"Just because YOU do not understand the communication, doesn't mean it isn't speaking."
Dogs do not speak to convey information beyond: let's fight, fuck, eat. They haven't the complexity of brain/body to do anything more than that.
Go have coffee with one and, later, tell me about the nuanced conversation.
#
"Love requires the ability to speak?"
I didn't say that. I said this: 'If I were born with a damaged brain that limited my ability to speak as one aspect of the damage, then, it's entirely possible I would be unable to love.'
'as one aspect' means my lack of speech is possibly one of many things wrong with me. I may have severe retardation. I may be missing huge portions of my brain.
That's part of the reason I asked if you would narrow the question down a bit. "humans who are incapable of communicating" covers a lot of ground.
Get it?
#
"the guy who wouldn't define "peace" in his own thread"
I explained my reason for that to Beastmaster. Go back and read that explanation. Or not.
*shrug*
#
"every increasingly redundant "I" without any concrete definition"
I've hinted at that definition, and nothing more, simply because I took it that you, as 'I', could suss out what I mean. If you wanna know what the 'I' is: self-examine, self-interrogate.
I'm not teaching a class here. I expect I'm talking with reasonably intelligent folks who can do a little thinking for themselves. If I have to explain the apparent to you or others then maybe you or others ought to retire from the conversation. Better yet, since I prefer you stay, why not go back and read the thread from the start?
#
"The first sentence is still opinion and has been challenged repeatedly."
A challenge made with anecdote is useless. To date: you haven't offered a shred of evidence beyond anecdote to support (1) dogs love as humans do, and, (2) dogs understand love.
I on the other hand offer up the evidence available to anyone: my 'self', your 'self', his 'self', her 'self', and our demonstrated individual capacities for love.
#
"we still have no definition of "I" but we now have a "tool" of this ever elusive "I". "
There's nothing elusive about *'I'. Go look in the mirror: who's looking back at you? A real, concrete, organic, autonomous, individual.
Now: go prop your pooch in front of a mirror and ask him who or what it sees?
It can't answer: not with speech, sign language, or telepathy. And it sees nothing but another dog, or, a confusing image.
As for **tools: we each are our own, best, property. I am my flesh and my flesh is the way I interact with, apprehend, manipulate the world (walking on legs, grasping with hands, speaking with mouth, thinking with brain, etc.). Tool, as metaphor, seems apt.
*see post 82
**see posts # 65 and 82