Saturday, August 6, 2022

Petty vs. Ambitious vs. Reality-aimed

Some people choose to be small. For instance, they only want money (lots of money, perhaps) and not "power". Money is power, but distinguishing "money" from "power" makes a certain amount of sense. "Power" is bigger-aimed than "money". Someone with a lot of money can rule over 100 servants or employees, but someone with a lot of power can rule over an entire nation. Someone with power might have a grand view of themselves, a noble view. This could be the case with someone with money as well, but the money person could more easily have a small view of themselves, and I would guess would be less prone to having a grand or noble view of themselves. They might then look at the "power" people as "pretentious", "ambitious", "tryhards", or something like that. The "power" people might look at them as "petty".

One would think that at the level of national government, everyone would be ambitious. This might be somewhat true. But, there can still be pettiness at that level. For instance, government corruption is a characteristically petty phenomenon, redirecting public (larger-aimed) resources for personal (smaller-aimed) purposes. But, even on the level of grandness, there can be pettiness.

If you are fighting for your own nation (tribe, religion), have you considered fighting (or working) for what is higher? What is higher than for everyone to be like God? Maybe your nation / tribe / religion has a unique insight into being like God that must be preserved and shared. Wouldn't cross-cultural, ideally interpersonal, contact involving trustworthy people do more to help that happen, than wars or other coercive actions? Wars and coercion make a stink out of you and make your beliefs seem (or even be) untrustworthy.

--

The petty can say "well, yes, we are petty, but at least we are not... prideful, arrogant, self-aggrandizing, pretentious". I think that these potential twisted versions of large-aimedness are a valid concern for anyone who does not want to be petty. Any path can be well-pursued, well-implemented, or not. Was Jesus prideful, arrogant, self-aggrandizing, or pretentious? People may have thought he was, but was he? There is a way to not be petty and still not be abusive or fake.

Perhaps it is good to distinguish "ambitious" from "reality-aimed". The ambitious person wants to do large things. But it is their residual petty-mindedness that allows them, once they have done a large thing, to be twisted about it, for instance to feel or express a sense of superiority gained from it, to feel justified to do bad things because of it, or feel entitled because of it. Because if they were aimed at reality, they would be aimed at something so rigorous and total that it would call from them more than they could ever give. They could merely devote 100% to pursuing that reality.

Moral truth is satisfied only when there is no more good that needs to be done, and desires that all sentient beings are 100% in tune with the good.

Wednesday, August 3, 2022

Is Full Maturity Required by Love?

Is full maturity required by love?

Is salvation to love, or to be loved? Arguably, a loving parent would love their children by teaching them to love. It might then be odd for a parent to be content with their adult children who do not love as fully as the parent does, or at least seem likely on their way to love as much as the parent does when the child is the parent's age.

Is there an MSL reason to think that we need to love like God someday? We need to come into tune with God in order to be saved. Part of this involves our hearts being like his.

If we have an unforgiving attitude toward someone, then that prevents us from being saved. We can't perceive or relate to all people, like God can, but we can become the kind of people who would relate to each person the way God would. Then, we will love like he does. Our values will be aligned with his.

God loves the truth, particularly the moral truth, which is rooted in legitimacy, which is he himself. God loves the good, and so we must love the good. God is unilaterally inclined to forgive everyone. But we all still need to come to love the good ourselves, and if we do not, at some point he can't accept us and we can't exist anymore.

So is it the case that fully mature love is needed in order to enter God's rest? If our hearts are the same as God's, what else can we do? I'm not sure exactly what goes into the word "mature", but maybe "mature" can mean "having a heart that is inclined correctly" (perhaps inclined toward responsibility / burden-bearing). Another dimension to "mature" being "exhibiting some sort of full-grown skill, strength, security, wisdom, etc."

What's important is who we are, and thus if there's any aspect of loving as God loves that we are incapable of, then that's only a problem with what we are which God can remedy in the end if it makes sense to do so. What is up to us is to be inclined, in who we are, to love to the full extent of our abilities. This is God's love, how he loves to the full extent of his abilities. In our lives on earth, or in the , we may have to develop our abilities to act their full extent in order to love to the full extent of our ability to love. Sometimes in order to really love, you must become more mature, and it is a good thing to seek to become more mature, as mature as you can be insofar as love requires it.

