- 5/22/2001
certain aspects were revealed to me last night regarding the Goldfish Incident, that shed [even more] disturbing light on the psychological processes of the involved parties... er. party.
-
well: apparently crank bit the head off one of the goldfish after frying it...
sorry. it's true. and I'm living with him...
-
...I really don't know how to handle this. I mean, most of those who know crank seem to find the incident funny, and I agree, it is funny. but on the other hand, it's also sickening and atrocious. I mean, frying two living creatures is bad enough... biting the head off the corpse is Hannibal Cannibal territory... even though a fried fish is, after all, food...
articulating why, precisely, I found it funny when crank does it, but not as an abstract idea, is not easy... when I got the story the first time, it was from flutter, and she was laughing, so I laughed too... yet at the same time I felt sick...
the situation was, and still is, delicately poised between the absurd [humorous] and the grotesque [sick]. and though it can pivot either way... for me, at least, it seems more and more to move towards the grotesque.
-
now: why is it funny. two main reasons, I think.
it's funny because of its sheer outrageousness. its not something that happens in normal life, and shock effects of this kind make you laugh with the unexpectedness of it...
also:
it's funny because it confirms a humorously established working definition we have of crank, as a computer-geek with strong sympathies for machines, for evolution and for natural hierarchies... and little or no sympathy for small living creatures.
the act fits in with cranks lethal interest in mousetraps and other things that kill small living beings... and since his passion for mousetraps is funny, and his talk of cruelty is funny, this thing is funny too... because goldfish are after all in a similar category to mice...
-
now, these two points are both funny when they happen within a specified framework, something that keeps them safe and communal and contained.
violently absurd situations on film, or in celluloid reality where no one gets hurt, are fine. as long as they're devoid of real consequences they are simply food for the mind, and stimulation. not destructive. absurd situations in reality, though, often carry the promise of pain, disruption, injury following immediately after the ontological shock that makes you laugh... they have to be contextualised. and when they are contextualised, they are seldom funny for the people involved.
to me, this situation [man fries his flatmates goldfish and bites its head off] is something which belongs firmly in the realm of the imagination. it could have been harmlessly funny on tv, in a fictional setting... the actualisation of this fantasy, like sexual fantasies of rape, doesn't overlap much with the fiction.
-
similarly, the humorous stereotype we have of crank is kept in check by the assumption that he won't overstep certain careful, unspoken boundaries we set for the communal set of possible behaviours. I mean, cruelty, and contempt for non-sentient creatures, cartesian beliefs about the machinelike nature of animals can be funny, as long as we can assume that no one is going to act on what they say in a manner that is not acceptable to us. it's funny, as long as we can assume that we all share similar assumptions about what is feasible and what can be done...
this behavioral familiarity is what establishes zones of social comfort, like the flat, and keeps them going.
we can assume that none of us are going to react violently to sarcasm around the dinner table. we can assume we're not going to have rapes, heroin overdoses, gunfights, theft. we can assume that no one is going to put their penis in your mouth while you sleep and take pictures... and we can assume that none of us are going to torture and kill a living creature by frying it, then biting its head off...
-
well, we can't.
that's why we found it funny in the first place.
and that is why on reflection it's not really that funny...
[later]: ok, clarification. didn't mean to imply that crank is going out to rape people... what I mean is, I at least have to reassess my assumptions about what crank will and will not do... by doing something that I consider unthinkable for myself, he has stepped, momentarily perhaps, outside the boundary of common assumptions... hence, one has to reconsider.
bottom line is, I don't think he's dangerous, and he's mostly a very nice guy.
but its pretty damn fvcked up to fry two goldfish alive.
crank's complexities - 5/22/2001
there is a basic contradiction at the heart of crank.
one the one hand, he systematically argues for a Cartesian model of animal psychology, which I find unnerving, cerebral and somewhat pathological...
brief historical note:
Descartes argued that since animals have no souls, they can not experience pain. they can go through the motions of pain, but they do not have a subjective consciousness on which the pain can register. they are for all intents and purposes machines.
Descartes was the principal reason why I gave up philosophy in my first year at university. the animal argument was just one of the reasons, but definitely a reason.
given the fact that you cannot logically prove that other people have minds [you cannot, as far as I understand, prove that the outside world exists and that you are not a brain in a vat being tortured by sadistic researchers... (might explain GWBush, for one...)]
given this, I don't see how this attitude can not be easily extended to human beings. the lack of empathy, the lack of comprehension of the pain of others is the basic defining characteristic of the sociopath, as far as I understand it... hence, potentially at least, maybe even actually, a pathological trait...
I think, the moment you draw a distinction between 'souled' and 'unsouled', between 'subjects' and 'non-subjects' in talking about living beings, I think you're on very shaky ground...
which is where we find crank in the goldfish incident. hmmmmm...
-
on the other hand... crank loves dogs, because he grew up with them. and dogs, according to crank, are subjects and can experience pain.
hummm? spot the contradiction?
the result is, that rather than a coherent philosophical system, I think we have a selective, emotionally charged refusal to admit or incorporate the vast majority of beings into one's emotional world...
*zappppp*: hoho. psychobabble alarm.
what I mean is, I don't know how this position can be defended systematically... I know some nice dogs, so dogs are the exception to the rule that animals are not subjects... all other animals, though, are not subjects...
if you are going to kill and eat animals, I would go as far as to say that any attempt to deny these animals you eat their 'self-hood' and their capacity to feel pain amounts to blatant hypocrisy. feeble self-justification, with potentially devastating, insane consequences...
it's the basic mechanism of exclusion from the set of sentient, worthy, valuable creatures that lead Germany to destroy the Jews, the gypsies, the homseoxuals, Jeohva's Witnesses, Russians, you name it...
some creatures are 'real', some are 'not real', and we can dispose of the latter category as objects, without considering their subjective experience of the way we dispose of them...
I'm not saying that crank is directly linked to the Holocaust. what I am saying is, that we should be [I certainly try to be] on guard against any mental habit that denies to a living creature ontological validity...
-
*pauses*...
-
*frowns* ... *hmmmmm* ... I see.
there are philosophical problems to this, aren't there... like why aren't we nice to rocks and stones... we're denying them 'beinghood' by force of habit, language and indoctrination...
cranks attitude to animals is just parallel to our attitude to rocks and stones... we don't consider them subject to pain, he doesn't consider goldfish subject to pain...
*hummmmm*... still, I think my point stands... anyway, I need to work now... be well ye all...
One or more comments are waiting for approval by an editor.