No man is an island

“No man is an island, entire of itself;
Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main…
Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind;
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.” John Donne

Hoe moet het nu verder met Rechts?

Hoe moet het nu verder met Rechts? –

Arendt on relationship

‘The world lies between people, and this in-between … is today the object of the greatest concern and the most obvious upheaval in almost all the countries of the globe.’

‘The world is not humane just because it is made by human beings, and it does not become humane just because the human voice sounds in it, but only when it has become the object of discourse. However much we are affected by the things of the world, however deeply they may stir and stimulate us, they become human for us only when we can discuss them with our fellows… We humanize what is going on in the world and in ourselves only by speaking of it, and in the course of speaking of it we learn to be human.’

Hannah Arendt


Truth and meaning

“No matter how large the tissue of falsehood that an experienced liar has to offer, it will never be large enough … to cover the immensity of factuality.”

Quote by Hannah Arendt

From her treatise on defactualization in politics

Source: In Search for a Better Worl: Karl Popper on Truth vs. Certainty and the Dangers of Relativism

Uit het discours gegrepen

Uit het discours gegrepen 24-1-27, Doe normaal –

Filosofen hebben een grote gevoeligheid voor het woordje “normaal”. Zij weten immers dat het geenszins evident is om te identificeren wat normaal is. Normaliteit is geen toestand, het is een waarde-oordeel. In de filosofie is er een zekere traditie die precies bepaalde vormen van normaliteit apart plaatst van anderen om ze als illegitiem te identificeren. Het heeft bijvoorbeeld millennia geduurd vooraleer een bepaalde kritiek op de normaliteit van slavernij haar effectiviteit kon bereiken. Kritiek uitoefenen op de normaliteit van bepaalde omgangspraktijken is het moeilijkste, ondankbaarste en toch meest noodzakelijke aspect van een filosofische levenshouding. Mensen houden er immers niet van als filosofen in vraag stellen wat zij als een evidente norm beschouwen: kritische filosofie breekt plots in de huiskamer binnen om de meest kostbare fetisjen kapot te slaan die jarenlang onaangeroerd op de haard hebben gestaan. Het is een precaire aangelegenheid. Tot een omgangspraktijk een omkeer kent, is de kritische stem immers de paria, en wanneer de ommekeer intreedt, is de kritische stem plotsklaps overbodig, meer zelfs dan wordt die stem enerverend.

Bovendien dreigt altijd het gevaar dat je kritische houding zich omzet naar een tegendraadse houding. Dan transformeert de filosoof naar een contrair persoon die altijd in eender welke discussie een andere norm hanteert dan de rest. Tussen kritiek en tegendraadsheid ligt een dunne grens. Filosofische helden of mislukte ambetanteriken, het onderscheid wordt pas achteraf gemaakt. De filosofische levenshouding aannemen impliceert dat je iets opgeeft, namelijk je vermogen in de normaliteit van omgangspraktijken op te gaan. Daarmee neem je een zeker risico: mensen verwachten bij jou altijd de mogelijkheid van een kritische ingreep die de omgang bemoeilijkt, ze spreken je anders aan, of mijden je zo veel als mogelijk. En toch levert het zoveel meerwaarde om af en toe dat risico te nemen en de filosofische levenshouding uit te oefenen (en iedereen kan dit). Dat risico zorgt er immers voor dat onrecht, pijn en naïviteit de wereld uitgewerkt worden.


Parzival, Puer Aeternus, and Healing the Waste Land

Integrating Conscious and Unconscious

© 2008 by Joseph Good

Parzival by Feirefiz

In a lecture given at Pacifica Graduate Institute, Dr. Glen Slater, a Jungian scholar and professor, diagrammed the formation of the ego within the theoretical context of Jungian psychology. 

