Intentional Community
("IC"), Polyfidelity, "Work-arounds", Finding Love,
(Last worked on: October 14th, 2023)
You're at: https://57296.neocities.org/community.html
moctodliamgtaddd3giarc
"There is an almost sensual longing for communion with others who have a larger vision. The immense fulfillment of the friendships between those engaged in furthering the evolution of consciousness has a quality almost impossible to describe." -Teilhard de Chardin
> https://www.lovingmorenonprofit.org/
--which present some of the basic new cultural directions we need to take in our root incentives and relationships --in order to realize our personal and social potentials. Unfortunately, I've not found such progressive organizations to be very "sexy" in the past. There might be better prospect in efforts that arise out of strong sexual incentives (remembering Kirista Village). People who are honest with themselves and with each other --about basically "just" wanting to fuck, can become focused and persuaded in sweeping BS obstacles out of the way, toward achieving and sustaining such simple and natural goals. I see hope in the evolution of dating web sites and the recent "Sex Positive movement":
> https://en.wikipedia/org/wiki/Sex-positve_movement
--if it doesn't smother in political correctness and healthiness. Health seems in conflict with the sometimes obsessive association of sex with danger and duress. We need to both enjoy and come to terms with "BDSM", erotic "film noir" and the flush one feels when engaging in or just thinking about having a sexual encounter with a dangerous partner.
* I'm not a member of Facebook, Twitter/X, or Reddit,
where one might find manifestations of this movement.
* The first step toward intentional
community is yourself and your thought out goals --hopefully in discussion
with active others.
* The second step is to have
at least one solid, honest partner --your best defense against emotional
distress and reactionary thinking. It's very likely that, in the end, that
will be it --but lucky you: you're not alone. In each others' arms, it
can at least feel like life's fulfillment, every day and night.
* I was amazed by the number of dating sites --AND by how many of them are alleged to be bad actors, exploiting the lonely and the sexually eager. See:
> https://datingspot24.com/reviews/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_Finder_Networks
--for more information --and take care! {{hugs}}
* There seems to nearly^ always be a catch with allegedly "free" dating sites. One that I checked out gives free sign-up and photo uploads, but two seekers can't message each other unless both have expressed a "Like" of the other. The catch: you don't get to see who has Liked you (in order to possibly "Like" him/her back) unless you upgrade and pay a fee.
* The "Plenty Of Fish" web site might have problems, but it shows promise of being functionally free. (You can upgrade in order to lose the commercials).
* However, my attempts to use POF's long profile entries form --got stopped. After 15 minutes of work: POOF! --my entries evaporated, with the message that, yes, they'd saved it all, but I had to do it over again, just "to make sure it was right". The 2nd time that happened, I gave up, but with a note to POF Support. (Judging from two subsequent responses, my support "people" were not human. They persisted with advice about log-in problems --but I had no log-in problems.) -
POF has millions of subscribers. My problem with them
might well have been unique, momentary, or they've fixed it by now. (Be
my guess there's an update/save button I should have kept clicking on.)
^ Here's an exceptionally ("put away your credit cards")
FREE and full featured dating site:
> https://www.letshangout.com -
* So far, I haven't found an "About" page from them --to learn of any special purpose or sponsorship. The reviews I've seen are favorable and indicate that support comes from LHO's ad sales --but I see no ads. My guesses are: either there will be ads when LHO has built up a significant following, or the web site will be sold and then monetized. (I suspect that some dating sites gather marketable data. That possibility is a bogeyman now days but it doesn't bother me, personally.)
* Yes: I opened an account with LHO (my wife died last Christmas), but after participating for a week and rewriting my profile statement many times (ever more completely declaring my deficits), it came home to me how old and mangey I am. Should I be foisting myself off on some poor woman?
* As it stands, LHO strikes me as being a great public service --or as good as the participants. (Of course there's some implied pay-for-play to be found there, and see the reviews.)
* For the many prospects who place significant restrictions on where/who contacts/messages come from (which is fine), you can send a polite nudge in the form of a "Like" --hoping for an enabling "Like" back.
* It might be that you can't find a "who has liked me" list. Look under your "Activity"/"Hang Out" list.
** As you work on the potentially life changing choices and statements of your "Profile", be clicking on the "Update Profile" button (way down at the bottom) or your work might be lost --if/when LHO's idle timer shuts down your session. (Picking away at your profile statements doesn't seem to count as "activity".)
* I had names/appearances on my "Like" and "Friend Request" lists appear and then evaporate. However: thanks to an amazingly human and relevant, same day response from LHO's Help desk, I learned that this was due to LHO killing off fake/bot accounts --but not quite fast enough to outpace their automatic notifications of new incoming messages. (Yes: I seem to be a bit of a sucker for the bots --such an "innocent abroad" on the World Wide Web am I.)
* There's a user problem in that people are able to set (and then forget) age limits on who can message them --then wonder what the heck is wrong when some young thing tries to make contact with an old thing. (Men, both young and old, are finding "Older women" to be such a rush lately.)
* IMHO: LHO would be a lot easier to use without the (word changing!) aggressive AI composition assist, without the messaging age limits, with a consistent menu bar on all of its pages, with fewer features and relational categories.
***Be warned --if it matters to you --that LHO baits the general public by letting anyone peruse all of the photos and basic profiles. (No contact/address information, of course.) (I LOVE the "window shopping" --but --gosh.)
* I was reluctant to give "Tinder"
a try (my having so little to offer a woman anymore, or the financial resources
to fix conjugal debt problems), but from what I've
seen of it, Tinder seems to be a good bet: well reviewed, functionally
free (see the reviews)
and vastly populated with members. The matching protocol is said to be
weak. It opens with "Likes" based on Yep/Nope looks. However: what is the
spirit of Love? Perhaps we're more in need of intros and excuses to engage
each other --and then plunge. Actual, winnowed out "matches" seem a bit
(um) transactional.
* While hesitating about going onto Tinder, I got
sandbagged into trying the widely respected eharmony
dating service, which now offers a freebie "Basic" membership that's functional.
They like to think of it as a starter/entry level, "see if you like dating
via the Web" service. Eharmony features the same swipe/click yep/nope photo
utility as Tinder, but that's backed up by a raft of questionnaire and
data items for more meaningful matches. EH seems to use the same overly
aggressive composition assist as LHO. They are rather insufferable with
prompts to upgrade and enter into self-renewing auto-pay contracts.
"A paradise where roses grow"?
**Maybe Eharmony has created a spiritual opportunity for us --in that photos of one's prospective match are deliberately blurred for Basic level members. As an aspiring "unconditional" lover, I feel compelled to applaud --what surely comes across to most everyone as "a dick move" --and to gird my loins to hold some unfortunate (in her "looks") woman's body hard against mine --for sexual keeps.)
**Unfortunately (and this probably applies to most dating services), messaging is captively held and controlled by eharmony. Just mentioning "email" or "address" as an alternative brings up a red lettered censorship statement.
* Email seems (to me) to be the best of all communication
methods. We "have lives" and email is undemanding of the present. We can
take our time to make thoughtful, empathic, even referenced responses --including
images and links).
4/6/2023: * The best of my old and current points
are eloquently presented by Rabbi Michael Lerner in his recent book: "Revolutionary
Love". --Here's part of an editorial review:
Liberals and progressives need coherent alternatives
to capitalism, but previous visions of socialism do not address the yearning
for anything beyond material benefits. Inspired by Herbert Marcuse, Erich
Fromm, and Carol Gilligan, Revolutionary Love offers a strategy to create
the "Caring Society." Lerner details how a civilization infused with love
could put an end to global poverty, homelessness, and hunger, while democratizing
the economy, shifting to a twenty-eight-hour work week, and saving the
life-support system of Earth. He asks that we develop the courage to stop
listening to those who tell us that fundamental social transformation is
"unrealistic."
* Sometimes we ask too much from others.
* Sometimes we ask too little.
(earlier writ) * This web page goes back to the 90s.
It evolved from mimeographed flyers cranked out during the 70s. It's gone
through name changes (sometimes simply titled "Love",
now "Community" again) and about 50 major revisions. Although I'm attempting
to keep this edition short and coherent, it continues to be a heart felt
statement.
* It could be that my thoughts on relationships are largely irrelevant to a modern person's concerns --and that I hardly know what goes on in peoples' heads and loins anymore. Sadly, I no longer have community minded contacts, correspondents nor affiliations. (When I did, it ended up being to no ultimate avail.)
* So many subjects fall under community: economics, franchise/voting, sociology, group dynamics, human "dimensions"/capacities, human purpose/s, sexuality, identity, spirituality/connectedness (with one another, Nature, our common culture). Much of that is addressed on my other pages, however short they fall of supporting "community", or as we approach it here. (In an attempt at focus and coherency, I'm not cross linking to those pages.)
* I've been derelict of duty in not having included
the UUPA:
Unitarian
Universalists for Polyamory Awareness. (Polyfidelity is a subset of polyamory,
despite that the term "polyfidelity" came first.)
* What inspired my 10/30/2019 update and revisions
were thoughts about our perceptions of "scarcity" --that motivation which
keeps us on our treadmills.
~ Although the USA ranks very low in many categories of well being (infant mortality, life expectancy, education, access to health care, etc.), along with other "first world" citizens, we stand tall in comparison to people elsewhere and to past centuries --as to the actual wealth and options that we have, but also as to our expectations. Of course, societal "standards" are basic to our motivations and sense of "scarcities". Building codes, zoning, advances in medicine, vehicle standards, perpetual styling changes, innumerable tests and regulations --which are all supposed to keep us in such as clean water, clear air and out of those expensive hospitals. (I'm struck by period piece movies with hospital scenes. Patients got little more than an ugly looking bed in a ward. Nowadays there's hardly enough room on the wall for all the bells and whistles, plus all the bedside apparatus that a patient is hooked up to.)
~ So: how much latitude would a group of rational "intentional communitarians" have in living simply, in trimming away our cultural fat and cultivating what's really important? An appropriate humility should concede that there's much luxury and safeguards we'd want and need to keep, plus more that's simply beyond our reach to do much intentionallity about.
However: we do have simplicity and frugality options.
~ Travel and transportation, changes of clean clothes, frequency of bathing/showers, heating just ourselves instead of the whole house, life styles and values which obviate/preclude the costly expenses (human and financial) of divorce, and avoiding idiotic risk taking for "thrills".
The collective wisdom and resources of an intentional community effort could build in safer, more cost effective awareness and practices, depending on how much infrastructure it can control, influence or "work around". Much can be accomplished simply through home ownership and normal levels of prosperity.
~ Identifying with one's actual
community/ies (the intentional one and those other affiliations of the
greater community/society), rather than with a physical place, can actually
lead to greater place stability, less costly (financially and humanly)
relocation and alienation. This could flow from a well planned and realistically
based intentional community effort --one that's intent on congenial "good
citizenship". That might be askew to the greater community's ideas about
citizenship, but it should be expressed constructively and creatively --avoiding
"protests", "demonstrations", obstruction and confrontation. Gracious acceptance
of being outnumbered/voted by idiots, along with quiet, documented predictions
of unhappy outcomes --will own the future (however distant).
~ So much of our lives is wasted
upon poor planning, poor understandings and unexamined emotional decisions
--without even satisfying our actual emotional needs. These needless mistakes
can easily outweigh the costs/duties imposed upon us by the larger society
we live in and negotiate with.
~ Intentional community has too
often been pursued as a place and a social structure --where people come
and go, but it can also be a committed group of sensitively and rationally
chosen partners in a formal association of mutual aid and support --a distributed
"family" which, over time, becomes an actual set of families. Seen and
lived this way, there's no need to fight zoning, occupancy and parking
restrictions, neighbor problems, --and no need to get distracted by the
host of issues and expenses which building a residential scene from scratch
raises. Just work around all that stuff and pay attention to what's socially
and personally important --like defining franchise within the group for
piloting the way forward and limiting the liabilities which would drag
the group backward. Not everything can be anticipated, but any disciplined
effort is far better than leaving matters to chance, instinct and "seeing
what happens".
Even earlier writ:
* At the core of our motivations are such needs as belonging, group identity, intimacy and a sense of place. "Polyfidelity" (depending on how it's defined^) addresses these needs directly, but it challenges "normal" assumptions and conventions. It's vital that advocates and seekers have their ducks in a row. Success in practice also depends on you and your others being in a realistic consensus on the essentials --and: that those issues are in rational accord with our enlightened "hearts".
^ "Committed polyamory" or "kept poly" seem to be better choices.
Even with such matters having been bolted down at home, it's still a struggle to go against the grain of the larger culture/society, our families, and even our own conditioned reflexes. "We are social animals." We are "fish out of water" when standing at a point of departure from the world and its/our traditions. (And that's how it should be.)
* Back when poly was at least slightly "in", and poly-fi was at least a topic in IC circles, I cautioned that it not be pursued as a style statement --as a vain distinction. "Being different" is at best a necessary evil which, in itself, holds no lasting satisfaction. The individual and his/her subculture/group will (or should) always have a need to feel at home in the larger community.
* If you can't personally get to first base in trying to imagine continuous, intimate relationships with more than one life partner (and that might also go for many swinging "polyamorists"), then maybe it's best for you not to trouble with "polyfi" --or with those few who think they can. Hardly anyone can get past their mind sets on such an emotionally and erotically charged subject --which is understandable and normal. There are a multitude of other intentional community options one might pursue. My (long ago) survey of FIC's Outreach offerings demonstrated that those other options are 99.9% of IC activity. (That suggests I could be wrong, and that polyfi is simply not compatible with human emotions.)
