Posted by
Steve Smith on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/WARNING-Political-Argument-in-Progress-tp5060628p5068525.html
Victoria / Tory -
IT SEEMS to ME
Steve,
Vlad and the rest of ya,
that barring an INPERSON Whiskey+Stout+Bourbon-based
discussion of this,
there
are assumptions running rife and leaving little hoofprints all over
this conversation that need addressing. Start with-
We did try pretty hard to get our assumptions above the table. I
realize we might have come up short.
How are you
defining power?
I am defining power as the capacity to have an effect on something
outside of yourself. For the most part, in this discussion, it has
been used to talk about power over other people. I would invoke, in
(mostly) descending order of crudeness, Physical Control (pick someone
up, throw them over your shoulder and carry them somewhere), Physical
Intimidation (strike them and threaten to continue to strike them if
they do not do what you insist upon), Emotional Intimidation (similar
to the above without necessarily and striking, but possibly the literal
or implied threat of it it), Persuasion (Begging, Charming, etc.),
Promises, Seduction (a bit of the combination of Promises and Charm
perhaps)...
You
speak of it in terms of control and fear, but not all power is used to
control and force nature/others/etc.
I'm open to other definitions of power that *cannot* be used for such,
but I think that might not be possible. On the other hand, I complete
agree that we use our power with the *intention* of doing great and
wonderful things, and when asked will insist that we have no intention
to force or harm or ... but I also contend that this might be a
self-deluding trick. You and I have had conversations many years ago
about "Will" that touched on this and I think we did not converge
then... I think you believed that willfulness could be positive while I
feel that it cannot (except insomuch as it is part of a larger equation
which balances out to positive, but the willful actions themselves, I
submit are corruption).
You
are using a very broad brush here. You are not balancing your
particular use of the word/ concept with the others. Tautology.
That
what you smart people mean to do?
I'm not sure what you mean here. I agree that the brush is broad and
that there may be some loose ends that we are not attending to... can
you help us pin them down (or pull them up) a little more? I also
believe that some of my definitions do come dangerously close to
tautological, but I'm not sure that is what you are pointing to.
There
are 6 billion people on the planet, and even consigning those 6B to a
few big generalized tendencies, you are extrapolating behaviours from
one group onto another without much justification.
I (think) I am talking more about definitions of terms and the logical
consequences of the application of those definitions than I am about
the intentions of people (any/all of the 6B). I know it sounds like
I'm (maybe)
Yup,
power is very often used in all the horrendous ways you both describe
and we have experienced, but that is not the only way power has been
used.
I question this. I agree that Power has been claimed to be used
otherwise, promised to be used otherwise, and especially *intended* to
be used otherwise. I'm just not sure it ever turns out that way (or
that it can). I often find myself aspiring to various forms of power
and I almost always imagine that I am aspiring to it, so that I can
wield goodness with it... but I deeply, fundamentally question that
this is even possible.
We may not have our definitions of Power aligned well enough... you may
very well have a contrasting definition of Power that I'm not clear on
that makes sense in this context.
I agree with Steve that a craving is indicative: that in many
cases
the quest for power is the problem, not the power itself.
Then the issue reverts to the personality constellation seeking the
power.
I still hold that the power itself is where it starts, where the
"potential evil" resides and that it is the channeling of it via a
willful action that channels it into "kinetic evil".
But not all of those seeking power want to use it for harm.
"Power over" vs "power with".
The definition of power is changing as we speak: we can help or
hinder.
I do not disagree that often (most often?) our quest for power is
motivated by some higher desire (at least consciously) to "do good".
What I question is if this is actually possible. My personal
experience, if viewed with enough wishful thinking, suggests that I in
fact do good with some of the power I have managed to obtain over the
world and over others. I don't know if it it ever actually works out
that way in fact... I have plenty of wishful thinking to maintain me in
my pursuit of rightous application of power. I know this sounds
rather negative, but that alone is not enough reason for me to discount
it.
I will leave the whole gender discussion aside for the moment,
but don't think I am not watching that one.
> You might actually ask the women on this list
about power, rather than announcing what we think. Extrapolation from
teenage behaviour is not applicable to the sophisticated feminine
intellects, interests and abilities on this list.
I assume that the women on this list will weigh in (as you are doing
here) with their own ideas and opinions. I acknowledge that my
statements in this regard are sweeping generalizations and even if they
have some merit (though they may not) do not likely apply well to any
given individual.
Let me then convolve my generalization into a specific question
(actually a whole stream of them). Do you, as a woman, believe that
you (and perhaps by extrapolation, many women) generally consider,
experience and exercise power (which we do not have a shared definition
of yet) differently than men? Are you as likely to use direct
physical control as a mode of power as men are? Are you as likely to
have that form of power exercised over you? Are you as likely to use
various forms of persuasion as men are? Do you feel that you have any
power over men or women based on the (presumed by my statement here)
differences in men's and women's sexual natures? Do you ever use that
knowingly (or unknowingly upon careful reflection) to assert power over
men (or women)? Do you feel that you have a "right" to use any powers
that are unique to yourself individually, as a member of a gender, of a
class over others who are of a (presumed) class, gender or personal
circumstance that gives *them* potential or exercised power over you?
I vote we get Vlad down here so we can really have this
conversation. Anyone who writes
'The displacement
of a rock seems clearly outside of any ethical discussion but the
displacement of Peasants is a different matter' should be
thoroughly assimilated at the Cowgirl.
Or at least doused liberally with various libations assigned to be
Irish in origin.
Just
read Glen R's comment about rock-moving as irresponsible, and agree
with the basic point: that actions are better done with awareness and
deliberation.
He asserts (in my paraphrasing) that the key is careful deliberation
over consequences. I think it is important, but I suggest that it may
not be enough.
NO,
I am not saying an abusive act done with deliberation is better than a
non-abusive act done without thought. Can we not agree that there are
people who aim to benefit others, and do so with power and deliberation?
Absolutely. And I hope we can even agree that there are people with
amazing capacity for framing their selfish and abusive acts as acts of
generosity and kindness. The question (for myself) is where the
threshold of awareness goes from willful ignorance to rightous, aware,
intention.
Just
reading about the Turkish/Greek population exchange of 1923, as one in
a line of horrific thoughtless acts by people with power over others....
I
am not at all saying it doesn't happen.
I never doubted that. I don't think anyone here would say that (but I
could ask them).
I
am saying that a fear of power prevents it from ever being used for
good, which it is occasionally. But the desire for it persists, and if
we try to prevent it, the desire is amplified. Humans. Lizards and
lemurs.
I think that a healthy respect for power and it's consequences
(intended or otherwise) is paramount. I don't know that it has to be
fear. If we are to act willfully at all, then we must either believe
the exercise of power *can* yield goodness, or that we are willing to
accept the risk of bad consequences. My willful actions are moving
from the former catagory to the latter.
The
Dalai Lama 'controls' between ten and twenty million people, (Wiki.)
but he is not using an army of ten+ million to infiltrate and force out
the Chinese from the land they invaded.
I think this is a very good extreme example. My appraisal of the Dalai
Lama and his "power" is that there is little if any power that he
wields beyond persuasion, and I think he uses that with the utmost
care. I have found that very little of his talk is of the persuasive
kind, meaning that his intention is not (directly) to persuade. I
believe his intention is to bring clarity to the ideas and experiences
he is talking about and trusts that the individuals receiving them will
assimilate them the best they can and take action in their own lives
accordingly. I would claim that he is walking a very fine line where
he might not wield any of what I am calling power.
When he came to Santa Fe around 1990, he impressed me in many ways.
During the Q&A after his talk, someone asked him if he came to the
US to ask the US Gov't to place economic or political sanctions against
the Chinese who were occupying his country and oppressing his people.
He said roughly, "economic and political sanctions are forms of
violence and I do not promote any form of violence for any reason". I
would say that he was declining to use his "power" in a situation where
most, if not all of us would feel almost completely righteous in using
our power to right a wrong. He was also asked if he was going up to
LANL to urge the leaders of the lab to disarm. He (roughly) said "The
Laboratory's mission is to create weapons of unthinkable destruction, I
have nothing to talk with them about". And when asked "But what about
the peace of 40+ years that has been kept by Mutual Assured
Destruction", he said (roughly) "if you come across two men grasping
eachothers' collars with their fists drawn back to strike but have not
yet struck the other, would you call that peace?".
My point of relevance to this discussion is that while his words were
very illuminating, I did not find them to be "persuasive" in the most
literal sense of the term. In all both cases, he was declining to use
the "power" the questioners presumed him to have (and encouraging him
to use).
Don't say 'well his religion prevents him' because that is
pointless reasoning: by your standards the choice he has is to use
power for good or ill.
Or to decline to use his power.
If one includes in their definition of Power, his spiritual and
intellectual acuity that allows him to split the finest of hairs in
ways that allow him (and us, if we use his example) to avoid any
willful acts of power, then we have another kind of power...
Is this the difference between my use of "power" and yours?
The source of the power was his choice to embrace (and by the
way did you know that he was always predicted to be the last Dalai
Lama? The traditions all said that the 14th would be the end of the
lineage. He knew that from the beginning.
I did not know that he was predicted to be the last of the Dalai
Lamas. I'm not sure how this is a source of power for him?
And
whatever you may think of Bill Gates, his money gives him enormous
power, but he has not taken over the military of small countries and
waged war on anyone, much to the contrary.
Not to my knowledge. But we do not know what (all) he does with his
money or other forms of his influence. The "evil" often ascribed to
him fits mostly in the catagory of unintended consequences fading into
willful ignorance. He might not understand the implications of the
dominance of his products in the world, or he might feel that the
negative side effects of this are balanced by the presumed "good" that
his products bring the world (better documents, better spreadsheets,
better e-mail (no, scratch that one), better web browsing (scratch that
one too)... better STUFF!), or he might not care, and might believe
that the success in the "free" market proves the goodness of his
products.
There
are lots of ways to be human.
Absolutely... wonderfully true... a cause for great celebration.
There
are lots of ways to wield power.
Also absolutely true and a glorious and horrible thing it is. Perhaps
we cannot separate the glory from the horror. Perhaps that is the crux
of my arguement... no amount of glory in our wielding of power will be
free of the taint of the horror, and perhaps by symmetry, even the most
horrific acts of power might have some smidgen of glory in them.
It is a good question to ponder.
Thanks for weighing in. I hope my response helps us to converge or at
least understand where we are not. We may have moved from Irish
Whiskey to Kentucky Bourbon territory...
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org