It IS funny.
Posted by RazorsKissFeb 4
I took some heat from Mumon earlier, in the comments to my recent post about humor.
The problem, of course, did not revolve around the central issue of the post. Mumon usually tries to take a look from another angle, that I didn’t cover. He’s right though. I didn’t cover it, and that was for a reason. This post. The last one spoke about what was not funny. This post, on the other hand, I’ll talk about what IS funny – as well as address the questions Mumon raises.
First, Mumon’s questions/objections.
To start with, he zeroed in on the NASB’s slightly misleading use of the word “silly”, in Ephesians 5:4. The King James uses ‘foolish”, while the newer ESV does the same. I say only “slightly”, because the word silly doesn’t mean what he thinks it does. To quote Inigo Montoya… “You keep using that word… I do not think it means what you think it means”.
The word “foolish” has a much more negative connotation (in slang) than “silly” – it also reflects an attitude of conscious rejection of it’s antithesis, rather than a playful, bantering fun-loving spirit. (However, in formal English, they are synonyms)
Silly, in standard English, can be a term of mild disapproval – someone who tends to frivolity, for instance. But it has a more derisive meaning ,as well. “a lack of wisdom or good sense; foolish”. To lack wisdom, by any standard, is simply not a good thing. It does not mean “having fun” – it means “lacking wisdom”, in the formal sense of the word. Now, in modern English slang, silly means simply to be playful. This is not the meaning of the word in the original Greek, however.
The word, in greek, is Morologia – which means “foolish talking”. However, it’s not as ambigious as all that. The root words for this compound word are lego and moroß.
lego is, basically, “to speak”. moroß is foolish – or, impious/godless. It’s not precisely blasphmeous, per se – that is covered in another word in that verse – but, it is clearly “foolish” – as in lacking wisdom – that is addressed. Unwise speech.
So, I’ll leave it there.
Secondly, he was a bit of a smart aleck.
To my question: Why can’t I keep from laughing at what is crass, or ribald?
He answered:
You answered the question yourself: because evidently, you find them funny.
My question, I suppose, is different – and more to the point. Why do I find them “funny”? The incongruity of certain situations are, indeed, funny – the subject matter, however, is not. It’s not right, and it’s not what I should be laughing at. The answer is simple. I’ve let myself be trained, by repetition, that the crass and ribald, when related in the form of a joke, are “ok”. While if I heard them related as a story, I would not think so. In the slightest. In other words… you missed the entire point of the post. It was relating something that I’ve rediscovered about our culture – that if something we would consider to be wrong is covered over by the veneer of humor… it’s suddenly “ok”. How many comedies have set records for the most risque scenes… by making jokes out of them? How is it George Carlin makes his money again? Oh, yeah. Taking everything people consider wrong, and making jokes out of them. Nah, noone really does that, do they? Pssst. That is the bedrock for 90% of today’s humor on TV and movies – just media in general.
That isn’t ok, and it isn’t funny. It’s a sham. It’s camoflauge for sin, using the pattern of humor to hide it. That’s the tricky part. In other words, it’s possible to take your sense of humor more seriously than your dislike for sin – and your duty to imitate God, by being Holy, as He is Holy. THAT is the problem.
This is a key difference – and why I’m a Buddhist: if one can be mindful of the intent and attitude behind one’s activities, one doesn’t need them to be prescribed or proscribed by anyone else.
And I might also add that certain teishos- Dharma commentaries- contain some of the 7 words you can’t say on TV, and to good effect.
You can be mindful of the same in Christianity – but you cannot attempt to justify wrongdoing by hiding behind “oh, I meant it as a joke”. That’s why we’re told not to do it. So, I suppose you’re right.
That is a key difference, and not one I’d recommend.
And lastly…
You’ll be “free from the body of this death” soon enough; I hope you appreciate what you sense while you’re around, but mindfully…
I know; your mileage varies…
There is plenty of humor in the world without resorting to humor which portrays sin as “just a laugh”.
Which is the point of this post.
So, after that long preamble…
Only a clever human can make a real Joke about virtue, or indeed about anything else; any of them can be trained to talk as if virtue were funny.
Jokes about sin are easy. Everyone sins, and does it daily. Everyone wants to laugh at their own sin, and laugh at others. Otherwise, we’d have to take them seriously, wouldn’t we? Much easier to just laugh at them, isn’t it?
