Patt Püha Vaimu vastu

Mulle ei meeldi terminid "autoriõigused" ja eriti veel "intellektuaalne omand". Ma arvan, et vaimne looming, loomine peavad olema vabad. Kirjanduse, muusika, kunsti vaimne, mittemateriaalne osa pole kellegi oma. Looming sünnib inspiratsioonist, mida ei saa kontrollida ja mis pole samuti kellegi oma. Inspiratsioon, in-spiratio on nagu see vaim, vaimuhingus, pneuma millest Johannese evangeeliumis on öeldud, et ta liigub-puhub, kus tahab. Meie ei ole oma loomevõime, eriti inspiratsiooni, loova vaimuhinguse isandad ja kontrollijad. Vaimuhingus on meie isand, kui ta "meie pääle tuleb". Matteuse evangeeliumis 13:32 ütleb Jeesus, et pattu Püha Vaimu vastu ei saa inimene kunagi andeks. Meie arusaamine loomisest, loomingust, meie kujutelmad "intellektuaalsest omandist", "autoriõigusest" on patt Püha Vaimu vastu. Seda on ka see, et loojatele makstakse tiraažide, esituste jms. päält. Kuna me oma nõtruses ei oska, ei julge hinnata kvaliteeti, loodu väärtust, siis hindame kvantiteeti. Tekitades niimoodi kunstides inflatsiooni, sundides loovaid inimesi künnihärja kombel töötama, aina kirjutama, komponeerima, maalima. Loomingu eest tuleb muidugi loojale, see tähendab inimesele, kellele Vaimuhingus on loomisvõime annud,  tasuda, kuid mitte selkombel, nagu tehakse Euroopas ja mujal Läänemaailmas. Pääle muu ei ole looming individuaalne, vaid kollektiivne. Oleme kääbused hiiglaste, oma eelkäijate õlgadel. Ja totter on nõuda, et me oleksime originaalsed, ei laenaks, võtaks eelkäijatelt midagi üle, ei varieeriks, muudaks, täiendaks. Nagu tegid vanasti autorid, nagu tegi Shakespeare, tegid muusikud ja kustnikud keskajal ja hiljemgi. Kui vaatan oma noorepõlve luuletusi, siis on imelik tunne: mul on raske uskuda, et mina olen nende autor. Nad on kuskilt tulnud, nad on mulle annud Vaimuhingus. Imelik kasvõi see, et kuigi ma ei olnud nooruses kristlane, on mu luuletused kristlikud, on religioossed. Vaimuhingus teadis, mida tahab öelda, mina päriselt ei teadnud. Nüüd ehk saan aru.

Filosoofiline veeuputus

Loen Sirbi artikli annotatsiooni: «Antropotseeni onto-epistemoloogiad ehk Kes saab olema posthumanismi subjekt?» («Onto-epistemologies for the Anthropocene, or Who will be the Subject of the Posthumanities?»). Sellise loengu peab Ameerika õpetlane, kes tegeleb genderiuuringutega, meretemaatikaga kunstis, ökofeminismiga, mateeria subjektsusega jne jne. Võibolla on ta tark inimene, aga selline filosoofiline sõnalaviin hirmutab mind. Ons nüüd läänemaailmas alanud omamoodi filosoofiline sõnauputus, mis meid enda alla matab, ilma et päriselt aru saaksime, mida see tähendab, mis toimub. Analoogseid näiteid leiab aina enam. Eriti sääl, kus kunstiinimesed asuvad filosofeerima, seletama, mida nad tahavad öelda. Aga apostel Paulus tuletab meile nüüdki meelde, et võime osata palju keeli, liigutada mägesid ja teha muudki imelist, aga see kõik on tühi, kui pole armastust. Buddha ütleb vähem, ta naeratab. Armastuse keel on lihtne. Vahel see ongi ainult naeratus. Tuleks tulla tagasi armastuse ja naeratuse juurde.

Kasvatame lapsed värvusneutraalselt!

Kümme protsenti meestest Euroopas on värvipimedad, naiste protsent on väiksem. Igal juhul on värvipimedad diskrimineeritud ja alandatud ja seda aina enam, mida rohkem meile kõike pakutakse värviliselt, olgu pakendeid, kaarte, skeeme, graafikuid. Sellele ebaõiglusele tuleb lõpp teha! Tuleb lõpetada see värvide pillerkaar eriti lastetubades, lasteaedades, koolides! Lastele tuleb luua värvusneutraalne kasvukeskkond. Lastele ei tohi rääkida rohelisest, punasest, kollasest jne. Võib esialgu ainult rääkida värvilisest ja värvitust. Värvide nimetuste kasutamine tuleb kaugemas tulevikus üldse keelata, sest meil pole mingit õigust oma värvinägemist, oma värvimeelt pääle suruda neile, kes värve näevad teistmoodi. Meie värvinägemine on illusioon, sotsiaalne konstrukt ja kui alustame laste vabastamist sellest, vabastame tulevikus inimsoo ühest illusioonist. Nagu illusioonist, et on olemas mehed ja naised.

P.S. Avastan kohkumisega, et olen ise kasutanud diskrimineerivat sõna "värvipime". Seda sõna ei tohi tegelikult kasutada. Võiks rääkida värviteislastest või teisvärvlastest või leidub mõni parem sõna. Kuidas öelda ingliskeeles, ei julge pakkuda.

Presidendid vahetusse

Ameerika uudisteagentuur OWT on kindlatest allikatest teada saanud, et Eesti ja USA vahel on sõlmitud salaleping, mille alusel riigid teatud ajaks vahetavad oma presidendid: Kersti Kaljulaid asub Valgesse Majja, Donald Trump Kadriorgu. Kui pikk see aeg on, ei ole veel selge. Kaljulaid juba harjutas Ameerikas ametit. Trump õpib väidetavalt eesti keelt, "kurat" ja "perse" olevat tal juba selged. Uus Keskerakonna, EKRE ja Isamaa koalitsioon sünnib Trumpi huvides, sest ainult sellise valitsusega on ta valmis koostööd tegema. Kaljulaiu lubadus kutsuda peaministriks Kaja Kallas on feik, eesmärgiga tähelepanu tegelikult asjakäigult eemale juhtida.

Our toxic civilization

 OurToxic Civilization

There is nowadays a lot of talk about the danger we are facing because of climate change, pollution, loss of biodiversity, extinction of species and ecosystems. Sometimes, although rarely, overpopulation is mentioned too: it is somewhat risky to talk about it, to say that there are too many of us. There is a lot of talk about the threat these processes pose to the civilization. But very little talk about the threat our civilization poses to our planet, to Nature. And a lot of what we are trying to do to avoid the danger we are facing, consists of attempts to preserve this civilization, making it less wasteful, less destructive. But not put into question its basic values, it aims, its essential features. Although these are precisely the root causes of the present crisis. Our civilization has become a destructive force that is endangering ourselves, other living beings, life on the planet Earth.

Our civilization is based on some values that are usually not (yet) called into question. We are taught to believe that new is better than old, better is better than good, quick is better than slow, more is better than few. These values are essential components of other ones, including our official values, as e.g. freedom of choice, standard of living, development, economic growth, innovation, progress... And, intimately connected with them – liberal individualism in its simplest form meaning simply the right of everybody to do and get what he/she wants as far as this does not infringe on similar rights of other people. Among the values of our civilization there is no place for anything sacred except human life. And, of course, human needs, wishes, desires, interests...Although it is somewhat mauvais tone to tell it straightly. But the cult of our desires is one of the most essential features of our civilization, it is our true religion. Its priests are businessmen, industrialists, merchants. Its missionaries are the publicists, PR specialists, lobbyists. One of their main tasks is to convince us that we really need something that merchants are willing to sell us. That there is something we really want, and then – need. They convince us that our desires and wants are the same thing. That everything outside us is our resource, it is our right to use us to satisfy our needs/desires. The only problem is sharing of these resources.

