Coming back to this claimed Steiner-Nazi link: your claim that they are closely connected is just one possible interpretation.

Let me provide another.

When the environmental movement was young, there were a number of people with quite different motivations who saw that this new movement might give them a platform to get heard. In particular, there were some quite extreme left-wing marxists that started to denounce and insult everyone who was not as far left in the political spectrum as they were as “eco-fascists”, regardless of whether or not these other people did good and useful work or not.

One specific certain name immediately comes to my mind here. But I think this may well be a more general phenomenon.

Remember, the first thing that we’re taught is that Permaculture is a design system, a framework, much like an empty toolbox into which you bring your ‘personal tools of choice’.

If you want to grow food, then take your pick, conventional organic gardening, no-dig, biodynamic gardening, foodforest gardening, etc.

If you want to sustainable design housing the tools you bring include energy efficient architechtural design, if you want to create intentional communities, then you bring the tools for community building.

Each person will want to use Permaculture for a different purpose, though we all work towards the same end goals or ideals, as stated in the Permaculture ethical principles. With differing personal approaches, we all will use differing tools to achieve those ends.

It’s not the place of the Permaculture course to fix in place what tools people can or should use. The tools can go far beyond technical tools. If people choose to bring their personal beliefs into their Permaculture practice, which might incorporate what are termed metaphysical techniques, then that’s fine. There’s nothing stopping people from incorporating biodynamic farming into their Permaculture work, the system has that kind of flexibility.

The problem arises when we want to add the ‘tools’ to the course syllabus. Beyond the accepatnce of metaphysical, the main point is that Permaculture DOES NOT DICATTE THE TOOLS. When I did my PDC Geoff made it very clear in class that we were there to learn design, and not to teach a huge pile of techniques. Students kept asking “how do I grow this, how do I build that?” and they were reminded that they were focussing on techniques, not design.

If all the ‘tools’ were included, the PDC will take a lifetime o complete if you’re lucky.The idea is to keep the focus on the ‘tools’ out of the course, to learn design. Tools are discussed for the sake of awareness and basic familiarity so you know what’s available and at your disposal. You then choose your own tools, which fit into what you practice, after you complete the PDC. When you teach Permaculture, you teach it once again as the framework, and students can choose their own tools, metaphysical ones if that’s what wrks fro them, but the framework is taught as a ‘clean’ design framework.

Being an urban food forest advocate, my tools are best suited to urban food forest design. If I taught a PDC and put those tools in (as scientific and non-controversial as they are) they would skew the PDC to an urban focus. It’s not about the materialist vs metaphysical argument, it’s about the tools, the techniques vs the design framework.

The whole point is that we stay focussed on design principles, we already have a set of ethical principles which are compatible with probably all spiritual belief systems and practices, and people do have the freedom to incorporate their beliefs into their practice, and as a result, there is no need to change the ’shell’ or framework that is the permaculture design system.

If a permaculture teacher wishes to teach additional content, metaphysical or otherwise, they can be taught as additional, optional courses, and everyone is happy that way!

Incidentally, additional courses can stand on their own, apart from Permaculture, a PDC is not required, so they can be made available to a greater audience outside of the Permaculture community.

There is no need to append every possibly relevant course to the PDC, regard;ess of its content.

http://rewild.info/anthropik/vault/sorenson-preconquest/index.html

Basically, I agree that it would be helpful to keep metaphysics completely out of permaculture discussion; but if someone’s willing to throw away a piece of gold because it’s got a little shit on it, who’s really the problem?

I think enough people look upon permaculture as a cult as it is, why throw gasoline on the fire?

What dictionary did you find your definition of belief in? In my dictionary, it says “an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists”. There’s no caveat to that. No “without evidence”. We believe things we take to be ‘true’. We take them to be ‘true’ because they match the patterns of our experience. They provide a narrative that gives meaning to our experience. That narrative could be derived from rigorous scientific experiment, or it could be a result of a spiritual experience. It’s still belief. Both spirituality and science are underpinned by assumptions which are questionable, and for as long as they remain questionable, we are in the realm of belief.

It’s relatively simple to agree about what’s being observed (though not always). There is vague consensus around the methods of analysis. But all of this is meaningless without a narrative, a theory, a model which tracks paths of cause and effect and holds out the promise of predictability through successful logical replication of the processes we are attempting to understand and map. This is the area where there’s little agreement: the interpretation. And if we can’t reach agreement in the interpretation, then the promise of the scientific ideal remains just that. A promise. As apparently illusory as the promises of spirituality are held to be …

Multiple competing theories are really little more than lots of subjective opinion dressed up in fancy language. So where have we got to exactly? And could it be telling us something about the fundamental assumption that there is only one ‘true’ way of modelling things …?

Science comes into its own in the area of engineering: in the creation of closed systems where variables are limited and controllable. In natural systems, where everything is connected to and contingent on everything else and half of the operating variables aren’t even known, let alone accounted for, it’s not had much success. Applying engineering thinking to natural systems is a large part of what’s got us in the crisis we’re presently in, both in terms of the state of the biosphere and the state of our health.

Consequently I would venture to suggest that hooking permaculture up to scientific thinking is potentially more damaging than hooking it up to spiritual approaches. Ultimately, ‘permaculture’ is just a fancy title for growing stuff the way nature does. It’s very simple. Can’t we just leave it at that?

“The entire exploitative industrial agriculture model is not the dominant form of agriculture because it’s backed by sound reason and good science.”

Actually it was backed by good science and reasoning. Initially this type of concentrated agriculture brought increased returns for decreased effort in a world yet untamed where diversity was yet unthreatened. The bad science is where the same reasoning is being applied to an overpopulated world where natural diversity has been destroyed and what is left is increasingly threatened. Changed conditions is the difference between the same science being good or bad, we have overloaded the system, WITH US!

As for 1 conclusion from scientific observation that all scientists agree on, simple “the sun will rise in the East every morning” based on 1)observation, 2)orbital mechanics. Or how about gravity, it will hold you to the earth unless you apply energy in a specific manner to overcome it. Stars will progress through the heavens in a predictable manner based on their relative motions. Friction takes energy from a moving object slowing it down. Entropy, without the addition of external energy systems become less energic, Biologically, all known organisms on earth are carbon based. Scientists have searched for but not found silicon based life. Since you wanted specifics how about you provide specific counter examples such as a place on earth where the sun rises in the west and sets in the east or where friction makes something speed up without the application of an additional outside force.

Belief = assertation something is right without evidence
Knowledge = assertation something is right WITH evidence.
Science = process whereby new evidence updates knowledge.

SCIENCE is not BELIEF

As for Chestertons faith/reason/reality, faith has nothing to do with it. Whether I have faith in it or not reason says that if I smack Chesterton upside the head with a 2×4 the reality is he’s going to hospital. Reason has a great deal to do with reality regardless of your faith. Let’s face it, there has never been a war where people of faith on both sides haven’t had faith god was on their side yet someone always looses. Thus it is faith that has no relation to reality. As for Tolstoy, using an example of a bad scientist to rationalise that all science is a faith is simply leaping off the edge of the cliff of conclusions. Someone doing things in an incorrect manner does not invalidate those that do it correctly.

I do expect once again for the @Wendy’s and such to twist the meanings of words to their own ends. They have had numerous examples presented to them, refuse to provide concrete examples of their own and are yet to provide a single example of how spiritualism is inherent to Permaculture ie a result you can get only if you practice spiritualism, of whatever type, that someone taking the same actions without the spiritual aspect won’t achieve.

Permaculture and spiritualism are seperate, are in no manner co-dependant and the teachings of each should also be kept seperate. Each is valuable in it’s own way and each is worthy of being practiced but they are not necessary to each other and should not be presented as such either explicitly or by association. Permaculture by saying nothing about spirituality is inherintly an inclusive practice and needs to remain that way to have any hope of achieving widespread acceptance amoung the many varied and often oppositional faiths found around the globe. As Craig eloquently put it;

“I respect the right of people to their beliefs…..if you include a subjective belief into a course titled ‘permaculture’, you’re telling the world that that subjective belief is part of the permaculture toolkit. This will be offensive to not only the people you’re trying to reach, but other permaculture teachers who have their own understanding of the unprovable.”

I do take the bigger view! I just see it differently to you. People are turning back to the land, back to local community in all manner of ways. It’s happening spontaneously, driven by all manner of personal, ethical and economic impulses, everywhere. As part of a natural homeostatic system, it’s perfectly natural that we should react this way en masse when things have got too far out of balance. We ARE part of nature whether we see ourselves that way or not. What matters is that people are finding their way back to a vastly more simple, less exploitative and more self-sufficient existence, working with nature, not against it. It doesn’t matter what you call it. Permaculture is just a part of this movement. Much of ‘new-age’ philosophy is pointed at the same goal. As many find sympathy with it as are put off by it. Personally I don’t care for the language it’s expressed in either. I find it pretentious drama for the most part. But that doesn’t mean I can’t recognise what currents are moving beneath all the rainbow froth.

Of course humanity stands at the threshold of complete meltdown! It’s the only thing likely to get us off our a*ses to make the change! By and large people don’t make big life changes absent some crisis, extraordinary situation or deadline that’s sufficiently momentous to get their focus off the minutiae of their habitual daily gerbil-wheeling. And the majority will leave it until the last minute. That’s just human nature. No amount of selective pitching of permaculture is going to change that.

“Mixing in metaphysical elements is not only unnecessary, it’s disastrous to millions who will never give it any attention due to these included elements.”

Personally I think you’re dramatically overstating the case. It’s a sweeping presumption to assume that mixing in metaphysical elements is abhorrent to so many people! In any case, if people are being drawn to permaculture because they feel the call to get back to the land, they will find their way regardless. And regardless of the label attached to it.