|Class in Cohousing, etc.||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Mac Thomson (machappyvalley.com)|
|Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 12:39:37 -0600|
A couple of weeks ago I said that having corporations involved in cohousing might not be a bad thing in terms of making cohousing available to the masses. That seemed to set off a political debate which I thought was best taken up elsewhere - not on coho-L. But having just read the digests containing the messages from Tony Rocco, Rowena, Barry Krusch, Anne, Max, Karp & and others, I have changed my mind. Not because I think that we're on the brink of getting the great political questions of the past century solved and everyone to consense on the solution, but because we've gotten to know who we are a bit better. In our little cohousing group here in Durango, we spend some time on business issues and some time just getting to know each other better (building community). I think that it's been good for the list to do some of the same. Like Tony R., I've been getting the sense that to a certain extent, if you don't embrace Marx, you're not "one of us". I now feel that there's a much greater diversity of beliefs represented on this list and I therefore feel more a part of it. SLIGHT ASIDE When my wife and I decided that we wanted to live in community, we visited numerous intentional communities and felt that, for the most part, there was too much of a "poverty mentality". You needed to be poor to have community, be happy, and be "correct". We much more believe that happiness doesn't have much to do with material wealth (once a very low minimum is exceeded), be a person rich or poor. Happiness can in part be achieved through community. When we came across the idea of cohousing, we felt that we had found (and still do) the type of community that would work for us: "holding no ideology or spirituality in common other than the desire to live in a more cooperative, friendly, and ecologically sound neighborhood." I hope that as cohosing grows, it remains open to all and doesn't "get co-opted" by any particular ideology or spirituality. -*-*-*-*-*-*- Scott Crowley: Why the incredible intolerance?! -*-*-*-*-*-*- P.S. Sorry about just saying "David said" rather than "David Mandel said". I should know better. P.P.S. There may be others of you, like me (vocabularily challenged), who have wondered what "anomie" means. I finally looked it up after seeing it in Judith Wisdom's posts over and over again. According to Webster's New Collegiate, it means: 1)"a state of society in which normative standards of conduct and belief are weak or lacking"; 2)"a similar condition in an individual commonly characterized by disorientation, anxiety, and isolation". Neat word. Thanks Judith. Mac Thomson San Juan Cohousing Mac [at] HappyValley.com Durango, Colorado "Circumstances are the rulers of the weak; they are but the instruments of the wise." - Samuel Lover --Sent from HappyValley FirstClass BBS 904.246.9255
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.