permaculture

[rrandall1 <rrandall1@houston.rr.com>]

Friends,

One of the problems in defining "permaculture" is related to the  
problem of defining anything.  Years ago when I was studying a part  
of linguistics known as ethnosemantics (essentially an effort to  
understand the meaning of words especially in exotic languages where  
concepts including activities themselves had no English close  
equivalent), it was generally acknowledged that word meanings have  
quite different structures even in the same language.

This is best illustrated by some English examples

1. conjunctive attribute definition:to call something X, it has  
certain necessary and sufficient traits. Example, "An apple is the  
fruit of a member of the species Malus ....

2. Disjunctive attribute definition: item  has either these traits or  
some others: Example: a wild card is either a two or a joker

In terms of the way people think and speak however, these types of  
definitions are fairly rarely found in real languages and tend to be  
the result of literate activities  rather than everyday thought  
processes.

3. Prototypic  definitions: something is defined by a best example  
with other examples being more or less like the best example.  For  
example, "a real forest" has a complex species diversity with climax  
conditions and multiple connections etc. and for some people may be  
"like the one I saw in Mindanao" or on the Vancouver Island Coast or  
whatever  This allows for a lot of other examples to be more or less  
forests including a Houston "urban forestry" unit. For me "real  
trees" are maples while in some parts of California, palms are.It is  
certainly possible to think about better and worse permacultural  
examples. I have heard city planners say Houston isn't really a city  
because of sprawl.

4. Schematic definitions: something is defined as part of a complex  
of ideas and really cannot be understood unless the whole schema is  
discussed. The common examples are "a shortstop" and "steal a base"  
which area totally meaningless concepts outside of a schema for  
baseball.  But it is also true of common actions.  Try to imagine  
explaining "xeroxing" or "googling" to a person in 1910 or even 1955.

So how do we define permaculture?  My ambivalence toward answering  
that question in classes or elsewhere is that it is a name for a  
design activity--as Paul says a complex one-- we do in relation to a   
schema that the listener often has almost no knowledge of. I think it  
is an error to seek a conjunctive attribute definition for a complex  
schema-- though listing the traits and attributes of a permacultural  
design certainly helps the beginner get an idea. Graham says it is "a  
set of ethics, principles, and design methods."  I would say rather  
it is not a set of anything, but an activity or its mental  
representation as a schema we do as part of a complex plan best  
learned through much guided practice. We can tell you about the ideas  
that characterize it, but understanding permaculture's meaning comes  
out of the engaged educated practice.

In short, I can't tell you what the word "xeroxing" really means if  
you have never done it or seen it.  We would be better off telling  
people that pc is a complex design activity whose purposes are ...,  
that like reading, calculus or Arabic, it cannot be understood  
clearly except by a lengthy course of study and practice.  We could  
add that we believe with justification that it is the only likely way  
our of the mess the planet is in. So everyone should become a  
practitioner and learn what the word means.

Bob Randall


On Dec 12, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Paul Cereghino wrote:

