Amount of equipment vis-a-vis quality of experience
Donna A. Lilly
years layoff and am in the planning stages. Since many of you somehow
manage to get out quite often, it seems from your posts, I wanted to ask
you something that came to mind from our _previous_ discussion:
In your experience, do you think there is there a significant relation
between the level to which you equip yourself and the nature or quality of
your wilderness experiences? In particular, have you found your forages
into the backcountry with the least equipment to be most memorable or only
the most miserable?
Furthermore, do you think the amount of equipment has a profound
psychological influence on the degree to which you achieve a wilderness
experience (i.e. the experience is significantly reduced in proportion to
the amount of civilization you drag with you)? Or do you think the issue
is more philosophical (i.e. the influence that the equipment has is
determined a priori, according to the beliefs you have initially about
equipment before venturing out)?
--
Donna Lilly
Cleveland, OH
Paul Rubin
Donna A. Lilly <bx...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>In your experience, do you think there is there a significant relation
>between the level to which you equip yourself and the nature or quality of
>your wilderness experiences? In particular, have you found your forages
>into the backcountry with the least equipment to be most memorable or only
>the most miserable?
Equipment-related misery is generally caused by absence or failure
of one particular thing that it turns out you need. If you don't
need it, of course you'll be happier without it. So you look at
the forecast for clear weather and leave your rain jacket at home.
Then you get caught in a thunderstorm. That's misery. I *always*
take a rain jacket.
>Furthermore, do you think the amount of equipment has a profound
>psychological influence on the degree to which you achieve a wilderness
>experience (i.e. the experience is significantly reduced in proportion to
>the amount of civilization you drag with you)? Or do you think the issue
>is more philosophical (i.e. the influence that the equipment has is
>determined a priori, according to the beliefs you have initially about
>equipment before venturing out)?
Yes, for me to least (well it's maybe not profound, but it's there).
Some things seem more intrusive than other, though. I don't feel at
all like I'm bringing civilization with me when I wear my gore-tex
jacket, bring my warm sleeping bag, etc. On the other hand, those
vacuum wrapped camping meals always seem more alien to the outdoors
than just bringing some raw vegetables, bread, etc. (The veggies
weigh a lot more of course).
Andy Woodward
>between the level to which you equip yourself and the nature or quality of
>your wilderness experiences? In particular, have you found your forages
>into the backcountry with the least equipment to be most memorable or only
>the most miserable?
There are two approaches to outdoor living (that seem to be mutually
exclusive). These are the 'gear' school and the 'knowledge' school. The former
reckon that they can but their way out of everything, and the latter reckon
they could survive stark naked at the south pole in winter.
The difference cna be seeen most winter days on Snowdon, with teh gearfreaks
plodding up the windy side of the ridge with their knees buckling under the
weight of HUGE rucsac full of habtitation adn sustainance against indefinitte
benightment, adn collapsible helicopter in case the rescue teams cant get to
them.......
But if you drop over the ridge to the lee. you meet the local farmer out
looking for driftbound sheep in his tweed jaacket and wellies.
You tell me who is the expert......
>Furthermore, do you think the amount of equipment has a profound
>psychological influence on the degree to which you achieve a wilderness
>experience (i.e. the experience is significantly reduced in proportion to
>the amount of civilization you drag with you)? Or do you think the issue
>is more philosophical (i.e. the influence that the equipment has is
>determined a priori, according to the beliefs you have initially about
>equipment before venturing out)?
I fall somehwere in etween. If theres summat interesting on while I'm out,
I'll tak the radio. But most likely also leave the map/compass behind and
navigate raw. You judge your own balance, and what you want from it.
I sometimes think about spending a couple of years walking teh SW deserts in
the US, and may (or may not) get round to it when the research contracts dry
up. I'd be taking plimsoles, a plastic sheet and a plastic card, and play it
by ear. Depends how much stuff you want to lug, adn how much pleasure it would
give you.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just another roadkill on the Information Superhighway
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eugene N. Miya
There is a cardinal rule of travel, all too often overlooked,
that I call "The Law of Inverse Appreciation."
It states: "The less there is between you and the environment, the
more you appreciate the environment."
Every walker knows, even if he has not thought about it, the law's
most obvious application: the bigger and most efficient your means of
travel, the further you become divorced from the reality through which
you are travelling. A man learns a thousand times more about the sea from
the "Kon Tiki" than from the "Queen Mary;" euphorically more about space
at the end of a cord than inside a capsule. On land, you remain closer
in touch with the countryside in a slow moving old open touring
car than in a modern, air-conditioned, tinted-glass-window,
80-miles-per-hour-and-never-notice-it behemoth. And you come closer
in touch on a horse than any car; in closer touch on foot than on any horse.
But the law has a second and less obvious application:
your appreciation varies not only according to what you travel "in"
but also according to what you travel "over." Drive along a
freeway in any kind of car and you are in almost zero contact with the
country beyond the concrete. Turn off onto a minor highway and you are
a notch closer. A narrow country road is better still.
When you bump slowly along a jeep trail you begin at last to sense those
vital details that turn mere landscape into living countryside. And not
long ago, on the East African savanna -- where it was at
the time not considered destructive to drive cross-country over the pale
grasslands -- I discovered an extending corollary to my law:
"The further you move away from any impediment of appreciation,
the better it is."
It is less obvious that these same discrepancies persist when you are
travelling on foot. Any blacktop road holds the scrollwork of the country
at arm's length: the road itself keeps stalking along on stilts or
grubbing about in a trough, and your feet travel on harsh and
sterile pavement. Turn off onto a dusty jeep trail and the detail moves
closer. A foot trail is better still. But you do not really
have to break free until you step off the trail and walk through waving
grass or woodland growth or across rock or smooth sand or (most perfect
of all) virgin snow. Now you can read all the details,
down to the print. Drifting snow crystals barely begun to blurr the four
footed signature of the marten that padded past this lodgepole pine.
Or a long-legged lizard scurries for cover, kicking up
little spurts of sand as it corners around a bush. . .And always, in snow
or sand or rock or seascape grass there is, as far as you can see in
any direction, no sign of man.
That, I believe, is being in touch with the world.
--Colin Fletcher
Other foot notes
* It would probably be a good thing if you reread this paragraph at least once
-- and tried to remember it later on. This is essentially a "know-how"
book, but we must never lose sight of the fact that what matters in the end
is the "feel how" of walking.
* Frankly, my advice to those genuinely interested in walking has always been
to forget the books and to get out and get on with it. Relying on the
two finest teachers in the business, trial and error. I'm not at all sure
a piece of me that doesn't still stand by that advice.
"Once you become a walker, you become a conservationist: no one can walk
for days on-end through wild and unspoiled country and then stumble on some
man-perpetrated horror without having his blood start to boil.*
*At least, I used to think this was so. I'm afraid I am no longer
so sure.
John S. Watson - FSC
>Excerpts from The Complete Walker:
>
>There is a cardinal rule of travel, all too often overlooked,
>that I call "The Law of Inverse Appreciation."
>
Other corollaries that I can think of:
1) you appreciate the 1st mile more than the last
(i.e. when you're fresh as opposed to tire)
2) the slower you walk, the more you "appreciate".
3) a trail seem completely different when going in the opposite direction
4) dawn and dusk are more interesting than afternoon (night is completely
different)
Also read H.D. Thoreau's essay "Walking".
John S. Watson
NASA Ames Research Center MS/243-9, Moffett Field, CA 94035
<a href="http://pioneer.arc.nasa.gov/~watson/watson.html">John S. Watson</a>
#include <stddsclm.h>
Eugene N. Miya
wat...@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson - FSC) writes:
>Other corollaries that I can think of:
>1) you appreciate the 1st mile more than the last
> (i.e. when you're fresh as opposed to tire)
I think most of these are YMMV.
I can remember several trips, like a ski trip I once did Colorado
with Echelmeyer where the last mile was a neat experience.
Some people have to warm up (not my interest).
>2) the slower you walk, the more you "appreciate".
Again, another YMMV. That's why I recently started looking at Ruskin.
Even Thoreau had his Different Dummer quote. Some people pick up things
at higher speeds which others travelling slower might never pick up.
But some people aren't all people. One can argue that you can travel too slow.
It's one of the reasons why I'm never interested in being a Sierra Club
trail sweep. I remember sweeping once for my HS club and I had this one
guy I could have killed (for six miles and downhill, too); I was glad
when my shift was over. He had far too much junk (I had the heaviest
pack on the trip with all kinds of climbing gear). He was out of shape
and just poked along; I don't think that he was appreciating his
exerience.
>3) a trail seem completely different when going in the opposite direction
This is true. Ansel Adams had a saying for this:
Always turn around and see where you came from...
>4) dawn and dusk are more interesting than afternoon (night is completely
> different)
Rowell: Mountain Light.
>Also read H.D. Thoreau's essay "Walking".
A reasonable read.
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
My 2nd favorite use of a flame thrower is the remake of "The Thing."
A Ref: Uncommon Sense, Alan Cromer, Oxford Univ. Press, 1993.
John S. Watson - FSC
>In article <2unhc7$c...@news.arc.nasa.gov>
>wat...@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson - FSC) writes:
>>Other corollaries that I can think of:
>>1) you appreciate the 1st mile more than the last
>> (i.e. when you're fresh as opposed to tire)
>
>I think most of these are YMMV.
Of course, but Fletcher's "Laws" are YMMV also.
Or as I would say, "in general". I mean, isn't
"appreciation" a purely subjectvie thing anyway?
>I can remember several trips, like a ski trip I once did Colorado
>with Echelmeyer where the last mile was a neat experience.
>Some people have to warm up (not my interest).
Special case ... in general I would argue you see and appreciate
more at the start when you are fresh than at the end when you are
tired. Rarely are you fresher and less tired than when you start.
I've been on a few trip where the end was neater than
the begining. But the vast majority are not.
I've been on hundreds of hikes that started and ended on the same
trail segment. At the start I they're really neat and I
appreciate much, while returning I could only think of
nothing but getting back, my aching feet etc.
>>2) the slower you walk, the more you "appreciate".
>
>Again, another YMMV. That's why I recently started looking at Ruskin.
>Even Thoreau had his Different Dummer quote.
> Some people pick up things
> at higher speeds which others travelling slower might never pick up.
Agreed, _I_ might be able to spot morels driving along the freeway
at 65mph than _you_ can while hiking along the same patch of ground
(assuming I've got lots more experience spoting morels).
However, but _I_ cannot spot more by driving along along the freeway
than _I_ can hiking along the same patch of ground.
Same goes for anyone. You see more details by going slower
You slow down and even stop when you want to maximize a view of something.
Of course if what you appreciate is "speed" and G's, or "getting there"
then slowness is not what you want.
> But some people aren't all people. One can argue that you can travel too slow.
> It's one of the reasons why I'm never interested in being a Sierra Club
> trail sweep.
What the exactly is a "trail sweep"? You clean of the trail as you go?
(I saw people actually doing this a Wunderlich CO Park a couple months ago)
> I remember sweeping once for my HS club and I had this one
> guy I could have killed (for six miles and downhill, too);
> I was glad when my shift was over.
I bet he was gladder!
Whatever "sweeping" is, it doesn't sound like it was condusive
to the spirit of Thoreau's quote:
"If a man does not keep pace with his companions,
perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.
Let him step to the music which he hears,
however measured or far away."
> He had far too much junk (I had the heaviest pack on the trip
> with all kinds of climbing gear). He was out of shape
> and just poked along; I don't think that he was appreciating his
> exerience.
Nor do I!
Someone riding me for 6 miles, telling me that I'm out of shape,
und have far too much junk, (und that I'm not carrying as much as he is)
und not going as fast as zee drummer wants,
rarely makes one appreciate his experience!
Frank Crary
Eugene N. Miya <eug...@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov> wrote:
>Excerpts from The Complete Walker:
>There is a cardinal rule of travel, all too often overlooked,
>that I call "The Law of Inverse Appreciation."
