Frankie sagde ’slap af’, og det har jeg forsøgt at gøre, siden min bror døde af en overdosis. Det er gået op for mig, at hæleren er lige så god som stjæleren – men hvad nu hvis vi legaliserede narkotika?
Læs kronikken i Information.
"Write your way out of it." – J.D. Salinger
Frankie sagde ’slap af’, og det har jeg forsøgt at gøre, siden min bror døde af en overdosis. Det er gået op for mig, at hæleren er lige så god som stjæleren – men hvad nu hvis vi legaliserede narkotika?
Læs kronikken i Information.
Den 17. juni udkommer romanen Hvem myrdede Gilles Deleuze?
… Da en ung dansk mand møder den spanske forfatter Rodrigo i Barcelona, bliver han vidne til en firedages intens monolog om eksistensen og dens mulige grænser. Rodrigo gransker en bestemt filosofs selvmord med sådan en iver, som gjaldt det hans fremtidige livsbetingelser.
Se pressemeddelelse.

Why do I suffer? In asking and answering this question, I may be mistaken with respect to the reasons for my suffering–for example, due to lack of knowledge, or to clever ways of deceiving myself. Yet, I can’t doubt the utterance. It’s there, expressed and alive.
In the book Self-Knowledge and Self-Deception, the philosopher Hugo Strandberg analyzes what we mean when we ask the question, “Who am I?” This classical question opens up the potential for a critical self-examination that is also a moral examination. For me to know who I am, I take myself as the object of my investigation, knowing, of course, that both “I” as the subject and “I” as the object will change during the process of living. The “philosopher’s knowledge,” he writes, “is then self-knowledge, and self-knowledge is not knowledge about just another object in the world but about my alleged knowledge of the world.” In other words, self-knowledge is knowledge about my relationship with (or relationships in) the world.
Therefore, by looking more thoroughly at these relationships, I may discover that there are things I don’t know. I might become aware of my lack of knowledge.
“Self-knowledge is not one thing,” the author states” (Strandberg 14). It’s a concept related with many other questions that emerge during my life. “Self-knowledge is a moral question” (24) It is a matter of befriending myself, as Strandberg writes, referring to Seneca. In other words, getting to know who I am is an ongoing dance between the two concepts of “self-knowledge” and “self-deception”. Self-deception, according to Strandberg, is a moral phenomenon, a mixture of knowing and not knowing, but always in a moral sense. To emphasize this point, he relates the idea of self-deception with remorse; if things “should” be seen differently, then “this ‘should’ is given by the perspective of remorse itself.”
The correlation of self-deception with remorse is quite innovative because it helps Strandberg to illustrate how “self-deception shows that I am morally split.” For this reason it is difficult to answer the question “Who am I?” The whole book is a reflection about what it actually means to answer this question.
For example, one question related to “Who am I?” would be to ask whether the self is something fixed, or something created that changes as one lives? The problem with the fascinating idea that we create our selves is, as Iris Murdoch is quoted for saying, “man is a creature who makes pictures of himself and then come to resemble them” (67). So, it may be morally good if the picture I paint about myself is good according to the consensus, but I may still deceive myself in the process. Perhaps I am just suffering from group pressure; i.e., I do not have the courage to live out what I already know about myself.
Self-Knowledge and Self-Deception, while well written and engaging, is a scholarly work filled with references and requires close attention on the part of the reader. This is nice in a time where many books try to popularize concepts at the risk of losing scholarly rigor or precision. The chapter “The True Self” could be useful to study for all those in the self-help industry who wish to improve people’s self-image and sense of self-worth. Arendt, Descartes, MacIntyre, Kierkegaard, and Sartre–among others–show up. Personally, I enjoyed seeing Sartre back and being incorporated into the philosophical dialogue.
I believe that, ultimately, one asks “Who am I?” in relation to another question: what does it mean to live. For Strandberg, the answer is related to my will to pay attention or not pay attention to something specific (for example, living up to certain moral ideals or not). Contrary to the state of not paying attention (and the lack of awareness that comes with this), a well-developed attention allows the self to dissolve or become “who one is” with the world. This leads Strandberg to suggest that the answer to the question “Who am I?” is answered by the way we live–perhaps the question is not even asked.
To return to the topic of remorse, Strandberg argues that remorse is the distance between self-knowledge and self-deception that can be reduced by love. To put this into romantic terms, it is when I am not following my heart that I experience moments of regret.