He suggests that the individual ego is formed as a product of the collision of influences of culture with impulses of instinct. Dr. Slater, following C.G. Jung, says the human child is born as a mass of instinctual impulses, consciousness without ego. As the child grows, the demands and requirements of the world, the cultured world, assert themselves, often in direct conflict with the energies of that primal instinctive base. The tension between the instincts of the unconscious and the behavioral expectations of culture create a complex around the Self archetype which becomes the ego

The consequences of this inevitable conflict are both positive and negative, both to the developing human being and the wider community

In Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival we can observe, through the metaphor of the Grail Quest, the implications for the individual and the world when the conscious, rational, cultured mind overrides the instinctive bases of human existence.

When we first meet Parzival he is the embodiment of the pre-ego state of psyche-nature described by Slater. Parzival lives with his mother in distant woods, unencumbered by civilized culture. “He washed himself in the meadow on the river-bank each morning. He had no care in the world save the singing of the birds overhead” (Parzival 71). Parzival, thanks to the loving protection of his mother, is in this state of a-culturality, free to behave and move as his own nature manifests. 

As Edward Edinger states in Ego and Archetype, “In the paradise age, the people are still in union with the gods. This represents the state of the ego that is as yet unborn, not yet separated from the womb of the unconscious and hence still partaking of the divine fullness and totality” (8). Wolfram does not keep Parzival in this state for long.

Parzival Departs

Early in the story Parzival leaves his mother to pursue his newfound desire to become a knight. The model of pre-cultural consciousness (and perhaps bliss) now begins his encounter with the world beyond the idyllic one dominated by his mother and nature.

When this pre-egoic consciousness begins to interact with the culture that contextualizes it, the formation of the ego begins. Typically, this is the slow process of an infant coming to understand acceptable and unacceptable behaviors and forthwith orient its consciousness to those demands. As the ego forms in this way, there also manifests the conflict between the demands of the culture with the desire-impulses of the growing infant. Wolfram gives us this process in a condensed version with a much older subject in Parzival. It is in Parzival’s first meeting with Gurnemanz that we see in dialog form the interaction of non-ego consciousness and culture; “Keep to my advice, it will save you from wrong-doing” (Parzival 95). Gurnemanz delivers the following well-intentioned advice;

never lose your sense of shame […] be rich and poor with discretion […] give moderation its due […] do not ask many questions […] temper daring with mercy […] wash your face and hands [after battle] […] man and woman are all one. (95—96)

Gurnemanz is serving as the culture-transmitting agent which will supplant, in part, the raw, unconscious impulses of Parzival; “Now have done with unformed ways!” (96). Eventually, a critical portion of this advice will conspire with Parzival’s desire and directly result in his failure at the Grail Castle.

Parsival by Herman Hendrich

Having received Gurnemanz’s advice and taken it seriously, commensurate with his own desire to become a knight, Parzival arrives at the Grail Castle. The dazzling procession of the Grail gave context to the moment at which Parzival had his first opportunity to heal the grail king. The impulse was there. He thought about asking The Question — and hesitated. When his conscious thought about asking the question superseded his impulse to ask it, he failed. He simply recalled the advice Gurnemanz had given him; “Gurnemanz advised me with perfect sincerity against asking many questions” (127). With this recollection, accompanied by the awkward pause of anticipation among the grail host, punctuated by the realization that the question was not forthcoming. Parzival was completely ignorant of the profound implications of this moment, as most of us are each time we’re presented with the opportunity to ask. And, as with so many calamities, the effects are far enough removed from their causes that no connection can be drawn between them, no relationship noticed or deduced. So, here too, Parzival leaves the Grail Castle absolutely unaware that he has become the instrument of ill fate.

In the moment of the suppression of the unconscious, the psyche becomes divided, the unconscious no longer informs conscious thought or action, and the unconscious is disassociated from the conscious. 

