Tag: Deleuze

Meningens logik

Den franske filosof Gilles Deleuze er en original og kreativ tænker. Det er derfor glædeligt, at forlaget Klim har valg at oversætte Meningens logik til dansk. Bogen, der udkom på fransk i 1969 og engelsk i 1990, er – ifølge forfatteren selv –  ”et forsøg udi den logiske og psykoanalytiske roman.”

I dag er romanen heldigvis så fleksibel en betegnelse, at alt kan høre ind under denne genre, så lad os bare kalde Deleuze filosofiske bog for en roman. Det giver mening, når nu romanens hovedperson er Meningen. Og det er Meningens logik, altså dennes biografi, som forfatteren beskriver for læseren. Faktisk er det en roman, der viser psykoanalysens mangler, når det kommer til at forstå meningens kompleksitet.

”Det hører med til tilværelsens væsen at gå og pege i begge retninger på engang,” skriver Deleuze med reference til, hvordan meningen er udspændt mellem fortiden og fremtiden. Det er et sted her imellem, at den finder sted.

Den franske filosof går genealogisk og strukturelt til værks. Han fortæller, at antagelsen om at sandheden er en del af meningen, ikke er tilstrækkelig til at forstå meningens logik. Af samme grund spørger han, ganske pædagogisk: Hvordan bliver noget sandt?

Rent strukturelt (og traditionelt) hænger sandheden og meningen sammen. Logiske sætninger eller udsagn giver mening, fordi 1) de refererer til eller peger på noget eksternt, 2) de åbenbarer en overbevisning eller et begær, der passer sammen med sætningen, eller 3) de demonstrerer en sammenhæng mellem en historie og en anden. Det sagte passer ind, hvorfor det giver meningen.

Men hvad nu, hvis ord, handlinger, ting og dét, som sker, ikke hænger sammen? Tag for eksempel sætningen: ”Det regner.” Hvad er ”det” som regner, hvad refererer ”det” til? Eller, som Deleuze viser med hjælp af forfatteren Lewis Carroll, et sted siger Carrolls vidunderlige Alice fra eventyrlandet: ”hvis du kun talte, når du blev talt til, så ville ingen nogensinde sige noget.”

Meningen logik giver plads til vrøvlet, det opfindsomme og skabende.

Meningen, siger Deleuze, er udsagnets fjerde dimension (jf. de tre førnævnte: pegende, åbenbarende og manifesterende). Det er den stoikerne opdagede sammen med begivenheden. ”Meningen er det af udsagnet udtrykte, dette ulegemlige ved tingenes oveflade, irreduktibel kompleks entitet, ren begivenhed.”

Meningen er ikke et spørgsmål om dybde, da det ”der er dybere end enhver bund, er overfladen, huden.” Meningen eksisterer ikke engang, men den vedholder eller består. ”Til Alices kroningsmiddag, spiser man enten det, der bliver stillet frem, eller man bliver fremstillet for det, man spiser.” At spise og blive spist sameksisterer. Meningen er ”Noget, aliquid, på én gang yder-væsen og vedholden, dette mindstemål af væren, som passer til det vedholdende.”

Et sted i værket, der består af 34 serier, fastslår Deleuze: ”Begivenheden er selve meningen.” Hvad er så en begivenhed?

Det er et sæt af singulariteter, af særegne punkter, skriver filosoffen. ”Singulariteten er væsentligt set før-individuel, ikke personlig og a-begrebslig … Den er neutral.”

Begivenheden er et nøglebegreb i hele Deleuzes filosofiske værk. At begivenheden er selve meningen skyldes, at begivenhedens modus er det problematiske. Det betyder nu ikke, at der findes problematiske begivenheder. Snarere at begivenhederne ”angår problemerne, hvis betingelser de definerer.” Begivenheden i sig selv er problematisk og problematiserende. En begivenhed er ikke mere eller mindre meningsfuld, fordi dette ville forudsætte en reference, som begivenheden ville blive tolket i lyset af. Derimod fremsætter begivenheden de elementer, som kan blive meningsfulde.

Et problem bliver bestemt af de singulære punkter, som udtrykker dets betingelser. For eksempel, da Nietzsche sagde, at gud er død, så bestemte han et problem, der var betinget af at mennesket ikke længere kunne læne sig opad en ukrænkelig og hellig instans; en instans, der kunne fortælle mennesket, hvad der var værdifuldt. Hermed bestemte Nietzsche problemet. Og et problem har altid den løsning, ”der tilkommer det, ifølge de betingelser, der bestemmer det som problem.” Så, filosofi handler ikke om at finde en passende løsning, som eksisterede der allerede en løsning til ethvert problem. Tværtimod. Filosofi begynder med opfindelsen af et problem.

