[at-l] Creation of the AT [Offensive]

[saunterer@jimbullard.org (saunterer@jimbullard.org)]

At 12:35 AM 1/11/02 -0500, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 1/10/02 8:36:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>saunterer@jimbullard.org writes:
>
> > Hmmm... If it's a damnable offense to say McKay wasn't a god then... ?
> >
>     *** You left out the part where I asked you to try and relate some of 
> the
>deeper aspects I described in MacKaye's natural preservation philosophy in
>relation to the AT. It's called *metaphor*, Sauntee, and its definition is
>available in the dictionary. Somehow this has been reduced to MacKaye's
>supernatural status. I'm left with the feeling that some may not completely
>understand him. At least Chainsaw sees a positive side to knowing it...
"[Offensive]"?  You must be more easily offended than I, RnR.  You mistake 
my perspective on McKay as disrespect.  Look back at the post.  I never 
said I didn't respect the man or his ideas.  The key to my perspective was 
simply that he was a man, not a god and unlike GOD he was not the possessor 
of ultimate truth so.  You took offense at how I see him and then... well, 
I confess to subsequently having a bit of fun with your 'hot buttons'.

You have spent considerable time studying McKay's ideas and are 
*convinced*that you understand his true intent and further seem to feel 
that your mission is to persue the realization of your interpretation of 
his intent.  You and I had a couple of off list exchanges some time back 
about that topic which convinced me that you don't understand McKay as well 
as you think you do, but that's another story.  Many great men throughout 
history have said things that were/are hotly debated by others after they 
died and were no longer around to mediate the disputes with further 
explanation.  Even in the works of a very articulate person who is says 
very simple things, meanings can be mistaken.  One look at the factionalism 
in major religions shows that.  There is a line in one of my favorite Cat 
Stevens songs that goes "There are no words that I can use because the 
meanings are left for you to choose".

You have your understanding of McKay, I have mine.  In reality none of us 
can ever truly know the man.  Hell, I live with my wife and while I know 
her mind in general, I recognize that I don't know with certainty how she 
will feel about this or that fine point of anything.  She constantly 
surprises me.  If you truly believe you truly know McKay's heart-of-heart 
beliefs and intent regarding the AT after merely reading his writings , I 
submit that you are flattering yourself.

McKay (with the major assistance of others) left us the AT as a legacy and 
it is a great thing, worthy of our protection and preservation for future 
generations.  But McKay is dead and the AT is now ours.  While we should be 
inspired by his idea to enjoy and preserve the AT, spending our time trying 
to decipher what he 'really' intended to trail to be that it never was 
is... well, a lot of intellectual wheel spinning.  You have admitted that 
the conditions of realizing what you advocate will never happen so why are 
you unwilling to grant me my view of MaKay without chastising me and 
insisting that I don't know his will as truly as you do?

In short why should we not enjoy our chat around the virtual campfire 
(interrupted by occasionally firing off a letter to our legislators or 
whomever in support of the trail, contributing our time to trail work or 
even taking a hike) rather than pondering the esoteric meaning of McKay's 
writings?  Why should we not have a sense of humor about the whole business 
too?  So please, grab a marshmallow and while you are toasting it , lean 
back, then picture in your mind a semi-nude McKay and Avery pointing 
fingers at one another (and perhaps glowering darkly at each other) against 
the background of an Appalachian sky.  It might even make you smile. :)

sAunTerer