Matiri River valley and the Thousand Acre Plateau

Here is the report where DOC lays down the conditions for the dams.

I note they say social and cultural impact are not in their brief. Amazing. Who is it then who assesses the social and cultural impact?

My trip was amazing and it would be one of the Great Walks if it were linked to the Mokihinui. The contrasts in terrain and scenery just as far as Poor Pete’s hut were dramatic.

Photos follow. Note the beautiful wetlands in the Matiri Valley, all under threat.

IMG 2245

IMG 2266

IMG 2271

IMG 2275

Poor Pete’s hut.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Why are psychological methods known by their founders?

Freud, Moreno, Jung… methods are known by their founders.

This is because they are working in the realm of relationships. They are included in the science.

They are not working with things.

Marx is the same.

There is no objective thing they are working with.

In so far as we are part of such a modality we are part of a community around that person.

The Buddhists have lineage, so do psychologists but we don’t acknowledge that so easily.

It would be better to acknowledge our whakapapa in the psychological realms of our work in a more conscious way.

Related Posts:

Debs Martin Comment On Mokihinui River |


Screen Shot 2012 08 22 at 5 31 08 PM


Good piece in todays Press – quoted in full below. Here is a link to some snaps we took last year:

Debs Martin Comment On Mokihinui River |


Add Mokihinui River to national park

Plans to dam the West Coast’s Mokihinui River have been withdrawn but Forest & Bird’s Debs Martin argues that permanent protection is needed for the river and catchment.

Continue reading

Related Posts:

Science Weekly Extra: Craig Venter on the science of synthetic biology

Science Weekly Extra: Craig Venter on the science of synthetic biology

Really quite an amazing story.

I could well get a little bio printer in my lifetime for body bits. (that might have been another podcast) Almost certainly I’ll print out my very potent flu jabs.

Click to play & download Venter

Related Posts:

Obscenity: Intellectual Property

Amy Goodman from Democracy Now hosts this debate between Julian Assange and Slovenian Philosopher Slavoj Žižek — From the Troxy Theatre in London, July 2 2011. Also streaming in HQ from Democracy Now for those with faster lines. Brilliant debate!

I wish I’d got hold of this a year ago when it came out, but it is worth watching any time!


“Capitalism will have trouble with intellectual property” – Slavoj Žižek In the Amy Goodman interview with Julian Assange


Stimulating interview!

I’ve come away thinking that if  property is theft then intellectual property is the most obscene form of theft, as it steals from us what is most human, our creativity and spontaneity.

Are we in an information age, or is this still the industrial age where the workers will create socialism?  What is Slavoj Žižek saying here?  If capitalism can’t cope with intellectual property then it can’t cope because of some new relationship of production?  

If that is the case who is the new revolutionary class?  Is it still the industrial proletariat?  

What clout does any other class have?

Or is it that as the information sector becomes the most consumed sector of the total produce – eg Amazon can afford not to make a profit on hardware as it sells intellectual property – as does Google – then these companies – like newspaper and music companies will falter as consumers protest about the punishments metered out to people who share!  

Not only that but people who create – lets not call it property but intellectual goods and services – are the most advanced producers of social production (recall Marx ‘s point that the contradiction in capitalism is that production is social and ownership is private).  Look at the credits in a movie, while that creation is tied to hardware there is a way to pay the creators and for the middle men to cream most of that off.  Even solitary creation like a novel or science is mostly people standing on the shoulders of giants.  All creation is a mash up.


Capitalism inhibits creation.


Capitalism inhibits sharing.

Capitalism inhibits the distribution of culture.

But information, creation that is not thwarted by capitalism has already been co-opted by capitalism.  

The potentially revolutionary class then is the creators, and that is all of us.  As Clay Shirkey put it so beautifully following Marshall McLuhan The fundamental shift in the electronic world is that consumers become creators.  Just pressing a Like button is on the lowest end of the spectrum of creativity, with great art and science at the other end, but it is on the continuum!  There is a qualitative shift that was made with the Internet.

Perhaps the early slogan – Information wants to be free – is a forerunner of a class of creators becoming a class that is conscious.  Releasing information is a crime, Bradley Manning, Kim Dotcom, the latter has become a local hero, because he is fighting the superpower and exposing New Zealand’s subservience. 

For people to move fully into a world where information is the dominant item of consumption, and we are probably a long way off that, then a new relationship of production is called for.  New relationships of creation. New ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.  

Think of what that might mean, no copyright, new forms of socialized payment for creativity, no advertising to pay for content.  Most of all education, news and culture in the hands of the creators would change everything.  Intelligence in the CIA sense would be free, releasing information would be heroic.  Secreting publicly beneficial information wld be a crime.

Where does the money come from to pay for all this…

Wait… Money is information, it is currently owned by the ruling class, they create laws (also information) to control all information, about the flow of money, and the creation of money,

This does require a new relationship for the means of production of physical goods.  The same dynamics apply, (material) goods too want to be free, and goods too are created by the very people who use them (could the but afford them) Its is not about the nature of the goods we are dealing with here.  It is labour power, let think of it all as creativity power.  Imagine the force of an alliance of all people who create, but who do not own or share equitably in what they create.

Marx said little about the future – but he did say we could all have the leisure to be philosophers. Sounds like he had an inkling there of the implications of his perspective related to creating ideas.

 Evernote 20120710 01 42 39

Evernote 20120709 22 55 42

Related Posts:

Critical theory – mashup

Just exploring a few rethinks I don’t understand…


“By answering the question concerning technology with a sensuous mimetic account of presubjective embodied agency, Benjamin opens a path that can help technocultural critics dispel their residual (and, as I have argued, largely unthematized) commitment to representationalism.


From the Wikipedia page on Tonino Griffero

Whereas Heidegger’s moods always presuppose a subjective response, we see atmospheres (in this provocative, anti-subjective sense) not as internal feelings of an individual or metaphors but as pre-subjective feelings, as spatially extended emotions.

I can’t yet make sense of that.

Mimetics seems to relate to Dawkins memes – see Wikipedia but the idea I’m pursuing here is more related to…



In ancient Greece, mimesis was an idea that governed the creation of works of art, in particular, with correspondence to the physical world understood as a model for beauty, truth and the good. Plato contrasted mimesis, or imitation, with diegesis, or narrative. After Plato, the meaning of mimesis eventually shifted toward a specifically literary function in ancient Greek society, and its use has changed and been re-interpreted many times since then.

This is interesting too…

The Frankfurt school critical theorist T.W. Adorno made use of mimesis as a central philosophical term, interpreting it as a way in which works of art embodied a form of reason that was non-repressive and non-violent.[2]

Benjamin was of that school, was he not? Makes me think the opening quote really should read Mimesis.

This exploration stems from reading an interview in Mousse magazine 34 with Amy Balkin

atp: Are you also interested in the pre-subjective and in rendering it transparent?

ab: Yes, I’m influenced by how Philip K. Dick’s characters build models or prefigurative spaces. These can be nostalgic, like Dick’s “babylands” of the super-rich, who build and curate satellite demesnes to mimic a specific lost place and time of their childhood (e.g. Washington, D.C. in 1935), or the miniaturized “layouts” of off-world settlers forcibly evicted to colonize Mars, where a proxy experience of a day out in pre-climate change San Francisco is accessed through drug-enhanced “translation,” but experientially structured by the interior decor of a miniature home layout.

“A model provides a vision to inhabit, whether for a desired political future or a nostalgic past, or some combination of these—a form of continuity. So the pre-subjective could be about the possible experience of a future loss of the familiar via climate change—familiar birds and plants,
landscapes or food, or the familiar in terms of ideas of shared spaces or notions of experiential commonality, whether as a park or some formulation for an equitably shared space. So perhaps the question for me would be about a commons as a way forward versus nostalgia for a kind of shared land and resource use that was historically situation-specific.

This makes more sense, but I’m still not really a member of this discourse domain.

Was that story by Philip K Dick the basis for True Lies? No, I think the reference is to Now wait for last year but is could have been, seems like they pinched a few ideas. And they did use a Philip K Dick story for the other Arnold Schwarzenegger movie Total Recall. Perhaps the novel and the short story have a similar theme.


The following serendipitously found its way here…

Part of recent explorations in In this moment… my art blog

13 Tobey Crystallizations obraz do artykułu

Related Posts:

Dynamic Facilitation

As if the modalities in the last post were not enough!

Another form of practice that I keep my eye on is Dynamic Facilitation. This is another mode that is not radically different from Moreno, but takes one aspect forward. How to operationalise small group process to work with whole communities using the principle of isomorphism of systems.

I stumbled on this site today, I recall Rosa Zubizarreta as the author of an excellent manual on Dynamic Facilitation — her site looks good, and maybe I’ll do one of her workshops one day. Or one with Jim Rough.

Related Posts:

Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali on the Julian Assange show.

Noam Chomsky: that the April 6 movement in Egypt began as a group of tech savvy people working with workers on strike. They were squashed by the regime.

A surprise Arab drive for freedom, the West’s structural crisis and new hope coming from Latin America. That’s the modern world in the eyes of Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali, two prominent thinkers and this week’s guests on Julian Assange’s show on RT.

If you’ve missed the previous episodes, you can always watch them online at

Subscribe to RT!

Another phenomena that struck me is the speed of the spread of the consciousness of change tips from hidden to visible.


Note industrialization that traditional Marxism addresses is perhaps more prevalent in China than in the USA.  Design, IT development is separated from the material production.  Perhaps the real motivation is that if all forms of creativity are integrated and work together the capitalist control can’t be maintained.

Chomsky:  China is the assembly plant for the advanced state capitalist counties.

Assange:  Internet radicalised youth.





Related Posts: