[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Why Hike?? -- [Was: Re: [at-l] Watches on the Trail? And Nimblewill Nomad...

In a message dated 8/10/2005 6:37:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
daveh@psknet.com writes:
*
*
*
Some of the "doer's" are distant related, or maybe goal focused.  Some are 
purity driven.  


            ***     How could anyone criticize this eloquent description of 
the Trail scene? Most of it is right and written in the spirit of the Trail. 
However, cloaked inside this nicely written piece there seems to be an attempt 
to single out "purity" as one form of the multiple approaches - and it is. 
However, the way I read it seems to sort of place this general HYOH Trail norm in 
front of the eccentricity of "purity" and there we go. In fact, I think the 
whole post was obviously written as an indirect attempt to denigrate more formal 
(or pure) approaches to the Trail - and I'm not afraid to point it out.    
                         





For me the trail is less doing and more being.  It is a lot about retreat and 
recreation (i.e., re-creation -- getting in touch with something missing from 
urban/modern life).


            ***    Like disconnectedness and wildness. (And maybe even 
respect for formal purposes to boot) 


So, for my 2c, I suggest that the first thing one should do is to learn what 
'Hike your own hike' really means for you.  Don't look to others to confirm 
that for you and don't insist that others march to the same drum that you do. 



           ***    I'd never attack Dave. I respect him and his 
Trail-involvement. But it's obvious this thread evolved from Rafe thinking of an excuse to 
get around the cell phone issue. He brought up watches as a diversion from what 
we were discussing. That diversion is still in your post title. If we were 
honest we would admit that is correct. So what we are really getting to is a 
morphing of the cell phone/wilderness ethic discussion into a hiker-oriented HYOH 
discussion. But the post was definitely inspired and directly related to the 
cell phone issue. What I'm doing here is establishing the usual psychological 
mechanisms many Trail members use to convert the cell phone issue into another 
form where it can be defeated without ever addressing it.  




The trail itself  and the broader AT community, like  most large human 
endeavors, have lots of faces, cliques, etc.  [BTW, as we all know that is 
true of this site, also.]  To some degree hiking your own hike tends to get 
some of us emotional about our hike and how we feel about certain issues --  
they become our hike and our issues.  Attack them [my hike or my issues or 
even my friends] and you attack me.  In many ways, we are like a big 
amily  -- in that we may fight among ourselves, but let something. or 
somebody,  threaten us from the outside....  Well - ever seen someone try to 
step between two brothers that were fighting each other?


            ***    The problem with this is it is exactly true. However, the 
most hostile and emotional members appear to be ones who try to suppress 
serious, organized Trail talk. Unfortunately they use vague terms like those in 
this post to justify it. The problem with this post is it only deals in hikers 
and HYOH conflicts. So, yet again, in relation to the cell phone issue, it is 
"talking about talking about" the issue instead of directly discussing the 
facts. Like every single pro-cell phone reply, it never once addresses anything 
specific about the formal Trail or its purpose. Really, I hate seeing that coming 
from well-known Trail-insiders because it gives it credibility when it's 
effect is further marginalizing Trail advocacy. I must point out that, yet again, 
this view comes from someone who carries a cell phone on the AT.

               You HYOH people really need to learn to involve specific Trail 
ideas and the formal Trail itself as it is known from its literature, 
history, and better thinkers. Why I don't like this post is because it very subtly 
poses advocates as "outsiders" with the "family" fighting back. That is just 
popular hiker terminology, it really doesn't mean that much compared to the 
conceptual, institutional Trail and it's purpose. I really wish Trail members would 
take up the AT on a more productive and participatory level. Frankly, I feel 
stupid saying "HYOH" and feel it detours people away from this level. 




Try not to go there.  Don't try to hike the Trail on someone else's terms or 
expect them to hike on yours.  And neither expect everyone in this, or any, 
family to always agree with you, nor expect the family to be completely 
dysfunction-free.


               ***    This is exactly why I criticize this post. In the end 
it's just another post giving the shove to hiker awareness of the wilderness 
ethic without ever discussing it directly. In fact I find it insidiously 
destructive to the AT and its purpose. What you are doing is promoting a norm of 
Trail disconcern that is entirely inappropriate to the Trail's mission. It's 
result will be producing a league of HYOH leprechauns whose sense of the Trail is 
to see intelligent Trail awareness as a threat - or outside of the "family". 
Hikers should be taught to work towards the Trail's purpose not against it. HYOH 
is NOT the Trail's purpose.   

                I say that in sincere respect to Dave and his 
way-above-and-beyond Trail involvement...  



Chainsaw



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sloetoe" <sloetoe@yahoo.com>
To: <at-l@backcountry.net>; <indianaatclub@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 3:18 PM
Subject: [at-l] Watches on the Trail? And Nimblewill Nomad's Question


>>
SNIP
"Why do
[we] hike?" with "I have no idea."
SNIP
<