Rationality.

I have a rationality 'Blind Spot'... I've had it for years... And it effects my behaviour...

Ok... First things first. I am very firmly in the 'Rationalist' camp. Starsigns? Bunk. Homeopathy? No evidence beyond Placebo. Afterlife? Nonsense, I have no fear of the worms or beetles that await me.

But, I have fallen foul of a self created 'Mind Trap'... And if that has penetrated myself to such a degree, it does make me wonder about how 'Beliefs' work.

Ok... Here's my trap. When walking down the street, I avoid things on the pavement if they come in threes. You know what I mean, those morlock hole style hatches into the underworld that litter our pavements. I link this in someway to some unspecified bad luck 'points system', which can be cancelled out if I walk on a two-er or a oner. But those pesky Threes.

Ludicrous I know. Uttely stupid. I know this.

I can trace it back to a story I heard about two friends. The first shared this belief, the second didn't... and to prove it, ran and jumped on the last hatch of a three-er, which collapsed beneath his weight and sent him thigh deep into the ground, with somewhat of a bruised ego.

Now, at first I didn't take this seriously. I saw it more as a game, you get 'Good' points for a Two-er and Bad points for a Three-er. It was like a collect-em-up game in real life.

Them I noticed something strange. Without thought I was veering towards Twos and away from Threes. My body was taking me there automatically. I'd noticed I'd gone off course, look back and there was an Unlucky three-er, that my legs had decided to avoid, seemingly of their own volition.

This both interested and horrified me in equal measure. Nobody likes to think they are susceptible to mental traps. So I decided I would stop it. Cease the game. Reset the behaviour back to 'Zero'

...but of course I can't. I can intentionally walk on three-ers, I can laugh at myself for avoiding them, I can even try 'Not to Notice' them. But it can never go back to how it was, I have elevated these utterly inconsequential pieces of the pavement to significance and although I know they have no influence over my life, they do have a tug on my thoughts. I will always notice that I've walked on them and either congratulate myself for overcoming the thought trap, or chide myself for even noticing that it was there...

The useful upshot of this is I have been given an insight into the formation of supersticious/religious beliefs, and in particular, how hard they are to completely dispense with. I am an atheist (perhaps an antitheist, but that is for another day) and have never knowingly had to rid myself of an ingrained 'belief'.

It is hard. Very hard. The body doesn't want to do it... After all, a high percentage of our learning is by association, so breaking that down with merely with evidence and facts, when it seems the cells of our own bodies want to cling to it is a courageous act. It is to be applauded.

I am still trying to develop a system where I can render this thought process 'never formed' in my own head. If I crack it I'll let you all know here...

Getting rid of unhelpful beliefs in ourselves might well prove more and more important as rationality comes under increasing attack.

I'll keep you posted.

(Side note: a quick hello to my girlfriend who has threatened to start reading this blog. Hello! She can confirm that the above is all true)

What connects the Republican Primaries to a UK obscenity case?

It's been a strange day on Twitter.

I spend a lot of time on the site over the course of the day, I use it to keep up with instant news, check in on friends and read amusing little snippets from strangers. I am used to it's oddities now, but sometimes it really throws you a curve, today was one of those days.

It started out with results from the Iowa Caucas and the surprising result that Mitt Romney had been victorious by the slenderest of margins, despite it being called for another candidate several times during the night (I'm on UK time). I'm not going to get in on my opinions of the Republican candidates, suffice to say that their policies aren't exactly designed for me. What interested me is the reappearance of a name I hadn't seen for many years: Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum had been known to me for some years through a fantastic campaign led by a Dan Savage. It was one of those things that became vaguely legendary on the internet, passed from inbox to inbox with sniggering commentaries. For those not up to speed, the short version is: Santorum is LUDICROUSLY anti-gay... to the level where it becomes slightly suspicious (He recently said 'Sodomy Law' should be decided at state level,  fairly transparent euphemism there). Savage had the idea of running a competition to find an unpleasant, sexually led meaning and attach it to his name. They decided that Santorum would henceforth be: "The frothy mixture of lubricant and fecal matter that sometimes results from anal Sex" (Which is a phrase that has stuck with me for years)

A site was launched, http://spreadingsantorum.com/ and it quickly became massively popular, and to this day is the top result for searching his name. I remember reading about it back then and laughing at what a jolly wheeze it was, seeing his name today brought all that back and, in the UK at least, my Twitter time line was awash with frothy lube gags.

As the day went on this faded into the background, dovetailing neatly with the live-tweeting from a UK obscenity trial. This is a rather interesting case as it basically poses the question: At what point does the portrayal of, perfectly legal, sexual practice become obscene. (Full details are here: http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.com/2012/01/obscenity-trial-of-decade.html)

The case basically revolves around someone selling porn on DVD (Yeah yeah, may as well have carved it on stone tablets in this age of instant internet gratification) Some of which was BDSM, with Homosexual, Fisting, and 'Watersports' elements. Now laying aside the obvious 'You can get all of that in seconds on the net' argument this has thrown up some fascinating legal ideas. It is potentially fine to wee in your partners mouth, but not to film it and show it. Fisting is fine in the home and on screen, but as long as it only goes so far in... Hearing this discussed in dry legal language was utterly hilarious and bewildering...
(For those interested, it seems to be ok to show fisting that doesn't go past the wrist... but in order to make sure they aren't crossing the line, pornographers seem to operate a 'four-finger' rule... apologies to anyone enjoying a Kit Kat)

Despite the humour of this there is a serious side. Both this case and the Policies of Ricky boy seem to revolve around there being a 'Normal' kind of sex. A 'good' kind that we can all agree on, and anything outside that circle can be legislated against. Homosexuality tends to get the most severe bashing in these cases, but it doesn't stop there... Maybe you do like to wee on your partner... Or be branded.. or.. or whatever... and you can, at the moment, as long as you don't film it... which you might not intend to... but then again you might... and you're then potentially straying into criminality.

There is a danger that as soon as the law gets to decide what is right and wrong sexually, between consenting adults, who is to stop them extending... perhaps into more 'mainstream', but equally 'unproductive' habits? Oral sex isn't 'productive', it is pretty damn enjoyable though... but on this logic, why not do away with it?

Well... because you can't, people will do these things any way. Driving sexual practices underground isn't logical, it isolates people from education and health services and drives us back to a time best left buried in the sands of history... As long as you're both old enough/not 'vulnerable' nobody should have the right to tell you how you should fuck... even if that means one wearing the other like Sooty... and if you want to film it and sell it, that's also your business.

So, what connects the Republican Primaries to a UK obscenity case?
Basically, it's HELL of a lot of lube...

Opinion: ....as bad as each other?

This morning I noticed a strange thing on Twitter. A lot of people were posting disappointed messages that a Twitter rumour about an old Man meeting his demise were untrue and wishing upon him various painful outcomes.

I also read back through the 'Greeting' messages sent to another older gentleman who has very recently joined Twitter. There was a lot of artless abuse, much of it excitedly discussing the older man's death.

The interesting thing about these two unconnected tales of Twitter bile is that they generally split down political lines. Those who regretted the survival of an old man tended to be on the Right, those wishing death upon the old man tended to be on the Left.

Ok... Explanation time, and how you feel about this will probably place you somewhere in that Left/Right spectrum.
The man who was rumoured to have died was Fiedel Castro. It was a false rumour.
The Man who joined Twitter and was artlessly flamed is Rupert Murdoch. It is a verified account.

Now I do tend to veer left slightly, but I do not agree with Castro's method of rule, and his lack of transparent government is likely to cover shocking abuses of power. Still I would not gloat in his death.

Despite my politics I love some of the things Murdoch has brought us, not least the Simpsons. That said I still hate his other policies, his systematic attacks on the BBC etc... But still I would not wish death on him...

They have undoubtedly committed acts that are sickening to the sensibilities of those outside the 'circles of power'. But is 'death' even a good punishment for this... How about loss of staus? Intelligent mockery... Loss of the respect they so obviously craved.

Now looking back at that you may think I am attacking one group more than the other. 'Oh but he deserves it for......'
...and I'm sure they both do... Is it my place to give it to them?

I have made jokes on Twitter about Murdoch, and would undoubtedly do some 'Castro material' if I knew enough about him to be funny, that's the jocular, if slightly cruel egalitarianism of Twitter (Something Murdoch should love, given his mistrust of 'elites')

Wishing death on someone, or to someone, is a bad argument. Being rude is bad argument. Twitter is place for discussion, and even insults, but why so thoughtless, dull and vicious?

If you find yourself about to tweet 'I hope you die' to an old tycoon who you disagree with, or 'I wish you'd died' to an ageing statesman you'd rather hadn't gained power, here's a helpful hint.

Lefties: say to yourself, I'm not like those 'Righties' mocking the death of an old man, I will not post that, instead I will post something a lot wittier, that gets my point across without veering into the artless spite of 'The Enemy'

Righties: say to yourself I'm not like those 'Lefties' wishing death on an old man, I will not post that, instead I will post something a lot wittier that gets my point across without veering into the artless spite of 'The Enemy'.

...this advice is free... You're very welcome.

2012 thoughts

Today I bought the Christopher Hitchens Autobiography. I started to read it in a fine pasty shop, where I consumed an excellent pasty, a passable coffee and sheltered from an entirely unexpected downpour.

I know little of Christopher Hitchens. I admit I'm somewhat late to this party. I was aware of him mainly through his association with Professor Richard Dawkins, but having read the various raptures of grief and glee at his tragic death I decided to seek out his works, beginning with Hitch-22.

From the first words, the most imperative Idea I was impressed with is the assertion that life has a deadline, the time we are on earth is finite, a fact you have to agree with even if you disagree with his stance on religion. Whether our death is preordained by a deity, or is the result of natural cellular deterioration, or an errant cyclist, we all have a fixed time in which to achieve the things that we desire.

I am reading this on New Years Day. That I have extrapolated this particular lesson from barely 20 pages of text may reflect as much on my mindset at the text itself, but either way the lesson, although sounding something akin to the tolling of a funeral bell is also liberating. You have a finite allocation of time, it is a duty to use it to achieve and enhance your dreams and desires.

I have already decided to devote a bit more time to the blog this year, hopefully the practice of writing about myself will keep the 'New Novel' free of such intellectual bum-gazing. This is the place for that.

For 'Intellectual Bum-Gazing'

In my malarial New Years Day imaginings I will write a blog every day. Of course this one won't be going up on the right day as Nokia phones don't interface with this particular blogsite, so ho-hum... I wonder when a New Years Blog ceases to be topical.

Nontheless I will endeavour to contribute to this as frequently as I can. If only as an exercise. My other ambitions are the same as every year. Get a novel published 'properly' (i.e. In a way that actually allows people to read it without you having to knock on doors, drag people from their homes and staple the pages to their foreheads... That or spam emailing). Write and release another album. Maybe work up a live show.

Sounds easy doesn't it?

Ok... For anyone thinking 'what a prick'... I also have a job. I'm not Nathan Barley... Although give half a trust fund, I would be...

Is it self obsessed to write a blog?

Not as much as expecting anyone to read it...

I have so far managed to immunise myself against this eventuality...