‘Het is sindsdien niet duidelijker geworden wie deze website nu eigenlijk beheert en ook de toegankelijkheid van de verschillende teksten en documenten is niet verbeterd’.
Dat is inmiddels flink veranderd, de website is compleet vernieuwd. In ‘About’ schrijven de websitebeheerders in een Post Scriptum over zichzelf:
‘PS: We would like to stay anonymous for the time being to emphasize that the content of this site is dedicated to, is inspired by, and, most importantly, republishes the work and impulses of D. N. Dunlop and W. J. Stein.’
De vorige vernieuwing van de website vond plaats op 21 september 2009, maar die blogpost is van de website verwijderd. De ‘admin’ schreven onder meer:
‘This update of our website should make the website more readable and attractive. We also want to encourage debate by enabling the comment function.’
Er kwamen vier reacties op, waarop deze van Nicolaas Vergunst:
‘Dear Frans and MarkusI congratulate you on a most timely initiative to publish material associated with The Present Age (1936-39?) and the work of DN Dunlop and WJ Stein. Your clear, well-designed presentation of unknown, even unpublished private correspondence is a most welcome resource for those wanting to understand the background to contemporary world events.
However, for someone not yet familiar with the work of Dunlop and Stein (including Søren Kierkegaard a century before. 1846?), a more expanded editorial note may be useful with each issue. For instance, readers like me would appreciate your comments on the historical context in which such men strove for a “world economy” or directed themselves toward a “companionship” of European countries.
Also, if I may make a further suggestion, please provide the transcribed contents in a neat, typed format alongside the original correspondence. Despite their genius, great men are not all endowed with a beautiful, legible handwriting. For this they are excused!I wish you all success.’
Hij weet duidelijk meer dan wij. Maar nu kunnen wij weten dat ‘Frans en Markus’ de websitebeheerders zijn, en dat klinkt behoorlijk Nederlands. De voorlaatste blogpost geeft nog zo’n indicatie, want die was getiteld ‘Some impressions of Triodos Bank’:
‘Posted on February 16, 2011 by adminIn the beginning of December 2010, Mr. Bierman, Managing Director of Triodos Bank Netherlands, gave a publicly accessible lecture at the School of Business and Economics of Maastricht University. A few things that he mentioned during the lecture stood out. ... Continue reading’.
Volgt een verslag van deze bijeenkomst, waarin – heel ongewoon – in de ik-vorm wordt geschreven:
‘I listed them in no particular order. (...)
Additionally I would like to raise attention to an interesting speech by Peter Blom, CEO and Chairman of the Executive Board of Triodos Bank. Recently he was invited as a member of the Club of Rome. Upon receiving the 2010 Botwinick Prize in Business Ethics at Columbia Business School, Mr. Blom touches, from a banker’s perspective, on many important aspects of the role of a bank, the role of money, and the increased consciousness of customers. His speech was captured on video and can be found on youtube.
It strikes me as particularly important that there are individuals who seem to have a solid grasp of some of some of the pressing problems of our times (such as the role of banks), and at the same time speak at such events and places. Thereby they may reach younger people that will at some time have some say in the conduct of world affairs.
At the same time I ask myself: where is the much-needed economic debate about a future, post-crisis sustainable economy? A refreshing place to start may be the Centre for Associative Economics in England with its monthly newsletter and its regular lectures. But where is the mainstream debate about changes necessary to adjust to a sustainable society?’
Maar wie deze ik dan is, wordt er weer niet vermeld. Wij hebben daar nu dus wel een idee bij. – Goed, nu naar het nieuwe bericht van gisteren, ‘W. J. Stein: A School of Spiritual Science’:
‘Art, science, and religion have been separated starting with Aristotle, who was first with conducting science as an independent entity. Subsequently, one consequence of the Middle Ages was to detach art from religion. And up to today the three areas are largely disconnected and specialized separate areas of human life.
Walter Johannes Stein acknowledges this separation as a necessary historical fact but at the same time points out to the possibility of uniting them today in a School of Spiritual Science. Accordingly, this School of Spiritual Science is grounded in a Universal World-Conception, to use W. J. Stein’s words. In this connection he also points out to one of the last Schools where art, science, and religion were still connected until the Middle Ages: the spiritual School of the Hibernian Mysteries in Ireland.
For one, the article gives an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of scientific research in mankind, which has been ever more specialized, yet may benefit from each other significantly. In his words: “The materialism of modern science lies not only in the contents of the single sciences, but in the very organization of science itself, in its tendency to exaggerated specialization which separates and divides domains of knowledge which ought to be regarded as one whole.” W. J. Stein then gives a few practical illustrations to show how specialized subjects can enhance each other. For example, chemistry can meaningfully be complemented by physiology, history may truly benefit from psychology, or education may need the help of medicine to be more practical.
However—and most important in our opinion—this article can give the reader a direction for the renewal of academic life in general. W. J. Stein sees an urgent need to unify these different entities of human life into a universal School of Spiritual Science. In his words: “The School of Spiritual Science would like to include people connected with all the sciences, all the arts, all the philosophies and religions.” This is, in our opinion, a highly relevant impulse for today.
Clearly, the goal of his article was not only to reflect but also to give an impulse for future development. This is why we republish it on our site. We hope that there will be some comments that make use of this impulse, which seems to us is even timelier now than when it was published in 1936. How do you think is this impulse working in all around the world today, in 2011?
Please find the article here.’
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten