Active Lifestyle – Your Ticket to Fitness

plater kadobarals on Sat, 21st Aug 2010 6:24 pm 

No nylons, please: The HinduWorkout schedule, fitness regime, gymming; these are modern creations unheard of till …

monah pindi on Wed, 1st Sep 2010 7:05 pm 

electric weedeaters will do. there r electric ones with speed controls and they do not have to be heavy and uncomfortable.

abettahu goldnesa on Thu, 2nd Sep 2010 8:21 pm 

RT Summer's over. Recommit to regular physical activity in these fun new ways #exercise #fitness

nyeda on Mon, 20th Sep 2010 10:04 pm 

Who knew that Frank the Tank at Harrison University was actually a biopic for Hurd the Turd at Baylor. And yes, he streaked from the HP parking lot. It’s just how he rolls. Gotta respect that.

yashira on Wed, 22nd Sep 2010 10:31 am 

DAGUY, LOL Great story. I would have been applauding you.

gobleich clellwanse on Tue, 28th Sep 2010 6:48 am 

Love at first sight is one of the greatest labor-saving devices the
world has ever seen.

geneckel on Thu, 30th Sep 2010 8:20 am 

Review-Engine.com | Making the Cut: The 30-Day Diet and Fitness Plan for the Strongest, Sexiest You Reviews

cia on Fri, 1st Oct 2010 9:32 am 

hehe… that’s the same way i keep track of my weight. i love wii fit. I just bought the golds gym cardio workout. nice shapeboxing workout. I can’t wait till i can step on that thing and quit hearing it say… that’s obese

aleibes joelle on Wed, 6th Oct 2010 2:40 pm 

Online Movie Booking | Online Movie Tickets | Tickets: You can book any Latest movie from ticketdada.com. Theaters…

danek on Mon, 25th Oct 2010 5:41 am 

@TheCrocoduck

hani senherrigi on Tue, 2nd Nov 2010 3:10 pm 

Fitness Plan | Exercise must be mentally fit and metabolism program remain

petrul dobriesanc on Sat, 6th Aug 2011 12:42 pm 

2:09 It would’ve been funny if you broke in and then said the front door was unlocked the whole time… lol

zeller stuck on Mon, 22nd Aug 2011 2:32 am 

Is there any specific level you should be in fishing before trying this? I Just started at 1 fishing and it’s taking me a while xD

jenneitz on Thu, 8th Sep 2011 1:06 pm 

speculation and extrapolation on my part, mind you, so please take this with a grain of salt. I in no way wish to give anyone the impression that they should abandon their training.

Another point is motivation. If your goal is to run 13.1 miles, then train all you like and head out to the track for ~53 loops and call it quits, you've done it. But if you goal is the Half Marathon Experience, then why potentially spend the final triumphant miles in complete agony and having to finish 'at whatever cost'? Again, this may or may not happen regardless as a result of some unfortunate or unforeseen happenstance, but eliminating as many variables that could detract from the enjoyment seems the wiser choice. If both are the goals, then stop your longest training run at 12.5 or 13 miles; you'll still preserve the distance, and your body will be prepared for the Experience.

Then again, just getting out there in any capacity is a triumph in itself, and probably shouldn't be over-analyzed like this!

Jay]]>

vlanzi on Mon, 19th Sep 2011 12:53 pm 

Paradisa sets were mainly focussed on leisure and vacation, often depicting scenes at the beach. Horseback riding and surfing was also one of the theme's main subjects.

I suspect I thought as a child that a mother's daily life would closely resemble summer vacation. That, after all, was largely what one observed of one's mother's daily life.]]>

prana babalgenty on Sat, 1st Oct 2011 9:37 pm 

class=” ” thanks marie! yeah, snoozing was so quick right after! i know ur having a grand time too w/ ur intense activities =) enjoy!

gazpy header on Sat, 8th Oct 2011 1:17 pm 

& kicks on top #heaven RT class=” ” I want an entire walk in closet full of shoes. Heels on Heels on Heels. #mylifewouldbecomplete

siva on Wed, 26th Oct 2011 6:31 pm 

Instead of going to see a movie in theatres I watch it on tv or on my portable DVD player it’s cheaper and more relaxing

hener on Tue, 8th Nov 2011 3:41 pm 

posted by mavptravel | Hospitality, Recreation, Travel and Tourism Offered | P13455.00 | 0 post | 0 view
4 Days / 3 Nights Free & Easy Hong Kong Promo Package (with airfare) Via Hong Kong Express Airline Tour Code: MAVPHK-4D-UO June 1-30, 2011 ADDITIONAL DISCOUNT FOR EARLY BOOKINGS!!! Hotel Option 1: Dorsett Far East Hotel or similar class Rate per…
[ 4 days/ 3 nights Hong Kong Promo Package (with airfare) ]

salah cooki on Wed, 9th Nov 2011 2:32 pm 

class=” ” This is what I did today – (5 mins brisk walking; 90 secs running; 3 mins walking) – 4 reps; 5 mins easy walking

sher on Fri, 25th Nov 2011 1:05 pm 

Buy Phentermine Alternative Without Any Doctor’s Prescription – Are you searching for a phentermine alternative, you must be aware of the negative side effects of Phentermine diet pills that include high blood pressure, heart rate, insomnia, restlessness, hypertension,…

stei on Thu, 15th Dec 2011 6:59 pm 

Genuinely do wonder if my weight loss has made me change my behaviour as I am sure I get more weird occurrences than ever!

kirchata on Sat, 31st Dec 2011 9:44 pm 

Heart-rate down, settled into seat, shout out to parking attendant for leaving me space in media lot. Now, who Tigers playing?#justgothere

biastran tate on Tue, 10th Jan 2012 5:14 pm 

Now let me share with you my thoughts about the main questions you raised

I think you do not address any of the points or questions I meant to raise! Obviously I was very unclear!

I’ll address the two parts of your reply in order.

1.

By “the lack of clear definitions of key terms and the absence of linear arguments …[is] a requirement of the kung fu orientation,” I was not downplaying the significance of clarity and linear arguments, but rather that that they have limitations.

I took that statement to mean simply that the lack of clear definitions of key terms and the absence of linear arguments is a requirement of the kung fu orientation. You had said that these absences are a feature of classic Chinese texts. Your claim that the gongfu orientation requires these absences was the key point in your argument that those absences reflect a strength of the Chinese tradition. Have I misunderstood? (In response I tried to offer reasons to think such absences from a tradition or from its main texts are not a requirement of the kung fu orientation, but amount to a grave weakness, and are a sign of other grave weakness. I meant to suggest that they are a sign of grave weakness in the tradition’s kung fu project.)

After the above statement, you argue (in ways I strongly disagree with) that
(1) clear definitions and linear arguments do not have limitless value,
(2) the pursuit of truth should not be allowed to eclipse all other aims, and
(3) we shouldn’t always have our minds on clear definitions of terms and linear arguments.
I am not sure what I or others could have said to suggest that we needed correcting on any of these points.

2.

The rest of your reply argues for the claim that deliberative inquiry is more individualistic than the instructional tradition.

As for whether “deliberative inquiry” (as you call it) is more communal and the instructional tradition is more individualistic, I think one can argue exactly the opposite way.

I’m not sure what it is that I am supposed to have called “deliberative inquiry.” I didn’t use the phrase. I’m happy to use it here (assuming that it means inquiry as part of deliberation, rather than merely slow and careful inquiry).

I didn’t mean to propose that deliberative inquiry is more communal, less individualistic, than the instructional tradition. The comparison doesn’t make much sense to me, for obviously deliberative inquiry can be purely individual or deeply communal. But I would like address here your argument for the opposite judgment of comparative degree: that deliberative inquiry is more individualistic than the instructional tradition.

You argue by comparing a successful or excellent instructional tradition to some possible deliberative inquiry. That is: you propose that (a) deliberative inquiry can occur without collaboration, and (b) a wise instructional tradition depends on community in the sense that it takes generations to develop. (I think that’s a very minimal sense.) Obviously, (a) and (b) together have no implications about the comparison you promised to argue for.

You don’t argue for (b); but you do argue for (a), as follows:

Aristotle’s view that contemplation is the most “self-sufficient” activity and Kant’s famous article on “What is Enlightenment” (which practically denies the value of tradition) both seem to entail that deliberative inquiry does not essentially depend on community (though it can benefit from communal collaboration),

I think it’s uncontroversial that, say, Robinson Crusoe can investigate whether a certain fruit is poisonous, toward deciding whether to eat it; in that sense it is uncontroversial that deliberative inquiry does not essentially depend on community. (Some Western philosophers have argued that thought essentially depends on language and that language essentially depends on community. I didn’t mean to be raising any such subtle issues.)

The premise of your argument is the philosophical authority of Aristotle and Kant. But surely you reject that premise? I was not appealing to their authority, so I think you are not arguing dialectically in that way. I do not understand your purpose in this argument.

In my view, Kant’s essay on Enlightenment is not concerned with the uncontroversial point that deliberative inquiry does not essentially depend on community. Rather I think he is concerned with a kind of “cowardice” or “immaturity” that consists in thinking very little, and instead mainly just adopting one’s views from others. He says it is caused mainly by a mistake in community organization: specifically, by over-authoritarian government; and that authoritarian government thus stands in the way of various kinds of collective progress in understanding that comes when we share our ideas with others. (In that essay Kant speaks of a “public” becoming enlightened, and of an “age” increasing “its” knowledge and enlightenment; and he says the “essential destiny” of human nature is such collective progress. I see nothing in the essay that “practically denies the value of tradition,” unless by “tradition” you just mean blind followership.)

In praising collaboration on deliberation and inquiry, of course I was not saying that individuals should not think much.

Aristotle notoriously seems to contradict himself about contemplation versus the political life, for humans, and the extent to which self-sufficient contemplation is even possible for human beings; and scholars disagree about how to resolve the contradictions. (His term “self-sufficient,” applied to activity, does not in general imply being doable by an individual alone. “What we count as self-sufficient is not what suffices for a solitary person by himself, living an isolated life, but what suffices also for parents, children, wife, and in general, for friends and fellow-citizens, since a human being is naturally a political [animal]” – EN i.7.§40, Irwin’s translation.)

What the scholars do tend to agree on, I think, is that the “contemplation” Aristotle is talking about is not a kind of deliberation, and not a kind of inquiry.

Aristotle does comment on deliberative inquiry. Regarding deliberative inquiry toward state decisions, he says, for example,

“The view that the multitude rather than the few best people should be in authority would seem to be held, and while it involves a problem, it perhaps also involves some truth. For the many, who are not as individuals excellent men, nevertheless can, when they have come together, be better than the few best people, not individually but collectively, just as feasts to which many contribute are better than feasts provided at one person’s expense. For being many, each of them can have some part of virtue and practical wisdom, and when they come together, the multitude is just like a single human being, with many feet, hands, and senses, and so too for their character traits and wisdom. That is why the many are better judges of works of music and and of the poets. For one of them judges one part, and another another, and all of them the whole thing.” (Pol. III.11)]]>

knapaky vio on Thu, 12th Jan 2012 8:45 am 

Pelvis is shattered! After reformer & matwork pilates, spinning, and brisk walking whilst pushing heavy a double buggy. Too much too soon.

jeangander on Wed, 8th Feb 2012 2:48 pm 

Goodnight twitter. Pray for me & my shortness of breath before you go to sleep. Sweet dreams (:

son kikuko on Wed, 8th Feb 2012 5:46 pm 

Santa Ana Bogumil: pic
Hey, I am a 20 year single white female looking for an older single, white, professional male ages 29-38 years old. I am looking for something fun and discreet. Must be in shape and care about your health. And please have hair, sorry that sounds mean but I can’t do no hair. Before responding please make sure you are okay with my age NOT LOOKING FOR FWB just something to start off slow and ease into maybe something more? Please also be a gentlman, me coming over to your place for a first date does not qualify as a date. I am looking for something ongoing. Just someone who can be my escape from the stresses of life that is fun and understanding. Please e-mail me with a photo and stress free in the subject line. P.S. By professional I mean you work an office type job and preferably live alone.
Join chirrup.com to connect with friends, share photos and create your own profile.

vis on Sat, 10th Mar 2012 1:23 pm 

>>

ewakuo on Fri, 23rd Mar 2012 9:30 pm 

Now let me share with you my thoughts about the main questions you raised

I think you do not address any of the points or questions I meant to raise! Obviously I was very unclear!

I’ll address the two parts of your reply in order.

1.

By “the lack of clear definitions of key terms and the absence of linear arguments …[is] a requirement of the kung fu orientation,” I was not downplaying the significance of clarity and linear arguments, but rather that that they have limitations.

I took that statement to mean simply that the lack of clear definitions of key terms and the absence of linear arguments is a requirement of the kung fu orientation. You had said that these absences are a feature of classic Chinese texts. Your claim that the gongfu orientation requires these absences was the key point in your argument that those absences reflect a strength of the Chinese tradition. Have I misunderstood? (In response I tried to offer reasons to think such absences from a tradition or from its main texts are not a requirement of the kung fu orientation, but amount to a grave weakness, and are a sign of other grave weakness. I meant to suggest that they are a sign of grave weakness in the tradition’s kung fu project.)

After the above statement, you argue (in ways I strongly disagree with) that
(1) clear definitions and linear arguments do not have limitless value,
(2) the pursuit of truth should not be allowed to eclipse all other aims, and
(3) we shouldn’t always have our minds on clear definitions of terms and linear arguments.
I am not sure what I or others could have said to suggest that we needed correcting on any of these points.

2.

The rest of your reply argues for the claim that deliberative inquiry is more individualistic than the instructional tradition.

As for whether “deliberative inquiry” (as you call it) is more communal and the instructional tradition is more individualistic, I think one can argue exactly the opposite way.

I’m not sure what it is that I am supposed to have called “deliberative inquiry.” I didn’t use the phrase. I’m happy to use it here (assuming that it means inquiry as part of deliberation, rather than merely slow and careful inquiry).

I didn’t mean to propose that deliberative inquiry is more communal, less individualistic, than the instructional tradition. The comparison doesn’t make much sense to me, for obviously deliberative inquiry can be purely individual or deeply communal. But I would like address here your argument for the opposite judgment of comparative degree: that deliberative inquiry is more individualistic than the instructional tradition.

You argue by comparing a successful or excellent instructional tradition to some possible deliberative inquiry. That is: you propose that (a) deliberative inquiry can occur without collaboration, and (b) a wise instructional tradition depends on community in the sense that it takes generations to develop. (I think that’s a very minimal sense.) Obviously, (a) and (b) together have no implications about the comparison you promised to argue for.

You don’t argue for (b); but you do argue for (a), as follows:

Aristotle’s view that contemplation is the most “self-sufficient” activity and Kant’s famous article on “What is Enlightenment” (which practically denies the value of tradition) both seem to entail that deliberative inquiry does not essentially depend on community (though it can benefit from communal collaboration),

I think it’s uncontroversial that, say, Robinson Crusoe can investigate whether a certain fruit is poisonous, toward deciding whether to eat it; in that sense it is uncontroversial that deliberative inquiry does not essentially depend on community. (Some Western philosophers have argued that thought essentially depends on language and that language essentially depends on community. I didn’t mean to be raising any such subtle issues.)

The premise of your argument is the philosophical authority of Aristotle and Kant. But surely you reject that premise? I was not appealing to their authority, so I think you are not arguing dialectically in that way. I do not understand your purpose in this argument.

In my view, Kant’s essay on Enlightenment is not concerned with the uncontroversial point that deliberative inquiry does not essentially depend on community. Rather I think he is concerned with a kind of “cowardice” or “immaturity” that consists in thinking very little, and instead mainly just adopting one’s views from others. He says it is caused mainly by a mistake in community organization: specifically, by over-authoritarian government; and that authoritarian government thus stands in the way of various kinds of collective progress in understanding that comes when we share our ideas with others. (In that essay Kant speaks of a “public” becoming enlightened, and of an “age” increasing “its” knowledge and enlightenment; and he says the “essential destiny” of human nature is such collective progress. I see nothing in the essay that “practically denies the value of tradition,” unless by “tradition” you just mean blind followership.)

In praising collaboration on deliberation and inquiry, of course I was not saying that individuals should not think much.

Aristotle notoriously seems to contradict himself about contemplation versus the political life, for humans, and the extent to which self-sufficient contemplation is even possible for human beings; and scholars disagree about how to resolve the contradictions. (His term “self-sufficient,” applied to activity, does not in general imply being doable by an individual alone. “What we count as self-sufficient is not what suffices for a solitary person by himself, living an isolated life, but what suffices also for parents, children, wife, and in general, for friends and fellow-citizens, since a human being is naturally a political [animal]” – EN i.7.§40, Irwin’s translation.)

What the scholars do tend to agree on, I think, is that the “contemplation” Aristotle is talking about is not a kind of deliberation, and not a kind of inquiry.

Aristotle does comment on deliberative inquiry. Regarding deliberative inquiry toward state decisions, he says, for example,

“The view that the multitude rather than the few best people should be in authority would seem to be held, and while it involves a problem, it perhaps also involves some truth. For the many, who are not as individuals excellent men, nevertheless can, when they have come together, be better than the few best people, not individually but collectively, just as feasts to which many contribute are better than feasts provided at one person’s expense. For being many, each of them can have some part of virtue and practical wisdom, and when they come together, the multitude is just like a single human being, with many feet, hands, and senses, and so too for their character traits and wisdom. That is why the many are better judges of works of music and and of the poets. For one of them judges one part, and another another, and all of them the whole thing.” (Pol. III.11)]]>

mcker on Tue, 3rd Apr 2012 11:55 pm 

UNRAR 3.80 freeware Copyright (c) 1993-2008 Alexander RoshalExtracting from the united states of america.rarCreating the united states of america OKExtracting the united states of america/01 – the american metaphysical circus.mp3 OK Extracting the united states of america/02 – hard coming love.mp3 OK Extracting the united states of america/03 – cloud song.mp3 OK Extracting the united states of america/04 – the garden of earthly delights.mp3 OK Extracting the united states of america/05 – i won't leave my wooden wife for you, sugar.mp3 OK Extracting the united states of america/06 – where is yesterday.mp3 OK Extracting the united states of america/07 – coming down.mp3 OK Extracting the united states of america/08 – love song for the dead che.mp3 77%the united states of america/08 – love song for the dead che.mp3 – CRC failedExtracting the united states of america/09 – stranded in time.mp3 OK Extracting the united states of america/10 – the american way of love.mp3 OK Total errors: 1]]>

osburren on Tue, 10th Apr 2012 9:59 am 

Nordic Walking Made Easy

mclawski on Sun, 6th May 2012 6:43 am 

must be reducible to mathematical equation)? What do we then make of heroes and heroism? Where is individualism in all this?

He said… possibly introducing yet another tangent.:)]]>

dundesemat on Wed, 9th May 2012 3:43 am 

speculation and extrapolation on my part, mind you, so please take this with a grain of salt. I in no way wish to give anyone the impression that they should abandon their training.

Another point is motivation. If your goal is to run 13.1 miles, then train all you like and head out to the track for ~53 loops and call it quits, you've done it. But if you goal is the Half Marathon Experience, then why potentially spend the final triumphant miles in complete agony and having to finish 'at whatever cost'? Again, this may or may not happen regardless as a result of some unfortunate or unforeseen happenstance, but eliminating as many variables that could detract from the enjoyment seems the wiser choice. If both are the goals, then stop your longest training run at 12.5 or 13 miles; you'll still preserve the distance, and your body will be prepared for the Experience.

Then again, just getting out there in any capacity is a triumph in itself, and probably shouldn't be over-analyzed like this!

Jay]]>