Maandelijks archief: augustus 2015

Do Santa Claus and ecosystems exist? And God?

Now that summer is coming to an end and the meteorological autumn is almost beginning (September 1st) it is time for going inside and do some study and reflection. So I went on a retreat in a monastery and started to read one of the latest books of Ken Wilber (Integral Spirituality, 2007). That led me to the following question: does Santa Claus exist?

To answer this question in a meaningful way I want to make a short excursion to modern developmental theory. Many authors and scientists have extended evolution theory to a description of the evolutionary development of cultures. The most well known of these descriptions is spiral dynamics, but there are many more. Often the colors of the rainbow are used to denote the different stages in this evolution, from infrared to ultraviolet or clear light (Spiral Dynamics has a slightly deviating system). I for myself roughly differentiate between traditional (up until amber), modern (orange), postmodern (green) and unknown (turquoise and higher).

Now, before returning to my question about the existence of Santa Claus I want to pose another question first: do ecosystems exist? If we should have asked this question to people in the traditional epoch they wouldn’t have understood the question. They couldn’t have consciously found and perceived an ecosystem. The concept simply wasn’t there, and what you can’t conceive you can’t perceive. Now the interesting question is: do ecosystems in the traditional world exist? Don’t fall in the fallacy of the myth of the given: that reality is something that is simply there, given to us. Since Kant we know that reality is at least partially a construct of our mind.

So ecosystems certainly exist in modern and postmodern times, but if they existed before that time (and for people who still live traditionally today) remains to be seen. I gladly leave the conclusion about that to the reader.

Now about Santa Claus. The myth of Santa Claus certainly fits in the traditional way of thinking, although in traditional times the myth was quite different from how it is now. Phenomena in earlier stages of development can always survive in later stages. And this myth, in some form, certainly has survived the centuries. So what can be said is that the myth about Santa Claus (and in Holland: Sinterklaas) certainly exists. But does Santa Claus himself exist?

When I, with my grandchildren, am watching the arrival procession of Sinterklaas in the Netherlands, and I see not only children, but grown ups as well, cheering and waving, then I know Sinterklaas exists. And he exists independently of the cultural level of the onlookers. Maybe emptiness is form and form is emptiness (Heart Sutra), and physical reality is an illusion, but the joy certainly is real. As Richard Back (Donald Shimoda) said in Illusions: The image is the dream, the beauty is real. And so it is.

And God, does he/she/it exist? If it is true that we co-construct reality, then maybe we also co-construct God. The way God then manifest him/her/itself depends on the cultural development of the constructing person(s). If this is all true, the question if God exists becomes obsolete. God is because we are, and surely is more than religious projection. But anyway, if we want to have a meaningful experience representing God, it as a rule demands a lot of investment in time and energy (training in concentration, meditation, prayer, ritual, taking time in silence). About that all spiritual and religious traditions agree. Only in exceptional cases the experience of God is just given to someone by grace.

So far the results of some weeks of study and contemplation. As the freemasons say: so mote it be.

(I apologize for mistakes in my English. Blogs are cursory – not stuff for correction by a native speaker).

Zijn onze leiders nu dom of te kwader trouw?

Geef een reactie

Toen destijds de fusie plaats vond tussen KLM en Air France, wist iedereen dat dit het einde zou zijn van het zelfstandig voortbestaan van de KLM, en dat dit derhalve een bedreiging zou zijn voor de groei van Schiphol (de thuishaven van Air France is immers Charles de Gaulle). De regering verzekerde toen dat dit geenszins het geval zou zijn, want er waren allerlei garantiebepalingen in de fusieovereenkomst opgenomen dit dit moesten voorkomen. Maar bepalingen zeggen niets in een samenleving waar de macht van het kapitaal regeert.

Dit bleek toen minister Eurlings de belangrijkste garantiebepaling in 2010 heeft geschrapt. Daarvoor is hij vorstelijk beloond, met een functie als president-directeur van KLM. Helaas was hij daarvoor nou weer niet slim genoeg, maar het kwaad was al geschied.

