“You will become more passionate and determined about your convictions.” — fortune cookie

so i’ve recently become fluent in the visual basic that underlies microsoft access, which means that my database applications are no longer limited by my technical knowledge–only by my creativity.

that’s a great and frightening thing. now i can do things using access that the people who designed it may never have conjured–but at the same time, any weaknesses in the programming will stem directly from lapses in my creativity and inspiration.

which led me to think about the cross-pollination (or contamination) that technical aptitude in any subject must have on the purity of creativity. that thought arose because i am quite conscious of the fact that visual basic for applications is not very well-admired. which begs the question, if i become competent in something ill-conceived, what will the lingering effects be on my creative abilities and mental foresight?

this led me to think about the core pedagogy of the school of information and library science (where i will formally begin my masters program this fall). sils, imho, does not much value technical prowess, due in part to the concern i posed above. instead, the classes try to convey “concepts”–which i would define as abstractions of pragmatism’s commingling with creativity.

the teaching of concepts avoids the problem of biasing a student towards one vendor or implementation of any technology (who’s time will undoubtedly pass), but yet acute technical knowledge, no matter how bastardized, can be like the legs on which creativity runs. no legs, no running. only thinking about running.

and there is a big difference between thinking about being creative, thinking about solving problems, and actually being creative. sure you can do it, building an elaborate house of cards in your mind, but what fun is that? it isn’t much because feedback is missing. when we get bad feedback, we investigate, we try to repair. when we get good feedback, we make things bigger, simpler, more elegant, more general.

and we don’t get much feedback from concepts. and you know what else? you don’t usually get concepts straight outta the ether. rather you extract and generalize concepts from the sum total of your current active experience.

i would say then, that sils’s pedagogy is totally backwards. education should be deeply rooted in the pragmatic–geared first towards building experiences and practicing creativity and then subtly towards garnering the abstract concepts which should underlie and strengthen (NOT overlie and suffocate) one’s learning.

i would also say then, to answer my original question, that my fluency in a disorganized creole is better than no fluency at all–on one condition: that i never entertain the impression that “the way i am doing things now” is the only way one would/should/could ever do such things. with that admission, my creativity ought to be quite safe enough.