Others ~ Selected Correspondence

Humour

On the subject of humour, you wrote:

The Mark Twain quotation or remark was lifted from a PBS television production on the life of Mark Twain. It may not be exact or verbatim, but it was something like that. I found the program interesting in one respect as it showed the ‘private’ side of this great humorist and satirist and world-renowned author. Despite his enormous public appeal and worldwide notoriety, he appears to have been a very unhappy camper, controlling his wife and children and erupting in titanic rages from time to time. In that respect, he would certainly personally know something about how humour is a salve for sorrow.

Since I cannot remember the exact quotation, I might have erred in presenting it the way I did.

To summarize what I think about humour and laughter at this point: It does sometimes stem from sorrow and malice, but not always. There is such a thing for me as laughing and being humorous simply because I am in a good mood, I am joyous, and I am taking delight in being alive, and present in this moment. Such laughter and humour lacks the emotive force, as I have termed it, that laughter and humour stemming from sorrow have, what you term the ‘hysterical’ quality of laughter. ‘Hysterical’ laughter can erupt at times of great danger, as a kind of tension release. ‘Gallows humour’ may be of this sort. The kind of laughter and humour I am describing comes from the extremely enervating and refreshing experience of being alive and present in the moment, and is in juxtaposition to laughter and humour that stems from nervous tension or impending danger. Essentially, there is nothing ‘wrong’ with humour and laughter, and the enjoyment of it does a body no harm at all, as long as it’s malicious or sorrowful elements, if present, are recognized by an alert intelligence.

In short, I am concluding that even the ‘feel good’ experience of laughter and humour can be tapped for information about what makes ‘me’ tick – in other words, ‘my’ feelings and emotions, moods and complexities. The discussion on the list recently about laughter and humour reminds me of the difficulty I have had, and likely still have, in understanding precisely what is meant by ‘the felicitous feelings’, as described in AF writings. I had thought that AF was on about a purely sensorial enjoyment of the present moment, devoid of any trace whatsoever of feeling and emotion. What then are ‘felicitous feelings’ if not emotions? Having been confronted with this apparent contradiction, I have looked into the so-called ‘positive’ emotions, including of course love and sentimentality. Even the so-called felicitous feelings do not escape the spotlight of attentiveness, but that does not mean that I have to retreat into a kind of benumbed feeling-less state, what Alan some time back has called ‘comfortably numb’.

Your paragraph here about sums up my present experience of humour. I too am ‘happier than ever’, and less preoccupied with ‘my’ troubles and woes. Spontaneous laughter and seeing the humour in simple, everyday commonalities is not only good fun but need not stem from, as No 13 had termed it, ‘duplicitous stupidity’. Given that the sorrowful and malicious entity in this body has progressively and incrementally shrunken to an exceedingly small percentage of its original size, this then leaves me free to (as you say) look ‘at the bright side of life’, not as a state of denial of my sorrowful state, but because ‘my’ sorrowful state has evaporated, leaving me enjoying, indeed revelling in the present moment. There is only then ‘enjoying the journey’, as No 13 had termed it.

Just as a caution, though, because I had read this morning Peter’s post to No 23, I can and have often lapsed into a Krishnamurti-ite state of joyless self-inquiry. Such unceasing and rigorous ‘self’-inquiry can become a wet-blanket thrown over the sensate enjoyment of the present moment, and I think the caution to avoid this kind of intense analysis-paralysis is well taken. Then too I am reminded of that curious word ‘Grübelsucht’ which perhaps best expresses that intense pondering, musing, and speculating that some are attracted to. To spend one’s time ‘grübelnd’ when one can be sensately enjoying the present moment is indeed a waste of time and misapplication of the actualism method.

Richard: Ever since I became capable of appreciating ‘black humour’ (thanks to the TV series ‘Black Adder’) I sometimes have a difficult job to not roll about the floor laughing.

What makes it black humour is that such hypocritical duplicity perpetuates all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides forever and a day. Richard, List B, No 20e

Richard: Humour is not a waste of time and I laugh a lot ... there is so much that is irrepressibly funny about life itself. Strangely enough I find that I enjoy black humour; whereas the ‘I’ that I was could not ... ‘he’ found it repulsive and sickening. Nevertheless, the humour I enjoy most is that which lampoons puffed-up power and its authority. Richard, List B, No 25d

I can’t think of an example of ‘black humour’ that I find funny right now and I am not familiar with this ‘Black Adder’ program. Political satire may indeed be funny, depending on the quality of the delivery. Some things in movies and on TV are funny but the things that are the most fun, as far as I am concerned, are some of the moments that my partner and I enjoy together which are spontaneously mirthful, just downright funny. These things may seem nonsensical to someone not acquainted with the situation and not even funny. But I don’t see how laughing at most of the things that we do can ever cause anyone any harm at all. Gary to Vineeto

Yes, except that one no longer laughs at the expense of another; meaning that laughter is not fueled by anybodies hurts and pains. The malicious part of me, which I still have, did find your joke funny…and I did giggle when I read it, but not because of your remark but because of the situation. The patience Vineeto has with you and how she takes in consideration everything that you write to her, despite the fact that you don’t, makes me feel really silly. We are not so different Dimitris, I would have probably kept doing the very same thing you are were I still emotionally involved with Krishnamurti and his words.

Would you like to find out?

I appreciate your ‘opinion’ but if you knew a little bit more about Actualism then I would take your advice further into consideration and apply it. Or do you think I will be better off applying what you have to offer me now?

