BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

What Is a Human Being?

  
 
LykeX
17:58 / 22.05.08
I'm writing this because I'm interested in the views of the wonderful people on this board. I'd like to get a broader perspective on people's thinking on this matter. I apologize if my communication on this is a bit hazy, but I don't know many people IRL with whom I can discus this, so you're getting a rough draft.

What defines a human being?

By this, obviously, I don't merely mean a Homo sapiens, but rather Human as a kind of mental/spiritual state. In my own thinking, this concept has come to take a central role; that you are not born human, but only with the potential to become one, perhaps relating to the notion that you do not have a soul, but you can gain/grow one (which I got, I think, from RAW, possibly referencing Gurdjieff). "To be more than human is to be human" and all that.

So, in my own thinking, Human means, not necessarily perfected, but certainly a state of high advancement.
Human is a goal which you reach by working towards it, as in, if you're continually trying to be human, you are human.

I've tried to define what qualities I think define a human being and I've come up with this:

1. Stubbornness, not backing down, no matter what. Always returning to the fight.
2. Empathy, being able to see the world from other perspectives than your own, getting to know them from the inside.
3. Curiosity, wanting to know more about absolutely everything.
4. Dissatisfaction, always striving for something higher, never settling for what you have/are.

It is, of course, entirely possible that I only emphasize these because they are my own best qualities. For that reason, I would like to know what you all think about this.
All comments are welcome.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:10 / 22.05.08
Is this a sheeple thing? That is, are you saying that there are human beings, who exhibit the characteristics listed above, and then there are creatures who look like human beings but who are not, who do not exhibit the characteristics listed above?
 
 
LykeX
18:23 / 22.05.08
Damn, I should have clarified that. No, it's definitely not a way of saying that some people are inferior. Rather, it's a way of inspiring toward better living.
Belittling people by saying they aren't really human would, in my opinion, be symptomatic of a lack of empathy.

Instead, I take it as an inspiration to personal action. I ask whether I'm really living up to my own ideal of what a human is supposed to be. If I'm not, it's time to make a change.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
18:24 / 22.05.08
I think it's worth pointing out that the characteristics listed are all found in the animal kingdom (aside from humans, I mean. I guess we're also part of the animal kingdom). With the possible exception of dissatisfaction. I've seen my cat dissatisfied with a lot of things, but perhaps not in the way you've described it.

As far as Human=Advanced, you may want to consider what this really means--advanced compared to what? Other animals? Granted, our brains are certainly more complicated, and we have this whole consciousness and mind/body dilemma going on, but we've traded a lot for it.

I'm not sure what is to be gained by comparing the mental/spiritual states of humans to that of animals, especially the spiritual state of animals, which is a little hard to discern. For me, anyway.

That said, I am interested in this topic and plan to write more when I have the time.
 
 
EvskiG
18:29 / 22.05.08
So your question is "what qualities or characteristics should people aspire to, or seek to embody"?
 
 
LykeX
18:46 / 22.05.08
Something like that. Since I'm not quite arrogant enough to think I've got it completely right, I'd like to know what other people think about this, and whether anyone else are thinking along these lines.

Also, it's a matter of "be all you can be." I feel in myself, and I think I sense in others, that we are not truly living up to our potential. We could do a lot better, do so much more, create a better world. I feel the seed of it in us, And I would like to find out why we're not getting there and what can be done about it.

Granted, I'm the impatient type and a rampant idealist, but I sometimes feel the possibilities within myself and others crushing down on me, and I get so damn FRUSTRATED when we/I don't live up to it.
It might be a very human (in the conventional sense) thing to feel, but I can't shake it and I'd like to do whatever little I can to change it.
 
 
eye landed
09:13 / 23.05.08
carl jung claims that (gnostic) abraxas is the 'true god' of humans: its mysteries are the delineation of categories (knowledge?) and the syzygy of opposites (wisdom?). thus these basic cognitive functions are the purpose and meaning of humanity.

does the content matter? must we strive to negotiate the contradiction here:

1. Stubbornness, not backing down, no matter what. Always returning to the fight.
2. Empathy, being able to see the world from other perspectives than your own, getting to know them from the inside.

or is our time equally well-spent blinding ourselves with the sun, or mediating political rivals?

anyway, i can get behind your assumption that always striving for more, always throwing off oppression is an aspect of the abstraction 'humanity'. but i note that different cultures-- even different individuals-- approach these concepts differently. as some possibly stereotypical examples: english cultures value the development of the individual ego, while latin cultures value the role in the family, and chinese cultures value the advancement of the race. of course, all people make their own peace with all of these values, since weighing the needs of individual vs community is a quality thats vital to humanity. (i am a white english-speaker, and im interested in being called out by a latin or a chinese, or whomever might have insight.)

i replied to this thread because ive been thinking about world/human culture (especially UNESCO world heritage sites), like a detached anthropologist-- i once had a powerful vision of the planet earth, within a galactic community, defined by a can of budweiser. the above are not well-honed thoughts, but i will try to return to continue the discussion.
 
 
Haloquin
11:48 / 23.05.08
I may just be poking things which you didn't express quite how you meant it because it was your first draft, but here goes:

What defines a human being?

I honestly don't know. If I had to explain what I meant by humanity I'd want to include the capacity for (and tendency to use) empathy, compassion, love... but then these aren't specifically human traits and I'm aware of a large mass of humanity that don't necessarily tend to use these... but I wouldn't call them inhuman. And some people may well disagree vehemenently with this kind of list, saying it is best to be hard, strong, to protect your family no matter what, and that empathy is a sign of weakness rather than a sign of humanity.

By this, obviously, I don't merely mean a Homo sapiens, but rather Human as a kind of mental/spiritual state. In my own thinking, this concept has come to take a central role; that you are not born human, but only with the potential to become one...

I have a few thoughts on this...

Firstly, at what point would that potential become an actuality? If we are born homo sapien but not human, when do we become human? What it is to be human could, in this case, be a cultural situation - we become human when we are able to fit into our human culture. This means that not everybody has the potential to become human, some people are born with characteristics which mean they will never be able to function in the culture they are born into. (which doesn't make the definition wronge, although I admit I wouldn't call people inhuman for being unable to function in their culture...)

Secondly, why isn't it a physical state? How can we divide mental/spiritual and bodily so cleanly? If all other traits are potentially shared by other animals, what right do we have to claim them as 'human'? Perhaps the most human thing to do is to get as in touch with our bodies as we can... become truly embodied (rather than living in a mentally constructed world), really be "divine animals" (which I remember hearing is the root of the word 'human' but don't know where it is from... anyone?). Here perhaps being as 'human' as we can be is to be as aware of our bodies and our abilities and to use them as best we can?

So, in my own thinking, Human means, not necessarily perfected, but certainly a state of high advancement.
Human is a goal which you reach by working towards it, as in, if you're continually trying to be human, you are human.

1) As has been mentioned... what do you mean by 'advanced'? How can you claim that we are highly advanced, or advanced compared to... what? I sometimes think we're more damaged than advanced as a species... we have lots of toys, but we find it hard, as a whole, to co-operate with nature which ultimately means mass genecide and possibly mass suicide. (Not deliberate necessarily, but look at how all our lifestyle choices lead to so many dis-eases that kill us.)

2) What if a dog was continually trying to be human? Would it be human? This doesn't seem to be what the word human means. Trying also implies possible failure... If being human is manifesting a particular set of characteristics then you either are manifesting them or you are not. As the wise man said: "Do or do not, there is no try." So the use of the phrase 'trying to be human' sounds really muddled.


I've tried to define what qualities I think define a human being and I've come up with this:

1. Stubbornness, not backing down, no matter what. Always returning to the fight.
2. Empathy, being able to see the world from other perspectives than your own, getting to know them from the inside.
3. Curiosity, wanting to know more about absolutely everything.
4. Dissatisfaction, always striving for something higher, never settling for what you have/are.

If we are listing qualities we think make what we'd like to see as human, I'd disagree with both 1 and 4. Not backing down no matter what?! What if you're wrong? What if you realise theres a better way of doing things? A certain degree of tenacity I agree is a useful skill, but flexibility has surely got to be important for survival, social situations, and personal health!

And dissatisfaction? While many people are dissatisfied, I wouldn't count that as an important trait. To always be aware and willing to take up opportunities that allow you to shine brighter, to be happier, to help yourself and others more... yeah, sure... but that isn't incompatible with being satisfied with where you are, as long as that satisfaction doesn't result in stagnation. Dissatsifaction, to me, implies being unhappy where you are. If you are unhappy, then move, change the situation, find something better, but if you're happy and in a good place, then why be dissatisfied? be satisfied and willing to make it even better!

While I do agree with curiosity, generally, being a good trait for humans to have, I'm not sure I agree witht he characterisation of curiosity as the desire to know about everything. There are some things you might just not want to know about, and that doesn't make you not curious, just not curious about that!

I'd personally like to include co-operation in my list of what I'd like humans to be able and willing to do, but I wouldn't say you weren't human if you didn't. And all these things, being traits other animals share, don't seem to be necessary or sufficient conditions of humanity... I wouldn't say you were human if you didn't empathise... and it doesn't make you human rather than something else if you do all these things, because you might still be something else.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
11:59 / 23.05.08
Making mistakes? (to Err...)
I doubt that there is a simple list that can be made. Humanity is a result of a cumulation of things... Who was more human? Jesus or Alexander the Great? They both impacted the world in a serious way... Incredibly different traits and methods.
"Human" is a bit of a conceit as "humans" are animals. (Perhaps viruses with shoes...) I doubt that dolphins ponder their dolphin-ness. And before you jump on me about humans having higher brain functions: recently it's been proven that certain small goldfish-like fish(can't remember the genus) can count at the same level as a four or five year old. It's something taught, of course, but they usually don't bother much because they're too preoccupied with being fish and doing fishy things.
Trying to define "human" serves to further distance us from the rest of the planet, and when we do that, we tend to fuck stuff up.
And as to "Becomming" human, trying to "be all that you can be", well we can't all agree on what that may be either... Take a gander over in "Enlightenment"...
 
 
Closed for Business Time
12:20 / 23.05.08
Just an aside to this from Haloquin: Perhaps the most human thing to do is to get as in touch with our bodies as we can... become truly embodied (rather than living in a mentally constructed world), really be "divine animals" (which I remember hearing is the root of the word 'human' but don't know where it is from... anyone?). Here perhaps being as 'human' as we can be is to be as aware of our bodies and our abilities and to use them as best we can?


Now consider this, from Nature Nature 449, 804-810 (18 October 2007): Before the Human Genome Project was completed, some researchers predicted that 100,000 genes would be found. So, many were surprised and perhaps humbled by the announcement that the human genome contains only 20,000 protein-coding genes, not much different from the fruitfly genome. However, if the view of what constitutes a human is extended, then it is clear that 100,000 genes is probably an underestimate. The microorganisms that live inside and on humans (known as the microbiota) are estimated to outnumber human somatic and germ cells by a factor of ten. Together, the genomes of these microbial symbionts (collectively defined as the microbiome) provide traits that humans did not need to evolve on their own1. If humans are thought of as a composite of microbial and human cells, the human genetic landscape as an aggregate of the genes in the human genome and the microbiome, and human metabolic features as a blend of human and microbial traits, then the picture that emerges is one of a human 'supra-organism'.

To understand the range of human genetic and physiological diversity, the microbiome and the factors that influence the distribution and evolution of the constituent microorganisms must be characterized. This is one of the main goals of the Human Microbiome Project (HMP). The outcome might also provide perspective on contemporary human evolution: that is, on whether and how rapidly advancing technology, and the resultant transformation of human lifestyles and the biosphere, influences the 'micro-evolution' of humans and thereby health and predisposition to various diseases.

Most salient part: The microorganisms that live inside and on humans (known as the microbiota) are estimated to outnumber human somatic and germ cells by a factor of ten.

So, does the expansion of biological definitions of humanity impact on the spiritual definitions? If nine-tenths of our physical mass is non-human (as defined by DNA) - what does it mean to know yourself, or get in touch with your body?
 
 
Haloquin
12:44 / 24.05.08
If nine-tenths of our physical mass is non-human (as defined by DNA) - what does it mean to know yourself, or get in touch with your body? - Flyboy

Oooh! Thank you. I hadn't thought about symbiotic micro-organisms at all, and didn't know they outnumbered human genetics, certainly not to that extent.

Presumably this means that 'human' biologically means more than 'human' genetically. Could this be likened to getting to know a whole patch of land, rather than just the baby tree in the middle?

This needs lots of thinking.

I think, initially, I'm inclined to say that getting to know your body is more about understanding the ways it works than what it consists of (although understanding constituents obviously helps with that) so knowing it as an intricate whole - including all the important 90% that isn't human genetically - is more important than learning the genetic code, or something similar. Although, how important is knowing how genetics work to knowing how the body works in various life situations? Inclined to think not very. Knowing my genetic code doesn't normally impact on how I choose to eat or play...

*Thinks*
 
  
Add Your Reply