Laughter.

There are any number of different ways to laugh - the range of all possible laughter spans a continuous scale with a ghostly internal flutter of mirth at one end; and a vomit-inducing spasm (akin to an orgasm) of indeterminate length at the other.

A couple of hours ago, I told L that I am of the opinion that the two of us find laughter difficult (and hence I am surprised how much we have managed to make each other laugh in the weeks which have blurred by since late December) and now I assess that question in the light of the first assertion, above, that I made about laughter.

I cannot speak for L - she does so magnificently, and so I shall not attempt to cobble together a poor replica of her words. I speak well enough for myself, though, and I ask if some forms of laughter are more difficult than others. I am prepared to ignore here such things as televised comedy and other professionals who are paid to unattach laughter from the self. Here, I am concerned with spontenaeity and where the boundary is between (more) difficult laughter and its easier offshoot.

Every incident of laughter is born of an internal symbol or symbols, an object or set of objects in the real world, and a mutual store of energy. The energy store serves to bind the symbols to the object set, and it is this synthesis which is what we experience as laughter.

If I choke with laughter because I see a man slip on the ice, his legs grasping in futility at fresh air before he hits the floor, then this is because the internal symbol it binds to reminds me of a cartoon. I said that I am eschewing televised comedy and devoting myself to real-world occurrences; but real-world object-sets can take their symbolism from fiction. I treat with disdain the marriage of fictional object-set to fictional symbol; the marriage of real object-set to fictional symbol is perfectly acceptable, however.

What, then, is hard about matching symbol to object - for we must conclude that this is what is hard about laughter, if we are dealing with the mapping of abstract symbols protruding somehow into the realm of experience? There are two possibilities.

Either there is a difficulty pertaining to the communication between the symbols and the object set - the energy store is of insufficient magnitude, or there is some sort of obfuscation - or there is a poverty of internal symbols. This latter argument is the reason why I find laughter difficult. Few symbols have been derived, invented, or have evolved, in my thirty years. Without the symbolism, the set of amusing objects, gestures, sights is reduced.

To find laughter easier, then, speaking personally, I must extend that repertoire of symbols by permitting myself to experience more, absorb more. Being so closed, anti-social and cynical, such opportunities are repudiated when they arise. To laugh more, I must be other than I am.