instead of spending my weekend on a bike, i ran off to london to enjoy the unusually lovely weather with a few unexpected old friends, putt-putting around bloomsbury, trinket-shopping at the portobello market, visiting the photographer's gallery for a sally mann exhibit, and seeing the globe's production of henry iv part i (or as a friend recently put it, enrico quattro 1.0) during these few lovely (but lazy) days, a friend of mine, the same brilliant one who came up with the above witticism, pointed out that there is no correlation between raising money for a charity and committing oneself to a mission of physical exertion. the act of cycling 1000 miles has nothing to do with restoring the caledonian forest, or curing cancer, or feeding babies in the congo. thus the notion of donating for such a cause is essentially pointless - i cannot 'give' my act to the charity in question; and further, if i could it would serve little purpose. the correlation thus lies not in the act or the cause, but the agent. so, me.

it has become common practice to participate in sporting events to raise money - hardly can one run a marathon without contributing to some 'noble' cause. on one hand, this commonly-held idea demeans both: it implies that a marathon is not worth running for it's own sake, or that philantropic giving must be triggered by an external source. thus it would make more sense if i wanted to cycle from end to end for pleasure/masochism/curiosity/determination, or whatever self-motivated cause, and yet this approach would seem... selfish. which brings me back to the original complaint: how does 'doing it for charity' make it any more worthwhile?

i cannot deny the absurdity of the whole matter yet cannot offer anything by means of logical argument other than stating that there are many things that are absurd which we do and believe. if the act (of cycling 1000 miles, in this case) cannot be justified on its own, perhaps my reasoning behind it can. the underlying theme here is landscape - a Romantic notion if there ever was one. hey, i can't help having just completed my dissertation on the topic. i love when things come full circle, in many ways this is one of them (i like to give things reasons; forge the connections that wouldn't otherwise be there; or uncover the ones that are underlying all things). as much as this is an endeavour in the public sphere, it is also a very personal one: a physical manifestation of an intellectual journey, for one; the determination and drive to complete an entirely independent act, for two; three - the exploration of a landscape that no longer exists and has been altered by man; four - the return to that landscape through the means of a charity; and finally the documentation of the physical process in a literary way (hence this blog). thus the connection between cycling lejog and donating to trees for life is not entirely arbitrary, but rooted in personal experience.

i haven't fully thought this through on a deeper level yet (you didn't think i could just do it, did you? that would take away half the fun!) in the meantime, the past two days have been rainy which gave me excuse not to cycle, which is of course a rubbish excuse since i won't have much choice when it comes down to it. but i did spend 1.5 hours doing circuits today at the OUBC gym. the goal is to move from cycling every second day to cycling every day (after work), with long weekend expeditions to test my endurance. i keep forgetting how soon september is.

jf