That’s fine. His idea is that animals will only worship their likeness and so should we. But he’s wrong, if the love babies have for their parents is worshipping, well animals will do that with animals that do not look like them, including us.
I don’t think that is quite what is happening. I think its a poor word choice. There is something differnt to me in what an adult human does when their worship a deity. But either way, you are disagreeing with his thesis, since many, many animals have been raised by humans only.
Cats don’t have the lovebond hormones to the degree that, for example, humans and dogs do. So, I am sure you are right. And I don’t like the word worship for what baby humans have in relation to their mothers for example. But Greatest I am is saying we worship those who are like us, which must mean our love bonds to other humans. If that is true, well, many animals lovebond with humans when they are found and raised by them. They utterly bond to them, just as they would to their same species mothers. They will also bond to other species if one of them parents them. Greatest is wrong either way.
Further he is wrong because my mother was not my likeness. She had so many different qualities, a very different body, different skills, and different emotional reactions, and she was much, much bigger. Heck she had breasts and language and songs and a lot of past pain baggage and a husband and long hair and she could carry me and did.
If I was walking down the street and a creature that much bigger than me appeared and was different is as many ways as that, I would be stunned and wonder what the heck it was.
And conversely , some albeit rare, feral babies occurred. I can vouch for that, in part.
Perhaps the reason for the historically worshipped demigod, consisting of sphinx like, or elephant like, beetle, monkey, fu-dog, cow, snake. and other.
Filling in manifold symbolism. On different levels.
Some of my Am. Native friends believe we each have a spirit animal that connects us to the divine in Nature. Be it Eagle, Buffalo, Bear, Coyote. etc, the spirit animal is our link to the belonging that Nature offers to all. The animal is a part of us and we are apart of it. Being domesticated, my cat Thai obviously sees me as one who makes sure he is fed and comfortable. I have noted some times of genuine affection from him, but I suspect that has to do with my being his provider. I would not rule out the possibility that my cat and I are united as separate eyes on Nature, on the whole of which our diversity is only one aspect. Maybe he knows what most of us have forgotten–our inclusion in ecosystems.
The fact that we all emulate as babies show our desire to mimic who we mimic for endearment and protection.
You are right that we will try to smile/cooperate with everything as that is our default position, given that we are born the weakest and most insecure animal on the planet.
If I smile at something, I am worshipping it? I have seen babies smile at dogs, cats, balls, snow…
[/quote]
mimicing something for endearment and protection is not worship.
If you think babies coorperate with everything you msut not have had a close relationship with a baby. They can be cranky, complain, not be satified and they make their complaints and upsettness quite clear. You keep using terms that are not the same as ‘worship’ to justify the idea that babies worship.
here you say that babies smile/cooperate with everything, which means that it is not merely their likeness they do this with.
[/quote]
Here you acknowledge that imprinting (not worship) will take place between species. So it is not the likeness that is important. Even if the creature is really quite fantasitically different from the baby, the baby will monitor and imitate (if it can) the behavior of the other. It will feel comfort in the presence of that creature, regardless of the fur, feathers, baldness, intelligence, language, power, number of hands, species, of the other.
You say All X are Y.
He demonstrates that this is not the case and you acknowledge that there are exceptions.
But you do not concede that your use of ‘all’ was incorrect.
His example with the black swan is exactly what you are doing.
It’s a small thing for you to concede that, alright, not all, but most.
And if it is so important to your argument that you must deny that your use of ‘all’ was incorrect, then the honorable thing is to concede and see what the truth is.
Otherwise this is just another preacher who cannot admit mistakes, and we’ve sure had a lot of that in the history of Abrahamism.
mimicing something for endearment and protection is not worship.
If you think babies coorperate with everything you msut not have had a close relationship with a baby. They can be cranky, complain, not be satified and they make their complaints and upsettness quite clear. You keep using terms that are not the same as ‘worship’ to justify the idea that babies worship.
here you say that babies smile/cooperate with everything, which means that it is not merely their likeness they do this with.
[/quote]
Here you acknowledge that imprinting (not worship) will take place between species. So it is not the likeness that is important. Even if the creature is really quite fantasitically different from the baby, the baby will monitor and imitate (if it can) the behavior of the other. It will feel comfort in the presence of that creature, regardless of the fur, feathers, baldness, intelligence, language, power, number of hands, species, of the other.
[/quote]
Your language is too narrow and if you cannot open it up we may as well forget this talk.
I am not interested in debating the definition of words.
Try to think the way this poem does, in a broad spectrum. If you cannot, I don’t know where you wish to go from here.
