"Bildung is the shaping of human personality, behavior and moral attitude through upbringing, environment and education."
NOTE to the reader: I have, with help from google, translated this text about Bildung into English. The original title is: Fra Dannelse til Tekno-dannelse. Dannelse is the Norwegian word for the German word Bildung. I don’t think the English language has a word for it, which is weird! Bildung is certainly an important concept in an English speaking country too, but it seems english-speaking countries only operate with the non-specific word; Education. I will from now on, only use the word Bildung as it is the most recognized word within European philosophy. Perhaps the best translation of the German word Bildung into English, is the word Formation. Also, I was not able to integrate a proper footnote system in this English version, and thus I deleted them. And finally, there might be some problems (I hope not) with certain translated sentences that might make some of the content of this text hard to understand. If so, please do not hesitate to ask for clearification.
"The primary school, in understanding and cooperating with the home, will help to give the pupils a Christian and moral upbringing, develop their abilities, spiritual and physical, and give them good general knowledge so that they can become useful and independent people in the home and community." Ever since we began formulating purpose clauses for schools in 1848, some variant of the said quote has prevailed.
In other words, we are all – from an early age – to be formed or molded, both mentally, physically and spiritually. The word “useful” is central, as is the word independent. Via the compulsory school, children and young people will thus be shaped to be both useful and independent.
The most obvious and important question regarding the concept Bildung, is what it means to beneficial or useful in our society. And quickly follows the question on the relationship between the concepts useful and independent. The last question falls into what is referred to as the pedagogical paradox and which reads as follows: How to cultivate independence when upbringing is to be a subject to another authority? I would like the reader to reflect on the question before further reading.
The following text is a commentary on the book «The Transformations of Bildung».
The book "Dannelsens Forvandlinger" (DF) ("Transformations of Bildung/Formation") has been edited by three highly esteemed professors: Professor of sociology Rune Slagstad and by a Danish and a Norwegian Professor of pedagogy, respectively; Ove Korsvold and Lars Løvlie. Large parts of the content of the book DF are clearly conveyed, at least if one is deeply and broadly academically educated and possesses the necessary patience to take on the researchers' detailed analyzes . Despite the fact that the book is an anthology, which can often give a divergent result without a fixed starting point, this book is, as far as I am able to judge, overall and holistic - not least thanks to a proper and very well-written introductory chapter. We readers are given a clarifying picture of the historical concept of Bildung and how this has been presented right up to the present day. That the traditional concept of Bildung still stands worries the professors, and a new definition is thus made in the last chapter of the book. Not a definition in the sense of a breach, but a definition with the aim of giving the concept of Bildung a new content. It's clear; society is changing and therefore the concepts we understand the world and ourselves with, must also have new content.
Commenting on the book DF is not a task everyone can take on. It requires a good deal of prior knowledge into heavy disciplines such as history, philosophy, theory of science and pedagogy. What perhaps most of all characterizes scientists as a separate group, is precisely that they possess a large amount of knowledge that enables them to use comprehensive and heavy words and phrases. Such use of compressed concepts, however, often comes at the expense of research dissemination in general (ie the challenge of making people understand what is being said), and is then also often a topic when research dissemination as such is discussed. Another dilemma in this context, I think we should take on ourselves today, is that in today's so-called knowledge society, ie a society where knowledge accumulates enormously fast, is that what has so far given the professors status - namely to gather knowledge and draw conclusions, will no longer be able to be performed by a human. Increasingly, one will have to rely on the machines to do that job as machines have no limit to how much info it can be fed with. This is highly problematic as it actually indicates that we are in danger of man as such losing the overview and thereby making us dependent on artificial intelligence to solve challenges. There has been talk for a long time about what advanced calculators have done to the economic system, and has even been perceived by many as the cause of the economic crisis in 2008. We should therefore be aware that this can also quickly become a problem in research and politics in general. One way to avoid this is to make sure that there is not too much of a gap between professors and ordinary people in terms of knowledge and cognition. The professors have to strive to make even the most difficult concepts understandable to everyone, and everyone has to strive to understand important and existential issues. The gap between those who are able to think abstractly and the more practically oriented thinkers must be significantly reduced. Greater coherence and understanding between different types of intelligence will undoubtedly also help to significantly reduce many of the conflicts that unfold today - and thus be perhaps the most important factor in strengthening democracy.
As far as the discussion of the concept of Bildung is concerned, the discussion in the book DF consists of little other than very knowledge- and meaning-heavy concepts, words and phrases. Few other concepts have such a high level of abstraction as the concept of Bildung. It is also a very important concept. As the book's introduction tells us, school development in accordance with the concept of Bildung is the very precondition for our modern society to be as it is and to develop as it does. Translated, this means that insight into the concept of Bildung and how the concept works in school and education, is crucial for understanding our form of society - democracy.
If we are to live together in a community, a framework is obviously important. We need a framework, and that framework must be something we in a democracy work out precisely in a community. We like to vote for some wise minds who do the thinking work for us. At the same time, the minimum requirement for such a wise head must be that it is able to convey to us ordinary mortals what kind of framework it is about and open for a conversation about them.
In a way, the book "Transformations of Formation" can be said to be a book written by wise minds published to convey to us ordinary mortals what the framework for our existence has been, and will be in the future. For that, the authors should have a big thank you! With the publication, they open up for dialogue and we should all be grateful for that!
BILDUNG, some history:
The book "Transformations of Bildung" is also, as the title suggests, a history book. It goes back a couple of hundred years and we are informed that the starting point for the concept of Bildung can be dated to the transition to the modern age. In the Nordic countries, the transition to modernity is often dated to around 1814. That is when we up here in the north enter the age of enlightenment. A dominant common perception is that one moved from a time of darkness to the light. We are moving from a theocentric to an anthropocentric worldview. In this context, there was a shift in the legitimacy of pedagogy: from God and the Bible to nature, reason, language, science and the people. Or in short; from God to science.
In other words, our society underwent a major transformation process and in the name of the Enlightenment, enlightenment and formation, Aufklärung and Bildung, became two key concepts. It is emphasized that transformations seldom mean that completely new concepts are developed, but on the other hand that a number of old concepts take on new meaning . This applies, for example, to the concept of Bildung which became the starting point for an entire pedagogical philosophy. The term has a religious background in that the word refers to the Christian mystic's Imago Dei, ie the image of God.
In other words, dannelse, is the Danish / Norwegian word for the German word bildung. Bildung refers to the Christian mystic's Imago Dei, ie the image of God. From around 1750, the word Bildung began to be used in connection with the pedagogical ideas of the Enlightenment, and thus Imago Dei gained new meaning. The educational task was to bring forth divine quality wihin man himself.
Thus the Christian dogma was transferred to modernity, now within the scientific framework. The ideal existed; how to perfect and divine man? On the question of how one best can perfect the human gets involved inevitably in a paradox, especially when at the same time talking about democracy . The challenge the men of the church had faced was the question: How can man both be the image of God (imago dei) and at the same time strive to realize what one is already achieving in reunion (Imitatio Christi). In pedagogy, a similar paradox was found that raised the question: How to raise to authority when upbringing is to be subject to another authority and authority at the same time is the individual person's own creation?
It is very important to take note of the transformation from the Christian dogma to a secular dogma. An expectation was established that the subject would transform into a perfect ideal. Within modernity, the divine facility was called Humanity. Such an ideal is of great importance for the kind of human view that establishes and develops. I would like to ask the reader to keep this history in mind for the time being. I'll get into the meaning of that in conclusion.
In addition to the common idea that we have constantly moved from darkness to light (the belief in progress), we are well informed that there are also a number of other and more specific common features in the scientific theoretical basis. (p11) Formation is perceived, we learn, as general formation in the sense of formation for all; education is in principle an opportunity and a requirement not only for a limited group of society, but for everyone; and thus broke the theory of formation with standing as a constitutive principle of society. In other words: One imagines that the feudal stand society was dissolved - and that we thus moved into a democratic society with equal opportunities - and demands - for all. (though also often called an industrial class society).
The Enlightenment and formation theorists also agree on a thought figure that includes three conditions: man's relation to himself, man's relation to the world and man's relation to society.
Concerning man's relationship to himself, concepts such as: self-determination, freedom, emancipation, autonomy, authority, reason and self-activation apply. When talking about man's relationship to the world, concepts such as: humanity, humanity, humanity, the world, objectivity and generality apply. And finally, as far as man is concerned in relation to society, which is not the same as man in the world, it is about the cultural, social and political community where concepts such as language, people, nations and the like are central.
It is especially, we learn, when it comes to the latter-mentioned relationship - man's relationship to society - that the theorists of formation have strongly disagreed. It is especially about this relationship that the debates of recent centuries have been about, and which several of the chapters in the book are about. More specifically, it has been about focusing on cultural, social and political communities. Key concepts here are: language and language acquisition, the rule of law, the free constitution, nations, states, cultures, peoples and peoples. The philosophers of the Dandelion have emphasized various things and strongly disagreed, but now the debates have raged for two hundred years. The compromises are well established.
Bildung-philosopher within modernity primary mission has, in other words, been about shaping us into good citizens within the nation-state framework. And today we can beat ourselves on the chest and state that the task of the formation project; to transform all of us into nationalists who rally around the nation and the language has been completed and we have passed with flying colors. The hard work over a few hundred years in shaping us into nationalists - people who stand together within the nation's framework, however, are now considered offspring. Now is the time to design a new Bildung project.
Central to this new project will be to give the term 'people' a new content. It is debated whether to abolish the concept altogether, but the authors of the book think this is problematic then: ".. one can not have democracy without the word people included, as demos mean people." p.31 It thus becomes clear that it is still especially man's relationship to society that is central - though no longer as a topic one disagrees about and discusses, but how one can come up with something that can replace the outdated concept. Nationalism - the way of thinking that unites man, people and society - is now outdated. This indicates that we must now begin to understand man and society in a new way. It demands that one thinks anew about old fundamental concepts such as: man, nature, culture, the self, society and machine.
In relation to the central thought configuration that the philosophers of Bildung orient themselves by; Man's relationship to himself, man's relationship to the world and man's relationship to society, then we will see that it is the first and last relationship that will undergo strong revisions.
With regard to man's relationship to the world, it is about concepts such as humanity, mankind, world and objectivity, nothing new is offered, which is not surprising.
Summary: We hear before that the word Bildung has Christian origins and that the pursuit of the divine survives as an ideal. It is stated that the transition to modern society implies a transition to the light from the dark, from a theocentric to an anthropocentric worldview, not least because the feudal society, which was characterized by stands (and not classes), was dissolved. In this new society that was about to establish itself, the Enlightenment and Bildung theorists also agreed on a figure of thought that includes three conditions: man's relation to himself, man's relation to the world and man's relation to society.
There has since been a debate about these three conditions, in particular there has been a debate about man's relationship with society. Large parts of the book DF are about these different debates. The debates have been heated, but the purpose has been agreed upon; to build up the nation state. The debate has been about what one should emphasize in order to achieve it in the best possible way. Modernity’s professors of Bildung primary mission has, in other words, been concerned with how to shape us all into good citizens within the nation-state framework. I find this historical description of how the concept of formation has worked so far honest and comprehensible.
The hard work over a few hundred years in shaping us into nationalists - people who stand together within the framework of the nation, however, are now considered outdated. Now is the time to design a new Bildung project. We will preserve the concept of Bildung, but it will have new content. New wine in old bottles, so to speak. We must move from traditional Bildung to techno Bildung. As we shall see, this means that one must think anew about old and fundamental concepts such as: man, nature, culture, the self, people, society and machine.
I find this movement VERY important to problematize. The rest of the text is first about an account of how Professor of Pedagogy Lars Løvlie explains the historical concept of Bildung, which largely corresponds with what we can read in the book's previous chapters. Furthermore, I want to show what the professor thinks the new concept of "Bildung" should be about. Finally, my discussions and concluding questions follow.
PARADOXES AND CONTRADICTIONS
In the first phase of modernity (1814 - 2000), it was the nation-building that was in focus. The nation-states were built strong by emphasizing a strong cultivation of man. This was at the expense of man as nature. It also happened, we hear, that the concept of machine was downgraded in relation to the concept (the cultural) human being. Thus it becomes clear that the philosophers of Bildmg choose to problematize two dichotomies; Culture versus nature and man versus machine. The dichotomy of culture versus nature is highly recognizable and has always been very central in all humanities research. The dichotomy of human versus machine, on the other hand, has been less used , but it is very interesting, and well worth noting, that it is now being pushed all the way to the front. What is also most remarkable is that it is stated that the perception of the concepts of nature and machine have both been perceived as something almost inhuman . I elaborate:
We read that in the 19th century it was common to: «.. link Bildung to humanism and to the cultured human being shaped by the classical literature, the national traditions and the mother tongue. The proponents of this type of formation - the so-called neohumanists - came to the fore in the 19th century, and in that century parts of the bourgeois educational elite took the lead in the struggle against realism, science and technology. To them, the natural sciences were without spirit and the machine without humanity. " page 348.
