The Negative Equals Access to the Positive

Animal consciousness is a tension/release dynamo. Tension is energy, its manner of acquisition and release is information. Release from a uniform state of tension is the experience of emotion.
Animals are at all times attracted to that which can release tension and conduct emotion, but before they can go forward, the “negative” (a point on which to focus) has to be “defined” by which I mean perceived as a point of access to the positive. In other words, the negative has to be held in mind simultaneously with the positive as if they are two poles on the same continuum, thereby completing a circuit.
Every mammal has two brains, the Big-Brain-in-the-head (central nervous system), and the little-brain-in-the-gut (enteric nervous system). Each brain operates from a different agenda and this creates tension. For example, the Big-Brain seeks stasis, for things to stay the same. It equates unfamiliar stimuli with danger as its primary concern is balance. External circumstances must fit within familiar parameters before it will execute an action and so it demands a “point” of equilibrium so that an action can unfold on stable footing. This fixation ensures survival. Meanwhile in opposition, the little-brain seeks constant input. It is always in flux and craves fluidity. It equates stasis with blockage and change with ingestion because its primary concern is process. This ensures growth. Both nervous systems produce electrochemical energy and in animal consciousness serve as opposite terminals of the body/mind, a biological action potential that stores energy as tension and then releases it as action, just like a battery powering a device (not to mention informing the action).

While only the Big-Brain can flex muscle, tendon, bone and move the body around, either brain can supply motive and they can combine to render a range of settings as a complex motive that can fall at one end of a spectrum to another. When a dog is wholly motivated via a Big-Brain orientation, actions are implemented to achieve immediate stabilization. In this mode, change is perceived as “bad.” At the opposite end of the spectrum when a dog is acting via a little-brain orientation, it is concerned with the experience of being-in-process rather than attaining equilibrium. In this modality, change is perceived as “good.” In the Big-Brain balance frame of reference, a moment of change is experienced as pressure and this makes the dog feel separate from its surroundings. In the little-brain hunger frame of reference, change is experienced as potential and the dog feels a positive pull to its surroundings. Below the function of supplying motive, the counterbalancing function of the two nervous systems in juxtaposition to produce tension is more vital and fundamental a role than either the Big-Brain’s neurological function or the little-brain’s digestive function. This built-in contradiction inherent in a two brain makeup renders a dynamic state of tension diffused uniformly throughout the body.
Therefore emotion is a “force” of attraction, the more tension released; the stronger the force of attraction. Release from tension is the number one “hunger” in animal consciousness and is the underlying motive to all behavior. Even eating food is fundamentally an act of resolving tension more than it being an act of nourishment.

To digress a moment the most important thing to understand about animal behavior is that the two brains are reconciled through the hunger circuitry. When a stimulus can be ingested, either into the body or into the mind, and without upsetting the parameters of balance, both brains have their specific mandates satisfied and the animal perceives that it is safe to go toward the object of attraction (things feel right because it can proceed and remain up-right). The energies of both brains can confluence and be transmitted into a physical action that makes the individual feel released from a uniform sense of tension, but only the hunger circuitry (this necessarily involves the Big-Brain but that doesn’t make it the source of the resulting behavior even though it executed the action) can be the reconciling mechanism. The reason hunger has evolved to be the reconciling mechanism in animal consciousness is because the predator/prey dynamic is the oldest relationship between living beings and solves two basic problems of every animal’s evolution, what is danger and what is food. All other relationships from parent/offspring; breeding partners, or between social peers, evolved from and are therefore based upon this primordial platform.
However, because complex things (as opposed to simple food items) cannot be directly ingested into the body and easily reconciled through the hunger circuitry, therefore a more complex manner of reconciliation is available via a third frame of reference, the heart. The heart is the preeminent organ of tension and release in the body given its mechanical action of pumping blood. This powerful muscle of contraction and release radiates a uniform sense of pressure throughout the body via veins, arteries and capillaries. The heart beats out a constant sequence of tensionreleasetensionreleasetensionrelease which the animal mind in an emotionally conductive moment construes as flow, i.e. a sustained apprehension of release.

Therefore, if when dealing with a complex situation or stimulus, an individual can subliminally focus on its heart while simultaneously focusing on the object of attraction, it can thereby apprehend a uniform sense of tension and a persistent impression of release and this feeling of flow renders a sense of wholeness, well-being and resonance with everything in its surroundings. As long as the individual can hold onto a sense of a uniform state of tension this affords a feeling the time to elaborate into its higher reaches of a multi-party state of synchronization. When interacting with complex things, such as animals and especially others of its own kind, the mechanical action of the heart pumping blood is a physical statement of bipolar satisfaction. The uniform pressure is always there since the heart is always pumping blood; the question is whether or not the animal can “tune in” to this internal statement of reconciliation when displaced by a change in its perceptual environment. This capacity segregates species of organisms into their respective niches and specialized network functions.
In this heightened state of attention, a uniform diffusion of tension as the basis of consciousness makes the body/mind a displaceable medium that “vibrates” with neuro-chemical energy at both poles (Big and little brain) when disturbed. Every perception of change, even internal physical states such as hunger, causes a displacement of the prevailing state of tension and this generates neuro-chemical energy in both brains. The animal mind is a self-charging psycho-somatic battery with two terminals, to repeat, one end of the organism is a pole that ionizes towards output in favor of stasis while the other end is a pole that ionizes towards input in favor of change. (Perceptually this means that the Big-Brain is fixated on form; whereas the little-brain discerns essence within the form.) Subliminal attention on the heart will turn sensory input into a uniform sense of tension in the animal’s mind.

This ultimately means that any two animals can communicate and potentially connect if they can both apprehend a uniform state of tension in the other, and this can only happen if they can apprehend a uniform state of release within their own body, i.e. if they can reference their heart. To do this, they must calculate the negative as a point of access to the positive by sensing the object of attractions’ center mass. This requires that the animal must be able to hold in mind simultaneously and in equal juxtaposition the positive preyful aspect of what it’s attracted to with its predatory aspect, typically the eyes. Another way of saying this is that the individual must be able to transpose its emotional battery onto a complex form in order to perceive it as a Being and thereby be able to compute a coherent response by way of becoming its emotional counterbalance so that ultimately they can both act in accord with the principle of emotional conductivity, with this being in service to the underlying network agenda. Unless an animal deals with a complex object of resistance (in this case the car) as its emotional counterbalance, then it doesn’t have a point of access and in the interaction and if it is not able to synchronize it will end up acquiring more charge than it is able to discharge and ends up feeling more incomplete than before the interaction. Therefore there is an inborn inclination to conform to the principle of emotional conductivity if an individual is endowed with the capacity to do so. The net effect of this calculus is that the eyes of the being become the pivot point around which a sense of a stable footing feels ensured.
Because of this constitutional makeup on which a “psychology” is predicated, this means that release for one constitutes release for the other. This will then prove to be the basis of a subsequent sociability because this will motivate them to align around a common object of release so as to find mutual satisfaction for their attraction to each other since when there is subliminal attention on the heart one can’t find release unless their counterpart finds release. If a dog can “tune into” its heart, it will forge a bond and cooperative relationships as it seeks to align around a common object of attraction that can absorb and reconcile their combined energies. This more complex understanding of the nature of Drive explains why the criticisms of Drive as being inadequate to explain complex behavior are in error. Drive compels organisms toward the path of highest resistance (via the principle of emotional conductivity as well as toward a feeling of attunement with complex objects and a coordinated style of being deflected onto a common object of attraction) rather than the pursuit of simple pleasures. Drive is fundamentally about achieving a state of resonance and the highest expression of this compulsion is the human drive to experience beauty as a means of feeling resonant with the surroundings.

Neotony And Sexuality
However if it is true that every animal experiences emotion as the release from tension, and given that every mammal has a heart, why has only the dog become integrated into human society?
The fundamental distinction between species of animal is how much tension their body/mind as an emotional battery can accommodate before this build up of energy breaches an individual’s capacity and then triggers a genetically hardwired instinct, or a habit, or, in the case of humans (and perhaps even apes and chimps) a thought. The ability to apprehend a uniform state of tension when excited or under duress is a carrying capability, an “emotional capacity.” The higher the species or individual’s emotional capacity the more it can “go by feel.”
This is a critical distinction because an animal can only learn something new, in other words adapt to change, if it can frame a situation in terms of release from a uniform whole-body state of tension. If on the other hand, the experience of change is too much for the capacity of the individual, then a uniform state of tension collapses into a concentration of sensations and this obscures the potential for release and under such circumstances the individual cannot go by feel but must respond by instinctive reflexes or by habit and this will always be in service to the Big-Brain balance mandate, which itself is in service to servicing a species specialized-niche participation in evolution. Therefore, the more pronounced the biological hunger in a species of animal, most vividly characterized by the urge-to-ingest, an overwhelming oral fixation that persists into adulthood, the higher the emotional capacity of a species and therefore the more it can adapt in real time to changes in its circumstances because it can combine and deflect their collective energies onto a common object of resistance.
Species of animals vary, and individuals vary from situation to situation, depending on which polarity of their body/mind is predominant in their perception of change. It can’t be both; it must be one or the other. (I liken this to the quantum essence of nature, as in one cannot know both the location and the momentum of a subatomic particle at the same time. In animal consciousness, either the individual attends to the form of a thing, or to the essence of the thing. If it goes by form, then it proceeds from an already established value either from its direct experience in the past or from its genetic endowment. Whereas if it goes by essence because it can discern the essence by way of its subliminal focus on its heart, then it feels the internal vibration within the form, its emotional center-of-gravity now serves only as an emotional counterbalance rather than dragging into this particular frame of reference the particulars of how the physical memory was acquired. In other words, if the dog can project its emotional battery in toto onto the form by being able to discern its negative-as-access-to-its-positive then it can FEEL THE OBJECT-OF-ATTRACTIONS’ CENTER MASS, and this high level of apprehension allows its emotional ballast to move freely through its body AS A FEELING, the exact epicenter of its mind now being its heart.
One way to directly experience the distinction in a dog’s mind between form and essence in terms of physical memory is the following simple exercise. For example, dealing with problem dogs I show the dog a piece of food and clasp it in my hand. Then I swing my hand rapidly toward the dog’s face. If the dog has been hit, it attends only to the form of my hand rushing at it and a reflex and habit related to fear comes up. Whereas if the dog has not been hit then it may blink and retreat a bit out of reflex, but it doesn’t flinch with a lifting of its lips, or cower in an exaggerated manner as it can still perceive the food within my hand despite the sudden motion and it readily opens its mouth for the treat. Its muzzle is SENSUALIZED by essence rather than SENSITIZED by form.
So in complex interactions, if balance is too strong, then the Big-Brain takes over and sensations overwhelm the feeling of tension/release and the animal conforms to ingrained habits and/or species-specific gene-driven reflexes. Whereas if orienting from the little-brain/hunger perspective, then the two brains are reconciled and it is safe as well as pleasurable to proceed with any given interaction so that the interaction can elaborate into higher expressions of feelings as a more complex statement of the simple principle of emotional conductivity. Due to a two brain makeup, species of animals segregate into their specific environmental niches according to their emotional capacity, all of this stratification in service to the network, not to any individual species particular genetic agenda.
The capacity to adapt to novelty is dependent on referencing the little-brain-in-the-gut over the Big-Brain-in-the-head. When two dogs meet in a park and they are stressed by the presence of the other, they will eat grass. They are orienting from a little-brain perspective and they are feeling release by eating the grass, and they attribute this experience of pleasure to the presence of the other dog that has triggered sensations attendant to being displaced but then reconciled through the grounding experience of eating something. In short order they will make direct contact and get along. A little-brain orientation inevitably leads to the physical action of the heart becoming the predominant frame of reference thus providing a template by which the individual can successfully negotiate a complex response to a complex situation. In other words, even when the rate of change becomes very intense, by maintaining subliminal attention on its heart the dog can continue to perceive the essence within the form of a thing or situation because it is always conscious of the experience of flow via the mechanical action of its heart.
Dogs are remarkably adaptable because the number one characteristic of the canine makeup is a profound constitutional and temperamental state of hunger, i.e. a little-brain manner of orientation, an oral impulse that persists into adulthood. For example, I have never known of a cat that managed its way into a bag of cat food and then eat much beyond a state of satiation whereas I once lived with a Doberman that broke into a 50 lb bag of dog food and ate 40 pounds before being discovered. The dog almost died. Many dogs dig up and eat rocks necessitating emergency surgery. Dogs have been known to chew slippers, sofas, cameras, steel belted radial tires, galvanized metal buckets, to oblivion. I heard of two labs that got into the refrigerator and ate everything inside; meats, milk, butter, cheese, eggs, containers and all: a spectacular feat of consumption that was only to be surpassed by a spectacular feat of elimination. A man once told me that he returned home from work and found his young dog sitting on his front step; problem being that the dog had been locked inside when he left. Next to the stoop was a gaping hole with insulation and wires dangling, the dog had eaten and ripped through moldings, sheetrock, plywood, studs and siding.
A prodigious physical appetite as the basis of a high emotional capacity spills over into an overwhelming tactile, sexual and social appetite as well. Hungering for the forms of things IS SEXUAL ENERGY. The owner of every puppy soon runs into this conundrum of the canine makeup in the first months of their dog’s life and dealing with this “biotonus” lust for all things fluffy, crushable or penetrable is the relentless focus of the modern behavioral marketplace as puppies grab everything with their jaws and anything it can fit into its mouth. This basic constitutional fact is the source of all so-called disobedience and behavioral “problems” in the domestic dog; which by way of contrast the domestic cat doesn’t manifest.
A particularly vivid manifestation of this canine hunger for release-from-tension is the fact that an owner can play tug-of-war with their dog, even lifting it off the ground and flinging it about, the dog loving every moment of being airborne. This kind of play turns out to be the reward of choice when training a dog for specialized duties such as the detection of drugs, contraband, cadavers, gas leaks in underground pipes, gypsy moth larvae, felons hiding in buildings and even cancer. This serviceability has been mischaracterized as a canine desire to please and as the result of human design; when it really is an innate capacity within the dog by dint of a little-brain orientation to pick up and align with the tension/release dynamic within the dog’s trainer.
Neotony the retention of infantile characteristics into adulthood as it is presently entertained in scientific circles is not enough to account for the domestication of dogs because all species of animals are cute and endearing as infants and elicit the human care giving impulse, and all animals have enjoyed scavenging access to village dumps as per the Coppinger thesis, and over the course of civilization human beings have consciously tried to domesticate all species of animals without success on the order of the domestic dog. The real reason infantile traits can migrate into adulthood and become fixed features of a mature disposition is because sexuality is BUT AN ELABORATION OF the neotony phenomenon, and this is because fundamentally sexuality exists in service to synchronizing highly coordinated group activity more than it is about reproduction. And the reason that only wolves (or a wolf-like ancestor) begat the domesticated dog is because of a little-brain orientation as the basis of hunting, reconciling complex objects of resistance via subliminal attention on the heart and thereby deciphering the essence within the form of a large prey animal and then collectively synchronizing around this complex object of resistance so that by intuitive and coordinated team work they can bring it to ground.
There are many behavioral ramifications of a two-brain makeup in general and a little-brain orientation in particular. A high emotional capacity (hunger-over-balance—little-brain predominance) means a dog can transpose its internal two-poles onto its surroundings. This is critical because if an animal is to adapt to something novel, it must be able to externalize and affiliate these poles with corresponding elements of the environment so that a uniform state of tension can be achieved. In other words a dog must simultaneously perceive a “negative” (the source of tension) SIMULTANEOUSLY IN CONJUNCTION with a “positive” (object of release) in order to “know” by feel what to do in terms of tension/release and this is the key to emotionally aligning with a complex object of attraction. Without tension there can’t be release, and if the source of tension isn’t simultaneously affiliated with a hunger for release, then the Big-Brain takes over and along with this, habits, instincts, and in the case of humans, thoughts take over. If an animal can apply this bipolar perspective to its environment by way of a little-brain orientation (thus paving the way for a heart frame of reference), this allows it to sense the wholesale state of tension distributed uniformly throughout its body, which is a fine and subtle kind of apprehension existing below the intensity of nerve sensations and Big-Brain focus on form. Therefore the stronger its constitutional state of hunger, the more the individual can transpose the emotional battery onto a situation. This for example is why when a dog is on a walk in the woods with its owner, it frequently turns around and makes eye contact with its owner; it’s re-acquiring the sense of tension (owner as source i.e. the “negative”) that then makes the act of going forward into the unknown and the higher rate of change resonant with the feeling of release. Otherwise, in the absence of apprehending the negative-as-access-to-the-positive, an animal’s species-specific instincts and acquired habits will govern its actions and this limits its capacity to adapt. Because a dog can transpose its emotional battery onto a human being under the wider array of circumstances and under a high rate of change, it is able to sense how to connect with a human being in any kind of lifestyle. It can feel whole by being in the company of human beings.

Furthermore, since a dog hungers for human contact with more force of attraction than can be directly consummated, it is predisposed to align with where its owner is focused, not only on the conscious level, but on an unconscious visceral level as well. A dog picks up the tension in what it is attracted to, such as its owner, and then where this object of attraction directs its attention, most especially on the subconscious level of focusing energy, becomes the dog’s definition of release. It is a transfer of information from one mind to another, information that ultimately organizes the dog’s behavior and even its personality, a tension/release dynamic of which the owner is mostly unaware since one’s animal consciousness arises from involuntary, autonomic functions of physiology, and respiration completely below the cognitive capabilities of the human intellect.
.

Another way of saying all of the above is that in the animal’s mind, by transposing its two-pole internal battery onto its surroundings, it feels as if it is dealing with a living being even when it isn’t. Note how a puppy first perceives a puddle of water for the first time, or a door swinging on its hinges that stubs its paws as the puppy is being let outside. To the young dog the novel object is a living being. Even though as the dog matures its response to puddles, and especially the door as something scary, will become muted which leads one to think that the dog has changed its mind about puddles and doors, however that frame of reference remains fully intact it’s just that it has become enfolded into other apprehensions of living things, for example, the door becomes an extension of its owner’s being which is why a dog will seek out its owner when it has to go outside. It becomes attracted to the door as an extension of its owner. The owner becomes the “negative” (-) source of tension to the door as release component (+).
Dogs perceive objects or even a situation as construing a living being whether or not there is a living being present. And if there isn’t a living being present, the animal mind has evolved so that the physical memory of a living being will rise to the surface of its awareness and the animal will project the physical memory of such a being onto the inanimate object because its hunger for form is so strong.
The two brain makeup with a little-brain orientation is the basis of a group mind which is why the young animals of almost every species, can entertain themselves by playing with an object. In their minds they’re playing with another living being, with its negative being perceived as access to its positive. And because during the first weeks and months of life the little-brain orientation is at its strongest so that a young animal construes every object of interest to be a living being, is also why the young of every species are at their most malleable and social during this early phase as well. Dogs however, more than any other species can carry this orientation into adulthood and while we are amused when a dog mistakes an inanimate object as a living being, I’m proposing that this speaks to a profound adaptive capacity because in order to adapt in a new way to a novel situation an animal must first sense a “being” present in its surroundings so that this can then trigger a uniform state of tension. If something is completely negative, then there is no uniform tension (there is a rapid collapse into a concentration of sensations) and therefore there cannot be the apprehension of pure release, i.e. emotion. And if something is completely positive, then there is no tension and likewise there cannot be the apprehension of release. (This is the addictive cycle, the organism reflexively invents a negative and now confuses relief with release and since it can never get to a true state of satisfaction because it’s not going by feel, the system constantly self-charges, never hits the stop signal, and the organism fries.) The two must be conjoined with the little-brain as reconciling mechanism so that the negative is apprehended as source of release and this generates a sustained state of attraction that can hold up in the face of resistance and change. An animal is orienting through its little-brain can project its internal two brain, two pole emotional battery (and the memory of a living being, the essence within the form) onto the moment so that it doesn’t perceive the source of tension as something “negative” but rather as inextricably coupled with release and therefore as something positive, negative-as-access-to-positive. The resulting persistence makes it possible, if indeed it is dealing with a like-minded living being, to communicate with another being through its own tension/release dynamic because this is a universal feature of every animal’s consciousness. Therefore rather than being limited by a simple on/off response to a stimulus, such a high capacity individual is thereby inspired to be circuitous, indirect; circumspect and able to graft one apprehension of a living being {door as predator (-) that opens to outdoors (+)} onto a larger apprehension of a living being {owner as negative (-) that opens door to release (+).}This frame of mind allows an individual to hang around long enough to work out how to align with the tension/release dynamic in whatever emotional context or group it finds itself in. Otherwise instincts and habits will run the show and these are only adaptive under a very narrow range of circumstances and solely in terms of survival rather than building networks of social affiliations beyond the species barrier. (Cats are capable of making this linkage as well, but not under the level of intensity that dogs can.)
Unlike cats and deer, dogs look into the car because they are able to project their bipolar emotional battery onto its form and this allows them to be able to persist in order to intuit the negative which thereby grants them access to the positive within the form.

Related posts:

1. Definitions Some of my definitions are scattered across this site and...
2. Charlie Rose Brain Series 8 Damasio and the Role of Emotion in our Lives Very enjoyable intelligent discussion with ideas clearly articulated. However an...
3. Why Do Dogs Prefer to Drink From Toilets? Because it’s grounded Dr. Dodman has noticed that many...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Related posts:

1. Stump the Chump Thanks to Christine for suggesting this section! The following is...
2. Stump The Chump Continued “Suppose every mealtime consists of all 3 dogs getting their...
3. Stump the Chump Part 2 From Christine Randolph: “One of my dogs jumps up to...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

For example in Billy’s statement — “The first domesticated dog’s would have responded much the same way dog’s do now, and that is mostly from a hierarchical pack mindset. All it has to do with feelings, is where the dog feels it fits into the pack.”—is blending feeling and thinking into one thing. If a dog feels its way into some kind of order then it cannot be thinking and therefore this can’t be a pack that is headed by a leader. So is it feeling or is it thinking its way into its place within the pack? Is it overriding a feeling in deference to a thought, if so then what about the instinct component? Is it overriding the feeling plus an instinct with a thought? That would mean you can’t say dogs are pack animals according to a dominance/submissive instinct because with the injection of thoughts into the formula the pivotal issue now becomes whether the dog or wolf is thinking about overriding an instinct or not, and in that case therefore thoughts are preeminent over instinct. So if Billy is arguing that it’s thinking about the prospects of achieving dominance relative to settling for submissiveness, and then choosing between these alternatives, then why can’t a group of dogs or wolves all choose to be submissive like African Wild Hunting dogs? Why can’t they choose to be neither, is dominance and submission all they can think about? In these thought-centric models we’re presented with endless self-contradictory logic loops. The biggest one being the use of the term energy everywhere in the discussion on dogs on the web, be it pack theory or positive camp, but which apparently no one actually believes.

The presumption that Billy is working from, and yet without a critical examination of this assumption, is that there is not a universal operating system to animal consciousness, which would be odd in the natural scheme of things because for example we find photosynthesis is the universal operating system of all green plants, a pretty broad range of diverse life forms occupying all environmental niches, and we find that all genes of every organism are composed from the same two pairs of amino acids, and here we are on the internet communicating because all computers no matter their make or model run on the same binary digital system. So if Billy believes in making an argument for animal behavior based on evolution by way of common descent, then he is going to have a tough time coming up with a consistent model for animal and human consciousness without a universal operating system because that is the only possibility logically consistent with the fundamental tenet of modern evolution by way of common descent. This logical shortcoming is why in modern behaviorism/biology there isn’t a coherent explanation for sexuality, personality or the nature of emotion, it’s constantly tripping over its thought-centric interpretations of behavior since it hasn’t critically examined the notion it has taken as self-evident that there isn’t a universal operating system of animal consciousness.
On the other hand a coherent model is immediately available in an energy theory. While I don’t claim to be an expert with any animal other than the dog, the topic of all animal behavior is germane to any discussion of dogs because I’m maintaining that there is a universal operating system to animal consciousness, the human animal as well, with dogs being the easiest specimen to examine in this regard because dogs go more by feel, less by instinct (and not at all by thinking) than any other animal. This lends to an innate capacity for adaptability because dogs are able to devolve complex situations to their primal emotional values (via the neotony/sexuality phenomena) of predator relative to prey, and therefore they are able to generate coherent responses in real time and in perfect context to the emotional nuance of any group dynamic they find themselves in. In other words, they operate more generally from the universal operating system of animal consciousness which gives them a greater emotional capacity to communicate and connect with the widest array of other species and under a very high rate of change (and thus only the dog has proliferated in every aspect of human life and civilization.)

In an energy model, all behavior is a function of attraction and always proceeds from predator to prey, from that which projects emotion to that which can absorb it, be it a Robin on a worm, a horse eating grass, two lovers, a mother and her baby (“You’re so cute I could EAT you up.”) or two blue jays looking at each other. It’s impossible to have an emotional response to something without occupying either the predator or the preyful polarity, and all you have to do is examine the intuitive use of language to see this operating system functioning within the highest reaches of the human intellect. One cannot hold a conversation without alternating between projecting and absorbing energy.
Every animal has a predatory aspect relative to a preyful aspect, just as every atom has a ratio of a negative charge relative to a positive charge. A bunny rabbit is in the overall what we call a prey animal, but it still has a predatory aspect (just ask Jimmy Carter). So blue jays have both a predatory aspect relative to a preyful aspect.

Billy states that predatory energy is only concerned with procurement of food — ” The blue jay has NO predatory “energy” unless it is actually in the act of seeking food.” — this is an illogical statement if one has ever worked a protection or police dog. The strongest urge is to bite, not to eat. Dogs don’t chase cars in the hopes of eating one and neither do wolves kill the moose with the intention of eating it. To grasp the overarching importance of the prey drive one might want to reexamine the nature of sexuality, it’s too ribald a discussion for these pages but it sure looks like prey-making to me. Consider that the oldest relationship between living things on earth isn’t parent/offspring, male/female, peer to peer, but predator to prey, as in an amoeba, protozoa, bacterium, or virus making prey on other amoeba, protozoa, bacterium and ingesting something. Again if your argument is based on the evolution of animal consciousness by way of common descent, you might want to consider that the predator/prey dynamic is the only logical overarching template for all subsequent relationships that then evolved from simple organisms to complex ones, such as parent/offspring, male/female, peer-to-peer.

Billy said: “Corvids (such as Jays) use tools to solve problems, acting like a hawk would be a very useful tool.”
I’ll venture an opinion on tool use in birds in a later article, but consider the logic of what you’re saying. If a jay can use tools to solve problems by way of thinking, and can mimic a hawk to scare off its fellow jays in a strategy of subterfuge, how do you keep that thinking genie in its bottle? The only logical response is that the thinking, problem solving bird is constrained by its anatomy and physiology so that it can’t think its way outside its niche box because of physical constraints. But that argument immediately contravenes the central tenet of evolutionary biology that every component of the system has to pull its weight or else it’s discarded due to an unnecessary drain on its resources and ultimately losing out to its competitors. According to mainstream evolutionary theory, if the organism can’t expand its niche by developing an adaptation, then it doesn’t need the adaptation. In the eighties the evolutionary mantra of mainstream science was the big brain, the big brain, the big brain: and also all the dog experts and scientists were looking for the genes for aggression. (Natural Dog Training is the only model not predicated on gene-centric theories, anticipating epigentics) But now modern biology confronted with the problem that bigger brained species than homo-sapiens (Boskopf and possibly Neanderthal) went out of existence, are postulating the evolutionary advantage of the lesser sized brain over the bigger brain since it’s less a drain on physiological resources. It’s constantly contradicting itself because it has no model for animal consciousness when it should be saying, “Uh-Oh, if birds with a brain the size of a walnut are using tools, maybe the use of tools is a no-brainer. Maybe Birds aren’t actually “solving problems” in the way the human intellect reflexively thinks of such instances. Maybe we’re seeing what we think we should see just as one it sure did seem self-evident that the sun goes around the earth.
Prey drive IS the most important thing to a dog, it’s why we call them “canines” after the teeth for holding onto the prey. The purpose of sociability is to facilitate the hunt, not companionship. No other interpretation of the canine nature can encompass the phenomenon of canine evolution, the domestication of the dog, the nature of canine service in the employ of man, the adaptability of the modern pet dog to the emotional nuance of its family so as to render companionship. Natural Dog Training is an intellectually rigorous synthesis of the evidence and the criticisms of NDT and an energy model are never substantive, merely declarative. To substantively critique this energy model one must define emotion, sexuality, neotony, personality, drive, sociability, evolution, domestication, consciousness in a straight line synthesis of the evidence.

Dog training has indeed changed over the centuries. The domestic dog evolved through the hunt. Then the modern dog training industry in the sixties lost sight of it, and now all training systems are migrating back to the prey drive while simultaneously resisting the logical conclusion of what this reveals. A self-defeating logic loop.

Related posts:

1. What Are Dogs Thinking? I’m still searching for a point of intersection with the...
2. Distinctions Between Emotion and Feelings BURL: OK, next, what is the difference between a feeling...
3. Definitions Some of my definitions are scattered across this site and...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

KB: Yes, while the laws of motion are simple, the actual computations are vast and too complicated for most of us, especially me. Nevertheless our body and specifically our heart does all of this computation automatically, and so to see the heart in action one just has to feel the answer in something simple and then practice holding onto it. For example, the physics of two dancers in motion is extremely complicated, but after all the “data” has been entered into their physical memory banks (emotional battery) through what we observe as their practicing together, they can easily compute where their partner is going to be and be in perfect position to complement them. So after your eye is trained and you acquire the feeling for what’s going on, soon you will be able to see it by feel in complex behavior as well.

2) Heather: “But once 2 dogs have made “contact,” their interactions then would be like the induction motor, the dogs flipping polarity (to get the motor to turn)…if the flipping polarity got out of synch you could go back to look at things from the “stationary” analysis of BB/l-b?”

KB: Exactly. They are flipping polarities just as in an electric motor wherein the rotor is made to spin by alternating the magnetic poles that then push the rotor along a circle to the opposite side of the arc wherein the polarity will flip at just the right time to keep it spinning. And if the rate of intensity gets too much for the emotional capacity of the bond between the two of them, then they revert to the “stationary” question of getting the BB energy grounded back into the lb so that they can resume the flipping of polarity motoring.
When you watch two dogs meet prior to play you can see they are trying to get a wave going, pushing in on one, then feeling the push back, sometimes it just fizzles out and they can’t get it going. But when they can then the collapse of electrostatic pressure into the hunger/magnetic circuitry, that then collapses into the electrical current that recreates the magnetic field, which then again collapses into the electrical and on an on, is just like the propagation of light. The epicenter of all this consciousness is each other’s heart, that then physically manifests outside their body eventually when they project it onto a midpoint or an object of resistance that can ground out their combined energies.
Now you can see that young wolves in play are not practicing how to hunt (because even deer perform these actions when they feel safe enough and deer certainly aren’t practicing how to hunt) but rather they are creating an emotional connection that can handle a higher and higher rate of intensity that eventually will be strong enough so that it can encompass the rate-of-change that a high object of resistance (the moose) will offer and then the wolves are informed so as to conduct a syncopated approach toward the moose and this coordinated activity can ultimately bring it to ground.
Now you can see that learning in animals is a process of evolution, gravity (the initial impulse of displacement) evolving into electrical evolving into magnetic evolving into an overarching light wave evolving into adding new energy to the network, and this process of elaboration has nothing to do with the mental acquisition of facts or extrapolation from ideas. They are creating a wave function with a frequency within which the intensity of the moose can fit. A group of wolves in the hunt equal one heart. Then when the moose is weak, they can bring it to ground. (The only reason they can’t bring a healthy moose to ground is that in early imprinting the adults put a governor on how strong an emotional bond the wolf cubs can generate by putting a whooping on the cubs ala a pack instinct. So when they encounter a strong moose, they see in its resistance their overbearing mama. Too much pack instinct is also what limits a dog’s capacity to cooperate with a human as well and unlike their wild counterparts, everything we want a dog to do is the path of absolute highest resistance. Not chasing the neighbor’s cat but remaining calmly by our side is emotionally the equivalent of bringing a healthy moose to ground.)