Måske kan læseren forestille sig Nietzsche, mens han kigger rundt og observerer mennesket; han ser, at det virker handlingslammet og vakkelvornt, hvorefter han formoder, at det skyldes at dets guide, dets gud, er død.

Inden filosoffen begynder at skabe begreber, hvilket Deleuze ser som filosofiens opgave, så må han eller hun bestemme et problem. Nietzsches begreb ”Vilje til magt” er et begreb, der overkommer problemets betingelser, nemlig den manglende sikkerhed qua guds død, hvorfor mennesket nu selv, ganske modigt, må skabe værdier.

”Meningen er aldrig princip eller oprindelse, den er frembragt,” skriver Deleuze. Den frembringes af nye maskinerier, det vil sige, nye forbindelser som når noget går i noget andet, tredje, fjerde … og pludselig går itu. Den rhizomatiske og horisontale tænkning, som Deleuze introducerer sammen med Félix Guattari i Tusind plateauer understreger, at meningen ikke er hierarkisk eller vertikal. Deleuze er stærkt uenig med Platons forestilling om, at filosoffen er en der render rundt med hovedet oppe i skyerne. Der er intet dybere end overfladen, intet dybere end sminken, tatoveringen; intet dybere end dét, som sker. Meningen er aldrig ”oprindelig, men altid forårsaget, afledt.”

Meningens logik er en fantastisk bog. En filosofisk roman for alle – inklusiv alle os som måske aldrig bliver andet end ikke-filosoffer. Bogen er lærd, men ikke tung; den er svær, men luftig, sjov og ganske klar. Den er fuld af smukke sætninger. Faktisk rummer bogen noget af det smukkeste, der nogensinde er blevet skrevet om etik. ”Enten har moral ingen mening eller også er det dette, den vil sige, og som er det eneste, den har at sige: Ikke at være uværdig til det, der indtræffer for os.”

Etik = at gøre sig værdig til at bære det, som sker.

”At blive værdig til det, der indtræffer os, altså at ville det og frisætte begivenheden deraf, at blive søn af sine egne begivenheder, og at blive genfødt derigennem, at få sig en ny fødsel, at bryde med sin kødelige fødsel. Søn af sine begivenheder og ikke af sine værker, for værket bliver selv kun frembragt af begivenhedens søn.”

Der er tale om en generøs og ydmyg filosofi, der ikke forfængeligt klamrer sig til sine værker, men erkender, og udlever, det faktum: at livet former os.

At filosofere kræver en opmærksom omgang med det, som sker, for at kunne give plads til det. Meningen er noget som bliver til i mødet med verden. At forstå meningens logik er at forstå, at ingen ejer hans eller hendes tanker. Dermed er det nu ikke alle forundt, at kunne frisætte begivenheden, problematisere og tænke med den.

Afsluttende er det måske passende at forsøge, at tænke med Deleuze. Hvordan finder man ind i #MeToo-bevægelsens kraftcenter? Følger vi Deleuze skal vi ikke lede efter en dybere og mere oprindelig mening. Hele bevægelsen er en maskine af forskellige forståelsesudsagn, der handler om køn, sex, magt, overgreb, kapitalisme, etc. Deleuze ville ikke fortolke bevægelsen, men følge den; give plads til dens forskellige eksperimenter, der nedbryder rigide og ofte diskriminerende strukturer. #MeToo handler om at en minoritet skaber et større sprog. Et sprog, som på sigt ikke kun vil omhandle bedrestillede kvinder fra den vestlige verden, men også kvinder der er stærkt undertrykt i religiøse samfund eller på grund af økonomisk ustabilitet. Det er en potentielt set altfavnende bevægelse, der kan fremme respekt, omsorg og lighed.

Meningen handler ikke om identitet, rødder eller hellige ydre reference. Meningens logik er derimod noget blivende, noget som befinder sig i mellemrummet, som når ”sundheden bekræfter sygdommen, når den gør sin afstand til sygdommen til en genstand for bekræftelse.” Meningen er ikke en dualistisk dans mellem det sunde og det syge, som noget fasttømret. Snarere fremkommer den, når vi kan begribe det, der relaterer sundheden og sygdommen til hinanden. Når vi tør placere os i mellemrummet, dér, hvor det hele finder sted.

Det sunde handler om at kunne bære ens egne sår, skavanker, mangler og middelmådighed. At ville begivenheden er, at ville livet – i al dets perversitet.

Det er meningens logik. Læs den.

