(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) It seems that, according to research, the "older" brain structures - those necessary for basic survival, such as the brain stem - are imprinted in the earliest stages of development, (continues on below next Comment)
[Comment - What research demonstrates this claim? Is such research universally accepted? What is the precise character of the imprinting which supposedly goes on with respect to this older brain structure?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) and that the "newer structures," such as the mid-brain and cortex develop "superimpositions" upon the more primitive imprints. However, the earlier parts of the brain and their imprints form the foundation for how later imprints are responded to and continue to function after the higher thinking modes are developed.
[Comment - Develops "superimpositions" how? What is the biochemistry of such superimpostions?
For the most part, ideas such as "superimpositions" are just words being slung around with no specificity to them. They sound like an explanation but lack the substantive evidence to provide the reader with a clear understanding of how the process supposedly works.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) In other words, if you are traumatized as an infant at a crucial point of Imprint Receptivity, it doesn't matter if you grow up to be the President of the United States - you will still be ruled by the imprint.
[Comment - The very nature of the imprinting mechanism - as described by Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and others - is fairly specific and that which is to be imprinted either takes place or it does not. The window of opportunity is not a general window but a fairly specific window - with respect to time, kinds of triggering stimulus, and imprinted responses.
Furthermore, life is filled with traumatic events. However, what is traumatic to one person is not necessarily traumatic to the next individual.
While traumas at early age can shape, color, orient, arrest, and skew development/personality, a trauma is not the result of an imprinting or programming process, but is more dependent on how an individual responds to what takes place. Consequently, whether, or not, a given trauma will pathologically affect or “rule” an individual’s life really depends on a lot of variables almost none of which are a function of imprinting processes. Laura is mis-using the term.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The first stage, or circuit, is the oral-passive-receptive, and is imprinted by what is perceived to be the mother or first mothering object. It can be conditioned by nourishment or threat, and is mostly concerned with bodily security. Trauma during this phase can cause an unconsciously motivated mechanical retreat from anything threatening to physical safety.
[Comment - Again, trauma is a subjectively determined phenomenon. Different people respond differently to events and not everyone perceives the same set of events as necessarily traumatic. Secondly, trauma is not a function of imprinting or even programming as generally understood. Thirdly, not all trauma leads to pathology. Fourthly, there is a great deal of individual variability in the etiology of pathology with respect to any given trauma. Fifthly, not all pathology is permanent or unmodifiable or rigid in the way it affects behavior.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) I went back in my thinking to the whole Jehovah-I AM deal; the Moses story and all that; and went over the details as they are presented in the Bible for clues. And I came up against that most interesting demand of that crafty Lizard, Jehovah/Yahweh: circumcision - on the 8th day, no less.
What better way to ensure a deep, subconscious, distrust of women - not to mention an overwhelming terror at the very mention of the pain and suffering that might ensue from breaking the monotheistic covenant - than whacking a guy's pee-pee when he is interested only in being warm, cozy, and filling his tummy with warm, sweet milk from mother?!
[Comment - There is little, if any, proof indicating that circumcision is tied to deep-rooted trauma of any kind, let alone debilitating pathologies or to deep-rooted distrust of women (and, remember, women are not the only one’s who perform the surgery). One time events like circumcision tend to be placed in a more balanced emotional perspective in which one evaluates the pain of such an experience against a backdrop of many other experiences - many, if not most of which, are acceptable, pleasant, or relatively, neutral and that, as such, one feels, on the whole, more safe than unsafe.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The first "circuit" is concerned with what is safe and what is not safe.
[Comment - Who says the ‘first circuit is concerned with what is safe and what is not safe? How does she or any researcher know what a child is concerned about at 8 days or 6 months, or even older? Early childhood studies tend to be based on inferences concerning, and interpretations of, an infant's surface behavior rather than on an analysis of what is actually going on in the mind, heart, soul, and being of such a child.
Sporadic pain does not necessarily lead to one’s feeling unsafe. A lot depends on the general milieu in which such pain occurs.
If, on the whole, there is only sporadic pain amidst a great many non-painful experiences, then, there is no reason to automatically suppose that a child will consider herself or himself unsafe just because of such sporadic pain. Children come to understand that pain, like everything else, passes and is not necessarily a permanent condition of life - things change.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) In addition to that, people who have been traumatized during the imprinting phase of the first circuit tend to view other people in an abstract way. It is "us and them." They also tend to be very easily threatened by disapproval of any sort because disapproval suggests the idea of extinction or loss of food supply. And, finally, those who have been negatively imprinted at this stage tend to have a chronic muscular armoring that prevents proper, relaxed breathing; they are "up tight."
[Comment - Where is the empirical evidence to back up her claims that so-called 'first circuit' individuals "tend to view other people in an abstract way? 'Us versus them' doesn't sound abstract, it sounds quite concrete and specific.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept Laura's argument, what proportion of the population is suffering from the sort of trauma which would cause them to view other people in such an 'abstract' (?) way, or form “us versus them” mentalities. Why would a person who has been so traumatized feel sufficiently safe with anyone for an 'us' to ever be formed?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) One of the main characteristics of people who are heavily controlled by this circuit, or are "stuck" in this "oral phases," is that when they sense danger of any sort, whether actual or conceptual, all mental activity comes to a halt. Such people are chronically anxious and dependent - mostly on religion. They are not able to really understand what other people are feeling or what can happen in the future in regard to relationships, given a certain present situation. They only understand what is happening "now," and they can only feel what THEY feel. They cannot accurately grasp what others feel because they relate to others only as sensory objects.
[Comment - Again, where is the evidence to support, if not prove, such claims? All she is doing is argument by stipulation.
One understands the structural character of Laura's theory because she is describing what she believes as she goes along. Unfortunately, she just isn’t offering any proof that people who gravitate toward religion are people who are chronically anxious or that their mental activity has come to a halt.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) As a side note, trauma or failure to bond at this oral phase tends to also lead to weight issues - either overweight or underweight.
[Comment - I get it, unless one is exactly the 'right' weight (whatever that is and according to whomever's standard of rightness one adopts), then, one is suffering from the trauma of having failed to bond at this oral phase. Or, looked at from another point of view, no matter which way one’s weight goes, this is predicted by such a pathology.
However, this is no prediction at all since it permits almost anything to be an expression of the presence of such a trauma. A theory which predicts everything is more the sign of a bad theory than a well-constructed one.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The expression of healthy growth through this phase is the ability to retain the state of consciousness of the "natural child" who feels safe in the world no matter what they encounter.
[Comment - Is there really any such thing as healthy growth or a natural child from her perspective? After all, isn’t everything and everyone programmed?
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The second stage, or circuit, the famous "anal phase," is concerned with keeping or letting go of experiences in interactions with others. The second circuit determines how an individual will expand their identity to include others. The drive of the second phase is to interact with other selves. It is this drive that either brings about the congregation of groups, or results in paranoid withdrawal from anyone who is "different." Trauma in the formation of this circuit (generally from 12 months to 24 months) can result in a lack of social feeling, a tendency to manipulate and exploit others for one's own gain, and cruelty to others whether conscious or unconscious. This is generally a result of a feeling of non-acceptance, that one is missing out on something that others have, the need for approval from others and basic lack of self-esteem.
[Comment - What is the precise character of the programming or imprinting of this stage? How does this second circuit ‘determine’ “how an individual will expand their identity to include others”?”
What does it mean to say that the “drive of the second phase is to interact with other selves”? Interact how? According to what forces and principles?
Why must relationships be defined in terms of congregation of groups? Why can’t relationships or interactions be built around other individuals, as well, rather than just groups?
In addition, once again, she really doesn’t seem to grasp that trauma is a function of individual phenomenology. There is no way she can predict what any given individual will find traumatic and, then, predict precisely how such trauma will result in pathology or lack of social feeling, or a tendency to manipulate and exploit others or cruelty. There is just little, or no, reliable, empirical evidence, to indicate that developmental trauma and subsequent pathology will take the etiological path she claims will be the case.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) It is during this phase that the "matrix" forms as a "semantic universe" of verbal structures. Language is conceptual, as we have discussed previously, and is one of the things that distinguishes 3rd density from 2nd density. Our concepts are a sort of "framework of perception" that we learn as we learn words. As we are learning our language, things such as "hot" and "cold," we are also learning that one thing is "good" or another is "bad." We can either handle things freely because they are "good," or "don't touch" because they are "bad." There is, in this phase, a tremendous drive in a child to "create order." This drive is aimed at grouping, identifying, correlating and naming everything. And, as this is being done, there is a constant check with the parents and others interacting with the child as to whether this is "bad" or "good" or "real" or "not real." What the child is doing is defining not only himself, but his entire world. It is at this stage that most of our complex belief systems are formed. Everything that surrounds him is raw material for the child. The Matrix is created by the guiding actions and responses from the other minds around him. The matrix is, in reality, a gigantic conditioning system. And we insert our children into it through our own actions.
[Comment - Laura's whole way of dealing with language, concepts, interpretation, understanding, belief formation, values, and attitudes is far, far too simplistic. The dynamics of hermeneutical development are far more complex and nuanced than her outline suggests.
Without wishing to say that consensual validation is not an important ingredient in the way an individual develops an understanding of experience, the individual often generates his or her own take on what is going on within and around them. Consequently, their ideas about life, self, and so on are shaped by a lot more influences than their parents or siblings, or neighbors.
Friends, television, music, books, movies, magazines, and individual reflection on all of these matters and more (emotions, experiences, desires, needs, fears, anxieties, and so on) all have their coloring and shaping impact on the hermeneutics of development - we are not simple programs dictated by either our parents or our society.]
(From Joseph Chilton Pearce) The mind of an infant is said to be:
...Autistic, a rich texture of free synthesis, hallucinatory and unlimited. His mind can skip over syllogisms with ease, in a non-logical, dream-sequence kind of "knight's move" continuum. He nevertheless shows a strong desire to participate in a world of others. Eventually his willingness for self-modification, necessary to win rapport with his world, is stronger than his desire for autonomy. Were it not, civilization would not be possible. That we succeed in moulding him to respond to our criteria shows the innate drive for communion and the flexibility of a young mind.
[Comment - According to Pearce: “Eventually his [the child's] willingness for self-modification, necessary to win rapport with his world, is stronger than his desire for autonomy.” In a lot of ways I would tend to disagree with the foregoing statement.
There often is a constant tension in an individual (not just in childhood but right through adulthood) which results from the struggle between, on the one hand, autonomy and a clear sense of self, independent of others, and, on the other hand, the recognition that in order to survive in the world, one is going to have to find ways of reaching understandings with the people around one. Some aspects of ourselves we modify in order to get on with others, but other aspects we resist.
Sometimes we agree on the surface, and, then, try to hide the ways in which we seek to go our own way. We devise adaptive or mal-adaptive strategies for creating the space we need to live and grow and do our own thing, and part of this process of creating the necessary space relates to the kinds of understandings - both spoken and unspoken - we reach with others to establish reciprocal zones with boundaries which cannot be crossed without leading to major conflict.
Testing the boundaries is something which we all do in our own way. When we find that the borders cannot be moved any more without encountering substantial difficulty, then, we try to settle into the space we have and go our own way within that space. This is the place we feel most free to seek to be ourselves or to try to find out who we are, and we know that whoever we are, we are not other people.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Those with strong positive 2nd circuits imprints are able to "feel" for others in terms of a sense of concern or identity by association. They are willing to reach out and acknowledge the being of another.
However, due to the most common imprinting of our society, which is negative, most of this "reaching out" is in the context of "territory" that involve emotional con games, pecking order, rituals of domination or submission.
