We share our grief with animals

It seems to me (speaking of the original subject) that another position is possible, perhaps even likely.

That which grieves, loves. Therefore grief can be seen as love under influence of the belief that love can truly be lost.

However, one of the strongest expressions of a spiritual view of life would be that love is intelligence of universal relation. In the state accessed by near death experiences or mystical consciousness, grief does not readily appear to be possible, perhaps because the fact of universal relation is self evident. But in an "amnesiac world" where universal relation must at least seem to divide into apparent "selves," love reacts by assuming that it "can't be true" (that the loved one can't be lost). In that context, the mystical state can be seen as a recovery of the universal perspective that the loss of selves, and hence of universal relation, is a form of fiction.

In other words, grief is love under a false belief about itself.
 
I dunno. I haven't really taken the time to look at it from the perspective of moderating it. I'm kind of doing triage right now.:eek:
Ok. Well, hopefully we can keep everything out in the open... As someone who has been at the wrong end of the ban hammer, the biggest problems have been a lack of explanations, and a lack of consistency. For what its worth (probably nothing ;)) I would give complete approval to you as moderator if you addressed those issues transparently... Maintaining this thread would be very helpful to that end (or maybe start a new one, there's a fair bit of nonsense on there, partly from me).
 
I agree with malf that it would be helpful to maintain a suspensions and bannings thread. It's impossible to tell who has been banned without it.

~~ Paul
 
Just for clarification, I'm including the whole topic of selective reporting in parapsychology. Everything. That saves the trouble of figuring out what hair to split.

I understand that makes it easier for you.

I'm not clear why you would want to conflate two very different issues but I fear reprisals from you for pursuing this further so I will drop this.
 
It seems to me (speaking of the original subject) that another position is possible, perhaps even likely.

That which grieves, loves. Therefore grief can be seen as love under influence of the belief that love can truly be lost.

However, one of the strongest expressions of a spiritual view of life would be that love is intelligence of universal relation. In the state accessed by near death experiences or mystical consciousness, grief does not readily appear to be possible, perhaps because the fact of universal relation is self evident. But in an "amnesiac world" where universal relation must at least seem to divide into apparent "selves," love reacts by assuming that it "can't be true" (that the loved one can't be lost). In that context, the mystical state can be seen as a recovery of the universal perspective that the loss of selves, and hence of universal relation, is a form of fiction.

In other words, grief is love under a false belief about itself.

You are as bad as me, Kai... no, worse. How about a deal, I'll pip off if you pip off ?
 
Ok. Well, hopefully we can keep everything out in the open... As someone who has been at the wrong end of the ban hammer, the biggest problems have been a lack of explanations, and a lack of consistency. For what its worth (probably nothing ;)) I would give complete approval to you as moderator if you addressed those issues transparently... Maintaining this thread would be very helpful to that end (or maybe start a new one, there's a fair bit of nonsense on there, partly from me).

I'm definitely in favor of that. If someone just signed up yesterday and is being a jerk, they'll just get the boot. There's no reason to spend much time on that. For long time members, I see banning as an absolute last resort after everything else has failed and that person persists in disruptive behavior and will not stop it. And even that would only be after Alex and a small group of other long time members agreed that this was the best thing to do. I would never do such a thing alone. Even though there isn't a formal process, there is certainly a moral duty here to long term members of the forum treat them with respect.
 
I understand that makes it easier for you.

I'm not clear why you would want to conflate two very different issues but I fear reprisals from you for pursuing this further so I will drop this.
Thanks. This is really about making it easier for me and nothing else.
 
I'm definitely in favor of that. If someone just signed up yesterday and is being a jerk, they'll just get the boot. There's no reason to spend much time on that. For long time members, I see banning as an absolute last resort after everything else has failed and that person persists in disruptive behavior and will not stop it. And even that would only be after Alex and a small group of other long time members agreed that this was the best thing to do. I would never do such a thing alone. Even though there isn't a formal process, there is certainly a moral duty here to long term members of the forum treat them with respect.

That's broadly reassuring.... Just remember that for new members (on both "sides") that it can take a while to acclimatise to the culture of this forum.
 
That's broadly reassuring.... Just remember that for new members (on both "sides") that it can take a while to acclimatise to the culture of this forum.

I agree. I suspect it will be pretty obvious though. When people come in really angry they're usually not going to change.
 
My main concerns are trollish statements like "the research was published in an extremely prestigious journal so flaws in the protocols can be presumed to be imaginary" and "P-hacking doesn't apply to parapsychology"...I'd like idiotic statements like these to be filed away in a similar MDC bin, never to be revisited on the main forum...hopefully you can make sure users don't have to wade through troll droppings such as these anymore.

Not that it really matters. If the political ideologue is now the moderator, the wheels have officially fallen off and I'm out. PSI is real! Be well, all!
 
I'll put together a sticky for selective reporting and everyone can have their say there, and only there, on this topic. However, if you feel the need to further explore the skeptical viewpoint on selective reporting in parapsychology in the meantime I'm sure there are a wealth of outside sources to choose from. Here, we're going to move on to more productive pastures.
As per your request, I have posted a list of examples of selective reporting in parapsychology research in The Evidence Ghetto.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...-drawer-effect-comments-here.2304/#post-69203

Linda
 
Well, this thread ended up dealing with stuff that had f***-all to do with the topic.

Well anyway, speaking of animals feelings. We've seen them expressing grief, but here is some love. Skeptics often claim that the animal in question - that people say are showing love - are only showing submission to its "pack-leader", and it is because the "pack-leader" is the one who gives him food on regular hours. Love is not a factor here according to them - the animal is just excited because he knows his "pack-leader" is home, and the excitement only show submission
Anyone who have ever had a pet, knows that that is just bollox.

Here is some footage of owners who had been away from their family member for months (or years), and then comes home.


 
Last edited:
Hey Pollux, thanks for starting this thread. The grief videos were part distressing and part heart-warming, but not necessary to convince me of the fact that animals grieve and generally experience similar emotions to those we experience, which I already believed. A few days ago, I watched this video of an NDE experiencer's (she seems to self-identify as Erika (sp?)) testimony: Near-Death Experience; View with God's Glasses. What struck me was what she said was important to God: acts of love and kindness (see from 5:00 onwards). Animals are no less capable of these acts than we are, and often they seem more capable of them; you don't often find animals torturing one another for fun (house cats playing with mice excepted), they tend to love one another by default rather than by worthiness, and they are less inclined to hide their emotional states from one another and from us, as we sometimes (try to) do with one another, which is a type of love-through-authenticity. Each species has its own gifts (for more on gifts, see from 9:30 onwards in Erika's video); one of our species' gifts happens to be abstract cognition, but is this what's really important? So often we (as a species) judge ourselves as superior for it, but perhaps in the more important ways, we are, if not inferior, then at least on an equal footing with all of the other species.
 
Holy crap...that cat one had me in tears. Wow...

6. Cats.


7. Penguins.


8. Chimpanzees.

“Her presence, and loss, was palpable, and resonated throughout the group. The management at Sanaga-Yong opted to let Dorothy’s chimpanzee family witness her burial, so that perhaps they would understand, in their own capacity, that Dorothy would not return. Some chimps displayed aggression while others barked in frustration, but perhaps the most stunning reaction was a recurring, almost tangible silence. If one knows chimpanzees, then one knows that [they] are not [usually] silent creatures.”

HFHd7uM.jpg




http://higherperspectives.com/animals-mourning/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...111/grief-mourning-and-broken-hearted-animals
 
Hey Pollux, thanks for starting this thread. The grief videos were part distressing and part heart-warming, but not necessary to convince me of the fact that animals grieve and generally experience similar emotions to those we experience, which I already believed. A few days ago, I watched this video of an NDE experiencer's (she seems to self-identify as Erika (sp?)) testimony: Near-Death Experience; View with God's Glasses. What struck me was what she said was important to God: acts of love and kindness (see from 5:00 onwards). Animals are no less capable of these acts than we are, and often they seem more capable of them; you don't often find animals torturing one another for fun (house cats playing with mice excepted), they tend to love one another by default rather than by worthiness, and they are less inclined to hide their emotional states from one another and from us, as we sometimes (try to) do with one another, which is a type of love-through-authenticity. Each species has its own gifts (for more on gifts, see from 9:30 onwards in Erika's video); one of our species' gifts happens to be abstract cognition, but is this what's really important? So often we (as a species) judge ourselves as superior for it, but perhaps in the more important ways, we are, if not inferior, then at least on an equal footing with all of the other species.

Thanks for that video, I hadn't seen that one before.

Yeah, but we have to remember that animals are also capable of some hideous acts. I don't mean in the capacity of one animal eating another - 'cause that is the way of nature - but they treat each other within the same species, bad quite often. Bullying, ostracising, killing, and even raping, one another on occasions. So its not always compassion. But the bonds humans have with cats & dogs are quite special in some ways. Humans have had all kinds of different animals as pets through our existence, but the cat/dog-relation has transcended the bonds we have had with other animals I think. I know people who love horses, bunnies, hamsters, parrots, snakes, might disagree, and say the bond is equal to these animals as well. But I think the cat/dog-bond is a bit more special - and apparent.

