Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [fukuoka_farming] Natural RoundUp

Expand Messages
  • Michael Vanecek
    Then the laws of natural selection would dictate that those who persist in living in their own filth and poisons and consuming all their resources will die of
    Message 1 of 21 , Jun 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Then the laws of natural selection would dictate that those who persist
      in living in their own filth and poisons and consuming all their
      resources will die of disease, poisoning, genetic weakening and
      starvation, leaving those who manage their wastes and resources to carry
      on assuming they too are not effected by the resource destruction...
      Hmmm, what an interesting world *that* would be.

      Cheers,
      Mike

      John Warner wrote:
      > WHEREAS, the human species is a natural species and all species naturally change and affect their environment, IT CAN THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED that all envirnmental changes affected by human beings are natural.
    • kowtaaia
      John,
      Message 2 of 21 , Jun 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        John,

        << "WHEREAS, the human species is a natural species and all species
        naturally change and affect their environment, IT CAN THEREFORE BE
        CONCLUDED that all envirnmental changes affected by human beings are
        natural." >>


        Not so,sir. The organism is 'natural'. The ego,the subjective
        state,the psychological phenomenon,the sensation of being a something
        (it is all the same thing),is a mistake of the thinking process. It's
        illusory existence and the effects of that on the natural world are
        wholly unnatural. Nature is without the 'me'.
      • norie
        ... Slightly related to this subject, allow me to share a lovely quote from Stephen Jay Gould from his essay on An Evolutionary Perspective on the Concept of
        Message 3 of 21 , Jun 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          > Nature is without the 'me'.

          Slightly related to this subject, allow me to share a lovely quote from
          Stephen Jay Gould from his essay on 'An Evolutionary Perspective on the
          Concept of Native Plants' (in which he also discusses a shocking concept of
          Nazis trying to eliminate all non-native plants in Germany!):

          "... "art" should be defiined as the caring, tasteful, and intelligent
          *modification* (in italics) of nature for respectful human utility. If we
          can practice this art in partnership with nature, rather than by
          exploitation (and if we also set aside large areas for rigidly minimal
          distrubance, so that we never forget, and may continue to enjoy, what nature
          accomplished during nearly all of her history without us), then we may
          acheive optimal balance."

          And he goes on to speak about the respect of nature through mixing native
          and exotic plants (another fascinating and complex subject), and quotes Jens
          Jensen (?): "When we are willing to give each plant a chance fully to
          develop its beauty, so as to give us all it possesses without any
          interference, then and only then shall we enjoy ideal landscapes made by
          man."

          This makes clear the point that it is respectful of man to enjoy nature with
          minimal, if any, interference....and that is what should make a man
          respectful.

          Norie Fukuda
          Tokyo

          ps. (Out of curiousity, anyone else read Stephen Jay Gould?)
        • Robert Monie
          Hi Norie, If you can read Stephan Jay Gould, you can read Toby Hemenway on guilds. You just might need a good dictionary for some of the botanical and farming
          Message 4 of 21 , Jun 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Norie,

            If you can read Stephan Jay Gould, you can read Toby Hemenway on guilds. You just might need a good dictionary for some of the botanical and farming terms. As a somewhat maverick evolutionary biologist, Gould had a unique perspective on such matters as native plants. The essay you have found is a classic. Many of his writings could also have been used as a running commentary on recent threads here. For example, his essay on the mis-measure of man finds much to question in the concept of IQ. He points out that "science" through the ages has been perverted to support any number of superstitions, such as the idea that by feeling the pattern of bumps on a person's head, that person's criminality and intellectual worth could be judged and quantified (a pesudo-science called phrenology).

            One of my favorite Gould essays concerns the intuitive discoveries of Leonardo Da Vinci in geology and evolution. In the same essay, I believe, Gould remarks that Leonardo sometimes refused to make weapons he had designed available to the princes and kings, so fearful was he how they would use them.


