Archive | January, 2013

Bigotry has come to multi-cultural Nørrebro

29 Jan

 So it’s come here, finally. It’s been a long time in coming, but now it is here in Denmark, just as it’s been all over Europe and with it the potential for escalation, as it did in Toulouse. Isolated incidences, but yet still full-blown harassment and violence of fellow Danish citizens, “Jews” (young Danes who seem to look Jewish or wear emblematic Jewish looking clothes or paraphernalia), by other Danish citizens, most often with a Palestinian background, and certainly Muslim in faith and culture.

So what is going on here? Full-blown anti-Semitism or anti -Zionism, anti-Israel(ism), anti- all of these by association, racism, a political statement, revenge for what Israel has perpetrated against their family or Palestinians in general? Or is it perhaps just hormones: some year ago a young Muslim woman told a TV news reporter when her brother was arrested for demonstrations protesting racism against Muslims in Denmark: “Racism has nothing to do with it “ (she said) “He and his friends actions had nothing to do with protesting racism – it’s all just male hormones at work.”

Disenfranchised immigrant youths with little going for them, spend all their time together since they were old enough to be thrown out into the streets in the daytime by their mothers and sisters. They mimic  the tropes of the Afro-American ghetto in their manner of speaking, walking, clothes, tone of voice, and in developing their own patois of Danish and Arabic. In denigrating education and self-discipline and in their general use of derogatory terms for females they are mimicking rappers, while professing holier than thou attitudes towards their female coreligionists playing out a sort of loco-parentis guardian of the faith and female purity, while harassing all other women by calling them “bitches” (yes in English) and such.

My Muslim barber from Nørrebro where these incidents have taken place and where peoples from all over the world have made their home, has often said to me that, he feared for his teen-aged daughters because they often had to walk by these Palestinian ( And Iraqi he told me)  “gangs” of young males of all ages hanging around on street corners (that’s what they often do quite literally) According to him their fathers education of them has primarily consisted of  hate of Israel, ( lost) honor, and revenge.

Enough of these boys! I understand and forgive them. I don’t forgive all the politicians and pedagogues who have not attended to the troubled situation of these boys, with any cultural understanding, but only as soft-spoken ignorant do-gooders (“Hallal hippier” as the Danish politician of Iraqi origin, Nasser Khader, has called them). And even more so, I do not forgive the many-many Danish European intellectuals who profess to understand these incidents in the light of the “great sufferings” that Israel has wrought upon the Palestinians. Thus, these Intellectuals are justifying hate and burgeoning anti-Semitism, if they equate any and every Jew in the world with Israel, Zionism or Israeli politics and policies – that is what anti-Semitism and racism is all about: equating the individual person with a category and imputing the individual with all of the (negative) characteristics assumed to be part and parcel of the category – the individuals is deemed guilty by association!

I have here not even taken any stand on either the acceptability or correctness of their assumptions about the Middle-east conundrum, nor the multitude of negative, tasteless and often horrendous epithets that have been applied to Israel, Israelis, and Jews. They, these otherwise well-meaning and enlightened “intellectuals”, have by their willingness to use these epithets and thereby the implicit condonement of vicarious harassment and violence to “Jews”, thus encouraged the medium that is the quagmire out which such violence can grow.

 (May I recommend the Movies “Gentleman’s Agreement” with Gregory peck, or “Crossfire” with Robert Mitchum, and the book “Focus” by Arthur Miller)

 

 

Advertisements

Mit ansvar som patient?

28 Jan

Mandag 21. januar bragte programmet Sundhed på P1 kl. 11.03 et interview med direktør Beth Lilja, Dansk Selskab for Patientsikkerhed (http://www.patientforsikringen.dk/)

Hvert år dør tusinder af patienter på landets sygehuse af infektioner, forkert medicinering, m.m. Endvidere får mange patienter deres ophold på sygehuset forlænget på grund af fejl eller andre former for forkert behandling. Derfor har Tryg Fonden og Dansk Selskab for Patientsikkerhed indgået en fireårig samarbejdsaftale med et budget på 100 millioner kroner.

Et af målene for patientsikkerheds tiltaget er, at instituere forandrede og forbedrede arbejdsgange og strukturer på hospitaler og sygehus, så disse utilsigtede hændelser rapporteres og formindskes. Ingen direkte anklager, men blot en erkendelse af at selv med den bedste intention og opmærksomhed, så sker disse fejl hvis ikke der er nøje tilrettelagt arbejdsgange og strukturer, der forhindrer eller chekker at disse hændelser ikke sker.

Man formoder at danske sygehuse derved kunne opnå det samme sikkerhedsniveau som det vi allerede forventer når vi flyver – idet luftfartselskaber og lufthavnene for længst har indført sikkerheds-checklister, nøje designede arbejdsgange, instrukser og personale uddannelse.

Da jeg læste det, så kunne jeg ikke andet end ”klappe i mine mentale hænder”, for jeg har tit tænkt i disse baner når jeg enten som patient eller som pårørende, har været på et sygehus.

Beth Lilja kom også ind på, at man havde udenlandsk erfaring for, at de afdelinger der i højere grad inddrog patienterne og deres pårørende i den aktive behandling på sygehusene havde et meget bedre sikkerhedsniveau. Patienterne på afdelinger hvor de var blevet inddraget i behandlingen, var både mere tilfredse og kom sig hurtigere.

Umiddelbart en meget smuk tanke, i tråd med det det moderne menneskes behov og krav om indsigt og selvforvaltning. Jeg måtte dog revidere det første indtryk af det der blev skrevet, idet jeg lige pludselig blev overvældet af minderne om alle de tilfælde hvor jeg som patient eller pårørende havde oplevet at kommunikationen mellem mig og sundhedspersonalet totalt kiksede: hvor lægerne overhovedet ikke lyttede til vores beskrivelse af egne symptomer eller, ligefrem blev aggressive hvis vi, ganske uden at sætte den mindst tvivl på lægens ekspertise, forsigtige nævnede noget vi havde læst på nettet.

Men det, der virkelig fik mig til at revidere min umiddelbare enighed med at vi alle sammen skal inddrages i vores egen behandling, var at jeg lige havde været på værksted med min bil. – Og ved I hvad? Jeg hverken forventer eller ønsker at blive inddraget i bilens ”behandling”! Jeg går til mekanikeren fordi jeg hverken kan eller ønsker selv at rode med bilen. Jeg stoler på værkstedet og mekanikerens ekspertise og mekanikeren og jeg har en stiltiende pagt: – hvis han ordner bilen tilfredsstillende og til en rimelige pris, så er jeg glad, min bil kører igen, jeg betaler min regning med glæde, og højst sandsynligvis kommer jeg igen, og alt dette uden at jeg behøver at involvere mig i bilens reparations og vedligeholdelses proces.

Jeg vil ønske at jeg i samme grad kunne støtte mig til hospitalspersonalets ekspertise, indsigt og, allervigtigst, evnen til afdække hvad der er galt med mig, i samme grad som jeg stoler på at mekanikeren afgør hvad bilen fejler.  Men mekanikeren lytter også til hvad jeg siger og spørger uddybende til mindste detalje angående bilens mangler osv. Dette har jeg næsten aldrig oplevet fra sundheds personalets side, hvor det virker på mig, som om de á priori finder min redegørelse af hvad der er galt (og derved årsagen til at jeg/vi er hos lægen) totalt unyttige og stærkt overdrevet.

Jeg har hørt mange herboende udlændinge kommentere, at de ofte har erfaret at danske læger er meget dårligere til at diagnosticere end lægerne i deres hjemland – flere har fortalt mig, at de derfor, som konsekvens deraf, oftest telefonisk konsulterer med deres hjemlands sygevæsenet mens de er under behandling i det danske sygevæsenet.

