The Problem "is" the Solution

The permaculture principle of turning problems into solutions goes hand in hand with one of the main ideas at the core of permaculture: working with nature rather than against it.

[article snipped from PermacultureNews]
Probably one of Bill Mollison’s most often-quoted phrases is:  Though the problems of the world are increasingly complex, the solutions remain embarrassingly simple. 

This view is woven throughout the permaculture principles, however people interpret them, especially in Mollison’s original design principle, “Turn Problems Into Solutions”

A problem is usually defined as the opposite of a solution, so how can it change so drastically?
Firstly, it seems important to understand than in order to ‘turn a problem into a solution’, we do not have to physically change the problem. The change can be achieved through our use of language and through our widening of perspective. Unless we can take away the power of the problem by changing how we talk about it, and transcend the problem by accepting it as part of a wider picture, then it may well be difficult to solve it. Once we do these two things, however, it can open our imaginations and ability to create effective solutions.
When we describe something as a problem we are giving it the power to be a problem with our words and intentions, a phenomenon which is increasingly recognized in the world of psychotherapy (see for example 3). However, if we can expand our perspective and look at the problem another way, it is usually possible to see how the thing – whatever it is – can in fact be in some way beneficial for us. Even if something feels like a powerfully negative event or situation, it can be seen, from a purely psychological point of view, as an invitation. This has been being explored across many disciplines in a number of ways, for example in the fields of transpersonal psychology and psychosynthesis (3, 4). This widening of perception can be applied to any problem, large or small, from purely internal psychological crises to conflicts between people, or between humans and nature, or between entire countries or states. As examples of the latter we can look at the work being done by people such as John-Paul Lederach (see for example 5) and Johan Galtung (see for example 6), who work to help people who are supposedly fighting to create imaginative solutions to their problem, as well as in Marshall Rosenberg’s work with Non-Violent Communication (7). Many traditional cultures and ancient philosophies also advocate this way of looking at the world, and it has been written about by many Western thinkers such as Taoism-inspired Ursula K. LeGuin:
“Only in silence, the word:
Only in darkness, light
Only in dying, life…” (8)
We cannot have one without the other and once we accept this, it can become much easier to accept any problem which comes our way as merely the counterpart to a beautiful solution.
(end snip)
(snipped from TropicalPermaculture website)

Permaculture Principles IV:  Turn Problems into Solutions

"You don't have a snail problem, you have a duck deficiency!"

That is this permaculture principle in a nutshell, summed up in one of Bill Mollison's most popular quotes.
If you see yourself confronted with a perceived problem, why not try and look at the situation from a different angle? Is there any way to use it to your advantage?
A common example for this permaculture principle, one that you will find cited in many permaculture books, is that low lying spot at the bottom end of your garden. You know, the spot that's always muddy, where the water just won't drain away and you just can't get the lawn grass to grow...
You have the perfect location for a pond, or a bog garden with swamp plants. Thought about growing watercress, water chestnuts, or kangkong (a tropical water spinach)? How about iris, primulas and lilies? Many flowers are suited to boggy spots. The ducks you are getting for eggs and to clean up your snails will love it, too.

The category and position of Haum, guest of Michelle and Ahgamen

As a continuation of the diagram exploration, example #7 is given of Haum, a guest from June 10 to June 11.

Haum was invited and vetted by Michelle and Ahgamen because of the obvious and stated need for more workers.  He did arrive into the area and was given transportation by Ahgamen, after using the train and bus.
Haum and Ahgamen and then Michelle were informed by Kevin that there is no paid work for any other laborers, there is no process yet there needs to be a process for visitors and guests and applicants/new members.  Prior to that date, June 10, there was no defined call for process or the urgency that there must be a process.  In fact, when others were asked in regards to Mervyn or Katie, for example, there was some discussion and only a rudimentary informal process.
Now there is a definite call for process to be in effect, as of June 10 and this website contains the efforts and work upon that necessary function of the community, such that it will be established and become a legal cooperative.
Because of the disagreement, Haum had been asked to pack up his tent and to leave by Kevin.  Haum was in the camping area, under development, on the eastside of the land.  Therefore Haum informed Michelle and Ahgamen that he would have to depart, needing a ride to transportation/trains, to leave the area.  Ahgamen did coordinate a plan of exit for Haum.  This is unfortunate because he (and two others on the way) were ready and willing to become full-time workers at the community, the place, and the cooperative-forming.  Ahgamen figured out how to help Haum to leave but not before several things happened, one of which was a meeting for communication and status of the community.

During the meeting on June 11 afternoon, with Tanyth and Kevin facilitating and about 10 community in attendance, Haum was asked about his intentions.  He was also asked about background, including his history with children and possible molestation.  Ahgamen stated that this was a ridiculous approach, because nobody else was confronted in that way for crimes or any other past personal information.  It seems that the status of Haum is that he was a guest with mixed reception, departing in good-standing with possible future membership. 
This points to the need for a fair and transparent and legally-based background check and vetting process and deciding who is in the department for responsible safe-keeping of this personal information.  There should be an office/admin department for this process/function of the community.  If there is not, it will probably lead to additional and ongoing confusion. 

(IMO) It's a problem with a solution.  I'm asking that all present community members, whether resident or not, shall be inquired of their background in a similar line of questioning for info, retroactively.  Ahgamen is suggesting that there be a formalized on-paper method of doing so.  Ahgamen is suggesting that there be a physical office for admin of this function to be created ASAP.  Ahgamen is volunteering to help with the work and effort and responsibility of this department for the community and the cooperative-forming.  Ahgamen is thinking that this is a priority before any additional work is conducted and any progress on the cooperative is made, this will be a major component in the evolution of the whole project.

All that second the motion, say "Aye".

If this is not agreed upon, then it would seem that Ahgamen's incentive to help with the additional labor requirements was wasted.  If this is not agreed upon and dealt-with by group consensus, then it remains that there is no process and that there is discrimination going-on.  No one else was treated in the manner that Haum was treated.  Ahgamen finds that the community could improve and function more effectively and successfully if this issue is resolved.

Haum is thankful to the community for his experience, although he stated he does not want to return in the near future.  He disagrees with the community's methods of interacting with guests and he has his previous organic farming community that he can resume with.  The three people, including himself, who would be new members are now on-hold and delayed as a result.

Overall, this can be used as a test-case.  There is a lot to be learned.

What are the categories that exist in the community, for codification in the cooperative by-laws

What are the categories that exist in the community, for codification in the cooperative by-laws?   These are all or most of the categories and subdivisions which do exist in and of the community; as of this initial review currently, circa June 2018, by Ahgamen.

By using the three columns, we can identify the status of each individual according to three aspects of interaction with the community.  By using the three or four rows, we can identify the status according to application, acceptance by group consensus.  Each and every individual will belong to multiple areas, at least one in the columns and at least one in the rows.  This is not a linear or one-dimensional perspective on our experiences; this is a multi-dimensional analysis, giving us a bigger picture of all the interactions and possibilities.

Let's take several specific individuals and find their position by using the diagram.
For example, Kevin S.:

Community category of Kevin S.

In the above diagram, the colourized areas designate what type is this individual.  Kevin is according to the first column: a resident, full-time.  He is in the second column: a worker, full-time.  He is also being paid and has decision-making with the funding monies.

Example #2, Nadette:

Example #3, Dominick:

Example #4, Valeria:

Example #5, Michelle:

Example #6, Katie:

There is a need for more exploration.  These are rough diagrams for informational purposes only.

Meeting was facilitated by Tanyth and Kevin

There was a meeting conducted on Sunday afternoon.  It raised some issues and seeks to discussion on shared values of the community and how it will help the cooperative being formed.

Nature at the Solidarity Farm in Accord

Dragonfly visits the place

Question raised: Persons Background check?

Background checks is a big issue, and a loaded issue, I feel.  It's the first time it was mentioned today by Kevin.  It is on the table therefore and should be addressed, let's discuss.

I think background checking would have to be done fairly and equally for all persons connected to the cooperative from now into the future, if it is going to begin at all.

I think before deciding that we should do such a thing, who is the person within the group who is going to be priivy to the information, the data?  What can this person(s) do with the information?  What are their responsibilities?

It's a lot of work to make these decisions.  It's then going to be a lot of work to start gathering the info and what to do with it.

I think initially, to prevent all this tedious, mainstream type of approach, we could instead formulate a questionnaire for all members and new persons in the future.  This questionnaire would be voluntarily submitted and the formal record shall be kept in a cooperative admin. office (which does not exist as of yet).

What questions would we like to include in this personal questionnaire and why?

I can think of question or a section: personal referrences.

The difficulty with all of this, is that we are talking about being a full-fledged company, with a human resources personnel department.  If this is done, then it has to be staffed, and those employees will have to be accountable by state and federal guidelines.  Do we really need to devote time to this?   Is it defeating the purpose of being a heart-centered, intuitive group that can operate at a higher level of consciousness?