Ein Gedicht

Hab heut nix gewaltiges, daher hier ein kurzes Gedicht

"Es schwebt der Flieder

Es rockt das Mieder

er warf sich drauf

und sie danieder"

Ihr Götter!/ Gods!

Es ist eigentlich ein seltsamer Gedanke, aber sicherlich einer, mit dem ich mir viele Menschen zum Feind machen kann, sofern sie nicht in der Lage sind, sei es wegen fehlender Bereitschaft oder aufgrund einer gewissen Sturheit oder Engstirnigkeit, meine Aussagen mitzunehmen.

Kulturelle Bilder von Gott/Göttern und dem dahinterstehenden Prinzipien

Immer wieder lese ich einen sehr verwunderlichen Einwand, wenn es um die Naturwissenschaften geht. Er wird von überwiegend monotheistischen Gläubigen gebracht und bezieht seine Kraft auch aus diesen Kulturkreisen. Der Einwand lautet gemeinhin "Menschen sollten nicht Gott spielen". Oder als Kritik vorgebracht "Glaubt ihr, dass ihr Götter seid?"

Die einfache Antwort hierauf ist natürlich "Nein". Dies bezieht sich gemeinhin als Antwort in den gleichen Kulturkreis. Mich hat diese Frage/Antwort immer verwundert. Denn sie bezieht ihren Kern in meinen Augen so überdeutlich aus der vorherrschenden Religiösität die sich in diesen Kulturkreisen breit gemacht hat.

Die lange Antwort sehe ich dabei wie folgt. 

Im abrahamischen Kulturkreis ist Gott als Existenz etwas, das über dem Menschen steht. Der Schöpfer hat uns zwar nach seinem Ebenbilde, aber nicht nach seiner Machtstruktur geschaffen. Wir sind keine Götter, sofern man der BIbel glauben schenken darf. Noch viel eher, wir sind nur  Geschöpfe, Kreaturen, die nach den Launen, die uns gegeben wurden durch das gestohlene Geschenk des Herrn, der Verbotenen Frucht, überhaupt erst zu dem wurden was wir sind. Es ist damit eine Grundlage abrahamitischer Religionen, dass der Mensch Gott nicht gleich ist. 

Ohne Gleichheit aber kann eine Ebenbürtigkeit nicht erlangt werden. Es kann daher nur ein Widerspruch kultureller Natur sein und damit etwas, das von jeher negativ behaftet ist. Dies ist nur verständlich, so ist schon durch die Bibel belegt, dass der Mensch nur an der göttlichen Natur teilhaben darf, ihrer sich aber nicht bemächtigen. Das Bild der ursprünglichen Sünde verstärkt zumindestens im christlichen Kulturraum dies nur noch.

Es erscheint ohne Zweifel umso kurioser, warum eine solche Meinung vorherrschen sollte. 

Polytheistische Religionen erscheinen hier nicht zwangsweise besser, aber ihre Vielzahl bietet eine grö0ere Bandbreite an Mustern. 

Im ägyptischen Kulturkreis der Antike waren die Pharaonen gottgleich in ihrer Verehrung und ihrer Eigenschaft als Teil des Pantheons, spätestens nach ihrem Tode waren sie Teil der Göttlichkeit des jeweiligen Pantheonkopfes. Und der Pharao, als Führer und Beschützer Ägyptens war gleichzeitig auch Vater des Landes. In einem übertragenen, spirituellen Sinne könnten wir daher behaupten, dass auch der einzelne Ägypter somit die Saat der Göttichkeit in sich trug. Eine Detailbetrachtung ägyptischer Philosophie und Religion würde dies im einzelnen vermutlich jedoch abschwächen oder gänzlich verneinen.

Vergleichbar wäre hier auch die frühen Priesterkönige des Zweistromlands, die die frühen Stadtstaaten nach einem solchen Muster regierten. Auch hier finden wir die Idee, dass die Könige den Göttern gleich, wenn nicht gar in einem Gottkult als solche direkt verehrt, die Essenz der Heiligkeit mit ihnen lag. So war auch hier Mensch wie Gott, aber nur einige bestimmte.

Ähnlich aber war es auch mit den hellenistischen und römischen Kaisern, selbst die Perserkönige unter Zoroastrischem Vorbild behaupteten von sich selbst eine Göttlichkeit. Alexander der Große wurde noch zu Lebzeiten als Gott gefeiert und verehrt, ähnlich dem helleno-ägyptischen Modell im späteren Ägypten unter Ptolemaios. Das frühe China ist ein extremes Beispiel. Der Jadekaiser, von Anfang an ein Geschöpf der Göttlichkeit, der als Herrscher der Himmel mit dem Mandat des Himmels regiert ist ein gutes Beispiel. Gleichwohl ist diese Form von philosophischer Religion auch eng mit der Idee von Staat, Organisation und Bürokratie verwurzelt und hier nur anmerkungsweise unterbringbar, da eine eigene Bibliothek den Inhalten nicht gerecht werden würde und der Platz einfach nicht reicht.

Aber nun wird das Bild deutlich, das sich abzeichnet. Gerade in antiken Religionen ist der Mensch der Idee der Göttlichkeit um ein vielfaches näher, wenn nicht gar von Anfang beide Elemente untrennbar miteinander verwurzelt sind. 

Für ihre Gläubigen kann somit "Menschen wie Götter" nur eine natürliche Folge ihrer eigenen internen Logik sein. Ist ein solcher Glaube daher erstrebenswert? Es ist fragwürdig. 

Die fortschreitende Entdeckung unserer Umwelt und der technologische Fortschritt bringen den Mensch näher und näher an die Frage nach seiner eigenen Existenz und zwingen uns eine stetig nihilistischere Gedankenwelt auf. Dies kann ein Zeichen der Reife unserer Spezies sein, wenn davon auszugehen wäre, dass es sich hierbei um einen solchen Entwicklungsschritt handeln kann. 

Unser Problem dabei ist jedoch offensichtlich. Es kann auch ein Schritt in die falsche Richtung sein. Uns fehlt die Erfahrung und die Objektivität, diese Aussage zu treffen. Ein nietzschescher Übermensch müsste hier antworten, dass die Fesseln der Moralität jedweder Religion, sowohl der Religion des Glaubens als auch der Religion der Modernität falsch sind und abgestreift werden müssen. Aber der Gedanke von Moral, Glaube und Bedeutungssucherei sind integral zur menschlichen Entwicklung und es kann, muss vielleicht sogar gefragt werden, ob ein solches Verhalten nicht gegen die Natur des Menschen selbst zuwider läuft.

Andererseits kann es auch sein, dass dies ein natürlicher, ja sogar notwendiger Schritt sein mag, den unsere Gesellschaft und Spezies als ganzes durchlaufen muss. Ein Aufstieg des Menschen in höhere Sphären sozusagen. Eine Zukunftsvision kann hier nur fremdartig wirken, gleichwohl, kommende Zeitalter stellen den Menschen von neue Herausforderungen und  Fragen, deren Beantwortung nicht immer abgewartet werden kann.

Tsiolkovsky beschrieb die Erde einst als die Wiege der Menschheit. In dieser Analogie erscheint klar, man kann sich nicht darauf versteifen, auf ewig in der Wiege zu bleiben. Vielleicht mus ssich unser Bild von Religion und Menschlichkeit erst grundlegend wandeln. Was sich letztlich entwickelt, ist noch nicht abzusehen.

English

It's actually a strange thought, but certainly one with which I can make a lot of enemies, due to them being in a position, either due to lack of willingness or because of a certain stubbornness or, dare I even say, bigotry, that I now wish to state the following.

Cultural images of god/gods and the underlying principles

Many a times I have read a quite bizzare claim when it comes to natural science. Often used by mostly monotheistic believers and presumably drawing strength from cultures influenced mostly by these as well. The objection is commonly "People should not play God." Or brought up as criticism, "Do you think you are gods?"

The short answer to this is, of course, "no." This refers generally in response to the same culture. I am always amazed by that question/answer. It relates to core religious elements so often found prevalent in these very same societies/cultures.

The long answer, I see it as follows.

In abrahamic culture, Gods existence is something, that stands above the people. The creator has indeed made us in his image, but not in his being. We are not gods, if one can believe the bible. Much rather we are only creatures. Acting according to the whims that were given to us by the stolen gift of the Lord, the forbidden fruit. It is thus a basic conclusion in abrahamic religions that man is not equal to God.

Without coequality, true equality can not be achieved. It can therefore only be a contradiction of cultural nature, which in this case needs to have negative connotations. This is understandable, it is already in the Bible, that man can only share in the divine nature, but never possess it. It is so to speak, above his station, to reach fo it so. The image of the original sin, at least in the christian culture reinforces this.

Without doubt, it seems therefore much more curious, why then such a belief should prevail.

Polytheistic religions appear here not necessarily better, but their greater number offers a variety of patterns.

In ancient Egyptian culture, the pharaohs were godlike in their worship and in their property as part of the pantheon, at least after their death, when they were part of the divinity of the respective head of the pantheon. And Pharaoh, as a leader and protector of Egypt was at the same time the father of the country. In a figurative, spiritual sense, we could say, therefore, that individual Egyptians thus carried the seeds of Divinity  withhin himself. A detailed observation of Egyptian philosophy and religion would weaken , if not entirely deny this, but a detailed analysis cannot be given. Time and research constraints apply. 

Compared to the early priest-kings of Mesopotamia, who ruled the early city states after such a pattern. Again, we find the idea that the kings are like the gods, if not worshiped in a cult as God directly, the essence of holiness part of them. So here was man like God, but only ever a few specific men.

But it was also similar to the Hellenistic and Roman emperors, even the Persian kings under zoroastrian models alleged to themselves the property of divinity. Alexander the Great was celebrated during his lifetime as a God and worshiped, like the Helleno-Egyptian model later in Egypt under Ptolemy. Early China is an extreme example. The Jade Emperor. A divine creature that governs as a ruler of the skies and all under it with the Mandate of Heaven. Nevertheless, this form of philosophical religion is also closely rooted in the idea of chinese ​​government, organization and bureaucracy, and only noted here , since the contents of a library would not be fair and we are again under constraints. 

 
But now, the image ahead of us becomes clear. Especially in ancient religion, mans closeness to the idea of divinity is more often than not entwined.

For the faithful, thus "man like god" can only be a natural result of their own internal logic. Is such a belief therefor desirable? 

 It is questionable, at the very least.

The progressive discovery of our environment and technological advances bring man closer and closer to questioning his own existence and force us towards steadily more and more nihilistic thoughts. This may be a sign of the maturity of our species, if we were to assume, that such a thing is a development in itself.

Our problem here is obvious. It can also be a step in the wrong direction. We lack the experience and objectivity to make that statement. A Nietzschean Ubermensch would probably answer that the shackles of morality of any religion, whether the religion of faith or the religion of modernity, are wrong and need to be stripped off. But the idea of ​​morality, faith and the quest of the self are integral to human development, and it may have to be asked if such behavior might not be against human nature itself.

On the other hand, it may also be that this is but a natural and even necessary step in our societal development and we as a species must go through it as a whole. An ascent of man to higher things, so to speak. A vision of possible futures can only bewilder the spectator. However, the coming ages might put before man questions and challenges greater than anything we had yet to solve.

Tsiolkovsky once described the Earth as the cradle of mankind. In this analogy, it seems clear that you can not demand to remain within forever. Maybe our image of religion and humanity must first change, develop, progress. Where this might lead, remains to be seen.

Wie im Wartezimmer

Manchmal hat man ja das Gefühl, dass so manche Zeiträume sich anfühlen wie die Zeit, die man in einem Ärzte-Wartezimmer auf den Behandlungstermin berbringt. Ständig wird ein Name aufgerufen, niemals ist es der eigene. Die Zeit vergeht, die Uhr tickt, man hat das Gefühl, jedes einzelne Ticken zu hören, ist vielleicht schon am Wegnicken von der Warterei. Bis man dann am Ende aufgerufen wird.

Ich warte momentan. 

Wahrnehmung ist ein subjektives Thema, und letztlich auch nicht das, was ich heute anschneiden möchte. Ich habe diverse Versuche gesetzt, darüber, was ich heute schreiben sollte. Es ist mir letztlich dabei verblieben, dass ich nur soweit gehe.

Die Art und Weise in der meine Mitmenschen sich in Medien und auf Netzwerken über Amazon beschweren ist heuchlerisch. Der Pferdefleisch-Skandal ist nicht nur gefühl absurd. Nordkorea bleibt ein intolerables Regime das seine Existenz nicht der Atommacht sondern der Grundlage verdankt, das die VRChina direkt angrenzt und somit die Begründung für die Stationierung amerikanischer Truppen im Pazifik weiter vorhanden bleibt. Hollandes Vorschlag über die Eurowährung ist gut, aber mit Merkel nicht durchsetzbar. Die kommenden Jahrzehnte werden Bewährungsproben in moderner Volksunterdrückung werden.

