Wings of Steel

You guys know who they are, and let them get away with that crap? F*#king unbelievable.

whoever threw full cans of beer at them from above need a major blanket party some night. That's just unbelievable that a climber would do that. They need a knuckle sandwich in the worst way.

You guys know who they are, and let them get away with that crap? F*#king unbelievable.

I'm sorry, Gary. You are apparently new to the climbing community. You would not think as you do if you had been around very long.

I've been around quite awhile, and I have achieved enlightenment, so let me give you the heads up here. Who knows? It might just save you a lot of anguish yourself. See, "climbing" works like this....

Climbers, by that I mean REAL, hard-man climbers... they care about ETHICS! Now, you need to understand what "ethics" means, because your comments clearly indicate that you are confused on this most fundamental point. And if you try to derive the meaning of "ethics" from what you see on the taco stand, you can get really confused. So, let me help you. ETHICS works like this....

"Ethics" refers to whatever stylistic game a particular "hard man" plays in order to maximize a particular code of stylistic values. I know. I know. It's easy to conflate "style" and "ethics," as I'm seemingly slipping into doing in this explanation. But they are REALLY very different things. And I will CAREFULLY explain everything as we go along. You see, by contrast with "ethics," STYLE works like this....

"Style" concerns whatever limits a particular climber places on him/herself in order to MAKE a climb as hard as possible without resorting to "artificial difficulty." Now that might be confusing, because you might be inclined to say that ALL climbing is "artificial difficulty" insofar as there are always easier ways to make vertical progress than "climbing," and it can get even more confusing when we talk about AID climbing, which is really the subject of this thread. So, let's get clear about that. AID CLIMBING works like this....

"Aid climbing" is the game a "climber" plays when he/she lacks the strength/skill or other physical/mental prowess necessary to "climb" (as opposed to hiking or constructing a large ladder) a section of rock that he/she wants to get up by SOME means other than hiking to the top or constructing a large ladder.

Now confusion can immediately arise even here, because one "climbs" a ladder. But if one constructs a large ladder attached to a given piece of rock, one is not really "climbing" the ROCK; one is instead climbing the LADDER. So, that could not properly be called "rock climbing," even if one did consider it a sort of "aid climbing." That would be "ladder climbing," if one wanted to call it properly "climbing" at all.

One might initially think that the foregoing explanation would offer some clarity, except for the fact that "aid climbing" on "rock" is also not really on rock. This is because "aid climbers" are really climbing on flexible ladders attached to gear that is attached TO the rock. So, one might think that just attaching a large wooden ladder to the rock and "aid climbing" that would be exactly the same thing as "aid climbing" flexible ladders attached to gear attached to the rock, but one would be wrong! They are two VERY different things.

You see, climbing flexible ladders attached to gear that is attached to the rock requires "skill" that is not required to climb a wooden ladder that is attached to the rock. I myself have experienced some consternation in trying to distinguish the difference here, as it has sometimes seemed to me that it could take a good deal of skill to construct a large wooden ladder and attach it to the rock and then climb that. But then I remember that I'm mistaken, and I feel solid again.

But I digress. Skill is not the only thing that makes "aid climbing" great. There is also DANGER. You see, danger is what really MAKES a hard man. When a hard man stands on his flexible ladder attached to gear attached to the rock, he can fall. Falling is often dangerous, especially if the rock is less than vertical, although, strangely, "aid climbers" do not favor less than vertical rock. In fact, many "aid climbers" denigrate climbs on less than vertical rock, calling them "slabs," which clearly means to REAL "aid climbers" that such "climbing" is not to be taken seriously.

You might think it odd that "aid climbers" valuing danger would seek out slabs, but this is not the case. REAL hard-man "aid climbers" instead seek out very overhanging rock, and it is considered very bold to negotiate one's way up very overhanging rock. Real hard-man "aid climbers" love to magnify the "danger" of long falls into space, and, in fact, "hard aid climbs" are considered such almost entirely in virtue of the "danger" of such long falls.

I myself thought this odd, until I realized a crucial point that I will now pass on to you. Brace yourself to receive wisdom.

REAL "aid climbers" denigrate "slabs" because "climbing" up flexible ladders attached to gear that is attached to a "slab" is far too much like "climbing" a wooden ladder attached to gear attached to a slab. There is something about the angle. I'm not yet sure about the subtleties here, but I am sure that I'm onto what the issue is. So, just keep this point fixed in your mind: whatever you do, you want to avoid anything that resembles "climbing" a wooden ladder that is attached to gear that is attached to the rock. THAT, my friend, would really define "artificial difficulty." So, now you are finally starting to get your own mind around what is really a quite subtle point.

Now, back to "danger," which, coupled with "skill" is the defining point of REAL "aid climbing."

Typically, a "climber" ascending a wooden ladder is moving from secure rung to secure rung, so unless the entire ladder becomes detached from its connections to the rock, the "climber" is unlikely to fall. So, REAL "aid climbing" has an element of "danger" that "climbing" a wooden ladder does not.

Furthermore, lest confusion arise again, it bears clarifying that it would be "artificial difficulty" to, say, saw partway through the rungs of the wooden ladder or intentionally select precarious attachments of the wooden ladder to the rock in order to make the wooden ladder "climb" more "sporty." ALL "aid climbers" can clearly see how NO wooden ladder could be "real climbing," regardless of how artificially precarious one might make their "ascent."

Sometimes I wonder myself about the distinction, but I AM a "real climber," and so I remind myself that I'm just confused in that moment, and then I feel solid again.

Now, although it seems that we've drifted far afield, it is actually quite important that you have all this background and understand the important distinctions, so that we can bring the important points home. You see, you MUST understand what makes "aid climbing" REAL, so that you can understand "style" and its distinction from "ethics."

Remember that "style" concerned the limits a "climber" places on his/herself in order to make an ascent "dangerous" and "skillful" without resorting to any "artificial difficulty." We have already seen how the example of "climbing" a wooden ladder attached to gear attached to the rock clarifies this concept nicely. So, you see that a wooden ladder is NOT "stylish," while "climbing" flexible ladders attached to gear attached to the rock CAN be "stylish."

But there is another difference that importantly defines "style." A "stylish" route "uses what the rock presents." So, a REAL "aid climber" recognizes that by "climbing" flexible ladders attached to gear attached to the rock, he/she is "limited" in exactly the RIGHT way (watch out here!) by the rock itself! The NATURE of the gear that is attached to the rock is what really matters in an account of "style." Ahh, you are starting to see the strands pull together here! You see, the rock itself presents certain opportunities in the form of "features," and gear is designed to employ those "features." Some gear, such as (gag) bolts and rivets, can be employed regardless of the "features" of the rock, and so such gear does NOT "use what the rock presents." THAT is what makes bolts and rivets "poor style" to employ.

Now, you could be forgiven for some confusion at this point. I know that I myself have sometimes become confused at this point. So, let me help you past this hard spot.

At first you might be trying to resolve your confusion by asking, "Well, one of the main things (perhaps THE main thing) a rock 'presents' is ITSELF! So, why is attaching flexible ladders to bolts and rivets attached to the rock somehow 'poor style,' while attaching one's flexible ladders to other gear attached to the rock is somehow 'good style?'" Your confusion results from asking the wrong question!

Remember our earlier discussion of "danger?" And remember me warning you that anything "too" closely resembling "climbing" a wooden ladder attached to gear attached to the rock is necessarily "bad style?" Okay, keep those points in the forefront of your mind as I explain. Brace yourself to receive wisdom.

"Aid climbing" is ABOUT "danger" and "skill," and limiting your types of gear to only those that cope with "what the rock itself presents" is DESIGNED to maximize "danger" without ANY hint of "artificial difficulty," because employing SUCH "style" allows "the rock to dictate the terms of the ascent." You see! It's coming very clear now!

"Climbing" a wooden ladder attached to gear attached to the wall is VERY different from "climbing" a flexible ladder attached to gear attached to the wall due to the nature of the "placements" one constructs with the GEAR. With a wooden ladder, one is really not allowing "the rock to dictate the terms of the ascent." Sometimes I'm not quite sure how this distinction works. But whenever I think that I realize that I'm confused, and then I feel solid again.

