My friend answered, ha, I ask myself that all the time.
It feels like there is some kind of expectation which is different from the older sibling. But nothing was explained or utterred or put across.
All the more with the younger brother, my friend then felt like there is more of us now, the youngest (younger) is no longer, my friend became No 2.
My interest at the moment, which is also the focus of this page, is what happens next: what impact does our upbringing impact our later development? That’s too broad a question. The restriction here is, using my friend’s example, the ecosystem of siblings and a little bit of the fringe world of parents. And, yes, that ecosystem enlarges as time goes on, eventually there is a fluid and sometimes distinct demarcation of what is personal and familial, and what is social and external. Child development is an established research with amount of printed research stretching from any point on earth to the moon and beyond. Each child is unique; while a great degree of “assumptions” can be made, the individual requires attention, even to admire at how “normality” plays out with this young person.
My main interest is about the sense of self, or the significant insignificance of it, in the wider social world. As time goes on – and it’s unclear when this begins to dawn on the young person, and it’s probably also unclear when this person realises when this dawns on them – we will comprehend something of the enormity of the world, and the enormity of the mind, personal, communal, global. Yet the realisation of the “power” or “capacity” of our (personal, communal, global) mind is probably taking a slower magnitude than the realisation of “nature”. By this, I mean the planets, the universe, and what lies beyond of which universes are members of, of something we yet know, or are capable to comprehend.
What’s the point?
There is a finite start and end to an entity. However, that’s probably debatable, since the “matter” that makes up entities (stuffs in the world, universe) is probably so minute it degenerates and regenerates. The point is, as a proposal, that matter exists. Irrespective of whether there was a / were big bang(s), or whether the belief / reasoning systems for big bang stands the test of time, matter exists.
Ok, we all know it: we grow, become independent (whatever that means), decline. We cannot “do nothing”; at some point, we are going to say “what’s the point of doing that?” which means the “thing” exists in the first place. In other words, there is a cycle of doing – boredom (or some other) – do nothing. It’s not about feeling hungry, cold / hot, and doing something to reach a “comfortable state” of being.
The deeper sense of there's something more.
But we are not in the right place, or time-space dimension, to beging to "unearth" what lies there for us to understand - the fundamental property of who we are that "fits" with the universe
And the universe? We need to discuss that as it is relevant. Before that, I am reminded that my friend is the girl between the older brother and, of course, the younger brother. Their characters / personalities were different when they were children, but she didn’t think she made a point of being a “girl” as something of contrast in relating to the siblings, and neither did the other two brothers to her. The character of a person is the definite “self” of the person, rather than gender alone. However, in their early teens, since their ages are close, they gradually become to know what it means to be a girl and a boy. Once they grew out of playgrounds, they learned, or grew into the habits of, knowing what works best in treating people of the opposite sex.
How’s is this relevant to this topic? This will continue, for the moment, I’m sure it’s not clear what the focus of this topic. It’s deliberately written this way. Hold on, part 2 will come.