 

Meningens logik, Gilles Deleuze. Oversættelse og efterskrift ved Christian Rud Skovgaard, Klim.

 

Mindfulness for begyndere

Mindfulness drejer sig om at leve ved fuld bevidsthed. Bevidstheden er ikke kun noget kognitiv, men i lige så høj grad noget kropsligt. Med den franske filosof Merleau-Pontys begreb ”la chair” (kødet) kan man sige, at erfaringen –  det at leve – sætter sig i både sindet og kødet på en.

Bevidstheden er en passagen mod større og større grad af opmærksomhed. For at skærpe ens opmærksomhed og nærvær opererer mindfulness med to vinger: 1) koncentration (samatha meditation) og 2) observation (vipassana meditation).

Koncentrationen svarer til at stikke en pind i jorden, hvor du sætter en elastik omkring. Indenfor elastikkens rækkevidde kan du observere koncentreret, det vil sige uden at blive forstyrret eller lade dig distrahere. Du kan læse koncentreret, selvom bilerne larmer udenfor. Men kan du også læse koncentreret i en bus fuld af skolebørn? På camp nou, mens Barcelona taber til Real Madrid? Gradvist kan elastikkens elasticitet udvides. Erfaringen af  nye øjeblikke, kan hjælpe en med bedre at kende ens egne begrænsninger. I realiteten kan ens rummelighed eller elasticitet udvides så meget, at hele ens liv leves i en koncentreret observation: mindfulness.

Mindfulness handler om at blive fortrolig med det ufortrolige, bekvem med det ubekvemme, idet man formår at etablere en indre stilhed, hvorved man uforstyrret kan observere, det som sker, uden at dømme. Af samme grund kan man også handle mere hensigtsmæssigt i stedet for blot at reagere.

For den franske filosof Gilles Deleuze handler etik om ikke at være uværdig til at bære eller rumme det, som sker. Det, som livet møder en med. Etikken bliver en livsform, mere end et regelsæt. Hvordan udvider man løbende sin kapacitet til at blive påvirket uden pludselig at lukke af, fordi man ikke rumme mere? Hvordan gøres ens elastik mere elastisk?

I sin korteste form er mindfulness meditation (jf. opmærksomhed og observation), men meditation alene fører nødvendigvis ikke til en mere etisk og vis levevis, selvom dette er intentionen. Der findes flere forskellige former for meditation, der alle har til formål at transformere eller kultivere sindet. Den amerikanske meditationslære Joseph Goldstein, skriver: ”Hvis du vil forstå dit sind, sæt dig ned og observer det.”

Kunsten er at leve opmærksom og nærværende. Hele tiden. Meditation er på den måde kun laboratorieundersøgelser. Personligt ønsker jeg ikke at leve hele mit liv med min røv placeret på en pude, mens jeg med krydsende ben observerer mit sind. Snarere vil jeg gøre hele livet til et stort laboratorium, hvilket filosoffer altid har gjort.

Mange praktiserer i dag mindfulness for at minimere flere af livets store og små utilfredsheder. Det kan være det stressende pres, der udspringer af især samfundets neoliberale præstationskrav. Der er dog også mange, der stresser sig selv på grund af deres tilgang til livet. De vil ikke gå glip af noget. Af samme grund er der mange, der praktiserer mindfulness for at kunne forholde sig anderledes til verden, fx med en større grad af venlighed og generøsitet.

Ifølge Buddhismen, hvorfra mindfulness stammer, er ethvert liv lidelsesfuldt, men disse lidelser kan undgås (eller minimeres) ifølge Buddha, såfremt en person formår at leve koncentreret (mindfulness), etisk og vist. Denne trebenede skammel behøver selvsagt samtlige ben, hvis ikke det hele skal vælte omkuld. Eksempelvis vil en øget forståelse eller visdom lede til en mere ansvarlig, etisk eller moden levevis, som igen kan skærpes ved at man løbende udvikler og udvider sit refleksions- og erfaringsrum. Eller omvendt. Der er ingen rangering. En øget selvindsigt medfører, at selvbedraget gradvist minimeres. Det betyder, at de erfaringer og erkendelser som opstår, når du observerer sindet har betydning for din måde at leve og tænke på – såfremt man tør acceptere disse.

* * *

Når du mediterer, vågner du op. Det er i hvert fald ideen med meditation, selvom nogen sikkert falder i søvn eller drømmer. Meditation er reelt blot at sætte sig ned, rette ryggen, trække vejret og give slip på ens tanker. Ikke at tænke intet, som det så mytisk påstås af nogle, men at give slip på alle de tanker og følelser, der strømmer gennem en. Uden at dømme de tanker, som passerer.

