Dance Monkey Dance

[Nick]

The video prince posted was lame as hell. Not because it wasn't truthful, but all it did was try to make people feel warm and fuzzy inside. This video kills the drive to make improvement, and instead remain complacent with our current state. It sends the message "we're humans, and were only doing the best we can". WRONG, we're not doing the best we can, far from it too. This second video didn't accomplish anything of value. At least the first video did what it was supposed to do, make people laugh, and think a little bit.

[Kevin Solway]

The "What we really are" video made me think more about monkeys than the Monkey one.

[sschaula]

Nick,

I agree with you that "What we REALLY are" was pretty warm and fuzzy. It's still closer to the truth, though, and requires more thought than the monkey video...at least in my opinion.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The "What We REALLY Are" video was boring. I didn't get any warm fuzzies, no new insights, and not even a laugh.

[Cory Duchesne]

Hey again Eliz,

Cory: I don't see any reason why you think that this 'moron' is egoless. You seem to equate 'naivity, docility, and meekness' as egolessness.

Elizabeth: No, I do not. The point I was trying to convey is that a moron without an ego can become more susceptible to the hazards of naivety.

In what circumstances can a moron have no ego?

Elizabeth: And the monkey video used humor to illustrate a point. Taking humor literally negates the humor and causes a person to miss the point.

Yeah sure, the monkey video made me smile. And afterwards I began thinking about what the point was. What was it trying to say?

It was effective at presenting the human condition and it really held my attention, made me smile and made me feel the immensity of our predicament.

If there was a point, I think it was this:

Humans think they are so smart and good, when really they are stupid and evil.

And that is funny.

But then again, I think that humans who truly are stupid, worthless and miniscule feel that way deep down inside. They over congratulate themselves and aggrandize themselves because they have such low self esteem and fear of others opinion.

Humans who truly are good and of worth, deep down inside know that they are and they will often put others ahead of themselves because they esteem themselves highly, they have strong values.

People with low self esteem are very eager to exploit others to achieve very petty ends. The petty end being: public recognition as a great man, or a great strong country, family, etc, etc.

Overall,

we are not just mere monkeys and we do have the potentional to be more than mere human.

We have the potential to be great.

And I think the guy who made that film feels that way, and I think that he just thinks humanity is too easy on itself.

He thinks hummanity needs to be harder on itself, to hate itself - and to laugh at itself.

The biggest laugh comes when we realize how very Nietzschian all of this is!

And the irony and humor is that I think his dismisal of Nietzche was sincere.

Now thats funny.

He (the maker of the film) was just very confused about what to do, so he did what he knew how.

And it generated conversation and what not. Which is good.

So, it is what it is.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

The human video failed in exactly the same way that the monkey video failed. It pursued a single agenda to the point of blindness. It would be easy to make a series.

We are all just animals.
We are all just mammals.
We are all just primates.
We are all just an organized collection of cells.
We are all just a bunch of molecules.
We are all just quantum fluctuations.
We are all just hunks of meat that haven't been eaten yet.

It's totally stupid that it took two people with radically different agendas to figure out how to get both these messages across... and they still couldn't do it in just one multi-faceted video.

I say these two should sit down in a room together and pound their heads together until they come up with something that leaves the viewer thinking.

[sschaula]

Elizabeth,

The "What We REALLY Are" video was boring. I didn't get any warm fuzzies, no new insights, and not even a laugh.

Sometimes the truth isn't funny or entertaining. Duh.

Trevor, I agree with you.

[Dan Rowden]

The funniest thing about the monkey video (i.e. most laughable thing) is the bit about Nietzsche. Why is it that when people make the point being made they almost invariably use Nietzsche to make it, and not, say, the Dalai Lama? Nietzsche is an easy mark because he's dead, maybe, but the Dalai is a living Saint and we should leave him alone, even though he arguably advocates an overcoming of the everyday self every bit as radical as Nietzsche did?

It's bizarre.

[Shardrol]

Shardrol wrote:

Sue: And what about the line in the video where he says that monkeys are “cursed with consciousness” - what the...?

That's known as 'irony'.

What do you think the film was about?

