I am an individual. Nothing and nobody else occupies my standpoint. Otherwise, he would be I. Thus, all what I perceive is individual, perspective of an individual, part of me. The computer screen should be a part of me

Janew, Claus

English

Name not available

Claus JanewDynamic ExistenceWhat is real?I am an individual. Nothing and nobody else occupies my standpoint. Otherwise, he would be I.Thus, all what I perceive is individual, perspective of an individual, part of me.The computer screen should be a part of me? And when my daughter is sitting beside me: is it a part of her, then? And she herself would be a component of me?Consequently, it must be so.But why is the screen a part of her? Why are they both not just components of me? Why the detour over her?One could renounce this detour. But this would not be consistent:My daughter differs from the screen, and, nevertheless, I perceive both. That is there is mediation between both within my individuality. This mediation can consist first in my shifting attention from one to the other. While this, my individuality permanently changes a bit, because it is an entirety of its components.Then I can sit down to the place of my daughter and experience another perspective and individuality thus again. Is this that to my daughter? No, of course it is only a geometrical point of view. However, again this point of view is mediated with my first one, while I alternate the views mentally or physically, more or less fast.Now there speaks my daughter and means, the monitor display is poor in contrast from obliquely. This reminds me of my perception on her place, and I conclude from it, her statement must deal something with my perception there. And consequently (alternation!) also with my perception on the present place.Because she has spoken, at other times, also of other things with me, I have understood her perception, her approach to life, already to a bigger extent and, therefore, subordinate to her an own individuality - with a screen as a component.What has happened? I have permanently alternated positions (attention, viewpoint, approach to life), though always found me in just one. Does this work logically at all?Apparently not. Since if I am not any more there, I am evidently here. Can I be, however, only here? Probably also not. Then I would know nothing from there, but only from here, my individual reality. Though this could be enough for me, actually, my individuality itself arises from such standpoint alternations.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 2This fact results from the uniqueness and entirety of the individual (in Latin „the indivisible“). Because it is not divisible without changing the individual, it differs from all others in any regard. Agreement at any place would presuppose the division of the individuals, namely in the not unique overlapping and the unique remainder. Instead of an overlapping, we would have thus an own individual.1 Hence, a static individual could be not even subdivided, because everything we consider, for example, as a part (or component) of ourselves just thereby is an indivisible perception position: every organ, every cell, every particle, every wave, every thought. It completely differs from the entirety, because it can nowhere agree with the whole. Without alternation between the components, we could not become the individual that we regard as ourselves. We would be without structure, nothing.Therefore, every individual exists only in the alternation of the individuality. There is no Here or There, but only the alternation between all, with a right now priority position. Thus, the standpoint is a phase of the dynamic individual. Everything that exists for the individual exists dynamically.2Why then do we consider things seldom as so changing? We say they are relativelyconstant. Although we know that movement is at the heart of everything, that everyindividuality changes itself. Or we say, the movement is relatively continuous, so at every moment the whole is itself. At all, the whole is complete and the part is a part.Everything properly. All these phenomena arise from the structure of the dynamic, of the alternation. Approximately closed successions of change generate relative constancy. Finely gradated change seems relatively continuous. And different extent of the alternations makes the difference between „part“ and whole.Before we can explain this closer, we must accept logically that the dynamic existence reaches to the infinitely small. No entirety is elementary, because without structure it would be infinitesimal, could not have an effect, not even as a needle sting. After all, we measure everything by its effect. Even an energy quantum cannot shirk, because it has a certain „size“; and it can be only measured (perceived) when it reveals an effect structure, on an electron, for example. But a structure means alternation between individuals (see above). In the case of the energy quantum between the states of the electron, what the quantum arisesfrom. To put the effect down to an elementary quantum, therefore, would not be logical. 1 Only in infinitely small points, the individuals can meet. Since these are nothing without individual deriva-tion.2 As well as the individual himself, because every standpoint also is a dynamic individual that „derives“ from the others etc.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 3Without structure no effect (and vice versa) whomever one assigns the effect to. Exactly this effect also expresses itself in the energy size of the quantum (and not vice versa).Yet, in the end, we find between the varying individuals and in the center of every individual only an infinitesimal point. That is the alternation happens, actually, between single points. Though, of course these are defined by alternation only, so that alternation turns out again as the basic structure. Because this basic structure extends to the infinitesimal, I call it infinitesimality structure.The form of the alternation, therefore, is the form of the infinitesimality structure. If an individual never returned, „exist“ only one infinitesimal moment, nobody could grasp it. If it returned precisely, nobody could perceive its change. Hence, there should be - aside from the change from A to B and B to A’ - also a change from A’ to B’ as well as from B’ to A’’ etc.3, so that an approximate unity of A and B is weaved.In the middle (unity!) between A and B, a quasi-static approximate object of the alternation thereby comes out. Not the previously mentioned tissue, but rather a symbolic form circumscribed by it. This already resembles that what we usually call a thing.4 If the unity predominates, the object is denser, like the tissue. If the difference predominates, it is thinner, sometimes hardly discernibly, because it is due to a more peripheral fabric.The approximation - whether dense or thin - is also individual of course, with an infinitesimal center of identity, so that an alternation takes place between identity and difference of A and B, between oneness and multitude. In the last consequence between the central point and periphery, and again the center inbetween and its periphery etc. In the course of this, also spiral tissue and approximations are produced between all centers and peripheries: there originates an entire, more or less uniform thing.5In the case of the screen the thing is dense: we change from edge to edge, edge to center, pixel to pixel; all individual settings - identity centers - in the awareness of their dynamically existing alternatives.Nevertheless, between my daughter and me the difference predominates; no approximate object crystallizes out, although we feel an ethereal quasi-static unity between us.3 Moreover, also between A’ and A, A’’ and A’ etc.4 To be precise: For the individual A who becomes aware of its phase B the approximation between them is a potential to the existence of B. If it becomes aware of the alternation between two other phases of itself, the approximation seems concrete.5 Because the approximation is basically a potential to the reproduction of the in each case other side, she can be no additional individual, but was present from the beginning of the alternation - as an original change partner who went over to an other one and is now the center.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 4If I extend the dynamic of my standpoint to the situation as such, now I alternate between relatively independent „parts“ (screen, daughter, I), while I put myself into the position of my daughter, realize a solid monitor etc. I perceive from the respective position an individual totality; and over and over again also from the center of the „whole“ situation, which I arrange individually as well.Does this mean a universal definition of existence on the base of individuality alternations? Yes, because another existence than an individual one is not consistently generalizable.The alternation does not happen necessarily physically (whatever is meant by „physically“). It depends only on the position of perception. The need of the infinitesimality structure to grasp this dynamic shows that we can speak as well of consciousness or consciousness foci. Since nothing is solid, everything are back-coupling alternation structures of alternations.These also must not be space-temporal. This is only our habitual perception. Alternation can and will take place in every state space formed by quite different coordinates. How these alternations are arranged by perception, is open, too. Dreams and associations are an example of this.Nevertheless, the logical consequences are bigger: If everything exists only in the alternation of the individuality, this alternation must enclose the whole universe! No alternation can be separated from the others completely, run possibly in parallel, because this would mean an absolute division of the universe. That is we speak of one singlealternation.If the universe is unlimited - and for a final limit there is in no direction a reason - then the position change must occur at infinite speed. („Speed“ as its space-temporal interpretation.) This is the basic speed from which every relatively limited consciousness is filtered out by the form of the alternation. Such filtering forms are narrow back couplings, which reduce the superficial frequency of the change, slow down movement apparently, so that the quicker frequencies work only in the little conscious background. Just as well as if I concentrate upon the screen and „forget“ my daughter besides, while I am still aware of her and a lot of farther. Even the macrocosm has not disappeared completely. Only the details are not resolved any more.66 From this the reality funnel originates, as it is described in my e-book „How Consciousness Creates Reality“ (in the chapter of the same name). This is the very abridged version of my German book „Die Erschaffung der Realität“ (The Creation of Reality). They are both available from www.free-will.de.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 5If the form shows a finely gradated structure, it seems solid. If it proves in addition a drift, we have a continuous movement. If it is closely tied and variously intertwined, it will not dissolve fast. If it more allows spontaneous change, it will develop new, but related struc-tures.What does it mean, actually, to say „we“? Do „we“ see anything? Also this „we“ and „our“ something originate from the exchange of positions - while we transform (!) subjective information back and forth and create thus an approximate collectivity.7It needs a paradigm change from the view of „objective“ objects to the awareness of a dynamic individual that alternates through all realities and determines itself by the form of this alternation. Despite it is unusual: The infinite basic speed gives every way to it.8 Even with a relatively steady awareness of my individuality, with a self-filtered consciousness, sitting here, I am at every moment a phase of the unlimited alternation. The terms awareness, individual, standpoint, consciousness, focus are basically synonymous. I only structure with them the all-embracing dynamic. If I sit down from one place on the other, I do nothing else, than to relate phases of my unlimited alternation back coupling to each other and thus design a local change.What is creation?The infinitesimality structure of focus dynamic has another two essential consequences:1. The freedom of choice of consciousness is automatically integrated. I have founded this in my article Omnipresent Consciousness and Free Will as well as in my e-book How Consciousness Creates Reality.9In brief: Weighing describes a back coupling between alternative changes. This indefiniteness circumscribes an entirety and defines it thus up to an infinitesimal center. However, in a decisive situation the indefiniteness of the progress is also an indefiniteness of the situation as a whole. The alternatives are defined on the other hand as those very well. That is definiteness and indefiniteness of the situation can be separated from the decision-making process at no place, they actually arise from it. Besides, the peripheral structure of the whole and its most internal core establish an infinitesimality-structured unity. This unites definiteness and indefiniteness also 7 See the chapter „Projection and creating approximations“ in „How Consciousness Creates Reality“8 I have thought through all basic questions, which arose to me from this result. Here their discussion would be too extensive. However, I will answer with pleasure your questions by e-mail (see home page at the end).9 See the chapter „Consciousness – the infinitesimality structure”.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 6totally. In this totality both are assimilated, are not even partly distinguishable. Hence, from this totality every new definiteness is freely chosen.2. All consciousness is also tied together immediately with each other - not only by immediate focus alternation, but by the central identity in every „braked“, with apparently limited focus speed. I have explained this in the mentioned booklet, too.10The approach: Every consciousness is in infinitesimality-structured relation to all others. In this relation, the center of every consciousness is also identified with the center of the totality, because such unity centers are at every place „between“ part and whole. Accordingly, the decisions of partial consciousness and whole consciousness from the unity with these centers are also identical.If we consider in addition the described presence of all individual realities in the awareness of our own, we get a shimmering, adaptable „consciousness net“ from which every consciousness chooses its reality permanently. According to structure of the network one reality is more likely and the other one less. If consciousness makes a probable reality its actual one, the others „fall down a bit“, lose probability. They become potential.Because our current awareness is tied together with all other awareness indirectly and immediately, consciously and less consciously to subconsciously, it can come to an agreement with them about a collective approximate reality. The biggest part of the coordination will take place for capacity reasons subconsciously (nevertheless, always within awareness), so that we must make not too big thoughts about the form of the world. Also, its stability will be maintained naturally subconsciously. For this we have recognized the general structure, although we do not know most concrete processes yet.Accordingly, the creation of a collective reality would be the decision of all participant individuals for a priority approximation of their positions and the fading out of others. This can be illustrated by the origin of the screen. From all states to which all individuals are fluctuating permanently, a not too improbable one (the vague „idea“) is „condensed“ in a physical object by the inventor / manufacturer. He raises that advance-felt (or investigated) probability by attention, skill and energy application to 100%. Then it is handed over to us „attention-energetic“, is selected by us in this form from the huge number of offers. Other versions are not considered any more. We fade them out. After that, we further construct from the acquired approximate object a more individual screen, our very own one (as described) from which the manufacturer gets as a rule nothing more. However, our screen remains more narrowly related with the prototype than the prototype with the vague „idea“ 10 See the chapters „Consciousness – the infinitesimality structure” and „Our permanent choice”.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 7selected by the inventor - this „idea“ has hardened on a higher level. The friends who visit us (!) may now easily construct a similar screen on our desk.We maintain the stability of the „material object“ partly consciously, because we appreciate it. We also find the way back repeatedly - consciously and half consciously - to the state of screen consideration (i.e. home). And if the object is broken, in the end, we let recycle the atoms. Only how the consciousness net maintains physical laws and human prejudices is widely unsolved.How much we can consciously create, therefore is left to our experimental joy and personal development. There is no lack of guides to it. According to my experience, our possibilities are clearly bigger than materialists believe, but their probabilities often are not so high as many others promise. „Matter“ is compressed consciousness, however, the „matrix“ wants to be taken along.11Two subtle questions arise if one considers the timelessness of the alternation between all „past“ and „future“ individuals:1. If every focus, every individual, every reality is run through permanently, how can we create then a reality? How can it be really new?To put it briefly: The way is more than the goal. Though every individual is a phase of all others, however, its awareness is a unique hierarchy of probabilities, which exists only if it is just taken. Though it is generated at every moment again, the filtered, slower way from peak A to peak B is not! Although it shows a partial frequency of the infinite, there it is only here and now where it is walked.2. If everything already exists in the focus movement, is there then a universal development, or is everything merely repeated?This question is related to the preceding one, and so the answer is easy.12 The unique slow way does not recur most probably, because it is infinite. Also, it can be hardly repeated by someone else (or ourselves), because our freedom of choice makes it unpredictable. Somebody who wanted to follow it would not make the same decisions.Another question on the direction of individual development leads us to the concept of value fulfillment, which can be assumed maybe from the above if we include the asymmetry 11 Allusion on the feature film of the same name in which the „matrix“ stands for the collective consciousness network.12 Both questions can be refined in several directions, which is why I have dedicated to them an own chapter („Die Unzerstörbarkeit des Individuums”) in my German book „Die Erschaffung der Realität”.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 8between restriction that is more quasi-static and dynamic infinity. I would like to close here with a self-citation: „Value fulfillment cannot be determined by a goal. It exists rather in its own prospering, it is in itself way and goal, an experienced awareness and timeless. It means feeling the own meaning in the world, also the own significance, and living according to this value feeling. This feeling encloses its own growth, as well as the growing awareness of a more comprehensive whole in which it is secured.“13www.free-will.deDynamic Existence by Claus Janew is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Germany License. First published 2009.13 „Die Erschaffung der Realität”, Chapter „Werterfüllung“.

Dynamic Existence

Claus JanewDynamic ExistenceWhat is real?I am an individual. Nothing and nobody else occupies my standpoint. Otherwise, he would be I.Thus, all what I perceive is individual, perspective of an individual, part of me.The computer screen should be a part of me? And when my daughter is sitting beside me: is it a part of her, then? And she herself would be a component of me?Consequently, it must be so.But why is the screen a part of her? Why are they both not just components of me? Why the detour over her?One could renounce this detour. But this would not be consistent:My daughter differs from the screen, and, nevertheless, I perceive both. That is there is mediation between both within my individuality. This mediation can consist first in my shifting attention from one to the other. While this, my individuality permanently changes a bit, because it is an entirety of its components.Then I can sit down to the place of my daughter and experience another perspective and individuality thus again. Is this that to my daughter? No, of course it is only a geometrical point of view. However, again this point of view is mediated with my first one, while I alternate the views mentally or physically, more or less fast.Now there speaks my daughter and means, the monitor display is poor in contrast from obliquely. This reminds me of my perception on her place, and I conclude from it, her statement must deal something with my perception there. And consequently (alternation!) also with my perception on the present place.Because she has spoken, at other times, also of other things with me, I have understood her perception, her approach to life, already to a bigger extent and, therefore, subordinate to her an own individuality - with a screen as a component.What has happened? I have permanently alternated positions (attention, viewpoint, approach to life), though always found me in just one. Does this work logically at all?Apparently not. Since if I am not any more there, I am evidently here. Can I be, however, only here? Probably also not. Then I would know nothing from there, but only from here, my individual reality. Though this could be enough for me, actually, my individuality itself arises from such standpoint alternations.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 2This fact results from the uniqueness and entirety of the individual (in Latin „the indivisible“). Because it is not divisible without changing the individual, it differs from all others in any regard. Agreement at any place would presuppose the division of the individuals, namely in the not unique overlapping and the unique remainder. Instead of an overlapping, we would have thus an own individual.1 Hence, a static individual could be not even subdivided, because everything we consider, for example, as a part (or component) of ourselves just thereby is an indivisible perception position: every organ, every cell, every particle, every wave, every thought. It completely differs from the entirety, because it can nowhere agree with the whole. Without alternation between the components, we could not become the individual that we regard as ourselves. We would be without structure, nothing.Therefore, every individual exists only in the alternation of the individuality. There is no Here or There, but only the alternation between all, with a right now priority position. Thus, the standpoint is a phase of the dynamic individual. Everything that exists for the individual exists dynamically.2Why then do we consider things seldom as so changing? We say they are relativelyconstant. Although we know that movement is at the heart of everything, that everyindividuality changes itself. Or we say, the movement is relatively continuous, so at every moment the whole is itself. At all, the whole is complete and the part is a part.Everything properly. All these phenomena arise from the structure of the dynamic, of the alternation. Approximately closed successions of change generate relative constancy. Finely gradated change seems relatively continuous. And different extent of the alternations makes the difference between „part“ and whole.Before we can explain this closer, we must accept logically that the dynamic existence reaches to the infinitely small. No entirety is elementary, because without structure it would be infinitesimal, could not have an effect, not even as a needle sting. After all, we measure everything by its effect. Even an energy quantum cannot shirk, because it has a certain „size“; and it can be only measured (perceived) when it reveals an effect structure, on an electron, for example. But a structure means alternation between individuals (see above). In the case of the energy quantum between the states of the electron, what the quantum arisesfrom. To put the effect down to an elementary quantum, therefore, would not be logical. 1 Only in infinitely small points, the individuals can meet. Since these are nothing without individual deriva-tion.2 As well as the individual himself, because every standpoint also is a dynamic individual that „derives“ from the others etc.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 3Without structure no effect (and vice versa) whomever one assigns the effect to. Exactly this effect also expresses itself in the energy size of the quantum (and not vice versa).Yet, in the end, we find between the varying individuals and in the center of every individual only an infinitesimal point. That is the alternation happens, actually, between single points. Though, of course these are defined by alternation only, so that alternation turns out again as the basic structure. Because this basic structure extends to the infinitesimal, I call it infinitesimality structure.The form of the alternation, therefore, is the form of the infinitesimality structure. If an individual never returned, „exist“ only one infinitesimal moment, nobody could grasp it. If it returned precisely, nobody could perceive its change. Hence, there should be - aside from the change from A to B and B to A’ - also a change from A’ to B’ as well as from B’ to A’’ etc.3, so that an approximate unity of A and B is weaved.In the middle (unity!) between A and B, a quasi-static approximate object of the alternation thereby comes out. Not the previously mentioned tissue, but rather a symbolic form circumscribed by it. This already resembles that what we usually call a thing.4 If the unity predominates, the object is denser, like the tissue. If the difference predominates, it is thinner, sometimes hardly discernibly, because it is due to a more peripheral fabric.The approximation - whether dense or thin - is also individual of course, with an infinitesimal center of identity, so that an alternation takes place between identity and difference of A and B, between oneness and multitude. In the last consequence between the central point and periphery, and again the center inbetween and its periphery etc. In the course of this, also spiral tissue and approximations are produced between all centers and peripheries: there originates an entire, more or less uniform thing.5In the case of the screen the thing is dense: we change from edge to edge, edge to center, pixel to pixel; all individual settings - identity centers - in the awareness of their dynamically existing alternatives.Nevertheless, between my daughter and me the difference predominates; no approximate object crystallizes out, although we feel an ethereal quasi-static unity between us.3 Moreover, also between A’ and A, A’’ and A’ etc.4 To be precise: For the individual A who becomes aware of its phase B the approximation between them is a potential to the existence of B. If it becomes aware of the alternation between two other phases of itself, the approximation seems concrete.5 Because the approximation is basically a potential to the reproduction of the in each case other side, she can be no additional individual, but was present from the beginning of the alternation - as an original change partner who went over to an other one and is now the center.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 4If I extend the dynamic of my standpoint to the situation as such, now I alternate between relatively independent „parts“ (screen, daughter, I), while I put myself into the position of my daughter, realize a solid monitor etc. I perceive from the respective position an individual totality; and over and over again also from the center of the „whole“ situation, which I arrange individually as well.Does this mean a universal definition of existence on the base of individuality alternations? Yes, because another existence than an individual one is not consistently generalizable.The alternation does not happen necessarily physically (whatever is meant by „physically“). It depends only on the position of perception. The need of the infinitesimality structure to grasp this dynamic shows that we can speak as well of consciousness or consciousness foci. Since nothing is solid, everything are back-coupling alternation structures of alternations.These also must not be space-temporal. This is only our habitual perception. Alternation can and will take place in every state space formed by quite different coordinates. How these alternations are arranged by perception, is open, too. Dreams and associations are an example of this.Nevertheless, the logical consequences are bigger: If everything exists only in the alternation of the individuality, this alternation must enclose the whole universe! No alternation can be separated from the others completely, run possibly in parallel, because this would mean an absolute division of the universe. That is we speak of one singlealternation.If the universe is unlimited - and for a final limit there is in no direction a reason - then the position change must occur at infinite speed. („Speed“ as its space-temporal interpretation.) This is the basic speed from which every relatively limited consciousness is filtered out by the form of the alternation. Such filtering forms are narrow back couplings, which reduce the superficial frequency of the change, slow down movement apparently, so that the quicker frequencies work only in the little conscious background. Just as well as if I concentrate upon the screen and „forget“ my daughter besides, while I am still aware of her and a lot of farther. Even the macrocosm has not disappeared completely. Only the details are not resolved any more.66 From this the reality funnel originates, as it is described in my e-book „How Consciousness Creates Reality“ (in the chapter of the same name). This is the very abridged version of my German book „Die Erschaffung der Realität“ (The Creation of Reality). They are both available from www.free-will.de.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 5If the form shows a finely gradated structure, it seems solid. If it proves in addition a drift, we have a continuous movement. If it is closely tied and variously intertwined, it will not dissolve fast. If it more allows spontaneous change, it will develop new, but related struc-tures.What does it mean, actually, to say „we“? Do „we“ see anything? Also this „we“ and „our“ something originate from the exchange of positions - while we transform (!) subjective information back and forth and create thus an approximate collectivity.7It needs a paradigm change from the view of „objective“ objects to the awareness of a dynamic individual that alternates through all realities and determines itself by the form of this alternation. Despite it is unusual: The infinite basic speed gives every way to it.8 Even with a relatively steady awareness of my individuality, with a self-filtered consciousness, sitting here, I am at every moment a phase of the unlimited alternation. The terms awareness, individual, standpoint, consciousness, focus are basically synonymous. I only structure with them the all-embracing dynamic. If I sit down from one place on the other, I do nothing else, than to relate phases of my unlimited alternation back coupling to each other and thus design a local change.What is creation?The infinitesimality structure of focus dynamic has another two essential consequences:1. The freedom of choice of consciousness is automatically integrated. I have founded this in my article Omnipresent Consciousness and Free Will as well as in my e-book How Consciousness Creates Reality.9In brief: Weighing describes a back coupling between alternative changes. This indefiniteness circumscribes an entirety and defines it thus up to an infinitesimal center. However, in a decisive situation the indefiniteness of the progress is also an indefiniteness of the situation as a whole. The alternatives are defined on the other hand as those very well. That is definiteness and indefiniteness of the situation can be separated from the decision-making process at no place, they actually arise from it. Besides, the peripheral structure of the whole and its most internal core establish an infinitesimality-structured unity. This unites definiteness and indefiniteness also 7 See the chapter „Projection and creating approximations“ in „How Consciousness Creates Reality“8 I have thought through all basic questions, which arose to me from this result. Here their discussion would be too extensive. However, I will answer with pleasure your questions by e-mail (see home page at the end).9 See the chapter „Consciousness – the infinitesimality structure”.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 6totally. In this totality both are assimilated, are not even partly distinguishable. Hence, from this totality every new definiteness is freely chosen.2. All consciousness is also tied together immediately with each other - not only by immediate focus alternation, but by the central identity in every „braked“, with apparently limited focus speed. I have explained this in the mentioned booklet, too.10The approach: Every consciousness is in infinitesimality-structured relation to all others. In this relation, the center of every consciousness is also identified with the center of the totality, because such unity centers are at every place „between“ part and whole. Accordingly, the decisions of partial consciousness and whole consciousness from the unity with these centers are also identical.If we consider in addition the described presence of all individual realities in the awareness of our own, we get a shimmering, adaptable „consciousness net“ from which every consciousness chooses its reality permanently. According to structure of the network one reality is more likely and the other one less. If consciousness makes a probable reality its actual one, the others „fall down a bit“, lose probability. They become potential.Because our current awareness is tied together with all other awareness indirectly and immediately, consciously and less consciously to subconsciously, it can come to an agreement with them about a collective approximate reality. The biggest part of the coordination will take place for capacity reasons subconsciously (nevertheless, always within awareness), so that we must make not too big thoughts about the form of the world. Also, its stability will be maintained naturally subconsciously. For this we have recognized the general structure, although we do not know most concrete processes yet.Accordingly, the creation of a collective reality would be the decision of all participant individuals for a priority approximation of their positions and the fading out of others. This can be illustrated by the origin of the screen. From all states to which all individuals are fluctuating permanently, a not too improbable one (the vague „idea“) is „condensed“ in a physical object by the inventor / manufacturer. He raises that advance-felt (or investigated) probability by attention, skill and energy application to 100%. Then it is handed over to us „attention-energetic“, is selected by us in this form from the huge number of offers. Other versions are not considered any more. We fade them out. After that, we further construct from the acquired approximate object a more individual screen, our very own one (as described) from which the manufacturer gets as a rule nothing more. However, our screen remains more narrowly related with the prototype than the prototype with the vague „idea“ 10 See the chapters „Consciousness – the infinitesimality structure” and „Our permanent choice”.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 7selected by the inventor - this „idea“ has hardened on a higher level. The friends who visit us (!) may now easily construct a similar screen on our desk.We maintain the stability of the „material object“ partly consciously, because we appreciate it. We also find the way back repeatedly - consciously and half consciously - to the state of screen consideration (i.e. home). And if the object is broken, in the end, we let recycle the atoms. Only how the consciousness net maintains physical laws and human prejudices is widely unsolved.How much we can consciously create, therefore is left to our experimental joy and personal development. There is no lack of guides to it. According to my experience, our possibilities are clearly bigger than materialists believe, but their probabilities often are not so high as many others promise. „Matter“ is compressed consciousness, however, the „matrix“ wants to be taken along.11Two subtle questions arise if one considers the timelessness of the alternation between all „past“ and „future“ individuals:1. If every focus, every individual, every reality is run through permanently, how can we create then a reality? How can it be really new?To put it briefly: The way is more than the goal. Though every individual is a phase of all others, however, its awareness is a unique hierarchy of probabilities, which exists only if it is just taken. Though it is generated at every moment again, the filtered, slower way from peak A to peak B is not! Although it shows a partial frequency of the infinite, there it is only here and now where it is walked.2. If everything already exists in the focus movement, is there then a universal development, or is everything merely repeated?This question is related to the preceding one, and so the answer is easy.12 The unique slow way does not recur most probably, because it is infinite. Also, it can be hardly repeated by someone else (or ourselves), because our freedom of choice makes it unpredictable. Somebody who wanted to follow it would not make the same decisions.Another question on the direction of individual development leads us to the concept of value fulfillment, which can be assumed maybe from the above if we include the asymmetry 11 Allusion on the feature film of the same name in which the „matrix“ stands for the collective consciousness network.12 Both questions can be refined in several directions, which is why I have dedicated to them an own chapter („Die Unzerstörbarkeit des Individuums”) in my German book „Die Erschaffung der Realität”.Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 8between restriction that is more quasi-static and dynamic infinity. I would like to close here with a self-citation: „Value fulfillment cannot be determined by a goal. It exists rather in its own prospering, it is in itself way and goal, an experienced awareness and timeless. It means feeling the own meaning in the world, also the own significance, and living according to this value feeling. This feeling encloses its own growth, as well as the growing awareness of a more comprehensive whole in which it is secured.“13Copyright © 2009 by Claus Janewwww.free-will.de13 „Die Erschaffung der Realität”, Chapter „Werterfüllung“.

oai:sammelpunkt.philo.at:1923'Was die Menschheitsverbrechen des 21. Jahrhunderts sein werden, wissen wir nicht, aber es ist gut möglich, daß sie Auschwitz gar nicht ähnlich sehen und daß wir sie nicht bemerken, wenn wir wie gebannt nur auf Auschwitz starren.' (Jan Ross, Die Zeit, November 1998)

 The events of 11 September 2001 and Germany's reaction to them were further indication that recollection of Auschwitz is inevitably losing its force in political decision-making as the country assumes European and global responsibilities in the present. This does not mean that national memory of the Holocaust is fading in Germany. On the contrary, media attention together with ritual commemoration and educational initiatives keep it very much alive. 

This paper will examine continuity and change in the national memory narratives of the so-called Berlin Republic relating to Germany's National Socialist past. After a brief assessment of various theories of memory (e.g. Halbwachs, Nora, Assmann and Welzer) it will first draw up a typology of memory that can be applied to post-war Germany. Memory will be considered as a narrative in that is it always selective and manipulated to reveal an interpretation rather than a mirror image of the past. Memory narratives can be individual, collective or national.

 National memory narratives will be defined as an officially promoted version of events which can inform the identity of younger generations in particular. They are also used for the purposes of Geschichtspolitik. The national memory narratives of the Bundesrepublik have changed in accordance with political and societal circumstances and developments. 

The paper will present a short overview of the changing national memory narratives in the post-war period up to when the Schröder government assumed power in autumn 1998. For some commentators, this marked a seachange in terms of attitudes to the National Socialist past. This is the first post-war government whose members have no direct memory of the Third Reich. As such it is also representative of the shift, to use Jan Assmann's terms, from communicative to cultural memory of the period. The subsequent national memory narratives represent an interpretation of what is for most no longer direct experience. Another aspect to consider is the increasing number of memory narratives on the period despite the growing chronological distance from it. These result in many layers of memory: one page of a newspaper may for example contain articles about payments to former forced labourers, the Holocaust monument, some new historical research into the Holocaust and a political debate on national pride.

 The number of memory narratives on the National Socialist period has not only increased in Germany. The paper will go on to consider Germany's national memory narratives in the context of a larger international narrative, or as one national narrative amongst many. In recent years, the revelation of the sometimes murky past of countries that formerly proclaimed themselves victim or victorious has led to a gradual change in the respective national narratives. At the same time, the internationalisation and medialisation of memory of the Third Reich or, more specifically, the Holocaust, has made it into 'everyone's history'. A universal interpretation can be productive, for example in begging common solutions to human rights violations. However, to use Peter Novick's argument, it can also be instrumentalised as the 'absolute evil' in order to paper over a nation's own shortcomings. 

The paper will argue that although bound into the 'international' Holocaust narrative, German national memory remains influenced by the country's ethnic ties to the perpetrator regime of National Socialism and the continuing need to reconcile present identity with past guilt. In the post-war period, the country has been faced with the problem of creating a positive national narrative - up to now this could be done with relation to politics but not history. Two instances of how this difficult legacy has been incorporated into the national memory of the Berlin Republic will be considered here. First, national memory of the Third Reich past has developed into a framework for what could be termed German Leitverantwortung, that is open contrition for National Socialist atrocities but with an emphasis on present responsibility for maintaining human rights and democracy rather than past guilt. This tendency will be illustrated with reference to political speeches and developments as well as policy debates. Examples will include the question of intervention in Kosovo, Fischer's diplomacy in the Middle East and the response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2000. The tendency will also be examined in terms of cultural developments. Up to now any cultural representation featuring the Holocaust had negative reverberations in Germany. 2001 saw the opening of the Jewish museum in Berlin, which was heralded as a reflection of the new German responsibility. Michael Blumenthal, Director of the museum, deemed it a sign that Germany had acquired the moral right to be a leader in the global campaign against racism and for human rights.

 Despite the notion of Leitverantwortung there does however remain a strong emphasis on the Nazi past as a negative legacy, especially in the media. This uneasy juxtaposition was illustrated by the debate surrounding Martin Walser's 'Friedenspreisrede' of October 1998, which indicated that Schröder had been too hasty in declaring a 'neue Unbefangenheit' with regard to the National Socialist past. Excessive reference to the Holocaust and German guilt in events and debates has been described as a kind of Leidkultur by, amongst others, the critic Henryk Broder. With this in mind, the paper will go on to discuss whether, to use Walser's term, the 'Moralkeule' of Auschwitz is barring Germany from being a 'normal' nation able to assert its own interests. The so-called Leitkultur and Nationalstolz debates on German identity and patriotism will be considered in this context. The fear of an intellectual - and political - shift to the right will also be covered here using the example of the debate surrounding the publication of Norman Finkelstein's Holocaust Industry and, to a lesser extent, Peter Novick's The Holocaust in American Life. In a comparison with the 'Vergangenheitsbewältigung' debates in the post-war period, these newer debates will be shown as having less to do with the direct memory of the National Socialist period than with its legacy in the present-day political culture of the Bundesrepublik. 

The final section of the paper will examine a shift in the nature of national memory narratives from a passive to an active use of the National Socialist legacy. On the one hand, the ritualised form of cultural memory through speeches, commemorations and so on remains necessary for formal remembrance as well as to show respect for the victims. Running parallel to - and sometimes crossing over with - this is a kind of 'active' memory focusing on political and democratic education, applying - indirectly or directly - the 'lessons' of this Holocaust to challenges in the present. Though the two sides run parallel, the 'active' uses of the past would seem to be increasingly dominant. One major indication of this was the demonstration 'Für Menschlichkeit und Toleranz' on 9 November 2000, which brought some 200,000 people onto the streets of Berlin to demonstrate against (contemporary) racism and intolerance on the same day that commemorates the Reichskristallnacht of 1938 (and, of course, the fall of the Berlin Wall). This development is also reflected in the work of a growing number of organisations campaigning against racism and for tolerance. Moreover, those organisations that aim to keep memory of the National Socialist past alive now frequently place this past into the context of the present as well as providing historical information. This can be seen, for example, in the education programmes of the Haus der Wannsee Konferenz, which invite participants to consider issues relating to the Holocaust through the perspective of their own occupation. 

Such 'active memory' of the National Socialist past perhaps raises more attention than 'passive' memory and can thus be a positive way of generating historical consciousness and awareness of its application in the present. There is of course the risk of the past being relativised or distorted by aligning it too much with the present: the debates on the far right and National Socialism should not be fused into one. The paper will conclude that this is however to a certain extent inevitable, particularly with generational change and increased distance from the past. In this respect, national memory narratives will continue to have a role and responsibility in providing a connecting thread to place the increasing layers of memory into their correct historical context

Dynamic Existence

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

Name not available

Sammelpunkt. Elektronisch archivierte Theorie