Like any journey there's most usually a place to go, somewhere to be, but getting there with everything intended to be brought can often actually be more important than the intended destination. The two obviously go hand in hand.
It's like being offered a job as a hammerhand and setting off and eventually arriving then finding out you forgot to bring the hammer.
Therefore the reason for arriving at the destination is as important is as what is brought to the destination.
Excuse the above as I'm just myself trying to figure out what I'm saying here.
Ark Aotea then describes the outcome, in a sense what it could be as against what it already is but (H)Ark Aotea is more of a question that embraces what it is and questions what it could be. I know that's fairly pedantic and I might be beating around the wrong bush but I'm sitting on this sense that it's all more about raising the awareness, spreading the load as it were, than it's about actually achieving anything concrete. That the ideas themselves need to ferment and even get a bit stinky before it get get to a usefulness which is a working model. Like it's almost too soon to create viability because the viability would somehow take away the spreading of the determination to take responsibility.
It's almost then the sense of rebelling just for it's own sake to get the opinions out in the open.
I would surmise that Gt Barrier is pretty much like most other places where theres a bunch of people trying to make things work and another bunch who are going to carry on regardless except those who are in favour of change are a bigger group than those who aren't. I may be paranoid though but I'm not in favour of preaching to the converted, they're already doing the good work, but I am very much in favour of working towards getting on board those who can't be bothered seeing plastic and imported dross as efficient process.
I don't see that pigeon holing them as enemies, not on board with a consensus ever does any good. Here I'm now taking on board your saying that the people over there are practical and want to see something useful from the energy output imported to address what is defined as problematic.
So we have the Authority off Island somehow wanting to possibly use the investment as a public relations event, give us something that makes us look good in the papers, a miniscule rendering which we can use in the big scale to look like we know what we're doing, and I know that's cynical but theres also what seems to be happening in these circles whereby there's a kind of solidarity going on with the frontline whereby they get on board with initiatives and work within their own bureaucracies whereby the story told to the higher ups isn't what is actually being done and therefore there is an acknowledgement speak which means two things within a chronicle of asking.
Then say for me and others coming to the Island there's a whole other solidarity which is about us imports finding a way to honour the spirit of the Island and not impose what we think should be done which then speaks about the rebelliousness of umbrellaring under the Auspices of the powers that be and doing what they ask but at the very same time using the energy to bolster the underlying spirit of rebelliousness already in existence on the Island.
I know I'm overcomplicating everything and I don't even know why it's even useful. What gets me and I don't know why it does is that without seeing any rubbish I have no idea what to actually do. But at the same time I do know that when I do see it a way forward will present itself but it's like that where ever that actually is needs to be known to be able to get the allowance to even procede. And in that respect then it's striking me as problematic. It then becomes a trust issue. That the whole issue is about trust and somehow I don't want that be be lost under layers of definitive gesturing.
It's a if what's coming forth is that the Island needs to assert that will. That 'hey Authority, we are us and we know exactly what's good for us and when it's done it will definitly be good for you too.' but that it's all put together in a way that makes it look as if it was the authority's idea all along.
I've mentioned 'Occam's Razor' in the past have I? It's basically that when things get complicated and overly so that the simplest solution is usually the best. It's a reminder that when complication arises go with it because that procedure actually makes simplistic more obvious.
And the boat thing is good... really good. It's like the intention is to make this boat which obviously can't be seaworthy, though it might be, but as a spectacle that makes sense, even while it doesn't, it's completely notable as a direction. It's like the Red Bull trolley derby, a silly childish thing which is all about fun but good golly theres some deep and challenging engineering going on.
So the launching of several boats thrown together from rubbish and derelicts has this altogether useful attribute which couldn't be stressed at the beginning because it's boring and inane of creating a sorting centre and systems of defining usefulness of specific rubbish chains that in the light of several sinking boats is completely useful and why didn't we see that in light of itself before all this began.
Spectacle and good fun on one hand because that's a party everyone one can be invited to and all of it sitting on a pragmatic process that can be left in situ and will keep on working for the benefit of everyday life which will in turn raise awareness that allows everyone to question what is imported in whatever form it takes.