Cob: cob philosophy

[David Knowlton]

i agree. a beautiful and natural building method is just that. making it a 
weapon in class warfare is - strange.


>From: John Fordice <otherfish at attbi.com>
>Reply-To: John Fordice <otherfish at attbi.com>
>To: Ocean <ocean at peacemaking.org>
>CC: coblist at deatech.com
>Subject: Cob: cob philosophy
>Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:41:12 -0700
>
>To all on the list,
>
>Here is something I posted in 1998.
>It's still relevant in the light of the recent Coblist wrangling about
>the new Cob Book (  which I eagerly look forward to reading ).
>Ianto and Linda have done a lot to open my eyes & for that I thank them.
>However, in my analysis of the way the world works, there are some
>things in the view they espouse to which I cannot subscribe.
>
>This is that 1998 writing.
>It's basically a discussion of some implications of the "purist" cob 
>philosophy.
>
>...............................
>.......has reminded me of a certain philosophy re cob that I find
>troublesome.
>
>Specifically that of: low cost as the "ideal" ethic of a "correct" cob
>culture.
>
>Each of us is in an economic reality - some folks have less $ ( either
>by
>choice or circumstance ) and some folks have more. These are realities
>of our
>personal lives & we are faced with either living within our economic
>means or
>changing them ( having access to more $).
>
>I am pleased when I hear of someone creating a low cost cob building
>based (in
>part) on using low cost or no cost recycled materials. Getting free of
>the
>economic burdens of modern life is a noble thing.
>However it bothers me when this use of recycled, reused, rejected or
>cast off
>materials is touted as somehow freeing us from the "evils" of modern
>industrial production and thereby making the us more "correct" than we
>might
>otherwise be.
>I am troubled by this for two reasons:
>
>1. It ignores the fact that for these cast off materials to be available
>to us
>they still had to be manufactured by someone. And if the materials are
>low/no
>cost because they are industrial seconds, that simply means that another
>unit
>of the same industrial product that was not a second was produced to
>take its
>place ( a gain for you, but an additional loss for the planet). Only a
>recycling that reduces pollution , unnecessary transportation or
>wasteful
>original manufacturing has real benefit to the larger world. I mean,
>recycle
>& reuse as much as you can - just don't hold it up to be more than the
>personal
>bargain that it is (if that's all that it really is). It's important to
>be
>brutally honest with ourselves on this - no delusions are needed - we
>have
>enough of those already.
>
>2. This bothers me even more - the idea that removing cob from the
>economic
>mainstream is a superior goal. Again, if you can get free from modern
>economic madness by all means do so. Its just that there is a WHOLE
>WORLD
>of people for whom that is not reality. For cob to be effective in the
>lives
>of most people it (cob) must find a way to fit into the mainstream
>patterns of
>economic life. To say that cob must be in a non money world as much as
>any
>honest cobber can stand is selling us all short. We as cobbers need to
>work
>on all fronts. If we see cob as limited to only a frugal & humble being
>then
>we are marginalizing ourselves and cob into a position that will keep us
>on
>the fringe. Again - the fringe is fine if that's where you personally
>want to
>be - its just that the fringe is just that, the fringe. But if we truly
>want to
>change the beast we must strike at its heart & like it or not - being
>able to
>have an economic impact on the lives of people will do that in a way
>that the
>economic and cultural margin cannot do.
>
>please think on this -
>regards
>john fordice
>THE COB CODE PROJECT



_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com