Jeg vil tale om mig selv, hvilket jeg ellers sjældent gør, fordi jeg, for det første, foretrækker at tale om ting, jeg ikke ved noget som helst om. Og for det andet, fordi jeg er en narcissist i bedring. (Latter) Jeg vidste faktisk ikke, jeg var en narcissist. Jeg troede, narcissisme betød, at man elskede sig selv. Men så var der en, der fortalte mig, at der var en bagside ved det. Det er faktisk langt mere trist end selvkærlighed. Det er ugengældt selvkærlighed. (Latter) Jeg synes ikke, jeg kan tillade mig selv et tilbagefald.
I am going to talk about myself, which I rarely do, because I -- well for one thing, I prefer to talk about things I know nothing about. And secondly, I'm a recovering narcissist. (Laughter) I didn't know I was a narcissist actually. I thought narcissism meant you loved yourself. And then someone told me there is a flip side to it. So it's actually drearier than self-love; it's unrequited self-love. (Laughter) I don't feel I can afford a relapse.
Men jeg vil, derimod, forklare hvordan jeg nåede frem til min særlige form for komedie, eftersom jeg har prøvet så mange forskellige variationer af den. Jeg begyndte med improvisation. Den særlige improvisationsform der hedder teaterspil, der havde én regel - som jeg altid har opfattet som en glimrende etisk retningslinje i et samfund. Og reglen var, at du ikke kunne fornægte den anden persons virkelighed, kun bygge oven på den.
But I want to, though, explain how I came to design my own particular brand of comedy because I've been through so many different forms of it. I started with improvisation, in a particular form of improvisation called theater games, which had one rule, which I always thought was a great rule for an ethic for a society. And the rule was, you couldn't deny the other person's reality, you could only build on it.
Og selvfølgelig lever vi et samfund, der er besat af at modsige andre menneskers virkelighed. Det hele drejer sig om modsigelse, og jeg tror, det er derfor, jeg generelt er så sensibel over for modsigelser. Jeg ser det alle vegne. Ligesom meningsmålinger. Ik? Jeg undrer mig altid over, at i meningsmålinger er procentdelen af amerikanere, der ikke kender svaret på et givent spørgsmål, altid to procent. 75 procent af alle amerikanere tror, at Alaska er en del af Canada. Men kun to procent ved ikke, hvilken påvirkning sammenbruddet i Argentina vil få på IMF's pengepolitik - (Latter) - det forekommer at være en modsigelse. Eller denne annonce, jeg læste i New York Times: "Et fornemt armbåndsur signalerer noget om din plads i samfundet. Et ur købt hos os skriger af god smag." (Latter) Eller dette, som jeg fandt i et magasin med titlen California Lawyer, i en artikel, der uden tvivl må være tiltænkt advokaterne i Enron. "At overleve kritikken. Hvad du bør gøre og ikke gøre." (Latter) "Brug ikke svære ord" (Latter) "Lær lingua franca." (Latter) Ja, lingua dét, Frankie.
And of course we live in a society that's all about contradicting other peoples' reality. It's all about contradiction, which I think is why I'm so sensitive to contradiction in general. I see it everywhere. Like polls. You know, it's always curious to me that in public opinion polls the percentage of Americans who don't know the answer to any given question is always two percent. 75 percent of Americans think Alaska is part of Canada. But only two percent don't know the effect that the debacle in Argentina will have on the IMF's monetary policy -- (Laughter) seems a contradiction. Or this ad that I read in the New York Times: "Wearing a fine watch speaks loudly of your rank in society. Buying it from us screams good taste." (Laughter) Or this that I found in a magazine called California Lawyer, in an article that is surely meant for the lawyers at Enron. "Surviving the Slammer: Do's and Don'ts." (Laughter) "Don't use big words." (Laughter) "Learn the lingua franca." (Laughter) Yeah. "Lingua this, Frankie."
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Og jeg tror, det er en selvmodsigelse, at jeg taler om videnskab, når jeg ikke ved noget om matematik. Du ved, fordi - og forresten er jeg Dean Kamen så taknemmelig for at påpege, at en af grundene til at der er kulturelle årsager til, at kvinder og minoriteter ikke betræder videnskabens og teknologiens områder - fordi, for eksempel, grunden til at jeg ikke interesserer mig for matematik er, at jeg er opdraget til at lave matematik og læse, samtidigt. Så, du er altså seks år gammel, og du læser Snehvide og de syv dværge. Det bliver meget hurtigt klart for dig, at der kun er to slags mænd i verden, dværge og prinser. Og oddsene er syv til en imod, at du finder prinsen. (Latter) Det er grunden til, at små piger nødigt laver matematik. Det er alt for deprimerende.
And I suppose it's a contradiction that I talk about science when I don't know math. You know, because -- and by the way to I was so grateful to Dean Kamen for pointing out that one of the reasons, that there are cultural reasons that women and minorities don't enter the fields of science and technology -- because for instance, the reason I don't do math is, I was taught to do math and read at the same time. So you're six years old, you're reading Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, and it becomes rapidly obvious that there are only two kinds of men in the world: dwarves and Prince Charmings. And the odds are seven to one against your finding the prince. (Laughter) That's why little girls don't do math. It's too depressing.
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Og naturligvis, når vi nu taler om videnskab så kan jeg, som jeg gjorde forleden aften, påkalde mig en voldsom vrede fra visse videnskabsfolk, der var meget vrede på mig. Jeg tror, det var fordi, jeg brugte ordet "postmoderne", som om det var helt OK. Og de blev meget vrede. En af dem, skal det siges, ville virkelig gerne inddrage mig, tror jeg, i en seriøs diskussion. Men jeg involverer mig ikke i seriøse diskussioner. Jeg synes ikke om dem, fordi diskussioner selvsagt handler om modsigelser. Og de formes efter disse værdier.
Of course, by talking about science I also may, as I did the other night, incur the violent wrath of some scientists who were very upset with me. I used the word postmodern as if it were OK. And they got very upset. One of them, to his credit, I think really just wanted to engage me in a serious argument. But I don't engage in serious arguments. I don't approve of them because arguments, of course, are all about contradiction, and they're shaped by the values that I have questions with.
Jeg stiller spørgsmålstegn ved de værdier, der ligger i newtonsk videnskab. På samme måde som med rationalitet; du forventes at være rationel i en diskussion. Men rationalitet er konstrueret af det, som Christie Hefner fortalte om i dag, splittelsen mellem krop og intellekt. Du ved ... intellektet er godt, kroppen er dårlig. Intellektet er ego, kroppen er id. Når vi siger "jeg", som når Rene Descartes sagde: "Jeg tænker, derfor er jeg", så mener vi intellektet. Som David Lee Roth sang i "Just a Gigolo": "Jeg har ikke nogen krop." Det er sådan, du bliver rationel. Og det er grunden til, at så meget humor handler om en krop, der hævder sig over for intellektet. Det er derfor, der findes latrinære og frække jokes. Det er derfor, der er sådan noget som Raspyni-brødrene, der slår løs på Richards kønsorganer. Og vi ler dobbelt så meget fordi, han er kroppen, men det handler også om -
I have questions with the values of Newtonian science, like rationality. You're supposed to be rational in an argument. Well rationality is constructed by what Christie Hefner was talking about today, that mind-body split, you know? The head is good, body bad. Head is ego, body id. When we say "I," -- as when Rene Descartes said, "I think therefore I am," -- we mean the head. And as David Lee Roth sang in "Just a Gigolo," "I ain't got no body." That's how you get rationality. And that's why so much of humor is the body asserting itself against the head. That's why you have toilet humor and sexual humor. That's why you have the Raspyni Brothers whacking Richard in the genital area. And we're laughing doubly then because he's the body, but it's also --
Stemme uden for scenen: Richard.
Voice offstage: Richard.
Emily Levine: Richard. Hvad sagde jeg? (Latter) Richard. Ja, men det er også intellektet lederen af konferencen.
Emily Levine: Richard. What did I say? (Laughter) Richard. Yes but it's also the head, the head of the conference.
Det er den anden måde, som humor - som når Art Buchwald gør grin med magthaverne. Det giver sikkert ikke lige så mange penge som krops-humor, er jeg sikker på - (Latter) men det er ikke desto mindre det, der gør, at vi værdsætter og beundrer dem.
That's the other way that humor -- like Art Buchwald takes shots at the heads of state. It doesn't make quite as much money as body humor I'm sure -- (Laughter) but nevertheless, what makes us treasure you and adore you.
Der findes også en modsigelse i rationaliteten i dette land, der går ud på, at uanset hvor meget vi værdsætter intellektet, så er vi meget anti-intellektuelle. Jeg ved det, fordi jeg i the New York Times læste, at Ayn Rand-fonden indrykkede en helsides-annonce efter 11. september, hvor de skrev: "Problemet er ikke ikke Irak eller Iran, problemet i dette land, som det står over for, er universitetsprofessorerne og deres yngel." (Latter) Så jeg genlæste romanen "Kun den stærke er fri". (Latter) Jeg ved ikke, hvor mange af jer der har læst den. Og jeg er ikke en ekspert i sadomasochisme. (Latter) Men jeg vil lige læse et par tilfældige passager fra side 217.
There's also a contradiction in rationality in this country though, which is, as much as we revere the head, we are very anti-intellectual. I know this because I read in the New York Times, the Ayn Rand foundation took out a full-page ad after September 11, in which they said, "The problem is not Iraq or Iran, the problem in this country, facing this country is the university professors and their spawn." (Laughter) So I went back and re-read "The Fountainhead." (Laughter) I don't know how many of you have read it. And I'm not an expert on sadomasochism. (Laughter) But let me just read you a couple of random passages from page 217.
"Herskerens gerninger" når han, smertefuldt og med foragt, tog hende i sin besiddelse var det den form for henrykkelse, hun søgte. Når de så lå sammen i sengen, var alt, som det skulle være. Som gerningens karakter nu engang måtte afkræve. En voldshandling. Det var sammenbidte tænder og had. Det var uudholdeligt. Ikke et kærtegn, men en bølge af smerte. Smerten som en passioneret handling."
"The act of a master taking painful contemptuous possession of her, was the kind of rapture she wanted. When they lay together in bed it was, as it had to be, as the nature of the act demanded, an act of violence. It was an act of clenched teeth and hatred. It was the unendurable. Not a caress, but a wave of pain. The agony as an act of passion."
Så I kan nok forestille jer min overraskelse, da jeg i The New Yorker læste, at Alan Greenspan, formand for Den amerikanske centralbank, betragter Ayn Rand som sin intellektuelle mentor. (Latter) Det er som at komme hjem og opdage, at din babysitter er en dominatrix. (Latter) Det er slemt nok, at vi måtte se J. Edgar Hoover i kjole. Nu må vi så se Alan Greenspan, for vores indre blik, i et sort læderkorset, og med en tatovering på ballen med ordene "Pisk inflationen nu!"
So you can imagine my surprise on reading in The New Yorker that Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, claims Ayn Rand as his intellectual mentor. (Laughter) It's like finding out your nanny is a dominatrix. (Laughter) Bad enough we had to see J. Edgar Hoover in a dress. Now we have to picture Alan Greenspan in a black leather corset, with a butt tattoo that says, "Whip inflation now."
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Og Ayn Rand naturligvis, Ayn Rand er berømt for en filosofi, der hedder "objektivisme", der afspejler et andet perspektiv af den newtonske fysiks værdier, nemlig objektivitet. Objektivitet er i bund og grund konstrueret på samme måde som SM. Subjektet underkaster sig objektet. På den måde hævder du dig selv. Du gør dig selv til den aktive stemme. Og objektet er den passive nej-stemme.
And Ayn Rand of course, Ayn Rand is famous for a philosophy called Objectivism, which reflects another value of Newtonian physics, which is objectivity. Objectivity basically is constructed in that same S&M way. It's the subject subjugating the object. That's how you assert yourself. You make yourself the active voice. And the object is the passive no-voice.
Jeg blev så fascineret af den der Oxygen-reklame. Jeg ved ikke, om I er klar over det, men - måske er det anderledes nu, eller måske var det bare et vink med en vognstang, men i mange barselsafsnit på sygehuse over hele landet, indtil for nylig i hvert fald, ifølge en bog af Jessica Benjamin, stod der på skiltene over drengebørnenes vugger: "Jeg er en dreng". Og på skiltene over pigebørnenes vugger stod der: "Det er pige". Ja! Så passiviteten blev, kulturelt set, projiceret ind i de små piger.
I was so fascinated by that Oxygen commercial. I don't know if you know this but -- maybe it's different now, or maybe you were making a statement -- but in many hospital nurseries across the country, until very recently anyway, according to a book by Jessica Benjamin, the signs over the little boys cribs read, "I'm a boy," and the signs over the little girls cribs read, "It's a girl." Yeah. So the passivity was culturally projected onto the little girls.
Og sådan fortsætter det stadig, som jeg vist fortalte jer sidste år. En meningsmåling viser - en meningsmåling i Time magazine, hvori kun mænd var blevet spurgt: "Har du nogen sinde haft sex med en kvinde, du virkelig afskyede?" Og ja, Jo, 58 procent sagde ja, som jeg dog tror er overdrevet, fordi mange mænd, hvis du bare spørger, "Har du nogensinde haft sex ..." "Ja!" De venter ikke engang på resten. (Latter) Og selvfølgelig var der to procent, der ikke vidste, om de havde haft - (Latter) Det var den den første joke ud ad fire, som jeg forsøger mig med i dag.
And this still goes on as I think I told you last year. There's a poll that proves -- there was a poll that was given by Time magazine, in which only men were asked, "Have you ever had sex with a woman you actively disliked?" And well, yeah. Well, 58 percent said yes, which I think is overinflated though because so many men if you just say, "Have you ever had sex ... " "Yes!" They don't even wait for the rest of it. (Laughter) And of course two percent did not know whether they'd had -- (Laughter) That's the first callback, of my attempted quadruple.
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Så hele den her subjekt-objekt-ting, indgår i noget, jeg er meget interesseret i fordi det, ærlig talt, er grunden til, at jeg tror på politisk korrekthed. Det gør jeg. Jeg tror, det kan gå for vidt. Jeg tror, at Ringling Brothers måske gik for vidt med den reklame, de indrykkede i New York Times Magazine. "Vi har en livslang emotionel og økonomisk forpligtelse over for vores asiatiske elefant-partnere." (Latter) Måske i overkanten. Men, du ved - jeg synes ikke, at en person med mørk hudfarve, der gør grin med hvide mennesker, er det samme, som hvis en hvid gør grin med mørke mennesker. Eller kvinder, der gør grin med mænd, er det samme som mænd, der gør grin med ... Eller fattige der gør grin med rige folk, er det det samme som hvis rige ...
So this subject-object thing, is part of something I'm very interested in because this is why, frankly, I believe in political correctness. I do. I think it can go too far. I think Ringling Brothers may have gone too far with an ad they took out in the New York Times Magazine. "We have a lifelong emotional and financial commitment to our Asian Elephant partners." (Laughter) Maybe too far. But you know -- I don't think that a person of color making fun of white people is the same thing as a white person making fun of people of color. Or women making fun of men is the same as men making fun of women. Or poor people making fun of rich people, the same as rich people.
Jeg synes godt, man kan lave sjov med dem, som har. Men ikke med dem, der ikke har, og det er grunden til, at jeg ikke laver grin med Kenneth Lay og hans yndige kone. (Latter) Hvad sjovt er der i kun at have fire boliger tilbage? (Latter) Og jeg lærte så sandelig lektien under sex-skandalerne i Clintons embedsperiode. Eller, som jeg kalder dem: de gode gamle dage. (Latter) Når folk jeg kender, du ved, folk der så sig selv som liberale, og meget andet, gjorde grin med Jennifer Flowers og Paula Jones. Dybest set gjorde de grin med dem for at være "trailer trash" eller "white trash". Det kunne måske nok virke som en harmløs fordom, der ikke for alvor kan såre nogen. Lige indtil man læser, som jeg gjorde, en reklame i the Los Angeles Times. "Til salg: "White trash-kompaktor". (Latter)
I think you can make fun of the have but not the have-nots, which is why you don't see me making fun of Kenneth Lay and his charming wife. (Laughter) What's funny about being down to four houses? (Laughter) And I really learned this lesson during the sex scandals of the Clinton administration or, Or as I call them, the good ol' days. (Laughter) When people I knew, you know, people who considered themselves liberal, and everything else, were making fun of Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones. Basically, they were making fun of them for being trailer trash or white trash. It seems, I suppose, a harmless prejudice and that you're not really hurting anybody. Until you read, as I did, an ad in the Los Angeles Times. "For sale: White trash compactor." (Laughter)
Så den her subjekt-objekt-historie spiller en rolle i forhold til humor. Jeg læste en bog af en kvinde ved navn Amy Richlin, som er leder af Institut for græske og romerske studier ved USC. Og bogen hedder "Priapus' have". Og hun fortæller, at romersk humor afspejler det romerske samfunds sociale struktur. Det romerske samfund var meget hierarkisk opbygget, på samme måde som vores, til en vis udstrækning, er. Det samme gjaldt humor. Der skulle altid være en, der kunne gøres grin med. Det var altid satirikeren, eksempelvis Juvenal eller Marschall, som repræsenterede publikum, og han skulle så gøre grin med outsideren, personen der ikke havde denne status af at være et subjekt.
So this whole subject-object thing has relevance to humor in this way. I read a book by a woman named Amy Richlin, who is the chair of the Classics department at USC. And the book is called "The Garden of Priapus." And she says that Roman humor mirrors the construction of Roman society. So that Roman society was very top/bottom, as ours is to some degree. And so was humor. There always had to be the butt of a joke. So it was always the satirist, like Juvenal or Martial, represented the audience, and he was going to make fun of the outsider, the person who didn't share that subject status.
Og i stand-up er det selvfølgelig meningen, at stand-up-komikeren dominerer publikummet. En række afbrydelser eller tilråb fra publikum medvirker til den spænding, der har til formål at sikre, at komikeren ender med at dominere - og få bugt med afbryderne. Og det blev jeg ret god til, da jeg var stand-up-komiker. Men jeg hadede det, fordi de jo bestemte samspillets vilkår. På samme måde som det at involvere sig i en seriøs diskussion i nogen grad afgør, hvad man taler om. Og jeg søgte en form, der ikke var sådan. Og jeg ønskede noget, der var mere "interaktivt". Jeg ved godt, at det ord er blevet ret så devalueret, af den digitale marketings brug af det.
And in stand-up of course, the stand-up comedian is supposed to dominate the audience. A lot of heckling is the tension of trying to make sure that the comedian is going to be able to dominate, and overcome the heckler. And I got good at that when I was in stand up. But I always hated it because they were dictating the terms of the interaction, in the same way that engaging in a serious argument determines the content, to some degree, of what you're talking about. And I was looking for a form that didn't have that. And so I wanted something that was more interactive. I know that word is so debased now by the use of it by Internet marketers.
Jeg savner virkelig telefonsælgerne nu, det siger jeg dig. (Latter) Det gør jeg. Fordi du i det mindste havde en chance. Ik? Jeg plejede at lægge på. Men så læste jeg i brevkassen "Kære Abby", at det var uhøfligt. Så næste gang, der var en, der ringede, lod jeg ham komme halvvejs igennem sin svada, og så sagde jeg: "Du lyder sexet". (Latter) Han lagde på!
I really miss the old telemarketers now, I'll tell you that. (Laughter) I do, because at least there you stood a chance. You know? I used to actually hang up on them. But then I read in "Dear Abby" that that was rude. So the next time that one called I let him get halfway through his spiel and then I said, "You sound sexy." (Laughter) He hung up on me!
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Men interaktiviteten giver publikum mulighed for at forme, hvad du skal gøre, lige som du former deres oplevelse af verden. Og det er faktisk det, jeg søger. Og på en måde var jeg - da jeg begyndte at analysere, hvad det præcis er, jeg gør ... Jeg læste en bog med titlen "Trickster Makes This World" af Lewis Hyde. Og det føltes som om, jeg blev psykoanalyseret. Jeg mener; han forklarede det hele. Og da jeg så kom til konferencen her, blev det klart for mig, at de fleste her delte de samme kvaliteter, fordi en drilleånd (trickster) faktisk er en forandringsagent. En drilleånd er en forandringsagent. Og de egenskaber, jeg her vil beskrive, er de kvaliteter, der gør det muligt for forandring at ske. Og en af disse kvaliteter er grænseoverskridelse. Jeg tror faktisk, det er grunden til, at videnskabsmændene blev så rasende på mig. Men jeg kan lide at overskride grænser. Jeg holder også af - som jeg fortalte - at tale om ting, jeg ikke ved noget som helst om.
But the interactivity allows the audience to shape what you're going to do as much as you shape their experience of the world. And that's really what I'm looking for. And I was sort of, as I was starting to analyze what exactly it is that I do, I read a book called "Trickster Makes This World," by Lewis Hyde. And it was like being psychoanalyzed. I mean he had laid it all out. And then coming to this conference, I realized that most everybody here shared those same qualities because really what trickster is is an agent of change. Trickster is a change agent. And the qualities that I'm about to describe are the qualities that make it possible to make change happen. And one of these is boundary crossing. I think this is what so, in fact, infuriated the scientists. But I like to cross boundaries. I like to, as I said, talk about things I know nothing about.
(En telefon ringer)
(Phone Ringing)
Jeg håber, det er min agent, I betaler mig jo ikke noget for det her.
I hope that's my agent, because you aren't paying me anything.
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Og jeg tror, det er udmærket at tale om emner, jeg ikke ved noget om, for jeg bidrager med et nyt perspektiv, ik? Jeg kan se modsigelser, som I måske ikke kan se. Som en mimiker engang - eller en mem, som han kaldte sig. Han var en meget egoistisk mem. Og han fortalte, at jeg skulle udvise mere respekt, eftersom det tog op mod 18 år at lære at mime rigtigt. Og jeg sagde: "Okay, så ved man da, at det kun er uintelligente mennesker, der begynder at mime. (Latter) Det tager kun to år at lære at tale.
And I think it's good to talk about things I know nothing about because I bring a fresh viewpoint to it, you know? I'm able to see the contradiction that you may not be able to see. Like for instance a mime once -- or a meme as he called himself. He was a very selfish meme. And he said that I had to show more respect because it took up to 18 years to learn how to do mime properly. And I said, "Well, that's how you know only stupid people go into it." (Laughter) It only takes two years to learn how to talk.
(Latter)
(Laughter)
(Bifald)
(Applause)
Og, I ved, det er problemet med "objektivitet". Hvis du udelukkende er omgivet af mennesker, der bruger samme vokabular som dig, eller de samme antagelser som dig, vil du tro, at virkeligheden er sådan. På samme måde som med økonomer, hvis definition af rationalitet siger, at vi alle handler ud fra økonomiske egeninteresser. Tag nu for eksempel Michael Hawley, eller Dean Kamen, eller min bedstemor.
And you know people, this is the problem with quote, objectivity, unquote. When you're only surrounded by people who speak the same vocabulary as you, or share the same set of assumptions as you, you start to think that that's reality. Like economists, you know, their definition of rational, that we all act out of our own economic self-interest. Well, look at Michael Hawley, or look at Dean Kamen, or look at my grandmother.
Min bedstemor handlede altid i andres interesse, hvad enten de ønskede det eller ej. (Latter) Hvis der havde været en olympisk disciplin i martyrier, ville min mormor havde tabt med vilje. (Latter) "Nej, du skal have medaljen. Du er ung. Jeg er gammel. Hvem skulle tage notits af mig alligevel? Hvor er jeg på vej hen? Jeg skal snart dø."
My grandmother always acted in other people's interests, whether they wanted her to or not. (Laughter) If they had had an Olympics in martyrdom, my grandmother would have lost on purpose. (Laughter) "No, you take the prize. You're young. I'm old. Who's going to see it? Where am I going? I'm going to die soon."
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Så der er en ... denne grænseoverskridelse, denne mægling mellem - Fritz Lanting, var det ikke det, han hed, har faktisk sagt, at han var en mægler. Det er et karaktertræk ved drilleånden. Og et andet træk er brugen af ikke-opposititionelle strategier. Og dette står i stedet for modsætningen. I stedet for at fornægte den andens virkelighed har vi et paradoks, hvor man tillader mere end én virkelighed,
So that's one -- this boundary crossing, this go-between which -- Fritz Lanting, is that his name, actually said that he was a go-between. That's an actual quality of the trickster. And another is, non-oppositional strategies. And this is instead of contradiction. Where you deny the other person's reality, you have paradox where you allow more than one reality to coexist,
jeg tror, det er en anden filosofisk konstruktion. Jeg er ikke sikker på, hvad den kaldes. Men et eksempel på det, var et skilt jeg så hos en juveler. På det stod der: "Ører pierces, mens du venter" (Latter) Det sætter virkelig gang i fantasien at forestille sig et alternativ. (Latter) "Ellers tak, jeg lægger dem bare her. Mange tak. Jeg har et par ærinder. Så jeg kommer tilbage efter dem ved femtiden, hvis det er ok med dig. Hvad? Hvad? Hva'? Jeg kan ikke høre dig."
I think there's another philosophical construction. I'm not sure what it's called. But my example of it is a sign that I saw in a jewelry store. It said, "Ears pierced while you wait." (Laughter) There the alternative just boggles the imagination. (Laughter) "Oh no. Thanks though, I'll leave them here. Thanks very much. I have some errands to run. So I'll be back to pick them up around five, if that's OK with you. Huh? Huh? What? Can't hear you."
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Et andet karaktertræk ved drilleånden er evnen til at være heldig med vilje. Tag nu for eksempel tilfældigheder, som Louis Kahn, der fortalte om tilfældigheder, det er et andet karaktertræk ved drilleånden. Drilleånden er mentalt forberedt på det "uforberedte". Og det at - og jeg siger dette til videnskabsfolkene - det at drilleånden er i stand til at bevare et åbent sind så han kan skabe rum for nye ideer eller gennemskue modsigelserne eller de skjulte problemer, med sine ideer. Der hører ikke nogen joke med til denne pointe. Jeg ville bare sætte videnskabsfolkene på plads. (Latter)
And another attribute of the trickster is smart luck. That accidents, that Louis Kahn, who talked about accidents, this is another quality of the trickster. The trickster has a mind that is prepared for the unprepared. That, and I will say this to the scientists, that the trickster has the ability to hold his ideas lightly so that he can let room in for new ideas or to see the contradictions or the hidden problems with his ideas. I had no joke for that. I just wanted to put the scientists in their place. (Laughter)
Men jeg vil gerne fortælle, hvordan jeg tror, jeg kunne tænke mig at lave forandringer, og det er ved at etablere forbindelser. Sådan plejer jeg at se på det næsten mere end modsigelser. Ligesom, hvad er det, de hedder, gekkoens tæer? Altså, du ved, gekkoens tæer, der krummer sig ind og ud, ligesom Michael Moschens fingre. Jeg elsker sammenhænge.
But here's how I think I like to make change, and that is in making connections. This is what I tend to see almost more than contradictions. Like the, what do you call those toes of the gecko? You know, the toes of the gecko, curling and uncurling like the fingers of Michael Moschen. I love connections.
Jeg læste, at den ene af de to egenskaber ved materie i det newtonske univers - materie har to egenskaber i et newtonsk univers - den ene er, at det optager plads. Materie kræver plads. Jeg går ud fra, at desto vigtigere du er, jo mere plads optager du, det er forklaringen på SUV-bilfænomenet. (Latter) Og det andet er uigennemtrængelighed.
Like I'll read that one of the two attributes of matter in the Newtonian universe -- there are two attributes of matter in the Newtonian universe -- one is space occupancy. Matter takes up space. I guess the more you matter the more space you take up, which explains the whole SUV phenomenon. (Laughter) And the other one though is impenetrability.
Se, i det gamle Rom var uigennemtrængelighed maskulinitetens kriterium. Maskulinitet afhang af, at du var den aktive penetrator. Og i økonomi er der en aktiv producent og en passiv forbruger, hvilket forklarer, hvorfor virksomheder altid må penetrere nye markeder. Ja, det vil sige, hvorfor vi tvang Kina til at åbne sine markeder. Og var det ikke en god følelse? (Latter) Og nu vi bliver penetrerede. Vidste I, at biotek-virksomheder rent faktisk går ind i os? De planter deres små flag på vores gener. Vi bliver penetrerede. Og det endda af nogen, der formentlig slet ikke bryder sig om os. (Latter) Det var den anden af de fire jokes, jeg forsøger mig med i dag. Ja, naturligvis fik I fat i det. Mange tak. Jeg har stadig et stykke vej tilbage.
Well, in ancient Rome, impenetrability was the criterion of masculinity. Masculinity depended on you being the active penetrator. And then, in economics, there's an active producer and a passive consumer, which explains why business always has to penetrate new markets. Well yeah, I mean why we forced China to open her markets. And didn't that feel good? (Laughter) And now we're being penetrated. You know the biotech companies are actually going inside us and planting their little flags on our genes. You know we're being penetrated. And I suspect, by someone who actively dislikes us. (Laughter) That's the second of the quadruple. Yes of course you got that. Thank you very much. I still have a way to go.
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Og det, som jeg håber at skabe med disse sammenhænge, er en kortslutning af folks tænkning. Det vil sige, at folk ikke følger det sædvanlige associations-mønster, men derimod skaber nye forbindelser og mønstre. Ment bogstaveligt - når folk fortæller om en pludselig erkendelse, er det bogstaveligt talt gen-kendelse, at nytænke tænkningen - Jeg havde planlagt en joke her, men har glemt den. Det må I undskylde. Jeg er ved at blive som kvinden i den joke om -
And what I hope to do, when I make these connections, is short circuit people's thinking. You know, make you not follow your usual train of association, but make you rewire. It literally -- when people say about the shock of recognition, it's literally re-cognition, rewiring how you think -- I had a joke to go with this and I forgot it. I'm so sorry. I'm getting like the woman in that joke about --
kender I joken om kvinden, der er ude og køre med sin mor? Og moren er en ældre dame. Og moren kører over for rødt lys. Og datteren kan ikke lide at sige noget. Hun vil nødigt signalere: "Du er for gammel til at køre bil". Og moren kører over for endnu et rødt lys. Og datteren siger, så taktfuldt hun kan: "Mor, er du klar over, at du lige har kørt over for rødt to gange?" Og moren siger: "Åh, er det mig, der kører?"
have you heard this joke about the woman driving with her mother? And the mother is elderly. And the mother goes right through a red light. And the daughter doesn't want to say anything. She doesn't want to be like, "You're too old to drive." And the mother goes through a second red light. And the daughter says, as tactfully as possible, "Mom, are you aware that you just went through two red lights?" And the mother says, "Oh! Am I driving?"
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Og det er så den pludselige erkendelse mens den finder sted. Det fuldender min firdobbelte joke.
And that's the shock of recognition at the shock of recognition. That completes the quadruple.
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Jeg vil bare nævne to ting til. Det første er, at der er en anden egenskab ved drilleånden. Drilleånden må være i stand til at fare med lempe. Han skal være i balance. Og I skal vide, at min største hurdle, når jeg gør det, jeg nu en gang gør her, er at opbygge min optræden så den er forberedt - og uforberedt. At finde balancen mellem disse to punkter er altid farligt, fordi man kan ende med at være for uforberedt. Men det at være for forberedt giver ikke plads til de tilfældigheder, der måtte opstå.
I just want to say two more things. One is, another characteristic of trickster is that the trickster has to walk this fine line. He has to have poise. And you know the biggest hurdle for me, in doing what I do, is constructing my performance so that it's prepared and unprepared. Finding the balance between those things is always dangerous because you might tip off too much in the direction of unprepared. But being too prepared doesn't leave room for the accidents to happen.
Jeg tænkte på, hvad Moshe Safdie fortalte om skønhed i går, for Hyde skriver i sin bog, at drilleånder sommetider frembringer skønhed. Men for at det kan lykkes, skal man tilsidesætte alle de andre egenskaber, fordi når man først beskæftiger sig med skønhed, så er det en afsluttet ting. Du beskæftiger dig med noget, der optager både tid og sted. Det er en virkelig ting. Og det er altid ekstraordinært at opleve skønhed. Men hvis du undlader at gøre det, hvis du giver plads til tilfældighederne, til at de kan forekomme, får du chancen for at komme på bølgelængde. Jeg betragter gerne mit arbejde som en slags sandsynlighedsbølge. Når man rammer skønheden, kollapser sandsynlighedsbølgen til blot én mulighed. Og jeg vil gerne udforske alle mulighederne, i et forsøg på at være på bølgelængde med mit publikum.
I was thinking about what Moshe Safdie said yesterday about beauty because in his book, Hyde says that sometimes trickster can tip over into beauty. But to do that you have to lose all the other qualities because once you're into beauty you're into a finished thing. You're into something that occupies space and inhabits time. It's an actual thing. And it is always extraordinary to see a thing of beauty. But if you don't do that, if you allow for the accident to keep on happening, you have the possibility of getting on a wavelength. I like to think of what I do as a probability wave. When you go into beauty the probability wave collapses into one possibility. And I like to explore all the possibilities in the hope that you'll be on the wavelength of your audience.
Og den sidste af drilleåndens egenskaber, jeg vil fremhæve, er, at han ikke har et hjem. Han er altid på farten. Og som afslutning vil jeg sige til dig, Richard, at du med TED har skabt et hjem. Og tak for at du inviterede mig indenfor. Mange tak.
And the one final quality I want to say about trickster is that he doesn't have a home. He's always on the road. I want to say to you Richard, in closing, that in TED you've created a home. And thank you for inviting me into it. Thank you very much.
(Bifald)
(Applause)