Democracy is More Than A Right

As a scientist, I find it fascinating how science and democracy are defining the values of western society. Although the tension between the two  has long been a critical theme, the two are mutually supportive. Considering that democracy stands for open discussion on the part of all citizens, science has always been the domain of knowledge elites. Whereas  democracy seeks to encourage a wide range  of viewpoints and perspectives, science strives to limit the number of participants in the pursuit of the one correct answer. Reconciling these differences has never proved easy.   It has been argued that democracy can be grounded in the scientific pursuit of truth, however, the most prominent argument, from the social constructionist perspective seeks to understand science in a social-political perspective.

A look at democracy

Citizen participation is the cornerstone of the democratic political process. Government decisions should reflect the consent of those who are governed. Citizens in a democracy have the right and obligation  to participate meaningfully in public decision making and to be informed about the basis of government policies. In this respect, citizen participation in the policy process can contribute to the legitimization of policy development and implementation. It can also be understood as helping to build and preserve present and future decision-making capacities. Based on individual knowledge and use of reasoning, participation prevents the effects of interest groups that often plague the majority of voters.

In this respect, broad public participation makes an effective as well as a normative contribution to democratic policy making. By decreasing conflict and increasing acceptance in decisions made  by government agencies, it can provide citizens with an opportunity to learn about policy problems. Such learning is the only way that can improve the chances that the public will support the resulting decisions. On the other hand, even when it does not increase such support, it offers the possibility of clearing up misunderstandings about the nature of a controversy and the views of various participants. This can also contribute to building trust in the process, with benefits for dealing with similar issues in the future.

In regards to the scientific approach associated with citizen participation, the relevant wisdom is not limited to scientific specialists and public officials. Participation by diverse groups and individuals can provide important information  and insights about policy problems. Non-specialists may contribute substantially to identifying various aspects of problems  that need analysis, by raising important questions of fact that experts have not addressed, and by offering knowledge about specific conditions.  Public participation can also play a significant role in the examination and consideration of social, ethical, and political values that cannot be addressed solely by analytical techniques. Citizen participation plays an important role in politics and the construction of social knowledge.

Women in Ancient politics, marriage and Christianity

The connection between the power of women and politics in the ancient world can be found in the Hellenistic period. An example is shown in a marriage arrangement by a military officer by the name of Antipater. Antipater (397 BC - 319 BC), was a general in the army of Alexander the Great.

Antipater had three daughters, Nicaea, Phila, and Eurydice, with whom he opened negotiations for their marriage to two of Alexander's generals, Perdiccas and Craterus. The third selected male was Ptolemy (367 BC - 283 BC), who was a Greco-Egyptian writer.

In the case of the two generals, Antipater planned to make them his sons-in-law, which was clearly a political move to maintain the "collegiate leadership" under Alexander the Great.  As a result, Perdiccas, became engaged to General Nicaea, General Craterus agreed to marry  Phila, and Ptolemy accepted the hand of Eurydice.

Antipater, however, had a formidable enemy in the person of the aged Olympias, who was the mother of Alexander the Great. Olympias lived in exile in her native land in Epirus where she devised a plan to play Perdiccas against Antipater: she offered Antipater the hand of her daughter Cleopatra, the sister of Alexander the Great,

Perdiccas was thus trapped between the promise he had given to Antipater, whose daughter was about to arrive at his headquarters, unknowingly at the same time as Cleopatra's arrival. The tempting visions conjured up by a marriage to Cleopatra, would have made him the posthumous son-in-law of Philip II, the posthumous brother-in-law of Alexander the Great, and the uncle of the young Alexander IV gave him pause.. However, it seems the attitude of Perdiccas was equivocal. He did not break off the engagement with Nicaea, and he did not refuse the hand of Cleopatra.

After much political discussion and thought, he married Cleopatra.

This is not the first time we see the female factor intervening in Hellenistic affairs.

For all the abilities and political importance  of Some Hellenistic queens and the occasional appearance of wealthy women making loans to the state , receiving thanks and honours in public decrees, or contributing creatively to intellectual and artistic life, most women remained confined to the private domain.

Women were the transmitters of citizen status and rights without being able to exercise their privileges themselves.

Marriage was mainly used as an instrument for child creation and being owned property.

Also, consolidation of a dynasty may have been behind the adoption of marriage  within the same family (e.g. brother-sister, father-daughter, etc.)  up to the time of Cleopatra, of which she was the last member of the practice in a royal dynasty.

In the Old Testament, men were permitted to have concubines  and wet nurses. One reason was the demand to produce children (www.whensexwasreligion.org). If a wife did not produce a child, it was assumed that the wife was sterile, and bareness was a just cause for her husband to procure a divorce. As an alternative he was allowed to take another wife without having to divorce the first.
Among the Greeks and Romans, monogamy was the prevailing system, although in both instances concubines were wide spread.  Concubines were women usually captured during warfare, taken for the purpose of cohabitation, and they did not have the legal status as wives.
The Greeks held their women, including wives, in low esteem, but they patronized the hetairal. a sophisticated class of prostitutes, many of whom were well educated and conversant with political and historical matters.
By 312 BC, Christianity was granted legal recognition in the Roman Empire, and the new  religion had marked effects on the institution of marriage. Concubines and prostitution were discouraged, and plural marriage was prohibited.
The Churches gradually assumed control over marriage during the Middle Ages, and by the 10th century the marriage ceremony was being held in the Churchyard where a member of the clergy was required to be present.
By the 13th century the wedding ceremony was held inside the Church.
At the Council of Trent  (1545 AD - 63 AD), The church proclaimed the  sacramental  nature of marriage to be a divine creation. Henceforth, all marriages were to be under the auspices of the Church, and once solemnized, marriages were held to be indissoluble until death.
It was during the Middle Ages that the Church began granting annulments, the voiding of a marriage because of a premarital impediment. In some cases, a remote blood relationship was deemed sufficient ground for an annulment.
The Church could also grant divortium a mensa et thoro (" a divorce from bread and board"), which though it did not allow remarriage, it did permit the spouses to live apart.
By the 16th century the Church was under increasing attack and open revolt broke out. It was led by Martin Luther King, an Augustinian monk. The revolt soon spread from Germany to France and Scotland, where John Calvin and John Knox also protested against what they considered the misuse of ecclesiastical authority. Luther felt that marriage should be under civil rather than religious auspices, despite the fact that he believed marriage was spiritual in nature and that individual couples should have their marital unions solemnized in Church.
This led to the modern belief by the Christian Church that marriage is a perpetual and exclusive bond.

Religion and magic

Diana and King of the Wood

The landscape of a little woodland Lake of Nemi, called by the ancients “Diana’s Mirror,” was located in a green hollow of the Alban hills in Italy. The two Italian villages, and the palace on its banks with terraced gardens, descended steeply to the lake. It was a scene of a strange and recurring tragedy.

   

                                            18th century depiction of Lake Nemi

On the northern side of the lake stood the sacred grove and sanctuary of Diana of the wood, or Diana at Nemi. In this sacred grove there grew a certain tree which at any time of the day and far into the night, a grim figure might be seen to prowl. In his hand he carried a drawn sword as he kept peering cautiously about him as if at any moment he expected to be set upon by an enemy. He was a priest and a murderer. The man for whom he looked for was sooner or later to murder him, and the priesthood would be transferred to the new killer.

A candidate for the priesthood could only succeed to office by slaying the priest, and having slain him, the candidate retained the office, till he himself was slain by a stronger challenger.

The post which he held carried with it the title of king. Year in and year out, night and day, in fair weather or foul, he had to keep his lonely watch. Whenever he snatched a troubled sleep, it was at the peril of his life.

The least relaxation of his vigilance, the smallest loss of strength of limb or skill put him in jeopardy; grey hairs might seal his death. Pilgrims who visit the shrine and catch sight of him would be overcome with fear and gloom.

The strange role of this priesthood was found in most ancient civilizations,  and surviving into the Roman imperial period about the 3^rd century AD.

According to one story the worship of Diana at Nemi was instituted by Orestes, who after killing Thoas, King of the Tauric Chersonese (the Crimea), fled with his sister to Italy, bringing with him the image of Diana hidden in a faggot of sticks.

After his death his bones were transported from Aricia to Rome and buried in front of the temple of Saturn.  

                                                                The Temple of Saturn

The bloody ritual which legend ascribed to Diana, mentions that every stranger who landed was sacrificed on her alter. The rite, after transported to Italy, assumed a milder form. Within the sanctuary at Nemi grew a certain tree of which no branch might be broken. The only person allowed to break off one of the boughs was a runaway slave if he could. Success in the attempt entitled him to fight the priest in single combat, and if he slew him he reigned with the title of King of the Wood.

According to public opinion of the ancients, the fateful branch was the Golden Bough. It was said the flight of Orestes after his combat with the priest was reminiscent  of the human sacrifice once offered to Diana. This rule of succession by the sword was observed down to imperial times where Caligula, thinking that the priest of Nemi had held office too long, hired a killer to slay him. A Greek traveller, who visited Italy in the age of the Antonines  (96 – 180 AD), remarks that down to his time the priesthood was  still the prize of victory in a single combat.

In regards to the worship of Diana at Nemi, some offerings found at the site shows that she was conceived as a hunter, blessing men and women with offspring, and granting expectant mothers a healthy delivery.

                                                                 Shrine of Diana

Also, fire seems to have played a part in her ritual. During her annual festival, held on the thirteenth of August, at the hottest time of the year, her grove shone with a multitude of torches, whose ruddy glare was reflected by the lake; and throughout Italy the day was kept with holy rites at every domestic hearth. Bronze statuettes found in her precinct represent the goddess herself holding a torch in her raised right hand; and a woman, whose prayers had been herd by her came crowned with wreaths and bearing lighted torches to the sanctuary in fulfilment of their vows.

An unknown person dedicated a perpetually burning lamp in a little shrine at Nemi for the safety of the Emperor Claudius and his family.

The terra-cotta lamps which have been discovered in the grove may perhaps have served a like purpose for humbler persons. If so, the analogy of the custom to the Catholic practice of dedicating holy candles in churches would be obvious. 

                                                     Ancient terra cotta candle holder 

Creation and Mythology

In 1642 the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, Dr. Lightfoot, proclaimed that the world was created at 9 a.m., on October 23, 4004 BC.  This refined dating was based upon the slightly earlier work of Archbishop Ussher of Armagh, who had already decided upon the year 4004BC, though his studies and calculations were based upon the Old Testament. Such authoritarian statements had heralded in the Age of Reason.

The urge to reduce an enigma or the power of mystery by labelling and filing it from a dogmatic or pre-contrived system, is one of the most dangerous and inherently weakening of western consciousness.

The mystery of creation is not a problem to be solved either through dogma or logical and evolutionary systems. It may only be approached through levels found in mythology, which speak directly to the imagination in a language of timeless imagery and powerful, potentially transformative, narrative. A question like who was the first man, or who was the first woman is answered by mythology which comes from deep levels of consciousness, in which universal symbolic patterns are grasped.  The recounting of myth at its deepest and most powerful level is a reverberation of the event which it originally characterized Myths are not allegories but manifestations at the heart of our nature. Intuitively, if we lose contact with the key images within myth, or with mythic patterns, we will lose contact with a reality that both underpins and transcends the superficiality of our civilization.

A myth is a story embodying and declaring a pattern of relationship between humanity, other forms of life, and the environment. It has many implications extending far beyond a materialistic or psychological definition and interpretation. The definition of myth is divided into three parts.

1.      A myth is a story. Myths are found initially in oral tradition: this means they are tales handed down by word of mouth and preserved collectively and anonymously, though specific story-tellers or creative poets and writers often work with them. The earliest known literary use of the word myth is in the works of Plato where mythologia is used to mean the telling of tales customarily legendary characters such as gods, goddesses, heroes and revered ancestors. Most traditional myths come to us in a literary form from an early cultural period, as texts     forming a critical turning point between oral tradition and written dogma or history. True myth can express many truths in an emblematic, poetic manner which is most efficient and effective, and often more communicative than many thousands of highly reasoned words. Myths reveal their content to other levels of awareness than the merely logical or reasoning mental processes; in some cases they can leap beyond these processes to convey truth.

2.      A myth embodies and declares a pattern of relationships. This aspect of myth should be given very careful attention. The content of myth, and its relationship to collective tradition (from which popular ideas are generated) is often far more subtle than that of a mere narrative.

The unfolding of any myth includes sequences, structures and relationships, which form very specific patterns often called mythic patterns. The pattern with a relationship in myth, if it is part of a sequence deriving from an enduring tradition with roots deep in early human history, is often a visual exposition of specific concepts. These concepts are expressed as tales or verses concerning magic, metaphysics, energies of life and death, or of creation and termination.

3.      The mythic relationship is between humanity, other forms of life, and the environment. The involvement of myth with natural history or cultural history is a later expansion stretched out upon the foundations of creation mythology. We must consider that ‘the environment’ ranges from the immediate locality of a story-teller, through the land, the continent, the planet, the solar system, and ultimately the universe. Myths deal precisely with both. A local and a universal environment. It’s often difficult to separate the two because the local environment mirrors a universal one, and myth leaps instantaneously from what appear to be localized occurrences to what are, universal or cosmic events often using the same characters, symbols, and relationships to define both.

The astrological content of mythology often works in this way; one moment a character is human involved in some drama, the next he or she is a heavenly entity  related to a pattern of stars or planets found in the night sky at a certain time of year. This paradoxical role of myth was rationalized by the ancient Greeks, when they stated that their heroes were placed among the stars by the gods as reward for their valour. On the deepest level of all, the environment is not only one of space, energy and time, but of consciousness, which unifies those three into one, and from which, according to ancient tradition, all other forces were generated. To imagine, therefore, is to echo the original creation of the universe. A concept which only the human mind can create.   

The Book of Revelation, 666, and the 144,000

The Revelation opens with what is believed to be the original title: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, Which God gave him…” The word “revelation” is translated from the original Greek word “apocalypse.” It’s believed Revelation was the earliest writing to employ this word. As a title, apocalyptic or revelation literature had long been familiar to both Jews and Christians. Similarly, at early stages of its development nearly every religion had some doctrine that leans in the direction of apocalyptic ideas. There are passages in Amos, Micah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, by which the prophets reflected popular speculation about the coming “day of Yahweh.” This apocalyptic tendency in the literature of the Old Testament was heightened in post-exile times.

According to the authenticity of Revelation, the author calls himself John (The Revelation of St. John the Divine).

                                                                     Justin Martyr

                                                               

Justin Martyr A.D. 139-161, an early Christian apologist, quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostle’s work, the prophecy of the millennium of the saints, to be followed by the general resurrection and judgment.

This testimony of Justin is referred to also by Eusebius. In the early part of the second century, Justin, held his controversy with Trypho, a learned Jew, at Epheaus, where John had been living about thirty-five years before. According to Trypho, “the Revelation had been given to John, one of the twelve apostles of Christ.”

                                                                      Irenaeus

Melito, bishop of Sardis (about 171 A.D.), is said to have a written treatises on the Apocalypse of John, and, Irenaeus (about 180 A.D.), the disciple of John, and supposed by Archbishop Usher to be the Angel of the Church of Smyrna, “is most decided again and again in quoting the Apocalypse as the work of the apostle John.”

The number of the beast did not appear in the vision of the original Apocalypse. According to Archbishop Usher in alluding to the mystical number of the beast, 666, found in all old copies of the Apocalypse, “we do not hazard a confident theory as to the name of Antichrist; for if it had been necessary that his name should be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the apocalyptic vision.

The Jewish apocalyptic was the consequence of alien influence. The literature of Babylonia and Iran reveals an earlier date than does the Old Testament. Apocalyptic ideas of a resurrection and a final judgment, and an imagery of the catastrophic events that will mark the end of the present age, became naturalized within Judaism after the exile period. It was then that the Jews became vassals of the Persians, and as Judaism’s political overlord, it left its mark on post-exile Jewish writing.

Revelation 7:1-8, shows a pause in the fearful succession of plagues. All that has gone on before is

the preparatory to the breaking of the 7^th seal, the event that will precipitate the dreadful drama of the world’s history. 

                                                                     The 7th seal

During this frightful interlude the 144,000 of the spiritual people of Israel are secured for their protection against demonic powers. It’s believed the 144,000 is drawn in equal numbers from every tribe of the sons of Israel, which is believed to be the core of the Jewish faithful of all the ideal tribes. However, John interprets it to refer to Christians of every racial origin.

The 2^nd vision of this interlude, the 144,000 symbolizes the Church as the true Israel. The great multitude which no man could number from all people of the world is the church triumphant in heaven, the company of the glorified and victorious faithful awaiting the final consummation of God’s purpose. The vision is recounted by the prophet to inspire the communities to which he is writing. The vast throng in heaven are those who will remain loyal despite the pressures of persecution and the threats of death.

