Syndemics and the Black Iron Prison

In talking about the Black Iron Prison, I’ve realised there are elements of my occupation that have some relevancy to the discussions.  (Indeed, I’ve also found there are elements of BIP that are relevant to my occupation.)  I work in a field where we have a seat at the table where decisions about policy are made.  Specifically, policy around issues related to adolescents and substance abuse.  At one conference I attended, the genius Dr. Dennis Embry talked about something called Syndemics and then the “kernels” that can be used to impact them.

Syndemics are multiple, related afflictions. 
An example:

ADHD <–> Conduct Disorder <–> Addictions <–> Domestic Violence

Four afflictions, with some common ties:  impulsivity, brain chemistry, diet (Omega 6 to Omega 3 consumption ratio), accidental attention to negative behavior, media, etc.

There are 5 Syndemic structures:

1.  Caused by the same biological agent (ex. rise in Omega-6 consumption causes bipolar, depression, asthma, diabetes, learning disabilities & violence)
2.  Share risk or protective behaviors  (ex. TV in children’s bedrooms linked to increased obesity, diabetes, ADHD, mood disorders, etc.)
3.  Respond to similar environmental conditions (ex. Lack of cooperative play at home and recess is increasing bullying, aggression, obesity, ADHD, mood disorders and overall health)
4.  Have reciprocal or interdependent effects (ex. Low omega-3 consumption increases cravings for alcohol and drugs.  High consumption of alcohol and drugs reduce omega-3, which increase mood disorders and suicidal thoughts.)
5.  Are managed by the same, similar, or reciprocal organizations (ex. Schools, Health Care, and Juvenile Courts)

So what’s the point of all this?  The point is that in my field there are these concepts called “kernels” that have been developed that when implemented can affect multiple related afflictions, or the syndemics.  An example is the Good Behaviour Game I’ve talked about before over at PD.COM.  This is called a Reinforcement Kernel, because it is reinforcing good behaviour.  Studies have shown that this tactic has a resulting impact on ADHD, Tobacco use, Prenatal Drug Exposure, Addictions, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Mood Disorders, Violence Exposure and some others.  The idea that it is addressing the ties between the afflictions. 

So why do I even bring this up?  I see this kind of idea being applicable to some of the ideas we’ve discussed in BIP.  I think it is clear for any kind of change in our society(ies) we have to impact a system.  I think we can identify some multiple related afflictions, or syndemics.  The question then becomes, what kind of “kernels” could address them?  Could a GASM become a “kernel”?  Of course, the reality is that we asshats in this little corner of the internet are extremely limited in what, if anything, we could do to affect syndemics.  However, I think it’s worth to at least think about, and to see if one can recognize some elements of society that might be related, and that if there is a way to affect them by targetting one thing that seems to affect them all.  I think just the recognition and identification of the related conditions is important in and of itself. 

If you want to read more about this stuff check out this site at the CDC:  http://www.cdc.gov/syndemics/overview.htm

Framing and the stigmergic learning potential of propaganda groups

Stimergic learning is covered here.

The structure of secular conservative “framing” of events is discussed here.

Note the most interesting thing, that actually being an amorphous mass with seperated command structures but all communicating is actually an effective strategy. Its essentially an open-source platform, applied to political and information operations.

In both cases, each rely on various groups innovating and trying varying methods of attack, the communicating their effectiveness back to other groups who share their aims. The techniques are refined, then packaged for mass release. Then the process is repeated. It is constant refinement based on the ability for fast feedback AND, a mass of people willing to try various strategies.

Its essentially a Black Swan approach to events. By allowing groups to experiment, the whole movement can take advantage of successful methods, whereas failures will only impact on those directly involved in them. Its very smart, really.

Paths: Finding the ‘Z’ in the ‘A to B’

You’re born, you live, and you die.

We all do, (although, sometimes a lot of people seem to be barely living at all).

Some philosophies may tell you that the journey is more important than the destination, or that the the journey is itself life.

Personally, I think that may be bullshit. The journey is the journey, no more, but no less.

Let us break this down. You are at home (you’re born) and you have to go somewhere (death). Your entire “life” will be spent making your way there.

