On 23-11-2013 18:00, Stephen wrote:
> On the other hand. Tony Blair was a Prime Minister with vision.
> Maybe Mark Rutte has a point.

If abandoned in the jungle with both, I would follow Tony Blair ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 23-11-2013 16:53, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> The Prime Minister of The Netherlands is proud to be a man without any
> vision: "Vision is like an elephant that blocks the view".

And just to complete this little game, lets cite J. F. Kennedy: "Too 
often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24/11/2013 8:41 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 23-11-2013 18:00, Stephen wrote:
>> On the other hand. Tony Blair was a Prime Minister with vision.
>> Maybe Mark Rutte has a point.
>
> If abandoned in the jungle with both, I would follow Tony Blair ;-)
>

Then you would find that you are in the jungle alone, trying to explain 
why he had cut down and sold all the trees, for his profit. IMHO.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-11-2013 10:45, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/11/2013 8:41 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 23-11-2013 18:00, Stephen wrote:
>>> On the other hand. Tony Blair was a Prime Minister with vision.
>>> Maybe Mark Rutte has a point.
>>
>> If abandoned in the jungle with both, I would follow Tony Blair ;-)
>>
>
> Then you would find that you are in the jungle alone, trying to explain
> why he had cut down and sold all the trees, for his profit. IMHO.
>
You might well be right. However, not much different from the other one, 
with the exception that he would have cut the trees without selling them.

I'll follow my own trail...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

So, fascinating stuff, isn't it? Makes you wonder. I am not so much 
interested by who said what and/or when, no, it is the deeper 
implications I am interested in, fully realising that the statements are 
taken out of their context, so only examined at face value. Like then 
and now, opinions dominate the debate in the public arena and we are 
rapidly dismissive when confronted with a statement, any statement. We 
shall say that Mark Rutten is right (or wrong), stupid (or smart) and 
move on in the expectation that everything has been said and that truth 
has prevailed. Whatever truth; and it is a comfortable thought.

However, the /discomfort/ of thought, the philosophical implication, is 
much more interesting. First note how very similar Clinton's and 
Rutten's statements are in their immediate consequences: vision /and/ 
its absence, both lead to blindness it seems. Then, think a little 
further and ask yourself /what/ vision is blocking. What is the /view/ 
supposed to be? What, except other visions, one feels obliged to ask. 
What is so hampering about visions that it feels like a handicap? To be 
sure, the visions of a dictator are better left far from us; 
stubbornness in following an unrealistic dream is folly; but senseless 
flight from reality is that too as is an apathetic day-by-day life 
without incentives. Darkness or elephant?

Then, could there really be somebody without any vision? Could the 
absence of vision maybe be only the expression of frustration of not to 
be able, through circumstances, to follow one's personal vision? Mark 
Rutten seems almost too happy to believe that. Could he be a modern 
equivalent of Robert Musil's man without qualities? A disturbing 
thought. Personally, I do not believe in the possibility of a visionless 
personality, but isn't that - again - an opinion? Don't we all have 
dreams about the future? our own or for the country or the world? 
Frustrating? Yes. And what is the implication of refusing vision in 
leading a country? Is it bureaucracy at its most artful height? Is it 
failure to recognize opportunities when they present themselves? Is it 
the wisdom of the patriarch ruling his flock?

I'll leave you with that.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am Sat, 23 Nov 2013 16:53:06 +0100 schrieb Thomas de Groot:

> The Prime Minister of The Netherlands is proud to be a man without any
> vision: "Vision is like an elephant that blocks the view".
> 
> <sigh>
> 
> Thomas

"Wer Visionen hat, soll zum Arzt gehen." (engl. "Those who have visions 
should go see a doctor.") Helmut Schmidt, German chancellor from 1974 to 
1982

Well I think it points at a criticism of having ideas without thinking 
how to realize them. What is the difference of a vision to a plan or an 
aim? You can have long term plans as well but there you have a path 
leading to it. Vision could mean that you know where you want to go but 
don't care to think about how to get there.

Might be some similar mentality of northern germans and dutch for 
rational thought processes and refusing ideas which go beyond that. If 
that is a good thing or not is probably a matter of mentality and 
taste :).

Florian

Post a reply to this message

On 27-11-2013 0:35, Florian Pesth wrote:
> "Wer Visionen hat, soll zum Arzt gehen." (engl. "Those who have visions
> should go see a doctor.") Helmut Schmidt, German chancellor from 1974 to
> 1982
>
> Well I think it points at a criticism of having ideas without thinking
> how to realize them. What is the difference of a vision to a plan or an
> aim? You can have long term plans as well but there you have a path
> leading to it. Vision could mean that you know where you want to go but
> don't care to think about how to get there.

I can live with that. As I understand it, 'vision' seems to be 
interpreted differently from case to case. Schmidt and Rutte interpret 
it as a goal without clearly defined (unrealistic) means, in effect 
opposing it to a form of 'realpolitik' they would favour instead. 
Others, and I think Clinton might be amongst them, see 'vision' as a 
(long term) goal which is planned along a more or less defined roadmap, 
with the possibility to adjust the roadmap in-between and according to 
necessity or changing conditions. That last is what /I/ would call 
'vision' in the present context.

I think that dismissing vision as something for the doctor or something 
blinding are purely reductionist rhetorics which ignore the fact that 
you always need some framework to achieve a goal. As such, they sound 
very straightforward and realistic but are rather hollow phrases. The 
danger is - and it has been commented upon in the press - that in the 
end it may serve to hide the absence of ideas or purpose.

>
> Might be some similar mentality of northern germans and dutch for
> rational thought processes and refusing ideas which go beyond that. If
> that is a good thing or not is probably a matter of mentality and
> taste :).

Yes indeed. I am afraid that I am not 'pure blood' enough to be that 
rational. I have a healthy mistrust about such 'rational' thoughts in 
general. ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message