Posts Tagged ‘understanding’

The Irrational Defiance of Phobics

“The psychological root of terrorism is a fanatical resentment – a quasi-psychotic hatred originating in the depths of the archetypal psyche and therefore carried by religious (archetypal) energies. A classic literary example is Melville’s Moby Dick. Captain Ahab, with his fanatical hatred of the White Whale, is a paradigm of the modern terrorist.

Articulate terrorists generally express themselves in religious (archetypal) terminology. The enemy is seen as the Principle of Objective Evil (Devil) and the terrorist perceives himself as the “heroic” agent of divine or Objective Justice (God). This is an archetypal inflation of demonic proportions which temporarily grants the individual almost superhuman energy and effectiveness. To deal with terrorism effectively we must understand it.” ~ E. F. Edinger: On the psychology of terrorism

Captain Ahab sees more than evil in the whale he seeks to kill.  For it to exist as a force, implies some defined order, and therefore some meaning to his universe.  And if he cannot find and kill it, then he has no proof of the orderliness.  What he fears, perhaps more than anything else (including his own demise), is a disorderly universe that attaches no meaning to occurrences, including the fact that he’d lost a leg.

Most of his crew suspected Ahab to be somewhat imbalanced about his intense quest.  But that imbalance did not stop them from following him at the cost of everything including their lives.    Ahab was not just authority, but absolute authority.  You cannot have an absolute authority without beliefs.  The certainty of those beliefs, “the feeling of knowing” according to neurologist Robert A Burton, M.D., comes not from examining empirical evidence, or even from any analytical process we call “thinking”.

“Certainty and similar states of “knowing what we know” are sensations that feel like thoughts, but arise out of involuntary brain mechanisms that function independently of reason.”   ~ http://goo.gl/QYtt4

So it is emotive based on what is presumed to be true.  The captain of the ship, certainly in the case of Ahab, is a dominator.  And those he dominates are fearful–not just of him, but of the idea of not being submissive to the authority.  Please note that the captain is not independently dominant, as he cannot manage the large ship without a crew.

His orders must be heard by those who are phobic enough to not dare disobey them.  When we see this behavior on playgrounds, it’s called “bullying”.  Sometimes the bullied fear not so much some physical punishment, but the withdrawal of favor: losing worthiness, or significance in some way.  And that is precisely why the crew of the Pequod, though many with deep personal reservations, do as they are told.

Through Captain Ahab’s commands, the crew could fight against evil, even death itself, because it had been given both form and a name–a great white whale–Moby Dick. This rendered it tangible, and therefore less awesome than an unnamed, illusive to clear understanding, death.

So as the captain commands absolute obedience, the crew follows him.  He has convinced them not just that the fight was very real, and very winnable, but that it was their unavoidable duty.  And in so doing, death itself becomes diminished.  Death, in the face of a necessary battle of righteousness, takes on a manageable definition when the foe is believed to be finite.  Compared to the unbridled fear of death, the “cause” with meaning and purpose becomes determinate.

It all hinges on beliefs overriding the insanity of the quest, and even though quite a few of them considered the skipper to be crazy.  It was safer to believe in the authority of the captain in spite of him being a bit nuts, than to allow the thought of the great unknown of chaos–that the personified evil, Moby Dick, might be a delusion–no, that would unhinge everything.

The study of mythologies identifies a common thread: explanations offer to give order to things otherwise phenomenal.  Chieftains, high priests, and witchdoctors have a long history of connecting subservience to the supernatural in a way that provides for a safety net beyond mortality.  And many of those who believe in the stories would rather die than have their beliefs undermined–even in the face of overwhelming evidence that what they believe is not remotely founded in facts at all.

The Beowulf epic, written by some anonymous Anglo-Saxon poet prior to the twelfth century, tells a tale of having to fend off, defeat, and destroy a nemesis monster character called Grendel.  From the point of view of Beowulf and his human comrades, Grendel is not one of them, but “the other”.

We can observe the failures of human civilization when, due to prejudice, misunderstanding, and ignorance, communication breaks down, and people become polarized in pockets of the “us”, and the “them”.  When all parties are so inclined to believe the differences to be irreconcilable, their phobic nature gives them few options outside of their fear.  And if they can growl loud enough, perhaps “the other” will fear them as well.

The very basis of the fear is often misinterpreted by the fearful themselves.  And without dialogue with a sincere purpose of moving closer to understanding, the objects of fear are often reduced to matters of cultural difference.  The differences, when carefully considered, may really be little more than acceptable costume, or the manner in which some child’s mother taught it to pray.

