Okay, The problem I have is that I find something agreeable with each side and yet find it necessary to add my two cents Canadian ( Nearly on par)
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 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. 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. 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. Now then boys, it is still just a discussion but it clearly reminds me of Marxist philosophy called thesis + antithesis = synthesis. The point of which is to begin to play out your cards and see what new creation is possible from the original bits and pieces. I read Marx in high school just to look like a cool guy and pick up chicks. But going back to the shifting dynamics of power , It does not matter how much power one has accumulated since the brain is not capable of measuring the quantity directly. Instead we seem to monitor our fear levels and when these are too high we seek more power. So if an entity has dominance it can be driven into mania simply by convincing it that it has something to be fearful of. The more fearful the greater need for power, in the end the highest level of satisfaction comes from bloody theatrical displays of human torment. The sight of pain and misery inflicted upon another convinces us all that we have maxed out our power meter. Killing someone gives us the sense of power. Hence we used scapegoats throughout history to take the blame for tsunamis, earthquakes and eclipses. Now the more fearful the population the more interesting methods the groups find to acquire some imaginary control to suppress the fear they are living with. Bullying serves well for many simple folks. Cross burning for the more articulate. Deployment of nuclear weapons on distant continents serves a different clientele. 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. The power to rant makes some feel less fearful, the power to send trained soldiers into a Bangkok community to shoot protesters between the eyes make some politicians feel less fearful. Human beings will commit horrendous atrocities simply because they were fearful. This is not about shifting power systems but the advent of mass panic and hysteria, very similar to Germany Poland and Western Ukraine in the 1930's. The Germans were so fearful that they constructed and enormous military and that still did not completely quell their fear, The Polish saw the accumulati0ns of Military equipment and became fearful and Pilsudski talked about defeating the German menace. The Poles extended power over the western Ukraine to make themselves feel less fearful a complete diversion from the real threats about them. The madness that propelled all the nations was simply FEAR. One way to subdue a panicked population is to execute ring leaders publicly or similar grotesqueries. This is about the politics of fear and the need for imaginary control or power. 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. My Father confessed to spending the entire War Drunk as a Skunk on whatever was at hand. And that every other soldier and officer was suitably intoxicated. No one could stand the reality they were forced to endure. Intoxicants and war go way back to ALEXANDER'S Campaigns, Alexander was pissed nearly every day and it is hard to find an exception according to Arrian. 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. 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. 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. Power is not In itself corrupting but the belief that power can displace fear is disastrous. Only enlightenment can do that. It is odd that one writer , Voltaire, commented on this difference by saying," I would rather be ruled by one mighty Lion than by a hundred rats of my own kind" I hope I did not mangle him too much. I suspect that Voltire trust the power of a King more easily than the nervous fearfull rats about him. I greatly enjoy Voltaire but he was no devottee of democracy, For that matter neither was Socrates or Plato.All dreaded the consequences of fearful populations making hasty decisions. Essential to enlightenment is discussion. Perhaps discussion is also a direct threat to those that believe control is meaningful. One can see that the belief that power suppresses fear is a failure as it was imaginary in the first place, the fear keeps escalating and the demand for power keeps rising until everyone is innured and death seems desirable . No amount of power can deter a man already spiritually dead. Power does not corrupt as much as it obliterates even annihilates the landscape. I regret that once someone believes that power is the solution to their problems that they create a scenario that inevitably leads to violent confrontation. The quest for more and more power forces others to surrender or die fighting. Beleiving in power is to create War. Stalin and Beria as well as Dershinski understood that for power to be effective it had to be applied intermitantly and dramatically. The NKVD studied terror and realized that too much would eventually negate the control over the subject. The nightime knock on the door was a holdover fom Tsarist days. So power politics was a fine line between small hope and absolute terror. I suspect that mass media has created a miserable mess of frightened groups. I am amused at the prevalence of doomsday video material. Historically this silly phenomenon has occurred every time the calender years took on some unusual pattern. It was funny when the Julian and Gregorian calender were present across arbitrary boundaries. I guess the doomsday cults somewhat confused on which date the world would end. In that scenario the power to control the fears of others was very profitable. Papal indulgences were just another great scheme to convert fear of the after life into wealth and power. Martin Luther and his rants just upset established business patterns. Fear has always been good for business and politics. In some manner or another fear is what shapes society. Fear of others makes us trust those most like us ( Hence Bernie Madoff's affinity scams ). We shoud ask Baby Doc DuValier, Idi Amin, Manuel Noreiga and Bernie Madoff about their opinions regarding power. You guys can argue or discuss where power is moving when personally I don't think it exists but for specific events , the real issue is where all the Fear is coming from? Let's see how adding fear to the discussion changes our focus. "The fear of Peasants can overwhelm the might of Kings" . My words but probably inspired by Sun Tzu. I have started enjoying Irish Stout and recommend it for the digestion. 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 16, 2010 7:59 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress Nick - > > re: argument vs discussion > Perhaps we should "rethread" again. Owen is our strongest advocate for thread hygiene, I will defer to his opinion, if this is enough of a discursion to warrant re-threading. > Point taken. I guess the distinction between the two is that in an > argument, each protagonist knows in advance where he hopes to come out, > whereas in a true discussion, nobody knows where they are going to come > out. Precisely. Well stated. I was not poking at you with this disctinction by the way... I was poking at precisely what you elaborate nicely below... > I like to be a realist, as you know, I've seen you on both sides of this one, but I acknowledge your capacity and interest in such ;) > and I think people mostly argue, in > the sense that their highest motive is to protect their own minds against > having to change. I agree that this is a common experience around argument... one I've often succumbed to myself. > Changing one's mind on anything important is HARD, NASTY > work, and we all resist it. However, the moment AFTER we have changed our > minds, when we suddenly see the world in a different light and some things > fall into place that didn't before, is like a revelation. It's almost > sexy. Definitely a bifurcation, here. > You have nailed something very important here. It *can be* hard, nasty work. It can also be glorious, freeing work. As I have aged, I have gone through phases of more or less receptivity. An Annealing Schedule perhaps, for the machine learning types here. The times when I had come to a point in my well-earned opinions were no longer serving me so well, and I found a new paradigm or a new mentor (too often by reading, not in-person) I was astounded at the shifts in world-view possible, and the rewards in them. Once the tectonic plates of my crustal mind gave up their stress and found a new configuration, there was a period of wonderful self-awareness and adventure in coming to understand the new landscapes of my mind. Then the ambiguities, contradictions and such would begin to build again, leaving me to stubbornly ignore other's differing opinions and advice and to choose arguement over discussion for the reasons you give above. And then another shift would take place. A few times, my massive missives here represent some kind of "come to realize" that the discussions here have spurred in me. I'm not sure I always give credit to the numerous folks here who have helped to lead me out of my stubbornness... the nature of this forum is that I can listen (lurk) a lot and only chime in when I have a "come to realize", often pretending that I perhaps "knew this all along". Not that I don't sometimes chime in arbitrarily with low quality signal/noise. > The trouble with calling these things "discussions" is that it allows us to > pretend to ourselves that our deepest selfprotective instincts are not > engaged, whenever we talk about something important. There is nothing > worse than arguing with somebody who is pretending to be (or worse, > actually is) disaffected. > Sophists should be shot! This is why I carry a soda straw in my pocket... you can most always find a bit of paper to chew on and make a glorious spitwad. One good puff and the Sophist is rewarded for his or her disaffected style! This perhaps is one reason I don't attend FRIAM often (a question left to the reader as to whether I don't want to be faced with smacking some of you with spitwads, or fearing that one of you will take the same tactic with me). All arguments are more fun when they involve appropriately benign but irritating projectiles. Just go watch the monkeys in the zoo. - 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
