stuart said: “Any basic Marxist approach would never…”
Without committing myself as to the value of “Marxism”, whatever that is, I’d just like to raise a point about any “basic” approach.
It is a precept of basic climbing technique to keep three points of contact at all time.
In order to be free to a foot/hand any weight that it is baring needs to be shifted elsewise (it is impossible to move a foot/hand if it is baring weight). Climbers using the “three points of contact” rule spread their weight out equally between these points.
This is sound physics and it works.
Modern climbers have developed other techniques which breach this rule. There are dangers in doing this but these can work provided the climber doesn’t attempt to defy the laws of physics.
‘Two points of contact’
These must be on one side of the body only.
The danger is that two support points will act like a hinge and the unsupported side of the climber will swing uncontrollably out from the rock face like a door opening. This is known as “barn dooring”.
To prevent this climbers are taught to balance by
a) keeping their body core in a position between the supporting hand and foot
b) use their free leg a counter-weight either pressed against the wall or may simply hang in space
“One and zero points of contact “
Such moves are amazing to watch, when they work.
Obviously, they do breach the basic precept of keeping three points of contact.
The risks are obvious and that is a reason for not trying them.
It is not because they break the laws of physics. They don’t; on the contrary ,they rely on them.
The conclusion – basic rules are useful, just don’t confuse them with fundamental laws of nature.
George, I’m all for the three points of contact, as well as standing a body length back from any cliff edge. The other stuff is for the young and foolish (so nice to be able to write that! I love getting older).