Definition of Power


Dglgmut

Recommended Posts

On 8/15/2020 at 6:01 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I first saw this video on power ages ago and it is still one of my favorites.

The thing that's interesting about the key supporters is that basically they are just the rank below on the social hierarchy, and to be above them is to represent them, while at the same time the standard for achieving rank is variable depending on the rank, and the ranks in between hold the structure together.

 

Meaning this: if you took only the bottom and top ranks of the hierarchy, the people at the top would not remain on top. Whatever it took for them to rise above the rank 2nd to the top is not the same thing required to raise to the 2nd from the bottom. By achieving representative status, or partial domination, of any rank in the hierarchy, you also derive from them the representation of the lower ranks.

 

This says something about the social experiments referenced above, as the disconnect between these nonadjacent ranks evokes a sense of arbitrariness in the conception of social hierarchies in a way that cannot be natural. From the family to the tribe, is more or less what is naturally accepted by us in terms of human authority. In the Western world, we have the authority of the family, which is challenged by the teachings of the public school, which is supported by the inherently violent state. There is no rationality in the hierarchy, and so the idea of "power" is disconnected from the idea of "responsibility" or "duty." Responsibility and duty are then delegated to those with less power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D,

You are starting to see it, but seem to be stuck on incomplete aspects of the individual re power, which leads you to misidentify certain things (like calling the state inherently violent as if being a villain that were the extent of its nature).

Here is a reality:

There is no power among human beings without groups.

By saying "other humans" and power, you are already saying a potential (or real) group.

Power over oneself and power over reality to achieve things are of the same nature. They are not the same thing as power over other humans. The word "power" is the same. The reality is totally different.

And that's where the fundamental choice in exercising power over others comes in.

You either rule over other humans as an end in itself, or you rule over them for specific projects within delimited boundaries as an extension of your power over yourself and reality. You either demand others obey you as an end in itself because you wish to take the part of Nature to them, or you appeal to their own power over themselves and over nature to contribute to a productive project you control.

Once you can see that clearly, you begin to see that humans bounce back and forth between those frames within groups. For example, a boss can be extremely competent and productive and inspire the best in his employees, but he can also be a petty control freak at times.

And then it occurs to you that hierarchy at a nation level is not hierarchy of individuals within a specific number of levels like a caste system. It is true that there are hierarchies of individuals in a nation--after all, there is only one president or fearless leader (and the video was about how to become and stay top dog). There are also other fundamental individuals who exist within a hierarchy to each other within a nation. But a nation is mostly a hierarchy of groups (each with a top dog), and each group has its own hierarchies of groups and individuals, and those groups have their own hierarchies of groups and individuals, and so on.

This is an organizing fractal that is embedded in human nature.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And then it occurs to you that hierarchy at a nation level is not hierarchy of individuals within a specific number of levels like a caste system. It is true that there are hierarchies of individuals in a nation--after all, there is only one president or fearless leader (and the video was about how to become and stay top dog). There are also other fundamental individuals who exist within a hierarchy to each other within a nation. But a nation is mostly a hierarchy of groups (each with a top dog), and each group has its own hierarchies of groups and individuals, and those groups have their own hierarchies of groups and individuals, and so on.

This is an organizing fractal that is embedded in human nature.

Ok, I think agree with this. Are you saying that the natural social dynamics of tribe-sized groups persist even within an unnatural societal framework, in that even though the actual "tribe" is now unmanageably large, the tribe member roles are still assigned subconsciously?

 

Even if you're not, the idea that we naturally form groups about the size of prehistoric tribes sounds reasonable... and that those groups compete for status in a hierarchy. The idea of hierarchies of groups is interesting because it wouldn't have any evolutionary roots. If this is something we naturally do it would probably be coincidental. I don't know. Maybe there's some research on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dglgmut said:

The idea of group hierarchies is interesting because it wouldn't have any evolutionary roots.

D,

This is false.

The roots are nothing but evolutionary.

And, yes, there is plenty of research on this.

(I suggest you start with Howard Bloom. but there is a ton of literature out there on it.)

Incidentally, it's fashionable to use the word tribe a lot as a stand-in for human groups. I don't care much for the term.

A human group can be a family, a neighborhood, a pair of twins growing up, an Army division, a volleyball team, a Mom and Pop country store, a nation, a Rick Astley fan club, a symphony orchestra, a bank, a high school clique of the cool kids, the high school itself, the teachers in the high school, and on and on. And, yes, a tribe of indigenous people. 

All of these make up a nation. Granted, a pair of twins cannot be physically made up of smaller groups, but when each twin starts growing up, he or she will cultivate a series of influences from a lot of different people and some of these influences can become so united by characteristics and so intense, they can be considered a kind of virtual or mental group. Each human being carries a bunch of these virtual/mental groups within themselves.

In fact, these virtual/mental groups are generally the ones that teach individuals learned helplessness, instruct the individual's moral code, give the individuals courage in hopeless situations, etc.

Volition (the true source of individual power over himself and over reality) sits on top of all this, not as a replacement for it.

