The miracle of birth is more than just a mere biological aspect of procreation. It is a primordial cry of existence and ultimately that of relation. Relation is the primary experience we are born with, the drive to participate is inherent to the person; in addition, I would also contend that we die in relation.
The baby cries “I am” as he is received from the flesh of his flesh. The initial cry of the “I am” is primarily the “am” coming forth; whereas this is readily apparent in the physical-ness of the baby. It is the physical need to be fed. The baby is the purest example of the total dependency on the other. The baby has not created or developed the concept of the "I" and therefor is at its conception, the purest form solitude.
Carl Jung stated, “The first birth comes from the parents and the second comes from ourselves”. It is incredible that this statement is so true and simple yet so often missed my most human beings. We tend to rationalize our lives, our interactions, lay blame and accuse others for our faults and look for reasons outside ourselves for the trauma that affects us. So few the times have I felt that I have been reborn. Yes, I thing our birth from ourselves is not a static thing, but fluid in nature as we evolve in our surrounds, but also interact and become shaped by those we seek to relate to on some level. The “I” that is also heard in the equi-primordial cry, is also crying for its meaning that can constitute the backing of the body. Along with the most primary of instincts, hunger, the baby does yearn for affection, for touch, for love. Without knowing words or the ability to create cognitive thought, the baby as part of her primordial make up, yearns for that which is most primitive. As I write this updated section, instinctually I referenced to the baby as a “she” or “her”. This is odd since during my youth and English grammar up bringing, the neutral form of a pronoun was most readily and commonly referenced by “he” or “him”. This is evident through this paper and just strikes me as odd.
At birth the “I” resides in the solicitude and concern of the other. The “I” will eventually spring forth from the other, separate and individually find its place in the world; and yet, this can only be achieved as being-with-other. I irony here and what sometimes gets lost in the chronology of our journey, is that as soon as we declare our independence, to be free to know ourselves, what we are really saying is we are searching for a more fulfilling relation. This more fulfilling relation allows us to know ourselves more and come more into our own and evolve. This is not the ideological sense of independence. It is not the “I can do this on my own, I am strong and independent”. This has to do with the “I” coming into their own lives, leaving to find themselves, to find more meaning for themselves and who they are; through relation.
The “I” is never spoke alone, its always in relation to something, or someone. IN the child, as well as with the mother, there is a mutual experience of reciprocity, of a shared relation that begins with birth. This mutuality is from inside, not an extrinsic abstract concept of relation like an equation. For a relation to be true and authentic, the encounter must occur in the “between-ness” of the I and the Thou. It cannot be created – for the pitfall is the world of abstraction, the world where “Its” are living.
This is a point made by Martin Buber in his book, “I and Thou” from 1922. Its amazing to think or conceptualize and then realized that we are connected always, even in abstracted thought or in solitude. The idea here is that we are connected at birth, seek out relation and we can only become more of ourselves through this journey. Our very development is dependent on the “Thou”. We improve, grow, and become more off ourselves through are active participation in a relation. Its this giving over to the other person that we find who we are… very much like selfless love.