Humor is infectious. It lightens burdens, inspires hope, connects us to others, increases our insight, keeps us grounded, focused, alert, and happy.
Laughter is a universal language that stimulates both sides of the brain. It allows us to get messages quicker and remember them longer. We all learn more when we are having fun. Writing this blog is a creative exploration in sharing thoughts that make me laugh, smile, or think. Thinking is the source of laughter. Welcome and have a nice day!
Humor The silly & the ridiculous stick 2 the side of the absolute idea, & the boring & hateful become mudpies full of crazy life. ~Not Carl Jung's Red Book
“Who hath believed our jokes? And to whom is the punchline
of the Universe revealed?”
The Messiah walks into a bar and wouldn’t you know it, runs
John. “And the Word was made of beer…” John said, inebriated, blabbering, and slobbering
on a bit before commenting on the children’s story, “Green Eggs and Ham.” While
the Messiah and I couldn’t quite understand what he said, we both clearly heard
that he ended his conversation – prior to passing out – on something about Kurzweil’s
The lightheartedness at the surface of humor take my
understanding and all my knowledge and places it right in front of me where I’m
forced to examine it.
If seriousness makes pretense of paradoxical, surely writing
jokes is an exercise in paradoxical exploration, which begs the question: How
can we know paradoxes if we don’t act in inexplicable and paradoxical ways from
which to gather the insight in the first place? If sanity is ignoring these
aspects within oneself, then does not all the world suffer from the same
psychosis? If you play with that which you don’t understand in an attempt to
understand it, are you then a naïve child or a brave explorer?
If I ask these questions to someone and they tell me that my
exploration of humor is that of a naïve child, can I not respond like a naïve
child, ignoring statements that don’t fit into my fantasy, and instead, claim worldwide
dominion over our exchange by disagreeing with their premise?
In this way, I can happily return to my fantasy, knowing
that we live in different worlds.
And if we live in different worlds from our neighbors, just
as particles exist side-by-side in quantum space, and if those different worlds
exist in different spaces, wouldn’t it make sense that those different spaces
have different laws associated with them?
Perhaps the laws from one space to the next are similar only
due to their proximity somehow being linked to their construction, but that
does not mean they are identical.
If we allow for more variation in how we define the world,
couldn’t making fun of everything we’ve ever learned be Wittgenstein’s call to
writing a serious philosophical work in the format of a joke?
Since I modeled this post after Jung, are not all great
explorations simply the psychotic descriptions of other peoples’ descriptions
of the vantage point from their specific-time space?
Must all time-spaces be the same to have an underlining
principle of the universe? Can we allow for variance and still have a unified
theory exist upon the premise that we all think we exist, even if we’re not
sure and even if we might not.
For today’s purpose, I’ll assume that if we didn’t exist, we
wouldn’t eat because we wouldn’t need to feed someone who doesn’t exist, and
yet, we eat.
Strange behavior, when you think about it….but I get off