View Full Version : Which wolf wins?
CarolAnn
05-26-2007, 08:09 PM
I helped out at a seminar recently, and there was a fable that she told that really appealed to me!
She said, "A Cherokee grandfather was telling his grandson a story:
There are two wolves that live within us and they are fighting all the time. One wolf represents all that is good within us; love, generosity, kindness, forgiveness, peace, and life itself. The other wolf represents all that is evil within us; hatred, selfishness, jealousy, revenge, cruelty and death.
The boy asked, Grandfather, which wolf will win?
Grandfather said, "The one you feed."
Peace,
Case closed, thank you.
;D ;D ;D
333
I don't know: I have been drawn back here a number of times without posting because I keep thinking that something is missing in that answer.
Option 1: love, generosity, kindness, forgiveness, peace, and life itself
Option 2: hatred, selfishness, jealousy, revenge, cruelty and death
And the question of course is "which one wins".
Wins what?
And what does "life itself" mean? By the same token of course, what does "death" mean (My death, the death of another... perhaps the concept of death?)
It just doesn't make sense in a way!
Let's say I was very loving to my family, showed great generosity towards them and showered then with kindness forgiveness and peace... but I hated those who would harm them, was selfish in sharing them with others, and took cruel revenge for toward all who attacked them.
My father was a quarter Cherokee, but we just assumed that was where his insanity came from!
I don't mean to insult, but it points out a very big problem with native mythology.
There is no darkness without light, and vice versa.
We wouldn't even be able to define love if hatred did not exist.
I'll give you another "Cherokee" saying:
A woman picks up a wolf cub and brings it home.
She cuddles it, feeds it, gives it the best of her household. One night she finds herself staring up at the hole in her tepee, gasping for breath as the last life blood runs from her throat.
She looks up at the wolf who has pieces of her flesh hanging down from its jaws and manages to ask why.
The wolf responds, "What did you think was going to happen you silly girl? I am a wolf!"
Your "wolves" are confused at best!
Peace,
Lets experiment with the greatest philosophical query ,
The Human Condition, life, defined.
Lets us examine, that which we call life, is the culmination of that which we experience.
(Aposteriore) [sensory perception], interpreted by that which we think,
(Apriore) [sensory interpretation]... then logic "warrants" the existence of a (Spirit)[principles], that which we think about what we feel, ergo, Philosophy, wisdom, enlightenment, evolution, resolution.
METAPHYSICS,
In other words, One experiences,............ {sight....., sound,... smell...,taste...,touch.} ergo [I AM.]...PHYSICAL REALITY,
EPISTEMOLOGY
Then One thinks about said experience...{emotions..., desires..., dislikes..., content..., discontent...interpretation..., }[I THINK, ERGO, I AM.]...KNOWLEDGE
AXIOLOGY
One thinks about , that which one thinks, about ones experience,.....That is to say, one places values, on ones interpretation, of ones experience...{ethics..., morality..., virtues..., aesthetics...,} [ I AM, ERGO, I THINK, HENCE, I BELIEVE.]...FREE WILL
LOGIC
One reasons, supports ones beliefs, on ones interpretations, of ones experiences, based in method and logic,...{truth...,fallacy...,creation..., destruction...,} [I AM, ERGO, I THINK, HENCE, I BELIEVE, I AM]... LIFE
I AM,... I THINK,... I BELIEVE,...I AM...I AM I THINK,.. I BELIEVE,... I AM..., I AM I THINK I BELIEVE..., I AM..., I AM I THINK I BELIEVE I AM,
IT SEEMS THE INTERPRETATION OF LIFE IS ALL ABOUT PUNCTUATION DENOTING PERCEPTION ;D ;D ;D
The wolves are a medium to understand the duality of man and his choices, we are what we choose in each moment to create. For better or worse is only a relative perspective on such notions as.... good or evil, if there even are such quantifiers as they would be based in theological concepts.
333
333- The wolves are a medium to understand the duality of man and his choices...
Wax- Yes they are (for some) and they work fairly well in this regard.
