I'm in the mood for ranting a little bit ....

Thanks Pete, for post # 8. Francis Bacon eh? William Shakespeare, hmm. We can't fail with detail, I say. Someone else too, but I forget who.

Sharon

Post 21

Friday, April 21, 2006 - 8:35pm

Sharon,

================
How much time have you spent over the years, with babies, Ed? ... Fess up
================

I've spent perhaps 100 hours interacting with babies over the years; maybe 200. And I've spent as much or more time with toddlers through to teens -- and I once taught a class called Life Skills to highschool dropouts.

Ed
[it helps that both of my sisters have kids -- and all of them love Uncle Ed]

Post 22

Friday, April 21, 2006 - 8:49pm

Frankly, I find older kids, or kids who are able to express themselves and interact with me verbally, much more interesting than babies.

Post 23

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 1:49am

Yes - agree with you there, Hong.....

Post 24

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 4:28am

Ed,

I "knew" from the beginning there was something special about you. You have come full circle. Since we teachers are always testing our hypotheses, can I speculate on your life?

You were a baby who had great mothering, not only from your parents; but from your siblings, who had also experienced that same unconditional love and attention. Then, you went off on that journey through life, developing that great brain you inherited. Now, back with babies, even though not your own; you know how to play as a child, but now, with a giant's intellect experience, and knowledge. Further, you can play the grown up games too. In a word, a genius!

Looking for "Uncle Ed" is a warning that life is stressful. I had an Uncle Ed in my childhood, too, but I didn't realize it until this minute. His name was Joe.

Thanks for the memories, Ed
Sharon

Post 25

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 9:39am

Okay Sharon, you're getting pretty personal on this public forum (with speculation about my life) -- but I will cautiously indulge you this time ...

You were a baby

This is true.

who had great mothering, not only from your parents; but from your siblings, who had also experienced that same unconditional love and attention.

This is true in a sense, and false in another. It's kind of funny how easy the word "mothering" -- with a single letter addition -- can be changed into the word "smothering." As a child I "felt" loved, but as I grew the wiser, I discovered the depths of real love. So now, looking back to my early years, I realize that I was more smothered than mothered, in the truly loving sort of way.

A cardinal sign of real love, is listening (where there is no listening, there is no love). Depending on the depth of discussion, listening can be intense. Real love is not (merely) a "feeling" -- but more of a type of "action" -- an action that increases awareness and understanding of another, for the purpose of one's own or another's spiritual growth. So it is specific action, with specific purpose -- rather than mushy-gushy, wishy-washy feelings.

It's lonely at the top. When you realize that there aren't as many folks capable of real love yet, as you had optimistically envisioned. Rand said to learn to say the "I" -- before you say the "I love you." I had found this out before I found Rand, by applying it to the folks in my life. You must fill your own cup before you can pour anything of substance out into the cups of others.

And the notion of 'psychological visibility' is related here -- it ties in with the necessity of listening. I've noticed recently that I've become less visible to many of the people of my past -- or rather, that their willing ability to understand another on a deep level, has always been somewhat wanting (I never was REALLY visible to them). Again, it can be lonely at the top, but I wouldn't trade the view I've got -- just for some hampered, tarnished 'community.'

you know how to play as a child, but now, with a giant's intellect experience, and knowledge. Further, you can play the grown up games too.

Right! I love all sorts of games.

In a word, a genius!

Again, true in a sense, false in another. In terms of the 'intelligence quotient', the $4 home-edition Mensa IQ test put me at 129 (not quite genius). But, as I recall, on the (also $4) home-edition Emotional Intelligence test, I was off the charts. An old friend once said that I have an 'old soul' -- but I prefer to say that I'm spiritually mature. ;-)

Thanks for the memories, Ed

Welcome. And you've alluded to something really good -- ie. that a primary goal in life is to create good memories. Think about it. If I told you that today was the only day that you'd ever remember, from now until your death -- then how would you live it?

Ed

Post 26

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 9:57am

You are a most generous answerer Ed.

Would you say, that the first job of "mother" is to smother; until the child kicks over the traces and starts to think for herself; wherein, the real fun begins?

Would this be the best of both worlds?

Post 27

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 10:04am

Ed,
As to your question about what I would want to remember.

My immediate thought, was to start making a list of all the good news I could remember and find, and to read it aloud as I wrote. News I could use, you might say.

Sharon

Post 28

Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 9:09am

Sharon,

Would you say, that the first job of "mother" is to smother;

No. A highly enriched environment is important (for a developing mind), but early autonomy is JUST as developmentally important as this. My mom hampered my personal growth with smothering. I wasn't prepared for life (the 'job' of parents) nearly as well as many of my peers were.

BTW, cool answer about the only remembered day.

Ed

Post 29

Monday, April 24, 2006 - 8:04am

Ed,

I'm flattered that you liked my last day's plan. Could this be why it's said, that people's lives flash before them at the moment of impending death?

Your prejudice prevented you from hearing my question properly. I asked about the first job.

Your laments refer to a later stage of parenting, which I too, scorned. My mother had a young brother who killed himself trying to catch birds. While climbing, with some friends, high up inside the hay barn, he fell to his death. As a result, my mother's vigilance with her own offspring, prevented me and my younger siblings from taking the risks, we were always planning for ourselves. That fear, combined with the fear of our contracting polio, motivated her to place great restrictions on my freedom, during the formative years. It was only in late years that I was able to feel empathy with my mother, and to understand why she was never able to let us "just go and have fun".

At the same time, there were none better than she, with infants. It was this primary infantile stage to which I referred; when I implied that one could not possibly smother a child with too much unconditional care and love.

Sharon

Post 30

Monday, April 24, 2006 - 7:44pm

Sharon,

I do see your point -- 'first job' doesn't mean 'only job.' Level of offspring development matters. Or: 9 year olds shouldn't be treated the same as 2 year olds. But doesn't that make my point about late smothering even still sharper??

I believe it to be correct that it may indeed be impossible to give awakened infants too much attention. But even as early as the age of 2 (toddler age), I think it could be disastrous to continue this thought/action plan.

My rule of thumb -- if it can walk, it needs a chance to develop some autonomy (this relates to a concept psychologists call 'achievement motivation').

Ed

Post 31

Monday, April 24, 2006 - 10:23pm

I agree, Ed. A pre-walking infant should have all the parental attention it can get. But a walker should be exploring, skinning his knees and figuring out who he is without Mom looking over his shoulder.

Post 32

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 12:25am

Thanks, Tenya. It's comforting to have the agreement of an expert on the subject -- whether it (you) be an operational expert, or, perhaps, an officially-recognized one.

Ed

Post 33

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 4:43am

Hi Tenya

I, too, agree that when a child starts to explore, it's time for parents to start distancing themselves physically. I read on another thread that you are parenting a young child near this age, now. It reminds me of those times when I would be hiding behind the shutters, watching my own toddlers extricate themselves from some predicament.

Do you have any opinion on the roots of empathy issue which started all this talk about infants, toddlers and young children? Do you consider the issue of empathy to be worth discussing, from an Objectivist point of view?

George had such a laugh over it; but I wonder what other individuals, such as yourself, who are parenting very young children now, really think. As Ed says, you are the expert observer.

Am I out on a limb alone?

Sharon

Post 34

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 9:48pm

Sharon,

I have read over most of what you've written while on your empathy kick. I lost interest early on though. It sounds like altruist collectivist crap to me. Maybe I've misread you, but I don't see how this fits in with objectivism or how it is helpful in raising my children. So, I haven't given it much attention.

Tenya

Post 35

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 7:55am