GENIUS FORUMS

Sher's point is a good one. Not all satires 'ridicule' and there has been no justification of 'malice'. ... QRS are public figures - as is everyone who writes on a message board - and they should be able to take criticism whether or not it is given humourously.

Certainly we can, ought and do take criticism. My point is the satire didn't contain any; it was far too lame for that - yes, that's in my estimation, but considering it was a parody of my ideas I think it reasonable that I be considered a decent judge. My problem isn't that QRS were satirised or ridiculed (even ridicule can be useful if done well), but rather that Laird thinks he made some kind of argument or meaningful point therein. I said it was vapid - and I'll get to your other post in due course, Robert - and I mean "vapid" in this precise sense: it was not vapid in its wordplay, which was clever enough as far as that can ever be clever of itself, but in the sense of an attempt to make a meaningful point. It failed miserably on that count because it didn't have anything to say beyond mere words.

Perhaps I'm supposed to take from that the intention to show that our own words have nothing behind them. It couldn't logically achieve that, but if that's what you think then no further communication is warranted. I mean, why would you bother?

I don't believe that satire is all about ridicule.

Public figures get parodied all the time. Do they all take offense? I would guess some do, but not the secure ones.

I have an uncle who is a public figure in my country, and he got parodied a lot. Some people do an excellent imitation of his voice. In fact, imitating him was considered a fine art, sort of like Elvis imitation. Not even once did I feel offended or that he was being ridiculed. My way of thinking is that imitation is the best form of flattery.

This is not to say that when people slandered him, I found it funny. I believe there's a big difference.

-

Dan,

While you are certainly knowledgeable - even an expert - on what you think you have said, you cannot dictate how others receive you, and moreso when you are being interpreted by another.

Dan, from a chat transcript and not entirely fair but then you're not being entirely fair to me either:

Sages can't interpret satire. Satire is not logical!

If you were being fair then you would have acknowledged the points made in the sockpuppet chorus. If you were being fair then you would have acknowledged that the silliness of some of the things that Laird Totality said reflected the silliness of some of the things that QRS say. If you were being fair then you would have acknowledged that the fact that someone (ChaoticMelody) got taken in by the satire and commented "This guy is a joke..." reflected on you three.

Shahrazad wrote:I would not have liked Laird's satire if I had thought it hurt or ridiculed QRS. I do realize that this is a subjective matter. But QRS are strong boys for the most part. They can take a little satire.

-

For sure. But it is still interesting to examine why we are able to enjoy ridicule when it is directed towards the strong, but not when it is directed towards the weak. After all, the malicious intent of the satirizer is the same in both cases, only the target is different.

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.

-

I see I have laughed at Laird's banana peels because I have long been oppressed by powerful reasoning. Presidents, sages, mothers-in-law, all are targets for banana peels and I have profited from learning how small I have been. I see also I have turned to rationalization to hide my foibles from myself and from others. Cunning or simple-minded, a rationalization is written to disguise what is actually going on with what appears to be a reasonable alternative. All rationalization conforms to this dynamic, at root.

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.

In this case then, QRS is the president, and that is why QRS doesn't understand how it is funny.

Shahrazad wrote:

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.

In this case then, QRS is the president, and that is why QRS doesn't understand how it is funny.

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.

-

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.

-

Merely restating the rationalization proves nothing. David appeals to his own authority in likening the enjoyment of humour to enslavement. Must someone who enjoyed Laird's satire be small and oppressed? On the other hand, what is blind insistence a rationalization is true? How will David show us that if one gains enjoyment from humour then one is essentially a slave?


Zen is filled with humour and is it really necessary to trot in the links to prove it or don't you know it already? Now maybe David can argue there is some virtue in rejecting humour, but he's not going to be doing it through Zen. How about Daoism? No, Zhuangzi laughs at the notion.


People were characterized by David as being 'small and oppressed' but how is that so? How is it laughter is not in fact a natural and useful part of human life? Zen has it being so ... 'Slave's mentality' is David's rationalization or more positively put it is David's contention, so let him prove it up. If he's going to label people slaves, he ought to make the case and for god's sakes let him this time avoid appealing to his own authority.


The image linked above is from a screenshot taken at theabsolute.net.

David, about the only small and oppressed slave around these parts is your good sense.

As for "malicious intent": I reject that characterisation. Is it malicious to hold up a mirror to a man so that he can see what he looks like? Is it malicious to give a man a bit of a wake-up call?

David,

Remaining small and oppressed seems to be their most comfortable habitat.

Terrible logic was involved in reaching this conclusion.

It is quite an exaggeration to say that we are small and opressed. Do you really think that a person could and should excel in all areas of life? Just because I can recognize that you are more advanced than me in some areas of life does not mean that I am or feel oppressed.

If you discovered that I am more advanced than you in some endeavors, would you be compelled to "do something about it"? Would that mean that you are small and oppressed?

If your answer is that you are not interested in pursuing those areas where I excel because they are not a high priority for you, couldn't I say the same thing?

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.

It does not follow that because I enjoy humor, I must be small and oppressed. And if I was oppressed, it does not follow that I put myself in that position just so that I can have a sense of humor. Again, bad logic.

My goal in life is to maximize happiness, and minimize pain in me and in those I deeply care about. Almost all endeavors I may pursue will increase both pain and pleasure in different ways. I do a cost/benefit analysis for each endeavor that I have ever been confronted with. I have stuck only with those where the pleasure / wellbeing is greater than the pain / suffering. It really is that simple.

Being a sage who looks down on others could certainly bring me benefits, but it will also come with costs, and in my analysis, those costs are far greater than the benefits. By not pursuing it I am making a very rational choice. I believe you made the rational choice for yourself, but where you go wrong is in assuming that your choice is the best for all human beings.

-

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

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.

Based on these statements, I don't think you understand laughter, satire or humor at all, David Quinn. Humor is something no one will ever be able to truly pin down because it is most definitely relative and quite often spontaneous. It is not a one-trick pony nor does it follow a formulaic 'dynamic.'

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

Is humor an inherently bad thing? Are you telling me it's wrong to laugh at you, David Quinn? Is this what makes me the alleged oppressed? 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. Oppression feels pretty good, if that were the case. The truth is you are being oppressed by this satire and the positive response to it. Yes, David Quinn, your buttons have clearly been pushed and you have been quite irritable; it's quite noticeable, I assure you. I will continue to be a slave to laughter while you slave away trying to save face.

David Quinn wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,

Some people find pointlessness entertaining,

I am one of those. I'd much prefer to have a pointless joke than a joke meant to hurt or ridicule other people, as some jokers here do (certainly you must know who I speak of).

IMO, Laird's satire was not ill-intentioned. To me, that makes the difference between funny and unfunny.

-

Laird's "satire" was indeed intended to ridicule. That is the point of satire - or in this case, parody. It is to ridicule.

But I had to laugh when Laird got all teary when he saw that his malicious actions spilled away from his intended targets and started affecting Trevor. That was comic gold.

-

Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility,when an expected "future is replaced with an unexpected future. The more unexpected the more humorous.

I am glad you enjoyed his emotional chaos, quinn. Next time, it's his turn, again. =)

quinn wrote: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.

And yet, if he cried tears of genuine repentance, for inflicting such pain on another... see the difference? That is not healthy.

:)

Thanks man!

David Quinn wrote:

Laughter is essentially the expression of pleasure and relief involved in throwing off oppression.

hsandman wrote:

Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility ...

Observe how these experts on comedy mimic people with bizarre views on humour. David Quinn knows there are many themes in humour which don't remotely have a thing to do with overthrowing oppression. And that mischievous scamp hsandman knows full well that when you're enjoying one of life's great gifts, a belly laugh, 'tranquility' is no apt description of the pleasure. Happy Kudos! for their fine absurdist demonstrations.

Most humor is at somebody's expense. I suppose if it's a fictional character we are laughing at, like foolish egotistical Bart Simpson, it's not malicious. Not directly, anyway. Is it malicious to laugh at oneself?

Is it best to not laugh, generally speaking? If so, are those who claim "laughter is the best medicine" deluded? What then should one replace it with, for a release?

The Buddha is mirthful, why? Because life itself is funny? Sometimes I believe life should be funny. Ideally. What's funniest is how serious we get about it. That's hilarious to me, when I can detach from the drama and yet be present.

The difference between a rock thrown and a boomerang thrown is (analogously speaking) the difference between a distressing/irritating event and a comedic one. A distressing or irritating event is a movement with only one direction: the event moves toward distress/irritation. A comedic event moves in two directions: it starts by moving toward distress, but then returns toward joy, relief, celebration.

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.

Socrates and Kierkegaard were likewise lampooned.

The Carl G and Daybrown dynamic illustrates this boomerang effect quite well. (not that I personally find Daybrown an irritation, the point is that Carl apparently does, as is indicated by his satirizing)

RobertGreenSky wrote:

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.

Merely restating the rationalization proves nothing. David appeals to his own authority in likening the enjoyment of humour to enslavement. Must someone who enjoyed Laird's satire be small and oppressed?

Without question, yes. Since it was mindless parody, with no intellectual humour involved, the enjoyment primarily came from watching an oppressor being ridiculed. I don't oppress anyone directly, of course, but I am aware that my thinking and manner causes people stress in many different ways. Laird's parody enabled certain kinds of people to suddenly throw off the shackles of this oppression and they experienced a euphoric high as a result, resulting in laughter.

Intellectual humour works along similar lines, although in this case the oppressors are words, ideas and world-views. When a person suddenly sees through a false idea or world-view, laughter is the natural response. The greater the oppression exerted by the idea or world-view in question, the greater the laughter in overcoming it.

Spontaneous, unexpected events can also make us laugh - for the same reason. In this case, the oppression comes from the drudgery of one's routine life. A sudden breaking of this routine, via an unexpected event, almost invariably produces a euphoric high. Unless, of course, the unexpected event is perceived as a threat.

How will David show us that if one gains enjoyment from humour then one is essentially a slave?

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. A lot of people like to remain small and oppressed because it enables them to laugh at things with their friends. For them, this is the best kind of life imaginable.

I sometimes describe philosophy/Zen as the greatest humour of all because it seeks to overcome all oppression permanently. It seeks to overcome those deepest, most powerful delusions which imprison almost everyone without them even knowing it. In a metaphorical sense, the enlightened person is so free of oppression he able to laugh at life and death in the face without a care in the world.

Zen is filled with humour and is it really necessary to trot in the links to prove it or don't you know it already?

Sure, in the beginning stages of the Zen path, there is a lot of humour and laughter. The developing individual is overcoming all sort of oppressive delusions and his ego is boosted by the resulting freedom. But there comes a time when he begins to erode the very foundations of the ego, and with it the foundations of humour as well. The developing sage goes beyond humour, not into seriousness, but into something altogether more indescribable and delightful. His comments are now infinitely serious and infinitely humorous all at once. His manner is both as light as a feather and as heavy as the Universe itself.

People were characterized by David as being 'small and oppressed' but how is that so? How is it laughter is not in fact a natural and useful part of human life?

It is a natural and useful part of a slave’s life. If one has sacrificed one’s life towards slaving away at a career and serving one’s family, and if one is under the thumb of deluded ideas, whether they be society's or one's own, then some laughter with friends provides much needed relief.

-

Carl G wrote:Most humor is at somebody's expense. I suppose if it's a fictional character we are laughing at, like foolish egotistical Bart Simpson, it's not malicious. Not directly, anyway. Is it malicious to laugh at oneself?

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

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. But too many people shy away from this and splay their malice outwards, towards other people, towards anything that happens to irritate them.

Laird wrote: As for "malicious intent": I reject that characterisation. Is it malicious to hold up a mirror to a man so that he can see what he looks like? Is it malicious to give a man a bit of a wake-up call?

If that was the case then it wasn't very effective, as I only read the first few lines of the first post of your enterprise, saw instantly that it was mindless parody and never looked at another word of it.

-

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.

-

The most interesting thing for me is that people can continue to argue for its comic effect even after Laird's explanation of its intended and supposed purpose and value. It was, in reality, an extraordinary and gratuitous insult leveled at QRS. This isn't to say I actually feel insulted but simply give it its proper character. What is even more interesting is that I will probably have to explain why it's insulting.

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.

The humour I experienced was the feathered Zen variety!

Well of course, Dan, but then, how come I get it?

Depends on the precise thing being got, really. Though, in specific examples of my finding humour in things, David's analysis would be correct of me as well.

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.