The more dedicated readers amongst you may have observed that it is some time since I have written a blog purely about dogs. Mainly this is a response to other things I am requested to expound upon; but also because it takes some event or questionable idea to surface to ignite the need to write. Well, I got one of those recently and on one level at least, it’s purely dog related.
A good friend of mine gave a proof copy of my upcoming book 'For Dog's Sake' to an acquaintance she thought might be interested. The individual in question is a 'spiritual' dog trainer who is apparently well regarded in Europe and has a platform for putting forward her views. Since my book gives channeled insights into a dog's perspective on the world, my friend assumed that gaining deeper insights into the canine state of being might well prove rewarding for the dog trainer. The response was, however, somewhat less than positive:
"Everything on planet earth is made of energy, and the heart is what governs and transmits that energy, dogs have as much awareness as we do of things in terms of what they Feel but they don’t 'think' about them or judge whether another dog is higher or lower than them. They live in the moment and so simply react to every single thing or situation with a new Feeling. I have heaps of articles on my website that go into way more depth, but essentially the flow of emotions is the factor in their behaviour choices, its never the mind that's deciding. I don't believe in hierarchy or dominance... Dominance allows us to hold onto the limiting belief that there is no abundance for all and in Separation. I believe we are all connected and there can be equality when we remove the belief there isn't. It's like we feed this unfairness by believing and then seeing a hierarchy or inequality in our own environment/reality.”
Let's ponder the essence of what is being said. I can spot two gaping flaws in logic.
The lesser failing (from my perspective) is the outright denial of pack order. Just because you don't believe in something, does that mean that it doesn't exist? I can't decide if the statement that dogs don't judge others stems from naivety, being ill-informed, or maybe just a plain old stupidity. Nonetheless, denying that dogs have a hierarchy and that they don't seek for, or try to exert dominance in their environment is laughable. Try living with a pack of dogs and watch the lack of equality; observe their constant need to exercise their dominance through pack order; see how tangible and important the pack order is for them; get a sense of their confusion when that pack order changes in any way.
Dominance may well “allow us to hold onto the limiting belief that there is no abundance for all” but how does it do this for dogs? Does accepting that they are a different species with different rites and rituals from our own really “feed this unfairness by believing and then seeing a hierarchy or inequality in our own environment/reality”? Vacuous declarations made in an “All You Need Is Love” kind of way are all well and good, but for a human to dismiss what is so very obviously a very ‘real’ function of the canine world is to ignore what is important to them. It attempts to impose a lack of order upon them which is both stressful and unhelpful. The trainer’s implied ‘We know what’s best for you’ philosophy is reminiscent of colonialists or religious zealots imposing their ‘more enlightened’ world order upon ‘primitives’. It was barbaric and unacceptable then, and it’s no more acceptable if we do it to dogs now.
But there is a great deal more in this missive that really disturbs me. Aside from the wholly inaccurate and crassness of the statement that “they don’t 'think' about them or judge whether another dog is higher or lower than them”, it is the inflammatory “its never the mind that's deciding” declaration that gets me, since by implication, it must be somewhat more expansive in the factors of a dog's life that it encompasses.
If dogs are not forming judgments about one another, they must be reactive creatures that only respond from an emotional basis without pause for thought or consideration. There is even the implication that they cannot think, which must be one of the most spurious, backward looking, and almost defamatory remarks I have seen in recent times. Just as scientists are starting to accept that dogs have emotions, we have a claim from someone, purportedly 'in touch' with the spiritual side of canines, that not only implies that emotion and thought are two separate things, but that dogs don't do the latter.
As such, it presents our four legged friends as dumbed down versions of the beings we experience, by implication, almost mindless, utterly reactive and only capable of giving unreasoned responses (since reason, by definition, requires thought). I wonder if this person stopped to consider that without the capacity for, or exercise of thought, dogs are reduced to little more than the automatons that Rene Descartes declared them to be when he conducted his hideous public experiments on them in the seventeenth century, thus defining the acceptable Cartesian method for centuries to come, and fixing animals in the broader human mind as stupid, inferior and beneath us.
How many of you have looked at your dogs and actually watched them thinking, observed their (often) astute and calculating minds, and seen them give carefully considered situational responses to what is going on around them? Sure, I've seen countless examples of dogs being ruled by spontaneous outbursts of emotion, be that joy or fury, in much the same way that humans may allow their experience of an emotive situation to dominate their self control. But what about in the majority downtime that comes between these events? Humans give pause for thought, consideration and reflection in order to determine their responses to what goes on around them. Does this person really believe that dogs don't? What base creatures they must be.
Or is the bland statement that “they don’t ‘think’” meant to portray the misguided and idealised notion that dogs are in some way sainted creatures that only act out of love? This would be an equally demeaning way of assessing them, since it would rule out their capacity to act with discernment and experience their relationships as anything other than the blandest of superficialities.
Perhaps this individual simply believes that dogs think in some situations, but not in others? But why would that be the case, and what’s the evidence for it? She touts the much vaunted “They live in the moment” claim popularised by Cesar Millan, and goes on to claim that dogs “simply react to every single thing or situation with a new Feeling.” But this implies they have little memory, do not learn from previous circumstances, accept any harm that is done to them, are wholly forgiving, do not bear grudges, and a whole host of other factors that reduce their mental capacities. From our personal experiences, I can attest to the total nonsense of this assertion. Dogs can be thoughtful, sensitive and reflective. In their relations with the world around them, they will proceed with caution if warranted, fear if experience has taught them to be fearful, reticence if concerned, disdain if offended, and a whole host of other reactions that typify their high level of sentience, confirming their status as thinking beings.
Apparently for the sake of compliance with personal doctrine, this trainer chooses to reduce dogs to a lowest common denominator and by report, debases their being to one which focuses upon an aspect that she wants to deal with, namely that of non-thinking purely emotional creatures. In this state, perhaps they are easier to cope with and may be assessed as lesser lifeforms over which we may assume (perhaps justifiable) control; and although she would hate the word, dominance. Gone is their capacity for rationale, or informed decision. But with it too go caring, consideration, anticipation, sensitivity, and a whole host of other responses, because although they may be deemed emotional, they require thought and decision. And also swept away is intelligence. Reactive behaviour is spontaneous and in many respects, autonomic. It is not based upon thought, but upon accumulated experience that causes a ‘gut’ reaction.
Perhaps she assumes that dogs exist on 'emotional intelligence', that much beloved phrase of the business world. If this is the case, she needs to get her facts straight because emotional intelligence stems from innate or learned consideration of the needs of others; or in other words, the ability to demonstrate empathy. And this, of course, is something you need to think about before you can exhibit it.
But there's a further, really off-putting part of all of this: Dogs are considered pretty high up the pecking order in terms of their ability to relate to humans and form relationships. We value them for their loyalty, perhaps their malleability, and their connection with us. But if creatures we value so much are as unthinking as the comments suggest, then what value is there in those we consider less intelligent. To claim that dogs do not think is surely a scurrilous indictment of the whole animal kingdom that, in common with the flawed science of centuries before us, places us firmly at the top of evolutionary scale, and everything else far below. With ideas like this being touted by those who consider themselves to be 'spiritually advanced', it is small wonder that we still so totally and hatefully have precious little regard for the animal kingdom.
The trainer left one further comment regarding the follies of my book.
"Ultimately my work is heart based on the transmission of emotional energy into and out of the dogs heart and his [i.e. me] is still in the dogs mind."
I find the comment vaguely ridiculous in its inanity, and I love the fact that it implies that I'm the backward one. I get the desire to pretend that the world revolves around the ‘peace and love’ philosophy. It should indeed be that way. But I also fail to see the logic in trying to deal with any creature unless we try to empathise with its state of being and accept that like us, it has a mind that it uses. If we do not, we simply evolve a series of reactive responses to it, which our own human history has already amply demonstrated is a pathway to ruin.
I respect the right of everyone to their own opinions. It doesn't concern me in the slightest that she didn't like my book. I'm thrilled for her that she has “heaps of articles on my website that go into way more depth” arming her with the justifications of like-minded and equally misguided literature. But what a pity that she didn't use her own thinking capacity to give some consideration to the implications to all that she says.
Or perhaps like dogs, she doesn't think, and just gives emotional responses.
FOOTNOTE
I visited the website to read the "heaps of articles...that go into way more depth", and much to my amusement discovered them to all be (very poorly) self-penned and no more convincing.
A good friend of mine gave a proof copy of my upcoming book 'For Dog's Sake' to an acquaintance she thought might be interested. The individual in question is a 'spiritual' dog trainer who is apparently well regarded in Europe and has a platform for putting forward her views. Since my book gives channeled insights into a dog's perspective on the world, my friend assumed that gaining deeper insights into the canine state of being might well prove rewarding for the dog trainer. The response was, however, somewhat less than positive:
"Everything on planet earth is made of energy, and the heart is what governs and transmits that energy, dogs have as much awareness as we do of things in terms of what they Feel but they don’t 'think' about them or judge whether another dog is higher or lower than them. They live in the moment and so simply react to every single thing or situation with a new Feeling. I have heaps of articles on my website that go into way more depth, but essentially the flow of emotions is the factor in their behaviour choices, its never the mind that's deciding. I don't believe in hierarchy or dominance... Dominance allows us to hold onto the limiting belief that there is no abundance for all and in Separation. I believe we are all connected and there can be equality when we remove the belief there isn't. It's like we feed this unfairness by believing and then seeing a hierarchy or inequality in our own environment/reality.”
Let's ponder the essence of what is being said. I can spot two gaping flaws in logic.
The lesser failing (from my perspective) is the outright denial of pack order. Just because you don't believe in something, does that mean that it doesn't exist? I can't decide if the statement that dogs don't judge others stems from naivety, being ill-informed, or maybe just a plain old stupidity. Nonetheless, denying that dogs have a hierarchy and that they don't seek for, or try to exert dominance in their environment is laughable. Try living with a pack of dogs and watch the lack of equality; observe their constant need to exercise their dominance through pack order; see how tangible and important the pack order is for them; get a sense of their confusion when that pack order changes in any way.
Dominance may well “allow us to hold onto the limiting belief that there is no abundance for all” but how does it do this for dogs? Does accepting that they are a different species with different rites and rituals from our own really “feed this unfairness by believing and then seeing a hierarchy or inequality in our own environment/reality”? Vacuous declarations made in an “All You Need Is Love” kind of way are all well and good, but for a human to dismiss what is so very obviously a very ‘real’ function of the canine world is to ignore what is important to them. It attempts to impose a lack of order upon them which is both stressful and unhelpful. The trainer’s implied ‘We know what’s best for you’ philosophy is reminiscent of colonialists or religious zealots imposing their ‘more enlightened’ world order upon ‘primitives’. It was barbaric and unacceptable then, and it’s no more acceptable if we do it to dogs now.
But there is a great deal more in this missive that really disturbs me. Aside from the wholly inaccurate and crassness of the statement that “they don’t 'think' about them or judge whether another dog is higher or lower than them”, it is the inflammatory “its never the mind that's deciding” declaration that gets me, since by implication, it must be somewhat more expansive in the factors of a dog's life that it encompasses.
If dogs are not forming judgments about one another, they must be reactive creatures that only respond from an emotional basis without pause for thought or consideration. There is even the implication that they cannot think, which must be one of the most spurious, backward looking, and almost defamatory remarks I have seen in recent times. Just as scientists are starting to accept that dogs have emotions, we have a claim from someone, purportedly 'in touch' with the spiritual side of canines, that not only implies that emotion and thought are two separate things, but that dogs don't do the latter.
As such, it presents our four legged friends as dumbed down versions of the beings we experience, by implication, almost mindless, utterly reactive and only capable of giving unreasoned responses (since reason, by definition, requires thought). I wonder if this person stopped to consider that without the capacity for, or exercise of thought, dogs are reduced to little more than the automatons that Rene Descartes declared them to be when he conducted his hideous public experiments on them in the seventeenth century, thus defining the acceptable Cartesian method for centuries to come, and fixing animals in the broader human mind as stupid, inferior and beneath us.
How many of you have looked at your dogs and actually watched them thinking, observed their (often) astute and calculating minds, and seen them give carefully considered situational responses to what is going on around them? Sure, I've seen countless examples of dogs being ruled by spontaneous outbursts of emotion, be that joy or fury, in much the same way that humans may allow their experience of an emotive situation to dominate their self control. But what about in the majority downtime that comes between these events? Humans give pause for thought, consideration and reflection in order to determine their responses to what goes on around them. Does this person really believe that dogs don't? What base creatures they must be.
Or is the bland statement that “they don’t ‘think’” meant to portray the misguided and idealised notion that dogs are in some way sainted creatures that only act out of love? This would be an equally demeaning way of assessing them, since it would rule out their capacity to act with discernment and experience their relationships as anything other than the blandest of superficialities.
Perhaps this individual simply believes that dogs think in some situations, but not in others? But why would that be the case, and what’s the evidence for it? She touts the much vaunted “They live in the moment” claim popularised by Cesar Millan, and goes on to claim that dogs “simply react to every single thing or situation with a new Feeling.” But this implies they have little memory, do not learn from previous circumstances, accept any harm that is done to them, are wholly forgiving, do not bear grudges, and a whole host of other factors that reduce their mental capacities. From our personal experiences, I can attest to the total nonsense of this assertion. Dogs can be thoughtful, sensitive and reflective. In their relations with the world around them, they will proceed with caution if warranted, fear if experience has taught them to be fearful, reticence if concerned, disdain if offended, and a whole host of other reactions that typify their high level of sentience, confirming their status as thinking beings.
Apparently for the sake of compliance with personal doctrine, this trainer chooses to reduce dogs to a lowest common denominator and by report, debases their being to one which focuses upon an aspect that she wants to deal with, namely that of non-thinking purely emotional creatures. In this state, perhaps they are easier to cope with and may be assessed as lesser lifeforms over which we may assume (perhaps justifiable) control; and although she would hate the word, dominance. Gone is their capacity for rationale, or informed decision. But with it too go caring, consideration, anticipation, sensitivity, and a whole host of other responses, because although they may be deemed emotional, they require thought and decision. And also swept away is intelligence. Reactive behaviour is spontaneous and in many respects, autonomic. It is not based upon thought, but upon accumulated experience that causes a ‘gut’ reaction.
Perhaps she assumes that dogs exist on 'emotional intelligence', that much beloved phrase of the business world. If this is the case, she needs to get her facts straight because emotional intelligence stems from innate or learned consideration of the needs of others; or in other words, the ability to demonstrate empathy. And this, of course, is something you need to think about before you can exhibit it.
But there's a further, really off-putting part of all of this: Dogs are considered pretty high up the pecking order in terms of their ability to relate to humans and form relationships. We value them for their loyalty, perhaps their malleability, and their connection with us. But if creatures we value so much are as unthinking as the comments suggest, then what value is there in those we consider less intelligent. To claim that dogs do not think is surely a scurrilous indictment of the whole animal kingdom that, in common with the flawed science of centuries before us, places us firmly at the top of evolutionary scale, and everything else far below. With ideas like this being touted by those who consider themselves to be 'spiritually advanced', it is small wonder that we still so totally and hatefully have precious little regard for the animal kingdom.
The trainer left one further comment regarding the follies of my book.
"Ultimately my work is heart based on the transmission of emotional energy into and out of the dogs heart and his [i.e. me] is still in the dogs mind."
I find the comment vaguely ridiculous in its inanity, and I love the fact that it implies that I'm the backward one. I get the desire to pretend that the world revolves around the ‘peace and love’ philosophy. It should indeed be that way. But I also fail to see the logic in trying to deal with any creature unless we try to empathise with its state of being and accept that like us, it has a mind that it uses. If we do not, we simply evolve a series of reactive responses to it, which our own human history has already amply demonstrated is a pathway to ruin.
I respect the right of everyone to their own opinions. It doesn't concern me in the slightest that she didn't like my book. I'm thrilled for her that she has “heaps of articles on my website that go into way more depth” arming her with the justifications of like-minded and equally misguided literature. But what a pity that she didn't use her own thinking capacity to give some consideration to the implications to all that she says.
Or perhaps like dogs, she doesn't think, and just gives emotional responses.
FOOTNOTE
I visited the website to read the "heaps of articles...that go into way more depth", and much to my amusement discovered them to all be (very poorly) self-penned and no more convincing.