permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>]

On 3/8/2011 10:31 AM, Kelly Simmons wrote:

> Scientific theories
> are only "open to interpretation" based on the observable facts and
> data. Not our opinions of how things could be, or might be.

> I have no problem with
> anyone's beliefs about energy, plant devas, spirits and the like.

> Science obviously does a poor job of understanding or dealing with these
> topics except for perhaps quantum physics.

Albert Einstein
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as 
good as dead: his eyes are closed.

Allen Chadwick said, "We need to create the beauty and the quality
first. The quantity will follow."

Someone else said that there is nothing stranger than reality itself.

Divas, spirits are handy words to describe the undescribable; one's
spontaneous, not on demand, experiences of the mysteries of the
universe, of existence, a path for personal development, "spirituual",
if you like.

I see this as a form of enlightenment, as stimulating,
offering possibilities leading to new areas of scientific enquiry.
For me, sometimes, contemplating the concept of the infinite
provides a source of energy both physical and mental.

I visualize the universe in terms of a spectrum, with no limits of
breadth, only temporary ones defining or attempting to describe the
known at one end and the unknown at the other. We have quantum physics
revealing events and phenomena and suggestions of possibilities of more
at some position within the spectrum. You're standing at the end amongst 
known facts, observable phenomena, reality as we know, see, hear, smell, 
taste and feel it. We look in the direction of the other end, 
encountering unfolding, intertwining realms of mystery along the way. 
Somewhere in all this is feedback within the process involving
observation, discovery, acquisition of knowledge and experience,
analysis, documentation, dissemination and use of the fruits of this
process. This is why I think permaculture systems design is so
interesting; it is pure science and is at the same time completely
mysterious.

Just words. Maybe this is too laid back an approach to learning and
practicing science, too much poetic license, too much improvisation.
Still an approach embracing diversity with no preconceived notions
would be advisable. Maybe the creationists could become more interested
in permaculture; maybe this would suggest taking a new and interesting
tack. Rudolph Steiner has much to offer in his writings that could be
useful in this discussion.