An interesting listen.... But, I couldn't even interrupt Anyway, There were a couple of thoughts that came to mind... the first has little to do with things but I found it useful? edifying? not sure. Anyway, near the end Paul said something about these forums being useful because he was learning from them. That he would ask a question or set a position and someone would come along and add to his knowledge. Ok... Me times three. But I also realised that I learned things just because a topic makes me think along a line I hadn't thought of. Not that I had thought up something new, but maybe new to me in a way I could understand it.
Second was the idea that a working intentional community based on consensus was not very pretty. There seemed to need to be a leader. I agree. I would tend to base things on a church model as that is my experience. but many of the same principals apply anywhere. The only thing I would add that seems to help is that I think there needs to be some people outside the group who act as a safeguard against having everyone drink poison koolaid or start a world war because "we are the pure race" (two things that actually did happen) or whatever. I think these people need to understand and to an extent share the vision of the community, but not be a part of it and probably not have any reason to take the side of someone in the community (a family member perhaps) to cause the leader problems. I don't know what people here think of those who go to church, but I can tell you we are not better than anyone else.... mostly we have more hangups than most. Yet somehow that community seems to work... people do leave all the time and go somewhere else. Things don't always work just right, but they do seem to mostly work.
Yes this is a very important part of permaculture. Like many other parts, I see how it needs to be, but I am not very good at doing it.
wondering how the issue with the belligerent vegan woman at the Greenlake house was resolved.
Paul mentions a marriage being a consensual relationship.... a 50/50 kind of thing.
paul wheaton wrote:
Most modern marriage is a demonstration of a consensus based system - but with just two people.
I think that what I was trying to say is that those "modern marriages" that last, have a leader. Or that "modern marriages" have a 100% fail rate.