I've become increasingly disgusted in all this academic vacuum business, the wearying type, which, at first, appears as nothing more than a foolish college necessity, but as time persists, seemingly, molds a body into a singular cast. This type of thing, this shell, in it's completed state, encompass a victim who believes academia is equivalent to nirvana; however, the whisperer of such convoluted salvation, a propaganda, of sorts, is the academic and such bias should be taken as sincerely as a priest speaking on the matters of his god. Learning, as it were, is not particularly common. This idea reveals itself complexly, but as complexity goes, it's revelation is relatively simplistic.
In school, K-12, precisely, modern kids are bombarded with information, “learning”; however, this isn't that, learning, this is monotonous memorization, repetitive information being relearned and reheated to be shoved down the throat. In metaphor, the “teacher” is a faucet and the “student” is a sponge, the faucet runs off and subdues the sponge into a water carrying state, the watering being the “education”. Through due process – evaporation, natural sponge tenancies, and so on – it, the sponge, will dry up eventually, after the faucet ceases to trickle, and so the entire effort of the faucet, teacher, is for not. This, in essence, is not learning. This, in society's most amiable way, is programming; however, this isn't an idea of unanimity, this, sadly, is the majority: the uninterested.
The minority, I fondly bias, are more of cups, in a way, and when they situate themselves underneath the faucet they catch each molecular drop within their cylindrical container, up to a certain point, of course, for learning has it's limits. The minority's intimacy with learning doesn't come from some brilliant gene or peculiar upbringing, though it may help, but in a profound calling, an intimate interest, and Victorian education may not have a damn thing to do with it. This is to say that this fascination comes from life not education and from this statement one could conduct that education's greatest lessons may not necessarily come from a class room lead by a professional teacher, though some still may, but comes from a person's worldly experiences and own inner desires.
Declaring this, the teacher no longer accepts it's prior definition, in fact, it revolts for an edit, and I, your humble writer have been asked to compose it's meaning. Most would befuddle themselves with this task; however, I went about this issue as I went about the previous one, found in the first paragraph –calling it complex and reassuring it's simplicity. They are one in the same, learning and teacher, but, in a way, my definition for teacher can be summed up concisely, and I fear I have kept you, and it, waiting much too long, so I'll scribble it down below this chunk of text and you do what you will with it.
Teacher [tee-cher] n. anything – whether it be worldly or galactic, whether it be a person or a dust speck – that enlightens.