To Joke Or Not To Joke? That is the question of this Paper & Open Forum*

I.   Pre-Introduction – Some Jokes in Questionable Taste

i.	Question: What is brown and steaming and comes out of Cowes?
	Answer: The Isle of Wright ferry.

ii.	Question: Why do Catholics have bigger balls?
	Answer: Because they always sell more tickets (to those balls).

iii.	Question: In the Bible, before the great flood, how many animals of each species did Moses take aboard the Arc?
	Answer: None, because it was Noah who built the Arc, etc.

iv.a.	Question: What do you call the defendant in a suit?
	Answer: A Kiwi (or a New Zealander), 

Or, if asked in New Zealand:

iv.b.	Question: What do you call the defendant in a suit?
	Answer: An Aussie (or an Australian).

v.	In a recent speech given by Senator John Kerry we can compare the text of his ‘botched joke’ as it should have been read and the version he presented:

v.a.	Prepared Text: Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.
v.b.	Stated Text: You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

*	For the latest version of this paper (humour.rtf) refer to my homepagesite: www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelshomepage3.html

vi.	‘The World’s Funniest Joke’: Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy takes out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps: "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says: "Calm down, I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a gunshot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says: "OK, now what?" (1)
II.   Introduction

	One of my philosophical mentors commented that it is a very English custom to preface a talk or a sermon, or similar, with a joke. She noted that humour is very culturally dependent and what might be funny in one culture might be totally misunderstood or misconstrued in some other. Therefore, it was a dangerous practice to use humour in a serious discussion especially if people from other cultures were to review it either in English or through the means of a translation. As I have found out, to my continual surprise, there is also a class of people within one’s own culture, or any culture for that matter I surmise, who are effectively humorless, or worse, cannot properly appreciate a humorous event without thinking that they, themselves, are under some form of a critical attack. For these people all humour has a point, a point that appears as if personally directed towards them, a point which if felt is felt in a very non-metaphorical sense even if they try to disguise this ‘fact’; a fact-for-them that they most likely would not be able to articulated very well as to what exactly is motivating their negative reactions towards the person instigating that humorous event. When we tell a joke we hope to get a laugh or at least the glimpse of a humorous response. Certainly not a non-reaction or a false laugh or a humorless response wherein we are questioned as to why we are telling this particular joke, or, told in no uncertain terms that it is not received as funny, or, worse, along the lines of “why are you criticizing me in this fashion?” or similar, or, even, the threat or realization of an assault in response to our simply telling a joke. On the other hand, as an eternal optimist, I still believe that instances of humour in one culture can transcend that culture and, as a trans-cultural phenomenon, can be translated to other cultures, witness, e.g., the sale of comedy programs for television from one culture to another. (2)

	In the course of this paper let us attempt to resolve this problem: is humour commensurable in a trans-cultural context, and, if so what restrictions appear to qualify that commensurability? (3)

	In this paper, designed more as a set of heading for an open forum, first let me look at the phenomenal-phenomenological nature of an intended humouress event to that extent we find ourselves able to explore this facet of our topic. The apparent insights offered by myself being treated as provisional point to more begin, or, re-begin, our investigations. (4)

Next, let me examine the relative internal propriety of an intended humorous event; internal to the text itself and the immediate context of its initial audience (treated as a homogeneous collection of like-minded individuals from a similar cultural background). (5)

Then, let me examine the relative external appropriateness of an intended humorous event; external to the text and in a context of a more universal (non-homogeneous, trans-cultural) nature. (6)

Next, let me examine, in outline, from a critical perspective, the nature of the overall humorous event; w.r.t. the possible range of consequences that can flow from the emission and reporting of humorous-like events. (7)

Last, let me proffer some tentative or provisional conclusions, as insights, into the (phenomenal-phenomenological) nature of our topic. (8)

1.   Phenomenal-Phenomenological Nature of An Intended Humorous Event 

	Where to begin? I would like to offer the following headings as points of entry into these investigations. Namely:

i.	The rhetorical nature of humour?
ii.	“That humour is a transcendental affair!”
iii.	The inclusion of one of the following three elements:
	a.	They sometimes make us feel superior to others, and/or,
b. 	Reduce the emotional impact of anxiety-provoking situations, and/or, c.	Surprise us because of some kind of incongruity.
iv.	Always include elements of incongruity through transformations of context.
v.	Humour always has a ‘point’ (as an insight set up to-be-seen intuitively).
vi.	That the ‘butt’ of a joke is either/or: 
a.	The instigator of the humorous event,
b.	The audience, in part or in whole, to a humorous event,
c.	Some third party referred to within the text of the humorous event.
vii.	Involves some form of resolution (between unexpected elements and expected elements of the text) and therefore is considerably genre-driven.
viii.	That this aspect of genre generally accounts for inter-cultural differences in the instigation and reception of humorous events.
ix.	That the humorous reception of a humorous event demands the presence of a sufficient degree of transcendental treatment (through an ongoing balance of transcendental identification and transcendental detachment) although humour, itself, is effectively experienced through the collapse and discharge of the same within a process of relative non-identification (with the ‘butt’ of that act of humour).  
x.	When all necessary conditions for the instigation and reception of a humorous event are in place then humour is experienced on both an inter-subjective cultural dimension and an inter-subjective trans-cultural dimension. (9)

i.	When working on a list of jokes to preface this paper I found myself formulating the first four of them in the form of a question. Therefore, I asked myself, is a humorous event, as a text, a rhetorically driven device? In formulating a joke, is that joke essentially formulated in the genre of a question directly or indirectly (i.e., rhetorically)? And, is a non-verbal oriented humorous event also rhetorically driven, i.e., formulating in and through some form of a question or act of questioning, etc? Or, finally, is it up to us to question the apparent form of a text or event in order to discover its incongruity and thence its relatively intrinsic humour? (10)

	Let us look at our fifth joke and examine its prepared text and its more improvised paraphrase. The prepared text is obviously in the form of a question. On the other hand, the improvised version is less obviously rhetorical. Perhaps this is one reason why it misfired in being re-told in a paraphrased form? By clearly stating the rhetorical structures of your humorous text it has less chance of being misconstrued assuming it were to be properly formed in the first place? Still, as can be seen, or rather heard, from the video clip of this speech the joke as a joke went down well with its audience. We hear quite a loud, short, spontaneous chuckle being simultaneously emitted upon its conclusion. (11)

	How might we re-write this paraphrase as a rhetorically driven device and reveal in the process its set of questions? For a start the expression “You know…” in my opinion, is a sort of question, a rhetorical question, namely, “Do you know,” or, “Did we know..?”  “Do you know..?”, being the question evidently asked in the prepared text. Of course the punch-line is delivered in the form of an answer. An answer, for some reason or other, we, or some of us at least, find funny. No doubt there is a difference between both texts and difference of humorous emphasis (but even in the latter, in the context of Kerry’s subtext of Bush’s maladroit handling of the last war in Iraq, it could still be construed as referring to him. However, taken out of context, and it can be, and was, quite effectively misconstrued as reflecting poorly upon the intelligence of the U.S. Military currently conducting this war in Iraq. Contra the apparent intentions of the prepared text!). (12)

	Can the sixth joke be construed as a set of questions? Undoubtedly! This text could possibly be read through the lens of a series of three questions? "My friend is dead! What can I do?" (Question 1) The operator says: "Calm down, I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." (Question 2, i.e., “Is he or is he not dead?”) There is a silence, then a gunshot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says: "OK, now what? (Question 3)" (13)