There are more than 6,000 languages spoken by human beings today, and most individuals know only one of them.  Some of these languages are only spoken by small groups of people.  In fact, almost a third of these languages are used by populations of only a thousand people, or less.  And while they may not be widely understood when speaking out, their needs, wants, and concerns are no less human than are those of the users of more common languages.  And even among the more frequently used languages, a clear translation of ideas often breaks down when the literal clashes with the colloquial, leaving intent to seem ambiguous at best, and at worst, hostile.

I think people could do better.  But they won’t as long as they remain afraid of what they don’t understand.  To clear up misunderstandings requires bravery and not cowardice; requires effort and not indolence.  It will require honest investigation of truthful information and not suspicious presuppositions.  It requires a commitment to wanting to do the right thing, and an openness to ideas that may be different from those we bring to the table.  While that may not be too much to ask, many seem to believe it’s too much to expect.

“I Never Promised You a Beer Garden…”

Once upon a time, it became obvious to me that having fun is fun…only as long as I never allow someone else to require it of me.  The simplicity of it is connected to wanting the freedom to have fun, and understanding how to make that happen.  The problem for most people that keeps them from allowing it to become a way of life, is that they feel obligated to pursuing activities driven by concepts that move them further and further away from understanding.  The motivations for people to plant gardens and work in them will vary.

Those who believe the effort is just about not having to buy their veggies at the store need to consider the economics of their time spent.  For most of us, the simple math will suggest we’d be better off pursuing other performance activity.  The same is true for those of us whose hobbies include making bread, cheese, beer, and wine.  If fun is left out of the equation, you could be pursuing a false economy.  There is work involved, not the least of which is washing and sanitizing containers and utensils, that needs to be considered if you place any value on your time at all.

An avid sportsman told me the cost of fishing and hunting, besides dues to hunt clubs, included boat, trailer, camping gear, fire arms and munitions, an extensive apparel wardrobe, licenses and fees, the expense of trained dogs, and that doesn’t account for his investment of time.  He said altogether, his cost of meat and fish last year averaged about seven hundred dollars a pound.

But if you want to hunt, fish, or garden (or make bread, cheese, beer, wine, etc.) and enjoy doing it, all the other reasons to justify the behavior, including the concept of having control over the contents of your food and beverage supply, are secondary.  In fact, if you don’t enjoy it but do it anyway, how is that different from all the other compliance regimens that require us to be aboard some agenda other than our own?

Hobbies and avocations should be fun, and not allowed to become donkey-work.  And that also goes for many other projects, even home maintenance.  If the rent for allocated storage space for ladders and tools, the cost of getting those tools, and if the value of your time is not a consideration, the only cost of repainting your house is just the price of the paint…plus spackling paste, caulking, thinners, cleaners, masking tape, drop-cloths, rags, antibiotic ointments, bandages, splints and crutches (which you will need when you fall off the ladder), along with other supplies including liquid refreshments for the painter.  You might consider these last few items to be essential if your other hobbies include making beer and wine, with a possible exception for refreshments already paid for.

For the pure fun of it, try this:

Pick out a small patch of ground (or a patio box if you have an apartment with a balcony or patio), and plant caps from beer bottles.  Then, show it to people from time to time, and act as if you genuinely expect it to grow a beer garden.  Be enthusiastic about it.  The more excited you seem, the more fun you’ll have with their reaction. One visitor was so taken by such lunacy that he left immediately to go to the store, returning with a case of beer and placed it in my garden.  I left it there.  The next visitor was invited to go with me to my garden to pick beer.   If this doesn’t happen for you, I’ll beg your pardon.

There’s just no end to the fun you can have with this sort of thing.  Next year, I’m planting the corks from bottles of expensive wines.  If a case of Chateau Latour, Chateau Margaux, Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, Dom Perignon, Giacomo Borgogno Barolo, Ghost Horse Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon, or any Riesling Trockenbeerenauslese shows up, I’ll call you.  Then, we’ll plant Scotch bottles!

In the meantime, I’m going smile hunting.  Game warden says it’s always open season, no license needed, and there’s no bag limit.  Additionally, the more you catch and release, the more you harvest.  If you want, you can throw in a few handshakes and hugs if targeted recipients of them find it acceptable, and rock on chilluns, rock on!

Liberty, Equality…

A question often comes up about which is more important, as if the comparison was altogether fair, which it isn’t.  Do we assign freedom (liberty), or equality (impartiality–fairness) with the highest value?  No quick answer is sufficient without a good bit of thought behind it.  The same is true if you’re asked would you rather give up a hand, or an eye?  How about both hands or both eyes?  Not enough to just consider what you keep, but also what you give up.  It is complicated further if it becomes a question of the dominant hand or the dominant eye, doesn’t it?

The concept of equality as far as governance is concerned, is that we are all equal, or should be equal under the law.  In life, there are many inequities by the very nature of things that cannot become level by legislation or litigation.  In matters of thought, equality is not going to be realistic.  That would require we all have the same intellect, which of course is not the way things are.  I’m often made aware of my poverty in that department when faced with the superior thinking of quite a few others.

But without the freedom of thought, the benefits of fair and reasonable, which should be some motive for certain equalities, may not become easily realized.  Freedom of mind should allow for the opportunity to move closer to understanding, without which the pursuit of happiness will be hampered.  Laws that are not impartial or fair to all governed by them suggest some freedoms are being restricted, modified, or withheld from some, according to station determined by some prejudicial method.

Without understanding, people tend to find themselves in constant turmoil, conflict, and controversy, wrapped up in unresolvable ideological entanglements often not based on or verifiable by evidence, or from any rational thinking, for that matter.  For many situations in life, understanding and the pursuit of happiness are cotangents of the kinds of behavior supporting fairness–with all participating having some right to fair treatment as well as the responsibility to extend the same in kind.

The rights of people to be free even in their thinking is something that should be available to everyone–equal in that right with each other.  For example, we cannot have a freedom OF religion unless everyone is at the same time allowed to have a freedom FROM religion.  And so it is the freedom itself that is to be extended equally.

Some living things require oxygen and water to survive.  Those two things, quite different from each other are both important.  The one that might seem most important at any given time is whichever one is being made hardest to get.  Too much air can dehydrate an organism, and too much water could drown it.  So with that, when either liberty or equality is pushed to some extreme measure, they can become quite the opposite of each other.  The drowning man is probably not thirsty.

The Very Nature of Things

Neurologist Robert A. Burton has recognized through scientific discovery that brain stimulation/mapping of the temporal lobe has uncovered all kinds of new information about motor movement, emotions, and decision making.  Burton has determined that some of what we “think we know” comes from the “voices” within our own limbic system.

I’m sure you’ve spoken with people who truly believe the stories about space aliens abducting humans, and perhaps insist it has happened to them.  Even though they seem to be so certain in their beliefs, a little bit of knowledge about our real universe and some common sense tells you they are probably delusional.

“Despite how certainty feels, it is neither a conscious choice nor even a thought process.  Certainty and similar states of “knowing what we know” arise out of involuntary brain mechanisms that, like love or anger, function independently of reason.”

~ from the preface of:

“On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not”

 by Robert A. Burton, MD (Neurology)

We’ve all experienced opinions that, when placed in juxtaposition with a changing background, will take on textures and flavors not recognized earlier.  And for that reason, we need to continue to look.  The alternative is to accept some presupposition, and not even an original one, as if it were fact.  And that, of course, is not a wise thing to do. All of us know that, but people by-pass that logic every day, even when they know better.  Then, sometimes, they don’t know better, and listen for some explanation that satisfies them, and calms their anxieties about the unknown.

My father was born in a world that, for the most part, believed The Milky Way Galaxy was the entire Universe.  Science, through the process of moving ever closer to understanding, soon proved that conclusion to be wrong.  In fact, there are billions of galaxies, and The Milky Way is neither at the center of things, nor the biggest of them by any stretch of the imagination.

“Maggots from meat” was a misconception born of the erroneous theory of spontaneous generation, similar to the way it was thought that grapes became wine due to some magic trick performed by Bacchus or Dionysus.  The idea of spontaneous generation offered an explanation, but it was not scientific; it was not even presumed to be natural, and it was not true.  Prior to Leeuwenhoek’s discoveries of the world of microbiology, almost every theory or explanation about life was at best, born of ignorance.  And please don’t presume I mean stupid, for ignorance is something else entirely.

Disease and pain were presumed to be caused by demons and witches, and to this very day, some people still believe it.  Since they “feel” safe accepting what they’ve been taught, they investigate nothing on their own without prejudice, without knowledge, and without understanding.  Although that is a sad thing, it’s quite common.

The purpose of science is to move closer to understanding.  And that often challenges older explanations that were derived without understanding.  People believe all kinds of things, and they will kill you because of what they believe.  But for what people believe to be true to in fact be true, is not now, nor has it ever at any point in human history been required.

