Does prayer help?

My friends know by now that I am in hospital in Klagenfurt, recovering from a collapsed lung.
There may be an operation needed. Decision day: this afternoon or tomorrow.
In the meantime several of my friends have e-mailed, written and/or called, promising that they will pray for  my speedy recovery.

Of course I love them for this offer, since it shows that they care for me.

It does, however, raise the question of the usefulness  of "Prayer"!
If we consider that everything that happens, reflects the "Will of God" then, it seems to me, that prayer is useless or needless.
If, indeed, He wills that my friend shall NOT recover, then, our asking God that my friend should recover is useless. He is not likely to change his mind.
If, however, He has decided that my friend shall recover, my prayer is needless, since I am asking Him to do something, He has already decided to do. 
In either case, a prayer to influence the outcome of  a happening is either "useless" or "needless".

On top of all that, There is the question of His existence. .

Theists will say that He definitively exists, but they have no proof for this claim. All they have is a "Belief."
Atheists will claim that He does NOT exist, but they, too, have no proof for this claim. All they have is a "Belief."
So, I say, go on believing whatever you want to believe.

Bertstravels
will happily stay in his rational corner of the Agnostic

Is this even worth a mention?

In my last entry I wanted to talk about the question whether the work of an artist should be judged on its own merits, or whether the artist's moral stature and expressed opinions should be considered in the judgement of his/her work. I believe that I stated my belief quite clearly.

Now for the second issue which was raised subsequently:
Is Peter Handke a "nice man"?
I simply do not know. His loyalty to certain historical persons seems to indicate the contrary..
His behavior during a recent interview by the press would tend to confirm also that he is not a "nice man." 
His choice of expressions during this interview would likely place him into the category of an ill-tempered talking baboon.... no offence to baboons is intended here....
 But: Is his work great literature?
Go, read his work and decide for yourself.
The Nobel Price Awarding Committee seems to think that it is.

 Bertsravels
 likes the only book he read of Good Old Peter.

The Work or the Artist?

The Artist and his work.

Peter Handke is one of the most important Austrian authors.

He received the Nobel Price for Literature for 2019 for his impressive output and his sophisticated use of the German language.

I have only read one of his books (The Goalkeeper's Fear of the Penalty Shot).

For this reason alone I cannot agree or disagree with the Nobel Committee's finding.

The other reason, of course, is that I have not read any of the books of other Authors who were considered for this honour. There was a Chinese, and a Spanish and a Canadian Author in consideration. Each, naturally, wrote in his/her native language.

I do not speak Chinese, nor Spanish, am therefore unable to read their books and although I have read several of Margaret Atwood's books I still lack comparison to those other language authors.

Let me therefore not argue about the merits of the Nobel Committee's selection.

Let me explore a different aspect of the entire issue:

Peter Handke is not only a successful author, but also a politically interested and engaged man.

In 2006 he gave an impassioned speech at the funeral of Slobodan Milosevics.

Slobodan was the right-wing leader of Serbia and stood accused of causing an unprecedented Holocaust during his wars against Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

By the International Court of Justice he was charged with 66 counts of crimes against humanity.

So, it is clear that Slobodan was not a very nice guy by any standard of comparison.

Yet, Peter Handke refused to accept the facts which were presented in abundance during Slobodan's trial. So, it could be stated, Handke was, or is, an apologist for one of the big killers after World War II- and therefore morally not equipped to be awarded such a culturally important price.

And this is the crux of the matter:

Should the work of an artist be judged solely upon the merits of his creation, or should we refuse to honour the creative output of an individual because he/she has shown to be morally inferior.?

In other words: Does the work stand alone and should it be judged as the work itself, or, should the work of a person be considered as simply part of the whole: Work plus Creator.

It is my considered opinion that a work of Art must be judged on its own merits and the moral attitude of the creator should not be considered at all.

Let me assume that some documents are found describing one Michael Angelo as a drunkard wife beater, evader of taxes, horse thief, brake and enter specialist, perjurer and defiler of the Sacrament inside of the Sistine Chapel and that is was proven beyond a doubt that this was the same Michelangelo who created the ceiling of the same chapel, would it be just to claim that this work was no longer to be considered a “Great Work of Art”? What would we think about the “Last Supper” by this same “Nogoodnick”? Would we now consider it the work of a dilettante house painter?

Of course not! We would still think of these two creations as outstanding art of all times.

Quod Errat Demonstrandum.

Bertstravels

Rootin' around the Countryside

These are likely the last images I shall show you about my immediate environment. At least the last until the snow falls.

Small brooks stumbling down the hill side.

Mushrooms on a log

Trögen Canyon

Drove there this afternoon. Just for the fun of it and the beauty of it.

Have a look!

Funny! 

It looks much more beautiful in Nature, than on a picture.

What kind of a rock is this?

It's blue with off-white veins running through it.

Clear river over fist sized, or larger rocks.

FOR FOREST

FOR FOREST

the uninterrupted

appeal of Nature!

There was a Soccer Stadium!

Built in Klagenfurt, Austria, at the urging of a megalomaniac Premier of the Province of Carinthia. This facility was built for 32,000 fans, at a cost of 66.5 Million Euros. (at today's rate of exchange, that would be about 100 million Can. Dollars.)

Up to the point of the opening of the new Stadium, Soccer games attracted somewhere around 5,000 to 10,000 fans.

This should give you an idea of the lunacy of this Premier.

Eventually the seating capacity was reduced to 12,000. Even at this reduced number, the Stadium never sold out, except for some rare international competition.

Now, do you think this is a bit short of rational thinking?

It gets better:

An “artist” had a brilliant idea: Let's plant a bunch of trees where normally the Klagenfurt Soccer Club plays its games. No, not little saplings!

Great big mature trees.

They brought 300 trees, some of them weighing as much as 6 tons and reaching heights of 10 to 14 meters and planted them on the playing field.

They planted a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees “to show the beauty of a mixed forest.”

As their advertising brochure states: “Visitors may view this 'installation' free of charge and in astonishment.”

There is really nothing “astonishing” about a forest.

You may bathe in its beauty, you may listen to the wind as it gently moves the branches, you may love and admire nature at its finest. But you would likely not be “astonished.”

The advertising speaks of the changing of the impression created by this “forest” during daylight, dusk and dark hours, the changing colors of the leaves as fall approaches, during all of which the visitor may revel in astonishment.

They talk as if this did not happen in nature.

Go up to the top of one of the many surrounding hills and look over the countryside and what do you see? Trees, Trees and Trees interspersed by farmers' fields and meadows.

There is so much life and so much beauty in this country, that the last thing I need are a bunch of trees, trucked in from afar, and planted in the middle of a soccer stadium, nor do I need the gobbledygook written and talked about by the so-called “art experts” and the people who “admire the Emperor's new clothes.”

Bertstravels

prefers to hike in real forests

This is what 'Carinthia' looks like.

and better!

Do we really need a soccer stadium full of transplanted trees?

Let trees grow in the country side!

Let's play Soccer in a Soccer Stadium.

That's where I grew up!

The building on the right is "Stadtplatz 22" (Townsquare 22) in Braunau am Inn, Austria.
I lived there from age 4 to 19. A happier childhood, and teenage is hard to imagine.

One of two ways to enter the Main Square.

An ancient tower and a one-car-width tunnel.

 This tower was restored in its original form in 1966

to memorialize the 700th anniversary of the City of Braunau 

in the year 1960