elusiveat ([info]elusiveat) wrote,
@ 2008-04-30 16:58:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Surrender
Last weekend I went for a walk in the woods of the Southern Mid-Atlantic with Squirrelitude. We went barefoot. We went slowly.

On the other side of the woods was a half-grown meadow, with lush green grasses, maybe 2 feet tall. "Prime tick habitat," I remarked.

"That's what shorts are for," he answered.

I couldn't argue. More clothing might mean more protection, but ultimately we'd need to do a thorough tick check either way. More clothing also would mean more surfaces to check. We entered the grasses without any further precautionary measure, and 15 minutes later we were sprawled out in the grass.

It was then that I mentioned the idea of surrender. Of simply accepting risks, and working within those parameters, rather than armoring ourselves against all the known hazards. Shorts in spite of ticks. Lying in the grass. Bare feet in spite of thornbushes. Ultimately, we were happier.

I experienced something similar in the Fells a few weeks back. I bicycled there in Birkenstocks. Shortly after locking up my bicycle, I caught my foot on a sharp branch, which hurt quite a bit, and which I attributed to the obliviousness that comes with wearing shoes. I took my sandals off, and locked them to the bicycle. Then began my wander. I climbed over rocks up toward the fire tower. This was easier on bare feet than the gravel trail would have been, but also meant I passed through the fields of broken glass left among the rocks by late night picnickers.

Broken glass is commonly cited as a reason for not going barefoot. Actually being there, though, I found I didn't feel any fear. I had the luxury of going slowly, and I knew that if I started to step on anything sharp, I could simply not complete the step.

A couple of weeks later I was back in the same area with Xuth. We bicycled up the gravel trail to the tower, it was cold, and I was consequently wearing my sandals again, this time with heavy socks as well. The same broken glass that had seemed irrelevant before was now terrifying. With shoes on, I wouldn't know what I was stepping on until I'd committed my weight.

I think of surrender as accepting the risks of daily life, rather than continually fighting them. Working to respond to your environment, rather than striving to surround yourself with total safety. A component, too, has to do with the evaluation of risk: weighing the costs of protection against the risks themselves.

This sort of issue comes up all the time: self-defense (don't walk alone at night? don't walk alone at all?), food supply (pasteurize everything?), medical treatment (exploratory surgery? antibiotics just in case?). At the same time, healthcare at a societal level is frequently approached as though if we could just find a few more cures, people would live forever. That's just not the way it works. There are inherent dangers to living a fulfilling life, and sooner or later death will catch up with you. I don't understand why our culture fights so hard against surrender and acceptance of everyday risks.


(Post a new comment)


[info]jere7my
2008-04-30 09:16 pm UTC (link)
Well said. We are afraid of so many things we don't have to be afraid of. Because we're so far along the cost/benefit curve of self-protection, unclenching long enough to accept a tiny risk has a disproportionate payoff in happiness and quality of life.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]elusiveat
2008-04-30 09:51 pm UTC (link)
I'm pretty sure that part of our culture of extreme caution has to do with always getting news reports on the infrequent cases where things go wrong. Worst case consequences get a whole lot of attention, and we don't talk very much about just how rare these incidents can be.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]squirrelitude
2008-04-30 10:48 pm UTC (link)
Reminds me of an editorial I read recently where a women let her 9-year-old son take the subway home in NYC.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lightvortex
2008-05-01 01:22 am UTC (link)
One time I was talking with an acquaintance who likes to watch sci-fi films and felt like she had no one to watch them with. I suggested that she see if there's a sci-fi meetup in the area and it might be a good way to meet people, but she said that she didn't want to go meet strange people from the internet who might rape her. Later she was saying that she could take a bus into the city but is afraid to because you hear on the news about people being victims of crimes while taking public transportation. I don't know how much of this would be considered some sort of phobia, but it seems like the reporting of crimes must play a role. It can be hard to put things into perspective and figure out how likely they are to happen (I have similar issues crossing streets, come to think of it). And I was reading a blog last week where someone commented that she likes living in the suburb because she is statistically less likely to be a victim of a crime, she knows who should be walking around late at night in her
neighborhood and who shouldn't be, etc. Another poster commented that, while this seems like common sense, it is just factually incorrect; it just seems like crime is more common in the city because the city has so many people. I haven't ever looked at any statistics, but our perceptions might not match reality. And perhaps our being cautious is a historical/cultural thing that once benefited us and helped us to survive but isn't so helpful now. Our world is so different from the world in which we evolved that traits which were once very useful might now be irrelevant or harmful or vice versa.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]theloriest
2008-04-30 09:26 pm UTC (link)
This makes a lot of sense to me. I have been guilty of letting the potential costs lead me away from taking risks too many times. But over the past two years, I've really been pushing past that barrier, and I'm a much happier person than I used to be.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]elusiveat
2008-04-30 09:48 pm UTC (link)
[hugs] That's great to hear!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]emp42ress
2008-04-30 10:02 pm UTC (link)
I like your concept, but I cringe at your chosen term. Surrender, to me, means giving up. This is the reverse of surrender. This is doing a quick cost-benefit analysis and deciding to go ahead and accept the risks. This is plunging forward fully aware. Surrender is letting the risks rule you irrationally.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]elusiveat
2008-04-30 10:49 pm UTC (link)
I don't remember who it was that painted the picture thusly:

we are born at the top of a cliff, and life is the length of our fall. There is a rock that is falling at the same rate as us. We can do nothing about the fact that we are falling to our deaths, so we cling to the rock with all our strength.

Surrendering to mortality is when you realize that all that clinging isn't doing you a bit of good and that you may as well spread your arms, fly free, and enjoy the view. It's a different connotation, perhaps because you associate surrender with being beaten down, but it is surrender.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]emp42ress
2008-04-30 10:52 pm UTC (link)
Thanks, I'll keep clinging for all I'm worth. Sometimes you manage to gain a little ground, and, hey, I love rock climbing. I just refuse to let fear make irrational decisions for me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]metahacker
2008-05-01 02:12 am UTC (link)
Warning: either depressing or uplifting, depending on your frame of mind...

Kiwi flight (video, 3:09, sound useful but not necssary)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]emp42ress
2008-04-30 10:56 pm UTC (link)
Plus, what a disheartening view of life. I can't imagine living my life like that. There is too much good, too much progress to be made in life to accept that life is nothing but an endless plummet to death. Sure, you have to die, but it's much better to forget about that and remember all that you can accomplish in whatever time you have.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]theloriest
2008-04-30 11:06 pm UTC (link)
I've got to say that I agree with your take here.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]perspicuity
2008-05-01 02:07 am UTC (link)
me? i'd cling to the rock, attempting to induce a spin, and when at the top, jump straight up for all i'm worth, and gain a few more moments. course, i'd be giving up my security rock, but i figure, i'll be meeting up with it sooner or later ;)

#

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]katkt
2008-05-01 01:23 pm UTC (link)
I can't speak for elusiveat, but what I take from the post (and the "painted picture") is: life inevitably ends in death, don't stress over it and let it paralyze you. You don't have to forget about or deny the presence of death in order to accomplish all you can in your life. You just have to not live in fear of it.

I mention this because I think that phrasing will resonate much better with you, but I think the underlying sense that the words are trying to capture is the same.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]emp42ress
2008-05-01 01:50 pm UTC (link)
That is a bit better. I understand what these descriptions are trying to get at, I just think that the terms used are terrible. They suggest passivity and a very negative overall outlook. Surrender is the exact opposite of what these philosophies really want you to do, but the terms they use make it sound like all there is to life is letting it carry you along and enjoying the ride. There is no suggestion of change, progress or good done in the world. What a waste.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ultimatepsi
2008-04-30 10:25 pm UTC (link)
You are not the only one with this opinion.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]elusiveat
2008-04-30 10:53 pm UTC (link)
Cute.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]catamorphism
2008-04-30 10:37 pm UTC (link)
This is good stuff. There's a passage in _The Mad Man_ by Samuel Delany where the narrator describes a near-religious experience he has when he decides he isn't afraid of getting AIDS anymore and is just going to go on seeking out sexual pleasure, and this sort of reminded me of that description. But it's hard (well, at least if you're me) to throw off all the conditioning we get in this culture of "safety, safety, safety".

(Before anyone gets huffy with me, this was set in the mid-'80s before anyone really understood the transmission mechanisms anyway, and unless you've read the book and know the context, I don't really want to argue about it.)

(Reply to this)


[info]mangosteen
2008-04-30 10:46 pm UTC (link)
Shorts..... with ticks around.
Walking around in the woods at all.... with ticks around.
I'm boggling a bit, I must confess.
Lyme Disease has always struck me as being not quite curable enough to warrant the risks of going anywhere near where ticks might normally be.

More nature for you, I guess.

Edited at 2008-04-30 10:46 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]elusiveat
2008-04-30 10:51 pm UTC (link)
It also takes about 2 days of having a tick attached to you for Lyme's disease to pass from the tick to you.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mangosteen
2008-04-30 10:55 pm UTC (link)
Hm. This could go back and forth for a while, to no real end, although hanging out in person and talking is something that's been on the list for a while anyway. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]perspicuity
2008-05-01 02:20 am UTC (link)
as well, you can get a tick on you without going anywhere near the woods. boston/cambridge has more than enough wildlife for a few to be around. as well, dogs, cats, and people might track them around.

imho, it's better to be alert and forewarned, than too concerned to go anywhere, ever.

#

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]metahacker
2008-05-01 02:09 am UTC (link)
I don't understand either.

Oh, wait, yes, I do. It's easier to sell things to, and control, scared people. It's in the interests of a lot of poeple to simultaneously make you fear your world, and then be unrealistic about the level of risk you expect to face, such that you are always unhappy and looking for a security blanket.

(Reply to this)


[info]perspicuity
2008-05-01 02:23 am UTC (link)
here's johnny!



this guy found its way onto my arm, while in my "backyard". by virtue of having arm hair, i felt its tickly crawl. something i'm kinda of on high alert for.

a clothes check later, revealed a few more. a shame they perished ;)

#

(Reply to this)


[info]chocorua
2008-05-01 08:33 pm UTC (link)
Once you get people into cars and gated communities, most of them have no experience to counter that "people {I don't know/who aren't like me} will {rob/kidnap/...} me" mentality. And the news is there to reinforce it, and the attitude is convenient for both selling fear and dividing/conquering.

(Reply to this)


[info]truthspeaker
2008-05-01 08:57 pm UTC (link)
Sure, death can't be avoided, but pain can.

I will agree with the cost-benefit analysis point of view -- you have to look at the cost and the benefits.

Walking barefoot or with ticks -- some risk, but you get some benefit out of it.

Running barefoot -- much higher risk.

Other safety concerns (like being visible while biking at night) -- *some* people argue that it's not always a *huge* risk, but it's not like it's a huge reward for not doing it either, so it makes sense to be safe.

So, it makes sense to take risks when the rewards are worth it but play it safe when you don't get anything out of taking the risk.

(Reply to this)

Apropos
[info]metahacker
2008-05-02 06:28 pm UTC (link)
Today's google quote seemed apropos:

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
- Herbert Spencer

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…