Day 14. April, 23. Base Camp (BC). The day off
Since today we have a day off, and there is a possibility that tomorrow will be the day off and day of recreation too, so there is a great opportunity to philosophize. I plan to philosophize methodologically: the first part I'll devote to Everest as a challenge, achievement, result; the second part - Everest as a way, process, the pleasure of life; the third part I'll try to make integrative, which combines the way and the result, to HAVE and to BE.
But since I have no experience of philosophic reasonings, which would be meant to be published, and I don't write an american textbook on management, but the blog - the life narrative thread, so it is not clear where will this methodological action lead me.
For those, who are more interested in what happening here - I inform: yesterday in the evening our club was officially opened. There is a tennis table, billiards and a TV in the club. Yesterday there was the Russian movie 'The Caucasian prisoner' ('Kavkazskaya plennitsa' - 'Кавказская пленница' in Russian), which in general only sherpas watched. In general, everything is quite good.
Session 1: Everest as a challenge, achievement, result
Our views on what is good and what is bad were formed in the occidental system of values, and it is easy to see, how the converting of the human person value into cash happens. Money as a system of measurement are very convenient: even fool can see that the owner of Rover or Porsche is better, more successful and (must be) happier than unhappy owner of a car of the Russian car industry or than those 25-30 year old odd fellows, who were not able to pile up some money to buy a car at this age.
From this point of view Everest is easy to be measured as the highest aim of strivings and desires of any mountaineer: there is just nothing higher than the highest top. It's even possible to measure the attractiveness of 8000+ mountains with the help of the table of the ascents of eightthousanders (the are 14 of them) by counting how many people ascended each mountain. The result will be the following: Cho Oyu - 3000+ ascents (Cho Oyu is the easiest eightthousander, a lot of mountaineers often ascend it before Everest - just to try ones powers at the high altitude), Everest - 5000+ ascents, other eightthousanders - from 200+ to 400+ ascents. Consequently, Everest - as the highest point of the world - is MUCH MORE demanded, than other mountains higher than 8000 meters. Summarizing, we can say this: from the point of view of the (close to mountaineering) society, a person who were on the top of Everest is happier than those, who weren't.
Quite often on first acquaintance all conversations between mountaineers start from listing all highest points, on which they have been. Since such conversations are usually in English - the verb 'to have' is usually used. That means, that the summits, which had been conquered, are considered as an asset, a property. Thus, it is subconsciously assumed that the greater asset (number of conquered summits, their height, complexity) a person has, the happier he is.
There is no need to say, that in the hypertrophied human development as a mountaineer, other aspects of his life (family, personal life, work, relationship with friends) cannot but suffer. There are not so many people, who can evaluate the achievements of that remarkable conqueror of mountains, and the farther he moves, the less people can evaluate that. What difference is there for you, which peak of Annapurna he climbed on and on which route, if you don't know what Annapurna is? For the professionals this is the matter of high importance though, like for some successful businessmen it is important what car to drive - Lexus or Cruiser.
And here the question of comparability of the results comes up; we started this discussion with Bogovolov in 2007 in Nepal and we continue it now. If to compare: to go on route by oneself, setting camps, cooking food, carrying the equipment up to the higher camps or to go on the fixed ropes, to eat a hot soup, prepared by the time of your arrival there (which was served to us yesterday in the preset kitchen tent), to sleep in the pre-mounted tent in a sleeping-bag, which had been brought there just for you - it all is like to swim across the river on your own or in a boat - the uncomparable things, with the labor expenditures of the completely different levels. But today the society evaluates the success from the achieved result point of view, and from that point of view any person who got to the top on the ropes, fixed by someone else, 'has' a mountain; and those three men from the expedition of 1990 - 'have' not.
The question of Everest challenge is different for everybody. There are people in our expedition, who have been on Everest multiple times: Mingma Sherpa - 7 times, Lakpa Sherpa (his sister) - 6 times, Aleksandr Abramov - 8 times, Noel Hanna - 6 times, Sergey Larin - 6 times, Ivan Dusharin - 3 times, Sergey Bogomolov - twice. Apparently, for them the question of challenge is not so relevant as for me. For me personally - Everest is a great challenge, even though I understand the absurdity of the external challenges for a (kind of) successful person.
The question of Everest challenge is different for everybody. There are people in our expedition, who have been on Everest multiple times: Mingma Sherpa - 7 times, Lakpa Sherpa (his sister) - 6 times, Aleksandr Abramov - 8 times, Noel Hanna - 6 times, Sergey Larin - 6 times, Ivan Dusharin - 3 times, Sergey Bogomolov - twice. Apparently, for them the question of challenge is not so relevant as for me. For me personally - Everest is a great challenge, even though I understand the absurdity of the external challenges for a (kind of) successful person. For me Everest is an internal challenge. Reinhold Messner wrote good words about it:
How can only a man, who appreciate well-being and the feeling of safety, understand that I only feel complete, when I am able through sacrifices and extreme exertion to approach to the boundaries of the human possible stress? And that I am trying to move this boundary?
A boundedness of my high-altitude capabilities I understood in 2007. At the time of an overnight stay in Lobuche village (4950 m) I became strongly sick from mountain altitude disease. To the usual weakness and headache the violation of peripheral blood circulation was added: when you press on your finger tip - the white spot appears and doesn't disappear - the heart doesn't drive blood up to the tips of the fingers. For the same reason at night my feet froze: I put worsted socks and warm pants inside of my sleeping bag, but it didn't helped. In the morning they measured with pulseoximeter the oxygen content in my blood and said: 'Go down immediately!'
It was a pity to go down, almost reaching the aim. And I decided that if to go with a good pulse, blood should be driven to the tips of the fingers. Thus, we had one same day to climb to Kalapattar (5 550 m), then to reach Everest Base camp the same day, and descend for 1 km down to Feriche village, because I was afraid to stay for the night at such altitude. So I came to Feriche at 1 a.m., and clearly understood that it's impossible for me to become a mountaineer and it is better not to ascend higher than 4200 m. The only thing that I understood not very clearly - is that excess weight, smoking and alcohol greatly reduces the limit of the possible. So now I'm very curious to try – will I be able to push this boundary more?
Since today we have a day off, and there is a possibility that tomorrow will be the day off and day of recreation too, so there is a great opportunity to philosophize. I plan to philosophize methodologically: the first part I'll devote to Everest as a challenge, achievement, result; the second part - Everest as a way, process, the pleasure of life; the third part I'll try to make integrative, which combines the way and the result, to HAVE and to BE.
But since I have no experience of philosophic reasonings, which would be meant to be published, and I don't write an american textbook on management, but the blog - the life narrative thread, so it is not clear where will this methodological action lead me.
For those, who are more interested in what happening here - I inform: yesterday in the evening our club was officially opened. There is a tennis table, billiards and a TV in the club. Yesterday there was the Russian movie 'The Caucasian prisoner' ('Kavkazskaya plennitsa' - 'Кавказская пленница' in Russian), which in general only sherpas watched. In general, everything is quite good.
Session 1: Everest as a challenge, achievement, result
Our views on what is good and what is bad were formed in the occidental system of values, and it is easy to see, how the converting of the human person value into cash happens. Money as a system of measurement are very convenient: even fool can see that the owner of Rover or Porsche is better, more successful and (must be) happier than unhappy owner of a car of the Russian car industry or than those 25-30 year old odd fellows, who were not able to pile up some money to buy a car at this age.
From this point of view Everest is easy to be measured as the highest aim of strivings and desires of any mountaineer: there is just nothing higher than the highest top. It's even possible to measure the attractiveness of 8000+ mountains with the help of the table of the ascents of eightthousanders (the are 14 of them) by counting how many people ascended each mountain. The result will be the following: Cho Oyu - 3000+ ascents (Cho Oyu is the easiest eightthousander, a lot of mountaineers often ascend it before Everest - just to try ones powers at the high altitude), Everest - 5000+ ascents, other eightthousanders - from 200+ to 400+ ascents. Consequently, Everest - as the highest point of the world - is MUCH MORE demanded, than other mountains higher than 8000 meters. Summarizing, we can say this: from the point of view of the (close to mountaineering) society, a person who were on the top of Everest is happier than those, who weren't.
Quite often on first acquaintance all conversations between mountaineers start from listing all highest points, on which they have been. Since such conversations are usually in English - the verb 'to have' is usually used. That means, that the summits, which had been conquered, are considered as an asset, a property. Thus, it is subconsciously assumed that the greater asset (number of conquered summits, their height, complexity) a person has, the happier he is.
There is no need to say, that in the hypertrophied human development as a mountaineer, other aspects of his life (family, personal life, work, relationship with friends) cannot but suffer. There are not so many people, who can evaluate the achievements of that remarkable conqueror of mountains, and the farther he moves, the less people can evaluate that. What difference is there for you, which peak of Annapurna he climbed on and on which route, if you don't know what Annapurna is? For the professionals this is the matter of high importance though, like for some successful businessmen it is important what car to drive - Lexus or Cruiser.
But remember, ascending your Everest:
you would never do that alone.
Yuriy Kukin
Now let's look on Everest as a on a result, first of all as a personal result. Or in other words: how better it is - to ascend Everest rather than not to ascend. Here is an example: in 1990 the team of four people stormed the mount of Everest. They fixed ropes, hammered the hooks in, set the tents up, cooked food. Only one of them got to the summit, because the whole team had worked for him. But the whole team considered themselves as conquerors, winners. These people grew up and learned to be mountaineers in 1980-s in conditions of the collective culture of Alpine camps of Soviet Union.
Now, everything is the same - the team of 4 people, one of them is on the summit - in 2012 - and a completely different estimated result: one is a fine fellow, the other three - not, for them the ascent is considered unsuccessful. The Soviet Union collapsed in these years, the culture changed, the serious transformation of views on what to consider success happened. From the point of view of the modern (close to mountaineering) society, only a person, who stood on the summit, can call himself a a conqueror. No more team spirit - now only the crystal-clear individualism is encouraged.
An approach to the organisation of ascents have changed: the trained mountain sherpas are hired - they build infrastructure, fix ropes, put up tents, cook food, after that they throw away all trash and bring the hardware down. Sherpas get money for that, mountaineers are engaged only in 'lifting' themselves by the prepared routes.
And here the question of comparability of the results comes up; we started this discussion with Bogovolov in 2007 in Nepal and we continue it now. If to compare: to go on route by oneself, setting camps, cooking food, carrying the equipment up to the higher camps or to go on the fixed ropes, to eat a hot soup, prepared by the time of your arrival there (which was served to us yesterday in the preset kitchen tent), to sleep in the pre-mounted tent in a sleeping-bag, which had been brought there just for you - it all is like to swim across the river on your own or in a boat - the uncomparable things, with the labor expenditures of the completely different levels. But today the society evaluates the success from the achieved result point of view, and from that point of view any person who got to the top on the ropes, fixed by someone else, 'has' a mountain; and those three men from the expedition of 1990 - 'have' not.
The question of Everest challenge is different for everybody. There are people in our expedition, who have been on Everest multiple times: Mingma Sherpa - 7 times, Lakpa Sherpa (his sister) - 6 times, Aleksandr Abramov - 8 times, Noel Hanna - 6 times, Sergey Larin - 6 times, Ivan Dusharin - 3 times, Sergey Bogomolov - twice. Apparently, for them the question of challenge is not so relevant as for me. For me personally - Everest is a great challenge, even though I understand the absurdity of the external challenges for a (kind of) successful person.
The question of Everest challenge is different for everybody. There are people in our expedition, who have been on Everest multiple times: Mingma Sherpa - 7 times, Lakpa Sherpa (his sister) - 6 times, Aleksandr Abramov - 8 times, Noel Hanna - 6 times, Sergey Larin - 6 times, Ivan Dusharin - 3 times, Sergey Bogomolov - twice. Apparently, for them the question of challenge is not so relevant as for me. For me personally - Everest is a great challenge, even though I understand the absurdity of the external challenges for a (kind of) successful person. For me Everest is an internal challenge. Reinhold Messner wrote good words about it:
How can only a man, who appreciate well-being and the feeling of safety, understand that I only feel complete, when I am able through sacrifices and extreme exertion to approach to the boundaries of the human possible stress? And that I am trying to move this boundary?
A boundedness of my high-altitude capabilities I understood in 2007. At the time of an overnight stay in Lobuche village (4950 m) I became strongly sick from mountain altitude disease. To the usual weakness and headache the violation of peripheral blood circulation was added: when you press on your finger tip - the white spot appears and doesn't disappear - the heart doesn't drive blood up to the tips of the fingers. For the same reason at night my feet froze: I put worsted socks and warm pants inside of my sleeping bag, but it didn't helped. In the morning they measured with pulseoximeter the oxygen content in my blood and said: 'Go down immediately!'
It was a pity to go down, almost reaching the aim. And I decided that if to go with a good pulse, blood should be driven to the tips of the fingers. Thus, we had one same day to climb to Kalapattar (5 550 m), then to reach Everest Base camp the same day, and descend for 1 km down to Feriche village, because I was afraid to stay for the night at such altitude. So I came to Feriche at 1 a.m., and clearly understood that it's impossible for me to become a mountaineer and it is better not to ascend higher than 4200 m. The only thing that I understood not very clearly - is that excess weight, smoking and alcohol greatly reduces the limit of the possible. So now I'm very curious to try – will I be able to push this boundary more?
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий