- Time of past OR future Camino
- Various 2014-19
Via Monastica 2022
Primitivo 2024
Tom's replies on another thread about a peregrina who had gone incommunicado got me reflecting.
He said:
But I was a little surprised by the premise of the second quote - that to agree to stay in touch is the responsible option. Maybe I'm the only one who still walks untethered, but 'may agree...' fits my world better than 'should agree...' Our devices are addictive enough as it is without the stifling external pressure to keep in touch all the time which only seems to be getting more intense as it becomes ever easier to do that.
People who have care-giving responsibilities at home obviously can't just walk away and say 'talk to you in a month.' But is it no longer OK to let those (who can) go incommunicado, without demanding constant contact? And...if people have been in touch and suddenly enter a 'camino bubble,' can that be OK?
[I'm honestly curious to know what the general consensus of people here is, one way or another - and mean to start an open dialog, not an argument. So please feel free to express what you think...while at the same time understanding there may be differences and inasmuch as possible, letting them be.]
He said:
But, when you are far from home and there are family members, loved ones, or friends who might reasonably be concerned for your well-being, you have a responsibility to them to provide this level of confidence.
When I walk I go more or less completely off line from friends and family - it's part of the process that I deeply value. So obviously Tom and I inhabit different realms of preference, and it's not to make one wrong or right or to argue which is more in accord with the spirit of the way. Both are. The way is what it is now and we can get all precious about what it 'should' be, or 'used to be' before mobile phones - but IMO that's not very realistic.The pilgrim should agree and develop a set contact plan for periodic text, email, video conversation, voice calls, or similar, and stick to it.
But I was a little surprised by the premise of the second quote - that to agree to stay in touch is the responsible option. Maybe I'm the only one who still walks untethered, but 'may agree...' fits my world better than 'should agree...' Our devices are addictive enough as it is without the stifling external pressure to keep in touch all the time which only seems to be getting more intense as it becomes ever easier to do that.
People who have care-giving responsibilities at home obviously can't just walk away and say 'talk to you in a month.' But is it no longer OK to let those (who can) go incommunicado, without demanding constant contact? And...if people have been in touch and suddenly enter a 'camino bubble,' can that be OK?
[I'm honestly curious to know what the general consensus of people here is, one way or another - and mean to start an open dialog, not an argument. So please feel free to express what you think...while at the same time understanding there may be differences and inasmuch as possible, letting them be.]