Das Ende unseres jetzigen Zivilisationsmodells? Was tun?

Erdzerstörer

Arte Doku ‚Die Erdzerstörer‘

„Der Anstieg des Meeresspiegels und das Abschmelzen der Polkappen stehen symptomatisch für einen Prozess, der unaufhaltsam scheint. Regierungen und multinationale Konzerne werden immer öfter als Verantwortliche ausgemacht: Umweltorganisationen reichen Petitionen ein und berühmte Persönlichkeiten rufen zum Handeln auf. Forscher veröffentlichen erschreckende Zahlen: Seit Beginn des Industriezeitalters wurden über 1.400 Milliarden Tonnen Kohlenstoffdioxid in die Atmosphäre gepumpt. Die biologische Vielfalt ging rapide zurück, und Prognosen sprechen von 250 Millionen bis eine Milliarde Klimaflüchtlingen – hochgerechnet bis ins Jahr 2050. Bis 2100 werden auf knapp 40 Prozent der Erdoberfläche Bedingungen herrschen, mit denen kein lebender Organismus des blauen Planeten je konfrontiert wurde. Würde man die Lebensdauer der Erde auf 24 Stunden herunterbrechen, so entwickelte sich der Homo habilis in der allerletzten Minute; das Holozän – die letzten 10.000 Jahre – entspräche der letzten Viertelsekunde und das Industriezeitalter den zwei letzten Tausendstelsekunden. In dieser kurzen Zeit hat der Mensch eine so immense Kraft entwickelt, dass er die Macht über das System Erde übernehmen konnte. „Die Erdzerstörer“ entstand in Zusammenarbeit mit den Wissenschaftshistorikern Christophe Bonneuil und Jean-Baptiste Fressoz. Die Autoren werfen einen kompromisslosen Blick auf die letzten 200 Jahre des Industriekapitalismus: Sie erzählen vom Abbau der fossilen Brennstoffe, der Erfindung des Automobils, der Kernkraft und dem Massenkonsum; vom Imperialismus, von Kriegen, vom Wachstum der Städte, von industrieller Landwirtschaft und von Globalisierung. Die Sendung möchte auch zeigen, wer für all das verantwortlich ist. Denn die Schuld an der Umweltkrise trägt nicht die Menschheit an sich – historisch gesehen trifft sie nur eine kleine Minderheit, als erstes Nordamerikaner und Europäer. Die reichsten 20 Prozent der Erdenbürger sind die schlimmsten CO2-Sünder, und ein Fünftel der Weltbevölkerung pflegt heute die verschwenderische Lebensweise, die sich bereits ab dem frühen 19. Jahrhundert im Bürgertum von Industrieländern und Kolonialmächten entwickelte.“

Siehe auch:

Klimawandel – naturwissenschaftliche Grundlagen

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentar hinterlassen

Bildung versus Wissen…..

***

Und jetzt ein Erkundungsversuch in Veränderung……

Ein Team von Menschen, das Schule verändern will. Fünf junge Berliner*innen, die Führung übernehmen und die Rolle der Lehrkraft erforschen. Ein Jahr Ausprobieren und Nachdenken, was es braucht: Damit Bildung im neuen Jahrtausend ankommt. Und alle Beteiligten zu den Menschen werden können, die sie eigentlich sein wollen.

Regie, Drehbuch, Konzeption: Maike Plath
Schnitt, Bildbearbeitung, Motion Design: Moritz Degen
Kamera: Sinan Özmen
Projektleitung: Stefanie López
Assistenz der Projektleitung: Verena Pieper

Siehe auch: Demütigung in der Schule

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentar hinterlassen

Gekonnt Grenzen setzen

Eine ‚Schulinterne Lehrerfortbildung‘ (SCHILF)

Schilf Gekonnt Grenzen setzen

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentar hinterlassen

On the difference between a problem and a paradox

“The root of the word ‘problem’ is a Greek word whose meaning is ‘to put forward’. Indeed, this is the essential significance of the word, i.e. to put forward for discussion or questioning an idea that is suggested toward the resolution of certain difficulties or inadequacies. Thus, if one needs to reach a certain destination, one may suggest taking a train, and one can discuss the problem of meeting the train on time, paying for the ticket, etc. Similarly, sailing ships were seen to be a slow and unreliable means of transport, and so men put forth the idea of driving ships by steam, thus giving rise to the problem of how to realise this idea technically and to carry it out practically. More generally, it is clear that a large part of our practical and technical activities are centred on work aimed at solving a wide range of such problems. ‘to put forward’.

However, when one puts forth an idea in the form of a problem, there are certain largely tacit and implicit presuppositions which must be satisfied if the activity is to make sense. Among these is, of course, the assumption that the questions raised are rational and free of contradiction. Sometimes, without our noticing it, we accept absurd problems with false or selfcontradictory presuppositions. In the practical and technical realm, however, we can usually sooner or later detect that our question is absurd, and we then drop the ‘problem’ as meaningless. Thus, for a long time, people sought to invent a machine capable of perpetual motion, but with the development of scientific understanding it became clear that this would be in contradiction of the basic laws of physics, and so the search for such a machine has ceased.

All of this is fairly clear in the practical and technical domain. But now, what is to be done when one goes on to consider psychological problems and  problems of human relationship? Does it make sense to formulate problems of such a kind? Or is this domain not one in which the presuppositions behind the questions put forth for discussion are false, self-contradictory, and absurd?  What is to be done when one goes on to consider psychological problems and problems of human relationship? Does it make sense to formulate problems of such a kind? Or is this domain not one in which the presuppositions behind the questions put forth for discussion are false, self-contradictory, and absurd?

…………..

More generally, one can say that when something goes wrong  psychologically, it is confusing to describe the resulting situation as a  ‘problem’. Rather, it would be better to say that one was confronted by a  paradox.

In the case of the man who is susceptible to flattery, the paradox is that he apparently knows and understands the absolute need to be honest with oneself and yet he feels an even stronger ‘need’ to deceive himself when this helps to release him from an unbearable sense of inadequacy and to substitute instead a sense of inward rightness and well-being. What is called for in such a case is not some procedure that ‘solves his problem’.

Rather, it is to pause and to give attention to the fact that his thinking and feeling is dominated, through and through, by a set of selfcontradictory demands or ‘needs’ so that as long as such thinking and feeling prevail, there is no way to put things right. It takes a great deal of energy and seriousness to ‘stay with’ an awareness of this fact, rather than to ‘escape’ by allowing the mind to dart into some other subject, or otherwise lose awareness of the actual state of affairs. Such attention, going immensely beyond what is merely verbal or intellectual, can actually bring the root of the paradox into awareness, and thus the paradox dissolves when its nullity and absurdity are clearly seen, felt and understood.

……

It has to be emphasised, however, that as long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved. On the contrary, the ‘problem’ can do nothing but grow and proliferate in ever increasing confusion. For it is an essential feature of thought that once the mind accepts a problem, then it is appropriate for the brain to keep on working until it finds a solution. This feature is indeed necessary for proper rational thinking. Thus, if a person were confronted by a real problem (e.g, the need to obtain food) and dropped it before it was adequately solved, the result could be disastrous. In any case, such a mode of operation would indicate an unhealthy flightiness or lack of seriousness. On the other hand, if the mind treats a paradox as if it were a real problem, then, since the paradox has no ‘solution’, the mind is caught in the paradox forever. Each apparent solution is found to be inadequate, and only leads on to new questions of a yet more muddled nature. Thus, a paradox which has taken root early in life (e.g., that arising out of a situation in which a child is made to feel a sense of inadequacy) may continue for the whole of a person’s life, always changing in detail, growing more and more confused, but remaining the same in essence. And when the person becomes  aware of the disorder in his mind, but describes this disorder as a problem,  then this very step makes the activity around the paradox both more intense  and more confused. Clearly, then, it is important to see the difference between a problem and a paradox, and to respond to each of these in a way that is appropriate to it.” – David Bohm

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentar hinterlassen

Situational Understanding

Situational Awareness (SA)

SA is almost immediate understanding and problem solving – ‘almost’, because there’s a lot of processing involved behind the scenes, on our unconscious machinery. It is, of course, to us, „apparently immediate“. Situation understanding as intuition is always meaningful; it is always filled with meaning. This is in stark contrast to those that define intuition as „immediate knowledge“. The word knowledge does not begin to convey the meaning that’s involved in an intuitive realization.

