Socially Responsible obstinacy
There is nothing in human life that seems not seen from any point of reasonable and necessary and also from any other standpoint, silly and ridiculous. Importance of the position from which one judges a thing to justify.
I would like to explain to my preliminary observation of this fundamental concept of socially responsible obstinacy. The word stubborn I guess by Hermann Hesse. Now I do not want him parrot because that would be either him or me right. Also, I know his own mind-concept is not accurate enough to refer to here and now it can. Obstinacy, which at first sounds a lot like selfishness, stubbornness, after, according to stubbornness. Hesse said, but - broadly speaking - so that every person should live to what you want out of it. In his books, "Demian", "Narcissus and Goldmund", "Siddhartha", "Beneath the Wheel", "Steppenwolf", "Klein and Wagner" and others "makes obstinacy fun" and of course the text collections "obstinacy" and can be , read about what he meant. It is a Selfishness, but no, the welfare of the people is irrelevant. The adjective has socially responsible Hesse in my view is not used, but lived, though not in all situations. He was in World War I on duty at the War Department supplied the prisoners in French camps German POWs with literature and writing at the same peace-loving attachments for the Zurich newspaper, and he answered every letter, regardless of the writing time and postage costs. This is social responsibility, namely that of a stubborn man who wanted to live what was out of it, and so many enemies, or at least did sharp critics.
I sat said before that adjective to the sharp, unforgiving tone of the noun is something to soften it. I do also because in our society already has spread a great egoism, which often hides behind the ideal of self-realization. But what I mean by the socially responsible self-will?
Now, as a child of an arts and cultural-historical development of European society, which concluded, among other important eras of Renaissance and Enlightenment through, I see in every human being an individual that is part of a community. I see in people that is not primarily to participate in the community, but also not just the individual creatures. Every person I see as a being who must go his own best way, this way is embedded in many situational. This situation dependencies do indeed look a part of the individual. We are a product of our genes and our environment and possibly a variable X, which I can not determine in more detail. If there is something like freedom, it is rooted in the size of X, but my mind is a miracle, a miracle, which I know nothing that I feel only.
Now I want to present here not all probing depths anthropology, not even basic thoughts about the possibility of human freedom, which I have already done elsewhere, postulate but in my opinion ideal relationship of the individual to the society of which it forms part.
is first important to me that: Every person has a special personality, with its own inalienable dignity. You did the authors of our Constitution even a legal basis of our state. The principle of the inviolability of human dignity is defined in the Declaration of Human Rights of the UN. Nevertheless, this dignity is touched again and again, despised, trampled on, from people who attach their own dignity, value, but not the other eight.
Amnesty International sets time and again reports of detentions, torture and other human rights violations worldwide by governments, military, police and other institutions of human societies are carried out. We often complain about the fact that such a thing still possible today. Well, it is only possible because there are people who think it somehow is right to act to enforce their own interests, and because there are people who keep the while to be wrong, but remain silent for fear of themselves to become victims when they open their mouth, an unfortunately not unjustified fear.
We worship very people such as Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa and other representatives of the individual and collective rights of people to self-determination in matters of life. We worship them as freedom fighters, one day, as in times of nationalistic Andreas Hofer Arminius the Cherusci. Despite the tensions that arise between individual and collective emphasis on human rights as between a modern Western and Muslim understanding, I would like to insult our devotion to freedom fighters but sometimes as comfortable Sesselfurzerei as long as we live in comfortable secure Rechtsstati and with all the problems , cost for their removal said people who personally have nothing to do. And if you look closely, you can experience unfortunately not rare that take place under normal social conventions against discrimination, as soon as someone steps out of line and is different from the others. Ethologists may say that was completely normal in animals, including people we are, and one could already observe in children, so I want regardless of the value that may have the animal and childlike innocence as a symbol - as opposed to a warped and desperately contrived adulthood - but normative claim that it is a truly adult happened to sound immature, not to condemn the characteristics of uniformed members of society.
times I bring three examples from a very topical area, namely, the clothes in which I as a man who likes to wear skirts, even a little from the conventional frame fall.
Just imagine four men, wearing one of which a large hat, such as a Stetson, the second of a skirt with, such as a denim skirt, its third in a suit with pants, jacket and tie with and the fourth with jeans and T-Shirt clothed. If you belong to the people who are thinking about why a man dressed either way, you could come to the following consideration:
to the man with the big hat:
Will he protect yourself from the sun?
he comes from a country in which one such With hats, for example from Texas?
Will he stand out and make themselves important?
Is he a child retarded man who likes to play cowboy?
Is he an actor with a costume?
he has brought the hat as a souvenir from a trip?
to the man with the Rock:
Is he wearing pants too uncomfortable or too hot?
he comes from a country in which you wear skirts, some from Scotland?
he likes to wear women's clothes, perhaps because he is sexually oriented somehow different from heterosexual and cissexuell, ie homosexual or transsexual, transvestism, fetishism, or otherwise?
