmerd door het rookverbod. Het is een belemmering in mijn vrijheid om te roken op een plek waar ik gastvrijheid geniet. Als niet-rokende gast word ik belemmerd in mijn genieten van gastvrijheid als ik voortdurend wordt geconfronteerd met de tabaksrook van anderen. Dat geldt niet alleen voor café’s, maar ook voor restaurants en hotels.De grenzen van de gastvrijheid worden bepaald door de gastheer. Wie horeca bedrijft, stelt zijn private domein beschikbaar als publieke ruimte. Daarmee is de overheid mede gastheer geworden en is het rookverbod niet alleen een regel ter bescherming van de werknemer, maar ook een zaak van de volksgezondheid. Een overheid mag regels stellen die gelden tot in het publieke domein van de private ondernemer. Niet in zijn woonhuis, maar wel tot in zijn drinklokaal.Ik heb vaak horeca-ondernemers horen mopperen over de dalende omzet als gevolg van het rookverbod. Als dat werkelijk zo is, dient de overheid na te denken over compensatie. Maar ik denk vaker dat, als je failliet dreigt te gaan als gevolg van het rookverbod, je je beter kunt afvragen of je bedrijf in zijn huidige hoedanigheid wel bestaansrecht heeft. Het succesvol runnen van een horeca-bedrijf valt of staat toch niet bij het wel of niet mogen roken?

Andries de VriesLelystad, 13 juli 2009

Freedom of Speech

2009-05-28T10:42:00.000+02:00

At this moment a disussion is going on in the Netherlands about freedom of speech. Geert Wilders is being prosecuted (not convicted yet) because of “sowing hatred” between people, among others by his statement that the Quran is comparable to the autobiography of Hitler, a forbidden book in the Netherlands. At the same time, the leader of the liberal party Mark Rutten states that offending religious feelings and denying the holocaust must be possible without legal punishment. People from religious circles find that freedom of speech is of course an important value, codified in the constitution, but not at all prices.
It’s remarkable that Christian advocates of limitation of free speech always accuse the libertarians of being selective: freedom of speech for everybody who wants to offend religious feelings, but no freedom of speech for those who criticize Western values, such as imams and those who preach “war against the enemies of Islam”. I can’t understand this, because the libertarians are against those who want to limit freedom of speech, so it’s logical that they also try to limit the power and influence of those who want to limit it. Is there a fundamental difference between the two parties in their mindset of the world?
Anyway, saying something in public or writing or drawing things that go against deeply felt values of people is always unpleasant for those who adhere to the attacked values. In our country we have always accepted this more or less. In our country we know that we are a people with different values. Take the view on homosexuality. Those who are “against” homosexual manifestations and claim that homosexuals are not “normal” people but sinners trespassing natural and God’s laws, are continuously offended by what they see around them. They live in a “bad and sinful world”.
There’s a general law that everybody thinking a bit rational must agree with and that is the rule “don’t do to others what you don’t want others do to you”. In the present discussion, this rule is jeopardized. The rule seems reasonable and fair, but just apply it to the parties in this discussion: Mark Rutten doesn’t want to be muzzled by religious opinion leaders, but he wants to muzzle them. Why? Because he sees and hears how these others want to muzzle everybody who will criticize or offend their religious values. Most Muslim countries don’t have our separation between church and state, Islam is a “state religion”, and we can be sure that if Muslims get the power in the Netherlands, they will abandon this separation. It’s a matter of principle. We see also how a famous cabaret performer on TV offends Jesus on the cross and mocks with him just like the Roman soldiers. It was the first time in my life I felt feelings of disgust. I’m sure that if he would have been prosecuted, just like Geert Wilders, for “sowing hatred”, masses of fans would protest against this crying that there’s freedom of speech. But the cabaret performer is not prosecuted, because he doesn’t sow hatred, Christians are not allowed to hate.
So I don’t think we should legally prosecute people like Geert Wilders. Why should we do so only when the Islam is the offended religion? We should treat Islam just the same way as we treat other religions. When we are going to use the Muslim muzzling methods, then we are doing just the things Geert Wilders and Mark Rutten are warning for.

Another option is to also prosecute the cabaret performer mocking the holy cross, and get more strict in pursuing the goal of our constitution. This constition also says “there is freedom of speech within the limits of everybody’s responsibility towards the law”. There are many articles in the law that prohibit slander and defamation. Let’s just apply these rules more consistently. Our hesitation to apply these rules has been hindered by the jurisprudence of the last 50 years in which room was created for a more ample application of the concept of freedom of speech. But offending remains an intolerable act.

Het rookverbod in de horeca

2009-04-04T15:04:00.001+02:00

Het rookverbod in de horeca is van een betuttelingskarakter dat we slechts kennen uit Islamitische landen, het is een vrij land onwaardig. Onverminderd de bezwaren die er tegen het roken bestaan. Laten we eens kijken om welke redenen deze uitspraak niet overdreven is.
We beperken ons tot de enige reden en het enige motief: werknemers moeten te allen tijde en overal gevrijwaard blijven van lucht die tabaksrook bevat.

1. Er zijn tal van banen waarin werknemers zich in een risicovolle situatie begeven, voorbeelden hoef ik niet te noemen, maar laat ik het toch doen: stratenmaken, schepen schoonmaken, ramen wassen, op bouwwerken werken, in het onderwijs werken (stress!), werken in de nabijheid van vergif en exploderend materiaal, werken in het verkeer, enz. enz. In al deze gevallen wordt terecht geredeneerd, dat iemand vrij is in het kiezen van een baan, en dat de overheid er alles aan doet om de veiligheid zoveel mogelijk te waarborgen. Helemaal uitsluiten van risico is onmogelijk, omdat dan de bedrijfstak lamgelegd zou worden.

2. Uitlaatgassen en vervuiling worden in de open lucht talloze malen boven de gestelde normen getolereerd, evenals het gevaarlijke deelnemen aan het verkeer.

3. Mensen zijn vrij in het beschikken over ruimten binnen gebouwen die hun eigendom zijn, mits daar geen criminele of wetsovertredende kandelingen plaatsvinden (dat mag nl. nergens). Inbreuk hierop wordt als “huisvredebreuk” aangemerkt.

4. Een horeca-ondernemer is vrij een zaak te beginnen en te onderhouden als hij over de benodigde papieren en geld beschikt. In een horecabedrijf is hij gerechtigd huisregels in te stellen. Een klant van hem is vrij zijn zaak al of niet te betreden.
Zo is ook de werknemer vrij in het al dan niet aanvaarden van een betrekking bij de ondernemer.

5. De overheid legt natuurlijk regels op ten aanzien van arbeidsomstrandigheden. Ze gaat er van uit, dat de meeste horeca-werknemers niet-rokers zijn die schade ondervinden van de rook van klanten en rokende collega’s. De vraag is of dat zo is. Ja, dat is wetenschappelijk vastgesteld. Hierop zou ik willen zeggen dat werken zelf ook schadelijk kan zijn, onderzoek het maar en het zal blijken. Het zal moeilijk zijn om een activiteit te vinden die absoluut niet schadelijk is.

6. In horecabedrijven wordt het schadelijke alcohol gedronken. Nu kun je zeggen: ja maar daar heeft het personeel geen last van. Nee het personeel misschien niet, maar honderdduizenden anderen wel, uitweiding hierover is overbodig.

7. De wet die het roken in horecabedrijven verbiedt, is tot stand gekomen na een jaren- en jarenlange lobby van fervente tabakshaters, die het liefste het tabaksgebruik helemaal zouden willen verbieden. Het roken is afgenomen, er zijn nu ongeveer een kwart tot een derde van de volwassenen die nog roken, en die hun peuken vooral op straat gooien en niet meer in asbakken.

8. Het rookverbod in de horeca is tamelijk gratuit: het kost de overheid weinig geld en de economie gaat er niet op achteruit. Wel kan men politiek scoren ten opzichte van de niet-rokers. Hiervoor werd dus gekozen, ten koste van de algemene principes van de vrije rechtsstaat (zie hierboven).

9. Hierdoor wordt de deur geopend voor tal van andere voeten tussen de deur van ondernemers en particulieren. In België is al een wetsvoorstel in de maak om ouders het roken in het bijzijn van kinderen te verbieden, ook in hun eigen huis. Natuurlijk een sympathiek voorstel waarvoor je de handen van veel kiezers op elkaar krijgt. Maar laten we dan ook maar de agressieve videogames verbieden en het gebruik van Internet in huishoudens waar kinderen zijn. Nee natuurlijk want daar zijn hele industrieën aan gekoppeld met geld en werkgelegenheid.

10. Het rookverbod in de horeca is hypocriet omdat het schermt met bescherming van werknemers maar de beginselen van de rechtsstaat en de vrije keuze van werk en vrij ondernemerschap binnen de kaders van rechtvaardigheid en redelijke veiligheid, met voeten treedt. Zeker omdat alcohol en tabak voor veel mensen horen bij gastvrije gezelligheid die het product zijn van de horeca.

Een TV-discussie over creationisme en evolutietheorie

2009-03-03T12:55:00.003+01:00

Je kunt nu met een gerust hart zeggen dat evolutietheorie geen theorie meer is, maar onomstotelijk bewijs dat het leven op aarde zich ontwikkeld heeft volgens de wetten van evolutie, zoals beschreven door o.a. Charles Darwin en de latere correcties en aanvullingen op zijn werk. De onderzoekingen op het gebied van "snelle evolutie" en naar mijn idee ook de snelheid waarmee virussen zich aanpassen aan vaccins, ondersteunen de theorie aan alle kanten. Desondanks zijn er veel mensen die zich daar niets van aantrekken en blijven beweren dat alles in zes dagen is “geschapen”. Dat is bekend, en ook is bekend dat het met geloof te maken heeft. In de westerse cultuur maakt men daar een punt van. Dat is ook de verklaring dat een aanwezige orthodoxe moslim in het discussie-gezelschap, glimlachend over zoveel domheid, bleef beweren dat de “moderne wetenschappelijke inzichten” al lang bekend waren uit de Koran, dus waar maakten we ons druk over. Hij daagde iedereen uit te bewijzen dat ze niet in de Koran stonden. Hij kreeg geen gehoor, want de christenen in zijn gezelschap vonden hetzelfde in de Bijbel en de atheïsten vonden het überhaupt niet de moeite waard om op deze ”nonsens” te reageren.

Wat het Christendom betreft, kennen we uit de geschiedenis vele voorbeelden van bestrijding door de kerk van wat we nu de normaalste zaak van de wereld vinden zoals dat de aarde rond is, dat zij om de zon draait en niet de zon om de aarde, dat Jeruzalem of Rome niet het centrum van de wereld is, enz. Alleen met de evolutietheorie wil het maar niet lukken. Westerlingen zijn gepokt en gemazeld met de idee dat waarheid niet alleen spiritueel en transcendenteel is, maar ook en vooral tastbare werkelijkheid moet zijn. De predestinatietheorie van Calvijn is daarvan een mooi voorbeeld. Het is onmogelijk om het spirituele en waarneembare, tastbare met elkaar in overeenstemming te laten zijn, maar veel Christelijke theologen doen niet anders. De Bijbel staat ook vol met historisch echt klinkende verhalen, alsof alles echt gebeurd is. De meeste godsdiensten hebben dat soort verhalen, maar het weerhoudt de belijders ervan niet om verstandig en rationeel met hun leven om te gaan. Behalve in sommige gevallen, die vanuit Westerse optiek toch wel belangrijk zijn. Neem bv. de sharia, of neem de vele voorschriften waaraan je je als goede moslim of Jood moet houden. Het ophangen van homoseksueel geaarde mensen, het executeren van ex-geloofsgenoten, het in alle opzichten voorrang geven aan mannen in de maatschappij enz. kan niet rationeel worden genoemd.
Daarnaast zijn er theologen die hier geen punt van maken. Zij laten in het midden of de verhalen echt gebeurd zijn of niet. Om een goed gelovige te zijn, is het niet nodig in de letterlijke, door menselijke zintuigen waarneembare betekenis van de teksten te geloven. Bijvoorbeeld Augustinus geloofde niet in het scheppingsverhaal, integendeel, hij laat feilloos de ongerijmdheid ervan zien, niet door te bestrijden dat het gebeurd is, maar door de betekenis van de Godheid als transcendentaal Wezen te pogen te beschrijven, waardoor de God in het letterlijke scheppingsverhaal gereduceerd wordt tot een niet-goddelijk wezen, een soort tovenaar die straft omdat de twee creaturen die hij heeft gemaakt zich niet aan zijn bevelen houden.

Wat de Islam betreft, die zoekt het niet in bestrijding maar in adoptie. Alles is per definitie beschreven in de Koran, er kan gewoonweg niets zijn buiten de Koran om. Beweren dat de Koran "geen gelijk" heeft, dat is wat wordt bestreden, en het verlaten van de Koran als leidinggevend en richtinggevend Boek wordt gezien als verraad. De bij de discussie aanwezige moslim kon gewoon niet anders dan stellen dat het allemaal al in de Koran stond, immers zijn gezelschap bestond uit onwetenden die de Koran nog niet kenden en dus niet hoefden te worden bestreden. Gelukkig was er niemand die de Koran ter discussie stelde in deze "discussie", dat was ook niet het onderwerp van gesprek.

Ik geloof dat het een kwestie is van pure macchiavelliaanse macht. Zolang “het volk” maar niet twijfelt, is er niets aan de hand. Zodra via media of anderszins het volk lucht krijgt van andere dan letterlijke betekenissen, of dat er andere betekenissen mogelijk zijn dan die welke in het Heilig Boek worden beschreven en goedgekeurd door de religieuze autoriteiten, dan wordt de uitvinder van die betekenissen op het matje geroepen van de bewakers der waarheid. Professoren en geleerden mogen in hun bladen ongeremd filosoferen en debatteren. Waarom is dat zo? Omdat de machthebbers (terecht of onterecht) denken dat het gewone volk die hogere betekenissen niet kan vatten, en gespleten zal worden in navolgers van de nieuwe inzichten die vervolgens vertaald moeten worden in be-grijp-bare termen en dus verminkt (Calvijn’s predestinatie) enerzijds, en verdedigers van de traditionele, “tastbare en grijpbare” orthodoxe zienswijzen anderzijds.

Naar mijn mening zijn de evangeliën zelf vanuit die optiek geschreven. Er was sprake van een verloren gegaan oer-evangelie. Volgens de nieuwste inzichten moet Paulus bekend zijn geweest met dit oer-evangelie, waarin sprake is van de weinige, maar wel zeer essentiële verwijzingen door Paulus naar het leven van Christus en Zijn rol in de wereld. Slechts de kruisdood en het doel van de kruisdood komen ter sprake, verder niets. Onder andere op basis hiervan is ontdekt dat de brieven van Paulus geschreven moeten zijn nog voordat de vier canonieke evangeliën die wij in onze schrift hebben opgenomen, waren opgetekend. Anders zou Paulus er zeker naar verwezen hebben. De evangeliën waren nodig om met concrete verhalen over wonderen en gelijkenissen het volk mee te krijgen. In Mattheus 13, 10-15 zegt nota bene Jezus zelf op de vraag van Zijn leerlingen waarom Hij in gelijkenissen spreekt: “omdat het u gegeven is de geheimenissen van het Koninkrijk te kennen, maar hun niet”. (vs 11) en: “omdat zij ziende niet zien en horende niet horen of begrijpen”. (vs 13). Het is zelfs de vraag of Jezus echt heeft bestaan. De moderne geschiedvorsing en intensief gericht bronnen-onderzoek heeft nog geen enkele aanwijzing over Zijn bestaan opgeleverd buiten de evangeliën zelf, en buiten de ene passage die Flavius Josephus aan Hem wijdt, en die door historici als twijfelachtig wordt aangemerkt omdat hij er later aan toegevoegd zou kunnen zijn. Dat toevoegen werd in de vroege middeleeuwen en later ook, als volstrekt geoorloofd beschouwd omdat de oorspronkelijke auteur het in die paragraaf heeft over tijden en plaatsen die vanuit de evangeliën belangrijk zijn en de waarheid van het evangelie natuurlijk boven elke twijfel was verheven. Ook is bij Tacitus aantoonbaar zo’n toevoeging binnengeslopen, omdat in de toevoeging zelf beweringen worden gedaan die Tacitus zelf als niet-gelovige nooit gedaan zou hebben.

In elk geval is er een grote discrepantie tussen enerzijds wat veel mensen geloven en anderzijds wat de wetenschap ons aantoonbaar voorschotelt als "de werkelijkheid". In het Westen wordt dat sinds enkele eeuwen een probleem gevonden, zich vertaklend in een voortdurende strijd tussen religie en wetenschap. De komst van de evolutietheorie was een van de hoogtepunten. Het was te laat in de geschiedenis om Darwin op de brandstapel te zetten, maar enkele eeuwen eerder zou dat zeker zijn lot zijn geweest. Die strijd laat zien dat machthebbers het zeer belangrijk vinden dat wetenschappelijke inzichten stroken met wat in de bijbel staat, waarbij dan de laatste toetssteen is. In discussies met orthodoxe christenen is het mij ook opgevallen dat zij "werkelijkheden" zoals in de bijbel beschreven, steeds willen be-argumenteren met ook weer aan dezelfde bijbel ontleende argumenten. Een soort logica die binnen de wetenschap zeer verdacht is. Als ik bv. de Wetten van Mendel wil verdedigen tegenover kritiek, moet ik mijn argumenten niet uit diezelfde wetten halen.

Binnen gelovige kringen en ik denk ook in de geschiedenis van vóór de verlichting, is en was het daarentegen een normale geaccepteerde redeneertrant. Heel opvallend is hoe in de evangeliën wordt beschreven hoe Jezus Zijn eigen lijden en sterven over zichzelf regisseert "om de voorspellingen in de Schrift te doen vervullen". Iedereen slikte dat toen voor zoete koek en de moderne theoloog concludeert eruit dat Jezus zich van Zijn missie bewust was en zelfs Judas opdracht heeft gegeven om Hem te verraden. Deze heeft zich verhangen, niet uit wroeging in deze zienswijze, maar omdat hij deze rol niet kon verdragen: uit liefde voor Jezus moest Hij hem overgeven aan de Romeinen en het Sanhedrin, mogelijk in opdracht van Jezus zelf. Om zo de schrift in vervulling te doen gaan.

De meest gehoorde opvatting is, dat in de kwestie van de evolutietheorie, maar ook in andere kwesties die raken aan onderwerpen waar religie zich ook mee bezighoudt, men geloof en wetenschap gescheiden moet houden. Ik vind dat OK in het maatschappelijk evrkeer, zoals men ook moet erkennen dat er meerdere geloven (religies) zijn en men die ook uit gescheiden moet houden. Ook moet men om die reden staat en geloof gescheiden houden. Op het individuele vlak is dat moeilijker. Een professor in de natuurkunde kan die twee dingen moeilijk scheiden. (wordt vervolgd).

A systems approach to animals, organizations and humans

2008-10-27T13:41:00.002+01:00

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

2008-10-07T10:32:00.002+02:00

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

2008-09-21T00:15:00.002+02:00

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.

2008-08-29T13:15:00.005+02:00

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)

2008-08-21T13:13:00.002+02:00

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?

2008-08-14T14:07:00.003+02:00

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.

Somethingism and world religions

2008-07-19T20:01:00.004+02:00

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...

2008-06-30T23:03:00.003+02:00

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

2008-06-23T20:32:00.004+02:00

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.

Father and Son in two religions

2008-03-10T20:41:00.005+01:00

"The lost son" by Rembrandt

Yoroboshi and his father (courtesy to Tadayuki Naitoh　http://www.p-om.net)

A photoblog posting by a lady who lives in Japan and calls herself “Japanalia” placed a fascinating father-son story on her blog. It made me think of another ancient story about the father-son relationship, found in the Bible, namely the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15, 10-32). Japanalia explains the story as follows:

YOROBOSHI, the Noh play, is the story of a boy, falsely accused of a crime, and therefore driven out of the house by his father. The boy wanders around for a long time and endures a lot of sufferings which lead him to blindness. Finally he reaches the Tennoji Temple in Osaka, where he settles begging for alms. Meanwhile his father finds out the accusations have been false and goes in search of his son. He, too, reaches the same temple where he is reunited with his son and at the end of the play they go back home together.

YOROBOSHI - the Noh mask - has many versions, but all have closed eyelids, starggly hair over the brow and a suffering expression.The mask is meant to show that the boy's blindness brought him closer in spirit to the beauty of the plum blossoms, causing him to appreciate the flowers through their fragrance. Although he is now blind, he has become one with the universe and can see all that surrounds him

YOROBOSHI is rendered in English as "priest with faltering step" OR "the beggar monk".

The story in Luke 15, 10-32, runs as follows: A father had two sons. One of them asked his part of the inheritance, got it, and “took his journey into a far country, and there he wasted his substance with riotous living”. He wasted that much, that he soon was urged to take a job as a pig guardian, rewarding that less that he was urged to eat from the pig food. Then he regretted his departure and wasteful behaviour and returned home. He bowed his head before his father and asked him to make him a servant because he felt no longer worth being his son. But his father “fell on his neck, and kissed him”, and he ordered new clothes and also to slaughter the fatted calf, and that evening there was a feast at the occasion of the return of the son. The older son, who had remained with his father, got jealous and found it unjust: he argued that he had been loyal and served the family all that time, while his brother had left to waste his share, and had been of no use to the family during the time, and now he was honoured with a welcome party? But his father corrected him, saying that a loss had been restored, and now he had two sons instead of one, reason to rejoice.

If we compare the two stories there are differences and similarities. The most striking difference is that in the Japanese story the father is the “accused” party, having mistakenly repelled his son and sent him away. In the Bible story the son is the accused party. A second difference is, that the Japanese “victim party” (the son) full into deep misery but through this misery he got a rich reward which he would have missed if he hadn’t been sent away and suffered so much. In the Bible story the victim party is also struck with misery (losing a son) but the core of the story is the misery of the son, the accused party. In both stories the son is the leading part of the play. In the Japanese story the son is compensated for his misery by deep insight and active participation in the universe, a spiritual reward. In the Bible story the son is compensated by his father’s forgiving and full acceptance as a son again. In the Japanese story the son forgives his father (the other way around) who also enjoys the taste of being forgiven and accepted by his son.

In the Japanese story the sufferer wasn’t responsible for his misery: it simply occurred to him. That’s why is not the accused party. In the Bible story the sufferer made the (stupid) choice by himself and suffered the consequences of his own decision. Nevertheless, he was forgiven.

That brings us to another very important difference between the two stories: in the Japanese story both father and son are earthly creatures, men like you and me. In the Bible story the father is portrayed as an earthly creature, but is compared to the “heavenly father” namely God. Inn the Japanese story God is represented as the “God of Nature”, coming closer to it means (in Western terms) coming closer to God.

Both stories end in an act of forgiving. Both stories deal with a very important and intimate social relationship: father and son. Both stories tell us that no matter how big our misery is, there’s always a Good that protects us from evil as long as we have faith. The Good makes the Japanese blind son sensible for sacrosanct things he would have ignored if he would have kept his sight. The example of the father and son relationship in both parables is very well chosen because a good father ignores the failures and fallacies of his son if the son returns and acknowledges him as a father. In the Japanese story the Good made the father search for his son, and makes any arguing by the son redundant because of the great wisdom and insights the son has acquired.

The stories teach us that religions may differ in external symbols, stories and parables, but that they agree in their sense of the Good. It ‘s such a pity that so many people don’t see that, and argue about how to interpret symbols and usages that people use to get hold, to understand or to recognize the Good. English is a lucky language because Good differs only one letter with God, and devil differs only one letter with evil. This sense of good and bad is not innate in men but grows with education and guidance. That’s why holy books of revelation or old epic stories such as Baghavad Gita are necessary, to guide the educators. But alas! When people say that only their own story is the true story, that only they know what God wants from us and it’s only “their” God who is the only true God. I am convinced that Jesus Christ used the “Father” metaphor just because only a father, as the then ruling family head, was gifted with an almost innate feature towards his children: he would always forgive them, no matter their deeds and actions, if they only would return to him. But it was men who made this Father a Man on a throne in the clouds. That’s OK as long we see it as a metaphor. Symbols often bear more of Truth than the concepts or meanings to which they refer, because we men are very limited in our sight. Let’s become like the Japanese son and acknowledge our limitations so that we can take part in the Good.

Overwhelmed by feelings: good or bad?

2008-03-01T23:21:00.005+01:00

This fire has been "good": it resulted via a rational process in a delicious loaf. Fire can also be "bad", and used via a rational process in destruction and misery.

Well we have been talking about thinking, haven’t we?

Yes, and we found out that thinking is very important: it leads our activities, or better: it’s supposed to lead our activities, and it’s sometimes disturbed by emotions. Thinking comes up, just like emotions arise. The trouble starts when our emotions instead of thoughts are going to lead our activities . These emotions must do so via thinking again, but not the thinking is the originator of the activity, but the emotion.

Can you give an example?

Before I do this, first this: I assume that every adequately, harmoniously raised and educated adult will know the distinction between good and evil, so to speak. (I assume also that they exist, on which not everybody agrees, especially not many psychiatrists). Books are written about this distinction by great philosophers and scholars, e.g. Immanuel Kant or C.G. Jung, but our thinking alone isn’t able to make that distinction totally. It’s kind of feeling in our minds. A feeling for ethical thinking and behaviour. It’s like Goethe says: “A good man, in his dark urges, is well aware of the right path”. It has also to do with evolution.

Evolution theory? How come?

Let’s first give an example, or rather two, of thinking being led by emotions, by sheer feelings. Because, as we just concluded, a good man is aware of good and evil in his heart, emotions can be good or bad, arising from the heart, the emotional part of the mind. Adolf Hitler let his thinking being led by his feelings of hatred and superiority. Which, in fact appeared to be feelings of inferiority, and he had to compensate this by thinking how, after all, the whole thinking world was wrong and how he, the great leader and artist, would change the world by brutal violence. How good emotions can lead thinking is another story, these people are often led by feelings of love and willingness to help. This can make them sometimes naïve, seeing no danger from powers around, or make them heroes. The “problem” of Mother Theresa was that she didn’t take care of herself, and used all her intelligence to organize things for the better of those she helped. The emotion-directed thinking is mostly troubled, blurred and less affected by logical insight, no matter if the emotions are “good” or “bad”. Only when it comes to elaboration of instrumental knowledge such as planning, organizing, engineering, then the thinking of emotion-led people becomes very clear again.

What about terrorists?

These people are also led by bad feelings, but they don’t recognize them as bad, because they are not “good men” as I explained. They are often extremely intelligent and use their brains for intensive thinking, but their thinking is focused on some aim that they “think” (better ”feel” ) to be the all-justifying aim, allowing them to commit the most horrific acts.

Why is there a distinction between thinking and feeling? Is this distinction that sharp? Don’t you think (I could also say “feel”) that there is a grey area in which we “fink” that is, at the same time feel and think, without being able to say what’s leading what?

Yes, I agree, such an area exists. But the sources are well-distinguishable, and at both extremes we have pure feelings on the one hand and pure thinking on the other hand. To take an example: a woman feels intensive love for a man, and he pretends to have them also for her (he is afraid of loosing her attention). Suddenly, during their love-play, the man, not totally overwhelmed by feeling, remembers that he has a business appointment in ten minutes. Or he whispers in her ear: did you post these payments to the garage already, darling? How do you think the woman will react?

I think she will be overwhelmed by loss of her positive emotions which are replaced by negative ones.

Of course! So we agree on the distinction that can be made between feelings and thoughts. I believe (believing is mostly a result of thinking with one great exemption, we’ll deal with that later on) that we as humans are different from animals because we have to think. We have a thinking ability and are simply urged to use it, just like animals are urged to use their instincts. An instinct is a feeling that leads to an activity in the animal’s mind. In humans the instincts are disrupted, and allocated on the one hand to the feelings (which animals also have), and on the other hand to a new area, namely the area of thinking. This I see as a result of the evolutionary process. Let’s deal with this next time, then we also deal with “the purpose of thinking” as promised last time.

Some random thoughts (keep reading...)

2008-02-28T23:13:00.003+01:00

Time is valuable. I waste time. Do I? I set priorities. Does everything I do have to make sense? Dozens of obligations require my full attention. Take this blog for instance. When I see how other bloggers in the same situation as I fill their blog with sense-making, entertaining, literary etc. content and see my contributions... I left intensive blogging several months ago and soon my audience shrinked as snow for the sun. Now I write almost only for myself. Does it matter, not really. One can have a blog just like a diary. When somebody passes by (which doesn't happen) then it will be OK. I simply have no time anymore to maintain an interesting blog, and at the same yime practice guitar playing, participate in my association, doing my secretary work for a foundation, and maintaining my photoblog. On top of that, I'm a little depressed person and who wants to read depressed stories? I often think of life after death, for instance. Not my own life, for that will be ended after my death. I think that life goes on after death, but that's life in general. Whatever and however it will be, my death will be more serious for those I leave behind than for it will be for myself. That's the case with most people's death. Nevertheless I find myself a Christian. Don't Christians believe in an immortal soul, that leaves the body to get an eternal reward or an eternal punishment, dependent on how they have lived? I don't know, at least they say so in their (our) 12 articles of faith. I am a Christian because I feel that following the example of Jesus is the only way to survive in this world. But if people don't know or even reject Jesus? Yes, then they still can live like a true Christian. Before I elaborate further on life after death and the eternal soul, first the gospel story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman, one of the stories that form the true core of the gospels. In the Samaritan woman I see a a rejected person, not living up to the norms and values. The woman was telling about the Messiah who according to her belief would come, and Jesus said to her (after she gave him the water he asked for) "That's me". He, a sweating, tired man, simply sitting there as mister Common in person, asking a person who he was supposed to ignore for water. You see, that's Jesus. That's anybody you can come across. That's the guest of the Benedict munks, who see in everybody knocking at their door Christ Himself. Jesus doesn't preach, men preach. He simply says what to do to be a good man or woman. Jesus doesn't want to convert anybody, he lets people come to Him. He says to His apostles : when people don't want you, when they mock with you or whatever, simply wipe off the dust of the road along which they live, from your feet and continue your path. Don't argue, don't strive, don't fight.
Now the eternal life. Let me say this: we don't know what will happen after death with our own consciousness, and we don't need to bother about it. In our modern world we know now that we are living on a tiny piece of dust in an immense universe (nowhere a sign of God by the way) and if we are well-thinking, normally raised adults, then we know damned well what is good and what is evil. Nobody has to teach us that. Only we often don't act accordingly. What Jesus does, what a holy book does, is touching the string we already have in our minds and it starts to tremble and make sound. It's God that we recognize this way. To hell with death! I could have existed not at all, in all eternity I couldn't have been born, but I was born in fact. Isn't that enough? Do we know what "eternity" is in fact? Maybe it's best formulated by "I am part of eternity". There are so many nice words such as love, honor, piety, etc. but everybody thinks something different about it. Every attempt to define or describe these concepts is doomed to fail. There is one thing that counts: recognition. Don't try to explain, just accept the recognition of the Divine, I said to myself. In the eyes, in the demands, in the assignments and duties, in the joy and ordeals that life brings. Try to follow Jesus' example, just try for nobody will be able to follow Him completely. He is our "archetype" (a non-defined word invented by Carl Jung, but most people recognize the meaning) housing in ourselves when only we see it. Who has ears, let him hear.

Well, after all, this became a sense-making contribution. Peace be among us, and let's try to live with our deficiencies and incompletenesses. So mote it be.

Educational Progress

2008-02-23T15:05:00.006+01:00

In 2020 50% of the Dutch working populations must have at least a bachelor's degree. In 2005 39% of the people in the age group 12-18 years attended High School. In 1985 this was 27%. This educational policy of the Dutch governments is rooted in the "equal chances for everybody" principle. The doctrine is strong, but it doesn't mean that financial and psychological laws let themselves adjust to these noble strivings. "Equal chances for everybody" is too easily translated into "equal chances for everybody on a highly salaried management, entrepreneurial, or scholarly job". Everybody would like to have such a job of course. But does everybody have the competencies? We can see the consequences of decades of educational policy according to this principle:

1. The schools and universities ar put heavily under pressure to accept as many students as possible by financing them according to the number of students that got a diploma within the time limits imposed. This means that students at our school have to write a final dissertation after following the curriculum during one (yes, one) year; this holds for students who start in their second year because they have exemption licence for the first year due to lower-graded study. This lower-graded study is not directed towards further study, but to competences needed for lower-ranking supervising and craft jobs in the industry. The pressure for abovementioned educational goal on a national level urged bachelor schools to accept these students in their second year.

2. The final criteria of bachelor's and masters' educational degrees are adjusted to the learning capacities of the masses who knock at their doors: yes, diploma inflation.

3. Educational methods are adjusted to processing greater numbers of students through the curriculum in shorter time. 90% of all learning is now done in groups and teams, according to the so-called "constructivist" learning theory. This offers weaker students the opportunity to take advantage of the brighter students, and get the same amount of points as they get because they are in the same learning group. Constructivist theory assumes that students learn from each other, but it neglects the barriers it imposes upon the brighter students. When it comes to producing an individual achievement (at the end of the study: a dissertation or internship report) these students tend to fail and need intensive coaching and guidance (=time) of their teachers to get a diploma. Letting a student fail at the end of the study is "not done", not in the last place because the school is punished financially for it (it won't get money for a failed student, the school even tries to get drop-outs from years earlier back into the school to end their study with a diploma).

4. Schools are urged - because they never can meet the demands of politics without a maximum of creativity and entrepreneurship - to compete with each other, not in quality, but in numbers of students. Students are considered as "customers" who have to be satisfied. In official management reports the school speaks about "markets" (this merger will open up new markets"). As in all management handbooks is explained, quality = customer satisfaction. In education this means that a satisfied student is a student who gets a degree and is satisfied about the learning facilities and content (s)he got after graduation. The question is to what extent students will be satisfied this way, and what the satisfaction means when a student will not succeed in getting the expected job possiblities when his/ her real competencies are tested in the industry or labor market.

5. We see a brain drain of bright students because the Netherlands with their egalitarian ideology doesn't have Cambridges, Oxford or Harvards.

Looking at the photos above, I had to think of the study rooms in the sixties and seventies when I studied in Tilburg and Leyden, in which is was strongly forbidden to speak. It's true, we didn't have computers, and learning in a group we did only after having studied the needed knowledge individually in lectures and books. Silence and loneliness isn't needed anymore for study, on the contrary, if you can't chat or discuss no learning takes place according to the new theory! Nowadays this takes place simultaneously, and what you learn is easily forgotten because you can look it up on Google, can't you? It's even possible to Google a dissertation, a market for anti-plagiarism programs!

Of course, this is a one-sided story, there are also advantages of modern study methods. To mention one: students will be more and better equipped to enter the industry, knowing the ropes of how day-to-day practice will work out. Graduates are happy to have learned how to deal with others in meetings and project teams, this we learned from surveys held under graduates. They are also better able to exert self-criticism, they have gone through a period of engineering on their personality and communication skills, needed to guide them through a "constructivist learning environment". This is the other side of the coin, but the abovementioned drawbacks remain valid. It's a time phenomenon I think: everything is under pressure, only a few people are satisfied with what they have and everybody wants more and better. It's called "progress", lead by managers and politicians, not by professionals and intellectuals, whom we need very badly in these times of societal turmoil and tensions. When will this stop?

I just read part of an answer to these problems in the NRC, the best newspaper of the country. We live in a management culture. Mangers tend to look at figures, systems, capacities etc. and forget about content. This is enhanced by ICT which makes many formerly required job skills redundant. Studying other things than strictly required for job perfomance is too expensive, and must be avoided. Lately our school started an educational program "horse management" on bachelor's level. Students enter the school and learn about management and horses, but only just enough to run a horse stable. They are also not inclined to learn deeper and or more, because this doesn't yield "study points" and the time needed is added to the strictly limited time needed for the obliged study parts. So they have to give their student jobs for it, which no student will do. The labor market doesn't require experts or people with "general development" knowing everything about history, literature, or anything else needed outside the job or career. One thing counts: accountability. Schools operate in "markets": there will be a possible demand for horse people, riding and keeping horses is getting more widespread, so one can get "Master in Horse Management Administration". Don't ask these people how to write an error-free report, or when King William III ruled or from what artist school Mesdag was. Don't ask these people what they find about the novels of Couperus or Haasse, don't ask them what the capital is of any country outside Europe, or where Bhutan is located. Don't ask them anything outside stables and horses. It's not their fault, it's only what they are accounted for. But don't them call "Masters of Art" or "Masters of Administration". Good entrepreneurs, or animal keepers (not as expert as a veterinary doctor), that's what they are. But the frightening idea is that our society is filled more and more with accountable people who only strive for what they are accounted for, so that they can purchase the things and travels offered on the goods and service markets that have to be maintained for the sake of employment.

A hot February afternoon

2008-02-12T17:47:00.000+01:00

I work only 3.5 days a week at school, so I was able to go Leeuwarden Monday to do some shopping. Of course my camera went with me and I was plagued by the temptation to go to the camera shop to buy a decent one with some 7-10 megapixels, but how could I account for such a toy to my wife and son? Anyway this one was also good (see the pictures on this blog) and I looked around for some subject topics for the weather was bright and sunny. But it appeared that the low February sun was tougher to handle than the July sun: extreme bright light from low above the horizon. Some pics benefited from it, such as the picture shown above. I was also plagued by my school work circling around in my head. Did I have enough time to go through the piles of dissertations waiting for me? Didn't I better to be home dealing with them instead of hobbying around in the city?

Jee, a man can be bothered by thousands of problems letting them stir your brains, so I got finally rid of them and went home to process the pictures, and go through three dissertations!

Thinking and Doing

2008-01-30T08:43:00.000+01:00

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

2008-01-19T22:59:00.000+01:00

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

2008-01-17T23:48:00.000+01:00

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

2008-01-10T10:51:00.000+01:00

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

2008-01-07T11:47:00.000+01:00

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.

The unquestionable question

2007-12-21T12:25:00.000+01:00

Today an old question becomes relevant again. I read about a protestant vicar who says he doesn’t believe in God anymore, but keeps working as a vicar. In the Christian newspaper “Trouw” an interview was published with the famous Dutch poet Rutger Kopland who also says he doesn’t believe in God. And yet, if you read and listen to their thoughts, you recognize their feelings about God. They have indeed religious feelings, but at least Kopland doesn’t call them religious. The vicar says in very interesting words that “he believes in a God who doesn’t exist”. I come back to this later.

Now there’s also published the Dutch translation of the book by Francesco Carotta who claims by means of a lot of “circumstantial evidence” that the Gospels are inspired by the life of Julius Caesar, and that Jesus is not a historical person but made up of traits and characteristics of Julius Caesar.

And yet it belongs of course to the essence of being religious: that you believe in God. I can remember that we as children went to friends because they had a “holy mass acting set”: a little altar, toy holy mass accessories, and holy mass priest and acolyte clothing. So we could “play holy mass”. My parents found it a bit blasphemous, so we hadn’t got such a set. I remember that when my friend stood on the chair leaning on its back (the pulpit) as a priest to start his sermon, he never could be more original than shouting “God exists!” He always played the priest because the toys were his so he wanted to be the boss. I found it the dullest and dumbest cry one could utter as part of a sermon. Of course God existed, you don’t need to emphasize that so strongly. It was a given fact, and if you had doubts, then it was your fault and not God’s fault of being non-existent.

Now I hear that even the Dutch archbishop Cardinal Simonis has sometimes doubts. But what kind of doubts are we talking about when we ask the unquestionable question whether God exists or not? If we say “God doesn’t exist” do we mean the same as if we would say “Santa Claus doesn’t exist” or “it’s only a dream, these things don’t exist” or “miracles don’t exist” etc. Many religious people think that denying God’s existence is in the same kind of meaning. Something exists, and “exists” means that you can notice it, or could have noticed it if you were there, with your senses, it’s something touchable, visible etc. and if you can’t notice it, it doesn’t exist. Existing things and phenomena have something sacrosanct, non-existent things you can ignore, they don’t “matter”. Writing this – and hopefully you reading this – this reality starts to stagger. Are our senses trustworthy in deciding if something exists or not? Must something be existent in order to be real, and must something be real to be existent? This is not playing with words. There are realities (or, if you like, there is a reality) that we cannot notice with our senses, not even with the finest observation instruments, even the harshest “atheist” will acknowledge this. There were times during which scholars presented calculated and logically coherent “proofs of God’s existence”. What they did, was applying a human idea (the concept of “proof”) to God. And that ‘s also the reason why there are atheists: these people refuse to accept something for existent that cannot be described or logically deducted. People who pray to “The Lord” do accept this, without being able to describe Who or What He is. Of course, masses of religious people think they can describe Him, in an image that we all know: a man on a throne, ruling everything. You can’t see Him because He is some kind of Almighty Ghost, steering everything with His invisible hand.

I strongly believe that we humans are very good in telling Who God is not, and very unable to tell Who He is. I think that’s also the reason why God’s name is so important in Judaism and Islam: in Judaism He has one unspeakable name (you may not even mention it), in Islam Allah (God) has 99 names. In Christianity we use the metaphors of “Lord” and “Father”, which are rather role-names than names referring to an identity.

The only way, I think to approach a description of God is speaking in the “I’ and “me” – mode, and I’ll try to do so. Whoever thinks to be full of faith and absolutely without doubts, and speaks of “God will…” or “God is…”, and also whoever decisively rejects any talking or thinking about God, might both well be wrong in their idea of Who or What God is. Why can I say this? Can I assess another’s faith? No, my idea of God is wrong because as long as I (emphasis on “I”) think that my idea of God reflects the reality of God, I’m wrong, God is beyond any idea, I notice God, if I may say so, at least with my needs, not with my senses. God is there because I need Him. I could write a book about it, and it will not be sufficient. I think I understand the vicar who said: “I believe in a God who doesn’t exist”, but I don’t understand people who tell me that God exists or doesn’t exist. Next time part II of this deliberation on God.

A grey autumn day

2007-11-01T13:55:00.000+01:00

Thursdays are my days "off". That is to say, I'm supposed to do the laundry, shopping, walk the dog, take care of my son during lunchtime, repair and maintain things in and around the house etc. There were times I took work with me from school but I don't do that anymore unless it's very urgent. The problem is that I got hooked to photography. Not the laborious work with tripods, lenses, photoshop-processing etc., but simply taking a light camera with me and snapshot what I find interesting to register. Today the photos got my priority and after this post I'll take care of the laundry. This is contrary to what's taught in time management courses, but I also learn that if you first do the "important things" ("urgent and relevant", and "not urgent but relevant") then you never can do unimportant things such as writing a post on your blog. Anyway, after my son and wife left the house for their work and school, I asked my dog Joris "Gaat-ie mee?" (Dutch for: "Will he be accompanying me?"- who said that English is shorter than Dutch?) and of course he didn't say no. Did I have my shitspoon (don't know the right word but you know what I mean) with me? My keys? My camera? I close the door behind me for a 90 minutes walk. It isn't a bright day, outsiders would say: this is no weather for taking pictures but I know better (see my photoblog, the reedland series). The shining sun gives a lot of restrictions: sharp contrasts, fragmentation of what you want to picture as a whole, etc. First I walk through our prosperous, but rather dull living quarter. People from poor countries wouldn't find it dull because there's maintained green everywhere around, and all houses have well maintained flower gardens. Despite it's 1 November, there are still flowers here and there. Then I walk along the railway street (parallel to the railway), and cross them to arrive in the countryside on a road called "Slachtedyk". I don't understand why I mention the road name because readers in the USA wouldn't find it important, but this is an unimportant walk, so let it be. On the other side of the railroad I stunned because what did I see? A protest meeting of cows! They were gathered around a protest sign and watched me silently with their eyes full of accusation. The only thing I could do for them was taking a picture and send it to the local newspaper (I did both before starting this posting - both? Redundant information, because I can't send it to the newspaper if I didn't shoot the picture before, sorry for this extra reading). I think it's more relevant for you to know what they were protesting against. It was against the construction of a new road which is intended to lead the traffic around our village, instead of going through it. But this road would go through their land and this was of course more than the ultimate they could bear. Then I decided to walk along the Slachtedyk. Joris was sniffing and trying to stop us at every tree because of the interesting odors that tickled his nose, and I was looking around for interesting picture material. Here our interests clashed, but I am the boss so the eye won over the nose, although he tried to annoy me a hundred times ( I didn't count) by pulling the belt I held him with. Yes, nice trees, yes, nice views, but here it was a lamp pole, there a car, and / or a traffic sign spoiling the potential picture. Then, after going to the right into a narrow alley, I got a new surprise. Would this be my once-in-a-lifetime picture? A whole crowd of hundreds of geese were sitting in a large meadow. We had been walking behind a rather tight wall of vegetation so they hadn't noticed us, but coming near an open spot in it, I noticed how all of them had stretched their necks to monitor what we did, ready to take off. I quickly attached Joris to a branch behind a shrub and prepared my camera, and I was just in time to capture the take-off. They flied in two groups: one to the North, the other to the South, and I realised this was a survival technique, developed in thousands of years being hunted by my fellow-species specimen. I captured first the North group, then the South group. Later on it appeared that they could have been closer for the ideal picture, and that I needed a better camera to get them crisper on the screen, but I'm satisfied. Walking further through the lane I arrived at a tree wall in nice colors with a red hay shaker which I of course pictured. On our way back I was charmed by the wheel prints of a tractor in the mud, and pictured the trees along the Slachtedyk after having hidden a lamp post behind one of the trees, if you look closely you see the lamp seemingly attached to a tree instead of its picture-disturbing pole. Walking through the streets of our living quarter I couldn't help taking pictures of a hydrangea flower bush and some rose hips, beautifully enframed in yellow leaves.

