I'm not a fan of Freud, but he did influence other scholars. Read Freud and his once hopeful student Carl Jung. Their are many credible early childhood models. The two that I subscribe to are Maslow and Erikson. Good luck.
The premise of your example with mother and child is flawed. That argument is a fallacy. By the way, most of the entertaining arguments in PH can be categorized into specific types of fallacy. Google fallacy, then read some of the heated discussions here; and you will find fallacies in their discord. Once you understand that, the humor will enlighten you. Have fun.
In behavioral management, and as a people manager, I apply Maslow and Erickson day to day. I do this downward, laterally, and upward. I find their work to be very practical in understanding normal people needs and wants, and in anticipating what/how to manage people to build trust, engagement. Modern management style tend to use theory Y management style...inspir
e people vs theoryX management style...be skeptical of people and use (utility) people as an means to an end of production/profits. Everything I practice here is all about utility of production and profits through the manipulating human emotion to achieve the highest level of performance in people. They call this leadership. All these relationship are highly based upon trust. I trust my employees will do a good job, and they trust me I will give them good raises and promotion. This is what a transactional process is - I do A for B. I put my $$ in the bank, and they give me 1% APR.
In your model of love, you have said love is on the apex and there are scaffolding and that scaffolding is the pyramid, Maslow and Erickson. In addition, in your view on loving relationship, a loving relationship can be people taking each other for granted. For sure you are very much a utilitarian on the concept of love. I'm not. I think love is sacred and you don't. Your form of love might be eros and phileo...I try to seek forms of love that are unconditional, agape. Everything else, I don't consider love. My natural state is to serve and give so I don't really do the eros and phileo...in those cases it's friendship...i
t's trusting.
In my world view, I see love above trust because love is sacred. Love brings warmth. Trust can be manipulating and cold because trust is often negotiated: I do X for Y. Trust dies when it is not reciprocated. Love doesn't die, it endures. Don't believe me. Test it. Anyone who requires constant negotiating in I do X for Y, is not a loving relationship, it is a trusting relationship. For example, in the Hmong culture, we talk about love as an exchange of energy and time. That's not love. That's trust. Perhaps it is why many Hmong people see trust as higher because that's what we care most about.
In Brene Brown work on the anatomy of Trust she talks about BRAVING (boundaries, reliability, accountability, vault, integrity, non-judgement, generosity). Nearly everything in the Hmong culture of love can be seen within this context. Most relationship can be seen within this context. The reality is, we have many, many trusting relationship, and we have VERY FEW loving relationship. Some may HAVE NONE. It is why the great Roman Philosopher and Christian Apostile, St Paul wrote, 1 COR 13, EPH 5, and perhaps the most insightful point on love by this great philosopher/apostle is the following:
1 COR 13:2 "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains,
but do not have love, I am nothing." I argue most people fall into the latter categories...t
heir love is not authentic in the romantic definition. When you have nothing to give, you will know if they love you.