There is a contradiction in wanting to be perfectly secure in a universe whose very nature is momentariness and fluidity. But the contradiction lies a little deeper than the mere conflict between the desire for security and the fact of change. If I want to be secure, that is, protected from the flux of life, I am wanting to be separate from life. Yet it is this very sense of separateness which makes me feel insecure. To be secure means to isolate and fortify the “I,” but it is just the feeling of being an isolated “I” which makes me feel lonely and afraid. In other words, the more security I can get, the more I shall want.

To put it still more plainly: the desire for security and the feeling of insecurity are the same thing. To hold your breath is to lose your breath. A society based on the quest for security is nothing but a breath-retention contest in which everyone is as taut as a drum and as purple as a beet.

Watts, A. (1951) The wisdom of insecurity: a message for an age of anxiety.

“It is inevitable that life will be not just very short but very miserable for those who acquire by great toil what they must keep by greater toil. They achieve what they want laboriously; they possess what they have achieved anxiously; and meanwhile they take no account of time that will never more return. New preoccupations take the place of the old, hope excites more hope and ambition more ambition. They do not look for an end to their misery, but simply change the reason for it.”

Seneca. On the shortness of life.

“In all helping professions, conceptual frameworks enable practitioners to make a distinction between their own personality and the professional Persona they need in oder to be successful at work. Professionals (in the empathetic sense of the term) share a knowledge base anchored in research that is quite independent of their own personality. Through their particular take on things, practitioners develop an idiosyncratic under-standing of frameworks absorbed through study. While intuition is always a fine thing to have, the more knowledge informs intuition, the more potent the intuition can be. Moving away from one’s own elementary intuitions and personality and standing outside of it – making it and object of reflection – is a developmental journey of great significance…”

Laske, O.E. (2011). Measuring hidden dimensions. Gloucester, MA: IDM Press.

“We can speak of the emergence of a new type of self-education technology in the information society — computer technology that characterizes self-education’s transition to a qualitatively new level, in which it comes to be a factor of material and intellectual production. The development of technology in the information society fosters the shaping of a type of social relations in which the individual, ridding himself of economic dependency and various forms of social oppression, can, through self-education, realize his creative potential and rise to a new level of spiritual and intellectual freedom” (p.75).


Shuklina, E. A. (2001). Technologies of self-education. Russian Education and Society, 43(2), 57-78.

“… developmental change is a process of equilibration. Thus the process of encountering and resolving disequilibrium brings about developmental change, and developmental change is reflected in the production of structures or organizations of activity that provide greater equilibrium. Developmental change is reflected in the increased differentiation, integration, and hierarchic integration of schemes, wether they are schemes of action or representational thought” (p.31).


Basseches, M., & Mascolo, M. F. (2010). Psychotherapy as a developmental process. New York: Routledge.

“As adults, we are experts in transformation since we are ourselves in constant transformation, undergoing development. From birth to death, we are consistently transforming ourselves while remaining the same and becoming “ourselves” at the same time. This is a fruit of the negativity that inheres our existence as finite beings. In fact, the movement we are engaged in as humans is that of always again overcoming ourselves, and herein lies the infinity we would in vain seek outside of this movement” (p.5).


Laske, O. (2009). Change and crisis in dialectical thinking: on the need to think again when getting involved with change. Retrieved February 24, 2014, from

“… any serious account of education and technology needs to resist the assumption that any digital technology has the ability to change things for the better. While appealing to those people who want to construct ‘bounded’ scientific explanations and models, the dangers of these ways of thinking about the use of technology lie primarily in the simplistic conclusions that the y lead towards. In particular, this way of thinking usually reaches conclusions that recommend the overcoming of ‘barriers’ or impediments within the immediate educational context, so that the inherent beneficial effects of technology may be more fully felt. This logic is illustrated in the frequent ‘blaming’ of individual educators or educational institutions for the failure of digital technologies to be used ‘effectively’. Indeed, current discussions and debates about the use of digital technology in educational settings often continue to follow a decidedly externalist logic, ‘treating new technologies as autonomous forces that compel society to change’ (Nye 2007, p.27) … “(p.36-37)


Selwyn, N. (2013). Education in a digital world: Global perspectives on technology and education. New York: Routledge.

“The technocratic paradigm of education that has come to be formed also transforms strategies of self-education, giving them an explicitly expressed pragmatic orientation. The social role of self-education changes, and the resulting level of education is now linked directly to self-realization in labor, to the practical application of knowledge in the professional sphere. It is in this period that professional self-education comes to be formed as a separate kind of activity.

The development of science and education in an industrial society leads to the increasing complexity of knowledge and the ways and means by which it is transmitted. The emergence of the technoenvironment imposes new demands on self-education activity, constituting an indicator of the individual’s mastery of advanced technologies and the optimality of his involvement in the information space.

Society is in need of new models of knowledgeability, requiring self-education activity of a clearly explicit technocentric type, which, as time goes on, takes the place of the culturocentric self-education technologies of antiquity.

The technocentric orientation of self-education came into being in response to society’s need to develop production, science, and technology; it is linked to the formation of the information space as a separate sphere and entails the individual’s inclusion in the technogenic environment, at the expense of his development as an individual, his sociocultural identity, and the character of his interactions with the social environment.

But at the same time the technocentric model of self-education is a means by which the individual can adapt to the dynamics of the developing world; it answers his existential needs of survival and reproduces the type of personality who will be able to adapt himself to the new social conditions” (p. 67).


Shuklina, E. A. (2001). Technologies of self-education. Russian Education and Society, 43(2), 57-78.

“So research as a kind of reflection on human activity can change its objects. But this can happen only when there is not only research, but also a project of changing the existing activity and generating a new one. This means that human beings who are the object of research, as a kind of reflection, accept the results of research and suggested modes of transforming the activity, make a new mediation of their activity, and so change it. If the results of research are unknown to human beings who are under investigation, or if they do not accept these results, or if a researcher cannot suggest any project for generating new activity, the object of research does not change” (p. 87).


Lektorsky, V. A. (2009). Mediation as a means of collective activity. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 75-87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.