The central power of Herzog's picture came from the fact that Treadwell hadn't had the opportunity to yet edit his film, something he so cleverly did when given the chance. A clearer picture of his conflicts and his person was left revealed.

That immediacy that technology allows for (though isn't always utilized) is part of what FC saw as so unifying about it. Obviously that characteristic runs through the Internet as well.

There's no little irony in the fact that Treadwell's story has spread thanks to technology like this; no little irony that while editing prevails, blogs are a perfect example of how technology is an enabler that tends toward (un)intentional confessional -- just as in Treadwell's snippets of film; and no little irony that the same questions that arise from his use of the technology arise here too, question each blogger's motivation.

The great Werner Herzog documentary Grizzly Man on many levels illustrates the drives that FC was compelled to talk about and theorize on. The movie's subject, Tim Treadwell, found a way to battle and defeat his own demons and habits by finding communion with grizzly bears. He adopted a mission to protect them. It was a mission he stayed true to, and while his vision of what he needed to accomplish and the forces he had to battle along the way might have been distorted he also found in that mission something that satisfied his selfish needs.

The movie is comprised largely of Tim's own footage, which was shot over several years in wild Alaska. Parts are educational, as he intended, but because he was often there alone, they also are confessional and filled with moments of dialogue, drama, and showmanship that emerge out of loneliness, boredom, and great reflection. In every confession there are moments of self deception that are as telling as those feelings revealed honestly. In his camera, Tim gave us those, and the reward is remarkable.

Tim was a troubled man, and his solution for dealing with his problems were radical, some would say insane. There are also grounds to suggest that his tactics were harmful to the bears he came to know. He is, therefore, a person man people will find hard to empathize with; indeed, we're as likely to find as many people who came to dislike him as a result of this portrait as those who even came to sympathize with him. But like him or not, he accomplished several brilliant things in his life and his footage.

To start, his films and photos are incredibly beautiful.

Second, he captured on film life's swirl of psychological forces. Tim had an addictive personality, and somehow -- with great strength -- he directed those forces within him to a dedication to living in the jungle among bears. This was a man who was born on Long Island. How could he get from there to Alaska? The strife of that life would have been so easy to abandon. In his films he captured some hint of what took him (and kept him in) that space in the world and in his own soul.

Staying in Alaska was a battle to be sure. He celebrated the danger of it, and it sounds that in some ways he was addicted to the danger. But as he was alone for months on end we know there were moments when this must have been unbearably difficult. In snippets of those moments, we are rewarded with his views presented from one other special part of his soul.

Herzog said that his one hope for the film is that illuminates some part of our human condition. That, of course, is the purpose of all art; and in this respect the film succeeds. What Tim managed in using his camera as he did was a document of living with an honesty that was, and at times was not, intended. We're not invited into Tim's life to judge it but to be touched by it. Many forums (paintings, photographs, text) will allow for the same depth of feeling, but what is special about film is the immediacy of each event; the spontaneity of each take (and the intended and unintended impressions captured in each); and the context that the visuals give to Tim's thoughts and disposition at that time.

Falling in line with FC's view, Tim demonstrates an unyielding need to communicate with himself and someone/something much larger. It is not surprising that Tim's friends later said that he would have been very pleased with the film, in part because it finally makes him the rockstar he always wanted to be. This goes to FC's idea that a part of our nature is to push for understanding and to be understood, in part at least for selfish reasons.

Inherent in FC's view of the world is a battle of our nature with itself. Our drive, FC said, is to communicate. It is a compulsion of our nature to in a way overcome nature at large, not accidentally through the use of technology. In this respect, the film is very much a testament to our uneasy relationship with nature. We are inextricably a part of it, yet divided from much of it by our technological contrivances -- contrivances that Tim very much came to hate. Our use of technology is a significant component of what separates us from the rest of nature. Where Tim saw beauty in the order of the natural world, society at large tries to impose order and safety on the chaos of nature through the use of technology.

Finally, while Tim sought unity with the natural world, he was forever separated from full communion with bears because he sought it and because of the way he sought it -- that is, through film. It is amazing that only through technology was Tim able to share the magic that he had sought and mostly found in the Alaskan woods.

While clearly not what FC in mind when his thoughts crystallized around the idea and progress of the Web, he would certainly be intrigued by a recent NY Times article about a teenage boy who used (and was used by) webcams to create a porn kingdom. Perversions have a way of pushing people to make the most of what's available, and that was clearly the case there. The boy developed an audience of men from around the world, eventually making a great deal of money trying to satisfy the unsatisfiable -- and not surprisingly at a great cost to himself.

Clearly, in those relationships there was nothing empathetic. Those were wolves feeding off prey that at times did take advantage right back at them. There was no sympathy even, or understanding. It was all about taking.

But as disappointing as these kinds of developments are -- they are not only destructive in what they are, but they magnify the loss of what could have been -- they are not sufficient to remove the validity and beauty of FC's vision. He didn't once expect that the emergence of the Internet would overnight bring a culmination of humankind's centuries of work. The Internet is an important, ongoing evolution. And throughout it there were (and are) bound to be malignancies.

While FC rightly pointed out that selfishness plays a strong role in humankind's drive to know and be known, the goal that he saw drawing all this effort out of people was far more admirable. He envisioned that what people have only ever been after is empathy.

It is not an easily maintained vision, especially when you consider that so many people are eager to not know and to not understand; when you consider how many people are afraid of seeing truth and experiencing perspective. There is also the difficulty in admitting that the motives among those who do seek empathy could be tinged with selfishness.

But FC's ideas were formed in the crucible of the Internet. Looking at and experiencing that world-transforming development, he came to a new understanding of how the past had come to be and what the future would hold, in some form. In rapidly advancing and converging communications technologies, FC saw the opportunity not only to know, but to know instantly.

From there, his next proposition was a short but keenly deciphered step forward. If a person can know another person's thoughts instantly, then we are only a matter of degrees not paradigms from the opportunity to know all people's thoughts instantly. Our conception of time is changed. And if those people are located around the world, then space too is altered. As he put it:

"The eternal experience eliminates past and future, eliminating time. The universal experience in simultaneity destroys distance and at once possesses all space, thereby eliminating space.

For each man to experience all men in simultaneity is to be all time, to be all space. “That art thou.” It is nature knowing itself. It is the life living.

This is universal empathy."

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.