Monday, January 2, 2012

Some Say That Bike Racers Aren't An Educated Bunch

Not all bike racers are huge-headed. Just Lang. But huge-brained, that's a different story. I mean Colin graduated College. And so did David and Chris Parrish! And maybe someday Steve will also.

But here I have proof that our minds didn't rot, either from almost a month off of school (me) or from long days working in a hotel and doing extremely weird things to their bikes (Kennett).

Really Kennett? A homemade saddle bag? Those cost like, two dollars. A Bento Box? Please, pull down your compression socks and remove the neoprene wetsuit off your brain and think for a second. Who am I? Where do I belong? Do I want to return to these days?

Remember Kennett. It's always better to starve than to have a Bento Box strapped onto the front of your bike.

Anyways, here is a FB chat conversation that Kennett and myself had. Clearly proving our intelligence.

Ian Crane: I can't tell if it was likeable or not. Now I'm tearing myself apart
Kennett Peterson: What did you say?
Ian Crane: I don't even remember

Kennett Peterson: do you think that things that no one remembers actually happened? there's no way to disprove this. or prove it.

Ian Crane: I've read that three times and I've come to the conclusion that if it can't be remembered that it doesn't exist- but if something doesn't exist that means that in order for it not to exist it must begin to exist
Kennett Peterson: you're saying it had to exist in the first place but then not be remembered?--therefore nullifying its existence?
Ian Crane: I'm saying that the simple act of existing existentially shows that remembrance is directly correlated to the inclusion of existing memories

So there.


  1. All that those pictures prove is that I'm a damn fine looking young man, and all that that FB conversation proved is that we like to use big words that we learned from being college graduates, unlike Steve. There are two squirrels outside in the tree chasing each other for sexy time right now. It may be a LONG time before I get to my ride today.


  2. Conclusion paraphrased: "I'm saying that the simple (as opposed to complex?) performance of being in existence, through the inherent meaning and value of the nature of what it is to remember something, varies consistently and predictably with whether or not you include current memories."

    I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that there is an assumed comma between existing and existentially, but we're still left with a less than complete line of reasoning- actively existing, mediated by the meaningful nature of remembering, correlates with whether or not you include things you currently remember? Circular logic at best.
    Admittedly, you're getting tantalizingly close to (and what I believe you are meaning to convey) rephrasing Descartes "Cogito, ergo sum" into "I remember, therefore it is."
    Very intriguing- yet completely unfounded.

    A preoccupation with fornicating squirrels- now that is an existential introspection of the nature of existence.