1a2bcio8

Sweet riding and edit. Liked the tune selection as well. Nice one Adam.

It almost looks like a man in a robot suit. Very clever.

Very good editing and music. And of course, superb riding.

That's always the risk. I've had many bad experiences from smoking. Especially paranoia. It's all about your approach though I guess. Every now and then under the right circumstances is nice, but like everything in life, you do it too much... I tend to smoke a couple of times a week before a swim. Superb experience. If you want a more clearheaded form of relaxation, 15 mins of meditation each morning will set you up nicely. It's basically a mental shower. I notice a whole load of difference in myself when I do it.

Hippify yourself by smoking weed on a regualr basis. Will chill you out in the first instance but will also lead you onto other things.... of a relaxed theraputic nature, like tai chi, yoga etc. That's not a given though

Well, our perception is extremely limited. We talk of physics and laws and such, but we know very little. We cannot explain or exactly place the mind. All we can really say is that it appears to have some grounding in the central nervous sytem, or more specfically, the brain. You can never cut open a brain and see a perception though. We don't really even know any laws for certain, only the ones that seem most likely at this time and have some predictive value. We don't know how many dimensions, if they do at all, might exist in the same "space" that we do and how they might affect that which we are able to register. Just take a look at quantum mechanics and it's theory of non-locality and your dearest logical perceptions get flushed down the toilet. Apparantly we visually register only a minute amount (I think like 0.001% or something silly like that) of the stimuli that surrounds us. An analogy is that we are writing a film review whilst only getting to watch a single frame of the film. We need to be careful about are judgements when we know so little. I think when someone says "mind over matter", it's best not to take the words too literally for risk of ending up with a problem of semantics. "mind over matter" might just be a crap model for an actual reality. Instead just understand that there's so many processes that we probably don't know about at the moment and may never know about. Basically, there is a seemingly infinite amount of possiblity in our existnce. There's nothing to say I can or can't learn to levitate through meditation, just that it hasn't been done yet. Who knows what processes might exist that can relate thought process to non-muscular movement or levitation?

The tune is "Jimi Tenor - Blood on the Borstch".

I think you are right Tomm that the most heterosexually active individuals of a species will be the ones that are most like to pass on their genes. This is what backs up the idea of imprinting. That if there were genes that coded for homosexuality, they would probably die out being that homosexual reproduction looks a bit difficult. So it seems that we have a mechanism that, if considering a function of reproduction, is not entirely accurate. This doesn't mean that genes neccesarily have an absoulte function towards our survival. I think it's more acurate to say that genes are creative and thereafter to say one of their creative functions it that of survival. Thus, everything is "natural". This is not to say that genetic biases or absolutes don't exist, although I find absolutes to be unlikely because evolution would probably remove them. But even if biases exist it's still worth making the obvious statement that this does not make them 100% and a complete decider of sexuality. It's then relative to environmental conditions. You can never really say anything about a development type (phenotype) without considering the enivornments interaction with genes (genotype). My opinion is that desire is a sexual potential, of functional evolution, waiting to be actualized and directed by a moment of, imprint vulnerability and possible genetic bias, which sets a preference relative to a given environment, at a given time. This is how your place on the sexuality spectrum is decided. It's also worth mentioning a chap called Kinsey, who discovered that we all usually have more than one place on the sexual spectrum, with varying degree of desire at each of those places. In effect, most of us are at least slightly bi-sexual. There's no reason why there wouldn't be more than one sexual imprint; this would have an evoultionary function to survival. This of course, due to certain social pressures can be a difficult thing to admit, especially to ourselves. I'd like to hear what you people think about this. I think though that quite simply, it is just an expansion of the heterosexual desire between say, foot fetish and domination. Books worth reading on imprint vulnerability is anything by Konrad Lorez (ethology) or "Prometheus Rising" by Robert Anton Wilon < My favourite author. Tim Leary also has a book called info-psychology. Although I'm still waiting for it to arrive I'm very sure it also discusses Imprinting. The latter books mainly discuss the 8-circuit model. Something which is equally fascinating and based, to a large degree, on imprinting. I highly recommend pursuing it. They also discuss re-creating imprint vulnerability. Also check out Stanisalv Grof - The Holotropic Mind if you want methods of adjusting/changing imprints.

I'm very much in agreement with you on this. Sexual preference is seeminlgy a product of cultural relativism. Even though I don't like to apply the term in anything narrow being as I see everything as nature but in this context, it is probably more accurate to say, in regards to animals or more specifically humans, that sexuality in itself, regardless of direction is what should be classed as "natural". Homosexuality exists on the same spectrum as heterosexuality, just in a different place on that spectrum. Besides cultural history, this is evident in the ethological term, "imprint vulnerability". Imprint vulnerability is a process that occurs in animal/human development at genetically defined points. An animal or human will at one of these points imprint a situation or thing that will, in most cases, define their perception towards that situation or thing for the rest of their life. An example of this is the goosling that imprinted a white ping pong ball as its mother. The ping pong ball possesing some archetypical characterstics that a mother goose might posses. For the rest of its life, the goose only found sexual interest in white ping pong balls, trying to mate with one at every sexually driven convenience. It's not difficult to convert this situation into human sexuality. For instance, imagine the floor bound baby that develops a foot fetish. Or, in this context, the male baby who experiences a sexuality relative imprint in the presence of their father or another male who fits the vague shape of something that should be imprinted at that time. Cultural relativism has it's place in imprint vulnerability when you consider that which a devloping infant is exposed to in a given environment at a given time. If this is the case, it would seem it's the luck of the draw who gets the socially accepted sexualites and who doesn't. There are apparantly a good deal of practices which have the potential to recreate imprint vulnerability for the purposes of exposure to something more desired by the individual. If this is right, sexuality has the potential to be transient rather than static as is assumed by so many people. Just in case you're interested, imprint vulnerability is what sets or contributes to the foundation of your character and your selective choosing and reaction to the overwhelming stimuli around you, including physical and mental abilities and personality regarding such things as general fear or general contentment. This is a hugh something if you think about it, especially when you consider re-imprinting is supposedly possible.

I think vlc comes might come with the codec. I haven't downlaoded any specific codecs but have downloaded the vlc player and it works on that and wmp10. Unless that's what you're already using?

I think James pulled the wrong brake lever.

Good stuff. That cheered me up so thanks. Really digging the music as well.

Cheers for the comments chaps. I really enjoyed making the vid and hopefully if I can find the time and motivation, I'll make another one soon. I'll remember that rule next time mark The song is "Jimi Tenor - Blood on the Borstch".

Most of my life I've had difficulty sleeping. It doth sucketh. But I know a few things about getting to sleep because of it. If you can, the best technique is simply to hold a blank mind. Hold it for even a short period of time and sleep will not be far behind. Of course it's not always that easy, especially in situations where you're excited and your thoughts are on a spin cycle. An alternative and easier method of clearing the mind is to begin by looking at three objects in your room, giving each about a minute, but not letting anything else enter your mind beside what you are staring at. Follow this by closing your eyes and listening to three seperate sounds and then finally, physically sense three seperate things, like maybe your heartbeat, breathing or your bed sheets. This technqie really does work, especially with a bit of practise. It's basically what the other chap recommended with the idea of reading something unexciting and it also relates to what I'm going to say next. The final thing is to develop a similar pattern of behaviour just before you goto bed each night. For instance every night you might drink a glass of water followed by brushing your teeth, reading a book and giving teddy a hug goodnight. The mind is a programmable device and associating behaviour types (teeth cleaning, book, teddy, etc) with sleep for long enough will eventually cause those behaviour types to become the minds recognisable cues for sleep. Your body will begin the process of slowing down when the cues begin, so when you reach the time of sleep your mind will have slowed and sleep show follow with a degree of ease. Check out "Pavlov's Dog" if you want to understand this type of condtioning better.

You're not supposed to to anything unless you do it like a pro. I suggest we all flop to the floor. Anything else is pointless. I say thumbs up for doing something creative. Nice one mate.

You've delivered the envelop to the moon.

I think a question worth asking is if everyone was secure and content in themselves and not leaning/dependant on other individuals, namely sexual partners, would polygamy be considered such a bad thing in consensus society?

I think this is one of those things that people can make sensible statements about in regards to the if it's true or not. All you can say is "i don't know". And if you bring science into this arguement, and the apparant laws of the universe, remember we are always finding our ideas of those laws to be different as we develop. What appears to be a correct inference at this time will probably be found to be wrong in some sense, in the future. When I look into space, I see these little lights, that I'm told are stars like what I'm told the sun is in my galaxy. If this is true then I see no reason why there can't be planets that can harvest life as this one we live on does. At the same I have to say seeing as I've never seen one of these planets, well then I don't know for sure. It's kind of a 50/50 from where I'm sitting. I think this is the same for the idea of if aliens have visited from another planet. I see no reason, especially based on the seemlingly hugh evolution of technology on our planet that another race, who might have been about for longer or who have developed faster have not produced the technology to do so. And maybe if they do and haven't contacted us, maybe it's because they realise we are still at a very unrational, emotively charged, thinking part of our existence and are waiting for us to leave that point. At the same time, maybe not, maybe this is undisclosed earth technology, or some other unexplained phenomena, maybe it's us from the future, maybe it's fake? The point is, known of you really know. You might be right, but you don't know if you know. Thinking you definitely know closes your mind to other ideas and effectively makes you stupid, because then you only consider limited options, you have a narrow way of thinking.

Really liked that. The style of riding that most inspires me, done well. Good clean editing also. I I look forward to the next.

Additionally, i have, sbt_march, sbt_video2, sbt_sheffield, 5point5 and getguernsey. There's also another older video of nicks you seem to be missing, which I thought, and still might have actually thinking about it. If you add me to msn I shall try to sort it out.

I've got all the glasseye vids if you're short of any. If someone adds me to msn, I shall send. trials_rider_ben@hotmail.com

Pearl Jam - Do the Evolution Massive Attack - Risingson

Was anyone else waving a glow stick around whilst they watched that? Impressive stuff though. Me liked.

Quality

Mmmm, salvia. Transported me to a medevil castle with a wooden cart where pink zig zags were passing through the air and my legs. I also took a trip to the desert and thought i was in comunication with aliens.