The Chronicles of Narnia

Erica,

Good Lord! I like Ed.

I wasn't even trying to put-down Robert. The fact is I have serious disagreements with the typical restrictions on laughter and humor that you find in Objectivism. This came from Rand herself.

I have written about this in several places. Here is one. The context is another discussion, but there are Rand quotes. Here is one I contest from The Art of Fiction:

In sum, humor is a destructive element. If the humor of a literary work is aimed at the evil or the inconsequential—and if the positive is included—then the humor is benevolent and the work completely proper. If the humor is aimed at the positive, at values, the work might be skillful literarily, but it is to be denounced philosophically.

That means about 99% or more of the comedies coming out of Hollywood need to be "denounced philosophically." Gimme a break! Can you see something like The Naked Gun as evil or showing a death premise sense of life because it lampoons typically heroic scenes? I split my sides laughing with that whole series. I think there is a small thing called context here. Humor also depends on setting. In one setting a wisecrack will be hilarious and in another it will be extremely rude. (I have oodles to say about this because I like to laugh.)

The only reason I even mentioned it is that my joking is constantly misunderstood on Objectivist discussion boards (and what's funny is that it is only misunderstood consistently in this kind of venue - everybody else usually gets it). Robert has certainly misunderstood in the past. I don't remember Ed ever misunderstanding. Usually he joins in the banter.

I think it is wonderful you are in love with Ed. He is a good man and deserves a good woman. You certainly have me rooting in the wings for you (for you both).

Michael

Post 101

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 10:05am

MSK:

Aha! I knew you really just an old softie... :-)
Again, forgive me...I'm just (unnecessarily) overprotective, as I said.
Thank you for the warm sentiments about Ed and me.

Erica

Post 102

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 12:11pm

Rand and Humour

Although Rand is correct that certain types of humour are destructive, many kinds, such as puns, non-sequitor, and double entendres, are not. These types of humour are often very subtle and language dependent, such that they don't cross language or cultural boundaries in the way that mockery and slapstick do.

I spent almost a year living with illegal aliens when I worked as a cook at the beginning of the nineties. Although I came to dream in Spanish, and even got to the point where I had to say "How do you say in English..." when speaking to anglophones, I almost never got the jokes on movies I watched with them. Likewise, they never understood my irony. Someone, I forget who, explained to me that except for English speakers (and I would assume, the French) irony was not a common type of humour. I immediately realized that with my Mexican friends (and also with many adult immigrants who are otherwise fluent in English) that this is quite true. I know many Indians and Pakistanis, and those who speak with an accent never get my jokes. Connotations, and thus humour (and curse words) don't translate easily, if at all, as anyone who has ever tried cursing in a foreign language should know.

Is it possible that Rand's dislike of humour was that she didn't always get it? I have always suspected that her dislike of Shakespeare was also perhaps due to her having read him in translation. Does anyone here (especially those who might have met her) have any opinion on this?

Ted

P.S., I am reading Lewis's Screwtape Letters and Hugo's Ninety-Three. I most strongly recommend Lewis's book (a series of correspondence between minor devils on how to tempt humans into perdition) as an excellent satirical fantasy, although you must suspend disbelief and grant him the premise of Christian morality to enjoy it. I have read Hugo before in two translations. The first was unappealing, but for those who can get the edition with Rand's introduction, that edition is fantastic.

Also, I must say that the second of Teresa's two images was quite disturbing, although I will admit to enjoying the art of H.R. Giger of Alien fame. Giger did work-ups for Tolkien and Frank Herbert. I will post them should anyone explain to me how to attach an image to my posts.

MSK- agree entirely
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/07, 12:16pm)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/07, 5:36pm)

Post 103

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 1:13pm

Although Rand is correct that certain types of humour are destructive, many kinds, such as puns, non-sequitor, and double entendres, are not. These types of humour are often very subtle and language dependent, such that they don't cross language or cultural boundaries in the way that mockery and slapstick do.

Rand's attitude toward humor is just a part of a philosophy that is in many ways a psychological disaster. John Hospers claimed that she didn't like Charlie Chaplin at all.

Humor is a pattern interrupt. Humor interrupts a person's current pattern of thinking and takes it into an unexpected pattern. Humor is most effective when you can't predict it. This is why a joke is often only funny the first time you hear it.

My acting coach Van Brooks often stresses that timing is critical in comedy. If you say a funny line a second too late or too early, it may lose a lot of its humor.

Chaplin's comedic genius naturally was in his ability to act with his body and to mix in his actions with music perfectly. He composed all the scores in his films.

Watch the scene in The Great Dictator (his Hitler parody) to see him at work. There is a scene in which he is eating cake and swallowing coins in the cake. That is his genius at work.

Connotations, and thus humour (and curse words) don't translate easily, if at all, as anyone who has ever tried cursing in a foreign language should know.

Often certain unconventional terms don't work. I remember explaining to a Latina about the origin of the term soap opera. This translates to ópera de jabón. They simply call a soap serial. I told her that soaps used to be on the radio, had a lot of music, and were (and still are) sponsored by laundry detergents. I think she got it.

I have always suspected that her dislike of Shakespeare was also perhaps due to her having read him in translation.

That is an interesting theory.

Post 104

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 1:13pm

Thank you Teresa and Ted,
I need you guys around on every discussion. You seem to be better at "dumbing it down" for me.

Ed and Robert,
Thank you for your patience. I tend to get frustrated when I can't grasp things and you guys are usually way way over my head. That's not an insult.

I still don't agree with the general stance that Ed and Robert represent, but I do now feel comfortable with the concepts. I don't think I can even yet fully explain why I don't agree, but I'll keep working that out.

Post 105

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 1:15pm

Ted,
I read the first few pages of Intro to O Epistemology, then re-read them, then re-read them and so on and so forth until I decided I was not ready.

Post 106

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 1:18pm

John D
I enjoy todoinating. bwahahahaha

Post 107

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 2:21pm

Encouragement, or (Keer Pressure)

Deanna,

I didn't want to intimidate you about ITOE, so I didn't explain that I was utterly confused upon my first reading, but please don't think that you are "not ready" for it. I have four bits of advice:

(1) Perception is just what you do when you open your eyes, listen, or observe anything with your senses without using words. Right now you are perceiving a computer screen, your hands as you scroll, perhaps your son's giggles, etc.

(2) Concepts are what you use whenever you resort to words, either aloud or as internal thought.

(3) Try reading the last chapter, (?8) the summary, around page 80 first.

(4) Don't put it off, and don't worry if you feel completely lost on the first reading, just read it through, sleep on it for a week, and read it a second time. I fully got it on my third reading. Like a good movie, you will learn something new each time you read it. If you've ever watched Hitchcock or Kubrick you should know what I mean. Rand herself held that if the barbarians ever burnt all her book that this was the one, not Atlas Shrugged, that she would want to be saved.

There is no substitute for this work in her philosophy, it will be an incalculably (say that 3X fast) invaluable for yourself and in educating your son. I'd even be willing to explain this over the phone if you wish to make the effort.

Ted

If others agree, or can add, please let Deanna know. Time for some peer pressure here. (My college friends called it Keer pressure.)

Love the evil laugh. One of us! One of us! Mwahahahahaha!

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/07, 2:25pm)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/07, 4:39pm)

Post 108

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 2:22pm

I enjoy todoinating.

That sounds like a slang term for using the bathroom.

Post 109

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 2:29pm

Aha! I knew you really just an old softie.

Not all men are softies.

Thank you for the warm sentiments about Ed and me.

And who wouldn't have warm sentiments? It's great that you have found everything you want in life. It's right there in front of you, staring back at you. It makes your heart even warmer and your life richer. You imagine yourself having a joyous future with the perfect person. You create great life. With me, that's what it is all about.

Post 110

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 2:54pm

Now, if I could only convince this woman to go on holiday with me to a warm, tropical island -- where they serve pina' coladas!

[yes; as you may have already surmised: in love with Erica]

<BG>

Gushing with delight over here...

Wonderful news. :)

Post 111

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 5:23pm

Congratulations to Ed and Erica!

What happy news. Enjoy.

Post 112

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 7:43pm

Thanks so much -- Michael, Teresa, and Jon.

At risk of a thread hijack, I would just like you guys to know that both Erica and I happen to think the world of each other. I will say no more here, but your warm congratulations were very much welcomed.

Ed

Post 113

Friday, September 8, 2006 - 9:18am

I think this thread got hijacked long ago, perhaps by me? oopsie!

My congrats to the two of you as well!

Post 114

Friday, September 8, 2006 - 9:34am

Thanks Deanna.

:-)))

Ed

Post 115

Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 3:46am

Ed:

     Aw-w-w-w..............fudge!

     I guess this means that you and I won't be getting into a Doom-3 Death-Match for a while, huh? You obviously being 'busy' 'n' all. Bummer-Crap-Skitoodles! Why'd'ya have ta go and meet...'her'?

     Erica definitely seems cool. Ed, you're lucky I'm not working on collecting a harem (I been looking into this new unofficial/underground 'Mormon' thingy...don't tell my wife) or you'd've had some competition cut out for ya.

     Congrats to both of you...and..."don't let it go."

LLAP
J:D

Post 116

Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 12:27pm

Deanna and Michael SK

Please go here    www.montessori-ami.org/congress/2005sydney/papersd.htm and read Silvia Dubovoy's paper. on      Reality

Maria Montessori was one of Ayn Rand's heroes; and they both disagree with any instilling of fantasy on children before they have constructed enough knowledge to understand the difference between what is utterly fantastic, and what is exotic, but still possible.

Instilling fantasy first, means that the child must unlearn something later. This is a cruelty, that may create emotional dissonance, that prevents the child from focusing on what needs to be learned.

Did you ever read Stephen Leacock's humorous short story, Hoodoo McFiggan's Christmas ?

Were you spared the tears of disappointment, come Christmas morning?

Before my enlightened days, I went to all kinds of conspiracy to keep the spirit of Santa alive, in the heart of my daughter. The year she demanded the truth; was the worst Christmas of her life. She still talks about it, more than 30 years later. I've tried to make amends, but you remember that phrase from King Lear about the serpent's tongue. lol

See how hard life is now that you have to give up your fantasy? Imagine you are a young child with fewer experiences and resources for consoling yourself. You probably need a hug.    (chuckling to myself but feeling melancholic, too)

Sharon

Post 117

Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 2:25pm

Ed and Erica,

Congratulations on finding each other.

All best to you both.

Sharon

Post 118

Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 3:38pm

Sharon,

I only had time to skim the article you linked, but one paragraph jumped out at me. The author was talking about what fantasy is:

There is, of course, an emotional aspect to their disagreement because, for many adults, their most beloved memories from childhood are related to fairy tales told by parents or other adults. We can reassure parents that the same “bonding” that is produced when reading fairy tales can be created with stories based on reality that help the child to make sense of the world around him.

So wait a minute! You mean to say that the harshest critics say that something very good ("most beloved memories" and bonding) can actually be produced by the use of fantasy?

Then they say this needs to be given up? Woah theah hossie! Why? Why not add to it? Is that not an alternative? Why the mind control of denying others something good?

When I look around the world and see the overwhelming majority of people in public places taking delight in fantasies, especially during holidays, then I hear critics say that these fantasies are destructive, I stay with my observations. People even shell out big bucks to the Walt Disney company, and other similar entertainment companies, every year because their fantasies provide an enormous source of joy.

On the other end, there is nothing at all wrong with Montessori's work and everything right. More needs to be done. I agree.

Back on the other end again, I ask, why does Montessori's work have to result in total mind control of the infant regarding fantasy? Why should he be denied Walt Disney and cartoons?

I'll ask it in a different way. Why can't an infant have both reality imagining and fantasy and still be healthy psychologically? The simple answer is: he can. The market and American (and Canadian - and even Brazilian) society are proof of it.

There has been so much discussion about fantasy on this thread that a major point has been missed: how fantasy is used. That has been swept aside.

It is easy as pie to inflict some serious damage on a person with a doll house. That does not mean that doll houses and playing with them are somehow wrong. The wrong thing obviously is the person who uses the doll house as a weapon.

Now I look at your example of your daughter and you say the following:

... I went to all kinds of conspiracy to keep the spirit of Santa alive, in the heart of my daughter.

May I suggest that there was something wrong here and that "something wrong" was not that Santa didn't exist?

One of the most important lessons a parent teaches a child is about himself, since he is the child's primary source of instruction. If a fantasy is taught (as a special exception) in a sense of fun and joy, when the game is up, that also turns into an occasion for more fun and joy and bantering. This kind of parent is sensitive to when his child's fun has turned into serious questioning. His child learns that even when a "joke" is played on him, there is no ill intent and he will be told what he needs to know at a proper time - and that it even will be fun. Strangely enough, he learns to trust his parent more through this process.

If a fantasy is taught specifically to undermine the child's perception of reality (regardless of how well-intentioned the reason may be), with insistence that the child is perceiving things wrongly - and with conspiracies and so forth - once strong resistance arises, IMHO, this is using a fantasy in the same manner as that person who uses a doll house as a bludgeon.

I would bet your daughter's hurt feelings 30 years later have less to do with Santa not existing and more to do with her broken image of you, her wise mother, playing her for a patsy through hell and high water.

Sorry to be so direct, but I think you completely missed out on how fantasy is supposed to be used. Thus you blame fantasy and not your misuse of it - even in light of a world of evidence all around you to the contrary. This kind of pointing at the wrong thing usually comes from pain - and what you mentioned about your daughter must have been very painful on all sides.

(I will stop here because I might be fiddling in something way too personal for comfort. Also, I am speculating only from what you said, so I am sure there are other factors I am not aware of.)

Michael

Post 119

Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 6:26pm