Through the teacher-student pair, there is an effective means for inventing the concept of the mentor.
And that’s the main reason for the existence of studies on this issue.
The problem, which is not presented as a problem, is the student and not the teacher.
Even if there is a compromising solution regarding the selection of the characteristics of the teacher, the pedagogical researches don’t touch upon the student’s personality for political reasons.
They prefer to assume that any person may be a student both by nature and by definition.
To order to clarify this context, we must make use of the pair Teacher-Student.
This pair, which is institutionalized, allowes us to determine the meaning of the disciple through the student.
Many assume that each person may be a student, but not necessarily a disciple.
In actual fact, the student’s characteristic is merely institutional.
And this means that anyone can become a student as long as the universities become adaptive to it.
Whereas a disciple, as a characteristic, it’s not accessible to all.
Together with the characteristics of the mentor, we always have the characteristics of the disciples, without this meaning that they must be, or are the same.
Both the mentor, and the disciple as well, don’t obtain a substance without the other component.
We should stop having a divided and analytical approach towards those two elements, as it’s not the ontological context which is of interest to us, but the teleological one.
Even the terminology of the bipolar asymmetric dynamics of the system is insufficient, if we don’t reinvent the system holistically.
It’s not enough to assume that the teacher is the complementary element of the student, because that in itself implies that we are aware of the system, even though we don’t study it.
The teacher-student pair acts as a dynamic relationship which evolves through time, but it’s out of balance, in order to obtain the characteristics of the polycomplexity and of polymorphy through diversity, as highlighted by Prigogine.
But even though this dynamic context exists, we don’t try to comprehend it, and we merely pass it on.
It does not offer anything substantial even if there are numerous programs for mentors and none for disciples.
The geometry of the space of both the mentor and disciple is what forms the dynamic field of the complex.
The attractor doesn’t obtain a dynamic meaning without a body.
He remains geometry. In other words, he is potentially the being of the task. But without a task, the being can not prove the existence of characteristics.
The same is applicable to the body which isn’t within an attraction tank.
We are not merely dealing with a unit of two elements, but with a group which obtains a structure.
The structure consists of its geometry and its dynamics.
The elements on their own, even those with particular characteristics, are not sufficient in giving a total information about the group.
In other words, their isolation degrades the group.
The whole problem is not the mentor, or even the disciple, but the structure of the group of the complex.
The action is necessary because the elements are connected teleologically.
Consequently, let’s approach holistically the disciples of the mentor.