Unself-Consciousness: Not Always A Virtue

[Copperfox]

Mr. Lewis guessed that animals, like the bear who plays a part in "That Hideous Strength," do not have a clear understanding of the separation between themselves as distinct individual creatures, and the universe around them. I believe I have seen this in dogs.

In my opinion, to the extent that a dog (same applies to cats) is capable of anything like thinking, this thinking is distorted by the blurred line between self and non-self. Therefore, when a dog is hungry, he perceives this hunger as a condition of the universe; when he needs to go out and do his doody, this again is a condition of the universe, like the weather. This is why the dog will come and simply stare expectantly at his owner: the owner, after all, OUGHT TO be equally aware that "the universe is hungry," or "the universe needs to do its doody."

This unself-consciousness (accompanied by their inability to speak) can be frustrating with pets, though the possible explanations for The Stare are few enough that you can usually hit on the right one soon enough. With people, though, it can destroy friendships, even marriages. One person simply ASSUMES, without even thinking to examine this assumption, that whatever is annoying or offending him or her is a self-evident condition of the universe--which, therefore, some other person ought to have realized and remedied already, without having to be told anything in actual words. Consequently, the party with a perceived grievance may go straight from a stage of saying NOTHING to the perceived offender, to a stage of raging at this unwitting offender AS IF he or she had already known the offense and had been continuing it out of intentional malice.

Anyone who has looked at my prayer request, "Being Taken Advantage Of," will be able to figure out why I now have the inspiration to begin this thread. But independently of my own stressful predicament at the moment, others here must have encountered the general phenomenon: people whose brains are sealed off within their own perception of all events, never able to step outside themselves and see any other view. This, like SO VERY MANY other problems in human life, is only and always made worse by the FALSE wisdom of telling people always to follow their feelings.

You might call this thread the blue-collar counterpart of the "Isolated Intellectuals" thread.

[EveningStar]

On the one hand I understand your point. On the other hand as a trained animal behaviourist and someone with a great deal of experience dealing with large intelligent carnivores, I think you're dealing with old science.

This for the same reason that the dog fox brings his vixen food while she's nursing her pups. He understands that she's hungry, not that "hunger exists".

But you spoke of people who assume that what goes on inside should always be obvious outside. Actually this seems to be more of a human trait. The belief that "If she truly loves me, she'll cancel that appointment." We come up with these tests, don't tell the other, and then hold them to the results.

There are many and varied reasons why humans do this. None of them substitute for the more full life that God wants us to have.

[Copperfox]

I think that a dog's awareness of its own existence does not alter (or neuter or spay) the dog expecting its owner to know magically, telepathically, what is wanted. I think that this is why many dogs (I wish it were all of them) will
"give you a chance" with merely The Stare before they cut loose barking.

[EveningStar]

I'm staring at you. That's a badger's way of saying, "A Firkin of Wine and some Smoked Salmon if you value your ankles"....

All humour aside, a person's thoughts and feelings always colour their perception of their surroundings, and the people they meet. If you feel ugly, everyone is staring at you. If you feel lovely, everyone is staring at you. If you don't care less about your appearance, nobody notices you. If you are being deceptive, someone saying, "I didn't expect you so soon" sounds like an accusation. Etc so forth.

[inkspot]

I think maybe we all do this on some point, as the Badger says. I have done this to my husband, I know. One day when everything was going wrong for me, he had bailed for some legitimate reason, his work or whatever, and sometime later, there was a knock at the door. For whatever reason, I thought he had sent me flowers (which he does sometimes). I went to the door expecting a bouquet, and it was just FedEx or somebody, no flowers.

When he got home, I was mad at him for not sending me flowers. He had no idea ... He'd just been at work, and now he was in trouble for something I never asked him to do and it never entered his head to do ... Clearly I was the problem because I was having a bad day and expecting him to do something to fix it but not really saying what would help ...

Is this what you're talking about?

[Copperfox]

Close enough: an inability to step outside of one's own emotions to see whether the emotions have any justice.

[inkspot]

Yah I get it. And it's bad. I don't know, though, how to teach someone to separate themselves from their feelings enough to discover whether they are justified in the feelings. It's very hard! Yet in a way, it's the only way to be sure your feelings are true; that they have merit. If it turns out you are just mad or sad about something or toward someone who actually wasn't the cause of the feelings, it's very hard to readjust.

I think it takes a certain level of maturity to separate yourself from your feelings and try to look at them from another person's point of view. Maybe some people never get to that level.

[Ephinie]

I think that a dog's awareness of its own existence does not alter (or neuter or spay) the dog expecting its owner to know magically, telepathically, what is wanted. I think that this is why many dogs (I wish it were all of them) will
"give you a chance" with merely The Stare before they cut loose barking.
The thing is, CF, it sounds like the dog that was foisted off on you is badly behaved and badly trained. I've grown up with dogs all of my life, and MOST of them have not just given me a "stare" and expected me to know what was wrong. They communicate in other ways, like going and standing by the door if they need out or going and standing by their bowl if they need food, ect. Dogs have very intricate body language if you know how to read it, but I can see how a poorly trained dog would lack the ability to communicate in any way other than staring. They very much do have to be taught if they are going to effectively get their needs across without being a nuisance. If my dog stares at me, I stare back until he lowers his eyes or looks in a different direction. Hehe... little bit of a dominance play there.

But as to the actual point of your thread, the tendency of people to selfishly assume that others should just KNOW what they need instinctively... that I do understand. I've had A LOT of trouble in that regard in the past with some of my former roommates. I am usually very good at being able to sense someone's emotional state or mood pretty quickly, but even I'm not a telepath.

And I really really really hate it when someone gets mad at you and refuses to tell you why. And refuses to admit that they are mad. And expects you to somehow make it right all the while they are saying they aren't mad, won't tell you what's wrong, but continue to treat you in a hostile manner. :mad:

[DaydreamBeliever]

I think it depends upon the animal.In my lfietime,I've had 3 dogs and 1 cat,and NEVER have I ever not known what was wrong with any of them.I can feel/sense it as if I was one of them.They never stare at me,then bark.:confused:

Of course,my friends think I'm some kind of animal whisperer who can read their thoughts.In truth,I'm part Indian,and love animals dearly,so we get along well.:D

[Copperfox]

Actually, the dog foisted on me knows nothing of The Stare; she goes directly to barking and crying, does not pass Go, does not collect 200 dollars. My memory of The Stare comes from the much better-behaved dogs I have owned.

But getting back to human interaction: it's shameless plug time! In my work-in-progress over on Writing Club, my hero sent the heroine on that "rest-cure" trip WITHOUT HIM to allow her (among other reasons) to have a chance to "look from the outside" at HER feelings for HIM.

[Catherine]

Lewis said something about that (the human part, not the dogs) in the Screwtape letters, in letter 3, talking about the "patient" and his mother, and how if Wormwood did what Screwtape was saying, the patient would keep his attention on the actions she makes that irritate him, and he will assume that she knows it irritates him and so does it for that express purpose, which of course can be used to Wormwood's advantage. This sort of thing happens a lot, and we all need to keep our guard up for things like that, and not just assume people know when they are annoying us.

[Copperfox]

Catherine, that was a PERFECT illustration to provide! Screwtape had a rule that people should never be allowed to look inward and examine their own feelings at times when doing so might lead them to repentance; people were only to look inward at times when doing so would get them puffed up and self-righteous.

For those who have not read "Screwtape Letters": whatever Screwtape wants us to do, Mr. Lewis is really urging us to do the opposite!