GENIUS FORUMS

Shahrazad wrote:

Since humour is essentially the overcoming of oppression, if one wants to retain a humour-filled life then it means having to remain oppressed by things. The attachment to humour cannot help but lead to a slavish mentality.

By your standards, Dan is an oppressed slave.

Well, none of us are perfect. Short of perfect Buddhahood, we are all oppressed slaves to one degree or another. Also keep in mind that since both philosophy and humour are concerned with throwing off oppression, it is natural for a philosopher to employ humour in his teaching methods.

This is another way of saying that Dan's humour, like my own, sometimes comes from the oppressed slave, sometimes from the philosopher, and sometimes it is a mix of both.

-

Dan,

Oh, so we have to provide a definition of humor? Well ok then: humor is always about human weakness. But usually, when someone slips and falls, we only laugh after the person safely gets up, as if saying, "it wasn't so bad after all".

My favorite type of humor is directed at myself. I don't take myself seriously.

-

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,

Oh, so we have to provide a definition of humor? Well ok then: humor is always about human weakness. But usually, when someone slips and falls, we only laugh after the person safely gets up, as if saying, "it wasn't so bad after all".

What about puns? How do they involve laughing at human weakness?

My favorite type of humor is directed at myself. I don't take myself seriously.

As a way of distancing yourself from the oppression you feel?

-

Cory Duchesne wrote: QRS philosophy is a great example of causing distress. Guys like Nat, Philo, Laird and Larkin, by satirizing, are taking what distresses them, and moving it in the opposite direction; toward relief and joy. ...

Disagreeing with 'QRS philosophy' hardly means any of us are 'distressed' by it. All of us are old hands at arguing with David, Dan, and Kevin. All of us are reasonably intelligent and so easily able to observe, e.g., empty posturing, your post being a fine example of it.

David Quinn wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,

Oh, so we have to provide a definition of humor? Well ok then: humor is always about human weakness. But usually, when someone slips and falls, we only laugh after the person safely gets up, as if saying, "it wasn't so bad after all".

What about puns? How do they involve laughing at human weakness?

It may relate to human weakness in a very indirect way, for instance, perhaps with puns we are laughing at the deficiency of language, sadistically, but we're also being masochistic in the sense that it is us who is generating this glitch inadvertently. It seems laughter can only emerge when a duality of right and wrong is not only established, but the mind itself must also be emotionally invested in what is right and thus, when wrong occurs and is conquered, such as the case is when we stumble across puns, laughter results. It's a very subtle sadism/masochism.

RobertGreenSky wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: QRS philosophy is a great example of causing distress. Guys like Nat, Philo, Laird and Larkin, by satirizing, are taking what distresses them, and moving it in the opposite direction; toward relief and joy. ...

Disagreeing with 'QRS philosophy' hardly means any of us are 'distressed' by it. All of us are old hands at arguing with David, Dan, and Kevin. All of us are reasonably intelligent and so easily able to observe, e.g., empty posturing, your post being a fine example of it.

And, arguably, your response of Cory's point. And if GED isn't an example of that point, I'm a nightingale's spittle.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,

Oh, so we have to provide a definition of humor? Well ok then: humor is always about human weakness. But usually, when someone slips and falls, we only laugh after the person safely gets up, as if saying, "it wasn't so bad after all".

What about puns? How do they involve laughing at human weakness?

It may relate to human weakness in a very indirect way, for instance, perhaps with puns we are laughing at the deficiency of language, sadistically, but we're also being masochistic in the sense that it is us who is generating this glitch inadvertently. It seems laughter can only emerge when a duality of right and wrong is not only established, but the mind itself must also be emotionally invested in what is right and thus, when wrong occurs and is conquered, such as the case is when we stumble across puns, laughter results. It's a very subtle sadism/masochism.

I think it depends on the nature of the pun. Some puns are directed at things, others are just wordplay that one offers in order to egotistically display one's intelligence; still others might be genuine attempts to make a point - or a mixture of any of these. I guess all humour has these variations and themes, essentially.

RobertGreenSky wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: QRS philosophy is a great example of causing distress. Guys like Nat, Philo, Laird and Larkin, by satirizing, are taking what distresses them, and moving it in the opposite direction; toward relief and joy. ...

Disagreeing with 'QRS philosophy' hardly means any of us are 'distressed' by it.

Actually, in this particular post of the donation thread, you write:

"the time of the debate itself was not a pleasant incident."

