It feels often more enriching to present a myriad of ideas rather than strive for a singular, coherent argument throughout. This approach reflects the essence of my latest two articles, where I deliberately chose to explore various, sometimes divergent, points.
From my perspective, it is perfectly acceptable, even desirable, for an author to embrace contradictory intentions within the same narrative. This complexity can mirror the multifaceted nature of real-life experiences and thoughts. For instance, an author might start with a particular storyline, only to become captivated by new ideas along the way. Upon recognizing a mistake or a shift in understanding, the author might then retroactively alter earlier elements of the story, a process known as retconning {retroactive continuity}.
Moreover, the inclusion of anti-psychiatry themes in a narrative might not be a mere coincidence. It would emerge organically from our mutual concerns about the over-pathologization of human experiences—a critique against the tendency of modern psychiatry to medicalize normal variations of behavior and emotion. This narrative originally seemed to illustrate precisely this issue, prompting me to proceed deeper into it.
By interweaving these disparate threads, the narrative evolves into a complex web that invites readers to engage with its contradictions and nuances, fostering a more interactive and reflective reading experience.
Essentially, there will be a Wittgenstein-esque split between “early work” and “later work” within the same piece.
To elaborate more seriously on this point: this isn’t merely an absurd exercise intended to confuse the audience. Rather, the idea of showcasing contradictory authorial intent is deeply genuine and authentic. If executed skillfully, it can reveal how human imperfections infiltrate narrative frameworks, demonstrating how the unity an author attempts to construct can be subverted by their own fallibility.
I proceed into these concepts more thoroughly in part one of my newer articles, where I felt compelled to substantiate what might otherwise seem like pure literary chaos. Deconstruction, if misunderstood, can be mishandled by those who approach it from a position of arrogance, merely nitpicking the narrative from an external standpoint—as seen in critiques like Cinema Sins. However, true deconstruction involves the author deconstructing their own words within the narrative process. This method highlights the continuity of human frailty across all forms of discourse.
In this sense, deconstruction represents a radical reversal of fundamentalist scripture parsing, which often seeks an “ultimate reading” with a near-psychotic fervor. Instead, deconstruction embraces the complexity and multiplicity of meanings.
There’s also an interesting trope in writing and media known as “word of God”, where one consults the author to settle debates about the work’s meaning. I always imagine a genuine author responding with something like,
“Sorry, I don’t remember. Goodbye”,
thereby emphasizing the fluid and dynamic nature of textual interpretation.
HAHAHA, WHAT’S WITH THE BABY GIF?
I love how the text essentially provides a guide on how to approach itself—it’s hilarious! The article spends more time explaining itself than making a straightforward point. The interplay between the silly gifs and the serious subject matter adds another layer of complexity and amusement 🤣.
Indeed, this last article and its follow-up are definitely my favorites now. They epitomize the insane meta-modern fluctuation between the serious and the playful aspects of my work. I believe it strikes the best balance because it offers a lot of front-loaded explanation. This approach not only prepares the reader but also heightens the overall impact of the narrative’s twists and turns.
I’m curious to hear your take on it. It’s quite amusing on a meta-meta-level, as it’s a joke that becomes funny precisely because it is forced to explain itself. This runs counter to the common adage, “if you have to explain it, the joke wasn’t funny”.
The Actual Text, Actually 🤔
But here, there’s no way the joke lands at all without tons of explanation, lol. The thinking emojis scattered throughout are just perfect—HAHA, I love them!
Well, you see, that’s the crux of the matter. In order to tell a joke effectively, one must adhere to a precise and elaborate protocol. Begin by clearly stating and spelling out your name. This ensures that the audience knows exactly who is addressing them, grounding the forthcoming humor in a personal context. Following this, provide a brief synopsis of the joke, detailing key moments where laughter is anticipated. This roadmap helps the audience prepare for the comedic journey ahead.
Next, repeat the spelling of your name to reinforce the initial introduction. Now, you are ready to deliver the joke itself, which should be articulated within a strict timeframe of 13½ to 18 seconds. It is important to pause for bathroom breaks if necessary, maintaining comfort and composure throughout the performance.
Upon concluding the joke, it is customary to loudly proclaim, “I’m doney with the funny”.
This declarative statement signals to the audience that the joke has reached its end, ensuring clarity and closure.
Finally, distribute surveys to gather quantitative feedback on the audience’s engagement and amusement. An effective survey should be no less than ten pages long, incorporating repeated questions to verify the attentiveness and sincerity of the responses. This data collection is crucial for the comedian’s growth, allowing for the refinement of future performances.
Without following these meticulous steps, it is unlikely that any comedic value will be effectively conveyed or absorbed.
This might sound like a joke, but it’s true.
As an artist, particularly one engaged with fringe comedy and the avant-garde, it’s quite problematic to project one’s privilege onto general audiences. It’s important to recognize the differing capacities and circumstances of our audience members.
Of course, one can always resort to simplistic stand-up comedy, focusing on universally relatable scenarios such as the humorous aspects of male/female relationships by highlighting gender differences. However, there’s also a deep value in crafting jokes that demand the audience to navigate through complex, shifting narratives that oscillate between serious and non-serious tones.
This approach presumes an audience capable of engaging with such intricacies—not due to their inherent intelligence, but because of the systemic factors that enable one to have the leisure to create and understand these jokes.
This disparity is stark: you’re the “weird guy with too much time on his hands”, able to write obscure literary content about difficult circumstances, while many others are working multiple jobs just to make ends meet, perhaps at places like McDonald’s 🍔. These systemic inequalities shape who has the time and mental space to engage with and appreciate more complex, nuanced humor.
Thus, it’s essential to be mindful of this privilege when crafting and delivering content. Recognizing the diverse realities of our audiences can lead to a more inclusive approach to humor and art, fostering a space where more people can engage, appreciate, and perhaps even find solace in the complexity and depth of avant-garde comedy.
Sorry, Everyone Was Innocent
And I think the truly painful realization is that it’s no one’s fault. We must acknowledge that:
1) You’re not inherently special for making “smart commentary”.
2) Others are not somehow “unwilling” to understand your commentary.
Instead, you’re producing this commentary due to socio-economic privilege, and others aren’t engaging with it because of the inverse.
This is the only joke that is truly funny, because it’s the universe laughing at us. 🤣🥲😭
This perspective has become especially serious for me lately, as I reflect on family members with Alzheimer’s and severely autistic young people. And of course I am struggling with my own personal health and mental health issues…
Not to mention that I shall, too, one day become part of general confusion and mental decay; and if not in death, this might have already happened, given how I perpetually struggle to connect to other human beings, or the world at large.
Difference in cognitive constitution, background etc. make one re-consider one’s assumption of being “special” or important at all.
But even further, the sphere of empathy for me is not only about the multitude of human beings around us, all from different backgrounds, and differing levels of cognitive modality; but even looking into our broader interactions with the animal kingdom and environmental sphericity at large, such as plant life, and even machines.
This empathy-sphere is also why I mentioned Derrida’s writings on animal rights and his concept of “cat city”. We do not expect a cat to grasp our 4D chess comedy. If I tell my cat a joke, no matter how elaborate and infused with playful postmodern tropes, she remains indifferent 🐈. Instead, she desires simple pleasures like little cat treats and toys. Her behavior reminds me that sometimes, the simplest needs and interactions hold the most significance. 😺
This realization underscores the (illusory?) gap between those who have the privilege to engage in complex, abstract thought and those who do not, due to their circumstances. It’s a humbling reminder of our shared humanity and the different ways we experience and interpret the world around us.
What’s surprising is that the universe seems determined to be distinctly not-me—it doesn’t think like me, feel like me, get me, or listen to me. This realization is deeply isolating yet universally relatable, highlighting the fundamental disconnect between individual experience and the external world.
Indeed, I’ll have to turn these passionate reflections into further articles. It’s crucial to explore how this disconnect informs our understanding of art, communication, and existence itself. The universe’s indifference forces us to confront the limits of our own perspectives and the inherent solitude of our consciousness.
In forthcoming articles, I will proceed into these themes, examining how the universe’s resistance to our personal narratives shapes our sense of self and our interactions with others. This exploration will encompass the humor and tragedy of our attempts to connect with a world that remains perpetually “other”, a world that does not conform to our expectations or desires.
Through this lens, I hope to articulate a deeper understanding of our place within the cosmos, where the struggle for meaning and connection becomes both a source of deep insight and a testament to our shared humanity.
Absolute Negation 
Leave a comment