Where does that meaning come from? Shortly, from the explosion of connotations.We never think about a „triangle“ in isolation. What does a „mental“ triangle look like? Does it look like a triangle in your brain? Does it look like a triangular pattern of neuron firings? No, it doesn’t. It’s just a regular type of neuron firing. So how can we have an abstract visualization of something like a triangle (or an atom, an kangaroo, or a skyscraper)? The answer is that we activate a concept in our brain; but that activation is not the key to meaning; the key is what it does. We activate the concept triangle, and a host of connotations explodes, each with another concept and its own associated connotations: pointy things, the number three, polygons, line segments, closed figures, geometry, Pythagoras, angles, pyramids, the triumvirate, and so forth.

These awakened, associated, concepts, are what create meaning. Not the word. Not the definition. Words and definitions are meaningless — that’s why mathematics is hard.

The whole problem with the symbolic school of cognitive science and Artificial Intelligence has been to place their faith on clear definitions; words (symbols) and definitions (procedural knowledge). Clear definitions are great in a proper context, but hey, that’s not the way our minds work.

Whenever we think and reason, intuition is the guiding force. If reason is the captain of the mental ship, then intuition is the singing mermaid, who attracts us towards a certain information-processing trajectory (and not others). For very experienced people, that trajectory usually is a great one to follow; for they know where the bad mermaids usually are singing, and instantly avoid them. For the rest of us, we’ll just go along for the ride, and see whether or not the pathway is a dead-end.

Reasoning is drawing and following the ‚right distinctions‘, making a difference, where a difference has to be made. Abstractions!

“A difference is a very peculiar and obscure concept. It is certainly not a thing or an event. This piece of paper is different from the wood of this lectern. There are many differences between them—of color, texture, shape, etc. But if we start to ask about the localization of those differences, we get into trouble. Obviously the difference between the paper and the wood is not in the paper; it is obviously not in the wood; it is obviously not in the space between them, and it is obviously not in the time between them. (Difference which occurs across time is what we call „change.“)

A difference, then, is an abstract matter.

In the hard sciences, effects are, in general, caused by rather concrete conditions or events—impacts, forces, and so forth. But when you enter the world of communication, organization, etc., you leave behind that whole world in which effects are brought about by forces and impacts and energy exchange. You enter a world in which „effects“—and I am not sure one should still use the same word— are brought about by differences. That is, they are brought about by the sort of „thing“ that gets onto the map from the territory. This is difference.

Difference travels from the wood and paper into my retina. It then gets picked up and worked on by this fancy piece of computing machinery in my head.”

Source: Gregory Bateson, Steps to an ecology of mind, p. 458f

► Who asks about the ‘nature’ of ‘something’ we call ‘difference’? Bateson asks, using language. Doing so he presupposes our tacit understanding of the concept ‘difference’, isn’t it? Otherwise we could not understand his question, put in ordinary language. So there exists some basic understanding of the concept ‘difference’ in each one of us, and this can’t be otherwise, because all mental processes are grounded in the duality of ‘similarities’ and ‘differences’, the ongoing process of emerging ‘gestalten’ (different ‘wholes’ and their defining ‘parts’), of the difference of a meaningful ‘gestalt’ emerging from an apparently meaningless background (‘noise’) . Our minds function by way of producing such basic polarities.

A difference, then, is not an abstract matter, but a matter of abstraction: producing differences is the essence of the process of mental mapping, mental mapping of the ‘world’, with ‘world’ as the spontaneous appearing of what could be called ‘phenomenal territory’. Differences in the phenomenal world don’t “travel from the wood and paper into my retina”, because in the ‘trinity of observation’ (observer, observing, the observed) the actuality of observing, and the actuality of the observer and the observed are only ‘different’ aspects of an unbroken whole: spontaneous movements in consciousness. Conscious differences are more or less ‘well abstracted aspects’, abstracted from this phenomenal ‘holomovement’ – and stored in memory. They make for re-cgnition, for conceptual handling of the world. Concepts are ‘units of functioning’, which in their totality constitute the phenomenal world, with the whole phenomenal world seen as spontaneous movements in consciousness. Not in ‘my’ consciousness, but in CONSCIOUSNESS.

Bateson definitely got an inkling of an ‘unbroken mind’, a mind functioning ecologically; but he tried to define that ‘objectively’ (mind is ‘complex matter’) and subjectively (‘art, dreams, religion’). So he remained within the typical framework of a ‘scientist’!

But one can’t understand the ‘higher’ (consciousness) from the viewpoint of the ‘lower’ (‘body-centered-mind’).