Will he strike you and make important?
If his pants all the laundry, and he has borrowed a skirt?
he finds beautiful skirts than trousers?
to the man with the suit:
he comes from or is it a party?
he want to sell me something?
he does nice suits and ties?
Was he forced to dress as uncomfortable as his boss?
he's a insecure person who dresses so as to be barely noticeable, and to hide his insecurity?
he loves to dress in uniforms to be lost in the crowd? Will he play
like the boss?
to the man in jeans and T-Shirt:
he Clothe yourself comfortable?
he valued inconspicuous clothing? Is he a
IT specialist who is subject because of his expertise is not compulsory to wear a suit?
Did he leave?
Is he on the way or does it come from a working, practical clothing required?
Is he a fan of American casual wear?
Thus we see that in each case are several ways to interpret the clothing choice of a person. Perhaps we will soon associations in the head, which may correspond to more than 50% of the cases is true. But I am also a possible perhaps 20% error rate seems too high, as we could allow ourselves to trust instilled a spontaneous assessment completely. Our society is already one of pluralistic than that generalizations would have a chance to apply in more than eight out of ten cases.
Now you could just be the belief that perhaps 20% of people who fit not an instant verdict, to cope with, and they are to blame themselves when their deviance false conclusions. This would be a conviction that I have to disagree sharply. Imagine a person who enters his car and put the ignition key can not, after which a thief steals the car. Who is now the debt due? The insurance company will refuse the car owner to pay a compensation because he has been negligent. The Court but will not condemn the car owner because of his negligence, but the thief, because he committed a theft. The thief can not shift its responsibility so to say on the negligent owners and that it was their own fault. Similarly, but with a somehow unusual dress people: he must indeed expect to be excluded, due to ancient animal Devianzabwehrverhaltens or be at least makes stupid to be responsible for the discriminatory behavior, but always rests with the person who uses it. One would take him, would take him to his human dignity which is always associated with freedom and responsibility. Hence, we must every man of the very uneigensinnig do what you do, just because it just does make confidently when asked why he does it and expect from a justification. This means that uniformed behavior just as stubborn as the justification needed. Who is responsible to deliver customs and practices, supervisors, and commands a sacred scripture or tradition, public opinion or market situation, divested himself of his human dignity. That sounds hard, it would have to think again in detail. But is the mindset. I would not say so, we could be completely free from all this, nor that all this has no value, but very well that sovereignty the choice of what weight we give all that is with us, every one of us, me and you at and Timothy Mueller, 8.15 and the average consumer. can
course one can ask how much responsibility a man who at all, how much freedom he can tolerate. When I go out times like this that we are people of all creatures on earth instinctive least, or otherwise in our actions genetically programmed, then the learning seems to us to play a huge role to play when it comes to orientation in life . see Important things we learn seemed to have begun in early childhood, more important in youth, and only less than adults. So that was also true for thousands of years, because the conditions changed only slowly, and our ancestors lived in small, manageable groups with relatively stable rules of life. Today it's different: permanently changed society, are constantly being added technical innovations and new ideas, such as administration, economy, science, art and religion to practice. This requires either constant adjustment or a stable position, which gives us security. They are also just the two antipodialen survival and orientation strategies that are most often encountered. There are two extremes, the constant chasing behind the changes and the willful, fundamentalist persistence at a point where one has become accustomed and with which you deal is found. Both positions, however, have in common is that they tend to be uniform us humans. For adjustments to change are the same changes at all times have at least similar. You follow the dictates of fashion or the market, which today requires this, tomorrow the qualities of a man, although the change constantly, but are at a time very similar. Fundamentalism demands a loyalty to a position adopted by many people as possible, since a large number of adherents, the plausibility of the position of the individual increased. The practical Ergebnis beider Standpunkte ist aber, dass sich in der Gesellschaft gegeneinander arbeitende oder gar kämpfende Untergruppen bilden, denn es gelingt nie, liberalistisch alle Menschen gleichermaßen an die sich verändernden Bedingungen anzupassen, sondern es entsteht ein Wettbewerb um die Ressourcen, die Märkte, die Arbeitsplätze usw., und es wird auch nie gelingen, alle Menschen fundamentalistisch auf einen Standpunkt einzuschwören, sondern auch hier entsteht ein Wettbewerb der Sinndeutungs- und Welterklärungsangebote, die jeweils mit unerschütterlichem Absolutheitsanspruch um die Ausweitung ihres Geltungsbereiches kämpfen. Das ist aber die Situation in unserer Gesellschaft, in der wir uns zur Zeit befinden.
The stubbornness is a socially responsible alternative. In a sense he is a middle ground between the extremes, in a sense he is also extremely self, depending on which perspective we view it from him.
