Subject: Re: [permaculture] Re: Permaculture: old and new paradigms

From: Scott Pittman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 11:03:59 -0700 (PDT)

>
>    Let's look at this in terms of paradigms .  We could contrast the
"old"paradigm
>with the "new"one ( of course there are many different paradigms, but I am
drawing this
>polarity here  to exemplify my argument in relationship to PC courses).
>
>Old paradigm:  hierarchies, top down flow of information, emphasis only on the
>concrete  mind ( not intuition), linear, fragmented,  competetive ,
crystallized( only
>that and nothing more).

Since paradigm is new speak for pattern I prefer to use the old word since
it carrys the same meaning in a more familiar form.  I have to admit I have
real difficulties with the two opposing either/or ways of looking at
information exchange.  I am certainly willing to be educated but so far the
language of explication of "new" versus "old" patterns is not clear to me.
Any references where this concept is clearly laid out?

It seems that some folks have deep insights and develop those ideas into
functional application I think this was the case with Mollison and Holmgrin
when they developed the concept of permaculture.  This was the result of a
lifetime of observation, in the case of Bill Mollison, and of collaborative
exploration with his students at the University of Tasmania, one of which,
if I remember right was David Holmgrin.  They then thought that they had
something worth sharing and wrote Permaculture One.  Is this then
hierachical.  I mean the book that is used in all of the pc courses that I
know is "Permaculture a Designer's Manual", is the book "top down" or is
just the author "top down" when he teaches the information in the book.  And
why must it be "top" down rather than "to and from", isn't it possible that
some people do in fact have more information than others, and that just by
sharing that information with others they enrich our lives?  It doesn't mean
they are better people just because they know more about a specific subject
but they for valuable for having that information and sharing it.

The other adjectives also are troubling "concrete mind (not intuitive), linear,
fragmented, competitive, crystallized (only that and nothing more)".  What
does this mean?  I understand that all of these descritive words are
directed at the current teaching of permaculture and that they are "bad" but
I don't believe that they accurately portray what I have experienced as a
teacher ("bad") of permaculture or the experience that "most" students
("bad") of permaculture express in their course comments.  Further the
experience of the first four days of a pc course are fraught with the
intuitive and without some intuitive ability I fear that the section on
pattern would approximate gibberish.  Is linear always "bad" or can it be a
tool to enhance understanding.  This isn't to say that Euclidian gridworks
describe the human and natural experience but that grids are useful tools.
Fragmented?, the curriculum of pc is one of the most holistic descriptions
of the total function of Gaia as any course I know - it of necessity,
because of the limited time (two weeks), like skipping a rock over the pond
of total knowledge, but where the rock hits the water there is critical
interlocking information.  Most people I know in pc are very cooperative,
and it is certainly taught in the course that nature is cooperative not
competitive.

(only that and nothing more) I suppose is some sort of devastating dismissal
of the the whole system of pc teaching.     

>New paradigm:  circular ( teacher is focalizer for flux of informations and
experiences
>from all participants ), systemic ( not linear), accepts information from
other, non
>intellectual sources, evolutive ( not crystallized), cooperative,  integrated.
>
>It is clear that Permaculture as a body of knowledge and way of approaching
the world
>is  new paradigm

I find all of the above "good" characteristics very much a part of a "good"
pc design course.  I am heartened that permaculture is "new paradigm",
because that means it is good right?

>Unfortunately, we are still struggling to find new paradigm forms of teaching
>it...Unfortunately the "traditional" PC course is old paradigm, and thus
the constant
>complaints of the low "multiplying factor". 

I don't agree with the "constancy" of complaints, their are complaints and
complainers but for the most part the complaint is that we have too much to
do in a very short period of time and we are multiplying at a slower rate
than is needed if we are to have a profound impact on the destructive
behaviour of a corporate/industrial greed run amok. 

>In the new paradigm, just transmitting
>information is not enough.  That can be most efficiently done on Internet
and in the
>books, as is being pointed out here...
>    But for moving into a new approach to life and Nature, we need to help
people move
>out of a linear, frgmented, competitve ( and fear-based) way of seeing
practical
>solutions to living to an integrated systemic one.  For this people have to
have
>contact with people.  And what we are stuggling with here, basically, is
how to give
>people access to people in an affordable way. As there "are no free
lunches" those
>people who are offering their time and energy to help others transform
their lives (
>the "teachers"in the old paradigm language), must somehow be supported.
Either they
>have successful systems, as has been suggested, which gives them
independent support,
>or they work also at other income-generating  activities, or they accept
exchange from
>those they are helping to move into a new set of strategies ( the
"students" in  the
>old paradigm language). The crunch here is there is a schism between what these
>"helpers"need, to be supported, is often beyond what the "those being
helped" are  able
>or willing to pay, and the infrastructure being offered, so that these two
can get
>together, is too expensive for many people...
>    So I would like to repeat, as I said in the first post that re-opened this
>Pandora's Box -- please remember that I in no moment implied that PC
teachers should
>not be paid, nor that this was unethical!--that what is lacking is some
middle-ground
>mechanism where people can get together with people in affordable ways to
inspire and
>teach each other.  I would like to agree with Eric that we need to  use the PC
>principles for our own lives, not only individually, but collectively...We
will never
>be succesful trying to teach the  new paradigm with old paradigm forms...
>
>Marsha
>

In the sense that all courses are a "gathering" of like concerned people we
are accomplishing this getting together notion.  How do we expand that
gathering from tens and twenties to hundreds or thousands is that the "new
paradigm" solution?  I sense that their is something lurking behind this
whole conversation about teaching and students and "old and new paradigm"
but I still don't hear any positive solutions from those decrying what is in
place.

Perhaps there is a need to provide pc to everyone for free or more
affordable and that in that provision it must maintain its ethics and
integrity.  Once we all agree on this as a beginning what next?  Do we write
thousands of letters to Ted Turner insisting that he provide air time for
the pc design course, I'm serious - is this old paradigm?

Do we have a pc woodstock?

What I'm saying is that every time this conversation comes around it is the
same old complaint without any substantive recommendations.  I would like to
see the substantive recommendations, a map (linear) of what this new
paradigm looks like.  It is not productive or reasonable to say that pc
teaching should be radically different unless those who insist on it being
new paradigm/not old paradigm provide some thoughtful and reasonable
direction on how to get there - then we would have something to talk about.

I apologize in advance if I am throwing rhetorical spears but this is a very
frustrating subject when no-one, to my mind is offering solutions along with
the criticisms.  My solution is "if it's not broke don't fix it", I
personally don't believe it's broke - for those of you who think it is
seriously flawed or is junkyard bound propose something!!!!    
Scott Pittman

Permaculture Institute, USA
PO Box 3702, Pojoaque, NM 87501  US
phone 505.455.0270

*********
Ingenio Patet Campus

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

---

From: Thilo Pfennig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:58:14 +0200 (MEST)

On 25-May-99 Scott Pittman wrote:

> hierachical. 

Didn´t they bundle old ideas to a new concept?

> the pc design course, I'm serious - is this old paradigm?

You are right: What is old? There are many old and traditional oral cultures
which allreadyhav, what was described here as "new paradigm". And I only see,
that we must get to this point of living culture. As long as we label things,
we will never reach the status, where know-how can flow freely between people.
As long as information or concepts can be owned by a person, there will be a
hierachy which allows the ill system to continue its wrong ways.

What is the foundation of society? If the foundation is week no whatever
good concept will ever succeedin changing things.

I am intersted in two things: in changing my life situation and in changing the
foundations of this planet to allow all people a betterlife. Therefore the
ethics of one concept: permaculture are nothing to bother about. Even if
poermaculture people would have perfect ethics, that would change nothing.
 Some years ago I was a buddhist. And I tried to change things inside or with
buddhism. But I that realised that this allway limits the results. So i´d
rather see permaculture as a bunch of concepts and ideas for designing
landscapes and lives.

> direction on how to get there - then we would have something to talk about.

We allready did: Freeing information as beeing copyleft (that means copying is
free). The richness of cultures does not come from patents. If somebody had a
patent of the wheel or of making fire. There would have been no development.
(You could also take the knowhow about how to plant or how to treat plants)

On the other hand I see the need to create more free space via politics, so
that new ideas can have in chance. In Europe the politics do not let the
agriculture out of there control. That makes it more difficulty to introduce
new ways.

