A touch of absurdity can help to wrap your mind around reality
psyche.co
psyche.co
Oscar Wilde's play held a mirror up to Victorian society and it died laughing at itself.
One way I've conceptualized comedy, especially satire, is as a kind of soft cultural version of Karl Popper's falsification principle. When applied successfully, it can change the way you look at the world by leading you to reject, or at least question, the status quo.
I was expecting this article to suggest something similar. It maybe halfway does?
According to research on the ‘meaning maintenance model’ of human reasoning, surreal and absurd art can be so unsettling that the brain reacts as if it is feeling physical pain, yet it ultimately leads us to reaffirm who we are, and sharpens the mind as we look for new ways to make sense of the world.
Reaffirming who we are and making sense of the world in new ways sounds somewhat paradoxical. I suppose it implies a gradualist model of intellectual growth.
Of course, comedy and ridicule can also be deployed to reaffirm the status quo. But I've always found subversive humor more intellectually engaging.
Interesting. Can you elaborate a bit more?
Do you mean that it’s demystifying and/or cathartic in some way?
The pattern of 20th-century British comedy has definitely been a three-way cycle between:
- traditional "music hall", often leaning on stereotypes
- intellectual absurdism (Monty Python, Goon Show, Goodies)
- "alternative comedy"/satire: Ben Elton, Spitting Image, and much of the 80s political material
One of Camus best texts in my opinion, not only because of the beliefs expressed but only because of it's welcome brevity and concrete language compared to some other philosophers, is "The Myth of Sisyphus". Instead of painting Sisyphus as a suffering prisoner, he paints him as an absurdist hero with ideals that every human should aspire to.
Like the obsessive cleaning of surfaces in "Jiro Dreams of Sushi", Camus states that "we must imagine Sisyphus happy": the struggle in itself is the meaning. And to my understanding, there's the core of existentialist belief: lacking any God-given, external purpose, we must accept our absurd position, and our individual responsibility to push our stones up the hill, and find happiness doing it.
"Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself, forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
[1]: https://thevalueofsparrows.wordpress.com/2014/03/29/saturday...
The leap of faith as a philosophical concept is not about religion. It’s the concept that a person can provide their own life with meaning, without any rational proof to support such a conclusion. If you find the work of Christian existentialists to be superior, it’s likely because you find the leap of faith to be the superior response to the absurd.
In the situation you describe the receiver has to know which distribution you're using.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
"Another showed that people who felt socially isolated became more defensive of their broader national identity."
that sheds some light on how the pandemic is emboldening so may people in this particular way.
Anyone knows of a cross disciplinary study that benchmarks this?
This paragraph reminds me of the famous quote from Agent Smith in first Matrix movie:
> But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
I think abstraction in media changes the population, as it grows so do IQ's
You can see this in whole countries. But causation vs correlation blah blah blah. YMMV
And allegory is a pretty cheap trick in art. You don't need that either...
You wouldn't ask what an instrumental music piece "is about". Why ask it for a movie?
Another example is David Fincher's 1997 movie The Game.
Many directors tried this, yet none pulled it off like David Lynch. IMHO.
Just my 2 cents. I'm a movie layman.
I agree that Mulholland Drive is art, though I don't think it's particularly good art and I don't like it much. What did you think of "David Lynch Interviews a Monkey?" AKA "What Did Jack Do?"
I realize I'm arguing against a straw-man here. The point is: A movie is not just its story.
7 months ago I would had agreed with you, but after watching (and enjoying!) this 4:30hs pretty plausible imo explanation of what Twin Peaks is about [1], I'm open to believe that other works of Lynch may actually have some idea or meaning behind :-)
I think it says far more about people, and what they are willing to accept as profound (or unwilling to discard as meaningless), than about David Lynch.
I think requiring each viewer to bring their own brilliance to the reading of his films is Lynch's aim.
Must watch it again to see if it's better now that I've watched clever cinema (gentle /s implied).