permaculture

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

At 09:52 28/06/2000 -0600, Toby wrote:
>
>Pc people tend not to be very academic (tho some of us, like me, have fled
>academia). Philosophy of science is a regular cottage industry and has been
>instrumental in directing science into productive areas and out of blind
>alleys (Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts, Popper's on falsifiability as a
>criterion for a hypothesis, are two good examples, but let me come back to
>earth here) I agree that Pc could benefit from the same kind of analysis.
>This listserv is a good example of why we should undertake it--the same
>questions come up repeatedly, like the theory vs. practice one, the 5
>physical zones versus Zone 00 and 6 that are non-physical, that show that
>we're still ironing out a lot of basic issues. 

yes, and i guess given sufficient time and energy on the part of all of us
then they will be ironed out......

although i often wonder if it will be a case of a (permaculture) culture
evolving by the same ways as does an ecological system and taking on new
aspects, forms, and dispensing with others,  undergoing bifurcations and
fragmentations and further evolutions as is to be seen in the natural
world?    rather than simply and only a case of permaculture as a design
science and none of this other strange stuff like the rogue extra zones!!

i guess the key question here is whether on thinks of Pc as an way to
structure ones thinking on the earthcare topic (ie a "symbol") and as such
a lifestyle or a life or whether its seen as a hard design science which is
revolutionary enough to do some good for the earth but not too woppy that
people will dismiss it at weird/deep/scary (or whatever!)

>Much of the trouble stems
>from Mollison's haphazard assembly of principles, strategies, and examples
>(I can't expect Bill to be perfect). 

?maybe? more to the point though, we can't expect one or two peoples energy
and intellects  to be perfect.   i think its a case of what we were
discussing above, of it taking the total collective energy to make it work.
 i see mollison et al as the pioneer species, establishing themselves and
their revolutionary/new ideas on new ground, changing the conditions, then
being followed by others who will take it where ever.......

cultures are much bigger than any of us can every hope to manipulate.  just
like a frog or a beech tree can only participate in the ecological system
within which it dwells, so too can we only participate in the cultural
system within which we dwell.  some of us have more/less impact but the
ultimate determiner of system evolution tends to be the relationships
between entities in that system.

thats why its really important for those of us with heaps of energy and
vision for earth care and so on, to maintain some sense of our limits, and
not to expect too much of ourselves (otherwise we burn out), and also not
to expect too much of those we are in contact with.  remembering that we
are only one part of a hugely complex system (called a culture) which is
full of factors influencing how we all think/act/assume... etc


cheers,
dan