Urgent vs. Relaxed

In contrast to "patient vs. impatient", which are loaded such that patience is good and impatience is bad, or "complacent vs. engaged", where complacency is bad and engagedness is good, I could say "relaxed vs. urgent", hoping that that is not loaded.

A good time for urgency is to prevent a child from walking into oncoming traffic. A good time for relaxedness is at the end of the day so you can fall asleep. Relaxedness (to the point of a lack of urgency) is bad in the former case, and urgency is bad in the latter. So there is a place for both.

I listened to talk radio a bit and wrote my impressions:

Listening to NPR is like sitting in a cafe on an overcast day. Low key jazz is playing in the cafe. The information you get from NPR is your tea that you sip. Sometimes it makes you feel sad. Sometimes it makes you feel calm, or contemplative. You can spend hours in the cafe, more or less relaxed.

Listening to conservative talk radio is like driving around on a hot day, trying to get things done. Somebody cuts you off in traffic. You have to do business with a supplier and you think he might be screwing you over. You think back to the fight you had with your wife last night and feel angry about it.

NPR is part of relaxed culture, and conservative talk radio is part of urgent culture. I don't know that either are very good for motivating sustained productive work. At least, I don't feel like it after listening to either. I feel passiveness or even despair after listening to them, though they each have their own flavor. But if there was a talk radio that resembled the works of J. S. Bach, that would image a kind of relaxed engagedness. (As well as some other traits from my notes:)

Listening to both liberal and conservative talk radio makes me think of a third kind of talk radio. It's something I can't really do myself, but here is the show I would make:

It airs during the afternoon rush hour. It is called "Bach Talk Radio" (or a better name than that). It promotes the vibes of J. S. Bach, specifically "delayed gratification", "prolificness / productivity / diligence", "solidity / stability", "patience", "complexity".

We face a world full of things that need doing. Maintaining a kind of urgency is good, but during your afternoon rush hour, maybe you need to be calmed down. But you can remain engaged, without being dragged down into the despair of NPR or conservative talk radio. That's what "Bach Talk Radio" is for.

(BTR would feature public domain Bach recordings, practical life advice, no-spin news analysis (or news analysis spun by Bach values), an emphasis on the bigger picture, and a segment where people call in with problems and people call in with advice and support. It would have a lighter side, and would emphasize the listener's agency.)

Academics have (or used to have) job security, and their jobs are more based in being thoughtful, relative to many other careers. They have developed a form of writing that is relaxed, even if abstruse. You have to think to understand it, and that makes you contemplative. Academic thinking is something to be sipped on in a cafe. When it denounces things, it often sounds like a kind of poem, and when academics read their writing out loud, it often sounds like the reciting of a speech, and beautiful speech is a kind of wine. Academic culture influences NPR.

Entrepreneurs have very little job security (they could always go out of business). They have to go out in the city and deal with people. Relatively few people have their backs, and relatively many are indifferent to their well-being, some directly hostile or treacherous. Business culture influences conservative talk radio.

I grew up in an academic-influenced church, which had the upsides and downsides of relaxation. I also spent some time with a church that was headed by a man who ran a business to make a living. I could sense that that church had some of the upsides and downsides of urgency.

Reality calls for urgency, but urgency is like a fruit that can go bad. Health calls for relaxedness, but relaxedness is also like a fruit that can go bad. My sense is that we need high-quality urgency, as much as possible, and when that is not possible, high-quality relaxedness. Or I think it's possible to have both at the same time.

--

As I think about this some more, I'm not sure that Bach exactly has an urgent side, but I think something that is close to urgency is profundity (something I think I've heard mentioned by other listeners to Bach which I am not sure I have noticed, but which I can believe), because both are forms of connecting with importance. BTR could emphasize the profound among its other values.

--

Is life life or death? Or do we have so much abundance that we do not have to think about survival? What do the facts say? Not everyone is going to be saved, and God will feel their loss eternally. Despite the fact that God exists, some may be eternally destroyed, no longer existing -- so, dead. So we have life, and death, as possibilities in life. Therefore life is life or death.

When we try to save lives, it often can be effective to be relaxed in a productive way (whether living a Bach-like work life, or resting so that we can go back to work fresh). Relaxedness has a lot going for it. But the truth remains that life is life or death.

Tuesday, August 2, 2022

Libertarian Holiness

If you want to promote holiness, you will tend to promote self-control. Perhaps for those undergoing some kind of transition time, while they come to naturally see things through God's eyes. Certainly receiving the Spirit from God can help you be holy, but maybe that Spirit sometimes is a voice that tells you to do something that is unnatural to you at first.

It is best for your nature to be calmed by God so that you lack the desires to sin. But much of life is lived in a state of being possessed by those desires. We don't want the desires to give birth in the world, because we love the world, something God loves. By loving the world, we shape ourselves more into being like God. So we practice self-control, because it's the best thing that we can do sometimes.

A message that exerts energy toward you controlling yourself can be socialized into a social group exerting energy toward you controlling yourself, and that isn't far from a social group controlling you.

So, (a theory:) the stronger the social group, the more it has to downplay holiness (especially in the form of good behavior) or else it risks becoming controlling of its members. Being called to moral excellence, a life well-lived, as soon as possible, puts pressure on a group to control its members so that it can look like there is moral excellence, and the group has to feel like it's pursuing moral excellence, because that's the best thing it can pursue. So, terrified of that controllingness, we downplay moral excellence, to protect ourselves from control.

If this threat is real, what can we do? Maybe the thing to do if you want to develop a movement that is not controlling of its members, but does emphasize holiness or any other high commitment to God, involving the will, is to be as libertarian as possible, where it counts.

Interpersonal libertarianism is the freedom that people have from each other in direct personal relationships. ("Social libertarianism" is the term I would prefer, but I think that already has a meaning of "political libertarianism on so-called 'social' issues".) That's the most important dimension. Then, freedom in the structures that are closest to the interpersonal (church, family, friend group) are a close second in importance. Then, freedom in the other social structures, as they bear on the question of how other people might try to manufacture or engineer who a person is.

This isn't necessarily freedom from the need to help other people, but rather, freedom from them trying to control you in the name of making you a better person. Ideally, you help other people not because you are obligated to, but because you love them and love helping them. But the sheer quantity of service that may be required in the world may exceed the amount that can be provided by those who love without obligation or something like it. The responsibility to help flows from the person or situation that needs help and still calls to us, even if we are free from interpersonal control. The responsibility is a fact, and we can proclaim the truth of that fact, but some are tempted to try to control people to make them act in accordance with the fact.

I think there is a difference between telling people the moral truth and saying things that you hope will change people's minds and get them to do the right thing. I don't see a problem with speaking the moral truth, no matter how strict. But trying to change the world (i.e. other people) with words, I'm not as sure of. I know I have done things that could have the effect of the latter myself, although generally I do not desire to change other people, at least not instinctually. But I think I trust the former more now. So I want to speak the moral truth and design ways for people to act on the moral truth, rather than exerting my will to change other people to do what's right.

People like thickness in their relationships. With interpersonal libertarianism, human relationships may thin out to enable freedom, but your relationship with God should become thicker. You can't control God.

("Connectional" -- "grabby", involved, well-being mixed up with others', attached, emotionally close.)

Jesus was (I think) more interpersonally libertarian than interpersonally authoritarian or "connectional". He was holy, and grew in wisdom when he was young. He was oriented first toward the Father, and secondarily toward people.

--

Is it possible to love God if someone forces you to? God doesn't seem to think so, or else he would force us to love him. So this is a reason to practice a libertarian form of holiness culture.

So no matter how urgent it is to bring people to a state of holiness -- you can't really "bring them" to it, they have to come themselves. And yet it is important for you to do your job of anti-temptation in keeping with the urgency of reality.

Could there be a forceful anti-temptation? Could you force moral values on people such that they will come to love them for themselves? We do this with children. I suspect that often this tactic only teaches people to love the good as children, and prevents them from developing a mature love of the good. There may be a tradeoff, where you can get people to buy into a religion as children, seemingly successfully, through applying that force, but inhibit them from really becoming mature, thus, really fully loving God with all of their beings. (Maybe we hope that children grow up later on in their adult years, once given their liberty?) But on the other hand, the libertarian way can seem to not get enough people to buy into religion at all, though the ones who do, really do so.

I hope that some of the failure of libertarian religion comes from it not being practiced energetically, and that it's possible for those pursuing libertarian holiness to have something like the force and urgency of authoritarians (the energy and sense of necessity of their force and urgency, for example, or an endemically libertarian urgency), without being authoritarian. People could practice libertarian religion with libertarian actions and attitudes toward people, with the spirit of those who believe that inner character (their own and other people's) is of life and death importance.

Obligation vs. Desert Love

Love often requires going through the desert, in which you do not feel like loving. Obligation also makes you do what you do not feel like doing. Love is good and obligation is bad (those words used in this paragraph). When we love in the desert, we still love, with who we are, although with what we are, we do not want to love. But when we do things out of obligation, we feel like not doing what we do out of who we are. Why do we act out of obligation? Perhaps out of fear for ourselves or out of our own hungers, or maybe other reasons. A test for whether you are doing good out of desert love, or out of obligation: do you resent what you do? Generally, love does not resent the difficulties and sacrifices that go with it.

It is better to choose desert love over obligation, and, I guess, counterintuitive though that sounds, it is entirely up to our free choice as to which we choose. "Who we are" is somehow entirely within our power to shape, although it doesn't feel like it. Perhaps there is a certain level of service that "what we are" can sustain, and given that, it is entirely up to us whether we pursue it out of love (including desert love), or out or obligation.

(When you love someone or something for long enough, you will enter periods of the desert, where it doesn't feel good or you don't feel like remaining committed. If it is only "what you are" that doesn't feel like it, then that's fine (although subjectively it's hard and can be hard practically as well). But if "who you are" doesn't feel like doing good, that is not such a good thing. Perhaps if you intend to love someone or something, you may at first obligate yourself fakely. But that is not so bad, since really you ("who you are") want to love.)

Good Fakeness

Normally I am against fakeness (at least, I aspire to be). But I think a certain kind of fakeness is instrumental in becoming real. Better to increase your fakeness temporarily if it leads to you becoming more real in the long run.

Children (or other young people), sometimes begin to be a real ... something ... or to embody a real value, by being seemingly or really insincere in valuing it, by acting as though they are something they seemingly or really are not.

When we sleep, we pretend to be asleep, as though inviting the spirit of unconsciousness into ourselves by acting like it, maybe to show we are kin to it. Some spirits need to trust us to make their homes in us.

It's true that people who exhibit an immature or fake form of a role or value may not be reliable at that point, if you want someone to do a job or validate a value. But their fakeness may be headed toward greater realness.

Note that if you aspire to pursue "good fakeness", you have to go to realness at some point or else it ends up being just fakeness.

Thursday, July 28, 2022

Prepared, Unprepared

"Effective altruism" can be broken down into two words, "effective", and "altruism". Similar words are "effectiveness, effectively" and "altruist, altruistically".

Effectiveness is better served by preparation. Perhaps to maximize effectiveness, it seems like we should be maximally prepared.

What about altruism? Desiring to be effective makes sense if you are an altruist. So it makes sense to be prepared. But how do you know, for sure, that you're prepared? Can you always be prepared, or are there situations where you may be unprepared, or know that you are unprepared? So part of altruism is to risk lack of preparation and endure the consequences.

Lack of preparation tests and confirms your altruism, your alignment with doing good for others. If you pass the test and are confirmed, your altruism may be strengthened.

Repentance is something we are always capable of doing, and which we are always unprepared to do. (That is a nice sentence to present without context, but I will explain:) Whatever component of what you're doing that is you sinning, is something you're 100% capable of not doing. And you get no help from anyone or anything in ceasing to do it, or else it would not be you who was ceasing to do it. The way we contribute to other people's salvation (or the opposite) is by presenting temptations, or anti-temptations, choices which they face entirely on their own resources.

Wednesday, July 27, 2022

Mature Capitalism

Capitalism is geared toward giving people what they want. It can also reshape people so that they want what capitalism has to give.

There's a tension between giving kids what they want and disciplining them so that they grow up. American capitalism is sort of a bizarre elaboration of the principle of "giving kids what they want", and something like Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia is a very negative (and more bizarre) example of an elaboration of the principle of "disciplining kids" / "giving kids what they don't want because it's better for them". They were taskmasters who worked people to death in pursuit of a more moral society.

Communists and capitalists might both justify themselves by fear of each other. Illiberal (Communist, traditional Muslim, traditional Orthodox civilization, perhaps other) governments and societies might fear consumerism's spiritual and cultural acid, while liberal (capitalist, democratic, Western) might fear illiberalism's literal or figurative abuse of children, the way they make "children" (or children) unhappy, or unhappy in the extreme. If I wanted to side with the illiberals, I would most easily find common cause with their fear of the worst of liberalism, including capitalist consumerism as it keeps people from maturity. Stifling or underfeeding maturity is dangerous, as much as abuse is.

What if children grow up to become adults in capitalist societies, and with their consumer freedom, make choices based in maturity, which capitalism then eagerly instantiates? Maybe this is the way to avoid the two extremes -- freedom (consumerism), which is being used with maturity (discipline).

How is capitalism bending us? Is it bending us toward maturity, or away from it? What kind of producer would make a product, or what kind of service industry would make a service, that would be best consumed by a mature person and less so by an immature person? That producer or service industry would have a motive to bend and organize consumer psychology in the direction of maturity.

(But it's better not to bend people toward maturity. But what about encouraging maturity, or making space for it?)

If such products or services can't be conceived of, is it possible for mature consumers to push back against capitalism? Is there a way for mature consumers to organize? Companies have their "bottom line" at stake (which is their ability to avoid starvation, or something like that), so they are very motivated to do what they do. Can consumers be as serious as them, even though their consumption patterns aren't life and death to them (aren't as obviously life and death)?

I'm not really sure what spiritually mature consumption looks like, other than maybe giving to charities, or better, to more- or most-effective charities (it's mature to want your money to actually do good). So maybe the industry or group that is pioneering mature (rather than merely "late") capitalism is effective altruism. But perhaps there are other ways to promote spiritually mature consumption that I can't think of right now.

Salvation, Death, and Trust

Some notes about salvation, death, and trust, which maybe help to clarify past writing.

--

A definition of death is "that which you can't allow to happen to you", at least, that is what is death to you.

The second death is something which perhaps "you can't allow to happen to you".

Until you are actually in heaven, there is always some kind of risk of turning against God in the end, as far as any of us knows.

It is valuable to trust God. In fact, it is necessary, in the end. How can you trust God if you are concerned that you will die the second death? To trust God fully requires that you come into tune with him. Concern that is instrumental in causing you to come into tune with him enables you to really trust him. Better to not trust in the sense of having concern, now, so that you trust more in the sense of obedience and arrive at full trust in God, in the end.

To journey to God involves going through dangers. You need a certain amount of confidence to keep going, but you also need to be watchful of danger, and perhaps even be concerned about it. It's like crossing a rope bridge with wooden planks that you walk on, that has some planks missing.

If you place God first, then you are willing to die for him -- even to be annihilated eternally for him. You still avoid the second death, but it is no longer "that which you can't allow to happen to you". God doesn't want you to die the second death, and that is a good reason for you to avoid it.

The Lack of Awareness of Abusers and Abused

Outside where I live, just now [as of drafting this initially], there has been an incident with a young man and young woman. He was mad because "she disrespected him". She argued back. He had been driving (I think), and she was his passenger. He stopped on the side of the street, and they yelled at each other. He grabbed her smartphone and left, effectively stranding her there. Someone (not me) lent the woman a phone, and the woman got an Uber.

--

Is this somewhere on the scale of "abusive relationship"? Could there be justice in what he did? He may have demanded ego-respect, or she may have threatened some kind of survival-respect. He took her phone, stranding her there. Whether justified or not, the story running through his head was "I was disrespected". Could he see her, or was there a lack of awareness?

If she is in an abusive relationship, why hasn't she left? I will add to my account above that, from things that she said to him and to others, she did not seem absolutely afraid of him. She could argue back to him, and said to the person who lent her a phone that she wasn't in danger from him. Yet nothing I saw ruled out the possibility of the relationship being abusive and her not having left it. If that was the case, maybe she also had a lack of awareness, something that she somehow could not see.

Tuesday, July 26, 2022

Diversity, Inequality, and Family

If you were trying to minimize inequality, and were being rigorous about it, each person would have to be identical to all others. Because, if they were different, it would be highly likely that in some way or other, if you added up all their natural traits, they would add up to some people being better off, inheriting more privilege, than others.

Their environments and sets of experiences would also have to be identical, so that their present selves would not have any more privilege (or disadvantage) than each other, this ensured by them not having different past selves.

So, in order to have diversity, we have to allow (and implicitly or explicitly excuse) a certain amount of inequality.

Controlling human lives so that they are identical and perfect inhibits the expression of free will, and may inhibit intentions of free will as well, because perhaps to not express your free will weakens your capacity to naturally will what you will. (I think of the analogy of keeping a dream journal, which encourages your "subconscious self" to remember dreams. So, acting on your free will may encourage your will to be alive, as it is a voice that may close up if it is not called on to speak.) To act on your will lets you see what it looks like in the world, helping you to grow. So, from an MSL standpoint, enforcing rigorous equality may be a mistake, because it could make life less useful in bringing about spiritual growth.