Breaking through the terror of Islam

After the attack on the United States and the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, the West launched a massive appeal to Muslims around the world to reflect on their religion and culture. Muslim organizations in their various countries were asked to distance themselves from Islam as preached by the terrorists.

 The plea was met with indignation from Muslims who thought it was inappropriate to hold them responsible for the criminal conduct of the young men who made the attacks. Yet, the fact that the people who committed the attacks on September 11 were Muslims, and the fact that before this date Muslims in many parts of the world were already harboring feelings of resentment toward the West, and it has yet to cease.

Similar to the Christian and Jewish faith, Islam dominates all aspects of family and relations. It’s ideology, political conviction, moral standard, and law creates the identity of the Muslim people. As such, Muslims and their children are taught the meaning of the name ‘Muslim’, which mean they are people who submit themselves to Allah’s will, found in the Koran and the Hadith, a collection of sayings supposedly ascribed to the Prophet Muhammad. People are taught that Islam sets them apart from the rest of the world and are chosen by God. All unbelievers are considered to be antisocial, impure, barbaric, not circumcised, immoral, unscrupulous, and above all, unbelievers are obscene in all respects. Those who are unfaithful to Islam are cursed, and God will punish them most brutally in the afterlife.

Christians and Jews also raise their children in the belief that they are God’s chosen people, but among Muslims the feeling that God has granted them special salvation goes further. In the Western world God and His truth are humanized. For the Muslims life on earth is merely a transit stage before the afterlife, but also, the people are allowed to live their lives as mortals, and hell seems no longer to exist, because they have special salvation exclusive only to them, God is love rather than a cruel ruler who punish.

A closer look at Islam shows three important elements.

1.      Muslim’s relationship with God is one of fear. The conception of God is absolute who demands total submission. He rewards you if you follow His rules meticulously. He punishes you cruelly if you break His rules, both on earth, with illness and natural disasters, and in the afterlife with hellfire.

2.      Islam knows only one moral source; the Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad is infallible (much like the popes of the Middle Ages), but the Koran says explicitly that Muhammad is a human being. He is a supreme human being, though, the most perfect human being. Muhammad was a military conqueror in many lands. Accounts of what he said and did, and the advice he gave in books written in the seventh century, about how  a Muslim was supposed to live, are daily consulted by devout Muslims, to answer questions about life in the twenty-first century.

3.      Islam is strongly dominated by a sexual morality derived from tribal Arab values dating from the time the prophet received his instructions from Allah, a culture in which women were the property of their fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers and guardians. The essence of a woman is reduced to her hymen. Her veil functions as a constant reminder to the outside world of this morality that makes Muslim men owners of women in the Muslim world, and sometimes brought to the western world by Muslim emigrants, that prevents  their daughters, mothers, sisters, aunts, sisters-in-law, cousins, nieces, and wives from having male contact.

In Muslim countries it is an offence if a woman glances in the direction of the man, brushes past his arm, or shakes his hand. A man’s reputation and honor depend entirely on the respectable, obedient behaviour of the female members of his family.

The primary task of both Muslims and non-Muslims is to face the malicious extremism in the world today. Fanaticism in Islam is a reality, and its following is growing. Westerners and Muslims need to stand together in their shared rejection of fanaticism, instead of cultivating distrust. The Muslims themselves must recognize the importance of enlightenment and realize the importance and urgency of restoring the balance between religion and reason, and work hard at achieving it.

Muslims are a diverse group. Some want to reform their faith. Others want to spread their beliefs through persuasion, violence, or both, while others are apathetic and do not care for politics.  And still others want to leave their faith and convert to Christianity, or become atheist.

Islam, as a set of beliefs unreformed, is hostile to everything Western.

In a free society, Jews, Protestants, and Catholics, as well as Muslims, have their own schools. But how long should we ignore the fact that in certain Muslim schools in the West, students are taught to believe that they should distance themselves from unbelievers and that jihad is a virtue?

In Muslim lands, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants cannot have their own schools, or churches and graveyards. Muslims can proselytize in Vatican City, but, Christians cannot proselytize in Mecca.

In regards to the obsession with subjugating women is one of the things that make Islam so reprehensible. The leaders of Islam know any improvement in the lives of women will lead to the demise of Islam and a disappearance of male power.  This is one of many reasons why they are so desperate to keep women caged in, and why the agents of Islam also hate the west. According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (2006); “Please don’t be fooled by the few shrill voices – in or out of the veil-that enjoy the status quo and betray their fellow women. Many western women who don the veil in later life are converts. Highly educated and verbal, they live in free countries where they try to hijack the justice system and force the acceptance of the veil. By doing so, they betray the millions of women in other countries who do not have the freedom not to wear the veil.”

Second stage recovery from addiction.

The second stage of recovery from using drugs, after realizing you need help, is called the transition stage.  The transition begins with the downward spiral at the end of the drinking, and/or drug using stage. It includes the acute trauma of “hitting bottom” which may include being violently ill, tremors, restlessness, and hallucinations.  This continues into the earliest steps of abstinence and recovery. In the transition stage, family dynamics are changing almost constantly, which can make it the most traumatic stage in recovery.

Alcoholism

Although active alcoholism is unstable and dangerous, there is the illusion of structure. The family members have had time to grow used to the unhealthy family system. The alcoholic family is cushioned from much of their pain by denial, which allows them to endure recurring hardships. During transition, however, denial starts to crack, and the reality that was kept at bay now begins to intrude into the family’s perceptions. What was accepted as normal is revealed to be unhealthy, and the small comforts that the family members created for themselves are shown to be illusions. Each member is torn between the painful light of the "comforting” darkness of denial.

In the transition stage of recovery, the habitual system of substance use collapses while the family desperately tries to keep the family unity in place. The family members want to save this crumbling structure because throughout the addict’s using stage each individual’s entire focus  has been to keep the dysfunctional system in place at the cost of their own wants and needs (e.g. avoiding conflicts with the addict, keeping the peace, and avoiding other people).

However, in order to survive the chaos of transition, each member must go against their instincts and let the system fall. Each must reach outside the family for help and support; this is also painful, since each individual has to overcome the deep belief that reaching out is a betrayal of the family.

Because of the heightened and ongoing state of crisis that characterizes the transition stage, a map can be a vital tool for surviving the journey through the treacherous landscape.

Recovery is a slow process that demands a lot of faith and patience. Things often get worse before they get better, and it’s crucial that you are able to make it through. In reality, pain and discomfort in the recovery process is part of the healing process but difficult steps along the path to recovery.

It’s important to understand why, even though you just made a change for the better, life suddenly got a whole lot worse.

Active use of alcohol and/or other substances demands that family members maintain a subtle balance between denial (the behaviour is only bad once-in-awhile, and I can make him/her change over time) and reality (you can’t make another person change). As long as the behaviour stays within its acceptable limits, the denial can grow with it. This balance can remain in place for a long time.

Nevertheless, when there is a break in the normal course of events - whether from an external cause like driving under the influence, or accident, or internal cause like a family member moving out – the balance is lost and the cracks start to form in the denial.

Since recovery is a developmental process, each stage has a number of tasks that must be fulfilled before you can move on to the next stage. The following are the tasks of the transitional stage:

*Break denial.

*Begin to challenge your core beliefs.

*Realize that family life is out of control.

*Hit bottom and surrender.

*Accept the reality that you have addiction problems and the loss of control.

*Enlist supports outside the family (community self-help groups, therapy).

*Shift focus from the system of support groups to individuals who begin detachment from groups and use individual recovery.

*Allow the addiction system to collapse.

*Learn new abstinent behaviours and thinking.

Healthy growth is about discovering your inner spirit and finding your own individual path. This can only be done by listening to yourself. Patience is the key. You will get there in time, but you can only reconnect with others after you have taken responsibility for your own life.

The journey does not always seem to be moving forward but the work continues. In mountain climbing, you often have a hammer in a lot of ropes to move up to the next plateau. In great measure, the days are spent hanging ropes, while at night you return to the base camp – but not the bottom of the mountain – to sleep. One day the ropes reach the next plateau, and you pack up your camp and climb the ropes, pulling them up behind you. When you reach the plateau you set up your new camp, and the next day the climb continues from that higher plateau. So goes recovery: even the days spend apparently going nowhere are crucial parts of the journey.