Skeletal framework

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

>From Ananda Maya:

 

> The debate is good, but don't lets get lost at this

> stage in definitions, atomic

> levels of rural technology etc. Let's get the

> skeleton of the shape of what

> we want, the idea of the content and the possibilty

> for implementation. Then

> we will put flesh on the bones. Otherwise we will be

> three months on

> technicalities and have not proceeded beyond the

> first step.

 

Firstly, I am very skeptical about what the GBC can

actually do, but quite positive about what we can do

with a proper plan. So it is the latter that merits

serious work and will in no way be complete by the

deadline. Wheras the former needs clear identifiable

goals that can be achieved and merit the GBC's

attention. I certainly think that looking for funding

for this project is valid. I also have other ideas

that I will present later.

 

Secondly, the structure I have been presenting needs

clearing up in all our minds if it is to be accepted.

The progressive nature of the plan is in a constant

system of observation, analysis and synthesis -

leading to more OAS - The synthesis will take the form

of management desicions - to leave things as they are,

to add, to subtract. The change will then be observed,

analysed and synthesised. This will lead to progress.

 

What is being observed?

 

We are observing a system that we have engendered

within its boundaries. The resources we have within

the systems boundaries = An audit. An audit of

environmental, social and economic resources.

 

The interactions between the systems resources, the

stores, transfers and flows, plus the external inputs

and outputs to the system = An accounting structure.

 

What is the form of analyisis?

 

Observing the present audit and acounting for its

movements as a system, envisaging a hypothetical

system and analysisng the expected changes to the

system. This can take the form in the typical

scientific format of hypothesis, method, results and

conclusion. Neti neti!

 

What is the form of synthesis?

 

>From the conclusions drawn form analysis then the

implimentation of the conclusions need to be made. The

conclusion can either be negative, positive, or

neither, which would relate to changing by adding or

taking away component parts, or leaving the system as

it is.

 

 

>From the above form of progessive framework some

points need highlighting. The audit, accounting and

analysis framework may not need hyper-detailed data.

All of us work in that format in every step of our

lives, it is just that we do not segment it and

stucture it in a formal construct. So there is a scale

of naturalness of observation, analysis and synthesis

to hyper-detailed, involving masses of data and

statistical correctness. We must be careful to use

each appropriately.

 

 

What are the properties of the audit?

 

If we look at the three properties - environmental,

social and economic then there are in total 9 types of

relationships they encapsulate.

 

Env: to env, to soc, to econ.

Soc: to env, to soc, to econ.

Econ: to env, to soc, to econ.

 

On top of this is the holistic one, being the

observer.

 

I think one of the points to clarify here is that we

really only want to concentrate on one of the above,

the first one - environment, land, landscape, Gó,

however it is called.

Soc realates to varnasramsa and econ to artha,

therefore our perogative is Gó - land.

 

Land to land is about the five great elements and

senses as I detailed before. By folowing this

framework then we are saying by designing a landscape

we are forming the system needed to create it.

 

Land to soc is about the people needed to manage the

lanscape creation.

 

land to econ is about the resources that man must

utilise to create said lanscape.

 

The whole idea is not so crazy as some have said. If

we look at the land around us in most of the developed

world we see a flat grassland with grazing animals or

monocultured crops. Another form could be complete

forest as in the Amazon. Neither is the ideal lanscape

for human existence. I once showed to Syam the concept

that if we took a photograph of our land, as in the

former state, and then produced it as a negative then

that would approximately aquait to the ideal land -

instead of 80% 2 dimensional landscape and 20% 3D with

woodland cover it should be 80% 2D and 20% 3D.

 

To manage land in that form would require humans

utilising animals either through domestication or

contolling wildlife, as to keep the forest from

growing it needs the animals to maintain

plagio-climax, a humanly constructed landscape = env

to soc.

 

The resources man utilises to achieve this form econ =

 

env to econ.

 

It is that simple.

 

Upon this simple framework then all complexities can

be added on.

 

 

I hope I have made the above make sense, for obviously

the last time I did not, and whilst we talk of KISS, I

think the most important KISS is in the framework of

the system that we form.

 

Mark

 

 

 

Make a great connection at Personals.

http://personals.