	Let us assume, therefore, that a question or a series of questions, in some form or other, is/are embedded at the center of a humorous event. Does this insight apply to a non-verbal gag or similar? Why do we laugh in the unfolding of a funny act of mime? At slapstick comedy? Or, say, at a woman’s shopping bag disintegrating and the contents spilling out on to the street (as in the film Bedazzled with Dudley Moore and Peter Cook). What could be rhetorical about that? Or, is a humorous event set up as a set-up in a rhetorical vein by the invocation of some sort of comic aura, i.e., we are led to expect something funny is about to occur so we continually ask ourselves what is going to surprise us? In a well contrived act of humour we then meet the expected-unexpectedness of the comic situation, or, the unexpected-expectedness of the same. This expectation is especially evident when someone tells us a joke which we have heard before but have forgotten the punch-line. Even if the punch-line is remembered we may well still find it funny (or at least remember that we found it funny on its first being told to us). Is it perhaps, in recognition of this comic aura, that we are questioning the apparent text of that possibly-comic situation as it unfolds? Seeking incongruity, a transformation of context, etc? Or, does the unexpected-expected/expected-unexpected incongruity of text set us up to continually re-question what is unfolding within this comic aura or discovery of a comic aura)? It would appear, either we are already questioning or through a sudden incongruity of text we are force to question that text! So, should we conclude a humorous event is rhetorically driven? Most likely! (14)

ii.	“That humour is a transcendental affair!” In my opinion, our being able to properly and appropriately laugh is a sign of good mental health. And, in reverse, that repeated acts of laughter may well be therapeutic! Without our powers of transcendental identification (and absorption) and transcendental detachment (or distance) we cannot interpret the world properly and appropriately. Let me explain. (15)

	Transcendental distance can be demonstrated by holding a small or moderately sized representationally constructed oil painting very close to our nose and looking at it. We may only see brush strokes or patches of colour. Now, moving the picture progressively away from our nose, hopefully, there will come a point when the picture as a ‘picture’ suddenly appears before us. Then, at this point of proximity in which the overall picture is able to be seen, we meet the degree of transcendental distance necessary in order to see that picture as a picture; as a picture of something or other and not merely as a concatenation of brush strokes or patches of colour. Similarly, in order to see the landscape as a landscape some aspect of our transcendental sense of an ego must be able to metaphorically wander within the metaphorical space of that painting and therein perceive it as a landscape. Obviously our empirical sense of embodiment could not do this literally; although we would mentally wander within that space as if we were embodied (in some form or other appropriate to the nature of that space). Now, the main point I would like to make here is this: that we need the ongoing balance of both identification and distance in order to start to perceive the seemingly apparent intentions of the artist, and, by transference, the artistry or otherwise of the instigator (or re-instigator) of a humorous event. If we couldn’t metaphorically ‘wander’ within a landscape it would not be perceived as a landscape. Similarly, without this degree of transcendental distance the overall picture would not be perceived as a ‘picture’ be it humorous or otherwise! I would also like to argue that a humorous reception of an apparently humorous event is realized when it is also non-transcendentally received in a process of detachment or non-identification. When we laugh at a humorous event we laugh ‘at’ the subjects (patients) subjected to the impositions placed upon them by that humorous situation. So we laugh at the jester, and, we laugh at the comic or clown. However, should we also identify with the subject of that humour we would also review them in a more dispassionate or compassionate light. In this regard the sadness of a clown may well have us also identifying with them at the same time Both laughing at them and identifying with their being being imposed upon in that manner. In this same vein we might also wish to interpret the antics of someone like Charlie Chaplin? (16)

	The rhetorical has been examined by myself as the second moment of the hermeneutic circle. We ask a question (invoking a dis-conjunctive suspension as discussed elsewhere). We get an answer (in the form of a metaphorical conjunctive suspension, i.e., it is like…). In a question we ask, in general terms of reference, “is it like a or is it not like a?” In an answer to this (form of a) question we get either “it is like a or it is not like a,” or, the question is not appropriate to ask for what ever reason. In a humorous situation, I would surmise, through the apparent incongruity of the reply, that we get an ‘answer’ quite at odds with the expected nature of the question, yet, also with some degree of connectedness with the same in order to meet with the unexpected-expectedness/expected-unexpectedness resident in our reception of the incongruity of that supplied text realized in response to the asking of that question (whether directly or rhetorically expressed). Forming the connection, or congruity with the question also allows us to experience the greater incongruity of that response or reply. Incongruity could not be experienced if it were either absolutely incongruous or absolutely non-incongruous. Hence this middle path the comic must tread in order to establish their particular brand of humour (stylistically distinctive through the characteristic nature of the dissonance constructed in that text and the characteristic manner of its resolution exercised by the author or authors and as set-up to be re-simulated by the ‘reader’). (17)

	Then, in the unraveling of the humorous event, congruity and incongruity collide to form the third moment of the hermeneutic circle (as previously alluded to). In this divergence and convergence of frames of reference, incongruity is humorously experienced (should it be intrinsically be present or be read in that manner). In this existential moment of shock we are ‘moved’ by this dialectic between the congruous and incongruous, the expected and the unexpected, etc. Perhaps this might explain why the punch-line of a really good joke is so easily lost to recollection – being lost in the shock or discharge of humour (realized in that humorous style of reading)? (18)

	The confluence of all three factors then establishes our simultaneous, parallel transcendental reading of the same. Without this dialectical dance of being able to simultaneously stand forward and stand back we cannot read the humour of that humorous event (or satisfactorily interpret that text in any other manner be it comic or otherwise)! In the light of this intuition, to the extent that people must make adequate judgments from a transcendental perspective, I must assume that a comic reading necessitates a greater degree of transcendental perspicacity. Or, a degree of transcendental tenacity not easily undermined by the shocking nature of that transcendental discharged realized in the comic turn perpetrated in that humorous event. The comic turn realizing a changed interpretation through a transformation of the current situation portrayed in that humorous text. A ‘transformation’ by virtue of the fact that we shift from the ‘expected to the unexpected (version of the expected)’ and never merely from one absolutely incongruous frame of reference to some other, etc. (19)

	This dialectical dance I would surmise is at the basis of all forms of interpretation. A humorous interpretation occurs through a (sudden) shift in interpretative reference frames. As noted, more a ‘transformation’ than a ‘shifting’ from one absolutely distinctive frame of reference to some other. Hence the basis of my surmise for the necessity of a transcendental complexion in acts of a humorous nature! (20)

iii.	In an analysis of ‘the world most funny joke’ three factors were perceived as present in that joke, namely, they sometimes make us feel superior to others, and/or, reduce the emotional impact of anxiety-provoking situations, and/or, surprise us because of some kind of incongruity. Now, I would like to argue that all three factors are present in humorous acts to different degrees or other. (21)

	For a start, because a humorous situation involves the making of a comic point someone or other is the ‘butt’ of that ‘point’. The ‘point’ is the resultant re-interpretation realized in the conclusion of the humorous event; being this midpoint in this transformation of the interpretation to its resulting re-interpretation or resultant. The butt of that point being either the instigator of that joke and/or the audience of that humorous event and/or some third party alluded to in the text of that humorous event. Examining our six jokes prefacing this essay we can easily determine this sense of a butt and this sense of a point (of discomfit) indicated by that same text. E.g., in the first joke the ‘butt’ is the audience of that humorous event, the person or persons to whom the joke is told. We are set up to think of what comes out of animals called ‘cows’ when instead the visual reader of this test would immediately see/hear the pun through recognizing the different spelling of ‘Cowes’ and realize that a particular place was being referred to and not the former. Aurally, we are being fooled, made the butt of this apparent piece of ‘toilet humour’ by playing on that theme when all long we are being taken for a ride so to speak. Suddenly, we realize that interpretation is invalid, but, also, was being suggested by the associations set-up through the use of the sounds/words of ‘brown’, ‘steaming’ and ‘Cowes’.  (22)

	By the connection of a comic point (or set of comic points) and a comic butt (or set of comic butts) someone or something is being put down relatively, hence, at the same time, someone else or some other thing/s is being made to feel superior by default (and v.v.). Thence the necessary co-arising of this first factor. Moreover, the mere indication of the telling or performing of a humorous event, as a comic aura, either though the pre-indication and/or sudden indication of a comic turn, itself is able to induce a certain degree of an “emotional impact in the form of an anxiety-provoking situations or surprise.” Humour, upon reception, can also discharge or diminish that semblance of an act of anxiety (whether relatively focused or non-focused upon). Moreover, anxiety provoking situations themselves are also the favourite fertile grounds for the comic capers of  cartoons, stand-up comics, sit-coms, etc. Despite certain printed periodical publications complying with the obvious wishes of their major proprietors often the cartoons, within the same, would offer a more sane commentary on the otherwise unbalanced nature of their written texts? Humour can often be quite subversive! Humour can provoke a certain degree of anxiety (as we wait for the punch-line) and it can also work, in reverse, by discharging attendant anxieties through their objectification in the textual content of that humorous event. What we laugh at cannot harm us to the same extent psychologically! Is there some truth in this observation? Of course in a war, and on an active war-front, speeding bullets on that front might well hit us and kill us, but, if we can laugh about that same type of predicament then, perhaps, it might not get to us as profoundly despite the fact that we might be stuck there on this active war-front? By laughing ‘at’ our predicament might it not be the case that we somehow lessen its psychological impact despite the fact, at the same time, of not being able to resolve it or escape from it? (23)

iv.	As noted, the element of incongruity must be present in all humorous events! Would we be correct in this surmise? Would it not be the case that if this element of connected-disparity were to be absent then no humorous discharge could arise and be simulated/re-simulated? Could we equate comic intensity with our reception of these elements of comparative discontinuity within these settings of comic continuity? In the light of this tentative interpretation can we calibrate comic intensity in terms of this degree of connected-discontinuity and overall incongruity? (24)

v.	All humour has a point realized through the comic release of humour wherein we are ‘forced’ to re-perceive the world in a distinctive fashion as set-up by that humorous event. In hindsight that point could then be regarded as relatively trivial or relatively non-trivial in the context of that emission (as to what it finally has to tell us about our world). (25)

vi.	That the ‘butt’ of a joke is: the (re-)instigator of that humorous event and/or the audience, in part or in whole, and/or some other third party referred to directly and/or indirectly in the text of that humorous situation. Let us look closely at our six jokes in this regard. (26)

	In our first joke the butt of that humour is ourselves, the audience of that joke. We are fooled into thinking that the word ‘Cowes’ meant ‘cows’. Then we are re-informed as to what is really meant even though, all along, the word ‘cows’ is obviously meant to be first thought of for this to be designed as a joke made at our expense. (27)

	In the second joke the butt could well be Catholics for having ‘big balls’ or ourselves, males only, for not having ‘bigger balls’. All along though it is, again, the audience of this joke for thinking it had a sexual implication and interpretation. Of course, again, that subtext is present in order for that joke to work as a joke so in this sense this initial (mis-)reading is also preserved even though deconstructed in the experience of the point of that specific instance of humour. (28)

	In our third joke the butt is obvious the third party of Kiwis or new Zealanders; the joke taking on a double pointedness if the audience of that rendition is themselves a Kiwi. Notice, though, how jokes made at the expense of one group by another are often transposable. E.g., “How do you know if you have a one-armed Irish electrician up a telephone pole? Wave at them!” For ‘Irish’ substitute what ever you like… ‘Australian’, ‘Queenslander’, ‘Polish’, ‘Aboriginal’, ‘Telstra’, etc… Of course, I hope I haven’t offended any members of the above. (29)

	In our fourth joke the audience, again, is the butt of its intended humour. (30)

In the fifth joke George Bush is its primary butt, and, by default, all Republicans, and, all American students who don’t work hard at their studies. However, in its de-contextualized paraphrase it could be misconstrued to imply all US Military personal. (31)

	In the last joke the conscious hunter is the butt of this joke, and by extension, perhaps, all hunters? (32)

vii.	Humour involves some form of resolution (between unexpected elements and expected elements of the text) and, therefore, is to be considered as genre-driven! One of the reasons, I believe, some forms of humour are not so transposable to other countries and cultures is the relative absence of the requisite genres in which those humorous events are originally constructed. Then, some cultures might prefer certain styles of humour over others and find themselves more amenable to examples of the same. Proximity to similarity of genre would be a deciding factor here as to how transposable certain forms of humour might be when transferred from one cultural setting to another. Furthermore, (transcendental) accessibility could also be dependent upon where the joke is psychically centered within the psyche of the audience, etc. An intellectual joke making a rarefied and cerebral pun would have less of an audience, say, to a good example of classic slapstick. In the same vein we should also note the important fact of a contextual accessibility (especially in texts making a political and/or satirical point). Without current cultural access to the background of an intellectually-oriented act of humour we would be at a loss to interpret it effectively in its associated cultural context.  (33)

	Resolution being experience in the overcoming of that point wherein we find the psychic collision of these two frames of reference co-occurring so to speak, i.e., the initial reading of the text and its ‘substitute replacement’. Laughter, etc., being an indicator of both this experience of anxiety and the release or discharge of that same anxiety through the comic sense of relief realized in that moment of simultaneous incongruous-congruity and congruous-incongruity. (34)

viii.	That the relative degree of an absence or presence of a common sense of genre generally accounts for inter-cultural differences in the instigation and reception of humorous events! The relative diminishment of both a transcendental accessibility and contextual accessibility also accounting for the range and depth of the comic relief, or relative absence of the same, when a comic situation is transposed to some other culture, country or group of people, etc. (35)

ix.	That the humorous reception of a humorous event demands the presence of a sufficient degree of transcendental treatment (through an ongoing balance of transcendental identification and transcendental detachment) although humour, itself, is effectively experienced through the collapse and discharge of the same within a process of relative non-identification (with the ‘butt’ of that act of humour)! Here we need to have our cake and eat it so to speak! Dialectically, humour is a transcendental affair and hence the need for this state of an ongoing balance between these various factors of text and counter text, identification with the subjective content of the text and/or the subjective context of the same, whilst, at the same time, experiencing the humorous discharge as a non-transcendental affair to the extent that we do not overly identify with the intended butt of that act of humour. Thus we laugh ‘at’ the intended patient of that act of humour in a decidedly non-transcendental, natural attitude. (36)

x.	When all necessary conditions for the instigation and reception of a humorous event are in place then humour is experienced on both an inter-subjective cultural dimension and an inter-subjective trans-cultural dimension. When some of these factors are absent or imperfectly constructed/re-constructed then humour is either misconstrued or not construed at all! Mis-reconstruction of a humorous text is a combination of an imperfectly formed text and/or an inadequately prepared reading of that text and/or currently suffering from a transcendental inaccessibility and/or contextual inaccessibility. More simply put, all factors necessary for a humorous reading need to be in place for that text to be successfully read in a humorous light (in keeping with apparent intentional nature of that humour). That, effectively, the successful realization of a humorous event is enacted as an insightful-like process through the realization of the apparent intentionality intended in that humorous text, i.e., as revealed through the insightful nature of the overall point of that text (whose point or points are revealed through the revelation of that act of deception as embedded in that text in some form or other). (37)

2.   Relative Internal Propriety of an Intended Humorous Event

	Here the word ‘internal’ is meant to be both internal to the text and the common likemindedness of the (hypothetical) audience wherein the humorous event is emitted and received. Various associations have their own rules as to what is considered publicly acceptable within that group. Often what is accepted as acceptable within that group could well be considered as unacceptable if certain so-called humorous events were to be broadcast beyond the social boundaries of the emission of that text. (38)

	Of course problems arise when in-jokes, e.g., are broadcast beyond the internal confines of their initial milieus and are then seen as inappropriate to both their milieu and their more general broadcasting. Taking a step further backwards, we can perceive textual propriety as conforming to the conditions necessary for the reception of a humorous event qua a humorous event! A humorous event is to be properly set-up to be read as a humorous event. The inability to hermeneutically recover an ill-received text and/or being presented by an ill-formed text prevents us from realizing the humorous intentions of that text as intimated through its humorous aura, etc. (39)

	Internal propriety is also disrupted when a humourous text is received by a person suffering from some form of a psychotic or psychotic-like dysfunction that interferes with their ability to appropriately interpret that text since the humorous text needs to entertained in an abstract, metaphorical mode of reflective consciousness in order to migrate from its initial reading to its final reading, the act of humour being entertained between this act of transformation (of reference frames). As already noted, the metaphorical point/s and butt/s of a humorous event can be seriously misconstrued by the psychotic person or the person unable to abstractly entertain the transformation of reference frames that constitute the dialectic manoeuvres of the humorous process. A wide variety of reactions could be described as co-occurring in the inadequate reception of a humorous text; e.g., evidence of a non-humorous reception to evidence of an imperfect recognition of the humorous insight of that text to evidence of a paranoid-like reaction with or without aggressive features in response to that misunderstanding of intentions as (they struggle) to (understand) ‘why’ this particular text is being presented to them now by yourself, etc. In general we could say that the non-conforming variety of relatively inappropriate/improper responses could well be indicative of a mis-interpretation of that humorous event (assuming that text to be properly constituted in a humorous mode in a similar cultural context to the ‘hearer’ of that humorous text). However, mis-readings and non-readings are not in and of themselves directly indicative of a psychotic or psychotic-like act of mis-reading since other factors like transcendental accessibility and contextual accessibility, etc., are also necessary in the reconstituted re-simulation of the humorous text (as ‘that’ humorous text in the uniqueness of its own inherent humour). (40)

3.   Relative External Appropriateness of an Intended Humorous Event

	Here we consider the appropriateness of the general broadcasting of a humorous event. In this current era of an often hypocritical political correctness (of those features that suit a particular organization or cultural milieu, etc.), as a rule of thumb what ever is emitted in bad faith is more than likely to be received and met in bad faith. Still, we have the paradox of those Contemporary humorous programs that continually push the envelop of political correctness by multiple and/or parallel attacks on a wide range of received notions of decency, political correctness, social taboos, etc., etc. With respect to these type of programs, their broad-spectrum political incorrectness is never perceived, normally, it would seem, as an instance of political incorrectness overall? Certainly it would seem they are received in that manner by a large segment of their audience (although certainly not so by more conservative elements of the population who obviously might not wish to review such a program). Overall, it would appear, that a broad spectrum usurpation of political correctness is not perceived as a breaking of those relatively recently acquired politically correct conventions but more as critique of social customs in general? To be politically incorrect once is a sin… to be politically incorrect twice is a crime… and to be politically incorrect more than twice is to be treated as a wonderful piece of satire or similar! Perhaps the presence of a humorous aura is enough to insulate these Contemporary programs from too much criticism when they apparently indulge in a broad-spectrum pursuit of political incorrectness? (41)

4.   The Relative Critical Aspects and Ramifications of a Humorous Event

	All texts upon emission can be either consequentially augmentative or disruptive of the lives of their readers, authors, third parties and/or allied institutions (implicated directly or indirectly by those texts)! How can this pattern of augmentation or disruption be predicted? Possibly with the salutary comparative reference to similar texts and the manner of reactions they have received in the recent past? By recognizing individual limits and those ‘lesser’ limits that seem to collectively apply to a satirical barrage of multiple acts of political incorrectness. Generally, by virtually simulating the possible consequences that might be imagined by a representative of the middle class, or some other, or, all classes in general, and fine tuning of the limits as to what might be emitted and when it might be emitted and as to how it might be emitted? (42)

III.   Provisional Conclusion

	Let me note a set of points of various magnitudes in addressing these allied problems of what is humour (A), is humour trans-culturally commensurable (B), and, what limitations qualify the extent and manner of that hypothetical commensurability (C)??? (43)

A.	The point of humour is to fool us, trick us, deceive us..! Let us find some form of enjoyment in this foolery, trickery or deceptiveness. Humour is also directed at the butt of that humour which is either the audience of that humorous event, the author of that humorous event and/or a third party alluded to in that text. We always laugh ‘at’ this patient whose ‘butt’ is under comic attack. Consequently, certain parties are made to feel either relatively superior or relatively inferior in the course of that humorous event. Through resolution of the rhetorically driven text there is a diminishment of anxiety, etc. Moreover, the dialectical tensions involved in interactions between conformity and disconformity, expectedness and unexpectedness, etc., are resolved in acts of humour with a sense of comic relief through some form of comic discharge (e.g., laughter, etc.). (44)

B.	As long as there is adequate transcendental accessibility (through the requisite skills needed to interpret a humorous event) and there is an adequate contextual accessibility (in order to adequately interpret that humorous situation) and the text is well-formed and well-received (hermeneutically) then a humorous event is generally transmissible intra-culturally and inter-culturally. (45)

C.	On the other hand, certain qualifications must be met and overcome in order for a humorous event to be received as such, as apparently intended; those intentions being signaled through processes of reinforced re-iteration. Because humour is a transcendental affair it implies that an overall transcendental suspension should be in play, whereas, on the other hand, a humorous discharge (of a well-received comic text) is realized and released in a co-occurring de-suspension enacted in the breaking of the balanced symmetry of that suspension itself and realized in the form of a projective non-identification with the ‘butt/s’ of the ‘patient’ or ‘patients’ focused upon in that act of humour. These factors (and others) being unable to be realized when texts are ill-formed, ill-transmitted, ill-received (through a variety of factors such as inadequate transcendental accessibility, inadequate contextual accessibility, poor abstract powers of comprehension into the transformation of reference frames involved in the humorous act), psychotic or psychotic-like dispositions that prevent an adequate reading of that humorous text, etc., etc. (46)

	Thence the (phenomenal-phenomenological) nature of humour, and, its general intra-cultural and inter-cultural transmissibility in the advent that all necessary factors are present for the adequate re-simulation of the insightful humour of that humorous text, and, where an absence of those factors effectively disqualifies the reception of a comic text being received as such within that complex modality of humour! (47)
							Noël Tointon, Sydney, 29.11.06.

Postscript

	To joke or not to joke: by what rules should we follow in order to save ourselves grief from emitting an inappropriate instance of humour (i.e., a botched joke, e.g.)? Let me provisionally list a number of headings in this regard. (48)

1.	First, let us forget that there exists an absolute distinction between an ‘in group of like minded individuals’ and ‘the outside world’; in this day and age the emission of a humorous event quite often quickly crosses such an artificial boundary. Instead, we must emit humour as if the world were our audience otherwise we must omit the humour! (49)

2.	Second, even if an anticipated humorous event is deemed permissible, i.e., appropriate for a world audience, still, we should consider the nature of the immediate audience to determine if the perceived point and butt of that instance of humour targets issues and individuals in the immediate audience who, from your past experience or intuition, would be judged as not well-receptive of such an exercise. On the other hand, despite instances of ill-reception the humorous event might still be deemed as permissible on balance. (50)

3.	Third, despite the overall well-received nature of a humorous emission from a consequential point of view we should ask ourselves is this type of exercise worth doing, i.e., will it adversely impinge upon your future standing and appreciation in that targeted audience? (51)

4.	Fourth, having ascertained the relative non-impact of negative features we should then ask ourselves if the humorous emission actually augments the point or point we wish to make through its utilization? (52)

5.	Fifth, how should we determine the relative authenticity of an act of humour when political correctness should not be conceived of as an objective but as the means to a more egalitarian end? In that light how should we judge, and perceive society at large judging, the impact of a humorous event, or a series of such events, given that there are moments and contexts when inappropriateness is almost deemed appropriate (such as the wholesale critique of social norms, bacchanalias, etc). When, e.g., excessive adherence to political correct procedures, or the appearance of politically correct procedures can be made the point and/or butt of an act of humour, etc. (53)

6.	Last, what additional points should we add here? That perhaps humour should be conducted as a total transcendental affair and that, therein, through the realization of authenticity, our humour, when and where appropriate, would be realized in an authentic, insightful manner too? That in this light, a consequential calculus should be conducted, through the auspices of the overall transcendental suspension, in the hope that we can mirror the anticipated positive consequences that might flow from both humorous emissions and humorous omissions!? In this regard we might see humour as a two-edged sword that can both integrate an audience in moments of insight and/or dis-integrate the integrity of either that audience and/or the integrity of that person emitting an inappropriate, ineffective or divisive ‘act of humour’… Therefore, in stepping out into this potential minefield/mind-field let us be very mindful of where we might be heading…?										
N, 6.12.06.