Men kan man overhovedet forvente andet, når jeg mere end en gang har oplevet at overlæger, uden at se, tale eller røre ved mig eller min pårørende, blot ordinerede forskellige prøver? Og – når de så endelig havde resultaterne i hånden – trak de et eller and kort udstedt af et medicinalfirma op af lommen, og ved et hurtigt opslag i disse tabeller, bestemte de så min behandling, eller mængden af kemo eller stråler eller andet medicin: en meget simpel robot kunne have gjort det samme.

Det eneste spørgsmål, jeg kan være helt sikkert på at lægen på ambulatoriet stiller, er: ”Hvordan har de det i dag?”- er det ikke lige netop derfor vi sidder der sammen med lægen? Hver gang håber jeg/vi (forgæves) at han, med disse resulter i hånden og på basis af en nøjere undersøgelse, samt ved at lytte til hvad vi måtte sige om vores lidelser, skulle implementere sin dyrbart anskaffede uddannelse, erfaring og indsigt. Og dette ikke kun i henhold til en eller anden kategori af lidelse jeg måtte have, men med henblik på at jeg/vi som patient i det hele taget får det bedre. For mig at se, så er målgruppen for behandling i virkelighed en statistisk gennemsnitlig størrelse, og ikke den individuelle patient de måtte være stillet overfor – der tages overhovedet ikke stilling til at jeg er et enkelt tilfælde og ikke en statistisk ”patientgruppe”.

Men, mere principielt: Jeg er ikke lægeudannet! Hvorfor skal jeg i det hele taget inddrages i behandlingen?

Og ligeså principielt: Hvorfor skal det være nødvendigt at bede mig overvåge sygehuspersonalets arbejdsgange for min egen sikkerheds skyld? Dette forventes jo ikke af mig i mange andre højrisiko sammenhænge som f. Eks. under en flyvning!

Jo, jeg vil da gerne vide om der et alternativ til kirurgi (som i det eksempel Beth Lilja nævnte), men jeg ønsker ikke at det er mig der selv er nødt til at gå ud og finde det på internettet. Endvidere ville jeg gerne have en kvalificeret, indsigtsfuld anbefaling af hvilken af alternativerne er det mest hensigtsmæssige for mig i min nuværende tilstand, og ikke kun det der anbefales i henhold til en eller anden statistisk patientgruppe. Og til sidst vil jeg også meget gerne oplyses nøje om bivirkninger og gener, og disse skal der følges op på lige så omhyggeligt, som forløbet i den egentlige behandling.

Jeg kan, men vil ikke her gå nærmere ind på den lange række af uhyrligheder som jeg og mine pårørende har oplevet på flere af landets hospitalsafdelinger eller skadestuer: nogle gange med svære gener og endda faren for et muligt dødsfald til følge. Blot vil jeg nævne den gang vi kom til kontrol, og lægen havde forberedt sig på basis af en forkerte journal, men han lagde aldrig mærke til diskrepansen mellem det han var ved at læse og den patient der faktisk sad foran ham, lige indtil vi protesterede.

Uden vores egen intense opmærksomhed på de ordinerede behandlinger, arbejdsgange, doseringer, osv. havde vi været endnu mere ilde sted end det har været tilfælde: men det har kostet psykisk.

Den virkelige årsag til at jeg er faktisk er dybt uenig med den del af Pateinsikkerheds-tiltagets mål der går ud på at patienter skal inddrages mere i deres egen behandling, er fordi jeg får den fornemmelse at det derved bliver helt og aldeles mit ansvar. Man undervurderer derved helt hvor meget Lægens opmærksomhed og personlige, omsorgsfulde indsats fremmer helbredelsen  og får betydning for at patienter får det fysisk bedre. (Læs: http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/01/the-placebo-phenomenon)

Jeg har set det som tendens, ikke blot indenfor den etablerede lægevidenskab (livstilsygdom!), men i endnu højere grad indenfor den alternative verden, at der en implicit opfattelse af, at det er helt og aldeles min egen skyld at jeg blev syg, lige så vel som det ene og alene er mit eget ansvar om jeg kan blive rask. Derved bliver det også ene og alene mit ansvar at sørge for min egen sikkerhed i en sygehus situation, og det er nu også mit ansvar at den rette behandling gives mig på den rette måde for den rette sygdom.

