Albedo

This beast does not exist Hamma, they just like to think it does!!! As for the ridicularse - Thats much better, I had invited worse I guess:thumbup1:

Thats very restrained for you Hama, am I boring you:sneaky2:

So Allan R. sums up in his own style (from your above tract H) Every naturally occurring body, including every human body, can hence be understood not as a completely definable singular entity, but instead as a dynamic electromagnetic configuration of space. As he seems to be aware that he’s developed a version of the English language which no one else understands, he again translates himself by quoting Wordsworth: ‘In nature everything is distinct, yet nothing defined into absolute, independent, singleness’. AR’s theory from what I can make of it reminds me of the Carlos Castenada series of books. It also reminds me of some academics who can find no other way to make a name for themselves. Robert Chambers – a big cheese in the development world made his name with a couple of books on ‘Participatory Rural Appraisal’. When you remove all the academic speak, he’s just stating the obvious. If you want to help people in a village in India, then why not ask them what they need. Believe it or not this was new to the ‘development’ world at the time (and not that long ago). As Tony S. says; it boils down quite often to stating the obvious. Taking A.R.s summary of where he’s going with all this: ‘When we bring this understanding into our lifelong learning experience and practice, we include the 'passion' of responsive 'living light' with the 'compassion' of receptive 'loving darkness'. We become Sherpa guides to the inspirational territory of Nature, Love and Life, not authoritative instructors in the abstractive 'to be and/or not to be' logic of opposition and conflict............ ’ I still don’t get it. How do we act on this? If I become one of his Sherpas what do I change, and then what do I do with it? I have no idea how to become ‘ a dynamic electromagnetic configuration of space’ or if I already am one, then whats to change? __________________

Whilst the humour is cool, I think this thread is worth taking seriously, at some stage. Lots of people have talked about when they are too old to climb. Some have other business's lined up like the yurt man, or Dean with his tree planting. Some buy expensive bits of climbing gear and use the ergonomics of ageing as their justification for this. The older ones can also offer a bit of hope for the future for the younger one's. I'm 50 in december this year and still climbing, as its my own business, I can pick and choose a bit and don't have to climb every day. Having said that I am often climber, groundie and chipper rolled into one and the days can be hard. I am however not as ugly or rotund as Mr Stockbridge:001_smile:

On science stuff, I've got a 1 in 10 chance. I'm not taking you on with de maths tho Tony. like the triple etc, it may be named, still don't have one in my collection though, even though he agreed with me once:biggrin:

Blimey I'm not 50 till the end of this year, but a sprog in comparison. Could you be Arbtalk's oldest working climber????

I reckon that statement deserves a skyhuck (as I call it in my world)

A.R like James Lovelock does appear to be a big cheese. I didn't understand much of your post Tony, and hold you in high regard by the way. It seems to me, without understanding very much of all this academic speech, that what were talking about here is a kind of American Indian understanding of the world. If so then I'm an Injun with some understanding of science and may give you a run for your money:001_smile:

It could mean from living you die, then that energy goes from dead to living. Frankly , not a biggy, I'd let it go, we've all got other things to worry about. Or shoot it down with more evidence than that.

Yep, I'm open to any learnage, and quite like the mans credentials, just don't understand a word he says. Flattered at the offer though hama I'll pm you my email in a minute, don't know what an email group is though?

I have AR open on another page and am wading into it. Feel a bit like the drowning crow must have felt, that I found in the pond earlier. Just noticed, that he has a similar turn of phrase to what you do Hama old chap, you must have spent a long time reading him before you discovered arbtalk. Again, not a dig at you, it could be the wine, it usually is.

Your'e posting some strange things ncj - but there ain't no 4 connies in this land worth 5k to take out unless the drag is 10 miles.

Notice how in this paragraph, unedited by me, he translates himself: Objectivity is therefore liable to introduce profound bias, the very thing it claims to avoid, whilst also greatly restricting the scope of scientific enquiry and interpretation. It does so by presenting an ineluctably partial (one-sided and self-referential) view of reality, ironically through its very insistence on material completeness. Note, however, that this view is not entirely wrong, because it is partially based in reality! But it is utterly inadequate to account for natural creative possibility. I'm working on understanding him, its a challenge now:thumbup1:

Ham I'm really on your side here and not after one of our old battles but what does this mean? Quote A.R Inclusional Science - From Artefact To Natural Creativity This success (Edit By me :refering to conventional science) has largely been based on an absolutely definitive logic that abstracts material ‘content’ from spatial ‘context’. Such abstraction greatly diminishes the dimensionality of natural, non-Euclidean, dynamic geometry by fixing reality within rectilinear structural limits of length, breadth and depth. It may therefore come at the expense of deeper understanding of natural dynamic processes, which is needed to address currently emerging environmental, social and psychological concerns bearing upon human well being.

I'm a tiny outfit, and would do a £50 job and not worry about my costs. There again I don't buy every shiny thing going, spend £500 on a lowering kit, then moan about my overheads. It depends on your outlay, you can afford to do it, if you got nothing else to do that day. If your'e heavily invested in kit and people, you should leave it to us little guys who can afford to offer an affordable price.

Just went for a walk round with orca and found a crow caught in the fishing wire over the pond (heron defences) Waded in fished him out, cut him free, took an hour wrapped in a towel to warm up. He's just flown off. All is well, will redesign heron defence tommorrow. I agree with TS, mr Rayner says some stuff that is very difficult to decipher

I posted just now without re- reading the thread. so appologies for not being up to speed. So where you going with this new explanation hama that leaves us hanging. I must just nip out to take my cat for his evening stroll he's pestering, back in half an hour

Sort of with you so far, this is similar to James Lovelocks 'Daisy world' model.

Just read the list of stuff he's published. He's an expert in wood decay, fungal stuff. So I see why you rightly have some respect for him. It was a paper on inclusional theory, that had my head reeling. I may have to go and swallow a dictionary, to have a chance of understanding what he's on about:001_smile:

Can’t believe you like this guy hama. Never heard of him till you mentioned him. just googled him. and he’s seriously heavy going isn’t he. Never seen such a case of academic verbal diorhea. Now I’m not saying he’s right or wrong here as I still know nothing about him. I had to google ‘euclidean geometry’ to see what it meant. I’m going to read more, which will hurt as his verbosity makes him very difficult to understand, but my guess is that he’s an academic, probably a mathemetician with an axe to grind. They all do this, they want their discipline to be the one that makes the world go round. I may well have to retract this, but that’s my first impression, he starts by saying conventional science is all one dimensional, then goes into a load of flashy maths, -- not impressed at all. What is it that you see in him, what am I missing here????

I was the best tree surgeon in the world --- until I became a treesurgeon! (having one of my cryptic days)

Just 2 small edits. James Lovelock said 'academic straight jacket' not scientific. An important distinction I think. My 'read between the lines' comment - I had no idea how it was supposed to apply here, but it had come to mind, and I put it down to wine induced poetic licence. I shall derail the thread no further, for now, Your's the derailerer:001_smile:

fungui. ? - the ancient art of folding bits of paper into animal shapes, or is it something with noodles:001_smile: I agree with your choice of his royal SB'ness for reductions. His post of a reduction he did was the best I've seen on arbtalk. Nearly said so at the time but am very afraid of reduction threads:scared1: hates them too, don't see why?

I would just add hama old bean. Don't push the converting everybody thing too hard, there's quite a lot of bright, clever people on here. They just go about things differently, or have come to different conclusions..... read between the lines,,,

I'll let you know when its on. JL refers to the 'scientific straight jacket' in the intro to one of his books. I am afraid that the more you get into conventional learning, the more you will be frustrated. Its not designed for free thinkers like you, its a sausage factory, for people with very little ability to think independantly at all. You have to just grit yer teeth and get the bit of paper, by jumping thru their stupid hoops