Babyishness

From Lukasgirtanner
Jump to: navigation, search

Babyishness is a fundamental concept that has highest significance for human life.

Babies are mysterious, becaues what goes on inside their brain and souls is completely unknown.

What is when adults try to reexperience babyishness? What is the relationship between adults and babyishness?

What is the relationship between maturity and babyishness?

- described already in the blog entry of 2012-07-10 (now, this is today) some aspects of babyishness.

Shall - copy-paste the content from there to here. Or trying to rewrite it? Maybe/Proably, rewriting is the better choice.

Now, dinner has come, - have to leave.

- have come back from dinner and can continue now.

babyishness, other words: babiness (a shorter form) or babyesqueness (a more "conservative" (strange word, - should change it; maybe "bourgeois", but this is ideologically so überladen that - shouldn't use it, maybe - should have left this expression out altogether because it only creates problems and animosities; but if somebody prefers babyesqueness, it is the right choice of this person because she/he (no, the order reversed, one of the rare occasions) might be happy with it) and "cultural" form)

babyishness: when the life outside the womb begins (but actually, already before, but this is off-limits maybe with the exceptions of what sounds unborn babies hear (which is as somehow also very technical thought) and most importantly how the mother feels emotionally during pregnancy which influences the werdende ("becoming"; - looked it up, probably "nascent" is the right word) baby)

babyishness: when babies have very high emotions, a degree and an intensity adults have lost (at least at most time)

babyishness: avid learners because of the high emotional Nebeneffekt/side-effect/supporting-effect

babies learn so easily because they already very strong emotions are very strongly connected to the learning itself and therefore, they are able to learn a tremendous amount of "information" (also in an inappropriate word) about their environment.

problem of these conventional baby-promoting websites: they try to teach babies what is taught in (conventional) schools later, just earlier, in babyhood, but this is completely wrong. babies should not learn to read or write, but they should play in a way that fits their emotional developmental stage (OK, now, - am also beginning with theories, better leave the word "stage" away).

if a mother presents learning cards or tries to teach writing skills to a baby, the baby might feel the good and benevolent intention of her mother and try to participate as much as possible, but it doesn't understand it. because of that, completely different methods of learning would be beneficial if they were introduced into a baby's learning environment. (first, - wrote "learning environmentment of a baby", but the other wording is more likeable.)

the way babies can really learn is by a diversity of actions, being in a familiy, incteractint with other people, animals, and also robots. like that, they can develop their knowledge about the outside word and increasingly realize what is important. but at the same time, a baby becomes a cultural being, it loses its initial/uninfluenced/(there, the word being mentioned further down was removed) neoteny or babyishness. but not only interactions is important, also contemplation, time to sleep and time to develop some kind of dreaminess that a baby has and that is also so important that adults still have (even - have it although so much has been destroyed or at least not promoted in my development.)

sorry for the word "pristine", - should have looked it up earlier. a Pflegerin came into my room and told me very nicely that it is time for the "Aabigmedis" (evening medication). - immediately uploaded what -- had written, just where - were, and followed her, trusting that she would quickly give me the medication. but she didn't.

this is exactly the problem, when - am interrupted: Shall - upload immediately (with mistakes in it, commentrs that are missing), or should - leave the computer immediately without uploading it? the extraterrestrials want probably the uploading immediately but also they, they are not delighted at all when - am writing something that is or might be not good.

- have not looked up "pristine" and it seems to be the right word when - am reading through the translation options in German (Standard German). but the problem is that a meadow is pristine (and this, the online dictionary doesn't indicate), and not a human being (a baby). - am not sure if my English language intuition is developed highly enough, but - have this impression, therefore, - will remove it further above.

- will no go into the meadow as the Pflegerin said. But this is also in some way not nice because nobody else is joining. - am alone, walking there. if people would really care about it, they would walk with me/- barefoot in the meadow.

another problem (but this is actually a comparably small problem) is that the content is distributed among several pages, this page here has become partially some kind of blog while the blog page 2012-07-10 (- had/have a strange feeling when making a link out of the 2012-07-10; why? shouldn't - make this link because there ia already a link above (the principle wouuld be: only do a link once)? or is there a different reason? is this link too technical in a place where technology should not be? but isn't the human brain organized with as many links as possible? but again, this is science, stay away from it; but something was/is also wrong when linking it, - feel it; not linking it would also be wrong in some way; - just don't find out the reason) has content that would belong in here.

Most importantly, babies, especially newborn babies, are impartial: they have no culturally-defined preferences (apart from what they experienced already while still being in the womb). And this impartiality should be preserved as much as possible during the following weeks, months and years. Because like that, the building of groups with their lifestyle and political agendas, which is so detrimental to today's world, can be minimized like that. The baby knows, what is best for society with is impartiality.

- am also convinced that babies (maybe - am an exception from it, or one of the few/rare exceptions (and maybe this also gives me the ability imposes the duty to write about it)) have no destructiveness in themselves. Babies don't want to hurt (normally, again, - might be one of the few exceptions. or maybe, even - was such a baby that didn't want to hurt but because of my glaucoma, it developed differently? but these are two entirely differently contexts: one is a context of a soul that has the potential to be deeply destructive independently of the interaction with an environment, independend of what happened with the outside world, the other is the assumption that - was injured in my soul and only because of that would also/even as a baby be destrutive (and maybe, the whole section here might be rubbish (no, not "rubbish", but nonsense and irrelevant; - am not sure, - am just speculating) because the problem might lie entirely differently).

Very strange/remarkable: The Pflegerin said that something has changed today with me, when she looked at me.

The music that - wrote when - wrote the sections above was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anJ8Knxoazc .

"Babies of the worlds, unite!" (This was a sentence that - long carried along within myself, and now, - am writing it the first time.)

It is an absurd sentence in some way because babies are totally dependend on their mother, especially if the mother is a Mammalian. and Babies need their core families, so something is wrong with this expression (almost like a "battle call", but a battle for peace (but this is complicated, because at least now, babyishness needs its counterpart, maturity, in order to realize a society that is and remains peaceful; and also ultimately, babyishness is not such an absolute concept that peace is already implicitely integrated in it. The creator, G.., is the all-encompassing entity/force/power (and sorry if the wording/description is again not good enough respectively doesn't have an equivalent standard to the complexity of the concept.))).

It is a metaphor, - don't know yet what it means. For me, it is some kind the babies, together with their mothers (but exactly this is the question) rise up and finally express their true needs of being promoted/furthered in a in diviidual way, so that it fits to their soul. But there is also an other interpretation which might be more interesting in the future, because babyies might indeed form some kind of network (without their mothers / progenitors or even against them) to pursue their interest. But - don't think that this works or that it is logical. Beacuse babies are highly dependend. In this section here, - have probably been too political, so forgive me it if was a mistake. - only/mainly wanted to extent mindsets and show what mindsets are also part of my thinking respectively longing.

And where is G..? Is this now the abstract baby that - promoted in early summer 2010? - am not sure respectively - think that this is not the case. G.. is... (- am not able to write further, because the gap is so giganctic between some kind of collective of babies (possibly with their mothers, but maybe not) and G.. . It might be the antithesis of G.. . So, have - now become again a non-believer? But - don't think so, because this eternally burnging love of G.. for his (its?; and "her" for the creatures directed towaards the motherly principle) creation is universal and also pertains to babies (even if the babies would try to make a insurgency against G..).

Another question, and this is now a systematic question would be to which love energy the babies would be directed. To the mother or to the father? Probably every baby will decide it itself. But it is also not yet clear if this love energy will be feld during lifetime or only afterwards. - had the enormous privilege (and luck) to experience the love energy from the motherly represanation of G... already during my lifetime. (somehwere in between - wanted to write another sentence, but - forgot it. Probably, it was simply the qeustion hof how "intergration" works; but - am increasingly convinced that this "integration" will only take place in the afterlife. (but - missed an opportunity to already try during my lifetime, because in autumn 2011 it would have been possible more.)

I continued to listen to the song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anJ8Knxoazc until now. I-/ didn't even change it to although - wanted for a short time.

The idea with the "insurgency against G.." is also absurd. Because all l... comes from God. How can babies, who tremendously love too, thanks to their creator, do an insurgency against that same creator? This is illoigcal. And not humble. But more than "simply" not being humble, it is illogical.

- have to work, work, keeping working, just writing something. baby, baby, baby, brabbling, babbling, what shall - do? writing baby sounds? linking to baby videos where they play with anaimals or robots or simply a loving human caretaker?

because going outside in the garden has lost its power also at least for the moment. - would need high grass and people participating with me, not alone. also embracing the tree too long is too time-consuming but maybe - am wrong.

no, seriously, babies need also time to rest. and it is the mother who decides, who feels, what is best for her baby. because of that, it is also necessary that all workplaces are as baby-friendly as possible and that mothers don't lose career opportunities because of having a baby. because having a baby actually enhances the abilities of a woman. the babies should be allowed to be carried everywhere and breastfed everywhere and also breastfed as long as possible. (sorry for this sentence, this is clear anyway, but - just have to keoop writing and don't know that to write else; the other political stuff, - don't want to write it because it is secondary).

A baby is a wonderful, an amazing creature that G.. make possible. Because of that, any concept of "abstract baby" is derived only from G.. itself.

One of the most important ways of how babies ("no, don't write "babies", writy "a baby"") are (no, "is") learning is by simply what the adults and the older children are doing, because like that, a baby learns what is important in life. And if the baby can itself be involved in these activities too, the learning effect increases more. So, by carefully choosing what somebody is doing around a baby and trying to allow the baby to participate in it as much and as adapted to the baby's needs as possible, already much has been accomplished in/at promoting the baby.

sorry, - am tired; maybe, it is indeed time for a break. There was an interruption of the network connection after having uploaded the latest mathematics stuff (the sentence was: "So, if a community is truly committed to mathematics and somehow reluctantly uses robots in order to increase the interest of a baby in mathematics, laying the groundwork for it thankt so the robotos, the more such a baby will realized the importance of mathematics and the tools with which mathematics is being taught."): probably You wanted a system change, because You stopped the uploading. no longer new thoughts (in this caes the reluctancy) just embedded in other standard (conventional; already expressed) thoughts. But new thoughts properly in new sentences? was that the case? or just too unprecise writing? - will try to continue to write as meaningfully as possible. (but a problem: this sentence doesn't explain more about babyishness.)

If humanity or a model learning environment community is truly committed to mathematics, a certain kind of reluctance in terms of using robots should be there: The awareness that robots don't serve the goal of learning pure mathematics directly, but that they only help to motivate for learning mathematics and developing technology that is more sustainable and that ultimately increases the ability or opportunity for more people to do more and more mathematics that is really pure and therefore ensure the likelihood that humnanity survives in the long-term.

babyishness means oppeness to everything. but the problem remains how much a baby can and should learn. it is a question of priority. for most people, they simply let it happen, they don't reflect too much about learning environments ("education"). they don't promote their baby actively too much respectively they don't have the ambition and also the feeling that it is necessary for the survival of (wo)mankind. and if they do, they unfortunately often do it in a wrong way, trying to teach writing and reading and mathematics in a conventional way (often with the help of computer screens) as early as possible instead of using all senses of a baby.

the word "education", why do - avoid it? (but is this a necessary question, wouldn't it be much more important to begin to umsetzen the proposals?

another thought, forgotten. ah yes, it was the subject of institutional boundaries, boundaries actually everywhere and the people with humbleness succumbing to them. because in a world without indistutional boundaries, there would also not be educational institutions and people would be free to choose their place of learning. The abolishment of such institutional boundaries is probably impossible or would be an immense task. These institutions respecdtively the thinking of people of building institutions is almost insurmountable. Already the lazyness (but it was also a time concern) with which - still haven't tried to change the .com domain to the .info name shows how institutions, traditions, ways how something is done, are built and cosntantly developing. The main problem might therefore not only even be the old institutions, but the newly developing institutions (but - am not sure about that, too complex/complicated).

And a baby is the entity with the least institutional internalization.

mehrere Punkte vergessen, leider

Unterscheidung Kindlichkeit und Kindischkeit. Vom letzterem nicht allzu viel bzw. in entscheidenden Situtationen überhaupt nicht. Und auf jeden Fall auch Reife. Bei der Frage geht es darum, ob es ein Kompromiss mit der Realität ist bzw. letztendlich Reife genau bedeutet (auch im Kontext eines universellen Babys (welches eben gerade nicht universell ist, deshalb die Reife).

Oder wirklich die Grundsatzfrage: Was/Wer ist das universelle Baby? Repräsentation des mütterlichen (väterlichen) Prinzips, das sind ja ganz klar erwachsene Prinzipien, also im Prinzip reife Prinzipien.

Die Babyishness kann deshalb nur schon aus logischen Gründen nicht universell sein.

Die Frage dabei ist nur, inwieweit G... nicht auch selber ein Baby sein kann/könnte/ist, eine Art universelle babyhafte Kraft. Und zugleich ein unendliche reife Elternperson.