All my friends and relations...

[jarandhel]

Thoughts inspired by a discussion in my friend rialian's livejournal.

A few years back, Rialian gave a workshop at Thresholds on working with Faery Cairns. A lot of things were dealt with in that workshop, but the biggest thing that I took away from it was the idea of altars representing a relationship. The idea that one needs to build a relationship with the beings/energies/environments one works with, and that what one puts into an altar represents the kind of relationship you wish to have with those things. That idea has greatly influenced my own path, in the years since then.

It's made me think about all of the things we have relationships with, and what we put into those relationships, as well as what we hope to get back out of them in return. Not just in a metaphysical sense, but in a very real sense as well. The communities of which we are part, the gathers which we attend, even our friendships. What do we contribute to them? What kind of relationship are we seeking with them? Do our contributions reflect that?

Sometimes people seem to think they have nothing to contribute. That they have nothing to add to a community, or a gather. They compare themselves to others and find themselves lacking, for whatever reason. I wonder if it's a problem of scale... would these same people, when asked what they contribute to their relationships, their friendships, think they have nothing to add, nothing to give? Or is it a problem of self-worth, and not being able to see themselves in that positive of a light at all?

I feel for them, but I still think that it is important for people to step back and think about relationships in this manner, in whatever context (community, gather, personal, mundane or metaphysical) their relationships fall. If you're really not putting anything into a relationship, maybe you need to think about why that is and what you're going to do about it. If you are putting things into a relationship, but are reluctant to acknowledge that fact even to yourself, maybe you need to take a closer and more honest look at things, and give yourself permission to think about yourself as someone with something to add. This practice will let you consciously add things to your relationship, like offerings, which will promote and invoke/evoke the kind of relationship you actually want it to be.

Comments

Agreed--but lighten up a touch?

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

I totally jive with what you are saying here. The only thing I really might disagree with was not something you said here, but in the post you linked about not including parties as part of the focus of the gather. I think responsible partying should be part of the focus--I see it as part of ritual, a ritual of fellowship. Some people who are Other can't fully express themselves in their day-to-day environments. Thresholds could be seen as a sanctuary and safehaven, a place to let down one's hair and celebrate with those who they feel a common fellowship. This is why I think that partying at Thresholds should also have its place--but at the same time, no one aspect should be emphasized over others, otherwise it might disrupt a certain balance and harmony.

That said, I'll be missing the folk at Thresholds hardcore. Breaking off from the regular rhythm of the years attending won't be easy--but somehow missing the opportunity to form a conjunction with what makes me Other would hurt even worse. Perhaps I can see it as a way of bringing something back with me for the next time around--some gold nugget of wisdom or experience that I can bring back to the altar when I return.

Fuck. I'm waxing all philosophical and deep and shit. There must be something wrong with me today.

~Solo

Re: Agreed--but lighten up a touch?

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

Let's party, but party responsibly and not make that the focus of the gather.

Okay, so I misinterpreted your wording just a bit.

I see it as one focus with many parts, that only being one part. See above for my diatribe about imbalance and all that other crap.

Sorry. Trying to make sense. Failing miserably I think.

~Solo

Re: Agreed--but lighten up a touch?

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I dunno... that type of fellowship, that type of camaraderie, makes me kind of feel somewhat like glamourbombing does. It might be fun, but ultimately it's a flash in the pan... a bit of sound and light, but not much substance behind it. It's good for blowing off steam now and then, but I feel like there are better ways to foster real fellowship. Maybe it's just me... I enjoyed it when we went to a club, but I wouldn't go there to meet people or try for meaningful conversation. I like going to movies with you guys, but I don't base our friendships on it. If we only have four days at Thresholds, I want to be trying for something with more depth. Otherwise I feel like I'm wasting my time.

Re: Agreed--but lighten up a touch?

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

I think its just you. I hardly think its a flash in the pan. I personally find they can be quite meaningful, and I think thats an issue with you if you don't feel that way. That said, I don't base friendships on any one thing either. I myself can't seem to wrap my mind around smalltalk--then again, I've had many hardcore philosophical and spiritual discussions with people while imbibing around the campfire--and making a bit of an ass of myself at points of course *wink*

The thing that really kind of rubs me the wrong way is you stating its a waste of time--if you're hanging with friends and fellows/kindred spirits, why the hell would it be a waste of time?? I can't see that as being a healthy thought pattern, IMHO.

~Solo

Re: Agreed--but lighten up a touch?

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with Solo here. If you're pushing that what you put into an experience/relationship determines what you get out of it, then objectively speaking, this would also apply to partying, would it not? Perhaps it all depends on what you define as a 'party' in the first place- to me, the most significant part of it is that they are designed to be a relaxed social environment- one where you are encouraged to be yourself instead of wearing the various social masks one tends to wear for other activities like work.

When the masks come down, and there is a reasonable lowering of inhibitions (I am not necessarily saying that alcohol or drugs are needed for such things, simply the right environment would work), then in many cases it creates the sort of social environment that encourages people to speak more openly about themselves and their opinions on things without worrying about the kind of censure you would find in a stricter social environment where there is more focus on the applicable 'rules'.

Re: Agreed--but lighten up a touch?

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with Solo here. If you're pushing that what you put into an experience/relationship determines what you get out of it, then objectively speaking, this would also apply to partying, would it not?

Yes, I believe it does, and that's kind of my point... if partying becomes a focus, one of our main points of interaction with Thresholds, then what are you putting into the relationship? What are you getting back out of it? Don't get me wrong, partying is fun and I am not saying that there shouldn't be any partying at Thresholds; but I think elevating it to the point where it is a focus of the gather is a clear mistake.

Perhaps it all depends on what you define as a 'party' in the first place- to me, the most significant part of it is that they are designed to be a relaxed social environment- one where you are encouraged to be yourself instead of wearing the various social masks one tends to wear for other activities like work.

I would tend to disagree with that definition of party... mainly because I see parties as just another form of social interaction. The masks we wear for them may differ from the ones we wear for other activities, but I think it would be a mistake to think we don't wear any while we party. I think that can be illustrated very aptly by taking a look at the club scene... particularly apparent in the goth clubs, but I believe applicable to most forms of clubbing. Most of the focus there is on projecting an image, crafting a mask. In some cases that mask is designed to bring out what's hidden inside, in other cases it's designed to hide things better. It may be a generally relaxed environment, and people's inhibitions may be lowered by the combination of energy and drink, but ultimately what are they putting into the club scene by being there? What are they getting back out of it? I think that party focus is one of the things that makes it a scene, rather than a community. Thresholds is more of the community feel. It's more hearth based. Even, I would venture to say, more real.

When the masks come down, and there is a reasonable lowering of inhibitions (I am not necessarily saying that alcohol or drugs are needed for such things, simply the right environment would work), then in many cases it creates the sort of social environment that encourages people to speak more openly about themselves and their opinions on things without worrying about the kind of censure you would find in a stricter social environment where there is more focus on the applicable 'rules'.

I would agree with that. But I don't think that justifies making the party itself a focus of the gathering. Having partying going on as part of the environment, especially if people feel they need some party atmosphere in order to really let their guard down, is fine in my opinion. But I don't think we should take it to excess, nor pour a significant amount of energy into the party itself. I'd rather see energy flowing from the parties into the gather, than the other way around.

Re: Agreed--but lighten up a touch?

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

Where did I say that partying should be a focus of Thresholds? I didn't. However, to denigrate it entirely because -you- don't get anything out of it would be akin to my saying that, for example, your work with 'hacking' is ridiculous and silly because I see absolutely no gain in it. Or someone telling me that I shouldn't be role-playing because I can't possibly be getting anything out of it.

To each his own. When we start getting narrow in our views, then we're becoming just like those people most of us profess to wanting to be something other than. My experience does not necessarily equal your experience. Nor does either of our experience necessarily equal Solo's, to take the point a step further.

