Cloudpiler Hatfield

A good example would be this forum.  On the surface it seems like an open community where people are free to express their ideas.  Let's call that the "property."

If I were to get really obnoxious, become absolutely vulgar, berate everybody for this stupid adherence to environmentalist wacked out ideas.  If I were to become abusive or obscene, there is a mechanism in place to banish me from the forum (at least I hope there is). 

Why would such policies be even considered?  People just don't do that sort of thing do they?  Yes, they do.

Now, multiply that about a thousand times and you have the community property, one-pot IC.

I think land ownership is essential.  Then if an IC is considered, a sort of family must come together.  The better IC, IMO, would be for a group of landowners to unite in intention.  That would comprise a public entity comprise of several (or many) individual communes (families) working together toward obtaining group yield and then distributing that yield according to the organized intention. 

"Intentional Community" ought to be more about the intention.  That communes have taken the term to mean unrelated people living together in a common property, house, compound, complex, is unfortunate.  It colors the actual meaning of the phrase. 

It may not universally believed that people are corrupt, but I think you must agree that whenever any group of people gather together for any purpose, there will be disagreement.  Community Property Law requires the group to create some mechanism for resolving such conflict.  That's where representative bodies get organized.  They develop strategies for resolving problems.  Invariably, basic foundational premises must be made, or no planning can take place.  That is where assumptions about how people would behave, or historically have behaved, in this situation or that must be made.  Qualification for acceptance and worthiness for retention are required by most states community property laws.

Who decides who gets to live in the IC which is owned by its members?  How and under what conditions might those policies change?

How and why might a person be asked, or required, to leave the IC, and therefore lose ownership in the community property. 

We do, unfortunately, live in a culture that places property at the very apex of the value system pyramid.  Such questions cannot be left unanswered and no amount of philosophizing about whether  people are good or bad answers them.  And there's the dig. 

Cooperate instead of compete.  Sounds like Permaculture Principle to me.  I think Mollison considered everybody who takes up Permaculture as part of a larger community.  I don't think he was thinking in terms of communes, not entirely anyway.

Consensus systems that work are also filled with useful and beneficial hierarchies.  In many systems, representative councils are created and consensus is required there, but the entire population doesn't have to come to an agreement. 

In our system, a Council  is elected by popular vote.  The Council would decide the forest management program.  It wouldn't be unilaterally one person's decision, since it affects everyone in the community.  Then the General Assembly is asked for a sustaining vote, which requires a super-majority.  If a super-majority isn't reached, that matter goes back to the Council to be re-thunk. 

In such a system, there would not have been the initial emotion generated by one guy going out in a common forest to knock down trees.  That emotion probably catalyzed opposition before the fact.  I find it difficult to believe that the guy with the chainsaw, living in an IC where he knew everybody and their attitudes, didn't know know exactly the controversy he was about to create when he pulled that starter cord.  The shock effect is what he was after in the first place, so I find it disingenuous that he should complain about the six months it took to repair the damage he caused to the common consent, and then to use it around the country as a teaching tool. 

He obviously began with a personal non-belief in the principles around which the community was based, or he would have called for consensus prior to the inflammatory act itself.  His reference to ritual and the non-participation of the people in the ritual, is just more shock effect.  It may have happened just as he describes, and as other are fond of repeating, but that doesn't speak to the intention of its use in teaching others.  That the people found even a little solace in funeralizing a tree or two makes the whole community laughable only to sell a concept.  That after a while nobody continued in the practice exposes them to further derision and justifies the original rupture.  The wrong lesson is being taught by the example and I think it's sad.  It's not people care, it's people hurt, for the sake of making a point, and the wrong point at that. 

It's one thing to take on Permaculture as a personal belief system and practice its principles privately at home.  Consensus is easy when there's only one person to consult.  But when a person goes a step further and introduces into the mindset that environment means more than just me - that other people find place there as well, and engage themselves in an IC, they must take the me out of it and learn to think in terms of we.  He talked about what he wanted to do to a lot of people he says.  He talked, they listened.  He was teaching all the time.  His ideas where known to the group he insists.  Forgive me, but the whole example seems all about him, not them.  It's obvious that the IC had assigned somebody to manage the land generally, but in common the IC did not have a policy specific to the commodity they held in common that takes the longest time to create and the shortest time to screw up, otherwise they would not have been six months in developing one.  It would have been more to the order of one or two meeting clarifying what the common consent had already decided, not a drawn out debate and reconciliation through compromise. 

That his neighbors are fodder for his ridicule disturbs me.  Does he still live there, and how do they all feel about him using their absolute failure on many levels as an object lesson in Sunday School?  I observe the ICs around me and I think I can easily point out the flaws and rough spots in just about every system.  It's easy because I'm not living with them, supposedly working together, living together, fighting the good fight together.  He was not an individual when this fracture occurred.  He was supposedly a member of a larger family. 

I laughed and I scoffed and I derided, in my head, when I first read the example.  Well, thought I, what a ridiculous bunch of people.  Stupid blockheads.  I mean after all!  And then of course none of them kept up the funerary rituals.  How false!  Pharasees!  O.K., I make my point.  Then I took a minute to read the example again, and really think about it.  Some very basic ethical issues broke down there.  It wasn't the stupidness or the weakness of the people that floats to the surface as the ideas presented decompose in my brain.  No, it's that the whole episode was so unnecessary.

 

I live in a unique area.  North of me about fifteen miles is an Amish Community.  East of me about nine miles is another Amish Community, and west of me is another Amish Community and two Mennonite Communities, all with different rules.  The one north of me admits no one but Amish or Mennonites.  The one west of me admits proselytes, but only as the wife of an Amish man.  The one to the east of me admits anybody who will become Amish. 

To the south of me is a Mormon splinter community with about half polygamists and half monogamists.  You are welcome there if you believe that polygamy is necessary for salvation, even if you don't practice the principle yourself, and if you agree that all things government are evil and should be abolished.

The other ICs close to me are anarchist and don't really come into this discussion, since the only criteria they require is that you donate everything you own to the community upon admission and then you must render up everything you might make to the community thereafter.  You must also give up the SS Number and file some kind of suit against the Treasury for the return of the money I guess they've got from mortgaging our birth certificates.  I don't mix with them much, but they call for help from time to time.

What I think is interesting is that all these groups are ICs based in some principle, or a group of principles, they call "spiritual."  I am a rank outsider and get to see the inner workings because I have become rather well known as a Healer in the area, I make house calls, and I ask only whatever donation for my services that the individual or family deems appropriate.  They all know I'm a pretty scary, mixed bag of religious beliefs myself and that I am never apt to agree with them.  But they also know that I don't believe in dictating the beliefs of others.  They have become comfortable with that, so I get to see them in their work clothes, so to speak.

What I have observed with all of them is that (except the anarchist who I don't care to get to know very well) is that, as diverse as they are, they all have the same idea where the use of the land is concerned.  The Amish in our area have no problem with the use of chemical soil amendments, herbicides, pesticides and fungicides, and neither do the Mennonites.  They have created fescue deserts identical to their neighbors who practice agriculture.  The Mormon splinter doesn't have any philosophy at all about such things, so anything goes.  They have crowded forty or so families onto one rocky piece of property and have created one of the ugliest, sickest forests in the area.

I have also observed that each of these groups use the same justification when I ask them about land stewardship.  They quote the bible and the fact that God gave Adam dominion over all the earth.

I believe that if each of these ICs adopted the Permaculture Ethic of care of the earth, care of people, reduce consumption and return the surpluses into the system, they could actually call themselves "Spiritually Based."  But because of its connection with environmentalism, every one of these ICs deem Permaculture to be "Of the Devil."  Their own bad and unsustainable, status-quo practices, practices that have proven disastrous, are all God-Ordained, and therefore, they are justified in hurting the earth and contributing to an uninhabitable planet for future generations.  Spiritual-based, and immoral.

What is a working definition of Consensus.  I think the Native American version may not jive with what most people use.

Consensus Groups, back in the day, involved in three groups of people that, it was to be hoped, would come together into one.  The first was the people proposing an idea.  They would be the pros.  The second was the people opposing an idea.  They would be the cons.  The third was the folks who didn't really care to argue about it.  By the end of the debate, all in favor gave a thumbs up.  If there were still opposed, they gave a thumbs down.  The folks who didn't require everybody to agree with them, gave a thumbs sideways.  Consensus wasn't reached until all the thumbs were either up or sideways.  It never meant that everybody's thumbs had to be up. 

The common thought today seems to be that all the thumbs have to be up to reach consensus.  This underscores a basic flaw in the premise.  Back in the day, the people knew that everybody agreeing was next to impossible, but they didn't expect it.  They also didn't require everybody to agree with them.  Maybe that's why consensus seems so difficult to obtain in modern culture.  We're so bent on everybody agreeing with us 100% that consensus is just too hard to expect.

Hmm, sorry to give you the wrong impression.  Our chapters elect their own Councils.  Their leadership originates within them.  As the EPMC, I get to hold the feather and insure harmony and courtesy in the yearly Great Council.  I may only advise the Chapters when they ask for advice, and then I'm big into requiring that they make their own decisions.   

Hey, I did miss one of your questions.  We are Nemenhah, a Native American Traditional Organization with Tribal Holy People representing 57 Federal and Crown Recognized Tribes, and a whole lot of disenfranchised mixed-bloods and adopteds.  As a convocation of Healers and Traditional Spiritual Leaders, our mission is five-fold.  1)  Heal the Individual, 2) Heal the Family, 3) Heal the Community, 4) Heal Society, and 5) Heal the Planet.  Over the past ten years we have been learning how consensus works and we've really been concentrating on the first three aspects of our mission.  Permaculture is my contribution to #5.  We are honored that Mollison and Holmgren observed Indigenous Peoples and, to be honest, we're pretty thankful that they brought together such a model for restoring a sustainable future.

