An unpopular take on The Alpinist

"There are old climbers and there are bold climbers, but there are no climbers both old and bold".Bill Lawrywrote:

I think Chouinard said this to me back in the late 1950s while camping and bouldering together. He was big on Boldness. When I equivocated while leading a small FA I could tell I failed his boldness test (and lost one of his first knifeblade pitons). But later while he and Kamps were trying the north face of the Crooked Thumb he took a leader fall, flying past Bob in a perfect swan dive position headed for Cascade canyon thousands of feet below, that certified his own boldness.

Andy Shoemakerwrote:

For starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Climbing, physical activity in general, is a physical way to connect with the real world, in the present moment, often with loved ones and in my experience provides insight and inspiration and brings meaning to life outside of climbing.

Narcotic use is a chemical way to escape the real world and the present moment, removes connection with loved ones, allows users to (only at the surface) avoid unpleasant aspects of life, impedes brain function and original lines of thinking and massively distorts neurotypical brain chemistry.

One is an apple. The other is orange colored arsenic. Do you see this, to me at least, obvious nuance?

That you are not in touch with the concept of "adrenaline junkie" is very telling and precisely why you see false equivalence whereas this former medical professional sees the exact same behaviors and denial.

People get addicted to all kinds of physical activity that then leads to abuse and (albeit rarely) mortality.

The general case of exercising for relaxation and enjoyment is more akin to a glass of wine with dinner. THAT is an equivalence.

Free Soloing Alpine routes in bad weather to "feel normal" is a sure sign of adrenaline addiction. 

IIRC correctly Honnold admitted to free soloing to feel normal or to correct a bad mood. That is not a healthy relationship with risk. Its abuse, and directly equivalent to substance abuse.

NateCwrote:

Do I say what? That their death isn't meaningful? Pretty much, but the irony is that it's not more or less meaningful than the old man who fell down the stairs on blood thinners and bled out, or the mom smashed by a drunk in an MVC.  For many who see death on the regular, we start to recognize that it's a process that's inevitable. Much like the mountains it doesn't give a shit who you were. It seems that people largely go one of two ways with this realization. Many become even more scared of living and all the ways you can get killed. Others of us (I'd put myself here), start to feel like we're going to die somehow and some way, and venturing out into the world becomes a lot less scary. I'm not trying to get killed by any means, but my relationship with all of the death and tragedy that I've witnessed is that there's absolutely zero reassurance that you won't get killed by something at any given time. Be that medical episode, or traumatic incident. So I may as well carefully give chase to that which endows me with knowledge of self and the world around me.

As far as "they chose the life they wanted?" Your question is very reductionist. I really don't feel that the equivalency that you are trying to draw works. To some extent, yes a heroin addict does in fact choose their life. My uncle died of a fentanyl overdose last year, after many many years of struggling with addiction to all sorts of drugs. And ultimately, if you reduce it far enough to a yes or no question...yes he made a choice and it killed him. But the way you've intentionally chosen to word your question leaves it without any room for nuance, so I've answered without nuance and will provide the caveat that there's a lot of room to get deeper into this answer. 

To clarify what I was getting at when I made that post: If Marc Andre had fallen down the flight of stairs he was sleeping on and died, would we be providing our un-welcomed opinions on how he lived his life and where he chose to sleep? I largely think not. I think this conversation is coming from a place where people cannot see themselves doing what he was doing because they believe it to be too risky for themself, and therefore they admonish it. Particularly because he died. Colin Haley, Mark Twight, Dani Arnold, Matt Cornell, (to name a very few) all have done similar to Marc Andre but they aren't being called out here or in any threads...perhaps largely because they are still alive to tell people to go fuck themselves. They are admired because they are alive. Marc Andre gets criticized because he died. There's an irony that the courage to criticize only comes when he isn't here to defend himself.

There's a deep possibility, a possibility that exists in a VERY uncomfortable place, a place people don't like going to because they cannot relate to it at all and it's REALLY scary for most. I want to point out that I have NO idea for sure that Marc Andre felt this way, but the possibility exists because other alpinists such as Steve House have expressed it in no uncertain terms...

There are people who are so willing to devote themselves to something, that they are ok if they die doing it. The power of what it is showing them about themself and human potential is worth the risk. They understand that death is inevitable in some form but the choice to seek self-knowledge may come with death as a cost and they consent to the risk with acceptance.

It is, in my opinion, beyond reproach to pick apart how someone chooses to live his life and assume risk based only one's personal lens for living. They may value experience, life, and realization so much differently than myself. Therefore it makes zero sense to examine their life through my lens. To apply my personal matrix for risk to the life they chose to pursue is insulting to their free will. It is very much the same way that I do not sit here and criticize the life of a person who chooses to avoid taking any risks in the mountains by staying in the lowlands. Live and let live, die and let die. 

For a medical professional you have a very poor understanding of addiction. 

When the drugs take over the person is lost and they lose free will to decide their lives. It's not a choice anymore.

And if you think climbing is worth dying for then I think you should be talking to more mature individuals that may see personal sacrifice as reasonable to save others.

But not for some stupid FA that will never get climbed again and serves no one but the climber's own concept of glory, sponsor's edification or his need to get a fix.

Harumpfster Boondogglewrote:

That you are not in touch with the concept of "adrenaline junkie" is very telling and precisely why you see false equivalence whereas this former medical professional sees the exact same behaviors and denial.

People get addicted to all kinds of physical activity that then leads to abuse and (albeit rarely) mortality.

The general case of exercising for relaxation and enjoyment is more akin to a glass of wine with dinner. THAT is an equivalence.

Free Soloing Alpine routes in bad weather to "feel normal" is a sure sign of adrenaline addiction. 

IIRC correctly Honnold admitted to free soloing to feel normal or to correct a bad mood. That is not a healthy relationship with risk. Its abuse, and directly equivalent to substance abuse.

What evidence do you point to that MAL was a junkie and not simply like the rest of us who push the limits of our abilities throughout our climbing careers?  

If him simply going after cutting edge climbs means you assume he was a junkie, that's a huge leap.  And would have the whole sport still climbing 5.6 with pitons... Or really it would mean 5th class in general would never be traveled.  Stick to the hill walking you junkies!

ETA- you could easily have missed it, but I'm a 9 yr SAR member, 6 yrs as a WEMT on the hasty team, 3 of those I was also a volunteer on the local urban EMS organization.  I think I have decent real world context to base my opinions on.

Andy Shoemakerwrote:

What evidence do you point to that MAL was a junkie and not simply like the rest of us who push the limits of our abilities throughout our climbing careers?  

If him simply going after cutting edge climbs means you assume he was a junkie, that's a huge leap.  And would have the whole sport still climbing 5.6 with pitons... Or really it would mean 5th class in general would never be traveled.  Stick to the hill walking you junkies!

I think all of the pathologizing of folks who are comfortable with “extreme” levels of risk is misguided.

 If you’ve ever flown on an airplane or purchased goods shipped across the world’s oceans you have a bunch of those folks to thank. 

nowherewrote:

I think all of the pathologizing of folks who are comfortable with “extreme” levels of risk is misguided.

 If you’ve ever flown on an airplane or purchased goods shipped across the world’s oceans you have a bunch of those folks to thank. 

Ahh yes.  But "I don't understand it, so it must not be true."  The other side of the "it makes sense to me, so it must be true" coin.  Logical fallacies are the real addiction.

Harumpfster Boondogglewrote:

For a medical professional you have a very poor understanding of addiction. 

When the drugs take over the person is lost and they lose free will to decide their lives. It's not a choice anymore.

And if you think climbing is worth dying for then I think you should be talking to more mature individuals that may see personal sacrifice as reasonable to save others.

But not for some stupid FA that will never get climbed again and serves no one but the climber's own concept of glory, sponsor's edification or his need to get a fix.

I see that you decided to stoop to personal attacks since you’ve nothing left to actually add to the discussion.

I’ll point out again that you asked me an either/or question that left zero room for nuance or discussion. You’ve chosen to ignore that to attack my professional knowledge based on that answer. I have no need to defend my professional career, knowledge, or excellence as it has been recognized and awarded repeatedly in my career. You’re not capable of judging me through a few words written on mountain project.

I didn’t say that I believe climbing is worth dying for. I said that there are people who do feel this way and it’s their choice to live as they see fit. You twisted that reply to fit your emotional but seemingly thoughtless response.

And I can’t make sense of your weird statement about more mature individuals and personal sacrifice. I have nothing to say there.

If you’d like to discuss something I’m here for it. It seems like you don’t really have any substantial thought so you just resorted to attacking me rather than making any kind of logical counterpoint. 

John Gillwrote:

I think Chouinard said this to me back in the late 1950s while camping and bouldering together. He was big on Boldness. When I equivocated while leading a small FA I could tell I failed his boldness test (and lost one of his first knifeblade pitons). But later while he and Kamps were trying the north face of the Crooked Thumb he took a leader fall, flying past Bob in a perfect swan dive position headed for Cascade canyon thousands of feet below, that certified his own boldness.

I didn't know the source of the saying. Thank you for chiming in about that, John Gill and Victor Creazzi.

