T.O.E.: Final Reading Place Blog

What does it mean to be human?

In the beginning of this class I would have immediately answered being human means to be human. The DNA, mitochondria, the atoms all define us as human, simple as that. As I mentioned before, the 1.5% DNA difference from bonobos makes us human. Though I still believe that fundamentally DNA and atoms make us human, I think I now understand another layer of that question. Rather than asking, "what does it mean to be human" I think the question really means "what does it mean to be a person"? In the end, humans are humans, but what makes that human a person? A nice simple, clean, answer such as consciousness, or empathy is like a card pyramid, it seems sufficient and stable but with an easy blow, it falls down. More and more research shows animals actually capable of consciousnesses. Elephants show signs of grief, dolphins can laugh, and quokkas are always happy. Many may argue those do not actually prove animals have sentience but nonetheless, animals may not be so different from people. And then what about humans who can't feel empathy? That would mean sociopaths would not qualify as people. Perhaps to fully answer this question, one needs to look at how other animals are defined. But that goes back to biological DNA differences. It seems nearly all paths lead to circles, complicating any hope of finding an answer. And maybe, there exists more than one right answer.

A few months ago, I wrote a little bit about a physics idea, called the Mediocrity principle (also known as the Cosmological principle). David Quinn, implies this theory throughout his book Ishmael, in regards to the way the Leavers live. According to the principle, humans are no more special than anything else. They are mediocre and as Quinn would put it, succumb to the same laws of nature as the rest of the world. Even Jared Diamond paid tribute to this theory stating "to science we owe dramatic changes in our smug self-image[...]From biology we learned that we weren't specially created by God but evolved along with millions of other species." If humans are nothing special and since everything is made from the same atoms as everything else, maybe we cannot properly define what is human or even what a person is without defining everything else. In that nothing specifically separates anything from each other, it just all falls under a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.). Interestingly, science is currently trying to discover this T.O.E. and once again, support the Mediocrity principle, or as Diamond puts it, humble our "smug self-image." But that would be an extremely meta approach and frankly, makes me feel a bit uncomfortable and confused.

In order to simplify the question, lets look at the Takers and how we can define them as people or not. As supposed "creators" and "rulers" of the world, many people may attribute the ability to destroy and create to be a defining characteristic of person-hood. In an address, Quinn himself stated "It's important for them to understand that it's not being HUMAN that is destroying the world. It's living THIS WAY that is destroying the world." So being a destroyer or savior doesn't define us. What about our ability to create a culture? It's fair to say other animals do not posses as complex of a culture as we do if any at all. Animals don't paint or sculpt, write fancy poems no one understands or even think about deep philosophical ideas (that we know of). So if we create culture and our culture defines us as people. Quinn defines a culture as people enacting a story, so human's invent culture and culture creates people and we all play a part in enacting that story. After all, as Rueyser wrote, "The universe is made of stories, not atoms." So if the universe is made of stories, and culture means people enacting a story, and culture defines person-hood, then maybe the T.O.E. is one big story the whole universe is enacting.

Reflection:
Within my own group of three, I selected all four readings and I read and annotated all of them. I also provided questions to the final script and wrote most of the "Ishmael group" answers on the script as well as the final question. As for the whole group, I tried to make sure everyone got their work in. The idea and themes themselves were really a group effort though and most people contributed to it. In the beginning I thought a whole class group project would fail but in the end it turned out a lot better than I expected. The idea of having a whole class project with smaller groups of three or four worked really well in that it was easy to assign each group work to contribute to the final project. Honestly, I do not think this project would have work as well or as easily as it did without Google drive. Overall, I would say things worked out smoothly for the amount of time and the amount of people. More time could have been spent on developing a larger theme and making sure the questions flowed together, rather than separately themed questions. I think we had a good group of seniors that luckily worked well together. For any group project, it really just comes down to the people and some help from Google.