Yet for others wolves are a much closer analogy to man than simple duality.
I could not agree more with you that individual perception rules conclusion; my conclusions are based on my experience.
Man is a pack hunting predator, but many forget this.
It is the nature of man, it is what he does.
The wolf/dog is a pack hunting predator.
It is the nature of Lupis/canine; it is what they do.
There is evidence that man and wolf cooperated from the moment they met, it was an exacting fit and the two entities were so close in psyche that a unity of nature was formed.
But a viewer sees what is desired.
Loyalty, submissiveness, nuturing and any number of other qualities are inherent in a pack mentality. They are viewed as good by many... in fact by the modern majority.
But the pack also includes, and one could easily argue requires, a number of qualities which far too many reject as "evil". Power is a physical and psychological requirement for a pack, this insures a class system; a leadership role and a submissive role.
The wolf understands where it is in the pack.
In my opinion, too many men pretend not to and attempt to reject the concept.
Peace,
Beautiful discourse, thank you.
Acceptance of the fact we are "predators" or even in the nature of predators is seemingly irrefutable with one exception...that we "choose" to be predators and the wolf does not.
I agree we can not escape nor should even attempt to deny our human instincts to hunt and preserve our quality of life. These traits are not evil, they are self reliant.
Man is a pack hunting predator, but many forget this.
It is the nature of man, it is what he does.
The wolf/dog is a pack hunting predator.
It is the nature of Lupis/canine; it is what they do.
I wonder if the wolf would choose, such a violent existence, if he were capable?
Good stuff thanks ;D
333
333- that we "choose" to be predators and the wolf does not.
Wax- This one divergence in the two approaches that you and I represent is so very basic that it is almost a direct opposite.
It almost voids a meaningful conversation concerning the nature of man because the two of us will always fall back on our basic understanding of what man is... and because those understandings are mutually exclusive they can not be justified with each other.
Don't worry... you are not alone by any means in declaring that man has a choice in being a predator.
I am simply not in agreement with that judgment.
At best... at the very best... an individual man may choose to deny his predatory nature. He or she may look in a mirror and claim to see any number of things, but that is little more than an observational quirk... a self delusion.
In other words, we can certainly choose to not kill, but that does not mean that we are not killers.
Yet... the claims of "freewill" and some higher purpose to mankind persist. In some ways they are a modern phenomenon but the basic concepts and tenants have been around for a very long time.
My stance has 40,000 years of societal history to back it up... so I am sticking to it!
But your approach is interesting at least:
Would a wolf choose to be prey if it could?
MMmmm... OK, that was a bit slippery.
Would a wolf choose to not be a wolf?
I think it is the same question as why do some people choose to be pacifists?
The luxury of security and affluence allows pacifism. When one does not need to join in the hunt one can fool oneself into thinking that the hunt is not as important as it once was.
Of course this is completely untrue, but it is an expected phenomenon concerning belief.
Peace,
Fatalism and predestination do not float with this fella, the item which separates us from the animal world is exactly our ability to choose, to reason,to think, to choose to kill, to choose to lie.
We are the only species with this trait on the planet, no matter how intelligent dolphins and elephant etc, are they do not have the ability to ponder about their instincts, nor conglomerate to conspire. Killing may full well be in our "nature" after hundreds of thousands of years of genetic structure.
Animals kill to eat, so do we, animals kill in defense, so do we, Animals do not kill for sport or the thrill of it, we do, animals do not kill over political agendas and economic stimulation, but .. we do. We are what we choose to be in each moment, history is written by the victors and not the vanquished, but every once in a while the story from the other side gets out and the message is always clear. To what end all this taking and killing and raping? It is a vicious cycle with out end.
I am human, I am capable of destruction for certain, I have destroyed, no denying it, and most definitely will destroy to protect that which is dearest to me. But I would rather see my creations bear fruit, than to ponder whom I will kill and subdue next because, it is in our fate, destiny, reactive nature.....balderdash.
All to often there is a huge mistake made by alpha dominants in the world, that benevolence, mercy, compassion and peace is a sign of weakness. They are the pinnacle of human evolution, the flower of our existence, the animals will never know this fruition, their programming will not allow it.
Excellent discourse thank you , and even if we do not agree, I will kill or die for your right to believe as you wish.
Happy Birthday U. S. A. When in the course of human events......
333
I agree that our right to disagree is one of the most important foundations in public discourse.
It would be boring if we did not differ on occasion.
And if one or the other side were suppressed... well we have other Americans to thank for the fact that such a thing has not occured... and our own resolve to insure that future generations are safe from such tyranny.
Anyway: While it is doubtful that you or I will be swayed in changing our opinions concerning the nature of man, it is important for the two of us tyo discuss it here.
My own son came across this thread while researching a home project and we can assume that any number of other people may read it who have not fully formed opinions on the subject... in fact, may not even understand the issues involved.
333- Animals do not kill for sport or the thrill of it, we do, animals do not kill over political agendas and economic stimulation, but .. we do.
Wax- Ahh... that fundamental difference in understanding again!
What you state above is a widespread belief.
I do not hold to it.
Many... many... many like yourself do.
Can I convince someone who claims such a thing and actually believes it?
I don't know... probably not... but I am will to try!
The claim that man is the only animal that kills for sport or thrill is an urban (and very modern) myth at best, in fact it appears to have been part of the liberal claim that man is lesser than others in nature and thus must despise himself.
We know otherwise.
Killer whales are notorious for gleefully flinging young seals into the air and slapping them with tails. They love it!
They will often play keep away with a half dead example and then leave the body to simply sink into the depths.
Why?
Because all predators kill for sport and thrill.
Most pet cat owners know this intuitively because they have witnessed examples of it; just watch one once, not only in the act of actually killing without consuming the victim which happens quite often, but simply in their play!
Sport is death!
And death is sport!
Thirty years of political correctness can not change this fact... even if some hate it so much that they pretend it is untrue.
But then you go further than most.
Man is the only political animal?
Not by a very long shot I am afraid to say.
Every fight in the natural world which is not based on predation is political.
And however rare it might be, death does result.
In fact, for some predators death is virtually assured.
But politics and "economic stimulation" can be just as confusing in the natural world as in our false human construct of society.
No matter how one looks at it, economics is the securing and use of resources.
Ask any male lion what that means because they are not only aware of it but personnally invested in the concept.
If he is very tough, and very lucky, he can kill to take over a pride.
When he does kill another male and take over his females he will also kill all cubs that male produced.
They understand why even if it sucks.
They were killed for political and economic gain... and that is just the way things are!
Chimpanzees of course are the most well known examples of killing for all of the reasons you claim only man does.
What far too many fail to realize is that man has not created a single reason for killing... not one!
Dolphins will join into teenage roving gangs, they will kidnap and rape any young female they come across and when they are done with her they will kill her if they can.
Why?
Because as much as we would like to deny it, violence is a universal predator trait.
It is about this point in time during a conversation that some "treehugger" (not you 333 but some other) will declare that man really isn't a predator and that we are more like other omni-vours or even herbivours who somehow went insane and forgot what we enjoyed eating.
They will claim that man is a helpless "babe in the woods" and that we hid for most of our existance (and yet somehow conquered the entire world while being afraid of our own shadows) but they make a huge mistake in doing this.
That is because killing for political and financial gain is not solely a predator trait.
The most dangerous animal in Alaska is not the bear but the moose. During rut (a time based on political and financial gain) a male moose will treat you like a two dollar whore in a boomtown! Bovine have horns for a reason, rams but heads... we could go on but it shouldn't be required.
Again, I don't intend to convince you 333 because I understand that you have thought about the issue and came to a conclusion.
I might not agree with it but I must assume it is well formed.
And I don't expect everyone reading this to cede to my wisdom and simply take the claim as matter of fact.
Study animal behavior and choose for yourself.
Peace,
Well said and full of logical premises, if not valid conclusions.
I love to hunt, I yearn for it, it is in my nature. I will choose a venison meal over todays hormone ridden meat any time. Goose is a fine meal most folks wouldn't know what wild meat looks like cause there is no white meat in it.
Every time I enter the field, scouting recreation or stocking the freezer I always spend 90% of the expedition as still and un invasive as possible, observing. It only takes a few minutes and the woodlands seem to come completely alive, Rodents and Raptor's, playing their game. Insects and song birds playing theirs. The larger folks in the wood seem oblivious to my observation as they produce some of the funniest sites to behold.
In all of this the animal is only acting out its program with out reason, with out logic. It only knows what its instincts tell it, life until it lives no more. They do not reason why, they do not wake up each morning and reflect upon yesterdays choices and apply them to todays endeavor.
Nature and evolution have given these beasts the tools they need to act out their program with out malice. The most common arrogant error man makes is to anthropomorphize everything. If this were proper then premises for, as you said before about dolphins gang raping would be valid behavior and valid conclusions for humans to emulate, unless of course one can "reason" that this is not acceptable.
That is to say, have compassion/ empathy for the notion of what a horrible experience being gang raped is. I am certain the dolphins do not kick back with a forty and reminisce over their exploits. The "politics" in the animal world are innate for their survival, not some agenda to make them popular and garnish favors, or crony-ism.
I love and respect nature as best I can, I steward it and foster its growth, and at times I cull and harvest. I do this by choice, while others destroy their environment yes by choice, errant but still choice.
Thanks wax a good conversation.
333
333- The most common arrogant error man makes is to anthropomorphize everything.
Wax- And I claim the opposite.
To me, it is arrogance to claim a property and declare that man is the only one that has... without any proper evidence to the contrary.
I would concede that man's use of natural logic has reached its highest form to date among natural creatures... but I will not declare that man is alone in using it or understanding it.
In my opinion, we don't give credit where it is deserved.
You state "In all of this the animal is only acting out its program with out reason, with out logic."
How do you reach that conclusion?
Observed action?
Observed reaction?
What mean to say is that it is an extraordinary claim and as such must have extraordinary evidence.
You mention observation, and I agree with you that we at least share an interest in obseving the natural world.
Of course we can not fully communicate with another lifeform and so observation only goes as far as intent concerning the observation.
Have you ever seen a pet dog lower its eyes and pull itself toward it's master after doing something it has been told not to?
It would seem to me that the animal in question is reflecting on a past activity.
But of course the observer makes the judgment and there in lies the problem.
I know of a dog that checks the kitchen every day at 3pm.
The dog does this no matter what day of the week it is... simply a learned behavior of course.
Yet if so, it is a very "human-like" behavior concerning self awareness and logic.
Friday through Sunday the dog looks in the kitchen and finds my wife there, he then goes back to whatever he was doing.
But Monday thru Thursday my wife is nowhere near the kitchen in question at 3pm.
And that is where the problem concerning humans being the only animal with logic begins.
The dog knows that it is 3pm.
I don't claim that the thing can read a clock and tell time, but somehow it knows that it is 3pm.
And if it is 3pm and my wife is not currently home, then the dog knows that she will soon be coming home.
First he just starts to get a bit jumpy, he is simply getting excited that she will soon come walking through the door.
And he knows that when she does walk through the door she will bend down and rub his belly and tell him that he is "such a good boy" for waiting for her.
It is the only time she does this... and he really likes it!
And much like a child who has heard an mention of ice cream he can not take his mind off from the fact that it is 3pm and she is about to come home.
We have already demonstrated an example of logic concerning the animal but as seconds slip away his logic becomes observable to anyone who wishes to observe it.
My children have written his tale of logic and often recite it with great enjoyment:
It is 3pm and she will be home any moment.
Let's check the door!
Nope... not yet.
Make sure she isn't in the kitchen.
Nope... she's coming home... time to check the door!
Nope... not yet.
Let's just sit here for a moment.
Any minute now.
