Unterschiedliche Haltungen zur aktuellen Krise

Der aktuellen Krise gegenüber kann niemand gleichgültig bleiben. Es müssen dringend Entscheidungen getroffen und Lösungen gefunden werden, die aus der Krise herausführen. Um Missverständnisse zu vermeiden, wollen wir hier einige Möglichkeiten darstellen und überlegen, welche davon die beste ist.

Die erste Haltung, die ich beschreibe, ist die der Unglückspropheten: der Sturzflug in den Abgrund. Sie betonen den chaotischen Aspekt, der jeder Krise innewohnt. Sie sehen in der Krise eine Katastrophe, ein Auseinanderbrechen und das Ende des gegenwärtigen Systems. Für sie ist die aktuelle Krise etwas Abnormales, das es um jeden Preis zu verhindern gilt. Sie akzeptieren höchstens einige Angleichungen und Veränderungen innerhalb derselben Strukturen. Doch diese nehmen sie mit so vielen Einwänden vor, dass sie damit jegliche innovative Veränderung unterminieren.

Der gute Papst Johannes XXIII. sagte schon über die Unglückspropheten, zwar in Bezug auf die Kirche, doch anwendbar auf jeglichen Kontext: „Das wahre Leben besteht nicht aus einer Sammlung von Antiquitäten. Es geht nicht darum, ein Museum oder eine Akademie der Vergangenheit zu besichtigen. Wir leben, um Fortschritte zu machen, indem wir aus den Erfahrungen der Vergangenheit lernen, doch stets nach vorne gerichtet“

Die sich ausgebreitete Krise darf nicht zu einem Sturz in den Abgrund führen. Es stimmt, was Pierre Furter, ein schweizerischer Philosoph und Pädagoge, der auch ein Brasilienliebhaber ist, schrieb: „Die Krise als ein Zeichen eines universellen Kollapses zu bezeichnen, ist eine subtile und perfide Art der Mächtigen und Privilegierten, um Veränderungen zu vermeiden, indem sie diese im Vorhinein abwerten.“

Die zweite zu beschreibende Haltung ist die der Konservativen: die Flucht nach hinten. Sie orientieren sich an der Vergangenheit, indem sie den Rückspiegel im Blick behalten. Statt die in der aktuellen Krise enthaltenen Kräfte zu nutzen, fliehen sie in die Vergangenheit und suchen alte Lösungen für neue Probleme. Deshalb sind sie archaisch und ineffektiv.

Ein Großteil der politischen Institutionen und weltwirtschaftlichen Organismen wie der IWF, die Weltbank, die WHO (Welthandelsorganisation), der G-20, doch auch die meisten Kirchen und Religionsgemeinschaften versuchen, den schwer wiegenden Problemen der Welt mithilfe derselben alten Konzepte beizukommen. Dadurch begünstigen sie Trägheit und bremsen innovative Lösungen.

Alles beim Alten zu lassen wird zu einem verhängnisvollen Misserfolg führen, zu einer unvorstellbaren ökologischen und humanitären Krise. Da die alten Konzepte ihre Erneuerungs- und Überzeugungskraft verloren haben, werden sie schließlich aus der Krise eine Tragödie machen.

Die dritte Haltung ist die der Utopisten: die Flucht nach vorn. Sie versuchen, die von der Krise behaftete Situation zu lösen, indem sie in Richtung Zukunft fliegen. Sie haben den gleichen Horizont, schauen aber in die entgegen gesetzte Richtung. Daher fällt es Utopisten und Konservativen leicht, sich zu einigen.

Sie sind im allgemeinen eigensinnig und vergessen, dass in der Geschichte nur solche Revolutionen stattfanden, die auch gemacht wurden. Der letzte Slogan ist kein neuer Gedanke. Die verwegensten Kritiker können auch die unfruchtbarsten sein. Es ist nicht selten, dass streitlustiger Wagemut nichts anderes als eine Flucht vor der harten Wirklichkeit ist.

Wir sind umgeben von allen Arten von futuristischen Utopisten. Viele sind esoterisch angehaucht so wie diejenigen, die von einer Ausrichtung der kosmischen Energien reden, die unseren Geist beeinflussen. Andere wiederum verbreiten ihre Utopien, die auf den Traum begründet sind, dass die Bio- und Nanotechnologie all unsere Probleme lösen und menschliches Leben unsterblich machen werden.

Eine vierte Haltung zeigt sich in den Eskapisten: die Flucht nach innen. Sie sehen, dass sich der Horizont und alle fundamentalen Überzeugungen verdunkeln, doch sie sind taub für den ökologischen Alarm und für die Schreie der Unterdrückten. Sie vermeiden die Konfrontation, ziehen vor, nicht zu wissen, nicht zu hören, nicht zu lesen und sich nicht selbst in Frage zu stellen. Diese Menschen wollen nicht mit anderen zusammenleben. Sie bevorzugen die Einsamkeit des Individuums, doch sind im allgemeinen mit dem Internet und sozialen Netzwerken verbunden.

Schließlich gibt es noch eine fünfte Haltung: die der Verantwortungsbewussten. Sie blicken dem Hier und Jetzt ins Auge. Sie sind diejenigen, die Antworten ausarbeiten, weshalb ich sie als verantwortungsbewusst bezeichne. Sie fürchten sich nicht, laufen nicht davon und fliehen nicht, sondern sie nehmen das Risiko auf sich, neue Wege zu eröffnen. Sie versuchen, die in der Krise enthaltenen positiven Kräfte zu stärken und Antworten auf die Probleme zu geben. Sie verwerfen nicht einfach die Vergangenheit, nur weil sie vergangen ist. Sie lernen aus aus ihr wie aus einer Fundgrube reicher Erfahrungen, die nicht geringachtet werden dürfen. Das ist für sie jedoch kein Grund, nicht neue, eigene Erfahrungen zu machen.

Die Verantwortungsbewussten definieren sich durch den Einsatz für etwas und nicht  durch ein Gegen-etwas-Sein. Sie verlieren sich auch nicht in steriler Polemik. Sie arbeiten an einem Modell, das den Anforderungen unserer Zeit entspricht, und fühlen sich zutiefst dessen Verwirklichung verpflichtet. Sie sind offen für Kritik und für Selbstkritik und immer bereit, dazu zu lernen.

Wer jetzt am dringendsten benötigt wird, sind Politiker, Anführer, Gruppierungen u. a. die sich verantwortlich fühlen und die den Übergang von den alten zu den neuen Zeiten voranbringen.

Übersetzt con Bettina Gold-Hartnack

Attitudes for confronting the current Crisis

No one can be indifferent to the present crisis. Decisions and finding a liberating solution are urgent. To avoid being mistaken, we will present here a few possibilities, and see which is best.

The first attitude is that of the catastrophists: the flight to the depth. They emphasize the chaotic aspect that inheres in every crisis. They see the crisis as a catastrophe, a decomposition and the end of the current order. To them, the current crisis is something abnormal that must be avoided at all cost. They accept only certain adjustments and changes within the same structure. But they make them with so many objections that they undermine any innovative change.

The good pope John XXIII already said about catastrophists, referring to the Church, but applicable to any field: «Real life is not a collection of antiquities. It is not about visiting a museum or an academy of the past. One lives to progress, learning from the experiences of the past, but always going forward».

The generalized crisis does not have to end with a fall into the abyss. As Pierre Furter, a Swiss philosopher and pedagogue who loves Brazil very much, wrote: «To characterize the crisis as a sign of a universal collapse is a subtle and perfidious way that the powerful and privileged avoid changes, by devaluing them beforehand».

The second attitude is that of the conservatives: the flight backwards. They point to the past, looking through the rear view mirror. Instead of taking advantage of the forces contained in the present crisis, they fly to the past and seek old solutions for new problems. That is why they are archaic and ineffective.

A large portion of the political institutions and world economic organisms, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the OMC, the G-20, but also most Churches and religions, seek to solve the grave problems of the world with the same old principles. They favor inertia and slow down innovative solutions.

Leaving things as they are will inevitably lead us to failure, to an unimaginable ecological and humanitarian crisis. Since the old formulas have exhausted their ability to convince and to innovate, they will end up turning the crisis into a tragedy.

The third attitude is of the utopists: the flight ahead. They try to solve the crisis-situation by flying towards the future. They are on the same plane as the conservatives, but facing the opposite direction. Therefore, utopists and conservatives can easily reach agreement.

They are generally headstrong and forget that in history only those revolutions that are made take place. The last slogan is not a new thought. The most audacious critics can also be the most sterile. It is not uncommon for audacious non-conformism to be nothing but evasiveness in facing hard reality.

There are presently all types of futurist utopias around. Many are of an esoteric character, such as those who speak of the alignment of cosmic energies that affect our minds. Others project utopias founded in the dream that biotechnology and nano-technology will solve all our problems and make human life immortal.

A fourth attitude is of the escapists: they flee within. They see the darkening of the horizon and of the fundamental convictions, but ignore the ecological alarms and the cries of the oppressed. They avoid confrontation, preferring not to know, not to hear, not to read and not to question themselves. These people do not want to coexist. They prefer the solitude of the individual, but are generally connected to the Internet and social networks.

Finally, there is a fifth attitude: that of the responsible: they face the here and now. They are those who develop answers, which is why I call them responsible. They are not afraid, nor do they run away, in order to avoid. Rather, they assume the risk of developing new paths. They seek to strengthen the positive forces contained within the crisis, and formulate answers to problems. They do not reject the past simply because it is the past. They learn from the past as the repository of great experience that should not be wasted, but not as an excuse for not undergoing their own experiences.

The responsible define themselves as being in favor of and not simply by being against. Nor do they waste their time in sterile polemics. They work and are profoundly committed to developing a model that corresponds to the needs of the time. They are open to criticism and self-criticism, always ready to learn.

What is most in demand now are politicians, leaders, groups, and others who feel responsible, and who force the passage from the olden times to the new.

Translation: Melina Alfaro” alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

Attitudes for confronting the current Crisis

No one can be indifferent to the present crisis. Decisions and finding a liberating solution are urgent. To avoid being mistaken, we will present here a few possibilities, and see which is best.

The first attitude is that of the catastrophists: the flight to the depth. They emphasize the chaotic aspect that inheres in every crisis. They see the crisis as a catastrophe, a decomposition and the end of the current order. To them, the current crisis is something abnormal that must be avoided at all cost. They accept only certain adjustments and changes within the same structure. But they make them with so many objections that they undermine any innovative change.

The good pope John XXIII already said about catastrophists, referring to the Church, but applicable to any field: «Real life is not a collection of antiquities. It is not about visiting a museum or an academy of the past. One lives to progress, learning from the experiences of the past, but always going forward».

The generalized crisis does not have to end with a fall into the abyss. As Pierre Furter, a Swiss philosopher and pedagogue who loves Brazil very much, wrote: «To characterize the crisis as a sign of a universal collapse is a subtle and perfidious way that the powerful and privileged avoid changes, by devaluing them beforehand».

The second attitude is that of the conservatives: the flight backwards. They point to the past, looking through the rear view mirror. Instead of taking advantage of the forces contained in the present crisis, they fly to the past and seek old solutions for new problems. That is why they are archaic and ineffective.

A large portion of the political institutions and world economic organisms, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the OMC, the G-20, but also most Churches and religions, seek to solve the grave problems of the world with the same old principles. They favor inertia and slow down innovative solutions.

Leaving things as they are will inevitably lead us to failure, to an unimaginable ecological and humanitarian crisis. Since the old formulas have exhausted their ability to convince and to innovate, they will end up turning the crisis into a tragedy.

The third attitude is of the utopists: the flight ahead. They try to solve the crisis-situation by flying towards the future. They are on the same plane as the conservatives, but facing the opposite direction. Therefore, utopists and conservatives can easily reach agreement.

They are generally headstrong and forget that in history only those revolutions that are made take place. The last slogan is not a new thought. The most audacious critics can also be the most sterile. It is not uncommon for audacious non-conformism to be nothing but evasiveness in facing hard reality.

There are presently all types of futurist utopias around. Many are of an esoteric character, such as those who speak of the alignment of cosmic energies that affect our minds. Others project utopias founded in the dream that biotechnology and nano-technology will solve all our problems and make human life immortal.

A fourth attitude is of the escapists: they flee within. They see the darkening of the horizon and of the fundamental convictions, but ignore the ecological alarms and the cries of the oppressed. They avoid confrontation, preferring not to know, not to hear, not to read and not to question themselves. These people do not want to coexist. They prefer the solitude of the individual, but are generally connected to the Internet and social networks.

Finally, there is a fifth attitude: that of the responsible: they face the here and now. They are those who develop answers, which is why I call them responsible. They are not afraid, nor do they run away, in order to avoid. Rather, they assume the risk of developing new paths. They seek to strengthen the positive forces contained within the crisis, and formulate answers to problems. They do not reject the past simply because it is the past. They learn from the past as the repository of great experience that should not be wasted, but not as an excuse for not undergoing their own experiences.

The responsible define themselves as being in favor of and not simply by being against. Nor do they waste their time in sterile polemics. They work and are profoundly committed to developing a model that corresponds to the needs of the time. They are open to criticism and self-criticism, always ready to learn.

What is most in demand now are politicians, leaders, groups, and others who feel responsible, and who force the passage from the olden times to the new.

Translation: Melina Alfaro:  alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

Os dois lados do ser humano: Dragão e São Jorge

Toda religião, também o cristianismo, possui muitas valências. Além de se centralizar em Deus, elabora narrativas sobre o drama paradoxal do ser humano, gerando sentido, uma interpretação da realidade, da história e do mundo.

Exemplar é a lenda de São Jorge e o combate feroz com o dragão narrada no artigo anterior. Primeiramente, o dragão é dragão, portanto, uma serpente. Mas é apresentada alada, com enorme boca que emite fogo e fumaça e um cheiro mortífero. É um dragão simbólico.

