My answer to Nick didn't make it to the whole group. I agreed with everything
he said. Now Steve's post really has started me thinking: the "power is
corruption" is starting to resonate with me. Also the "power of not being
there".
I think there is something really, really important in what Steve is saying.
There is a tension in the power equation. The Aikido metaphor is an apt one.
Russ #3
On May 16, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Nick,
>
> Thanks for changing the thread and trying to lay the groundwork carefully
> here.
>> Russ,
>> It is my deepest belief that if our country is to survived, people who
>> disagree need to learn to argue with each other. You and I really disagree
>> on this one, so on my account, we are obligated to argue.
> I take a slight exception to your use of the term argue, but concede that
> many call "argument" what I call "discussion". I use argument to be
> entirely a device of rhetoric rather than of logic. I am interested in
> rhetoric (my own or others) only insomuch as can be a compelling method for
> constructing alternative hypothesis to consider logically.
>
> I therefore believe that when people disagree significantly on an important
> topic, they are bound to argue as an alternative to logical discussion, each
> simultaneously trying to persuade the other while maintaining self-persuasion
> in the face of what might very well be a persuasive alternative argument from
> the other.
>> On the other hand, I DON'T believe that others should unwillingly be a
>> party to such arguments, so I changed the thread.
> I'm relatively facile with e-mail and threads myself so I find it only a
> minor burden when threads get hijacked, but in the interest of clarity and
> thoughtfulness, I think you have done a good thing here.
>> We obviously agree that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts
>> absolutely. So, we are both made nervous when power starts to accumulate
>> in small numbers of hands And I bet we believe, both, that having power
>> leads to the accumulation of more of it. .And, we both seem to agree that
>> dangerous, irreversible accumulations of power are occuring in our society,
>> right now?
>>
> I would "argue" that power *is* corruption. "power" has a dualism which we
> seem often to ignore, where we use the term "personal power" as if it is the
> same thing as the power you are describing. We speak of our innate,
> inherent ability to make decisions and take action as "power" and we then
> notice that we grant others the right or ability to persuade (or intimidate)
> us in our decisions and (therefore) actions. We call that "giving others our
> power" or more euphemistically, "asserting our power". I believe a
> qualitative thing happens at this point and "power" is not equal to "power"
> even though it seems to be the same thing. There is something alchemical
> that happens when we grant others the "use" of our personal "power".
>
> My point is, that all "dangerous, irreversible accumulations of power" are
> the consequence of this alchemical transformation which we all volunteer for
> at some level. What if they held a war and nobody came? What if labor
> simply refused to serve capital. What if capital simply refused to serve
> labor? What would Ghandi do? What if we could all stayed home and tended
> our gardens well?
>
> I believe the rhetoric of our modern political and social discourse is flawed
> to the core on the topic of "power". We treat it with the same reverence
> that we treate "emergence". Most of us aspire to power in some way at some
> time in our life, wanting to be "the boss of other people" in some way. Most
> of us benefit from the power that we inherit from the collective we have
> given over to. We are members of a class (many or most of us professional
> class) in a first world, nominally free-market, nominally democratic,
> nominally representative society/culture who benefits significantly from the
> labors and deference of the third world. We enjoy the use of their hands
> and their raw materials (minerals, fuels, plant products) in return for (at
> best) a modest taste of our lifestyle (pop culture, junk food, throw-away
> consumer-goods).
>> OK, so far? Where we seem to disagree is where the dangerous power is
>> accumulating in our society. I think it is in large corporations; you
>> think it is in governments. Still on board?
> I'm not Russ (any of them) but I want to hijack your argument at least a
> little bit, to remind us all that governments (superpowers or 2-bit
> temporary juntas) and corporations (large or small) are precisely creatures
> of collective power and that there is not a magic threshold where power
> starts to corrupt. There may be thresholds where we begin to notice, or we
> begin to be offended (or scared or obviously harmed) by the accumulations,
> but I submit that our conception of power is flawed and that Pogo said it all
> in "We have met the enemy, and they is us". We not only submit to these
> constructions/accumulations of power, we aspire to them, we cheer
> hysterically when our candidate wins, or the companies we invest in succeed
> in hostile takeovers or major deals to exploit (gently, cleanly, greenly of
> course) some newly recognized resource in some previously un(der)exploited
> region of the world.
> We think we "must" give over our power because in our vernacular, the only
> way to meet/blunt/turn/reject power is *with power*. Even when we seem to be
> taking our power back, we are being profligate and arbitrary. Power to the
> People! Black Power! Brown Power! White Power! GynoPower! PowWow Power! Pow
> Pow Pow!... Power! Back off, I'm a Scientist Power ("I can solve world
> hunger, I'll just turn them all to green glass!")!
> We have at least one Aikido practicioner on this list and I think there are
> critical perspectives to be offered by that practice on this topic relative
> to the many other martial arts. For those with an affinity for Jui Jitsu or
> Tae Kwon Do or Kung Fu Fighting (fast as lightning!) or Shotokan or ... you
> know how to use the opponent's power against herself, how to focus your
> power, how to apply your power most advantageously... or is there another
> way? What is the power of "not being there" when power is directed at you?
> Is there a different question to which these methods of managing/using power
> are not relevant?
>> Why don't I stop there, and see if you agree with this characterization of
>> our disagreement.
> Apologizing for adding a 3rd (and long-winded) voice to what might be a
> complicated enough argument (discussion), I submit that this discussion will
> be served by more clarity about power. The argument of who to blame (Gov't
> or Corp) for our powerlessness has some strong motivation (even for me who is
> trying to offer a different question) but it might be moot if we can ask (and
> answer) the more fundamental questions of how (and more key why) we give our
> power up so thoughtlessly (yet self-righteously and with utmost confidence in
> its effectiveness).
>
> As product consumers we throw our "buying power" around like there is no
> tomorrow... we seek the cheapest price or the "best value" (by some arcane
> measure or another) without (much if any) regard to the hidden (social,
> ecological, ... ) costs. As ideology consumers, we throw our "mind share"
> into the pool even more profiglately. We give over to "git er' done" and
> "hope and change" like sugar or caffiene or nicotine or crack cocaine. We
> demand little of our political candidates except a good PR department who can
> hand us sound-bites, photo-ops, and bumper stickers crafted for our
> degenerate palates. We leave our TV running 24/7 on Fox News (or PBS or BBC)
> and the programmed radio stations in our cars (and on our streaming internet
> radio) are set to various Right-Wing Shock-Talk Dipstick (Rush, Savage,
> O'Reilly, Imus ...) stations or alternatively to Pacifica or Air America or
> NPR and PRN and BBC. We know what we believe before we even start talking
> which we do before we start thinking which we do before we start listening
> which we do before we start observing which we do only grudgingly when we
> think we are bored because we have no TV or Radio or Newspaper or Blog (or
> Mail Discussion List) to focus on.
> What if we have this entirely backwards? What if we create (we are) our own
> oppressors (Gov't and Corp) only to rail at them (ourselves and each other,
> thinly disguised as "Them!") and use one as the excuse to dump our power
> (economic and political) into the other rather than take the excruciatingly
> simple yet difficult path of seeking to hold our own power close and use it
> wisely within the scope of our limited and frail human ability. Gov's and
> Corp's have no magic answers, they know nothing we do not, and are ignorant,
> unrighteous and unwise by their nature. We cannot construct a better Gov or
> Corp, we can at best, only mitigate their worst flaws, serving only to seduce
> us into believing in their wisdom and righteousness (again, some more,
> forever).
>
> It is always easier to rail (or rant) than it is to think which is always
> easier than to act with deep care. See *me* here ranting and railing and
> thinking. It is Sunday... perhaps I should go and act in my life with
> whatever care and perspective I can muster this day. (Isn't there a game on?
> Shouldn't I be going to church? Don't I need something at the mall? I'm
> sure I haven't checked all my favorite blogs yet! I need another cup of
> coffee, maybe a cigarette, or maybe even something juicier!)
>
> Carry On,
> - 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
