My first book in Finnish was published last week by the PS Publishing House. We have some plans to have translations, at first in Spanish and at some point in English. The English title could be: Learning Society — What is good for children is good for all.

As you know, if you are reading this, I mainly work in the international field of learning environments research and design, but now for the first time I have written about learning in Finnish, with lessons learned from the Finnish society. With my co-author, educational scientist and director of early childhood education, Mikko Mäkelä, we present reflection on what kind of environment — and indeed what kind of society — enhances learning. We explain what we know from research, but in easy-to-approach language, to bridge research and practice. The target group is very broad: from educators to anyone interested in education and its role in human (and planetary) wellbeing.

To translate the title to English is tricky. The direct translation would be The Good Learning States, but it doesn’t open similar way as the Finnish title. In the Finnish the word “state” (tila) is used in a meaning of a “space“, like a “room“, but also carries the meaning of being dynamic and temporary, like the “state” in a “mental state“. Also the “Good Learning” in the beginning leaves it open for an interpretation is the space of learning good or are the people learning “good”. Therefore, I have thought that the title should be boldly and simply Learning Society. There could be also a sub-title: What is good for children is good for all.

There are four parts in the book.

The first part we start by presenting the pedagogical and educational ideas where the current curriculums and practices of running kindergartens, schools and even universities come from. The aim is to open for the reader how different pedagogical practice are always reflections of the zeitgeist, the values of the time. In the history, however, there are individuals, scholars, thinkers and doers who have thought differently, people like Dewey, Freinet, Montessori, Steiner, Malaguzzi, Neill, Freire, Illich and Mitra. Many of these ideas are today visible in many schools, although a lot of things have been lost in translation and some of them are still considered to be “radical”.

In the second part of the book we get somehow practical, however, still aiming to explain that things are as they are because of earlier generations’ and our decisions. The educational landscape always reflects our values in the society, but sometime may have an impact on them. In this part we present several approaches to design good learning, with emphasis on wellbeing in different corners of the learning ecosystem of the society. In practice, we aim to empower educators to take active role in the design of teaching and learning. To make them to be subjects who can change their and their students physical, socio-cultural and psychological environment. We encourage educators and their students to get out from their classroom — to explore forests, cities, galleries, museums and libraries. We explain why it is important to make learning connected to the surrounding world, and brining to surrounding world to the classroom. Related to this we discuss the importance of communities in learning and how learning and civic life are intertwined.

The third part is dedicated to the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in teaching and learning. Because of growing role of computer-mediated communication and increasingly “datafied society” in general, everyone in the field of education should have a basic understanding of the phenomena. Similarly as in the part one, in here, too, we explain where the ideas of using media and technology in education comes from. We discuss the role of latest technological development in education, including social media platforms, VR and AR and possible utopias and dystopias we can foreseen. Same time, we argue that educators in general should have a strong voice when the ICT is designed for and entering to the field of education.

In the part four we aim to get back to the basics — to the question what makes a human life meaningful. What is the role of art, music and spirituality in human life? Unfortunately we are not able to give an ultimate answer to the question what is the meaning of life, but we have some hints. We end the book with an argument that a good learning can be more than the sum of good physical, socio-cultural and psychological environment. It is a dynamic state, that is build every moment, all the time. This means that also the possible shortcomings in one element can be compensated with another. Still, the good learning state is a “Heraclitus rive”: we can not step into the same river twice, because the rive, neither us is the same.

I met Marvin Minsky in a conference in Toronto in 2013. After his keynote, I wanted to ask him something I had recently thought about. I approached him, introduced myself, chit-chat a bit about Finland with him and his wife, who had some friends from Finland. Then I said something like this:

“As we humans are exposed all the time to huge amount of data through our senses — from visual to hearing and from pain in our back to our capacity to imagine, see dreams etc. — does he know anyone studying computers that are purposefully provided all nonsense data and noise, for instance from the Internet, to process it relatively randomly and to learn from it, like we humans do?”.

Marvin Minsky smiled friendly and replied: “what a silly idea” and turned to his wife next to us and continued “Did you hear that, this guy would like to build an irrational machine”.

Why am I thinking about this today? Let me give you a context. Firstly, to be honest, my personal relationship with the phenomenon of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is complicated. On some level, I follow the general discussion and also read research about it, but very selectively, as some proper AI researchers could say. I somehow know how large language models (e.g. ChatGPT) and machine learning work. I have some kind of idea how machine learning is used in search engines, social media platforms, online marketing and in mass surveillance. When I talk about these topics with real AI researchers, they often say that I, like many, think that AI is capable of much more than what the situation is today. They, however, say that it is just a matter of time when this will be real.

I personally like the geeky definition that “AI is a cool thing that computers can’t do yet”. The real challenge is to make sure that we know what “things” are “cool” and what “things” are “not cool” at all (e.g. mass surveillance is not cool). So, there is a good reason to follow AI research. Naturally, I am particularly interested in the role of AI in human learning and development, in human creativity, in art and design. I am not interested in AI per se, but I am interested in to study what it means for humanity at large and, therefore, for the entire planet and the universe.

More context. Lately, I have been thinking about my father’s childhood. Why? I guess it’s because he is sick, and I have been reading a book by Antti Järvi about the part of Finland where his and my family got to flee from when the Soviet Union attacked Finland in 1939. With Antti we are grandchildren of war refugees. Recently, I have also met with some artist friends and listened to their thoughts about world politics, Ukraine. Gaza, the United States, China, India . . . . Then I have also studied the free energy principle, something my doctoral researcher Avner Peled, has talked to me about. Furthermore, I recently went to see two theater plays that made an impact on me: Europeana written by Patrik Ouředník, directed by Minna Leino and Everstiina written by Rosa Liksom, directed by Susanna Airaksinen and performed by Heidi Herala. Both plays are about the history and the future of humanity, especially in the little corner of the globe where I spend most of my time. Finally, for some months, I have been listen to and studying contemporary classical music and been introduced to, and somehow been excited about, the music of John Zorn. A lot of irrational behavior, nonsense and noise.

If I’ll think of any rational reason for all this, there are at least two. Firstly, I am soon starting a new job. Secondly, in a year or so, I have started a new daily practice in my life: meditation. Believe or not, all this makes sense in my mind.

To be better prepared for my new job, I am aiming to have new experiences, to study new things. This helps me to get new ideas. With meditation practice, I can see that the ability to spend 5, 15, 20 or even 45 minutes every day without thinking anything clears my mind. The new data, all the noise, finds its place in my artificial model of the reality where I am operating. This makes me better to predict how the world works and how to exist in it: to alleviate suffering of all the living creatures, starting from myself. To handle all the noise, I need a peace of mind.

The complexity of humans — being at the same time irrational and rational and everything between — is fascinating. The most interesting thing about humans are those things that look at the first glance to be irrational. I love many highly rational people (I know several), but the character of a person comes from their level of irrationality. All people, however, do and say silly things. We are all irrational in different ways in a different situation.

What does all this have to do with Artificial Intelligence? Let’s get back to 2013 in Toronto. I argue that what I described then is very close to what state-of-the-art AI research is doing today. The people working with generative artificial intelligence and talking about singularity are precisely doing this: filling machines with datasets from the Internet and using machine learning to generate something new and sometimes surprising out of them. Is this cool? I am not convinced.

Related to my earlier story about the context, one day, we may also have AI with personal history and presence in a particular time and space, just like you and me. From the human learning and development point of view, I think this kind of AI would be much more interesting than the current forms of AI. I would like to collaborate with an AI that has a character, a life story and life situation, and therefore have a different level of rationality and to irrationality in various situations, similar way as we humans do. This kind of AI could be our peer from whom we could learn from and who could learn from us: be a creative and critical friend — a creative peer — helping us to develop as humans. I am lucky to have a colleagues, Jeongki Lim to work with the topic. Still, I can’t help to think what would Marvin Minsky say?