Dead Space 3

One of the more interesting changes occurs when a gaming series changes gears. For the Dead Space Franchise this point came once the first game had run its course. Not completely being horror but not without it either, the first game dangerously shreded the borders of Survival Horror games with its silent protagonist and alien-like atmosphere. Then came part 2 and with the sudden thought of creating a franchise, important plot parts were rewritten and a story had to be concocted. Suddenly the genre went party action and instead of horror we went with gore and splatter. Mutant babies and rather splattery scenes like the one where the player has to adjust some sort of drill for the player characters eyes made a rather extensive splash back when it was released.

Now, with this game, the designers have taken the final step and grounded the game in the action genre. Starting with a bang in the prologue and trying to end a trilogy of events, the main plot focuses on the fight of one Isaac Clarke against the evilness that is the device of an earlier civilization that transforms humans into vile monstrosities.

Together with a weak plot of an evil church of fanatics believing their salvation having come in form of alien intervention into human existence and a corrupt government trying to utilize these alien devices in their actions, the player has to fight throught corridors in space and on an ice world in an effort to survive hordes of mutated humas and alien monstrosities as well as cheap jump scares and headaches created by a very foreseeable plot.

Ultimately though, I can accept it. It´s certainly not the game I would have liked for Dead Space 3 to be, but I cannot but accept it. It stil has its shortcomings but if you like thes kind of games and can survive the cheap shock effects, which are certainly nothing to write home about, then go and get it.

Cinematic Experiences

So, today it´s movies, current and those of the past few months.

Atlas Shrugged II

Released during the US-presidental election last year, Atlas Shrugged Part 2 represents the newest attempt of people who wholeheartedly believe in the idea of capitalism as the only salvation of mankind as presented by Ayn Rand. Too bad, they base their story on such a bad movie. But we need to start from the beginning. AS2 began because someone wanted to film it, only they were unable to secure the actors from the previous part, meaning we get a completely new cast of actors to believe in this constellation. And boy did they miscast. From a mis-fitting Rearden, to an emotionally dead Dagny to a wholly uninteresting Galt. Even though they tried to include the who-is-who of neo-liberalism in the US, even giving cameos to people like Teller from Penn&Teller, Sean Hannity from Fox News. What nonsense. The CGI feels worse than during the first movie, the sets are feeling less interesting, no wonder, seeing as the actors utterly fail at bringing over the important notions the book placed upon. But then again, a bad book seldomly is translated into a good movie. Also, with the wait from the last part being so long, it feels like a very different movie from the first one. So much so, that it is boring and uninteresting to watch, which is a pity, really. But then again, what can you expect from the middle part of a trilogy, except to be better, of course. While I will wait for the last part to arrive, I can only conjecture that the third might be in the same vein, which would be a deadly curse for the whole series anyway. No message works when it´s messiah is not listened to.

Django Unchained

QUENTIN TARANTINO. Really. At first, that was all I wanted to write about for this movie. But then I asked myself, would that suffice for me, were I to read such a paragraph online? The answer, as you can see, is obvious. Now, Django. Jamie Foxx is very good as the titular character, and I adored the cameo of Franco Nero as the foreign mandingo-owner. Christoph Waltz is very good too, though I believe that parts of his acting can only be captured in the original language version, listening him speak german in heartland US is very touching. And DiCaprio presents himself as yet another great role as the evil guy Candy, but the real gem for me was Samuel L.Jackson as the old black butler, the real mastermind, the inherently evil bastard working with his masters as a collaborateur against his own people. Now, the acting is great, the sets look good, Django surely is every bit the cowboy movie of sincerest nature that Tarantino set out to film. But is that all it is? In a way yes, and with a sudden twist, No. See, Django has several problems people like to gloss over because it is a Tarantino film, but the more of these you watch, the more you get to see it. Tarantino has made himself the formula for success. In a movie ca. 220 minutes long, we are reminded of everything Tarantino has used to great effect in other movies, and while it might be still amusing to watch, it somehow gets old fast. The movie has lengths, with several parts where a cut would have helped drive the events and give the movie in itself a greater focus on its plot points, while still being long enough for people to need a polstered seat. But ultimately, this is my biggest complaint, though I cannot yet say how much of what I have put at Tarantinos feet here really is to be put to him as blame and how much is more part of his homage to old westerns. Still, definitely a good movei, well worth a watch, but as a friend of mine recently said: "It´s a Tarantino movie. What did you expect?"

Dredd 3D

Ahhh, the ressurection of a symbol of police brutality in a world where hope has died and the worst outcomes are often more preferrable than the alternatives. Set in the brutal world of an afterwar society of the Megalopolis Megacity 1, the police force has given way for the Judges, Officers of the Law with the Powers of judicial and executive powers to perform judgement as necessary and dictated by the law. It´s a brutal world and this movie does the perfect thing, the previous hollywood movie missed, by focusing on the most important thing in such an age. It focuses on the small story. Two officers, Dredd and the rookie Anderson are called to investigate the deaths of two people in a high-rise living cluster of some 75.000 people, uncovering a drug-trade-ring with all that entails. It´s the epitomal cop movie, with gritty surroundings, betrayals at every turn, illegal firearms, narcotics, bought judges, the relationship dynamic between the grizzled veteran and the rookie that we have come to see millions of times before, only this time transported into the age of Dredd. And boy howdy, if it isn´t a ride to take. With good effects and performances all around this movie deserves to be this good, as it encompasses everything people hated from the first Dredd movie in ´95, with it´s shiny uniforms and absurd stories. Definitely worth the watch.

Hotel Transylvania

In the league of 3D-Animation movies this one joins in as a comedy about monsters, making most of the typical horror creatures we have come to know and love more fearful of their detection by humans than us of them and creating a great pastiche of comedy and the unfortunate teen romance we have come to expect from movies like this. Still laughed my ass of during it´s first half, but once the romance story takes over it´s a standard fare movie. Ok to watch.

Lincoln

Lincoln. Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln. You know, modern american mythos is epitomized in the story of this one man who became president and brought them through on of their hard times with the civil war. Now Spielberg sets out to create a political drama based around Lincolns fight to get through the 13th Amendment to their constitution which would abolish slavery, taking many historical inaccuracies within while trying to paint a picture of old men discussing in painful locations. At all the time we see the Lincoln-robot with its nice voice painting the image of a Dr.Who character who knows the importance of the task before him and spouts words the same way a sloganizer would. As you might see, I was not impressed by the movie. It will win its oscards, but I was severely disappointed by it, expecting more of Lincoln and less of the 13th Amendment, to tell the truth, which is a bit sad. And not even that, the amendment story was just as full of holes as one might fear. Now, seeing as I am not an american, I admit to being less than influenced by the heritage of this man and the way he is mystified and heralded as the great emancipator that many americans seem to believe him to be. And I do think, this somewhat lessens the effect the movie is supposed to have. Nothing I can do anything about. Lincoln. Too long. Boring. Not my kind of movie.

Seven Psychopaths

If it weren´t for Christopher Walken, I might have disliked this movie. The title states that the movie focuses on the named 7 psychopaths and their stories, with some of them intertwining. But what it boils down to is a dark comedy about them, and while I am all for black comedies, somehow, for me, this movie just did not click. You have one character making it business ´napping dogs for money from their owners while sleeping with a crimeboss dame and making a sidebusiness of killing mobsters while another lives and dies for his dog, yet another ....well, lookie that, I cannot come how to describe Walkens character. Basically, it´s an ok movie for a watch, but I would go for a rental if I were you, as It doesn´t lend itself towards being a movie you want to own or see more than once.

Wreck-It Ralp

You know, I get the jokes, but I found this rather less fun than I think it was supposed to be, as the big twist is given away at the halfway mark and the story follows what is a rather standard formula for this kind of movies. Ultimately, missed it chance to be a really geeky movie too. Ok for a screening, but nothing to write home about.

Zero Dark Thirty

One thing I enjoyed about Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was the fact, that next to the amorality of british intelligence it showed us a human and bureaucratic side of the business that most espionage dramas like to forget because it doesn´t seem interesting most of the time. This movie once again shwos, that you can be somewhat wrong. Bigelows new movie after The Hurt Locker is another movie about the forces moving in war times and concentrates on the CIA effort to find Osama Bin Laden, while giving us a great female protagonist and an engaging to story to follow, while never lessening its impact in the events shown. A must-see and worlds above anything we were given by Act of Valor.

I have not forgotten.

Every day I visit with the urge to write something. Tomorrow. I promise, tomorrow I shall add something to this dusty old tome.