permaculture

[Ben Martin Horst <ben.martinhorst@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Lawrence F. London, Jr. <
venaurafarm@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
> I did not call YOU paranoid, I referred to the tone of your
> accusation/contention about US Military involvement in Afganistan as
> paranoid or unnecessarily conveying paranoia. There is a difference.
> I commented on what you said, not you as an individual.


Lawrence is, perhaps, correct that this wasn't an ad hominem (or in this
case, ad feminam) attack -- ad hominem (or feminam) is the logical fallacy
of trying to defeat a premise by linking it to a negative characteristic or
belief of the person advocating the premise. If Lawrence is saying that
Linda is paranoid, etc, and thus her argument is unsound, it's an ad feminam
attack. If Lawrence is saying, rather, that the Linda's argument is
paranoid, it is not. To me, whether it's what Lawrence intended or not, it
reads as though he's accusing Linda of being paranoid, etc. It would be
useful to me (and I suspect others) if people would say, "I think the
argument is [paranoid, spot-on, flawed, deeply convincing, etc] because [X,
Y, and Z]." It sounds much less like an attempt to simply dismiss a person's
case, and much more like an attempt to engage in dialog.

In any case, why is it paranoid to suggest that the *same* military force,
occupying two different countries, beginning and continuing their missions
under the same leadership, with similar stated missions, should *act
*significantly
differently in those two countries? Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan are two very
different countries and contexts for the US military to operate in, but the
military, and, more importantly, their civilian leadership (and industry
lobbyists), are the same in both countries. Moreover, I think there is ample
reason to assume that nefarious characters (of whatever occupation --
military, civilian, clergy, etc) using the name "permaculture" may taint the
reputation and success of permaculture in a region. I'm not saying that it's
necessarily going to, but it's a possibility to consider, and one that's
certainly germane to this discussion.

Perhaps a personal story might illustrate the point: In 1998, when I was in
my late teens, I was volunteering with a human rights / community
development organization in the Philippines. They wanted me to begin an
adult literacy course in a remote community, and in introducing me to the
community leadership, they suggested that my volunteer term was "a bit like
the Peace Corps." That was all it took to ruin my chances of doing anything
in that community. As it turned out, during the Marcos dictatorship, that
community had experience with Peace Corps workers, and, unfortunately, those
workers -- at least in the opinion of the community --  had been working for
the CIA. Not only was the reputation of the Peace Corps ruined in that
community, but it made it impossible for foreigners with entirely unrelated
organizations, operating under only vaguely similar mandates, to engage with
that community as well. It's not hard for me to think of something similar
occurring with permaculture as well. Again, this doesn't mean that it
necessarily will, but I think it's a totally valid point to consider.


> I did not insult you.
> Its OK if you and I have different perspective and vision for what
> Permaculture People Care is all about? If not maybe all of humanity should
> be a mental clone of one individual?
>

This, too, reads like an insult to me. Linda is nowhere suggesting that
everyone needs to think as she does. She's articulating an aspect of what
she thinks People Care might mean in practice, which obviously doesn't
coincide with Lawrence's vision of People Care. The manner in which you,
Lawrence, crafted the statement was interpreted as insulting by Linda. I'm
not -- and I don't believe Linda was -- offended by the fact that you
disagree with her, but the *manner* in which you disagreed with her. It's
not about censorship, it's about being polite. I love it when people
disagree. I don't like it when people start hurling insults, which, whether
or not it's what you intended, Lawrence, is sure how it felt to me, and it's
not because I'm thin-skinned. If it's intended as sarcasm or a witticism,
I've noticed that those are frequently misinterpreted and misunderstood in
electronic communication... I try hard never to be sarcastic in email,
because people are inevitably offended.


>
> You are the person who started and manage the perma-psychology forum?
> That is an important list; maybe you could invite others to join and
> participate. This would be a good topic to analyze and discuss there,
> humble in spirit and eager to learn new things.


And whether or not this is how it was intended, this statement reads to me
like, "I'm tired of this discussion, so why don't you leave MY space and
take it back to yours." Again, I don't know if this is how it was intended,
but that's how it feels to me.

I'm not arguing for censorship, biting of tongues, or holding one's self
back. I would like to advocate for taking a few moments to think about what
you're writing, what meaning it conveys (or might convey) to others, and
making a good faith effort to convey your intended meaning in a way that is
honest and polite. That's all. It isn't usually hard (although it can be),
it just means pausing for a few moments before hitting "Send."

-Ben