permaculture

[Daniel Lewthwaite <cathdan@ihug.co.nz>]

greetings all,

some absolutely wonderful discussion,  i love it.   just when i was
begining to really feel that the Permaculture  community was exclusively
"all do" and "no think"  and you people blow me away,   good.

thanks myk for the start to this...

i really appreciated toby's reply:
>An interesting and useful distinction, Myk. I've been circling around what
>permaculture "is" for a while, in hopes of learning why Pc is so hard to
>define and characterize (and accept): where does it lie in an epistemology?

i have often thought and i guess under it all i feel that in some ways PC
borders on the realm of serving as some kind of epistemology/theory of
knowledge as (like david holmgren reckons) it can tend to function as an
"inter-discipline" intergrating knowledge and ways of knowing from other
relevant disciplines.  does anyone know if any academic work has been done
regarding this matter?   i feel that Pc *may* benefit from some such
rigourous analysis, i feel it would strenghten it in terms of its relation
to other established disciplines and its overall place in the field of
"knowledge"

the points made by eric + michiko are helpful to...

>Can you have a Permaculture site, garden or village?
>Or isn't it a site designed using Permaculture (principles)?  And since
>there are always parts of the design that are not part of Permaculture
>(aesthetics, personal preferences, economic factors, material availability,
>etc.), calling a project a "Permaculture project" might be misleading. 
>
>Other examples:
>A house isn't architecture, though the design of it might have been.
>A bridge isn't engineering, thought engineering principles may have been
>used to build it.

Yes the term "permaculture project" can defintely be misleading for the
above reasons.
how would it be if we were to think/explain the site etc...  as the
physical expression of the Pc or 
if you like, Pc personified?  in the same way as a building can sometimes
be described as 
"architecture" in that it may express some architectural aspect and a
bridge can sometimes be described as "engineering" if it is a strong
expression of the work of the engineering profession.  
these are not at all normal or common ways to use such terms but they are a
meaningful way of refering to the method behind the physical expression.

Back to the original and more underlying aspect to this "all theory" thread.

[original post]
> > Yeah.  The trouble is, then you get people telling you that
permaculture is
> > "all theory" and demanding to see some concrete
> > data/examples/recipes/whatever.  If you don't provide these, everything
you
> > say is dismissed as "impractical", or your level of "real world"
experience
> > is questioned.

[Franks post]
>I think more than anything there are people like myself who have espoused
the 
>ideas and concepts but need " the strategies and blueprints". To say that 
>every situation is unique begs the question and turns some off.
>
>Don't know why we can't begin to map out strategies that fit for specific 
>climates/areas.
>
>There should be a planning tool that will help integrate farm resources, 
>identify potential resources, improve holistic Permaculture management etc.
>
>Lee's point about real world examples hits the nail on the head for me. Best 
>to all. Frank

we all tend to begin using blueprints at first, it is simply a necessary
function of 
being an apprentice... we do as the master does if you like.  as we think,
learn 
and develop our skills and understanding to higher levels then we are able to 
become a little more refined and *really* treat every situation as unique
and become 
a master in our own due time. 

(my thinking here draws very strongly on the tradition of the 
apprentice/master craftsman and my  various family members  who began 
as apprentices in their chosen craft or trade and learned under a master
until the point when they knew the work well enough to be regarded as a master
by their peers).

i feel that it does pay to hold "theory" and practice" as two crucial parts
to a greater whole
that can't be split up without problems.  i guess the most basic of these
problems is lack of balance, others may include, being too dreamy if one is
too strongly focussed on the theory of it, or of being guilty of the charge
of "protracted and thoughtless action" as Mollison puts it on the back
cover of the designers manual.  

anyone got any others?



thanks people,   
all in all this theory thread is a very useful discussion

take care,
dan