Re: [FRIAM] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress, Beep Beep Beep
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
Re: [FRIAM] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress, Beep Beep Beep
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 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
Re: [FRIAM] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress, Beep Beep Beep
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- How are you defining power? You speak of it in terms of control and fear, but not all power is used to control and force nature/others/etc. 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? 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. 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. (This is also a variation of the architecture, barbarism and monolithic culture discussion, to which I did not chime in on though sorely tempted. It really isn't useful to use only examples that support your conclusions. The Hopis built sprawling large buildings that are still inhabited after 800 years and nary a cut-off foot in sight. Took the Spanish Catholics to do that, and they didn't even have a building nearby.) 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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? 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. There are lots of ways to be human. There are lots of ways to wield power. Tory On May 17, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote: 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
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 Stevethat 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
