So Ray,


what lead you into the direction of finding value in the dandelion besides
lots of work trying to eradicate it you did not value? 

I am thinking of  a deep question here. My elder friends here in the
community also make dandelion wine, and eat the greens in spring. I used to
pick the flowers and put them up against my friends chin leaving them with
yellow pollen to find out if they liked butter. 

Arne Naess would couch this kind of question as a question regarding the
difference between a norm and a hypothesis. I take it that for you, the
dandelion is part of a norm since the wine is pleasant, and no hypothesis
need to be tested here (that is you have evaluated dandelions
thoughtfully?). Lawns are a lot of work, and you mention that they are in
your normative system, practically useless for some wildlife. 

A norm may be constructed logically from a hypothesis (Naess, cf. Warwick
Fox In the Label of Deep Ecology). 

"...adding defensible hypotheses to logically derive further
norms....Decisions - the aim of normative thinking - are absolutistic in the
sense of being either carried out or sabotaged." 

It may be that a norm is something simple. In Transpersonal Ecologies (Fox)
there is description of a Normative System K (for 'knowledge). 

They appear as a series of statements and single words.

N1: Knowledge
 *we are going top down from a top norm which is to suppose knowing about
dandelions*

H1 (H=hypothesis)
 *knowledge is gained and transmitted most readily by means of clear
communication* 

Dandelions can be used for something to eat and to drink. 
Dandelions do not obstruct my view, but give color in the place. 

H2 (2nd hypothesis in this normative system) 
*clarity in communication is aided by distinquishing one's evaluative views
(norms) from one's evaluative views (hypotheses). 

Dandelions aid the soil and they aid the bees perhaps.

I am committed to the enrichment of soil and increasing the food of honey bees. 
Grasses do not assist bees as much as flowers. 

*how do I know here which is norm and which is an hypothesis? 

*I quess we need to ask some deeper questions, perhaps, about dandelions

H3 (what useful normative systems are available for answering this question
about the difference?) 

N2 (normative systems)

*this is an exclamation (mark=!) regarding derived logically from N1:H1-3. 
*we need a normative system (evaluative one not a descriptive one) to
evaluate the difference noted in H3. Knowing the difference means that we
can arrive a truth so as to make some good decisions about dandelions. 

There is more to add but initially we need to begin to search for systems
(to process thoughts, perceptions, etc.) and arrive at some conclusions. 

(leaving off this investigation we might want to investigate Naess' level
one formulations which are questions about God

N1: God! (i.e., Love/Value God!)

H1: God is identical to the Universe (i.e. God is Nature). 

N2: Nature! (i.e., Love/Value Nature!)

* we already arrived at a norm which is to value something that is not a
norm but is now a hypothesis which is that God *is* a something *big*, i.e.
is in the only version of nature that we can attest to: the Universe. 
*this hypothesis is not an action oriented hypothesis since the topic is so
deep, it does not belong in the class of questions of 'what am I going to
eat for supper' nor 'who am I going to speak with'. 
*we ultimately canno go any deeper into any normative system than this. 
*believing, supposing for the moment, working through the normative system,
requires no actions which following Fox has some implications later, for
instance:

"...I subscribe to the hypothesis that when the deeper issues are introduced
into a debate, the conclusions tend towards those of the deeper movement,
even among those who at the start of the discussion favoured shallow
policies or who did not hold any definite view...Arne Naess"

The dandelions are becoming more flavourful all the time. 

I used to ask my friend if they liked butter? I would put the dandelion
below their chin and if the yellow of the dandelion reflected on the chin, I
would say yes that they did.....I would leave a little pollen there. 

So Naes is saying that the deep questioning avoids more shallow 'technical'
and 'scientific' questions of 'feasibility' and so on. I think that this is
the problem. We don't always ask the right questions at the beginning, we
are unclear, and we need to evaluate the fundamentals in our normative
structures of evaluation, our simple hypotheses, etc. together. 

chao,

john foster

(cf. Towards a Transpersonal Ecology: developing new foundations for
environmentalism. Warwick Fox)
















At 07:23 PM 7/14/00 -0400, Ray Lanier wrote:
>
>John said in part:
>"Look at all the dandelions nice people spray each spring on their lawns.
>What about the dioxins that go into the water from the Phenoxy herbicides?"
>
>I've never understood why people fight dandelions.  They make excellent
>wine, so I would suggest that if one has dandelions convert them to wine and
>enjoy!
>
>Of course, I don't understand why people want lawns in the first place.  No
>redeeming features at all as far as I can see.  After all, grass is for
>beeves, goats, sheep, smoking...
>
>Ray
>
>
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%