Call me Russ L

I have seen it suggested…

Posted in Modern Living by Russ L on 26 November, 2011

…. that a puppy might be an answer existential crises, presumably due to the fact that the needs of a dog will assure you that your own existence is necessary for it to continue. It’s not a Cartesian perspective, but I’d never deny that there are different ways to look at the world.

While I appreciate that I do have a liking for “be a link in the chain” types of thought, remember that from a cat’s perspective you simply do not exist until the point where you can do something for the cat. You are, basically, moving furniture prior to that point. This strikes me as a helpful way of envisioning a more scientific perspective. Your own ego matters not; the things that will or will not occur are important. I admit that we do need to envision a specific cat as God to read it precisely like this, but that if we go by what we observe then that doesn’t seem completely unreasonable.

Of course I’m a modernist at heart and I’ll begin to wonder about points of view and so forth. Seriously, though, do you expect me to argue with a cat?

Going back to the start of this, anyway – it’s not a cat/dog thing to start with. I’ve met at least one terrier who occupies the cat-coded position, and I wouldn’t argue with her. She’s never bitten a human, but her woofing is fierce. I don’t want to be sent off by her.


5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Pete Ashton (@peteashton) said, on 26 November, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    I think Fi just felt it would be nice to stroke and cuddle. But yes, indeed, and so forth.

  2. Russ L said, on 26 November, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    Yeeeeeah you see what happened there was all such as that I saw a comment on someone else’s blog post that led to a thought firing off from something I’d been thinking about anyway, and so I made a post on my own blog that mentioned no names. This was silly.

    Given the time that I posted it, it was entirely and completely obvious what I may have been referring to (solely) in the first sentence, even though I wasn’t intending to respond to it directly in any way.

    Nevertheless, if any unintentional “sorry” is required, I offer it freely. Any sorry-causing statements genuinely weren’t intended in that sort of way.

    I also apologise in terms of looking at it from the perspective of the imaginary one looked at by our imaginary cat, which could take a lot longer explaining why I’m wrong. But yeah… sorry. It’s suddenly occuring to me what sort of thing I might have been saying without intending to say.

    Most of all, though, for self-preservation reasons I should apologise for pretty much anything opposed by the specific dog I was speaking of.

    I don’t want to be sent off by her. Many postmen are still in therapy.

  3. Pete Ashton (@peteashton) said, on 26 November, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    The whole thing amused me greatly. I don’t think Fi has given it a second thought since her initial bemusement when I showed her.

  4. Pete Ashton (@peteashton) said, on 26 November, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    Also, I think, in the trade, we call this an “implicit link”. FYI and that.

  5. Russ L said, on 27 November, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    Looking back, it strikes very strongly how surreal my post and subsequent comment were.

    I have been violently sick between then and now. Perhaps the first sympton of the virus was “typing some absolute complete nonsense”.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s