GENIUS FORUMS

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.

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

Dan, sorry to have taken so long to respond to this, but...

Dan Rowden wrote: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.

...please go right ahead and explain.

Laird asked David:

Oh, expectations are oppressive are they? What about the expectation of being paid your DSP by the government? Is that oppressive to you?

Yes, it would be if he experienced the pressure of said expectation.

Laird wrote:Dan, sorry to have taken so long to respond to this, but...

There's no need of apologies in relation to this sort of thing. People who think there are express a slightly disturbing sense of demand upon others. What happens, happens, dude. If I had expectations that you'd reply I'd be oppressing myself and need to deploy comedic relief! hahaha! See. That feels so much better.

Dan Rowden wrote:

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.

...please go right ahead and explain.

No, I've decided to emphatically refuse to do so. In part because my explanation would just give an opportunity for denial, but mostly because for it to be truly understood it has to arise in your and others' mind. However, if you want to speculate on why it was not only insulting, but useless, I'm prepared to play a little hot/cold game with you.

Please note I'm not actually insulted by anything you wrote nor playing a game designed to make you look bad, as such. I think this to be a worthwhile mental exercise. So, things to ponder:

1) why is was a serious insult - if unintended.
2) why it could not work as intended.

Shahrazad wrote: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.

David may correct me on this, but I think what he's intending by "oppression" is any sense of disempowerment - i.e. the absence of the sublimation of will to power..

I see it more as the frustration of living.

Yes, which would be disempowerment which would be a sense of oppression - oppression meaning the absence of freedom and control. People tend to feel disempowered by fate itself.

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.

These are all techniques to minimize the sense or fact of disempowerment on a more long term basis. They may or may not have genuine utility and sense dependent on the circumstances. Basically we all employ them because they do sometimes make sense. But their pragmatic nature doesn't necessarily speak to or cover fully the psychological realities that accompany them. i.e. they may not be sane to begin with. Humour is a more momentary utilisation of sense of empowerment. In passing, have you ever noticed how emotionally fucked up comedians tend to be?

Overall, I'd say I'm a pretty happy person, though I do have my ups and downs, and pretty violent ones.

That would be typical of obese Latino women with uncontrollable body hair who block shipping lanes, no doubt :)

Are you suggesting that I should let go of humor and become bitter?

I think David would argue that the transcendence of humour is also the transcendence of bitterness because both are intimately related. And if he wouldn't argue that precise point, then I will. But I would add that if one doesn't have a better mode to go to than humour, then one should stick with humour.

Why would you want to free a person from their healthy life-coping mechanisms, ones that have taken decades to develop?

To go to a better level of engagement, basically. You have to remember that David is seeing everything through the filter of the purpose of Wisdom. Since humour is essentially a way for the ego to secure itself, even if momentarily, it is necessarily something to be surpassed in a purpose whose theme is transcendence of ego.

Dan Rowden wrote:Laird asked David:

Oh, expectations are oppressive are they? What about the expectation of being paid your DSP by the government? Is that oppressive to you?

Yes, it would be if he experienced the pressure of said expectation.

As opposed to, say, the pressure of finding work?

Dan Rowden wrote:I'm prepared to play a little hot/cold game with you.

I'm not prepared to play such a game with you. If you have a point to make, then please make it. I probably will deny it, but that shouldn't stop you from making it.

Yes it will.

Scaredy cat. :-)

I don't think that follows. As usual.

Well please share what does follow.

Dan,

Yes, which would be disempowerment which would be a sense of oppression - oppression meaning the absence of freedom and control.

And lacking freedom and control is part of human weakness. In that sense, it doesn't seem that David's definition of humor is all that different than mine. We are basically saying something similar.

But their pragmatic nature doesn't necessarily speak to or cover fully the psychological realities that accompany them. i.e. they may not be sane to begin with.

Most of mine are completely sane, such as choosing to work at home rather than keeping a strict 8 to 5 office schedule, knowing that I am not an early riser. Others are somehow deluded, and that is probably what you meant by "not sane". An example of the latter would be refusing to dwell on things that are likely to depress me, such as the suffering endured during my youth or the daily death of innocent people in Iraq. Overall, I would say that my coping strategies pass the test of sanity, even though I myself would not.

That would be typical of obese Latino women with uncontrollable body hair who block shipping lanes, no doubt :)

Hah hah! And yet you love me. But wouldn't you say that those 10-15 extra pounds are exactly in the right places? Or have you ever fantasized about touching a woman who was bony and had tiny boobs?

But I would add that if one doesn't have a better mode to go to than humour, then one should stick with humour.

As I said, my strategy is not limited to humor, but humor and a good attitude are definitely part of it.

