[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] RnR's *worthwhile* cell phone questions
Not once do I refer to it as being positive or negative other than to say that whether it is positive or negative is up to you. All I spoke about is that it will affect your hike. IT WILL! Just as EVERYTHING does. Anything you take on your hike will affect your hike. Good shoes will make it more comfortable. Bad ones will make it less comfortable. That is not to say that good shoes will make it better. You might be into pain in which case you might like the feeling and enjoy the hike even more in bad shoes. Affecting your hike is not prefaced with the word "positively" or "negatively." As far as a deeper wilderness experience is concerned... deeper does not necessarily mean more emotional. It can also mean more removed. A man with a cell phone is less removed than a man without a cell phone.
Jim Bullard <jbullar1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
Well then if I misinterpreted what you said I am sorry but you seemed to be saying that one *shouldn't* carry a cell phone to make folks back home feel better about your hike. You seemed to making all sorts of other arguments to the effect that carrying one was a negative influence. I've reread your post and frankly it still reads that way to me but if that's not what you were saying, well, I'll take your word for it.
As for why take it, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I *sometimes* carry a cell phone so that loved ones will feel more comfortable about my being "out there" by myself. It may sound silly but I *feel* their concern and knowing that I am causing them concern *does* interfere with my hike. Carrying a cell phone occasionally OTOH does not interfere with my hike. On that basis I suppose I could argue that taking it *does* have a bearing on my hike. YMMV
At 02:56 PM 8/5/2005 -0700, Robert wrote:
Wow. You couldn't have missed the point of my post more. And you're so wrong about your conclusions too. I never implied that "lack of consideration for the feelings of loved ones is important to feeling disconnected," nor do I see how you could have made that assumption. The only accurate statement about me in your whole post is that you assumed... and you assumed a lot... and you assumed incorrectly. As for the rest of your post, what is truly ironic is that my post that you appear to slam is basically your post written another way. I will say one thing... if you think these things don't affect your hike... then why take them? I'll ask again for the reading impaired to make sure that it gets through this time. WHY TAKE SOMETHING WITH YOU THAT HAS NO BEARING ON YOUR HIKE? I can't wait to see the answers to this one.
Jim Bullard <jbullar1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
Speak for yourself. When you say it "affects YOUR hike" you assume that
what is true for you is true for everyone. You also imply that lack of
consideration for the feelings of loved ones is important to feeling
disconnected. If you said that being inconsiderate of other hikers in the
way you use a CF, I'd be right there with you. It is ironic that you defend
being inconsiderate to loved ones but (I assume) would not defend
inconsiderate behavior toward strangers who happened to be in close
proximity. This argument ends up saying that virtually every piece of gear
we carry is a barrier between us and a deep wilderness experience.
That all depends on your definition of wilderness and the definition of a
deep wilderness experience. As Shane has pointed out wilderness is a human
concept. It's definition varies according to the socie! ty and even the
individual. At one time in England an unkept area of a garden was referred
to as a wilderness. In colonial America it was something to be feared and
conquered. Shane says he goes out not to confront 'wilderness' but to be a
natural human in nature. I tend toward the same idea though I use different
words because to me 'wilderness' implies that humans don't belong there. I
see myself as a natural creature, as much a part of the natural world as
any other animal or as it says in the Desiderata, I am "a child of the
universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you (I) have a right to be
here."
As for an admission that I don't *need* it, the truth is I don't *need*
anything with me to go to the woods. I could drink from streams and pools.
I could eat berries and roots. I could kill a deer and wrap myself in the
hide. I could choose to freeze or starve to death. There's a genuine
'wilderness' experience for y! ou that happens to our fellow creatures on a
daily basis. Or I could turn around and go home before I was in danger of
that. So which is of more value? Which allows for greater depth of
experience? Carrying those things that allow one to feel sufficiently safe
to remain in the natural world or deliberately putting one's self at risk
so that there is temptation to go home?
The implication of the statement that sparked this debate was that the
presence of a CF not only 'affected' the hike but did so in a negative way,
preventing the hiker from achieving a 'quality' experience. The problem I
have with that notion is the assumptions that underlie it:
* That everyone views the natural world in terms of 'wilderness'
* That everyone carries a CF for similar reasons and regards it as a
crutch
* That a CF, to a greater extent than say a tent or sleeping bag, will
insulate the hiker from nature, thus its mere presence is a bad thing relative to having 'a wilderness experience'.
My point has been to challenge those assumptions which I regard as untrue.
At 10:05 PM 8/4/2005 -0700, Robert wrote:
>I do believe this changes the hike experience. There is a solitude that is
>not completely captured if you hike with a cell phone. It isn't enough to
>say, "well, I don't let it affect my hike." The fact is that in the
>recesses of your mind, you know the phone is there. You brought it for a
>reason. That reason has something to do with your peace of mind. Even if
>you brought it for what you consider someone else's peace of mind
>(spouse/parents/children/boss) you're mind is also put at ease by knowing
>that they aren't worrying about you, that they aren't going to rip your
>head off for not having it, or because they may call you at a low point
>and lift your spirits. There certainly is something that happens when you
>have to fend for yourself. If you are on your own and far enough away from
>civilization, you may have to make some decisions by yourself. For
>instance, if you were thinking about leaving the trail, alone you might
>give up. Your hike over, you would pack out of the wild
> erness
> and go home. However, with a cell phone inside your pack, you might call
> someone for some words of encouragement and end up staying on the trail.
> Now let's say you didn't have the cell phone, but mustered the courage to
> stay on the trail on your own. I think that would be a bit more rewarding
> (emphasis on I THINK). Now, let's say that you mustered the courage
> without calling home, but you had the phone. The phone would always be
> there saying, "hey if you ever need me, I'm right here," and that would
> most likely affect your hike. Mind you, this is all in your head and the
> degree to which it would affect you wo! uld be different than anyone else,
> but to say it wouldn't affect you at all I believe is false. There is a
> reason why phones are taken away from people when they are being taught
> survival skills and the like. There is a lot you won't learn if you have
> a life-line. Part of what you won't learn is what it's like to be without
> a life-line. To say that your hike isn't affect
> ed by it
> is to admit that you don't need it, so why carry it? If your answer is
> anything like, "to make it easier," "to call for pick up at a trail
> head," "to call my *insert title here*, "to use in case of emergency," by
> design you have affected your hike. Now whether you think this is
> positive or negative is another thing. The fact is that cells, radios,
> stoves, and a host of other things have the effect of denying you a more
> deep wilderness experience. This does not mean that you won't love it. In !
> fact some people hate deep wilderness experiences. I don't see Paris
> Hilton enjoying even a simple hike unless it was down 5th Avenue to get
> to Saks, and even then she'd probably be complaining if she had to walk.
> Creature comforts give you some semblance of home. It's why we take them
> with us. Whether it's a book to read, a radio to listen to, a cool mini
> stove to make hot meals, even a spork for those tricky noodle soups, it's
> going to affect your hike.
_______________________________________________
at-l mailing list
at-l@backcountry.net
http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com