Power

[atanu]

So, I've been meaning to post this pretty much since I signed up for the forum but I am shy when it comes to speaking openly about my core beliefs. To allow scrutiny of a belief is to make that belief vulnerable to destruction. In a vast majority of cases I welcome this, as it is a goal of mine to arrive at the most proper conclusions that I can manage but I try to take special care of the most core beliefs despite my awareness of how hypocritical that is.

Anyway, without further adieu... Power, and my pseudo-philosophical blathering about it.

First, to define power. What I mean when I say, "Power." is the ability to control reality. This incorporates power such us electricity and gasoline which we use to provide comfort and utility to our lives, as well as things like knowledge and political power that we use to manipulate each other and our environment. All of these things enable each of us to manipulate reality into the reality that we want it to be as opposed to the reality that IS. Thus, each of these things is a form of power.

What I believe about life (and that's us and the other animals and even plants, too) is that regardless of each individual desire that leads to an exertion of power, every desire can additionally be reduced to an acquisition of more power, or at the very least a preservation of power already acquired. Because of this, I believe this is actually the very purpose of life. I believe that everything we do is in furtherance of this underlying goal, regardless of how we dress it up.

Now, what I realize is that a vast majority of human beings are not operating on this equation (I am switching to humans exclusively at this point since I don't really know the minds of slugs or parsnips). What we operate on is our desires. We want a thing, we get a thing. But I believe that under that desire and encompassing that desire is the ultimate desire for power. A greater manipulation of reality than previously held. This is why we want a better job, a nicer house, a bigger TV, a bigger family, more friends, public awareness, greater knowledge, greater understanding, or whatever it is that we want. It's always to get more power or to keep the power we already have.

I want to note at this point that we do not necessarily gain power for ourselves by our actions, but even granting power to others is truly an attempt to grant more power to ourselves. Its a concession. We allow our fellow humans and enable our fellow humans to gain power because this, in turn, gains power or preserves power for ourselves. More for them is not a concern. Any for us is. The most for us is. The most powerful outcome is what we desire.

Additionally, I believe that morality can be defined by examining this transfer of power. I believe that a person that works to increase power is moral and one that works to decrease power is immoral. We grant our power to those that lead us, and we expect to be rewarded with more power in return. And we are. And those that do not deliver are those we consider immoral. Those that exploit our power to their personal ends with no regard for our collective power are those we consider immoral. A person that gains power for themselves at the expense of the collective have really lost power for themselves as their power is derived from us to begin with. They would gain more by enabling the collective. I believe that this is as close to objective morality as we will ever get.

In conclusion, I arrived at this particular belief some time ago, and have been operating on it since. I think that the course of my life has been profoundly impacted by my recognition of this belief and that impact has been overwhelmingly positive. I find that examining the actions and words of my fellow humans through the filter of their desire for power enables me to not only afford myself the very same desired power, but also enables me to enable them towards the same.

So that's as smart as I get, I suppose. Feel free to beat me up over this. That's sort of the point, after all.

Sir Doom

You may wish to review McClelland's 3 Needs Theory.

McClelland

-------------------------------

Yet, Power, Affilation, or Achievement are dry words, unless these fulfill some basic fundamental pscychological need of the self. What is that?

 

[atanu]

And further:

The Will to Power of Neitzsche (which is a modification of "World as Will" of Schopenhauer).

Will to power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[crossfire]

Sir Doom, you have made the link between desire, control, and power. Controlling your desires would then be more sublime than any exterior show of strength, no?

Some have mentioned Taoism in this thread. Here are a couple of relevant snipplets from the Tao Te Ching:

Regarding the "perfection of earth" mentioned early in this thread, connected to "perfection of self."
Chapter 7

Heaven and Earth are everlasting
The reason Heaven and Earth can last forever
Is that they do not exist for themselves
Thus they can last forever

Therefore the sages:
Place themselves last but end up in front
Are outside of themselves and yet survive
Is it not due to their selflessness?
That is how they can achieve their own goals

The difference between strength and power:

Tao Te Ching 33

Those who understand others are intelligent
Those who understand themselves are enlightened

Those who overcome others have strength
Those who overcome themselves are powerful​

 

[savagewind]

Do you mean to say you cannot imagine someone philosophically reducing life to just one thing?

Yes,that is correct. Do you have an example of anyone who you know that is or has been like that?

Scientists keep discovering smaller and smaller particles that make up life so on a physical level it is not possible.

How is it possible to do it on a psyche level? Like I said everyone needs to eat and sleep. If someone has made just one thing their goal, let's say winning, without concern for anything else (one thing) he would not live. So anything whether it be power, winning, righteousness, control or anything it must be paired with living. I will concede to you half way and say someone can reduce life to only two things. And many have probably done that.

