permaculture

["souscayrous" <souscayrous@wanadoo.fr>]

"It is proper to every gathering that the gatherers assemble to coordinate
their efforts to the sheltering; only when they have gathered together with
that end in view do they begin to gather" (Heidegger, from 'Logos').
I too hope, like Toby, that this thread does not seem endlessly
self-referential, too easily content with its phrasing and one-upmanship, of
which, I admit I am still the main culprit: although I assure you I am
really trying to say something and something directly related to pc - please
see below for truth or error of my intention.
I am keeping the above lines at the top of this email to keep my intention
true.
Sean, it is a pleasure.  You are a conscientious champion of your cause;
your point-by-point rebuttal is tireless in its ordering order of my
disorder.
However, I still choose to argue otherwise.
The point of entry can be no other; it is science.  Did I reify science?
Yes.  Did I mean to?  No.  Does this show the nouncentric nature of English?
Yes.  Or no when you remember that the Germanic springs of the language are
certainly nouncentric, but that there is almost a thousand years of a
language of Latin origin overlaying the Thingyness of Anglo-Saxon, namely
French.  I am not convinced; perhaps John or Toby could refer me to an
online article outlining the details of this claim. Personally I'd like to
believe English has a suppleness that allows it to free itself from some of
the gravitational forces Things have on our thinking.
But, yes, I reified science.  I did it in my mad quest to outline
Heidegger's essay 'The Question Concerning Technology' in two sentences
(note to myself, never, ever summarise).  I Thung science, so let me make
amends by attempting a more perceptive summary.
Sean: >There is no such thing as science, only the behaviour of scientists
and the results of their behaviour at a given date.  Choose what you're
referring to and rephrase please.

There is no such thing as science, only the behaviour of scientists and the
results of their behaviour...Sean and I, Heidegger and Maturana can all
agree upon this, so there is obviously no reason to continue.
I chose saw because it was close-to-hand in my experience, although I felt
exposed by using such a simplistic explanation, but Sean in dissecting my
words has opened the heart of the distinction I had hoped to draw.
Sean: >  In finding the rhythm of the saw, you have to observe and ask
questions, and this describes the evolved activity of scientists as well. I
am not identifying the behaviours, I am taking a comparative anthropological
>point of view in regard to human problem-solving behaviour.
No, I did not ask questions, nor observe; it is just this that I
intentionally did not say.
Souscayrous:> when I turn to the next log to cut I find the saw already in
my hand exactly at the place where the cut is to be made
This is not magic.  It is the way we act in the world, our
'being-in-the-world', a world organised in terms of purposes.  Since Plato,
since even the pre-Socratic Parmenides, knowledge has been understood to be
gained from detached, disinterested inquiry; so science and its attempts at
human-problem solving. This approach steps back from our involved activity
and forces us to reflect, and this is the fatal step because when we become
detached observers of the world we cannot help but become subjects
contemplating objects.
Take some of Sean's phrases;
>We had the rudiments of scientific behaviour when the first humans observed
the days getting longer after winter solstice.
>We had technology when the first humans used a rock to kill an animal.
>We have been using the world as material for our aims ever since we grew a
cortex several hundred millenia ago.
In each sentence is the juxtaposition of we (humans - the subjects) and a
succession of worldly objects. This is no coincidence.  Let me repeat;
Souscayrous:>  Science treats the world as an array of Things to be studied,
and misses their whatness (quiddity).  Science treats the world as Things
and thus we have technology.  Now the world has >become a vast array of
material for humankind to use as it needs.(Please read scientific inquiry
for Science in the above quotes)
If I might refer back a few days to a post of John's to draw out the
importance of what seems on the surface so insubstantial

John:>I am suggesting that all languaging has not merely meaning but
embodiment and consequences, and that meaning and ideas are implicit in form
>(not necessarily the same meaning and ideas as the author intends to make
explicit).
The world has become one vast storehouse waiting for us to exploit it, an
instrument to source our ends.  Scientific inquiry impels nature to yield
knowledge and technology demands energy and materials. We confront nature
and are alienated from it.  So much so, that it has taken until the last few
decades for us to become aware of our destruction.  If we rethink this
relationship, if there can be new forms of expressing this relationship, if
we give a patient hearing to the world and what is live and so far hidden to
us in it, there is hope.
Permaculture is one such vehicle for this new relationship.

Souscayrous