Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site looking.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!looking!brad From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: net.jokes.d Subject: Theories of Humour (Re: MATHEMATICS AND HUMOR by John Allen) Message-ID: <424@looking.UUCP> Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 11:40:31 EDT Article-I.D.: looking.424 Posted: Sun Sep 22 11:40:31 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 23-Sep-85 00:24:38 EDT References: <1117@mtgzz.UUCP> <67700005@trsvax> Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 22 Summary: Everybody's advocating their ideas about what humour is and what makes us laugh, but all of these theories can't be complete because while they claim to have discovered a necessary condition for laughter, they haven't come anywhere near a sufficient one. If humour is a subtle philosophical point, why don't I chortle at Descartes? In general there are lots of examples of the kind of thing noted in this book that aren't funny. The same is true for changes in structure, viewing danger while safe, viewing something bad, status switch and every other theory I have heard. After all, if you really had a solid theory, you would be headlining in Vegas. There are many questions to answer. Why do we laugh most at extreme cleverness? What about puns? Why do different cultures have different preferences? Some of the posted theories cover these points, but none cover them all. They all have merit, but they can't all be right, or can they? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473