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

Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books

Expand Messages
  • Steven McCollough
    Dieter, I must begin by saying I have enjoyed and profited by your posts in the past and continue to encourage your participation. I have posted infrequently
    Message 1 of 25 , Nov 10, 2008
      Dieter,

      I must begin by saying I have enjoyed and profited by your posts in the
      past and continue to encourage your participation. I have posted
      infrequently because my contributions have been solely on my experiences
      with natural farming which unfortunately are limited in extent and
      successes. I must say though your attitude seems more on the order of
      list proctor than participant. Also, please take advantage of quoting
      certain sections of the previous posts you are referring to. It took me
      nearly an hour to piece together who and what you were referring to even
      given the subject line similarity.

      Please see specific comments below.

      Dieter Brand wrote:
      > Vincente,
      >
      > Did you know that you can download two of Fukuoka’s books from Steve Solomon’s Soil and Health library at: soilandhealth.org?
      >
      This is the best single answer to all the previous posts as it addresses
      the property rights issue while still leaving those unable to purchase
      books an avenue to get knowledge.

      > To have a meaningful discussion we need to have the courage to tell the truth as we know it even if it is not trendy or popular. E.g., if a person, who never made any contribution to this group, suddenly turns up to sell Fukuoka’s books, then we need to be able to ask a question about copyright, which has often been discussed but never been answered. Somebody also needs to point out that to use another person’s labor to make a commercial profit by selling his work is neither legal nor moral.
      >
      I agree with this totally.
      >
      > To have a meaningful discussion we also need to reply to what the other person is trying to say and not use part of an argument as an opportunity to propagate our own ideology.
      >
      It seems to me over the years you have "used part of an argument as an
      opportunity to propagate our own ideology," more than just about anyone
      one the list. This is just so slippery a concept I don't know how you
      can differentiate your views and posts from propagating an ideology.
      Your views on dry land no till for example.

      > I think it is preferable to do so in our own words and not argue with the arguments of others by the PC’s copy and paste commands or by Internet links.
      >
      I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Only by using the whole body of
      discussion on an issue is the truth to be found. I find the arguments of
      higher authority just as valuable as the personal experience of the
      novice. Also, some on this list have more experience than others and
      feel this is authority enough for their arguments even when in contrast
      with a more prevalent view. I have a tremendous respect for your view,
      for example, while always looking for a counterpoint.

      > Regarding a World without private property (if that is what you are after), “real socialism”, the sole experiment of doing away with private property known to mankind, has collapsed under its own contradictions after tens of millions of death and hundreds of millions were reduced to extreme poverty and humiliation. They even managed the incredible feat of creating a high degree of penury for the people while at the same time squandering natural resources and destroying the environment in a big way.
      >
      The fact that you felt it necessary to defend intellectual property
      rights is a diversion of the list precepts in my view, as was your
      defense of anti socialism that followed. I, for example, attribute a
      different cause to squandering natural resources and destroying the
      environment.
      >
      > If you have any experience with farming and in particular with Natural Farming you know that a farmer needs to “own” his land;
      >
      I disagree with this also. While this is the paradigm we suffer with
      now, it may be a root problem. You, for example, have let the financial
      aspects of making a profitable farm operation affect all your views on
      natural farming. Some, if not most, on this list are interested in
      blending farming into life - not blend life into a farming.
      > Bible mentioned something about “giving” being nobler than “taking”. Alas, human avarice being what it is, that idea never made it very far. Yet by making an ideology out of freely taking what was made by others to serve our personal gain seems to propel human perversion to unknown levels. And you say that is Natural Farming!?
      >
      I must have missed where someone said freely taking what was made by
      others was natural farming. Giving is making more headway than you seem
      to give credit for. If we were to ask Fukuoka if his words should be
      available to all, I think he would say yes. Should we condone copyright
      infringement? No, that would be going too far. Should we encourage
      reasonable laws concerning copyright as was the main argument of some
      here? Yes.

      This reply is offered in respect and to further the discussions on the
      list. If, Dieter, you wish to win this as an argument, I'm sure you can
      with elegance as demonstrated by past eloquence. I would hope instead
      you see it as constructive review. Your "ideology" may not be visible to
      you, but it is to me. I would like to see more discussion of natural
      farming just as you suggested. Unfortunately this is not it whether as
      initiator or responder.

      Steven McCollough
    • Dieter Brand
      Steven,   Thanks for your comments and critique.    Whether or not to include quoted messages and how is a matter for debate.  I know one ML with a very
      Message 2 of 25 , Nov 11, 2008
        Steven,

        Thanks for your comments and critique.�

        Whether or not to include quoted messages and how is a matter for debate.� I know one ML with a very high quality of discussion that strictly censors quoted text to the effect of cutting it to a bare minimum or excluding it altogether. �Personally, I don�t have any strong views on this.� And even though this list doesn�t seem to have any particular rules, I usually try to formulate my messages as well as possible so that others may read them with ease.� If I was a little careless in this one case, it may have been because I didn�t know if anyone would actually read it since I often don�t get a response to my arguments, or, if reaction there is, it goes off on a tangent.� In that respect your response is encouraging.

        Do I act like a �proctor�, or is my aim to win arguments?� Well, I will try to think about this.� But what do you mean by my �ideology�, or ideology of dry-land farming?� You really lost me there.� Living in a region where food crops have been grown for centuries by dry-land farming, I have attempted to adapt Natural Farming to this environment by field work for nearly five years.� I have also tried to research the question in the literature and on the net.� Among other things, I have described my work and the results on this and half a dozen other lists in the hope of generating a debate or of getting some new input.� Where in all of this do you see an ideology?

        You are of course right in that we all use �parts of other people�s� speech to present our own views.� To reply to every single statement would generate endless worms of messages that would be completely unreadable.� But I think there is a fundamental difference between picking out one argument of a message in the middle of a thread dating back several months to use it out of context for propagating a �general idea� of free sharing, or whatever, that may or may not be valid and without presenting any arguments (hence �ideology�), on one the hand, and a qualified reply that tries, however imperfectly, to take into consideration the �gist� of what another person is trying to say, on the other hand.� Hence, I do take issue, with your claim that I �try to propagate an ideology more than anyone else on this list�.� If you make such sweeping accusation, the very least you have to do is to give some specific examples.

        Steven, this is getting too long and I don�t have time to answer your other points at present.� But perhaps you have misunderstood what I said or misinterpreted my intention.� It may also be that I didn�t express my thoughts as effectively as I would have liked to, or that, being of different cultural background and experience, my way of expressing myself feels a bit alien to you.� Please don�t forget that different varieties of English, using different modes of expression, are spoken around the World.� Hence, we need to treat each other with a degree of tolerance.� If I did criticize some willful or arbitrary posts in the past, it is not because I enjoy criticizing others, but because, for much of the time, the level of debate on this list really is rock bottom (if you think this is only my view, you are wrong).

        To finish, just let me say a word about the �gist� of what I�m trying to say (the part you forgot to quote): �I�m mainly interested in Natural farming�, how (or if) it can be practiced in environments different from that in which it was conceived, �and a constructive discussion of the same�.� Natural Farming probably means something different to each one of us.� Personally, I�m not interested in Natural Farming as an ideology or in Fukuoka�s philosophy; even though I have translated some of it to offer it to the group as a basis for discussion (that never happened). �I do subscribe to a number of Japanese groups on Natural Farming and know that there are people who, ideology aside, do develop practical methods for growing food for subsistence or market farming and gardening by what can broadly be described as �natural� means.� In different climates, these methods are of limited use; hence, I had hoped that this list would
        serve as a platform to discuss such issues.� Unfortunately I feel, that in all the years I have been subscribed to this list, discussions have rarely gone to the core of the matter, and arguments, if there are, are all too often presented as items of believe that cannot be discussed.

        Dieter Brand
        Portugal

        PS:� I will be off the net for a couple of weeks for �technical� reasons.� But will be back soon for further discussions.

        --- On Mon, 11/10/08, Steven McCollough <steb@...> wrote:

        From: Steven McCollough <steb@...>
        Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books
        To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 4:13 PM

        Dieter,

        I must begin by saying I have enjoyed and profited by your posts in the
        past and continue to encourage your participation. I have posted
        infrequently because my contributions have been solely on my experiences
        with natural farming which unfortunately are limited in extent and
        successes. I must say though your attitude seems more on the order of
        list proctor than participant. Also, please take advantage of quoting
        certain sections of the previous posts you are referring to. It took me
        nearly an hour to piece together who and what you were referring to even
        given the subject line similarity.

