Posted in: General Car news

No Com [...]

I was also surprised that no mention was made of the utopic pretenses of the Cheney dream of democracy at the end of gun in Iraq. Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone might be a good jumping off point for this discussion. The conquerers had both clean slatism and utopic idealism in mind.

What does this mean in English?

If reality is, in part, socially constructed, u/dys-topian stories can be a meaningful way of working through our hopes/fears. Once upon a time…

I find the need or requirement to “self-select in” to be exclusive, and not inclusive. As I mentioned above, people have been creating intentional communities in the US at least since the late 17th century, for all KINDS of reasons.

The requirement to self-identify to be counted as an intentional community seems arbitrary. It reminds me of back in the 60’s when I was in High School and we were studying Western Civ. And my teachers insisted on using the terms “western religion” versus “Greek mythology“. And I used to ask them, to no avail, what made alleged goings-on up on Mt Olympus any different than the alleged miracles in the Old and New Testaments.

I don’t see why it matters whether the “intention” comes from social, spiritual, or political ideals, or whether it comes from practical, economic, corporate or business motivations, if the result is a group of people living together in a community and collaborating on activities of shared interest, regardless of whether that shared goal is running an organic farm or going on a group trip to an outlet mall.

> What is our definition of “intentional community”?
>
> Most people think of hippy experiments like The Farm or various communes where people pool their money and other resources.
>
> But millions of retirees live in small gated communities [...] run by various committees elected by the residents and have some common property [...] They organize activities and trips and they often shop and socialize together. [...] why aren’t these also considered “intentional communities”? They are communities and they are intentional. [...] In practical terms they come a lot closer to the popular stereotype of “utopia” than most of the communal experiments that usually come to mind with the phrase “intentional community”.

I and my cohorts in the FIC (Fellowship for Intentional Community) work with a definition that is inclusive rather than exclusive, and pretty much any group can self-select “in” if they identify with the idea. The Farm definitely does, and the gated retirement communities could. For example ElderSpirit, a senior cohousing community in VA, identifies as an intentional community. The working definition we use is this:

“An ‘intentional community’ is a group of people who have chosen to live or work together in pursuit of a common ideal or vision. Most, though not all, share land or housing. Intentional communities come in all shapes and sizes, and display amazing diversity in their common values, which may be social, economic, spiritual, political, and/or ecological. Some are rural; some urban. Some live all in a single residence; some in separate households. Some raise children; some don’t. Some are secular, some are spiritually based, and others are both. For all their variety though, intentional communities hold a common commitment to living cooperatively, to solving problems nonviolently, and to sharing their experiences with others.”

The form that a group takes is not nearly as important as the quality of their connection and the things they do together. If the “group” is only a person or two with the vision of creating a community, we honor their intention while also alerting Directory users that this is a “forming” community.

> In addition to that, large corporations have been creating small cities and towns from scratch, for example Celebration, Florida. Again, it’s intentional and it’s a community.

The building of such places was the intention of the people who developed the real estate, and it’s quite possible that they envisioned a sense of community and even used that as a marketing tool. From the FIC’s perspective, what matters is the intentionality among the residents. If they just want a serene, quiet place with friendly neighbors, they wouldn’t qualify. However if they also were intentional in their desire to have closer social connections and shared activities with their neighbors–as in the example you gave above–that would certainly qualify. If the development has members coming from both those perspectives, the subset that identifies as an intentional group would certainly be encouraged to adopt the label. We leave it to such groups to decide whether or not to be listed, and at the same time, we view them as intentional communities if they meet our criteria. We wouldn’t publish a listing about them without their permission, and would be inclined to refer to them anonymously if writing about them.

There’s lots more ground to be covered, and i expect this dialogue will continue. I’ve been doing this “networking” work for years, and find myself constantly inspired and invigorated by the wonderful people i meet and the hopeful initiatives they create.

Here is what Pynchon says:

why end a novel as passionate, violent and dark as this one with what appears to be a scholarly appendix?

The answer may lie in simple grammar. From its first sentence, “The Principles of Newspeak” is written consistently in the past tense, as if to suggest some later piece of history, post- 1984 , in which Newspeak has become literally a thing of the past – as if in some way the anonymous author of this piece is by now free to discuss, critically and objectively, the political system of which Newspeak was, in its time, the essence. Moreover, it is our own pre-Newspeak English language that is being used to write the essay. Newspeak was supposed to have become general by 2050, and yet it appears that it did not last that long, let alone triumph, that the ancient humanistic ways of thinking inherent in standard English have persisted, survived, and ultimately prevailed, and that perhaps the social and moral order it speaks for has even, somehow, been restored.

… In its hints of restoration and redemption, perhaps “The Principles of Newspeak” serves as a way to brighten an otherwise bleakly pessimistic ending – sending us back out into the streets of our own dystopia whistling a slightly happier tune than the end of the story by itself would have warranted.

What is our definition of “intentional community”?

Most people think of hippy experiments like The Farm or various communes where people pool their money and other resources.

But millions of retirees live in small gated communities in places like Florida. These are run by various committees elected by the residents and have some common property including a clubhouse, gym, auditorium, etc. They organize activities and trips and they often shop and socialize together. But people own their own houses and keep their own income. And while most of these places are not bound by any common philosophical principles or political beliefs, I’ve been surprised by how many of them seem to attract like-minded people or co-religionists.

So why aren’t these also considered “intentional communities”? They are communities and they are intentional.

I have many older relatives who live in places like these and I have to admit they are pretty idyllic – peaceful, prosperous, safe, stable and predictable, and with lots of educational and recreational opportunities. In practical terms they come a lot closer to the popular stereotype of “utopia” than most of the communal experiments that usually come to mind with the phrase “intentional community”.

In addition to that, large corporations have been creating small cities and towns from scratch, for example Celebration, Florida. Again, it’s intentional and it’s a community.

links:

Guaman Poma

EZLN

It is only recently that Latin America has been able—on the national political level—to break the spell of the Western clean slate; see, for instance, the EZLN in Mexico or Ayllu democracy in Evo Morales’s Bolivia.

Now that i’ve visited nearly 400 intentional communities and investigated what’s worked for them and what hasn’t (and how they’ve adapted to change), i have a few observations and conclusions to share:

• Although huge differences exist, what all intentional communities hold in common is that they’re all based on the vision of a better world–sometimes mostly for the members themselves, often aspiring to be a model for others. For more than 2000 years they’ve filled the important role of being Research & Development Centers for their prevailing cultures. As often as not, they’ve been perceived as heretics or outlaws.

• Although the naive (including starry eyed idealists) have the expectation that their communities are going to be tranquil and trouble-free, the participants are always going to bring along with them the bad habits they picked up in their mainstream upbringing, so there are always going to be challenges and a wide variety of opportunities for personal growth.

• Although many common myths abound (“communities are all the same”, “the members are all young and inexperienced”, “they’re all rural or dogmatic or based on charismatic leaders”, etc), that’s far from the truth. No two are identical, not even those based on the same ideology. Different personalities, surrounding cultures, settings, leadership styles, and other factors will manifest in differing ways. Further, a community today will almost always be considerably different from what is was ten years ago, or will be ten years hence.

• The biggest overall challenge for intentional communities is: How to create a healthy balance between individuality and privacy on the one hand, and cooperative principles and community priorities on the other? Interestingly, since most individual’s needs and interests change from time to time, how their communities handle that process can also vary wildly over time. So there’s never any one, static one-size-fits-all answer to that question.

Sir Thomas More was brilliant in his original pun-inspired coining of the term “utopia” … simultaneously the “good place” (eutopia) and “no place” (outopia). It’s the most wondrous place we can imagine, and a place that doesn’t exist … yet.

My friend Gordon Sproule of the Twin Oaks (VA) community describes it wonderfully well: “{Twin Oaks] is not utopia by any means … and we’re still learning … and we don’t pretend that this is the way that everyone ought to live … but, I think looking back historically, Twin Oaks is an important and very interesting example of an alternative lifestyle, based on income and property sharing, and the nonhierarchical decision-making organization.”

To learn more about what people today are striving for in their real-life attempts at living together in community, check out the free on-line Communities Directory at http://directory.ic.org … there you’ll find descriptions of more than 1200 existing and forming groups, and each one has a story to tell.

“Don’t we all long to go home to a place where the hungry are fed, the homeless are sheltered, and the rulers are just?”

Well, I don’t know if Dick Cheney will subscribe to this (not that I want him in my utopia anyway), but I have an inkling that that’s what most people want. Why don’t we look at our utopias as mirrors for ourselves?

And it goes further, like isn’t that deflation of utopia from noble ideal to wacky experiment part of some trend in itself? Aren’t we throwing out the child (our good intentions and goals) with dirty water (failures in getting there fast)?

Ursula K. Le Guin’s ALWAYS COMING HOME is a wonderful response to the question of whether we have to start from a clean slate. Her bottom line is that we are always re-discovering the truth that utopia is beneath our feet and all around us. But seeing it is the trick. Perceptual changes are often the key to seeing where the no-place of utopia is.

I really appreciated the opportunity to have utopia aired (pun intended) — thanks to David Miller for the idea for this show and for the listeners’ responses.

For those interested, the Web site for the Society for Utopian Studies is http://www.utoronto.ca/utopia. Two of the speakers were past presidents (Ken and Naomi) and the present president-diva is Carrie

Ken Roemer

Spoke his utopic wonder

Oh sweet chocolate

I’ve never seen such a smile as the one on my young son’s face after he happened upon some chocolate balls and had his first taste of this magic food. I can imagine what it was like having sampled wooden toys and other dust-covered objects over the months to suddenly discover chocolate. 15 years later that moment of pure joy stands out as my standard for utopia.

the Buddhist legend of Shambala as a “pure land in the human realm” is another expression of the human longing for a realm in which justice and mercy prevail.

Don’t we all long to go home to a place where the hungry are fed, the homeless are sheltered, and the rulers are just? Whether or not such a place can ever exist, it exerts powerful pull on our imaginations.
Naomi

In response to TomB’s great blog, many bad guys have used the book “Catcher in the Rye” as a blueprint for bad as well – to each his own.