permaculture

[Toby Hemenway <hemenway@jeffnet.org>]

Hi Myk-
> As far as I recall he defined [zone 6] as our imagination, inhabited by the
>mythical creatures such as dragons, elves, dwarfs, unicorns etc. He
>described it as a place to visit for wild ideas and inspiration.

Ah, I didn't realize that Zone 6 was not a physical place, but an interior
one. I'd suggest, then, that it's included in Carl's Zone 00 (or for us
lumpers, Zone 0). For me, the decision whether or not to create a new
category is based on its usefulness. The zone-and-sector system is a design
tool (though it often feels like a whole philosophy or paradigm), and I
don't think you can locate this Zone 6 in a design. Obviously, imagination
is important in design. But Zone 6 in Carl's sense would infuse the entire
design; it wouldn't be a place you could point to: here's where you put
your Zone 6.  Thus I'd say it's not of the same logical type as a zone, and
doesn't deserve inclusion as one. Imagination seems more like a design
tool, not an element. And when I work with clients who speak in terms of
elves and nature spirits, they say that these spirits aren't in one place,
but all over the design (so maybe Zone 6 is actually a sector!).

>To unpack something to my mind infers that it be divided up and its
>components analysed in bits. Doesn't that sound a little like splitting
>something up :-)

I think of unpacking as taking something out of its "box"--meaning the word
used to describe it--so you can look at it or use it. That's the sense I
meant (don't know about you, but I only disassemble my toys after I'm bored
with them, or if I'm sure I know how to put them back together).

>Seriously though I believe that the addition of further zones to the
>original 5 is an example of how permaculture and its practices are evolving.

I agree, and I really admired your history and review of Zones--nice work.
The original lack of Zone 0 was clearly a flaw; Mollison's original view of
permaculture was primarily agricultural (permanent agriculture, only later
becoming permanent culture), and so he was, I believe, thinking in terms of
the landscape and not the house or occupant. That (rather large) omission
was remedied later (any time a list contains an item "0" you know the list
maker forgot something).

Another refinement of the zone idea came up in Peter Bane's piece "Zone and
Sector Design-1" in Permaculture Activist #40-A (supplement). He pointed
out that Zone 0 is the zone of consumption; Zone 1 of self-reliance, where
we meet most of our needs for food, shelter, water, etc. Zone 2 produces
surplus for barter and local trade; Zone 3 is for cash crops; Zone 4 is for
investments; and Zone 5 is the commons. This is a nice expansion of the
meaning of zones: unpacking, if you will, to describe the functions of
zones, not just the elements within. Z&S can be applied many places, the
way Judith did with her priorities. I've used it to organize my desk and
office (I'm still trying to integrate the muddy-pawed cat sector).

I still think that most every component of a design can be included within
Zones 0-5 or a sector, and I resist multiplying categories unnecessarily.
Zones 0-5 also describe a physical progression moving outward from the
center; Carl's Zone 6 breaks that sequence. There needs to be a very good
reason to burden people with a new term, such as opening up a new way of
thinking or filling a gaping hole, and Zone 6 as imagination or elves or
the place we never visit doesn't seem to do that. Again, if Zone 00 is our
mental state, and Zone 6 is our imagination, then we could just go on and
on listing every mood as a new zone ("I used ESP to locate the outhouse, so
that's in zone 12"). I think Carl was describing a state we can use when
creating a design, and confusing it with a place we can locate on a design.

Toby