On Dogs

And so now we come down to the brass tacks. As I’ve rolled these ideas about exploiter versus nurturer around in my head I’m a little overwhelmed. How do you understand a person that encompasses ideals and realities, logics and intuitions, desire and action; a host of paradoxes and gray areas as numerous as fleas on an old, shaggy dog? And then it struck me. It struck me like two paws to the junk in a fast food drive through. It all rests on the dog. The dog, an animal quintessential to man, became an immediate archetype for me in my struggle to differentiate for myself exploitation and nurturing. It is the one widely domesticated animal that urban and rural alike keep. It is simple to understand. This relationship is not a marriage, or a friendship, or a business partner, or a farm. This is a dog. Their requirements are few and universal.  And I think when we look at our dog we have a small voice deep in our souls that says (whether we think it’s full up with BS or not), you can tell a lot about yourself right now.

I am partial to dogs but not because I’m a dog lover. If anything I’d say I’m a dog philosopher which is a nice way of saying I’m a dog critic. This criticism spans a wide spectrum from, that’s the stupidest mutt I’ve ever had the misfortune of being licked in the crotch by to, that dog is an artist. Most dogs will fall between these two extremes and some dogs, mine being a great example, will run its length like a two year old hopped up on pixie sticks, turning brilliant and stupid in the matter of an eye blink. Other dogs are both extremes simultaneously. Hunting dogs often fall into this paradox. The dog in its various forms becomes a good dog, bad dog, stupid dog, nice dog, genius dog, find the bird dog, get off me dog, get in the back dog, stop licking the baby dog, clean up the baby dog, and it goes on and on.

Most of these are our own notions concerning the dog’s behavior. The dog, however, is just being a dog. It is oblivious of these distinctions. It lives in the moment and requires only three things: food, companionship, and a good job. It requires each of these things in its time and in good measure. It doesn’t sound like such a bad gig does it? In these things also, dogs tend to see things directly as they are with no conceptualizations which some have argued is the purest form of Taoism. I can agree with this.  That aside, as I considered my qualities as an agrarian I began to question my ability to nurture. I know this comes as a shock to those who know me, but I’m a bit of a McGrothers. (I’ll explain about McGrothers later.) This becomes apparent in my relationship with our dog.

Holly is a mixed breed, medium sized, tough as hell, and obnoxiously friendly. I’m not sure but my guess is she’s got some pit bull and some cow dog in her and who knows what else. She’s a good dog, smart and kind but not all that useful. I suppose that would describe many dogs and is better than being a bad dog, stupid and mean and useless. I’ve discovered, however, that my relationship with her is not very Wendellian and therefore ripe for inspection. My obvious concern is, if I can’t take Wendell's approach to my dog then will I ever take proper care of any land or animal? So in a fine Wendellian manner, I’ll look at each of what I think are the natural requirements of any dog and of my dog, and see where I fail and where I succeed and hopefully change from a McGrothers to a Will Wells. (More on that later. I know your salivating with curiosity.)