Why Dogs have Self-Awareness.

Why Dogs have Self-Awareness.

Kresten as per usual miss represented my generalisation as an accusation. Such elitism is not uncommon in Scientism. It IS true that if you put in Humanism, Aristotle, and Descartes that is what the system puts out inevitably. But i made no accusation of this having been a deliberate effort; that Kresten projected that is evidence that it was Unconscious. Humanism is based in the notion of a Human Nature that can be observed in Behaviour and is suggested by Behaviour. This is the Naturalist Fallacy: that because you have a certain nature you must behave a certain way, and its inversion is what Nietzsche accused priests of doing: of assessing a being's Soul by virtue of its Actions, a fallacy as morose as the attribution of Meaning to Text. All text refers to other text, and all Behaviour refers to other behaviour; we have no access to another being's mind. We only have the capacity to 'ape' human behaviour with the hope that our comformity will appease another's consumer expectations.

Kresten insists that science is reliable because one can use it to control systems. Yet the post-modernists inverted this to say that power is not a measure of the sanctity of knowledge; knowledge is a measure of the will to power! All that any Sign describes is the relationship of Power betwixt a Signifier and a Signified; the sign its self has no A Priori value, because it is arbitrary and the Signifier, the Master in the Master-Slave Dialectic, can get away with it. Here we see how Humanism created science and how Heidegger, in rejecting Humanism, all so ungirdled science. The Chain of Being as an innate idea pre supposes that what rests higher up on the Chain is capable of accounting for what ever lies on a lower place of Consciousness, but the obverse can not be true. Thus the Master-Slave Dialectic is re born. Subject is divided from Object, (a gap that Heidegger re solved) the Object is represented by a sign, (of course: the division of Subject and Object was from the out set a sign) the sign is elevated to objectivity, and all animal rights abuses, environmental degradation, and Wattsian anti-materialism follow by moral justification from the Sign. The Sign is unified with other Signs and the Signs are arranged systematically in to a linguistic dogma that all people have access to but that none are allowed to criticise. This is not simply a church creed. This is Science.

Dm.A.A. 

The initial bias that dogs are inferior is necessary to establish the notion of objectivity ('objectification'), and a will to power is necessary to have the notion of knowledge (the i-It relationship). What you put in you get out, consciously or unconsciously. The researcher is judge jury and executioner because all empirical observations are scientifically meaning less until they have been represented by Signs, which all ways will be arbitrary. Think of racist policies in the past by way of analogy. We can commit the same unpardonable logocentric fallacy with any thing. If however we recognise that the division of subject and object is a linguistic formality elevated to metaphysical proportions by an age old elitist (Humanist) prejudice, then we see that we are what we observe, and if the Observation is an act of Intelligence (which now can have no antonym, having removed the Dialectic, so it MUST be) then Every Thing is Intelligent. And just in the same way that Behaviourism is Fascistic, de humanising in its Humanism, and epistemologically unwarranted, so it is when it is applied to animal species. All generalisations about species are marks of prejudice because scientists read and internalise each others' dogmas before corroborating them, and confirmation bias plays a large part in an arbitrary act where in one is literally making stuff up. It is an egregious fallacy to ascribe to an other a nature, to speak for those who can not speak, and to make a straw man of them. It is inhumane and unpardonable, and that it happens is only evidence of a will to power and a patriarchal elitist pretension. That Kresten lends value to the work of some one else only describes his hope that that power will trickle down to him; it is not empirical.

Dm.A.A.

All signification is an inter play of similarities and differences. To draw a conclusion is to construct an artifice as a Truth; it was precisely what Derrida tried to post pone. To call some thing 'significantly' similar or different is thus to admit to the arbitrariness of the signification. We impose these two Kantian categories as a false duality, based upon whether or not a certain behaviour accords with our pretensions about human nature, and the arbiter will all ways be our unconscious prejudices against the 'nature' assigned (=signed=signified) to the object. Moral maturity compels us to turn our intention in ward and to admit to this. Science, as a phenomenology of power, the sum of signs used to describe relationships of Power (as in a Newtonian Bureacratic Universe where in every thing carries out its social function with out free will), is ethically untrue.

Dm.A.A.

Madness is the tendency to equate things according to their similarities. Even a chemistry student can see the danger. What pigs share in common with dogs or what sets them both apart from humans is all ways a learned, logo centric prejudice projected upon the object. To dismiss the chakra system in favour of a mentality born from and confined to the third chakra, as most people ostensibly are, is sophistry.

Dm.A.A.