No doubt that my understanding of what it means to be open minded is different than another person's. So what is it to you?
To me it means more than just be open to hear and read what one considers progressive. You are not open minded if you are only open to hear what your already believe in, no matter how much you think your beliefs are "open minded". The moment you close that door you now belong to those close minded people.
Any thoughts?

Admitting you are wrong to other people is hard enough.. Admitting you are wrong to yourself is hardest of all.
This is the lesson I keep having to re-learn, over and over.
Every time I put my pride aside and allow my self to be vulnerable long enough to see another persons point of view, I learn something.
However, my time atop the high peak of wisdom is usually very short and i go right back to being a pig-headed, ignorant fool quickly enough.
People are crazy; some of us just hide it better than others.
.

Edited by Ice-axe on 09/22/2011 09:30:42 MDT.

Depends what the issue is.

Freezerbag cooking vs. in the pot? Yeah, I can be very open minded and polite on that one.

Religious and racial persecution?
Sorry, my open mindedness and tolerance starts to quickly go out the window.

How does one reconcile maintaining an open mind (being willing to listen to and genuinely consider someone else's beliefs) with maintaining personal conviction to certain ideals?

For example, I have a very strong conviction that women should be treated with respect and equality. Do I have to maintain an open mind when someone argues the contrary based on their own philosophical/religious belief system? At what point do we say "Sorry, I cannot accept what you preach" and no longer feign tolerance?

Is being open minded simply being polite?

Are there behaviors and attitudes in this world that do not warrant polite, tolerant responses?

I certainly think so.

Craig, I don't advocate tollerating prejudice, violence and the like. You probably have read my numerous replies to threads/ posts that I perceived to either imply or depict women being helpless/ needy/ weak/ whiny etc. If someone posts about a study on the difference in brain size and white/ grey matter between men and women, I would hopefully be able to discern if the post is meant as a slight, or as something interesting that warrants discussion. To say that any man that discusses brain size is a sexist pig....would be close minded.
By all means, let's let each other know we don't agree, but generalized, ignorant and offensive replies to what we don't like, don't help.
Most statements that start with "anybody that" , "every single" etc, are not a productive way to address an issue.
I am writing from an iPod, keep that in mind.

As far the recent gun threads, that have prompted this one, I for one would like to know how many people on the trail carry, what they carry and why. Having that knowledge is just another way of preparing oneself for what could happen. I want to know about the dangers of being out there, including this one.

It is PC thinking that everyone should get along - and agree on everything. It is human nature to have biases. Even the most "progressive" thinking person has them - often the biases is simply looking down at those below them - a perceived notion that those who are not as enlightened are not as intelligent or haven't grown enough.

If people don't disagree life would never change - change comes from people thinking out of the box. I'd rather live with some strife and obnoxious behavior than have everyone one get along - because why would we change if everything was perfect?

Nothing wrong with listening to others and seeing where they are coming from generally. Weighing the pros and cons of the recent guns threads in the context of a UL backpacking website, with users counting and weighing squares of toilet paper, or figuring ways to go without it, .... when every ounce and even gram is scrutinized, firearms will get looked over as a metal object, like carrying an iPad or tuba, but esp. in terms of risk (we're more likely to get hurt in a fall, via hypothermia, or a fatal insect sting than mauled by a griz or encounter the very, very rare backcountry criminal).

However, if it's common knowledge that some law-abiding hikers carry or there's lightweight hunting rifles available, that could confer a benefit to others who do not carry to deter that rare criminal. Make him even rarer. From the recent threads, it also may teach shooters not to be a hazard to others and properly deploy those weapons (more an issue to me while I'm mountain biking btw). Solution (IMO) is BPL have a separate lightwt gun/hunting/etc... forum (maybe add personal safety) as not to mix with the gram weighers and stridently antigun folks in 'Gear'.

With other issues, we might learn something .... or do the polar opposite. Just remember, if someone is truly your enemy, give their kids a drum set for Christmas..

(My 2 centavos worth)

Edited by hknewman on 09/22/2011 14:21:53 MDT.

And maybe on a side note....I'll talk about my own blatant bias in life. I don't just hate, I literally despise organized religion. I had so much crammed in me as a child that I am all full up on wack-ville for the rest of my life. If there is a God, we are good to go. I made my peace with the nuts years ago. My bias is I will NOT talk religion - I don't want to hear how Jesus saved a person's life, or that I could be a better person if I let God in my life or anything connected to religion. I shut down and tune people out.

Since I was 18 I have been in my now dead families church for 6 funerals. I only went out of respect. I am polite and those who know my well enough from when I was a child/teen know better than to ever, ever talk religion with me. I have one Aunt left alive in the church, should she die I will attend hers. But needless to say at every funeral the men in the church come onto my husband like flies on manure and he isn't rude but tells them to leave us alone.

I am not open minded on that subject. It doesn't make me rude though - I am very polite and shut people down. And yeah, it is the main reason I live in a private community so I cannot be bothered by religious folks.

I don't want to hear others beliefs on religion. I am OK with being close minded though on that. Grow up in a cult and you will understand.

A post about guns AND religion in the same BPL thread!?!?! Now all we need is a political post and we will have the trifecta!!

Ryan

I think there is a fine line between open mindedness, and political correctness. I take that back, I think what most people consider being open minded is only that if those beliefs/ideas/concepts have filtered first thru veil of PC, and passed that sniff test, thus proving a higher intelligence. I do resent the sometimes feeling anymore that being open minded means you must abandon your personal convictions, and that they are wrong. I will also admit that I find myself increasingly bigoted towards stupid people, but I'm also getting older and becoming more of a jerk, so maybe that's related. As much of an a-hole as I have been lately, I'm almost hoping I have some brain disorder to blame it on. Anyway.......it's really hard to be open minded.

And if you ever see me on a trail, Kat, I will not be carrying. Catch me in town, and you'll make money in the long run by taking the over.

Won't happen Ryan. Everyone knows it's Bush's fault.

"I had so much crammed in me as a child that I am all full up on wack-ville for the rest of my life."

Well, that would explain the guns.

(kidding!)

@ Kat P.

To help answer your question about how many folks carry guns on the trail, I think it's the vast minority really. Part of that may depend on region though. I suspect that out West it will be less than here in the South because of cultural differences - we give newborns revolvers here in TN :) I have carried while hiking before, but only on rare occasion when my family comes along. We have a one year old and a three year old and so the protective father comes out in me. Even though probably not necessary.

As to open mindedness - I think a lot people are only open minded to the issues that they don't care much about or don't hold near to their heart. Things like politics, religion, caring for the environment - no one is going to change my mind on those. Things like best vacation destination, sure let's talk about it. If that makes me wrong or shallow I can live with that.

Ryan

Throw in open minded about global warming

Ryan: "Things like politics, religion, caring for the environment - no one is going to change my mind on those."

That is your choice, but I am not even sure what that means.
Politics....like a political party, a few basic rights, your freedoms..?
Religion...like your freedom to practice it or not, the idea that you practice the right one and no one else, the idea that you let morality guide your decisions in life, the idea that morality and religion are the same thing, like what?
Caring for the environment...Like you want to preserve what we have, make it better, learn how you actually impact it vs how you think you impact it, etc?

No one can change your mind, but you could change your mind, depending on what happens to you, what you learn etc....and if one is so set and certain, what is the threat of others talking about their beliefs?
There really aren't too many beliefs, beyond not hurting anyone, that I am not willing to re evaluate.

Some people seem to be more open minded than others. Maybe it has to do with our own innate character? For example... are we the naturally curious sort? Those who are may be more open minded without even thinking about it. Or are we the type who feel comfortable that we've got the world (and humanity) all figured out already? Then we may be 'naturally' more closed minded.

But innate character aside, I think we all can learn to be less judging of others -- regardless of whether we have our own minds made up or not. We can't pretend to be more curious than we really are (not continually anyway) -- but we can learn to be more respectful of others! The latter is something that I struggle with (but hope to master someday).

Kat-

Without opening a huge thread on my beliefs on each of those three topics, the important thing to take away from it is that on those things only I can/will change my mind. No threat in talking about those issues with others, I *love* talking about all three actually. However, in order for me to change my beliefs on topics such as those it's going to take some soul searching on my part and not a casual conversation with a friend.

I can still be open minded in the sense of understanding why someone takes the position that they do and not condemning them for it. Although, that may be more tolerance than anything else.

Ryan

Open mindedness, for me, is trying to see the merit in the position of another side. Unfortunately, many of our deep beliefs (religion, politics, ads on BPL, etc) are set so tightly that even a barrage of reasoning from the other camp won't change anything. That's simply human nature.

For example:

You could sit me in a room with 100 Republicans for a month, lobbying their political stance, and I can pretty much guarantee that I won't walk out of that room a Republican. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be open minded to some of their ideas, and actually agree with them on select items, but as the Republican party as a whole stands right now, there is little that I can find common ground with. I wouldn't change my belief system simply to stay "open minded."

However, that doesn't make me closed minded because I didn't convert. It would, however, be closed minded to stick my fingers in my ears and sing "LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU" for that entire month.

There sometimes is a fine line between callously writing off another argument simply for the sake of being stubborn and disagreeing with that argument. Two open minded people can disagree and still remain open minded. It is HOW they disagree that matters.

Edited by T.L. on 09/22/2011 15:10:22 MDT.

I offer this post to continue a healthy dialog and not to be a picky jerk.

Kat writes: "Most statements that start with "anybody that" , "every single" etc, are not a productive way to address an issue."

In other words, absolutisms are not constructive. And I agree.

Kat also writes in the OP: "You are not open minded if you are only open to hear what your already believe in, no matter how much you think your beliefs are "open minded". The moment you close that door you now belong to those close minded people."

That is very close to an absolutism. Or at least it's not being very open minded towards closed minded people. :) Whether she likes it or not, Kat simply has already formed her own opinions on what it means to be open minded, which may not jibe with someone else's. Does that make her closed minded towards closed minded people? Nah. I wouldn't have given it a second thought if it weren't the topic of this thread.


I'm fully aware that people could pick apart many, many of my own posts. I'm sure I've contradicted myself here and there... The point is, its incredibly hard to fully understand one another, and its incredibly hard to stand by one's convictions and not offend someone else. It's also incredibly hard to never make a rhetorical or semantic mistake, especially on the internet where you have millions of people just waiting to call you out on something.

I think the purpose of this thread is a good exercise in discussion. As I said in my previous post (in not so many words): we can all go to bed each night after disagreeing with everyone else and still wake up "good" people who can be open minded. That is, unless we disagree in a deconstructive way.


Ok, I've officially blabbered WAY too much.

Edited by T.L. on 09/22/2011 15:47:25 MDT.

Open-minded doesn't only mean "willing to change one's mind." It also has nothing to do with political correctness or being accepting of all views (which is what I think "political correctness" actually means in usage...a code word for feeling pressured to tolerate things you disagree with). Open-minded only means "willing to evaluate new information in a fair manner (and if sufficient, THEN being willing to change one's mind)" (Now define "fair" and "sufficient" ;) Rejecting information as insufficient evidence to change your mind is not automatically close-minded. Refusal to consider the evidence in good faith is what is close-minded.

Open minded is evolutionary biologists pointing out that there is no evidence to support young earth creationism but ample evidence for evolution. Close-minded is creationists wilfully ignoring and misrepresenting evidence for evolution while producing no evidence to support their own POV.

Ultimately people believe what they want to, and "truth" is usually more subjective than we'd like. Perhaps being able to accept *that* is the mark of being open-minded.

Spelt beats me for the succinct post award. Well said.

Edited by T.L. on 09/22/2011 15:51:01 MDT.

Since I refuse to use a search engine to craft a reply [I build data centers, we don't use the word "google" unless one is working directly for them]I see a few of us are talking about open-mindedness and a few tolerance.
Open-minded, I believe, means being receptive to new ideas and methods.
Tolerant, I believe, is having a view or belief but allowing room for others of differing views and beliefs to co-exist.
If you are open-minded to discussions of say alternate marriage you could be persuaded to possibly support the concept. If you are tolerant to the idea it can exist but your opinion is unchanged.
i.e. Sarah is tolerant to the idea of organized religon but not open-minded about it.
The question I would ask is being open minded automatically defined as already having an opinion but willing to listen to other's POV or can someone have no opinion at all be considered to be open minded just having an unformed belief or ideal.
We also have the apathetic and the short attention spanners, one group can't muster the energy to even care to form an opinion and the other can't focus long enough to be pinned down to one, in Washington State we call these folks "voters."
I might add the BPL filter is both intolerant and closed minded to euphemisms to alternate marriages.

Fair enough, Travis. It does get tricky pretty quickly and you called me on it. Hopefully I'll think of a clever, related, response after I come back in from weeding : )

Spelt,the definition of "political correctness" that you gave is completely new to me:
"a code word for feeling pressured to tolerate things you disagree with".

Your definition of open minded:
"Open-minded only means "willing to evaluate new information in a fair manner (and if sufficient, THEN being willing to change one's mind)" (Now define "fair" and "sufficient" ;) Rejecting information as insufficient evidence to change your mind is not automatically close-minded"

I agree with this. Except that there is also rejecting information a priori, or because one feels it is the right thing to do and not even open that door.
BPL has a good number of people that have given some of the more controversial issues a good amount of thought and have come to their conclusions. There are also a good number of people that have put no or very little thought, buying someone else's thinking wholesale, who reject new information. Then there's me, who has put "some" thought into it, but knows there is a lot more to know out there, so let's hear it! ; )

On truth, I also agree. Very few truths are universal in my opinion ( including this one)

I wish I had a garden/yard to weed. Being in an apartment in the city keeps me more disconnected from actual earth than I'd prefer. I'm a little INTOLERANT of some of my neighbors and am CLOSED MINDED about the questionable activities that go on above me. :)

How much of what one says has anything to do with what is really one's belief?

I find myself of two minds on some things and find myself arguing for the underdog
in a given situation and then turning around and arguing the other side with people
of the opposite opinion.

Enough outside pressure can make me shut up. Like when my spouse lets me know she has
heard enough, or perhaps when someone says they won't buy my stuff because of my
posted opinion. Having my name on my post makes me think twice before posting.

I am not open minded...I like what I like, and dislike what I dislike...You will never get me to listen to newish country music because I destest it. I will not listen to what passes as rap music today, because I hate it. We can discuss politics if you all want, but I am sure that I am NOT open minded to certain political beliefs


However, it is the way that you either refrain from discussion or how tolerant you are that makes you get along with others on things that you are opposite on

"How much of what one says has anything to do with what is really one's belief?

I find myself of two minds on some things and find myself arguing for the underdog
in a given situation and then turning around and arguing the other side with people
of the opposite opinion."

I do that too.

Well, it ended up not being weeding, but rather digging, which you'd think would get my blood going and bring more oxygen to the brain....we'll see.

Bear with me here. Regarding a couple recent "flaming" threads. Say that like most of us here on BPL you don't like guns, or don't think they should be taken backpacking, or you don't believe in the 4th etc. Any or all of those.
A new BPL member or guest would like to discuss firearms and backpacking. This person may be also be part of gun forum, but shares enough interest with backpackers that tries to open the discussion on this forum.

1. The majority of BPL members shake their heads. Some dismissive and rude comments are made. New member's sanity and manliness (...)are being questioned. This person may now well go back to their gun forum and only discuss firearms in a place where all agree with them, and their original point of view is reiterated. They may also come away from the experience believing ( and telling others ) that all these left wing nuts have no real argument and immediately jump and call names etc.

2. The majority of BPL members still shake their heads. Some of the people that are well versed in firearms, bears, safety etc. offer their opinion and engage in a meaningful conversation about it . The newbie could come out of the experience with some food for thought. They stick around.

Personally, I would rather we mix things up a bit instead of each going to our corners and only discuss with those that agree with us.

I know, those are just two scenarios an there are plenty more, including trolling.

One thing I dislike about some commenting systems is the use of hiding 'disliked' or 'thumbs down' comments. Usually what happens is people will simply dislike a comment they don't agree with. All this tends to do is hide dissenting minority opinions. It becomes a bunch of people just agreeing with each other and you tend to not learn anything new. There might be even opinions you'd never heard before and might even agree with.

There are a lot of topics I am not terribly interested in but I like that they exist. Sometimes I will read them out of curiosity; UL chair? I'll just use my CC pad but I might read anyway to see what new ideas people might have.

And to avoid the negative scenarios Kat mentioned above, especially since the number of gun threads have seemed to multiply lately, there should be a separate forum, as others have suggested. Everyone would win, and we could get back to discussing how we could save a tenth of a gram on our skin-out weight by exfoliating before we go hiking.

"And to avoid the negative scenarios Kat mentioned above, especially since the number of gun threads have seemed to multiply lately, there should be a separate forum, as others have suggested. Everyone would win, and we could get back to discussing how we could save a tenth of a gram on our skin-out weight by exfoliating before we go hiking."


Sounds good.

One interesting thing on these forums is the general expression of cultural differences from people across the country. The most obvious one being the attitude towards firearms. I am always amazed at the apparently uncontrollable visceral anti-gun outbursts.

Here in Montana about half the people are hunters. Not just blue collar people, men, women, everybody. Pick any random group of soccer moms you will probably find a couple big game hunters. Typical small talk at this time of year might include asking a person if they drew any special hunting permits (like for moose)or had any big hunts planned. If you were to reply that you didn't like guns and had a moral objection to killing they would probably look at you like you just fell from the sky.

I am not saying this is right or wrong I am just saying this is the reality of the social environment.

As people we feel a need to adjust to whatever the prevailing social norms are. I see quite a few folks come into the state that start out mortified that their neighbors are all gun nuts. They adjust, and in only a year or two they are boring me to death with discussions of terminal ballistics and their rationale for selecting one big game bullet over another. Kind of makes me wish they had held firm to the anti-gun stance.

edited for spelling

Edited by DavidAdair on 09/23/2011 01:18:19 MDT.

>I am always amazed at the apparently uncontrollable visceral anti-gun outbursts.

Here in Montana about half the people are hunters. Not just blue collar people, men, women, everybody. Pick any random group of soccer moms you will probably find a couple big game hunters. Typical small talk at this time of year might include asking a person if they drew any special hunting permits (like for moose)or had any big hunts planned. If you were to reply that you didn't like guns and had a moral objection to killing they would probably look at you like you just fell from the sky.

I am not saying this is right or wrong I am just saying this is the reality of the social environment.
-----------------------------

Just to note...that social environment you call Montana makes up only about 4% of the landmass of the United States, and 0.3% of the population. You may be immediately surrounded by similar thinking people, but remember there's a whole world out there. The internet is global. Montana is, well, Montana.

Who cares? lets get back to exfoliating!

>Who cares? lets get back to exfoliating!

Do you use an apricot scrub, or something like a pumice stone? :)

Edited by T.L. on 09/22/2011 23:26:44 MDT.

OK I have to admit the excitement of exfoliating is fleeting.

Nothing like a lively argument to get the blood up. The recurrence of the g*n issue may be because it remains unresolved within the community. Some day we may have to settle it with a knock down, drag out global warming flame thread. No definitive conclusion will be reached but maybe we will all become so jaded and indifferent that nobody will get bent out of shape thereafter. Don't know that I care to start it today though.

Oh what the heck.

I will pick out Kat's comment simply because I have seen the same concern voiced on a number of occasions:

>I for one would like to know how many people on the trail carry, what they carry and why. Having that knowledge is just another way of preparing oneself for what could happen. I want to know about the dangers of being out there, including this one.

For heavens sake it's not a mason jar full of nitro glycerin. It requires human involvement to hurt anybody. Yes its terrifying to think that some dumba$$ could be in control of a device capable of quickly ending your life. But if you've ever ridden a bicycle you know they already are. The same otherwise intelligent people that lose sleep worrying about you owning a firearm will pass you in their car at 60 miles per hour about 12 inches away completely oblivious to the risk involved. Yes there are dumba$$s out there but they're about a million more times likely to hurt you on the way to the trailhead than on the trail.

Edited by DavidAdair on 09/23/2011 01:22:19 MDT.

Ah, but that's just the thing. I never hear anyone proposing developing some kind of armor or shield for protecting themselves. It's always something that emphasizes the offensive, rather than the defensive. How many of you would object to someone wearing armor in the backcountry? I doubt anyone would mind. Now why is that? I think this question addresses the crux of the problem, and why so many people get so angry about this subject.

As many of you know, I've voiced very strong opinions on the gun topic here in the forums. And I'm guessing that from what I've written here in the past, many would assume that I am anti-hunting, too. What you don't know is, first what my stance on hunting is, or what I have discussed privately about it with people like Ryan Jordan, with whom I had the spat about guns with. But I'll let you make up your own minds about that. And you can see by your own reactions just how open-minded you might be about me.

I've learned, through years of interactions with many people here, that what you see in the forums is not always how people really are in real life. I've had my preconceptions of people shattered through the alternative opinions often expressed privately. So I'm not going to pigeonhole people into my prejudiced view of them. First I'll listen to what they have to say and hopefully learn something from what I hear. Lately I almost never make statements anymore about the heated topics, because, one, anything I say doesn't change anyone's mind, and, two, too often I just don't know enough to understand the whole issue. Hopefully this is the first inkling of wisdom beginning to shine through. Or maybe I'm just turning into a reticent old fart.

> I never hear anyone proposing developing some kind of armor or shield for protecting themselves. It's always something that emphasizes the offensive, rather than the defensive. How many of you would object to someone wearing armor in the backcountry? I doubt anyone would mind. Now why is that? I think this question addresses the crux of the problem, and why so many people get so angry about this subject.<

I guess I am not understanding the argument here. The concern is that a g*n could be used in an offensive way? Yes I suppose it could. Of course someone could use a trekking pole in an offensive way and whack me in the head. In either case there has to be an intent to use the item offensively. Is there some underlying assumption that having a g*n automatically makes a person more inclined to taking offensive action? I don't think anyone has a misunderstanding about the serious ramifications of that sort of behavior so I find it unlikely. The exception of course being people having criminal intentions to begin with. Fortunately that sort doesn't generally stray much beyond the trailhead.

I am all for discouraging bad guys from carrying arms on the trail. Somehow I suspect they aren't reading these forums and don't care about our opinion anyway.

"
I guess I am not understanding the argument here. The concern is that a g*n could be used in an offensive way?"

No. One of the concerns is how some that say that anyone carrying is crazy and scary, also say they don't even want to hear talk about it.

"How much of what one says has anything to do with what is really one's belief?


It is said at times when an individual takes a vow of silence for a long enough time that he stops thinking in terms of language. His mind is "open". He interprets stimulus through his sense but does not categorize them the same as you and I would into words.

Language is inherently a limit on our minds. It does help us to try and sort it all out, but it is a very crude method in that the moment you begin to utilize it you begin to limit your openness.

So as to the question "How much of what one says has anything to do with what is really one's belief? It has everything to do with your belief. What you say is what you think, what you think is already limited and closed just on the basis of thinking in language. Yes you could change your stance on a topic like Firearms or no firearms, but it is all framed in the environment of language. Imagine what it would be like to think without words? What would your opinion be then on LNT?

Clint... very astute observation. I had to pull up short and turn to face myself to think of that one. And it's true. Just how would any of us form our opinions if we couldn't resort to words to make our stances? Really have to think on that.

"Depends what the issue is.

Freezerbag cooking vs. in the pot? Yeah, I can be very open minded and polite on that one.

Religious and racial persecution?
Sorry, my open mindedness and tolerance starts to quickly go out the window.

How does one reconcile maintaining an open mind (being willing to listen to and genuinely consider someone else's beliefs) with maintaining personal conviction to certain ideals?

For example, I have a very strong conviction that women should be treated with respect and equality. Do I have to maintain an open mind when someone argues the contrary based on their own philosophical/religious belief system? At what point do we say "Sorry, I cannot accept what you preach" and no longer feign tolerance?

Is being open minded simply being polite?

Are there behaviors and attitudes in this world that do not warrant polite, tolerant responses?

I certainly think so."

--------------------
Thanks Craig. A post showing some actual thought process and reality.

I think Kat is onto something with her original idea that lashing out at a new or potential member discussing firearms is not the way to build the BPL community or the Non-gun carrying community.

Why?

Because the way true change takes place is through sharing, discussion and moral persuasion. To have two individuals talk about a given topic openly and honestly and come to an understanding where the other is coming from. Being open-minded is being willing to have your awareness increased. Even if you disagree, you heard or might hear something you did not before.

For the backpackers who strongly discourage carrying on the trails, How else, besides listening, discussing and moral persuasion will you effect a change to reduce the number of people carrying? Do you lobby legislation to make a law forbidding carrying a gun in the BC? How is that law enforced, same as all laws, in the end at the point of a gun(Atlas Shrug)? Ironic. (not that anyone suggested this, just wanted to point out that avenue of thought)

This goes for most of these issues, LNT, Religion, politics. Laws in the end are only enforced through force. That creates, resentment, fear, inequality. True sustainable change, growth and community comes through sharing, discussion and moral persuasion. Like Kat suggested, maybe being more tactful and open will allow those individuals coming on here, to find an ultralight gun or closest place near a water source to defecate, to learn a new understanding, new awareness, a different way. For all of our laws what we do every day is still voluntary, save hearing the wind move, breathing the air, and blindly blinking...can you blink any other way?

Edited by WalkSoftly33 on 09/23/2011 10:34:41 MDT.

Consider that our identities are being defined by our environment.

For example I have a relative that when ever she sees and individual with out a T-shirt on or some one with dread-locks lets say, she will say to those around her, "trashy, that's trashy!", nodding her head in the direction of the shirtless individuals, making a face.

Now what is she really doing? She does not say that for us around her, so we know her opinion, no she is saying it for herself, she is defining herself, saying that is trashy I am not that, I am this. She is defining herself by her environment. With out the trashy individuals, she would not have a comparison, that part of her identity would not exists.

I think that can be said in relation to Backpacking, LNT, Firearms,. etc. "I" carry an ultralight back pack, that person over there is carrying a 50lb pack. How many times have the members on BPL thought that? Quite a few I guess considering how much we think about our gear. Or when you see someone practicing in your opinion, unethical behavior in the BC, you reaffirm that you do not do that, you do this. In each area of our lives we do this to create our identity. Like what was stated earlier if all opinions were the same no change would occur. But taking it one step further, without gun touting backer packers you non-packing packers would cease to exist.

So how open minded can we be when we define ourselves by our environment i.e. those that are different from us define us and create our identity? Is the level of ego related to the level of being open-minded? Does the ego grow with the frequency an individual sees them self and define them self by there differences with the environment? Does the desire and attempt to understand, create the ego through the use of language to categorize everything, and in doing so view it as separate? Is that why we struggle to come together because we follow the script of a movie, riding the waves of the character role we play in real life?

Edited by WalkSoftly33 on 09/23/2011 11:12:42 MDT.

Clint, your last few posts are reminiscent of a class in semantics I had taken. Limitations in written language and how ideas are framed by written language were big topics of the class. The words we see on the page are, as you mentioned, a rudimentary vehicle for conveying a thought rather than a definitive and complete description of that thought.

It's like I tell my violin students sometimes in their lessons: those notes you see on the page are not the music. Those are just a framework of ideas that the composer has written down for us, and it is up to us to realize the full potential of that framework and construct actual music from it, often trying to infer from that manuscript what the composer actually intended.

Half of my students look at me like I'm nuts.

Close minded or elitist?

I find it odd that a good portion of the posters on this site seem to think that bpl should be anti-gun, anti-hunting and anti organized religion. Or at least think those undesirables should be segregated to their own forum so us elite ultralighters won't be bothered with opinions that may be offensive. Especially given the fact that Ryan Jordan, the founder of this site is an avid hunter, gun owner and is very active in scouting a religious organization.

>I also remember a post about people "buying their way into a 5# base weight"
>And then there is the thread calling anyone who drinks "crappy" beer an a-hole.
>Don't forget the thread where everyone jumped all over a post from another forum because someone kept like 5 trout while horsepacking in the sierra. There were also posts in that thread implying that they didn't work hard enough for their wilderness experience because they rode horses in.

If these are not examples of elitism then I don't know what is.

We are not elite. We are just a group of people that likes going hiking and carrying as little weight as possible. That in no way makes us special or better than anyone else. Hunters, fisherman, mountain bikers, ORVers, all have just as much of a right to use public lands as we do.

we all wanna feel elitist because the true elite are out there doing things, having fun and using up their gear ... instead of arguing on the intrawebs

makes use feel special

and yes those wanna bes include me at the moment cause the weather sucks for climbing in squamish right now =(

This may be nit-picking, but one of the threads you mentioned said that a-holes drink "crappy" beer. That's not the same as "calling anyone who drinks "crappy" beer an a-hole."

I think what we all want to know is, How many animals can I kill and still call my traveling self sufficient ?

Edited by redmonk on 09/23/2011 14:14:21 MDT.

>>""This may be nit-picking, but one of the threads you mentioned said that a-holes drink "crappy" beer. That's not the same as "calling anyone who drinks "crappy" beer an a-hole."<<""

Good point I remembered it wrong.

Joe Clement says:
I will also admit that I find myself increasingly bigoted towards stupid people, but I'm also getting older and becoming more of a jerk, so maybe that's related.

Middle age: When your broad mind and narrow waist start trading places.

;-)

Travis says:
Limitations in written language and how ideas are framed by written language were big topics of the class.

The philosophy of language: A bit like going to a good restaurant, and eating the menu.

;-)

Miguel says:

Clint... very astute observation. I had to pull up short and turn to face myself to think of that one. And it's true. Just how would any of us form our opinions if we couldn't resort to words to make our stances? Really have to think on that.

People who don't use words to think don't have opinions, they have emotional reactions. Language is the mediator between our impulses and actions.

Sometimes, I have to "give myself a good talking to".

Folk who are unable to articulate the feelings that are affecting them suffer from internal pressures they don't understand. This leads to repression, or externalisation in actions, often 'irrational' ones.

As Churchill said: "Jaw jaw, not war war".

That said, there is a high value in practising meditation, awareness without words. The practise of hiking solo for a few days is self instructive in how far we are able to keep our own company without resorting to internal dialogue.

People who don't use words to think don't have opinions, they have emotional reactions. Language is the mediator between our impulses and actions.

Well, I was thinking in terms of someone who normally does use language to process dilemmas or moral conundrums, but takes the time to step back and approach the problem from a new perspective. It's an interesting experiment and forces you to shunt into the middle ground and see what earlier convictions prompted you to take your particular stance in the first place. It's a good way to begin to see the point of view of those whom you disagree with, even takes you into the realm of the third party, where the polarization of the argument ceases to exist.

Have you ever met and interacted with a highly trained Buddhist priest? A great portion of their dealing with stressful or morally difficult conundrums revolves around how to approach a topic for which no words can bring about a decisive conclusion (ie the gun, abortion, existence of a god, health care debates). They use little or no words to approach the problems and have superb control over their emotions. There was an experiment done here in Japan in which a number of people were asked to unknowingly sit in a restaurant next to a pair of loudly, violently fighting spouses, including a number of priests. ECG monitors were placed on each of them to determine their heart rates and level of stress. In almost all cases of the trained priests they were able to successfully control their fear or their anger and to get through the ordeal with little to no elevation in their heart rates or levels of stress. Other people often got to the point where they ended up escaping or shouting at the couple. When asked afterwards why they remained so neutral and calm in such a stressful environment, each other priests answered that they just kept reminding themselves that the fighting couple had no bearing on their own circumstances. Basically they meditated their way through the experience.

Japanese inherently distrust words and often you'll have important and stressful business meetings where everyone will shut down, close their eyes, and wait out the emotional storm until it is possible to talk civilly again. Sometimes I think they resort to it too much, often "bullying" those who have less clout into submission by simply ignoring them, and often failing to reach any consensus because the basis of the problems were never expressed. But it definitely is something that a lot of us could learn from here, especially when the arguments get out of hand. I guess my contention is that the people behind all these online arguments are far more important than the arguments themselves. Start with the basic premise of mutual respect and civility, and be humble about your point of view, before you state what you believe. There is always more to learn. And words don't always express that.

Edit: Rog, I didn't see that last bit about meditation until I'd already written my post. You basically said, in fewer words, what I was attempting to say.

Edited by butuki on 09/24/2011 05:40:04 MDT.

Hi Miguel,

I really appreciate the depth of thinking you put into your responses, and the time you take to compose them and type them. It's really interesting to get insights into other cultures through a person who is originally an outsider, but has long experience embedded.

Considering your internal reaction and the reasons for it embedded in your own psychological makeup and background before externalising is a sign of maturity and time spent getting to know yourself. People who have done this (often as a product of spending time alone in contemplation) tend to stay calmer in emotionally charged situations.

Internet debates often get out of hand because there is opportunity to express strong opinions about the opinions of others without consequences beyond words on the screen. Some people take delight in winding up others to the point of anger just for the excitement of seeing people get wound up and saying things they later regret being drawn into.

No-one wants to see BPL's unusually high standards of debate dragged into the mire. At the same time, no-one wants to see topics being declared off-limits or moderation getting heavy handed. Thankfully we have an unusually high proportion of people here who are adept at leaving trolls and provocateurs to leave in their own good time.

I see a correlation between that and the practice of the pursuit we are here primarily to discuss.

Travis,

Yes, a language or standard gives individuals something to "measure up" against to attempt to understand each other.

Your example of your violin class and half of your class closing there mind, is fantastic. I picture in my mind half of the class reading all the notes on the page and playing it all at once, ignoring the empty spaces between the notes or the intention of the composer. Just as it is with words, with out the spaces of silence or places for resonance there would be no music, no drama, no emotion, no environment just garbledygook.

Side note: Just received as a Bday present my first musical instrument, a Ukelele

Edited by WalkSoftly33 on 09/24/2011 06:34:07 MDT.

Clint, I just recently got a ukulele, too! Have to start practicing!

Miguel,

Not to sidetrack to much from the original post (Lets have an "open-mind" about it) I have already weighed my ukulele and found it is about 15.0oz or 425g, so of course I searched for a lighter one and found this

http://www.captainukuleles.co.nz/backpacker.html

I think they weigh out to about 9oz and could probably go lighter and get rid of the metal amp plug, since it is for hiking and I would not be carrying an amp. Maybe a future purchase for me

I to need to practice my uke, I have a few cords down and a progression or two but cant play a song yet.

Thank you for sharing your description of business meetings in Japan. It was very interesting to hear a different Modis Operandi versus what we have in the US.

Enjoy playing your uke!

Edited by WalkSoftly33 on 09/24/2011 07:03:25 MDT.

My six string Uke weighs 19oz, and worth every one of them. I love entertaining people round the campfire.

Rog,

"Folk who are unable to articulate the feelings that are affecting them suffer from internal pressures they don't understand. This leads to repression, or externalisation in actions, often 'irrational' ones."

You could say that an individual unable to articulate their feelings with words will act out their emotions one way or the other whether it be happy, sad, mad, glad if you think about it that is a very 'rational' thing to do for an individual in that situation though from the observers point of view with a full faculty of articulation it would be irrational behavior for them to behave in that same manner. Did language itself develop from "acting out" ones emotions? What is laughing but an expression of internal emotion that one can not put into words and it is one of the healthiest activities we have the option to engage in everyday.

Body language, it is responsible for up to 80% of all communication. Save a very few able to control there body language, our body communicates how we really feel. Language can only communicate a small fraction of our true emotions even for the most articulate. So back to the original OP, being open-minded and communicating effectively through language on forum post we are already very closed minded in relation to who we really are. Our current ability to communicate with language falls far short of our true nature or open minds.

"People who don't use words to think don't have opinions, they have emotional reactions. Language is the mediator between our impulses and actions. "

This is a great point you have made very well said. I would like to add that language is not just a mediator but substituting a different word, it is a control. It is used to control our emotions and our interactions with others that understand our language. I bring this up because perhaps it is not best to control all of our emotions, or temper our impulses with language and reason. There is a pervasive drive around the world to control nature. We have the distinct ability to control our own nature through tools such as language and we us this ability to try and control the rest of nature and as stated earlier it is a very crude vehicle compared to the complexity of the natural world from the complexity of our own brains to the complexity of natures homeostasis. Is being a part of nature better then controlling it?

Emotions seem to have gotten a bad wrap. Are they not the spice of life?

With that said I enjoy the mitigation articulation of emotions provides when dealing with an individual directly angry or upset with me. I fear I would have a few more black eyes and bumps on the head, so take what I said earlier for the sake of discussion and not avocation.

"I guess my contention is that the people behind all these online arguments are far more important than the arguments themselves. Start with the basic premise of mutual respect and civility, and be humble about your point of view, before you state what you believe. There is always more to learn. And words don't always express that."

Miguel,

It was not until I reread your post that the second half of your last paragraph sunk in, my mind was off visualizing the business meeting in japan. Very well said and I agree with you it is something to remember the individuals behind these post are far more important than the argument or ideal that is the soup de jour. An opinion does not make a person respectable, there existence does.

Words not only help us express our thinking by defining it, but when we name something, it "becomes" in a way that it wasn't quite before and it now has a place and a "countour", if you will, that also limits it. That is true for the leg of a chair, which could just be part of the chair, but now it is something in it's own right, but it also cannot be anything more, further up that chair. Same goes with ideas, emotions and other abstract concepts. We name an emotion and now we can talk about and link it to something else, but we have also separated it from another emotion or thought or anything else. Maybe we named something as it's own entity, when it would have made more sense to keep it linked to something else. I see the obvious benefit from naming what surrounds us, and what is in us, because it enables us not only to communicate with others, but also to link different parts of our own brain. It becomes easy, though, to fool ourselves in a number of ways. For one it is misleading and very limiting to assume that the way our own language has chopped up the world, is either the only way or the best way. Then there is the possibility that anything intangible would either not exist or be completely different if we did not name it, or named it something different. Once we name a concept, we think about it in ways that we would not if we did not have a name for it. English, as well, lacks a number of words to express concepts that exist in other languages. We can still express a similar thought by using an entire paragraph, but it isn't the same. German has the ability to link two words together and come up with endless new concepts, some of which become common terms, most don't.
I am really enjoying this "off topic" discussion and all the great insights and contributions from Miguel, Clint, Rog and others.

Edited by Kat_P on 09/24/2011 09:46:09 MDT.

"For one it is misleading and very limiting to assume that the way our own language has chopped up the world, is either the only way or the best way."

Kat

I think this statement is important in what we are discussing in being open-minded. I personally did not realize the limitation of language until I was exposed to another language and that other language could not be translated into English without a full paragraph of explanation additionally I had never even heard of this idea before. I think it was a German phrase that I have since forgotten but what it revealed to me about my awareness was eye opening and stuck with me. Like you stated after, that other languages have phrases and words for things we do not even have words for.

So I bring up that personal example because, while it is important to be open minded, If your awareness is not expanded, If are not faced with new information, If you are not exposed to new ideas then you are no more open minded then a close minded person regardless of your receptivity to new ideas, If there are no new ideas then you are not really open. I think it is easy to slip into the scenario of thinking your way is the best way because it is the only one that you know. But how could you know that if you did not study or experience other languages. This can go for all those hot topics like Religion, Carry, etc It can be a challenge to know you are in a closet closed off from the rest of the house, when you think the closet is the house.

Rog,

Being new to the Uke I thought you were pulling my leg for a second, referring to a 6 string uke, I thought you were using a cute description for a guitar that weighs 19oz

Then I used the power of google and realized there are such things as a six string uke.

Guess I was open-minded to the possibility but ignorant of the reality hence my mind was closed to the possibility. :)

Clint, like not knowing the right words to express the joy making music with friends brings me, I don't know how to play a mandolin, banjo or 4 string Uke. I don't even know if six string uke's are supposed to have two pairs of octave strings or how they should be tuned. I play guitar, and found the instrument in a junk shop at the Colne R'n'B festival for £3 with missing strings. So I bought it, found a set of slightly rusty 12 string guitar strings at a music shop on special for £1, and made enough money busking the crowd waiting to get in to see the big name band to buy some beers for my friends.

Life is fun, and the more of it we make up as we go along, the more fun it is, especially if you get the folk around you laughing.

I'm enjoying the profundity of this thread, and will think more about the replies before saying more about what I understand of language and the way it gives us stuff, and also limits our thinking and being.

An "open mind" to me is often a slogan used by a group to push forward their agenda. Should I give equal consideration to something that is true and something else that is false?

A mind that engages in critical thinking is what is required. That is a mind that critically examines ideas based on their merit. Maybe the term would be "active mind" versus open or closed. An active mind can deduct firm convictions and hold to them. Critical thinking enables one to prove its convictions via reason and not necessitate consideration of anything contrary to those convictions.