我们都很清楚，有很多种类的喜剧，其中一些超越了所有合理的限制。那些沉迷于喜剧艺术的人通常会选择一种满足特定需求或吸引特定观众的亚类型。那些为了利益而表演喜剧的人非常了解他们的观众，如果他们选择有争议的话题，他们也知道他们在承担一些风险，所有这些都来自我们的国宝——言论自由。那个红着脸的家伙并没有被逗乐，他可能就是那个拔出半自动手枪的人。不过，有时喜剧可以化解糟糕的局面——要确定这种局面的结果并不总是那么容易，而且通常存在风险因素。当我们从事言语行为时，我们冒了很多风险(参见:John R. Searle)——每天都在冒无数的风险。像兰尼·布鲁斯和乔治·卡林这样的喜剧演员有时看起来鲁莽得令人难以置信，有勇无险到想死的地步。但在他们的疯狂中是有方法的。他们想让我们思考的不仅仅是肤浅的无耻。

A new face in the crowd of Democratic party offerings has crafted his own take on the MAGA phenomenon. He calls it MATH---Make America Think Harder. Novel idea, that. Don't know how far he might get towards furthering his notions about this, but it is refreshing amid the din. It seems clear to this neophyte that better thinking is in order: that is why we are having culture wars in the first place...

There will always be comedy. And there will always be comedy that offends someone...even when the offense taken is mere whitewash for the self-indulgence of righteous indignation.

A Thought for the Day:
It is rare to find mindfulness in those who suffer from a lack of mind fullness.

Another observation:
We ARE what we are taught. We KNOW what we have LEARNED. Some of us, sadly, cannot tell the difference.

I got to thinking about what I said on November 18, 2019, in particular about the MATH movement. Something came to mind which I have worked into the piece on cognitive bias I have been editing for about two weeks.. The notion of thinking harder seems to me to miss the mark. I don't know why it never occurred to me before. Anyway, the text I'm referring to reads as follows: I have found it useful to think better rather than harder. Clarity over-trumps intensity (when cool assessments are required)... So, how does one think better? I cannot teach anyone how to do that. The language tries to be self-explanatory. It is not Zen, or any such manipulation, but it does take some practice. Recently, I offered some advice to my son-in-law, struggling with his own daemons. I told him that providence smiles on determination and purpose. I hope that helps him think better...

Laughter can be produced in many ways. By physical stimulation in some in the area of the lower ribs, in others by a nervous reaction to social awkwardness, but in most as a response to a funniness-stimulus. This stimulus is a kind of perception which requires an object of what the perception is of. The proof of this is that laughter of this kind can not be produced without the stimulus. As is the case in the emotion of love, funniness-perception cannot be commanded. This fact radically separates the stimulus from the independent will of the perceiver, and therefore demonstrates that it belongs to the human species as a generic predicate.

第二个要观察到的事实是，笑——对滑稽的反应——的感知会在个体身上产生一种特定的快乐。除了这两个特征，即一般的非自愿反应和个人的享乐倾向，还可以加上第三个组成它们之间关系的特征:一种对别人会认为什么是有趣的常识——一种普遍的有趣，如果你愿意的话。这里重要的是，并没有要求这种普遍存在，只需要笑声把它当作回应的一个基本组成部分。The production of laughter by funniness therefore has at least four parts: funniness-perception (A), application of assumed universality to what's perceived (B), the physiological response of laughter (C), and the pleasure which arises from the association of the response to the perception by means of the universal (D).

A question arises regarding the chronology of the series, and whether there can be more than one. I would like to argue here that there are at least two chronologies, and that the difference between them informs the distinction between offensive and non-offensive comedy. Consider the following:
1) Non-offensive
a) If (B) then (A), so (C) and (D).
2) Offensive
a) If (A) then (D), so (B) and (C).

--In offensive comedy, judgement of the universal follows the pleasure, which is why many will attempt to suppress the laughter-response for fear of being seen finding it funny, whereas in non-offensive comedy the opposite is the case, where the universal judgement precedes the pleasure, and one wants to be seen as representing the universal in the response.

Hello Daniel,
I like the first order predicate calculus approach to analysis of 'Is that funny'. Since I didn't listen to the entire (rebroadcast) episode, I dunno if they discussed this approach. I like that you bring in that genuine laughter is a kind of 'orgasmic' response - whether driven by the limbic system or the cortex or whatever. But one can to some extent stifle that orgasm by etiquette rules (or whatever one calls them). But there can be fundamental differences between the questions 'what makes us laugh?' and 'what is funny?' (depending on the definition of 'funny'). Despite the no doubt excellent work of the guest here, I don't think there's a well-developed 'General Theory of Humor' because it really must await a 'General Theory of Consciousness', which we totally don't have....hmmm.... I haven't been very clear here, but guess I better get to my day's work. Wish I could spend more time expressing my ideas. But did find your comment stimulating to my own thoughts.
Thanks,
Greg Slater

Dear PhilTalk,
Despite that I hardly ever post any more, and that i am not sure anybody ever reads the comments except for those few who posted and are checking to see if anyone responded, I very much appreciate that you (unlike everyone else, including NPR, RadioLab, This Am Life, etc) still have a 'local' comment section and have not entirely outsourced your comment section to evil social media sites (FB, Twit, etc etc etc...)....Local is better for a lotta stuff... though presumably more labor intensive...
Thanks,
Greg Slater - listener, and sometimes financial supporter, of PT for the last ~hundred years or whatever...