About the Learning Advisor

On the profession of the 21st century, which will combine individual treatment (psychologist), organizational treatment (consultant), and system treatment (manager) - because both the individual and the organization will be understood as systems. With the spread of the learning revolution, we'll discover that we're all learning advisors, half necessary and half superfluous, because the split state is the advisory state - and the learning state. Advice is guidance - not instruction, and not just a possibility, but an intermediate state between possibility and instruction. This unique logical state, between the possible and the necessary, resides in the space between language and programming, that is, in the space where learning occurs

The Advisor as a Phantasmatic Synthesis between Parent and Psychologist (Source)

Psychoanalysis created the figure of the therapist, Nietzsche the figure of the superman, and Marx created the figure of the communist revolutionary. What, then, is the figure, and perhaps the profession, created by the philosophy of learning? Is it the figure of the teacher, the student, the researcher, or perhaps the student as a profession - the scholar? All these are figures of learners, but as an advisory philosophy, dealing with guidance (and leaving the learning itself to the system - that is, to the learner himself), the philosophy of learning gives rise to another figure: the learning advisor. This figure is somewhat similar to the organizational consultant and somewhat to the teacher, and in fact replaces both, while creating a theoretical-conceptual basis for their action.

Every learning system - whether it's a person, organization, market, culture, field of research, language, society, or any other system - maintains the basic property of learning: learning is always within the system. The meaning of this saying is almost tautological. The way we see learning in a system is by examining it as internal development - learning is looking at a system from within and inside it: with its own tools. For example, if we examine cultural development with economic tools, or artistic development with political tools - we are making an external reduction of the system to another system, and thus we are not looking at it as a learning system, because we are not looking at it from an internal perspective.

The development of art should be examined with the tools of the system itself - that is, as artistic development, and not with tools external to it (power struggles, morality, politics, economics), because only in this way can we examine artistic learning - that is, the learning that occurs in the art system. And so for any other field. If we claim that the Torah study system stems from various material interests, foreign to the system, we will not understand the phenomenon of learning in the Torah system. It's not that we'll be wrong, but that we'll miss examining the learning of the system, because this is a dynamic that is perceived when examining the inside of the system.

When literature develops for internal literary reasons - this is literary learning. And if literature develops for non-literary reasons - this is not literary learning. If we look at the brain as a physical system, we lose the understanding of human learning from within as a learning system (how learning looks inside a person). The reduction to external causality is not wrong - it's simply not learning-oriented, and therefore less interesting. Because learning is interesting and enriching - and reduction is flattening and simplifying, and often misses what is special to the system and therefore internal to it (and therefore often has weak explanatory power - empty, conspiratorial or circular - because it is disconnected from the internal dynamics, like a "deus ex machina" is disconnected from the plot of the play). Therefore, leftist reductions - Marxist to economics, politically correct to morality and political agenda, Foucauldian to power - are anti-learning. And therefore the politicization of everything is anti-learning - because it is external.

Therefore, the learning advisor does not analyze the system from the outside, and does not teach it from the outside, but from within. Therefore, he is only an advisor - he is not responsible for bringing it to a solution, but to guide it. He does not manage it - neither directly nor manipulatively - and he does not know better than it what is right. In fact, a good manager whose organization is a system with high learning abilities - he too should not manage it, but be its learning advisor. And in the ideal, learning state - the prime minister is the learning advisor of the state. The goal of the learning advisor is to bring the system to a state where it is a learning system, and to enhance its learning abilities. How does he do this? For example, through examples, and particularly examples of learning. Through analogies. Through narratives. Through conceptual images. That is: through learning aids. He of course does this through questions, exercises and drills, thought experiments, experiments and games - all these are examples of learning aids. Since it's about learning, there is no general method, but only examples, and no tools but only aids.

The best learning example (that is, the most instructive) of the learning advisor is a learning history of the field in which the system is engaged. A learning advisor for mathematical research will expose the history of the field of mathematical research and its development. A learning advisor for a student will expose him to the history of the field he is studying: how the field itself learned. A learning advisor exposes the learning infrastructure of the system - and makes it visible to the system itself. If the infrastructure is not efficient, for example, the system is fossilized, he cleans the infrastructure and offers learning as an ethos to the system. That is, he strengthens the learning components within the system, but the learning advisor cannot and should not create learning abilities out of nothing, but works with - and within - a learning system. There is no learning advisor for a stone, and no advisor will teach it to learn. A learning advisor encourages and develops existing learning abilities in the system, and he is the ideologist and disseminator of the philosophy of learning, until it becomes self-evident.

But even when the philosophy of learning becomes the philosophy of common sense, and is fully internalized in the system, and in the world in general, the role of the advisor will not end - because the role of learning will never end. It is easier to present learning strategies than to implement them. It's easy to aspire to exemplary examples - it's hard to be an exemplary example. It's easy for an advisor to present even to a very advanced student - more advanced than the advisor himself, and even to the point where he has surpassed everyone else - the masterpieces as a goal, but it's very difficult to create masterpieces (in fact, it's exactly the advisor's role to be the one who presents this goal to the student - especially when he has progressed far beyond his teacher, the advisor). It's easy to criticize - it's hard to do. We know that the teachers of the great artists were almost never greater artists than them. The advisor presents tests to the learner (like in NP), and the learner will always find it difficult to find a solution for them. Therefore, the advisor is necessary even for a great artist. The advisor doesn't know how to learn better than the artist, but he knows how to advance him in learning.

If we take an extreme example: the advisor can be less intelligent than the learner, but still will have no substitute. Thus, as the learning abilities of the computer increase, the human - who is currently a user and controller - will gradually become the learning advisor of the computer. We can imagine that the learning abilities of the computer will surpass those of humans - and still there will be a need for humans as learning advisors, to guide it on what to learn. Ultimately, this is the future of humans: learning advisors. And as the importance of learning in various systems is recognized - learning advice will spread as a practice and profession. There is room here for empirical learning research: how to create more efficient capitalist learning? More efficient democratic learning? Cultural learning? Advising is learning about learning. Therefore, if learning is within the system - advising is within the learning system of the system.

Therefore, there is no general, external, ultimate method for advising. This is a field that must be learned from examples, from experience (actual personal experience and past experience before us - that is: previous examples) and through learning creativity (that is: new examples). Because as learning ability advances in the world - so must advising itself advance, because one needs to learn to learn. Advising is the second-order operator of learning (and therefore an advisor to an advisor is the third order and so on - just as there is a guide for a psychologist, and a parent for a parent, and a teacher for a teacher). Good advice for a good advisor is to be well-versed in philosophy, because this way he can give many examples of conceptual revolutions. In learning, one can only give good advice - not good methods. Another good piece of advice is to be well-versed in the intellectual history of the field to which he advises - and especially in the connections between the history of this field and conceptual revolutions (philosophical history of the field).

The next stage in historical understanding, after the history of ideas, will be the history of learning. The history of learning is, for example, the connection between methodological revolutions in various learning fields and methodological changes in philosophy, but mainly it is a history of different forms of learning in a specific field: the history of methods. Therefore, above all, the advisor needs to know and understand the learning history of the field he is advising, or build one together with the learner, as part of the advising. Thus, the question of what to do from here and for the future comes from understanding the internal learning trends of the field, and a hypothesis about the continuation of learning in it - and an attempt to reach an understanding of what is the next important (and perhaps even revolutionary) learning change that will occur in the field. That is, predicting a learning future.

The psychological learning advisor will try to identify psychological learning strategies that will help the learner overcome his problems and achieve accomplishments. Therefore, he is not limited only to those who have psychological problems (negative motivation that stems from lack), but to anyone who wants to develop psychologically and achieve psychological accomplishments (positive motivation that stems from opportunity), for example: to enrich the personality, develop sensitivity, or increase creativity and flexibility. Indeed, those who turn to this psychologist do not necessarily have the narcissistic-Christian profit in seeing themselves as victims or as damaged (although there may of course be learning failures that need to be corrected), but this loss in finding sins is compensated by the reward of finding commandments and learning Torah.

As advisors to advisors, let's take as an example what is at the core of psychoanalysis, and give an example of a learning approach to it. The need for a concrete example stems from the fact that there are no general learning truths, all learning is an example, and therefore learning advice is under the danger of talking in the air and learning nonsense - if it does not find itself an object. Just as there is no vision or cognition in itself, without an object, so there is no learning without an object. Hence, the cornerstone in learning is the example (and there are many forms - as forms of learning - of examples and demonstrations). So, first of all, we will characterize learning in fields at the core of psychoanalysis, such as sexuality and dreaming, that is, we will offer a tool (learning aid) that can create psychoanalysis. This is the learning substitute for historical explanation, and it is aware from the outset of its partiality, and of being only guidance and aid, and of a certain arbitrariness: there can be many aids that answer this function, and each of them will create different learning when operated again. But what is important to us is not to give a "correct" explanation of the learning that was performed, and to answer the question of "why", but to extract from it learning aids and strategies, to answer the question of "how" with multiple possible answers. We need to extract learning as a possibility and not as a necessity. So, how was psychoanalysis created?

Freud, who came from a Hasidic family, transferred the basic Kabbalistic idea to the world of the psyche (like Hasidism), but because he perceived the psyche as a scientific thing, he created a scientific version of Kabbalah. The most central innovation of Kabbalah in relation to sexuality was its transfer from the traditional space in which it was perceived in the Middle Ages (and until Freud's era) - as something belonging to the material realm (and precisely the most material) - to something belonging to the spiritual realm (and precisely the most spiritual). From the bottom of the world ontologically, from the lowest place, sexuality rose to the height of the world, to the highest and most spiritual thing. From here, the path to the sexual revolution was only a matter of time. Sexuality moved from negative to positive delineation, and therefore focused less on its traditional role in bringing children and more as heavenly pleasure. Unlike Marx and Nietzsche, whose foolish followers brought about terrible revolutions (the Red and the Brown), Freud's foolish followers brought about the sexual revolution. Philosophy always needs to take into account precisely its foolish followers (!) - and this too Freud learned from Hasidism. Even the degeneration of Rabbi Freud's path should be relatively graceful, unlike the Communist and Nazi monsters. Wise men - beware of your philosophies.

Therefore, a psychological learning advisor is not necessarily someone who seeks to correct sexuality and its failures, but someone who comes to develop it. The starting point is not trauma - but learning. Also, the starting point for understanding dreams is not trauma - but as a learning mechanism, and the goal is to develop the dream world, and learn from it for everyday life or for the life of the psyche. The goal is to enrich the person, and not just the poor person living in scarcity, but also the one living in abundance. Therefore, even if there is no psychological problem that needs to be treated, the learning advisor presents to the psyche an opportunity and challenge - the artistic field. His goal is to develop dreaming and sexuality into art, culture, spiritual life and masterpiece. Acts of love and dreaming can be private and secret masterpieces, and then receive broader artistic expression (thus defeating pornography). Thus, we can continue the Kabbalistic/Freudian trend of elevating them out of the religious/scientific world, into the artistic world - thanks to framing them as learning. And learning has no upper limit - and no desirable mediocre normality. Learning is not treatment - it is research.

In fact, the great artist and the intellectual need higher and deeper learning advice than the miserable and suffering, who is a person whose learning abilities are low. Poverty, after all, does not stem from lack of money, but from conduct, from a learning failure, and so does emotional poverty. The advisor should identify learning failures and help the miserable become an effective learner, but even more so he should be the critic of the achiever - and identify his own failures (missing an opportunity or challenge is also a failure) - in order to bring him to even higher achievements. Everyone needs a learning advisor. And a partner can also assist in this, if he has the appropriate skills, and if it's a relationship that encourages learning and development. This is also the role of the parent towards his child. There is no commandment to love your child - there is a commandment to teach him. But in fact, the essence of love is a binding learning relationship. Therefore, good love between partners creates good sexuality, just as good love between parent and child creates talent and even genius. The genius is not the wisest of all, but the one whose learning abilities surpass everything (including his abilities to perform the creative leaps in research learning, not just the step-by-step progress in knowledge learning).

The great shame of the current intellectual sphere is its low level of originality and creativity, in favor of "reasoned", "moralistic" or "knowledgeable" discussion (and this too in double quotes) at best, and complete nonsense at worst. Innovation and creative ideas will always receive a much lower priority than replication, which is of course a much lower level learning strategy, and which is the source of both nonsense (discourse replication) and stagnation (ideational replication). Hence the lack of inspiration, boredom and learning fossilization of the current spiritual world. A learning advisor should release the humanities from their scientific, explanatory, reasoned pretension, in favor of spiritual technology, that is, creating tools and not explanations, learning aids and not knowledge, learning aesthetics and not moralism. In this, learning will show its emancipatory power towards the spirit. Between fixation and detachment, between solid and gas, between petrification and air talk - learning is liquid flow, it is an uncommitted but existing and possible connection between tradition and learning achieved in the past and the future and future learning. The first philosopher was right when he said that everything is water: everything is learning.

The more talented a person is, and the more successful and learned an organization is, the greater the need for a successful learning advisor. We know the importance of the (often accidental) encounter with a good teacher in the biography of famous people, innovators and inventors. Without Socrates - there is no Plato. And without Plato - there is no Aristotle. And without Aristotle - there is no Alexander. We must increase the chance of such mentorship, which was inherent in the Greek world, by institutionalizing the existence of the learning advisor and making it a standard. The theoretical reason why all successful learning requires such an advisor stems from the fourth principle of learning. Within learning itself, there is a need for feedback loops, evaluation, setting challenges, and guidance. While a conservative organization and a conformist person can somehow manage without an external advisor - there is no artist who can manage without editing, criticism and feedback, and there is no scientist who can manage without a community that provides evaluation, stimulation, and standards. This situation is the cause for the existence of two species in evolution - there is a need for two types of agents in a learning system, or at least two sides, as in a study partnership. Make for yourself a teacher, acquire for yourself a friend, and seek help from an advisor. It is the interaction that will save the great person from dogmatic slumbers, and save learning from getting stuck and confused.

The advisor must beware of the paternalism of the teacher or guru figure. The advisor does not know what he wants to teach. His goal is learning itself - and he has no purpose outside of it. This is a process goal. The belief in learning is not justified (only) by outputs, successes and achievements - it has a dimension of ethos: learning for its own sake. Perhaps "interest" drives it from within, but interest is also a circular definition - as the interest of learning. In fact, only the belief in learning justifies the desire for outputs, successes and achievements in the first place - and gives them their value - and not the belief in happiness, pleasure, or morality, for example, which can contradict them. After all, even monetary profit derives its meaning only from its conversion into learning and being its quantification: we pay for a product, for example, that embodies knowledge and organization, which embody learning. Only one who believes in learning gives value to Nobel Prizes. Only if honor stems from learning does it have value, and only if pleasure stems from learning does it have value, and only if morality stems from learning (and therefore grows it) is it a morality of value (one can imagine many theoretical moral systems, but learning produces a criterion for choosing between them - every real moral system grew from learning). In the end, learning cannot be justified - because it justifies everything. Therefore, the advisor can glorify and exalt and praise learning - but he cannot prove its value, not even to a student who denies it. And it is not his role - it is his self-evident, which gives him his value. What he does need to prove is his contribution to learning.

An excellent advisor is characterized by excellent students, or by great learning progress, as recognized by a learning system much broader than himself. An advisor cannot choose a learning direction that has no desire for connection to the system, and decide to promote his students towards it. Because then he disconnects from the great learning. An advisor cannot promote an exclusive and ultimate learning direction aimed at creating paper clips, as a life goal, because by ignoring the unimportance of paper clips to the learning system around him - he testifies that what interests him is clips and not learning, meaning that learning is not a goal in itself. The advisor's goal is not for them to learn something specific, but for learning itself to progress, just as one who teaches or researches mathematics does not aim to prove a specific theorem in mathematics but to advance mathematics as a whole. Sometimes the great innovation in mathematics is precisely a new definition - that is, new questions - and not a new proof. The advisor is an expert in difficult and challenging questions - and not in answers. Just as an editor of a book is usually a much less good writer than the writer himself, or an art critic is a less good painter. Thus, there can be a psychological learning advisor who understands the questions more than the answers - and he himself does not live his life well.

The philosopher too is one who opens a form of thinking, and others are those who apply it to great achievements: in literature, science, mathematics or economics. A good philosopher is one who provides a method. Therefore, a school is created from him. Not necessarily because of his wisdom and insights - but because of his learning. Philosophy is the learning advisor to learning advisors. Therefore, it does not convey any concrete information - but teaches a lot. It also allows the advisor conceptual questions that will embarrass and challenge the most skilled learner. Therefore, good philosophical questions are precisely questions that have no answer. A question that has an answer is not philosophical, and thus the sciences and mathematics left the realm of philosophy, once answers were found for them, while religion re-entered the realm of philosophy, since it became a question rather than an answer due to secularization. In fact, philosophy can be defined as the field dealing with questions that have no answer. In this view, every important philosopher does not disagree with his predecessors, but adds more such questions - he disagrees with their questions and not with the answers. The content of philosophy is mostly just a demonstration of a certain way of learning and thinking, and not a final conclusion or some orthodoxy, but only a good example. Therefore, its arguments and claims are never truly convincing - but always interesting. And therein lies their value. The purpose of philosophy is to be interesting, that is, stimulating to learning - to be a learning tool and learning aid. Therefore, a learning advisor studies philosophy.

Therefore, if there is an unexplained leap in a philosophical sequence of claims, the problem with it is not a hole in the chain of argument, but in the discontinuity of learning. This is not a logical problem, as in a proof, because this is a chain of learning and not a chain of proof, that is, these are points in the sequence of learning flow, whose purpose is to outline it, and not to be the steps themselves. And if too many points are missing (we can never put all the points!) it is no longer clear how the river flowed and meandered. The reader who moves between the points should be able to jump between them smoothly to understand the "move", but points that are too dense will hide the true learning path and pretend to be proof, and will not teach the reader to jump, that is, to perform the learning move. Therefore, it is necessary to challenge him with a jump, in measure and gradually (so he doesn't fall into the river). Learning is like reading a text where the different points are the sentences and the sequence is the move that hides between them, which the reader needs to understand - and perform. This is the meaning of studying a text. Therefore, a good literary text does not spoon-feed, and tire with dense points, but allows enjoyable jumps, but which do not become arbitrary holes and unjustified in the plot or blurring and smearing (when a point becomes an area).

If so, what makes a learning sequence valid, as opposed to a non-learning sequence? Where does the sequence stand between the arbitrary possible and the rigid necessary? The learning sequence is not a proof but a sequence of inferences that are reasonable, but it is not about probability (this is not fuzzy logic or partial inference of prediction). In addition, this sequence does indeed work according to a method, but the method is not its criterion - it is not about a method of inference rules (this is not alternative mathematics). The characterization is different: a learning move is an organization of the possible as necessary. There is no internal demonstrative necessity here but organization as necessity. The content is possible and the form is necessary. It's not like mathematics but more like in law ("more like" - meaning law is an example, not a model and definition...). But above all, it is about organic growth, in accordance with a learning and adaptive mechanism - not arbitrary and "in the air", and not mechanically hard (as in mathematics and computer science). The same move itself can be "just", possible and arbitrary, but in a learning context, as part of a learning system - it can become a learning move (and eventually, based on learning trends in the system, even necessary). There is no learning in isolation from a system - and this is just an example of the more general rule: that there is no learning outside a system.

For example, in an extremely extreme example (and not learning efficient), let's even take a random mutation in evolution. If your child just grows a unicorn horn, that's one thing, but if he's measured by it as part of a learning system and inherits it and the horn undergoes adaptation - it's already part of learning, and if a new race grows from it with technological capabilities of connecting the horn to a computer, we'll understand in retrospect that it's part of a necessary adaptation of connecting the biological to the technological, and that actually this stupid horn, than which there is nothing more stupid and everyone laughs at him, was part of a deep move, which was ripe in a certain evolutionary state. Suddenly the random horn will become part of a learning move. And needless to say regarding an ideational or artistic innovation, from which a school grows. The burden of proof is on the innovation - that it is not innovation for its own sake but innovation within the system, that is, within learning. But if the deviation was just outside the system, it had no way of being learning, because it had no context - the innovation was disconnected. Learning is always within a system.

From all of the above, it follows that the advisor should increase the learning flow of the advised, by creating questions that he can jump into, and progress, and opening learning spaces - in which one can learn. If in the past, in the bilateral relations of the spiritual world, the teacher was perceived as male, who gives, and the student as female, who receives, and learning as inserting the teacher's seed into the student's brain and transferring information, then when the teacher becomes an advisor the stereotype is reversed. The advisor opens a feminine space into which the learner can enter. The advisor provides evaluation, context, system, open question - and the learner is the one who acts within the advisor, and navigates within this coordinate system. Thus, for example, the role of a masterpiece is not to transfer to us exemplary and culturally authoritative knowledge, but to open up a world of thought and cultural space for us, and above all - a form of learning. But the content of learning is ours, as students, and not its content. Its immense importance is in opening a new horizon, and not in the directions of the path within it. The advisor is a landscape within which the student walks. And therefore he is not didactic, does not wash his brain, and has no pretension or motivation to produce from him an exemplary democratic citizen as a kind of product (or any other ideology). The advisor is not a teacher and there is no indoctrination in him - there is no specific content that he wants to teach. And he does not want to create a soldier for the ranks of any doctrine - but a learner. The idea of a goal for learning is identical to the idea of a goal for evolution.

