Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement

[Wayne Tyson (landrest]

Camilla and all:

Ok, I'm "fixing it" by sending this to the listserv; those interested may read 
our two previous communications to share in the conversation. 

Well, yes, humility. Just the use of the term without any qualifying statement 
may, for some, have different meanings. As long as they respond, any 
misunderstanding can be fixed by further explanation if necessary, but those 
not participating will "go" with their own interpretation. 

I do respect the "just do it" and not talk about it concept at root, but that 
works best when everybody is "on the same page." By definition, we are 
exploring the possibilities of adding pages. On the other hand, refusing to 
discuss can sometimes be, and with increasing frequency seems to be, a refuge 
for minds that don't want to be budged. That's fine, too, just another form of 
social organization. Unless it's authoritarian, in which case it's not my cup 
of tea, at least in the sense of an "If you're not with us, you're against us" 
mindset. It is probably true that just about any form of cooperative living 
beats just about any form of coercive living, including exploitation 
capitalism, but these matter are either open to question or closed to 
questioning. 

I certainly agree that just talking without the conversation going anywhere is 
a waste of breath and time. 

I am convinced that "cohousing" is a desirable mode of existence, but not the 
only mode, and not necessarily the best mode for all contexts. All definitions 
are, by definition (so to speak), defined, therefore bounded. 

Having been a "consultant" for many years, I am either strongly in favor or 
strongly opposed to consultants as professionals, but am always in favor of 
consultation. There's a semantic thicket for you! 

Thanks again for all of the consultation. 

WT


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: lcamundsen [at] shaw.ca 
  To: Wayne Tyson 
  Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 4:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement


  Yes I did mean to send that to the general conversation pool. Would 
appreciate your fixing it.
  I think the concept we are approaching is humility. Can't say I can offer 
much more than some awarenenss of how it feels but I believe that is the keys 
to our success. I do not mean to imply that QV is a paradigm. We really are 
very much an imperfect  work in progress. Seems to me the more we  go along 
with that growth the more we learn.

  I do catch your drift so far as culturally designated meanings for such terms 
as " human nature" and I agree. These are human constructs and therefore 
changeable. However, in my experience, cohousing is a highly present and 
practical mode of existence. Much of the time there is no energy for self 
examination.I also have learned that not everybody is as verbally oriented as I 
seem to be. They do not want to think in abstruse terms about big important 
ideas. This does not mean they do not understand or utilize the concepts. They 
just live it. This I find daunting. No talk. Just do it. I wonder if this is 
what you mean by wanting to see how communities work things out. There may not 
be much to see. It is a cumulation of all sorts of  historical details.
  I believe the basic structures we have originated in Quaker literature about 
community. There are many good books about that work.
  One shortcut to doing the necessary self examination is through the services 
of a cohousing consultant.That would probably be through word of mouth from 
someone you connect with. FYI ours were Alan Carpenter and Ronaye Matthew both 
available online. Highly recommended.
  Camilla


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Wayne Tyson 
    To: lcamundsen [at] shaw.ca 
    Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 8:59 AM
    Subject: Re: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement


    Hi Camilla,

    And thank you for keeping the conversation going. I understand what you are 
saying. I do agree that "ego" of the sort we most commonly understand as the 
"self-preservation instinct" cannot and need not be avoided--yea it is crucial 
to all organisms. I do (from my ego) however, offer the observation that 
egocentrism is another thing entirely, if you get my semantic drift . . . 

    This is part of the exploration toward alternatives for alternatives, as it 
were. And "people working things out" is part of that exploration, as this 
conversation illustrates. I do set ideas forth for critical assessment of their 
potential without equivocation, and while I welcome all responses, I will and 
do stick to my point as easily as I can be moved in another direction. I would 
be egocentric, and therefore hypocritical, if I were to refuse to budge and go 
into defensive or offensive mode merely because a comment did not agree with 
mine. I believe that humans are capable of achieving a kind of "sweet synergy," 
but I do not expect it, have no right to demand it, and have no desire to 
enforce any concept over those at variance with it. I fully realize that it is 
considered "human nature" to view one's own reality as the reality, but I 
submit that that "human nature" may be the central defect of the intellect as 
we tend to insist we know it. This is true at the individual and the cultural 
level. 

    These concepts are not familiar to some, and as such, are not expected to 
comfortable (or "confirmational"). Denial probably is a "natural" response to 
"challenge," but why not "counter-challenge" based on specifics, such as 
reasoned analysis of specific defects in the challenge and/or specific 
alternatives--rather than simple rejection without any apparent opening toward 
further discussion? This question is rhetorical, not personal. I have learned 
to make such clarifications, in hopes of removing any potential for 
interpretation as any kind of threat. But when one closes discussion by mere 
denial, the matter is closed, at least for the individual making the denial. 
This is itself a difficult challenge, but we can either rise to it or not. 

    The form of social engagement you describe seems to have naturally fallen 
into place, and is what I am interested in learning more about. "Trust and 
respect," I suspect, do not tend to arise out of a bunch of egocentrics thrown 
together with no commitment toward cooperation; the homeowner organizations in 
condominium projects I have observed can be nightmares; we want to avoid as 
much conflict over trivia as possible. We are looking for ways to minimize as 
much as possible the need for a conflict resolution process, but I am under no 
illusion that such will need to be present in reserve. That's why I am doing 
this exploration--to learn from the actual experiences of those who have 
actually done it and how they feel about how well their present situation fits. 
In your case, while I don't know the particulars, it seems like you are at 
least content most of the time, and the fact that you mentioned fun, food, 
kids, and music, as well as integration with the "outside," all appear to 
symptoms of social cohesion. 

    Again, we're just trying to work out as many kinks as possible in trying to 
move our own way out of an atmosphere of manipulation and into one more 
characterized by cooperation, toward less coercion and more mutual respect. I 
don't expect perfection or utopia, only a road toward betterment rather than 
disintegration. 

    Best,
    Wayne

    PS: On the nicotine issue, if I left the impression that I think addicts 
are "powerless to change," on the contrary I do believe that it is an 
individual decision. I do believe that all people need a nurturing atmosphere, 
and that includes not being an "enabler" of the addiction, but not throwing the 
person out with the addiction, as it were. Behavior is influenced by addiction, 
however, and anti-social acts must have consequences. Having an atmosphere of 
support for the person need not mean support of the addiction. But, to be 
clear, "I don't want no junkies hangin' 'round!" One just stole my mountain 
bike yesterday. In an integrated society, that would be less likely to happen. 
He probably felt isolated, at that is the first twist in the spiral. The drugs 
turn the spiral into a spin, and it gets harder and harder to kick opposite 
rudder and pull back on the power, especially, I suspect, for the egocentric. 

    I have responded by clicking "Reply to all," and see that you have used 
"Reply to," so if you intended this to also go to the listserv, you can either 
post the reply to them or I will, at your request, re-post it. This is out of 
respect for whatever your view of email protocol may be. 


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: <lcamundsen [at] shaw.ca>
    To: "Wayne Tyson" <landrest [at] cox.net>
    Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 9:23 AM
    Subject: Re: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement


    > Hi Wayne,
    > I appreciate your high calling to an alternative way of relating between 
us
    > humans. You are right. As  species we can and must do better.
    > Speaking as an observer and one of the founding members of our now 12 year
    > old community I would say the following . Power and ego are human 
realities.
    > They cannot be avoided or they become the famous "elephant in the living
    > room".Completely without them we would not survive. It is possible to 
manage
    > and mitigate the negative effects and to build on the positives. Trust and
    > respect help form the bridge to a life style that works to varying degrees
    > for all residents. Building trust and respect is an on going commitment. I
    > think our Quaysde  process  is founded on our growing understanding of one
    > another over time and our basic structures, such as a flat organization,
    > varied communication modes (email, notice boards,notes in mail boxes,
    > conversation etc.) a commitment to transparency, as well as a solid filing
    > system for minutes, proposals and so on. None of this is unique, rather, 
it
    > is probably common to cohousing  and other intentional communities.When I 
    > think about it I realize we do not have anybody who is a "leader" . We 
have 
    > various people doing various jobs for a  specified time. That is 
interesting 
    > after 12 years!!
    > The "soul" of the community is nurtured I think, by  such events as invite
    > us together for fun and food.These are often common meals. Sometimes there
    > are special events like open houses when we show off  to various visiting
    > firemen.On these occasions it is hard to avoid the conclusion "Hey this 
is a
    > neat place!" I particularly love the celebrations that include musicians,
    > their music and kids. We are fortunate to have both.
    > 
    > As a project, Quayside has been welcomed into the larger surrounding
    > commuity from the beginning as part of the overall community plan for 
North
    > Vancouver City .In this way we are more than part of our surroundings, we
    > are  another face in the crowd of citizens.
    > 
    > I think that is very important in our viablity.. I feel we truly belong in
    > the city where we live.I do not feel " alternative" at all.
    > 
    > By the way I do not agree that addicts to nicotene or anything else are
    > powerless to change, if indeed that is what you meant. I do agree that
    > uncontrolled promotion and sale of harmful substances is wrong.There are
    > ways of healing that have worked for many , AA being the most notable to 
my
    > discernment.
    > Every person has power and ego and then there are the intangibles-like
    > "community", "synergy"...etc.that tip the balance in favour of health.
    > Thanks for starting this conversation.
    > Camilla
    > 
    > 
    > ----- Original Message ----- 
    > From: "Wayne Tyson" <landrest [at] cox.net>
    > To: <lcamundsen [at] shaw.ca>; "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] 
cohousing.org>
    > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:15 PM
    > Subject: Re: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement
    > 
    > 
    >> Camilla and Honorable Forum:
    >>
    >> Yes, these comments are likewise very valuable. I quite agree that
    >> "leadership" should shift amongst the group. Still, I wonder if there
    >> needs to be some initial stimulus for the group to mull over, and, as is
    >> happening here, become a living "document" with a life of its own.
    >> Synergy?
    >>
    >> My own thinking about rules, say, smoking, is that smokers will bend over
    >> backwards to avoid offense, and that the community at least has the 
option
    >> to become a support in helping the addicted individual get well. One of
    >> our potential group is addicted to tobacco (nicotine, actually, courtesy
    >> the tobacco manufacturers and their "formulation" of their increasingly
    >> addictive product). I, for one, have passed through the prohibition 
stage,
    >> realizing that nicotine addiction is really not the addict's "fault," but
    >> that of the pusher, in this case of a "legal" yet criminal (in human
    >> terms) enterprise. Neither do we need to be enablers, but this particular
    >> addict has much, much to contribute to the community. Hence item 7.
    >>
    >> However, please do not interpret these remarks as justification for the
    >> list of items; we continue to welcome continued discussion of the 
relative
    >> merits of all kinds of ideas in our attempt to put together yet another
    >> alternative. Power, we hope, will not be an issue, nor should egocentrism
    >> in any form. That's the central characteristic of the coercive culture
    >> that drives us into a kind of gentle exile, to some form of mutualism as
    >> free as possible from coercive law and toward a more social/cooperative
    >> mode of living.
    >>
    >> WT
    >>
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message ----- 
    >> From: <lcamundsen [at] shaw.ca>
    >> To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
    >> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 5:39 PM
    >> Subject: Re: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Hi all,
    >>> Wording of first principles is tricky to say the least. The fact is we
    >>> are
    >>> governed by whatever rules are in place wherever the project is created.
    >>> That being said, our cohousing group is one that prefers to avoid formal
    >>> rules wherever possible. The "wording" issue always must be given time
    >>> and
    >>> energy and sometimes it is just too much.We choose to have one simple 
set
    >>> of
    >>> bylaws as required by our provincial law.These would cost money in legal
    >>> fees to change.Then we have guidelines regarding other stuff that can be
    >>> and
    >>> has changed by community consent. Policy on smoking  is an example.Then
    >>> we
    >>> have some understandings that are pretty flexible and change according 
to
    >>> on
    >>> going consultation. One example of this is use of common areas for
    >>> scheduled
    >>> individual projects, such as a meditation class.
    >>> I think this structure is fairly common among cohousing groups.
    >>> Ideas have to start somewhere with someone so it seems, Wayne, you are
    >>> it.
    >>> We had a similar beginning . It did not last long because that person
    >>> realized early on that the enterprise needed a group to bring it to
    >>> reality.
    >>> At that point the one has to give over power to the whole group to work
    >>> through the process of getting started. It is important to have clear
    >>> structures to ensure equity and fairness . There are good getting 
started
    >>> guides that will help to set up such structures free on line available
    >>> through the coho network.
    >>> Keep on keeping on!
    >>> Camilla
    >>>
    >>> ----- Original Message ----- 
    >>> From: "James Kacki" <jimkacki [at] mts.net>
    >>> To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
    >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 2:38 PM
    >>> Subject: Re: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Hi WT,
    >>>> All the seven principles are obviously based on a lot of thought and
    >>>> a commitment to doing the right thing for the planet and  for your
    >>>> community.  However, honestly,  the tone of the way the 'principles'
    >>>> are worded makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.  The tone
    >>>> seems dogmatic in the extreme.   I can imagine the person who wrote
    >>>> those words getting really angry about anyone in the community who
    >>>> deviated in their lifestyle or actions from the writers intentions.
    >>>> I personally would stay far away from a community that had such a
    >>>> dogmatic set of principles, worded that way.  Each one of us is
    >>>> different and 'community' is by its nature made up of people with
    >>>> different attitudes and ideas.  Of course, there has to be some
    >>>> common bond or understanding by all the individuals in order to make
    >>>> the community thrive, but my advice would be to keep your intent, but
    >>>> relax a little in the framing of the  statement of principles.
    >>>> Just one persons opinion.  I'd be interested to hear what others think.
    >>>> James
    >>>>
    >>>> On 1-Sep-10, at 1:16 PM, Gerald Manata wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A lot of this stuff sounds good, but I  question number 7. Are you
    >>>>> talking about
    >>>>> anarchy here? How can that work? You are building what will be a legal
    >>>>> condominium. You will be legally required to have a huge amount of
    >>>>> rules in your
    >>>>> CC&R's.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ________________________________
    >>>>> From: Wayne Tyson <landrest [at] cox.net>
    >>>>> To: Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org
    >>>>> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 4:08:38 PM
    >>>>> Subject: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Honorable Forum:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I am and long have been interested in the subject of co-housing and
    >>>>> related
    >>>>> matters, and have read "all" the informational material I could
    >>>>> "find."
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I am especially interested in building upon the ideas and
    >>>>> experience of others,
    >>>>> and will always welcome all kinds of responses to my questions and
    >>>>> ideas.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> At present, I am investigating the possibility of developing a
    >>>>> variation on the
    >>>>> themes I have investigated, both theoretically and actually. We
    >>>>> plan to
    >>>>> investigate Oregon for possible sites in early September, 2010. We
    >>>>> expect our
    >>>>> "project" to be rural, but near towns and cities; we expect that it
    >>>>> will take
    >>>>> years, if not generations, for the transistional process to occur.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I would appreciate any tips regarding legal procedures (zoning,
    >>>>> changes,
    >>>>> building codes, requirements for establishing a town) and obstacles
    >>>>> (how to
    >>>>> overcome them or the feasibility of overcoming them).
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Here is a brief description of the something of the sort of
    >>>>> alternative
    >>>>> community we are exploring.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 1. Facilitating trends toward reconciling the needs and works of
    >>>>> humankind with
    >>>>> those of the earth and its life.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 2. Diversity and integration of skills, personalities and lives.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 3. Concept of "frugal luxury" and adequacy in all aspects of
    >>>>> fulfilling life
    >>>>> potential--an alternative to both poverty and greed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 4. Trends away from egocentrism as a presumed normal function of
    >>>>> cooperation
    >>>>> rather than intentional displacement-competition.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 5. Leaving the land and its life alone as much as possible,
    >>>>> integrating with
    >>>>> nature, in the sense of staying within the energy/nutrient cycle as
    >>>>> much as
    >>>>> possible, but without pressure for rapid change--gradual transitional
    >>>>> transformation, but complete tolerance of all versions and degrees
    >>>>> and rates of
    >>>>> such a process without active peer pressure or other coercion.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 6. Innovative, original, efficient ways of providing sustenance and
    >>>>> comfort such
    >>>>> as through highly functional, economical architecture rather than
    >>>>> aesthetic
    >>>>> style.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 7. No rules, and no rules about no rules. Deception and other
    >>>>> manipulation
    >>>>> simply will not work because of the nature of the citizens.
    >>>>> Dominance is not
    >>>>> concentrated, but shifts according to context.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> These are thoughts quite open for discussion, and we welcome other
    >>>>> thoughts and
    >>>>> discussion on the implied specifics. Each of these "topics"
    >>>>> probably have an
    >>>>> infinite number of subsets, and we welcome all kinds of comments
    >>>>> and suggestions
    >>>>> as we cycle through our learning/understanding process.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thank you for your responses and for allowing me to participate.
    >>>>> Specific
    >>>>> suggestions about modifications to this brief list are especially
    >>>>> welcome.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> WT
    >>>>> _________________________________________________________________
    >>>>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
    >>>>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> _________________________________________________________________
    >>>>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
    >>>>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> _________________________________________________________________
    >>>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
    >>>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> _________________________________________________________________
    >>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
    >>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> No virus found in this incoming message.
    >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
    >> Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3106 - Release Date: 09/01/10
    >> 06:34:00
    >>
    > 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
    Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3108 - Release Date: 09/02/10 
06:34:00



------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3115 - Release Date: 09/05/10 
06:34:00