Tag Archives: Climb

THE ARRIVAL FALLACY AND THE ASYMPTOTIC CURVE

“I’ll be happy when….” the mortgage is paid. the book is published. the promotion comes. retirement begins. there’s enough money, enough recognition, enough freedom. the mountain is finally summitted. There’s nothing wrong with those goals. The problem begins when a goal becomes a promise that life will finally feel complete once we “arrive”.

It rarely works that way. Achievement brings satisfaction, but satisfaction fades. The promotion becomes the job. The dream home becomes the house. Retirement becomes ordinary life. The mind adjusts, the horizon moves, and another summit appears. This is the Arrival Fallacy—the belief that reaching some future milestone will finally deliver lasting fulfillment.

There may be a better way to understand what’s happening. In mathematics, an asymptotic curve keeps moving toward a line without ever quite reaching it. Human development works much the same way. We can become wiser, healthier, more capable, more skilled, and more fulfilled without ever arriving at some final state called complete.

That changes the question. Instead of asking, “When will I finally get there?”, perhaps the better question is, “Am I still moving in the right direction?”

What the Arrival Fallacy Is

The Arrival Fallacy is the belief that some future achievement will finally settle us. Once the degree is earned, the business succeeds, the mortgage is gone, the book is published, the kids are launched, or retirement begins, life will somehow click into place. We’ll feel complete. The pressure will lift. We’ll finally be where we were supposed to be.

That’s the fallacy. It isn’t that the goals are foolish or that achievement doesn’t matter. Most worthwhile lives are built around goals, effort, and progress. Goals give us direction. They force decisions. They help us measure whether we’re moving forward or simply drifting. The mistake is asking a goal to do more than it can.

Achievement can change circumstances. It can open doors, create security, build confidence, and produce a well-earned sense of satisfaction. But it can’t permanently resolve the human condition. There’s always another problem, another challenge, another uncertainty, another horizon. Life doesn’t stop being life because one objective has been reached.

The important distinction is between achievement and completion. Achievement is real. Completion is often imagined. We can finish a project, pay off a debt, reach a professional milestone, or master a difficult skill. What we can’t reliably do is arrive at some permanent state where nothing more needs attention and nothing further needs to be learned.

The Arrival Fallacy begins when we confuse those two things.

Why the Mind Keeps Falling For It

The Arrival Fallacy survives because the human mind is very good at imagining a better future and not nearly as good at predicting how that future will actually feel. We picture the promotion, the retirement party, the finished house, the published book, or the number in the bank account and imagine the satisfaction that’ll come with it. What we don’t picture nearly as clearly is ourselves six months later, standing in essentially the same mind, with most of the same habits, worries, expectations, and unfinished business.

Psychologists call part of this hedonic adaptation. Something changes, it feels important for a while, and then the mind adjusts. What was once exceptional becomes normal. The pay raise becomes the salary. The new car becomes transportation. The dream house becomes a place where the furnace breaks and the gutters need cleaning. Even achievements that once seemed almost unreachable can become surprisingly ordinary once they’ve been lived with for a while.

There’s another trick at work. The future is clean because it hasn’t happened yet. We can imagine the good parts without experiencing the complications that’ll come with them. Retirement looks like freedom until it also brings questions about purpose, routine, identity, and what to do with Tuesday morning. Success looks uncomplicated from a distance because the next set of problems is still hidden behind it.

So the mind keeps moving the marker. Maybe happiness wasn’t there. Maybe it’s at the next milestone. And because the next destination is still safely in the future, the promise remains convincing. That’s how the Arrival Fallacy keeps renewing itself.

What is the Arrival Fallacy? The Arrival Fallacy is the mistaken belief that reaching a future milestone—such as wealth, retirement, publication, promotion, recognition, or some other major goal—will produce lasting fulfillment or a permanent sense of completion. Goals can improve circumstances and provide direction, but the satisfaction they bring usually fades as people adapt. The fallacy begins when achievement is expected to solve the deeper problem of how to live well.

The Hidden Cost of Living for Arrival

The real danger in the Arrival Fallacy isn’t disappointment. It’s postponement. A person starts treating the present as something to get through on the way to a better future. Work is endured until retirement. Health is neglected until there’s more time. Relationships are put on hold until the pressure eases. Enjoyment gets deferred because there’s always one more target to hit first.

That can work for a while, especially when the goal is important. Sacrifice is often necessary. Discipline usually requires saying no to something now for something better later. But there’s a difference between postponing a pleasure and postponing a life. The trouble starts when the present becomes permanently provisional—when today is always preparation for tomorrow and tomorrow keeps moving farther away.

The cost can be hard to see because ambition is usually praised. The person may be productive, responsible, successful, and still miss what’s happening around them. Years can disappear into deadlines, projects, promotions, mortgages, and plans. The irony is brutal: someone can spend decades building the conditions for a good life and discover they’ve been too busy building it to actually live much of it.

That doesn’t mean abandoning long-term goals. It means refusing to make them the price of admission to the present. A future milestone can improve life, but it shouldn’t be allowed to hold today hostage. The deeper mistake isn’t wanting to arrive. It’s assuming life begins when we do.

Enter the Asymptotic Curve

This is where the asymptotic curve becomes useful. In mathematics, an asymptote is a line a curve keeps approaching without ever quite reaching. The distance gets smaller and smaller, progress continues, but there’s no final point where the curve simply stops and declares the job done.

Human development often looks the same. A person can become wiser without ever becoming perfectly wise. They can become healthier without reaching some permanent state of perfect health. They can become more skilled, more disciplined, more capable, and more clear-minded while still discovering how much remains to be learned. Progress is real, but completion keeps receding.

That may sound discouraging at first, but it’s actually the opposite. If there’s no final state where everything is settled, then there’s also no need to wait for one before life can be meaningful. The value is in the movement itself—in learning, adapting, improving judgment, building competence, and getting better at meeting reality as it comes.

The asymptotic curve gives us a better picture than the finish line. A finish line suggests that once it’s crossed, the race is over. The curve suggests continued development without the fantasy of final completion. It doesn’t say achievement is pointless. It says achievement is part of a larger trajectory.

That changes how a person sees progress. The goal isn’t to become finished. It’s to keep closing the distance.

Why the Curve is a Better Model of Life

The asymptotic curve is a better model of life because real development rarely moves in a straight line toward a clean finish or a single, specific summit. A person learns, improves, slips, adjusts, recovers, and keeps going. Progress happens, but it’s uneven. Some gains come quickly. Others take years. What matters isn’t whether every step is smooth. It’s whether the general direction is sound.

The arrival model tells us there’s a point where the work is over. The curve says otherwise. The more someone learns, the more they usually see what they don’t know. The more capable they become, the more subtle the next challenge looks. Mastery doesn’t close the world down. It opens more of it up.

That’s true in almost everything worth doing. Fitness has to be maintained. Judgment has to be exercised. Relationships need attention. Skills decay if they aren’t used. Knowledge gets outdated. Character isn’t something a person earns once and stores on a shelf. Life keeps moving, and anything alive has to keep adapting with it.

The curve also makes room for aging. A person may not be getting faster, stronger, or more energetic forever, but they can still deepen judgment, perspective, patience, skill, and understanding. The form of progress changes, but the possibility of progress doesn’t disappear.

That’s why the asymptotic model feels closer to reality. It doesn’t promise perfection. It doesn’t demand completion. It asks for continued movement in the right direction.

Goals Still Matter

None of this means goals don’t matter. They do. Without goals, effort can turn into drift. A clear objective gives direction, creates priorities, and forces choices. It helps a person decide what deserves attention and what can be ignored. Goals also give us something concrete to measure against, which matters because progress is hard to judge when there’s no reference point.

The problem isn’t having a destination. It’s expecting the destination to do emotional work it was never designed to do. A goal can help someone build a business, finish a degree, write a book, improve their health, or save enough money to retire. What it can’t guarantee is permanent satisfaction once the target is reached. That’s where ambition quietly turns into expectation, and expectation starts writing promises reality never made.

Used properly, goals are coordinates. They tell us where to aim without pretending the destination is the end of development. Reaching one objective often reveals the next problem, the next possibility, or the next level of competence. That isn’t failure. That’s how progress works.

A good goal should answer a practical question. Where am I trying to go? It shouldn’t be burdened with answering a much bigger one. When will I finally be complete?

