Wednesday, September 20, 2006

life-dance post

{I posted this a while back but accidentally erased it. I repost it now--piankhy}



Family-member: Doing Life-dance parties almost every day, and at Tupelo more than once a week (probably too many familial-venue parties). The dances are often not as formally complete as they use to be. Not sure how much of this is slacking and how much a sign that the life-dance party has just entered seamlessly into the form of my everyday life. Some of each I think. Of course the culture of the household as a household hasn’t changed. Time passes rituals of apart-ness (rehearsals for various collective and individual tragedies) go on every day. All I do try to avoid being cast in that kind of play and keep busy with my own rehearsals for the comedy and the comic happy ending. Not sure what else to do under the circumstances. Listening.
Neighbor: Wrote and posted a two-part o and I paper called “for Utopia” (see next post). Have neglected my weekly Local Life-dance party in the courtyard for maybe 3 weeks in a row. Not sure what’s up with that. Need to Challenge myself to do it this Saturday. I would be good also to do a weekly Life-dance walk as well. Could use some Support for that (who could I ask to walk with me?). Work wise (I mean “survival work”), I seem to be moving toward more autonomy. Maybe I’ll start doing more outside work…Beginning to have more of a detailed vision of the role and functions of a farm and or farm life in the context of the Tree of Life project. Perhaps an essay soon…
Individual: Eating fairly poorly these days considering that its summer and there is so much good fresh food around. What’s up with that? Could use more green juices, salads, and raw foods of all kinds… I do feel a change in this state of affairs coming on. Listening… Intend to do either a vision quest or a 4 day retreat and fast for my birthday in Sept. Spending too much time sitting in front of computers…practicing Tan Tien Chung (from a book by Mantak Chia) and am reading another book by him on esoteric Taoism.
Citizen-of-the-World: Regular trips to C-ville every week. Irregular Life-Dance Parties there. Thomas Jefferson’s “serpentine wall” gardens at the University of Virginia seem like almost perfect places for a Life-Dance Party. That's usually where I go. Played clarinet, did chi gung. Even read aloud some (poetry I think), but maybe also “The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight” by Thom Hartmann. (Good book so far). Keep forgetting to bring my flyers incase I am joined by some curious soul. Other than that, so far as strangers go, there are my blogs, my myspace activity and the fact that I finally got to do the workshop “Practicing Utopia” at this years Twin Oaks Communities Conference. It “seemed”: to go over well but its hard to expect much from one-time-only affairs…Listening …
Soul: Other than myspace interfaith group exchanges, and the regular activity of sharing my worldview with whoever is interested, the venue has been sort of dead. It would probably be good to be a part of a non-virtual interfaith group, though such groups are usually frustratingly assiduous in avoiding just the kind of discussions that could be the most healing. Read a book about the Dalai Lama recently, listened to Lectures on the history of the Papacy, ordered on the history of Buddhism. Other than keeping the issue or religion alive in me in this way, I don’t know how else to proceed. Perhaps I should be more concerned with this than I am right now…Listening...

posted by: piankhy | 00:00 | comments

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Neigbor Post

{Note: I posted these two papers, minus some minor corrections, on the  O and I (Opinions and Ideas) board at Twin Oaks recently. I post it here not to shame Twin Oaks--which has this problem no more or less than every other community or neighborhood that have been in, but, among other things, to point out a tendency that must be addressed and a problem that must be solved if healthy culture and real democracy is ever to exist, whether in a neighborhood, a family, or any larger civil collectivity. I also feel that there is special relavence here to the communities movement as a whole.}


For Utopia (part one)
By Piankhy 8/10/2006

It feels somewhat daunting trying to write this. I feel like I am trying to heal the many-headed hydra of corruption at Twin Oaks by going at the heart of the thing. That is good so far as it goes, since that would be the only way to do this sustainably anyway.  What feels so daunting and potentially futile is that I have come to feel that people do not want the actual hydra healed at all, only want those heads removed that most offend them as individuals. This kind of one-sided factionalism of conception and feeling---in fact the whole culture of apart-ness that it is a part of--seems just as hopelessly entrenched here, as it is in the culture outside twin oaks.  Trying to counter it sometimes feels more hopeless than trying to go uphill in an avalanche.  Challenging that feeling of futility, and the tendency toward rejection, giving up, and apathy that I feel in myself is part of why I am writing this. Such tendencies in me are the result of my own conceit of knowledge, and of some kind of misguided fear of failure or perhaps even more, of success.  Writing this is part of trying to challenge these things in myself and so catalyze my own healing while doing the same thing for my neighborhood.  

To begin, I want to notice out loud that people seem determined to avoid or just ignore any analyses of our situation that implicates themselves in what in wrong with our community. This is possible by avoiding the topic of having a healthy community as a whole and focusing (usually with some degree of self-righteousness) on this or that particular short coming of others in some aspect of community life in which the complainer happens not to have a problem. In doing this they seem to have convinced themselves that that if this or that short-coming disappeared then the community would be fine or at least better, when in fact it would just be “better” for them and those like them.  Though such gestures seem to be attempts to help the community, these one-sided critiques usually just intensify faction and competition between those who like there own vices better, (or ignore them more effectively) than those of others. If the complainers got their way, all that would have happened is that the less commonly acknowledged vices would have succeeded in making the world safer for themselves through means of coercion and the complainers who have those vices would have acquired even more of the kind of power that in an egalitarian community, shouldn’t even exist.

The tendency I have just described is actually a big part of the source of the desire to compete with and coerce others. It is a part equally of the corruption of national, international politics as well as that of Twin Oaks. And really there is no future in it worth having.

 For its clear to me that where there is no real agreement (the unpopular word for which is consensus), or at least a real and ongoing attempt at it, then there can be no real cooperation in any positive sense of the word. And In order for people to truly agree, and to renew agreement when individuals or circumstances change, they must come together for discussion, clarification, argument etc, in an on-going way.

When this coming-together for living agreement and real cooperation is not happening then there is going to be subtle or unsubtle coercion (which is a kind of violence) and direct or indirect competition as to who can most effectively coerce who.  This is because there are always people who have more influence in any static system, either because they happen to like, and/or be more of the temperament and disposition to learn and work, that system (such people will usually equate intelligence or some other virtue with just this temperament rather than question the fairness or health of the system itself), or because they are on good terms with influential people in it, or for any number of other reasons. The bottom line is that inertia is more or less on their side and at the inevitable decision point’s things are more than likely to go their way. This ability to indirectly coerce others compromises any claim to egalitarianism even when, if the ability were not used, it would not compromise the claim of cooperative non-violence.

Moreover, if we see thing in perspective, we would acknowledge the coercion inherent in our general situation. There is coercion (the threat of force, the motivation of fear) involved in any kind of private or ownership, whether collective or individual. We hold the land ultimately by violence and the threat of violence of the national and local government and we take unfair advantage of this; no matter how much more simply, lightly, wisely, and sustainably than ourselves others who come here might be prepared to live in this land, they can be kept away or forced to leave if they don’t follow our more or less self-serving rules or even if we just don’t like them personally. If we don’t actively work against the dominant, coercive cleptocratic, exploitative, and intrinsically sick state of affairs both directly and by trying to show a really different way of living, then we are just using it to maintain little pseudo-utopias in which we, rather than some other group are the most comfortable and in which others, seeking real fairness can “love it or leave it” or just resign themselves apathy or cynicism.

Even if it were the case that everyone, either at Twin Oaks or in the Country outside it, was comfortable with the status quo, (an extremely unlikely situation), without some active, ongoing, and inclusive venue for airing and addressing emergent complaints, and difficulties, this would only make both America and Twin Oaks, essentially gated communities in which even those “insiders” who grow to feel oppressed are simply coerced into silence or “made to leave” in one way or another, while “outsiders” aware of the corruption are going to be even more summarily excluded.

Neither real cooperation, nor equality, non-violence nor sustainability can be solely internal, exclusive, in-group things. Exclusive cooperation means a willingness to coerce those excluded from attempts at agreement that make real cooperation possible. Exclusive equality is just elitism. Exclusive non-violence abandons outsiders to repression and coercion that the insiders, must tacitly support to keep from being victims themselves. And exclusive sustainability is only possible in a community inhabiting their own separate planet (and maybe not for long even then). 

At present Twin Oaks is “utopia enough” for some people (maybe even for most people) in the same way the America is “democracy enough” for the privileged and those in control. In both cases the experiment of real equality, real democracy, real cooperation, and real “utopia” has been abandoned, not because it has been actually realized, but so as not to disturb those who are relatively comfortable with the status quo. Often people try to justify this “utopia enough” attitude by what I call the fallacy of “invidious comparison”, so before I conclude this part of my paper I want to say something about this.

There is always going to be some group that seems further down the hillside of corruption and disintegration than ones own, and that group(if it actually is more unhealthy) is itself likely to have slid so far itself because those in that group have likewise been complacently comparing themselves with someone else even further down rather than actively pursuing their ideals. If there is a difference it is likely only to be that that group has had a longer time to fall or happened to be on more "difficult terrain" than ones own and these are trivial differences. The only relevant difference is not how high up one happens to be on the mountainside but whether one has turned around and is actually trying to go up hill or not. Wallowing in complacency by comparing oneself with others would actually be impossible in a healthy community and when ones attention was turned toward others in such a place, it would not be for purposes of invidious comparison but to offer whatever help one could. To be going uphill against the inertia and entropy of a disintegrating status quo is really what it means to be Living at all in any conscious and intentional way,  whether as a community or as an individual. To do other wise is really just to be a another part of the avalanche itself, part of the same passive and essentially dead “debris” sliding, however slowly or quickly, in the wrong direction.

All of that was in the way of diagnosis. Please see Part two for my prescription and proposal as to what to do about this.


For Utopia (part two)
By Piankhy 8/10/2006

Is there a way out of the difficulties that seem to be implied in the statements of part one of this post? My feeling is that If a community claims to be about the equality, cooperation, and sustainability, then it must at least be actively working towards those things (both internally and externally), and have some way of translating this into a quota of real measurable work. Since non-equalitarian regimes of coercion are ultimately not sustainable, and since, as I explained in part one, where there is no positive agreement (and discussion pursuant of this) as a basis of real cooperation there can only be such regimes, it all comes down to our collective willingness to put our labor where our mouth is, and do the hard work of coming to real understanding, agreement, and yes consensus, inwardly and outwardly, both within the community and outside it.  Surely work towards this goal is work “for Utopia”. I imagine those willing to accept such work will self select as those who are here because they are really interested in those things. Those who don’t believe in these things and are here for other reasons will exclude themselves in most cases by being unwilling to do even the work of discussing how best to proceed.

This, for the time being, is all that I am proposing: I propose that we simply accept for starters the obligation to come together to experiment in how to come together for Utopia; that we do this regularly and that we keep experimenting until everybody is tentatively happy with the how the, (say, two hour) weekly meeting is structured (It say “tentatively” because even an agreed to structure must remain contingent on the input of new participants and also the growth and change of old ones and cant ever become a permanently closed topic). The main thing is a regular a meeting (perhaps a weekly one of say 2 hours) in the spirit of “for Utopia” and a quota (perhaps a monthly one of say 4 hours) for attendance. The meetings would be an ongoing experiment, guided by consensus process, as regards both the ideal meeting process itself and as to what structural changes would be needed to move the community and ultimately the world more into alignment with our highest values and best hopes. Finally I want to include the provision that if ever consensus is reached (by all members of the community) on any issue, than that official policy be changed to reflect this for as long as that consensus holds unchallenged.

Before going further I want to bring up and deal with certain objections that I have anticipated:



Objection 1:

“A healing community”

People tend to say in response to what I am describing, that we are not “a healing community” so it doesn’t make sense to strive in the direction I am proposing. This is just a linguistic dodge really; A way of getting around admitting that this is not a healthy Community, and the so of getting around the logical obligation to move toward being one that which would follow from such an admission.  How could a healthy community fail to be a healing community for those who came to it?

Objection 2:

“Power Grab”

A third, and very good and reasonable objection to what I propose is the “power grab” objection. This it the reasonable fear that any substantial change in the status quo will not amount to any improvement but will just amount to a shift in the identities of the relatively complacent and the relatively disgruntled and/or effectively excluded.

Since the process I am proposing requires consensus of All members to have any official policy changing power, and since all members all are extremely unlikely to be at any one meeting at a given time, what I am proposing is conservative and even someone possessed of incredible and incredibly misused powers of intimidation or persuasion is not likely to “make the worse appear the better course” and provoke some kind of precipitous folly.

It is true that our culture will change so as to encourage more face to face communication and those who are more persuasive at that might occasionally seem more influential (especially in cases where the facilitator is slacking), but this circumstance will just balance out the biases in having only the o and I board to air ones views and to hear those of others. And as I said, nothing official would change (barring an over-ridable planner decision) without full community consensus.  

Objection 3: “Isn’t a labor quota for such meetings itself a kind of coercion?”

There is a difference between coercion and the Challenging, Listening, and Support that is part of the dynamic of friendship with oneself and ones community. Outer coercion produces inner coercion rather than encouraging allowing oneself the time to practice the inner friendship, the inner listening, supporting and challenging that leads to inner consensus. Outer coercion thrives on the dynamic of inner repression and numbing through which we force ourselves to do what doesn’t feel right. The way that this proposal is designed is flexible enough to allow us to listen to whether we really need to be in a meeting at a certain time. Yet it supports our better nature and inclinations to acknowledge and affirm our inherent relationships and responsibilities. And it contains an inherent values-based challenge for us to live up to the best of our hopes for ourselves and the world. Coercion has none of these qualities and simply boils down to a fear-based and ego-based motivation.

 Proposal:

Since coming-together, regularly, in a face-to-face, equitable way, to try to reach agreements, to acknowledge and work through disagreements, and just affirm that we are in fact together, is a basic necessity that to some extent is always going to be work; Since such work is a duty, much more of a real duty than most of the things we force on ourselves to make money; Since such work is in fact and extremely basic and fundamental human responsibly without which true cooperation, equality, and sustainability are impossible; Since The future of the world literally depends on people like us figuring how to do this well and then sharing this information with everyone else; Since, if the issue is “getting things done”, there is nothing more important to get done (though it we allow that there are things that are as important); Since, in the absence of this, experiments like ours have no meaning and offer no hope:

We the undersigned,

Commit to the work of actively and in an on-going manner, experimenting with ways of coming-together that are truly and progressively healthy, egalitarian, inclusive, cooperative and sustainable, both inwardly and outwardly, both as means and as end, for ourselves our community and for the world.  And as a token of this commitment we agree to have the labor assigner assign on our labor sheet two hours each week for meetings dedicated to the discussion and pursuit and practice of Utopia in the sense. We agree also to an official (or if there are not enough of us to enable the planners to do this, an unofficial) quota of attendance hours for such meetings adding up to a minimum of 4 hours a month.

(note: if you don't sigh below, please take advantage of the blank pages after this one to explain your objections and concerns make suggestions etc. It would probably be better to do this after reading part one of this post).

Signatures: (I put my signature)


end of post.

Well, one other person signed their name to my paper (which was up for a little more than two weeks i think) though another signed dittoing the first persons approving comment on it. Another person wrote something to the effect of objecting to labor credits for meetings as somehow ignoble and not enough in the spirit of true volunteerism. (I replied to the effect that I thought it was realistic volunteerism and that there was nothing wrong with giving structural encouragement to our better natures in this way.) another person pointed out a kind of catch twenty-two in getting people together for long enough for them to collectively decide to make this a official "duty". this person seemed to me to be writing from a behaviorist assumption that i don't share. In my reply to this person I didn't mention this, but shared my growing feeling that people were not signing by paper (at least in some cases) because of the kind of meetings they were imagining as resulting from doing so, and that what I needed to do was be more detailed about the kind of meeting I had in mind; how it could be structured so as to be fair and helpful and even really enjoyable at times. I do have Ideas about this, which I promised to share in yet another O and I paper in the future. Hopefully through the communities critiques and suggested modifications of that future paper, we will end up with a first experiment that we are collectively willing to try and which seems relatively safe from really unpleasant surprises. But that paper has yet to be written and posted. stay tuned if you're interested.


 




  

posted by: piankhy | 05:44 | comments