For permaculture I only see the value in the word that can carry many different
techniques and ideas, which otherwise would not be recognized. But I would
rather love to see permaculture as beeing one word like "ecology" or
"sustainablity". That many people know and use it and nobody owns it - and that
people can discuss the meaning - like "sustainable agriculture" (how to reach
sustainability).

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

---

---

From: Toby Hemenway <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:06:20 -0700

Like Scott, I wince when I hear of old versus new paradigms (the introducer
of the word "paradigm," Thomas Kuhn, must be whirling in his grave). There
are many uses for both linear and non-linear thinking, for hierarchy and
"flat' organization, and so forth. We need both, applied at the appropriate
scale and time. So I'll try and add something helpful here. Permaculture
has its feet in both camps, straddling the edge (a good place to be)
between these two viewpoints.
  The PDC mirrors this, because it has evolved far from Mollison's original
(linear?) "stand in front of a class and talk for 72 hours" format
(something that ony someone as charismatic as Bill can get away with). Many
PDCs now focus on learning as opposed to teaching. There's lots of data
showing that most people learn poorly by listening passively to an
instructor. Some PDC's now reflect this, with often less than 1/3 the time
as lectures, and the rest in cooperative learning games, hands-on work,
participant-led instruction, community-building exercises, kinesthetic
learning, and a host of other techniques. The whole point of the PDC,
mentioned in many, many posts so far, is to inspire by drawing the
participants into a new community and a more holistic, balanced way of
thinking. I think the PDC continues to evolve into a better and better
format for doing just that. It can't do everything, but it's supposed to be
just the beginning.
   The point of this is that I don't think there's much to be gained in
complaining about or radically changing the PDC. It seems to be evolving
very well. I'd say the problems lie elsewhere. I'm frustrated here because
I feel like I'm not operating from the same set of experiences as those
advocating changes; my experiences with the PDC, transmission of knowledge
in Pc, teachers, and most course participants all indicate an extremely
healthy and responsive system. Many of the complaints seem to be describing
a world different from what I see ("are Pc teachers really living Pc
principles?" or "the PDC is old paradigm" etc.).
  To me, Pc is not growing fast because in our enthusiasm to build a new
world we have ignored the old one, yet are asking it to change for us.
There's a parallel with the environmental movement: it was a fringe group
of scraggly hippies until it learned how to deal with the mainstream by
writing grants, publishing research, lobbying, etc. On one hand, it got
co-opted by "the system," and some will never forgive the Sierra Club or
NRDC for that. But on the other hand, environmental protection and
awareness are now part of daily life. We need more Pc projects in schools,
in public buildings and parks, at ag extension colleges, with foundations,
in government agencies and corporations. Who wants to take that on? Until
we accept the legitimacy of the non-sustainable 99%, and learn to work with
it (maybe even wear a suit!), even at the cost of the dilution of our
message, we will continue to be a marginal movement.

Hey Marsha: I really appreciate your provocative questions--thanks.

Toby

---

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:33:37 EDT

In a message dated 5/25/99 6:06:30 PM, you wrote:

<<What I'm saying is that every time this conversation comes around it is the

I haven't been present in earlier conversations about this, but I feel I can 
understand scott's frustration. my companion email to this one provides what 
we (Permaculture Drylands Institute) are offering as a positive solution to 
the situation. I want to point out however that we are not coming from a 
perspective that suggests that the design course is "seriously flawed", 
"junkyard bound" or "broke". we do think that in the natural course of 
evolving what we are doing, that by always seeking to improve the 
effectiveness of our courses and teaching ability, that the way the course is 
taught needs to more fully reflect the content of the course. permaculture 
courses should be designed with permaculture principles. please see my other 
post for more on this.

as a matter of principle however, and I speak on my own accord on this, I 
think it's OK if we dance around trying to identify a problem for awhile. it 
may take some time to uncover or create real solutions. it seems unreasonable 
to me, and detrimental to the creative process, to insist that someone can't 
complain about something unless they have a solution to it. 

sincerely,
christopher peck
santa fe, new mexico USA

---

---

From: "Jeremy Sharp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 05:31:27 -0700

Go toby  go  amen  Sono Perm
----------
>From: Toby Hemenway <[email-masked]>
>To: "permaculture" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: Permaculture: old and new paradigms
>Date: Wed, May 26, 1999, 10:06 AM
>

>You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: [email-masked]

---