Hi Alan,
Important point, that which you made. But even a single relevant
response that served to further define the issue may not be easy to
come by. I haven't done that here. I have taken the issue to heart
for some time. (What you refer to has to and will be done).
Sunday, May 21, 2000, 9:03:49 AM, you wrote:
AI> ... this analytical method, like many others, but especially in
AI> this case, requires meticulous attention to analytical
AI> methodologies. The type of paper that is used, the water used
AI> for mixing reagents and preparing samples, the purity of
AI> reagents, the age of prepared reagents, the cleanliness of the
AI> glass ware, the precision of weighing reagents and samples, the
AI> precision of measuring liquid volumes, the temperature and
AI> humidity in which the chromatograph is developed, etc., etc.
And these issues must be well documented when reporting any results.
AI> I believe that these kinds of test methods will be critical for
AI> resolving some of the issues now being argued about in the
AI> farming community. In the end, the proof of the "correctness"
AI> and "sustainability" of a farming method is to be find in the
AI> product of the farming method and not in the method itself. The
AI> end product of farming embodies the totality of the inputs:
AI> physical, energetic, and subtle.
(which includes individual reactions and subjective
interpretations). This is why vitality (that which is life giving)
must ultimately be measured in terms of sustained performance. That
criteria can in turn help to define differences that become visible
/ measurable through distinct instrumented (and therefore
repeatable) procedures like those described.
AI> One of the "downsides" of these test methods is that the
AI> interpretation of the results is subjective and qualitative.
These results are even less than subjective, since parameters (or
measurements) are involved whose meaning (what they represent) and
importance are not clear.
AI> In my mind, this is a necessary step in the evolution of farming
AI> and biological science.
Standards must be defined and this approach is one way to attempt
that.
AI> Cookbook farming or science removes the participant from the
AI> processes of life.
Farming itself does to a degree. Just walking on the earth with
shoes on will do it to a degree (much less being up on a tractor).
AI> The detached observer, as required by science, results in just
AI> that, one detached from the processes that resulted in the end
AI> product now being observed.
That's not necessarily true. The detached observer may be detached
at the moment precisely because he or she may require an external
measurement that can be referred to when communicating with others,
but only the dead (and I suspect not even those) can be said to be
fully detached.
AI> Farming and biological science cannot only be about observing
AI> the material end results of a physical process, but must include
AI> an understanding of the living processes and dynamics that
AI> created the physical end product.
Both most be compatible - that is, the means of measurement must be
compatible with the biological processes that is purports to
demonstrate, and this cohesiveness must be explained in depth.
AI> Kolisko and Pfeiffer developed methods that allow for a snapshot
AI> or freeze frame of the condensation of living energies into
AI> matter.
The meaning of those snapshots is not yet clear and the range of
tools with which measurements can be made is now greater than ever.
These need to be identified and compared.
Otherwise, how can the failure to integrate disciplines like
acupuncture and iridology (the first that come to mind) into medical
science be explained? (I for one find these dichotomies unnecessary
- the polarity itself is artificial and nothing less than an
inclusive theory that substantiates all phenomena is required).
Not wanting to end on that note, let's be on the lookout for
(preferably) economically accessible technologies capable of
demonstrating contrasting distinct biological processes that appear
to be in tune with the nature of the organism to a greater or lesser
degree, as a result of having been cultivated / subject to distinct
agricultural productions systems (which as has been mentioned here
previously, are not so easily distinguished / labeled / monolithic /
or non-diversified as OFPA would have us believe).
Any way you look at it, agriculture is a biological process and the
farther we get from that fact (as well as the understanding of it),
the problems we have (and are more likely to have).
One major focus for what I see as a major issue is: The Integrity of
the Organism. The principle is clear where GMOs are involved, and
organism based agriculture is also the opposite of patentable and
bottle-able inputs based agriculture.
As things stand, agriculture as an activity is dominated NOT by
those that practice it (which includes earthworms and rhizobia as
well as farmers), NOR by those that consume the fruits of it, but
rather by those who produce (and control) the dominant technologies
developed and thrust on what appear to be all too complacent farmers
and a docile and easily mislead public.
These suppliers of agricultural inputs have now hedged their bets
and seem to have changed tracks, now that a new way to maintain
farmers and consumers in a position even more dependent on their
products has emerged. Deliberately misrepresenting the motives that
drive their actions, GMOs are now being promoted as "more
ecological" - defined as meaning that less of the damage dome
earlier by the toxic products of the same owners are required.
Where have all the flowers gone and when will they ever learn? These
issues have meaning only in terms of vitality and the integrity of
the organism on the one hand (Organisms 'R Us), and in maintaining
the economic and political power that certain vested interests have
incredibly enough been allowed to accumulate on the other.
The answer lies in simply refusing to purchase anything less than
biologically compatible inputs (i.e., evolutionarily derived) and
food produced by same, while insisting that food be clearly labeled
regarding these distinctions in the marketplace, providing more
funding for sustainable (once again, biologically compatible &
evolutionarily derived) research, as well as public policies and
legislation that reflect the greater public good (the collective
good of the still integral organisms that make up a fractured and
contradictory society).
The search for indicators such as those described in this thread
will help accomplish this, and so will what Roberto has been
referring to lately. The practical considerations Bart, Steve,
Sal, Larry and others have mentioned also require attention. The
thing is to do it, and do it intelligently.
Hasta luego.
Douglas Hinds - CeDeCoR, A.C.
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil
(Center for Rural and Community Development,
a Mexican non-profit organization)
Veracruz; Jalisco; Oaxaca & Tamaulipas Mexico
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
AI> Hi Joel,
AI> Lily Kolisko used the method of capilliary dynamolysis whereas
AI> Ehrenfried Pfeiffer used the method of circular paper
AI> chromatography. The methodologies are different for each method.
AI> I am curious at to why you believe that your results where
AI> variable and/or not reproducible. I have find that this
AI> analytical method, like many others, but especially in this
AI> case, requires meticulous attention to analytical methodologies.
AI> The type of paper that is used, the water used for mixing
AI> reagents and preparing samples, the purity of reagents, the age
AI> of prepared reagents, the cleanliness of the glass ware, the
AI> precision of weighing reagents and samples, the precision of
AI> measuring liquid volumes, the temperature and humidity in which
AI> the chromatograph is developed, etc., etc.
AI> I believe that these kinds of test methods will be critical for
AI> resolving some of the issues now being argued about in the
AI> farming community. In the end, the proof of the "correctness"
AI> and "sustainability" of a farming method is to be find in the
AI> product of the farming method and not in the method itself. The
AI> end product of farming embodies the totality of the inputs:
AI> physical, energetic, and subtle.
AI> One of the "downsides" of these test methods is that the
AI> interpretation of the results is subjective and qualitative. In
AI> my mind, this is a necessary step in the evolution of farming
AI> and biological science. Cookbook farming or science removes the
AI> participant from the processes of life. The detached observer,
AI> as required by science, results in just that, one detached from
AI> the processes that resulted in the end product now being
AI> observed. Farming and biological science cannot only be about
AI> observing the material end results of a physical process, but
AI> must include an understanding of the living processes and
AI> dynamics that created the physical end product. Kolisko and
AI> Pfeiffer developed methods that allow for a snapshot or freeze
AI> frame of the condensation of living energies into matter.
AI> Alan Ismond, P.Eng.
AI> Aqua-Terra Consultants
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:00:36 EDT