Re: [pct-l] The Ray Way as it is.

["The Weathercarrot" <weathercarrot@hotmail.com>]

Hi - Just some thoughts - feel free to ignore...

It looks like we've hit the core of the "Ray Way" conflict.

>Let's let Ray speak for himself from the pages of his handbook:

Good idea...

>>"Obviating a piece of equipment reduces it's weight by a full 100%"

>(really?)

There is more than one way to interpret that statement. I think he's talking 
about a redefining of what an individual considers a "need." Once you do 
that, those items that once fell under the definition but now don't, are 
reduced in their weight by 100%. It's up to each person to decide for 
themselves what is worth redefining and I think he recognizes that.

>>"...the thru-hiker in running shoes covers the trail in seven weeks less 
>>time."

>(really?)

His point is that there is a cumulative benefit of having less weight 
attached to your feet every time you lift them up to walk, especially over 
2,600+ miles. The "seven week" claim is pretty silly because such a benefit 
would be so individual that to measure a distinct trend is next to 
impossible.

>>"Candy is quite useless when it comes to supplying energy."

>(really?)

Depends on what kind of energy you're looking to have.

>>"Because thirst is mainly psychological, we distance hikers must never 
>>rely on it to tell us when we need to drink water."

>(rely on what? Remember this sentence while crossing the Mojave.)

I think he's saying here that there is a psychological (and therefore 
changeable) component to every physical form of "craving" or "desire" we 
have. His use of the word "mainly" is what affects the interpretation of the 
statement. This issue is analogous to the desire we have on hot days to 
drink cold water instead of warm, even though the latter is more healthy. 
Our minds can easily be conditioned to where our awareness is only partially 
in tune with our true physical needs. That's all he's saying.

>>"If wind-driven rain prompts you to wear your parka while hiking, you will 
>>hike with greater efficiency by wearing it backward." <<

>(really?)

Just one of many things that he puts out there to provoke people to think, 
whether they agree or not in the end. Trying that technique for one rainy 
stretch probably hasn't created much harm.

>>"If I need it [gear] and don't have it, then I don't need it."

>(really? remember this when you lose one of your shoes, or a tent pole.)

Here once again we're talking about the core idea that "need" is relative. 
Yes, ANY need. To me the term is defined by what the objective is. And any 
objective is malleable. If you lose one of your shoes, then, no matter how 
you feel about it, you resort to other means (barefoot if necessary). If you 
lose your tent pole, you find some sort of alternative. Your objective 
changes. With both scenarios you are reassessing your idea of comfort. Like 
before, this is simply a basic concept that is left up to each person to 
decide how it can apply to them and how they view backpacking.

>>"God loves the mountains, trees, and even our stealth campsites."

>(really? But the NPS doesn't.)

The breaking of a rule or law does not automatically mean that one has done 
something wrong, or has violated some universal absolute. Federal, state, 
and local law making bodies don't have any more grasp of moral concepts than 
anyone else does (yes - I know exactly how that statement will be responded 
to). The point being that if you don't personally feel guilty about stealth 
camping, then just do it and don't get caught.

>>"The people who survive will be the small, nomadic tribes, ekeing out 
>>their existence upon a stormy, dusty earth." <<

>(uh, oh.)

Don't worry - it's not a sentence to panic about. He's referring, yet again, 
to this idea of relative definitions. In this case, it is this: the less we 
are dependent on what we have invented/created around us (technology, 
convenience, etc), the more likely that we can survive if it is suddenly not 
there. That's it. Very simple and non-threatening.

>--Yes, folks, it's all in there. The "Ray Way" is a package; you need to 
>accept the whole thing in order to make it work. <

Not true at all. The "Ray Way" is to introduce a different perspective into 
your own reality. Take whatever you can incorporate and leave what you 
can't.

>If you don't believe thirst is mental, then you can't carry a little day 
>pack (because you need to carry more than a liter of water), and that means 
>you can't wear slippers (because a real pack
weighs more), which means you're unlikely to hike 40 mile days all the way 
to Canada. <

All of those points are based on assumptions. Yes, we have to make some sort 
of assumptions just to function in this world, but they also, often 
severely, restrict our mindset. We create our own reality, and to a large 
extent our own limitations. Outside of cultural paradigms, and our 
individual selves, there's nothing that says one can't carry more than a 
quart of water in a small pack, that you can't use lightweight footwear with 
more water weight, and that you therefore can't do 40 miles a day. There's 
also nothing that says you have to do 40 miles a day. Make assumptions, but 
be very aware of why you make them.

Just some thoughts - feel free to ignore...

wc
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

* From the PCT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================