Breastfeeding Bonding Prevents Infant Mortality And Suicide

The greatest terror a child can have is that he is not loved, and rejection is the hell he fears. I think everyone in the world, to a large or small extent, has felt rejection. And with rejection comes anger, and with anger some kind of crime in revenge for the rejection, and with the crime, guilt ~ and there is the story of mankind. John Steinbeck, East of Eden, 1952

Breastfeeding bonding and baby-carrying bonding are the first events of life, which the newborn/infant/child learns about love and non-violence. Love is first learned at the breast of mother and by being carried on her body ~ like in utero, where the first lessons of being connected with mother are learned.

Themes: 
abuse-neglect
bonding
brain
breastfeeding
culture
pleasure
pregnancy

Celebrating Joseph Chilton Pearce

As we continue Joe develops a number of themes all centering on the long term consequences of not being nurtured. ‘The child who is nurtured and bonded and given that safe space from the earliest developmental period can move away from the safe space carrying that same state of mind with him and is ready to move on into the higher realms of human possibility.  Whereas the majority of us lacking that safe space never move on. We try to repair or build for ourselves the safe space to be.  It’s a safe space that we either carry with us and are - or not at all, yet we are trained to believe we can create the safe space by following all the appropriate cultural directives and every cultural directive drives us into an ever increasing unsafe positions and we feel more and more threatened by the world.’ Here again, Joe turns our cultural assumptions upside down. Rather than culture being the sanctuary it pretends to be, culture is the source of our greatest trauma and pain.

Michael Mendizza

Themes: 
male vulnerability
culture

Celebrating Josephh Chilton Pearce

Continuing to focus on the way culture shapes our reality Joe notes: ‘One of the things that culture brings about is the idea that without its guiding filters we would be like beasts in the forest, savage, uncivilized, murderous, etc. The truth of the matter is, culture is what makes us savage, vicious, murderous, war after war after war because of the restrictions and restraints imposed by culture. Both neural scientist James Neal and Alan Shore question: “Will we survive the current situation?” And both Neal and Shore, said “Only if we can produce males capable of nurturing their offspring.” And this sets the stage for a radically different view of the nurturing role of males.

Michael Mendizza

Themes: 
culture
violence
male vulnerability

Celebrating Joseph Chilton Pearce

One of the most deeply penetrating insights that emerge from Joe’s vision of imagination is how it manifests as both our individual self-image or ego and the culture we live in. One is a personalized micro view and the other a collective macro view of essentially the same field, each giving rise to the other. The Greek word persona comes to mind, persona being the cultural mask our authentic nature wears. We must conform to culture to belong and therefore survive and by doing so we limit and constrain our true nature and potential. Here rests another pillar in Joe’s overarching framework.

Michael Mendizza  

Themes: 
culture
identity

It is culture that makes us violent

It is culture that makes us violent
Joseph Chilton Pearce

 Ashley Montague, one of our greatest Biologists said girls were far, far more viable and successful survivors than boys.  And we know that’s the truth.  We don’t need to go into all that.  And yet we think we have to, we treat boys much more stringently than we do our girls.  We pamper them, put ribbons on them, but the boys have to get out and, with the assumption that they have to do that to survive saber tooth.   But evolution has created a neural structure and heart connection here not to out-wrestle saber tooth, which is what the great big hulking physique and all this is so terribly rampant today, to out-wrestle saber tooth nature created a neural brain mind heart system by which we can simply outwit saber tooth’s.   But we sacrifice that capacity of using the higher intelligences to survive on behalf of this brute strength idea which makes awfully good soldiers and so on an so forth, but it makes a very poor evolutionary example. 

One of the things that culture brings about is the idea that without its guiding filters we would be like beasts in the forest, savage, uncivilized, murderous, etc.  Now the truth of the matter is culture is what makes us savage, vicious, murderous, war after war after war because of the restrictions and restraints of culture.  Gil Bailey and Rene Gerard, the great French Philosophers, was quite right with that. Culture survives on by periodic warfare. I quote you the august Thomas Jefferson saying “The tree of liberty must be periodically watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots.”  And that is that the perfect picture of culture. The other thing is the conviction that the child must learn to mind or they simply won’t survive.  And in the process of learning to mind they really lose their great survival instincts and turn them over to culture.  In both James Neal, a magnificent book of his on Zen and the brain, he’s a Neural Scientist, both he and Alan Shore in his incredible work had the little statement just popping up almost out of context, “Will we survive the current situation?”  And both Neal and Shore, who never heard of each other in all probability, knew nothing of each others work, said “Only if we can produce males capable of nurturing their offspring”.  So we find things then happening like people pulling their boys out of Waldorf School because they’re afraid it will make a pampering softy out of them.  No, it would make a nurturing intelligence out of them. But as the father said to me about pulling his child out of Waldorf, it’s a jungle out there and we’ve got to toughen him up to survive that jungle.  With that idea in mind we have a radically different behavior with boy babies from birth on then we do girl babies.  Ashley Montague, one of our greatest Biologists said girls were far, far more viable and successful survivors than boys.  And we know that’s the truth.  We don’t need to go into all that.  And yet we think we have to, we treat boys much more stringently than we do our girls.  We pamper them, put ribbons on them, but the boys have to get out and, with the assumption that they have to do that to survive saber tooth.   But evolution has created a neural structure and heart connection here not to out-wrestle saber tooth, which is what the great big hulking physique and all this is so terribly rampant today, to out-wrestle saber tooth nature created a neural brain mind heart system by which we can simply outwit saber tooth’s.   But we sacrifice that capacity of using the higher intelligences to survive on behalf of this brute strength idea which makes awfully good soldiers and so on an so forth, but it makes a very poor evolutionary example.  So again I think of Shore an Neal themselves, until we produce males that can nurture their own offspring, the only way to do that is to nurture the male themselves from the beginning as Michael Mendizza has said many a time with his nurturing projects.  So there you have a serious threat to culture in the nurturing project.  We wonder why this nurturing project gets grounded time and again and here we think it’s taking wings and it’s going to fly, but this again is that cultural backlash.  The nurturing process of creating males who are fully nurtured therefore they were capable of nurturing takes our whole image of the male from Hollywood to Madison Avenue and all of their advertising.  And it’s true throughout other countries as well.  The macho male who must protect us, etc., at the expense of the only survival procedures we have which is the higher intelligences.

How culture protects itself at our expense

How culture protects itself at our expense
Joseph Chilton Pearce

There’s no such thing as a static process.  It’s all moving, can’t stick your foot in the river twice or whatever.  So it’s a moving fluid process which we get to be the means by which this takes place, the great grace that has been given us. We are that means.  To deny the moving fluid process, moving for its own expression and freezing it into a fixed system is a result of culture.  My claim in both of my last books was that you have the fluid movement with no place to lay its head representing the probably mythological or certainly mythological overlaid and highly romanticized figure of Jesus underneath which there has to have been a real event.  And the counter acting force of Paul who has his own Metanoia his own great insights and so forth, and uses this figure, this mythological overlaid romantic figure, as his own ploy in setting up a new system of control, prediction and control over a populace. 

There is no reality for the human being except through some kind of filtering device like that.  And the fact that it can vary from culture to culture generally it means small variations and overall agreement throughout the world.  People like the Signoi or the Tibetans as they once were, or the Australian Aborigine or even the Kalahari kung they were a particular filter that is particular to that culture and not found universally.  But universally language, that’s not part of it, I mean all these things are colorations within the overall cultural construct in which we as modern civilized people live.  And so you can have all these colorations and yet within an overall framework we can go to Europe, we can go to all sorts of other countries and get along pretty well.  So we’re sharing certain very concrete filters but now you get into when the culture is threatened how it protects itself and all the sudden the idea is that their culture is almost like a living entity from all these inputs. They’re what we would call a field effect. And there we get into the fact of culture can very easily become extremely virtually demonic and destructive and inhibiting to us and crushing us down.  So the culture which we have to have can be either negative or positive or any of the shades in between.

This movement of the human being, what we call this evolution or whatever all that might be, is moving toward a very specific not end goal but a very specific pattern of being which is guided.  And of course that is a anathema to the scientific community and to most of the cultural communities.  But that sounds like religion but of course you’re talking about a purely fluid process which we could even describe as love seeking its own identity as Plotinus did a long time ago and that’s legitimate too. But we are each that.  That’s who we are.  That’s our nature.  And so we interpret it of course as my yearning, my longing of the heart, my seeking for fulfillment and so on.  That’s exactly what the game is all about. There’s nothing wrong.  So to say there’s a guiding image from above is simply to set up the two polarities through which this receptacle interaction can take place.  There’s no such thing as a static process.  It’s all moving, can’t stick your foot in the river twice or whatever.  So it’s a moving fluid process which we get to be the means by which this takes place, the great grace that has been given us. We are that means.  To deny the moving fluid process, moving for its own expression and freezing it into a fixed system is a result of culture.  My claim in both of my last books was that you have the fluid movement with no place to lay its head representing the probably mythological or certainly mythological overlaid and highly romanticized figure of Jesus underneath which there has to have been a real event.  And the counter acting force of Paul who has his own Metanoia his own great insights and so forth, and uses this figure, this mythological overlaid romantic figure, as his own ploy in setting up a new system of control, prediction and control over a populace.  We’ve had a religious organization called church with all of its number of variations simply as a part of culture’s way of controlling behavior of the population.  And that fluid incredible journey is truncated and we all feel it.  Whatever we were suppose to be we didn’t get to be it.  I think of the teenager with the great longing that erupts within them, the tremendous longing for something tremendous that’s suppose to happen and great anticipation and so on.  So that curtailed by culture and you’re given all these synthetic counterfeits of it or cultural counterfeits.  Attain this and this longing will go away.  And of course that doesn’t happen at all.

We create reality by interacting with it

We create reality by interacting with it
Joseph Chilton Pearce

You find it in all cultures the same appearance of the pointing syndrome.  This finger pops up and he found that was true in all cultures.  That’s the pointing syndrome.  Then the minute he’s on his feet running out in to the world, every new object he sees his first impulse is to point toward it, he points toward the new object that he has no structure of knowledge of and immediately looks back to check that out with mama or the caretaker.  Why does he do that, to see if the caretaker cognizes that object.

When these cracks occur, what do you see?

To really get in to that you have to look at the whole formation of the egg from the beginning.  What Piaget spoke of is structures of knowledge. The child isn’t born into a world they look out and see the world, they must build up a structure of knowledge of that world point by point, object by object, and make the orientations and the special discriminations and so on, associative thinking.  But it’s a built up process and that takes place of course very early in life.  For instance, if I get too far afield you’ll have to stop me, but we look at the work of Blurton Jones, he was one of the Ethologists in Britain under the great Nobel Lariat, and Blurton Jones talked about the pointing syndrome, that the little infant strapped up in its highchair babbling away, practicing full names, practicing the language as speech, will begin to point, but the whole fist, will begin to wave his fist as he talks at a certain period.  You find it in all cultures about the same appearance of the pointing syndrome.  And then after a few, let’s say a week or so, of these gestures like this, this finger pops up and he found that was true in all cultures.  That’s the pointing syndrome.  Then the minute he’s on his feet running out in to the world, every new object he sees his first impulse is to point toward it, if he’s out in the open, if he’s in the nest that is an extension of the mother, that pointing syndrome is much different.  But if he’s out in the wild it’s very pronounced and he points toward the new object that he has no structure of knowledge of and immediately looks back to check that out with mama or the caretaker.  Why does he do that, to see if the caretaker cognizes that object.  That means does that object fit in with the world that I’m designed by nature to fit in to?  So you can get the signal, as a whole bunch of people point out the mother doesn’t have to say a word, if she herself inwardly cognizes the object, the infant picks it up through signals we’re not aware of and charges over to taste it, touch it, feel it, smell it and so forth and do what Piaget said, build a full conceptual structure of knowledge of what that object is and then through associative thinking he can apply it to all sorts of other objects.  The second thing is the demand on the parent for a name for the object.  What is that mama?  What is that Daddy?  The reason for that being that naming it gives it absolute permanence and a secure place within the whole structure of knowledge he’s building.  Without the name it will be what Piaget called a shallow dimensional structure of knowledge which soon just dissipates and disappears.  It’s not permanent.  What makes it permanent is the name for it because naming is an act of language and speech and language is distributed throughout the whole body.  And the act of naming it, as Luria, this is the Great Alexander Luria, another of our child developmental people, said that naming and attaching a word to that object coordinates the entire body’s system into that learning.  It becomes a total bodily process, not just some shallow dimensional image that’s going to disappear.  So the name is as critically important as anything else.  The name then of course becomes a generic name which can encompass many, many variations with it through associative thinking.

Is this is enculturation moment to moment taking place?

I wouldn’t call this enculturation, this is perfectly natural spontaneous process that both infant, world and parent are involved in.  There’s no discrimination here other than if the parent is not cognizing that, the infant doesn’t want to cognize it because there are, at the same time, a million other things they can spot visually, point toward and interact with it and they pick out by nature, and you find it in all mammals, they center on those objects shared with the parent.  Now what about the ones that are not shared with the parent?  They’re transient.  That reminds me of Blurton Jones’ comment he found this in all cultures without exception at that same stage of development.  And the other phenomena was the peculiar notion of the child of pointing at the things that weren’t there, demanding a name for them, and we don’t see them.  They weren’t part of our parent’s world view and acceptable part of that world so the parent can’t take part in that.  The infant isn’t getting a full response between concept, percept and the structures and knowledge in the brain and so then of course the same thing is passed on to their infant, that particular kind of event which is not going to be recorded and paid attention to.  He did a lot of study about the quasi hallucinatory phenomena of the early child and he estimates that 50% of all the pointing and demand for a name that go on are for objects that to an adult are not there at all.  As a father of five and having gone through this five times with my children I know the child’s frustration can get very, I’ve had them grab me by the hand, “That Daddy!  That Daddy”  “What’s that Daddy?”  And you can’t make a response because you are not cognizing that.  You have conceptual perceptual structures of knowledge in your brain to register that.  And it’s not moral failure on our part or blindness or anything else, it’s just the way the genetic system organizes a world view.  Then when we get into the cultural part of it, the cultural part of it is far more pervasive.  It builds on that.

Who are we really?

Who are we really?
Joseph Chilton Pearce

The cosmic egg is in effect culture, culture being a virtual reality created by forcing us to comply with sets of behavior from the moment of birth on and modifying our own behavior and world view according to that of our culture around us.  This includes the world as we’ll ever know it so to escape this is not an easy thing.  It happens continually.  But the culture denies any experience that is not part of culture.” Our true development begins when we transcend the limitations imposed by culture and this implies discovering a new identity.

What is the cosmic egg?  What is the crack?  And what do we see when we look through the crack as opposed to looking through the egg?

Of course the cosmic egg is an ancient imagery.  It really is I think the end of ages.  Looking at the world we experience as the cosmic egg and when you say I began with my book “Crack”, of course my discovery of the “Crack”, “Crack in the Cosmic Egg” was long before that, just really long before that time.  I would summarize by seeing the cosmic egg as the whole realm of thought in which we are born and brought up and that shapes our whole perceptual conceptual system.  We think we have a perception out of which we then draw some conceptual ideals.  But the truth of the matter is you can never draw a line between concept and percept. They each derive of the other, one of those strange loop interacting processes within the mind brain.  The sum total of all this that makes up our livable world and gives us a place in which to be, we could call it culture, I call it culture, or the cosmic egg.  The cosmic egg is in effect culture.  Then we have to define culture and I would simply say almost a virtual reality created by forcing us to comply with sets of behavior from the moment of birth on and modifying our own behavior and world view according to that of our culture around us.  The culture around us includes the world as we’ll ever know it will be that culture.  So to escape this is not an easy thing.  It happens continually.  There are breaks or cracks in our cosmic egg continually but the eggs moves instantly to seal the crack.  That was a comment I made in my very first book.  Oh sure we’ve got a crack in the cosmic egg but that egg will re-seal in a big hurry and maintain stability of the cultural structure.

The sealing of it over is generally from the whole ambient in which we’re taking part, the whole culture.  And to find that trying to move through a crack in that cultural egg brings sensor from everyone you meet because as Suzanne Linder said, “Our greatest fear is a collapse into chaos,” should our ideation, our idea of what things are, our whole conceptual system, should that fail us, because then we’re in chaos and we really are afraid of that.  So if we break through into a realm beyond the cultural realm, immediately the whole culture is going to point their finger at us.  We fell that and then we’re suffering not only isolation from the culture but the fact that we are a threat to the culture.  Let this happen to even the infant child a few times and it’s an unpleasant place to be.  So little by little we capitulate and give in to the cosmic egg and don’t go near any boundaries that it sets up for us because it’s risky in every sense.  The scientific world operates that way.  The religious world operates that way.  The social, all the rest of it, their boundaries which maintain themselves and you don’t break those boundaries lightly.

The Inner State of the Union

Yuval Noah Harari describes in a recent book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind how ‘story,’ the capacity to imagine and share meaning through symbols and images, is the defining capacity that sets Sapiens apart from all other species. When focused inwardly ‘story’ sculpts the social-image we believe ourselves to be, what we call ‘me.’ When directed outwardly this same story creates culture. Culture and our social image are reciprocal mirrors of the other, each giving rise to the other, reincarnating the enchantment moment by moment. Both are stories, images, but we treat the image is if it were an independent, concrete reality. This is our basic flaw.

Themes: 
culture

Our Children Need Heros

There are so few who have the depth, experience, point of view and intellectual rigor as Noam Chomsky.

In the final analysis the overarching theme of Joseph Chilton Pearce’s life work is the anti-intelligence, anti-development force that ‘culture’ exerts on nature’s billion year agenda for human growth and our transcendent development. Transcend means ‘overcoming limitation and constraint.’ Joe argues, and has for 50 years, that the greatest force to overcome is the ultra-conservative, fundamentalist nature of ‘obey or pay’ culture.

Themes: 
parenting
culture
birth

Pages