In November 2022 at the FERA Conference on Education, we discussed with some colleagues how there is very little going on in the field of philosophy of education in Finland. The field of educational sciences is dominated by studies of learning results, motivation, use of ICT in education, STE(A)M. We get rarely to discussed about the profound reasons behind all these. Someone also made a cynical comment, how there are not time or money for this in the academia anymore. Publish or perish.

With Elisa Vilhunen we decided to change this. If one can’t do this (anymore) at the University, why not to start an open reading circle on philosophy of education on our own time?

In late 2022 I wrote a post to some social media platforms about the Philosophy of Education Circle starting on January 6th 2023. I also made a simple web form for people to share their email address with me to get the invitation and the instructions. About 20 people registered to the circle.

The format is super simple. We meet the first Friday of the month at my home. For each session we agree who will give a 15-20-minute talk about a theme chosen by the presenter. About a week beforehand, the presenter will share an article or a chapter of a book for everyone to read.

After the talk we discuss about it, or whatever comes to the participants mind. The discussion continues for 1 to 3 hours, or as long as there is something to discuss about. If people are busy (or get board) they may leave when ever they want to. The idea is that we have as little commitments or expectations as possible. For the sessions, however, I have written the following code of conduct: 

In order for the discussion to be open and free, it would be nice if we could act according to these principles:

1. The people who show up are the only right people.
2. We do not represent any institution or entity at the meetings. We have no titles or affiliations. We are humans.
3. What is said in the meeting may be used elsewhere, but the speaker of the matter may not be revealed (Chatham House Rule).

We have now met 16 times. We have had in average around 10-12 participants in each session. In the mailing list I have 34 people with various backgrounds; academics, teachers, early childhood educators, students, social workers . . . To be honest, I do not even know what everyone does. You may also join the session anonymously, only with your alias.

On what topics we have then discussed about? 

In the case of philosophy, it often goes by a “thinker”, a person who has written something interesting. Here are the themes and “thinkers” discussed:

1. Pedagogy of the oppressed – Paulo Freire –
2. Climate education and facing reality – Slavoj Žižek – /
3. The autonomy of education – Maurice Blanchot – /
4. Stages of moral development – Lawrence Kohlberg –
5. Reflection, critical reflection, reflective thinking – John Dewey –
6. Controversial and difficult topics in school education – /
7. Buddhist thoughts on learning – Siddhartha Gautama –
8. Social-cultural (and philosophical) dimensions of teaching and their importance for the teacher – /
9. Paradoxes of education: authority and socialization versus individual independence, criticality and agency – /
10. Meno’s paradox and upbringing – Socrates, Plato – /
11. Digitalisation and self-fulfilling prophecy – Martin Heidegger – /
12. Toward the state of wisdom – Immanuel Kant – /
13. Goal of education – Alfred North Whitehead –
14. Emotion in an Existential Education – Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel – /
15. Pedagogical philosophizing – /
16. A Defense of Unconventional Learning – Thomas Ziehe – /

As you can see, I included to the end of each theme some national flags of our time. Why? Because I can, and maybe to indicate from what national / cultural context the “thinkers” come from. If nothing else, it demonstrates how Eurocentric and male dominated we have been.

“It is almost silly that these days you hardly ever have a meet-up with people, without any aims, expected results or action points. This is why this Circle is so rewarding. We just share ideas about important topics.”

– participant

We will continue the Philosophy of Education Kallio Circle on 6. September 2024 at 16.00 EEST. If you are interested in to join, you may register yourself with the web form. Welcome!

PS1: The discussion is in Finnish (and in Swedish, if required).

PS2: In the September session I promised to talk about Ivan Illich‘s (//////) ideas of deschooling society, medical nemesis and gender.

I decided to make this blog bilingual; Finnish and English. At some point maybe Swedish and Spanish, too.

