Re: Cohousing & traditional neighborhood movements.
From: Ryan O'Dowd (odowdrelwha.evergreen.edu)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 09:57 CST

On Sat, 11 Feb 1995, Loren Davidson wrote:

> At 06:36 AM 2/11/95 CST, Mmariner [at] aol.com wrote:
> (snip)
> > What needs to "pop" in mainstream culture's paradigm for people to get how
> >fundamental belonging to a community is and how deeply it could restructure
> >and renovate our society?
> 
> Well...IMHO, there's a concept in American mythology called the "rugged
> individualist", sort of the romanticized pioneer, who can "make it" without
> any help from anybody.  The idea that we're not supposed to cooperate with
> each other is highly reinforced by our schools, which stress competition and
> consider helping each other to be a form of "cheating" in many instances.
> Until people begin to change this underlying paradigm that the person next
> to you is your competitor for scarce resources, it's going to be really hard
> to see the types of changes you and I and others here envision.
> 
> It seems to me that the only way this *can* be done is one person at a time,
> starting with "me".  Getting other people in on the concept will take time,
> as there are serious trust issues involved whenever two people deal with
> each other.


well said, I would add that not only is it a western paridighm idea but 
that if we look at other (quickly disapering) indigionus cultures we will 
find that the individual is not experienced outside of his/her community.  
They must rely upen eachother for their liveleyhood.  The rugged 
individualist is a capitalist creation.  With the break down of community 
by the capitalist class we come to rely upon the stuff they (we?) 
produce, instead of relying on our community.  but we know all this, the 
question in my mind is how to rid ourselves and our communities of the 
operesive hands of capitalism?  More over, can a healthy community exists 
within the constraints of a system that produces for profit, instead of 
need?  Am i just looking at too larg a picture?  By the way, i am the 
worlds worst speller so dont make fum of me.

> 
> BTW...some of my past posts here have apparently given the impression that I
> think everyone in a community should have the same intimacy level with each
> other (speaking personal intimacy, not necessarily sexual).  I don't believe
> it's possible, actually -- there will always be personal differences.  But I
> do believe that a community consists of individuals, families and
> extended/expanded families that have varying levels of social intimacy/trust
> (from zero on up the scale), and that it is in the best interests of the
> community as a whole that members continue, over time, to expand their
> connections with each other.  I don't think that any of this negates the
> need for privacy, only that it can totally transform the quality of time
> spent with other people and the character, the "sense of place", of the
> community as a whole.
> 
> Just my $0.02.
> 
> Loren
> _________________________________________________________
> Loren Davidson 
> lmd [at] beauty.batnet.com
> http://www.batnet.com/beauty
> This document made from 100% recycled electrons.
> 
> 

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.