I can only speak for myself. Perhaps other people are different than me, and they need social conditioning to have a reason to keep breathing or else, unlike dolphins which do not have an autonomic respiratory reflex and consequently have to proactively will to keep breathing or else die, if the kid stops making an effort to breath and passes out, their respiratory reflex will kick in and give them another chance to not care to live, so maybe they will have to commit suicide if they don't have social conditioning to give them a reason to stay alive. I can't speak for others; I only ask others to not try to control me. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is circumcised -- typo: surgically operated on to remove his eye to make him healthy, whole and most importantly: normal, like everybody else.
Whatever is wrong with Martin Heidegger's philosophy and I do think/feel his mentor whom he threw under the bus is the way to go, It seems to me he is right that truth is not bean-counting correspondence of anything [with anything], which latter is the basis for such phenomena as Educational Testing Service Princeton New Jersey (ETS) (501)(c)(3) standardized tests where the student is challenged to match up No.2 pencil marks with certain little circles on his (her, other's) answer sheet, i.e., to make his marks correspond to the ones ETS likes. Truth is the self-disclosure of what manifests itself, or doesn't. I see the tree; not exactly: the tree is revealed to me. I cannot make the tree be revealed to me. I can only be sensitive that if the tree is revealed I will be attentive to receive its revealing, or not. This is where childrearing fucks everything up, or at lest it did for me. Again, others may thrive on being socially conditioned, but keep it away from me, please, because it maimed me for ife.
Man (woman, other) alienated his spirit onto an external entity, a Deity, which symbolic formation he then reactsback upon himself to oppress himself (and, even more often: to oppress others). But there is truth in the alienations if they are retrodacted. We do not see Madonna and child paintings where Mary is stuffing mash down infant Jesus's throat like the goose above, do we? Then why didn't my parents treat me like Mary treated Jesus? Obviously, because they had alienated their respect for children onto Jesus so they were free to stuff me for foie gras. But I needed to be treated like Mary treated infant Jesus, and to have been offered small objects for my exploration and free adjudication (see below). They needed to offfer the world to me, not try to shove their ideological conditioning down my throat. And that's what Heidegger's notion of truth is all about: the person being open to the presencing of what is, not being choked on ideological pre-judices, i.e., judgments before experience.
Examine tha above picture. Mary is offering a small object -- a crystal sphere -- to Jesus for his open-ended, free examination and judgment. She is not forcing her social contitioning down his little throat. That is how my innate capacity for critical reflection and appreciation of Being not just coping with beings could have been nurtured but it wasn't. I was force-fed my biological progenitors' social conditioning instead (above), to try to make me believe and feel that the Them wanted me to believe and feel instead of my own thoughts and feelings. Why didn't they just get a big trash bag and shove it all in it?. Also note what is being presented in the above painting the the infant Jesus. It's a play of light, not a turd or or other opaque stolid lump: Jesus is not being offered a world that is a demoralizing pile of shit ("Scheißestückwelt"), but rather an appealing world of light.
The intended result of social conditioning is for the child to substitute an ideological scripting for his own autochthonous judgment, i.e., to judge not what he himself would judge but what his social conditioners want shim to judge instead. So I was not supposed to see what might present itself to me experience, but instead and only what was socially conditioned. If I saw my other's face I was suppose to love her, even if, if left to myself, I would have found that entity repulsive. The deep problem here is that while real reality runs open-endedly deep so that you can keep probing ever more deeply into it and never hit a blank wall, the socially conditioned replacement object is a predefined finite lump. If you encounter a situation for which it does not have a pre-packaged answer what do you do? Your own judgment has been repressed but the social conditioning is not coming through with the answer. Oh, dear....
Of course, the first thing th infant should be able to freely, unjudgmentally explore is his mother's body. What Husserl called the natural attitude, and which Heidegger characterized as enthrallment with beings (forgeetfulness of their Being) is what social conditioning childrearing produces. Had I been left to my own antochthonous judgment I would simply in the course of living have had critical distance from everything to take it or leave it as it seemed to me to merit,not what it was supposed to be according to some third party's pre-judices and/or wilful machinations. Would not that have been a proto-form of Husserlian bracketing, or Heidegger's attending to Being? But pre-vented that: they cut off my possibility of experiencing what might present itself to me before it could have any chance to do so.
So what happens next? Philosophers like Heidegger and Husserl get all tangled up in trying to awaken people from the so-called natural attitude instead of building of being able to, ab initio, get on with building on the person's (esp.: my, (BMcC[18-11-46-503])!) innate primitive reflective distance/awareness of Being. It's like Wonder Bread: after they took all the natural nutients out of the grain then they put back in a few artificial ones.You dig a hole in order to have the high honor and privilege of having to fill it up against before trying to raise a hill on top of the ground.
The wages of sin is death: Social conditioning either produces people who are psychically dead ("natural attitude") or, in my case, my head was all fucked up by them, when instead I could have been off to a good start toward the deep understanding orf Hueserl's and Heidegger's philosophies, as will as having joy of reflective delectation (pleaseure) in my life. To repeat: others may thrive on social conditioning. Let them have what they need to keep from being bored to death with themseles; but let me have whtt I need to thrive, whch is freedom: secure support without constraint (neither abandonment nor suffocation). A friend's parents who were almost illiterate could do it, so maybe you can too?
"Tom, do what you believe is right. You will make mistaker. We stand behind you."
In loco parentis revisited
"In loco parentis" nominally translates to: "in the place of the parent'. When I went to college (1964) one of parents' main objectives in life, becides getting a mortgage on a suburban tract house so as to have a lawn to mow, was to produce offspring so as to have opportunities to repress their [ the children's and maybe even their, own, too, since they were embarrassed about it...] sexuality. This was the ultimate Meaning of life, the Universe and society and everything else. So when the kids went off to sleepaway college, Universities took over this sacred duty of suppressing the young persons sexuality since the parents were geographically some place else. Of course it did not quite work out that way. Jocks could have don't-ask-don't-tell sanitary services in exchange for becoming minotaurs and bringing the eternal glory of athletic victories to their "alma maters". And many other kids figured out ways to get around being virtuous, i.e., celibate. It didn't work for me because I was an alienated wimpy puny weakling with no friends, not even a pet cat or dog. So I got no sex -- no erotic pleasure, no "love".... "In loco parentis", for me, translated as: "parents are insane" and their effect on me was to deprive me of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
As far as normal young persons were concerned, however, I think "in loco parentis" was actually a blessing which gave meaning to their lives in a very sick and pathetic way: They could not create anything of cultural value; they could not appreciate anything of quality. Q: How could they keep from killing themselves from being bored with how meaningless their lives were? A: They could dig holes to have the satisfaction of filling them up again. Sex as forbidden fruit to have to scheme nd sneak to get a taste of.
Everybody was behaving as if they were prisoners kept perpetually in total darkness in solitary confinement. There once was an inmate in Alcatraz prison who was kept in solitary confinement for months in a totally dark cell where he could not see anything and had nothing to do. How did he keep his sanity? He ripped one button off his prison uniform shirt. He would throw it wildly, some random place in his cell. Then for hours he would crawl around on the floor looking for it in the pitch black darkness. When at last he found the button, he started this little game all over again. By repeatedly searching for the button he kept himself from going insane. Everybody around me was acting like that man, except that he truly was deprived so he didn't need to pretend he was deprived to spend all his time looking for what he had.
The people around me could simply have blown away the fog of "in loco parentis" and had healthy sexual relations with themselves and each other without being embarrassed about it. But wouldn't that have been the problem? They had no imaginations except maybe v=winning versity lacrosse and tackle football game. Could they have kept themselves amused with merely realistic sexual gratification as opposed to endless look don't touch, hard to get, sneak in in the back seat of the car and other forms of titillation? I think not. They needed do dig holes to have the satisfaction of filling them up again because they couldn't build anything on top of terra firma. And then, after they graduated, since they still couldn't create anything, they procreated to have the miracle of molding children's lives, like the kids were potters' clay except these people could not make fine ceramics, just foeti. Blessed events. The meaning of life changed from celibacy to baby booming. Yawn. But don't tell them that, because that's all they had to keep from being bored to death and their society needed the males to work and fight wars and the females to produce more males to work and fight wars and more females to produce more males to work and fight wars and more females to produce more [this process goes on for the unforeseeable future, repeating itself monotonously except that people have short memories....
All I needed was for the adults who brought me ito their world to find me a young lady who would have been pleasing on the eyes and with esthetic sensitivity, who would have appreciated what I could have offered in the way of connoisseurship of all things, including her. (If my parents and their social surround were not going to provide me with a good life, they should have used contraceptives, aborted me, or not engaged in vaginal copulation.) I would never have "strayed" from an unalloyedly good thing. But it would have to have been a young lady who was not into machoism, like wanting to be baginally penetrated in the physically exhausting missionary position, or to be romanced with valentines' day fattening chocolates and money-wasting commercial jewelry and have a husband who would waste his life in a meaningless job so she could spend her days shopping, sunning at the club pool or painting pictures of poolside tables with cocktails on them with maraschino cherries stuck in them.... Before the Milvian Bridge battle (313 CE), the Roman Emperor Constantine saw a sign in the sky: "In loco parentis". He had this engraved on all his soldiers shields and they won a stunning victory over their concupiscences by which the all defeated themselves. IHS
Both my mind and my body were terrible things to waste. People hurt me. My parents and teachers should have urged me to question everything they might tell me, and to have as much sexual pleasure as possible, because after I died, which could be any day, I would no longer be able to have either ideas of orgasms. I was not to them feces to flush down their toilet, because then they could not have had any more opportunities to poke at me. If only they would wait until I am dead, they can eat my corpse raw or cooked, any way they like, but patience is not one of their strong points. I do not understand "people", nor how the history of the universe expended billions of years of evolution to produce such pathetic results.
As for spoiling all the uncreative people's sick fun, consider the following excerpt from an address by J. Robert Oppenheimer to a 1965 UNESCO gathering honoring Einstein on the 50th anniversary of the general theory of relativity: "I thought it might be useful, because I am sure that it is not too soon---and for our generation perhaps almost too late---to start to dispel the clouds of myth and see the great mountain peak that these clouds hide. As always, the myth has its charms; but the truth is far more beautiful." (SCIENCE, 16 May 1980, p. 698) firstname.lastname@example.org