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