A Neutral World?

De Mundi Systemate

2009-10-29T13:21:00.000-07:00

New Blog, for anyone who stumbles upon this very old one...

http://systemate.blogspot.com/

It's awesome...

Fate's Acquittal

2008-01-20T12:51:00.000-08:00

Anyone still visiting this site for any reason would be better spending their time reading the incredible and fascinating http://www.fatesacquittal.com instead!

That truly is a story worth reading!

You're Everything to Me

2005-12-27T09:06:00.000-08:00

You make me feel so sweet. So, why do you do this to me? Or rather, why do I do this to myself? I know you are his, at least for now, so why does it hurt so when you go to him? Are you just playing or do I mean something, anything? Damn, you mean everything right now. You’re everywhere, and when I close my eyes you’re there. Because you’re everything. To me. And there’s nothing I can do. I tried damn hard to ignore you, I wanted to leave you to yourself. I wanted not to care. You ruined everything and give me nothing. I know you don’t like it this way but don’t you see it can’t be? You must do something. This is in your hands and I hate that too. There’s nothing I can do. Because you’re everything to me and I’m not the only one.

A Meeting...

2005-12-14T06:39:00.000-08:00

I sat down opposite her. I saw the way her fringe caught in her eyelashes and fanned across her face. Her eyes, glimpses caught between strands of hair pushed away from her face, were beautiful. They were emphasised by dark eyeliner and mascara, like a sapphire floating in a bowl of milk surrounded by an ocean of black ink. I lost myself in them. I must have been staring quite evidently. She glanced across at me, taking me in at a flash from top to bottom, and then returned her eyes to her newspaper. I bashfully looked at my feet.

Quickly I sought a book from my bag. A copy of Borges in original Spanish, or a translation of Chekhov? Was she a languages girl or more of a lit chick? I looked at her again, this time seeking out details that would describe her to me. Even as I approached this detached and scientific task I found my eyes rushing headlong to her face and her lovely light brown cascade of hair. I forced myself to examine the details. No ring. No necklace. Either she had no passion for jewellery or, God willing, she had no one to give it to her. She wore a flower patterned knee length plaid skirt with slip-on sandals. Her calves angled firmly in to her ankles in a perfectly delicate way. For a top she wore a simple white shirt with sleeves rolled up to the elbows.

Lit Chick.

I opened Chekhov and began reading Misfortune, a story about a woman won over from her husband by the passionate ardour of a would-be suitor. “How vile I am!” exclaimed the lady on finding herself unable to resist. I looked up suddenly at the girl and caught her looking directly at me. We locked eyes for a moment; she had not averted her gaze instantaneously as many may have done. We both looked back down at our reading. My heart was thumping. Did she look at me from curiosity or something more? I found in considering the question I had reverted to staring at her once again. Snapping out of my reverie I tore myself away from abandoned admiration of her eyes and concluded that she had no doubt been looking at me to assess exactly how dangerous a potential stalker I might be. Perhaps.

Our train was travelling through dense urban landscape and stopped regularly. As the stops went by I realised nothing could come of this. The bottom line was that I was too chicken to make a move in a city where no one dared speak to an unknown companion. Nonetheless, I challenged myself. I inwardly did solemnly declare that should she alight at the same stop as me, then I would seek her out and invite her to join me for a coffee. My stop came closer, just three, two, one, to go. She was still there. My stop came and I stood. I looked down at her and she saw that I was about to go. She turned to look at me and beamed a radiant and full smile at me. She had felt the same as me! She too had been caught in admiration, however slight, and had been prevented from pursing it by that same abstract fear of the anonymous face of the city. Now that she knew I was departing, and she would lose me forever to the depths of the city, now she was safe to at least hint at her true feelings.

I took a step towards the door, grinning back at her like a maniac and practically tripping over the others in the carriage. I paused. Now I was starting to look the fool. This was my stop, that much was obvious to anyone, but it seemed such a waste to leave now that the imaginary traffic light above her head was green. My delay lost me my chance to leave and the doors closed behind me. She regarded me quizzically, no doubt mildly alarmed to find me still there when she had betrayed herself in promise of safety. I sat down on the free seat by her side. Adrenalin flowed so fully through my arteries that I feared I might be unable to produce a single coherent word. I opened my mouth to speak and the sound of my voice seemed to come from somewhere else, “Hi.” I said. She smiled at me cautiously. “If you get off at the next stop,” I said, “then I’ll buy you a coffee.” She turned her face half away from me; her side profile showed a half raised eyebrow and lips that stayed close together but revealed a smile of temptation. “Alright,” she said, “you’re on!”

Ranges of Intelligence

2005-11-18T05:18:00.000-08:00

"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."

~ Arthur C. Clarke

In my work I meet people from more or less every conceivable background. My current position in law is such that yesterday I was defending a down and out beggar on a charge of assaulting a police officer, and yet today I am advising an engineer on the legal implications of his contract with a local council. Tomorrow I'll probably be pleading that a loan shark shouldn't take some lady's Mercedes. Now, I don't pretend that the background of a person determines their intelligence, that is clearly wrong, but such varied exposure to different areas of society does present a wide view. What never ceases to amaze me is the variety of intelligence displayed by different people.

I'll quickly define my meaning of intelligence: "the ability to perceive the meaning and implication of one's surroundings."

It really can be anything from simply understanding a legal concept upon explanation to conducting an intelligible (even interesting?!) conversation. It's about understanding the effects of actions and the meanings of static concepts. I'm no closer to defining it am I? My definition, in short, attempts to define intelligence by reference to perception, rather than 'knowledge' or 'wisdom' ('wisdom' seems to me to be 'experience' applied to 'perception').

The question, then, is how does it happen? I have some vague idea how evolution works. I've studied it, thought about it, and examined it in nature about me. I have a great deal of difficulty in understanding how it accounts for the vast chasm between, on the one hand, someone who does not see the causative link between spending money and finding you have none left, and on the other, someone who can describe the rules of our very existence with algebraic equations.

Or, the person who doesn't understand that if you hit someone, they'll hit you back, compared to Sun Tzu. Paris Hilton compared to Aristotle. George Bush to Einstein.

It's the bell curve, right? But what, is the church tower the size of a city?

I think the answer may lie in a continuation of a debate I posted a while back, namely that evolution has been surpassed by humanity.

If humanity was still governed by natural evolution then stupidity would be slowly eliminated. Humanity would tend to greater and greater intelligence. Instead, something quite different is happening. It isn't evolution, but it still follows some of the same patterns. It seems that now the stupid will copulate with the stupid, and the intelligent likewise. But both have a similar chance of survival - and crucially, both chances are high enough to sustain their respective populations.

BUT, as the stupid copulate with the stupid, and the intelligent copulate with the intelligent, the bell curve gets wider and wider. I think that sinice the dawn of civilisation this process has been accelerating, and it will continue. In the end it may well be that a new classification system is required: sub-human; human; super-human. And the 'human' category will thin out and eventually disappear as its remnants tend to one side or another.

Could it be that humanity is coming to dividing point? Will the castes split?

The War

2005-11-14T05:59:00.000-08:00

It was, of course, Remembrance Sunday yesterday. (At least it was in England, I don't know when you American dudes remember the war heroes.)

I personally was playing football on a muddy and littered pitch in East London yesterday, but even there the Ref made us stand around the centre circle in silence for half an hour to pay our respects.

Now I'm not one for being particularly 'current' in my blog. There are thousands of others doing that already and I certainly don't think I have anything different to say about it...

...But my grandfather does.

A while back he wrote a fantastic account of the Dieppe Raid. It's about 20 pages long and one of the best reads I've come across. He describes the fear of being shelled on a ship, having the man by your side shot in the head and then the experience of drowning out at sea...

"The question demanding an immediate answer was, should I retreat to the beach and be taken by the Germans, or continue out to sea in the hope, now somewhat tenuous, of being picked up? I decided to press on.

My life jacket, which had so far given me good service, now seemed to be losing its bouyancy. As I continued swimming I appeared to be lower in the water. My legs, instead of being fairly horizontal behind me, now inclined deeper as they tried to thrust me forward. I rested more frequently, and instead of trying to float on my back, I found that it required less effort just to stop swimming and gently tread water. I don't know how long this continued. I was cold, had swallowed too much sea, my vomiting was painful and my eyes felt raw. Gradually I lost the strength to even tread water, and after floating legs down for a while, I became aware that I was drowning. My brain seemed to accept the thought without fuss as if my will to survive was about to 'throw in the towel'.

I was suddenly enveloped in a smoke screen. The acrid stuff caused more vomiting and coughing and more swallowing of salt water. Now, only my nose was above the surface of the sea. Is is said that drowning people are visited by a kaleidoscope of snapshots of their previous experience. This mental phenomenon came to me and the pictures it brought were so clear it was as if they were the reality and my drowning was only a dream. Then, abruptly, the dream dissolved into a new reality.

Around me a gap appeared in the smoke and there not twenty yards away was a small craft with smoke spouting out of the canisters at its side."

Yes, that's how close I was to never existing.

Origins of the Universe

2005-11-09T05:49:00.000-08:00

A short break from 'neutrality' for an alternative discussion: (though all discussions by implication have associations with neutrality!)

Here are a few options for 'origin of the universe':

['universe' = "everything that exists anywhere". However, for the purposes of this discussion, I intend to expand this definition to "...anywhere and anywhen"]

1. A deity created it.

2. It was produced by the big bang.

3. It has no origin, and has existed 'forever'.

4. It originated at its own end (it is a product of circular time - its end is its beginning.)

5. It is a tiny part (piece of dirt) in an inconceivably larger universe (someone's backyard).

6. It does not exist.

Here are my replies:

1. To be terribly unoriginal: what is the origin of the deity? The answer to this question would usually be suggestion #3 above, in which case this suggestion can be considered implicitly there. This would usually be backed up by the definition of most 'gods' as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. 'omnipresent' one can assume, means not only present at all places simultaneously but also present at all times simultaneously; thus, without 'determination'. To accept this suggestion would be total rebellion against logic, and would require a vast leap of faith. Further, this suggestion requires defining the deity in question as somehow outside the meaning of 'everything'. Interestingly, in both Egyptian and Greek myths, the first gods are themselves borne out of the 'void' or 'chasm of darkness'. This implies a sort of neutral absence of matter, or a lack of anything, and hence an exception to the requirements of the definition of universe ['absolute absence' is not contained within 'everything']. This, of course, presents the additional problem of creating 'something' from 'nothing'. However, as shall be seen, any of these suggestions requires just that.

2. The same question applies: what is the origin of the big bang? In this case, however, there are no theological (and untestable) answers. Perhaps one might say that the big bang was created by the total compression of a previous universe (a common theory), in which case this suggestion becomes a subcategory of suggestion #4 (but a cycle of matter rather than time). Clearly, though the big bang may well be an answer to the question "What created this, our present universe?", it is not an answer to "What is the origin of the universe."

3. This answer is pretty similar (as already suggested) to #1. In other words, it requires an illogical leap of faith. 'Illogical' only because, at present, there is no logic known to man's philosophies to support it. The simple point is that man cannot conceive of infinite time, it is not within our current capacity. This, although a philosophic possibility, is no more acceptable than belief in creation by deity.

4. This suggestion suggest looping time. Implicit in such a suggestion is the concept of 'closure'. In other words, this loop creates a concept of a 'closed loop' of time. The problem with 'closure' is that it is completely incompatible with any concept of the infinite. And the problem with that is that anything which is not infinite must, by definition, have 'room' for something more along its axis of existence. For example, if one were to think of time as being represented in one dimension (a piece of string), non-circular time is an infinite length of string whereas if one loops the piece of string along a curved single dimension (such as the circumference of a sphere) then that leaves room for other (spheres) on either side. Of course, it could be suggested that this 'extra room' is merely a repetition of the journey around the same circumference. Essentially, it seems to me that looped time, as a concept, cannot account for "everything that exists anywhere and anywhen".

5. This is clearly not an answer, but a mere (and vain) attempt to explain the infinite. It is perfectly obvious that were one to pursue this line one could progress through an infinite series of 'universes' and be absolutely none the wiser.

6. This is really a question for Descartes, and another time. "I think, therefore I am."

So where does this leave us? I would suggest it leaves us thoroughly without an answer. I would like to think that the answers lies somewhere in between it all. It seems to me that there may be a fabric of 'existence' the like of which we cannot presently conceive; a 'divine state' if you like. This fabric would be capable of being at the same time 'neutral' [nothingness] and yet still possess an inherent potential. This would be the 'void' out of which the gods sprung.

Hundreds of years ago people believed that rotten meat turned into flies...

....Will we one day craft a microscope powerful enough to see the egg out of which we hatched?

Zen

2005-11-01T05:52:00.000-08:00

Today my foolish imagination has posed me a brand new question:

"Is the attainment of 'Zen' an attainment of Neutrality?"

This question is a bit of a problem for me because I actually don't know very much about Zen, save for that which I vaguely recall from "Siddhartha" by Hermann Hesse, which, so far as I recall, was all about becoming 'one' with a river. (I should probably re-read it).

After a brief bit of internet research to correct my ignorance I have discovered that the question I posed myself is extremely badly stated, since 'Zen' is, itself, a religion, rather than a state. It is, for anyone interested, a form of buddhism (as may be obvious) and it constitutes a way of life made up mostly of two forms of meditation, sitting and walking.

What I am really after, it seems, is "Bodhi". This is the name given to the state of 'enlightenment'. Following Buddhist ideals, one must grasp the 'perfections' (of which there are usually said to be ten, including 'serenity', 'generosity', 'virtue', 'honesty' etc), and the 'four noble truths' (which relate rather fascinatingly to suffering and the ways in which it can be battled). If one is succesful then one sheds all ego-centred consciousness and frees oneself from the cycle of life-suffering-death-rebirth.

Well, I'm glad I asked myself the question, that was a useful little exercise in education. Now, to analyse:

It seems to me key that if a man attains 'Bodhi' then he sheds ego-centredness. This is a fascinating concept for the philosophies of neutrality! The implication is that in this state a man is free of subjective consideration. This (theoretical?) state is quite remarkable. The ability to reason without subjectivitiy seems an impossible concept to me, but if it is true that 'Bodhi' represents such a thing then herein lies an answer to many of the questions I have so far considered.

In some ways it makes some sense. You spend years and years of your life devoted to extinguishing all acts of selfishness and promoting all states of detachment from suffering. (The stoics theorised at similar targets, but none I know of pursued them with this verve and determination). At the end of it, and only if you truly have devoted yourself to the act, some lucky few might finally detach themselves from subjective concern.

I consider this a worthy concept and not at all ludicrous. There is definite philosophick worth in it. However, it seems to me that the next leap of a consequent escape from the circle of life is ludicrous and represents the point at which this philosophick ideal becomes religion.

Truly, it seems to me, the attainment of 'Bodhi' may represent 'neutrality in life'.

It's all rather exciting really. Although, of course, excitement is far too emotive, and represents my ego's thrill at the possibility of personal enlightment. Therein lies a grave concern: in order to attain enlightenment, one must devote one's life to careful practice and meditation, but in order to complete the process, one must detach oneself from all personal drive! This paradox must be, I imagine, the stumbling block of many. I should suppose that it is the final test: having worked so hard all your life to achieve something, you must then inwardly accept that your own personal achievement of it is irrelevant (i.e. it wouldn't matter to you if you never did achieve it).

Interesting stuff.

What is 'Holy Crap'?

2005-10-31T05:52:00.000-08:00

Things have been a little serious around this site for the last few weeks. I'd like therefore to continue in that vein and consider the essential and potentially planet saving question of "What is Holy Crap?"

Could it be Jesus' shit?

Often said to mark incredulity, perhaps this subtle and unconsidered phrase is actually a clue to an important fact. Perhaps it is telling us that there is no such thing as holy crap, and that crap is, by definition, unholy.

In this sense, is 'holy crap' neutral, or aneutral?

One's first inclination would be to say that holy crap must be 'good', because it's holy, right? On the other hand, however, it is crap, so that makes it 'bad', right? Then again, as discussed above, perhaps it doesn't exist at all, in which case (assuming non-existence = neutrality [which is a big assumption]) 'holy crap' = 'neutral'.

There we have it folks, you may say "Holy Crap!" without fear now, safe in the knowledge that you are preserved in your neutrality. Thank God, the father of all holy crap.

Frames of Objectivity

2005-10-27T05:28:00.000-07:00

If you place a piece of coal on water it will sink.
If you put it on earth it will sit motionless.

If you put it in mid air it will fall. (Unless perfectly balanced in space between two separate gravitational forces - if such a perfect balance is humanly, or mathematically possible)

If you pit the piece of coal into fire, it will burn.

The point?

The placement of an object in different mediums yields different results.

What about the placement of an idea into different frames of reference?

See my post below for an example involving murder.

The challenge is to find the frame of reference which provides the most objective 'result' when analysing the given idea. Perhaps an initial question to ask is whether the answer will vary depending on the idea, or whether there is one grand framework which would provide the most objective 'result' for every given idea.

Before even that can be answered however, one needs to create and define the set of 'frameworks'. This, at first glance, is a difficult thing to do. Must it be done by 'listing', or can it be done by defining a collection of (not necessarily finite) subsets? Well, let's give it a go and see what we can come up with. Here's my start:

Subset of all religious frameworks.
Subset of all legal systems.
Subset of all socio-political frameworks (i.e types of government - democracy, monarchy, communism, autocracy, despotism etc.)
Subset of all variations on the above contained in the personal codes of all (human) individuals.
Subset of all frameworks not already included in the above list which contain an overriding paragon (such as Darwin's theory of evolution in which the overriding paragon is survival).
The absolute framework (by which I mean, the total absence of any framework, or 'anarchy'.)
Pure free-will. (Any different to 'anarchy'?)
Chaos Theory. (Or 'anarchy with imperceptible order').
Determinism. (Fate - meaning all our actions are pre-determined).
Buddism. (Which in my view isn't a religion in the relevant sense).

That's all I could I could think of in five minutes, so I'm sure there are plenty more. Of course, in truth, to find 'THE' objective framework (for everything or any given idea) one would need to consider every framework, though perhaps the subsets could be dismissed as a group in some cases.

Well, that's an attack on the first stage of this important question. Suggestions and input would be very welcome. When adding to the list bear in mind that 'Subset of all philosophical frameworks' does not count, it's cheating!

Is Murder Wrong?

2005-10-21T04:03:00.000-07:00

Yes... It is time to answer this all important question.

First, we must start with a definition of murder, and since I am a barrister, I will provide a legal one:

"The killing of a life in being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought."

Oh yeah.

It may sound like nonsense, but if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense, especially the 'Queen's Peace' bit. This part effectively removes war from the equation. This is naturally essential, not just for practical politics but also for popular morality.

'Life in Being' means that foetus' don't count. This too is helpful as it means abortion is not murder. Again, a reflection of popular morality.

'Malice Aforethought' is just a daft way of saying that the potential murderer intended to kill. This part allows for an array of possible defences such as insanity, accident, intoxication and provocation (the morality of which I discuss here). All of these defences, I might add, lead to a finding of manslaughter, rather than a straightforward acquittal. But the point is, they are not, in the legal sense, murder. This reflects the final part of the governing popular morality, namely that one must be responsible in mind for one's actions.

In other words, popular morality has decided the following:

Killing a foetus (or other non-human creature) is not murder.
Killing in war is not murder.
Killing without intention is not murder.

So, all other types of intended human killing are murder. That is our definition, and it is a useful one, because it counters most of the obvious scenarios in which killing a person could ordinarily be justified.

Is this type of Murder wrong (immoral)?
Again, as with all these types of arguments, it rather depends upon your framework.

Is it wrong in the Christian framework? Yes - It is against one of the ten commandments.

Is it wrong in the English Legal System? Yes - It is against the law.

Is it wrong in the American Legal System? Apparently not always: The Death Penalty is an example of killing a human being with intent. Of course proponents of the practice could always argue that it's done in a form of 'war', but they'd be fudging the issue.

Is it wrong in the Darwinist framework? Probably not. Taking 'right' as meaning 'fit for survival', and 'wrong' as meaning 'unfit', one can imagine many situations in which 'murder' could be 'good', or at the very least, 'not wrong'. In case you totally lack imagination: think of the terribly ill man who stands to inherit millions. If he kills the person whose will it is he will inherit enough money to cure himself. If he doesn't, then he will die. Alternatively, think of the man who has his sights on one woman alone in all the world. She is married to another man and would never consider an affair. If he kills her husband he can be with her (and reproduce, or be 'fit'); if he does not kill the husband he will be forever in a state of unrequited love (and not reproduce, or be 'unfit'). Clearly murder can be 'not wrong' in the Darwinist framework.

The problem comes when you apply the neutral framework. The 'neutral' framework is really the absence of a framework. It is the absence of a code of morality or 'correctness'. Trying to place murder anywhere without a framework, well, it's like trying to give the co-ordinates of a point on a Euclidean plane without any axes. In short, it's as impossible as asking someone to tell you where space ends, and what lies beyond it, and beyond that. Or asking someone to tell you who or what created the Big Bang, or God, depending on your beliefs.

The key, then, is to try to establish the 'best' possible framework in which to consider morality 'objectively'. In my view, law and religion do not achieve this. Darwin is perhaps closest of those considered above.

Well, I went off on a tangent somewhat, but it leads to an interesting sub-discussion which I shall continue another time: What is the most objective framework?

A Neutral Day in the Life...

2005-10-09T10:50:00.000-07:00

It's all very well preaching Neutrality, but oughtn't one live in Neutrality as well?

It's much harder than you might imagine. For example, say that girl you don't especially like comes over and tries to start another conversation with you about her boring life. Now, the 'good' thing to do would be to listen patiently and contribute at the correct time. The 'evil' thing to do would be to tell her to Fuck Off, or else rip her head off... What would be the neutral thing to do? Would it be a combination of the extremes, thereby balancing, or would it be an action directly between the two. The former would make you appear a schizophrenic, and would be very funny, and the latter would have you ignore her completely, which might also be funny in its own way. But neither is easy to do is it?

Alternatively, let's look at infidelity. Now, generally, this is seen as morally wrong. But on the other hand, fidelity is 'good', so that isn't neutral either. I think this is a good example of an excellent puzzle for the neutral pretender. In a case such as this, the neutral man, in my submission, would try both, interested only in experience and not the moral implications of his actions. He ought to be unfaithful and faithful at different times, and he ought to do both with a balanced and scientific mind. The neutral man would try both since he would recognise that neither is necessarily more or less moral than the other (there are many arguments for the morality of infidelity; some religeons actively encourage it). However, once again, I find myself chained in this case. It is not as easy as one might imagine... Society's imprinted shackles are hard to crack.

I suspect this all makes me no better than many of the stoic philosophers in their ivory towers...

Neutral Poker...

2005-10-08T03:20:00.000-07:00

...sounds like a pretty dull game eh?

Unless of course the neutrality were in the face, and then it would be an expert game.

Or perhaps the neutrality could be in the distribution of winnings. It's a conservation of energy thing you see? Energy is never used up; it just changes form. For example, the energy in electricity goes into a bulb and is converted into light energy and heat energy. There is always a constant amount of energy...

In poker, money is not used up, but merely redistributed. Depending on whether you are hosted or host yourself, it may be distributed evenly amongst the players (true conservation!) or a rake may be given to the host (evil conservation!) Either way, money, the energy of poker, is preserved, albeit that the electricity dies out completely in some places...

The Sacred Dent

2005-10-05T11:17:00.000-07:00

There is a little bit of plaster missing from the roof of my living room.

It represents a sacred and spiritual moment in my life.

This was that moment:

Neutral Colour?

2005-10-01T12:15:00.000-07:00

What is the ultimate neutral colour?

Black?

White?

Some might say that either of these represent an extreme, as in the classis yin/yang.

Grey? Generally seen as a very boring colour; but is boring = neutral? I certainly hope not for my sake! I suppose there is an argument for Grey on the basis that it represents the balance of black and white.

It is hard to move beyond these since all 'colourful' colours all conjure up some kind of feeling.

Perhaps the best way to look at it in the background of physics. What are colours? They are reflected refractions of light, right? White is the reflection of all spectrums, black is the reflection of none.

Black is effectively the abscence of white.

So what is more neutral, totality or nothingness?

In a strict sense, one would have to conclude that nothingness is the correct answer, since totality is a form of positive statement.

On the other hand, cannot a positive statement be neutral?

Ask someone else and see what the immediate reaction is. I just did. The answer I received immediately was White. Then came Green, on the basis of its calming effect.

Perhaps there is an argument for green, as being nature's colour. If nature is the highest neutral deity (as the Druids believed), then is its colour the neutral colour?

Conclusion:
The strict answer appears to be Black.

I like Green though.

It's interesting though isn't it? I mean Good is defined as Blue or White and Evil is defined usually as Red or Black. If one strikes a balance between these, one either gets Grey or Purple.

So what's the answer? Black, White, Grey, Purple or Green?

My Chemical Romance.

2005-09-29T11:34:00.000-07:00

I watched her happily for some time and faded the discourse to and from one subject or another. I found that she had studied English and Mathematics alongside Music. I told her that her pursuit of Truth was admirable and she denied it. She claimed instead to be a realist, interested in only that which was tangible. I considered that her choice of study was esoteric, or perhaps metaphysical yet she could only tell me that

Love is limited

I fought such sentiment immediately. She encouraged my romance yet denied its truth. I told her that there is no room for realism in love, only in life, and that she should never find happiness if she could not abandon herself to someone. She said that she had been burned too many times before and I told her that she must dream. For what is life without dreams? And this led to a discussion of charity, and utopian impossibilities.

Walking with Angels

2005-09-28T11:32:00.000-07:00

Objective morality.

Just consider it.

It's absolutely impossible for any human to define an act as good or evil objectively. It simply cannot be done.

If this is true, which it is, then what are the ramifications for society?

When a man is judged as evil by his peers, are they correct in so doing? If his peers then punish him, on what basis and under what authority do they act?

The answers are easy if you believe in a God. But that's precisely why so many people do, and so I shall ignore that avenue.

It seems that society's judgments are not an act of morality, or 'justice', in an objective sense, but rather acts necessary for the preservation of society. In this sense they are entirely subjective.

Everything so far is fairly obvious. But push the concept further and it becomes very interesting:

We are simply not capable of knowing whether any man in particular acts in a morally correct fashion. It could therefore be that we may completely miss the most moral person of all. S/he could slip straight under the radar. It could be, for example, that a divinity (which is to say, an absolute moral good) walks among us unknown, perhaps even unaware.

Equally, the same could be said of a demon or a True Neutral.

In the circumstances, one might argue that we have no culpability for our actions. I like to believe in free will; I like to believe that I can live as I will and that some day I may find myself walking with an Angel, unawares.

Free Game Download!

2005-09-26T16:42:00.000-07:00

I wonder how many Google hits the title will catch. Perhaps I should be more specific:

FREE GREYHOUND RACING GAME!
[Do you think multiple exclamation marks would get more hits?]

Anyhow, this is a great offer by yours truly. Yes, in my murky past I somewhere learnt to program. This may surprise any repeat visitors here as it isn't entirely in accordance with my otherwise entriely non-geeky image. Right?

Here's a screenshot:

But seriously, I programmed this entire game, a little while back, and I'm now giving it away for free. It's worth two minutes of your time most probably, and if anyone really likes it then perhaps I'll work on it a bit longer and make it better.

It was programmed in Visual Basic and I'm happy to show the source code to anyone who's interested.

All comments/criticism/suggestions etc very welcome.

Please note, you MUST extract the files to the folder c:\VB98, because I really am too lazy to work out how to make it self-extracting.

Human Transcendence of Biological Evolution

2005-09-24T04:55:00.000-07:00

It's absolutely clear that civilisation has already largely (but not completely) transcended evolution in the biological Darwinist sense. With advances in providing a safe habitat, reliable sources of food and medicine, it is now possible for those who are evolutionarily VERY weak, to survive.

Nowadays, with complex dating websites and enourmous cities of people, it is even possible for those who would not ever usually find 'mates' to do so. Consequently, civilisation now provides a 'creche' in which maladaptive characteristics can flourish (ie. Death worship in fornicating goths!).

The point is that now that we are now unconstrained by biology, a new form of evolution has 'evolved' which is the passing on socially advantageous politics and ideas. This is, however, about large groups acting as 'giant organisms', rather than individuals having a certain evolutionary fitness - that concept is now dead in humans.

It has been suggested somehow that ideas are contained within genetics, this is clearly nonsense.

Biological evolution has taken millions of years, advanced and complex ideas have only really evolved in the last few thousand years. These ideas have advanced at an absolutely explosive rate which is accelerating. They are clearly 'evolving' under a different mechanism to that which evolved our biological self.

It's not so much that humans are no longer 'changing' in a biological sense, because clearly generations are getting taller, and the smart are getting smarter. The difference is, that it is no longer a process of natural selection - the stupid are getting stupider as well, whereas they should be dieing without passing on their weakness.

Those with 'weaknesses' do not necessarily have other desirable traits. I can think of many people with absolutely no redeeming qualities, certainly not sufficient amounts of them to overcome their 'weaknesses' and make them 'worthwhile'.

As for how I define 'weak', I do so on the basis of past experience, and I do so with reference to the traditional (non-transcended) society in mind. Before we created the 'creche', stupidity, ugliness, physical weakness, etc. were evolutionarily 'weak', that is where my defintion comes from. I would argue that my definition is not invalidated should these weak survive, precisely because, as I say, civilisation has 'transcended' Darwinian evolution - the 'weak' CAN now survive.

'Transcendence' is not supernatural or divine in any way. It is a purely scientific development. It is simply the case that natural selection favoured the smart and men capable of advanced thinking evolved. Once this process had occurred, advanced thought began to do two key things:

1) Siginificantly change its environment.

2) Pass on ideas from generation to generation in ways other than genetic, ie through books, word of mouth etc.

Between these two things, ordinary Darwinian evolution became gradually more and more obselete and is still becoming so today.

I do not see that this creates a 'divided persona' per se; the physical and metaphysical are not in opposition. 'Ideas' do not have to have a metaphysical quality to them, they can simply be tools.

Finally, naturalistic evidence for transcendence = # of horribly unfit human beings currently walking the earth (in ase anyone wanted evidence!)

For a hilarious evolution diagram that appears far more interested in worms than humans, go here

Results Day

2005-09-19T13:21:00.000-07:00

So everything’s fine. You’re chilling out enjoying your day when suddenly you remember. How could you really forget? I guess you never did. Today, is results day. Quickly you dress, your heartbeat has increased. Suddenly you realise that all the stagnant waiting is over. Something approaching excitement but which is really fear builds up inside you. It seems everything hangs upon the moments that are shortly to follow.

You emerge onto the street. Everyone around has their daily lives. Nothing significant is happening to them. You are probably pale now, your mouth is very dry. You know from your psychology exam that this is a natural reaction to fear. Since you know so much about psychology, you were probably fine. Your breathing increases and you start to sweat, but this is no doubt a side effect of walking quickly. There is so little between you and that white board with figures and letters. A short walk, a short tube journey and one more short walk.

A man and a woman approach you, smiling as though angels walk amongst us. Truly enough they are South African missionaries advertising their latest music and dance celebrations of god at Wembley stadium. Stern faced at first you force a smile and say you will think about it. They smile and nod, blessing you.

On the tube you ponder god and the influence he may exert over your fate. Considering that the results are up there waiting for you to simply see them, you know that he is irrelevant. You know you are desperate when you pray for something impossible from someone you don’t believe in…

Down the street now, nothing but concrete and steps between you and it. You consider that if there were a league dictating the most stressed people on the planet then you would have risen into the top area after spending forever at the other end. Strangely you cannot place any confidence in this result, one way or the other. You have done well and worked, but you feel oddly as if there might be a surprise ahead.

Up the final flight of stairs, you can hardly breath. You feel truly sick. Around the corner looms the notice board. You could turn now and never look. Life could go on and nothing would change, in the end though, you are more scared not to look. Momentarily you cannot find your number in the display. You find it, but hope it is another’s.

- I wrote this just over two years ago and since then I have turned failure into success on a fantastic scale. This weekend I experienced another set back of the kind, yet I feel I can rise from the ashes once again, a glorious Phoenix burning more brightly and brilliantly than ever before... If one never fails in life, how can one ever know when one is truly succeeding?

Superbly Weird Neutral Cult

2005-09-18T06:18:00.000-07:00

Whilst doing some Neutral research for a book I was writing, I came across officially the weirdest site I have ever EVER found on the net:

TRINP

[Complete with bizarro sound effects]

I should, perhaps, worship this site. But I'm not sure, because I don't understand most of what the hell it's trying to say. For example:

"The ontological position of the norm of neutrality is not different from that of the norm of inclusivity. The principles of which the norms of neutrality and inclusivity are interpretations are both (non-meta-)doctrinal and nonpropositional. Thus in the first instance both norms belong to a first-order normative doctrine, that is, a normative doctrine about the ground-world. We have seen how in this ground-world the principle of relevance of which the norm of inclusivity is an interpretation is supplementary to the principle of truth. Truth in isolation is not worth anything, for truth always needs relevance in the end. Similarly, the principle of neutrality of which the norm of neutrality is an interpretation is supplementary to the principle of relevance. Relevance in isolation is not worth anything either, for also relevance needs a focus of relevancy in the end. It is the principle of neutrality which ultimately furnishes this determinant."

Now, when I read this, I conclude that one of four things is happening:

I'm a lot stupider than I thought.
Whoever wrote this shit is really really smart and has come up with his own philosophy near enough from scratch.
The person who wrote this is insane and it really does make no sense.
The person who wrote this is very good at writing stuff that sounds clever but means nothing.

Would this final option actually be the ultimate irony I wonder?

Check out the site's short stories, it's all quite fascinating in a truly surreal way.

A Tree Falls in the Desert...

2005-09-15T14:38:00.000-07:00

... If nobody is there to hear it, does it make any sound?

So is the variation I heard today on the classic philosophical poser.

1) What bloody tree? This is a goddamn desert! Deserts have sand, not trees!

[Except this one]

2) Of course it does...

3) ... Unless of course you actually believe that the world only exists in so far as humans are there to perceive it. For me, if you're going to go this far, you should really say 'If I am not there to hear it, does it make any sound?'

I find it easier to conceive of everything being a figment of my personal imagination rather than everything being a figment of humanity's imagination. But imagine the reverse! One massive inconceivable self-deception - humanity believes in sound, but 'sound' does not exist!

Rock on! (Although I suppose it's rather hard to 'rock on' without sound...)

Guest Cartoon

2005-09-14T06:37:00.000-07:00

This cartoon has been written, designed and scripted specially for A Neutral World? by Nick James, of World of Why?

Is Judas actually Neutral?

2005-09-11T06:26:00.000-07:00

It is said that Judas betrayed Jesus. Most people would consider him evil.

However, what if Judas had actually 'betrayed' Jesus so as to spur him into leading the Christian revolution? What if Judas decided to sacrifice his very soul and his place in heaven for the greater good?

Many acts of evil have some virtuous component. Murder, for example, comprises bravery.

Betrayal, in the ordinary sense, has no virtuous component, so Judas might fully have realised that his actions were about to deny him any forgiveness or mercy. In this way, Judas appears to have condemned himself, knowingly, to burn in hell. That he could do this to his soul simply for the greater good shows a noble element to his character.

So, by balancing an ultimately evil act (betrayal of the son of God), with an ultimately good higher aim (revolutionising the modern world and bringing in the new world order of Christianity), is Judas in fact neutral?

On the other hand, this argument rather rests on the presumption that the Christian God is actually Good himself. If He is not, then Judas is arguably Evil again, (evil act of betrayal to promote and evil God)!

What do you think? Judas, Good, Evil or Neutral?

Hattrick

2005-09-10T06:22:00.000-07:00

A quick plug for an awesomely good game:

Hattrick

It's basically an online football management game, but it's the very best I've come across. One amazing feature is its truly international nature. There's literally some guy out in Malaysia somewhere who pulls some kid out of their youth system and then you, in England, can buy the guy. Everyplayer in the game comes from somebody's squad. It's sweet.

Is it neutral? Hmmm... Well, currently around 600,000 people play it worldwide. That number seems consistenly on the increase.

n = # of people playing hattrick.
p= world population.

I hypothesise that as n ---> p, hattrick -----> neutral.

In other words, there would be an even spread of hattrick globally. It would become an alternate reality and then it would cease to possess and value, but would instead play host to a set of internal values (the players.)

A bit 'Brave New World', I know, but you've gotta spice up a basic plug somehow eh?

Google Advertise Poker Cheat!

2005-09-07T15:02:00.000-07:00

About a month ago I was surfing Google when I found a 'sponsored link' to a page that promised the key to guaranteed online poker winnings. I decided to take a look, since I like poker, and I like money. I was also curious because I faced two conflicting things:

My opinion that one never gets anything for free.
My trust for Google.

The link opened up and gave a massive spiel about making money online, with loads of '3rd part testimonials', the usual. Then it showed a screen shot which suggested that with this software one might be able to see all the cards one's opponents were holding. Underneath this picture it explained, quite correctly, that if you can see everyone's cards, how can you lose? A little further down it insisted that all the program (selling for $60) did was legal.

Now, being a lawyer, I concluded fairly quickly that looking at other people's cards and thereby winning was most definately obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception (stealing). On the other hand, I knew this was a Google-sponsored link, and I thought, surely Google wouldn't advertise something illegal?

I did some research into it and discovered, quite unsurprisingly, that it was all a big scam. In order to use the program 'legally' you first have to get all the players around the table to agree to installing your program and letting you use it! HAHAHAHA! Seriously! Yeah.

So basically this is all about cheating, stealing and scamming. As my friend said, if he could do all that legally why did he want $60 from us, why didn't he just win an infinite amount with his strategies?

Anyway, I wrote to Google about it, complaining and suggesting it was harming their reputation (had already in my mind). They wrote back saying they would investigate and yet today the site is still a sponsored link: http://www.cheat-at-poker.com/

Shocking. Have a look and laugh.

The Dice Man

2005-09-06T16:11:00.000-07:00

Have any of you read this 70s cult classic? If not, then you should. It should appeal to anyone with half a brain (except children - it's far to corrupting and lewd for them).

The basic concept of the book is that the author allows a die to take control of every facet of his life. The only control he retains is that of choosing the options he gives the die. I offer two immediate observations:

1) In the book the author aspires to become The Random Man. (Personally I think this is an oxymoron, since 'The' is a definite article, and 'Random' is an indefinite concept.) If he followed his plan to the letter, would he also become 'A Neutral Man'?

If man's actions were entirely determined by a force beyond his control, does that make his actions 'valueless', in the sense of morality? To take this further, many philosophers in the past have subscribed to determinism (in which they say every action is pre-determined by fate; choice is an illusion. For example, you think you have a choice of whether to raise your right hand or you left, but once you have risen your left (say) then the determinists would state that any other option was impossible.) If we accept that life is governed by fate, then wherein lies morality? This leads us to the key question:

"Is free will a pre-requisite of morality?"

I personally think that it clearly must be, for in free will lies responsbility, and blame (or praise) requires responsibility to have any meaning.

Consequently, I would say the truly random man (if true randomness is a valid concept at all) would be morally Neutral. The problem in The Dice Man is that he chooses his own options, and so places inherent 'value' into any roll. To achieve Neutrality in this sense, he would have to have an infinite die to represent the infinite possibilities of life. What a concept eh?

Hmmm, after that magnificent analysis, I've forgotten point 2.... Ah yes:

2) Wouldn't "The Dice Man Blog" be pretty much the damned sweetest thing you ever saw? It could approach a level of greater randomness (and therefore greater(?) neutrality) by having the audience of the blog pick the options for the die for each day. The Dice Man would then report back on the outcome of the roll and seek another set of options. Seriously, if any of you are mad enough to do this you WILL become pretty damned famous pretty damned fast. The only drawback would be you'd also end up with no life, no friends, no money, no job and a prison sentence within not too long at all. Perhaps a variation on the idea might be more possible, but would entirely lack the force. (you could, for example, request 2 good options, 2 neutral options and 2 evil options for each roll, then at least disaster might hold off a little longer... etc.) Oh hell, when one of you becomes famous off this, at least link me. I'd do it myself but it's taken years of training to become a barrister and I'm fucked if I'm giving that up!

Pleasure!

2005-09-05T14:27:00.000-07:00

A brief and elementary philosophic note:

A student of Plato (and foreshadow of Euclid's geometry books) called Eudoxus claimed that pleasure was the supreme good. His reasoning for this was that all living things seek it.

Plato once said that pleasure + intelligence = something better than pleasure.

Aristotle used this argument to say that pleasure can be surpassed by addition of another 'good' and so it was not supreme of itself.

For once I'm briefly going to dare to criticise Aristotle's reasoning: the result of Plato's equation, though it may be greater than its parts, is still a form of pleasure (as, for example, where cold water is placed in a fridge, it gets colder, but it is still cold water). Clearly when Eudoxus claimed that pleasure was the supreme good, he intended that his definintion of 'pleasure' should include all degrees of pleasure.

Further, Plato's equation is subjective. For many people pleasure + intelligence <= pleasure. It rather depends upon the drives of the individual. As for me, I would also argue against Eudoxus on this basis: he defines pleasure as something all creatures seek, with reason, or without. To seek pleasure without reason is to succumb to impulsive short term desires. As anyone can see, short term goals desires (shagging you girlfriend's best friend) can very easily lead to long term disasters (being dumped by both girls and living a life of lonely infamy). In other words, pleasure without reason is not necessarily good in any proper sense, either ethically or practically. To say all creatures seek it and so it is good is a patently silly argument.
Finally: is pleasure neutral?

a) Pleasure gives people happiness (sometimes short term, sometimes long term).

b) Pleasure causes pain and suffering (Eating ---> Obesity ----> Death). [see diagram on left]

Conclusion: pleasure has many drawbacks, but what is life without it? It can give life and death. I therefore conclude that it is not neutral but a variation on neutral - ambivalent.

Perhaps I should rename the site An Ambivalent World? ... On the other hand, not enough people really know what the word ambivalence means.

Neutrality in the 40s...

2005-09-04T13:56:00.000-07:00

No, honey, ah suspect you-all
Of bein' intellectual
And so, instead of gushin' on,
Let's have a big discussion on
Timidity, stupidity, solidity, frigidity,
Avidity, turbidity, Manhattan, and viscidity,
Fatality, morality, legality, finality,
Neutrality, reality, or Southern hospitality,
Pomposity, verbosity,
You're losing your velocity,
But let's not talk about love.

- Let's Not Talk About Love - Cole Porter

Original Intergrity...

2005-09-02T09:34:00.000-07:00

I try to write (some of which appears/will appear here.) One problem I face in my writing is an almost compulsive need to be original in what I write.

Jorge Luis Borges, in his short story "The Immortal", claims that, given immortality, all men would write all things. Hence, when he meets Homer in an African desert and discovers that he is so old he can barely remember writing the Odyssey, he concludes that it would be more amazing for man not to have written the Odyssey than for him to have written it.

Borges is full of these wonderful fragile and unreal images. But what if there is something in it? Many many people have postulated the 'only seven stories have ever been told' theory, or a version of it. I prefer to think that this is not the case, and that a story can be different to any before it in a number of ways.

Sometimes I find it frustrating to see a brilliant film, or read a work of genius. It makes me realise that I've now lost the chance to write it myself. But yesterday I thought up the most amazing plot for a short story and I have written most of it joyously already.

But is it nothing more than an illusion? Am I only happy because I haven't read the story I have written yet? It would be so easy to surrender to duplicity, to re-write the greatest works.

Even in originality we stand on the shoulders of the giants that have preceded us. We can hope for nothing more than to form a link in the infinite chain of humanity...

The Best 'Best'.

2005-09-01T11:57:00.000-07:00

Isn't it a requirement of really living to want to be the best at something?

Even if you're only the best at something really irrelevant, like collecting stuffed frogs, everyone wants to have their place.

But what's the best thing to be the best at?

(In fact, as a side note, isn't the phrase 'the best' rather tortological?)

Here's a few possibilities (in no particular order): science, painting, music, writing, religion, orating (policitics), parenting, medicine, philosophy...

Of course (and very thankfully) the answer is different for each individual, but is one career, or calling, objectively better than any other?

In order to answer this question I need to define 'best', which is of course impossible, and will defeat the question by self-defining the answer. But that is only because I am inherently subjective.

Perhaps one way to objectivise the question is to consider the natural state of these positions in society. For example, consider it in terms of evolution (that is to say: evolution of culture and civilisation rather than biological evolution).

[I preface further argument by quickly dealing with fame. I argue that fame is not in of itself survival in the sense I seek. The survival I seek is linked intrinsically with the calling that is to propogate it.]

Science constantly evolves and survives in improved forms from generation to generation. In fact, science has arguably (definitely) allowed human civilsation to 'transcend' natural selection, so it clearly has great power. Where a good scientific idea is created it is then used as a foundation for further science to develop upon its back. Hence scientific ideas survive well. In terms of the classic evolution value for 'best', being survival, science is strong.

Painting has its similarities. Certainly it has developed over the centuries, with technique being refined. But painting is subject to popularity and trends of fashion. Modern Art, for example is so substantially different to what has gone before, in some cases, that it might be considered original, in other words, that which has gone before it has not survived within it. (And it may well be that much Modern Art will not survive long (in terms of centuries). We can only hope so!) Painting therefore appears weaker than science.

Music can be argued in the same vein as painting, perhaps it is even a more extreme example. Musical trends change so fast that one can scarcely rely upon even some of the most successful music surviving even a couple of decades. (Unless of course you subscribe to the School of Rock and believe all modern music is derived from classical riffs!)

Writing I would like to argue is stronger than painting and music. I would argue this on the basis that it communicates ideas in a more fundamental way which strikes to the heart of all human experience and therefore is lasting. Of course, writing coincides with many of these other options, so really I should redefine and state it as 'fictional writing'. Even then it can sometimes be hard to separate from philosophy, politics and religion.

Religion? Tricky one. I could cite Pascal's razor here, but I'd rather cover that another time. The point is, in terms of the survival (of one man's contribution) it could quite possibly fall down as very weak. Most religions look down upon pride, and so a man successful in religion ought to shun the fame (and therefore survival) that might otherwise follow. There are of course excpetions (such as some popes, Buddha, Joan of Arc, St Thomas Aquinas, Jesus) but they too conflict with other discliplines such as philosophy and/or are massively aberrant (unusual) people. My only conclusion here is that many men have no doubt been highly highly successful people have simply not survived (probably even in the Darwin sense given vows of chastity!).

Oratorship is a different thing to politics, as can be seen by contrasting Hitler and Churchill with Bush and Pol Pot. (Notice the balance and unbalance there... Wonderful neutrality...) What I'm thinking of is the ability to lead men and/or revolutionise social policy. I could cite Marx but again I'd be moving into philosophy. One question must be answered, does a politician's personal contribution survive if 1) his fame survives; or 2) his policies (or evolved versions of them) survive. It all depends on the politician's goals in existence one supposes, but I shall try hard to make an objective decision and call the second the worthier of a politician's goals. Looked at in this way, politics can be very weak. It follows only the winner, and since even the winner eventually loses in politics, it appears to be a dangerous career to approach for survival. On the other hand, the influences of Rome (and the individual emperors) could be said to reach to today, as could the invasions of England the American Civil War. Who knows how long the work of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln will influence and develop society? A little like Religion, I imagine many very very successful politicians will not, however, have survived.

Parenting? I find it very hard to be objective about this as I am too consumed with irritation at endless mommy blogs. Still: indubitably parenting is essential and quite unarguably succesful parenting will survive to the next generation. However, its long term survival (which is all that really matters) is perhaps limited. It relies too heavily on the personailities and wills of those generations which succeed, which are the children. One might argue against that, of course, that the best parenting will yield a child who will be both successful (in the sense of this discussion) and capable of passing on the parenting experience s/he has had. The actual art of parenting, while important, seems weak in a survival sense.

Medicine is an example of practical science (a commonly considered metaphysical divide). I would argue that this makes it inherently weaker than science itself in the sense within which I conduct this argument, namely that as an individual contribution it does not survive. Interestingly Chekhov considers this point, in Ward 6 his doctor begins to treat randomly when he realises the grand insignificance of his contribution, whereas in The Grasshopper his doctor nobly gives his own life for one of his patients and one cannot help but be impressed by the inherent value of this action. One might further argue the practice would survive by virtue of allowing another man to live who would then have a lasting effect himself. This is, however, obviously a subordinate survival, the medical act itself is extinguished completely in the annals of history. In a survival sense, therefore, medicine is not a good choice (though of course it has other immediately practical and/or moral advantages).

Philosophy is perhaps the killer. Naturally my personal admiration for the subject may bias me, but as I've found through discussing the other options, it lies behind everything man does and is. It is the very thing which separates man from beast. It's very definition, 'love of wisdom', comprises science, religion (in the sense of truth), writing and politics quite clearly. The others, I would argue, are mere derivatives. The natural conclusion is that to be truly the 'best' philosopher truly fulfils the requirements of survival in that it gets behind and within all that follows it.

[My friend would have me consider sports. I dismiss it (though I love it) in one question: how does the strike of a golf ball, the volley of a football or the dunk of a basketball survive?]

This subject requires books and books to cover, so much of my argument is flawed by being improperly introduced or incompletely presented, but I seek to provoke thought.

The 'Reasonable' Dude.

2005-08-30T13:15:00.000-07:00

"The Reasonable Man" is a highly important term of art in English Law (and American I imagine). It is the objective standard by which we are all judged in law.

• In criminal law, a defendant usually has to come way below the standards of the reasonable dude.
• To be guilty of manslaughter by negligence you have show an appalling level of care, skill etc. (A doctor - Adomako - was not guilty despite disconnecting an oxygen tube in an operation, something no other doc would've done in his shoes).
• To be guilty of dangerous driving you have to drive "Far below standard of REASONABLE driver".

So it appears that in negligence our REASONABLE DUDE is a mark for a variety of levels of standard, not just simply what he might do, but something far worse than he might do.

Q: How can this horribly imprecise (supposedly objective) standard get worse?
A: When the law begins to attribute the defendant's characteristics to the 'reasonable' man.

Example:

1. Provocation as a defence can reduce murder to manslaughter.
2. There are two tests to pass:
a. Subjective - Defendant is so subject to passion as to lose control of his mind.
b. Objective - That the provocation was enough to cause a REASONABLE DUDE to lose his self control and to act as D did.
3. Fine, right?
4. No.
5. Because the law attributes to the reasonable dude 'any special characteristics that affect the degree of control a jury could reasonably expect from D and which it would be unjust not to take into account.' E.G: ANYTHING.

Analysis:

This means that the jury, when wondering if the reasonable man would've acted in provocation as the accused did, can give the accused:

• A raging temper.
• A psychopathic disorder.
• PMT.

Further, as the academic John E. Stannard describes the defence thusly: “perhaps unfortunate, as it requires a jury to make the surely unwarranted assumption that reasonable men sometimes kill when provoked.”

Indeed, Michael Allen points out that a jury, when considering whether the reasonable man with D’s characteristics may have done what D did, may well consider his actions, as being the actions of such a person with his characteristics, as evidence of what would happen. As Allen concludes, “How utterly bizarre!”

I have myself written a provocation defence which I believe is just. I shall post it later, would be overkill to provide it now, you've had quite enough for one session!

So, "The Reasonable Dude" is basically a pretty shoddy attempt by the law to deceive the public into believing that its subjective judgments are actually objective...

Class Action Madness...

2005-08-29T09:31:00.000-07:00

About a month ago I vaguely recall reading an article about how Sony had hilariously made up a film critic. Somehow or other, two of their executives (now fired) thought it would be a good idea to quote this imaginary guy on their film posters. Funnily enough he was always extremely complimentary towards the films. Eventually Newsweek decided to track this critic down to find out if he ever said anything bad. The harder they looked the less they found. They realised he'd been made up. A great scoop for Newsweek.

But then...

Two Californian film goers decided to sue Sony as representatives of a class action... for the price of their film tickets! Quite incredibly they actually succeeded in their action and were awarded damages in the sum of the amount their tickets had cost. This result astounds me for three reasons:

1) Causality: To prove your case you must prove that the wrong doing 'caused' your loss. In this case I'm absolutely amazed that the judge was persuaded that 'they would not have gone to see the film they saw unless they had seen that film poster, read that comment by "the critic", and decided on the basis of his comment alone to go see the film.' Surely they could not prove this?

2) Damage: To win the case you must prove that the wrong doing caused loss. You must therefore prove that you did not get what you paid for. In other words the film must have actually been so bad that it does not justify your money having been spent. It's all very well saying 'I wouldn't have watched the film but for the critic', but you must also say '...and I didn't get one tiny bit of pleasure out of it at all.' Surely they could not prove this?

3) Policy: To enforce this class action would (and has) result(ed) in stupifying circumstances. Now, any film goer can hand in their tickets to the film (if they still have them!) and claim their money back.

This third point leads me to the heart of why I think class actions are absolutely absurd: all these film goers who can now reclaim the price of their ticket from Sony do not have to prove that they suffered damage or that the comment caused their paying to see the film. This makes a mockery of the whole justice system.

In England we have representative actions to establish points of law, but not to decide absolute liability for everyone in the class.

Perhaps I've got American law wrong slightly (feel free to correct), but these class actions appear madness.

For more entertaining commentry on the arguably aneutrally evil class actions see "King of Torts" by Grisham!

Consecrated

2005-08-28T10:48:00.000-07:00

Patiently now I find myself torn apart. My final submission, resignation. The trees and plants around me fade away into something quite indefinable. Were you to be here you would shortly be consumed too, for soon nothing shall be real, at least not in the way we think. Slowly I close my eyes, unsure whether I might ever be able to open them again. I consider that I might now be experiencing my final thoughts. It seems that now, as I might finally be consumed by the nothing I have dreaded so long, now I hold on to even thought. I use it to record, if only briefly, and if only to you, that which has led me to this exigency.

I must start with the moment that at once was both the beginning and end of my life. Her name was Isibé al. It was in fact her name that first took me. She gave it me in seraphic crystal whisper under a sparkling fountain on a clear luminescent day. I had been reading quietly in the park, relishing the refreshing cool nature of the day. I should have appeared inexistent to her, perhaps I should have seemed null and void. For I was. Until that moment I had been nothing, blank. Her voice flickered and shimmered, as did the wayward drops from the fountain in the sun. Slowly, seriatim, her aspiration filled me as if tapping me. As an artesian well draws up water from strata previously unreachable so did her voice find a part of me untouched.

From that single and emphatic breath of time grew our love. As Isibé al had seen me, so she had seen inside me. Drawn out into the creature she had nurtured I became her second half, her completion. We were tenacious, inseparable.

I can see now that she cast a spell over me that lucific day. I say this to you in all honesty, in the most literal sense. I say this because she was herself a magical creation. Sorcery, witchcraft, mysticism and most importantly spiritualism ebbed from her every movement and her touch commanded the aggregate of seamless reality. This however was her limit, and though this may seem unlike any limit you may understand, so it appeared to her. She passed her time in everduring pursuit of a higher plane, the paragon state of being.

We passed some few notable months together in a state of love that was both profound and divine. Despite this she wrangled with a never ending fealty to something more. Finally, events culminated in a denouement. One very early morning, in the twilight of dawn, I arose to a bed bereft of spirit. Shortly I elicited her figure, tenebrous against a sallow sky, outside at the end of her garden. She stood flailing her arms outwards at all the living planet and screaming an unearthly incantation. Spellbound, I saw her but could do nothing. I was paralyzed, palsied. I felt a sharp sense of disquietude wash over me. I was compelled to stop her but could not.

I grasped the allusion of her theistic praxis. She had consumed months rendering her mores intelligible to me. For years she had been carefully acquainting herself with all that she could disinter concerning a particular antediluvian cult. She had been private in this pursuit, and until myself, had revealed it to nobody. She had been devising means by which to draw power from an alternate reality that you and I have no conception of. She explained to me that this realm was in truth pure energy, a delicate and complete potency. Recently she had spoken more often of this power, she had come to require it to live. Now I finally understood that she meant to become part of it. This morning I would lose her.

Even as I stood, ubiquitous yet inefficacious, so did she fly from me. In a density of light fused with passion her soul, aseity, fled from this world that we know so little. She had stripped herself of her own life. This much is simple truth. But what had she become? I assure you that this, the end for most, was not her final bow. I gazed up at the heavens and saw in the sky a new order, colour and form hitherto hidden, for she was now a part of it.

That mid night, as I lay in perfect flawless quiescence, spoilt only by the subtle Grey Eminence of melancholic adversity, she came. As a wisp she seeped in; her cool essence touched out with boreal jolt. As I beheld her so did she sway above me, pendent in the ether, and ne’er was there a countenance so wrought with the lineament of anguish. Anxious timidity may have held in caducity the will of the ordinary man, yet wanton affectation drew me toward her. I rose in concomitance with her spectral incarnation and advanced behind the tractive spirit to the window. Gazing out at the sky I beheld a most magnificent vision, or was it one of animosity and abomination? At first I looked only to the heavens, yet shortly I realised that this world, once considered my sojourn, had become in totality this fresh yet frightening derivation. Could it be that deep within this terrifyingly beautiful fabric, there screamed the souls of the angels? Then, as surely as the sight had struck my eyes, so did it fade away, almost becoming that background into which it subsided. Had I imagined it?

“Save me,” came the whisper caudate in the frosty air, swirling in my shallow visible breath. She had withdrawn...

Holiday...

2005-08-25T03:54:00.000-07:00

I left to go on holiday last week. I'm in Venice. I totally forgot to mention I was leaving... Sorry to all those who thought I'd abandoned the cause. I hope I haven't lost too many faithful readers. I'm busy studying the Renaissance attitude to neutrality.

I'll be back and reposting from next week on Monday...

Ash.

God.

2005-08-16T14:27:00.000-07:00

"Jules looked up. At that exact moment a bolt of lightening flashed down from the sky striking him in the centre of the forehead. Stunned for a second he considered what had just happened. Why wasn’t he dead? Within moments knowledge came to him. This was not just your average run of the mill knowledge. This was the real thing. This was knowledge. He knew everything. He knew the exact circumference of your little toe at its thinnist point. He knew advanced calculous. He knew every word of Shakespeare off by heart. He knew the exact truth of all history. He knew God. In fact, he knew God’s name. God was called Bob. Bob had been sleeping for a couple of thousand years and his alarm clock had failed to wake him.

Jules looked around. Gathering up some rocks and some other natural materials he set to work. One hour, fourty-two minutes and three point four five nine seconds later he had built a trans-dimensional gate. He stepped in and emerged in another plane of existance. In this new plane he was surrounded by pink. Everything was pink. God/Bob liked pink. Jules floated through the pink void until he came across Bob snoring in bed. This bed consisted of a big fluffy pink cloud floating around. Jules gave Bob a shove and woke him.

God awoke. Turning over on the cloud he noticed Jules.

“Shit, what’s the time? And who are you?”

“Aren’t you omnipotent?” Replied Jules.

“Well,” replied Bob, “I was. I mean, once I knew everything, and I still know everything I knew then but anything new that comes along I don’t know.”

"Right, I see.” He didn’t. “So, shouldn’t you get to work, you know, curing plagues and leading people to promised lands?”

“No, think I’ll just go back to bed. You seem pretty bright, why don’t you give it a try?” God went back to bed.

Jules returned to Earth through the portal he’d dragged round with him. Back on Earth he mixed himself a potion and, drinking it, gave himself eternal life. He spent the next couple of years curing plagues, ending starvation and forcing everybody to worship him, the new messiah. Then he got bored. He quickly built himself a planetary transporter and went to a rather pleasant planet on the other side of the universe. This planet was primitive, containing only beautiful green foliage punctuated occasionally with bright colours. Here he rested quietly for a couple of thousand years. Then one day he was interrupted from his tranquility by a visitor. The visitor said her name was Miriam. She told him that as God he should really go and help out his race of humans. Jules pointed out that she’d got the wrong guy and showed her to the alternative pink dimension to meet Bob.

An hour later Miriam returned. It seemed Bob had decided that Jules was the new God. Jules was not impressed. Then it occurred to him to offer the position to Miriam. He did and she accepted. Jules cooked God/Miriam a sumptous meal and sent her packing. "

Aristotle.

2005-08-15T11:20:00.000-07:00

There's a great deal for me to say about Aristotle. He is really the founding father of the analysis of objective/subjective morality. His book (or rather, collection of books), Ethics, is well worth a read for anyone. Of course, I realise it's ridiculously hard going for anyone who isn't studying it for some kind of post graduate diploma in Philosophy, but it is readable enough. Anyway, enough boring lit crit, on to the meat of this post. Three parts:

A Mini note on the man himself.
Aristotle's preliminary definition of 'good'.
Aristotle's brief analysis of man's approach to attaining 'good'.

I shall try to make each section interesting to even the lay person, with some light hearted analysis, but feel free to read whichever part interests you most... Or just go ahead and surf on to the next site because you're too lazy to take on some meaningful... Oh, you've gone.

1. The Man Himself.

First: boring facts... Born c.385 BC. His father was physician to the king. Went to Plato's academy at 17 (described Plato as 'a man whom it is not lawful even for the bad to praise'.) Tutored Alexander the Great.

Second: that which makes the Great Philosopher a mortal man... When Plato died his academy was taken over by a man named Speusippus. He and Aristotle went to live under protection of another man named Hermeias. Hermeias was a remarkable character who had risen from the lowest ranks of society to be a true leader of men. Further, he aspired after the Platonian ideals of a 'good' ruler.

That such a man could achieve so much shows that the Ancient World at the time had similar class opinions as, in my opinion, they have today - a man can rise through the classes, but only with the aid of brilliance. That such a man became the closest friend of Aristotle shows the philosopher to be a man of neutral judgment, capable of thinking without prejudice.

The two indeed became the greatest of friends and Hermeias became a great ruler. Unfortunately the Persians then kicked the crap out of everybody and put Hermeias to death, after he had refused to betray his friends even under the worst forms of torture. A truly good man? (Another triumph of power over 'goodness'). The effect on Aristotle was extraordinary. In his passionate grief he wrote a poem for his friend in which he said his friend had proved that "goodness was worth dying for." Noble sentiments indeed, and thoroughly declaratory for a philosopher, which is why I tell this story, and why I like it. It shows Aristotle to be a real man with emotions, able to consider reality in the same way as the rest of us, without rationalising it all away. This makes his rationalisations all the more emphatic, in my submission.

[He then shagged Hermeias' sister (and you thought he was a big homo with only Hermeias in mind didn't you? Yeah... Those Greeks were fond of a bit of Ass-Jockeying.) They got married and in the end were buried together - another nice touch of humanity in the man.]

2. What is 'Good'?

Aristotle attempts to define Good. He begins by saying that since every activity (artistic or scientific, deliberate action or pursuit) has for its object the attainment of some 'good'. We may therefore assent to the view that 'the good' is 'that at which all things aim'. A nice clear start no? Personally I think he's already made a whopping assumption, but who am I to question the guy?

A little later (after an analysis which suggests that by virtue of there being a variety of 'forms' of 'good', that there is no 'absolute good' - Wham, there goes God and objective morality) he concludes that 'Happiness' is 'the good', because all men in the last resort aim at it (following his starting definition. He follows this up with an apparent self-fulfilling-prophecy type statement:

"It is happiness for two reasons: (1) happiness is everything it needs to be, (2) it has everything it needs to have."

Seems a decent answer eh? For me the emphasis is on the indefinite article.

3. Man's approach to 'the Good':

I like this bit because, rarely for a philosopher, Aristotle shows personal character in his writing. He begins with the premise that a man's way of life will betray his genuine views on the nature of happiness [the 'good' - see above]. He then considers various groups of men:

"For persons of low tastes (always in the majority)[! Heh.] it is pleasure."

By pleasure, one can assume he means the experience of having pleasing, but transient external sensations. An example being sex, which is transient and externally sensually pleasing! This as opposed to happiness born of long lasting internal satisfaction; an example being academic success, and not sex (not animal lustful sex with a stranger anyway - loving tender sex with a partner could perhaps be said to yield long-lasting internal satisfaction...) Either way, to me, pleasure sounds a lot like happiness - I suppose that makes me a person of low taste, and therefore one of the majority!

"The utter vulgarity of the herd of men comes in their preference for the sort of existence a cow leads."

I'm sorry, but I just love that. What a legend this Aristotle dude was, and how spot on! He then discusses whether a man seeking honour is any the better. His analysis is interesting:

"Yet honour is surely too superficial a thing to be the good we are seeking. Honour depends more on those who confer than on those he receive, and we cannot but feel that the good is something personal and almost inseparable from the possessor. Again, why do men seek honour? Surely in order to confirm the honourable opinion they have formed of themselves."

Note that he does not end this last sentence with interrogative punctuation, despite beginning it 'Surely...' And how true... As a friend of mine once said:

"Every time a man does something truly great, and does not inform anyone of his achievement, he gains a little in gravitas."

Mr James...

2005-08-14T04:10:00.000-07:00

...is clearly not neutral.

Just look at his postings. There is a link to his blog on the right hand side - The World of Why.

What does he discuss? Violence, stalking and infidelity, and that's only the top three cartoons at the moment!

If you ask me, Mr James is most certainly Evil.

Just look at the guy: clearly attaining a position of height so as to best determine his plans of world domination. Watch out people, this aneutral man could destroy society...

The Huge Irrelevance of a Blog.

2005-08-12T01:43:00.000-07:00

In the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Ford Prefect comes across a machine of terror along his journeys, I forget what it was called. (This is in the book, perhaps not the film - I haven't seen that yet.) This machine shows you just how small and utterly insignificant you really are by allowing you to see and feel the true epic size of the galaxy and then to see and feel your own size in comparison. Its usual effect is to send people insane, but Zaphod Beeblebrox(?) is just fine because he's the president of the galaxy and is therefore actually quite important (at least in his own head.)

I tell you this because the experience described there is rather analagous to that of having a blog. Your blog sits there all on its own in a universe of websites. For example, if you type in the word 'neutral' into Google it yields 24,400,000 sites, and one gets the impression with such a round number that they may just have drawn the line there leaving some out. To get to this site you pretty much have to enter complete "phrases". The bottom line is, it's damned irrelevant.

Folloowing the analogy, this could send me insane.

However, consider this: if we apply mathematics to the problem we can proceed as follows:

The relevance of my blog amongst my friends = n (where n represents some [hopefully positive] value)
The relevance of my blog amonst my friends' friends = 1/n.
The relevance of my blog amongst my friends' firends' friends = 1/(n^2)
Following this pattern we arrive at the term [Limit from z=1 to infinity](1/(n^z)).

This, as anyone surely knows, yields a solution of zero (unless n<1 in which case it gives infinity!). Thus far there has been an assumption herein that zero is the [a? could infinity also be a neutral 'number'?] neutral number. This site therefore appears to tend towards neutrality! WoooHooo!

However, has recent commenting activity disturbed this limit function, yielding a tainted site?

Greek Myths.

2005-08-10T11:17:00.000-07:00

The Greek Gods are interesting. No, really. Besides the fact that they got up to all kinds of adventures, they were also regarded in a fundamentally different way to modern Gods:

1) The Greek Gods were almost all fallible (with the possible exception of Athene [although, of course, she was a woman.]). They were all subject to emotions such as jealousy and rage, nowadays regarded as base. In this way they represented a divinity with which the common man could identify. This characteristic shows them to be more morally neutral than todays modern Gods who are generally seen as morally perfect. Interesting that the Greek God seen as most virtuous is Athene, (who was the only goddess never to have sex [be raped]). This suggests that the Greeks saw 'Wisdom' as morally desirable.

2) They were an interconnected family, born of higher, older and elementary forces. In this regard they are not the end of the line. In fact, Zeus himself had to fight against the Titans, including his father (Chronos) and then his contemporary Gods, just to stay in control. This demonstrates the neutrality of the Greek Gods in two ways:

a) They are originally descended from a line of Darkness, Chaos, Night, Day, Heaven and Hell. (Unless you believe it started with Eurynome, the triple headed goddess). Either way, the Greek Gods came out of a neutral nothingness. I find this a more scientifically accessible belief than more modern faiths myself.

b) The fact that various divine forces fight amongst themselves for leadership shows that none of them is necessarily 'right'. The battles represent the balancing acts between the various inclinations of man. The result is free will: the ultimate expression of neutrality.

3) People obeyed the Greek Gods not because they were intrinsically morally correct, but because they could kick the living shit out of you, literally. If Zeus got pissed off with you, for bragging about shagging Aphrodite (see below) then he'd smack you one with a lightening bolt! For the ancient Greeks, power was divine, not 'goodness'.

I'm pretty sure I could come up with more ways in which the Greek Gods are neutral, but you and I both would get bored, so instead I provide one further observation and then I shall mention one myth which is particularly hilarious:

Observation: The Greeks were not the only ones to believe in neutral divinity. Many did, notably the Druids, who always believed that the power attainable from nature was neutral and could be bent to man's will so long as he followed the rules.

Story about Aphrodite:
Zeus really wanted to shag Aphrodite (he wanted to shag everyone in fact, but especially Aphrodite, despite the fact that she was his adopted daughter [she was actually the product of Mother Earth and Uranus]). Anyway, he never managed to get into her pants so he decided to humiliate her by making her fall for a mortal! This was Anchises. Anyway, Aphrodite went and shagged Anchises whilst in disguise under a red cloak (hot eh?). The deed done, Aphrodite revealed herself to Anchises who was horrified (!) because he thought he'd be killed for such heresy. She assured him it'd be okay. Anyway, here's the good part:
A few days later Anchises was down the pub getting lashed with his mates. One of them asked: "Would you not rather sleep with the daughter of so-and-so than with Aphrodite herself?"
"No." Replied Anchises. "Having slept with both, I find the question inept."
What a class answer eh?
Zeus didn't think so. He chucked a thunderbolt at the dude and crippled him for life.
[As an interesting side note, Aphrodite then gave birth to Aeneas (survivor of Troy.)]

A Good Sentence?

2005-08-09T11:07:00.000-07:00

Here's one to consider:

One of my clients was recently sentenced for a racially aggravated assault on three members of the London Underground staff, causing two bloody noses and a bit of bleeding. He also damaged one of their jackets. At the same time he was sentenced for failing to attend the court on four separate occasions. Each time he thought he had a good medical reason not to attend, and was at large for only one day. This was his sentence:

9 Months in prison for the assaults + criminal damage (jacket).
11 Months in prison for the failures to attend court.

Here's my opinion: The assaults sentence is arguably lenient. The failure to attend sentence is massively excessive. I'm therefore appealing it to the Royal Courts of Justice. Should be fun eh?

I'd be interested to hear anyone else's opinions, post away!

"Do I look like I'm neutral?"

2005-08-08T11:58:00.000-07:00

I recently walked past some beached-whale-with-breasts in Victoria station. This 'mammal' bore a straining and visibly ripping T-Shirt with the slogan:

"Do I look like I'm interested?"

To this moment I wish I could've relived that moment with a big black marker pen so I could cross out the last two letters and replace them with "ing". Of course, the answer to the question would've been 'yes', in a car crash sort of way.

Not that I can necessarily talk. This is what I'm wearing:

Sun Powered Women?

2005-08-07T08:07:00.000-07:00

The other day I had a taxi driver taking me to court. We got stuck in a massive traffic jam and he began to be distracted by all the out and about ladies. In fairness they did have nice bodies on display but their faces were, it had to be said, fairly minging.

"I swear mate," he said, "these women must be sun powered!"
"Mmmmm."
"No, bear with me mate, think about it right, you never see this many fit women about in Winter do you?"
"Well..." I started.
"No, exactly mate, and that's what I'm on about! I mean, look about you mate, have you ever seen so many beauties?"

I looked out the window and saw some girl wearing the shortest imaginable shorts. She did have a sleek and sexy pair of legs, but the shorts, and her strappy top were both bright pink, and she was pushing a pram with gold sparkly stuff stuck all over it. Chavtastic. As for her face, christ, I've seen more beautiful slugs.

"Er... Actually..." I began, aiming to give a neutral and subtle euphemism.
"Nah mate, I agree, it's amazing innit? Summer mate, season of the sun powered women!"

How foolish can a Council be?

2005-08-05T07:47:00.000-07:00

I've recently been doing a lot of work for M----- Council legal services. It's pretty hilarious stuff actually, I mostly have to sort out their incompetence with a carefully patient and neutral expression. Here is a great example:

A month ago some guy wrote to the finance division saying "I'm Mr Smith, director of 'Civil Engineering Ltd'. We recently completed the project in H--- on the road system there. As per the contract we would now appreciate the money you owe us. Please find an invoice attached."

(Disclaimer: None of these people are me. None of them work for M---- either. I'm ashamed really, to be assoiciated with these guys would be the highest honour.)

The invoice requested £66,000, and gave bank details for payment.

Somebody in the finance department duly instructed M---- Council's bank to pay out 66k to this guy's account. This person in finance hadn't bothered to check whether or not 'Mr Smith' or his company really had done anything at all. He hadn't. How sweet is that? What a smart dude! Still, he got caught in the end and hauled before the courts. The next part is the best part:

Who says crime doesn't pay? He got sentenced to 160 hours community service! He never had to pay back the money as he'd already spent it.

66k for 160 hours work! I'm in the wrong job...

Dashboard Confessional.

2005-08-05T05:17:00.000-07:00

In the spirit of randomness I'd like to mention the greatest band of all time:

Dashboard Confessional

In my opinion (which is of course not neutral), they (he) surpass other bands on account of their (his) lyrical thoughtfulness. I also love bands that lace their male vocals with female echos.

Three quotes therefore:

"this is easy as lovers go, so don't complicate it by hesitating"

"Jamie, believe me, I won't let you down Cause you are the best lawyer in town"

"I've hidden a note,it's pressed between pages that you've marked to find your way back.
It says, 'Does he ever get the girl?'
But what if the pages stay pressed, the chapters unfinished, the storied too dull to unfold?
Does he ever get the girl?"

"I never said, 'Don't go!'
Don't go."

Okay, four! But the last two were both from "This Ruined Puzzle". Before that (upwards), "Jamie" and "As Lovers Go".

The one about the note is especially thought provoking I think. I once made a CD for a girl. I put this song on it. I mae a sleeve with a full track listing on it, then I made a cover to slide behind the sleeve. In between the cover and the sleeve I put a note saying "Does he ever get the girl?"

When I gave her the CD I spent the next few days in agonies wondering if she'd seen the note yet. Then I realised:

It was stupidly well hidden. Who'd remove all the bits of paper from the case and find this thing?
She probably didn't give a shit about my CD, and hadn't even listened to it.
She probably didn't bother to listen to or think about the lyrics of the songs (she was a philistine, albeit a hot philistine...) and so the note would have meant nothing.
If she did find the note at all and it did mean anything at all, then it probably meant I was a pyscho to stay the hell away from.

Still, it was at least pretty romantic of me don't you think?

Atlantis Rising.

2005-08-04T02:39:00.000-07:00

Anyone remotely interested in mythology has to, at some stage, come to the subject of Atlantis. There's indubitably a Dan Brown monster in there somewhere. Whilst searching the web for the wealth of knowledge on the subject there is (the best being some of the ebooks at The Gutenberg Project) I came across a magazine called Atlantis Rising.

It reminded me of those classic seventies sci-fi yearly collections - you know, the ones with the hilarious adverts for, hang on while I get one and look, here we are, oh god these are good, I'll give a couple of examples:

"New Aluminium Buttsnuffer, extinguishes cigarettes with no smoke, burned fingers, odors. Fits and Ash Tray. Prevents fires, saves furniture. Beautiful, mysterious, humorous. Guaranteed. 3 for $1."

"Microwaves - Do they affect plant growth, buildings, fences[!!!!] or people? Anxious to hear from researchers? ..."

"SPELLBIND FRIENDS... Create excitement with amazing new Hi-Fi album, 'FILE #733, UFO'. Critics Agree: 'Most dramatic evidence for FLYING SAUCERS ever presented.' 'First person interviews tell terrifying tales.' £3.97.

And my personal favourite:

"English speaking Swedish/German girls seek penfriends/husbands[!!!]. Photoalbum $5.00; prospectus free! - COSMOCLUB 'SILVERTHISTLE'"

Actually these were from a sixties book - 'Fantasy and Science Fiction, March 1967.' Who'd have thought eh? Those flower people...

Anyway, that was a rather longer (but deserved) diversion than planned. Actually it works out quite well since I can now do a comparison to the even more hilariously gullible audiences of today... Here are some modern advertisments from Atlantis Rising:

"The Rose Grail Elixir from Ascension Rose Alchemy: What is it?
Created from pure water holding only the memories of a crystalline perfection existing at the dawn of creation; it is lovingly held in a Grail vessel combined with petals from organically grown roses; Light-encoded with the Mother Matrix of all Creation.
Together they are spun to a high frequency state that is multi-dimensional and multi-harmonic, surpassing in frequency and effectiveness any monatomic element.... Some have reported: Seeing beings of light; seeing sacred geometrical shapes; seeing their DNA unravel and recombine; sensing the Christ presence within; a closer connection to nature; inner peace; prophetic dreams and visions; increased psychic ability; seeing auras etc... One bottle, only $33!"

Awesome stuff ain't it? It must be some kind of goddamn hallucinagen! Read more absolute hilarity Here.

"Time Machines! For catalogue send $1.00 to..."

I kid you not.

"Awaken to the Comforting Truth... From Galactic Messanger and Channel Michael Allen. For more than 50 years Michael has channeled from Galactica the truth of who we are, answering the many mysteries surrounding the disappearance of the advanced civilizations, the building of the pyramids, crop circle formations and the reason for the negative (satanic) energy in the collective consciousness of this planet. Awaken to the truth in the Everlasting Gospel, only $5 with suggested donation $15!"

You've got to love it huh? Maybe I should have a word with this guy about the supposed negative energy in our planet... That doesn't sound very neutral...

[Artwork from Here...]

Being a Barrister.

2005-08-03T12:46:00.000-07:00

I wasn’t expecting to give away something so critical as my occupation this early but it seems Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos have other plans for me...

I am a barrister.

Disclaimer: (of course) This is not me. Sadly. I can only dream...

For all you American readers, a ‘barrister’ is a lawyer who operates at the sharp end - in court. I think perhaps you call it ‘litigator’.
I work half in crime and half in civil law.

Part of working in crime is that it raises so many fantastic real life stories and dilemmas, which may transfer onto this blog in due time, though don’t worry, that won’t be a main subject. For today I’ll just have a quick look at a question often posed to me and one relevant to A Neutral World:

“If you think someone is guilty of a crime how can you represent them?”

It’s one all us criminal lawyers hear constantly, especially at lame parties where everyone tries to raise intellectual conversation and can only come up with clichéd and obvious half critical attempts at gaining the moral higher ground.

Anyway, here are a couple of obvious answers:

1) You never can be sure that someone is guilty (unless they actually tell you, in which case you can only represent them on a guilty plea). There are countless historical examples of cases where all (including the defendant’s lawyers) have considered the person guilty. Only later has further evidence come to light to prove their innocence. The moral of the story is the second answer:

2) As a lawyer, you are not the judge and jury! It simply isn’t up to you to judge your client. If it’s so obvious that the guy is guilty then that will be clear to the jury. I hate to use the phrase, but: innocent til proven guilty.

As it happens, I think there is a truly wonderful neutrality in the job of being a barrister. To be good, you have to be completely emotionally detached. It is a pure art of intellectual persuasion.

Of course, some might consider persuasion to be a moderately evil practice… More of that another time perhaps.

Cats.

2005-08-02T15:07:00.000-07:00

I understand that no blog in the world is complete without an entry relating to cats... or kittens. So I figure I'd best get it the hell out of the way so I can move on. For all those who picked up this site from the keyword "Kitten", here you are:

Yes, it is indeed a fake kitten.

Two questions spring to mind:

1) Is a kitten in any way neutral? If not, then what the fuck is it doing on this website?
2) Is a fake kitten more or less neutral than a real kitten?

1)
As regards question one, lets assume we are talking about 'neutral' on a scale of morality from 'good' to 'evil' (an assumption I make generally on this site unless I say otherwise - as to how said morality is defined, watch this space.)

a. Kittens are cute (allegedly); ergo they are good.
b. Kittens kill small creatures; ergo they are evil.

Does cuteness overcome killing? Who'd have thought a discussion of kittens could unveil such a deep and important philosophical question? I'll leave this one to the floor...

Let's just say, it's at least arguable that a kitten could equate to a state of neutrality, and that's why the fuck it's on this site.

2)
a. Fake kittens are cute (well this one's as cute as any real kitten isn't it?); ergo they are good.
b. Fake kittens do not kill small animals (unless they are accidently swallowed); ergo they are not evil.

It appears that Fake kittens may stray into the dangerous region of something 'good'. Dammit, why the hell did I put a FAKE kitten on my site? Where's the delete button?

A Neutral Name

2005-08-02T14:12:00.000-07:00

Have you ever tried to come up with a neutral name? It's harder than you think!

First you can try the usual baby name finders, like this one. However, they all think that 'neutral' means 'gender neutral'. How shallow eh? The first suggestion I found from them (using Google to jump straight in) was "Veridian" which, while being somewhat of a cool name, is not necessarily neutral. It is defined as "A neutral name. From the Latin "Veridis" meaning "Green"." As to whether green is a neutral colour, that's a topic for another day, I'll get to it later.

Next, assuming one has not found a truly neutral name, which one man hadn't, that leaves us with the Mighty Thesaurus. This throws up a few possibilities:

"Mr. Cool Vanilla"

...For example... Or:

"Mr. Achromatic Vague"

...For another.

However, do these really sound like names to you? Well, yeah, the top one sounds pretty sweet to me too, but come on, you gotta be sensible!

This brings us to the somewhat tenuous last resort of using synonyms of words which 'neutral' happens, itself, to be a synonym of. But hey the result is pretty sweet, it has a certain harmony of neutrality in it, but the second name does have an interesting alternative meaning:

"The entire sequence of ecological communities successively occupying an area from the initial stage to the climax"

And isn't that interesting? No, seriously? That's natural selection baby.

But am I selected or really neutral?

The beginning...

2005-08-02T06:06:00.000-07:00

My First ever blog posting. To preserve an impression of neutrality I shall comment no further, save to say that bold emphasis of neutrality is an accentuation of nothing.

That is to say: one might multiply zero by a million; one would still have zero.