Permaculture Information Web

[heide.hermary AT gaiacollege.ca]

> I'm hearing Species (not just plants) have
> Relationships depending upon the Context of a given
> Bio-region, Micro-climate, and Time of year.  Is this
> correct?  Could we say that a Guild is a collection of
> Species having a collective net regenerative (positive
> feedback) Relationship?

That's what we would call an ecosystem in some circles, a guild in others.

A guild is a community of
> species offering a harvest?

I would say that is the human-centered way of looking at it, but obviously 
very
useful and perfectly valid. It must be understood, though, that plants /
ecosystems / guilds / all relationships in nature don't exist to humour us, 
but
to meet the needs of the participants. Traditionally we then come a long and
exploit. Permaculture differs from other agricultural systems in that it tries
to establish permanent functioning relationships in nature, even though they
may be "artificial".  Look at the concept of permaculture design itself, which
encompasses much more than just the plants growing on the farm....

So yes, a guild would be a community of species offering a harvest, but not 
all
species would be necessarily present a harvest for us, although that would be
the ideal artifial ecosystem. Don't know if nature works that way, but I think
in time the database will help us understand the relationships a lot
better,allowing us to make better use of them without the traditional
destruction that goes along with exploitation of natural systems.

>
> This might seem overly simplistic, but this is the
> starting point for developing the pattern language
> which becomes our tool.  Once we have the players,
> then we can talk about what each knows about
> themselves and identify their role within the meta
> community.  If it helps, don't look at this as an
> exercise to develop a repository of knowledge, but as
> an exercise to develop a way to use it.

Yes, that's why I suggested to start with the search function, and worry about
how to label the information later.  I can go to Google and search several
trillion (?) websites and zero in quite quickly on the information I want.
That is all plain text entry, presented in all kinds of different format.

That's the kind of thing I'm dreaming of, although the search can be more 
guided
for something like this.

At this time , I think, google still looks for exact word matches.  Surely
search technology exists or is is within reach that is more intuitive, looking
for synonyms, word groups / phrases etc??

Cheers, Heide
>
>
> -Sean.
>
> --- Stephanie Gerson <sgerson AT stanfordalumni.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Amen.
> >
> > Thank you Heide, for your insightful and provocative
> > posts!  (I suggest we all
> > re-read her words at the bottom of this email.)  A
> > few things:
> >
> > -I agree that it would be an overwhelming task to
> > develop an entirely new (and
> > more function-oriented) taxonomy.  However, in the
> > process of developing this
> > (dynamic) database, we may observe such a taxonomy
> > emerge (and co-evolve)
> > organically…
> >
> > -How can we define relationships as +/-,
> > synergistic/antagonistic – when
> > this seems to change with level of magnification?  A
> > relationship appears
> > antagonistic when observing one particular organism,
> > and appears synergistic
> > when observing the ecological context (Heide’s
> > butterfly example as a case
> > in point).  Will we therefore have different levels
> > of 'zoom' – allowing
> > users to zoom into (organism-scale) or out of
> > (ecosystem-scale) ecological
> > relationships?
> >
> > -I’d like to reiterate Heide’s words, “I've
> > thought about this a lot and
> > finally decided not to worry about categories, but
> > to describe the
> > relationships.  Too much is lost by trying to fit
> > organisms and dynamic
> > relationships into tight little boxes.  That's not
> > how life works.  And that's
> > why we don't have much easily accessible information
> > on exactly these things.
> > Which is the reason for developing this database in
> > the first place.  So let's
> > not condemn it to superficiality right from the
> > start.�  Yes, exactly.  This
> > database will inspire users to think *systemically*
> > - in terms of ecological
> > relationships versus discrete (no such thing)
> > components.  As I mention in
> > grant proposals, PIW is a manifestation of the
> > paradigm shift from
> > reductionism to holism, which will be reflected in
> > its structure.
> >
> > -However, as Rich and Sean point out, computers Love
> > categories and discrete
> > components.  I wonder, is this the way computers are
> > intrinsically, or is this
> > the way we’ve trained them to be?  Would it be
> > possible to develop a
> > computer language/database structure conducive to a
> > more analog/continuous way
> > of organizing information?  Would it be possible to
> > develop computers that
> > Love webs and relationships instead?
> >
> > -And thanks Matthew, for your suggestion.   Yes, we
> > have discussed
> > testimonials and rating systems.  But, I do prefer
> > your description of it as a
> > “mass repository for folk wisdomâ€? better.
> >
> > Thanks again to everyone for such stimulating
> > discussion.
> >
> > peace
> > *Stephanie
> >
> > p.s.  Others might be interested in checking out
> > Heide's database - Heide,
> > would you be willing to show it to others on this
> > list?
> >
> > ------ Original Message ------
> > Received: 07:21 AM PST, 02/11/2005
> > From: Heide Hermary <heide.hermary AT gaiacollege.ca>
> > To: Permaculture Information Web
> > <piw AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Subject: Re: [piw] Q2: what criteria do we want to
> > record for plants.
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> piw mailing list
> piw AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/piw
>