The second day of the seminar covered four topics:
- A contemporary understanding of conservatism and liberalism
- The Arab Spring, the Islamic Winter and the Jewish State
- Ukraine
- The contributions that the church and religion make to the formation of European identity
Whereas walls existed yesterday, today there were merely distinctions, with opinions and viewpoints moving flexibly from one side of the intellectual debate to the other in a flexible, fluid way, to create a flowing river of thought.
Claudia Crawford from the Konrad Adenauer Foundation opened the discussion noting that in a world where change seems to be everywhere, core values don't change. A metaphysical framework was set for the discussion which took in concepts such as justice and order being based primarily on an underlying principle of life.
The ensuing discussion highlighted the difference between the necessarily solid riverbanks that make it possible for the river to flow freely and the many obstacles that can get in the way of that freedom to flow - the worst being a build-up that creates a dam. Dams cause problems. Where there's a dam, a river will either flood its banks behind the dam, or it will burst through and destroy anything that happens to be in its path.
Much was said by the first speakers, the German political scientist Dr Petra Bahr and the Russian telejournalist Michail Fischman about conservatism, and the need for balance in this regard. It was to the delegates that they turned for views on liberalism. Trust was one of the main topics that came up. The lack of trust in many of the powers that be, to be exact. Corruption. Propaganda. Human rights violations. The systematic silencing of dissent... it's hard for life to flow freely under these conditions. 'Not in clans,' responded one of the delegates. 'Clan members, in company cartels, for instance, trust each other implicitly. It's just that they usually don't trust anyone else.' The answer? Build independent democratic institutions to regulate the flow - sluice gates, or locks, perhaps.
But who builds the locks? Who should be responsible for their upkeep and maintenance? Michael Mertes took the flow of the discussion in the direction of legitimate governments (Israel) and their quasi-governmental counterparts (Hamas, Hezbullah) and on to a quick exploration of a governmental vacuum (radical Islam). The ensuing discussion focused not so much on the river, but on the landscape either side of it and the potential for bridge-building across the river. In the case of Israel and Palestine, opinions varied, but the clear winning candidate to take responsibility for bridge-building was the wish to bring together a divided whole, part of the flow of life itself.
This, of course, is the argument that Vladimir Putin annexed to justify his move into Ukraine. A pontoon bridge for the purposes of invasion is a very different thing. Is its existence justified if the population on one side calls in an ally to help defend itself? In my view, yes you can - if, and only if, you can hear the call over the tumult of the river.
And erecting pontoon bridges costs money - the visiting forces need to be fed - if not on food then on what natural and mineral resources can provide. The economic situation in both Russia and Ukraine became the subject of a particularly intense question and answer session with speaker Georgi Tschischov.
The fourth and final discussion of the day, while centring on Christianity evoked resonances - in my mind, at least - with the two rivers in the underworld in Greek mythology: Lethe and Mnemosyne, the rivers of forgetfulness (or non-truth in Heidegger's view) and memory respectively. Apologies and forgiveness are both linked to memory. The one seeks to reconcile the past with the present, the other to leave the past behind and not be held back by the pull of the current of memory into the past, allowing people to travel forward together unimpeded. Much importance was given to the need for and the precedents for the separation of spiritual and temporal powers and for official apologies from heads of churches for their abuses against humanity, notably the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1917 revolution and its support of Stalin. The unequivocal public support the church has given Putin - 'there have been a number of articles by key church figures hailing him as "the saviour of Russia"' - came up in discussions during the break which followed.
Rivers need banks to contain them that allow them to flow freely. Resistance breeds erosion and currents. Banks without rivers cannot serve their purpose. Dry river beds are no good to farmers who want to water their crops, to people and animals who need drinking water, or to fish. Dams can be a source of energy, but if that's not harnessed
and channelled in a positive way - if there's too much conservatism and not enough liberalism - the pressure builds. A healthy society needs both. It needs these forces to work in harmony and balance. Day 3's themes involve comparative approaches and provocative questions about 'clashes of value'. Will the presentations and discussions allow people to access a sense of enlightened harmony, balance, and flow in their thinking and use that enlightened sense of balance to inspire their actions in their everyday lives?
The discussion continues.
P.S.: Photos
нет комментариев