He was probably a university student, or a post-doc, or maybe already a professor.
He was probably married and probably had a new child at home,
(and might have even had an idea of what university he hoped his child would attend).
He was probably an only child, or if he had siblings, was probably somehow isolated from his siblings–
(maybe because of the way he thought, or acted, or experienced the world)–
(he was just a child in his environment)–
they might have called him awkward, or deviant, or different, and maybe even criticized him harshly, and might have neglected to look at certain parts of him with loving eyes.
He was probably criticized harshly by a well-intentioned but misguided teacher or parent,
(whom he probably loved),
for tap-tap-tapping his pen when he was deep in thought during exams.
He was probably criticized harshly for daydreaming by another teacher or parent,
(whom he probably loved).
He was probably feeling the anxiety of his wife–
(as the wife of a university student, or post-doc, or professor, with a new child at home, is probably going to feel a lot of anxiety, truth be told),
(which he probably hated, knowing his role in that anxiety)
–anxiety about the ways her husband’s schedule isolated him from the family, and anxiety about the ways his eyes didn’t meet her eyes lovingly, and seemed so unemotional,
(and about the ways she didn’t understand how she could be a loving mother and still lack so much understanding of her child, and feel so much anxiety),
(which, as we know, is just the nature of motherhood)–
and she probably felt bad about it–
(and the child was just a child in their environment).
His wife might have been very religious, or at least she might have felt a lot of conviction,
(there’s often a conflict between conviction, religious or otherwise, and scientific inquiry),
which added to her anxiety, and his,
(and added anxiety to their child’s environment).
In feeling this anxiety deeply, she might have criticized her husband harshly,
(as she probably felt criticized by his very existence, though she probably wanted to express herself lovingly in the spiritual language she was given, if he would only meet her eyes lovingly, and make the space for the spiritual language of love she was given),
and in receiving this anxiety deeply, he probably defended science,
(not knowing how to hold both sides),
and criticized her harshly.
He probably wanted to say something to soothe his wife, but the words would never come at the right time,
(or awkward words might have come out, that seemed to make things worse, despite intentions),
and he felt bad about it.
Enthusiastic about the new language of science, he was probably mistrustful of religious language,
(and not trusting strong emotions, due to being harshly criticized for having strong emotions as a child, mistrustful of emotional language as well),
further divorcing him from the world of his wife, and his ability to meet her eyes,
(lovingly, with his eyes, and come up with satisfying language to express his love),
and all of the wise language of the past, in every language,
(divorcing him from the past).
The language of science, he probably believed, was the wisdom language of the future, and this belief probably caused a certain dynamic to happen:
Being divorced from his connection to the wisdom languages of the past, he probably felt compelled to create the wisdom language of the future.
So, in the course of his study,
(which was probably the study of sensory, cognitive, and behavioral differences in children),
when viewing a child brought in for viewing by a concerned parent,
(who was just a child being a child, in a clinical environment, at a moment in time),
with all the traits that in himself had been criticized harshly, or that he had anxiety about, or simply didn’t understand the nature of, relative to time and relationship–
delayed speech, social awkwardness, heightened sensory response or sensory processing difference, gender- or sexual-nonconformity, extreme behaviors, repetitive motor expression, deep knowledge of a special interest, tendency toward routine, differences in eye-expression or affect, cognitive disengagement, hyperfocus, slow emotional processing, nonsensical or novel language processing, cognitive dissonance
–and blind to himself,
(because objectivity, by nature, is blindness to the self),
and isolated from the ways that the wisdom of the ages might have made sense of a person with these traits, he created new language to represent the combination of traits he was viewing, as expressed through this particular child, at a certain moment in time,
(being that his thesis was due, and he had to come up with something novel):
Autism, possibly with attentional disengagement, with comorbidities of gender dysphoria and possible homosexuality. Investigate possible narcissism, or emotional immaturity, and possibly unbalanced sensory processing. Probably undeveloped moral sensibility, possibly brought on by the parents’ insecurity.
Let’s stop, and reflect,
(and in reflecting, possibly reframe):
In looking only forward, with hyperfocused eyes, and in trying to be objective, he missed the part about himself.
He was nothing, if not a well-intentioned parent,
(and the child was still just a child).
And, like all well-intentioned parents, sometimes we get things so backwards.
But in recognizing the point of view of the scientist,
in context, we can
(hopefully)
forgive all of his projections, and his well-intentioned but misguided ideas about children, and childhood, healthy and unhealthy traits and what it means to be a healthy child in a loving environment,
(and all of his anxiety about relationships, and reliance on routine, and emotional stuckness, and failures to articulate, and failures of eyes to meet the world lovingly, in trying trying trying to understand); and
(certainly)
it’s easy to forgive the scientist’s wife, with all she was dealing with, in relative isolation; and
(hopefully)
we might even forgive the scientist’s parents and teachers, whose harsh, well-intentioned criticisms so affected the scientist and his point of view; and
(hopefully)
we might even forgive the harsh, well-intentioned convictions of his wife’s religious parents and teachers,
(which resulted in so much anxiety and conflict and cognitive dissonance).
And in recognizing ourselves in our own mistakes, we always have the opportunity
(hopefully)
to forgive ourselves:
to pause, to reflect, to reassess, to connect with all of the wisdom that the ages have to offer,
(including the language of science),
and to step backwards, with loving eyes,
(even when it’s awkward),
into a new understanding.
How could the scientist’s diagnosis
(based on what we now know to be a moment in time within a historical and emotional context in a clinical environment)
be reframed, in light of this new understanding, that includes forgiveness, and time to develop, and an environment to move around in freely?
Child shows emerging language with delayed but steady progress. Social style is unique, with moments of awkwardness typical of age. Strong sensory awareness observed, with vivid responses to environment. Repetitive motor play and preference for routines indicate self-soothing and learning strategies. Shifts between disengagement and deep hyperfocus reflect flexible attention patterns. Emotional processing is ongoing, with gradual maturation expected.
Is this reframing any less accurate or concise? Does it come with less anxiety? Are we noticing something intimate? Something that moves toward ease?
Are we noticing a possibility
(or even a probability)
of how the future might actually work, for all of us?
We’re all right here, in this very environment,
(and still, all children are just our children)
and opportunity is all around us,
(and within us).
tldr; never summarize the plot of a story into a moral–that’s the work of life: in resolving life’s complexity, within ourselves, we find our unique way of being in the world around us,
(and within us).
