In 100 years software is something like electricity now. On wires and sockets

Imagine 100 years from now. How will they (I guess all of us are dead) look back at our time and age? Will they ever understand all the fuzz about iPad,  web 3.0, Google WAVE,  HP, Microsoft etc? All the buzz about hard- and software we are using today. Right now it seems important 'what' and 'how' we use all the hard- and software. It seems irrelevant 'why' we use this technology.

In 100 years software is something like electricity now. It's there! (Or not when the power is down.) I know nothing about the hard- and software of electricity. Do you? I don't read magazines, tweets and blogs on wires and sockets. About their colours, useability, the companies that deliver them and the CEO's  (who are treated like sexy popstars) of the companies that make them.

Imagine 100 years from now! What do you see?

Fade away

They say "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away". Is it a coincidence that this can be applied to soldiers and lovers?

Life is more

To be honest. I don't feel like blogging anymore. In a way I lost my appetite. The urgency is gone. Next to that nobody really seems to care. Nobody seems to wait for what I'll write next. Last few weeks I'm making up my mind about my wins. More and more the feeling grows in me to commit web suicide. Life is more than Twitter, BlipFM and Blogging. How strange to be back on Ana Carolina's song 'Mais que isso'. It's the image of my first 'Live Life!' blog.

Question: Is my concept of 'win win' wrong? What image fits better?

Birthday. Almost 1 year old

Yesterday I was not happy with my blog 'On Cincinnatus and Julius Caesar. Do selfish genes feel by definition: the chosen ones?'. For me it was a good blog: informative, personal and to the point. I do not really know why I was discontent. In a way my final blog didn't meet the unwritten expectations I had before I wrote one sentence. All I wanted was write about Cincinnatus. And end with the remark that this modest role model male from old Rome is rare is history. After written the first paragraph I was puzzling on the reason why Cincinnatus behaviour is rare in history. Why is power over others addictive and tempting? Why  do we want to stay on the top and is it difficult to give power back? To be honest I don't really know. I entered a world full of fat words: groups, aggression and power. I entered a world I not always want to enter: what is a human being? why do we do what we do? how to live my life?

In a couple of weeks I'll be blogging for 1 year. I started blogging after I realized that Twitter's format of 140 characters is too oppressive for me sometimes. In retrospect my main unconscious target past year was: being honest to myself about all the facts, dreams, illusions of life in order to being able to live life. In a way I'm trying to define "life". For me my blog is a mirror. My mirror. My public mirror. 

Question: Is my public mirror worth reading? If yes or no: 'why? What blinkers do I have? You can comment on this blog in public or send me a private e-mail.

On Cincinnatus and Julius Caesar. Do selfish genes feel by definition: the chosen ones?

He was a model of Roman virtue in early Rome. He was a role model for the Founding Fathers. George Washington felt honored if people would call him Cincinnatus. I'm talking about L.Q. Cincinnatus (519 BC - 430 BC?). Who? A Roman male who lived a couple of centuries before Year 0. A farmer who was called to serve Rome as dictator. Who defeated the Aequians, Sabinians and Volscians and immediately gave up his absolute power as dictator at the end of the crisis. He was nominated dictator ('Master of the People') for 6 months. After 16 days he gave up his absolute power after having conquered the Aequi. And returned to his farm. He was regarded a hero because of his outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue and modesty. Cincinnatus is rare is history.

Why is he rare? Why is the species 'homo sapiens' so fascinated by honor and glory? Is it typical of our species? Is it typically male? Is it typical of Western civilization? If we look back in history we find out that emperors, kings and popes founded their power base on the blood of the conquered others. Once on the top most of them wanted to stay in power till "eternity". Giving up power is mostly regarded as weakness and act of stupidness. Why? Why do we want power? Why do males want to be on the top and stay there? Why are we not satisfied with living with our family on a farm?

Why am I telling you all this? I'm always puzzling and wondering why Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and wanted to stay at the top in old Rome and was not satisfied that his consulship finally  ended. After Julius more than 4 centruries of emperors of whom most not died in their bed.

Look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs - mark the 'pyramide' is an image you can read it as a 'beehive' too. Why was Julius so afraid of being politically marginalised? Julius was save. He was respected and rich after defeating the Gauls. Why was he not satisfied?  Did he not love others? Did he only love himselves? Was there something wrong with his procreation? Was he bullied or humiliated in his youth? For me there is only one thing that explains it all: Julius felt he was The Chosen or Messiah. (Mark that there is no religious or bodhi dimension in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.)

Once again, why am I telling all this to you? It's not about Cincinnatus. Allthough I admire his modesty. It's not about Julius Caesar. Allthough I admire his art of war. It's about me. I try to define what living my life means.

What do you think? Why do we want to reach the top and stay there? Is it all about selfish genes? Do selfish genes feel by definition: the chosen ones? For me it feels that modest people gain more advantage in evolution than people at the top.

Hungry as well

There once was a little mouse walking around for something to eat. No guts no glory.

There was an owl - hungry as well - and that's the end of this little mouse' story.

Ancient story. Do we always realize that we die twice?

It's an ancient story. It's a story we share with more than 9.000 generations of 'homo sapiens' who lived before us: being born, live and die. Some of us reproduce ourselves and start a new generation. If we don't our personal familyline will stop. I was lucky to have known 3 of my 4 grandparents and my great-grandfather of my fathers mum. My daddies dad died 15 years before I was born. In retrospect I've met my ancestors mostly on normal, nothing special occasions: birthdays and drinking coffee on Sunday. In a way we (better: I) only love, take care and are emotionally involved to people we "meet" in person. Family, friends, collegues and acquaintances. And the others? They are Others whose lives are irrelevant.

What's the ancient story? All of us are little branches on the big tree - it's an image - of species 'homo sapiens'. We all die. Some get reproduced.  After 3 generations all of us - with or without kids - become statistics to the generations who come after us. "Jean Doorn, born 19 of January 1970,  died on {date}. Father of 4 kids". All the love I toke. All the love I gave. All the stories I heard. All the stories I told.  All laughs, kisses, tears and fears. All the tweets I read. All the tweets I wrote. We die twice. First the physical us. After 3 generations the us in the minds who love and hate us 2.

What do you think? Will Internet change all this? Will the future 'IT' (footnote) be able to "meet" someone who died more than 3 generations ago?

Footnote. 'IT' is the big computer with a huge amount of data in the book 'Journey  into Space' written by Toby Litt.