two kinds of discipline can be dustinguished. and the quality of this distinction, of this decision, is again paradigmatic for an alternative in many other fields.

the first kind of discipline is militaristic. to obey, to subordinate, to fill out a function as perfect as possible, these are its virtues and values. the bed must be done in this way, because it is the order, it follows the rule. make it smooth here, no plie in the blanket, put the clothes in exactly this way to the lower end. because it always was like this, because it is right like this, because this is the just way. even to ask is not appropriate. deviations are not acceptable. the punishment from above, to be punished for the lower part, are constitutive parts of it. it is about the production of a machine which needs the functioning of the single parts. from the perspective of the single person, to function is then this kind of discipline.

the other discipline derives from the contact to the matter. the bed itself wants to be done. it feels better then, and looks nicer. it wants to be like this, and discipline is the attention and the willingness to hear its voice. this voice comes from below, not from above, and it is not expressed loudly, but as soft sign, as request, as question, as offer, as possibility which one does not need to follow, but can follow. there is no punishment if this voice is not followed, only less love, less accordance, less satisfaction is the result. this discipline is care. both, dirt and clean get care. there is no disgust, but acceptance. at the end this discipline is a manifestation of love, to move in love, and being moved by love.

the continuous modification is in the same way a constitutive part of this way of love as the continuous fight for generalization, against deviation and against modification a constitutive part for the discipline of obeyism is. (if the change is not itself an order from above.) to change, to be different and to become different, is for the other discipline not only substantial as temporal development, but also as individual deviation. the bodies are different, and the times are different. what for one person ten years ago was good and right as dirt or clean, as order or disorder, as simplicity or elegance of the dress, is now perhaps wrong. and the many individuals which meet each other, they contribute their differences, in walking and standing, in laying and sitting. all is in movement, and the whole consists of a big change as result of the many small differences and changes. discipline as social perspective would be the same as attention, for the others and for the whole. attention, not adjustment.

the ideal discipline is the by itself of daoism, or being pulled by the way in some buddhist tradition. so to become unimportant, to dissolve itself — presumably this is also an interesting difference to the authoritarian tradition, for which dissolution is the same as catastrophy or decay. until this goal is reached, discipline remains a inspiring task and voyage, to not give away what is given. life time.

das ideal der disziplin ist das von selbst des daoismus, oder das vom weg gezogen werden in mancher buddhistischer tradition. also überflüssig zu werden, sich aufzulösen — vermutlich auch das ein interessanter unterschied zur autoritären tradition, für die auflösung mit katastrophe oder verfall gleichzusetzen ist. bis dieses ziel erreicht ist, bleibt disziplin eine lustvolle aufgabe und entdeckungsreise, um das nicht aus der hand zu geben, was in sie gelegt ist. lebenszeit.