How a Value Judgement can Lead to a Narrow Focus, Stagnating Conceptual Ability.

Today I am going to talk about an experience I had with a young girl I taught. This girl came from a stable home, her clothes were in order, her presentation always clean, her work done. She responded in the classroom with capacity, but it was slow. She often was silent in her behavior, listening more than participating.

During a parent teacher conference I met and listened to the mother of this child speak. The whole time the mother did not speak about her daughter and instead actually tried to pick up the male teacher present. This woman obviously was stable with a job and a home, as her daughter came to school clean and tidy in her appearance   This mother was obsessed with a societal idea that she needed a man, this being revealed in her attentions as what she focused on which was her sense of being alone, and her desire to date the male teacher present.

One time, when I had the opportunity to work with the daughter of this woman, I found myself perplexed, because the child would stare at me, eyes wide, and to me, seem to not be able to take the information I was giving to her directly and apply this into some kind of reciprocal response. She merely listened as though what I was saying was something new that she had never thought of and thus she needed time to integrate. What I did not realize, and also, remember seeing with my own children, is that when the eyes of a child are wide open, and the mouth is open, they are absorbing their world, taking in the form as all the movements that build a structural understanding of the design of their world around them..

This girl was taking in what I was explaining, and she was doing it at a slower pace then I expected and that I felt I had the allotted time to accomplish.

In getting to know her mother, and the focus the mother was so possessed with, that was not a “ bad” thing as we all want relationship, I realized that this girl had little in the way of being substantiated, meaning little in the way of having someone really look at her and explain things. This was apparent in the eyes becoming wide and the mouth being open. At her age, within this context, some manner of story structure should have had enough of a grasp of story that this behavior of reconstruction would happen at a somewhat faster pace.

If this child, that was cared for in the most basic ways, was being cared for to substantiate the mother’s desire ONLY, again not a “ bad: but when the directive, other points of development were being placed on the side, and that child was being substantiated in relation to the parent’s desires, which means the details of existence were not being related to the child, and she was behind in her ability to understand.

If we come to allow an idea to define us, we become a very narrow focus. Looking at ideas is not a bad thing, nor is narrowing our focus. When we become a directive as this, such as the belief that a woman must have a relationship,  the “ small things of existence” are placed on the side, and the detail of practical living and what this means in structure is shadowed by the desire and need being made larger than all the other aspects of living.

It reminds me of a story told by a Canadian Politician. A woman came up to the politician and said she had worked in a church for 30 years, putting together Christmas baskets for those in need. She realized one day that giving the families in need the money directly would self empower those in need and allow them to go out and purchase their own Christmas dinner wants.  This woman went back to her church group and made the suggestion to give the money used for the baskets directly to the families. The response of the church group was that they would lose what made them feel good, which was this charitable act of giving something to the families.

In this example, we have a self definition coming before what would empower a person to self discover and take direction themselves. This is the mother of this child, so obsessed with an idea, that everything is in the order of this. That child, had little in the way of any real self direction, and she had the behaviors to match, because her world was driven by how the mother defined herself; as the single mom, in need of a partner.  The mother defined herself as her perceived lack, and could not step out of her self definition. I ask myself, is she the product of that which she exhibits as behavior, and is she passing down the sins of the fathers onto her daughter? Is the lack of movement, conceptually in her daughter the result of all attention in her space being focused on a self definition before practical reality - and within this that there was some awareness in reality as was evident that this child was orderly in many ways, yet had little in the way and structure of things outside of an emotional obsession in the mother? Did the speed at which she processed work/language reveal her cognition- meaning her depth perception, her understanding, the ability to generate understanding, and her respons-ibility? Was all what language she did have, bound with an impulsed value to what words she had learned as this was the directive as the self definition of the parent?

This is like the unsubstantiated passing on in-substantiation! By this, I mean the amount of substance as self being in awareness of the practical world and the information of this world and how this information in practical terms moves.

We can realize, that via our media, having an  ideological romantic relationship is a huge impulsed value at the ignorance of other aspects of life. Unfortunately, we learn this when reality hits, and the romance no longer can sustain itself as the bills must be paid, and the home cared for. This value is a value, but at the expense of other values, an idol as an idea is formed and that comes to define us, at the expense of those around us and the world in which we live. It is like a measure learned as the structure within that is warped and missing reality. In essence, on the side here, our media uses this, as we have allowed a system of wealth accumulation, which is a system of competition, based on ideas in self definitions more than in what we really are practically.

The presence of value impulsing in our media, that is everywhere, and a cheap form of entertainment as other entertainments have been allowed to be costly, must exist in such a constant way, because this is how great our ability to take in form exists as what we are as human beings. The media as what we allow to flow through it, and the economic structures we allow that determine access to opportunity, are in essence a system of great suppression. Why would this be? because that is how great the ability of men is, when allowed to interact with all substance of this practical world. Yet, where did this begin? Within each of us? Can we clean up our words and ground ourselves into the practical and thereby opening the way to substantiating relationships?

As I have described in the story of this child in a public school, we can see how an obsession based on a self defining value that is not necessarily a bad value and that can come to limit exposure into a narrow focus that suppresses through consuming the attention of that human being who is so very very capable of living and placing their presence here, enjoying all things, through interacting and building understanding of how all things work in tandem on this earth.

Here I ask? Can we rebuild our cognition to bring our focus back into becoming functional human beings here on earth?  Can we structure the within cognition into focusing ourselves and our children here, realizing so many are living within a veil composed of self definitions based on value judgements that separate us from our real capacity? 

Since men communicate with words, and words can focus us towards the details of practical reality, and build structure within to see directly without, thereby building a superior memory, would a technological tool that never gets tired, has no judgements be the means to help us help ourselves to ground ourselves back into actual living? And would this not enable us to speak clearly, direct ourselves as our true expression and thereby bring us into relationships that are best for us, and as such best for all?

What would a tool that builds substantive focus for the parent and the child give? Would it give the character of what it means to live a life of awareness and the ability to respond beyond ideas that are not “ bad” but simply limited?

We decide, the means to do this are available, to self empower the innate learning ability of each of us, to ground ourselves into being present and living a full life.  Abracadabra, we are the words we know.

Building the character of the child.

For anyone reading this blog, I am going to make an analogy here that some might react to, but it is one that elicits reactions in pretty much all of us, which is why I am going to use it.

We understand that children have a natural learning ability, a divergent thinking ability that is weakened by the third grade. And we know that children with a large vocabulary tend to be able to process knowledge and information to a greater degree in comparison to others. Thus we know that vocabulary is the tool.

We also know that children that lack vocabulary, have a harder time, naturally, processing information, and that very often this is synonymous with economic means. Of course, there are exceptions. One exception has been openly stated in a Common Core paper sent to me by my local school district. This exception is delineated through a value judgement. When a child enjoys a subject, they can read beyond their measured reading ability. This has me asking a question. Does the child have the interest because a back ground of understanding and the words of measure needed to enjoy the subject exists? This being a developed ability to process the information in a conceptual way already built? Which means that having a structure as the words and the exposure being enough to give the child a divergent skill and that it is this that enables the child? Would the child enjoy other subjects if the understanding and structure were of equal measure as that “ favorite” subject?

Having said this, there is also a tendency for each to naturally gravitate towards some subjects more than others. But, how can one really know if a basic understanding of each is not built to allow an informed decision? So, can it be judged as something the child prefers, or something the child enjoys simply because they understand enough to actively process and participate, which is in itself enjoyable and as such elicits ease in the child?

Within this, we can understand that attitudes can be built about something that are not based on ability, but on a judgement about capacity before any background building is strong enough to even understand whether a subject is to one’s liking or not.  This is an idea by default, and not one made in awareness. And such a judgement can remain, without resolution, unless by chance, someone takes the time to clear this up. And such, can be costly because it takes quality time over a period of time, and in our present system, time is money.

To understand how we begin to impulse values more than give detail, and as such structure, let us look at the beginning of a child’s life.

You, a parent are changing your child’s diaper. You make a face, you scrunch your nose, and pull back. The child takes in this measure, their whole body imitating your movement, as your reaction, that is a value judgement, towards the changing of the diaper. The child learns a value, an emotional value.

Now, imagine if the feces in the diaper were looked at in common sense. It is composed of, more than likely, the waste from breast milk, which means it is dead red blood cells etc. etc. If your reaction were an explanation of this - and even here, an understanding of what the “ proper/healthy waste of a child would be to measure the physical processing of the child’s body” -  verbally, using a variety of words of description of reality, then the child would not learn the value judgement measure - the emotion as reaction - of this excretory process, but the words of this process and the awareness in practicality of this process and build an understanding of the measure of the world, thus producing a child that not only had a larger vocabulary, but also an awareness that is not moved by value judgements and as the words learned an inner structure to speak about this and once able to read the words as the symbols that represent the sounds, would be able to read up on this subject.

Now, that natural learning ability of the child, in the emotionally reactive response in this situation above, learns a value judgement that in no way builds a description of reality or an ability to use words, or have exposure to words as a common sense measure of here, and yet, this natural learning ability can learn over time what is presented to it, and if what is presented is not a value judgement, and instead a unconditional measure of reality, then that child learns to stand equal to the measure of reality. I mean, children that do well in school, simply have had more exposure to an equal and practical measure of reality, evident in the words that they know. All of this begs the question as to how much are we emotionally moving and how much are we moving in common sense. Thus, does an accumulated impulse of  value judgements, as emotions, determine the effective use of the natural learning ability by the third grade? Obviously, one impedes and the other expands.

And, obviously, from the day a child enters the world, even within the smallest of exposure of normal every day events,  either emotional value judgements are built as the measure of here, or practical awareness in detail as the words used to convey that detail. Because the expressive nature of the body in imitating the adults, every single value judgement is visible in the very muscular movement of every human being, of which we call character. Thus, the very character of the child, reveals the amount of value judgements learned and the amount of direct seeing in common sense resplendent in the very words the child uses to explain and balance themselves an as such, to direct themselves with confidence in this world. So, we can see, that even with children that have a broader vocabulary, many value judgements exist within each of us, and these value judgements are often not an equal measure of reality. Were they, then the world would not be in the state that it is at present. 

Adults, every one, are really responsible for what is the building of the child’s character, as the children reflect in great detail, what is the world around them. And since this has not been understood in detail, as the natural learning ability is not understood, and “ value judgements are deemed “ real,”” and this has been going on for generations, there is no one person to blame, thus, the only choice is to clean all of this up and direct the natural learning ability of the child into having the building blocks that are an equal measure of practical reality.

Do you have the ability to stand outside of a value judgement? And how many are automated that you have not even realized and corrected? How many children are judged and labeled through value judgements and left there, where no time is taken to clear these measures up?