Stages Of Life

[TruthSeeker]

A lot of psychologists have tried to describe our lives, including its stages. Here is one of my old attempts to unite their views. It's some work I was doing while I was doing some psychology courses. It's far from a finished work, but it sounds interesting and brings me some memories... :P

"Stages of Life


The Three Primitive Stages

1) Ontological Stage
This is the stage when the baby first become aware of himself. He realizes that he has a body and that he has control over it. He realizes that his body is an extension of himself and correlates his body to his will. This is the primary correlation. As the stage unfolds, he starts to differentiate his body from other objects, that he doesn’t have direct control over. In the end of the stage, he still has an awareness of the difference between his own self and his body- that is, he is not the body, but he has a body. The ego and the self are one. The id and the ego are differentiated.

2) Semantic Stage
In this stage, the baby starts connecting symbols to meanings. He starts to learn that he can attach a symbol to an object. The most common symbol is by far the words. He starts attaching meaning to things. He recognizes that, for example, the “snow“ is “cold”. This is the peak of this stage, when the baby starts to learn about cause and effect, but only in a very primitive way, through a simple correlation between two “meanings“. The baby also starts correlating himself with his body and losing the awareness that he is not his body. The ego and the self become differentiated. Also called semiotic stage.

3) Epistemological Stage
This is the last stage from the three primitive stages. It is when the baby starts developing his relation of cause and effect. Thanks to cause and effect, he starts differentiating what is “good” and what is “bad”, “right” and “wrong”. Abstract words start to develop. He “eats from the tree of life” and discovers “sin“. After further unfolding, he also starts attaching new meanings to the symbols he had learnt in the previous stage and completely loses his ability of differentiating himself from his body. The ego and the id is perceived as one. He also loses his peace of mind and start thinking and, finally, talking.


Advanced Stages

4) Etymological Stage
The child start attaching new meaning to the words. By combining semantically correlation with epistemological cause and effect, he constantly changes the words accordingly. For example, he understands what a dog is. But depending on his experience with dogs, he can attach an additional meaning to it. For instance, if the dog bites him, he starts to fear whenever he sees a dog. He starts correlating the effect that he had with the first dog with all the other dogs. But if he has a very nice dog that he always play with, the word “dog” gives him a feeling happiness. This is the stage where he really start learning with his parents. Positive and negative reinforcements are crucial to the development of the child, at this stage. Further development happens at school.

5) Sociological Stage
The child starts developing the persona and the shadow. As the child understands that some things are liked by people and other are not, he tries to show people only the parts of himself that others like (persona) and hides those parts that he dislikes (shadow). Life becomes increasingly complicated as the child has to deal with so many parts of his personality and with many people aside from his parents. Their parents also lose some of their influence due to their child’s new sociological state, thanks to the school. Incongruence can become a serious problem as the child does not know how to handle so many parts of his personality and so many different people properly. For example, he may tell lies that are very hard to believe in. There’s also an obvious differentiation between public and private self."

Any comments and critiques are more then welcomed... :)

The Seeker :tao:

[locomotive]

that is great man. This is a very interesting thing to think about. How do people develope throughout life? What were the factors involved? Obviously childrens lifes can be cut into stages since every child experiences society and himself like you showed us. But there is ofcourse much more that happens and is involved with human life. :P

[sahyo]

"Stages of Life" or 'conditioning', turthseeker ? :)

[TruthSeeker]

that is great man. This is a very interesting thing to think about. How do people develope throughout life? What were the factors involved? Obviously childrens lifes can be cut into stages since every child experiences society and himself like you showed us. But there is ofcourse much more that happens and is involved with human life.*
Well, yes. That's why I try to find the essence...
But I always wonder if I got all the factors involved. Is there anything you think I missed? :)

I normally take some previous steps to ensure I include all factors involved. But that's really boring technical-like stuf... <_<

[TruthSeeker]

Stages of Life" or 'conditioning', turthseeker ?
Well, it is a conditioning process! And note how I tied it with the Jungian and Freud psychologies... ;)

[sahyo]

ahhh...

:)

[scameter]

Existentialists believe "Existence precedes and rules essence".

[Kether]

Interesting theory, Truthseeker. I might like to approach it from the perspective of Cognitive Science; to translate it into a cognitivist hypothesis, a format that would allow it to be tested more easily. But I am not an expert psychologist; I hope to change that, however.

