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

Ah. If that was the point: that we have to call our written things  

about how we work and play together agreements and not rules, then  

I'm totally on board.

Or if you'd like to call them guidelines. Or covenants. Or  

expectations. Or pletudinations.

I agree that in a consensus based environment, there is a higher  

(though not 100%) chance of people staying within those written  

things about how we work and play together.

And enforcement in a community (regardless of the decision making  

process) is about being willing to talk to each other and mention  

what's up, and why it matters to you, and listen to the response.

-Liz
Elizabeth Magill
www.worcesterfellowship.org

On Sep 10, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Ann Zabaldo wrote:

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/

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

Re: FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement (Wayne	<– Date –> <– Thread –>
From: Elizabeth Magill (pastorlizmgmail.com)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:50:45 -0700 (PDT)