More on communication, dialog, individualism…

[May 23: the language slightly changed. I hope to the better a little]. Written in a hurry: In a leader-chronicle with the heading ”Human fellow being rather than supporter on distance” the leader-writer and priest Helle Klein reflects upon communication, active talk, dialog, being human fellow being… She writes about building bridges between the author and her/his reader. A Swedish author Stig Dagerman thought that literature should be an active talk. Involving the reader in a way of being or doing to life.

She also referred to the author Sonja Åkesson whose communicative credo was that the author must be a human fellow being. Also see here about her.

It stood about solidarity and understanding, that we are alike towards life.

If one should judge from the current debates on literature here art seems to become more and more like monologues rather than being carried by a will to a meeting with The Other Klein writes. The human being of today is either a distanced viewer of other people’s misery or totally blinded by what we call “navelskådande” (sitting watching ones navel, see about hesychasm). “Me” stands in front of “You” and the talk ceases.

She then draws parallels to the political world, to politics. We are daily reminded about this distanced “we and them” thinking in the talk about outside-ship, insurance-cheating and integration. The old popular movements are crackling. You are rather supporter than member in political parties today. The members are no longer team-players but rather a claque of supporters. The political pros manage the societal work. We others are viewers watching. As supporters we maybe get season-cards and MAYBE an autograph by the team-leader or favourite-player. But that we should have viewpoints on the play. No, that would be impossible. We can of course scream till we are hoarse (husky) in the galleries (bleachers).

Even our social democrat language (here) has lost the sense that solidarity sprouts in mutuality.

How would it be if the strategists invited to a realization of the vision about a social and democratic society?

Is it time for the campaign: the politician as human fellow being? How realistic?

And today there is a leader in a local newspaper here about the biggest party to the right, the Moderate party, saying that this party isn’t democratic either (something we don’t really expect however).

The leaders have turned more and more authoritarian again, it looks (feels) as they are thinking they are doing what they are doing for "our own good"? As if they think they know best what our best is (talk about having high thoughts about themselves). Authoritarian – you don’t have to listen, you can sail above people arrogantly.

And at last; I found "A disobedient child is worthy of death"! There it stands in the beginning:

“FIRST BIBLE LESSON: MATTHEW 19:19

‘HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER: and, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF.’

SECOND BIBLE LESSON: LUKE 2:51

‘And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.’

GOLDEN TEXT: MATTHEW 15:4

‘For God commanded, saying, HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER: and, HE THAT CURSETH FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM DIE THE DEATH.'"

Many still live after this?

What sort of models do we have? Why have we voted for those (lousy, yes, I think they are :-)) politicians?