This whole read really reminds me of Wittengenstein, who says that all language is a barrier and a futile device that we are forced to use in order to interact with others. Throughout the article many moments occur where the translation of ideas from the father to the daughter is obscured by language and words.

This seems to hit some kind of futility, is the father upset?

its interesting that the self, which we usually consider to be such a singular thing, is represented here as fragmentary. It's almost a paradox though, how can one be both strong and weak. seems irrational even, but intuitively it resonates with me. The self is an incredible irrational thing

My thoughts immediately bring me to cupid and psyche. Cupid was also in a sense immaterial, or at the least invisible.

It is interesting the the water is the possessor here. We would expect to own our own reflections but the use of possession here really adds to that anxiety, it's as if we don't own ourselves

I think that the repetition from the beginning really ads to that MC Escher feel. Creating something like a mobius strip. The repetition adds to that prison feel as we are back in the place where we started and we haven't found a way out.

I read in a poem once, "i have as many selves, as there are impressions of me in other people" We could also consider the reverse of that, "I have within me the selves of everyone I have ever met" Are we defined by those around us?

Another thought Identity seems to be at least in part a relative thing. 'I' only exists because of 'not I'. And 'I' is defined by 'not I'.

If no one else existed, would you have an identity, would you exist?

I think this touches upon the idea of boundaries pretty well, but maybe in a more nuanced way. There is a boundary between what is external and what is internal, it seems that the human's ability to abstract and make abstractions allows us to cross this boundary while still maintaining the individuality between external and internal. What I mean is that, we use abstract things like language, art, poetry, myths, and folklore as a vehicle to cross between external and internal. What I experience can only cross the boundary to the external (and other people) through abstract vehicles like language.

In short, the mind's ability to abstract allows individuals to connect with the external. If we did not have language, art, or any other abstraction vehicle we would not be able to communicate or connect with other people and cross boundaries.

Such an incredible metaphor.

full of tears, full of smiles; for every passion something, and for no passion truly anything, as boys and women are, for the most part, cattle of this color; would now like him, now loathe him; then entertain him, then forswear him; now weep for him, then spit at him, that I drave my suitor from his mad humor of love to a living humor of madness, which was to forswear the full stream of the world and to live in a nook merely monastic. And thus I cured him,

William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act 3 Scene 2

That which has moved me to love has moved me to anger. (I don't know where I'm quoting from)

Usually emotions are understood to be monads, To stand by themselves Love is a thing Anger is a thing I wonder if they should be understood as dyads Love and Anger are two things that make one thing. What could we call it then? Lovanger? The relativeness of things is incredibly interesting, as 'A' only exists because there are things that are 'Not A' Love exists because Not Love exists, there is a mutualness and a seperation

If every fairy tale is based on some other tale then I wonder how the very first tale came to be? Maybe it was based on observations in nature? The author is keen on using a biological analogy in the beginning, what was the first single-celled organism of fairy tales,

maybe the first tales were based on actual real stories? Maybe it was very journalistic at first, and later abstractions were added to make things interesting.

Maybe the first fairy tale was actually a lie that someone told.

Maybe someone was lying about something that happened to them and exaggerated it, everyone knew that the storyteller was lying but decided that it was a cool story anyways and passed it on to their children.

I think this is difficult to actually prove, and might suggest that it is our own behaviors that shape fairy tales, not the other way around. Though this is definitely up for debate, chicken or egg I suppose.

I might be able to argue that the author is putting too much emphasis on the effect of fairy tales in childhood development. Though I would agree that fairy tales play a role in childhood development, I would add that the impact is more than likely unknowable and their are also so many other factors.