Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] Democratic approaches to Permacultures conflicts?

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: KNat <knat@sprintmail.com>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] Democratic approaches to Permacultures conflicts?
  • Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:04:46 -0500

It seems possibly contradictory (and inevitable) to slide to democracy from a discussion of permaculture certification.
Contradictory because we live in knowledge we do not control all factors. We can study needs of a certain plant or animal in general, but to apply that knowledge we must relate to an individual. In fact an individual within a group of relationships. "Normative data" of even our favorite food's comfortable friends and associates is extremely limited. Further, there aren't natural models of stopping and voting before acting, nor natural systems that do not include the needs of all members and instead just do approximations.
Inevitable because our current models of democracy include a passive majority. People who do not trust themselves or their instincts or the movement of their life to determine the person with the needed gift for their associations. They seek a person with capabilities beyond their own, not their own trained differently to help them grow their personal capabilities. They need a list or credential to assure themself, this is a knowledgeable person. The list/paper declares the person has information outside the capabilities of the seeker and assures the "expert" will bring a value in. The expert will be responsible for needed change.
I'm not judging that as wrong, only as one dynamic. A democratic system creates people who treat themself as a statistical norm. Or, more validly, not equal to the norm and adjusting for it. The system, like their view of nature, is outside themself.
Portraits of professional designers will need to also inform a new thought to go with their new system.
Still, a book or "official" list can begin the dialog. What would it look like in "officialness?" Gradations by bioregional familiarity? Or specialists for new systems in reclaimed area, established systems minimum impact-gradual, established systems quick-impact...

How about people who have read many evaluations/descriptions by other humans, and stories from the many beings in their association? They could be new to an area and seek introductions, they might need a translator to understand another's needs, and they might seek a facilitator to empower voices still quiet in their group, to help them be a balanced participant in their own story. How does the permaculture certification process speak to noting a person who has honed their skills of interspecies facilitation? To design with, not for?

Peace,
Kathyann




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page