Steve, Thanks for the response, I note two things have shifted in the discussion,
First that now you have placed greater weight on the fact that Power over others is corruption and Second that one of my previous arguments has returned to bite me in the ass. Namely I advocated that corruption is any process that subverts the original intention of a system. So having previously made that argument I have to admit that power over others is fundamentally Corruption (but I previously argued that corruption is neither bad or good). Looking closer at our arguments there may exist a dividing line. Power over others is power over another complex system which is by both our arguments a corruption. "Power over nature" is arguably not a coherent interactive system at least the rock and lever are not complex systems. So does that imply that power over nature is Not Corrupt (but something else entirely)?. The key element being whether or not the Entity is a complex system. This now introduces a new dimension, Ethics, I believe. The displacement of a rock seems clearly outside of any ethical discussion but the displacement of Peasants is a different matter. Perhaps I just turned your argument inside out and presented as my own? I'll give the Irish whiskey a fair test next time I have the opportunity. 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 vbur...@shaw.ca -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: May 17, 2010 4:15 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress Vladimyr - I appreciate your $.02 Canadian as well as the uniquely Russian perspective you seem to have, especially on the application of political power/might/will against the individual. I also appreciate your taste for Irish Stout... I have no idea what it might do for the digestion of food, but I myself find it aids in the digestion of exotic opinions and differing ideas. I find, however, that Irish Whiskey works even better for this purpose. I also appreciate your eloquence here... while I appreciate those here who are brief and to the point, I often feel conspicuous in my own elaborations... and it is good to have what I consider somewhat of a kindred spirit in your willingness and ability to write large volumes on the topics you choose to engage in. > Power is not actually a corruption since it has deep coupling with basic > biology, it is not a degenerate form of some other behavior but more of an > elaboration or grotesque of something relatively innocuous even beneficial. > I will admit to being deliberately provocative in my claim that "power is corruption", however I do hold that this is literally true and that what seem like counter-examples are degenerate cases where the level of "corruption" is below some threshold. It is also inevitable, I believe that to be intentional is to be corrupted... any intentional act is an assertion of control over the world outside of oneself, possibly other people... what we have been calling power. The mere lifting of a lever, placing it over a fulcrum and moving something with it is "corrupt" by my extreme definition. There are unintended consequences to be had at each turn. The lever can damage the fulcrum or the thing being moved and the thing being moved can fall or roll somewhere not quite planned. This does not mean that we should not act, just that we should not to act with perfect righteousness. The "original sin" of the bible (and other origin myths) would seem to me to be willfulness. > I have struggled with the various interpretations individuals place on power > and how frequently Power / Control are coupled as ideas. There was an > interesting note I ran into discussing the differences between male and > female interpretations of Control. Most females believe control implies > controlling the behavior of other human beings or animals, Males think more > frequently that control is about understanding and manipulating the world of > things to achieve a goal. > I find this to be a common gender alignment as well. Without skirting too close to the line of misogyny (I hope), I often find myself suspecting that some of the greater abuses of power are linked to the female psyche. This is not to say that women are common overt perpetrators of the abuse of power (for the sake of control?) but rather a corollary to "behind every great man is a great woman". I suspect that women, in their often circumstance of limited direct control/power are lead to arrange for power/control to be exercised on their behalf. As a youth, I remember it to be common for the young women to covertly enjoy the fights started by jealousy among their suitors while all the while admonishing them for their violence. I fear our more adult selves, even in the context of national and international politics are guilty of similar acts of power/control mediated or moderated by fear and a tendency to use proxies for our power... to incite others (law making bodies, corporations, law enforcement bodies, etc...) to act on our behalf in ways that we might never act personally. I believe that women (and others in relatively limited power/control situations) are more prone to indirect and proxy means (for what should be obvious reasons). > Oddly both are coupled with fear. A belief is established in the brain that > fear can be assuaged with power or control. The appearance of control in a > situation seems to diminish fear. Yes, this is of which I speak above... I suspect (again, courting accusations of gender bias) that women are prone to a qualitatively different kind of fear than men, leading to qualitatively different ways of asserting control. I believe that asserting control over others is, in fact, a specific type of power as opposed to asserting control over the material world. Men and women are capable and have interests in both, but there does seem to be a bias there, either explaining or illuminated by the relative number of women participating in the social sciences vs men participating in the natural sciences. > This belief results in some extraordinary > absurd behavior. Like striking up a choir to sing God fearing songs during > an aerial bombardment or a sinking ship. We used to call it displacement > behavior in the old days. Like shaving and putting on a tie before facing an > execution squad. Demanding and getting a last cigarette from the > executioner. > My favorite absurdist lyric from a song perhaps is the _They Might Be Giants_ ditty named appropriately _Whistling in the Dark_. > The current state of affairs is not about who has more power or where is it > being transferred, but rather who has the greatest need to quell the fears > in their hearts. I think this position has some merit, however, I also think that the coupling between fear, power, control is circular. When we feel fearful (as you point out), we seek more (real or apparent) control. We may seek that by trying to control others behaviour (charisma, intimidation, persuasion) or we may seek that by trying to control the physical world around us (patch our roof, dig a well, cut some firewood). If we seek to control others (assert power) we are likely to also seek to establish a power-relationship that ensures that we can control others more easily in the future. We also might seek to control others en-masse, by establishing persuasive, intimidating or charismatic rhetoric that supports our control over groups of people. One technique for establishing this type of control is the stimulation of the very fear we are trying to assuage in ourselves but in others. By convincing others they have something to fear (those scary, horrible, awful immigrants or those *men* or those *women* or this or that *disease*!) we establish an opportunity to convince them that *we* can help them reduce that fear (pass a law, sell a product, etc.). Particularly if they sign over their power to us, if they pledge their allegiance to us (our party or our gov't or our flag or our manifesto or our product or our logo). Or similarly, if they invest their capital in our enterprise, they will feel safer (their economic future will be more sound). > Look at the situation from the perspective of fear and it stars to fall into > place. Power is a psychological drug addiction that suppresses fear as may > brandy vodka or heroin. I wish to re-assert my original position that "power is corruption". Addiction may be part of the mechanism through which this happens, but for the purpose of my argument I will claim once again, that the instant one begins to execute power over others, corruption has entered the house. > > > Our current disturbing socio-political climate has much to do with Mass > media pumping fear scenarios into the global community for the sake of > audience ratings. The consequence is a small profit for share holders and a > global citizenry prepared to die or kill for ridiculous causes. > I think the demonized mass-media are complicit, but they do not act alone. Those in power seek to maintain and grow that power while those not in power seek to gain more power and the best leverage for gaining power over others as you so eloquently explain above, is through the promise to assuage fear. So what if the very people who promise to reduce your fear are the very ones who just tweaked it up? And we are complicit. We feed on our own fears... we love a good conspiracy theory, we love a good threat from "the other" to feed our xenophobic instincts. > > Fear makes people behave like animals, We each sit upon our own time bombs > of basic fears but in spite of that terminal reality we still can discuss, > argue drink beer and joke a bit with eachother. Perhaps the most notable > value in this dialogue is that we suppress some small amount of fear without > struggling for imaginary power. > I think we are both endorsing Nick's original thesis here... that it is important, even valuable to argue... even if I split some hairs toward calling argument strictly a device of rhetoric. The ability to disagree openly and to use a wide range of methods to persuade each other is important "practice" for the times when the decisions have to be made quickly, sometimes unilaterally and often under the pressure of many differing opinions. > Every significant work of literature concludes that the pursuit of power is > self destructive and that good generals must control that compulsion in > their subordinates. Machiavelli, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Russell have wrote > extensively on the quest for power and its absolutely ruinous consequences. > And I (re) submit that there is not a magic threshold above which power becomes corruption... I appreciate that in it's most degenerate forms, power (over others) can seem benign... it *seems to be* that the desire or quest for power is the problem, not the power itself. Using your analogy from earlier, that power is addictive... power is the gateway drug to Power. - 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 ============================================================ 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
