our pets ask for so little...

Post #337,643 by rcareaga 12/24/10 11:38:19 PM Reply	our pets ask for so little... I'm aware that there's a school of thought holding that domesticated animals are virtual-cynical automata evolutionarily programmed to simulate love and devotion. I do not completely dismiss this modelÂthese creatures have had hundreds of thousands of generations to adapt themselves to, and to exploit, the emotional tropisms that a territorial, highly-social primate brought with it out of the savannah a million or more years ago. I don't doubt that many people project their emotional states upon their pets. And yet, and yet... I believe that our own emotions emanate from a substrate deeper than our human or even our primate heritage. Threat displays ("Bad dog!") and gestures of affection "Good dog!") are registered at a level far older than language, and common to our respective species. Daniel Dennett once observed that while our closest primate relatives might hover near the threshold of language, it was the domestic canine, notwithstanding the species' cognitive disadvantage relative to the chimps, that had been for tens of thousands of years under intensive selective pressure to comprehend human intentions. I don't think that we're projecting when we attribute "love" to dogs: they are returning that—perhaps without the abstract nuances we are wont to bring to bear, but also without the neurotic qualifications that accompany those considerations. I wasn't really a "dog person" in my younger years. I'm better for being one now. cordially,
Post #337,669 by static 12/25/10 5:36:46 PM Reply	Absolutely. Cats and dogs have immense capacity for a simple, straightforward love for their owners. It is not completely unconditional, but a lot of it is "I love you because you're there". This is why the lonely and isolated can benefit so much from them. I can completely agree that it is a special feeling when a dog that hasn't seen you for a few weeks will go completely nuts for you. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #337,674 by Ashton 12/25/10 9:48:40 PM Reply	Concur re the 'programmed automata' dismissal of the whole matter of pet/human interactions. Anyone who has experienced the evidence of some sequence of say, a confirmed mutual communication -- especially of an emotional kind and not about some trick -- will dismiss that both cynical and uninformed thesis. (I could give specific anecdotes, with enough details to demonstrate a level of communication (and empathy!) in some situation/just-occurred, which could not be mistaken for either 'instinctual engrams' or any variation of 'simulation-for-reward'.) But when seeking the simplest shorthand, I come back to guilelessness -- that quality noticed to be so alien to so many bipeds (perhaps because it is the anti-virtue to that requisite canniness? (aka patent misinformation/obfuscation) -- demanded of all those who would achieve 'Success' in any business-related sense of that vague term. Animals have not the intellect for relating 'love' to any sort of 'profit scheme' -- is that not obvious by inspection? How could a one Not-love a guileless creature, given the milieu in which we daily operate? That this love can be reciprocated, needs no explication for/by those who have experienced it. But only too-many-words would be required to attempt to dissect and dismember the idea -- via various anthropomorphized koans, all derived from biped Psych. 101. I recall a quip by a 'guru' to his students, who wanted to learn about all that metaphysical stuff (and also about 'love'). He said ~~ "You know nothing of love [Love, probably meant, where the capitalization has implications.] If you want to find out about that, first adopt a pet and find out how to love. Later, you might then learn -- with enough diligence -- how, someday, to love another person." Could be something to that.

Welcome to IWETHEY!