Da digteren Halfdan Rasmussen blev udspurgt om sin kræftsygdom svarede han:  ”Jeg har ikke spist sundhedssandaler nok i mit liv.”

Goodie goodies and villains in the cinema

25 Jan

Many actors have commented that they much prefer to portray villains and bad-asses, than goodie-goodie types (Dame Judy Dench has often said how much she loves to play 007’s tough-assed boss M). Actors feel that it is easier to get their teeth into villains and find out how to gestalt them and, moreover, portraying a villain allows them to play out some of their own more or less repressed “dark side”. Portraying the utterly good person seems to be more difficult, in that they seem to have less contour- there is less there to get their teeth into (one sometimes gets the feeling that actors find portraying goodie-goodies boring).

When I dig down into my own memories of the (much too) many movies I have seen, I can recollect many memorable villains, but few depictions of the very good person. Who do I think is the most villainous villain? Orson Welles in “The Third Man”: he is so defiantly a self-conscious villain. The villain I most sympathize with? Fagin, especially as portrayed by Alec Guinness, and perhaps the Templar in “Ivanhoe”, especially as portrayed by George Sanders. Claude Rains even made a career of playing charming villains (“Casablanca”, “Notorious”) you cannot help identifying with. But the villain that really sends shivers down my spine is Christopher Waltz’s portrayal of a Nazi in “Inglorious Basterds”: his acting is so over the top, I almost seem to enjoy his villainy, while, at the same, time experiencing a depiction of unadulterated villainy.

Then what about portrayals of the utterly good person in movies? It would seem to me that whereas villains are more often than not, portrayed as many-faceted human beings, the utterly good are almost always portrayed one dimensionally as only being that, utterly good. Thus it’s not only actors that might find portraying good people boring, I find watching these often one dimensional portrayals of good people boring too. Mostly the good are portrayed either as literally being angels, or being “saintly” or as being simple minded: the subtext of this quite obviously is one that states that only angels or the “saintly” or the simple-minded can truly be good. For example, more recently even in “Angel-A” by Luc Besson, an angel represents pure goodness ( but what an angel she is as portrayed by Rie Rasmussen). There are so many simple-minded really good characters to choose form: how about Dreier’s Joan of Arc, or Toto in “Miracle in Milan” by De Sicca, or, one of the best portrayal of simpleminded goodness, “Forest Gump”, or finally that sweetest portrayal of simple-minded goodness Gelsomina in “LaStrada”

 And then there are the films of Lars von Trier “Breaking the Waves” and “Dancing in the Dark”, where goodness can only be achieved through a woman’s sacrifice of herself – this emphasis on actual physical self-sacrifice seems to me to hark back to some pagan ritual. No place for goodness as such in the world here. In some of his other films he also deals with goodness and retribution, and in one of his earlier films he seems to equate innocence and honesty with either being or acting as an idiot – but the subtext is the same: only the “un-normal” can achieve either goodness or morality.

Two films stand out from this dichotomy: “Schindlers List”, which tells the true story of   a man who does an incredibly good deed at great personal risk by keeping over a thousand Jews alive during the war, right under the noses of the Nazis. He was, however, not a good man as such, quite on the contrary. According to both what we know of the true person Schindler, and through Liam Neeson’s portrayal of him, he was, except for this having done this exceptional good deed, in all other ways of bad character . Yet, in the final analysis his “good actions”  speak stronger than his “bad soul”.  

A very fine, almost philosophical portrayal of both villainy and goodness is the one by Dustin Hoffman in “Accidental Hero”. To my mind this film contains both the elements of a screwball comedy as well as  a modern morality play: it is almost Talmudic in its depth of its reflections on what it means to be a human being, a mensch,  who encompasses both the good and the dastardly.

(More in a later blog)

Min morgenrutine sammen med ”Information”

20 Jan

Hver morgen, når jeg står op, så forbereder jeg min te, og smører jeg mig to skiver franskbrød med ost, hvorefter jeg sætter mig ved computeren og åbner avisen Informations web side.

Teen kvikker op og tilfredsstiller den tørst jeg har opbygget hele natten, og ostemaden tilfredsstiller min sult, efter så mange timer uden mad, og Information får mit blodløb i gang, idet hvert morgen, så får læsningen af Information mit pis i kog – nogle gange kan jeg ligefrem blive flovt over, at jeg sådanne kan finde på at råbe af skærmen (afgjort tegn på alderdom – dette kunne jeg aldrig have fundet på da jeg var yngre).

Så isoleret, primitive, navlepillende, urealistiske, perfide mennesker kan man ligegodt ikke finde andet steds her i landet, end dem der skriver i Information. Med det mener jeg ikke en gang kun journalisterne og kronikører, men også i allerhøjeste grad læsernes kommentarer til artiklerne. Utrolig velskrevet artikler og ligeså velskrevet kommentarer, alle med den samme negative, sur, brokende, hyper-idealistisk og hyper-intellektuel verdensfjern tone, fyldt med velgennemtænkt og velformidlet, men ofte perfide argumentationer, der ligeså ofte går mere efter manden end efter bolden – jeg morer mig kosteligt, ved at læse hvordan læserne der skriver kommentarer, forfalder til at sværte hinanden til i deres egen kommentarer. Janteloven trives på bedste velgående på Information – her er der kun plads for meningsfæller.

Argumentationer peger derimod næsten aldrig henne mod løsningsmodeller, der virkeligt kunne bliver realiseret i denne verden vi virkelig befinder os i her og nu. Man skal heller ikke forvente at artiklerne kunne formidle nyhederne – Information formidler slet-slet ikke nyheder: nyheder skal åbenbart findes i andre, mindre fine, mindre intellektuelt, og dertil indrettet, nyhedsmedier.

Alligevel.  Hver morgen læser jeg Information, også fordi jeg derved bliver beroliget om at verden ikke er gået af lave – det er ligesom at dykke ned i en tidlomme hvor alt er gået i stå. Emnerne er ligesom stilen, næsten det samme som de altid har været, helt tilbage til de første gange jeg dykkede ned i Informationens verden i halvfjerdserne, og argumentationen ligeså. . .Same procedure as always.

Så ved at læse Information, får jeg mig den bedste af alle morgenmiksturer: min daglig skud adrenalin blandet med min daglig dosis beroligende forsikringer om at alt står ved det gamle i Danmark.

Israel on my mind (final post)

19 Jan

2 (and final)

The only long term strategy with which the Palestinians have been able to generate positive results for themselves, has been to engage well-meaning people all over the world in attacking Israel’s international standing – public opinion in Europe and the USA has become the new battlefield, and in this strategic battle Israel has time and again put its foot in its mouth through its own arrogance. However, the Palestinians (and the world) should though realize that this arrogance is fed by the ghosts of the past that cannot, and should not, be exorcised: the six million and the countless before them, in pogroms and massacres over the centuries. These ghosts will inevitably materialize with every incident of anti-Semitism somewhere in the world, and with every verbal or physical attack on Israel and Israelis. This does not at all excuse modern Israel, when it acts arrogantly, without compunction and without any sort of understanding or empathy. Many visitors to Israel, have had but a small whiff of how Palestinians have generally been treated, when it is their turn to experience Israeli security and customs at Ben Gurion Airport, or at the ubiquitous checkpoints that have to be passed when traveling in Israel or the West Bank.

