GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:I think it makes lighter of things for the winners and makes things heavier for the losers. The losers, realizing their derisive position, feel greater weight and thus are compelled to unload what they are carrying and make an effort to join the winners. So in a sense, it potentially make things lighter for everyone, but not without making things heavier first.

I'll agree with this exactly as it stands, but it does not relate to exactly what I was pointing at. My exact point was that there is a difference between humor and laughing at a person for their weakness - or even laughing at an unfixable weakness.

Give me an example of humor that is not based on laughing at a percieved human weakness. Homosexuality for instance may not be inherently a weakness, but it certainly is percieved that way and thus generates alot of laughs for many people.

An amputee would have a weakness, but would you laugh at someone because he lost his leg?

No, but many young children instinctively find the word 'amputee' and the reality of an amputee funny from a distance. For instance, I know grown adults who would find it funny if I married a girl with no legs. They would imagine me having sex with her and find it doubly funny.

Old people, fat people, the mentally retarded, amputee's, all of these phenomena are commonly used as material for laughter for undeveloped young people.

People usually have no idea why they they find things funny. Laughter is rooted in crude instinct, an instinct that can be refined in order to target the less obvious, and thus it becomes more divine. But you're still laughing at weakness regardless. And of course, humor can be gentle, giving only a very small prick.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:My exact point was that there is a difference between humor and laughing at a person for their weakness - or even laughing at an unfixable weakness.

Give me an example of humor that is not based on laughing at a percieved human weakness.

You still do not see my point. I'll repeat and highlight what you don't see:

My exact point was that there is a difference between humor and laughing at a person for their weakness - or even laughing at an unfixable weakness.

Cory Duchesne wrote:many young children instinctively find the word 'amputee' and the reality of an amputee funny from a distance. For instance, I know grown adults who would find it funny if I married a girl with no legs. They would imagine me having sex with her and find it doubly funny.

People may call the unusual "funny" but it is a different kind of funny. Most children will not laugh at someone without legs, but if they laugh it can be for a variety of reasons. Laughter has been shown to relax a person right down to lowering blood pressure. Children may laugh to relieve tension at an unusual situation. I recognize that I laugh more when I perceive that the person I am speaking with is not comfortable. This could be a reflex to stimulate mirror neurons to trigger a more relaxed state in the other person. Similarly, your family might laugh to relieve each other's discomfort with the marriage since they are aware of the importance you have had a history of placing on physical perfection in your girlfriends.
.

You still do not see my point. I'll repeat and highlight what you don't see:

My exact point was that there is a difference between humor and laughing at a person for their weakness - or even laughing at an unfixable weakness.

Ok, how about this: humor is laughing at certain characteristics held by a particular person or group that are percieved as weak. And yes, people often laugh at themselves, but they do so because they identify with a higher part of them, or with another person or group.

People may call the unusual "funny" but it is a different kind of funny. Most children will not laugh at someone without legs,

No, but they find the characteristic of having no legs funny. This is proven by how funny they would find it if I married someone with no legs. So I agree that we arent laughing at people - just people's characteristcs. For instance, a Man who has a wife with no legs. Some people find this funny because of the competitive instinct to notice weakness and celebrate a sense of being beyond it.

Laughter has been shown to relax a person right down to lowering blood pressure.

Yes, and like I told Carl, this isn't a polemic against humor. It's just an analysis. Laugh away all you want.

Children may laugh to relieve tension at an unusual situation.

This is too vague. If by unusual situation, you mean, a situation where there are characteristics percieved as weak, then yes, children will laugh in response to such an unusual situation.

I recognize that I laugh more when I perceive that the person I am speaking with is not comfortable.This could be a reflex to stimulate mirror neurons to trigger a more relaxed state in the other person.

