1a2bcio8

Yeah fair enough. Debate is fun sometimes You're essentially agreeing with my point to begin with when you ask about what precedes the building blocks that are crucial to forming life. However, existence has always contained the potential for life otherwise life could not come to be. Similarly liquid water contains the potential to become gas prior to becoming gas. On that analogy I would critique your use of the 'random' (freak occurrence) myth that is so often applied to life which you wouldn't apply to a liquid changing to a gas. Interestingly, in this sense, 'intention' wouldn't be an appropriate term either. So life is neither random nor intended but rather is the result of the structure of existence and the potential contained within that structure. I wasn't arguing against evolution which I subscribe to. I was just describing what I think its actual nature is. It's not a cause and its description is limited. It highlights the relationship between factors involved in the shaping of animals but it never states what allows for those factors to be and to shape in the way that they do. They relate to a much deeper underlying cause that we are currently unable to understand. Perhaps we won't ever understand. There's certainly something awesome about it all being a mystery rather than a concept. edit: Unless by freak occurrence you are trying to say that our presence is inexplicable? Because that is all the idea of life being 'random' can really mean. To say we are random is to say that the statistical chances of our occurrence cannot be predicted from our point of view. It really only refers to our inability to understand and says nothing about the nature of the thing we call 'random'.

That's pretty cool but I was thinking more along the lines of:

Not really because what underpins the evolutionary process is existence in general regardless of whether we have some mystical insight into it or not. Evolution follows from the movement of existence (we can simplify existence into matter if that's easier) into varying material forms which eventually become what we call life. It's from the point where 'life' has begun, continues and changes that evolution refers to. Evolution says nothing about what allowed for life to become what it is from matter that was not life. In other words, the factors of evolution have played a role in the shape of life at present but they didn't set the ground or potential for life which clearly came from something beforehand. I'm not trying to suggest God here. What I am trying to say is that existence is fundamentally rigged to create life; the potential has always been there but evolution has nothing to say about this because evolution is about the adaptation of life not the transfer of life from that which isn't life. I can't say why existence is set to be that way but I don't think we need the Christian concept of God to describe it although I wouldn't want to entirely rule it out. Furthermore and this might seem pedantic but it's an important point. Evolution could never be a cause; it's a general theory that tries to explain some of the causes involved in the changing of life over time - i.e. tall trees influencing the length of a giraffes neck. It doesn't indicate how it is possible for a giraffe to adapt to a tall tree only that when there is a tall tree and it is of benefit to reach it then adaptation occurs. Citing evolution as the cause is to suggest that evolution is a 'thing' that effects matter but it is only a theory. We do this with so much language though including, I think, the concept of God whereby we initially use the term to describe something about reality but then the word takes on a life of its own. So really from the theory of evolution we don't know either the primary cause of adaptation or the primary cause of life itself. They are probably of the same central (sufficient) cause but I don't think anybody really knows what that is. I hope that last point makes sense. It headf**ks me just trying to explain it because it's so easy to 'reify' or make concrete terms that are only abstract. A theory is inescapably abstract though.

Yeah I'm pretty sure you cracked my rib Funny in hindsight I think you need a bell attached to your bike for the next tour.

I'm fairly confident that the discussion of music is perfectly correct for this thread? The "intellectual property" of musicians is a standard and central argument for better control over 'illicit' file sharing. We're trying to say that we think that argument is a fallacy. This is obviously very meaningful to the entire debate.

I wasn't saying that being passionate means you'll be good only that without it you are very unlikely to be good. I think that's just a truism with regard to most activities in life. Yeah you can't really quantify creativity but you can qualify it and I do think that there are more and less sincere kinds. As I already mentioned the popular music industry is essentially motivated more by money than music per se. Consequently music becomes a product packaged together with attributes that will make it sell (i.e. hip-hop videos as a prime example; bling, guns, etc.). The end result isn't informed by ones actual heartfelt experience but rather what resonates with the rest of the superficial and formulaic market at a given time. Strip away the money motivation and we might find a different form of popular music taking its place. The line is certainly difficult to establish. There probably isn't anything specific. I wouldn't disagree on that point but just because it's difficult to specify something exact doesn't mean the underlying point doesn't stand. Simon Cowell represents an easy example of something extreme and people selling their CDs at gigs as something that's reasonable. What's important for now is that we recognise there's something wrong with someone making millions against the backdrop of a massive majority that don't and at the same time they taint what's on offer with what sells over what's sincere. Yeah if somebody donated me money because they liked something I did that would be cool but I don't really care and I'm not going to ground to a halt if they don't. That's the point I want to make. If people don't give money to artists they won't disappear. A lot of people do it out of a genuine interest with their creative enterprise within itself and without any concern for monetary gain. They're the ones that actually matter rather than all these people that whinge about needing money to be creative.

I'm not sure how your previous statement translates into what you're saying now but fair enough. I may have just wasted 30 mins of my life there then I'm also not sure I also understand entirely what you're getting at here aside from your last paragraph. I wouldn't ever want to criminalise financial support for creative enterprise. I'm just saying that such support should be proportionate rather than creative people and businesses becoming very rich from what they do. The best artists are clearly the ones that do what they do because they love it. Passion informs creative enterprise much more than greed. I think the latter explains why so much of pop culture is so superficial. So really the artists that matter will keep at it regardless of whether money is involved. I know my creative skills aren't anything special and wouldn't ever offer the chance of making money but I don't care anyway. I'm even working a part time job alongside uni to buy more camera equipment so that I can develop the production value of my edits; so that I can further enjoy the creative process. I don't really care about anyone that won't be creative because they can't make money from it. They are sadly missing the point. edit: apologies if I've missed the gist of what you're saying btw

I think it's a shame that you reduce our nature to selfishness when there's nothing fixed about being selfish. It's just a tendency as is love. We can cultivate one or the other out of choice when we become aware of it as such. I really dislike this interpretation of evolutionary theory that regards humans as being intrinsically selfish so I'm going to throw an argument at you. The "evolutionary theory" from which you are making your statement originally came from Herbert Spencer. From Darwin's work he extracted the idea of "survival of the fittest" from the animal kingdom and supplanted it into modern human society. Specifically he applied this idea to economics to justify inequality as something "natural" in the same way you are here. Darwin was very opposed to what Spencer did. One of the later editions of one of his books (I forget which) had an introduction where he stated the limits of his theory as not applicable to modern human society where different rules govern behaviour; which obviously includes our greater intellectual abilities to choose and change our behaviour. Nobody much heeded Darwin's complaint though and Spencer's use of evolutionary theory become popular. You can see why it would given some people's slavery to their selfishness. That presupposition about humans being selfish has worked itself deep into our social psyche and consequently you can see it in the works popular biologists such as Edward Wilson and Dawkins. Dawkins applies the term selfish to genes though, rather than humans, and this only makes sense if the term is understood metaphorically or poetically rather than literally. It's a nonsense if you apply the term literally because genes cannot be selfish or love or hate or do anything like that according to the rules of the word. Humans can love, can be selfish, etc. So Dawkins is only using colourful terminology to help describe biological processes but he's not literally saying genes and people are selfish although he's clearly operating out of Spencer's terms albeit, I suspect, somewhat unconsciously. He even lodges a complaint about the attacks on his work by saying that he doesn't think we are fixed to be selfish and that humans should decide how they are and not just give into selfishness, using the idea of it being their nature as a means of rationalising whatever they want to do. I think his terms are pretty irresponsible to be honest because there is this massive misconception about everyone being intrinsically selfish. No offence but it's clearly nonsense. I regularly decide to do something selfish or not selfish. Yes you can rationalize everything back to a selfish motivation but then that's not scientific much like Freudian theory which can always explain every phenomenon to fit itself. One other important point is that the word selfish means to think greedily of oneself and is therefore defined and dependent of the opposite of not thinking greedily about yourself (i.e. of others instead). This means if it were our fixed nature not to think of others, because we have no choice, then the term "selfish" becomes defunct. Part of its definition is choice because part of its definition is an opposite which can be chosen over it. The situation is more complex but you only have to reference your own experience to know that sometimes you do things for others without a consideration of yourself. This is a choice that ignores any selfish tendencies. And in fact there is a great deal of room to make yourself almost entirely, if not completely, cut off from selfishness. Anyway, essay that is pointless for trials-forum finished... It's just that the idea that our nature is selfish rather than anything good irritates me because it rationalizes all that is shit in this world. edit: this is not a dig, JT. It's the idea that I dislike not you

People don't have to make money from their creativity. There's nothing wrong with it for its own sake. People wouldn't stop making music or other art forms if there was no money in it. There are plenty of artists I listen to that blatantly don't live off their creativity but they keep being creative anyway. In fact, creative enterprise might become a bit more sincere if money was removed from the equation... That being said, there's nothing wrong with choosing to support an artist that you really appreciate. I'd happily throw a few quid to artists I like over paypal or something similar if such a system existed. Most of the time we are paying rates for creative enterprise to make industries rich though. I don't agree with that. If what was being asked for was simply a fair amount to support the continuance of a given enterprise then fair enough but this just isn't the case.

Awesome style, riding and tunage selection. Impressive quality video for an iphone as well...

(Y)

Protein is important for aerobic exercise particularly if it's either short/intense and long/slower although often our improvement at running relates more to efficiency of movement (Nervous system muscular co-ordination) rather than an increase of muscle mass - so you need less protein than a weight lifter. Really though you'll want a powder that includes a decent amount of carbohydrates because you need to replace muscle glycogen (the form energy is stored in the body for aerobic exercise) you deplete whilst exercising. Not replacing this quickly can leave you f**ked the following day compared to replacing it both during exercise and immediately after. Also, apparently we absorb carbohydrate better whilst it's in the presence of protein at a ratio of 4:1 (?) or something like that. When I was training for triathlon recovery shakes were definitely very helpful. I recommend them but they should always be backed up by a decent diet.

Multiple

Great feeling vid. I look forward to seeing more

Seeing females in terms of 'purity' and 'innocence' who are 'dirtied', in some sense, by sex is the result of our Judeo-Christian heritage. No doubt this myth about sex was a means of keeping the sexual powers of women over men in check. It's pretty stupid really but you'd be forgiven for buying into on a sub-conscious level given its commonality over a long period of our history. I'm sure it's worth taking some time to discard of though as I can't see it doing you any favours...

I haven't yet but that's because I like the double chocolate cookie one so much I haven't felt the need to try anything else Now you've mentioned it though I might give it a consideration next time.

Awesome work, John. I look forward to the next

f**k the diet stuff and I'd avoid maximuscle in general. It's like buying an expensive clothing label that's of no better quality than something cheaper. You;re just getting a name. You're essentially paying extra for the cost of their additional advertising. They also taste awful relative to certain alternatives. The promax diet has, if I remember correctly, 139mg of caffeine per shake which is the same as a relentless or some equivalent. If you read the reviews of it on amazon you find a fair few experiences where people have ended up in hospital after having panic attacks. That amount of caffeine is really not good for you both mentally and physically. I'm amazed that maximuscle recommend taking their thermbodal (sp?) tablets, with that much caffeine, upto three times a days. It seems morally dubious imo. I use phd these days and I think it's awesome because it offers basically the same as what I'd get from maximuscle but it's cheaper and significantly so if you wait for the membership deals at GNC. It also actually tastes awesome but that's probably because it has some carbohydrate in it rather than being almost entirely protein.

Really enjoyed that with regards to both the riding and the production value. I hope you follow it up

Meant to post on this before but my mind has been a bit scattered recently! Great stuff, as per usual. Slick riding and all that. I very much appreciate the quality of the composition of your shots though, Mark. A rarity in our community. I'm pretty jealous actually but this motivates me to improve. Any chance you could message me your encoding details please?

Although I loved riding bmx part of what stopped me was the pretension and, not unrelated, intense fashions that was so frequent with bmx riders. In all the disciplines I've ridden trials riders have generally been the most awesome types. I guess it's hard to have much pretension when you clearly do something so geeky

I didn't really like the music but that's not really something for debating, I think. You should always use a tune that feels right for you. I can't imagine editing with a tune I didn't care for. That's not why I suggested the above tune though

Should of used this tune...

Again you've pretty much described my attitude about the connection. Even though Kam was very hurtful toward me (she left me for somebody else two weeks before my 3 month retreat which I had to cancel losing £1200) the connection meant that those things were forgiveable and I still wanted to be with her. We spent this last summer together and the connection was still there to the same extent and we ended up 'involved' again. It's unfortunate that some people don't recognise the importance and, I think, rarity of it. I guess it's even more unfortunate that people settle for the satisfaction of other superficial things in a relationship over a connection. I digress though. If I were in your situation I would go for it again. My best mate, after breaking up with his girlfriend multiple times eventually found an equilibrium and they got married this Summer. Again, my most meaningful relationship was also filled with a kind of turmoil and lots of break ups but, paradoxically, I think that turmoil is intimately linked to something good.