Behind Lorenz's Mirror

holly dependent on parents, neonates and species born relatively helpless and requiring extended periods of parental care, are referred to as 'altricial'. Alternatively, precocious young experience a slightly extended gestation period and consequently emerge at a more advanced stage of development, with the capability of feeding themselves, walking and even swimming, although they may yet require parental protection and direction to food sources.

Of course, this state of precocious independence can provide an opportunity for young to wander off from the parent long before it becomes able to fully fend for itself. That’s where imprinting comes into play, first studied by Douglas Spalding, but largely credited to Karl Lorenz as a result of his extensive empirical research into the phenomenon.

Filial imprinting, or the attachment of young to the parental model, ensures that the precocious young stay close to a model in order to learn particular behaviour. Lorenz worked with goslings and quickly assessed that, albeit constrained to some degree genetically, shortly after hatching they connected and modelled behaviour after the first moving object they were exposed to, in this case, his wading boots. Lorenz quickly discovered that reward was at the crux of this association. Reward, that is, in terms of nourishment, access to food, and the goslings' reduction in anxiety.

Nidifugous birds, or those that leave the nest shortly after hatching, imprint based upon both visual and auditory stimuli from their parents and then engage in a practice of following them around. But filial imprinting is not just restricted to that. Lorenz demonstrated that species are genetically constructed in such a way that species learn specific kinds of information and develop certain behaviourisms that are important for the survival of the species.

His book, Behind the Mirror, modelled after evolutionary biology, examines how our senses permit us to accurately assess our habitat and distinguish 'fact' as opposed to 'illusion'. Traits, according to Lorenz, are transmitted to us, and our natural sense of the security of our environment must be “spot on” otherwise we wouldn't exist to be deceived. But if so how was it that I had been so deceived, not once, but possibly a second time? Or were my initial senses and instincts with regard to "Doug" correct?

And as I traverse the unicursal route, I once again refer to Scott, who said,

“When thinking about companions gone, we feel ourselves doubly alone” ~ Sir Walter Scott

Menagerie. Goose chase, or cat and mouse game

orenz experimented with his wading boots to learn that precocious gosling latch onto the first individual that moves within 24 hours of hatching, and follow it to learn the art of finding food. The result is a single file line of individuals following a wild goose, scurrying to keep up, but not really knowing where, yet biologically predisposed to follow, all the same.

In Elizabethan times, an equestrian sport that was very popular, involved the challenge of mounted riders, spaced at various intervals, to keep following a lead rider. The sport was akin to gosling following the wild goose. Due to the popularity of this past time, it was William Shakespeare who first used the expression "sent on a wild goose chase" to represent the difficulties followers have in keeping up with the one leading the pack. In modern days, since the once-popular 16th Century activity is no longer practised, the expression has taken on the additional meaning of a "futile quest".

By early January 2006, I was beginning to wonder if I was such a gosling chasing to catch up with an elusive leader. Much like Lorenz utilised his wading boots to imprint on, had "Doug" become close to me and lured me to follow him across the country for two years or more, just as a lark? Was it that he derived pleasure watching me be sent on a wild goose chase, or was there another reason behind his elusive acts?

I've said all along that this odyssey has a distinct biological theme. Well, I've discussed spiders, birds, gosling, geese, and in this particular case perhaps "cat and mouse" is also applicable.

The description of 'cat and mouse', according to the dictionary, reads,

a. Playfully or teasingly cruel, as in prolonging the pain or torment of another
b. Of or involving a suspenseful and sometimes alternating relation between hunter and hunted

and, indeed, the experiences that unfurled in 2005 and those in 2006, that I will present shortly in this blog, could certainly be considered cruel and there's no question that I was beginning to feel that I had been hunted, but in this case, the term 'cat and mouse' is used to refer to the works attributed to famous fabulist, Aesop.

As mentioned in this thread, a fable is a brief allegorical narrative that illustrates a moral thesis or satire. Typically, the central figures of a fable are animals with human features, personifications, that metaphorically convey a maxim or moral truth, offering insight into human nature.

Notable fabulist Aesop is reputed to have lived in 600 BC, although there's no real proof that he really existed. Aesop, whose name is Greek for "Ethiop" in reference to his dark skin and proposed African heritage, was unfortunately a rather deformed and unattractive man, who was reputed to be a slave. Perhaps physical abnormalities, that invited mockery from some, was the impetus for him to fashion fables to demonstrate human foibles, nature and irony. What is clear is that many fables, popular today and attributed to him, have been the basis for maxims or proverbial turns of phrase such as "crying wolf", "reap what you sow" and "once bitten, twice shy".

The Cat and the Mice ~ Aesop
There was once a house that was overrun with mice. A cat heard of this, and said to herself, "That's the place for me," and off she went and took up her quarters in the house, and caught the mice one by one and ate them. At last the mice could stand it n longer, and they determined to take to their holes and stay there. "That's awkward," said the cat to herself. "The only thing to do is to coax them out by a trick." So she considered a while, and then climbed up the wall and let herself hang down by her hind legs from a peg, and pretended to be dead.By and by a mouse peeped out and saw the cat hanging there. "Aha!" it cried, "You're very clever, madam, no doubt. But you may turn yourself into a bag of meal hanging there, if you like, yet you won't catch us coming anywhere near you."

If you are wise you won't be deceived by the innocent airs of those whom you have once found to be dangerous.

Naturally, inherent in this fable is that once a ruthless source has been encountered and identified, intended prey, having narrowly escaped injury, are wise to learn to spot a similar circumstance and avoid a second exposure. But what if the source is quite different in each case? How can one know intuitively that a source would be dangerous? Would the only natural solution involve being doubly shy with everyone, and as a result unable to interact at all?

No word from "Doug", despite what amounted to by this time as at least 8 emails from me in the course of 12 months and one phone call, asking for some closure, it was hard not to consider the way he ignored me as pejorative. Still uncertain if it was a deliberate attempt to belittle me or simply a Hawk versus Dove defense strategy, it would be even more crucial to make another Dove-like attempt to find out....