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

> 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  *
>

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

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