for your consideration

30 10 2008

i’ve decided.  i like simply being in the world rather than becoming something particular in the world.  being over becoming.  let me explain.  

being is like a dot with potential lines of action emerging from its center.  becoming is like two dots with a line connecting them; a single line of action.  the former assumes a non-linear flow of circumstance and combination and allows for allowance itself, while the latter circumscribes action under the assumption that action leads to a particular, knowable somewhere.  but it strikes me the only thing we can be certain of is the present – now, no now, no now – as the past is an ever-receding(and constantly (re)remembered) fiction and the future is yet to pass.  now is all we know.  it is the extent of our certainty.  

what does this have to do with the rockclimbings?  everything i suppose.  see, i had planned on doing my dissertation on pain, memory, and trauma.  a cool triad of concepts (applause), this body of work would have looked at the language destroying capacity of physical pain, the subject forming capacity of mental anguish, and how we organize both into a discourse on/of trauma.  fun fun fun.  sarcasm aside, it did offer some interesting problems and certainly offered more in the way of ‘jobliness’ than the new dissertation:


so the other day i was arguing about grades on 8a trying to explain the virtuality of grades to an attorney from reno.  for some reason he was concerned with the conversion from YDS and vermin into 8a grades.  my argument was simple: why on earth would you want to convert between two imaginary scales?  pick one and be done with it.  

and that’s when it hit me…..   there is no reason to over-intellectualize climbing when MY JOB is to over-intellectualize everything else.  since there are no real political effects bound up in my academic products (sans teaching of course), i should just pick one and be done with it.  


so to get this thing going, i submit to you a list of climbing ‘effects’.  not a list of how climbing ‘effects’ things, but simply all the things (to include discourse, commodities, landscapes) that are both produced by climbing and (re)produce climbing.   

for your consideration, a list of climbing ‘effects’:

  1. a/the climbing landscape:
  2. a discourse on body science:
  3. a discourse on difficulty
  4. a discourse on quality
  5. a discourse on nature/society regarding impacts and rights (as in property relations)
  6. a discourse on death, obligations to/in life (mostly in the context of soloing)
  7. a hero discourse
  8. an array of commodities 
  9. a discourse on style/ethics
  10. a discourse on fear
  11. a discourse on triumph over nature
  12. a discourse on complexity and nature
  13. an array of tools and technologies
  14. ?????????????

more?  por favor?  



wanna fill in one of these?  





7 responses

30 10 2008
peter b

I’ve been reading Richard Rorty a bit recently and find his approach to talking about truth very rewarding. Discussing or defining being or becoming, while interesting in a speculative/recreational sense, ultimately leads nowhere since language has no hope of resembling or mirroring actual truth. The discourses you have grouped around climbing, according to Rorty, are only valuable as they solve, or at least appear to solve, problems that humans experience in living in and explaining the world. They will, and I think history has shown that they already have, become obsolete and unsatisfactory over time. Seeking transcendant meta-narratives that “explain” what is “really” going on is a dead end, not that that’s what you’re trying to do. So coming back to the over-intellectualizing aspect, it seems that your best option is to not worry too much about either. By the way, what “field/department” and where are you dissertating in?

31 10 2008

What in God’s name are you talking about!?!


That’s right: We are all human ‘beings’, not human

1 11 2008

while i doubt i’ll be able to reach the level of eloquence and intellispeak you have transcended to, seeing as how my job is to simplify everything into manageable quanta, crosspurposed to yourself, i have to nonetheless interject- you’re speaking of (your opposition to) determinism in two dimensions. you’re missing the third axis and the all important fourth dimension of time. i’ll simplify a bit by neglecting the quantum aspects of probability and how you could actually be and become simultaneously.

but more to the point, are you seeking an “idea” that describes your reality outside of the language we use to describe it? as i recall it was myself that had to defend this idea from you. and simplifying to two dimensions- come on tommy, that’s not like you!

so is it possible to believe in “ideas” and also a subjective reality? can i believe in an archetypal idea of V7 as a discourse on difficulty and also as a reletavistic scale of accomplishment?

coming up next: greg poops for the third time this morning after drinking too much coffee.

1 11 2008

shew. deleuze makes climbing blogs confusing. ok, here is my response – short – but a response.

mr. beal-
rorty and i disagree on truth. for rorty, there is an unknowable/unreachable ‘really real’ truth. thus our intellectual ‘work’ can be read as recreational since mere language never comes close to approximating rorty’s transcendent truth. for me – and in stark stark contrast to mr. rorty – we are only an amalgamation of various knowledges, discourse, and practices. in other words, there is no outside; we make the world legible and are subject of said legibility. under the auspices of this construction ‘truth’ is but an effect made through the (re)production and (re)circulation of particular discourses and practices. to waaaaay oversimplify: if everyone in a particular milieu believes a red light means stop: it does. we live in a world of red lights (and green as well i suppose)… cultural geography/social theory… university of kentucky.

this clearly wasn’t written in ‘god’s name’. quite the contrary. immanence over transcendence: look it up. werd.

i’ll explain @ the boulderfield.

love and stuff.

3 11 2008
peter b

Sounds to me you are not in stark contrast to Rorty. Where does he argue that “transcendent” truth exists? Alternately if there is nothing outside of language and discourse, where, following Kant, does the possibility of conceiving inside/outside come from? How can we make the world “legible” without Kant’s catgories? Is the natural world only discourse because of the limits of human understanding. Why can’t it exist outside of discourse?

3 11 2008

this is going to email. stat. 🙂

3 11 2008

i’m not in school anymore. . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: