Indeed I raised my voice against *labeling* and doing so exclusively *in a
certain direction of a personalized (societal? cultural?) view.* And what
did I get as a scolding cold shower? *another 'labeling'*: * called: *
*VALUES*. They, too, can be 'good or bad' in the restricted views we accept
as *"OUR" values.* Presently, i.e. here and now. Neither is "good or bad",
only fitting our goals or not.
Teaching (Bruno) emotionalyy loaded things (and art?) usually kills the
subject. See 'teaching musical theory' kills the 'music', teaching humor
kills the joy, and so on. If the pupil applies the rules taught as *creative
thinking*, she is not creative, only obedient. Non-creatively following the
rules of creativity. Teaching love? Nonsense, you should practice it. (*)
It is so interesting to watch, which part of a post and how much of its
total is ever included in replies! And to compare it with the purpose of the
post at all.
(*) Ad vocem luv: excuse me for including here the recently heard bon mot:
that more money is being spent on Viagra than on Alzheimer with the result
 that soon there will be lots of men with huge excitement - totally
forgetting,  for what it could serve.
*Ethix and morals* *(governing good and bad)* are age (epoch) and culture
dependent societal artifacts not even universally identifiable directives.
To destroy humanity would be *'beneficial(?)'*  even within this very
biosphere - not to mention wider cosmic considerations.
For us: it may be called *disasterous*.

So I humbly ask you not to make up *MY* mind. I may have a different
creativity (<G>) or more simply: I amy be wrong.

Agnostically yours
John M

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Kim Jones <> wrote:

>  On 20/03/2009, at 6:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Kim,
>  On 19 Mar 2009, at 05:19, Kim Jones wrote:
> But who can say that creativity cannot be taught when no institution
> sets out to do so?
> I have been teacher in a "modern school" based on creative thinking, but it
> happens it was a mode of brainwashing.
> I love creativity, but teaching it makes it less creative. Hells is paved
> with good intention.
> Dear Bruno
> (Here I am putting on the hat of the sensei)
> I hope you are wrong on this. Usually I hope you are right on everything,
> because you usually have the "ring of truth" about you. Here, unfortunately
> I feel in my adenoids you have the "ring of fear" (like dear Johnny Mikes) -
> but I could be wrong. Why would teaching the joy, the love, the fascination
> of something make that thing less than what it is?
> Teaching creativity leads straight to hell if you are Hitler, or Mengele or
> Madoff or Bush or Aristotle or ....... (sorry - not in Alpha order)
> If the VALUES of the creativity teacher are fine, then the outcome will
> merely depend on the VALUES of the STUDENTS. That probably depends on their
> parents, their socio-economic background, their religion, their life-story
> their drug-use, their whatever.
> Some people may be better at creativity (lateral thinking) just as some
> people may be better at mathematics but this does not mean that there is a
> process that cannot be learned and used. As I said, Edward de Bono ALONE
> AMONGST ALL HUMANS worked out for himself (by '68) what creativity IS.
> Some people have 'the gift' of creativity to be sure - but creativity
> itself is NOT a gift. Gift from whom? From what? Come on  - get real!!!!
> Lateral Thinking (=creativity) and vertical thinking are COMPLIMENTARY -
> not antagonistic.
> It can be shown that creativity can make people generate more ideas, and by
> definition gifts cannot be taught. In my book, NOTHING is 'a gift' because I
> can never be sure what or who is doing the giving (thank you for this
> enlightenment Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, Harris, de Monfroy, Vic Stenger et
> al). My only 'gifts' came from the genes of my parents - things I did not
> have to 'learn' - like musical ability (Fuck, how I wish I had quantum
> physicists for parents!!!!!!)
> There is nothing mysterious or metaphysical about creativity! Creativity is
> a way of HANDLING INFORMATION. Please stop metaphysicalising creativity! If
> only Superman or Jesus can be creative then we are all screwed!!!! When you
> do this, you become AN INCONSISTENT MACHINE!!!!!!!
> Many people are scared of creativity because they think (feel) that it
> threatens the validity (=supremacy) of (academic) VERTICAL thinking.
> (Vertical thinking = where you must be 'right' at every step of the way and
> therefore 'consistent'). This is not so at all. The two processes are
> complimentary - not antagonistic. Remember, Socrates sold the car with only
> the front left wheel. I am selling the OTHER THREE WHEELS!!!!! Creativity
> (=lateral thinking) is useful for GENERATING ideas and approaches, vertical
> thinking (= logical, academic, lawyer-style, "I am right, you are
> wrong"-style thinking is useful for DEVELOPING ideas. Lateral Thinking
> enhances the valuse of Vertical Thinking by offering it MORE TO SELECT FROM.
> Vertical thinking multiplies the effectiveness of Lateral Thinking by making
> good use of the ideas generated.
> Most of the time, one will be using vertical thinking, but when one needs
> to use lateral thinking (as in the present moment in history, where we are
> desperate for a 'new idea') - no amount of excellence in vertical thinking
> will do instead. To persist i n vertical thinking when one should (if one is
> a consistent machine) be using lateral thinking is HIGHLY DANGEROUS. In
> truth, one needs skill at both types of thinking.
> Creativity is like the reverse gear in a car. One would be a crazy fool to
> attempt to drive everywhere in reverse gear. On the other hand, one cleary
> nbeeds to ahve it and to be educated to know when  it's use is necessary -
> for example, how to get out of a cul-de-sac.
> warmest regards,
> K
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to