GENIUS FORUMS

Certainly reasonable. And let me be reasonable in return: Given the possibility tempers have flared should Dan care to decline I will not criticize him (publicly) anywhere anytime. I have an appointment with the cardiologist Wednesday and there is no need to rush into an answer since I could not begin until after I'm checked out.

David Quinn wrote: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.

Usually these things get pointed out individually, which is why the generalizations should have been sufficient. I'll give you a couple of examples though.

Kevin's most recent example.

Your mode of thinking is too divorced from mine for this conversation to continue. No communication is possible.

Phrasing it thusly sounds arrogant. It would have sounded less like he was "talking from on high" if he had said "I can't explain this to you."

Not a recent one, but your most readily accessible one David:

Although I am not part of any religion, I consider the great wise men of the past to be my spiritual brothers and colleagues - Socrates, Diogenes, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus

Spiritual brothers would be enough to sound arrogant to most people even though, as an example of how Jesus also would have considered you a brother, Jesus considered all of us children of God (thus making all of us brothers or sisters of Jesus). Most people seem to like the hierarchical distinctions, and just calling them brothers would be challenging enough to their established paradigms. "Collegue" connotates that they consulted you as well as you consulting them. Obviously, there is a timeline barrier to them consulting you - or even each other.

The reason this sort of thing seemed worthy of parody is because you guys do have so much good to offer. You are great guys; if you were not, it would be as tasteless as making a parody of the most unfortunate of the mentally ill. If you can't understand this, then perhaps you are right and it is not funny.

Although I am not part of any religion, I consider the great wise men of the past to be my spiritual brothers and colleagues - Socrates, Diogenes, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus

Just remember that this does not relate to the level of one's communication skills, or quality of memory, or to how prolific a person might be - but only to what one accepts as being the truth. I can completely accept Davids reference above, to them being spiritual brothers. It is just where one can see in others the most strongest relationship to oneself - and as there are so few contemporary similar thinkers, it aint surprising one makes brothers of those of the past. They are a form of truth-soulmates.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

David Quinn wrote: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.

Usually these things get pointed out individually, which is why the generalizations should have been sufficient. I'll give you a couple of examples though.

Kevin's most recent example.

Your mode of thinking is too divorced from mine for this conversation to continue. No communication is possible.

Phrasing it thusly sounds arrogant. It would have sounded less like he was "talking from on high" if he had said "I can't explain this to you."

That would make it sound as though Kevin didn't know how to explain his own knowledge. The truth is, he can explain his own knowledge, but only to minds that are open to deeper forms of logical thought. He might have been a bit abrupt in his comment here, but I wouldn't call it arrogant. He was just calling it like it is.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Not a recent one, but your most readily accessible one David:

Although I am not part of any religion, I consider the great wise men of the past to be my spiritual brothers and colleagues - Socrates, Diogenes, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus

Spiritual brothers would be enough to sound arrogant to most people even though, as an example of how Jesus also would have considered you a brother, Jesus considered all of us children of God (thus making all of us brothers or sisters of Jesus). Most people seem to like the hierarchical distinctions, and just calling them brothers would be challenging enough to their established paradigms.

That's a good thing, isn't it? The very notion of not automatically bowing down to these celebraties of the past and treating them as equals is extremely foreign to most people. It's good to throw open all the shutters and let in a bit of fresh light. It can open up all sorts of new horizons in people's minds.

"Collegue" connotates that they consulted you as well as you consulting them. Obviously, there is a timeline barrier to them consulting you - or even each other.

Oh well, we often sup together in the eternal, so we know each other pretty well.

-

David,

Before you head out of this thread forever, I'd like to say a few words. I addressed some questions to you at the bottom of page 3, which Dan did you the favor of answering in page 4. Since Dan made some (quite reasonable) assumptions about your position, it would not be out of place for you to avow or disavow him here, and possibly expand a little if you deem it convenient. For your convenience, I have compiled some of Dan’s answers to the questions aimed at you below:

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.. -- Dan

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. -- Dan

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

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

-

How much pomposity and pretense is on this thread? Why don't you guys just drop the act and have an honest slugging match?

WTF?

That wasn't directed at you Shahrazad.

I know, but next time, make it clear who you are talking to. I assume it's to Robert.

In case you haven't noticed, at least three different conversations are simultaneously unraveling in this thread.

David Quinn wrote:That would make it sound as though Kevin didn't know how to explain his own knowledge.

Correct; at least did not know how to explain his own knowledge to clyde.

David Quinn wrote:The truth is, he can explain his own knowledge, but only to minds that are open to deeper forms of logical thought.

Isn't that rather common? Most people can only explain themselves to people who already think kind of like how they do. I consider it a healthy challenge to try to explain my thinking to people who don't think like me (yet show an interest), and to understand ways of thinking that are not like my own.

David Quinn wrote:He might have been a bit abrupt in his comment here, but I wouldn't call it arrogant. He was just calling it like it is.

The abruptness is part of what leads people to perceive arrogance. You'll notice in Laird's piece, that he used abruptness (unfortunately the abruptness led Trevor to think Laird was advocating suicide, but there have also been some misinterpretations of things you have said as well, such as killing all unenlightened elderly. Yes, Laird's was more extreme, hence parody rather than emulation).

David Quinn wrote:

Elizabeth wrote:Most people seem to like the hierarchical distinctions, and just calling them brothers would be challenging enough to their established paradigms.

That's a good thing, isn't it?

Yes, it is, that's why I prefaced the following with the above statement and clarified that this alone would be "challenging enough" - or in other words, sufficiently phrased to achieve you goal there.

David Quinn wrote:

Elizabeth wrote: "Collegue" connotates that they consulted you as well as you consulting them. Obviously, there is a timeline barrier to them consulting you - or even each other.

Oh well, we often sup together in the eternal, so we know each other pretty well.

:) Although I appreciate this, the unfortunate reality is that you have some worshipers who will believe this literally, and some followers who will believe this figuratively enough that they will consider that you do have some kind of other-worldly 2-way communication with these people. Rescuing these mentally unbalanced followers is the motivating spur for such parodies and jabbings. Because you have set yourself up as a spiritual leader, you are more responsible for how others perceive you than the average person; and because of the path of spiritual leader, you are more responsible for how even the mentally unbalanced perceive you than other groups of leaders or celebrities. You accepted a path of great responsibility and little reward, and you did that with full consciousness of what that meant - but sometimes your awareness requires more reflection.

I appreciate and accept you just as you are. I do recognize that you chose a noble path, and that is why I want to help you rather than just dismiss you.

A hidden truth of your path is that because it comes with little reward, it becomes easy to forget the true magnitude of your power and influence. You must open your eyes to the extent of impact that you have on all of your readers, not just the more promising ones, in order to keep in mind how much responsibility you actually accepted.

Dan Rowden wrote:I may well eventually relent and explain it, but I would simply rather that it came to you in your own time.

I'd be interested to hear it if you do relent. I understand that you find my justification to be the insulting part. So how is it insulting to expose an act as pretentious and nonsensical, thereby giving its actors a chance to reevaluate themselves?

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.

Laird: 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.

David: 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.

Speaking of "weak"...

So now it's language that's oppressive. Yeah, I really feel that lack of freedom that results from being able to communicate myself to other people.

David Quinn wrote: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.

That's essentially what I've been arguing - that humour is about something unexpected happening. I thought of another dynamic for humour too though - sometimes it's the sense of dischord that we feel over untruth. The other day Kev showed me a Ricky Gervais stand-up routine where he comments that he has been raising money for cancer, and then "hears" a question from the audience - "How much did you raise?" - which he "modestly" refuses to answer - and subsequently pretends to hear another question - "Give us a ballpark figure!" - which he answers this time. I was pretty amused, and in part it was because clearly he was lying about the questions coming from the audience and it was that untruth that was funny.

David Quinn wrote: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.