Meditation handler ikke om navlepilleri. Snarere om at løsrive sig fra den del af verden, hvor titler, prestige, status og magt florerer. At gøre sig mindre forbundet eller afhængig af disse sociale identiteter. Der er tre ting, som er vigtige i forbindelse med meditation eller mindfulness. 1) Det handler ikke om dig, så drop dit ego, 2) Alle levende organismer er en del af den samme verden, gensidigt forbundet, og 3) Medfølelse er afgørende for alt liv.

At anvende mindfulness som en form for ego-trip, har derfor intet med mindfulness at gøre. Det er blot et ego-trip i forklædning.

Det er ikke svært at mediterer, men måske at ville det. Vi trods alt i en verden, hvor det er meget nemt at lade sig distrahere eller underholde. Hele verden synes at være til stede i vores lommer, hvis det altså er der, vi har mobilen. Meditation kan dog hjælpe en med at prioritere.

Hvad er det, som du vil bruge din tid på?

At meditere er en tålmodig og krævende praksis, men også givende. Gradvist har jeg selv erfaret at meditation kan muliggøre længere erkendelser af ren og skær sammenhørighed med livet. En erkendelse af at alt er forbundet.

* * *

Meditation er en slags ikke-gøren, hvilket ikke er det samme som en passiv accept. Snarere et forsøg på aktivt at gøre sig værdig til at erfare, det som sker. Ved fuld bevidsthed. Det minder om Gandhis begreb om ikkevold, som jo heller ikke er et passivt, men derimod en aktiv strategi om ikke at gøre vold. Den tysk-koreanske filosof Byung-Chul Han har i flere værker plæderet for en ikke-gøren, som et sagligt alternativt til den undertrykkelse, som vi selv skaber i vores iver efter at præstere.

Det hele er for så vidt ganske banalt.

Meditation kan fremme en større taknemmelighed, fordi den kan træne vores opmærksomhed på det, som forekommer, mens det forekommer. Denne ide om at selve aktiviteten – nu og her – er værdifuld, findes hos både de stoiske filosoffer og Aristoteles.

* * *

Mindfulness, som flere kalder for hjertet af Buddhismen, er en oversættelse ordet ”sati”, der er skrevet på det ældste buddhistiske sprog Pali. ”Sati” refererer til hukommelse såvel som opmærksomhed. Hvad er det, som man vælger at huske? Som man ikke vil glemme?  Er denne sindsstemning kompetent eller inkompetent? Er denne sindsstemning værd at kultivere eller bedre at opgive?

Mindfulness refererer også til hjertet, ikke kun som en muskel (eller en lidt søgt poetisk metafor), men som en følelsesmæssig intuition, der kan trænes som var det en muskel. Ideen er nu ikke at vi skal følge vores hjerte, som i en romantisk popsang, men træne hjertet ved hjælp af disciplin. Jeg er nok ikke den eneste, der har erfaret at mit ”hjerte” vil noget, som reelt ikke er givende for mig. Men hjertet er et vigtigt organ – selv i disse tider, hvor alt reduceres til hjernen.

Recordar er det spanske ord for at huske og mindes noget; et ord som oprindeligt betyder at noget ”vender tilbage og passerer hjertet.” Ideen er, at ens erindringer passerer hjertet, hvorved man kan prøve at forholde sig anderledes til de ting, som kan ændres, og ikke bekymre sig om de ting, som ikke ændres. Det handler om at rydde op, så man kun gemmer de givende minder eller de minder, som man kan acceptere uden vedvarende frustrationer. Der er ingen grund til at slås med fortiden. Der er ingen grund til at gemme på alt det, som ikke står ens hjerte nært.

Det er altså muligt at etablere en mere givende relation til sin egen fortid. Det vil sige ikke længere gøre sig til offer af ens skæbne, men betragte ens skæbne – uanset hvad – som noget man selv har valgt.

De stoiske filosoffer og Nietzsche, talte om det frigørende i at positionere sig i denne ene verden. Der findes ikke andre. I stedet for at klandre guder eller underkaste sig transcendente idealer, kunne du selv prøve at skabe en flugtvej ud af meningsløsheden.

Selvom mindfulness er et bevidst, opmærksomt og ikkedømmende nærvær i hvert øjeblik, skal man passe på med ikke at gøre nuet til noget helligt. Ethvert nu rummer altid noget fortidigt, som ikke er blevet fuldt ud aktualiseret, ligesom det rummer noget fremtidigt, som endnu er i færd med at blive udfoldet.

Når mindfulness taler om nuet, er det primært af pædagogiske hensyn, for at vi ikke skal dvæle unødigt ved fortiden eller bekymre os om fremtiden. Men nuet som sådan eksisterer ikke, da det jo hele tiden forandrer sig. Sagt anderledes, hunde synes altid at være tilstede i nuet, logrende med halen, på jagt efter et klap eller en kiks, men de er ikke bevidste eller opmærksomme, mens de logrer på halen. Ellers ville de ikke kunne æde sig selv ihjel.

* * *

Så, kan mindfulness alene redde verden? Nej. Ingen eller intet kan redde noget som helst alene. Ændringer kræver et fælles engagement.

Verden bliver nødvendigvis ikke bedre, fordi en eller anden mediterer. Men meditation kan skærpe den enkeltes opmærksomhed på de sociale og politiske strukturer, som hæmmer forskellige former for liv, fx det nuværende præstationssamfunds rigide idealer. Ligesom meditation kan skærpe den enkeltes opmærksomhed på sproget, fx hvordan visse ord implicit undertrykker køn, racer eller seksuelle tilbøjeligheder. Mindfulness kan  endvidere fremme et mere opmærksomt forhold til ens eget forhold til verden. Af samme grund kan mindfulness være dét skub, som nogle mangler for at vågne op, og involvere sig i skabelsen af en mere venlig og bæredygtig verden. Sammen.

About Byung-Chul Han

Today, we live in a society organized mainly around capitalism. Not only are making money and, to some extents, having a career objectives that guide many people’s lives, but prestige, status, and social identity also are typically measured within a capitalistic mindset. Even when corporations claim that “people come first,” they refer to their employees’ skills and experiences as “human capital” or “cultural capital.” Everything we do has monetary value attached to it.

According to the philosopher Byung-Chul Han, this tendency is part of today’s achievement society, which can be seen starkly in digital communication, including social media, changing us from citizens to consumers. Han’s latest book, In The Swarm, is a wakeup call to action, declaring that it’s time for citizens to care more about society’s welfare than their own egos. “Responsibility for the community defines citizens. Consumers lack responsibility, above all,” he writes.

Han was born in Seoul in 1959. He studied metallurgy in Korea before moving to Germany in his early 20s to study philosophy, German, and theology. Today, Han is a professor at the University der Künste in Berlin. His initial fame sprang up mainly after publication of his book Mudigkeitsgesellschaft, which, directly translated, means “the fatigue society.” However, in English, this was cleverly translated to The Burnout Society. He is the author of more than 20 books, which have been translated into many languages and are well-read among socially and philosophically aware readers.

Han’s philosophy dovetails with French philosopher Gilles Deleuze’s idea about seeing our current achievement society as a “control society.” Unlike Michel Foucault’s disciplinary society, in which people know that their freedom is limited, people in a control society actually–and very falsely–believe that they are free. It’s a shift from disciplining the body to controlling the mind in a seductive way. The consequence is that people tend to exploit themselves aggressively until they burn out, collapse, or suffer from depression. Usually “exploitation” entails someone being exploited by someone else, Han claims that we actually do it to ourselves. “The crisis we are now experiencing follows from our blindness and stupefaction,” Han writes in In The Swarm. By “crisis,” he refers to at least two things: First our democratic crisis caused by the shallowness of digital communication, social media, information overload, etc., which he says undermines critical thinking, respect, trust, etc. Second the consequences it has on a personal level cf. stress, depression, burnout, suicides, etc.

Han is part of a growing number of sociologists and philosophers who conduct social analyses. Similar ideas can be found elsewhere among theorist related to the Frankfurter school, but also among other critical psychologist, spiritual teachers and so forth. Some of these ideas are how a too-rigid positivity is destructive, especially when it comes to self-development; how technology makes everything accelerate; and how we are always at work. Still, Han contributes to this debate not so much by adding new idea, but by presenting clearer, almost poetic descriptions of what’s going on. His books advance the idea that philosophy is for everyone. His postulating and concrete style always forces the reader to reflect, to wit: “Digital devices have mobilized work itself. The workplace is turning into a portable labor camp from (which) there is no escape.” Do we live in a labor camp?

He also asserts that freedom has become a constraint. “Exhausted achievement-subject(s) can rest only in the same way that a leg falls asleep.”

Han’s main claim is that today’s neoliberal psycho-political power appears to be invisible and imperceptible unless we pay very careful attention. But–and this is the problem–we rarely pay attention because that which works as an invisible or imperceptible power is also what prevents us frompaying attention, e.g., Twitter and Facebook. Therefore, a traditional critique of capitalism is not sufficient. The point really is that we must understand that our daily lives and our ideas about freedom have become nothing but cogs in the machinery of capitalism.

One of the reasons for this is that a digital culture is based on counting. “In contrast, history means recounting.” On Twitter or Facebook, one counts followers, likes, retweets, or friends, whereas real friendship, Han says, “is an account, a narrative.” Digital culture is also tied to the mantra of transparency found in modern political and corporate-governance literature, which only diminishes trust while monitoring and controlling every click we make online.

“Transparency is ruled by presence and the present tense,” Han claims. However, to think, we need distance — physical and mental — that is what constitutes the public sphere. It is from distance that we learn to respect, reflect, and analyze. “A society without respect, without the pathos of distance, paves the way for the society of scandal.” Still, some may ask, couldn’t we use these same media outlets — YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc., — to activate a critical awareness, bringing academia out of the ivory tower and into the broader society?

Two guiding concepts work as analytical tools for Han in all his books: freedom and power.

Freedom, according to Han, is both a problem and a possibility. It is becoming, as Deleuze would say, emphasizing that we become by combining courage to stand up against dominating ideals and norms with the belief that things could be different. Freedom is becoming whatever, i.e., in some way disobeying power. Real freedom is socially anchored, as he says in Psychopolitics. “Freedom is a synonym for the community that succeeds.”

But today, we are not free, Han claims in In The Swarm: “Information fatigue includes symptoms that characterize depression. Above all, depression is a narcissistic malady,” he writes. We, or many of us, only hear the echoes of ourselves, for example, when we cry with joy when strangers follow us on Twitter, or when our tweets are retweeted. At the same time, this freedom to constantly polish and refine social profiles–and gain more “cultural capital” while others comment, like, or retweet–creates more pressure. “As such, it marks the end of freedom…The achievement subject exploits itself until it collapses.”

Although there is a tendency toward redundancy in Han’s many books, his critiques of concepts such as freedom, power, control, and transparency are highly relevant.

In In The Swarm, however, one might detect something old-fashioned in Han’s philosophy–or perhaps even wrong–in some of his claims. For example, he writes “the mass is power” because it shares an ideology, whereas the digital swarm is narcissistic and is not unified. “They do not march.” This, of course, is wrong. After the election of U.S. President Donald Trump, one of the most encouraging things has been how people marched in the streets. First, there was the women’s march in January, then marches this month against recent white-supremacist activity in Charlottesville. Furthermore, do we really need a new ideology against the online swarm to overcome another (i.e., capitalism)?

Han operates with a romantic ideal about authenticity and truth, yet perhaps we just need to push the underlying idea of the Internet further. Allow it to have no roots, no control, no editing. Instead, view it as a rhizome that grows horizontally without a beginning or end. Pure becoming. When nothing is given, one is free to harmonize his or her life with reality, to change according to the rhythms of existence–no longer caring whether what he or she is doing would fit into a neoliberal mindset.

Critical voices might say that the downsides of neoliberalism—and especially of the Internet–that Han discusses have been explored before. However, Han focuses on something else. Basically, he not only raises questions regarding the condition of our current society, but also asserts that the real problem is that we don’t raise such questions. He is part of a growing choir claiming that many of us are becoming the kind of easily malleable citizens that totalitarian dictators dream about.

Han’s philosophical encourages us to think, and I view that as a good enough reason to read his books.

Published in Metapsychology, Volume 21, Issue 35.

For more on Byung-Chul Han, please see my portrait The Philosophy of Byung-Chul Han,

Or my essay, Which dish of noodles are your life worth?

Or my review of, Saving beauty.

In Danish: anmeldelse af Transparenssamfundet , I Sværmen & Træthedssamfundet

41V0r2rKbWL._SX319_BO1,204,203,200_

One World Now

In One World Now: The Ethics of Globalization, Peter Singer, an Australian moral philosopher, discusses humanity’s shared ethical responsibility and sovereignty. We live in a global world that—unlike the older term “internationalization” conveys—emphasizes that we are moving; that is, “moving beyond the era of growing ties between states,” he says.

Within his text, Singer addresses a central question: is the nation state loosing sovereignty? Perhaps. Should it? Yes, according to Singer. And he makes a strong case for overcoming it. Whether or not the nation state is losing its sovereignty is a difficult question to answer.

On the one side, there is a growing nationalism, not only in the United States where president Trump claims that “America is for Americans only” (regardless of who the term “Americans” refers to), but in other countries as well. In Europe, for example, the Catalan fight for independence in Spain is fueled by nationalism combined with a strong desire to have an influence on the monetary resources of the region. Countries such as France, Austria, and the Netherlands are also flirting with nationalistic principles—perhaps it’s a universal trend, other countries could be added to the list.

On the other side, in spite of this expanding sentiment, there is also a growing countermovement, perhaps the most imminent in the U.S. This countermovement would probably have a lot of sympathy for Singer’s project.

In One World, Singer looks closely at the relationship between states and the world through different lenses, including atmospheric, economic, legal, and communal perspectives. For instance, he observes that an organization such as the World Trade Organization could minimize a state’s power and sovereign control. In other words, state sovereignty can be reduced (and accepted by most) through reasonable global organs. In addition, Singer advocates for a universal law when it comes to crime and terror. Most importantly, however, Singer speaks about how people and nations will have to abdicate their sovereignty when it comes to environmental concerns.

Singer’s thesis is based on the fact that we live in one world. The phrase “one world” stands “as a description of the increasing interconnectedness of life on this planet and as a prescription of what the basic unit for our ethical thinking should be.” His logic, therefore, is that one world needs one world government that can overcome each nation’s self-interest and that “we need a sound global system of criminal justice.”

I agree completely with the fact that everything is interconnected, whereas I am not completely convinced that a world government is the solution to overcome our current problems.

For those who are familiar with Singer’s philosophy, it becomes clear that his ethical advice is based on the principles of utilitarianism. This theory requires that we all act in a way that maximizes the happiness of all human beings (who are all sentient creatures). He stresses the importance of this by referring to an UN report that says, “In the global village, someone else’s poverty very soon becomes one’s own problem: of lack of markets for one’s products, illegal immigration, pollution, contagious disease, insecurity, fanaticism, terrorism.” This quote illustrates the strength of Singer. He refers to many different—I am tempted to say “universal”—sources in order to make his argument stronger.

Singer’s utilitarian approach in One World is founded on both political and economic theories (though perhaps more so on the former). He aims for democratic solutions, emphasizing that, once we realize we are in this together, the more we will willingly share and uphold common values. This assumption is true. Still, it seems like the author of One World believes that many people do not understand our fundamental interconnectedness. I agree with him again. This lack of understanding our interconnectedness is one of the hurdles that Singer tries to overcome, for example, with the aforementioned UN report quote. However, if the UN report quote is read critical, it may teeters on the delicate balance between altruism and egoism. Utilizing the motivation of the latter may seem cruel, but the bottom-line of utilitarianism is that “I” should care for the happiness of all, because their unhappiness affects “me.” Hereby a classical dilemma is touched upon—one that also exists in corporate social responsibility; for example, if a company acts morally due to monetary self-interest, is it then truly good?

A utilitarian would regard such a situation based on the consequences, not the motive of the decision-makers.

Thus, despite my appreciation of the good intentions of Singer’s humanistic philosophy, I long for a deeper, existential understanding of the human being who, not only is morally responsible for the well-being of others, but is also responsible to pursue personal freedom and happiness. For example, Simone de Beauvoir argued that ethical freedom comes from resisting what represses one’s freedom. In theory it could be global institutions. Similar to Beauvoir, Simone Weil addressed the problems with universal right and laws that are—at times—contrary to one’s personal obligations. For example, when universal norms and ideals carry the inherent risk that each one of us may lose contact with one another. Or, we might forget or ignore that what is happening is also our own responsibility, not just the decision-makers.

Let me reframe my concern in another way. Twenty years ago, Michael Jackson wrote a beautiful song to benefit the starving people of Africa, titled We Are the World. Today we can still sing along. Not much has changed. This paradox is perfectly illustrated in the life of Bill Gates, who generously donates many of his millions, yet, at the same time, grows wealthier and wealthier. Living morally by donating money becomes another kind of investment; the show goes on and on and on. We need to change the way we think. Singer is probably right to spend so much time in One World convincing his readers that everything is interconnected. However, even after reading Singer’s book, we are left with ethical dilemmas.

Let me be even clearer. According to Gilles Deleuze, our style of thinking is related to our ethic—how we affirm certain things as we encounter them. But since no ethical issue can have privilege over another (for example, human starvation in Africa versus human suffering caused by an earthquake in Afghanistan), we have to cultivate our awareness of what takes place, how and why it takes places. What we affirm—according to Deleuze—are the differences between ethical issues, we explore and test; rather than counting “heads” to see which intervention will make the most people happy. Relying on a principle minimizes our capacity to think and to be affected by an ethical issue. For example, does our intervention depend on whether the problem is humanly manufactured, a natural disaster, or caused by political or financial factors, etc.? Utilitarianism may help us make decisions, but predicting an outcome is often difficult. For example, who would had known that the car today is not just a mean of transportation, but also a place where individuals can be alone and listen to music or an audio book? In other words, the car is for many a stress free zone, and, as most of us know, stress cost the society a lot of money. Furthermore, car users may pollute the environment (bad for all of us), but they may also be able to get home faster to their children (good for the family, but also good for the caring investment in future citizens, that is, the society).

In continuation, a person who donates 2 euros out of every 10 he or she earns is not morally better than another individual who donates only 1 euro or none at all. The issue is not related to redistribution, but to the idea of ownership, the economy, and economical freedom, which actually touch on Singer’s foundational belief that everything is interconnected, but from a different angle. The reason why some people have much give financially is because there is an imbalance to begin with. In other words, the ethical problem sticks deeper. This principle can also be viewed through the lens of Aristotle’s distinction between moral excellence and strength of will. I believe that monetary donation may display strength of will, but moral excellence can be seen in the one who never asks for more than what is necessary.

I am skeptical, yet positive towards Singer. I do recommend his book for decision-makers, but also for students of philosophy, political science, and business administration. One World is a wonderful resource to instigate constructive debates, and it is full of ideas of how to enact social change. Despite my reservations, the book’s mantra, that we—all of us—are in this together, is a message that I believe is worth sharing.

First published in Metapsychology, Volume 21, Issue 8

See also the review of Peter Singer’s The Most Good You Can Do.

Becoming a Seer: Thoughts on Deleuze, Mindfulness, and Feminism

My essay “Becoming a Seer: Thoughts of Deleuze, Mindfulness, and Feminism” is out now in Journal of Philosophy of Life, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2017.

Abstract: This essay circles around two ideas. First, I try to answer the ethical question “What is the right thing to do?” through the application of the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze’s affirmative philosophy. Second, I relate Deleuze’s philosophy to mindfulness. I do not wish to suggest that they are identical. They are not. Yet, mixing mindfulness with Deleuze leads to a philosophy of mindfulness. That is a philosophy that makes us less blind to our experiences, but also ethically responsible for what actually happens. Hereby, I move mindfulness from the sphere of psychology into philosophy, or from being primarily a practice of turning inward to one of turning outward, but also make Deleuze’s ethic more operational. The latter I will – briefly – illustrate by touching on elements of feminism.

Read it all here.

Coaching som problem

Med afsæt i den filosofi, som er forbundet med filosoffen Gilles Deleuze og psykiateren Félix Guattaris fælles forfatterskab, vil jeg rejse to spørgsmål i dette essay. Det første spørgsmål er: Hvad skal vi forstå ved et problem? I forlængelse heraf spørger jeg: Hvilket problem er coaching løsningen på? Disse to spørgsmål fører videre til mit egentlige ærinde, nemlig at belyse nogle problematiske sider af coaching og herunder vise, hvor coaching reelt fungerer.

Læs: Coaching som problem.

Essayet er oprindeligt publiceret i bogen Coaching i nyt perspektiv redigeret af K. Gørtz og T. Gaihede, Hans Reitzels Forlag, 2014.

Se endvidere:

Coaching – et moderne pyramidespil

Coaching – et symptom på angst

Kunsten at arbejde

Philosopher or Meditator?

“The artist is a seer, a becomer,” wrote the philosopher Gilles Deleuze and the psychiatrist Félix Guattari in their 1996 book, What Is Philosophy.

I thought of this quote the other day, when a student of mine asked me, “What are you: a meditator or a philosopher?”

I’m not sure whether there is—or has to be—a difference, I told her, “I’m a philosopher who meditates. I guess like a carpenter, schoolteacher or football player sometimes does that, too.”

“So to philosophize is, in a way, to meditate,” she said.

“Yes.”

… read the rest of the essay here

 

A Philosophy of Mindfulness

 A Philosophy of Mindfulness is out!

Cover

In this book, I argue that we need a “new” philosophy because we—many of us, at least—are blind. We see rather little of that which surrounds us.

By mixing mindfulness with the affirmative philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, I unfold a philosophy of mindfulness. A philosophy that makes us less blind but also ethically responsible in relation to what we experience. Hereby, I move mindfulness from the sphere of psychology into philosophy, or from being primarily an inward-turned practice to an out-turned one.

A Philosophy of Mindfulness puts emphasis on experience, experiment, and actualization or affirmation. Each experience matters; life is the experience of making contact or being connected with what is in the midst of becoming—that is, life—and then passing it on to the next generations.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