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

[Thomas Lofft (tlofft]

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