Quasi

Hey, I have no idea. I’m just a fool like everyone else, so anything I say should be treated with extreme caution. ‘Extreme caution’ means that anyone who hears my words only has a chance of understanding the insight they contain if they think them through with their own brain. In my opinion, this is basically a good method, no matter who says what.

I won’t say ‘in my opinion’ again in the course of this text; it always applies anyway, so you can think it into every sentence.

Everything someone says comes from a specific perspective. Every idea arises at a certain point in the system, from the person who occupies this position. You can think of it like a coordinate system on which each axis represents a different character trait. However, this coordinate system has not just three dimensions (X, Y, Z), but as many axes as there are personality traits. There are no two people in the same place. This unique position in the coordinate system then gives rise to the perspective that each person has on the overall system.

Every thought is unique as long as it has been thought through by the person who expresses it and is not simply parroted.

Every thought is unique and valuable as long as it has not been parroted. Parroted thoughts, on the other hand, have little value, they are noise.

What I try to do is to recognise the patterns in unique thoughts.

Germany – What Could Go Wrong?

In recent years, Germany has fought intensively against right-wing ideas and fascist tendencies. Society has shown a remarkable mobilisation against extreme right-wing movements and ideologies, but in this struggle one key point may have been overlooked: The possibility that many of the ideas that are branded as fascist are basically just common sense.

The fight against what is labelled ‘right-wing’ or ‘fascist’ has led to a hypervigilance in which even everyday, common-sense ideas such as the need for national security, the importance of law and order or the desire for cultural identity are lumped together with extremist ideologies. This equation can lead to legitimate discussions about important issues such as immigration, integration and internal security being stifled before they can even begin.

For example:

Security policy: the call for a robust security architecture aimed at protecting citizens and combating terrorism is often interpreted as an authoritarian or fascist tendency.

Cultural identity: Preserving and honouring one’s own culture and history is sometimes interpreted as nationalistic or xenophobic, although there is also a legitimate desire for stability and cultural heritage.

Law and order: Discussions about criminal law, asylum policy or public order can quickly lead to resentment if they are seen as signs of a fascist attitude.

The danger of one’s own fascist ideas

Even more worrying, however, could be that many overlook the fascist elements in their own ideas and actions in the fight against what they perceive to be fascism. Here are some scenarios in which this could be true:

Censorship and suppression of opinion: a culture of self-censorship or institutionalised censorship could emerge under the guise of protection from hate speech or false information. This is a classic feature of authoritarian regimes that restricts diversity of opinion and stifles dialogue.

Collectivism over individualism: There could be a tendency to sacrifice individual freedom in favour of a supposedly higher common good. This could manifest itself in politically correct norms that restrict freedom of expression or lead to a ‘culture of denunciation’ in which people are penalised for dissenting views.

Glorification of the state: The idea that the state should accumulate more and more power at the expense of personal freedom in order to achieve ‘good’ goals could lead to an overemphasis on the state. This form of statism can easily slide into a fascist attitude, where the state is seen as the last and only means of solving all problems.

Unified culture: The pressure to impose a unified culture and opinion could lead to the suppression of minorities or dissenters, which directly corresponds to the fascist idea of unity and conformity.

Superior morality: If one group or ideology claims the moral high ground and considers other views unworthy or dangerous, this could lead to a kind of moral fascism where only one view is considered legitimate.

In Germany, the next few years will be about making a clear distinction between common sense and extreme political ideologies. The danger lies not only in suppressing normal, socially necessary discussions in the fight against fascism, but also in inadvertently promoting fascist tendencies in our own political and social practice. It is crucial that this reflection and criticism takes place on both sides of the political spectrum in order to promote a society that is truly based on openness, dialogue and respect for diversity.

The future will show whether Germany can find this balance or whether it will drift in exactly the direction that most people are certainly trying to fight against.

‘It is not racist to point at those issues’

I recently got stuck on a sentence while watching YouTube: ‘It is not racist to point at those issues.’

This can be generalized to: ‘It’s not problematic to point out issues.’

For me, this sentence encapsulates much of the crux of our current social discourse.

My ongoing research suggests that the majority of people often hold strong opinions on matters they categorize as problematic, yet their knowledge on these subjects is frequently superficial. In some cases, individuals have absorbed a vast amount of information (or SNUs – for people familiar with Korsakow), but they view these problems through the singular lens of their own opinion.

If you examine a multidimensional issue (and every problem is multidimensional) from only one angle, you’re unlikely to achieve a deeper understanding of the object in question.

Time and again, in conversations with even the most intelligent people, I’ve observed that they struggle to engage with information that challenges their existing views. Instead, they seek out SNUs that reinforce their opinions, using this information as ammunition to defend their initial stance.

Many do not allow perspectives they deem problematic to affect them. This is the real issue because what happens if you refuse to entertain a perspective? Engaging with a thought or perspective is essential for understanding it, much like you can’t truly know a dog without interacting with it. You can have an opinion on things without truly understanding them, but such an opinion might only accidentally be correct. This approach has little to do with analysis, understanding, exploring, or empathizing with all facets of an issue. In other words, it’s likely disconnected from reality. If you don’t let new ideas affect you, you’ll eventually live in a fantasy world.

Oh, am I stupid

My words wrestle well and have meaning in themselves alone. They have nothing to do with the world.

Oh, am I stupid! I just had to laugh heartily when I suddenly realised my stupidity. I caught my brain linking things that can’t be linked. This is commonly called a mistake. My brain (like everyone’s?) is constantly making connections between things. This sometimes makes sense, for example when I put words in the ‘right’ order. So that the words make sense – or at least sound good. But often enough, my words may sound good, but they don’t really make sense because they can’t be linked to the world.

And this leads to the answer to the first question, which is: Are euphonious words always true? The answer, there should be general agreement, is – no. Words don’t have to be true, even if they sound nice. Everyone has certainly experienced this, at least since the invention of advertising.

The second question, however, is much more difficult to answer and I would be very interested in other perspectives: What about true words? Do true words always have to be beautiful? To examine this question, we must first define more precisely what is meant by ‘beautiful’ here. Beautiful not from the perspective of the moment, because true words are often terrifying. One would not actually expect beauty to be frightening. So beauty here must mean the beauty that emanates from a true sentence when the sentence is uttered in a historical context, far removed from any emotional closeness.

Emotional closeness, as I said, can be frightening.

Interactive documentary is dead. Long live the interactive documentary.

Interactive Documentary: Past, Present, and Future

Since 1997, I have been engaged with what we now call interactive documentary. Ten years later, I learned that my work had always fallen into this genre, long before the term itself existed.

Interactive documentaries, for me, existed even before the term was coined. And I am convinced that this form will continue to exist, even if the term eventually fades into obscurity—much like the term “multimedia” is now historical, though the concept it describes persists.

The Future of Interactive Documentary

What could the “interactive documentary” of the future look like? Can we already see it today? Yes, we can. A glance at YouTube reveals the realized future of the interactive documentary. Individual video clips, known as SNUs (Smallest Narrative Units), are linked together by algorithms. This method, which I have been using for 25 years, may seem commonplace today, but for previous generations, it was unthinkable in a mass medium. This new way of connecting information units has the potential to influence our thinking.

Pattern Recognition and Multiperspectivity

On YouTube, I see many people beginning to recognize certain connections—connections that I have also discovered through my work in interactive documentary. It’s about identifying patterns in which multiple, often contradictory, stories coexist. Where many see only a single truth, others recognize the value of all the conflicting stories that together form a complete picture. This picture is complex but not incomprehensible; some patterns are even quite clear.

My Thesis

What I call “Korsakowian practice” has an amplifying effect on the multiperspective thinking of a society. By learning to recognize and connect various narrative threads, we develop a deeper understanding of the world’s complexity and the multitude of stories that shape it.

In this sense, the interactive documentary lives on—in new forms, on new platforms, and with similar methods. And it will continue to broaden and deepen our view of the world.

Next page