Time for a new forum?

[jjones9527]

(no, I am not DIR trained, but does that make me non-DIR? Is DIR exclusive to GUE?

I think thats one of the real questions that needs to be answered to get this forum back to a useful state.

 

[Rick Inman]

(no, I am not DIR trained, but does that make me non-DIR?Is DIR exclusive to GUE?

I think thats one of the real questions that needs to be answered to get this forum back to a useful state.

I think it has been answered, many times. Some just don't care for the answer.

"no, I am not DIR trained, but does that make me non-DIR?" Yes, without some kind of training, you are non-DIR. You can't just magically be DIR one day, or be DIR by reading the internet. You need training.

"Is DIR exclusive to GUE?" Of course not.

 

[jjones9527]

Then how can someone distinguish between what is GUE DIR, ABC DIR, etc, or even know what answer they are looking for? I'm sure there are things that are DIR for other groups, that isn't DIR for GUE.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

No superiourity intended. It was a lost attempt to point out the lunacy of this entire thread. Others have pointed out the solo diving forum as an example. At least with that, there is a very clear definition of what it is to be diving SOLO or not. The single divers have faced a similar issue, and had to define what is meant by SINGLE. Now, Doing It Right can't be that clearly defined. Plain and simple. GUE doesn't own it, nor does the GUE system represent the RIGHT way to do all dives. Fifth-d can't definatively define it any better. And, even if one of these entities could, isn't it a system open to change and betterment, based on logical reasoning and the pursuit of optimization? Or, is it a system that sacrifies optimization in the pursuit of a standardized system for all dives?

Clearly the precepts of DIR are more complex than a standard definition of a solo diver.

It is equally true that DIR precepts have changed over the past 17 years, since George's seminal article began the debate. Evolution will occur as any concept matures.

But this does not mean that debate is "lunacy". Particle physics is both a reasonably exact science, yet one which acknowledges that any given relationship may be influenced by some causal factor not yet discovered. It is debated furiously, daily, in academic settings and journals globally. I will rely upon Lamont for citations, as I am not a particle physicist.

The DIR holistic approach is not, in fact, carved in stone - although many of its sub-elements are established rigidly to provide constraints and guidelines. No holistic philosophic approach could hope to be as applicable to scientific diving in the Antarctic, deep wreck diving anywhere on the planet, cave diving globally, and to the tremendous variance among human participants and environmental characteristics if it consisted of a completely rigid, non-variable, carved-in-stone list of dictates.

So you are quite correct, debate and inquiry and optimization given different sorts of objectives and environments are going to produce small but importance variance in the manner in which things are done. DIR will not only vary over time, but in accordance with purpose.

This thread does not seek to establish a single, monolithic, dictatorial, 'superior world view of DIR' where we all agree in lockstep with every comment, every facet of the entire concept.

It only is discussing a better way to provide a forum allowing pursuit of understanding, clarity, and the optimal application of the thinking to the very wide range of situations that the divers on this *international* board face. I just returned from Zagreb, Croatia. I assure you that finding helium mixes in Zagreb, Croatia is an exacting endeavor. But the Adriatic Sea, which is only an hour or so away, is filled with wrecks that have gone down from last year to a period of time when the Roman Empire ruled the Mediterranean. Should dives not be made on these wrecks safely? But how?

You actually established the ideas well in your quote, but you were mistaken to set your ideas up as an 'either/or' proposition:

..."isn't it a system open to change and betterment, based on logical reasoning and the pursuit of optimization? Or, is it a system that sacrifies optimization in the pursuit of a standardized system for all dives?"

The system pursues both ideas simultaneously. It is open to improvement and it definitely pursues optimization. But it is ALSO a system that pursues rigorous standardization; of equipment, of training, of thinking, because in a synergystic sense this approach offers the best chances for survival of the entire team given the wide range of things that can go wrong under extremely hazardous circumstances.

Thats why the forum should exist, and it is also why the forum should be allowed to operate without the constant disruption of those who have no interest in discussing such objectives.

IMHO. YMMV.

 

[owlbill]

(Quoted by Rick Inman - "no, I am not DIR trained, but does that make me non-DIR?" Yes, without some kind of training, you are non-DIR. You can't just magically be DIR one day, or be DIR by reading the internet. You need training.)


Is not DIR a "philosophy"? Does one need training to adopt a philosophy? I think in fact I CAN read about that on the interweb.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

(Quoted by Rick Inman - "no, I am not DIR trained, but does that make me non-DIR?" Yes, without some kind of training, you are non-DIR. You can't just magically be DIR one day, or be DIR by reading the internet. You need training.)


Is not DIR a "philosophy"? Does one need training to adopt a philosophy? I think in fact I CAN read about that on the interweb.

With respect, it is not the answer but the question that may require further definition.

You can certainly read about the philosophy and learn. In fact, most of us started by reading JJ's text book.

But actually putting the concepts into practice requires initially acquiring the skills, and then executing them on dives - which can get a bit more involved than it sounds reading it here.

So...can you learn about the philosophy by reading? Yes. In fact, reading George's initial article, his other articles and addresses, reading JJ's textbook, and being completely familiar with the GUE textbooks, should be a requirement before anyone goes any further.

Can you put what you know into use without further training? No.

And for what it is worth, TTBOMK George is not now nor was he ever a member of GUE, let alone an instructor. George was affiliated with WKPP, and served as the genesis for DIR. GUE adopted the phrase, initially, but has since moved away from it after some regretable events over the past 15 years or so. DIR is not GUE. There are different gurus, or perhaps one basic schism, which led initially to "east coast DIR/west coast DIR", and has since mutated even further. Many of the fundamental concepts, however, are identical.

Hope that clarifies matters.

Regards,

Doc

 

[lamont]

To me there are a couple of fundamental issues that haven't been explicitly addressed and that impact on this forum.

>What is DIR? There are obviously different flavors practiced. So, it seems to me a bit less evangelism on the part of some people who cannot accept that there are different flavors would go a long way to making the forum a more useful source. Even then there are very real limits on how "authoritative" answers can be if they are not given by one of the leaders themselves.

This is the least of the problems. Occasionally there's a GUE vs. AG comment or two, but generally the different camps coexist reasonably peacefully. The problem is the incessant and endless supply of trolls posting about "DIR isn't the only Right way to dive, blah, blah, blah". Which has nothing to do with the definition of what is or isn't DIR but its just a tiring way for anti-DIR folks to throw handgrenades into this forum.

>Economics: Why should someone who makes a living teaching and selling supplies give free answers on a forum such as this? In one thread one poster commented that one agency's stock answer is "take a class". That is a perfectly reasonable answer from a business viewpoint.

Yet, we've got RTodd and MHK who show up here and give excellent answers. We've also had flybys from Sherwood and others who seem to have given up on the board due to all the static. So, finding "free answers" is also not a problem.

 

[lamont]

Will if you would volunteer to be a mod then you can keep us fundies in our place

Less face it for the most part it is the fundie divers that provide the "DIR" answers around here and that does kind of suck.

You either have fundie divers like myself that have gotten warped off the kool-aid and believe in the strict “nazi” interruption of what DIR is or you have the care free hippie fundies divers with the "you can dive solo if its in the spirit of DIR" interruption.

Somewhere in the middle is what it’s really about and I think it takes someone at the Tech2/Cave2 or higher level to really channel it and help keep this place in line.

I would be happy to see the most liberal interpretation of what is DIR that is rational be allowed in this forum. Solo diving is probably stretching it, but if you just eliminated the arguments over the DIR name alone, I'd breathe a sigh of relief.

 

[lamont]

No superiourity intended. It was a lost attempt to point out the lunacy of this entire thread. Others have pointed out the solo diving forum as an example. At least with that, there is a very clear definition of what it is to be diving SOLO or not. The single divers have faced a similar issue, and had to define what is meant by SINGLE. Now, Doing It Right can't be that clearly defined. Plain and simple. GUE doesn't own it, nor does the GUE system represent the RIGHT way to do all dives. Fifth-d can't definatively define it any better. And, even if one of these entities could, isn't it a system open to change and betterment, based on logical reasoning and the pursuit of optimization? Or, is it a system that sacrifies optimization in the pursuit of a standardized system for all dives?

I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out that you guys, who treat this so seriously, have backed yourselves into a corner. I'm just the messenger.

We do not need a precise, objective legal definition of what is, or isn't DIR. Its perfectly fine to have DIR become a fuzzy concept, incorporating GUE, WKPP, and even AG/5th-D NAUI stuff, x-scooters or gavins, long hose over or under, that's all good. We all dive as a team, we all use the long hose, we all go for the right post first, we all deco horizontally. In the venn diagram over the set of all possible scuba practices there is a set which is definitely DIR, there is a very narrow set of fuzziness and there a huge big swath which is not-DIR. I'm tired of endlessly debating the clearly not-DIR stuff in the DIR forum.

Infinite precision in determining what is or is not DIR is not required to determine that a lot of junk just isn't and doesn't need to be endless, and endlessly rehashed. Use the search function, its been discussed before.

Nothing in life is actually ever going to be that precisely known, we have to deal with some level of uncertainty in everything we do, right down to quantum physics. Still we can make judgements.

 

[lamont]

I will rely upon Lamont for citations, as I am not a particle physicist.

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47 777 (1935).

N. Bohr, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935)

J.S. Bell: "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox" Physics 1 #3, 195 (1964).

A. Aspect, Dalibard, G. Roger: "Experimental test of Bell's inequalities using time-varying analyzers" Physical Review Letters 49 #25, 1804 (20 Dec 1982).

all of them and more i believe are available in:

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Princeton-Physics/dp/0691083169