Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: rules

[Wayne Tyson (landrest]

Moz and CoHo:

Moz has deftly given us and example of true conflict resolution, not by 
taking a polarizing "position," but by integrating the apparent "sides" and 
recognizing that, by thoughtful discrimination, a (moving) point of 
reconciliation can be reached. I suggest it's not for nothing that the sides 
of any issue may be more than two, and that a compromise that both taketh 
and giveth just might be replaced by a kind of synergy unrecognized by an 
fixed perspective.

Communication is so much more than just "getting it right," and the 
interpretation of the receiver is as important as the skill of the 
commentator. Understanding each other is vastly different than teaching each 
other, being right, winning, or convincing. We may need ego to survive, but 
we don't need egocentrism and understanding beats prevailing any day.

Semantics can lead to misunderstanding, but asking questions can often nip 
it in the bud. "Rules" for example, can mean one thing to one person, and 
quite another thing to another, but that need not be a barrier to 
understanding unless we insist upon making it so. The mere act of suggesting 
an alternative is not, in of itself, rude, but if it is not well-stated or 
if it is misinterpreted, a challenge to a popular notion can seem rude. But 
letting the other person know of an offense, like Moz wisely points out, is 
an important point of reconciliation, not confrontation--if the "offender" 
is willing to re-state her or his proposition. Gaining understanding is 
something like Goldilocks' applying her skills of discrimination to the 
soups of the Three Bears--not too hot, not too cold, but j u s t  right.

Community and communication don't share a common root for nothing. I know 
that others may differ, but as for me, I prefer community that is built 
through mutual consideration and recognition of elements held in common 
first, then synergistic reconciliation rather than "intention," at least in 
the narrow sense. The broad goal of acting in ways that are mutually 
beneficial is good enough for me, and the test for any "rule" is whether it 
tends more to be consistent with that basic goal than inconsistent is one 
way of "testing" its validity. I shall be delighted to replace that position 
with a superior one.

I will still want, however, to infuse any "rule" with the flexibility to 
adapt to different and changing contexts and recognition of exceptions, such 
as illness or incapacity or limitations that may limit an individual's 
ability to conform to the rules that may not be apparent to others. Some 
people with such marginal or unrecognizable limitations to their abilities 
are not always eager to whine about them or to make tedious and detailed 
explanations (time after time after time . . . ). Other's will endure 
considerable pain, hardship, and degradation of their condition to fulfill 
their responsibilities rather than appear to be a slacker or an 
excuse-maker. Acquiring the habit of asking questions rather than making 
accusations is not an altogether bad idea. Fear not, however, as such people 
quite understand that, even when a limited ability is apparent to others, it 
often goes unrecognized by normal people and most realize that people are 
not being insensitive. It is very difficult to understand what it's like to 
be in pain without outward, attention-getting symptoms--such people rarely 
scream out in public, and they really do hate to be a burden or not carry 
their share of the burden. Most of all, they fear the indignity of 
patronizing condescension. That is "the most unkindest cut of all."

WT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <list [at] moz.geek.nz>
To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ rules


> Wayne:
> > > There is something subtly disrespectful implied by posting rules;
>
> Lynn Nadeau / Maraiah:
> > NOT having rules/guidelines can lead to a lot more tension than coming
> > to clarity about some bottom-line stuff. ... with advance permission
> > then folks know to ask ahead, and neighbors also know they
> > have a right to call and remind
>
> I think this is a key tension in many groups. We have it, it sounds as
> though others do too.
>
> I think a lot of us have been on both sides of these, I know I have,
> and I've decided that for me at least clear rules are better. That way
> at least I get to make an informed choice about obeying (or not)
> whatever rules there are. The alternative is that I suffer social
> sanction for something I didn't know was wrong.
>
> So I volunteer to write stuff up, maintain websites, whatever is needed
> so that people can find out what the situation is. Which takes time, and
> often annoys people, but I'd rather have that than the alternative.
>
> Moz
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3629 - Release Date: 05/10/11