Makes sense too.  Before I climbed in Colorado's Flat Irons, I'd read that Chouinard thought East Face of the Third Flat Iron was the best route for a beginner leader - or something very similar.  When I did the route the first time, my thought was that the route was awfully run out for a beginning 5.5 leader.  Yes, big on boldness!

Edit:  ... this from one who for about 5 years whole heartedly thought that climbing was worth dying for ... still just a bit of that in me. :)

I don't think that Victor was intending to claim that the statement originated with Donini--it clearly pre-dated him, but rather pointing out that Jim is a prime example of a very bold climber who successfully made it to becoming an 'old climber'.

Alan Rubinwrote:

I don't think that Victor was intending to claim that the statement originated with Donini--it clearly pre-dated him, but rather pointing out that Jim is a prime example of a very bold climber who successfully made it to becoming an 'old climber'.

Ah, I think I get it now Alan.  Thank you.

Alan Rubinwrote:

I don't think that Victor was intending to claim that the statement originated with Donini--it clearly pre-dated him, but rather pointing out that Jim is a prime example of a very bold climber who successfully made it to becoming an 'old climber'.

That's correct Alan. Jim Donini the old bold climber. 

Do you remember me from the gunks? 

bryanswrote:

Eric, I am at present godless, like many here. I can see you mean well, but if you take a step back maybe consider what effect, if any, your words are having on others. You're basically saying you are right and better off now because you found god, and the rest of us are still wrong and worse off, because we haven't. Let's just assume you are correct. You're right. All the same, I'm asking you to please stop proselytizing in this thread, and reflexively defending yourself and your views. I was clear up above that I didn't and don't want this thread to become what it's become. Talk about the process and mindset of headpointing thin trad routes at the Gunks all you want, we are here for that shit!

@Nick Goldsmith, I became a catholic five years ago.

@whoever mentioned the earth being 6,000 years old. That’s not the Catholic stance, nor is evolution in conflict with God. I’ll email you separately if you like.

Hey Bryan, this is the last post I’ll make. I hope you do understand the order of events, I posted something as banal as “they are alive in the arms of God.” And was immediately jumped on by a bunch of people for simply saying that, and then I’m asked not to defend myself or my worldview as it relates to this topic. I also want you to know that I don’t think anybody is living worse or wrong, nor have I said that or implied it, I’ve simply rationally defended my worldview. I wouldn’t suggest or say that because my actual view is much more nefarious, once you stop believing in God, God doesn’t cease existing. Like if you stopped believing in gravity you wouldn’t float away from the earth. I also know God is an eternally loving God whose mercy and grace are beyond human comprehension. 

Andy Shoemaker, and anonymous likers. really bad and angry take. I promise you I’m not angry in the slightest and everything you said is projected. You should relax and reread everything I’ve said when YOU are less angry. The “trolling” I admit to is some of the sarcastic comments I’ll make, but none of that is in anger or judgment or anything else you made up about me.

Many religious people don’t know that faith is perfectly rational. Because I had to be convinced of the existence of God, I had to very deeply and for a very long time rationalize my way around every single counter argument I used to believe in, looking for every loophole not to know God. You claim to practice but you seem to deride the Bible as a 2,000 year old book and don’t seem to know that the theological stance of most forms of Christianity is that “God can be known through natural human reason from created things.” This came from the First Vatican Council. Maybe you are cradle religious so YOU are operating on irrational faith alone. I am not.

An example of this would be intelligent design, as somebody mentioned. I’m not sure how ANYBODY could look at a double helix strand of DNA and think, “UNintelligent design” or “wow that formed like that based on .0000000infinity0000000001% random chance.”

You have two choices when it comes to “faith.” You put your faith in the fact that everything IS intelligently designed and works just so perfectly. Or you put your faith in .000000infinity00001% random chance that everything happened to work perfectly. Except only one of those choices is perfectly rational. Even if you choose to put your faith in random chance, that doesn’t explain the beginning of the universe itself. Randomly, time, space and matter formed of nothingness and created a random universe. That sounds very irrational to me.

As this relates to MAL or Austin Howell, or anybody, we have a purpose in our lives that God has set for us, and we have to find it. Dying because you like speeding down the highway isn’t it. Or in an avalanche because you’re driving the demons away. My purpose seems to be ruffling feathers on MP for speaking clearly and rationally.

Eric Marxwrote:

...this is the last post I’ll make...

Statisticians would give The Alpinist better odds of survival than Eric Marx actually shutting the f*ck up.

Todd Jenkinswrote:

Statisticians would give The Alpinist better odds of survival than Eric Marx actually shutting the f*ck up.

I'M BEING PERSECUTED!  I NEVER SAID THAT! EVERYONE IS PICKING ON ME!

did I miss anything? 

And to the Shoemaker/ hillbilly conversation- why do I now picture a whole family in the boonies shooting up together now? Who are we to say this doesn't bring the family true happiness? 

we get it Eric, your being persecuted... doesn't matter which branch or which faith. when you start rambling in massive blocks of text you have gone full whackadoodle...  Trust me. we don't care that you Telle. 

I love how simply explaining the order of events can rile you guys up so easily. Good thing that any honest person who can read still has full access to the thread. No wonder you call the discussion rambling, you can’t even follow a simple timeline without telling me to shut up and putting words in my mouth.

Block me now because I’m not afraid to speak openly and publicly about God. Nick, I’ll take your “rambling” attack to simply mean “I’m too lazy/uninterested/uncaring to follow what you said.”

I’m not here for a popularity contest, here, on YouTube, or otherwise. My post seemed to get one like(actually not mine but I may like it in the future to juice the numbers a bit lol), and if that one like helped that one person deepen their understanding of God, and how God relates to our sport/risk/and our lives, I’m perfectly content. Let the posts telling me to shut up get 150 likes.

Eric— I pm’d you several days ago so we could discuss offline and stop bothering these nice people.   

Mark, I did see your message. Happy to continue talking. I was surprised to see it was significantly more congenial than you’ve posted in this thread(and others between us). I appreciate you reaching out, I haven’t responded because my son has been sick and I’d like to take more time to respond than an average MP thread, and ask you some questions.

Just so Catholics are not falsely misrepresented, they have made peace with science unlike modern Christian fundamentalists.

Well, there were at least a string of solid posts before proselytization and eye poking crept back in (I'm no saint).

Eric Marx:  I've been following Mark Pilate for years in these forums.  He is more of a gentleman than your characterization.  Surprised you do not see that.

Eric Marxwrote:

@Nick Goldsmith, I became a catholic five years ago.

@whoever mentioned the earth being 6,000 years old. That’s not the Catholic stance, nor is evolution in conflict with God. I’ll email you separately if you like.

Hey Bryan, this is the last post I’ll make. I hope you do understand the order of events, I posted something as banal as “they are alive in the arms of God.” And was immediately jumped on by a bunch of people for simply saying that, and then I’m asked not to defend myself or my worldview as it relates to this topic. I also want you to know that I don’t think anybody is living worse or wrong, nor have I said that or implied it, I’ve simply rationally defended my worldview. I wouldn’t suggest or say that because my actual view is much more nefarious, once you stop believing in God, God doesn’t cease existing. Like if you stopped believing in gravity you wouldn’t float away from the earth. I also know God is an eternally loving God whose mercy and grace are beyond human comprehension. 

Andy Shoemaker, and anonymous likers. really bad and angry take. I promise you I’m not angry in the slightest and everything you said is projected. You should relax and reread everything I’ve said when YOU are less angry. The “trolling” I admit to is some of the sarcastic comments I’ll make, but none of that is in anger or judgment or anything else you made up about me.

Many religious people don’t know that faith is perfectly rational. Because I had to be convinced of the existence of God, I had to very deeply and for a very long time rationalize my way around every single counter argument I used to believe in, looking for every loophole not to know God. You claim to practice but you seem to deride the Bible as a 2,000 year old book and don’t seem to know that the theological stance of most forms of Christianity is that “God can be known through natural human reason from created things.” This came from the First Vatican Council. Maybe you are cradle religious so YOU are operating on irrational faith alone. I am not.

An example of this would be intelligent design, as somebody mentioned. I’m not sure how ANYBODY could look at a double helix strand of DNA and think, “UNintelligent design” or “wow that formed like that based on .0000000infinity0000000001% random chance.”

You have two choices when it comes to “faith.” You put your faith in the fact that everything IS intelligently designed and works just so perfectly. Or you put your faith in .000000infinity00001% random chance that everything happened to work perfectly. Except only one of those choices is perfectly rational. Even if you choose to put your faith in random chance, that doesn’t explain the beginning of the universe itself. Randomly, time, space and matter formed of nothingness and created a random universe. That sounds very irrational to me.

As this relates to MAL or Austin Howell, or anybody, we have a purpose in our lives that God has set for us, and we have to find it. Dying because you like speeding down the highway isn’t it. Or in an avalanche because you’re driving the demons away. My purpose seems to be ruffling feathers on MP for speaking clearly and rationally.

"Hey Bryan, this is the last post I’ll make." Um...I do not think that phrase means what you think it means...if when you say that, you then within just a couple more hours make more posts. 

PS: Your thread/video about your "10 worst falls" is cool and is the side of you most of us would like to hear about and see. There's no need to get into these pissing matches about religion.

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/126712745/my-worst-falls-analysis