|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 2, 2013 20:37:40 GMT -5
Greek Name: ?? Transliteration: Mômos, Momus Latin Name: Querella Translation: Mockery, Blame, Ridicule, Scorn MOMOS (or Momus) was the god (daimon) of mockery, blame, ridicule, scorn, complaint and stinging criticism. He was expelled from heaven for ridiculing the gods. Momos' opposite number was Eupheme (Praise) www.theoi.com/Daimon/Momos.htmlWhat I found interesting here is that included the definition of the original greek word for ridicule is the idea of complaint or complaining. It made me wonder if buried in some acts of ridicule lay hidden a secret complaint held against the target of the ridicule. If so, our ridicule may be an attempt to say to the recipient, "you are flawed, and I can not accept you as you are, so I will make fun of you until you see about yourself the same stupidity I see about you, and when you do see it, you will change and behave more in accordance with how I think you should be behaving"? And if this is true, wouldn't the ridicule actually represent an act of resistance to what is, as opposed to acceptance of a current reality?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 2, 2013 20:42:32 GMT -5
The 'mockery' you see here, to me is a blend of those things and a caring and concern, plus it certainly doubles for a hazing or jumping-in sort of happening. I don't see what's happening here as an attempt to tell someone they are flawed and unaccepted / unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 3, 2013 0:08:42 GMT -5
<Delphic_oracle> This thread will turn into one long complaint against humor. </Delphic_oracle>
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Dec 3, 2013 6:13:33 GMT -5
<Delphic_oracle> This thread will turn into one long complaint against humor. </Delphic_oracle> Do you really not see any difference between humor and ridicule? The OP is about ridicule.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 3, 2013 22:12:29 GMT -5
<Delphic_oracle> This thread will turn into one long complaint against humor. </Delphic_oracle> Do you really not see any difference between humor and ridicule? The OP is about ridicule. I’d say that ridicule, in once sense or another, is at the root of all humor. The distinction between humor that may or may not tear down a self image is one that can’t be denied, and it’s humor that does the tearing that JLU has labeled ridicule. But think back to anything that you might have found funny at one point, anything that made you laugh and consider, could it have been expressed as finding something ridiculous about what the humor framed? That this sense of the absurd, this sense of humor, can be put to use as a sort of weapon is another matter altogether, but I find the use of the word ridicule in the OP to be too narrow, in that it forecloses an understanding of humor in general based, in turn, on an understanding of absurdity and ridiculousness. In the instant that we truly laugh there is a sort of loss of control, a flavor of instantaneous madness. This strikes me as a realization, in those instants, of the ridiculousness of the consensus trance; it strikes me as a realization of the madness of mistaking what appears to us as something that it isn’t. I’d say that, in those moments, when our body shakes and our breath quickens – especially when it is seemingly beyond control -- it is precisely because an absurdity has occurred to us. The absurdity isn’t realized on any conceptual level – laughter is no more easily captured by words (perhaps even less so) than the taste of honey. That said, if I were forced to state a concept that described what this absurdity is, I’d say that it's the overall sense of being separate from either that which appears to us but is obviously not what we are, or that which appears to us and that we are prone to mistake for what we are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 1:58:48 GMT -5
Humour is a matter of taste, and as laughter says, pointing out the ridiculous in ourselves can be a state of realisation. Pointing out the ridiculous in others, is often a step on the journey to realising how ridiculous our self is because it is measuring the self image of another against the image the self holds.
So a tool, taste, humour, insult... it can be many things to many people.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Dec 4, 2013 7:25:49 GMT -5
Do you really not see any difference between humor and ridicule? The OP is about ridicule. I’d say that ridicule, in once sense or another, is at the root of all humor. The distinction between humor that may or may not tear down a self image is one that can’t be denied, and it’s humor that does the tearing that JLU has labeled ridicule. But think back to anything that you might have found funny at one point, anything that made you laugh and consider, could it have been expressed as finding something ridiculous about what the humor framed? That this sense of the absurd, this sense of humor, can be put to use as a sort of weapon is another matter altogether, but I find the use of the word ridicule in the OP to be too narrow, in that it forecloses an understanding of humor in general based, in turn, on an understanding of absurdity and ridiculousness. In the instant that we truly laugh there is a sort of loss of control, a flavor of instantaneous madness. This strikes me as a realization, in those instants, of the ridiculousness of the consensus trance; it strikes me as a realization of the madness of mistaking what appears to us as something that it isn’t. I’d say that, in those moments, when our body shakes and our breath quickens – especially when it is seemingly beyond control -- it is precisely because an absurdity has occurred to us. The absurdity isn’t realized on any conceptual level – laughter is no more easily captured by words (perhaps even less so) than the taste of honey. That said, if I were forced to state a concept that described what this absurdity is, I’d say that it's the overall sense of being separate from either that which appears to us but is obviously not what we are, or that which appears to us and that we are prone to mistake for what we are. To your first sentence: I'd say that the ridiculous is the root of all humor. Which I think is basically what you're saying, and I agree with that part of it. Ridicule, on the other hand, is the ridiculous wielded into a weapon and pointed outward. A weapon of judgment and criticism. Look at the base of the word that JLU posted - "stinging", "complaint", "blame". We're all often ridiculous and absurd, and it is pretty funny. It can be pointed out without weaponry, without ridicule. I'll admit that the line is very blurry between a joke about ridiculousness and ridicule. Probably has something to do with trust and the perception of the joker's intent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 9:27:07 GMT -5
Have you ever noticed how pervasive complaining is throughout humanity....its the worse sickness of this sphere of experience, so much so that if you are not a chronic and compulsive complainer, you stand out like a bright light :-)
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 4, 2013 11:51:49 GMT -5
...it’s humor that does the tearing that JLU has labeled ridicule. Humor, like ridicule, is but an expression of a deeper, inner attitude, one born of Love or of un-love, of acceptance or rejection of another person, place or thing, in whole or in part, is it not? Look at this example. The first 1-1/2 minutes of the video below show several things. Judgemental laughter at the expense of another, complaint, put-down, cutting remarks as well as abject, unconscionable cruelty...but is it not ultimately egoic "resistance to what is" that drives all of it?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 4, 2013 12:00:24 GMT -5
...it’s humor that does the tearing that JLU has labeled ridicule. Humor, like ridicule, is but an expression of a deeper, inner attitude, one born of Love or of un-love, of acceptance or rejection of another person, place or thing, in whole or in part, is it not? No, I disagree. I see laughter, as I discussed in depth, as a realization, not an attitude, not as an expression. Look at this example. The first 1-1/2 minutes of the video below show several things. Judgemental laughter at the expense of another, complaint, put-down, cutting remarks as well as abject, unconscionable cruelty...but is it not ultimately egoic "resistance to what is" that drives all of it? That this sense of the absurd, this sense of humor, can be put to use as a sort of weapon is another matter altogether
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 4, 2013 12:56:36 GMT -5
No, I disagree. I see laughter, as I discussed in depth, as a realization, not an attitude, not as an expression. I can agree that some but not all laughter is born of realization, or said another way, born of the Joy of Being Home, and as such is free of egoic attitude...but not of expression. We would not know a thing about laughter if it were not expressed, would we? The ego, being a distorted reflection of True Self, functions within the realm of mind, and as such, in the realm of beliefs, concepts, judgements, attitudes etc. Humor arising from here is by default a distortion of Joy brought on by Selfs entanglement with egoic conditioning, and is invariably expressed, inwardly or outwardly, as an attitude for or against. That is the nature of judgementalism, the lifeblood of the egoic mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 4, 2013 13:06:02 GMT -5
No, I disagree. I see laughter, as I discussed in depth, as a realization, not an attitude, not as an expression. I can agree that some but not all laughter is born of realization, or said another way, born of the Joy of Being Home, and as such is free of egoic attitude...but not of expression. We would not know a thing about laughter if it were not expressed, would we? The ego, being a distorted reflection of True Self, functions within the realm of mind, and as such, in the realm of beliefs, concepts, judgements, attitudes etc. Humor arising from here is by default a distortion of Joy brought on by Selfs entanglement with egoic conditioning, and is invariably expressed, inwardly or outwardly, as an attitude for or against. That is the nature of judgementalism, the lifeblood of the egoic mind. If one laughs and wants to share it, then yes, the expression is humor, but in any expression there is entanglement of some sort or another. There is no way to directly express the realization that is laughter, and I maintain that the absurd, the ridiculous, is at the root of any such expression. As far as the potential for distortion of that is concerned, I've already replied to that twice now, and not with disagreement.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 5, 2013 6:27:19 GMT -5
I think what is missing is that ridicule is about the balance of power. Power struggle is at the heart of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 6:41:53 GMT -5
I think what is missing is that ridicule is about the balance of power. Power struggle is at the heart of it. Yes. Ridicule is a split-mind tool.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 5, 2013 16:32:35 GMT -5
...and the balance of power, in the end, is precisely how the subject of ridicule receives it and their response towards it.
Personally, there've been times I thought/felt I was being ridiculed, and realized sometimes quite a while later, it wasn't that at all. It doesn't matter in what manner one is served notice about something about themselves is relayed, it can most definitely put one in an unwelcome and embarrassing spotlight.
|
|