1a2bcio8

Thanks for that. I think the video makes sense within the context of US imperialism.

I don't think you're as informed as you think. Our nation in particular has played a significant role in Africa's current predicament. Aside from our previous colonial endeavours such as imposing false dividing lines between the nations of Africa which led to war, we've also sold arms to those warring nations and supported dictatorships where it benefited us to do so. The west in general, like it does to the rest of the less developed world, has exploited Africa significantly. For instance, aid and loans to African nations have often come with the explicit expectation that they should operate as 'free markets'. This is Orwellian double speak which has always meant that international business such as American or UK business should have privileged rights to operate within and therefore access to those nations resources but which won't extend in the other direction. The consequence is that the nation doesn't really benefit from it's own resources and an international business does instead. Furthermore, those loans are not to be used for education or medical facilities but for creating fertile ground for international business. We never really "bail" out Africa and all these popular efforts to send aid to Africa are a nonsense when the detrimental private dealings of Western governments occur at the same time. Furthermore, asking the question as to why the African people haven't moved from an inhospitable land doesn't really amount to much. I feel it's fairly self-evident that people are often stuck where they are. Where would they go? Who will take them? Europe certainly won't for the most part. Is there much point in moving from one f**ked African nation to another? Finally, yes Africa can be inhospitable but where that it is the case it would be significantly more manageable if, say, the GM crops we sell to African nations, that are able to cope with the arid landscape, we didn't condition to yield only one season. But if I remember correctly, America used to flood the world market with surplus, subsidised farmed foods such as rice which meant that African nations couldn't compete. Because Americans tax payers were subsidising the farmers produce they could undercut everyone else. This stops Africans from stimulating their economy with regard to a more accessible means of making money than other resources that require more investment, that's not available, in the first instance. I don't think Africa is quite as inhospitable as you make out and a lot of it is open to farming. I wouldn't trust the view of the rest of the world that one gets from watching the bbc and reading the guardian newspaper. Mainstream news outlets are too much a part of the overall system that benefits from the sort of exploitations I've mentioned. They will offer you a view of the world that supports what they do. Western governments and business are generally a sordid affair. They lie to us because they know that really we wouldn't stand for what's going on if we knew the exact nature. Isn't that telling about the fact that people do care? If we didn't care then there would be no need for the lies. I would argue against the idea that people who care about the plight of those beyond themselves are depressed. This can happen but a lot of the people I've met and read about that are engaged in philanthropy tend to be the sanest and happiest people I know. I think it's a basic psychological fact that our happiness is tied to our compassion and love for other people. If you choose the pleasure of the shiny over your love for your fellow human being then you end up lacking in terms of your potential for sanity and happiness. Selfishness promotes confusion because it requires so much rationalisation and denial to support itself. Compassion is open because it doesn't need anything whereas selfishness is inescapably about need and doing what is necessary to fulfil that need. I do get the selfishness though. I have to deal with it in myself all the time. It is a very human tendency but the point is whether it's one worth giving into and what do the alternatives offer? Perfectionism, although I dislike using such an abstract word, should defined according to the norms of what it is to be a human being or what we call inter-subjectivity. What this means is that all human being, beneath their individualism share the same needs. On that basis, fulfilling the basic needs of food, shelter and the absence of war is nothing like perfectionism. Radical subjectivism or absolute relativism is a dangerous concept when applied to human beings and is an important rationalisation for the modern trend of selfishness.

I see where you're coming from now in terms of addiction. I think the core of my analogy stands but you make a valid point about how a psychological need can remain even after one stops the habit. I guess an addiction to picking one's nose would have made a better analogy I've never really argued for perfection though. And I would find it very disappointing if you were considering changing the state of affairs in third world countries as a kind of unachievable perfectionism. I don't think alleviating such things as genocide and famine can be equated with a kind of eutopia. To be blunt, talking about it being pretty good already is severely short sighted and radically lacking in empathy toward the majority in this world who have an atrocious life. Perhaps you don't mean this and for that moment you were only referencing our situation in the 'developed' world?

Pffft, that's semantics and doesn't effect my point It also says something to me about your view of reality particularly in the sense of your realism. Existentialism argued about the transient nature of people. Nobody has a good or bad essence but rather people move through life sometimes being good and sometimes being bad. Even Kony will have done something good in his lifetime. It's just he's done so much bad stuff that it's easier to just say he's a bad man. If we apply your underlying presupposition about drug addiction to the idea of good and bad then we can only say that such and such is a bad person that just doesn't do bad any more. It suggests an essence, something fixed, rather than recognising people as a changing process that move in and out of different kinds of opposing being. Furthermore, if we are being strict with our language usage, drug addict means somebody who is physically and psychologically dependent upon a drug. If somebody no longer takes that drug and cuts off their psychological and physical need then they are no longer a drug addict. Sorry for the pedantry and need to continue debating. I'm ill at the moment, I've been stuck inside and I'm pretty bored. Relative to recent normal existence this is some exciting shit.

I just want to add that I think there's an insight to your realism. I think you correctly recognise the qualities of people in the present and how those qualities get in the way of what I'm talking about. The risk of this insight however is taking it to represent what's possible as though things are more fixed than they really are. As though the drug addict of now will be a drug addict of always.

So it seems myself, James Rawlings and Nick Cooke are going to ride Reading on Saturday providing the weather is looking decent. Anyone game?

Remember those personality tests where you're supposed to be the realist and I'm the idealist? The difference between your example and mine is that becoming an astronaut requires intelligence and physicality to a degree that is simply not attainable to some people. What I'm talking about requires capacities that everybody can attain if they were to put the effort in. Compassion is available to all (except maybe psychopaths for the pedants out there) and so is a base understanding of what's going on in the world. If people can understand the wrong interpretation of the world then they can understand the correct one. You only have to consider history to see epochs that shifted because of a change in the social conscience. Our current freedoms against the authoritarian potentials of the past and present elsewhere are often substantially based on people recognising what is right and acting upon that understanding. History totally supports what I'm saying. We haven't just reached some period where the chance to develop social conscience has stopped. So I'm not talking about an impossibility but I wouldn't claim that it's not difficult and that it doesn't go against the common tendency. The trouble is that the argument of being able to do nothing is very common and if all those who subscribed to it acted instead then we might be able to get somewhere. Remember, if realists had their way we wouldn't get anywhere; we would have no technology or science. Realists denied the idea of micro organisms and sterilisation around the process of surgery. The doctor that suggested such an idea even lost his title. Idealism does need to consider realism though otherwise we might imagine that all people could become astronauts. This situation is different albeit difficult because people are easily selfish creatures of habit. edit: hopefully you'll read my edit before responding.

There's a lot we could do about it if we simply began to care enough and organised appropriately. It's just we don't care enough because we care about ourselves and our shiny technological toys and experiences considerably more. We could turn the UK into a power for 'good' or, something within closer reach, we could stop our government from selling arms to Africa. That potential is always there. It begins by caring enough so that you become informed so that you can organise appropriately so that you can change the direction of our 'democratic' government. I don't mean to pick on you because the attitude you mentioned is common but it's the greatest self fulfilling prophecy there is. It's a shame.

It's good to hear that another trials rider meditates. I practice concentration meditation as you call it but I know it as samatha (calm abiding). I'd like to respectively disagree about your characterisation of samatha meditation. Some denominations of Zen believe that samatha can lead to insight itself and therefore the breath is the only object of meditation; no insight meditation is required. Furthermore, certain Theravadan denominations recognise samatha as an important precursor to insight meditation. If one has not cultivated the various stages of samatha (jnanas) although they may manage to remove the grosser aspects of delusion/defilement (klesa) they are not equipped to handle the more subtle ones because they lack a refined absorption. In other words, you may get quicker results from moving straight to insight meditation, but in the long run you might find that you reach an impasse. It is this process, that included samatha, that the Buddha followed although I wouldn't want to say that everyone should follow his exact path and there probably are other means of moving toward the ending of suffering. Please don't misunderstand me. I really appreciate that you're attempting to discuss meditation and I agree about the value of insight meditation and meditation in general but I'm not overly keen on what seems to be a relegating of samatha meditation when it is probably just as important as vipsanna. Anyhow, beyond that I received confirmation today of a three week personal retreat in September. Can't wait. Do you practice regularly? And how did you find your 10 day retreat?

The idea of supination and pronation (running too much to the inside or outside of your foot) requiring compensation in the form of specially designed trainers is a bit dubious. When I worked in a triathlon shop the staff blindly adopted the pitch of the trainer manufacturers about the need. They never seemed to consider that this might be a bad idea. Interestingly, there are studies which, in the first instance, suggest that cheaper trainers are as good or even sometimes better for runners and, in the second instance, that working on your style is far more important to avoiding injury than compensatory shoes which seemingly allow you to maintain a bad style. I guess if you've got a long-term physical problem/injury as opposed just a bad style then they might be important but otherwise I'm not so sure. Regardless of the validity of a technical claim about supporting bad style I've definitely always found a lightweight, breathable and soft cushioned shoe to be preferable for road running. You can easily find this sort of thing for around £50. Running t-shirts, shorts and socks are a worthy investment if you're running long distances or in warm weather. You can get each of them for about £10. Decreases the likelihood of nasty chaffing.

Really good stuff. Your style looks really controlled which always makes for a particularly good watch

Very cool video. Really shows what was obviously an awesome vibe. I'm now especially looking forward to attending this year

It's interesting you say this because, in theory at least, a lower resistance for longer should help you shed the weight more easily. This is on the basis that fat will be the primary source of energy. We move from fat to muscle glycogen to ATP on the basis of the speed at which the respective energy sources can be utilized relative to the type of activity we are doing. Fat is a much more efficient form of energy - less wastage per unit, so to speak - but can't be, for the most part, used quickly enough to keep up with, for instance, sprints or weight lifting. In other words it's great for slow activity but poor for intense. ATP is the most ideal source for sprints or weight lifting (anaerobic) given its high and fast energy demands but it's very inefficient and wastes much more energy per 'unit'. Essentially a slow run for longer should strip the fat from your body more than an activity that will use muscle glycogen or ATP. Of course if you need to replenish your muscle glycogen then whatever carbohydrate you consume is more likely to be converted to gloycogen than fat. Supposedly though the long distance stuff should make you thinnest. The only trouble with slow and long exercise is that it's more likely to eat into your muscles. Apparently long distance running also promotes a hormone of some sort that inhibits muscle growth potential relating to weight training. Not entirely though. I'm in no way saying you are wrong because theory is one thing and the particular individual is another but I guess it's something to consider My point about including carbohydrate with your protein after training is simply to emphasise recovery. In hindsight this may not be all that important to you but if you do end up feeling tired the next day then I would definitely introduce carbohydrate into your diet around and as close to training as is possible. You can do wonderful things with your body if you get your nutrition correct. If you do nutrition correctly you shouldn't ever end up feeling that tired unless you train too much in excess of your present capability. Also, people don't always know this but your ability to assimilate protein and carbohydrate into the body is dependent on the functioning of, for instance, enzymes. Enzymes require cofactors and other similar molecules to function, the names of which I forget. Cofactors et al are constituted by vitamins and minerals that are found in fruit and vegetables. Thus it's essential to have these alongside your consumption or protein and carbohydrate if you want to actually fully use them to recover and develop. Anyway, I recommend High5 Protein or 4:1(this one tastes awesome), Science in Sport or Maximuscle Recovermax (despite the fact you are partly paying for an advertising campaign this is, none the less, pretty decent but tastes terrible). Hopefully this is actually pertinent to you

Getting carbohydrate into your system as fast as possible after cardio, particularly intense cardio that works your anaerobic system and therefore emphasises muscle glycogen over fat, is the best means of replacing muscle glycogen, speeding up recovery and avoiding fatigue the following day. I've seen significant differences in the rate of recovery/fatigue from ingesting lots of carbs and protein straight after exercise. A proper meal is obviously better but a recovery drink is effective. If you can get to a proper meal as soon as you get home this is worth doing. If you're doing runs or something similar at a relaxed pace for 30 mins or less I wouldn't worry about what I'm saying but anything more than this will help you feel better the next day. Also if you do long distance at slow paces it's just as important to get carbohydrates into your system as fast as possible. Muscle glycogen is still being used as well as fat but to a lesser degree but also for longer which means it can still deplete even though fat is its primary energy source. I think we have, on average, 1500 calories of usable glycogen in the muscles, a few hundred in the liver and we can hold about 80-100 in the blood stream - that's why gels, energy powder, etc. and the like are around that quantity. Typically we hold around 30-40000 in the form of fat though. Muscle glycogen is carbohydrate converted into a form that can be stored and used from the muscles, btw.

That's when you get obsessed with a hobby instead such as your bike or running. Basically something that contains lots of goals that you can set, work toward and then feel rewarded as you progress and achieve. It worked for me anyway.

You blatantly need to move out of that house... I wouldn't be able to handle your situation.

I liked the name placement. It's a shame you got crap weather. I would have liked to have seen a longer video

I think a no rebound agreement is perfectly reasonable. It's a noble consideration of the fact that the end of a relationship is not the end of feelings particularly if those feelings were deep. I can't really abide with the idea that it's okay to stop caring about somebodies feelings once there's no 'official' title between you but it seems that the tendency is otherwise.

The coil is the way... not the pill or variants thereof.

The footjam whip King.

Very enjoyable style with multitudes of control. Great stuff

I feel your proper video pain. Your stuff is a whole 'nother level though. Definitely inspires me to push myself; so thanks. Production quality has improved as well!

Awesome stuff

Good shizzle