MAP Forum

Aspire6 wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2025 5:57 pm What I keep seeing time and time again is most of society seems to rather not care about actually preventing a bad choice from happening and instead seeks to wait until afterwards so they can punish for it. Banning child-like dolls, which in my eyes is just criminalizing fantasies, or going after fictional material the same as PIM is in my opinion just showing that they expect us to suppress our urges/desires entirely and our any failure to do such is grounds for severe punishment.

It's very frustrating to have any possible non-harmful outlet criminalized heavily or in the process of being criminalized. These outlets hurt nobody besides society hating the idea MAPs may "indulge" in something, privately in their own place, that they don't like the idea of.

This! Not only is the entire thing ridiculous; by removing access to outlets, they actually increase the likelihood of MAPs offending. To top it off, support options for survivors are seriously lacking, and CSA remains a big taboo which also increases the struggles of survivors enormously. Don't expect them to do anything about those things, though.

Fragment wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 1:02 am I just wonder what that means for people like me.

"Most of us wouldn't do horrible things like THAT (we just wish we could)." still seems... ? as a message to me.

Sorry for the ambiguity. I don't mean people who engage in consensual criminal acts should be seen as separate from MAPs. My point is, just because a person coerces a child into a sexual act, that doesn't make them a pedophile. We shouldn't accept guilt by association or accountability for people like Josef Fritzl. That's not to say there are never preferential offenders in the coercive sense, just that the overwhelming majority of coercion comes from people who aren't actual pedophiles. So, when a person says "destigmatize pedophilia," they don't mean society should tolerate sexual predators in the true sense, and they shouldn't have to answer for those kinds of people. If non-MAPs misunderstand, they need to be corrected until they do.

I haven't changed my reservations about anti-contacts, I still think MAPs that commit crimes need empathy, dignity, and support. (However, obviously, there is an upper limit; human trafficking, murder, and rape in the true sense aren't things anyone should condone).

Julia wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 2:10 am That's exactly the case. Some seek to understand the mindset of their abuser(s) and start doing research, ultimately discovering that harm reduction necessitates destigmatisation. Though certainly not all go this path, and those who don't tend to hate us because they associate us with their traumatic experiences.

It's a subject that's awkward for me to try to navigate, given I wasn't abused as a child and I'm a MAP.

Them: "I'm sorry you're getting so much hate. My partner is a map and they are simply the best person in my life. I was the victim of childhood SA. They told me when I told them. It was a long, hard talk, but I feel as though they have an understanding of how harmful it really was; better than any other person who just respond with disgust or pity. We keep it super private because of obvious reasons. They are kind and caring and sensitive, and couldn't take the rejection from family or friends. For a long time, they wanted to end it all, just because of the feelings of shame and the fact that they couldn't tell anyone or get help that wouldn't end up in institutionalisation.
It's a good cause to fight the stigma. I think that in doing so, there's a good chance that some children will be spared from those who lack enough empathy, but also that people like my most beloved can get the support they need.
My partner would rather be invisible, and it's not my flag to fly, but I am heartened that you have the courage and self-understanding to make a stand.
Sorry about the ramble "

A dark thought: I wonder if the reaction would have been different if their partner had been pro-contact or if they weren't ashamed of their attraction? I get anxious that empathy for MAPs is conditional on feeling self-hatred, sorry to bring it up.

Them: "Yeah, a lot of people say they're for abolishing the prison system but don't make acknowledgements of the sort of radical compassion it requires. If we think some people are innately beyond our compassion and should therefor be excluded from the benefits of our society, how will things ever be any different than they already are? Especially when we talk about people who have _literally done no harm to anyone_ who other leftists/anarchists think should be locked up for just who they are. Hypocrisy."

Although I'm not an anarchist, I'd thought about whether prison abolitionism would lead to a conversation among progressives about how to better integrate MAPs. Glad to see it's happening.