They should not be to despise the society to fight or to refuse it! I myself have taken three years of my life, the black-red-gold flag on olive-heeled upper arm, ready to defend, that our Federal Republic of German society with my life against an attacker. I was not like a soldier when I was a child and loved everything military. As a teenager and adult I developed myself, however, more and more of a pacifist. But unlike as Hesse I am of the opinion that the military did not leave that should have already ruffians, as this would be the military to a dangerous institution, but I'm sure that just should be the peace-loving soldier, for there is nothing to to wage war, but prevented by a combination of confidence-building measures and deter war. In the case of the NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict we have been successful. What is more, I do not know. Anyway, I said flag is in a sense sacred, for it is precisely for the values that are socially important to me, namely democracy, freedom, unity in pluralism, just what Jena's fraternity and the Frankfurt parliament in the 19th Century against freedom of oppressive foreign rule and authoritarian small states have occurred. The socially responsible self-will, in a sense a continuation of these ideals.
one may misunderstand me so in two ways not to: neither enthusiastic I got from a national state, which combines with a sacred flag as a symbol of its citizens in and uniform, nor anarchy, is doing in each of what he just please. I'm a little compared to Hesse state-friendly, because our Western European countries are different today than in his time. Was still a hurray-patriotic nationalism, the strongest Force in Western European society, it is now the neo-liberalism. If we therefore need an enemy, then this. Maybe we come from, even without an enemy.
It is not primarily a matter of protest against something or someone, but rather to enable every man's inherent creativity. It is about the Thelemic "Do what you want", I though in the end version of Michael, as he has stated in "The Neverending Story," know. The point is not to always do what you feel like doing, but to discover first what your own wishes at all. Attain happiness and avoid suffering is safe basic human needs, to some extent anthropological constants. Sometimes it is a long way before you find your own, individual, personal variant of this request, the couple, a search that the mythical equivalent for the Holy Grail, or the romantic for the Blue Flower. Aberrations are a normal part of the way, actually are part of the viewfinder, which is ultimately separated from his path, as long as he goes. And I also have no final goal seems present, but the goal is reached when one has found his own way, the way to go.
I do not have the format of the above-mentioned political freedom fighter. This is not my way as I currently know it. My way is the effectiveness in my circle, as Adalbert Stifter called it, lived at the time of the small German states after the Congress of Vienna. Police surveillance stifled any democratic aspirations of citizens, whose first duty was to be quiet in the bud. Founder wrote his critical writings encrypted so that I saw them not that there are actually such. I only found out when I read an interpretation.
Sun today, nobody has to hide. Our country is more open, freer place. Opponents and satirist may speak, write and open. The State as such is not the great object of my criticism, if it in detail also much to criticize. I wanted even stronger states, which could guide the economic globalization in a human-friendly direction, instead of leaving it completely undemocratic power and the competition of multinational corporations. The gray men from Michael Ende's "Momo", the CWNU agents from my story "Antes Mission" sit anywhere in the boardrooms or hoof it across the country to customers catch, and they stuck with their view of ordinary people, is the commercialization of all aspects of life in full swing. The Gmork is on the way and pretends to people before stories phantasms commercially as customizable realities. What should
all the allusions to fantasy, fiction literature? Is not frivolous stuff? "What you do not know that you think are not, do you think that fantasy is not real? From it alone grow künft'ge worlds in what we create, we are free "(from Michael Ende's" The Gauklermärchen! "). Oh yes, the advertisers know exactly how to make the power of imagination for an increase in revenues available. Customers follow them in their fantasies, instead of traveling to their own. A necessary act of knowing it would be to recognize one's own world view as a design and find out who designed it, then plans to take over and control their own affairs and to be responsible and to construct and deconstruct themselves freely.
end Michael once said regretfully that there were no more owls, which he did not mean the birds, but the stubborn people who are out of line uniform norm. Well, I know those oddballs, they are still there. And I would be honored to be such a geek, but it's not real aim of my journey. A fellow who maintains his Kauzsein as an image, is probably not real. Real oddballs are there involuntarily by accepting its will, which they can take a path that does not meet the social mainstream. Owls, rather the products of society and caused by deviance and exclusion. In a mature society really were no owls, because not all be adapted to the mainstream, but because there is no mainstream, the postulated absolute claim would.
I do not have any objection in principle, that there is a mainstream, because there are people whose very nature it corresponds to follow the herd. Let them go ahead, stand up but then ensure that they do it because it suits them and not because one has to do so. There is no reason to look down on a herd people because everyone has their valuable features, even within a herd or mainstream society. Moreover, there is this dichotomy here exaggerated formulated rare in this form, but the vast majority of us stuck somewhere in between. The point now is to see where you put between them and neither is there to adapt to the mainstream, where it does not meet one, nor to oppose him, where he meets one, probably because it is felt to be an individualist. There are also herds of individuals, as in "Life of Brian": - "We are all individuals" - "You are all individuals" "No, I do not"
Everyone is free to people who fear too much freedom and responsibility for his decisions to have and leave it to someone else. This is part of the diversity of human life ways. That is to mitigate said above formulated. Now is such a man who expected but at least the step of dispensing the responsibility to admit responsibility and accept it as his own decision, and not by each other, that he just does. Also does not have any rational explanation for his decisions, but may still act on instinct, on the basis of clear, but diffuse feelings. But then he should admit it and do not like you have to act generally Sun
partout What I can not stand is when mainstream people a social constraint in which each and excludes hostile to, which classifies and adapts not!
