Talking Dogs, Companion Capital, and the Limits of Bio-Political Fitness

Meditation upon the nature of the animal and the essence of the human has driven many a “seeker,” real and ideal, “to a state of holy insanity.” Ts’undchen Zhao-zhou (778-897 CE), one of four Chinese Ch’an masters during the T’ang Dynasty (618-970 CE), zenned the question of human-animal distinction with ambivalence. Do dogs have Buddha nature? The philosopher’s context-specifi c responses-“y’oú” (᳝”) in the third tone meaning “yes” and “wú” (᮴)1 in the second tone meaning “no”—robbed of tonal

contours and rendered indistinguishable in Pynchon’s talking dog’s translation (“Mu!”), begin to show how both context and our very limited ability to detect, capture, and convey nonverbal meaning compromise our search for answers.