GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:it seems that we laugh at human weakness because unconsciously we are celebrating a win. We laugh in response to watching the weakness and loss of another, and this is because we are happy to be on the winning side,

Some people do this, but not all. Sometimes I laugh at such things because I recognize the meaninglessness of it all

I would say you are laughing at things because you've interpreted the situation in a way where there are the foolish losers(who think it's meaningful) in contrast to the wise winner (who sees its meaningless). It's a competitive sort of instinct that causes us to laugh 'at' something. That's why people get so uncomfortable and intolerant of someone who is laughing for apparently no reason.

Other times because I see the solution is so simple and it can be fixed.

Yes, you laugh in response to acknowleding losers who can't see how simple it is to be winners.

I would not call that laughter joy or happiness, although sometimes I might call it a band-aid.

How about: a pleasurable response to identifying with a winning side that appears only because you acknoweldge a losing side?

Keep in mind, we talking about the phenomenon of comedy, lauging 'at' weakness.

There is no winning side or losing side.

Are you saying there is no wisdom or foolishness? No, cleverness in contrast to stupidity? No weakness in contrast to strength?

Another's loss is our own, and another's gain is our own.

Yes, we can be in that sort of mode, but still, we can laugh at the lower part of our nature that doesnt understand this truth, which is too celebrate our higher nature.

I believe most of us are born with this knowledge of us all being one

I wouldnt say it's so much that we are born with knowledge, metaphorically you can say that, but the latest discoveries about mirror neurons are suggesting that we are simply hard-wired to emotionally live vicariously through the emotional appearance of others.

children will laugh just because everyone else is (unless they have been put in situations where they may suspect they are being laughed at), and children will cry just because everyone else is sad.

Well sure, but the topic here has more to do with why we laugh at human weakness, the why's and how's of comedy.

Emotions such as happiness and sadness are of course an important basis for the phenomenon though.

To a lesser extent, this often carries into adulthood.

It gets pretty complicated into adulthood. My theory on psychopaths is that they don't identify with anything outside of them, and only identify with their ego. Everyone is the enemy and only their personal ego is the winning team, or the competing team against the world.

The sage on the other hand sees that he is all other people.

The psycopath sees himself as against all other people.

The subtlety here is that the sage must see just about everyone as an enemy in a sense, but they are an enemy to his clarity to see other people as himself. Everyone wants you to join them in their hypnotic fixation on a particular sports team, which is indeed often their own ego, so in that regard, you have to be wary with people - as they do tend to be psychopathic to varying degrees.

The psychopath revels in the hurt, humilation and death of others, because when others lose, he wins.

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.

Babies, like you seem to have suggested, perhaps are in a mode where they live vicariously through 'everyone', and it is only after some humilating and cruel experiences through childhood, that they begin to identify with a group for security, and thus become, to a degree, psychopathic. They begin to enjoy another's humilation.

Ted Bundy I guess had to pretend that his mother was his sister growing up without any explanation, and he also discovered he was an illegitimate child and he was made to feel guilty and inferior about it. No excuse to go around killing people mind you, but I think the environment was a significant cause of his behavior. Here's a somewhat enlightening documentary (only mildly sensationalistic) about Bundy. I was amused by the way Bundy and the religious-right joined forces to demonize pornography. After watching this doc, I no longer think pornography had much to do with Bundy's descent.

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.

.

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.

Ok, fine, in your case, and in many peoples case, it doesnt escalate to that.

But the topic is mainly about why we laugh at human weakness, it has a lot to do with our identification with a winning side.

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.

Actually, on second thought - most people who are happy about their group winning are completely unconscious of the pain they are causing the other group. It is totally unbeknownst to them the truth of their life. This is called ignorance and its responsible for a great deal of child labor exploitation of less fortunate countries.

Choclate for instance, a simple pleasure enjoyed by most developed countries, is the product of excessive and cruel labor for children in undeveloped countries.

Check out the amazon review of this book, Bitter Chocolate.

My point is that, just because your reality gives you the sensation that your winning and well being isnt doing any harm, that doesnt mean that it's not doing harm. It likely is.

It's better to do harm and be conscious of why you are doing it, then to do harm without having a clue that you are even doing it.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:it seems that we laugh at human weakness because unconsciously we are celebrating a win. We laugh in response to watching the weakness and loss of another, and this is because we are happy to be on the winning side,

Some people do this, but not all. Sometimes I laugh at such things because I recognize the meaninglessness of it all

I would say you are laughing at things because you've interpreted the situation in a way where there are the foolish losers(who think it's meaningful) in contrast to the wise winner (who sees its meaningless).

If that is truly what you would say about me, then you do not know me very well at all.