Do you go there as fast as possible, limit your exposure to pain and uncomfortable ideas?

Do you go there in a sweet car, drinking, on drugs and surrounded by women, living fast and ignoring more intellectual pursuits?

Do you instead take a scenic route, walk by the canal, looking at the beautiful scenery, trying to absorb as much of the “good things” in life before you die?

Or do you stay at home, waiting for it to come to you?

There is no correct answer, and you could do any combination of these, and (almost) infinitely more.

What’s interesting is when you look at how this applies to your entire “real” life, and you superimpose the paths that others of our species take. Our (almost) infinite choice is reduced to a nebulous collection of people doing exactly the same thing, taking the same routes to death.

Why is this? Do you WANT to be a sheep?

Me neither.

Break out the map and compass kiddos, it’s time to explore the badlands. Let us see what lies off the well beaten paths that lead to our anonymous deaths…

Weaponized Marijuana

We all know the CIA was recklessly spiking peoples drinks and dosing them with LSD back in the 60s, but it seems the Army too was playing games with drugs – in hope of creating nonlethal weapons that could minimize casualties in a war.

Sitting on the panel next to Shulgin was an unlikely expositor. Dr. James S. Ketchum, a retired U.S. Army colonel, told the audience, “When Sasha was trying to open minds with chemicals to achieve greater awareness, I was busy trying to subdue people.”

Ketchum was referring to his work at Edgewood Arsenal, headquarters of the U.S. Army Chemical Corps, in the 1960s, when America’s national security strategists were high on the prospect of developing a nonlethal incapacitating agent, a so-called humane weapon, that could knock people out without necessarily killing anyone. Top military officers hyped the notion of “war without death,” conjuring visions of aircraft swooping over enemy territory releasing clouds of “madness gas” that would disorient the bad guys and dissolve their will to resist, while U.S. soldiers moved in and took over.

Ketchum was into weapons of mass elation, not weapons of mass destruction. He oversaw a secret research program that tested an array of mind-bending drugs on American GIs, including an exceptionally potent form of synthetic marijuana. (Most of these drugs had no medical names, just numbers supplied by the Army.) “Paradoxical as it may seem,” Ketchum asserted, “one can use chemical weapons to spare lives, rather than extinguish them.”

[…]

With a larger dose of Red Oil, the reaction was even more pronounced. “These animals lie on their side; you could step on their feet without any response; it is an amazing effect and a reversible phenomenon. It has greatly increased our interest in this compound from the standpoint of future chemical possibilities.”

In the late 1950s, the Army started testing Red Oil on U.S. soldiers at Edgewood. Some GIs smirked for hours while they were under the influence of EA 1476. When asked to perform routine numbers and spatial reasoning tests, the stoned volunteers couldn’t stop laughing.

But Red Oil was not an ideal chemical-warfare candidate. For starters, it was a “crude” preparation that contained many components of cannabis besides psychoactive THC. Army scientists surmised that pure THC would weigh much less than Red Oil and would therefore be better suited as a chemical weapon. They were intrigued by the possibility of amplifying the active ingredient of marijuana, tweaking the mother molecule, as it were, to enhance its psychogenic effects. So the Chemical Corps set its sights on developing a synthetic variant of THC that could clobber people without killing them.

[…]

By the time the clinical testing program had run its course, 6,700 volunteers had experienced some bizarre states of consciousness at Edgewood. Under the influence of powerful mind-altering drugs, some soldiers rode imaginary horses, ate invisible chickens and took showers in full uniform while smoking phantom cigars. One garrulous GI complained that an order of toast smelled “like a French whore.” Some of their antics were so over-the-top that Ketchum had to admonish the nurses and other medical personnel not to laugh at the volunteers, even though it was unlikely that the soldiers would remember such incidents once the drugs wore off.

Ketchum insists that the staff at Edgewood went to great lengths to ensure the safety of the volunteers. (There was one untoward incident involving a civilian volunteer who flipped out on PCP and required hospitalization, but this happened before Ketchum came on board.) During the 1960s, every soldier exposed to incapacitating agents was carefully screened and prepped beforehand, according to Ketchum, and well treated throughout the experiment. They stayed in special rooms with padded walls and were monitored by medical professionals 24/7. Antidotes were available if things got out of hand.

“The volunteers performed a patriotic service,” Ketchum says. “None, to my knowledge, returned home with a significant injury or illness attributable to chemical exposure,” though he admits that “a few former volunteers later claimed that the testing had caused them to suffer from some malady.” Such claims, however, are difficult to assess given that so many intervening variables may have contributed to a particular problem.

A follow-up study conducted by the Army Inspector General’s office and a review panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences found little evidence of serious harm resulting from the Edgewood experiments. But a 1975 Army IG report noted that improper inducements may have been used to recruit volunteers and that getting their “informed consent” was somewhat dubious given that scientists had a limited understanding of the short- and long-term impact of some of the compounds tested on the soldiers.

Ketchum draws a sharp distinction between clinical research with human subjects under controlled conditions at Edgewood Arsenal and the CIA’s reckless experiments on random, unwitting Americans who were given LSD surreptitiously by spooks and prostitutes. “Jim is very certain of his own integrity,” says Ken Goffman, aka R.U. Sirius, the former editor of the psychedelic tech magazine Mondo 2000. “There is little doubt in his mind that he was doing the right thing. He felt he was working for a noble cause that would reduce civilian and military casualties.” Goffman helped Ketchum edit and polish his book manuscript, which vigorously defends the Edgewood research program.

Pathways and Shrapnel: An Open-Source Study and Exploration

path.jpg

Birth and Death are 100% Grade A Certainties (oh yeah taxes too, or so the saying goes). The only questions seem to be around matters of when and how. We know we emerge from our Mother, in some fashion, and then return to the Earth at some undetermined place and time. But we know it WILL happen.

We burst into the world at Point A, birth. Or sometimes we have to be pulled out depending on our level of infantile stubbornness. Immediately we set foot at the beginning of a Path. It is one of many Paths that eventually lead to Point B. At Point B we may exit in a brilliant flash of flame and sound. One of our vital life-sustaining mechanisms may crap out. Or perhaps someone will bring a bloody war to our land and we die in a house to house cleansing. Of course, it also might be something as unceremonious as having a heart-attack in the middle of a massive bowel movement. But hey, shit happens right?

In any event, we have before us a series of roads to take to get to Point B. Of course, as young infants we really don’t have a clear concept of Point B, so it initially doesn’t really inform our Path. Well, there are natural fight or flight responses like “Feed Me.” But it’s really focused more around infantile narcissm than it is any actual fear of starving to death. Indeed, as kiddos we see that damn Coyote fall off the cliff a zillion times and he keeps on breathing. So the worst that might happen to us is we turn into an accordion for a few seconds. As we grow, however, we establish more control and more responsibility for our own orienteering. At every step of the way (or maybe it’s every other step, I’m not entirely sure. It would be quite a feat if anyone figured it out), it seems, there is a new turn that can be taken; left, right, left-right. Which do we choose? Why do we choose? Are we even aware of it?

Along the paths there is another phenomenon that is occuring. As we are walking our Paths, and deciding where to go (whether through instince, deliberate thought process, because someone told us so), we are subjected to, and subjecting others to, Shrapnel.

458px-shrapnel.jpg

Shrapnel are the bits of experience, events, ideas, and so on that are flying around as we walk the Paths. It’s as though there are roadside bombs that are in a continuous state of detination. For example, we walk along the path as a young child, and at a certain point, we are subjected to Religious Shrapnel. Whether or not to follow our parents’ deities? Whether or not to NOT follow deities? Whether or not to follow a deity different from our family’s? Whether or not I’ll burn in hell if I don’t eat the cracker? As we are approaching the age of 18, we experience Shrapnel from education and career. Guidance counselors are asking you if you want to attend the college fairs. Your Dad is asking you if you are going to that ivy-league college he did. Or perhaps your Mom runs a flower shop and is expecting you to take over. After all, it is called Me and My Daughter’s Blooms. But do you really want to peddle flowers the rest of your life?

