Philosophy Now Forum

You know how I love where ideas can lead
Perhaps a new thread can be started if too off-topic
Hey, but you know that already

Lol...sry bout that M!

Would it help to say that Ayn Rand had no sense of humour? Zip. Couldn't cook, either, but that's off topic again, except in that I always got a chuckle in the novels when she'd have the hero "fix hotdogs" or something equally haute cuisine, for his friends. They never, ever told a joke or lounged around the pad toking up and laughing their asses off... so how creative could they have been?

artisticsolution wrote:Lol...sry bout that M!

No worries, AS.
I've been thinking over some of your earlier words/thoughts which I skimmed over. How unreasonable and stupid of me

I seem to have lost any ability I had to 'listen' to other people, or even myself. Here, and in 'real' life.

Earlier:

AS: AND....if she chose to save HER loved one vs. a work of art...then she has betrayed her own philosophy and is as worthless as the paper it is written on.

M: I don't know about Rand; however, isn't it the case that many of us (me!) say that something is important ( like listening/analysing) and don't follow this up in practice?

AS: I was thinking the other day about this thread you created...

M: When I read that, I thought 'Hang on, I haven't created a thread, I simply started one'. A thread takes more than one post/poster ( usually).
I didn't follow my reasoning through; however, my back-burner operated during my headache.
Your comment actually answered my earlier question re:
Eisner first mentions AE as 'a process emerging out of the act itself'; don't quite get this, if something emerges from an act, isn't it a product rather than a process?

So, my single act of starting a thread resulted in a process of combined reading/ thinking/writing; aesthetically buggered by me and worries re 'off-topicness'

AS: I don't get what makes comedy so bad? I don't understand what axiom they base their opinions on...

M: The author of the article argues that aesthetic humour (i.e. great compared to non-aesthetic/mediocre humour) is 'complex, imaginative and thought-provoking' and tends to 'have a significant impact on people who are exposed to it'.

Skip wrote:Would it help to say that Ayn Rand had no sense of humour? Zip. Couldn't cook, either, but that's off topic again, except in that I always got a chuckle in the novels when she'd have the hero "fix hotdogs" or something equally haute cuisine, for his friends. They never, ever told a joke or lounged around the pad toking up and laughing their asses off... so how creative could they have been?

I guess you can bring humour, or lack thereof, into any topic.
Seems like Ayn Rand had difficulties with humour; a non-aesthetic sense? How would that - or her non-funny characters be problematic in creativity?

I have only the briefest knowledge about Ayn Rand. However, I read something yesterday, now where is it...
Ah, yes -

http://facetsofaynrand.com/book/chap3-humor.html

Mary Ann:
Sure. In the late fifties, one afternoon Frank and I went to see Lust for Life, the Vincent Van Gogh movie with Kirk Douglas. And, of course, it included the gory episode of Van Gogh mutilating his ear. When we returned home, Ayn wanted to hear about the movie and especially about Frank’s response. “How was it?” she asked. And Frank said, with a smile, “Well, lend me your ear.” And she said, laughing irresistibly, some words to the effect that it was a gruesome remark. But she couldn’t stop laughing.

Skip earlier:

Someone's use of humour gives you a pretty good measure of their intelligence, their creativity, linguistic facility, mental agility and intellectual scope - all of which will determine how well you communicate.

Rand communicated quite well, didn't she ?
So, using humour isn't necessary for creativity?
But a sense of humour might be? Aesthetic or otherwise?

A brand of non-aesthetic humour leading to significant impact?
An English comedian going deeper.

First off, I am not a great fan of Russel Brand; what I have seen of his previous antics didn't thrill me.
However,...his fame and profile seem to be having benefits, in highlighting important political issues.

Who he is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brand
Russell Edward Brand - (born 4 June 1975) is an English comedian, actor, radio host, and author.


What he is saying:
Russell Brand: we deserve more from our democratic system

Following his appearance on Newsnight, the comedian explains why he believes there are alternatives to our current regime

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -newsnight

Excerpts:

Some people say I'm a hypocrite because I've got money now. When I was poor and I complained about inequality people said I was bitter, now I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want inequality on the agenda because it is a real problem that needs to be addressed.
It's easy to attack me, I'm a right twerp, I'm a junkie and a cheeky monkey, I accept it, but that doesn't detract from the incontrovertible fact that we are living in a time of huge economic disparity and confronting ecological disaster.