Of course I had to immediately process the harvest of pictures, which are shown above, fresh from the field, picked today. Enjoy!

Three cases

2007-10-16T15:52:00.000+02:00

1.
A friend of mine is in Afghanistan at the moment, not to fight but to cure: he is a surgeon in a military compound. There they treat under dangerous circumstances the many severely wounded with modern equipment. He regularly sends e-mails with pictures to his Dutch friends in which he, like in a diary, describes what he and his colleagues are experiencing from day to day. His e-mails let themselves read almost as a novel. You know that there are doctors over there, you know there's fighting, etc., but when you read the daily reports about the accidents, the injuries, the amputations, the failed operations (luckily they are few because the very dangerously injured die during transportation, if you survive this, you have a reasonable chance to make it), the way the doctors pass their scarce leisure time, etc. you really become aware how foolish war is in fact. Although the field-hospital is primarily intended for military, most helped are Afghanistans, and even the civilian hospital in Kabul sends patients to them because of their medical skills and advanced equipment.

When in the Netherlands somebody is shot in the street, all newspapers and TV report exensively about it. This week there were two casualties: one schizophrenic patient escaped from his guidance during an outing in the city, ran to the police station and stabbed the officer at the counter, after which he tried to stab her colleague, who shot him before he could do so; on his way to the hospital he died. The stabbed officer survived after medical treatment. The night after this happened, there were protest demonstrations against the police who allegedly "murdered" the man who entered the policestation. Two days after this event, a 14 year old high school pupil killed his classmate with a knife because he didn't like him. These casualties cause waves of upsetness and sorry in the whole country - in Afghanistan things like these occur hundreds of times more often - . And in Iraq it's still worse.

My friend the surgeon explained before he left that he went there voluntarily, the Netherlands were bound to provide a certain amount of medical support, and contributions to this support were given by regular hospitals throughout the country by means of a system built on free will and equal distribution of burden.

2.
Nearer to home, I saw on TV teams of volunteers recruited via a special Internetsite, who help people without money in deep trouble. Since about ten years, our government subsideses so-called "care far"ms": those are farms provided with the needed housing facilities, to house people like homeless and difficult life circumstances, not able to lead a normal civic life. In exchange for farm work - to the extent of their abilities - these people get housing and professional guidance leading them to a life with a job and income, if needed, with extra education. The farms are far from the cities and they have proven to be effective in most cases. Next to the professionals, also volonteers work on those farms. On TV one vould see how a teenage mother was in deep trouble because she was pregnant of her second baby and the welfare authorities would take the baby away from her because she had no house. Her family was poor and she stayed for the time being in a small bedroom with one of her familymembers. She put a help call on the Internetsite, and got an invitation from a "care farm": she was so happy, and could keep the bay, while her young husband (also a late teener) would get coaching for a school where he would learn a job.

3.
Another help team from the Internetsite was shown while cleaning up the mess in a house, and restoring it (it leaked, there was draught everywhere, the electricity cables were not in order etc.) because there, too, a kid would be taken away because of the miserable living circumstances. The boy (I estimate around 10) would "never" leave his parents he said, and his mother would flee the country if they would come and collect her son. The mother was 46 years old and the father 72. The help team was welcomed whole-heartedly, they cleaned up and repaired, and the family could stay together.

You see, these are the people who put everything in practice. They deserve a medal and a guest seat in Oprah's show.

Smartest question ever

2007-10-03T10:37:00.000+02:00

After a lecture on globalization students of our school had to write an essay on this topic. In one of the essays I came across this question which I find very intriguing and which I myself couldn't have figured out, I also don't know the answer yet:

How come we are able to transport every product and all bits of information around the world and yet we are unable to transport incomes and knowledge equally over the world?

A sad happening

2007-10-01T16:17:00.000+02:00

Wendy returns from her holidays. On her doormat she finds an envelope which looks like containing a sad message. Indeed, the message said that her grandfather had passed away at the age of 95. Not only was it sad, but it made her also upset because the funeral already had taken place during her holidays! She jumps into her car and drives to grandma to apologize for not being at the funeral and to ask how this could occur so suddenly, because granddad was still a very active man, doing his garden, sailing out to fish, going to the pub regularly etc. Grandma says: Oh darling, what can I say, it happened during, er…, well you know what I mean you are grown-up, so… Wendy replies: Oh no, what happened, then? Grandma: Well, of course we are not that young anymore and need some support when doing it, and preferably we do it on Sunday mornings because then we get support from the big church bell. Bing-bong, bing-bong, the rhythm was so nice and slow you know, and (and here she couldn’t stop her tears, and Wendy felt so sorry for her), wha-wha-your granddad would still be alive when that stupid ice cream seller didn’t pass outside in the street with his stupid little bell!!

Two happy days

2007-09-17T09:59:00.000+02:00

Our dog Joris is jawning, sooo boring! (picture taken a month ago, now we had to wear jackets)

Last week Sunday we celebrated the last day of Menno's "birthweek". His official birthday is September 3, and on that day he became 10 years! During the whole week the guirlands were hanging from the ceiling, as a welcome to adults and children. This last day we went with a group of little friends to the movie, made cheap by the supermarket chain of Albert Heijn: for every x Euros spent, you got a free second movie theatre ticket, so we only had to pay half the total price. We watched "The Simpsons" so the adults among us had also a good time and didn't have to watch computer-made "plastic" puppets experience adventures liked by children alone. (At least it's not my first choice for a movie).

Yesterday the weather was 1st choice for a sailing day: wind force 4 and a brilliant sun, so the three of us spent the day on the water. Up to then, it was one of the nicest sailing days. Janine took sailing lessons from me and Menno kept himself busy with all kinds of little jobs such as taking care of the "willen" (cushion-like devices to protect from bumping - most younger sailors use the English word for it but the older people still use the good Dutch word for it, I forgot the English word) and other things that had to be done.

This week I have to make an appointment to have the boat put on land, at a shipyard owned by the son of the designer / builder of the boat, Lodewijk Meeter. He built only around twenty of these boats in the 19seventies, and he still has the original drawings. Then it will be much work to get the boat in a better condition by sandpapering (rust!), painting and improving the rigging! Everything advised by Lodewijk, and if craftmanship is involved, he could help us very well.

Photoblogging and psychology

2007-09-14T10:12:00.000+02:00

I always admire people who can make an unequivocal choice: they choose their profession at ten years old, at fourteen they make a CPM network schedule for the rest of their lives, they are always optimistic and motivated, are creative, and a pleasure for their family, friends and colleagues.
They always have been working at some project(s) in Africa or India (“they have fallen in love with it”) and know what poverty and self discipline is, but at the same time, having passed their 40th year of age, they drive a USV 4-wheel drive, own at least two houses and a yacht.
Because of the success they had in their career, they are often asked as a keynote speaker on conferences. They have been asked to become a politician many times, but they preferred the business world with network connections to education and universities.
Next to their business positions they are chairperson or board members of at least one charity foundation.
They have written and published at least one book, mostly a book about how something can and must be improved (your career, your personality, society, business, management, always “spiritual” and are now busy with a second bestseller. They are wonderful parents and their children are proud to have such a father / mother.

This is what they do. Now what they don’t do.

They don’t waste time with irrelevant hobbies such as fishing, cooking, horses, dogs, collecting stamps, etc. Of course they have a hobby (cooking when they cook once every three months, or dogs if they own a dog they never walk with – ever seen a celebrity walking with his/her dog in the park? They never do useless things such as counting the tiles in the bathroom while doing what they have to do, maintaining a photoblog, watching TV, doing the dishes, searching the whole city and Internet for a special item they need for a repair job, and other dull John Doe activities.

They don’t read articles about successful people, instead they call them for appointments or simply a chat.

I envy these people because of what they have, not because of what they do. I would also like to have all these things: celebrity, houses, yacht, charisma, the skills to immediately know what the trends are and knowing how to respond on them, clearly visible in word and image. I don’t like doing what they do and/or I don’t master the competencies needed for it. Having your agenda completely filled with appointments, meetings, travels, storing everything in your or your secretary’s memory, always showing strong motivation for things I find taken for granted, boring repetition or fashionable hot air. Hot air? What a disdain! Look how much money you can make out of hot air!

But sometimes… I read about somebody who actually HAS all these things, and also hates the things I also hate, and also does what John Doe also does. And then I get an indescribable feeling of failure. Why not me? Oh, I should have lived like he did! If only in 19.. I wouldn’t have done this-or-that, if only I wasn’t so stupid to…, if only …

And I fall in the trap of relentless ego-lamentation. Poor me! And I look helplessly around me. And then I discovered the photoblog. It really helps, you feel accepted and sometimes even admired! Make a good picture, look around at other pictures, discuss the content, admire other people’s products and get admired, enjoy visual beauty, get stunned about free and super-fast communication, get hooked.

But then, after half a year of photoblogging, the old feeling comes back. You see that somebody owns a couple of Canons and Leica’s. You have started with a mobilephone, and now you have a small pocketcamera. You see that these Leica’s produce better pictures. You hate Photoshop, because it’s fake, you think. And you see how Photoshop can make a piece of art out of a bad picture, and how these artifacts are admired…. The little devil whispers: buy also such a beautiful camera with a couple of lenses. Why? I think I postpone it, I know it’s the old feeling again and I don’t like that. It’s all psychology.

Stephen's challenge

2007-09-03T21:49:00.000+02:00

Stephen has decided on the photochallenge of September for the Sears family and their visitors who are also invited to take the challenge. The theme is "harvest". This word (as a schoolmaster I can't help teaching) is closely related to the Dutch word "herfst" and the German word "Herbst", both meaning "autumn". For harvest the Dutch have the word "oogst" (requires long practice for non-Dutch for the proper pronunciation), and the German say "Ernte" when they mean harvest (requires for English speaking people also a lot of practice to be pronounced the right way). So I think that the English simply took herfst / Herbst and chose a variation that suited their tongue and cheek movements, to indicate the collection of fruits and cerials in the Autumn, which they called "Autumn" because harvest / herfst /Herbst was now reserved for the fruit-and-cerials collection.

This theory will soon be published in the Hurdegarypster Journal for Historical Linguistics.

Anyway, cycling home from school I found one of these mini-stands along the road that pop up here and there around this time, offering fruit, marmelade and vegetables from the home's gardens. Alongside the products you find a price list and a jar in which you are supposed the money. Unfortunately this one was already nearly sold out, I already had marmelade, beans and red beets from them. I'm proud to live in a region where people trust each other this way!

A day on the water and with family

2007-09-03T08:33:00.000+02:00

Yesterday we went sailing; my boat never went so fast, aroud 2 PM the windforce wasn't 4 but 5-6 and on top of that the main sail lacked a reef possibility (which I'm going to change this winter). At the end of July we had also this kind of wind, but then I improvised a reef by binding the hind-part of the sail to its bottom bar ("giek" I don't know the English word), but although it worked, it didn't satisfy because of the loose sack which it causes at the sail bottom. I don't trust the boat 100% because of its old rigging - I heard too many stories about broken masts etc. - so I only dared sail with hoisted sails with the wind blowing from behind. Janine, Menno, my brother Peter and the dog were with me on the boat and Janine and Peter (who don't know much about sailing) encouraged me not to put on my improvised reef (why do we need that? - this is not a storm!). After the trip, when we were at home Janine told me that I should be more bossy and a real captain so when people wanted other things than I had in mind, I should overrule them and make my word law. That day she got familiar with the forces that a boat has to endure at windforce 5-6 with full sails. I was on the other side happy to got familiar with how the boat behaves under these circumstances, nothing was damaged but I was sure it would have been very difficult and probably impossible without severe damage, to sail with the wind from 45 degrees in front of us(in Dutch: "sharply to the wind"). We went that fast that after having dropped the sails and started the engine I thought at first that the engine didn't work because of the difference in speed with the sailing movement. Under more normal circumstances we could sail the whole route until the home marine, but this route leads us through rather narrow canals, and with that speed this could have been dangerous because there were more boats and collisions are not easy to avoid then. Apart from this: the big number of motor boats nowadays annoys me sometimes because these people often lack knowledge of (1) traffic rules on the water and (2) sailing, so one cannot rely on traffic rules because you don't know if the motor skipper knows them and I most of them are not familiar with the possibilities and restrictions of a boat with sails, so they simply keep their course and take priority also if they haven't. I suspect that many of them think that a sailing boat is more "primitive" and never have priority!

The late afternoon we spent at my brother's new house in a village in the Eastern part of the province, and we admired the way he has (re)furbished it. He has a son (17) and two daughters (I think 14 and 12), he and his wife working and still studying so their life is one big agenda without holes. He shares the photo-hobby with me. They went to the Czech Republic on holidays (formerly part of Csechoslowakia, what a shame that this small country has been split up in two still smaller parts!) and he showed me a number of pictures he made over there. Two of them you can see on my photoblog (4 and 5 September).

As for my thoughts on the subject I wrote about the two previous times: I don't think we have tot take this too dramatically. It's true that many Christians and Liberals in the West on the one hand, and many Muslims in the East on the other hand, mistrust each other. It's true that many Muslims adhere more strongly to family- and respect-values than Westerners do (translating respect by adherence to tradition values and not to achievement values per se) and that in Western eyes there's not much difference in their perception of a Biblical desert-society and a rural Muslim society nowadays, but it's not true that there are no liberal-thinking Muslims. Just as is the case with Christians, what people hear, read and see are the loud preachers and the Truth-owners, not the silent spiritually-inspired or the hard-working and modest contribuants to prosperity and welfare. Preaching that people who have another belief must be fought, or must be converted by all means, means that one is scared: there simply MUST be one concrete and tangible truth with all rules and regulations attached to it, otherwise earth (and the preacher / converter!) will end in hell. I don't hesitate to say that the Liberal truth is also one of many truths, although I love the heritage of Goethe, Spinoza and Kant.

This is a view, a vision, and one cannot do more than living according to this view as much as possible, although emotions often challenge you. I hope and trust that eventually Reason will win.

