[^^Fleeding home page] [HYPER-SPACE (mfa)] [Quick Index/Map]ma: Iconosphere TOOLS Reference Manual (absurdist edition)
Ab Fr \ / +----------------+ /| /| / | / | / | / | Fu / | / | \ / | / | +----------------+--Hu | | | "RS-3" | | [Quick Index]s | Jz--+----------|-----+ | / | / \ | / | / Sc | / | / | / | / |/ |/ +----------------+ / \ Sp Ar "Reality Structure 3" (mark II) This iconosphere owes much of its existence to Phillip Glass:Symp #3 & #2. [Return to "normal" space]Tools
From an absurdist POV (point of view), everything is a tool.Noetic a-side
{Skip no-etic aside} And while many (who only vaguely understand absurdism) would maintain: Yeah, and next they'll say that everything ISN'T a tool! Hardly. Consider for a moment that nothing is a tool (by this we mean to say that there is not thing, not nothingness -- we'll get to that in a minute). Clearly if nothing (no thing) is a tool, then there can not be any tools at all. But, we arrived at this conclusion by postulating that nothing is a tool. And as any good mathematician (or chaotician for that matter) will tell you postulates make EXCELLENT tools (except in the case of irises which defy all attempt to undersatnd). Thus, since we have at least one tool, and this contradicts the assumtion that there weren't any (even taking irises into consideration), the original assumption MUST be false. Q.E.D. via REDUCTO ABSURDUM (quite appropriate doan-tchu think?) Now, we have only one problem to address. And that is of course the problems of irises. For the moment, let us assume that any "proof" that we provide will apply to all irises of all kinds. (With the possibility of extending the proof to petunias, appetures, and other close relatives of irises). Which (so the querry goes) would you rather have: A ham sandwhich or Complete happiness in life ? The answer of course is a ham sandwhich. The reasoning goes something like this: Well, Nothing is better in life than complete happiness, and an ham sandwhich is certainly better than nothing, Now what about nothingness? If we were to consider the statement: Nothing is a tool. And to mean by that statement, Nothingness is a tool. Then, clearly it is. Or is is? (we leave the explosion of "is is?" or "is not" as an exercise for the student). That is, nothing (as nothingness) is one of the most usefull tools in existance (as well as in existence) from ANY POV. A few examples will suffice. If a mathematician can prove that there does not exist a partially closed cover for a set, then the set is by definition open. That's a very powerful statement and provided by the use of nothingness. If an historian can prove that there is no way (nothing) to have avoided world war two, then can be used as an axiomatic starting point for an amazing amount of historical reasearch. Indeed, if it can be shown that a particular statement has no way (nothingness) of being true, then it must either be false or meaningless. Of course once we include the possiblity of meaning-less-ness-es, then we return (safely i might add) to the home-ground of absurdity. Q.E.D. (with a duck, and of course possibly void on Thursdays)On-ward: Fog-wise
First off we must realise that absurdism is one of the few weapons that can hold up to extremism. For example, as a friend of mine sez (quite often): I don't care WHAT you believe; nuts is nuts. This produces the expected replies. On another occasion, whilest i was shopping the local store, a rather honerous gentleman (if i may stretch so far as to refer to this onorious creatures as such), goes up to one of my favortie checkers and bellows out: I give up where is the )#)#*)'g BREAD??? (blink, blink) and then she sez: In the bakery departtment. ...(hard cut to BAKERY SIGN).... Taking upon myself the role of the onion (as i am occasionally forced to transmogrofy myself from the rather lack-luster pea (as in a pea-pod) into THE HARSH RED ONION OF CRITICISM. Thence, i approached yahn chap and sed (in my best "southern gentleman's" accent) Suhr, in my experience, a gentleman doesn't use such language with a lady. (slight pause) WHO THE HELL ARE YOU?? (slightly sotto, askance) No one. I'm not your mother. (turns on the DOT ^ and exits stage left) Thus, we may now begin to see not only the power of the absurdist POV (point of view), but the tools that we can bring to bear. And we attend to the question of WHY we are absurd to begin with. We shouldn't do this out of mallice (unless like with the il-mannered oaf above: The punishment fits the crime). We are absrud because the given situation is so absurd and that no one seems to "get it", that we must result to extreme measures. And having exhausted reason, logic, and all attempts at reasonable converse -- we then try perhaps sarcasm or irony. But, failing that, we turn to absurdity. Repetition, repetition with slight alteration, repetition with decaying context/notation, etc. Circularity (one only needs to read Waiting for Godot to know that) Self Contradiction / Self Argument etc. The remainder of this learn-ED paper will deal with examples of each. But, first a diversion on the subject of self-absurdisticsm. {Skip self-absurdism lecturce #12} A question which is often asked (well, at least if not often, then i'm asking it now!) is: Can absurdism deal with absurdism? or What about absurdity taken against absurdity? Wouldn't that necessarily produce non-absurdity? A very good questions indeed is, are of! If we take a page from Jean Cocateu's book as transcribed by the phonogramophone commonly called "eriK satie", then we can proceed thusly. 