There are, of course many, many other examples of Shrapnel. Also. it is important to understand that we aren’t passive bystanders in all of this. We too are part of the Shrapnel creating process. When we become parents we subject our children to expectations, wishes, and wants for their lives. (If all parents’ wishes for their children actually came true, we’d be living in a world comprised solely of Doctors and Lawyers. You’d never be able to get onto a golf course.) As neighbors, we may be part of a collective attitude about how people’s houses and yards should look. (Oh look, Sanderson is putting out another fucking Pink Flamingo. And gosh, it looks like it is fellating the Garden Gnome! Gasp!) As members of Political Party X, we put signs in our yard saying, vote for Rudy Obama. We are throwing out just as much as others are throwing at us.

Do not be disillusioned about Shrapnel. It isn’t all bad. There is the Shrapnel of Art and Creativity. Walking by a park and seeing some folks drumming and creating music. (Drum Circles aren’t just for hippies anymore.) The infective beat that is travelling across the air, that mandates that you move and groove. The lady down the road who is a brilliant artist, displaying her work at the local Sidewalk Art Exhibit. There is the Shrapnel of Happy Childlike Anarchy. Your little girl acting like a goon, and you can’t help but to want to play along. Experiencing the joy in improvisational imagination and going with the flow. This is the sort of Shrapnel you WANT embedded in your flesh. For it too will inform your path. And besides, when you ARE strolling on your path, wouldn’t it be more enjoyable if you were doing a little jig along the way, while whistling a fun little tune? Whistle while you walk. It seemed to do the trick for the Dwarvish 7.

So what to take away from this? Well, first off, make sure you read the other observations of Shrapnel. And then, take a few minutes and think about your path. Think about where you’ve been, who’ve you encountered, what you put in your mouth (ewww, you did that?), and how’ve you navigated life thus far. As you think of the different experiences you’ve had, think of what might have happened if you hadn’t had those experiences. Caution: the point isn’t to think about how you could re-write your life. That part’s done, no good to dwell on it. But, how can you use this perspective going forward? What kind of mental armor can you obtain to shield you from that which may blow you off course? What kind of mechanisms can you construct to welcome in those things in this world which may benefit you? Or better yet, how can you have more bearing on your bearings?

Because seriously, you know Point B is coming soon. Why not make it one hell of a ride?

Some thoughts on Shrapnel

Once upon a time, a little baby was born. There is nothing remarkable about this- I’m told it happens every day- and there was nothing remarkable about this baby, except that it was you, or me, or them.

This baby was pristine, a sponge for information and experience. Little though it was, it was growing rapidly, learning every thing it could as fast as it could. It had to, you see, because it’s a big bad old world out there.

Everything it learned chipped a little bit of its personality away, or added a bit to it, every packet of information, every experience. Much like that saying about sculptors “freeing the statue” from the crude stone its encased in. Except that the sculptor is blind, like that woman in the Lionel Richie video (hah! “Hello, is it me you’re looking for?!” except she’s blind…), but I digress.

The tools that are used to “sculpt” this baby into the badass human that will stride the earth on two hind legs, using it’s opposable thumbs like it just doesn’t care, is what I call shrapnel.

It’s when you are told about God, it’s when you fall in love for the first time, it’s when you realise, as a baby, that bawling your head off will have your mother come running.

It’s the “ripples” of things that happened long ago, still affecting us today. The shrapnel thrown out by history, causing us to throw out our own shrapnel into the future. It blows your mind, it really does.

Shrapnel is necessary, and vital, to who we are, to what we do. And for Discordians, it can be a tool. It’s another medium for spreading a little bit of chaos. It’s not “good” or “bad”, though you may want to assess which bits of it you have sticking in you that aren’t really needed. Unwatched, that shit can fuck you up.

In conclusion, Shrapnel is an idea that has yet to find its time. In the right hands, it can be a kick ass suit of armour AND a big-fuck-off flamethrower. For me, being aware of it is enough until some wiser heads can show us how it works.