I would say that your laughter would only suceed at making the other person more comfortable IF your laughter followed some sort of moment of communication where, because of what was said, however feeble it might have been, you and the other person felt like winners together. Often between two nervous people, one of them will masochistically make fun of himself in order to get the other person to laugh. And this of course makes things more comfortable. Sometimes, between nervous people, one of them might start teasing the other, and sometimes this works to, but not as readily.

Sometimes, niether will happen, but they laugh simply because they made a coherent exchange in communication, and they laugh to celebrate the progress they made, for it was only moments earlier that they were petrified in discomfort and weakness.

And I agree that this is usefull for people to become more relaxed with each other. Nervous Giggly people are laughing at both the foolishness of being human, and celebrating their success at making some coherent strides in communication.

The sense of winning and losing are simultaneously present, and thus there is laughter.

Similarly, your family might laugh to relieve each other's discomfort with the marriage since they are aware of the importance you have had a history of placing on physical perfection in your girlfriends.

Yes, they are laughing at me for having a characteristic that is percieved as bad, namely vanity, superficiality, over emphasis with sexual aesthetics, femininity.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

You still do not see my point. I'll repeat and highlight what you don't see:

My exact point was that there is a difference between humor and laughing at a person for their weakness - or even laughing at an unfixable weakness.

Ok, how about this: humor is laughing at certain characteristics held by a particular person or group that are percieved as weak. And yes, people often laugh at themselves, but they do so because they identify with a higher part of them, or with another person or group.

I'll take that.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Elizabeth wrote: Children may laugh to relieve tension at an unusual situation.

This is too vague. If by unusual situation, you mean, a situation where there are characteristics percieved as weak, then yes, children will laugh in response to such an unusual situation.

No, I mean unusaul as in "This is different. Now I don't know what to do." Not knowing what to do is a tense situation. Laughter relieves tension.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Elizabeth wrote:Similarly, your family might laugh to relieve each other's discomfort with the marriage since they are aware of the importance you have had a history of placing on physical perfection in your girlfriends.

Yes, they are laughing at me for having a characteristic that is percieved as bad, namely vanity, superficiality, over emphasis with sexual aesthetics, femininity.

No. They might laugh to relieve tension and worry that you would become unhappy with her because they love you and want you to be happy.
.

Steven Coyle wrote:Resting within the detachment of the sadist's humor, there also lies a rarified nobility of the spirit and mind, bound to the heart, as iron to the breastplate.

In thematic opposition, we find the prototypical masochist, whose often grand displays of self-vigilence, ironically loosely masks a mind less set on moral precision, as social or egotistic standing. The loftier ethic of a mind prone to intellectual integrity, rests on an ability to divert attention away from the more immediate gratification of the pain inherent in masochism; a form of self-infliction conducive to prolonged periods of indulgence, detracting from the objective spirit found more readily in the sadist. It is this objectivity of mind that safeguards the sadist's ability for a moral and ethical imperative, which by contrast, concerns intellectual integrity, to a much higher degree.

Well, after some consideration and a good nap, I've decided that the majority of this post is nonsensical: I wasn't up to speed on the full definition of a sadist. A lesson learned. I apologize for anyone that may have had to read through it.

Ryan R wrote:Leyla wrote:

In some instances, yes. But, actually, in the case of hibernating bears, I found it rather flattering, personally; it was a parody actually directed at the one with the stick who cannot help but poke sleeping bears and regret it to the point that it becomes necessary to constantly remind oneself not to poke bears with sticks whilst continuing to engage in that very activity.

I think the danger of humor is that it can easily become ones primary source of energization meaning the thinker becomes dependent on sadistically poking fun of the deluded, and it turns into a possible source of attachment.

One should be weary of allowing such a mechanical process to take root. Moreover, some of my most peaceful and blissful moments have occurred in the depths of stillness, in the complete absence of humor. And by comparison, the pleasure and enjoyment derived through humor becomes a small secondary thing.

Not to mention, laughing like a hyena actually causes a disturbance in the body, and leaves the body in a state of craving disarray. And this is why humor should be minimal, with a minimal level of sadism.

