What Do These Have In Common?

What do these two scenes have in common (was unable to embed the video, just paste into a new browser and should show up)? The first one below purportedly shows altruism inherent in the mind of a “person” …….





…………….the other about high cognitive process in a “person.”



Hint, context isn’t everything, context is nothing.


<<<<<<SPOILER ALERT: To put both scenes into the same energy dynamic, these terms would prove useful to weave together in the following order and with a special emphasis on the last one as the key that leads to the unifying principle; Emotion, Predator–>Prey, Resistance, Physical Memory.>>>>>

Published April 23, 2014 by Kevin Behan
Tags: , , ,

7 responses to “What Do These Have In Common?”

  1. Julie Forlizzo says:

    Just throwing some ideas out, but cannot come up with a complete explanation. Humans are predators (bird tempting fish in order to get a meal.) Resistance – fish moving toward birds feeding them. (Humans overcoming resistance as in having to work in order to survive. Physical memory – evolution of man hunting, developing altruism (unselfish concern.) Does this have something to do with balance and hunger? Humans’ capacity to problem solve? Can animals problem solve? I’m sure I’m way off base here!!

  2. Kevin Behan says:

    These terms come together the same way for both frames of reference even though the context looks radically different from our point of view. In fact, putting the two frames together shows us the evolution of altruism. So emotion moves from one particular pole to another particular pole, in between these poles is resistance, and again this is the same in both frames, and then what else in the physical memory banks of these birds is resonant with this?

  3. Martin says:

    Although I did not see the Deer Man show I read the post and one of the phrases that stuck out was that animals move to improve how they feel. It appears (although it is hard to parse out from thinking) that emotion is the energy that pulls and pushes. There are several phrases that seem to convey this…prey/predator….push/pull…..

    The birds when little were a part of this. They accepted regurgitated food. The adult bird and baby bird were energetically and emotionally joined and a negative ( the empty space in the baby birds belly) induces a positive from the adult bird (pushing forward of the regurgitated food). So there is flow from the predator to the prey, from the adult bird to the baby bird…and this pushing forward of food is the equal but opposite of the adult bird actually ingesting the baby bird which it would have the feeling for but would result in the loss of flow or a collapse and with the hard pushing, chirping…wanting of the baby bird eating the baby birds would be impossible. I would think even the baby bird plays this predator/prey dynamic it out. It chirps (barks) wiggles and vibrates like prey but is able to collect and ingest what the adult bird puts out.
    In the first example the same dynamic is in play. The fish are hungry, they can’t bark but they can push into the birds by displacing water. The displaced water can be grounded into the food by the birds. The bird responds to the push in by the fish by making their own wave of ingestion and spitting out. More food is more energy for these fish and the flow continues.

    In the second example it would seem that if the bird was really hungry it would just eat the cracker but there is another configuration that can conduct more emotion/energy. I think the bird can feel the fish in the water swimming which is causing water to be displaced which is the same as the chirping baby birds chirping. This pushing in on the bird conducts and equal but opposite reaction of collecting (the cracker) and pushing out the cracker (just like regurgitating food) The fish pulls on the cracker essentially sucking the bird onto the fish. I guess the question is why does this situation collapse? Why doesn’t the bird find another cracker and continue to feed the fish. Or why don’t birds eat all of their young? I am thinking that the fish does not have the means to push into the bird with enough force to trigger deep inner stress and allow the pattern to continue to develop. Maybe if the fish could push that cracker directly at the bird’s centerline and let it go, and then remain still, the situation could elaborate with the bird pushing the cracker back out.

  4. Julie Forlizzo says:

    You use the word “person” in connection with these two videos. Are we to be considering OUR “physical memories” or the birds/fish?

  5. Kevin Behan says:

    Yes that’s exactly right. Emotion moves from the predator to prey polarity. Since the oldest relationship between living beings is the predator/prey dynamic, and since emotion is older than mammals and birds, even the relationship between parent and offspring transpire on the emotional primal predator/prey template. So the turbulence of the fish pushing in on the swans, and the distance between the fish-hunting bird and the fish in the shallows so that it can’t get them directly, are both forms of resistance. Resistance triggers physical memories of parents feeding their young. (Instincts are codified physical memories) That’s a good point about the fish-hunting bird, and the reason it can’t eat the bread is the same reason it can’t eat the food it brings when it has to feed its young. The young create a charge and feeding them shuts off the charge. Same with the fish-hunting bird. Spearing them shuts off the charge. The parents don’t make prey on their young because of a mirror effect stimulated by the young birds having a predatory aspect that reflects the emotional attraction back to the parent and inhibits the prey-making impulse and so their relationship can elaborate to a higher form of expression. (In many animals the primal impulse is deflected into grooming others as a modified form of prey-making and consummating an emotional attraction. In other animals hunting together is a deflection of the prey-making impulse so as to consummate a greater charge). Bravo Martin

  6. Sundog Fitz says:

    This discussion makes me think of animal fratricide. It is not simply where the weaker one will be abandoned by a parent, but where one sibling will attack and kill, and sometimes eat the other. When I saw this on the BBC Africa series (I don’t remember the bird) they described it as survival of the fittest, but I had to wonder how one sibling would know. If one sibling makes prey on another is the mirror effect of the other is not strong enough? Is it two equals holding the same charge? No physical memory established yet?

  7. Kevin Behan says:

    Indeed. My theory is that all relationships are predicated on the predator—->prey polarity. So if one of the individuals are compromised, then they don’t have a strong enough predatory aspect to reflect the flow back at the projector of emotion, i.e. the individual at the predator pole. This would explain fratricide and infanticide, as well as provide the platform on which complex system elaborate. Furthermore, this is the only model that simultaneously accounts for complex social systems that enable cooperative hunting, the defining feature that allowed ancient humans to out compete Neanderthals.

Leave a Reply

Books about Natural Dog Training by Kevin Behan

In Your Dog Is Your Mirror, dog trainer Kevin Behan proposes a radical new model for understanding canine behavior: a dog’s behavior and emotion, indeed its very cognition, are driven by our emotion. The dog doesn’t respond to what the owner thinks, says, or does; it responds to what the owner feels. And in this way, dogs can actually put people back in touch with their own emotions. Behan demonstrates that dogs and humans are connected more profoundly than has ever been imagined — by heart — and that this approach to dog cognition can help us understand many of dogs’ most inscrutable behaviors. This groundbreaking, provocative book opens the door to a whole new understanding between species, and perhaps a whole new understanding of ourselves.
  Natural Dog Training is about how dogs see the world and what this means in regards to training. The first part of this book presents a new theory for the social behavior of canines, featuring the drive to hunt, not the pack instincts, as seminal to canine behavior. The second part reinterprets how dogs actually learn. The third section presents exercises and handling techniques to put this theory into practice with a puppy. The final section sets forth a training program with a special emphasis on coming when called.
%d bloggers like this: