dressing for tech diving? (was in What the Heck is DIR?)

[Dirk Diggler]

The way I kind of view DIR is that I liken it to a religion. Those who have adopted the DIR philosophy have basically made "a leap of faith".

As like religion, those who have made the leap of faith cannot be questioned on why they do so, it is the choice they have made and it works for them. They are preponents of that religion and philosophy and want to share it with others because they believe it to be right. It makes them feel good about themselves and their actions, they believe it to be right because of that feeling, and they want to share that with others. They have found that there is a void in their lives, or in the case of DIR - a void in the way scuba is being conducted or taught, etc. Those who promote their beliefs are also looking to self-justification for the choice they have made. We all don't know if the choice we've made in life to adopt a way of doing something is right or not necessarily without others agreeing, or following suit in the same leap or adoption. The more who adopt, the more it reconfirms that belief to those who follow it.

Just as religion, DIR is looking for answers, fulfillment of what they view is missing, and more meaning in their every day diving. DIR was developed for a team of divers that wanted to go do deep exploration of caves. They viewed that the team needed to work as a whole to increase safety, comforming to a simplistic single approach. It was designed for that purpose, and it grew from there, and like anything, it was marketed as being adoptable into the rest of scuba. As long as it doesn't hurt others, I don't see any real problem with it. But human nature has a way of balancing back and forth of what may be viewed as right or worng.

Just as you may or may not question or understand someone's religious beliefs, the same can be said with DIR. Some times those who sound the biggest voice of the cause don't necessarily reflect the majority's thoughts or opinions of that cause. Even in the DIR camp, some think that someone like George Irving, has gotten away from the central theme of the philosophy and hurt it's image. As in any religion, there are the pacifists and the radicals, they same with DIR. I believe George coined the stroke reference, and it stuck as a quick label easily passed from tongue to tongue. This negative should be tempered, it only creates defensiveness in those who think it is referenced to them -and it does not market well for the further growth of DIR.

I believe that as in any religion, one does not have to adopt all the ways of DIR, instead taking such aspects of DIR that work for you - that's a choice we all have. No, that is not being 100%DIR, and those proponents of DIR surely don't like those half-way types, those who would scapel out their needs from the whole, and this is not true DIR. Those who are true DIR know it is a whole way of doing things, and also like religion, there will not always be those who stay true to the whole belief and follow through with is daily. But once again, that is simply human nature.

You have to make the choice for yourself if you wish to take the leap of faith, if it works for you. But as in religions, those who do or do not, undoubtedly need to be careful, as their faith doesn't work for all others, nor does it mean that it is the only way, or that it doesn't have it's closet ghosts nor ignore that many other ways of design and beliefs came before and will follow after. Those who or who do not follow should not be ridiculed, subjegated, or driven for action against, nor pushed to adopt it's way.

Science can't counter religion, and non-DIR can't counter DIR, it's how someone feels, those who believe will always find a way to make it work for them - it's a leap of faith.

What works, works.