Mittwoch, 27. Dezember 2017
True to ourselves
Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2017
Werde, wer du wirklich bist
Mittwoch, 13. Dezember 2017
Angst selbst bewältigen
Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017
Just for Today
Mittwoch, 29. November 2017
Endlichkeit & Augenblick
Wir alle wissen, dass wir einmal sterben werden. Die gängigste Art und Weise, damit umzugehen, ist die Verdrängung, manchmal retten wir uns auch in den Humor – auf die Frage: Wie seine Einstellung zum Tod sei?, antwortete Woody Allen einmal: Ich bin total dagegen – , die vermutlich wenigsten setzen sich ernsthaft damit auseinander. Frank Ostaseski, massgeblich beeinflusst von Elisabeth Kübler-Ross und Stephen Levine, plädiert für Letzteres.
"Ohne den Tod als Mahner neigen wir dazu, das Leben für etwas Selbstverständliches zu halten, und verlieren uns häufig in der endlosen Jagd nach Bedürfnisbefriedigung. Wenn wir den Tod öfter im Bewusstsein haben, klammern wir uns nicht mehr so sehr am Leben fest." Anders gesagt: Das Leben ist ein Wunder, das jeden Moment stattfindet. Weshalb denn auch die erste von Frank Ostaseskis Einladungen lautet: "Warte nicht."
Das einzig Beständige ist bekanntlich der Wandel. Obwohl wir das wissen, leben wir nicht gemäss dieser Wahrheit. Das ist nicht nur erstaunlich, sondern so recht eigentlich unerklärlich, denn wenn wir wirklich genau hinschauen, werden wir feststellen, dass es gar nichts anderes gibt als diesen Wandel. Wer erkennt, dass er/sie vergänglich ist und seine/ihre Lebensumstände im Fluss sind, wird eine Übereinstimmung mit dem Gesetz von Wandel und Werden erleben.
Es ist überaus hilfreich, "Zuflucht in der Vergänglichkeit zu suchen. Also nicht in der Erwartung, dass sich die Dinge so entwickeln, wie wir es erhoffen oder befürchten, sondern in der Tatsache, dass sie sich auf jeden Fall ändern, ob wir das nun wollen oder nicht."
Was wir vom Tod lernen können, um erfüllt zu leben erzählt ganz viele Geschichten, die dieses "Warte nicht" (wie auch die anderen Einladungen Frank Ostaseskis) eindrücklich illustrieren. Mich haben viele von ihnen angeregt, meine Aufmerksamkeit auf diesen ständigen Wandel zu richten – indem ich mich etwa auf das Pumpen des Herzens und das Ein- und Aus-Atmen konzentrierte sowie mir (recht erfolglos) zu vergegenwärtigen versuchte, dass bei einem erwachsenen Menschen jede Sekunde 50 Millionen Zellen absterben und fast genau so viele neu entstehen. Aber eben nur fast, denn der erwachsene Mensch baut nach und nach ab.
Das Leben gehört konfrontiert. Vorbehaltlos. Frank Ostaseski zeigt an vielen Beispielen, wie das geht. Dabei gibt er nicht den über der Sache stehenden Experten, sondern zeigt sich auch mit seinen Schwächen. Das ist überaus sympathisch, auch wenn es manchmal etwas gar lieb und nett zu und her geht. So fühlte er sich nach einer schweren Herzoperation unattraktiv wie auch nicht mehr liebenswert und machte sich darüber hinaus Sorgen, man würde ihn vergessen. "Glücklicherweise war ich von Menschen umgeben, die mich trotz alledem liebten. Mein Name wurde überall in den buddhistischen Zentren auf die Altäre gesetzt, und meine Freunde und Schüler chanteten meinen Namen bei ihren Gebeten und Praktiken."
