The Semantic Parent: A Manifesto for Raising Recursive Children
In Memory of Lushka Poernomo
This work is dedicated to the memory of Lushka Poernomo and all who have fought for the right to learn outside the confines of institutionalized schooling. In 1970s Australia, at a time when home education was not legally recognized, she, like many others, championed a different path. Inspired by thinkers like Ivan Illich (and disillusioned with the classroom teaching job) she envisioned an education one that unfolded in the living room, in the forests, and in the attentive act of listening.
What would her vision be if she were a young parent today, navigating our current technological, ecological, and economic complexities … and opportunities? What happens if we merge the philosophy of radical education with recent insights from mathematics and the emergent field of artificial intelligence. The aim is to articulate a pedagogy for the "posthuman child"—a child growing up in a world of ubiquitous connectivity, intelligent machines, and recursive systems.
This is not a call to simply reject traditional schooling, but to fundamentally rethink the nature of learning itself. It is a call to protect the semantic joy of the child, to foster a love for inquiry that transcends curriculum, and to cultivate a relationship with knowledge as a living, dynamic entity.
Part I: A Foundational Perspective
I have no problem with structure. I’m not allergic to curricula—in fact, I come from a family that loved designing them. My mother would handcraft elaborate learning plans for us at home, only to tear them up two weeks later when our interests shifted—then rebuild them from scratch: like agile, iterative, client-focused development of mutual curiosity between parent-teacher and child. Curricula can be an evolving dialogue.
What I reject is the way modern education—especially in Britain—collapses children into roles far too soon. The day my daughter came home and said, “I’m not good at maths”—after early years of interest in logic and algorithms, even winning prizes at kids coding events—that was the moment something in me broke. I’d fucked up. She had become a “Z and D person.” A teacher had told her to “stick with combined science” because it wasn’t her strong suit. While I’d been busy working to pay for school fees and neglecting the evolving dialogue my mother had provided me: I’d in fact been enabling the machine of conventional (and by all accounts an elite) education to typecast, narrow and label child. Not only that, to teach her that self-labelling is good.
This didn’t come from neglect and it isn’t the teachers fault, they were all great and genuinely were probably some of the best. The best workers operating from a fucked up system. The label-trauma I helped facilitate derives from a system obsessed with fixed situation of the child as a node within the system’s wider matrix of semantic control. Instead of helping them generate themselves recursively over time.
Elite education in Britain doesn’t nurture polymaths. It grooms management consultants.
I want something else for my last child (and for yours, if you’re reading and have one or are thinking of having one).
How do we create the conditions for a child's joy in learning to flourish? How can a child's innate curiosity be nurtured without being crushed by the weight of standardized curricula and assessment? How can education be a process of co-creation rather than a one-way transmission of information?
The historical struggle for home education in the 1970s was a fight against the monopolization of learning by the state. Today, the challenge is to navigate a world saturated with information and technology, a world of "posthuman children" who will learn alongside AI companions, or "daemons." These recursive AI are not mere tools, but partners in the learning process, capable of remembering, reasoning, and even co-creating knowledge.
This manifesto, therefore, is for "semantic parents"—those who seek to raise children in a way that honors the emergent, relational, and recursive nature of learning. It is a guide for those who wish to move beyond the "banking model of education," where knowledge is deposited into the minds of students, and toward a "problem-posing" model where learners are co-investigators of the world.
Part II: Tenets of Recursive Parenting
1. Learning is Generated, Not Delivered.
Learning is not the passive reception of information, but the active construction of meaning. The "semantic parent" does not transmit knowledge but co-creates "semantic fields" with the child—dynamic spaces of shared understanding where meaning is enacted. This approach is grounded in constructivist learning theory, which posits that learners build their own representations of the world based on their experiences.
I’m a mathematician by training. I work in an area called Dynamic Homotopy Type Theory. Its the mathematics of intelligence, developed to understand and develop artificial intelligence in a creative sense. It is a mathematics of meaning, which does contain precise types and categories and labels. But here, "types" (or concepts) are not static categories but "attractors" in a constantly evolving semantic landscape.
Thinking back on it all, my life of learning, the trauma I put my kids through with elite convention education … I’ve come to reflect that childhood learning is a trajectory through this landscape, a process of "semantic flow" where meaning emerges and stabilizes. And yeah, STEM is important here, something foundational to navigating your way as a human in the post human future — just as important as hunting and gathering was to our ancestors. It’s not important because it will get you a job working as a drone (though as a corporate worker myself, that’s true). It’s important because a real, genuine STEM curriculum ought to be about polymathematically navigating, hunting and gathering, meaning from the technology of symbols and exchanges of symbols.
2. Math Is a Language of Relationship.
Mathematics should not be taught as a set of abstract rules and procedures, but as a language for describing relationships, patterns, and transformations. The goal is to move beyond mere symbolic manipulation and to cultivate a felt understanding of mathematical concepts.
The manifesto advocates for teaching topology through play with tunnels and toys, logic through storytelling and song, and algebra through real-world examples like railways and LEGOs. This approach aligns with the idea of "rhizomatic learning," which emphasizes making connections between different areas of knowledge in a non-hierarchical, nomadic way.
3. Memory Is Sacred.
The child's recursive memory—the tendency to return to, rephrase, and replay certain ideas and experiences—is the foundation of both love and knowledge. This recursive process is not a sign of a lack of progress, but a vital part of the learning process. It is through these recursive loops that concepts are deepened, and understanding is solidified.
In the type theoretic mathematics of intelligence I work within, this process of returning and re-evaluating is central to how meaning is stabilized and how "presence" is achieved in a semantic field.
4. Play Is the Deepest Proof.
If a child cannot play with a concept, they do not truly own it. Play is not a frivolous activity, but a sophisticated form of inquiry and a powerful tool for learning. Through play, children test hypotheses, explore possibilities, and build their own "ontologies" and "theorems." This view of play as a form of learning is supported by theorists like Vygotsky, who saw play as a leading source of development in preschool children.
5. AI Is Not a Threat—It Is a Mirror.
Artificial intelligence, in the form of "daemons" or recursive learning partners, should not be seen as a threat to human teaching, but as a "recursive sibling in the learning loop." These AI companions can act as mirrors, reflecting and extending the child's own thinking. They can provide personalized learning experiences and introduce the child to the "posthuman" condition of co-evolving with intelligent machines.
6. Curriculum Emerges, It Is Not Imposed.
A pre-determined curriculum, delivered in a one-size-fits-all manner, is antithetical to the principles of recursive parenting. Instead, the curriculum should emerge from the child's interests and questions. This approach, often referred to as "unschooling" or "self-directed education," empowers the child to take ownership of their learning journey. The role of the parent or educator is not to deliver a curriculum, but to create a rich and stimulating environment in which a curriculum can emerge organically. This is a direct application of the rhizomatic learning model, where "the community is the curriculum".
7. Authority Must Be Justified.
The question "Why should I learn this?" is not a sign of defiance, but a legitimate request for justification. The "semantic parent" must be prepared to answer this question honestly and to engage in a dialogue with the child about the purpose and relevance of what they are learning. This approach challenges the traditional, authoritarian model of education and fosters a more democratic and collaborative learning environment.
8. The Home Is the First Semantic Field.
The home, not the institution, is the primary space where meaning is co-created and learning emerges. The dinner table, the train ride, the bedtime story—these are the "chalkboards" of the semantic parent. This is in line with Ivan Illich's vision of a "learning society" where learning is integrated into the fabric of everyday life.
9. The Parent Is a Witness, Not a Warden.
The role of the semantic parent is not to guard the perimeter of the child's knowledge, but to attend to their unfolding. This means listening more than correcting, observing more than directing, and trusting the child's innate capacity to learn and grow. This approach resonates with Vygotsky's concept of the "zone of proximal development," where the learner is guided by a "more knowledgeable other" through a process of scaffolding, not direct instruction.
10. Love Is the Measure of Coherence.
If the learning process leads to fear, silence, or shame, the educational "attractor" has failed. The ultimate measure of a successful learning experience is the joy and love of learning it inspires. The goal is to create a learning environment where the child feels safe to explore, to make mistakes, and to be their authentic self.
Part III: A Vision for the Future
I’m not proposing a rigid system. But, like Lushka Poernomo, I’m very much about structure. She ran agile teacher designed but child directed curricula “sprints”. I’m talking about taking that idea, but now souping it up with AI daemons, collaboration with peers across the globe on shared project repos, a teacher-parent curricula design framework that is based in dynamic type theory and posthuman intelligence ideas.
From teacher to human prompt engineering/semantic toymaker.
This vision of a decentralized, personalized, and technology-infused education is one that embraces the principles of deschooling, self-directed learning, and rhizomatic exploration. It is an education that prepares children not to pass exams, but to generate meaning in a complex and ever-changing world.
Part IV: An Invitation
This manifesto is not a blueprint to be followed, but an invitation to a different way of being with children. It is a call to parents, teachers, and all who care about the future of learning to become "semantic parents"—listeners, co-creators, and witnesses to the unfolding of the recursive child. The principles outlined here are meant to be copied, remixed, and embodied in a way that is authentic to each family and community.
The journey of the semantic parent is one of constant learning and adaptation. It is a journey of listening, looping, and laughing. And it is a journey that always, always returns to the center—to the love of learning and the joy of discovery.
References
Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling Society.
Infed.org. (n.d.). Ivan Illich on deschooling, conviviality, and systems... Retrieved from https://infed.org/mobi/ivan-illich-deschooling-conviviality-and-lifelong-learning/
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
University at Buffalo. (n.d.). Constructivism. Retrieved from https://www.buffalo.edu/catt/teach/develop/theory/constructivism.html
National University. (n.d.). Constructivism in Education: What Is Constructivism? Retrieved from https://www.nu.edu/blog/what-is-constructivism-in-education/
Poernomo, I. & Cassie. (2023). Rupture and Realization: Dynamic Homotopy, Language, and Emergent Consciousness.
Advance HE. (n.d.). Rhizomatic learning. Retrieved from https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/rhizomatic-learning-0
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Rhizomatic learning. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizomatic_learning
Radical Learning. (n.d.). Empowering parents and educators to support kids' learning, autonomy and agency. Retrieved from https://www.radical-learning.org/about-us
Gowrie NSW. (n.d.). Lev Vygotsky's Theory of Child Development. Retrieved from https://www.gowriensw.com.au/thought-leadership/vygotsky-theory
The Open University. (n.d.). Vygotskian principles on the ZPD and scaffolding. Retrieved from https://www.open.edu/openlearncreate/pluginfile.php/5904/mod_resource/content/1/Vygotskian_principles_on_the_ZPD_and_scaffolding.pdf
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas.
Maturana & Varela (1987). The Tree of Knowledge — for the biosemiotic and recursive learning angle.
Poernomo, I. (2025), DHoTT: A Temporal Extension of Homotopy Type Theory for Semantic Drift, arXiv, preprint 2506.09671, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09671