family
the smallest and for most years of a healthy man's life the most penetrating unit of human interaction shapes our personalities like nothing else. the oriental founder of sociology, Confucius, perceived the family as the place, where the five cardinal relationships are being learned, where society grows its roots of stability.
for a sound human being family shall be one of three pillars upon which its life rests: the other two are work and friends, all of them to be understood as close relationships to fellow human beings, an invisible web of progressive interactions, that keep moving and continue to shape oneself. I once read that a criminologist scales the crime potential of an individual by assessing exactly these three pillars. If only one is missing, it is empirically proven that there is a higher probability of criminal action. If two are void, even more so. Family is the most important pillar though.
for a sound human being family shall be one of three pillars upon which its life rests: the other two are work and friends, all of them to be understood as close relationships to fellow human beings, an invisible web of progressive interactions, that keep moving and continue to shape oneself. I once read that a criminologist scales the crime potential of an individual by assessing exactly these three pillars. If only one is missing, it is empirically proven that there is a higher probability of criminal action. If two are void, even more so. Family is the most important pillar though.
small is beautiful
small organizations are preferred over large organizations whether they are of public or private nature. Decisions have to be made as close as possible to where they are needed. Authorities that are not in close contact with their subjects, may these be citizens, employees or students, tend to be proportionally more indifferent to them as they lose touch; thus empathy and scruples. Leopold Kohr established this idea academically in The Breakdown of Nations and his pupil Fritz Schumacher popolarized it in the field of applied economics and introduced the concept of appropriate technology, i.e. technology that suits to the scale of a local community. Leopold Kohr writes in his introduction to The Breakdown of Nations: ... I tried to develop a single theory though which not only some but all phenomena of the social universe can be reduced to a common denominator. The result is a new and unified political philosophy centering in the theory of size. It suggests that there seems only one case behind all forms of social misery: bigness.
emotional intelligence
Abstract, logical and analytical thinking is an important asset of mankind. Due to IQ we have established sophisticated systems of governance; we have mastered realms of physics and mechanics; we have created technology that both supports and defends live when applied properly, as it can threaten it. IQ is overrated though and needs to be paired with EQ - a term coined by Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence and Working with Emotional Intelligence: empathy, respect, moderation, benevolence, gratitude, outreach, warmth, etc. Much of what Mr. Goleman elaborates as a modern psychologist can also be found in striking similarity in some religious teachings, in particular in Buddhism. Our schools usually don't teach EQ, but almost entirely focus on the growth of IQ. That's wrong, because not all of us grow up in loving families, and even those who do, need to learn to apply their values beyond their closest relationships and within open society.
varieties of religious experiences
My family background is non practicing catholic, but I was raised for eight long years in a pretty strict catholic boarding school. We did not only have one or two compulsory holy services a week, but during October daily evening prayers to mother Mary, all year round daily morning prayers and twice a year compulsory confessions. We had to translate the Latin and Greek versions of the New Testament into German as part of our teaching curriculum. I can therefore justly say that I am from a culturally catholic background. Nevertheless, catholicism never made it beyond that and the amount of indoctrination made me at the age of 16 to turn my back to God - then absolutely convinced that Feuerbach had been correct: God is nothing more than man's projection.
My time in Asia was defined by interest in Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. All of these so called religions provided some new insight and I felt in particular attracted to Buddhism and Taoism. But in the end I also felt, that each religion is only part of a regional culture and as such no suitable form of belief. As a Western European non of these religions provide a sense of home, and I can't understand why Western socialized people like e.g. Cat Stevens convert to Islam. Its just not where he is from, but obviously where he decided to go. A strange and unnatural choice. But choice is then also the keyword for my position on religion: religions are not a choice. religions are usually an integral part of a nation's or region's culture, as is language and food. One can chose to be part of it, one can chose to be not. If the adherence to such an established religion touches one's heart, strings a cord, elevates the spirit, reunites with God, is another question then.
It is my belief that we all have to make our own religious experiences and that these individual experiences can be - but not have to be - embedded in a religion like a backdrop in a movie scene. I was extremely pleased to find that the psychologist William James provided an empirical study on this subject: The Varieties of Religious Experiences. For my part, God has taken some non-religious form and like the nameless Tao has gone beyond words. I felt that Ken Wilber's work The Spectrum of Consciousness, Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics, Aldous Huxley's The Doors of Perception, Abraham Maslow's Religions, Values and Peak Experiences and Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth made me understand the essence of life better than the Old and New Testament combined ever did: as a 21st century individual, I need contemporary prophets.
My time in Asia was defined by interest in Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. All of these so called religions provided some new insight and I felt in particular attracted to Buddhism and Taoism. But in the end I also felt, that each religion is only part of a regional culture and as such no suitable form of belief. As a Western European non of these religions provide a sense of home, and I can't understand why Western socialized people like e.g. Cat Stevens convert to Islam. Its just not where he is from, but obviously where he decided to go. A strange and unnatural choice. But choice is then also the keyword for my position on religion: religions are not a choice. religions are usually an integral part of a nation's or region's culture, as is language and food. One can chose to be part of it, one can chose to be not. If the adherence to such an established religion touches one's heart, strings a cord, elevates the spirit, reunites with God, is another question then.
It is my belief that we all have to make our own religious experiences and that these individual experiences can be - but not have to be - embedded in a religion like a backdrop in a movie scene. I was extremely pleased to find that the psychologist William James provided an empirical study on this subject: The Varieties of Religious Experiences. For my part, God has taken some non-religious form and like the nameless Tao has gone beyond words. I felt that Ken Wilber's work The Spectrum of Consciousness, Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics, Aldous Huxley's The Doors of Perception, Abraham Maslow's Religions, Values and Peak Experiences and Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth made me understand the essence of life better than the Old and New Testament combined ever did: as a 21st century individual, I need contemporary prophets.
liberalism
A sleek government only intervenes with market forces where the general well being requires it. Besides liberty, liberals have developed several other principles important to the construction of their philosophical structure, such as equality, pluralism, and toleration. All forms of liberalism assume, in some basic sense, that individuals are equal. In maintaining that people are naturally equal, liberals assume that they all possess the same right to liberty. In other words, no one is inherently entitled to enjoy the benefits of liberal society more than anyone else, and all people are equal subjects before the law. Beyond this basic conception, liberal theorists diverge on their understanding of equality. American philosopher John Rawls emphasized the need to ensure not only equality under the law, but also the equal distribution of material resources that individuals required to develop their aspirations in life. To contribute to the development of liberty, liberals also have promoted concepts like pluralism and toleration. By pluralism, liberals refer to the proliferation of opinions and beliefs that characterize a stable social order. Unlike many of their competitors and predecessors, liberals do not seek conformity and homogeneity in the way that people think; in fact, their efforts have been geared towards establishing a governing framework that harmonizes and minimizes conflicting views, but still allows those views to exist and flourish.
humor
humor is the grease of the engine that keeps humanity going. it is the essence that bridges the enormous gaps of dark matter between the light of this universe's suns and the stretches of boredom and irritation in any conversation.
flexible legalism
sounds like a paradox: all men are equal before the law. the law, though, must be flexible enough to accommodate the varieties of human conditions. living for so many years in an Asian society, which is dominated by personal relationships, flexible legalism seems to be an utopia. But already Max Weber divided man's societies into those which tend to be ruled by law and those which tend to be rules by relationships. flexible legalism is probably just something in between the two extremes.