        Please see specific comments below.

        Dieter Brand wrote:
        > Vincente,
        >
        > Did you know that you can download two of Fukuoka�s books from Steve
        Solomon�s Soil and Health library at: soilandhealth.org?
        >
        This is the best single answer to all the previous posts as it addresses
        the property rights issue while still leaving those unable to purchase
        books an avenue to get knowledge.

        > To have a meaningful discussion we need to have the courage to tell the
        truth as we know it even if it is not trendy or popular. E.g., if a person, who
        never made any contribution to this group, suddenly turns up to sell Fukuoka�s
        books, then we need to be able to ask a question about copyright, which has
        often been discussed but never been answered. Somebody also needs to point out
        that to use another person�s labor to make a commercial profit by selling his
        work is neither legal nor moral.
        >
        I agree with this totally.
        >
        > To have a meaningful discussion we also need to reply to what the other
        person is trying to say and not use part of an argument as an opportunity to
        propagate our own ideology.
        >
        It seems to me over the years you have "used part of an argument as an
        opportunity to propagate our own ideology," more than just about anyone
        one the list. This is just so slippery a concept I don't know how you
        can differentiate your views and posts from propagating an ideology.
        Your views on dry land no till for example.

        > I think it is preferable to do so in our own words and not argue with the
        arguments of others by the PC�s copy and paste commands or by Internet links.
        >
        I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Only by using the whole body of
        discussion on an issue is the truth to be found. I find the arguments of
        higher authority just as valuable as the personal experience of the
        novice. Also, some on this list have more experience than others and
        feel this is authority enough for their arguments even when in contrast
        with a more prevalent view. I have a tremendous respect for your view,
        for example, while always looking for a counterpoint.

        > Regarding a World without private property (if that is what you are
        after), �real socialism�, the sole experiment of doing away with private
        property known to mankind, has collapsed under its own contradictions after tens
        of millions of death and hundreds of millions were reduced to extreme poverty
        and humiliation. They even managed the incredible feat of creating a high
        degree of penury for the people while at the same time squandering natural
        resources and destroying the environment in a big way.
        >
        The fact that you felt it necessary to defend intellectual property
        rights is a diversion of the list precepts in my view, as was your
        defense of anti socialism that followed. I, for example, attribute a
        different cause to squandering natural resources and destroying the
        environment.
        >
        > If you have any experience with farming and in particular with Natural
        Farming you know that a farmer needs to �own� his land;
        >
        I disagree with this also. While this is the paradigm we suffer with
        now, it may be a root problem. You, for example, have let the financial
        aspects of making a profitable farm operation affect all your views on
        natural farming. Some, if not most, on this list are interested in
        blending farming into life - not blend life into a farming.
        > Bible mentioned something about �giving� being nobler than
        �taking�. Alas, human avarice being what it is, that idea never made it
        very far. Yet by making an ideology out of freely taking what was made by
        others to serve our personal gain seems to propel human perversion to unknown
        levels. And you say that is Natural Farming!?
        >
        I must have missed where someone said freely taking what was made by
        others was natural farming. Giving is making more headway than you seem
        to give credit for. If we were to ask Fukuoka if his words should be
        available to all, I think he would say yes. Should we condone copyright
        infringement? No, that would be going too far. Should we encourage
        reasonable laws concerning copyright as was the main argument of some
        here? Yes.

        This reply is offered in respect and to further the discussions on the
        list. If, Dieter, you wish to win this as an argument, I'm sure you can
        with elegance as demonstrated by past eloquence. I would hope instead
        you see it as constructive review. Your "ideology" may not be visible
        to
        you, but it is to me. I would like to see more discussion of natural
        farming just as you suggested. Unfortunately this is not it whether as
        initiator or responder.

        Steven McCollough

        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links








        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Steven McCollough
        Dieter, Thank you for taking this in the context of improving the discussions on the list. ... I should have said, as much as anyone on the list. By ideology
        Message 3 of 25 , Nov 11, 2008
          Dieter,

          Thank you for taking this in the context of improving the discussions on
          the list.

