Subject: Re: knowing and learning (was Sobering Stats)

From: Thilo Pfennig <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Aug 1999 09:50:29 +0200

John Schinnerer <[email-masked]> writes:

> with the tiny percentage who have internet access).

Internet Access is nonsense. I do not have access to oil-tankers but i
could get oil from everywhere. Information is spreading. Internet is
nothing but Information, so not different than books or the content of
other media in its essence.

It might be that charisma or personal character can not be revived
with any media, even not on movies. Then, only personal contact can
give you that. But if only few people have direct (24h)
internet-access, even fewer have access to him personally. Or do you
want 6 Billion people to visit him? 

If you want to criticise media in general , I am on your side - I
believe the world might be better, if we do not use ANY media any
more, only words and sounds. But the reality is different. So and if
you only want to criticise the Internet I am opposing, because
Internet is the only media which allows a kind of personal, direct
contact besides of letters and telephone. And because of its multiple
possibilities. 

> data.  Some "facts" could be recorded, no doubt, but to me (and, I suspect,
> to our species) it is the whole experience that matters.  Otherwise we are
> simply repeating the mistake of thinking that the whole is nothing more than
> the sum of its parts.

Ok, so this man is only useful for those who met him personally? So
this can not interest me, because I likely will not meet him!? What
are we talking about? Us? Him?

> It's fine to take advantage of the technology we've got while we've got it,
> but I don't favor depending on it or expecting it to do things it can't.
> It's much too fragile.  The oral culture of Hawai'i maintained and
> transmitted the knowledge required for food, shelter and community systems
> (not to mention open ocean navigation, etc.) for thousands of years 

There were many cultures who had that oral element. Many of those oral
cultures lost there information, because of the changes of the modern
world. If nobody who is living can give his knowledge to others, the
kownledge gets lost.

The question is: Do we want to wtach informations and knowledge beeing
lost, because personal contact is richer than written words?

Don´t you see these losts?

-- 
Thilo Pfennig 
<http://Alternativ.Net/homes/vinci/>

---
You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]

---

From: John Schinnerer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:30:59 -0700

Aloha,

-----Original Message-----
From: Thilo Pfennig [mailto:[email-masked]]
>So and if

I am critical of the assumption that putting something on the net makes it
available "worldwide," which may be true in terms of counting countries or
even bioregions where at least one person out of millions can access it but
not in terms of "most" people worldwide having access.  TV seems the most
far-reaching media at present (and it does not require literacy...).

>are we talking about? Us? Him?

Some of what he knows is only applicable in his bioregion or even
microclimate; some is perhaps "universal" patterns and so will be known to
others in other bioregions anyhow, if it is really "universal."  
There are many like him, in all parts of the world; I am suggesting look
close to home first for relevant knowledge to embody and propagate.
Permaculture starts "at one's own doorstep," or so I've been told...

>world. If nobody who is living can give his knowledge to others, the

Everything changes, everything gets lost and "rediscovered" (like what we
currently call "permaculture," for example...).  I am simply pointing out
that it is clearly demonstrated throughout history how oral cultures can
propagate their essential knowledge for thousands of years, including
through significant changes of climate, location, etc. (and even changes in
culture).  This is in comparison to literary cultures that so far have only
a few decades' experience with storing and transmitting knowledge by
non-biological technological means (e.g. computers).  
Hawaiians and numerous other peoples are still transmitting parts of their
oral culture, and reviving and reinventing other parts, despite centuries of
concerted efforts to destroy all traces of it.  Had they entrusted it all to
computers (if such had been available then), it would have been easily
erased beyond recovery, whether intentionally or accidentally.

Robust systems of knowledge storage and transmission, like robust ecological
systems, gain robustness from diversity.  So what I am really suggesting is
that since our cultural bias seems to be towards a very few fragile
electronic and printed media, often very centralized (consider that fire at
Alexandria... ;-), it may be wise to revive and *incorporate* (literally,
embody) other, more robust and decentralized ways of storing and
transmitting essential knowledge.

It's also a lot more fun to learn a variety of things by direct experience
in collaboration with other human beings, as far as I'm concerned!

John Schinnerer

---

---

From: Thilo Pfennig <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Aug 1999 09:37:01 +0200

> far-reaching media at present (and it does not require literacy...).

You missed the point. I did not mean the direct accessability of
households to any information sent by a medium. I ment the
accessability of my or your information to theoretically
everybody. And access to information does not mean that the one who
gets the info in the end is sitting on the computer. It is enough if
anybody in the village or nearby has access to the internet gives
this information in his own words. I often tell friends or relatives
what I read on the internet (as well as what I saw on TV,...) if it is
interesting. The bandwidth of information with TV depends on the
program-structure of the TV-station. The bandwidth on the internet
depends on what the user is searching for. So if he is a local
ecologist, he can search for helpful infortmation, without the need
that one of the TV-station will send it while he is watching (very
unlikely). So internet can very easily be conducted to a given social
structure if there is just ONE contact, who uses the internet. Did you
never searched the internet for anybody else? This is indirect
internet-usage !

I am not saying that the internet itself is a solution or that
everybody uses it more opr less directly, but there are many
opportunities and the _possible_ content is unlimited (everything that
is on the net).

> currently call "permaculture," for example...).  I am simply pointing out

I am not so sure. I think many things got lost and will never be
rediscovered. Also many plants and seeds got lost forever. Ans
"permaculture" is not an oral culture, but the try to save oral
knowledge on books and other media (and than re-teach it orally). Some
permaculturist may have got there information directly from natives,
but this are surely very view.

> erased beyond recovery, whether intentionally or accidentally.

If I look on black culture in america it seems to me that that the
spirit got lost on the most part. Or look at China an Japan - there
still exists some buddhist or taoist oral culture. But many things got
lost. Tibetan buddhist are heavily trying to preserve their oral
culture by printing books. They used oral culture for thousands of
years. And this culture also told them that knowledge would get
lost. This is the reason why they send their teachers to the western
world. It is naive to beliebe that every bit of knowledge can be
preserved in our times and that nothing will get lost. Many things
will need thousands of years to get rediscovered (if ever).

> systems, gain robustness from diversity. 

It doen´t help them if some woodworkes kill all the trees. I mean:
ecological robustness is one thing - surviving against modern
culture/technology another...

> So what I am really suggesting is

What is robust? 

> in collaboration with other human beings, as far as I'm concerned!

Other humans are ALLWAYS involved within culture. The directness is a
quality.

---