3) Heather: “What if the dogs have not made physical contact, but see each other from a distance – if they have previously established an emotional circuit, are they still able to resolve their respective arising emotions into feelings? Or even in the case of the established dog-owner group mind, the example you or Lee gave regarding the owner’s plane landing and the dog becoming excited – does the owner sense this emotional displacement too?”

KB: If they have previously established an emotional circuit, then they are energized on sight through the bodily affects of physical memory, just as a magnetic force can transmit energy over a distance between a radio and a magnetic antennae even though the two devices are not connected by wires. And then there are special states of attunement when a dog is in a rarefied state and not dealing with the material reality of friction, when I believe that a paired photon is created by syncopation of the two brains and which takes up residence in the heart. I believe that this is a state of quantum entanglement which can account for the telepathic moments of attunement.

4) Heather: “Finally, do you think the experience for each dog is similar, or different, depending on temperament or other factors?”

KB: After the nervous systems of two dogs have been displaced and electrochemically ionized, think of two dogs as being electrolytes so that if one is positively ionized the other must be negatively ionized in order to fit into that frame of reference.(One can’t be in hunger while the other is in hunger, or balance when the other is in balance, and when forced to be there will then be a fight/flight response. So it is axiomatic that eventually they will become different but in a complementary way.) Since every dog’s temperament is a ratio of a preference along the hunger/ balance continuum, one will be inclined to absorb energy (pick up an electron) the other inclined to reflect energy, (give up an electron). The one that picks up energy via hunger circuitry reliance will feel an internal current and become magnetically inclined and will be deflected into a circumspective manner towards the other dog, whereas the one that reflects energy is now more electrically inclined and will be more static-like and tentative because it is “feeling” incomplete, but this suits the network parameters just fine because it allows for the next phase of elaboration so that the former ends up calming the latter (by acting prey-like thereby triggering the electrically charged dog’s hunger circuitry), and not through any signaling intention whatsoever. The interpretation of “calming signals” is the projection of thoughts onto the principle of emotional conductivity.
The basic differentiation between breeds is what I call “prey threshold” which can be envisioned as a frequency, i.e. how high the peak/valley and long the wavelength that a wave function has to be to propagate a state of attraction that can evolve in sync with object of attraction. Bull baiting dogs have high prey threshold, bird hunting dogs low prey threshold. Low prey threshold dogs are typically “friendly” because it takes very little for them to generate a wave function (mere flutter or a wing, quiver of a body), whereas at the opposite end of the spectrum are the guarding breeds of dogs. But, within any given litter, you find the same pattern of differentiation as well but in case of the guarding breeds, when a wave function cannot be created there is a greater degree of fear as well (so we see sharp/shy trait) as the complement to the stronger force of drive in those of that litter that orient through the hunger circuitry.Then there is the style of hunting, kill the prey (terrier) or herd the prey wherein the latter I feel is a higher prey threshold than the former because the dog has to be able to allow the wave to propagate at a higher frequency and amplitude in resonance with the domesticated needs of the sheepherder and economy, which is the highest prey threshold possible. Thus GSD are better at police work than pit bulls, but pit bulls are better fighters than GSD because the process of elaboration will collapse into the strike/shake/kill reflex sooner. At any rate, a network consciousness is infinitely nuanced because it is constantly elaborating in terms of the other components to the system, nothing stands in isolation from the other parts of the system.
Breed traits, personality dispositions, difference between species of animals, the variation between sexes, (male/female/homosexual), and the variation between races, are in my view simply more complex elaborations of this simple template of differentiation. In other words variability (and not by random) is the nature of information because there cannot be information without the network.

Related posts:

1. Two Brain Makeup (Edited For Clarity) Heather brought up some good questions and...
2. October 23 – 25 Seminar: Journey to the Heart of the Dog The connection between dogs and human beings is far more...
3. Definitions Some of my definitions are scattered across this site and...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Heather: “The two-brain makeup, would you say that is also virtually present in humans?”

KB: Yes, all mammals have two brains, the central nervous system (Big-Brain) and the enteric nervous system (little-brain.) The reason animals have two brains is so that their mind will be an action potential, a state of dynamic tension which is a source of energy. Thus, their front end isn’t connected to the hind end unless they complete this internal circuitry with an external connection.  And because the front end isn’t connected to the hind end, the front end can go faster than the hind end, and the hind end can go faster than the front end and this will cause the animal to act just as if it’s either an electrically or a magnetically charged particle. For example, if the front end is going faster than the rear end, there will be an electrostatic pressure and the dog will work on a load/overload type of static discharge kind of behavior. Whereas if the hind end is going faster than the front end, then this hunger will be a sexual or a magnetic kind of orientation wherein the dog will move circuitously and be readily deflected. This two brain makeup inculcates a principle of emotional conductivity whereby the individual either goes the path of least resistance (electrical frame of reference) or couples with another and is attracted to the path of highest resistance (magnetic frame of reference.) This is adaptive is because emotion and the principle of conductivity is the embodiment of the laws of nature, and since nature changes in accord with said laws, then if the physiology and behavior of an animal is predicated on these laws it will be able by dint of its constitution to “predict” where potential energy is going to be. In other words, social structures are a computation of change which inspires the group to position itself to capture and harness potential energy.

Heather: “When re-reading your description above, I thought about how accurately it described my behavior last night – I took Happy out for his last bathroom break of the night, and he started woofing at something in the yard (it was dark, I couldn’t see anything), and was more persistent about it than his routine boof-boof-boofing he does to scare away any boogey men lurking in the woods before settling down to his business. So I went to check it out, and I saw what I thought was a light moving around – at first I was moving in a straight line (slowly) and I was really “charged” as I approached and felt enough pressure that at some point I didn’t want to go forward anymore, but as I got closer and saw that it was indeed something non-threatening but I wasn’t sure what, I began to circle around, and in the circling I realized that it was the deck light reflecting off of the handle of the pool skimmer, which had been left leaning against the fence (normally it’s put away).”

KB: Things that reflect energy are predatory aspects and these interrupt the sense of flow and trigger physical memories of resistance/stress/shock.  And then something upright (leaning against the fence) thereby fits the form of a predator as the physical memory in the emotional battery potentiates the higher processes of the nervous system so that the mind construes variables of the present in terms of forms from the past.

Heather: “Also the quality/quantity issue – I can see how different temperaments could be tuned differently to different objects of attraction with different perceived prey/predator values (so for eg Happy, he will notice a squirrel but for him he readily perceives playing tug with me as the displacing of more emotional energy, because the emotional mass of the squirrel, and thus the force it induces in Happy, is not very large compared to mine.) Things that are very prey-like to him do not move a lot of energy, he is tuned to a higher predator/prey ratio.

Very cool, I am excited to start really looking at things in this manner and making my own observations.”

KB: Exactly, the higher the prey threshold of the temperament, the more it takes to displace the dog and the more physical tactile contacting it requires to feel grounded. Thanks for the observations. You can completely deconstruct the dog’s mind by paying close attention to your own emotional experience without injecting thoughts. Keep On Posting!

Related posts:

1. Behan is too new-agey in his explanations to be taken seriously. He also dismisses large tracks of learning theory and psychology and ethology. He prefers undefined explanations like "emotional circuitry of dog and owner" Frankly I tend to dismiss and distrust anyone that talks about 'energy' or 'vibrations' to explain animal behavior. I don’t dismiss behavioral science and I value its many...
2. Definitions Some of my definitions are scattered across this site and...
3. On Damasio and the Feeling Brain I really like Damasio, but in the interest of time...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Again, we’re not saying that dog’s aren’t intelligent, we’re exploring the possibility of a group consciousness and if we want to extrapolate to a broader metaphysics, if consciousness is energy, in other words if one believes they have a consciousness that supersedes the form and material matter of their physical makeup, then the principles of consciousness are very likely the same principles as energy and therefore physics would be our entry point. Physics would be the mind of God playing out through the process of evolution. And if we want to know what God is “thinking” we might try divining the principles of physics in one of the most spectacular feats of creation that has evolved, the dog by our side.

Click here for access to the article.

Related posts:

1. Control Theory, Behavior and Evolution I’ve taken some passages from the newspaper article on the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

NS: “LIKE children with their hands in the cookie jar, dogs steal food quietly to make sure they don’t get caught. The finding adds to evidence that dogs can work out what others are thinking. Shannon Kundey of Hood College in Frederick, Maryland, and colleagues, gave 40 dogs, which had previously been trained not to eat food left on a plate, a chance to take food from inside two containers. Both containers were fitted with bells, but on one container the bells were muted. When someone was watching, the dogs took food from both containers equally. But if the watcher looked away, for instance by putting their head between their legs, the dogs went for the silent container. This suggests they knew they could get a meal without the watcher hearing them (Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol 126, p 45). Kundey says her results back up other evidence that dogs can represent for themselves how others perceive their actions. For example, previous studies had found that dogs are more likely to take food when people are not watching them. Marc Bekoff at the University of Colorado at Boulder says the findings are more proof that humans’ mental abilities are not unique. “Great apes do amazing things, but so do other animals,” he says.”

As the article is written I’m confused and I haven’t been able to find clarification on/line. These dogs were trained not to take food from under the container, and yet they took food from both containers equally if researcher was watching. (Was this before being trained? But the article specifically says “previously.” And if they took food after training, did they not do so sneakily?) Then, if researcher wasn’t watching only then did the training take effect with the dogs acting in response to the judgment inculcated through training that they weren’t supposed to take food from the forbidden plate.
If I can clear this up I also need to know how the dogs were trained not to take food from under the plate, as well as how they came to learn that some of the bells were muted. Before I venture an opinion I would like to find the answers to these questions.

However having made that disclaimer about not having all the facts or seeing a video which is always telltale, and going from what I presume the dogs might have behaved like, I feel I can nevertheless make the following definitive comments. A long time ago I watched an espionage thriller that revolved around a magic trick that was intended to misdirect the other side. The hero was consulting a magician who told the man flummoxed as he was by the sleight of hand being conducted, to always remember that he was dealing with a magic trick and that whatever he was thinking was his mind being tricked. Likewise, the intellect always tricks our mind to seeing thoughts as the only explanation for complex behavior. In my experience these experiments always prove the opposite of the intellectual consensus that immediately collects around it. Always bear in mind that the dog’s mind is an energy circuit, whereby other beings, and even inanimate objects become incorporated into its state-of-mind and as a function of its “self,” indeed even material objects of matter can become part of its consciousness. So it’s only in the human mind that the researcher isn’t seen by the dog as a feature of the dog’s frame of reference, a part of its very mind. On the other hand by seeing the dog’s mind as a self-contained intelligence, we immediately think we see a dog acting “sneaky.”
The key to this experiment is understanding Pavlov’s research. In a dog’s mind as an energy circuit, the vibration of things that are made to stand out become associated with the essence of the thing, and this happens according to the strength of its hunger. Every moment has frame of reference which is organized around a negative-as-access-to-a-positive channel, this is a vibrational value, with the intensity value being the negative and the grounding value being the positive. The degree to which the intensity is grounded into the positive, is the resonance value, like the pitch on a guitar string. The dog tries to resonate with the negative in order to gain access to the positive and behaviorally this means becoming its equal and opposite, and/or aligning with it and mirroring it. It does not mean constructing a theory of mind for what it is attracted to. (If this were true, then we would have to say that dogs are constructing a theory of mind for a ball when it is amusing itself by playing with a ball. The ball is a living thing as far as the dog is concerned because it projects its “self” into it. Tom Hank’s character in “Cast Away” evolved a relationship with “Wilson” in this way because he projected his self into it and evolved feelings for it as a reflection of his own mind.)
In Pavlov’s dogs the ringing of the bell became associated with the meat, which means with access to the meat and so the most intense variable was the human as the negative, with the bell’s vibration becoming resonant with that access channel. The bell rings, the dog experiences pressure because it is tasting meat (drooling) but there is no meat in its gut to complete the circuit, and so it vibrates and radiates a lot of behavior which we observe as a state of excitement. It associates the ringing of the bell with the researcher’s eyes and the meat as relief from pressure, and vibrating intensely in a state of excitement as the means of resonating with that frame of reference which then leads to grounding and reduction of pressure. The dog is giving the human credit for the meat, and the vibration of the bell the most overt resonating variable that connects the negative to positive. (This is also why dogs howl.)
This modern experiment is that same energetic circuit in reverse and I find it especially ironic that a bell is being used. The dog is seeking to relieve the pressure from the person’s eyes by keeping the bell FROM ringing. The dog has no idea that it is not supposed to get the meat, it learned that if it vibrated too intensely like Pavlov’s dog getting excited, it was corrected, i.e. disconnected from its “self.” It didn’t even learn a cause and effect linkage, rather by vibrating too intensely it became the object-of-attention and this caused it to have to internalize drive and absorb stress. Innately in response, it then flipped polarity and muted its “self” in order to focus on the object of attraction and not become object-of-attention because bearing the brunt of focused energy disconnected it from its “self.” Even so, it’s still giving the human credit for the meat, but it is dampening its body as a resonating chamber because as long as it wants the meat it is feeling vulnerable, and can’t let anything into its consciousness which will cause it to vibrate too intensely, so it avoids anything that vibrates (metallic and plastic sounds are especially predatory, paradoxically even more than gunshots as many deer hunters can attest who fired and fired at an unsuspecting deer, but it didn’t take flight until the sound of a new cartridge clinking into the chamber sent that same deer flying. The deer had no idea it was being fired upon, and it had no idea that the metallic clink was a source of danger, the sharp metallic sound as a predatory aspect collapsed the state of attraction and that’s why it fled.) In other words, the dog is acting “sneaky” TO STAY IN RESONANCE WITH THE RESEARCHER, not in defiance of the human. It would be more accurate to say the dog is trying to keep the food from vibrating, which is the same as saying the dog is trying to keep its “self” from vibrating. Because of earlier training, it didn’t learn that it wasn’t supposed to take the meat, it learned that flipping polarity to a human who was acting so dynamic, i.e. active and direct, by becoming the equal/opposite, i.e. reactive and indirect, was the vibrational tone that represented access channel to the meat. It is not sneaking to get the meat, it is trying to remain in harmony with the human as access channel to the meat. It avoids the bell because it would vibrate its “self” and make it the object-of-attention, the recipient of focused energy. It has no idea what kind of mind is capable of focusing energy and making it the object-of-attention, but if you have ever seen a dog avoid a camera, it is because it is perceiving the lens as an intense predator focusing energy on it and it does so innately and because it isn’t capable of thinking, but trying to go by feel and it can’t feel an access channel.

I’m not sure the following variation on the experiment would resolve my objection, but it could confirm it. The researchers should try the “Clever Hans” approach and remove the researcher to a closet in the room with which dog is allowed to become fully familiarized as connected to the main room, which shouldn’t be hard for a dog to grasp if it’s capable of a theory-of-mind construct for another living being. Now if the dog had acted bold and “stole” the meat by acting like it was doing nothing wrong (which is my favorite story of how some American POWs escaped a prison concentration camp in Germany during WW2, they got a tape measure and some tools and measured their way right through the camp gate and into the forest while the guards watched them from their towers. They acted like they were doing nothing wrong because given that they were capable of generating a theory of mind they realized that being obvious was the best way to avoid raising suspicions in the mind of their guards) now that would be something. Fortunately for those of us who want to live with a dog, they can’t think, otherwise, we’d be in serious trouble. So two cheers for the temerity of modern behavioral researchers. Let’s hope for our dogs sake they’re wrong.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Related posts:

1. Kevin Pushing and Pulling with Hessian Kevin Pushing and Pulling with Hessian ...
2. Set Your Moose Loose: I am not a moose, my dog is not a wolf and he doesn't think I am a moose True, a person is not a moose and a dog...
3. Kevin Training Hero Kevin working with Trisha Selbach’s puppy Hero. Kevin explaining his...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Thanks to Burl for today’s stump-the-chump question. Let me answer it by way of contrasting the dog’s mind with the human’s mind and the latter’s capacity to compare a moment or a point of view, with another moment or point of view versus the former’s “group mind” point of view.  In other words, I’m going to compare how an immediate-moment, group consciousness frame of reference (the dog)processes inputs of energy in comparison to how a self-contained intellectually driven consciousness (the human) processes inputs of energy.

Imagine that you are working at a job wherein you sit at a desk and perform 4 units of work for $20 per hour. Then out of the blue you are promoted to a new desk where you perform 2 units of work for $40 per hour. The human mind is excited, this is great. I’m getting twice the return on half of the effort, what a deal. Wow, do I have a great boss. He’s very good to me. I really respect and admire him.

But then you become acquainted with your coworkers and in the course of inter-cubicle banter discover that the person sitting at the dest next to you is making $80 per hour for perfoming 1 unit of work. What now do you begin to think?  You begin to THINK resentment. Your intellectual mind begins to race. What does my boss really think of me, maybe I’m being a sucker, my work is much more valuable than this measly pay if that slob next to me is getting twice for less.  Who does my boss think he is, did he think he could buy my integrity for a measly $40 an hour? Why the nerve of that jerk. I’m outa here.

Meanwhile consider the group mind of the dog. As he makes his way through the world he’s expending 4 units of work for the doggy equivalent of $20 return. And then along comes a new situation and he finds himself experiencing $40 doggy dollars on 2 units of work. Wow, life is grand. Then it eventually becomes known to him (apparently by way of a short-lived burst of human intellectual relativism) that the dog next to him is experiencing $80 dollars of return by performing a mere 1 unit of work. How would he feel? A dog would feel that in order for him to earn $40 dollars for 2 units, the dog next to him must receive $80 for 1 unit. And this would mean that if his boss offered him a raise of $80 for 1 unit, he would say great, but of course for that to happen then the dog next to me must get $160 for 1/2 of a unit otherwise that wouldn’t FEEL right.

Dogs experience everything in terms of a group mind, not as an isolated self equipped with an independent agency of intelligence that takes stock of relative situations in order to compute some sense of the world. So if vibrating at a pitch of 40-to-2 makes the world go round, then whatever vibration others have, that ratio must constantly be maintained so that the world might go round ever faster. A dog’s mind is a circle and if being at his point on the circumference eventually gets him to the center of the circle, THAT’S ALL HE CARES ABOUT. Whatever pitch everyone else was vibrating at, (dogs can feel these pitches because of emotional projection) that precise scale of frequencies must be maintained as new energy comes in order for the feeling to be right. In other words, if dog A gets five biscuits to every biscuit given to dog B, then in dog B’s mind it takes Dog A getting five biscuits in order for it to get the one. If Dog B could think it would think “Thank God for dog A because that biscuit sure did taste good.”

Your dog is the luckiest dog in the world because you care about it. So don’t think guilt. You haven’t done anything wrong. There is no such thing as fairness in nature so don’t beat yourself up because then your dog will HAVE to express a behavior to make you think guilt and to prove you are right. In other words, to maintain the group harmony. Whereas if you treat dogs fairly then you are not creating a circle, you are being abstract and intellectual and a dog can’t feel an intellectual abstraction. DO WHAT YOU WANT. A dog can feel a want. Then however you are and whatever you did is the frequency that made the wheel go round. Keep On Pushing!

Related posts:

1. Stump the Chump Thanks to Christine for suggesting this section! The following is...
2. Stump the Chump Part 2 From Christine Randolph: “One of my dogs jumps up to...
3. Stump A Chump What does the emotional battery, the phenomenon of neotony, and...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.