Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: The "ideology" thing

I disagree.  All thinking is based on beliefs, assumptions (some  

conscious and some not), intricate connections

to our emotional reality/wiring, etc.

I haven't read the article you recommended yet, so it's not in  

reference to it.

Racheli.

On Jun 6, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:

CoHo:

One can't think and believe at the same time. Saying this, however,  

does not

settle this perennial "conundrum." We all reach conclusions about  

reality,

but ideology freezes those conclusions; thinking keeps testing them.

WT

PS: An interesting article, just received today, might be of  

interest to

those interested. http://motherjones.com/print/106166

----- Original Message -----
From: "Racheli Gai" <racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com>
To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ The "ideology" thing

Maybe on some abstract level cohousing communities have no ideology,
but since everything we do (or choose not to do) in life,
as individuals or as a community, expresses some ideology, I think it
would be a great step forward if the idea that communities
have no ideology gets replaces by an honest effort to own up-front to
what are the values/ideology a given community does possess.

In our community, on many occasions when someone wished to do
something to promote an environmental agenda, someone
would object on the grounds that "we have no ideology"...  To put it
another way, the reigning ideology for those who object
to an ideology is the capitalist/status quo world we live in and
with.  Yet, most of us (in my community, and I suspect in many) does
want to promote an environmental agenda, as well as some other
progressive agendas.  Defining which issues we support, and *to what
extent*
we commit ourselves as a community to support them might be a better
way to go than adhering to the current mantra.

Racheli.

On Jun 6, 2011, at 10:42 AM, <kkudia [at] peoplepc.com>
<kkudia [at] peoplepc.com> wrote:

Katie: Well said. I tend to concur: the  primary commitment of CoHo
as an
organization is the shared commitment of building neighborhoods.
Individuals
are free to pursue a variety of political/religious persuasions and
social
issues (women rights, animal
rights, poverty/racial issues, poverty in developing countries,
sustainable
agriculture etc) and I imagine this organization like
others are composed of such a mixture. Perhaps the strength of CoHo
is its
clear focus.

Karen
Anthony Fl

I?ve been troubled by this whole union situation for several  

reasons:

1.     By definition, cohousing is not supposed to have a shared
ideology.
Cohousers claim to want a diverse range of political and social
viewpoints, but
of course the vast majority of cohousers are lefty liberals and
anyone who
doesn?t share that perspective doesn?t really fit in. I can
understand and
respect why individual members would not want to attend the
conference and
cross
a picket line, but why is support for organized labor even an issue
for
the
association? It?s not part of any mission statement or platform. >

It?s regrettable that this union issue seems to be putting a damper
on the
conference and possibly causing people to not attend.  I commend
the board
for

trying in good faith to work with the union, but the main goal ?  

the

reason
we?re all here ? is to support and advance the cause of cohousing,
and I
think
the board made the right decision to carry on with the conference.

Katie Henry

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

Re: The "ideology" thing	<– Date –> <– Thread –>
From: Racheli Gai (rachelisonoracohousing.com)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:58:48 -0700 (PDT)