Negative Pig Hearts

Looking at Rollerblading

[negativepighearts]

Curiosity did not Kill the Cat

The phrase ‘curiosity killed the cat’ has always bugged me.  Does inquisitiveness really lead to trouble? Or, was the phrase coined by the malevolent forces to suppress the individual? To scare them away from seeking answers?  I can’t be sure.

The original phrase was actually ‘care killed the cat’. Care meaning ‘sorrow’, more than ‘giving’ here. So, maybe, the term was originally used to suppress emotion? Again, I can’t be sure. Curiosity replaced care though because, at that point, the view of cats was evil. [1]

The blockbuster film Wall:E may help us on the subject.

Wall-E is not a cat though?

No, but Wall-E is a curious little robot. His existential quest leads him to break his directive and collect inanimate objects found in the barren land of a pre-existing human civilization. His curiosity is what distinguishes him from other robots and keeps him alive. Eventually, he finds the first plant to have grown on Earth in over 700 years.

What does this mean for us?

Well, Wall-E's curiosity does indeed put him in some tricky situations. And you could be forgiven to believe that curiosity killed the robot, as he does very nearly die. He gets battered, bruised and beaten. Though, at the same time, he hums to music, dances in the stars and finds love. Not to mention touching the lives of everyone he meets. He (symbolically and literally) opens people's eyes.

Wall-E's existential "crisis" is what gives him character. It drives him to understand himself and the world around him, instead of blindly obeying his directive. What if, then, having a range of thoughts, emotions, beliefs and experiences - positive and negative - is exactly what gives us our sense of fulfilment?

Understanding our inner world can help us understand our perspective of the outer world. If we do this, could the seeds planted in barren fields of an abandoned Earth start to sprout?

Curiosity killed the cat? Puh! Curiosity is what makes us live.  

[1] http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/curiosity-killed-the-cat.html

[negativepighearts]

Finding Your Flow

The flow state is often regarded as a spiritual phenomenon. I believe, however, it is accessible to everybody. All of the time.

As a rollerblader, I feel I have regular access to the flow state. Often, with little, or no effort. For a long time, I have taken advantage of this, but I am beginning to see the benefits of this state.

So, what exactly is the flow state?

I would describe the flow state as being present with what we are doing. Completely immersed in the moment. Not really thinking or analysing our actions. There is no awareness of the past or the future. Our mind and body are calm and we are able to carry out things with ease, without necessarily knowing how or why. Some may call it being in 'the zone'.

I imagine, if you are reading this, you have experienced this state too. If you have, congratulations! The flow state is a “peak” state of consciousness.

Something to consider, here, is state-dependant memory.

State-dependant memory means that when you are in a certain state of consciousness you have access to memories, beliefs and thoughts that you don't have access to in other states of consciousness. For example, if you take LSD and experience a series of thoughts you may lose your ability to express or remember these thoughts after the drug has worn off. However, if you take the LSD again you will retrieve your memory and be able to express those thoughts. Some theories suggest that this can lead to addiction (to drugs/alcohol/antidepressants etc.).

In terms of rollerblading (or any practice at all), though, accessing the flow state more often could be positive and beneficial.

Unfortunately, I always seem to just 'find myself' in the flow state. It doesn't necessarily happen every time I skate. If examined, though, the flow state really comes down to having a relaxed and smooth nervous system.

To use an audio analogy the flow state looks like a sine wave. Symmetrical, smooth and fluid. Fluid is an important word.

If I consider what my day-to-day state look likes it would be (horrifically) analogous with a more complex audio wave. Emails, smart phone, facebook, music, new vod, back to emails, quick message on whatsapp, tindr, tindr, happn, tindr again, instagram and maybe some work before I watch a film and off to bed.

This is pretty normal for today. There is no use in assigning blame to anyone or anything for this. These things are useful to us in some ways. However, I propose that it could be helpful to cultivate some practices that transform these complex waves into something more fluid, more regularly. So that we can enter into the flow state more often.

This can take many forms and depends on everybody's individual preferences. Personally, I try to walk near large, calm, bodies of water. Listen to uplifting music. Practice intelligent movement. Drink good tea. Create art and spend time with fond friends. Sounds pretty all right, right?

I feel it is as simple as this. But, why is it even important?

I will close with this. Being in the flow gives you access to memories, thoughts and beliefs that you cannot access when you are not in the flow. What impact could these memories, thoughts and beliefs have on you, or your skating, if accessed more often and more quickly? More enjoyment? More pleasure? More freedom? More intelligence? More fluidity? More dexterity? More openness?

Some things to consider, maybe.  

[negativepighearts]

Who Cares if You Watch

The following is an extract from Milton Babbit's paper, called “Who Cares if You Listen?”, published in 1958. The only difference is that I have replaced the word music with Rollerblades, Rollerblader or Rollerblading. I have also replaced the words concert and performer with fitting terms.

“Who Cares if You Listen?”

This article might have been entitled “The Rollerblader as Specialist” or, alternatively, and perhaps less contentiously, “The Rollerblader as Anachronism.” For I am concerned with stating an attitude towards the indisputable facts of the status and condition of the rollerblader of what we will, for the moment, designate as “serious”, “advanced”, contemporary rollerblading. This rollerblader expends an enormous amount of time and energy – and, usually, considerable money – on the creation of a commodity which has little, no, or negative commodity value. He is, in essence, a “vanity” rollerblader. The general public is largely unaware of and uninterested in his rollerblading. The majority of rollerbladers shun it and resent it. Consequently, the rollerblading is little performed, and then primarily at poorly attended sessions before an audience consisting in the main of fellow 'professionals'. At best, the rollerblading would appear to be for, of, and by specialists.

Towards this condition of rollerblading and societal “isolation”, a variety of attitudes has been expressed, usually with the purpose of assigning blame, often to the rollerblading itself, occasionally to critics or the rollerblader, and very occasionally to the public. But to assign blame is to imply that this isolation is unnecessary and undesirable. It is my contention that, on the contrary, this condition is not only inevitable, but potentially advantageous for the rollerblader and his rollerblading. From my point of view, the rollerblader would do well to consider means of realizing, consolidating, and extending the advantages.

[…].

Babbit goes on to explain what the advantages are.

[negativepighearts]

It’s not Senate’s Fault

In my last Be-Mag article, Popular Rollerblading and Progression, I may have left a few gaps in my argument. I hope to complete some of my ideas in the following.

Firstly, it may have seemed like I blamed or demonised Arlo Eisenberg for standardisation in rollerblading. This is not how I feel. When Eisenberg originally set out his vision it probably was an individual expression and creative. In that, it looked different to other forms of inline skating.

What seemed to of happened after Eisenberg is that a vast number of inline skaters followed in his path. This formed 'aggressive skating'. Rules were, consciously or unconsciously, put in place to separate aggressive skating from other forms. Subsequently, through time, aggressive skating reached a point where standardisation can occur.

So, the point was not to blame Eisenberg or Senate for this. The point was to bring awareness of their influence and how it started. After all, was I sold an idea or did I buy it?

The second point I'd like to clarify is the issue of identity. Fundamentally, all forms of rollerblading are the same thing. Rollerblading. Post Barely Dead, I can assume this is the common way of thinking.

Eisenberg was being an individual and creative when he set out his vision. However, Eisenberg's efforts only dressed rollerblading up differently. Essentially, aggressive skating is a rearranged form of something that already existed. There is a lot more detail I could go into here but I will save this for another post.

The last point is on my comparison between rollerblading and popular music. Admittedly, I think I could have explained this more clearly. Adorno was referring to Jazz music in his theory on popular music. Obviously, Jazz music and rollerblading are separate things. They both have their own history. They manifest in a very different way. However, in Adorno's theory, I was able to see parallels that made sense when applied to the history and culture of rollerblading. That's it. I tried to use cultural theory to illustrate ideas I wanted to share about rollerblading.

So, here is my renewed conclusion. As an independent human being, it may make sense for me to understand how I arrange my beliefs. It may also make sense for me to question black and white, standardised, views of rollerblading.

If stripped back to its simplest mode, rollerblading is just 'wheels under our feet'.

[negativepighearts]

How to be a Successful Rollerblader

In this post I will look at why I decided to write my last Be-Mag piece and how my view of success lead to my suffering. 

The common way I calculate success is by saying things, consciously or unconsciously, like "I am going to do Y so I can get X". If I work out I'll attract this type of girl. If I get tattoos people will think I belong to this type of group. In my last Be-Mag article, Popular Rollerblading and Progression, I thought if I write academically people will consider my view more highly. I have to assume that this is the common way that most people calculate their success. 

This view of calculating success implies that it has permanence and that we actually have ownership of it.

Permanence means that something will last forever. It is going to happen exactly how we imagine. The reality is this does not happen. People do not respond. It is not how we imagined it. This causes anxiety and/or stress/depression. 

Ownership means that we can have control over something. By doing Y I will get X. Thus, X will be mine. The reality is this does not happen. As above, this construct only creates suffering. In the case of my article I was working for status and recognition. But, was status and recognition working for me? No. Then, who really owns who?

A Taoist view of reality is that everything is in constant change. That is to say reality is impermanence. When we try to hold something in a constant and specific way we are fundamentally contradicting reality. If our desire is only to desire we will never be fulfilled. We can say, "I want people to see my skating". Which leads to "I want more people to see my skating". We replace the success we "gain" with the desire for more success. 

Our desire for solidarity and permanence, then, controls our desire.

This is servitude. 

*I would like to thank Brandon Gilbert for introducing me to these ideas.

[negativepighearts]

The Secret to Progressive Rollerblading

This post will be about nothing and offers no guidance or evidence on the subject of progressive rollerblading. 

A good place to start though is to ask how is progress really progress when the spectrum of expression in rollerblading is inherently infinite? 

For example, lets take person x. Person x has recently developed their ability in big wheel skating. Congratulations person x, that's one element out of infinity. But wait, before person x moves on to something different, they realise that big wheel skating has deeper levels of expression to explore even within itself. What person x will come to understand is that the expressions within rollerblading actually look like an infinity tree, which have infinite branches, which have infinite branches, which have infinite branches, which have infinite branches. Or, more easily put, there is no end. 

This is not to say that exploring big wheels is not progression, or that it is not rewarding in some way. The issue is that the temptation to fixate in a particular mode, energy or expression of rollerblading may actually come to define our whole experience of it. As a result, we regurgitate what is already known when, in actuality, every other mode, energy or expression has equal, if not more, opportunity for progression. 

Hopefully, this may give us a perspective. If you're now thinking why the hell did I just read this? Good question, maybe that is something you should think about. 

*Note, I have used big wheels only as an example, it is not an attack on anyone who uses big wheels.

[negativepighearts]

Is sharing a VOD theft?

In this post, I will consider if online sharing of a digital product, such as a VOD, is theft.

To note, sites which host digital products, like Sellfy, allow for multiple downloads of each product. Therefore, I will discuss sharing digital products once the given download limit has exceeded. I will not discuss sharing download links to receive one of the multiple paid copies.

The first obvious argument to discuss is that sharing isn’t theft. If you steal a smart phone from somebody you have taken the original item from them. If you share a digital product with somebody the original is still in its place. This has been forward by a Be-Mag forum messenger, under the guise of “Monday”, saying that “Digital [products] are like tracing paper versions of the original piece”.

This is an appealing place to settle at. If somebody takes a copy of a VOD I own I am at no loss of the original nor am I harmed by its duplication, it has been “traced” rather than stolen.

The counter-argument, however, is that sharing the VOD is stealing a sale from the person who created it. JonasHansson, the creator of SOTA, felt as if he got “stabbed in the back” when a free Dropbox link went public to download SOTA.

Assuming that the people who downloaded SOTA from Dropbox would have paid for it if it had not been accessible for free might be a little naïve. There are three obvious reasons about why this might be so.

The consumer can’t afford to pay for it

The consumer read or heard a bad review and doesn’t want to pay for it

The consumer is cheap and would wait for an opportunity not to pay for it

All three types of consumers, then, would not have paid for the product if the free download version was not accessible. Therefore, in these terms, it’s difficult to quantify if this demographic actually represents a loss in sales.

Hansson has a further response to this which may help us understand if sharing a digital product is theft or not. He attributes “buying the product [as] directly linked to future projects like [SOTA] being made”, and questions “you wanting to give something back when you receive something of value”.

In this sense, the issue of sharing a digital product extends from financial circumstances alone and seems unethical because it may impact the creator’s work in the future. So, whilst we can’t be sure if the free downloads represent a loss in sales they do represent a loss of encouragement. This is an important distinction from theft.

An easy comparison to make is with copyrighted music. If I buy an album and upload it to the internet the music has not been stolen, in that I haven’t removed the music from its origin. But, when the upload's intent is for excessive and free downloading, this doesn't seem acceptable. In fact, this is now punishable through your internet service provider.

So, my considered view is that sharing digital products is not theft but is morally questionable. Sharing a digital product benefits those who freely take it at the cost of those who have put time and resources into it.