Well if you want to look at it seriously I think the message of the film was a bit contradictory. On the one hand the author was saying that we are all monkeys, & our pretensions to nonmonkeyhood are ridiculous because whatever we do, we're still monkeys. He took a nihilist position & tore down everything that humans do as worthless, including philosophical humans like Nietzsche, by saying that he was just another monkey; we're all just monkeys & everything we do is monkeydom.

But then he threw in some idealistic stuff about how we have so much potential & how we're simultaneously the ugliest & most beautiful creatures on the planet, which puts him in the position of a supposed non-monkey or meta-monkey who is somehow outside his own vision of everyone as monkeys. That's why I think it was contradictory.

When he says the monkeys are 'cursed with consciousness' he is being ironic. He refers to this consciousness as a curse because it makes it impossible for us to be as contented as other, nonconscious animals -- as if animal happiness is the ideal state, even though he obviously doesn't believe that. We are animals who make ourselves miserable -- how ridiculous. This only makes sense if you believe that we're monkeys -- which he doesn't, really, because he doesn't think he is a monkey himself. If he'd put something in about monkeys who make little films about how everyone's a monkey, that would have been better. As it is it's kind of preachy, I think, but some of the images were amusing juxtaposed with the words.

And this is way more blah blah blah than the thing deserves.
.

[Cory Duchesne]

Dan wrote:

Why is it that when people make the point being made they almost invariably use Nietzsche to make it, and not, say, the Dalai Lama?

I would think its because there are significant differences between the Dali Lamas philosophy and Nietzches.

Dali Lama is preaching a more 'cow-like' philsophy, one that involves making the self small and contented. People like this.

Nietzche enourages the self to become big, super. This is threatening to most people.

Dali Lama has a warm, goofy, smiling and harmless appearance.

Whereas, nietzche looks scary, fierce.

Nietzsche abhored being considered holy, and identified himself with being an anti-christ. He said threatening things like: "Will to power" "Human, all too human".

"I wax high above man and animals"

Didn't Nietzche crticize buddhism anyway?

Nietzche also said controversial things about woman, he advocated 'madness', and he went insane.

Whereas Dali Lama revels in being considered holy.

The only testement to madness I see in Dali lama is how he preaches non-violence but eats meat.

Dali Lama makes lots of money with his books and DVD's. Why? Because they please peoples egos. Dali doesnt aggressively dismissive reincarnation and after life, but instead makes it easy for people to continue to be superstitious.

Dali lama conducts 'sold out' concerts. He's like a rock star.

Amusingly, two people were arresting for fist fighting in a struggle to buy the last tickets to a Dali Lama concert, a concert which was turned into a very high selling DVD series.

Dan: Nietzsche is an easy mark because he's dead, maybe, but the Dalai is a living Saint and we should leave him alone, even though he arguably advocates an overcoming of the everyday self every bit as radical as Nietzsche did?

It's just the way Nietzche expressed himself - a level of vocabularly that was highly elitist and inaccessible to most people, combined with very 'kill the sacred cows/blasphemous' sort of statements.

Dali lama uses only simple words that everyone can understand, he is very careful not to be too aggresive.

Its also the way Nietzche looks that threatens people. His moustache is not human, its alien.

Dali Lama preaches the way to happiness, he appears to be happy, he devotes much of his time to writing self help books, makes lots of money, is charitable and has a warm smile

[Dan Rowden]

Yes, I think you've basically nailed it. They don't use the Dalai Lama to make the point because of his goofy harmlessness. Nevertheless, the Buddhist idea of enlightenment is every bit as radical as anything Nietzsche advocated. It mortifies the Papacy for example. And I also don't think anything Nietzsche said was more elitist or inaccessible than the concepts on Buddhism.

But your point is taken. The problem is essentially that the Dalai Lama dosn't really spend much time speaking about the more ideological dimension of Buddhism. It's probably a bit unfair to Buddhism to even think of the Dalai Lama as a Buddhist.

[Nick]

What the hell is the point of the Dalai Lama anyways? My understanding is that he is the Buddhas spirit reincarnated, and he is equivelant to being the Pope of Tibet. What is the system they use to decide whether someone should be the next Dalai Lama? What are some of the things they look at to tell whether someone is the Buddha incarnate? Do they use a bloodline? It sounds alot like Christianity, but they don't have to wait around for the second coming of Jesus, since they have their Dalai Lama (Jesus) being reincarnated in every lifetime.