            Gould's "partnership with nature" is a lovely phrase, reminiscent of Thoreau. Where Gould recommends an "intelligent modification," Thoreau (in his long essay "Walking") counsels that "the highest that we can attain to is not Knowledge, but Sympathy with Intelligence." Just as Gould wished to leave significant parts of nature uncultivated, Thoreau
            wished to "not have every man nor every part of a man cultivated, any more than I would have every acre of earth cultivated: part will be tillage, but the greater part will be meadow and forest, not only serving an immediate use, but preparing a mould against a distant future, by the annual decay of the vegetation which it supports."

            "Sympathy with Intelligence" means not just having a good feeling for nature but vibrating in synch with it, riding its waves, experiencing its ebbs and flows. Thoreau had walked the woods of Concord so often and taken so many notes, that he could anticipate the exact time any one of dozens of plants would make their appearance in each season. At the time he died, he had been working on a biological clock of Concord that would model the unfolding of its plant life. He studied the ways that animals transported seeds stuck to their fur or passing through their bowels. He traced the succession of forest trees, making significant contributions to the emerging science of phenology (very different from the pseudo-science of phrenology--one spelled without the "r" and the other with the "r.") Thoreau's "mould" accumulating in the forest to serve the needs of a "distant future" is just the kind of planning we negelect to do today. He knew that you could let the forest do the accumulating (rather than cutting it to pieces for matchsticks) and it would take care of the future. He knew sustainability when he saw it.

            Striking also are the points of agreement between Thoreau, a 19th Century New England transcendentalist believer and Gould, a
            20th-Century New England unbeliever. People of very different faiths can eat at the same table. I trust that Enlightenment skeptic Voltaire, visionary William Blake, believing dualist Descartes, rationalist John Locke, and atheist Jean Paul Sartre could all be easily taught to grow vegetables in mulch the Fukuoka way, and the plants would come up for each, hardly caring what these strange two-legged, oxygen-breathing creatures believed. To the plants, these gardeners would all be silly featherless bipeds, no matter what vanities they entertained about the products of their thought.

            Keep reading and planting Norie; tell us what you've grown.

            Bob Monie, noticing buckwheat clustering heavily in and around lemon balm. Is that chance alone or some kind of guild?




            norie <nfukuda@...> wrote:

            > Nature is without the 'me'.

            Slightly related to this subject, allow me to share a lovely quote from
            Stephen Jay Gould from his essay on 'An Evolutionary Perspective on the
            Concept of Native Plants' (in which he also discusses a shocking concept of
            Nazis trying to eliminate all non-native plants in Germany!):

            "... "art" should be defiined as the caring, tasteful, and intelligent
            *modification* (in italics) of nature for respectful human utility. If we
            can practice this art in partnership with nature, rather than by
            exploitation (and if we also set aside large areas for rigidly minimal
            distrubance, so that we never forget, and may continue to enjoy, what nature
            accomplished during nearly all of her history without us), then we may
            acheive optimal balance."

            And he goes on to speak about the respect of nature through mixing native
            and exotic plants (another fascinating and complex subject), and quotes Jens
            Jensen (?): "When we are willing to give each plant a chance fully to
            develop its beauty, so as to give us all it possesses without any
            interference, then and only then shall we enjoy ideal landscapes made by
            man."

            This makes clear the point that it is respectful of man to enjoy nature with
            minimal, if any, interference....and that is what should make a man
            respectful.

            Norie Fukuda
            Tokyo

            ps. (Out of curiousity, anyone else read Stephen Jay Gould?)



            Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            fukuoka_farming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







            ---------------------------------
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • animaphile
            ... naturally change and affect their environment, IT CAN THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED that all envirnmental changes affected by human beings are natural. ... Yes,
            Message 5 of 21 , Jun 7, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "John Warner" <daddyoat@n...>
              wrote:
              > WHEREAS, the human species is a natural species and all species
              naturally change and affect their environment, IT CAN THEREFORE BE
              CONCLUDED that all envirnmental changes affected by human beings are
              natural.
              >
              Yes, exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
              Large Machines are natural, but may not be sustainable nature.
              Skyscrapers are natural, but may not be sustainable nature.
              Social breakdown is natural, but may not be sustainable nature.
              Laboratory made legal & illegal drugs are natural, but may not be
              sustainable nature.
              Poisons are natural, but may not be sustainable nature.
              Vile things like torture is natural, but are clearly not sustainable
              nature.
              Vile things like paedophilia are natural, but are clearly not
              sustainable nature.
              Vile things like Rape are natural, but are clearly not sustainable
              nature.
              Vile things like Genocide are natural, but are clearly not
              sustainable nature.
              Everything that happens on earth, in the universe is natural, but
              some things are dominated by one small part of nature like humans -
              human-dominated nature while the rest is broad, spontaneous, MU, no-
              contrived nature including humans and their unsustainable mistakes
              but not being dominated by humans which is evidently masochistic in
              the long-term! One could coin a new word for the english language
              with credit to Fukuoka by saying Mu-nature as oppposed to general
              nature and to human-dominated nature.

              So the important starting point becomes what kind of life do you and
              i each personally want, do we each consciously tell yourself (self-
              talk) that we want to be happy and healthy or do we get carried away
              by all the unhappy people around us for those of us in materialistic
              largely unhappy societies. Do we want to be sustainable now, or
              sometime in the future, or just hope & dream that someone else can do
              it somewhere else. If we each raise our personal standards now to the
              sustainable level then practice it now (practice what we preach) then
              we set an example to all our family, family friends, friends,
              neighbours, workmates etc. Setting an empirical example is much more
              effective than preaching ever is, and obviously this is one reason
              why Fukuoka does not want followers or to be put up on a pedastal as
              a guru when he wants everyone to practice life and food equally with
              him to the same standard rather than looking up to him. Just like
              Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi etc. We dont need to idolise these people or
              anyone. Do we tell ourselves that we want to kill this plant, this
              animal or do we tell ourselves that we are happy and will kill this
              animal or chop down one tree because it is necessary (not wanting to
              but need to) for today's food. For example do we each tell ourselves
              that were we spend our money today doesn't matter because the
              recievers of our money are responsible for what they do with the
              money. Well, it is not a zero-sum-game, responsibility, if another
              person receives our money and is responsible for what they do with it
              that doesn't subtract from our responsibilty of what we do/did with
              the money. In the so called 1st world, developed places on earth, our
              money is one of our most powerful resources, because many of us have
              been acquiring that in part as an attempted substitute for land
              acreage, ecosystem quality, social quality, intimate personal
              relationships with biodiversity and psychological/spiritual quality
              as compared with indigenous people who have these things directly not
              substitutes of currency (ie not the liquidity of resources that money
              has). This disproportionate amount of money is our limitation but is
              also our opportunity to actively encourage activities we tell
              ourselves we want by spending our money on them and to discourage
              other activities by boycotting or minimising spending money on those.
              It works in supermarkets i speak to my supermarket purchasers about
              the knew more nearly MU-nature products i get them to order in for me
              and they tell me that they are selling well, not just because i
              bought a whole lot and gave them out to my friends as gifts.

              Love to all,
              Animaphile
            • Tim Peters
              John! you are so right! EVERTHING happening IS NATURAL! Given the elements of nature involved we see what we see (in a given instance). Natural in no wise
              Message 6 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                John! you are so right! EVERTHING happening IS NATURAL! Given the elements
                of nature involved we see what we see (in a given instance). Natural in no
                wise equates out to healthful. ...otherwise we should all join Socrates for
                a glass of hemlock tea, or yes some of you would prefer it raw, huh?

                Cannibals and head-hunters are 'natural' also... And totally unlike the
                presumption re. natural selection on the part of Mike, it is the wasters,
                the filthy, the consumers, the destroyers that win-out much of the time.
                It is the Alleopathic principle. ..The most aggressive and stifling, the
                most alleopathic, they win in this world... unless some higher power comes
                along and weeds the garden (mulch, hoe, or Round-up. ...whatever).