I've given this a lot of thought, and there are a couple of obstacles. For one, survivors typically do not organise in public online spaces like other communities. Instead, we mostly just form small, private support groups. Due to the stigma surrounding CSA and feelings of shame and isolation, many of us feel uncomfortable discussing our experiences publicly. I believe the closest we have to a large online community is the r/CPTSD subreddit, which is not exactly the healthiest space either. It's unfortunate because survivors could greatly benefit from a strong community to raise awareness, educate, destigmatise, and advocate for rights and better support services. The parallels with this community are quite ironic.

Fair enough.

PorcelainLark wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:28 am A dark thought: I wonder if the reaction would have been different if their partner had been pro-contact or if they weren't ashamed of their attraction? I get anxious that empathy for MAPs is conditional on feeling self-hatred, sorry to bring it up.

If empathy is conditional, I wouldn't call it empathy at all, especially if the condition is that someone should feel bad about themselves. That's mere tolerance driven by self-interest.
I believe that anyone who has their heart in the right place can be persuaded, though not all at once. For instance, the statement "MAPs are regular people who don't want to cause harm and rarely do" is a difficult pill to swallow. Similarly, the idea "AMSC is not inherently harmful" is another challenging concept. It's important not to expect people to accept both ideas simultaneously, as it can be overwhelming and lead to resistance. There needs to be time for the first idea to resonate before introducing the second.

In this specific scenario, the outcome may not have been favourable, given that only one long, hard talk was mentioned. However, I believe that this person could eventually come to accept these ideas if they were presented gradually, as I described. Ultimately, we all agree that the safety of minors is paramount.

Julia wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 8:29 pm If empathy is conditional, I wouldn't call it empathy at all, especially if the condition is that someone should feel bad about themselves. That's mere tolerance driven by self-interest.

I agree, to be honest. Probably symptomatic of my dysfunctional relationships that I'd call it empathy. I probably have unhealthily low expectations of others.

I believe that anyone who has their heart in the right place can be persuaded, though not all at once. For instance, the statement "MAPs are regular people who don't want to cause harm and rarely do" is a difficult pill to swallow. Similarly, the idea "AMSC is not inherently harmful" is another challenging concept. It's important not to expect people to accept both ideas simultaneously, as it can be overwhelming and lead to resistance. There needs to be time for the first idea to resonate before introducing the second.

True. The perfect is the enemy of the good, after all.

In this specific scenario, the outcome may not have been favourable, given that only one long, hard talk was mentioned. However, I believe that this person could eventually come to accept these ideas if they were presented gradually, as I described. Ultimately, we all agree that the safety of minors is paramount.

Fair enough, the only caveat I'd say is obviously there are disagreements about what constitutes the safety of minors. I do think the shift towards tolerating anti-contact MAPs can be compatible with quite a high bar for the safety of children. However, I expect pro-contact or pro-contact adjacent positions (e.g. reduced sentencing for non-coercive statutory rape) aren't usually what non-MAP allies have in mind. Although, considering even MAPs don't have a consensus on this, I don't feel it should be that surprising.

PorcelainLark wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 9:47 pm I agree, to be honest. Probably symptomatic of my dysfunctional relationships that I'd call it empathy. I probably have unhealthily low expectations of others.

It's understandable to feel that way, especially if you've been through difficult relationships. Recognising it is a big step, and it shows your self-awareness. Remember, it's okay to set healthy boundaries and expectations for yourself and others.

True. The perfect is the enemy of the good, after all.

Very well said.

Fair enough, the only caveat I'd say is obviously there are disagreements about what constitutes the safety of minors. I do think the shift towards tolerating anti-contact MAPs can be compatible with quite a high bar for the safety of children. However, I expect pro-contact or pro-contact adjacent positions (e.g. reduced sentencing for non-coercive statutory rape) aren't usually what non-MAP allies have in mind. Although, considering even MAPs don't have a consensus on this, I don't feel it should be that surprising.

While it certainly wouldn't be easy, I am optimistic about getting people on board with this idea based on my own experiences. In the past, although I already was pro-choice, my views were more restricted. I believed that while teens were capable of consenting, I drew the line at pre-teens. However, I have continued to educate myself, and after several years of research — particularly in anthropology — my perspective has evolved. I now believe that, in our society, some pre-teens possess sufficient judgment skills to understand the implications of their choices. In fact, many adults often demonstrate the same or even lower levels of judgment than pre-teens.

I also believe that a significant change in the education system is crucial. As I mentioned in a previous response, our current education system primarily focuses on turning children into obedient workers. It fails to teach valuable life lessons such as critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and creativity. As a result, children remain stunted in these areas and do not develop healthy judgment skills, which also leads to the lack of these skills in many adults.

If we were to adopt a holistic education system that prioritises genuine emotional growth — incorporating comprehensive education about consent, healthy relationships, and respect — children would reach mental maturity at a young age, and be capable of making informed, healthy decisions. Besides that, we would also see an enormous decrease in all forms of sexual assualt. This approach can be observed in various so-called "primitive" societies, where the upbringing and education of children centre around cooperation and personal development.

This idea of adopting a holistic education system also aligns perfectly with youth liberation values.

Ultimately, my point is that it is certainly possible for people to change their minds on this issue, as I have observed in myself. Given my own experiences, preventing harm to children and preventing sexual assault are paramount to me; these are causes I have always been very passionate about, and I no longer see any conflict between these values and a pro-choice stance. When understood in this light, a pro-choice position is entirely compatible with strong ethics and morals. I believe the most effective way to help others understand this perspective is to encourage them to arrive at these conclusions themselves. Perhaps employing a persuasion technique that leads someone to believe an idea was their own could also be useful here.

Julia wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2025 10:47 pm It's understandable to feel that way, especially if you've been through difficult relationships. Recognising it is a big step, and it shows your self-awareness. Remember, it's okay to set healthy boundaries and expectations for yourself and others.

Well, I'm kind of hanging on by a thread at the moment (I have issues that mean I have to depend on others), so I kind of have to take what I can get. I hope one day I'll have better options.

While it certainly wouldn't be easy, I am optimistic about getting people on board with this idea based on my own experiences. In the past, although I already was pro-choice, my views were more restricted. I believed that while teens were capable of consenting, I drew the line at pre-teens. However, I have continued to educate myself, and after several years of research — particularly in anthropology — my perspective has evolved. I now believe that, in our society, some pre-teens possess sufficient judgment skills to understand the implications of their choices. In fact, many adults often demonstrate the same or even lower levels of judgment than pre-teens.

Interesting, a while ago I was trying to look into that. There was this paper about an African tribe where children reached a higher stage of Piaget's stages of cognitive development sooner than is generally expected, so I thought it showed it was a fallacy to think of cognitive development as just to do with the brain's physical growth. I'll see if I can find it again.

I also believe that a significant change in the education system is crucial. As I mentioned in a previous response, our current education system primarily focuses on turning children into obedient workers. It fails to teach valuable life lessons such as critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and creativity. As a result, children remain stunted in these areas and do not develop healthy judgment skills, which also leads to the lack of these skills in many adults.

Definitely, I'm quite interested in progressive education. I keep meaning to read up about Montessori.

If we were to adopt a holistic education system that prioritises genuine emotional growth — incorporating comprehensive education about consent, healthy relationships, and respect — children would reach mental maturity at a young age, and be capable of making informed, healthy decisions. Besides that, we would also see an enormous decrease in all forms of sexual assualt. This approach can be observed in various so-called "primitive" societies, where the upbringing and education of children centre around cooperation and personal development.

This reminds me of a chapter of a bit from a book I was reading on Spinoza and education. Basically, in contrast to Rousseau (where education is primarily about maintaining the freedom and innocence of children), a Spinozist approach was that self-understanding is something that can be taught. I'm actually writing an essay about Spinoza for Mu at the moment, though I'm waiting for a few people to give me feedback first. If you'd like, I could email you the draft.

Ultimately, my point is that it is certainly possible for people to change their minds on this issue, as I have observed in myself. Given my own experiences, preventing harm to children and preventing sexual assault are paramount to me; these are causes I have always been very passionate about, and I no longer see any conflict between these values and a pro-choice stance. When understood in this light, a pro-choice position is entirely compatible with strong ethics and morals. I believe the most effective way to help others understand this perspective is to encourage them to arrive at these conclusions themselves. Perhaps employing a persuasion technique that leads someone to believe an idea was their own could also be useful here.

Fair enough

PorcelainLark wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 12:21 am Well, I'm kind of hanging on by a thread at the moment (I have issues that mean I have to depend on others), so I kind of have to take what I can get. I hope one day I'll have better options.

I'm really sorry to hear about the situation you're in. It takes strength to acknowledge where you are, and I admire your hope for better options in the future. I'm here for you if you need someone to talk to.

Interesting, a while ago I was trying to look into that. There was this paper about an African tribe where children reached a higher stage of Piaget's stages of cognitive development sooner than is generally expected, so I thought it showed it was a fallacy to think of cognitive development as just to do with the brain's physical growth. I'll see if I can find it again.

Oh, I would love to see this paper! I really wish I had taken notes during my research so far. Since I was mostly learning as a hobby, I didn’t think it would be necessary to write things down for future reference.

Definitely, I'm quite interested in progressive education. I keep meaning to read up about Montessori.

I hadn’t heard of this yet, but I just read the summary, and it does sound quite promising. Regarding school, I have long believed that education should not be compulsory. The original concept of school was to provide a space where people could choose to go to learn about subjects that genuinely interest them. However, in our society, schools have become places where children are compelled to spend a significant portion of their childhood being indoctrinated in preparation for joining the workforce. In the former, children would likely feel a greater sense of autonomy and ownership over their education. In a voluntary learning environment, students would pursue subjects that genuinely interest them, leading to increased engagement and enthusiasm. In contrast, under our compulsory school system, many children often feel like passive recipients of information, following a standardised curriculum that may not align with their interests. This lack of choice can result in disengagement and a sense of obligation rather than excitement about learning.

Additionally, the pressure to conform to a standardised curriculum would be reduced in a more flexible system. Without the stress of grades and rigid assessments, children might approach learning with a more open and curious mindset. In our compulsory system, however, the emphasis on grades and performance can create anxiety and fear of failure, causing students to focus more on meeting expectations than on genuine exploration and understanding. Social dynamics within the school environment could also change significantly. In a voluntary learning setting, students might collaborate more, sharing knowledge and resources as they pursue their individual interests. This contrasts sharply with the competitive atmosphere often found in society's current schools, where students may feel pressured to outperform their peers, leading to isolation and rivalry rather than community and support.

If schools were transformed into spaces of voluntary learning, children's attitudes would likely shift from viewing school as a mandatory obligation to seeing it as an exciting opportunity for exploration and personal growth. In contrast, the current compulsory system often fosters a sense of resentment and disconnection from the learning process. This change could cultivate a lifelong love of learning and a more empowered approach to education, allowing students to thrive rather than merely comply.

This reminds me of a chapter of a bit from a book I was reading on Spinoza and education. Basically, in contrast to Rousseau (where education is primarily about maintaining the freedom and innocence of children), a Spinozist approach was that self-understanding is something that can be taught. I'm actually writing an essay about Spinoza for Mu at the moment, though I'm waiting for a few people to give me feedback first. If you'd like, I could email you the draft.

I haven't read extensively about Spinoza yet, aside from his pantheistic ideas, but I would be honoured to read your essay. As you can see, I am quite passionate about the subject of education. (Do take a moment to appreciate the irony of someone whom society deems a danger to the safety of children caring more about the well-being of children than the vast majority of society )

Julia wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 1:37 am I'm really sorry to hear about the situation you're in. It takes strength to acknowledge where you are, and I admire your hope for better options in the future. I'm here for you if you need someone to talk to.

Thank you, I might talk about it in private because it's issues unrelated to being a MAP.

Oh, I would love to see this paper! I really wish I had taken notes during my research so far. Since I was mostly learning as a hobby, I didn’t think it would be necessary to write things down for future reference.

I haven't found it yet, but I'll keep looking.

I hadn’t heard of this yet, but I just read the summary, and it does sound quite promising. Regarding school, I have long believed that education should not be compulsory. The original concept of school was to provide a space where people could choose to go to learn about subjects that genuinely interest them. However, in our society, schools have become places where children are compelled to spend a significant portion of their childhood being indoctrinated in preparation for joining the workforce. In the former, children would likely feel a greater sense of autonomy and ownership over their education. In a voluntary learning environment, students would pursue subjects that genuinely interest them, leading to increased engagement and enthusiasm. In contrast, under our compulsory school system, many children often feel like passive recipients of information, following a standardised curriculum that may not align with their interests. This lack of choice can result in disengagement and a sense of obligation rather than excitement about learning.
Additionally, the pressure to conform to a standardised curriculum would be reduced in a more flexible system. Without the stress of grades and rigid assessments, children might approach learning with a more open and curious mindset. In our compulsory system, however, the emphasis on grades and performance can create anxiety and fear of failure, causing students to focus more on meeting expectations than on genuine exploration and understanding. Social dynamics within the school environment could also change significantly. In a voluntary learning setting, students might collaborate more, sharing knowledge and resources as they pursue their individual interests. This contrasts sharply with the competitive atmosphere often found in society's current schools, where students may feel pressured to outperform their peers, leading to isolation and rivalry rather than community and support.
If schools were transformed into spaces of voluntary learning, children's attitudes would likely shift from viewing school as a mandatory obligation to seeing it as an exciting opportunity for exploration and personal growth. In contrast, the current compulsory system often fosters a sense of resentment and disconnection from the learning process. This change could cultivate a lifelong love of learning and a more empowered approach to education, allowing students to thrive rather than merely comply.

I'd see it as dealing with potential, like some children aren't going to be great at mathematics, others at grammar, etc. The one size fits all approach simultaneously tries to force children to learn things they may be incapable of learning and underdevelop what they're potentially good at.

I haven't read extensively about Spinoza yet, aside from his pantheistic ideas, but I would be honoured to read your essay. As you can see, I am quite passionate about the subject of education. (Do take a moment to appreciate the irony of someone whom society deems a danger to the safety of children caring more about the well-being of children than the vast majority of society )

This is my email: [removed by author]

Accordingly, one of the central tasks of education is to disrupt irrational fears and desires, and by promoting the reordering of ideas, reshaping the students’ conception of the good life so that they may pursue long-term happiness rather than the temporary pleasures advertised in their surroundings. An initial step toward achieving this, from the perspective of the teacher, may be to arrange for an environment where students are not torn by many powerful passive affects but where many of the temptations and threats of everyday life are kept at bay or approached in a structured and methodical way so that students may learn to break chains of associations that cause them to suffer. This is what Spinoza talks about in 5p4s where he encourages us to “take special care to know each affect clearly and distinctly” so that in this way “the affect itself may be separated from the thought of an external cause and joined to true thoughts.”To reiterate, this means that the cause of distress may be understood to be an inadequate concept of the good rather than the perceived inability to attain (and to hold on to) these goods. If this is so then it appears that child-centered and student-centered education faces a serious problem insofar as the teacher is encouraged to turn to the children or the students, asking them what it is that they want. - Dahlbeck's Spinoza and Education:
So the issue is that the child-centered education approach doesn't allow for the possibility that children may misunderstand their own affects.

PorcelainLark wrote: Thank you, I might talk about it in private because it's issues unrelated to being a MAP.

Of course, I completely understand. I'm here if you ever want to talk about it in private. Take your time, and know that I'm here to listen whenever you're ready.

I'd see it as dealing with potential, like some children aren't going to be great at mathematics, others at grammar, etc. The one size fits all approach simultaneously tries to force children to learn things they may be incapable of learning and underdevelop what they're potentially good at.

I completely agree with you! Education should be about fostering individual strengths and interests, not forcing a standardised approach. There should be complete freedom in how children learn, free from power structures and authoritarianism. Every child deserves the opportunity to explore their unique potential without the pressure of compulsion..

Accordingly, one of the central tasks of education is to disrupt irrational fears and desires, and by promoting the reordering of ideas, reshaping the students’ conception of the good life so that they may pursue long-term happiness rather than the temporary pleasures advertised in their surroundings. An initial step toward achieving this, from the perspective of the teacher, may be to arrange for an environment where students are not torn by many powerful passive affects but where many of the temptations and threats of everyday life are kept at bay or approached in a structured and methodical way so that students may learn to break chains of associations that cause them to suffer. This is what Spinoza talks about in 5p4s where he encourages us to “take special care to know each affect clearly and distinctly” so that in this way “the affect itself may be separated from the thought of an external cause and joined to true thoughts.”To reiterate, this means that the cause of distress may be understood to be an inadequate concept of the good rather than the perceived inability to attain (and to hold on to) these goods. If this is so then it appears that child-centered and student-centered education faces a serious problem insofar as the teacher is encouraged to turn to the children or the students, asking them what it is that they want. - Dahlbeck's Spinoza and Education:
So the issue is that the child-centered education approach doesn't allow for the possibility that children may misunderstand their own affects.

In considering the nature of education, one must first understand the mind itself—the way it functions, the fears it harbours, and the desires it clings to. Education, as it is often practiced, tends to reinforce these fears and desires rather than liberate the individual from them. The task of true education is not merely to impart knowledge or skills but to foster a deep understanding of oneself and the world.

The notion of disrupting irrational fears and desires is indeed vital, yet it raises a fundamental question: who is it that disrupts these fears? Is it the teacher, the institution, or the student themselves? The moment we impose an external structure or authority, we risk creating a new set of fears and desires. True freedom in education arises when the individual is encouraged to explore their own mind without the constraints of societal expectations or the compulsion to conform.

Creating an environment that shields students from the distractions of everyday life may provide temporary relief, but it does not address the root of the problem. The mind must learn to observe itself, to understand its own reactions and conditioning. This requires a profound sense of awareness and attention, which cannot be cultivated through mere structure or method.

The idea that distress stems from an inadequate conception of the good is insightful, yet it is essential to question what we mean by "the good." Is it a fixed idea, or is it something that evolves as we grow and learn? Education should not be about instilling a particular notion of the good but rather about encouraging individuals to discover their own understanding through inquiry and exploration.

In this light, the challenge of child-centered education becomes clear. While it is important to listen to the desires of students, we must also guide them toward a deeper inquiry into their own nature. This is not about fulfilling their wants but about helping them understand the very nature of wanting itself.

Education should be a process of self-discovery, where individuals learn to question, to think critically, and to engage with the world around them. It is through this process that they can break free from the chains of conditioning and live a life that is truly their own—one that is rooted in awareness, compassion, and a profound understanding of the interconnectedness of all life.

Julia wrote: Thu May 08, 2025 4:22 pm Of course, I completely understand. I'm here if you ever want to talk about it in private. Take your time, and know that I'm here to listen whenever you're ready.

Sorry, I removed it because I felt it was a bad idea to leave it up indefinitely.