When I first got a few quid it was like an anaesthetic that made me forget what was important but now I've woken up. I can't deny that I've done a lot of daft things while I was under the capitalist fugue, some silly telly, soppy scandals, movies better left unmade. I've also become rich. I don't hate rich people; Che Guevara was a rich person. I don't hate anyone, I judge no one, that's not my job, I'm a comedian and my job is to say whatever I like to whoever I want if I'm prepared to take the consequences. Well I am.

...I realised then that our treasured concepts of tribe and nation are not valued by those who govern except when it is to divide us from each other. They don't believe in Britain or America they believe in the dollar and the pound. These are deep and entrenched systemic wrongs that are unaddressed by party politics.
The symptoms of these wrongs are obvious, global and painful. Drone strikes on the innocent, a festering investment for future conflict.
How many combatants are created each time an innocent person in a faraway land is silently ironed out from an Arizona call centre? The reality is we have more in common with the people we're bombing than the people we're bombing them for.

S:"Someone's use of humour gives you a pretty good measure of their intelligence, their creativity, linguistic facility, mental agility and intellectual scope - all of which will determine how well you communicate."
That was in the context of finding a partner. I meant, the kind of humour you share will indicate how well you can communicate with each other.

M: Rand communicated quite well, didn't she ?

That's a matter of perspective. She could put her own ideas on paper - though it was hard work, I understand; she wasn't glib. Well, of course, writing in a second language, as well. That's not what I call communication, though; that's advocacy or exposition - or, less charitably viewed, preachment - all directed outward.
Communication goes two ways. You also have to attend to and understand and reflect upon what the other person is saying, then respond appropriately. That requires not just a lot more mental processing, but a curb on one's own ego.

M: Seems like Ayn Rand had difficulties with humour; a non-aesthetic sense? How would that - or her non-funny characters be problematic in creativity?

Personal opinion, mine, gratuitous. And Koestler's (who used to be one of my literary heroes, until I learned some things about his personal life - usually a mistake with heroes.) They both [Rand and Koestler] smoked like chimneys, like I used to, back when I was creative, but I don't suppose that means any more than being products of the same(ish) era. Oh, crap, wandering off topic again.
Any-hoo - *deep [smoke-free] breath* about humour and creativity. Because humour is all about seeing in stereo, as it were. Juxtaposition and cross-pollination of ideas. *8 Mississippi, 9 Mississippi ... and ... re-lease* (kee-rist, I miss it!)
Laughing at mutilation is caveman-level, 7-year-old humour: non-aesthetic, though it probably confers a momentary sense of superiority. No, that's not fair. I gather she was laughing at the pun, because she recognized the aptness of the Shakespeare quote... However pedestrian as verbal humour goes, it's still an intellectual juxtaposition, and therefore aesthetic humour, and well above slapstick, or glee at seeing another person damaged.

Hi M and thanks!

AS: AND....if she chose to save HER loved one vs. a work of art...then she has betrayed her own philosophy and is as worthless as the paper it is written on.

M: I don't know about Rand; however, isn't it the case that many of us (me!) say that something is important ( like listening/analysing) and don't follow this up in practice?

AS: Yes...we all do this I think....but hypocrisy wasn't the case I was trying to make. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The case I was making is that if we want to create a system that is designed to actually work. then shouldn't we first think about what is actually possible? If most humans are sentimental, then why would one insist a system be adopted which doesn't take that into account? It seems careless/absentminded at best and dishonest at worse.

So, if you thought. for example. that listening/analyzing was important, and then tried to make a system based on the idea that from now on everyone would listen and analyse because it was good for them and/or "the system/world", I would think that was not in keeping with the idea that one should "analyse"....as to truly analyse.... would be to also take the inconvenient truth that humans can't always do this into account. It's not being hypocritical that bothers me...it is the not thinking the whole idea through because of ideology.

Which is why I never understood...if one has an ideology...that it is the greatest offense to say...."I am not taking into account X because I don't like X or that X messes up my Ideological thesis by being true" or some other uncomfortable truth. As if not thinking about X makes X disappear or something? Why not just be honest and say, "Now of course I realize that people are going to be sentimental so my ideology might not work."

