[Terrapreta] language, 'flux field anatomy' and no-digging

[francoise precy]

Hi
Sean, 



it
is most unfortunate that you would reduce “obtuse” to
“narrow-minded”... i want to
imagine it's a simple matter of language if you do not read
me in the sense i mean and transform my words into what they are not
(sorry to have to point out that you do it rather often, and am
wondering if it could not possibly be one or more aspects of
the effect described here in “knowledge in perception and
illusion”:
http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/knowl_illusion/knowledge-in-perception.pdf).
at least i'm not suggesting that you do it deliberately. so please
do take into account that I am from the 'old world', and tend to
think in the spirit of older language when looking at science. thus
where narrow-minded ≠ obtuse, we have
(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=obtuse):
obtuse = from M.Fr. obtus (fem. obtuse),
from L. obtusus ... pp. of obtundere "to beat against, make
dull" ... (cf. L. tudes "hammer," Skt. tudati "he
thrusts") [“make dull”
in the original context = 'creating a darker surface', as opposite to
a polished hence lighter surface. far from what you imagine, hardly
worth getting the shackles out for and hammer
sarcasms on people, is it;] Sense of "stupid"
is [only] first found
[in] 1509... this
is really too short a period to hold my attention when thinking of
the word in the entirety of its meaning; besides this so recent
transformation of meaning unveils one aspect of humanity that we
definitely could do without, I'm sure you agree with that. so must i
beg your pardon for not keeping in mind that you could possibly
interpret it so.
thus
it should appear that there really are other ways to understand each
other and things. now what is true here is likely true elsewhere,
only of course it would be phenomenalized ('ex.pressed') another way
(not necessarily expressible in current academia language either, is
to be kept in mind too). especially these days, so it seems more
productive to keep doors open, in science as elsewhere. 


therefore
i wish you would note me saying that “the first one used to have a
much more interesting section on the research side, unfortunately
it's not there anymore” (as example of
cooperation it sure would beat a quick scan of their pages for the
opportunity to fall down on new ideas like a clumsy ton of
bricks). wouldn't it be more logical to look for what I say is not
there anymore, addressing your requests for information to where said
information is supposed to come from, i.e. the people who have been
and are doing some advanced research on the topic? i for a start
would be most grateful indeed to anyone who would back up my humble
call to these people from the flowforms, email info at flowforms.com.au;
whom I asked for links to their studies on the micro-structure,
behaviour and patterns of water as applied to their work. they would surely answer if you, demonstrated the genuine curiosity you want to show.  

similarly,
the origin of flowforms is not in “art” as you see it (wondering
what's your perception of “bachelor of arts” - just a bunch of
artsies, hey sean? :-}); but in what its etymology says: from
PIE (proto-indo-european) base *ar- "fit, join"; so
more like a quest for elements
common to as many natural forms as possible. their concept
comes from studying among other points the micro-structure of water,
its behaviour, path curves, also comes to
mind the idea of morphogenic fields along with a few other things.


water
is very interesting indeed. here's a list
(exhaustive or not) of its anomalities;
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html
(“water anomalities”).
and
since you cite the moon, here is an interesting couple of pages:
http://www.nct.anth.org.uk/path.htm,
“path curves”:
“... The profile (of vortices) is thus controlled by a single parameter (lambda), and it is scientifically interesting that with such a restriction these curves fit very closely a wide variety of natural forms including eggs, flower and leaf buds, pine cones, the left ventricle of the human heart, the pineal gland, and the uterus during pregnancy. The watery vortex closely fits actual stable water vortices. Together with the airy vortex it also has significance for pivot transforms.  ... the left ventricle of the heart behaves as a path curve from diastole to systole...”
“ Lawrence Edwards spent many years finding out and testing the above facts experimentally, which he has described in “The Vortex of Life” (Floris Press, Edinburgh 1993). In 1982 he started testing the shapes of the leaf buds of trees through the winter, and found that their lambda value (unexpectedly) varied rhythmically with a period of approximately two weeks. ... the evidence is now very strong ... that the rhythm corresponds to the conjunctions and oppositions of the Moon and a particular planet for each tree”. 
“a rose bud and its seed pod... is asymmetrical (so) the left profile of the bud was analysed, and the resulting fit is shown in red on the bud. Then the transformation corresponding to that was used to find a vortex that transformed into the gynoecium, the result being superimposed on the left side of the seed pod. The closeness of the fit is striking. What is more striking is that this process applies to many buds i.e. in every case it is a watery vortex that is transformed by the bud transformation to give the gynoecium. The vortex is coaxial with the bud, and its invariant plane lies between those of the bud transformation.” 
david may share a good laugh at that :-)), while it's difficult to imagine yours not embedded in sarcasm; just as well the author cautiously adds that “this is a purely experimental fact and care should be taken in interpreting it”, that may just save us from another rant – probably not from a lecture. still, remain the “1000's of measurements” that back up the claim, you can't dismiss them just because you don't like it. 

now,
for “anatomie” we've got: from ana- "up" + temnein "to cut."
so when i read “flux field anatomy”, i (stupidly?) imagine that david is talking of analysis of the shape of
some type of field, and that it's got to do with the same sort of elements that guided the conception of, for example, the flowforms. i
do also link the image he suggests with what's said in the site that yourself give on water forming a bridge when exposed to
a high-voltage electric field. the flux field in there surely shows “an anatomy” (a structure,
path curves, etc) “at work”. 
by the way, “water was being transported ... usually from the anode beaker to the cathode beaker”: so they must have observed it working the other way around; wondering what it is that makes it go the other way. it probably would have looked academically untidy if they had given that info. still, no point avoiding what we've seen
just because we can't explain it.






your quote “...the contention in recent discussions has been that charcoal made from the plant crop wastes alone (corn stover) on an agricultural field, when applied to that field (alone, up to 10 or 50 repeated times) is all that is required to increase or maintain the soil fertility. (our) reading is that this is not true” 
no need to shout, gawdsake, maybe that would give us time to think about what we each miss and we would all learn something. for example, maybe you're only seeing / talking of what's humanly required. let's look at what you don't shout next:
“I do not see that the nutrient content can be maintained with crop waste as the only input (my adding), as each harvest of the corn cobs will deplete the nutrients and the charred stover will add nothing new beyond what was there when the crop sprouted.” 
assuming that not everyone is lying (remember? leaving the door open...), so with respect for a growing accumulation of observed facts i've seen passing by in here as in other places, couldn't something else than human labour, happen that would maintain this nutrient content? 
there are some plants throwing roots deep enough to tap nutrients from the 'roche-mere' (is that 'sub-rock' in english? don't think so but you see what i mean.)  
then there are all these living organisms in and above the soil, which grow, reproduce and die. suggests to me that the human amendments are completed at various degrees by the sheer expansion of these organisms' and the plants' populations. say worms, for example: they go at different depths so don't they bring back nutrients from the sub-soil to the surface? 
add that if these little people reproduce a lot somewhere it also means there'll be more dead bodies, so more body matter to be shifted around by the rest of them and other organisms. itou for all 'pests', which also die sometime and are due to do it somewhere like everyone else. what about their mass  / matter input, doesn't it contain at least partly imported nutrients, which could be making up (and possibly beyond even) for the depletion you accurately but maybe uncompletely point at? 
as for the no-digging, considering all these populations doing all this work for the soil, doesn't it make sense to not disturb their habitat so they can keep at it in the best conditions? also helps prevent the soil to be washed out, which may come more and more necessary - what with weather leaning towards the “more erratic” as it's doing these days all around. here's another one who switched to non-digging http://wallowa.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=72 , as you can see it did not come easy but the results are worth it. so what makes it worth it, then, if it's not the method he adopted? 
i don't know that that's the answer to your negations, but the sheer quantity and population dynamics of these organisms sure are impressive and suggest reflexion on these points.
...
there
i was, looking for further inspiration. also wanting for a new coffee
jar, i find at the bottom of the cupboard a grapefruit having gone
2/3 mouldy. fruit was fresh 2 weeks ago (been very humid the last two
weeks), and i'm there looking at it marvelling at the thickness of all
that green mould having appeared in such a short time – looks like
a second skin on top of the real one and almost as thick as that one
is. okay, it does not look like an increase of mass, that will even
likely decrease progressively, what with decomposition and
volatilization / evaporation / whatever other processes of the
original matter. but the increase of volume is undeniably impressive
when the mould is quite fresh. this grapefruit's got something to say
:-) and it may be just as valid as david's squirrel. 


i
did forget half the sentence in “No-one is asking you to
“believe more” into this or that”–
meaning, no-one's asking you to believe in this or that more than in
academically accepted science; we're only asking that you (/
academia) sincerely give a chance to what it has not yet acquired a
sense for. possibly it's clearer if i ask to just remain open to
that words may have other meanings besides the ones you perceive in
them. would save so much aggro and make things happen quicker.
lacking that does help make one “fall behind the times”. am wondering if you will be gracious enough to ask these 'flowforms people' to provide us with valid links, that would be great.also forgot to extend on biodynamics agriculture, am afraid i don't have the time right now, sorry. it looks like an interesting field too. 


why??...
does this quote comes up in my email box right now: "English?
Who needs that? I'm never going to England!" (Homer Simpson!:-)
just passing on the synchronicity.I don't know what time it is by you, here you'd say 'good morning' (for once it's not raining). 
FP


_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of MSN Hotmail has arrived - Windows Live Hotmail
http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071004/9fc9bb0e/attachment.html