Han Kortekaas on Phase Two of Making Permaculture Stronger

Hey all. Okay so here’s another email thread I’ve recently enjoyed, this time with Han Kortekass from Amsterdam. Han, who is relatively new to permaculture, both supports this project and is a member of the online community that meets every six weeks.

Han’s Initial Email (7/11/19)

Hi Dan,

I hope you are well. Here are a couple thoughts I’ve gathered after your third part of introducing phase 2 of MPS.

My first reaction is a deep resonance with this development and approach. I have a broad background in many different disciplines, but one of them is contemporary dance and in particular there I’ve focused on something called instant composition. This is a form of improvisation where you create dance pieces/compositions/choreography on the spot. So without the great masterplan of a set choreography that you’ve created and rehearsed beforehand. To do so, one has to listen, listen to what is created, we are creating, and what wants to manifest in that moment. The essence of that moment so to speak. So as you can probably tell, I felt a strong parallel between how you were describing this other approach to permaculture and the practice of instant composition.

I’m quite new to permaculture and it’s really exciting to hear someone (or multiple people as the guests you have on in the show are clearly in the know as well) speak about permaculture in this way, so that has also really drawn me to your work. I feel this more open and sensitive (in the way of sensing) entryway to whatever work can bring amazing results that are often more pertinent than any master plan we could have come up beforehand. So I think it’s amazing you’re exploring this direction.

What I feel with dancing, to be able to do this well requires a lot of skill. Skills that are not part of normal training. I guess the same would be true for permaculture. Being able to “listen” to the land, to observe in a deeper way. I remember you were talking about hanging out with a tracker, that seems like excellent training in learning to read the landscape better. Also what Ben Haggard was talking about, to observe the piece of land you’re developing within the bigger context, the surrounding land, was an eye-opener for me in thinking about how to get in touch with the essence of a site.

I feel I’m getting a bit of track compared to what your article focused on:)
One of the questions that comes up in thinking about cutting down the permaculture tree is: What is left over and how are you gonna get anything done still? Is it then a question in the beginning of starting very slow, sensing all the time with the observations you’re making. “Okay, what are we seeing, what is needed here?” Implementing that and then going back to sensing and seeing what is the next step? What I mean is, I’m curious as to how you put it into practice.

At the moment you’re also teaching a PDC course. I can imagine there are parts of that curriculum that you would consider being part of the tree trunk that you’ve cut down. How do you incorporate your new perspectives into your teaching? Or do you see it as this cutting down is something you’ve done in the context of MPS and that you will explore further there, but does not immediately affect the work you do outside of that? Though of course the knowledge you develop within MPS will influence your other practices, but maybe in a more indirect way.

One last thing that stood out for me after in the talk you had with Ben Haggard was this part about the original impulse. This gives me a very double feeling. In one way this is super important, to look at what is behind permaculture, to realise what it is all about. But something inside me is also more hesitant. A focus on original impulse can also lead to a sort of infatuation with the originators. A never ending search into what they were attempting. Even though, being human, they can also never have a complete overview. And that as something evolves and grows, its essence might expand beyond that originating impulse. Though I think this is more problematic for older movements where that originating impulse might not be relevant anymore.

That became a bit long and unstructured, but coming back to the beginning, I love what you’re doing with the platform and where you’re heading and I’m curious to see where it goes as you move forward and to be a bit part of it as well.

I hope you can find some value in my thoughts and observations and good luck with the rest of the PDC course!

All the best,
Han Kortekaas

Dan’s reply (27/12/19)

Greetings Han,

I surely do get a sense of resonance between your description of instant composition and what I’ve been describing as generative transformation. Where you make it clear this is not about doing random stuff and hoping for the best but being present and alive and in the moment, listening deeply and letting each next move emerge in real time. Where you are more of a conduit than in control with your plan, and where if its done right the most harmonic and alive and beautiful and functional patterns can emerge. Love it!

Right on also that this stuff, whether in a dance or a permaculture context (not that they need to be mutually exclusive at all) requires a skillset that it is sadly no longer normal to learn. I’m excited to experience and develop ways of both clarifying the ideas and creating entry-level opportunities to practice and refine them. Hanging out with a tracker is a great place to start (including trackers of landscape like David Holmgren). It would be interesting to hear about ways of learning instant composition that you’ve experienced.

Now onto the tricky questions you ask about the whole tree-coppicing situation.

What is left over and how are you gonna get anything done still?

One thing that is left over is, in contrast with a big complex blend of wheat and chaff that one can only attempt to tweak, is an empty space. Right above the cut surface, as in the remaining foundational or source material, is an empty space. A space of possibility – a big fat question mark – a placeholder for something new, something fresh. It is a relief for me to have all that clutter out of the way, and to be taking a breath, before, as you say, slowly breathing and moving into the question of what would a high-level process understanding that is deeply resonant with permaculture’s creative originating impulse look and feel like? I am also curious both how to continue co-developing these fresh understandings and how to put them into practice. All to be revealed in the process of stumbling into the darkness of a landscape that has become unfamiliar and regaining our bearings, slowly by slowly. Luckily the whole coppicing thing is only a thought experiment meaning we can all go back to permaculture-business-as-usual if these attempts crash and burn :-).

As for getting things done, well, Han, my answer here is instant composition :-). I already feel more empowered and able to get better things done without the risk of prematurely latching onto this pattern or that strategy or this technique. By experimenting with process understandings I’ve not read about in any existing book on permaculture. I mean I take your point about how to move forward when all the old pathways have been cut away, and how this might be paralysing for some of us, and then I say, just make something up! And take notes, and tell me what worked, and what didn’t! As I said, you can always revert back to the old tree if you want to – just maybe reconceptualising it as an optional crutch rather than the only way :-).

At the moment you’re also teaching a PDC course. I can imagine there are parts of that curriculum that you would consider being part of the tree trunk that you’ve cut down. How do you incorporate your new perspectives into your teaching? Or do you see it as this cutting down is something you’ve done in the context of MPS and that you will explore further there, but does not immediately affect the work you do outside of that?

Another great question. I’m feeling excited about the extent to which our PDC is resonant with where MPS is at. We certainly speak to and experience plenty of patterns, strategies and techniques during the two weeks. Though the emphasis is overwhelmingly on the experience of a process of generating high-level possibilities and concrete next steps with real clients on a real property in the spirit of hybrid if not full blown generative transformation. With liberal doses of both Holistic Decision Making and Christopher Alexander’s ideas in the mix too. I am planning to do a free webinar sharing something of the approach we’ve been evolving for quite a few years now. We call it a PDC+- in that there is a bunch of stuff we include that is rare for a PDC and a bunch of stuff that I understand is pretty normal for a PDC that we’ve consciously excluded. Sorry I’m being a bit vague here. You’ll have to wait for the free webinar in which I’m planning to share our approach :-).

I appreciate your final point too Han. I think both matter and my sense is that with this exercise we initially do go back to the founders and explore the originating impulse/s they brought to permaculture’s conception before considering how that has evolved and been infused with different impulses over time. I don’t think we need to choose one or the other, though I am personally excited to go back and explore this early stuff and seek clarity there so we can then assess what has happened since relative that (without supposing any deviation is necessarily ‘bad’). There is already some fantastic hints coming up in comments on the blog, including Mollison’s Prime Directive.

Thanks for your reflections Han – very helpful and much appreciated!
My best,

Han’s Reply (4/12/19)

Hi Dan,
So to come back to your long previous email:)

Right on also that this stuff, whether in a dance or a permaculture context (not that they need to be mutually exclusive at all) requires a skillset that it is sadly no longer normal to learn.

I don’t know enough about the history of permaculture to know about teachings of the past, but in dance I wonder if it ever was “normal” to learn these things. A strong branch in the history of contemporary dance flows from ballet, which is very structured and choreographed and dancers are used almost as objects to give shape to preconceived ideas of a choreographer. Though the best choreographers probably applied this listening and observing to their creative practice, though I feel it’s then applied within the limited context of that piece and misses sensitivity to the particularities of the specific instance of performance.

Hanging out with a tracker is a great place to start (including trackers of landscape like David Holmgren).

Yeah, I’ve heard you talk about tracking in the podcast. I’ve found that very fascinating, hearing about being able to read the (micro)landscape to such an extent that it reveals its (recent) history to you. I’d love to get the chance to hang out with a tracker. For now I like to spend a lot of time being in the garden, meandering around and observing. Trying to make sense of what I see happening, like how one plant is thriving in one place, but a same plant is struggling in another.

It would be interesting to hear about ways of learning instant composition that you’ve experienced.

There is one British artist working here in Europe, named Julyen Hamilton, who through years of training, study, and experience has become an absolute master in this field. He has spend much time with Jazz musicians as improvisation is such an integral part of that tradition and he has studied (with) many other artists. One of the fortunate aspects of contemporary dance being such a small discipline and dance improvisation being even smaller still, is that he is relatively available to be studied with as he teaches multiple workshops throughout the year in Europe. There are other great teachers as well, but he feels very central to me as the depth of his knowledge and skill is just tremendous.So he has been instrumental in my learning of instant composition. He would have us do exercises alone to get better in listening to our own bodies as we are creating and he would have us create pieces of improvised dance. When creating together, we would be working in groups of 2 to ±10 people while the rest watched. He would then help us observe, by interrupting pieces and making both performer and audience aware of what just happened and guiding the performer towards better choices for example, or talking through some moments of the piece with us afterward and dealing with questions that would come up in these discussions.

I mean I take your point about how to move forward when all the old pathways have been cut away, and how this might be paralysing for some of us, and then I say, just make something up!

This made me laugh! It somehow relates to something that Julyen was teaching me. Some of the solo exercises he would give would get me really in my head and doubting everything, leading to some sort of paralysis. What to do now!? Advice that he gave me: just make a thousand moves. Of course, moves are cheap, interventions in the landscape don’t come as cheap, but it’s about the thought behind it. Just do something, make a guess, any guess. Go do it and observe what happens. It’s nice, it keeps things fresh and easy to get into action.

To come back to the origins as well, I read Finn’s comments on the podcast with Ben Haggard. Acknowledging also the indigenous roots that are underneath many of permaculture’s principles somehow shifts what the essence of permaculture is, in my head at least. That it somehow is not just about what Mollison and Holmgren were attempting back in the days, vital and potent as that is, but also something even deeper about life. Though I cannot really put my finger on it yet.

Well, that’s about what I’ve got to say in this context at the moment. I felt somehow it wasn’t complete with a little reflection back and your email was just the little push I needed to get myself to sit down and write it. I hope it’s helpful and if you want to publish our correspondence, as is, or edited, you’re very welcome.

All the best,

Shane Ward on the Carol Sanford and Jason Gerhart Episodes

Hey all – here I continue sharing some (initially private) correspondence from recent months.

Thanks to my friend and colleague Shane Ward from Action Ecology for letting me share his reflections on two of the recent MPS podcast episodes below. I’ll add any comments of my own in italics as I read through them.

Enjoy, thanks as always for your interest, engagement and support, keep the messages and comments coming, and catch you next year.


On the Carol Sanford Interview

SW: Hey Dan,

Just watched the Carol Sanford interview… that was fun! I thought I’d share some thoughts.. just because I felt like it I guess… 

Very interesting. Quite a bit resonated with my thinking at the minute.

Makes me think you should listen to Rupert Sheldrake (I’m reasonably sure I’ve mentioned him to you before and you may have come across him previously), but his theory of ‘morphic resonance’ – memory in nature (nested wholes) – and his challenging of the ten dogmas of materialist science in particular would be right up your alley (here is the book, and you can find one of many good talks he did on this here). I’ve had the pleasure of spending some time with Rupert one-on-one and his knowledge of not just biological sciences, but history of science is really helpful in giving context as to WHY we have the kind of paradigms we do now.

DP: I have engaged a little with Rupert’s work and would be curious to learn more. I was impressed with the second of two interviews he did with Charles Eisenstein. I just watched him summarising the ten dogmas which largely resonate (especially the first). I am not familiar with morphic resonance which I must look up I have heard so many references to it. Incidentally those latter dogmas he mentions about the mind and consciousness being in the brain were a focus during my time at university.

SW: The idea that “there is no feedback in nature” is interestingly at odds with the perspective of evolutionary ecology on this – which would say that all life (from a genetic point of view) is essentially a dance between randomness (genetic drift) and natural selection played out within an environmental context.. therefore it’s kind of ALL feedback. The living world is a result of this dance determining what genes are passed on / expressed and therefore that’s why a kingfisher gets that beak (for example) or we have land plants etc.. the idea being that it’s additive, and exploratory and millions of possibilities are explored and the ones that work in a particular context persist. It’s the result of a concerted effort over centuries to remove any hint of a ‘designer’ from the story of life (lol), but it’s pretty cogent. Not flawless, but it’s interesting to contrast that with what Carol says. Evolutionary biologists would say that there is no ‘choice’ to be one thing or another, and that ‘feedback’ pressures from environmental stimuli (both biotic and abiotic) is what is driving everything..  but I’m not 100% sure if Carol and I mean the entirely the same thing when using that word. Hmmm.. words huh?   😉

DP: Yeah as I understand her she means something different, something closer to its original sense of “the return to the input of a part of the output of a machine, system, or process.” I’d be curious to take a look through her book No More Feedback to learn more (is a free sample chapter here). I like how she disrupts me into having to think carefully about terms I’ve always taken for granted and what hidden baggage (mechanistic or otherwise) they might carry, which is not to say that I will stop using the term, though I am certainly more conscious about how I use it, and how our language can provide powerful clues into the paradigms we’re working from.

SW: The discussion about biomimicry was interesting. I agree it’s a kind of cherry picking / fragmented / limited frame type of mindset. I’m not sure however if I’m with her on the idea that we can’t / shouldn’t think about how to understand and reproduce / partner with natural systems. 

I see the point you were trying to make there, and it may be that she was trying to make her point so clear that it was kind of glossing over some stuff, but I feel that a huge part of the problem we have is that we’ve become separated from nature, and we need to see, recognise and embrace it ..connect with it and understand it on as many levels as possible. I was starting to feel that her philosophical purity there was kind of getting in the way of what I see it as a positive thing. I am also realising more and more that we have to start where people are at / the world is.. But maybe it’s a disconnect with my perception of this and her expression of it.

DP: Yup. It’s taken me a while to understand that Carol is consciously striving to disrupt and destabilise anyone she engages with to sort of liquify their certainty and shock them into a state of noticing and reconsidering old patterns of thinking. I’m pretty sure I have heard her and certainly her colleagues using phrasing pretty darn close to the phrasings re nature that she slammed me on. I suspect the point was as much about making me question my thinking as it was about making the points she made.1 She has done this many times since and I so often end up with an evolution in discernment. Not that it was initially much fun in the moment though I have to say I am starting to quite like it.

Did you see the piece she wrote me about her take on the word nature? It’s worth a read. Incidentally I have heard her say “I never meet people where they are. Ever.” As in she always strives to meet them on the edge of where they are and nourish their evolution from there. For the record in different places I have now heard her say or write that she (with my current understandings of her reasons):

  • never answers questions (because she would prefer to support the asker’s capacity to ask a better question and absolutely does not want to be deferred to as the ‘expert’ in the space – she wants everyone to be/become their own expert)
  • never has anyone evaluate her work (because the last thing she wants those is for she’s working with to outsource responsibility for the work and outcomes to her rather than taking full responsibility themselves)
  • never starts gatherings with individual check ins (because she experiences this as collapsing the energy to the level of the individual and in fact more likely to result in people ‘checking out’ as in becoming less focused on the topic or work at hand)
  • never meets people where they are – ever! (because this lets them relax into old models and thinking patterns – she wants to start disrupting these as early in the engagement as possible by meeting them just outside of where they are then moving along just ahead of them)
  • doesn’t ask people what they want, and if they tell her, mostly ignores it (because what people say they want is so often different to the thing that would most reveal and manifest their essence and potential right now, not to mention being contaminated with however many limiting models and paradigms)
  • skips over what exists (because this can lead to simply tweaking what is rather than discovering totally new possibilities)
  • ignores people’s problems (because if the focus is on solving problems then the best possible outcome is that at the end there is less bad stuff. Carol is all about moving from problems to potential and going back to source material to generating and regenerating new tissue from there)

All of which I am now becoming much more discerning about in my own facilitation and consulting work.

SW: I also like your points about planning and it’s contradictions.. It’s funny how often when I listen to your insights into Permaculture design etc.. I often find that you’re verbalising something that I believe or have worked through but had not really ever thought to verbalise or articulate. 🙂

During my previous life as a film director you come to the understanding that (especially on low budgets) the one thing that won’t actually happen is your plan for the day. But that doesn’t mean you don’t make the best one you can. The script, the shooting order/schedule (with backup/contingency options for bad weather etc) is there almost as an exercise in mental rehearsal / preparation.. it’s a thought experiment of sorts. You come to set knowing what you want to do and why.. so that when the moment arrives you have a clear mind to see the opportunities of the moment in front of you – you’re not searching for what to do, you’ve already ‘lived it’ in your mind once.. and now this time you have that safely in your back pocket should nothing better come along.. but you keep your eyes to the present you find yourself in. I kind of see the ‘design’ as the initial compass bearing in some ways. Regenerative land use can only be regenerative if it’s open to feedback (there’s that word!) from what’s actually happening.. it must be reactive to the processes you’ve set into action. 

But that only is possible (I believe) if you have the knowledge to actually see and understand what is happening in front of you.. and not therefore imposing these patterns. 

It’s like the martial art of Aikido.. you have to spend years and years learning distinct, separate ’techniques’ in a set way, in order to get to the point where you have something called ’technique’. It’s no longer a collection of separate things.. it’s a unified state of mind and a ‘centered-ness’ in the moment where your reflexes and mindset has learned over time to relax and flow with the energy that comes to it.. allowing you to harmonise with it, channel it, without thought.. no conflict. No winners or losers.. just harmony. Bill Mollison only mentioned it once (that i know of) but when he said Permaculture was like “doing Aikido on the landscape” I really connected with that. 

I really liked that point Carol made right towards the end about permaculture designers having an ‘educators role’.. which was what I was thinking when you were talking to her earlier about going on to a client’s property as a designer. It’s not about imposing design I don’t think. it’s about connecting people with knowledge / awareness / understanding.. the “design” or “plan” is a teaching aide, a thought exercise, a way of explaining the connection of landscape and living processes and how the client could potentially live within that.. a snapshot of a possible world.. not a prediction per se. You’re providing a diagram of how the energy flows across landscape and telling a story through it.

Because you are right – you can’t walk off and leave someone with a design they don’t understand and that’s not connected to them, their purpose place, essence etc. Half the job however is getting them looking in the right direction, walking on the right path to acknowledge the things they need to learn more about – ‘knowing what they don’t know’ perhaps.. and connecting the threads for them to follow themselves (hopefully imbued with the beginning of an awareness of how make it work, and as a foundation to build on over time as they see and respond to their own living system). BUT… there is also this other piece of the living landscape, its own emergent expression of life, it can’t be all egocentric and about people.. there is this larger sea of life around our ‘node’ to be felt, appreciated.. certain tides and currents that we must position ourselves in relation to.. 

DP: Beautifully put Shane 🙂

SW: Anyway, that’s enough for now!  😉 Look forward to chatting again sometime. 

The Second Jason Gerhardt Chat

SW: Hey Dan,

I just listened to your MPS episode “Exploring the Role of Maps in Permaculture Design with Jason Gerhardt“and I thought you might find this perspective interesting.

