oing Shakespeare

MAXIM: • Behavior is based on instinct • quality of survival is based on the intelligence of behavior • intelligence determines how well one adapts to ones environment — i.e. intelligence is based on thinking (click).

WHY INSECTS AND ANIMALS THINK AND FEEL Historic writings elevating animal wisdom above human The source of thought and thinking Image and why not speaking is not the same as not thinking The role of thinking in regards to instinct Why insects and animals feel When animal thought is more poignant than human When animals think like or out-think people The opinions, concepts, and philosophies of animals Let the show begin!

THE HISTORIES, TRAGEDIES, AND COMEDIES         Two Gentlemen of Verona         King John         Hamlet, Prince of Denmark         The Taming of the Shrew         Measure for Measure         Romeo and Juliet         Titus Andronicus         Closing

HISTORIC WRITINGS ELEVATING ANIMAL WISDOM ABOVE

Inner human beliefs on the subject: The questioning of insect and lower animal thought, feeling, and thinking has been seriously raised throughout history even with writers like Tolstoy (click). Something in the psyche of the human being has always suspected that animals do in fact think and feel as we ourselves. To begin with, many a person holds an animal as their closest friend and even confidant (when people talk to and share their deepest feelings with dogs) as they feel more compassion, loyalty, understanding, empathy, and good-willed co-operation from the animal than they do from man. The animal as friend and confidant we find in Dorothy's dog, Toto, in The Wizard of Oz or Timmy's dog, Lassie, in the show by the same name, to name a few.
It is commonly heard that, "My dog knows and feels everything I feel and always comes over to comfort me, pawing me, putting his chin in my lap when he knows I'm feeling down and tries to cheer me up. I couldn't live without my dog." Such a person will live without people (and there are many) – but not without their dog. This says something of the perception of such people as they feel human beings can't fathom or are deficient in humanity to such an extent that they do not possess the ability to empathize — whereas, in such a case, a dog has both understanding and heart and is more highly regarded and preferred as a companion over a person. A person will betray or forget you: not a dog. Dogs, in this sense, have higher qualities than people and are more people than people.
If love and care are the human emotions that one most craves and are of the most human value to give, and are given to the most valuable thing, then it is interesting that people who love their pet more than people feel more care and love from their pet and give more love and care to their pet than they do to people with stroking, hugs, kisses, walks, and so forth. And witness the number of millionaires who have to their pets left their estates and fortunes and to their relatives left nothing. In fact, the popular Disney movie, Aristocats, revolves around this theme where Madame Bonfamille wills her millions to her cats and thereby evokes the jealousy of her butler. Animals occur everywhere, though: the Bible has its own "To be or not to be animals." The "to be" are the ant, dove, lamb, or lion and the "not to be" are the snake and swine. The ant was the symbol of industriousness, the dove the symbol of peace, the lamb or submissiveness, and the lion of undaunted courage as Jesus was called the Lion of Judah.
Animal befriendment is especially common to the child, the elderly, and the lonely with their dog and cat pets, though the horse is also commonly figured as closest friend as in the old Greek flying horse, Pegasus, to National Velvet and the tv series, My Friend Flicka and Mr. Ed. Walter Farley's horse-boy series, The black stallion, The black stallion returns, The island stallion, in each case feature a horse as a boy's closest allay and friend. Certainly today as at the dawn of history, for hunters, their dog may be their only or closest friend: one on which they rely, place their lives in the hands of, and trust more than any human. Literature and film are filled with dogs and other animals held in the role of a human's closest companion – and/or confidant – Lassie, Old Yeller, Rin Tin Tin, Flipper, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, or E.T. Movies, or shows incompatible with audience sensibilities die quickly. Where the above were movies or shows, they, on the otherhand, caught public fancy striking a resonant chord audiences could relate with. And there is significance in that.
That the human feels animals think and feel as does the human is given testimony in stories or fables where animals act and think as people and are often held up as models to aspire to or shun – or, the animal may even judge man, be man's god. From ancient Egypt comes the riddle from the oldest human monument, the oldest remnant of earliest civilization: the lion-man, the Sphinx. The Greeks later also had half-man, half-animal creatures like the centaurs and Medusa though from them moral lessons are hard to learn. But, an ancient Greek gave us the story of persistence in The turtle and the hare known by every child: one of the collection found in Aesop's Fables. Back to the Sphinx: that a man so tested would live was dependent upon him correctly answering the Sphinx's riddle. And in ancient Egypt, the alligator, Geb, was a god, and cats were gods and thus even higher than human: again a story of animal over man – or actually, that's when in history it first occurred – and that was the first thing that occurred in civilized history that we have record of.
It was in ancient Babylon that most believe astrology emerged and it again is the animal which is the paragon of the person where the sting of the scorpion, the might and mastery of the lion, or stubbornness of the bull, are what people of a given sign consider to be the epitome of such a feature (for the better or worse) found in themselves. Speaking of the bull, beginning with its presence on cave drawings, the bull has come down through the ages and it is the bull market characterizing the successful activities of the business class in providing gainful employment, the fulfilment of dreams, the vehicle for individuals to make a positive contribution to the building and maintenance of their societies, and the means of sustenance for those peopling the national economies of the world. If we change the typical meaning of the term juggernaut and consider it to be as positive a force as it usually is negatively, then the unstoppable charging bull symbolizes the economic juggernaut in us, in our nations, and in regional and world economies.
In both above cases, astrologically and economically, it is not man model for animal but animal model for man. Ancient Chinese mythology gives us the dragon while the Chinese Calendar features the animal-designated year where its qualities rule life for a periodically recurring 365-day period. The Genesis story, located in the very first book and chapters of the most important books in the Western world, the Torah and Bible, give us the talking serpent which tempted Adam and Eve to fall bringing sin into the world. The wisdom of the serpent to Adam and Eve was that of wise beguiler to naive children. Animal again, by intelligence measured, master over man.
To the ancient Maya Indians of 3,000 years ago, the jaguar, meaning "kills it prey in a single bound," was the god of the night. It was admired as it is fierce, powerful, proud embodying the features they coveted for themselves. In Peru are the so-called Nazca lines, precisely executed animal figures made in outline form of small rocks (one laid after another) in the forms of a whale, hummingbird, monkey, and heron (the heron is 900 feet long) and made, experts say, between 350 BC and 600 AD. No one knows who did them, what they stand for, or why they were made. But, given the nature of the animal to man as teacher, model, and symbol to aspire to, it is probably safe to assume that in the Nazca lines are exemplified features that in the minds of their makers the human being would do well to emulate. Grimm Fairy Tales are replete with stories of animal intelligence and wit-sparring with man and man is certainly not always the winner.
Thus, from the outset of man leaving cave and in the North African, Middle Eastern, Far Eastern, Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman, and South American cultures, culture began with and has been imbued with the concept of the intelligent animal from the first and most important of cultural artefacts. The intelligent, morally instructive animal has been a mainstay throughout later history as well (maybe unconsciously following ancient precedent?). Beatrice Potter gave us Tales of Peter Rabbit, Two Bad Mice, and so on. There is also Kipling's Jungle Books with talking snakes, bears, lions, and the like, or A. A. Milne's ever-so-gentle and harmless Winnie the Poo and the Hundred Acre Woods with its assortment of deepest friends. Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer instructs children that the ridicule of ones peers should not be taken seriously as all are endowed with precious gifts that others can find precious. Puff, the Magic Dragon also encourages inner faith and hope as does Rudolph: to rely upon ones own resources for strength and good.
That the grown-up not feel neglected. Herman Melville gives us Moby Dick who still knew his human pursuer, matched wits with, and in the end, caused Captain Ahab's own destruction in a violent watery death. And, there is Jack London's Call of the Wild and White Fang where the respective dog and wolf-dog heroes are human in all but specie and also symbols of a wild, irrepressible freedom, coveted by many in civilized society. And speaking of the wolf, in each culture since time began (though in different languages) people have been called after animals.
In the America, you have Mr. Wolf. In Hungary, Mr. Wolf goes by the equivalent, Mr. Farkas. The American Indian tribes had a host of different languages and a host of different wolf names: Grey Wolf, Cunning Wolf, Great Wolf: the wolf was admired as a dominant hunter. But, there are dozens of animals that became human names in Japan, Africa, and everywhere else, especially nicknames: Beaver (the tv series, "Leave it to Beaver"), Bird (Charlie Parker was called "Bird"), Camel (my friends called me "Camel" because of my profile) and so on.
Even more prevalent has been the characterization of the person as an animal. He: is wise as an owl, is as stupid as a donkey, is sly as a fox, runs around like a chicken with his head cut-off, is a chicken, is dangerous as a snake, is slow as a turtle, is as dirty as a dog, is a parasite, is strong as a bear, stubborn as a bull, swims like a fish, climbs like a monkey, sings like a bird, sounds like a frog, eats like a pig, is gentle as a lamb, fights like a tiger. In most cases, from the animal-point-of-view, these characterizations have an intellectual dimension as they fit the person in question. This is so because the outlook and behavior of the animal matches the outlook and behavior of the person in question under similar circumstances. Simply put, this means that man has the same intellectual orientation as and behaves like a given animal as the animal historically preceded man. Man is like animal and not vice versa.
Animals selling products and representing economies: To begin with, products and services summed together represent the hopes and aspirations of the nation of people – and the families they support – producing them and find expression in national government policies and macroeconomic terms as employment, growth, and inflation summarized in the animal images of a bear or bull market. The Merril Lynch investment firm, one of the most prominent on Wall Street, has the bull as its logo.
So far as actual products are concerned, the owl, we use it as the sign of intelligence and in snack foods have Wise Potato Chips featuring an owl: you are wise to eat them. If I say, "Sugar frosted flakes are ..." if you're from America, you'll say, "Grrreeaaat!" This breakfast cereal is sold by Tony the Tiger and at one time, he was the successful manager of any boy's baseball team that needed, and got, the extra inspiration needed for the game-winning home-run. The favorite ice-cream of many is Penguin. The Frigidair company uses the polar bear to advertise its refrigerators. An athletic shoe company goes by the name Puma. Smokey the bear is used to sell safety in America's woods and forests. Pharmacists use the symbol of the snake to indicate their medicines are for sale: "Used cautiously, help is here," the message is.
Innumerable cars are named after animals. The: Barracuda, Cougar, Mustang, Firebird, Phoenix, Pony, Beetle. It is a safe bet that in the days of the Roman Empire, chariots were given the name of animals. We have already had the prophesied Third World War: it was the United States against a single cylindrical shaped leaf wrapped in paper under the protective banner of the Camel. We're speaking about the infamous cigarette that held the country at bay: and Camel ruled for generations and almost won the war. How are animals chosen and what has that to do with the human psyche? Exemplary animal qualities were sold. For instance, there was never a car named The Pig as that animal has derogatory features. The otherwise wonderful Cadillac, however, was diminuitively called a hog because they used so much gas. Derogatory animal images speak to the negative while saluted animal images speak to the exemplary paragon which we aspire to imitate and embody. In the psyche of the human beings, animals are often our models.
The contribution of the first three quarters of the 20th century: Today's children will know the old Warner Brothers films of Woody the Wood Pecker, Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and the Road Runner. And they will recognize Yogi Bear, Tweety Bird, Top Cat, Mighty Mouse, and Deputy Dog all the preceding act human in word and deed. They will know Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck of Disney fame and the dinosaurs of Steven Spielberg's Juraissac Park. And while we say these are children's stories, we should not forget that they were created by adults and therefore reflect the thinking of adults taught to children such that it reinforces the child's own inner beliefs. The West missed the thousands of charming animal stories made for television in the old Soviet bloc countries from the 1950's through mid-80's. Western tv producers should search them out for the wealth of morally instructive children's stories they have created. Animals featured as people make a billion dollar industry and appeal to the heart of the human: which is to say appeal to children – the closest the human gets to nature.
The contribution of the last quarter of the 20th century: If we can see a cultural break in the portrayal of the animal-as-model followed since the beginning of time, it is with many children's cartoons today which are mechanical, computerized, or violent in nature. No longer is the innocent animal as a moral teacher significant in that new genre. Today's creatures of imagination teach death, bloodshed and destruction, or they are portrayed as foolish, valueless, and given to mindless humor. We also find Barbie and G. I. Joe. The reader can supply her or his own adjectives. The last quarter of the 20th century sees imaginary images warping the human psyche. On another note, from the beginning of professional sports this century to its close, a great number of baseball, football, and basketball teams carry the names of animals showing that the animal is still in the portrayal of certain features still the model some aspire to: The Bulls, Bears, Bengals, Hornets, Ravens, Seahawks, Panthers, Eagles, and Cardinals, for example. There is hardly a high school without some team named after an animal and countless amateur teams have animal names. The South African soccer team is named after the lion.
All of Middle-eastern, African, American Indian, Eastern, and Western culture and civilization is now intertwined with one another, have loaned to and borrowed from one another the image of the intelligent animal. The civilization of the world for the spirit of the human has from the beginning and all of time embraced the idea of either the superiority or intelligence of animal life and all of these beliefs have mixed and merged throughout the stirring of human history.
Without science acknowledging it or somehow measuring the fact in scientific studies endorsed by the American Institute of Mental Health or the United Nations World Culture Institute, the human being of this century has gone on doing what human beings of every era of human life have done: given evidence of subliminal belief in the widespread existence of the often superiority and/or intelligence shared amongst not only the human but all of life. And the combined efforts of medical science have not come to understand the aids virus or cancer cells. They understand us, though, don't they? Try to explain to them that they don't or shouldn't know what they are doing in the most complex cells in the most complex biological organism in known history. If that's done, disease will be consigned to historic nightmare and we'll all be disease free if viruses can be taught they don't understand what they're doing.
Animals as the symbols of peoples, nations, States: It has not been properly appreciated how one the human race is, but to note some key examples – when they are so commanded – armies, sport's teams, orchestras, choirs, ballets, political parties voting at state-wide or presidential elections, and so on act as one body expressing the one will of its leader. We have the church as the body of Christ. When the State prosecutes a person who committed a federal offence, the trial is described as The State vs. some person. The whole of a people is represented in a single person. That single person acts for the whole. There is no such thing as an individual when a collective body has been given a command. Also, the words, ambassador, representative, spokesperson, envoy, and the title of any elected office negotiating for the rights of those he or she represents are – for all practical purposes – all of those people he or she represents. Through the leader, the people speak with one voice.
It should be significant, then, that when the animal is chosen as the national (or any other) symbol, that that body of human beings has seen qualities in the animal representing it that that body wishes they manifested to the level present in that animal. The Korean special forces are known as Tigers, as that is how they see themselves: fierce and indomitable. In America, every State is, further, represented by some animal. America itself sees itself as "The land of the free and the home of the brave." i.e. a nation of eagles.
The first people in human society to chose animals to represent their State were the ancient Egyptians who chose the cat to represent their State and the lion-man the Sphinx, was just the largest of the kind. That, though, is not completely true for the constellation of Leo is even larger and all animal constellations from Scorpio, cancer, Taurus, et. al, are animals. As mentioned, the Maya selected the jaguar as their symbol, their god, 3,000 years ago. Many official buildings have statues of lions as even does the New York Central Library. Jesus was called the Lion of Judah and also The Lamb of God as lambs are submissive and obedient. Christians are supposed to be as sheep concerning the will of God. However, the early Christians also chose the fish as the representative of Christianity whereas during the earlier astrological period of Taurus, Taurus the bull represented many religious sects. Speaking of Christ, and noting Christ was peaceful, we can acknowledge that those believing in peace are symbolized by the dove while those favoring war are identified with the hawk. The ancient Romans and modern Americans chose the eagle to represent their State. The Russians chose the bear. The Swiss are identified with the Saint Bernard.
The qualities those animals represent are intellectual in nature for faced with identical situations people are in, those animals adopted outlooks and behaviors which were models for the outlooks and behaviors people historically aspired to under similar circumstances. For instance, the fearlessness of the jaguar, wolf, or bear in the face of challenge. They interpret danger as do we and their response is not to cower but to strike fear in and crush an antagonist: just the mental frame of mind and outcome which is needed in a jungle or ruthlessly competitive world such as societies have always had. Not that that world is compatible with one based on the Love of God. We might say that the time from man's emergence from the jungle until today warranted a jungle mentality as society evolved to the point that we could leave the law of the jungle, evolve spiritual societies that Jesus came and died for, and abide by the Love of God. That would be a natural progression and require a whole new ethic for we to lay the foundation for and the future to work out.
At root, animal behavior is intellectual in nature and characterised by thinking (please click). The reader is asked to refer to a considerable discussion paragraphs below concerning the thinking nature of the animal and their "human-like" response to situations humans find themselves in. These animals perceived the same situations or realities as people and responded in the ways people historically admired as models for their own outlook and behaviors. And in being chosen as symbols of peoples, nations, and States, tribute is being paid to the superiority of the chosen animals to the people, nations, or States they represent.
Why historically hasn't man been held up as a model for man?: Above we have mentioned many things and institutions that use animal names. Sports teams, national symbols, cars, foods, and so on. Why don't people use the names of people for sports teams as people are superior to animals? Why aren't the St. Louis Cardinals called "Stalin's warriors?" Stalin was a man. He was, by some measures, successful. Comparatively speaking, the human prefers the animal as a model to aspire to over man. Animals are cross-cultural, constant, predictable, reliable, timeless. A given animal's features, when in the identical situation a type of person would be in, are held as the models to follow. So, the eagle is more widely known as the symbol of freedom, and not George Washington or myself. The lion, tiger, or jaguar are the popular symbols of strength that have endured the ages, not Hercules nor the 90 pound weakling presently writing this essay.
The inferiority of human intelligence: In other essays, the writer discusses his opinion that things of nature are manifestations of intelligence manifesting intelligent behaviors so here, that will not be spoken of but left as a statement with the following conclusions. For all the intelligence and supra-human qualities the human claims for himself, he is inwardly cynical against and rejects claims of human superiority when selecting models to follow. Man gives evidence of subconscious feelings of inferiority and paragraphs below the next discuss why. Man, when we consider it, is not so all powerful. We are terrorized by mosquitoes, flies, roaches, mice, rats, and viruses as simple and tenacious as the cold virus and as lethal as aids or ebola.
Dust mites destroy human happiness with infernal allergies. Bed bugs render a night sleepless for many. The body can be felled by a single cancer cell going about the business of multiplying its microscopic-sized self and 100% of the human population can only detect the existence of a cancer colony after considerable damage has been done. And, the last few sentences has only been speaking of the tiny creatures. We steer clear of sharks, wolves, lions, and tigers. Cautiously tip toe through forests with deathly fear of ticks. The human does not really believe the myth of his own superiority. He says it just to make himself feel good. Anyone claiming the superiority of the human is invited to take an injected cocktail of ebola and aids.
When a person is chosen as a model, he has geographic, social, and temporal limitations: people are held as models from a given town, city, or country, for a certain group of people, for a certain period of time. And then 99% of such people are thrown into the garbage can of history after the passing of a decade, generation, century, or millennium. But, the Sphinx is still the greatest animal symbol known from one corner of the earth to the next. And it is older than any other cornerstone of civilization. And, it is not a man. In fact, research shows that the actual proportions of the Sphinx as well as the angle of the face may indicate that it was chiselled out of an original head of a lion. The head is proportionally much too small for the body and poorly aligned. In any event, that the Sphinx might originally been a lion (and not lion-man) is something to consider when evaluating the real role of the animal in the development of the human psyche and the existence of animal intelligence and behaviors being driven by intellectual equivalence to man.
Why historically is animal held out as teacher of man?: Why the supremacy of the animal over man found at the dawn of each human culture as civilization made perhaps its first emergence from the caves? Firstly, in the historic memory of each prehistoric people's was the fact that, indeed, the animal did out-think, out-wit, over-power, and out-do man. Let us reflect that if we did not have supermarkets nor guns, that most human beings would never eat another ounce of animal flesh again as we are neither fast enough, strong enough, or smart enough to catch an animal in the wild. In prehistoric days, before man acquired guns, animal and man were not on par. Man was as much hunted as hunter. Man was frightened by the elusiveness of animal food as failure to capture it spelled hunger and he himself was often supper. Little surprise, then, that animal intelligence and strength were admired. And, in this age, we might forget that stripped of modern advantages, animals would again out-wit, out-think, over-power, and out-do man. It would become concretely clear to this age as well that the animal possesses intelligence.
Secondly, man is the fruit of the animal: from watery roots, to the trunk of early reptilian life, to the branches of early mammalian life, to the twigs of late-early ape-like life, to the flower of human genesis, man is by inheritance an animal. We always hearken back to our genetic past: swarming to the beaches for sun and swimming, taking sail boat and motor boat out onto the oceans and all that to embrace our ancient aquatic roots; traipsing to the forests to camp out, hunt, and fish, and thereby harkening back to our hunting days; given to planting every spring, and owning flowers from a florist bought, and thereby harkening back to our planting/farming days. In all we do, we keep one eye on the genetic/historical past even as we keep the other eye on the future.
Somehow we know that the wisdom of nature that spawned us, created intelligence in us that surprises us to no end when we see unforeseen, wonderful variations of it in our children, somehow our genes are telling us that nature has equipped all things with useful and hidden intelligence. The life of the human is cut from the cloth of the animal and what we think and feel is simply an inheritance. And that is why we feel, yea, know, that the animal thinks and acts as we ourselves. Or rather, that we think and act as the animal. But, at the same time, we both are acting out scripts written by God in forms distantly designed by Him. And, somehow we know that all living things are imbued with intelligence. But for the atheist, omit these last two lines and all the remainder is still true: human history is a testimony to man's belief in the intelligence of animal life.

THE SOURCE OF THOUGHT AND THINKING

Perception and feeling as the spring or root of thought: Intelligent creatures think. It should be clearly stated at the outset that the sole purpose of this whole essay is to elucidate the existence of animal intelligence hence, thinking, and thereby establish the fact that the essential experience of living creatures – where the basics of life are concerned – are virtually the same as human: even to its intellectual heights. And in Part II, the histories, tragedies, and comedies of Shakespeare are presented with animal characters to dramatize the point and to simply entertain. To that end, however, we begin with the significance (or insignificance) of the spoken word.
The stringing together of words in the form of sentences and the quality by which they are strung together – such that evaluations are made or ideas are formed – is the process by which intelligence is measured. Teachers, stringing words together with higher quality than students they teach establishes their greater intelligence in those areas of learning. And, in that animals do not string words in the form of subjects, verbs, and objects together, the perception is that they possess little semblance of thought, intelligence, or thinking. The building block of intelligence and thinking, then, to our perception, is words – but, is that correct? Perhaps intelligence is more accurately measured in • an accurate perception of a situation or reality • accompanied by the feeling • which generates problem-solving behavior. And, how are words fished from the mind and what has that to do with the question of animal intelligence and thinking? At the close of 1997 Antonio Damasio, of the University of Iowa, wrote:

When we retrieve a word to name a particular object, the mind does not let us glimpse directly the complex machinery that was put to work to come up with that word. We also have no sense of the relatively long lapse of time taken by the brain to perform the search and selection. ¹

How words and thoughts are selected is indeed a mystery for we have to think about a word or string of words before we can select them – but the paradox is that we choose before a choice is made. David Bohm, an associate of Albert Einstein, addressed this question stating, "As I speak, my words are not chosen one after another. Rather, an entire set of words flows out of an intention to say what I mean."² The writer submits to his belief and sees the significance in it being that the building blocks of words forming the house of sentences by which intelligence is measured is a false measure of intelligence.
The writer feels that intelligence is embodied/contained in intention or feeling which catalyzes behavior where behaviors are comprehensive actions like a movie made of infinitely tiny frames or steps which together attain intelligent purposes. For instance, fear generates the behavior which saves life, but that behavior is made of comprehensive actions (running, fighting, defending) made of frames or steps which together attain the intelligent purpose of saving life. Thus, intelligence is in intention or feeling generating intelligent behaviors and these feelings and their complementary behaviors/actions are commonly expressed in man and animal. And this is why, therefore, that man and animal are equally intelligent.
Concerning intelligence further, it serves nature no purpose for one life form to know everything but it does serve nature to have a given life form to be intelligent about the things it needs to live and enhance its life. Therefore, each has areas of intelligence and ignorance even while sharing things in common. For instance, in common, we share with the insect the recognition of day, night, winter, summer, dryness, rain. Concerning specialized intelligence, each life form knows things of its own self and environment that man is ignorant of – and vice versa. Should man become any given animal (say a centipede) with a man's brain (shrunk down in size and weight to fit inside a centipede's head) he would perish in a matter of hours or days due to ignorance of the intelligence needed by that animal to live.
It is all it can do for a human baby to walk on two legs, much less 100. As a centipede, you or I would not have the foggiest idea of how to walk, what to eat, where to sleep, how to maintain cleanliness, avoid danger, mate, lay eggs. We would not consider ourselves intelligent if we were centipedes. We'd feel rather, well, dumb. We'd look at our centipede friends and think, "Gee, I wish I were as smart as she. Some centipedes have all the luck." We'd see our human friends and wish to run over and hug them but would probably be ungraciously accepted with the toe of their shoe grounding us to smithereens into the floor, carpet, or dirt. The aids virus knows comparatively more of the human body than the human being knows of the aids virus. Thus, intelligence is relative. The above several paragraphs were a divergence. We will pick up the thread where we left off: intelligence is an embodiment of the complex and complimentary relationship springing from perception of reality and catalyzing a successfully completed, goal-oriented and feeling-generated behavior.
We will introduce certain examples offered by Daniel Goleman who covers brain and behavior sciences for the New York Times and who's articles appear around the world in syndication. He has taught at Harvard and was senior editor of Psychology Today. From different configurations of brain centers, neurotransmitters, enzymes, and muscles each unique configuration resulting in a specific behavior, Goleman speaks of the emergence of human behaviors – or what we might call Bohm's intentions.

The amydala acts as the alarm center in the brain. When it sends an alarm, say, of fear, it sends urgent messages to every major part of the brain: it triggers the secretions of the body's fight-or-flight hormones, mobilizes the centers for movement, and activates the cardiovascular system, the muscles, and the gut. Other circuits from the amydala signal the secretion of emergency dollops of the hormone norepinephrin to heighten the reactivity of key brain areas, including those to make the sense more alert, in effect setting the brain on edge. Additional signals from the amydala tell the brainstem to fix the face in a fearful expression, freeze unrelated movements the muscles had underway, speed the heart rate and raise blood pressure, slow breathing. Others rivet attention on the source of fear, and prepare the muscles to react accordingly. Simultaneously, cortical memory systems are shuffled to retrieve any knowledge relevant to the emergency at hand, taking precedence over other strands of thought.

With anger blood flows to the hands, making it easier to grasp a weapon or strike a foe; heart rate increases, and a rush of hormones such as adrenaline generates a pulse of energy strong enough for vigorous action.

Among the main biological changes in happiness is an increased activity in a brain center that inhibits negative feelings and fosters an increase in available energy, and a quieting of those that generate worrisome thought. But there is no particular shift in physiology save quiescence, which makes the body recover more quickly from the biological arousal of upsetting emotions. This configuration offers the body a general rest, as well as readiness and enthusiasm for whatever task is at hand and striving toward a great variety of goals. ³

Please take a moment to read the important remainder of the Goleman writings at amydala. The most obvious point is that • perceptions of reality generate feelings. • Feelings trigger an interplay between organs, enzymes, neurotransmitters, and muscles. • This interplay is expressed as goal-oriented behavior (i.e. behavior). Any goal-oriented behavior is intelligent and the collection of them in a given animal makes the animal itself an intelligent being. • This behavior is accompanied by emotion, feeling, sensation, and mental aspects. • Even simple behaviors are based on gradients of complicated little actions as cartoonists know well. Video game or Disney animation artists give us the best clue of the thousands of tiny sequential actions needed for the expression of the simplest behavior or emotional expression (surprise, anger, ecstasy, frustration in human and animal expression). • Intelligence is the organization of goal-oriented behaviors (the preceding) and/or awareness of their expression. • Thinking is remembering past or planning future event-based behaviors such that if a fly sees a hand swatting at it, it remembers from the past that that's dangerous and must plan it escape and this is thinking. • Words and talking are only giving voice to one of the foregoing things. Thus, the difference between man and animal is that man voices the previous things and animals don't but their stock of intelligence and thinking is the same (adjusted for their environments).
Feelings beget words and strings of words: To conclude on the note began, thought has its root in feeling for man and animal. Words, sentences, thought, thinking, and ideas are framed within the context of the feeling dominating a particular person at a particular time. Happy feelings will not beget terror. Angry feelings will not beget love. Happy feelings will beget happy behaviors, words, sentences, thoughts, and thinking. Feelings of terror will beget terror-filled behaviors, words, sentences, thoughts, and thinking. Angry feelings will beget angry behaviors, words, sentences, thoughts, and thinking. Love will beget its own behaviors, words, sentences, thoughts, and thinking.
Our words are determined by the feeling dominating us at a given time and it is only feelings which generate words or which can generate words, their strings, and verbal expressions in the form of thought which we consider to be evidence of intelligence whereas it is not. Feeling begets words. Intelligence is in useful behaviors springing from feelings. And feelings are the same for man and beast. Where behaviors are useful, the feelings are manifest of intelligence, and when they are the same for man and beast, intelligence is the same for man and beast.

WHY NOT SPEAKING IS NOT THE SAME AS NOT THINKING

Instances of non-verbalized thought preceding action – the bias of identifying words with thought: There is a bias where humans equate thinking with talking. Yet, we should consider the validity of this perception on the broader scale of things for even with the human, in the majority of cases, not only does thought precede action, but it remains unvoiced. The world, for instance, will never know what carefully premeditated thoughts lay behind the murder of Johnny Versace's killer, Andrew Cunanan, as he left no notes and committed suicide to allow mystery surround the event. The police closed the case after six months citing their inability to produce a motive. Yet, thoughts lay behind and fashioned his actions. That they were unvoiced does not mean that they were unheld. Often, plans are carefully cogitated in the mind and only sometimes later voiced. Yet, in the case of animal and insect, each action has its cause and serves an intelligent end but has a motivation which is unaccompanied by human words.
When animals talk: the superiority of tone over verbalization: Animals "talk" but don't use human words. Sounds and tones are the medium and hold the message in their communication. NBC Europe aired a National Geographic program on killer whales on December 27, 1997. Speaking of their communication system, John Ford stated that, "They have their own unique language but not nouns and verbs like ours. They use unique tones. And each pod (the extended family group to which a whale belongs) has its own unique dialect."
Tones themselves must have been equally as important in pre-human language before the evolution of words. And, it is tone itself that most accurately distinguishes happiness, lust, anger, hate, doubt, pain, grief, sadness, joy, and ecstasy and they are hard to feign and thus remain reliable indicators of true thought or feeling. NEC, the Japanese electronics firm, is working on a computer that can recognize sound and would require 10 million English sounds to interpret 500 English words into Japanese. However, those same 500 equivalent words in Japanese would require 100 times more sounds, or one billion distinct sounds to make the proper translation from 500 Japanese words into 500 English words.⁴
The point to draw from this is that tones (and shades of tones – and shades of shades of tones) are indeed key to understanding true thought, emotion, and intention. Words alone are quite unreliable for anything more than superficial understanding. The most significant conclusion is that while animals use tones to communicate, tones are in essence more useful than words and thus, a more significant language (for its purposes) than words. Finally, tones are not inferior to words, but superior. In a sense, words give less information than tone. And, research shows that words only provide 10% of meaning in any social interaction between people: the remainder, 90%, comes from non-verbal information including voice tone. Animals, having tones, have, for their purposes, a superior language to human vocabulary and the grammar rules giving structure to them. Animal-to-animal communication yields 90% more truth, clarity, and honesty than human verbal communication. Animal language as a rule has far less deceit, obscurity, and unclarity than human language. One man can't always believe the words of another man. One animal can almost always believe the language of another.
Verbosity vs. economy of speech: sparse words do not indicate sparse thought: Also, it is a misperception to equate adequacy of thought with verbosity. The danger here is in the misperception that animals can't think as they are not verbose (could not be if they wanted to). However, brevity, even in human communication, can provide more information than verbosity. That animals are economical in the sounds they make (compared with the human) should not be used as an indication that their thought is as restricted as their sounds.
Of communication-based thinking, Richard Dawkins writes, "Animals go to great lengths to make communication effective ... The traditional story of ethologists is that communication signals evolve for the benefit of both the sender and receiver."⁵ The late Lewis Thomas, member of the National Academy of Sciences, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and dean at Yale Medical School, wrote of the purposeful communications thinking in the animal kingdom and that "meaningful thought-based systems" underlay animal sounds when he said:

Nature abhors a long silence. Somewhere, underlying all the other signals, is a continual music. Termites make percussive sounds to each other by beating their heads against the floor in the dark ... Spectrographic analysis of sound records has recently revealed a high degree of organization in their drumming. Bats communicate with each other as well by clicks and high-pitched greetings.

Even this shows that the animal thinks, and does so ingeniously, as almost anything that an animal can employ to make a sound is put to use. Drumming, created by beating feet, is used by prairie hens, rabbits, and mice; the head is banged by woodpeckers and certain other birds; the males of death-watch beetles make a rapid ticking sound by percussion of the protuberance on the abdomen against the ground;

Fish makes sounds by clicking their teeth, blowing air, and drumming with special muscles. Gorillas beat their chests for certain kinds of discourse. Animals with loose skeletons rattle them, or like rattlesnakes, get sounds from externally placed structures. Turtles, alligators, crocodiles, and even snakes make various more or less vocal sounds. Even earthworms make sounds, faint staccato notes in regular clusters. ⁶

When the human does not speak: Animals are fanatic about communicating their own thinking and learning of the thinking of others of their kind. They do not use human words, though. But, not only does the animal not speak, there are many times when the greatest thinker of all, the human, does not speak. To begin with: • it is only gurgles, cries, whimpers, screams, laughter, grunts, and the host of other non-verbal sounds that tell the whole concerned world about the exact state a baby is in. Babies don't discuss their thoughts in words. And much of a parent's communication with their babies is "Ga ga, gu guu. Cuchi, cuchi, cuuu." Yet, in terms of meaningfulness of communication, many mothers see this as the most precious time in their lives. It is when both parent and child learn most about each other. And, it is all non-verbal.
• Mathematicians, scientists, and students taking tests do all their work in silence but silence not only does not mean that there is no intelligence, some of humankind's greatest advances take place in silent meditation or thought. • Intelligence resides in the realm of silence in mental or emotional qualities. Talking only facilitates co-operation between two or more people or the opportunity for one to gain advantage over another. • Art, classical music, ballet and other dance, architecture, the logic of product design and fashion, all express human thought or thinking but are non-verbal and often express feelings and ideas far beyond the reach of words as in distance are stars to those looking at them; • Charlie Chaplin and the whole cast of those who delighted the world during the era of silent pictures, Harpo Marx and all the stretches of current film where silence becomes islands in the sea of talk – as in scenes of sex, stealth, or silent activity – are all based upon actions indicating prior or present thought. That there is no speaking does not mean that there is no thought.
• There are couples who have more silence between them than words and in anger, people often boil and plot in silence. People in both marriages, business negotiations, and other ongoing social interactions, are often secretive and act in a manner affecting others without verbalizing their thoughts to anyone. • Certainly someone cheating in a card game or any other game of craft will not voice his or her carefully thought-out ideas. No lone criminal will. • In the heat of a sport's match or championship, the most brilliant of all moves are designed in a split-second and score the game-winning point, but almost never will the victor be asked 'Why?' And, though we may think we know, in broad strokes, that may be true: but in tiny details, most would fall to err.
• The greatest poetry and literature presents itself as a work of art that enthrals, but seldom is the rhyme and reason for its writing known – or clearly known – to the generations of faithful readers: as in James Joyce's Ulysses, where Irish lawyers still in Philadelphia weekly meet during Friday evening's leisure hours to drink a beer and debate the reason why he wrote this or that. • Dreams are rich, but non-verbal. In each case, there is clear thought without words. • Helen Keller and other deaf-mute people think without the use of words. Therefore, the possession of complex thought can occur in the absence of words. It is a misperception to equate thought and thinking with words. To assume that animals do not think as they do not speak (and elephants and whales have vocabularies of at least 33 vocalizations) is nonsequitor: the conclusion does not logically follow.
Man, the talking ape: Someone hit the nail on the head. All the qualities of thought and intelligence in the ape (and all animals) are but given voice in the human – the Talking ape. That says it all.
As animals do not speak English, French, or Mandarin, we are biased into thinking that they cannot think. But, why does the human speak? The human can speak for the brain has the Brocca and Wierneke centers co-ordinating speech in addition to vocal cords and other speaking mechanisms enabling it as the tongue, teeth, and lips so developed to aid in the formation of sounds of speech. Still, the human cannot speak until the speaking system is developed and cannot speak perfectly until the speaking system is fully developed. If one is inebriated with alcohol, the speaking system becomes dysfunctional but does not indicate that the drunk cannot think. One is silent during sleep but that does not mean that silence is indicative of the inability of an organism to think. The bird with its beak will not vocalize like the human, nor will the cat, mouse, or dog. They do not have brain centers for enabling the human degree of speech. But, that there is no speech does not mean that there is no thought.
Man and the animal and the suitability of wordless image in thinking: With a cranial capacity of 1200 cm for Homo habilis two million years ago, few would doubt that this human forbear thought. Especially when looking at tools and tool development showing purpose and the fact that teacher had to instruct student. Yet, Homo habilis had not yet evolved the bone-structure in the throat that would support speaking and thus could not. That he did not speak clearly does not mean that he did not think clearly. Man is but a chimp with an extra 10% DNA meaning that the human and chimp DNA is 90% the same.
And, chimps have developed vocabularies of over 100 words and can express themselves uniquely. In fact, the crescendoing echo heard reverberating bouncing off of the pages of research in each corner of the world is that, to put them all together, "The dolphin, whale, gorilla, dog, mouse, etc., etc., give evidence of using complex communication systems and being more intelligent than previously thought." The realization the human is approaching is that "Animals are sensitive and think." It will be interesting to see how that knowledge begins to humanize, and make more humane, the world of man relating to beast.
Chimps, research shows, use image in their communication as well as tools as every reader knows. Add to this the fact that both man and chimp have inherited their brains, drives, and so-forth-and-so-forth from the lower animals (going back to the one-celled forebears) with the conclusion being that man must like animal think (please click): the point not being that animals also think but that man thinks like the animal: as human behavior unfortunately too eloquently attests. On the enlightening side, however, to look into the human mind is to look into the animal mind from the source of thought and emotion on down. Animals must have the rudiments of thought: and perhaps more than rudiments. The human probably shares the same means of thinking that animals in all likelihood share: image-thinking with a subject-verb-object syntax (click). A thought the reader may consider, that will not be further explored here, is that both dogs and cats have been shown to have dreams, it is believed, in images.
More on the role of image in thought: In his book, Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field, Hadamard writes that from ancient to even modern times man has spoken of thinking in images:

Aristotle admitted that we cannot think without images ... Alfred Binet stated that: "The help of images is absolutely necessary for conducting my thought." ... Poincaré made the comparison that: "Imagery is necessary in order that we get useful hooking, once obtained, may not get lost," and Einstein wrote that: "The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be voluntarily reproduced and combined." ⁷

David Bohm, an associate of Einstein, affirms: "Whenever one thinks of anything, it seems to be apprehended as static, or a series of static images."⁸ And Rudolf Llinas, a neuroscientist at New York Medical School states: "What the brain does, whether awake or asleep, is make images." ⁹

Image thinking in insect and animal: As both spiders, ants, termites, bees, weaver caterpillars, beavers, and birds all construct homes and repair them when damaged, those homes must be present in image form at birth. In addition to image thinking with subject-verb-object syntax, animals probably rely on the other senses to form subject-verb-object syntax. For instance, thinking in images, the seal-pup (all animals) makes representative vocalizations which, if words were put to them, would say the equivalent of: "Mother, please come here." "I'm hungry." "I don't know what to do." "Please teach me."
And, seal pups are specifically taught as killer whale pups practice throwing themselves on beaches (the mothers teach the whale pups this beaching technique for several years) in the midst of seal pups they have targeted. The whales ambush them, grab them, and then the whales rock themselves back into the water with their catch. The seal pup's vocalizations have the equivalent of "Please teach me to protect myself," especially after having a very intelligent three-ton killer suddenly crash in your playground from nowhere and snatch your playmate away. And this can happen many times daily as one bull whale requires four pups a day and one pod may have 30 whales. The point in the foregoing is to show that vocalizations can be translated into human languages. As humans learn single animal vocalizations to communicate with animals, when translating from animal vocalizations into human language, the single vocalization will be placed within the context of human grammar perhaps with no loss of meaning.
Back to the point, though: human vocalization is not a prerequisite for thought and thinking. Certainly the human baby does not think in words when a day, week, or month old and cannot be so different in the visual mental activity from what a seal pup would engage. To be sure, the brain development of all higher animals is similar and more similar to one another in more sophisticated ways, than to the ganglion of insects (as they have no brain). Surely the baby thinks in images as it smiles when its mother walks into the room and may cry in the presence of a stranger. A hungry baby will reach for the bottle to eat, reach for a rattler to play; reach for a parent's finger to hold. The baby has a library of internal images that it responds to when seeing those images externally. A baby thinks in images. But, so must any baby of any insect or animal likewise think in images. Else, it would be for all practical purposes, catatonic.
We might mention further, though, that: a baby is full of expectations, smiles, tears, curiosity, and so forth. All these are precursors to the forms they will have when the baby begins to think as an adult and express those things in words that were at root non-verbal. Also, as previously mentioned, chimpanzees can develop a vocabulary of over 100 image/action-based words and express their ideas; that tool-making and use in animals show they use problem-solving thinking, and so. We cannot, then, exclusively restrict purposeful thinking to the presence of human words: and must therefore, leave room for the possibility of animals to think.

THE ROLE OF THINKING IN REGARDS TO INSTINCT

The greatest drives of the human instincts are the continual possession of food, shelter, and clothing. To that, add love, life purpose, family, social acceptance and society – but a society in which one has "healthy" freedom. With this, the human is happy and well-adjusted as is the society he or she lives within. While instinct is a fixed or programmed behavior or feeling which cannot be altered and functions as an "unthinking" reflex action, thinking, conversely, is a thought process where action is based upon it rather than action being based upon reflex action.
In that human instinct includes not only "the need to live in society but having freedom in that society" the pursuit of individually selected life styles, goals, and behaviors that "fit" or "suit" the individual are instinctual drives. That we "think" about them highlights the fact that thinking is the way we choose to fulfil instinctual desires. And, that is what animals do – they think about the way they will fulfil their instinctual drives (click). We all live in a world of uniqueness – i.e. a stage whose setting, actors, and drama changes in the environment surrounding each nook and cranny each second of the day. Microbes float through the air and never assemble the same way twice: the world in its history never saw the identical action in any cubic inch of space the same way twice – and if that cubic inch is in a three-million-year old rock, its particles change every nanosecond. And in this kaleidoscopic change with no pre-written script, insect and animal choose about the manner in which they will fulfil their instinctual desires. They think. Richard Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene, concerning this matter, writes:

Something happens in the world, an owl flashes overhead, a rustle in the long grass betrays prey, and in milliseconds nervous systems crackle into action, muscles leap, and someone's life is saved — or lost ... The genes can only do their best in advance by building a fast executive computer for themselves, and programming it in advance with rules and 'advice' to cope with as many eventualities as they can 'anticipate.' But life, like the game of chess, offers too many different possible eventualities for all of them to be anticipated. Like the chess programmer, the genes have to 'instruct' their survival machines not in the specifics, but in the general strategies and tricks of the living trade. ¹⁰

