1a2bcio8

I've always asked the question, "could we possibly not exist?". The fact I asked it probably answers it, however, 'things' could be so out of our comprehension that some form of non-existence, despite the apparent paradoxical difficulties of asking the question but then denying it, might enable us to not exist. Anyway, I only resort to that avenue for amusement these days, much the same with solipsism, although to that, I give more credence. It's great to think that perhaps I'm just chatting to myself Now, regarding your very valid question about "abhorrent behaviour". I think the initial method of removing this type of behaviour relates to an acceptance of it. The response to this is usually that chaos will ensue as most people perceive acceptance as synonymous with inaction. However, this is not so. Acceptance is a realisation of the nature of the situation, regardless of if you find it desirable or not. It simply is. In a sense, this is the way it is meant to be because this is the way it is. You may prefer it another way, but it is not. To not accept it is to deny reality. To perceive in terms of labels of right and wrong is to deny the reality which underlies those labels. Once we have accepted it, we no longer need to hate anyone. Realising this doesn't lead you to no longer contribute, but allows you to contribute in a much better sense. I can accept the killer and still stop him from killing and for this I suffer less than for stopping him and hating him. My hate doesn't do me any good and it doesn't anybody else any good. Imagine a complete society of accepting people and then imagine a society with non-accepting people who continually judge each other, get annoyed with each other and even hate each other. What do these emotions drive us toward other than more of the same? The basis of what you desire is an acceptance of it. Acceptance leaves a lot more room for love, which I think everyone would agree is the basis of a happier people?

Do you mean nihilism rather than solipsism? Although I guess nihilism can easily follow solipsism. I am actually a moral nihilist in that I don't think there are any intrinsic morals to the universe. Morals are constructs by humans, and only in as much humans are aspects of the universe, the universe has morals. In the first instance, there only is. It seems somewhat ironic but by realising this and releasing ourselves from the bondage of conceptual (value), right and wrong we end up in a better position to do 'better' for others. This is often the basis of morals, which typically fall into a method of judging one another. The individual who doesn't scorn somebody else for their 'wrongs' is best equipped to help that individual, as opposed to the individual who looks down on him or her. As moral systems can never really be (intrinsically) fulfilled, we end up in a much better position to help one another in opposition to a world where everyone else hates each other because they haven't done the 'right' thing. This doesn't mean we can't having guiding principles, only that we realise the nature of those principles, which are conceptual ideals. Therefore, neither the grave riders or the angry onlookers are doing right or wrong. This is just an occurrence. The more we realise this, the more release we find from conceptual constraint which frees us from the anger that inhibits helping one another. I do sound like a hippy, as previously mentioned, but I'm pretty sure this is how it goes based on my own experience with altering my outlook. Basically everything is already fine, we just have to realise that, then it can get even better. With regards to the validity of my talking about the right or wrong of somebody riding over my dad's grave, there's only a problem if you believe you've found the 'true' right and wrong. Why are my opinions invalid but the people who are bothered by this valid? We're both valid with regards to ourselves and that's the basis of right and wrong which is a subjective construct and at best, inter-subjective when shared by other people. Shared opinions of right and wrong doesn't make those opinions more valid it only means they are shared. Of course if you believe there are morals away from moral ideas, then you'll probably think I am wrong.

I never told anyone how to feel. I always make sure to include the fact that I am putting forward an opinion. I am offering an alternative viewpoint, that is all. With regards to human nature, well, that is whatever we make it and other cultures don't make use of sentimentality in the way we do. I believe that we have boundaries within which we can come to perceive the world without the need of such death rituals - I think they are motivated by emotions that, ultimately, make us less happy. Do we really need sentimentality? It doesn't really work with me and to be honest, without it, I like the world and other people in general, a whole lot better.

You've completely illustrated my point. A gravestone is not more than a block of stone, rather certain individuals generate meaning with it. That meaning in your case, is that it 'belongs' to the dead person, which I think is impossible and beyond the scope of the word. The reality is that people have feelings about objects which they have chosen to correlate with memories but which they forget that process and allow the memories of individuals once living to get mixed up with the representative object. I think this is the primary reason why people get upset. It's the confusion, rather that a proper understanding of what that object means - a reminder (memory instigation) rather than a container of the dead person. I might be wrong though! Even so, is there still any point in loading emotion into objects? The gravestone will eventually fall apart just like the human body. I sound like a cynic but I'm trying to affirm another way of living by negating this one.

I understand what you are saying Mark but my comments are about the living. I am describing perceptions of which we can chose from. We choose to load meaning into these objects but is doing so necessarily 'good' for us? I think it probably follows superstition (consider egyption mentality) and has been maintained by convention of which some of that superstition still operates, in some sense. Grave robbing was a massive fear in the victorian era because of how important the bodies of the dead were seen to be. Even now, people won't allow for the donation of body parts to save anothers life because people can't bear to imagine, what was their loved ones, being dismembered in some form. We even talk of "disrespecting" a grave or even "disrespecting" the dead. The concept of disrespect is only applicable to a human being. The dead are only ideas and the grave is a stone, neither of which can be disrespected. This is my reason for thinking that people 'project' memories onto graves and perceive them as almost being that person (to some degree). The language usage certainly suggests the delusion of something human or alive within graves. I think a realisation of this allows you to choose a different perception. Seriously, go take a wee and a poo on my dad's grave. This might upset some of my relatives but makes no difference to me. Isn't that perhaps a 'better' perception to have? It means in no way that I don't love the memory of my dad - the best I can do seeing as I can no longer love him - it just means I am able to distinguish a stone, from a memory, from somebody who is no loner here. These days I wouldn't ride on a grave in consideration of other people becoming upset. That doesn't mean I won't make statements about my thinking their getting upset is a choice and probably based on confusion. But okay, some people may think it helps them deal with the death of a loved one. That's fine, my position though is that ultimately I think this is more of a burden than a cushion. This is my opinion based on my reasoning and experience and I accept total fallibility in the potential of my talking rubbish. I'm not telling anyone how to think though, I'm just offering an alternative way of perceiving. A different "reality tunnel" that might help you feel better. Let me emphasis one more time though. I really do understand the position of emotionally loading an object with the memory of somebody you loved. I did it with a watch that my dad left me. I just don't hold that viewpoint any longer, I perceive it to be culturally conditioned and of no use to me.

I just said that I wouldn't be. You don't cause harm do the dead person because by definition they don't exist anymore. The idea of disrespect, as far as I can tell, are your ideas about the memory of a person, transplanted into to an object. It's kind of an anthropomorphism - giving to the grave human qualities. However, in this situation, the grave doesn't 'hurt', the dead person doesn't 'hurt', so where's the harm? The problem is only there if you choose it to be. I don't choose it to be so it doesn't bother me. Not that I don't understand where you are coming from - this is a socially loaded/defined mentality, one of which I would have previously shared. But consider that there are probably other cultures that do completely different things with their dead, relating to a distinct lack of concern, like my own, in this regard. I just don't see the point, for myself, of having these things to be concerned about when they can make no difference to me. I can still remember my dad, regardless of a grave, or regardless of a bashmarked grave (might even be better in that it would add character, as they say). In fact, we could use the grave space for other objects/activities that might benefit humans more so. Perhaps on some level we're attempting to avoid death by transplanting those qualities that are actually gone, following from the death of a person, into some observable object as though that maintains something of the person?

In a sense, you're always walking over somebodies grave. It's just some of them happen to be endowed with an object and have occurred more recently. Perhaps we should move to space to avoid disrespecting the dead that are underneath us. All of you who are concerned about that chap in the video, do you consider that perhaps you have a choice, not to find respect/disrespect with somebody riding over a grave? In fact, could you elaborate for me what you mean by respect and disrespect, especially within this context?

I wouldn't have a problem if somebody rode over my dad's grave. As far as my ideas are concerned, it makes little difference - he's already dead and it's not going to harm him. Being bothered about such things is ultimately a choice, although I understand that's more easily said that done and people tend to be quite sensitive about objects that they load with the memory of a loved dead person. I've certainly ridden on the wall of a graveyard, perhaps even on something similar to this chap, although I can't be sure. If I did it and no harm came to anyone, did it really matter to anyone? Well, no. Out of consideration of other people I probably wouldn't do that these days though, regardless of how I perceive pointlessness in people loading emotional meaning into representative objects of dead people. I'm pretty sure this is a cultural relativistic situation as well, which to me, makes the act of being "disrespectful" even less meaningful. What do we gain by being bothered about the stone of a person whom we want to remember - what difference does it make to our situation regarding being happy?

something very peculiar happens when i try and watch that - it won't work for me

I can ride thursday, perhaps also tomorrow but that relates to how quickly I can get away from my lesson. Just let us know which days you are riding and I'll give you a ding-a-ling.

Stating that god doesn't exist is effectively the same as stating he does exist at least with regards to knowing. It seems most likely that you can never really know anything, at least completely, until you know everything because until you know everything there is room for something to exist to contradict the knowing you think you possess. To say God definitely doesn't exist is to use the same mechanism as saying he does. It's simply the other side of the same coin The position which I find most likely, is based on the idea that intelligence creates intelligence, or higher forms of organisation perpetuate themselves. To say that we arose randomly from lower forms of organisation makes less sense to me than that we arose from more complex forms of organisation (other intelligence). Consider humans as an organisation which is highly complex. We create other complex kinds of organisation such as computers, cars, other people (babies). This is perhaps evidence for the principle I mentioned. In this regard, it makes sense that a higher form of organisation constructed us, rather than a 'dead' and 'random' universe. An idea put forward by a chap called Alan Watts, is "atheism in the name of god". This is the idea we shouldn't try and put an image to the idea of god. This sounds like somewhat of a paradox but the point is that perhaps the idea of god as a bearded bloke sitting in heaven is a bit silly - it's trying to comprehend something, in the terms we are capable of, when that something probably exists out of those terms. Instead of saying we know what that intelligence is, we accept that we don't. From this we can enjoy the mystery, rather than looking for security in a definite kind of god with definite rules. I think security is a strong motivation for the belief in a certain kind of god. One that usually talks of definite rules which can guide you and remove the fear from being unsure. Perhaps.

It's good to see some 24" action. Nice tunage as well. I look forward to the full version

A teenage boy who was engaged in a sexual act for the first time, in the back of his car, was disturbed by a police officer who inspired enough fear that he was henceforth unable to achieve an erection for the next ten years until he found an appropriate treatment. Pretty unlucky really. My first time was not planned - involved in nearly naked kissing I was always slyly trying to get my penis into her until I eventually managed it. It was over in about thirty seconds and was kind've a disappointment given the grandeur that sex has amongst the human world - especially your 'first time'. It lives up to that quality now though, when it relates to a girl you're really into and especially with cannabis

You what? Are you saying Mr Shrewsbury killed these kids?

You can't really separate the individual from their environment. Unemployment can effect individuals in any number of ways - just try to imagine a struggling family or extend that to a struggling town. It's hardly going to be all bouncy castles and ice cream (so to speak). An individual growing up in that type of environment might ultimately develop quite a negative perspective on life.

I think when people are susceptible to ideas of suicide and then somebody in close proximity evidences the capacity to kill themselves, that it may give more confidence to those people to act out those ideas. I understand if somebody wants to kill themselves but at the same time there's a good chance that the way they are feeling can be changed given the right method. I wouldn't wrap this up neatly into "natural selection" though otherwise you're also justifying my killing you, robbing you, etc. etc. just because I'm bigger and stronger than you. That term oversimplifies a much more complex situation.

Saying it is one thing, actually feeling that way is something else. If it was as simple as a rational choice, don't you think everybody would be doing it? I'd prefer to have a happy, carefree attitude but it's not quite as easy as that for most of us. Personally, I feel anxious in social situations - i totally f**ked a university interview today because I lost the ability to both think and articulate myself. Before the interview, I was telling myself it was nothing to worry about, that getting anxious is pointless and self-fulfilling of the worries that spawns it. I became anxious regardless of my rationalising and now I've probably lost out on my first choice of university. I think this is pretty much the same for all undesirable states of mind - depression, frustration, etc. We can see the pointlessness of it, we just don't know how to change it.

Catch-22 and the Illuminatus Trilogy for fictional satire. Prometheus Rising and Quantum Psychology (both by Robert Anton Wilson) for introductory books on mind expansion - the beginnings of becoming who you are. I am a nerd/geek and proud.

Sorry to hijack somebody else's thread, but along a similar note, can anyone recommend a strong 8spd chain?

That's the best think I've seen all life. Good job!

Good stuff Alan. I remember enjoying your style back days yonder.

Indeed! 'twas a marvelous ride of oranges and pairs!

I'm also using firefox...

Thanks for checking that out. Very odd!

Hello, I am having difficulty accessing amazon.co.uk. As soon as the amazon main page opens, it almost instantly redirects to an "ad.accelerator" webpage. The same thing happens on my house mates computer. Would somebody be kind enough to try this on their computer and tell me what happens? Thanks Ben