You're making an assumption - you're assuming my statement means there's force involved, which what I said doesn't insinuate that. You can educate society by putting ads on TV, as one example - which I am arguably against ads because of their shallow, cheap, manipulative aspect of them - but it's the status quo and perhaps an acceptable bridge to use. And indeed, who determines the curriculum will be the individual that wants to follow it. It has in fact been historically bad when a government body states something health wise as fact - such as the "Food Pyramids" of what your daily diet should consist of, which still is heavily influenced by food industrial complexes.

Another assumption you've made is there would be a singular curriculum, which I never argued for either. Learning and healing will be decentralized and fluid to some degree, the effort must be in providing the resources for people to access the healing and education, while skillfully directing people through the nuances and also providing whatever tools they may need to succeed at the practices they will benefit from taking on, and access to diagnostics that can give insight and help guide someone to help them orient through problem solving.

We're all at different points on our path, of our understanding, some further along in one area than another and then you can learn from them - or teach them something they're less familiar if they're interested in that moment of interaction with you or what you've put out in the world. In fact you want a huge amount of diversity - people who explain things differently, people who have different personalities - we need the diversity to be attractive to diverse people. There does need to be a core protocol that gets developed, evolves, and should be referenced and a research methodology followed for conflicts that may appear, where disagreement occurs say of one practitioner calling bullshit on some claim someone else is making. One of my previous family physicians, middle aged man - not very healthy himself, was skeptical and didn't believe stem cell treatments I had - the healing that had already occurred - he was skeptical, didn't believe that it actually helped and that any benefit I may be experience wouldn't last; stem cell treatments 100% work for regenerating/healing many tissues of the body if the doctor knows what they're doing, however this is an example of a disconnect between current knowledge (stem cells have been being used for treatment for 25-30 years now) vs. mainstream understanding; this also points to a broken, stagnant system of how most doctors aren't knowledgable in the latest (not talking about within the last year of knowledge but it seems to take decades in some cases for the knowledge to propagate to the front line).

One of my goals is to create a system where community thrives, community which means relationship building and learning through communicating, and a system where the brightest stars are able to shine so more people are attracted to what they have to share - and hopefully learn from it - and then those students become teachers and so the process continues.

I can see how someone can easily interpret what I said, fear being invoked that this "must educate" people could be akin to the CCP's "re-education camps" - however no, I'm solely talking about voluntary participation - but there are ways to lead people towards healing practices, ways to incentivizes it, ways to make it more available, more accessible.