Ending The Old Wrongs Forever.
There’s an experiment in physics where visible light is blocked by a barrier with a certain pattern of slits in it allowing some of the light to pass through, making shadows on the screen beyond the barrier. Physicists have found that the light behaves differently if one just watches the shadows on the screen from behind the screen (or just watches other proof of the lights behavior), so that one isn’t looking at the light or the light-source at all. It is as if the light comes out to play when no one is watching it or expecting some sort of logical conformity of it.
There is a new experiment: a bird who has gotten used to the dark even though it isn’t time to sleep is put into the room and the light is turned on so it can see the insects on the screen by the light going through the slits. The bird’s influence has the opposite effect of the physicist’s; the light becomes more playful instead of less.
And the same happens when a four year old child is put into the room, with something behind the screen it likes to see; Christmas ornaments for example.
The law here, under study, is: "If we are observing a thing we are changing it. How it behaves when it is not observed can’t be observed." Everything is relationship.
Light is profound to a natural untutored mind. The tutored mind might be tempted to say it is mysterious to the untutored one, and that once we demystify it by science there is no more profundity. But does this mean the light is also mystified? Are we here to tutor light as well? As long as the tutored mind is observing it the light behaves as expected, so tutoring light is not just an idea.
We can actually arrest evolution! Even reverse it.
A child is no physicist. But what if a child became a physicists who did not belittle what he observes? Everything, even atoms and energy, even the sun and space, is vulnerable to belittling. To belittle is to assume the right to move someone or something by will. It’s authority. Our will moves the child. The profound vanishes when we open the door to its room. And this was made right when an older generation raised you. Do you have to perpetuate this "right"?
Try to say, "You don’t get it! You have to listen to me, because I do get it!". What is it you get? What is to not get it? How do the two weigh against each other? If we understand that much there is no effort to make amends; the amends will make themselves. We are used to trying to force the belittled mind to do good. First we are belittled and then berated for not doing good, as if the whole point of the belittling was to make us good. The actually viable option is less simplistic, harder to assimilate than the futile one. We tend to "go-with-the-flow" and belittle the viable option, saving us the trouble of doing the more difficult, the less willful.
When an adult says he gets it he means he believes in it. And what is belief? No church ever moved God, for example., although they all boast of doing so. Belief is to allow grotesque people to presume to show us God, fully knowing they are not the type if one exists. It’s abomination. It is just as grotesque to have such people moving war and peace, moving money, demand and productivity, moving inventions into place in the puzzle of modernizing society. None of this is done sanely or rationally; all of it is done by belittling everyone and everything, and surreptitiously aiming only to extract a material advantage for oneself.
You believe I mean well, and therefore I have room or space to mean exactly the opposite. That’s what’s meant by, "I get it!". It means, "I believe they mean well!". Then our perpetual disadvantage must be a law of classical physics, and not by anyone’s will or design. "Accept fraud as kindness!" is what authority over a child means. "It has always served me well to do so!"
Why did you become a parent and a spouse? Because you believed. Basically your spouse snared you. He or she was old enough to have adopted the wiles of a parent. Snared, you are on the defensive. Thinking your way out of awkward situations more often than you are thinking your way into "promising" ones.
How do we snare people? We make them believe we are something we could never even want to become. One of these things is a parent. We don’t want to become parents. Wanting to play with dolls or to own a tea-cup dog is not wanting to raise a child to a procreating faculty or savant. We just make people believe we want to do it and can do it. Just like a priest and his robe: believe this pretty thing about me. Dolls get more affection lavished on them than children do, and affection is just for being little, not for keeping abreast with physical growth. A bigger person needs a bigger place than the ever-smaller backyard, and no one is ever ready for a bigger place; and certainly this is the most simplistic example of not keeping abreast of growth. We are all at best complacent caged mice suddenly released into cat-country with a friendly fare-well or a haughty, "So I’m not good enough for you! You need a girl your own age!".
Children, as we will all belittle them, are green forbidden fruit. A little more sunshine and they will be ripe forbidden fruit. By the time the average parent notices it half the community has been lurid toward them. And to the other gender parent and neighbor they are No Forbidden Fruit! "Who do you think you are, forbidden fruit? Let me assure you you don’t qualify!". They are not the right gender for tempting us to make them our new escort service, dating game and snuggle-bunnies. There is only one gender of Virgins-that-make-me-feel-young-again in most people’s books, and the other gender looks to us like the disaster area they both are in actual fact.
Their only hope is to get someone to believe their facades. Snare a friend all over again. "He’ll be a wonderful father!", the pawn-sacrifice gambit. No bachelor pawn on the board. I can live with that!
When you see that another generation has entered puberty eager to get on with it, "We’re just having sex, Dad. Why do you make a big thing of it? He’s cute!", you are seeing light going in the straight line classical physics predicts.