Had to get back
hm?
To the Source - The Garden
every good boy does fine
Yes but let’s not leave out cats, reference yet to be determined, it has been noted that cats are different , when they look at you, they don’t look at you as a person with such and such traits, but they look elsewhere, in a depth, as if sensing something beyond whee people can’t see, an energy form, and then, after that ‘see’ the person in front of or, before that insensible object.
every good cat does fine
even out of tune
Well , not every cat, some are really bad , born to that way, and some regress to kitten in a matter of a very short period of time, showing skittish and very strange behavior.
This cat ain’t doing no regression back to kitten… and showing not skittish but strange behaviour…
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay4tGcZYApM[/youtube]
I’d call it suicidal.
It’s lucky the dog is being playful.
_
That is indeed one brave stupid cat…
More like… smart dog.
…which doesn’t make/mean that the dog is smart… so unfounded reasoning found on idle chat, ergo small-talk bore.
You know you love yourself.
Changing reels, boundaries
Question or surmise that if the can picture boundaries, then they can form compensatory pre-ego spaces of building some defensive techniques, maybe even forming images of an ideal master who may take better care of them if they are good dogs
Not only human personality but even the personalities of other living beings are driven by three primary elements of psychology i.e. “Id”, “Ego” and “Super Ego”. These three elements were defined by Sigmund Freud, the Austrian Neurologist who is also regarded as the “Father of Psychoanalysis”.Dec 8, 201
Wiki
Do you mean that the personalities of not just humans, but also other living beings are influenced by three fundamental aspects of psychology. These three elements may refer to different theories or concepts within psychology, but they likely play a significant role in shaping the behavior and temperament of living organisms. It’s possible that the author is suggesting that certain innate traits or instincts are universal across species and contribute to the development of individual personalities. Or maybe they may be referring to broader psychological concepts such as motivation, cognition, and emotion that are believed to be important in shaping behavior across species?
I am thinking in general, as a suggestion that can be expanded from basic forms of the now commonly discussed , is it nurture of instinct which drives us from bottom to top, is behavior reversely demonstratively determinate, as a reverse paradigm.
In other words, was behavior as determinate in the evolution of personality, as is nowadays supposed.
And yes, there are only simulations that f breaks between types of animal creatures, that some would uphold on basis of a ‘natural endowment, that human beings would/could not fit into, namely, uthat sentience necessarily is not reducible to.
That difference tends to obscure a universal Typograph pay, and could not extend ‘lower ‘ animal’s conditioning toward the pre-existent conditions which evolved necessarily by other modes than learned behavior. That problem has relative value nowadays, as indeterminate as it was in the older days, and made the gap between them less clearly articulated, although the perimeters correspond to a more fine tuned process of approximating cross cultural and other observable phenomenon.
Even with the dogs’ learning, certain instinctive behavior must be re- evaluated as pretty fixed, and some changes can evolve, but certainly, the work going into conditioning out of aggressive behavior can be wasted, unless admitting to the fact that the a flash point trigger buried under a lot of training can be turned upside down, and return to behavior that was still under a consciously manifested field ( id call it) and it is not really a learning with the permanent erasure of aggressive behavior, but a kind of preferable overlay of simulated human behavior.
But here is where it dies get more tricky, even some measure of human traits appear instinctive in digs, so without giving examples, which can be brought out later, preferred conditioning builds on that part of dog behavior that is more receptive to the humanly preferred.
So the point becomes clearer that the even digs have a measure, as slight it is, to possess familiar instinctive possibilities which are more sentient then not, thereof implying the process becoming lifted toward the secondary, to the purely instinctive: associated with bad dogs.
In some measure this firm of approach softens the argument between creationism and exclusively determined behaviorism - which can imply a strictl divide, although to a fairly large degree it can be surmised as a biased argument to favor a particular argument.
Even digs have what appears to be behavior which raps around spatially arranged behaviristic implications of logistics, a dilution of the sentiment absolute logos,
where such process simplifies a continual resource of structural hierarchy even for dogs.
Sculptor, these thoughts of trying to simplify learning of dogs as different from how trainers go about it, are cingruant to the identifiable differences that exist between a projected and intojected firm of representation, I gather.
I skimmed it. Perhaps what we’re calling “human” in dogs is what is “person“ in all beings with the capacity for it (including human beings)?