It's all about the GEAR and the "features" of the rock. REAL "aid climbing" is "stylish" when it employs ONLY that gear that utilizes "features" of the rock. And that is because that basic approach will tend to maximize both "danger" and "skill," neither of which tends to be maximized by "climbing" a wooden ladder attached to gear attached to the rock. So, GEAR and "features" working together dictate the "terms" of an ascent. In a nutshell, flexible ladders attached to gear attached to "features" of the rock is "stylish," while anything resembling wooden ladders attached to gear without regard to "features" of the rock is "poor style."

I'm not too clear at times about whether the "flexible" part of the ladder is what's most important, because I have sometimes thought that one could construct a wooden ladder attached to precarious gear attached to "features" of the rock, and this sort of "climbing" would be "sporty" in just the "right" way. Somehow, it seems that this would not count as "climbing" in the proper sense, and I feel unsure. But when I get confused like this, fortunately I realize that I'm confused, and then I feel solid again.

You must admit that you are enjoying some serious clarity now, and I'm not even done yet! Brace yourself to receive yet MORE wisdom.

REAL hard men have, thus, learned how to seek out "lines" on the rock that are "featured" such that certain sorts of gear will tend to be employed in "climbing" such "features." Such "lines" will avoid large "featureless" sections, because that way bolts and rivets (which, remember, too closely resemble wooden-ladder-'climbing') can be avoided... except, of course, when a "hard man" has enough of a "reputation" for being "stylish" that he can "climb" "lines worth drilling for." (Don't even go there. That is an advanced topic, and we're still getting the basic foundation under us!)

So, to sum up, "style" concerns the use of gear on "features" of the rock, with the primary goal being to avoid anything resembling wooden-ladder-'climbing' on gear attached to the rock. Somehow, the attachments to the rock have to use "features" such that "danger" arises and "skill" must be employed in the "climbing" of the flexible ladders attached to the gear attached to the rock. Although, be sure to avoid "slabs" as no REAL "climber" takes them seriously.

The simplest way to sum it up is this: "Style" concerns the limitations a "climber" places on his/herself about the sort of gear he/she uses to attach his/her flexible ladders to the rock. I recommend that you not try to make the discussion more fine-grained than I have already attempted, because if you do, you will inevitably be sucked into a vortex of confusion from which probably even I will not be able to rescue you.

Now, with "style" under our belts, we can finally turn back to "ethics," which, as you might remember, was our original topic.

ETHICS concerns how a climber treats the rock itself. An "ethical" climber recognizes that "the rock is a non-renewable resource" and so "treats the rock with respect."

I know that you are confused on THIS point, as the nature of your post to which I am responding signifies that YOU think that "ethics" has something to do with how "climbers" treat OTHER CLIMBERS! That is a very noobish mistake, which is how I recognize you for the noob you are. ETHICS has exactly NOTHING whatsoever to do with how people treat other people. "GREAT climbers" are often very unconcerned with their behaviors toward other people. They have learned to put the emphasis where it really should be: how they treat the ROCK. Their understanding of the real object of "ethics" is what makes them "great!"

I tell you this to get you past the noob stage as quickly as possible. As long as you are seeking to be "ethical" instead of "stylish," and as long as you think that "ethics" is about people instead of rock, you are mentally crippled in a fundamental way that necessarily limits you as a "climber." So, cut the confusion loose, and free your mind to be really a "climbing" mind.

ETHICS is about how you treat the rock! Got it? STYLE is about the particular game you play in your treatment of the rock, and it has fundamentally to do with avoiding wooden ladders. NONE of this has anything to do with your treatment of other people. "Climbing" is about YOU and the rock. Other people only matter insofar as they can admire your ETHICS and STYLE.

Okay, progress! Now, exactly HOW do you treat the rock in order to be "ethical" toward it? Having freed your mind from your earlier confusion, you see that FINALLY you are asking the right question! Progress!

Now you must really brace yourself to receive wisdom!

There is one, simple axiom that defines "ethics" in "climbing." ONE! It is: "Don't damage the rock." Or, because that's merely the "ideal" but is impossible in practice to perfectly obey, the practical version of the axiom is: "Do as little damage to the rock as possible while still enabling stylish upward progress." (Keep your mind firmly fixed on what "style" meant, because you can't understand the ethical axiom without that!)

Now, you could be forgiven for thinking that the axiom is vague and poorly defined. I have sometimes thought that same thing myself. Sometimes I have found that it is really difficult to have that feeling of solidity I crave. In fact, sometimes, reviewing the history of "climbing," I find myself entirely baffled about exactly HOW the ethical axiom can be understood, much less applied. One NATURALLY recognizes the conflicting demands of "danger," "skill," "ethics," and "style;" and one might wonder whether or not the entire GAME of "climbing" is really just ALL "artificial difficulty" that necessarily damages the rock in ALL its forms, when the ethical axiom can REALLY only be obeyed by not "climbing" at all! And that's a mouthful and head-full.

Fortunately, whenever I start getting THAT confused, I take great relief and solidity in subsuming my own thinking in the advanced thinking of the ELITE CLIMBER I follow! I cannot over-emphasize this point, Gary! The ELITE CLIMBERS simply think about these things at a whole different level from the rest of us. You can have solid faith in their "ethical" and "stylistic" judgments because they are ELITE. THEY JUST KNOW in ways that will be forever beyond us. So, the ultimate answer is to find yourself an ELITE CLIMBER and think and do whatever they say to think and do.

Now, you could be forgiven for thinking that I've over-simplified the matter at this point. After all, everything I've said so far just leads to the MOST pressing question: How does one recognize an ELITE CLIMBER from any of the wannabe "climbers" that mostly populate the "climbing community?" I HAVE "simplified" matters, but not "over-simplified!" Notice how neatly I have taken your morass of confusion and distilled the issues down to ONE question. (This is philosophical skill you can thank me for later.) Now, instead of countless and conflicting questions, you see that there is really only ONE question: How can you identify a genuinely ELITE CLIMBER, so that you can just do/think whatever he/she says?

And, in harmony with a simple question, here is the simple answer: Genuine ELITE CLIMBERS are those with maximum solidity.

Now you might be forgiven for thinking that I'm talking in riddles. After all, I seem to be defining one term in terms of another. But you need to understand that this is how good philosophizing gets done. And, we only have one term left to define: "solidity."

What is "solidity?" That is the final question, the answer to which is the fount of all other answers.

SOLIDITY is the PURITY of ETHIC that maximizes one's own style/ethic over all others, which knows EXACTLY how to treat the rock in all cases so as to minimize rock damage, while avoiding any hint of wooden ladder, while maximizing danger and skill to one's own self-aggrandizement. In short, SOLIDITY is unshakable self-aggrandizement, knowing that what glorifies the ELITE CLIMBER is by definition "good for climbing" and "good for the rock."

When you find a SOLID "climber" in this sense, you have struck gold, my friend. Such an ELITE CLIMBER is in his/her natural element when telling you what to do/think regarding your own "climbing" dilemmas, and THAT is an important earmark of solidity. You will just KNOW when you are in the presence of such an ELITE CLIMBER, and you can share in the confidence that they naturally have in the answers that they provide concerning all "climbing" situations.

You will have risen above noob status when you KNOW these things, and blessed are you when you find such an ELITE CLIMBER and follow him.

NOW you see how foolish your initial comments were. NOW you see why in great kindness to you I have set you straight. I have done this because I myself was once one such as you are. My own elevation came about as the direct result of realizing the TRUTH about "climbing" and thereby achieving SOLIDITY myself. Not GREAT solidity, as I still find myself questioning. I do not believe that I will ever be ELITE, sadly. But I see that you crave even my measure of solidity. So know this: I did not accomplish this alone, just as you cannot. I benefited from the wisdom of an ELITE CLIMBER from whose maximum solidity mine derives! WHO is this, you ask? I cannot tell you, my friend. YOU must recognize him for yourself. Only then can you really see him as he is. Only then can you really subsume yourself into him as he is.

But I have shown you the path.