Evil Clown Dissected By Academia To Highlight Personality Deficiencies To Her Friends

Science Firmly Proves Academic Isn’t Getting The Point

Recent studies on clown psychology have introduced innovative models of identity configuration progression and open new insights into how clowns contract their identity(ies).

Early modal bonding is the foundation of (and on) emotional and cognitive intersubjectivity (see: http://attachment.edu.ar/intersubjectivity.html). Stiff individuation and subsequent sublimation of the self, first in clown-academic confrontation and then in post identity formation are the basis of theoretical social+-ego integration.

It is rightly acknowledged that clown–academic bonding lubricates mutual realization of the subjectivity of the other. However, it is presumptuous to presume that the ideation of the process would be greater relatedness and/or identity penetration because of the relationship.

Indeed, it is healthy and natural that turgid individuation must itself rupture the close and intense clown–academic liaison.

Variance of motion in the instance (and the subtext) of clown–academic conflict is the realization and hyperextension of a deep-seated contempt which must burst the rigid confines and firm boundaries of the relationship or shatter the self.

These theories aid in conceptualizing the discrepancies noted by progressive theorists which have traditionally been seen as parities.

Less sophisticated models of attachment have dumped these aspects of the academic’s experience like so much cheap used tissue.

Because of the nature of the participants and some clowns’ reputation for mirth, merrymaking and affable nature, it is necessary to dispel bigoted notions about academics’ inability to express humour, appreciate humour or deliver a punchline.

It has been correctly noted:

…that [academics] who …share their humor, generally do not use the [clown] forms of humor …because they simply are not the best tool to facilitate their communication goals... [T]he "one-two punch line" form of most traditional [clowning intercourse] simply doesn't appeal to most [academics]…

- Women Rarely Prefer the Quickie. L. Naranjo-Huebl. Paraphrased from FPS:WHMBCR. Accessed 2005-11-26. http://www.fnsa.org/v1n4/huebl1.html

Which reminds me of a joke I heard recently:

Two mathematicians are studying a convergent series.

The first one says: "Do you realize that the series converges even when all the terms are made positive?"

The second one asks: "Are you sure?"

"Absolutely!"

V. Runde. Math Jokes. Accessed 2005-11-26.

quod erat demonstrandum

T. Dolby, 1988. Aliens Ate My Buick: Airhead. Access 2005-11-27. http://www.thomasdolby.com/reference/lyrics_aliens.html

Close and careful scrutiny of previous studies reveal grave mechanical deficiencies in clowns’ masculinist and androcentric values. Frequently a clown’s inadequacy is sheathed as humour, namely: pranks, insults, put downs, practical jokes, riffs, rants and brief tongue lashings.

Yet, upon reflection, it becomes quickly all too obvious that their nature, despite claims to the contrary, is neither supportive nor caring.

Clowns obviously have a deep-rooted fear based aggression that attenuates the organ of identity, manifesting as the need to humiliate, debase and subjugate others both psychologically and physically. This is often done under the guise of public charm or in extremis during intimate and private communication.

On top of which, specious anecdotal evidence is often used to ‘prove’ that clowns are funnier than academics, as where we have shown that clowns are not funny, they just think they are.

But what I really want to know is why the evil clown doesn’t call?

-----

"Are You going to allow intolerant cultures to go on?"
- Litotes The Clown

##