16 June 2015
It is the title of an article by Alessandro Gogna with whom we share the path, one step behind, information away from clichés, stereotypes and sensationalism at all costs. Hence the choice of dealing often the concept of "security".
The central theme of this new contribution, which invite you to read in full on the blog Osservatorio delle Libertà in Montagna, is the opposition (then ambiguity) that is placed in front of those who go to the mountains where one side is forced to follow a famous slogan, that of "no limits", while the other is pushing for a packaging of the safety concept time purchase of product that should, according to marketing experts, eliminating the "risk" in favor of a "total security".
Closed between the blades of this scissors, shoot the real danger. Leveraging this article, we try to understand why.
The initial condition: we are immortal, or almost.
The advertising concept of "no limits" implies that there are limits to what man can do. The concept is true, for the most part, but what is not seen is the SUBJECTIVITY 'of the matter. The perfect example is Alex Honnold and his free solo. The mental and physical abilities of Alex are so enormously high and is able to move "inside" his limits controlling anxiety and fear in a way superior to all others. To do that, as he himself explained talking about Dean Potter, it takes years of preparation. These examples are NOT "no limits", the advertising is misleading. Samples are more equipped, highly trained and impossible (mortally dangerous) to imitate.
"The limits are there for all, each has its own, each group has its individuals. This must be clear. You can not say otherwise, you can not play (or simply exaggerating to use marketing). No limits is a real blasphemy, hyperbole is equal to that of one who compares the essence of the highest deity in pork. About every day proffers this blasphemy is the publicity apparatus, the marketing in general."
The added condition: if you're not immortal, you can become one, here's how ...
"For example, when they wanted to promote the last APP for GPS, the phrase that I heard at the Festival of Trento (then in a home very competent, moreover) was, quote:" why so, finally, Mr. Rossi will also want to go anywhere, with confidence. This, translated, means that for Mr. Rossi there will be no limits. It means preaching a gigantic falsehood thousands of Messrs Rossi, in order that they will buy this "damn" object... that is not important here to know whether it works or if it does not work."
This alone is enough to explain the whole sentence. The idea of security is not based on ability, skills and judgment (subjectivity) but carry on one or more articles (objectivity) that erase the risk. Because this happens? Why do we object PROXY our safety. The concept of delegation by the way, was already touching when it had laws that could limit the dead in the mountains.
Against technology then? Of course not!!!
Already at this point, the trivial observation would then be "against" technology. Obviously, the technology helps, helped and help more and more: the products are improving year on year, last longer, communications are extremely fast. For example, "the weather is quite another thing than just 30 years ago. When there is high pressure on the Azores we are comfortable...But when the weather is uncertain, we have a significant proportion of people doing activities in the mountains, trusting in the "window" of good weather. If we had completely unreliable predictions, no one would speak of "window", a few more would be at home. This speech would lead very far, my purpose is not to convince but only to provide the glow of truth alternative. So yes to the information, techniques and instrumentation, but without becoming slaves or fanatics, without giving them more importance than they reserve to our instincts. "
Again it's not just the OBJECTIVITY 'safety (more accurate forecasts, materials increasingly technological, etc.) but also the SUBJECTIVITY' use of them (decision-making ability, evaluation, etc.) As already had spoken Popi Miotti article "More technology = more security?"
How to win then the "killer mountain?"
The link between mountain and death is far exceeded, also in 2015. On the one hand it is true: the mountain is a place where people die. May not like or be "politically incorrect" to say but in fact is a place that can be dangerous and marketing operation to cancel the purchase of one or more objects is that they are based on these articles. There are those who use the argument "dead in the mountains" to develop their head, being always a topic that affects much public opinion, more often than not, however, without taking positions on the incident or trying to make possible solutions (no mind you have the pride to propose solutions as certain and definitive).
"What we first of all we must have is the modesty of the bottom that gives you a sense of limits, exactly against the rage of no limits. This time, I decided! Having the sense of limits is a manifestation of humility, receptiveness example and teaching of others, friends and not friends. And 'manifestation of "love" for the mountains because there is a respect for it, you can give either joy or pain. "
Approach "humble" the mountain: the ability to give themselves the right confidence.
"Humility means ability to give confidence, thus giving love. If there is one thing that almost all we do is just begrudgingly giving confidence. It's rare that we do. We give if we are in love, so in a state of love. And how to trust ourselves, to the totality of ourselves? "
The understanding each other, understanding and assessed back to the heart of the matter. Again, a coherent self-assessment of its assets and capabilities and a willingness to invest on them rather than on the technological means, can give added security.
"It 's important, therefore, accepting the very incomplete knowledge of ourselves, to give great confidence in what we are heading for better or for worse. And 'the only good way to make sure that our choices deep coincide with our security. The recognition of the limit (and therefore the humility and love) is the only passport to the real responsibility, the only "paper" that we can afford. A responsible individual is truly free (in the sense of being endowed with free will), why not free those who "does what he wants", but he is free who does after you. "
All this reasoning obviously undermines the concept of "safe mountain" that you want to sell, presenting the subject in the center of the action and not the object so it is difficult to attack (it would be interesting replicas).