A Tree of Knowledge

Today, I am a bit euphoric. I think I achieved a major breakthrough in sorting and elaborating my reflections. And all because of an atheist meme on facebook that labeled the Bible, the Quran and the Talmud “fake news” (a political fashion term at the moment). Critical with all “extreme” positions, I had to come up with a proper reply, but the issue turned out to be more complicated. I think I found a good way to explain my point. I present: My tree of knowledge!

Wait a minute… Tree of knowledge? Like the one in the Bible? No. That is a different story. But also yes, somehow. I will come to it later (maybe). Like the one described by René Descartes (“Philosophical works”, Vol.2, transl. John Cottingham et al., Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985, p.186)? His tree had three parts: metaphysics as the roots, scientific knowledge of nature (physics) as trunk, and the three main branches medicine, morals and mechanics. Philosophy’s task then was to harvest the fruits of this tree as insight of the world. Its key questions are “What is knowledge?” and “What do we use it for?“. My tree is similar, but – in view of recent insights from biology, psychology, culture studies and constructivism – more sophisticated in the description of roots and trunk, and more up-to-date in the number and constitution of branches. Another famous tree of knowledge was proposed by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela (“The Tree of Knowledge. Biological roots of human understanding.”, 1987). This, indeed, is a book that everybody (!) should read! It is a key work in the field of constructivism, insightful not only for academics but for everybody who wants to go through daily life mindfully. However, the metaphor of a tree is not particularly illustrated in the book but simply refers to human understanding as a living and evolving network: “We will propose a way of seeing cognition not as a representation of the world ‘out there,’ but rather as an ongoing bringing forth of a world through the process of living itself” (p. 11). Maturana and – even more so – Varela, not only with this work but also with other impacting publications, belong to my most influential thinkers and scientists. Even though I try to avoid their flaw of widely ignoring the philosophical insights of the past 2500 years in their Tree of Knowledge, their insights contributed significantly to the elaboration of my tree of knowledge:


The roots constitute the sources of all our experiences. Everything we know about the world is constructed by our cognitive equipment: senses, central nervous system, brain. Parts of this system are memory, consciousness, emotions and other psychologically observable and explainable features. In simple terms: we observe, process, think, feel, recall and react. Then, we securely know that we are the centre of the universe. All experiences necessarily are made by us from the self-perspective. Nobody can make experiences for someone else. Same as a thought doesn’t exist beyond its being-thought, experience doesn’t exist beyond its being-experienced. The perception of a self (or an ego) inevitably goes along with the definition of everything else as the other. This illusion of separation creates the idea of world as something external. Within this world-space we experience desires and needs that feed our constant fear of non-existence and ceasing-from-existence. We experience many forms of suffering (in the literal form as pain, in the figurative form as unsatisfactoriness) and yearn for safety and security. This list of basic features is certainly incomplete, but I believe it is sufficiently precise to adumbrate the key point: all humans (as long as not physically or mentally disabled) share these features, and all humans build their decisions, viewpoints and their life on this foundation. Agree?

The trunk is the channel through which we process all these experiences in order to manifest them in our being-in-the-world (using Heidegger’s term). Experiencing is a process (for some scholars even an act) that only works in view of an experience background that is present in the experiencer, an active sense-making. This might be the biggest difference to Descartes’ tree of knowledge: It is illusionary to believe that the act of sense-making for all humans is always only scientific, exploiting knowledge of “the real world” (nature). Since Kant and latest since the convincing insights provided by constructivism, there are many more options. First, we all run on a kind of default setting. If not otherwise reflected or mindfully brought into our conscious awareness, the choices and decisions we make are controlled and determined by the cognitive and behavioural patterns acquired since we are born, under strong influence of our emotions, our education and other previous experiences that I like to summarise as the matrix. In this default setting we tend to be selfish, self-centred, vulnerable, manipulable and susceptible for external powers. Then, there is dogmatism and indoctrination: Someone tells us in one or the other form what certain experiences mean and what we have to conclude from them. In the light form, this includes the parental and institutional education at home and at schools. In the more drastic form we can find that in most religious instances (church), in some political systems, and in parts even in science; in short: in all systems that have anything to do with power of some over others (in the widest possible meaning). There are also more conscious and sceptical ways of sense-making: we can deal with observations and experiences empirically by setting them into perspective with other observations and experiences, we can contest them and refine our understanding of them. The most basic tool for this is logic. An important aspect of these strategies to “construct meaning from experience” is that they are more sustainable and stable the more a person is mindful and free in the choice of options.

In order to understand my choice of branches (here: religion, culture, politics, economy, science, technology) it is important to realise that this model applies for both individual humans and social agglomerations at large. Let me start with the societal level. In current societies, these spheres are the most present ones. Almost all societies developed or adopted institutions of organised religion or at least some kind of spirituality, organise themselves in some form of politics, established systems of production, trade and consumption (economy), started investigating nature and society (science) and invented more or less sophisticated tools that make human life easier (technology). Culture might be an outstanding point here, and some might disagree upon its presence in this set of social spheres. What I mean with it here are all the features and characteristics that serve as the identity-giving connecting fabric of a society: language, art, morals, codes of behaviour, Zeitgeist. Different societies express these branches in different fashions and to various extents, both regionally (an Asian society is different from a European one) and temporally (the Greek society of 500BC differs from the contemporary Greek society). From the historical perspective, some ancient branches disappeared while new ones flourished, others dried out or grew stronger. Let’s take, for example, the German tree: It is a completely secular society, so the religion branch is very small. Germans are – especially in view of their horrible history – convinced of their political system and very “political” in the sense that many topics on the political agenda are discussed – the Politics branch is rather strong. The same can be said for the economy branch, even though it is certainly smaller than the US-American economy branch since German are generally quite sceptical with consumption. Science might be one of the biggest branches: We can only know for sure what we have contested and analysed, including nature, art, religion, etc. Everything must be able to stand a critical investigation, otherwise it is either meaningless or wrong. Technology has shaped the German society quite significantly, but – in analogy to economy – people are sceptical with innovation and rather conservative.

There is an ambivalent correlation between the society as a system and its individual members. Each individual contributes to the characteristics of a society, but it is also society that shapes individuals and sets the margin for their self-expression. A religious society will most likely produce religious members. The process of social change and progress, therefore, is usually very slow. However, what is valid for the society at large is also valid for the individual: Everybody develops all branches in one or the other way and to a certain extent. Remember: these reflections are about “constructing meaning from experience”.

Example 1: Some experiences affect our understanding of features of our surrounding (our world construct): We long to understand nature and the world. Depending on the epistemic channel that a person prefers and applies, answers are found in the branch of religion or in science (This is a descriptive statement! It does not evaluate the legitimacy of choosing religion or science to answer questions about the world fabric adequately! This is done elsewhere.).

Example 2: Experiences concerning the fulfilment of needs can either be manifested in economy (for example as materialism), in religiously or spiritually motivated modesty, or in scientific explanations of human biology and psyche.

All parts – roots, trunk, branches – are dynamic and subject of change. Some roots grow deeper and stronger when a person puts a focus on certain types of experiences or when outer conditions (for example, the type of job, or the family situation) draw the person’s attention to particular aspects of life. The channels in the trunk are cultivated and expressed to different extents, too. Children mostly follow their default setting, but during youth and adolescence they discover new strategies for constructing meaning. Some become open-minded empiricists, others indoctrinated religious fanatics (just to be sure: there are also open-minded religious people and dogmatic fanatic empiricists). Once a channel is formed and solidified, it is very difficult to change the setting, yet not impossible. Moreover, it is perfectly possible that many branches co-exist peacefully. A scientist can be outspokenly religious by separating the types of knowledge strictly – empiric physical knowledge into the science field, normative spiritual knowledge into the religion field. It would take an enormous amount of active ignorance to claim that “there can only be scientific knowledge” (as done by atheists) or “there can only be religious belief” (as done by religious fanatics).

We can think of countless examples in what way this metaphor depicts the development and constitution of social spheres like politics and economy as the result of meaning-construction. This would blow up this letter by far too much. Instead, I’d like to draw the attention towards the fourth element in this illustration: the fruits. When a branch flourishes, there are fruits growing that a person or a society has to harvest. A strong economy branch will support wealth and material well-being, but also greed and competition. A strong religion branch will increase the capacity of hope and identification with the community, but also fascism (separating the own beliefs from the others’ beliefs) and dogmatism (for example promoting creationism and denying biological evolution). Some fruits are sweet, others are poisonous or stink. It is these fruits that make people conclude that some branches are more valuable and viable than others, that some branches are better kept small or even cut off while other branches deserve more care and nourishment. Atheists often deny the legitimacy of the religion branch. Anti-capitalists see a social threat in the economy branch. Political reformists and anarchists would like to reshape the politics branch according to their political ideals. Reportedly, there are even “science-deniers”. Very often, the suggested “cures” focus on the materialisations and embodiments of meaning-construction within the realms of the respective branches: Atheists (as in the initial remark) want to defame or ban the historical religious books, anti-capitalists want to abolish money or the monetary system, anarchists aim at freedom from any political leadership. History has proven that forceful and violent attempts to reach these goals will almost always end up in conflict and misery. Try to take away the Bible from a religious Christian, and he will stick to it even more, like a child to exactly that toy that you try to take. It will also not be possible to change that person’s roots. The only sustainable chance is to encourage people to open and use different channels of meaning-construction. If you want to change a religious person, present to him alternative interpretations of worldly phenomena, philosophical ways to reason virtues rather than divine laws, or how meaning of religion changes when church is unmasked as a political rather than a spiritual institution. Don’t expect the religious person to change easily. He will try to change you instead: explaining different conceptualisations of “God”, “loving-kindness” as the core element of religious insight, benevolence and grace of charity as spiritually motivated virtues. Ask yourself first, if your own personal choice of how to construct meaning from experience is always exclusively right! The same can be said in the case of “money”: Is it really money that we should condemn as the root of all evil and the cause of greed and injustice? Or is it because we give it too much meaning?

Many people feel powerless in regard of huge overarching “systems” like church, political leadership, capitalism, technological progress, cultural matrix. They might criticise that my focus on strategies of meaning construction is too individual and idealistically ignoring that institutionalised systems and their power outweigh the impact of individual person belief and knowledge systems. Maybe, maybe not. I agree that a heavy precondition for my reflections is a certain degree of freedom of choice. People living in tyrannies might not have a chance to change the fashion of the politics branch. Capitalism is so deeply entrenched in people’s life that it doesn’t really give them a chance to choose their lifestyle. People in the poorest country on earth face such urgent existential problems that questions of meaning-construction turn out unaffordable luxury for them. However, most of us do have a choice. Systems only have power over us when we give it to them, which is mostly by not taking full advantage of our capacity to choose how we construct meaning from experience. Mindless people are easier to control than people with a clear and well-reasoned, well-informed worldview. Naturally, there will always be those people with deeper insights and a wider variety of choices (those with a thicker trunk) and those with rather limited possibilities (with thinner trunks, easily bendable in the wind of opposition). Here, we need communication and discourse on all levels (family-internal, among friends, in social groups and public in general) in order to plant seeds in each other to refine and sophisticate our meaning-construction strategies. We need to make sure, of course, that it is the better argument (in terms of logic consistency and viability) that wins, not the most powerful position or the most popular. Then, sooner or later, some branches decay while others flourish or new ones sprout. Again, we see that the picture fits perfectly!

There are several possible streams of thought from here on. Some of them will certainly be the subject of future letters I will write here:

  • Education – How can home and school education support a child or teenager to identify and use various channels of meaning-construction mindfully? How can we develop more options for ourselves to deal properly with our “root problems” (suffering, desire, self, etc.)?
  • Culture – What does this scheme imply for intercultural communication? What does it mean for cultural change in general?
  • Buddhism – This picture fits so perfectly into Buddhist philosophy that an article on that relation is almost inevitable!
  • Constructivism – I believe it is worthwhile pulling the constructivist elements of this model into awareness. We can learn many meaningful lessons for daily life from it!
  • Science and Technology – As part of my profession, I believe that this metaphor helps enlightening some of the mechanisms that support scientism and technocracy in our society. If we want to deal with emergent problems like climate change and progressive emotional dullness (a la Konrad Lorenz) successfully, it might be necessary to pay attention to the patterns implied in here.

For now, I’d just like to refer the reader to one of the most important and meaningful speeches ever given (in my humble opinion): David Foster Wallace’s “This is water“.

The rebirth of Now

In Western thinking – based on the historical experiences – religion is carefully separated from philosophy. Religious belief is dogmatic and “faithful”, while philosophical reflection is logic, rational and should be based on empirically acquired knowledge. Christian worldview and Aristotelian or Kantian worldview might overlap in parts but are fundamentally different in their derivation and character. Religious people are believers and worshippers, while philosophers are thinkers and doubtful skeptics. When I started being interested in Buddhist worldview, I found that it is not so much a religion, as often propagated, but much more a philosophy. The Western term “buddhism” describes two ideas of Buddha’s influence, which in Chinese are 佛教 (fojiao), used to describe the religious practices, rituals and beliefs of buddhists, and 佛家 (fojia), understood as the intellectual philosophical content of Buddha’s teachings. Am I a “Buddhist” when I agree to Buddha’s worldview and practice some of its essences like mindfulness, compassion, inner peace and meditative contemplation, without supporting the belief in some of its historical dogmatic elements like rebirth or the Japanese idea of a “pure land”? A friend said “You can’t just select what you like and ignore the rest!”. Well, I can, but then I am just not “a Buddhist”.

The most intriguing religious idea of Buddhism is rebirth. However, there are many misunderstandings about it, especially when communicating it in a Western language like English or German, and especially when talking about it with someone having a “Western” cultural and educational background. Let me try to clarify a few important aspects of rebirth and Karma, which is closely connected to this topic.

The Chinese term used in the context of rebirth is 輪迴 (lunhui) which is often translated as “reincarnation” or “transmigration”. This is very unlucky, because reincarnation and rebirth must be carefully distinguished. Christians believe in a “soul” that migrates to a new body after the death of the old one.


Souls are eternal and the core of a person. The reincarnation of someone is still that someone. The mortal body is merely a container of the soul. Sounds like typical Western thinking to me. We also find it in Hinduism, serving as the justification for the Indian caste system (that someone is “born into” by reincarnation). The whole concept of personhood and personality is different in Buddhist worldview. Nothing is permanent, so there can’t be this kind of “soul”. Also, there is no isolated, individual being that makes any sense regardless of its surrounding (let’s call it “world”). What determines a human being’s condition is the embedment within an environment and the interaction with it. By having a consciousness and a strong action potential, humans create causes and effects with what they choose to do. This is called Karma. We constitute the further course of our surrounding and, by that, our own path through our karmic actions and decisions. The ancient Theravada school of Buddhism, still closer related to Hinduism, interpreted this in a way that karmic conditions and tendencies are carried on into the next life cycle. It is karmic forces that “migrate” to the next life, not someone’s personality.


Karma, then, also determines the conditions of the next life cycle: The surrounding as well as the form of being itself. This has often been exploited for educational purposes: “If you misbehave and do bad deeds in this life, you will be reborn as an amoeba!”. So you better do well!

Now, the literal understanding of rebirth has never been and can never be proven. That makes it a religious belief. However, there is another way to give it a down-to-earth daily life meaning, as found in the Mahayana branch of Buddhism, especially in Chan (Japanese: Zen) Buddhism. Mahayana philosophy follows a much stricter monism (“all is one”) and rejects the idea of “Nirvana” as a particular moment occuring “someday” in one of an entity’s life cycles, as such separated from the profane life within the Samsara. Instead, Nirvana is always present, intrinsically interwoven into life in form of karmic potential. Moreover, there is no self that sustains itself independently over long periods of time (only our illusion of it does). From moment to moment  a being’s constitution changes, because it is dependent on all the karmic factors of its surrounding (which, obviously, is also constantly changing). With this understanding, “rebirth” doesn’t necessarily mean to be “born again” after death. Every new moment is a rebirth of the previous moment. Making a “moment” infinitely small ends up at the continuum that we perceive as “time”. Therefore, time is always “now”. What I choose to do in this Now determines my condition when “reborn” in the next Now. I am nice to you now, and in the next moment I might have a new friend. I steal an apple from my neighbour now, and I will be one step further down the spiral of crime with all its consequences in the next moment. Many of our choices and actual actions are somehow (ethically, normatively) “neutral”, but they impact our path and further course (call it “fate”). This matches perfectly with the understanding of Karma as “the law of cause and effect” rather than as a kind of punishment and retributive justice system. It also rejects determinism and destiny, because human consciousness enables the creation of new karmic tendencies. If not, the entire Buddhist endeavour of “enlightenment” would be useless. I think, this can be a reason for many Christians feeling uncomfortable with Buddhism: It would put them in charge of their lives, it would make them have responsibility for it, rather than blaming all on God. They feel good trusting in the benevolence and mercy of a loving God who takes good care of their lives. History has proven that this trust is too often disappointed. It is on us to take good care of our lives, to find “the right way” and make “the right choices”. Then Karma will increase the chance that in each and every “next moment” we find ourselves reborn in a “better world” with “better conditions”. This totally makes sense to me!

Further reading: click here

A Simple Letter on Complexity

I wrote a long letter to you because I had no time to write a short one.

This quote, probably first written by French philosopher Blaise Pascal in a letter to a friend (source: “Letters to a friend in the provence”, Letter No.16: “Jesuit Defamations”), can be taken as an “excuse” for my long letters to you. Do they always have to be that long, 4000 words or more, like academic essays? Well, we can say it negatively: Unfinished and deluded thoughts require more space than clear, finished, concluded thoughts. My elaborations are simply not “round”, yet. I just note down what comes to my mind. Look at other letters (for example other people’s blogs or facebook entries). Some post a photo, often a meme with a wise statement, and write a few reflections on it, straight to the point, simple, clear. However, to my defense, I have to say that the topics I choose to write about are simply not simple. It is impossible to reflect on Buddhist philosophy, constructivism, love, life, etc. by stating platitudes and simplistic prescriptions. The depth and complexity of life and other issues requires a certain degree of precision and a certain amount of information and knowledge. The only discipline that manages to say a lot without many words is poetry. But I am not a poet. I can’t create a whole big world of imagination and clear vision inside your mind with just a few words that induce emotions and atmospheres. Let’s see it positively: More words increase the chance that at least some of them make sense to you (or whoever reads or hears them). A good teacher will also explain a complicated issue in different ways in order to make sure that all types of learners (visual, auditive, kinesthetic, etc.) have a chance to understand it.

I am very critical with recent developments in our society: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other “social media” platforms promote a simplistic and dumb entertainment culture. People scroll through posts, photos and videos and pay attention to mostly visual triggers that promise short-term fun and simple food for the brain. More than 5 lines to read? “Go away with that!”. People have the same questions as ever since: “What’s this all about? Who am I and why? What shall I do?”. They expect answers in memes and platitudes, but are not willing to read through a meaningful essay or even a book. They watch cat videos and, at best, 10 minutes TED talks in which decades of research and insights are condensed into populist, easy to understand, narrowed-down, entertaining information. As an effect, people pre-form meaning and construct experience from it (superstitions, religious beliefs, dogmatism, scientism, etc.), instead of constructing meaning from experience. The rise of the “secular age” was a huge step forward from the “clerical age”, the dark age of religious delusion and uneducated incapable society. But now, in the “post-secular society” which we might call “information society”, people fall back into old patterns: too lazy to read, too hedonistic to challenge the intellect, too busy with profanities to spare time for actively searching for meaningful inspirations for increasing life quality.


World constructions are complex. Talking about them requires complexity, too, if we don’t want to lose all their facets and richness out of sight. There is nothing wrong with entertainment and fun, but without learning and open-minded interestedness it makes you dull, in the same way as eager studying and narrow-minded intellectual focus without joy makes you frustrated and careworn. Both extremes are not desirable. However, I am firmly convinced that it is a good idea to encourage you to read books and to talk about insights and ideas, and to motivate your curiosity and interest in everything that is going on around you. There is never nothing going on. I hope, the complexity of the world is positively challenging and astonishing rather than frightening and scary for you. The generation of fools staring at screens and looking for simple answers (if asking at all) is already big enough. We need people who enjoy encountering the complex contemporary challenges of mankind and this planet and who are willing to acquire knowledge by reading through long texts. Seeing through this complexity is the first step towards a clearer (and therefore somehow “simpler”) mind, for your own life quality and that of the planet.

So, what about the initial quote? Now, there are two ways of interpreting it: First, it means that short, condensed, clear and yet deep texts need more reflection and more time to be written. In a very literal sense I have no time for that, next to my actual job and taking care of you. But I also don’t want to condense my thoughts but let them all out and bombard you with the full load of ideas. Second, in view of my statement about complexity and complex topics requiring a certain length, I also have no time to write “short” texts on meaningless or shallow things in the sense that it would be a waste of time. I’d rather sometimes spend more time on something meaningful than often a bit of time for something shallow. Someday you may decide whether you appreciate that or not.

Book recommendations:

J Kluger, “Simplexity – Why Simple Things Become Complex (And How Complex Things Can Be Made Simple)“, Hyperion, 2009

V Benci, P Cerrai, P Freguglia, G Israel, C Pellegrini (eds.), “Determinism, Holism, and Complexity“, Kluwer Academic, 2003

C Gershenson, D Aerts, B Edmonds (eds.), “Worldviews, Science and Us: Philosophy and Complexity“, World Scientific Pub., 2007

World Construction

The core question of philosophical reflection is “What is this world?”, or “What is being?”. Different epochs, eras and at different geographical places, people and their cultural realms found different answers on these questions. In case the historical answers are known, in retrospective, we can analyse them and – in view of later, more modern insights – find a certain course of development or sophistication in world explanations. We might also recognise that the “evolution” of insights is in good analogy to the process of knowledge acquisition for an individual from childhood to adult age.

By using our cognitive tools we perceive the world we are living in. The most naïve view is that of a real world that presents itself to us. Our task, then, is to “discover” as many facets of it as possible in order to increase the chances of a “successful” and fulfilled life in this world.


This was the idea of the Ancient Greek philosophers, starting from Heraklit and Parmenides up to Sokrates, Platon and Aristoteles. It was all about “the world”. Its features and properties (its “truth”) can be recognised by us so that we – by careful watching and philosophical reflection – get the most realistic image of it. Only then we can fulfil our most “human” task of overcoming our natural boundaries and get closer to the divine, closer to perfection. This is the basic idea: The specifically “human” element in us is the ability to go beyond ourselves, to exit the inevitable and be free. With an accurate picture of the real world that surrounds us in mind, this movement towards the divine is facilitated significantly!

There are two dangers in this idea, and both are deeply entrenched in the further course of European-Western philosophy. The first is the dualistic division into “outside” and “inside”, into “outer world” and “inner me”, finding its climax in the reflections of René Descartes (17th century). The consequences are tremendous! It took ages and the influence of East-Asian philosophy to correct this flawed idea. The second is the realist scientific worldview with its idea of “discovering” knowledge about real features of the world. Even though this realism has been replaced by constructivism in recent decades, many scientists, engineers, researchers, but also most scientific laymen are still convinced that the knowledge we can acquire by scientific investigation describes a somehow manifested actuality.

Immanuel Kant is the most prominent philosopher who modified this image of world perception. His basic idea was that we can only get aware of those features of the world that we have a pre-formed image of, that means that somehow match with our previously made experiences. He distinguished “things-as-such” (the features of the real world) from the things as they appear in our mind.


As a consequence, we can never know for sure what the actual world is. It remains obscured. The world that is represented in our mind is fed by an image of the world, and at the same time it feeds this image (for example by making new experiences that requires a modification of the image). In this view, “world” is all about the subject (or: the observer). Some even went so far to say that “world” only exists in the mind.

With this understanding of human possibilities to know anything about the world, dualism and realism are not overcome, yet. The apparent monism that “world is only idea (in the mind)” (we call that idealism) is a hidden dualism because it only emerges in view of its counterpart “materialism” that states that “world is only matter”. Moreover, it is still the somehow given (real) world with its “things-as-such” that impacts the human perception. This direction was reversed by phenomenology, most prominently pushed forward by Edmund Husserl and later Martin Heidegger. The subject can’t be taken as a passive observer and constructor of the world. The cognitive process of observation itself gets into the focus.


An act of perception, in this view, is not a mere “streaming-in” of stimuli, but an active “looking-out” (figuratively! it covers all senses, not just the visual!) into the world. By nature, this is a highly selective process. Insights from biology, physics, psychology, anatomy, and other scientific disciplines that tell us about the human condition deliver a better understanding of how we construct “world” by making experiences. The crucial point is the human cognition, the “lens” that we are unable to take off. It confines the cut of the world that we are able to pay attention to, and it also colours and shapes the incoming signals. One of the most impressive experiments that was conducted to show our selective perception was this: People were asked to watch the video of a volleyball match and count how often the ball was passed between players all dressed in white. A man in a black gorilla costume appeared in the center of the scene during the match, beating his chest and making silly movements. The big majority of watchers didn’t see him, even though he was clearly visible among the white dressed players. Now, we can say that it was “unfair”, because the people were asked to concentrate on the ball, they can’t be blamed. But isn’t “life” exactly like that? We are always so busy focusing on certain clear cut aspects of life, occupying our full attention, that occurrences beyond this don’t find a way through to our awareness. Nobody can be “blamed” for that, however, since this is simply a neutral observation.

Phenomenology stresses the importance of “experience”. Every experience (drawn from every act of cognition) involves the entire set of experiences made in the past. An experience is the manifestation of all experiences. A simple example: When seeing only the front of a house, we “know” that this is a three-dimensional building because we know the concept “house” from former experiences. In every perception of a part of the world, we are aware of the entire world, because only in this relation the experience makes sense. This sense-making is the basis of all experience. Not only do we align all experiences with our worldview (constructed from previous experiences), we also can only experience what fits into our margin of “sensefulness”. That’s why we don’t see the gorilla during the volleyball match, because a gorilla has no place in the world “volleyball”. The house front is automatically “completed” in our mind to an entire house. When walking around it we might find that it deviates from our imagination, for example the exact size, shape, etc., but these are just details. In the same way, we almost always succeed in identifying an item as a “table”, even when it is a very unusual modern art design, because its entire embedment into our world (including its functionality) is constantly present. Sometimes our imagination is fooled, misled, surprised or puzzled. When we walk around the house front and find that it is only the decoration of a movie set, for example. Then we either have to re-align the constructed reality (here: from the world “house as living space” to the world “movie making”), or we have to construct new meaning from the new experience.

How can we be sure that the way we construct meaning from experience is in any way supported by real features of the surrounding world, and by that somehow “justified”? How do I know that what I “see” is the same thing as that what you “see”? There could be a simple answer: by talking about it!


Both our world constructions don’t represent the actual world sufficiently, but if we integrate our two – almost necessarily deviating – images into one, we might get closer to what may count as “real”. This “discourse approach” to world conceptualisation was promoted in the later 20th century by Jürgen Habermas, Karl-Otto Apel, Niklas Luhmann and others. Mankind is a species that constitutes its environment through communication and collaboration. World construction is, therefore, always a process from the “inter”-space: inter-personal, inter-relational, inter-cultural. My world becomes my world by setting it into relation to yours. My experience is only valid (or not) in view of your experiences (and all others). In case there are insurmountable differences, we need to engage in a conversation (or a discourse) in order to create new clarity.

However, communication is not a trivial thing. Its most important tool is language. This includes our spoken language using words, but also numerical systems (mathematics) and symbolism, non-verbal interaction, body language, etc. Language itself is conditioned and constituted by experience, which means that we only have linguistic expressions for what is already part of our experience (made by any of our ancestors). Translatability of “thoughts” and other cognitive impressions is a difficult endeavour, not only between the different languages of different countries or cultures, but even on the very basic level of interpersonal conversation. Therefore, philosophy spends a great big deal on clarifying and defining words and terms. When all that is done it is still not guaranteed that one really understands the other, because experience is not fully transferable. With sufficient exchange of information I might be able to anticipate your experience, but since my framework of experiences and their connection is different from yours, I will never be able to see the same thing in the same light. Actually, “world” can be defined as exactly this “framework of connected experiences”. Then, it makes sense to talk about “worlds” rather than “the world”, because what is “world” for you is more or less different from what is “world” for me. Identifying and getting aware of the overlapping parts of our world is as interesting and inspiring as the deviations.

These reflections, obviously, are inspired by European-Western philosophy. Much of this can be found in East-Asian philosophy as well. Especially Buddha’s teachings and their early philosophical analysis, for example by Nagarjuna, give insights into their idea of “world”. To my understanding, they have never been as naïve as the Ancient Greek. They didn’t split the world into outside and inside, they didn’t conclude this childish realism, and they were well aware of the human condition (i.e. human cognitive mechanisms) that underlie the world construction processes in our minds. This knowledge, ever since, could be exploited for actual down-to-earth mental liberation and enlightenment attempts. “Freeing the mind” from the “default setting” became the main endeavour of Buddhist practice. In contrast to the Greek idea, THIS is the main human challenge. In my illustrations that would be like removing or “clearing” the lens through which we see and interpret everything.


That would mean that we try to be less dependent on the patterns that we formed through our experiences but see things “as they are”. I’d like to add that it would also mean that for the large part of our surrounding (I avoid the term “world”, here) that is beyond our conscious capacity, we simply accept that we “know nothing”. This awareness makes a crucial difference! We will not be tempted to rely on our illusion of “knowing” but see through the flaws of our deluded minds and question everything. We could express it as “having no world in mind” or “having a no-world in mind”. Inter-personal or even inter-cultural communication about “worlds” is brought onto a completely new level by this understanding. Not only are we more open-minded towards others’ ideas and experiences, we are also less likely to fight for our own views and against the others’ views, because we understand that after all everything is “empty” of actual “substance” or “independent reality”. Then it also becomes entirely irrelevant to talk about “truth”. Much more important than truth is the viability of an experience and its subsequent subjection into meaning construction. The things “as they are” (which is not the same as Kant’s “things-as-such”), experienced directly and purely, span up the framework in which we live our lives and make our choices and decisions. Making this margin as wide and flexible as possible and ourselves as less conditioned and controlled as possible is the core practice of Buddhism. If we succeed in that, we see through the cycle of the 12 links of interdependent co-arising, we become aware of the three mind poisons, of our attachments and desires, of the dominance of our self concept, and of the Matrix that we live in. Then we can exit it.

Music for life

Now you are a bit more than 10 months old and can walk more or less freely around our apartment. You started to dance at the age of 5 months (pulling yourself into the standing position at a piece of furniture or in your hulan, luffing up and down by bending your knees) while listening to AC/DC (your favourite: Back in black), Snarky Puppy or other funky and rocking music. When you were three days (!) old you signaled to us that you liked the voice of Norah Jones but not that of Katie Melua. Your affinity to music, however, dates back even further: When we listened to Pink Floyd, Beethoven or some relaxing piano jazz, you jumped for joy inside your Mom’s belly! Music is part of my life, and so it is of yours! That’s why today’s letter is about music.

I got my first drumset in 1988. It was a very old (second hand) Ludwig drumset with a Pearl HiHat with Meinl HiHat Cymbals.


I had drum lessons from 1992 to 1997 at the “Musikschule (music school) Beckum-Warendorf” with british Jazz drummer James “Jimmie” Sargent. I told him that I want to play in my schools BigBand as soon as possible, so after a few very basic pattern practices I started to learn simple rock and jazz beats. After one year I joined the “Junior BigBand” of my school and the brass orchestra of the music school. Much later my teacher remembered that we left out to practice rudimentary patterns (triples, accents, paradiddles, etc.), so I went back to practice those basics. In addition I had a lesson series on odd time counting (5/4, 7/8, 3/4, 7/4, 9/8, 11/4 measures).

Jimmie was a great teacher, demanding but patient and very helpful! However, after 5 years I realized that every week was the same: I practiced the homework he gave me, presented it to him, he said “Yes, good! Until next time practice the following pages…”, and I did it. In the meantime I had my first own band and we played rock music, I developed my own style. I decided to have no more drum lessons but practice on my own, that is cheaper and doesn’t need a weekly appointment! But before I quit in 1997 I bought a new drumset from Jimmie: He was endorser of Premier, a quite expensive brand, so he recommended “WorldMax”, a daughter of Premier, with excellent ratio of cost and performance. In combination with a few good cymbals and high-quality Remo drumheads the sound was pretty good! I extended the set more and more, for example with a rack to hang all the tomtoms and cymbals on, and with a Tama Iron Cobra double bass drum pedal (the most expensive piece of my set)! My band “no more lund” got some local fame and played on several festivals around Münster. Here is a photo from “Kottenrock” 1999:


“no more lund” recorded a CD in 2001! Being in the studio was a great new experience for me! Compared to soccer, if practicing is the training, and gigs are the “league matches”, then making a CD in a studio is like “Champions league”! It feels great to “have something in hand” that I can show to friends, family or future children (you)! We promoted our new album with several gigs. I often took my shirts off during gigs, because the music we played (a kind of progressive rock) required hard work and set free a huge amount of energy. Those are the moments that I love the most about playing music, but it also means that I sweat incredibly much…

I extended my drumset by a set of 8 “octobans”, 6 inch metal tubes with different length, a drum head on one side, the other side open. Now my drumset occupied half of the stages that we played on, and sound technicians desperately scolded me because it was impossible for them to equip my set properly with microphones (or they didn’t have enough microphones). I liked to put all drums and cymbals close together, so that I don’t need to spend so much energy to move around a lot. That was the hell for the soundmen! NML had its biggest gig on the “Krach am Bach” Festival in Beelen in 2005 after recording our second album. In the meantime we developed our style to more sophisticated progressive rock. When we started in 1995 as “The Nameless” we sounded like “Nirvana”. Later as “no more lund” we were heavily inspired by “Rage against the machine”. In the years 2000-2003 our songs reminded people of “The Deftones”. Finally – and that was my favourite – we ended up making music like “Tool” or “Oceansize”. The songs were quite long and had several parts, very dynamic! It was difficult for the audience to dance, because the songs were quite complicated and “odd”, but it was so much fun to play! Especially on a big stage with huge PA system and nice lighting!

DCF 1.0

DCF 1.0

In 2006 NML split, because all members went to different places to study or work. What a pity! The best band I ever played with! After returning from Asia I played with NML’s bass player’s new band “Exit Illusion”. We recorded an EP and had several gigs in and around Münster. Here are photos and a scheme of my full set:




I did not always bring my full set to every gig. Sometimes it was also fun to get much out of a little set. The “wild years” in which I tried to drum as strong and “massive” as possible were over in the later 2010s. I tried to focus on “economic” playing, sticking to the groove, with every hit placed thoroughly and with sense. By the way, my idols were Jon Bonham (Led Zeppelin), Nick Mason (Pink Floyd) and Ian Paice (Deep Purple) in the early years, and later Billy Cobham (Jazz/Fusion drummer), Mike Portnoy (Dream Theater) and Jack de Johnette (Jazz drummer). When I started my music activities in Taiwan in 2014, I didn’t have my own drumset. After years of Prog Rock in Germany, I played in a “normal” rock band, first, and then in a funk and jazz band with excellent fellow musicians, which pushed my skills to a different level.

Besides drumming, I had piano lessons for half a year in 1998 (enough to play simple songs at home), and I was singing in my school’s choir and as “Alfred” in the “Dance of the Vampires” musical that my school performed. However, drums has always been my favourite.

Why so much music? Why not football or videogaming or collecting stamps? I think, one crucial influence is that of my father who had a huge LP and CD collection, mostly 1970s rock music like Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc. We were not a “TV family” (the TV was even locked away behond doors in the living room shelf), but the radio was always on, or we sat in the living room listening to loud music (no neighbours in the countryside! big advantage!). Even though my taste of music as a child was terrible (I liked David Hasselhoff and sailor’s chants…), it changed significantly in my early teenages: Triggered by my increasing drumming abilities, I was more and more interested in music that I could play drums to. I took my father’s LPs and CDs and tried to drum to those songs. I was very impressed by the energy of Meat Loaf’s 1993 album “Bat out of hell 2”. In early 1994 I got my first Hifi Stereo system with a CD player. The first CDs I had were gifts from my parents, but in autumn 1995 I bought a CD for the first time. In the record store, I found one with a very artful cover and a red blinking LED: “P.u.l.s.e.” by Pink Floyd.


I never listened to any song of this band before and the CD was very expensive, 55 DM. But a mysterious driving force made me buy it. My father was very surprised but also interested in it, so we listened to it on his high quality sound system in the living room, and this music blew me away! This music was so intense, so creative, so deep and “floating”! I listened to it around the clock until I could sing all lyrics and notes, even the guitar and piano solos. I also started accompanying it with my drums. Pink Floyd’s “Pulse” is definitely a milestone in the development of my “music career”! From then on I listened to music very consciously. When music was handmade, unusual, creative, covered a large spectrum of sounds (like orchestral works) or had very long songs, then it was interesting for me. Sometimes later I bought CDs of bands that I never heard before, just because there were songs longer than 10 minutes (and actually they were all very good!). Here is my favourite music from 1997:


Today it looks a bit different, maybe like this:

  1. Tool – No Quarter (Led Zeppelin cover)
  2. Guilt Machine – Season of denial
  3. Katatonia – Forsaker
  4. Snarky Puppy – What about me?
  5. Jethro Tull – Locomotive Breath (from live album “Bursting out”, 1978)
  6. Antonin Dvorak – Symphony No.9, “From the New World”
  7. Pink Floyd – Comfortably Numb (live 1994)
  8. Dream Theater – Panic Attack
  9. Haken – Cockroach King
  10. Verbal Delirium – Close to you
  11. Leprous – The Price
  12. Thank you Scientist – Mr. Invisible
  13. Mastodon – The Last Baron
  14. Deep Purple – Concerto for Group and Orchestra (1999 version)
  15. Rainbow – Still I’m sad (from live album “On Stage”, 1997)
  16. Oceansize – No tomorrow
  17. Porcupine Tree – Fear of a blank planet
  18. Katatonia – In the white
  19. Opeth – Baying of the hounds
  20. Herbie Hancock – Cantaloupe Island (from “Parallel Realities, live 1991)
  21. In the Silence – Ever closer
  22. Stanley Clarke & Friends – Stratus (“Live at the Greek”, 1994)
  23. Snarky Puppy – Lingus
  24. Lars Danielsson – Orange market
  25. Phil Collins BigBand – Pick up the pieces
  26. Siena Root – Time will tell
  27. Dredg – Bug eyes
  28. Muse – Feeling good
  29. Evership – Silver Light
  30. Guilt Machine – Twisted Coil

Not only has a lot of great music been produced in the past 20 years. Also, of course, I got in touch with much more interesting music. And, most important, my choice of music became more “conscious” and more “picky”. There are two sides of “music”: consumption of music and playing a musical instrument. I believe that the two evolve in mutual enrichment: Playing a musical instrument is motivated by knowing and appreciating good music, but playing music by oneself also enlarges the “listening capacity”, musical understanding and personal preference impact (I mean, how important it is for you to find your preferences expressed in the music you choose). When you try to master your instrument you almost necessarily have idols and favourite songs that you will like to play. Almost inevitably you select more sophisticated and qualitatively more advanced music. But you can only choose from music you know. The biggest source of musical knowledge is your home (your parents’ choices and radio/TV presence of music) and later your friends. At the same time, you grow up in an environment that provides musical instruments (an e-piano, a Guzheng, a cajon, even a small drumset, your nephew playing Ukulele) and confronts you with people having fun playing those instruments. You listen to Jazz, Rock, Funk, Reggae, classical music, heavy metal, and other handmade music every day since your ears started to send signals to your brain! I am quite sure, sooner or later you will consciously choose to make music a part of your personal daily life. I sometimes joked around, telling my friends that you will be given up for adoption if you decide to listen to HipHop. It won’t be that bad! More important than the actual choice of music is your motivation to choose music that somehow represents your personal preference instead of rather choosing what friends tell you counts as “cool”. Maybe you will like to play music with your old daddy. I will always be ready for that, even if it is HipHop!

Is it “important” for me that you turn towards “music” both as consumer and as player? I would say ‘yes’. I am convinced that playing music is a great support for the development of cognitive skills and creativity. I feel confirmed by many studies and experts’ findings. Insightful books are Daniel Levitin’s “This is your brain on music – The science of a human obsession” (Plume, 2006) and “Music, Neurology, and Neuroscience – Evolution, the musical brain, medical conditions and therapies”, edited by Altenmüller, Boller and Finger (Elsevier, 2015). Youtube has countless videos that explain what happens in the neuronal networks of your brain while playing music: motor activities, memory, the coordination between your senses (listening to what you play, seeing the notesheet or remembering the right notes, comparing the output to your expectation), triggering of emotional states, and all that as parallel continuous processes! Not only is playing music just “fun” in the moment you are doing it, it can also increase your self-confidence, your identification in your teenages, and your feeling of self-fulfillment. In this respect, playing an instrument is much more than just about the music. It is about the quality of life. And since I wish you the highest possible quality of life, I believe that choosing “music” increases the chance to reach that! You have my full support!