[Comment - again, the and circuit to which Laura is referring is not really a process of imprinting - at least, not as understood by animal ethologists. We learn many things from our surroundings but such learning is a function of many different shaping factors and processes rather than being a function of some simple, narrowly defined, imprinting process.
The kind of parenting we receive, the sort of models to whom we are exposed, our individual emotional reaction to how others treat us, the conclusions we, as individuals, make about what is going on around us, whether we are drawn to it or repelled by it, our sensitivities, our likes and dislikes, our talents and abilities, our weaknesses, and so on - these all help structure the hermeneutical character of our interaction with, or engagement of life. There is just no simple imprinting process going on here.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) It has been noted that a lot of people with negative 2nd circuit imprinting can be found in military or hierarchical organizations where there is constant striving to "please" someone in order to maintain or rise in status.
This second circuit is generally most powerfully imprinted by the nearest "alpha male" or the earliest perceived dominant male figure in a person's life. This circuit is also very often referred to as the "ego" because it mistakes itself for the whole self.
...
Very often those with heavy imprints in the second stage are either very concerned about physical fitness and body structure as a mode of power or just simply power over others in general. They fear thinking and feel that the best response to a problem is to "frighten it away."
The reality structure of the 2nd circuit is the prevailing mode of modern society which is why most issues end in confrontations that bring out both bullying and cowardliness - hallmarks of 2nd circuit trauma.
[Comment - The foregoing seems to be an overly-simplistic account of why people and society are like they are. Furthermore, one has no need to posit 1st circuits, second circuits, and so on, for, the idea of nafs (the carnal soul, the seat of rebellious tendencies concerning truth) is powerful enough to indicate that all the kinds of negative qualities which Laura is positing in her remarks can be seen as the result of our vulnerabilities to the call of nafs rather than being due to the imprinting process of a negative society.
To be sure, a negative society latter does leave its mark on the individual and constitutes a challenge for an individual to deal with and resolve. Some are successful in this regard, and some are not. Irrespective of which may be the case, the development process is not primarily a matter of imprinting or programming ... although each of these may be involved to varying degrees in different individuals in different situations.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The third circuit/stage is charmingly referred to as "phallic." Don't ask me why this term has been selected over all others but it has to do with the fact that the imprinting stage is associated with the child's discovery of his/her genitals and this period also seems to partly determine gender role identification as well as one's later attitudes toward the body and sex. It is also called the Oedipal or Electra stage.
[Comment - Why is she following the Freudian model as opposed to many other possible developmental models? Why should we suppose that Freud constitutes an accurate reflection of developmental history? In fact, as someone once said of Freud - 'rarely, in the history of ideas, has one man got so much wrong that has been accepted by so many people.']
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) This circuit continues to be imprinted and conditioned by symbol systems, i.e. words and concepts, however with subtle conceptual complications. The child is beginning to be able to understand complex symbolism and such things as "now" and "later" and "soon" and "never." These concepts are intimately connected to the ability to tolerate separation as well as to mourn if the idea of grief is introduced and demonstrated by a role model.
[Comment - Her paradigm of psychological development is almost cartoonish in character. She tends to jump to all manner of conclusions without much, if any, evidence to back her up.
Her perspective flies in the face of a huge amount of work in psychology involving other kinds of considerations concerning the way physical, emotional, social, intellectual, linguistic, moral, and spiritual currents interact to shape behavior, understanding, identity, emotion, personality, values, and so on. One might suppose that the points she is trying to make would be better served if she were to consult more sources than Frued.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) So, essentially, we find that the 3rd stage has to do primarily with time and spatial concepts - with what is the "real world" and what is not.
The part of the brain that is developing during this phase is the cerebellum and it is supposed to coordinate the "lower brain" functions with possible action. This part of the brain and its imprinting determines our ability to change and adapt. This is what makes us able to discriminate and compare with logic and comparative analysis. Its functions operate like a computer; it scans, categorizes and selects by cross-referencing and coding information. It is this part of the brain that makes us able to weigh choices and make decisions.
[Comment - Imprinting and adaptation are somewhat antithetical to one another. The whole idea of imprinting is that when it occurs, it doesn't subsequently change, whereas with adaptation, change is possible.
Why should one suppose that logic, or the ability to discriminate and do comparative analysis is a function of brain activity? No one has located where logic circuits reside in the brain, or where in the brain critical reflection takes place, or how insight occurs in the brain.
The fact there is correlation between brain activity and thinking does not prove the former causes the latter. Indeed all one has to do is point to the work of John Lorber (See: Emergent Properties) to throw a rather substantial monkey wrench into the theories which claim that thinking, consciousness, and so on, are caused by brain functioning.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) In most people, however, due to traumatic or too early potty training during the "anal phase," this part of the brain becomes the slave of the emotions of the second and first circuits. That doesn't mean that it cannot work and do its work well in terms of scanning, categorizing and coding information; but if there is trauma, depending on the severity, it can be very difficult for this part of the brain to function as the coordinator it was meant to be.
[Comment - What evidence is there to indicate that problems during potty training will result in a person’s brain becoming a slave to the emotions of the second and first circuits? No one has even remotely been able to prove that this is the case. People can be very loose and flexible, or rigid and tight, for many reasons beside traumatic responses to problematic potty training.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The intellectual function can be scholarly as all get out, but there is no possibility of development of higher emotions. Such a condition can lead to a ruthless intellectual who tortures or kills others in the name of religion.
[Comment - ...or, in the name of: economics, or politics, or philosophy, or whatever. Why just single out religion?
Why should problematic issues surrounding one’s genitals lead to ruthless intellectuals or to people who have no possibility of developing their higher emotions? The etiology of such pathology or personality development escapes me.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) These people have packaged their environment in terms of heavy sanctions; taboos, rules, laws, prohibitions, faith and dogmatism. Much of this will be unconscious and will pass as "common sense" or "common decency" or "it's right, and that's all there is to it!" Anyone who challenges such a person is a heretic, a traitor or a lunatic. They also use a lot of language that refers to sexual functions.
[Comment - It would be nice to have a precise etiological account of how problems concerning the awareness of genitals will lead to the sort of trauma that will render an individual vulnerable to imprinting in the form of “heavy sanctions; taboos, rules’ laws, prohibitions, faith, and dogmatism. There is no explanation in what Laura says - just stipulation.
Why should prohibitions in one area lead to a general inclination to place prohibitions on everything? Life is experienced as a combination of possibilities and limitations, so, why should problems in the so-called phallic stage of development lead to dogmatism, faith, rules, laws, and the like.
Moreover, what kind of faith, rules, or laws will result? Can we suppose that all rules are bad or that all laws are bad or that faith automatically will end up abusing other people in a dogmatic fashion?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Those who are dominated by the 3rd circuit respond to problems by "reasoning" it out, even if their reason is being directed by the emotions of the 1st or 2nd circuits. When this is the case, they could be called a "third circuit robot" because they simply cannot break free of the emotional content of their rules and dogma. For such people, the rest of the nervous system has, for all intents and purposes, stopped growing.
[Comment - Why would someone who has experienced trauma in conjunction with the phallic stage of things respond to problems by trying to reason them out?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) There are two curious manifestations of this circuit. If the 1st and 2nd circuits are basically healthy, and the 3rd circuit is not traumatized in any notably serious way, but no effort to develop higher faculties is made, the "normal conscious mind" has two basic "tracks." The one is the desire to use the intellect to prove that much of human experience, even including the reality itself, is delusion or illusion. Everything is mysterious and hallucinatory. The second is to use the intellect to prove that nothing exists BUT the material world and anything mysterious is viewed as hallucination, coincidence or sloppy research!
[Comment - Where is the proof of this statement? Why should one accept what she is saying or claiming? ]
| Part One | Food Menu |
|
