Heavy Handed
Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (KD et al)
Date: 03 Oct 2004 15:02:10 GMT
--------
Ok, I just read a post that I thought was heavy handed.
Of course, compared to my posts it was light as air.
It got me thinking (always a mistake) and now I'm confused. Is the purpose of
satire, sarcasm et al to be so damn good that it is taken seriously? But if
thats the case then no one would ever get the joke. ( Fuck em if they cant take
a joke, but fuck em also if they can't "get" a joke?) If its more obvious,
then the reader will get "it" but is that the point? Maybe the point is to see
who gets it and who doesn't. Or maybe the point is to see who gets exactly
what and misses what. Or maybe the point is for the writer to sit smugly
behind their computer and proclaim themselves king of the world because they
can ridicule someone WITHOUT ANYONE ELSE KNOWING! Wow, that makes them GOD!
Or maybe the point is to make sure all the "cool" people get the joke and only
the "uncool" people don't. Or maybe the point is for "everyone: to get it in
order to FEED THE NEED for kudos and superiority stars for wit and style. Of
course if everyone gets it, then how superior was it really? Of course, if you
need to feel superior, then whats the fun in writing anything in the first
place? You can always go beat up a smaller monkey for that. Or is that what
writing is?
I DONT UNDERSTAND HUMOR! I'm a simple gal. I need it in black and white.
Please explain this to me in 50 words or less.
I've noticed I write a lot of humor like lead, just to make sure "everyone"
gets it, which makes it sometimes flabergasting when someone takes it
seriously. Apparently I've done a 180 because I used to write so damn obscure
that only myself and a couple hermits perched on top of a tree somewhere would
be laughing.
And then one of the fun things in writing is to blur the lines of reality and
non-reality which is something alt.slack is great for. Especially when a
thread gets so confused to the point that no one has a clue anymore whats real
at all, (if anything ever was), and whats not. This is just going with the
flow I guess.
Of course, the thing with great satire is, its so damn brilliant, its not even
funny.
But then- whats the point?
--
"Just because a gravitational field or a galactic information-network does not
make pee pee or vote the straight Republican ticket [..does not mean..] SHe is
not planful, powerful, and humorously in charge of galactic evolution."
-Timothy Leary
Correspondent:: hellpopehuey@subgenius.com (HellPopeHuey)
Date: 3 Oct 2004 14:56:39 -0700
--------
kdetal@aol.com (KD et al) wrote in message news:<20041003110210.22420.00000123@mb-m06.aol.com>...
> I DONT UNDERSTAND HUMOR! I'm a simple gal. I need it in black and white.
> Please explain this to me in 50 words or less.
Normally, humor is intended to make you pee a little, from the
pee-hole. Its a pleasurable, cathartic release.
In the CotSG, the goal is to make it spout from your nose, ears and
tear ducts. Extra points for any humilation, triple if there is blood
in the urine.
Clear?
--
HellPope Huey
Dobbs accentuates your existing illnesses
until they either kill you or
you learn to make money from them.
"When I found we could have some brains
I was the first in line, cause we were, like
Dragging our knuckles along the ground
Ever since, I've been convinced that every
Sacred thought is mine, and you were still
Dragging your knuckles along the ground
And when they asked us who will lead
I thought it surely must be me
But I stood up too fast
I stood up too fast
Because as soon as I was boss
The next one in line took my head clean off
' cause I stood up too fast"
- Todd Rundgren, "Stood Up"
If God had wanted me otherwise,
He would have created me otherwise.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Correspondent:: "kevbob"
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 21:39:19 -0500
--------
"KD et al" wrote in message
news:20041003110210.22420.00000123@mb-m06.aol.com...
>
> Ok, I just read a post that I thought was heavy handed.
> Of course, compared to my posts it was light as air.
>
> It got me thinking (always a mistake) and now I'm
confused. Is the purpose of
> satire, sarcasm et al to be so damn good that it is taken
seriously? But if
> thats the case then no one would ever get the joke. ( Fuck
em if they cant take
> a joke, but fuck em also if they can't "get" a joke?) If
its more obvious,
> then the reader will get "it" but is that the point? Maybe
the point is to see
> who gets it and who doesn't. Or maybe the point is to see
who gets exactly
> what and misses what. Or maybe the point is for the
writer to sit smugly
> behind their computer and proclaim themselves king of the
world because they
> can ridicule someone WITHOUT ANYONE ELSE KNOWING! Wow,
that makes them GOD!
> Or maybe the point is to make sure all the "cool" people
get the joke and only
> the "uncool" people don't. Or maybe the point is for
"everyone: to get it in
> order to FEED THE NEED for kudos and superiority stars
for wit and style. Of
> course if everyone gets it, then how superior was it
really? Of course, if you
> need to feel superior, then whats the fun in writing
anything in the first
> place? You can always go beat up a smaller monkey for
that. Or is that what
> writing is?
>
> I DONT UNDERSTAND HUMOR! I'm a simple gal. I need it in
black and white.
> Please explain this to me in 50 words or less.
>
> I've noticed I write a lot of humor like lead, just to
make sure "everyone"
> gets it, which makes it sometimes flabergasting when
someone takes it
> seriously. Apparently I've done a 180 because I used to
write so damn obscure
> that only myself and a couple hermits perched on top of a
tree somewhere would
> be laughing.
>
> And then one of the fun things in writing is to blur the
lines of reality and
> non-reality which is something alt.slack is great for.
Especially when a
> thread gets so confused to the point that no one has a
clue anymore whats real
> at all, (if anything ever was), and whats not. This is
just going with the
> flow I guess.
>
> Of course, the thing with great satire is, its so damn
brilliant, its not even
> funny.
> But then- whats the point?
hahaha!
brilliant!
--
i am teh kevbob.
i had ants infest my Bunn.
now i drink instant!
Correspondent:: "Rev. Ivan Stang"
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:02:23 -0400
--------
> I DONT UNDERSTAND HUMOR! I'm a simple gal. I need it in black and white.
> Please explain this to me in 50 words or less.
Laughter is a nervous reaction to seeing the discomfort of others. Not
the only possible reaction, but the one that folks pay extra for.
Is that too ham-fisted? I was trying for heavy-handed.
--
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc.
(4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected, Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com
For SubGenius Biz & Orders: call toll free to 1-888-669-2323
or email: jesus@subgenius.com
PRABOB
Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:01:08 -0700
--------
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:02:23 -0400, "Rev. Ivan Stang"
wrote:
>
>
>> I DONT UNDERSTAND HUMOR! I'm a simple gal. I need it in black and white.
>> Please explain this to me in 50 words or less.
>
>Laughter is a nervous reaction to seeing the discomfort of others. Not
>the only possible reaction, but the one that folks pay extra for.
>
oh speaking of which
I watched the "x-day 98" video last night. I don't know if the
tarring and feathering got a nervous laugh out of me exactly but it
was pretty good theatre.
You have to get some kind of bonus points for being shoved naked into
a pond and jeered by a crowd of subgeniuses and never losing your
cool. I used to freak out when they made me take public showers in
gym class.
Unless you weren't ACTING and you really did lose your cool. And I
missed the joke completely. Or maybe you were ACTING that you really
DID lose your cool and the JOKE was that you were ACTING that you
didn't but you really DID.
ooh that was where I came in, wasn't it?
>Is that too ham-fisted? I was trying for heavy-handed.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Let's all PUMMEL one another like IDIOT RETARDED *CHIMPS*!
Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (KD et al)
Date: 04 Oct 2004 22:42:16 GMT
--------
Stang wrote:
> I DONT UNDERSTAND HUMOR! I'm a simple gal. I need it in black and white.
>> Please explain this to me in 50 words or less.
>Laughter is a nervous reaction to seeing the discomfort of others. Not
>the only possible reaction, but the one that folks pay extra for.
I think I discovered via another post that it is actually trolling that I don't
understand.
(I used to believe and put forth the theory that all humor derived from pain (
stolen from Heinlein) but I don't believe that anymore. I don't think all
laughter is a result of anothers discomfort. I believe there can be life
affirming and joyous laughter that has at its root other causes and other
sources. Of course that is a "belief" so it means nothing.)
>Is that too ham-fisted? I was trying for heavy-handed.
You- ham fisted?
I know you were joking, but I marvel at all on this group who like yourself are
funny in such creative and precise ways that it really lets me see what a gap
there is between above average creative and really skilled creative expertise.
It really is a marvel at times.
I've never been happier to call myself a cretin.
--
"Energy may be likened to the bending of a crossbow; decision, to the releasing
of the trigger." -Sun Tzu
Correspondent:: hellpopehuey@subgenius.com (HellPopeHuey)
Date: 4 Oct 2004 21:40:55 -0700
--------
kdetal@aol.com (KD et al) wrote in message news:<20041004184216.03719.00001306@mb-m26.aol.com>...
>>>> I've never been happier to call myself a cretin.
Well, you're still fairly new. If you're merely "happy" in your
cretinhood of today, you're going to be VIGOROUSLY PISSING with
hysterical DELERIUM after another year or so.
My advice: extra potassium and quinine water so as to avoid cramps
brought on by the constant flushing process. The SubGenius must have
BANANAS. I share because I love.
--
HellPope Huey
I'll just SEE yer Social Disaffection and raise ya
a simmering case of One Day He Just Exploded, Officer.
"If I were to lose my mind right now
and pick up one of you and dash your head against the floor,
right now and kill you, would that be right?"
- Alan Keyes (2004 Illinois Senate Republican candidate)
"I want you to suck my dick like you think the antidote is in it."
- Chris Rock
Correspondent:: "Rev. Simion Simian"
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 01:54:40 +0100
--------
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. HellPopeHuey
sat down and wrote
>Well, you're still fairly new. If you're merely "happy" in your
>cretinhood of today, you're going to be VIGOROUSLY PISSING with
>hysterical DELERIUM after another year or so.
> My advice: extra potassium and quinine water so as to avoid cramps
>brought on by the constant flushing process. The SubGenius must have
>BANANAS.
http://tinyurl.com/3tgwc
--
Rev. Simeon Simian
Correspondent:: "Rev. Simion Simian"
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 01:27:15 +0100
--------
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. KD et al
sat down and wrote
>(I used to believe and put forth the theory that all humor derived from
>pain ( stolen from Heinlein) but I don't believe that anymore. I don't
>think all laughter is a result of anothers discomfort.
Wyndham Lewis said that modern humour is based on seeing another human
being as a machine. I tend to find that's true, even when laughing at
people in a 'friendly' way.
>I believe there can be life affirming and joyous laughter that has at
>its root other causes and other sources.
I agree, but I think it's pretty rare nowadays. I find it difficult to
think of an instance of laughter that isn't tainted by sadism (or
pre-emptive self-deprecation) in some way.
Actually I go along with the quote on the back of The Book to the effect
that the CofSG was about laughing at the fact that nothing is funny any
more. Nenslo is the true master of this art, I say.
--
Rev. Simeon Simian
Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:56:58 -0700
--------
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 01:27:15 +0100, "Rev. Simion Simian"
wrote:
>The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. KD et al
> sat down and wrote
>>(I used to believe and put forth the theory that all humor derived from
>>pain ( stolen from Heinlein) but I don't believe that anymore. I don't
>>think all laughter is a result of anothers discomfort.
>
>Wyndham Lewis said that modern humour is based on seeing another human
>being as a machine. I tend to find that's true, even when laughing at
>people in a 'friendly' way.
>
I think in general we laugh when things turn out differently than we
expected.
Which, really, fits what Lewis is saying.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"I'm not saying it's safe for humans. I'm not saying it's unsafe for
humans. All I'm saying is it that it makes hermaphrodites of frogs."
- Tyrone B. Hayes of the University of California at Berkeley
Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:40:03 -0700
--------
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:56:58 -0700, Zapanaz
wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 01:27:15 +0100, "Rev. Simion Simian"
> wrote:
>
>>The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. KD et al
>> sat down and wrote
>>>(I used to believe and put forth the theory that all humor derived from
>>>pain ( stolen from Heinlein) but I don't believe that anymore. I don't
>>>think all laughter is a result of anothers discomfort.
>>
>>Wyndham Lewis said that modern humour is based on seeing another human
>>being as a machine. I tend to find that's true, even when laughing at
>>people in a 'friendly' way.
>>
>
>I think in general we laugh when things turn out differently than we
>expected.
>
>Which, really, fits what Lewis is saying.
Actually now that I think about that it's full of crap. It sounded
pithy at the time.
It's kind of true, humor is usually some kind of contrast between A
and B where B is unexpected. I think the Lewis thing is closer, about
seeing other people as machines.
Maybe more like humor is what happens when our set of assumptions is
upset, when we see things differently than we expected. When we see
the larger picture and that it upsets the smaller picture.
Oh who gives a fuck. This has been stuck in my head obviously.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Godwin was a NAZI
Correspondent:: hellpopehuey@subgenius.com (HellPopeHuey)
Date: 6 Oct 2004 08:51:02 -0700
--------
"Rev. Simion Simian" wrote in message news:<$DQts9PjvzYBFwph@clara.net>...
> Actually I go along with the quote on the back of The Book to the effect
> that the CofSG was about laughing at the fact that nothing is funny any
> more.
Repeat after me:
"Anger turned inwards is depression; anger turned sideways is
Hawkeye."
Unless anger IS turned sideways, it wins. Too many fuckers around
here keep it too straight-up, but fortunately, not ALL by any means.
This is the main reason no one has taken the Church DOWN by really
crushing several of its main players someone in real life. If you
think nothing is funny anymore, you just need to shift your damn ass
about 15 degrees further off the central plane. Don't worry, it'll
come and leave a gallon of psychic semen on your windshield. Hooray
for turning sideways! Hooray for a full windshield wiper fluid
reservoir! Hooray for Zoidberg! Hooray for crab gleet!
--
HellPope Huey
That's what you get when
your mama smokes during gestation
and then weans you on limes.
I loathe people who keep dogs.
They are cowards who haven't got the guts
to bite people themselves.
- August Strindberg
"And God said:
You are not serving me, you're serving something else
Cause I don't need to be pleased, just get over yourself
You can't suck up to me, I know you all too well
But I don't dwell upon you, so get over yourself
Cause you're not praying to me, you're praying to yourself
And you're not worshipping me you're worshipping yourself
And you will kill in my name and heaven knows what else
When you can't prove I exist so get over yourself."
- Todd Rundgren, "God Said"
Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:56:14 -0700
--------
On 03 Oct 2004 15:02:10 GMT, kdetal@aol.com (KD et al) wrote:
>
>Ok, I just read a post that I thought was heavy handed.
>Of course, compared to my posts it was light as air.
>
>It got me thinking (always a mistake) and now I'm confused. Is the purpose of
>satire, sarcasm et al to be so damn good that it is taken seriously? But if
>thats the case then no one would ever get the joke. ( Fuck em if they cant take
>a joke, but fuck em also if they can't "get" a joke?) If its more obvious,
>then the reader will get "it" but is that the point? Maybe the point is to see
>who gets it and who doesn't. Or maybe the point is to see who gets exactly
>what and misses what. Or maybe the point is for the writer to sit smugly
>behind their computer and proclaim themselves king of the world because they
>can ridicule someone WITHOUT ANYONE ELSE KNOWING! Wow, that makes them GOD!
I have to agree. I am not sure if you are referring to what I think
you're referring to but I can think of a relevant case off the top of
my head.
I know sometimes I try to troll for a particular reaction. A lot of
my troll threads are pretty heavy handed because I make a strong
effort to be convincing. If people can see it's a troll then it
doesn't work. My favorites are ones where I can sound convincing
about something completely absurd, like one time I got a bunch of
Christians arguing seriously because I argued that Jesus was a homo.
It was very heavy-handed but if I just said "Jesus is a fag!" it
wouldn't have gotten any reaction. So some of it does kind of
straddle the border of "performance art" or something.
But sometimes I go too far and am convincing to the point that there's
nothing funny about it anymore. I have to agree, at that point it's
just dumb. Anything I post or anybody posts they do because they like
it or they think it's funny, which is all that really matters, but
posting 200 "jokes that are a joke because they're actually a joke
about people making jokes ABOUT people making jokes" that only I get,
is just mindless IMO.
When I talked to the cops recently about death threats and harrassing
phone calls, one of them referred to the person/s doing it as a "220".
I heard that a number of times, apparently that's a kind of police
slang for a nutcase, especially one who makes harrassing phone calls.
Then recently I read a couple Ann Rule books, and she used that same
slang frequently, both to refer to the nutcases who called her while
she was working on a book or in reaction to it, and to the ones who
called in to the taks forces that were searching for the serial
killers (the green river killer and Ted Bundy). So the thought of
getting a harrassing nut case talking about the mystical meaning of
the number 220 struck me as very funny.
But, as you say, there's not a lot of point if nobody else has a clue
what the joke is.
I was a little chagrined that as many people took it seriously as did
though. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, I've posted enough
serious posts on all kinds of weird mystickkal subjects that there's
kind of a boy who cried wolf rule in there somewhere. And somehow it
was almost sad how easily the subject of the little prank walked into
it.
Given the context of the prank though, I do think his analysis of the
mystical values of the number 220 was pretty funny.
>Or maybe the point is to make sure all the "cool" people get the joke and only
>the "uncool" people don't. Or maybe the point is for "everyone: to get it in
>order to FEED THE NEED for kudos and superiority stars for wit and style. Of
>course if everyone gets it, then how superior was it really? Of course, if you
>need to feel superior, then whats the fun in writing anything in the first
>place? You can always go beat up a smaller monkey for that. Or is that what
>writing is?
>
>I DONT UNDERSTAND HUMOR! I'm a simple gal. I need it in black and white.
>Please explain this to me in 50 words or less.
Oops. That was way more than 50 words.
j'lahn, what is your analysis of the mystical meaning of the number
50?
(duck)
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
So there I was, doing about 80 up the sidewalk, watching the
pedestrians flung off my front bumper like bowling pins, when the
thought occurred to me.
"Joe"; I thought, "this is NO WAY to make friends".
Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (KD et al)
Date: 04 Oct 2004 22:18:51 GMT
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>>Ok, I just read a post that I thought was heavy handed.
>>Of course, compared to my posts it was light as air.
>>
>>It got me thinking (always a mistake) and now I'm confused. Is the purpose
>of
>>satire, sarcasm et al to be so damn good that it is taken seriously? But if
>>thats the case then no one would ever get the joke. ( Fuck em if they cant
>take
>>a joke, but fuck em also if they can't "get" a joke?) If its more obvious,
>>then the reader will get "it" but is that the point? Maybe the point is to
>see
>>who gets it and who doesn't. Or maybe the point is to see who gets exactly
>>what and misses what. Or maybe the point is for the writer to sit smugly
>>behind their computer and proclaim themselves king of the world because they
>>can ridicule someone WITHOUT ANYONE ELSE KNOWING! Wow, that makes them GOD!
>I have to agree. I am not sure if you are referring to what I think
>you're referring to but I can think of a relevant case off the top of
>my head.
>
>I know sometimes I try to troll for a particular reaction. A lot of
>my troll threads are pretty heavy handed because I make a strong
>effort to be convincing. If people can see it's a troll then it
>doesn't work. My favorites are ones where I can sound convincing
>about something completely absurd, like one time I got a bunch of
>Christians arguing seriously because I argued that Jesus was a homo.
>It was very heavy-handed but if I just said "Jesus is a fag!" it
>wouldn't have gotten any reaction.
Suddenly I see the light-I'm confusing trolling somewhat with humor in general.
> So some of it does kind of
>straddle the border of "performance art" or something.
I love that border.
>But sometimes I go too far and am convincing to the point that there's
>nothing funny about it anymore. I have to agree, at that point it's
>just dumb. Anything I post or anybody posts they do because they like
>it or they think it's funny, which is all that really matters, but
>posting 200 "jokes that are a joke because they're actually a joke
>about people making jokes ABOUT people making jokes" that only I get,
>is just mindless IMO.
Man, if I understood this, it might be deep!
>When I talked to the cops recently about death threats and harrassing
>phone calls, one of them referred to the person/s doing it as a "220".
>I heard that a number of times, apparently that's a kind of police
>slang for a nutcase, especially one who makes harrassing phone calls.
>
>Then recently I read a couple Ann Rule books, and she used that same
>slang frequently, both to refer to the nutcases who called her while
>she was working on a book or in reaction to it, and to the ones who
>called in to the taks forces that were searching for the serial
>killers (the green river killer and Ted Bundy). So the thought of
>getting a harrassing nut case talking about the mystical meaning of
>the number 220 struck me as very funny.
I never heard that before and find it hilarious. You know what Liber the Book
of the Law is, right?
>But, as you say, there's not a lot of point if nobody else has a clue
>what the joke is.
Right. And it can be sad, too, as you point out below.
>I was a little chagrined that as many people took it seriously as did
>though. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, I've posted enough
>serious posts on all kinds of weird mystickkal subjects that there's
>kind of a boy who cried wolf rule in there somewhere.
Thats where I like to play with the line too though, so I understand what
you're doing. I can talk serious or absolutely riducule the exact same thing.
Which am I really? Do I even know? Heh
And somehow it
>was almost sad how easily the subject of the little prank walked into
>it.
I think we will all walk into pranks that happen to hit our particular myopia
buttons. I mean you can't be absolutely unserious about absolutely everything.
(Or maybe you can.)
>Given the context of the prank though, I do think his analysis of the
>mystical values of the number 220 was pretty funny.
The funny thing ( to me) is that I can do the same thing with anything, as I
know you can, with gematria, qabala etc. but we might be aware that the results
can be placed in many different contexts, depending on which belief we chose to
hold at that moment, ranging from: its all bullshit, to wow this seems eerily
synchronistic or coincidental, to hmm interesting but who cares, to well here
are the results but I hold no opinion as to whether they have value, to here
are the results I am going to choose to interpret them this way because it
helps me find meaning in life, to, of course, I AM KING AND GOD IS SPEAKING
DIRECTLY TO ME THROUGH NUMBERS, or what have you.
I tend to view people as stuck or not. People become fixated on something and
there goes their whole personal evolution. Might as well have gone to Baptist
Church your whole life for all the good it does.
But you know, I give Kudos to anyone that at least tried something besides the
Baptist Church and that kind of ilk. Resulting in Crazy or not, at least there
was a moment in their life where they had the strength and the wherewithall to
look beyond what everyone around them was telling them to do.
And having the experience of lifelong learning myself, I know how easy it is to
get off track; what a hard path any kind of self-evolutionary one is; I would
probably empathize and find it very, very sad, if I didn't see peoples shit in
the way and have no sympathy for personality machinations.
>>Or maybe the point is to make sure all the "cool" people get the joke and
>only
>>the "uncool" people don't. Or maybe the point is for "everyone: to get it
>in
>>order to FEED THE NEED for kudos and superiority stars for wit and style.
>Of
>>course if everyone gets it, then how superior was it really? Of course, if
>you
>>need to feel superior, then whats the fun in writing anything in the first
>>place? You can always go beat up a smaller monkey for that. Or is that what
>>writing is?
>>
>>I DONT UNDERSTAND HUMOR! I'm a simple gal. I need it in black and white.
>>Please explain this to me in 50 words or less.
>Oops. That was way more than 50 words.
Rants exempt!
--
"Energy may be likened to the bending of a crossbow; decision, to the releasing
of the trigger." -Sun Tzu
Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 22:12:37 -0700
--------
kdetal@aol.com (KD et al) wrote in message
news:<20041004181851.03719.00001304@mb-m26.aol.com>...
> Zapanaz wrote:
>
> >>Ok, I just read a post that I thought was heavy handed.
> >>Of course, compared to my posts it was light as air.
> >>
> >>It got me thinking (always a mistake) and now I'm confused. Is the purpose
> of
> >>satire, sarcasm et al to be so damn good that it is taken seriously? But if
> >>thats the case then no one would ever get the joke. ( Fuck em if they cant
> take
> >>a joke, but fuck em also if they can't "get" a joke?) If its more obvious,
> >>then the reader will get "it" but is that the point? Maybe the point is to
> see
> >>who gets it and who doesn't. Or maybe the point is to see who gets exactly
> >>what and misses what. Or maybe the point is for the writer to sit smugly
> >>behind their computer and proclaim themselves king of the world because they
> >>can ridicule someone WITHOUT ANYONE ELSE KNOWING! Wow, that makes them GOD!
>
>
> >I have to agree. I am not sure if you are referring to what I think
> >you're referring to but I can think of a relevant case off the top of
> >my head.
> >
> >I know sometimes I try to troll for a particular reaction. A lot of
> >my troll threads are pretty heavy handed because I make a strong
> >effort to be convincing. If people can see it's a troll then it
> >doesn't work. My favorites are ones where I can sound convincing
> >about something completely absurd, like one time I got a bunch of
> >Christians arguing seriously because I argued that Jesus was a homo.
> >It was very heavy-handed but if I just said "Jesus is a fag!" it
> >wouldn't have gotten any reaction.
>
> Suddenly I see the light-I'm confusing trolling somewhat with humor in general.
>
Well if trolling isn't funny it's just a social disease. Months ago
this group was getting inundated with hundreds and hundreds of trolly
posts that the only point of them was that BYGOD they were posting
them so I bet that taught US a lesson or something! Nobody AFAIK had
the foggiest idea who was teaching who a lesson about what. Or the
Jason Christie Avengers; much the same thing.
A troll has to be subtle to some extent tho just to work.
> > So some of it does kind of
> >straddle the border of "performance art" or something.
>
> I love that border.
>
God I -live- there. For better or worse.
My own tastes and sense of humor or whatever you call it have always
been on that edge.
I hate the phrase “performance art”. When I hear it, I reach for my
pistol. It always evokes for me a mental image of a skinny arTEEST
who does a ... a 'stage concept' where he gets on stage, takes a crap
onstage, and makes international headlines as the teary-eyed liberal
pudding heads cry 'how DARE -WE- judge what is ART!?' 'Crap-on-stage
is a ... a STATEMENT ... uh about the ... uh how DARE we judge!?' I
mean
GOD, how PATRIARCHAL.
Or something.
I should watch myself though, 'crap-on-stage' would probably go over
well with Subgeniuses :^)
But to me things that sit on the line between real and art are always
the best. I suppose if you work a love of magic in there you know
anything you would ever want to know about me.
I suppose that's what attracted me to all the Subgenius crap. I mean
you can go on one side of that line or the other and it is what it is.
And you can decide not to decide; you can be ambiguous about what is
real and what isn't. And that is what it is. But you can push it
... you can AIM AT the line. You can work at destroying the referents
that allow people to decide which side of the line they want to be on.
And that is no longer “is what it is”. Then something completely
different comes out ... something you've never seen before.
I suppose this is something which has been much on my mind lately. I
watched a whole stack of Subgenius videos ... I meant to do some kind
of review I guess. Because they push that line, it's very hard to
categorize them or say a damned thing.
Like in the video from July 5th, 1998, the original “x-day”. 7 am,
they pass out kool-aid. And some of the people in the audience are
looking at the koolaid ... looking KINDA WORRIED.
Artists and performance artists talk about erasing the line between
the actors and the audience constantly, but it tends to remain talk.
But loony Subgeniuses, pushing that line, do it whether they like it
or not.
There's another scene where Legume has a line of people, lined up,
kneeling. Jesus is pacing back and forth in front of them, furious
and fanatical looking. Then he points one of them out ... and BANG
Legume shoots him in the back of the head and he falls. It is totally
fucking chilling. Other than Legume, Jesus and the people they lined
up, probably nobody at that X-day were ABSOLUTELY SURE that it was
just an act. (Come to think of it, I'm still not absolutely sure
myself.)
It's not like HAHAHAHA THAT'S SO FUNNY. Funny isn't exactly the word.
It is brilliant though.
>
> >But sometimes I go too far and am convincing to the point that there's
> >nothing funny about it anymore. I have to agree, at that point it's
> >just dumb. Anything I post or anybody posts they do because they like
> >it or they think it's funny, which is all that really matters, but
> >posting 200 "jokes that are a joke because they're actually a joke
> >about people making jokes ABOUT people making jokes" that only I get,
> >is just mindless IMO.
>
> Man, if I understood this, it might be deep!
>
Exactly.
> >When I talked to the cops recently about death threats and harassing
> >phone calls, one of them referred to the person/s doing it as a "220".
> >I heard that a number of times, apparently that's a kind of police
> >slang for a nutcase, especially one who makes harassing phone calls.
> >
> >Then recently I read a couple Ann Rule books, and she used that same
> >slang frequently, both to refer to the nutcases who called her while
> >she was working on a book or in reaction to it, and to the ones who
> >called in to the task forces that were searching for the serial
> >killers (the green river killer and Ted Bundy). So the thought of
> >getting a harassing nut case talking about the mystical meaning of
> >the number 220 struck me as very funny.
>
> I never heard that before and find it hilarious. You know what Liber the Book
> of the Law is, right?
>
lol. I did but I didn't make that connection until you pointed it
out.
Then having Bob Dean chime in and say “hey, you're horning in on MY
territory!” lol
Fuck it, you and I might be the only ones who even know it -was- a
joke, but I don't care. It was funny.
> >But, as you say, there's not a lot of point if nobody else has a clue
> >what the joke is.
>
> Right. And it can be sad, too, as you point out below.
>
> >I was a little chagrined that as many people took it seriously as did
> >though. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, I've posted enough
> >serious posts on all kinds of weird mystickkal subjects that there's
> >kind of a boy who cried wolf rule in there somewhere.
>
> Thats where I like to play with the line too though, so I understand what
> you're doing. I can talk serious or absolutely ridicule the exact same thing.
> Which am I really? Do I even know? Heh
>
> And somehow it
> >was almost sad how easily the subject of the little prank walked into
> >it.
>
> I think we will all walk into pranks that happen to hit our particular myopia
> buttons. I mean you can't be absolutely unserious about absolutely everything.
> (Or maybe you can.)
>
At a certain point you -are- the joke ... or the prank or the magic.
I mean not in a mystical ALL IS ONE way but just that there comes a
point where the line between you and it is lost and you are living it
rather than watching it.
> >Given the context of the prank though, I do think his analysis of the
> >mystical values of the number 220 was pretty funny.
>
> The funny thing ( to me) is that I can do the same thing with anything, as I
> know you can, with gematria, qabala etc. but we might be aware that the results
> can be placed in many different contexts, depending on which belief we chose to
> hold at that moment, ranging from: its all bullshit, to wow this seems eerily
> synchronistic or coincidental, to hmm interesting but who cares, to well here
> are the results but I hold no opinion as to whether they have value, to here
> are the results I am going to choose to interpret them this way because it
> helps me find meaning in life, to, of course, I AM KING AND GOD IS SPEAKING
> DIRECTLY TO ME THROUGH NUMBERS, or what have you.
>
Just because something is absurd doesn't mean that isn't the way
things really are.
To me magic is inherently absurd. I think I probably stay permanently
in the “here are the results but I have no opinion about them” mode.
Somehow this has been much on my mind lately.
Reading about serial killers started this. Reading in detail about
the investigation, it seemed clear to me that one big problem they
had, especially with Ridgway, was that they know so -much- about
serial killers, and when Ridgway varied in even a few minor ways from
the classic profile, they rejected him completely. (Well, there's
more to it than that, but that's at least a part of it)
It's like the proverb about the three blind men and the elephant.
If you don't know it; three blind men are trying to describe an
elephant. One of them grabs the elephant's tail and says “an elephant
is like a piece of rope”. Another grabs the elephant's trunk and says
“no, an elephant is like a big snake”. The other one feels the
elephant's leg and says “no, an elephant is like a tree trunk”. Then
I guess there should be a Subgenius blind man who sticks his head up
the elephant's ass or something and says “no, an elephant is warm and
snug fitting”. Just so there will be at least one point in here where
this post is on topic.
Probably they were trying to make a statement about god originally,
and that different people could perceive god in different ways (and
it's a shame that all the jews and muslims and christians couldn't
have thought about that a bit more ... but that THAT go ...) but it's
a pretty good way of looking at how people perceive and think in
general.
What they are trying to say is that a blind man can perceive these
seemingly disconnected things and fail to realize that they are part
of a greater whole. The wise man, then, one guesses, they are saying,
realizes that there can be this greater, unseen thing behind it.
Which is a very clever and wise observation, in it's way. In fact all
of what we do is like that, we take disparate things, draw relations
between them based on experience and education, and then 'solve' what
the thing they represent must be. Whether it's the behavior patterns
of a serial killer, spooky gematria relations, or just looking at the
clouds and thinking “I think it's going to rain” it's the same kind of
thing.
But then what happens when you find an elephant whose tail fell off?
Or got eaten by a lion or whatever.
The wise man fucks up. If he's consistent, first he decides this is
not an elephant (just as the cops decided Gary Ridgway was not a
serial killer because he mismatched some of the characteristics).
And if he realizes his mistake, then what? He thinks “there's
something WRONG with this elephant”.
At which point, he's lost track of what's in his head and what's real.
What was wrong was in his system of classification, not in the
elephant. No two elephants are identical. “Elephant” is just a word
we invented to refer to some similar things. The thing behind the
disparate events is never a 'thing' and it's never the platonic
archetype we imagine. There is no elephant. Panta rei.
It takes practice not to go there; to stop with what one knows and
doesn't know and just leave it. Like with Ridgway, to just think
“here's what we know, we have a serial killer, we know this is
somebody who likes to kill, here are some common characteristics of
serial killers so this is -likely- to be things we will find in the
killer” and not invent an archetypal 'ideal serial killer' ... and go
hunting for HIM.
With magic it is, if anything, more difficult to just stop. You look
at things through the lens of numerology or whatever and patterns
emerge. The patterns very much -do- seem to imply some elephant
behind the scenes. But unlike the cops looking for a killer, you will
-never- know what that elephant is. Period. Never.
Inevitably magicians come up with something though. Aiwass or the
Invisible Secret Masters or the Mytickkal Jesus or Ramtha or
something. And their little invisible buddy will tell them anything
they want to hear and thus reinforce the magician's belief in it's
objective reality.
And at that point, they've jumped the shark. It's now a religion.
Magic is fundamentally absurd. It's all about unseen connections, and
so it's absurd by definition, surreal by definition. It's -funny- by
definition. I've never understood how people could find it anything
but funny.
It's great because it makes no sense.
> I tend to view people as stuck or not. People become fixated on something and
> there goes their whole personal evolution. Might as well have gone to Baptist
> Church your whole life for all the good it does.
>
Even there ... then you get someone like Vertigo, or Hellpope Huey,
who are at least to some extent near the 'Baptist Church' route, who
aren't blinkered.
> But you know, I give Kudos to anyone that at least tried something besides the
> Baptist Church and that kind of ilk. Resulting in Crazy or not, at least there
> was a moment in their life where they had the strength and the wherewithal to
> look beyond what everyone around them was telling them to do.
>
> And having the experience of lifelong learning myself, I know how easy it is to
> get off track; what a hard path any kind of self-evolutionary one is; I would
> probably empathize and find it very, very sad, if I didn't see peoples shit in
> the way and have no sympathy for personality machinations.
>
Yeah I spent time with some people recently who I find very
depressing.
Alls I can say, really, is I just can't have people like that in my
life. As a result there's almost nobody in my life, which sounds like
pathos, but fuck it, I am really happy in a way other people don't
really seem to be.
>
> >>Or maybe the point is to make sure all the "cool" people get the joke and
> only
> >>the "uncool" people don't. Or maybe the point is for "everyone: to get it
> in
> >>order to FEED THE NEED for kudos and superiority stars for wit and style.
> Of
> >>course if everyone gets it, then how superior was it really? Of course, if
> you
> >>need to feel superior, then whats the fun in writing anything in the first
> >>place? You can always go beat up a smaller monkey for that. Or is that what
> >>writing is?
> >>
> >>I DONT UNDERSTAND HUMOR! I'm a simple gal. I need it in black and white.
> >>Please explain this to me in 50 words or less.
>
> >Oops. That was way more than 50 words.
>
> Rants exempt!
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come
and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell
you.
- Jack Handey
Correspondent:: "Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello"
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 05:37:14 GMT
--------
"Zapanaz" wrote in message
news:06hhm09dkvles9q7h4gceetqgrm27v5qlq@4ax.com...
> kdetal@aol.com (KD et al) wrote in message
> news:<20041004181851.03719.00001304@mb-m26.aol.com>...
>> Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>> >>Ok, I just read a post that I thought was heavy handed.
>> >>Of course, compared to my posts it was light as air.
>> >>
>> >>It got me thinking (always a mistake) and now I'm confused. Is the
>> >>purpose
>> of
>> >>satire, sarcasm et al to be so damn good that it is taken seriously?
>> >>But if
>> >>thats the case then no one would ever get the joke. ( Fuck em if they
>> >>cant
>> take
>> >>a joke,
Ann Coulter certainly IS NOT a HUMAN female.
>> >>but fuck em also if they can't "get" a joke?) If its more obvious,
>> >>then the reader will get "it" but is that the point? Maybe the point is
>> >>to
>> see
>> >>who gets it and who doesn't. Or maybe the point is to see who gets
>> >>exactly
>> >>what and misses what. Or maybe the point is for the writer to sit
>> >>smugly
>> >>behind their computer and proclaim themselves king of the world because
>> >>they
>> >>can ridicule someone WITHOUT ANYONE ELSE KNOWING! Wow, that makes them
>> >>GOD!
>>
>>
>> >I have to agree. I am not sure if you are referring to what I think
>> >you're referring to but I can think of a relevant case off the top of
>> >my head.
>> >
>> >I know sometimes I try to troll for a particular reaction. A lot of
>> >my troll threads are pretty heavy handed because I make a strong
>> >effort to be convincing. If people can see it's a troll then it
>> >doesn't work. My favorites are ones where I can sound convincing
>> >about something completely absurd, like one time I got a bunch of
>> >Christians arguing seriously because I argued that Jesus was a homo.
>> >It was very heavy-handed but if I just said "Jesus is a fag!" it
>> >wouldn't have gotten any reaction.
>>
>> Suddenly I see the light-I'm confusing trolling somewhat with humor in
>> general.
>>
>
> Well if trolling isn't funny it's just a social disease. Months ago
> this group was getting inundated with hundreds and hundreds of trolly
> posts that the only point of them was that BYGOD they were posting
> them so I bet that taught US a lesson or something! Nobody AFAIK had
> the foggiest idea who was teaching who a lesson about what. Or the
> Jason Christie Avengers; much the same thing.
>
> A troll has to be subtle to some extent tho just to work.
>
>> > So some of it does kind of
>> >straddle the border of "performance art" or something.
>>
>> I love that border.
>>
>
> God I -live- there. For better or worse.
>
> My own tastes and sense of humor or whatever you call it have always
> been on that edge.
>
> I hate the phrase "performance art". When I hear it, I reach for my
> pistol. It always evokes for me a mental image of a skinny arTEEST
> who does a ... a 'stage concept' where he gets on stage, takes a crap
> onstage, and makes international headlines as the teary-eyed liberal
> pudding heads cry 'how DARE -WE- judge what is ART!?' 'Crap-on-stage
> is a ... a STATEMENT ... uh about the ... uh how DARE we judge!?' I
> mean
> GOD, how PATRIARCHAL.
>
> Or something.
>
> I should watch myself though, 'crap-on-stage' would probably go over
> well with Subgeniuses :^)
>
> But to me things that sit on the line between real and art are always
> the best. I suppose if you work a love of magic in there you know
> anything you would ever want to know about me.
>
> I suppose that's what attracted me to all the Subgenius crap. I mean
> you can go on one side of that line or the other and it is what it is.
> And you can decide not to decide; you can be ambiguous about what is
> real and what isn't. And that is what it is. But you can push it
> ... you can AIM AT the line. You can work at destroying the referents
> that allow people to decide which side of the line they want to be on.
> And that is no longer "is what it is". Then something completely
> different comes out ... something you've never seen before.
>
> I suppose this is something which has been much on my mind lately. I
> watched a whole stack of Subgenius videos ... I meant to do some kind
> of review I guess. Because they push that line, it's very hard to
> categorize them or say a damned thing.
>
> Like in the video from July 5th, 1998, the original "x-day". 7 am,
> they pass out kool-aid. And some of the people in the audience are
> looking at the koolaid ... looking KINDA WORRIED.
>
> Artists and performance artists talk about erasing the line between
> the actors and the audience constantly, but it tends to remain talk.
> But loony Subgeniuses, pushing that line, do it whether they like it
> or not.
>
> There's another scene where Legume has a line of people, lined up,
> kneeling. Jesus is pacing back and forth in front of them, furious
> and fanatical looking. Then he points one of them out ... and BANG
> Legume shoots him in the back of the head and he falls. It is totally
> fucking chilling. Other than Legume, Jesus and the people they lined
> up, probably nobody at that X-day were ABSOLUTELY SURE that it was
> just an act. (Come to think of it, I'm still not absolutely sure
> myself.)
>
> It's not like HAHAHAHA THAT'S SO FUNNY. Funny isn't exactly the word.
> It is brilliant though.
>
>>
>> >But sometimes I go too far and am convincing to the point that there's
>> >nothing funny about it anymore. I have to agree, at that point it's
>> >just dumb. Anything I post or anybody posts they do because they like
>> >it or they think it's funny, which is all that really matters, but
>> >posting 200 "jokes that are a joke because they're actually a joke
>> >about people making jokes ABOUT people making jokes" that only I get,
>> >is just mindless IMO.
>>
>> Man, if I understood this, it might be deep!
>>
>
> Exactly.
>
>> >When I talked to the cops recently about death threats and harassing
>> >phone calls, one of them referred to the person/s doing it as a "220".
>> >I heard that a number of times, apparently that's a kind of police
>> >slang for a nutcase, especially one who makes harassing phone calls.
>> >
>> >Then recently I read a couple Ann Rule books, and she used that same
>> >slang frequently, both to refer to the nutcases who called her while
>> >she was working on a book or in reaction to it, and to the ones who
>> >called in to the task forces that were searching for the serial
>> >killers (the green river killer and Ted Bundy). So the thought of
>> >getting a harassing nut case talking about the mystical meaning of
>> >the number 220 struck me as very funny.
>>
>> I never heard that before and find it hilarious. You know what Liber the
>> Book
>> of the Law is, right?
>>
>
> lol. I did but I didn't make that connection until you pointed it
> out.
>
> Then having Bob Dean chime in and say "hey, you're horning in on MY
> territory!" lol
>
> Fuck it, you and I might be the only ones who even know it -was- a
> joke, but I don't care. It was funny.
>
>> >But, as you say, there's not a lot of point if nobody else has a clue
>> >what the joke is.
>>
>> Right. And it can be sad, too, as you point out below.
>>
>> >I was a little chagrined that as many people took it seriously as did
>> >though. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, I've posted enough
>> >serious posts on all kinds of weird mystickkal subjects that there's
>> >kind of a boy who cried wolf rule in there somewhere.
>>
>> Thats where I like to play with the line too though, so I understand what
>> you're doing. I can talk serious or absolutely ridicule the exact same
>> thing.
>> Which am I really? Do I even know? Heh
>>
>> And somehow it
>> >was almost sad how easily the subject of the little prank walked into
>> >it.
>>
>> I think we will all walk into pranks that happen to hit our particular
>> myopia
>> buttons. I mean you can't be absolutely unserious about absolutely
>> everything.
>> (Or maybe you can.)
>>
>
> At a certain point you -are- the joke ... or the prank or the magic.
> I mean not in a mystical ALL IS ONE way but just that there comes a
> point where the line between you and it is lost and you are living it
> rather than watching it.
>
>> >Given the context of the prank though, I do think his analysis of the
>> >mystical values of the number 220 was pretty funny.
>>
>> The funny thing ( to me) is that I can do the same thing with anything,
>> as I
>> know you can, with gematria, qabala etc. but we might be aware that the
>> results
>> can be placed in many different contexts, depending on which belief we
>> chose to
>> hold at that moment, ranging from: its all bullshit, to wow this seems
>> eerily
>> synchronistic or coincidental, to hmm interesting but who cares, to well
>> here
>> are the results but I hold no opinion as to whether they have value, to
>> here
>> are the results I am going to choose to interpret them this way because
>> it
>> helps me find meaning in life, to, of course, I AM KING AND GOD IS
>> SPEAKING
>> DIRECTLY TO ME THROUGH NUMBERS, or what have you.
>>
>
> Just because something is absurd doesn't mean that isn't the way
> things really are.
>
> To me magic is inherently absurd. I think I probably stay permanently
> in the "here are the results but I have no opinion about them" mode.
>
> Somehow this has been much on my mind lately.
>
> Reading about serial killers started this. Reading in detail about
> the investigation, it seemed clear to me that one big problem they
> had, especially with Ridgway, was that they know so -much- about
> serial killers, and when Ridgway varied in even a few minor ways from
> the classic profile, they rejected him completely. (Well, there's
> more to it than that, but that's at least a part of it)
>
> It's like the proverb about the three blind men and the elephant.
>
> If you don't know it; three blind men are trying to describe an
> elephant. One of them grabs the elephant's tail and says "an elephant
> is like a piece of rope". Another grabs the elephant's trunk and says
> "no, an elephant is like a big snake". The other one feels the
> elephant's leg and says "no, an elephant is like a tree trunk". Then
> I guess there should be a Subgenius blind man who sticks his head up
> the elephant's ass or something and says "no, an elephant is warm and
> snug fitting". Just so there will be at least one point in here where
> this post is on topic.
>
> Probably they were trying to make a statement about god originally,
> and that different people could perceive god in different ways (and
> it's a shame that all the jews and muslims and christians couldn't
> have thought about that a bit more ... but that THAT go ...) but it's
> a pretty good way of looking at how people perceive and think in
> general.
>
> What they are trying to say is that a blind man can perceive these
> seemingly disconnected things and fail to realize that they are part
> of a greater whole. The wise man, then, one guesses, they are saying,
> realizes that there can be this greater, unseen thing behind it.
>
> Which is a very clever and wise observation, in it's way. In fact all
> of what we do is like that, we take disparate things, draw relations
> between them based on experience and education, and then 'solve' what
> the thing they represent must be. Whether it's the behavior patterns
> of a serial killer, spooky gematria relations, or just looking at the
> clouds and thinking "I think it's going to rain" it's the same kind of
> thing.
>
> But then what happens when you find an elephant whose tail fell off?
> Or got eaten by a lion or whatever.
>
> The wise man fucks up. If he's consistent, first he decides this is
> not an elephant (just as the cops decided Gary Ridgway was not a
> serial killer because he mismatched some of the characteristics).
>
> And if he realizes his mistake, then what? He thinks "there's
> something WRONG with this elephant".
>
>
> At which point, he's lost track of what's in his head and what's real.
> What was wrong was in his system of classification, not in the
> elephant. No two elephants are identical. "Elephant" is just a word
> we invented to refer to some similar things. The thing behind the
> disparate events is never a 'thing' and it's never the platonic
> archetype we imagine. There is no elephant. Panta rei.
>
>
> It takes practice not to go there; to stop with what one knows and
> doesn't know and just leave it. Like with Ridgway, to just think
> "here's what we know, we have a serial killer, we know this is
> somebody who likes to kill, here are some common characteristics of
> serial killers so this is -likely- to be things we will find in the
> killer" and not invent an archetypal 'ideal serial killer' ... and go
> hunting for HIM.
>
> With magic it is, if anything, more difficult to just stop. You look
> at things through the lens of numerology or whatever and patterns
> emerge. The patterns very much -do- seem to imply some elephant
> behind the scenes. But unlike the cops looking for a killer, you will
> -never- know what that elephant is. Period. Never.
>
> Inevitably magicians come up with something though. Aiwass or the
> Invisible Secret Masters or the Mytickkal Jesus or Ramtha or
> something. And their little invisible buddy will tell them anything
> they want to hear and thus reinforce the magician's belief in it's
> objective reality.
>
> And at that point, they've jumped the shark. It's now a religion.
>
>
> Magic is fundamentally absurd. It's all about unseen connections, and
> so it's absurd by definition, surreal by definition. It's -funny- by
> definition. I've never understood how people could find it anything
> but funny.
>
> It's great because it makes no sense.
>
>> I tend to view people as stuck or not. People become fixated on something
>> and
>> there goes their whole personal evolution. Might as well have gone to
>> Baptist
>> Church your whole life for all the good it does.
>>
>
> Even there ... then you get someone like Vertigo, or Hellpope Huey,
> who are at least to some extent near the 'Baptist Church' route, who
> aren't blinkered.
>
>> But you know, I give Kudos to anyone that at least tried something
>> besides the
>> Baptist Church and that kind of ilk. Resulting in Crazy or not, at least
>> there
>> was a moment in their life where they had the strength and the
>> wherewithal to
>> look beyond what everyone around them was telling them to do.
>>
>> And having the experience of lifelong learning myself, I know how easy it
>> is to
>> get off track; what a hard path any kind of self-evolutionary one is; I
>> would
>> probably empathize and find it very, very sad, if I didn't see peoples
>> shit in
>> the way and have no sympathy for personality machinations.
>>
>
> Yeah I spent time with some people recently who I find very
> depressing.
>
>
> Alls I can say, really, is I just can't have people like that in my
> life. As a result there's almost nobody in my life, which sounds like
> pathos, but fuck it, I am really happy in a way other people don't
> really seem to be.
>
>>
>> >>Or maybe the point is to make sure all the "cool" people get the joke
>> >>and
>> only
>> >>the "uncool" people don't. Or maybe the point is for "everyone: to get
>> >>it
>> in
>> >>order to FEED THE NEED for kudos and superiority stars for wit and
>> >>style.
>> Of
>> >>course if everyone gets it, then how superior was it really? Of
>> >>course, if
>> you
>> >>need to feel superior, then whats the fun in writing anything in the
>> >>first
>> >>place? You can always go beat up a smaller monkey for that. Or is that
>> >>what
>> >>writing is?
>> >>
>> >>I DONT UNDERSTAND HUMOR! I'm a simple gal. I need it in black and
>> >>white.
>> >>Please explain this to me in 50 words or less.
>>
>> >Oops. That was way more than 50 words.
>>
>> Rants exempt!
>
> --
> Zapanaz
> International Satanic Conspiracy
> Customer Support Specialist
> http://joecosby.com/
> If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while
> you're in there some guys come
> and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another
> city, boy, I don't know what to tell
> you.
>
> - Jack Handey
>