It's been a little more than two months since I posted in this thread and I have given it much thought in hopes that I might be able to share how so very important the universal family is i.e, traditional/biological/neuclear family is in the formative years of a childs beginning. As you will not by my signature, I believe in our eternal nature and don't believe in re-currance as it is understood my some, but it is a continuum, period. Whether it is true or not is not important. Not important at all, but I think it is a must, we think that way! In that respect we consider the child as "not new" but a human being "continuing". That will change our entire perspective in regards to the importance of that child and how we treat it. (forgive the "it"), I am using that terminology in lieu of s/he for it is most familiar with me. Interesting that word "familiar". Hmmm?

There is a familiarity that is hard to explain in this universal family that creates a bond, IMO. Now in considering this we turn our thinking around and rather that us being older and smarter, we are younger and dumber. Ha. What can we learn from this child? It's puts a whole different meaning to "respect your elders", Ha! In this respect, I agree with Deepak Chopra's conclusion that the parents are "caretakers".

This will alter the perception of the family and the importance of that family. The child will exist in an environment in which it is genetically sound being a creation of the two who had the child and rather that "teaching" that child in the way we have done in the past, it will be observed more than taught. To teach this child from our perspective, only "retards and confuses" the child such that can be observed in the disorders that are becoming more and more present we call ADD and ADHD as the attention of the child wanes from what our "telling" it what to do in order to cope in the more and more chaotic world, as we allow it to "choose" for itself the direction it will go from the past it has experienced. In other words it is within them who hold 'our' future in their hands; "out of the mouths of babes"!!!!!!!

As I have mentioned in the past, life is a give/give paradigm; rather than a give and take one that can be explained simply we give life to the child and take away it's freedom (sovereignty) by "telling" it what to do in essense "enslaving" that child and forcing it to adapt to an existence that is confusing and chaotic to it and ADD and ADHD and those PERSONALITY DISORDERS are it's "REBELLION". I have been gifted, in that I recognized that rebellion in my own life as I could not be "told" or "fooled" into what to do which is so prevalent in our "ignorant" nature. It ends our stagnation and puts a more postive meaning to "what goes around, come around".

The truth has been there in plain sight in the language we speak only confused by the negative words we use to defend our life diluting the true meaning of the positive words meant to enhance that continuum "the child represents".

In another thread gojo espouses the "selfishness of procreation" and he is entirely on target, IMO. It is indeed a selfish act. but a necessary one for us to exist. It had to be that way. In the regard we view ourselves "as animals" only perpetuates this selfishness and gives justification for it in that it is "perpetually" a natural occurrence and cannot be helped when we know that is absolutely "false" for we are most definitely much "more" than animal; much, much more and put a lock on "Frankenstein's laboratory" Darwin built once and for all or you will eventually become that animal. IMO. Then and only then will we become to know what is the ideal family as we become more and more "human".

From the mind of this universal child I render you my opinion. It is up to you whether you disregard it or ponder it. Perhaps it is time to "reverse our selfish negative thinking" in lieu of a more postive, giving one. Once again IMMHO as I reel myself back in, again. Ha.

William

hi william-
but if you are making one of the criteria for parents to be biologically connected to the child, you would also have to deny rights of adoption...
sal

Thank you Salima for that observation. I am referring to an ideal. Adoption is an "alternative measure" in that we don't realize that ideal, but aspiring to reach that ideal is what life is about. There is a lot we don't understand and my whole life has been, whether I wanted to or not, to pursue that understanding for I was that child, no matter how hard I tried to conform, that could not do so. Now that very statement could be construed to be "obstinate, selfish and self-centered" and I understand that, but I had no 'choice in the matter' for it was an obsession. And now I realize it truly was a "magnificent obsession". I am, at this time, a proponent of adoption, big time in lieu of ALL other measures as long as that adopting "family" has the essential elements that are a family, namely a father and a mother deeply devoted to each other and the children in their care. Any other concoction that espouses just adults and children under one roof who love each other, I will not, will not, consider. In an "alternate family setting" it MUST contain both elements of male and female in harmony with each other as to the responsibility the care of a child dictates. Not one or the other or two of the same. That in of itself creates an "imbalance" no matter how much love it says it has to offer. IMO. The universal paradigm of father/mother/child is the one truth we undoubtedly do know for sure.:detective: It is the bottom line for our very existence and was not meant to be altered to suit our "convenience".

