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

[Wayne Tyson (landrest]

Racheli:

Would it be correct, then, for me to conclude that ideology is not a rigid, 
unchangeable belief, and that thinking is based on those beliefs?

WT


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Racheli Gai" <racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com>
To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ 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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1511/3684 - Release Date: 06/06/11