>On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 5:23 PM, Robert Schrader wrote, in response
>to quibbles with his earlier statement that
>>1. "Creativity is an artifact, not a neccesity"
>>2. " ... an artifact is something that appears from a system, but is not
essential to its functioning."
These two statements are not parellel: creativity is an action, an artefact
is a product (form). I agree that an artefact can be something that appears
from a system, but not essential to its funtioning.
(snip)
>What I am trying to say is that properties that may have been
>artifacts during a system's early evolution may no longer be merely
>artifacts and may, in fact, as De Bono noted (in Natasha's original
>post), become necessities for the advanced system in its present
>environment.
>
>In other words, while there *are* mechanisms to human creativity, and
>it is useful to get a grip on them, it is not valid to reduce human
>creativity to these mechanisms.
I appreciate your reasoning. Well said.
Natasha Vita More [fka Nancie Clark]
http://www.primenet.com/~flexeon
Extropic Art Manifesto!: http://www.primenet.com/~flexeon/extropic.htm
* * * * * * * * * *