I completely agree with you! Education should be about fostering individual strengths and interests, not forcing a standardised approach. There should be complete freedom in how children learn, free from power structures and authoritarianism. Every child deserves the opportunity to explore their unique potential without the pressure of compulsion..

I kind of think there is a subtle difference, I feel objectivity is a way to avoid tyranny. We recognize now that no amount of punishment can stop a person from being autistic or having ADHD. The mistake of standardizing tests and subject matter means giving children tasks they may have no way to succeed at. It's kind of like giving someone a weight to lift that is heavier than them, we can see that doesn't make sense; however with invisible disabilities there is a tendency to think that those limitations aren't objective. That may be a bit scientistic of me, I tend to think there's an epistemic injustice concerning limitations of disabled people. On some level, I feel if we had a true understanding of human nature, we might not even need self-determination; we could know what limitations people have, what makes them fulfilled, what kind of social structure/relationships bring out the best in everyone. I suppose I think self-determination is like a good rule of thumb, it prevents bad things from happening, but it could eventually be exchanged for an exact set of rules. However, certainly I'd take self-determination over social convention.

In considering the nature of education, one must first understand the mind itself—the way it functions, the fears it harbours, and the desires it clings to. Education, as it is often practiced, tends to reinforce these fears and desires rather than liberate the individual from them. The task of true education is not merely to impart knowledge or skills but to foster a deep understanding of oneself and the world.

Agreed.

The notion of disrupting irrational fears and desires is indeed vital, yet it raises a fundamental question: who is it that disrupts these fears? Is it the teacher, the institution, or the student themselves? The moment we impose an external structure or authority, we risk creating a new set of fears and desires. True freedom in education arises when the individual is encouraged to explore their own mind without the constraints of societal expectations or the compulsion to conform.

That's a key issue I tend to get into disagreements with a lot of MAPs on. I think the answer is objectivity and ethical realism. I think progressives and liberals are rightfully cautious because ethical realism is often invoked by religious people, however, as a goal I think claiming homosexuality isn't ethically bad, for example, is truer to what people actually feel. When we counter conservative ethical realism, I don't think most people actually reject ethical realism, so much as their conception of it. Objectivity, the absolute, must capture human potential completely, not just an aspect of it particular to a certain place and time; it's not obvious how traditions could claim to be contextually specific and immutable at the same time.

Creating an environment that shields students from the distractions of everyday life may provide temporary relief, but it does not address the root of the problem. The mind must learn to observe itself, to understand its own reactions and conditioning. This requires a profound sense of awareness and attention, which cannot be cultivated through mere structure or method.

I would say there's a kind of emergent layers of misunderstanding. Children growing up with parents and communities of people that understand themselves, would have less errors they had to sort through.

The idea that distress stems from an inadequate conception of the good is insightful, yet it is essential to question what we mean by "the good." Is it a fixed idea, or is it something that evolves as we grow and learn? Education should not be about instilling a particular notion of the good but rather about encouraging individuals to discover their own understanding through inquiry and exploration.

I would say if it evolves it must be incomplete, though incompleteness doesn't mean it could never become complete.

In this light, the challenge of child-centered education becomes clear. While it is important to listen to the desires of students, we must also guide them toward a deeper inquiry into their own nature. This is not about fulfilling their wants but about helping them understand the very nature of wanting itself.

Agreed.

Education should be a process of self-discovery, where individuals learn to question, to think critically, and to engage with the world around them. It is through this process that they can break free from the chains of conditioning and live a life that is truly their own—one that is rooted in awareness, compassion, and a profound understanding of the interconnectedness of all life.

This is where I slightly disagree, I feel that there are universal aspects of experience, and the emphasis on the specificity of one person's life can be atomizing. Other than that, I think I mostly agree.

Sorry, if I've been a bit off the cuff. I just found out as I was writing that I have to be somewhere on short notice (coincidentally that happened last time too, and I worried I came across as unintentionally terse).