Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 21:07:16 +1000
From: lpellen-AT-enternet.com.au (Luke Pellen)
Subject: Re: A Revolution of Creative Desire (Creativity and Morality)


Hi Barrett,


How are things anyway? Hope you are in good spirits...

>If Surrealism seeks the total integration of the _liberated_
>imagination with everyday life, it demands a revolution of
>creative desire.
>
>This is very different than (I would say opposite of) a
>"moral" revolution.

But I still think there may be an unresolved conflict between creativity and
morality [as made explicit in a previous post]. My point is simply that the
two, creativity and morality, are interwoven to such a degree that they are
not independent issues and so pose a threat to the philosophical consistency
of surrealism.

>We do before we are, and what we do first is pursue
>intuitive desire, therefore action reveals desire.  The more
>spontaneous the act the clearer the potential revelation.

Spontaneous meaning instinctual, automatic; an expression deriving from the
unconscious. Spontaneity, then, is something like automatism: automatism
concerns PUSHING CONSCIOUS processes into the unconscious where they become
automatic; spontaneity concerns PULLING processes FROM the UNCONSCIOUS and
expressing them directly, so that through perception they then become a part
of the conscious mind.

Spontaneous action seems to be the only method which can manifest
unconscious processes in an unbiased way, without having to go through the
filter of the conscious mind. The method of generating spontaneity is
unimportant, although some methods may prove more effective than others. But
one needs to make the very act of spontaneity AUTOMATIC; preconceived
spontaneity is nothing more than an illusion of spontaneity.

Spontaneous acts, by their very nature of bypassing the psychological
apparatus, are amoral - just as lower forms of animal-life are amoral. So
that, if surrealism can be said to be primarily defined by the liberation of
the imagination and creativity, particularly of that deriving from the
unconscious; and spontaneous actions are the only way of generating unbiased
unconscious expressions, then spontaneity should be a crucial methodology
for surrealism, and so surrealism can rightly call itself [at least to a
degree] amoral.

>"Morals" (as well as "ethics" and "aesthetics") are the
>generalizations and judgments we continuously abstract from
>those actions already taken (or not taken) within specific
>contexts -- the assembled artifacts of our explorations of
>and experiments with desire.
>
>Such judgments are inevitable and necessary, but by
>definition personal and evolutionary.

Agreed.

>Because anything actually done had to be possible to do, no
>act is "unnatural."  All human action is without question
>"human" even if often not "humane".  Poetry, art,
>revolution, rape, mutilation and murder exist not as
>"aberrations" from some "normal," more mundane continuity,
>but simply as "things people do" every day.  These too are
>experimental extensions of the original pursuit.

Agreed.

>Desire trapped, restrained, denied freedom of movement, is
>desire perverted, and like growing feet trapped in shoes too
>small, "deformities" result.
>
>Where there is force or surrender to force, desire is not
>free.  

So, is FULFILMENT of our desires paramount? or is it perhaps the FREEDOM to
desire anything one wishes? or both?

Either way, this would put the "desire to desire" as the prime desire,
without which one could not fulfil desires or pursue other desires. Is it a
goal of surrealism to bring out this prime desire from which all else flows?

Is the emphasis on questions or answers? Should we be desiring more for the
sake of desire, or should we be attempting to fulfil all current desires? Is
it good to have many desires or to have few desires?

>"Morality", if seen as an accumulation and analysis of
>personal, perhaps even collective judgments previously made
>might be a workable concept (but since I live in the land of
>the "Moral Majority" the word makes little cross shaped
>hives rise on my skin and I'd urge we call it something
>else).  

"The Big M" perhaps? 

>However, because it is bound to past judgements of earlier
>actions, to focus on, or aim for "morality" is to care more
>about where we've been than where we want to go.  To further
>apply it as some kind of frame or guide for future action is
>to force our own feet into shoes we've outgrown.

Morality doesn't necessarily need to be "bound to past judgements of earlier
actions". Utilitarianism is an example of an ethical philosophy which uses
certain simple mathematical principles to evaluate the moral acceptability
of actions, independent of history. Of course, the philosophy of
utilitarianism ITSELF is a result of history, and may be rejected as a
restrictive and inadequately flexible system of ethics.

The ideal system of ethics is one which takes into account the EXACT nature
of every single situation. So, there may be grounds for rejecting ALL
ethical and moral systems - precisely because they are neat, compact,
oversimplified "systems" and therefore must be ultimately inadequate in this
respect - and adopting an amoral system of ethics.

This system would be amoral in the sense that it would be a result of
spontaneious decision, something which has it's origin in the unconscious,
and so has no moral intention. If we simply react to a situation in an
intuitive way which "feels right",  then that is enough. Over time, through
a psychological feedback process involving the creation, unconscious
evaluation and modification of certain spontaneious ethical decisions, we
would create and maintain an unconscious, automatic "ethical module".

>The autonomy of desire requires continuous defense against
>not only suppressive force, but expedient surrender.

Is an ego-defense acceptable?


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