Recentelijk heeft de Franse staat haar belang in Air France vergroot om een wet tegen activistische aandeelhouders aangenomen te krijgen. Een verdere uitbreiding van de Franse macht binnen het concern. Dit wordt weliswaar ontkend door minister Dijsselbloem. Zou die de volgende directeur worden van het steeds verder zieltogende KLM?

De feitelijke, zij het misschien nog niet formele, ondergang van KLM is slechts een kwestie van tijd. En daarmee de bedreiging van de groei van Schiphol. Dit laatste zou niet het geval hoeven te zijn, als Schiphol, net zoals Singapore heeft gedaan, de ‘eigen’ luchtvaartmaatschappij niet zou beschermen ten koste van de maatschappijen uit de golfstaten. Singapore, door de eigen luchtvaartmaatschappij Singapore Airlines niet te bevoordelen door de landingsrechten voor de andere maatschappijen te verhogen (zoals Schiphol wel heeft gedaan), is uitgegroeid tot de een van de grootste luchthavens ter wereld.

Het kan me eerlijk gezzegd geen fluit schelen of KLM dan wel Schiphol nu wel of niet groeien of ten onder gaan. Ik heb niets met nationale trots of zo, en ook niet met economische (want ecologisch schadelijke) groei. Maar waar ik wel heel veel moeite mee heb is de leugenachtigheid van politici, en met het feit dat ogenschijnlijk liberale politici sjoemelen met hun liberale principes als puntje bij paaltje komt. En ik zit ook met een vraag: zijn onze leiders nu dom of te kwader trouw? Misleiden zij zichzelf of ons?

Elk volk krijgt de leiders die het verdient, en helaas behoor ik tot het volk dat deze leiders krijgt. Misschien zou ik daarom met mildheid op bovenstaande zaken moeten reageren in plaats van met woede. Maar dat lukt me niet zo goed. En woede kan ook een uiting zijn vitale kracht. Kortom, met al mijn levenservaring en met een zekere wijsheid van de onderdom ben ik er nog helemaal niet uit. Wordt vervolgd, zij het misschien niet meteen al volgende week.

(bronnen voor deze blog: NRC/Handelsblad 2 en 3 juni j.l.)

False promise of 2 degrees global warming prevents effective action

1 reactie

In 2008 Jan Paul van Soest and I published a book (Earth Fever, for Dutch Readers: De Aarde heeft koorts) in which we sketched a scenario in which a limitation of global warming to 2 degrees centigrade wasn’t feasible anymore. We estimated the probability of that scenario as high. At the time we were criticized and put away as negative pessimists who were blowing up the problem way out of proportion. Unfortunately however, nowadays we appear to have been right. A two degrees scenario is no longer achievable. Maybe technically and theoretically it still is, but politically and socially it isn’t. A three degree global warming is the best we can hope for, even now, when some shift in the American public opinion concerning global warming seems to happen and, at last, America in the person of Obama, is moving in the right direction. But this is still too little and too late. This conclusion is substantiated by an article of Jan Paul in one of the Dutch papers: Trouw (July 30), and, for those who can read Dutch, online: https://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/13110/Klimaatverandering/article/detail/4110481/2015/07/30/Wees-eerlijk-twee-graden-opwarming-is-een-illusie.dhtml

Although I like to be right, I’d rather should have been wrong.

The results of a three degree global warming are unheard of. Very extreme climate changes (hurricanes, draughts), extreme sea level rise, loss of agricultural land, hunger etc. Maybe it also creates unprecedented opportunities.

The reactions to the article of Jan Paul again are predictable: ridicule, denial, refutation, etc. But there are also encouraging and consenting responses. Some think that by identifying reality all willingness to act will dwindle. Others however, as we ourselves, are thinking just the opposite. Never a problem is efficiently dealt with by negating it. Looking at reality as it is and having the courage to stay with it, together with others, will release an unknown creativity. In this case we hope that attention will shift from reacting to creating: thinking about how can we deal with the upcoming world. As Krishnamurti said already ages ago: seeing is acting. So I invite you to join the seeers. Maybe you have to go through some despair first, but in the end it will make you happier, believe it or not.

(I apologize for mistakes in my English. Blogs are cursory – not stuff for correction by a native speaker).

Next week I am in a retreat, so no blog that week.