I find your thesis about how m/other sees “someone there” and projects being into the infant, developing attachments, and presenting the child with reality, to be insightful and plausible. It is actually hard to deny.

So I was wondering why it is denied or ignored? Or is it “forgotten”? Perhaps a crucial part of the maturation process is “forgetting” the formative role of the m/other — the umbilical cord is cut at birth and m/other projection is forgotten during childhood — and, perhaps, independence from m/other, becoming an adult, involves making our mediated world our own, as if she had no part in it, no part in how we came to become who we are…. as if it were all our own doing.

I think I told you this before, but when I read your writings on m/other and child relations, it reminds me of something from my own childhood: the day when I was very young when I realised that my mother did not always know when I was lying or telling the truth. The day her omniscience was disproven. Prior to that day, she was telepathic, she always knew when I was lying — I was transparent to her. But after that day, not only did the inside of my head become a private world, protected within my skull, somewhere only I could dwell, but it a very real sense I took a conceptual, evolutionary quantum leap towards maturity and independence as a human being.

Just some musings. But I would be interested in your thoughts.

I find your thesis about how m/other sees “someone there” and projects being into the infant, developing attachments, and presenting the child with reality, to be insightful and plausible. It is actually hard to deny.

So I was wondering why it is denied or ignored? Or is it “forgotten”? Perhaps a crucial part of the maturation process is “forgetting” the formative role of the m/other — the umbilical cord is cut at birth and m/other projection is forgotten during childhood — and, perhaps, independence from m/other, becoming an adult, involves making our mediated world our own, as if she had no part in it, no part in how we came to become who we are…. as if it were all our own doing.

I think I told you this before, but when I read your writings on m/other and child relations, it reminds me of something from my own childhood: the day when I was very young when I realised that my mother did not always know when I was lying or telling the truth. The day her omniscience was disproven. Prior to that day, she was telepathic, she always knew when I was lying — I was transparent to her. But after that day, not only did the inside of my head become a private world, protected within my skull, somewhere only I could dwell, but it a very real sense I took a conceptual, evolutionary quantum leap towards maturity and independence as a human being.

Just some musings. But I would be interested in your thoughts.

Oddly enough, I have known about the aquatic theory for at least twenty years and it seemed very plausible to me. As well as all the supporting evidence and argument Elaine Morgan raises in the video, such as our relative lack of body hair, our bipedal gait, and our ability to control our breathing, at the time I first encountered this theory, it was used to explain why babies float and also why human beings are the only animals that have sex face to face.

I think that nowadays it will take considerable effort to object to this theory.

However, as far as I am concerned, one need look no further than actual human behaviour. The vast majority of human beings love to be in the water as much as possible in practically every culture that has developed near bodies of water.

We will risk shark attack, crocodiles, water borne parasites, jelly fish, snapping turtles , or any of any number of predators or dangers, for a swim. Every child finds exquisite bliss in paddling and dangling their feet in the water. Water is immensely attractive and pleasurable for most of us.

Evidently, we are semi-aquatic and it would require considerable explanation if our ancestors were not.

Oddly enough, I have known about the aquatic theory for at least twenty years and it seemed very plausible to me. As well as all the supporting evidence and argument Elaine Morgan raises in the video, such as our relative lack of body hair, our bipedal gait, and our ability to control our breathing, at the time I first encountered this theory, it was used to explain why babies float and also why human beings are the only animals that have sex face to face.

I think that nowadays it will take considerable effort to object to this theory.

However, as far as I am concerned, one need look no further than actual human behaviour. The vast majority of human beings love to be in the water as much as possible in practically every culture that has developed near bodies of water.

We will risk shark attack, crocodiles, water borne parasites, jelly fish, snapping turtles , or any of any number of predators or dangers, for a swim. Every child finds exquisite bliss in paddling and dangling their feet in the water. Water is immensely attractive and pleasurable for most of us.

Evidently, we are semi-aquatic and it would require considerable explanation if our ancestors were not.