Into the Wild: Civilization vs. Nature

Who was Chris McCandless and what drove him to live his life the way he did? Many accused him of ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity. Krakauer defends Chris, painting him not as a stupid youth but as an idealistic headstrong boy. He wasn't ill-prepared, he made sure to study. He wasn't suicidal, after all he died a long slow death of starvation. Upon examining his life, Chris proves a much more complex person. Growing up Chris was always critical of his parents' lifestyle and wealth. They worked long hours but were they truly happy? Did they accomplish anything for the greater good of society? More importantly, did Chris think they did? Though Chris seemed concerned with the morality of the world, he was ultimate selfish, focusing on his own individuality, going off into the wild for his own need and desire. Chris seemed to avoid anything that required hard work, unless it had higher value and meaning. He wasn't stupid: "Academically he brought home A's with little effort" but he cared about other things (109). Sports that required any high level of skill or form were not for Chris, "Nuance, strategy, and anything beyond the rudimentary of technique were wasted on Chris" (111). The one sport Chris enjoyed was running, because he was able to find a deeper, spiritual connection to the sport. Krakauer depicts Chris as someone who lived extremely, when he raced, he raced to win, anything he did he had to do his way (lab formats), Chris' view on life was the same. He was unable to accept life's inequalities because he was too extreme to accept gray areas. This follows the way Chris lived his own life in an extreme way, he had to immerse himself completely in his spiritual world and he was unable to accept any other life.
Chris' story is one of searching for a deeper meaning in life because he tries to in such an extreme way. Fundamentally, Chris' theory of life suggests that in our civilized world, we are clouded by something that keeps us from being part of the "real world." His parents lived in the civilized world and he shunned them for it.
I argue that one can live in a true way in the civilized world. People like Chris love nature, because they did not have to deal with the inequalities of nature all the time. Even in the end, Chris begged for help. There is great beauty and power everywhere, often times we cannot see it in our lives because we become to use to our environment we miss the little beautiful details. Nature constantly changes, keeps moving forward bringing life and death but we tune out this force of nature and end up feeling disconnected. According to Chris, there is a deeper relationship humans can share with nature. This may exist but we overlook these opportunities. For Chris, he believed the only way to find that deeper connection was to find the "true" nature. But nature depends upon how we view it. We overlook nature, get caught up in the daily humdrum of life but nature is always there and sometimes all it takes is just a few minutes to acknowledge it. I think Chris tried to do that, but true to his extreme nature, Chris did so in an extreme way. We try to think we're above nature, with our technology and philosophy but in the end, we're still part of nature. Civilization and nature do not have to be in conflict, we can be civilized and live with nature, we just need to learn how.

My Friend, Nature

When I was first asked to think about my relationship with nature, I immediately thought about my childhood. Growing up, I had a favorite tree, a maple tree that stood in front of my house that I climbed everyday. My younger self loved the outdoors, playing with mud, running around, biking, climbing fences, but my favorite activity was tree climbing. My childhood memories are filled with climbing that maple tree after school. Up until we moved, my hands were covered in calluses from climbing and some of the branches had smoothed over where I climbed most. The first video plays tribute to those memories. In many ways, nature really was my playmate growing up, even if other children were not around, I could always find things to do outside whether it was collecting flowers and rocks, observing insects and animals, or climbing trees. The first video is meant to convey that sense of playfulness I found with nature. The second video represents a more mature relationship I developed with nature. Throughout my adolescent years I have always found peace in a quiet nook next to the lake. Whenever I felt stressed or got into a fight, I could always take a run down to the lake and just watch the water ripples hit the sand and listen to the birds calling each other. The endless movement of nature always brought a sense of serenity to me. No matter what, I could count on nature to calm me down. The third video reflects a newer relationship I've found with nature. After gazing at the stars for space science, I am still amazed by how vast nature is and how truly small we are all. It's humbling really, to just admire nature. The third video is meant to convey that sense of smallness as well as a sense of belonging. No matter what, we are made of atoms just like the rest of nature (except for black matter) and even though in the grand scheme of things we are unimportant to nature, we are still part of it. All three of the videos reflect a strong connection I feel with nature. They may not be the interactions I have most with nature or the ones that symbolize a greater human being connection, but they are the ones that I think of first and the feelings I cherish most.

The order of the videos reflect a growing relationship with nature: from childhood playfulness, to adolescent peace finding, to "adult" admiration.

Words said in videos:
First: "Nature is my childhood friend
Second: "Who is always there to calm me down"
Third: "And who is always there to keep me humble"

https://vine.co/v/MJJtLJ9raI2
https://vine.co/v/MJJ9WMliZZm
https://vine.co/v/MJvZYeU5xzY