Hachikō often comes to mind when I think about loyalties and affections from dogs;

"In 1924, Hidesaburō Ueno, a professor in the agriculture department at the University of Tokyo, took Hachikō, a golden brown Akita, as a pet. During his owner's life, Hachikō greeted him at the end of each day at the nearby Shibuya Station. The pair continued their daily routine until May 1925, when Professor Ueno did not return. The professor had suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died, never returning to the train station where Hachikō was waiting. Each day for the next nine years, nine months and fifteen days, Hachikō awaited Ueno's return, appearing precisely when the train was due at the station."

"Hachikō attracted the attention of other commuters. Many of the people who frequented the Shibuya train station had seen Hachikō and Professor Ueno together each day. Initial reactions from the people, especially from those working at the station, were not necessarily friendly. However, after the first appearance of the article about him on October 4, 1932 in Asahi Shimbun, people started to bring Hachikō treats and food to nourish him during his wait.

In 1932 one of Ueno's students Hirokichi Saito (who developed expertise on the Akita breed) saw the dog at the station and followed him to the Kobayashi home (the home of the former gardener of Professor Ueno—Kikuzaboro Kobayashi) where he learned the history of Hachikō's life. He returned frequently to visit Hachikō, and over the years published several articles about the dog's remarkable loyalty. In April 1934, a bronze statue in his likeness was erected at Shibuya Station and Hachikō himself was present at its unveiling.

"Hachikō died on March 8, 1935, and was found on a street in Shibuya"
Lasse Hallström made a pretty good movie about the story.


This scene was particularly memorable After the wife of Hachikō's owner had visited her husband's grave in town, she found Hachikō, who had ran away from home when she moved, sitting and still waiting at the train station. 10 years have past then.





 
Last edited:
Thanks for that video, I hadn't seen that one before.

Yeah, but we have to remember that animals are also capable of some hideous acts. I don't mean in the capacity of one animal eating another - 'cause that is the way of nature - but they treat each other within the same species, bad quite often. Bullying, ostracising, killing, and even raping, one another on occasions. So its not always compassion. But the bonds humans have with cats & dogs are quite special in some ways. Humans have had all kinds off different animals as pets through our existence, but the cat/dog-relation has transcend the bonds we have had with other animals I think. I know people who love horses, bunnies, hamsters, parrots, snakes, might disagree, and say the bond is equal to these animals as well. But I think the cat/dog-bond is a bit more special - and apparent.

Hachikō often comes to mind when I think about loyalties and affections from dogs;

"In 1924, Hidesaburō Ueno, a professor in the agriculture department at the University of Tokyo, took Hachikō, a golden brown Akita, as a pet. During his owner's life, Hachikō greeted him at the end of each day at the nearby Shibuya Station. The pair continued their daily routine until May 1925, when Professor Ueno did not return. The professor had suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died, never returning to the train station where Hachikō was waiting. Each day for the next nine years, nine months and fifteen days, Hachikō awaited Ueno's return, appearing precisely when the train was due at the station."

"Hachikō attracted the attention of other commuters. Many of the people who frequented the Shibuya train station had seen Hachikō and Professor Ueno together each day. Initial reactions from the people, especially from those working at the station, were not necessarily friendly. However, after the first appearance of the article about him on October 4, 1932 in Asahi Shimbun, people started to bring Hachikō treats and food to nourish him during his wait.

In 1932 one of Ueno's students Hirokichi Saito (who developed expertise on the Akita breed) saw the dog at the station and followed him to the Kobayashi home (the home of the former gardener of Professor Ueno—Kikuzaboro Kobayashi) where he learned the history of Hachikō's life. He returned frequently to visit Hachikō, and over the years published several articles about the dog's remarkable loyalty. In April 1934, a bronze statue in his likeness was erected at Shibuya Station and Hachikō himself was present at its unveiling.

"Hachikō died on March 8, 1935, and was found on a street in Shibuya"
Lasse Hallström made a pretty good movie about the story.


This scene was particularly memorable After the wife of Hachikō's owner had visited her husband's grave in town, she found Hachikō, who had ran away from home when she moved, sitting and still waiting at the train station. 10 years have past then.





No one can get all the way through that movie and not cry.
 
Back
Top