Vladimyr
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
Yes, in response to your distinction and emphasis and in deference to
the original posting sense of the term, I am speaking more to the "power
over other people" sense of the term. I do not, however, accede that
Power over the "natural world" is not suspect in a qualitatively similar
way, though there are many obvious differences. That discussion is
more about the hazards of "will" in general.
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).
I think that your definition is perhaps a good one... though in some
cases, I'm not sure quite where we find the "original intender".... I'll
think on it.
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.
I think I agree with this.
"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.
The lever and fulcrum and prime mover and the moved might very well be a
complex system... thus the "unintended consequences". If I accept that
they are *not* a complex system, in the sense that we know when we wield
our lever with absolute uncertainty, precisely everything that will come
of that wielding, then I think i agree that there is no corruption.
This of course tends to beg the question and puts me in my own corner
(biting my own ass, as it were) as I think this general definition
defines *all* action by sentient beings which leads me full circle back
to wanting to suppose that *all* willful acts are corruption. Which
admittedly is somewhat uninteresting (or maybe not?).
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 agree that this is the domain of Ethics, and I suppose that as long as
the rock exists in isolation and no (other) sentient beings will become
involved in it's disposition, then no Ethics are involved. In many
cases, this may be a fair simplification. BP, on the other hand, might
claim that the oil leak in the Gulf was merely an act involving rocks
and levers with a little surprise along the way. The people flipping
out over it probably even accepted (eagerly) BP's claim that what they
were up to in the gulf was merely a rock-lever game (convenient to all
of us who have our various uses for petroleum products and byproducts)
until, of course, the fulcrum broke and the lever bent and the rock went
flying off over the horizon to smack us in the back of the head.
I'll give the Irish whiskey a fair test next time I have the opportunity.
I just passed up a chance to douse my strawberries and shortcake with a
shot of the Irish Whiskey... reading this I might just go downstairs and
remedy that.
Cheers!
- 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