This is glee, a very low-order humour; a gloated satisfaction that leads only to a confusing craving of itself. Hysteria.

One can do nothing about the fact that in the gleeful resistance is not only futile, but guaranteed.

A refined sense of humour, the vastly superior harmonic of glee, is always subtle--definitely on the order of dramatic and verbal irony. There are no hysterics, here. No seeking after bliss and peace.

Cory: If by unusual situation, you mean, a situation where there are characteristics percieved as weak, then yes, children will laugh in response to such an unusual situation.


Elizabeth: No, I mean unusaul as in "This is different. Now I don't know what to do." Not knowing what to do is a tense situation. Laughter relieves tension.

I agree that in some unfamiliar situations, our laugh mechanism becomes hyper-sensitive, especially when we are children. But I still think certain cues trigger the laughter, and these cues are based on acknowledging characteristics of weakness in relationship to strength, and the laughter is a celebration of being beyond the percieved or apprehended weakness.

Elizabeth: Similarly, your family might laugh to relieve each other's discomfort with the marriage since they are aware of your history of placing importance on physical perfection in your girlfriends.

Cory: Yes, they are laughing at me for having a characteristic that is percieved as bad, namely vanity, superficiality, over emphasis with sexual aesthetics, femininity.

Elizabeth: No. They might laugh to relieve tension and worry that you would become unhappy with her because they love you and want you to be happy.

I just think this example you are giving is too bizarre. Is it even remotely based on real life? Where did you come up with it?

Cory Duchesne wrote:I agree that in some unfamiliar situations, our laugh mechanism becomes hyper-sensitive, especially when we are children. But I still think certain cues trigger the laughter, and these cues are based on acknowledging characteristics of weakness in relationship to strength, and the laughter is a celebration of being beyond the percieved or apprehended weakness.

Different people laugh for different reasons. It's quite telling to see why each individual laughs.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

(in brief, the example that evolved into Cory marrying an amputee)

I just think this example you are giving is too bizarre. Is it even remotely based on real life? Where did you come up with it?

You said we laugh at weakness.

I pointed to amputees as a weakness we don't laugh at.

You came up with you marrying an amputee.

.

Cory said,

Yes, they are laughing at me for having a characteristic that is percieved as bad, namely vanity, superficiality, over emphasis with sexual aesthetics, femininity.

Elizabeth said,

No. They might laugh to relieve tension and worry that you would become unhappy with her because they love you and want you to be happy.

Neither of you are wrong. Both are good reasons to laugh. If you were my brother and married an amputee, I would try to see the humor in it as an alternative to worrying about this marriage working out. I would also find the irony of it all very funny.

.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:I agree that in some unfamiliar situations, our laugh mechanism becomes hyper-sensitive, especially when we are children. But I still think certain cues trigger the laughter, and these cues are based on acknowledging characteristics of weakness in relationship to strength, and the laughter is a celebration of being beyond the percieved or apprehended weakness.

Different people laugh for different reasons. It's quite telling to see why each individual laughs.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

(in brief, the example that evolved into Cory marrying an amputee)

I just think this example you are giving is too bizarre. Is it even remotely based on real life? Where did you come up with it?

You said we laugh at weakness.
I pointed to amputees as a weakness we don't laugh at.
You came up with you marrying an amputee.

Oh,

I didnt realize your thought experiment was borrowing from mine. Should have known, but for various reasons, didnt.

Let's look at it again:

"Similarly, your family might laugh to relieve each other's discomfort with the marriage since they are aware of your history of placing importance on physical perfection in your girlfriends. "

Because you added parents, and the characteristic of my placing such importance on physical perfection, it threw me off, and I didnt realize we were still talking about the amputee mariage. I thought we were talking about a new marriage. I should have realized, but I'm going back and forth between this and school work, so it's easy to lose track.

Ok, so as for the parents laughing in response to my marriage to the woman with no legs, I just can't imagine it happening.

Since we can assume the son doesnt find it funny marrying an amputee, then I can't imagine the parents finding it funny either. The parents, if they are like any average member of the herd, might be a bit embarassed by their son's choice, in the sense that they would feel very vulnerable and different - and for that reason they would find it exceptionaly unfunny - it would be a very sensitive subject.

If they found out if someone was laughing at the fact of the marriage, then I think they would be mortified, humilated and angry - and this is because they identify strongly with their son, as most parents do.

The nervousness and anxiety caused by the marriage of course could make their laugh mechanisms very hypersensitive - and so any small cues could trigger laughter, but the laughter would involve feelings of proggressing away from an apprehended weakness, and the apprehended weakness is not likely to have much to do with the marriage. The marriage is causing the tension and hypersensitivity, but their laughter is based on acknowledging an apprhended weakness that has nothing to do with their son.

To summarize the above post more clearly, my guess is the parents would laugh at jokes very easily, due to the extra ammount of nervousness that the marriage created, but they would become incredibly sensitive and upset to any jokes about disabilities.

But the fact remains that there would certainly be kids and teenagers who would instinctively find the marriage funny. And so yes, humans instinctively laugh 'AT' percieved human deficiency. But that is only when they feel they are on the winning side.

Shahrazad wrote:Cory said,

Yes, they are laughing at me for having a characteristic that is percieved as bad, namely vanity, superficiality, over emphasis with sexual aesthetics, femininity.

Elizabeth said,

No. They might laugh to relieve tension and worry that you would become unhappy with her because they love you and want you to be happy.

Neither of you are wrong. Both are good reasons to laugh. If you were my brother and married an amputee, I would try to see the humor in it as an alternative to worrying about this marriage working out. I would also find the irony of it all very funny.

.

But then again, Sher has a good point. If I was someone who placed a great deal of value on 'the perfect girl', but then ended up marrying an amputee, then yeah, for my family, it would be ironic and funny. The weakness they would be laughing at would be just the feebleness of my flip-flop sort of attitude. One minute stressing over trying to get the perfect girl, the next minute marrying a woman with no legs. It's not simply the amputee she's laughing at, it's more the feebleness of my psychology - the lofty expectations and ideals, and then the sudden humbleness of my selection. It would definitely be funny for that reason.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Since we can assume the son doesnt find it funny marrying an amputee, then I can't imagine the parents finding it funny either. The parents, if they are like any average member of the herd, might be a bit embarassed by their son's choice,

How shallow are these parents? Is that all that matters is whether or not she has legs? What if she is a brilliant physicist with a charming personality, a gorgeous face, and the rest of her body is beautiful? What if she were your last girlfriend, but you had gotten into a car accident, you were driving, and her legs had to be amputated? Why would the parents be embarrassed by their son's choice of either of these two amputees?

Cory Duchesne wrote: in the sense that they would feel very vulnerable and different - and for that reason they would find it exceptionaly unfunny - it would be a very sensitive subject.

Why would they be vulnerable?

Cory Duchesne wrote:If they found out if someone was laughing at the fact of the marriage, then I think they would be mortified, humilated and angry - and this is because they identify strongly with their son, as most parents do.

Angry I can understand because the behavior would be wrong, mortified I can understand because they wouldn't want their son or daughter-in-law to feel bad - which is what such mean laughter would do - laughing at human weakness, but why humiliated?

Cory Duchesne wrote:The marriage is causing the tension and hypersensitivity, but their laughter is based on acknowledging an apprhended weakness that has nothing to do with their son.

Now is the marriage causing the tension and hypersensitivity, or their own values that perfect bodily looks are the most important thing of all?
.

Cory: The marriage is causing the tension and hypersensitivity

Elizabeth: Now is the marriage causing the tension and hypersensitivity, or their own values that perfect bodily looks are the most important thing of all?

I can realize this sort of truth by watching the disney movie Shrek, thank you very much. It just seems so silly to have to read something like this on the g-forum, especially considering all that has been already said on Ryan's real faces thread. Of course looks don't matter, but for 99% of the world, they do.

I can tell from here on your just going to be abusing hypotheticals in the same way you did the last time we had an exchange about genetic engineering. I dont like using hypotheticals to argue my way into an overly unlikely and idealistic conception of human nature. Me giving an example of a guy marrying a women with no legs is one thing. But then you adds characteristics like: "this guy was formely obssessed with getting the perfect girl in the past" but then suddenly decided to marry a woman with no legs....

This was going too far, but it actually ended up proving my point, as Sher noticed as well.

And your fanciful hypotheticals have only escalated from there with these latest reponses.

Best of luck in creating 'the hypothetical exception'.

Shahrazad wrote:Cory said,

Yes, they are laughing at me for having a characteristic that is percieved as bad, namely vanity, superficiality, over emphasis with sexual aesthetics, femininity.

Elizabeth said,

No. They might laugh to relieve tension and worry that you would become unhappy with her because they love you and want you to be happy.

Neither of you are wrong. Both are good reasons to laugh. If you were my brother and married an amputee, I would try to see the humor in it as an alternative to worrying about this marriage working out. I would also find the irony of it all very funny.

Cory Duchesne wrote:This was going too far, but it actually ended up proving my point, as Sher noticed as well.

Hmmm. I'm not seeing Sher say you're right in this post. Was it this one?

Shahrazad wrote:Cory,

In a sense, many people are being half psychopathic when they become patriotic, or when they identify strongly with family, and their own ego. The consequence to identifying with a group, is that you enjoy the destruction and humilation of other groups.

I disagree. You can be happy that your group is "winning" without the need to destroy or humiliate other groups. Winning is not always at the cost of somebody else. In my case it isn't.

No, not there either... Hmmm, could it be that Cory's being catty by saying "Sher noticed as well" ??? Your argument can't stand on its own, so you go for the girly approach?
.

E,

Hmmm. I'm not seeing Sher say you're right in this post.

I said both of you are right. IMO, you two are not disagreeing.

.

Sher, I should have said to Cory "I'm not seeing Sher say you alone are right in this post."

It was in response to him saying that you noticed he had proved his point. His intent was to try to make it seem that you were on his side and not mine. Calling up "side-taking" of people rather than points, and trying to make it look like he "won" (since he is so into the winner/loser mindset) by trying to pass it off as majority opinion is just like what teenage girls do. Try to manipulate opinion by making it look like the herd is going the other way.
.

Cory Duchesne wrote:This was going too far, but it actually ended up proving my point, as Sher noticed as well.

Hmmm. I'm not seeing Sher say you're right in this post. Was it this one?

Shahrazad wrote:Cory,

In a sense, many people are being half psychopathic when they become patriotic, or when they identify strongly with family, and their own ego. The consequence to identifying with a group, is that you enjoy the destruction and humilation of other groups.

I disagree. You can be happy that your group is "winning" without the need to destroy or humiliate other groups. Winning is not always at the cost of somebody else. In my case it isn't.

No, not there either... Hmmm, could it be that Cory's being catty by saying "Sher noticed as well" ??? Your argument can't stand on its own, so you go for the girly approach?

Actually your right, it was unnecceary to mention Sher. You were irritating me, so I guess I must have unconsciously wanted to do something that would irritate you. What better way than to compare you to someone else, and imply that that some else is behaving in a better way? Yep, it was very low brow. Of course, I was unconscious that that was happening.

Anyhow, regardless, I was irritated by your squirmy attempts at making far-fetched hypotheticals work. It's very tedious for me to have to deal with it. Some people may find practical use in your endless hypotheticals, but for me it is just nonesense.