Among flippant people the Joke is always assumed to have been made. No one actually makes it; but every serious subject is discussed in a manner which implies they have already found a ridiculous side to it.
If you treat your sin as if it is a joke, pretty soon you’ll treat it as a joke, too. Imagine that. Repetition becoming habit? The devil, you say!
But, seriously now.
The joke – the humor – the fun… all of that is completely satisfactory. All of that is completely normal, and as much a part of human existence as any other could be. It’s the subject matter that, well.. matters. Paul says this:
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.
Now, contrast that with Titus 2:
Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.
Get the picture? It’s like momma always said: If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all. Except, in this case… it’s “if you can’t laugh at something nice – don’t laugh at all.”
That doesn’t mean don’t laugh. It means don’t laugh at things you shouldn’t laugh at.
What are things you can laugh at? The same things most people laugh at. The absurdities of life. The funny things your kids do. The funny things you do. When I say funny, I mean those things that strike you as absurd – as unlikely – as, well, funny. Your dad wearing a bucket on his head, and talking like Darth Vader. Your kids telling you all about an imaginary friend named “cup” – because he just made him as he was talking to you, and that was the first thing he saw.
Life. Life is fun. Life is, thus, funny. Sin, however, is not life. Sin is death. Sin is what caused death, is causing death, and is the cause of all death. Sin is NOT funny. God, even, is funny. He was pretty hilarious dresing down Jonah for worrying more about a pitiful plant than the city of Ninevah, for example. Or when, instead of striking down Nebuchadnezzar for his hubris in declaring himself to be a god… he struck down his mind, and reduced the most powerful man in the world to a grass-chomping quadruped.
That’s funny. Or, saving his three favorites from a fiery death in that same king’s furnace… and not even a hair on their head is singed, and their clothes look brand new. It’s strange, it’s not exactly normal. It’s funny. Imagine the look on Nebuchadnezzar’s face, when he sees these three young men he condemmed to die, walking out this insanely hot furnace. The look HAD to be priceless. Or, the look on Jonah’s face, when he realizes he’s been vomited up by a whale on the shores of Assyria – exactly where God told him to go in the first place. Just imagine that mental picture. Jonah shudders to his feet, amazed to be alive, and looks up and down the beach. Looks at himself. Looks towards Ninevah. Oh, man. That look must have been great. Hah!
We are funny beings. We think time is ours. We get ticked when we are inconvenienced, and we have “lost time”. It wasn’t ours to begin with. We get annoyed when things take too long, or we’re “cheated” out of time we “deserved”. It’s ridiculous. Laughing at ourselves is key, sometimes.
Laugh. Have fun. Be joyful. Rejoice in what God has given you, and what amuses you. Just don’t be amused at things which have no business being amusing.
Get it? Good.
3 comments
Comment by Mumon on February 4, 2006 at 9:26 am
To go from silly to foolish…that which may be thought of as wise may often be foolish (which is why we have terms like “sophistry” and “sophmores”) and that which we think of as the area of fools is often wise (remember it was the fool who was allowed to speak that for which the rest of the court would lose their heads).
The laughter from a fool arises from cognitive dissonance – the brain’s knee-jerk reaction to a paradox, a multiply conveyed multiply contradictory meaning, and so forth. It’s a mode of expression, and its impact may or may not be “foolish” in the sense you mean it. You gotta be mindful (or discerning in your parlance) to know…
How is it George Carlin makes his money again? Oh, yeah. Taking everything people consider wrong, and making jokes out of them.
Not really; what he actually does is takes everything people consider right- or normal- and shows that it’s looney tunes. And that’s what makes it funny- we see ourselves for what we are: often as wise fools.
And in fact, not to engage in such inquiry- asking is this wise or foolish- isn’t morally sound in either Christianity or Buddhism. George Carlin does it with a potty mouth and an atheist/agnostic position, but generally, his heart’s in the right place.
…you cannot attempt to justify wrongdoing by hiding behind “oh, I meant it as a joke”.
In the teishos to which I refer, the use of course language is there deliberately to bring out in stark relief the Great Matter. Among a series of koans my Dharma namesake writes in The Gateless Gate are a sub-series of koans all purported to help the student forumlate an “answer” to the question “What is Buddha.” The real objective of the exercise is for the student to stop thinking about what is Buddha, but rather to realize “what is Buddha” in moment-to-moment existence. And so the Master takes the student from the premise: This mind is Buddha, this mind is not Buddha, to “Budda is dried s&!# on a stick.” But those are all concepts, too, and the Great Matter is involved with acting according to awareness towards helping all beings overcome suffering.
Those concepts are like the Magritte pictures, like the saying “a picture of a rice-cake does not satisfy hunger.” Obviously, other people’s religious ideas on this vary.
But regarding Jonah, my mileage varies. The poor sap. The actions of the deity there call to mind a more G-rated saying from George Carlin: “I believe in the sun, but I pray to Joe Pesce. He seems like a guy who can get things done.”
And Jonah’s plight is exactly why Carlin’s words are funny in this case.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 4, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Proverbs has a lot to say about fools, and foolishness – and so does Jesus Himself.
I know the concept you’re talking about – I really do. It seems to me, however, you’re touting the Star-Wars-esque “from a different point of view” – which was, of course, taken from Eastern Philosophy.
You’re also mixing the meanings to convey your particular spin on things – which, as I’m pretty sure you’ve guessed, is diametrically opposite to my own in this instance.
There is no “good” foolishness, in the Biblical sense – which is what I was referring to. You knew I was referring to that sense of the word, but you insist on using alternate meanings, as if that was what I really meant in the first place.
Foolishness is not a “circumstance-determined” concept, in this instance. Christians, according to Jesus, are going to be “foolish” in the eyes of others. There is a further explanation, in the letters of Paul, for instance, where we are told that “the world” has it’s own set of rules – it’s own “wisdom” – and that often, their supposed wisdom is wise only in their own eyes. You know that determinations of the rightness, or wrongness of things, in the perspective of Christianity, are not circumstancial, in the vast majority of cases.
Yes, a “fool”, in the eyes of others, is often the one who is actually showing objective wisdom – not the subjective “wisdom” of the majority view.
However, when dealing with the Biblical admonitions against foolishness – the admonitions are objectively targeted, and not subjectively determined. When the Bible says something is foolish, the Bible is the final word on the matter.
That may be true… but it doesn’t have any bearing on “foolish” talk, in this address. Whether or not it’s “foolish” in the sense I mean it doesn’t have any bearing on it. It does not have any bearing because it’s not what we were discussing. Bringing up a corollary as if it has direct bearing on it seems to be disingenuous, to me.
As is eloquently expressed in The Screwtape Letters, which I’ve been quoting throughout:
and any of them can be trained to talk as if virtue is funny
That’s my point about Carlin. Nothing is sacred, and there are no real “virtues”. Everything is merely humor – and virtue is a special target of his. I understand you like Carlin. I hope you understand I think his mode of humor, and his subject matter, are equally detestable. Not simply because he uses foul language – but because he pushes the limits of acceptability for a supposedly humorous “shock value”. It isn’t funny. I’ve never thought so, I never have, and I never will.
Think back to the Biblical principle I introduced earlier: Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.
George Carlin’s humor is not true, honorable, right, certainly not pure – not lovely, not of good repute, to be sure. Should I praise it? Should I dwell on it?
Certainly not. It’s not being “puritanical” or lacking a sense of humor, as Screwtape so cuttingly advises Wormwood to encourage humans to consider those who fail to laugh at moral crudity or innuendo. It is simply a failure to recognize it as funny. His technique is certainly funny. Robin Williams, when he’s addressing more innocent topics, is drop-dead hilarious. When he goes into an off-color routine, it’s not nearly the same. The same with Jim Carrey, or Martin Lawrence. It’s not a lack of recognition – it’s a conscious refusal to acknowledge their topic as especially humorous – regardless of delivery of technique.
It’s the content, not the technique.
Sure, some things Carlin points out as foolish are, indeed, foolish. Just because someone happens to be right fairly often does not excuse bad behavior. That’s akin to excusing movie stars their outrageous antics off-screen simply because they are talented at portraying other people. Oh, wait. A significant portion of America does just that. It’s not any different for ‘ol George C.
Besides… how would you know where his heart is?
You can try to give all sorts of reasons why doing it is ok. In fact, a good bit of Christianity actively engages in apologetics for objectionable language. That doesn’t make this particular statement in Ephesians 5 any less straightforward. It says exactly what it says. Don’t be foolish. Don’t say foolish things – in God’s estimation of foolishness – which has an entire book devoted to it. If it’s not profitable, it is not wise, if it is not worthy of praise… don’t say it.
If you think it’s ok to do so… fine. I can’t change your mind for you. That doesn’t mean you’ll change what the Bible says about it, or what the words mean. It’s extremely clear.
No obscenity
No foolish talking
No coarse jokes
In MacArthur’s commentary on this verse, he has this to say: “These three inappropriate sins of the tongue include any speech that is obscene and degrading or foolish and dirty, as well as any suggestive or immoral wit. All such are destructive of holy living and godly testimony and should be confessed, forsaken, and replaced by open expressiosn of thankfulness to God.”
Look, you can argue from your viewpoint if you like – but it isn’t going to change what I think. I’m not making this up from whole cloth. It’s in black and white, and has been for 1,900 years and more. Sorry you disagree – because that sets you in direct opposition to what God has said is right, and holy living – but that isn’t going to matter much, in the long run.
Yes, they do. Which is why we’re having this discussion 😀
Maybe I should go into Jonah’s aversion to preaching to Ninevah. Jonah did not want to go to Ninevah because he was a bigot. He hated the Assyrians, and wanted God to judge them. He didn’t want to preach repentance in Ninevah, because they might repent, and be saved from God’s wrath.
Now on to the Assyrians. They were notorious, even in ancient times, for being absolutely merciless to their conquered foes. Infamous, some have said. Also, they were continual enemies of Israel. Jonah just plain didn’t want any mercy for this warlike, merciless nation. He wanted them all to burn. Sort of like the merciless “judgement on the world” preachers so many love to hate 😀
So, Jonah is an interesting book. It shows a type of Christ – Jonah’s 3 days in the whale, and a return to life, in a way. It also presents a type – where the reluctant prophet, Israel, is unwilling to save a heathen city – yet that heathen city converts wholesale, while the prophet pouts under his shade vine. Much like the “chosen people” of Israel, who reject their promised Messiah – who in turn becomes savior to the heathen Gentiles.
Jonah is the anti-hero, in the book which bears his name. The joke is how funny we look when we get self-righteous, and go our own way. Ridiculous doesn’t begin to describe it. I don’t buy your theory, man. It flies in the face of what I believe, and what I know the Bible teaches. I understand some points you’re making – but that doesn’t mean I agree with them, or that they are applicable in this discussion.
Comment by Mumon on February 5, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Much of the conversation hinges on what is foolishness and what is not; I think that rather than go past each other in terms whose meanings aren’t completely fixed- and it’s a long discussion, impinging on axioms as to where the agreement lies- it’s best to go on…
That’s my point about Carlin. Nothing is sacred, and there are no real “virtues”. Everything is merely humor – and virtue is a special target of his. I understand you like Carlin. I hope you understand I think his mode of humor, and his subject matter, are equally detestable. Not simply because he uses foul language – but because he pushes the limits of acceptability for a supposedly humorous “shock value”. It isn’t funny. I’ve never thought so, I never have, and I never will.
Carlin, of course, is in the humor business, and like the carpenter who sees all problems as nails to be hammered, Carlin will tend to see humor everwhere.
But in the above lies another difference: in Christianity there is a distinct separation of the sacred and the mundane (or profane, if you’re a hard dualist, or “common” if “mundane” carriers unwanted baggage); my mileage varies here…in the same way in which the absolute and relative permeate each other, so do the sacred and the mundane…
Besides… how would you know where his heart is?
Listening, watching…
No obscenity
No foolish talking
No coarse jokes
In Buddhism, much of the moral talk in this area is directed towards the end result, and the mind of the speaker/hearer.
Perhaps there is nothing more course and vulgar than tabloid papers; but, as Soen Nakagawa said, as I recall, even those papers can be seen as scripture if viewed from the right perspective.
Sorry you disagree – because that sets you in direct opposition to what God has said is right, and holy living – but that isn’t going to matter much, in the long run…
Incidentally, I hope you got the point of my recent posts: Whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist atheist, Taoist, or whatever sympathies, the ability to speak freely, without fear of physical coercion, is a higher priority than one’s feelings (yeah, go ahead and call gays immoral if you want- it’s your right). Why? Because to do otherwise we would not be faithful to the duty of all people to live their lives authentically. And when we start to coerce people into being inauthentic, all kinds of harmful things result.
Jonah did not want to go to Ninevah because he was a bigot. He hated the Assyrians, and wanted God to judge them. …
Actually, I read it differently. Jonah was a coward; a wuss. And the “joke” really was: things got really screwed up for him as a result of his being a coward; he faced far more horrifying situations than if he had just gone to Nineveh in the first place…