Joseph Campbell describes the modern state of the human psyche this way and it is also relevant to the condition which Parzival represents; “The lines of communication between the conscious and the unconscious zones of the human psyche have all been cut, and we have been split in two” (Hero 388). And Carl Jung suggests;

Normally the unconscious collaborates with the conscious without friction […] but when an individual […] deviates too far from their instinctual foundations, they then experience the full impact of unconscious forces. (Essential Jung 219)

One such unconscious force comes in the form of Sigune who lambastes Parzival for his failure the instant she discovers who he is and what he’s done. Another aggressive criticism of his failure comes from the sorceress Cundrie, who redresses him in the company of Arthur’s court and shames him openly and deeply. The woe and despair of Parzival at the realization of his failure drive him into the wilderness for five years. The wilderness is that zone of the psyche which is primarily unconscious. It is untamed and generally unknown, lurking with darkness and danger. This is the time of the reunification of the psyche. The unconscious has asserted its force and the conscious mind will now reorient itself to operate in collaboration with its unconscious counterpart.

The return of the unconscious aspect of the psyche is evident in Parzival’s seemingly naïve commitment to return to the Grail Castle in order to “right his wrong.” We are told by Sigune, however, immediately after Parzival’s initial failure, “[w]hen someone is meant to see the castle it must come to pass unwittingly” (132). This is to say; when one comes upon the Grail Castle it will not be the result of a conscious search for it. Therefore, one cannot intend to find the castle. Yet, this is exactly what Parzival does; he ignores the reported futility of an intentional quest for the Grail Castle, an act which requires a juvenile rebelliousness. This is the reassertion of the puer aspect, the pre-egoic instinctive drive, of Parzival that was preempted at the meeting with Gurnemanz and now reintegrates itself with Parzival’s conscious processes.

Within the context of the structures and dynamics of the psyche as outlined by C.G. Jung, this event can be seen as a result of the unification of the once disparate elements of the psyche. In this way we can describe the nature of the grail quest today; to reunite the divided aspects of the psyche, the quest for wholeness. In the case of Parzival it involves the rediscovery and integration of the primary, unconscious aspect which is characterized by the puer, infancy or youth.

Here, puer aeternus refers to that childlike, pre-cultural aspect of the psyche, the deep centers of instinct, not the pathological reluctance to surrender youth, as described by Marie-Louise Von Franz in The Problem of the Puer Aeternus. Rather, as the state of connection with the instinctual base of human life.

The “child within” becomes a critical agent for the health of human kind, the absolute necessary element of healthy and whole human existence.

As necessary as the development of the ego is for a healthy and functioning human adult, it can also become the adult’s, and indeed the world’s, most obstinate obstacle.

Parzival and the Red Knight

Echoes of the recognition of the pre-ego state, of infancy or youth, containing the essential connection to vitality; the suggestion that ego-consciousness and intentionality are errant ways of thinking of solutions to problems created by those very modes of thought, are found in the wider ranging philosophies of the far East to which T.S. Eliot gives a significant gesture at the end of The Waste Land

Eliot’s idea of revivifying the waste-land comes directly from the Hindu tradition, from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, when he suggests the “da” solution; damyatadatta, and dayadhvam — self-control, giving, and compassion. Also, from the tradition of Confucius, from The Book of Mencius, “[t]he great man is he who does not lose his child’s-heart” (IV 2.12). 

Another contemporary, Joseph Campbell, remarks directly of Parzival, “[h]e is to be a sort of puer aeternus, virtuous and fearless, whose nature itself will be the key to the undoing of a spell that no intentional program of courage or virtue could dissolve” (Creative Myth 136).

The modern emphasis on the conscious aspect of the psyche, the ego specifically, can be observed in our methods of problem solving. Science is our method, logic the guide. Technology, as the instrument of science, is the preferred tool for correcting problems of human existence. For example, in order to eradicate disease we create medicines, in order to make more food than the land will yield in its natural course we manufacture synthetic foods, in order to live in places the human being is not capable of living without assistance we build enclosures within which we regulate the climate. All of these “solutions,” however, present new problems. Cures for diseases create resistant strains of bacteria, synthetic foods necessarily lack qualities which can sustain healthy living so sickness escalates; our environmental controls consume massive amounts of energy which generates pollutants enough to threaten the ecological balance of the entire planet. 

What is our solution to these new problems? We apply more technology, more of the original cause. The cycle seems to have a momentum of its own at this point in history. 

We, by way of our devotion to the rational, scientific consciousness and mode of thought create a literal wasteland for ourselves which serves as a reflection of the inner wasteland, the more dangerous to be sure. 

Again, our causes lack the awareness of their effects and so we continue smoking, oblivious of the connection to our cancer. When the conscious mind operates in rejection of the unconscious the Wasteland is the result.

This “Parzivalian puer” is the one of the middle ground. It is the puer integrated with the senex to become a being who wields the wisdom of both worlds. The creative, unmanaged, wanton world of the unconscious integrated with the structured, ordered, calculated world of the conscious without the disastrous emphasis of one over the other.

Parzival is the model for our time as much as he was for Wolfram’s time, though perhaps for slightly different reasons. We, too, have failed in our first (nth?) visit to the grail castle and the king’s wound remains open and festering. 

A return to our own instinctive base, the impulses of the child of possibility, is the domain and source of our salvation. Polarities no longer serve, if they ever did, and our task is to surrender our ego-conscious emphasis in order to survive. We face no greater threat to ourselves than ourselves. 

However the solution may look in the end, it will not be a premeditated, structured, carefully implemented and thoroughly calculated process. It will be spontaneous, unforeseen in its particulars, and broad in its inspiration.

Even the impulse to make this point more clearly, an impulse that is, itself, a product of the western, rational-scientific psyche, to render a comprehensible, cogent, and concise, methodical solution is precisely what is to be recognized as untenable. Or, at least, a solution that is all of those things is destined to fail because the solution cannot be solely of the ego-conscious mind. It won’t be one that can be predicted or ordered. It is of the same nature as myth. 

Indeed, it may be a new myth that is required to heal the modern waste land and achieve the collaboration of the two disparate aspects of the psyche

As Joseph Campbell states in The Hero with a Thousand Faces, “[…] the symbols of mythology are not manufactured; they cannot be ordered, invented, or permanently suppressed. They are spontaneous productions of the psyche […]” (4).

The “solution” to the problem of the wasteland will resemble the nature of those mythological symbols in their unpredictability and spontaneity. Beyond that we can only imagine the possibilities.

Works Cited

  • Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton: Princeton UP,1973.
  • Campbell, Joseph. The Masks of God: Creative Mythology. New York: Penguin Books, 1991.
  • Edinger, Edward P. Ego and Archetype. Boston: Shambhala, 1992.
  • Eliot, T.S. The Waste Land. Ed. Michael North. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 2001.
  • Jung, Carl Gustav. The Essential Jung. Ed. Anthony Storr. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1983.
  • Legge, James, trans. The Works of Mencius. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895.
  • Slater, Glen. “The Ego-Self Relationship”. Pacifica Graduate Institute. Carpinteria, California. 28 June. 2006.
  • Von Eschenbach, Wolfram. Parzival. Trans. A.T. Hatto. Middlesex, England: Penguin Classics, 1980.

Joseph Good is a member of the Mythic Imagination Institute’s Leadership Team and he currently attends Pacifica Graduate Institute.

Leven in een spinnenweb

​“In deze interieurs leven betekende dicht ingeweven, ingesponnen zijn in een spinnenweb, waarin de wereldgebeurtenissen verstrooid, als uitgedroogde insectenlichamen, opgehangen waren.” 

(Walter Benjamin)

The Bath-House by Abu Nuwas

In the bath-house, the mysteries hidden by trousers

Are revealed to you.
All becomes radiantly manifest.
Feast your eyes without restraint! 
You see handsome buttocks, shapely trim torsos,
You hear the guys whispering pious formulas
to one another
(‘God is Great! ‘ ‘Praise be to God! ‘) 
Ah, what a palace of pleasure is the bath-house! 
Even when the towel-bearers come in

And spoil the fun a bit.  


“Het basisgereedschap voor de manipulatie van de werkelijkheid is de manipulatie van woorden. Als je de betekenis van woorden kunt beheersen, kun je de mensen beheersen, die de woorden moeten gebruiken”

Philip K. Dick

Mysticus en SF-schrijver

Seized by Agreement, Swamped by Understanding

​I don’t want your agreement!

I think I would prefer your understanding.

Your agreement would be useful in a workplace to achieve a task. But that is 

not a social system.

We want to live together in mutual respect.

Your agreement would take hold of me and threaten to devour my own being –

just as my agreement would do to you.

For we each bring forth our own world in our every present moment.

No matter how convenient it may seem to be, I cannot truly stand still – with 

you or anyone.

But there are times when I can empathise with you so strongly!

At such times we dance to one another’s music – swirl in the flow of the other’s 

emotional stream.

And then, for a moment, I will disappear.

I don’t think I want your total understanding either.

My real desire is to be with you in loving conversation.

Then, we both may grow as living things.

Bron: Seized by Agreement, Swamped by Understanding 

Lloyd Fell, David Russell & Alan Stewart (eds) 

What About U?

7 augustus 2013
Er waren eens mannen met plannen. Ze wilden revolutionaire winkelgebouwen neerplanten, grootse architecturale constructies, waar je alles kon kopen en waar winkelen een echte belevenis zou worden. Hun winkelwalhalla’s zouden iets nieuws brengen, iets wat nog nooit was gezien. Tegenstanders waren onder meer kleine winkeliers in de omgeving. Ze waren bang verpletterd te worden door de mastodonten waarmee ze nooit zouden kunnen concurreren. Voorstanders zagen vooral de economische winst. Voor hen waren de Walhalla’s innovatief en goed voor de economische ontwikkeling.

Het zal u misschien verbazen, maar die mannen met plannen leefden in de tweede helft van de negentiende eeuw. Ze bouwden de voor ons zo vertrouwde Brusselse warenhuizen als de Au bon marché (1860), A l’Innovation (1897) en Old England (1899) die toen evenveel controverse en emoties teweegbrachten als Uplace vandaag. Dat Emile Zola met Au bonheur des dames (1883) een hele roman aan het nieuwe fenomeen wijdde, was geen toeval. Dat die roman deel uitmaakte van de cultuurkritische Rougon Macquartserie was dat al evenmin. In Au bonheur des dames synthetiseerde Zola namelijk de eigentijdse controverses en de emoties die het warenhuis in Parijs en de rest van Europa had teweegbracht.

De emoties kwamen inderdaad voort uit de grotere maatschappelijke debatten waarmee de economische argumenten waren vervlochten. De economische argumentatie draaide in essentie immers om het ruimere vraagstuk van het consumptiekapitalisme. De schaalvergroting die warenhuizen in het winkellandschap teweegbrachten, zorgde in de eerste plaats voor controverse omwille van het ongebreidelde karakter ervan. Het debat dat zich rond dat ongebreideld consumeren ontspon, oversteeg het economische vraagstuk. Het was ook sociaal en cultureel van aard. Zola karakteriseerde het warenhuis bijvoorbeeld als een industriële machine, die ’s ochtends al piepend en krakend op gang kwam en tegen de middag – met een zwerm half hysterische vrouwen opgezogen in het fabelachtige interieur – op volle toeren draaide. Het warenhuis stond symbool voor de versnelling en de mechanisering van de toenmalige samenleving en over de wenselijkheid van dergelijke paleizen van verleiding en consumptie.

