Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Saturday March 16th, 2019

POWER in Social Systems

In my last article , I gave you my ideas about the three terms FREEDOM, LOVE and POWER..

When I was still powerful 😉

Quasi as a continuation of these ideas, I will now deal with the question:

What is it about enterprises and generally society and POWER?

POWER also plays a huge role in the context of movements such as  #newwork, “democratic enterprise”, and intrinsify.me. POWER is not only a determining factor in enterprises, but also in the political system, where our social coexistence as countries is organized.

Traditionally, POWER always belonged to men without further thought. In our country, it is still the old white men. Women were and still are ignored, except if they act like men. And children are kept small whenever they try to get in a word – because they are worried about their future.

POWER is relevant in churches, clubs, families, relationships, i.e. in all sorts of social systems. It is always the same. Everything is about who is in a position of power and who is not. And if you are in a position of power, you are better off than the others.

Yesterday

Since classical times, there has always been a ruling class that had the power in our cultural spheres. In Medieval Times, we had feudalism and precariat (Prekariat). Even in old Greece, there were citizens and slaves. In our regions, there were masters (land owners, knights, church dignitaries), a few free citizens and serfs in Medieval Times (fiefdom is just a category of slavery). Until the end of the 19th century, fiefdom was quite normal in many countries of Europe if you lived in rural areas – that is where the important food was produced. City air frees you – that is how people started to gain freedom in cities. And then came the revolution and enlightenment with its national wars.

So how did it continue?

Today

Today, we have a middle class. So far? It lies between the very rich and the very poor. The rich become richer and richer and the poor become poorer and poorer. The middle class seems to disappear.

Tomorrow

I imagine that we will have few very rich people. The huge majority will be part of the Precariat. Let us do some research:
 


precariat
[pertaining to the distinctive vocabulary of the educated class] {noun}
Part of the population who, especially due to long phases of joblessness and deficient social security, live in poverty or are directly threatened by poverty and only have limited chances to climb up.


 

You can easily remember the word precariat if you remember what precarious means. Those who belong to the precariat will live in precarious circumstances. Let us take another look at the dictionary: what is the meaning of precarious?
 


precarious
[pertaining to the distinctive vocabulary of the educated class] {adj}
Made up in such a way that you find it hard to come up with the right measures and decisions, not knowing how to get out of a difficult situation.
”a precarious [economic, financial] situation“


 

Those who live precariously will have few rights. They will be suppressed by an oligarchy of parties and associations. As a consequence of the climate catastrophe, along with the collapse of the infra structure and several similar factors, the people living in the precariat will be the absolute majority. They will be ruled by the religion of consumption. This is how a new kind of slavery could arise. It will no longer be based on ownership of people but on supervision and manipulation. A huge majority of persons will probably be governed by a small number of pseudo-democratic feudalists.

For a short century, we actually believed that democracy gave the citizen as the “sovereign” power and made him superior. Now we are surprised to find out that this was just an illusion.

All we can hope now is that it might still be enough for bread and games in the future.

RMD
(Translated by eg)

Roland Dürre
Friday March 15th, 2019

Freedom, Love, Power.

Three very central but also very abstract terms.

Big welcome – with baby bottle (1984).

When I was young, I mostly thought about freedom. It was very important for me. And since I am a little brain Messie, I collected definitions of freedom. I also wrote an article with eight definitions of freedom.

Be not afraid, it does not contain such a thing as “the freedom of car drivers”. However, a beautiful description of freedom is still missing. I want to add it now. It is by the German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling (Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, ab 1812 Ritter von Schelling, * 27. Januar 1775 in Leonberg, Herzogtum Württemberg; † 20. August 1854 in Ragaz, Kanton St. Gallen).
 


Lucky is he,
who can be what he is,
who measures his way
and 
his destination
with his own eye.


 
When I grew older, I was fascinated by the term LOVE. I also wrote many things about it, for instance A day of love.
Only the experiences of the last two years brought me to the realization that POWER is the central term in our social life. It influences our social life fundamentally. So now I look for definitions. Here is what I find:
 


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/power


 
As I see it, that is not good enough if you think about our lives in social systems.

I find more in Gerhard Wohland
 


Power is the social consensus that makes activity possible regardless of disagreement. Neither organizations nor enterprises are possible without hierarchically structured power. Romanticized ideas of new work find this connection embarrassing. But secret power is also power – it is only less useful.


 
Wow, that really is something I need to think about. With the exception of the usefulness in the last sentence, I actually agree.

Then I ask friends who provide me with the following two definitions:
 


Power is if you can lie without being punished for it.
and
Power is if you have the right to define things.


 
Well, as you can see, it is quite rewarding to think and read about POWER. That is what I will do. And as soon as I know more, I will again write about it.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

Freedom? Morality? Principles? Facts? Certainties?

Using beautiful terms and buzzwords, both politicians and the marketing of huge concerns try to impress people (and motivate them to buy things). The former do it because they want our vote, the latter because they want our best – the funny stuff.

Consciously treating language shabbily is part of this “new dishonesty“.

Language is supposed to have a manipulative effect. There is an endless number of terms that are very suitable if you want to seduce people. These terms are used whenever someone says something great. In particular, it is used by people who believe they are in possession of the truth (if you are precise, you will have to call it certainty). They use terms they themselves do not really understand, but still they hope that, by using those terms, they can sell their certainties.

They will not concern themselves with what these words actually mean. Instead, they just parrot them. Consequently, we should put all statements that are put before us under really thorough scrutiny. After all, we live in times of irresponsible blabbering.

In 1983, I was lucky enough to attend a very high-profile management seminar on dialectics in Frankfurt under Rupert Lay. In those days, Rupert Lay had the reputation of being the German Nestor as far as “Ethics in Management“ was concerned. It was a very modern topic, almost “hype”. I learned a lot during that seminar. And I tried to continue learning for the rest of my life.

I was 33 years old when I learned language, i.e. when I learned what exactly it means to use language properly. Well, that is rather late, isn’t it? The six other seminarists were all top managers from industry or presidents of associations or politicians in high office. They were all around thirty years older than I. That means they were all a lot later than yours truly, doesn’t it?

After a short warming-up discourse, they all agreed that freedom was their most important property and that they would immediately die for it. When I distanced myself from these two statements, I was treated like a pariah. To be sure, I was the youngest, had the longest haircut and did not wear a tie. Consequently, these older silvery-haired gentlemen could not really take me seriously, could they?

Unfortunately, the entire affair was symmetrical. Because to me, these six persons looked very much controlled from outside, which means they were the opposite of free. To be perfectly honest, I thought my six co-participants in the seminar were the prototypes of unfree persons. They were typical system agents who were caught in their fascist jails.

This did not bode well for the entire seminar. Regardless, this seminar is where I started to see philosophy and rhetoric as something important in my life and to appreciate their value. Thus, I learned to listen carefully, to analyse language and to treat difficult terms with caution, rather than negligently. And ever since then, that is what I have tried to actively do.

Concerning the image below:
Be not afraid, my blog is not going to turn into advertising CDU. I will never vote for or support a party the members of which, shortly after WW-II, conspiratorially  and in secret meetings prepared for German re-armament, and then realized it against the protests of the people (and to the benefit of the German Armament Industry).

Because I believe that those were the days that a unique chance for us people was lost for good, just because some people were scared.

No, this is about the text on the poster, or rather the text on the tweet.

The picture illustrates a tweet that was shared by the verified account of the CDU (excluding Bavaria) .
Frau Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer forwarded this tweet under the account @akk . That is how it ended up with me.

Here is the text as it was shared by @akk at @CDU– Tweets with this picture:


In an interview with   admonished the readers: “I expect people who come into our country to accept our values – and above all, I expect us to fight for our values”.


To me, it seems like a sentence directly from marketing. In some way or other, it is a stroke of genius in its bi-polarity. After all, it contains a demand that seems to be easy to accept.

Those who “come to us” should “accept our values”. We, “since we are “us” because we are here already”, should fight for our values. Of course, the weak point in this sentence is the term “values”. What exactly are “values”. What exactly are our values?.

Why do we expect those who come to our country to know our values if we ourselves do not know them?
As I see it, it would be a huge social obligation to work out a consensus about what our values are. Even if you probably cannot solve this problem.

Here are a few ideas.
If I want to understand the meaning of “value”, I first look for related terms, such as morality and principles. I am looking for a general term (because it is easier to understand and describe a word if you have a general term you can use in order to distinguish between the less general terms. That is what you learn in the first semester if you study philosophy).

In Wikipedia, you will find an overview  on the individual letters of „VALUE“. The first cube contains an enumeration of how the word VALULE Is generally used. For our purposes, this is not helpful. Incidentally, this cube is not even complete: you will, for instance, not find what the “value” (content) of a variable is in the game with words used by programmers.
In our context, the second cube of the article is relevant. Here is what it says.

(Wikipedia – value – version of February, 3rd, 2019, second column of text)
Value stands fo:
• Ethics, i.e. characteristics and qualities that are considered morally desirable
• social norms , i.e. social regulations for how to behave.
• christian values
• Ethical values, see: ethical law

Well, I do not really know why Christian Values are part of the definition. I would find “religious” values more appropriate. You could exemplify them by using “Christian Values”. And you would then have to include the values of other religions. Perhaps you could also describe these values as mindsets. Consequently, our values would be described as our mind sets. But do we have a common mind set?

If, in our historic tradition, the Christian-Occidental values are propagated, then I always remember that, until the end of the 18th century, the Christians were also among those who supported and used serfdom , which is just another word for slavery  . Well, at least in my eyes that does not make the tradition any better. Bear in mind that mostly serfs were also dependants .The landlord was mostly also the owner of the farmer. And who owned the land?

I like the first entry in the upper cube ethics a lot better. We learn that this is all about our concepts of values. So what exactly are concepts? Visions or hallucinations? The entry also shows us how easily you get into close proximity of morality  that judges if we apply values. After all, morality is something that believes in possessing the truth about what is good and what is evil. Can you tell me what is good and what is evil?

In Wikipedia, you will also find on morality:

Morality is about mostly actual behavioural patterns , conventions and rules or principles of certain  individuals, groups or cultures.  . A violation of morality is called immorality. Amorality is the denial or the purposeful refusal of moral principles and can culminate in the total absence of moral feeling.

So now we are again dealing with patterns, conventions, rules and principles! So let us continue – which means we end up with an article about principles . Now things are really getting complicated. Consequently, we will only take one sentence:
Generally speaking, a principle is a maxim or a basic rule you stick by.

So now we can ask:
Did the author (I am sure it was not AKK herself who wrote it) really mean values with this beautiful advertisement? Or morality? Or principles?
Or does it mean that those who come to our country had better stick by our rules and regulations and that it is our job to see to it that said rules are not violated? 
- Which makes it sound quite differently.

I strongly suspect that the person who wrote this sentence did not even know what he or she actually wanted to say.
Because he or she did not think of such a thing (and perhaps was not even competent enough to think of it). It was simply going to be a nice marketing slogan that sounds nice and makes a good impression. Insofar, it is a good match with the general dishonesty in our communication.

If you are interested in finding out how Frau Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer interprets the sentence on the poster, why don’t you send her an email @akk and ask her?

RMD
(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Saturday January 5th, 2019

RADICAL.

Long Live the Radical Heretics!

When Hans Bonfigt’s article was discussed and commented on, the term “radical“ played an important role. This motivated me to become contemplative about the word RADICAL. Because, to me, it seems that being radical is very important.

According to de.Wiktionary.org/wiki/, similar words are either 
[1] hard, ruthless, reckless, stubborn,  or 
[2] clearly, thoroughly, noticeably, definitely, all-encompassing.

{
Laut de.Wiktionary.org/wiki/ sind sinnverwandte Wörter entweder
[1] hart, rücksichtslos, unerbittlich, unnachgiebig
oder
[2] deutlich, gründlich, merkbar, merklich, umfassend
}

I found no useful definition of the word “radical” in (the German) Wikipedia. In the political context, there is a link to radicalism . Sociologically, radicalism is a characteristic of change, see social change.

Well, at least in the German Wikipedia, there is no definition of the often-used word “radical”. This shows clearly how difficult the discussion of the term is. To me, this sounds almost logical, since we humans are famous for having arguments about things the meaning of which we do not know. Simply because we tend to put particular emotional stress on terms that we do not understand or cannot define.

Let me make some guesses as to what radical might mean. Or rather, how I understand it. It took several days of contemplation for me to come up with an answer. Then I discovered that, to me, “radical” is particularly important when it comes to thinking. That means we are talking radical ideas. Which, as I see it, Hans Bonfigt time and again does not apply.

To my way of thinking, “radical ideas” mean that our ideas can develop in straight lines without having to consider moral fields. In other words, our ideas should not be influenced by the restriction: “You do not want to think along these lines“.
And I believe that radical ideas will soon make you a heretic. I rather like heretics if they are capable of questioning their own so-called truths.

Let me describe a few theoretical results that can spring from radical ideas.

  • Religions and God were invented by humans. How can a person call something an absolute truth if he himself invented it?
  • Who are those who benefit most from war? The weapons industry. Consequently, the weapons industry needs war. And whenever there is no war, it will see to it that there will soon again be war.
  • First and foremost, I must be considerate of myself. Because only if I love myself, I can also love other people. Consequently, martyrdom is socially detrimental and should not happen – nor should it be glorified.
  • Humans are not evil. If anything, then their actions are evil. Consequently, you should not condemn humans but instead their actions.
    (Rupert Lay once said that Hitler was probably not an evil person, because maybe he mostly followed his conscience. Perhaps his conscience was rather alien, if not pathological. To be sure, Rupert said it during a festive presentation for famous guests of a big German Bank. And legend has it that he was then interrupted by the managing director and escorted from the premises. Because he had broken a taboo – there are things you cannot think, let alone say).

Well, I guess I had better stop writing before someone comes and escorts me from the writing stage.

RMD

Roland Dürre
Saturday December 22nd, 2018

TOLERANCE and CONFORMISM.

Hans Bonfigt wrote a comment about my article on “Old White Men“ (Alte weiße Männer). To be sure, you can disagree about what he writes. However, for me, his article was an important impulse.

This picture was taken on October, 3rd, 2012 in the forest restaurant. I am wearing the cap I just imported from China (this is also my Twitter calling card picture).

When he said that “we tolerate everything except intolerance”, he really hit home. As I understood Hans, the important question in his article was: who exactly is allowed to define tolerance (or fascism, racism, colonialism)?

I believe there is an answer to this question. Let us first take a closer look at the terms:

Intolerance is the opposite of tolerance (Toleranz). Tolerance (forbearance) is a virtue, consequently, intolerance (the opposite of tolerance) is an anti-virtue, the opposite of a virtue.

”Fascism“, “Racism“, “Colonialism“ (Faschismus, Rassismus, Kolonialismus) are not virtues. They are systemic concepts of the world that describe ideologies and governments.

Ethically, “tolerance” is easy to define. If you want to judge if a statement or an attitude is tolerant or intolerant, you have to do a personal and independent weighing, following “ethically responsible values”. “Ethically responsible” means that the values you autonomously found must be in accord with the global community, for instance with the UNO Convention or the “Golden Rule” (Goldenen Regel).

Social systems depend on CLARITY. That is true both for enterprises (social systems with an economic goal) and parties (social systems with a political task). The problem is: what happens if the clarity becomes the collectively shared concept?

That is exactly what we want. We find it nice if the enterprise where we work or the party we give our vote emanates a “collective clarity“. “Collective clarity” is conformity. It is the small (subversive) sister of clarity. And conformity is a nice basis for “fascism”, “racism”, “colonialism” – just as it is also a good basis for “slavery” and “fiefdom”. That makes everything a little complicated.

I think we want to be careful. We need to see to it that the VALUES of our CLARITY are in accord with the world-wide consensus of values. That is also true for tolerance. And if and when the time comes that the world’s conformity will bring forth a world-wide fascism (no matter what kind of fascism), then the only thing that will probably help is resignation or resistance. Which will then trigger the interesting (ethical) question if such a resistance must be non-violent or if violence is the only way to make such a resistance a success.

Once in a while, I get the impression that this world-wide conformity is what we already have in the economic dimension.

Consumptionism and capitalism have spread throughout the world like a religion. Some also call it a predator capitalism that, by using its weapons marketing, lobbyism and corruption, has already conquered the world. And here, too, we again have the tricky situation that we must decide if non-violent resistance is enough.

I am convinced that the only way to counteract the upcoming world-wide conformity is diversity and variety.

Many thanks to Hans Bonfigt, who inspired me by sending his ideas.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Thursday November 22nd, 2018

At the DOAG

IOnce more, I was the speaker.

For many years (that felt more like decades), my friend Dietmar (Neugebauer) was president of the DOAG. DOAG is an acronym for Deutsche Oracle Anwender Gruppe. Every year in November, the DOAG has its big and legendary yearly conference and exhibition in Nuremberg.

Thanks to Dietmar, I was there many times and gave presentations. Last year, I wanted to create something different and, together with Christian and Knud, showed everybody how modern communication could work (there is also a video recording: Video).

With the 2017 success, I was going to terminate my DOAG career (after all, you should end when you feel at the top). But then, Dietmar kept pestering me. Consequently, we did something together in 2018 (on November, 21st) – this time it was about “functional communication”. And we invited people to join “our fishbowl”. And, again, it was really nice.

A fishbowl is organized as follows:

Choice of Topic

If you communicate “functionally“, it might help if you have a topic. But how to find a topic? Our first idea was to establish a topic finding commission for coming up with something. But that is nonsense.

The rules and the intention of our fishbowl were described shortly before the event in my  communication article. We simply checked the newspapers and listened to the radio in the morning to see and hear what were the most important events of the day. After all, the paywall – sorry, the media – are assigned the task of providing the news that concern us every day. Which means they should be a good source. Then Dietmar and yours truly, along with Dr. Marius Poersch and Wolfgang Taschner, took a close look at those topics and selected four of them.

Selection of Topics

Here are the four topics we found in the radio and press of November 21st:

  • How does #newwork fit into our lives
    (work-life-balance, motivation, experiences, how does it actually work)
  • #diesel ban control
    (protection of the environment, data protection, total control, human dignity)
  • The youth is #scared of the internet
    (mobbing, addiction, data and the ownership of your own data getting out of control)
  • Copyright
    (upload filter due to new EU legislation, access to youtube as commonly experienced reality, reaction of the youtube management because they feel threatened.)

Selection of a Topic by Vote

We had prepared four flipcharts and added an important idea to the four topics before announcing the vote. Dietmar gave a short explanation on what the topics were about – and then everybody voted.

Everyone in the room had a round red sticker that he/she could attach to one of the posters. Since my topic was “copyright protection”, that is where I put my red sticker. In the end, unfortunately, (for me), there were only a few red stickers on my topic, while the #newwork poster was overflowing with round red stickers.

Consequently, now we had a topic – a topic which the absolute majority of the people gathered at this place was in favour of on this day. That is a good start for a fishbowl. It was done in no time and totally self-organized.

The Fishbowl

To begin with, the four “experts“ (Dietmar, Marius – who actually was the only real expert – Roland und Wolfgang) took their seats on one of the six chairs (we had spontaneously decided to add a chair because so many people had come). Everybody made his/her statement and then we left things to flow.

And there was a nice flow. In 45 minutes, including preparation time, many wise things were said. We had great results, the participants stuck to the rules (be concise, let everyone else also finish with what they want to say and take up the idea of the person who spoke before you).

The exchange went very well in both directions and the coordination was excellent. My personal conclusion as a “normal participant” was that I rarely had been at the receiving end of so many ideas, impulses and food for thought as during this fishbowl.

Feedback Round

The feedback round confirmed that most of the other participants felt like I felt. Dietmar wrote to me saying that he had received plenty of praise throughout the entire evening (when I had already left).

At an Aside

Directly after us, there is always the central keynote. Yesterday, Lars Vollmer was scheduled as the next DOAG conference speaker. I had never met Lars before and only knew him from his publications. In his presentation, he described the business theatre that you often get today. And I mentally filtered quite a few ideas of his that actually blended quite well with the ideas we had generated during our fishbowl.

And that made me wonder: Why don’t enterprises more frequently organize a fishbowl with their employees in order to get an awareness of what stupid nonsense they sometimes talk?

RMD
Translated by EG


I learned much from Rupert – also how to build syllogisms and vexilla (I took the picture before 2010).

My first introduction to building vexilla was through my teacher and friend Rupert Lay. He closely accompanied my learning and my development for far more than ten years.

Through him, I made the acquaintance of quite a number of the important managers and entrepreneurs who were active in the German economy in the 1970s and 1980s. I also learned to appreciate them and they taught me a lot.

It was also where I learned how many fundamentally important things were achieved in his seminars. In these seminars, you practice the ancient Greek dialectics based on the construction and analysis of syllogisms (Syllogismen) and on the dialectic technology of building vexilla (Fahnenbildung).

In the Projektmagazin – which, incidentally, I find quite a stroke of genius – there is also an article (one of them by Elisabeth Wagner) that is very much worth reading. It describes how, through building vexilla, you can develop ideas and solve problems in a very baffling way and very efficiently.

Basically, building vexilla is just a dialectic philosophical method and has been used in this discipline for thousands of years. As we know, philosophy tries to analyse, understand and give meaning to the world  and the human existence . In a nutshell, I would say it tries to answer the questions: why, for what reason, to what end, how? And that will also help you when you are looking for new ideas and solutions.

The combination of “agile” and “classic dialectics” is a stroke of genius – in almost all cases, it will render excellent results. This is how you can actually achieve “empowering of the people“.

Again and again, that was my experience when moderating start-ups. Especially for an agile team where the individuals work at eye-level, building vexilla is a fantastic tool for gaining new insights in a creative way. Once on a while, you will even mange to get rid of wrong (and often deeply rooted) prejudices.

Here is how you want to proceed in eight steps if you build a vexillum. I like applying them.

  • Formulate the desired theory and define the central terms of the theory.
  • Collect requirements that need to be met at first sight if you want agreement with a certain and exactly defined event or project. You want a list that is as finite as possible.
  • Definition of the terms you used and common agreement.
  • Evaluation of the requirements following the criteria: useful, necessary, sufficient.
  • In case of different opinions with respect to the quality or applicability of requirements, you need to look for alternatives until all the requirements get a consensus. It is permitted to delete requirements that turn out to be unnecessary.
  • Test if all requirements belong to one language game and determine the end function. 
Example for an enterprise: 
regulative – keep the common good out of danger; 
ethically – realize biophily, 
economical – improve the results
  • Test if all the requirements are met or if they can be met with acceptable cost. 
You want to keep in mind that only the actual realization of a project will show if your assumptions have been correct. Consequently, the vexillum can also contain requirements that make a later correction or omission of an earlier decision necessary.
  • In the ideal case, you will find a sufficient requirement as the result of building a vexillum. You will not always manage that. But the sum of necessary requirements that, taken together, will qualify as “sufficient” is also a satisfactory result.

If you wish to try the technology of building vexilla and need assistance, I will gladly help you.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

P.S.
For more articles of my entrepreneur’s diary, click here: Drehscheibe!

Hans Bonfigt
Monday May 15th, 2017

Kick it Out …

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Monday January 9th, 2017

PEACE

PEACE must not become a religion, because then we will quickly become un-peaceful.

That is also the reason why there must be no project PEACE.

Seems to be a powerful symbol für peace. May be to powerful.

As you all know, I was going to start a project PEACE. Well, more than ever, I am in favour of PEACE. But no longer as a project.

In the last few months, I have had many dialogues with wise and peaceful persons. Like me, they are convinced that peace is the most precious commodity for us humans. And I learned a lot from them and thought a lot about what I can do for PEACE.

Here is what the current state of affairs regarding my ideas is:

I no longer believe that peace can be brought about by organizations and projects.

A short time ago, a strong lady came to me and said:

“Roland, I am now retired, I have lots of time and I would like to support you in your project PEACE”.

I had to tell her that, according to my understanding of PEACE, there cannot be a successful PEACE project:

The only possible project is to live for PEACE yourself.

Very individually and initially only in private. So I asked her to start her own “project” and simply live for (and work towards) her own und all our PEACE. Consequently, I believe there have to be many small peace projects. Everyone first and foremost works on them for himself or herself and individually.

And that you have to deliberately refrain from coordination and mutual agreements. That would be dangerous and quickly cause manipulation and ideology. And it would probably do more harm than good.

So it is my idea that we all should not organize anything. Instead, we should open our sensors wide and be considerate and free – perhaps as a swarm with others who want PEACE. That sounds religious. I do not like religious patterns.

But perhaps PEACE can work if peaceful persons live their beliefs exclusively for themselves and if the convictions they have are based on their own ethically responsible judgement and on the values of humanity (such as the Golden Rule, the Biophilie principle, human dignity being unalienable  …).

I think even “peace-loving” people must NOT actively try to convince others towards being PEACEFUL or act as missionaries. All humans have to come to their own conclusion about PEACE being the requirement for everything else. Otherwise it will not work.

And, above all, nobody should be willing and able to sacrifice themselves for what they believe and thus become martyrs! Because this is not how PEACE can work. Consequently, no organization and no project for PEACE can be a success and actually bring PEACE. In fact, perhaps even the symbol for PEACE I chose and inserted at the beginning of this article is questionable and might be criticized.

It is not easy for me to formulate my complex ideas. If I succeeded in making a little clearer what moves me, then that will make me happy.
And I will continue to strive towards my own PEACE..
RMD
(Translated by EG)

P.S.
Perhaps this is a process – can we call it evolution?