permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: permaculture
List archive
- From: Jack Rowe <jackrowe@compuserve.com>
- To: UNC Perm List <permaculture@listserv.unc.edu>, Envirolink Perm List <permaculture@envirolink.org>
- Subject: Both? Both!
- Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:28:48 -0500
Both. . .
Both John's excellent point (that by designing to 'fix' problems we become
myopic and create more problems -- as Mr Mollison says, don't see them as
problems, see them as unused resources) and Dan's excellent point (that
fixing real problems must become part of every action we take now -- as Mr
Mollison says, time's a-wasting) are very much real and accurate visions. I
don't think that either of your posts has 'miss[ed] the point of
permaculture' (should 'point' in this sentence be pluralized?), which at
any rate is very much still up for definition.
Both. . .
To the extent that any of us chooses to ignore either 'side' (how many
'sides' in a circle?) of the cosmic interplay between looking back and
looking forward, we lose. Any time we deal with what appears to be a
fundamental dichotomy, such as designing to fix problems vs designing to
create healthy systems, the holistic solution will invariably contain BOTH
elements or it will be short-sighted. By ignoring either semantic extreme
we create more 'problems'.
Both. . .
Speaking of linear thinking, the functional lateral thinker/feeler (because
forgetting to include the heart in the design/thinking process is just
another damaging form of linear thinking) will always see the value, the
kernel of truth, in ANY statement or situation. Hence, again, Mollison's
both-sided injunction to see problems as unused resources, and unused
resources as a problem. Mr. Mollison did not forget the BOTH aspect of
reality.
Both. . .
Here's another 'fundamental dichotomy': balancing the highly self-empowered
individualism essential for acting toward health within today's social
structures (not a supported activity) with the highly
synergistically-empowered co-action that creating actual health will
require. . . an army of highly individualistic cohorts in healing and
health. Can individualists offer mutual support toward mutual goals? Yes.
WILL they? So often our discussions sound like a husband and wife driving
250 miles to the nearest polling place, one to vote straight-ticket
Democrat and the other straight-ticket Republican, both hoping for a
healthy, happy society. Might as well stay home, spend the cash on partying
before the crash.
Both. . .
Jack
-
Both? Both!,
Jack Rowe, 11/03/1998
- Re: Semantics and Cooperation, Michael Yount, 11/03/1998
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- RE: Both? Both!, John Schinnerer, 11/03/1998
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.