And, Lewis Thomas, writes that "[Living things] can do more than predict reality; they are evidently programmed with wild guesses as well."¹¹ Konrad Lorenz also states, "Genes are master programmers, and they are programming for their lives. They are judged according to the success of their programs in coping with all the hazards that life throws at them."¹² Living creatures are designed to think about their environment (click). They can adjust to a changing environment which includes new human inventions that they give way for or utilize for themselves. They observe changes, think about them, and make decisions regarding them.
When reflex action is fast thinking: For several seconds, I once saw two zooming flies cavorting together, looping back-and-forth a mere wing's length apart. Beat-for-beat, they mutually followed one another's flight. This moment in time was not predestined: they were not acting out two roles genetically written for them to carry out at 9AM Saturday morning on the 5th of June. Selecting goal-oriented behavior: First of all, they decided upon a purpose and cavorting is different from escaping from a fly-swatter or bird, sleeping, or sheltering under a leaf during a summer downpour, or landing on someone's sandwich for lunch. They chose behavior which is selected for a chosen goal. Even though their behavior may be as programmed as much as breathing or walking or a man humping a woman in making sex is, they have to evaluate every situation and select an appropriate behavior. Approaching a wall, they have to say "Aw oh. Time to turn now or I'll crash." They must think.
The two cavorters had to evaluate the other's behavior in milli-seconds and adjust their own flight plans to synchronize their flying. Nerve signals in the human body travel 120 meters per second. Travelling a comparative speed, a fly's body is 1/2 the size of a woman's smallest fingernail. A signal travelling the distance between a fly's eye and its shoulder wing (which is fastened directly behind the eye) would probably result in a reaction or decision 100 times quicker than in a human as the distance is so short and the nerves so thin. And, taking the spider: in the choice of where to make a web, which leaf or branch to attach the first thread to, how to make the web fit into the selected space, which order to lay the 100, 200, or 300 separate threads, each sequence of action for a spider to "mend" or make a web requires as separate a decision as it would for that spider to selectively bind up an entrapped insect's mandibles and legs one-by-one.
Slowness vs. speed and their perception regarding "thinking": We are biased in regarding thinking often as a slow process. If asked, "What sculpture shows a thinking man?" Everyone would answer, "Rodin's Thinker." A slow, methodical thinker. With thinking, we "Think fast" in sports, on the stock exchange floor, or quizzes, and such, but, lots of thinking is slow: there's a strong perception that real thinking should be slow and careful as in designing a house, a student figuring out a calculus problem, NASA planning a shot to Mars, a doctor planning surgery, or anyone planning their life. We are familiar with: "Think before you act." "Think carefully." "Think long and hard." "Think and grow rich." We are biased to think in terms of thinking slowly .
The point of the preceding discussion is this. If an animal or insect acts quickly, the bias is to consider it to be pre-programmed, unthinking, intractable. Even the definition of "thinking" states, "To mull over, ponder, weigh." However, if mulling is what we need to consider "thought" in an animal, that is exactly what a spider usually does before binding up its prey: it will observe it for sometimes half-a-minute before jumping into some plan-of-action. And when it does, another insect bites the dust.
Sequential action, or a chain of related and co-ordinated consequential actions requires thinking and a long series of linear decisions – even though the decisions may be followed by what may well be an unchangeable mechanical behavior: from insect to mammal, in sexual reproduction, males mount females and hump. But such mechanical behavior must be preceded by evaluative thinking, a plan-of-action, and a decision (much research shows that from insect to mammal, it is the female's decision to have sex and the male which capitulates to that decision). What is normally considered to be pure unthinking behavior in a fly isn't that at all. It thinks and it thinks and reacts faster than a person. In addition, it has fewer moments of indecision as a person would. Flies analyze quickly, decisively, and act.
When stupidity found in animals is not a sign of the inherent inability to think: There is a certain logic and balance found in nature including the fact that each creature has strengths and weaknesses. For instance, the Tralantula fearful bane that it is, is helpless to the Tralantula wasp which has developed an impenetrable, streamlined abdomen impervious to the Tralantula's grip and slipping right past like oiled metal to leave a quick and fatal stab in the spider's abdomen. Nothing is all powerful and if it is powerful, it is powerful until inevitable sickness or old-age set in: and this applies to human civilizations as well.
Concerning animals that act as fodder – algae, brill, gnats – their "mental" dullness (like cattle to the slaughter) is not necessarily the inevitable dull, "unthinkingness" of the lower creature, it may well be nature's way of making the required quantity of food easily available to the whales, birds, and those in need. Another example of "easy access" food is grass for the grazing animal. Nature has a thing for "easy access" where it is useful. And, as has been mentioned elsewhere in the writings, the material of a "lower" animal's body is consumed and molecularly disassembled and reassembled into the brain and body of the "higher" creature effectively becoming the more "thinking" higher creature. The point being that nature is in command of the amount of thinking a creature has and evidently designs thinking such that the thinking of all creatures taken as a whole lead to harmony or balance in nature like a jigsaw puzzle: see (click).
Puppy dog-like behavior is some fish: Perhaps until the last five years the human being always thought of a fish as mindless creatures. However, National Geographic TV has shown many programs where scuba divers play with schools of fish and the fish act like puppies or kittens. They see someone with food and come over. They swim back and forth between their legs. They rub their bodies against the bodies of the scuba divers.
The maxim of this essay is " • Behavior is based on instinct • quality of survival is based on the intelligence of behavior • and intelligence determines how well one adapts to ones environment — i.e. intelligence is based on thinking. " Part of this is "how well one adapts to ones environment." This inevitably implies awareness and response. Put a jar of jam on the garden table in the summer and within ten minutes, you will have swarms of fruitflies, ants, and bees. They are aware of their environment and respond quickly to changes within it. But, so do fish. They, who have never had a human friend before, identify friend (as opposed to foe) and express feelings towards the human. They clearly think.
And this brings to light the larger issue of animal adaptations to human creations in the form of new foods, structures, killers. Animals and insects (or their defence systems) often identify the changes and incorporate them into their lifestyles. Birds and rats house in human homes and atop telephone poles. Nature did not make these things. That a human house be in some animal's genetic repertoire would be impossible before the human house or modification in such. Long ago, birds recognized human houses as suitable nesting sites and accommodated to them. They evaluated the situation and thought of a solution. They showed thinking ability.
In genetic engineering, we experience the elusiveness of thinking for an animal never before created on the face of the earth perfectly adjusting to an environment. We don't have to look far to see genetically engineered animals. The mule is genetically engineered. Darwin spoke also of the pure-bred dog. Each breed has been selectively formed to meet the needs of its breeders. And, in each case, the creature can evaluate its environment and survive. They think.
Excuse my primitiveness. When living in New York, I had a herd of pigeons each morning cooing us irritatingly out of sound sleep at 5:30 AM. I threw pebbles, waved my hand, nothing would frighten them. So, I brought rat poison and tore pieces of bread which I pressed and formed around the tiny pellets. Without missing a beat, the pigeons immediately learned to pick it up by the surface, shake it to shake to pellet out, and proceed to eat the bread. They thought about the problem and quickly solved it.

WHY ANIMALS FEEL

A look down: It is usually felt that animals, fish, birds, reptiles, and particularly insects, neither think nor feel as humans do, nor think or feel at all. But, all language does is to interpret and give sound to inner images, expectations, feelings, sensations, plans, reactions, and the ordering of things.
As this is true, the sentient living kingdom shares those in common with the human being and responds to fear, desire, stealth, hunger, helplessness, discomfort, warmth, darkness, light, pain, struggle, and hope in a human manner. A look at animal behavior reveals: the driven pursuit of food when hungry; the terror when held in the clutches of death; the patient behavior of stealth; the anxiety of helplessness. All these evident in paramecium, insect, bird, or mammal. They respond in a human manner. Yet, "What is a human manner?" as not even two people feel or react the same way to an identical situation.
Judgement: We see the rudiments of thinking in a paramecium's thought of how to devour a morsel of bulky food or an ant's thought of how to its home to pull a jagged animal bone fragment over pebbles and through matted grasses. There is use of some combination of the senses – gustatory, olfactory, auditory, tactile, visual, vibratory – used by all living creatures to receive information from and act on entities of their environment and never exactly the same way twice.
A scale of judgement: All living things react on the object of their senses and thoughts in a single decision at any given second or moment – either attracted or repelled by them. With the following scale, [Repelled 100–50– 0– 50–100 Attracted], we might make a single scale where at either end, something is motivated either by the terror of death or the attainment of greatest joy. And, in between are the less crucial and mundane things at zero. Then, when would a creature be attracted or repelled by the objects of its senses? By some overall evaluation of all things at a given moment and usually not just a single thing. It should be revolutionary to say that: not only do all life forms make decisions, they simultaneously evaluate a multiplicity of objects detected by their senses to make single decisive decisions based upon an interpretation of the unique information presented to them at a given time.
Wonder: Wonder plays a role in any living creature's life where the clear perception of something from its senses is indisputably registered. Yet, if that signal is too faint to be clear, the behavior would express the mental state of heightened alertness – and the paramecium, insect, or animal would, when the case is danger, probably freeze if it was uncertain that it could safely escape. A grasshopper, with those compound eyes designed to catch everything in sight, would freeze if seeing a motion behind a leaf. Would it be an ant? An aphid? A spider?
With more information, either one of those possibilities would be verified, or another. An aphid would register relief. A spider or frog, terror. But, it will wait-and-see. And, it may wait endlessly. It would wait in wonder and will only react when wonder turns to knowledge. If the animal were hungry and it detected a signal that could be animal food capable of escaping, it would again freeze: and when certain that its chances were greatest of capturing it, then, and only then pursue. Creatures think and evaluate.

WHEN ANIMAL THOUGHT IS MORE POIGNANT THAN HUMAN

If we are to judge the animal world by our own standards, then there are times when animals are more poignant than their human cousins. The animal has been held up for praise and admiration throughout the ages on all the continents when they supersede the human in the expression of attitudes, emotions, feelings, and behaviors that the human has cherished for one reason or another. In fact, and from a different slant, the human has identified with the animal when he or she feels that the animal better expresses a trait than the human him or herself does. Here, the position is taken that traits are "thought-based." For a definition of thought and thinking, one that can be used is:

Thought is a "whole." It is the discernment of a thing the way it is or could be and is evocative of appropriate or creative behavior towards that thing. Thinking is the process that completes thought. Thus, if a mother bird saw her young and discerned that it was under attack and chooses to risk her own life to save her young, then that is noble and unselfish thinking and thought. But, any decision-making process selecting one alternative from multiple is thinking.

As man has inherited the majority of his abilities lock-stock-and barrel from the lower animal, they surely as well must have thought, think, and conduct thinking via image. And, it is recorded that dogs dream. As an animal will choose from the repertoire of behaviors genetically embedded within it the one most suitable for a situation at hand. Consequently, it will sleep, or eat, fight, or flee, prune or drink, mate, or seek food for its young, ad infinitum. When, then, it chooses some action, it is expressing the result of its evaluative thinking. Hence, we can say that to see an animal mother give its life to protect her young, to see the diligence of social animals working collectively together, to see the majesty of a lion, the tenderness of a puppy, the loyalty of a dog, the dignity of a cat, the gracefulness of a peacock, the pain of an animal protecting its fallen loved one, all these things are more poignant that any comparable thing we may witness in the human family on any given day.
The animal may have fewer choices to choose from and thereby be instinct-bound to behave in some way once it made a decision. Yet, we might then observe that nature preserved the purity of goodness in restricting the behavior of animals to the better actions. By nature, they are instinct-bound to be higher in behavior than the human often is. By nature and instinct, their thinking is often of a higher quality and its expression more beautiful and poignant than that found amongst the human being.

WHEN ANIMALS THINK LIKE OR OUT-THINK PEOPLE

Trained animals: In prehistoric times, perhaps the first domesticated dogs were obtained when their mother was killed defending her den leaving eight little puppies that licked the first human hand that held them and won the first human heart over to dogdom. In any event, the forebears of modern dogs were taught by their human masters to understand and obey a human pre-language the structure of which we have no idea. Any hawk or greyhound taught to hunt in ancient Egypt learned the language and thinking of those ancient peoples and acted out their will on command. The same for hunting animals in any land, in any language, in any time, and throughout time and place, the same: they learned human language and performed human desire upon instruction.
Such is also the case for any circus bear, lion, seal, or dog. Such is true for any parrot taught by any pirate. Any horse taught in any ancient army or modern race track. Any animal student in any animal school. Any chimpanzee in any research lab taught to recognize symbols. Any household pet taught by any home-owner. And whereas insects don't learn human verbal language, they learn to build their lives around our presence such that crumbs fallen onto the floor under dinner tables have been, since civilization began, a favorite going-out-to restaurant of ants.
In this all, the animal has shown as much facility in learning any language to which it is exposed as any human infant: the requirement being simply exposure. So plastic is the animal mind, so malleable to being formed in any mould. So like a sponge, and like you and I as babes, an animal will absorb and come to understand and act-out the language of the family or culture of which it is a part. The irony here is that while the human has a tendency to think he or her is smarter than the animal, if one does not speak Mandarin Chinese, old style Arpanet, Escargot, ancient Egyptian, Russian, or what have you, if any animal learned such a language, then that animal would know more of a given language than a person who never learned it. Such an animal noting that a person were given a command and did not act accordingly might think the equivalent of, "My how dense that creature is!"
Second-guessing people:
• If there is a playful dog holding a stick that his master wants to take, the dog will lay down. The master stealthily approach and suddenly lunge for the stick. Yet, a half-a-second before he'd grab it, the dog snatches the stick away and dashes off.
• A piece of bread is on the garden lawn with a bird perched overhead and a person uncomfortably close. The moment the person walks a safe distance away from the bread, the bird will swoop down, snatch it away, and zoom off.
• A fox is being pursued by man and dog. Testing the winds, it may circle behind and watch the pair of man and beast rush off in some other direction while it watches safely behind. Many a hunter has been out-smarted by the animal he pursues. Man sets all the rules and animal (and the pest and virus) often wins at man's own game. So, which would then think better? Man thinks better and has a higher IQ than beast when beast analyzes, evaluates, and out-wits man?

THE OPINIONS, CONCEPTS, AND PHILOSOPHIES OF ANIMALS

Opinions: An opinion is the rating of two or more things and is associated with behavior reflecting that rating. A female faced with two males competing for her, or two morsels of food available to her, or two potential escape routes present at a time of danger will in each case evaluate the better of the two and choose the best. All insects and animals have opinions about everything they do.
Concepts: A concept is an idea of the way a thing is, could, or should be. Animals and insects share with the human being a concept of a suitable or ideal shelter or home, a suitable or ideal mate. A suitable or ideal meal. A suitable or ideal form of behavior. Even the concept of death is shared by animal and insect alike. The list goes on into the dozens of things. Yet, for each animal specie, these things are not always the same.
Philosophy: A philosophy is a standard of behavior based upon an understanding of the consequences of doing or not doing a thing. While we might call animal behavior instinct, it is the writer's opinion that the idea of instinct, being "behavior enacted because it cannot be avoided," is not broad enough to account for animal behavior for it does not mention the fact that insects and animals often know what the result of doing or not doing a thing is and act based upon not only behavior that cannot be avoided but understanding as well.
For instance, a spider knows full well that if it takes too long to immobilize and secure an insect caught in its web that that insect will probably escape and it will have the uncomfortable sensation of hunger and if it catches the insect that it will be full and content. Its philosophy, then, will be to do things that provide it comfort. And, all insects and animals are thus equally motivated by an understanding of the results of doing or not doing a thing rather than doing a thing only for it cannot avoid doing so.
The writer believes this holds true for situations that have not been experienced before where the genes provide memory with a sense of the result of doing or not doing a thing. A monkey seeing a snake for the first time will have the sense that something dreadful would happen if it did not immediately escape to safety when in the presence of a snake. The writer believes that while this untaught behavior can be considered instinct that this instinct has a component of understanding. And that a reasoning or philosophy oriented to providing maximum comfort is a complimentary intelligence laying behind insect and animal action.

LET THE SHOW BEGIN!

National Geographic has a daily series with animal stories that are used as the basis for the tales told within. Whenever possible, the date and time of the showing will be listed so that the stories can be tracked down by any interested person. Using National Geographic animal stories also gets to the heart of this Shakespearian program: meaning that indeed, these are the life stories of animals thoughtfully and passionately interacting with one another.
Welcome to the Globe: These Shakepearian dramas set to animal life will surely one day become a book or children's series and over time will be expanded more-and-more here. In the near future, these stories will be accompanied with pictures here at the website though, in any case, they should be understandable by the drama themselves. The flashing lights of the plays are those of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre – so our imagination allows: the theatre where these plays take place. Or, the world of Shakespeare is acted out a million times a day in the living creatures we see swimming, walking, and flying about us. Every act of every creature can find its counterpart somewhere in All the Comedies, Histories, Tragedies, and Poetry, including the Sonnets, of William Shakespeare.

TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA

Male lions will fight for the female, but the dominant male is often deferred to (King penguins are the same. Killer whales are the same. Gorillas are the same. Elephants are the same. Sea lions are the same) – unless a new male to the pride has not learned his place. A male may mate with a female 50 times in one day and it is a right desired and fought for. Here are three lions, possible suitors of one female. Proteus has already lost in battle with Valentine and has learned to respect his might. Thurio, a young upstart not yet engaged in battle, not desired by the feminine object of his desire, unaware of his liabilities, and proud. In the company of the wise Proteus, he might posture to signify his hegemony while at the same time having been spurned by the female and not knowing why, seek out the counsel of Proteus. A look at their unspoken thoughts.

Act V. Scene II.— An apartment in the Duke's Palace Enter Thurio, Proteus, and Julia

• PROTEUS: Gentleman of Verona • THURIO: a foolish rival to Valentine • JULIA: a lady of Verona, beloved by PROTEUS

Thu. Sir Proteus, what says Silvia to my suit? Pro. O, sir, I find her milder than she was; and yet she takes exceptions at your person. Thu. What! that my leg is too long? Pro. No; that it is too little. Thu. I'll wear a boot to make it somewhat rounder. Pro. But love will not be spurr'd by what it loaths.

KING JOHN

The lion pride lives in its own home range. This could be as much as 400 square kilometers, or 155 square miles, and it could overlap with the territory of neighboring prides and spark conflict when trespassed. The male maintain territorial rights by roaring and scent marking with urine. The males will also defend their females against intruding males, and will kill any male who has ignored the warning signs. Occasionally, a group of marauding males will attack the resident males, drive them out, and take over the pride. And, this is the source of our drama. We imagine Chatillon, a marauding lion, and John, King of resident lions simultaneously becoming aware of each other. The action will be quick, but Chatillon will be challenged most fiercely by King John, and head-on meet his challenge. The bellowing roar of his defiance will also be a call to his own pride to which he will be immediately pursued. A fight for territory. The fight of King John of England — against Philip, King of France.

Act I. Scene I.— Northampton. A Room of State in the Palace Enter King John, Queen Elinor, Pembroke, Essex, Salisbury, and others with Chantillon

• KING JOHN, King of England • CHATILLON, Ambassador from France to King John • ELINOR, Widow of King Henry II and mother of King John

K. John. Now, say, Chatillon what would France with us? Chat. Thus, after greeting, speaks the King in my behavior, to the majesty, The borrow'd majesty of England here. Eli. A strange beginning;— borrow'd majesty! K. John. Silence, good mother; hear the embassy. Chat. Philip of France, in right and true Of thy deceased brother Geffrey's son, Arthur Plantagnet, lays most lawful claim To this fair island, and the territories, — to Ireland, Poictiers, Anjou, Touraine, Maine; Desiring thee to lay aside the sword Which sways usurpingly these several titles, And put the name of young Arthur's hand, Thy nephew and right royal sovereign. K. John. What follows, if we disallow of this? Chat. The proud control of fierce and bloody war, To enforce these rights so forcibly withheld. K. John. Here have we war for war, and blood for blood, Controlment for controlment: so answer France. Chat. Then take my king's defiance from my mouth, The furthest limit of my embassy. K. John. Bear mine to him, and so depart in peace: Be thou as lightning in the eyes of France; for ere thou canst report I will be there, The thunder of my cannon shall be heard; So, hence! Be thou the trumpet of our wrath, And sullen presage of your own decay. — An honourable conduct let him have:— Pembroke, look to 't. Farewell, Chattilon. [Exeunt CHATILLON and PEMBROKE.]

HAMLET, PRINCE OF DENMARK

On October 18, 1997, National Geographic aired a program on NBC Europe featuring the work of the world's most renowned elephantologist, Cynthia Moss, selected by Robert Leaky to head Kenya's Save the Elephant Program. Moss, who literally lived with elephants in the Anbeselli Sanctuary for over a decade, said, "I believe elephants have a range of emotions from joy to grief." Continuing – her voice behind footage simultaneously shown of an elephant handling the skull of the former matriarch just as Hamlet handled the skull of Yorick. She spoke of their return to the bones, all left after sun, vulture, and hyena consumed all flesh leaving only skeletons bleaching in the mid-day brightness of the lonely tundra. She went on: "They showed their grief. They gathered around her in a defensive circle and made a deep rumble. They just turned the bones over slowly and gently showing concern especially for the skull and jaw." She is our Hamlet.

Act V. Scene I.— The graveyard in a churchyard.

• HAMLET: Son of the former and Nephew to the present King • HORATIO: Friend to Hamlet • CLOWN

Clo. [ Throws up a skull. Ham. That skull had a tongue in it, and could sing once ... There's another: why may not that be the skull of a lawyer? Where be his quiddits now, his quillits, his cases, his tenures, his tricks? why does he suffer this rude knave now to knock him about sconce with dirty shovel and will not tell him of his action of battery?      [Another skull. Clo. A pestilence on him for a mad rogue! 'a poured a flagon of Rhenish on my skull, sir, was Yorick's skull, the king's jester. Ham. This? Clo. E'en that. Ham. Let me see. [Takes the skull.] —Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rises at it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your gambols? Your songs? Your merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen? Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come; make her laugh at that.—

THE TAMING OF THE SHREW

Man seeks after the attainment of physical possessions from clothes to watches, cars, yachts, stereo systems, expensive furniture and paintings often centering of his bachelor's apartment or house with an attractive welcome mat and inside delicious foods to court and further engage the female. And, men resort to sometimes unfair competition as in destroying or otherwise ruining the possessions of their competitors. But, so do 15 to 18 species of bowerbirds in Australia do the same as a prelude to courtship and mating, with the building of a bower around a maypole. The bowerbirds select saplings and make a conical-shaped column that can be upwards of eight feet long (2.5 m) and ten feet high (3 m). The bower can be interlaced with twigs and have a base of moss or lichen. Around the border the bird places the leaves of screw pines, and fruit is hung in bunches in the surrounding foliage. The bower may be decorated with all kinds of things colored black, orange-brown or yellow. There may be pieces of charcoal, fungi, seeds, parts of insects. The walls are often painted, using a piece of bark, with charcoal moistened by saliva or the juices from squashed fruit. There is also an entrance mat to the bower and a multitude of decorative objects may be placed there. Some, like rich men, have two or three pent houses, or bowers. The bowerbirds will sometimes destroy the bower of their competitors (and they are, as in the human case, rebuilt), and when the female is finally enticed, love making is an extremely passionate affair. In The Taming of the Shrew you have the same elements of competition of suitors required to provide a dowry for the fair Bianca at the behest of her father. They try to out-do one another. And, Tranio, employing double-edged trickery, ends by pledging further trickery to win her hand in marriage (for his master Lucentio!). In our scene, we have two competitors in a duel of one-ups-manship with one another for the fair lady's hand: a Gremio and Tranio of the feathered sort.

Act II. Scene I.— A room in Baptista's house

• BAPTISTA: a rich gentleman of Padau • GREMIO: Suitor to Bianca • LUCENTIO: Son to Vincentio, in love with Bianca • TRANIO: Servant to Lucentio (and pretending to be Lucentio)

Gre. But now, Baptista, to your younger daughter;— Now is the day we long have looked for; I am your neighbor, and was the suitor first. Tra. And I am the one that loves Bianca more than words can witness or your thoughts can guess. Gre. Youngling! thou canst not love so dear as I. Tra. Greybeard! thy love doth freeze. Gre. But thine doth fry. Skipper, stand back; tis age that nourisheth. Tra. But youth in ladies; eyes that flourisheth. Bap. Content you, gentlemen; I'll compound this strife. 'Tis deeds must win the prize; and he, of both, that can assure my daughter greatest dower shall Bianca's love.—Say, Signior Gremio, what can you assure her? Gre. First, as you know, my house within the city is richly furnished with plate and gold; Basins and ewers, to have her dainty hands; My hangings all of Tyrian tapestry: In ivory coffers I have stuff'd my crowns; In cypress chests my arras counterpoints, costly apparel, tents, and canopies, fine linen, Turkey cushions boss'd with pearl, Valance of Venice gold in needle-work, pewter and brass, and all things that belong to house or housekeeping: then, at my farm, I have a hundred milch-kine to the pail, six score fat oxen standing in my stalls, and all things answerable to this portion. Myself am struck in years, I must confess; And if I die to-morrow this is hers; if whilst I live, she will be only mine. Tra. That only came well in.—Sir, list to I am my father's heir and only son: If I may have your daughter to my wife, I'll leave her houses three or four as good, within rich Pisa's walls, as any one Old Signior Gremio has in Padua; besides two thousand ducats by the year of fruitful land, all which shall be her jointure.—What, have I pinch'd you Signior Gremio? Gre. Two thousand ducats by the year of land! My land amounts not to so much in all: That she shall have; besides an argosy, that now is lying in Marseilles' road:—What, have I chocked you with an argosy? Tra. Gremio, 'tis known my father hath no less than three great argosies; besides two galliases, and twelve tight galleys: these I will assure her, and twice as much what'er thou offer'st next. Gre. Nay, I have offer'd all,—I have no more; And she can have no more than all I have:— If you like me, she shall have me and mine. Tra. Why, then the maid is mine for all the world, by your firm promise: Gremio is out-vied. Bap. I must confess your offer is the best; And, let your father make her the assurance, she is your own; else, you must pardon me; if you should die before him, where's her dower? Tra. That's but a cavil; he is old, I young. Gre. And may not young men die as well as old? Bap. Well, gentlemen, I am thus resolv'd:— On Sunday next you know my daughter Katherine is to be married: Now, on the Sunday following shall Bianca be bride to you, if you make this assurance; if not, to Signoir Gremio: And so I take my leave, and thank you both. Tra. Adieu, good neighbor.      [Exit Baptista. Now I fear thee not: Sirrah young gamester, your father were a fool to give thee all in his waning age set foot under thy table. Tut! a toy! An old Italian fox is not so kind, my boy.      [Exit Tra. A vengeance on your crafty withered hide! Yet I have faced it with a card of ten. 'Tis in my head to do my master good:—I see no reason but suppos'd Vincentio; And that's a wonder: father's commonly do get their children; but in this case of wooing, a child shall get a sire, if I fail not of my cunning.      [Exit

MEASURE FOR MEASURE

Explanation

Act V. Scene I.— The outskirts of the town

• DUKE • ISABELLA: Sister to Claudio

Duke Isa. Duke Isa.

ROMEO AND JULIET

Explanation.

Act V. Scene II.— An apartment in the Duke's Palace Enter Thurio, Proteus, and Julia

• PROTEUS: Gentleman of Verona • THURIO: a foolish rival to Valentine • JULIA: a lady of Verona, beloved by PROTEUS

Thu. Thu. Thu. Thu. Thu. Thu. Thu. Thu. Thu.

TITUS ANDRONICUS

Explanation.

Act V. Scene II.— An apartment in the Duke's Palace Enter Thurio, Proteus, and Julia

• PROTEUS: Gentleman of Verona • THURIO: a foolish rival to Valentine • JULIA: a lady of Verona, beloved by PROTEUS

Thu. Thu. Thu. Thu. Thu. Thu. Thu. Thu. Thu.

---

CLOSING

Our world was not lightly made. It teems with reflective thought at every turn. It is the opinion of the writer that the thread of thought and sentient feeling runs through all of life in similar dimension. And that Shakespeare, in so broadly addressing the totality of human experience grabbed hold of the very essence of the totality of life itself. It is the writer's opinion that God used the hand holding the pen of Shakespeare and commented not only on human life, but all of life on earth. Perhaps in other corners of the universe it differs. However, in seeing life closer to ourselves, it is the hope that these writings endear the human more to Nature, within reason, embracing it even more as spiritual kin cut from the same cloth.

---

Bibliography supplied on request

---

[ Home]