I have never felt any pressure to wear a mask in -any- aspect of WtT, no matter what that aspect happens to be. However, that doesn't mean that the more relaxed social environment doesn't still allow people to relax further. Yes, it only happens once a year. Yes, a lot of the people who attend don't see each other except through the internet during the rest of the year. However, I have yet to see anything 'broken' about the overall feel of the gather that I think needs to be fixed. Yes, it will evolve. All things do tend to do that. I just think that we need to be careful to pick a 'vision' that encompasses many different people, instead of a single person or small group's view on what is 'important'. As for energy, in an ideal envronment, it would be reciprocal. There should be no unidirectional flow at all.

Ultimately, it is rialian who has the final say. He is the organizer of the gather. I have yet to see him say anything that makes me not want to attend WtT. By contrast, many of the people commenting upon the entry in question have made me think that they are pushing for a more elitist view. That is something that will kill the environment and community faster than anything else.

Re: Agreed--but lighten up a touch?

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I haven't denigrated it entirely. I said, and I quote, "Let's party, but party responsibly and not make that the focus of the gather". Solo disagreed with that statement and is specifically arguing that partying *should* be a focus of the gather (though one among many), and you said you agree with him.

You're right, Ri does have the final say. Personally, from what I've seen of him over the years, I don't think he'd have an issue with the ideas I've expressed so far, and I have great confidence in his ability to reply directly if he does. Especially since I made the original statement in his journal. If it makes you feel any better, I'll ask him directly what his opinion on the subject is, since I'll be attending his Open Study tomorrow evening. From what I've seen, I believe Ri likes a bit of elitism. I believe he calls it "enlightened self-interest", and actively seeking those of "higher quality". If I'm wrong about that, well... as you said, it's his gather. His call.

Re: Agreed--but lighten up a touch?

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I think perhaps I'm not being clear enough with my words. I've left some things unstated that I tend to take as given, that may help clarify things.

When I say "that type of fellowship" is a flash in the pan, I'm talking about fellowship where one of the main aspects IS the partying/drinking. To me this is very distinct from fellowship where the main aspects are independent of partying and drinking together. If I can ask myself if this person would still hang out with me and enjoy my company outside of a setting that included booze and ass humor, and the answer was no, then that relationship is a waste of my time, kindred spirit or no.

I'm all for imbibing (within reasonable limits) while talking around the campfire. I thought this was obvious, since I do it myself on a regular basis and have in the past brought coolers full of alcohol to share with people for this purpose. But the alcohol isn't the focus. The discussion is. And honestly if anyone partakes of the alcohol to the point where it is their focus rather than the discussion, they're generally not long able to contribute to that discussion. Their energy is going into being drunk. The same is true of partying in more general terms, absent alcohol. I'd rather see people making community, hearth, magic, and Otherness their focuses, and using the party as a means to that end. Not just using community, hearth, magic, and Otherness as a means to party.

SERIOUS BUSINESS

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

f I can ask myself if this person would still hang out with me and enjoy my company outside of a setting that included booze and ass humor, and the answer was no, then that relationship is a waste of my time, kindred spirit or no.

Uhm, thats still unhealthy. Because if you base your entire relationship on magic and otherkin discussions, then thats a big problem too. There is that thing called 'balance' we where talking about.

~Solo

Re: SERIOUS BUSINESS

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

To be specific, I wanted to word it in the polar opposite of your statement--if the entire relationship only revolves around specific subjects, then that also is a problem. This isn't to say that your above statement is false or incorrect, just that this sort of exchange works both ways.

~Solo

Re: SERIOUS BUSINESS

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I understand your point, but I'm not sure you've provided much support for it. Why is it a problem if the entire relationship revolves around specific subjects? Why is it unhealthy to base a relationship on magic and otherkin discussions?

If a particular subject interests you, and you interact with others of a like mind, a lot of your relationships with them are going to be based on that subject (or other interests you find you also have in common). I'm sure in the course of your alchemical research you are going to form friendly/professional relationships with people specifically because they are fellow alchemists and can offer you an interaction on that level. As a Catholic, Duo has a relationship with his priest (and to some extent with the other members of his congregation) based primarily on spiritual beliefs. I'm not seeing how having relationships focusing on shared interests/beliefs is a bad thing, really. In fact, I'd consider it pretty much the definition of a relationship:

"Interpersonal relationships are social associations, connections, or affiliations between two or more people. They vary in differing levels of intimacy and sharing, implying the discovery or establishment of common ground, and may be centered around something(s) shared in common."

Re: SERIOUS BUSINESS

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

BZZT wrong. Actually, Duo doesn't have any real relationship with his congregation. Their spiritual views only compare up to a point: half the congregation is scared of him, to be honest.

Also, forming relationships on common views is common correct, but when you have no other common ground other than set things, there is only so far a relationship can go. All of us as a family have far more in common than simply magic and otherkin...we are quite diverse in our life experiences and ways of connecting with the spiritual. I think its also our diversities that have bonded us so closely.

Don't mind me. I've been thinking real heavily lately, and am a bit jaded at the moment. This doesn't mean to say my reasoning is wrong however. Are we still getting together this weekend? Sam wants to meet you--she wants to know if we all want to get together and go to an Irish pub on Sat.

~Solo

Re: SERIOUS BUSINESS

[starlightforest.livejournal.com]

I think there may be a confusion of terminology here. Solo seems to be talking specifically about friendships, thus saying that their being based on just one thing is perhaps unhealthy. Jarin seems to be interchanging this with "relationship" and saying "but there are plenty of relationships based on just one thing or topic, and that's fine". Which is true! But we don't generally call those friendships. We call them other things - colleague-colleague, priest-congregant, parent-child... people in these relationships may also be friends, but one is not the same as the other.

So if all you do is drink and party with your friend... well, maybe you're ok with that, but maybe OTOH it's not that great of a friendship. But if all you call that person is "drinking buddy" or something similar, then this is just as valid a basis for a relationship as any other single shared interest.

Re: SERIOUS BUSINESS

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the clarification on terminology, I hadn't realized I had gotten it confused (too many threads dealing with various aspects of relationships). But I still think my argument holds. If the focus of a friendship is on drinking and partying, what substance is there? When the booze stops flowing, when the music stops, what makes this "friendship" any different than any other random stranger at the bar or club? On the other hand, a shared interest always leaves room for learning more about that interest together. It offers the opportunity to branch out into other related topics. It is a commonality that lasts longer than the time it takes alcohol to work its way out of the bloodstream. I also don't think changing the term from "friend" to "drinking buddy" has a large effect on the substance of the relationship. Especially since buddy is technically a synonym for friend...

Re: SERIOUS BUSINESS

[starlightforest.livejournal.com]

"But I still think my argument holds. If the focus of a friendship is on drinking and partying, what substance is there? When the booze stops flowing, when the music stops, what makes this "friendship" any different than any other random stranger at the bar or club?"

For myself, I agree - I wouldn't likely use the term "friend" to describe such a person, except in an extremely loose sense ("my friends at the club", which might actually be better said as "the people I hang around with at the club", for example). Even most of the people I've met in the 'kin community I refer to as "acquaintances" and not "friends" because to me "friend" denotes something with more substance, as you posit. It means a certain amount of shared personal experience, not in each past separately (e.g., we both drove the same kind of car, we both worked for the same company...), but *together*, at the same time.

"I also don't think changing the term from "friend" to "drinking buddy" has a large effect on the substance of the relationship. Especially since buddy is technically a synonym for friend..."

I mean that a less "loaded" term is more appropriate for a relationship that can't carry the weight of "friend". "Buddy" is so slangy you can't pin it down to any one meaning. To me it is a lot "lighter" than "friend" - it just means "someone I see now and again [perhaps regularly under some certain conditions, e.g. we both enjoy tennis and belong to the same club] and get along with". So no, it doesn't have an effect on the substance of the relationship - rather, that substance (or lack thereof) recommends only certain terms be used to refer to it. It works the other way, too - I wouldn't refer to enotsola as a "buddy"!

[ex-casteylan314.livejournal.com]

I wonder if it's a problem of scale... would these same people, when asked what they contribute to their relationships, their friendships, think they have nothing to add, nothing to give? Or is it a problem of self-worth, and not being able to see themselves in that positive of a light at all?

It's probably a little of each depending on the person. I know what Arhuaine's answer would have been. I'd also add that sometimes it's not apparent to yourself what you're offering to a relationship, but the other person/group is more aware than you are of what you offer. Sometimes the only way to know, is ask your friends. :)

Once our internet connection is fixed and stable we ought to be back on AIM a bit more often :)

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I kind of think anyone can figure out what they add to a relationship, if they do an open and honest self-inventory. I just never realized so many people would have problems being honest with themselves about the things they do add... I thought more people would have trouble being honest if they don't add anything.

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

While I think that both of these factors can contribute to this, I hardly think that they are the -only- factors. I also don't believe that it's entirely a question of being honest with oneself. Consider this- some people were raised in a manner than they don't see their contributions as anything special, or anything that they feel they should be blowing their own horns about. If what other people see as you adding to something is what you consider as natural to you as breathing, then of course you aren't going to see it as adding something. (Particularly if there are people about who are able and willing to loudly proclaim what they are contributing.)

For example- I do all the things for Ken that he is unable to do for one reason or another. I tuck him in at night to comfort his littles. I help him take care of his health. I am there for him when he feels down. Do I consider this as 'adding' to a relationship? Hell no. It's part of what you do -because you are in that relationship-. It's the same with giving all your effort at work, because it is part of the nonverbal agreement of working in the first place.

Do you see where I am coming from? Does that even make any sense? Unless I am going out of my way to do things I wouldn't normally do, I don't see myself as specifically 'adding' something, and that was my problem with the whole discussion on Rialian's LJ. To me, it was implying that unless a person goes out of their way, then they are not contributing. Of course, I have never gone out of my way at Thresholds, I've just been myself. *shrugs*

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I see things in a very different manner. The position that I start from is that just because people are in a relationship, that does NOT mean they are meeting the obligations of that relationship. I believe your experiences with your exes would tend to validate that position, as my experiences in past relationships do.

Because of that, anything you do to meet those obligations is contributing to the relationship. you're putting effort into maintaining the relationship. And for the most part, the people who come to Thresholds do that, they do put effort into the gather. Not everyone does, though. There have been people in the past who have complained very vocally about being left out of the quiet discussion areas, even though they never made any effort to try to join the ones at the main fire or any of the other hearths. I see going over to people and saying hello, letting them know you're interested in joining the discussion, to be part of the obligation of being at a gather. I'd like people to put in that effort, rather than expecting such things to be handed to them by the organizers and other attendees. And yes, if people can (without going too far out of their way) put in some extra effort, I think it would be a good thing all around and I think they would find they get more out of the gather too. For my part, I've already volunteered to help Ri and Helen take some stuff out to Thresholds since I now have a car with more cargo room. I'm also thinking of volunteering my campfire as a space to have a more traditional Bardic Circle, if people are interested. I've also been thinking about whether there is any workshop I'd like to give, or discussion group I'd like to facilitate. And I will, of course, be offering to help Ri with the Reiki workshop again, as you have in the past. None of these things is really going out of my way, but they do take time and effort to do, especially if I want to do them well.

A lot of this is wrapped up in my ideas of excellence, and also my ideas of Eldership. I keep coming back to a certain quote by Ri:

===We do not need more "flashes". We need more deep and burning flames. We need more cowled figures that walk unnoticed, but energise and comfort. We need to have more hearths lit with the everlasting flame of the Otherworld. We need to have more depth....more wells into the deep land of the Fae that we can drink from...that are hidden from those that would despoil them.

We need, as he put it in another of his essays, more "keystones". More of the people that create community, that create the environments like Thresholds. More of the people that work to build things. That's what I'm calling for, really. For people to take the responsibility to start building their community themselves. For people to step up and start taking on some of the responsibilities/duties of the "elder" role. For people to put some effort back into the gather and the community itself.

[silvaerina-tael.livejournal.com]

> Sometimes people seem to think they have nothing to contribute. That they have nothing to add to a community, or a gather. They compare themselves to others and find themselves lacking, for whatever reason. I wonder if it's a problem of scale... would these same people, when asked what they contribute to their relationships, their friendships, think they have nothing to add, nothing to give? Or is it a problem of self-worth, and not being able to see themselves in that positive of a light at all? <

I think you will find that these same people tend to do this regardless of where they are, and it is a greater symptom of the society that we live in which demands that people "measure up" in everything (never mind hold to the status quo, while ensuring that very few can). Therefore if they feel they are lacking, they are also going to feel they aren't contributing like they should. This, of course, makes them feel inadequate, and undermines their self-confidence.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Any idea how to counter that and show them they do have something to contribute?

[silvaerina-tael.livejournal.com]

Patience, and telling what they do have and contribute. Once you do that, it's up to them to be open to the idea that they are better/whatever than they think they are. Most of us only see our faults because that's all we're told.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

That might work... though I have noticed that the people who don't want to think of themselves as having anything to contribute will find reasons (even illogical ones) why what they do contribute doesn't count.

[silvaerina-tael.livejournal.com]

It's that self confidence/worth thing again. If *they* don't believe they have anything to add, they will likely not see what someone else has to say. Sometimes a lot of work has to go into it to get them to believe otherwise.

[draerendi.livejournal.com]

Parties are ok but they do have to be the focus...Not being a party person I have taken a drink or two in order to break down barriers that I can not manage other wise. Perhaps it is true for others? Groups tend to make me close up. It may not be the focus but it might be the only way they feel comfortable?
Tis a thought.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

A drink or two in a social setting isn't really what I'm talking about when I say "Let's party, but party responsibly and not make that the focus of the gather." I generally drink at Thresholds, and I don't plan to stop that practice. In fact, I'd like to get things back to having a Bardic held around a campfire where we pass the meadcup around, or something similar. Like we had at WtT2 and WtT3. Not necessarily instead of the Bardic held at the drum circle, but certainly as an alternative to it.

For me the problem comes when partying is made a focus...made one of the primary reasons for being there. The main things people pour their energy into. I feel that steals energy and attention from the things that should be the real focuses of the gather; hearth, community, magic, and most of all Otherness. Without those things being made the real focuses, Thresholds just becomes a party in the woods; and while that can be fun, and can serve as a useful adjunct to the main focuses, I don't think that's what it is supposed to be all about. Isn't this community about spirituality, and our beliefs that we are kin to that which is Other?

[starlightforest.livejournal.com]

I ♥ed the circle at WtT2. That is actually a large part of the "standard" in my head for "what Thresholds should be like". (Not a copy, but whatever happens, it should have that Feel.) And while I do like a bit of partying myself, probably more than I think you do, Jarin, I do agree with the underlying concept here: A little party "weighs" a lot, and has a tendency to take over. If you take 1 cup of more serious spiritual activity and add 1 cup of party, you do not get an even mix. Party expands to several times its initial volume (NPI), or something.

I think the group size is contributing to this. Smaller groups tend to have a single-mindedness about them: everyone wants to do the same kinds of things, or if not, the few that don't, drift off. Larger groups have enough people that everyone can find what they want to do and still feel "fulfilled" that there were enough people sharing that interest. At the size Thresholds is, it tends to split down the middle, and become "frictiony".

I would say it would be better to have two events - one more "party", the other more "serious", and if you want both, go to both; and if you don't, don't, but that has its own unfortunate consequences which may not be acceptable, that is, that it tends to prevent the forming of any "community".

OTOH, the debate between the "party/con" and "serious" factions in just about any subculture is age-old, relatively speaking...

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I ♥ed the circle at WtT2. That is actually a large part of the "standard" in my head for "what Thresholds should be like". (Not a copy, but whatever happens, it should have that Feel.)

Yes, it is for me too. That's one of the reasons I liked it when we did away with the meal plan... it brought something of that Feel into that aspect of the Gather that had previously been missing. Something that I think of when I hear Ri use the term "hearth."

And while I do like a bit of partying myself, probably more than I think you do, Jarin, I do agree with the underlying concept here: A little party "weighs" a lot, and has a tendency to take over. If you take 1 cup of more serious spiritual activity and add 1 cup of party, you do not get an even mix. Party expands to several times its initial volume (NPI), or something.

That's an interesting way of putting it. I definitely agree. But there's more to it than just that, too. Proportionally, partying generally takes a lot of energy. And the party "mindset" has a tendency to take over to some extent. Keeping the party areas separate from the main gather has helped with this somewhat, but I think it's also created something of an enclave that isn't seen as much outside the party areas anymore. Parties are also generally bright and loud and shiny and attractive, and it's hard for other activities to compete with that.

I think the group size is contributing to this. Smaller groups tend to have a single-mindedness about them: everyone wants to do the same kinds of things, or if not, the few that don't, drift off. Larger groups have enough people that everyone can find what they want to do and still feel "fulfilled" that there were enough people sharing that interest. At the size Thresholds is, it tends to split down the middle, and become "frictiony".

That's probably true to some extent. And some of the people who haven't been around to see the first few gathers may have a very different idea of what Thresholds "should" be, based on their experience. What seems like a small difference to them may be much more pronounced to those of us who were going there from Thresholds 2 or earlier.

I would say it would be better to have two events - one more "party", the other more "serious", and if you want both, go to both; and if you don't, don't, but that has its own unfortunate consequences which may not be acceptable, that is, that it tends to prevent the forming of any "community".

I think this idea just let me glimpse some of my own subconscious reasoning on this... my main reaction to splitting it into two events, one party and one more serious, is this: How is an otherkin party any different from a non-otherkin party? What would distinguish the party event as being an otherkin event of any sort? How does partying let you connect more deeply with the Other? Or could you get the exact same effect by going to any random bar, club, or rave?

OTOH, the debate between the "party/con" and "serious" factions in just about any subculture is age-old, relatively speaking...

True... and I think how they find a balance between the two says a lot about the relative health of the subculture.

[starlightforest.livejournal.com]

"That's one of the reasons I liked it when we did away with the meal plan... it brought something of that Feel into that aspect of the Gather that had previously been missing. Something that I think of when I hear Ri use the term "hearth." "

I find it a little funny that you think this way. For me, getting rid of the meal plan made it *lose* something. Coming from Canada, it made it rather difficult to get food - there's not a lot available locally, and of course most things you can't bring across the border. So it presented a logistical obstacle which no one helped us surmount. And of course, it meant that not everyone was eating together at the same time, which had provided a common thread that was now absent.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I spent much of that year cooking for people... I grilled beef on Ri's portable stove and made tacos for folks at one point. I would have been more than happy to help provide you guys with food if I'd known you needed some, I brought more than enough for a great many folks with me. The only down-side that year was that my own portable stove wasn't working, but Ri let people use his and that more than made up for it. Also, since I was fixing food for folks, I tended to be eating at the same time as them, and it was more of a community activity than standing in the food line and eating cafeteria style had been for me.

[draerendi.livejournal.com]

Perhaps that is it then....Instead of a meal plan maybe a pot-luck type thing. A meal does bring a group together. One of things I liked about WtT was the fact that everyone was taken care of. I can't say if that still happens but it did then. No one went hungry no one when without what ever they needed. That is community to me. The shareing. It was the grandest time I ever had.