Let's say there are many souls that have reduced life to living. That is one thing so let's just say you won. Congratulations. :foryou:

 

[outis]

Scientists keep discovering smaller and smaller particles that make up life so on a physical level it is not possible.

And they also strive to subsume all these things under a single explanation.
Since we're quoting ancient scribblings, "the One generates the Two, the Two generate the Three, the Three generate the ten thousand things".

How is it possible to do it on a psyche level? Like I said everyone needs to eat and sleep. If someone has made just one thing their goal, let's say winning

See, there are people who figure eating, sleeping and such are easy once you've won. They're afraid of loosing because they see people who have lost and who are denied a decent place to sleep and decent food (among other things).
If you've not been treated too badly during your life and you haven't lived around paranoid, selfish and hateful people (California ueber alles!), your outlook may differ.

 

[savagewind]

If you've not been treated too badly during your life and you haven't lived around paranoid, selfish and hateful people (California ueber alles!), your outlook may differ.

I have been treated badly.

I think people are grouchy because they do not feel good. They look around and come to the conclusion it may not be possible to feel good.

They're afraid of losing

They are ueber alles* because they are fearful, disappointed, or some other bad thing. I don't think it's because they are selfish. Fearful does not equal selfish.


*good new word, thanks- must spread frubals around before fruballing you again

ps I think I'm still on topic. Whadaya think, am I?

 

[outis]

ueber alles*
*good new word, thanks

Do listen to the Dead Kennedys song while you're at it.
It was in turn a reference to Germany's embarassing national anthem.

ps I think I'm still on topic. Whadaya think, am I?

We expand the scope of the topic by exercising our vital power along lines of... uh, maybe not.

 

[Straw Dog]

What I believe is that personal gratification and pleasure are arrived at through a manipulation of reality. It is power that enables this to happen. The things that people value are vehicles for power. All of the things you listed are exactly that.

So the power to manipulate reality is only a means toward personal gratification and pleasure as well as other values? Let me approach this from a different angle to clarify.

I consider there to be four primary approaches to seeking happiness. There's the will to pleasure, the will to meaning, the will to engagement, and the will to victory (power). All four wills are latent in human beings, but one or two of them always tend to be stronger than the others within any given individual.

Perhaps people driven by the will to victory tend to view reality more in terms of competition and power struggles. Others may view things in terms of basic pleasures, skillful flow, or meaningful relationships and goals depending on their predominant will. We don't have to say any approach is more true than the others because they all describe different overlapping methods used by different people under the general will to well-being.

Which wills are most conducive to lasting happiness and contentment? Well, that's a much longer and more in-depth discussion, but perhaps one worth having.

 

[Sir Doom]

In this case, "IT" refers to your thinking, not to your person. It is a subtle, but important, difference. If one over-identifies with one's thinking, I could see how such a human animal might take the comment personally. Frankly, I thought I was being generous.

More condescension. What a sad, sorry individual I am for 'over-identifying' with my own thoughts. Pity me.

In fairness however, you are unaware of my thoughts covered in the original point by point break down that I wrote, but decided to scrap. Given what has followed over my gentle rebuke, one might surmise your spontaneous combustion over that original effort.

You don't get it. I would have been THRILLED to read a point by point breakdown of why you disagree with what I wrote. Even laden with sarcasm and condescension, at least I could have focused on what you actually disagree with and mustered some sort of response if it was necessary. Instead you gave me nothing but condescension. What exactly did you expect me to do with your post? You didn't give me anywhere to go. You just said I was... Sorry, my thinking was unimpressive and that it could only be the product of some psychological damage. You didn't even mention why you thought that this was the case. You just judged and dismissed.

The difference is that I'm not wearing rose coloured glasses that colour my every action as being a pursuit of power. I understand how things could have the illusion of being just so, but sadly, it's not a Kool-Aid I'm willing to gulp.

Its not that sad, really.

Even though we have banded together in clans, from the time of our inception, because we felt strength in numbers, because alone, we felt somewhat powerless... against a world that didn't seem to care if we lived or died. We didn't do that well documented little shtick to accrue personal power, we did it to survive, to overcome our sense of powerlessness against much stronger forces (nature itself). To this day, people are not pursuing power, they are still striving to survive. Over time, needs change, but it's about survival, not power. You only come into power when you have mastered survival.

So we felt powerless against nature but we wanted to survive, so we banded together which made us stronger (not more powerful, just stronger right?) which allowed us to survive despite the greater power of nature. This is of course not a pursuit of power and only a pursuit of survival. Power is pursued and obtain all the same, but it's not the point. Is that your position?

Oh, and for the record, it's not about feeling powerless, it's about not recognizing feelings of powerlessness. There is a huge difference. If one truly feels powerless they are at the cusp of change. They recognize their powerlessness and can choose to act. The problem begins when they do not recognize an underlying sense of powerlessness. Clearer?

Wow, this is just silly. I'll play along though it's fairly entertaining.

So, when a person literally feels powerless and chooses to act, do their actions ever resemble the acquisition of the power they feel they lack? Or should they just do something else instead? Something that somehow gains them no power at all?

Alternatively, when a person feels a feeling of powerlessness that they do not recognize as a feeling of powerlessness, what is/are the problem(s) that begin?

Additionally, when a person feels a feeling of powerlessness that they feel is not a feeling of powerlessness but rather some other feeling they are feeling how does one then go about recognizing that the feeling they are feeling is a feeling of powerlessness?

And should they then, upon recognition of this feeling of powerlessness acquire the power they now feel they lack?

Hi, Sir Doom. Your perspective made for interesting reading. I can't imagine your conclusions are going to sit very well for many people. Particularly philosophically inclined people.

Yeah, that seems pretty clear at this point. I regret posting this already. I should have just stayed the course mentioning this particular idea in reference to other people's topics. It always makes much more sense in context.

I think much of the criticism stems from your choice of the word / concept "power" to describe the main preoccupation of life in general. I think you are redefining "power" a little too much for the purpose of squeezing everything in for your philosophy to be clearly communicated. What power does a turnip have to manipulate reality? All we have in common with a turnip is an unavoidable compulsion to pass on our genes. The words manipulate and power both strongly imply an effective exercise of will, and the vast majority of living things have none to exercise. Even humans do not seem capable of effectively exercising their will, most of the time. Ask any smoker how often she has tried to quit.

Yeah, I did mean to include a bit about failure since that's obviously pretty common. I honestly don't think success is even a real possibility considering how unlike reality our imagination often is. Our plans come to fruition in a 'good enough' or 'not good enough' sort of way in my experience. It's never really complete success or complete failure.

I do like to think of turnips as having a will of sorts, but that is a bit further into the metaphysical than I was really intending to go with this thread. It's obviously impossible for me to demonstrate that a turnip has any desires whatsoever.

Also, power has very negative connotations for most people, so you're kind of setting yourself up for a fall by basing a system of morality on it.

Yeah, that's a fair evaluation. I can't say I didn't expect a bit of natural resistance to the idea due to the overwhelming examples of people with lots of power being the picture-perfect examples of immorality. I thought I explained it well enough to alleviate these misgivings. So much for plans, again.

The bright side is that it's just a word. If you pull out a thesaurus and find something more palatable, like "energy", you could be the next Eckhart Tolle.

Haha, I have no such lofty designs. I am merely a humble internet junky. He does often use the word power, though

And further:

The Will to Power of Neitzsche (which is a modification of "World as Will" of Schopenhauer).

Will to power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have been meaning to read more of his works. I have often been told that I should. I did like what I read on the wiki link you provided and it seems very close to what I'm talking about. Of course I can't have an original thought! Damn that Neitzsche and his predated birthday! Haha, thank you for the link.

Sir Doom, you have made the link between desire, control, and power. Controlling your desires would then be more sublime than any exterior show of strength, no?

I would have to agree. A show of strength is a single act compared to controlling one's desires which is a constant process. A show of strength means nothing if it does not achieve your desires. And even if it achieves an immediate desire, it may ruin a further one. Without control of one's desires, how could we know?

Some have mentioned Taoism in this thread. Here are a couple of relevant snipplets from the Tao Te Ching:

Regarding the "perfection of earth" mentioned early in this thread, connected to "perfection of self."
Chapter 7

Heaven and Earth are everlasting
The reason Heaven and Earth can last forever
Is that they do not exist for themselves
Thus they can last forever

Therefore the sages:
Place themselves last but end up in front
Are outside of themselves and yet survive
Is it not due to their selflessness?
That is how they can achieve their own goals

I wonder if the sages anticipated that their goals would be achieved through selflessness?

The difference between strength and power:

Tao Te Ching 33

Those who understand others are intelligent
Those who understand themselves are enlightened

Those who overcome others have strength
Those who overcome themselves are powerful

I don't really agree with this distinction between strength and power, but that's just a terminology issue. I agree with the spirit of it, I think.

I know that I myself would not be nearly as powerful as I am if it were not for the control I exercise over myself. The fleeting thoughts of desire for immediate gratification are easily discarded in favor of long-term and far more rewarding goals. If I acted on every impulse that popped in my head, I'd likely be dead or worse. This is not to say that I do not surrender to certain aspects of who I am.

Comparing that to my interactions with others, I am far more concerned with how people view my actions than getting what I want from them. For example, I am unwilling to physically intimidate people in order to get my way, despite my ability to do so. This would be to discard the control I have over myself. I am not interested in being a thug or toughguy. I know how I feel about people that act that way, I can only expect the same from others if I acted that way. Being compromising, being friendly, being helpful, being trustworthy. These are the types of things that I desire to be and try my best to be. These are the things that inspire people to assist me in my goals. This IS a method of control, however. Its just a universally effective method as opposed to the dubiously fleeting method of beating people into submission. Why set out to steal what would be given freely otherwise?

 

[savagewind]

I do like to think of turnips as having a will of sorts, but that is a bit further into the metaphysical than I was really intending to go with this thread. It's obviously impossible for me to demonstrate that a turnip has any desires whatsoever.

I love this! I think it is so good it goes in the laugh bank.

 

[outis]

I have been meaning to read more of his works. I have often been told that I should.

Others believed that you already did.

 

[Koldo]

To whom is the world imperfect? Is the imperfect world apart from the perceiver's mind?

The same goes for:

To whom is the world perfect? Is the perfect world apart from the perceiver's mind?

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, that seems pretty clear at this point. I regret posting this already. I should have just stayed the course mentioning this particular idea in reference to other people's topics. It always makes much more sense in context.

Ah, never bother with regret. It gives away too much of your power.

Yeah, I did mean to include a bit about failure since that's obviously pretty common. I honestly don't think success is even a real possibility considering how unlike reality our imagination often is. Our plans come to fruition in a 'good enough' or 'not good enough' sort of way in my experience. It's never really complete success or complete failure.

Me quitting smoking so far has been a complete failure. I have poor impulse control. All the willpower of a turnip.

I do like to think of turnips as having a will of sorts, but that is a bit further into the metaphysical than I was really intending to go with this thread. It's obviously impossible for me to demonstrate that a turnip has any desires whatsoever.

Yeah, that's a fair evaluation. I can't say I didn't expect a bit of natural resistance to the idea due to the overwhelming examples of people with lots of power being the picture-perfect examples of immorality. I thought I explained it well enough to alleviate these misgivings. So much for plans, again.

I don't think it's a problem with your ideas, it's a problem with the words you used to communicate them. Power is just an incendiary term. We don't imagine anybody can exercise their own power without taking it from somebody or something else. Also, because "power corrupts", it seems counter-intuitive to most people to consider the accumulation of power "moral". All it needs to do is niggle a little, and people will find a reason to reject it.

Haha, I have no such lofty designs. I am merely a humble internet junky. He does often use the word power, though

Hehe - I wouldn't even know. I've only ever read one page. It wasn't for me. I just know there's a large market for such ideas.

 

[Sir Doom]

So the power to manipulate reality is only a means toward personal gratification and pleasure as well as other values? Let me approach this from a different angle to clarify.

I consider there to be four primary approaches to seeking happiness. There's the will to pleasure, the will to meaning, the will to engagement, and the will to victory (power). All four wills are latent in human beings, but one or two of them always tend to be stronger than the others within any given individual.

Perhaps people driven by the will to victory tend to view reality more in terms of competition and power struggles. Others may view things in terms of basic pleasures, skillful flow, or meaningful relationships and goals depending on their predominant will. We don't have to say any approach is more true than the others because they all describe different overlapping methods used by different people under the general will to well-being.

Which wills are most conducive to lasting happiness and contentment? Well, that's a much longer and more in-depth discussion, but perhaps one worth having.

The only real issue I have with this approach is that I am frequently in contact with people that seem to have no desire for happiness and contentment. For a mild example, I know a guy who is very much a hardcore, die hard, ultra-liberal Democrat. And yet, he spends a majority of his off-time watching Fox News and being extremely ****** off at it. I can only conclude from this that he is far more interested in being angry than happy. It's intentional and frequent. This is a leisure activity for him. Screaming at a Television as though it shot his dog. What's more, when he is not watching Fox, he is almost constantly recounting the arguments he had with the TV with nearly as much anger and contempt. I can't describe this as a pursuit of happiness and contentment. It seems very much the opposite to me.

Happiness and contentment are most definitely very common goals for humans, I certainly wouldn't deny that. But not for everyone. What I do see, is that people who want happiness acquire power. People who want pleasure acquire power. People who want meaning acquire power. People who want engagement acquire power. People who want victory acquire power. To me, if everyone is always acquiring power but not always pursuing the four wills you mention, then power must be the underlying goal and the four wills are our subjective notions of what sort of power is more... err... powerful.

 

[Sir Doom]

Others believed that you already did.

Haha, I have read about 1/4 of Beyond Good and Evil. That was more than a decade ago, though. Other than that, I've been subjected to many quotes (as I'm sure we all have) and he being a potent historical figure I can't help but know a bit about his philosophical positions. I am not what you might call 'well-read' or 'educated', though.

 

[Sir Doom]

Ah, never bother with regret. It gives away too much of your power.

Touche!

Me quitting smoking so far has been a complete failure. I have poor impulse control. All the willpower of a turnip.

Yeah, right there with ya. Despite my controlling-the-universe ambitions, I can't manage to shrug off an addiction I shackled myself with in my younger and stupider days. Ah, humility...

I don't think it's a problem with your ideas, it's a problem with the words you used to communicate them. Power is just an incendiary term. We don't imagine anybody can exercise their own power without taking it from somebody or something else. Also, because "power corrupts", it seems counter-intuitive to most people to consider the accumulation of power "moral". All it needs to do is niggle a little, and people will find a reason to reject it.

Yeah, its the same with manipulation. People read the word and immediately cringe thinking that I'm talking about the sort of malicious psychological manipulation that horrible people engage in. I intend to encompass that nonsense as well, but I really just mean it in "moving things around" sense.

Hehe - I wouldn't even know. I've only ever read one page. It wasn't for me. I just know there's a large market for such ideas.

Haha, yeah I don't read that kind of thing either. I just saw his latest book is 'the power of now' so I assume it's frequently included within.

I'm not really opposed to the concept of spirituality, I just don't find it that interesting or exciting.

 

[atanu]

Do you believe the whole world is as it should be atanu? If some of it is not as it should be, then why should someone not be motivated to change it?

Blessed are the merciful for they will receive mercy. Matthew 5:7

To whom is the world imperfect? Is the imperfect world apart from the perceiver's mind?

The same goes for:

To whom is the world perfect? Is the perfect world apart from the perceiver's mind?

The same does not apply to savagewind's question. Without context anything goes.

 

[WyattDerp]

The only real issue I have with this approach is that I am frequently in contact with people that seem to have no desire for happiness and contentment. For a mild example, I know a guy who is very much a hardcore, die hard, ultra-liberal Democrat. And yet, he spends a majority of his off-time watching Fox News and being extremely ****** off at it. I can only conclude from this that he is far more interested in being angry than happy. It's intentional and frequent. This is a leisure activity for him. Screaming at a Television as though it shot his dog. What's more, when he is not watching Fox, he is almost constantly recounting the arguments he had with the TV with nearly as much anger and contempt. I can't describe this as a pursuit of happiness and contentment. It seems very much the opposite to me.

Just because someone goes about it in a rather ineffective way doesn't mean they're not ultimately striving for happiness? Or, as Meister Eckhart said:

All creatures pursue God with their love, because nobody is so unfortunate that they would sin out evilness; they do it because of their desire. If one kills another, it is not to do something evil, it's because they think they will never find peace as long as the other is alive; therefore they want to seek pleasure in peace, because peace is happiness. In this way all creatures pursue God with their love, because God is love.

 

[Koldo]

The same does not apply to savagewind's question. Without context anything goes.

Can't we go further on the context?

1. The world is perfect as it is without help from ego-s.
2. Assuming that it is not, then who it is really that is motivated ? And why?

Those questions i made apply to #1 ( the bold text ).

 

[Sir Doom]

Just because someone goes about it in a rather ineffective way doesn't mean they're not ultimately striving for happiness? Or, as Meister Eckhart said:

So you are saying he is just somehow unaware of the impending anger that watching Fox news is about to cause him? You think he expects it to make him happy? You'll have to run that by me again.

All creatures pursue God with their love, because nobody is so unfortunate that they would sin out evilness; they do it because of their desire. If one kills another, it is not to do something evil, it's because they think they will never find peace as long as the other is alive; therefore they want to seek pleasure in peace, because peace is happiness. In this way all creatures pursue God with their love, because God is love.

EDIT: An obvious, bone-head mistake on my part has lead to a nonsensical response (can still be seen in quote form, if anyone is curious). So, I replace it with this one:

I don't believe that all creatures pursue God. I don't believe that God is love. I don't believe that peace leads to happiness in every case. I don't believe the pursuit of happiness or peace has anything to do with pursuing God through love. I pretty much don't agree with anything Meister Eckhart is saying here.