|RE: Chris Kemp's Response to Rules & Regs Violation||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: truddick (truddickearthlink.net)|
|Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:04:25 -0700 (PDT)|
From: Liz <liz [at] significant.com> Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Chris Kemp's Response to Rules & Regs Violation To: Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> "And I am hearing, mostly, from this list that if my community decides on a principle that is important to us, and comes to consensus on that issue, that we should not assume that there is any good reason to actually FOLLOW what we agreed to." In the messy world of human interaction, I've never found a principle that is entirely good or effective. If I cited the ancient Athenian democracy's decision that Socrates should drink hemlock, you'd rightly take offense and note that cohousers would not demand ideological purity nor impose the death penalty. But when you express abstract generalizations, it opens the door to the entire range of potentialities. In assessing whether a particular rule should be followed, generalizations fail. In general, I think people in cohousing would applaud acts of civil disobedience in service of a humanistic cause, yet would condemn self-centered rule-breaking. In the specific case we're discussing, we don't have such ethical clarity. Some of us enjoy exploring complex situations. Even if once you agreed that a rule was beneficial, time and tide may reveal it to be odious and restrictive. In the attempt to balance our needs for cohesiveness and independence, little things may mean a lot. "After all, I'm paying good money for this home, why should I follow a rule that I helped create?" Are you asking "why change?" Conditions change, and what once seemed pleasant may eventually become an irritant. In particular, if the rule requires you to choose between depriving yourself /or/ dealing with a service provider that you find noxious /or/ giving up your home, the choice just ain't that simple. "AND, if I were to go to a co-housing list and ask for advice on how to deal with an issue, in addition to some good ideas, I'd get 50% feedback that it was wrong for my community to want what it did and, by consensus agree to it." Let me make certain I understand. You disapprove of our expression of our opinions-is that right? And you don't agree that, when there's a dispute, it's a good thing to try to understand the motives and values of all parties, to think critically about the issues, and then to try to reach an integrative, win-win resolution? It sounds to me like you favor "no-tolerance" policies. "This isn't quite the ideal I was imagining." I guess most people imagine an ideal world; I'm certain no one has ever gotten it. Moreover, it seems to me, historically, that when individuals or groups attempt to impose their imagined utopias, life is less satisfactory. ___ ! _ Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick ! !_) Nunquam Vadis Levis! ! \
RE: Chris Kemp's Response to Rules & Regs Violation truddick, April 18 2006
- Re: Chris Kemp's Response to Rules & Regs Violation Dave and Diane, April 18 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.