Okay, I’m done preaching at you for now, I’m back off to my ivory tower, where I’ll probably look for that Lionel Richie video and laugh about it all night.

~~~Payne

Nigel, on the Switching Prank

Over at the PD Forums, we were having a discussion about how to create discord within someone’s environment without ruining their day. Nigel had this advice:

Extremely subtle, confusing changes; funny. Extremely large, confusing changes; possibly funny, if done with a high level of forethought. I like to plant products in people’s houses, and do shit like replace their half-used jug of milk with a half-used jug of different milk, or put a handful of mayonnaise packets in their butter compartment, just because it’s subtle enough to make them question their own realities. Adding magazines to their bedside table or stuffing a pair of socks under the blanket at the foot of the bed, or adding a pair of shoes in their size to their closet, are also good. You can choose things which really DO fuck with people’s MINDS, making it a MINDfuck and not just an irritating obvious prank.

from the GASM Command forum.

Humour is a weapon….so you better learn how to use it!

“The human race has only one really effective weapon and that is laughter.”
– Mark Twain

“Wit is a dangerous weapon, even to the possessor, if he knows not how to use it discreetly”
– Michael de Montaigne

Both Montaigne and Twain were, of course, entirely right in their assessments.  Especially Montaigne, that genteel and erudite man of letters, whose scholarly essays were always filled with amusing and witty anecdotes, usually at his own expense.

But the fact remains, humour is a weapon.  In fact, its the best weapon there is.  How powerful is a potential Adolph Hitler if all his voters are laughing at him?  Bigots and fundamentalists of all stripes have a decidedly dim view of humour for this reason.  It’s not a product of force, but of the intellect.  It doesn’t reduce cities to rubble or execute heretics, but at the same time it can be used to kill a man stone dead, in the eyes of those whose respect and fear he needs the most.

Even the traditionalist militarists and corporatists are suspicious of humour.  Its not something that can be used for inflating an R&D budget, nor acquired and stockpiled at great cost.  Equally, its subversive tendencies chafe against the regimentation and hierarchical nature of corporate life.

The thing is, with all weapons, you have to know how to use it right.  Just like in a knife fight, where an inexperienced idiot with a blade is a greater danger to themselves than an unarmed expert, you have to know how to use humour properly, or else you’ll end up hoisted on your own petard, as it were.

Because of this, a sort of rumour, or perhaps a scurrilous lie, has been spread about humour.  Apparently, its an inborn trait, like blonde hair, or height, or wanting to be a corporate liar.  Some sort of genetic fluke which makes some people funny and others not.  And if you are one, then you can never be the other, try as you might.

It is, of course, complete and utter bullshit.  No doubt some people have more of a natural flair for humour – perhaps an ease with large audiences, a natural disposition to be the centre of attention, an excellent command of the English language.  But humour, like any other skill and especially writing style, can be cultivated and developed, up until the point it can be forged into a weapon, a perfect design to smash enemies and leave them looking like fools.

Unfortunately, this means we’re going to have to do some incredibly unfunny analysis of humour and how it actually works.  If that bothers you, then I suggest you look away…now.

Right, now we’re rid of them.  I suppose I should start from the beginning.  What is the point of humour?  Psychologists have actually found that humour, while an innate trait among most humans, also serves some interesting sociological purposes as well.

Usually, these are divided down into six reasons:

we laugh out of instinct
we laugh out of incongruity
we laugh out of ambivalence
we laugh for release
we laugh when we solve a puzzle
we laugh when we regress

Additionally, two meta-reasons are often added to this analysis:  we laugh out of surprise, or because we feel superior.

Surprise is obvious and easy.  Its also one of the most universal reasons for laughing.  Embarrassment and trickery are core to this idea.  Obviously, you have to maintain the level of surprise for this type of humour to work.  Easily guessed wordplay might be witty, but lacking that factor, it is not especially funny.

Surprise is, in essence, the cardinal rule of comedy.  It should have some role in almost everything funny you do.  Without it, comedy ceases to be.  Its a curve ball that throws the audience off balance.

Superiority, of course, is one that should actually interest us too.  All good humour has an element of both tragedy and cruelty to it, to be really effective.  What adds to that effectiveness is the feeling that those who are not the target of the joke, or who guessed at or appreciated the joke, are superior to those who are not.

This may sound, in theory, elitist, but it need not be.  In fact, comedy of this sort is often the great equalizer, documenting and mocking the failings of the great and powerful, of people who want to put you in your place.  Comedy of this sort is the true razor blade of rhetoric, its use is to cut the other person down to size.  Its transgressive nature questions assumptions and cherished beliefs.  As social criticism, it is especially effective because humour goes beyond restrictions and social norms.  Humour can also be used to maintain the status quo, to ridicule out-groups…but that sort of humour is boring and stale.

Instinctively, we laugh as a verbal substitute for an attack.  The laugh of the triumphant is the one that says “I am better than you.”  It is a way of venting hostility when physical assault is not practical.

Incongruity makes us laugh because something is internally inconsistent, it is paired or matched in odd ways.  When we realize why, or how, we laugh.  Often this is related to the idea of superiority, though the original appearance of the incongruous may be surprising as well.  The two combined are especially effective.

Ambivalence is similar to incongruity, but instead of the clash or conflict of irreconcilable ideas or perceptions, ambivalence is the simultaneous presence of mixes signals.  Once decoded, the language expresses both of these feelings, usually love and hate, at the same time.  It is an attempt to maintain dignity, to cover up our foolish errors, and is especially useful in self-deprecating humour.

Release is a pretty obvious one.  We laugh to release tension, to remove ourselves from uncomfortable or dangerous situations, to air truths that may be otherwise hard to face.  This release is especially useful if it can be experienced as a group event – and the element of surprise must be removed.  The audience must know what lies behind the door, or what happens next to the over-curious cat.  That is where the rule of surprise no longer applies.

After we’ve been roughed up, its nice to see someone else take a few lumps.  The idea is that if we are laughing at them, then they cannot laugh at us.  This humour can spark a revolutionary sentiment, or quash it, giving safe release to emotions that may be better used getting people to work at something else.  Consider its use carefully.

Puzzles are also elements of surprise.  Its a matter of configuration, the set up.  You have to frame a problem or a riddle in a certain manner, then propose a valid, if surprising, answer to it.  We take delight in the surprise, and comfort in the superiority of knowledge.

In terms of regression, Freud argued that comedy was as important as sleep.  It allowed for more primitive urges and desires to be expressed in acceptable social ways.  Especially for infantile, sexual or aggressive behaviour.  A playful mood, adopted as relaxation, is the most common form of this sort of humour (consider the comic strip – often the most common form of humour regardless of nationality or culture).  This also includes a desire for social approval however.  Regressive humour is rarely continued without a form of social acceptance, especially from authority figures.  It is therefore a tool to be used when you and your audience share a target in common, someone whom you both dislike and feel needs to be made an object of ridicule.

In short, humour is a manifestation of what society really believes, but dares not say.  It pierces beneath the bullshit and spin to get at the Really Real (Perceived) Truth of the matter.  Because sometimes we cannot deal with tragedy directly, we rely on humour to ease our way to acceptance.

Sick humour, in and of itself, is rarely effective, except perhaps as an opening gambit, a ploy to attract attention.  Beyond that, it can actually have a negative effect on audiences.

So, that’s the why of humour, the idea as to why we need it.  Now we move onto the nuts and bolts, the how of humour.  These are the necessary ingredients for any comedic routine.  Without them, the humour may taste somewhat off or wrong, and in worst case scenarios, ruin the entire joke.

The six principle ingredients are:

Target
Hostility
Realism
Exaggeration
Emotion
Surprise

The target is the most important aspect of this.  A successful target must fit the persona and style you are using, as well as the interests of the audience.  Therefore, pick your battles carefully, and with this uppermost in your mind.  Just remember, you have to reaffirm some the prejudices of your audience, and be very unfair to whoever your target is.  Oh well, such is life.  There is no room for balance or explanation in a joke, you have to be as ruthless as a General.  See the weakness, and exploit it for all its worth.  Deny the goodness of your target.