During a previous career, I was a film writer and director. It has provided me with a perspective and some hard-earned lessons that seem to relevant in (sometimes) the most unexpected places. This felt like one of those instances.

In reality, some film scripts take years, YEARS to write, before they’re ready (hopefully) to be ‘made’. But even at this point as a writer/director (auteur), you appreciate that every film gets made three times, with the storytelling taking place in three main phases. First as a screenplay (the result of what you vision), then during production/principle photography – when you actually commit images to film (the result of what you actually do on the day) – then again when you edit it (where you truly ‘create’ the final product people will see). It’s a living process the whole way through, where things go right, go wrong and you have to constantly deal with the unexpected, and control a complex, expensive, finely balanced process enough to avoid catastrophe but not too much that it cuts off oxygen for the magic to happen. But despite all that, you don’t not write a script just because it gets thrown out of the window by the time you get to the editing stage. While technically you can improvise an entire film, there are many reasons why very few actually do it, not least because it’s a collaborative process that can involve many (even hundreds of) people, and the chaos can quickly spiral. So the script becomes not only a process of visioning that’s very valuable, but also communication tool / a rosetta stone to draw focus for better ideas during this ongoing collaboration.

I was thinking how you’re exploring the potential of mapping vs not.. but I wonder if that is actually the KEY distinction between being successful with a map or nailing it without.. 

To me there is a point to be made around mastery here. Going back to the film making analogy / parallel. Every director/writer etc has their own methods. Some storyboard (draw) every shot in the film and try to recreate these perfectly (highly controlled), others barely write dialogue and just free flow it all (fast & loose). Some modify their approach per project and some start with one approach and pare it down over time and evolve towards something different.. why? Firstly because they want different results (a different feel) each time or they are comfortable with different levels of ambiguity… and as they get more and more confident / insightful, they can begin to use short hand a bit.. (like David Holmgren reading a landscape), they can narrow down to the essence. By contrast, someone newer to it needs the scaffolding of the process more to ensure they don’t miss anything important. They need reminding of what’s important, and sign posts for potholes to guide them through the wilderness safely so they can get into the feel of it before heading ‘off the track’ as it were and forging their own path.

So in some ways I see what you’re talking about has having parallels between the age old discussion between scripted dialogue vs improvisation. The improv feels fresh, alive, in the moment, truthful – all great things.. but it has a shadow side and needs a skilled performer to do it well, and a skilled director to facilitate/create/guide the process so that the actors are actually able be in the moment and not be looking at/evaluating themselves (which gets in the way of the true connection to the moment where good improv comes from). When done badly, it can be deflating, aimless, tangential, confused, superficial, boring, lifeless.. same can be said for scripting – done well it can be tight, sharp, incisive, dramatic, poignant, beautiful – but done badly it can be rigid, false, constricting, suffocating, robotic and so on.. so the question is not necessarily whether to script/map or not.. but rather: where on the spectrum is it appropriate to be for this context/project/people and purpose. 

Because the truth is, what ‘feels good’ in the moment is not always the best result. It can just be a signal from the ego. Ask anyone who works with actors.. lol 

It can be a very egocentric philosophy to focus only on that facet, or rather to say that “what feels right” is more authentic than anything else.

Sometimes the rigour of reflection, consideration, analysis, thoughtfulness – letting the seasons of mind and temperament wash over the ‘plan/map/concept’ to reveal and improve things – can be very useful.

These challenges you refer to about how it can go wrong with the plan is exactly the kinds of challenges you get with young filmmakers trying to create something good with limited experience or initial gift for it.. It’s that tension between too much/not enough safety. (Councils/film studios also sometimes need a plan – like you say), but it’s interesting how you can find examples of both approaches being done well/badly, and therefore I think it’s worth prodding a bit to see what’s influencing these different outcomes.

I feel it comes down to this notion that the tool (like you acknowledge) is just a tool, and that the practitioner is really the deciding factor in many ways. The bigger tool might be needed to compensate for a lack of muscle, and a smaller, more delicate tool might be more effective in lighter hands.. but each person may need a different combination to compliment their different skills at different stages etc. – depending on where they are.

DP: Great reflections Shane. Yes! I love having folk draw out the parallels with some other sphere, be it Chinese medicine, sport medicine, dance, or here filmmaking.

So true that a little or a lot of scripting can go bad and you need to adjust the dial between the two as you go.

In this post I tried to share that it is more about attitude (And yeah you could say mastery) than whether or not an actual map is drawn. I love the idea that the details of the process are themselves emerging in real time in a generative fashion, and where no existing tools or techniques are off limits.

Reading this reminds me I often have had the response to my work of “yep sure Dan, we’ll use the existing process understandings/models/recipes as a scaffold to get folk started then later they can fall into the space of generative transformation etc etc”. I remember chatting about this with the wonderful Dave Jacke in this conversation. I totally get there is something in this then another part of me wants to shout out that I know it is totally possible to create new scaffolding that takes people directly toward more living processes such that they don’t need to perform a u-turn when the scaffolding gets removed. Just recently some permaculture educators were saying to me that we can keep teaching folk to do master plans, then let them learn later to change them during implementation. While I do get the idea that planning is essential and valuable (so long as you throw the resulting plan away as soon as it’s done, in the sense that reality remains the master), I see the almost inevitable tendency to become attached to our pretty pictures. I just don’t see the plan leaving the hand even if we try to throw it away – it’s like they get stuck there or something – like there was a bit of glue on the hand at the start it would have been better to wash off first :-).

Anyways thanks for chiming in and being okay with opening this conversation up to the MPS audience!

Adrian Hodgson’s Sketches on Design Process Ecology and Succession

Hey all,

Dan here. Wow I can’t believe six weeks just whizzed by. I did co-facilitate a PDC, attend my second Possibility Lab, worked through a few health issues, and move house, but even still.

I’m currently sort of reeling in the sheer volume of profoundly insightful comments (see here for instance) and private messages that have been coming my way in relation to MPS in the last few weeks. Where one sentiment I have is that much of these ought to be full blown posts.

I’m also still processing what I got from the Ben Haggard chat and from my ongoing engagements with Carol Sanford and others. I have so many great questions to chew on and this joint feeling of wading through thick mist and a deep excitement at the radiant hints and glimpses of living process possibilities and permaculture potentials I sense ahead.

I am working on a post that will summarise where I see myself focusing my energy for the next stretch, which I guess will be most of next year. Can’t wait to share that then launch into fresh expeditions together, where falling deep into the question around permaculture’s originating impulse looms large.

Meantime, actioning the sentiment I started with, I’m going to start sharing some otherwise private messages as posts. Big thanks to Adrian Hodgson from Design Jam Permaculture for letting me share his words and wonderful exploratory sketches here. I look forward to reading your reflections in the comments as well as sharing mine there too.