I began this review by asking, “Why do I suffer?” To answer this properly– following Strandberg–I need to be open to others and befriend others and myself with love and compassion. I may then realize that my suffering is related with my relationship with the world. The point is that “goodness constitutes me in a way badness does not, and when I treat someone badly this does not mean that I become, or some part of me becomes, fully evil, for that would mean that full moral badness would be possible, that is, that badness would be possible without self-deception. This goodness which constitutes me in a way badness does not is non-determinable, is openness to others, and is love and friendship, whereas badness could be said to be an attempt at determining me and these relations to others” (180).
The lesson is to not presuppose, but rather to be open and curious in your interaction with life.
Self-Knowledge and Self-Deception deals with a classical question: who am I? At times it’s a difficult book due to the amount of theories discussed, but in general the author is quite good at guiding the reader by being very explicit about what he aims at, noting how he differs from Socrates, and so forth. Still, the book requires philosophical knowledge. Students who have a certain level of mastery of philosophy and its concepts will enjoy this book, as will other philosophers who are grappling with similar topics. It’s a rewarding read, and one that’s quite complex–I have in this short review only touched briefly on some key issues. I admit also that I found it rather encouraging to read a philosopher who brings philosophy back to the terrain of ordinary life, and dares to speak about “goodness” and “love”.
This review was published in Metapsychology (Volume 20, Issue 17).
Finn Janning, PhD in philosophy, is a writer.

For nogle år siden tog kunstneren Peter Seidler en række portrætfotos af deltagerne på et månedlangt meditationsophold (se mere her). Der var tale om klassiske før og efter portrætter. Baggrunden er forestillingen om at øjnene eller ansigtet, afspejler vores sind (fx øjnene er sjælens spejl).
Hvad sker der med sindet, når man mediterer længe? Kan ”det” aflæses i ansigtet?




Ja, det kan det åbenbart.
Et meditationsophold eller stilhedsretreat på en måned er ganske lang tid. Og længerevarende ophold, fx på en festival eller en strand, vil uden tvivl sætte sig i ansigtet på de fleste. Prøv at portrættere Roskilde festival-deltagere før og efter! Denne overvejelse har Seidler ikke med. Hans ærinde er snarere et forsøg, kunstnerisk, at validere effekten af meditation.
Et stilhedsretreat kan – ligesom en afslappende ferie – udfolde fire transformerende kvaliteter ved mennesket: venlighed, medfølelse, ligevægt og glæde. Hvem er ikke lidt mere venlig og balanceret, når de ligger i hængekøjen på stranden Tulum i Mexico? Hvorfor smiler du mere på feriefotos end …?
Venlighed, medfølelse, ligevægt og glæde er essentielle med hensyn til udviklingen af resilience (livskraft og mod). Selve evnen til at stå imod tilbageslag og modgang. Derfor er et stilhedsretreat en udmærket måde, hvorved man kan yde modstand mod præstationssamfundets normative tvang om hele tiden at skulle være på og præstere.
Der er selvsagt andre måder at yde modstand på. En af mine venner har bevidst fravalgt at arbejde, mens han har bygget hus, rejst, drukket mv. – levet et liv udenfor samfundets normer og idealer. Man kan også læse Spinozas Etik eller anden god litteratur, da sådanne læsninger transformerer en. God litteratur gør ens erfaringsfelt større, mere rigt og nuanceret. Filosofi og kunst anfægter. Faktisk kunne mange spare en del penge på retreats, hvis deltagerne i stedet for turde kaste sig ud i kunstens verden – blottet, åben og modtagelig.
Tilbage til portrætterne. Det, som et retreat kan hjælpe deltagerne med er:
Dette er ikke en udførlig liste. Nogle deltagere også i sådanne meditationsretreat for at udvikle og nuancere deres meditationspraksis, for at blive del af et givende fællesskab, fordi det er populært, etc.
Punkterne kan minde lidt om en god ferie (hvis den altså ikke er stressende). Og ligesom efter en ferie, hvor man godt ved, at man skal konfrontere chefen eller på anden vis omorganisere ens liv, så kan ansigtets smilende lethed sagtens falde sammen igen, hvorved deltagerne bliver afhængige af meditationsophold. Dette er ikke meningen. Snarere at man lever opmærksomt, nærværende og bevidst – også når man ikke indlogerer sig på et kloster. Og at man udvikler et mod til at leve frit.
Så, hvis venligheden, medfølelsen, ligevægten og livsglæden forsvinder lige så hurtigt, som rusen efter at have drukket fem-seks øl, så er det et problem. Mindfulness er ikke et quick-fix, selvom det til tider sælges sådan, men en gradvis stabilisering af ens tilgang til livet.
Seidler portrætter viser, at folk der er mindfulde, har et lettere sind. Det kunne have været interessant at se, hvordan deltagerne ser ud en måned efter opholdet, når arbejdet, manden, børnene, elskerinden, regningerne, regnvejret og så videre dukker op.
En simpel ting, som alle kan lære af dette eksperiment, er, at ens ansigt afslører ens sind – med mindre ansigtets folder er lammet af botox eller tomt, som en selfie. Det er her medfølelsen og accepten kommer ind. Kan man acceptere at slæbe rundt på det rynkede ansigt (de ekstra kilo), som kigger tilbage på en, når man kigger sig i spejlet?
– Oplæg holdt på en folkeskole i Barcelona, hvor der ligeledes indgik meditationsøvelser.
“Cocaine is a carburant. Cocaine is a devastating, terrible, deadly energy. There never seem to be enough arrests. Policies to fight it always seem to miss the mark. As terrible as it may seem, total legalization may be the only answer.” – Roberto Saviano, ZeroZeroZero
I believe in the power of words.
Today many books are being published, including books that should never be published, but these books will not last and will never become more than personal anecdotes.
I like to read books that do more than just entertain. The books I enjoy dispute or question our perceptions of the world, perhaps even our perceptions of who we are. These books make us see the world differently.
Italian writer, Roberto Saviona’s, ZeroZeroZero, is such a book. This book is catchy, but never without activating the reader’s critical sense, for example, by confronting the reader’s illusions and naivety about what is actually going on in the world. More importantly, this book is reliable due to its thorough investigation that includes official reports, statistics, and interview with police, etc. It reveals our contemporary capitalistic history as seen through the lens of cocaine: the influence of cocaine, addiction, disposable pushers and mules, money flow and launderers, private soldiers, etc.
Cocaine is intertwined with capitalism, and vice versa, which illustrates the moral decline seen in capitalistic societies. Capitalism needs cocaine to satisfy its continuous need to grow.
In addition, the usage continually grows as more and more people use cocaine to keep up the pace of capitalism. Saviona states, “The faster the world moves, the more there’s cocaine; the less time there is for stable relationships.” Cocaine is today’s drug. According to Saviano, cocaine is everywhere. It is for everyone. “The guy sitting next to you on the train uses cocaine, he took it to get himself going this morning; or the driver of the bus you’re taking home … your son … your boss …”
You take cocaine to work harder, not party harder … and then everything collapses.
Furthermore, the cocktail of criminal activities and money (i.e. the amount of money you do not count but weigh) makes the moral = zero, zero, zero. The general moral is corrupted by drug money. It’s tempting to see the title, ZeroZeroZero in that light. However, the title doesn’t actually (at least not directly) refer to a lack of morals. Rather, it refers to the purity of the flour that you use for making Italian bread. The closer to zero, the more pure it is. Zero is the purest cocaine, the white gold.
Saviano tells the story of Columbian drug cartels in the 70s with Pablo Escobar and in the 80s when new, more violent leaders emerged. The Columbians killed each other with sticks, guns, chainsaws, and acid, while the Mexican cartels slowly took over. Today, Mexico is the country with the most powerful drug cartels. This power is not due to Mexico’s production (Columbia produces more), but it is due to the cartel’s distribution. Mexico distributes cocaine to the biggest consumer of all, the U.S., and this distribution provides power.
Saviano encourages the reader to acknowledge that reading is a powerful act. “In the Book of Revelation Saint John writes, ‘And I took the little scroll from the hand of the angel and ate it; it was sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it my stomach was made bitter.’ I believe, that the readers need to do this with words. Put them in their mouths, chew them, so that the chemistry they are made of can work inside us, can illuminate the dark night and draw a line between happiness and pain.”
What kind of life would we like to live? What kind of life would we like to pass on to future generations? Are you aware of the amount of people suffering because you need an energetic fix every Saturday?
After reading about the extreme bestiality of these cartels, I was both fascinated and frightened. It was nightmarish reading. These drug lords believe that it is their right to live as they feel. A softer example is when Saviano wrote about Griselda, the most ruthless female drug trafficker. “She liked to choose her men, and if they didn’t go along, they were dead. One time a kid, younger than her, attracts her attention. Griselda wants him and fixes her eyes on him. He avoids her gaze, but Griselda insists. So the kid heads to the bathroom, and she follows, going into the women’s room. ‘Help!’ she starts screaming. ‘Help!’ and the kid comes running; maybe that weird woman is sick. Griselda is waiting for him, naked from waist down. ‘Lick me’, she commands. The kid steps away, his back to the door, but Griselda takes out a pistol and repeats, ‘lick me.’ So he does, the barrel of her gun glued to his head.”
