4 ms·
What Kegan is describing in order 0 is a state where the infant does not have a bound identification, i.e. does not have an identification: she perceives, but d
by dmos62 7y ago
What Kegan is describing in order 0 is a state where the infant does not have a bound identification, i.e. does not have an identification: she perceives, but doesn't categorise into me/not-me. That's not a sense of self, but just a sense. The "everything sensed is taken to be an extension of an infant" part is a descriptions of how we perceive the infant in that state, not a description of the infant's own reflection.
Also, why do you say that the theory builds upon this? I didn't find it to be an important part of the theory.
- samstave 7y agoIm not deriding you, bit let me ask you; how many children do you have. I have three daughters. As infants “they were all the same baby” happy slept through the night no issues etc. They all grew i to their own identities individually over time. Today isactually my you gest daughter’s 6th. Bday. Her older is 8. Her eldest sister will be turnig 15 next month. To watch them develop as their own identities has been an amazing gift of the universe. My eldest is a chanpion horse jumper. My middle is an advanced reader. My youngest is who i think of as my “son” - she is resiliant and tough and she will tackle her sisters while looking me in the eye like “yup im doing this, what are you going to do about it” —- But to describe an infant without some sort of sense of selfe is wrong Sure there is the nurture/nature aspect of raising a human, but if nurture that beautiful innocent tiny human you brought i to the world - their mature will blossom and they will come into being their own human.
- gexla 7y agoThe person you're quoting didn't say the theory was correct or even that he believes the theory. His response was only his interpretation of the theory. If you feel the theory is incorrect, then perhaps take it up with Robert Kegan.