Cory Duchesne wrote:It's a competitive sort of instinct that causes us to laugh 'at' something. That's why people get so uncomfortable and intolerant of someone who is laughing for apparently no reason.

People get nervous when others are laughing and they don't know why because they fear that people are laughing at them. There are people with a mean streak like that, and sooner or later we all get hurt by them.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Other times because I see the solution is so simple and it can be fixed.

Yes, you laugh in response to acknowleding losers who can't see how simple it is to be winners.

No, because I know that everything is actually okay, and maybe out of happiness that I could make things better.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

I would not call that laughter joy or happiness, although sometimes I might call it a band-aid.

How about: a pleasurable response to identifying with a winning side that appears only because you acknoweldge a losing side?

No.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Keep in mind, we talking about the phenomenon of comedy, lauging 'at' weakness.

There is a HUGE difference between laughing at weakness, and laughing at people who are weak. You seem to have a sadistic streak in you.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

There is no winning side or losing side.

Are you saying there is no wisdom or foolishness? No, cleverness in contrast to stupidity? No weakness in contrast to strength?

There are these dualities, and some people are more prone to one side or the other. What happened to the guy who said he could see himself in everyone else, and who understood that people are where they are because they were caused to be there?

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Another's loss is our own, and another's gain is our own.

Yes, we can be in that sort of mode, but still, we can laugh at the lower part of our nature that doesnt understand this truth, which is too celebrate our higher nature.

It isn't a "mode" Cory, it is true.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

I believe most of us are born with this knowledge of us all being one

I wouldnt say it's so much that we are born with knowledge, metaphorically you can say that, but the latest discoveries about mirror neurons are suggesting that we are simply hard-wired to emotionally live vicariously through the emotional appearance of others.

Yes, it was metaphorical speech for the mirror neurons, but just because something is programmed into us does not make it false. We must use logic and reason to determine which of our programs are true, and which are false.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Babies, like you seem to have suggested, perhaps are in a mode where they live vicariously through 'everyone', and it is only after some humilating and cruel experiences through childhood, that they begin to identify with a group for security, and thus become, to a degree, psychopathic. They begin to enjoy another's humilation.

To a degree I did say that babies live vicariously through everyone - but I did not suggest any of the rest of that. I went throught the depths of hell in childhood, but I never enjoy another's humiliation. I enjoy peace, justice, growth (of others as well as myself), and everything being okay.

I have not watched the whole Bundy video yet - it's almost 49 minutes long, but my ex was pretty obsessed with him, so I have some familiarity with his background. Some people are just hard-wired to be psychopaths. They can act nice, sweet, respectable, etc., but at their core, they are hard-wired to enjoy the pain of others, and are very selfish individuals. Not the kind of selfish that most people are, but viciously slefish.
.

Keep in mind, we talking about the phenomenon of comedy, lauging 'at' weakness.

There is a HUGE difference between laughing at weakness, and laughing at people who are weak.

Tell me the difference. Wasnt it you the other day who was calling Leyla and Matt 'bears' who you poke with a stick?

You seem to have a sadistic streak in you.

As far as you know I simply grew up in a community that was fairly sadistic, and am just reporting my experience of people. But to be honest, of course I have a bit of sadism in me. As Nietzche said, (and as I heard Quinn quote many times)laughter is malice with good conscience.

Cory: Yes, we can be in that sort of mode, but still, we can laugh at the lower part of our nature that doesnt understand this truth, which is too celebrate our higher nature.

Elizabeth: It isn't a "mode" Cory, it is true.

Not for people who are in a deluded mode of reality. They have no idea why they find Denis Leary so funny when he sings about how he parks in handicap parking spaces, while handicapped people, make handicapped faces. It's through a truthful mode of reality that you understand yourself.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Tell me the difference. Wasnt it you the other day who was calling Leyla and Matt 'bears' who you poke with a stick?

I was referencing another thread in which Leyla wasn't getting my humor, and someone else called her a grouchy old bear trying to hibernate, and told me to stop poking her with sticks.
.

Cory,

Actually, on second thought - most people who are happy about their group winning are completely unconscious of the pain they are causing the other group. It is totally unbeknownst to them the truth of their life. This is called ignorance and its responsible for a great deal of child labor exploitation of less fortunate countries.

My point is that I am happy to win when nobody else is losing. For example, I study very hard for a test, and I ace it. I win. My winning does not reduce the chances of other people passing the test and winning too.

When I was in high school, I got the highest grades in my class. But I felt no pleasure at all in "doing better" than my peers; in a way, I was only competing against myself. Had I gotten pleasure out of beating others, I would had become quite mediocre, without striving for giving my best.

My point is that, just because your reality gives you the sensation that your winning and well being isnt doing any harm, that doesnt mean that it's not doing harm. It likely is.

I agree that there are many situations where my winning entails someone else's loss. Capitalism makes it quite frequent to win at the expense of others; it is set up in a way that makes it impossible for everyone to win. I am aware of this every minute of the day. When I go to the store and I see a very pretty picture frame that costs 60 cents (my country's currency is the US dollar, btw), and I want one, I can't resist buying it, even though I know that the reason I'm getting such a bargain is that some teen girl in China got paid about a penny to make it in a sweatshop. But would I really be helping that girl by not buying the item?

.

Here's a good example backing up my argument....

The following exchange occured on Matt Gregory's Free Will thread:

Somebody said: P.P.S. I pause on this occasion for a nicely self-serving observation that I am glad to see bert back. He has no idea I have read/understood/ and even admired his thinking, and so I tell him now. In addition, there is another excellent thinker on this forum - Expectantly Ironic. This is just to say.

David Quinn Replied: Ah, it's nice to see the woolly-minded flocking together, nuzzling each other's ears, and worshiping the glories of vagueness.

Ok, so I couldnt help but laugh in response to reading the above description, as I've always had an aversion for vagueness and bert's writing in particular.

But I might not be laughing if I was the person David was replying to, or if I identified in some way with the people Dave was describing. Comedy is often offensive because it often targets particular groups or individuals, depicting them as in someway more impaired and feeble. For example, you might find it funny to regard someone who you are disastisfied with as a bear trying to hibernate. This is malice with good conscience.

Metphors such as 'wooly-minded nuzzlers gathering in a flock' or 'hibernating bears' these images are very unflattering descriptions, and they are used to make a parody of other peoples sincerity. This parodizing is rooted in the competitive instinct to distinguish winners from losers. I'm not saying there is anything inherently wrong with it of course. This is just something that I want to be clear about.

Cory,

For example, you might find it funny to regard someone who you are disastisfied with as a bear trying to hibernate. This is malice with good conscience.

I admit that I have this malice, but I must clarify that it is only towards people I perceive as bullies, that I dislike, or that are being perceived by others as "winners". For instance, I love mocking people like Anna Nicole and Paris Hilton, but I would never mock a retarded or severely handicapped person.

Similary, the only reason I am so patriotic is because my country is the total underdog, and has been raped by others all its life. If I was from a "bully" country like the USA, I would not be patriotic. That would be like feeling proud of belonging to a dominant group, such as the white race. Needless to say, I find white supremacists ridiculous at best, and hateful at worst.

I hope my position makes some sense to you. I know I'm not eloquent. Basically, I'm not disagreeing with you.

.

Cory, you wrote:

Metphors such as 'wooly-minded nuzzlers gathering in a flock' or 'hibernating bears' these images are very unflattering descriptions, and they are used to make a parody of other peoples sincerity.

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 that one needs to figure out what a stick is to understand that. :)

Cory Duchesne wrote:Metphors such as 'wooly-minded nuzzlers gathering in a flock' or 'hibernating bears' these images are very unflattering descriptions, and they are used to make a parody of other peoples sincerity.

This parodizing is rooted in the competitive instinct to distinguish winners from losers. I'm not saying there is anything inherently wrong with it of course. This is just something that I want to be clear about.

I don't think you are being clear about it. Sometimes, it is helpful to employ a sharp pin of humor to "point" out someone's inconsistent or otherwise weak thinking. Your attribution of it to competitiveness, for example. :)

Bears vs. Nuzzlers

Cory Refs.

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.

Humor does contain an element of pointing to something incorrect or suboptimal, but it also has a greater element of making light of such things. Assuming appropriate understanding on both sides, if the intent of the speaker is to improve the outlook of the listener, it is humor. If the intent of the speaker is to bring pain to the listener, it is not humor.
.

Carl G wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Metphors such as 'wooly-minded nuzzlers gathering in a flock' or 'hibernating bears' these images are very unflattering descriptions, and they are used to make a parody of other peoples sincerity.

This parodizing is rooted in the competitive instinct to distinguish winners from losers. I'm not saying there is anything inherently wrong with it of course. This is just something that I want to be clear about.

I don't think you are being clear about it. Sometimes, it is helpful to employ a sharp pin of humor to "point" out someone's inconsistent or otherwise weak thinking.

Well, I never said humor, being the sharp prick it can be, isn't helpful. Maybe you're misinterpreting my intentions. This isnt a polemic 'against humor' - It's simply an analysis of it.