Een ander – verwant, maar minder opvallend – maatschappelijk debat dat rond het warenhuis werd uitgevochten, was dat van de positie van de vrouw in de publieke ruimte. Voor velen stond het warenhuis inderdaad symbool voor de zelfstandige en ongecontroleerde aanwezigheid van vrouwen in de samenleving, wat op dat moment veelal als ongepast werd ervaren. Anderen bestempelden het warenhuis dan weer als beperkend voor de vrouwelijke ontwikkeling. De vrouw werd er herleid tot een passief, consumptief wezen. Duidelijk is dat de commotie over warenhuizen destijds de besognes en problemen weerspiegelde waarmee de samenleving worstelde. Deze zogenaamd economische instellingen waren dan ook geen maatschappelijke Bermuda-driehoeken en zijn dat nog steeds niet.

Ook vandaag is het debat over Uplace meer dan een louter economisch en ecologisch dossier. En net daar schuilt het probleem. Het debat wordt hoofdzakelijk in technische en praktische termen gevoerd. Bart Verhaeghe, de man achter het Uplace-plan, heeft het over jobcreatie en de toename van investeringen. Zijn website is duidelijk : ‘De Belgische consument (…) geeft zijn euro’s uit in Londen, Parijs, Amsterdam of zelfs New York. Uplace brengt die inkomsten en investeringen terug naar eigen land.’ Unizo protesteert dan weer tegen de moordende concurrentie die Uplace voor de lokale kleinhandel zou betekenen.

Nog anderen twijfelen dan weer aan de economische rendabiliteit van het project. Zij argumenteren dat het onzinnig is te investeren in een megalomaan shoppingcenter, terwijl in de Verenigde Staten de voor de Amerikaanse cultuur zo emblematische malls in een crisis terecht zijn gekomen. Sinds het advies van de milieucommissie en de beslissing van minister Schauvliege zijn ook de ecologische argumenten van sanering (pro) tot vervuilende files (contra) legio.

Hoewel die economische en ecologische argumentaties verwijzen naar grotere maatschappelijke, ideologische en culturele vraagstukken, worden deze laatste – anders dan in negentiende-eeuwse debatten – systematisch uit de weg gegaan. Hoewel Annelies Beckx zich in haar stukje in De Standaard (DS 6/01/2012) openlijk afvroeg of we echt nog meer ‘scharminkels van megawinkels’ nodig hebben, is die vraag nauwelijks opgepikt. Die vraag gaat niet over de economische rendabiliteit, maar wel over de culturele en maatschappelijke implicaties van nóg een nieuw winkelcentrum.

Net als in de negentiende eeuw is het debat rond Uplace doortrokken van maatschappelijke overwegingen. Alleen komen die overwegingen in het Uplace-dossier te weinig expliciet aan bod. Net omdat de maatschappelijke vraagstukken indirect elke beslissing beïnvloeden, zouden we er openlijker over moeten durven discussiëren. Willen we een maatschappij waarin consumptie zo welig mag tieren als mogelijk is? Willen we nóg meer en nóg grootser, met alle economische, ecologische, sociale en culturele gevolgen van dien? Of willen we een samenleving die in het spoor van de huidige trends van retro, kleinschalig en tweedehands, cultuurkritisch omgaat met haar consumptiegewoontes?

Willen we op het gaspedaal duwen, of willen we schakelen of remmen? Dat is de centrale vraag. Dat is wat dit dossier zo emotioneel maakt. En misschien zou de minister van Leefmilieu haar Cultuur-hoed ook even kunnen opzetten om zich over die maatschappelijke vraag te buigen.

(Anneleen Arnout)


Reverence for Life

The following words by Albert Schweitzer are excerpted from Chapter 26 of The Philosophy of Civilization and from The Ethics of Reverence for Life in the 1936 winter issue of Christendom. 

I am life which wills to live, in the midst of life which wills to live. As in my own will-to-live there is a longing for wider life and pleasure, with dread of annihilation and pain; so is it also in the will-to-live all around me, whether it can express itself before me or remains dumb. The will-to-live is everywhere present, even as in me. If I am a thinking being, I must regard life other than my own with equal reverence, for I shall know that it longs for fullness and development as deeply as I do myself. Therefore, I see that evil is what annihilates, hampers, or hinders life. And this holds true whether I regard it physically or spiritually. Goodness, by the same token, is the saving or helping of life, the enabling of whatever life I can to attain its highest development.

In me the will-to-live has come to know about other wills-to-live. There is in it a yearning to arrive at unity with itself, to become universal. I can do nothing but hold to the fact that the will-to-live in me manifests itself as will-to-live which desires to become one with other will-to-live.

Ethics consist in my experiencing the compulsion to show to all will-to-live the same reverence as I do my own. A man is truly ethical only when he obeys the compulsion to help all life which he is able to assist, and shrinks from injuring anything that lives. If I save an insect from a puddle, life has devoted itself to life, and the division of life against itself has ended. Whenever my life devotes itself in any way to life, my finite will-to-live experiences union with the infinite will in which all life is one.

An absolute ethic calls for the creating of perfection in this life. It cannot be completely achieved; but that fact does not really matter. In this sense reverence for life is an absolute ethic. It makes only the maintenance and promotion of life rank as good. All destruction of and injury to life, under whatever circumstances, it condemns as evil. True, in practice we are forced to choose. At times we have to decide arbitrarily which forms of life, and even which particular individuals, we shall save, and which we shall destroy. But the principle of reverence for life is nonetheless universal and absolute.

Such an ethic does not abolish for man all ethical conflicts but compels him to decide for himself in each case how far he can remain ethical and how far he must submit himself to the necessity for destruction of and injury to life. No one can decide for him at what point, on each occasion, lies the extreme limit of possibility for his persistence in the preservation and furtherance of life. He alone has to judge this issue, by letting himself be guided by a feeling of the highest possible responsibility towards other life. We must never let ourselves become blunted. We are living in truth, when we experience these conflicts more profoundly.

Whenever I injure life of any sort, I must be quite clear whether it is necessary. Beyond the unavoidable, I must never go, not even with what seems insignificant. The farmer, who has mown down a thousand flowers in his meadow as fodder for his cows, must be careful on his way home not to strike off in wanton pastime the head of a single flower by the roadside, for he thereby commits a wrong against life without being under the pressure of necessity.


Waarom deze EU geen lang leven meer beschoren is

Waarom deze EU geen lang leven meer beschoren is –

Integratie in de praktijk: integratie in de marge

Integratie in de praktijk: integratie in de marge –

Het Islamdebat en hoe ik het probeer te voeren

Het Islamdebat en hoe ik het probeer te voeren –

Sociale geschiedenis in het Nederlands: een voorbeeld

Jan Blommaert In een vorige blogpost had ik het over het feit dat men de taalgeschiedenis van dit land nogal graag voorstelt als een verhaal van twee homogene taalgemeenschappen, eerder dan als een…

Bron: Sociale geschiedenis in het Nederlands: een voorbeeld

De verdrukte Vlaming. Wie was dat eigenlijk?

Jan Blommaert We vierden zonet weer een Vlaamse Feestdag op 11 juli. En Minister-President Bourgeois deed dat in stijl op de Groeningekouter in Kortrijk, die heilige grond waar “de Vlamingen&…

Bron: De verdrukte Vlaming. Wie was dat eigenlijk?

kom, kom, roepen de klokken — sfcdt

In Time of Plague Adieu, farewell, earth’s bliss; This world uncertain is; Fond are life’s lustful joys; Death proves them all but toys; None from his darts can fly; I am sick, I must die. Lord, have mercy on us! Rich men, trust not in wealth, Gold cannot buy you health; Physic himself must […]

via kom, kom, roepen de klokken — sfcdt

Integrale Coöperatie Om Kapitalisme En Staat Te Passeren. Het Catalaanse ‘model’

Integrale Coöperatie Om Kapitalisme En Staat Te Passeren. Het Catalaanse ‘model’ –

Onthuftering Van Economie. Een Kritiek Op Mainstream Economen

Onthuftering Van Economie. Een Kritiek Op Mainstream Economen –

%d bloggers liken dit: