Re: Not fair, but hey

Lupe. I know Toffler and _Future Shock_. Haven't looked at it in a long time, though. Maybe it is time to revisit... see how much has changed, and how much may still be valid about his perceptions.

For books that talk about growth-oriented community, rather than 'community as refuge', I like Christina Baldwin's _Calling the Circle_, and Jean Shinoda Bolen's _The Millionth Circle_.

The women's circle to which Genny and I belong is an outgrowth of the latter.

Deirdre

This is interesting to hear. Thanks for letting us in on this part of your life, Tina. It adds another tidbit to my understanding of what you value.

No surprises, just more details.

Deirdre

I like this very much. I think it *works*-- in terms of making most relationships peaceful, respectful and positive.

Deirdre

Sorry your Energy Credits are so limited...

The migraine on top of all the rest sounds like a real bear.

Deirdre

I've worked in the mental health field, so I understand what you're saying. However, lot of words have been taken and used as "buzz words" in the psych field. I tend to use the traditional meanings of words, even so. Mostly because popular psychology terms tend to change and evolve in a way that the meanings of words lose their original meaning. I get the feeling at this point that it's just a matter of semantics, however, and since I'm pretty sure you understand what I mean, we can leave it at that.

I think I understand your distinctions. And I am very willing to sign on for what I think of as the requirements of 'altruism'. To me, that means that others count as much as I do (not more) and that their well-being is important ... as is mine.

It doesn't mean that I have to put their needs and interests *before or above* my own to feel that I am acting on the principles of altruism.

I understand giving with no expectation of return. In fact, it is useful to be able to act without any expectation of -results- of any particular kind.

But I have learned, over time, to put conscious limits on how much I am willing to offer, and to stop before offering so much that it begins to make it impossible for me to stay healthy and adequately provided for myself. Depleting myself to the point where I can't help anymore does no one any good. Not me, and not the person or people I wish to serve.

The concept of selflessness (no-self) is one that is central to my own Buddhist viewpoint. But in that context, it doesn't mean self-abnegating or self-sacrificing, but rather means recognizing that the divisions between self-and-other are conventions of thought rather than realities of Nature.

Thich Nhat Hanh does a wonderful riff demonstrating this by describing an object or being -- call it "X" -- as being made up entirely of "non-X elements". The idea is that nothing can exist without all the things around it that are given separate names, and regarded as separate things -- but which contribute to an environment where that individual 'something' is possible.

For example, a bunch of grapes can't exist without water, sunshine, soil, certain elements *in* the soil which feed the grapevine, certain prevailing weather conditions, limitations on certain grape-destroying pests, etc. We think and talk of the grapes, the sunshine, the water, the soil and all as separate *things*, and give them names that encourage us to focus on their separateness instead of their interconnections.

The term Nhat Hanh uses for this universal connecting principle is "inter-being". We all "inter-are". All physical objects display qualities of this inter-being -whenever we shift our focus- away from what separates and toward what connects them.

To me, this means that caring for the interconnected whole (including ourselves) is the best way of promoting the common good. And neglecting or exploiting any part of that whole (including ourselves) is bound to have destructive consequences in time...

Deirdre

I'm really with you on this whole post, but especially the statement below. I have sometimes felt *isolated*, but that is different from lonely, IMO.

Deirdre

Yes... and I find the distinction between commune and community interesting.

How would you distinguish the essential qualities of each?

Deirdre

But I have learned, over time, to put conscious limits on how much I

I totally agree with this. If it's unhealthy, then your intuition or conscience should tell you that you're about to cross a boundary. A lot of people have a hard time listening to this, because either they've not set their personal boundaries, or they have been taught (as I was earlier in life) abnormal boundaries.

Although I am not Buddhist, I will agree to this in general. This is basically what community means to me...the interdependence, the whole, rather than the separated parts, the symbiosis.

It's a wholistic approach, as I see it, and I fully agree with this. You can't take one part aside from another. Everything we do or say affects other parts of our lives, other people, etc, and it's something I struggle to remember as I make choices in my every day life. I'm not an island unto myself...though I wish I could be at times. There's a part I'm meant to play in the world, along with all the other players. I just have to be sensitive to the cues I get which give me direction and purpose. Right now my role seems to be that of service...so I do it willingly, and joyfully. I've also gone through periods of time where I needed to be the one served, to be able to withdraw...and that's ok, too. The community and wholistic approach is perfect in that case.

I really am enjoying this conversation....I hope it's not boring the rest of you to death. I haven't been able to discuss things like this in a VERY long time. I have a very good friend with whom I used to have these deep discussions on a regular basis, but she has since moved across country, and she is now going through some rough patches in her life, and has chosen to withdraw. It's sad, but I know that with the love and support of her friends and family, she'll get through this time, and we'll get back to being close again. In the meantime, I thank you for your indulgence....and apologize if I've seemed short or snippy at all, it was totally unintentional. Learning to express oneself in a 2 dimentional setting is very difficult.

I haven't heard anything I took as short or snippy, and I love this kind of conversation, myself.

But I've been remiss in not changing the subject line to one that reflects the topic better, and including an OT in it, so people who aren't interested can tune out.

I agree that 'two-dimensional' communication is difficult. Facial expression and tone of voice go a long way to give nuance and color to what one says. But we can always return to things and clarify, as long as we stay open to hearing more.

Deirdre

In a commune all assets belong to the group, and the individual has an equal share, but could take no assets as "his own" on leaving. This was true in communist communes and is true in Amish communes (as I understand it).

In a community, people have individual ownership, assets and potential for giving. They make their own decisions, give their own assets, etc. And feel general responsibility for the community, but still look after themselves first. Like the Mennonites I've known.

During the Communist reign in Ukraine, all land was farmed communally, with the commune having first rights to the land and its produce. The Communists decide to see how far they could push this and raised the quota to the point where the farmers were dying though they were producing a great deal. (At one time, Ukraine was the "bread basket of Europe" exporting tremendous amounts of grain). Between this kind of s*it, and the world wars, about half the men were killed off.

But back to the subject, the distinction is similar to the one you made about being altruistic and being "self-less".

Tina

Thanks. This makes for clear differentiations between the two. And I agree that each has a different 'feel' and different responsibilities for its members.

Personally, I would feel comfortable in a community, with its greater emphasis on individual autonomy -within- the group, and less comfortable in a commune. Based precisely on the differences you point out as defining one or the other. Not because I object to joint-ownership in principle, but because that is so difficult to realize in practice, and so subject to abuses when the ideal -isn't- realized in practice.

Deirdre

I just canceled this weekend's show. I've been sick, unable to get out of bed for four days. I'm afraid if I do this weeks show. If I can somehow drag myself to it and manage to get through it, that I won't be well enough to do the TV spot, the newspaper interview and the show next weekend. So this one had to give. Everything I do has a price. It's a rotten way to live. Barbara Dream Master

"We've got two lives, one we're given, the other one we make." Mary Chapin Carpenter

:-( Sorry! I wish the artists who are up against this kind of physical limitation could partner with someone who loves the work, and could sit at a table *without* a high price in pain, and represent them.

Deirdre