Re: Mind's Eye Re: Humour

I associate UKIP support with lunacy Lee - but one can say much the
same for desires to look after kids! Given councils' failure to spot
kids in trouble like Baby P I'm inclined to think we have the wrong
people doing the work.

On 28 Nov, 09:51, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hahah well that is undoubetly tue, but also money comes into.  TV people
> make their choices on what garners more viewers hence what programs
> advertisers are willing to pay more show their wares in.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 09:38:32 UTC, Allan Heretic wrote:
>
> > Playing to the lowest common denominator is probably the greatest
> > reason of you can give..It shows the mental ability of the those who
> > plan what the public views
> > Allan
>
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Lee Douglas <leerev...@gmail.com<javascript:>>
> > wrote:
> > > Perhap it is just TV playing to the lowest common demominator?
>
> > > On Tuesday, 27 November 2012 02:45:36 UTC, archytas wrote:
>
> > >> Not seen Chris or Charles Don.  Hicks, a few derivative references
> > >> apart, could have been a Brit.  Our cultures are probably less far
> > >> apart than such matters as the absence of footpaths in the States.
> > >> Our serious comedy is mostly political satire from Yes Minister to The
> > >> Thick of It.  What I was wondering was whether any one else feels more
> > >> general film and literature has gone Tragic and plots and characters
> > >> less and less comedic in the old Greek sense.  Our old sitcoms like
> > >> Dads' Army, Steptoe and Son and plenty of others had a great element
> > >> of 'daft people like me and you caught in a plight and muddling
> > >> through'.  Bilko and Top Cat had this too.  A fairly recent French
> > >> fil,m Mario et Jeanette had this.
>
> > >> On 27 Nov, 00:40, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 6:15 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > At other levels I think we should be ridiculing such matters as the
> > >> > > absence of disabled people in politically correct newsrooms and
> > such.
>
> > >> > What about Chris Mathews? budda bump bump
>
> > >> > Charles Krauthammer, in contrast, is a paraplegic but ok from the
> > neck
> > >> > up.
> > >> > Most people don't even know about his disability because it's not
> > >> > relavent.
> > >> > We like his commentary.
>
> > >> > dj
>
> > >> > On Saturday, November 24, 2012 6:15:40 PM UTC-6, archytas wrote:
>
> > >> > > The Brits do more nob gags and used to pack theatres to see a guy
> > play
> > >> > > the trombone with ass-gas- needless to say a Frenchman.  Audience
> > >> > > milking is central to some humour - this tends to put me off, but
> > some
> > >> > > are so good at it I don't notice until afterwards.  US comedy films
> > >> > > are usually dross, but your stand-ups usually great.  My recent
> > >> > > favourite is 'The Pope's Toilet' from Uruguay.  The hero rides a
> > bike
> > >> > > everywhere and his wife describes him as lacking pump for a bicycle
> > >> > > man.  Why do the French smell?  So even the blind can hate them.
> >  Why
> > >> > > would you find an Irishman in the Alps?  Where else would you find
> > a
> > >> > > downhill lake.  Irish jokes are Belgian, Polish and Swedish etc.
>
> > >> > > At other levels I think we should be ridiculing such matters as the
> > >> > > absence of disabled people in politically correct newsrooms and
> > such.
>
> > >> > > On 24 Nov, 21:46, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > Over here, social workers have taken kids off foster parents
> > because
> > >> > > > of their membership of UKIP - a party that shares the desire of
> > 65%
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > the population to leave the EU and restrict immigration.  You
> > have
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > laugh - or cry!
>
> > >> > > > On 24 Nov, 21:38, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > Morecambe and Wise with Mum and Dad at Xmas perhaps.  Laurel
> > and
> > >> > > > > Hardy.  Many other popular comedians are more likely to make me
> > >> > > > > weep.
> > >> > > > > I never liked Chaplin (actually thinking Hitler more of a
> > comedian
> > >> > > > > than 'The Dictator') and we had Cannon and Ball here who hit a
> > >> > > > > nerve I
> > >> > > > > don't like.    I can laugh with some of the ostensibly more
> > >> > > > > vicious
> > >> > > > > types like Bill Hicks and Frankie Boyle.  Police and army
> > culture
> > >> > > > > reveres tough, sadistic humour with self-depreciation thrown
> > in.
>
> > >> > > > > I'm against speech crime but it's also clear not everything
> > goes.
> > >> > > > > I
> > >> > > > > don't agree with the Greek split - it's from Stanford EP -
> > >> > > > > suspecting
> > >> > > > > humour is closely linked with breakthrough thinking (though not
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > same) and unseating the biological trance of hierarchy (The
> > Name
> > >> > > > > of
> > >> > > > > the Rose).
>
> > >> > > > > The SEP article concludes:
>
> > >> > > > > Along with the idealism of tragedy goes elitism. The people who
> > >> > > > > matter
> > >> > > > > in tragedy are kings, queens, and generals. In comedy there are
> > >> > > > > more
> > >> > > > > characters and more kinds of characters, women are more
> > prominent,
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > many protagonists come from lower classes. Everybody counts for
> > >> > > > > one.
> > >> > > > > That shows in the language of comedy, which, unlike the
> > elevated
> > >> > > > > language of tragedy, is common speech. The basic unit in
> > tragedy
> > >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > the individual, in comedy it is the family, group of friends,
> > or
> > >> > > > > bunch
> > >> > > > > of co-workers.
>
> > >> > > > > While tragic heroes are emotionally engaged with their
> > problems,
> > >> > > > > comic
> > >> > > > > protagonists show emotional disengagement. They think, rather
> > than
> > >> > > > > feel, their way through difficulties. By presenting such
> > >> > > > > characters as
> > >> > > > > role models, comedy has implicitly valorized the benefits of
> > humor
> > >> > > > > that are now being empirically verified, such as that it is
> > >> > > > > psychologically and physically healthy, it fosters mental
> > >> > > > > flexibility,
> > >> > > > > and it serves as a social lubricant. With a few exceptions like
> > >> > > > > Aquinas, philosophers have ignored these benefits.
>
> > >> > > > > If philosophers wanted to undo the traditional prejudices
> > against
> > >> > > > > humor, they might consider the affinities between one
> > contemporary
> > >> > > > > genre of comedy—standup comedy—and philosophy itself. There are
> > at
> > >> > > > > least seven. First, standup comedy and philosophy are
> > >> > > > > conversational:
> > >> > > > > like the dialogue format that started with Plato, standup
> > routines
> > >> > > > > are
> > >> > > > > interactive. Second, both reflect on familiar experiences,
> > >> > > > > especially
> > >> > > > > puzzling ones. We wake from a vivid dream, for example, not
> > sure
> > >> > > > > what
> > >> > > > > has happened and what is happening. Third, like philosophers,
> > >> > > > > standup
> > >> > > > > comics often approach puzzling experiences with questions. "If
> > I
> > >> > > > > thought that dream was real, how do I know that I'm not
> > dreaming
> > >> > > > > right
> > >> > > > > now?" The most basic starting point in both philosophy and
> > standup
> > >> > > > > comedy is "X—what's up with that?" Fourth, as they think about
> > >> > > > > familiar experiences, both philosophers and comics step back
> > >> > > > > emotionally from them. Henri Bergson (1911 [1900]) spoke of the
> > >> > > > > "momentary anaesthesia of the heart" in laughter. Emotional
> > >> > > > > disengagement long ago became a meaning of
> > >> > > > > "philosophical"—"rational,
> > >> > > > > sensibly composed, calm, as in a difficult situation." Fifth,
> > >> > > > > philosophers and standup comics think critically. They ask
> > whether
> > >> > > > > familiar ideas make sense, and they refuse to defer to
> > authority
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > tradition. It was for his critical thinking that Socrates was
> > >> > > > > executed. So were cabaret comics in Germany who mocked the
> > Third
> > >> > > > > Reich. Sixth, in thinking critically, philosophers and standup
> > >> > > > > comics
> > >> > > > > pay careful attention to language. Attacking sloppy and
> > illogical
> > >> > > > > uses
> > >> > > > > of words is standard in both, and so is finding exactly the
> > right
> > >> > > > > words to express an idea. Seventh, the pleasure of standup
> > comedy
> > >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > often like the pleasure of doing philosophy. In both we relish
> > new
> > >> > > > > ways of looking at things and delight in surprising thoughts.
> > >> > > > > William
> > >> > > > > James (1979 [1911], 11) said that philosophy "sees the familiar
> > as
> > >> > > > > if
> > >> > > > > it were strange, and the strange as if it were familiar." The
> > same
> > >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > true of standup comedy. Simon Critchley has written that both
> > ask
> > >> > > > > us
> > >> > > > > to "look at things as if you had just landed from another
> > >> > > > > planet" (2002, 1).
>
> > >> > > > > One recent philosopher attuned to the affinity between comedy
> > and
> > >> > > > > philosophy was Bertrand Russell. "The point of philosophy," he
> > >> > > > > said,
> > >> > > > > "is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth
> > >> > > > > stating,
> > >> > > > > and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will
> > believe
> > >> > > > > it" (1918, 53). In the middle of an argument, he once observed,
> > >> > > > > "This
> > >> > > > > seems plainly absurd: but whoever wishes to become a
> > philosopher
> > >> > > > > must
> > >> > > > > learn not to be frightened by absurdities" (2008 [1912], 17).
>
> > >> > > > > I laughed a lot more reading Lyotard's 'Libidinal Economy' -
> > >> > > > > rather as
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--