A man in search of solace came to an independent teacher and asked him what type of trauma therapy would be the best for him. The teacher answered: To look at your parents and childhood, your upbringing, and your so-called traumatic events, be it with the help of a therapist, a group, or on your own, that’s all well and just. But if that’s all you’re going to do then, “Good luck.” If you really want to resolve trauma, the teacher said to the man, then you need to look where all the therapists, even the world famous, most celebrated, and most highly praised trauma therapists forbid you to look. They will all stop you from looking, try to extinguish the smallest light and inkling, try to divert your attention. If you really want to resolve trauma, and replace this terrible, all consuming darkness with something better, you will have to look at compulsory schooling; what it did to you, and what it did to everyone and everything you loved.

My neighbour booked two sessions with a fitness trainer. Turns out she only took one session, even though she’d already paid for both. “How was it?” I asked. “The fitness trainer said there’s basic ways of movement children need to learn. He said he teaches children the correct way to move. What do you think of that?”

“I downright disagree!” I exclaimed. And added “You’re pretty brave though. I probably would’ve walked out before the first session had finished.”

“We always learn what we experience—that which is actually happening for us. This is different from learning from our experience.” — Anat Baniel

Marvellous quote from Anat Baniel from her book Kids beyond Limits. The saying «We learn what we experience» doesn’t invalidate «We learn from our experience», it’s something different altogether. It’s another angle at looking at learning. Anat Baniel is writing this in a context of how to create conditions for learning, what we need to create an environment that can help children with learning disabilities and special needs, and what kind of exercises are not rote drills, but exercises that themselves create conditions to learn specific skills and abilities.

The same thing is very well explained in the context of compulsory schooling by John Taylor-Gatto, in his book Dumbing Us Down:

“Children learn what they live. Put kids in a class and they will live out their lives in an invisible cage, isolated from their chance at community; interrupt kids with bells and horns all the time and they will learn that nothing is important; force them to plead for the natural right to the toilet and they will become liars and toadies; ridicule them and they will retreat from human association; shame them and they will find a hundred ways to get even.”

And here’s the same thought, but with a serving of resentment and sarcasm, by Jerry Farber, from his heavily criticised essay The student as Ni****:

“Even more discouraging than this [..] approach to education is the fact that the students take it. They haven’t gone through twelve years of public school for nothing. They’ve learned one thing and perhaps only one thing during those twelve years. They’ve forgotten their algebra. They’re hopelessly vague about chemistry and physics. They’ve grown to fear and resent literature. They write like they’ve been lobotomized. But Jesus, can they follow orders! Freshmen come up to me with an essay and ask if I want it folded and whether the name should be in the upper right hand corner. And I want to cry and kiss them and caress their poor, tortured heads.”

But what is this pearl of wisdom to us now, as grown-ups? «We learn what we live» what does it mean, now? Now- that we have graduated from school, and get to create our own environment? Now- that school might already be in half a lifetime’s distance? To what parts are we still defined by what we’ve learned way back in school?

I read somewhere that the book From The Conscious Mind by David J. Chalmers is the book to read when asking about consciousness. Downloaded. Flipped through the pages.

I don’t know- what is it with me and large collections of words? I’m ok with reading a single sentence. I don’t even need a pretty girl or garden in the background, Instagram-style. I can read a sentence just fine. I can even read a page, a chapter, a book!—if it doesn’t ask too much of me, in terms of forbearance. May I just enjoy the sensual experience of reading, please?

So I flipped through the pages of David J. Chalmers’s book about consciousness. Through my lens I ask, anything about movement? Anything about movement learning? Anything Mr. Chalmers? “But at the very least it is still puzzling that consciousness should be irrelevant to the sounds we make when talking about consciousness, to the finger movements I am making now, and so on;” Writes he, who is a leading expert in the field of consciousness, innate in the world of big media, academia and money. Why are they making consciousness irrelevant to our actual existing in the physical world? At least he sounds like as if he’s enjoying his finger movements.

“How widespread is consciousness?” asks he, and slowly I—too—start to have the same question.

The topic of “teach it to learn it” has been on my mind a lot lately. I guess to truly acknowledge the topic would require a complete re-thinking of… the very fabric of society. If I assert that society was built and shaped through compulsory schooling, as originated by the very generous Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations.

With the immensity (and monstrosity) of this topic at hand, not surprisingly, I couldn’t figure an easy way to put my state and feelings into words coherently. As a first remedy I resorted to a chat with the machine, to solidify a few definitions. Then I took to writing myself a few summaries. Here they are:

Software and hardware – The mind and the body Myth

The idea of a separation between mind and body traces back to influential figures like René Descartes (a 17th-century philosopher), asserting that the mind and body are distinct entities.

Descartes argued that the mind is immaterial and responsible for thoughts and consciousness, while the body operates mechanically. The rise of content production for monetisation purposes, the advent of Newspapers (and people sticking their heads into them as if they were addicted to them somehow), and finally social media and influencer marketing further contributed to this divide.

However, contemporary understandings challenge this separation: the recognition of the interconnectedness between mental and physical well-being.

For instance, emotions, thoughts, and psychological states can significantly impact physical health. Similarly, physical health issues can affect mental well-being, contributing to conditions like anxiety or depression. Likewise, positive emotions and a healthy mindset promote overall physical well-being, and physical well-being positively impacts mental health.

A tool for every task – The Left-Brain Right-Brain Myth

The belief in the separation of rational thinking and creativity via the left and right brain originates from ethically very challenging neurological studies in the 1960s and 1970s, notably by Sperry and Gazzaniga, focusing on surgery to split the human brain. These studies suggested logical thinking is located in the left brain and creativity with the right.

However, further research using advanced imaging has shown that while certain functions may dominate specific hemispheres, the brain operates with extensive interconnections between both sides. Despite its popularization in culture and self-help literature, the strict left-right brain dichotomy oversimplifies the brain’s complexity and interconnected nature, emphasizing collaboration between hemispheres for most tasks.

Pouring water from one bucket to the next – The Teaching and Learning are separate Myth

The traditional perception of teaching and learning as separate processes is rooted in a hierarchical educational model where the teacher is the primary source of knowledge, seen as transmitting information to lower-ranking students expected to absorb and reproduce facts. In this sense teaching is typically viewed as the delivery of content by the authoritative figure in the classroom, while learning is perceived as the responsibility of submissive students to receive information.

Contrariwise, “teach it to learn it” challenges the traditional perception that teaching and learning are separate processes. This perspective suggests that the act of teaching is intricately linked to the process of learning.

By teaching a concept or explaining a subject matter to others, individuals reinforce their understanding, deepen their knowledge, and refine their own comprehension. This process often requires organizing information in a coherent way, identifying key points, and considering various perspectives—all of which contribute to a deeper grasp of the subject matter.

In this sense teaching might be viewed as a form of learning activity, where learners of various proficiency and experience levels come together and collaborate. The less experienced ones respectfully hear from the ones who are already much deeper into the subject, before engaging in their own, further explorations. There is critical thinking and experimentation (hypothesis, falsification and verification), however, without creating class-hierarchy and appeal to authority.

Something like this.