When does contemporary society’s quest for happiness and profit make us sick?
The book also addresses new questions of trust. Who can you trust in a world where many people seem to have a price? Cocaine is a lucrative business, so lucrative that the drug cartels can bribe the kind of people we so-called normal citizens put our faith in, including police officers, attorneys, politicians, and, of course, businesses.
Are capitalism and crime the end of democracy? Are they closely related? Is this book a warning? It is.
Saviano ends his book by saying, “As terrible as it may seem, total legalization may be the only answer … it hits where cocaine finds its fertile terrain, at the law of supply and demand.”
I believe he is right. Legalization could be the answer. Read the book, and decide for yourself.

After my brother’s death, I wrote, “I need to live double.” That day I became a writer.
My brother died between the 3rd and 4th of October, sometime after the night had ended but before the next day had begun. It was in 1993 that an overdose killed him. He was 26 years old. I learned of his death the next morning. That day I wrote my two first lines as a writer: “I need to live double,” followed by, “Now, it’s up to me.”
Read the rest of the essay here, South 85 Journal.
“The Happiness of Burnout” is a film by Matthias Matz. It’s centred around the book launch of The Happines of Burnout, which was held in Berlin 2015.
It’s time for a pause in my teaching, which means that most of the students and I leave the lecture hall for fresh air, coffee or cigarettes. I go to the canteen and buy a coffee. Then I wait outside the lecture hall. A student approaches me and asks something about meditation. As I turn to her, another student bumps into me. I spill the coffee all over my shirt.
“Sorry, sir,” he says. “I didn’t see you. Honestly, I didn’t see you.”
… read the rest in The Mindful Word.
Jeg var næppe blevet filosof, hvis jeg ikke havde siddet i fængsel i min ungdom. Det var her, jeg fik et tiltrængt pusterum, der gjorde, at jeg fik mulighed for at se indad.
Du kan læse resten af kronikken i Politiken her.
Termen Corporate Social Responsibility ( CSR) understreger, at virksomheden har et socialt ansvar. I praksis betyder det, at det primært er en virksomheds beslutningstagere, der har et ansvar. Sagt anderledes: Ansvaret placeres i toppen af organisationen. Denne tilgang fastholder CSR i en klassisk hierarkisk organisationsstruktur, som i stadig stigende grad ikke stemmer overens med samtidens mere flade organiseringsformer.
Det er med baggrund i denne simple erkendelse, at jeg de sidste par år har ændret min undervisning af MBA-studerende i CSR. Jeg har forsøgt, at løsrive CSR fra primært at fokusere på ideen om at ansvaret er placeret i toppen, hen imod en mere ligelig ansvarsfordeling hos alle virksomhedens medarbejdere. Dette mentalitetsskifte har jeg initieret ved hjælp af mindfulness.
Mindfulness kan kort defineres som en måde at være opmærksom på, i hvert øjeblik, uden at dømme eller vurdere det, som sker. Det handler om at være engageret tilstede. Nu og her.
Undervisningen, som løb hen over otte uger med tre timer i hver session, bestod af en praktisk introduktion til mindfulness. De studerende mediterede og foretog kropsskanninger, mens de også blev præsenteret for forskellige etiske teorier. Det hele blev suppleret med en masse cases omhandlende CSR-problematikker.
Undervisningen foregik på UIBS, en international business school i Barcelona. Der er tale om en mindre, men klassisk indrettet business school med knap 200 studerende. Alle sessioner blev afholdt i et almindeligt klasselokale, men uden brug af borde. Ideen var at de studerende skulle være tilstede i alle facetter af undervisningen uden at fortabe sig i noter eller brug af internet. I forbindelse med kropsskanninger og gående-meditation bedte jeg de studerende tage skoene af. Derudover foregik kropsskanningerne liggende på gulvet. Sådanne uvante aktiviteter åbner – på en ganske basal måde – for en begyndende filosofisk praksis, idet de studerende stillede spørgsmål til de mere konventionelle måder at undervise på.
I kursets første session undersøgte jeg, hvad de studerende vægtede højest. Økonomisk rentabilitet eller etisk ansvarlighed. De studerende kunne ikke argumentere for at sammenhæng mellem disse to, men måtte vælge. De to gange, som jeg har afholdt kurset har andelen af studerende der valgte økonomisk rentabilitet været markant større. Henholdsvis 77% og 83% af de studerende. Ud af en gruppe studerende på henholdsvis 23 og 25 personer, der var i alderen 23-52 år – dog med størstedelen omkring de tredive. Tilsvarende stillede jeg de studerende det samme spørgsmål i slutningen af kurset, altså otte uger senere, og her var andelen af studerende der fokuserede på økonomisk rentabilitet faldet. I den ene klasse var tallet faldet til 51 procent til fordel for økonomisk rentabilitet, mens den anden var faldet til 47 procent. Sidstnævnte var ligeledes gruppen, hvor 87 procent før vægtede den økonomiske rentabilitet højest.
Dette er selvfølgelig ikke en videnskabelig undersøgelse. Der var ingen kontrolgruppe, der ikke blev introduceret til mindfulness. En anden oplagt fejlkilde er, hvorvidt det påvirker de studerende at de spørges, som deltagere på et kursus i CSR. Desuden har Søren Kierkegaard for længst belært os om, at livet aldrig er et enten-eller. Ikke desto mindre ser jeg resultatet, som en indikation på, at etisk og økonomisk ansvarlighed er et umage par, men vel og mærke et par. Der skete et mentalitetsskifte.
Ideen med at kæde mindfulness sammen med CSR skyldes, at de fleste medarbejdere – på alle niveauer – på et eller tidspunkt vil opleve følelser af utilstrækkelighed, vrede, frygt, stress og arbejdsglæde. Jo mere hver enkelt medarbejder kan blive bevidst omkring, hvad der vækker følelser, hvilke reaktioner der vækkes, hvordan den enkelte identificerer sig med disse; desto mere kan vedkommende gradvist løsrive sig fra følelsernes overmagt. Dernæst kan mindfulness også fremme en større bevidsthed omkring – ikke kun ens følelser – men også ens tanker, handlinger og måde at kommunikere på. Etisk ansvarlighed forudsætter, at vi mennesker (eller en virksomhed) kan handle bevidst. Mindfulness er nu ikke en moraliserende terapi, der fortæller de studerende, hvordan de skal eller bør handle, tænke eller føle. Snarere er der tale om en intervenerende proces, hvorigennem den enkeltes relation eller forhold til det, som sker ændres. Grundideen er, at indsigt – bevidsthed – medfører forvandling.
De fleste læsere at Erhvervsfilosofi er uden tvivl bekendt med, at filosofi er en græsk oprindelse, der betoner kærligheden (philo) og visdommen (sophia). Filosoffen er forelsket i visdommen. Af samme grund er filosofien – for en stor del af dens udøvere – en praktisk og eksperimenterende afprøvning af, hvilket liv der er værd at leve. Lykke har ikke været fremmed for filosofien siden Aristoteles gjorde det til omdrejningspunktet i sin Etik. I denne sammenhæng er det interessant, at en del nyere psykologisk forskning viser, at de fleste vurderer deres liv, som mere rigt og lykkeligt, når de kan bidrage konstruktivt og meningsfyldt til omverdenen. Og noget af det mest meningsfulde er, at være sig bevidst omkring de beslutninger, som man nu engang tager. At være tilstede. Enhver beslutning er altid forankret i nuet. Alligevel tages alt for mange beslutninger, mens beslutningstagernes tanker er placeret i fortiden eller fremtiden. Måske fordi de prøver at løbe fra fortiden, eller haste mod et fremtidigt drømmescenarium.
Hvorvidt mine små undervisningseksperimenter, mindfulness og filosofisk dannelse kan fremme en større ansvarlighed på alle niveauer, er uvist. Hertil kræves der reel forskning. Men jeg har svært ved at forestille mig en anden konklusion, end at vise mennesker, det vil sige modne mennesker handler mere ansvarligt end umodne. Vise mennesker er bevidste omkring, hvorvidt det, de gør, tænker, siger og føler hænger sammen.
Jeg tror, at CSR i fremtiden vil inkludere alle, ikke kun toppen, midten eller bunden af virksomheden. Moralen synes at være: Enten er alle medarbejdere i en virksomhed ved fuld bevidsthed, eller også handler virksomheden ikke særligt længe. Når alle er afhængige af hinanden og handler derefter, er der tale om bæredygtighed.
Denne tekst blev til på opfordring af magasinet Erhvervsfilosofi, hvor den ligeledes er bragt, se: Erhvervsfilosofi.dk