1a2bcio8

Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying but also that to do so is not to get subscribers so much but is simply to continue with the original motivations of the reason for constructing a religion - to help people connect with reality although subscribers are a natural consequence to something that resonates. Centring around a mystical element, we have the related cosmological, sociological and psychological whose expressions should mimick up to date understanding (science, social science, philosophy, etc.) or feelings simply because then they emobody what is most useful. Useful essentially meaning that which allows us to see things as they are, so to speak, but also that which makes us most happy, which is clearly what everyone is after. Being that we don't have to worry about the population being undersized, then homosexuality isn't a problem. In fact, perhaps we should be promoting it given our current situation! We would all be happier if we didn't have to worry about overpopulation. Homoism is on its way. I think in a way people can chose religions though. I consider myself agnostic in terms of believing in a diety of some sort but I look at the different religions and am willing to take from each what makes sense to me. Although I consider myself a mystic (albeit a not very developed one) so my approach will differ to people who mostly take on the other three parts of religion. But still I think that taking parts from each religion makes the most sense as it avoids the dangers of becoming dogmatic. Dogmatism is the end of intelligence and reason because that's the point people KNOW they've got it right. No point in searching further. I prefer to be perpetually confused because at least then I'm more open. I'm off on a tangent now though I would agree with your last point and I think this illustrates the point that religions aren't as centralized as we might think. The people of a religion and not the preists or 'officials' are the ones that really control it - although only so much in that they realise it.

The chinese whispers idea I think is very valid especially when we consider how gentle and kind Jesus was supposed to be relative to how a lot of Christianity has been written down.

Yeah, I think that a reduced chance of sharing such conceptual meaning (prior to communication) is more likely to be true . However, you're entering dangerous grounds in terms of saying that people won't have the same perception* and additionally that language plays no role. It seems to be widely accepted in academia that conceptual thought is actually dependent on language, and that language also plays a large role in shaping the way we filter our reality (what we do and don't pay attentino to/how we interpret). Quite simply, without language, you are without thought so there's no chance of developing any sort of meaning. I would love to get into this but I'm just not able to at the moment as it's too complex for me to get into words right now. I'd mostly be communicating the ideas of Alfred Korzybski and Ludwig Wittgenstien though if you're interested enough to look it up yourself. Cheers for challenging my thinking though, it's just a shame I'm not up to it right now! *relating to what we MUST mean by perception Bah Tomm, what's this reputation I seem to have as some hardcore illegal drug user!? Granted I'm struggling with a codeine addiction but even so And to everyone, the drumbeats were an example and not neccesarrily anything specific to the video!

I am saying that about religion, in the sense of cosmology, sociology and psychology. I don't think a religions origin in time neccesarily says anything about its relevance. Hubbard was quoted saying that the way to make money is to start a religion and thus he did. He wasn't motivated out of mystical realisation but instead out $$$. There have been plenty of religions that would better be described as cults (more ideological) because they miss the mystical part. The important question then in trying to decipher religion from cult is, "does it have at its centre, mysticism?". Scientology just sounds like the cult of sci-fi to me.

I'd like to make the point that not all religion is Christianity or Islam. And for that matter, even those religions do not neccesarily define people as conservatives or chauvinists. Religion can be a great thing for helping one connect with ones reality if understood in a certain way. Specifically, it is effective (and more accurate) to think of religion in mythological terms. What I mean by myth is a description of events (real or otherwise) that help connect one, on a mystical, sociological, cosmological and psychological, with the world. The trouble is that people don't understand that the sociological, cosmological and personal are always changing - they are relative and suitable to a certain time but not so for all time. A good example of this is cosmology, which is clearly very different now to what it was 2000 years ago. Specifically, we no longer consider either the world to be flat or the universe/solar system to be concentric to the earth. Yet a confusion of the concentric idea as something absolute (received doctrine), allowed for the Chruch to burn Galileo at the stake for (correctly) claiming the solar system as heliocentric (circling the sun). In a differing sense, this is true for the sociological and psychological elements. At certain points in time, certain behaviours have been useful but situations change over time. My bib was useful when I was one year old but it would only be useful now in limiting who would eat at a restraunt with me - which isn't really that useful to me. But then I question if homosexuality and its supression would have ever really been useful? Perhaps in terms of groups containing a low popluation or even perhaps groups that want to expand in terms of gaining/maintaining power, it was useful? Regardless, such things don't concern us now and so instead of adopting principles that may have been useful then, we should instead realise what is most suitable to this time. Basically, Christianity (in part) could have continued to be more useful if it have updated itself accoriding to changes of time. However, it is clearly true that individuals DO update it on a personal level, despite traditional doctrine. Many christians do not have a problem with homosexuality. Some homosexuals are even Christian. Thus, although in the 'official sense', Christian doctrines can remain very similar or the same to their origin, they are changed regardless. So in other words, Christianity* isn't wholly bad and neither is Islam. Even more importantly, other religions such as Buddhism are willing to update their doctrine (although not all sects but Buddhism is a lot more diverse than Christianity). Interestingly though, a lot of the cosmology, sociology and psychology from 2500 years ago is still appropriate today. So, religion isn't ALL bad, it just depends on the way it's used. Specifically, in certaion respects, it just needs to be organic with time. The only part that stays the same (not neccesarily in the way its taught or represented) is the mystical. This part is really the peak or crux of what religion is about but yet which most people of religion don't attempt. The transcending of relativities into that which is the prinicple of everything. That's a whole different topic though. *if by "Christianity" we mean the people that practice it rather than just the traditional doctrine Apologies about the organisation/incoherrence of my post but my mental health isn't too great at the moment and I really struggled to get my thoughts down.

I'm sorry but why is it that we have to spend lots on each other at xmas? Ever wonder that perhaps you've been duped into thinking this is some sort of neccesity or even perhaps that the more you spend, the better you are? There seems to be some sort of implication that people are of a higher moral standard because they are willing to spend more money at xmas. Please, explain to me why we should be spending certain £ quantities.

Furry muff I'm just interested if people have an awareness of where i have planned a riding clip to go with the music in a certain way. Like for instance changing between clips at the sound of a drum or something similar. The point is, continuing with that example, perhaps some people don't listen to the drum beat of a song but pay attention to some other aspect and might miss the way I have related the music and visual part of the video. In this sense, we can know if we have the same perceptual filters, by somebody saying, "I was aware of several seemingly consistent points where a drum occured whilst the visual scene changed". If this is what I intended (and by definition, perceived), then I think we can say that we share the same perception? My additional point with what I was understanding you to say, is that this isn't much different with other types of meaning such as perhaps my end section with the red faces. You can say to me, "that you thought some of my video was sureal" and I would share this view. This is what I intended (and ultimately perceived) and this is what you saw of it. So we seem to be able to share the same perception (and thus filter) as far as I can tell. It's true though that we can have different perceptions but this is still readily understood by the language somebody uses. Were you perhaps getting at the way in which we can effect the way somebody filters something based on the point with which we give them certain information? Or were you getting at the potential problem of never really knowing what anyone really means, despite what they might say? This latter point being the one that I was somewhat responding to. It may well be that I was talking nonsense in the absence of not quite getting what you were trying to say And apologies if my writing isn't entirely clear. I struggle to write these types of ideas down without falling into a philosophical mode of thinking/expressing that my reading has influenced.

Come on, surely, A BOARD GAME like "Risk", "Pictionary", etc.

Above all else, I love your style. Very relaxed and graceful. You could be a ballet dancer, or something. SAying that has led me to have visions of you riding your bike in a pink tutu Anyway, great video. Interesting street style and all very tech. Clean edit with music I like. Shame about the distortion from your wide angled lens.

If the three women hadn't walked behind Adam, I would have used (learnt) After Effects for a smooth placement and sticking of Adam's head over theirs. But as they walked behind him, this seemed like hassle in terms of making them dissapear behind him. Maybe I'm wrong though? Anyway, I just used captured frames and photoshop. Took a while! I've actually got an After Effects book right next to me! I shall definitely use a few new learnt things for the next video which I'm currently working on. I remember your mentioning how powerful and easy a program it was. It just sometimes takes a while to find the motivation to learn new things. Regarding the music change, the choice was that I felt different pieces of music went with different riding scenes. Sometimes I find certain things simply don't fit together (at least to my mind). Yeah it kinda spoils the traditional flow of things but personally that's not such an issue for me. It just makes the video feel shorter for some reason. I've found an ideal piece of music for the next video though, so probably won't be repeating that structure. Cheers for the additional commentary, everyone.

Ah, have I broken some sort of taboo? The taboo against going against the topic title? The taboo against sex words? Although I will say sorry to Kenny for going off on a tangent - not that it really has to matter? I do like the look of your tattoo though and I give respect to your bravity.

You're working on the superficial level my friend. Although for the right price (£1.99) I'm sure each and every senior member would happily do that for you.

Yeah, I genuinely thought you were refering to her dog. I reasoned that the dog was famous or something and that people generally commented on it looking like a kebab. Does her minge looking like a kebab validate sex with a kebab? Also, how could the label growler, ever come to be used for a vagina? Seriously, I don't get that. Are we moving towards a thread closure?

Everyone is too up on rules. Anality clearly leads to dryness. We need some underlying oral action, if anyone gets what I mean? Probably not but there is relevant meaning beneath the seemingly superficial sex humour (attempt) of my words.

Does this include the paper wrapping? Does the dog look like the paper wrapping? edit: hold on, what does growler mean?

Which kebab in particular?

Am I being narrow minded?

Safe as pie and great choice of tunage.

There it goes, over your head! Weeeeeeee. Anyway, bondage can bring people closer together. MAybe you should buy a bunch of gimp masks and whips. I hear it's cheap to buy in bulk. You can all sit round the xmas tree inflicting anonymous pain on one another. Sounds like love to me.

A board game in order to ensure some bondage (spelling?) over the xmas period?

My camera is a sony HDR FX7E. In terms of producing my shots and editing them, I have manual settings on the camera but regarding post production, I only really apply changes of brightness and contrast. Unfortunately I don't have the skills to make adjustments beyond that. Cheers for all the kind comments, chaps.

One of my favourite riders of all time... Man would I love to make a video of you Danny boy !!

Might you be moving back to Swindon, Jimbo Jet?

My questioning was more specific to my attempts to correlate the music with the riding. I think people can listen to music in different ways and as a consequence not neccesarily pick up on the changes or events with music that are meant to be associated with an event or change of riding/scene. I guess this is kind of picking up on my intention but in this sense, we can talk, indicate and understand if we are sharing the same recognition of sound correlating with visual occurence. I think we can establish to a good degree anyway if we share the same meaning in other terms simply through discussion. Of course it's debatable how much we can communicate as to the meaning we are experiencing or thinking. Thanks for your comment anyway. Yeah, that's my favourite line too. He did with such ease... No inside joke, I'm just allowing the expression of things it would probably be better to usually hide. I have an affinity for the strange and sureal

Didn't know you still rode Gilly!