...that this overlooked historical aspect of climbing was itself influenced by an instinct that has a lot in common with Tejado-Flores approach? I realize this sounds circular, but while it's true that climbing developed historically any decisions along that historical pathway were certainly influenced by a sense of "fair-play," by a sense of what would be sporting, and this sense resides deep enough in mankind (modulo various cultural constructs) that perhaps the "ahistorical" approach can be redeemed - it's not that it ignores something important, instead it stripped away distracting information.
I do share with you that to think seriously about climbing the history is essential. But I also admire an attempt to crystalize what is happening in the mind of a man or woman on the mountain, and am sympathetic to the idea that in the purest moments traces of cultural history take a back seat to the "game in play."
What you are saying assumes that people's motivations for "fair play" arguments can be taken at face value. I generally take the view that when someone calls someone else's climbing "cheating," it's because they don't like it and they don't know why. My theory is that what is usually underneath this discomfort is an environmental pragmatism, i.e. "that would be useless where I climb."
I guess I just can't buy the whole fair-play concept, it seems so arbitrary and pointless. I just can't conceive of what "fairness" could really mean in a climbing context, except as a (likely subconscious) disguise for something else.
This impulse, to hypothesize underlying motivations when the stated one don't make sense to me, is something that I admit others are likely to find odd and has succeeded in supremely pissing off more than one friend of mine.
The most direct response is, I suppose, that what you are considering "distracting information" is, to me, much more interesting and important than "what is happening in the mind of a man or woman on the mountain." For example, one may be thinking "this route is very short, maybe I'll just solo it and call it a boulder problem" (which is what Tejada-Flores imagines happening), but what really interests me are the underlying reasons we even think to make the distinctions that we do, which are and must be historical.
Yes, good stuff, and you are right to hypothesize underlying motivations, this is how we understand the world :). My point is more along the lines of "yes, and..." That is, consider climbing from a historical perspective, and at another point consider it purely as action or relationship with the rock. Neither perspective is distinct, of course. And a perspective which negates the value of one or the other (perhaps these are "poles" but even as I say that I know it's a simplification) is impoverished.
At times the climber is an animal who wants to live in the moment, at other times he is enriched by considering the tapestry of culture that led him to this point. I can't help but value both perspectives and I enjoy the rich synthesis the resides in between.
I came to see the arbitrariness of current rule sets by thinking about the "mountain boot era" in rock climbing. I used to think there was a straight-line progression from boots to slippers, but then, living in the Eastern Alps, I learned that rock climbers wore something like slippers until the early 1960s, when it became fashionable to use full-shank boots (which do at least edge really well). This "era" lasted only about 17 years.
So I certainly agree that considering historical context is important! It's just this "yes, and..." thing for me.
I feel enriched by your contribution. It's fascinating to probe the "whys" of this activity. Climbing continually poses problems for those who seek to explain every behavior rationally. My feeling is that of course there is a reason for what we do, but you won't find it in a view of the world which is reluctant to reason beyond the containing system.
mvs - Sep 25, 2014 12:30 pm - Voted 10/10
Have you considered...that this overlooked historical aspect of climbing was itself influenced by an instinct that has a lot in common with Tejado-Flores approach? I realize this sounds circular, but while it's true that climbing developed historically any decisions along that historical pathway were certainly influenced by a sense of "fair-play," by a sense of what would be sporting, and this sense resides deep enough in mankind (modulo various cultural constructs) that perhaps the "ahistorical" approach can be redeemed - it's not that it ignores something important, instead it stripped away distracting information.
I do share with you that to think seriously about climbing the history is essential. But I also admire an attempt to crystalize what is happening in the mind of a man or woman on the mountain, and am sympathetic to the idea that in the purest moments traces of cultural history take a back seat to the "game in play."
Fascinating topic, thank you for it!
jacobsmith - Sep 25, 2014 6:47 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Have you consideredThanks for your thoughts.
What you are saying assumes that people's motivations for "fair play" arguments can be taken at face value. I generally take the view that when someone calls someone else's climbing "cheating," it's because they don't like it and they don't know why. My theory is that what is usually underneath this discomfort is an environmental pragmatism, i.e. "that would be useless where I climb."
I guess I just can't buy the whole fair-play concept, it seems so arbitrary and pointless. I just can't conceive of what "fairness" could really mean in a climbing context, except as a (likely subconscious) disguise for something else.
This impulse, to hypothesize underlying motivations when the stated one don't make sense to me, is something that I admit others are likely to find odd and has succeeded in supremely pissing off more than one friend of mine.
The most direct response is, I suppose, that what you are considering "distracting information" is, to me, much more interesting and important than "what is happening in the mind of a man or woman on the mountain." For example, one may be thinking "this route is very short, maybe I'll just solo it and call it a boulder problem" (which is what Tejada-Flores imagines happening), but what really interests me are the underlying reasons we even think to make the distinctions that we do, which are and must be historical.
mvs - Sep 26, 2014 5:35 am - Voted 10/10
Re: Have you consideredYes, good stuff, and you are right to hypothesize underlying motivations, this is how we understand the world :). My point is more along the lines of "yes, and..." That is, consider climbing from a historical perspective, and at another point consider it purely as action or relationship with the rock. Neither perspective is distinct, of course. And a perspective which negates the value of one or the other (perhaps these are "poles" but even as I say that I know it's a simplification) is impoverished.
At times the climber is an animal who wants to live in the moment, at other times he is enriched by considering the tapestry of culture that led him to this point. I can't help but value both perspectives and I enjoy the rich synthesis the resides in between.
I came to see the arbitrariness of current rule sets by thinking about the "mountain boot era" in rock climbing. I used to think there was a straight-line progression from boots to slippers, but then, living in the Eastern Alps, I learned that rock climbers wore something like slippers until the early 1960s, when it became fashionable to use full-shank boots (which do at least edge really well). This "era" lasted only about 17 years.
So I certainly agree that considering historical context is important! It's just this "yes, and..." thing for me.
Thanks again!
mvs - Sep 26, 2014 6:49 am - Voted 10/10
BTWI feel enriched by your contribution. It's fascinating to probe the "whys" of this activity. Climbing continually poses problems for those who seek to explain every behavior rationally. My feeling is that of course there is a reason for what we do, but you won't find it in a view of the world which is reluctant to reason beyond the containing system.
borut - Sep 26, 2014 9:11 am - Voted 10/10
Re: BTW+1