It's kind of poetic, less than majestic and too big to put on a bumper sticker.

I like it!

It's easy to fit 1/50 of a cent on a bumper sticker.

It's easy to fit 1/50 of a cent on a bumper sticker.
 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What was stooopit was me calling anybody on a math error. I have no skills.

“'Peace' is not a concept limited to humanity.”


Of course it is, insofar as we know: as concept (something rooted in *language) 'peace' is uniquely human.

Certainly whales and orangutans may have something analogous to the concept, but this is only a guess.

We, however, 'know' humans truck in peace...this whole thread is an example of it.


*Language is one of the tools the human individual uses in apprehending the world. As signifier, the individual names the world, in some fashion making the world his own by giving it, the world, significance. This is true not only for the objective world, but also the esoteric one, that is, ideas and concepts (fictions) having no independent realness.

Peace, as construct, idea, fiction, is one such 'named' and signified thing.

My dog may not have a "construct, idea, fiction, is one such 'named' and signified thing" for 'love', but she sure as hell understands it.
:rolleyes:

Actually, as 'we' use and understand love, no, your dog doesn't.

If you want to generalize love to the point where it encompasses familiarity coupled with good feeling coupled with physical pleasure, then okay.

But, as we -- you and me -- think on love, such a generalized definition falls short of what we feel when we love.

Why?

Because when I love, when you love, we love the person for who she is. We understand her not only for the 'object' she is or the concreteness she provides, but also for the idiosyncratic 'subject' she is.

Your dog 'loves' you for 'what' you are. It can never know 'you', only what you serve as the source of.

The dog has no sense of self. No 'I'ness dominates it. Love, as complete, is the transaction between a 'you and me', not 'me and it'.

Now: you may love your dog, but your dog does not, cannot, love you in the same way. This makes for a one-way street... ;)

You must live a very lonely existance, Henry.

Enjoy your 7' x 3' x 2' world.

You must live a very lonely existance, Henry.
 

I was thinkin' the same of you, pie.

When a body anthropomorphizes an animal, and attributes to it uniquely human qualities, my view is such a person suffers from a lack of human contact.

#

"Enjoy your 7' x 3' x 2' world."

We -- you and me -- live in the same world. We, however, have vastly different perspectives. I prefer to love and be loved by those who I can talk to.

You believe a wet nose pressed to yours 'means' something.

*shrug*

As you like...as you will... ;)

Yep, I'm pretty sure your dog doesn't love you! :lol2:

A truly evil person would link to this post at a number of dog and cat forums. I am a nice guy, however, so I just thought about it.

Oh, and both my dog and I disagree with you. :D

There have been many examples of animals willing to die for their "owners" What would you call that, if not love, Henry?

Yep, I'm pretty sure your dog doesn't love you!
 

I don't need a dog: I have family and friends... ;)

#

"A truly evil person would link to this post at a number of dog and cat forums."


Hey: call in as many as you like, Beastmaster!

A thousand voices promoting insanity are still insane.

#

"Oh, and both my dog and I disagree with you."


I'm sure 'you' do, but did you ask the dog? ;)

#

I wrote: 'I prefer to love and be loved by those who I can talk to.'

That should read, 'I prefer to love and be loved by those who I can talk with.'

and

I wrote: 'You believe a wet nose pressed to yours 'means' something.'

That should read: 'You believe a wet, dog, nose pressed to yours is equivalent to a human lover's or toddler's.'

Imprecision: the bane of lucid communication.

"There have been many examples of animals willing to die for their "owners" What would you call that, if not love, Henry?"


Can you cite sources for this claim?

If you can: I'd love to read about these animals.

As of now: we have an unsupported claim which I chalk up to urban myth and misinterpretation of circumstance.

But: I could be wrong. Before I admit that I need the evidence.

All of Jim's citations come from 'For the Love of the Dog Blog'.

Not exactly the kind of unbiased source I was thinking of.

In all the stories cited: 'misinterpretation of circumstance', along with the unjustified attribution of human qualities to an animal, explains everything.

Please understand: these are some wonderful animals, but in not a single case did these animals do what they did out of 'love', unless, as I said up-thread, you want to generalize love to include 'familiarity coupled with good feeling coupled with physical pleasure'.

The difference is: humans have no instincts, animals do.

:bolt:

nothing to see here...

I would argue that humans have no love either, except as extensions of our biological underpinnings -- that we share in common with many other mammals. Love your mate. Your parents. Your social group. Your offspring. All motivated by basic evolutionary pressures.

Only bloviators like Henry here think you need high-falutin' language to qualify for love. Ask classic how much language is really necessary.

What sources do you have to back up your opinion? Truly, I do not think it can be "proven" either way, but I believe they do.

Hmmm, thanks Pie. I do think I have come to acquire a rather unique interpretation of this thing we call "love." Additionally, my past experience with training dogs and having them for so many years leads me to my opinion on the subject.

ok, prove it.

Interesting. Isn't this the same henry that started a thread about 'peace' without defining what he meant by 'peace'?

"The difference is: humans have no instincts, animals do."


We have instincts. Unlike dogs, however, we can choose to ignore them at least part of the time.

#

"I would argue that humans have no love either, except as extensions of our biological underpinnings -- that we share in common with many other mammals. Love your mate. Your parents. Your social group. Your offspring. All motivated by basic evolutionary pressures."


Only the human individual can love someone outside of parents, social group, offspring. You could argue the individual can do so only because he or she adopts the loved one into one of those groups, which kinda supports my point. Only a human individual can choose to adopt someone as parent, or into a social group, or as offspring. Only the distinctive 'I' that, insofar as we know, is unique to the human individual can love in that way.

#

"Only bloviators like Henry here think you need high-falutin' language to qualify for love."


Muddled thinking doesn't look any prettier when topped with useless insult, pie.

Shame on you.

#

"What sources do you have to back up your opinion?"


The same, best, source you have in determining the unique nature of love and how love is the action of the human individual and no other: myself, yourself, pie's self, Jim's self.

I can talk with you about love...we can dicker about its nature.

Find me the dog, the platypus, the cat, the chimp, the garden slug that can do the same.

You can't.

Why?

Because in all those cases, the animals haven't sufficient complexity, or complexity of a very specific kind, to, first, be 'self' aware and, second, to feel in the self-reflective way required to love.

Again: if you wanna generalize love to include 'familiarity coupled with good feeling coupled with physical pleasure' then be my guest.

Hell: I’ll even concede ''familiarity coupled with good feeling coupled with physical pleasure' is a kind of love, but a poor love as compared to what human individuals can feel and choose for one another.

#

"Truly, I do not think it can be "proven" either way"


And: you may be right. However: conversations, particularly those labeled’ philosophy', tend not to go anywhere if everyone just agrees to disagree.

For myself: I think I'm on firm footing with my analysis.

#

"but I believe they do."


As you should, Classic!

#

"Only bloviators like Henry here think you need high-falutin' language to qualify for love"


Actually: what I'm arguing is that to love, one needs to be an 'I'. Along with 'I'ness comes language as tool for naming the world and making it one's own. Language is the esoteric version of the hand. The hand allows (demands!) manipulation of the world; so does language.

#

Pie, you ought to take this, 'The fun thing about evolution (and science in general) is that it happens whether you believe in it or not.', out of your signature line. It’s obvious you don't believe a word of it. An appeal to the authority of anecdote is not science.

#

I wrote: 'Actually, as 'we' use and understand love, no, your dog doesn't.'

Classic responded: 'ok, prove it'


Two things:

1-I made no claim, Pie did. The burden is on her, or her proxy, to provide evidence for her claim that her "dog…sure as hell understands it."

2-How is am I to prove the existence of what is absent?

I can point to the absence of evidence for God and still this doesn't prove deity's absence.

I can point to the seemingly unique nature of the human individual ('I'ness), and how that nature expresses in that most unique action, love. I can point to the apparent lack of 'I'ness in virtually all other life, and how this lack precludes love in a dog.

I can point to the human individual: the self-referencing, esoteric-seeking, instinct-denying, agent, and ask, are dogs like us?

And still: this won't prove to your satisfaction that only the human individual loves.

#

"my past experience with training dogs and having them for so many years leads me to my opinion on the subject."


This could mean one of two things: you are far better schooled on the possibility of dog love than me, or, you're far too close to, and have far too much affection for, dogs to be objective.

Who's to know which? ;)

Imprecision: the bane of lucid communication
 

"Interesting. Isn't this the same henry that started a thread about 'peace' without defining what he meant by 'peace'?"

Nice try, Beastmaster, but, you know as well as I the difference between uinintended imprecision in statement and an intended 'terms open to interpretation' question. ;)

One is unintended. One is intended. Both result in imprecision.

I believe I used the term correctly.

One is unintended. One is intended. Both result in imprecision.
 

This, of course, means the two aren’t synonymous. ;)

As I said up-thread: 'It's just the beginning of a goddamned conversation wherein folks are encouraged to offer interpretations. The hope: a lengthy enough thread will evolve away from the opening question and self-sustain based on the give and take of the participants.'

And: I do believe I have exactly what I wanted.

Now: go play with Kodo and Podo like a good boy, or, trundle down to the Unitarian Fellowship and hob-nob with the other lukewarms… ;)

#

"I believe I used the term correctly."


Then: I leave you with your subjective assessment since subjective assessment is all it is.

One woman's 'arrogant, tiresome way' is one man's plain speech.

Sorry if you're not up to keeping up.

And: for the record, using the right (as you see it) word doesn't negate insult, which was your intent.

Can't you at least be honest enough to admit you were levying an insult, or haven't you the clarity to see even that?

#

Now: I head home and feed my brother's unloving bio-automata (his cats) and spend the evening with a delightful bundle of loving 'I'ness (my nephew).

If you can't tell the difference between the two, then, you have my sympathies... ;)

I agree Henry. Love is a very powerful subjective force.

I had originally intended to offer support to henry (you) but I am too much of an animal lover and even if someone proved to me I was projecting my feelings onto an animal I still would not be able to stop.
Life is what we make it and sometimes we feel dogs are our enjoyable best buds and sometimes that's enough.

so...

This thread reminded me of an article I once saw in a National Geographic magazine. It was about how dogs might be smarter than science at first thought.


I found this article instead and it is very interesting.

It's called," How Did Dogs Become Adept at Playing to Humans"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ovedogs_2.html


Here's a snippet.

Miklósi summarized in Current Biology. "Since looking behavior has an important function in initializing and maintaining communicative interaction in human communication systems, we suppose that by positive feedback processes (both evolutionary and ontogenetically) the readiness of dogs to look at the human face has led to complex forms of dog-human communication that cannot be achieved in wolves even after extended socialization."



Here is another snippet of the article.

Could cognition be a breeding by-product like these physical changes?

Dog lovers know that man's best friend has an uncanny ability to understand and react to human actions. Clues to how dogs came to develop this ability lie somewhere in their evolutionary past, and learning the answer could shine light on our own development as humans.

"Based on these observations, we suggest that the key difference between dog and wolf behavior is the dogs' ability to look at the human's face," Miklósi summarized in Current Biology. "Since looking behavior has an important function in initializing and maintaining communicative interaction in human communication systems, we suppose that by positive feedback processes (both evolutionary and ontogenetically) the readiness of dogs to look at the human face has led to complex forms of dog-human communication that cannot be achieved in wolves even after extended socialization."

and


"Many anthropologists think that as humans evolved we became smart because it's good to be smart," he said. "But maybe it was selection on what scientists and breeders call temperament. "Maybe nice people eventually became smarter, rather than smart people becoming nice."

I am not agreeing with that statement. If all the smart people were nice ...

I call MAJOR Bullshit on that. Every being is to some degree self aware. Dogs, and cats for that, matter are extremely self aware.

If the dogs have evolved behaviors that appear to be a approximation of human intimacy for their own benefit, then they offer the exact same type of love as my first wife.

I don't believe it's for their own benefit.

I thought the article was stating the dogs were bred for temperament originally yet developed a startling capacity to emotionally interact with humans via the development of intelligence.

I can't speak for your ex-wife. :P

story on a dogs act of love
http://www.moderndogmagazine.com/art...true-story/132



A study published in the U.K.'s New Scientist reveals dogs exhibit "left gaze bias," which suggests dogs can detect human emotions by looking at the face.

To be able to detect an emotion would mean the animal must also recognize the same emotion in itself. This would include love.

I dont totally buy it. They have evolved a highly sensitive ability to detect our emotions because our emotions have a huge impact on their well-being, not because they recognize the emotions in themselves.

So you started a thread on peace so that you could get a thread on dog and cat sapience?

You're good.

Um. What?

No. Really. What?

"I am too much of an animal lover and even if someone proved to me I was projecting my feelings onto an animal I still would not be able to stop."


And you shouldn't stop loving your animal(s). Your love for it is not in question.

My only point is the dog doesn't, can't, by its very nature, love you back at all. Or, at the least, it can't love you in that unique way reserved to the human individual.

#

"Life is what we make it"


Largely: yeah.

#

"sometimes we feel dogs are our enjoyable best buds and sometimes that's enough."


Agreed. I have no problem with your or Classic’s or Pie's love of your respective animals. If I gave that impression: I apologize.

#

"How Did Dogs Become Adept at Playing to Humans"


Nice piece: something to think about...

#

"Every being is to some degree self aware."


Maybe: but it's difficult to gauge, isn't it? You and me, we can recognize the 'I' in each other by way of our unambiguous communication. We can sit across from one another, have coffee, and talk and argue and debate and there is no question, for either of us, that our coffee companion is another 'I'.

We haven't the same certainty with a dog. Is it simply reacting to me as formal and informal training (and its biology) allows for, or, is there some dim, fragment of 'I' behind those eyes?

I don't think there is; you do think there is.

Till science can explain consciousness (and 'self') we're left with anecdote, intuition, emotion, and guesswork.

*shrug*

#

"If the dogs have evolved behaviors that appear to be a approximation of human intimacy for their own benefit, then they offer the exact same type of love as my first wife."


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

#

"To be able to detect an emotion would mean the animal must also recognize the same emotion in itself."


Possibly. Or it may mean the animal is adept at recognizing physical precursors to the behavior of its master. That is: the dog sees a scowl or frown and through association recognizes that master is about to make loud noises and maybe whack him on the head then push his nose into his own poo. A smile, grin, or twinkling eye may, through association, indicate to the dog that treats, dinner, a run in the park, or play session on the carpet, are just around the corner.

A tailored dog evolution, which the articles hint at, is more likely to lead to more complex survival skills, not necessarily increased intelligence or 'I'ness.

"So you started a thread on peace so that you could get a thread on dog and cat sapience?"

I don't much care what direction the conversation goes in...that's what makes a good conversation 'good'.

#

"They have evolved a highly sensitive ability to detect our emotions because our emotions have a huge impact on their well-being, not because they recognize the emotions in themselves."

Agreed.

Jon Katz , noted dog author, feels differently.

Thanks for the thoughtful response Henry.


I do get where your coming from. There is much scientific controversy over this.

There is no way I could prove love by my animals.

My belief that animals have emotions like love is more than a case of 'believing something is true makes it so'.


We can sit across from one another, have coffee, and talk and argue and debate and there is no question, for either of us, that our coffee companion is another 'I'.

Well I would look funny talking to a dog in a coffee shop :P

Seriously, I think anyone sitting with with you debating and having coffee would be very happy to do so.. You seem to be a very interesting person even without a wagging tail.:)

"adept social parasites"
 

HA!

I wouldn't have thought to put it that way, but, yeah, exactly.

#

"Thanks for the thoughtful response Henry."


You're welcome!

#

"I can see you would be in your element to meet and debate and I think anyone sitting with with you debating and having coffee would be very happy to do so.. You seem to be a very interesting person even without a wagging tail."


Gosh...I think I'll just toe the ground and be shy and embarrassed for a bit... :)

Assumption. ;)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 

;)

You are treading dangerous territory for me personally here. What about humans who are incapable of communicating? Do they not love just because they cannot talk with you?

Classic, we're talking about two vastly different kinds of creatures here.

My expectations of one are not translatable to the other.

On one hand: we have the human individual for who it is natural to speak.

On the other: we have the dog for which it is natural not to speak.

As to the damaged human individual who cannot speak, whether or not such a person is capable of love depends entirely on the nature of the damage.

If I am stricken with throat cancer and lose my voice: I can still love.

If I were born with a damaged brain that limited my ability to speak as one aspect of the damage, then, it's entirely possible I would be unable to love.

Your question is awfully broad. Care to narrow it a bit?

Again: what makes human love unique is that it is 'done' within an 'I'. There is deliberation and reflection. That we communicate ourselves, transmit ourselves, through speech is the tool of the 'I', but not the definer of 'I'.

False - Just because YOU do not understand the communication, doesn't mean it isn't speaking.

What? Love requires the ability to speak? WTH are you talking about now?


HA HA HA - Especially coming from the guy who wouldn't define "peace" in his own thread and continues to discuss the every increasingly redundant "I" without any concrete definition.

The first sentence is still opinion and has been challenged repeatedly. The latter is pure conjecture - we still have no definition of "I" but we now have a "tool" of this ever elusive "I". Ahhh progress.

"Just because YOU do not understand the communication, doesn't mean it isn't speaking."


Dogs do not speak to convey information beyond: let's fight, fuck, eat. They haven't the complexity of brain/body to do anything more than that.

Go have coffee with one and, later, tell me about the nuanced conversation. ;)

#

"Love requires the ability to speak?"


I didn't say that. I said this: 'If I were born with a damaged brain that limited my ability to speak as one aspect of the damage, then, it's entirely possible I would be unable to love.'

'as one aspect' means my lack of speech is possibly one of many things wrong with me. I may have severe retardation. I may be missing huge portions of my brain.

That's part of the reason I asked if you would narrow the question down a bit. "humans who are incapable of communicating" covers a lot of ground.

Get it?

#

"the guy who wouldn't define "peace" in his own thread"


I explained my reason for that to Beastmaster. Go back and read that explanation. Or not.

*shrug*

#

"every increasingly redundant "I" without any concrete definition"


I've hinted at that definition, and nothing more, simply because I took it that you, as 'I', could suss out what I mean. If you wanna know what the 'I' is: self-examine, self-interrogate.

I'm not teaching a class here. I expect I'm talking with reasonably intelligent folks who can do a little thinking for themselves. If I have to explain the apparent to you or others then maybe you or others ought to retire from the conversation. Better yet, since I prefer you stay, why not go back and read the thread from the start?

#

"The first sentence is still opinion and has been challenged repeatedly."


A challenge made with anecdote is useless. To date: you haven't offered a shred of evidence beyond anecdote to support (1) dogs love as humans do, and, (2) dogs understand love.

I on the other hand offer up the evidence available to anyone: my 'self', your 'self', his 'self', her 'self', and our demonstrated individual capacities for love.

#

"we still have no definition of "I" but we now have a "tool" of this ever elusive "I". "


There's nothing elusive about *'I'. Go look in the mirror: who's looking back at you? A real, concrete, organic, autonomous, individual.

Now: go prop your pooch in front of a mirror and ask him who or what it sees?

It can't answer: not with speech, sign language, or telepathy. And it sees nothing but another dog, or, a confusing image.

As for **tools: we each are our own, best, property. I am my flesh and my flesh is the way I interact with, apprehend, manipulate the world (walking on legs, grasping with hands, speaking with mouth, thinking with brain, etc.). Tool, as metaphor, seems apt.



*see post 82

**see posts # 65 and 82

It is becoming increasingly apparent that "I", as you put it, "ought to retire from the conversation." This moving target crap is getting real old real quick. Perhaps I'll let another "dog" chase your elusive bone for a bit.

FWIW - I have been reading AND participating in this thread since the first post. Enjoy!

get bent
 

"It is becoming increasingly apparent that "I", as you put it, "ought to retire from the conversation.""


Fine by me.

#

"This moving target crap is getting real old real quick."


And still no evidence offered in support of your position.

Not surprising in the least.

#

"Perhaps I'll let another "dog" chase your elusive bone for a bit."


I'd prefer another person.

#

"FWIW - I have been reading AND participating in this thread since the first post."


Indeed. Pity your participation was picayune; your comprehension poor.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed that everyone else already stopped participating with you. I WAS trying to be nice. Perhaps you should consider that next time. mmmkay?

ORLY? I'm counting 5 other people who have participated today. :headshake

And I haven't even added my .0000002 cents.

How many have replied to HQ since 11:00 this morning?
And I wasn't talkin to you miss strawberry festival co-queen. :thankyou:

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, I forgot to look at the time. :cool:

No problem - Gotcha covered ;)

too funny

Don't play me like your punk, mmmmmmkay?

okay, but there will be no piece of peace in this thread till.....

<SMACK> but she started it!

Don't make Bruce pull this thread over.

again: get bent
 

"Perhaps you hadn't noticed that everyone else already stopped participating with you."


Seems to me, despite your assessment, the thread marches on in fits and starts.

#

"I WAS trying to be nice. Perhaps you should consider that next time. mmmkay?"


Actually you were acting like a great, flagellating, pussy. Since you are a great, flagellating, pussy, this is no surprise.

I, on the other hand, have been civil throughout till provoked by pedestrian insult and muddled thinking.

Classic: if you don't like 'me' (or my method of presentation) say so and move on.

If you don't like my positions, then, refute them or move on.

Frankly: I don't give a runny shit what you do. I think you're an idiot who couldn’t reason himself out of a paper bag. I don't like you. I can't see a single reason why anyone would.

So, to sum up: you’re a reactionary pussy...you can't think beyond the tip of your wet little nose...you can't refute me so you do what all great, flagellating, pussies do and dance fast and hard and avoid the topic(s) at hand.

Now: do something...pussy.

#

"How many have replied to HQ since 11:00 this morning?"

Figures: quantity is your measure of quality.

Does it count as participation if you posted, but couldn't bring yourself to read any of Henry's posts?:blush:

You're having trouble with the non-standard format as well? Unreadable. Does anyone know what this thread is about?

Not even henry. But it's all quite intentional. Just ask him.

It's about 118 posts, as of now.

"Unreadable"

Then go away.

#

"It's about 118 posts, as of now."

HA!