Masanobu Fukuoka

[Cory Duchesne]

Hey again Diebert,


Diebert wrote:

I'll need some more time to make this point more clear. I'd like to work my thoughts out further on in this discussion, if you've interest of course.

Diebert my boy, take all the time you need to organize your thoughts on these matters. When the time comes for you to express them – I’ll give you my full attention. Perhaps you will continue to be interested in this sort of thing.

Cory wrote:

For example, do you think I should not investigate the words of Buddha, Socrates, or QRS simply because I have difficulty seeing it work as a more broad-scale project?

Diebert replied: Those examples work, or at least I can see them working.

Wouldn’t you agree then Diebert that the QRS is an example of a front for a way to function with less or different needs and desires that are more in tune with everything (compared to the masses)?

And would you not also agree that only an incredibly infinitesimal portion of the human population is aware of the QRS, and/or is living with truth and wisdom on their own initiative?

If you agree on this point, then I think you need to resolve a serious error in your thinking.

What I’m getting at is this: didn’t you say that you regard the philosophy of QRS as an example of something that works large scale?

Personaly, it doesn’t appear to me that the QRS is working on a large scale at all.

How do you figure that they do?

Furthermore - you described Permaculture as:

Diebert: Permaculture seems to me a front for a different way of functioning, with less or different needs and desires that are more in tune with everything.

Hmmmm…..that sounds a lot like my description of the QRS.

Anyhow, you continued by saying….

Diebert: But to spread the wise food production mindset to others in any significant way has failed already for thousands of year’s, I see no reason it will work now

First of all, how did you come to the conclusion that the fukuokian/permaculture/wise food production philosophy has been something that humans have tried to spread, yet failed to spread over the last few thousands of years ?


There have been small wise cultures, and there have been massive and powerful unwise cultures. Small cultures that live sustainably and wisely exist today, like they've existed for thousands of years, and they apply practices of food production that have existed for thousands of years, practices that are very close to the fukuokian and permaculture approach.

Fukuokian and permaculture approaches are a refinement and a much needed clear articulation of what had always been practiced by small groups.

The larger more powerful cultures have always been more unbalance and unsustainble (significantly less wise) the larger cultures of the present age are more powerful, massive and stupid then all of history has record of.

The power cultures of the present age apply practices of food production that have started off as fundamentally unwise and irrational and have hence evolved over the past few thousand years into what is a glaringly obvious time bomb.

If we are to survive as a species, this bomb needs to be diffused as soon as possible.

Anyway, lets continue with trying to understand each other Diebert.

Let's pick up around here:

Diebert: But to spread the wise food production mindset to others in any significant way has failed already for thousands of year’s, I see no reason it will work now.

But why is the very wisdom that the QRS advocates any different? Hasn’t wisdom attempted to spread itself and for the most part failed over thousands of years?

Why is the failure of wisdom being spread any different than the failure of intelligent food production?

Furthermore - I don’t even think there has been (until recently) an actual clear articulated philosophy of wise food production.

Thus there wasn’t a whole lot information (in that regard) to have been spread. In terms of attempting to spread wise food production methods, I dont see much failure over the past thousands of years, because I dont see much of a focused attempt. I think we're just getting started in that regard.

Unlike wisdom of course, which has been attempted in countless forms to be spread over thousands of years, and has mostly failed to catch on.

Cory: Didn’t Jesus have this kind of idea? – you know – the mustard seed parable?

Diebert: Exactly. But even the sower knows what the seed can, and probably will do and on what scale. If not, he'll change method. Farmers are not big gamblers in my opinion.

Do you think that I am in veneration of conventional farmers? I think they are generally very poor souls with great confusion in their hearts.

The Fukuokian, permaculturish, horticulture approach on the other hand has been born from a great deal of experimentation, unusually high levels of rationality combined with good faith and the neccesary risk.

What isn't risk anyway?

But I don’t consider wise men really big gamblers anyway.

They are far too certain for that. They do not make decisions and hope for the best. That is the mentality of the fool.

I think Fukuoka, Bill mollison and so many others I could name are great examples of people who realized what was correct, what was the truth, and fearlessly went ahead with what simply made sense.

Hope is for the womanly. Gamblers hope.

The conventional sort of farmer, acts with great confusion and fear, taking gambles on new chemicals, equipment and then merely hopes for best, rather than understanding deeply what he is doing.

The wise are not gamblers, while fools most certainly are.

Cory: Why are you so hung up on the masses Diebert?

Diebert: Why are you so hung up on the individual?

Because I am wise enough to be.

Cory: And if you insists that I share your values of numbers, well then I can assure you that there are plenty high quality individuals out there transforming culture (...)

Diebert: Of course. But hasn't that always been the case?

I meant in the context of improving the way we produce our food – among many other things of course too. Were you and are you aware that you left out the last essential bit of my sentence?

If so, then you seem to be contradicting yourself. Don’t forget you said this:

Diebert: But to spread the wise food production mindset to others in any significant way has failed already for thousands of year’s, I see no reason it will work now

Diebert sees that the spread of a wiser way of producing food has not only failed but he also sees no reason why or how it could possibly spread now. However, oddly enough, when I point out to him that culture has been and is still currently evolving and transforming via the spread of a wiser approach to food production, he replies: Of course, hasn’t that always been the case?

A head scratcher indeed.

C: No, they may not be the perfect enlightened people, however they are close, and the work they are doing will make it much easier for perfectly enlightened beings to come into being and thrive.

D: You might want to clarify that a bit. How will it be made easier?

If more people are producing and buying their own food wisely, then more people will be wiser. If more people are wiser, then more people will be producing and buying their own food wisely.

If more people are wise, then that will make it easier for the people who are more foolish to become more wise.

D: Is this about independence or living the hermit life?

What is it about to you?

Cory: Yes things right now have never been stupider, but that is only because things right now have never been so intelligent. You have to see the whole large scale picture Diebert.

Diebert: So what kind of stupidities will permaculture introduce then?

If a stupidity occurs will you find fault in some mere concept or do you find fault with the person who has sacrificed their wisdom for the sake of feeling special via a trendy coinage, a label?

I think the answer is obvious.

Like I said D-Bert, I’m opposed to reducing the complex and profound awareness that goes into wise food production down to the term ‘permaculture’.

I do understand that name can be useful for navigating through a complicated conversation. So pretty much only in that sense is a word useful.

What kind of stupidities will ‘wise’ food production introduce?

None - because it is wise.

Do you understand what I meant when I said that our present age has never been more intelligent, only because it has never been so stupid?

If you are a bit confused by it, I will give you a hint.

Indigenous cultures lived in a strikingly balanced and sustainable way – however – I say that they were not necessarily wise or very intelligent and that is because I say that these primitive cultures did not know or understand why and how they were wise. They simply did what they had no choice to do. I do not say they were fools either. They were not incredibly intelligent, nor were they incredibly foolish. This was how man began. Neither very intelligent, nor very foolish.

When he broke free from nature with the sufficient cunning and inventiveness and began trying to control her and master her his stupidity thus became sheer and powerful.

The suffering he inflicted upon himself and the messes he got himself into forced him to learn, to develop, to invent, to solve greater and greater problems – solutions he came up with always produced even greater problems, etc, etc.

He became stupider and stupider, more and more monstorous, yet this in part caused him to understand himself to a greater and greater extent and thus he also became wiser and wiser, more and more god-like.

Soon he will become totally aware of this and will thus become absolutely wise.

Cory: Well, any person with a somewhat above average level of intelligence likes to think on a large scale. But as we mature even further we tend to work on paying heed to and taking care of the small things, the sort of things that to most people are invisible. And then we let the rest take care of it self. I’m not saying we abandon the broad large-scale vision. On the contrary the large-scale vision is enriched infinitely by means of going inside, by means of studying the infinitesimal.


D: There's no disagreement between us here. But again, it's not about first thinking on a large scale and then growing into caring for small things. That first large scale thinking would have been defective it the infinitesimal was not known.

Yes, and I would say your large-scale thinking is indeed defective. However, out of the posters I’ve read on this board, you do seem to be one of the more intelligent ones.

But, you’ve got some work to do, as do I.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And would you not also agree that only an incredibly infinitesimal portion of the human population is aware of the QRS, and/or is living with truth and wisdom on their own initiative?

If you agree on this point, then I think you need to resolve a serious error in your thinking.

What I’m getting at is this: didn’t you say that you regard the philosophy of QRS as an example of something that works large scale?

In this context with 'working' I meant having effect, or having a clear potential for great effects because it attempts to target the source directly. As such, I'm not convinced yet permaculture has the same potential. And also I'm not so sure yet that it doesn't need to have this potential. I haven't reached a clear opinion on it, so it's not likely I could have made a serious error here, yet. In fact, I think you draw too quickly conclusions from how I explore the issue.

Personaly, it doesn’t appear to me that the QRS is working on a large scale at all.

How do you figure that they do?

Because I have recognized it as mustard seed. And just like mustard seed, basicaly sprouting a weed, it doesn't as much produce a lot of crop. That's not the measure I define 'large scale'. Maybe I should have said something last 'lasting impact'.

Anyhow, you continued by saying….

Diebert: But to spread the wise food production mindset to others in any significant way has failed already for thousands of year’s, I see no reason it will work now

You are quoting me completely wrong with your own 'wise food production' inserted. You make me worry about the careless way you keep reading, interpreting and rephrasing my words. Pay attention to the infinitesimal, here as well!

I actually wrote something significantly different:

...a different way of functioning, with less or different needs and desires, more in tune with everything. But to spread that mindset to others in any significant way has failed already for thousands of years. I see no reason it will work now, even if there's no doubt the permaculture approach is superior in many ways.

There have been small wise cultures, and there have been massive and powerful unwise cultures.

Could you list a few of what you see as wise cultures, big and small? I might disagree about your assessment. Closer to nature, yes, but that doesn't equal wisdom automatically as I see it.

Furthermore - I don’t even think there has been (until recently) an actual clear articulated philosophy of wise food production.

Again, you're debating with your self here, with the way you rewrote my words. And then uses those very words, as a quote, at three parts of your posts to comment on it. Great going, Cory! Calm down and relax a bit :)

If more people are producing and buying their own food wisely, then more people will be wiser. If more people are wiser, then more people will be producing and buying their own food wisely.

In my view someone doesn't get wise by him or someone else producing and buying food wisely. But it's part of the equation somehow, I can agree with that. That is why I'm interested of course!

The suffering he inflicted upon himself and the messes he got himself into forced him to learn, to develop, to invent, to solve greater and greater problems – solutions he came up with always produced even greater problems, etc, etc.

He became stupider and stupider, more and more monstorous, yet this in part caused him to understand himself to a greater and greater extent and thus he also became wiser and wiser, more and more god-like.

Soon he will become totally aware of this and will thus become absolutely wise.

I cannot share your optimism. The wise have always been wise. I see mostly people misunderstanding themselves more and more. That is why I fear for permaculture.

More later.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory Patrick wrote:
And would you not also agree that only an incredibly infinitesimal portion of the human population is aware of the QRS, and/or is living with truth and wisdom on their own initiative? If you agree on this point, then I think you need to resolve a serious error in your thinking. What I’m getting at is this: didn’t you say that you regard the philosophy of QRS as an example of something that works large scale?


D: In this context with 'working' I meant having effect, or having a clear potential for great effects because it attempts to target the source directly. As such, I'm not convinced yet permaculture has the same potential.

Did I give you the impression that I thought Permaculture was a ‘competing’ ideology with the QRS?

On this thread, almost from the beginning, I stressed that I thought the fukuokian/permaculture approach was a complimentary body of ideas that should be seen as beneficial to the aims of QRS philosophy and vice versa.

What I’ve been trying to say is that the recent articulation of natural farming methods is a significant and fairly new development that has taken root and is spreading.

It is a phenomenon that will be regarded by those who are wise as significant.

It is and will continue to be a beneficial force to the efforts of those who are concerned with reducing labor, with peaceful logical day to day living, with the perfection of the human race.

However, what the QRS stresses and what someone like Fukuoka stresses are really only mildly similar - the QRS indeed focuses much more on the root cause of misery and stupidity.

Understand Diebert, that I think Kevin, David, and Dan’s compilations and work is great, and the writing of many of the members on this forum such as yourself is very good as well. All very helpful.

Deibert: I'm not convinced yet permaculture has the same potential.

Perhaps you are simply looking at things too competitively.

Permaculture, nor my self are in no way aiming to assassinate the value of the QRS wisdom.

Is that what you feel is happening here?

It just think that understanding the anthropological and cultural evolution, food production, being minimal and working with nature to reduce labor and sustain the environment is irrefutably a good.

It can only be beneficial to the aims QRS, and the QRS can only be beneficial to it.

Living intelligently – minimizing ones compromise to the stupidity of others -- -these are the things that I’ve been stressing on this thread. I just don’t see how you can refute it, mainly because its pretty much a part of wisdom.

From your perspective, perhaps it seems that I've been a bit defensive, manic and threated - -- however, I just enjoy a good debate. These view that i am express are something I want to prove to myself. I am actualy not so certain either.

I've just been waiting for the right guy to come a long who will go blow to blow with me on this issue.

Not because i'm looking to get a superficial feeling off of winning and arguing, but I want to see how my views hold up against a logical person.

I'm not afraid of losing my views. I'm not as attached to all of this as it might seem.

C: Personaly, it doesn’t appear to me that the QRS is working on a large scale at all. How do you figure that they do?

D: Because I have recognized it as mustard seed. And just like mustard seed, basicaly sprouting a weed, it doesn't as much produce a lot of crop. That's not the measure I define 'large scale'. Maybe I should have said something last 'lasting impact'.

I agree that going for the root of all sorrow, tackling and understanding the mind, the nature of reality – that is the ultimate.

I am in no way trying to discredit the concerns of the QRS. They are indispensable, vital.

However, how is the work of the QRS supposed to function, spread and last on a planet ruled by a species that is stubbornly heading for a self inflicted apocalypse?

Personally I don’t think most humans can handle what the QRS is saying.

However, many of the humans who can’t handle the ruthless QRS philosophy, do want to live heroically, they want to do something good, and thus I think that these sorts of humans will make use and are making use of fukuokian and permaculture teachings, to the benefit of themselves and to the people who can handle QRS philosophy.

Cory: Anyhow, you continued by saying…. Diebert: But to spread the wise food production mindset to others in any significant way has failed already for thousands of year’s, I see no reason it will work now.

D: You are quoting me completely wrong with your own 'wise food production' inserted.

Your “different way of functioning, with less or different needs and desires, more in tune with everything” I felt meant wise food production.

I really don’t think how I paraphrased you and what you actually said was really that much different.

But sorry, there was definitely a more tactful way I could of wrote that one :)

Cory wrote:
There have been small wise cultures, and there have been massive and powerful unwise cultures.

Could you list a few of what you see as wise cultures, big and small? I might disagree about your assessment. Closer to nature, yes, but that doesn't equal wisdom automatically as I see it.

My previous post touched on how these ‘wise small cultures’ did not really know they were wise. Wise might not be the best word - - however, these cultures sustained themselves and live balanced lives for thousands of years. The significance of how agriculture marked the begining of exceptional bludners is significant dont you think?

AS for names of 'small wise cultures' - I can only give you the names of researchers, anthropologists who have visted, studied and lived with indigeounous hunter gatherer cultures.

Wise is not a good word, but you know what I mean. They lived wisely, resourcefully, respectfully - - not because they understood things deeply -- - only because they had no technology, no dreams of manipulating things - at that point.

Man some how broke away.

C: Furthermore - I don’t even think there has been (until recently) an actual clear articulated philosophy of wise food production.

D: Again, you're debating with your self here, with the way you rewrote my words. And then uses those very words, as a quote, at three parts of your posts to comment on it. Great going, Cory! Calm down and relax a bit :)

Ok

I was just trying to bring you to what I feel was and is the heart of the matter.

Again, Lacking in tact a bit I suppose.

But I really only simplified and got to the heart of what I thought you were saying ( or What I wanted, fancied you to be saying :)

C: If more people are producing and buying their own food wisely, then more people will be wiser. If more people are wiser, then more people will be producing and buying their own food wisely.

D: In my view someone doesn't get wise by him or someone else producing and buying food wisely.

True, bad choice of words. What I’m getting at is, if you raise a child in an unstimulating environment with unintellectual people – the child goes rotten much easier.

If people are producing their own food wisely and doing business wisely, they are going to be of enough depth, character and rationality to deal with their kids and thus produce stronger kids who will be more receptive to wisdom.

C: The suffering he inflicted upon himself and the messes he got himself into forced him to learn, to develop, to invent, to solve greater and greater problems – solutions he came up with always produced even greater problems, etc, etc. He became stupider and stupider, more and more monstorous, yet this in part caused him to understand himself to a greater and greater extent and thus he also became wiser and wiser, more and more god-like. Soon he will become totally aware of this and will thus become absolutely wise.


D: I cannot share your optimism. The wise have always been wise. I see mostly people misunderstanding themselves more and more. That is why I fear for permaculture.

Don’t you agree that there was a time when man really wasnt all that wise?

Havnt the wise become wise by acknowledging stupidity?

Do you think Quinn, Solway, Rowden are just as wise now as they were when they were in their early twenties? The wise were not always wise.


Soren Kierguaard’s father prepared him for being a religious man, as did Nietzche’s father. The Buddha was told he was going to be holy man as well.

So, you see, a supportive and serious environment plays a huge role in determining whether or not someone will be wise.

Don’t you agree that a wise man becomes wise by studying foolishness?

And didn’t you say you were optimistic about the work of the QRS taking root, spreading, having a lasting effect? This sounds optimisitic to me.

How come a body of wise teachings such as the QRS's hasn’t existed before? Why this sudden high quality?

Could it be because Dan, Kevin and David had found themselves living in an age where it has never been easier to become wise?

Why is it easier to become wise now then it was before?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

hi Cory,

Did I give you the impression that I thought Permaculture was a ‘competing’ ideology with the QRS?

Not at all. Wisdom is wisdom in whatever form it manifests.

On this thread, almost from the beginning, I stressed that I thought the fukuokian/permaculture approach was a complimentary body of ideas that should be seen as beneficial to the aims of QRS philosophy and vice versa.

What I’ve been trying to say is that the recent articulation of natural farming methods is a significant and fairly new development that has taken root and is spreading.

It is a phenomenon that will be regarded by those who are wise as significant.

Don't forget I'm reading people like Fukuoka and discussing it with you here because I'm interested in understanding its potential and determine for myself how significant it really is. Just stating that it is significant for the wise sounds like simple dogma.

It is and will continue to be a beneficial force to the efforts of those who are concerned with reducing labor, with peaceful logical day to day living, with the perfection of the human race.

What are the effects of further reducing labor for the average person? What is a 'peaceful logical day'? Which ideal lies behind your idea of perfection? These are exactly some of the issues that I'd like to examine more closely before using them to 'prove' permaculture is wise for the many.

Permaculture, nor my self are in no way aiming to assassinate the value of the QRS wisdom.

Is that what you feel is happening here?

I have no idea what you're getting at here. Are you sure you don't feel competitive on this board, you know, one great mind amongst some other great minds. It would explain how you come up with this perspective on our discussion.

It just think that understanding the anthropological and cultural evolution, food production, being minimal and working with nature to reduce labor and sustain the environment is irrefutably a good.

All true understanding is good. But "being minimal", "working with nature", "reducing labor" and "sustaining environment" are for me way too circumstantial, culturally colored and unspecified to get the stamp of being 'irrefutable good'. No way!

Living intelligently – minimizing ones compromise to the stupidity of others -- -these are the things that I’ve been stressing on this thread. I just don’t see how you can refute it, mainly because its pretty much a part of wisdom.

Independence in thought and being is the 'masculine' road to wisdom, sure. But instead of refuting I just try to discover if permaculture really delivers such Independence. Apart from gaining practical experience myself, I also try to inquire here and now into the theory and experiences of others as well.

From your perspective, perhaps it seems that I've been a bit defensive, manic and threated - -- however, I just enjoy a good debate. These view that i am express are something I want to prove to myself. I am actualy not so certain either.

I've just been waiting for the right guy to come a long who will go blow to blow with me on this issue.

That's okay. I'm just exploring here as well as we go.

[Your “different way of functioning, with less or different needs and desires, more in tune with everything” I felt meant wise food production.

I really don’t think how I paraphrased you and what you actually said was really that much different.

I was more thinking of wise lifestyles in general, considering as always the circumstances a life is lived in.

Could you list a few of what you see as wise cultures, big and small? I might disagree about your assessment. Closer to nature, yes, but that doesn't equal wisdom automatically as I see it.

My previous post touched on how these ‘wise small cultures’ did not really know they were wise. Wise might not be the best word - - however, these cultures sustained themselves and live balanced lives for thousands of years. The significance of how agriculture marked the begining of exceptional bludners is significant dont you think?

But can you name for these 'wise small cultures' a couple of traits that are less positive than 'sustainable' and 'balanced'? And have you tried to link those more negative traits with how these cultures could arise in the first place? One starts to notice then how the good and the bad are related and often necessary in a development.

Wise is not a good word, but you know what I mean. They lived wisely, resourcefully, respectfully - - not because they understood things deeply -- - only because they had no technology, no dreams of manipulating things - at that point.

Man some how broke away.

I don't know exactly what you mean. Were they wise in their primitive, natural approach or not? Was it wise not to take things apart, not to expand, not to discover, not to go beyond? Did they consciously choose such way of living or was largely misunderstood tradition holding them to it?

I cannot share your optimism. The wise have always been wise. I see mostly people misunderstanding themselves more and more. That is why I fear for permaculture.

Don’t you agree that there was a time when man really wasnt all that wise?

Could you be more specific? Do you mean there were less wise men in older times? Relatively (percentage) or absolutely?

Do you think Quinn, Solway, Rowden are just as wise now as they were when they were in their early twenties? The wise were not always wise.

Don't forget our context was 'wise men' through the ages. When a person is not (yet) wise, he's not (yet) wise. Duh! :).

How come a body of wise teachings such as the QRS's hasn’t existed before? Why this sudden high quality?

There's a lot of material coming from all ages. I see no indication of a 'sudden high quality' but of course contemporary teachings have the best chance to be effective, more 'tuned' toward the people hearing it. Less translated and transmutated perhaps.

Could it be because Dan, Kevin and David had found themselves living in an age where it has never been easier to become wise?

Why is it easier to become wise now then it was before?

I don't really believe that. It's possibly easier statistically because there are six billion candidates now instead of six hundred million or whatever number. All the usual stuff about internet, media and communication is in my opinion helping as much as it is dumbing down. Net there might be no gain at all.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory: It is and will continue to be a beneficial force to the efforts of those who are concerned with reducing labor, with peaceful logical day to day living, with the perfection of the human race.

Diebert: What are the effects of further reducing labor for the average person?

Understand the cause of reduced labor, and you will understand the effect. Or even better – you will understand cause and the effect are one.

Diebert: what is a 'peaceful logical day'?

It is a day spent devoid of doing that which makes life a messy, foolish affair.

Diebert: Which ideal lies behind your idea of perfection?

Perfection is neither an Idea, nor can it be attain via ideals. Ideals make that which is already perfect, imperfect.

Cory: Permaculture, nor my self are in no way aiming to assassinate the value of the QRS wisdom.

Is that what you feel is happening here?


Diebert: I have no idea what you're getting at here. Are you sure you don't feel competitive on this board, you know, one great mind amongst some other great minds. It would explain how you come up with this perspective on our discussion.

I find myself feeling a bit irritated and agitated in reaction to reading some posts. This unpleasant feeling I get is generated by my values coming into contact with other values that do not match my own. Hence – my malicious glee. It has given me great giddy-ness and glee to speak to you in a patronizing way Diebert. However, this giddy-ness and glee is rooted in a not as obvious irritation, agitation and insecurity. So, Diebert, I’ll admit my attitude towards you on this thread has been a bit immature at times. And how does this confession support my argument for sustainable agriculture? Truthfully, I really don’t care at this point. It was and is wrong of me to try and directly influence you, to lead you. I think a person should generously and unemotionally impart information to those who are hungry for it – otherwise, one should keep to oneself.

Diebert wrote:
Could you list a few of what you see as wise cultures, big and small? I might disagree about your assessment. Closer to nature, yes, but that doesn't equal wisdom automatically as I see it.


Cory: My previous post touched on how these ‘wise small cultures’ did not really know they were wise. Wise might not be the best word - - however, these cultures sustained themselves and live balanced lives for thousands of years. The significance of how agriculture marked the begining of exceptional bludners is significant dont you think?


Diebert: But can you name for these 'wise small cultures' a couple of traits that are less positive than 'sustainable' and 'balanced'?

Actually, I found a great article that goes into great detail a method of food gathering that an American native culture used for a millennia. I’ll display this article on the ‘civilization as a disease?’ thread.

Diebert: And have you tried to link those more negative traits with how these cultures could arise in the first place? One starts to notice then how the good and the bad are related and often necessary in a development.

Cory: Like I’ve said in a previous post, I am not totally condemning the methods of our present age, nor am I advocating we totally return to the more primitive state. I am emphasizing we study and learn from that which we confusedly broke away from. Ultimately I am in agreement with your perspective that says development involves the integration of two divided and distantly related developments.

Cory: Wise is not a good word, but you know what I mean. They lived wisely, resourcefully, respectfully - - not because they understood things deeply -- - only because they had no technology, no dreams of manipulating things - at that point.

Man some how broke away.


Diebert: I don't know exactly what you mean. Were they wise in their primitive, natural approach or not?

Cory: Their methods of food production were ‘wiser’ than the conventional methods of the present age. That is really the only point I’ve been making.

Diebert: Was it wise not to take things apart, not to expand, not to discover, not to go beyond?

I wouldn’t say it was wise. I would say that there was a greater intellect doing such things as dissecting, expanding, inventing – however – unprecedented levels of stupidity has accompanied these progressions.
Every accomplishment of man (no matter how stupid the motives and consequences of his achievements) have been necessary steps toward greater collective maturity.

Diebert: Did they consciously choose such way of living or was a largely misunderstood tradition holding them to it?

I think the traditions of the primitives indicate a collective mentality that was preoccupied with a hidden world that was inextricably tied to the manifestations and actions they took in this world. Trees, plants, water, fire, animals, etc, were all spiritual manifestations tied to another world. Therefore, primitive man regarded nature with great reverence and even fearfulness. This kept him very well behaved.

Diebert wrote:
I cannot share your optimism. The wise have always been wise. I see mostly people misunderstanding themselves more and more. That is why I fear for permaculture.


Cory: Don’t you agree that there was a time when man really wasn’t all that wise?


Diebert: Could you be more specific? Do you mean there were less wise men in older times? Relatively (percentage) or absolutely?

I would say absolutely. Wisdom is indeed quality – but I would say that the quantity of quality has increased since the advent of self-awareness.

Cory: Do you think Quinn, Solway, Rowden are just as wise now as they were when they were in their early twenties? The wise were not always wise.


Diebert: Don't forget our context was 'wise men' through the ages. When a person is not (yet) wise, he's not (yet) wise. Duh! :)

I was using the progress of their (unwise to wiser to wise) personal lives as a metaphor for collective progress.
When humanity first become self-conscious – surely no-one was wise.

I wonder what events brought about the very first wise man? Don’t you agree Diebert that it all began with ‘one’ wise man? And don’t you agree that this first wise man laid a foundation or made contribution that made it easier for others to become wise? That would explain the greeks, who hosted many great beings (Diogones, Heraclites, Democritus, Socrates, Aristotle, Epictetus) Surely the Greeks were as high in quality as they were because of the valuable contributions of their mostly anonymous ancestors.

Cory: How come a body of wise teachings such as the QRS's hasn’t existed before? Why this sudden high quality?


Diebert: There's a lot of material coming from all ages.

Why has all of that material, for the most part, failed to bring about a lasting change in the masses that you feel the QRS can bring?

Diebert: I see no indication of a 'sudden high quality' but of course contemporary teachings have the best chance to be effective, more 'tuned' toward the people hearing it. Less translated and transmutated perhaps.

I agree that when teachings have been passed along for many centuries, they do indeed become distorted.
Why are Today’s contemporary teachings more effective then yesterdays contemporary teachings? Yesterdays teachings failed to bring about a lasting change in the minds of the masses. Why do you think today’s teachings can bring about a lasting change in the minds of the masses? Could it be that today’s teachings are at an unprecedented level of quality and clarity?
This is either the case - or - you are deluded in regards to your interpretation of the QRS.

Cory: Could it be because Dan, Kevin and David had found themselves living in an age where it has never been easier to become wise?

Why is it easier to become wise now then it was before?


Diebert: I don't really believe that.

Didn’t you say that you see the teachings of the QRS as a mustard seed that had the potential to bring about a lasting change in the minds of the masses?

Why haven’t the masses been positively affected before by the other contemporary teachings?

Diebert: It's possibly easier (to become wise) statistically because there are six billion candidates now instead of six hundred million or whatever number.

That logic only holds water if you admit that there are more wise people alive today then there have ever been before.

There is more wise people alive today then there ever has been and that is because there are more stupid people alive today then there ever been. The quality of wisdom that exists today is also at an unprecedented high, and that is because the quality of stupidity is at an unprecedented high.

Plus, keep in mind that what was once known as the masses 500 years ago - is pretty much only a minority now.

Diebert: All the usual stuff about internet, media and communication is in my opinion helping as much as it is dumbing down.

Yes, like I said in my previous posts, an increase in intelligence corresponds with an increase in stupidity.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What are the effects of further reducing labor for the average person?

Understand the cause of reduced labor, and you will understand the effect. Or even better – you will understand cause and the effect are one.

I'm not sure I understand your reply. One of the effects would be having more free time to fill with other activities besides labor. How does this cause necessarily more reduced labor? Do you assume all these people will spend time on hobby science and philosophy and make further breakthroughs?

what is a 'peaceful logical day'?

It is a day spent devoid of doing that which makes life a messy, foolish affair.

All of life is a messy affair. Full of strife. Your logical day sounds like avoiding its very mechanisms. Not that I'd blame you for it but why cutting your definition of life up in partitions like that I wonder?

I find myself feeling a bit irritated and agitated in reaction to reading some posts. This unpleasant feeling I get is generated by my values coming into contact with other values that do not match my own. Hence – my malicious glee.

Fair enough. But that's exactly as I said: competition. Why would it make you feel unpleasant, why are you so uncomfortable with the struggle that finds place, has to find place when some value meets a conflicting value?

However, this giddy-ness and glee is rooted in a not as obvious irritation, agitation and insecurity.

Interesting observation. My own experience would add to this that agitation in discussion is mostly an effect of insecurity. A feeling of imminent danger to values we identify with, illusionary or not.

Cory: Wise is not a good word, but you know what I mean. They lived wisely, resourcefully, respectfully - - not because they understood things deeply -- - only because they had no technology, no dreams of manipulating things - at that point.

Man some how broke away.

I'm not sure what you mean, actually. Better use an example instead of 'they'. 'They' is so vague. It would be interesting to study what made one tribal group succeed where others failed.

I don't know exactly what you mean. Were they wise in their primitive, natural approach or not?

Their methods of food production were ‘wiser’ than the conventional methods of the present age. That is really the only point I’ve been making.

But food production cannot be separated from population growth, economical demands and so on. So if food production was wise, their economical system and reproduction must also have been wise? And not to speak about their ethics. It becomes a whole package this way.

Every accomplishment of man (no matter how stupid the motives and consequences of his achievements) have been necessary steps toward greater collective maturity.

Could you specify this observed "greater collective maturity"? Just so I know how to address this. I mean, is it about greater population, more mass technology, better encyclopedia? You get my drift.

(...) Therefore, primitive man regarded nature with great reverence and even fearfulness. This kept him very well behaved.

Fear has indeed often been used as behavioral control by nature, and human leadership as well. Primitive but effective.

Don’t you agree that there was a time when man really wasn’t all that wise?

I have no indication man was ever "all that wise". Exceptions may have occurred starting from the dawn of reason.

I was using the progress of their (unwise to wiser to wise) personal lives as a metaphor for collective progress.
When humanity first become self-conscious – surely no-one was wise.

How can yo be sure? Any logic behind it? You are saying next:

I wonder what events brought about the very first wise man? Don’t you agree Diebert that it all began with ‘one’ wise man? And don’t you agree that this first wise man laid a foundation or made contribution that made it easier for others to become wise?

That's certainly possible. Perhaps the first man was wise, and it became only less after him. Before him we had only primates. The one making the big leap might have had an extraordinary grasp on his own consciousness. Why not?

Why has all of that [wise] material, for the most part, failed to bring about a lasting change in the masses that you feel the QRS can bring?

Why do you think that material, or the sages behind them, failed? You just described how the Greek were clearly leaning on older insights and you mentioned a possible 'first wise man'.

Why do you think today’s teachings can bring about a lasting change in the minds of the masses?

I've not claimed the situation is any different than in the past. Wisdom always brings about change, it cannot help it. Depends on how fertile the soil is sometimes.

Could it be that today’s teachings are at an unprecedented level of quality and clarity?

Personally, I don't see it.

This is either the case - or - you are deluded in regards to your interpretation of the QRS.

No, you have a deluded interpretation of mine qualification of QRS. I never claimed they were essentialy different than past teachers, writers or sages. That's something you came up with yourself.

Didn’t you say that you see the teachings of the QRS as a mustard seed that had the potential to bring about a lasting change in the minds of the masses?

No, wisdom has that potential and is doing that since ages. The fact that I regard teachings of QRS as containing wisdom does not mean it's anything unique, though I do regard it as unusually viable for this infertile day and age. It looks like a very specific match.

Why haven’t the masses been positively affected before by the other contemporary teachings?

Why do you think they haven't? What is your way of measuring?

It's possibly easier (to become wise) statistically because there are six billion candidates now instead of six hundred million or whatever number.

That logic only holds water if you admit that there are more wise people alive today then there have ever been before.

I've no way of knowing really so there's nothing to admit.

There are more wise people alive today then there ever has been and that is because there are more stupid people alive today then there ever been.

Well, lets populate the earth further then with more stupidity! Lets rape the Earth a bit further. Maybe wisdom will reach some critical threshold this way :)

The quality of wisdom that exists today is also at an unprecedented high, and that is because the quality of stupidity is at an unprecedented high.

Do you mean that in the sense of cause and effect? It makes no sense to me and makes me doubt therefore even more your statement of the unprecedented high of wisdom's quality today.

[MKFaizi]

Reckon anyone's reading this crap?

I didn't. I read a bit but then I scrolled down.

Looks like private discussion.

Are ya'll gay?

Faizi

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I'd rather be gay than woman.

Don't you have anything to do? Write a book and I'll publish it for you. Start with an article or two, and I'll build a website around it. I'm sure you can do better than Quinn. He hasn't added much at all last years and is compared to your writing dry as bone.

All this frustrated intellectual energy of yours, waiting to get out!