Ignorant DIR Question

[ScubaRev]

At the risk of turning the discussion into even more of a religious war than it already is, I'm going to propose an analogy. First my usual disclaimer: I'm a novice diver and an eager inquirer into the ways of DIR. I'll admit to knowing very little about diving, even less about DIR, enough to get me into serious trouble. I do know a thing or two about dogma and philosophy, though, hence this analogy:

DIR is to non-DIR as Catholic is to Protestant.

(This is not an original thought. Umberto Eco did it quite amusingly with Macintosh and PC.)

OK, before you light your flame throwers, take a breath and think about it. DIR is "Catholic" - a top-down, hierarchical (GUE) system of principles and practices that promises safe diving (salvation) to all its adherents. Admittance is achieved through a rigorous system of catechesis (DIR-F, etc.) and is open to all who keep the principles and practices whole and inviolate. There is only one way to do it right. Leave out one thing, and you are not truly DIR and therefore (implied, if not stated explicitly) not safe. (Cyprian - "Outside the Church, there is no salvation.")

Non-DIR is "Protestant" - egalitarian, individual, and pragmatic, emphasizing the rights and responsibilities of the individual to make his or her own choices. Safe diving (salvation) is largely a matter of the interpretation of the individual who is free to pick and choose according to what feels right.

To the non-DIR "Protestant," DIR "Catholics" are rigid, narrow, ritualistic, judgmental drones who can't think for themselves and who blindly accept the decrees from on high (GUE). To the DIR "Catholic," non-DIR "Protestants" are dangerous individualists who place their own personal interpretations over the wisdom of the received tradition and the ordered rules of the community.

The OP is asking a question from a kind of middle "Anglican" perspective. Is there room for embracing some of the key principles and practices of DIR (eg equipment configuration, Basic 5 skills) without embracing the entire system as a whole? The responses appear to fall along "Catholic" or "Protestant" lines with a few "Anglicans" thrown in to keep things lively. The age old issue of fellowship even enters the discussion: May a DIR diver have fellowship (dive) with a non-DIR diver and still be considered faithfully DIR?

You see, the discussion really is older than diving itself.

Have a great day.

 

[MSilvia]

I'll admit to knowing very little about diving, even less about DIR, enough to get me into serious trouble. I do know a thing or two about dogma and philosophy, though, hence this analogy

When making an analogy, I think it's prudent to understand both what you are trying to describe, and what you are trying to compare it to. If you only understand what you're comparing it to, and not the thing itself, your analogy is bound to be flawed.

 

[MonkSeal]

At the risk of turning the discussion into even more of a religious war than it already is, I'm going to propose an analogy.

IMO your analogy is quite far from correct one because in case of diving thinking and questioning is allowed (for both DIR and non-DIR divers). :14:

 

[ScubaRev]

When making an analogy, I think it's prudent to understand both what you are trying to describe, and what you are trying to compare it to. If you only understand what you're comparing it to, and not the thing itself, your analogy is bound to be flawed.

You could see that one coming from a mile away in bad vis.

That the analogy is "bound to be flawed" by my ignorance and inexperience is a logical fallacy. It could conceivably be correct in spite of my vast ignorance. Granted, the chances that the analogy will be apt increase the more one understands both sides of the analogy, but there is no logical necessity. In fact, it's often the blind, ignorant outsider who sees a point of comparison that an experienced and knowledgable insider might not.

To apply your principle rigorously would pretty much rule out most analogies, which would make the world a pretty dull place, semantically speaking.

By the way, analogies are usually offered in a kindly spirit of take it or leave it.

 

[rjack321]

Did question some of the dogma eg we don't use brass clips only stainless.

Brass is made from copper and zinc and corrodes readily in salt water. The spring are generally the 1st thing to fail and it doesn't take long - couple months. Stainless clips last many years.

If you question the reasonaing behind most anything in your class, your instructor should have been willing to explain the logic behind the choice. Including why air is just fine for DIRF.

 

[Thalassamania]

We already established that a prime tenent of DIR is thinking. There are some DIR hashshāshīn (blinded by Doing It Right ... a catchy tune, no?) who do not do think and therefore are not DIR (a Star Trek solution for the runaway DIR robot that is about to assimilate the Enterprise). But then, there are maniacs in all walks for life who do not think.

 

[lamont]

DIR is to non-DIR as Catholic is to Protestant.

that analogy really only works on the internet.

in reality both camps are more full of 'anglicans' than you could tell from reading the net...

 

[Thalassamania]

that analogy really only works on the internet.

in reality both camps are more full of 'anglicans' than you could tell from reading the net...

or athiests<G>

 

[Darnold9999]

Brass is made from copper and zinc and corrodes readily in salt water. The spring are generally the 1st thing to fail and it doesn't take long - couple months. Stainless clips last many years.

If you question the reasonaing behind most anything in your class, your instructor should have been willing to explain the logic behind the choice. Including why air is just fine for DIRF.

Instructor was more than willing to give the reasons.

The stainless v brass answer was, I am not sure never been asked that question - think is has something to do with strength will get back to you.

Re corrosion, not had that problem with brass at all - 100 dives or so on several of my brass clips - springs work fine in all of them. They are marine brass clips not hardware store brass. I am sure that the springs are stainless however not steel which is what you get in cheap brass clips. However, that is a reason I could buy- strength - not so much. Every clip has a weight rating and the difference between brass and stainless exists, but far exceeds any load you are likely to encounter.

Have owned a number of boats, use brass fittings and clips, corrosion is not a problem unless you buy non marine which uses cheap steel springs which fail as you say very very quickly.

If you buy cheap stainless clips you may have the same issue if the springs are steel - the springs will rust and fail, however I think you are less likely to find cheap stainless than cheap brass so ultimately stainless is safer as you can't open the clip up and check what the spring is made of.

I did like Scubarev's analogy - a DIR diver would not likely even question the difference on such a minor point. Someone has thought this through, GUE has mandated it, why spend the effort to figure it out again. Me I don't trust any forms of authority (character flaw - costs me occasionaly) I want to know the reason, if its a good one then I will buy in, otherwise I will go my own way at my peril, but more than happy to let you do it your way too and won't criticise you choices. You are probably safer!

 

[MSilvia]

By the way, analogies are usually offered in a kindly spirit of take it or leave it.

Usually, but sometimes they're offered at the admitted risk of turning a discussion into an even bigger religious war than it already is. When that risk is taken for an analogy that is likely not to be apt, I'm not sure I'd consider it kindly, in the same sense that I don't consider internet trolls to be kindly.

That not withstanding, in my experience, analogies are most often offered as a means of helping someone to understand something. While there is of course an outside chance that an analogy crafted without understanding might be apt, and analogy that is not apt is also not particularly useful, and so an analogy based on poor understanding is likewise likely to be poor. It's not a necessary or absolute condition, but it is a probable one, and I see no logical error in that. If "bound to be" is synonymous with "must always be", then my error was one of word choice, not logic.