It shouldn't be lost anyone that if by beyond biology we mean an urge or an inherent drive, then we're talking about an instinct to overcome our biological limits, including our instincts.

The communication "theory," which I first came across from someone I'll leave as FC for now, is a compelling and attractive one. An interpration of things, it applies an end to our evolution, or at least a major incremental goal of it, one that we can't see beyond. It does well to explain and lend meaning to our species -- thus the allure. But I was also drawn to it because it shows how disparate and surprising developments, including commercialism, are efficient means to that end. That's a significant characteristic shared with the spiritual and biological urge to get beyond biology.

As FC saw things, communication provided the one common ground for people. It was the one connective tissue. In music, film, photography, speech, and writing the urge comes from a need to know and to be known. He was careful to point out that almost never is it clear what dominates from the creator's perspective: That the audience come to know the subject matter or the director, writer, painter, singer, songwriter.

After digesting FC's comments, I soon leaned to believing it was predominantly the latter. When was the last time you saw a film or bestseller credited to "anonymous?" Certainly, financial considerations play a role in these decisions, a point highlighted by the fact that anonymous and pseudo-named authors have proliferated online, except and until income becomes an issue. Still, we can't give financial gain too much credit for authors and artists taking credit.

The title, and the point, came to mind during the global re-assessment of Pope John Paul II that built up to and followed his death. At that time, I was working on an interpretation of the drive that is behind humanity. I say behind, but in fact I had made no decision about whether I believed that drive came innately; had been developed and could thus change again; or was still and always one lens to look through.

My working theory, for lack of a better word, at that time was that communication was the dominant force in humankind's decision making. And communication I took to mean the need to speak and just as importantly the need to be heard and known.

I still do see communication as an important part of what makes us operate the way we do. But it is not what I understand to be the reason for the decisions we make individually and collectively.

I found many of John Paul's qualities admirable, especially his dedication to upholding the dignity of each individual human being. While not pretending to be familiar with his writings, I know undoubtedly there were contradictions in his thoughts, as there must be. Some called him stubborn, and much worse, for his adherence to Church rules. But while acknowledging that everyone has faults, himself included, John Paul demanded that all people strive for the highest standards, however uncomfortable or unpalatable they might be to our current sensibilities.

What I saw in his unwillingness to bend to convenience was an undying belief in the value of life. The message that rang through in the eulogies was that John Paul II was a man whose love and grace and convictions were aimed at showing people that they have in them the means and desire to prove they can be more than "all biology."

Yes, instincts are an essential part of our humanity, but our ability to know when and how to overcome instincts is also what separates us from animals. The standards that John Paul demanded we live by were aimed at showing us what makes us different from all other creations, that we can get "beyond biology."

In this respect -- and many more I'm sure -- religion shares a powerful trait with science, art, philosophy, and entertainment. That trait is what we'll explore.