Adrian’s Initial Email (Nov 30, 2019)

Hi Dan,

I’ve been thinking with great excitement about a lot of what has been explored and shared on this meta level community “development” project of yours (MPS). I needed to put a few of the thoughts that were swimming around in my mind onto paper and so I have drawn up a couple of sketches that I would love to share with you.

One of them is an exploration of the design process as an ecology as inspired by your chats with Dave Jacke (see here and here). This emerged to be conceived of as what it might look like to gaze into the ‘rings’ of the freshly cut permaculture tree.

Another sketch that I made was to try to illustrate the idea of personal development –as getting to one’s singular core– into the idea of a succession of design-process means and expression. I have charted this on a spectrum with one axis representing the continuum of degenerative to regenerative and the other axis representing one’s calling to be a designer to “maturation” and inevitably death.

From here, I am working on what to do with the insights of my sketches and would love to participate in some collegial dialogue around these ideas (as is ongoing with your MPS endeavours of course).

I am currently exploring the notion that living systems may “call” us in as designers –there are ecological precedents for this (ie: corn silk). Were Mollison, Holmgren and Fukuoka generated by the greater living systems they came from?.. hmm, this is far out of my usual territory.. murky waters ahead I suspect. I’m actually quite scared..

On a more down to Earth level, I will also be exploring how to reasonably use the “design process ecology” as a tool (back-breeding it with proceedural generation).. and I have a few thoughts and ideas around how to do that that I am experimenting with. This is based on a theory that I have inferred from “Glantzing” into the tree rings of the coppiced permaculture tree (perhaps a process sucker sprouting from the coppiced stool).. Haha.. it’s all very foggy still and I don’t want to ‘master-plan’ this.. That is why I thought that sharing these ideas with you may be the next best step.

Please let me know if there is a preferred email address that I can send these along to you.

With deep gratitude for the spaces you have been creating,

Adrian Hodgson

Dan’s Reply


Great message! Look forward to replying/engaging properly and in meantime share those sketches, and continue letting beings emerge from the mist / fog :-), and participate in some collegial dialog around these ideas!

I am intrigued and excited by the hints you’ve shared and look forward to continuing the conversation. Maybe you want to submit a guest post or something? Or maybe we have some to-and-fro on email then publish the thread as a post? Let’s see what happens I guess.

For me your message is a continuation of an almost overwhelming flow of brilliant comments and messages in the last week or so. I’m feeling so humbled to be helping hold space for the quality of dialogue that is emerging around MPS and next steps are feeling foggy for me too – though I know whatever emerges from here is going to be beautiful.


ps. Oh and I like this metaphor continuation of gazing into the rings, each ring a year of permaculture’s growth since inception. Where this focus Ben Haggard helped me refine on the originating impulse is going right back to that little pith in the core then tracing it back down to the moment of germination and the forces at play that contributed where, as you say, maybe living systems of the world were like, “okay we better call in some fresh flavours here, for shit is getting out of control!” 🙂

Adrian’s Sketches

Hey Dan,

Glad to hear that you are intrigued. I’d love to keep the conversation going and am not opposed to our commencement here being posted as a thread.

Here is an invitation to look at the sketches I made. If you need a different format just let me know.

To be honest, the tree ring thought only came up later after I drew the one sketch and was gazing into it.. the thought emerged.. and needs much more exploration. I am not much experienced at tracking formally.. but did like the idea of “glantzing” (a nod to Joel) into the rings.. where as you had described David Holmgren doing to image/aspect/inspect/sidespect etc. the depths of a place.. Tree rings can tell a lot about a story.. though I was also envisioning something kind of like ‘Dumbledor’ gazing into his ‘pensieve’.

Happy tracking. Chat more soon!

Ben Haggard on Potential and Development in Permaculture and Beyond (E30)

In our first ever conversation, Ben Haggard of Regenesis Group shares his history with and perspective on permaculture.

This episode catalysed waves of reflection that are blowing my mind.

Yes, I was struck with the profound clarity and depth of what Ben shared.

Then the sheer resonance of the relevance to exactly where Making Permaculture Stronger is at – well that pretty much knocked me off my seat. You could say I’m still climbing back up off the floor :-).

I don’t know about you, dear listener/reader, but I have the real sense that this conversation is itself a nodal intervention in Making Permaculture Stronger’s ongoing evolution.

It is like I can feel the energy shifting and growing and generatively transforming throughout my entire being and hence the being of this project. New levels of Will are awakening.

I mean I use the terms potential and development (who doesn’t) and before this chat I would have said I had a fairly clear, coherent grasp on what they are. Not any more. I was almost dazzled by the clarity Ben gives these terms in a way that resonates deep in my bones. Then, when he spoke about the idea of permaculture’s originating impulse, well, game over. Let me pen a few reflections on each.


After decades of experience and reflection in collaboration with a tight-knit community of practice, Ben has reached a fascinating perspective on what potential is. As I understand him, he sees the potential (or the possible contribution) of something as existing in the tension between that thing’s deep, enduring, inherent character and the ever-changing reality of the context in which it is nested and in particular what this context calls for in this particular “historical and evolutionary moment.”

To identify the potential of a farm, a garden, a person, a family, a business, an organisation, a blog project, we need to ask:

  1. what is the unique character of this being? then
  2. what is currently called for in the immediate, local, and greater wholes it is nested within?, and
  3. what could happen here that would harmonise these two things?

Which brings us to…


Clearly, potential often remains latent. For Ben, development is then the practice of actually revealing and manifesting the potential inherent in something, which involves removing anything in the way and becoming more and more relevant and valuable to context.

Originating Impulse

When Ben first mentioned this phrase late in our chat, I knew immediately it was going to inform my very next steps with Making Permaculture Stronger. So take this as a sneak preview where I’d invite you to start sitting in the space of this all-important question: what was permaculture’s originating impulse? Please don’t rush – take your time with this – there will be space to chime in with what arises for you very soon.

One thing here I’d invite if you come across any sound bites or text that speaks of this originating impulse to you, especially if from the early days of permaculture, please send it through to me and I may well include it in the upcoming post.

Other Notable Threads

  • what Ben said about permaculture’s usual initiation/conversion experiences and how these can make it very difficult to bring the ideas into one’s existing ways of working I think was well worth further exploration. I mention it here as a reminder to come back to this in future as appropriate. Any thoughts?
  • This idea of the word place as a rare world in English in that it includes people, landscape etc etc…
  • the idea that if you can be with a person or other living entity as it is, you are taking it as whole (as opposed to our default pattern of fragmenting things by paying attention to their various attributes)

Links to Stuff Ben is involved in

Ben on Place

Exploring the Role of Maps in Permaculture Design with Jason Gerhardt (E29)

This episode shares the continuation of the conversation Jason Gerhardt and I started in Episode 25. While we refer back to the below framework I was playing around with at the time we mainly explore drawing and mapping in relation to permaculture design as well as topics around certification, not needing permission, and more.