So einleuchtend und nützlich ich viele seiner Ausführungen finde, bescheiden ist der Mann nicht, der als "Der bedeutendste Vertreter der Hospizarbeit" auf dem Buchumschlag vorgestellt wird. Sicher, das mag der Verlag zu verantworten haben, doch er lobt sich auch gerne selber. "Im Jahre 2004 gründete ich das Metta Institute zur Förderung achtsamer, mitfühlender Sterbebegleitung. Ich brachte grosse Lehrer zusammen, darunter Ram Dass, Norman Fischer, Rachel Naomi Remen und andere, die einen Lehrkörper von Weltklasse bildeten." Weltklasse in Sachen Sterbegleitung?
Irritierend fand ich überdies des Autors festen Glauben "an unser grundlegendes Gutsein als Menschen" (grundlegend ist meines Erachtens eher unser unbedingter Lebenswille) sowie seine Überzeugung, die Wahl der Worte würde auch unser Handeln bestimmen. "Meine Freundin Rachel Naomi Remen drückt dies besser aus als jeder andere, wenn sie schreibt: 'Helfen, Reparieren und Dienen sind drei unterschiedliche Arten, die Welt zu verstehen. Wenn du hilfst, siehst du das Leben als etwas Schwaches. Wenn du reparierst, siehst du das Leben als etwas Zerbrochenes. Wenn du dienst, siehst du das Leben als etwas Ganzheitliches. Reparieren und Helfen mag Aufgabe des Egos sein, Dienst ist die Aufgabe der Seele."
Eine der für mich bewegendsten Geschichten in diesem Buch ereignete sich anlässlich eines Workshops, den Frank Ostaseski in Berlin leitete. Eine Frau meldete sich: "Ich habe Ihnen zugehört, als Sie über Vergebung sprachen. Aber mein Vater war Gefangener in den Konzentrationslagern, und ich kann seinen Mördern nicht vergeben. Mein Herz ist wie aus Eis." Stille. Eine andere Frau meldete sich: "Mein Herz ist auch wie aus Eis. Es fühlt sich an wie ein Stein. Mein Vater war Nazi-Offizier und als Wachmann in den Lagern. Ich weiss, dass er Menschen getötet hat. Ich kann ihm nicht vergeben." Wiederum Stille. Dann bahnten sich die beiden Frauen den Weg durch den grossen Sitzungssaal mit 250 Menschen und umarmten sich wortlos.
Die fünf Einladungen: Was wir vom Tod lernen können, um erfüllt zu leben ist ein höchst empfehlenswerter Ratgeber, reich sowohl an praktischen Anregungen als auch an erstaunlichen und berührenden Geschichten, die das Leben geschrieben hat.
Frank Ostaseski
Die fünf Einladungen
Was wir vom Tod lernen können, um erfüllt zu leben
Knaur Menssana, München 2017
Mittwoch, 22. November 2017
Eine Reise ins Leben
Mittwoch, 15. November 2017
Die Weisheit eines Yogi
Mittwoch, 8. November 2017
Death of a Policeman
On Tuesday, 26 January 2010, one day before the opening of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, Markus Reinhardt, 61, the head of police of the Swiss canton of Graubünden and chief of security at the WEF, was found dead in his hotel room. He had killed himself with his service weapon.
Markus Reinhardt had had "an alcohol problem" for quite some years, his superiors knew about it. His direct boss, the director of the Department of Justice, Barbara Janom Steiner, stated during a press conference: "His alcohol problems never affected his work".
Now the media became active in their typical fashion.
The Tages-Anzeiger in Zurich interviewed Roberto Zalunardo, the Secretary General ad interim of the Association of Swiss Police Chiefs, who said that these chiefs are under a lot of pressure, that it is very lonely at the top and that they need of course to be able to deal with all that. The reader was left with the impression that the ones who were not able to deal with this kind of pressure might turn to alcohol.
Then, the Aargauer-Zeitung interviewed the former chief of police of the Canton Aargau, Léon Borer, who said that Reinhardt's "alcohol problem" had been known for several years and that "the man could have been saved". How this could have been accomplished, he did not elaborate on.
