“This morning when my boy woke up he called for his mother;  a few minutes later, while she was preparing a bottle, I walked quietly into the room.  He waved to me, as I lay across the end of his bed.  He muttered “good morning” in his sleepy voice.  His hand was extended to me and I held it for awhile, massaging the fingers gently.  No words were spoken.  The action seemed to be pulling him from his not-yet-awake consciousness, into the world.  He withdrew his hand and said “Go.”  That was all he said, “Go!”  I smiled and said “ok.”  As I left the room I added that I would see him in awhile.  He smiled and nuzzled deep into the bedding.”  (Fathering Journal, 12/19/93)

In the above vignette there appears to be no agenda, no method, and no intention on the father’s part but to be with his boy.  Perhaps nothing was gained, yet certainly nothing was lost in this gentle interaction.  This interchange was influenced by the context and the state of the father’s psyche.  In that moment the father appears free of conflicting demands which could have predetermined his psychological, emotional, and behavioral posturing.  What took place in the father’s psyche, both conscious and unconscious, is of interest.  How he entered the room could have been conditioned by numerous potential influences.  He could have been carrying a judgement of how long he feels his boy should sleep and of how he should wake up.  When told to “go,” there was fertile ground for intrapsychic intrusion on the part of the father.  He could have allowed dozens of alternative responses (i.e., his feelings could have been hurt).  Yet, quite simply, he got up and walked out of the room.  How did he do that?  In addition, what message did he leave with his son as communicated by his body posture, breathing pattern, words, and gestures?  These actions are also grounds for choice or subject to defensive responses.  Could these responses have been determined by the degree of awareness brought to the situation?