"I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the "lower animals" (so called) and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result humiliating to me." - Mark Twain
I adore animals. I like them more than humans, despite being an anthropologist...I think it better equips me to see the horrors of humanity without taking away the joy. I adopted a stray cat, in that, I feed it twice a day and let it enjoy it's freedom with his/her lover (a fat, orange cat). It may be feral but it is appreciative...unlike my doggies Harlem and Selah who feel entitled to my food at any given moment. But yes, that is my fault and no, I wouldn't have it any other way. Animals aren't as simple as we imagine them to be - they have complex social systems with varying degrees of violence and love. Humans are, afterall, animals in every physiological sense - we're just at an environmental pinnacle in adaptation. Nonetheless, we are still primitive in our relationship with nature. We attempt to conquer it in every way but it always eludes us one step before we get there. We still don't know how meiosis takes place, just that it does. You can even hear some pretty logical conjecture from PhDs and still they will fail to elucidate the meaning of life. And here in lies the puzzle - will conquering nature give us meaning or take it away? Will we become the Gods we pray to and will magic give way to science? Our bodies, our world, our existence is all chemistry. An array of chemical combinations and disassociations that account for that new wrinkle or strange mole. Our chemistry is our biology and our biology is our foundation. So what makes us so different from a bird or an earthworm? Well, nothing. Every life form has it's role to play as every person has their Shakespearean act. Every living thing on this planet is crucial to our symbiosis...even this stray cat (have you ever seen a NYC rat? Rats were the cause of the bubonic plague). I love this cat as much as I love any one human being - does that make me strange? No, just enlightened.
8 comments:
Ok, I read this and a couple of things stuck out, but I just want to nail down one. You said,"Animals aren't as simple as we imagine them to be - they have complex social systems with varying degrees of violence and love." And I think, the root of the thing I'm most curious about pertains to the connotations of this line. I challenge you to write a post on the definition of love. I would like to read that, specifically because I want to see what conclusion you arrive at and how it relates to the idea of man as an animal.
As for me... I haven't a thought in my pretty little head. I'm just here to look good (speaking in a purely literary sense. As you can see in my picture, I'm sipping straight from the carton).
Mkay. Tomorrow's post, then, will be a scientific/philosophical examination of love.
anthropomorphism lends to the caging of "lesser" animals
How could applying human qualities to animals (anthropomorphism) lend itself to caging it? If that were true, lions would be your neighbor. You're annoying Neill. Get out your dictionary.
Animals and humans... have you ever watched the "Dog Whisperer" show? He trains the humans, not the pets.
The "Dog Whisperer" is constantly saying that a dog must have a "pack leader" - such is their nature. The dog, if not seeing the human as the leader, will take control and this causes disruption in the human lifestyle.
He recommends that we take action as the leader and not treat our pets as "children" because.. "they are, after all, pets."
Mind you, I love my Siamese cat, but Tigger is not my equal nor is he equal to the man that I love.
Though, I must add that I thoroughly enjoyed your post, given you address the issue of nature and how we, humans, attempt to define nature ~ acting as though we are not part of it ~ which is the very ingredient and reason why we can't define nature.
magic will only give way to science if science can explain everything... but somehow magic seems more comfortable than science. wouldn't it be scary if science had all the answers? we aren't capable of handling that kind of responsibility, probably never will be.
in answer to the questions you asked at my blog: you should probably visit your grandmother's hometown for starters. :) almost everybody here speaks tagalog, but your grandmother probably speaks bisaya, maybe cebuano. cebu is the most urbanized province in visayas, so it's got plenty of the tourist spots if you're into that. (i'm from metro manila, so i'm not that familiar with visayas... sorry ^^;) if you still can, ask your grandmother about her heritage and the places she lived in when she was younger. do you know any of your relatives here? it might be a good idea to contact them if you can. your ninong and ninang might know of some good places to go to, as well.
hmmm, it looks like i haven't been very helpful, but my advice is to visit visayas, preferably the island your grandmother grew up in :)
every living thing is crucial to WHO? I like spider and bats, both of which have invaded my backyard, because they eat bugs and I hate bugs. If florida's palmetto bug (giant flying biting roach) population was reduced by 90%, then what? No more banging a shoe around the bathroom, I guess.
Oh by the way, my name is Michelle and it's nice to meetcha. I don't mean to be mean, I just have opinions just like you! I'm happy that all different people can have blogs!
Environmentalists forget that HUMANS ARE PART OF THE ENVIRONMENT- so how come when a lion kills a deer, it is nature but if a hunter kills a deer it is cruelty?
Everything is crucial to you, me and every other living organism on this planet. It is called balance and recognizing that every action has a consequence. Heck, it's called the first law of physics. The point was/is that despite the self-involvement of humanity, everything they do affects everything around them...kind of the way something that a mother does affects the child inside her. Regardless of your stance on animals/insects etc. it doesn't change the fact that we are all interconnected and depend on one another to actually exist. The very basis of environmentalism is the recognition and responsibility of humans IN the environment...idk, just didn't make sense. To think otherwise is simply a reinforcement of the primitive logistics of humans. Just my opinion.
Post a Comment