Page 14 - C.A.L.L. #36 - Summer 2013

KALEIDOSCOPE

Right Livelihood at Twin Oaks as I could a 200-page book of community policies).
be? How far out does one have to reach in I’m starting to understand that it’s all
order to be living responsibly? about perspective, and about finding
I’ve come to realize that living in an satisfaction, not guilt, in challenging
income-sharing community as well as living yourself to do the best you can do. And
by the guidelines of Right Livelihood are living in an intentional community –
delicate balancing acts. There’s no manual especially in an income-sharing community,
specifying how to embody Right Livelihood where collectivism can allow for a greater
in every situation, nor is there a manual on expression of values – provides the
how to thrive within the challenging challenge to raise the bar in terms of
environment of an income-sharing responsible living.
community (although Twin Oaks does have

And now for the bad news: it seems to me that it only requires a casual glance at the political
and/or criminal columns in any of the daily newspapers lying around, or 5 minutes viewing
the T.V. news, to understand what I’m getting at. So why waste good paper and computer
time, not to mention the Editor’s limited amount of energy? Once again, the so-called
‘superpowers’, together with the would-be-powers (who have managed to get their paws,
mostly illegally of course, upon weapons of mass destruction) are playing the murderous
game of brinkmanship, without fully considering the dangers involved, to their own nations
or to the entire globe. Allow me a last call to whoever is supposed to be running this show, be
it God, or the Messiah or whoever: Now is your last chance to rescue mankind from total
annihilation - provided that we are worth saving? Maybe the world is better off without these
two-legged monsters? Please, take a good look and make up your mind, soon, before it is too
late.

The first time I heard, or read (my memory isn’t what it used to be, sorry) about Camphill
communities, what they are doing and how they keep trying to do it, I felt immense
admiration and respect toward Camphillers. My second thoughts, however, were that only a
very small number of people would be able to really put into practice that kind of altruism,
and only for a limited period of time. Secretly, I hoped to be proved wrong; it was such an
inspiring, innovative project. But I wasn’t too surprised when I found in the Camphill
Communications of Nov/Dec 2012 a report by Hartwig Volbehr, as follows:

Camphill communities were founded to respond to the needs of society. One of these needs
was the disabled people. When most Camphill communities started, those people very often
had a desperate destiny within homes which could not master either their needs or their
gifts. Within a Camphill community they could find a meaningful life by family-like sharing
and by doing useful work according to their faculties.
Today most of these people are not given away by their families, but stay at home and visit
special schools and workshops. They are integrated in a certain way. So they do not come to

Camphill communities as a child or a young adult, but only if their parents become too old or
die. Most of them are over fifty years old, not really trained in social situations and
meaningful work, or they are too old to be integrated into a working process.
In addition most of the villagers who have been in a Camphill community nearly from
childhood have become rather old and are not any longer really able to work. They need
physical care and some occupation to give their life a bit of rhythm and daily exchanges.
So we have come to a point that Konig’s original idea of family and work sharing seems not to

14