Israel’s right to existence and national and cultural integrity cannot even be drawn in question not only because it is Israel (I am of course not totally objective on this), but also because the nation of Israel is a de-facto entity officially recognized internationally. On the other hand the grievances of the Palestinians are real grievances, however much the tendency on their side has been to demand all or nothing solutions to them.

A final observation: To my mind, the major obstacle to any possible rapprochement between Israel and the Palestinians, is that Israel never was, and never will be, a Middle-Eastern nation: it is fundamentally based on Western European cultural, ethical, social, economic and legal values, which unfortunately, and in the final analysis, are totally out of step with those extant in all the lands and peoples that surround it. Even internally, in Israel, there are deep divisions, threatening the state’s unity, between the dominant Western “Ashkenazi” Jews with their European/American culture, and “Mizrahi “Jews originating from the Middle-East with their more traditional “oriental” culture. So how then can we ever expect main-stream Israelis to understand and respect the Palestinians and Arabs, when they do not even understand and respect that large segment of the Israeli Jewish population whose background is Middle-Eastern?

This lack of understanding and respect between the Israelis and the Palestinians and Arabs, is very much a two-way street however – i.e. Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit:  Occidentalism: the West in the Eyes of its Enemies (2004).

To quote Kipling, a farsighted and very perceptive observant of the interaction of cultures with differing world views:

 “OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet

Ps.  I have noted that no matter how many scholarly books that have been written, nothing can ever outdo the impact of the novel or popular family chronicle, in fostering insight and sympathies:  “Exodus”, “Roots”, “Joy Luck Club” ,“Wild Swans” and “Cry the beloved Country” being prime examples. In the US, for instance, many of its non-dominant communities, Jews, Irish, Chinese, or Afro-American culture etc. first became appreciated and hence entered the mainstream culture, after popular books written by members of these minorities had come out.

Thus the world is quite familiar with Israeli and Jewish life and culture from a plethora of books and films about, and by, them. However, very few books or films about or by the Palestinians have captured the international popular imagination. The Palestinians still lack the great popular chroniclers of their culture and daily life that could foster our sympathies and insights in an engaging manner. I would, as start, like to recommend the films of Eli Suleiman and the books of Sayed Kashua.

Israel on my mind (2-1)

18 Jan

(This is a long one, so I am sending it out as 2 posts)

1.

When I travel the pilgrim trails, my fellow travelers, or my hosts for the night, at some time or another “discover” that I am Jewish. Then indirectly or directly the question pops up: what do I think about Israel and the current Middle East conundrum.  Americans usually don’t ask, they probably assume that I am a de facto crypto-Zionist. Germans don’t dare ask, and in fact when they realize I am Jewish, there is a subtle change in the ambiance of our togetherness – our common good cheer seems to dampen until I somehow make it clear that here and now between us the past is the past. Everyone else usually has no compunction in putting this question to me.

The following is not my answer to them.

In the middle-east “big bang” of 1948, two nations were born inhabited by two peoples that were linguistically, culturally and even genetically related: Jews and Palestinians.

Image

And both had as their nation’s founding myth (a myth is not necessarily devoid of truth or fact) a new beginning after pain, submission, persecution, discrimination and forced evacuation and loss of home and resources. What made these extra painful and poignant to the two peoples, is that each in their own way perpetrated (and continue to perpetrate) some of these harms on each other (albeit up until today, Palestinians have been more on the receiving end) in the birth of their nations.

Moreover, an added complicating circumstance was: that whereas the Palestinians, with just cause, now had a founding myth imbued with tragedy the and persecution, the Jews of Israel were past experts at being at the receiving end of pain and persecution, just having lost six million of their brothers, sisters, mothers,  fathers, etc.. Moreover they were past masters at keeping the pain alive for generation after generation, celebrating the worst in their history – the classic joke about what is a Jewish holiday: “They tried to kill us, they didn’t succeed, let’s eat.” The Palestinians, in this game of who is worse off, never had a chance. The Israelis invariably see their situation on the basis of loss and, potential loss, from time immemorial (“never again” is the Israeli battle cry), and at that game no one – no one! – is better, more vociferous, convincing, and, as a matter of fact, more right!

In the mid-sixties Arafat re-shaped Palestinian destiny, self-perception and  world-wide strategies. He refined the founding myth as underdog to such an extent that it has become a world-wide accepted “fact”  – after the six-day-war the Israeli-Palestinian situation was redefined in a colonial imperialistic framework. A parallel idea with great resonance in the Middle East was the history of the Crusades, promising that given time,every foreign (read Israeli) dominance will always be destroyed.

However just taking over territory in battle does not lead to a permanent colonialist/imperials situation and here in Denmark for example in the war of 1864 Denmark permanently lost a sizable portion of its territory and population to Germany, and to this day there are Danes on the German side of the Border and Germans on the Danish side of the border and everyone crosses the border as they please.

There had been several approaches to getting rid of colonial masters: That followed by Yomo Kenyatta, Ahmed Ben Bella, Habib Boughiba, and of course Ho Chi Minh, of violence and terror (Palestinians even have had a role-model for this much closer to  home: the success of the pre-Israel Jews’ violent clashes with The British). They could, of course, have taken the path Gandhi took in shaming the British (the salt march was a stroke of genius in shaming British in their control over India). A third strategy could have been fostering the use of international boycott as had been so successful against apartheid in South Africa.

The problem with all of these in relation to the Palestinian confrontation with the Israelis, is that the Israelis cannot be shamed on the one hand – remember they view themselves as the perennial underdog. Israel can never be defeated by violence and terror, because it is not a question of an extra-territorial nation sending more or less mercenary troops to the  foreign shores of it colonies, but an entrenched and fully mobilized Spartan-like state with atomic submarines, without any possible bolt hole for its people– colonials always had a bolt hole in their mother country, and who has ever wanted millions of Jews. As for boycotts, what most people don’t realize is that most of the world (including the Arab world) is directly or indirectly dependent on Israeli developed technical, agricultural, computer (the computer with which you are reading this,is chock-full of Israeli developed software and hardware), and military know-how and products. No-one will seriously contemplate not importing these Israeli products – they have no competitors. Forget about boycotting Jaffa oranges, Spain had long ago undercut the entire market for fresh fruits and vegetable from practically any country in the world.

Findes nuet?

16 Jan

Det uendeligt snævre øjeblik, vi kalder ”nuet” eksistere ikke i vores bevidsthed: vi har kun en bevidsthed om det der er allerede hændt – det der var en gang ”nuet” – gennem vores efterfølgende refleksion, om det der allerede er hændt.

Mens det der er allerede hændt – det der var en gang nuet – foregik, var vi travlt i gang med at reflektere, om det der allerede var hændt (nuet) før da – ad infinitum.

Dette bakkes op af moderne neuro-videnskab: I hver tilfælde bagud,”før-nuet”,  Benjamin Libet og hans efterfølgers eksperimenter har påvist, at selveste bevidstheden om ens ”intention” om at foretage sig noget, først er tilsted efter en allerede truffet, men ubevidst, foregående ”beslutning” om at foretag sig noget.

 

 Her er et citat fra Ovids forvandlingsfabler  fordansket af Otto Steen Due:

Tiderne selv henrinder i tyst, ustandselig gliden,

ganske som flodernes vand. Så lidt som floder kan standse, 
standser den flygtige stund. Og som bølge jages af bølge
og i sit komme forjager en anden og selv er på flugten,
drives hvert øjeblik frem og fordriver det, der gik forud.
Og nuet er altid et nyt. det, der lige har været, er borte
og det, der før ikke var, bliver til, som tiden fornyr sig. 

 (tak Karin)

 

Ps. Kan man spilde sin tid når man er alene? Hvis vi gradbøjer det ovenstående lidt: så er det først når man ikke er alene, at man kan reflektere, om man har spild sin tid da man var alene.