1a2bcio8

Taken my thread which I will strip down: "Just some clips from the new camera. Still waiting on the synchronised occurence of unbroken bike, reasonable weather, sanity and support crew to get a 'proper' effort sorted. Music was slapped on randomly because editing is impossible with my currect spec. relative to the demands of the compression and quality that the camera produces. Anyway, thought I'd include what I was actually trying to do before the snapping stopped me even though it's a failed effort. Frustratingly, that was the first clip I was trying to get for a proper vid " Cheers for posting this up anyway Jack.

Really enjoyed that. Basically the sort of approach to riding that I'm trying to cultivate for myself. Good work Ali And Mark I reckon this edit is definitely your best effort yet

Cool, a minor argument is just what I need at the moment to pass the time Do you recognise the general fact that people do actually try to consciously stand out and will sometimes use whatever means they can in order to achieve that, especially "originality"? In fact I'd say this plays a role in everybody to varying degrees. If you take a moment to re-read what I said you'll realise I didn't actually definitely charge Akrigg with this but I posed the question. This wasn't a judgement because that would be hypocritical. It was however an analysis which stemmed from a feeling I had from certain indicators. I certainly don't shun orginality per se but I am wary of insincere expressions, of certain degrees, which have as their constitution a significant concern to stand out. Again, I don't know if this is definitely true of Akrigg (and neither do you) but I'm not willing to simply ignore the consideration and blindly accept the nature of something novel as automatically awesome. How about if I begin hopping up walls on a tin of baked beans - would you find that awesome? Humans are contextual beings and we bring various contextual considerations to each moment that we experience. Much like when people use overly dramatic music for grandiosity, it won't neccesarily sit with me very well if I perceive a similar motivation. Pretense is difficult for me to stomach and I welcome anyone to point this out about me if I'm clearly getting caught up in it - which I blatantly do. Even if Akrigg is doing that stuff I understand and accept even if it makes it more difficult for me to enjoy what he's upto. I'm taking away that your implicitly charging me with being at the mercy of conventional definitions. I'd disagree about that and I consider myself to have evidenced this both in thought and action. I've received flak in the past for riding my "trials bike" like a "bmx". I even called one of my old 24" vids "GETabmx" to satirise this. I've argued the exact same point that people are confused about the nature of labels; that definitions do not indicate some fixed reality which should naturally limit our behaviour but are actually the aribtrarily structured and open meanings we use to refer to some goings on in the world. Those definitions are entirly liquid and can be changed to incorporate adaptations such as divergence or synthesis (with other sports) within a "sport" such as "trials". I've also repeatedly argued for the importance of people doing what they enjoy regardless of whether the consensus labels it "cool" or otherwise.

Awesome stuff Mark; most especially the manual 180 up the steps. And as expected, awesome style. Keep it up btw those inspired bars were just the trick. Love the width which is loads better for control.

It has. You thinking of making a trip here?

What do you consider as meaningful?

Russian pics I didn't get But still, can you appreciate that the basis from which you judge, your preconceptions if you will, follow from what is essentially dicatated to you in a complex of implicit and explicit ways from the social setting in which you develop? In that sense, it's easy to miss the natural worth of something (ones enjoyment in whatever activity) behind the judgements that you make about what's acceptable. Doesn't it make sense to understand it in reasoned terms of, it makes them happy, it's just as random as the stuff I do, and my not understanding or appreciating has no real impact of what it means to others? I've been consistently judge by the public for riding trials, particularly in the sense of my age (I'm approaching 30) but them doing it is pointless because it's about my enjoyment and fulfilment based on my pecularities (term meant not in the negative sense ). I'm just trying to point out the natural randomness and relativity of so much of what we do but the way we normalise certrain things and forget that they are just as random as the stuff we haven't normalised. Gah, I hate that I always go on about this sort of stuff but it seems important in terms of a sane world to point out such things. Unless, of course, I'm massively confused and talking nonsense

Bless you my son.

Akrigg is clearly a hipster. Whilst there is obviously some merit to film quality and standard of riding I would prefer to see him riding a bike that maximises what he can do. He's one of my favourite riders but I find the vids where he's on novel bikes a bit boring to be honest. I get the impression that it's for the sake of being different and standing out? But whatever. If he's actually getting something out of what he does then furry muff and my view is really quite irrelevant.

Whereas the New Testament often says something different. The message of Christ was often that of love. Religion is a complex socio-historical-mystical-etc. phenonemena which can't be pinned down into one type of thing except possibly in a mystical sense, to some degree. This is also true within religions beyond the differences between them. And Matt, I forgot to hit reply to your post. I can't remember specifics but I'd be wary about the exact extent to which Jews played a role in the death of Jesus and certainly in the manner of death. I'd like to say I can remember the specifics but I had a lecture on this subject and there are some alternative views on the matter. In no way are Jews exempted but it's not same as the story that's arisen from our Christian background.

Please excuse my being a pedant but I say in case you're interested in dispelling a common myth. It was actually the Romans that nailed Jesus (the Jew) to a cross for political reasons. Although Jewish pressure clearly played an important role in this.

Why is this any less valid than riding a bike? It's all quite arbitrary what ends up being "cool" and "acceptable". It's like the way bmx riders often look down on trials riders in that sense or the way that most action sports look down on rollerblading.

Yep, pretty good. I thought "Gone baby gone" was better though.

Retarded and confused religion shocker!

Well, it's a collection of progressive meditations that teach you a type of awareness for having certain kinds of experience such as "out of body" experiences. It's lead by a chap whose name I can't remember (maybe robert manroe?) but was very established in that community. I've had out of body experiences and if you're interested in that sort of thing I really recommend giving it a go. They are really fascinating. It's not easy mind but can definitely be done with persistent practice. Search out hemi-sync anyway. Expensive to purchase but there are other ways of obtaining them...

What is "true" nothingness though? Again, as with bikeperson, I'd suggest you are creating a metaphysical something out of the word "nothing" which doesn't actually mean a metaphysical something. It is difficult to think of the meaning of "nothing" as not refering to some kind of existent, entity, object, stratum, etc. like a car or whatever but it doesn't do that. It literally just means to say that, for instance, a car is not here. I'm not sure about space growing faster than time? Is this a reference to the expansion of matter within space? Or, put differently, the movement of planets, stars, etc. away from one another and further into the expanse of space? It's important to realise that this doesn't mean that space is expanding and thus has a border/edge; it means that something (matter) is moving within space. It's not like the edges of my bedroom expanding; it's more like me moving within my bedroom. Nobody knows about an edge to space because nobody has reached the limit of space, if even there is such a thing. And any limit can only be something that exists. Space cannot be limited by something which does not exist (nothing) by virtue of it's* non-existence! Only that which exists can exist with the rest of existence!1!1 *Refering to non-existence as an "it", which language somewhat forces me to do, illustrates the problem of language. Not existing is a negative but calling "not existing" by "it" is to place it in positive terms and suggest the existence of non-existence. "It" makes an illusionary something out of nothing. edit: I've just been inspired to add something from what Matt just said. That another use of the word "nothing" is with regard to space itself. "Things" in this sense refer to matter and the space which exists between matter is not-"things" or nothing. This, of course, doesn't mean that space doesn't exist. Nor does it mean that nothing actually refers to the existence of space per se. It means, again, that we can think of the fact that matter is not occupying that space but it is not and saying "nothing is there" is just a convenient way of indicating to one another the state of matter (specifically locative) in relation to space.

I also vote for the blatant probability of thread carnage.

I've got a friend who's heavily into this approach of sound production. Want me to ask him if it's okay for you to contact him? He's pretty tech with it all so I'm sure he'd be able to advise you. He also loves talking about it. May take a few days to get contact sorted though. He's often too engrossed in making strange instruments interact with his computer to check his email.

I think you're still making nothing into a something. Nothing cannot exist by definition. Nothing is not to be experienced, it is simply the absence of experience regarding a thing, event, etc. When you say you think of "God" or a "black space", as what "nothing" is, this is to create a something and contradict the meaning of nothing. Or, in other words, you make no-thing a thing. If you think of nothing in terms of what can be experienced this is a something and not a nothing. The trouble is, we are so used to our words refering to some 'thing' (car, etc.) that exists that when one doesn't we still assume it does. A "car" refers to an 4 wheeled object and "Ben" refers to myself. But "nothing" doesn't really refer to anything. It just indicates an absence of a "car" or "Ben" which isn't a thing like an actual "car" or "Ben". A similar way in which language creates this confusion is with the terms "energy" and "matter". Saying the two separate words seems to suggest that there are two separate kinds of entity; one called "energy" and one called "matter". But they are just two ways of refering to different aspects of the same thing. For instance, to say that my hand moves is not to suggest that my hand and its movement are separate things. Just that my hand (matter) is being active (energy). Can you separate the activity of my hand from my hand? Only in language.... This is headf**k subject though. I just think it's really worth understanding the nature of language before we start asking questions with it. Whenever we end up with a paradox like, "nothing" exists (a definite contradiction) then probably we have just misused our logic and language. Paradox doesn't exist anywhere other than in our heads and our methods of representation (language, logic, etc.). Definitely a confusing subject area. Even though I subscribe to what I say I struggle to understand with a great deal of confidence.

Dave, have you tried the hemi-sync stuff? It's good. The purpose is to evoke an out of body experience. Highly recommend it I've had the experience of waking up with paralysis. I could only move my head so I looked up, saw a figure walk past my window, said "Mum?" and then went back to sleep. Being a 14 year old and well into the x-files at the time I thought maybe I'd seen an alien

We have to understand what we mean by "nothing" and in particular the manner in which it's used that essentially makes up its meaning. When we talk of "nothing being there" we mean to say that we can imagine the situation being otherwise in some sense but it is not that way. For instance, if I hear a sketchy noise in another room of my house I might imagine that somebody is breaking in or this is some sort of threat. When I check on the room and do not see anyone or anything that is of threat then I will probably think to myself "there is nothing here". By saying that I am simply indicating that there could be something there (burglar/threat of some kind) but it is not. "Nothing" in this sense is an abstraction. I am not saying there is some existing nothing. It doesn't refer to any concrete or metaphysical reality but rather it just says something about what is possible or we can imagine being there and what actually is there. In other words "nothing" just means absent from experience but doesn't say anything about what is absent existing in some other sense. Another way to think about this is when I say, "that car over there" this refers to some object that exists whereas when I say, "there is no car there (no-thing)" I'm not refering to or suggesting some other thing that is not the car; I am not refering to some existing non-existence (?!) which is an absolute paradox. It does not mean that the car that could be there is in a state of nothingness. To think that it is a kind of nothingness is to create a metaphysical (beyond the physical world) reality. But this is just what you are imagining, not what is. "Nothingness" only exists in our heads basically. I've repeated myself considerably there but it's really difficult to get what I want to say into terms that I'm happy with. The subject of nothing is, by definition, very abstract. I hope that makes sense though? Please tell me if it doesn't. What is interesting about what you're getting at though is the way we take terms from certain contexts and try to apply them in the wrong contexts and this can result in phantom existents. This is where philosophy can go very wrong. Language has a multitude of ways for confusing us about the nature of the world around us.

It's an interesting point you make and quite valid I think. Hinduism differentiates between the ultimate being/consciousness (Brahman) and the 'individual' manifestations of that into selfs like yourself and I (Atman/s). With this position, it's like differentiating between waves of the sea as separate entities or even separate to the sea. It can be done and has utility for indicating difference but ultimately those waves aren't separate entities; they are all the same sea. Denominations of Hinduism want to say that the sea is what's really real. But difference does still exist. So there's basically a problem here. A strain of Buddhist thought was quite critical of the Hindu stance and I think this is most pertinent to what you're saying. The Madhyamika of Nagarjuna showed that trying to conceive of absolute sameness (the monism of Hinduism) or absolute difference (duality) was, at best, very illogical. In fact he used what's called a dialectical method to show the limited ability of all conception (ideas dependent on language) to reflect the nature of reality. This involves taking extremes, in addition to monism and dualism, such as absolute free will and absolute determinism and attempting to take them to their logical closure. This leads to some silly illogical consequences that basically shows the inability of our ideas to properly grasp the condition of reality. What's especially interesting is that this philosophy doesn't take up its own position, it just knocks down any and all attempts to really understand reality in terms of ideas. What is implied though is that the condition is somewhere inbetween extremes. The label that is applied to the condition of reality is that it is empty - not to be mistaken as nihilism. What this means is that everything is devoid of essence or independent nature and, instead, everything is dependently arising; much like the waves in the sea. But they would always note that this is still saying too much and risks distorting the way we look at reality. To really understand this type of nature that we are trying to refer to requires an untainted experience of it rather than a conversation about it. Good reasoning on your part there

It makes plenty of references? Aspect, Bohm, etc. And that's only at the top bit that I read. What it's saying is that the universe has a sameness throughout. Everything is existing after all; therefore everything is existence whilst also having difference.

I've got the stem but I'm in meltdown mode. I doubt I'll be out tomorrow. Sorry Nige.

I don't really have the motivation to read much of that article today. However, I have previously read Bohm and other pieces that refer to Talbot's work. It's certainly an interesting theory. Not least, for myself anyway, because of the parallels between it and what various mystical systems have been saying for several thousand years. The monistic principle of Brahman, or the ground of all things, from Hinduism is basically the same as what Bohm says in his "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" (a book well worth reading) which asserts duality (the condition of separately existing entities within the world) as a falsity deeply maintained through the way we conceptually or intellectually divide the world with language. Language can only function by creating imaginary dividing lines between the field of existence. The difference though between the theory of science and the assertions of mysticism is that the latter claims you can directly experience this undivided reality; you can learn to see how things as they are rather than just think about how the might be. These mystics also often talk about of experiences of times prior to their current life alongside other very trippy powers. If this theory is true, it really does open up the possibility of things like levitation, mind reading, etc. Because if the limiting factors which inhibit those powers are realised to not actually be limiting factors but illusions and that the 'divide' which blocks access to other peoples thoughts doesn't exist, that the space between which gravity acts through isn't really there for gravity to act upon, then the possibilities for what we can do change. Not that I definitely suscribe to this theory or to such powers but I'm open to them. And Matt, as said, f**k anyone who judges you for considering less conventional ways of thinking about the world. Anyone who does that is simply a confused fool, ignorant of the reasons for why they feel the need to judge.