Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 16, 2009 - 12:19am PT
|
jstan: now you've conflated legality with morality. We HOPE that our legality bears some sort of relation to morality, but, sadly, it ain't often so. At any rate, to even ask the question: "Is that a just law?" or, "Is that law right?" presupposes the difference between legality and morality. I'm not concerned with legality here, as legality encompasses almost the whole continuum of tactics employed by climbers in Yosemite. But climbers don't debate about the legality of a tactic (much). THIS question is about whether or not the term "artificial difficulty" actually refers, or if it is just a fictional concept that doesn't really pick out anything objective in the world.
If we're just going to say, "Well, the game is just subjective," that's certainly fine, and then I guess we're done.
But the pontificators employing the term treat the term as though it actually refers. I just want to know what it refers TO... unambiguously.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2009 - 02:01am PT
|
I feel that the "why" a certain level of difficulty is sought is the most important factor. Why are we motivated to do things a certain way, to a certain level?
Important to who?
To the person and their relationship with themselves and this activity.
People seek to push themselves or attain a certain level of difficulty for many motivations..
? Egoic need for self valuation
? Reaching deep within to seek inner limits and focus intensely. Self exploration
? Egoic need for validation in relation from others.
?????
We play these games to box ourself in a corner so we can't cheat ourselves, or we play the game to tell ourselves our way is right and we're better.
It makes a huge difference in our experience but it's not objective so we don't really know the combination of motives in others, and it's tough to be honest enough to know ourselves.
We risk our lives and we get our panties in a bunch, but we can't admit the underpinnings of our stake in the game.
The rest are mostly details.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2009 - 02:17am PT
|
Jeez, it's not even winter yet. Too much thinking about climbing, not enough climbing.
Eschew obfuscation...
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2009 - 02:40am PT
|
Hi
Just back from a facility where human animals have manipulated their habitat to their own twisted ends. Among other things I was publicly chastised for spacing my belay credential. Though I'm sure all the resin for the holds was poured ethically, after 3 hrs, including four .11's, my fingertips "hurt like a bitch!™"
-and even though it was in San Francisco, the majority were shallow enough to keep their clothes on...
What important stuff did I miss?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2009 - 06:25am PT
|
Geez, it's bad enough folks complain about non-climbing topics but look at all the dissing of this topic in just a few dozen posts?
Why go on a climbing board and whine about climbing topics? If your suggestion is go climbing, what are you doing here?
Peace
Karl
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2009 - 10:14am PT
|
I think that this post is "artificially difficult."
|
|
Ray-J
Social climber
east L.A. vato...
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2009 - 10:24am PT
|
Jaybro - LOL!
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2009 - 10:38am PT
|
"Let's agree with the undeniable (and, I think, obvious) fact that ANY climbing besides stark-naked free-soloing is a function of "artificial difficulty."
Then;
" I'm wondering about the moving target called "artificial difficulty."
Why is it a moving target if it is undeniably defined in your first statement.
And BTW, stark-naked free-soloing is creating an artificial difficulty if you if you don't absolutely have to be there in the first place.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2009 - 10:51am PT
|
Is this meant to be a rationalization for chiseling and gluing?
|
|
powderdan
Social climber
mammoth lakes
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2009 - 12:55pm PT
|
stimilating!
dare i ponder if it is fair for a 5.12 rock climber to forever monopolize a 5.7 sretch of rock on PUBLIC LAND because he can climb it with few if any bolts. of course its bad ass at the time but history will ultimately render such an approach as truly chicken sh#t. thank heavens for sport climbing!
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2009 - 02:44pm PT
|
naturalistic fallacy in full discourse here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
but that doesn't resolve a question. if the question is reduced back to objective vs. subjective behavior and where we draw the prescriptive line, then determining that line is political, or for lack of a better term, based on the exercise of power in its many facets.
I'd love to go back to the original post and pull out the nuances but gotta pack for Hoffman Mtn.
But if we want to crystallize the definitional aspect of what is the 'right' thing to do when it comes to climbin behaviors, then I suspect we don't have much to rely on other than the communal definition. So an objective view is "a view from from nowhere" is actually to be read as "a view from no singular particular place" (thx Nagel)
Is it possible to explicate a vast dynamic continuum of behavior as a prescriptive mechanism? I'm not sure.
but at the least we can definitely discuss it, since it is not without all meaning if we can say there is at least a continuum, aka there is a scale upon which we can slide the tuner up or down for better fidelity.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2009 - 12:47am PT
|
Pate,you described the kind of climbing that definitely improves with age.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2009 - 02:01am PT
|
re: "I think that this post is "artificially difficult."
you beat me to it w/ that.
to describe naked free soloing as the only thing absent of ___ is to somehow relate everything BUT naked free soloing as somehow the same...
i could not disagree more.
the premise is flawed.
obfuscate away in meaningless unending dialogue, it solves nothing, it means nothing, it illuminates nothing, and yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with WOS.
to deny that is a poor attempt, even if you've fooled yourself into believing it.
|
|
Roman
Trad climber
Boston
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2009 - 07:15pm PT
|
Something about this is oddly reminiscent of the Coonyard Mouths Off Pt 2 article posted a while back...
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2009 - 08:05pm PT
|
interesting, it's easy to rip the questions up and utilize logical analysis to deconstruct, but can we say anything affirmative about the signification and why we 'should' obey the stop sign?
we can all ask the "how" question of how we got to be here with our existing climbing culture, and whether there is or is not general acceptance of the mores.
but what reason (or why) should we adhere to a particular more?
what value does it hold? what negative value does it fend off?
is that what the madbolter1 is getting at?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 17, 2009 - 11:43pm PT
|
Some amazing thoughts here. I'm still not clear on the concepts, but I guess the point is made: put ten different climbers in a room (or thread) together, and you'll get fifteen different answers about pretty much any topic. Entertaining, though.
I still don't think that naked free-soloing is artificial difficulty. Climbing is different from hiking, and the point to it is a function of exactly that distinction. The point is to introduce an element of risk in the face of conformity to what the rock has to offer. The whole "game" is "artificial" insofar as it is a "game," (it is not necessary, as has been pointed out). But the "game" CAN be stripped to its purest essence, which is naked free-soloing. I mean, we're not discussing what CLIMBING is. I was wondering what makes one set of tactics "natural" and another set "artificial."
And, Dingus, sorry to lose you, but if you can compare being defamed for decades by people with an ax to grind, who have never even been ON (for many, not even NEAR) the route in question... if you can compare that to Mark and I climbing a route in good faith and reporting what we found on the route, then I think you were "lost to us" long before that incident.
Matt... spewing as always. Get a grip, dude. Just because I'm IN a thread does not make it a WoS thread. YOU always try to turn things that way, but that game is obvious to all now. You don't like us... we're entirely baffled by you. Let's leave it at that.
Back to topic, as I said earlier... it sure seems to me that people can respond that it's all just subjective, and then we're done. The answer is before us.
But, as I also said, it strikes me that the pontificators are attempting to pronounce about OBJECTIVE facts, and that's what confuses me. If there is something objectively real about climbing difficulty being "artificial," then I simply want to understand what this word "artificial" picks out in the world. I know what "dog" picks out in the world, and I can accurately say, "That's a dog." I'm trying to understand what are the truth conditions for accurately saying, "That's artificial difficulty."
If the contrast is between "natural difficulty" and "artificial difficulty," then in the context of modern climbing I just want to understand what is remotely "natural" about it on ANY level, and hopefully that can help explicate what is "artificial" about a host of other tactics.
This doesn't seem like a difficult question. If there is any legitimacy to the distinction, then we should be able to get clear about it pretty quickly. Don't you think?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2009 - 12:32am PT
|
"But the "game" CAN be stripped to its purest essence, which is naked free-soloing."
That just sounds plain stupid to me. Sorry.
There's so far more at play then just a material naked body.
There's consciousness which controls that body.
Any idiot can run up some pitch naked .....
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2009 - 12:37am PT
|
WB, you are fully aware, that Richie and Marky have been trapsing around naked of all credibility for years now. For lo, these many decades. Gag.
Oh, and Matt, really nice breakdown. Almost enough to usher forth full blather.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2009 - 01:21am PT
|
madbolter asserts:
FIRST:
Let's agree with the undeniable (and, I think, obvious) fact that ANY climbing besides stark-naked free-soloing is a function of "artificial difficulty." Add a pair of shoes, and you've just crossed the threshold! Add a pair of shorts (to keep your little wee wee from getting caught on or in something), and you've magnified "comfort" at the expense of "natural." Give the naked free-soloist ANYTHING, and you've turned the game into just a continuum of tactics where any "difficulty" that remains is purely arbitrary and hence "artificial."
I think the meaning of "artificial" used here is a bit confusing. If by artificial it is meant "contrived by humans" then, of course by definition, the sport of climbing is artificial, that is, not natural, "man-made." It doesn't matter if you do it naked or whatever.
However, if you presume that humans are just a part of nature, nothing more and nothing less, than "artificial" has no meaning, as it is a "natural" activity since humans are natural.
In either case, the supposition doesn't make much sense if the usual definition of "artificial" is used.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2009 - 02:27am PT
|
whatever goofball-
you cannot put up an artificaially difficult route, create endless controversy by putting up said artificially difficult route, have endless threads debating said artificially difficult route (and resulting controversy), and then post a new thread about "artificial difficulty"...
and then pretend it has nothing to due with the afore mentioned route.
that's just silly, and intellectually dishonest as well.
and i don't dislike you at all.
in fact i don't know you at all.
i disagree with you about one thing, ok, well now about two things...
that's not the same as disliking you.
quit being so thin skinned, seriously, after all this is the internet.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!