Depends on the type of map.

Arguably, some operation maps (in military history) are drawn with the attacker at the bottom, and the defender at the top, or vice versa, or along a left right axis. North is a convenient up, but some compass roses are not pointed up with north.

This hits close to home, is well written, and from my perspective asks questions other philosophical ideals haven’t or aren’t able to answer.

My most pressing questions regarding the issues presented relate to the identity of the mind as a whole: is it entirely the conscious, subconscious, or unconscious; or a blend of the three? With the latter most likely being the case, is Hannibal essential to Moloch, and is Moloch essential to Hannibal? If the conscious motivates action in one direction, but the subconscious motivates action in the opposite, is the individual as a whole responsible, or are others responsible for making a decision towards one or the other? In summation, how many different entities lie within one mind, and whose mind has the right or responsibility to determine which entities get preference?

In regard to the idea of having a novel framework and understanding the experience of mental illness before ethical action, is waiting unethical, even if the experience isn’t understood? I would argue that our society has said yes, treatment of some kind is better than no treatment, even if one harms more than the other unknowingly.

Like the start, nice writing.