Re: red/blue schism | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Jan (jansunward.org) | |
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:37:42 -0800 (PST) |
On Tuesday, February 22, 2005 8:45 AM, Stephan Wik wrote: > I have often observed that the lower the self-esteem the > greater the need to find some external 'authority' or 'dogma' to > bolster one's sense of self-worth. ... > I do wonder whether the fault line is not between left/right/blue/red > but rather between people who have taken full responsibility for their > own actions and self-development and those who have handed the > responsibility to someone/something else. I've always found it quite > easy to talk/work/co-operate with people from any part of the > political/social spectrum that are coming from a self-empowered place. > Religious Fundamentalists and Political Fundamentalists can be very > difficult to get on with in my experience no matter what 'ology' or > 'ism' they have latched on to. It is very difficult for a person raised in a non-supportive environment to come from a "self-empowered place." Low self esteem is to a certain degree learned in the family and yes, it can be a definite handicap for a person trying to live in cohousing. On the other hand, certan fundamentalist organizations seek those with low self-esteem. These organizations can be very welcoming, quite appealing those who may have few other options. It is extremely difficult to overcome the low self esteeem that helps make fundamentalist organizations attractive. Furthermore, such organizations may actively discourage one from growing out of them. Becoming part of a fundamentalist organization is better than succumbing to drugs, alcohol, depression, a life or crime or suicide, to name some of the paths often taken by persons of low self esteem. It is no wonder that people barely making it out of these pitfalls are difficult to get on with. The structured environment of a fundamentalist orgainzation provides ways to deal with such difficulties. If one must be self-empowered to be active in cohousing--and it seems to me this is so--cohousing is definitely not for everyone. Current social trends seem to be producing many non-self-empowered people. Most of these people will not become cohousers. Instead, they will seek the support of organizations with rather rigid, predictable rules that limit freedom, but give definite benefits. The comfort of belonging and the assurance of a better life in heaven are non-trivial benefits. Another great benefit is the avoidance of disastrous life choices for one who follows the rules. Having been "saved" by such rigidity, it may be difficult for a person to turn one's back on it. Jan Sunward Ann Arbor, MI
- Re: red/blue schism, (continued)
- Re: red/blue schism normangauss, February 22 2005
- Re: red/blue schism Tree Bressen, February 21 2005
- Re: red/blue schism Saoirse Charis-Graves, February 22 2005
- Re: red/blue schism Stephan Wik, February 22 2005
- Re: red/blue schism Jan, February 24 2005
- Re: red/blue schism Stephan Wik, February 24 2005
- Homes for Sale in Paso Robles, CA a.jackson [at] charter.net, March 2 2005
- Re: Cohousing Development and Red/Blue Schism Ann Zabaldo, February 21 2005
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.