Re: FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement (Wayne
From: Ann Zabaldo (zabaldoearthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Hear! Hear! Tom! I'm going to quote you verbatim to my newly forming groups.

We can have all the "rules" we want in cohousing (or in any other group) but if we're not going to "enforce" them then the only thing that does is give people another opportunity to make their neighbors "wrong" when on one of them breaks a rule. Counter-intuitive to community building. And, inevitably, someone will break a "rule."

Agreements have a different quality of being about them that is much more person-centered.

BTW -- all agreements are written down ... just like "rules" ...

Best --

Ann Zabaldo
Takoma Village Cohousing
Washington, DC
Principal, Cohousing Collaborative, LLC
Falls Church VA
703 663 3911

On Sep 9, 2010, at 8:50 PM, Thomas Lofft wrote:



I offer my thoughts that we should be glad we have evolved a written vocabulary to document our understandings. The writings are hopefully not subject to body language interpretation.

I see a lot of semantic differences underlying some of the same words because we may actually have many different understandings of what our words mean.

In my mind, RULES are always top down, authoritarian, heirarchically controlled.

AGREEMENTS, however, are bottom up, or colaterally derived among peers; they are mutual in thier obligation and effect; they are honored by their creators as equals and passed on to future generations as honor binding. Good agreements, of course, always include provisos for revisitation by comon agreement, whenever they appear to need a modification.

In my mind, a cohousing community which says that it operates its decision making by consensus should also adopt my favorite saying at Liberty Village, which is that "there are no rules, only agreements."

If we are in agreement on adoption of a policy, (Is that the meaning of consensus - that there is universal agreement, or at least, no dissent?), then the subject policy is an agreement among peers. Peers can have agreements. They are equally empowered.

Perhaps you challenge that kids are not peers, and therefore we at least have to have 'rules' for kids, and people who think and act like kids.

I offer that kids can be taught that honor is a very valuable commodity, and honoring one's agreement is even more important than obeying the laws or the heirarchical rules created and enforced by a top down authoritarian. I believe that kids can be raised by agreement as quickly as they can understand language and honor.

As a simple (at least in my thinking) example, the CC&R's (Covenants, Consitions & Restrictions) of any typical real estate condominium or subdivision are actually a set of agreements among all the property owners. Every prospective owner has received a copy of the CC&R's prior to settlement. The CC&R's have been included in the contract provisions at least by reference, and typically provided in complete written form with the title report. When initially created, they are entered into the local public records as binding upon all property titles encumbered thereby. Thereafter, every prospective purchaser of one of the subject properties is given notice of their existance and the nature of their obligatory status. They also include provisions for amendment. Therefore, every purchaser accepts their title subject to the binding nature of the existing agreement and also receives the right to act appropriately if desired to change the terms thereof. So why do such subdivisions feel compelling needs to let a minority create rules to control the acivities of many?

Unfortunately, many subdivisions are so large as to be out of control of the equity members who appear to have defaulted in participatory effort to give all power over to a Board of Directors elected by a majority of those showing for the voting, which may actually have a relatively small quorum requirement.

Isn't that one of the upsets that led Americans to adopt cohousing? So why would any cohousing community adopt any rules when they can choose to live by agreement?


RE: Message: 6
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 16:42:58 -0700
From: "Wayne Tyson" <landrest [at] cox.net>
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement (Wayne
Tyson)
To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Message-ID: <008301cb5078$bbf90d70$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original

All:

Again, I appreciate the thoughtful responses very much.

In a rule-bound environment, the phrase, "It is written" is common in one form or another. In a rules-free environment, each case is a "test" case for the previous one, where the context was slightly different. Liz is "on the money" with her comments; rules are features of culture, perhaps THE feature
of culture.

Whether or not the previous culture "likes it" or not, newer cultures arise from older ones, sometimes violently so, primarily because the previous
one(s) had rigid, rule-bound, hierarchical, authoritarian structures.
"Disapproving" glances are at the root of freedom from rules; they are
social mores in action. But once they are frozen, not subject to question or to testing, they become culturally rigid. Being subject to question does not have to mean that disapproval cannot be expressed, only that the questioning
goes both ways. Otherwise, it would, by definition, be rule-bound.

Liz, if I was not fully responsive to your contribution, please let me know
(give me a disapproving glance or comment).

WT



Thanks for writing.
Tom

                                        
_________________________________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/




Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.