Love, Conversation, Community vs Nobody But Yourself

Posted on May 12, 2008 by Dave Pollard

Stephen Downes, in response to my article If Not Intentional Community, Then What?, wrote, and then elaborated:

Where did the idea that you’re missing something in your life come from?

The reason I ask is, I wonder how much you have analyzed the origins and the contents of your own beliefs – where did they come from, what motivates them, what their impact is on your life. Because some of the messaging I see in your posts seems to mirror commercial messaging. Which would mean that there will be a certain sense in which the issues can be dissolved, rather than resolved*. Take, for example, the whole thing about polyamorism. What would make you think that there is some sort of ‘right’ answer to the question of whether you should have one or more than one partner. Why does this become a debate in your life? Where does this issue come from?

Stephen always asks intelligent questions, and I’ve been thinking about these questions a lot.

Like Stephen, I tend to be somewhat contrary by nature. We’re both natural skeptics of conventional wisdom, and acutely aware of the fact that, although we are social animals, we are always vulnerable to propaganda.

I think my answer to his questions lies in that tension. I’ve recently been talking about Love Conversation Community as the Answer to Everything, or at least the best approach to complex questions and issues. Love, conversation and community are all intensely social activities, especially if you take the Improv “Yes, And…” approach to them, where you build on what others have said, collaboratively, consensually, accessibly, in relation to others.

But at the same time I am intensely aware of how, in the effort to achieve peace and find love and build community and attain agreement in conversation, we can start to acquire ‘gunk’ that isn’t us, stuff that is everybody-else, stuff that is what everybody-else believes. And if you’re not careful, you can lose yourself in that gunk.

I’ve mentioned before that some of the unorthodox ideas that, in trying to become more authentically myself, I have warmed to, ideas like polyamorism and intentional community and that we belong to the land communally (rather than it belonging to us), are viewed by many as dangerous ideas, and are extremely unpopular beliefs. People who hold these beliefs tend to be viewed as eccentric at best, and are often ignored, shunned or discounted as incredible.

If you want to create a model of a better way to live and make a living, you don’t want to be written off as a nut case.

So you walk a thin line. You tease people closer to your incredible idea, by helping them imagine it working, by showing them it can work, maybe even by criticizing it yourself and seeing how people rush to its defence. When you get too comfortable with the acceptance the idea is getting, you pull away a little closer to the Edge, to see who follows and how far you can get people to let themselves change, to accept what is socially unacceptable. You compromise, give a little, concede that some aspects of your idea are probably impractical.

If you want to get things done, important, enduring, meaningful things, you have to collaborate. Except perhaps for works of art, these things cannot be done alone.

It would seem, then, that it comes down to a choice, a decision between doing and being. Become mostly everybody-else and then you can ‘be the change’. Or you can be authentically yourself. Or, like me, you can go back and forth, alternatively scraping off the accumulated gunk and making yourself more accessible by taking on more of it.

Can the issues that haunt and challenge us, the things that keep us awake at night, be dissolved or resolved by simply acknowledging that they’re only issues because of modern relentless human social propaganda? I suppose, if we don’t care what anyone else thinks. In a natural world, perhaps, no one would or should care what other people thought about their wild ideas, eccentricities, authentic and unique characteristics.

But we don’t live in a natural world. We live in a fearful one, one where love, conversation and community are the only currencies that really accomplish anything, and a world where so much needs to be accomplished.

It is a bit of a false dichotomy, I confess. But it’s a real factor in letting yourself change, becoming authentically yourself, making the world a better place. You can’t have it both ways. In fact you can’thave it either way. You can only be aware of the tension, what’s been gained and what’s been lost, and make the best of it.

So: Where does the idea that you’re missing something in your life come from? It comes from two places. From outside, from those who you love, converse, and make community with, telling you that you belong with them, if only you will give up those annoying, unacceptable parts, please. And from inside, where something wild, primeval, uncivilized, some vestige of nobody-but-yourself, tells you to just be more authentically human, to fly, to be free.

* Both these words come from the Latin word meaning “to loosen”.

Category: Let-Self-Change

This entry was posted in Collapse Watch. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Love, Conversation, Community vs Nobody But Yourself

John Graham says:

May 12, 2008 at 23:06

According to Fritjof Capra’s “The Web of Life”, each organism brings forth a world.I think it’s a mistake to look outside yourself for evidence on which to judge whether ‘the world’ is fearful or loving. We choose each moment to bring forth a fearful world or a loving one. (Who’s doing the choosing is another question). The ‘objective’ reality outside of our cognition is changing too fast for such a judgement to mean anything either way.Social currencies don’t have much to do with it – the “deaf, dumb and blind kid” has none.
Stephen Hinton says:

May 13, 2008 at 02:34

Stephen Downes’ question is interesting. What is it that makes you think something is missing? My thoughts go to art. You are standing in front of a highly valued painting that everyone is admiring and praising and talking about. You yourself just don’t like it. You like the colours and patterns on the dress of the woman standing next to you, and yes, she looks a whole lot sexier than the nude painting next to the one in question. SOmeone asks you your opinion of the painting. You don’t like to be different and anyway you are not an Art expert so you mumble something. And try no to make your interest in the woman obvious.Suddenly the fire bell rings. The first reaction is disbelief – you are amazingly calm. First when you see a gallery attendant usher people out you head for the exit.All these things above are natural reactions. They are in-built in the human organism. We KNOW what we like because it makes us smile. Simple. However. We are dependent on the flock for survival so we do not want to stick out as being too different lest we be rejected. thats at real deep rooted fear. We also do not over-react to danger. We freeze, and then move quickly as the flight or fight hormones kick in.But I believe we live in a world that puts this natural stuff out of kinter.There’s a lot of teaching going on about what is good and bad and there is a lot of fear about all kinds of things that you can get to the point where you don’t know what you want. There are religions that are death oriented that are telling you you must SUFFER in your life. (Why… my natural state is to smile, I’m built that way. If god wanted me to suffer he would make me LIKE suffering?)Added to that there are alarm bells ringing about the state of the planet and humanity. But the natural reaction is happening. We stand still. Oil peak? Is anyone in the government panicking ..no …OK I won’t. Climate system collapse… they are saying man could NEVER upset nature ..OK no panic. Financial system failures? Give it two years we’ll be up again…..What makes you think the World needs saving anyway. Maybe you are not feeling good because you haven’t done the required suffering and self sacrifice required by organised religions, or done enough work required for you to fit in to society. Maybe Maybe. All I can say is the picture that people call business as usual I find revolting. I hear alarm bells ringing and I see there is a fire that needs putting out. And I am in no doubt that I need love and companionship in my life and I know when I get it because I smile. That smile looks good on me. If I ever get in a polyamorous situation I will know if it is good by the same token. If I ever get to live in an intentional community I will know if it is right by how I’m smiling. Keep up the good work Dave, I’m right in there with you!
Meryn Stol says:

May 13, 2008 at 09:17

What I think is important for your writing, is to focus on what YOU want to do, regardless of what others do. You can’t just expect others to go with some kind of ideal model of community. But, if you tell stories about what choices your making based on the actual circumstances you live in, maybe others will want to base their choices on the same underlying values you hold.I feel very close to you in terms of thinking, except for the fact that sometimes you seem to be asking others to go with your plan. A good plan must be implementable by one person alone, and then, it can be followed by others. Become a next Ghandi or something. I’m serious. Don’t wait for others, and most importantly, don’t blame others for not grasping your model. Communities emerge from individual behavior. Intentional communities are formed of people with good intentions.Have you ever read the blog of “No Impact Man” (Colin Beavan). If not, you should subscribe. He’s very practical. He’s just trying to live the dream.
Mariella says:

May 13, 2008 at 12:22

My right hand is nobody but myself, my left hand is nobody but the others…. ¿are my hands mine?¿when i use my right hand…does the left stops existing?…most of time i work alltogether.
Jon Husband says:

May 13, 2008 at 16:15

Jill Bolte-Taylor’s presentation (which I know you’ve seen) at TED, which I just watched again, contains not some answers but some indicators as to possible answers to stepjhen’s questions.Her pres’n, each time I have watched it, makes me cry .. for her eloquent expression of the beauty / euphoria / nirvana we can acces and choose with a step to the right, and the serious responsibility we can access and choose with a step to the left.Such fragility yet robust complexity is the human being.
Siona says:

May 13, 2008 at 20:19

I don’t know, Dave. Isn’t the fact, the belief, that we live in a world that isn’t natural just another bit of modern relentless social propaganda? ;)The world has, from one perspective or another, been in a state of perpetual crisis since life first emerged on the planet. Everything dies; to be alive is to be at risk; all life contains suffering and pain. I think accepting this, rather than looking for someplace to lay the blame (be it the devil or “the system” or “civilization” or, for that matter, nature) goes a long way toward its alleviation. But that’s just me. I think what struck me most about this entry was that Stephen asked a very pointed, personal question (“Where does the idea that you’re missing something in your life come from?”) and you answered with generalities, making the response not about a personal you, but an abstract one (or about some hypothesized “we’). I don’t personally feel as though my life is missing much. I feel wonderfully, woefully, human.
Karen says:

May 15, 2008 at 10:50

I’m with Siona. I can’t bring myself to blame actively, too regularly anymore. I don’t suppress the anger when it comes, of course, nor do I think you are doing those things, but for me emotionally it is a hard line to walk between empathizing with other people for their inability to change so as to better ask them to make those changes – what I aim to do best – and considering who they are or what they are currently doing to be obstacles to my goals. Maybe the latter is an impression that’s been set by your older posts and not indicative of how you are writing/feeling now.