If you cannot pick a person, then pick an experience with universal appeal.  But I prefer the well known person route, since we are talking of humour as a weapon here.  Also, remember that if you do pick an experience, do not make it too broad.  It has to be specific in what it entails.  Driving is not funny, women who manage to multi-task every single fucking thing in the world while driving, however, can be.

Hostility is next.  Comedy is cruel.  In our case, necessarily so, because we deal with cruel people in a cruel world.  This hostility is a powerful antidote to the hostility many of us feel to those we are surrounded by in our every day lives – it is a release, because we all have an element of hostility towards something.

Authority is a natural target the world over for comics.  Remember it, cherish it, use it.  People all around the world hate their leaders, their systems, the powers they have to labour under.  This humour is nihilistic – no one is too powerful or too pure to be beyond reproach.  Just remember lots of people have sympathy for the underdog, so direct that hostility upwards.

Next to authority, money and business are also perfect targets.  Aside from that, angst, the painful knowledge of the ugly reality, is another one.  Merchandising human suffering is the fuel which angst runs on.

Realism.  Like all good propaganda and disinformation, comedy contains a kernel of truth hidden within it.  Comedy is essentially telling the truth via lying, the use of juxtaposition, surprise and the bending of language to give life to an unexpressable reality.

Most of the facts of humour should be logical and obvious, but hidden via convention and expression so that we don’t quite apprehend them correctly.  A major deviation from reality wont prevent humour, however it will likely not be as funny as a joke based on reality is.

Exaggeration.  Ah, poetic licence.  Humour is what allows people to suspend disbelief, and this should be used to its full advantage.  Absurdity, hyperbole and outright lying are all acceptable because, as the exaggeration signals to us: hey, its only a joke.  Often the foil to the realism of the joke, the two are held up and follow from each other to create the incongruity that results in laughter.

Emotion.  Hostility alone is not enough emotion.  There has to be an element of anticipation within the audience, the joke has to be built up.  In effect, you create tension, then you release it.  The audience is wound up, then down.  You must, in effect, adopt a persona which can bring about this effect within an audience.  Almost always, the best way to do this is with a character that shows a sort of boundless, almost infectious energy.  You also have to know how to use language.  Where to stop, where to start, where to pause – there must be a rhythm to your delivery.

Stand-up in particular is more a funny man doing material than a man doing funny material.  To a degree, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The man who is delivering the material is funny, therefore his material must be funny too.  This identity/rhetorical sleight of hand is not always true, but it is worth remembering and considering.  Delivery is key, and cannot be understated.

Surprise.  Of course, this was mentioned in the previous chapter, but merits a mention here as well.  Charlie Chaplin defined surprise in terms of a film scene in which the villain is chasing the heroine down the street.  On the sidewalk is a banana peel. The camera cuts swiftly back and forth from the banana peel to the approaching villain.  At the last second, the heavy sees the banana peel and jumps over it—and then falls into an open manhole.

The surprise cannot be telegraphed.  No matter what.  It must be genuine, or else it loses its impact.  You have to master the poker face, keep the audience in suspense for just long enough to pull the rug out from under them.

OK, this is getting far too long already, and I cannot possibly hope to include every single possible hint about comedy.  But keep these ideas in mind, play around with them, practice, and encourage creativity within humour!  And as you get better…put it to a use!

DYSNOMIA.US

I’d like to introduce a blog written by my good friend, Johhny Brainwash. Better yet, I’ll let him introduce it:

We occur at random among your children.

Piracy, space and post-Soviet conflicts. Also treehugging, mayhem and high weirdness. Outbreaks of old-fashioned politics may occur.

Johnny Brainwash lives in New Alamut, Left Coast, Turtle Island. He likes to ride his bike and fight with toy swords.

Read more at Dysnomia.us.

Also, can someone add it to the BlogRoll?

Chronotopic Anamorphosis

Chronotopic Anamorphosis from Marginalia Project on Vimeo.

This video shows the test of a software developed as a programming exercise.

The image is digitally manipulated by fragmenting it into horizontal lines and then combining lines from different frames in the display. The result is a distorsion of the figures caused by their motion in time, or, as Brazilian researcher Arlindo Machado calls it: chronotopic anamorphosis.