Enlightened Ducks
An article on Urban Monk.net begins with an interesting metaphor. I started to leave a comment and decided to turn it into a post. From UM.net:
"Two ducks float peacefully along in their pond; suddenly one crosses too far into the other duck’s territory. A fight starts – fast and furious. It lasts for only a few seconds before just as suddenly they float off in their respective directions. As they do so, they flap their wings furiously, and then they return to their peaceful floating as if the fight never happened."
This led me to think:
I wonder if ducks don't get over things so quickly because of not identifying with themselves in quite the way that we do. A duck is part of the larger world and unselfconsciously dwells there, one with all, whenever its borders aren't under actual threat. Even when they are, its response is proportional – it’s never a duck out of the larger water.
If humans ever really catch on to the idea of humanity that the wide world has tried to hatch with us, then it will be because we have become like ducks who have noticed their true place and position in life.
"Two ducks float peacefully along in their pond; suddenly one crosses too far into the other duck’s territory. A fight starts – fast and furious. It lasts for only a few seconds before just as suddenly they float off in their respective directions. As they do so, they flap their wings furiously, and then they return to their peaceful floating as if the fight never happened."
This led me to think:
I wonder if ducks don't get over things so quickly because of not identifying with themselves in quite the way that we do. A duck is part of the larger world and unselfconsciously dwells there, one with all, whenever its borders aren't under actual threat. Even when they are, its response is proportional – it’s never a duck out of the larger water.
If humans ever really catch on to the idea of humanity that the wide world has tried to hatch with us, then it will be because we have become like ducks who have noticed their true place and position in life.
Posted by Paul at 10:32 PM Permalink
16 Comments:
I was at the Botanical Garden last summer, admiring a mother duck and her several fuzzy ducklings, on the edge of a very small stream.
Out of the blue, came a male duck who left his mate in the pond some ways upstream and attacked the mother, driving her away from her babies. I could not stand by without helping her, so I chased him away. He would not give up, and kept coming back and attacking the mother duck.
Finally, I escalated the fight by throwing what stones I could find, at the intruder. I soon ran out of small stones, the last stone left was a hefty one. I heaved it at the male duck, it landed in the pond's edge with a big splash! Unfortunately the muddy splash landed partly on the white pants of a young man who was watching the scene with his date. He then proceeded to loudly curse me out, calling me every name he could think of. No amount of apologies from me would shut him up.
Now, it seemed to me that both males in this story were equally stubborn and needlessly aggressive.
(They both had their dates to impress, I wonder if their females also thought they were acting like idiots!)
But did you hear about the banker from Spokane Washington who coaxed a bunch of ducklings to drop, one by one, into his waiting hands from a high ledge just outside the bank where the mama duck had built her nest?
All but four ducklings ventured the fall into the man's hands. They were too afraid to try and nervously paced back and forth on the ledge. So the banker got a ladder and climbed up to get the remaining four ducklings.
After that he then led the mom and her brood (or whatever they are called) through the streets, which were now filled with a crowd of spectators cheering them on, to a nearby river where the feathered family jumped in and glided away.
What a duck story! And what a banker!
LADIES… Even worse, what about Jane Goodall’s roving gangs of thug chimpanzees? Yeah, yeah, I’m pretty sure they were all male… But then there was that incident where Jane lost her temper and punched one of them out. (It might be apocryphal.)
The human/nature distinction is blurry in all kinds of ways, egoism included. That said, the natural world generally displays less egoism than people do.
And well I can answer only from my point of view..
for the past one month I have thinking on this phrase that came to me(in one of my poems) "ego less divinity ".. what do you think?
I sometimes hold myself responsible for what happened. I should have found another home for one of the collies. We tried, but the two dogs should not have been kept together. Both dogs were females. The first collie was the Alpha dog. We had two beagle at the time, too. The second collie would not stand her ground with the first. She was ever so timid.
I believe my tendency to want to take responsibility for the incident is an example of one way in which humans are different. What do you think? Do you know of any other animal that has a sense of moral responsibility?
In getting serious about your duck theory, ducks behave according to instinct. They have no sense of self. No ego. Is this true of other animals as well? Can some animals suffer disgrace which would require, I would think, an ego?
The ego in humans is said to separate us from the rest of life. But isn't the ego a necessity in humans. Doesn't it serve a good purpose. Before Freud coined the word ego, what did we call it?
You can find out more here (I hope it's OK for me to put a link, feel free to edit it out)
http://www.urbanmonk.net/618/the-confusion-about-ego/
This leaves me still wondering what ego, in the spiritual sense then, was called before that word was coined.
I checked out your blog earlier using the link Paul provided in his post. I like it. I'll return to it again I am sure.
As I recall, Freud's ego was the reality-based aspect of ourselves that balances the interests of the superego and id, so that's quite different from selfishness which seems to me the thing that people are usually trying to talk about with the word. However, I've also seen it used in a way that seems to refer to the entire self except that aspect of the self accessed in mystical experience.
I remember when they first found that monkeys use tools and later became aware of the sophistication of dolphin language. So neither tool use nor language definitively separates people from all other animals.
But we sure use tools a lot more than any other animal and we're for sure one of the most communicative species. And if we don't have the biggest egos, I can only think of one other species that comes close: male ducks.
But kidding aside, what seems to distinguish us from animals is the combination and degree of attributes that set us apart rather than any one thing.
This is not to say that dolphins, for instance, are not intelligent creatures. Intelligence is not all that is needed in order to acquire language though.
I have followed one particular blog for about four years now. It is maintained by a retired professor of linquistics. He has not been as active lately with his blog as he had been in the past. But a couple of years ago he wrote extensively about language and its evolution. This link will take you to what he had to say about dolphins and language. You can find in his sidebar links to the articles he wrote about language evolution. It is all interesting stuff. Here is the link:
The Language Guy writes about dolphins and language
I guess I will need to keep reminding myself that when you write about the ego, you are talking about selfishness and the self. Maybe you can explore the duck theory more or something pertaining to the difference between humans and animals. I think I would like that.
Post a Comment