To Begin My Studies...

If you refer back to the first few posts on my blog, you will recall the main reason as to why I created this website: for the study of Humanity. To officially begin my quest through the broad realm of humanity, I must define two very important terms, which will help me throughout my search for reason. Those two words are: Science and Religion.


In accordance with the 1971 Oxford University Press Compact Edition of the English Dictionary, the term, "science" is defined as:


"Science: the state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge, as a personal attribute."


In accordance with the 1971 Oxford University Press Compact Edition of the English Dictionary (the same dictionary from above) the term, "religion" is defined as:


"Religion: a state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order; a particular system of faith (belief) and worship."


The reason as to why I decided to define these words was for the production of my thesis; I will attempt to combine (contrast) the beliefs held by those, who look toward religion, with those, who believe in the findings of science. Basically, I will try to build a bridge that connects the scientific world with the religious world. Using my analysis and my "data," I will attempt to paint a picture of how humans truly see themselves in the universe that they inhabit.


"So are we creatures contained inside of a vastly expansive universe?"


"or is this perceivably expansive universe trapped inside of us?"

Ubuntu

You all may be asking yourselves, "What is Ubuntu?"


Although 'ubuntu' is an operating system under Debian GNU and Linux distribution, that is not what this post is about.


Ubuntu is an African (spiritual) belief, stating that all humans share an invisible 'bond' to all other humans, animals and, the Earth.  


To me, this is similar to some type of human telepathy, through which humans use their minds (unconsciously, of course) to "reach out" to other humans, and even animals. Telepathy, although theoretical, is supposedly brought on through emotions. In other words, it is the ability to understand the people around you (empathy). 


I am reminded of a video by Jeremy Rifkin called The Empathic Civilization. The video discusses how humans reach out to other humans through an invisible bond (much like Ubuntu; much like telepathy). Basically, Rifkin describes the 'ubuntu' philosophy in Western World terms. He describes how humans use this "invisible bond" to reach out to other humans, animals, and the biosphere (Earth).


In conducting research for my upcoming 'thesis,' I will attempt to use the Western World definition of ubuntu (as defined by Jeremy Rifkin) to apply it to what my definition of "being human" will be. Initially, I will use theories on ubuntu, empathy, and telepathy to describe one aspect of my overall idea.

Egil Skallagrimsson

Happy Egil Skallagrimsson Day! (tomorrow will be the official day: December 9) 


Most of you probably saw this somewhat 'confusing' name and asked yourselves, "Who is that?"


Basically, Egil Skallagrimsson was the most infamous poet of the Viking Age. Born in Iceland in the early 900's, Egil was the son of the Norwegian chieftain, Skalla Grimr Kveldulfsson. Not only did he write his first poem at the age of three (therefore signaling his love for Viking remembrance), but he was also an intensely- violent berserker (Viking warriors, who went berserk before each and every battle; this gave the hero more rigor in his quest to kill the enemy).


Although Egil's history could be considered a bit gory, his poetry showed off his more pleasant side:


"By sun and moon
I journeyed west,
My sea-borne tune
From Odin's breast,
My song-ship packed
With poet's art:
Its word-keel cracked
The frozen heart.


And now I feed
With an English king:
So to English mead
I'll word-mead bring,
Your praise my task,
My song your fame,
If you but ask
I'll sound your name.

These praises, King,
Won't cost you dear
That I shall sing
If you will hear:
Who beat and blazed
Your trail of red,
Till Odin gazed
Upon the dead.

On his gold arm
The bright shield swings:
To his foes, harm:
To his friends, rings;
His fame's a feast
Of glorious war,
His name sounds east,
From shore to shore.

And now my lord,
You've listened long
As word on word
I built this song:
Your source is war,
Your streams are blood,
But my springs pour
Great Odin's flood.

To praise my lord
This tight mouth broke,
The word-floods poured,
The still tongue spoke,
From my poet's breast
These words took wing:
Now all the rest
May learn to sing."

If you would like to learn more about Egil Skallagrimsson and his poetry, click here.

As For Ebert's Response...

As to the contents of Roger Ebert's response to all of his followers: to me, it contained things that I have already heard (once again):


"...The reasons for your mistreatment were not in yourself, but in the minds of those cruel ones hoping to hurt you..."


"...The cruelty is clear cut. But the pleas for remorse must inspire pity and contempt..."


"...Sometimes it is good to bear witness to your life. Maybe this was one of those times..." 


Much like my previous post about Ebert, I was very disappointed by it. I do not say this out of contempt for him. The articles and blogs that I find interesting (and worthy) are those that offer a new perspective on the subjects of humanity ( those by Klein, Rifkin, Pasricha, etc.). Overall, I feel as though this subject that Ebert brings up is one that has already been understood, or breached by everyone; it is a bit commonplace... 

The Computer: A Portrait of Civilization

Recently, I read an article by a man named Ezra Klein. Klein wrote on the subject of Being Fully Human Online, through the eyes of two worlds: through the real world and through the virtual world.


This article, to me, adds a new perspective on the subject of humanity. It shows how humans use the virtual world as "their window to the real world." 

Nevertheless, the usage of such a "fake" world, in order to arrive in the world that we live in, is an ingenious idea. Think on this: the only thing that we humans see the internet as, is a bright screen, swarming with an infinite amount of strange icons, annoying advertisements, and useful (or even false) information pages. Essentially, the internet is just a picture; you cannot go inside of the picture, you cannot visit the place of the picture. You cannot even see the picture in three dimensions! That is because, as we all know, the world that humans have created is a virtual one. Think about this: humans are the creators of a separate world.

Now, as I recall, humans have their theories and beliefs as to how our world came to be: Did God create it? Or was it the One-Eyed Odin who casted his magic? Was it Mother Nature? Was it Allah? or did a catastrophic explosion create the stars and the planets? As humans still ponder this question, we may be sure of one thing: we are the creators of an infinitely expansive computerized world. Our computer-world is so large and so massive that anything possible can be added or subtracted to or from it. The fact that humans act as super-powers to the separate worlds that we created is absolutely enthralling! 

This brings me to my next point: did we create a new world? Or is this "new dimension" a collection of everything humans know? 


If the internet acts as a shelf for the collection of human knowledge, can this shelf be analyzed in order to find points that may connect all types of humans? 

Is the internet a world, in which we control the 'creatures' that we create?

Or is the internet a place, where humans are brought together by the one brush that paints this portrait of civilization? 

We Know...

I read a post written by Roger Ebert on his daily blog. It's called All the Lonely People.


On a personal level, I do believe that the post was valuable, though barely effective. Truthfully, I have seen many articles pertaining to this subject. To me, it is a very broad topic (loneliness, depression, love and so on). This article, nevertheless, is an 'attempt' to define something extremely large by using a small amount of even more expansive terms (this is analogous to defining the word "duck" with the word "duck" directly inscribed into the written definition itself). Although I do value this editorial to be questionably truthful, the views on the subject, along with the subject itself, are very old, outdated, and trite. In all seriousness, how many people have heard the saying, "You do not know what you have until it is gone?" How many people have heard that "humans do not make connections just for reproduction. Humans make connections to set up a private world. We make connections for companionship..."  


Et cetera... Et cetera... Et cetera...