Practical jokes

I recall practical jokes, like those made up scenes on the streets. There is laughter about them. Why so? What produces this meaning-event?

The joke is a sounding board, a test of sorts, that foregrounds the elements of meaning in their social, linguistic, semiotic, moral, and ethical dimensions. The encounter plays out the elements, the set-up, wherein the boundaries of meaning--ethical, social, or linguistic--are remapped.

This is the exact moment of their incarnation, in this very space where they seem to be questioned: the practical joke. It recreates the meanings of actions and events as a pure theater of signs.

Since the practical joke foregrounds an economy of meaning that plays out well only by the revelation of the absence of the basis of that meaning (Ah! I mistook it for real! Or: Ah, I over-reacted!), it takes the ground off the polarized signs that have been produced and leaves them fluttering in mid-air.

That is, the signs produce an effect in us, but do not go beyond that to affirm anything metaphysical or absolutely real ontologically or epistemologically.

The laughter is both the recognition of this semantic economy and its limits. Here, laughter is a reactive mechanism in the face of a grave semiotic malfunction. In short, laughter is the dissipation of a solipsistic act, the after-taste of sign-effects that disappear into thin air.

Take a "Madonna & Child" example. In the park, a "mom" makes her "baby" in a walker smoke a cigarette. This alarms the people around them. Two basic norms are being violated. First, a "good" mother won't give something harmful to her baby. Second, there is a certain social or legal age requirement for smokers.

A knowledge of the harmful substances known to be present in cigarettes adds another semantic or scientific dimension. The fact that the mother smokes beside her baby in a park already creates an additional social and ethical faux pas.

All these elements are being played out in a game of deception. It provokes all the expected look of shock, disapproval, and reprimand from bystanders or passersby. Of course, they discover later on that there is no baby, so the whole scenario instantly falls apart.

The whole act has generated reactions that turned out to have no real basis. It was an act of meaning without substance.

This is the version of "semiotic contract" today, a whole series of practical jokes. We are taken on a ride by all sorts of signs, and we all go through the motions.

Meaning via the mise en scène of oppositional markers: Norm vs. Violation; Good vs. Evil; Right vs. Wrong; Permitted vs. Prohibited; Real vs. Unreal. The joke is in the discovery of the absence of any basis for this ethico-semantic event.

But all the signs have been deployed, just for laughs.

***P.S. My imaginary map is less moral philosophy than post-literate and post-semiotic tactics. This is what the blog has been all along.

     What I find interesting in the practical joke is that it recreates the meanings of actions and events as a pure theater of signs. That is, this is where significations arise as they collide, intersect, as a field of differences (bad vs, good, allowed vs. prohibited, etc.).

     Post-literate "texts" are few steps further. Since the joke foregrounds an economy of meaning that plays out well only by the revelation of the absence of the basis of that meaning (Ah! I mistook it for real!), it takes the ground off the signs that have been produced and leaves them fluttering in mid-air.

     That is, the signs produce an effect in us, but do not go beyond that to affirm anything metaphysical or absolutely real ontologically or epistemologically.

     (In other types of comic events, like children's cartoons, the humor often arises from a world drawn into a topsy-turvy state: the order of things falling apart, blowing up, not working well; also mistaken identities, misinterpretations, words making unintended meanings, etc.).

     Here, laughter is a psycho-reactive mechanism in the face of a grave semiotic malfunction. In short, laughter is the dissipation of a solipsistic act, the after-taste of sign-effects that disappear into thin air.

     From that dissipation comes post-literate "writing," You can foreground this through style effects to say that the semiotic or semantic whole is lost, or unknown, and so you become reluctant to treat sign-effects to form a local or global system (sentence, line, oeuvre, story, etc.).