Roland Dürre
Thursday October 3rd, 2019

(Deutsch) RUPERT LAY LESEBUCH

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Sunday August 11th, 2019

(Deutsch) Die CLOUD im Theater.

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Tuesday July 30th, 2019

(Deutsch) Frankfurt in Nauders

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Friday July 26th, 2019

Sheepshead, School and Digitalization,

 

Card Playing Stories.

 

Laub(?)-Solo on Position 3 with 4 Ober, beaten in the Bock Round with Contra. />

Once in a while, I leave the competitive Sheepshaed rounds and play with elderly gentlemen. This hand of cards is totally fictional. Similarities with real hands are purely accidental.

The “elderly gentlemen“ are no older than I. I gave the circle this secret title because it is a very contemplative sheepshead round. The stakes are low, there is no knocking and there is plenty of gossiping.

The “elderly gentlemen“ are mostly retirees or financially independent persons. In general, they built a family and can look back upon a successful professional career. Their lives were full, they always knew right from wrong and achieved a lot as upright citizens. They live in a world that is free of sorrows and peaceful, but they have many irrational fears. Today, they play the roles of good grandfathers and support their children in a particularly model-like way when it comes to caring for the grandchildren.

The hand of the enemy on position 4, who killed my solo.

They also invest a lot of time for this goal of theirs. As helping angels, they constantly travel for other people. And they always know better how to improve matters.

I think that people need to solve their own problems and prefer to support people in finding their own way to deal with their problems. And I also believe that everybody should live his or her life in self-responsibility.

I tried to kiss moral and other dogmas good-bye for good. I also kissed my bad conscience good-bye. If I had not done this, I would think of myself as a totally bad family father and human being when surrounded by these people.

So here is the story. It is about school. Incidentally, one of my daughters is a teacher. She also often tells me stories that surprise me. It is really quite sad how school and education in Germany deteriorate.

The following story is from the world of state schools. However it is not a story my daughter told me. It is from a sheepshead friend of mine, one of the “elderly gentlemen”.

As the end of the school year comes, all teachers have more work than at other times. That is not only due to the fact that they have to write all the reports. Consequently, the grandfathers must have a watchful eye on their “grandchildren whose parents are teachers” in order to give said teaching parents room and time they need for this important end-of-the-year work.

One of the important and time-consuming tasks it taking back the books. They are all free. So the teachers who have (had) to be responsible for all those books now need to get active. And since this takes a lot of time, grandpa has to babysit.

As with all regulars‘ tables, the sheepshead stories are also always value-oriented. Consequently, the story about how school books are returned also gets morally judged. This is also an example that nicely illustrates what Socrates found out: the young generation gets worse and worse. And the wise heads go left and write as they signal how they cannot understand how society deteriorates, as you can clearly see from the condition of the books. What a nuisance it also is to check what papers are hidden in the books. Sometimes even with secret data. You can also lament about the loss of power and authority in modern times and school.

I, too, move my wise head right and left. Because I cannot understand why we need school books at all. Don’t we live in the 21st century, i.e. in the digital era? But that is not what I say. Because I know that every one of the men assembled around this cards table will consider a school life without normed school books for all the subjects the end of our occidental German culture.

My ruminations stray to a series of emotional pitches at the Business Competition BayStartup, where young start-up teams pleaded for a digital school. And they also showed what little technology you need if you wish to realize it. And what huge advantages on several levels this would have. However, I also remember how these – admittedly very young – teams were given patronizing smiles by the majority of jurors (and given poor grades). This was a few years ago – and I had hoped that something might have changed by now.

But we live in Germany. My colleagues in the jury – mostly old white men like myself – were not really enthusiastic about such revolutionary ideas. Because even the protagonists of change do not yet understand that innovation is creative destruction. And that school books are a means towards a standardized education.

And even technologically simple things are the opposite of politically easy to realize. Especially not if they are about change. And I probably better do not say what I think about this.

After all, in my sheephead circle, I want to play cards and not discuss digitalization. In the past, my experience was too often that digital life, along with the internet as a fair participation system, is not really understood among the powers that be in this country.

And unfortunately, I must agree with Sascha when he writes:
”The greatest German competence is the competence to remain. It is administered by habit.“

(Sascha Lobo in an article about micro mobility)

And all I can do is warn the old white men (and also the evil female wise-guy ladies):

If you continue in this way, then there will soon be an end to prosperity and the life you love so much in this country. That serves you right! And it is well!

RMD

P.S.
But at least there is good news from Bavaria: They now offer sheepshead as a school subject. It is perhaps the only subject that makes any sense.

Roland Dürre
Friday July 12th, 2019

(Deutsch) Glück durch Freiheit!

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Sunday April 14th, 2019

Does Anybody Still Believe in VUCA?

Whenever I attend events on #newwork or #agile, I hear people lamenting:

Our life becomes faster and faster. The high speed of change causes a high complexity that is overrunning us. Consequently, we have to become more agile in order to deal with it.

I reply that I have no intention of doing anything of the sort. Neither do I have to cope with complexity. Actually, I leave complexity well alone.

Protetion against vuca in Bonnaire in the Caribbean(Foto © Luc Bosma, Bonaire)

Then I hear the worried question:
And you, do you not fear VUCA?
Well, vuca really sounds worrying. A little like HORG (Hierarchical ORGanization).
Except that VUCA is also just one of the abbreviations that are so popular today. They have all become buzzwords.

In fact, in my book, a buzzword is an empty phase. Just like digitalization or sustainability.

Interestingly, the use of abbreviations was initiated by the NSDAP bureaucracy in the Third Reich and then used extensively. Subsequently, the abbreviations became export hits, following the motto: “Am Deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen“ (Let the world heal following Germany’s example).


VUCA

According to Wikipedia, VUCA is an Acronym for the terms volatility (Volatilität / Unbeständigkeit), uncertainty (Unsicherheit), complexity (Komplexität) und ambiguity (Mehrdeutigkeit).


The VUCA prophets use the harmless four letters as memory rhyme for their horror message.

But then, has the world not always been vuca from the perspective of a single person?

In the stone age and in medieval times, it probably started with food for humans. Will there be anything to eat today?

From the perspective of organizations, the world also has always been vuca. Just remember the medieval towns where people tried to protect themselves against vuca by building expensive walls.

Or take my favourite example: the Weimar Republic lastet no more than nine years – and the thousand-year Reich changed everything in only twelve years (and destroyed a lot in the process). What a speed! True vuca! Even the GDR lasted 41 years (from 1949 until 1990). And the FRD (from 1949 and ongoing) already managed seventy years. Basically, so little vuca is hard to believe, isn’t it?

Consequently, I find the world has always been vuca. More in former times than today. Because the operating systems of our social systems have actually had a stabilizing effect. They are also more stable because of their digital corsets. How would you ever be able to change a huge enterprise that cemented its processes in Office365 and SAP?

As I see it, our world has probably become more stressful. Or at least it brought a new form of stress. Except that stress does not sound as nice as vuca. Let me recommend the Book
Phenomenon Stress:
Wo liegt sein Ursprung, warum ist er lebenswichtig, wodurch ist er entartet?
(Where does it originate, why is it essential, why did it get out of control?)
by Frederic Vester.

It contains more substance that is worth reading than the entire vuca literature. And if you buy it second-hand, you get it for less than one Euro.

And here are my 10 cents worth of advice on stress:

The change from a nature-oriented to a culture-oriented world brought us a new form of stress.

We created a world where we are permanently exposed to noise. The air is polluted because of exhausts. Our bodies, including the vegetative (nerve-) system is exposed to many idiotic burdens (such as having to control a car without ever finding a physical outlet …) and limitations (we spend the entire day sitting around somewhere…).

We can change this. We only have to want it!

Because the things that give us problems are exactly the things we do not need, anyway. We would have to work a lot less and could do a lot more for our own health if we were better organized and ready to do without a lot of nonsense.

Today, we mostly toil for nothing. That is where I think it is a good idea for us to make our world less complex – in the sense of avoiding rubbish. However, we should not lament the vuca-ization of our lives. Because that, too, creates stress. So:

🙂 VUCA –> FGI (forget it)

RMD
(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Wednesday April 3rd, 2019

The Heretic’s Cynic Dance Through Society and Politics.

Currently, I am riding my bike through the Piemont with Barbara. It is pure pleasure, spring, exercise, a wonderful landscape, great food, everything is like a dream. It gives me time and leisure to think about what has made me sad recently. The following summary is the result.

Before you start reading, I would like to point out that we have freedom of thought. That is also true for mental experiments.


Let us start with a hideous saying from Nazi times. In those days, the masters of the Third Reich hung the sentence “Work Will Make You Free“ over the entrance of the Concentration Camps. Hatred was systematically promoted against persons and groups we disliked. These people were tortured and murdered from the leaders – with the agreement of the vassals. We rightly condemned what happened as crimes against humanity. Work will make you free – in those times that was sheer cynicism.

Today, we have the motto: “Money will make you free”. Since for most people their job is the source of income, you can say – and I do not mean this cynical at all – “your job will make you free”. Because only if you have a job that pays reasonably well, you will be a respected part of society. Everything depends on it.

If your job does not pay very much, this is not a problem. You simply have to have several jobs. That is quite possible. You will still remain a part of society. If you do not earn enough in your job, you will also be ostracized. Except if you have other means of income, for instance if you inherit a lot. With enough money, you will also be a respected citizen if you have no job. Since well-paid jobs will probably become scarce in the future, some sociologists demand the   BGE (basic income without any requirements). It is supposed to give people a little more freedom, but above all, it is supposed to guarantee the preservation of the consumption society.

The best-paid jobs are in the HORGs (Hierarchical ORGanisations). Especially if you are stabilized and protected by collectively agreed wages, you can consider yourself in the golden cage. If you do not wish to work in a HORG (like yours truly), you have two options: you can become either a day labourer or an entrepreneur.

Day labourers can either earn quite a lot or be rather poorly paid, depending on what they can sell. If you need a better sounding word, you will call them freelancers (although they are certainly not free). And they are often persecuted as “fake freelancers“.

Trying to become an entrepreneur is risky, you can fail (as with everything in life). Except if you fail, you might not only end up without income but also without Granny’s Little House.

The VW managing director Herbert Diess has now also realized this, regardless of the fact that he is actually not an entrepreneur but more some kind of upper class system agent. He declared very appropriately: EBIT will make you free – and then he was surprised that they criticized him for this sentence (because of the historical fact that VW, after all, had quite a few forced labourers during the Third Reich). Since he is a nice Austrian who was born in Munich, he later said he was sorry if his choice of phrase was offensive.

Mind you, he was absolutely correct, because his enterprise will be a lot better off if “his enterprise” manages a nice EBIT every year. Believe me, I know what I am talking about!

Incidentally, not only the managing directors in the automobile industry know this – those in the pharmaceutical industry have also gotten wind of it. Mind you, in the pharmaceutical industry, you do not get such products as Tamiflu – that alone guarantees the EBIT – every year. The time of the Blockbuster is also something of the past and business in the chemical health industry gets generally harder.

That is why it is nice if google and facebook, for example, ban the vaccination enemies from their website. Naturally, compulsory vaccinations are an excellent cure for the EBIT of the producers. And the government, too, is now considering to introduce a law that makes it possible to make vaccinations compulsory. Because of the measles.

Since we are talking about compulsory measures: 
Especially in the medical sector, it would make sense in society to have many more compulsory measures. The first thing that comes to mind is the HIV test. Why do they not force everybody to do such a test regularly? That would give people the information whether or not they have Aids and consequently they can act responsibly. Would not some transparency make sense in the fight against the pestilence? And such a law would also be beneficial for the EBIT of the producer of the test.

Or, just as important:
Everybody knows that our planet has a huge problem. It suffers under too many people. Should we not really do something about the over-population? What about forced contraceptives?

Here is what the rules could be:

Every woman has to do whatever it takes in order not to become pregnant (without permission). Either through a known contraceptive or by proving that she lives in a monogamous relationship with a sterilized man. If there is a possibility that she is pregnant, she has to take the pill after. If the pregnancy has been confirmed, there must be immediate abortion. This is a medically very simple and harmless procedure that, in Germany, one out of four women underwent once or several times in their lives.

There would be exceptions for “applied for and approved” children. The approval has to be valid before the actual procreation. It will only be granted if the couple (hetero or homo sexual) can prove that they are able to provide a good social perspective for the child. What a Brave New World!
Well, the Federal Government has a lot of work to do. China already did it, because China had to cope with a drastic population growth. In India, it has also been discussed. They distributed radio receivers as a reward for sterilization. However, it did not work very well.

In general, the Chinese are a step ahead.

China already awards social credits for its citizens. Both negative and positive ones. In the end, the difference is calculated. This is how they want to realize the dream of a system of “relative justice” by rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour.

Thanks to digitalization, it is quite easy.

For instance if someone goes by underground train without having bought a ticket, he/she will get negative points. The same is true if you cross the street on a red traffic light or if you park illegally or drive too fast. If your negative points add up to a certain sum, you will be ostracized from society by a differentiated system.
Isn’t this better than our system?

If you go by underground train in this country without having bought a ticket, you are committing a crime and will sooner or later end up in jail. Since parking illegally is only a violation of a minor rule, you can throw away your ticket without having to fear jail. Is that relative justice?

In China, they have many rich and super-rich – and many poor. In our country, the polarization between rich and poor is not quite as pronounced as there.
This could soon end.

Because Germany is not the only country where the first article of the constitution seems to be: the preservation of your property is the highest priority. That is what the majority of people in this country take as the maxim of their thinking and behaviour.

The protection of vested rights feels like a new human right in Germany.

Consequently, the protection of property has been improved. It happens at all levels. Naturally, because, if 50% of the world’s capital belongs to fewer than fifty people, then these people want to stabilize their situation. And power is always in the hands of those with “the funny stuff”.
The copyright protection that originated in the last centuries is also regulated for the internet. Data are declared personal property and protected by laws. It induces a huge cost that could easily have been avoided if we had simply punished violations of the law.

I never understood the ado they made about data protection. How can any person own data at all? And why do they belong to him/her personally? I used to believe that data (like knowledge) belongs to all of us. At least to all those who know them.

What kind of society is this if my date of birth is a secret? To be sure, I am less than thrilled about my age. I would certainly like to be younger. But why should nobody know how old I am? Why should my sexual and religious orientation not be public knowledge? Why does everyone want to hide something?

My dream is a transparent and tolerant society. Free of violence. We would need no DSVGO as we have it now. Neither would we need upload filters that will now also come officially (we have had them in-officially for quite some time already).

They say that intellectual property needs to be protected. This is because you can earn a lot of money with intellectual property. I feel richer if I can share my ideas with others. I will not want the copyright to my ideas, simply because my ideas have usually been inspired or triggered by other persons.

There is one exception to how the government acts in favour of manifesting property. It is not about the womb that should belong to a woman. Now the government wants to initiate a law that allows them to take the organs of a dead person by default. In other words, if a person did not declare a priori (before he died) that he expressly forbids it or unless his next of kin à posterio gives a good reason why he is against it, the organs will be taken. This weakens the ownership of your own organs. Is that because your ownership terminates with your death? What about applying this reasoning to other property?

It really sounds very humane if you hear about poor people who have been waiting a long time for a donor because they need his organ. As always, however, that is not what it is all about. It is all about business. And business is always justified with reminding people of jobs.

Organ transplants are very expensive medical business cases. And there are quite a few hospitals and people working there who could earn a lot more money if they had more donor organs. The pharmaceutical industry would also benefit. Because people who have been successfully given a donor organ need a lot of medication afterwards in order to continue living with the strange organ.

Also, you are no longer (officially) allowed to own other persons. However, slavery, too, was not abolished for humanitarian or idealistic reasons. It was mostly abolished because it was not beneficial in the sense of profit maximization.

Now I wait for a regulation that protects the right to my own emotions. After all, they, too, can be violated or injured by others. We already have some interesting beginnings, for instance if you violate religious or German-Nationalist feelings (for example if you ignore the flag). This might well become a subject to regulation in the internet. Upload filters come to mind.
I am really happy that I do not have any religious or nationalist feelings. So nobody can violate them. On the other hand: if SpVG Unterhaching lost a match and a München-1860 or Bayern-München fan makes fun of it, he is definitely violating my feelings. And I think he really should be punished for it.

That is one of the problem we have in this society:
How will violations against future regulations be sanctioned?
More and more is forbidden and regulated – it is not only about vaccinations and having children. The planet, the bees, and Europe must be saved. And all of this will not be possible without severe restrictions and solidarity. And voluntary solidarity comes at a high price and will consequently cost a lot.

Consequently, you cannot follow the politically incorrect sentiment that, for example, you are opposed to a Europe that is dominated by nationalist countries and that dreams of a powerful army of its own with aircraft carriers. Just as violations against the environment need to be sanctioned if you want to stop the climate catastrophe.

This is where we come full circle. You will really need a well-paid job or be extremely rich if you want to pay all the fees and tickets you will get.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

P.S.
I just read that the Bayerische Landesausstellung will be re-named “Stadtluft befreit“. The organizers of the event in Aichach and Friedberg in 2020 modified the original title ”Stadtluft macht frei“. Charlotte Knobloch had criticised that the title is hurtful and “poisoning people“.

The reason was that the old title violated feelings. If feelings are property that needs to be protected (because you can hurt them), then – following the current political concepts – you need a GSGVO (regulation for the protection of feelings) in the internet, too. And since we already have update filters, why not exclude everything that hurts your feelings? Such as city air will make you free. Or Haching is a shitty club.

In my opinion, “city air will make you free“ is a very important metaphor. Because the social, political, cultural and all other progress in Europe happened in the cities and through networking.

Roland Dürre
Tuesday March 5th, 2019

After Mardi Gras, There is Ash Wednesday.

 

Property, violence, justice, safety and abstinence …

 

It does not matter if you run, ride a bike, ski or drive a car. If you hit someone, then this is violence. Speed is violence.

 

Stone mask from the pre-ceramic stone age around 7,000 before Christ. One of the world’s oldest masks (Musée Bible et Terre Sainte, Paris)

Today is Mardi Gras. You can wear masks. You can wear costumes. Fool’s freedom means that you can take another role. And you need not stick by all the rules and keep up all the moral laws.

That feels nice. For several weeks, they have now made laws that look arbitrary to me and that I cannot understand. Because now the Great Coalition have changed from the argument mode to the working mode. Since laws mostly are not very good, I preferred the argument mode.
After they took the German Citizenship away for IS fighters, there is an EU-wide attack on the internet. But they also discuss the great liberty of German car drivers, the speed limit. A Swedish (?) producer restricts the cars to 180 km/h. Somehow or other, this is unimaginable in Germany. Basically, I do not even understand why cars that drive faster than 130 km/h are allowed on any streets at all.

Because I am personally against all speed. Both in life and in a car. For instance, I would feel a lot more comfortable if cars were allowed no more than 30 km/h in towns and no more than 70 km/ on highways, along with a maximum of 120 km/h on motorways.

But on the other hand, I am against all sorts of prohibitions. How can I solve this dilemma and still give a good reason for limiting the speed of vehicles? By introducing the factor violence! After all, in our times, the application of violence is a monopoly of the state. That is also true for weapons (let us ignore for the sake of argument that there are many exceptions, even in this country). This means that humans consciously agreed to not use violence and that only the state can use it in very clearly specified situations.

Well, knocking down a pedestrian or cyclist is just as much an act of violence as driving into another car. And that is exactly what people in civilized countries have agreed to forego. That makes it quite simple when it comes to speed limits and limitations for objects of the MIV (Motorisierter Individual Verkehr), part of which are also electrically powered vehicles, such as e-bikes.

What is left in our times that actually moves people? As I see it, the answer is: property, justice, safety and abstinence.

Property.


Does it make sense that legal persons have the same rights to property as actual persons? That ideas – we know they should be free – can become private property? Or that even data are considered private property? 
What about common land? What exactly belongs to the common land and how to treat it? What about the self-possession of persons? Or will we get a new form of fiefdom?

Justice.


Arithmetically, it is impossible, at least that is how it seems ever since Aristotle. But what is suitable? Should society award social credits in order to regulate it? Or should some be expropriated?

Safety.

What is safety. Perhaps protection from violence? That would mean we come full circle. We do not want violence against us. If I am a pedestrian, I do not want to be hit by a car or bike. And so on.

Abstinence.


Everybody knows that, if we want to save the planet, we will not only have to change many of our habits, but also practice abstinence. And what do we do? We fly more, drive bigger and bigger SUVs and eat bigger and bigger portions of meat.

Besides property, justice, violence, safety, power and abstinence, there are many more inter-related topics. They are so complex that the only chance to contain them is a new social consensus.

Tomorrow is again Ash Wednesday. Then the hilarity is over. I already dread the political meetings with their speakers. They will again bark and beat. Both men (CSU) and women (Grüne, SPD). Because this is all about the sovereignty over the regulars’ table. And not about peace and social consensus.

It is really sad – so take off your mask and atone.

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