Suomen ensimmäisen yliopiston, Turun akatemian, avajaisissa vuonna 1640 piispa Rothoviuksen kerrotaan sanoneen, että yliopiston perustaminen on maailman luomisen jälkeen parasta mitä Ruotsin valtakunnan itäiselle niemelle on sattunut. Rothovius näki, että yliopiston myötä taikuus ja noitavainot saadaan kuriin.

Henkilökohtainen paljastus — heti alkuun, herran vuonna 2024. Suhtaudun kriittisesti yksisilmäiseen tieteelliseen ajattelun. Metsässä kuuntelen metsän olentojen juttuja: sammalten, puiden, muurahaisten. Haen lohtua ja viisautta metsän hengiltä. Saunassa hiljennyn kuuntelemaan löylyn henkeä. Toisaalta olen myös kristitty. Näen kristillisyydessä valtavasti arvoa. Kristityn läheisen poistuessa tästä elämästä menen kirkkoon sytyttämään hänelle kynttilän. Jeesuksen kerrotaan ajatelleen usein hyvin kirkkaasti (kuka nyt sitten nämä asiat oikeasti ajatteli ja ylös kirjoitti on toinen juttu).

Ymmärrän ihmisiä jotka sanovat tämän olevan taikauskoista, eikä yhtään tieteellistä. Ymmärrän ihmisiä jotka kysyvät mitä tuollainen hörhö tekee yliopistossa. Hyviä kysymyksiä. Kiitos.

Väitän, että ihmisten ja heidän ympäristönsä suhteen kompleksisuus, ja kaiken siinä olevan outouden ja monimuotoisuuden tutkiminen laaja-alaisesti on juuri yliopiston perusajatuksen mukaista. Universumin laajuus jo sinällään edellyttää monimuotoisuutta ja monenlaista ajattelua. Minua — kuten ajattelen olevan kaikkien tutkijoiden kohdalla — kiinnostaa juuri se mitä usein kutsumme oudoksi. Ihmisyhteisöjen elämänmuotojen ja universumin monimuotoisuus on todella outoa, vaikeasti selitettävää. Olemme kaukana universaaleista teorioista ja tuskin sellaisia koskaan saavutamme. Yrittää kuitenkin pitää. Metsän henget tai jumala eivät sellaisiksi kelpaa. Valitettavasti.

Yliopistossa on tärkeää pitäytyä parhaassa mahdollisessa tiedossa: sellaisessa jota kutsumme tämän hetkiseksi totuudeksi. Ilmastonmuutos on totta. Vähemmistöjä sorretaan. Kaikkien ihmisten tasa-arvo ei toteudu. Suomessa on ksenofobiaa ja rasismia. Tämän kaiken voitte tarkistaa avoimista tutkimustietojärjestelmistä. Liberaalissa demokratiassa, kuten Suomessa, se onnistuu meistä jokaiselle vierailemalla tieteellisessä kirjastossa, jotka ovat avoimia kaikille.

En siis luennoi tai tyrkytä kenellekään ajatuksiani metsän hengistä tai kristinuskon oppeja totuuksina. Ne kun eivät ymmärrettävästi vastaan parasta tieteellistä tietoa joka meillä tällä hetkellä on. Voin kuitenkin kertoa omakohtaisista kokemuksistani — ovat aika hyviä tarinoita ja sellaisenaan osa ihmisyyttä ja (minusta) kiinnostavia ja outoja kokemuksia ihmisen ja ympäristön suhteesta. Puhumalla näistä voin myös haastaa aivotutkijan, neurologin tai kvanttifyysikon pohtimaan miksi meillä ihmisillä on tällaisia henkisiksi määriteltyjä elämyksiä. Näin meidän tieto lisääntyy. Kaikki outo on kiinnostavaa.