> It states: "The less there is between you and the environment, the
>more you appreciate the environment."
> Every walker knows, even if he has not thought about it, the law's
>most obvious application: the bigger and most efficient your means of
>travel, the further you become divorced from the reality through which
>you are travelling. A man learns a thousand times more about the sea from
>the "Kon Tiki" than from the "Queen Mary;" euphorically more about space
>at the end of a cord than inside a capsule. On land, you remain closer
>in touch with the countryside in a slow moving old open touring
>car than in a modern, air-conditioned, tinted-glass-window,
>80-miles-per-hour-and-never-notice-it behemoth. And you come closer
>in touch on a horse than any car; in closer touch on foot than on any horse.
I don't think this is a very good analogy. It's true of _using_
equipment, but not relevant to something you just carry along.
For example, someone who carries a radio while hiking alone,
to call for help in an emergency, is no more separated from
his environment than if he simply had a two-pound brick in his
backpack. On the other hand, someone listening to a walkman as
he hikes is certainly distancing himself from his environment.
The problem you refer to isn't one of what someone carries, but
of what one frequently uses.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Scott Linn
:
: For example, someone who carries a radio while hiking alone,
: his environment than if he simply had a two-pound brick in his
: backpack.
Huh?
By having an easy out, via the radio, he has certainly distanced himself
from a lot of possible events...
: The problem you refer to isn't one of what someone carries, but
: of what one frequently uses.
You don't have to use the radio for it to have an impact on your outlook.
--
Scott Linn
sc...@cv.hp.com
Eugene N. Miya
>: For example, someone who carries a radio while hiking alone,
>: to call for help in an emergency, is no more separated from
>: his environment than if he simply had a two-pound brick in his
>: backpack.
>Huh? Huh? --me
>By having an easy out, via the radio, he has certainly distanced himself
>from a lot of possible events...
>: The problem you refer to isn't one of what someone carries, but
>: of what one frequently uses.
In article <1994Jun28.2...@hpcvca.cv.hp.com>
sc...@hpcvcem.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>You don't have to use the radio for it to have an impact on your outlook.
Scott and Fletcher are right.
I have experience with a PRC-1099 and that wasn't used frequently.
Your perspective is influenced by how fast you think help can reach you.
And when that time can be measured in many days or weeks rather than hours
or one day, you will have a greater appreciation.
BTW Frank, I have checked on Mons without your assistance.
Eugene N. Miya
(John S. Watson - FSC) writes:
>I mean, isn't "appreciation" a purely subjectvie thing anyway?
Right, I expect nothing by generalizations on the net.
>Special case ... in general I would argue you see and appreciate
>more at the start when you are fresh than at the end when you are
>tired. Rarely are you fresher and less tired than when you start.
I don't see why you regard that as a special case. I've never had
appreciation as a matter of freshness. I've had it at the beginning,
middle and end.
>I've been on a few trip where the end was neater than
>the begining. But the vast majority are not.
>I've been on hundreds of hikes that started and ended on the same
>trail segment. At the start I they're really neat and I
>appreciate much, while returning I could only think of
>nothing but getting back, my aching feet etc.
>What the exactly is a "trail sweep"?
He or she is a designated assistant leader to tries to insure a party
is ahead of him or her and between the point person.
Victim shortened.
>I bet he was gladder!
Naw, he didn't care. He walked as fast as he wanted and could.
>Whatever "sweeping" is, it doesn't sound like it was condusive
>to the spirit of Thoreau's quote:
> "If a man does not keep pace with his companions,
> perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.
> Let him step to the music which he hears,
> however measured or far away."
Yep. And that's a problem going with organized groups.
Organized groups have other responsibilities to have, insurance policies,
etc.
>Nor do I!
>Someone riding me for 6 miles, telling me that I'm out of shape,
>und have far too much junk, (und that I'm not carrying as much as he is)
>und not going as fast as zee drummer wants,
>rarely makes one appreciate his experience!
Nope, I never told he he was out of shape. He knew that for himself.
That was completely self-evident to him.
And the teachers who ran that trip (one of whom you are aware in Visalia)
also had to deal with him. And that's leadership. Even Thoreau had to deal
with the coming winter.
John S. Watson - FSC
>>Special case ... in general I would argue you see and appreciate
>>more at the start when you are fresh than at the end when you are
>>tired. Rarely are you fresher and less tired than when you start.
>
>I don't see why you regard that as a special case. I've never had
>appreciation as a matter of freshness. I've had it at the beginning,
>middle and end.
Yeah ... but Eugene ... everyone knows YOU are a "special case". :-)
My appreciations on a hikes are tend to be tied to my ability
to perceive the natural world, and as I hike, I grow more and more tired,
I tend to perceive less and less, and therefore I appreciate less.
Anyway, that how I what I tend to appreciate while hiking,
so my maximum appreciation tends to take place early and middle,
far less at the end. Although once in a while I tend to get
more "goal oriented" in what I want (like if I'm trying to climb
a mountain).
However I don't consider getting dog tired toward the end of a hike
a bad thing, it is actually one of the reasons I go backpacking,
to get that extremely beat feeling.
There is nothing like being so beat, that after a long day
on the trail, that you can SLEEP on granite.
Louis H. Howell
|> My appreciations on a hikes are tend to be tied to my ability
|> to perceive the natural world, and as I hike, I grow more and more tired,
|> I tend to perceive less and less, and therefore I appreciate less.
This fits my experience for a single day, particularly a long one. On
a backpacking trip, though, it often takes a couple of days for me to
really hit my stride. First day I'm tired from the drive up,
unaccustomed to carrying a pack, and usually walking uphill. Second
day I'm still adjusting to being alone, wish my family were there.
Third or fourth day the pack rides much easier, my balance has fully
adjusted to the new weight and center of gravity, and there's a real
bounce in my step. Usually finish off a trip wishing I could stay
longer.
As for perceptions, at first I'm making the initial survey, seeing what
the area has to offer. Later on is when I'm picking up the smaller
details.
--
Louis Howell (naz...@llnl.gov)
Eugene N. Miya
(John S. Watson - FSC) writes:
>to perceive the natural world, and as I hike, I grow more and more tired,
>I tend to perceive less and less, and therefore I appreciate less.
I suggest taking shorter hikes. Or dome something like that second
trip you, Peter, and I took.
>Anyway, that how I what I tend to appreciate while hiking,
>so my maximum appreciation tends to take place early and middle,
>far less at the end. Although once in a while I tend to get
>more "goal oriented" in what I want (like if I'm trying to climb
>a mountain).
This is one reason why I take some trips which are specifically ungoal
oriented. What happens, other than travel, happens. It's vegging out.
I was thinking Thoreau for instance. He's a great theoreticist
(transcendentalist) as were Emerson and Ruskin, but Muir was more empirical
(like Mendel was to Darwin), and he had good ideas, but he couldn't
amend his ideas easily (he was what the Revolutionaries called a summer
soldier or sunshine patriot). Snow falls and this necessitates
mountaineering practicalities.
>However I don't consider getting dog tired toward the end of a hike
>a bad thing, it is actually one of the reasons I go backpacking,
>to get that extremely beat feeling.
>There is nothing like being so beat, that after a long day
>on the trail, that you can SLEEP on granite.
That's good, too. And you have to balance that beatness with the
rest of the appreciation. You balance spontaneity with planning
(one time I was going to go climbing, and my partner and I looked
at each other and one of us said: "Hey want to go learn how to jump
out of plane?" So we did: too expensive for too short a time).
You balance numerous other things, too.
Lunch?
Phil Hatch
nature being minimized by the presence of equipment, especially
techy equipment.
I must confess I don't completely follow or agree with the general
trend of the discussion. Quality of experience is such a subjective
concept that it cannot be discussed without a common groundwork
to define what a quality experience is. As one poster said, there are
different kinds of outdoor experiences and each has its merits. Try
as many as you can to find the ones that most interest you.
My specific gripe concerns Frank Crary's statement:
I don't think this is a very good analogy. It's true of
_using_ equipment, but not relevant to something
you just carry along. For example, someone who
carries a radio while hiking alone, to call for help in
an emergency, is no more separated from his
environment than if he simply had a two-pound brick
in his backpack. On the other hand, someone listening
to a walkman as he hikes is certainly distancing himself
from his environment. The problem you refer to isn't
one of what someone carries, but of what one frequently
uses.
The walkman user apparently feels that it is an improvement on
the experience, or he wouldn't be listening to it. As I understand
the backcountry experience in regards to closeness with nature, it is
an emotional and attitudinal state. I should carry that e&a state with
me at all times, calling it forward as necessary for enjoyment and use.
Judging what another person non-destructively uses to achieve that
state is an exercise in elitism. We do agree that we should avoid
elitism, don't we? :) In the case of the walkman, there
are risks to the user, such as my friend who was surprised by the
skunk looting his pack while he cranked the tunes. But all choices
carry associated risks.
So rewriting Frank's statement as I would like to see it:
I don't think this is a very good analogy. It's true of
why and how you use equipment for your own
experience, but ...
The original question, "Amount of equipment vis-a-vis quality of
experience" shows that the poster does link these two ideas in his
mind. The question seems to ask, is the relationship a function
where quality continues to rise as equipment is reduced, is it a bell
curve where beyond a certain point quality begins to subside, or
is more equipment always better? Yes, he is asking for opinions
and he has been getting opinions. So let's not treat our opinions as facts.
But I do like to see you people state your opinions and stand by them.
I think I'll stand by these.
John S. Watson - FSC
>
>I was thinking Thoreau for instance. He's a great theoreticist
>(transcendentalist) as were Emerson and Ruskin, but Muir was more empirical
>(like Mendel was to Darwin), and he had good ideas, but he couldn't
>amend his ideas easily (he was what the Revolutionaries called a summer
>soldier or sunshine patriot). Snow falls and this necessitates
>mountaineering practicalities.
I believe you must mean that you believe Thoreau to be a idealist,
where as Muir was a pragmatist, no? However, I think Thoreau was much
more complex than you give him due. Altho, Thoreau may have
been theoritical (is that a word?) and idealistic, he was definately
also very empirical, pragmatic and experimental.
That was one of the big points about _Walden_ was,
to test out all the "high ideals" that the transcendentalists like
Emerson thought up:
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately,
to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not
learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover
that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not
life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation,
unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck
out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartanlike
as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad
swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce
it to its lowest terms, and, if is proved to be mean, why then
to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its
meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by
experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my
next excursion."
Then of course there was that whole "Civil Disobedence" thing.
He was especially empirical in the last 10 years of his life
(read "Faith in a Seed"). I think this was a reaction to his
falling out with Emerson (and disinchantment with transcendentism).
Blah blah blah, I could go on for hours about Thoreau.
Anyone else read the "A Year in Thoreau's Journal:1851"?
Idealism, pragmatism, empiricism aside, I just love his writing.
Can't do lunch today, I'm hacken on our new the WWW server.
chow!
John
Eugene N. Miya
(John S. Watson - FSC) writes:
>where as Muir was a pragmatist, no? However, I think Thoreau was much
Yeah that's okay. How's this:
"Scientists are explorers, philosphers are just tourists."
--Richard P. Feynman
I'm not interested in being a language lawyer.
>more complex than you give him due. Altho, Thoreau may have
>been theoritical (is that a word?) and idealistic, he was definately
>also very empirical, pragmatic and experimental.
I would not use "very." Even Ed Abbey never stayed at Arches or Moab
for the winters. Abbey admitted, he was a wimp when it came to winter time
(preferring AZ). Muir climbed trees in storms, did first ascents,
lobbied in front of Congress.
Also don't forget Ruskin (a lesser English Thoreau: didn't like people
climbing mountains).
Think of Thoreau as a Pilot study to later ideas. A stepping stone.
>Can't do lunch today, I'm hacken on our new the WWW server.
Yeah, I have to write an html on parallel computing.
John S. Watson - FSC
>In article <2usvba$k...@news.arc.nasa.gov> wat...@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov
>(John S. Watson - FSC) writes:
>>more complex than you give him due. Altho, Thoreau may have
>>been theoritical (is that a word?) and idealistic, he was definately
>>also very empirical, pragmatic and experimental.
>
>I would not use "very." Even Ed Abbey never stayed at Arches or Moab
>for the winters. Abbey admitted, he was a wimp when it came to winter time
>(preferring AZ). Muir climbed trees in storms, did first ascents,
>lobbied in front of Congress.
Well, you've got to look at what he, Thoreau, did after _Walden_.
The guy became very very emprirical. He went around measuring and
counting everything. Pond temps, number of seeds, etc, etc.
Most people don't like his later writing (and it is not so famous)
because it of this so (you'd probably be bore with "Faith in a Seed").
Although I agree Muir did a lot more climbing and lobbying for parks
Muir was at the right place and time for that ... National Parks
did not even come into existance until 10 years or so after Thoreau
died (Yellowstone, 1872). Thoreau did do some mountain climbing
Kathadan [sp?]in Maine, etc. And did some goofy outdoor things for
his time (but he was on the east coast, so didn't have the opporetunites
for "first" as Muir did). Thoreau died from a cold he caught while
out counting tree rings in inclement weather (not very pratical!).
Not that I'm disparaging Muir any ... they were both giants.
I do prefer Thoreau writing tho, I find Muir's to flowery
and travel-logy.
Frank Crary
Scott Linn <sc...@hpcvcem.cv.hp.com> wrote:
>: For example, someone who carries a radio while hiking alone,
>: to call for help in an emergency, is no more separated from
>: his environment than if he simply had a two-pound brick in his
>: backpack.
>Huh?
>By having an easy out, via the radio, he has certainly distanced himself
>from a lot of possible events...
Yes, he wouldn't experience starving to death after braking
a leg and being unable to hike out on his own. But this isn't
the sort of experience we were talking about. I thought it
was the normal, hiking experiences of simply being surrounded
by, and aware of, nature. I don't think carrying a radio,
or any other tool, distracts from this unless it is actually
used. Simply carrying one gives a person the option of
saying that this particular, life-threatening event is something
they don't want to experience. Having this option certainly
alters people's actions, but until they choose to use it,
it does not "separate" them from their environment or
distract them from the experience (except for the added weight,
which can itself be a distraction.)
>: The problem you refer to isn't one of what someone carries, but
>: of what one frequently uses.
>You don't have to use the radio for it to have an impact on your outlook.
Perhaps, but you need to look at what impact it actually
has. For example, if you are hiking alone, you experience
nature more than when hiking with a group. The simple
noise of a crowd of hikers is enough to scare away many
animals which a single hiker would see. Now consider someone
who would not feel safe hiking alone without a radio for emergency
use. His behavior is certainly altered by the tool. But does
this reduce or enhance the experience? I'd say it is
enhanced, because he is hiking alone and therefore seems
more and is less distracted by his friends. Hiking
with the bare minimum is certainly different from
carrying all sorts of tools for use in emergencies. But
I don't think either inherently reduces the experience.
In contrast, frequently using tools does separate one
from the rest of the environment and reduces the experience.
That's why I said the analogy of driving in a car versus
walking is not applicable.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Frank Crary
Phil Hatch <pha...@tau.sim.es.com> wrote:
>I must confess I don't completely follow or agree with the general
>trend of the discussion. Quality of experience is such a subjective
>concept that it cannot be discussed without a common groundwork
>to define what a quality experience is. As one poster said, there are
>My specific gripe concerns Frank Crary's statement:
> I don't think this is a very good analogy. It's true of
> _using_ equipment, but not relevant to something
> you just carry along. For example, someone who
> carries a radio while hiking alone, to call for help in
> an emergency, is no more separated from his
> environment than if he simply had a two-pound brick
> in his backpack. On the other hand, someone listening
> to a walkman as he hikes is certainly distancing himself
> from his environment. The problem you refer to isn't
> one of what someone carries, but of what one frequently
> uses.
>The walkman user apparently feels that it is an improvement on
>the experience, or he wouldn't be listening to it.
Perhaps, but there is definitely something out there that
he is missing by listening to the walkman. Arguably, it
is something worthwhile. He might have decided that it isn't
important and that's his choice. But it's equally
possible that he's simply never noticed it and doesn't
know what he's missing. This example is especially interesting
since I've just recently read a remark about "civilized man"
to the effect that most people are accustomed to background
noise and aren't comfortable with real silence.
>So rewriting Frank's statement as I would like to see it:
> I don't think this is a very good analogy. It's true of
> why and how you use equipment for your own
> experience, but ...
A very reasonable revision of my remark. But I'd add that
people should be aware of the choice they are making. If
someone has never considered or experienced the alternative,
they might be missing out on something they would really enjoy.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Edward Hartnett
D> I am just planning on getting back into backpacking after several
D> years layoff and am in the planning stages. Since many of you somehow
D> manage to get out quite often, it seems from your posts, I wanted to ask
D> you something that came to mind from our _previous_ discussion:
D> In your experience, do you think there is there a significant relation
D> between the level to which you equip yourself and the nature or quality of
D> your wilderness experiences? In particular, have you found your forages
D> into the backcountry with the least equipment to be most memorable or only
D> the most miserable?
D> Furthermore, do you think the amount of equipment has a profound
D> psychological influence on the degree to which you achieve a wilderness
D> experience (i.e. the experience is significantly reduced in proportion to
D> the amount of civilization you drag with you)? Or do you think the issue
D> is more philosophical (i.e. the influence that the equipment has is
D> determined a priori, according to the beliefs you have initially about
D> equipment before venturing out)?
I personally think this is a false dichotomy. If you get in your car
and drive along a big highway to go backpacking with your scantily
packed hi-tech backpack which holds your ultalight tent and your
gortex shell to put over the amazingly light and warm pullover made of
this new miricle fabric, and you take out your tinly little water
filter and your tiny little new stove and cook up some dehydrated
meal packaged 1000 miles away and shipped to your local store by
18-wheeler, then in what sense are you only bringing a little
equipment along?
If you don't use all that new-fangled high-tech stuff you are likely
to be carrying more stuff and heavier stuff - is that considered
bringing along more equipment?
And what about the fact that bringing the proper equipment will allow
you to have less negative impact on the environment? For example, who
is more in touch with nature - the camper who always uses a stove, or
the one who distains such technology and always builds fires?
It is always nice to remember a time when you improvised something
successfully on a trip. But it is not so nice to remember a time when
someone got hurt or a trip got ruined because you didn't bring along
something that you should have.
I think a lot of those who loudly profess to want to only encounter
nature and not bring technology with them are simply engaging in
self-deception. If they are hurt they will want the heli-evac just
like anyone else, so their desire to avoid technology lasts only as
long as their luck.
--
Edward Hartnett e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov
(301) 286-2396 fax: (301) 286-1754
Geek code: GAT d? -p+ c++++ l u+++ e- m+ s+++/++ n+ h--- f? !g w+ t++ r y++
Doug McDonald
>>What the exactly is a "trail sweep"?
>He or she is a designated assistant leader to tries to insure a party
>is ahead of him or her and between the point person.
>Yep. And that's a problem going with organized groups.
>Organized groups have other responsibilities to have, insurance policies,
>etc.
Two summers ago, I was on a Sierra Club trip in the SAn Juan Mountains
of CO. The leader was real big on having a "sweep". He was also
real big on not telling the people on the trip what was to be expected
beforehand. This turned out not to be very smart.
The first day was fine. The second day was, shall we say, a near disaster.
The trip was called "moderate" my the S.C. and no mention was ever made
of bushwacking. About 2/3 of this second day was descending a very steep
pile of very large boulders (3-10 feet) with "2nd day heavy" backpacks.
This was very tough going, especially on some folks knees. Some people
freaked out. I almost freaked out, and I'm a very experienced backpacker.
You see, I was just barely recovered from a very bad back and was expecting
no more of this trip than perhaps a couple of hard days of long trail
hiking. That I was quite sure I was ready for (I was right). I was **not**
sure I was ready for the waer and tear caused by serious rock hopping
all day long (I had not tried testing this sort of activity; I was
just fine as it turned out.)
Well, I got to the bottom to find that three or four people had been waiting
for a nour for me; they wanted to go on and did. I waited another
hour and a half and one more person came and reported trouble behind;
several people had in fact freaked out (worse than be by a very lot)
and one person (who had been on three trips with the leader before, and was
a bit wacko) had broken his foot; you see, he had not brought any boots,
not expecting any rock hopping.
As you might imagine, it was very late indeed before everybody made camp;
three people went back to get packs dropped by the medical case and
the freakers.
Anyway, the broken foot guy continued along with us the rest of the trip;
he was **slow** ... like three-quarters of a mile per hour. And some
poor soul was forced by the leader to accompany him. Luckily my
time came the last day as we were passing an area of really incredible
growth of lower plants, which I love, so I had a good time.
So, what does this have to do with equipment? The moral is to find out
the real truth about what you will need. It would be nice to
be able to trust a leader's description, and I always had before, ....
Doug McDonald
Eugene N. Miya
mcdo...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
>Two summers ago, I was on a Sierra Club trip in the SAn Juan Mountains
>of CO. The leader was real big on having a "sweep". He was also
>real big on not telling the people on the trip what was to be expected
>beforehand. This turned out not to be very smart.
This gets back to personality dynamics on trips. Jst as you can
find crummy Rangers in Parks, you will find crummy leaders and
crummy trip participants. Having discussed this recently in a leadership
seminar, this is where a pre-trip interview (sometimes over a phone)
is important. We aren't talking merely quality of experience, on some
trips we are talking about life and death experiences. (See Fred Beckey's
recent book on the history of Mt. McKinley where he points to
Snyder's and Wilcox's account of seven people dying on Denali).
A resume (SASE on some printed trip schedules) is barely acceptable
to scope a person out. A leader should be able to question (a mild form
of stress) an attendee about going on a trip. It is similarly a
participant's responsibility (as a minimium) to have all requisite
skills, knowledge, and gear to do a trip (unless the trip explicitly
includes "training" which is another matter). A leader should be able to
say "No," and a participant should be able to say, "Why?" Answers like:
"We need to travel 'faster,'" or "Boating experience is required" are
perfectly acceptable answers. A few people expecting "adventure travel"
means porters to carry loads, a chef to cook for them, a guide to route
find, are in for a disappointment in the US. You can hire pack mules,
an expensive guide/cook, etc. but this should either all be explicitly
spelled out or the attendees should ask.
Two trips in recently memory come to mind.
1) A work party, I wasn't leading, but a climbing partner was. One participant
a rather urbane fellow from SF (wore perfume and had what they tell me were
fine clothes) appeared at a trailhead w/o a sleeping bag and disliked working
in a dust cabin. He appeared to be a pain to the people with whom he carpooled.
2) I did a long walk with another friend, and it turned out he had never
driving a stick shift before, and we had a long way to drive. So I taught
him how to drive a stick shift. My transmission survived, and we had a
decent walk.
I think that any trip should be capable of running w/o a leader (or two)
because if they died, does that automatically sentence the rest of the
people to death as well? It shouldn't.
>So, what does this have to do with equipment? The moral is to find out
>the real truth about what you will need. It would be nice to
>be able to trust a leader's description, and I always had before, ....
Well, I edited the Subject line.
SASE: Self-Addressed Stamped Envelope.
Scott Linn
:
: >By having an easy out, via the radio, he has certainly distanced himself
: >from a lot of possible events...
:
: Yes, he wouldn't experience starving to death after braking
: a leg and being unable to hike out on his own.
And he certainly wouldn't experience the joy of being completely independent,
because he can always "phone home" if the going gets a little too rough
(which can be a life-threatening injury, or something most people would
consider trivial).
: Now consider someone
: who would not feel safe hiking alone without a radio for emergency
: use. His behavior is certainly altered by the tool. But does
: this reduce or enhance the experience? I'd say it is
: enhanced, because he is hiking alone and therefore seems
: more and is less distracted by his friends.
Funny, some people used this same kind of argument in the negative wrt
guns with you, and you basically poo-pooed it.
I guess what goes around, comes around.
--
Scott Linn
sc...@cv.hp.com
Frank Crary
Scott Linn <sc...@hpcvcem.cv.hp.com> wrote:
>: >By having an easy out, via the radio, he has certainly distanced himself
>: >from a lot of possible events...
>: Yes, he wouldn't experience starving to death after braking
>: a leg and being unable to hike out on his own.
>And he certainly wouldn't experience the joy of being completely independent,
>because he can always "phone home" if the going gets a little too rough
>(which can be a life-threatening injury, or something most people would
>consider trivial).
I disagree. You're saying that a person is not really independent
as long as he could possible get help. That's not my experience
at all: Independence is a matter of how much help you actually
ask for and get. If you could ask for it but don't, you are,
for all practical purposes, as independent as someone who has no
help available.
>: Now consider someone
>: who would not feel safe hiking alone without a radio for emergency
>: use. His behavior is certainly altered by the tool. But does
>: this reduce or enhance the experience? I'd say it is
>: enhanced, because he is hiking alone and therefore seems
>: more and is less distracted by his friends.
>Funny, some people used this same kind of argument in the negative wrt
>guns with you, and you basically poo-pooed it.
>I guess what goes around, comes around.
I'm afraid there is some misunderstanding here: This is exactly
the logic I used myself during the gun debate. That simply
having a tool does not diminish the experience. I'm fairly
sure I didn't "poo-poo" my own arguments...
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Jay Hipps
: In article <1994Jun30....@hpcvca.cv.hp.com>,
: Scott Linn <sc...@hpcvcem.cv.hp.com> wrote:
: >: >By having an easy out, via the radio, he has certainly distanced himself
: >: >from a lot of possible events...
:
: >: Yes, he wouldn't experience starving to death after braking
: >: a leg and being unable to hike out on his own.
: >And he certainly wouldn't experience the joy of being completely indepe$
: >because he can always "phone home" if the going gets a little too rough
: >(which can be a life-threatening injury, or something most people would
: >consider trivial).
: I disagree. You're saying that a person is not really independent
: as long as he could possible get help. That's not my experience
: at all: Independence is a matter of how much help you actually
: ask for and get. If you could ask for it but don't, you are,
: for all practical purposes, as independent as someone who has no
: help available.
Well, there's a point to be made here about expanding your backcountry
capabilities. To a certain extent, discomfort causes us to seek new and
better skills or tools, or to come up with creative solutions using the
materials at hand. In this way, we learn more about ourselves through the
experience of being in the backcountry, which to me is best thing. If
it's too easy to call for mommy, it's easy to allow that discomfort to
stop you from taking that next step.
The analogy I like to use is that Nature is a great, unflinching mirror.
If you go in peace, you will find peace. If you go in competition, you
will find competition. When you finally get away from it all, what
you're left with is yourself. (Yes, I'll use the Buckaroo Banzai quote
here, too: "No matter where you go, there you are.")
Jay Hipps
jhi...@crl.com
Donna A. Lilly
In a previous article, eug...@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) says:
>>By having an easy out, via the radio, he has certainly distanced himself
>>from a lot of possible events...
>
>>: The problem you refer to isn't one of what someone carries, but
>>: of what one frequently uses.
>
>In article <1994Jun28.2...@hpcvca.cv.hp.com>
>sc...@hpcvcem.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>>You don't have to use the radio for it to have an impact on your outlook.
>
>Scott and Fletcher are right.
>I have experience with a PRC-1099 and that wasn't used frequently.
>Your perspective is influenced by how fast you think help can reach you.
>And when that time can be measured in many days or weeks rather than hours
>or one day, you will have a greater appreciation.
All men have souls. The common part of every human soul is to seek
understanding of life. We all seem to have this common lifelong quest for
truth about the meaning of life.
So far, my greatest enlightments about my own soul, and about the meaning
of life, have been from reading philosophy (and I'm just a novice - just a
dumb computer scientist) and when I have soloed through the wilderness with
a pack on my back. Since my experiences in the wilderness, carrying a
pack, have been some of the most memorable, the ones that stay with me, and
are infused most profoundly into my very soul, I think it would be
interesting to venture out with a lighter pack, to see if my exposure to
the natural experience would be increased.
Now, if I were a true naturalist, a seasoned wilderness traveler, I might
be able to go at it without a pack, sleeping bag, warm clothes, extra food.
But I'm not, and am not into the self-deception of thinking I am. Nature
shows too little regard for the survival of the individual of the species
for that. But, it may be worth thinking really carefully about what you
really need to bring with you, to carefully ponder each item before you put
it into your pack, and not including anything non-essential. I don't
really have any idea what that would be even. I'll try it this summer in
Colorado and see. It's something to think about.
Eugene N. Miya
(Donna Lilly) writes:
>In a previous article, eug...@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) says:
>>>By having an easy out, via the radio, he has certainly distanced himself
Actually, I suggest a slightly better editing job.
>All men have souls. The common part of every human soul is to seek
>understanding of life. We all seem to have this common lifelong quest for
>truth about the meaning of life.
You have recently read or seen The Razor's Edge by Maugham or something?
>So far, my greatest enlightments about my own soul, and about the meaning
>of life, have been from reading philosophy (and I'm just a novice - just a
>dumb computer scientist) and when I have soloed through the wilderness with
>a pack on my back. Since my experiences in the wilderness, carrying a
>pack, have been some of the most memorable, the ones that stay with me, and
>are infused most profoundly into my very soul, I think it would be
>interesting to venture out with a lighter pack, to see if my exposure to
>the natural experience would be increased.
>
>Now, if I were a true naturalist, a seasoned wilderness traveler, I might
>be able to go at it without a pack, sleeping bag, warm clothes, extra food.
>But I'm not, and am not into the self-deception of thinking I am. Nature
>shows too little regard for the survival of the individual of the species
>for that. But, it may be worth thinking really carefully about what you
>really need to bring with you, to carefully ponder each item before you put
>it into your pack, and not including anything non-essential. I don't
>really have any idea what that would be even. I'll try it this summer in
>Colorado and see. It's something to think about.
Frequently, I find myself sitting in local meetings given by survival
"experts" from places like the National Nordic Ski Patrol and the like.
It typically gets to a space blanket, and I will raise and hand and ask,
"Ever use one? For real?" And the answer is typically, "No."
My suggestion is, go ahead and pack a pack. This is the time of year
to do this. Then, drive or travel into an area where you can park the
car or hop off the train. Then you get to spend the night with with you
have in your pocket. The pack stays in the car. You can use
anything in the neighboring woods (biased example obviously, but with
a little ingenuity, can easily be generalized else where). You spend the
night with the clothes on your back and what ever you have in your
normal pockets. Pick a weekend or an evening when you don't have to resort
to extra special gear like a pancho (spent several nights with just than
once). Yeah, you can have a packet of matches in your pocket (careful with
fire). You shouldn't do this in a camp ground, but in open camping areas
if possible. Take points off if you go back to the car and remove
things from the pack. No biggie. Later you make the "game" harder.
I think I'm running out of extra SBs (pretty worthless, but who knows).
Being a computer scientist shouldn't penalize you.
Edward Hartnett
E> Frequently, I find myself sitting in local meetings given by survival
E> "experts" from places like the National Nordic Ski Patrol and the like.
E> It typically gets to a space blanket, and I will raise and hand and ask,
E> "Ever use one? For real?" And the answer is typically, "No."
I have used one, BTW. It was not an emeergancy - I am trying to
remember the exact circumstances, but I can't. I know it was winter.
Anyway, it didn't keep me all that warm, but it did a pretty good job
considering its weight. Would have kept me from freezing to death (the
weather was not that cold though - probably just a little below
freezing).
But what really pissed me off was the damned crinkling noise every
time I moved or even took a breath. It was very hard to get to sleep!
Also it tore when I rolled over, and, like tinfoil, once it starts
tearing, it just keeps tearing.
My conclusion: if the person you are wrapping up is not moving and not
awake, then it would work pretty well to keep him/her from freezing to
death, unless it is well below zero.
Oh, and as long as they are short. I'm over 6'6" and it didn't cover
my whole body! So bring two and some duct tape!
Kemasa
Frank Crary <fcr...@benji.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>In article <1994Jun30....@hpcvca.cv.hp.com>,
>Scott Linn <sc...@hpcvcem.cv.hp.com> wrote:
>...
>>And he certainly wouldn't experience the joy of being completely independent,
>>because he can always "phone home" if the going gets a little too rough
>>(which can be a life-threatening injury, or something most people would
>>consider trivial).
>
>as long as he could possible get help. That's not my experience
>at all: Independence is a matter of how much help you actually
>ask for and get. If you could ask for it but don't, you are,
>for all practical purposes, as independent as someone who has no
>help available.
This is true. It seems like some people tend to think that if you
have a radio that it will ALWAYS work and you ALWAYS get help.
I know of a group that carried a radio for emergencies and when
they needed it, they could not contact anyone and the old method
of sending someone out was used.
Try bringing a radio and see how often it works.
>>: Now consider someone
>>: who would not feel safe hiking alone without a radio for emergency
>>: use. His behavior is certainly altered by the tool. But does
>>: this reduce or enhance the experience? I'd say it is
>>: enhanced, because he is hiking alone and therefore seems
>>: more and is less distracted by his friends.
>
>>Funny, some people used this same kind of argument in the negative wrt
>>guns with you, and you basically poo-pooed it.
>>I guess what goes around, comes around.
It is most interesting to see how people's views change as the object/tool
changes. The words having postive/negative connotations, but some people
try to ignore that and/or justify it. In the case of guns, if you were
to talk about an object which can be used for many things, including
self defense, hunting, etc. people would not react as much, after all
a staff can do the same things (to some degree), yet few would argue
that. Some people don't have a problem with radios, others do, yet
with a radio you are hoping to count on someone else rather than just
yourself.
>I'm afraid there is some misunderstanding here: This is exactly
>the logic I used myself during the gun debate. That simply
>having a tool does not diminish the experience. I'm fairly
>sure I didn't "poo-poo" my own arguments...
A tool means nothing, it is the person's attitude. I can have a
good time with a few things as well as many things. I have spent
a night out when it was cold with very little things (no tent, no
sleeping bag, no food, no matches (had other means to start a fire),
etc.) and I have had a lot of toys. Each is different and each is
good, but it is my choice.
--
Kemasa.
NRA Life Member/Certified Instructor Sierra Club Leader Pro-Choice
Insanity is the best defense. e-mail: kem...@ghost.hac.com
The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching
consequence of submission to authority.
[Stanley Milgram]
David Inman
>>In your experience, do you think there is there a significant relation
For twenty years, I have been searching for the "ideal" backpacking list
and have given up in brute frustration. Perhaps the ideal list does not
exist - just as trips are different and we ourselves change over time - so
must our equipment list. I marvel at people who tote ovens, inflatable
boats, and cast iron frying pans into the woods. Amazing.
Your equipment must suite your needs and eccentricities. Since I do mostly
solo, I opt to carry a small radio. Apart from providing weather informaion
it is of some company on cold, rainy nights. Invariable I find that the
heaviest item in my pack is the food since I usually do longer trips.
I once met a through hiker on the AT that tied a beach chair to the back of
his pack. When I came upon him, he was sitting on the roof of a shelter
in his beach chair, smoking grass, and listening to his walkman piped through
battery-powered speakers. He said he believed in being comfortable.
One final thought. Rather than keeping a check list for gear, use 3x5 cards.
Packed items live in one pile and unfinished/unpacked items in the other.
Whittle down the second pile to nothing and you're ready to go! This
system makes the process of equipment list revision a piece of cake.
Great thoughts from Colin Fletcher!!
Dave Inman