In both a secular and nonsecular context, there is a Universe of difference between nurturing and enabling. Why do you think it is that so many self-described nurturers are in reality the most insidious of enablers?
Only if no one replies was this a rhetorical question.
As a related question, what do you think is/should be the cause/reason for a person attaining any level/degree of self-esteem?
Another related question, what descriptive word do you think
is contemporaneously the one that is most misused/misapplied?
My nomination is awesome.
I will try to intelligently discuss this matter with you in the context of forbearers being abused as children.
My mother was a smother due to the fact that her father did not want her even while she was in the womb.
He threw a heavy glass ash tray at my pregnant grandmother, and the doctor said if it was an inch closer to her forming head and brain, I would not be here.
Great hatred of the father principle translated into separation anxiety in me.
I still have it to this day.
I even practice it with the cats.
So, in answer to your question, depending upon the self-esteem of the caregiver and their ability to integrate with their culture will determine the amount of enabling and or nurturing.
If they are wanted and loved as a child and encouraged to gain autonomy utilizing their innate talents to become a whole person before giving birth will give them the advantage to be able to distinguish the line between nurture and enabling.
It goes back to discipline.
True Love disciplines the child to prune the false self. Pitiful Love encourages and enables the lower principles of the child that are not healthy. e.g. selfishness, self-pity, greed, fear and doubt.
Self-esteem is based upon autonomy and self-reliance, encouraged at a young age.
I despise the word awesome, because it is intellectually lazy.
Awe-struck, in awe, awe-inspiring would be my replacements.
The ubiquitous computer culture has so dumbed down us globally, that I would nominate any word that starts with an I as in Iphone.
Or, e. e-mail, e this e that.
-- Burt B.