So there is a simple rule: to solve problems go as high up stream as possible.

„Recently we had a large mud slide come down in our back yard. The shifting mud diverted a mountain stream into our back yard. We spent a couple of days attempting to
divert the stream so that it would not wash away our driveway (we were successful). – An important lesson was learned during this event about solutions. Initially we attempted to create a sandbag dike across our driveway and were marginally successful. Then we discovered that if we headed further upstream a small amount of work would create a much greater result. A few shovels full of dirt and some rocks placed higher along the hillside shifted the flow much more effectively than any effort we were extending lower down.
This experience has led me to create a simple rule: to solve problems go as high up stream as possible.“

See also:

On the difference between a problem and a paradox

Go where the heart of the problem lies

Divergente und konvergente Probleme

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentar hinterlassen

You are – the ‚problem‘

„It is in the very nature of knowledge that it’s incomplete, and when it’s extended we will find that we make a mistake. Now the point is, knowledge is the whole function, not just one item. The function of knowledge is to admit your mistake, drop it, and learn, right?
You could say that where man took a wrong turn was, he got a
certain kind of knowledge which was not only a mistake but which led him to make more mistakes to justify this mistake and hold on to it. That was where he began to go wrong, and where he’s continually going wrong. We make a certain mistake about ourselves. Why is it so hard for a person to say, “I’ve made a mistake on an important point”? He doesn’t say, “I’ve made a mistake.” No, he says, “Somebody else made a mistake,” or “It wasn’t a mistake.” So he makes a second mistake and a third mistake and a fourth; it goes on piling up.“ – The essential DAVID BOHM, p. 288

„With words we are able to fix and stabilize things and this is why the idea of impermanence is unreal to us. We cannot make sense of ‘from the beginning not a thing is.’“ A.Low

Conceptualization is the beginning of our minds. Hence we believe … ‚from the beginning things are‘, and there must be a ‚creator of things‘. Logical, isn’t it?

„The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool“ – Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science

Space and time are – mental categories, mental constructions. They co-emerge with the I – concept. From what do they emerge? Is this a wrong  question? Yes. Our language fools us. Because of that time is the one of the most elusive and mysterious concepts that philosophers and scientists have grappled with throughout the history of mankind.

The common-sense view:  time is split into past, present and future.

But…….

Nagarjuna (in his ‚Mulamadhyamakakarikas‘) argues if the „parts“ of time would have own-being, the conception of time quickly loses its coherence. If „the past“ is considered to produce „the present“ and „the future,“ the latter two parts would be already „in“ the past and could therefore not be properly said to have separate being. On the other hand, if the present and the future are separate from the past, then their very unconnectedness leaves them uncaused, independent and without reference to the past. But since the very notions of present and future imply a relation to the past, this is self-contradictory. Therefore, the present and future do not exist. Neither identity with nor difference from the past is sufficient to establish the reality of the present and future.

So what?

It is all here – now.

Take your time and get acquainted with that. Who/what are you?

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentar hinterlassen

ÜBER METHODEN…….

Methodismus: Lehre jemanden den Gebrauch des Hammers. Anschließend wird er die Welt als Nagel sehen.

Methoden sind Werkzeuge.

Die Verwendungsmöglichkeiten der meisten Werkzeuge sind zahlreich – daher vielfältig in ihrer Wirkung. Oft wirken sie gegensätzlich. Denken wir z.B. nur an das Messer – einerseits verwendbar als Mordwaffe, anderseits verwendbar als heilsames Skalpell. Neutral gesagt: Messer sind da, um etwas zu  teilen. Wie stellen wir also sicher, dass wir Methoden / Werkzeuge angemessen anwenden?

Es ist die KLUGHEIT, also die aufgeklärte und reflektiere Absicht des Anwenders von Werkzeugen, welche darüber entscheidet, ob deren Verwendung in einer bestimmten Situation für alle davon Betroffenen, also für die Allgemeinheit – schädlich oder nützlich ist.

Philosophen wussten das immer schon. So stellt der z.B. Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) im ersten Satz der „Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten“ die provokante Behauptung auf: „Es ist überall nichts in der Welt, ja überhaupt auch außer derselben zu denken möglich, was ohne Einschränkung für gut könnte gehalten werden, als allein ein guter Wille.“

Es gibt dazu aber scheinbar auch eine plausible Gegenposition, sie lautet: „Das Gegenteil von gut ist gut gemeint.“ Diese Formulierung wird Karl Kraus zugeschrieben. Sie ist die Kurzfassung einer alten Volksweisheit: „Der Weg zur Hölle ist mit guten Absichten gepflastert.“

► Was also ist ein ‚guter Wille‘, eine ‚gute Absicht‘ in Kontexten methodischer Anwendungen?

Die Antwort scheint nicht einfach zu sein.

Aber das ist falsch. Denn ‚Guter Wille‘ im kantschen Sinn können wir getrost mit ‚Wohlwollen‘ übersetzen, mit ‚wohlwollender Grundhaltung‘ – also sich selber und anderen ‚wohl wollen‘, wie immer auch die Umstände sein mögen. Unter allen Umständen! Nur eine solche Haltung sei vernünftig, menschlich, sagt er.

Somit lautet die Aufgabe für jeden Anwender von Methoden: Sich zu fragen, welches Vorgehen in der je gegebenen Situation gut für mich und für die Anderen ist. Meine Entscheidung hängt also von meiner Grundhaltung und von meiner Wahrnehmung der gegebenen Situation ab.

Wenn dieses Fragen, dieses Untersuchen und diese Selbstbeobachtung entfällt, weil wir von Vorurteilen ausgehen, wenn wir die gegebenen Interessenlagen nicht klären, wenn wir vorschnell und kurzsichtig handeln, auf schnellen persönlichen Gewinn aus sind – dann können sich solcherart ‚gute Absichten‘ als fatal für alle Beteiligten erweisen. Dann stimmt: „Der Weg zur Hölle ist mit guten Absichten gepflastert.“

Was auf den ersten Blick so kompliziert ausgesehen hat, war bei genauerer Betrachtung recht einfach. Denn die Antwort auf die Frage ist nun eine weitere Frage an mich selber: „Wie wohlwollend gehe ich mit selber und allen anderen Beteiligten in je gegebenen Lebenslagen um?“

Und diese Frage ist jetzt wirklich kompliziert, oder?

Deshalb suchen wir zumeist schnellen Rat in Handbüchern, Ratgebern, Vorschriften, Gesetzen, bei Vorgesetzten, Fachleuten, Autoritäten, etc.

Deshalb fliehen wir gerne in Methodismus, denn man ohne Probleme als das Ausführen von KULTHANDLUNGEN übersetzen kann. Einhaltung von entlastenden Riten und Ritualen, also Zuflucht in vorgegebene Konventionen. Tun, was andere Mitglieder dieser (Sub-)Kultur für richtig halten. Statt die Sache selber frei durchzudenken – was Kant und die bürgerliche Philosophie unter Aufklärung gemeint haben – nehmen wir in Konformismus Zuflucht. Am leichtesten fällt uns dies, wenn diese Zuflucht eine wissenschaftlich anerkannte Technik, eine bewährte Methode ist. Dann scheint die geforderte Aufklärungsarbeit ja von anderen schon zuvor geleistet worden zu sein. Wir brauchen daher nur mehr zu imitieren……. Was mühsam genug ist, denn das Lernen und Einüben solcher Methoden kann äußerst anstrengend, herausfordernd und kostspielig sein. Die eingesetzten Mühen rechtfertigen und stützen dann das ‚methodistische‘ Vorgehen……

Und so kommt es dann, dass nicht mehr wir entscheiden, sondern die Algorithmen der Methode, denen wir folgen – denn Methoden sind algorithmisch darstellbar, als Handlungsroutinen, welche zu befolgen sind, um qualitätsgesichert die gewünschten Handlungsergebnisse zu erzielen.

Wissen sie noch, mit welcher Frage wir gestartet sind? Vermutlich ist ihnen diese in der Zwischenzeit abhandengekommen.

Die Frage lautete: Wie stellen wir sicher, dass wir Methoden / Werkzeuge angemessen anwenden?

► Vor lauter Methodismus hat sich die Frage erübrigt! Und damit auch unsere menschliche Verantwortung, unsere Menschlichkeit, Mitmenschlichkeit.

Sehen wir hier als eine weitere Version  der alten Volksweisheit „Der Weg zur Hölle ist mit guten Absichten gepflastert“? In unserem Fall wären es also die ‚guten technischen Absichten‘?  – Schaut ganz so aus.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentar hinterlassen