The mission of H.O.P.E. is to turn the prow of our entropyship, the Earth, back upstream so that Earth's evolving consciousness may explore the headwaters of the Universe for billions of years to come. The work of H.O.P.E. is to make visible the larger relationships we live within - relationships that inspire visions of wonder and works of hope.

Greetings
After a very rainy February, the weather almost instantaneously turned very warm and dry. The green of spring was just beginning to turn brown when a lovely, prolonged gentle storm washed over us. For the last week, the gentle rain pulses over us, almost like breathing. Some rain, then silence, rain, silence. Our area is now very green. I walk in wonder and delight.

I bought a weedeater last year and I am experimenting with trying to cut the seedheads off the introduced annual grasses while leaving alone the native grasses. It seems the native grasses have expanded this last year; I look forward to watching what develops over the next several years.
 

In Context quote on experiments
If you enjoy the pieces I write about education and learning, then I highly recommend joining The Nature Institute and receiving their newsletter, "In Context". They are kindred souls exploring the same ground in a very articulate way. I respect their work a lot. (Send some money to The Nature Institute, 169 Route 21C, Ghent, NY 12075.) I would like to share a wise quote from their latest newsletter but I wish to put it in context of a specific learning experience I've been having at Chrysalis.

I read that ailanthus leaves are alleopathic; they contain chemicals that inhibit the growth of surrounding plants. An experiment was suggested in which radish seeds were sprouted in both tap water and water in which ailanthus leaves had soaked for several hours. I tried the experiment with my students; I wanted them to prove that ailanthus leaves were alleopathic.

The first experiment was suggestive of this result. Each student had two vials, each containing 10 seeds being soaked in either tap water or ailanthus tincture. My vials definitely had a difference in onset of sprouting. However, by the time students brought back their vials the next week, the ailanthus tincture seeds were catching up (perhaps because the radish seeds had grown as much as they could within the confines of a vial). The tap water seeds were about 30% longer than the ailanthus tincture seeds but there was lots of variation. The difference was not significant.

I could imagine two reasons for this. Either students at home ran out of ailanthus tincture and had to use tap water in the last days of the experiment or because the experiment ran too long. So I devised a second experiment. This time we left an ailanthus leaf in the vial of tincture so that if students ran out of tincture, they could make more by simply adding more water to their vial.

In this experiment, the ailanthus tincture plants grew about 5% longer. Again, there was a lot of variation. So now there was real confusion. Surely some of it was experimental procedures because my vials always showed a pronounced difference. But there was the undeniable fact that the ailanthus tincture seeds had actually grown longer in this experiment. Our interpretation of this is that the leaf left decomposing within the tincture solution provided nutrients that assisted the sprouts once they had sprouted. My sense was that the ailanthus leaves did have an alleopathic effect but how to bring this into significantly observable results?

This led to a third experiment. We changed the sprouting method to make it more uniform and we ran the experiment for only three days. This time, the results were profoundly different. The 330 tap water radishes had roots 11 mm long while almost all the 300 ailanthus tincture radishes did not sprout, leading to an average of .04 mm for them. At last, we had proved it.

While this third experiment was running, I received my copy of "In Context". The article "What Do Experiments Prove?" by Craig Holdredge had the following profound quote.

"The more experiments we carry out, circling a phenomenon and investigating it from different angles, the better we can see the modifications that occur with changing conditions. Our understanding of the phenomenon grows. But we also grow, gaining inner flexibility that helps us to expect the unexpected and appreciate the uniqueness of a new situation, as well as to modify our previously gained knowledge to fit the new situation. In this way experimentation becomes a way of training flexibility in thought and judgment, which, in the long run, is much more essential than believing one has "proven" something through an experiment."

I really like this quote. It speaks to an area of dissatisfaction I've felt with my teaching at Chrysalis. Too often I have led the class in experiments with the aim of "proving" something. These experiments too often lacked the joy and spontaneous discussions I experienced with earlier class experiments. And (most fascinating) the experiments very often did not prove the intended result because of the interaction with other variables. If I and the class have a mindset of "proving", then the results are a setback rather than a creative jog toward shifting insight.

The world is much more interconnected and complex than we often acknowledge to our students. Too often the scientific method and recipe experiments lead us into thinking that (a) other variables are "bad" because they taint results and therefore need to be controlled and that (b) specific "conclusions" can be thought of as existing independently of other conclusions or relationships.

The difference is between learning that ailanthus leaves are alleopathic and deepening one's understanding that the story of each seed is unique: that the story of each seed depends upon its parents, the surrounding vegetation, the history of the square inch it fell upon, etc. One's awareness of a tapestry of vast mystery grows rather than simply a certain confidence in knowing one strand without even being aware it fits into a vast tapestry. Another way to express the difference is that the proving experiment would probably stop there. The other frame of mind can easily lead on into scores of related experiments.

Chrysalis update
In the last issue, I mentioned that Chrysalis had gone through political turmoil. That continues. I believe we are through the worst of it. The crisis did create an opportunity to assemble a dynamic staff for next year and I look forward to being inspired by them next year and sharing some of that inspiration with you in future issues.

However, I wanted to share with you one realization. In the last issue, I mentioned how I was trying to stay very focused on defending, not attacking. I was rather proud of myself for how consistent I felt in not slipping into the attack frame of mind. It started becoming part of my self-image. But in early May, I realized that my energy and self-image was too strongly there. I should focus on nourishing more than defending. Defending is fine when it is needed but it is reactive (as opposed to pro-active), it helps perpetuate the situation by maintaining a defensive attitude towards one's "opponents" and it pulls energy away from growing and deepening the dream and shifts it to simply defending it.

Possibility of a get together
Many people who receive Cairns are involved with environmental (orecological or nature) education. Many of you share thoughts based on your work. For the last three or four years, each time I hike in Lassen, I find this "fantasy" emerging of a group of us getting together in the summer and spending 3-5 days traveling through wilderness and talking shop. Some times we would simply be traveling together. Sometimes a phenomenon would lead to someone sharing some nature lore which might or might not spark a discussion. Sometimes we would talk theory and shop. Sometimes a person would pose a question or share an enigma theyare wrestling with. We would be sharing our dreams of the future and of education and discussing ways to acheive those dreams more fully. Nobody would be the official presenter and yet everyone would come with the intention of sharing from the heart what they have learned along their life path. It wouldn't be like a conference where we sat around. We'd be moving and always within the embrace of nature. Each time I have the fantasy, I like it. Would you be interested in attending such a gathering next summer? Let me know and if there is sufficient interest, I will be happy to host it.

Rates and value judgments
I had a wonderful time giving my presentation on March 25th to environmental educators. One question that came up afterwards, however, made me realize that there was one concept I have in my assumptions that I rarely articulate. So I want to practice expressing that idea here. The man observed that I seemed to be making value judgments about processes in nature such as erosion. Would that lead me to view places like the Canyonlands as bad?

I replied that I was definitely making value judgments. But what I did not say well was that the value judgments were not about processes but were about the way we chose to shift the relative balance between the rates of these processes. For example, we have the two processes of soil formation and soil erosion. If the rate of soil formation is greater than the rate of soil erosion, then soil accumulates. If the relative balance shifts between the two, soil will diminish. Changes in the amount of soil, in turn, can create shifts in other balances such as how much rain soaks in and how much runs off which helps determine how much life expresses itself in that area.

If one goes to Canyonlands, the work of erosion is visually apparent. Soils are thin and life is sparse. But if one goes to a "natural" area of Canyonlands, one will see life holding on to that thin soil, helping it grow in a myriad of ways. Even though the forces of erosion are strong, there are countervailing forces at work. The land is an expression of those relative balances.

Erosion is not bad. The beautiful fertility of the floodplains would not exist without the soil deposition of the floods (and deposition is the in-between, resting state of erosion). But it can happen at different rates and when I observe nature, I see life taking a stand to try slowing down the erosion. Contemplating this leads me to "value judgments" about "taking a stand with life" and thoughts about the evolution of evolution.

Some philosophers and logicians object to the theory of evolution because it is based on circular reasoning. What does "survival of the fit" really mean. The definition of who is "fit" is determined by who survives. So the concept of "survival of the fit" could be equated with "whatever life forms live long enough to have offspring are those life forms that live long enough to have offspring." When expressed this way, the circular reasoning seems obvious. But the logic, though it appears circular in the world of logic which lacks the dimension of time, expresses itself in the real world of time as a spiral. The logic goes around but when it gets back to the starting point, the dynamic has moved a certain distance and so doesn't connect the circle. The fit the next time around will be different because the plants and the predators have been changed by the last turn. What fits in one millennium does not fit in the next. Evolution contains the logic of feedback loops.

One of the things I liked most about the book, Complexity, is it brought out the idea that the mathematics of feedback loops are unpredictable. Feedback loops contain unknown power. Cause and effect is two dimensional compared to feedback loops. Cause and effect can be accused of circular reasoning but feedback loops rise up out of the two dimensional flatness and require a different analysis.

Feedback loops were one of the reasons I fell in love with the Gaia Hypothesis. I once read an article by James Lovelock written to respond to some of the objections to that hypothesis. What amazed me was his implication that his fellow scientists did not understand the dynamics of a feedback loop, that mainstream science was not conversant with general systems theory. I find that hard to believe and I'm sure it has changed since then because feedback loops are the key to so much.

Feedback loops gives us a fresh perspective on what is happening within evolution. The classic evolutionary stance is that evolution does not have a direction, that attempts to try seeing a direction within evolution is like Percival Lowell trying to see canals in the fuzzy telescopic images of Mars. I disagree. The same "circular" logic of "survival of the fit" that can be applied to species can be applied to life-environment interactions. Those feedback loops between life and environment that can accumulate more energy and resources will allow those life forms to increase which creates more of the interactions that lead to more of that kind of environment. Survival of the fit can be applied at a community level. That is why I see everywhere life forms trying to slow down the flow of soil ingredients through their community. It is one of the great universals that terrestrial life does. Any communities that didn't do that were pushed out by expanding communities that had more energy and resources because they did accumulate soil. It is this universal tendency I see, and the simple feedback logic that underlies it, that leads me to make value judgments (as the man correctly observed).

I felt in his question a struggle of our culture concerning on what grounds do we take a stand. For most of us, the moral stands of traditional religions based on revelation have lost their authority. And science, with its emphasis on all premises being subject to future interpretation based on future experimentation, has created within us a tolerance, an openness to alternative explanation, that can keep us from making a commitment, from taking a stand on values because the values might be found to be incorrect in the future. I honor his question and I acknowledge the difficulty of knowing where to stand in these transitional times. I believe that an understanding of feedback loops is essential because the qualities we want to take our stand on will be found, not in any particular process or state, but in certain directions that community-inclusive feedback loops can move us all.

Drawing to an End
This gentleman's question was one of several after my presentation. The questions gradually spiraled into sharings of the heart which led to a time of group meditative silence. It was a solid silence, one where everyone is aware of it and where everyone will honor it. I had never been in that situation before. Always before, on nature walks and such, these silences are fragile, easily broken. My role as leader in those situations was to be the guardian of the silence, help it last beyond a few precious seconds. But this time was different. I had led the group into silence and they would honor it so firmly that I had the interesting leader situation of figuring out when and how to lead the group back into the world. After a minute or so, on sudden inspiration, I sang a hymn. This is gutsy for me because my voice is not great but Alysia sang along to help me stay on pitch. I sang a love hymn to Gaia I'd created several years ago to the melody of the love theme in Zefferelli's movie version of "Romeo and Juliet". That melody fits the love I feel for the Earth. Here are the words:

I love this Earth
She gives me life.
I drink her clouds,
I eat her earth,
I breathe her sky.

I am a part
of this planet's mind
with hands,
feet, and eyes
and a voice
to sing a song
of love for life.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Business Stuff

My book, Seeing Nature: Deliberate Encounters with the Visible World, may be ordered from me. Prices are $16 for one book, $29 for two books, $64 for 5 books, or $112 for 10 copies. All prices are postpaid and include any sales tax. Mail orders to Paul Krapfel, P.O. Box 609, Cottonwood, CA 96022-0609.

If you are reading Cairns for the first time and wish to continue receiving it by e-mail, just e-mail me at  paul@krafel.net

© 2000, Paul Krafel, 18080 Brincat Manor, Cottonwood, CA 96022-0609
Permission is granted to copy and distribute (for free) this material as long as you attach this copyright notice and my addresses so that a future reader can track down the source.

Back to Cairns of H.O.P.E. page