1. Take it as read that we can apply absurdism to ANYTHING (including nothing). Refer to the "ham sandwhich" argument, above. 2. The following matrix will be useful \ the null | non-empty | sets that CAN | nothing \ set | sets | afford P.R. | &/or infinity \__________|______________|_______________|________________ | facism | F-0 F-NE F-PR F-n F-i --------------+---------------------------------------------------------- free thinking | Th-0 --------------+---------------------------------------------------------- We take it as read the problem with facism isn't with it means, methods, or goals. It's with the absolutist way of thinking that THIS is the ONLY way, etc. Thus, we can think (there's that dangerous thing once again) of facism as encountering itself. Since it is a self-congratulatory, self-celebratory system it will find no problems. But, when it comes into contact with nothingness (the empty set, or at least the empty set wearing a new hat trying very much to not look like an ear). Facism denounces such things as nihilistic. Now while an outsider might judge that much of the RESULTS of facism indeed do end up being nihilistic (eg, denouncing degenerate art (ie, then modern-art), gypsies, jews, all NLU's (not like us), etc), but we need only apply first order absurdist theory to come to the conclusion that what a normal (ie, non-fascist person) sees as being destructive, the facist will see as constructive since it leads to less conflict, more unity and less differenence. Believe me, you can't when this argument it is literally outside of time and all other sorts of when-ness. Next we take it as read that since facism can judge anything that it chooses as nihiilist and as such reduce even certain works by Chaikovski to the state of anti-art, it is pointless to argue further. After all the argue-er themself might be judged as nihilistic and we all know people are thus turned into numbers, don't we? Thus, the only problem remaining is what to do with all of those free thinkers who chose NOT to judge people too harshly, nor to be so arrogant to think that THEIR way is THE ONLY WAY, etc. It is of course such a simple matter to see how that problem is resolved that only need a piece of rope, and a hood to demolish the argument. A burning cross is often expedient as well. Now, if you don't mind, i'm going to go hide under a rock. Providing i can find a rock that isn't hideing something already; probably gold, or dross, or oil.Amongst The Absurditst's tools are...
Self-absurdism lecturce #12
The Larch. 1. Start out by being reasonable. Then keep being reasonable, even though events transpiriting all around are far from reasonable, normal, etc. 2. When things are going pretty well, start noticing odd things. A good example is to start noticing the spelling of words. Mainly, the words that are being spokne. That is, ignoring the MEANING of the spoken words, but adhereing the to the shape, sound, or spelling(s) of the words. 3. Use self-contradiction spare-ing-ly. After a while, it all becomes quite a muddle in much the same way when too many different colours are mixed, you end up with that yucky brwon/grey colour. 4. Change the assumed metaphor of the argment in mid-argument. This is often refered to as "The Karl Marx Brothers Method of Dialectical Duckism". The simplest form is to use a pun as the pivot point, as per: Ode to a Grecian Urn. How much does a Greecian earn? Oh, about a dollar fifty an hour. Another way that this can be done is to take a train of logic and derail it after it's left the station. For example, as one person is arguing step-by-step towards what they see as a clear and certain conclusion, start playing an imaginary game of baseball. Other examples, inclucde almost any mimed actions that are clearly recognizable; eg, talking the pulse of a person, cooking up a pie and then flinging it in some one's face (with the possibility of having them duck), measuring a room or doorway with an imaginary tape measure -- real props are certainly welcome, but by no means necessary -- etc. 5. Apply inverse logic to the problem being presented. Say that someone has been murdered, complete with body on the broad-loom rug. The detective says that the murder must be someone in the room. Announce that everyone should leave the room. The detective says to stop and asks why you said that. You say, well you just said that whoever the murderer is that they are in this room, if we all leave the room the only only one in the room will be the murderee. Right? So, everybody (except you of course -- addressing the body) leave the room! This break down of the laws of logic and the application of il-logic are among the basic tenents of absurdism. Another key device is the so-called modus tollens (although, it might actuallly be modus poens, i get them confused). As it turns out, from any FALSE premise, anything can be proved to be true. For example, if a sausage is an apple pie, then i am Lord Falteroy! This is the key to broken chains of logic where in along the way one of the premises turns out to (not so obviously) be false. Thus, the "proofs" beyound that point are almost certainly false. They can not be shown to ba absolutely false, since it is always possible subsequently to make another (diffferent) false assumption that could in fact cancel out the first mistake. Indeed, along this line of logic are many of the classic faults of argument (which i will deal with at another time, should time permit me to continue). Briefly though, they include: a) Over-extension. Taking a conclusion beyond the bounds of its applicability. Common are the ideas of transference of authority (a baseball player recommends a particular kind of car makes as much sense as a racing car driver recommending a certain kind of catcher's mitt; right?). b) Beggging the Question (also known as "false alteration"). This is where someone is asked, "Are you still beating your wife?" No mater how they answer they are doomed. It depends on the question containing within it, the only other alternative is nothing. Thus, in the above question two questions are "merged" -- "Have you ever beaten your wife? And IF SO, are still doing so?". This is closely related to: c) The Falacy of the un-distributed middle. That is the falacy of saying that there are ONLY TWO sides to the issue. For example, "Either you're with us, or you;re with the terrorists". One might in fact be a tree- hugging hippy peacenick and not be with EITHER side. But, this rarely goes noted. d) Bandwagonning. Also known as "the majority is always right" syndrome. After all, he was re-elected by a 59% majority, so he must be the right man for the job!! Also related is: e) Statistics. As Mark Twain pointed out: There are three kinds of lies, Little White Lies, Damned Lies, and then there's Statistics. Statistical reasoning is a somewhat arcane and quite advanced area of maths, unfortunately it is mis-used on a constant basis. An excellent introductory book that deals with it is entitled "How to lie with Statistics". In general, whenever anyone quotes a statistic; question it -- well, 55% of the time. Six. Create a story to be brought in at certain times when it really doesn't make any sense. A master of this is the comedy team of "Rowan and Martin". Rowan would play the straight man and proceed to conduct (for example), an interview. At certain points Martin would bring in his Aunt Matilda and how she was arrested for robbing a bakery. Rowan would steer the answers back to the question and hand. The interviewer would ask another questions and somehow while Rowan was answering it, Martin would be able to link it back to the story about his Aunt. As the interview ended, we still didn't find out what happened to his Aunt. ALMOST WITHOUT exception, the inverviewer would ask, "Yes, but what happened to your Aunt?" Martin would give the "blink blink" look and say, "Oh, she's fine. I got a letter from her last week and she's decided to go to Florida for vacation." When querried about the bakery heist, Martin feigns all ignorance. The interviewer then asks, "Well did she go to jail?" Martin, "FOr wanting to go to Florida?" Inteviewer, "No! For trying to rob the bakery!!!" Martin (pauses), "On, no. Not at all. She doesn't shop there anymore" (as if that settles it). Rowan then sez, "Say goodnight, Dick", Martin, "Goodnight Dick" (Martins' first name is Dick, btw). Although, clearly powerful, this technique takes both a well pre-pared script (or several) as well as a good skill at elliding from one topic to another. 7. The repeated odd word or action, etc. Most conversation (whether genuine or arranged as in a play) is based on a very restricted set of responses to each person's previous action. The series of these responses or actions form the "normal flow" of converse. For example, people playing tennis do not suddenly start reciting Shakespeare in the middle of the match -- either in response to the ball or in addition to it; eg, we might see that they lob the ball over the net and before the other player can return it, they point their racket at the corner of the court and start with Lady MacBeth's "Out spot, out damne'd spot" soliloqy ??sp?? Depending on how this is done, it can be either funny or quite irritating. At the very least the issuer of these "non-sequitur" (Latin: It does not follow) reponses will be thought to be a bit odd, or possibly just a jerk. Audience response is ALWAYS mixed in most cases. An excellent example (but again requiring extensive pre-paration) is to respond to each question with a quote (or a song, book, title, etc). When asked how you feel, responding with James Brown's "I feel good" song, or a quote from Shelly or Emily, etc. 8. After a while, let it become apparent that you (possibly others as well) have been keeping "score". As if the conversation (or what ever is going on) has some sort of associated "scale" associated with it and that you're winning. Parallel to this is the "hidden knowledge" gambit. In discussing a work of art or subject, use a mysterious phrase to get out of showing that you don't really have an answer. For example, when asked about an obscure part of the story, you are asked, "Yes, but he's still clearly sane there. So that line of dialog makes no sense". You respond (mysteriously), is he really? This "skips around" the question by introducting the possibility that you INTENTIONALLY created the non-sequitur in the work. At the very least, it's really an intellectually dishonest response, but if carried forward to where it completely apparent that you ARE dodging the question then it begins to border on the absurd. When carried to extreme it begins to look silly. But, then to "twist it around", finally admit that you actually stole the story, or that you really don't have a degree from such and such univerisity, etc. (tragic comic, various levels possible). 9. Flip-flop. In the middle of an argument, change "sides" and start attacking your original position. When questioned that you're agreeing with them. Say, "No, you're missing my point entirely." And then continue destroying your previous point of view. The psuedo-flip-flop can also be used to end an un-wanted argument. Simply say, "You're right. You know, you are right. Wow (shake head), when you're right, you're right." Takes a bit of practice, but at least it gets you out of other-wise in-ane arguments. Along the same lines is the "I give up" which simply means to say that you say "You know. You're right. I give up. Point, set and match." Then refuse to talk to them anymore. And when they say, "You see. I'm right." Look suprised, and then say (slowly), "Yes, yes. You're right. Didn't you hear me admit defeat? You ARE RIGHT (distinctly)". If they persist, then go into the "parrot sketch routine". (see below) 10. The "out". At some point, it might be "discovered" that you are in fact being absurd. An out to this to then use extreme examples to show how you are in fact being very reasonable. This method is enhanced (again) by having a body of pre-pared texts at the ready. Ideally these should be memorised, but text references are certainly welcome if prefaced by such things as "As a matter of fact, i was just reading Sir Arthur Conon Doyle's commentary on pixies" (pull it out of a pocket) -- oddly enough Doyle did in fact write on the subject! If you quote some prepared text (and repeatable exactly since you've carefully memorised it) and then can't believe that the other person has never heard of xyz's theory of the semiotic thickness of irreducible forms! Obscure quotes are excellent as well. 11. The Parrot Sketch Routine. This is a comedy sketch by Monty Python and is based on an actual incident involving a new car that Michael Palin bought. One of the doors didn't work, and when he tried to get the dealer to fix it, they told him, "Oh, it's supposed to work like that." -- refusing at first to admit that there was anything wrong. Hence the Parrot Sketch was borne. When someone refuses to take no for an answer, admit some obvious fact, etc. The response is to turn to the so-called "dictionary humour" that John Cleese and Graham Chapman were well known for. The "Cheese Shop Sketch" is really just a very long list of cheses -- none of which the cheese shop has in stock. Pre-emptorially John asks if they have any Chedar Cheese, the clerk's not certain what it is, John responds, with "It's the singularly most popular cheese in the world!!" The clerk responds with "Don't get much of a call for it around here." Thus the ruse in disuading argument (or to make an absurd argument or to make a valid argument, but in an absurdist style) is to reel off a long list of synonyms or alternatives. Thus, the whole point of the Cheese Sketch is that a long list of cheeses (many obscure) are used to establish a pattern of response, to which there can really be NO VALID RESPONSE TO. Actually, it's a bit more than that. In usual converseation, we ask questions or make statements, then the person responds and for the most part these are brief and to the point (or not if we are trying to avoid answering). But, if someon says that they don't read philosophy, and we respond with "Do you mean you've never even read Socrates or Plato?" that would be the "norm" of conversation. From an absurdist point of view, to follow up with a list of say 30 or 40 philosophers (including perhaps titles of their works, extracts, reviews, etc) would be appropriate -- and probably quite annoying. When all else fails, turn to the ridiculous. Start quacking like a duck everytime they try to speak. But, then stop quacking like a duck, but rather preen imaginary feathers or pick invisible cotton out of the air. Prepare to run. Then don't run. Then all of a sudden run. If they say, "now you're being ridiculous" Respond with "You didn't think so a moment ago" If they say, "i was thinking it" Respond with: So a hidden agenda all along eh? She was right about you all the time. (Or he, don't disclose who this non-existent person is) etc. But in the end remember: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think. Sometimes the only way to make people see things as they really are, is to criticize the il-sewn seams of the emperorer's clothes; and just look at that top-stiching! Why it's an attrocity to see him dressed in such a ragamuffin outfit! ... fade to another file, another time ... [Return to "normal" space]