Humor is helpful in the same way competition can be helpful. Humor can be a more refined way of encouraging greater uniformity, and making unwanted, weak behaviors more effectively known. It's a way of raising the bar in culture. The Daily show w/ John Stewart and Colbert Report are good examples of that. Nobody wants to be on the losing side, so to improve our culture we often competitively strive to keep the laughs on our side, striving to be 'in the know' in regards to who the losers are - whether they are masterbatory post-modernist bohemians, two men fist fighting waiting in line to buy tickets to a sold out Dali Lama concert, 40 year old pop stars disfigured by plastic surgery and hell bent on sleeping with young boys in a peter pan simulation of neverland, people with fetishes for animals, or patriotic, bible thumping, second cousins, recently married with their loftiest aspiration being an out-of-ground swimming pool in the backyard for their eight kids. Some people find these things funny, and its rooted in a competitive drive for greater uniformity/strength and a disdain for too much fringe ecentricity and variation.

Your attribution of it to competitiveness, for example. :)

Why the frozen smiley face? 'Something you find amusing?

Why might that be?

Your mere assertion that humor is a sharp pin to point out weakness, isnt enough for an argument against my emphasis on a competitive drive supplanting most humor. In fact, from my perspective what your saying supports my argument.

Steven Coyle wrote:Bears vs. Nuzzlers

Cory Refs.

LOL - it seems Steven is parodying my sincerity....

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Humor does contain an element of pointing to something incorrect or suboptimal, but it also has a greater element of making light of such things.
.

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.

Sometimes people dourly and stubbornly hold onto their pride and refuse to see why they are so funny.

Being laughed at can make us change, and we can avoid future problems by learning to join the more unassailable side. Being laughed, in the right spirit, can help us learn.

Leyla Shen wrote:Cory, you wrote:

Metphors such as 'wooly-minded nuzzlers gathering in a flock' or 'hibernating bears' these images are very unflattering descriptions, and they are used to make a parody of other peoples sincerity.

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 that one needs to figure out what a stick is to understand that. :)

lol - Now that's funny.

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.

(Of course, we are all both sadists and masochists, depending on the state of mind)

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Steven Coyle wrote:Bears vs. Nuzzlers

Cory Refs.

LOL - it seems Steven is parodying my sincerity....

No,

Think of it this way:

If we fight over whose most sincere, we'll effectively be battling two people.

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

Steven Coyle wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Steven Coyle wrote:Bears vs. Nuzzlers

Cory Refs.

LOL - it seems Steven is parodying my sincerity....

No,

Think of it this way:

If we fight over whose most sincere, we'll effectively be battling two people.

It seems like you're trying to help me understand what you mean by the Bears vs. Nuzzlers parody, but then again, it's not very clear that this latest post of yours, which is another analogy, is even analogous to the original analogy - and the original bears vs. nuzzlers analogy hardly even seems analogous to the original material that the analogy was originaly in response to.

Steven! What the hell is going on! (masochistic humor, me being feeble for the sake of maintaining a sense of friendliness)

Now, please tell me in as clear language as possible: 1) Are you trying to make an argument to counter my points? And if so, 2) What is the argument? Please elaborate as clearly as you can.

And as for an attempt at bridging your two posts in attempt at finding coherence, I will ask: is the ref battling two people? Is it the refs job to 'fight' over whose most sincere? Or is there any fight involved when we are being objective? And the team that ended up being a loser - does the fact that they lost mean that they were any less sincere? Maybe they were equally sincere, or even more sincere, but simply lacked the talent, intelligence and fitness to win?

And if the ref helps determine which side wins, why does that make him at battle with the two sides?

It seems like you're trying to help me understand what you mean by the Bears vs. Nuzzlers parody, but then again, it's not very clear that this latest post of yours, which is another analogy, is even analogous to the original analogy - and the original bears vs. nuzzlers analogy hardly even seems analogous to the original material that the analogy was originaly in response to.

Steven! What the hell is going on! (masochistic humor, me being feeble for the sake of maintaining a sense of friendliness)

Well, I seem to have over-extended myself. Let me see if I can do a better job translating the analogies.

The first, Bears vs. Nuzzlers, was an attempt to throw you in the middle of a mock showdown - "Bears vs. Nuzzlers, Sadists vs. "Masochists" with Cory Duchescne, our star Masochist risking ego and leg for the sincere betterment of self and other!" Apparently I should contain, or at least expand on my imaginative musings.

The second analogy was more of a clever aside, having no correlation to the first battle. ! I haven't posted enough lately. So, in this scenario, we have two admitted masochists fighting, against their nature, inflicting sadistic pain, coming to the realization that they have equalized their imbalances. Part idealistic, friendly gesture, part didn't get enough sleep last night.