One of today's questions

2007-09-01T16:50:00.000+02:00

Tomorrow’s program tells us that we’ll have a sailing trip with my brother. There will be windforce 4 and a reasonable chance of some rain. We are not sure whether Janine and Menno will join us, we decide that I think this evening. The school will take its normal course again. I just have sent an e-mail to a student whose dissertation concept was awful, I’m afraid that he will require very close guidance, according to the famous 8—20 rule: 20% of all cases ask for 80% of time and attention. He hasn’t been guided up to now by me and luckily these cases are rare. His study pace is slow because since 2 years we have team-dissertations: groups of students study like consultants company problems for which they design a solution, a very successful formula; the only disadvantage is that it’s not individual, but individual contributions within the team are weighed and included in the final assessment. A problem is also that there must be sufficient co-operating companies, and that the cases are sufficiently serious to reach a dissertation’s level.

Something else: last time I asserted that when you ask an Afghanistan opium-growing farmer if growing opium is in accordance with Islam, he would answer that such a question wouldn’t suit me, because the Western world causes much more problems than he does with his job. I gave it a second thought and I think I have to adjust this: probably the farmer would take his life and world as it is, without such “Western” questions, even if he could read and follows the news. So many people everywhere in the world take everything as it is. They follow the tradition of their cultures and clans, and when these traditions have been weakened or are threatened by Western influences, there is always the daily struggle for food and living which will be done by means that in our eyes are less moral or objectionable.

Many hundreds of thousands of these people have immigrated into Europe, or try to immigrate. Of course, they bring with them their traditions and leaders who try to keep them on the right track, which is often contrary to the Western right track which they often consider to be sinful and despicable. Their world of views and truths are often diametrically opposed to values we find important: women and men treated equally, own choices in marriage and education, freedom of speech, variation in clothing, loose family bonds, rewards for achievement and not for kinship or tradition-adherence, etc. etc. Ten years ago I was very surprised by what I saw as arrogance, the way some of their leaders preached hatred against Western society, at the same time receiving social welfare benefits. I thought: “Why are you here then?”, a very obvious question in Western eyes. In one of my lectures I showed in my ignorance a portrait of their prophet in a Powerpoint presentation, the same week I got reprimanded by a Muslim colleague because Muslim students had complained to him. I got flabbergasted because female teachers refused to shake hands with men (parents, colleagues) because their faith forbade them to do so, and a Muslim priest (imam) refused to shake hands with a Minister (State Secretary) visiting their mosque. I asked myself if Muslim ministers would visit Christian churches in a Muslim country, even our queen did so once and she wisely avoided trying to shake hands with the mosque leaders. In a TV program a Muslim leader refused to sit at an interview table together with seven other partners in a debate, because one of them had a glass of wine before him. His son, also a Dutch “celebrity” walked away from a program because one lady’s skirt was too short according to him.

I just read a wise article in my paper which brings me back to my rational senses. It says: let’s stop arguing and debating about how Muslims should adjust themselves to our values. Don’t pay attention to it anymore. In another newspaper there was an article discussing an American philosopher, Lee Harris, who has a more pessimistic view, he is right when he says that our values, based on philosophies by people such as Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Voltaire etc. is very rare in the world. Only a few countries have succeeded in overcoming the all-embracing power of tradition, clan and family, trying to defend themselves with all thinkable means. In our laws and legislation “tolerance” is a main virtue, in most other countries it means weakness.

The way Muslim groups and leaders link their values and views to their fait is highly questionable. Many Muslims adhere to tolerance, reward according to achievement, respectful treatment of everybody, etc. but most of them live in the U.S.A. or have positions requiring high education in Europe, they are only a small minority, often considered as non-Muslims by their own brethren (sisters don’t have a say). We in Holland have a Muslim Minister and many Muslims are in local or regional governments.

After reading and thinking, I was left in confusion, there are still many questions, or maybe one or two very big questions, left to be answered.

Varia Diversa

2007-08-30T19:48:00.000+02:00

Hello blog, here we are again! I’m sorry for being absent for such a long time so you think I’ll have much to tell. Well, te be honest, the fact that I had little to tell was one of the causes of my absence so I have to do my best to get something worthwhile from the little corners of my imagination and memory. Of course, I could tell about my holidays and other stuff people tell each other when they are at work again. Why wouldn’t I? Well, we, that’s to say my wife Janine, our son Menno, our week-end “daughter” Elyanne and our dog Joris went sailing in Friesland, so we didn’t travel far away. It was lots of fun: the adults enjoyed the sailing and the children the playing along beaches and in marinas. We enjoyed all kinds of weather you can imagine: tropical heat, autumn temperatures, strong wind, almost no wind, tropical rain, Dutch rain (steady long term, not sudden showers), mist, clouds, clear sky, you name it, this is Western Europe, man! Now I’m at work again, already since a fortnight. My job is to assess dissertations or theses if you like, at bachelor’s level, and I try to avoid that the students’ stress will infect me, although many are in a hurry, if they get their grading too late (15 September they have to pay new tuition fees. No, they cannot charge it to me when it’s my fault because I left their work in the drawer for too long. I’m at an age at which many are already retired and I always try to keep up the image that I don’t want to retire that early and keep working as long as possible, but I know that’s not true, my true reasons for not retiring are secret and then you know already what I mean.

I’m also almost addicted to photography. Not that I picture everything that comes before my lense, but I like to photograph nice items, especially landscapes and “landscape furniture” such as mills, sailing boats, churches, etc. On my photoblog I discovered that there are as many photographers as kinds of subjects, and every photographer has his/her favourite subject items. My weakness is landscapes and related stuff, also because I cannot find time to be busy with creating the right light conditions, much Photoshopwork, arranging things, waiting long for the right moment, etc. No. Veni vidi vici (aut non successi): I came, I saw and I achieved (or failed). I make too many good pictures to post on my photoblog, which is restricted to only 1 picture per day – a very wise policy of the blog management.

Above I show you some pics that couldn’t be posted on my blog because of this restriction. I also don’t want to become a bit one-sided and show each time either a mill, a house or a sailing boat, so some of them could have a place here. Enjoy!

Like so many other people I’m also bothered about what I read in the newspapers. I recently read the startling news that 90% of all heroine is grown in Af…istan. It has been found that the Nabilat (I don’t want to be found by searching machines on these words but you know what I mean) encourages to grow it, and get much profit from it. I’m sure these opium farmers are faithful Mu…ms and I wonder what they would answer when you would ask them why they grow opium, and if that is OK with the K..an. I know what they would answer me: you are rich, you drive a car, you have a machine for everything in the household and thanks to you the climate is changing so that people in Bangla Desh suffer from floods when the sea level is rising because of melting poles and glaciers. So what’s wrong about a heroin enjoying looser who is, on top of that, a victim of your pagan way of living, no, if you would follow the K..an and become mu…ms like me, there would be no heroin problem; what do I have to do with it, a poor farmer who works hard to earn a living? Thirdly: if I didn’t grow the opium the Nabilat would punish me. Etcetera etcetera.

So many things are relative, and many times I feel I have to choose, take a standpoint, be a MAN! There are many view- and standpoints to choose. In debates you notice that everybody is right and only a few people are completely wrong, but that people who are both right don’t seek to compromise or to find the common basis of their different views, but on the contrary, want to show how different their view is from their opponent’s view, and how wrong he is, and how right their own view is.

So much for today. Next time my latest contribution to the school magazine if I’ve nothing else to report.

Photoblogging

2007-07-29T11:26:00.000+02:00

I don’t know what’s going on with me. I seem to be hooked on my photoblog, neglecting my written blog. Well, let’s start afresh, and try to maintain my written diary of thoughts and events. First, my experiences with the photoblog and then my vicissitudes with boat and family.
The photoblog made me more aware of visual experiences. Also, I try to understand what photography, as mere expression or representation of visual reality, can mean for people, and then I mean the watcher. There’s no sharp distinction between watcher and maker of a picture, because the maker also watches his/her own products and enjoys them. One essential difference is that the maker selects and processes the picture, (s)he chooses an image, a frame, decides whether it will be black and white or in color, etc. and the watcher is there to assess it. I went browsing through many photoblogs and I must say that some attract me more than others do. Taste is an important factor, and there seems to be no room for “principles”: everything is allowed.
Another thing that struck me was that people from different cultures that according to the newspapers should be hostile or suspicious towards each other, are instead very much appreciating and respecting. So I know for instance that Islam tends to see dogs as haram animals, but when I publish a photo of my dog I receive positive reactions from Islamic countries; Christian people also tend to express admiration for characteristically Islamic images such as the calligraphed name of Allah. Also I saw positive response from Iran to an Israeli photographer. Most of the bloggers are from the USA, but that doesn’t seem to be a hindrance for the Islamic photographers. Maybe it’s a bit too much said, but photoblogging can be a contribution for mutual understanding and world peace this way. I love it.
Overseeing the different kinds of pictures there is certainly difference in quality. Some posters don’t seem to “have it”, and will not acquire it, but continue to post their products. I’m aware one shouldn’t be too quick in such an assessment for it can also be myself who don’t have the needed competence to assess pictures. Others post amazing photos which could yield good profit if offered for sale. This raises the question: what makes a good photograph a good photograph? I think it depends on the kind of picture. I make a distinction between “event pictures”, “emotional pictures” and “esthetical pictures”. All three share that they evoke emotion. A picture of an angry mob demonstrating against something, a portrait of a lovely baby, and a beautiful landscape or flower are three characteristic examples of what I mean. The emotional picture doesn’t need (but mostly has) event- or esthetical criteria, as long as the emotion is evoked. But the other two must have, next to their representation value, also an emotional value. Many photos on the photoblog don’t evoke emotion in me but seem to do so in others, so that makes them valuable pics and I have to be careful to reject them as good pictures. It’s amazing that in this world where everybody always has critical or negative remarks on other people’s products, photobloggers seem to be aware of that. If they don’t like a photo, they simply don’t comment.
What is also striking is the widespread use of advanced and expensive camera equipment and the use of Photoshop programs to process the pictures. When I started to be caught by the digital photovirus (it really becomes a virus if you can put your photos on the pc) my first pics were made on my 1 MP mobilephone. Some of these pictures seem to gain in value thanks to their blurredness. Then, after half a year or so, I bought a 5 MP HP Photosmart and carried it my pocket wherever I went, a flow of nice pictures were the result, many of them I posted on my photoblog that I started. Then on a sad day my wife dropped the camera and it turned out almost to a divorce :-) but we got a brand new one because it happened within the warranty period! But I had to miss my camera for a couple of weeks, and via my brother I bought a second-hand Sony 4 MP for 90 Euros (new in 1991 it costed 750 Euros!), my wife kept the HP. The Sony has several advantages such as macro-possibility but is a bit slower in starting up and editing stored pictures. Anyway, now I’m looking with water in my mouth at the expensive cameras with which most of the bloggers work, with changeable lenses and so on. In my non-digital days I used such a camera for films which now has become almost worthless on the second hand market but has cost me the amount of the cameras that I’m craving for now.
There are two things that withhold me from purchasing: first the price. It’s something luxury exclusively for my own usage within the household family, and I’m not allowing myself to spend that amount for a “toy” for only myself, where I can do with a cheaper product with a bit less possibilities. The second reason is that a good photo isn’t dependent on the equipment it is made with: there have been made excellent pictures with mobilephones, and lousy ones with 1000 euro-cameras. The more sophisticated equipment only offers more possibilities, and let’s not talk about the processing computer programs! No Photoshop process can turn a bad photo into a good one, only into a nice arrangement of colors and forms. So let’s do a while with my “primitive” little camera that I can use without getting the image of a photomaniac by people around me who are not contaminated by the photovirus when I always have that black machine around my neck (the grapes are a bit sour you notice). Next time more, about my boat-and-family vicissitudes.

2007-07-10T15:13:00.000+02:00

Last week before holidays…
This morning I went my daily morning round (15 minutes) with the dogs. Yes digs, plural, for we have one dog staying with us because his boss couldn’t use him during her holidays. Before him, we had another dog staying with us for the same reason. Our dog is going with us, just like last year. This dog staying now with us is a special friend of our dog, almost the same breed, as a pup our dog got familiar with him when visiting his house and walking in the park. Joris, our dog, is the only male dog accepted by the guest dog Jelle. Anyway, both dogs sometimes pull their leashes quite strongly, on top of that in opposite direction, when they smell something attractive. It reminded me of the time period I am in now: on the one hand: haste, haste on my job straightening out things that have been lying but must be completed and chased by students who want to have their points for their bachelors thesis to graduate before September, combined with filling in our holidays agenda for the coming period, and on the other hand the uncertain coming period combined with attention for my blogs (I feel I have less time for them than a couple of months ago) and my sailing boat. The 20th Janine is going to a one week stay in a conference centre of her “School for Practical Philosophy” and Menno and I are “free” to do things that men like to do without female interference. Before that, Wednesday the 18th Janine will go and collect my mentally retarded brother from the Belgian border village Bergeijk to join us (us, that is Janine, Menno, his 8 year old “stepsister” and the dog) on the boat (easy-going!) on which we are then sailing somewhere in Friesland. He will not stay overnight on the boat during the night so alternately Janine and I will drive home with him to sleep until Sunday the 22nd, when I will bring him back home. After Janine’s absence we will sail for another week or two, going somewhat further on open water (Ijsselmeer, Waddenzee), then we don’t have Wessel and the little girl with us so we are free to sail as roughly we can.

Now putting this all together it appears to me that these things are almost too much for me to handle in such a short time, that’s where my odd feelings come from I think. Take for instance only the sailing boat: in my head I’m busy fixing things up, e.g. there is no reef in the sails so I improvised a way to make the sails smaller when it’s demanded by the wind strength. I don’t have energy and time to look for “great pictures” for my photoblog, either. And guess what? I took a walk in the park near my office and a coot with her youngsters almost tried to creep into my camera! Isn’t that consolation! I show the picture on the photoblog (right upper side of this blog).

Also I got an e-mail today from my cousin in a far away country who needed to pour out his feelings about the socio-economic situation over there. His father emigrated shortly after W.W. 2, when many Dutch people emigrated. I tried to cheer him up a bit, but I found he is also right and he is with his family in the middle of it. I thought of my slogan “it’s better to light a candle than to curse darkness” but even Jesus cursed darkness, e.g. when he chased the merchants out of the Temple. Sometimes I think our world is the Temple and the big money hunters are the merchants to be chased out. Recently I read about the Mediterranian coast completely spoiled by building companies, even now tourists are rare (the newcomers are stayers) they continue building hotels, for a great deal to whitewash black money; these Mafiosi are really unscrupulous, and don’t hesitate to set fire in areas where they can’t build because of nature protection.

Well, it’s time to think of my own little world of reality again, there are still 2 theses to grade today.

The merchant, the army officer, the professor and the artist

2007-06-28T15:08:00.000+02:00

I could also add: the priest or vicar, but I leave this out because the professions I mentioned deal with this world. The professions are ideal types of professions. It could be the result of a test on which you can score, indicating what type of professional you are. They are more or less mutually exclusive which means that they are “pure” and don’t tolerate each other’s features and characteristics. A good merchant is never a good artist, a good professor is very bad at leading an army platoon, etc.

I came to this distinction because of a discussion during a presentation of a dissertation team, in which the difference between a “manager” and an “entrepreneur” was discussed. I saw during that discussion the entrepreneur as the merchant, and the manager as the army officer. What does a manager do according to the management textbooks? Right: planning, leading, organizing and controlling, exactly what a high ranking army officer also is expected to do, just the same as a football coach is doing. The entrepreneur is both officer and merchant, which is not possible for a single merchant and a single officer. The officer would be accused for corruption and punished, and the merchant would loose real profit opportunities because now he is restricted by his organization, his employees and the law giving rules for enterprises: he cannot switch from trading in meals (restaurant) into car business overnight, and vice versa. But the true entrepreneur combines in a legal way both ideal types in him or her. The entrepreneur reflects the culture within which he can thrive, namely a democratic, tolerant culture. In the 17th Century the Netherlands were divided into the Arminians and the Gomarians. The Arminians recruited their members from the Amsterdam class of entrepreneurs with their V.O.C., and the intellectuals (the “professors”). Their spokesmen were Johan van Oldenbarneveldt (kind of “prime minister”), and the brothers De Witt, of whom Johan was also “prime minister”. They agreed with England that the Orange family had to be restricted in power. But the Gomarians uplifted the Orange family as their logo, and their orthodox Calvinist view on life and world was widespread among the common working class people. Although Oldenbarneveldt had been Maurits’ teacher and coach, Maurits was merciless in watching his beheading as a criminal. Maurits was a military, an officer, Oldenbarneveldt was a merchant and a professor. In fact, the Oranges made use of the Calvinist intolerance to gain power in collaboration with the army, damaging the economic interests of the merchants. The De Witt brothers were literally slaughtered by the “orthodox” mob, their bodies hung on poles, naked and cut open, while the “police” was watching, doing nothing. A situation as a consequence of co-operation between officers and vicars, who have to deal “not with this world”, according to Jesus’ words. We see the same now with imams calling for violent opposition to “worldly khafirs”, not realising that they also act worldly.
In those days an entrepreneur had far more characteristics of a merchant than he has today, today his job carries more and more the officer’s features. In fact, the pure merchant exists hardly anymore. But the “entrepreneur” carries a lot of his marking features: adventure, weighing risks and opportunities, striving for profit. The manager, like an officer, is more “neutral” and leaves the risk-taking strategy to his boss, the entrepreneur, who also is a manager (officer) more than he used to be. Democratic law makes his existence possible.
In fact, being an entrepreneur or manager in (post)modern times means that you have to be something of an artist and a professor, too. Not because these professions are worthwhile for their own sake but because they can be “profitable” (merchant) and can give “competitive advantage” (officer). In marketing and promotion/advertising campaigns the artist is “hired” and in product development and marketing the professor is also “hired”. Hiring means merchandise, and the modern merchant is aware that you have to hire as smartly as possible artists and professors to gain the biggest market share (officer), the best human resources (officer) to get the highest profit (merchant). The customer decides, this right is given to him by democracy, following the opportunities of technology and many, many services to be managed and merchandised by Covey-moulded managers and entrepreneurs. Alas, the customer doesn’t ask for many professor’s and artist’s interests that are not hired because the market doesn’t ask for them. They have to fight back with quality not measured by “meeting the expectations of the customer” but by “innate quality”, which is often not of this world, and is not for sale. You know what I mean, because it’s human, and any flesh-and-blood officer and merchant needs them, just like any real professor and artist needs merchant’s and officer’s traits.

Well, this was our ration of deliberation and rumination on an evaluation of a dissertation presentation by the younger generation :-)

Happy happenings

2007-06-26T20:38:00.000+02:00

The audience during the general closing meeting when the prizes were awarded. The guy sitting next to his colleague, is me. The colleague wears a red shirt - he is young enough - I can be identified by the pink tie and the glasses.

Yes! The presentations were a big success again. I was very proud that one of the four groups that I had been coaching, won the second prize out of 32 teams. They reported about a feasibility study they had performed for the establishment of a new restaurant in a new quarter of Leeuwarden. It would be the only restaurant with the chosen formula in town, namely an "all-in buffet restaurant". After the presentation an interesting discussion developed between them and the owner of another restaurant who was in the audience. Although its location and formula was different one could feel she wasn't happy with the new restaurant (competition!) and tried to ridicule the attempt with critical remarks. One of her questions elicited the remark "stupid question" from one of the team members , it was hardly hearable but I heard it and subtracted a point for offending the audience. I can imagine that the boys and girls were proud of their achievement and that negative criticism wasn't welcome in their mood, but suppose he was a restaurant manager or kitchen chef dealing with a complaining guest and would call his remarks stupid? Anyway, the general atmosphere was fine: half a year of hard work was completed and "everybody happy". But the true assessment had to come yet: the assessment of their written reports, of course far more elaborated and detailed than their presentations.

This was one of the bright days in my work. For the rest, I do almost nothing else than coaching and assessing dissertations (also called theses) by students not participating in the new setup of team projects as described above. They are written and submitted by students who are behind, sometimes three years or longer. It's a tough job because these are not the brightest students or have ( in their eyes) good reasons not to pay too much attention to this obligatory part of their study: a job, a marriage. Sometimes straightforward fraud occurs. Most students are not that brilliant in written English (in spoken English many are more fluent than I am), so when I see a paragraph in well-groomed academic or literary English, I type in a sentence in Google and there the site appears from which the paragraph or whole chapter had been stolen. That's what I call stupid. The student is confronted with the evil deed, and has to do a lot more work than if (s)he would have to do without fraud: re-writing the whole dissertation without any sign of fraud.

The majority, however, is honest and submits useful work contributing to knowledge and skills in hospitality business.

My son Menno has also done an exam: he has acquired the yellow belt in judo, and he needs the achievement! Because of my presentations I couldn't be present but his mother was there to encourage him, with success.

Also positive was the amazing TV program about sustainable industry, about the new concept "from cradle to cradle": it means (I couldn't hardly believe my eyes and ears) that captains of industry such as the CEO of Ford in Detroit and Chinese industry developers all of a sudden became green preachers like Greenpeace, and you know why? because a very intelligent and entrepreneurial couple (maybe they are future Nobel Prize winners) of an architect and biologist had proven that waste-prevention can save them millions of dollars, by what they call "turning waste into food". Food for the natural ecosystem, or food for technology. One of the secrets is that you have to design a product in such a way that it can be given back to nature or industry. Working like this saves money, waste processing and co-operates with nature itself. Cradle-to-cradle, the miracle of the century, and sooo simple! If only you see it like profit itself, and get rid of the prejudice that eco is expensive, on the contrary, it now has proven to be cheaper! This holds for manufacturing and constructing industries, but I see problems for the agricultural industry: how to apply the cradle-tocradle-concept for cattle breeding and the growing of agricultural products? The TV program didn't mention it, but it's very important, for the same evening I saw how agricultural engineers had discovered that a big percentage of our CO2-emission in the Netherlands was produced because of lowering the ground water level in peat areas, to turn them into grass land. About half of Dutch grass land is acquired this way. The peat gets dry and starts to rot, which causes CO2. Very expensive measures must be taken to reduce this process, and at the same time maintaining the grassland. On my photoblog you can see an area where the ground water level has been increased again, and more such areas are needed, not only for CO2 reduction but also to acquire natural water bassins to avoid floods in cities and villages. However, the farmers are not happy with these developments and they still have great political influence, although the last 20 years they delivered much of their previous power.

Exciting education experiences

2007-06-26T10:36:00.000+02:00

A good hospitality consultant has to know how this is done, too! Look at www.chn.nl (English version)

Yesterday I cycled in my waterproof rainsuit the usual route to and from my work, through some tropical showers, the outskirts of the flood that was poured out over the UK at the same time. It was an exciting experience thanks to my waterproof clothing. The disadvantage of it is that after half an hour firmly pedaling, it gets wet on the inside, not by rain but by sweat. So you have to relax on your bike to avoid this as much as possible, which is difficult when you bike against a strong wind, but this wasn’t the case yesterday. It’s a weird week, this morning I’m supposed to prepare for presentations that will be held this afternoon by 3d year students. In a team of four to six students they have been working on improvement projects at small and medium-sized companies in the hotel- and restaurant branch, the so-called “hospitality industry”, I will asses them together with a colleague, after having coached them during six months. I did this before for three times so I more or less know what’s expected from me. It’s amazing how medium- and small sized businesses are so busy with their daily fuss that they are not able to retreat from time to time to reconsider what they are doing: is my concept still working, or is it outdated? What is the competition doing and how will I respond? What novelties and innovations are important for me? How do my customers feel about my services? What menu items are much asked for and what could I abandon or do I have to change for better profit? Etc.

I think it would be good for employment and for training / education purposes, as well as for service quality, if this kind of improvement projects would be made standard for all small businesses. It’s not difficult or complicated all you need is a group of coached students, working along a systematical path:
1. diagnose company and its business-environment by talks and research;
2. establish a point of improvement, measure its output at that moment;
3. design a way or method to improve;
4. implement the improvement;
5. measure the output after or during implementation.

In 9 out of 10 cases this will yield success, as our series of projects clearly demonstrate. It’s also exciting and motivating for students who are in their roles not as trainees or as learners, but as true experts, and in comparison with many entrepreneurs they are experts because they just ended and/or are in the middle of theory- and model building and analysis methods courses, whereas their clients are of course more experienced in running an real-life business. If you would follow theory and booklets in everything you do in a small business you would be bankrupt within a couple of weeks because you are supposed to immediately select the possibilities of your situation that suit you most and which could be totally different from what the books pre-suppose. But retreat and read is necessary to check whether you indeed selected the right available possibilities. Checklists and models are the diagnosing kit, bookkeeping and administration are the dashboard of the engine, customers and money are the fuel.

I have four teams this afternoon, in total there are 32 teams presenting their projects to an audience of students, lecturers and client companies in different rooms of course. Before and after there are keynote speakers and other celebration activities. I’m sure it will be a success just like the previous times.

Ad Deum, qui laetificat iuventutem meam

2007-06-18T10:34:00.000+02:00

Last Sunday my 9-year old son and I went to out little church in Burgum, the St.-Martin’s Church. It's more a chapel than a church (see above). I returned to the R.C. church a year ago, and this year my son had been baptized and received his 1st Holy Communion. When we entered, we saw a whole group of men also entering the church from the altar’s side. They were dressed in black cassocks with white shirts on it, and they went to the choir’s place. I whispered in my son’s ear that it was a visiting choir because I was sure of that now. After a minute (we had taken our places) another stranger entered the altar stage: an old man, leaning on a stick, the priest, we didn’t see him before yet. He looked very stern and strict, and I feared for an old-fashioned service in which the rules of the Church would be stressed (again). I estimated his age on around 80 years and I never saw a priest with such an apostle-like appearance before. Despite his stick he had a strong and impressive posture, not a gram of superfluous fat, you could expect only old muscles under his garb. We were sitting in the second row so we could see everything. His hands which he would be using during the Mass emphasizing what he said, were beautiful and strong, the kind of hands old masters like Rembrandt and Michelangelo used as examples for their studies. His face, like I said, was stern and strict, imagine how St. Peter must have looked like in peoples’ minds and you have an idea. His hair was still fully present (unlike mine) and silver-white. He made fear for the worst, when he gave silent directions to the four Mass Servers, boys of around 15 years of age, that they should go elsewhere, not standing in their right places as they were: they were supposed to sit down that moment at the beginning, on their chairs at the right side. Then he climbed the altar, leaning on his stick and waited for Mrs. Jansen (fictitious name), the assistant-pastor, who would do the welcome word. Mrs. Jansen welcomed the priest and the choir and she announced what was supposed to be known (but I didn’t read it in the parochial guide, my fault), that we would have a Gregorian Mass. After her, the priest, I would almost say: “opened his mouth and spoke, saying:” “Well, that wasn’t a very good management of the stage for a start”, referring to the four Mass Servers on their wrong places. But he said it with a voice and tone one wouldn’t have expected: relaxed, mildly. Then he continued by referring to the special day it was, emphasizing that we had come together because it was the xth Sunday before Pentecost – which wasn’t true, many people had come because it was a Gregorian Mass – their xth Sunday could also be celebrated in their “own” churches in the area -, also in such a way that a slight irony was noticeable. Anyway, the Holy Mass started.

Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat iuventutem meam.

(I will ascend to the altar of God, to God who is the joy of my youth). When I had about my son’s age I was a Mass servant myself, and these were the words I heard hundreds of times, as the very first words of every mass, spoken by the priest at the foot of the altar, standing left of me, me kneeling at his right side, the audience of faithful behind us. I never understood these words, because God isn’t supposed to be only one's youth’s joy. But I never asked an explanation to parent, teacher or priest, I took it as it was. Later on I read translations in Dutch, saying “to God who is my joy since my youth” but I wasn’t satisfied by such “improvements” of the original words, dating back to AD 200 or so. Later again, I was 61 years of age and returned back to the Church, I discovered their true meaning: these words were intended for me personally, period. In my youth I had tasted the benefits of faith, and now God had called me back, as a lost son, or as a shepherd looking for his one lost sheep out of his flock of hundreds. That’s it, I don’t know why and how, I only feel it’s that way. I can only hope (and I think it's true) my son feels the same non-deliberated or reasoned “radiation” as I felt at that time. The words were not spoken this time, liturgy has changed since 1955. But I heard the old, Gregorian songs again, and sung them by heart, literally and metaphorically, because I remembered their texts, their melody and also their meaning because my parents had given me the advantage of a classical education with Greek and Latin. And I realised at the same time how Latin had estranged the faithful from Rome because only a small elite knew it, and if songs and prayers are in a strange language they cannot arise from the heart. That’s the other side of the coin, the one side is that for those who understand it – the priest also said it – it is a beautiful language, very well suited for religious expression.

De profundis clamavi ad Te Domine, Domine, exaudi vocem meam.

From the depths I cried to Thee Lord, Lord, listen to my voice. (I love Mozart's version of the psalm). This psalmtext was the theme of the Mass. Clamavi, said the priest, (pronounced with the “a” not in the English way but as it is pronounced in all other languages), isn’t that expressing its meaning far better that the Dutch “ik heb geroepen”? (the English “I cried" also expresses its meaning very well) There is something of “shouting” in it. I love Latin.
It was time for the sermon. The priest cam down and took place in a chair, and so for the first time in my life I experienced a priest or vicar holding a sermon while sitting. I must say, it was a good experience. The sitting posture gives dignity and wisdom, more than the standing posture which gives a rather “exclaiming” and prophesizing idea. Especially this priest, looking so much like St. Peter or a medieval bishop, spread an air of wisdom around him, which filled the whole church. He spoke slowly and with a firm and clear voice with a Southern accent, from around Roermond I guess (my sister lives there). He spoke about the gospel of that Sunday, Jesus visiting the house of a Pharisee, and how He dealt with His host and a sinful woman coming in, dropping tears on His feet which she wiped off with her hair. It was very impressive, although the priest didn’t say anything extra loud, he kept many silences in his story. It was for everybody as if (s)he was present at the event.
At the end of the Mass he announced that he was going to sing the words that never are said anymore in modern liturgy: ”Ite, Missa est”, followed by the people: “Deo Gratias” (“Go, the Mass has ended”, and: “Thanks to God”). I remember of course the jokes we schoolboys made about these words J. Then he forgot something because he wished everybody a good Sunday, and got a reminder form his “disciples”: of course the blessing, which was done of course, together with a small sermon.
Then we sang the beautiful old Maria-song “Salve Regina, Mater Misericordiae”, and went home or to the parish house for coffee.
After the Mass I praised my son for his endurance, the songs must have meant a sacrifice for him (although my wife told me otherwise, that it was only a pose), and that day it seemed he needed to express (much) more attachment to me than usual which made me happy.

The last days I ‘m also a bit annoyed about the “right-wing” declarations from the official church in Rome, I have to find my way and place in it. So I have problems with women not being allowed at priesthood, (although Mrs. Jansen would be a perfect priest), with divorced people not allowed to the Holy Sacrament, and with sudden exclamations such as I read in the paper from a Roman, Italian cardinal, that Catholics are “not allowed” to donate money to Amnesty International, because this very, very, Christian-acting organisation gives help to raped girls in the South of Sudan where everybody knows how a horrific hell is going on. Many of these girls have an abortion apparently with the approval and maybe help of Amnesty International (although A.I., as far as I know, doesn’t supply help on the spot but gives moral , influential and financial support), and that’s enough reason for the Vatican to issue an official declaration like this. I comfort myself with the thought that it’s not the princes and the Holy Father, the bishops and the priests who judge, they are not supposed to be moral judges but spriritual leaders and sometimes they might think they can stand between God and mankind, instead of guiding men to God.

An example of how wrong religious leaders can be is the way the famous 17th-century philosopher and scholar Spinoza was expelled from both his Jewish community and the Christian community of Amsterdam. By strict reasoning he concluded that God was in everything, an idea now widespread but at the time a blasphemy, because God was in those days a man in a place called heaven from where He ruled the world and the universe, which he created long ago. For me, God is in everything and all that has been created is an expression of His omnipresence. This makes one humble and happy at the same time, and aware of all the mistakes men can make abusing His omnipresence, including oneself, not merely including, but especially focused on oneself. Please Your Excellency Mr. Cardinal, go and visit an abbey of the Benedictines for some time (they are the school example of hospitality) and listen what the brother who is cleaning the corridor has to say or better, has to keep silent and take an example.

I’m glad I can share this with my blog, Those who have eyes to read, may read it. So mote it be.

About Fryslân

2007-06-13T09:52:00.000+02:00

On my photoblog I got a comment from a co-blogger who congratulated me with living in such a beautiful countryside. I replied: I love it, indeed. I came here for settlement 15 years ago, and I saw around me the illustrations from "Ot and Sien" a series of childrens' book from my childhood. It seemed as if time had been frozen for 75 years: the houses, the pastures, etc. The only thing is that it is flat everywhere, no hills. Sometimes you find yourself in a kind of green prairy-landscape, other times amidst small fields cut by oak tree-lanes, or on a lake (many Germans come here to sail). I could fill a whole paper about this part of the Netherlands. Let me give you some highlights:
Fryslân or Friesland is the only province in our country with an own language. This language, Frisian, stems from the time the Frisians, the Franks and the Saxons populated our country. The Franks and the Saxons adopted Dutch, the Frisians kept their own language, which is also affiliated to English because together with the Saxons and the Danish they conquered the greater part of the U.K. in the early Middle Ages. Many words sound alike, or almost alike, in Frisian and English, however written differently. Frisian is spoken by some 300,000 people, and is the second official language in the Netherlands. The province is renown around the world because of the Frisian cattle; there is no country in the world without its offspring. Economically, agriculture is the main branch of industry, but since around 1960 tourism has become at least as important. Thanks to tourism, we can maintain a lot of traditional things such as traditional round- or flat-bottom ships (their keel is replaced by leeboards because of the shallow waters), and the costly maintenance of accessibility of water areas (campsheetings, bridges, mooring places etc.). Friesland (or Fryslân) has a number of very beautiful small towns, next to its capital Leeuwarden with also a beautiful centre that unfortunately has been modernized too fast on a number of places, in Leeuwarden’s striving to keep up with the Jones (New York, Paris, Shanghai J). To be mentioned are Dokkum (where Boniface has been killed by the heathen), Bolsward, Franeker Here used to be a university until Napoleon’s time. It also contains the famous Planetarium of Eyse Eysinga, an amateur astrologer who built a completely functioning solar system in his house driven by sophisticated wooden clockworks, it still functions today very accurately, it astonished the scholars of those days (somewhere in the eighteenth century). The ceiling of his living room is reserved for the planets turning around the sun, each in its own pace. Some of them make one circle around the sun in more than a human lifetime, which indicates the accuracy of the clockwork! Then there are Drachten (grown too fast in modern times to have an own character with an old centre – now they are digging out an old canal that first had been filled up to make the road broader, in order to get back something of the old times), Heerenveen (same story, famous for its soccer club) and Harlingen (harbour to the Waddenzee in open connection with the North Sea).
Friesland has been much larger than it is now, stretching from the Belgian coast all the way North to Denmark in the early Middle Ages. Soon the counts of Holland emerged as Frisian opponents on one side, and the Saxons on the other side. The Frisians had their own kings and had to yield to foreign powers eventually. In Germany and South Denmark their language is only a kind of curiosity, spoken by a handful of people, our Dutch province is the only area where it is still common language next to Dutch (in the countryside only spoken to people from outside Friesland).
Of course there is much more to tell about Fryslân, its history, its musea, the people, etc., but it will not suit a blog like this. I can refer to some websites:

http://www.drf.nl/images/1995/Zomer/index.html

http://www.hartvanfriesland.nl/engels.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friesland

http://www.frieslandholland.nl/uk/

John is rich, Peter is poor and that's John's fault

2007-06-08T16:19:00.001+02:00

G 8

The World top conference has ended. Which gives me, regardless of its outcome, the opportunity to say something about the constant demonstrations and accusations against the “rich world”. I saw an African lady, a Noble Prize winner, declaring for TV that the rich countries constantly hide themselves behind the cop-out that the governments of the poor countries and the corruption prevent effective aid programs for the poor. This wasn’t an excuse, and she advocated a multi-billion dollar gift for Africa.

People are always inclined to find simple solutions and scapegoats. There are rich countries and there are poor countries, and if the rich ones would give some of their wealth to the poor, the problem is solved. It’s their fault, so they have to give. There are several arguments against this simple view, but it seems as if people are only proclaiming their view without listening to arguments contra. Every argument contra is wiped from the table: see above. Let’s have a look at some arguments:
In very poor countries, with a low education level among the people and powerful family and clan bonds every large-scale aid program is deemed to fail, because you always have to involve the local chiefs whose first concern is to preserve their influence and existing social (family) patterns. In Europe and USA we are used to bureaucratic rules formulated by Max Weber. These rules allocate the greatest power to those who actually contribute most to economic and social welfare, within a democratic system with separated government functions. Poor countries allocate power according to birth, gender, clan membership, sequence of birth. The authorities in these countries see Western aid programs primarily as a means to get money, not to get economic development. The result of this attitude, namely the suffering of their peoples, they put on the blame account of the rich countries who “don’t give enough”.
Europe has been blamed for colonizing a large number of countries who now are called “poor”. Colonization is a great evil that now belongs to the past. Yet, there are still action groups who demand monetary compensation because the West “has become rich thanks to slavery”. Then I want compensation for the Netherlands from the Spanish, the Romans, the Austrians, the French and the Germans who all once exploited Holland as part of their empires.
It’s NOT pointing at “countries” and demanding compensation from them, but first of all one has to point at themselves. If you are government member of a poor African country, it’s you who has to arrange things in such a way that prosperity is aimed at for your people. This is a “law” as old as humanity itself. It’s not the countries, it’s the people and their culture. Although authorities always want to stress that a country is an expansion of an inhabitant’s personality and identity. People should use their countries to pursue what is the right thing to do when it comes to mass operations like foreign aid and development campaigns. When the Dutch left Indonesia as their colonizers, the Javanese took over their role in colonizing the rest of the Indonesian archipelago. Without Dutch / British / Portuguese colonization Indonesia would never have existed, instead there would have been now a number of smaller countries just like in Europe. Even Java consisted in at least three different kingdoms, autonomously operating before the colonization era. For the colonizers, huge territories were more efficient to control. The problems this gave we see in Iraq, where all Iraqi people consider themselves in the first place as Shiite, Sunnite, Kurd, etc. and in the second place as Iraqis. Of course when Iraq is one “state” with uniform laws, then it’s they (their group) who have to be in power, and not the others. Iraq lacks now a strong leader such as Sukarno in Indonesia, to become one nation. Maybe Saddam Hussein was such a leader, but far less sophisticated than the erudite and elegant Sukarno, when we saw Saddam provoke every other power to withstand him instead of practicing diplomacy. In the USA we see that they have been a British colony (or a series of colonies) and afterwards we see that they themselves have been approaching each other and co-operating to become the country they are now, instead of constantly fighting each other. Of course there were armed struggles but these didn’t determine the result.
When we look at many poor countries we see charlatans as their presidents, constantly blaming and pointing to others, and doing everything except giving their people directions and guidelines of how they could develop as a nation. When the Pope visits South America, Mr. Chavez takes immediate opportunity to shout that the Roman Catholic Spain violently imposed Catholicism to the Indians, something that maybe happened 450 years ago. Uttering this opinion now, doesn’t help poor Indians at all and is only intended to show Mr. Chavez to the people as a friend of the Indians, exhorting them to forswear their faith, totally according to the Marxist principle that religion is the opium of the people.

Yes, people of the demonstration circus around “globalization”, you are in good company.

Some reflections

2007-06-06T13:45:00.000+02:00

The days are racing along. My work, family and new two hobbies (photoblogging and the sailing boat) require their attention. I must be aware of priorities and luckily I manage to. I’m also starting to feel that I’m in my sixties and not in my forties anymore. Cycling to and fro my work is a daily enjoyment but I see more bottoms of overtaking fellow-cyclists than I did before. When I visited my brothers and sisters during a birthday party I felt a member of an aged people club, and I was the oldest of them! They were showing each other photos of their grandchildren: very cute but there is a big chance I’ll never experience how it is to be grandfather and I have also to regret that I cannot produce energy and effort to keep track of the developments of all my grand-nephews and –nieces, being aware that they are of great importance for my brothers and sisters. At the same time I felt blessed with so big a family. Nowadays youngsters have only a few brothers and/or sisters, my son has none, and one’s brother or sister can be of great emotional help in times of problems. Not because of the expertise of their advice, but just because someone of your “roots” is listening and takes interest in you, no therapist or pastor can give this. On the other hand, just because of the same reason I think there can be big conflicts and clashes between them, as well as complete ignoring each other. The bond of being of the same roots is very strong, but has to compete with other bonds people feel such as having the same view on life, having the same kind of interests and preferences, etc. and brothers and sisters can differ enormously in these things. In our culture family bonds are often broken, just like there are so many divorces, which one should regret. But it’s only one side of the coin. I wouldn’t like to swap with cultures in which families are al-mighty, and can be felt as a prison. Anyway, our family keeps “the middle of the road”.
Since our parents passed away our mentally handicapped brother (46) is more or less the “centre of the family” keeping everybody together for a great deal, although he himself isn’t aware of it.
I really discovered photographing. In my thirties I used to have a dark room and also photographed a lot, but digital photography gives an extra dimension and is so easy and convenient. No rigmarole with chemicals and stuff.

I’m also bothering about things from the newspapers, it’s a kind of feeling yourself powerless and privileged. Poetin and Bush quarreling about anti-rocket installations in Europe (the idea! Europe being threatened by Iranese rockets, thank you says Poetin, for the reason you give me to profile Russia as a superpower), the rainforests being devastated (when I ride my bicycle across the little bridge across the ditch I ride over tropical wood planks), the arrogance of “religious” fundamentalists with whom no discussion or talk is possible because they feel they have always right because God lays His words in their mouths, that’s why they do so much damage to the rest of the world instead of visiting a psychiatrist, etc.

The photoblog gives me much confort, when I see how photographers from Iran and USA complement each other with their products of beauty, like a Utopia becoming real. Almost every picture is taken and published with love and dedication and deserves a compliment. Some of them are of a breathtaking beauty (Kaveh, Mehdi, among others), others are candid and spontaneous, it’s really fun.

See you soon.

Old professions and crafts

2007-06-04T10:29:00.001+02:00

Sometimes it's good to browse around in collections of old photos, from before there were:
telephones
computers
cars for many people
supermarkets
long vacations
(many) airplanes
diplomas for most of the people
highways
mortgages for many people
TV's (or even radios)
cameras for non-professionals
etc.

The man on the picture I took from www.winshem.nl and I 'm curious if you know what occupation he has. He is a "wake-upper" and businesspeople (other people didn't have the money to pay him or didn't need him) hired a wake-upper to make sure they would get up in time for their appointments, for which they often had to make long journeys through the country. With his stick he knocked on the door until the client showed he had heard it and could pay him.

Now we have alarm clocks. Maybe the wake-upper's client had also one but wanted to be sure.

In those days there were also hot-water sellers (mostly women, there were also female wake-uppers, a Dutch novelist wrote a short story about one). As you can guess looking at the picture, there were no pensions for lots of people and also a wake-upper had to look neatly dressed considering the importance of his clients.

I'm getting old, finding these things important enough to post on my blog.

Meeting our inner expectations

2007-05-31T09:46:00.000+02:00

"enjoyable for free"

“The most important lesson of the Holocaust is not that bad people do bad things, but that modernity causes good people to get involved in horrific actions, no matter if they are urged or not.”

Reading these words in the Dutch magazine “Filosofie” of this month I got confirmed what I already suspected. They are from an interview with the 82-year old Zygmunt Bauman, one of the most productive philosophers and sociologists of our time (he writes a book every year). His central theme is: modernity. In his book “Sociology of Everyday Life” he introduced the concept of “liquid modernity”. Liquid, yes, that’s the word. In our day-to-day life we have to take hundreds of decisions, on a sea surrounded by choices, and for the first time in human existence we seem to be free in these decisions. We are floating on this sea and have no land in sight. But it doesn’t only hold for us, it also holds for the people who try to influence these decisions, or people who are “in charge”. A few examples:

* In the Netherlands we have a parliamentary democracy, based on the principle that we vote periodically for the parliament. More and more politicians address themselves directly to “the people”, especially via TV., ignoring the parliament. “The people” are becoming a governmental institution by themselves, but don’t bear any governmental responsibility. This is all made possible and stimulated by modern ICT, TV and newspapers. The media dictate more and more what’s important, what decisions we and the politicians should take. In defining what’s important the media follow what their readers like to read about. It’s a circle.

