Evolving Irony

Humans have used irony for millennia—if not for all of our existence. It comes in many forms—sometimes used intentionally for either humorous or sarcastic purposes and sometimes unintentionally, when its humorous quality can mock the one making the statement. An example of intentional irony could be when a lecturer says to a quiet class, “Don't everyone speak at once.” An unintentional ironic example could be a sign in front of a business that reads, “We are committed to excellense.”

A dictionary definition of irony is “the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite—typically for humorous effect.” Its root comes from the Greek word eironeia (“simulated ignorance”), which stems from eiron (“dissembler”).

Perhaps the best-known ancient practitioner of irony is Socrates—whose behavior corresponded to the root meaning of irony, which stems from his time. In fact, Socrates' principle action was to feign ignorance when he encountered an unsuspecting victim on the streets of Athens, 2500 years ago. He would dissemble by faking admiration for the wisdom of that citizen, and then quizz them to the point of confounding them, by demonstrating their delusion. His behavior did not make him popular with Athens' gentry, so they sentenced him to death.

The use and understanding of irony has transformed over the centuries. In the 19^th century irony was used by Romantic philosophers in multi-layered ways—often implying a divided self that contained a variety of conflicting perspectives. It was a time when elites were floundering between the perspectives of the Enlightenment and the modern period.

In the early 20^th century irony often found itself being expressed in the context of the two world wars, when politicians seemed to spout fraudulent propaganda. Many common people used irony to puncture the phoniness of politicians They used lies to expose the lies of authority, in a way to bring to light the insanity that sent millions to their death in futile wars.

Today's use of irony has yet further evolved; now becoming more cynical in nature. Truth, morality, sincerity, and sentiment in the public arena are becoming increasingly rare today. We recognize that politicians mostly lie and thus we rarely expect sincerity or truth on their part. 

Similarly, the widespread use of texting, Facebook, and emails does not allow for the clarifying subtleties of tone or facial expression, so we try to make our intent clear by using emojis and abbreviations such as LOL and OMG. Maybe the ultimate ironic current expression is, “Whatever,” but is it not really expressing an alienated carelessness? In the meantime we wear T-shirts that read “Buy American,” or “Make America Great Again”... T-shirts made in China. Is that unintended irony? Where will the concept of irony evolve to next?

Cold Katydid

I recently found this katydid. They are a nocturnal insect... somewhat like a grasshopper. Their call all night long is loud and a bit grating. To camouflage themselves, they can look very much like a green leaf. This one was well past its summer activity and was moving very slowly in the cold air. Click to enlarge.

 

Ineffable Originator

There are many stories about how the universe came to be. Each culture has its own account—which arose in prehistoric times—that describes how the world emerged. Most origin legends begin with an entity or a being who stood outside the world and brought it into existence, in one way or another... an originator who started it all.

Many spiritual traditions attempt to describe the originator, but some acknowledge that it is beyond our mortal minds to do so. The latter consider the originator to be ineffable—something so great and extreme, as to be unable to be defined.

Taoism captures the ineffability of the prime mover in a few simple verses of the Tao Te Ching—the modest and concise book of Taoist scripture. The first verse of the Tao Te Ching says “The named/ Is not the eternal name.” This is an expression of the fact that the true nature of the Tao is beyond our ability to define. Don't waste your time trying to describe it or even name it—instead put your energy into aligning yourself with it. OK, align myself with what? How do I know to do that, if I can't comprehend it?

There's a later verse that helps answer these questions. It describes some of the qualities of the Tao:

There was something formless and perfect

Before the universe was born.

It is serene. Empty.

Solitary. Unchanging.

Infinite. Eternally present.

It is the mother of the universe.

For lack of a better name,

I call it the Tao.

So here we have delineated some of the features of the Tao—even though its nature is beyond words. Since the Tao Te Ching is written in Chinese, translations into English can have some variation—depending on the inclinations of the translator.

In an attempt to develop a broader interpretation of the qualities of the Tao, I consulted five translations of the Tao Te Ching and sorted the qualities of the Tao into six categories, according to the different English words each translator used. The Tao is:

1. Peaceful: serene, still, quiet, calm
2. Unequaled: solitary, standing alone, independent, perfect
3. Eternal: unchanging, eternally present, ceaseless, never alters.
4. Formless: unbodied, empty, incorporeal
5. Infinite: all-pervading, profound, reaching everywhere
6. Omnipresent: ever-present, circulating, functions unhindered

So that's a list of the qualities of that “something formless and perfect/ Before the universe was born.” I recently listened to a philosopher of Chinese culture who said that he considered the Tao to be the equivalent of the Western concept of God. Look back over my list above. Are these not also the qualities that monotheism assigns to God?

Four-D Disinformation

I am taking an on-line course from the University of Michigan on a hot topic that recently causes a lot of disruption in American (as well as world-wide) society: the problem of misinformation or worse, disinformation, that finds its way into and plagues society's functioning. Social media too often serve as platforms that disseminate disinformation that citizens see on their Facebook or Twitter accounts and unthinkingly spread across the internet.

The course draws a distinction between misinformation and disinformation. The former is fake messages that people pass on through their countless online connections, in an innocent or naive manner. They usually do not understand that the news is phony. Disinformation, however, is messages intentionally planted on the internet—deliberately meant to cause disruption. Some disinformation is created by state actors, such as what Russian hackers did during the US 2016 elections. Other kinds of disinformation are created by individuals who simply get a kick out of causing trouble. A third type is created by those who wish to make money by attracting people to their websites or Facebook platform, and get paid by the number of clicks they manage to capture.

Ben Nimmo is Director of Investigations for the network analysis firm Graphica. He has for several years investigated disinformation, in an attempt to shed some light on its practice and to help those who wish to counter its disruptions. He has developed an analysis tool that helps to understand how disinformation actors respond, when confronted by accusations that they have intentionally created false or fake information, and then predict what their next action might be. His tool is called the “4D Response.” He developed it when he worked for NATO, to understand Russia's response to critiques of their annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Nimmo's tool describes how a disinformation actor may respond to an accusation in one of four ways: (1) Dismiss, (2) Distort, (3) Distract, and (4) Dismay. The Dismiss response is most common. The bad actor says, “Don't listen to them, because...” Then he throws out an insult to try and discredit the accuser. The Distort response is to twist the facts in an attempt to verify his own false story. The Distract response is to accuse the accuser of the same lie, or to change the subject. And the Dismiss response is to warn the accuser of dire consequences, in an attempt to scare them off.

This 4D model, which was developed for state actors like Russia and China, has recently been useful in explaining and understanding bad actors who spread disinformation and fake news on the internet. As I thought about the 4Ds, it occurred to me that they also can describe Donald Trump's responses to accusations that he often is a source of disinformation. He attempts to (1) Dismiss the allegations by insulting the person or news organization. He (2) Distorts by making up his own facts to fit his story. He (3) Distracts by denouncing the person for doing the same thing (“Fake News!”) And he is (4) Dismaying when he tries to scare off the opposition—such as warning North Korea that his nuclear button is bigger, or sending federal troops into cities to intimidate and assault civilian protestors. 

Appropriate Zoom Apparel

Zoom conference calls have become the norm for many people since COVID struck. In an attempt to minimize coronavirus infections, employers have approved of Zoom calls that pull people together into a virtual, online meeting. This new procedure has brought about novel ways of restructuring conferences—ways that are beginning to open up fresh possibilities of how to present oneself, as well as bringing challenges that had been previously unimagined.

One question that frequently arises is, “What to wear on a Zoom call?” Given that you are usually sitting before your computer, what your Zoom cohorts see is you, but only from the waist up. What they see is what matters, isn't it? And what they don't see is out of the picture—so to speak. So, just before the Zoom meeting, you can pull on a respectable shirt, brush your hair, and try to look awake and interested. What you wear below the waist doesn't really matter. It could be pajamas, undershorts, or nothing at all. If you could mute the sound, you probably could even sit on the toilet! Just be sure to have a cup of coffee present—not a bottle of beer.

I checked out a few websites for advice on Zoomwear. The site Cut.com counsels us not to worry about the waist down. Let it be sloppy snd unfashionable. For the waist up, however, the site recommends classy turtlenecks, and offers several stylish models for $60-$175. Popsugarfashions.com advises that one can be both all business on top, yet cozy on the bottom. They advise several flashy accessories to show off your fashion tastes. Wardrobeoxygen.com suggests stylish and eye-catching tops for keeping up with your co-workers, while pitching to clients, or joining in an online happy hour. Some sites give you tips on the best camera angles or the best backgrounds to impress your fellow Zoomers.

Inevitably, however, some lowlife kinds of people would engage in below-camera high-jinks. Whereas it would be disgraceful to pick your nose on camera (where all can see), you might feel comfortable with engaging in some off-camera activities that your fellow Zoomers could not see. Out of sight, out of mind? Maybe an ugly pair of pajama bottoms? Unshaved legs? Your cat in your lap?

Recently, a new Rubicon was crossed, when Jeffrey Toobin, a staffer on the New Yorker magazine, was caught in some below-camera shenanigans during a Zoom call with cohorts. The details are not fully clear, but Mr. Toobin was apparently observed in an act of masturbation during the call. He was quickly suspended from the magazine. He made an apology, saying “I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off camera.” And, “I thought I had muted the Zoom video.” That does not explain why he chose to point his camera toward his crotch, however, or why he would even consider such deplorable behavior online. Could he not wait until the call was over?

A commentator on Buzzfeed inquired about how many others might have committed the sin of Toobin… fellow sinners who did not get caught. Who will cast the first stone? The Buzzfeed writer said “it would be naive to think that most people aren't engaged in  some kind of fuckery during a work with Zoom.” How many people have muted their camera to take a hit of a joint?, she asked.

I had thought that working from home might create the problem of people shirking their job and goofing off, when they're supposed to be working. Maybe the more common problem is people jerking off, while pretending to pay attention? Is that look of pleasure on the face of your fellow employee maybe not because you just offered a brilliant suggestion?

Merton on Environment—Part 5

For all of his life Merton worshipped Nature—despite spending some of his formative years in New York City in his twenties. Both his parents were talented landscape painters. His mother died when he was six and he began to accompany his father on painting trips around the world. While his dad concentrated on rendering a still life of Nature, young Tom would wander through the woods. In Bermuda, he wrote, “Day after day, the sun shone on the blue waters of the sea, and on the islands of the bay. I remember one day looking up at the sky, taking it into my head to worship one of the clouds.”

As he was turning from a life of New York licentiousness, in his twenties, toward a religious pursuit, he applied for admission to the Franciscans—primarily because of Francis's love of Nature. He was devastated when they turned him down, because he had fathered a child out of wedlock in England. A friend suggested that he try the Trappists, who welcomed him.

After entering Gethsemani Abbey in Kentucky—although he initially fully immersed himself in the discipline of a contemplative monk—he later began to desire a closer connection to Nature. He was given the job of monastery forester, which he treasured. He then agitated to be permitted to become a hermit, living alone in the woods that surround Gethsemani, and was eventually granted the privilege. In doing so, Merton was returning to the roots of ancient Catholic hermetic life.

He had arrived at his destiny! His life in the woods was sacred for him. He wrote, “I want not only to observe but to know living things, and this implies a dimension of primordial familiarity, which is simple and primitive and religious and poor. This is the reality I need, the vestige of God in His creatures.”

Just as Merton came to see the sickness in American culture that had led to massive delusion, media shallowness, and racism, he became increasingly upset with humanity's assault on Nature. In 1967 Rachel Carson managed—against considerable opposition—to publish her seminal book Silent Spring. It was at an auspicious event for Merton, as he resonated with her message of environmental injustice. He wrote to Carson, describing her impact on his thinking. In their resulting correspondence, she helped him to see that his stance on social injustices naturally extended to environmental injustice. This is a good example of how a cloistered monk can become aware of the inequities of society.

Merton became very outspoken on the problem... even vehement. He wrote, “What a miserable bunch of foolish idiots we are! We kill everything around us even when we think we love and respect nature and life. This sudden power to deal death around us simply by the way we live, in total innocence and ignorance, is by far the most disturbing symptom of our time.” With Carson's help he came to realize that the cause of environmental problems was the same as the societal problems that he'd been addressing.

Thus, with this last of a series of five posts on Thomas Merton's critique of society's assault on each other and Nature, I have attempted to describe his insights and influence on my thinking. I find it disheartening that 50-60 years after his prophetic voice attempted to awaken us to the damage we were doing, the situation has deteriorated further. I am convinced that he would be deeply discouraged. None of the essential and basic changes he called for have yet occurred.