"Terryc" wrote in message
...
0tterbot wrote:

never mind the goss
I just suspect that it is normal post-grad student did all the work and
Prof getting all the glory scene.

- i've read 3 permaculture books so far & i'm just not
GETTING IT. what's the goss on that? :-)

which ones?

most recently "permaculture two" (mollison) and prior to that two others
which were so underwhelming i can't even think what they are called. and i'm
not about to re-borrow them from the library in order to remind myself ;-)

All it really is is bringing together some ideas in sustainable
agriculture so you basically have a self sustaining block of land for a
family. And perhaps sell/trade your surplus at the local market.

Buy a block of land, establish vege garden, orchard, grazing, etc, etc so
you are not forever mowing, ploughing, suffering major pest attack,
dispensing chemicals, etc, etc

ya, that all makes sense (the entire motivation goes into the "bleeding
obvious" basket ;-).

afaict, it's all about slopes and windbreaks & planting stuff irrelevent
to soil type etc, & the remainder is what i'd call "the bleeding
obvious".

What do you base the statement about soil type on?

the fact it was 100% never mentioned whatsoever in any of the books (and i
do understand that "gardening" or "farming", as information-based concepts,
aren't what the books are really about) - at all. in fact, the only physical
aspect of the land they seemed interested in at all was SLOPE! i couldn't
even find any references in any of them pertaining to flattish land!

perhaps it's just mollison et al's appalling writing style. it was like the
books had no beginning or end, it was all just bla.

It isn't obvious to people who don't have a clue and haven't talked or
looked at stuff before.

i'm assuming that people would get a basic grasp of the process before they
progress to permaculture (permaculture being so design-based) but again,
such basic things are worth incorporating into a book on a concept which is
supposed to be wholistic(???)

similarly it occurred to me that what we call obvious in 2006 might have, in
the 1970s, been temporarily forgotten or pushed to one side & had to be
reintroduced by garden writers generally. certainly modern books & info are
pretty different to 40 year old stuff in general.

who the hell needs a fire mandala? what am i missing??

I have absolutely no idea if your rubbish burns off better in a fire
mandala or not.

the mandala's in perm two. i would not be able to tell you what it's for. in
the cartoon there was a little bloke sitting with his campfire in the middle
of his mandala. perhaps it is a way to have an illegal outdoor fire during
summer, without anyone knowing? (and presumably with no risk of it getting
out of control..?).

Just have a chuckle at the touchy-feely stuff earth spirit stuff and
ignore it.

i just sort of feel robbed - as though i was supposed to have "aha!" moments
reading about this marvellous movement but it was all babble, politics (and
slopes and windbreaks ;-) and the intense and repetitive way mr mollison
wants us all to CONTROL our land rather freaks me out. most of my property
is regenerating bushland. big bill is evidently of the opinion i should sell
most of it, as it is too big for me to CONTROL.

i must have just wanted to have a whinge!! g
kylie