too much typing—since 2003

10.01.2005

logic and disgust

Bumper sticker: IF GUNS CAUSE CRIME THEN MATCHES CAUSE ARSON. Hmmm...I don't recall anyone saying that guns, per se, cause crime. What they do is facilitate it, or make it worse. Here's a better, more accurate (if considerably less pithy) bumper sticker:

IF GUNS INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF IMPULSIVE FATAL CRIME THEN GIVING EVERY OTHER ANGRY ILL-TEMPERED JACKASS A FLAMETHROWER WOULD INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF SHIT GETTING TORCHED

(Yet another in the ongoing series of "Why I'm Not in Marketing"...)

You may not want to be eating your lunch before reading this next.

For some reason, this review in The Onion A.V. Club of Matthew Herbert's new CD (sounds intriguing...at least as conceptual art) reminded me of the following thought experiment designed to show that disgust is less a matter of practical reaction to potentially harmful consequences (I think certain behavioral-oriented biologists might make an argument along these lines) than, well, something else.

Take a clean drinking glass. Spit into it, repeatedly, until there's enough liquid to fill the glass to about half an inch. Drink it.

If you're like me (and you probably are in this respect), "there's not enough ick in the world" was probably your reaction (at least if Joss Whedon lines form a significant substratum of your thoughts) - and you're probably cursing me for putting disgusting ideas in your head. (If you're not like me, and you actually performed this experiment, (a) go ahead: one of those traveling freak-show circuses no doubt has an opening for you; (b) you clearly don't recognize the meaning of the phrase "thought experiment.") Yet, logically, what's the problem? What's in the glass was in your very own mouth just a few seconds beforehand; the glass was clean. Logically, there shouldn't be any revulsion at all here - unless you're revolted thinking of what's in your mouth at any given moment. (If I were really opportunistic, I'd put up the Oil Tasters' "What's In Your Mouth?" right about now. But you know, the associations just might completely ruin the song - so I won't.)

(Speaking of The Onion, their Nicole Kidman story is rather similar to my Britney Spears bit from April. Their attorneys will hear from mine forthwith. Or not.

2 comments:

flasshe said...

You forgot to mention whether or not there's money involved, cuz I might do it on a bet.

Re: The Onion thing. Freaky, man. Totally sue their asses.

Anonymous said...

I can think of a clear explanation:

If a fluid/solid was inside my body and now is not, well, it's not getting back in. There was obviously a biologically good reason for getting rid of it.