Without citing examples, it's interesting to me to see posts by some people on this forum, a few who have posted hundreds and even thousands of times(!), who obviously have never read/can't be bothered to read/don't want to be tainted by any of the permaculture literature. Indeed, it's as if to say that if you've read something you're somehow not as "free" to have your own opinion as those who know nothing, or know something from only "experience," whatever that means. Bizarre.
I'm not saying anyone should have to study the "Designer's Manual" like the Bible at Sunday School, or have taken a PDC before they're allowed to post. I'm not saying you even have to agree with the literature in whole or part. But it sure would enlighten the discussion if some people were to have at least read the key texts, save for those just popping in to ask some questions or solve a problem, bless their hearts.
I'd love for someone to flame me on this, because at least it might help me to understand this mentality, which just baffles me. I assure you, I can take it. In fact, I'll offer a prize to anyone with the best refutation!
Question to Ponder: How do you talk about something -- pro or con or indifferent -- without at least knowing what the hell you're talking about?
I've pondered your question and here is my response: The truth value of a statement is independent of the source. It doesn't matter who says what; the issue is whether it is true or not. You can't know anyone's experience, you only get to know what they say their experience is. (Wittgenstein's beetle in a box problem.)
It doesn't matter how many acres you have or just say you have... or what I have. The only thing that matters is whether your statements check out or not. My point was basically that in order to talk about permaculture it's a good idea to have read some of the core texts. It gives people a common 'experience', a set of concepts, some language, a frame of reference and a set of analytical tools to help in discussing issues, solving problems, etc., so they can do something better with their experience. And I very much stand by it.
The alternative education route would be the Sepp Holzer route of spending tons of time observing nature and dreaming about making systems that work, but there are very, very few people who have the opportunity, background, time, or inclination for that. Reading is a lot more accessible.
I got this out of a book
The flavors of the peach and the apricot are not lost from generation to generation. Neither are they transmitted by book-learning.
I hope all that flavor will actually help you grow some peaches, or know what to plant with them or how or why or to know how to benefit the soil. You go ahead and defend until you're blue your right to ignore the writings of those much more experienced and knowledgeable than you. Sorry you won't have what so many are willing to give you. Enjoy your peaches and skip the readings. It would be a distinct waste of time for you. Good luck.
Emerson White wrote:
Some things must be experienced to be known, none of those things are technologies, and no humans could survive with out technologies. We are simply too frail. If you look back in history, or across cultures today, none of them survive except by transmitted knowledge.
So did they get the prime knowledge from the Klingons? because someone had to figure it out first....(please note, I'm trying to make a j-o-k-e)
we survived pretty good for eons with a stick and a rock--you won't get very far trying to defend yourself from a charging bear by pointing your iphone at it and shaking it to use the gunfire app. Maybe you can make the bear gag on the iphone if you make him eat it...