So moving on… I have covered the core elements. The foundation, the social transition, starts out the same, we are at first in a state of free-fall, we have no sense of social recognition, no sense of social feedback or pressure. We have only the sense of mother, or we start the social transition with no adequate sense of mother, and we begin to explore socially by behaving toward people as we imagine they are which manifests in one of two ways. We really aren’t that creative.

We imagine new people to be the mother with different colours, different shapes. We don’t make sex distinctions. We are doing well just to identify physical traits, how these traits are different from mother, and we begin reacting as if we can get comfort from these others. This is often how children begin their relationship with the secondary caregiver. If the child learns that indeed comfort can be had from these others, happiness becomes stronger, more common, but this is not the automatic or universal initial response.

More hypersensitive children react with uncertainty about the other. They at first are fearful of any other that differs from mother. It’s not a choice they make. It’s an innate trait, but just like any other timid animal, they can be gentled into a state of trust, coaxed out into accepting comfort from the other. So in the end same outcome even for them, comfort and stronger happiness.

Both scenarios can go the opposite way though. They can experience what instinct tells them is the rejection of the mother which begins a twist. This is perhaps one of the first and oldest pains, and one the child will likely not be taught how to manage, heal or even deal with, and they will then generalize rejection from the mother as rejection of the self and rejection of the others, early paranoia.

The other scenario would be continued acceptance by the mother by rejection from the other which leads to social conservatism. Stick to your in group, and this summarizes our childhoods well enough does it not? Do they go any other way? Where things get really twisted, or when some strength and recovery can be found, is in the conceptual transition.

I think it hard not to become more conservative as you grow older. It can be harder to not become more paranoid as well, or more self-aggrandizing narcissistic. Some would spin that as extreme self confidence. We often just become more of whatever we were as children.

Confirmation bias plays a big role in the conceptual transition, and then we later give it the seal of sanctity, judging that it was experience and we did right in learning from it. In the conceptual transition, again, it’s the same thing. Concepts create pressure, explanations and definitions, paradigms actually. Is a social group anything other than a paradigm you wind up subscribing to?

You can invest heavily in a job or career paradigm. You can invest in a faith, keeping the faith and professionalism. Is there any difference between those? Any difference between keeping the faith and professionalism? Any difference between marital fidelity and rationalism?

Define rationalism. The idea that everything should make sense, be logical even. Any difference?

I think in many of these examples, one requires the other, but the other doesn’t require the one. How so?

Keeping the faith doesn’t require professionalism. It could be keeping the faith in some other area. Ah, I would argue otherwise. It is why people so frequently have crisis of faith, feel they fail as members of their faith.

Being rational helps a marriage, but you don’t need to be married to be rational. Being rational can destroy a marriage.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~