Sorry about the replies but thought this insight might be useful,
If as I speculate POWER is completely or essentially illusionary then some interesting other social phenomena start making considerable sense.
Most power structures are lately trapped into massive media campaigns. The amount of personnel involved with Spinning the News is absolutely enormous and widespread. In some sense battles between competing ideologies are played out in the media with extreme ferocity. Oddly I suspect the resources expended on managing perceptions is coming close to eating up a huge portion of the resource base of many corporations. Some sources suggest that these efforts to manipulate perception are called Dramaturgy. Under such a perspective Brand Names Logos advertising is all part of the effort to manage perception and hence power.
If these entities actually possessed power it could stand alone and continuing resource depletion would not be required. In some sense the very fact that the powerful expend resources is quite telling. Take for instance Papal indulgences. The funds went into architecture and dramatic frescoes for example. It some way the Pope imagined that such permanent structures could solidify the power perception perhaps and reduce the constant daily expenditures. But inadvertently this strategy spurred the Lutherian revolt and proved essentially counterproductive.
BP is spending great wads of money at the moment or will shortly to manage the perception of the populace in order to forestall unpleasant litigation. I wonder where the money is really going at this moment. Since I heard 40 Billion $ of BP assets vanished on the stock market essentially righting down 10 years worth of expected litigation costs.
In an odd manner the power that BP had before the disaster as represented in stock evaluation simply vanished. BP declined in stature, but in this example money is apparently moving around and may be tracked. But the money is simply a physical manifestation of psychological confidence. There is unfortunately not a fixed quantity of confidence as there are Gold reserves. It is possible for confidence to go to zero even though the gold reserves are fixed. In some ways the economy is less dependent on real assets as it is on confidence which has been understood for a very long time .
So to the power of a tyrant is entirely dependent on the amount of fear or respect it can engender in the population. Unfortunately that power requires huge investment on a daily level. Perhaps North Korea is an example of an entire nation being systematically ruined in order to maintain a goofy tyrant.
It seems reasonable to conjecture that power being illusionary essentially requires huge investments to maintain that illusion. Furthermore no existing investment appears to maintain its value over time as the audience habituates quickly and at some point becomes immune or inured to the investments.
So the daily investment costs escalate exponentially and eventually the resource base is drained. It does account for old time colonial expansion philosophies akin to a global Ponzi schemes. The faster you gain power the more you have to spend. If you run out of Gold then you need to move from Gold expenditures to another commodity more readily available namely Human Blood.
Seeing the role of peasants in supporting tyrannical regimes is a problem, this was discussed at the Nuremberg Trials and eventually led to the cessation of legal effort as there seemed to be too many guilty parties and the effort was terminated with the few spectacular sentences. Perhaps this is the most disturbing aspect of the thread, that ordinary peasants are ultimately the real power and guilty parties but they remain beyond the reach of authority. In some sense society seems to be generated expressly for the purpose of allowing certain types of unethical behavior to become institutionalized and exempt from scrutiny. The need to argue the meaning of murder versus abortion seems to me to represent the sophisticated process where by a homicide is legitimized through illusion of word plays. Mercy Killings and child abandonment have equally perverse language issues. These word plays are all about managing power structures or deflecting attention away from real events. I do feel greatly uneasy in participating in society’s delusions as a scientist. Focusing on exotica is a good way to divert attention from the daily crimes of society.
I am beginning to feel quite ill at the thought of how easily I was mislead by the examples of singular heroic ideals and thereby legitimized so much self serving ideology. The heroic posters of Allies, Nazi and Red Army soldiers and muscled workers captivated imaginations and seduced us all to participate in the great crimes. We empowered disasters with our idealism and fears. Perhaps some day government will be seperated from emotion as once we separated the Church. Our emotions seem to fuel these horrific events. Our sympathies allow the scoundrels to flourish.
Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)
120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R2J 3R2
(204) 2548321 Phone/Fax
-----Original
Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Steve Smith
Sent: May 18, 2010 12:19 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied
Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WARNING:
Political Argument in Progress, Beep Beep Beep
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
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |