I'm going to assume you are familiar with the works of Freire and the ideas of dialogical pedagogy and praxis. Your statement: And a performing education is one which makes the disciples to believe that their existence consists essentially in their ability to use the language, though the language cannot actually form the life of a person. Leaves me a little confused. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your definition of the phrase "performing education" (which I took as synonymous to praxis). How can practicing the ideas discovered through dialogue lead to confusing that dialogue with action?
Thanks for your comment. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but Freire's definition of praxis as "reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it" seems to me without realistic consequences. Nonetheless, his definition opens an alive field of discussions about possible transformations.
I think I follow you. My input would be that Freire's work did have a very real impact on oppressed people (especially in South America) who studied it. Many "revolutionaries" took their approaches directly from his page. Though I would admit that many of them did not take his message to heart and became no more than sub-oppressers unable to view the world outside the confines of the colonial paradigm of power and control. Maybe I'm a little more optimistic, but the act of learning how to learn seems to me to be the most powerful change one can affect on those that lack the ability to see outside themselves.