Reggie Ethics

Reggie Ethics

I am considering a reworking of my theories of why we are here. Previously I considered physical life to be a school where we come to learn so as to become enlightened. Recently I came to know that we are enlightened already; we just don't remember that we are. In other words, we forget why we are here and what we wanted to do here. Very simply, the reason we are here is to experience the dynamics of awareness on this plane.

You may ask how this relates to my dog guide Reggie? Well, Reggie is not so different from us in essence, and like us he already knows everything. He is universal awareness experiencing the dynamics of existence as a dog - particularly as a working dog in an American home with two reasonably functional humans.

Reggie seems to know exactly why he is here: He's here to eat. Eating is his chief goal in everything. Reggie lives for the next meal, and he gulps it down with gusto when it comes. Extend this pattern to its most universal application and we might say Reggie lives for self-preservation and self-gratification, in that order. Reggie seeks what preserves him, namely food. Now, after that he is also gratified by loving care and shelter, and you might be tempted to say these are actually more important. Well, they are not the things Reggie has on his mind most hours of the day, though I feel sure he would find life harder without them.

Reggie is centered on food because without food he would be extremely miserable. Perhaps he never considers death, but he knows he needs food for survival. He is sensitive to the gnawing discomfort of an empty stomach, and, believe me, he wants to avoid that feeling at all costs. Unlike most humans in developed countries, he does not eat for the pleasure of taste or the joy of companionship around a meal. He would fight for his food if pressed and he eats whatever appears.

So, what is Reggie's ethic? His ethic is self-preservation. Instructors at Guide Dogs for the Blind were the first to point this out to me. They say quite strongly that when a guide dog makes an emergency stop or scoot to avoid danger it isn't to protect the handler but to protect self. Reggie will refuse to step out into moving traffic as if saying: "I'm not stupid enough to go out there! You go by yourself if you want to go there!"

Reggie's chief way of proving this self-preservation ethic is that even on harness he is immediately behind my legs if we approach a cat. He will gladly face down any dog without losing his cool, but he immediately seeks protection from any cat that doesn't run.

How does our ethic compare to Reggie's? Well, I wonder! Is our ethic different from Reggie's or have we simply done a better job of forgetting than Reggie has? I'm asking this question only to those of us humans in an economically prosperous western world: I would never ask it of someone living where food is scarce. Do you get my point already?

Look for instance at the things that seem to capture our interest. Of course we are interested in food, but most of us in prosperous countries have no consciousness of what it is like to be really hungry. Our stomachs will complain if we find ourselves late for a meal, but that is nothing like the gnawing anguish and physical wastage of real hunger. Avoiding hunger is no longer our major concern when we believe food to be abundant. Our chief concerns regarding food are taste, abundance and sociability: Accessibility is almost never an issue to us.

So, the real question is: In a world of plenty, is self-preservation replaced by self-gratification as our prime concern? Admittedly, self-preservation may immediately spring back into first place when we sense a real threat to physical life: but threat to physical life may generally seem less compelling to us amidst plenty and security.

We have made books like "The Secret" into best sellers, together with their attendant films, and we flock to self-help groups devoted to engendering personal prosperity. "Find this secret," or "Follow this technique," they all say, "and gain all the wealth you can imagine!" All you have to do is believe and wealth will be attracted to you like a magnet - or - you follow these specific steps and inevitably wealth will be in your hands.

Our ethic, then, seems to be the reverse of Reggie's. We seem motivated first of all by self-gratification and secondly by self-preservation. After all, which of the two is most consistently on our minds? We no longer eat primarily for survival: we eat for pleasure. We also enrich our diets for a sense of increased youthfulness and vitality - improved self-image. We want to live longer and have more pleasure. We live for gratification.

There is one thing in common between Reggie's dog ethic and our human ethic in a prosperous world however: both represent an ethic of self-interest. Reggie is not concerned about the welfare of other dogs, to the best of my knowledge. We, on the other hand, allow ourselves awareness of the needs of others to the extent that it fosters our sense of relative fortune. After all, we have so much, we can afford to give some away without missing it - and that is exactly how much we give, individually and as a society. Most of us give to the extent that our sense of generosity enhances our sense of self-gratification and no more.

So, what do we really know that we have forgotten? I suggest that most of us have forgotten the reality that we are all one: we have forgotten that the needs of those in deprivation are really the needs of us all. We have forgotten that well-being is only an illusion if not experienced by all. Reggie experiences his dog life as part of universal consciousness's continued exploration of what it means to be physical in all forms. His concern hardly extends beyond himself and his pack. We also have self and family concern, but our concern is tempered by an added store of forgotten understanding that we as humans must remember if we are to comprehend why we are here.

That forgotten understanding, an understanding denied by those promoting self-gratification above all else, is that we are all one and that the hardship of one affects us all. The value of this knowledge lies in understanding that helping others or preserving our shared environment leads not to shared deprivation, as some insist, but rather to real and sustainable prosperity and plenty for all. The secret then is not so much that all wealth will be drawn to us if we only believe, but that plenty will multiply like loaves and fishes when shared from generous hearts.

A related article of interest:

An article by Kathlyn and Gay Hendricks "Can We Learn from the Law Suit Against Rhonda Byrn and The Secret" - posted May 7, 2009 in The Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathlyn-and-gay-hendricks/what-can-we-learn-from-th_b_198995.html