The educational relationship is the ideal means of educator-educatee interaction: A look from Pedagogy La relación educativa es el medio idóneo de interacción educando-educador: Una mirada desde la Pedagogía

The educational relationship is the substantive way of educational intervention; it is its concrete act. It is identified with the interaction which we establish to perform the activity of educating. In educational relationship we must go from thought to action; we must go from attained and attainable value to effective accomplishment. We 1 Catedrático de Teoría de la Educación Profesor emérito Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación. Departamento de Pedagogía y Didáctica. Campus Vida s/n. 15782. Santiago de Compostela. Webs particulares: http://dondestalaeducacion.com/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzbNAzwFApNMViix5_ HDz0w Researcher ID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/L-10322014Orcid: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7553-4483 Premio Internacional Educa-Redipe 2019 (Trayectoria profesional).Resolución de 18 de mayo de 2019 have to know what the theory-practice relation is like in each interaction. This work is an analysis focussed in Pedagogy as a discipline which generates knowledge of education. Pedagogy is a discipline whose object of study is education. In Pedagogy, their own, autochthonous, concepts are generated about the meaning of educating and the way of intervening to educate. Pedagogy values each means used in the intervention as educational, adjusting it to the meaning of educating. In this way, a better application to the explanation, understanding and interpretation of educational events and their possibilities of transforming the T H E E D U C A T I O N A L R E L A T I O N S H I P I S T H E I D E A L M E A N S O F E D U C A T O R E D U C A T E E I N T E R A C T I O N : A L O O K F R O M P E D A G O G Y R E V I S T A B O L E T Í N R E D I P E 1 2 ( 2 ) : 2 9 8 6 F E B R E R O 2 0 2 3 I S S N 2 2 5 6 1 5 3 6 · 3 0 · intervention is achieved. It is the meso-axiological perspective of Pedagogy: understanding each means used in the intervention as a means valued as educational. From Pedagogy it can be based that the educational relationship is the interaction of identities to educate; It is a concept with its own meaning, linked to the meaning of education and, given that the transition from knowledge to action requires concordance between values and feelings in each interaction, the educational relationship becomes the ideal means of educatee-educator interaction.


Introduction
Herbart demands the specialised pedagogical approach for educators, under the idea of a "visual circle of their own" which he builds through Pedagogy, something that, in his own words, most educators completely forget to form before devoting themselves to this task. Herbart tells us: "Most of those who educate entirely forget to form a visual circle of their own before devoting themselves to this task; it arises little by little in their work (...), if a child was really able to develop in this way, we should be pleased about it" (Herbart, 1806, p. 1). In contrast to this type of performance, Herbart wants to build a kind of knowledge which provides him with reasons to establish why educators have to keep on acting in the way they do, or why they should change it: "A 90-year-old school teacher in a small village has the experience of his 90-year-old routine; he has the feeling of his long struggles, but does ( 2 ) : 2 9 -8 6 -F E B R E R O 2 0 2 3 -I S S N 2 2 5 6 -1 5 3 6 · 3 1 · he also have the criticism of his method and his acts?" (Herbart, 1806, p. 5).
The science of education in Herbart implies using data; but theory must be built with functional autonomy, because data are interpreted from a conceptual framework with a meaning which is intrinsic to 'education': "What pedagogy has to do is to deliberate on its own concepts and cultivate independent thought. In this way it would become the centre of a circle of researches and would not run the risk of being ruled by a foreigner as if it was a distant conquered province" (Herbart, 1806, p. 8).
Today, we continue advancing towards Pedagogy as a discipline with functional autonomy that values each medium it uses as educational: it is the mesoaxiological perspective of Pedagogy (http://dondestalaeducacion.com/conceptos/40la-perspectiva-mesoaxiologica-de-la -pedagogy.

html)
To understand the mesoaxiological perspective, it is necessary to focus the reflection on the meaning of education and its relationship with Pedagogy, which is knowledge of education (Touriñán, 2019b(Touriñán, , 2019c(Touriñán, , 2020c(Touriñán, , 2021a(Touriñán, , and 2021b. Mesoaxiological pedagogy means valuing as educational any means used to educate; It means making theoretical, technological, and practical knowledge of education to assess as educational any means used in the pedagogical intervention. Mesoaxiological means understanding a valued medium (in our case, as educative, from Pedagogy) 2 .
Knowledge of education establishes the link between a 'specific pedagogical mentality', a 'specialized pedagogical approach', and concrete, controlled, and programmed educational action to form the individual, social, historical, and species-being human condition of each student.

The concept of education is the key in
Pedagogy. We transform information into knowledge and knowledge into education,  ( 2 ) : 2 9 -8 6 -F E B R E R O 2 0 2 3 -I S S N 2 2 5 6 -1 5 3 6 · 3 2 · and the feelings that they produce in us is sought in each action to achieve the transition from knowledge to action.
3. The pedagogical function is technical, not political, although education is a matter of political interest; the decision in Pedagogy, which is knowledge of education, is techno-axio-logical and meso-axio-logical. It is technoaxiological, because it interprets education, valuing it as a technical decision, of ends and means based on true knowledge of the field in which one chooses and acts (the 'education' field). It is mesoaxiological, because it interprets each medium, valuing it as educative.
4. In pedagogy, from a mesoaxiological perspective, we build education fields, we make the relevant educational design and we generate the pedagogical intervention, attending to principles of education and intervention principles which are justified with the knowledge of education from the principles of methodology and research.
We go from the method to the model through the program in each intervention 5. Common activity is the guiding principle of education and intervention. Without the common activity it is not possible to educate and without the common activity there is no interaction. We use the common activity in a controlled way to achieve educated activity and educate the activity with a specific pedagogical mentality and a specialized pedagogical approach, focusing on the structural elements of the intervention from the common activity, because without the common activity it is impossible to educate, and, thanks to it, the educatee can become an actor agent and, increasingly, a better author agent of his own projects and acts.

This work is not a reflection on what specialists
of other disciplines say about the educational relationship. Their analyses are necessary, but neither they use up the content of the educational field, nor I want to live as an apprentice of what they say (Goodwin, 1994). We resort to a science when we have a specific problem about it, which, depending on the case, will be a medical, sociological, psychological problem, or a different one. Every discipline with functional autonomy focuses on the reality which it studies generating the specific mentality of that discipline, which has to be externalised as the specialised approach of that discipline towards its object of study and intervention. Pedagogy, as an academically consolidated discipline, advances in the development of the continuum "current of knowledge-substantive disciplinefocalization-specific mentality-specialised approach-discourse-pedagogical intervention" (Touriñán & Sáez, 2015). As I have been able to justify in a recent work, this continuum appears in all the consolidated sciences and, in our case, which is the study and analysis of education, it enables us to obtain answers based on the structural elements of intervention (knowledge, function, profession, relation, agents, processes, product and means) (Touriñán, 2014).
From the perspective of the theory-practice relationship, the mental representation of the educational action, which is the specific pedagogical mentality, works either as a research presupposition in Pedagogy or as an assumption and it determines the signification and validity of a way of singular thought for the pedagogical function, the profession, the educational relationship and for the knowledge of education itself. The pedagogical mentality cannot be understood without referring to these four components because they specify it in each action, and they cannot be understood in the discourse or in the intervention which they generate without making reference to mentality, since they would stop being specified with ( 2 ) : 2 9 -8 6 -F E B R E R O 2 0 2 3 -I S S N 2 2 5 6 -1 5 3 6 · 3 3 · signification and validity. That is precisely why we can say that they are structural components of intervention linked to the mentality. The pedagogical mentality determines the way of specifically pedagogical thought for these four elements.
The pedagogical approach is the visual circle that pedagogues do of their performance; it is the mental representation that professionals do of their performance as pedagogical; it is the expression of the critical vision which pedagogues have of their method and their acts.
It involves the total pedagogical vision, adjusted to the structural elements of intervention, which are the four structural components of intervention linked to the mentality (knowledge, function, profession, and relationship) and the four structural components of action (agents, processes, products and means).
The specific pedagogical mentality and the specialised pedagogical approach converge in the pedagogical intervention, which is defined as the intentional action that we develop in the educational task in order to achieve with, through and for the educatee the means and ends which are justified on the basis of the knowledge of education.
Within the continuum "current-disciplinefocalisation-mentality-approach-discourseintervention", every discipline with functional autonomy focuses on the reality which it studies, generating the specific mentality of that discipline, which must be externalised as the specialised approach of that discipline towards its object of study and intervention.
In each specific pedagogical action, we move from thought to action; the double condition of field of knowledge and action arises for every intervention. The specific mentality and the specialised approach are representations (knowledge); the intervention is the action.
Keeping these distinctions is a demand to reach the concrete educational action and its control by means of the programmed educational action.
The educational terms have acquired a meaning of their own on the basis of the knowledge of education, in such a way that the educational relationship is not only a moral relationship or a relationship of care, coexistence and communication any more, but the substantive way of intervention adjusted to the traits of character which determine the meaning of 'education' in its real definition (Touriñán, 2013a(Touriñán, , 2015.
From the knowledge of education perspective, we must think about the educational relationship as a way of singular and distinct interaction, whose meaning does not depend on our associating it with terms validated through other disciplinary fields. The same activities that we carry out to educate are done for many other things, so activities do not identify the educational action.
In education we coexist, communicate and care, but educating is not each of these things separately or all of them together. Any type of influence is not education, but it can turn into a process of educational influence, as long as we adjust it to the purpose of educating and to the criteria of meaning of educating.
In this article we are going to work on the following proposals: • Educational relationship is a concept with a meaning of its own and it is different because of its purpose and meaning.
• The pedagogical function generates intervention by means of common activity • Caring, coexisting, and communicating are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the educational relationship.
• The educational relationship adjusts to the traits of character and sense that are inherent in the meaning of educating.  (Page, 1984). The applied vision of the educational relationship is the vision of the interpretative theories. As professor González Álvarez said in his classic book "Philosophy of education", interpretative theories are special treatises on the generating disciplines. They are applications of the concepts of generating disciplines such as Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and so on to education.
These theories are not treatises on special Psychology or special Sociology, etc., but special treatises on Psychology, Sociology, etc. What is specialised is the task, but not the discipline, because the discipline is always, in this case of interpretative theories, the same generating discipline -Psychology, Anthropology, Biology, Sociology, et cetera, as appropriate- (González Álvarez, 1977, p. 20).
We speak about General and Applied Sociology; General and Applied Economics; General and Applied Biology; we also speak about Psychology, Medicine, Anthropology and other autonomous disciplines in the same way. However, when we find that autonomous discipline and apply it to the interpretation of another field, according to González Álvarez, we are saying that the applied disciplines specialise the task, but not the discipline; they are Sociology, Psychology, and so forth (González Álvarez, 1977). Educational Psychology, Work Psychology, Educational Sociology, etc., specialise the task, but not the discipline; they are and they apply Sociology, Psychology, etc., to different fields; they are applied disciplines. In Pedagogy, we also find applied pedagogies (work, family, general education, professional education, adult education Pedagogy and others) that specialise the task, but not the discipline (Touriñán & Sáez, 2015, Chapter 7). Nevertheless this does not use up Pedagogy or nullifies the sense of Pedagogy as a discipline with functional autonomy through concepts which have a signification intrinsic to the field    (Touriñán, 2021c).
It must be clear from the start that, if we can speak about the educational relationship, it is because the relationship fulfils the criteria of common use of the term 'education', which are identified as a criterion of axiological content, The fact that any type of influence is not education does not nullify or invalidate the possibility to turn any type of influence into an educational process. Logically, nothing prevents educatees, by themselves and from the experience that others communicate them (self-education process) or by means of the experiences which others communicate them (hetero-education processes), from being able to analyse that negative influence with a criterion based on the educational knowledge and from being able to turn it into a process of educational influence. It is not educational to manipulate or transmit as true the knowledge of a cultural area which the theoretical investigation of the area proves to be false. However, it is indeed educational to unmask manipulation and to use false knowledge to prove its error and exercise skills of use of the theoretical proof criteria.
In my opinion the criteria of common use language qualify the activity which we perform as education in a singular way. We can affirm that distinguishing any other type of influence and educational influences demands the pedagogical assessment of different ways of behaviour, considering the criterion of language use and purpose.  .
If this is like this, and from a descriptive or expositive perspective which bears in mind the activities previously mentioned, it is understood that education is the development of the general dimensions of intervention and the adjusted competencies, the specific capacities and the basic dispositions of each educatee for the achievement of knowledge, skills-abilities, attitudes and habits related to the aims of education and to the guiding values derived from these aims in each internal and external activity, and using the internal and external means suitable for each activity.
We try to make educatees acquire knowledge, attitudes and skills-abilities which qualify them to decide and to perform their projects by giving an answer to the demands which arise in each situation according to the opportunities, from every internal common activity: think, feel affectively, have feelings, want, choose-do (operate), decide-act (project) and create (build by means of symbols) and from every external common activity (game, work, study, exploration, intervention, and relationship) 3 . Fulfilling these criteria of content, form, use and balance and fulfilling the purpose of education make the educational relationship not be confused with any other type of activity and make a relationship not be considered simply as educational because it performs an activity.