* When we go shopping we think we are free to choose. But we have only choice from the products made by producers who want to combine as much profit as possible, without any concern for sustainability. They simply have to. Also, they awake in us needs we wouldn’t have if the product wouldn’t be offered. Marketing makes use of refined psychological insights to reinforce this need-arousal, marketing has to, otherwise they lose the competition. It’s not usefulness, not beauty, durability, quality etc. that are production criteria by themselves, but profit and via profit, employment for millions of workers and managers. Marketing books dictate that “quality” is defined as “meeting the expectations of the customer”, not “meeting the requirements of sustainability” or “usefullness” etc.

* Privatization has caused a series of changes and complications in public transport, public health care, education, mail services etc. that provide the “customer”( the civilian) with a new, everlasting change circus with fancy brand names succeeding each other in mergers, take-overs and price wars, as if “the consumer” rationally stores all the needed info in his computerized head and chooses the best alternative. Nobody dares confess to colleagues or friends that he hasn’t chosen the most profitable mortgage or insurance or internet provider. No choice by choice-overflow.

* When China develops as a modern capitalist (!) nation (Mao Zedong and Marx would turn themselves in their graves), all Western industries form queues to enter this huge and profitable market. Belgium cancelled a visit of the Dalai Lama of Tibet to Belgium because it wouldn’t please China . Nobody has a choice: employment is the moral reason, profit the primary reason.

* Today's news: in Congo the war is ended; thanks to this "economy" can take its place: the government issued concessions to wood traders to rob almost half of its rainforests: a disaster for everybody. The wood is not really needed but cheaper than its alternatives.

Individuals are not in a position to change anything, but are constantly urged to make up their minds to choose from many alternatives, pushed not by what they think would be sensible or rational, but by commerce. Outside these commercially approved alternatives they have no choice: it isn’t available, it’s too expensive, they have to “sacrifice” too much such as a job, half an income etc. Bauman notes that social belongingness for lifetime, lifetime commitment to a religion, a social group, a family, etc. has been exchanged for “power on/off” and “download/delete” relationships. Mr. Bauman is very pessimistic in the sentence I quoted as the first line of this column. Following his reasoning, we are committed to many, many evil deeds and situations unwillingly because it’s part of our job or income. In this structure, he says, a power beyond our individual control could rise and pursue a Holocaust-like event; yes, there are such events already going on like for instance in South Sudan. Is there another direction mankind can choose? I think there is. All I wrote above is one side of the medal. When you listen to people carefully you notice that many (most?) of them are aware of all this, but that they let themselves float, like on water, to the decisions that are most “obvious”, most “taken for granted”, most “sensible” in terms of continuing a “normal” life for themselves and their families. But there is a deeper layer that shows the objections to these decisions, concerns if this really is the right thing to choose. Let’s follow that inner layer more often, it means that we become more alert and more aware and don’t follow hypes, the cheapest way, our urge to get satisfied. Show the marketers that we as consumers don’t want to get “satisfied” in our “expectations”, but that we want satisfaction provided by ourselves, by the inner layers of our consciousness.

The family Challenge

2007-05-30T10:44:00.000+02:00

When we were visiting the family of my sister-in-law, we went out eating in a restaurant. Here Menno has great fun with his aunt and niece. Two pictures, an impressionist one giving an idea of quick movement and play, the other one showing the kinship between aunt and cousin.

A sailing trip (end for the time being)

2007-05-27T21:26:00.000+02:00

Next time I 'll come with an article on "good and evil", so if somebody thinks I'm only busy with nice things of everyday life, please be patient and read just one time more about our boat life. Anyway. This afternoon we went to our boat again with two children who couldn't appreciate it very much. Luckily the cabin could be transformed into a bedroom so they kept themselves busy with experimenting with cushions and planks. The girl was less desinterested than the boy and asked sometimes a question. Menno was happy to assist with the start and mooring, he was in charge of a particular rope. We didn't sail much because there wasn't much wind and we had only 2.5 hours. Hoisting the sails takes a lot of work and time on this old boat, you have to go to the mast and the front to handle ropes, pull them and attach them, and with the children we were too lazy for it. After the trip we visited a terrace and had a snack and a drink, for the children a reward and for us an extension of our lazy afternoon.

Please pay attention to the foto's. There was a reunion going on of the Dutch Association for Old-timer Tugboats which yielded some nice pictures, unfortunately the sun kept herself hidden behind a heavy pack of clouds so the heaven appeared white on the picture. There was also a genuine Missisippi paddleboat for tourist taking a sightseeing trip through this area full of lakes and swamps (it has a National Park status).

Our first sailing trip with the new boat

2007-05-26T22:36:00.000+02:00

This afternoon we "parked" the children (Menno and his "stepsister" as he clls her) with a friend to try the sailing capacities of the new acquisition. Wer discovered the following:
She really needs wind because by wind force 3 Beaufort and below she is slower than one can expect from a modern sailing boat. But she isn't modern. I think it's caused by her material (heavy steel) and her sail (not designed for her but deparately purchased from another boat). She has a gaff sail which isn't usual for her type of boat.
HOwever, being on the water was a nice experience and she did perfectly what she had to do. She will be at her best on more open water, with wind force 4 or 5. With 6 she will need a reef which she hasn't so we have to provide her with one.
Janine is enthousiastic. But she also thinks of the kids who don't like being on a sailing boat for longer than half an hour, so she was talking about little islands with playing and bbq possibilities.

Unfortunately we didn'have cameras with us (hers was just returned from repair and lacked batteries, mine was at home because I wanted to concentrate on the sailing and not be distracted by my other addiction), otherwise we could show you something. But tomorrow is another day and we will go with the children.

Helene Schjerfbeck

2007-05-24T13:47:00.000+02:00

People who don't want to read religious ruminations can skip this post.

This morning I read an announcement about a second Finnish artist next to Akseli Gallen whom I discussed earlier in my blog. She is, like Akseli, from the time of the favorite statues of our co-blogger Robert (see sidebar). Her painting as I saw them reproduced in the newspaper (see picture above), penetrated directly into my soul. The woman lived from 1862-1946 and was constantly ill. I don't give a website here, please use Google for many sites in which she is featuring. The newspaper announced an exhibition of her work in The Hague, Municipal Museum, and I regretted that I had purchased a boat but such exhibitions are mostly during a couple of months so I will get an opportunity; The Hague is two and a half hours driving and that's long in our country.

Special attention was paid to the painting presented in the picture above (a scan from the newspaper, for I found no representations of it on the Internet. Your eye is immediately attracted by a black door in a monastery-like environment. Why? Because of the light behind the door. And I had to think of both Jesus and Death. Jesus, who said: I am the Door. Death which is terrifying for people, mostly accompanied by heavy suffering and pain, black is its color. But behind it the Light is shining. And I had to think of the suffering of the artist who was ill while painting this piece. Jesus wasn't only the Door, but went through such door Himself, as an example for us.

Two nice happenings

2007-05-24T09:32:00.000+02:00

In our country we have a chain of druggist shops that offers next to the usual druggist articles such as soap, fragrances, bath-articles, anti-headache pills etc. also CD’s. Not only popular pop-CD’s but also very unique classical musiques, sometimes “all works from…” series in boxes. These CD’s are sold against unbelievably low prices. The chain is called “Het Kruidvat”. This week I had a bull’s eye again, from an early 17th-century Dutch musician and composer. I got it for only 6 (six) Euro’s (about 7.50 Dollars), three CD’s in a luxury box, together with a 60-page instructive manual about the composer, his biography, instruments, and the performing musician, Erik Bosgraaf. Holland is not very renown because of its music, it’s more specialised in visual arts, but sometimes a jewel pops up and here is one. So I didn’t need thinking for long. At home I enjoyed the music. The special thing about it is that the 3 CD’s are filled only with recorder music, on all kinds of recorders. Solo. An outsider, pestered by recorder lessons on primary school would immediately think: boring. But this virtuoso musician lets hear heavenly music. The text on the box says: “Jacob van Eyck, the blind city carillonneur of Utrecht, played his recorder on summer evenings in the Janskerkhof (churchyard of the St. John’s cathedral) The public, strolling in the churchyard, was overwhelmed by his visrtuosic art”. These words are not overdone. I refer to his special website, where you can hear samples of the music: http://www.jacobvaneyck.info/main.htm. (music samples: click on the tab "more"). The site of the “Kruidvat” where you can order the CD’s (I don’t know if this is possible from all over the world but you can try) is in Dutch but you’ll recognize the words “Der fluyten lust...” in the column "klassiek" no. 1, is here. Enjoy also the sound of the nightingale, imitated by one of the pieces.
Another cheerful thing happened when I tested my new camera, a second-hand Sony Cybershot DSC-S85. I saw the first orchid of this year on a place where I knew orchids were present, a small meadow near our house. There are several orchid meadows in the village and the municipal green maintenance department adjust their mowing schedules to them. Orchids are the most curious and beautiful plants, that’s what I find. They developed late in the evolutionary process and are very specialized but also very strong. An amateur cannot seed them, seeding can only take place by nature and in sophisticated laboratories. It was late in the evening and dusk was rapidly approaching, but my camera found it no problem, see picture. The species is “Dactilorhiza Incarnata”, meaning: “flesh-looking finger-rooted”. In Dutch we call it “flesh-colored orchis”. The specimen on the photo isn't very flesh-colored, but depending on soil composition the flower can take many colours around pink, from nearly white to purple like this one. I'm sure it's the species I mentioned. My plant book says it’s a rare and protected plant, you can expect a heavy fine when caught picking the flower or digging it out for your garden.

English words

2007-05-21T22:30:00.000+02:00

When I was in Zaandam this week I spoke to my 16-year old niece and it was about the most beautiful words we knew in English. She is a very clever girl, I told her that I used the word "vicissitudes" in my blog. "Oh, there are so many funny words in English!" she said and promised me to e-mail her list she collected. Here they are:
1. Abbreviations2. Abominable,3. Ambivalence,4. Anthropomorphic,5. Benevolence,6. Double-declutch,7. Flabbergasted,8. Hieroglyphic,9. Homoeopathic,10. Incomprehensibility,11. Immoderation,12. Impermeable,13. Imperturbability,14. Indecipherable,15. Kilderkin,16. Kleptomaniac,17. Knighthood,18. Knowledgeable,19. Knuckle-duster,20. Labyrinthine,21. Lachrymose,22. Lackadaisical,23. Laryngologist,24. Latitudinarian,25. Leatherette,26. Lickspittle,27. Liquefaction,28. Loquacity,29. Machiavellian,30. Macroeconomics,31. Magniloquence,32. Maladjustment,33. Malevolence,34. Materialization,35. Medievalism,36. Misdemeanour,37. Misrepresentation,38. Multilingual,39. Mythological,40. Necromancer

Well, I hope the English native speakers can comment on this: maybe they discover failures, or may add new words for her collection.

Spirituality in Photos

2007-05-21T21:32:00.000+02:00

I just added a new link in the sidebar, please have a look; it's a photoblog by a Dutch lady who combines spirituality with strength and doesn't pay like many of us, only lip service to the trend of respect for nature and the own body, and knows how to promote her view in a modest and attractive way, via pictures and genuine, authentic beauty.

Boat owner vicissitudes II

2007-05-21T15:46:00.000+02:00

Photo 1: the seller explaining the attachment of the boom to the mast

Photo 2: the happy and proud new owner

Photo 3: Menno testing the front hatch

It is Friday morning, an obligatory day off between Ascension Day and the weekend. My brother Peter and I are surprised to discover that the seller of the boat has already put the mast on the boat (we expected that we had to do that); he had his son with him and he explained to us a few more details. After we finished we went home to lunch because our appointment with the engine deliverer was at two PM at the boat. This 2 PM became 3.15 PM because of traffic jams and unexpected busyness (nice weather, many people with holidays). Anyway, it took another hour to install the engine (unexpected complications with the electronic starter, the engine was with manual starting), so we could leave with the boat from her place where she had been lying during the last 4 weeks at 4.15 PM, too late for reaching the home harbor, 4.5 hours of sailing further: my brother had to be at home in the evening, so we decided to take a night stop at the very small village of “Gerkesklooster”. Janine drove to and from home to collect sleeping bags and stuff. She herself and my brother left the place, and I and my son who was excited about it, stayed at the boat. The other day I did some shopping and Janine arrived. We would leave heading for the home harbor in Earnewald. I started the engine but after 30 seconds, just before take-off, it stopped: I forgot to push back the choke button. It refused service for 45 minutes. Then I called the deliverer who explained me what to do (very normal things but it was 17 years ago I last started an outboard engine) and everything was perfect again.
Windforce was 4 – 5 Beaufort, blowing right against us, and half of the trip would be over open water. On board there were also 2 bicycles because we had to leave the car in Gerkesklooster. From Earnewald we would cycle to our home in Hurdegaryp (Menno on the luggage rack of my bike). Then I would take the train to Gerkesklooster (also with my bike in the train with me – 2 tickets please, because Gerkesklooster is 8 kilomers from its nearest train station). There I would attach the bike to the car (special bicycle rack, fantastic!) and drive home by car. Complicated, but it worked.

So it happened totally according plan.

The other day (Sunday) we went to the boat again to erect the mast which had been downward during the trip yesterday to avoid bridge delay and also because the wind was against us. We also repaired and changed some minor details (on board of a sailing boat almost nothing is “minor” however) and cleaned it. At last everything was ready to sail and the boat spic-and span, but… the sailors were too tired and decided to sail next week-end.

Oops!! No camera!!

2007-05-19T22:42:00.000+02:00

Today we have our new 2nd-hand sailing boat at last in her home harbour, Earnewald, in the middle of Fryslân, after a 4.5 hour trip without sailing, by the engine alone, against a wind which blew with 4-5 Beaufort, partly over open water. So it was also a test for the engine, an outboard Yamaha high-trust 8 Horsepower. I was a bit sceptic because the boat is 8 meters long, built of steel and pretty heavy in comparison with wood or polyester. The engine seller told me that 8 PK high trust is as power as much as 25 Horsepower regular. They are especially suited for sailing boats. We are very happy and satisfied with boat and motor, costing as much as two 2-week holidays when you hire something or stay in a hotel in Italy, Turkey or other mid-far away country.

The reason why there are no photos yet is that my camera is out of order. It still has guarantee, but I'll miss it for a couple of weeks as it has been sent to the importer to repair or replace it. Happily enough I have far more photos up to now than I can publish, but no boat photos. The very same day that it got out of order, my brother (who was with me at my home) knew somebody who had a Sony camera 4 MP, the same model as he had, for only 90 Euros and I bought it at once. The advantage of it is that you can operate exposure time, lens opening and ISO manually which wasn't possible with my now broken camera. Also the brand of the lens sounded luxurious: Zeiss-Ikon. (No doubt these days there are fancy-brand lenses which are as good, but the name... I saw an advertisement for a Leica, a simple rectangular box which costed without any "extras" such as lens etc. - as if a lens is an extra - 4,200 Euros! I have my doubts if this costly device also will produce pictures that are 40 times better than a 100 Euro-camera.

It's late now and tomorrow we are going to set up the mast and sails and try her sailing competencies, we keep you informed and there will be pictures soon. Life is beautiful. By the way, her name is "De Nachtegaal" meaning yes, "The Nightingale", following the tradition that all boats of her type (brand: "Domp") have birds' names.