To argue in defense of what is accepted as true even though it isn’t, was the reason Galileo was convicted of heresy by the Spanish Inquisition for noticing Venus orbited the sun and not the earth.  As we all (hopefully) know now, the Inquisition was in error, but Galileo, even though he told the truth, was forced to deny it in public, or face execution.

To acknowledge discovery takes nothing away from lessons about ethical behavior.  It does, however, often challenge preconceived notions about the details of stories used to make the point.  We live in a most amazing universe, and the more we learn about it, the more we understand about nature.

Copernicus theorized the sun was the center of our planetary system back in the 15th century.  In the next century, Galileo proved the heliocentric idea was true, and went even further to note the sun itself rotated.  This was quite a leap from everything believed to be true before, and consequently, by insisting his findings to be factual got him into hot water with the College of Cardinals and the Pope.  While this information is considered common knowledge today, there are still those who find it to be heretical.  But don’t you think it would be silly to throw out the scientific findings, and declare it okay to just accept whatever belief a person chooses to have on the matter?  Of course you would.

If a thing appears phenomenal to me, and quite a few things do, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t natural.  It just means that I might not understand the nature of it.  But at no time does nature cease to be nature just because I misunderstand it.  All the evidence we have about “creation” exists in nature.  So, without any brilliant leap required, it would make sense that what we can discover and understand about “creation” would involve studying and and learning more about nature itself.

And for those who wish to connect with the mind of “God”, they might try looking at the nature of things “created”, and to understand what can be discovered about the process itself.  After all, that would have to be exactly the truest revelations, if there be any at all.  The alternative would be to be entirely dependent on explanations offered by people who knew very little about the nature of anything, but made up explanations about everything.

There are many wonderful lessons that can direct us towards ethical treatment of others found in books, many of them religious books.  To attempt to deny that would be silly.  There are also good lessons to be learned from parables and fables told for that purpose without the presupposition that the story itself depicts something that really happened.  For example, I can get several lessons on several intellectual levels from a story by Aesop, without even once believing there was a talking fox that liked grapes.

I can also learn from some of the lessons in the Old Testament (most of which was written down for the first time during the Babylonian Captivity) without presuming there is a way for a man to sell his daughter into slavery that would please the Deity.  Or, for that matter, slaughter innocent men, women, and children, enslave some of them, steal their land and property, authorize some sovereign or monarch to take for himself far more than he could possibly need while others around him suffer.  It’s rather interesting when you read old scriptures from most of our modern religions (and I have) that one of the saddest delusions man has ever conceived of is that oppression of other people is authorized and approved of by the Deity.

One conclusion, if there be one, is that Charles Darwin opened some windows that can help us understand the nature of things, and was brave enough to publish his findings.  So it seems to me, as we move closer to understanding, we should embrace discovery rather than to deny it just because it doesn’t fit well within the confines of preconceived notions that occurred in the minds of ancients who didn’t have the benefit of knowing.

Think if you will about all the all the ancient theories of how the sun provided seemingly perpetual light and heat without any understanding of nuclear physics.  Isn’t it possible that some of those old theories, regardless of how noble or moral the person who came up with them happened to be, were not quite…the truth?  Although most of us give lip-service to the idea of growth, development and learning, sometimes, the hardest thing to do is to let go of an idea that makes us comfortable, even in light of empirical evidence that points out the error of its logic.

I embrace science as an ongoing process, not stagnated or trapped wherever it lands on any given day.  There is a peacefulness to be found by wanting to move closer to understanding rather an run away from it.  And when we do that, the benefits that can be had from being open to new ideas, thus willing to cooperate, can lead us to marvelous solutions to problems, where the prospects of hope are almost boundless, hampered only by the limits of our imagination.

The complexity of it, I suppose, may well be lodged somewhere inside wanting to know the importance of understanding what our imagination is made of.  Neurologists, such as Dr. Burton, are beginning to show us how to do that.  Yet with all the accomplishments made thus far, what we don’t know is still bigger than what we do.  So if we consider it even in the simplest of linear terms, I don’t reckon we’ve reached the end point, no, not yet, not yet at all.

Is Not Conservation Essentially the Quintessential Conservative Position?

When it comes down to the politically polarized issues about our environment, a good many people seem to be arguing about things outside their understanding.  It isn’t a new practice; it’s been going on for thousands of years–millions perhaps if you go back to the early beginnings of the hominids.  About 95% of our population is scientifically illiterate (according to Dr. Carl Sagan), and consequently fearful about what they don’t understand.

It is because of what they don’t know (and do not want to know), that they will presume to get their conclusions from other people.  The overwhelming majority are phobics, and as a large subset, get their opinions, not from research, or study, but from accepting the ideas presented to them by their bullies (dominators).  And as long as certain dominators are blinded by the prospects of a hugely profitable immediacy, the inability to postpone gratification, one of the basic character flaws found in individuals and societies as a whole, they will passionately pursue those profits, and support a campaign program of perception management to keep their phobic followers seeing everything as simple, and in some way similar to a pep-rally at a high school football game.  To them, it is just easier to see it as a game.  And during games, they will yell: “Hooray for our side!”

Some are not convinced, in the face of data they literally do not understand, that if we must err, it would be wiser to err on the side of caution.  Strangely enough, they have been convinced (which should give any reasonably bright person a clue to what is happening) that protecting the earth, air, and water in some natural way that can sustain life is some kind of communist plot. At the same time, the delusion has now spread so far as to insist conservation itself, which is the ultimate conservative position, is somehow a bad idea.

Furthermore, it is presumed bad by those who externalize good and bad to things outside themselves, especially if they do not understand them.  What makes it easy for dominators to benefit from such idiocy is the very nature of the phobics.  It is common for them to fear what is framed as “the opposition”, and fear it vehemently more so if it is not understood, or if at all, not very clearly.

And what irrational fear seems so profoundly expressed so loudly and so often?  What more so than the in-your-face insistence of an idea from someone seen to be of an opposing political or religious ideology?  In fact, since that very angst drives humans to become passionate about war, it appears that fears associated with threats they recognize (though not always rationally) to the fabric of their beliefs, will overwhelm even the fear of the loss of life and limb.  You’ve seen it in lots of places.  I’ve seen it on fields of battle.  You can find lots of evidence to support what I just said, if you’ll just look for it.

In the meantime, while incidences of melanoma continue to rise, while a glacier in Nova Scotia continues to melt risking thermal dynamic alterations to The Gulf Stream, while crude oil still leaks into the lower part of that Gulf Stream, while humans and their children have flammable liquids come into their homes through their kitchen faucets, since what was once thought to be an unlimited source of food in our oceans seen now to be endangered and very finite, while we continue to breathe air so unlike the air from just a mere century ago, people turn their backs to the problem, primarily because…they don’t even understand it?  And all of these things are happening whether anyone is willing to admit it, or not.

Oh, these issues are likely to bring sickness, pain, and death to some of the children and grandchildren of our people, but it is much easier to just not think about it than to risk the odd chance of becoming aware of the possibility that some things may have already gone too far.  And to turn our backs and not stand up to face these adversities is not a very responsible, or even a brave thing to do.  When others are seen to be not facing, and even hiding from things that could threaten them, it is often observed as the essence of cowardice, isn’t it?  Maybe we here in the home of the brave, should think about that a little bit.

I thought of some apparent confusions about irrational fearfulness and bravery the other day while looking at a photograph of a man carrying an AR-15 with him to the grocery store.  Imagine so many other people going to buy their daily bread without so much as a pocket knife on them.  Is it that they do not understand all the imminent dangers omni-present all around them?  Or instead, are they just enjoying the freedom that is found only in a peaceful mind?  And perhaps to some, is that not a peacefulness passing far beyond what others might have developed as skills, or ever made habits to even begin to understand?  Well, of course it is.

Human life exists on this planet, as does lots of other kinds of life, due to delicate balances within nature itself.   Some want to believe all this life, all this nature, is the good work and good gifts to us from an unerringly good Deity, yet they would trash it?  Hardly makes sense when you think about it.  But to think about it and want to understand requires an effort.  Those who are lazy with ideas and only want to stand on those built by someone else, some authority they’ve acquiesced their rights to self-reliant thought processing, will not think about it without becoming irrational, thus angry and even hateful.  Peacefulness, a by-product of understanding, is not the business of those willing to be enslaved by their own misunderstandings.

So the fearful will be sedated by the empty promises of their dominators, and remain faithfully in hope of being lead to safety.  And absolutely nothing outside those empty promises will be of any long-term benefit to the phobics, or to their children.

“Stop worrying about these rumors you’re hearing about Agent Orange.  It’s just a defoliant, and cannot cause any harm to people or other animals.”
 ~ Lt. Commander (name withheld), Civil Engineer Corps, USN, 1969, just outside DaNang, Vietnam.  I remember it well.