          Dieter Brand wrote:
          > Steven,
          >
          > Thanks for your comments and critique.
          >
          > But what do you mean by my “ideology”
          > Hence, I do take issue, with your claim that I “try to propagate an ideology more than anyone else on this list”. If you make such sweeping accusation, the very least you have to do is to give some specific examples.
          >
          I should have said, "as much as anyone on the list." By ideology I mean
          those core values and impressions we have built up over the years that
          inform our perceptions of the world and natural farming in this case.
          From this one post I can point to (and did) the ideologies you are
          working under. A protective interest in defending personal property, a
          dislike of socialism, land ownership, etc.. These are not, you must
          admit, precepts of natural farming and are a distraction to the main
          topic. At the very least, they make the discussion expand to the extent
          we lose site of the original topic. Since your posts are also lengthy,
          these diversions are doubly deviating from the topic.
          > it is not because I enjoy criticizing others, but because, for much of the time, the level of debate on this list really is rock bottom (if you think this is only my view, you are wrong).
          >
          I can agree the discussions fall short of what they could be. Rock
          bottom and I would have left long ago. My point is this post of yours is
          no better in this respect. I believe we would have been better served if
          you would have pointed out the availability of the books on the Journey
          to Forever site, its implications for copyright issues and left it at
          that. On the other hand, your posts have more meat as a rule than the
          average so please don't leave.
          >
          > To finish, just let me say a word about the “gist” of what I’m trying to say (the part you forgot to quote)
          I didn't quote that because it was a sideline issue to your post. While
          probably the most important issue it was not your main point. From my
          earlier post: "I would like to see more discussion of natural farming
          just as you suggested."
          > : “I’m mainly interested in Natural farming”, how (or if) it can be practiced in environments different from that in which it was conceived, “and a constructive discussion of the same”. Natural Farming probably means something different to each one of us.
          This is a great summary of what we all want. Unfortunately, there is
          precious little I can add so I lurk most of the time.
          > I do subscribe to a number of Japanese groups on Natural Farming and know that there are people who, ideology aside, do develop practical methods for growing food for subsistence or market farming and gardening by what can broadly be described as “natural” means. In different climates, these methods are of limited use; hence, I had hoped that this list would
          > serve as a platform to discuss such issues.
          We need a person or persons that can bring this valuable information to
          our list, as I remember you have done on occasion.
          > Unfortunately I feel, that in all the years I have been subscribed to this list, discussions have rarely gone to the core of the matter, and arguments, if there are, are all too often presented as items of believe that cannot be discussed.
          >
          >
          >
          I have noticed this also, it seems the natural farming concept on the
          list is suffering from the same problems of dogma you see in organic
          gardening circles. It has come to the point organic growers can't
          certify because of an entrenchment of the concepts, at least in America.
          You can't have organic chicken that is fed meat, for example, even if
          the feed is organic and meat is part of their natural diet. You have
          argued a need to till in semi arid farming and have taken flak for
          breaking Fukuoka's four principles, while receiving precious little help
          from the list on how you might have overlooked something. Best of luck
          in your natural farming and thank you for informative posts.

          With respect

          Steve McCollough
          > From: Steven McCollough
          > Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books
          > To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 4:13 PM
          >
          > Dieter,
          >
          > I must begin by saying I have enjoyed and profited by your posts in the
          > past and continue to encourage your participation. I have posted
          > infrequently because my contributions have been solely on my experiences
          > with natural farming which unfortunately are limited in extent and
          > successes. I must say though your attitude seems more on the order of
          > list proctor than participant. Also, please take advantage of quoting
          > certain sections of the previous posts you are referring to. It took me
          > nearly an hour to piece together who and what you were referring to even
          > given the subject line similarity.
          >
          > Please see specific comments below.
          >
          > Dieter Brand wrote:
          >
          >> Vincente,
          >>
          >> Did you know that you can download two of Fukuoka’s books from Steve
          >>
          > Solomon’s Soil and Health library at: soilandhealth.org?
          >
          >>
          >>
          > This is the best single answer to all the previous posts as it addresses
          > the property rights issue while still leaving those unable to purchase
          > books an avenue to get knowledge.
          >
          >
          >> To have a meaningful discussion we need to have the courage to tell the
          >>
          > truth as we know it even if it is not trendy or popular. E.g., if a person, who
          > never made any contribution to this group, suddenly turns up to sell Fukuoka’s
          > books, then we need to be able to ask a question about copyright, which has
          > often been discussed but never been answered. Somebody also needs to point out
          > that to use another person’s labor to make a commercial profit by selling his
          > work is neither legal nor moral.
          >
          >>
          >>
          > I agree with this totally.
          >
          >>
          >> To have a meaningful discussion we also need to reply to what the other
          >>
          > person is trying to say and not use part of an argument as an opportunity to
          > propagate our own ideology.
          >
          >>
          >>
          > It seems to me over the years you have "used part of an argument as an
          > opportunity to propagate our own ideology," more than just about anyone
          > one the list. This is just so slippery a concept I don't know how you
          > can differentiate your views and posts from propagating an ideology.
          > Your views on dry land no till for example.
          >
          >
          >> I think it is preferable to do so in our own words and not argue with the
          >>
          > arguments of others by the PC’s copy and paste commands or by Internet links.
          >
          >>
          >>
          > I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Only by using the whole body of
          > discussion on an issue is the truth to be found. I find the arguments of
          > higher authority just as valuable as the personal experience of the
          > novice. Also, some on this list have more experience than others and
          > feel this is authority enough for their arguments even when in contrast
          > with a more prevalent view. I have a tremendous respect for your view,
          > for example, while always looking for a counterpoint.
          >
          >
          >> Regarding a World without private property (if that is what you are
          >>
          > after), “real socialism”, the sole experiment of doing away with private
          > property known to mankind, has collapsed under its own contradictions after tens
          > of millions of death and hundreds of millions were reduced to extreme poverty
          > and humiliation. They even managed the incredible feat of creating a high
          > degree of penury for the people while at the same time squandering natural
          > resources and destroying the environment in a big way.
          >
          >>
          >>
          > The fact that you felt it necessary to defend intellectual property
          > rights is a diversion of the list precepts in my view, as was your
          > defense of anti socialism that followed. I, for example, attribute a
          > different cause to squandering natural resources and destroying the
          > environment.
          >
          >>
          >> If you have any experience with farming and in particular with Natural
          >>
          > Farming you know that a farmer needs to “own” his land;
          >
          >>
          >>
          > I disagree with this also. While this is the paradigm we suffer with
          > now, it may be a root problem. You, for example, have let the financial
          > aspects of making a profitable farm operation affect all your views on
          > natural farming. Some, if not most, on this list are interested in
          > blending farming into life - not blend life into a farming.
          >
          >> Bible mentioned something about “giving” being nobler than
          >>
          > “taking”. Alas, human avarice being what it is, that idea never made it
          > very far. Yet by making an ideology out of freely taking what was made by
          > others to serve our personal gain seems to propel human perversion to unknown
          > levels. And you say that is Natural Farming!?
          >
          >>
          >>
          > I must have missed where someone said freely taking what was made by
          > others was natural farming. Giving is making more headway than you seem
          > to give credit for. If we were to ask Fukuoka if his words should be
          > available to all, I think he would say yes. Should we condone copyright
          > infringement? No, that would be going too far. Should we encourage
          > reasonable laws concerning copyright as was the main argument of some
          > here? Yes.
          >
          > This reply is offered in respect and to further the discussions on the
          > list. If, Dieter, you wish to win this as an argument, I'm sure you can
          > with elegance as demonstrated by past eloquence. I would hope instead
          > you see it as constructive review. Your "ideology" may not be visible
          > to
          > you, but it is to me. I would like to see more discussion of natural
          > farming just as you suggested. Unfortunately this is not it whether as
          > initiator or responder.
          >
          > Steven McCollough
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          >
          > No virus found in this incoming message.
          > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
          > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1779 - Release Date: 11/10/2008 7:53 AM
          >
          >
        • laurie (Mother Mastiff)
          Steven, It was my impression that both Dieter and I were objecting to someone coming to the group and posting nothing BUT other s information, including an
          Message 4 of 25 , Nov 11, 2008
            Steven,

            It was my impression that both Dieter and I were objecting to someone
            coming to the group and posting nothing BUT other's information,
            including an expressed desire to violate copyright laws.

            Let's talk about farming again, OK?

            laurie (Mother Mastiff)
            Southeastern USA (NC and FL)



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado
            ... Copyleft is based on copyright law and is totally legal. Always is the decision of authors. If I share my works (something that I always do), I don t
            Message 5 of 25 , Nov 11, 2008
              laurie (Mother Mastiff) escribió:
              > including an expressed desire to violate copyright laws.

              Copyleft is based on copyright law and is totally legal. Always is the
              decision of authors. If I share my works (something that I always do), I
              don't violate nothing.

              Good collection of misunderstandings.

              > Let's talk about farming again, OK?

              yes, please.
              --
              Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado

              http://homes.ourproject.org/~vjrj/blog
              http://ourproject.org

              "Recently, someone asked me if I believed in astrology. He seemed
              somewhat puzzled when I explained that the reason I don't is that I'm a
              Gemini." [Raymond Smullyan]
            • Dieter Brand
              Steven,   What do you mean by ideology?  The occasional joke aside, I m prepared to defend every single word I said on this and any other list by argument,
              Message 6 of 25 , Nov 11, 2008
                Steven,

                What do you mean by ideology?� The occasional joke aside, I'm prepared to defend every single word I said on this and any other list by argument, and if you or anyone�can show�my arguments to be erroneous, I'm prepared to say thank you, I was wrong, I see what you mean.� Is that ideology?

                >�From this one post I can point to (and did) the ideologies you are
                > working under. A protective interest in defending personal property, a
                > dislike of socialism, land ownership, etc..

                These are your assumptions.� I'm not prepared to publish my personal curriculum vitae on the list (nobody should), but from the time I can remember, my heart has always beaten "on the left", and I don't mean "left" in the US sense of progressive democrat, but in the European sense.

                But I have never been prepared to confine my thinking to little boxes, and when I see somebody talking nonsense about the virtues of collective ownership and the like, I don't see why I should not call a spade a spade.

                >�These are not, you must�admit, precepts of natural farming and
                > are a distraction to the main�topic.

                Remember, the distraction was not from me, my initial argument went unanswered, and the post I replied to was dug out by someone with his own agenda months later.� You really try hard to find fault with me personally.� I think we should not discuss each other's personality in public on this list.� If there is something that bothers you, you are welcome to contact me off-list.

                > while receiving precious little help from the list on how you
                > might have overlooked something.

                Here we go again!� The assumption (or ideology) that a method has absolute validity, in any place and always, even if that has not been demonstrated and even though you haven't told us if you have ever carried out that method anywhere.�And if somebody reports facts that�do not match the theory, well then he�must have "overlooked" something and we must fiddle around with�the facts�until they�correspond to the theory.� I take my hat off to Fukuoka the _farmer_, who after 30 years of practice was able to say: "the proof is growing right in front of your eyes".� I don't have the same respect for people who, having read a book, claim that they know it all and that farmers who don't see it their way are really stup*d .� And please, don't start with talk about "methodless methods" or other such meaningless meaning as we have heard on this list before.

                Dieter Brand
                Portugal

                PS: I'm�still not�through with�the reflection you�have�told me to do.� But I may have a first hunch about��wanting to win an argument".��This is�really only a hunch, so don't take it too seriously: I think the competitive instinct is universal, we wouldn't be here otherwise.� Further, to present a clear well reasoned argument�is a bit like putting on a clean shirt and trousers to present a positive image in public so as to maintain our self-esteem and to show respect to others.� Nobody wants to be with a stinking old jerk.� I think a lot depends on what we try to do.�Do we try to help others, provide information, provide our ideas about how we see things and promote the discussion on Natural Farming?� Or do we only reply to criticize and find fault with somebody?� I think, with a few exceptions, there is a lot of goodwill and desire to help others on this list.�It is only the framework of discussions that makes things go awry at
                times.



                --- On Tue, 11/11/08, Steven McCollough <steb@...> wrote:

                From: Steven McCollough <steb@...>
                Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books
                To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 4:25 PM

                Dieter,

                Thank you for taking this in the context of improving the discussions on
                the list.

                Dieter Brand wrote:
                > Steven,
                >
                > Thanks for your comments and critique.
                >
                > But what do you mean by my �ideology�
                > Hence, I do take issue, with your claim that I �try to propagate an
                ideology more than anyone else on this list�. If you make such sweeping
                accusation, the very least you have to do is to give some specific examples.
                >
                I should have said, "as much as anyone on the list." By ideology I
                mean
                those core values and impressions we have built up over the years that
                inform our perceptions of the world and natural farming in this case.
                From this one post I can point to (and did) the ideologies you are
                working under. A protective interest in defending personal property, a
                dislike of socialism, land ownership, etc.. These are not, you must
                admit, precepts of natural farming and are a distraction to the main
                topic. At the very least, they make the discussion expand to the extent
                we lose site of the original topic. Since your posts are also lengthy,
                these diversions are doubly deviating from the topic.
                > it is not because I enjoy criticizing others, but because, for much of the
                time, the level of debate on this list really is rock bottom (if you think this
                is only my view, you are wrong).
                >
                I can agree the discussions fall short of what they could be. Rock
                bottom and I would have left long ago. My point is this post of yours is
                no better in this respect. I believe we would have been better served if
                you would have pointed out the availability of the books on the Journey
                to Forever site, its implications for copyright issues and left it at
                that. On the other hand, your posts have more meat as a rule than the
                average so please don't leave.
                >
                > To finish, just let me say a word about the �gist� of what I�m
                trying to say (the part you forgot to quote)
                I didn't quote that because it was a sideline issue to your post. While
                probably the most important issue it was not your main point. From my
                earlier post: "I would like to see more discussion of natural farming
                just as you suggested."
                > : �I�m mainly interested in Natural farming�, how (or if) it can be
                practiced in environments different from that in which it was conceived, �and
                a constructive discussion of the same�. Natural Farming probably means
                something different to each one of us.
                This is a great summary of what we all want. Unfortunately, there is
                precious little I can add so I lurk most of the time.
                > I do subscribe to a number of Japanese groups on Natural Farming and know
                that there are people who, ideology aside, do develop practical methods for
                growing food for subsistence or market farming and gardening by what can broadly
                be described as �natural� means. In different climates, these methods are
                of limited use; hence, I had hoped that this list would
                > serve as a platform to discuss such issues.
                We need a person or persons that can bring this valuable information to
                our list, as I remember you have done on occasion.
                > Unfortunately I feel, that in all the years I have been subscribed to this
                list, discussions have rarely gone to the core of the matter, and arguments, if
                there are, are all too often presented as items of believe that cannot be
                discussed.
                >
                >
                >
                I have noticed this also, it seems the natural farming concept on the
                list is suffering from the same problems of dogma you see in organic
                gardening circles. It has come to the point organic growers can't
                certify because of an entrenchment of the concepts, at least in America.
                You can't have organic chicken that is fed meat, for example, even if
                the feed is organic and meat is part of their natural diet. You have
                argued a need to till in semi arid farming and have taken flak for
                breaking Fukuoka's four principles, while receiving precious little help
                from the list on how you might have overlooked something. Best of luck
                in your natural farming and thank you for informative posts.