I admire the police, took the parental leave, even if his colleagues in the collective image of masculinity that did not match, it suggests mocked. I admire the women who struggle in a patriarchal society for their rights, but also the men who protest against too much of feminism. I admire the women who fought for the acceptance to wear trousers in any social situation and I am proud to now reversed to work for the acceptance of skirts bearing men. I admire the Muslim women who free themselves from religious compulsion to wear a headscarf, but also those who are prevailed over the opposite pressure of a secular society and contribute their headscarves public. I admire the politicians who moved in the conventions of defiance instead of in suits and ties with jeans and sneakers in the Bundestag, although they now hold at the international level, unfortunately, because the government is not a "land of the free" Such freedoms tolerate .
It is actually already a scandal how the rules that are established in a society are being broken by company-bearing people. For example, oppose just such men, the objectivity and rationality require most rock movement against the men, without even an objective and rational argument to make. They probably are ashamed that diffuse feelings and attachments to habits to the status quo are the real reasons. I have respect for men who have these reasons and also to admit. I also know men do this, but I believe that they are in the minority. The social conventions at times so keep the rules of thought, which has placed the company and promoted to withstand and still they defended stubbornly. Double standards is a dirty word and yet secret convention. In my view, serve a social critic of the company is worth a conventionalist, at least when these habits conventionalists from their attachments want to commit out other people to those same habits and admit their true motivations do not want, but would rather hide in the crowd of people that have the same habits and love, this hobby but do not admit again as such, but in turn again dear want to anonymously blend into the crowd. Who a hobby, for example, has favorite habits is to stand by and do they justify or reject them, but he will not make it the maxim to all others and should be ashamed nor afraid to stand by them, and the responsibility to others, and whether the anonymous mass, the anonymous "The people are acting" recharge.
It is So no question, not the wishes and expectations of other people to respond, but that, not to bow to such conventions, which apply as some sort of basic social interaction, but are nevertheless observed only on the surface, to maintain a semblance of decency, as measured by the Denk rules of society but make no proper sense. Each, "it does so because it is so one is as maxims to be rejected, and replaced by an" I'm doing this because I do this for the following reasons, which I put at stake, consider to be useful "to promote and demand . Then you can splendid and honest about the reasons and the likely consequences . Discuss In my opinion, is a creative Ekklektizismus of the values that you do on the basics of his actions to bring forward an uncritical acceptance of traditional values, assumed to be responsible for the self-selection made, the responsibility and do not follow your appetite and mood, but the carefully explored and justified their own will.
A great way to explore one's will offer the Buddhist mindfulness meditation, in which one sits still and the feelings and perceptions of body and mind respects, but do not judge at first. So you can see that impulses do a show, and you can accept and adopt, will also verify whether they appear to a wholesome or unwholesome. Whether in this review but now follows the opinions of the Buddha and other masters, or make their own life experience at the material basis, is again a decision must answer for that one.
A good way to bear down on the discursive reason and your own questions and answer honestly to make you offers, the Socratic dialogue. They say what you have to say without being interrupted while listening to another presentation without interrupting the other person and then go together to set out the grounds of where we carefully distinguish between their own Experiences and conclusions and simply adopted different. So you can find out very nice, whether you really understood a thing or has learned by heart
only definitions.
I think that these two methods complement each other very nicely. Mindfulness meditation alone can be a fast uncritical of infiltration from the outside and thus to external controls, one of which is explained, they were from his own experience of meditation. This took place, for example, in Japan at the time of imperialism in which the Zen practitioners were told that loyalty to the emperor and killing enemies in Japan correspond mahayanabuddhistischer ethics. A discursive discussion of philosophical problems can own one quickly forget that we are not only rational human mind, but many claim, contextually meaningful emotions, its right to determine our actions. Both methods together but complementary in their peer review, is very useful.
It is therefore yet to the above mentioned schonmal self-realization also where "realization" has a dual meaning, "recognize reality" and of "creating reality". How much our ideas of the world to their real essence, as it is beyond our perception, correspond to withdraw more and more of my assessment, the more I am concerned with constructivism. On the basis of impressions we create in any case the world in its meaning for ourselves So there is an interpretation of sensations and a projection of interpretations to a matrix. This projection is only in its entirety but actually the world and reality. This three-step from feeling, interpretation and projection is both a receptive and constructive process. The difficulty lies in the balancing act between the ideas of either one right way to accomplish this process or even of perfect indifference to such normative ideas, that is, between fundamentalism and arbitrariness in matters of world explanation and interpretation of meaning. And regarding the self, to be achieved, it is no different than with other objects of the realization: it is a combination of perception and Wahrmachung from FIND and invention. Sometimes it does not, well, a construct that appears to be too arbitrary and unrealistic to deconstruct, by passing it back out to the underlying feelings and the interests that lie behind the interpretation. In this case you can not stop, because alone with the incoherent components of a possible world we can not live people, but we have to reconstruct it or re-construct the best to the best of my knowledge. The optimal mental readiness for the proper handling of this problem I call "wisdom", the true aim of philosophy (or philosophy).
Especially in discourse with other human similarities and differences come to light, and there is the constructivist belief that this is true, as recognized by such a discourse, the discourse of the leading group of people to be true. Consequently, there are different truths in different groups are united again in a discussion among the groups on a mutually valid truth or more groups, either by one of the group represented truths about the other (s) wins or by compromise or syncretism has taken place. Now arises the question but whether these truths diskursgebürtigen also have a counterpart in the area that exists independently of perception and discourse. This question applies as well to human freedom. If a group came to the view that man has a freedom of will and another to the one man is in his will determined and integrated into a network of causes and effects, which group is right? Above I have mentioned already on this issue and have left the answer open. What is certain is that the answer to this question has serious implications for the coexistence of people in a society. A leaving open the answer seems to be the best way to not commit to an entire society to a discursively derived truth definition, and I think in the case of all questions the best to be the so complex and, for a clear interpretation of sensory impressions are transcendent. We have to learn it, given the immense complexity of the world that is both a projection of our mind and that the other part is that our minds just to live with open questions. The projector is part of the projection that he projected. That sounds crazy! I can understand the fundamentalists, who reject such sentences and thirst for unique truths. Should they build a secure quiet frame, a unique grid that they put on the matrix, if it helps them to be happy, if they will not damage, except that they may deceive themselves! It's like alcoholics, if they tolerate the existence of the noise better, they should still get drunk, so long as they harm no one else! The one takes a drug, the other a safe world is, but everyone will be happy in their own fashion! I wish, however, that the alcoholic knows that his intoxication under the influence of alcohol is concluded and the reality of alcohol is different and that the fundamentalist knows that he needs a stable world, so that his mind is stable, and that reality, are not fixed in this way, but the reality for him. Perhaps, however, noise and fundamentalism would be pointless if their followers know their conditionality. Well who likes getting drunk knows how it is when the effect wears off, but who is convinced of the plausibility of a unique world view, can not easily switch to the meta-level and look at his own world view from above or outside. Could this really it, it would not be the world, but only a mind game. But who will choose a world from which he knows that it is ultimately just a mind game or his mental Needs adequate construct, as a secure foundation? Who recognizes the constructed nature of our world views, tends rather to in the extreme of arbitrariness to pastures, but which ultimately makes every human interaction is impossible because each community is not instinctive nature needs values and standards, believe in the validity and truth of its members.
What should we do?
Now it is indeed so, that even the freest spirit is not simply of itself exists, but it also influences his thoughts, feelings, moods, opinions, judgments, and thus his whole self and the world perception and construction and its special cultural socialization. What we perceive of them, affects us. Part, we accept it, sometimes we reject it, but it rarely leaves us untouched. The cultural socialization is part of our identity. The best seems to me to maintain these social roots of critical and creative, and so our social and our individual identity into a harmonious whole to mature. Yet, it is necessary that we deal with the history of our culture, both externally with the history of real events, as well as the history of ideas. We will see soon that real political behavior and normative ideas were not always identical and can not continue to be. This can then lie partly because the people ostensibly preach morality, but about life behind the same morals, but also that a completely unrealistic moral calling to us overtaxed people. We need to look critically and find our way to the wire. You can actually learn from history, when the same again and again proves that the man himself does not do it, probably because every new-born representative of our species wants to make his own experience or because he does not want to learn or because he wants to learn but , draw other conclusions or completely different values than I envision now.
I have a moral high Recognized the value of truthfulness (or invented?). This includes the fact that I will not preach morality that I do not want to respect or can. This includes me (and trust others) to admit when I put too high demands on me, which I can not cope. This appreciation of the truth I did not arbitrarily invented, but it developed in me by influences of many people in the past and present. Many say, however, I did not learn from history, but because selbige teach that true men always on the losing side are the liars and cheaters and the winners are. It is probably not so easy to learn from history. In any case, I live in the dream of a mature man, which matures on and on, learn and grow in wisdom. And this utopia is a part of my culture, and many human cultures. If one were to me this utopia, this dream would take me to an important part of my identity, my personality.
I believe that the very fact that each person is also a result of socialization, it can be a cause of the socialization of others. Now it is so that we humans are not just rational beings, but much older drives us to control much more than we realize sometimes. The herd instinct is one of them and particularly important for this essay. He leads namely to that one you as part of a group, their protection from the dangers of life you enjoy and do not want to lose, and feel a group identity by building up with, that you look at the behavior that is observed in the other group members adapt. This impulse is quite appropriate, since he holds the group, which may mean existential security for individuals and mental stability. This often leads to the fact that deviant behavior is outlawed, as the representative of the group norm fear of gruppenzersetzenden effect of deviant behavior, which may also endanger the lives of group members. This is very old and already Devianzabwehrverhalten found in animals is not well controlled by our large brains, but I do not know exactly. I think there is such practice and religious Apostasieverfolgungen based. may be
as efficient for group cohesion and group norms, so little, these standards are reasonable. And now here is where my criticism. We are not in a social situation, be uniform in each of the behavior of members of society must. Rather, it is so that each subset of society overlap, and many or all people are members of various subgroups at the same time or even several large companies, such as states or ethnic groups. If one assumes that human beings are oriented primarily in manageable small groups and identify with them how the behavioral science teaches, then we are also quite beautiful in trouble if we like a Chameleon at each change of a small group whose we are a member, as the company where we work, in another, eg a club, have to change our behavior. Okay, there are people, most of these excellent and put each on a different mask on the context. The Latin word for mask is persona, but our current understanding person referred not just the social role that may indeed change depending on the context, but our distinctive identity and unique renowned. This identity is the seat of our dignity, not one or the other role we assume. This I doubt not that it is reasonable and necessary under certain circumstances, to give an official a special dignity, which is independent of its owner. Ideally, however, our roles grow out of our identity and are the outward visibility of our true being. Is not that right, every role is a mere game, a mask, whose image is very vulnerable to exposure. Image-building in this sense, I reject. Image-building is necessary because, where it is important to make our true identity communicated, for misunderstandings there are always. This will be used among other things, this essay.
communicability it sometimes requires to compromise. If you are not capable, is at risk of self-will become a fanatical ideology that even the proprietor is not much use if he is not in a position to completely self-sufficient and to live without social contacts. There are between faithfully of traditional folk music and free jazz are also useful intermediates, to say the musical expression, and not to forget is that as traditional music played is always interpreted in one way or another of their players and that free jazz somewhere already existing music docks. By the way I are, as far as music, the tradition and keep the free experimentalists sympathetic in the same way, which is really not only in terms of music, for both the preservation and experimentation to prove, especially in our times that are determined by constantly changing fashions in which the most followers rather as actors, are a good amount of stubbornness. The ideal way of dealing with culture, in my opinion well expressed in the saying Gustav Mahler, who is on page 1 in the program of the 2002 Dance & Folk Festival reprinted in Rudolstadt ". Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire"
The issue of culture, which does not suit me, is the purely commercial targeting, for example, if only such music is produced, from which the client or the producers hope to reach as many paying users. The result may at first be a competition-driven variety of music styles, but will be in effect, a Totaluniformierung, like music, as in Petr Pandula so-called "format radio" is already landauf played down the country, a pop music, one soon loses sounds like where it came from and who they actually play, the main thing she is possibly a million people and brings them the money out of pocket. I am not a pop music connoisseur, but to my ears seems to have since there is not much changed since the 1980s when Techno apart, but which has in itself a very strong tendency to dull uniformity. But there are many other styles of music that find their niches and scenes when they seem to be increasingly at the margins. Pop music is the musical core culture of our time, internationally, but hardly multicultural, a mishmash, always beautiful, always perfect, like a hamburger ... well, you know.
As for music - and music may apply here as pars pro toto - I idealize a music that sprouts from roots maintained that range very deep and open up even blocked up sources are capable of this enriched food but new Flowers and fruits forms a contrast to the other. Certainly there may always be some similarities and contemporary modes and matches that will also be calm, but also musicians who do not follow the need to have their niche, dig their own roots and can their own fruits mature.
Just as with the mutual Aufeinanderangewiesensein of tradition and innovation, so it is with convention and individualism. Even a free jazzman will not be satisfied if his music just like himself, he also needs the approval and validation. And my own sense arises not only out of me, but also from the discourse with others, and because I need also similar and like-minded people, my culture so I do not live on my own, but can also share with others. But it is not so much that I am - except of course in democratic votes on common goals - to teach a majority, or that I cultivate confrontational otherness. Depending on the context, I am sometimes completely compliant mainstream, sometimes very deviant, as it all depends. I do not need to cultivate. I would like to
to bring a few examples:
as a person who listens to music, I am not a rare specimen. Music is all around us, and it would not, if we humans would not enjoy it. I hardly listen to pop and rock music, but prefer folk and world music, I do have some difficulties on the radio if I want my music "section. I love the aforementioned music section, because they result from many different ethnic traditions fed, sometimes forgotten traditions again digs, but sometimes jazzy experiment, therefore, sounds and receives suggestions from pop and rock, and all this not so that it becomes a mush, but a mosaic of different styles and sub-scenes. It is well with the description of Christoph Dieckmann in the period from 17 July 2002 words, in which he writes that the 60 000 visitors of the Dance & Folk Festival in Rudolstadt 60 000 experienced a variety of concerts. In Rudolstadt - I was previously on two TFFS - I feel the sense among comrades or soul friends, and I feel comfortable about it, just because the bunch of musicians and visitors as diverse and colorful, and are all but something like a family. Similarly, it goes with the WDR World Music Festival, Folk at the Bonn meeting or at the Fiddlers session. Because of such experiences, I try through my folky newsletters or employee of the Bonn folk clubs to promote this "my music" and to bring to the people.
As beer drinkers, I am in Germany, a part of the mainstream, but as far as beer, which makes up about 70% of German beer sales, to me this is usually too bitter for me and makes up only approximately 10% of my consumption. As a drinker I belong Kölsch in Cologne, not a minority, but I also love the fact that old, I probably appear many native city of Cologne as a traitor, that is, would it seem if I was in Cologne. And as a lover palatable light and dark beers such as the export, or special festival beer are called, or malty Bock beers and fruity wheat beers, I'm in good hands in Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg. And of Belgian beers, especially dark or Abdij Trapistenbieren and sour fresh Lambicbieren I adore, too, and also by British and Irish ales, porters and Stout. A beer patriotism, the foreign influences abhorred, and how it is distributed in Germany, unfortunately, far, I do not share, but an anti-beer internationalism that the American model only produced beers that go internationally and sell anywhere, because they do not own character . have Diversity pleased, and not just on the beer market with (as poster) more than 650 beers on offer. I remember that was delighted at a meeting with former school friend (inn) en our former teacher Helmut Bahr, to about ten of us sat at a table and each (r) another drink in front of him had. I was drinking at that time, I know not more, probably tea.
As tea drinkers I belong to a global level has a majority in Germany but a loud minority of coffee drinkers. I think everyone should drink what he likes and wholesome, but that I get offered in many German cafes only one kind of black tea already annoys me, especially since I of Luxembourg and the Netherlands where much coffee is drunk, knows that without can offer a lot of fuss and with over ten varieties of tea bags. Well, in the land of Egypt, you get tea drinkers across the country mainly only two varieties, which was combined with the very same, but the Egyptian culture to me eh uniform: a people, a religion, a Tea. Well, two religions and two teas. But only one brewery, which produces two types of beer. Well, maybe I'm spoiled and affluent citizens only.
If we have mentioned this before, the religion, I admit frankly that it is a topic with very high degree of centrality in my life. I chose the comparative religion of my career, a subject of the existence of many a conversation partner for the first time in his life stops when I tell him about it. As a religious scholar so I belong to a minority again, the air with their self-understanding between the demarcation and interdisciplinarity is not easy. In addition, the subject is in itself very pluralistic, even here there are fights between representatives of different approaches, with the formation again mainstream and minorities, according to the stylishness of one thing, then be distributed. I personally like my set was not there, see a skepticism of the empirical and cultural studies approach from the normative claims of religious philosophers, but watch the religious phenomenon lodges, a religious studies, which was made solely in positivist methodologies, considers to be too narrow do, and now with myself in trying to be home, the psychology of religion in the local academic experts. I believe it is here as elsewhere: Several approaches are complementary, ultimately, when they first may seem contradictory. And there are self-conscious scientists who do not follow the mainstream opportunistic, but the same by their own approaches useful supplement, not less important than the protagonists of the mainstream, which lag behind the others. By the way those characters are themselves very stubborn people who also carry enough impact on their fellow men, to convince them of their cause. Only secondarily then come the opportunists and the unreflective imitation.
In relation to religions and their representatives and followers of the religion, science is just so important, because it is not the truth claims of one or other religious writing on the flags, but explores the religions are so and explains how they can explore with human scientific, not metaphysical or transcendental knowledge and methods described. Open-minded believers and practitioners of the religions will be for the purpose of self-knowledge like in the mirror, involving religious and scientific ideas into their theologies and philosophies, and so again new research material for religious studies provide (s). A critical and self-critical approach to research and theories in religious studies from the religious people can protect them from fanaticism and extremism. Therein lies my objective religion scientific work. And in that sense, I am committed as a religious scholar in inter-religious dialogue, eg as part of WCRP Cologne / Bonn, bring my views with, and learn from the views of others, and all this is the peaceful coexistence of people.
Especially in inter-religious dialogue wayward thinkers are asked to look beyond the confines of religious observance, in which they were socialized, who contribute but also the valuable fruits of their own religious or otherwise ideological socialization in the project of mutual learning from each other. Many people who are our first professional Unknown is, but at least the first idea they win, expects us to press us precisely in this direction and are disappointed when they learn that we do not really, except for some stubborn professors and students who either no longer, nor the constraint of having to adjust yourself to the mainstream scientific community feel the way internal or defy the coercion. These are located in relation to the expectations of many people so far in the minority in the ranks of his own beloved times but still.
And as already mentioned above wearing skirts, I am in the current culture of our country and sometimes even global in a minority, If you add up all the men of all time but certainly in a majority. But this is not so important, but the important thing is that according to my interpretation of the objectivity with which I have learned to approach issues, and according to my interpretation of emancipation, according to which, as I have learned, men and women are equal, It is unseemly to want to ban us men wearing this beautiful and comfortable piece of clothing through negative sanctions and of course only right that we deny ourselves, just because it historically conditioned currently not used. As a child I learned the saying, "If XY jumps into the Rhine, then you jump too?" No, one really should not join anything, whether it is common or not, but should do so, which one is himself convinced. The progress of the men rock movement but do not go I think about the way of understanding the right, but about the getting used to, at least for the mass of the people. I wish this would go a little faster, so the demand and the clothing industry finally offers enough skirts for men, so that you are looking for is shorter for the right and pleasing skirts. I therefore hope that is the wearing skirts for men to the mainstream, but it may be a rock wearing compulsory.
When Hermann Hesse reader I am one also determines any minority, or at least a fairly strong lobby with good, at least in this year of its 125th birthday, in which many events held in his honor, which I unfortunately could not attend only one.
Thus we see that with one and the same opinion or preference depending on the context in the minority and also may be in the majority. In socially responsible self-will, it does not matter, really want to be special and not to others of what they want to mouth without one is convinced it. A socially responsible stubborn man is happy when he can help with his view of things other their own way in turn to find the good of the community, and he welcomes your comrades, but more than obstinate adherents than mere imitators and Nachschwätzer. He is also his way if he does not like-minded people and defend its position. He is sometimes a compromise in order not to compromise due to ideology of parts of his world view may be more important components. A martyr to his own sense of being, I think justified only in a few cases. Compromises he does but also for the love of his fellow men, who for some reason it can not always understand, respect what he is when he sees that he did not understand everything that others do so. So there are limits of self-will, and often can be achieved by clever compromise much more than by willfulness.
It's not about to look down stuck to the people who go underground rather in the mass than to say as Luther: "Here I stand, I can not help it" It's not only right therefore to despise the people who just identify with the arguments of 70% of the others too, it was drinking beer or coffee, watch soccer, pop music or listen pants. It should all be blessed in their own fashion, but also take responsibility for his own fashion.
The best way seems to me however: After careful review and believes that something is reasonable or necessary, one should do it, even if it is unusual, and if it is a nonsensical and silly happens, you should have it, even if it is usual .
it emerge from the mass of people, before they give an opinion of himself, only to ask whether this view is also currently in or going out again, always headstrong people, before whom I have much respect. There is the religious scholars, who bravely holding the flags of the high and the phenomenology of religion, who strives valiantly and diligently matter of freeing the psychology of religion from their marginal existence and who is looking for the Holy Grail as Parsifal, after a peculiar method of the art in order to save the independence of the subject. There's the radio editor, who bravely and skillfully negotiated and thus prevents the folk and world music loses its last slots and amateur musician who reliably sacrificed their Sunday evenings and a lot of phone money to keep a non-commercial folk meeting alive. There is the brewer brews its specialty, even if he could win more customers with average beer. There are the customers who open mind and curious to new things and go test it and not according to fashion and to some extent, not first ask for the price. There is the Muslim who constructive alternative modes of interpretation of Quran and Sunnah, because of an not believe that God has given to the men in command of the women. As the Christian theologian, which promotes inter-religious dialogue, even if their superiors do not see the like and if it is not conducive to their academic career. There is the teacher who overcomes his fear of conventionalist colleagues and students blasphemous, and the Rock appears to school and then delighted when he finds that he is good at most to arrive. There is the man who is totally out of line because he is not interested in football, and the World Cup or in the table tennis so no matter how else is hardly anything in his life and still have enjoyed it when people forward to a football game if they let him thus alone. There is also the man who thinks his interest in football and is still, even if this is in his clique as not socially acceptable. Such people are rebels who are fighting for the Republic of stubbornness against the absolutist claims of the mainstream empire, and they are respected and not benasrümpfen, and that while they live, and not until after his death!
Socially Responsible stubbornness has many faces. Develop yours!
Addendum: This text was written in several Evenings in July 2002 after settled daily work, or at least tired of it. Even if I publish it in some ways, I must admit that I have not written so much new, but many other writers have written and even better was. The text breaks, gaps, repetitions and inconsistencies. To such I would ask you to point me because I can it on occasion to work, yes. Now I let him but for now so apart from minor repairs that seem to me with proof-reading necessary. Should anyone feel offended by a remark unfairly or injured, I ask me to point out. I am not infallible as little as Hermann Hesse. This text is now but my own way of expressing things. Here I sit, and if I can otherwise, may show the future. Anyway, I do not like the big brother!
0 comments:
Post a Comment