One of main products of our civilization is dissatisfaction. We are taught, conditioned to want more, more things, more comfort, more entertainment, a higher standard of living, etc. In fact, we have been conditioned to become children who want more and more toys. Indeed, we are children, and people who are teaching, conditioning, lobbying us to buy more, to want more, are children too. They find their satisfaction in inventing, producing and selling more, and more rapidly. We find brief satisfaction in what seems new to us, things, stories, scandals, sports, news. But sooner and sooner this new becomes old, and we, both buyers and sellers, are looking for something newer. Unknowingly, we have built a machinery that is maximising the flow of „resources” into products tha can be sold and bought. Which means the real aim of this machinery is to maximise both the speed and volume of this flow of goods. To change more and more „resource” into money. But money is partly waste, ashes that cannot be used, sold and bought any more. Our civilization is a machinery that works to increase in entropy. Thus, it works against the evolution of life on our planet, is a destructive force. Due to the increase in entropy in the universe, the evolution (or God, if we want) has created a refuge, an island where this process runs much more slowly, and is partially even reversed, giving birth to life, complex organisms and ecosystems. Now we, our civilization is destroying this. We act as an unconscious agent of the second law of thermodynamics with the aim of abolishing our local island of decrease in entropy, as an agent of cosmic disorder, chaos. In the Christian paradigm, we must say that our civilization works against Creation, against the will of God.  Our civilization is fundamentally anti-Christian. 

We are caught in this machinery, in this economy, and are most often unable to escape it, even to understand our situation. We are becoming more and more stupid, more and more childish, because the world, the machinery we are caught in, becomes more and more complex, and our understanding becomes more and more limited. This machinery happens to have discovered that we are born pedomorphic, child-like, and it exploits it, transforming us into even more childish, less adult beings. This is also changing what we call democracy into something infantile and corrupt. Politicians are becoming sellers, publicists trying to lure us to their products, their ideas, their slogans. What counts more and more here too, is novelty, new ideas, new persons, new slogans. It can well mean that, being tired of this democracy, liberalism and freedom of choice, we turn to dictators as we turn from science to conspiracy theories, oppose vaccination and believe that Earth is flat. This would also be something new and interesting for a while.

We know, or are supposed to know more than our ancestors, in fact we are less intelligent than they. Our ancestors knew how to live, and with this knowledge lived for tens of thousands of years. We have no guarantee that we, that mankind and life on our planet will exist in a hundred years. The astrophysicist Sir Martin Rees thinks there is a fifty-fifty chance for us to survive this century.

Most of us do not want to live as our ancestors thousands or hundreds of years ago. But would we prefer death? If we want to survive, we must change our civilization, return to the age-old wisdom of our ancestors. This wisdom is preserved in folk tales, legends, but also in the teachings of the Church, in the Christian tradition as in some other spiritual traditions too. In folk tales the wise man was content of a handful of coins, the stupid man grabbed a lot and perished. Jesus warned us of the danger of riches. For Christians, being poor is better than being rich. Both the old folk wisdom and the Christian teachings admonish us to lead a simple life, to subjugate our desires, to turn to spiritual things instead of material ones. Nowadays we can say that we could well find more satisfaction in arts, philosophy, in science, if it is not too wasteful. We could turn to St. Francis, whom the Catholic Church has declared the patron Saint of ecologists. St. Francis wore the same robe for many years, mending it, if needed. We too could keep our old things, not throw them away. We could learn something from the „heathen” Maris (Cheremis) who put used, worn-out boots on fence saying that they could not throw them away as they had served them for long time. The Orthodox Christians in Northern Russia, before going to confession to the Church, asked repentance for their sins from Earth, rivers, forests, wind, darkness, Sun, Moon and stars. This a repentance we would desperately need.

