[499] the abuse of the word "educators," which are always people who come from the teaching profession, or at least teaching institutes, and are "educators" because they administrate teaching -- . . . [it] has very little to do with education^a; neither is administration, education, nor is teaching^b IN ITSELF, education. Now it can be. Both can be, by the way---even administration can have educational influence. But what is education? I think I made it quite clear: introducig into a

reality in which a community lives, expresses itself, in rules and symbols; and the educational process is to introduce individuals into these realms, and at the same time, [it] gives them, through some special symbols expressing this, the freedom to protest against this introduction. That was my education. Now all this CAN be performed, let us say, in ten percent of the whole educational process, by teaching. But the other 90%---I think 50 at least---are being done by the home, by the surroundings, by the walls of the house, by the situation of the dining room in relation to the studio of the father--- these are the realities of the life which are decisive for the balance [of one's] whole life, and innumerable other things like that. Then the friends in childhood with whom you play---and playingwith [sic.] other children, not always under the supervision of nurses in a nursery school, but on the street where they are free to play with each other, is again more educational than most teaching. And so I could go on. Then I told you, I think, about my own experience, that the real educators were the other students who were one or two years older than you and who were higher authorities than the most famous professors altogether! QN [Earl Scott^c]: Two of the other questions that have been asked today seem to raise a problem that is very difficult: 1) the categories or dimensions of truth; 2) the faculties in the university. Does the answer to that mean then that, for example, the concrete symbol of ultimate concern which