[Dan Rowden]

I think the system they use is called "making it the hell up". Thoung they possibly wouldn't call it that. This was the supposed process: Selecting the Dalai Lama

[Cory Duchesne]

I guess the pope is to jesus
What the Dali lama is to the buddha.

Something like that.

False representatives of great men, rather than great men.

[Cory Duchesne]

Hey Dan (and/or) nick (or anyone else) do any of you know much about Jiddu Krishnamurti? read anything about him? any of his books?

the reason I ask is that, like the Dali Lama, he was selected, but in JK's case, as a spiritual world teacher.

But krishnamurti's story is much stranger and more interesting.

I think J. Krishnamurti was closer to Nietzche than Dali

[Shardrol]

The Dalai Lama isn't really equivalent to the Pope since Buddhism (particularly Tibetan Buddhism) is not a monolithic organization with a specific head man in the style of Roman Catholicism. However I doubt that he minds the fact that most people in the world, & possibly even most practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism, think that he is.

In my opinion what he is first & foremost is the political leader of the Tibetan Government in Exile & that most of what he says can be best understood in that context.
.

[Cory Duchesne]

yeah, I didnt really mean equivilant. Dali Lama is like a particular sort of coagulation that formed from the buddha's blood.

Likewise, the pope is a particular sort of coagulation that formed from the blood of Jesus.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

The Clever Hans effect + Cold Reading + wishful thinking = Dalai Lama selection process

[Cory Duchesne]

[laughs] clever hans indeed. I just learned about clever hans in psychology class.

I consider Dali a 'clever hans' sort of product because he seems to show very little talent for philosophy, but has learned to play the audience expectations

Trevor, would you say the same about Jiddu Krishnamurti?

I find him more strange because he did seem to have a talent for being a radical.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Cory,

Trevor, would you say the same about Jiddu Krishnamurti?

I find him more strange because he did seem to have a talent for being a radical.

He is certainly more deliberate than the monks who sit beside magic lakes waiting for prophetic dreams. He appeals to a different aspect of spirituality: specifically, the masochistic pleasure of breaking oneself down. There's a different psychology at work, although he still requires the ability to read people very well. Instead of a horse tapping out mathematical formulaes, he's more like a domanitrix trying to figure out exactly where the client wants the stiletto heels.

I would hardly call either conscious, but it certainly takes a bit more awareness to make pain interesting.

[Cory Duchesne]

Trevor wrote:

Jiddu Krishnamurti was more like a domanitrix trying to figure out exactly where the client wants the stiletto heels.

[laughs] Hey, you know I like JK. And you hit me right where I wanted it.

[Rhett]

.

I personally found the video lame, but if one bring one's own mind into the equation interesting observations can be made.

Compare the desire to reduce everyone to the level of a monkey. To even cut down Nietzche, a symbol of higher man, to the level of the other content of the video. Yet at the same time a very authorative voice is used in the narration, presumably the voice of the video's creator [it is likely the creator enjoys a perception of superiority in so downgrading Nietzche]. Surely monkeys are not authorative in this manner?

If the author at somepoint commented upon himself as a monkey, then the message would be clearer. But he does not, so really a mixed message is given. But most wouldn't see it this way. Most wouldn't see the authority, it would be blocked, given the prevalence of desire for a monkey mind.

.

[Rhett]

.

I once read a book written by an anthropologist, i think it was called "From Naked Ape to Superspecies". It contributed to me finding the video lame.

Similarly, Nietzche renders the above book somewhat lame. Superior perspectives tend to do that.

.

[Tharan]

If I tickled every one of you people, how many could withstand the urge to smile? I know most of you would certainly give your best effort in resisting the urge. I'm sure there is a planet somewhere where that suppression is commendable.

But has suppression changed anything? Is there still a preference for judgement? Why?

Relax, I say. It makes everything easier and less prone to mistakes.

[Carl G]

Fuck relaxation, I say. The truth demands rigorous effort 24/7.

Taking time off from being a sage. It's preposterous.