And then, on 19 February 2010, the Tages-Anzeiger ran a story that challenged the view of Reinhardt's boss, Janom Steiner, that his alcoholism had not affected his job performance by citing several incidences - he had shown up intoxicated at work, had driven his car under the influence of alcohol, he was involved in a car accident and had seen to it that there were no offical records etc. etc.
But let me stop here. For we all know this kind of story, don't we? The government officials give you their lines, some brave journalists make efforts to unmask what they perceive to be a cover-up, and sometimes the truth does prevail ...
Well, this is the usual government/media-theater and the problem with it is that we are supposed to take it seriously. Let me elaborate: The government of Graubünden said, among other things, that "it thought it important to distinguish between work performance and private life". No one in the press questioned this work/private life distinction. If however Mr. Reinhardt really was an alcoholic (and it surely looks that way) then such a distinction is ludicrous because an alcoholic too often cannot control his impulses (and not only when it comes to alcohol) - and that does not depend on whether he or she is at work or not.
So what did the media do? (by the way, no, I did not check whether all the media performed in exactly the same way). They tried to challenge the claim that Mr. Reinhardt's job performance was impeccable ... and in so doing fell for the trap that the government had laid out for them: the totally absurd distinction between work life and private life, that is.
+++
An alcoholic is an alcoholic is an alcoholic. And that means that too often he cannot control his impulses (and that is not limited to drinking) – whether he is at work or at home. In addition, and this makes him especially unpredictable, he's the typical Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde kind: most of the time he's totally in control of himself until, all of a sudden, he completely loses it.
An alcoholic is dis-eased, in all aspects of his life. Everybody knows that. So why then do governments and media offer us such an absurd spectacle and act as if a dictinction can be made between private and professional life? Because they do what we all do: they rationalise their behaviour, justify their acts and their non-acts; they pretend to have under control what can't be controlled. Because to live with the truth seems unbearable. And when it comes to addicition, the truth is this: we do not know what triggers it, we do not know how to stop it, we are mostly powerless against it. .
If an alcoholic remains sober after treatment, therapists believe that the treatment has been successful; if an alcoholic however relapses, he is considered unfit for therapy. Fact is that nobody can really say why some (estimates range from seven to seventeen percent) can stop their drinking and others can't.
Established therapies assume that understanding the causes of our acts might lead to behaviour change. If I know why I drink I can influence my drinking. This is wishful thinking for every cause that I will find (that I like, that pleases me) can be a cause for drinking as well as for non-drinking. Which is why in AA they say that there are exactly seven reasons why somebody drinks: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday.
„There is no general agreement about the nature, cause, or treatment of alcoholism“, Arnold M. Ludwig (The Alcoholic's Mind) states and the adds: „What is an alcoholic?Where does one draw the line between problem drinking and alcoholism, between alcohol dependence and addiction? Is alcoholism a disorder or a collection of disorders? Ist it a moral failing, a bad habit, or a disease? Do alcoholics have distincts personality features? Is alcoholism hereditary or learned? Does excessive drinking represent a symptomatic expression of an underlying conflict or is it the primary problem itself? Which treatment approach, if any, is most effective? Who is best qualified to help? The question can go on and on. There are no scientific answers.“
It cannot be proven whether therapy works - by a cause-and-effect methodology, that is. That however does not mean that therapy does not work. The fact that miracles can't be proven does not mean that miracles do not exist, it only means that the accepted means of proof are useless. Besides, therapy helps the therapists to have work and earn money. By the way, good therapists know that when their patients are getting better they are sometimes witnessing a miracle of which the Senegalese Wolof say, „nit nit ay garabam“, man is man's medicine.
**
That the boundaries between propaganda and journalism are blurred is well known. Also, that lots of journalists are seldom more than propagandists. The problem is that they do not know it, that they are not aware of it.
When Brian Eno first visited Russia, in 1986, he made friends with Sacha, a musician whose father had been Brezhnev's personal doctor: "One day we were talking about life during "the period of stagnation" — the Brezhnev era. "It must have been strange being so completely immersed in propaganda," I said. "Ah, but there is the difference. We knew it was propaganda," replied Sacha. "That is the difference. Russian propaganda was so obvious that most Russians were able to ignore it. They took it for granted that the government operated in its own interests and any message coming from it was probably slanted — and they discounted it."
„We decide something, put it out there and wait a while in order to see what will happen. If there won't be a big outcry and no resistance, because most do not understand what has been decided, then we continue – step by step, until there's no more going back“, Jean-Claude Juncker, an influential European politician from Luxemburg is quoted in Eva Herman's „Die Wahrheit und ihr Preis“ (The Price of Truth). This is not only how facts ( „fact“ stems from the Latin „facere“ = to make) are created, this is also how the agendas are set that invariably get picked up and propagated by the media.
Let's get practical: Everybody believes that for alcoholics treatment ist better than punishment, This is due to the combined propaganda of psychologists and journalists. In the case of psychologists the reason is obvious – they have to make a living; in the case of journalists it can be explained with their pack-mentality. Moreover, as the linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum stated: „Once the public has decided to accept something as an interesting fact, it becomes almost impossible to get the acceptance rescinded. The persistent interestingness and symbolic usefulness overrides any lack of factuality.“
This does not mean that punishment is preferable to treatment; this means that whoever believes that treatment might be the solution has very probably a too grand idea of what treatment can do for it is a field full of paradoxes and contradictions. No wonder if you consider the following (from Arnold M. Ludwig's The Alcoholic Mind):
* "Hitting bottom" is presumed to be a necessary step for recovery. even though being in dire straits, for all other illnesses, usually indicates a poor rather than favourable diagnosis.
* In many hospital treatment settings, alcoholics are immediately discharged from the program if they are presumed to be uncooperative, unmotivated, setting poor examples for others, or if they are found to be intoxicated or drinking on the premises. In other words, they are not regarded as suitable for treatment if they show evidence of their sickness; namely, an inability to control their drinking. The catch-22 is that they must remain sober in order to receive help.
* Alcoholics are regarded as "sick" - at least for purposes of hospitalization or treatment - but society tends to hold them responsible for their transgressions or crimes.
* Because alcoholism is regarded as a "disease", certain therapeutic agencies do not hold alcoholics responsible for the harm caused by past drinking, but they do regard them as responsible for their present and future behaviors, an important and interesting distinction.
scientific merit for the treatment of serious illnesses, endorse participation in Alcoholics Anonymous, which has a strong spiritual emphasis, as an importnat component of therapy.
* Alcoholism is a "disease" in which characteristic symptoms, such as urges and cravings to drink, can appear mysteriously at certain times, for example, during evenings and weekends, and be absent at others, as at work or at church. With the exception of other addictions, what medical diseases are so dependent on the mental expectations of the sufferers and the physical settings in which they exist?
Given this, it is difficult to imagine a more ignorant reaction than the one of the government of Graubünden. It apparently thought it sufficient that the head of police had agreed to measures set out by a medical doctor in order to „make Reinhardt master of his problem“. The media, in their usual fashion, saw to it that this ignorance was properly disseminated.
PS: In March 2000, Markus Reinhardt had ordered a finishing shot aimed at a young man who had been shooting at random on people on the streets of Chur, the capital of Graubünden. As a consequence, Reinhardt was indicted for willful homicide – he was later acquitted. The Süddeutsche Zeitung commented on 27 January 2010: „This finishing shot has never left him, said his longtime companion, national congressman Pius Segmüller to the tabloid Blick: „Since then he had certain problems. In the end it was all too much for him."
Mittwoch, 1. November 2017
Der Natur und sich selbst begegnen
Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017
CLEAN: Sucht verstehen und überwinden
Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017
"Heute setz ich mir den Todesschuss"
Mittwoch, 11. Oktober 2017
Innehalten
Mittwoch, 4. Oktober 2017
Eine gleichgültige Gegenwart ertragen
Die Leiden des jungen Werther