On Children, Introversion, and the Open Mind.

I have heard it said that the minds of children are 'still developing'. Yet is that not redundant? It would not be so were it that one could define the Adult mind as 'developed'. Yet if I have lost the ability to Develop and to Dream, is there not something left for children to teach me?
If I wish to understand the mind of a child, Positivism will do little to help me. I should have to RE-LIVE what was most intimate to me in childhood, exposing myself* to their company, remembering what childhood was as a Subject rather than substituting for children a metaphysical Object. No degree of solidarity with my peers would justify ignorant Scientism or Elitism. As far as I can remember, I was, for the majority of my Life, younger than I am today. Yet I often am possessed of the phobia that I have forgotten more than I learned. I owe as much to the non-discrimination of my elders as I do to my memories of youth, and either is preferable to the acceptance of my peers.

The allegation was delivered in the mask of Science; America told me that it was the 'Brain' that was 'still developing', not the 'mind'. Had she said 'mind', the subjectivity of the matter would have been called more apparently into question. Yet does the 'objectivity' of a Brain Scan justify a subjective elitism?
America used the allegation in context of an argument I was making for Imagination. I pointed out Jung's dichotomy of Directed Thinking and Non-directed thinking. Children have, typically, all the time in the World to dream. In a world wherein all guesses are equally probable, the boundary between Reality and Imagination is blurred. Is this not the case for the Accomplished Artist, the Baffled Scientist, and the Expert Therapist?
It is too easy for the outside observer to criticise so radical a subjectivity as madness or maladaptation. Yet to the individual Actually Involved in that experience it is maddeningly incontrovertible.
Is it improbable that these three individuals tread a line that we all heed, yet by laying foot to it lay bare the line in the sand that Humans themselves drew? Was it not merely Kant, by drawing that line betwixt the Phenomenal and the Objective, that set this trend? Why persist in his wake?

Kresten claimed that I fancy myself open-minded, yet that I really fail to entertain an opposing view. The empiricist would test all belief systems on for size as a fashion statement. Yet I have found simple empiricism to leave one with merely a mess of useless and secondary opinions.
Discretion Unconceals whatever Truth may underly all popular opinions. Often, one may be heedless of the line between Belief and Consideration. Perhaps it is because of my introverted Nature that I am so tentative** to Choose a Belief, to act according to it, and to Conceal my own skepticism. Where Kresten may judge the safety of a house from inside, I will make my assessment at the Open Door, from the safety of the Porch.
It is merely a matter of preference.
What I see from the outside is the Subjective Factor: The leap that one makes from Scientific 'fact' to personal fiction.

*Obviously, no innuendo was intended here.
**'Tentative' does not mean 'unwilling'. Once my trust is won, I am sometimes unwavering in my faith, though not at the expense of discretion, even if that had once been the case.

dm.A.A.