Aanny mmminute nowww.
Nope... but wait!
It is 3pm and she should be coming home.
But she hasn't come home.
Sometimes she is already home at 3pm.
But where would she be if not the kitchen?
We could go on but the point of course is that the dog in question demonstrates self awareness, learned desire, and logic.
You might claim that this is "simple" evolutionary instinctual behavior but... well I refute that.
I refute it for a simple fact:
If my wife enters the house from any point other than the front door the dog will visibly sigh and simply go about his day, assuming that she was not at work and thus will not rub his tummy and declare that he is a "good boy!"
He will assume that his logic was in error and she hadn't been at work.
I don't expect you to agree with my conclusions concerning my observations of non-humans... but I give them as an example of why I hold those conclusions.
333- That is to say, have compassion/ empathy for the notion of what a horrible experience being gang raped is. I am certain the dolphins do not kick back with a forty and reminisce over their exploits.
Wax- I envy you for such certainty !!! :)
You actually raise two issues however.
Compassion and empathy exist to be sure, but they are measured by human standards.
Emotions do not exist in reality, yes feelings certainly exist and have an impact but emotions are descriptions of feelings as interprited by human observers.
More to follow:
I had to check my recordings to insure that I had the episode of National Geographic in question. I do.
A pride of lions attack and wound a young elephant.
The only elephants present are the child(calf) and its mother.
After the attack the child is limping but rejoins the herd (I don't know if my terminology is completey correct).
Other elephants come over and touch the child.
Some inspect the wound but most simply lay a trunk across the child's head.
Empathy and compassion?
One would need to say that these acts are not enough but I claim that the next example is:
While some elephants attend to the child others lean against the mother and rumble in low notes.
At first the mother seems to pull away denying whatever they are trying to convey but eventually she stands still.
Can I claim that these elephants are supporting a young mother and telling her that it is "alright... she couldn't have done anything other than what she did?"
Well I can claim it... and you can reject it on the basis that I have no proof of anything because of these observations.
Yet I can claim proof concerning what happens later, even if you do deny it!
The child dies.
Everyone has heard of the mother elephant who refuses to leave her dead child; just a stupid natural instinct and she doesn't know any better right?
After the child dies other elephants (the same ones offering support after the attack) investigate the body and determine that it is dead.
But they don't simply leave after determining the fact that the child is dead... they stand to the side in a group and wait for the mother.
Empathy?
They don't care any longer about the child as far as natural instinct is concerned.
But they do "care".
You suggest that the dolphins in question simply forget about the rape in question.
Of course that brings us to the second problem presented.
Human rapists do not see rape as a "horrible experience". They see it as an enjoyable endeavor and feel quite good about it afterward.
They don't want to be punished for it but any supposed "regret" is an avoidance of punishment at best, not an innate human quality like empathy.
This is the Philosophy forum so we can not prevent discussing one of the greatest failures concerning philosophy itself.
It assumes a standardized "good" and thus right or wrong can be used to grade on a curve.
Boy... We will need a whole other thread for that!
To the male dolphins who kidnap and rape a female there is little reason or need for anything remotely resembling regret.
Rape is good!
And yet... they often kill the victim.
Why?
If they are unthinking and not logical why not simply "get their rocks off" and let the victim go?
What purpose would killing her be since they do not plan to eat her?
I would argue logic dictates she be killed.
And of course it brings us to the next problem concerning your claim of human superiority.
Animals across the board deal with each other on an individual basis!
It is an observable fact that can not be refuted.
Human observers know this because they identify animals personally and the know that subject A will not be able to enter group A's territory even if subject B can without a problem.
If your theory were correct and animals did not possess memory and use logic to interprit that memory, then observable interactions could not exist.
Individuals are treated differently in nature because animals do remember and do use logic to "decide" a course of action!
Any farmer knows better. There is one cow that the others do not like!
There is one chicken that is bullied.
There is one pig that gets kicked around for seemingly no reason at all.
Empathy, logic, interpritation, decision... none of them are a human creation.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.