Hi Phil,
This subject being of some interest to me, I thought it could be of interest to you. As I have so far found that human intelligence in children begins to get impulses from the protective urge naturally. Children cry and get parental or elders response according to their mindset. If that response ends the situation, it is fine. However, if that response is mere pampering, then most probably it won't end the situation permanently, but only post pones by creating diversion.

The question that arises is whether children should be allowed to cry for a while, to learn to observe their urges or not. If children get habituated to be attended immediately to all their discomforts immediately, will they retain the essential tolerance in their adult life ? Isn't the fear in a new situation, essentially the inability to see the challenge of urges arising in a new situation ?

I think, the inputs of other readers give a wide ranging possibility to see and understand the problems of mankind.

The Cry Translator eases the anxiety many parents have in caring for their child. The Cry Translator teaches them to recognize their baby?s different cries so they have more confidence in caring for their baby.

Understand in three seconds what the baby is saying in his own language.
To be able to apply the correct solution to every single need.
Increases baby's wellbeing.
Helps in developing the baby's confidence by being understood, reducing crying time.
Improves Baby-Parent Relationship.
Increases parents/minders wellbeing. Parents, as well as babies find ther confidence increased by being understood and being able to understand.
Avoiding stressful situations, despair, annoyance of babies and parents. There isn't anything as frustrating for the baby and for those who look after him that unknowing why they cry or how to calm them.
Anyone, even those who don't know a particular baby, can now understand him or her. The baby can now comunicate with anyone what he/her needs or wants any time.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

It appears good. I think the not Ok position which gets embedded in the early child hood, which is the source of insecured feelings which comes along in the adulthood will get diminished and there are chances of more ImOk , you are Ok people.

What actually is the psychological significance in inflicting pain by piercing holes in the ear and like behind the ancient customs.Do they want the not ok position to be strongly embedded..

gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Sat, 07 Nov 2009.

Prasanna.....I have absolutely no experience whatsoever with babies or small children, therefore, cannot comment affectively on any of this. I know I was a baby once presumeably but I dont remember much of anything until around three or four years of age. I would say there must be something to the cry translator of value as my guess is parents as a general rule would interpret what the baby wants and what they as parents want of the baby and how they want the baby to turn out. I would think that some overall understanding by parents of themselves and the states we talk about are necessary for the parents before they can make sane decisions on how to rear children. Maybe people should just wait to have any more children until their own change reaches a state of sanity they deem is worthy of bringing someone else on earth. I remember K saying he didn't think he could guarantee that if he were to have a child it would be any more aware than others. I am not sure if this was a remark on his baby rearing capabilities or in the fact you bring the child in to the world which will constantly be conditioning him.

With this said, I have no objections to psychologist trying to come up with something for the existing parents who have made the decision to have children or to the myriad of unplanned children across the world where suggestions on how to condtion a child less is presented as theory. We have to start somewhere, I guess.

phil K wrote:
Prasanna.....I have absolutely no experience whatsoever with babies or small children, therefore, cannot comment affectively on any of this.

Pras: ;-) I think you may be kidding. Haven't you really seen, touched or played with babies or small children any time, even if they may be of others ? Anyway, according to me, you are still continuing to dialogue, possibly because you weren't pampered too much as a child. Otherwise, you too would have been as obstinate as some others preferring to stay away from discussions rather than listening and responding to various and different kinds of views.

Phil: Maybe people should just wait to have any more children until their own change reaches a state of sanity they deem is worthy of bringing someone else on earth.

Pras: We may have to wait till the kingdom comes ! Great idea that I too had in my younger days and probably most people have had it in their youth. However it seems impracticable because 1) the state of sanity hasn't been so far universally specifically defined, understood or accepted as an intellectual proposition, and 2) As natural reproductive urge generally dominates and sways human intelligence, the restriction or control of child births is neither possible nor necessary and desirable.

Being on the subject, I may add here, that there is a serious demographic imbalance taking place particularly in Developing Countries. The literate middle classes are minimizing or reducing their issues to one or even nil, with some or the other idea that world is deteriorating or it is difficult to raise children. On the other hand, poor, oppressed and illiterate people who are unaware of worldly situations, are begetting more and more children, who are deprived of facilities. Of course, the samples of social work, governance and justice are unable to do any thing to this.

Phil: I remember K saying he didn't think he could guarantee that if he were to have a child it would be any more aware than others.

Pras: Perhaps he could have been right for his days. Many a time, K also often seems to have over looked the possibility that there could be further expansion or liberation of consciousness in some future human being/s, possibly discovering further dimensions of consciousness and explaining it more clearly and effectively than him.

I think, we can't generalize the awareness in others as one and of the same level. 'Awareness in others' is difficult to comprehend or visualize because, in entire mankind, it has been varying in a vast spectrum from minimal awareness to sustaining their lives with great difficulty, and to the maximum possible level wherein those humans are undoubtedly extra ordinary and impressive in their behavior, but are utterly unable to explain anything rationally and non controversially as good as K.

I think yours and Bob's drive laced with some sense of humor and your regular visits to the forum, may keep our dialogues continuing and lively.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

This post was last updated by Prasanna P Sun, 08 Nov 2009.

Nope..never even held a baby or been around children under talking age. I did do a study of nursery school kids for a psych class in college!

I have no opinions on population control by governments, but I do think some thought has to be given by the individual as to reproduction in his own life when one considers the aging process has changed and may change to well over 100 if not unlimited. (reference Aubry de Grey "Ending of Aging"). The very words young and old have changed their meanings and the concept of when to have children if one chooses that is moving along with this change.

I would have to question your statement "As natural reproductive urge generally dominates and sways human intelligence, the restriction or control of child births is neither possible nor necessary and desirable." If this were a true statement about reproduction then we would have no birth control in any society. As you have pointed out the underdeveloped countries are out producing the developed countries and if this process was a natural "reproductive" urge other than a "sexual" urge, I doubt we would have controlled it even on the individual basis.

phil K wrote:
I would have to question your statement "As natural reproductive urge generally dominates and sways human intelligence, the restriction or control of child births is neither possible nor necessary and desirable."

Yes. Only when we question, we open our minds for discussion.

Phil: If this were a true statement about reproduction then we would have no birth control in any society.

Pras: Yes. These measures haven't brought the desired results. Instead the societal and governmental measures seem to have increased sex crimes and imbalance of sexes in population, whether in China, India or elsewhere. From time to time some governments have announced incentives to their citizens to give births for more children, to maintain the proportion of sexes and also of various age groups in population.

Phil: As you have pointed out the underdeveloped countries are out producing the developed countries and .....

Pras: Though I also agree with what you have attributed, my point was that in lower economic strata, the population is increasing in all countries, thus depriving their children of adquate attention. Those capable of paying adequate attention aren't producing more children, thus leading to gross imbalance.

Phil: ....if this process was a natural "reproductive" urge other than a "sexual" urge, I doubt we would have controlled it even on the individual basis.

Reproductive urge is natural and biological, whereas sexual urge is unnatural and emotional. Since the act of intelligence is the same in both urges, they are often mistaken to be from the same origin.

Reproductive urge is entirely biological and is the prompting or signalling from the sex hormones. When it is unfragmented, human intelligence is enormous and hence, naturally stable. Therefore, despite the prompting from reproductive urge, it is capable of perceiving, observing and even remaining stoic and aware and responds or not only by its judgement and voluntarily with discretion.

Whereas generally in case of most animals, this discretion isn't possible. Because the intelligence is so low, that it is always and constantly guided and swayed by both defensive and procreative urges.

However, presently due to fragmentation, the amount of natural human intelligence is lower than its normal state and hence is easily prompted, dominated or swayed by the reproductive urge, whenever it arises. Further, since the act draws entire energy from the body including the brain for an instant, the intelligence becomes free from the perception of sorrow.

As sorrow is always bothering human intelligence and since the sexual act gives it a respite from sorrow for a moment, intelligence begins to habitually indulge in such acts to get rid of sorrow. Hence, it is not the repro urge, but the habit to seek pleasure that is prompting the act, which is adding to unwanted reproduction. Hence, it may be important to see the motive behind the act, rather than the act itself.

When intelligence is unfragmented, it functions normally and naturally and is prudent or discreet in action. That action or inaction isn't prompted or dominated by aggressiveness or renunciation, in which extremes mankind is oscilating now.

Generally any society is influenced by the number of Highly Intelligent Persons. Such persons were more in Developed countries and proportionate decrease in their numbers now is apparent, probably because of two reasons. First is the overall decrease in human intelligence all over the world and the second is the increase in the influx of population from developing countries. The first reason is the inability of mankind to investigate and plug the causes for overall deterioration in human intelligence. Second reason is due to the commercial interests of the aggressive people in both countries.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

According to Joseph Chilton Pearce in his book
'Evolution's End', human beings are now in grave
biological jeopardy due to five common practices
that have given rise to rampant violence, child
suicide, and deteriorating family and social
structures.

[Hospital childbirth] - interferes with the
natural bonding process between infant and mother,
which in turn impedes the potential for all future
bonds: with parents, friends, spouse, and society.

[Daycare] - takes the child even further from its
mother, increasing the inability to bond and
implanting a lifelong sense of alienation and
isolation.

[Television] - damages the brain, not because of
its content, but because its mechanical effect
cripples a child's ability to learn.

[Premature attempts at formal education] - prevent
development of the imagination - children without
such development tend towards violence and are
often uneducable.

[Synthetic growth hormones] - used in meat, dairy,
and poultry products accumulate in children and
accelerate physical and sexual development, while
psychological and intellectual maturation is
radically impaired.

"A human nurtured instead of shamed, and loved
instead of driven by fear, DEVELOPS A DIFFERENT BRAIN
and therefore a different mind. He will not
act against the well-being of another nor against
his larger body, the living Earth.......As our
damaged children grow up and become the parents
and teachers, DAMAGE WILL BE THE NORM, THE WAY
OF LIFE. We will habituate to damage. Nothing else
will be known. How can you miss something you
can't even recognize, something you never had?"
[Joseph Chilton Pearce]

Bob M.

"Very soon a man shall appear who will finally dispell the universal darkness from our world." (Bob M.)

This post was last updated by Robert Michael (account deleted) Tue, 10 Nov 2009.

Chilton Pearce hits the nail right on the head.

Robert Michael wrote:
According to Joseph Chilton Pearce in his book 'Evolution's End', human beings are now in grave biological jeopardy due to five common practices that have given rise to rampant violence, child suicide, and deteriorating family and social structures.

Bob, five common practices and possibly some more may be the causes of the grave jeopardy. Don't you also see that K pointed out the primary cause resulting in all these five effects, is the 'fragmentation of intelligence' ?

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Prasanna P wrote:
Bob, five common practices and possibly some more may be the causes of the grave jeopardy. Don't you also see that K pointed out the primary cause resulting in all these five effects, is the 'fragmentation of intelligence' ?

Surely there are more, Prasanna, and I think breast-feeding and lots of warm and tender human touch are also very important for the moral and spiritual development, well being, and happiness of a child.

I do however have a problem with this concept of "fragmentation of intelligence", as I find it is too vague and abstract and that it can lead to a lot of meaningless dialogue and mischief. For instance, I'm aware of many people who have a great deal of 'intelligence' yet are void of not only love, but void of genuine wisdom too (which I find is Love in Action), and which can only be possessed by those who can truly and selflessly love. So I find the simple key to it all, is, as J. C. Pearce too clearly states, proper nurture and love in the critical early formative years of a child's life, and just as K often alluded to and also experienced to an extraordinary degree himself in his early years.

"If while you are young you don't feel love, you don't look with love at people, at animals, at flowers, when you grow up you will find that life is empty; you will be very lonely, and the dark shadows of fear will follow you always." (J. K. - 'TOTT')

"If your parents really loved you, they would see to it that you had no cause for fear, that you were healthy, happy human beings; they would see to it that there was no war, no poverty in the world, that society did not DESTROY YOU or anyone around you, whether the villagers, or the people in the towns, or the animals. It is because parents do not truly love their children that there are wars, that there are the rich and the poor." (J. K. - TOTT')

So I feel that that "intelligence" K often spoke of is more simply and correctly LOVE.

Were I to write a book I would title it, 'The Awakening of Love', wherein it would get right to the nitty-gritty of just how this takes place, and largely from my own personal experiences of undergoing this never-ending human flowering process.

Bob M.

"Very soon a man shall appear who will finally dispell the universal darkness from our world." (Bob M.)

This post was last updated by Robert Michael (account deleted) Tue, 10 Nov 2009.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Chilton Pearce hits the nail right on the head.

Yes, I agree. Although, and in spite of Pearce's keen insights into the nature of the many problems, symptoms, and causes of the fallen or ever decaying and deteriorating human condition, I don't think he sees the big picture quite as well as K did. Some insights of which more and more I'm beginning to feel that K, especially towards the end of his life, kept to himself so as not to rock any of the boats he built over the years.

Bob M.

"Very soon a man shall appear who will finally dispell the universal darkness from our world." (Bob M.)

This post was last updated by Robert Michael (account deleted) Wed, 11 Nov 2009.

Robert Michael wrote:
"If your parents really loved you, they would see to it that you had no cause for fear, that you were healthy, happy human beings; they would see to it that there was no war, no poverty in the world, that society did not DESTROY YOU or anyone around you, whether the villagers, or the people in the towns, or the animals. It is because parents do not truly love their children that there are wars, that there are the rich and the poor." (J. K. - TOTT')
So I feel that that "intelligence" K often spoke of is more simply and correctly LOVE.
Were I to write a book I would title it, 'The Awakening of Love', wherein it would get right to the nitty-gritty of just how this takes place,

Ok, Bob, I think I used the words..."cut to the chase." Wrtie your book here. But go slowly so the reviewers can get in their two cents and please dont bother with what is wrong with not loving as we all know this. As we know Nidal Hassan was not obviously loved properly by his mother and his Islam religion.

First, I would like for you to define "love" and if you can please distinquish its biological component. It is not dopamine as that is the "love" chemical based on pleasure which can involve sex and that would be feeling and K said "Love is not a feeling."

I have, however, opened a new topic called "Love" to cover this so that we dont interfere with this topic. Please move over there Bob and others wanting to go in to this.

This post was last updated by phil K Wed, 11 Nov 2009.