See, I don't get that whole dominion over everything bit.  We do not dominate the bacteria that live in our guts.  We live our lives without even knowing they're there at all.  But by God when they are not there doing their job, we know it then don't we?  When we swallow the antibiotic and the diabukus of the blowhole is about turning us inside out, is that what "subdue" the earth means?

Here is a fundamental belief system that must be re-thought.  If Spirituality-based ICs have domination of people or place at their core, how can they sustain?

"Permaculture" per Mollison, is a system driven by an ethic.  That system is itself designed to bring about surpluses - surpluses of food, surpluses of energy, what have you.  By the foundational ethic, when a surplus of whatever kind are produced, they are returned into the system.  This exciting paradigm shift is perhaps what makes the system important culturally.

I consider Toby Hemenway's book "Gaia's Garden" to be one of the jewels of my library.  I willingly paid $30.00 for the book and consider it money well spent.  (Thank you Toby).  The book contains perhaps one sixth the content of Mollison's "Permaculture."  It's smaller and worth the money.  "Permaculture" is bigger, fuller, more comprehensive, and contains a great deal more information and techniques than "Gaia's Garden."  Both are worth the money. 

Now, if the information in these two books were identical, I would really take exception to $185.00.  Fact is, they are identically priced, in terms of the information provided.  If "Permaculture's" price is misuse, then so is "Gaia's Gardens."  Mollison sells his book and obtains a surplus.  That surplus is returned into the system through the underwritten training he has provided over the years, as well as the large-scale planting of trees. 

Plumbers plumb.  Loggers log.  Mechanics mechanic.  Doctors doctor.  Writers write.  Shame or no shame, a person ought to be able to expect to make a living.  By the formula I'm getting from you, I know I could make what you do for a living at least as immoral as writing and copyrighting a book. 

In my state, if you say to someone that you are a Neurosurgeon, you had better be one.  To say that you are when you are not is a felony and you will go to jail.  "Permaculture" is a design system which has been defined.  Permaculture is "....".  Whatever we put between those quotes ought to be accurate.  When we say "Permaculture" we are actually using sort of an acronym.  We're really saying, "There's this here design system developed by Bill Mollison and Jeff Holgren that ..."  What the internet and "open source" has obtained for us is a way to say, "There's this design system developed by, oh, well, you don't need to know that, it's not important, that ..."  I think that just sucks.  Open source is great, but I wouldn't go into my mechanic's shop and wait till he's working on a car and then take the money from his till.  To do so, or to do anything like it, is absolutely contrary to anybody's definition of "Permaculture." 

I am designing and implementing.  When my food forest is "popping," as Toby Hemenway puts it, I will make my system open to anybody.  I'll want everybody to see it and to learn maybe a little bit that they can use in designing their own.  I'll let people on my network know of the demonstration and I'll organize events around it.  I'll suggest a donation amount, but I will also gratefully accept whatever amount of money they decide is appropriate for the experience.  That's the way I operate.  I expect dollars to be attached and I'm alright with that.  I don't see anything immoral in it, any more than gratefully accepting whatever a sick person feels is appropriate for the services I render them as a Medicine Man.

Mollison put his life into providing an incredible insight for us.  I think it's the height and breadth of immorality to parrot his words as if they are my own without even giving any credit to him at least for giving expression to them.  I have a very high opinion of my own opinion, and I do think that now and again I do have an original idea.  But I also know that most of what I have learned about sustainable design has originated in Mollison's work.  I think we ought to follow his great example.  He wrote a big book that is full of information he got from his own research, and also from the work of others. Whenever he used the work of others in his book, he meticulously gave credit to those other sources.  We should too. 

Don't offer a course on "Eco-Agriculture" and use exact quotes from Mollison and Holmgren, and fail to give credit where it is due.  That to me is just like pirating a movie off the internet.  It's stealing from the till when the clerk isn't looking.  It is not a practice that will ever be sustainable, for, though it must be admitted that you benefit, and you think that's good, yet you deprive another - injure another - by your benefiting.   

It is a very basic doctrine of my Native American Religion that to use a gift given by the Creator without careful stewardship is to disregard the Creator.  To use up the good of the earth is that kind of disregard. 

What I don't understand is how people, especially Christians, get the idea that they can do whatever needs to be done with the earth, and still be O.K. with their God.  Lookit.  Even if we use the metaphor that the Earth is God's footstool, when was the last time you went into your neighbor's house and pissed on her sofa?  Never!  Me neither!  It's just not any kind of etiquette anywhere.  Where in the Bible does it suggest that we mere humans would ever be justified in destroying God's footstool?  I don't get it.

But this thread is not about all that.  I apologize for going there, but, you know, I just don't get a sense that "Spiritually Based" ICs really are, unless part of the doctrine demands that their members at least treat God's furniture as we would wish our neighbor treat ours.