Thank you, Salima.
William

I don't know why you are slagging off animals again William, at least in this context, seeing as those animals which are relatively closely linked to humans do tend to obey instinctual drives to raise their own children to a greater degree than many humans do.

It's to the credit of the human species, I think, that we are able to extend compassion to other members of our community, or the world at large, and expend energy on assisting people or creatures outside of our immediate family - either through a realisation that such acts lead to a better future - or just out of "goodness".

Adoption is perhaps the best example of this - the energy, time and economic cost of raising a child are likely to be greater than pretty much anything else a human can do - yet many people do it.

How exactly is that "selfish"?

Furthermore - the biggest threat that faces humans is that of population growth - if we continue to breed exponentially the way we have been in recent decades all our future offspring will suffer. If we want quality of life to mean more than quantity of life then overcoming the selfish drive to see one's own offspring brought into the world has to happen. Adoption therefore benefits in two ways:

* It slows the rate of population growth - allowing future generations a greater chance of enjoying their fair share of the Earth's space and resources.

* It removes a child from an impersonal care system and places them in a family unit better able to meet it's emotional, educational and social needs.

Again, just why is this "selfish"?

Dave, in all due respect, what are you talking about? I did't say adoption was selfish! I did say it is an alternative measure and one I happen to agree with, with the stipulations I indicated, IMO. Procreation for the sake of self gratification is what is selfish. And I also explained that! So, what's the deal, huh? As far as the human and animal are concerned I will not consider any equation that efforts to compare the two. And I also explained that. Are you just bored or what?:perplexed: Ha. No offense!

William

PS: What does "slagging" mean? How does the refuse in the processing of steel have to do with it?

An ideal family is what YOU perceive it to be. An ideal family for one is not the ideal family for another. Like all else, based solely on ones perception of it.

Slagging off = floccinaucinihilipilification.For your information, the comparison was made way before Darwin's day, dating back to Aristotle at the very least, and the taxonomy which places humans in the particular heirarchy of animal-vertebrate-tetrapod-mammal-primate-monkey-ape was a creationist Christian who would have probably been more comfortable if he could just have blinded himself to the apparent evidence.

Darwin didn't decide that man was best grouped as part of the animal kingdom, he just outlined a framework for how organisms might change over time to become different organisms.

I'm feeling slightly uncomfortable about the direction in which this thread is heading, but I still feel quite obliged to post my views on the question at hand, simply because I feel that I have qutie a strong opinion on the matter.



I can most definitely agree with this to an extent. However, I believe that there are some basic aspects that are 'required' for correct functionality of a family. Okay, so I've said that in completely the wrong way. What I mean, is that, no matter how varied individual views on the ideal family may be, there will always be common factors.

I suppose really it depends on what one wants, or needs, from a family. For some people, a family that functions properly is enough for them to be content. Right, so maybe they wouldn't find this 'ideal', but would they ask for more? Other people require stronger relationship bonds in a family, and you find this especially in some religions, where respect and such can be particularly important; or in the third world, where family members may depend on one another.

Personally, I find that in the Western society, families are very much taken for granted. This could be seen as quite a bold statement, considering that in the UK around 50% of marriages end in divorce, and there is quite a steep increase in single-parent families and even reconstituted families. (Yes, those Religious Studies lessons sure did pay off!) I suppose when I say that families are taken for granted, I suppose I mean more about individual views within the family. For example, children may take their parents for granted, expeting certain things to be fulfilled by them, as the stereotypical view may entail. On the other hand, parents can sometimes expect too much of their children, based on views that have been held from when they were children.
It's quite an ironic situation we find ourselves in, I think. It is very much the state who teaches and trains the children, as they are schooled from an early age and stuck in quite a harsh environment during the period when they are most impressionable. Exactly what children are taught by the government I'm not entirely sure, as, in my own experiences, I have learnt from being aware of my surroundings and taking different things into account. Still, it is no longer up to the parents to bring their child 'into the real world', yet when things go wrong, it is often the parents who are blamed, as if society itself has a view of what is required of parents. It's quite a catch, as generally you end up with everyone judging each other based on prejudice and stereotypes and often without hearing the 'full story'.

Anyway, what has any of this got to do with the 'ideal' family? I'm not quite sure, but make of it what you will. I tend to ramble a bit...


My own personal view of an 'ideal' family? Well, I wouldn't say things are perfect in my family; far from it. But on the other hand, the situation I find myself in isn't exactly 'extreme'. Still, I suppose it all comes down to individual perspective once again.

This isn't really something I feel overly comfortable talking about, but otherwise you're all going to think I'm crazy if I don't paint a complete picture. Basically my family is in a bit of a mess. Religion divides my mother and brother from my father and I, and my parents are stuck in a loveless marriage, and nobody really seems to get on with anybody else very well, but nobody shows it... except me.

I'm generally not the kind of person who just says what he thinks. More times that not, i am very considerate of the impression I am giving, and the consequences of my actions concerning the views and feelings of those I am with. At least, I like to think so. But I find it really quite difficult to cope when we are together as a family unit. We don't do much as a family, but seeming as neither of my parents are employed at the moment, we all seem to be at home a lot of the time... and our house isn't very big.
Concerning my family, I prefer to be left on my own than to be with them, the majority of the time. Sounds a bit cruel, I suppose, but time spent together as that 'unit' is frequently awkward, such as at dinner when we are all eating at the table. I suppose this is as good-an-example as any. Generally, we don't talk; just eat. I prefer it that way, because then there aren't any arguments and nobody can be offended or upset. Still, my mother likes to try and force conversation, which usually ends in something bad happening. I won't go into further details, because you probably don't need to hear them... or even want to hear them. :Glasses:
(Just as a note, I don't mean that my family are at all violent, or abusive, as we are all generally quite intelligent people. Still, what this means is that often the hurt and offensive can come from words, and a general attitude.)

So, what do I class as an ideal family? I could easily say that the common ideology would be a mother and father who love each other, wanting children, having them, and loving them. It's really as simple as that. However, I find this rather 'too good to be true'.
My ideal family would just be without religious, and bringing back some of the 'innocence' from earlier years. I'm not exactly against religion, and I'm an agnostic, which is probably due to the influence of a half-religious upbringing, but I find that it has torn my family apart, and therefore I would rather do without it. It's a bit of a funny view to have, I suppose, but there has to be a said 'cause' somewhere, or rather, something to blame. And by innocence, I mean a lesser caring of what happens outside, in the real world. As I said, we are all quite intelligent, and I often find more disadvantages to advantages, especially when it comes to the worry and concern of all the issues. Innocence like a child has, where, when we are together, as a family, nothing else matters. There is nothing to detract from the family values and such, and so we can just... get along.


Yeah, quite serious stuff, but I think I've made my point. Sorry for such a long post, but there was some stuff I wanted to get off my chest, and other things I felt I should just say.

You need two things for a family and that's love and to be there for each other.

Thanks Dave for that clarification. It seems to me those ancient thoughts didn't "take off" but Darwin's did! Hmmm? I have always maintained that the past is flawed and anyone to justify a present perception can always venture into it to justify that perception no matter what it is. Hence, the flaws of it. I also maintain, for myself alone, if it is difficult to understand, it was not meant to be understood. Hence conflict and confusion. Again, the one glaring truth is father/mother/child and no matter how twisted one tries to redefine it, it can't be done lest conflict and enormous confusion resulting in chaos. In all sincerity if you want to maintain that the ape is your "early" relative, you have a right to do so. In the grand scheme of things i think we all "arrived" on this planet for reasons we have yet determined, but I have my thoughts on the matter and have noted them on a few occasions. I have lived my entire life trusting my senses, good, bad and indifferent, and am not easily swayed. As a matter of a fact for someone to consciously effort to do so, is impossble I don't care how smart they claim to be. If I am wrong, in the end, I alone will pay the price. Again, thanks for the update. By some accounts we also sacrificed our young. Unforunately, that to has been updated.

William

How exactly is Mother/Father/Child glaring? It certainly doesn't seem that way to me. It is simply the norm. Anything else is abnormal simply because it is not in the majority. It does not make it any less natural. For instance, two male penguins have been shown to be able to raise young together. And I know you wont accept human/animal comparisons, but we are, at heart, animals. We simply bear a better ability to ignore our instincts.

Hello Dunkler.

In all due respect the father/mother/child is not a matter of majority/minority opinion; it is a truth that cannot be denied. Period. If you will forgive me, I am not a penguin or an ape and do not try to rationalize my behavior by comparing mine to their behavior. Their woiuld be "no" penguins or apes if it weren't for this truth of father/mother/child paradigm that cannot, again, be denied. Yes, there are "creatures" on this planet that are capable of existing that are separate from this paradigm, but they are not human. If one finds it necessary to equate their existence to that of other "creatures" that is their preogative.

If you choose to make this association, please do not try to convince others to comply to satisfy or justify your assumptions, though I can only imagine, from your personal view point, that will be hard for you to do, IMO as it is with others who make such erroneous rationalizations. As for me, forgive my rigidity, you are talking to a post as I do respect your effort to convince me otherwise.

William

Thought I'd jump in here. Father/Mother relationship between male and female has much to do with procreation. Just because two people of opposite sex can have babies, doesn't mean they are good families and doesn't constitute an 'Ideal Family'.

We are all here in this existence together. We are part of a cycle of life and life is ever changing and ever evolving and ever reincarnating itself in the divine balance of life.

Family has NOTHING to do with a mother and father, although it's nice to have a caring and loving mother and the balancing effect of a father but that's not always possible and not always desired. Sometimes it's even the siblings that raise the children.. so what's the darn difference.

William, why don't you just come out and say what you think so people don't have to struggle with reading your stereotypical innuendos 'between the lines'. I see no sense in skirting the real issue here anymore... I'm talking about the cloaking and masking of old fashioned and outdated prejudices. With all due respect.

I'd like to add, that the ideal family, is the family that you have. Whether it be on this forum, in your home... whatever it is, the ideal family is the family you've been blessed with.

"Yes, there are "creatures" on this planet that are capable of existing that are separate from this paradigm, but they are not human."
I am somewhat confused; is this arguing that anyone, limiting the case to humans and not locomotive animals, that lives outside of the father/mother/child paradigm is somehow not human, some "creature"? Does this include, for example, priests or nuns who have taken a vow of celibacy? Does it include those people who never marry, for whatever reason, whether by choice or by circumstances?

They did take off. Aristotle is one of the most (if not THE most) quoted philosophers of all time - I think during the 20th century only Nietzche challenged him for number of 'times quoted'. It's Aristotle who proposed the idea of species as we understand it today.

The inventor of modern taxonomy, Carl Linnaeus, is not so well known, but his ideas certainly took off - modern scientists still use his system and latin names - there's a good primer on him on Wikipedia:

Carl Linnaeus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YouTube - A film about Carl Linnaeus

The reason Darwin is so famously associated with evolution is that while many other philosophers and scientists supposed it happened, or produced theories of how organisms might be grouped, he was the first to propose a model for how evolution might have happened which wasn't quickly and comprehensively debunked - natural selection.

For example the French biologist Lamarck, who was on the scene a little earlier than Darwin, proposed Lamarckian Evolution that suggests that aquired characteristics are passed on - so a giraffe that spends all day reaching for tall leaves will stretch it's neck and have long-necked children as a result.

This idea drew some interest - but people could easily think up exceptions (a man who loses an arm does not tend to father one-armed children) so Lamarckian evolution stayed on the drawing board rather than becoming a fully fledged theory.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution by natural selection has been extensively criticised - but none of the objections raised thusfar have shown it to be a poorer theory than any competing theory - quite the opposite. Because Darwin's theory accounted for more than lamarck's Darwin went on to win reknown, whereas Lamarck tends to be remembered only as a footnote to Darwin.

However, I hope it goes to show that the idea that organisms belong to groups that can change into other organisms was an established idea by Darwin's time, and it's not a "Frankenstein science" he concocted in some sort of vaccuum.

Darwin built on what people like Aristotle and Linneaus observed - and came up with the important step of recognising the mechanism.

---------- Post added 08-01-2009 at 03:35 PM ----------

I suspect he's talking about animals that can reproduce asexually - anticipating objections such as "aphids are animals that can have families without fathers" and so on.

But it could be a slur on the unmarried, or same gender couples for all I can tell.

just to answer the main question and not the million other things in posts i could comment about...

there is no such thing as an ideal family.... different personalities desire differently

families of ants are admirable because they work for the good of all
i admire moose and bears for being so protective of their young

but in humans... it seems its easier to take what you can get... instead of imagining some impossible ideal life that probably wouldnt have the positive effects you imagine...

family is about odds of survival... and convenience of survival...

loving families have produced psycho killers and demented individuals...
some of the most intelligent people never called anyone mom or dad...

Sorry, Jg, if I was vague. I was referring to these creatures that are capable asexual (parthenogenesis) reproduction such as the aphid. I apologize for not being more specific.

William

---------- Post added 08-01-2009 at 07:57 PM ----------



Dave, it is your preogative to interpret what I have to say any way you wish. That was a wrong interpretation for I am only commenting as to my opinion of what "ideal" is as was asked by the thread itself. Your comment is your opinion in an attempt to stifle me from giving mine and maliciouslly misrepresenting what I did say. Your comment Dave is a bigoted "slur" in itself. If your comment is not considered an infraction, then this forum has seriously gone awry and I will leave this forum on my own accord.

Justin, I was going to answer your request, but until this resolved, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing I can say that will not be subject to such bigoted attacks as they always come from the same antagonists who are very capable of derailing any thread when any opinion is expressed that falls contrary to their own. it happens consistently. It's like a virus whose purpose is to destroy freedom of speech. Here this and here it well. If the universal paradigm of the universal human family is destroyed rather than efforts to perfect it and understand it, all civilization goes with it. :detective:

William

How exactly is it a truth? Yes, for a child to born they need a male and a female, but that's not family. That's birth. Some of the most f@@@@d up people I know are from steady homes with a mother and father, and the nicest person I know comes from a divorced home. So, I posit that instead of the ideal family being what the parents are, the ideal family should instead focus on what the parents are to the child.

And how is erroneous for me to compare humankind to animals? We are animals no matter what one says. We evolved from apes, the fossil record shows us this. There-in, a human is simply a higher form of ape. So, since we came from the same fold as animals, should we not still be able to be compared to them?

What happens consistently?

People wanting a debate?

On an internet forum?

Really?

If you cannot handle the fact that people may disagree with you then perhaps it is best for your own peace of mind to stop sharing your ideas online - because people will have other ideas and exercise what rights they have to express them.

If you think people should just sit back and be silent whilst you make copious generalisations about homosexuals, or "the Jew", or scientists - many of which betray the fact that you just haven't learned much in 60+ years about the subjects you expound upon - then perhaps you need to find a more compliant audience.