Enforcing relative equality may have benefits, but at some point we have to let go of equality, before it becomes an absolute, and choose something else to be our absolute.

--

An argument against inequality might (possibly) solely consist of lists of the harms that inequality causes. In that case, maybe what really matters are those harms, and not the inequality itself. If there is some way to have inequality (and thus diversity) without harm, then that might be the way to go.

When families are working right, they are groups of people that possess radical inequality which doesn't cause harm. Parents, for instance, are hugely different than their children, and have powers far beyond what their children possess. Yet, when a family is working right, that does not pose a threat to either parents or children.

It does make sense to me that on some level, we ought to look at each other as equals. Maybe, despite their differences in age and wisdom, ideal parents look on even their under-5 aged children as equals -- on some level -- and treat them in some sense as equals. But that doesn't mean that on other levels, we may not be different, and therefore (very likely) unequal.

Book Review Preview: Along the Way, ed. Ron Bruner and Dana Kennamer Pemberton

I had been meaning to read Along the Way: Conversations About Children and Faith (a book of essays edited by Ron Bruner and Dana Kennamer Pemberton) for a while, and this seemed like a good time to look into it. It's a book about children and Christianity. It looks like it's from a "Stone-Campbell" perspective (the broader movement that includes the Churches of Christ, the tradition I grew up in).

I guess this book will ask questions in different categories which I can try to answer from a MSLN perspective. (How to relate Stone-Campbell faith to children might provide a template for which questions to answer from an MSLN perspective.) I guess that's mainly what I'm looking to it to provide. But maybe there will be other things that I find interesting in it.

Monday, July 25, 2022

A Sketch of MSLN Education

I think one of the most important things that a religion can try to figure out is how to educate its young (and old). Arguably, personal transformation (becoming more holy, for instance) is a special case of education.

How would MSLN best be taught? I don't really know at this point, or feel like making even a simplified overview that might include the whole subject. But, I can write a quick sketch, and hope that in the future it can be filled out.

--

In a way, this blog is an education in MSLN. If you can read English with enough proficiency, you can get a lot of ideas from it. But, I think ideas are the tip of the iceberg, and most of what matters is, do you apply the ideas?, do you intuitively understand the ideas?, do you accept the ideas?, and perhaps other things.

So, though I have worked as much as I have to explain things explicitly and conceptually, there are things which people need to understand, in order for them to even be able to accept, intuitively understand, and apply MSLN. Perhaps some people can read this blog "cold" and accept and intuitively understand, to some extent. But to deeply accept and intuitively understand requires deeper preparation or practice.

Certain traits favor success in being shaped by MSLN. This is not intended to be a complete list, but a few are: endurance, valuing truth (especially moral truth), and desire for reality. Each of these are things which are both valued and practiced to get the full benefit.

These do not have to be taught by believers in MSLN. They can be taught to anyone, including in secular contexts.

Working in the "upstream" values and practices that lead to MSLN is a wide field. These same values and practices should be "downstream" of MSLN. Perhaps there could be a loop where the downstream of MSLN feeds the upstream of it.

(So now it is important to try to figure out all of the upstream/downstream values and practices of MSLN.)

--

How should adults relate to children? To some extent, children are different from adults and should be treated as different. But in other ways, they are the same as adults and should be treated the same.

Children should be respected. In the past, I've written about respect for young people in Rootedness and Respect, and without going back to read it, I think it at least gives an idea of how to treat children, although at the time I wrote it I had young adults more in mind.

The maturing, current maturity, and eventual mature state of children should be valued. These are upstream of valuing growing in holiness, being holy now, and eventually being completely holy (which, perhaps, could be the same as being completely spiritually mature). (In that, if children and their teachers value maturity broadly enough, that includes holiness, or if "maturity" is construed narrowly to be "maturity as recognized by secular people", at least that is a case of the broader maturity, where a person changes their values in order to better relate to reality.) Growing up should be seen as a good thing, in order to help instill a "that-which-brings-to-completion" toward what is perhaps in the end identical with being 100% in tune with God.

(Those are a few ideas of how adults should treat children from an MSLN perspective. That would be what MSLN might add to whatever standard people already hold themselves to when dealing with children.)