                .It is like I have said many times, and seen proven countless times, it is
                survival of the least desirable, meanest, nastiest, toughest, most coniving
                and deceitful... unless God/higher power/Fukuoka/you steps in and puts a
                halt to it. ...Look at how the Aztecs became a terror to all surrounding
                and perhaps more humane and enviromentally friendly peoples. Then they fell
                to an even more cruel terror - the Spanish. And the Spanish by their slavery
                and cruelty made out-right human sacrifice seem humane.

                ...Look at Jacob and his family-nation go into Egypt, and prosper, ... then
                evil rose up against them and made them all slaves! ...and they would have
                likely been slaves to this day if God had not shown his power and will
                against Their rulers - The Pharoahs.

                ...just look at history, it is jammed - packed with evidence that the scum
                rises to the top, ...and shuts the light of day from all beneath it. Look
                at all the KKK's,Gestapo's, CIA's, KGB's, Mossad's,Nero's, Mohammed's,
                Hitler's, Stalin's, Pol Pott's, Mao Tse-tung's, Idi Amin's etc. etc. etc..

                If that were not true then the world before now would have been a vastly
                better place... Dr Weston Prices work, coupled with Dr. Murray's (studied
                sea-water and health of sea creatures, and sea-solids as fertilizer) would
                have, if accepted, wiped out most dental, mental, and health problems... and
                at a very low cost. ...Dr. Royal Rife's work on freqency's would have made
                cancers and parasites almost a thing of the past for all humans and domestic
                creatures, and at very very low cost. ... weeding, and spraying for insects
                could, by well designed and placed energy become FAR less needful. Chemical
                industries (many) would be more peanut size ...And we could all, rich and
                poor, enjoy relatively pollution free electricity generated by compass
                pointing forces - enough for lights, heating, cooling, powering our
                vehicles, whatever... but energy is big business...and they want to keep
                it that way. ...everything is bigger business the way it is, and the human
                powers that be wish to keep it that way. 'To hell' or the nearest volcano
                with you if you mess with their profits! ....


                > Then the laws of natural selection would dictate that those who persist
                > in living in their own filth and poisons and consuming all their
                > resources will die of disease, poisoning, genetic weakening and
                > starvation, leaving those who manage their wastes and resources to carry
                > on assuming they too are not effected by the resource destruction...
                > Hmmm, what an interesting world *that* would be.
                >
                > Cheers,
                > Mike
                >
                > John Warner wrote:
                > > WHEREAS, the human species is a natural species and all species
                naturally change and affect their environment, IT CAN THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED
                that all envirnmental changes affected by human beings are natural.
                >
                >
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > fukuoka_farming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
              • Ingrid Bauer/Jean-Claude Catry
                ... change and affect their environment, IT CAN THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED that all envirnmental changes affected by human beings are natural. I hope you are not
                Message 7 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  > WHEREAS, the human species is a natural species and all species naturally
                  change and affect their environment, IT CAN THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED that all
                  envirnmental changes affected by human beings are natural.


                  I hope you are not serious !

                  all species are contribuating TOGETHER to makes their environment and humans
                  seems to have decided on their own who have a right or not to participate
                  in the dance .Do i have to remind us how many species have been excluded
                  in the process .
                  Have we not realised that we are chipping away bit by bit , part of
                  ourselves ?
                  death is also natural yet we want to live , no ?
                  We are not OBLIGED to poor choices .

                  The fact that humans can't step out of nature is the reminder to stop trying
                  .
                  There is a wishfull illusion there going on in human minds , not because
                  they are unatural but because they are split betwen their own nature and
                  their wishes.

                  jean-claude
                • Ingrid Bauer/Jean-Claude Catry
                  Natural in no ... for ... actually in its raw undenatured state i defy you to be able to enjoye its taste. you will be stopped . by making a tea or altering in
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Natural in no
                    > wise equates out to healthful. ...otherwise we should all join Socrates
                    for
                    > a glass of hemlock tea, or yes some of you would prefer it raw, huh?

                    actually in its raw undenatured state i defy you to be able to enjoye its
                    taste. you will be stopped .
                    by making a tea or altering in other ways its NATURE ( the way it presents
                    itself to animals and humans in nature ) , you can cheat your body in
                    accepting it .
                    a glass of hemlock tea is just not natural , can't find it in Nature .
                    Is it so hard to see the difference ?

                    jean-claude
                  • Tim Peters
                    Not so,sir. The organism is natural . The ego,the subjective state,the psychological phenomenon,the sensation of being a something (it is all the same
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "Not so,sir. The organism is 'natural'. The ego,the subjective
                      state,the psychological phenomenon,the sensation of being a something
                      (it is all the same thing),is a mistake of the thinking process. It's
                      illusory existence and the effects of that on the natural world are
                      wholly unnatural. Nature is without the 'me'."

                      ok... then give me an answer on this. If the organism is natural how can
                      anything arising from it be unnatural?
                    • jbmc@attglobal.net
                      ... * * * * * * * If i understand You correctly, Mr. Kowtaaia, You are suggesting that the emergence of the Human ego is a patholo- gical phenomenon. I
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Mr. kowtaaia wrote:

                        > Not so,sir. The organism is 'natural'. The ego,the subjective
                        > state,the psychological phenomenon,the sensation of being a something
                        > (it is all the same thing),is a mistake of the thinking process. It's
                        > illusory existence and the effects of that on the natural world are
                        > wholly unnatural. Nature is without the 'me'.

                        * * * * * * *
                        If i understand You correctly, Mr. Kowtaaia, You are
                        suggesting that the emergence of the Human "ego" is a patholo-
                        gical phenomenon.

                        I experience no difficulty in understanding that an altered
                        biochemical status of the Organism will give rise to an altered
                        - and therefore erroneous - thinking and emotional process. In
                        the context of this Organism-Mind relationship, it may well be
                        that the ego is an erroneous impression.

                        Where i find serious difficulty, however, is in envisioning
                        a Human Being without the "i". Specifically, i fail to understand
                        how a Human could be a Human deprived of the distinctive
                        faculty of self-awareness. Without the "i", wouldn't a Human look
                        and act like an animal ? Wouldn't He become a mechanistic part
                        of Nature ?

                        Please!, share with us Your view on this matter.

                        Thank You,

                        jb Mirabile-caruso.
                      • jbmc@attglobal.net
                        ... It did arise from the Organism, Mr. Peters. ... It may well have been caused by an unnatural substance perverting the natural Human biochemistry. ...
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mr. Tim Peters wrote:

                          > tell me please, where did the mistake in the thinking arise??

                          It did arise from the Organism, Mr. Peters.

                          > what caused
                          > it?

                          It may well have been caused by an "unnatural"
                          substance perverting the "natural" Human biochemistry.

                          > how did unnatural come to be, if all before it was natural?

                          It could well have become "unnatural" in force of the
                          altered "naturalness" of the Organism. A state of drunkness, for
                          instance, would eloquently answer Your question.

                          Regards,

                          jb Mirabile-caruso.
                        • Tim Peters
                          ... ...I mean, I can see how it could be that the organism gives rise to good or evil... tell me please, where did the mistake in the thinking arise?? what
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > "Not so,sir. The organism is 'natural'. The ego,the subjective
                            > state,the psychological phenomenon,the sensation of being a something
                            > (it is all the same thing),is a mistake of the thinking process. It's
                            > illusory existence and the effects of that on the natural world are
                            > wholly unnatural. Nature is without the 'me'."
                            >
                            > ok... then give me an answer on this. If the organism is natural how can
                            > anything arising from it be unnatural?
                            >

                            ...I mean, I can see how it could be that the organism gives rise to good or
                            evil...

                            tell me please, where did the mistake in the thinking arise?? what caused
                            it? how did unnatural come to be, if all before it was natural?

                            ...nature everywhere, every creature is and lives the life of a 'me'.
                            everything about them says, ' I am me, and I intend to stay me and not be
                            digested into you', or 'please, let me be me, please, respect me'
                          • kowtaaia
                            jb Mirabile-caruso,
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jun 9, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              jb Mirabile-caruso,

                              << "Where i find serious difficulty, however, is in envisioning
                              a Human Being without the "i". Specifically, i fail to understand
                              how a Human could be a Human deprived of the distinctive
                              faculty of self-awareness. Without the "i", wouldn't a Human look
                              and act like an animal ? Wouldn't He become a mechanistic part
                              of Nature ?" >>


                              Ego cannot 'envision' its own non existence. Non ego is not
                              deprivation. Awareness is a centerless field. The 'self',the center
                              of experience,negates the manifestation of the field and gives the
                              illusory sensation of awareness radiating outward from the organism.
                              The 'inner' division of thinker and thought is projected on the so
                              called outside world. It separates organism from environment. In
                              truth,there is only interelation. Nature is organism,not
                              mechanism.

                              Regards,
                              Kowtaaia.

                              PS. This forum would be better served if it was set up in "folder"
                              format.
                            • kowtaaia
                              Tim Peters,
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jun 9, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Tim Peters,

                                << "ok... then give me an answer on this. If the organism is natural
                                how can anything arising from it be unnatural?
                                ...I mean, I can see how it could be that the organism gives rise to
                                good or evil...
                                tell me please, where did the mistake in the thinking arise?? what
                                caused it? how did unnatural come to be, if all before it was
                                natural?
                                ...nature everywhere, every creature is and lives the life of a 'me'.
                                everything about them says, ' I am me, and I intend to stay me and
                                not be digested into you', or 'please, let me be me, please, respect
                                me'" >>

                                "How" is the wrong question. The ego did not arise from the organism.
                                It is an error of a process of the (human) organism. Do you see the
                                difference? The error of thinking that created the ego,the sensation
                                of being a something,occured in the memory review function,when
                                thought mistook the accumulation of memory for an entity. Thought is
                                the response of memory,a process. Memory created the rememberer.

                                Your projection of ego on our fellow creatures is akin to seeing
                                castles in the clouds. There is no center of experience for them. You
                                confuse body with ego.

                                Regards Kowtaaia.
                              • Stephen Inniss
                                Ah, the old question of the raw and the cooked. Perhaps some members of this group are heartily sick of this topic by now, since like many useful words,
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jun 10, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Ah, the old question of the raw and the cooked. Perhaps some members of
                                  this group are heartily sick of this topic by now, since like many
                                  useful words, "natural" and "nature" are used in many different ways.
                                  Among other things, the word "natural" carries all kinds of freight with
                                  it, including overtones of "goodness" and "innocence" (thanks perhaps to
                                  Rousseau and others in the romantic tradition). It is far too easy to
                                  fall into philosphical wrangling on this account, and lose sight of our
                                  gardens.

                                  I believe a more down-to-earth sense of the word would be helpful in the
                                  context of our discussions. "Natural" is commonly used to refer to
                                  something that has not been modified by human beings, and "artificial"
                                  used to refer to items or environments that we have constructed or
                                  changed. Yes, we arise from and are part of nature, but it is still
                                  useful to draw a distinction between changes made by our species and
                                  those made by other agencies. There are two reasons for this.
                                  1) The changes we make are extremely varied and extensive. So far,
                                  for better or worse, we are the planet's arch-manipulators, and belong
                                  on that account in a category of our own.
                                  2) The kinds of changes we make, and whether we should make any
                                  changes at all, are subjects for discussion and debate. They can be
                                  influenced by words. Other kinds of changes, those brought about by what
                                  we call natural agencies, cannot.

                                  So, because we make such profound and various changes to the
                                  environment, and because these are also the only changes over which we
                                  have control, "natural" and "artificial" are useful distinctions.

                                  In this context, "natural farming" is a bit of a self-contradiction.
                                  However, I think that what Fukuoka and others have been saying is that
                                  if we pay close attention to nature (everything outside of our attempts
                                  to manipulate) then we will make more intelligent and beneficial
                                  changes. Our interventions will be less prone to dangerous side effects,
                                  and we will gain more for the effort we put out. Fukuoka's farm as he
                                  describes it was far from the natural state for that part of the world.
                                  The difference is that he was paying attention.

                                  Now, the really important questions:
                                  1) Will Fukuoka's approach put bread (and potatoes, onions, carrots,
                                  beans, cabbages....) on the table? If it does not, then further
                                  discussion is pointless. Starving people can discuss philosophy for a
                                  little while if they choose. Then they stop.
                                  2) Will it do so consistently, over what we humans would think of as
                                  a very long span of time? If we lived by these methods, could our
                                  descendants still be living by them on the same lands a thousand years
                                  from now? If so, this would be a first.
                                  3) How does this approach play out in different parts of the world?
                                  Fukukoka seems to have found a balance with nature in a single spot on
                                  this earth. What do other "natural farming" solutions look like?

                                  Thanks very much to those who have resurrected discussion of these three
                                  questions in other threads!

                                  Stephen




                                  John Warner wrote:

                                  > WHEREAS, the human species is a natural species and all species
                                  > naturally change and affect their environment, IT CAN THEREFORE BE
                                  > CONCLUDED that all envirnmental changes affected by human beings are
                                  > natural.
                                  >
                                • jamie
                                  Hello Stephen, thanks for sharing your experience of raised beds and also for this: Natural is commonly used to refer to something that has not been
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jun 10, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hello Stephen, thanks for sharing your experience of raised beds and also
                                    for this:

                                    ""Natural" is commonly used to refer to something that has not been modified
                                    by human beings, and "artificial" used to refer to items or environments
                                    that we have constructed or changed. Yes, we arise from and are part of
                                    nature, but it is still useful to draw a distinction between changes made by
                                    our species and those made by other agencies."

                                    Agreed, and perhaps we could enshrine the definition in the constitution of
                                    this group, that only leaves the "supernatural" to deal with, an area that
                                    seems to occupy many in this group<g>

                                    You write: "In this context, "natural farming" is a bit of a
                                    self-contradiction." Absolutely, and we should not shirk the implications of
                                    this ambiguity, it helps establish the inadequate nature of Fukuoka's ideas
                                    (an inadequacy he shares with every other idea: modern or ancient) that we
                                    must resolve each in their own way in harmony with their land.
                                    You write: "The difference is that he (Fukuoka) was paying attention." Or,
                                    put another way, he observed his environment closely and then had the
                                    ability to turn that observation into the pre-existing pathways of nature
                                    (and then he was also able to express that to those who sought out the huts
                                    on the mountain and those who picked up his books).

                                    As to your 'really important questions' I would answer:
                                    1) yes, 2) yes, and 3) NF 'must' vary according to place and crop - there
                                    are no single answers and it is the experimentation with crops and natural
                                    systems that must be done to allow the first two questions to be answered in
                                    the affirmative.

                                    Jamie
                                    Souscayrous
                                  • Tim Peters
                                    ... are you saying I or any of us are nothing more than a collection of memories??? are you saying that animals don t think???? and that they don t have
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jun 11, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > ...nature everywhere, every creature is and lives the life of a 'me'.
                                      > everything about them says, ' I am me, and I intend to stay me and
                                      > not be digested into you', or 'please, let me be me, please, respect
                                      > me'" >>
                                      >
                                      ..... Thought is
                                      > the response of memory,a process. Memory created the rememberer.
                                      >
                                      > Your projection of ego on our fellow creatures is akin to seeing
                                      > castles in the clouds. There is no center of experience for them. You
                                      > confuse body with ego.
                                      >
                                      > Regards Kowtaaia.
                                      >

                                      are you saying I or any of us are nothing more than a collection of
                                      memories???

                                      are you saying that animals don't think???? and that they don't have
                                      memories????

                                      How do you know there is no center of experience for our fellow creatures?

                                      Tim
                                    • kowtaaia
                                      Tim, The self is a bundle of memories. Animals have functional memory without the inner life of thought as the me . There is thought,the response of
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jun 12, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Tim,

                                        The self is a bundle of memories.

                                        Animals have functional memory without the inner life of thought as
                                        the 'me'. There is thought,the response of memory,without the
                                        word,without the illusory 'thinker'.

                                        There is a non dual perception that makes the state of our fellow
                                        creatures evident. In a cage filled with little birds,there is only
                                        despair.


                                        Kowtaaia.
                                      • Tim Peters
                                        Kowtaaia, ... hmm... ok... does that include genetic memory somewhat like wrinkles and warps in the fabric or material??? ...things you just know
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Jun 12, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Kowtaaia,


                                          > The self is a bundle of memories.

                                          hmm... ok... does that include 'genetic memory' somewhat like wrinkles and
                                          warps in the fabric or material??? ...things you just 'know' ...instinct
                                          and the like. ???

                                          >
                                          > Animals have functional memory without the inner life of thought as
                                          > the 'me'. There is thought,the response of memory,without the
                                          > word,without the illusory 'thinker'.

                                          To think the word 'me' is like 'so what' or 'big deal'! For every language
                                          it is a different word ! A different sound ! ...not being able to verbalize
                                          it does not mean it doesn't really, functionally exist! It doesn't even mean
                                          you haven't, as an animal concieved-percieved such a thing! Words are only
                                          one form in which a given thought can rest. ...lets be really real, ...I
                                          mean, I hope you can see the reality of that. If you can't ...well, try to
                                          tell me why.

                                          >
                                          > There is a non dual perception that makes the state of our fellow
                                          > creatures evident. In a cage filled with little birds,there is only
                                          > despair.

                                          Not so. As I see it you speak from a shallow and/or otherwise distorted
                                          experience, or use a bad illustration. Why then does that one little bird
                                          now have a different look in her eye? and cling to this side of the cage.

                                          ...What you say could be said of the average person in a comparable setting.
                                          ...

                                          Tim
                                        • kowtaaia
                                          Tim,
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Jun 12, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Tim,

                                            << "hmm... ok... does that include 'genetic memory' somewhat like
                                            wrinkles and
                                            warps in the fabric or material??? ...things you
                                            just 'know' ...instinct
                                            and the like. ???" >>


                                            The order is experience,knowledge,memory thought. It's easily
                                            observable. Don't confuse the brain with the self.

                                            << "To think the word 'me' is like 'so what' or 'big deal'! For
                                            every language it is a different word ! A different sound ! ...not
                                            being able to verbalize it does not mean it doesn't really,
                                            functionally exist! It doesn't even mean you haven't, as an animal
                                            concieved-percieved such a thing! Words are only one form in which a
                                            given thought can rest. ...lets be really real, ...I mean, I hope you
                                            can see the reality of that. If you can't ...well, try to
                                            tell me why." >>

                                            The first sentence is nonsense. Do you not understand what the
                                            word 'me' refers to? Is it necessary to translate that word into
                                            every language? It's a referent for the sensation of being a
                                            something. Of course that sensation exists,it's the reality of
                                            illusion. You project that illusion on the so called outside world.
                                            Your idea of animals concieving/percieving themselves as illusory
                                            entities is ridiculous beyond words. Do you not like the fact that
                                            you are nothing?

                                            << "Not so. As I see it you speak from a shallow and/or otherwise
                                            distorted experience, or use a bad illustration. Why then does that
                                            one little bird now have a different look in her eye? and cling to
                                            this side of the cage." >>



                                            Contrary to what you say,the nondual is the true perception. Not
                                            separate,not two,doesn't mean "the same". There is no "poor me"
                                            (refer to the above if you don't understand) for the bird.
                                            Characteristics,but no character. Awareness is a field.
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.