[scameter]

You would be an excellent one. Your views correspond exactly with that of psychologists, neurologists and scientists in general. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

Interesting theory. I see two problems with that, however.

First, this proposed developmental sequence focuses IMV too much on linguistics. As a child grows up, there are many important acquisitions of non-lingustic skills, such as vision, motor skills, emotion, and motivation. Some of these, I think, are more incisive than the stages you mentioned. I tend to agree with Steven Pinker that language ability is a result of evolutionary adaptation rather than a culturally induced byproduct of neo-cortical processing. For the purpose of this argument, this means that language development is preprogrammed and unfolds automatically in repsonse to verbal interaction. Since the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" hypothesis is principally flawed, it would be inadequate to conclude an evolutionary progression from it.

Second, I think it would be enormously difficult to separate the stages you mentioned chronologically. For example, babies learn simple causal connections before they speak and thus the epistemological stage is suddenly not well defined anymore. In addition, I fail to see how "semantic" language development can take place without what you call "etymological" development. Much of this seems to work in parallel. The theory remains interesting, though, in terms of how lingustic development relates to the development of the Freudian/Jungian entities, the id, ego, super-ego, persona, and shadow. This is probably its most enthralling aspect.

Cheers, Thomas

[TruthSeeker]

First, this proposed developmental sequence focuses IMV too much on linguistics. As a child grows up, there are many important acquisitions of non-lingustic skills, such as vision, motor skills, emotion, and motivation.
Huuumm... yes. But I wanted to focus more on the psychological factors, particularly how we perceive the world. That's why I took the perspective of language development, which can define how we perceive the world. The basic premise is that once we are capable of translating meanings into words, then our perception of the world shifts from an abstract flexible one to a more practical, solid and rigid, which in turn develops the consciousness with all its flaws!

Emotion and motivation are also very interesting aspects. I would definetely include those in a final work. But as I said before, that's far from final. I've also been studying a bit about emotions and choices and how they relate to Descartes views. I tend to disagree that thoughts are essential and I'm more inclined to "I feel therefore I am" or, even more eesentially, "I choose therefore I am".... but that's an entirely different discussion itself. ;)

Some of these, I think, are more incisive than the stages you mentioned. I tend to agree with Steven Pinker that language ability is a result of evolutionary adaptation rather than a culturally induced byproduct of neo-cortical processing. For the purpose of this argument, this means that language development is preprogrammed and unfolds automatically in repsonse to verbal interaction. Since the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" hypothesis is principally flawed, it would be inadequate to conclude an evolutionary progression from it.
Huuummm....
I'm not sure what all those words together mean... :rofl: :goodlaugh:
However, I think I agree with the fact that language unfolds automatically in response to verbal interaction...

Second, I think it would be enormously difficult to separate the stages you mentioned chronologically. For example, babies learn simple causal connections before they speak and thus the epistemological stage is suddenly not well defined anymore. In addition, I fail to see how "semantic" language development can take place without what you call "etymological" development. Much of this seems to work in parallel.
I totally agree. In fact, I experimented with exchanging the first three stages into many different combinations and they seem to be very closely related- which is why I consider them as 3 primitive stages. I often use the symbol of a triangle to represent those 3 aspects: ontological, semantic and epistemological. And as you might infer from those names, I have based those stages and the whole theory in philosophy. Basically, I first took care of philosophical matters such as existence and knowledge, and then developed some psychology from that.

To be honest, this whole thing is quite complex and tiring after a while... :lol:
But's all good....

The theory remains interesting, though, in terms of how lingustic development relates to the development of the Freudian/Jungian entities, the id, ego, super-ego, persona, and shadow. This is probably its most enthralling aspect.
Thank you :tao:

[venom mama]

i'm in the crazy stage of life right now


crazy

my life right now
oh my goodness


sometimes i have to sit back and think, maybe you shouldn't have moved 13 states away, so far away from any homebase, so far from life as you knew it

[TruthSeeker]

I moved to the other side of the world. So?
It's fun! :D :lol:

[scameter]

I've only moved up one county....physically.

[Kether]

I think I agree with the fact that language unfolds automatically in response to verbal interaction...
Specific languages must be learned, but I think that the child does much of this with less environmental prompting than one might suppose. The child hears words, but they can't possibly learn to speak just because of this; what is needed is some kind of innate, internal mental 'organ' that applies syntactical structure to what it hears. This intuitive, instinctive grammar is modified by learning so that it agrees with that of the child's environmentally acquired mother tongue; children's grammatical 'mistakes' are evidence that this process takes time.
I wanted to focus more on the psychological factors, particularly how we perceive the world. That's why I took the perspective of language development, which can define how we perceive the world.
A lot of cognition is certainly assisted by language, but it is not completely dependant on it. I don't know if you subscribe to the immensely popular - but most probably wrong - theory of linguistic determinism, but in case you do, I will mention why I don't. I originally posted the following in "A person without any knowledge of language".

The concept that language defines, determines and controls thought is a fallacy - but an unfortunately common one, and in the last century, a lot of more pragmatic social theory resulted from it. Radical feminists attempted to remove perceived patriarchal overtones from the English language (even where none existed, as in the word 'history'); in an appendix to 1984, Orwell prophesied that, by 2050, Big Brother would have entirely replaced English with 'Newspeak' in an attempt to remove all thoughts of 'freedom' by removing all words for 'freedom'; a group of American intellectuals began to draw up an English language that would prevent ambiguities and lies, thus eradicating them from the mind of its speakers.

But all such attempts, real or fictitious, rest on a misguided premise: that thought is dependent on language. The counter-arguments are not difficult to comprehend; they are actually quite obvious and common-sense, provided that one is willing to approach the gratifyingly mystical theory with an open mind.
Firstly, consider instances where a person says or writes something other than what they 'intended' to say/write; something other than what they really meant to say. If the individual considered the words chosen to be 'wrong', that they failed in their attempt to express a thought in words, then there must have been a thought that they were trying to express.
Secondly, if concepts are inescapably wedded to language, then how can a person learn a language, or translate semantic meaning from one language to another? Does a person start to think the second they gain language? It seems overwhelmingly improbable.
The basic premise is that once we are capable of translating meanings into words, then our perception of the world shifts from an abstract flexible one to a more practical, solid and rigid, which in turn develops the consciousness with all its flaws!
I agree that words can sometimes limit thoughts and feelings, but I don't believe that abstract thought - independent of language - dies once words are acquired.
Thought seems to be easier when coupled with symbolic vessels, like visualisation and language. But I think that there is a kind of basic computational cognitive 'language', which concepts need to be translated into - perhaps this translation is a function served by symbols. I can certainly see where visualisation could fit in; we appear to be programmed to think easily when we can see the things in question happening. As for language, I'm not sure; I don't think that one should attribute too much importance to it in terms of internal mental processes. It is primarily a device for externalising thoughts, and for manipulating others into thinking something, and is generally very effective for this purpose.

[CSwriter1]

I am a bit horrified that the developmental stages of childhood development are called the stages of life!

The stages of life extend over a life time and do not stop with childhood. We are not children and then adults, but continue going through life stages.

Our personalities remain pretty flexible until around age 30, and even when we are 80 years old and think of ourselves as history, we still identify with the 30 year person we were. It is a strange experience to be a 30 years old and in an old body.

Again and again throughout out our lives, we ask what is the meaning of my life? And as we go through the different stages, that answer changes.

[TruthSeeker]

Read my post carefully. I never claimed my trend of thought was complete.

I have some writtings on later stages. But they need a lot of work, partially because I have never experience stages of life later then I am experiencing right now.... <_<

But I know that the last stage consists basically of integrity and the reunion of the ego with the self. :think:

[scameter]

But you can't remember your experience as a child of less than age 5 either.

[TruthSeeker]

Yes, I can.

[scameter]

Through your own memory only? With nothing your family or friends has told you, or from videos of pictures, or anything but your own memory?

[TruthSeeker]

I remember when my parents fought in the living room and divorced short after. I was 2 years old...

[scameter]

Has anyone told you about it or clarified it for you, and what exactly do you remember about it?

[CSwriter1]

We remember our lives from the beginning, but are not conscious of the memories. However, the memories remain dormat in the subconscious, and can intrude into our lives causing trouble. This is why psychoanalysis is sometimes necessary, to help us discover these hidden memories and put them in their place.

Or we can do what I call mind magic, to rewrite our personal history. When I had to have surgery on my left hip, it triggered hidden memories that caused me a lot of trouble. With the help of a professional, I worked through the troubling memory, and this made a major difference in my life.

Because of my experience, I am concerned that we might not take enough care with what a child experiences and will record, possibly as a hidden memory. Age 30 can be a particularly difficult time if a person has troubling hidden memories.

[TruthSeeker]

Where did you read about that, CSwriter1?
I always thought a newborn's brain would be way to preocupied with other functions to record memories for long-term purposes...

This is troubling. Who has a great childhood? I, myself, struggle to keep my child feeling loved, safe and so on while doing all the work I have to do... <_<

[scameter]

Perfect childhoods are impossible, as anything perfect is. However, a good childhood, with caring and attentive parents responsible with their position as parents, can make a tremendous difference. I am not like Freud, in that I do not place nearly all importance on childhood, such as his belief that our relationship with our mother and our sex lives are affected by our poddy-training, but I do think that childhood affects much of our lives, mainly because of our huge receptibility of knowledge and experience and influence during that time, and in that time, we are shaped into who we will later be, to an extent of course; I think that we are born with a unique self, and are simply sculpted in childhood extremely and minorly later on.

[TruthSeeker]

Well, Freud thought everything had to do with sex. Makes you wonder how big was his weeny weeny. :D :lol:

I don't think we are born with an unique personality that almost never change. Heck, my personality is almost completely different from when I was born!!

[scameter]

How do you know?

[Kether]

The doctrines of the Church of Psychoanalysis are unscientific, largely wrong, and supported by devilishly imaginative ad hominem arguments rather than any kind of evidence. Freud behaved more like the guru of a religious sect than a scientist, and based his work almost on conversations with a small number of middle-class Austrian women and his own imagination.
Still, he made some valid contributions to neuroscience when he was a young man, and there is no doubt that he had a great mind. As for the action letter of psychoanalytical theory, I think that his theory of development was mostly quackery, but that psychoanalytical therapy itself can be helpful, as CSWriter1 pointed out.
There is no doubt that childhood powerfully shapes our personalities. However, what we experience in later life has power far beyond what Freud assumed; therapy can overwrite childhood experience.

[TruthSeeker]

How do you know?
I used to be very outgoing and funny. Now I'm a quite serious person and reserved. Of coruse, sometimes I'm still funny. But I used to be much funnier when I was outgoing. That's an example...

[scameter]

But how do you know that truthseeker? Do you remember being that way, and at what age did you change personality-wise?

I agree Kether. Although, I place importance not only on childhood and pro-childhood experience and conditioning, but choice as well. My dad's psychologist told him, and this is a very intelligent many by the way, that their drugs and therapy can help his mental condition and help him to get better (although not entirely) and to be able to function in society, but that happiness was something that could only be achieved if he wished it to be. Of course the condition of our bodies and minds are important contributors to our happiness, but that do not certify it, which is why I tend to think of happiness as a spiritual matter.

[TruthSeeker]

But how do you know that truthseeker? Do you remember being that way, and at what age did you change personality-wise?
Yes, I remember. It's a really long story... :)

I started changing when I started playing piano. Before piano and classical music, I was kind lost, as though I had arrived at a roadblock in my life. It just didn't make sense anymore. But then I discovered piano and plunged into it. Soon, I became very intelligent and serious. I would find a challenging piece, sit down and do it. It gave me a purpose and trained my brain to think logically. That was the turning point.

After that, I started reading books. The first one I recall reading was called "Sophie's World". It had some 600 pages. I never finished it, but I loved it. It was a very challening one to begin with. It taught me a lot about Greek Philosophy. That was the beginning of my interest in philosophy. It would be another year or so before I would read the entire Greek mythology. Meanwhile, I would read other things... But anyways.... that's basically it...

[scameter]

So, music awakened those old memories in you?

[TruthSeeker]

No, that's not what I said. You asked me at what age I changed personality-wise. That's exactly what I answered. Well, and I added how I changed, of course.

[scameter]

Indeed, but it seems as if you began to change when you began piano. Could it be that the music somehow eased your mind or clarified it to subsequently allow easier recognition of your memories?

[TruthSeeker]

No. I recall exactly how I was before.

[scameter]

<_< How could that alter my theory that the piano helped your mind to become more receptive to memories?

[TruthSeeker]

Whether it did or not is irrelevant. The point was that I had a different personality when I was a child.

[scameter]

That was your initial proposition yes, and my theory within the proposition argument was that, because you said your personality began to change when you started playing the piano, that the piano helped your mind to be more receptive to old memories.

[TruthSeeker]

Ok. But the relevant point of the original discussion is the fact that my personality changed.

[scameter]

Indeed, which is why I thought it relevant to address the possible cause for that.

[TruthSeeker]

Why do we always get into circular conversations? LOL! :lol:

[Nitty-Gritty]

Wow! What an interesting discussion your essay has elicited, TruthSeeker.

Several individual, and not necessarily related, comments come to mind after reading the many contributions to the discussion:

1] Theories of development as being a progression of life-stages are interesting, but they are only theories. They are limited metaphors for the experience, itself, that help us to conceptualize our understanding of the experience in specific and limited ways– –and, of course, they help us to transmit those thoughts to others. This is what we do since we are biologically equipped to be symboling animals who must lead interdependent social lives in order to survive. But we tend to mistake our metaphors for reality.

2] TruthSeeker, you describe the Ontological stage as the first stage and as a stage of self-awareness. This presupposes a previous stage, unless we postulate that we are born self-aware or that we are self-aware at some point before birth.

3] On a related note, I tend to think that we are self-aware [to some degree] much earlier than current theories suggest, but that we just can’t observe/measure/interpret this, yet.

We have assumed that we can not remember very early childhood experiences. This is another theory–not a fact. As noted in this thread, some people find it difficult to believe that some people do remember very early experiences. I have no doubt that you have memories and memory fragments of very early experiences. I have clear memories of an incident that I experienced when I was no older than 3 years, and they are memories that I have carried with me from that time. I was experiencing what may be described as a visual-auditory hallucination, or as a dream-state. I remember what I was wearing and the room it happened in–both of which help me pinpoint when it happened. I remember what I saw and heard, and I remember trying to draw the attention of my sleeping parents to what I was experiencing and to get them to participate in the experience in a physical way. They made it clear that they did not want to be aroused from their slumber, so I left them alone. So they did not know what I was seeing or hearing before I tried to wake them or after I tried to wake them. Nor did the know what I tried to physically do in response to what I was seeing and hearing before I tried to wake them or after. And I had no reason or incentive to even discuss these memories with my parents [or anyone else] until much later in my early adulthood. So they could not influence these memories to any great degree. They, of course, had no memory of their limited role in the event. Is it a memory of an hallucination that I responded to in a physical and cognitive way? Or is it a memory of a dream? No matter, it is still a memory of a very early childhood experience. I have several early memories, but it is more difficult to pinpoint whether they happened when I was 2, 3 or 4 years old.

**And, of course, we have heard of cases of very young children expressing very clear memories of a previous life. But whether or not consciousness can extend across life-times is another conundrum…

4] Another issue that has come up is whether or not we have a core self or core personality that changes or remains stable over time. I think we do have a core self that is relatively stable through time, but it also changes–i. e. evolves and adapts to circumstances over time. It is not uncommon to see a pre-schooler methodically dismember and kill a bug. I remember doing this, myself, and it was not a mindless or vicious activity. At the time I was thinking very intently about what it would be like if someone pulled off my limbs, what it would be like to die by having some huge object fall on me and crush me into paste. I remember my feelings of horror and violation at such a prospect. So the experience helped me to further develop a sense of empathy, and to develop a moral sense of the value of life and what is fair and unfair actions towards another life. I believe this experience expressed a core self in respect to early moral development. Of course my capacity for moral reasoning has significantly evolved since them, but 50 odd years later I still experience my core-being as one of empathy and that values life with a sense of awe and wondering.

I, too, go through periods of time when I am funny and out-going, and other periods of time when I am very serious and reserved. I don’t think that means my personality has changed. I think these changes represent reasoned and conscious choices to change how I respond to my environment at any given time. My core self is still one that I can express its funny, out-going, serious, reserved, aspects. But it is a core self that has a lot more memories, learnings, skills, experiences, etc. that can sometimes lead me to believe this core self does not exist or some how bears no relation to how I experienced it in the past. Since we are talking about the core self as a function of the mind, then perhaps the “self” is better understood as a process, not as a thing.

:uhoh:
Whew!! This is turning into a tome!! Sorry about that. :lol:

[scameter]

I don't think any conversation is circular my friend. :)

Excellent post my friend, I'll have to read it in full sometime. Currently though, I don't have the time. :)

[TruthSeeker]

1] Theories of development as being a progression of life-stages are interesting, but they are only theories. They are limited metaphors for the experience, itself, that help us to conceptualize our understanding of the experience in specific and limited ways– –and, of course, they help us to transmit those thoughts to others. This is what we do since we are biologically equipped to be symboling animals who must lead interdependent social lives in order to survive. But we tend to mistake our metaphors for reality.
I totally agree. I have, however, put a lot of thought into it and continuosly improve it. Having said that, I attempt to make it as universal as possible. ;)

2] TruthSeeker, you describe the Ontological stage as the first stage and as a stage of self-awareness. This presupposes a previous stage, unless we postulate that we are born self-aware or that we are self-aware at some point before birth.
The three first stages happen simultaneously. Also, I have been observing my baby and that is helping me refine my theory. I observed that he didn't have a sense of continuity at first and that he wasn't very aware of his surroundings. That all suggests that he wasn't self conscious yet. But at some point, he was able to make associations and became self-aware. <_<

3] On a related note, I tend to think that we are self-aware [to some degree] much earlier than current theories suggest, but that we just can’t observe/measure/interpret this, yet.
Yes, I have observed that. In fact, my child is less then three months and he is able to communicate with his hands.

We have assumed that we can not remember very early childhood experiences. This is another theory–not a fact. As noted in this thread, some people find it difficult to believe that some people do remember very early experiences. I have no doubt that you have memories and memory fragments of very early experiences.
I have the impression a lot of memories are stored in our subconscious. However, I believe we have very little recolection of our early childhoods because the brain is so engaged in growing and developing. Memory seems to develop much more later, once the brain has less information to process.

**And, of course, we have heard of cases of very young children expressing very clear memories of a previous life. But whether or not consciousness can extend across life-times is another conundrum…
Yes. In fact, I'm eager to communicate with my child to see if he can remember any previous life. Of course, when time comes, I want to observe cautiously...

What was your hallucination?

Whew!! This is turning into a tome!! Sorry about that.
No problem ;)

[Nitty-Gritty]

What was your hallucination?

Nothing profound :lol:

It was quite a silly little hallucination, and not relevant to the discussion, really. But...

...I had toddled into my parents bedroom one morning to wake them up. It was a very bright, sunny morning and the drapes were open so the room was well lit. I heard and saw a small airplane come out from behind one of the dressers, then fly up across the room and then down behind the tallboy dresser. This did not seem all that unusual to me. I just thought it must be "the wee people" (Irish heritage coming through here) and I wanted to get a closer look at them. I tried to see underneath both of the dressers, but there was not much space to look. I tried to see behind the dressers but they were too close to the wall. I tried to move the dressers but, of course, they were too heavy. So then I tried to wake my mother up and I told her she had to get up because I wanted her to move one of the dressers. She said to "go ask your father." So I went around to the other side of the double bed and tried to wake him with the same request. Well, he didn't want any part of that. He just gave me a warning grunt then rolled over and put the covers over his head. I went back to my mother to complain but she didn't respond at all. I realized I wasn't about to get any help, so I left them alone. My father was snoring again within what seemed like seconds. I, again, spent some time trying to see under and behind the furniture, and trying to move the furniture. I remember visualizing the airports that must have been under this furniture. And I remember speculating what else may be hidden there. :lol: Eventually gave up and toddled off...

I believe we have very little recolection of our early childhoods because the brain is so engaged in growing and developing.

Yes! I also think we are trained to ignore a lot of information that others evaluate as useless or irrelevant. And that we are trained to set limitations on the capacity for memory.

my child is less then three months and he is able to communicate with his hands.

Intriguing!! I am sure some people would dismiss this as the wishfull thinking of a proud parent. But I believe that what you claim is probably true. Why not?!! We know so little of the workings of the mind and what it is capable of.

Sounds like you are really enjoying parenthood. I wish you continued joy. :)

[TruthSeeker]

:)