                With respect

                Steve McCollough
                > From: Steven McCollough
                > Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books
                > To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 4:13 PM
                >
                > Dieter,
                >
                > I must begin by saying I have enjoyed and profited by your posts in the
                > past and continue to encourage your participation. I have posted
                > infrequently because my contributions have been solely on my experiences
                > with natural farming which unfortunately are limited in extent and
                > successes. I must say though your attitude seems more on the order of
                > list proctor than participant. Also, please take advantage of quoting
                > certain sections of the previous posts you are referring to. It took me
                > nearly an hour to piece together who and what you were referring to even
                > given the subject line similarity.
                >
                > Please see specific comments below.
                >
                > Dieter Brand wrote:
                >
                >> Vincente,
                >>
                >> Did you know that you can download two of Fukuoka�s books from Steve
                >>
                > Solomon�s Soil and Health library at: soilandhealth.org?
                >
                >>
                >>
                > This is the best single answer to all the previous posts as it addresses
                > the property rights issue while still leaving those unable to purchase
                > books an avenue to get knowledge.
                >
                >
                >> To have a meaningful discussion we need to have the courage to tell
                the
                >>
                > truth as we know it even if it is not trendy or popular. E.g., if a
                person, who
                > never made any contribution to this group, suddenly turns up to sell
                Fukuoka�s
                > books, then we need to be able to ask a question about copyright, which
                has
                > often been discussed but never been answered. Somebody also needs to
                point out
                > that to use another person�s labor to make a commercial profit by
                selling his
                > work is neither legal nor moral.
                >
                >>
                >>
                > I agree with this totally.
                >
                >>
                >> To have a meaningful discussion we also need to reply to what the
                other
                >>
                > person is trying to say and not use part of an argument as an opportunity
                to
                > propagate our own ideology.
                >
                >>
                >>
                > It seems to me over the years you have "used part of an argument as
                an
                > opportunity to propagate our own ideology," more than just about
                anyone
                > one the list. This is just so slippery a concept I don't know how you
                > can differentiate your views and posts from propagating an ideology.
                > Your views on dry land no till for example.
                >
                >
                >> I think it is preferable to do so in our own words and not argue with
                the
                >>
                > arguments of others by the PC�s copy and paste commands or by Internet
                links.
                >
                >>
                >>
                > I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Only by using the whole body of
                > discussion on an issue is the truth to be found. I find the arguments of
                > higher authority just as valuable as the personal experience of the
                > novice. Also, some on this list have more experience than others and
                > feel this is authority enough for their arguments even when in contrast
                > with a more prevalent view. I have a tremendous respect for your view,
                > for example, while always looking for a counterpoint.
                >
                >
                >> Regarding a World without private property (if that is what you are
                >>
                > after), �real socialism�, the sole experiment of doing away with
                private
                > property known to mankind, has collapsed under its own contradictions
                after tens
                > of millions of death and hundreds of millions were reduced to extreme
                poverty
                > and humiliation. They even managed the incredible feat of creating a high
                > degree of penury for the people while at the same time squandering natural
                > resources and destroying the environment in a big way.
                >
                >>
                >>
                > The fact that you felt it necessary to defend intellectual property
                > rights is a diversion of the list precepts in my view, as was your
                > defense of anti socialism that followed. I, for example, attribute a
                > different cause to squandering natural resources and destroying the
                > environment.
                >
                >>
                >> If you have any experience with farming and in particular with Natural
                >>
                > Farming you know that a farmer needs to �own� his land;
                >
                >>
                >>
                > I disagree with this also. While this is the paradigm we suffer with
                > now, it may be a root problem. You, for example, have let the financial
                > aspects of making a profitable farm operation affect all your views on
                > natural farming. Some, if not most, on this list are interested in
                > blending farming into life - not blend life into a farming.
                >
                >> Bible mentioned something about �giving� being nobler than
                >>
                > �taking�. Alas, human avarice being what it is, that idea never made
                it
                > very far. Yet by making an ideology out of freely taking what was made by
                > others to serve our personal gain seems to propel human perversion to
                unknown
                > levels. And you say that is Natural Farming!?
                >
                >>
                >>
                > I must have missed where someone said freely taking what was made by
                > others was natural farming. Giving is making more headway than you seem
                > to give credit for. If we were to ask Fukuoka if his words should be
                > available to all, I think he would say yes. Should we condone copyright
                > infringement? No, that would be going too far. Should we encourage
                > reasonable laws concerning copyright as was the main argument of some
                > here? Yes.
                >
                > This reply is offered in respect and to further the discussions on the
                > list. If, Dieter, you wish to win this as an argument, I'm sure you
                can
                > with elegance as demonstrated by past eloquence. I would hope instead
                > you see it as constructive review. Your "ideology" may not be
                visible
                > to
                > you, but it is to me. I would like to see more discussion of natural
                > farming just as you suggested. Unfortunately this is not it whether as
                > initiator or responder.
                >
                > Steven McCollough
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                >
                > No virus found in this incoming message.
                > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1779 - Release Date: 11/10/2008
                7:53 AM
                >
                >

                ------------------------------------

                Yahoo! Groups Links








                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.