Translation: "Debating with David caused me distress"

Dan Rowden wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: It may relate to human weakness in a very indirect way, for instance, perhaps with puns we are laughing at the deficiency of language, sadistically, but we're also being masochistic in the sense that it is us who is generating this glitch inadvertently. It seems laughter can only emerge when a duality of right and wrong is not only established, but the mind itself must also be emotionally invested in what is right and thus, when wrong occurs and is conquered, such as the case is when we stumble across puns, laughter results. It's a very subtle sadism/masochism.

I think it depends on the nature of the pun. Some puns are directed at things, others are just wordplay that one offers in order to egotistically display one's intelligence; still others might be genuine attempts to make a point - or a mixture of any of these. I guess all humour has these variations and themes, essentially.

To me it seems like with puns: 1) we're dealing with limitations in language and 2) we, by realizing the pun, experience our intelligence as something beyond mere language.

Humor is rooted in the spirit of celebration, and there's no need for celebration unless there is an awareness of error or inferiority.

So, that being said, I define humor as: A sensation of being beyond a looming error.
And I define tragedy as: A sensation of being bound to error.

That being said, marriage would appear to epitomize tragedy.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Translation: "Debating with David caused me distress"

The debate took on unpleasant manifestations but that hardly means I was distressed - you're welcome to read the transcript. Are you really going to take a remark made as a social nicety and try to infer 'distress' from it? Your thought processes betray the same desperation suffered by others in the thread. Oh no you weren't posturing as the above inference so well disproves.

RobertGreenSky wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Translation: "Debating with David caused me distress"

The debate took on unpleasant manifestations

Unpleasant for whom?

David Quinn wrote:Nietzsche once described laughter as malice with a good conscience. That is a brilliant observation which touches upon so many aspects of human psychology.

Quoting someone to that effect doesn't prove the point. Even if it was not some offhand clever remark there are far too many examples where humour is not malicious - the remark itself is humourous. Such an argument cannot reasonably stand. Let's face it: You've advanced some ill-conceived rationalizations and now you perceive the necessity to defend them. When anyone in their right mind knows that all of humour cannot be successfully described as 'malicious' then you're pissing in the wind.


'There is nothing wrong with being malicious as such, as long as it is aimed directly at the things which really do oppress us - e.g. our own ignorance. ...' - David


'Malice' and 'oppression' are issues you simply cannot hold given the common human experience of humour. You're easily observed to be bullshitting.

Dan Rowden wrote:Passing thought: how can anyone chastising David's analysis of humour expect to be taken seriously if 1) they don't offer an alternative analysis (i.e. a counterpoint as opposed to mere hand-waving; 2) if they don't know what humour is.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Inquiring minds want to know why after all this time you still don't understand how argument works. If you advance a contention you're responsible for supporting it. An unsupported 'theory' - and a mere assertion is not a theory despite your attempt to label it so - requires no opposing theory to shoot it down. One shoots it down by observing that it is unsupported - if you wish to label that 'mere hand-waving', observe that's all that's necessary to topple a house of cards. Looking beyond the words, inquiring minds want to know if you're fishing for something you can shoot down since god knows you're answering nothing here with your labeling and which is well-described as 'mere hand-waving'.


Where I observe Cory Duchesne is posturing, you turn around and label mine posturing. If you can't stop resorting to labeling - if that's the sum of your intellectual prowess - why not try to be honest at it? He postured, I observed - it's just not the same thing. Inquiring minds would like to know why after all this time you still can't argue any better than that. And again, Rowden, if you'd like to argue, let's make it something substantial and which this is not. I'm sure we can find neutral ground.

I don't see what the big deal is about admitting some measure of distress. It surely follows that if one's mind experiences an incident as "unpleasant" then distress it automatically present.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,

Oh, so we have to provide a definition of humor? Well ok then: humor is always about human weakness. But usually, when someone slips and falls, we only laugh after the person safely gets up, as if saying, "it wasn't so bad after all".

What about puns? How do they involve laughing at human weakness?

It may relate to human weakness in a very indirect way, for instance, perhaps with puns we are laughing at the deficiency of language, sadistically, but we're also being masochistic in the sense that it is us who is generating this glitch inadvertently. It seems laughter can only emerge when a duality of right and wrong is not only established, but the mind itself must also be emotionally invested in what is right and thus, when wrong occurs and is conquered, such as the case is when we stumble across puns, laughter results. It's a very subtle sadism/masochism.

To me, it relates again to the issue of oppression. A pun essentially takes a word out of its normal context and places it in another one, thereby loosening the hold it normally has over the mind. If it is just a trivial word, then the humour is minimal, perhaps producing a wry chuckle at best. But if is a significant word, like "God" or "death" or any word that has significant sway over the mind, the humour will be much more substantial.

What you write, though, has a connection to what Nietzsche said about malice with good conscience. When a person laughs, he is subconsciously placing himself on the side of "goodness", or "virtue", or "correctness", or however you want to put it. In effect, his laughter is an affirmation of the worth of his own life.

-

RobertGreenSky wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Nietzsche once described laughter as malice with a good conscience. That is a brilliant observation which touches upon so many aspects of human psychology.

Quoting someone to that effect doesn't prove the point. Even if it was not some offhand clever remark there are far too many examples where humour is not malicious - the remark itself is humourous. Such an argument cannot reasonably stand. Let's face it: You've advanced some ill-conceived rationalizations and now you perceive the necessity to defend them. When anyone in their right mind knows that all of humour cannot be successfully described as 'malicious' then you're pissing in the wind.

No, I'm definitely touching on some deeper aspects of human psychology here. The malice of humour needn't be directed towards other people, and often isn't. It can also be directed to ideas, world-views, life as a whole, society in general, and so on. But the key dynamic in all of this is the overthrowing, at least momentarily, of what is perceived to be an oppressive agent.

-

RobertGreenSky wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Passing thought: how can anyone chastising David's analysis of humour expect to be taken seriously if 1) they don't offer an alternative analysis (i.e. a counterpoint as opposed to mere hand-waving; 2) if they don't know what humour is. Inquiring minds want to know.

Inquiring minds want to know why after all this time you still don't understand how argument works. If you advance a contention you're responsible for supporting it.

David offered an analysis; you and certain others merely bellyached about it. You did not and have not yet offered any support for the bellyaching in the form of a counter analysis. That bellyaching took the form of nothing more substantive than asserting David was wrong. Your Olio pal even stated he couldn't really say what humour was, yet proceeded to impugn David's motives and character. Get real for one single time in your life, Robert.

An unsupported 'theory' - and a mere assertion is not a theory despite your attempt to label it so - requires no opposing theory to shoot it down. One shoots it down by observing that it is unsupported - if you wish to label that 'mere hand-waving',

David proffered a thesis that can be tested and analysed by anyone wishing to do so. The replies have been mere hand waving and moralism. It is a perfectly accurate label. It continues to be so. All you've said so far is: "No, David, humour isn't like that." For you to have been able to say that means you discerned a thesis that contained support. If not, what you responded with would have made even less sense that it actually did - i.e. no sense whatever.

observe that's all that's necessary to topple a house of cards.

Hahahahahah! See, I am a slave to your humour!

Looking beyond the words, inquiring minds want to know if you're fishing for something you can shoot down since god knows you're answering nothing here with your labeling and which is well-described as 'mere hand-waving'.

I'm trying to get you to offer something of substance, thereby making you look less sanctimonious. What about an analysis of what humour is that contradicts David's? That would be interesting.

Where I observe Cory Duchesne is posturing, you turn around and label mine posturing. If you can't stop resorting to labeling - if that's the sum of your intellectual prowess - why not try to be honest at it?

Oh right, you observe but I label. You're funnier than I thought. You should do stand up.

He postured, I observed - it's just not the same thing.

Sure, but it doesn't follow that his point is invalid; it just means that you saw it as posturing, like you seem to do of any criticism of you. I get the impression your head would explode if you found yourself agreeing with any point made here other than those contradicting the QSR theme.

Inquiring minds would like to know why after all this time you still can't argue any better than that. And again, Rowden, if you'd like to argue, let's make it something substantial and which this is not. I'm sure we can find neutral ground.

There's nothing here to argue other than your lack of argument and presence of sanctimony and hand waving. Say something about humour yourself and we can argue it, if that need arises.

And, just for the record and clarity, I completely agree with David's analysis/thesis on humour with the addition or qualification that humour can be expressed in certain neutral ways - ways that spill over into things like irony. But if you look closely at irony itself, you will mostly find subtle forms of David's thesis. In short, subtle forms of will to power over something.

These observations about the nature of humour don't make humour automatically bad, of course, they simply show its nature and how and why the sage would have no need of it.

Developmentally, humour is probably as necessary to spiritual growth as the ego itself. It's as funny as hell, really.

David Quinn wrote: What you write, though, has a connection to what Nietzsche said about malice with good conscience. When a person laughs, he is subconsciously placing himself on the side of "goodness", or "virtue", or "correctness", or however you want to put it. In effect, his laughter is an affirmation of the worth of his own life.

"Most honorable contemporaries, I choose one thing — that I may always have the laughs on my side." Not one god made answer, but all began to laugh. From this I concluded that my wish had been granted and thought that the gods knew how to express themselves with good taste: for it would surely have been inappropriate to answer gravely: your wish has been granted."

- Kierkegaard

David,

What about puns? How do they involve laughing at human weakness?

Puns are tricky. They may just be exceptions to the rule.

My favorite type of humor is directed at myself. I don't take myself seriously. -- Sher

As a way of distancing yourself from the oppression you feel? -- David

You're going to insist that I feel oppressed? What or whom is oppressing me? You need to be more specific, as I don't feel oppressed. I do admit that once upon a time I felt that way, but that was decades ago.

-

And for the record, I think the best definition / descriptions of humor given so far have been given by Cory. We could use it as a base to develop a more complete definition.

"A horse walks into a bar.

The barman asks: 'Why the long face?'"

Who is the oppressed in this joke? And who is the oppressor?

I think that the explanation of humour as being based in throwing off the shackles of oppression is misguided: although there is certainly a release to be gained from directing humour at an oppressor, it is not the primary dynamic of humour. I don't claim to fully understand humour, but my current best shot at explaining its dynamic is that it is our reaction to the delightfully unexpected. We expect "long" to mean "sad", and then the realisation suddenly hits us: it could also, and quite unexpectedly, mean the physically elongated face of the horse. The unexpectedness of humour manifests in different ways: sometimes one thing is unexpectedly juxtaposed against another, sometimes a reaction is unexpectedly over the top. This dynamic can be seen in the Funniest Home Videos show (or in your nation's equivalent), where we have people going about their business before suddenly and unexpectedly suffering a minor tragedy - running into a wall; falling off their bike - the humour lies at least partly in the unexpectedness of the accident.

As I indicated earlier I'm not certain that this is a complete description of humour, but it's not a bad one in my opinion. I found support for this view in Wikipedia's article on humour, wherein lies the following statement: "Humour is when an alternative or surprising answer is given, that still shows relevance and can explain a situation."

Shahrazad wrote:

Sh: My favorite type of humor is directed at myself. I don't take myself seriously. -- Sher

DQ: As a way of distancing yourself from the oppression you feel? -- David

You're going to insist that I feel oppressed? What or whom is oppressing me? You need to be more specific, as I don't feel oppressed. I do admit that once upon a time I felt that way, but that was decades ago.

They are probably so habitual that you are currently not noticing them. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that you are feeling oppressed, at least subconsciously, by concerns about the future, money, individuality, society, your appearance and self-image, death, etc.

-

Laird wrote:"A horse walks into a bar.

The barman asks: 'Why the long face?'"

Who is the oppressed in this joke? And who is the oppressor?

Since this is a weak joke that would barely raise a chuckle from anyone, we can conclude that the oppressive agent being overthrown is also weak. It is essentially a pun, with the punned phrase - "long face" - being insignificant to normal human life. The introduction of a pun is a sudden break in normal routine, which is what generates the humour. That it is weak humour is due to the insignificance of the break.

I think that the explanation of humour as being based in throwing off the shackles of oppression is misguided: although there is certainly a release to be gained from directing humour at an oppressor, it is not the primary dynamic of humour. I don't claim to fully understand humour, but my current best shot at explaining its dynamic is that it is our reaction to the delightfully unexpected. We expect "long" to mean "sad", and then the realisation suddenly hits us: it could also, and quite unexpectedly, mean the physically elongated face of the horse. The unexpectedness of humour manifests in different ways: sometimes one thing is unexpectedly juxtaposed against another, sometimes a reaction is unexpectedly over the top. This dynamic can be seen in the Funniest Home Videos show (or in your nation's equivalent), where we have people going about their business before suddenly and unexpectedly suffering a minor tragedy - running into a wall; falling off their bike - the humour lies at least partly in the unexpectedness of the accident.

Which euphorically releases one from the oppression exerted by the expected.

-

To help illustrate the point I'm making to Robert, let's look at the contribution that he has elsewhere described as "very nice" (paraphrased):

Helm wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, David Quinn, Enlightened Sage of The User-Defined Infinite, has now lended his sagely abilities to interpreting comedy:

Brilliant. A guy's first post at a board and it begins with infantile condescension. That's really showing David his errors!

