JeffBC
Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
I'd like to start out by saying I'm only disagreeing with you on one tiny point. I think it's ridiculous to say that animals engage in BDSM. I think it's absolutely sensible to say that dominance and submission not only are common in the animal kingdom but, in fact, to a large degree the language of D/s translates across species. But all I'm suggesting is that there is commonality in the plumbing. Not that the entire edifice is identical. And I'm CERTAINLY not suggesting that the deep and shaded meanings that we humans bring to the term "BDSM" would apply in an animal psyche.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
As I pointed out very early on, I don'agree or disagree with this theory. But as it stands now, this way of thinking is just that, theoretical. The long standing belief in Darwin evolution, is still taken as fact today, even though it was written in 1859.
Not if you're a scientist it isn't. Theories NEVER become facts. Facts are things that they measured in their lab... and even then the only fact is that they obtained a certain measurement... not that that measurement was accurate or representative of some larger reality. I always envision the scientific mindset kind of like Heinlein's witness... "The house is white on this side."
quote:
The reason why his views on animal behavior are still in the theoretical stages are they hinge on what the dog is actually thinking.... Will that change when we can glean more from animal behaviors, sure.
No, it won't. It'll be a theory forever. But I will tell you this. There are times in science where some new idea catches hold and suddenly every scientist under the sun is running experiments which support that idea. Now is such a time with this idea that the basic plumbing of "self" isn't all that much different between animals and humans. Every time I turn around someone, somewhere, has devised a new test to peek inside the brain of an octopus, a raven, a something. And routinely, what we are finding is that things are not nearly as automatic and programmed as that word "instinct" might seem to think.
quote:
You said your Carol feels much the same in the given situation, because she can say this to you.
Actuallly no. Had that been the case I wouldn't have called them identical. In fact, she goes non-verbal which kind of makes it look EXACTLY like the behavior of the dog.
quote:
For us to take it that the dog has such complex emotions and feelings, instead of instinct, we would have to hear that straight from the dog. Not interpret his body posture, evaluate the timbre of his whine. But have the dog plain and simple, tell us how he feels. Interpretation is vastly subject to the observer, the way you see that dog whine and act may not be the same way I do.
And this is different from humans how exactly? I gotta tell you that when some human says something to me I am WAY more interested in tones of voice and body language and particularly facial expression than I am the exact words... as are all humans to go by eye motion studies. Unless, of course, you're proposing that humans don't lie and don't suffer from issues with word meaning between the speaker and listener.
So to sum up my position. Yes, I believe that animal psyche's are much more "human-like" than the outdated model of "instinct" suggests. In point of fact I think you'd find that position widely agreed to among researchers in the field. These things take decades to percolate down to us rabble though. Look at how people STILL talk about wolf packs. That's a model that's been invalidated by science for at least 3 decades but we still cling to this idea that the alpha wolf is the strongest yada yada. Yes, I believe my cats loved me. Yes, I believe they cared about me. Yes, I think there was ample evidence of that everywhere. What I think is that the closer the actual life circumstance of a species is to ours (think... aggregates in packs, pair bonds, etc.) the closer the cognitive model of that species is going to be to ours. At best I think our extra neurons give us a richness and depth to it that a dog, for instance, would not bring.
Do I believe that this construct of BDSM is mappable into an animal psyche. No because that's a uniquely human construct that would only really apply given the context of a human existence... an existence which no other animal might ever have. Heck, I'm a fellow human and I don't think that BDSM concept maps into MY psyche.
_____________________________
I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd
|
RE: BDSM in nature - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread