GENIUS FORUMS

Sher, I must have missed something. Where did you have a change of heart?

Huh? Laird's satire entertained me. Nothing has changed.

Oh, and I am so glad you're back. You have no idea all the fun you've missed.

-

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Unpleasant for whom?

I have said that I did not begin writing at Genius Forum intending to debate the debate. I resent that I am being challenged to do so. The crucifixion of Jesus could be typified as 'unpleasant' if very poorly but that hardly implies I suffered in it. Matter of fact, I've been likened to someone who would have desired such a thing despite having publicly said I am so opposed to capital punishment I wouldn't have executed even Hitler. Oddly, I've been likened to Hitler.

Dan Rowden wrote:
... if GED isn't an example of that point, I'm a nightingale's spittle.

Speaking of GED and birds, see this, particularly the references to 'Magus Australis'.

I admit GED is lightsome. So is its newest article, Dan Rowden Redux. But how are you not lightsome given the quality of your thinking? And while at least GED is funny, your behaviour in this thread is literally pathetic. Where but on Genius Forum could your nonsense be taken seriously? Don't inquiring minds want to know? You're smart enough not to pull this crap anywhere else.

I didn't show up to challenge anyone or to discuss the debate. I had written only that I enjoyed Laird's satire and I did not discuss any of its content and I made a point of not doing so. It didn't matter, because you are profoundly vain.

Dan Rowden wrote: My all-time favourite laughter inducing humour is Derek and Clive. Analyze that!

I prefer the british humour too-although later period- Monty Python and Ben Elton type of stuff.

I suppose it's generational as well.

Laird wrote:Dan, for a bold, fearless Man of the Infinite you're certainly acting like a pussycat. Men who like their thoughts "bloodied and dangerous" don't play guessing games with one another - they sock it to each other straight and direct.

Did you seriously think that would work on me? I may well eventually relent and explain it, but I would simply rather that it came to you in your own time. And frankly, I'd be interested if anyone else can actually see it too. The points aren't that complicated, really, so don't go looking for complex, sophisticated ideas.

Could it be that you know that anything that you might have to say will be readily shot down, and are you afraid of that, and might that be why I called you a scaredy cat?

No, I'm not scared of that. It won't be possible to have my points shot down. But nice try, again.

Go ahead, call me arrogant again but first prove me wrong.

I can't prove anything to anyone. We always prove things to ourselves.

Shahrazad wrote:Laird, it's not that hard to do: read your satire again carefully, imagining you are Dan, and try to imagine how he would react to each phrase. You may be able to find what exact part he found insulting.

Actually he doesn't have to revisit his satire. His explanation of it is the more pivotal thing.

RobertGreenSky wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:
... if GED isn't an example of that point, I'm a nightingale's spittle.

Speaking of GED and birds, see this, particularly the references to 'Magus Australis'.

Spurs used to be my team when I was a youngster.

I admit GED is lightsome.

I was thinking of another word ending in "some", actually. But whatever gets your juices flowing, really.

So is its newest article, Dan Rowden Redux.

Wow, that was side splittingly hilarious. Are those things edible?

But how are you not lightsome given the quality of your thinking?

I don't know, why don't you address that thinking.

And while at least GED is funny,

GED is snot-nosed College humour with precisely zero sophistication or worth. But that's just my subjective opinion.

your behaviour in this thread is literally pathetic.

Really? Which part, exactly? How come the point that merely asserting something doesn't make it so only applies to other people? You are pathologically hypocritical, Robert.

Where but on Genius Forum could your nonsense be taken seriously?

Where in the universe could this pseudo-point mean anything? Certainly not this part.

Don't inquiring minds want to know?

I believe they do. But for inquiry to happen you first must have coherence. Got any of that to offer?

You're smart enough not to pull this crap anywhere else.

I have never held back on any forum I've ever argued at, and you know it.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The saying goes "Many a truth is said in jest" - and that's why I found it funny. Sometimes the admins here do come across a quite arrogant - meaning when and how they seem to claim perfection despite having human shortcomings. Yes, the admins have each stated quite clearly that they are not absolutely perfect, but rather that perfection is their goal. Nevertheless, there is a gap not only between their intentions (perfection) and their current state, they seem blind to what that gap is in some areas.

The Laird Totality post highlighted that gap, and did so in such a way that they could have just dismissed it as "okay, that was funny" while quietly and privately absorbing the truth presented. I consider it a kindly poke for the purpose of constructive criticism - therefore I found it funny until I now realize that the QRS still don't get it.

Good try, Laird.

Perhaps you can highlight what this truth is. As I say, when I look at Laird's work in that thread all I see is insubstantial parody involving an unrecognizeable caricature, devoid of any truth.