Oh yeah at the start I refer back to this post where I explore generative transformation as an attitude not something dogmatic as regards to map or not to map.

Jason directs the USA’s Permaculture Institute and Real Earth Design and I just love being in touch with him and having him as a colleague in this work and these adventures.

Stay tuned for much deeply exciting stuff in the pipeline. Phase Two is about to kick in big time and I am going to need you to get involved.

Finally here’s the place to voluntarily donate some of your hard-earned cash to this project. It makes a massive, huge difference even if just $1 per month so thanks if you even consider it let alone actually do it :-). For those of you interested in joining the new online community that meets every six weeks then join at the $10 tier or get in touch via the contact page to explore other options (as in, if you can’t afford it or whatever, then let’s figure something out!).

Introducing Phase Two of Making Permaculture Stronger: Collaboratively Developing Permaculture’s Potential

So what does my recent discussion of the problem with solving problems look like in relation to the trunk in the Permaculture Tree diagram?

Well, the way I have come to see it is that the whole trunk is itself an imposition.

What, wait, what?

I believe the whole above-ground part of the permaculture tree has been growing from a grafted-on collection of design process understandings that were imported from outside.1

Imported from places like industrial design, engineering, architecture & landscape architecture.2

Because the scion wood and the rootstock were not a compatible match, the graft never really properly took. Indeed, as a result of it being there at all, the latent energy around permaculture generating its own process possibilities has either remained dormant in the roots, or been overruled by the DNA of the grafted-on material.

You see where I am going with this. I don’t want to continue trying to patch up a trunk that in so many ways is a distraction from the work I’m here to participate in. I don’t want to be pulling apart layer upon layer of imported design process understandings that shoot permaculture in the foot by dishonouring its very essence.3

I want to dive deep into permaculture’s beautiful foundations and then to help grow and tend and realise fit-for-purpose design process understandings directly. Without distraction!

What this means for me is…

The Tree is Coming Down

I am cutting the permaculture tree down.

Consciously. Carefully. Lovingly. As a personal thought experiment, I’m cutting it down. Just below the place where the foreign design process understandings were imported and grafted on. To create a fresh surface from which all kinds of wild regrowth can spring forth.

I am talking about the development of design process understandings that stem from permaculture’s own roots. From permaculture’s own DNA.4

I’m talking about consciously coppicing the permaculture tree, take three.

To be clear, none of the tree is removed from the site after the coppicing operation. Yes, it will fall to the ground and it will remain there, branches, twigs, leaves. Hot compost the most diseased material, tuck the rest in around the stump.

Where as fresh growth bursts forth, anything relevant breaks down and is reabsorbed and assimilated into the living tissue of the re-growing tree. Just think, the fungi are going to have a field day and there will be mushrooms by the plenty. In other words, nothing is lost. I would like to think the babies will gurgle in contented gratitude to be free of the bath water.

This is when the real work begins. The work of tending to the new shoots. Watching them closely, nourishing them while delicate and young. As they grow, selectively removing weaker stems and shaping up those that remain for optimal health and form.

Making Permaculture Stronger – Phase Two

I declare Phase Two of Making Permaculture Stronger open.

Phase Two is all about tapping into permaculture’s essence, its potential, then co-articulating from scratch design and creation process understandings that resonate with and actualise this potential every step of the way.

Where those of us drawn to this work respectfully converse and collaborate in the hard, honest, yet immensely rewarding work of co-crafting, co-creating something fresh. Something authentic. Something alive.

Something worthy of what Bill and David gifted the world in co-originating the permaculture concept.

To me, this is one way of tapping the part of permaculture’s essence that Bill Mollison manifested when he talked about having lost heart in protesting and fighting against what he didn’t want. He retreated into the bush and when he came back he was a different person. He was intensely focused not on what he didn’t want, but on what he did want. He focused his fire and he took permaculture to the world, igniting a global movement.

I don’t want to be against what I don’t like in permaculture any more. I want to be for what I love. I want to be for growing from that place and the incredible potential within it.

Rather than feeling like I’m pissing on the permaculture party, I want to jump in with the crowd and to celebrate as we co-create new dance moves so wild and so alive that the concrete cracks open and long-dormant seeds germinate for miles in all directions!

Let us honour the pioneers, honour all those who have contributed to permaculture’s incredible story and journey.

Not by assuming that permaculture is finished and perfect and beyond improvement. I can imagine no greater insult to everything they stood for, stand for, to everything permaculture stands for.

Confronting the fact that permaculture is not finished and perfect, I used to think I had two options: 1) Politely ignoring permaculture’s problems, tensions, issues and weaknesses or 2) going on about and trying to ‘fix’ them.

I now see both as equally impotent.

No more of that. Let us not close our eyes to the issues. Yet let us see them as indicators. Let us hone in on and widen the cracks until what is broken falls away and we are left with a place from which to re-grow fresh tissue true to permaculture’s core.5

This is what I choose to participate in and I sense this is where I am going to direct a decent chunk of my life force. If it resonates, I invite you to get involved. To bring your gifts to whatever table or forum works for you. Where of course this work is already happening in hundreds of different ways and places, all around the world. Thank God. For this must be our work. It must be held within a field of co-creative coherence.

Indeed, if it resonates, it is because it is not only my voice. It is already in you. If this has any merit as a conversation, it is because it is a conversation that is already happening, all around the world. Let us bring it out into the open. Let us let resonant threads all over the world know that permaculture is well and truly IN THE GAME.

We are leaving the story of the expert, the genius founder behind. It has been a great story, it has served us, it has been a part of the way forward. I have only gratitude for all the pioneering genius that has lifted us high enough to see so far. Yet we are, at a cultural level, moving into a new story, a story in which a process of deep, authentic co-creation is so, so ready to germinate.

It is my hope to look back some day and see that this post was part of the needed scarification.

From today, Making Permaculture Stronger’s byline is no longer by collaboratively identifying and addressing its weaknesses. It is Collaboratively Unfolding Permaculture’s Potential.

Thanks for reading. Thanks for being with me on this journey. I hope to catch you amidst the indescribably exciting things to happen from here on in.


I am indebted to Finn Weddle for his support and for the clarity and depth of his reflections on an earlier draft of this post.

I also thank Joel Glanzberg, Bill Reed, and particularly Carol Sanford, whose living systems frameworks are increasingly informing my approach to all this.


Permaculture and Edible Rooftops above Apartments: A Radio Interview

A friend just sent through a link to this recent radio interview I did with Jonathan Green from Radio ABC’s Blueprint for Living Show.

Here’s the link to the show on the Radio ABC website and here it is as an MP3.

Dan Palmer being interviewed by Radio ABC’s Jonathan Green for Blueprint for Living.

If you get through it, you’ll note I didn’t need asking twice at the end when asked about my greater ambitions with this stuff :-).

Here are some of the plans of the rooftop areas we discuss (see here if you’re wondering why Dan Palmer is sharing master plans right now) :

Along with a recent drone shot of the build-in-progress:

When I’m better, hopefully this coming Saturday, I’ll get onto part three of Introducing Phase Two of Making Permaculture Stronger. Can’t wait!

Introducing Phase Two of Making Permaculture Stronger: From Solving Problems to Developing Potential (E27)

Note: This post may not make much sense unless you read (or listen to) the previous post first.

What I’ve been doing…

As reviewed in the last post, I have spent more than three-and-a-half years attempting to help strengthen permaculture’s weakest links, or, in other words, solve permaculture’s biggest problems.

In this approach, success is tacitly defined as the degree to which the weak link or problem is made to go away.1

The Problem with Solving Problems

Phase Two of Making Permaculture Stronger starts with my realisation that focusing on problems, even if the problems are getting solved, does not and cannot solve the problem that the whole approach of solving problems is itself, well, problematic.2

Joel Glanzberg has summarised the situation perfectly:

We are so accustomed to machines and the mechanical world of Newtonian Physics that we can barely think about how to address the problems of a living world. We try to fix them as we would an old truck: We identify the bad part that is to blame for the problem and repair, replace, or remove it. This is our general approach to everything from medicine to foreign policy to justice. We try to get tumors, dictators and other “bad guys” to reform or we simply replace them. Then, we are continually surprised when new tumors, symptoms, or bad guys promptly arise to take their place. Changing the manifestation of living systems without shifting the underlying causal patterns will always be an uphill battle and often takes us in the wrong direction, like super-gluing the cracks in a hatching eggshell.

As has Carol Sanford (in this article):

When you start well-intended efforts by identifying a “problem,” you are trapped into thinking that you have to fix it. This leads you on a search for the causes and results in efforts to try out many solutions. It pulls all of your energy toward an endless effort that is based on the mindset that got people into the rut in the first place. Einstein warned us about that.

Hmmm. This is exactly the sense in which I have been trying to ‘solve permaculture’s problems.’

Oh well, it’s not like nothing good has come from this approach (and yet it is time for a fundamental change of direction)…

Now I do not think all this effort has been a waste. Absolutely not! I have learned a heap that has really boosted my ability to serve as a permaculture design process facilitator.

I know this is also true for permaculture colleagues around the world. Almost weekly someone reaches out with gratitude for how this project has inspired and supported them to deepen their own design process understandings and practices.

Nonetheless, I’m clear it’s time Making Permaculture Stronger explicitly extracts itself from the business of dabbling in problems. Where I spend countless hours focusing on aspects of permaculture that I don’t even like. On weak links. On problems. Problems that worry me. Problems that demoralise me. Problems that as best I can tell are getting in the way of permaculture’s ability to evolve toward deeper and fuller expressions of its potential.

I’m glad for everything this effort has created and I want to make a clean break from the whole mentality. It is time for something different. Thankfully there is an alternative that resonates so deeply it brings shivers to my spine.

Regenerating from the Core

Having spelled out the futility of the problem-solving mentality, Carol Sanford brilliantly illuminates an alternative approach:

Okay! Okay! So what do we do? As crazy as it sounds, we skip over what exists. We act as though the problem doesn’t matter. This sounds harsh, even cruel, but consider: within regenerative processes, problems are not useful information. Nature doesn’t care that rat populations are exploding in the suburban countryside. Regeneration in this instance occurs when this niche within the ecosystem is filled by returning populations of foxes and owls. Circumventing problems is how much real change comes about and particularly the kinds of change that disrupt markets—and also history, for that matter.

Instead of lamenting a problem, ask, “What are customers (or the planet or social groups) seeking to achieve and why?” This is the route to the creation of something that doesn’t yet exist. Don’t look at why current methods aren’t working. Keep your eye squarely on the your buyer’s intention, on the intentions of living systems and social groups.

What problem?

Wow! What an idea! Instead of lamenting the problem or problems, to take this approach we’d ask “what is permaculture’s core intention” and we proceed directly toward helping to realise that as if all the problems weren’t even there.

For Carol, this entails, “going back to base material and regenerating from what is at the core.”3 Where we move from strengthening weak links or solving problems to unfolding potential:

Seeing true potential requires us to go back to the DNA of our intentions, conscious and unconscious, back to first base, where the uniqueness of the opportunity exists. What is screaming to be realized directly? …

The same is true for engaging with people. For example, when we pay attention, we see loads of potential in the children around us. We see their shortfalls as well; there is no end of shortfalls to fix. But if you start with who a child really is, deep inside, what makes them unique, and you help them realize more and more of that, to become closer and closer to their own singularity, then they thrive. Who wants to make a child “less bad”? Don’t we instead want to support them in their quest to realize their unique potential? And don’t we feel the same about each new business and each watershed? No two living systems are the same; each is pursuing a unique potential. Find that and you become a great business leader or a great biologist.

As a colleague of Carol’s, it is no surprise that Joel Glanzberg is once again on the same page:

Life is by nature creative. She never goes back but only forward. Repair or restoration may work for antique chairs but not ecosystems, eggs or countries. They will never be what they once were, any more than you will ever be a teenager or Humpty Dumpty will be put together again.

Living systems, whether organisms or organizations, ecosystems or economic systems, resolve their problems not by “fixing” them but by outgrowing them. The maturing chick running out of food and space in her egg does not add on or send for take-out. She does not fix her cracking shell but uses this breakdown to break through and emerge into another world, one of air and light where her parents feed her. Then, when the chick and her siblings outgrow the nest and their parents’ ability to feed them, they fledge and fly into the wider world where they can feed themselves and migrate to more favorable climes as the seasons change.

Time to shift things up…

I also just love the way Robert Fritz talks about this stuff:

There is a profound difference between problem solving and creating. Problem solving is taking action to have something go away – the problem. Creating is taking action to have something come into being – the creation. Most of us have been raised in a tradition of problem solving and have had little real exposure to the creative process.

For this reason many people confuse the two. It doesn’t help when some ‘experts’ talk about ‘creative’ problem solving. They think that the creative process and problem solving are the same. They are completely different.

The problem-solvers propose elaborate schemes to define the problem, generate alternative solutions, and put the best solution into practice. If this process is successful, you might eliminate the problem. Then what you have is the absence of the problem you are solving. But what you do not have is the presence of a result you want to create (The Path of Least Resistance, p. 31)

How beautiful are all these statements? How exciting are they! What is screaming to be directly realised in permaculture? What would it mean for permaculture to crack open, fledge, and fly? What is the result that we in permaculture want together to create? Now we are talking. And this brings us right up to where this little project called Making Permaculture Stronger is going to be heading next


Fritz, Robert. The Path of Least Resistance: Learning to Become the Creative Force in Your Own Life. Fawcett, 1984.

Learn about Carol Sanford’s books (with free sample chapters) here and her podcast here.

Visit Joel Glanzberg’s website here.


Introducing Phase Two of Making Permaculture Stronger: Recapping Phase One (and its problems)

Making Permaculture Stronger is about to cross a pivotal threshold in its evolution as a project.

Let me explain…

This project launched three and a half years ago with the intention to be…

…a space where permaculture practitioners come together with a spirit of strengthening the design system aspect of permaculture by clarifying its weaknesses and coordinating efforts to address them.


The best way I know of strengthening something is to identify weak links and then to direct energy toward making them less weak.

An early requirement for the project was to create a framework for thinking about all the different aspects of permaculture. Some way of holding the whole so that weak links could be honed in on and strengthened…

Permaculture Tree (take three)

Remember this? I sure do. I still find it helpful way of mapping out how all permaculture’s different aspects sit in relation to one another. I introduced my original illustration here and what follows is a new (draft) version beautifully illustrated by my friend and permaculture illustrator Brenna Quinlan.

Note – the arrows leaving and entering the tree represent permaculture bringing foundational understandings in from outside and creating solutions that go out to become part of other approaches or the culture in general (as isolated things)

To recap the main idea:

  • permaculture has general foundational aspects that are universal in their relevance (roots)
  • permaculture has specific solutions (design configurations, strategies, and techniques) that are appropriate in some situations and not in others (limbs, branches and leaves)
  • the only thing that can get you from the foundations to the appropriate solutions for a given situation is sound design process (trunk)

I can’t resist sharing two further aspects of the tree before I move on, given I just rediscovered Brenna’s lovely sketches of them. First, here’s a view from above where you might recognise something familiar. Second, the cyclic patterns of movement I’m using the tree to highlight are an instance of the pattern Bill Mollison called the core model.1

Brenna Quinlan’s sketches of two additional aspects of the Permaculture Tree (Take Three)

The Original Plan

Having created the original tree diagram, I hatched a cunning plan for the future of Making Permaculture Stronger. I was going to complete, and indeed have completed, a few inquiries myself. Each was to start with something permaculture seemed to have got wrong in terms of design process and end with some better alternative to it. I went so far as to prepare the below plan. I was going to put this out there once I had the ball rolling (as in about now). A diagram to set the parameters to invite others to come play this same game over and over. Together we were going to remedy permaculture’s issues, one strengthened weak link at a time..

My early masterplan for Making Permaculture Stronger

Why I started with the Trunk

I spent a few posts explaining why I chose to start my weak-link work in the region of the tree’s trunk, as in design process. I described the apparent lack of a deep, coherent, shared, widely used understanding of sound design process in permaculture as a foundational weak link. Foundational in the sense that all sorts of other littler weak links flowed from it. Foundational in the sense of a Type One Error.

Here is how I originally diagramed it, noting that “the image I get is of a huge oak tree teetering on a feeble little stem”:

The First Two Inquiries (and where they led me)

I then started the first of two epic, in-depth inquiries where I honed in on problematic aspects of the shared understandings of permaculture design process that were available in the literature. In that sense I identified design process as a weak link then went looking for little weak links within the big weak link that were presumably making the big weak link weak! I dove deep into two of them…

From Assembling Elements to Differentiating Whole Systems

I have such fond memories of the opening post of the first inquiry, which drew on the work of Christopher Alexander to identify an initial problem: the common permaculture understanding that design is a process of assembling or combining parts or elements into whole systems.

In doing so I shared Alexander’s alternative suggestion that systems and landscapes with the character of nature are achieved by a process of differentiating wholes into parts. The post stirred up a lot of fantastic commentary and dialogue. It was a great experience and so gratifying to have the interested attention and appreciation of colleagues (including the likes of David Holmgren, Dave Jacke and Toby Hemenway). If that particular post hadn’t been so well received I wonder if the project would have even continued.

In any case, it did, going on to look into this issue in some depth, where ten posts later it had arrived at a different conception of design that was not only articulated theoretically but applied and documented in two practical design project examples (see here and here). So I guess on its own terms the inquiry achieved its intent. It started with a problem or limitation and ended with way of approaching design that resolved or avoided the problem. The dialogue this inquiry catalysed also helped me arrive at a new take on the whole matter that was a pivotal stepping stone toward the more recent work on designing via transformation.

From Detailed Up-Front Design through Concept Designing to Generating

In Making Permaculture Stronger’s second inquiry I honed in on the dominance of up-front master planning in the permaculture design literature. I first showed the seemingly universal consensus that “in a sound permaculture design process one completes a detailed design before starting the implementation of that design.”

I then pointed out how problematic this idea is in light of permaculture’s aspiration to create nature-mimicking systems. As in the first inquiry, I ended up, in striking contrast to the standard permaculture mantra of:

  • observe (people and place or whatever)
  • concept design
  • detailed design
  • implement
  • evaluate/tweak

…with either a hybrid (or concept designing) approach or the fully-fledged generating approach2 where you:

  • Immerse in the overall context of the design
  • Decide on what high-level features or aspects to tackle first
  • Rapidly generate then iteratively test or prototype a first step until something feels solid and relatively certain
  • Adaptively implement that step
  • Re-immerse in the new reality of the just-transformed whole

Again, I started with a perceived problem and arrived at some alternate understandings that appeared to resolve the problem.

Generative Transformation

I had no idea that after these two inquiries what would emerge next is the chart I then developed. This chart brought the outcomes of both inquiries together into one place where any design process could now sit in one of nine different spaces. To me, the most important outcome of the whole project so far is a fairly clear initial articulation of the space called generative transformation. I have argued that generative transformation is permaculture’s home turf.


Aside from a few other bits and bobs (including the podcast and videos) this pretty much sums up the entire journey so far.

In the next post, I’ll share why and how I’ve come to realise that it is time to let go of this whole idea of finding and strengthening weak links. Before, in the post after that, sharing in the post after that the alternate approach Making Permaculture Stronger will be taking from here on in.