The pedagogical function generates intervention by means of internal and external common activities
In education we carry out many actions to influence the educatee and achieve the educational result. They are always mediated actions of one subject with another or of a subject with himself. And all those actions, which must 3 As we have seen in other works (Touriñán, 2014(Touriñán, , 2015(Touriñán, , 2017(Touriñán, , 2019a(Touriñán, , 2020a(Touriñán, , 2020d(Touriñán, , 2021b(Touriñán, , 2021c(Touriñán, , 2022a(Touriñán, , and 2022b, in the order of performance, we must distinguish internal and external common activity and specified instrumental activity. Without common activity it is impossible to educate because no one is educated without thinking, feeling, wanting, operating, projecting or creating. Interaction is not possible without activity and only through interaction does the educational relationship take place. One of the basic postulates of mesoaxiological pedagogy is that common activity is the guiding principle of education and intervention. Without the common activity it is not possible to educate and without the common activity there is no interaction. We use the common activity in a controlled way to achieve educated activity and educate the activity with a specific pedagogical mentality and a specialized pedagogical approach, focusing on the structural elements of the intervention from the common activity, because without the common activity it is impossible to educate and, thanks to it, the educate can become an actor agent and, increasingly, a better author agent of his own projects and acts. Common activity (activity state and capacity) internal (the result is the action itself: thinking, feeling, wanting, operating, projecting and creating) and external (activity state and capacity, whose result is external to the action itself, but conceptually linked by purpose to the activity itself and characterizes it as an identity trait: I have playful capacity, I have the capacity to study, I have the capacity to work, to intervene, to inquire-explore, create and I have the capacity to relate). As a common external activity, studying, for example, has its own purpose linked to that activity in a conceptual and logical way (the proper purpose of studying is to master-know what is studied: information, content, or the study technique itself). But, in addition, as a common external activity, studying can become a specified instrumental activity for other purposes, they are specified purposes and external to the activity itself, but linked to the activity of studying empirically or experientially (studying becomes a specified instrumental activity, because we can study to steal, to make friends, to help another, to educate ourselves, et cetera. respect the condition of agent of the educatee, seek to provoke the activity of the educatee. In its most common use, 'activity' is understood as a state of activity, it is activity-state: activity is the state in which any person, animal or thing that moves, works, or executes an action is found at the moment he is doing it (we say: this child is thinking). This use also refers to the capacity we have for action in that activity and this is why we can say the child has lost activity (now he thinks less, he has dropped). Because it is the most common use of the term 'activity' as state and capacity, we denominate it common activity and it occurs in all people because in all people there is activity as a state and as a capacity to do (Touriñán, 2014, and2020a).
Regarding common activity, we have to say that current research distinguishes between actions carried out to obtain a result and actions whose result is the action itself. Thus, for example, the action of solving a problem results in something "external" to the action: obtaining a solution (studying results in mastering a subject). In all these cases, the action of solving the problem and having it already solved cannot be carried out. However, I cannot feel without feeling, think without thinking, project without projecting, et cetera. The former are external activities, and the latter are internal activities. We, from now on, will talk about education, of common activity (state activity and capacity) internal (result is the action itself: thinking, feeling, wanting, operating, projecting and creating) and external (activity, state and capacity, whose result it is external to the action itself, but conceptually linked to the activity itself: I have the ability to play, I have the ability to study, I have the ability to work, to intervene, to inquire-explore, and I have the ability to relate).
From the perspective of common internal activity, we can make a taxonomy of activities taking the educating agent as a reference. We all agree that, when we educate ourselves, be it self or hetero-education, our human condition allows us to carry out the following internal common activities: thinking, feeling affectively (having feelings), wanting objects or subjects of any condition, operating (choosing-doing things by processing means and ends), projecting (deciding-acting on internal and external reality by orienting oneself) and creating (building something from something, not from nothing, symbolizing the notation of signs: realizing something -to note-and giving it meaning -to mean-, building symbols of our culture). Nobody is educated without thinking, feeling, wanting, et cetera To educate oneself is to always improve that internal common activity and know how to use it for specified instrumental activities that make us increasingly capable of deciding and carrying out our projects.
We also agree that, when we educate ourselves, our human condition allows us to carry out the following external common activities: play, work, study, intervention, inquiry-exploration, and relationship (friend, family member, partner, social, et cetera). They are common activities (state and ability) because I have the capacity for study, play, work, exploration, intervention and relationship. And they are external common activities, because they necessarily have a result to be obtained, which is external to the activity itself, but which is conceptually linked as a goal to the activity and characterizes it as an identitary trait. Hence, we say that studying is having and organizing written information "for" their mastery (mastering or knowing the subject of study); The domain-knowledge of the subject of study is the external result of the activity and this result is the finality which identifies the study, regardless of whether I can use the study to make a friend, to altruistically help another, to steal better, et cetera, which are uses of the activity as instrumental specifications of it .
As an external common activity, studying, for example, has its own purpose linked to that ( 2 ) : 2 9 -8 6 -F E B R E R O 2 0 2 3 -I S S N 2 2 5 6 -1 5 3 6 · 3 9 · activity in a conceptual and logical way (the proper finality of studying is to master-know what is studied: information, content or the study technique itself). But, in addition, as an external common activity, studying can become a specified instrumental activity for other purposes, they are specified purposes and external to the activity itself, but linked to the activity of studying in an empirical or experiential way (studying becomes an instrumental activity specified, because we can study to steal, to make friends, to help another, to educate ourselves, et cetera) (Touriñán, 2019a).
It is a fact that common activities are used propaedeutically for educational aims, but they can also be used for other purposes. Common activities can be used to perform instrumental specified activities and they have propaedeutic value; they are preparatory for something later. And this is so, on the one hand, because everything that we use as a means in a meansend relationship, acquires the proper condition of the means in the relationship (the means is what we do to achieve the end and the end is a value chosen as the goal in the means-ends relationship) and, on the other hand, it is so, because the means shows its pedagogical value in the conditions that are proper to it, adjusting the means to the agent, the educational aims and the action, in each circumstance (Touriñán, 2020a, and2020b).
From the perspective of internal common activity, we can say that activity is principle of education, because no one is educated without thinking, feeling, wanting, et cetera And from the point of view of external common activity, we can say that we do many activities whose purpose is to 'educate'. Always, from the perspective of the principle of activity as the guiding principle of education: we educate with activity respecting the condition of agent (Touriñán, 2015).
If this is so, it follows that the means must adjust to the activity of the subject and the meaning of education. They are means for a specific subject who thinks, feels, wants, operates, projects, and creates. They are means to carry out activity, playing, working, studying, inquiring, intervening, and interacting. But the agent performs these activities to educate himself: he does not think in any way, but of the one that is built to educate himself and act educatedly, and so on with all activities. It follows, therefore, that any medium is not "the means" for a specific subject; In Activity is present in all education: from one perspective, as a principle of intervention and, from another, as a principle of education. And precisely because this is so, it is explained that the activity becomes the backbone axis-principle of education and represents the real sense of the meaning of education as an activity aimed at the use and construction of valuable experience to generate educated activity. We use the common activity to educate; we educate the appropriate competencies of the common activity and hope to get educated activity. In short, we use the activity in a controlled way to achieve educated activity and educate the activity through the appropriate skills . This is so because, as a principle of activity, no one is educated without thinking, feeling, wanting, operating, projecting and without being creatively interpreting symbols of our culture.
We educate ourselves with internal common activity. But, in addition, we educate ourselves through external common activity (studying, playing, working, inquiring-exploring, intervening and relating to the self, the other person and the other thing), because by exercising a specific external common activity we activate the internal common capacities, we train them, we exercise them, we drill them and we improve them to do well each external common activity. The external common activity, by principle of activity, activates the internal common activity in each specific execution of the external common activity, whatever it may be (playing, studying, working, inquiring, intervening, or relating). By executing the external common activity, we improve and train the internal activities-capacities: without the activity it is impossible to educate and through the activity it becomes possible for the educatee to be an actor-agent and an increasingly better author-agent of his own projects and acts (Touriñán, 2020d).
The principle of activity allows us to affirm in Pedagogy that external common activity (for example, playing) activates the internal common activity of thinking, feeling, wanting, operating, projecting, and creating, but that does not mean falling into activism: do activity just for the activity does not educate; to think in any way is not to educate oneself, since getting educated, at a minimum, requires that, when we are thinking, the habit and way of thinking has to be improved.
For all that, education is everyone's problem, and we all contribute to it because we all have to become educated, and we have to use common activity to educate and educate ourselves and it is not possible to do so without it.

The educational relationship is not only coexisting
In common language there is a connection between "coexistence" and "living with" which does not hide the deep differences in the use of both terms; differences which are evident in the question: Who do you live with? In effect, we coexist with relatives, with our group of friends, with members of a club or association, with citizens, with neighbours, et cetera. We do some things but not others with each of these groups of people with whom we coexist. For this reason, a teenager can lend money to a friend, but not to any of his/her schoolmates. However, I actually "live with" my parents or with my wife or with my wife and children, etc. We coexist in a lot of fields and from the point of view of education, there are coexistence spaces, fields or sectors. There are also coexistence levels, as coexistence is not the same in all of them, and the coexistence level among those who are in the same coexistential space is not the same, either. "Living with" is not exactly the same as "coexisting". Pedagogy asks questions about these differences and the school educates in a coexistence atmosphere.
It is necessary to qualify coexistence, because the key point in education for coexistence is what we are ready to assume. Coexistence has to be specified because each space specifies coexistence, taking into account the particular conditions of that space. The coexistence relationship is a relationship of identity and interaction of identities (among people, or also with animals or things) with any appropriate qualification and specification (Peiró, 2012;Pinker, 2012;Touriñán, 2012). connection to an empirical connection between two terms. It is true that violence takes place in spaces which are typical of or appropriate for the practice and the exercise of coexistence; this is the evidence of an empirical connection between both concepts. Apart from this, there is no conceptual connection, because we also have the irrefutable evidence that groups who were ethnically, ideologically or socially identified show strong bonds and coexistence and solidarity practices among them, but at the same time they behave violently with other members or groups in shared environments. We all have proof of this type of empirical "coexistenceviolence" connection and evidence of the nonconceptual connection between both concepts in violent behaviours between two groups of friends confronted in a disco, between two families confronted by an inheritance, in confrontations among fundamentalist religious, ethnic, political, gangbanger groups etc., or among groups of "supporters" confronted in sports events. In all these cases we detect that there is coexistence inside the group and strong solidarity among its members motivated by the sense of belonging to the group or by the goals which they share. There is coexistence but there is also violence.
There is indeed coexistence in the group that acts violently and there is a strong sense of solidarity among its members. However, this solidarity does not imply equality, or shared value outside the group. It follows from this that coexistence and violence only share an empirical connection.
Violence does not correspond logically with the concept of coexistence; it is not a necessary condition.
The empirical (experiential) and non-conceptual character of the coexistence-violence relationship · 4 2 · demands to qualify and specify coexistence spaces, so as to understand the convivial school space (classroom, transport, playground, leisure and sport areas, canteens) as a space of pedagogically programmed relationship to educate at certain ages and adjusted to the principles of pedagogical intervention. If this is like this, coexistence must be qualified and specified, as summarised in Chart 2. The same activities that we perform to educate are done for many other things In education we teach, we coexist, we communicate, and we care, but educating is not each of those things separately or together Coexisting is not educating because there are types of coexistence which are not specified or qualified as educational Communicating is not educating because communication is always a symbolic-physical process whose aim is to elucidate the message which the speaker aims at and the speaker does not always aim at education Distinguishing any other type of influence and educational influences demands the pedagogical assessment of several ways of behaviour, according to the meaning and purpose criteria The educational relationship is "educational" because its aim is educating, and it adjusts to the meaning of that action · 4 3 · obedience, availability, affectivity, and so forth.
Coexistence with things will especially strengthen values related to property, the nature of things and connections with the environment. We are discovering so many therapeutic and formative possibilities in coexistence with animals that I could only highlight specifiable genuine values such as identity, affectivity, reciprocity and responsibility.
Anyway, it is also certain that in any coexistence space we can prove that there is nothing in the human being's rights that is opposed to the recognition of the place which corresponds to oneself, the other person, and the other thing.
Man's rights must strengthen the meaning of the human condition and its identity in a diverse cultural setting of interaction. Thus, coexistence relationship is a relationship of identity and interaction of identities (among people, or also with animals or things) with any qualification and specification appropriate to the concept and which we are ready to assume. If so, it makes sense to affirm that education has to form in order to know how to face the conflict · 4 4 · and to attain qualified and specified coexistence; a type of education that we try summarising in

EDUCATION IN CONVIVIAL VALUES
Think-feel-want-choose-decide-signify the values of coexistence relationship in order to perform them in the relationship with oneself, the other person and the other thing (identity, diversity, collaboration, development, sociability and sense of belonging) Pedagogical intervention for the use and building of axiological experience related to qualified and specified coexistence  From the point of view of the educational relationship, coexistence is a necessary condition, but it is not enough. Coexisting is not enough to establish the educational relationship.

THE SELF
Coexistence is an interaction of identities, it is an interactive relationship with oneself, the other person and the other thing. It must be qualified and specified and it cannot be confused with violence, mediation or conciliation and arbitration. All this applies to the educational relationship.

The educational relationship is not only communicating
Communication is a symbolic physical process whose purpose is to elucidate the meaning which the communicator aims at. Whether verbal or non-verbal, communication is defined by the relationship in which something is transmitted so that another person can elucidate it (Stewart, 1973). I can transmit without interacting with the other person, but communication is not possible if we do not take into account that it is addressed to another person (Berlo, 1979;Luft, 1976 · 4 5 · always or necessarily the aim of communication, this is why it is possible to affirm that there is no education without communication, but it is possible to communicate without educating. The experts on communication accept that there is not neutrality of the means of communication and, by accepting that the means is the message (Mcluhan & Powers, 1995), it is more useful to speak about the purpose of communication in terms of the creator's or the receiver's goal, rather than define it as the property of the message itself (Berlo, 1979, p. 9).
Human communication has some defined components that are observed in each particular process: the source of communication or person with the aim to communicate (it can be a school headmaster, for example); the encoder or mediator, who expresses and transmits the purposes of the source for consumers (it can be the teacher); the message or content; the channel or means used to transmit; the decoder, which refers to the internal and external elements that the receiver has so as to decipher the message (hearing, sight, thought, hearing aids, etc.) and the receiver of communication, the person who receives the message and acts accordingly (Berlo, 1979, p. 25). showing something by means of signs and making somebody know something by means of a method, whether it is of a theoretical or practical nature. Teaching involves arranging the elements that take part in the process of making someone know for a particular space and time, so that the teacher and the student will know which changes they want to achieve, how they will manage to achieve them and what they would have to do if they did not achieve them. In this way, the process of communicating integrates into another process with its own singularity in the field of education: the teaching process, Free existential communication, which is a concept analysed by Jaspers, reflects the most basic sense of personal communication (Campillo, Esteve, Ibáñez-Martín, & Touriñán, 1974;Gusdorf, 1973;Millán Puelles, 1951;Redondo, 1999, Chapter 7). The free communication of existences is a straightforward dialogue in which each one opens the doors of his/her privacy wide to the other person, respecting his/her freedom · 4 6 · and abstaining from exerting the least directive influence. Existential communication means that both persons are at the same level of equality; equality is not understood as an arithmetical equivalence, but as the full acceptance of the other person, by promising to accept him/her as oneself, as a subject, like me (Redondo, 1999, p. 146 and they need me in order to be themselves" (Redondo, 1999, p. 135 (Redondo, 1999, p. 179).
From the point of view of the educational relationship, communication is not education, or material donation, but the relationship with oneself, with others, or with things, as a participation that fulfils two conditions: 1) the contact, and 2) the donation that one of them makes to the other (or to oneself for selfcommunication). The absence of one of these two conditions would be enough to destroy communication (Redondo, 1999, p. 210 From the communication point of view, the interaction of the quadrants leads to the following remarks: • A change in any quadrant will affect all the others. • The smaller the first ("Open") quadrant is, the poorer the communication.
• There is a universal curiosity on the fourth area, "Unknown", but it is usually repressed by social uses and habits and by fears.
• Interpersonal learning means that there has been a change that increases the area of the first quadrant and reduces one or more of the other three quadrants.
• Knowing how to appreciate and respect the hidden aspects in quadrants 2, 3 and 4, has to do with affective education.
In Pedagogical intervention for the use and building of axiological experience related to qualified and specified coexistence Attainment of knowledge, dexterities-abilities, attitudes and habits for the interaction of identities by means of concrete and programmed educational action It is undeniable that the educational relationship is beyond mere existential communication, and it is also undeniable that the educational relationship is neither a relationship between two adult subjects who try to influence mutually, nor a relationship between a subject and an object which is handled at will. The communicative relationship is a relationship in which we share, we get in touch and donate and, the same as in coexistence relationship, we manage spaces and affections. All this is applied to the educational relationship, but this does not make communication be defined as educational. Communication is necessary, but it is not enough for the educational relationship. Every educational relationship is a coexistence and communication relationship, but not any coexistence or communication relationship is simply an educational relationship. It is necessary to move forward and also understand the limits which the relationship of "caring and educating" fits within, a type of relationship -that of caringwhich demands the effective existence of a directive relationship, but which is not education in itself, either.

The educational relationship is not only caring
In the purest sense of the pedagogical tradition caring and educating have always been associated, with the conviction that the limits of education would be established in that alliance, against technical and political action (Campillo et al., 1974;Millán Puelles, 1951;Redondo, 1999): • Technical action is understood in this case as the interaction of a subject with an object that s/he handles at will (or with another subject, that is treated as an object), within a programme of means-aims relationship.
• Political action is understood as the interaction of an adult subject with another adult subject concerning a project or aim which is the general interest, the common good or each subject's interest, with the intention of influencing mutually concerning that project or aim.
• The action that corresponds to caring This difference for the educational relationship between technical work, political work and care and education is made from the perspective of the subject-object relationship and is due to Jaspers (Milán Puelles, 1951). It is a distinction compatible with the use and meaning of a technical decision, which is a decision of ends and means centered on the criterion of true knowledge of the area in which a decision or intervention is made (Touriñán, 2016a). In the educational relationship, the student is the object of the interaction, but is an agent, actor and author, depending on the case. Precisely for this reason we can affirm that education implies care as moral attention to the student and that affirmation is compatible with understanding the meaning of the technical decision, the political decision, and the ethical decision in each person (Touriñán, 2017).
The study of action has advanced from Jaspers' classic subject-object distinction and it is possible to affirm nowadays that the object of education is a subject, so that the technical decision of ends and means, as a decision of ends and means centered on the criterion of true knowledge of the area in which it is decided or intervenes, implies care as moral attention to the student, because the object is a subject.

Recognizing the technical work in education does
not imply incurring in the objectification of the student. Maintaining compatibility is recognizing that the student is a person and is the object of the technical decision in education, which would not be an integral technical decision adjusted to the knowledge of education that we currently have, if it did not take into account that we work with people. , since avoiding that one works with people would be equivalent to not basing the technical decision on the true knowledge of the field in which one works: the educatee.
The technical decision in education implies, based on true knowledge of the field in which one works, that we educate people, moral subjects. It implies that the object is a subject, and that the technical decision makes sense, because it is based on true knowledge of the Care is a concept which has been widening from the maternal pattern to other caring needs.
From its origin in the maternal relationship, care has been widening up to the learning of social behaviour. However, there is a border between caring and educating between "assisting" and "educational", which the laws themselves do not have to obviate at the risk of mixing up the contexts and actions of health and education (Tobío, Agullo, Gómez, & Martín, 2010, p. 52 The educational relationship is not only hetero education, it is also self-education, relationship of one with oneself. The care among people, the same as education, is a relationship of one with oneself and it is an interaction or encounter between two human beings, in which both sides of the relationship -the one who cares and the one who is cared for-play a role; one gives and the other receives, and these two roles are exchanged in different moments of the relationship (Noddings, 1992, p. 30).
Care relationships among people are characterised by a genuine interest in oneself and the other person's welfare, which is reflected in attitudes and actions in which a reciprocal search of welfare is experienced and built. The intersubjective relationship of care is built in respectful interactions of attention, and it pays attention to mutual needs. When I observe somebody attentively and I identify that they need something and give it to them -for example, when some students need to understand an instruction better, they are allowed to ask and they are given an answer appropriate to their anxiety-, the care relationship is only completed, when those people show that they have received what I gave them (in our example the students receive and accept the explanation). It is a fact that fostering care relationships involves necessarily building a community among all of us and it is also a fact that the reciprocity in the recognition and the attention create bonds that make it possible to develop interest in the common good and to create consciousness about how everyone's actions affect the others (Daza, 2009;Noddings, 2002, pp. 18-28). formulating the code in order to accomplish it and act in accordance with it is not enough (Touriñán, 2013b).
The ethics of care takes us to a new perspective of alterity and deference, that is, of the affective relationship, from the point of view of suffering and the acceptance of the other, since it is unquestionable that at times in education our students suffer with our intervention and other times we make them suffer; but sometimes they also enjoy themselves with our work and with theirs and they feel satisfied and happy: "Attention as a moral orientation requires receptivity, a shift in motivations (the person's energy should be channelled to the projects or the needs of the person who is being attended) and complete fulfilment in the person being attended. Any politics that excludes this interaction systematically can be ipso facto considered contrary to the concept of attention" (Noddings, 2002, p. 25).
However, concerning this exposition, it is enough to confirm that in terms of moral education, the ethics of care has contributed to widen the analysis perspectives of the moral stages defined by Piaget or Kohlberg and to give the character of universal value to caring (attention and assistance in a moral sense). We must emphasize that neither care is a trait of character univocally defined in a biological way, nor the affectivity assessment and the attention to the other constitute a feminine inferiority that underestimates the importance and value of care in education (Beauchamp & Childress, 1979;Gilligan, 1982;Kemp, 2000;Nussbaum, 2002, and. After saying this, we take it for granted that the educational relationship, as well as the care relationship among people must reconcile two demands: the purpose of the interaction, which in a way turns the other or oneself into the object of action, and the condition of subject of the person who we interact with (Esteve, 2010).
However, neither the aims nor the intervention are the same when we care to educate and when we care to cure, even if there is an affective and directive relationship of trust and obedience in both cases; that is to say, a relationship of care, of attention in the moral sense, which has always been analysed as an authority relationship in the most classic tradition of Pedagogy (Touriñán, 2013b).
In other works I have defended the educator's institutionalised authority as a principle of pedagogical intervention . That is precisely why I assume that the directive relationship must be an authority relationship in ( 2 ) : 2 9 -8 6 -F E B R E R O 2 0 2 3 -I S S N 2 2 5 6 -1 5 3 6 · 5 1 · every asymmetrical directive relationship in which there is a leader. Every directive relationship is a relationship of authority, but authority is sometimes understood only as power and not as prestige and gained recognition. "Authority" is applied to every directive relationship in which we have to lead situations, projects and groups regarding the tasks of its concern. The connection between authority and directive relationship is conceptual, not empirical. There is no directive relationship without authority and there is no authority without directive relationship. That is why we can say that authority is a directive relationship, and that the directive relationship is a relationship of authority. It is not a particular and exclusive condition of the teaching relationship or of the educational relationship. Authority as a principle is related to the professions that provide the condition of expert in the management of projects and personal interaction.
In the directive relationships of care and education in particular, the condition of directive relationship of authority, regarded as prestige and gained recognition, is understood as a directive asymmetrical relationship. In these cases, the relationship of authority as gained prestige is defined as a directive relationship based on the trust that a person gives to another in order to lead his/her conducts in a specific field of his/her existence. This authority is part of the teacher's institutionally recognised authority as a professional and in certain conditions it is compatible with the additional meaning of authority as a public official.
Caring and educating are two ways of interaction that require a directive relationship. By assuming that not every directive relationship is a relationship of care or education, we can affirm that in the relationship of care and education we require authority as recognition and gained prestige. We have to act in a special way to get the other to change and act, but without forgetting that the educational relationship is not the same as authority relationship. Although the authority relationship appears when caring and educating, that does not make them equal. The care relationship is not simply an educational relationship because it is different to say "we care to cure and we care to educate" but the care relationship makes education pay attention to several conditions: • The subject condition of the person with whom we interact.
• The purpose of the interaction, which somehow turns the other or oneself into an action object.
• The concept of attention and assistance as a moral demand regarding the subject with whom we interact.
• The directive character of the relationship, since we act following an established or programmed plan of care or education with a subject that is not at the same level; s/he needs help, direction and cares.
• The sense of directive relationship as an authority relationship.
• The sense of responsibility with oneself and "with the other" in the interaction, which is a situated responsibility because it tries to answer the demands of the other who is situated (well or badly, but situated); it is also asymmetrical because s/he is not my equal in the relationship and because I take responsibility for the other and do not expect reciprocity. The educatee subject and the cared-for subject will answer in front of me, who educate or care for them, depending on the case, but neither of them takes responsibility for me (Arboleda, 2014;Mínguez, 2012;Ortega, 2014).
At the starting point, education, as a situated responsibility, appears as a shared and derived responsibility. It is shared because we all are  (Touriñán, 2008a(Touriñán, , 2008b(Touriñán, , 2012, so now it is enough to state that situated responsibility means that it is an educational responsibility which is shared by the different educational agents (it affects all educational agents, from oneself and the family, to the school, society and the state) and a responsibility derived from education which starts from the individual, social, historical and species-being human condition. It materialises in the recognition of the right "to" and "of" education in each legally established territorial framework.
In conclusion, care as moral attention, as well as justice, is part of the educational relationship and of education. They are necessary conditions, but not enough to make an interaction be a field which may be analysed through the epistemological levels of theory, technology and practice. A field in which the relationship is also with oneself and not only with another person or another thing; a field in which the relationship between communicating, coexisting, caring and educating cannot make us forget that they are not the same.
In the presentation text of the international Regarding what we have said, it makes sense to affirm that the educational relationship is, generically, relationship. Relationship is one of the Aristotelian categories (Ferrater, 1980 sense of relationship from one to many, from many to one, from one to one and from one to oneself (Menne, 1976 the educational relationship is a relationship in which we share, we get in touch, we make a donation, and we even manage spaces and affections.
• The same as in the relationship of caring, the educational relationship respects the condition of subject of the person who we interact with. We recognise the purpose of interaction, which in a sense turns the other person or oneself into the object of action.
We assume the sense of attention and assistance as a moral demand regarding the subject who we interact with and it is identified as a directive asymmetrical relationship, as a relationship of authority in its full sense and as a relationship of situated and asymmetrical responsibility. prescriptive and demanding; he maintains that both actions identify "maternal love" and "paternal authority" in a special way (Dürr, 1971, p. 25;Froebel, 2005). His own reasoning leads him to say that all the educational action has always revolved around those two pillars which have been translated differently into alternative pairs, with a sense which is not always antinomic and which we identify in this way today: authorityfreedom, coercion-freedom, authoritarianismnon-interventionism; freeing-obliging, guidingletting grow, freedom-arrangement, authorityobedience, freedom-education; preparing for life-living life; task-result, lighting the fire-filling the glass, judge's impartiality-attentive, watchful, caring help from the person who takes care.
The existence of those alternative pairs makes Dürr affirm that the "pedagogical achievement" appears as a risk without exception because the "unrepeatable uniqueness of the pedagogical encounter summons the entire man in its "concerning" in such a way that the educator has to accept risk and failure" (Dürr, 1971, p. 30).
Professor At first sight, the dilemma seems to lead us to a dead end. However, as we will be able to check, the contradiction between these terms only exists when we demand excessively the independent character of freedom or the influential character of education. There is no contradiction, but reciprocity in a correct understanding of both terms. At most, there is a contradictory appearance which is typical of all antinomic approaches if, against the complexity of the object education, we consider the limitation of both concepts real when they are subject to an internal relationship in an idealistic sense. In this way, increasing one would imply decreasing the other.

T H E E D U C A T I O N A L R E L A T I O N S H I P I S T H E I D E A L M E A N S O F E D U C A T O R -E D U C A T E E I N T E R A C T I O N :
( 2 ) : 2 9 -8 6 -F E B R E R O 2 0 2 3 -I S S N 2 2 5 6 -1 5 3 6 · 5 5 · In Whitehead's words, the pedagogical tradition maintained that the freedom-education relationship required rhythmical demands of freedom and discipline and a peculiar rhythm that made educators regulate their influence on the educatees' incipient freedom, depending on the level of development of their aptitudes. In this way, he opposes and criticises the naturalistic view which affirmed that a self-perfection discipline which led to moral freedom would arise voluntarily from the educatee's incipient freedom (Whitehead, 1965, p. 56). As Bantock says: "in order to exercise the ability required by freedom, the restriction and discipline essential to the process of becoming free imply the human being's highest freedoms" (Bantock, 1970, p. 67).
It is not a question of joining the mottos "more freedom, less education" or "less freedom, more education", but of assuming realistically that the maximum of freedom requires the maximum of education in each case. As an educatee, I have the freedom that I have in every moment and to improve it, it is necessary to receive the best possible education. It is a question of letting educatees use their freedom because they learn by exercising it in their possibilities, that is to say, it is about educating in freedom.
However, it is also about educating for freedom in such a way that the educator leads them to master the necessary requirements to be able to choose starting from the ability which educatees have so as to organize themselves according to their human condition. In short, an education of freedom is necessary because educatees acquire competence to act and to decide only when they know their situation and condition and learn to master them by exercising them.
The freedom-education relationship is education "of" freedom: it is education "in" freedom and "for" freedom. The terms freedom and education do not exclude each other, they are not antagonistic by meaning although they can be instrumentalised and distorted so that they will look so. The truth is that freedom and education are non-antagonistic terms which demand and need each other. Freedom and education do not oppose each other, they demand each other.
Although the freedom-education relationship is established by considering freedom the first term, this does not mean that the relationship must be considered transitive, but that freedom comes first in this relationship because it belongs to the person and education comes second because it is something that the person receives.
There is no contradiction between the terms of the relationship, just the opposite, there is reciprocity between them. Freedom benefits from education, but education also benefits from freedom. If education is a process which helps individuals so that they can fully accomplish humanity in themselves, education benefits from freedom because, as knowledge advances, we can reject ideas which were considered correct till that time and we can also decide about ways of education which are more appropriate to the human condition and which have to be valued, chosen and accomplished (Yela, 1956, p. 208

T H E E D U C A T I O N A L R E L A T I O N S H I P I S T H E I D E A L M E A N S O F E D U C A T O R -E D U C A T E E I N T E R A C T I O N :
( 2 ) : 2 9 -8 6 -F E B R E R O 2 0 2 3 -I S S N 2 2 5 6 -1 5 3 6 · 5 7 · demanded by freedom is complete and unconditional.
Before going on, it is necessary to clarify that affirming education as a principle of freedom is not the same as affirming that education gives us freedom. There is no doubt that some have understood it in this way, but obviously, education cannot be understood as a process of creation in a full sense. If man did not have the ability to be able to choose, choice would be impossible since, as we already know, learning to choose properly implies the existence of the faculty of choice. We must understand that education is an act of creation in an analogical sense, therefore education of freedom does not mean creating freedom, but according to our considerations, it means putting the necessary means so that the educatee will update that feature of the human condition.
It is true that the act of decision implies independence, but the independence which the exercise of freedom demands is not equal to the absence of any kind of help. Obviously, it is not equal to another person's imposition, either. All the field of the pedagogical guidance, or in other words, the field of the educational systematised activity extends between the educatees' gross abandonment when facing reality and their constriction to the educator's expectations. In the pedagogical tradition, the terms freedom and education need mutually, and they do not exclude each other.
"Man does not have the animal instinct and he must create his own behaviour plan.
However, he needs other people's help because he is not able to do it by himself, as he reaches the world in an immature state" (Kant, 1966, p. 70).
Education for freedom demands education "in" and "of" freedom. The freedom-education relationship demands to raise the educatees' desire to look for right solutions personally and not to bother them with legitimate opinions which must be thoroughly examined and rejected if appropriate. They should not only state the reasons for their invalidity, but also the reasons why they have reached such an opinion (Ibáñez-Martín, 1969, p. 93). This means that the educators' interest in cultivating the educatees' freedom will make them adopt a position of silence, of abstention in some occasions. This is like this, not because they defend neutrality as a motto of education, but because they are conscious that educatees have all the necessary means and conditions to perform a lucid choice in those occasions.
In the same way, the desire to lead students to the proper exercise of freedom will oblige educators to consider the arguments for and against each possible solution in all those educational situations which exceed the educatees' decisionmaking possibilities. At times they will be obliged to act as impartial referees who decide without favouritism, even if they had preferred the solution to be inclined towards a particular side.
Other times they will make emotional expositions in favour of the relationship between a statement and the reality which it expresses. It is all like this because the accomplishment of an act requires fulfilment, interpretation, and expression. The procedural strategies which they use are diverse and they always aim at choosing those ways of intervention which guarantee the educatees' capacity to choose their way of life and their position towards values. If this is like this, the basic premise of the teachers' action is the responsible commitment so that students can learn to distinguish among value, assessment, choice, duty, decision, conviction, interpretation and feeling which are produced when performing something. In order to do this, at times they will be the devil's advocates, other times they will be ignorant of the solution to the problem, and they will even try to make students see the importance of not taking a stand on something, of abstaining or of making them see their preference as a to receive from the Institution (Jeffreys, 1955, p. X). It is basically a position that, by rejecting ingenuous concepts of freedom, tries to educate by using freedom as a means and as a goal.

The educational relationship is identified with the interaction which we establish to perform the activity of education
The educational relationship is the substantive way of educational intervention, it is its concrete act. The educational relationship is identified with the interaction which we establish to perform the activity of educating and, that is why the educational relationship may be seen as the series of cares which we do to educate.
The educational relationship is generically "relationship" and this means that it respects and adjusts to the typical conditions of every relationship. However, as an educational relationship, it differs from the other actions which fulfil the relationship criteria; for this reason we also say that the educational relationship is specifically 'education', which means that it has to respect the criteria of use, purpose and meaning of 'education', if it wants to be so.
In the educational relationship we strengthen the ability to make the educational action and Consequently, I see the educational relationship as an interactive relationship which we establish to perform the activity of educating, as reflected in Chart 5

T H E E D U C A T I O N A L R E L A T I O N S H I P I S T H E I D E A L M E A N S O F E D U C A T O R -E D U C A T E E I N T E R A C T I O N :
The complex vision of human reality does not adjust to two mental realms, that of the heart and that of the mind, despite the attraction power which certain expressions may have, for example "they educate by addressing only to what people have above their neck" or "there are people who only think with their heart" or "they think only below their waist". Mottos, metaphors and antinomic thinking must be accepted in their limitations of meaning, logically they do not substitute the definition and that is precisely why every position related to complexity cannot be limited to these two concepts of heart and mind.

T H E E D U C A T I O N A L R E L A T I O N S H I P I S T H E I D E A L M E A N S O F E D U C A T O R -E D U C A T E E I N T E R A C T I O N :
( 2 ) : 2 9 -8 6 -F E B R E R O 2 0 2 3 -I S S N 2 2 5 6 -1 5 3 6 · 6 0 · respond to different human dimensions of internal common activities, to adjusted competences, to specific capacities, to basic dispositions, to knowledge, skills, attitudes and fundamental habits of development and specific purposes. Distinguishing what makes a relationship be educational demands the pedagogical assessment of several ways of behaviour, considering not only criteria of use and purpose, but also criteria of meaning which are internal to the concept itself. Basically, we have to build the thought which allows us to justify that the educational activity is "educational" because 1) it adjusts to the criteria of use of the term, 2) it fulfils the purpose of educating in its activities and 3) it adjusts to the real meaning of that action, that is to say, it adjusts to its own traits of character and sense, the same as any other identity which is defined and is comprehensible. determining traits of education (Touriñán, 2014).
For me, the complexity of the object of knowledge 'education' arises from the diversity of man's activity in the educational action: we intervene by means of the activity to achieve educated activity, which means that we go from knowledge to action to form the individual, social, historical and species-being human condition, taking into account the features of the object 'education', which make it possible to identify its internal (character) determining traits. The activity is the central pillar of the complexity of the object 'education'.
In my opinion, it is possible to systematise the complexity of the object education from three axes that determine traits of character of education: Concerning the second condition, we have to say that the meaning of agent marks a trait of character in education which cannot be avoided, at the risk of renouncing to educate. We always think about educational relationship as a relationship between two, but the truth is that it is, in an unmistakable way, a relationship of one with oneself. In the educational relationship each of us are agents-actors who let ourselves be guided and obey those people who work as educators. We perform a lot of operations because we are guided to be educated. Besides, we are agents-authors because we guide ourselves in processes of education by deciding

T H E E D U C A T I O N A L R E L A T I O N S H I P I S T H E I D E A L M E A N S O F E D U C A T O R -E D U C A T E E I N T E R A C T I O N :
( 2 ) : 2 9 -8 6 -F E B R E R O 2 0 2 3 -I S S N 2 2 5 6 -1 5 3 6 · 6 2 · our goals and integrating our acts into our projects. By means of education we undertake the task to be actors and authors in our projects, even if our decision is to act as we are told.
In each case, as agents, we are destined by education to undertake the task of being authors and actors of our own projects.  (Ferrater, 1979, pp. 119-155;Dearden, Hirst, Peters, 1982). historical and species-being) with autonomy and responsibility, inside the shared space of a culture, and getting away from the repetition or cloning of pre-established models (Arendt, 1974;Damasio, 2010;Gervilla, 2000, Haidt, 2006Marina, 2009;Morin, 2009;Pinker, 2011;Mosterín 2008;Duch & Melich, 2005 Patrimonial character means that when we set aims, we not only consider their value, but we also include that value in the aim as an integrating part of our life project; we create with that 'something' and I can even decide to integrate that 'something' as part of my projects, but then I must accomplish it, I must go from thought to action, I must go from the attained and attainable value to the effective accomplishment.

T H E E D U C A T I O N A L R E L A T I O N S H I P I S T H E I D E A L M E A N S O F E D U C A T O R -E D U C A T E E I N T E R A C T I O N :
From the third condition, it is necessary to insist on the fact that education is a field of reality which is susceptible of knowledge and an action which is performed by means of educational relationship. It could be said then that both methods of thinking and methods of action are advisable for education, in the most classic and universal sense of methods of theoretical and practical rationality (Mosterín, 2008b To make this possible we have to achieve an affective integration, as we express ourselves with the feelings that we have in each particular situation, and we relate what we want to attain to specific values in an affective way (by means of positive attachment). However, we also need a cognitive integration which relates ideas and beliefs to our expectations and convictions so that we can articulate thought and believed values with reality, because through rationality, our action is based on knowledge in a explicit way. In addition, we need a creative integration, that is, we must give meaning to our acts by means of symbols, since each act which we perform requires an interpretation of the situation as a whole and in relation to the set of our actions and projects inside our cultural context: we build culture by using symbols.
We need affective habits, but the specific accomplishment of the action is not possible without the intellectual habit or without the creative, symbolising-creating, habit. In order to perform the action, the operative habit, the volitive habit and the projective habit demand the affective habit which derives from the valuefeeling relationship and generates heartfelt experience of value. We go from sensitivity to Gnoseological character means that we are capable of cognitive integration, that is, that we learn to relate ideas and beliefs by using ways Complexity of the object "education"

Axiological character
We choose values when we set aims and determine the sense of action

Value-duty relationship:
Wanted value

Value-decision relationship:
Decided value

Value-election relationship:
Chosen value

Value-feeling relationship:
Felt value

Personal character
We engage with values voluntarily to comply with rules and norms

Patrimonial character
We decide values by integrating them into our projects with sense of life

Integral character
We establish positive links of attachment between values and what we want to achieve

Gnoseological character.
Cognitive integration which articulates thought and believed values with reality by means of knowledge and rationality

Spiritual character.
Creative-Symbolizing integration, which is a form of creative relationship between the self, the other person and the other thing and an emergent consequence of the human connection between the mental and the physical in the brain which makes it possible to create culture and symbols to note and to signify reality from the human condition itself it, I must go from thought to action, I must go Affective-expressive, cognitive-comprehensive, and creative-interpretative integration from attained and attainable value to effective accomplishment. This implies in each execution of action, interpretation, comprehension and expression. There is not education without affectivity, that is to say, without facing the problem of generating heartfelt experience of value. We need operative, volitive, projective, affective, cognitive, and creative habits for this.

T H E E D U C A T I O N A L R E L A T I O N S H I P I S T H E I D E A L M E A N S O F E D U C A T O R -E D U C A T E E I N T E R A C T I O N :
The effective accomplishment of the action requires operative, volitive, and projective habits, but we also need affective, cognitive and creative habits. Only in this way we accomplish the action, which always implies to execute regarding to the comprehension, interpretation and expression (cognitive, symbolising-creating and affective integration) By means of feeling we express the state of mind which has been produced; depending on the fulfilment of our expectations in the action, we manifest and we expect recognition for our choice; we manifest and we expect acceptance of our voluntary commitment; we manifest and we expect receiving to our projects and manifest devotion to them. Choosing, engaging, deciding and effect a value positively has its affective manifestation of linking and attachment in attitudes of recognition, acceptance, receiving and devotion to the action. What characterises attitude is its condition of significant experience of learning born from the affective assessment of the positive or negative results in the achievement of a particular behaviour. We reflect it in Chart 7 in the form of the complex relationship of valueeducatees' internal common activity, by making values and feelings concordance when moving from knowledge to action.

T H E E D U C A T I O N A L R E L A T I O N S H I P I S T H E I D E A L M E A N S O F E D U C A T O R -E D U C A T E E I N T E R A C T I O N :
( 2 ) : 2 9 -8 6 -F E B R E R O 2 0 2 3 -I S S N 2 2 5 6 -1 5 3 6 · 6 8 · Counting on the opportunities, we reach the concrete fulfilment of a value, but we always have to make use of operative, volitive, projective, affective habits, and notativesignifying, creating habits. Whenever we carry out something we think, feel, want, choose to do, decide projects and create with symbols.
We execute the common activity in each To make this possible, apart from making an affective integration (expression), we express ourselves with the feelings which we have in every concrete situation, and we relate what we want to achieve to specific values affectively through positive attachment. We need to do cognitive integration (comprehension of what is thought and believed), by relating ideas and beliefs to our expectations and convictions so that we can articulate thought and believed values with reality because our action is explicitly based on knowledge through rationality. We also need to make a creative integration (symbolisingcreating interpretation), that is to say, we must give meaning to our acts by means of symbols (symbols which interpret each act), since every act that we perform requires the interpretation of the situation as a whole and in the entirety of our actions and projects within our cultural context. Creative integration articulates values and creations by relating the physical and the mental to build up culture through symbols.
Creative integration articulates values and creations, linking the physical and the mental to build culture, symbolizing (Touriñán, 2019b).
If the above reasonings are correct, the double condition of knowledge and action puts us in the integral vision of the complexity of action.
In order to perform the action, the operative, volitive and projective habits demand, in order to effect the action, the affective habit which derives from the value-feeling concordance in each accomplished action and generates heartfelt experience of value in its realization. However, the accomplishment of value is not possible in its concrete execution, if we do not make an affective, cognitive and creating integration in every action according to the opportunities and in each circumstance.
From the perspective of the change from knowledge to action, in every performance we follow a two-way path which allows us to go (Touriñán, 2022a): ( 2 ) : 2 9 -8 6 -F E B R E R O 2 0 2 3 -I S S N 2 2 5 6 -1 5 3 6 · 6 9 · reality; we use cognition and creativity to understand and interpret, signify and innovate (Novak, 1998   therefore, interaction to educate and this implies assuming the complexity of education itself, and the demands derived from the characteristics of the meaning of educating, which must be manifested, in each intervention through common activity . We intervene to establish an educational relationship that manages to educate and for the other person and the other thing in each case (Touriñán, 2014;Touriñán, Dir, 2012).
The relationship between the self, the other person and the other thing is a type of relationship that requires to combine identity, territoriality and the interrogative horizon of reality and existence in the formative development of the human condition, by articulating the limits of the singularly personal, the environmentally close and the universal in each action, three categories related to the "self", "the other person", and "the other thing" in each specific case of performance (Touriñán, 2015).  .
The sense of education is a fundamental element in the meaning of education, not only because the relationship of the self, the other person and the other thing is qualified in each action attending to the conceptual categories of space, time, genre and specific difference, but because we will not understand the condition of educational agent in its extent if we don't combine identity, territoriality, and the interrogative horizon of reality and existence in each action: my right 'to' and 'of' education is a legal right and legitimately integrated within a territorial legal framework and with some specific circumstances that condition specific opportunities. If we do not respect the limits of the singularly personal, the environmentally close and the universal, the agents lose their position as subjects situated in the world. Without that caution, we will not distinguish between the territorial integration of cultural differences and the transnational inclusion of cultural diversity in each educational agent (Reboul, 1972;Melich, 2010  In each educational act we combine identity, territoriality and the interrogative horizon of reality and existence to respect the limits of the singularly personal, the environmentally close and the universal, as summarised in Chart 8.  we must commit ourselves and defend the meaning of education in the education design of every space of intervention categorised as field of education. For me, 'field of education or education field is the result of the educational assesment of the cultural area of experience that we use to educate and that is why "field of education" includes the meaning of education, the intervention processes, the dimensions of intervention, the cultural area of experience and the forms of expression in every technical sense of cultural area as field of education. Intervention is always oriented towards action and from the educational design, which is the representation of the education field that the pedagogue has to create (we do value the area of experience as educational). The design is the spatio-temporal arrangement of the components of 'the education field' (the area of experience, forms of expression, criteria of meaning, general dimensions, processes of intervention and technical senses of the education field). The For me, the educational design is finally defined in this work as the rational (spatial and temporal arrangement) of the components of the field of education to make intervention by considering the appropriate internal and external means in each circumstance and school grade.
The Temporary formative orientation for the human condition is the educational model or pattern of that society (the type of people who we want to make with the formation which we give them in a specific historical moment). By means of intervention, we turn the knowledge of cultural areas into education in each field of education that we build.
The temporary formative orientation integrates the content of education and it allows defining and differentiating the educational answer activities (Touriñán, 2022b).
In education in general, each act of fulfilment of value implies moving from knowledge to action, which means that, taking into account the opportunities and the resources available, we have to execute, interpret and express. When we choose purposes, not only do we estimate value, but we also assume that value in the purpose as an integrating part of our life project and we feel it; we create our own patrimony out of ourselves, and we identify with the decisions that we take with positive feelings towards and from that identification. We act with freedom, determination and decision and we make affective, cognitive, and symbolising-creating integration. We articulate thought and believed values with reality by means of knowledge and rationality. We establish a creating relationship among the self, the other person and the other thing, by creating culture and symbols to note and signify reality through the human condition itself and we express the different level of commitment with ourselves, the other person and the other thing by means of the complex relationship between values and the educatee's internal common activity. By means of feeling we express the state of mind which has been produced due to the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of our expectations in the action; we manifest, and we expect recognition for our choice; we manifest, and we expect acceptance of our voluntary commitment; we manifest and we expect reception to our projects and manifest devotion to them. Choosing, engaging, deciding, and feeling a value positively has its affective 'educating' is basically to acquire a set of behaviors which qualify educatees to choose, to engage, to decide, to perform their personal life project and to construct themselves by using the axiological experience in order to give an answer to the demands that may arise in each situation according to the opportunities. It is a question of making educatees acquire knowledge, attitudes and skills-abilities-habits which qualify them to choose, to engage, to decide and to perform their projects by giving an answer to the demands that arise in each situation according to the opportunities, from every internal common activity: think, feel affectively, want, choosedo (operate), decide-act (project) and create (build by symbolising), and from every external common activity (game, work, study, profession, investigation and relationship) (Touriñán, 2014).
Attending to the nominal and real definition, we can say that educating is, as an activity, a specified activity; it is not any activity, although any activity can be changed into an educational activity if we manage to make it fulfil the criteria of common use, finality and real meaning. To be so, the educational activity, requires the fulfilment of the conditions of character of education (axiological, personal, patrimonial, integral, gnoseological and spiritual) and the conditions of sense of education (territorial, durable, of cultural diversity and specifically formative with a general, professional, and vocational sense), as well as the criteria of use and finality which are evident in the temporal formative orientation of the concept of education in each intervention.
The educational relationship implies a committed activity, and it is, in addition, a responsible activity because we care to educate to make educators, together with educatees, generate the educational relationship in educatees in relation to themselves, in such a way that they are not only actors, but also authors of their own • a connection between ideas and beliefs with expectations and convictions is created in the educational relationship by means of ways of thinking, in such a way that we are able to integrate thought and believed values with reality in a cognitive way.
a connection between signs and meanings is created in the educational relationship due to the human relationship of the mental and the physical, in such a way that we are able to make a symbolising-creating integration and give meaning to the human condition in the symbolised world by building culture. Basically, the educational relationship is "educational" because it fulfils the criteria of use of common language for education, its aim is to educate, and it adjusts to the meaning of that action. In the educational relationship we interact to perform the activity of educating, and to achieve it, we care, teach, coexist, communicate, and mediate, but always with the present aim of educating, that is to say, of fulfilling the conditions of meaning of that concept in every concrete educational action. All this makes the educational relationship be an exercise of engaged freedom and a responsible and sympathetic activity which is exerted in every concrete educational action.
In educational relationship, as we have said, we look for values-feelings concordance in each interaction and for this we choose, commit ourselves, decide and carry out what it has been decided. And for effecting, we execute through action what is understood and interpreted, expressing it. Accomplishment requires executing by means of action. And that action, in addition to the internal common activity of the subject, always uses the external common activity of the educatee. We carry out through play, work, study, inquiry-exploration, through intervention in each act and through the relationship established between the self and the things used in each interaction, which is always defined as a relationship the self-the other person-the other things. And all this is regarded by the educator in the educational relationship as means for the action of educating, so that the educational relationship becomes the ideal means of educator-educatee interaction.