David Quinn wrote: I think it all comes down to our enjoyment of seeing those who oppress us receiving a good kicking. Laughter is essentially the expression of pleasure and relief involved in throwing off oppression. The ego suddenly becomes delirious with an increase of power.

If a frail, old lady slips on a banana skin, it doesn't seem very amusing. But if it is a president trying to rule our lives with an iron-fist who slips, it is uproariously funny.

All humour conforms to this dynamic, at root.

David Quinn wrote: I can understand why others would find it funny, but I don't understand why they would allow themselves to be in a position to find it funny. Or rather, I do understand why they have allowed themselves to be in a position to find it funny, but I don't understand why they don't do anything about it. Remaining small and oppressed seems to be their most comfortable habitat.

There is something wrong when a person prefers to keep himself small and oppressed in order to gain enjoyment from life through humour. It is essentially a slave's mentality.

Helm wrote:Based on these statements, I don't think you understand laughter, satire or humor at all, David Quinn.

Ok, and that would be because ................... ?

Humor is something no one will ever be able to truly pin down because it is most definitely relative and quite often spontaneous.

No-one will be able to pin it down but you've pinned it down enough to say those things about it. What's to stop others pinning it down even further, or completely?

It is not a one-trick pony nor does it follow a formulaic 'dynamic.'

How do you know that? Please support this contention before Robert gets on your arse.

I don't know if you realize it, but you're making an absolute buffoon out of yourself by claiming that people should be trying not to find things funny.

David hasn't actually at any time said that. What he has said is that one moves psychologically beyond humour as one develops spiritually. In the meantime is does one good to examine the psychology in oneself and others. You know, there's a name for that kind of thing - "philosophy", I believe they call it.

That means you look stupid everywhere, and I came to this conclusion through logical analysis.

More meaningless attacks and infantile posturing for the sake of it. Yes, indeed, it is "very nice", isn't it.

Is humor an inherently bad thing?

Nothing is inherently bad. You know that, right?

Are you telling me it's wrong to laugh at you, David Quinn?

He is telling you that you can't laugh at things and hope to be a wholly sane person, and he has explained why. He has not once brought himself into the equation that I can recall, other than in relation to Laird's satire, and in that context it's reasonable for him to do so.

Is this what makes me the alleged oppressed?

Please explain why a person laughs at something if not from a sense of will to power over it? Why not actually address David's thesis meaningfully instead of playing these petty little games? You are entirely wrong about who is making himself look like a buffoon.

I'm certainly laughing after these words of yours, because I do not view you as strong or as my oppressor, yet apparently you think those who laugh at you are oppressed.

Crikey, did you actually give more than a millisecond's thought to David's position? Perhaps you could explain why laughter makes us feel the way it does?

Oppression feels pretty good, if that were the case.

Cute, but you know - hopefully - that the laughter is the experience of freedom or retaliation to oppression and that's what feels good. I mean, you get that part, right?

The truth is you are being oppressed by this satire and the positive response to it.

You're as funny as Robert. You guys should go to Vegas and run Penn and Teller out of town. The only concern I have, and I imagine David has, regarding Laird's satire, is the delusional ideas he holds regarding its nature and utility. The quality of Laird's thought processes, and by extension, that of others, is the only concern I have. You must be insane if you think that after almost 20 years of this caper, insipid satires could cause us grief. I mean, you folk don't even get why it was pointless and could never have had the force Laird believed of it. I'm still waiting for someone to try and take a stab at what point I might have here.

Yes, David Quinn, your buttons have clearly been pushed and you have been quite irritable; it's quite noticeable, I assure you.

You have a vested egotistical interest in that satire being meaningful, which is why you are incapable of objectively judging it.

I will continue to be a slave to laughter while you slave away trying to save face.

In one or two sentences, state how Laird's satire could have caused David any reason to feel anything at all, let alone any level of affront or humiliation.

David,

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that you are feeling oppressed, at least subconsciously, by concerns about the future, money, individuality, society, your appearance and self-image, death, etc.

You're talking about the normal stress of life. I hesitate to call it oppression. I see it more as the frustration of living. Yes, I use humor to deal with these concerns, but that is not my only way to deal with them. I also deal with them by making choices that keep my stress level as low as possible, at the expense of other benefits such as money, status, power and job security. Overall, I'd say I'm a pretty happy person, though I do have my ups and downs, and pretty violent ones.

Are you suggesting that I should let go of humor and become bitter? Why would you want to free a person from their healthy life-coping mechanisms, ones that have taken decades to develop?

-