Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:47:46 +1000
From: Luke Pellen <lpellen-AT-enternet.com.au>
Subject: Re: "Creativity and Morality"


Sorry Michael, but I must briefly reply:

>>>>but IS the expansion of our creative possibilities absolutely
>>>>paramount?
>>
>>My answer is not an emphatic "NO", it is more of a very tentative "perhaps
>>not".

Michael Betancourt writes:
>There are only a few positions that are absolutely necessary to be a
>surrealist. Answering "YES" to this question is one of them; that you do not
>feel that this is so suggests that you are not surrealist.

Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't - I have decided I don't much care
anymore. I do not AIM to be a surrealist, but I do feel myself strongly
drawn towards surrealism, to the point that I think I AM a surrealist.

>It's really that simple on this issue; there are others where there are grey
>areas. Knowing the difference is important.
>
>Surrealism is amoral; hence, to be a surrealist you must agree with this
stance.

I am atheist - is it pointless for me to discuss religion?

>>From your response you have a problem with this.

No, I have no problem with this; but where is the harm in exploration?

>As for discussing "creativity and morality" in surrealist terms this was
>settled very early on (see the first reponse to this thread.)

I see - there is absolutely no question about it, it is utterly pointless to
discuss the matter any further; the case is closed; let us never explore
this topic again...

>There is no point to discussing questions that are raised by an invalid
>assumption; if the basis is clearly false there is no need to argue the
>thoughts based on it, only the basis. This kind of thinking is at the root
>of all philosophies, and what this thread is about _is_ a philosophical
>position.

I don't recall making any invalid assumptions.

>... I would have responded in the same manner if you had tried to
>discuss, in surrealist terms, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Seven.

Well, anyway, I shall play the game of logic to make my position clear; I
hope it helps:


             Premise-1. Surrealism aims to maximise creative potential.
             Premise-2. Morality significantly decreases creative potential.
             Premise-3. An amoral stance provides greater creative potential
than
                        an immoral stance.
          ------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Therefore Conclusion-1. Surrealism is amoral.


             Premise-4. Morality entails some kind of ethical system geared
towards
                        the preservation and protection of life.
          Conclusion-1. Surrealism is amoral.
          ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Therefore Conclusion-2. Surrealism should not aim to preserve and protect life.
                        [An alternative weaker form of conclusion, but
perhaps more
                         accurate, is: Surrealism is indifferent to the
preservation
                         and protection of life.]


             Premise-1. Surrealism aims to maximise creative potential.
             Premise-5. Life significantly increases creative potential.
          ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Therefore Conclusion-3. Surrealism should aim to preserve and protect life.


Now, Conclusion-2 and Conclusion-3 create, at worst, a clear tautology, and
at best, a clear inconsistency.

>This should end the discussion.

And so should this...


Luke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: lpellen-AT-enternet.com.au
   WWW: http://people.enternet.com.au/~lpellen/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------