Inclusional arboriculture- from the top

[Amelanchier]

One measure of the value of an approach is to see what advantages it has over other approaches. Does this approach explain the data better than the existing approach? Does it allow for more accurate predictions? I don't think it does - sorry.

 

Lets take some simple VTA (cos I know you lke it!) - the axiom of uniform stress. 'Traditional science' (whatever that is...) explains this as the increased tissue production by the cambium to distibute the stress placed upon it over a larger area (Its late and I'm generalising). It lets us predict that a tree will adapt its growth when it contacts a wall/doric column/fossilised mammoth.

 

What can your inclusionality add?

[Amelanchier]

And I still dispute that nature is imagination. I see no wheels in the zoo.

[Graham]

Send it here first...http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/editing-services.html :-)

[sean freeman]

Great thought provoking piece of writing, impressive man, I share all those sentiments in my work as an Arborist...thankyou for posting it.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Tony, science is merely a tool, a tool of men to understand and put a figure on things, to make sense and evaluate within the confines of his comprehension.

 

VTA states quiet cleary, there are no absolutes, and all the greatest minds of history have found much to thier suprise that there is no absolutes, and thus, a new approach must be born.

 

our current paths take us down a route of expectation, that answers will be certainly found, we have accepted an approach that is flawed and limited, its time to move on and find another way.

 

we can only move forward with science by letting go of our certainty.

 

We must open our minds and become receptive to ALL, to expect the unexpected and see no definate boundarys.

 

The study of fungi teaches this better than any other science, Fungi are the most inclusive and receptive organisms on earth, we would do well to follow thier example.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Tony Croft aka hamadryad

[Amelanchier]

So your answer to my question is to suggest that I shouldn't expect an answer?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

That is not a true reflection of it though is it?

 

so you want a definate closed ended answer do you tony?

 

There are none, and this proves that our thinking is flawed, we can not accept an open ending as yet.

 

But i will give it a go for you, what are the benifits of this way of thinking?

 

We would no longer isolate the individual, for there are none, we would include it within the context of its co creative ground its space and place within its receptive natural nieghbourhood.

 

We would not see a fungal infection as an ending, but as an opening, and thus accept fungi as integral and "healthy"

 

And in saying that I have now presented a problem that will evoke reponses that are not appropriate!

 

but basicaly, we would accept a new idea of what is good, and what is not, what is healthy. thinking in a sustainable way.

[Amelanchier]

The technology by which I type these words was created by 'traditional' (i.e., normal!) science. No inclusionality needed and still going strong. There is no crisis outside the minds of those with a 'solution'.

 

Its easy to generalise; I'm interested to see if you can apply inclusionality to a specific situation. One that doesn't involve fungi!

[BatiArb]

 

Might be an idea to compress it a little and give it a Tony style exec summary

 

.

.

 

 

 

This paper is actually derived from the content of two others, which were both seminal papers that are truly inspirational…….

 

 

Boddy, L & Rayner AMD – 1983 - Origins of Decay in Living Deciduous Trees: The Role of Moisture Content and a Re-appraisal of the Expanded Concept of Tree Decay – School of Biological Sciences, University of Bath, - New Phytol 94, 623-641

 

&

 

Rayner AMD – 1998 – Fountains of the Forest: the Interconnectedness Between Trees and Fungi – Department of Bilogy and Biochemistry, University of Bath – Mycol Res. 102 (12) 1441-1449

 

 

And YES that first one really was published in 1983

 

 

In addition to these of course there are a great many others:

 

 

Alan Rayner's publications

 

 

 

:party:

 

 

.

[Amelanchier]

We must open our minds and become receptive to ALL, to expect the unexpected and see no definate boundarys.

 

I disagree. If you're open to every possibility you have to consider a whole plethora of bad, useless or even dangerous ideas.

 

If you are receptive to ALL approaches or concepts you presumably give equal weight to the ideas that 1+1=694, the sun goes round the earth and that my precise and exacting language is the decree of the almighty moose faced god of Yarmouth. I happily filter rubbish or false information out on a daily basis and I suspect you do to. Its a perfectly reasonable way to do things.

 

I wonder, when you claim that there are no certainties, how certain are you that you're correct? Hell, your literally telling me not to believe you!

 

If I were using the language of inclusionality I'd say that my holes were not receptive...

Edited July 28, 2010 by Amelanchier