"Chookie" wrote in message
...
it's interesting to me that you got this from the books. perhaps you read
better books by people who came later. perhaps you read better than i do.

I got that from PDM, on my first reading of it and with no understanding
of
permaculture prior to that. Of course it doesn't actually SAY that, but
if
you know any engineers, you recognise the mind-set instantly!

i used to know some engineers. "used to" probably being the operative idea
g

The premise of
all engineering, AFAICS, is to create a system to deliver the required
results
as efficiently as possible, and to prevent catastrophic failures.

The idea of broadacre wheat farming, where you drill your seed in, then
wait a
few months before experiencing crop failure/success, is completely alien
to
the engineering mind (it's efficient, but it does not prevent catastrophic
failure). The idea of continuous polyculture to spread risk would make
much
more sense to them.

it makes more sense to me too, which is a little alarming under the
circumstances. ;-)

"minimum amount of effort" did not appear to be anyone's aim in anything
i
read. something like "fiddle with absolutely everything according to our
model and leave nothing that was there prior, standing, plant loads of
beech
trees, and i certainly hope your block is sloped, young lady!!" is all i
got
from them. :-)

Sounds like the principles got a bit mixed up with technique there.

in my head, quite possibly.

Elevation
is handy simply because it enables you to use gravity, ie, free energy.

this part, like various others, is in my "bleeding obvious" category.
however, i could not help but notice provision didn't seem to be made for
flat or flattish land. the assumption seemed to be either that it doesn't
exist, or that it's not worth mentioning (!). i have no idea. perhaps a
combination of idealism (the author's), bad writing, and insufficient
thought applied to general problems (again, the author's, not mine) led to
me reading it that way. similarly, the ideas relentlessly rolling out, but
with no backing of gardening techniques, or explanations of alternatives, or
(to me) explanations of WHY (nor indeed HOW) this is all meant to work, even
though, as in your chook/lemon example, the WHY of it really _should_ either
be obvious (i'm not that dumb), or be explained.

THe
"fiddling" is where you get existing processes to work for you -- ie, they
would all have been examples.

This is starting to remind me of debates about Attachment Parenting in
misc.kids, where people say AP is a hard-line approach to parenting,
instead
of seeing that it's a few principles (the first one being "understand your
child's needs") and a lot of suggested techniques.

heh. i think the thing is that babies grow up, & by the time (many) people
(mk types, for example) have got some perspective on things like those types
of "debates", it's all over for them personally. i would hope permaculture
doesn't display that lack of perspective on other people's (or one's own)
techniques, yet to me, it clearly does seem that way.

another thing (to continue the mk analogy) is that i'm very centrist &
simply cannot seem to take an extreme line on anything much. there is NO
"right" way with baby-raising, gardening, or anything else, there's only
"general rightness" and what's right for the circumstance & the people
involved. to me, the books i read shouted "change your circumstance!"
whereas what i like is to read things i can incorporate into what my
circumstances actually are in order to make improvements which are possible
for me physically or financially. i have a very neglected property that has
been "improved" in the past by someone whose logic i cannot fathom (i
suspect there wasn't any), then let go all to shit. i have barely any money,
and only two hands, and a great deal to do. i can SEE how writing a book all
about what's ideal (according to one mindset) might appeal to some people,
but i have to content myself with practicalities, and even some of our small
problems concerning layout, or what needs to be done, are often just so
mind-boggling one must content oneself with really small improvements on
tiny areas for that particular day. CONTROL (mollison-style) is for people
with more time and money and rigidity than i have.

Did you interpret "slashing" leguminous plants as "chopping them down",
perhaps?

hehe, no, not at all. i felt NO allowance is made for working around the way
things really are (i.e. the block you really DO have, not your fantasy
block). the writings were from the pov that one would be able to design from
scratch, or perhaps how one would design in an ideal world. or both. i
realise some people have the luxury of designing from scratch, but often
not. i appreciate your pointing out the "broad examples/suggested
techniques" idea (which is probably the case). it is difficult for me to put
into words what my problem is. which is why i defaulted to the idea that
perhaps it's just not my thing - which i baulk at, because i think it
_should_ be my thing & can't understand why it isn't!!!

http://www.tortuga.com/permacultura/...Principles.htm
gives a very succinct summary of the design principles of permaculture, in
which you will see the words "energy" and "system" appear frequently.

thanks. that's a nice page. i am still experiencing mind-resistance, but i'm
trying hard ;-) i don't, for example, understand how a permaculturalist
would fervently espouse gaia - it seems to me the opposite. on the one hand,
i don't understand how a permaculturalist would regard themselves as a
caretaker or such, because of the control elements which are, to my mind, a
little extreme & artificial to an almost rigid degree. otoh, i entirely
understand how, done well, it could make perfect sense.

I think Linda Woodrow explains it best: in The Permaculture Home Garden,
she
explains that we are best at working with our brains, so we should
consider
design of the garden (following study of local conditions, principles of
gardening etc) as our primary work. We should leave the job of destroying
snails and spreading fertiliser to the poultry :-)

again, this makes sense. perhaps i just need a better class of author.

(i freely admit the ordinary person _can't_ really "control" more than a
few
hectares - i just can't see what the problem is with that.)

Where was that?

good old permy two!! (i hated that book. can you tell?)

What was the context?

iirc, in summation.

I do think it would be hard to get a
continuous polyculture going on a bigger scale than that, so it would
depend
on what was to be attempted.

i disagree somewhat (not with you, with the idea), on two levels. firstly,
the person may wish to own the land for a host of other reasons, none of
which have to do with farming or gardening it (noise, privacy, wildlife
refuge, because they just can, to show off, recreation, to ultimately set up
a caravan park on it, i could go on.) secondly, if the person wished to do
some _particular_ sort of growing, i could well imagine you could
plant/whatever hectares upon hectares, & then essentially leave it to it
most of the time, _while accepting_ that the bigger the area, the less
personal control the human has, & therefore being prepared to accept what
losses might follow despite your best management, like farmers etc always
are obliged to accept. iow, you'd probably not have a "continuous"
polyculture that needs replanting every year unless you have staff, but
there's a great deal other polyculture (which grows continuously) you could
do. again, i just can't see why bill mollison would have a problem with
that, & there's the essence of my problem with him. frankly, he probably
lacks imagination.

it's probably just not, in & of itself, my thing, & that's probably why
i've
got such an attitude about it.

If my comments have been helpful in changing your mind, Rosemary Morrow's
book
has just come out in a second edition!

possibly i should look at that one again, as i don't recall it being nearly
as offensive as the other two i read g. i just think, if i don't like it,
i want to know why - there has to be a reason. i read all sorts of weird and
(idealogically) unsuitable (to me) books, but usually they've all got a few
things in them that were worth reading, at worst if only to put on my
"not-to-do" list. those, i got nothing, i just couldn't get it at all.
thanks for your insights.
kylie