The Magic Age Is Ten: Part Two

Perhaps the most emotionally committed ally you can ever have is your own ten year old child, even if they are afraid of you.   They sit in the middle of infancy and adulthood balanced in the world you have shown them.  They are wanting to be just like something, though perhaps not everything you are showing them, and possibly without either you or them realizing how powerful that influence is.

Children see.  Children hear.  Children follow their parents around and mimic them.  This isn’t new, as we are all hardwired that way.  Hominids have been doing this for over four million years as far as we know.  Since most children will develop behavior patterns from how their parents teach them to deal with the world around them, being the parent of a ten year old makes who you have been for the last decade, and who you are now, a powerful influence.

Teachers also influence the children, don’t they?  Of course they do, and they can also be powerful forces, either positively or negatively.  But the parents are the ones with the strongest, and therefore most likely to be the longest lasting overall influence.  Because of this, and the huge difference in the amount of time and control parents can have more than any individual teacher, few teachers will ever have enough time to overcome all that the children have already “picked up” from Mom and/or Dad.   And it’s also important to remember going forward from age ten, a child’s eagerness to begin to assert themselves as individuals, and even rebel against parental authority, is likely to accelerate–far more so now than at any earlier time.

By the time a child is ten years old, whether the mix of parental influence be predominantly good or bad, a human child is arguably at a most critical pivotal point for the formation of the principal parts of their belief and value systems.  And whether any recognition is given to a pivotal age, societies tend to place a high degree of importance on believing the child-rearing process has a lot to do with, not just what the child learns to value, but also how society values that child when it reaches adulthood.

I’ll bet you’ve heard someone say to another person some kind and uplifting or generally positive remark about the way the other person was probably raised.  Our culture centers around family units.  So to speak respectfully to most of us about our families is usually taken, as well as intended to be, a compliment.  The opposite is also true.

Just because a parent or a grandparent was an ethical person does not mean the child will always grow up to act ethically all the time.  But on the other hand, if we are raised to believe it’s okay to be unethical, the handicap of what we believe, no matter how true or untrue those beliefs may be, could cause them to be most difficult, and for many, unlikely to ever overcome.  Why?  Because by the age of ten, our perceptions of the world around us are very well established.  And they are so to the extent of determining what we will value, as well as some of the things we don’t want (to have or to happen to us) for the rest of our lives.

So as a parent, how long do you have?  Psychologists tell us early childhood will determine a lot about what a child will want to learn, and become capable of learning.  When children are very young, they are dependent on their parents.  But it’s also true for the most part, that they actually do want to be with their parents.   And that is true even when parents, unconsciously or not, are giving the child good reason to want to be away from them.

By the time puberty kicks in, their following and mimicking days are over .  More and more, they’ll want to make their own decisions.  They may not always fully understand why they feel that way, but they might think they do.  And when that occurs, there is little point in expecting them to want mom or dad to show them how to do anything.   Sometimes, their parents don’t understand all of what’s going on, either, because…they have forgotten.

Learning is a process.  That means it takes time.  Well, unless the learning is due to trauma, and when learning is the result of that kind of experience, it ceases to be a process, and becomes an event.  How you help your child get to age ten is largely up to you as far as dealing with processes, or allowing (or causing) trauma.

By ten, a child has a pretty good idea how mommy and daddy resolve problems, disagreements and conflict.  Some children are quite accustomed to yelling, screaming, and physical violence by the time they are ten years old.  And they may well believe, consciously or not, that aggressiveness and force is not only an acceptable way, but the quickest way to get them what they want.  In other words, if they’ve leaned by trauma, they will be likely to teach by trauma.  That’s what they’ve learned; that’s what they know.

A sad addendum to that is, while some children learn to commit violence, quite a few also learn to accept it.  Some who were abused as children continue to allow themselves to be abused as adults, often finding something strangely addictive to what they’ve grown up believing was normal–or at least what they believe they deserve.

Whatever it is that you will teach them about who you are, what you do, and what you stand for and not stand for, will pretty much be well established in their minds by the time they are ten years old.  If you wait ’til then to get started, you may have waited too late.

But even if you haven’t, you’ve wasted a whole decade that will never come again, and the time you have left will pass quickly.  And during most of that time, they might not listen to you the way they had been willing to earlier.  Be sure that for whatever it is they’ve learned, you were far and above all others their principal teacher whether you realized it or not.