Das erste Jahr Babybuddha jetzt auf:


Does our impression only have to do with his recently gained mobility? Today our baby seems to have exchanged the admirable and baffling aimlessness of his beginning. But exchanged against what? Our baby is not drifting about, and neither is he following a definite intention. If he already knew how to really walk, we might call him a flaneur. But he isn’t idle enough for that, he’s too impulsive, too excitable, too distractible. He keeps turning around, circling. He has no goal (or is it that he can’t find one?): we would almost like to call his activity an aimless aiming, if that didn’t seem too convoluted an expression (the path is, in any case, not his goal). Why should we be able (he’s examining the router and producing a flurry of blinks) to follow our baby in this (sometimes our master is simply superior to us!), given the fact that we for our own part don’t understand whether we are following a goal when we follow a goal or whether we have something completely different in mind, but what? (Take a closer look, says our baby, look at me without looking at me, I’ll gladly be your goal.)



Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:


Du kommentierst mit deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s