For example, A friend of mine worked for a big hotel/casino which was opening here in town. She was in charge of uniforms. So she asked her higher up about how many cocktail waitress uniforms should be maternity. He said "none". She said, "Okay" and didn't order any. The first week they were open she had to order several because some of the cocktail waitresses had gotten pregnant. See...like rand, the guy didn't think about probabilities . He hired beautiful girls who had great shapes. He could either not imagine they would have sex or that the sex they might have might produce a baby. I laughed and said, if he didn't want pregnant cocktail waitresses then he would have been better off telling you to only purchase size XXXX because he was only going to hire fat ugly chicks" (Which even then I think he would still eventually have to buy very large pregnancy uniforms!) lol

Se-X and the consequences happen no matter what. Not thinking about X does not make X disappear.

As with comedy too. Not allowing comedy, or disliking comedy does not mean it isn't going to happen. Even the monks who did not allow for such humanness. I wonder how many of them were laughing on the inside? At least they didn't have to worry about pregnancy monk uniforms so they got THAT working for them.

M: When I read that, I thought 'Hang on, I haven't created a thread, I simply started one'. A thread takes more than one post/poster ( usually).

AS: The 'creation' was an invention from your thoughts...which are a process...no? Even if no one has posted in your thread ?.

M:I didn't follow my reasoning through; however, my back-burner operated during my headache.
Your comment actually answered my earlier question re:
Eisner first mentions AE as 'a process emerging out of the act itself'; don't quite get this, if something emerges from an act, isn't it a product rather than a process?

AS: I guess so however....my thought go to something Michelangelo said,

“In every block of marble I see a statue as plain as though it stood before me, shaped and perfect in attitude and action. I have only to hew away the rough walls that imprison the lovely apparition to reveal it to the other eyes as mine see it.”

So the product was there and then began the act of creating...at least for the artist? No?

AS:

if one has an ideology...that it is the greatest offense to say...."I am not taking into account X because I don't like X or that X messes up my Ideological thesis by being true" or some other uncomfortable truth. As if not thinking about X makes X disappear or something...

As with comedy too. Not allowing comedy, or disliking comedy does not mean it isn't going to happen. Even the monks who did not allow for such humanness. I wonder how many of them were laughing on the inside?

OK, I'll try to relate this to the article in question which isn't an 'ideology' as such, ie it is not a system of beliefs which form the basis of a theory. It 'extends research' and 'proposes an alternative understanding of the distinction between aesthetic and non-aesthetic humour'.

Gordon's view is that ascertaining the motivations and intentions of the performer is not as good an approach in evaluating the aesthetic quality of humour as basing it on the impact it has on the viewer.

According to Gordon, if humour meets only one or even two of his chosen criteria then it ain't aesthetic.
However, he finally admits that each humorous situation is unique and we can't lump them altogether; 'cases of humour vary in the degree in which they are aesthetic'.

His approach is 'not intended as a panacea or final word on the subject'; it simply advances the conversation.

He leaves us with further questions to address, such as how could we measure the extent of aesthetic-ness.
And a fairly obvious one I'd have thought:

Is there a correlation between the degree to which humour is aesthetic and how funny it is?

I think that his approach is too narrow. If a performer's motivations and intentions includes a prompt for people to think more deeply about important issues, provide insight - then how can they be left out of the assessment equation? Simply because they are functional?

I think you said earlier, it is also about performance and the relationship. How can that happen without some knowledge of a comedian and his/her background?

M: Rand communicated quite well, didn't she ?

S: That's a matter of perspective. She could put her own ideas on paper - though it was hard work, I understand; she wasn't glib. Well, of course, writing in a second language, as well. That's not what I call communication, though; that's advocacy or exposition - or, less charitably viewed, preachment - all directed outward.

Communication goes two ways. You also have to attend to and understand and reflect upon what the other person is saying, then respond appropriately. That requires not just a lot more mental processing, but a curb on one's own ego.

M: Yes, communication cn be bloody difficult depending on various factors, including message, method, media, time, place, and person.
Here is an example of Rand in conversation:

ARI
Mary Ann, you must have had many conversations with Miss Rand.
Mary Ann
Many. Some long, some short, on a wide range of topics—from current events to psycho-epistemology to women’s clothing. These conversations came about in different ways. Something I said would lead her to inquire further. Very often, something she had written or lectured about prompted questions from me. Over the years, the same subject was discussed in different contexts—if she had made a new identification or defined a new principle, for example. And there were group discussions, too. So, now—years later—it’s not possible for me to separate the content of most individual conversations from her writings and speeches and other discussions—the knowledge is all integrated. But I do remember highlights of conversations that had special, personal meaning for me, that were focused on my questions and concerns.

http://facetsofaynrand.com/book/chap3-c ... y_ann.html

Skip:
back when I was creative,

M: are you not not creative now?

Sorry M...I got confused. All of my posts have been general ideas/comments regarding the link in your initial post but I think you are talking about the second link you provided. Let me read that one again and get back to you. I am going to California tomorrow (got to pack today) so I might not get back to you until I get settled in the hotel.

marjoramblues wrote: M: are you not not creative now?

Not very. I do the odd painting of nebulae for my SO, but I no longer write (except billets-dures to theists in forums). I'm not sure why: things change.

According to Gordon, if humour meets only one or even two of his chosen criteria then it ain't aesthetic...

His approach is 'not intended as a panacea or final word on the subject'; it simply advances the conversation.

I think he's done that quite well, right here - and how many similar engagements elsewhere? The subject is never going to be exhausted or closed. Which is good, isn't it?

Is there a correlation between the degree to which humour is aesthetic and how funny it is?

Yes, but it's far to idiosyncratic - cultural, temporal, situational and personal criteria vary too widely - to measure.

I think that his approach is too narrow.

Yes, but he had to get some kind of handle on it. When you tackle an enormous subject that's intertwined with other enormous subjects, you have to either start from the general and narrow down toward the particular or start from an arbitrarily chosen point and work outward.

If a performer's motivations and intentions includes a prompt for people to think more deeply about important issues, provide insight - then how can they be left out of the assessment equation? Simply because they are functional?

Motivations and intentions are hard to identify, and get more difficult with each level of complexity. The same goes for function. When you get into modern verbal comedy (or not so modern, for that matter - Shakespeare's or Aristophanes') it will be a challenge to figure out how much of it serves exactly what purpose in its cultural context.
If you are going to do such an analysis, i'd suggest taking one writer's or performer's body of work and correlating it to its context, in terms of socio-economic circumstances and target audience, [presumed] intent and [assessed] effectiveness. Still a tall order, but at least more manageable than tackling a whole genre.

artisticsolution,
Some nutritious mind-food there.

.. if you thought. for example. that listening/analyzing was important, and then tried to make a system based on the idea that from now on everyone would listen and analyse because it was good for them and/or "the system/world", I would think that was not in keeping with the idea that one should "analyse"....as to truly analyse.... would be to also take the inconvenient truth that humans can't always do this into account. It's not being hypocritical that bothers me...it is the not thinking the whole idea through because of ideology.

That's the usual problem with ideologies: they're based on the (very natural) assumption that "If everybody just behaved the way I tell them to, the world will be a better place." And of course, that's true, from each point of view. If you-all were more like me, i'd like you a lot better. Well, yeah. A system of law or governance must be based on a wider understanding of the subjects it's intended to organize. But some dominant points of view usually prevail and there are always dissenting minorities.
In Rand's case, you're right: she was short-sighted and poorly informed. Much of her philosophy was actually emotional backlash against the communist revolution. ... which started as a backlash against the abuses of monarchy.

So she asked her higher up about how many cocktail waitress uniforms should be maternity. He said "none".

My guess: The short-sightedness there was not ignoring the fact of sex, but ignoring the law. He thought he'd be allowed to fire any waitress who ceased to fit the uniform.

artisticsolution wrote:Sorry M...I got confused. All of my posts have been general ideas/comments regarding the link in your initial post but I think you are talking about the second link you provided. Let me read that one again and get back to you. I am going to California tomorrow (got to pack today) so I might not get back to you until I get settled in the hotel.

as, u r not alone
cant tok rt now, have infection, but wnted 2 say - i love all your input, just cant respond 2 all of it.
only had a kwk wee look at the first sep link; is it all accurate? the stoics seem to be given a hard time.

later...

same to skip...lots of stuff to chew over...

ta