Recently, my friend Austin visited his nephew for the first time.
Afterwards, he asked me these questions,.
Do two year olds and adults learn differently? Definitely.
Although putting this difference into words presents a few problems.
Not the least of which is that we adults cannot normally access states of mind wherein we do not have an unconscious.
This simply is not possible for us.
Once we develop an unconscious, it stays for life.
If we did this then, it would be something like being a lake fish who swam only in the upper foot of lake water.
Never deeper.
No coincidence, this is something baby fish do.
And larger fish do not do.
How then could we describe this difference though? Perhaps by picturing this very same lake.
And by picturing the difference between learning to see something in very shallow water, and learning to see this same thing in deep, partially murky water.
Obviously, this second kind of learning includes being able to discern things even in the presence of murky water.
Babies can not have this experience because they do not yet have any murky water.
Thus, while young children may indeed Learn by Emergence from a young age, their ability to recall what they learned at this age may be limited to times wherein there is no murky water in life.
Times wherein life is exceptionally clear.
Austin, as I think about it, this is likely very close to the truth about young children and how they learn.
Which may be why when we do access these kinds of things in special states like meditation, we can feel at times like we are remembering things rather than that we are just now learning them.
Does the lack of an unconscious make learning for a child this age different than for an adult? As I have just said, I am not at all certain.
My first inclination is to say not completely.
Yes, I do believe you can Learn by Emergence before you have an unconscious.
However, our ability to recall this learning must be significantly affected, and impoverished as we develop an unconscious.
What I can say is this.
We emerge from wounds only when new patterns emerge from our unconscious.
Literally these new patterns emerge from chaos, wherein this chaos is the mental blankness and the newly emerged pattern is what is visually new to you.
What about when we do not have a wound though but rather, have yet to witness a pattern? Here, I know this experience to be very similar to what Buddhism describes as their life's focus; to become enlightened by becoming conscious.
This then leads me to something else I already know.
The idea that there are two categories of events in which we enter a state of mental blankness.
In the first one, we go blank when we are exposed to something unfamiliar.
In the second, we relive having once been startled into blankness.
The blankness of an injury.
Technically, both these states could be called unconsciousness.
And while the second kind of event is what normally leads to Learning by Emergence (the experience of emerging from a previously blocked ability to picture something), it may be that when we have yet to be able to picture something, this same possibility may exist.
The difference being that we are more emerging from the blankness of ignorance than from the blankness of injury.
What stops me from saying with certainty that this is the case? The idea that I do not know for certain if we get can get startled by realizing we have yet to learn something.
If we can, then I can easily see how we might emerge both from ignorance as well as from a wound.
If not, then we likely cannot Learn by Emergence from ignorance.
In other words, with injury, the thing which causes our mind to go blank is reliving the startle.
Then the thing which causes us to feel amazed when we emerge from this injury is that we do not get startled.
So the question is, does this happen to us when we emerge from ignorance? Now as I think about it, ironically, I feel amazed.
Why? Because I realize I would have to say yes.
Why? Because emerging from ignorance does amaze us.
It just now happened to me.
What does all this mean? It means that the fact that a two year old does not yet have an unconscious makes learning for a two year old different than for an adult.
However, the mechanism beneath this learning must be the same.
The amazing change from being startled to being not startled.
So can Emergent Learning happen without having an unconscious? Or does having an unconscious hinder Emergent Learning? Austin, first, I have to say this whole group of questions has been one of the most thought provoking I have been asked in quite a while.
Here is why.
Prior to this, I had not considered how learning for a two year old was any different than for an adult.
That I did not know only a moment ago, in fact, now amazes me.
What I am saying is, your asking me these questions has just now caused me to have a few things emerge.
Not things which I ever had wounds about.
Things I had simply been ignorant of.
I literally hadn't even known to ask these questions.
In this moment, in fact, I still feel quite amazed by how I had never thought to ask these questions.
And while I do indeed have an unconscious to be sure, still, this amazement means the same thing regardless of your age; it means something just emerged in you.
As for whether having an unconscious hinders learning, here, I'd have to say yes and no.
Yes, because in order to have this thing emerge, we must become able to see it both in clear water and in murky water.
And no, because when we learn with no murky water, we have not yet completed the learning.
It completes only when we have learned to see this thing in both clear water and in murky water.
This then must be the nature of maturity.
And my reason for titling this week's questions, The Nature of Maturity.
Maturity must be when something emerges in us in such a way as to be accessible both in good times and in bad; in clear water and in murky water; in connection and in stress.
Children simply cannot yet have this happen, because they have yet to accumulate enough murky water.
Wow.
Thank you, Austin.
This was fun.
To read the rest what I had to say on two year olds and the nature of maturity, click here.
Afterwards, he asked me these questions,.
Do two year olds and adults learn differently? Definitely.
Although putting this difference into words presents a few problems.
Not the least of which is that we adults cannot normally access states of mind wherein we do not have an unconscious.
This simply is not possible for us.
Once we develop an unconscious, it stays for life.
If we did this then, it would be something like being a lake fish who swam only in the upper foot of lake water.
Never deeper.
No coincidence, this is something baby fish do.
And larger fish do not do.
How then could we describe this difference though? Perhaps by picturing this very same lake.
And by picturing the difference between learning to see something in very shallow water, and learning to see this same thing in deep, partially murky water.
Obviously, this second kind of learning includes being able to discern things even in the presence of murky water.
Babies can not have this experience because they do not yet have any murky water.
Thus, while young children may indeed Learn by Emergence from a young age, their ability to recall what they learned at this age may be limited to times wherein there is no murky water in life.
Times wherein life is exceptionally clear.
Austin, as I think about it, this is likely very close to the truth about young children and how they learn.
Which may be why when we do access these kinds of things in special states like meditation, we can feel at times like we are remembering things rather than that we are just now learning them.
Does the lack of an unconscious make learning for a child this age different than for an adult? As I have just said, I am not at all certain.
My first inclination is to say not completely.
Yes, I do believe you can Learn by Emergence before you have an unconscious.
However, our ability to recall this learning must be significantly affected, and impoverished as we develop an unconscious.
What I can say is this.
We emerge from wounds only when new patterns emerge from our unconscious.
Literally these new patterns emerge from chaos, wherein this chaos is the mental blankness and the newly emerged pattern is what is visually new to you.
What about when we do not have a wound though but rather, have yet to witness a pattern? Here, I know this experience to be very similar to what Buddhism describes as their life's focus; to become enlightened by becoming conscious.
This then leads me to something else I already know.
The idea that there are two categories of events in which we enter a state of mental blankness.
In the first one, we go blank when we are exposed to something unfamiliar.
In the second, we relive having once been startled into blankness.
The blankness of an injury.
Technically, both these states could be called unconsciousness.
And while the second kind of event is what normally leads to Learning by Emergence (the experience of emerging from a previously blocked ability to picture something), it may be that when we have yet to be able to picture something, this same possibility may exist.
The difference being that we are more emerging from the blankness of ignorance than from the blankness of injury.
What stops me from saying with certainty that this is the case? The idea that I do not know for certain if we get can get startled by realizing we have yet to learn something.
If we can, then I can easily see how we might emerge both from ignorance as well as from a wound.
If not, then we likely cannot Learn by Emergence from ignorance.
In other words, with injury, the thing which causes our mind to go blank is reliving the startle.
Then the thing which causes us to feel amazed when we emerge from this injury is that we do not get startled.
So the question is, does this happen to us when we emerge from ignorance? Now as I think about it, ironically, I feel amazed.
Why? Because I realize I would have to say yes.
Why? Because emerging from ignorance does amaze us.
It just now happened to me.
What does all this mean? It means that the fact that a two year old does not yet have an unconscious makes learning for a two year old different than for an adult.
However, the mechanism beneath this learning must be the same.
The amazing change from being startled to being not startled.
So can Emergent Learning happen without having an unconscious? Or does having an unconscious hinder Emergent Learning? Austin, first, I have to say this whole group of questions has been one of the most thought provoking I have been asked in quite a while.
Here is why.
Prior to this, I had not considered how learning for a two year old was any different than for an adult.
That I did not know only a moment ago, in fact, now amazes me.
What I am saying is, your asking me these questions has just now caused me to have a few things emerge.
Not things which I ever had wounds about.
Things I had simply been ignorant of.
I literally hadn't even known to ask these questions.
In this moment, in fact, I still feel quite amazed by how I had never thought to ask these questions.
And while I do indeed have an unconscious to be sure, still, this amazement means the same thing regardless of your age; it means something just emerged in you.
As for whether having an unconscious hinders learning, here, I'd have to say yes and no.
Yes, because in order to have this thing emerge, we must become able to see it both in clear water and in murky water.
And no, because when we learn with no murky water, we have not yet completed the learning.
It completes only when we have learned to see this thing in both clear water and in murky water.
This then must be the nature of maturity.
And my reason for titling this week's questions, The Nature of Maturity.
Maturity must be when something emerges in us in such a way as to be accessible both in good times and in bad; in clear water and in murky water; in connection and in stress.
Children simply cannot yet have this happen, because they have yet to accumulate enough murky water.
Wow.
Thank you, Austin.
This was fun.
To read the rest what I had to say on two year olds and the nature of maturity, click here.