Skip to main content

Strangely pleasant

Now here's a challenge. I quite often write a bit of a blog post when an idea occurs to me, then fill it in later. Thanks to Blogger's mobile app, I can do this anywhere, tapping it in on my phone. So I'll write a title and a couple of lines of text that summarize the idea, then fill in the details later.

This particular post started that way, but with a difference. All I wrote was the title. And I can't for the life of me remember what it was supposed to be about.

It certainly wasn't about the sensation you get when you pull a piece of dry skin off yourself, though I do find this strangely pleasant. (I still remember when, age 10, I broke my arm and after the plaster came off the entire arm was covered in dry skin. Heaven.)

Nor was it about the slightly related pleasure that comes from an unopened jar of instant coffee. You take off the lid and there underneath is that pristine seal, waiting to be broken through. For some reason I remember discussing this with someone I used to work with at British Airways (I don't suppose you remember, Sue), well over 20 years ago. We both agreed about the pleasure, but then discovered it was from a totally different action. Mine was to run the end of a spoon around the edge, crisply slitting it open. Hers was to attack it with a spoon, bashing dramatically through. (Freudians have a field day. But remember psychoanalysis has no scientific basis.)

So what did it concern? Junk food? The peace that sometimes unexpectedly turns up during the day? Cadbury's Whole Nut? I really have no idea. Perhaps you have some thoughts...
Labels:

Comments

  1. Pelotard5 December 2011 at 08:28

    Actually, I'd be surprised if it was about junk food, inner peace, or chocolate. Because none of that is strangely pleasant - they've got scientific explanations, of sorts. Dopamine receptors and whatnot.

    Maybe it was about psychoanalysis? Because scientific basis or not (and honestly, anything as complex as the various dysfunctions of the human mind - as opposed to the human brain, that is - is likely to defy scientific explanation for a long time, especially as proper scientific experiments are both troublesome from an ethical viewpoint and from the viewpoint of trying to maintain the "double-blind" criterion), fact is, some people do feel better afterwards.

    You can chalk that up to placebo, if you like, but that doesn't even get you out of the frying pan :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ronald Green5 December 2011 at 08:43

    Strangely pleasant was coming across your blog and reading about something that struck so many chords, all about strangely pleasant somethings.

    I loved the bit about the pristine seal under the jar of a newly opened jar of instant coffee. Until this moment, I didn't think anyone else thought about it and got the same thrill when opening it. I don't know what it says about me, but I attack the seal with a spoon (and some relish).

    Strangely pleasant indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5 December 2011 at 09:28

    Fish pedicure?

    ReplyDelete
  4. John T5 December 2011 at 10:39

    Contemplating goose pimples in a hot bath and thinking, 'brain fooled again'?
    Mmm... that coffee jar moment. The twanging tension in the seal had something to do with it for me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian Clegg5 December 2011 at 10:55

    Pelotard - almost by definition all 'strangely pleasant' things probably have a scientific explanation, but it doesn't stop them being strangely pleasant at the time.

    Thanks, Ronald - glad it had a positive effect.

    I've never tried fish pedicure, but it would certainly be strange if it is pleasant.

    John T - the goose pimples are interesting. Hadn't thought about those...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more