More specifically, it is written that the problem with the neo-humanists was that they, with their critical attitude, underestimated the importance of technology. At the forefront of technology critics is the famous poet Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805). He wrote, among other things, that: “Not only does the machine threaten man, art and morality frontally. No, the machine penetrates the human and alienates man from his true aesthetic nature. " page 351. It is also pointed out that it: «.. is not far from this description and to the monstrous as the very demonstration of the inhuman. In this extreme picture, Mary Shelleys (another famous poet)) 'Frankenstein' (1818) is placed. Frankenstein was the scientist who breathed life into dead matter and from it created a human who turned in rage against his creator. Technology took upon itself the role of the Creator." It is concluded that: "This myth still exists, and probably also applies on how lots of people perceive technology today." s 351
Secondly, it was a big problem that nature was excluded from the understanding of man. The great, and perhaps most significant world philosopher ever, Immanuel Kant, was the front spokesman for the view of man who implied that man is culture. In pedagogy, this view implies that man is separated from nature because of his intelligence and reason; 'By cultivating human reason, man could also become free. The idea was, and still is with many, that the essentially human must be cultivated. The natural human is animal. In other words, human nature must be cultivated in order to bring out the essential human. It is emphasized that this idea is what Kant is particularly known for, it is his heavy contribution to the development of democracy. A development based on the idea that it is cultured people who with logical and sensible conversation should develop society further. But there is one problem with Kant's philosophy, we are told, and that was that he excluded nature, with the result that man's first nature belongs to the animal and the second to the human. From there, it is pointed out, it is no wonder we have come to understand nature and the natural not only as uncultured, but also as the inhuman.
In accordance with the Bildung philosophers it is now about time to get rid of the said contradictions, and wonder of wonders; today they can tell us that we can transcend the inappropriate contradictions without any ifs and buts. This is because, we are told, bio-science and telecommunications technology has recently shown for us that resistance to both naturalism and the machines are untenable position. Biotechnology has, via the Human Genome Project, finalized in the winter of 2000, established that: "... the gene that is a common denominator for animals and humans and makes it (thus) impossible to talk about human nature as something categorically different from that of animals." pp. 352
Opposition to the computer similarly dramatically lost ground with the PC: “The computer creates an electronic public. The electronic public does not obey a historical reason a la Hegel, where the contradictions are abolished in unity and institutional harmony. Kant's transcendental and Hegel's historical reason no longer unite, because reason is no longer one. There is also no general humanistic spirit or spirituality to resort to. John Dewey (1859-1952) introduced another name for the German Geist or spirit, namely intelligence. (...) Dewey talked about intelligent people, but also about intelligent animals and machines. Dewey's name change was aimed at dissolving metaphysical ideas about the self as a fixed quantity, with an inherent essence and autonomy. " s 352
In short: The human genome project showed that humans and animals have common genes. The PC shares intelligence with humans and is thus integrated into people's lives in a completely different way than the old production machines were. " Biotechnology and telecommunications technology bring together what has historically been separated." page 349.
As far as I can understand , Løvlie in his work is particularly concerned with the relational . He is not concerned with theoretical contradictions which in practice entail positioning. He believes that all positioning is equally important, be nature, culture, the individual, society, human, machine, subject, object , etc.. , What is important is what happens between positions. And yet even more important is the interface where the opposites meet. Thanks to biotechnology and telecommunications technology, these contradictions between, for example, nature versus culture and man versus machine will soon be eliminated. And, we can read: "the concept of Kyborg becomes the metaphor for the - in the best sense - symbiotic relationship between man, animal and machine." s 352 The name is composed of the prefixes in cybernetics and organism, and thus unites technology and biology in the description of man.
Professor of pedagogy Lars Løvlie promotes in the book a thesis that education today can best be described as: «.. an interface, what in English is so aptly called interface. The interface is, as the saying goes, border. It is not primarily about the self (nature) or culture, but about the cut where they meet. The interface is, as the word suggests, not "something" in itself. It is rather change and transition, and can only be analyzed as movement, as a permanent turmoil and transformation. The interface is a postmodern version of the classic concept of formation as a transformation of the self and culture. " s 346 Problematic? I will try to elaborate:
Professor Løvlie writes long and rather complicated about what an interface is, and he formally trembles with commitment when he talks about it in a lecture given by ARR. He obviously feels that he has reached an insight he finds very important to convey. What is certain is that he is by no means content with the term "relational”, meaning; to see two or more different sizes in relation to each other and how they mutually affect each other - a position that in itself is, or was at least until quite recently, rather controversial in a society there, both in academic and political sense , contradictions and positioning have been the norm. If you want to take professors seriously, and you should, then it will be particularly interesting to try to understand what is included in the concept of interface.
To explain in more detail what an interface is, reference is made to a white spot on a blackboard, both of which can be located: “But the difference between them cannot be located to either the spot or the board. The difference ' is qualitative and not quantitative '. The idea of the dimensionless difference radicalizes Dewey's idea of action to the point where communication, according to Bateson, consists 'of differences that make a difference'. Today's technoculture surprisingly reinforces this position, in that what is between me and the world becomes more important. (...) But the standpoint also raises a big question: How can we talk about formation when the relationship between me and the world shrinks to a disappearing balance? The answer can be formulated as follows: If we relate to the central dynamics of classical formation, which is transition and transformation, then today's technoculture has led us from transformation to what can be called hyper-transformation. (...) Hypertransformation is, as our professors of education understand it, to be online, to live on the border and experience the turmoil of the dimensionless. " s 354
For Løvlie, it is precisely the hyper-transformation that will be the redemptive one, and which for us today will indicate further progress. The classical formation's transmission of knowledge was a slow process, often disrupted by an intermediary between the self and the world. With hypertransformation, it is the very meeting point between the self and the world that becomes important; how am I shaped by the world and how am I involved in shaping the world. The intermediary - society, and everything that is part of a society - between man and the world shrinks into instant meetings. Here we begin to see clear contours of what the philosophers of formation mean when they talk about giving the concept of 'people' new content. Previously, it was especially the relationship between the self and society that was in focus, and the concepts people and nation were established. Here we see that this relationship is being abolished. The concept ' society 'is taken out of the parable and we are left with man's relationship to the world where the balance - society and social structure - disappears. The shackles of society are being torn apart, we have never been closer to freedom. It's about a type of hyper- transformation that implies living on the border and experiencing the turmoil of the dimensionless.
SUMMARY : The traditional Bildung theory put too much emphasis on culture (the child must be formed) and too little emphasis on nature. It also branded technology as anti-human. Today, however, research in biotechnology and telecommunications technology has given us evidence that opposition to both naturalism and machines is an untenable position. The human genome project showed that humans and animals have common genes and the PC shares intelligence (geist) with humans and is thus integrated into people's lives in a completely different way than the old production machines were. Biotechnology and telecommunications technology bring together what has historically been separated.
We are told that this gives us a basis for formulating a new educational project. We must move from "Bildung" to "Techno-bildung". This means that we must learn to understand concepts such as man, nature, culture, the self, people, society and machine in a new way. As far as the concept of nature in light of the concept human is concerned, it is clarified that we can no longer deny the nature of the child because it has now been proven that we humans share genes with chimpanzees. WE must ask; what happens to our conceptual perception of man when it is now proven that we share genes with the chimpanzee? What happens is that old metaphysical ideas about the self as a fixed quantity, with an inherent essence and autonomy, can be dissolved. However, we can imagine that this happens not only because we share genes with animals, but also because telecommunications technology today has created a new type of public, a new type of society, described as an ' electronic public ' . This new electronic public dictates that we now move from the transformation of knowledge and information to the hyper-transformation of knowledge and information. Hypertransformation is being online, living on the border and experiencing the turmoil of the dimensionless.
This culminates in the concept that will replace the old concepts of individual, society and people . We get the term Kyborg. We read that the term Kyborg becomes the metaphor for the - in the best sense - symbiotic relationship between man, animal and machine and which must live in direct interaction with the world . The name cyborg is composed of the prefixes in cybernetics and organism, and thus unites technology and biology in the description of man.
ONE STEP CLOSER TO PERFECTION
The hypertransformed life to be lived online is about living on the border and experience the turmoil of the dimensionless. This unrest is, we can further read: "... the opposite of the alienation of the old industrial society". Alienation meant that the person lost himself by being forced into an anesthetic, disinterested and routine relationship with things. On the contrary, the hypertransformative contributes to an increase in the self, a sharpening of the self-esteem, and to a stronger experience of the other. It opens a confirmation of the qualitative "spiritual" relationship to the world, the communicative relationship to the other opens up. The younger generation acts intensely together on the Internet, and they act equally intensely together in mixed situations where the mobile participates in the ongoing conversation between people who are physically together. The hypertransformation is manifested in the intensity of these dialogues, which are strongly "poetic" or creative, precisely because they are volatile and volatile. However, there is no question of losing oneself in this conversation; it is rather a matter of constantly regaining oneself in relation to the other. The young people are cyborgs. They live in the interface and in that they are shaped into people at the same time as they shape the world. "
The Internet opens "(...) for a confirmation of the qualitative" spiritual "relationship to the world, the communicative relationship to the other opens up." We have left behind the traditional distinction between naturalism and humanism. By creating new interfaces, the interactive media help to promote the main goal of classical formation, which was a free interaction between the self and the world. In the cyborg's perspective, education cannot be reduced to an analysis of the self on the one hand and the teaching material on the other. The metaphor introduces a perspective that is critical of such an analytical, instrumentalist and objectifying pedagogy »page 355 The dynamics of formation will now be found in the interfaces, which in turn can be:« ..incorporated into extended qualitative descriptions of friendship, love, care, the co-operation relationship, just to name a few. ” s 355.
THE FIGHT AGAINST INSTRUMENTALISM
I would think that most people who have been a bit involved in society and politics have a fairly reflective relationship to the concept of instrumentalism. Again a comprehensive term that normally refers to materiality, utility and rigorous logical and schematic thinking. In other words, critics of instrumentalism call for spirit and a scientific method that offers something more than the positivist hypothetical / deductive method. Hans Skjervheim was an important critic of instrumentalism (also often called a critic of positivism) in Norway in the 60s and 70s. For those of us who have appreciated Hans Skjervheim and his contributions in philosophy and science, get a cold blush on the face:
In the book we can read that: «The new technology is not mechanical, but electronic. Thus, the critique of instrumentalism itself should be reformulated. (...) The new technology does not threaten political formation, but is on the contrary part of the postmodern formation project. It allows for what the traditional machine technology refused, namely public opinion and criticism. (...) The critique of instrumentalism, as presented by Hans Skjervheim, therefore provides a poor tool for understanding power and manipulation in the electronic world. " pp. 356
Skjervheim's thoughts had great weaknesses. Such great weaknesses, we can read, that they led to a double prejudice that became attached to our society. The prejudices are that many people today walk around imagining that «.. technology threatens the human and that the rhetoric is just persuasion and manipulation. This scenario came to form a blind spot to the possibilities of the Internet age. The critique of technology was not just skewed in relation to the postmodern technoculture. It also remained silent and awkward in the face of the actual use of force and manipulation in the decade that has passed behind us, and which broke through in connection with the school reforms of the 1990s. pp. 357
As I mentioned in the introduction: Few other concepts have such a high level of abstraction as the concept of Bildung. It is also a very important concept to understand if one wants to understand how we humans are brought up to be so-called socially beneficial. It is quite simply about the question: How are we shaped by school and education? By understanding the concept of Bildung we will be able to get much closer to an understanding of what lies at the bottom of the phrase "Democratic citizen» such as our current ideology use the term .
I would think that the vast majority themselves believe that they have a reasonably good insight into what is meant by nationalism. That the school's main purpose was to make us all good citizens within the framework of the nation state, I think most people can recognize themselves in. What is missing in such a generally accepted history is what a nation state is actually about. If you think about it, the word nation state is pretty meaningless in itself. Yes, it creates a sense of community because you have national borders and languages as a framework, much like people in a family feel community a lot because you live in the same house, talk together and eat the same food, and with it often manage to lay the groundwork for trust. Although community and trust are very important, they do not in themselves create a well- developed welfare society and economic and technological growth. In order to achieve economic and technological growth with the associated welfare state , requires special knowledge and special strategies.
This absolutely fundamental aspect of our society is in the book DF completely overlooked, it gets even heavily undermined lots of places in the book as we can read that technology is a force that has been overlooked in the Bildung philosophy. In any case, it becomes completely absurd in my eyes to have to read that the technology aspect (the relationship between man and machine) has been in short supply in our previous education project in all the time the school has basically been about little other than just how to form us to be beneficial within an industrial society. Furthermore; how else explain why we today are facing an exponential technological growth? Of course, we have all contributed to such a development by becoming good and rational-thinking nationalists. What will happen when we are no longer to be rational-thinking nationalists, but cyborgs within an electronic public?
In other words, explaining concepts such as the social pact and industrial society does not interest our philosophers of formation at all. Instead, they are concerned about what the new Bildung project should look like, now that the old industrial society - and all that it was about - should no longer apply. For our educational philosophers - those who will lay the foundation for the upbringing of our children - the task has always been, and still is, how to devise best to educate the citizens of society so that they are adapted to the social pact. The social pact as such does no one bother to discuss, it lies there as a highly unproblematic premise. This is exactly what we will have to start talking about.
What is the scientific theoretical / philosophical basis for the new Bildung Project we are to be brought up within?
First: Let it be clear, we are talking about new wine in old bottles. It is thus not about a paradigm shift, but about a further development of Modernism. We must move from the modern to the post-modern. In short, this means that the premises for societal development stand to the very highest degree; namely, technological and capitalist growth. Today, however, technological development is part of a so-called exponential growth, a growth which in addition entails a qualitative change in the function of technology and which after all sun marks will fundamentally change our basis of life. In short, we are abandoning mechanical technology and are increasingly beginning to use electronic technology - which, among other things, will mean that the new (tele-, bio- nano- and gene) technologies are no longer just something outside ourselves.
Adaptation to technology has become, and continues to be, perceived as more important than anything else. This premise is fixed and is not a topic up for discussion anywhere. Working with the concepts of bildung and education is about how best to formulate school plans so that people can become as socially beneficial as possible, read useful, in light of technological development. But now as then, not only useful, people should also be independent. What is meant by independent becomes, as I will show, just as difficult to spot within the new formation project as it was within the old one.
Within the traditional nationalist industrial society, it was most appropriate to emphasize culture - to foster the sensible man, and then at the expense of man as nature. The concept of machine was also downgraded, it is claimed. Within our new electronic public, the philosophers of formation think that it will in any case be important to create a symbiosis between animal, human and machine.
Such a movement is described as a transgression of old contradictions. The human genome project showed that humans and animals have common genes. The PC shares intelligence with humans and is thus integrated into people's lives in a completely different way than the old production machines were. "Biotechnology and telecommunications technology bring together what has historically been separated.
Basically, I have great sympathy for transcending the traditional contradictory thinking. Positioning, with the ensuing power struggle to get it right, has prevailed in politics as well as in research and has for far too long prevented us from seeing the bigger picture. Within science traditional methodology this indicates a position that moves away from the methodological individualism and methodological collectivism and instead start to relate them more active for the less recognized, and therefore far less used, methodological relationism. (see note 9)
What I have often also noticed, however, is that when it comes to overcoming contradictions today, it is not about this to see two or more different sizes in relation to each other and how they mutually affect each other. It is not about (finally) applying methodological relationalism, a perspective that will help us to better understand how different conditions affect each other - an insight I, and others with me, would think is a painful shortage in our society.
No , it is about a type of transscendance that literally abandons old concepts, such as society, man, nature, culture, the self, people, society and machine. The researchers are now planning for us to leave these, and other, old concept r and contradictions s as if we now understand not only what concepts in its essence is, but also how the various concepts interact with one another. This often has absurd consequences (see note 13 norwegian text ), not least when the concept of nature and culture is dealt with in the book.
Nature / culture
What is meand by 'human nature'? A dedicated teacher who is a host of different children and young people every day, will know the answer swell in heart. Putting into words the answer that only the heart knows seems both superfluous and unnecessary. It has something to do with the adult's ability to see the child, and therefore also recognize the child's essence and without science tests well know what makes each child unique.
When professors in education should respond to what is meant by human nature they say: 'Gene as a common denominator for animals and human beings and making it impossible to speak of human nature as something categorically different from the animal. "
The contradiction used in the book, the one between nature versus culture, is a heavy scientific dichotomy and has several branches. First must be mentioned the most common; the one between inheritance versus environment (born that way or become that way). In addition, it becomes important to take into account the relationship between the natural sciences and the social sciences (humanities). As for the relationship between science and the humanities, it is not only about topics (science = machines, medicines and animals .... and the humanities = people and society), but also about scientific methods that focus on a qualitative distinction in the method used in humanities and in the natural sciences . 14 Research on animals has, of course, come, for all of us animal lovers, in a remarkable middle position and triggered a great deal of despair that animals easily have been treated as pure useful objects. (ref. Industrial society's animal husbandry and research on animals)
With in-depth insight into this extremely complex background of the opposition between nature and culture, it becomes very remarkable that the philosophers of formation choose to focus on the fact that it has now been proven that humans have a good deal in common with the chimpanzee . If possible, it becomes even more remarkable when human nature - something the vast majority of us intuitively perceive as "the self", ie the child's essence and autonomy; inherent talents, qualities and qualities, of our pedagogy professors are mainly perceived as a metaphysical myth.
My own writing project over the last twenty years has been an attempt to create awareness about the framework that is placed on our lives, and then with special emphasis on science and education's cultivation project - ie an educational project that has just put society's industrial needs before human needs . Not once in my wildest fantasies, however, it struck me that it is by comparing humans with animals, that we can have taken some kind of settlement with old conceptions . But that is the step our professors choose to take in the name of progress : In a settlement with the heavy legacy of Kant; the cultivation of man, they suggest that we, humans, should now be compared to animals. It is a very strange way of relating to the dichotomy of nature versus culture, and it is hardly understandable. I do not know if I'd managed to muster any kind of intelligible meaning out of such a claim from Professors, had it not been because I have no less than devoted my life to pay close attention to everything that moves by ideological expressions in our society.
Among other things, I have followed closely the ideas of transhumanist ideology, a philosophical discipline that is gaining more and more ground in academia . There is one peculiar thing within transhumanist ideology that has continually amazed me, and that is the great love they proclaim that they have for animals. Such a love has in my ears appeared to be very hollow and false in all the time they constantly proclaim that one should use technology to make significant changes in human nature.
However, after reading the book The Changes of Formation, a couple of new pieces fall into place. Transhumanism does not operate in a vacuum, but has its tentacles into most scientific disciplines, including pedagogy. If one asks: Why do the philosophers of formation want to compare man with animals? Then it becomes very obvious to see it in the context of the development of intelligent machines - intelligent machines that are believed to share human intelligence, but which have the potential to raise the level of intelligence to heavenly heights. This is because machines can absorb enormously much larger amounts of data and process much faster than a simple human brain can. By equating humans with animals, which are considered to be primarily driven by instinct, the door is opened wide open for the unfolding of a very advanced intelligence - an intelligence even understood as consciousness or geist. The new man - the cyborg - will thus in its essence be about the animal instinct and the intelligence of the machines. The advanced concept of emotion falls completely out of the parable.
The problem with the Bildung philosophers' understanding of what consciousness is, is that they up front is saying something solid about what it is without them, or anyone else for that matter, knowing what consciousness in its essence actually is.
That very many Professors believe that high intelligence is the same as well-developed consciousness is nothing new. The foremost quality a human being must have to become a professor is to have a high logical intelligence. This is a quality many professors of science are partly born with as a talent and partly have been willing to sacrifice quite a lot to further develop. For example, many have been very diligent in school. For their school achievments, they have received much praise, not least in the form of high goal achievement, high grades, as far as school work is concerned. "You're good!" their teachers have been telling them all these years. Of course they themselves think that they are better than everyone else, but more important; they also believe that the algorithmic thinking they master is the very expression of being conscious - they are, after all, the smartest people in society. But at the same time, they make a remarkable shortcoming by stating they know something that science have actually failed to give an answer to. Science itself admits its shortcoming when it comes to the question of what consciousness actually is. If anything, science is actually very clear that consciousness is about something completely different than logical thinking. The definition of consciousness usually goes in the direction of something like: "Consciousness is our subjective experiences of emotions." I will elaborate:
We know we have emotions; We know that dopamine increases when we are in love and that adrenaline increases when we are afraid. One can refer to electrical activities in the brain and locate the place where the emotions are expressed. However, what researchers still have to explain is why emotions are expressed as explicit subjective experiences. Yes, we get scared if a lion attacks us because we understand that we are in danger, and the researchers set up long and varied causal processes = algorithms. But why do we have to experience fear? Could we not just rationally ascertain and act? Why do we absolutely have to experience a dreadful feeling of fear as well?
What we know almost nothing about is how the mass of biochemical reactions and electrical currents in the brain create the subjective experience of, for example, pain, anger or love. How do the emotion algorithms become concrete subjective experiences? We do not know that, and it is this blank hole in our knowledge that is consciousness. What is the point of all these feelings? Why do they play such a big role in our lives? Do we need them? These are questions we all fall short in relation to. This is a fact we should be extremely humble about.
We simply have no idea why emotions manifest in subjective experiences and one has no idea the meaning of it. And since we have no idea the meaning, the research has not found out, so these expressions in themselves may not be important? Many people today seem to think that subjective emotional expressions - that is, consciousness - are not significantly interesting and important. Thus, it is the case that the research community is in the process of sending the whole concept of consciousness to the rubbish heap where concepts such as soul, God and ether already lie. Consciousness is instead replaced but the alas so limited logical intelligence. Emotions are placed in the algorithm booth.
The road to sending concepts such as mind and consciousness on the rubbish heap has been paved ever since science formally established itself about 300 years ago. Science has long been an expert in denying the relevance of the concepts, among other things by wrinkling disapprovingly when the word "I" is used in scientific discussions. Scientific work has nothing to do with the researcher's subjective feelings and opinions. The researcher is objective, neutral and completely capable of making precisely neutral and objective analyzes. To some extent, that is true. Science has given us many wonderful objective truths. But when it comes to how all these objective facts are connected in a larger whole, which 'whole' all the facts are to be understood within - yes, then they have very little to come up with. Scientists, like the rest of us, are trapped in traditional understandings of reality, perhaps more.
What science, and in the extension that the school and education system has, in other words, long pursued, is to create an ever deeper distinction between intelligence and consciousness. As Yuval Noah Hararis puts it: "When intelligence is kept separate from consciousness, this can put people at risk of losing their value." It is therefore not the case that intelligent robots are the biggest threat, but that we humans bow to the powerful mechanical logical intelligence and so that man's inherent consciousness completely loses its significance. If this happens we will be enslaved by the algorithms. It is from this perspective that we should understand the fact that there are many today who gather knowledge about us, and we ourselves willingly share information every time we turn on the cell phone or computer. This has been going on for a while, and may now mean that in a short time we will have to deal with hordes of robots who know better than our own mother how to press our emotional buttons and use this eerie ability to try to sell us something - a car, a politician or an entire ideology.
As I unfortunately clearly understand, it is precisely such a squat for the logical intelligence that our education professors speak for and which in turn will be expressed in the curricula that will have a direct influence on how we raise our children.
As already pointed out, the primary task with the heavy concept of Bildung is to make us useful in societies where technological development is the alpha and omega. Technological development is understood as nature, a perception that has gradually spread far into the common man mentality via how the school has raised us, for centuries, to become very useful in an industrial society. The very remarkable thing about a perception that technological development is something purely impersonal - 'a force of nature', is that one completely manages to overlook the grip that prevailing ideology has on us. Awareness is low. However, one does not have to be significantly aware; It takes you a long way in understanding if you take a quick look at The Alliance for Affordable Internet website. (A4AI) There you will see that we are dealing with everything but natural forces. A4AI is an initiative to make the Internet more affordable for people around the world. The A4AI Foundation serves as the secretariat for many member companies and institutions; including Google, Omidyar Network, DFID, USAID, Facebook, Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, UN Women as well as many others from public, private and voluntary organizations. Also worth mentioning is that there are enormous development opportunities in biotechnology, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. There are also huge profit opportunities in the development and sale of the new technology. It is possible, presumably, that for many in business and politics, the introduction of new technology is first and foremost about new products and business models that provide fantastic income opportunities. And technology production that provides profit our western society likes a lot, as known very well.
The Critique of Instrumentalism
As mentioned about, the traditional critique of intstrumentalism (critique of Positivism) is no longer to be understood as valid. It is no longer useful to understand the power and manipulation within a new technological world. As the new world will look different from the mechanical industrial world , the tool we had to understand power and manipulation then will not be useful today. It is in other words stated that Skjervheim & Co's Critique of instrumentalism is of no use to us today, and it is questioned if it ever was as we are told it left us with inhibiting prejudices and even laid the foundation for the technocrats' test regime in the 90s. This analysis of the critique of instrumentalism is simply not possible to understand. However, fundamental ambiguity is often what is most clarifying to outsiders and therefore also very interesting. In this case, the ambiguities help us to understand the epistemological positioning within which the authors of the book DF themselves can be placed.
I will begin by briefly stating that Skjervheim tried to create a third alternative to two dominant scientific theoretical positions within the subject of pedagogy - and in the theory of science in general. So far Skjervheim’s philosophy only managed to become a whiff in the wind, repelled by the two dominant positions that are constantly prevailing.
The two dominant pedagogical directions, which Skjervheim otherwise nicely defines in an article called "A basic problem in pedagogical philosophy", are about two fundamentally different perceptions of how to best educate young people. The oldest of these directions, which can be traced back to Aristotle, rests on a notion that the child can and should be shaped. Now a child cannot be shaped as a potter shapes a lump of clay into a vase, but a child can be shaped by the adult (the teacher) relating to the student as an object. We get a subject / object relationship, and in practice it means an authoritarian upbringing. This type of upbringing is often referred to as a technical goal / medium model. This model has been central to Norwegian school history all along, but got a lasting boost with Hernes' school plans in the 1990s.
The other pedagogical direction was established with Jaques Rousseau, and refers to the natural child. Within this direction, it is not a matter of shaping the students, but of free growth. The student is no longer considered a material, as it is for the educator to shape and influence in the right way, an individual under development for which it is important to provide enough leeway so that it can develop freely. This usually goes hand in hand with a critique of society and society's norms, which sets too narrow limits for development, which inhibits the individual in his development. With such an ideal, one might think that we have had a pedagogical direction that fought for exemption from any pedagogical intervention. But that is clearly not what is meant, in discussions about free upbringing, it is constantly strongly emphasized that leaving the new generation entirely to oneself is a misunderstood free upbringing. But thus what a free upbringing was and is still, is anything but clear.
Hans Skjervheim wrote something similar to that in 1965, and when we read the book “The Changes in Formation”, it becomes clear that the authors are well planted within the last-mentioned pedagogical model, often called the biological model.
In school historical presentations, the two become different ideological directions; the technological and the biological, often presented as the social democratic (state) and the Grundtvigian (people) school model, respectively. Our society is further developed on both these ideologies in continuous conflict and subsequent compromise, and in the eternal round dance of conflict and compromise succeeded very well in establishing socially beneficial citizens within a national industrial society. It has been based on a balance between the people's voice and the state's supremacy, between free growth and goals / means, between independence and utility. The pedagogical paradox, this which concerns; How to raise to authority when upbringing is to be subject to another's authority, is in other words not just a so-called pedagogical paradox, but a paradox that underlies all politics in general.
In 1965, we were still living within mechanical industrialism. The bio-educators shouted loudly about the freedom of the student and were with the foremost pushers to promote the unique individual (who now are to be dissolved) as an opposite to the technocrats' goal / means ideology and the authoritarian teacher. In the first phase of modernity, these two different pedagogical positions can be perceived as a scientific manifestation of the pedagogical paradox. The bio-educators represented independence. The techno-educators represented benefit.
The problem with these positionings, as with all other positionings, is that they lock us into given issues. Issues to be discussed within the modern project; what the modern project - that is, the social pact - is actually about, is a topic that is smoothly omitted. The established opposition, the one between utility and independence, keeps us in place, so to speak, so that we do not slip off course. However, they completely agreed on the project - the Modern Project. And the project in the first phase of modernity was about shaping us into socially beneficial individuals within an industrial nation. They now agree that we are facing a new technological revolution. For those of us who are outside, it is clear that neither the bio- nor the techno-educators have problems with the new technological society that is about to establish itself. The new technological society is the very social pact that constitutes the high heaven of science, and which thus no existing ideological positioning, be it in science or politics, sees any reason to problematize at all.Technological development has come to be regarded as natural. It also becomes clear that the lines of conflict between the "goal / means" educators and the "free growth" educators stand. The biological "free growth" educators are hammering away at the techno-educators and their goal / means model, as never before. Again, for those of us outside the established ideological positionings, the debates that unfold as pure skin debates are activated to pacify to conformity (a harmonious humanity governed by algorithms) rather than to cultivate respect for diversity and differences. The most hypocritical and inconsistent lies in the bio-educators' opposition to the test regime. Test regimes are, in short, a propagation of the scientific method as a pedagogical tool. Not only are bio-educators very reluctant to continue the struggle for positivism that knocked on the door in the 70's - which indicates great benevolence towards the continuous use of a scientific method in humanities research. They also, in a miraculous way, fail to see precisely the connection between the scientific method and the test regime in school. Say what they want, but there seems to be little doubt that we are in any case dealing with two prevailing pedagogical directions, both of which represent a so-called machine view of man. Whether it is a deliberate oversight or rather a question of an alas so human tendency to develop blind spots is not good to say.
For bio-educators, just as it is for techno-educators, it is precisely the scientific method that is the right method. and the work has long been in the process of transcending the differences between the humanities and the natural sciences, exceeding the quantitative difference that the struggle for positivism and Hans Skjervheim for a brief time managed to put on the agenda. Exceeding the differences in the sense that biological causal explanations will again have normative status in humanities research. It is this increasingly strong manifestation of the scientific method / thinking that is the essence of the development of the secular society. This is a logical / rational thinking that is very beneficial to use when machines are to be built, technology developed and medicine made, but which should therefore have a significantly limited significance when it comes to understanding people, society and for that matter, animals.
With the creation of a new technological web society, we can see that science is making a number of settlements with old concepts and contradictions. It is also possible to understand that the two opposing pedagogical positions now meet in an elevated whole in a new electronic public. Give it some time and we will see that new public management test-regime has been the foretaste of each of us being tested and challenged by online algorithms all the time. In such a light, one can also understand why Hans Skjervheim and his critique of positivism are pushed completely out of the parable. In a purely scientific world, it goes without saying that further development of the hermeneutic method has no place. This transcendence of the contradictions in science between the humanities and the natural sciences, between positivism and hermeneutics, between nature and culture – along with many other transcendences that we are witnessing today – may be said to be highly premature.
For example, with regard to the relationship between individual and society: We are told it must be exceeded in the sense that the concepts will no longer be significantly interesting. (see note 12) Focus should be on the interface. A focus on the balance naturally means that the extremes, for example the self / individual and society, end up in the gray zone and with it (gradually) dissolve. The book focuses in particular on the weathering of the self / individual / subject: The aim is: ".. to dissolve metaphysical ideas about the self as a fixed quantity, with an inherent essence and autonomy."
With the focus on the interface - where the balances are the key - we can give man a new designation: cyborg. Kyborg is the metaphor for the symbiotic relationship between man, animal and machine.
For a long time we have also had the opportunity to observe the secularization process that has been going on. That process has mainly been about a long discussion about the opposition religion versus science. Religion has long since lost the battle. In practice, this means that our ability and willingness to metaphysical perspectives has been lost. When a society becomes secular, intelligence becomes the spirit/geist/consciousness, and thus being consciousness is reduced to an intelligently controlled course of action, also called algorithms.
As mentioned above, I am very sympathetic to attempts to exceed established and often false contradictions, but it must presuppose that one has first recognized the equality between the size one wishes to exceed. This is not the case. The transgressions we see are made without us having examined the relationship between individual and society, without us having achieved equality between masculine and feminine capacities (see note 1 3 ) , without us having understood what spirituality and by extension consciousness is and without the double hermeneutic insight being included in the researcher's awareness.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
Initially I asked the reader to reflect on the pedagogical paradox on which the concept of education rests: How to bring up authority when upbringing is to be subject to another authority?
I have shown how the pedagogy has had, and still has, two different positions: The bio-educators representing independence. The techno-educators representing the useful. I have tried to show how these two different directions have complemented each other, much like the right and the left in politics complement each other. While the right and the left represent the employer and the employee, respectively, and thus are a model for ensuring a distribution of funds within a capitalist system, the bio- and tech educators thus represent independence and utility within an industrial society that requires a certain type of knowledge and thinking . The deep contradictions "right vs left" and "independence vs utility" are thus values that are to be sharpened against each other within a given system, and together ensure that no one feels directly cheated, incapacitated or excluded. In this way, the overall system, which together constitutes a whole - an ideological system often referred to as the Modern Project - can develop relatively undisturbed. We understand with this why many experience the left as impotent in these times of privatization, much as teachers (as well as doctors, nurses and police officers) are helpless and impotent in the face of orders from above: " Adapt or disappear".
The big question is: How independent is it possible to be within a given system you do not have the opportunity to influence? The answer is; not appreciably great opportunity. You have the choice to adapt or to fall outside. For some, customization is much easier and more fun than for others. People who, for example, are born with a talent for mathematical calculations and thus will be able to become good at computer programming and thus be given all that society has to offer in terms of status, profit and honor - and thus power . These same people will hardly immediately go out and criticize the system that gives them all these benefits – if ever, as they have been told in school, and by society at large, all along that they are the best.
That we live in an ideological system that promotes a specific development, has become extra visible today when we take a look at how new technology is intervening in our lives, and how we from all quarters are being encouraged to adopt new technology. Technological development is often presented as a law of nature, and after three hundred years with an increasingly well-developed school system whose primary task has been to make us beneficial within a technological industrial society, the myth that technological development is a law of nature, has settled pretty well in the backbone to the vast majority .We are formed into what the Transhumanists call preventive transhumanists. It is only a matter of time before we all become so-called proactive transhumanists. But as I have shown, there is not very much that is natural with the technological development we have seen in the last two hundred years, not to mention the technological development we see today, which is even now about to make the intervention in our bodies.
The technological development we have seen is clearly the result of a deliberate ideological policy that has not least used the school to advance its agenda.The school, in turn, has fostered good consumers who happily buy goods produced by an increasingly advanced technology. The new technology promises huge profit opportunities and rich states and rich manufacturers of goods spit huge funds into the marketing of this very new technology. Development and dissemination of technology is not a law of nature, it is a deliberate policy within a clear and definable ideology.
How democratic is really a society that is governed according to an ideology that no one within the so-called established layer is willing to discuss, but instead chooses to prepare educational projects that in turn will propagate in the school plans that our children and young people will be brought up according to to? How democratic is it really when professors now have to decide that we should no longer be perceived as individuals with essence and autonomy , but as cyborgs - who by definition are a symbiosis of animals, humans and machines ? How democratic it is when more or less traditional meeting places are abandoned in favor of an electronic public? Is it really an electronic public we want? A type of reality where meetings between people primarily take place via skype, zoom or whatever it is now all the new electronic meeting places are called ?
Even in the mainstream media, there has been a lot of talk about what kind of jobs will exist when automation really takes off. Many in politics, business, media and research claim that it is uncertain, but what is still certain is that there will be jobs. We are reminded of the industrial revolution and how many at that time were also worried about their jobs. But it worked out, as it will also work out this time. If not then we have a welfare system. The welfare system also discusses the future and Universal Basic Income becomes the solution. Citizens' income will be financed by taxed robots, if it should actually turn out that automation is not providing enough jobs. What kind of jobs our new online society will provide, is also a highly undermined question these days. I will leave it for the reader to figure it out for themselves. (I am not the least bit worried for my self, as I am entering retirement in a decade and highly educated and thus able to make a living for the rest of my life without adopting too much to the our new digital society.)
As far as actual work, and actual living conditions, is concerned, our educational philosophers assure us that jobs in an electronic public will be much better than the jobs society so far has offered us. We will simple not be able to hold the new jobs online accountable for the same type of alienation, as traditional jobs where responsible for with its mechanical machines. It becomes difficult to understand this in any other way than that the professors think that the mechanical machines caused alienation because they constituted a barrier between man and matter. However, when we become one with the new electronic machines, it will no longer be possible to talk about any alienating barrier, but on the contrary, about a symbiosis. As long as we are in one with the machine and not separated from it, we will be fine. The philosophers of Bildung explain:
"By focusing on the interface - the point where man and machine meet - the interactive media help to promote the foremost goal of classical formation, which was a free interaction between the self and the world. The student meets the world directly. When the relationship between me and the world shrinks to a disappearing balance , the students will be able to experience hypertransformation. Hypertransformation is being online, living on the border and experiencing the turmoil of the dimensionless. Our professors believe that this dimensionless turbulence will give students a feeling of intense presence in the world. The hypertransformative will contributes to an increase sense of self, a sharpening of the self-esteem, and to a stronger and better interact with others. The intensity we, the humans, will experience is strongly poetic and creative, precisely because they are volatile. Spirituality will receive a significant qualitative boost.
The new Bildung project take a stand against the metaphysical idea that the student has essence and autonomy and instead allow them to experience the turmoil in the dimensionless. This allowance will lead to, we hear: “.. qualitative strengthening of friendship, love, care, cooperation - only to mention a few things."
Is it now that we are beginning to approach a fulfilment of the dogma that pedagogy took over from Christianity? Are we now approaching the big transformation where humans finally has become a perfect ideal? Is the divine facility of humanity now becoming a reality?
It is not the case that the ideology underlying our modern project has only brought misery, of course not. But like all other ideologies, it also has a dark side that has the potential to gain the upper hand if one is not willing to talk about the premises of ideology. I therefore believe that we have long since ended up in the danger zone, and thus that the opportunity to develop a real democracy will soon no longer apply. We need to start talking now!
PS: Just recently a professor at Yale University, Daniel Markovits, published a remarkable and very important book called "The Meritocracy Trap" For a bit more information have a look at: https://ckfadum.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-meritocracy-trap.html