The first problem with that explanation is that relief from boredom is a characteristic dynamic of far more than merely humour, so with this you haven't captured the unique dynamic of humour. Some people experience relief from boredom through horseriding, or through playing video games, or through reading books, or through posting to forums. In other words: you've simply described one purpose of entertainment, not the dynamic of humour.

The second problem is that you don't have to be bored to enjoy humour. Humour can entertain in the middle of an otherwise exciting task. It's more completely descriptive to say that humour entertains us than that it relieves us from boredom, although it certainly can do the latter. In other words: humour is not necessarily releasing us from the oppressive agent of boredom, sometimes it's simply enhancing our momentary enjoyment.

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.

Laird: Oh, expectations are oppressive are they?

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

Expectations can be liberating. It's liberating to expect not to be killed by the first person who becomes irritated with you, as might have been the case in more lawless societies of the past (or perhaps even the present in certain parts of the world). It's liberating to be able to expect a certain standard of healthcare here in Australia. So often with any of the oppression of boredom comes in more than equal measure a sense of freedom.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Kevin's most recent example.

Your mode of thinking is too divorced from mine for this conversation to continue. No communication is possible.

Phrasing it thusly sounds arrogant. It would have sounded less like he was "talking from on high" if he had said "I can't explain this to you."

There's also this recent example:

Dictionaries are a record of definitions currently popular with fools.

I rather liked that aphorism, actually. Very Zen-stickish.

Laird wrote: Laird: "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?

David: 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.

Laird: So now it's language that's oppressive. Yeah, I really feel that lack of freedom that results from being able to communicate myself to other people.

The routineness of language is indeed a form of oppression - usually subtle and subconscious, but still there nonetheless - which is why punning is usually a weak form of humour. The oppression being overturned by the pun is itself relatively weak.

If one is engaging in language routinely in any given moment, then it means that nothing unexpected is occuring in that moment, either in one's mind or in one's personal life.

Laird wrote: David: 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.

Laird: That's essentially what I've been arguing - that humour is about something unexpected happening.

That is one element of it, for sure. But other elements also come into play, most signficantly the role of one's own ego. Sometimes an unexpected happening doesn't generate laughter because the event in question is threatening one's ego - e.g. when one is suddenly surpised by a psychopathic killer. It is only when our egos feel empowered by the unexpected happening that laughter can be triggered.

I thought of another dynamic for humour too though - sometimes it's the sense of dischord that we feel over untruth. The other day Kev showed me a Ricky Gervais stand-up routine where he comments that he has been raising money for cancer, and then "hears" a question from the audience - "How much did you raise?" - which he "modestly" refuses to answer - and subsequently pretends to hear another question - "Give us a ballpark figure!" - which he answers this time. I was pretty amused, and in part it was because clearly he was lying about the questions coming from the audience and it was that untruth that was funny.

I see that as an overthrowing of the oppression exterted by convention. Gervais knows that the dreary, conventional thing to do in such circumstances is adopt an altruistic pose and gravely intone that donating to a cancer charity is a good and virtuous thing. Instead, he throws all that convention out the window and slyly appeals to the principle of self-interest, which all of us subscribe to in one form or another. So in effect, he liberates the audience from the oppression of convention and empowers his listeners by subtly affirming their own selfish values.

Laird wrote: David: 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: The first problem with that explanation is that relief from boredom is a characteristic dynamic of far more than merely humour, so with this you haven't captured the unique dynamic of humour. Some people experience relief from boredom through horseriding, or through playing video games, or through reading books, or through posting to forums. In other words: you've simply described one purpose of entertainment, not the dynamic of humour.

You're only focusing one element of my explanation here and ignoring the rest.

Yes, it is true that relief from boredom can be acheived by means other than humour. But as I've explained, humour has the ability to throw off oppression in any of its forms (at least momentarily) and empower the ego. So while boredom can be thrown off in various other ways, humour can throw off a whole range of different forms of oppression, not just boredom.

Laird: The second problem is that you don't have to be bored to enjoy humour. Humour can entertain in the middle of an otherwise exciting task. It's more completely descriptive to say that humour entertains us than that it relieves us from boredom, although it certainly can do the latter. In other words: humour is not necessarily releasing us from the oppressive agent of boredom, sometimes it's simply enhancing our momentary enjoyment.

Again, my focus with regards to humour was its ability to throw of oppression in general, not just boredom. If a person finds something humorous in the middle of an exciting task, then it means that some other form of oppression is being thrown off, one not generated by boredom (at least not directly).

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

Laird: Expectations can be liberating. It's liberating to expect not to be killed by the first person who becomes irritated with you, as might have been the case in more lawless societies of the past (or perhaps even the present in certain parts of the world). It's liberating to be able to expect a certain standard of healthcare here in Australia. So often with any of the oppression of boredom comes in more than equal measure a sense of freedom.

Yes, if expected events empower the ego, then we will feel more liberated, or at least more secure. The ego is happy to seek empowerment in any direction, whether it be in the expected or the unexpected. It matters not where.

-

Shahrazad,

Dan's responses were fine by me. By "oppression" I do mean any form of ego disempowerment - whether it be from life's normal stresses, from the behaviour of other people, from circumstances, from society's values, from one's own ideas and values, from duality, from ignorance, etc.

DQ: 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.

Sh: You're talking about the normal stress of life. I hesitate to call it oppression. I see it more as the frustration of living. 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. Overall, I'd say I'm a pretty happy person, though I do have my ups and downs, and pretty violent ones.

Are you suggesting that I should let go of humor and become bitter? Why would you want to free a person from their healthy life-coping mechanisms, ones that have taken decades to develop?

Humour is, in effect, a temporary antidote to a disease. If one is suffering from this dissease - e.g. from oppression - then it makes sense to seek relief as much as possible via humour. Even so, I think it is far better to try and get rid of the disease altogether.

If a person doesn't have the strength to do this, then that's fine. It is not their fault. It is the way Nature has made them. So yes, in this instance, I would agree that humour is a necessary coping mechanism.

And as I've mentioned previously, humour is also an important philosophic tool. If a person loses his sense of humour while still remaining deluded, then something is terribly wrong there. It means that he is still battling unresolved issues in his mind and still being taken in by life. We are all rightly suspicious of humourless people; such people have to find other outlets for their relief, and usually they find it through violence. The aspiring philosopher needs humour, along with his reason, to free himself from all the deluded oppressions of life, and should be one of the very last things to let go.

-

David,

If one is suffering from this dissease - e.g. from oppression - then it makes sense to seek relief as much as possible via humour. Even so, I think it is far better to try and get rid of the disease altogether.

You seem to have missed my point that humor is not my only tactic for getting rid of what you call oppression. Another one of my tactics is apathy, but my favorite is making choices that reduce the stress of my daily life. I am reminded how well the latter works when I see my mother struggle with an extremely stressful life, all the time unable to realize that most if not all of her stress is self-imposed.

Your strategy of getting rid of the ego is not necessarily better than mine, considering my goals are different than yours. Sure, if dumping the ego were an easy matter, I'd say why not? But it's very hard to do, as you have been at it for quite a while and you still have it. You might say that my strategy doesn't really get rid of the disease, but I would then say that it does get rid of the symptoms, which renders the disease a non-issue.

-

Kevin Solway as quoted by Laird wrote:Dictionaries are a record of definitions currently popular with fools.

Dan Rowden wrote:I rather liked that aphorism, actually. Very Zen-stickish.

Kevin being your spiritual brother I suppose that it's important for you to support him, but Dan, you do recognise how arrogant this aphorism is coming from him, don't you?

David,

My problem with what you're saying is that to you so much of life can be labelled as "oppressive": boredom, expectation, language, convention; next you'll be telling me that breathing is oppressive. I find this to be a cynical and extremist attitude. It's far too black and white. I'll acknowledge that some of these things can be viewed as having oppressive elements if you really want to push things in that direction, but not that it's their primary characteristic.

What you seem to be saying is that life is oppressive full-stop, and that humour relieves that oppression. I understand your point but I don't think that framing it in terms of oppression is most accurate. I would rather say something like "humour momentarily excites us beyond normal expectations".

In any case, you've come a distance from the original oppression that you canvassed in your first post, where you wrote that "I think it all comes down to our enjoyment of seeing those who oppress us receiving a good kicking." You seem to now have acknowledged that we can't always identify a conscious oppressive agent to be kicked and now you are appealing to more poetic notions of oppressive agents - states of consciousness (boredom, expectation) or routines (language, convention) - which are more poetically "kicked".

David Quinn wrote:I see that as an overthrowing of the oppression exterted by convention. Gervais knows that the dreary, conventional thing to do in such circumstances is adopt an altruistic pose and gravely intone that donating to a cancer charity is a good and virtuous thing. Instead, he throws all that convention out the window and slyly appeals to the principle of self-interest, which all of us subscribe to in one form or another. So in effect, he liberates the audience from the oppression of convention and empowers his listeners by subtly affirming their own selfish values.

I agree with this analysis except that as I indicated above, I wouldn't frame it in terms of oppression.

Laird wrote:

Kevin Solway as quoted by Laird wrote:Dictionaries are a record of definitions currently popular with fools.

Dan Rowden wrote:I rather liked that aphorism, actually. Very Zen-stickish.

Kevin being your spiritual brother I suppose that it's important for you to support him,

Funny, I was disagreeing with you more than supporting Kevin.

but Dan, you do recognise how arrogant this aphorism is coming from him, don't you?

No, but hang on while I look up "arrogant" in the dictionary....

Laird wrote:David,

My problem with what you're saying is that to you so much of life can be labelled as "oppressive": boredom, expectation, language, convention; next you'll be telling me that breathing is oppressive.

The point isn't that these things are necessarily experienced as oppressive, either grossly or subtly, but that they may be and that humour is the indication that they are thus being experienced. Humour is release and empowerment. You'll find one or other or both of these elements in every instance of humour. Or at least, every one I can think of.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Laird wrote:

Kevin Solway as quoted by Laird wrote:Dictionaries are a record of definitions currently popular with fools.

Dan Rowden wrote:I rather liked that aphorism, actually. Very Zen-stickish.

Kevin being your spiritual brother I suppose that it's important for you to support him,

Funny, I was disagreeing with you more than supporting Kevin.

Well in that case please allow me to reword: me being but a deluded fool to your enlightened self I suppose that it's important for you to disagree with me.

Laird: but Dan, you do recognise how arrogant this aphorism is coming from him, don't you?

Dan: No, but hang on while I look up "arrogant" in the dictionary....

Oh, please, do let me save you the trouble. Here's what dictionary.com has to say about "arrogant": "making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.". Now if the common man who recognises dictionary definitions is a "fool", whereas Kevin who makes up his own is not, then he is certainly making a claim to superior importance. That it is a pretension is evident in that his definitions are no better than the typical ones and in many cases are self-serving and inferior.

Laird wrote:Well in that case please allow me to reword: me being but a deluded fool to your enlightened self I suppose that it's important for you to disagree with me.

Ya know, get back to me when you get control of yourself. This basically sums up the Laird that suddenly manifested a little while ago. I don't know where he came from but he can go back as he isn't worth my time.

Dan, if you want to associate yourself with this high-and-mighty game of enlightenment then expect to get called on it. I think that you can do better than that - you're the least dogmatic of the QRS trio and the least likely to make arrogant claims. I don't see why you feel the need to join in the game with David and Kevin. You have what it takes to make it as an "ordinary" man. You're loyal as a friend, you're attractive to women, you're witty, you're supportive, you're intelligent, you seem to be capable of work and from what I can see you're mostly a sensible guy (your involvement in QRS notwithstanding). What's keeping you chained to this self-inflating belief system?

You're loyal as a friend, you're attractive to women, you're witty, you're supportive, you're intelligent, you seem to be capable of work and from what I can see you're mostly a sensible guy (your involvement in QRS notwithstanding).

Oh, no! Now even a man has joined Dan's personal fan club.

J/k, Laird. I know you're straight.

.