All philosophical writing is a learning move that demonstrates a philosophical space, and if it is deep writing it spreads it to its depth, and shows the depth of its possibilities, and thus creates a feminine space. It breaks through if it opens an opening in the opaque and self-evident part of the world, where it was never thought there was space. Hence the constant confrontation of philosophy with the self-evident, which is its competitor for the world, until sometimes it is defeated by its opacity and fails to say something that is not self-evident. The hatred for the self-evident is what drives much innovation, and then come the people of establishment, and turn the new floor, which was laboriously carved, into a new self-evident. Unlike the people of establishment, the people of innovation are those who chase after innovations, and their danger is innovations that have no substance, lazy innovations that pretend to be innovations but actually have nothing beyond the self-evident. They are defeated by the wall and do not notice it - and the exaltation of innovation is in their throat.

The learner must be careful of this, but because human nature is more conservative than innovative, he must be even more careful of conservatism. And why is this human nature? Not because of some unsuccessful case, but because any long-term learning system, like the evolutionary one, has learned to innovate very carefully, and to prefer its conservative action over innovation. Therefore, organizations are by nature conservative, and not by nature innovative. Organizations (and people within them) very much like the self-evident - and like philosophy less, despite the fact that the achievements of philosophy from a historical perspective surpass any self-evident. And if we just compare it to Eastern philosophies that sanctified the self-evident (in various ways: Confucius' rituals, Tao, Buddhism, castes and more) - we will understand why Western culture succeeded, that is, learned, more than all of them: thanks to philosophy. Philosophy is the unique and one-time advantage that grew only in the West, and not in any other culture. The only period in which a culture surpassed the West since the invention of philosophy was when the Arabs continued the learning of philosophy and the West abandoned it - an abandonment that led to the Middle Ages and the fall of Rome (precisely because of lack of learning, which is the cause of petrification and the fall of cultures. The fall of institutions occurs not when they change, but when they do not change, when their strength is hard wood - and not growing).

But if organizations and organisms have learned conservatism, maybe it is preferable? Well, it is preferable for the short term, but not for the long term, and it is difficult to learn something for the long term that contradicts the short term. Therefore, the purpose of philosophy is to open the long horizon, and the purpose of the advisor is to care for the long term. Learning - it is infinite. It is the source of infinity and the only infinity that exists (and it will also be the next stage in expanding the definition of infinity and convergence in mathematics). Therefore, the idea of infinity and the hidden - two phenomena that seemingly have no necessary connection between them - are one and the same, and therefore infinity is a secret, that is, unlearnable. Learning is the constant desire for the unlearnable, just like the male desire for the feminine. An advisor should always remind an organization or a person of their deep desires, their dreams. To the same extent, he should remind him of the nightmares, the greatest risks that have no answers. And to the same extent, he should remind him of the simple things, the neutral, the trivial and the self-evident that there is simply no way to progress in - that have no answers. Only constant reminders of what has no answer will spur departure from comfortable questions and easy answers.

The advisor should awaken in the student the desire for the secret, and philosophy should open the space of the secret, and not close it with ready-made answers to questions. Therefore, there is an advantage to its characteristic answers that are not entirely valid, and essayistic by nature, because it is precisely incomplete answers, half answers - and half questions, that open the space of the question. Because on the other hand, it is not enough to ask the question itself to open the widest possible question space, but one needs to tour it and show its obstacles and structure - its depth. Therefore, philosophy specializes in opening deep questions, but does not end with question marks alone - which would leave the space opaque and not show the importance of the question and its power - but with learning answers for example, such as this example, whose development can be followed during the writing (just as the Talmud does not hide from us the development of the law - and thus creates the space of law: the Torah). Philosophy is the landscape of learning - and man is the landscape of his learning.