permaculture

[Killian O'Brien <admin@pri-de.org>]

Toby,

Sorry you feel that way. I got your points. Had no trouble understanding 
anything you said. We simply disagree on some points. As with most things, we 
almost certainly agree on far more. Perhaps I was unclear or just had too 
much coffee today. Or perhaps I need to write half as much or 50% more. I 
*am* constantly amazed by the people who are intolerant of other voices. But, 
then, I'm listening to me from the inside.

:)

C'est la vie.

Cheers,

Killian O'Brien
PRI-De
admin@pri-de.org
(313) 647-4015

killiankob@yahoo.com
(760) 617-4693

-----Original Message-----
From: permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org 
[mailto:permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Toby Hemenway
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 6:32 PM
To: permaculture
Subject: Re: [permaculture] official certification

Killian

I don't think we communicate well. You consistently miss my points or just 
dismiss them, and I assume I'm missing yours, so it seems a waste of time to 
continue. Conversation over, from my end.

Toby
http://patternliteracy.com



On Oct 25, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Killian O'Brien wrote:

> To All:
>
> I want to refocus this on the topic it started with. The issue is not 
> *whom* to teach, nor how, though those points have come up. (Please, 
> everyone, let's **stop** worrying about who other people are teaching! It's 
> none ya! Git yer nose out other people's biz!)
>
> The subject also is not whether to certificate or not. Not only do such 
> processes give us a way to at least attempt to create a common sense of 
> what a given level of knowledge or expertise is, but many people simply 
> want or need formalized settings to educate themselves in. 
> Institutionalized solutions meet that need. They do not meet the needs of 
> non-traditional learners or those without the means to participate in the 
> institutional structures.
>
> So, the issue is how to go about it. On to my reply...
>
> Hey Toby,
>
> Let me start with this, " This is written fairly quickly; I hope that 
> instead of nit-picking over the parts that aren't well developed you'll try 
> to follow my intent. "
>
> No problem there. Intent is big for me, and perhaps makes me a little too 
> sloppy with my language as I expect too much of context and people *not* 
> reading the worst into what I say/write.
>
> Relatively, Toby, in parentheses, which was intended to convey, given 
> context, a modified sense of "elite." The issue was affordability. Context 
> was clear *to me*, but I will concede I perhaps should not have used the 
> word. Negative? Sorry, that's on you to own. Emotionally charged? Ditto. 
> They weren't for me. They still aren't. Reality: you are a (relatively) 
> affluent American. We are speaking globally. In that regard, you are quite 
> definitely elite on the financial scale. I don't see why that is either 
> emotionally charged or negative.
>
> "I don't think that an effective way to spread permaculture is to target 
> the poor or the radicals (although I won't discourage someone from doing 
> that). You only change one person at a time that way. I think it is far 
> more effective to offer it to policy makers, universities, planners, CEOs, 
> developers--the elite, if you will."
>
> You are correct that we will disagree, but that is exactly what I was 
> saying about old and new paradigms. Your approach simply doesn't seem to 
> have much chance of working because we are so close to large bifurcations 
> in all domains. Virtually all those you are speaking of, and to, have no 
> sense at all that collapse is a possibility, so they *cannot* come up with 
> the solutions except by accident. They don't understand sustainability 
> because they don't understand 2nd Law implications.
>
> Being aware of or knowledgeable about permaculture doesn't automatically 
> make one open to the idea that complexity *is* the problem or that growth 
> cannot go on forever. This does not mean don't reach out to those people. 
> Obviously it's not really an elite/poor issue, but will be a matter of a 
> combination. However, community-generated solutions are far more likely to 
> deal with the scales we need to work at by default: they're not necessarily 
> trying to save the world and work within the constraints they have on-site. 
> The "elites" have vested interests that conflict with community solutions. 
> No way around that. Thus, my faith goes to those who must live with their 
> solutions.
>
> Besides, Diamond, Tainter, Catton... all say simplify, simplify, simplify. 
> That combined with common sense and past history all say you're likely 
> going in the wrong direction. But again let me stress I think some of us 
> need to be working it the way you suggest, just not most of us.
>
> "Okay, this next is triggered by, but not a direct reply to, the above... I 
> doubt that the future will be so radical that certificates, degrees, 
> committees, voting, listening to leaders, and other familiar ways of 
> getting things done are going to disappear."
>
> No, they won't. But as things get sufficiently off-kilter, their 
> effectiveness will diminish. I know of no organization here in Detroit that 
> is self-supporting (though they may exist). When the funding goes, they go. 
> Unless we do things differently from the start. We didn't pursue our own 
> 501(c)(3) status because we had an umbrella. We didn't pursue outside 
> funding because we had a partner with global reach that was going to 
> advertise for us. But, for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with 
> programming or permaculture, and everything to do with money and CYA, they 
> backed out just weeks before our first PDC. It's the difference between 
> solvency and being destitute for us, but not them. My point is, structures 
> fall for reasons that have often - usually? - nothing to do with the idea 
> being promoted/supported, and they are typically very human reasons. Our 
> current situation isn't because we had a bad business concept or that 
> permaculture is a bad idea, it is because people
  a
> re people and, at the end of the day, particularly in this day and age, are 
> going to do for themselves before others, and that applies to ANY structure 
> you care to create. As things get tougher, this will only increase in 
> frequency and magnitude. Look at the Tea Party. Look at health care, the 
> immigration debate, climate denial. Setting up a system that is not 
> resilient to such shocks strikes me as risk assessment that is not robust.
>
> The point above does get into the issue of what the future holds, and our 
> assessments are clearly quite different, which may not be resolvable except 
> with time's own special way of exerting reality. However, we can choose to 
> set up a system that is resilient in either case. I don't think the systems 
> being suggested do that. They are squarely based in the old paradigm and 
> thus are sensitive to the same shocks.
>
> "Having survived the sixties, I watched over and over as communities and 
> groups would form, unhappy with the old ways... a fraction of 1% survive 
> today. ...there are formal processes such as consensus that show promise. 
> But hardly anyone really understands those new tools. They are 
> counter-intuitive, and I would argue that in many cases, egalitarian 
> methods like consensus go against our essential tribal nature as social 
> pack animals who inherently look to strong, competent leaders...
>
> And I see us in a similar position to where we were in 1970.  I hang around 
> a lot of communities, and the complaint I hear over and over is that they 
> love the community but consensus and related tools suck--"Nothing ever gets 
> done, so why can't we just appoint committees and managers and move 
> forward? I trust my peers to make good decisions without me.""
>
> Hunter-gatherers almost exclusively are non-hierarchical, thus our "nature" 
> is to cooperate. But this is all off-topic. I've not suggested anything 
> like what these issues raise. Have others?
>
> "If we wait until everyone is empowered and is a leader, we won't get there 
> in time, and we will suffer from the "too many cooks" problem"
>
> Also not an issue raised.
>
> "The process of reinvigorating the national permaculture institute right 
> now is hamstrung by exactly this defect in consensus: no one is allowed to 
> move until we all feel equally empowered. So we are stalled."
>
> I don't see this as an issue or even a topic of conversation. Are people 
> talking about this? This question, for me, is solely about access and 
> affordability, not empowerment. As a nominal permaculturist, I'm quite 
> comfortable telling the rest of you to go straight to hell if you don't 
> like what I'm doing within the constraints I must deal with, and expect the 
> same in return should I choose to comment on your work. More so, due to how 
> events have played out, I've had zero choice in moving forward regardless 
> of circumstances, so were anyone to complain about that they'd be very much 
> in the wrong. Let's not get sidetracked here. This isn't what needs to be 
> discussed; it's a moot point.
>
> "What's lacking is accountability, not decent tools."
>
> No, both. To wit:
>
> "many of the current methods, applied at the right scale, work very well, 
> are comprehended by the mainstream and thus are more likely to be followed, 
> and will get us there faster."
>
> The current methods, or suggested methods, may build accountability, 
> poorly, but very much limit access. Any certificate for design that is a 
> diploma/cert alone is basically worthless. Knowledge does not equal 
> ability. This is reflected in the current PDC process where there is 
> virtually no practicum in most programs and, as you have said, very little 
> in terms of rigorous design requirements or standards. Worse, passing the 
> trainee assessment consists of nothing more than a two year time period. It 
> has no definition of what to do in that period or assessment of that work 
> or how much work needs be done. Adding a diploma on top of this achieves 
> nothing, particularly since a diploma course will be no more able to get 
> past these issues than the current system. Knowledge does not equal skill.
>
> "once they are on board, we can move them yet farther. We need to meet 
> people where they are, start with what they are familiar with. Few can make 
> a giant paradigm shift as the first step, and it's a pipe dream to expect 
> it as prerequisite for a solution."
>
> Off-topic, really.
>
> "We know that the big parts of the system are broken: national government, 
> big corporations and banks, etc. But the same tools that work so badly at 
> huge scale, when they are applied at small scale--local government, small 
> non-profits and business, independent schools, committees, charismatic 
> leaders--still work very well. I think we need to work with what we have at 
> the same time we work on the replacements. If we insist on everyone 
> learning new tools before we start, we will not get there in time. You 
> cannot get anywhere if you don't start from where you are."
>
> I have not meant to state categorically, that we just not have these other 
> systems. I *don't* think you have time to create these courses, get 
> thousands of people trained in them and reach legitimacy in the eyes of the 
> wider world. This can be seen as supporting your contention that the focus 
> should be on educating power structures, but the nature and history of 
> power structures in periods of decline suggest otherwise (Diamond). Thus, I 
> think this route will, in a sense, waste resources. Should we not try to 
> change from within? No. Give it a shot, but...
>
> I have tried to offer an alternative. Just as I find it a pointless 
> conversation to discuss who is teaching whom, I find it pointless to debate 
> whether there should be a traditionally institutional approach to 
> certification(s) because 1. they already exist and 2. some people just 
> need/want that sort of environment, etc.
>
> Let me be clearer: A possible approach that can co-exist with the diploma 
> course approach is a portfolio and oral/written exams process. This can, 
> and should, be much less expensive because it involves no physical plant, 
> no infrastructure. It will meet the needs of non-traditional learners, 
> those of limited means, those of limited physical access (cost of 
> transportation), those that are self-taught, etc. It does require 
> organization and identification of people qualified to sit such boards. 
> That process can be as complicated or as simple as people want to make it 
> (but things always look infinitely simpler to me than to most). It will 
> also be more legitimate in that it is based in people's work and ability to 
> communicate that work. We are talking about design, right? I believe the 
> core of licensing for architects is a portfolio and exam approach, is it 
> not?
>
> Identification of those qualified to sit such boards might well be a matter 
> of acclaim in the initial phase, but should, in my opinion, be done by wide 
> acclaim, not by a committee, for we are essentially in the process of 
> codifying what a diploma might actually mean in terms of content. Content 
> might well be determined by committee, but also should be held up for 
> general vote, imo. Let's determine as a community, eh? (Look at the mess we 
> already have with diploma level certs being offered by different entities, 
> each apparently with its own criteria for the course and the teachers. Such 
> a state will have zero legitimacy in the eyes of the public at large. This 
> is already seen in the EFL/ESL field where a basic cert is a joke to 
> everyone, but everyone needs one. It's just a money mill for the providers.)
>
> Once this process is done, we can trust the power structures to work as 
> designed. Should we not, since we have the opportunity, go ahead and be 
> inclusive at this stage, and define these things as a community?
>
> Perhaps the various convergences should consider a design charrette 
> methodology and start sketching out how we use permaculture principles to 
> remake society...? IPC10 is coming up next summer, no? Or given work 
> already done and programs already existing, these open dialogues can be 
> used to narrow things done and IPC10 used as a final design charrette and 
> determination of a list of people qualified to sit boards.
>
> My last concern: if this process were to become a reality, also for 
> existing programs, an issue of fairness will arise. Those required to go 
> through these programs are being asked to reach a bar those now setting the 
> bar did not have to reach. This is unavoidable. We must, however, keep in 
> mind those that end up setting the bar will tend to forget how they got 
> where they are, how they built their knowledge base, etc, and will be 
> inclined to set the bar higher than is fair or necessary. This is simply 
> how our brains work. Our brains forget experiences, they reframe 
> difficulty, they allow us to work on assumptions that were, at earlier 
> times in our learning process, as clear as mud, and allow us to ask too 
> much because we have forgotten to account for the fact we've accumulated 
> what we know over long time frames and via myriad experiences we are 
> attempting to codify and compress into weeks, months, or years.
>
> That is, be realistic, be gentle.
>
> Please be aware in all this I am speaking as someone with 14 years of 
> classroom and training experience. That is not to claim I am a world-class 
> educator, nor that I am assuming what I suggest here is How Things Are and 
> Should Be, only that I speak from a fairly well-founded perspective on how 
> to educate, i.e. not talking out of my ass.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Killian O'Brien
> PRI-De
> admin@pri-de.org
> (313) 647-4015
>
> killiankob@yahoo.com
> (760) 617-4693
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org 
> [mailto:permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Toby Hemenway
> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 5:39 PM
> To: permaculture
> Subject: Re: [permaculture] official certification
>
> Okay, this is one of my lengthy screeds. The more meaty stuff is toward the 
> end.
>
> On Oct 23, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Killian O'Brien wrote:
>
>>
>> Oh, Toby, do be careful when putting words in other's mouths.  . . . Read 
>> again, more carefully, or ask for clarification, please.
>
> Well, here's what you wrote-
>
>> By making permaculture about money and formal certificates, you are 
>> preventing/slowing its spread . . .
>> . . . makes it the playground of the (relatively) elite. And I guess the 
>> assessors are chosen by acclaim or are self-appointed...? . . .  engage in 
>> cannibalistic behaviors . . . Unless this more rigorous certification 
>> process is going to be offered essentially for free, and that seems 
>> unlikely, it will do more harm than good.
>
> It's impossible for me to take this in any other way than as condemnation 
> of the Gaia U program and certification; if you meant it as support for 
> multiple options, those words don't convey that. I don't think I've failed 
> to read carefully. Whatever you were meaning, when we lead off with 
> negative, emotionally loaded language, it gets people's hackles up from the 
> start, and makes it likely that any calmer, constructive points made 
> later--as you did make--will be lost. It's the same thing that happened 
> with Kevin's original post about the Army PDC; he started with 
> condemnations and complaints, and then wondered why the thoughtful 
> questions he asked later were ignored.
>
>>
>> Money is just a proxy for all the various reasons people can't make it to 
>> courses. Got course fees covered? What about air fare? Lost work hours? 
>> Child care? And on and on. Your point is moot, imo.
>
> No, it's not moot; it's at the heart of what you wrote: How do we spread 
> this stuff? What I see from you is a list of perceived impediments that 
> have been easily overcome.  People offer courses on the weekends, on a 
> string of Saturdays, we offer child-care done by spouses (teachers or 
> participants) who trade off, we offer local courses so there's no airfare, 
> we offer parallel courses for their kids. There are people out there 
> getting 30, 40, 70 students, because they are creating those solutions. And 
> those who hold cheap PDCs in crowded living rooms and advertise on the 
> co-op bulletin board--maybe not you, but lots of teachers--complain that 
> they can't fill their courses. They ignore useful tools that work, see only 
> impediments, and then complain.
>
> Certification, far from being an impediment, is what attracts people to 
> these courses. You have to give people a tangible take home. The 
> certificate is exactly that for most people, much more so than making a 
> compost pile or a general grasp of systems thinking. Non-certificate 
> courses tend not to attract as many people, and I hear that from all the 
> teachers I talk to--which is quite a few. The answer is not to give it away 
> and lower standards, not in this culture.
>
> See, here's where I think we differ, and I'm going to say something very 
> politically incorrect: I don't think that an effective way to spread 
> permaculture is to target the poor or the radicals (although I won't 
> discourage someone from doing that). You only change one person at a time 
> that way. I think it is far more effective to offer it to policy makers, 
> universities, planners, CEOs, developers--the elite, if you will. One CEO 
> who pushes permaculture through to all employees, one Hollywood star who 
> gets on Oprah, will make far more difference than a blockfull of anarchists 
> or impoverished. It is still a top-down world; I don't like it but I will 
> use it to my advantage. I know I will be pilloried for that, but I'm 
> looking for leverage points, and that's where I see them. I've done the 
> other--I've done PDCs for $40, and almost nothing came of them, maybe a 
> keyhole bed in a backyard. My PDCs to professionals result in amazing 
> projects that go on to be implemented in schools,
 go
> vernments, neighborhoods, and businesses.
>
>>
>> I said the solution proposed maintains structures of the past that are 
>> unlikely to apply in the future, as well as limiting access, so why not do 
>> it differently?
>
> Okay, this next is triggered by, but not a direct reply to, the above. On 
> one hand, the way many current management and decision-making processes are 
> used is indeed dysfunctional, overly hierarchical, based on continual 
> growth, and all those other points. On the other hand, most of the 
> replacements for them, like consensus, NVC, etc., are either little-tried, 
> not well understood or understood in conflicting ways, easily mis-applied 
> or stonewalled, and have other serious problems. There is, indeed, huge 
> urgency in moving forward. But if we wait for these new tools to come on 
> line, for everyone to agree how to use them, it will be too late. So it's a 
> mistake to throw out the old tools right now, and that's why I think 
> certification, clear rules, and common decision-making processes still have 
> plenty of value. I doubt that the future will be so radical that 
> certificates, degrees, committees, voting, listening to leaders, and other 
> familiar ways of getting things done are going
  t
> o disappear. There's the short version of the problem. Here's the long 
> version, if that's not clear or you want more:
>
> Having survived the sixties, I watched over and over as communities and 
> groups would form, unhappy with the old ways, and they'd throw the rules 
> out completely, and try to design a new way to be together.  Almost none of 
> them lasted more than months; a fraction of 1% survive today. The impetus 
> was honorable: end the patriarchy, etc, etc, but they had no functional 
> tools to replace what they threw out, and in most cases, their efforts 
> devolved into the ancient pattern of a few people under a charismatic 
> leader, and everyone who disagreed with the boss left. We've learned a lot 
> since then, and there are formal processes such as consensus that show 
> promise. But hardly anyone really understands those new tools. They are 
> counter-intuitive, and I would argue that in many cases, egalitarian 
> methods like consensus go against our essential tribal nature as social 
> pack animals who inherently look to strong, competent leaders. And I see us 
> in a similar position to where we were in 197
 0.
>  I hang around a lot of communities, and the complaint I hear over and over 
> is that they love the community but consensus and related tools 
> suck--"Nothing ever gets done, so why can't we just appoint committees and 
> managers and move forward? I trust my peers to make good decisions without 
> me."
>
> Years ago, I ran a business, and had a crew of really gifted employees. I 
> went to them with a profit-sharing, co-management plan where they would 
> have equal power in the business, and they said, "We just want to come to 
> work, then go home and forget about the job. We see all the work you do, 
> and we don't want to share it." If we wait until everyone is empowered and 
> is a leader, we won't get there in time, and we will suffer from the "too 
> many cooks" problem, which I see constantly in new endeavors. The process 
> of reinvigorating the national permaculture institute right now is 
> hamstrung by exactly this defect in consensus: no one is allowed to move 
> until we all feel equally empowered. So we are stalled. I think the idea 
> that we will evolve to "decentralized leadership structures" flies in the 
> face of our human and animal nature; we respond to and need clear, focused 
> leadership. What's lacking is accountability, not decent tools. God, the 
> last thing I want is to have to parti
 ci
> pate in every decision that affects me. I trust other people to be 
> competent. So while we continue to hone newer and more equitable ways of 
> sharing power and responsibility, many of the current methods, applied at 
> the right scale, work very well, are comprehended by the mainstream and 
> thus are more likely to be followed, and will get us there faster.
>
> Another example: there are tours in many cities of "sustainable living 
> examples" or the like. The ones that look like hippie houses are scoffed at 
> by most of those on the tours. The ones that look like familiar houses get 
> people excited. They aren't as "sustainable" as the hippie houses, but they 
> get far more people on board. And then, once they are on board, we can move 
> them yet farther. We need to meet people where they are, start with what 
> they are familiar with. Few can make a giant paradigm shift as the first 
> step, and it's a pipe dream to expect it as prerequisite for a solution.
>
> We know that the big parts of the system are broken: national government, 
> big corporations and banks, etc. But the same tools that work so badly at 
> huge scale, when they are applied at small scale--local government, small 
> non-profits and business, independent schools, committees, charismatic 
> leaders--still work very well. I think we need to work with what we have at 
> the same time we work on the replacements. If we insist on everyone 
> learning new tools before we start, we will not get there in time. You 
> cannot get anywhere if you don't start from where you are.
>
> This is written fairly quickly; I hope that instead of nit-picking over the 
> parts that aren't well developed you'll try to follow my intent.
>
> Toby
> http://patternliteracy.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> Read the public message archives here:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture
> Command to put in your browser's Google search box to search these archives:
> site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search string (omit the 
> brackets)]
> List Usage & Guidelines:
> http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq
> Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture
> Permaculture Mailing List Blog
> http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com
> permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> List contact: permacultureforum@gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> Read the public message archives here:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture
> Command to put in your browser's Google search box to search these archives:
> site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search string (omit the 
> brackets)]
> List Usage & Guidelines:
> http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq
> Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture
> Permaculture Mailing List Blog
> http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com
> permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> List contact: permacultureforum@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration here:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
Read the public message archives here:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture
Command to put in your browser's Google search box to search these archives:
site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search string (omit the 
brackets)]
List Usage & Guidelines:
http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq
Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture
Permaculture Mailing List Blog
http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com
permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
List contact: permacultureforum@gmail.com