Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01191)

I think Jerry S. deserves a big time round of applause and some well-deserved
recognition for the work he's done with wounded children!  I think your
dedication is wonderful.  My hats off to you and Chuck's helmet.

Donna

__________________________________________________________________________


Richard,

        Thanks for the moral support.

> perhaps the
>focus should not be on what ~attributes~ of children may be maturing in
>sequential fashion, but rather, on ~what children can potentially believe
>they ARE~ which also may be maturing according to a predictable, age-related
>pattern.
        Here we have a real problem with today's children that is
going to bite society pretty soon--the TV.  My adopted daughter came
to us having been diagnosed at Johns Hopkins as mentally retarded.
She was not.  But she had been in the foster care system for 6 of
her 8 years, and spent almost all of that time in front of a TV.  Her
concept of reality is like a bad dream.  Even today she thinks that
people get money by going to Washington DC and pulling it out of
a "machine."  I have tried to explain to her that in order to get money
out of a bank, you first have to put it into the bank, but she has yet to
be able to cognize this idea.  Her self-image was zero, and as a
borderline, she lived vicariously through others.  The "predictable"
pattern of growth that you discovered is obviously for the mean
child. This girl is 11, as tall as my wife, with the behaviors of a
3 or 4 year old.

>The main tenant of my version of Psychogenesis, at least, is that opening up
>opportunity for new egoic delusion ("delusion" because it is a
>"contamination" of *Self*) is an age-related process. Unfortunately, the neat
>seven-year pattern is complicated somewhat by the circumstance that the egoic
>possibilities of the next cycle start showing up in "experimental" form at
>the mid-point of the current cycle.
        Yes, it does get confusing.  The idea of stages must always
be based on averages anyway, because individual karma can have
drastic effects.  I was at the "I am spiritual" stage in my teens, though my
concept of "spiritual" at the time was rather naive.

>Be that as it may, I believe even a rough idea of Psychogenesis can help with
>parenting. For example, somewhere in the Animating Cycle, perhaps about age
>three-and-one-half, the simple technique of "channelling" of a child's
>energies has to be augmented, when necessary, with the operating principle of
>the coming Physical Cycle--*dominance*.  The big person bosses the small
>person--period.
        You are right about the channeling.  The children that I see are
"children of rage."  They are filled with anger.  Since the foster parents are
the closest thing to hand, they tend to take their anger out on the foster
parents (the logic that  the foster parents are blameless and only trying
to help, goes unnoticed in the heat of emotions).  We have to channel
that anger into less destructive outcomes, if we can.  BTW, in Maryland
there is no longer a "dominance" stage.  It is illegal to "boss" children
around in this state.  In fact, the state guidelines now read that "touching"
a child can be considered abuse (you no longer need to leave a bruise
or scar).  And you can't throw water on a child--so be careful in any
swimming pools while you are in Maryland. (I only wish that I were
kidding--I am not).


>Now, if there is not something fundamentally more seriously wrong (an actual
>organic physical/psychological debility or the fact that people did something
>really bad to her early in the Animating Cycle) many of the problems with the
>nine-year-old girl you described may well stem from her never having had the
>feature of subordination/superordination consistently inculcated into her
>behavioral patterns as she approached and passed into the Physical Cycle.
        All of the kids that I deal with have a "physical/psychological
debility"
of some kind.  I have had 4-year olds with scars from where someone put
out cigarettes on them.  And much worse.

> ... The common
>denominator often seems not to be method but ~consistency in application~ of
>whatever method is used to subordinate the child's will to that of the
>parent's during the critical years when a child is testing the semi-Selves
>(temporary egoic identities) which form in the physical type of
>differentiated consciousness.
        Agreed.  In fact, this is believed to be the cause of the
borderline personality disorder--inconsistent parental responses.
And they say it occurs around age 2 to 3.

> It is many times a
>situation like this:  the child is allowed to do whatever he or she wants for
>a while; then the parent beats the crap out of the kid. The child is again
>allowed to run free; then somewhere down line the parent beats the crap out
>again.
        Yes.  This kind of parenting always causes dysfunction in the child.

>To many parents, ~simple dominance~ does not have a pleasant ring to it.  In
>their modern wisdom they may prefer using "giving the reasons for things"
>etc. as a substitute technique, even with very small children.
        This is no longer a  "many parent" issue in Maryland.  Here, it is
the law.  The official word in Maryland is the use of logic and reason.  This is
the *only* accepted response unless you are specially trained in restraining
techniques.  As a foster parent, when a child throws a rock at my head, I am
supposed to reason with him/her.  The 9-year old that got my wife into so
much trouble has an anti-social personality.  According to all the textbooks,
this is permanent and won't change.  It certainly won't change by the use of
logic and reason (most children are in the concrete stage until their teens
and can't reason their way out of a wet paper bag until then but our state
is undetered by this).

Anyway, I am now stepping off my soapbox, and going back to
the trenches of my life.  The next time a child throws a rock at me,
I am going to ask Chuck to borrow his helmet.

Jerry S.
Member, TI