Elizabeth does seem to enjoy far-fetched hypotheticals too much. Perhaps it is the idealist in her.

Cory Duchesne wrote:it was unnecceary to mention Sher. You were irritating me, so I guess I must have unconsciously wanted to do something that would irritate you.

It's nice to see that you are man enough to admit that.

The hypothetical did get pretty far-fetched - even if you were to marry, it would never be to anyone with a flaw.

What I perceive that you are uncomfortable with is that I am trying to help you see how ridiculous your attachment to physical beauty is, or worldly perfection. Yes, you could have gotten the same thing off Shreik, but you didn't. Your head knows it's ridiculous, but it's going to take a lot of work to really get past that.
.

Shahrazad wrote:Elizabeth does seem to enjoy far-fetched hypotheticals too much. Perhaps it is the idealist in her.

I wasn't enjoying it, that's just where it went. I brought up the obvious that we wouldn't laugh at an amputee, Cory brought up marrying an amputee, and I know that if Cory got married, his family would be involved, so I just went with the scenario.

I don't think it's too far-fetched to say that one would not laugh at an amputee. I did think it was far-fetched for Cory to set himself up marrying an amputee - but that is what he did. Sher, I bring this up because I want you to be better able to notice the difference between truth and falseness so you can judge it for yourself rather than falling for it every time someone says "he said" or "she said" or insinuating that someone said when they did not. It's a valuable perception to have.
.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Give me an example of humor that is not based on laughing at a percieved human weakness.

What time is it when an elephant sits on a fence? Time to get a new fence.

Horse goes into a tavern, sidles up to the bar. Bartender says, "Why the long face?"

Duck goes into a pharmacy asks for chapstick, and says, "Could you put this on my bill?"

I don't think it's too far-fetched to say that one would not laugh at an amputee.

And there was never a point when I was trying to say that 'everyone' would. But of course, that's the way you interpreted all of this from very early on. You took the impesonal, general analysis personally, suggesting to me that I have a sadistic streak in me (as if you don't!), simply for giving an impersonal analysis of general human nature.

In the meantime you start playing the innocent angel saying things like: I care about justice, peoples growth, etc, etc,

Why the sudden personal accusations and personal aggrandization in reaction to my analysis?

You took the whole thing personally, refusing to see the big picture. It was too absurd. If we look at the issue impersonally, kids certainly do find the characteristic of amputeeism funny, in certain contexts. Which simply goes to prove my point. Just because you can find exceptions where people don't laugh at amputeeism (I would say most adults wouldn't) that doesnt mean the lowest, most base part of human nature doesnt find diabilities in general, funny. You'll find children can laugh at some of the most base stuff. But we develop and refine ourselves morally and learn to emphasize with people, etc.

And tell me, why was "america's funniest home videos" as popular as it was? Wasnt it just a bunch of people falling down and getting hurt in some way? It just shows how crude the masses are.

Cory, what you quoted was part of my explanation to Sher of her misperception that I was enjoying far-fetched hypotheticals too much. I did not bother to correct you because I know you just said that to be hurtful.

Yes there is crude, base humor. Yes there are people who laugh at people maliciously, and yes I am suggesting you are sometimes one of them - so it's okay that you are taking this personally. But I am not making this JUST personal about you. I am looking at the whole picture, too. Furthermore, I was done pointing at you personally because I think you had enough to chew on, but I had to clear up a point for Sher. Just because I tapped on one of your weaknesses does not mean this whole thread is about you.

Please understand that I am done pointing at this weakness of yours for now, and know that I do understand that there are mean people in this world. Please also know that although we can understand things about other people to some extent by looking within ourselves, everyone is not just like you.
.

E,

As far as the far-fetched hypotheticals, I was thinking about the time when you really got into a futuristic hypothetical involving genetically programming people for wisdom. Sorry if that is not an accurate description, but I have been awake for way too long now and my memory is starting to fail.

.