> Thanks Graham,
>
> Here here!  I've always noticed that within permaculture talk there is
> often a sense of mystery about what permaculture is, and that mystery
> and a resulting 'over-inclusiveness' leads to conversational  
> divergance
> that can decrease the power and focus of the analysis.  I suspect that
> this has a lot to do with that permaculture is just really hard work,
> wrestling with enormous complexity, and is relatively solitary due to
> the amount of observation, and alternatives analysis required.  It  
> takes
> design into the realm of natural history and ecosystem science, which
> also has had tremendous trouble translating itself into a vernacular
> without loosing meaning.
>
> I would suggest that ironically that despite this, the development of
> effective 'permaculture ready' tools and techniques is absolutely
> necessary to the expansion of use (i.e. creating more 'designers')...
> however tools and techniques may necessarily be developed at a
> bioregional level (or even sub-bioregion) and involve the crunching
> information to identify what local technological elements are most
> effectively incorporated into a permaculture design or can be imported
> from other places with desireable outcomes.  For example -- something
> which I have been looking for -- taking the available breeds of  
> poultry,
> understanding their variable adaptation to my local climate, and then
> deconstructing the differences between the various breeds in terms of
> variations in input/process/output analysis.  In other words, doing  
> some
> of the preliminary assessment work to reduce the information load,  
> so it
> is easier to pickup a tool and use it in a permaculture design  
> network.
> Perhaps this understanding of poultry is currently or are at risk of
> becoming 'lost knowledge', and gainful information reduction is time
> consuming to do without compensation.
>
> I have found that Permawiki struggles because it picks a topic, and  
> then
> tries to provide a 'encyclopedia entry' on that topic, which is better
> accomplished in other venues.  I'd rather see a 'permaculture  
> analysis'
> using well cited, high quality sources of information, but really I'd
> like to see someone doing some of the hard work of permaculture for  
> me ;)
>
> Paul
>
> Graham wrote:
>
> > Hi Larry, probably I didn't express myself too well last night as had
> > after all imbibed a few fine ales!
> >
> > What I meant by my comments was more that permaculture is a set of
> > ethics (earthcare, peoplecare, fairshares), principles (work with
> > nature, problem is solution, minimum effort:max effect, everything
> > gardens, or Mr Holmgren's newer definitions) and design methods  
> > (zones
> > and sectors, OBREDIM, input and output analysis, making links and
> > connections etc, etc). Specific tools and techniques (such as say,  
> > herb
> > spirals, no dig beds or creating forest gardens) on the other hand  
> > may
> > be used within permaculture frameworks but are not, as of themselves
> > 'permaculture'.
> >
> > On the permaculture introductory courses that I run I start with a
> > session called "What is permaculture?" wherin I get particpants to  
> > talk
> > about various problems encountered in cities, and possible solutions,
> > eg;
> > Problem; lack of access to good quality, locally grown organic food -
> > solution; get an allotment
> > Problem; lack of economic power caused by unemployent, low wages, etc
> > Solution; Join a LETS system
> > Problem; lack of decent transport links - Solution; Create safe cycle
> > networks
> > Problem; lack of access to green space - Solution; create community
> > gardens on unused urban space
> > Problem; Waste and polllution - Solution; Set up community composting
> > and recycling projects.
> >
> > We discuss these ideas for 20 or 30 minutes, talking about what good
> > ideas they are and sharing personal experiences of involvement  
> > with such
> > ideas.
> >
> > I then make the point that these are 5 excelent solutions to 5  
> > problems,
> > but they are NOT permaculture...
> >
> > BUT when we begin to make links and connections, eg, situating  
> > allotment
> > and veg growing beds in the community gardens, sell excess produce  
> > via
> > LETS, set up bicycle trailer delivery systems to drop off veg and  
> > take
> > away green waste for composting, etc, etc, these 5 ideas and  
> > strategies
> > become ELEMENTS WITHIN A PERMACULTURAL SYSTEM.
> >
> > In other words, tools, techniques and strategies aren't of themselves
> > permaculture, they are simply elements and its how they are linked  
> > and
> > connected with each other that defines whether they are part of a
> > permacultural system.
> >
> > Hope thats clarified my thinking a little...
> >
> > Cheers Graham
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 22:37 -0500, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Graham wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > i've always maintained (and I hope my review
> > > > reflects this) that permaculture is a set of ethics, principles and
> > > > design methodologies applicable to any circumstances or  
> > > > situations, and
> > > > shouldn't be confused with techniques and strategies which are  
> > > > location
> > > > specific.
> > > Graham:
> > >
> > > This doesn't seem to fit my view of permaculture. I'll explain  
> > > why in a reply to
> > > any response you make to this post. So, could you elaborate on  
> > > why you think techniques and strategies
> > > aren't part of a definition of permaculture but ethics,  
> > > principles and design methodologies are?
> > >
> > > LL
>
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture