Steve , Vicki, and Honorable Lurkers,
I have tried to respond and seem to have entered an existential fog. Steve's reply is almost identical to one I was preparing but trashed. I pulled out a copy of Bertrand Russell's POWER and started poking around again. We apparently have repeated much of his work with slight exceptions. He looks at Power (over others) as if it is real and I still feel that it is imaginary having looked at a long list of once powerful historical personalities that just vanished from popular imagination. There was no evidence that power was transferred any where to anyone. It just vanished even before the being expired. He does use the term Power over Matter but glances over it for the most part. I think that form of Power was easier to understand and required less work. Power over others is very complex, but neverthe less I still stand by my position that such power is illusionary . I think much of the Power we attribute to individuals and organizations is exactly the same as the adoration of movie stars. It comes and it goes. The leaders are simply a reflection of the peasant mind state. Certainly the new peasant enjoys designer fashions and Cancun Holidays but they are with us at all times. They are superstitious and cruel and concerned with their own appetites and not much else except on Sundays when they dress up and try and impress one another. I suspect that my interest is more to do with the way power is created, and there I still maintain it is in the minds of the audience and is some mixture of fear jealosy envy lust etc. What happens after the population attaches it to an individual or organization is probably just as Russell describes accommodating for time. Siszek talks about the hidden psychology of followers and how they each have slightly different imaginings of the power structure and its personal benefits to the follower. That horrible kind of power we so fear is probably the offspring of fear. It has many ways of manifesting itself but generally we as a society give so much credence to fear that we literally allow people to escape justice because they claimed to fear for their lives. Fear is a most powerful legal defense. Even better than I was following orders. I feared I would lose my job, I feared that I would be late for the baby sitter, I feared I would lose my place in line. I feared I was going to be raped, I feared I was going to be accused of rape. I feared someone would find out I was pregnant. I fear that there was something wrong with my child. I feared that they would find out I was gay. I feared they would find out that I had a Jewish /Black/ Hispanic / Native mother. I feared he would hurt me. I feared he would talk about me. I feared the moon would stop spinning and fall into my kitchen. I feared that the world was coming to an end. I feared God would find out I ate meat on a Friday. I feared so much I just could not remember what happened. I was so fearful of terrorists I voted for Rush Limbaugh. I feared ..and I expect sympathy and to be exonerated from the charges. Too bad about the Dalai Lama he seemed like a decent guy but I doubt he ever had enough power to fix even a flat bicycle tire. He is quite a character but while the leaders of the world are generally very polite to him they would not stick their necks out for his cause. 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 <mailto:vbur...@shaw.ca> vbur...@shaw.ca -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] 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
============================================================ 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
