Freely quoting Laotse...

Taking others for a ride is an art.
Taking yourself for a ride is a higher art... 8-)

What a former vice presidential candidate knows - and what not, and what she and I have in common. Or not.

Yesterday I read in the notorious Newsmax newsletter, which I receive for unknown uncanny reasons: “Sarah Palin unaware that Bristol had sex”.  Umpf. Okay, I thought, not surprised. She did not know that Africa was a continent, so it struck me as consequent that she was not aware that people in the city of Bristol also are busy with common human activities. A moment later I realized that Ms Palin, who – like my good old self – once attended Hawaii Pacific University, has a daughter named Bristol. But the wondering went on: was Ms Palin aware that Bristol is the 11th largest city in the UK and former center of the British slave industry? Did she name her daughter after the city? And if so: why would she do that? If she didn’t, she would not only not be aware that her daughter was busy with general human activities – she also would have been unaware of the origins and meaning of her own daughters name.

P.S.: Ms Palin and I are no alumni – we both have in common that we did not graduate from HPU. I graduated, for example, from the University of London. London is the largest city in the UK and of the European Union. If it were situated in the US, it would be the 2nd largest city there. Not that it is important... I assume Ms Palin and I have a lot of things in common that we both did not do... I did not, among other things, become Vice President of the United States. Or any other vice president of any other state. Nor president. And I never will. Again something she and I have in common. I hope. For the well being of the world.

We can save the World - but NOT the economy!

I recently participated in the "Climate 2009" event - an online conference hosted by a Hamburg/Germany based university and the World Meteorological Organization - one of the pre-curser events to the Copenhagen conference next month. Having been involved in climate change science and policy in the one or the other way over the last two decades I have gotten somewhat tired. The discussion strikes me as if a ship is sinking from overload, and the passengers and crews are discussing whether one form of weight pulls the ship down more than another. They stay within the system, that is. I raised a question: Is it possible to ever achieve a net reduction of energy related emissions within a framework of forced continuous exponential economic growth? Is it principally possible to find a way of de-coupling economic growth and energy/resource consumption with related emissions? As far as I can tell fundamental physical laws stand in the way of constant exponential economic growth. Unfortunately raising this question means to question one of the leading global dogmas: that growth is the savior. Economic - or rather fiscal - growth is practically divine. That question is not asked. One quickly is viewed as a nutty doomsday prophet or conspiracy theorist. On the other hand - when talking to economists, businessmen and scientists individually on a one by one base they usually quickly admit: it is impossible. Simply impossible. This means our entire beautiful globalized economic system is based upon either a big lie or a big mistake. And - everyone who thinks about it quickly realizes it. And: the proportion of the issue is so enormous that nobody has even the remotest clue what to do about it. "Recycle Aluminum" is not really an answer. As a result everyone just closes their eyes and moves on as before.

When younger I argued against children, against population growth, and now I, myself, have three daughters and cannot even plausibly argue along these lines. I also drive a relatively big car because my job (in solar energy R&D) requires me to travel, our family of 5 plus dog won't fit in a GEO Metro AND we live in the country. So it goes. And we try to recommend not using excess resources on an individual level, yet the economy as it is is entirely based upon just that: ever more consumption of everything!

Be that as it may: arguing against forced economic growth as the fundamental cause of our future demise nowadays is like standing as an attorney in front of the grand inquisitor of medieval times saying "Sir - I herewith plead not guilty for these women accused of witchery, because God as well as the Devil and their ilk are cultural inventions and do not really exist, hence, they cannot serve as arguments in court."

Brainless American Right Wingers Scare me Shitless

The right extremist NEOnazi Newsletter NEWSMAX had a headline today: Radical Obama won’t be re-elected. I wonder what that means? Here is an example for something that I consider so radical and extremist that it does not fit into any mainstream description of political wings: The Government of a Superpower deliberately lies about evidence and reasons for a war and then, without any such reasons, goes about and bombs an entire a country to rubbles. The American right wing self proclaimed pro-lifers/pro gunners do not seem to have much difficulties carrying out mass-abortions by blowing the expectant mothers to pieces, if those mothers speak another language or carry another passport or killing pregnant women is in the “Pro Lifers” financial interest. This is what the American Military does. Among other things – like mass murdering wedding guests in Afghanistan. This is what EVERY military machinery does that embarks in a war. Which is one of the reasons why we should avoid war altogether. There are no heroes – only desperate young men and women who are forced to do and experience things nobody should ever be forced to do and experience.

I keep reading along the NEWSMAX newsletter, and I believe these people are in need of some serious mental treatment (of course the liberals do not force mental treatment upon others – only the right wing has such ideas like the “Freedom Commission on Mental Health”). I read things like “Obama care can be stopped”.  The majority of that sentence consists of the phrase “care can be stopped”. Care is an awful thing, isn’t it? It strikes me as if the believers of the market religion (who often falsely claim – or believe themselves – that they are Christians) find nothing more terrifying than the notion that people actually might CARE about each other. People apparently are not supposed to care about EACH OTHER. They are supposed to care about the market, their job, about consuming, about making money. About the economy. About paying their credit card debts. They are supposed to care about HAVING and not about BEING. All these people believe in is money. All they want is money. More of it, and ever more of it. That is their true and only faith. And there are millions of such believers – tens of millions in the US. That such people exist in the first place  scares me shitless.

Seeking Climate Change Solutions from within a Diseased Dystem?

I have been involved with global environmental and climate change related issues since my high school days in the 80s - that is well over 20 years. Having a geo and physical science background, I try to look at the entire problem from a whole systems perspective, and at the root of the entire global change syndrome seems to be the coupling of energy/resource use and economic growth. There is no evidence that economic growth (defined as fiscal/monetary growth) is going to be de-coupled from physical resource depletion anywhere soon (how could it?) - energy consumption and resource consumption pretty much follow the growth curve of the global GGP (gross global product). And yet aside from some fringe groups the topic of economic growth itself as the main cause of environmental degradation and, indeed, the main threat to the very planet itself is not taken up by anyone (Why do we need continuous economic growth? What drives it?), aside from a few fringe groups without influence in the political arena. Instead, enormous attempts are made to accommodate the climate change issue within the existing institutions and to find fixes that turn climate change into even further economic growth. In my view the wrong incentives are in place everywhere - e.g. Carbon trading focuses on trading profits, not on carbon reduction. In my view topics like our financial crisis and climate change also are deeply intertwined. And nobody could yet plausibly explain to me how a monetary and economic system requiring perpetual exponential growth in order to function could ever be sustainable - if I am not mistaken a physical and mathematical impossibility. I am not in any way ideological, but my prediction is that it will be impossible to adequately address the climate change issue within the existing economic and financial paradigm. Kyoto has been a band aid, and here in Germany - a world leader in renewable energy - the power hungry Internet alone easily outperforms all contributions of the renewable energy sector and the so called emission reduction successes in this country were nothing but a statistical trick made possible by the historical coincidence of the re-unification.

If anyone thinks that the issue will be solved by efficiency or a service oriented society: there is no 100% efficiency and there is no service that does not require any energy or resources at all, therefore a perpetual exponential growth is impossible in any case. And even if we consider that economic growth will more and more rest with non-material goods (e.g. software) there is another limited resource: consumer time. It does not matter how we look at it: perpetual exponential economic growth is not possible. And there also really is no need for it from an individual's point of view - it merely is a built in requirement of our financial system. Every single unit of money forming out of thin air results in a corresponding quantity of resource consumption and pollution.

If anyone can explain to me where I am wrong and how perpetual exponential economic growth in a limited world is possible without violating the most fundamental physical and mathematical laws, I would be very thankful. I also need to understand why even the richest country requires continuous economic growth in order to function properly. I hold a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, and studied Economics, Climatology Oceanography and more, so you are most welcome to throw some serious theory and math at me. Before you do that, however, you might want to read Prof. Binswanger's rather mathematical book "Die Wachstumsspirale", though.

Tweepy out of Touch Crown of Creation

I made an interesting discovery recently – I was vaguely aware of that before, but now it is clear: the vast majority of people cannot be at ease by simply being alone and sitting somewhere in quietude and thinking or dreaming a bit or – doing just nothing. The vast majority of people go nuts when they suddenly hear their own inner voices. That’s why they always must do something – or always must immerse in a sea of noise and continuous distractions called entertainment. I find that deeply disturbing. Conversation with others mostly amounts to one shallow, entertained and distracted mind’s surface out of touch with its own roots exchanging superficialities with a similar kin. Chippy, chippy chirp chirp. Tweepy, tweep, tweep. Crown of creation, heh?

The Oppositeness of It All

Mails coming in claiming “Importance” to themselves are always spam – almost without exception. Statements that are shouted in most cases should not be listened to. And so it continues: no justice among the righteous, total control in self proclaimed free states (even if it is only the rope called money tightening around your neck), and reasons for war (another word for mass murder) usually are non-existent – or quite different from the public claims, and so-called truth in general is mainly nothing but unfounded belief.  Practically everything within the human world is based upon is a lie.

Masters of the Universe

When I chanced upon this video, I thought: the mites are the banksters and speculators aka the self proclaimed "Masters of the Universe". And the lady with her vacuum cleaner - she is Mama Natura. Mother Nature, aka "Reality". So no matter who you think you are: you are only a dustmite in the big scheme of things.

Masters of the Universe

When I saw this video, I thought: Ah - these mites are the banksters and speculants - aka the "Masters of the Universe". And the lady with the vacuum cleaner - she is mama Natura. Mother Nature, aka "Reality". No matter who you think you are - you are just a dust mite in the big schemes of things.

Internet indifference

Some time ago I wrote that the internet is pointless. That may or may not be true, but the internet is not an ideology or a religion and it also is not an end in itself. And yet people believe in it. I think the price we pay for its existence may by far outweigh the benefits (what are the benefits?). The energy consumption of the net alone is mind blowing. Be that as it may, I today discovered that I lost my interest in the net. I use it on a daily base as part of my work, for reference, for communication, but that is it - the evolution - or devolution - from the thrill of having "the world at my fingertips" to a thing, a collection of systems and services, that are not more than telephone, fax machine, library, bookstore, postbox and so on, only with different means. What I mean is that my feelings towards the internet by now are about the same as my emotional attachment to a postoffice. I feel a vast indifferene towards this technology - after a decade and a half with periods where I was in danger of getting addicted. So here is the good news: if you are in risk of internet addiction - that, too, will pass! ;-).

White Noise Conspiracies

Sometimes I think about the myriad of conspiracy theories out there, that many conspiracies are real, but there are so many of them, working in opposite directions, that they basically nullify each other on the macro scale. Entertaining in detail, but merely fluctuations of white noise in the big scheme of things.

The Stain, the Mirror and the Log

After years – if not decades – of complaining about mirrors and people who waste their life in front of them, I today, suddenly, empirically, understood what mirrors are for. They are not only there to serve vanity and pamper some women’s bloated and narcistic egos. No. They have a rather practical purpose: to help avoiding embarrassment...

When tooth-brushing with little Sophie (5), I noticed a stain on her blouse. A brown stain. Choc-milk stain. I suggested to change the blouse. What impression does it make when she goes to Kindergarten with a stained blouse? My child, the dirty, unwashed one, the one in stained clothes... no! It is not so bad, she said, and marked a size by putting the tips of  her thumb and index finger together. “This is the size that is bad. Or bigger.”. A size a bit larger than a quarter or a 50 Eurocent coin. Okay, I thought. She is a girl. She knows better.

I brought her to Kindergarten, long good bye ceremony. I said hello to other parents, who looked at me in a somewhat indefinable way. Well. I went to my office. I passed by that silvery light reflecting pane on the wall and... I saw it. IT. THE STAIN! Not a little stain. Not a bit of choc on a little girl’s blouse. It was a huge stain, stretching almost from shoulder to shoulder. White stuff covering much of the chest area of my expensive dark shirt. Now I recalled what I forgot on that stressful morning after a long, sleepless, humid, tropical night. I had forgotten that baby Stella had emptied the content of her stomach onto me last night. I had forgotten that my favourite shirt was covered with half digested milk all over. All that would not have happened, if I simply had dressed up in front of the mirror in our sleeping room – the huge mirror ranging from floor to ceiling. The mirror I always hated, because it always reminds me of – me. It always shows me mercilessly who I am – at least on the outside. So they do serve a purpose, those mirrors! And the whole thing reminds me of the biblical proverb about the log in the eye. While being concerned about Sophie’s little stain, I was one huge walking stain myself...

Nurtering the "Human Capital"

Although I do not like the term "human capital" or "human resources"  (it sounds derogative to me) human capabilities are the number one resource of our civilization. It also is a known fact that complex minds tend to be more sensitive. From my experience I believe that wrong educational approaches combined with peer pressure can destroy the most gifted among us. It also is possible to literally bore clever child into oblivion - and certainly what we do not want is an army of highly intelligent people with unstable personalities. But that is something we do have around the world! Children - including the gifted ones - also need some form of moral and ethical guidance, but it must be open and honest. Rigid scholastic systems do not work - they only serve to let the child perceive his or her parents and teachers as hypocrites since they never manage to consequently live up to their own moral and intellectual standards. There also is a sad saying I once heard after just such a case had happened: "The most gifted among us commit suicide before they reach puberty". We must take care that we do not destroy what keeps us alive. There is no progress - in fact there is no hope - if we do not manage to employ the best minds of the world to solve the problems of the future. And they also need to be encouraged instead of being regarded and treated as outcasts and nerds and barely accepted weirdoes. Schools, Universities and other establishments of research and higher learning must provide sheltered, positive environments. Clever companies will do the same. We must get away from seeing intelligence a disease when the real disease of mankind is stupidity. As I have often mentioned I for myself re-named our species to "Homo Sapiens Potentialis". We should nurture those few who actually realize their potential - at least partially. We must feed the fishes that swim against the stream, for only they will spawn the ideas that make the future a place we want it to be for our children!

Human - and other Animal - Emotions

It may be unscientific to speculate, but it is duly scientific to express a hypothesis based upon observation, anecdotal evidence and logical deduction. The hypothesis could start from an elevated point of view - alien, so to say. Looking at animals and humans it is obvious that they have more in common than parts them. The same basic substances, the same fundamental functions, nearly the same genome in some cases, much of the same environments and challenges throughout natural history and evolution. It then is not so far fetched to speculate or - indeed - hypothesize, that similar life forms have similar inner responses. There is no way to know for sure. But let's face it: a human psychopath is well able to mimic emotional responses and display emotions he does not have. In reality we cannot know for sure if the animal we observe feels what we feel, but in that same reality we also cannot know if any given human feels the same as we do - in fact in many cases they don't. I also do not see, what emotional responses have to do with reasoning. The two inner phenomena or processes seem quite separate, and every dog owner knows the grieving dog that doesn't eat when his or her best human friend is absent. Maybe what scientists call anthropomorphism occasionally is an intuitive understanding of what really is going on in our fellow animal inhabitants of earth? Emotions also are fundamental guiding tools in situations where reason only sends us into endless loops of unsolvable thought webs. There is much evidence suggesting that we ourselves - good old self proclaimed Homo Sapiens (or Homo Sapiens Potentials, as I like to call our species) bases many of his most important decisions on momentary emotions. Buying a house, choosing a partner for life - occasionally even starting a war: all that is mainly based upon animal emotions upwelling from the dark, (or illuminated - who knows?) uncharted depths of our souls.

Proclaiming human emotion to fundamentally differ from the emotions of other animals is laughable in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. That merely is an aspect of the outdated attempt to establish our species as the crown of creation, as something outside - or above - the rest of nature, rather than an integral part of it. Only the twisted human mind can speak of the environment as something surrounding him, something separate from himself, while in that very moment his heart pumps water that used to be part of the ocean, while at that very moment his lungs inhale gases produced by the metabolisms of myriads of photosynthesizing organisms. We are animals and as such an integrative part of the nature we live in and from. Our difficulties acknowledging that result from the very animal emotions we deny to have. We are jealous, we want to be special. We want to be something better than that perfect Tiger, Shark of Orca out there, because we feel small, weak and ugly in comparison to those magnificent and indeed near perfect creatures with who we share a planet - and a common ancestry. And if we look more closely at the word animal that we gave them, I must say yes, I am an animal, and I want to be one! For the word "animal" comes from the Latin word animale, neuter of animalis, and is derived from anima, meaning vital breath or soul. Considering this, if we say we are not animals, doesn’t that mean we have no soul? Is that a possible deeper truth about what become of humans?

fifty/fifty

Currently I work on an article about the international year of astronomy. While at it, I stumbled over a quote by Prof. Sir Martin Reese, the British Astronomer Royal:

“I think the odds are no better than 50/50 that our present civilisation will survive to the end of the present century.”

I have to let that sink in. A statement along the lines of the “Scientists Warning to the World” of the early 90s. A statement not coming from a nobody, but one of the most eminent scholars of our time. And he is not the only one. Something to think about.

The illusion of free will

Free will ultimately does not exist. In any case our decisions are limited by natural laws. To define free by "being able to make two different decisions in two identical situations" does not satisfy logical criteria for a number of reasons. One is: what determines my decisions? Can I really decide freely, or am I a prisoner of my own internal programming leading to thoughts and decisions that are at best a guided random walk? Among external influences I cannot control are natural laws. Can I decide to fly? Can I decide to read someone else’s thoughts? Can I decide to spontaneously understand the math behind string theory? I can't. Of course we are also bound by society, economy - money. Even committing suicide might not be what in German is called "Freitod" (voluntary death), but in fact may be a result of what Kurt Vonnegut referred to as a "chemical imbalance of the brain." We are controlled by so many deterministic factors that talking about "free will" is complete nonsense. And when we have to define free will as only applying within certain limits, situations, frameworks, we already have defined free will into oblivion. Therefore: free will does not exist.

Life is a book - das Leben ist ein Buch

The Internet is Pointless!"

Why are people blogging day after day, after day, writing down tidbits of their empty lives or mostly shallow analysis of problems they are far from understanding from within their isolated little spheres? Loneliness. Marketing. An attempt to transcend the own perceived meaninglessness - the overwhelming pointlessness amidst the endless ocean of life. Unfortunately when millions upon millions are blogging, one is just another anonymous part of a huge anonymous mass of faceless individuals -  with a few (totally random) outstanding stars. Things like Twitter are even worse than blogging. Institutionalized shallowness. Often it seems to me that everyone is connected, which results in a witches brew of opinion and information leading to a dilution of quality and facts so deep and profound that ultimately the entire web becomes questionable. What is it for? Does it enhance our life or does it merely keep us from living? And does it have a value to realize that for anything you do, no matter how clever and talented you are, there is someone who already did it - and better so? I am seriously asking: would I perhaps be better off without the Internet? Maybe not professionally, but privately... There practically is nothing anymore I want to do privately on the Internet. Over the years it has become boring. And too hectic and commercial and it becomes increasingly difficult to filter valuable content from junk. Like Earth itself, the Web is drowning in garbage and gibberish, and we destroy real world resources causing real world emissions to keep this cycle of commercialized mental shit up and running at ever higher speed. The Web goes the same path as cable TV in the 80s. As Pink Floy then sang: “13 channels of shit to choose from...” but there is nobody home. Connected to billions, and yet totally alone. Nobody is out there. Brave new world. And someone out there already saw this coming 20 years ago, and wrote about it, much better than I could ever do...

Penguins in 2005 (an older scrap book entry)

Some time in 2005 I made this journal entry:

I am thinking... freedom is a complete illusion altogether.
Unless one finds it in the Buddhist sense.
Or the other extreme would be to be a psychopath.
Or a Christian or Muslim extremist.
Which is, in my view, the same.
No doubt.
Defying reality.
But in general...
Life seems to largely consist of demands from the outside and of actions
that we think we decide ourselves, but in fact they are a result of our
being manipulated or of peer pressure.
Like ironing.
Like mowing the lawn.
Like cleaning the windows, shaving the legs, etc.

I am looking out of the window, and five airplanes are trailing across
the blue, blue sky...
Not even airplanes are free.
Freedom was lost on this planet.
Except for a few Penguins in Antarctica...

Nothing of this is overly new, is it?
Nothing of this is overly creative.

I suddenly feel the big burden of potential failure on my shoulders again.

Mafia Angels

There is no good reason why good cannot triumph over evil - if only
Angels get organized along the lines of the Mafia!

(Kurt Vonnegut)

Not knowing

I do not know
Who I am...
Neither do I know what.
How could I
Since I do not even know
Whether I exist AT ALL
Or not...

Time Magazin's Global Warming Survival Guide

This is my response to Times naive Global Warming Survival Guide (Time Magazin, April 9, 2007): Everything mentioned in the "Global Warming Survival Guide" represents steps in the right direction, however, even in combination all those actions are little more than holding a paper-sheet in front of ones face as a protection against a nuclear bomb. In this context I like to quote Philip K. Dick: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." In addition, reality at large is utterly indifferent to democracy: even solid majority decisions don't make it budge. I am working in the R&D department of a leading solar energy company, because I know that in the not so far future renewable energy will be an absolute necessity for development and to keep our living standards. But at the same time, I am fully aware that they will not be enough, and that they will have a relatively small impact on slowing global warming. One should be aware, though, that in a complex dynamic system even a small difference can have a big impact. It may be the little difference, that keeps the system from reaching a tipping point - a tipping point that surely exists, only we do not precisely know where. At the same time playing with ideas of planetary engineering is ridiculous. We have been doing planetary engineering for the last 5000 Years e.g. by means of massive land use change (deforestation and turning prairie into crop fields - and deserts), alteration of river flows, changing the atmospheric composition, even the entire makeup of the biosphere. All this did was bring us into a dangerous situation, and further doctoring around on a system we only have a very remote understanding would hardly do any good. Well. and today Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany is meeting with Mr. George Bush, diskussing "Climate Change". In between two other topics: Making car exports from and to the US easier and making air traffic from and too the US easier. HARRRR!!! You cannot stare down reality, because it has no eyes.

Challenging Reality

We live in a time, my friend, where genius in art and science is measured in money. We live in a time, where beauty is only acknowledged, if it can be sold. We live in a time where Goethe and Schiller would never be published, A time where Shakespeare would end as a curbside beggar, a starving fool writing poetry for food in vain. We live in a time where people never see the sky, because they stare at screens from dusk till dawn. If you are not the master over at least two thirds of your daytime, you are a slave, Said Nietzsche. We live in a time where freedom is consumption – for which we lack the time. Using things is replaced by obtaining them. We live in a time where greed is challenging reality itself. We live in a time, my friend, A time, that will come to an end.

I know not

How can I possibly know, who I am – or what, if I cannot even be sure, whether I exist – or NOT!

December Spring

I see the rain in the hills that falls onto fertile ground.

The Grass is green on well watered soil, soaked with life granting liquid,

While the trees are waiting for snow that does not come.

The warm Spring air this Winter carries a hint of shivering frost biting deeper into the flesh of our soul than mere cold.

Taming the Pitbull - no comment

Intellectually challenged fan users

Does an electric fan decrease the room temperature? It is one of the physics question tricks that you can ask someone to check if he has any idea about physics at all. I find it absolutely fantastic that at the beginning of the 3rd millennium practically everyone thinks a fan cools the air. Some people even let the fan run when they are not in the room. Causes me physical pain. In my view someone who lets the fan running when nobody is in the room should not be allowed to vote or to drive a car or to do anything else that requires even the most minimal intellectual capacity.... I wonder if George Bush leaves the fan on when he is not in the room... He probably does. Until the shit hits the fan.

Brrrrrrr.. What a world.

I am overdoing it of course.

Unexpected

"...AND SUDDENLY THE AIR SOLIDIFIED UPON ME" said the finch that flew against a glass-window.

Liquid Astronaut Insanity

I still did not quite return to Earth. I had chicken for Dinner. With: Dave's Temporary Insanity sauce. (It arrived today) Wow. WOW! My GOODNESS. I think if I ever would want to, say, kill my father (hello FBI or BKA: no such intentions), I only have to call him a coward... And make him try... Booff! That would be it. My eyes turned into overflowing lakes. My heart felt like it had to pump the Pacific Ocean. My good old SELF became the Pacific Ocean. Liquidified. Flowing over. Wavy. And the face turned into one big grin, while every pore, every gland, started to frantically produce liquid in defense. And neurotransmitters running wild, endorphines on the rise. Haha! Amie insisted to try a bit of chicken, with a tiny, tiny drop, and she disappeared behind the couch, whining, with the tail between her legs... "Du Nase!!" baby Sophie Maris shouted. Haha! "Du NASE!" And it sounds like NASA, when she says that.

PS: Nase is nose in German. Sophie Maris, of course, grows up bilingually.

Do Not Believe in Anything - Think Yourself Instead!

I find the following an immensely compelling invitation for a Homo Sapiens:

Quote From the Buddha – Kalama Sutta.

Do not believe in anything (simply)
Because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions
Because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything
Because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything (simply)
Because it is found written in your religious books
Do not believe in anything merely
On the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis when you find that
Anything agrees with reason and is conducive
To the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it.

Source: World Buddhist University

Cybermonk and Buddhadog

Cybermonk sits on the mountain top in a world that ceases to exist. In a golden moment his Buddhadog hopes that the trajectory of compassion will finally cross the path of REALITY. But Cybermonk knows that the crossing point ist just an instance in time, a speck of knowhere in the nothingness. He cites the mantra of merging, and the universe waits...

Simulated Clouds

A consumer advocate dances with simulated clouds, while the creators of science long for the truth about it all. Cybermonk is not so easily fooled: Someone behind the mirror, suddenly, is very hungry. These men of the cloth denie to legalize the hidden truth, but Cybermonk finally demands the knowledge about how things are.

Cbyermonk in Gold

A Gypsy cleverly comes alive after midnight, whirling across the collective unconscious. The Masters of addiction want to legalize uploading of the brain. Someone's idea of a simulated joke. Jezebel smiles. Cybermonk is bathed in golden sunlight, Trying to control anything resembling maturity, he comes to life with the new moon.

Golden Veil

The spies of mercy do not include life on this planet. Cybermonk keeps applying for time at heaven's gate. His constant companion, unexpectedly keeps asking for love, and finally turns out to be his former self.

His memory of the flash is fading, mountains of illusion sinking into dust. Trembling with delight, the soldiers of mercy will never forgive the city of greed. Cybermonk finally lifts the veil from the golden cage....

Reality of the unreal

Reality. Shouldn't everything we do, every decision we arrive at, be grounded in reality? But is there any way to arrive at a conclusion as to what this reality thing actually is? A hell of a task! Let's see if you can agree with my list of unreal things, which may be illusionary or human inventions and yet basically run the world:

• Money is not real.
• God is not real.
• Ideologies are not real.

And yet almost every action of mankind is based upon these illusions.

A few things that are real, at least as far as I can tell, include:

• The stink of the shit in my daughter's diaper.
• The suffering of a family who lives through Winter in an unheated tent in Pakistan after their home was destroyed by an Earthquake.
• The pain of the feet of their little boy who walks barefoot through the snow.
• The rain falling from the sky, drumming onto my window this very moment.
• The angular momentum of our spinning planet.
• Photons.
• Electromagnetic fields.
• Atoms.
• Gravity.
• The sun.
• The stars in general.
• Black holes in the centres of Galaxies.
• Human brains.
• Emotions:
• Anxiety
• Love,
• Fear,
• Compassion,
• Joy,
• Greed,
• Sadness,
• Envy,
• Hatred.
• Amie the dog snoring on her own armchair in our living room.
  

They are real.
They can be observed, felt AND they can be measured with physical instruments. They are not invented.

The list of real things that are not invented is truly endless. And still the actions of our leaders have little to do with the endless items on the reality list. They are mostly concerned with the three items on the list of unrealities.

I assume most of you out there won't agree...

Not so little anymore...

This is what Sophie Maris looks like these days. Always in deep thought...

Oh this complicated world!

My last post was a bit premature. That much I have to admit. Through the Alumni Network of the University of Münster, where I used to study, I yesterday received a long, detailed and very sober assessment of the idiotic cartoon conflict and its background that was written by Professor Dr. Muhammad Kalisch, chair of Islam Religion studies in Münster. He reluctantly had written an 11 page statement that I must say so far is the only reasonable assessment of the entire mess that I so far have read or heard. I myself am not an expert on the Islam religion, but I am also not entirely ignorant. Yet I had to reconsider some of my - admittedly emotionally colored - views. Yes, that happens. it made me wonder whether perhaps as a 14 year old I was wiser than I am now, for I was not so easily fooled. When in school back then we learned about the cold war, the evil empire, the nuclear bombs and the looming threat of global destruction, I had thought: they behave like little children fighting over the possession of toys in the sandbox . "I am right, you are wrong, no I am wrong, you are right..." It is mine, no it is mine.. NO IT IS MINE..!!" What a nonsense. From Prof. Kalisch's article I learned about the Danish Newspaper (the name of which my fuzzy mind already discarded). it seems to be a populist right wing newspaper with a history of racist, reactionary publications. It is well possible that the effect the cartoons had was indeed intended! This then is not freedom of press anymore - it is propaganda for lower purposes. At the same time: still nobody has the right to get violent over a drawing - let alone abduct people, burn buildings, threaten countries with destruction etc.

In any case: the deeper one digs, the more messy the entire subject becomes. The problem with thinking and getting informed is that complicated topics generally cannot be assessed with simple methods, cannot be described with easily understood one sentence descriptions. To my utter amazement I myself had to learn from Prof. Kalisch, that here in my own country, in Germany, home of Immanuel Kant, Blasphemy is a crime. But which blasphemy? And how is that defined? In any case: if this law applies to the established majority Christian churches only and not to every religion, our state is deeply hypocritical.

There are other points that Prof. Kalisch made and that I agree with. It is not a secret that the West - mainly the US - is mainly interested in the resources of the middle east. They are not interested in political stability, democracy, humanitarian issues etc. it is all about oil. In addition, the US seems to be interested in having a permanent enemy. This is not new - an external threat unites the nation. External threats are the only reason why Mr. Bush still is president of the United States. The US government is almost happy about every lunatic dictator. If they wouldn't appear by themselves now and then, they would have to be invented!

Islam is no more violent than any other religion. There are extremists hiding behind almost every faith. Although I must say it is extremely difficult to imagine an extremist Buddhist (like..uh.. becoming EXTREMELY compassionate? Practicing EXTREME meditation?). Well. But I, as the utter layman with an admittedly shallow understanding of the Quran, I do not agree with Prof. Kalisch when he says there is nothing violent in the Islam. My impression is that the word war appears quite often, that killing is justified under a variety of circumstances, that historically the Prophet himself duly carried a sword and at the very root of this religion we find military expansion.

The Islam described by Prof. Kalisch is of one of deep beauty - it is the Islam of dialogue, the friendly and tolerant Islam of mystics and scholars. It is similar to the Catholicism of for example the German Zen Master and Catholic Mystic Benedictian Monk father Willigis Jäger. But not only that Willigis Jäger's view of science, religion and mysticism can hardly be considered the view of the majority of Catholics (or even a significant portion - as desirable as that may be) - the Vatican also prohibited him to teach. This is what happens to the voices of tolerance and dialogue, the voices of the true seekers of answers. And I am afraid that is so in all Western religions - to varying degrees - the religion of Mammon being the worst of all.

In any case: think! Our own absolute view of things is just as likely to be wrong as someone elses is!

Religion and freedom and the flag miracle

Reality currently is turning into a painful real satire. Triggered by cartoons. For heaven's sake. C A R T O O N S !!!! I have to check the calender... which year do we have again? Two years ago we celebrated the Kant year in Germany. Does anyone remember him? Immanuel Kant? The guy with the categorical imperative, the Philosopher of the enlightenment? The father of modernity? No? Admittedly... he is not easy to read. Even for me, a not entirely uneducated person, his text require significant thinking. Thinking. Freeing oneself. Wow. And now: A Cartoon "war". ??ß=&§#*+<>-ß?09/%&-:;??$§*!??

Okay... Tolerance. My saying always was: Almost anything can be tolerated, except intolerance. Of course this is more a Zen Koan, than an overly logical statement. The point is to think. Think it over before you judge. But how about the question: Can freedom of religion be granted to a religion that rules out freedom of religion? That brings it down to a more practical problem. My answer is no. My answer always is: religion must remain a private affair. Otherwise we end up in chaos. The separation of church and state is a must. In the US it is already near dead, but in Europe it is still functioning. More or less.

But there is another aspect to the Cartoon Conflict. Those were expressions of *private opinions* in a *private newspaper* which were perfectly legal under the law of Denmark and which are perfectly legal under the laws of all EU states as far as I can tell. Nothing of that was endorsed by any EU Government. And of course a Danish Newspaper has the right to publish whatever they wish in their own country - only the law of their own country is in charge there. Just like nobody has the right to regulate what I privately express in my own house or my own circle of friends. It is outright ridiculous.

During the history of mankind religion and ideology have been one of the main reasons for human suffering. Much of the European population has been wiped out during endless religious conflicts among Christians, although it requires significant mental twists to find anything in the teachings of Jesus Christ that could possibly justify greed and violence. If we are to believe scripture, he never held a sword and wasn't exactly positive about piling up riches. With the old testament it is slightly different - as it is with the Quran. Anyone saying they are only about peace and friendliness and seeking God apparently never read these books. They both are in fact oozing with blood and violence. They both make absolutistic claims. They both justify utmost cruelties under a variety of rather arbitrary conditions and circumstances.

And now Danish Flags are burnt because of cartoons. Cartoons depicting a Mohammed with a bomb on his head (not far fetched since so many self declared martyrs bomb themselves into oblivion, mass murdering others along with them, all allegedly in the name of Allah and Mohammed.) And the Cartoon with Mohammed and the Log in his eye.

It can be historically traced that Religion - and therefore God - are cultural inventions of mankind. And still it is not allowed to talk about the atrocities that are being brought about in the names of established religions. I stress established religions for if I claimed that I act in the name of, say, the Hawaiian Demigod Maui, who talks to me, I would most likely simply be locked away. It therefore seems that it is acceptable to behave in an utterly implausible way if there only are enough people who also do the same!

But it is not that easy. It never is. There is a level of reality that escapes out understanding, and there spirituality has its place. But in the moment where spirituality serves as an excuse for violence against others, something went wrong in the mind of the believer. Even in Islam, a religion brought about by a warrior prophet, the highest form of holy war is the war against self delusion. People should keep that in mind before they fall into religious psychosis and call for the destruction of a little country that many demonstrators in Afghanistan probably cannot even locate on the map. Makes me think: where actually did demonstrators in Afghanistan, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Indonesia suddenly obtain all those Danish Flags? I am living in the middle of the EU, and I would not have an inkling where I could spontaneously buy a Danish flag...

Who is wanted for Sept. 11?

After all this time, I am still clueless about what in detail is the background of Sept. 11. I am a physical scientist, but not a structural engineer, so I cannot evaluate the engineering arguments of this discussion. It seems unlikely to me that both both buildings would collapse in the exact same manner after different hits on different levels - if they would collapse at all.

But something else bothers me more: if I don't get anything wrong, the FBI is as clueless about the individuals behind the Sept. 11 mass murder (which it was in any case) as I am. Among the most wanted terrorists - including Bin Laden - as of today, NOT A SINGLE ONE is charged with being involved in this monstrosity. So I am afraid it significantly bothers me that the government considered the evidence strong enough to attack foreign countries and murder tens of thousands of people along the way, while the FBI possibly fears that any half bake lawyer would take the case apart in court. I will not speculate about the background of Sept. 11, but every murder in the deep province seems to be investigated more thoroughly. And I really wonder why there never was a public outcry about that!

What I find funny are all the people posting sentences like "There is no doubt..." about this or that speculation about what actually was or is going on. I wonder where they find their strength for such conviction.

Human daily idiocy

Why do we do, what we do? Why do we believe, what we believe? Many actions of daily life are so deeply embedded in our personalities, that normally we would never even remotely have the idea to question them, even though so many of our actions are - objectively - completely ridiculous.

Why do we mow the lawn? Why do we iron clothes? Why do women shave their armpits and legs? Why do people believe in Sta. Claus? It doesn't help that most of such strange beliefs and behaviors can be easily traced back to inventions, often as part of marketing campaigns. The purpose of brainwashing whole generations of women into believing that shaving their legs is a vital acitivity was and is: selling shavers. The purpose of dressing Sta. Claus in the corporate colors of Coca Cola was: selling Coca Cola. Who is behind ironing? The utility industry selling the electricity for these totally unnecessary power gobbling devices? I don't know, but I have the intense feeling mankind really wastes its time almost entirely with utter pointlessness.

Freedom to fail

I am thinking... freedom is a complete illusion altogether. Unless one finds it in the Buddhist sense. Or the other extreme would be to be a psychopath. But in general... Life seems to largely consist of demands from the outside and of actions that we think we decide ourselves but in fact they are a result of our being manipulated or of peer pressure. Like ironing the clothes (what the hell is that good for? How many millions of tons of CO2 and exhaust are blown into the air for...well...for what?). Like mowing the lawn (same, same). Like cleaning the windows, shaving the legs (a nice article here - it is all business), etc. Gene Roddenberry allegedly said TV was invented to manipulate women. If we count the number of plastic bottles full of obnoxious chemicals in the average bathroom...well... looks like that was the most dramatically succesfull marketing scheme ever!

Sigh.

I am looking out of the window, and five airplanes are trailing across the blue, blue sky... Not even airplanes are free. Freedom was lost on this planet. Except for a few Penguins in Antarctica...

Nothing of this is overly new, is it? Nothing of this is overly creative.

I suddenly feel the big burden of failure on my shoulders again. I suddenly have the intense feeling, the whole series of projects I am working on is prone to fail. And I, once again, will have totally wasted my time and effort. Who cares about the lonely thinkers of this world. Who cares about finding solutions to real problems? Who in the world of power and business?

The hole in the soul

Collectors and addicts are people with a hole in their soul. They try to fill the hole with things or substances, but naturally it all falls through. Their pathologic answer is to throw ever more into this hole that never fills up, until finally they themselves fall in.

The big betrayal

If American democracy would work in any way, how likely would it be, that out of some 300 million people four fellows from the same school run for president and eventually two members of the same secret brotherhood hat consists of just 800 members eventually compete for it? HOW LIKELY WOULD THAT BE?

A bad idea

Guess it was irresponsible to invent this universe, only because I was bored after all these billions of eternities. See all those creatures suffering... They perceive their suffering as real. Which it is not, but they perceive it as that. Which I did not foresee. Stupid mistake. Stupid, stupid, stupid mistake! Like these human lawmakers who invent ever new laws, only to discover that they have to invet yet more new laws to patch the problems the new laws create. New laws always create new criminals. New Universes always create more suffering. But the problem is that I DO KNOW that the suffering is not real, so I find it all a bit boring by now. Guess I am going to stop this experiment. Unfortunately that will take another 5 billion years. Which is merely an eye blink, but for those critters that inhabit this particular universe it is rather long. So it won't change their condition immediately. But perhaps if they would understand that at one point it all just ends - just like that, unavoidably - perhaps then they would have a better time? Or perhaps they would feel even more miserable? Or waste their precious time looking for a technical way out? Or make yet another totally pointless new law? I guess I created their brains slightly too big. Or slightly too small. There was this clever critter who had the idea that the middle way is right. That I once also thought, but it is utter bogus. Now I know: do it right, or don't do it at all. Not a middle way brain - either a big one or a small one. Either real, or not at all. The Earth is not suffering because of sheep brains. Neither because of Elephant or Whale brains. Not because of the very small or very big ones. The medium sized brains cause all the problems. Big enough to fantasize up all sorts of shit, yet too small to really comprehend ANYTHING of relevance. Sigh G

Clarification

If any American reading my entries here feels offended: no need. At least you need not be more offended than anyone else. For one I consider the entire concept of national states as outdated. And then - if I call America sick, I merely consider it to be suffering from a more advanced stage of the same disease the entire Planet contracted - at least every corner that is inhabited by us humans.

My favorite miracle

I just asked my sweetheart what is her favorite miracle in the Bible. Her's was the feeding of the masses. I can go along with that. But for the time being mine is the burning Bush. Maybe both should be repeated after all these hazy Millenia, and somehow the second seems to be the prerequisite for the first... all it requires is a little CROSS ;-)).

Pump and Pollute

The following is a testinomial that was part of an environment impact assessment for a CO2 Ocean sequestration experiment off Big Hawaii. It took place about 2 years ago... 1. Ocean sequestration of CO2 experiments could lead to the large-scale pollution of the world's oceans, threatening not only Humpback whales but also other creatures that live in the world's oceans. COMMENT # 5 from Gérard Nihous: Point 1. above is speculative. Moreover, the proposed Hawaii CO2 Ocean Sequestration Field Experiment is a small-scale research project (40 to 60 tons released over two weeks in daytime experiments not exceeding two hours). Point 1. tries to blur the line between a) research on ocean sequestration and b) the large-scale implementation of ocean sequestration. To put Point 1. in perspective, SAC members should be aware that about 5 million tons of CO2 per year - i.e. a third of the State of Hawaii's atmospheric emissions from human activities - pollute our SURFACE ocean waters; that could perhaps threaten Humpback whales and might be worthy of a resolution. Reaction by Stefan Thiesen, independent env. Consultant, Westfalia, Europe: if there is such a clear line between the research on a) deep-sea CO2-dumping and b) its large scale application, I would please like to know the purpose of the research in this field, especially when the project rationale, scope and involved funding bodies (basically the Energy industry) are taken into consideration. The project design as far as I know it indicates that it is the first stage of a technology development program and not a feasibility study. It also does not qualify as an EIA. Dr. Nihous' Point 2 above looks a bit as if he actually is the one who tries to blur issues since he himself knows better than anyone that "5 million tons of CO2" naturally dissolved in the Ocean's surface in low concentrations over large areas is something totally different from an abyssal CO2 lake far beyond the saturation limit. A CO2-lake on the Ocean floor WILL strongly affect local benthos life forms. His comparison has no place here, especially considering his scientific expertise. So why does he use it? CO2 is of course a natural component. This alone does not mean that CO2-dumping is in any way harmless. Almost everything in biochemistry and bio-geochemistry depends on concentration and even small changes in concentration can have large effects. This is scientific common sense and needs no explanation. COMMENT # 7 from GÈrard Nihous: If field research at sea required to monitor ALL changesî, field research at sea would not exist, whether it involved adding CO2 to sea water or not. The ability to monitor something (not everything) ìin large expanses of the oceanî does exist in some cases, and certainly should be developed in the years to come (Autonomous Underwater Vehicles have been used very successfully already). This is a small-scale, short-term project. Measurement and monitoring protocols must be defined relatively to the time scale and space scale of a particular project. Details will be available in the final Environmental Assessment report when it is released. Reaction by Stefan Thiesen, independent env. Consultant, Westfalia, Europe: Field research at sea indeed does not require to monitor ALL CHANGES. This is not possible. The supposed CO2-dumping project however is not mere field research, it is an open field experiment that involves the dramatic alteration of a local part of the marine environmental conditions and that possibly has dramatic and not foreseable long term effects on the global environment if ever applied large scale. Although it could be argued that the immediate effects of this one local experiment would perhaps be tolerable for the purpose of pure science, it becomes completely pointless when it is seen in the larger framework of Earth Systems Science and global environmental change and policy. COMMENT #14 from GÈrard Nihous: I will address this with three questions. Is it ethical to deny future generations the benefits of scientific research that could help them cope with an environmental problem that we created? Is it ethical to drive motor vehicles with bumper stickers saying ìNO CO2 DUMPINGî, when 20 pounds of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere for each gallon of gasoline burned in these vehiclesí engines? Is it ethical to believe that billions of people who emit four to five times less CO2 than we do should not use their vast reserves of fossil fuels to improve their standard of living? 11. There are numerous sequestration methods available that could be used without jeopardizing the world's oceans, including land based sequestration techniques such as injection into empty oil and natural gas wells, deep land-based saline aquifers, reforestation, etc. Reaction by Stefan Thiesen, independent env. Consultant, Westfalia, Europe: The above questions by Dr. Nihous imply the following: The proposed small scale CO2-sequestration experiment IS after all a cornerstone for the development of large scale technology. How else could it be able to "help them (i.e. future generations) cope with an environmental problem that we created?" Dr. Nihous apparently stands for an environmental attitude that favors "end of pipe" and "business as usual" practice. The real purpose of the search for artificial CO2-sinks is to support the global fossil-fuel industry. Continued and even increasing use of fossil fuels is in their - and ONLY in their interest (see project sponsors and DOE lobbyists). The Car argument is polemic - it is after all the fossil-fuel and car industry that for decades has been running a psychologically intricate mind-numbing lifestyle campaign to make people believe that owning a nice car equals freedom and happiness. In addition the car industry and its fossil fuel allies have systematically destroyed or degraded public transportation all over the United States and elsewhere around the world. If a representant of the fossil fuel industry blames environmentalists for car driving, he actually blames his own industry fellows for vastly successful lobbying and marketing. Regarding the standard of living: Dr. Nihous implies that "standard of living" and "energy consumption" - especially of course consumption of energy from fossil fuels - are directly connected. He does not apparently realize that this is a very American definition of "standard of living". I by the way happen to live in a country with about half the per capita energy consumption of the United States and my living standard is at least as high as it would be in the US. I will also be happy to suggest literature by renown American and European Scientists and Economists who prove that there is no direct connection between energy consumption and standard of living and that standard of living is not directly connected to economic growth either (the US itself is the best example). So I should ask a question also: Is it ethical to let developing countries repeat our grave mistakes although much better technology is available? Is it ethical to let them use half a century old unsafe technology (e.g. in the Case of PETROBRAS) instead of helping them to preserve what in fact is the Heritage of all of Mankind? Is it ethical to devise a totally unnecessary and costly technology with completely unknown long-term risks, in order to preserve another costly and outdated technology? All this IS ethical only, if the ethics applied is that of maximizing corporate profit and shareholder value under all circumstances. The United States did not participate in the EXPO 2000, which ran under the title "Man, Environment, Future". An incredible number of ingenious renewable de-centralized small-scale energy solutions from Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America were presented on this exhibition along with local culture and architecture from around the world. From talking to people there and from my many visits to dozens of countries around the world I can assure anyone who wants to hear it that a) Many people in developing countries neither need nor desire a consumer and plastic culture and b) where they got it, it often had devastating effects on local culture and environment. Very often for the majority of population economic growth and higher energy consumption lead to pollution, noise, disease, social degradation, increased poverty and even more starvation instead of less. Connecting higher fuel consumption to higher living standard in third world countries is either complete ignorance or painful cynicism, especially considering long term developments of rising oil prices and degrading oil reserves. Finally: Dr. Nihous probably is right about the technical details of this particular meso-scale project. It is also clear that his opponents cannot usually "carry out credible calculations" - let alone significant field research - since they are doing volunteer work in their spare time and do not have the financial and technical resources of the global corporations that stand behind Dr. Nihous and his colleagues who work full-time on these topics. The significant flaw of the arguments favoring the experiment is that - I repeat it - it is entirely pointless if it is not seen in the context of global corporations, the Kyoto protocol, global warming, global CO2-dumping / creation of artificial CO2-sinks (e.g. also via ocean fertilization - yet another form of large scale marine pollution and ecosystem alteration proposed by United States corporations). The seemingly altruistic argument that all these efforts are for the good of the people of the world does not hold. What is at stake is not the well-being of the poor but the profits of super-rich countries (US, Japan, Switzerland, Norway) and corporations that control them or at least have immense influence in and on these countries. The large-scale CO2-dumping concept is a grave mistake since its macro-scale and long-term effects simply cannot be predicted. The dumped CO2 will also remain at least partly in the global carbon cycle and therefore it will not be removed but instead only masked for a certain period of time. Considering the facts that I know so far about the entire background I believe that the goal is not so much to find a solution for a pressing environmental problem but instead to create a new market plus an excuse to carry on with a business as usual energy policy, that is "pump-and-pollute". Taken the very far reaching global and long-term implications an EIA-commission should be set up by the state - something similar perhaps to a "bio-ethics commission" with interdisciplinary experts. It should be taken care though that not too many members of such a commission directly or indirectly receive pay-checks from industrial stakeholders with multi-billion profit interests. And once more: People like Dr. Nihous want to make the public believe that there is no connection between such meso scale projects and macro scale applications and in the next sentence they try to justify their proposals by claiming that they want to save the world, which, of course, implies a macro scale application. And last but not least: IS IT ETHICAL TO SOLVE A POLLUTION PROBLEM BY MORE POLLUTION?

Nightbirds - a tale of initiation

This is a story I also wrote in Hawaii back in 1994.

In a way it is amazing that often the best and most impressive childhood memories seem to be about truly weird experiences. It is the sense of near mystic weirdness that renders them memorable. It was a day in the late summer - or rather I should say: it was a night in late summer. These warm September days I was waiting impatiently for November to come, where I would finally become a teenager and as so often in my life I expected everything to change from that day on - about which of course I was wrong.

In this special night I couldn't sleep. I always had dreamt of having a tame raven and there was a nest with young ravens right in our neighborhood, which I discovered in the forest one lonely summer afternoon. Of course I couldn't reach it without any equipment because it is an old raven tradition to built their homes way up in the highest tree to be found in the whole forest where it is protected from nosy little boys and the bloodlust of hobby hunters.

This day I came home from school and began to make up detailed plans. First of course I had to get a rope and other things you always need when climbing an almost insurmountable tree, but my mother wouldn't let me out again that night although it remains bright in German summer nights until late in the evening.

Now there I was - lying in my bed, thinking of these cute little birds. They were almost grown up animals about to leave their parents nest. "Will they still be there tomorrow? Will they fly out early in the morning?" I asked myself and I just couldn't sleep with these thoughts on my mind. Mothers just never understand!

At around one o'clock in the morning I was unable to stand it anymore - avoiding all noises I slipped out of the door, patting my dog so that she wouldn't bark. I fetched the rope from my father's garage and then headed towards the forest with the birdsÂ’ nest I was longing for.

My heart was beating fast as I strolled through this warm but dark and moonless night. I saw terrifying shadows and heard whispering voices that made me shiver but I pulled myself together and it only took me about ten minutes to get to the forest. Ten minutes which almost felt like hours.

In the forest it was even darker than on the open field - there was hardly any wind, and the only audible sounds were the shouts of eagle owls and silently rustling leaves of thousands of willow trees around me. I strolled through the dark forest, always expecting something horrible and unspeakable to happen but when I finally found the tree standing there pointing high into the night, I forgot all my fears and got more and more excited.

You have to plan every single step when you want to climb a high tree - especially when you are boy of twelve years fairly small for his age. But there was the experience of an almost uncountable number of similar enterprises - only they hadn't happened to occur during the night. And I never had embarked on them alone before. But still: this just had to be done!

The only approach to climb the tree was to first get onto a neighboring tree, which was nice enough to offer me branches making it easy for me to climb up to a height where I was at the same level as the lowest branches of the crow-tree. This was approximately ten meters above the ground and almost five meters away from the other tree but I didn't think of the danger. I had to throw over a help line, let it to the ground, get down to pick it up and climb up the "helping-tree" again, where I then could pull over the rope and secure it. This way I built a rope bridge between the two trees, and hanging with my head down to the ground I slowly traveled hand over hand until I reached my destination. There I had to pause for a while because I was out of breath and sweating heavily after this physical and mental exercise.

Finally there it was: just a few meters above me I saw the huge crows nest and I heard the birds squeaking silently and occasionally making funny birds' noises. I climbed upwards, one branch after another, slowly securing and tightening my grips to make sure I couldn't fall down. And then, almost in reach of the birds at a point where I already could see their bills on the edge of the nest - I got stuck.

My left foot was stuck in a fork of a branch and it was impossible to get it out immediately and while struggling with my stuck foot, the storm began.

Suddenly the silence of the night turned into a roaring and howling inferno and the wind was so powerful that it almost blew me off the tree. The noise was incredible. Clouds were coming up and covered the starlight what made the night so dark that I couldn't even see my hands in front of my face anymore. I was not only alone on this tree but alone in the whole universe, holding on to this tree, the last solid thing in existence and all by myself fighting against the united power of ancient Nordic gods.

In my imagination I had to undergo a test, which I only could pass when I wouldn't show any fear and I lost the fear all of a sudden - I felt great and incredible. I saw the rope falling down in the storm and while big heavy raindrops hit my face and while hanging in the tree soaking wet and hardly being able to hold myself I shivered, yet not of fear but of excitement. And then an unexpected happiness overcame me. I felt happy because in fact I wasn't alone! I was united with the crows now hiding in their nest, being so much closer to them than I could ever have been if I just took one out to own it. Now it was different. We shared the experience of the end of the world. A raven family and a human boy right in the center of the Apocalypse. How foolish I had been, to think I could own another living creature!

Later I just wondered what they might have thought of me, a little human boy sitting in the tree in the night for hours, laughing like a lunatic while staring up to them.

I never bothered them again, just watched them when they were flying around our house, talking to each other in their croaking language while feeding in the fields. I raised several young raven birds that fell out of their nests, but I never wanted to own one anymore. This lesson had taught me at an early age that nature cannot be owned.

Doubts and rain - a poem

Not this is an old poem that I wrote as a teeanger - actually the first part I wrote as a teenager - the second part I wrote in 1994 when I lived in Hawaii and was not exactly a teenager anymore... Day One Doubts I' am stealing through the Dark, I can hear the swirling wind, I thought I had seen a spark, But my mind doesn't give a hint. I must find my way - but how? And then, I must find it now And if not, it was all in vain And I go on stealing down in the rain. The whole world could belong to me, The sky and the land and the sea It would be a very big DEAL But all I would own, I would STEAL. So is all I am going to gain To go on stealing down in the rain? Life Now I am striving in the waves, I can feel the swaying sea, I live in a world of slaves, But I hope that once will, what should be I am struggling but I survive, Sometimes drifting with no goals, I see living beings thrive, Hope lifts me from dooming holes. The morning is dawning here, And sun breaks through the rain, A laughing rainbow - no fear! Nothing is ever in vain. And though the world will never be mine, It will be in my heart for all time. Now I smile when the rain is falling Since I heard a secret life's calling

On Not Doing

The philosophy of Wu Wei has often been criticized as being immoral and promoting inactivity, but to me the obvious meaning is not that I shouldn't do good deeds - it just means that I should not do the bad ones. Almost the entire evil on the world is brought about by humans, and the latest peril we have produced is the looming global environmental destruction. Now how does Wu Wei fit into the picture? For example recycling: recycling is generally seen as something very positive, yet it is just a way to cope with a problem that already exists. The Wu Wei approach would be not to produce garbage in the first place. Wu Wei means to avoid problems instead of inventing ever new half-hearted solutions to unexpected new problems. Wu Wei means not-polluting instead of cleaning up. It means to interfere with the world around us as little as possible and only if necessary. This goes along nicely with the more scientific precautionary principle: We should not interfere with nature since we cannot possibly ever now the effects it has because ecosystems are far to complex to be fully understood. Wu Wei therefore is a cousin of the precautionary principle. If we find an unknown mushroom in the forest, we will not eat it, because it may be poisonous. We would never say "Well, lets eat it - after all it may be harmless". In other words: not doing certain things is just common sense. But this common sense fails us in the case of the global environment since we have no natural intuition (or lost it) for natural complexities, let alone our planet as a whole. But Wu Wei points the way. Not doing, not needing, not desiring mere things. We more and more live in a dead, electrified plastic world, bombarded by the messages of the consumer machinery. We feel obliged to continuously obtain new things, yet despite all of our possessions many of us are never contented, never happy, never at ease with themselves. In my own case the happiest moments of my life had nothing at all to do with my purchasing power. I remember, for example, relaxed moments, sitting alone in the spring sun and studying or reading on my parents farm. The Skylarks are flying, singing their songs of life and joy. Lizards are playing on the ground and the trees are sprouting. I sit there and do nothing. And then this feeling comes from somewhere deep within, this feeling that I am a part of all things around me, that I am very small and yet an integral aspect of nature - of the universe - of the Tao. The feeling says that in this moment everything is all right. There is no desire. There are no wishes. There is nothing I have to have or I have to do - I only am. Wu Wei brings us into harmony with ourselves, the world around us and therefore with the Tao. In this sense Taoist philosophy is not only deeply spiritual but also deeply ecological. Wu Wei leads to mental quietude and is the beginning of all happiness. It must be admitted though that the dominant lifestyle makes it difficult to achieve good Wu Wei since we are continuously under pressure to do something - and mostly something completely pointless and artificial. Everybody must find ways for her and himself to break down these walls of outside pressure - or rather to grow beyond them.