My words here are in support and clarification (hopefully)
for those few who are determined to pick their way through the thorns,
for those who've "been there" --but maybe not for someone who is actually
living IC --especially one that's polyfi. It's for those precious
folks to tell
us how it works (and how to correct my words-in-a-row
on this page).
Some time ago a Google search turned up a group (they
prefer "tribe") in Ashland, Oregon:
My correspondence didn't elicit a response. I don't
know how coherent they are or whether the "intimate" relationships they
seek to develop among each other have anything to do with polyfidelity.
However, they present to have sorted their way through to the fundamentals
of building intentional community.
In my opinion:
* Strong community is a network of (meant to be permanent) one-to-one relationships.
* "Nuclear" families, with couples growing old in isolation, are fragile basis for our society.
* An intentional community (or "tribe") normally starts
with one person, followed by explicit, mutual (written down) statements
of values and goals as the group gradually grows --in order to lock in
"progress made good" and to preserve coherency --even as those values and
goals get adjusted. The opposite approach is a mindless "celebration of
diversity" (of values and perceptions).
What's shaking:
* (July, 2019) In these otherwise politically and ecologically depressing times, the Apple Corporation thought a series of PODcasts about eu/utopian community ideas and ventures (titled "Nice Try!") could get some water-in-the-desert traction. Surely, they won't touch social/"lifestyle"/poly alternatives, but you can find a few, easy to digest communitarian backgrounders at:
> https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-utopian/id1462324602?i=1000437071414&hymnal_variant=48f80a95a7a73d4fd399197a8ce80063
* Definitions: While others usually
define "fidelity" and "polyfidelity" on the basis of who you're not
intimately involved with, my definition has to do with the keeping of ("remaining
faithful to") those you are with --current and future. A better
and simpler term (suggested by someone in Wikipedia's polyfi "Talk" section)
would simply be: "many faithful". An even more basic term: "Love", the
gold standard of which is unconditionality --a thing of grace --not necessarily
"earned" nor "deserved" --you know: like "God's Love".
Unconditional love is a thing we can at least salute and humbly measure ourselves against. It "tracks" our partner/s through the changes wrought by life: "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health" --since our life partner/s might end up rather different than who we initially signed on with.
--Is it much of a stretch, then, that such unconditionality --attempts-- to make no distinction about who you include in your intimate circle? (There is the necessary "filter" of requiring poly understanding and intentionality from a prospective partner, which is a mighty exclusive filter just in itself.)
* Yes, I very much agree: we are finite --of time, attention, energy and even love, but Love itself is infinite. During precious moments, we can feel as if our own love is infinite as well.
* Yes: there are practical considerations of competence, maturity, hygienics, existing entanglements and a group's right of consensus (unanimous consent) --things which burden our liberties, spontaneity and options. But these things are more about our own shortcomings. Let's acknowledge, but not base our ideals, definitions and identity --on negative factors.
"I love you because":
* Erich Fromm urged us to "stand in love", rather than to "fall in love". While some people are much harder to love than others, a love relationship --one worthy of the name-- is more about empathy and what's inside of you --toward your others, than it is about what's on the inside and the outside of the one/s you love.
* Of course: our "dance tickets" fill up far too soon.
A loving person tends to end up over-extended and over-committed. On the
other hand: while s/he may have too many cats, dogs, birthdays to witness,
and obligations to fulfill; the successful poly gets back a treasury of
love and support throughout life. (At least: that's the way it's supposed
to work out.)
Making connections:
* The Fellowship for Intentional Community goes way back to the Morgan family, The Vale in Yellow Springs Ohio, and "Community Service", of which my (then) wife and I were subscribing members 40+ years ago. We met Julia, Griscom and John(?) Morgan at an annual gathering. I see from the Wiki that the Community Service story reaches back further (to 1937) and is more discontinuous than I was aware of.
For many years (no doubt to avoid getting into the middle of ugly problems), the FIC stated that it did not allow postings from people seeking intimate partners --drawn from that precious small pool of folks who came to the FIC in search of community. That was a shame, since a couple in a strong relationship is far more likely to overcome problems and less likely to become discouraged, than would be a lonely individual. Never-the-less they did allow postings for our poly efforts. (Such outreach was seldom to be seen from anyone else, however.)
* A basic problem in approaching the FIC for polyFi member/partners is that most folks think of an intentional community as a place --a place where individuals and couples might come and go; whereas the polyfi seeker (IMO) should be looking for an intimate group --for which (if needs be) places might come and go.
* My impressions of polyamorist groups and web sites of past years has not been favorable. They seemed to forever be in development and preliminary meetings stages. My understandings of Love, need and grace seemed to be out of style with them (20 to 40 years ago).
What I've got here for poly group web sites is surely out of date, so be sure to Google up what's shaking now-a-days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyfidelity
http://www.polyamorysociety.org/page14.html
https://loveisinfinite.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/in-defence-of-polyfidelity/
http://polyforyou.com/tag/polyfidelity/
Topics/themes to be developed (by others):
* Who am "I"? --a familiar question, but maybe with an unexpected answer. Who is the "I" who's capable of nuanced, joking, rapid fire, coherent, grammatical speech/repartee? (Really: how can one think that fast?) Might it be the words/memes themselves which are the thinkers and agents, competing/teaming to be next off of our lips?
"What comes before our words?" --is a question I asked as a child, but I still don't know the answer. This somewhat amounts to what Richard Dawkins proposed concerning a society's cultural aspects ("memes" of understandings, beliefs, dress, behaviors). Our conversations might amount to fractional parts of our common culture --talking to itself.
* It's a safe assumption that most of who we are --as individuals --is defined, asserted, understood and remembered as so many chosen words --words, phrases, "memes" and meanings that we borrow from the common culture. I suggest then that after we die, most of who we are lives on in the culture, in the words of our community and the greater society.
For those of us who reference the Christian Bible, here's some supportive exegesis:
"The Kingdom of God is among you."
Various translations render the Greek of Luke 17:21
in various ways. The phrase translated “within you” in the KJV and NKJV
is translated as “in your midst” in the NIV, NASB, and NET; “among you”
in the NLT and HCSB; and “in the midst of you” in the ESV. Earlier versions
of the NIV had “within you” with a marginal note suggesting “among you.”
(See:
> https://www.gotquestions.org/kingdom-of-God-within-you.html
* I believe there's a paradox --one which a polyfi
person must simply live with and "let it be". When bonded well with more
than one, I suspect it's the common experience that each relationship feels
rather "monogamous" --complete and completely fulfilling.
* The genuine love of another for you is a thing of grace, given in response to your abject, powerless, loneliness and need.
* It might be a lame limitation on my part. It's not
for lack of male friends or availing myself of table and bed with others
over the years --but I'm only addressing heterosexual relationships on
this page. I leave same gender sexual intimacy for others to develop.
Conjugal and Communal problems/"baggage"
--an incomplete list.
Your prospect/s might:
* have lapsed or inadequate health insurance --perhaps due to the cost of a serious "pre-existing" condition. (2/3rds of bankruptcies are due to medical bills, despite that most of those people had some kind of medical insurance.) There's a good chance that you or others in your community will feel a moral obligation to sign for a loved-one's care during those inevitable trips to the "ER" --which ambulance run costs $2000 in this small Oregon City (if you're without insurance).
* have an annoying pet --perhaps one that bites, shits all over, or runs up vet bills.
* have a trail of old unpaid debts, credit cards, unmet child support/alimony, a student loan, back taxes, etc.
* have pending "wants and warrants", a criminal record of some kind.
* have the wrong politics --for you.
* have an allegiance to a gang or a "cult" (--perhaps a well established cult).
* have a record of traffic tickets and/or accidents. (Insurance companies pry into who's your housemates.)
* and s/he expects to drive your car.
* have obnoxious or dangerous relatives, friends, ex-lovers and spouses.
* have normal, nice, relatives, kids, nephews, aunts, nieces, old dear friends, ex-lovers and ex-spouses --who expect you to recognize them and remember their names in the grocery store --maybe introduce them around (arghhh!).
* have a communicable disease of some kind.
* have insupportably risky, expensive, maybe illegal habits, tastes, and/or recreations.
* have an inconsiderate tendency to make/leave a mess or to abuse shared utilities and appliances.
* have little regard for fire and electrical hazards --walks away from pots on the cook range.
* leave doors, gates and food covers ajar. Doesn't put perishables back in the fridge. Doesn't recycle.
* have a penchant for loud music or other media. Whistles a lot (badly --always the same tune).
* arrive in a moving van crammed with poorly considered possessions.
* be careless about the safety, feeding and/or handling/bedding and outing of pets.
* insist on loading the toilet paper such that it unspools the other way.
**Oh dear: so much grief to worry-wart about. Perhaps
it's best to first go straight to bed, spend the night passionately entwined,
sleep in (holding each other very close), wake up to discover each other
anew, canoodle until noon --and only then --spent, drained and defenseless,
try to rationally, honestly, promisingly --work through your lists of potential
problems, needs and conflicts. (The visiting party should offer to help
change the sheets ;-)
Enough --from me.
Craig