We actually evolved this way.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By tribe I mean the total society that a prehistoric human lived in. Like I said before, 150-250 people (the estimate I've always seen). So there would be no evolutionary roots in terms of hierarchies of tribes. Tribes would go to war with each other, but they wouldn't coexist within hierarchies, as far as I understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

By tribe I mean the total society that a prehistoric human lived in. Like I said before, 150-250 people (the estimate I've always seen).

I remember an article in a science magazine about the last of the Neanderthals. Humans competed and went to war with them and the Neanderthals over a period of centuries,  retreated en masse to a region on the northern Mediterranean Sea where the last thousands of their survivors lived in a group /  territory. And there they died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

By tribe I mean the total society that a prehistoric human lived in. Like I said before, 150-250 people (the estimate I've always seen). So there would be no evolutionary roots in terms of hierarchies of tribes. Tribes would go to war with each other, but they wouldn't coexist within hierarchies, as far as I understand.

D,

Be careful with presuppositions.

It's very easy to isolate something, then stay within the isolated parameters when looking at a larger picture.

For instance, whoever said large societies are not another step in human evolution?

And if it is, it has roots. 

Also, whoever said small prehistoric tribes never cooperated with each other? 

When looking at things like evolution, the best system is to observe as much as possible what happened, then draw conclusions. A not so good system is to draw conclusions, then fit what happened into those conclusions while ignoring what doesn't fit.

I keep mentioning Howard Bloom. If you want a really good discussion of all this, read The Global Brain by him. It's an easy read and he will get you to see things that, once seen, you can't unsee them, especially in discussions like this.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

read The Global Brain by him.

Ok. I don't know the ins and outs of human evolution, just some popular theories.

 

I still think we are in uncharted territory, and civilizations of their current scales have not had time to make any significant changes to our nature; especially when you consider the reduction in factors contributing to natural selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me what you are made of ...

22 hours ago, The Unabashed Pragmatic said:

if Drumpf would wise up and stop catering to his Jooz

OK. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D,

Was it with you? I mean someone you knew or a friend of yours?

I remember a new poster (seemed young) who commented on a video about something or other and was using really thick SJW jargon. And I asked about what video, then the poster was good enough to provide it. I thanked the poster, said I would watch the video, come back and comment after I saw it, then I promptly forgot the whole thing.

:)

Do you remember this? It came to mind the other day, but every time sat down in front of the computer, it fled my mind.

This time I remembered it, so I'm asking.

If this was not you, then to anyone reading this: if you remember, I would appreciate letting me know where this happened.

I feel bad about seeming to slight someone. That was not my intention.

Thanks.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Looking at the title of this thread, for those who are interested in power structures, here is a great definition-by-metaphor of power.

 

image.png

I never thought the board game Monopoly would ever be so relevant to modern-day real life.

How is it relevant, you ask?

Easy. The board game rules are included verbatim in the charter documents of central banks all across the world. And that includes the Federal Reserve.

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1
  • Smile 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Marc said:

Get vaxxed

Pay $2000

Pass Go

Listen to us.

You will have nothing and be happy 

Fuck man, I’m fully vaxxed and I STILL have to get covid tests as a pre-job requirement depending on the client.  Serious pain in the ass.

  • Smile 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

Fuck man, I’m fully vaxxed and I STILL have to get covid tests as a pre-job requirement depending on the client.  Serious pain in the ass.

As you should (not really, nobody should because the tests don't detect for the disease or even the virus), vaxxed people are getting COVID all over the place. Victoria, Australia reported the other day that 78% of their hospitalizations were fully vaxxed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the definition of power... I don't know the definition, but the root of power is loyalty. Loyalty is essentially a transference of agency. That can be used for good or evil.

 

The power we see today is more complicated because what people are loyal to is a system, or an ideology, rather than a person. That system is democracy/leftism/equality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently saw a story , sorry no links at hand , about a doctor from Alberta and a kerfuffle with the AHS. Apparently he claimed the AHS was overstating the wuflu compromising health services and availability, he laid blame on cuts in services and staffing that have been in the making for at least the last five years or more. 

Does that story have any traction in Alberta ?  Or fake news ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tmj said:

I recently saw a story , sorry no links at hand , about a doctor from Alberta and a kerfuffle with the AHS.

Does this name ring a bell? -- Dr. Gary Davidson.

3 hours ago, tmj said:

he laid blame on cuts in services and staffing that have been in the making for at least the last five years or more.

This sounds like a good beef in itself.

3 hours ago, tmj said:

Does that story have any traction in Alberta ?  Or fake news ?

If it's Davidson, you should be able to find some commentary and a few stories. Premier Kenney is not making a lot of new friends this week ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

Well here in Alberta over 90% of hospitalizations are unvaxxed…

Maybe. It's hard to believe data when the incentives are all on one side.

When data comes out that contradicts the narrative, you can be pretty damn sure it's legitimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dglgmut said:
8 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

Fuck man, I’m fully vaxxed and I STILL have to get covid tests as a pre-job requirement depending on the client. 

As you should (not really, nobody should because the tests don't detect for the disease or even the virus)

Are you saying there is no reliable means to test for the presence of the virus that causes COVID-19?

4 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

Victoria, Australia reported the other day that 78% of their hospitalizations were fully vaxxed.

How many deaths are reported in Victoria may be a useful question. But where did you see this information shared?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now