Cob: RE: Coblist Kahuna: Argument/"objectivity" vs. "philosophy" . . .

[baco@pacinfo]

This discussion illustrates a fundamental problem faced by those of us who
would ask the mainstream to accept alternative construction methods. The
problem is lack of credibility in the "movement". Counterculturism is
getting in the way of environmental thinking.

I live in Oregon, fourth generation pioneer stock. The wide open spaces,
rainforests, abundant water, and temperate climate attracted my ancestors to
give up all that they had and gamble on their ability to take some dirt, add
a lot of hard work, and build a new life for their families. Some built
"soddies" first, then added a log cabin, and later moved up to stick built.
Fundamental to the culture that I grew up in, is keeping the skills of
gardening, hunting, gathering, food preservation, and otherwise "doing for
yourself," alive.

A hundred years later, starting in the late sixties, America re-discovered
these values and rural places like Oregon, and people flocked here from all
over to "return to the land." This whole movement slightly bewildered the
long time residents, who could appreciate the back-to-land sentiment, but
not the counterculture "hippy" aspect of the movement. We all managed to get
along though, and the old timers even taught the others tricks of the
"cracker arts" like smoking a nice piece of salmon, keeping a successful bee
hive, or grafting an apple.

The older folks had known generations of extraction industries, logging and
fishing mostly here, and really tended to dig in their heels in resistance
to "tree huggers" who seemed entirely overboard on preservation, and not
nearly as dedicated to the pioneer concepts of freedom and property rights.
Moreover, they were perceived to advocate drugs and distain sexual virtue.

The locals, on the other hand, were still stuck in a man-against-nature way
of thinking at some levels. Eventually what had seemed radical
environmentalism gained a lot of ground and today land use planning, the
forest service, and Etc. is largely controlled by the new thinking. Still,
we have a long way to go before the lifestyle here is even close to
sustainable.

The thing that I find interesting in all of this is that my father, the
logger, fisher, excavator, hunter, gardener, beekeeper, mushroom picker,
apple grafter, and sometimes outlaw would look down his long old nose at
Ocean the cobber, (after asking again "your name is WHAT?." And I suspect
that Ocean would be less than impressed with the old man. As for myself, I
see them as peas in a pod, save for some really unimportant differences in
how dress, what they might smoke, and how they view the world. Certainly
they have more in common than most of the rest of the world shares with
either of them. They are rural Oregonians who like the idea of independence
from the grid.

I can't speak for either of them, but my perception is that both want to
think that their "philosophy" is right, founded in fact and morality, and
are highly motivated by this deep sense of rectitude. My perception is that
they are the fringe. The world needs a fringe, so it's all good.

What I do think is ironic though, is how the fringe is willing, if not
eager, to alienate the mainstream. Hell, it wouldn't even be fun to be a
fringe if it wasn't a bit radical!

Anyway, here is the tragedy:

If my friends who are bankers and developers and otherwise part of the
problem, could hear the logic of the fringe, they might adjust course just a
little bit. They might think about wetlands before they are forced to by an
Earth First member chaining herself to a back-hoe.

And after all, if the mainstream would just do a little better, even ten or
twenty percent better, that would have more of an impact on the world than a
few extreme devotees who live a very nonconsumptive existence. In fact it
would have thousands of times more impact.

I congratulate the voices of moderation here. You will be the ones that
really have an impact. The swing vote in the mainstream will pay attention
to you without writing you off as either "hippy" or "hick." You will occupy
the middle of this polarized spectrum. You will not resist attempts to apply
engineering science within reason, you will talk about unreasonable building
code without tying it to hemp freedom, you will appear before the county
commissioners with a tie and a hair cut.

Your impact will be huge, and I see a new day dawning for sustainable living
because truth be told, we are not as far apart on all of this as many might
think. We just need to figure out how to make it work.

Thank you-

Brian Bray
790 Larch St.
Eugene, OR 97405
541-683-2556 Home







-----Original Message-----
From: owner-coblist at deatech.com [mailto:owner-coblist at deatech.com]On Behalf
Of Shannon C. Dealy
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 2:00 PM
To: coblist at deatech.com
Subject: Cob: Coblist Kahuna: Argument/"objectivity" vs. "philosophy" . . .

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Arlie Haig wrote:

> Well, you guys really need to swallow the false pride of having the last
> word - both of you are valuable members of this list and we need your
> postings and wisdom. So just drop it and carry on as though nothing
> happened - that is what I want right now and I'm surmising that is what
the
> rest want also. We understand these things.
[snip]

Never mind "what the rest want", as the (sometimes) benevolent dictator of
this list, I declare the argument over!  No more name calling, etc.,
everyone involved, go to your respective corners or resume the fight in
the parking lot (i.e. off list).  Now if anyone has something constructive
to say about the book (meaning you have actually seen/read a copy of it),
or about cob in general, post away.

Shannon C. Dealy      |               DeaTech Research Inc.
dealy at deatech.com     |          - Custom Software Development -
                      |    Embedded Systems, Real-time, Device Drivers
Phone: (800) 467-5820 | Networking, Scientific & Engineering Applications
   or: (541) 451-5177 |                  www.deatech.com