Tuesday, December 28, 2010

The Angel-Human Continuum: The Nuvian Theory of Existential Continuity

Yes, this is a bit off-Montessori, but I couldn't resist posting--at the suggestion of one of our more dedicated lurkers--about Nuvy's Angel-Human life cycle theory, hereafter referred to as NTEC (the Nuvian Theory of Existential Continuity)

According to NTEC, human entities exist at all times as either Angel or Human.  Which form is the ground state has not, at the time of writing, been identified.  Angel-form populations and Human-form populations intersect at critical periods of life, called "birth" and "death". 

"Birth," according to NTEC, is defined as the transition from Angel form to Human form.  This transition occurs at a specific point in time (the time of birth), and space (the vagina--she is quite specific on the anatomical point-- of the human mother).  No mention has yet been made of Caesarian births, but these can be easily assumed.  All human beings are angels until they pass through the mother's body (at the specified point), and become human. 

"Death," similarly, is defined as the transtion from Human form to Angel form.   The leaving transition, viewed as it is from the human perspective, seems more variable than birth, but she readily allows that, on the angel side, the appearance may be similarly skewed to regular entry, followed by varied circumstances of exit.

Hazards to the family unit have been identified during transition, so that it is imperative that all angel-form family members remain in close contact post-death, to ensure that timely births maintain the family structure.  Provisions must also be made for the house and personal effects of the dead (angels), to ensure that those effects are not misappropriated to other living humans during the absence (angelhood) of the family.  This is of the utmost importance if family continuity is to be achieved.

It is of further interest that angels must be carefully differentiated from fairies (small, humanoid creatures that exist in the human geometry but just outside the spatial-temporal plane of humanity).  This is important to note as there may be, at times (often at the edges of sleep, or in shadowed doorways), angel-human or fairy-human proximity sufficient to produce sensory phenomena.   Angels and fairies are easily differentiated, even with relatively little training, by wing structure.  Angels are possessed of feathered wings, much like those of a bird, which are sufficiently sturdy to support flight in normal-human-sized organisms.  Fairies, on the other hand, have membranous wings more like those of an insect.  The obvious physical limitations of such wings may point us to reasons for their small stature.

The duration and experiential specifics of the angel-form phase remain opaque, and will perhaps be the subject of future discussions.  There was also something in there about diamonds, and a persistent interest in Van Eyck's depictions of angels.  Perhaps for another post.

5 comments:

Emily said...

I LOVE this. LOVE.

Nury said...

She has also told me that when she was an angel she flew around looking for the right kind of parents until she spotted Daddy and Mommy and said "Yes, I want to be their daughter" and she thus became Nuria.

Baba

NOLA mom said...

Wow! The Waldorf people are going to try to get her to defect from Montessori and come over to their team if they read this.

Testdriver said...

Hah! When she hears about that "no screens--ever" thing, she'll never go for it.

Ivy said...

What a smart girl and what a creative mind! Cudos to you for transcribing her theory - she might turn this into her first bestseller some day!

Unrelated to this post, what do you think about homeschooling Montessori-style? Does it work, or is it a contradiction of terms? With respect to practical life curriculum, I don't see why not. Also, art, math, literature, etc. curricula could be covered by an intelligent adult, no? I stumbled upon your discipline blog, and the statement that the Montessori method relies on peer pressure for normalizing stuck in my mind. Does this mean that a group of kids is necessary for what seems to be a very important ingredient of the learning that goes on in a Montessori environment? And further, I wonder, if peer pressure is considered to be a key influencer, what does this imply for individuality? The thing I regret most from my childhood was in fact the concept of wanting, no, needing to be like others in my group. This worked great in terms of discipline, but not so great in terms of self-esteem. In my teenage years I struggled with the idea of being "average" and did my best to live that down. Luckily, most of the time these efforts were productive, rather than destructive, but it could have gone the other way.