Kasvoin tutkijaksi 1990- ja 2000-luvuilla, jolloin ”uuden median” katsottiin mullistavan tapamme nähdä sekä maailmankaikkeus, että toisemme. Olin yksi heistä joka halusi nähdä, että avoin, rajaton kommunikaatio kasvattaa ihmisiä ymmärtämään, miten hauras yhteinen planeettamme on ja miten ihmiskunta on vain yksi. Ehkä arroganttia valistusaatetta ja utopistista tulevaisuususkoa. Myönnän. Ajattelin monien muiden tutkijoiden tapaan, että jos kollektiivisesti ymmärtäisimme, olisimme hereillä (woke, sic!), kykenisimme ihmiskuntana muuttumaan.

Näkemykseni (oikean) tiedon merkitykseen johti siihen, että päädyin Wikipedia-aktivistiksi. Edelleen olen sitä mieltä, että Wikipedia on parasta mitä ihmiskunnalle on tapahtunut sitten yliopistojen keksimisen.

Wikipedia on esimerkki siitä mihin ihmiset kollektiivisesti kykenevät. Maailman ongelmia “uusi media” tai Wikipedia eivät ratkaisseet. Uusi media muuttui vielä “uudemmaksi mediaksi”, manipulaation ja väärän tiedon välittämisen välineeksi. Tätä “uudempaa mediaa” ryhdyimme kutsumaan sosiaaliseksi mediaksi (someksi).

Viime viikolla päätin poistua Twitter/X:ästä. Metan Facebookista ja Instagramista olen ollut poissa jo vuosia. Kuten arvata saattaa anonyymit tilit tulkitsivat Twitter/X:n jättämisen niin, että olen kommunisti, pettynyt USA:n vaalien tulokseen tai en kestä keskustelua avoimella foorumilla, ainoalla jota ei kuulemma sensuroida. Vaikka kerroin jatkossakin kertovani työstäni julkisesti LinkedIn-palvelussa ja tässä blogissa, kommentoijat pitivät minua herkkähipiäisenä ja norsunluutorniin linnoittautuvana woke ja DEI -ihmisenä, jotka nyt laitetaan kuriin. Kerroin myös, että minulle voi soittaa tai laittaa Signal-viestin jos haluaa jutella. Ei ole puheluita tai viestejä tullut.

Trust me, bro. Twitter/X:ssä, tai mikään muukaan kaupallinen verkkoalusta, ei ole vapaa sensuurista. Ne ovat juuri suljettuja foorumeja — eivät avoimia. Totuuteen pyrkivän avoimen kommunikaation sijaan alustat ja niitä hallitsevat tahot päättävät sisällön näkemisestä ja vaikuttavat itse sisältöön, eli siihen mitä sinne kirjoitamme. Ilkeydellä ja pahantahtoisuudella saa enemmän näkyvyyttä. Taustalla siis vaikuttavat monenlaiset taloudelliset ja poliittiset intressit. On surullista miten harva tämän ymmärtää, vaikka asiasta on puhuttu vuosikymmeniä.

Edelleen luotan ihmiskuntaan ja sen kykyyn kehittyä ja oppia. Kaikki muuttuu. Mitä luultavimmin parempaan suuntaan. Näin meidän tulee ihmiskuntana ajatella. Kaikki olemme ihmisiä. Elämme pienen hetken, kärsimme ja aiheutamme toisillemme kärsimystä. Mitä vähemmän sen parempi. Aika yksinkertaista.

Tässä työssä tärkeämpää kuin “uusin media”, ovat ihan se perinteinen yliopisto ja avoin web kuten Wikipedia, blogi-alustat (uusi media v. 2000) ja journalistisiin periaatteisiin sitoutuneet mediat kuten Uusi Juttu (uusi uusi media). Näitä meidän tulee tukea. Ei ruhtinaiksi itsensä nostaneiden yksilöiden manipulaatiokoneita.

Ei ihmiskunta ole sodassa. Tämä on yhteinen projekti jossa matkaamme kohti parempaa. Kaikki ovat tälle matkalle tervetulleita.