Post apocalyptic book made me think

[Rick]

Yeah. That too.

[Wildthang]

Rick, you really need a tin foil hong in your collection

[Williepete]

Well I don't know about the rest of you 'nuts', but I am a survivor. Back in '09 I survived three heart attacks in less than 36 hrs. Than in Sept '12, I survived lung cancer. I've also managed to survive quitting smoking.
I don't see the difference between the word survivor and survivalist.

Bill

[jfeatherjohn]

Are you suggesting that I should burn my Kindle reader? I am not a survivalist, either. Lacking basic skills, I might be forced to eat you, (no offense intended).

Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk

[Lamewolf]

Not a survivalist either. Read a few books.

Not a survivalist - hmmmm ? The oposite of survival is mighty grimm my friends !

[Rick]

Ah, but there is a difference in connotation between survivalist and survivor. We've discussed this before. I am not a survivalist either by definition of our current lexicon. I have no bunkers, no man traps, no hidden caches of "stuff". But, as Bill pointed out, being a survivor is pretty much a requirement if you don't like dead.

And congratulations, Bill. Those are some pretty impressive milestones.

[Wildthang]

I think bushcraft preppers better describes most of us here!

[crashdive123]

Not a survivalist - hmmmm ? The oposite of survival is mighty grimm my friends !

As Rick pointed out - apples and oranges. This forum is not focused on "survivalists" although we do have a few onboard.

[hunter63]

and remember......... having a good book with you is important, you can always use the pages to start a fire with !

And TP,...... page a day....Try that with your Kindle.....Yeah I saw "Dance with Wolf".....as well......

[DaddyOh]

And TP,...... page a day....Try that with your Kindle.....Yeah I saw "Dance with Wolf".....as well......

Actually they had a solution for the tp issue in calizona: the bunker had bidays.

[DaddyOh]

And how is survival any different than being a survivalist. By definition a survivalist is someone who trains and prepares to survive a wide range of scenarios. So none of you are that?

[aktrekker]

A survivor is someone who comes out of a situation alive.
A survivalist is someone preparing for the fall of civilization or government takeover. Stocking up on guns and ammo, hoarding food, prepared to fight other survivors or even the military. Preparing for scenarios that might never happen. Usually lacking true survival skills.

I'm a survivor. I am not a survivalist.

[SlowRide13]

And how is survival any different than being a survivalist. By definition a survivalist is someone who trains and prepares to survive a wide range of scenarios. So none of you are that?

Nope.... this is the gun and knife club. You took a wrong turn at the "Wilderness Survival Forums" sign.

[Wildthang]

I would rather thiink of us as a bunch of misguided canoe pilots that carry way too much ammo and guns in our rickety old canoes

[Rick]

that carry way too much ammo and guns in our rickety old canoes

Sadly, not after the great canoe disaster of ought ten.

[hunter63]

Sadly, not after the great canoe disaster of ought ten. [/COLOR]

Yeah, stay away form those creaky old canoes and boats.......

[WolfVanZandt]

I do fall into Rick's canoe on this one and maybe even a little more extreme - not only fiction, but be wary of nonfiction also. A survivor plays with the cards they're dealt and no hand is covered exactly by anything on paper and many scenarios are waiting for you in life that aren't covered anywhere. In graduate school, where most people in my field choose specialties like work adjustment and counseling, or counseling and vocational evaluation, I selected vocational evaluation and research; so I've read a lot of tomes on research. Two things that they consistently warn researchers against (and said researchers more times than not ignore the warnings) is reification and reductionism. I will assume that survivors and survivalists fall prey to the same things (but not if they're really good - not often).

Reification is the confusion between the reality in your head and the Reality that exists "out there". For researchers, that means confusing the concepts they have of things with the things themselves. No concept can fully encapsulate the reality of a phenomenon under study. In the case of a survivor/suvivalist, that would mean putting too much stock in what you've learned. Once you leave the laboratory, real life is chaos-intensive and, whatever you've learned is going to be challenged by reality.

Reductionism is the temptation to look at something only from the viewpoint of your own areas of specialty. Reality is what it is - if you're a mechanic and you can't get out of the mechanic mode so that you can look at things in a biological, ethical, spiritual, linguistic, social, geological, economical, aesthetic, historical, etc. mode, then you are missing information that can be very pertinent to survival.

From a shamanic viewpoint, "the thing is it's own meaning." You understand your surroundings on shared terms - a dialog between you and them. If you try to understand things in your environment based on what you've read, you will have a dialog, at best, between yourself and the author - and you're not trying to survive the author. Your environment (like Old Coyote) doesn't care if you survive or not, but if you ask it, it will tell you everything you need to know. You just have to know the language. You can learn the "words" from books, but you'll never learn the semantics and syntax from there.

[Rick]

Great post. Had to give you a little rep for that. No plan survives the enemy.

[hunter63]

Yeah, I did as well.......seems the only thing remains true, always....something will go wrong......

[jfeatherjohn]

I have a survival saying..."if it's not in the truck, I can't choose NOT to bring it...unless the truck burns, in which case the survival necklace s butt pack (including water) can be out of the

Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk