permaculture

[blissv@nmhu.campus.mci.net]

If greed (fear) 'ceased', the rest of the qualities you feel are beneficial
(dis-unity, anger, competitiveness) would most likely also cease. The
perception of Fear of Lack is the source of most of the suffering that
causes such behaviors. Fear and lack of love, lack of power, lack of food,
lack of money, lack of health, lack of security... think about it. 

I am glad you are happy with your cosmology, Lee, as I am joyful with mine.
As I said, "Hooray for diversity!" Let's move forward.
v


At 04:22 PM 11/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Vicky wrote:
>
>>imho,
>>again, diversity creates stability. 
>
>True in the big picture... but at the individual level that "stability"
>comes at the expense of lots of little confrontations, jockeying for
>position, sometimes cooperating, sometimes not, everybody struggling to
>find their "place."
>
>>... cutting
>>edge cosmolgy indicates that our evolutionary directive requires a
>>collective awareness of the Whole, of 7 generations, of our planet as one
>>sentient being...
>
>OK, but 1) not everyone shares that particular "cosmology", and 2) being
>AWARE of the collective is not the same thing as "unity" or
>noncompetitiveness.  I'm fully aware in my own mind that although I'm a
>functioning entity on my own, I'm also composed of lots of little
>individuals too, many of which are fighting and sacrificing themselves as
>well as cooperating to keep me alive.  Same thing with the way the planet
>works.  All sorts of dramas both violent and nonviolent are required to
>keep everything growing, changing, living.
>
>>I don't have to have personal
>>unity with 'all' humans, yet I do know we had better cultivate working
>>skills to co-operate as a functional unit, with agreements for a future on
>>the planet so that we don't re-create the same problems dis-unity, greed,
>>anger,  competitiveness have created.
>
>Well this is where we disagree.  I don't believe at all that dis-unity,
>anger or competitiveness has been the cause of the problems we have with
>this planet.  For a couple of million years humans lived on this planet
>without destroying it, yet they were not unified in their purpose by any
>means, they were nearly always in competition with other groups of humans
>(just like other animals and plants compete for territory, resources etc),
>and they certainly often got angry with each other.  As I mentioned once
>before on this list, anger is a vital part of our existence.
>
>GREED, I will agree, has been a primary cause of our problems.  As Gandhi
>said, "The earth has enough for everyone's need, but not for everyone's
>greed."  And greed has been what has caused competitiveness to run out of
>control.  Competiveness and discord in themselves are a vital part of life
>on this planet, but when fueled by greed they become devastating.  I think
>it's important that we make that distinction.
>
>>Survival, in the past, has been about
>>a concept of Lack..not enough to go around so that warring occurs to secure
>>'enough'. The 3rd ethic of permaculture speaks to this. I propose this
>>concept of Lack is the false belief that we must let go. How do we allow for
>>Plenty?
>
>Only by cultivating an awareness of place.  It's a delicate balance between
>population control, careful use and recycling of resources, and above all a
>sense of taking only what you need.  Our culture has cultivated a situation
>where taking much more than you need is seen as a good thing, a way to
>attain status.  Permaculture proposes that "status" could be achieved by
>giving, by returning surplus to the land.  This is pretty much the way
>tribal peoples operated and that's why they were able to remain sustainable
>despite (and sometimes because of) wars and disputes over resources.
>
>>I just don't think we need to be rude. perhaps my skin is thin
>>after a life of witnessing and experiencing strife and anger causing
>>devastation and, willingly, dipping into the black hole that anger and
>>sadness are.
>
>I don't go out of my way to be rude, but I don't strive never to be rude
>either.  I try to act as I feel the situation calls for.  Also, I think as
>you say that you may be prejudiced against the role of anger in the world
>because of the KINDS of anger you have witnessed.  Anger isn't limited in
>its expression to the kind of devastating, misplaced anger we've seen in
>our culture so often.  People need to be judged on a case by case basis in
>anger as well as anything else.  Saying "you're being rude and you need to
>stop" isn't going far enough.
>
>>results are what we go for, sometimes at the expense of some hurt feelings
>>but NOT with the intention of hurting, rather, with the intention of serving
>>the bigger picture. When ones' ideas or values are pushed against,  it can
>>serve as a honing and a sharpening, thus, serving growth. There are
>>effective ways of doing this and there are ways that damage.
>
>Yes, but I think everybody has a different idea where to draw that line,
>and where some people draw it really chokes the life out of experience.
>Legislating people's behavior in everyday life has never worked very well,
>whether the "legislation" is legally enforced or not.
>
>>simply put, I don't think as a species that we do require anger, strife,
>>retaliation, or competitiveness to evolve, create, survive. perhaps you do.
>
>Yes, I do.  It's the greed part that we need to get over.  The rest won't
>be such a bad thing then. :-)
>
>= Lee =
>
>
>***************************************************************************
>Lee A Flier                            "The greatest fine art of the future
>lflier@mindspring.com                   will be the making of a comfortable
>Atlanta and Ellijay, Georgia, U.S.A.    living from a small piece of land."
>http://lflier.home.mindspring.com                 -Abraham Lincoln
>
>