no need to apologise, sammy. i was just clarifying to be sure i understood.
i think what's interesting about studying natural behaviours as a baseline for animals first is: a dog is always a dog in every culture - even if it is used to speak to varying truths globally. those symbolism are all rooted in their behaviours and mannerisms, ultimately at the foundational level. that's how humans created the symbolism for them in the first place: by observing them. this is my logic for suggesting that. it's possible to even nuance certain animals more specifically (like dogs) by studying each breed in order to address specific nuance of behavioural quirks. again: as a baseline.
after that training, cultural understandings of animals could be established in a variety of ways. a blend of folklore, visuals, and interactive media could help extrapolate global approaches to interactions with animals. i have a feeling that would be easier if that baseline for understanding natural behaviour is solid.
i think about it like teaching a baby recognition: you start with the really simple recognition tools, and slowly over time, build their exposure and widen their access to not just recognition, but what the animal "says" then the behaviour patterns of their movements, and finally, the assessed use for each animal and what their behaviour represents. but it's difficult to explain the symbolic nature of charlotte in charlotte's web if you don't have a full comprehension of the natural behaviour of spiders. does that make sense?
Showing page 1 of
1 pages
