Religious doubts...

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covey and Soccer

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

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

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

Covey and soccer

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

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

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

Father and Son in two religions

"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?

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...)

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

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

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!