DOLF Theory warns us that the Mind of a Child functions by pure Emotion and Instinct. It’s functions are opposite to the Adult Mind that is governed by intellect, reason and logic. DOLF also alerts us that the first two children in any family are perpetually wrapped up in a desperate, bitter SIBLING RIVALRY over the LOVE of their parents, but that parents and educators are currently unaware of these hidden Emotional dynamics.
In the first biblical story of Genesis, or Creation, the Lord acted as the parent to Cain and Abel. The Lord made a choice to welcome Abel’s sacrifice and reject Cain’s, and for the boys this clearly became fodder for a SIBLING WAR. This WAR between them was fraught with Anxiety, but mainly infused with Anger. For Cain, the Lord’s choice meant he had LOST the SIBLING WAR with his younger brother, and with it, the most precious commodity of childhood – the parental LOVE that Cain felt HE was naturally entitled to. Acting within his Mind of a Child, Cain’s thought was NOT that “I didn’t act with honesty and I should have sacrificed my very best for my Lord“. Rather, his Mind of a Child limited his thinking to: “Why DOESN’T MY LORD LOVE ME AS MUCH AS MY BROTHER?” Because of his Emotion-based, egocentric reasoning typical of his Mind of a Child, he became filled with seething, uncontrollable Anger, and felt compelled to act on his feelings. In other words, it was this Emotion that ultimately pushed him to his actions, reactions and the behavior that WE eventually witnessed. There is little doubt that Cain felt he was in the right!
Now of course in our logical minds, the Lord acted perfectly reasonably and did what any parent might have done. There is no doubt that accepting Abel’s offer was a justifiable practical decision and a well-thought-out Intellectual choice. The Lord naturally appreciated Abel’s honesty and sincerity over Cain’s obvious selfishness and egotism. Any parent would have done the same. Yet from Cain’s point of view, operating within the Mind of a Child, he received the Almighty’s choice as a personal insult. It was a deeply hurtful gesture that was received as an attack on Cain’s self esteem and an affront to his dignity and self-respect. Cain saw it as a rejection of himself. It made him feel he was NOT worthwhile as a person. Worst of all it was a indication to him that he was Disfavored or LESS LOVED than his younger brother, Abel.
This was clearly the way that Cain felt despite the fact that WE know he DID NOT offer his best crop, and he surely knew it too. Yet Cain took his Lord’s action to mean He had LESS LOVE for him than He held for Abel – regardless of the “choice” that Cain had made of how he should behave toward his Maker!
So now that we understand the differences in the thinking and reasoning behind the actions of both Cain and his Lord, we can ask: Did Cain really have a “choice” about how to act? A common behavioral or CBT approach would claim that yes, Cain did have a “choice”, and consciously “chose” NOT to act in the best way possible to please his parental figure, the Almighty. Through DOLF we also learn that adjacent siblings instinctually strive to be opposite to each other. So on the one hand, Cain was constrained by his Mind of a Child. As such, he clearly did NOT think or act the way that a logical approach would have dictated. Cain was unable to connect the dots between his punishment and his behavior – his selfishness or egotism that WE perceive from the outside. Clearly then, Cain could NOT distinguish, grasp or understand the link between his own actions and the consequences that were being imposed by his Lord. At the same time on the other hand, he felt compelled by his INSTINCTS to behave in an opposite way to his younger brother, and try to solicit LOVE in ways that were different from or even opposed to the tactics used by his soft-natured brother to elicit the same LOVE from their Lord.
Due to our Mind of an Adult, these are very strange concepts for us to fathom. To Cain, the Lord’s decision to reject the offer implied that HE held disdain for, disrespected, undermined, and felt displeasure and even resentment for Cain’s efforts. It DID NOT mean to Cain that his Lord still LOVED him but that He was rejecting the boy’s behavior, as the common CBT interpretation would have us believe. From his point of view, Cain did NOT consider whether his offer of vegetables was actually his best or not, NOR did he blame himself for making the wrong decision about what to bring to the altar. Not at all. To Cain his Lord’s action meant that the LORD WAS REJECTING HIS PERSON – CAIN HIMSELF! For Cain, LOVE was what mattered and he had lost his Lord’s LOVE! We know this because later on we see how devastated he actually was.
Now if we look from Abel’s point of view at the Lord’s acceptance of Abel’s offer, and what it meant to Abel, an entirely different picture emerges. From this perspective we see that while the Lord had given no praise to his hapless brother Cain, in comparison, Abel had received the ultimate praise in the form of blessings and approval in exchange for his heartfelt actions. In Emotional terms or the language of a child, this implied to both boys that the Lord felt that He Himself was more attached to, aligned with, understood, empathized, smiled upon, approved of and ultimately LOVED or FAVORED Abel MORE in comparison with Cain. So this meant to Abel that he had WON their silent, desperate, underground SIBLING WAR. And now Abel could enjoy the luxury of being the recipient of that most precious commodity in life – the LOVE of their Prime LOVING Parental figure or PLG.
On a deep psychological level, in the Mind of a Child, the struggle to WIN the SIBLING WAR is a matter of Emotional life or death. It comes down to self-respect, pride, social status and personal acclaim. The Lord’s choice, which was founded in adult logic in the Adult Mind, not only amounted to Favoring Abel. In Emotional terms it also meant that Abel had been awarded SUPERIOR social status and recognition, but that by inference, Cain had been granted LESSER or INFERIOR social status and recognition. Far more important than a simple story about a religious sacrifice by two teenaged boys then, this is a tale about one WINNER and one LOSER of a SIBLING WAR, with all its associated social implications.
If this first bible story is in fact intended to be a lesson, DOLF theory coincides with it’s moral teaching. Analyzed in depth, the story can be viewed as instructing us to anticipate friction among our children, even though we may not understand it. It also draws attention, as DOLF does, to the paramount importance of parental FAVORITISM. In DOLF this is believed to be the ultimate secret Emotional determinant of ALL future adjustment in personality and behavior. DOLF explains that FAVORITISM implies acknowledgment, respect, social status, acclaim, recognition and privilege given to one person over another, and that within the context of the Mind of a Child, every child is relentlessly sensitive to such attributions, as were the brothers in the story. As elucidated by DOLF theory, this process begins with the way feelings of Favoritism are expressed and demonstrated through one’s personal social position relative to the next born sibling inside the tiny microcosm of the Family of Origin. Both the bible story and DOLF point to FAVORITISM as the major source of self-definition and self-respect for children, and both lead us to conclude that Favoritism is a phenomenon that ALL children attach to the actions and reactions of their superiors toward themselves as individual humans.
So if this bible story is meant to provide us with a standard example of the way that ALL human families function, and will function throughout time, and how our individual lives are prescribed to unfold inside each family unit, then DOLF theory supports and aligns very well with this lesson.
(Continued in Creation – Part 3)
