Explaining how I design

[Sean]

Hi John -

Discussions threatening to veer into philosophy spring up on the Forge from time to time and cause me extreme frustration, because I have no idea about the appropriateness conditions of going off into purely philosophical discussion. (The reason I have no idea of course is that such conditions are vague, contextual, and ultimately determined by relevance to RPGing: the sort of thing that mature judgment rather than the necessary-and-sufficient conditions so beloved of logicians and adolescents are helpful in resolving.) In this case I thought I'd jump in because there are certain questions in the ethics and epistemology of artistic creation that come up again and again in the history of the subject which this thread seemed to be partly recapitulating.

I don't want to hijack Matt's thread about his creative process though, which is what we'd be doing to have this conversation here. Let me correct one misconception though: I don't say that the truth makes us angels; on the contrary, the superficial impression at least is that there are many kinds of knowledge which seem ethically mixed at best. (Making nuclear bombs, viral weapons, techniques for robbing your own workers, etc.) The form of my question was not pushing two kinds of truth; it was: Do you value art (beauty) over truth? If so, here's the next question: Do you value art over goodness? There was no intended implication that truth and goodness were one. Though some (e.g. Plato) have inclined to believe that, and I won't absolutely rule it out as false.

I believe that Dunsany intended his claim 'literally' but not 'physically', the problem immediately stemming therefrom being that with the possible exceptions of mathematics and certain core metaphysical principles I have no idea what 'literally but not physically' would mean. Superficially, I think it means Dunsany was delighting himself with perversity, a not unfamiliar nor even uncongenial preoccupation from my own point of view.

The problem of truth-conditions for imaginary objects are hard, of course. I would want to say that these sentences are false (interpreted relative to the real world) but true (interpreted relative to a system of dream- or imaginary-propositions which get erected on the basis of a certain kind of experience and linguistic convention - not just one or the other but both). That is,

- I saw a bear in my dream last night

is, literally, false, because there was no bear. On the other hand, you can lie and say that you did not see a bear in your dream when you did. How can you lie by denying a falsehood?

If you interpret a proposition as a truth-function over possible worlds what you can say about this is that the proposition is false at the actual ('physical') world but might be satisfied in some other system of objects and events; some other possible world. Dreams, shared imaginary activities, storytelling, and other creative pursuits allow human beings to as it were propose possible worlds for joint consideration. By itself, though, this still leaves us in the land of total freedom; I haven't yet explained the sense of constraint, except to note that having established a fictional proposition in the system of propositions erected by one's imaginary activity one is then bound to honor it by the usual strictures against inconsistency, etc. I suppose I believe it's ultimately our real-world associations which generate the rest of the constraint, but to argue that would require serious research into the psychology of creativity I haven't done. I hope that helps explain the position I hold in outline; it's only a prospectus though.

I've been meaning to start some threads on the Forge about fictional worlds for some time, but it would be a lot of work to both carry them out at a level that would feel meaningful and commit to earnest dialogue at the same time, work that I haven't marshalled the energy to do. Let me not derail Matt's thread with this stuff any further.

[Matt Snyder]

I have decided that all this discussion about LeGuin, her language and the literal truth or metaphorical truth is a pretty pointless discussion. People have consistently not understood the pretty tiny point I've tried, and failed, to make. My own language has been terrible in making th poitn. I was talking about LeGuin's particular use of language, not her larger point. Given that I understand and respect her larger point (and I do), does the much smaller matter of her chosen words (which I find slightly problematic) matter? Not really. It sure as hell isn't worth arguing over, because people keep defending LeGuin's larger point, and I keep agreeing with them. (shrug) Who gives a shit? I don't, certainly not anymore.

I'm aware of LeGuin's message and the importance of her meaning. I think Christopher's long, energetic post underestimated that a bit. I took some comments to Christopher in private message, and I think -- but am not certain -- we understand each other better now. I'm cool with that, and I have really found this thread help as people provide their reactions. Thanks!