RE: Means and end | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Jason Stirnaman (j.stirnaman![]() |
|
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:43:08 -0700 (MST) |
There are several Christian communities in the U.S. that I've heard of, but forgotten their names and locations. There are some in Europe and New Zealand/Australia as well. Overall, I don't know how they compare in number to "non-ideologically" driven projects, but I think they've been successful. Tom Sine, a Christian futurist who is also active in the Simple Living movement, mentions a few in his book "Mustard Seed vs. McWorld." -----Original Message----- From: cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org [mailto:cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org]On Behalf Of Racheli&John Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 11:52 AM To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org Subject: Re: [C-L]_Means and end ** Reply to note from Catya Belfer-Shevett <catya [at] weathership.homeport.org> Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:54:32 -0500 (EST) >From Racheli > > > Is anyone else doing anything similar? > > > > No one replied. Does that mean we're the only community represented on this > > list that has another purpose beyond cohousing? > > Our group isn't - cohousing is ambitious enough for us at this stage. IMO joining a group (whether a residential or a non-residential one) is pretty much always a means to an end. The issue is whether there is one *cohesive and explicitly articulated* end which the group as a whole shares, or whether people join and participate with somewhat-varying types and degrees of expectations. Most cohousing groups in the US, as far as I know, are of the latter kind. I don't think that by nature they *have to be* that way. ("The" cohousing book mentioned some communities in Denmark which were more ideologically driven - Katie and Chuck didn't think they were as successful. I suspect that this perception on their part influenced the kind of cohousing they promoted in this country. There are probably other reasons why cohousing in the US is not "ideologically driven" by and large. Maybe the fact that people need to be relatively well-to-do financially in order to be able to afford it in the first place tends to f(l)avor the outcome towards a more "mainstream" direction (since people with more money are more likely to be comfortable with how things are)? I wonder what cohousing groups in Europe/other places are like in that regard? Does anyone know? Hope the above hasn't seriously offended anybody... R. _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
- Re: Means and end, (continued)
- Re: Means and end Michael D, March 13 2001
- Re: Means and end Catya Belfer-Shevett, March 10 2001
- RE: Means and end Jason Stirnaman, March 11 2001
-
Re: Means and end Racheli&John, March 11 2001
- RE: Means and end Jason Stirnaman, March 11 2001
- Re: Means and end Catya Belfer-Shevett, March 11 2001
-
RE: Means and end Racheli&John, March 11 2001
- RE: Means and end Jason Stirnaman, March 11 2001
- Religious based cohousing Rob Sandelin, March 12 2001
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.