It may be worth pointing out that I may have never reached my level of happiness and serenity if I had not had years of intense suffering. Happiness may not be easily reachable to those who have never suffered. How would they even know they're happy?

Since humour is essentially a way for the ego to secure itself, even if momentarily, it is necessarily something to be surpassed in a purpose whose theme is transcendence of ego.

I hope it takes you a long time to reach that point where humor is no longer needed. You just wouldn't be the same Dan that we all have grown to love.

.

Shahrazad wrote:

That would be typical of obese Latino women with uncontrollable body hair who block shipping lanes, no doubt :)

Hah hah! And yet you love me.

What? I suggest you edit the part of your mind that caused that sentence.

But wouldn't you say that those 10-15 extra pounds are exactly in the right places?

How should I know. More to the point, why should I care?

Or have you ever fantasized about touching a woman who was bony and had tiny boobs?

Actually, I did once, in the 80s, but then I found out she was a seriously disgusting person. But, she was in physical proportion. I think the biological sense men have is about proportion.

But I would add that if one doesn't have a better mode to go to than humour, then one should stick with humour.

As I said, my strategy is not limited to humor, but humor and a good attitude are definitely part of it.

Well, sure, depending on "good attitude" means.

It may be worth pointing out that I may have never reached my level of happiness and serenity if I had not had years of intense suffering. Happiness may not be easily reachable to those who have never suffered. How would they even know they're happy?

True enough, but one hopes your new found happiness isn't based on circumstance beyond your control rather than you own mentality.

Since humour is essentially a way for the ego to secure itself, even if momentarily, it is necessarily something to be surpassed in a purpose whose theme is transcendence of ego.

I hope it takes you a long time to reach that point where humor is no longer needed. You just wouldn't be the same Dan that we all have grown to love.

If you have grown to "love" me for this reason, then I am failing. Or, I have pandered too much to your needs, which amounts to the same thing.

I apologise.

Laird wrote:Well please share what does follow.

Your willful ignorance.

Laird: Well please share what does follow.

Dan: Your willful ignorance.

You don't want to make your point but I'm willfully ignorant?

More to the point, why should I care?

You're a straight male, aren't you? Men care about stuff like that.

But, she was in physical proportion. I think the biological sense men have is about proportion.

See? You just admitted to caring about female proportions. Neiner, neiner.

Well, sure, depending on "good attitude" means.

Basically, looking on the bright side of events and circumstances. If life's a lemon, make lemonade. Even the darkest things have a bright side. In extreme cases, humor may be needed. But in most cases, it's easy to find.

Just an example: some of my worst flaws have been used to my advantage, such as ADHD.

True enough, but one hopes your new found happiness isn't based on circumstance beyond your control rather than you own mentality.

This is a good point to make, especially if someone is reading this thread and would like to try my method at home. And yes, it is not based on things I cannot control. I still have as many problems as the average person.

If you have grown to "love" me for this reason, then I am failing.

Notice how you have enclosed the word love in quotes. The word makes you uncomfortable, doesn't it? You need to work on that. No word can oppress a sage.

Or, I have pandered too much to your needs, which amounts to the same thing.

If you had called them "wants", you may have a point. But you said needs. I need them, they are not whims, and the compassionate thing to do is to meet them, at your own convenience. If it's a sin, it's as perfect as they come: the compassionate thing to do is also something you enjoy doing.

-

Laird,

Yes. You're ignorant, aren't you? And you won't guess as to why and negate that ignorance, so that makes you willfully ignorant. I offered you an avenue and you refused.

See why the Greeks heralded modern politics :)

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.

On Oz TV, Newstopia might be a good example - less malice than say The Chaser.

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.

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

Dan Rowden wrote:You're ignorant, aren't you?

If you mean that I disagree that I've insulted you, then yes, I'm ignorant.

Dan Rowden wrote:And you won't guess as to why and negate that ignorance, so that makes you willfully ignorant. I offered you an avenue and you refused.

No Dan, I offered you the opportunity to explain and you refused. I'm not wilfully ignorant for refusing to guess something that it's your responsibility to explain.

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.

Laird,

Let's get this straight then, in a more serious vein: you are ignorant, to me, as to why your satire is the things I have accused it of being. I utterly refuse to explain why. That's how it is, basically. If you don't want to think about why, that's up to you.

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.

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

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.

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.

Link for those who don't feel like fishing through all the threads to see what we're talking about.

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

link

Shahrazad wrote:Laird, I am writing as fast as I can because I want to make this post before the thread gets locked.

I just want to say that I found your OP very entertaining, and love your writing style.

Mind you, I'm probably doing you more harm than good. The fact that I was entertained by your post will be considered proof by some that it is totally lacking in wisdom.