Yes there was. Read what I wrote above when I said I saw the malicious part of me in action again, why it didn’t take root and what finally made me chuckle. So this can only lead me to assume that there ‘was no awareness in the moment of’ your reaction.

No, I tried this long ago and look at what happened (except that instead of writing ‘No 12’ I wrote the name of someone who I was trying to denigrate because of what I had perceived as his malice towards Vineeto):

No 47 (trying to bond or identify with Vineeto) – Today I finished reading the whole of Richard’s correspondence with No 12 and it cracks me up how No 12 gets all confused and tangled up in his own words.

Vineeto: Before I respond, I would just like to explain something about the archives of this mailing list and the correspondence on other mailing lists that are published on the AF website. The correspondence is usually posted anonymously in order to protect the identity of the correspondents – human beings being somewhat protective of their identities. The only exceptions are people who either agreed, or particularly requested, to be mentioned by name. The Actual Freedom mailing list was established as an uncensored forum in order that people can openly talk about and discuss the issues raised on the website.

While first name terms are used in the exchanges, and people often talk about their particular issues – what is being discussed is the human condition of malice and sorrow, something which is common to all human beings. As such, the very idea of this forum is to focus on one’s own objections to being happy and harmless rather than single out the objections of others.

Ha! Try bonding with an Actualist …you’ll be better off trying to make a flea copulate with an elephant or convincing yourself that Krishnamurti was just another person afflicted by the human condition.

I don’t think so. I have been struck by others’ nationalism many times before, being considered Mexican/American, the Mexicans would call me ‘gringo’ while the Americans would call me ‘white wet bag’. Is this the kind of humour you endorse?

So I see…if you did that would imply change, and you don’t want to change, do you?

Might, may, could…guess you’ll never know. Unless you try, of course…

I think you are looking at yourself then. No 47 to No 55

I agree. Laughter too can have a malicious component. As laughter is often a release from tension, I need to ask myself what is producing the tension.

In the case of humour, what people find humorous is relevant. This is conditioned by culture and other powerful social factors. All of this goes into making the social identity.

I think my ‘self’ was operant. The release of tension through the humour seemed to make me more aware of the tension, a tension that may have gone unnoticed had there not been the powerful release through laughter. The underlying tension may be taken for ‘granted’ as normal.

Well, I simply raised the question because the AF methodology aims, partly, at cranking up the felicitous feelings. My own investigations lead me to uncover and explore what these felicitous feelings are, how they differ from other feeling experiences, and how genuinely felicitous feelings may be maximized. Any kind of ‘feel good’ experience is fertile ground for such investigation, it seems to me. For instance, there is the experience of ‘laughing so hard I cried’ that probably many people, if not most, have had. I do not find this to be a felicitous experience.

*

Maybe I am beating a dead horse here, but I wonder what other list contributors have discovered about mirth, laughter, and good humour.

Well said. The kind of feelings of felicity and benignity that one can crank up through AF methodology seem devoid of the emotive energy of having a good laugh, although mirth, kindliness, and a pleasing frivolity and ‘light heartedness’ may be more or less present. Strong laughter and humour, on the other hand, stem from the conditioned self, or as we call it in AF, the social identity, which finds ordinary contradictions, juxtapositions, absurdities and inanities ‘funny’, but sometimes the humour is targeted towards the misfortune of others.

Such feelings in their extreme can easily go out of bounds. Gary to No 13

I think my ‘self’ was operant. The release of tension through the humour seemed to make me more aware of the tension, a tension that may have gone unnoticed had there not been the powerful release through laughter. The underlying tension may be taken for ‘granted’ as normal ... <snip> ... I simply raised the question because the AF methodology aims, partly, at cranking up the felicitous feelings.

Yes, comedy can provide a diversion from the seemingly dreary, monotonous ‘doom and gloom’ of the real world. Yet I have found that, as the social identity is de-constructed/ dismantled/ immolated, there is an enormous enjoyment of the simple things of life, founded on where one is at the present moment. There is also a great happiness that replaces the anxiety, dread, and worry. Of course, I am speaking personally here. Mirthful laughter and humorous exchanges with others are the simple expression of a delight in being here. My own particular brand of humour has always tended toward the ‘dry’ variety.

*

Based on my own PCEs, I do not seem to remember any side-splitting laughter or similar emotions running in me at the time.

I do remember during one particular PCE an overarching joy and pleasantness, a delight and happiness that this was happening, and a mirthful quality to it all. Not an experience of side-splitting or hysterical laughter or humour, no, but a definite pleasing mirthful quality to it. Gary to No 13

To Vineeto: Spontaneous laughter and seeing the humour in simple, everyday commonalities is not only good fun but need not stem from, as No 13 had termed it, ‘duplicitous stupidity’.

Gary, please show me where I referred to ‘spontaneous laughter’ and ‘seeing the humour in simple, everyday commonalities’ as ‘duplicitous stupidity’.

You did not refer to those things as duplicitous stupidity, but you did say the following:

Seeing ‘selves’ seeking authority/ dominance/ submission/ harmony, (in a benign universe), may be duplicitous stupidity and is the basis of most humour...

I don’t think I would agree that duplicitous stupidity is ‘the basis of most humour’. Of course, you are stating your opinion when you say that. I have a somewhat different opinion on the issue.

I have noticed in my posts sometimes a tendency to over-generalizing about certain things. I might make an authoritative statement, which, upon further reflection and discussion with others, turns out to be a gross over-simplification of an issue. This usually occurs when opinions rather than facts are the subject matter of discussion. I just do not think that it is by any means clear that ‘duplicitous stupidity’ is the factual basis of most humour. Gary to No 13

Actualism Homepage

 Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust