ANTI-CREATIVE EDUCATION
I do not know if it happens in the same way in other countries, but in Venezuela teaching is based on the cult of scholarship of the past. We study what was done and continue to accumulate it as if we were information accumulating machines. There is no interest in encouraging an attitude of curiosity, in seeking complex explanations. It is a theoretical and not a practical method. It seems that time will continue to pass and we will continue to start from an error.
Ideally, erudition and creativity is united in the one person. They are not easy to find — because it is often preferable to have one, or not to have either. Scholarship limits creativity because the level of personal demand increases. Some discoverers acknowledge the good that ignorance did them in carrying out their creative activity. However, there have been men in whom both characteristics were present. This is the case of Boris Vian (1920–1959). He was one of the most original and vigorous storytellers in contemporary French literature. His restless spirit and his amazing imagination led him to create a very personal literary universe that explores fantasy, language, humour and human relations. But, through him we cannot make generalisations.
Socially, a concept of intelligence has been created. We relate grades to intelligence, when what we should do is relate qualifications to persistence. Intelligence is confused with persistence. Memory and talent are, arguably, interchangeable.
Intelligence must have a new interpretation — perhaps the ability to decide one’s own limits on behaviour and intellectual activity. Aldous Huxley, when classifying human beings in his novel Brave New World, says that the alpha, that is the most intelligent, are those who are closest to free will. Free will does not exist — but we can hope to get rid of some limitations if we realise who we are and what we want. Intelligence is individuality; it is the way we channel our own life. It is our beliefs and our deceptions. By knowing what a human being is deceiving us with, we can qualify how deep and agile his thinking is and thus know an aspect of his intelligence.
It is also true there are many types of intelligence. I recently learned of a highly respected scientist who dabbled in the field of metaphysics and made a series of clumsy conclusions. In this sense, I sometimes do not know what to think. Is intelligence the product of greater education in a certain activity — or is it inherent in the character of man?
