You are on page 1of 2

Postmodern humor and the threat of baudrillardian hyperreality and nihilism

Humor always needs an element of deviance from the norm to be able to bring about laughter
from the absurdity of the act/joke/rugallach in question.
But this tread into the postmodern humor is one that seeks to displace conventional humor, go
beyond the normal limits of the absurd that is exemplified in conventional joke telling/humor in
the west.
The postmodern humor, however, shows the impossibility of normalization, of a level of
societal orthodoxy that must remain for their to be an absurdity to begin with. The fear of the
modernist comedian following the Trump election exemplified this point by claiming that
“comedy has become so hard since Trump is already so absurd.” However, the audience and
even the humor all hold as a background reference the societal norms that one must expect.
The problem is that postmodern humor follows a tradition of seeking to be rootless, detached,
completely free in the sartrean and camusdian traditions. Even camus shows this absurdity by
claiming you can either kill yourself or have a cup of coffee.
The absurd can also become the normal, where it is expected that there is absurdity, that one is
open to a wide arrange of absurdity, the humor one has does not come from the over the top
avant-garde nature of the joke, but from an act of normality such as [in a monotone voice when
looking at three dolphins in mccain body suits running for the local judge’s office in the state of
Idaho, Nigeria] “You’re weird.”
There is an ever-present dialectical relationship between conceptions of the ideal (good/bad,
normal/absurd, funny/typical, your mom/this dick) that we hold and the lived out experiences
we experience from these ideals. One cannot be conceived of without the other. Even the
conception of existence is understood through a conception of it not being non-existent.
This resolves a question of metaphysics from Hume and Kant where there is not cosmic
metaphysics or order that can be reached in a pure objectivity because rationality be like that-
we create this meaning to interpret the world, but there is a duality that is perceived by
humanity, Andean “metaphysics” a better way of coming to interpret the world (even if it can
never reach pure idealism) that is closer to the concept of “understanding” (an understanding
of the world that can be used/deemed as truth without being pure idealism) that understands
the complementary dualism of humanity.
Humor of the postmodern type, with memes and eric andre are humorous but become enticing
because they can be seen as overturning the entire order of the normal, a radical break with it.
Shit the fuck up paul, this is wrong because it can never escape the need for the typical to be
ever-present, for the world to not become one big meme without reference outside of it –
baudrillardian hyperreality is fucking boring because there is not reference to a sense of the
normal, “the they’ of Heidegger, that humor is born from.
Or does it create a new sense of normal in what we would call absurdity? Nah, it probably
creates a road towards complete nihilism which breaks down the order of humor all together.
Heidegger’s conception of dasein as always future coming in reference to the past is what
creates the possibility of humor from a phenomenological level, and of the dialectic in human
existence. A societal level of nihilism = the emptiness that can never create humor, since
normalcy comes from values that one follows that are then streatched to their limits to be
deemed absurd from this perspective “from the edge”
If duality is a result of human conceptions of the world, our ability to come to understand truth
through our limited perception, does this mean that if one were to overcome a binary, it also
destroys teh conception of that subjectivity one was? If Indian is to overcome colonialism and
europe, there is no need to keep indian or European as labels? But with gender, we are always
a mixture of “femaleness” and “maleness” either by how close we are to one and/or the other
in different qualities, and by the quantity or femininity and masculinity there is in one (ie all the
genders in oneself).

If this is true, does this mean we can go beyond good and evil by destroying one, and thus,
both? But can we ever be rid of the phenomena that we call evil so create new dualities that we
understand ourselves and our notselves by? No, and this is why reinterpretation of these
phenomena is key.

Go into conceptions of duality, dialectics, and this can be an exercise in non-binary dualism in
play. Andean metaphysics lol bitches.