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.

Virtual friends in 2010. The distance is so much bigger but the format is the same.

The world seems so exhibitionistic these days. I like privacy and intimicy. To be honest I'm not impressed by Facebook, MySpace and other friends-from-friends internetsites. I like to follow a few friends on MySpace. Look at their pictures and lurk a bit on their public "communication" but I don't feel the need to read, listen (and smell, taste and touch in the future?) to their friends and friends-friends. Why should I? For me all this is leisure time. I don't have to sell my business.

What do I want? I just want to have a few friends. Better a few friends I know very well than have 1.000 "friends" or "followers" I only know shallow. I like to know what my friends read, how their job is, what they dream and where they travel to. I like to share pictures. Share only in private. Why do people share so much of themselves? Why so exhibitionistic? Does "it" work better? What is "it"? Better for gaining new friends? Better for challenging life? Is hidden underneath it: the need to be in control of one's life and of their friends lives? If yes, why the need to be in control?

Why do people have the need to have more than 50 friends? Are they seeking for affirmation or love? Does it boost one's ego? Desmond Morris tells in his book 'The Naked Ape' (1967) that our human behaviour is largely evolved to meet the challenges of prehistoric life as hunter-gatherers who lived in groups from 40-60 people to survive. This “40-60 people group” concept is according to Morris still alive. It's something I always recognize in my personal life. I stick to my 50 friends. It keeps my timeline in Twitter quiet.

Virtual friends in 2010. For me it still feels strange to be a friend to another human being on the other side of planet Earth. People who I never saw in real life and probably never will see in real life. It's distant, virtual and digital but at the same time we have to invest in our distant friends too. Listen to them. Talk to them. Give them attention. Give them affirmation. Be honest. The distance is so much bigger but the format is the same.

Looking for a Prince (m/f) on a white horse? You are looking for Jesus!

Let me tell you a fairytale. Once upon a time a group of people living in Judea worshiped a being bigger than life. They called Him: JWH (speak out 'Jaweh'). The source of  Life, Love and Death. He gave birth to everything: birds, bees, crops and human beings as well. He also toke care for their souls after death: if you had lived your life "good" you went to "paradise" if not you went to "hell". This group of people tried to live by His rules as good as possible but  still once in a while crop failure, being beaten in a war, earthquakes and other disasters. What went wrong? Answer: they must have interpreted His wishes of how to live a "good life" wrong!  What next? Wait on the "messiah" - the one and only messenger from Him - who could tell this "group of Judea" or "us people" how to live correctly in this life and by doing so earning the entrance to "paradise".

Time went by. Generations of "us people" were born, lived and died. Lots of people claimed that they were the "messiah". All of them proved to be false. On first of January year 0 - what a strange data isn't it? - an "us people" baby was born. He was called Jesus from Nazareth. He was the son of a carpenter. He grew up, went to school, went to church and had a good time with his friends. He was able to cure ill. He was able to listen well and talk with authority. A group of  "us people" knew and claimed that Jesus was the messiah. From then on "us people" was divided in two groups. One group who claimed that Jesus was not the messiah. And who are still waiting for the real messiah. Let's call them 'Jews'. One group who know for sure that Jesus was the messiah. Let's call them 'Christians'. ('Christ' is the greek word for 'messiah').

Time went by. Generations of "us people" were born, lived and died. Let's focus on the 'Christians' group of "us people". Generation after generation life was slowly getting less harsh. Suddenly (it took a couple of hunderd years) lots of these christians realized that they were perfectly well able to live their lives without the need of Him. They did not believe in Santa Claus. They did not believe in Jesus as the messiah nor in God as the source of Life, Love and Death. They claimed that He was dead!

This is were the fairytale ends. The christians needed for practicing their religion Jesus, God, churches, holy books, priests, rules of how to live correctly, holy days and so much more. In a metaphor: it was a big building! A building that formed the cities we live in. That formed the groups we live in. That formed how we treat other human beings and other groups. That formed our calender. That formed our seasons. That formed our schools, journals and magazines. It even formed how we live our individual lives: dreams, fears, sense of life, urge for perfection, how we treat other people and so much more. It even formed how we respond to people who get killed or get homeless in an earthquake in Haiti.

Still there? What's my point? God is dead. Jesus is dead. The big building of christianity  is very alive. In recent times we replaced 'God' by 'Love' and 'Jesus' by the 'Prince on the White Horse'. Listen to all the love songs. Watch all the talkshows and feel-good movies. Smell in your favourite pub or restaurant. A lot of  "us people" look for their white Prince (m/ f) on a horse. The One and Only who make it possible to live Life. The One who Understands all the smiles and tears, dreams and fears. The One who will make Live Perfect.

To summarize all the above. Big building of christianity is very alive in recent western society. God = Love. Jesus = Prince (m/f) on a White Horse.

How about you: are you looking for a White Prince (m/ f) on a Horse?

Democray. It's a mono-theistic religion. History proves in the end it's: or belief in "our" God or extinct & die.

Let me first say this. I’m always fascinated on religion, on what the Book or books say, how texts are interpretated etcetera. Always fascinated and full of wonder! They are my others in whose mirror I look at myself and who tell me who I am.

A few weeks ago I filled in a test on ‘What’s your religion?’ My testresult: I’m an “atheist”. The result doesn’t surprise me but ... it’s only part of my opinion. I don’t believe in a jewish JWH, a christian God, or a moslim Allah. For me no mono-theistic religion! Why? Because it can’t explain the pluriformity of the human experience concerning God, gods and religion in general. For me religion in general is an invention of the species ‘homo sapiens’. One way or another a lot (most?) human beings need some external “being” to give their lives direction and meaning.

What do I believe? There is no God. There is no external “being” that created the world, that gave humanity “devine laws”. We are made out of tiny little elements when we are born and collapse piece by piece when we die. That’s all. We survive as species by reproduction: kids who become parents themselves etcetera. For me there’s no reason why we do need God or gods. It’s a dream. It’s an illusion. It's a human made construction.

What do I believe? I believe in the species ‘homo sapiens’. We do whatever we do -it’s just as simple as that- trying to survive as individual, as family, as group and as species. For me Democracy is another mono-theistic religion. We invented it! There is no ‘democratic inborn faculty’ in us. Democray is groupthinking and groupacting. Mono-theistic religions are dangerous because it's followers hate non-believers, non human at all or others. At first it always starts the smooth way, the non-believers are "invited" to step into their "perfect way of life" too. When there is too much hesitation slowly more group pressure. And in the end? History proves in the end it's: or belief in "our" God or extinct & die.

Do I have to redefine my definition on communication? Footnote on 'Twitter a killer application? No! But ...'

A few steps back.

I joined Twitter on 17th of july 2009. Just lurking a bit. From the very beginning I try to understand what Twitter is about. I try to define if Twitter is a killer application – like some say. I try to predict from the inside if Twitter is really going to change our human lifes. Last 2 weeks I was thinking on the followers and following statistics on Twitter. How is it possible to follow (‘following’) more than 43.000 twitterers and to be followed (‘followers’) by more than 74.000?

Desmond Morris tells in his book 'The Naked Ape' (1967) that our human behaviour is largely evolved to meet the challenges of prehistoric life as hunter-gatherers who lived in groups from 40-60 people to survive. This “40-60 people group” concept is according to Morris still alive and something I always recognize in my personal life. But what I do not know is how this 40-60 people group concept works in relation to Twitter.

Questions:
(a) Is 40-60 people group a correct concept of our human survival?
(b) Is internet since 20 years, step by step, changing our human lives?

(c) Is it possible that Twitter is going to change our human lives?
(d) How can someone communicate with more than 43.000 people who he is following?
(e) Do I have to redefine my definiton on “communication”?

Twitter a killer application? No! But ...

A newby. That's what I am in the world of Twitter. Heard of it a couple of years ago - when it first started - but I was not interested. I had had my share of online social networking (WAYN, Hyves and couple of others) and was tired of all the small talk and triviality. Instead of spend too much time small talking with others somewhere else on Earth - who I hardly learned to know any better - I'd better read a book.

I'm convinced that we as human beings are still living in small groups of 40-60 people. Thousands of years ago we knew all of them in person and we were able to use all of our senses concerning them. Those groupmembers were physical near us. All this changed, step by step, since 1880: we have telephones, radio, TV and since 20 years internet. In our time "our group" is spread out over the world. In my case: my neighbours, my brother with his family 80 km away living in another city, a friend that moved for his work to London, my best friend who still lives in my hometown and a couple of internet friends - whom I never met in real - living all over the world. Our "hometown" is the world but we still live our lifes in our small 40-60 group. In this respect I can't grasp how anyone can possibly really follow and communicate with more than 1.000 twitterers.

Some statistics on Twitter. How many users? 14 million users (march 2009) of whom 60% never come back after 1 month. How much do they talk? The median number of lifetime tweets per user is 1; 10% of the twitterers generate more than 90% of the content. Why do they tweet? 29% promoting own company, 26% networking career, 25% finding new stuff, 9% to talk about anything except business, 9% other and 3% promoting non-profit organisation (source july 2009).

What's the point? Why do I tell you all this? Because I try to understand what Twitter "is" or "should be". Because for me Twitter is not a killer application. Nor for the internet nor for human beings in general. (If there's something a killer application on internet past 20 years than it must be the web browser and e-mail. They change(d) our lifes because they make it possible to share and consume information and to communicate 24/7 real-time all over the world.) Twitter is 1 way to talk/ tweet with other human beings. Next to 10's of other ways. Mostly small talk. Sometimes something that makes me wonder, smile or cry. Only sometimes. Deepness? Hardly any ... just as less or much as all our other ways to communicate with other human beings. Why don't I quit Twitter? Because I don't want to quit. I want to meet new friends/ members of my group. I want small talk. I hope I never have to use Twitter in an case of emergency (e.g. disaster, airplane crash, terror attack or riot). I'll patiently wait for a nice song, quote or a new friend passing by once in a while. May be a follower. May be a follower of a follower. Just passing by accidently. It's all about expectations! Welcome accidently passing by stranger ... let's tweet a bit.