When a person, no, a mountaineer, climbs a mountain and reaches the summit, we say they have conquered the mountain. Reach the summit of K2 and you have conquered the most formidable of mountains. When at the summit, however, you should not stay long, lest the conditions kill you.
I have never reached the summit of a mountain. A landlord of mine many years ago talked of his mountain climbing feats. At the age of about 50 (my estimation, not his disclosure) he had managed to climb the highest peak of every continent.
http://www.everestnews.com/seven.htm
A fairly impressive feat for a former 'head of corporate banking of Bank of America'. A redundancy from that position helped finance his last summit climb. To reach the summit of Vinson Massif or Mt Everest is a remarkable feat. One in ten people die attempting to reach the peak of Chomolungma! And yet for all of this, can we really declare that they have conquered the mountain?
So is this really conquering? Can a mountain really be conquered? Perhaps they have been permitted to reach the top, only to appreciate its size and majesty?
I wonder if those who manage to reach the summit of K2 believe or would even suggest that they have conquered it? Wouldn't respect be a prerequisite and humility be a product?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
My comment is probably not relevant to what you blogged about. I just want to take that image of someone reaching the top - only being permitted to stay there for a while... but having to come down afterwards.
I wonder if executives see the top position in the company in this way - that they get there, they stay for a bit, be allowed to say they've conquered it, then face the reality that they have to come down at some point.
I wonder if that point comes to them as a shock or it is more an inevitability that they try in vain to fight off from the time they get there till the time they eventually fall.
Hmm.
In one sense it is what i am saying and in another, it has nothing to do with it.
I think the executives'claim to conquer may be greater than a mountaineer's since the former is conquering something on a smaller scale; a less grand and imposing element.
On the other hand, the people who can afford to travel to distant places and fund such expeditions are people who have made the top of a money pile. In some cases they are executives. Do they take this same arrogance with them to conquer the mountain?
Actually, i dont think so. i suspect they see it as a challenge to meet, without thinking they have conquered anything save their own hesitation.
Some executives remain at the top for their lives, others fall off and on as regularly as I go on a holiday.
In the end, the executives realise that they have the opportunity to control the very mountain on which they sit. There is a possibility that they could conquer this. On an ice covered peak, there is no possibility of control.
As impressive as a multinational might seem, it is as chaff when compared to a mountain. When the civilisation on which the multinational depends is but a shadow in a memory, the mountain will continue to exist, barely different to generations before.
And then, when the mountains are laid bare and reduced to nought, who will remain?
Post a Comment