We need to turn away from our toxic civilization, from its false values. In some important aspects it means returning to our roots, to the simple, humble way of life of our ancestors. Of course, preserving some important achievements of our own that are not too wasteful, too dangerous for Earth. It not difficult to find out how mankind should live, if it wants avoid destruction of the biosphere. And survive itself which is impossible without preserving the great web of life whose part we are together with other living beings. We, at least many of us know the goal, but we don't know how to reach it. Is it possible? Is it possible to avoid the Apocalypse? Despite the efforts of ecologically enlightened people it seems nearly impossible. And my sad conclusion is that the best we can hope is that a catastrophe comes earlier: then more of the web of life will remain intact, and perhaps then humanity will have learned how to renounce the present wasteful way of life with its destructive ideals of economic growth, consumerism and productionism, its belief that everything around us is our resource we can use, turn to products that we soon throw away. Thus, the policies of Trump, Bolsonaro and other enemies of ecological thinking will, paradoxically, be a good thing for the Earth. Thus I sincerely hope that the efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions or to capture them from the atmosphere will not succeed. I hope that in future there will be much less human beings on the earth. I hope the efforts to preserve our civilization are doomed, and a real catastrophy will teach us a lesson.That it will teach us that in order to save the Earth and ourselves we have to renounce our present toxic civilization. Not to save, refurbish it. After all, the Earth does not need us, we need the Earth. And if we do not understand this simple truth, the Earth will sooner or later get rid of us. The Earth does not belong to us, as Christians we can say it belongs to God. In any case, it is sacred. Perhaps it is not too late to recall what this means.

Sitahais on sotsiaalne konstrukt

Suhtumine sellesse, mida nimetame haisuks, olgu see raipehais või sitahais, on üks veel kõigutamata sotsiaalsetest konstruktidest. Varasest lapsepõlvest sisendatakse meile, et kaka on pähh, et surnud hiir on pähh jne. Nii harjubki inimene pidama mõningaid lõhnu haisudeks, teisi lõhnadeks või aroomideks. Ning usutakse, et selline suhtumine on inimesele kaasa sündinud. Kuidas see saab nii olla, kui isegi see, kas tuntakse end mehe, naise või kellegi-millegi muuna, on sotsiaalne konstrukt. Nii ongi viimane aeg saada lahti põlastavast suhtumisest sellesse, mida nimetame haisuks. Sellega peab alustama maast madalast, Näitama lapsele, et tema mähkmetest või potist tulev lõhn ei ole midagi vastikut, vaid võib olla täiesti meeldiv. Nii teeme suure sammu edasi uue vaba inimese kasvatamise teel. Ning sellega aitame kaasa ka ühe kõige põlatuma-diskrimineerituma vähemuse -- uriinijoojate ja koprofaagide emantsipatsioonile.

Lizards, squirrels and Americans

We live for some months in an apartment in Madeira. We have a friend here who sometimes visits us. It's a small lizard. Its name is Bennu. It likes to walk on our balcony. Once it even run on my hand when I was sitting at my writing desk. We love him. When I looked what Google gives when I look for "lizard", I discovered to my astonishment a lot of articles about how to get rid of lizards. I suspect this is something typical for typical Americans: to get rid of everything belonging to Nature. It reminded me of a similar experience: many years ago I saw an American movie about a family preparing for Christmas. They took from outside their Christmas tree, and to their horror, there was a small squirrel on this tree. There was a lot of panic, they tried to catch and kill the animal, and finally their dog succeeded in doing it. The peace and Christmas mood were restored. I felt I was angry. I didn't understand why people have so much fear and even hatred against such a small innocuous animal. I something similar would have happened in our family home, we would have been happy, excited, would have and helped it to find its way out from the house, maybe our children would have tried to feed it. I think I understood something about the typical Americans then, and my later observations seem to have confirmed my certain aversion toward their way of life and thinking. I cannot say I love America, although I cannot say I hate it. But I feel I have to keep distance from America.

This reminds me of my astonishment and negative feelings when I saw for the first time a can of American insecticide with a writing on it: Kills in house and garden. Or something similar. And it promised to kill ants, flies and... bees. I didn't understand why one should kill bees. If a bee happens to fly in your house, you must let it out. By the way, it's very easy to take a paper handkerchief wrap the fly caught on a windowpane into it and let it out. It cannot use its sting. And with the big she-bumblebees that can penetrate into your house in Spring it's even easier. They do not sting. You just take the big insect carefully into your hand and take it outdoors. It doesn't sting you, it has to economize its resources for nest-building and laying its eggs. I love bumblebees. Even their sting is somewhat milder than the sting of a honeybee or a wasp. I think what we need is not insect killers but repellents. E.g. to keep mosquitoes, gadflies, ants or wasps away. Not to kill them, either. They are food for other insects and birds. And for spiders. Some people are eager to kill spiders too. Stupid people! I really detest them.