-

I don't know, why don't you address that thinking. - Dan Rowden.


I've attempted to address that thinking for a long time - since the debate - but you've never obliged me. Most recently you were challenged in this thread. Before that, at The Star Chamber, where you preferred to quibble. I must have missed your agreements to engage in serious discussion, or were they mixed in with the quibbling and the shots at GED? Hell, let's find some reasonable venue that's actually willing to take this argument - David's theory on humour - and let's go! Why I bet you'd defend it anywhere, wouldn't you Dan?

You're smart enough not to pull this crap anywhere else. [-Robert]


I have never held back on any forum I've ever argued at, and you know it.

- Dan Rowden

The point is that you wouldn't be arguing this at some other forum. You were just challenged to do so.

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

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.

You're not even going to fully answer my question? I take it then that you can't conceive of a true oppression dynamic in this instance.

I did answer it, but I was relying on you to think about my answer and put 2 and 2 together.

The main oppressive agent in this case is the routine of language, although there are other oppressive agents emanating from societal expectations making contributions as well. As the joke unfolds, the listener hears the words and processes them in the normal fashion, thus keeping the mind in a state of slight complacancy and boredom. Suddenly, the phrase "long face" is introduced as a pun and everything changes. The double meaning of the phrase, with each meaning making sense in the context, presents the mind with a challenge and excites it.

Two things are happening here: (a) Normal routine is broken and some relief from boredom is experienced, and (b) The spell that language casts on the mind is momentarily loosened, providing one with a small taste of freedom.

Laird wrote:

Laird: 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.

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

Oh, expectations are oppressive are they?

Routine expectations induce the oppressiveness of boredom. Some people are happier with routine than others, but there is always an element of boredom involved.

What about the expectation of being paid your DSP by the government? Is that oppressive to you?

There is an element of boredom involved. For example, if the government were to suddenly double my income, then I would experience a break from this boredom and feel some euphoria as a result - assuming that I wasn't fully enlightened in that moment.

-

RobertGreenSky wrote:I don't know, why don't you address that thinking. - Dan Rowden.

I've attempted to address that thinking for a long time - since the debate - but you've never obliged me.

I was referring to the thinking in this thread, Weren't you?

Most recently you were challenged in this thread.

What challenge was that?

Hell, let's find some reasonable venue that's actually willing to take this argument - David's theory on humour - and let's go! Why I bet you'd defend it anywhere, wouldn't you Dan?

Yep. Why not address it here though, since most people don't seem to agree with it. But, whatever, if you're interested in actually addressing the matter seriously, Star Chamber or elsewhere is fine by me. However, I will not post at Olio on principle.

Jamesh wrote:

Nietzsche once described laughter as malice with a good conscience.

Sure, but there is another facet of humour. I tend to like well written or acted fish out of water style humour, which I guess has some sort of background as "malice" at someone elses innocence or naivety. But there is more to it than this, there is mirth in seeing where something just doesn't make sense, in a harmless way, particularly where the humour is portraying something normal from an unusual angle. The bulk of this type of humour is childish, but sometimes, when done cleverly, the oddness of the situation makes it amusing.

That kind of humour involves malice against routine, convention, the expected, adult pomposity, etc.

The point is, every type of humour involves a putting down of something, whether it be people or conventions, and the resulting vacuum produced by this putting down is filled with the euphoria of an ego suddenly experiencing freedom.

-

What challenge was that? - Dan Rowden

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.

- Robert, Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:58 pm.

In yours, Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:45 pm, you quoted from it.

I suggest that a serious debate would be preferable to discussing David's theory. QRS support for Otto Weininger perhaps?

Dan

Yeah, but that's more an issue of subtlety and sophistication, don't you think, Jimbo? I mean, I like and prefer Micallef's work, but I think it's mostly intellectual vanity that causes that judgement. The actual points made don't seem to be that different, really.

On reflection, yes you are right. I hesitated a bit with using Micallef as an example, because often the malice side is in plain sight. Truth is I didn’t want to admit to liking non-intellectual stuff like Just for Laughs, Candid Camera – intellectual vanity was at play! I just enjoy seeing people how people react in unusual circumstances, where the unexpected is happening. While some of these shows, such as the more recent ones from America, like Punked or Crank Yankers are filled with malice, the older family type shows are more low key in that regard, and are more about the silliness of rote human behaviour and how we react to unexpected circumstances. The involvement of one’s ego is more subtle.

David said:

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.

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.

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.

“Humour is a more momentary utilisation of sense of empowerment

“The introduction of a pun is a sudden break in normal routine, which is what generates the humour”

Dan said:

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.

I agree with all these points. The ego, or will to power, is always involved in the act of finding something funny.

I guess what I was trying to add is that there is something about irrationally itself that can activate mirth. Perhaps it is just the pleasure of overcoming irrationality (as in “this does not compute”) whether immediate in one’s subconscious, or by actual thoughts relating to the scene. Through this we can find that humour often offers both truth and untruth, and our ego enjoys both solving, or coming to grips with the irrationality and also finds pleasure in that part of the joke that is an expression of some rarely stated or acknowledged truth. To me there is some kind of linkage to the good feeling of knowing what is true.

My thinking here, still feels somewhat henid like. I guess David’s use of the word “correctness” in one of the above quotes, was a short form way of saying part of what I’m getting at.

My all-time favourite laughter inducing humour is Derek and Clive. Analyze that!

Lol. I tend to agree – they still make me smile. Derek and Clive were a scream when I was a young whippersnapper. Their “out there” humour and just their whole drunken chatty style suited my rebellious spirit. I was quite envious of their matey conversational skills. Hell of a lot of malice in Derek and Clive’s stuff – the malice of a more honest, less hidden, acknowledgement of reality.

Me and my yobbo mates used to sometimes sing these two Derek and Clive songs when pissed. That was 25 odd years ago.

Soul Time
I'm a nigger and I fucked a white chick
And I ain't ashamed
I'm a nigger and I fucked a white chick
And I ain't ashamed

I got no more lyrics
I don't give a shit
'cause I've had some white cunt
And I bit a white tit

Yes, yes, yes, yes
I'm a nigger ..... and I fucked a white chick
They never seem the same

Jump
As I was walking down the street one day
I saw a house on fire
There was man, shouting and screaming at an upper-storey window
To the crowd that was gathered there below
For he was so afraid

Jump! You fucker, jump!
Jump into this here blanket what we are holding
And you will be all right
He jumped, hit the deck, broke his fucking neck -
There was no blanket there at all

Laugh?! We nearly shat!
We had not laughed so much since Grandma died
Or Auntie Mabel caught her left tit in the mangle
We are miserable sinners
Fi-i-ilthy fuckers

Ahhhrrrr-soles

RobertGreenSky wrote:

What challenge was that? - Dan Rowden

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.

- Robert, Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:58 pm.

In yours, Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:45 pm, you quoted from it.

I suggest that a serious debate would be preferable to discussing David's theory. QRS support for Otto Weininger perhaps?

Hang on! You just got through trying to make me out to be a coward that would not argue the humour thesis elsewhere, no you want to drop that and debate your pet grievance? No thanks. I have no interest in that as I'm not quite the Weininger fan that Kevin is.

Dan, do feel free to suggest alternative topics. :D

How about the proposition that William Shatner is the greatest actor of all time?

How about this 'A=A' thing?

Jamesh wrote:Dan

Yeah, but that's more an issue of subtlety and sophistication, don't you think, Jimbo? I mean, I like and prefer Micallef's work, but I think it's mostly intellectual vanity that causes that judgement. The actual points made don't seem to be that different, really.

On reflection, yes you are right. I hesitated a bit with using Micallef as an example, because often the malice side is in plain sight. Truth is I didn’t want to admit to liking non-intellectual stuff like Just for Laughs, Candid Camera – intellectual vanity was at play! I just enjoy seeing people how people react in unusual circumstances, where the unexpected is happening. While some of these shows, such as the more recent ones from America, like Punked or Crank Yankers are filled with malice, the older family type shows are more low key in that regard, and are more about the silliness of rote human behaviour and how we react to unexpected circumstances. The involvement of one’s ego is more subtle.

Have you noticed that the comedic effect of someone like Micallef wears out fairly quickly? I think this speaks to part of what David is talking about: the break in the continuum that his kind of humour represents fades as the humour itself becomes expected. I stopped watching Newstopia after a couple of episodes because its effect had already begun to wane.

RobertGreenSky wrote:How about this 'A=A' thing?

How would you want to approach it?

It's your guys' theory so you'd be the 'affirmative', David's position in the prior debate. Same rules, this time with the understanding beforehand of course that one does address the opposition's comments before the rebuttal phase.

Ok, but I thinking more about what the actual proposition of the debate would be. That A=A is the basis of logic? Or perhaps that it is the basis of wisdom itself? What was your thinking on that?

I've yet to read the material to which David linked so I'm coming into this pretty cold. However, I will need to answer in some way that allows for what little I know to be used. Thus something like 'Resolved: That the QRS view on "A=A" is in accord with Buddhist teaching' or some variant would be ideal. Anyway something where I can dispute that it is.

I think QRS and myself should be left out of it. If Dan wants to argue the case for A=A, then it means that he will be arguing from his own understanding of the issue. This is not to say that he and I don't share a similar understanding, but he is his own man and should be treated as such.

-