Freedom and Education

ruggedraven36 said:So basically, any scientist who isn't actually thinking critically? They aren't even scientists—they're just people using the title.

Reminds me of that Hegelian remark about Newton. His motto was essentially: "Physics, beware of metaphysics—in other words, Science, beware of opinion."

Eric Newman75 said:I was talking about the specific genre of the novel.

wearyharbor41 said:I find myself wishing to ask why there is such a profound silence regarding the fact that, starting at age six, children are stripped of their autonomy and funneled into an eight-year elementary school system where they undergo daily indoctrination for four to seven hours; a process that effectively stifles creativity, humiliates the individual, and denies them basic human rights, such as freedom of movement, the ability to pursue practical skills over useless trivia, or even the choice of their own social circles.

Why is this inflicted upon children?
If such treatment were applied to an adult, it would undoubtedly be categorized as a crime against humanity.

Is the definition of evil not the intentional infliction of harm upon another?

The standard rebuttals about "education" and similar platitudes strike me as quite absurd; rather, I am searching for a philosopher whose insights possess real-world application—someone who doesn't merely hold these views in a vacuum—so that we might engage in a meaningful debate.

Throughout the United States and across the globe, it seems increasingly difficult to find individuals willing to speak out against this phenomenon; most people remain largely silent or indifferent to the suffering caused by a civilization that perpetuates this without any tangible justification. (It is quite curious how people will express outrage over other forms of abuse, whether psychological or physical, yet when it comes to the rights of children, they seem entirely unconcerned 😢 )

I attempted to start a discussion on this topic here previously, but it has been closed.

Laura Reyes3 said:That isn’t "mine"—it’s a quote. Everything you're saying holds water, except for that one part regarding what you seem to define as an "institution"...
So, we have role typification—which, granted, requires legitimacy—but let's look at the practical side. If you have a school, and there are students and teachers, and those students are actually learning while the teachers are teaching... then you have typification and legitimacy in action. It results in behavior that aligns perfectly with those established roles... simple as that.

We all know how this goes... Google it... We know exactly what you wrote. I’ve already said that... The ultimate purpose of science... it’s a bit of a moving target, isn't it? Some argue it's about pure discovery—peeling back the layers of the universe just to see what's underneath—while others claim it’s purely utilitarian, a tool meant to solve problems and make life easier. But honestly? It feels more like an endless attempt to impose order on a chaotic mess... a way to build a framework where none exists. It’s about more than just providing assistance—it’s about cementing everything she researched and organized into a definitive framework... Public good...Because she’s—metaphorically speaking—pure play and a spontaneous adventure...

So, we have what is generally accepted as fact versus this "ultimate meaning" you’re talking about. The problem is that "ultimate meaning" isn't an operational concept—it lacks precision. It could mean absolutely anything, or nothing at all... it's a catch-all for the entire spectrum of interpretation. Poetry and associative thinking? Fine for art, I suppose—but they aren't methodologies, and they certainly aren't scientific reasoning.

Humans possess the capacity for critical thought—and yet...Read it critically... That ability can only be stripped away if the individual themselves is destroyed—period. The whole point of science... Critical... An opinion isn't an attack—it’s just an attempt at understanding... though people seem to mistake the two far too often. Schumer — "Resisting critical thought..."

In short—critical thinking often masquerades as an attack, but that’s just not the case... 😁

Look, if someone perceives an action as an attack, they might just be wrong—maybe it’s nothing more than well-intentioned feedback or simply a critical perspective...

Listen, California, if we can't even agree on what constitutes an institution, this whole conversation is a dead end. Why? Because you’re just swapping one institution for another. Fine. You offer a general critique of an institution, but if your goal is to overcome that institution (or whatever), then there's no point in just plugging in a different one in its place. Where's the actual critique in that?

Every scientific opinion is, by definition, critical thinking.

ruggedraven36 said:Interesting. I still can't track down her book, but I've read bits and pieces about it and Freeman's rebuttal.
https://www.wikiwand.com/sh/Margaret_Mead
Anyway, anthropologists are split on this. Not everyone buys Freeman's critique. Either way, it’s clearly a massive, influential work.

I'll pull a few quotes from the link provided.

"Margaret Mead conducted her research among a small group of girls in Samoa, an island chain in the South Pacific. The study mostly took place in a village of 600 people on the island of Ta‘ū, where Margaret Mead met, befriended, lived with, researched, and interviewed (via an interpreter) sixty-eight girls ranging from ages 9 to 20. She concluded that on Samoa, the transition from childhood to adulthood is a smooth shift, lacking the psychological or emotional stress, anxiety, or confusion typically seen in the United States."

To me, that conclusion actually holds water.

"After the initial heated debate, most anthropologists concluded that the absolute truth might never be known. On the flip side, many defended Mead against Freeman's critique, arguing that the informants had aged and might have forgotten the specifics of their interviews with Mead, or that they had converted to Christianity and felt ashamed of their past behavior. Others suggested that Samoan culture had changed in the interim, or that Christian missionaries had introduced a Puritanical morality to Samoa, leaving no room for the relaxed sexual standards that so shocked Americans when the book was released. Some even accuse Freeman of suffering from the same ethnocentric sexual puritanism that Boas and Mead once shocked. In 1983, the American Anthropological Association issued a statement labeling Freeman's book, Margaret Mead and Samoa, as 'poorly written, unscientific, irresponsible, and full of distortions.' In the following years, anthropologists debated these issues intensely, ultimately lending broad support to Freeman's criticism."

At the end of the day, you've got to judge for yourself after reading. Given that I found her book Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies to be quite good, I find it hard to swallow the idea that her most famous work is one of the 50 worst books of the century.

ruggedraven36 said:Interesting. I still can't track down her book, but I've read bits and pieces about it and Freeman's rebuttal.
https://www.wikiwand.com/sh/Margaret_Mead
Anyway, anthropologists are split on this. Not everyone buys Freeman's critique. Either way, it’s clearly a massive, influential work.

I'll pull a few quotes from the link provided.

"Margaret Mead conducted her research among a small group of girls in Samoa, an island chain in the South Pacific. The study mostly took place in a village of 600 people on the island of Ta‘ū, where Margaret Mead met, befriended, lived with, researched, and interviewed (via an interpreter) sixty-eight girls ranging from ages 9 to 20. She concluded that on Samoa, the transition from childhood to adulthood is a smooth shift, lacking the psychological or emotional stress, anxiety, or confusion typically seen in the United States."

To me, that conclusion actually holds water.

"After the initial heated debate, most anthropologists concluded that the absolute truth might never be known. On the flip side, many defended Mead against Freeman's critique, arguing that the informants had aged and might have forgotten the specifics of their interviews with Mead, or that they had converted to Christianity and felt ashamed of their past behavior. Others suggested that Samoan culture had changed in the interim, or that Christian missionaries had introduced a Puritanical morality to Samoa, leaving no room for the relaxed sexual standards that so shocked Americans when the book was released. Some even accuse Freeman of suffering from the same ethnocentric sexual puritanism that Boas and Mead once shocked. In 1983, the American Anthropological Association issued a statement labeling Freeman's book, Margaret Mead and Samoa, as 'poorly written, unscientific, irresponsible, and full of distortions.' In the following years, anthropologists debated these issues intensely, ultimately lending broad support to Freeman's criticism."

At the end of the day, you've got to judge for yourself after reading. Given that I found her book Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies to be quite good, I find it hard to swallow the idea that her most famous work is one of the 50 worst books of the century.

ruggedraven36 said:Interesting. I still can't track down her book, but I've read bits and pieces about it and Freeman's rebuttal.
https://www.wikiwand.com/sh/Margaret_Mead
Anyway, anthropologists are split on this. Not everyone buys Freeman's critique. Either way, it’s clearly a massive, influential work.

I'll pull a few quotes from the link provided.

"Margaret Mead conducted her research among a small group of girls in Samoa, an island chain in the South Pacific. The study mostly took place in a village of 600 people on the island of Ta‘ū, where Margaret Mead met, befriended, lived with, researched, and interviewed (via an interpreter) sixty-eight girls ranging from ages 9 to 20. She concluded that on Samoa, the transition from childhood to adulthood is a smooth shift, lacking the psychological or emotional stress, anxiety, or confusion typically seen in the United States."

To me, that conclusion actually holds water.

"After the initial heated debate, most anthropologists concluded that the absolute truth might never be known. On the flip side, many defended Mead against Freeman's critique, arguing that the informants had aged and might have forgotten the specifics of their interviews with Mead, or that they had converted to Christianity and felt ashamed of their past behavior. Others suggested that Samoan culture had changed in the interim, or that Christian missionaries had introduced a Puritanical morality to Samoa, leaving no room for the relaxed sexual standards that so shocked Americans when the book was released. Some even accuse Freeman of suffering from the same ethnocentric sexual puritanism that Boas and Mead once shocked. In 1983, the American Anthropological Association issued a statement labeling Freeman's book, Margaret Mead and Samoa, as 'poorly written, unscientific, irresponsible, and full of distortions.' In the following years, anthropologists debated these issues intensely, ultimately lending broad support to Freeman's criticism."

At the end of the day, you've got to judge for yourself after reading. Given that I found her book Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies to be quite good, I find it hard to swallow the idea that her most famous work is one of the 50 worst books of the century.

Laura Reyes3 said:How can science even begin to study the world if it doesn't approach it critically?
The scientific method demands constant doubt. Nothing is ever taken at face value; everything is scrutinized over and over again. Dogma is useless to science—it offers nothing toward actual progress.

copperhound12 said:

I mean, I guess if we're really going to sit here and dissect this, we have to look at the sheer scale of it all. It’s just... it's overwhelming, isn't it? Maybe I'm overthinking things, but I can't help but feel like we're missing the forest for the trees. I honestly don't know where to start, but let me try. There's this sense that everything we thought we understood about the subject is being completely upended, and frankly, it's infuriating! It feels like every time we get a handle on a concept, someone comes along and shifts the goalposts again. It's exhausting. I suppose I should be more patient, but how can you be when the foundation keeps shifting under your feet? It's just one thing after another. I guess... maybe I should just say that...
So, look, we’re supposed to be talking about the education system here—that's the actual topic at hand—but then, out of nowhere, you start pivoting and rambling about the nature of science instead. I mean, ah... sorry, but... 😁

Science. Education and upbringing—it all falls under that umbrella, doesn't it? It covers the fundamental frameworks of institutional schooling. I suppose the ultimate purpose of this whole field of science is to help tackle actual human problems, but honestly, it shouldn't stop there. It has to go deeper than that; it needs to be able to read between the lines and truly interpret the underlying realities we're dealing with. Critical.I mean, you really have to frame it as a public good. That’s the only way to make it work, because her entire fundamental premise is centered on actually solving problems—otherwise, she just falls straight into dogma. Real science isn't supposed to be some rigid, stagnant set of rules; it should be an adventure, a total game.

Look, if you really want to get into this, I’d highly recommend diving into David Bloor, specifically looking at the Edinburgh School and their work on the Strong Program. It's worth your time, I guess.

How could I possibly say no? I’m giving you the exact same response I gave when I first suggested you sit down and actually study that book.University transcript V. Stambolović

It’s actually a total paradox, and honestly, it feels like our own personal tragedy that we have to approach everything through its exact opposite. I mean, think about it—we have to embrace slavery just to even begin to grasp what freedom really means. We have to confront ugliness just to recognize beauty, or lean into hatred just to truly experience love. Even goodness... I guess we have to pursue the good only so we can finally, fully understand the primal evil lurking at the core of it all. It's exhausting, really.

Maybe it’s worth taking a moment to actually explain the "why" behind Basaglia's whole crusade. What you’re touching on here is what we call the Basaglia Law, or Law 180, which was all about the de-institutionalization of psychiatric hospitals. Even though Basaglia had moved on from his time working in Gorica (which is basically like a smaller version of a city in the Midwest now) quite a while before that, the specific psychiatric hospital where he used to work was eventually shut down for good back in 1978. I might dive deeper into the specifics of that later on. But fundamentally, Basaglia believed that psychiatric patients didn't deserve... Institutions. It always comes back to the institutions, doesn't it? I mean, really, if you look closely at how everything is structured, it’s almost impossible to ignore the sheer weight they carry over our individual lives. They aren't just buildings or sets of rules; they are these massive, immovable forces that shape every single thing we think and do. It's honestly exhausting to even consider how much influence they exert on the collective psyche. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we often forget just how much power these entities hold over us, acting as the silent architects of our entire social reality. It’s all quite overwhelming when you actually stop to analyze it. I just can't see them being therapeutic. Kids go to school to learn, and that’s my observation—they aren't heading to class for therapy. Honestly, adults don't exactly flock there for that reason either, though I suppose there are always those few exceptions to every rule. 😁 I honestly think it’s worth pointing this out so the rest of you folks on the forum get the full picture. Look, Basaglia wasn't out there writing down rigid dogmas, so I suppose you can't really blame the authors themselves if someone else decides to twist their theories into some kind of unshakeable doctrine. That’s just how people work, I guess. But regardless, you have to recognize that Basaglia was actually one of the absolute heavyweights driving the democratic psychiatry movement over in Italy during the 1960s and 1970s.

His work is nothing less than a metaphor for what lies ahead of us. That’s exactly how you have to read it—you really have to look deeper if you want to grasp the full picture!

And which institution are you actually referring to? Schools aren't the only institutions out there; there are plenty of them. Besides, how you personally interpret 1) freedom and 2) the concept of an institution is perfectly understandable—I have no issue with that—but not everyone sees things through your specific lens.

All institutions (including schools, for that matter) are functional and necessary (I've already made that point clear in a previous post); without them, society simply wouldn't be able to function. However, at some point, they inevitably deny the validity of personal experience, individual emotions, and independent thought—which effectively turns them into something sclerotic, crippled, and dogmatic. That is precisely why de-institutionalization becomes vital: because these entities trap their own truth, discarding any critical judgment that doesn't fit within their predetermined criteria. To put it bluntly: it is time for a change; the longer we delay, the more painful that transition will be.

You’re right, and you’re also wrong. Institutions are absolutely essential for our world to keep turning. But maturity (and a healthy dose of criticism) tells us that their status quo outgrew our "modern" needs a long time ago. It is time for a paradigm shift: our future has already arrived.

There is this fascinating book, "Better to Be the Wind Than the Leaf," a bestseller by some of our well-known local authors/psychologists: M. Rijavec and D. Miljković (which I often cite in my lectures). It emphasizes that the only true and successful way to raise a child is PARENTAL upbringing, because only a parent can, should, and must understand their child. But—and there's always that "but"—one ought to read wise books, engage with people steeped in experience, and communicate openly and honestly, because that is ultimately good for society and—of course—for ourselves. ☕

copperhound12 said:

I mean, I guess if we're really going to sit here and dissect this, we have to look at the sheer scale of it all. It’s just... it's overwhelming, isn't it? Maybe I'm overthinking things, but I can't help but feel like we're missing the forest for the trees. I honestly don't know where to start, but let me try. There's this sense that everything we thought we understood about the subject is being completely upended, and frankly, it's infuriating! It feels like every time we get a handle on a concept, someone comes along and shifts the goalposts again. It's exhausting. I suppose I should be more patient, but how can you be when the foundation keeps shifting under your feet? It's just one thing after another. I guess... maybe I should just say that...
So, look, we’re supposed to be talking about the education system here—that's the actual topic at hand—but then, out of nowhere, you start pivoting and rambling about the nature of science instead. I mean, ah... sorry, but... 😁

Science. Education and upbringing—it all falls under that umbrella, doesn't it? It covers the fundamental frameworks of institutional schooling. I suppose the ultimate purpose of this whole field of science is to help tackle actual human problems, but honestly, it shouldn't stop there. It has to go deeper than that; it needs to be able to read between the lines and truly interpret the underlying realities we're dealing with. Critical.I mean, you really have to frame it as a public good. That’s the only way to make it work, because her entire fundamental premise is centered on actually solving problems—otherwise, she just falls straight into dogma. Real science isn't supposed to be some rigid, stagnant set of rules; it should be an adventure, a total game.

Look, if you really want to get into this, I’d highly recommend diving into David Bloor, specifically looking at the Edinburgh School and their work on the Strong Program. It's worth your time, I guess.

How could I possibly say no? I’m giving you the exact same response I gave when I first suggested you sit down and actually study that book.University transcript V. Stambolović

It’s actually a total paradox, and honestly, it feels like our own personal tragedy that we have to approach everything through its exact opposite. I mean, think about it—we have to embrace slavery just to even begin to grasp what freedom really means. We have to confront ugliness just to recognize beauty, or lean into hatred just to truly experience love. Even goodness... I guess we have to pursue the good only so we can finally, fully understand the primal evil lurking at the core of it all. It's exhausting, really.

Maybe it’s worth taking a moment to actually explain the "why" behind Basaglia's whole crusade. What you’re touching on here is what we call the Basaglia Law, or Law 180, which was all about the de-institutionalization of psychiatric hospitals. Even though Basaglia had moved on from his time working in Gorica (which is basically like a smaller version of a city in the Midwest now) quite a while before that, the specific psychiatric hospital where he used to work was eventually shut down for good back in 1978. I might dive deeper into the specifics of that later on. But fundamentally, Basaglia believed that psychiatric patients didn't deserve... Institutions. It always comes back to the institutions, doesn't it? I mean, really, if you look closely at how everything is structured, it’s almost impossible to ignore the sheer weight they carry over our individual lives. They aren't just buildings or sets of rules; they are these massive, immovable forces that shape every single thing we think and do. It's honestly exhausting to even consider how much influence they exert on the collective psyche. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we often forget just how much power these entities hold over us, acting as the silent architects of our entire social reality. It’s all quite overwhelming when you actually stop to analyze it. I just can't see them being therapeutic. Kids go to school to learn, and that’s my observation—they aren't heading to class for therapy. Honestly, adults don't exactly flock there for that reason either, though I suppose there are always those few exceptions to every rule. 😁 I honestly think it’s worth pointing this out so the rest of you folks on the forum get the full picture. Look, Basaglia wasn't out there writing down rigid dogmas, so I suppose you can't really blame the authors themselves if someone else decides to twist their theories into some kind of unshakeable doctrine. That’s just how people work, I guess. But regardless, you have to recognize that Basaglia was actually one of the absolute heavyweights driving the democratic psychiatry movement over in Italy during the 1960s and 1970s.

His work is nothing less than a metaphor for what lies ahead of us. That’s exactly how you have to read it—you really have to look deeper if you want to grasp the full picture!

And which institution are you actually referring to? Schools aren't the only institutions out there; there are plenty of them. Besides, how you personally interpret 1) freedom and 2) the concept of an institution is perfectly understandable—I have no issue with that—but not everyone sees things through your specific lens.

All institutions (including schools, for that matter) are functional and necessary (I've already made that point clear in a previous post); without them, society simply wouldn't be able to function. However, at some point, they inevitably deny the validity of personal experience, individual emotions, and independent thought—which effectively turns them into something sclerotic, crippled, and dogmatic. That is precisely why de-institutionalization becomes vital: because these entities trap their own truth, discarding any critical judgment that doesn't fit within their predetermined criteria. To put it bluntly: it is time for a change; the longer we delay, the more painful that transition will be.

You’re right, and you’re also wrong. Institutions are absolutely essential for our world to keep turning. But maturity (and a healthy dose of criticism) tells us that their status quo outgrew our "modern" needs a long time ago. It is time for a paradigm shift: our future has already arrived.

There is this fascinating book, "Better to Be the Wind Than the Leaf," a bestseller by some of our well-known local authors/psychologists: M. Rijavec and D. Miljković (which I often cite in my lectures). It emphasizes that the only true and successful way to raise a child is PARENTAL upbringing, because only a parent can, should, and must understand their child. But—and there's always that "but"—one ought to read wise books, engage with people steeped in experience, and communicate openly and honestly, because that is ultimately good for society and—of course—for ourselves. ☕

copperhound12 said:

I mean, I guess if we're really going to sit here and dissect this, we have to look at the sheer scale of it all. It’s just... it's overwhelming, isn't it? Maybe I'm overthinking things, but I can't help but feel like we're missing the forest for the trees. I honestly don't know where to start, but let me try. There's this sense that everything we thought we understood about the subject is being completely upended, and frankly, it's infuriating! It feels like every time we get a handle on a concept, someone comes along and shifts the goalposts again. It's exhausting. I suppose I should be more patient, but how can you be when the foundation keeps shifting under your feet? It's just one thing after another. I guess... maybe I should just say that...
So, look, we’re supposed to be talking about the education system here—that's the actual topic at hand—but then, out of nowhere, you start pivoting and rambling about the nature of science instead. I mean, ah... sorry, but... 😁

Science. Education and upbringing—it all falls under that umbrella, doesn't it? It covers the fundamental frameworks of institutional schooling. I suppose the ultimate purpose of this whole field of science is to help tackle actual human problems, but honestly, it shouldn't stop there. It has to go deeper than that; it needs to be able to read between the lines and truly interpret the underlying realities we're dealing with. Critical.I mean, you really have to frame it as a public good. That’s the only way to make it work, because her entire fundamental premise is centered on actually solving problems—otherwise, she just falls straight into dogma. Real science isn't supposed to be some rigid, stagnant set of rules; it should be an adventure, a total game.

Look, if you really want to get into this, I’d highly recommend diving into David Bloor, specifically looking at the Edinburgh School and their work on the Strong Program. It's worth your time, I guess.

How could I possibly say no? I’m giving you the exact same response I gave when I first suggested you sit down and actually study that book.University transcript V. Stambolović

It’s actually a total paradox, and honestly, it feels like our own personal tragedy that we have to approach everything through its exact opposite. I mean, think about it—we have to embrace slavery just to even begin to grasp what freedom really means. We have to confront ugliness just to recognize beauty, or lean into hatred just to truly experience love. Even goodness... I guess we have to pursue the good only so we can finally, fully understand the primal evil lurking at the core of it all. It's exhausting, really.

Maybe it’s worth taking a moment to actually explain the "why" behind Basaglia's whole crusade. What you’re touching on here is what we call the Basaglia Law, or Law 180, which was all about the de-institutionalization of psychiatric hospitals. Even though Basaglia had moved on from his time working in Gorica (which is basically like a smaller version of a city in the Midwest now) quite a while before that, the specific psychiatric hospital where he used to work was eventually shut down for good back in 1978. I might dive deeper into the specifics of that later on. But fundamentally, Basaglia believed that psychiatric patients didn't deserve... Institutions. It always comes back to the institutions, doesn't it? I mean, really, if you look closely at how everything is structured, it’s almost impossible to ignore the sheer weight they carry over our individual lives. They aren't just buildings or sets of rules; they are these massive, immovable forces that shape every single thing we think and do. It's honestly exhausting to even consider how much influence they exert on the collective psyche. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we often forget just how much power these entities hold over us, acting as the silent architects of our entire social reality. It’s all quite overwhelming when you actually stop to analyze it. I just can't see them being therapeutic. Kids go to school to learn, and that’s my observation—they aren't heading to class for therapy. Honestly, adults don't exactly flock there for that reason either, though I suppose there are always those few exceptions to every rule. 😁 I honestly think it’s worth pointing this out so the rest of you folks on the forum get the full picture. Look, Basaglia wasn't out there writing down rigid dogmas, so I suppose you can't really blame the authors themselves if someone else decides to twist their theories into some kind of unshakeable doctrine. That’s just how people work, I guess. But regardless, you have to recognize that Basaglia was actually one of the absolute heavyweights driving the democratic psychiatry movement over in Italy during the 1960s and 1970s.

His work is nothing less than a metaphor for what lies ahead of us. That’s exactly how you have to read it—you really have to look deeper if you want to grasp the full picture!

And which institution are you actually referring to? Schools aren't the only institutions out there; there are plenty of them. Besides, how you personally interpret 1) freedom and 2) the concept of an institution is perfectly understandable—I have no issue with that—but not everyone sees things through your specific lens.

All institutions (including schools, for that matter) are functional and necessary (I've already made that point clear in a previous post); without them, society simply wouldn't be able to function. However, at some point, they inevitably deny the validity of personal experience, individual emotions, and independent thought—which effectively turns them into something sclerotic, crippled, and dogmatic. That is precisely why de-institutionalization becomes vital: because these entities trap their own truth, discarding any critical judgment that doesn't fit within their predetermined criteria. To put it bluntly: it is time for a change; the longer we delay, the more painful that transition will be.

You’re right, and you’re also wrong. Institutions are absolutely essential for our world to keep turning. But maturity (and a healthy dose of criticism) tells us that their status quo outgrew our "modern" needs a long time ago. It is time for a paradigm shift: our future has already arrived.

There is this fascinating book, "Better to Be the Wind Than the Leaf," a bestseller by some of our well-known local authors/psychologists: M. Rijavec and D. Miljković (which I often cite in my lectures). It emphasizes that the only true and successful way to raise a child is PARENTAL upbringing, because only a parent can, should, and must understand their child. But—and there's always that "but"—one ought to read wise books, engage with people steeped in experience, and communicate openly and honestly, because that is ultimately good for society and—of course—for ourselves. ☕

Deinstitutionalization (or deinstitutionalization) is the process of replacing long-stay psychiatric hospitals with less isolated community mental health services for those diagnosed with a mental disorder or developmental disability. In the late 20th century, it led to the closure of many psychiatric hospitals, as patients were increasingly cared for at home, in halfway houses and clinics, in regular hospitals, or not at all.

copperhound12 said:They’re exactly what I already mentioned—these exclusive types of schools (think Waldorf, Montessori, Ilich’s discussions on "deschooling," the "network" concept from V. Stambolović, those "Free Children of Summerhill" types, etc.—just to highlight the heavy hitters relevant to this debate) that serve to keep the social and symbolic (institutional) universe feeling satisfied and stable because nothing in the system actually changes; if anything, the system actively encourages this by "innovating" just enough to claim it supports pluralism and offers "alternative" options for people-who-think-differently.

It’s all futile without a paradigm shift in how we think. Our society is our culture: it is perfectly logical and understandable to view human reality as a social construction of reality. That is the fundamental question we have to untangle. And then—we have to act.

According to Berger and Luckmann, institutions control human behavior by prescribing pre-defined patterns of conduct. We are talking about behavior here. Institutions are built on behavior. So, what would a non-institutional school even look like? One where students and teachers just do whatever they want? How would they behave? Would you even call it a school then?

Now, I am seriously questioning whether you have even cracked open the book by Berger and Luckmann, "The Social Construction of Reality"?

Because that text lays out very clear, unambiguous actors of institutionalization—concepts like the "symbolic universe," the "legitimation of our reality" (where "Legitimation explains the institutional order by attributing cognitive validity to its objectified meanings" (116)), "role typification" (“Institutionalization occurs when there is a mutual typification of habitualized actions by types of actors” (75)), the "maintenance and transformation of subjective reality" (which is exactly what you mean by "behavior"), "identity theories," and so on and so forth.

Science is an organized body of knowledge with its own specific methodology. The goal of science is to expand, organize (and classify) that knowledge. Not what you just wrote.

We all know that; we could have just Googled it and we are well aware of your definition. My point was that the ultimate purpose of science —and I'll emphasize this—is to be helpful and to establish whatever it investigates or organizes as a public good. Because science is, metaphorically speaking, a game and a spontaneous adventure.

And reading critically means nothing if there isn't a clearly defined meaning for what "critical reading" actually represents.

"Human beings are endowed with the capacity for critical thought (including the ability to read critically - ed.) and that capacity can only be destroyed if the human being themselves is destroyed. The goal of scientific, or rather critical, “Sharing an opinion isn’t some kind of personal assault; it’s actually just an attempt to understand the situation, even if people constantly misinterpret that effort as a direct attack.” ( Šušnjić, “Resisting Critical Thinking”)

Get what I'm saying? ☕

Laura Reyes3 said:That isn’t "mine"—it’s a quote. Everything you're saying holds water, except for that one part regarding what you seem to define as an "institution"...
So, we have role typification—which, granted, requires legitimacy—but let's look at the practical side. If you have a school, and there are students and teachers, and those students are actually learning while the teachers are teaching... then you have typification and legitimacy in action. It results in behavior that aligns perfectly with those established roles... simple as that.

We all know how this goes... Google it... We know exactly what you wrote. I’ve already said that... The ultimate purpose of science... it’s a bit of a moving target, isn't it? Some argue it's about pure discovery—peeling back the layers of the universe just to see what's underneath—while others claim it’s purely utilitarian, a tool meant to solve problems and make life easier. But honestly? It feels more like an endless attempt to impose order on a chaotic mess... a way to build a framework where none exists. It’s about more than just providing assistance—it’s about cementing everything she researched and organized into a definitive framework... Public good...Because she’s—metaphorically speaking—pure play and a spontaneous adventure...

So, we have what is generally accepted as fact versus this "ultimate meaning" you’re talking about. The problem is that "ultimate meaning" isn't an operational concept—it lacks precision. It could mean absolutely anything, or nothing at all... it's a catch-all for the entire spectrum of interpretation. Poetry and associative thinking? Fine for art, I suppose—but they aren't methodologies, and they certainly aren't scientific reasoning.

Humans possess the capacity for critical thought—and yet...Read it critically... That ability can only be stripped away if the individual themselves is destroyed—period. The whole point of science... Critical... An opinion isn't an attack—it’s just an attempt at understanding... though people seem to mistake the two far too often. Schumer — "Resisting critical thought..."

In short—critical thinking often masquerades as an attack, but that’s just not the case... 😁

Look, if someone perceives an action as an attack, they might just be wrong—maybe it’s nothing more than well-intentioned feedback or simply a critical perspective...

Listen, California, if we can't even agree on what constitutes an institution, this whole conversation is a dead end. Why? Because you’re just swapping one institution for another. Fine. You offer a general critique of an institution, but if your goal is to overcome that institution (or whatever), then there's no point in just plugging in a different one in its place. Where's the actual critique in that?

Every scientific opinion is, by definition, critical thinking.

copperhound12 said:Bingo! You finally caught my drift and put a finger on exactly what I was driving at.

Quincy:

So, we have what is widely accepted and common knowledge, versus what you claimed is the ultimate purpose. Only, "ultimate purpose" isn't really an operational concept because it lacks precision. It could mean absolutely anything or nothing at all. It can cover the entire spectrum of meaning.

"The public good" isn't a precise or operational term? Interesting. Well, there’s your contradiction right there—it serves as a convenient mask for those ideologues who bury the vital facts, manipulate the narrative, and use it as a tool for social control. Is that clear enough for you?

Quincy:

In short, the essence of critical thinking is that it often looks like an attack, but it isn't.😁 As in, if someone perceives a certain action as an attack, they might just be wrong; perhaps it’s merely well-intentioned criticism or just critical thought.

The goal of scientific—or rather, critical—thinking isn't to attack, but to attempt to understand (think of the themes in "Resist Critical Thinking")

I assume you’ve finally grasped the core of the issue.

Quincy:

Okay. A general critique of an institution, but if that institution is something we need to overcome (or something similar), then it makes no sense to just replace it with another institution. What kind of critique is that, then?

Quincy:

Look, California, if we can't even agree on what constitutes an institution, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. Why? Because you're just swapping one institution for another.

That isn't change. Real change is a paradigm shift in thought, in knowledge, in ideology—in everything.

Do you know what these—our little "pleasant conversations"—remind me of? ☕

First, it reminds me of the dialogue in "The Negation of the Institution" where theory is dissected with both subtlety and boldness during a conversation between Franco Basaglia and Jean-Paul Sartre. In that exchange, the latter keeps insisting: "Are we attacking practical science and attacking institutions without ever formulating what comes after them? Quite simply, what is desired is not given, and what is desired is never entirely what is given." Basaglia actually resonates with me here: "But to even attempt to build a science within our current reality—one shaped by actual and potential users—already feels like chasing a utopia. Years ago, you penned a sentence that still carries immense weight for me: 'Ideologies act as tools of freedom while they are being forged, but once completed, they transform into instruments of oppression' (F.B., 'Negation of the Institution,' p. 106)."

On another note, I am currently working my way through Solenoid by Mircea Cartarescu, and there is this one fascinating story tucked away in the first volume (which, mind you, is massive, and I have a notorious weakness for good storytelling):

It’s about a prisoner, someone handed a life sentence in a maximum-security facility, left to rot for years in a cell somewhere in the frozen reaches of Siberia, never once stepping foot outside those walls. But then, one night, he starts hearing rhythmic hammering against his cell walls. He presses himself close, trying to make sense of it, and realizes the sounds are clear, intelligent, and repetitive, occurring at specific intervals. At first, he assumes he’s just hallucinating, but the sounds return the next morning, and the day after, and so it goes. Eventually, he begins to decipher the sequence of noises and starts taking notes; the patterns grow more complex, almost as if new words are being introduced into the code used by his neighbor on the other side of the wall. It took months to catch a hint of the connection in the rhythm of the strikes, and years to truly master their language. Ultimately, a sort of dialogue began to take shape, with the prisoner responding using the exact same code he had recorded and sent back. His neighbor was actually coordinating an escape plan—something incredibly bold, yet precise and masterful. And then, one desolate night, our prisoner finally escaped into freedom, following those instructions to the letter.
Fast forward through a vast stretch of time: after many, many years, our former captive returns to that very same place, now famous and wealthy, specifically to try and help the companion who was once on the other side of that wall. They lead him back to the cell where he lost his youth, only for him to discover that there is nothing on the other side but rock and sea. The wall was merely an exterior boundary; just dozens of feet away, waves were crashing against the prison wall.

Here is the metaphor: you are that prisoner.

Steven Clark2 said:Well, I don't think that's quite right—unless that’s simply how you choose to perceive it based on your own life. Regardless, you still haven't provided a clear definition; at least to me, neither "bondage" nor "freedom" is clearly defined here, not to mention those other categories you mentioned. Look closely at what you just said:

Quincy:

Because through years of practice, experience, and realization, I have learned exactly what an institution does. It works by suppressing freedom.

This statement could be considered both pivotal and highly problematic. Do you know why? Because what feels like oppression to you might represent freedom to someone else. I once watched a documentary about children from a tiny village at the base of the Himalayas in India, traveling for days just to reach their school—you wouldn't believe the paths they have to traverse. Here is a link for the (un)interested. This isn't even the only video like it; there is an entire series called Most Dangerous Ways to School, and I've seen several episodes. I would give any amount of money just to see the faces of those parents and children and tell them exactly what you've written here. 🤣 It is easy for you to "philosophize" from the comfort of an armchair, basing your views on a few books you've read or perhaps some bad experiences in school—and frankly, I'm not even sure if you have children, 🙂 which is a vital point because there are parents out there, above all else, who would fundamentally disagree with you. One needs to actually visit certain places—places that are far too common in this world—where schools aren't what you imagine them to be, or maybe even what I imagine them to be. Telling those people what you've written here would be akin to telling the sick that they don't need doctors, hospitals, or medicine; if not worse, because when dealing with the sick, there often isn't a long future ahead, while for the children, that very future is being stripped away.

Hitler's Mein Kampf works that way too, lest we forget, but that doesn't change the fact that if both are interpreted as metaphors for the future, they are both incredibly destructive to humanity. 😁

I must say, you should be careful with how you frame that: "change." You aren't wrong that delaying it makes the eventual shift much more painful. I actually find myself agreeing with you, primarily because I don't believe progress in education or systemic approaches is impossible—that is an undeniable fact, and I suspect many would echo my sentiment. Institutions themselves are a complex subject; who truly enjoys them, aside from those employed by them? Yet, we cannot exist without them, regardless of their flaws. Furthermore, they aren't uniform; in some places, an institution might offer protection and equitable rights, while in others, it feels suffocating. While we are discussing broad concepts, I wouldn't suggest that the institutional landscape in the US is identical to that of a country like Iceland or even certain European nations, though the comparison holds. Also, regarding that specific term you used—"deinstitutionalization"—you may not realize it is most frequently utilized within the context of psychiatry. Consider this:

Simple. As follows:
No single specialized science actually studies the world as a whole—they just pick at one specific part or one isolated aspect of it... The moment a scientist starts questioning the very assumptions underpinning their research—if they actually dig deep enough—they inevitably step outside the boundaries of science itself...

As long as his job boils down to nothing more than gathering and processing data according to a pre-set formula—he doesn't need critical thinking. Critical thinking is the exception, not the rule...

Nothing should ever be taken for granted. In philosophical terms, knowledge isn't just something handed to you—everything requires a reason. But this idea that the scientific method demands "continuous" doubt? That’s just nonsense. The whole point of science is to actually acquire knowledge, not to stay stuck in a loop of eternal skepticism... If you question everything indefinitely, you end up knowing absolutely nothing. What kind of science is that—one that never actually discovers anything?

Philosophy has the potential to elevate science—specifically through something like Hegelian logic science. Within philosophy, a scientist can actually learn what constitutes knowledge, what qualifies as an opinion, or even what defines "the good." These are all non-scientific concepts, sure, but they are absolutely essential if one intends to think critically. Critical thinking relies entirely on being properly educated in terms of these core concepts. If Hegel’s claim holds any weight—that Newton was "a perfectly uneducated man in terms of concepts"—then that reality likely applies to most of the lesser-known scientists out there, too...

Laura Reyes3 said:What would non-institutional education actually look like? — I mean, really... beyond the sterile classrooms and the standardized testing grind we're all stuck in.

ruggedraven36

"The public good"... what a joke. Not precise—not operational... a concept? Interesting. There’s your contradiction right there. It’s the perfect way for those ideologues to bury everything that actually matters—manipulating the narrative to maintain social control. Clear enough now?

That’s not even what I wrote...

ruggedraven36:

The metaphor remains: you’re the one behind bars...

Stop preaching.

Nicholas Grant20 said:Good point. Maybe the bigger danger is actually practicing philosophy itself; the risk of getting lost in someone else's logic or swallowing their philosophy as dogma—so that the very thing meant to serve the freedom of the spirit ends up becoming just another trap for it.

copperhound12 said:To build out an entire system—specifically a non-institutionalized form of education—you have to introduce one thing: desire. That whole hidden, subtle concept is actually the foundation of V. Stambolović's entire doctoral thesis in "Higher Education Manual."

"...it would be wise to embark on a long march, not just through higher ed structures, but by liberating desire." (VS, "Higher Education Manual," p. 143), or to put it in the words of Margaret Mead: "My grandmother wanted me to get a proper upbringing and education, so she pulled me out of school."

School is a vital cog in that machine, but that doesn't mean we're talking about concentration camps, which seems to be the recurring theme here.

I never once mentioned concentration camps! But, I suppose I shouldn't have to prove or argue that schools, as institutions, play a role in social control at a latent level, right? Besides, there are plenty of narratives from prominent thinkers that demonstrate this—and no, that isn't a logical fallacy of appealing to authority; it's simply a provable fact for any worthwhile reader.

I just assumed you might have actually read "The Social Construction of Reality" by Berger / Luckman—where they explain how society's conceptual machinery works to ensure that current (primary) participants stay within institutional definitions of... well, any reality. That is precisely what the latent function is; those are the internal arrangements, that is that convoluted social control, those are the "rituals."

Anyway, since when is it forbidden to combine different theories to build a valid argument?

californiamen says:

Every institution, including our schools, is functional and necessary (as I’ve pointed out before); without them, society simply couldn't sustain itself. However, at some point, they inevitably deny the validity of personal experience and individual thought. In doing so, they become sclerotic, crippled, and dogmatic.
That is precisely why de-institutionalization is essential: these systems trap their own truth, discarding critical judgment because they are bound by pre-set criteria. It is time for a shift; the longer we delay this change, the more painful the transition will be.

Institutions are absolutely vital for the continued existence of our world. But maturity—and a healthy sense of criticism—tells us that their status quo has long since outgrown our "modern" needs. We need a paradigm shift: our future has already arrived.

copperhound12 said:They’re exactly what I already mentioned—these exclusive types of schools (think Waldorf, Montessori, Ilich’s discussions on "deschooling," the "network" concept from V. Stambolović, those "Free Children of Summerhill" types, etc.—just to highlight the heavy hitters relevant to this debate) that serve to keep the social and symbolic (institutional) universe feeling satisfied and stable because nothing in the system actually changes; if anything, the system actively encourages this by "innovating" just enough to claim it supports pluralism and offers "alternative" options for people-who-think-differently.

It’s all futile without a paradigm shift in how we think. Our society is our culture: it is perfectly logical and understandable to view human reality as a social construction of reality. That is the fundamental question we have to untangle. And then—we have to act.

According to Berger and Luckmann, institutions control human behavior by prescribing pre-defined patterns of conduct. We are talking about behavior here. Institutions are built on behavior. So, what would a non-institutional school even look like? One where students and teachers just do whatever they want? How would they behave? Would you even call it a school then?

Now, I am seriously questioning whether you have even cracked open the book by Berger and Luckmann, "The Social Construction of Reality"?

Because that text lays out very clear, unambiguous actors of institutionalization—concepts like the "symbolic universe," the "legitimation of our reality" (where "Legitimation explains the institutional order by attributing cognitive validity to its objectified meanings" (116)), "role typification" (“Institutionalization occurs when there is a mutual typification of habitualized actions by types of actors” (75)), the "maintenance and transformation of subjective reality" (which is exactly what you mean by "behavior"), "identity theories," and so on and so forth.

Science is an organized body of knowledge with its own specific methodology. The goal of science is to expand, organize (and classify) that knowledge. Not what you just wrote.

We all know that; we could have just Googled it and we are well aware of your definition. My point was that the ultimate purpose of science —and I'll emphasize this—is to be helpful and to establish whatever it investigates or organizes as a public good. Because science is, metaphorically speaking, a game and a spontaneous adventure.

And reading critically means nothing if there isn't a clearly defined meaning for what "critical reading" actually represents.

"Human beings are endowed with the capacity for critical thought (including the ability to read critically - ed.) and that capacity can only be destroyed if the human being themselves is destroyed. The goal of scientific, or rather critical, “Sharing an opinion isn’t some kind of personal assault; it’s actually just an attempt to understand the situation, even if people constantly misinterpret that effort as a direct attack.” ( Šušnjić, “Resisting Critical Thinking”)

Get what I'm saying? ☕

Laura Reyes3 said:

Simple. As follows:
No single specialized science actually studies the world as a whole—they just pick at one specific part or one isolated aspect of it... The moment a scientist starts questioning the very assumptions underpinning their research—if they actually dig deep enough—they inevitably step outside the boundaries of science itself...

I don't get what's being bolded...

As long as his job boils down to nothing more than gathering and processing data according to a pre-set formula—he doesn't need critical thinking. Critical thinking is the exception, not the rule...

That’s just how the tax system works—it isn't exactly a logic science...

Nothing should ever be taken for granted. In philosophical terms, knowledge isn't just something handed to you—everything requires a reason. But this idea that the scientific method demands "continuous" doubt? That’s just nonsense. The whole point of science is to actually acquire knowledge, not to stay stuck in a loop of eternal skepticism... If you question everything indefinitely, you end up knowing absolutely nothing. What kind of science is that—one that never actually discovers anything?

Knowledge doesn't spread like that—not really. You look at Newtonian or Einsteinian physics and you see how different the process actually is...
Just because someone cast doubt on Newtonian physics and shook things up—it doesn't mean we actually know any less...
Science "knows" things with such... absolute certainty.

Philosophy has the potential to elevate science—specifically through something like Hegelian logic science. Within philosophy, a scientist can actually learn what constitutes knowledge, what qualifies as an opinion, or even what defines "the good." These are all non-scientific concepts, sure, but they are absolutely essential if one intends to think critically. Critical thinking relies entirely on being properly educated in terms of these core concepts. If Hegel’s claim holds any weight—that Newton was "a perfectly uneducated man in terms of concepts"—then that reality likely applies to most of the lesser-known scientists out there, too...

Newton was actually chasing the philosopher's stone—his physics was just a side project. If he had dared to publish that work publicly back then, he would have lost his head. That’s just how he was... No such thing as a majority.
What does that even have to do with anything—I don't know—but since you brought it up...

That's how the tax code works, not science.

Science "knows" things with this specific level of certainty.

I don't see how that's relevant, but since you brought it up...

Sam Martinez9 said:ruggedraven36

Reading through your previous post, I find myself arriving at the exact same conclusion. It’s hard to disagree. But...

Freeman’s critique of M. Mead and her work, *Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies*, isn't really an indictment of Mead herself. It’s more of a strike against Franz Boas—the man who essentially fathered American cultural anthropology—and the entire discipline he built. At the time, Mead was merely his student, and he was the one who dispatched her to Samoa to conduct her fieldwork. Her mission was intended to serve as a validation of his own theories regarding cultural anthropology. Given that she was only twenty-three and lacked any real footing in rigorous scientific research, it seems inevitable that she would eventually settle on conclusions that simply reinforced her esteemed professor's worldview.

You really have to consider the historical context surrounding when *Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies* was written. We’re talking about the 1920s. Why does that matter? Because back then, Darwinian evolutionary theory wasn't the undisputed bedrock of biology that it is today; it still had its fair share of vocal defenders and even more vocal skeptics within the scientific community. In fact, there was a significant contingent of researchers who were deeply resistant to the idea of evolution altogether. It was these specific thinkers who championed the doctrine that culture exists as an entity entirely unto itself—completely insulated from biological order or any kind of evolutionary process.
M. Mead's work regarding Margaret Mead and Samoa remains incredibly significant because it served as a cornerstone for cultural anthropology theory.

The friction between D. Freeman and his contemporaries is essentially the clash between those who champion cultural anthropology and those who attempt to debunk it.

I agree, though one really ought to read Freeman's critique of Mead as well. Personally, I found his arguments in his book *Dilthey's Dream* quite compelling. He meticulously analyzes Mead's time on the islands while she was gathering material for her seminal work. During that period, she wasn't actually speaking the local dialect; she was communicating with those who spoke English. Furthermore, she didn't reside within a traditional village, but rather in a settlement populated by white residents. Freeman, on the other hand, lived there, mastered the local language, and even worked as a teacher. He went so far as to be adopted into a local family. If you look at the biographies of both Mead and Freeman, it becomes clear that Freeman had a much deeper, more authentic connection to the native population than Mead did.

I haven't personally read *Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies*; it's in my library, but I'm not sure if I'll have the time to get to it. My departure from the US is approaching, and my workload is becoming quite heavy. However, keep in mind that the book was written seven years after *Margaret Mead and Samoa*. In those seven years, Mead undoubtedly matured significantly, both as a researcher and as a writer.

It seems like you might have been cut off mid-sentence! What were you trying to say? I'm all ears. kaže:
I don't know, maybe I’m just failing to grasp what you're actually getting at here. Or maybe you’re just incredibly simple-minded:

So, what you’re actually suggesting isn't some grand de-institutionalization of society, is it? I mean, if I'm reading you right—and maybe I might be misinterpreting here, I guess—you aren't looking to tear the whole system down at all. Instead, you just want to swap out the parts from the inside. You want to breathe some fresh air into these institutions so they can keep functioning as part of the established status quo... just until, what, "one day" they suddenly decide to "claim the right to personal experience and individual emotion or thought"? That sounds less like a revolution and more like just rearranging the furniture in a burning building.

I mean, I guess that moment would just hit the second... Desire. It’s such a heavy, complicated thing, isn't it? I guess there's no simple way to pin it down, but man, it really gets under your skin. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like we spend half our lives chasing this phantom feeling—this constant, restless craving for something that always seems just out of reach. It’s almost exhausting, honestly. You think you want one thing, you fight for it, you finally grab it, and then... nothing. The hunger just shifts somewhere else. It's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. I don't know. It’s a lot to wrap your head around. It’s all spent, isn't it? Practically gone right out of the gate. I mean, look—desire is such a fickle, subjective thing; you can never really pin it down. And honestly, that’s exactly why institutions exist in the first place. They are meant to shield us from that kind of instability, from those unpredictable whims... that "wind" that just blows wherever it feels like blowing. Their whole purpose is to provide us with a sense of security—to give us something constant, something that stays exactly the same because it’s been tested and proven to work (or, let's be real, to kill). I guess there’s this deep, nagging sense of longing that just won't quit... a constant, restless craving for something more, though I can't quite put my finger on what exactly it is. Maybe it's just a feeling, or maybe it's something deeper. It's hard to say. Seriously? Is that really the best response you can come up with? Just a little eye-roll? I guess some people find it easier to just dismiss everything instead of actually engaging with the points being made. It’s honestly pretty exhausting. Maybe if you spent half as much time thinking about the actual argument as you do trying to look unimpressed, we might actually get somewhere here. But hey, whatever. Typical.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Malia correction: Since this topic aims to defend—or rather, disprove—the connection between freedom and education, out of all the alternative schools you listed, only the original Neill's Summerhill represents truly free (chosen) education.
Waldorf, Montessori, and the rest employ the exact same coercive mechanisms as the state-mandated public school system; the only difference is that they receive (wealthy) gifted children whose talents someone else noticed and decided to exploit. Their development is forced, without ever asking the child if they actually want to pursue those specific talents or spend their time that way. Waldorf schools are founded on Steiner pedagogy based on the four temperaments, and my grievance is that these schools are mere followers. They are rooted in tradition—in something dead—which was alive only while Steiner was alive; it lived through him and with him, but once he passed, that vitality vanished. What are we talking about here? We can call it what you called it: longing (for love, for life, for spontaneity). There is a massive distinction at play between two opposing processes: one is when you learn from experience and remain open to questioning and adapting your theory to what you live; the other is when you forcibly attempt to cram lived experience into the mold of a theory, thereby mutilating and killing it, rejecting its spontaneous vitality and its (new) message.
The original pioneers of ideas and theories practice the first method, while the followers practice the second. Original authors work with a love for the living and the present; followers also work with love, but toward the conclusions of the original creators rather than toward the living and the present. Because wherever a direct and spontaneous teacher-student relationship exists, theories are constantly shifting and adapting, serving more as a justification for the system rather than acting as a dogma used by average teachers to protect themselves from their students and their feedback.

I am, quite frankly, aware that this—let’s call it a "working" definition—is somewhat insufficient and incomplete. Why is that? Because if I were to attempt a truly exhaustive and total definition, I would find myself bogged down in explaining exactly why a thing is what it is. In doing so, I fear I would only cloud and dilute the actual heart of the matter: the connection between freedom and education. I hope you can understand my position and the intention behind my brevity, but I must insist: my fundamental and indisputable starting point remains humanism.

And tell me, are you writing this from the comfort of your easy armchair—from some safe, secure little bubble—or are you actually out there on the desolate Himalayas, somewhere far beyond the reach of civilization?

If you examine my current analysis regarding the state of our education system, I am certainly not suggesting that we should simply provide basic social safety nets to those living in material hardship. My argument isn't just about providing standard institutions to pull people out of poverty or offer them a semblance of stability. While they undoubtedly need that material security and humanitarian support, I find myself compelled to look far beyond the immediate needs of the masses. After all, I consider myself to be standing on the shoulders of giants, and my true ambition is to orchestrate an entirely new paradigm.

My goal is to foster a more humane society. That is precisely why I want to challenge and deconstruct institutions—to serve as a witness to actual human reality. This represents a new quality; I am seeking entirely new values.

I am applying this specifically within a medical (psychiatric) context. Why? Because I have synthesized various mental states, my own clinical practice, and our social reality, as evidenced in the aforementioned "Institutional Negation" by the late, renowned psychiatrist Franco Basaglia.

Can you truly believe that you perceive things this way (from my perspective)? It seems our capacity for critical thinking is viewed as some sort of "erroneous" step—initially introduced during our primary socialization, and eventually continuing, developing, and touching upon those vital, critical internal points within us during secondary socialization...

"A scientist is an individual whose professional duty is to be disobedient." (Osovsky)