 
ReSent-Message-ID: 
ReSent-Date: Thu,  9 Apr 1992 14:31:20 -0400 (EDT)
ReSent-From: "Jon C. Slenk" 
ReSent-To: +dist+/afs/andrew/usr10/js9b/Public/camc.dl@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 19:32:10 -0400
From: grigsby@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Spiral Death Trap)
Message-Id: <9204082332.AA14241@occs.cs.oberlin.edu>
To: js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Please post this to CAMC, I forgot the directions and have to go eat dinner.


                         The Lurker Strikes
                         ------------------

I've followed this thread with interest but no action, due to the pressures
of graduation.  Here are some thoughts of mine, in no particular order.

1) The discussion of the land trust was extremely valuable and is a 
necessary step in the creation of any such community, given the hostility
of federal and state governments towards the Constitution.  If the place was
simply owned by one person, the discovery of even trace amounts of (for
example) marijuana could cause complete disaster - seizure of property and
assets without trial.  There goes the community.  Such a trust and 
system of rental/share-ownership makes it much more difficult for the 
government to shut everything down.  Perhaps an arrangement where owning
(through purchase, work, or default) a share entitles one to rent
for a nominal fee, say, $1/year...?  Would this provide any more legal
protection?  I'm not sure.

2) The urban/rural question is interesting.  It is not possible for an urban
community to attain the degree of self-sufficiency as a rural one.  The 
risks and rewards of this should be weighed carefully, as they present
entirely different problems in planning and execution.

3) The question of how members will interact socially has been left 
untouched, probably because it is the most difficult question.  We can
vault the technological hurdles given enough time and money, but no amount
of gimmickry will get us to stay together if we carry with us our current
suicidal modes of social relationships.  I have lived in co-operative 
housing for two years and eaten in co-operative kitchens for three, and 
the social dynamic is overwhelmingly responsible for the quality of life 
in each.  I don't want to live in a community with the same kind of people 
I'm trying not to put on suits and work for.  We must be ready to throw out
all cultural taboos, including but not limited to those on nudity, 
sexuality, modes of language and self-expression, and indeed, notions of
good and evil except as we define them and realize that they are convenient
shorthand for "things that aid us in moving toward our goals" and "things
that hinder us in doing so".  The farther short of total openness we fall, 
the more room exists for misunderstanding, friction, infighting, and 
eventual failure.  This means we may find that we do not all want the same
thing - but this needs to be known so that we can then either compromise or
split off in different directions.

My aim here is to find or create a life paradigm that involves _no work_.
If anyone here has NOT read Bob Black's _The Abolition of Work_, she should
do so this instant.  (Loompanics Press, I forget their address.)  Work is 
defined, basically, as compulsory activity.  "What would otherwise be play
is work, if it's forced."  

I intend to communicate with and/or visit some more communal setups after 
I'm out of here - Zendik Farm and Twin Oaks are on the list right now.

4) Someone, I don't remember who, said "We are doing this for the world."
Hogwash.  We're doing this because _we_ want to have fun, and if the idea
spreads, it's more fun for us because we're not stuck in our own tiny
inbred community.  All planned communities based on any paradigm but 
survival and enjoyment for the group have eventually died out, whether the
paradigm is religious, ideological, or power-hungry.  You can't eat, live
in, or hug a concept.  I am an environmentalist for selfish reasons -- I
want to breathe clean air, drink clean water, live around green and living
things.  Denial of Will is a heavily Western/Judeo-Christian concept by
which an elite can channel the power of certain basic urges for their own
uses.  Sex/love is the most common drive to be used in this way; "altruism"
is an attempt to assuage one's own guilt.  Let's keep ourselves honest.
     Alarm bells go off in my head every time I hear people talking about
actively changing the world.  We can't change the world until we've 
changed ourselves, and we have to start our own community first before we
can talk sensibly about how other people ought to do it.  To do otherwise 
is evangelism, and I want no part of it.

More later as time permits. // g



 prev message 
 next message