No Ocidente representa o mal e o mundo ameaçador das sombras. No Oriente é  positivo, símbolo nacional da China, senhor das águas e da fertilidade (long). Entre os aztecas era a serpente alada (Quezalcoatl), símbolo positivo de  sua cultura. Para nós ocidentais o dragão é sempre terrível e representa a ameaça à vida ou as dificuldades duras da sobrevivência. Os pobres dizem:“tenho que matar um dragão por dia tal é a luta pela sobrevivência”

Mas o dragão, como o mostrou a tradição psicanalítica de C. G. Jung com Erich Neumann, James Hillmann. Etienne Perrot e outros representa um dos arquétipos (elementos estruturais do inconsciente coletivo ou imagens primordiais que ordenam a psique) mais ancestrais e transculturais da humanidade.

Junto com o dragão sempre vem o cavaleiro heróico que com ele se confronta numa luta feroz. Que significam essas duas figuras? À luz de categorias de C. G. Jung e discípulos, especialmente de Erich Neumann que estudou especificamente este arquétipo (A história da origem da consciência, Cultrix 1990) e da psicoterapia existencial-humanística de Kirk J. Schneider (O eu paradoxal, Vozes 1993) procuremos entender o que está em jogo nesse confronto.

O caminho da evolução leva a humanidade do inconsciente para o consciente, da fusão cósmica com o Todo (Uroboros) para a emergência da autonomia do ego. Essa passagem é dramática, nunca totalmente realizada; por isso, o ego deve continuamente retomá-la caso queira gozar de liberdade e vencer na vida.

Mas importa reconhecer que o dragão amedrontador e o cavaleiro heróico são duas dimensões do mesmo ser humano. O dragão em nós é o nosso universo ancestral, obscuro, nossas sombras de onde imergimos para a luz da razão e da independência do ego. Por isso que em algumas iconografias, especialmente uma da Catalunha (é seu patrono) o dragão aparece envolvendo todo o corpo do cavaleiro. Numa gravura de Rogério Fernandes (com.br) o dragão aparece envolvendo o corpo de São Jorge, que o segura pelo braço e tendo o rosto, nada ameaçador na altura do de São Jorge. É um dragão humanizado formando uma unidade com São Jorge. Noutras (no Google há 25 páginas de gravuras de São Jorge com o dragão) o dragão aparece como um animal domesticado sobre o qual São Jorge de pé o conduz não com a lança mas com um bastão.

A atividade do herói, no caso de São Jorge, na sua luta com o dragão mostra a força do ego, corajoso, iluminado e que se firma e conquista autonomia, mas sempre em tensão com a dimensão escura do dragão. Eles convivem mas o dragão  não consegue dominar o ego.

Diz Neumann:”A atividade da consciência é heróica quando o ego assume e realiza por si mesmo a luta arquetípica com o dragão do inconsciente, levando-a a uma síntese bem sucedida”(Op.cit. p.244), A pessoa que fez esta travessia não renega o dragão, mas o mantém domesticado e integrado como seu lado de sombra.  Por esta razão, em muitas narrativas, São Jorge não mata o dragão. Apenas o domestica e o re-insere no seu lugar deixando de ser ameaçador. Ai surge a síntese feliz dos opostos; o eu paradoxal encontrou seu equilíbrio pois alcançou a harmonização do ego com o dragão,  do consciente com o inconsciente, da luz com a sombra,  da razão com a paixão, do racional com o simbólico, da ciência com a arte e com a religião.

A confrontação com as oposições e a busca da síntese constitui a característica de personalidades amadurecidas, que integraram a dimensão de sombra e de luz, o lado São Jorge com o lado Dragão. Assim o vemos em Buda, Francisco de Assis, Jesus, em Gandhi  e em Luther King.

Os cariocas tem grande veneração por São Jorge mais do que por São Sebastião, patrono oficial da cidade. Mas este é um guerreiro, cheio de flechas, portanto “vencido”. O povo sente necessidades de um santo guerreiro corajoso que vence as adversidades. Ai São Jorge representa o santo ideal. Na novela “Salve Jorge” ele funciona como o herói que vai libertar as meninas traficadas para a Turquia; ele enfrentará, vitoriosamente, o dragão do tráfico internacional de mulheres.

Por certo, aqueles que veneram São Jorge com o dragão não sabem nada de seu significado arquetípico. Não importa. Pois seu inconsciente o sabe; ele  ativa e realiza neles sua obra: a vontade de lutar, de se afirmar como egos autônomos que enfrentam e integram as dificuldades (os dragões) dentro de um projeto positivo de vida (São Jorge, herói vitorioso). E saem fortalecidos para a dura luta da vida.

Leonardo Boff coordenou a publicação da obra completa de C. G. Jung junto à Editora Vozes.