> > <Correct me if I'm wrong, but> Dark humor seems to
> > be merely a fascination of the Western middle class.
Actuellement, it's using 'dark humor' as an excuse
for something else. Ie, kitsch substitutes for
the 'real thing'. Sarcasm + irony, with actual
humor del la l'universe, 'opinions' with actual
insight, word shuffling with literacy, passive-
aggressiveness with yin, mind with brain etc etc.
The basis is a confusion between 'ego' and 'void'.
It's not 'western' rather it's 'human,' it's
just more pronounced among 'white middle class'
cultural conditioning, as until recently other
'cultures' have attempted to deal with it
more successfully.
Re: 2Moksha 2Moksha. Let's all be victors.
-
Type: discussion
Comments
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, josh zeidner wrote:
> "[a] the case of the man who is ignorant and is to
> have a piece of knowledge imparted to him, so that he
> is like an empty vessel which is to be filled, or a
> blank sheet of paper upon which something is to be
> written; and the case of a man who is under an
> illusion and must first be delivered from that.
> Likewise there is a difference between writing on a
> blank sheet of paper and bringing to light by the
> application of a caustic fluid a text which is hidden
> under another text. Assuming then that a person is the
> victim of an illusion, and that in order to
> communicate the truth to him the first task, rightly
> understood, is to remove the illusion - if I do not
> begin by deceiving him, I must begin with direct
> communication. But direct communication presupposes
> that the receiver's ability to receive is undisturbed.
> But here such is not the case; an illusion stands in
> the way. That is to say, one must first of all use the
> caustic fluid. But this caustic means is negativity,
> and negativity understood in relation to the
> communication of truth is precisely the same as
> deception.
>
> "What then does it mean 'to deceive?' It means that
> one does not begin directly with the matter one wants
> to communicate, but begins by accepting the other
> man's illusion as good money."
>
> — Soren Kierkegaard
Yes, josh. However reciting Kierkegaard is not
the same as being able to read_ him.
Kierkegaard had a clue what he's doing,
and it's unfortunate when ignorants recite
passages they don't understand for purposes
of 'masking' what they're really doing.