Goals still matter. They just need to stay in their lane.

What is an asymptotic curve? An asymptotic curve is a mathematical curve that moves progressively closer to a line or limit without necessarily reaching it. As a metaphor for human development, it describes how a person can keep improving in wisdom, health, skill, judgment, or capability without ever reaching a final state of perfection or completion. Progress remains real even though there may be no absolute finish line.

From Destination to Trajectory

Once the finish line or summit stops being the point, another idea takes its place: trajectory. Instead of judging life by whether some final destination has been reached, it makes more sense to ask whether the overall direction is good. Is the person learning? Is their judgment improving? Are they becoming healthier, more capable, more useful, more resilient? Are they moving closer to reality or farther away from it?

Trajectory changes the way progress is measured. A setback doesn’t automatically mean failure, just as a milestone doesn’t mean the work is finished. Someone can lose ground for a while and still be travelling in the right general direction. They can also achieve something impressive while quietly moving in the wrong one. A promotion that destroys health, a bigger income that costs every meaningful relationship, or professional success built on permanent exhaustion may look like progress from the outside while the underlying trajectory says otherwise.

Thinking in terms of trajectory also makes room for course corrections. Reality changes. People change. Priorities change. A goal that made sense ten years ago may no longer deserve the same place in a life today. There’s no shame in adjusting direction when better information appears. In fact, refusing to change course simply because a destination was once chosen can become its own kind of trap.

The better question isn’t whether we’ve arrived. It’s whether we’re still becoming better equipped to meet what comes next.

The Role of Aging

Aging puts pressure on the Arrival Fallacy because, sooner or later, the future stops looking endless. There are fewer decades left to keep saying, I’ll get to that later. Retirement may have arrived. The career may be winding down. The children are grown. Some of the goals that once seemed distant are either behind us or no longer matter as much as they once did.

That can be unsettling, but it can also be clarifying. Aging strips away some of the illusion that life will eventually become settled and complete. It won’t. Health still needs attention. Relationships still need tending. Curiosity still matters. Judgment still matters. There’s still more to learn, more to understand, and more to contribute.

The asymptotic curve fits aging far better than the old finish-line model. A person may not keep getting faster, stronger, or more energetic forever, but development doesn’t have to stop. Experience can deepen judgment. Perspective can improve. Patience can grow. A lifetime of mistakes, successes, losses, and corrections can become useful if they’re actually examined.

The mistake is assuming that aging means arrival. It doesn’t. It simply changes the terrain. The direction can still be forward even when the pace changes and the objectives do too.

That may be one of the better gifts of getting older—realizing there was never a finish line in the first place. No summit to find.

A Stoic Connection

The Stoics would have understood the problem with arrival. Their philosophy wasn’t built around reaching some final state where life became easy, certain, or complete. It was built around practice. Judgment had to be exercised. Character had to be tested. Attention had to be brought back, again and again, to what was actually within a person’s control.

That fits the asymptotic curve remarkably well. A Stoic didn’t become wise once and stay wise forever. Wisdom had to be renewed through choices, habits, restraint, and response to circumstance. The work kept returning because life kept presenting new conditions. There was always another irritation, another loss, another temptation, another test of judgment.

The important point is that the Stoics didn’t treat this as failure. They treated it as the nature of the work. Progress mattered, but perfection wasn’t the expectation. What counted was whether the person was becoming better at seeing clearly, choosing well, and meeting reality without pretending it should be something else.

That’s also why Stoicism resists the Arrival Fallacy. It doesn’t tell us to wait for the perfect future. It keeps bringing attention back to the present moment and the quality of the response being made now.

The practice isn’t about arriving. It’s about becoming better at the practice.

The Larger Principle

The larger principle is simple enough. Life works better when we stop demanding that a future event make us complete. The Arrival Fallacy says fulfillment is waiting somewhere ahead. The asymptotic curve says there may be no final point where the work, learning, adaptation, and development are finished.

That doesn’t make life smaller. It makes it more realistic. Progress still matters. Achievement still matters. So do ambition, discipline, and long-term plans. But they sit inside a larger process instead of pretending to end it. A milestone becomes something to reach, learn from, and move beyond rather than a place where everything is finally supposed to make sense.

There’s some freedom in that. A person doesn’t have to keep postponing satisfaction until the next promotion, the next cheque, the next project, or the next stage of life. They can still pursue those things without asking them to carry the full emotional weight of happiness, identity, and meaning.

The better model is continued development. Learn, adjust, improve, maintain, and keep going. Some seasons will bring growth. Others will be about holding ground, recovering, or changing direction. What matters is staying engaged with reality instead of waiting for a mythical point where reality no longer asks anything of us.

There may be no finish line. No summit. That doesn’t mean there’s no point. It means the point was never the finish line or the summit.

How do the Arrival Fallacy and the asymptotic curve intersect? The Arrival Fallacy assumes fulfillment lies at a future destination, while the asymptotic curve suggests human development is an ongoing process with no final point of completion. Put together, they offer a better model of life: goals still matter, but they should be treated as points along a continuing trajectory rather than as final destinations. The emphasis shifts from arriving to becoming progressively more capable of meeting reality well.

There May Be No Summit

There’s no problem with wanting the mortgage paid, the book published, the promotion earned, or retirement secured. Those things can matter a great deal. They can improve life, reduce stress, create opportunity, and mark the result of years of disciplined effort. What they can’t do is suspend the rest of life once they arrive.

That’s where the Arrival Fallacy finally gives way to the asymptotic curve. One model says fulfillment sits at a destination. The other says development keeps moving. One asks us to wait for completion. The other asks us to pay attention to direction, progress, and the quality of the life being lived along the way.

There’s something liberating in that. A person can still aim high, work hard, build, save, learn, publish, retire, and keep going. The milestone doesn’t have to become a verdict on whether life has succeeded. It can simply be what it really is: a point on the curve.

That may be the better way to think about a life. Not as a race toward some final state of completion, but as a continuing journey of becoming more capable of meeting reality well.

Don’t postpone living until arrival. Use destinations to guide direction, but it’s not the summit you’re after. It’s the purpose, enjoyment, and enjoyment of the climb.

Dyingwords.net is a node of Centaur Intelligence Systems and Twenty-Second Century Enlightenment – 22ENL.
centaursystems.ai
The Valley, Anguilla

DID MALLORY & IRVINE SUMMIT EVEREST FIRST?

It’s the greatest mystery in mountaineering history. And it’s a question lingering at the top of the world for over a century. Did British climbers George Leigh Mallory and Andrew “Sandy” Irvine reach the summit of Mount Everest in 1924—nearly three decades before Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay etched their names into eternity?

The facts are buried under heavy snow, crushing ice, and glacial time. But clues remain. Some were frozen in place. Others may be waiting to thaw.

Let’s explore a deep dive (or a high climb) into one of the world’s most enduring mysteries. The answer may hinge on a single object—a missing object from the Mallory/Irvine climb that could forever rewrite mountaineering record books.

Mount Everest stands as the highest point on Earth—8,848 meters or 29,031 feet above mean sea level. It lies in the Mahalangur Himal sub-range of the Himalayas, straddling the border between Nepal and the Tibet Autonomous Region of China. The summit is known locally as “Chomolungma” or Goddess Mother of the World. Mountaineers call it the “Roof of the World”.

Climbing Everest is no walk in the park with your Birkenstocks and Bernese. Even today, with satellite weather tracking, advanced oxygen systems, carbon-fiber gear, and legions of seasoned Sherpas, it remains a deadly endeavor.

A combination of extreme cold, hurricane-force winds, avalanches, and altitude sickness kills super-fit climbers every year. Not to mention gravity. Over 300 people have perished trying to reach—or descend from—the top of the world.

Most Everest deaths are from falls, hypothermia, or high-altitude pulmonary/cerebral edema. Almost always, thse occur in the oxygen-poor “Death Zone” above 8,000 meters (26,250 feet). And even in our hyper-connected modern world, there are (and will continue to be) bodies up there that’ll never be recovered.

So, imagine attempting the climb in 1924—with wool garments, primitive crampons, hemp ropes, and homemade oxygen systems—on a route no one had ever successfully taken or surveyed before. That’s what George Mallory and Sandy Irvine set out to do.

The 1924 British Everest Expedition was not the first attempt to climb the world’s highest peak. It followed two earlier British expeditions in 1921 and 1922, both of which helped map the terrain and gauge potential paths.

The 1924 team was well-organized and determined. It included experienced climbers like Edward Norton, Howard Somervell, and Noel Odell, along with George Mallory—a seasoned alpinist who had been on both previous expeditions. Sandy Irvine, only 22, was a gifted engineer brought on for his mechanical expertise with oxygen systems.

They chose to climb from the north, through Tibet, as Nepal was closed to foreigners at the time. This North Col–Northeast Ridge route remains notoriously difficult due to exposure, technical ridges, and shifting snow conditions—especially near the infamous Second Step, a 30-meter (90 foot) vertical rock face at 8,610 meters (28, 234 feet).

Despite bad weather and delays, the team pushed upward. Norton made a valiant solo attempt without supplemental oxygen and reached an astonishing 8,572 meters (28, 130 feet)—a record at the time. But the Second Step and the summit still loomed as virgins above.

Then on June 8, 1924, Mallory and Irvine made their bid. They were last seen through a telescope by Noel Odell at 12:50 pm, appearing as “small black spots” ascending a prominent ridge—possibly the Second Step.

And then they vanished.

Let’s pause for a moment. This wasn’t just a routine summit attempt. Mallory had already become a dashing British national figure, famously answering the question of why he wanted to climb Everest with, “Because it’s there.”

And Irvine was the brilliant young newcomer, barely out of Oxford, taking on the world’s greatest challenge. They were heroes before they left base camp. And when they didn’t return, they became legends.

For 75 years, their fate remained unknown. No doubt they’d died. But had they reached the peak of Mount Everest?

In 1999, a discovery changed everything. An expedition sponsored by NOVA and the Mallory and Irvine Research Expedition, led by American climber Conrad Anker, found Mallory’s mummified body on the north face 693 meters (2271 feet) below the summit.

George Mallory was completely intact, face down, arms outstretched, showing severe head and bodily injuries consistent with a fall. His forehead was puncture with a golf ball-sized defect. His right leg was snapped. A rope and its compression injury mark curtailed his waist, suggesting the two were tethered together when one—possibly Irvine—fell and pulled the other down.

Mallory’s clothing, pack, and provisions were still with him. His stitched-leather, cobnailed boots were as perfect as the day he laced them. His pack, being as light as necessary to be for this stage of the climb, was consistent with a man who was descending. His tinted goggles were in a pouch, indicating a low light timeframe. His oxygen tanks had been shed…

In the fall of 2024, a National Geographic expedition led by Jimmy Chin uncovered partial remains believed to be those of Andrew “Sandy” Irvine. A boot, a sock labeled “A. C. Irvine,” and a foot were emerging from the ice of the Central Rongbuk Glacier, along the northern slope of Everest. These are now confirmed as Irvine’s through familial DNA testing.

Irvine’s discovery site is lower than where Mallory’s body was located in 1999. Mallory was at 8,155 meters (26,760 feet) on the north face. The exact altitude for Irvine’s lower extremety remains has not been publicly specified to avoid Everest souvenier hunters, but reports say they were “at least 700 feet lower” than Mallory’s position.

Put in perspective—Everest’s summit is 8,848 meters (29,031feet). Mallory’s body was 693 meters (2,271 feet) below the summit’s elevation. The Second Step, a 30 meter (98 foot) vertical wall is at 8,610 meters (28,250 feet) so both Mallory and Irvine apparently succumbed at least 693 meters (2,271 feet) below the summit and 455 meters (1490 feet) below the Second Step.

At least that’s what the come-to-rest remains say.

The question is, “How high did the men actually climb?” That can’t be answered by how far they fell. They could have fallen before reaching the formidable Second Step. They could have fallen when ascending the Second Step. They could have fallen right from the summit iself. Or, they could have fallen descending the Second Step returning from the summit.

The camera the pair was known to carry hasn’t ben found. Neither has Irvine’s main remains with his pack and effects, unlike Mallory. No summit photo. No turn back photo. And perhaps most curiously, a photograph of George Mallory’s wife, Ruth—one he promised to place on the summit—was missing from Mallory’s otherwise intact belongings.

That detail haunts Everest historians to this day. The Vest Pocket Kodak camera, which probably Irvine was carrying, has never surfaced. If it still exists—and if the film somehow survived—the truth may still be frozen in time.

Now, let’s revisit the 1953 summit—the one that history officially credits as the first success. On May 29, Sir Edmund Hillary of New Zealand and Tenzing Norgay, a Sherpa of Nepal, definitely reached the summit of Mount Everest via the South Col–Southeast Ridge route from the Nepalese side.

The world celebrated. Unlike Mallory and Irvine, Hillary and Norgay had advantages:

  • A well-established route with prior reconnaissance
  • Modern climbing gear
  • Stronger oxygen systems
  • Superior logistics and base support
  • Detailed weather forecasts

And perhaps most importantly—they had the accumulated knowledge and failures of those who had come before. Their success was built on decades of attempts—including those of Mallory and Irvine. Without the early expeditions, there might have been no Hillary and Norgay.

Returning to the 1924 expedition’s final puzzle pieces. One of the most critical figures is Howard Somervell, who tracked weather patterns during the climb. His journals and barometric data suggest that Mallory and Irvine may have been caught in a brief but brutal storm late on June 8.

If true, that storm could have pushed them back—or killed them outright by blowing them off the mountain.

But the timing of the storm, compared with Odell’s sighting and their likely progress, still leaves open the possibility that Mallory and Irvine reached the summit before the weather closed in. Remember, they were last seen moving strongly upwards at 12:50 pm. Experts estimate they may have had another 3–5 hours of climbing ahead of them, depending on their pace, oxygen levels, weather, and terrain.

Could they have done it? Did Mallory and Invine reach Everest’s summit first?

Some argue yes. Others say no. The Second Step, now surmounted with a fixed ladder, would have been a serious obstacle in 1924. Maybe impossible given the equipment, or lack of equipment, they had.

Reinhold Messner, who is a prominent world mountaineer having solo climbed Everest without oxygen, once attempted the Second Step without a ladder. Messner remarked, “The Second Step is the key to the whole mystery. Free climbing it at this altitude, with that equipment… I have my doubts.”

But Mallory was a bold, skilled climber. And there’s that missing photo of Mallory’s wife. Why would it not be on his body when everything else was intact—unless he’d already left it on the summit?

So… did they make it? Were George Mallory and Sandy Irvine the first to crown Mount Everest? Let’s weigh the evidence.

The Case For a Successful Summit

  • Odell’s sighting places them high on the ridge at a good time of day.
  • They had functioning oxygen and decent weather early on.
  • Mallory’s missing photo of his wife may suggest he left it at the top.
  • Their drive, fitness, and skill were extraordinary for their time.

The Case Against

  • The Second Step was thought unclimbable without modern gear.
  • No physical proof—summit photo, journal entry, or reliable witness.
  • Weather may have turned faster than Somervell recorded.
  • The remainder of Irvine’s body and the camera are still missing.

Will we ever know?

That depends on whether the camera is found—and whether its film survived. Kodak experts have said that the cold may have preserved the negatives. But time and entropy are not on our side.

The harsh Everest climate, political restrictions on access, and the dangers of high-altitude recovery missions make future searches uncertain. Still, modern expeditions have better tools—LIDAR, drones, satellite imagery, and sophisticated weather modeling. And the fascination with Mallory and Irvine hasn’t faded. Their story still inspires climbers, historians, and truth-seekers alike.

My Take?

George Mallory and Andrew Irvine didn’t die in vain. Whether or not they summitted, these two pushed the edge of human potential. They risked everything to reach a place no one had ever been. And to boldly go where humans were destined to go.

In doing so, Mallory and Irvine became eternal figures in the Everest portfolio. Not just for what they did, but for what we still wonder about—why men climb mountains.

As for that summit… on the balance of probabilities… I think they might have made it… probably not… then again maybe… um, nah. But until that little Kodak camera is found, and the film is developed, Everest keeps its secret.

And maybe that’s the way mountain climbing is supposed to be.

Dyingwords.net is powered by a Centaur Intelligence System and the EXPONENTIAL Thought Engine
Centaursystems.ai