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

> Hey, its a mind thing. They really don't give energy or sustenance. Only
> corn pasta does.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Nickodem [mailto:Dharmabum64@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 9:37 PM
> To: The Weathercarrot
> Cc: pct-l@backcountry.net
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] The Ray Way as it is.
>
>
> Wow...sorry didn't mean to start this,  but hey it has been a passionate
> discussion correct?  Also Carrot I don't care how you massage the issue
some
> of Ray's quotes in his book are just plain fruity.  Enough said.  Maybe it
> shouldn't be 300 pages or even 30 but somewhere in-between.  Also there is
> no way I'm giving up my beloved Snickers on trail!
> Peace out!
> Dharmabum
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The Weathercarrot" <weathercarrot@hotmail.com>
> To: <manjovin@jps.net>; <pct-l@backcountry.net>
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 9:27 PM
> Subject: 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  *

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

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