Feral children

[Pye]

Would that I could refer you to a decent website for some background on this subject. Their absence as such, and the flavour of those sites/books that do exist stands as testimony to the persistent difficulties in launching a reasoned discussion on the subject of feral children. There is something completely repellent to most about:

1. human beings slipping through the human net
2. the condition of those humans beings when sighted or rescued
3. the inordinate amount of cherished beliefs about (natural) human "nature" the cases of feral children do not bear out.
4. the virtual failure to reintegrate these beings workably back into the human net
5. the possibility of human/animal survival-relationships (although the word "feral" does not mean strictly raised-by-animals. Early "abandonment," as in the most recent case of a young woman found in California, also classifies as "wild.")
6. the impossibility of these beings recovering complete speech beyond the sign-systems easily taught to apes.
7. the significantly shorter lifespan after "rescue."
8. the idea of "leaving" them alone.

Dr. Bruno Bettleheim dealt the worst 20th century blow to reasoned discussion on this when he insisted that feral children were probably already autistic to begin with and so would have never "regained" workability in human settings anyway. There is absolutely no science to back this up. Also, there is still a Ripley's-Believe-It-Or-Not attitude of peering through the zoo-bars at the strange creatures, no matter the sympathetic response. "Wolf-boy" always gets a laugh. I have to be very, very careful when I use this as a discussion point in virtually every philo class I'm asked to teach -- particularly when determinism/free will issues arise, or I am in a room full of christian-reared young people who cherish these notions of completed-creation of us by [their] God. It's not "academic" enough; it's not "scientific" enough; it's surely and totally the exception.

These are the "cherished" beliefs about human beings that come into blatant question when looking at feral children:

1. that we walk upright naturally
2. that we are ashamed of our nakedness
3. that we are affectionate by nature and desire one another's company
4. that we are in a near-constant state of sexual excitement
5. that speech comes to us naturally
6. that we are "born" to love

I did just finish the first relatively decent book on the subject of the Midnapore children -- two girls found in 1921 in India who were living and hunting with a small family of Indian wolves who housed-by-day in a huge white termite mound. They were estimated to be around the ages of 3 and 5 and they were not thought to be sisters. If they were abandoned, or if they were "stolen" by the she-wolf has been simply impossible to determine. The ensuing 300 pages is an incredible document of misery -- for the children, and for the christian missionary who "rescued" them, riding his worth upon successfully (re-)introducing these two girls into the human family and hence handing them over to God.

Interested to hear what you know; if you pooh-pooh the subject; if you think it speaks as loudly to determinism and causality as I do.

Existentialists say it this way: There is no human nature; only human conditions.

[propellerbeanie]

If there really is no human nature, but one may say there is a human condition, then that implies with the being of one condition that existentialist should be able to say what that condition is. Perhaps there are more than one condition, and our respective natures, that is, our natural and social conditions-condition us in a variety of fashions.

I would say that we are unquestionably social animals, and that without society we are only animals. Children, all more or less adaptable, learn very quickly, and in the case of feral or neglected children sometimes that lesson is between death and half life. Ultimately, the lesson for us is that we are programed to learn, and that the social relationship formed through language is an essential one for full human develpment. We do not have to invent language to use language, but in the using of memes and symbols and concepts carried primarily by language we can reach a measure of full human develpment denied to ferrol children.

[Pye]

propellerbeanie, what is meant by this existential statement is that humanity is entirely conditional -- meaning whatever conditions it finds itself in are the ones that will create its nature.

In a side-note, these dire circumstances for human beings left out of the human net supports the notion held by a number of schools of psychology that say:: human linguistic ability and human personality are formed within the first 5 or so years of a human's existence.

[Rhett]

.

These are the "cherished" beliefs about human beings that come into blatant question when looking at feral children:

1. that we walk upright naturally
2. that we are ashamed of our nakedness
3. that we are affectionate by nature and desire one another's company
4. that we are in a near-constant state of sexual excitement
5. that speech comes to us naturally
6. that we are "born" to love

I agree that human contact develops and strengthens the ego, however i still expect the children raised by animals were affectionate towards the animals. Most animals show affection towards their own kind and those they adopt or live closely with. Do the anecdotes reveal anything on this? Do we know more than those cases where they slept closely with each other?

It might be a fair representation to consider the human brain as still having 'base parts' of earlier beginnings, as well as having 'higher parts' that developed later, and in the absence of human conditioning the higher parts don't develop, or don't develop much. That's not to say they develop all that much in the presence of human contact either; i'm talking degrees here.

For people to expect feral children to be affectionate and loving towards humans, would have similarities to bringing home a wolf to normal children, and expecting them to treat it like a human. They wouldn't. They may personify it, but at bottom they'd always regard it as lesser than human.

It could be interesting to study the differences between the psychology of male and female ferals. Do the anecdotes reveal much on this count?

I did just finish the first relatively decent book on the subject of the Midnapore children -- two girls found in 1921 in India who were living and hunting with a small family of Indian wolves who housed-by-day in a huge white termite mound. They were estimated to be around the ages of 3 and 5 and they were not thought to be sisters. If they were abandoned, or if they were "stolen" by the she-wolf has been simply impossible to determine. The ensuing 300 pages is an incredible document of misery -- for the children, and for the christian missionary who "rescued" them, riding his worth upon successfully (re-)introducing these two girls into the human family and hence handing them over to God.

I read a brief overview of books on feral children about a year ago, which i think included the book you mention. I was surprised that the girls weren't discarded by the wolves, thinking they wouldn't have been even remotely able to keep up with the wolves when prowling, especially walking on their hands as well as feet. Perhaps they took on a predominantly home-maker role, fluffing-up and cleaning out the hide. They may have been the best kept wolves in town. Although seeing they were only 3 and 5 years old perhaps i was expecting too much of them, they were probably still largely being fed by the wolves.

Interested to hear what you know; if you pooh-pooh the subject; if you think it speaks as loudly to determinism and causality as I do.

Existentialists say it this way: There is no human nature; only human conditions.

Hopefully it makes people appreciative of what their parents did for them in those first few years.

.

[hsandman]

edited: see post below for explanation of words and phrases used.

Hmm, are there any records of bear young being adopted by wolves? (The "rabbit hole" here goes really deep I suspect)

I agree with human condition is being propagated trough memes .
The development of verbal language has allowed that happen. (i.e.synchronisation of high grade information.= advanced theoretical concepts etc.)

Without such advanced tool such as verbal language, transfer of informational memes would have to rely on more primitive tool such as body language and earlier languages and "human condition" memes would not have been able to propogate from host to host.

( Side note:Humans still use in compliment to verbal language the earlier languages. )

Just like later inventions of even more advanced information transfer tools such as written word is based on older tool, (such as verbal language) each language has evolved or has been developed from more primitive one.

Human condition is like a book that is being written by each human tribe.

The being that is human child has the potential to learn the use of these advanced tools to read the book of human condition and get to the page his human tribe is currently are on.

edit: as aposed to animal child (chimp,gorilla,dog,wolf,etc.) who will never be able to catch up to the page human society/group is on even if rared with humans and given the oportunity to learn.

In absence of human tribe the human child does not have access to such advanced tools and the book of human condition, so if the child is adopted by wolf tribe it will develop the tools available to that group, so it can survive.

I belive that earlier languages are hardwired in the genes of all same origin organisms , and that is why the syncronisation of human child’s conciousness with the wolves is posible, thusly enabeling the child to obtain rudimentary language tools of the wolves, and then it will get to the page the wolf tribe is on.

The real question here then is: what is the human child’s capacity on introduction back to human tribe to relearn the different set of tools

(which are more advanced and so radically different to the ones it has mastered earlier with the wolves,)

and then reach the same page as the human tribe is on?


The observations made and released suggest that it is very time limited indeed.

Mind seems to hardwire and set after certain age more and more.

(Side note:
The examples would be separated tribe of Indians in America or aborigines in Australia , and the way those groups are catching up to the page of the more advanced human tribe that has decided to move in with them.
comonly know as "Integration")

Once you have gone on the certain path too far it seems that turning back and backtracking to starting point and choosing another path is not a option anymore.

Conclusion: The effort to "integrate" such child back into human group would be futile after certain amount of time.

In onother words, waste of effort. Sad, but true (my conclusion.)

Hopefully it makes people appreciative of what their parents did for them in those first few years.

Yes, i also prefer "glass half full" insted of "glass half emtpy" logic.

[propellerbeanie]

propellerbeanie, what is meant by this existential statement is that humanity is entirely conditional -- meaning whatever conditions it finds itself in are the ones that will create its nature.

In a side-note, these dire circumstances for human beings left out of the human net supports the notion held by a number of schools of psychology that say:: human linguistic ability and human personality are formed within the first 5 or so years of a human's existence.

I think I understand what the existentialists are saying. To narrow human existence to two qualities is one thing, and to say one of these qualities has more value than the next is another, but both choices would be simplistic.
If you say of one individual, that nature is more important than nurture, one might speak correctly, but to consider the whole of humanity, in time, one must see the complex interplay of nature and conditioning, and see then the vast interplay of individuals, each representing some measure of these qualities.

Human beings should not be reduced to the ridiculous. Of course we are conditioned, and part of that conditioning leads us to a complexity of intellectual development that allows us to be conscious of our nature, our lives, and our deaths. Conditioning allows consciousness, but it cannot change the natural facts of our lives, the need to feed, to breed, and recede. All human beings exist between nature and social conditions. These are our magnetic North and South. The interaction of our selves in our existence with all other peoples whose natures and conditions are in each in ratio fills our maps with detail.

Clearly, if I understand the point you are making of the relationship of language to human development, I must agree that language aquisition is essential to humanity. Without language we are animals, and with language we are little better than animals. There are no noble savages. There is nothing of the noble in our nature. Nobility is a social construct.

[Leyla Shen]

God damn it. I reckon I must've been an overused set of quotation marks in another lifetime.

[Leyla Shen]

"rabbit hole"
"human condition"
"syncronisation"
"language"
"body language"
"earlier languages"
"verbal language".
"writen word"
"human condition"
"human society/group".
"read the book of human condition"
"page we currently are on"
"human condition book"
"wolf society/group"
"hardwired in the genes of all similar origin organisms"
"page the wolves are on".
"back"
"get to the same page as the human grop is on"
"more advanced"
"backtracking"
"group"
"page"

22 uses in 21 lines. This will not do!

They will have to go, hsandman.

What the heck do you mean by them all?

[Pye]

Rhett writes:

I agree that human contact develops and strengthens the ego, however i still expect the children raised by animals were affectionate towards the animals. Most animals show affection towards their own kind and those they adopt or live closely with. Do the anecdotes reveal anything on this? Do we know more than those cases where they slept closely with each other?

There have, of course, been hierarchies identified in canid species that revolve around deference, pecking-order and the like, and perhaps some of these we could see as "affection," but then we would want to ask what is up under those apparent gestures. The Indian couple who took Kamala and Amala (so-named) into their orphanage hoped to identify their bond as affectionate, but in very telling ways felt that it was largely fear the two exhibited when hunkered together. When they first broke into the termite mound after the she-wolf had been expelled, the two (tiny) children and the two young cubs went into what they called a monkey-ball -- all four of them entangled and clinging -- such that it was extremely hard to separate them. Such a gesture works, if you know what I mean (but not against three grown men, in this case).

R: It might be a fair representation to consider the human brain as still having 'base parts' of earlier beginnings, as well as having 'higher parts' that developed later, and in the absence of human conditioning the higher parts don't develop, or don't develop much. That's not to say they develop all that much in the presence of human contact either; i'm talking degrees here.

Clearly, there is an apparatus in place to enable everything we call human, but there is also significant research regarding growth in the brain and changes in brain structure as well. Hard to say whether this is an inside-or-outside job. I agree though about degrees, and when thinking here, find myself working it in the direction opposite to animal-recession -- imagining what-all this brain could take on if it were born into a world of much more admirable qualities and setting. Of course, we'd have to make this world, first . . . . (and personally, I would value love and affection in it of a clean, bright kind.)

R: They may personify it, but at bottom they'd always regard it as lesser than human.

Mr. and Mrs. Singh seemed to try to avoid this, but after 8-9 or so years of daily, endless, patient trying, Padre Singh in particular felt the failing here. Mrs. Singh -- to whom the elder Kamala eventually became attached (Amala the younger died of complicated illness about 9 months after captivity) -- Mrs. Singh never stopped trying, talking-to, teaching by both coaxing and ignoring, putting other children around Kamala, even ones just learning to walk, hoping Kamala would get the idea (and yes, there were a couple of incidents of small attack). Mrs. Singh was also Kamala's primary source of food, and protection from the other orphan's natural teasing and cruelty.

In the end around age 16, Kamala (who also succumbed to complicated illness) never stopped: defecating wherever she wanted; reverting to all-fours on every possible occasion; eating, even stealing raw meat; baring her teeth; despising & fighting baths; and howling (though this grew less and less).

The most affecting passage of all was Padre Singh's unremitting attempts to reclaim Kamala from the "dark" -- he felt this a special mission to make her diurnal and bring her into the human-day from the animal-night. Two years of disoriented suffering went on in this process until the Singhs finally made Kamala uncomfortable, even afraid of the dark. Therein, she lost the weird bluish tint to her eyes that many nocturnal animals show in the dark. This last was one of the things the anthropologists and such just refused to believe as outrageously impossible, this bluish tint.

R: It could be interesting to study the differences between the psychology of male and female ferals. Do the anecdotes reveal much on this count?

Have not seen anything at all on this account.

R: I was surprised that the girls weren't discarded by the wolves, thinking they wouldn't have been even remotely able to keep up with the wolves when prowling, especially walking on their hands as well as feet. Perhaps they took on a predominantly home-maker role, fluffing-up and cleaning out the hide. They may have been the best kept wolves in town. Although seeing they were only 3 and 5 years old perhaps i was expecting too much of them, they were probably still largely being fed by the wolves.

The girls went hunting with the wolves every night (at least after some point of their infancy) for this is how they had begun to be repeatedly sighted by native Indians taking one particular path through the thick woods. I doubt the girls did the killing, but they ran so fast on all fours -- even after captivity -- that even the swiftest adult runner could not keep up with them. Also, the she-wolf -- whilst the cubs are young -- licks up all the waste material from off the cubs and around the den. The remark was made by all once the termite mound was broken into about how immaculately clean it was. I really don't think the two children had innate drives to bettycrockerism. They were exhibiting all the behaviour of cubs in the canid order.

Of this particular account, the scientists and anthropologists, etc. seemed fixated on the question of whether the she-wolf had suckled the children. No way to know. It is known, apparently, that humans can live on any kind of mammalian milk.

I am most interested in the philosophical implications here, also the biological, even the ethical, like hsandman is starting to do. (And I don't mean this in reference to your questions at all, Rhett. I just mean it generally.)


[Note to Leyla: I have a fair few quote marks in these posts myself, but I promise I am being attendant to where they indicate value-terms from the mouths of others. Such is the nature of this topic, with all its surrounding problems and perceptions. And maybe a different hobby for you Leyla? ;)]

[hsandman]

What the heck do you mean by them all?

haha, sorry, they are kinda partly made up words for concepts that i use myself and some of them are just used with "poetic licence" :)



"rabbit hole" the hole that lead alice in wonderland to land so strange that it only can only exist in imagination, ie: Journey in imagination and exercise in fantastic conjecturing.
(hope thats understandable)

"human condition"
A broad description of humanity's "condition" ie: state of being.
The state to wich we (the human society/group {see below}) have arrived after being influenced by maltitude of unique factors eg: inteligence,technology,economics,medicine,art,language,etc, etc, that is radicaly different from state at which "animals" have arived. took the conscept for this word off this site after reading the posts :S

"syncronisation"
An adjustment that causes something to occur or recur in unison. Similar thing to what is called a "handshake" when modem conects to onother modem.

A modem handshake is what occurs when the receiving modem answers the phone call and the two modems begin to communicate. Before anything else happens, the modems must evaluate the quality of the line, negotiate error control protocols and data compression that they can both recognize, and work out what the most suitable connection speed should be, based on the conditions. This process is called the handshake. If the modem's internal speaker is turned up, you'll hear the handshake as screeches, bells, and whistles. Once that has happened, the modems send data back and forth between the two computers. The modem that initiates the connection sends data in a lower frequency range and listens for the response in a higher range, corresponding to the recieving modem.

I was using word "syncronization" since it seemed to me less obsecure.

Synchronization seem to be the result of some underlying law of nature as the experiment with 2 metranomes placed near each other, would after a while will syncronise with each other.

"language"
Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
Such a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted with dialect.
A system of signs, symbols, gestures, or rules used in communicating: the language of algebra.
Essentialy includes every posable way for transfer of mental concepts/information from one consciousness to another consciousness by system of rules that are closely syncronised together,

"body language" The gestures, postures, and facial expressions by which a person or animal (i would say all multi celled organisms) manifests various physical, mental, or emotional states and communicates nonverbally with others.
eg: bee's little wiggle dance to comunicate the location and directions to food, is done by dance which is body language.

"earlier languages" This is speculation on my part, but i would imagine there was more rudametary comunication between less complicated organisms at earlier stage of evolution,chemical language is my guess such as "phermone language" along with some others less complicated comunication systems between cooperating organisms. The very first language that there would have been is "genetic language" the one that is writen in chemicals, protein bases G A T C . as letters in sentances made in DNA spiral. instructing on how to build biological machines that living beings esentialy are. that is what i ment by "earlier languages"

"verbal language".
verbal:Of, relating to, or associated with words.
language: see above :) system of comunication based on words in human language,
verbal language = eg: english,french,german etc.

("phonetic language" would have probably been a better and more accurate choice for description of this, insted of "verbal language")

"human tribe" a group of humans that have distinct and separate "human condition" from another group. A tribe eg: difference between 2 groups based on religion,physical apierance,ideolagy,social rules,development,language/laws. The things that make group like that unique. Usualy such uniqueness is coused by physical separtation of the group from other group for extended time. eg: eskimos from aboriginies,/ different beliefs,different apierance,different language,different set of social rules and values, except for the rules/values that are necesary for such group to coexist eg: do not steal.

"read the book of human condition"
sentance made with poetic licence..(like sentance "are we on the same page?" question designed to inquire if there are any errors and if the information is reconstructed as it is ment by the quizer {see synchronisation}) translation : learning what we learn when we are infants since some of our "custums" are writen in verbal memes passed down to us by people surounding us and "comunicating" with us. (see human condition)


"page we currently are on"
sentance made with poetic licence.
Point in time of human evolutionary development. will elaborate more if you want.


"human condition book"
ok, i ment "book of human condition" there. see above.

"backtracking"Going back to original state where divergence accured, i don't realy know how to explain it :S
Take steps in reverse order?


"hardwired in the genes of all similar origin organisms"


similar origin organisms: = Organisms that have orignated from common source.

hardwired in the genes: = coded by protein base pairs in DNA that does not change with time.


Hope that helps a bit :(
Should be able to figure what these words mean yourself?.


"page the wolves are on".
"back"
"get to the same page as the human group is on"
"more advanced"
"group"
"page"

[Pye]

propellerbeanie writes:

If you say of one individual, that nature is more important than nurture, one might speak consider the whole of humanity, in time, one must see the complex interplay of nature and conditioning, and see then the vast interplay of individuals, each representing some measure of these qualities.

Yes, nurture is nature.

.

[propellerbeanie]

propellerbeanie writes:

If you say of one individual, that nature is more important than nurture, one might speak consider the whole of humanity, in time, one must see the complex interplay of nature and conditioning, and see then the vast interplay of individuals, each representing some measure of these qualities.

Yes, nurture is nature.

.

Does that mean we agree? It seems difficult to say we are not nature for being mortal, Nearly impossible to say we are not conditioned when we represent layer upon layer of social conditioning with language being only one, though perhaps the most important aspect of conditioning which makes most other forms possible, and the result is that all those attributes that allow us to think like Gods make us in the end more conscious yet of our mortality, and our nature.
The sad fact is that feral children have brains resembling monkeys more than humans. Social living, and the heavy lifting of ideas made possible by language are a stimulating challenge to the brain. Were it possible to frame the question in such a way that it could be understood by feral children, what answer would they give to us of life as opposed to death, or of the future as opposed to this moment. What if they have no concept of the future or death? What if all of humanity is being degraded bit by bit by the negation of life to a hand to mouth existence deprived of meaningful human interaction.
The real lesson of feral children is that this may be our future, the future of humanity. For far too many people in our societies today, some degree of feral deprivation is the norm. Some people cannot speak or read or carry on complex thoughts to a meaningful conclusion because they live amid physical filth in intellectually sterile environments on a grand scale. If one man better off hooks one of these to a plow and drives him with a whip who is there to say it is unjust? Is not the injustice all that came before? Isn't an exciting, social, engaging and educational environment the right of every child? Feral children are only the extreme example of common problem in my opinion.

[Pye]

propellerbeanie writes:

Feral children are only the extreme example of common problem in my opinion.

I'm of a mind that suggests that the exceptional is the place to look for everything, though I appreciate in every way your taking note of the feral in degrees.

The exceptions are what show us the most; the "average" shows us little but indistinguishable admixture. And I promise you I am not the designer of this idea. But I do find it an exceptional one :)


.

[Rhett]

.

Rhett: I agree that human contact develops and strengthens the ego, however i still expect the children raised by animals were affectionate towards the animals. Most animals show affection towards their own kind and those they adopt or live closely with. Do the anecdotes reveal anything on this? Do we know more than those cases where they slept closely with each other?

Pye: There have, of course, been hierarchies identified in canid species that revolve around deference, pecking-order and the like, and perhaps some of these we could see as "affection," but then we would want to ask what is up under those apparent gestures. The Indian couple who took Kamala and Amala (so-named) into their orphanage hoped to identify their bond as affectionate, but in very telling ways felt that it was largely fear the two exhibited when hunkered together. When they first broke into the termite mound after the she-wolf had been expelled, the two (tiny) children and the two young cubs went into what they called a monkey-ball -- all four of them entangled and clinging -- such that it was extremely hard to separate them. Such a gesture works, if you know what I mean (but not against three grown men, in this case).

So we see elements of affection between humans, between wolves, and in certain instances, between the two, but within with an overiding heirachy that revolves around deference, pecking-order and the like.

Or am i putting words in your mouth you don't like?

I agree though about degrees, and when thinking here, find myself working it in the direction opposite to animal-recession -- imagining what-all this brain could take on if it were born into a world of much more admirable qualities and setting. Of course, we'd have to make this world, first . . . . (and personally, I would value love and affection in it of a clean, bright kind.)

There i see a big problem. I see love as one of the very things that is making this world dark. Love is an emotional bond between animals, a contract of mutual preservation in the face of fear. The bond between the she-wolf and the feral children was one of love; the children needing the mother's help, and the mother feeling comfort in the perpetuation of the pack - as if it made her very own life immortal. Yet this bond lacked discrimination. If the she-wolf were more capable of mind and less emotionally attached to the children she would have realised they were best returned to humanity. The reality of the situation is that she needed to be forcibly extracted from the den in order that the children could be rescued. But by then it was late in the day. The she-wolf has a lot to answer to.

In the end around age 16, Kamala (who also succumbed to complicated illness) never stopped: defecating wherever she wanted; reverting to all-fours on every possible occasion; eating, even stealing raw meat; baring her teeth; despising & fighting baths; and howling (though this grew less and less).

Sounds a bit like my neighbour. He's bared his teeth at me, crouched down on all fours in a mocking gesture, stolen items, despises and fights against reason, co-operation & fairness, and laughs out-loud in a lunatic manner as a form of threat, just to mention a few anecdotes. A lot of people support him and think he's a great bloke.

The most affecting passage of all was Padre Singh's unremitting attempts to reclaim Kamala from the "dark" -- he felt this a special mission to make her diurnal and bring her into the human-day from the animal-night. Two years of disoriented suffering went on in this process until the Singhs finally made Kamala uncomfortable, even afraid of the dark. Therein, she lost the weird bluish tint to her eyes that many nocturnal animals show in the dark. This last was one of the things the anthropologists and such just refused to believe as outrageously impossible, this bluish tint.

And then there is the progression from human to wise, which is of far greater magnitude.

Rhett: It could be interesting to study the differences between the psychology of male and female ferals. Do the anecdotes reveal much on this count?

Pye: Have not seen anything at all on this account.

You mentioned a wolf-boy. Do you know what happened with him?

I am most interested in the philosophical implications here, also the biological, even the ethical, like hsandman is starting to do. (And I don't mean this in reference to your questions at all, Rhett. I just mean it generally.)

I don't think you are, not as i see philosophy. I see the main thrust of your opening post as distinguishing two categories of egotistical delusion, one human, and one animal, and then exalting the human far above the animal. Of course, you don't talk about it this way, you don't mention the delusion, or criticise humanity. Then you place love at the apex of their virtue. I wonder, do you also exalt acquiescence, subterfuge, and philosophical pretence?

I see the lesser thrust, your explicit point, as "this human egotism is not inborn, it is introduced by the environment after birth".

I see you fortifying people's stomachs to protect their entrails.

.

[Pye]

Rhett writes:

So we see elements of affection between humans, between wolves, and in certain instances, between the two, but within with an overiding heirachy that revolves around deference, pecking-order and the like.

Or am i putting words in your mouth you don't like?

No, I'm fine with that.

R: There i see a big problem. I see love as one of the very things that is making this world dark.

If you look again, this world goes down in those sentences of mine and another one is posited, more consciously built.

R: then exalting the human far above the animal.

Setting "exalt" aside, I suspect you'd be in favor of a move away from animal-consciousness for humans, too.

R: Of course, you don't talk about it this way, you don't mention the delusion, or criticise humanity.

I did introduce this whole story I've just read as:

P: an incredible document of misery [for all concerned].

R: Then you place love at the apex of their [human] virtue.

Don't recall any apexing, but value indeed, in the "pure buddha land" sense mentioned above. If you have no interest in envisioning past this world a place for non-delusional, non-fear-based love, affection, compassion et al, and a la Buddha, I doubt I can be of assistance. Too, you might have read elsewhere that I do not consider enlightenment to be the complete destruction of human feeling.

R:You mentioned a wolf-boy. Do you know what happened with him?

I'll have to refresh and return for this one. I only recall the same pattern of behaviour mentioned with the Midnapore children, and a 90-or-so-word vocabulary achieved before death at age 40. I think, too, he was the longest-living feral child of captivity.

.

[hsandman]

Edit: fixed.

Pye:

I have edited and cleaned up my earlier post and made reference translation list of more bizzare expresions used in it.

I do not like to write, so when i do write, it is usualy unedited core dump of brain to text, with the liberal use of my personal lingo :)

The use of quotes as emphasis on words indeed is confusing and ugly.

In retrospect i can see how it was a bad idea (im was being too lazy not using italics )

The comprehension of the reader is not usualy one of my top priorities, which is not a good style of writing , considering that i am writing about relatively absecure/uncomon subject and in language that i have not mastered yet.

I can see that now :(
I will be more considerate in the future :)

[propellerbeanie]

Ah am the Wolf Boy

Aaahooooo!

lukout!

[Leyla Shen]

Yes, it speaks very loudly of determinism/causality. I don't know how that could even be questioned here or how this particular issue raises it for you more than any other equally loud one, really.

My very first point of interest, however, is (and I do consider it in terms of determinism/causality, also): is there any information on specific methods this couple used?

I mean, did the man ever get on all his fours for any extended period of time and act like a wolf? How, exactly, did he "return her from the dark to the light"? Why, in his estimation, did it need to take that long?

Did they use mirrors? How long for and in what way?

How did they deal with the moments when the child bit others?

Did they conclude that the presence of other orphan children impacted the feral children negatively or positively?

I wouldn't mind reading a full account of such specifics. That I could be interested in.

[sue hindmarsh]

I've just read through this thread and can't find the philosophical point being raised. If there is one, can someone point it out to me.

Sue

[hsandman]

I've just read through this thread and can't find the philosophical point being raised. If there is one, can someone point it out to me.

Sue

And that is why you fail. :P

[sue hindmarsh]

Yes, thanks for that hsandman.

Anyone else want to give it a shot?

Sue

[Rhett]

.

Rhett: So we see elements of affection between humans, between wolves, and in certain instances, between the two, but within with an overiding heirachy that revolves around deference, pecking-order and the like. Or am i putting words in your mouth you don't like?

Pye: No, I'm fine with that.

I see a lot of deference and pecking in loving relationships (probably more than i see in friendships). Can you explain this?

Rhett: There i see a big problem. I see love as one of the very things that is making this world dark.

Pye: If you look again, this world goes down in those sentences of mine and another one is posited, more consciously built.

That is not the thrust of your opening post. Did anyone else notice it? I doubt it. Your thrust is to exalt the way most people already are.

Rhett: then exalting the human far above the animal.

Pye: Setting "exalt" aside, I suspect you'd be in favor of a move away from animal-consciousness for humans, too.

Yes, away from love.

Rhett: Of course, you don't talk about it this way, you don't mention the delusion, or criticise humanity.

Pye: I did introduce this whole story I've just read as: "P: an incredible document of misery [for all concerned]".

Yes, but you then failed to in any substantial way focus upon or elucidate why the reformers were miserable.

Rhett: Then you place love at the apex of their [human] virtue.

Pye: Don't recall any apexing, but value indeed, in the "pure buddha land" sense mentioned above. If you have no interest in envisioning past this world a place for non-delusional, non-fear-based love, affection, compassion et al, and a la Buddha, I doubt I can be of assistance. . . .I do not consider enlightenment to be the complete destruction of human feeling.

Do you think enlightenment is the embodiment of goodness? If so, can you tell me what you think is good about human feeling?

R:You mentioned a wolf-boy. Do you know what happened with him?

Pye: I'll have to refresh and return for this one. I only recall the same pattern of behaviour mentioned with the Midnapore children, and a 90-or-so-word vocabulary achieved before death at age 40. I think, too, he was the longest-living feral child of captivity.

Perhaps he sustained due to his mind remaining 'on' for some time after childhood.

.

[propellerbeanie]

.

I see a lot of deference and pecking in loving relationships (probably more than i see in friendships). Can you explain this?

I can explain it, but I'm not the pie. The love is the relationship, and all other qualities, and social signifiers are just the form of the relationship. Love holds the world together at the same moment forms are cramping its style, like chronic indigestion.

[

quote]Rhett: There i see a big problem. I see love as one of the very things that is making this world dark.

To be generous, the darkness is your own sphincter covering your eyes. Next to the Sun, love is the only bright spot in everyones life. Except yours.

Rhett: then exalting the human far above the animal.

Pye: Setting "exalt" aside, I suspect you'd be in favor of a move away from animal-consciousness for humans, too.

Yes, away from love.

Well you have come to the right place son-eee. There might be a handful of philosophers who have actually been able to manage simple love relationships, but I have not found that many. Hegel, Marx; and Socrates, but that last would sleep on a park bench rather than in bed with his wife. My list is pretty short, can you add to it?

Rhett: Of course, you don't talk about it this way, you don't mention the delusion, or criticise humanity.

Pye: I did introduce this whole story I've just read as: "P: an incredible document of misery [for all concerned]".

Yes, but you then failed to in any substantial way focus upon or elucidate why the reformers were miserable.

Someone was asking about the philosophical point of this thread. Let me suggest one for you. Human beings are not human beings because they talk. Humans are not human because they are social, and this thread talks of children who are social with animals without qualifying as humans exactly. Language is impossible without society, and society is impossible without language. When we learn language we learn society, and in this way the concerns of society and the needs of society become our own; and it is through our struggle with nature, made possible by the concept carryng quality of language that our brains become fully developed and human. It is incorrect to say we are conditioned by language and society unless we realize that the process has be going on for a very long time, and that we are the active agents in that process at this very moment, and that we are at this moment changing the nature of the conditioner interactively. Every time you advance a proposition about the nature of the world you and the person you talk with have been changed in some sense impossible to reverse. At that moment it does not seem of great importance that you are part of a process begun many millenia ago, of language making society and of society making you, and others like you, while you and others like you give meaning to the language.

Rhett: Then you place love at the apex of their [human] virtue.

Pye: Don't recall any apexing, but value indeed, in the "pure buddha land" sense mentioned above. If you have no interest in envisioning past this world a place for non-delusional, non-fear-based love, affection, compassion et al, and a la Buddha, I doubt I can be of assistance. . . .I do not consider enlightenment to be the complete destruction of human feeling.

Do you think enlightenment is the embodiment of goodness? If so, can you tell me what you think is good about human feeling?

[/quote]

Let me say it. Love is the embodyment, and the highest point of all human virtue. To love one must know what one is, where one is, and why one is. Only love of all the emotions is eccentric, and with it the needs of another becomes ones own, and even the life of that other can be defended as ones own. It is no wonder that self centered philosophers, whatever their wealth in intellect, could not cross that line. Living a full life might have interfered with their thinking. Can't have that.

Let me tell you what is good about feeling. We cannot begin to live without it. People build on the sensitivity of childhood. Children weigh everything, and taste everything, and feel everything, and what appears as play to adults is the beginning of judgement, and of classification. We must feel a thing to know it, and in every sense it is foolish to talk of knowing anything we cannot hold as an object, and know the end of. Knowledge of the infinite is beyond us in every sense. Finite knowledge, and knowledge of the finite is possible for everyone with feeling.

R:You mentioned a wolf-boy. Do you know what happened with him?

Ah am the wolf boy, and no one knows what happened to me.
drawblood!

[Sapius]

According to Discovery Channel, during the early development of a human brain, more the verbal meaning and concepts are conveyed to a brain, the more it develops those electro chemical pathways since it has a high potentiality at a stage when the brain is also developing physically. But if those pathways are not developed along with the physical development, the potentiality of creating new pathways in an already developed physical brain has very slim chances, hence a feral person, who acts accordingly to what has been imbedded originally. Similarly, if there is a persisting defect in a physical brain, a child may never connect most of the pathways irrelevant of pouring tons of verbal meanings and concepts at it, hence what we call a retard.