Hi John, Kevin and others
Sender: owner-lilasquad@venus.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lilasquad@moq.org
Topic:
"H.N.Brailsford has said "the crude issue of power... is always the
last of the realities that sensitive and reasonable men can bring
themselves to face".
What, if anything, does the Metaphysics of Quality have to say about
the realities of power. "
Thanks for two excellent posts so far, if this sets the standard for the
month there'll be a lot of good discussion - lots more to come I hope.
Power - exerted and experienced - as with most things is a matter of
degree.
>From an MOQ point of view, probably the most obvious examples are
at the Biological, Social and Intellectual levels although the means of
application and maintenance of power seem to embody the use of the
level below.
Intellect often uses the Social level and social systems to spread
beliefs and ideas, in order to dominate other belief systems etc. There
are a number of means of doing this: newspapers, magazines,
journals, Internet, film, television, discussion forums etc.
Social systems often use the Biological level to ensure compliance
with social custom and values - violence and imprisonment.
This isn't the whole story as there are other means by which
Intellectual and Social Value(s) are propagated and enforced. John
provides a good summary of Rollo May's five types of power:
Exploitative, Manipulative, Competitive, Nutrient and Integrative.
The first three can be seen as mainly destructive (taking) forces whilst
the latter two are more constructive (giving).
Their expression is often combinatorial and, in my opinion, it is not
always easy to differentiaite between one and another - often when the
same or similar ends are to be achieved.
Exploitative and manipulative power are often used to achieve the
same ends with one reinforcing the other. Often seen at the Social
level to achieve conformity of behaviour, belief and action.
Competitive power is expressed most often as self-oriented. Deciding
as to whether this is good or bad is difficult as it is extremely
contextual as a gain for one is generally loss for another. Can be seen
at Bio/Soc/Int levels to gain individual advantage. Once sufficient
advantage is attained there often tends to be the need to apply
manipulative or exploitative power to maintain that advantage.
Nutrient and Integrative power would be seen as mainly constructive
or altruistic.
I agree with John that we all use power to a greater or lesser extent
but there are some instances that John provides that I think are
mistaken.
[John] ...while power can be abused, it is our lack of power which
creates violence and aggression...
This is partly correct but is also the need to maintain power which can
foster violence and aggression. The Catholic church in the middle
ages was fairly well known for its' violent (physical and psychological)
tendencies, but certainly didn't lack power. The desire for power will
often lead to violence and aggression.
I think it's reasonable to equate the more destructive forms of power
with control of others and the more constructive with control of self.
Also as we ascend the levels of the MOQ the form of power for control
of others generally becomes more covert. The subtleties of the power
of intellectual control becoming most apparent in the forms of
propaganda used to influence peoples beliefs as they become more
sophisticated.
[John] It is not power that corrupts, but in the words of Edgar
Friedenberg "All weakness tends to corrupt, and impotence corrupts
absolutely."
True, the impotent person, who _also_ desires power is most easily
corrupted, but it is also a major goal of those with power to cause
others to feel impotent. This is part of the reasoning behind the divide
and conquer principle.
[John] "While it is utopian to try to divorce power completely from
force, compulsion and coercion, it is cynical to identify all kinds of
power with them."
Yes, I agree with this. Even those forms of power generally regarded
as destructive can be constructive in the right circunstances.
Biological evolution is a prime example of this.
On 29 Mar 99, at 15:16, Kevin Sanchez wrote:
Is knowledge power?
>
> The French postmodern, Michel Foucault, would answer yes. He
> says that knowledge is used to further the interests of the powerful
> and constitutes a power in itself. Intellectuals work with the
> oppressive forces of society or attempt to oppressive others.
It is not always the case. However it is often the case that intellectuals
have access to influential media and will use that to suppress ideas
that they consider damaging. Knowledge in itself is not power but may
provide the means.
> In Pirsig's terminology, intellectuals either support the domination
> of the social level of static quality or uphold the domination of the
> intellectual level. To Foucault, either remains oppressive. Is
> knowledge used only to gain power over others?
It's more subtle than that. Greater knowledge often provides for a more
accurate view of the world (to the viewer). In order to further that view
the old view must be defeated or diminished in potency - vis-a-vis
MOQ and SOM. Pirsig's aim, I presume, in writing and publishing Lila
was to influence others in order to promote the MOQ as better than
SOM. The gain of influence is not necessarily for the originator but for
the idea itself.
> My initial response was no; the intellectual level is not just another
> instrument of the social level. That seems absurd. How could one
> individual named Copernicus change society if he only wished to
> increase his power? He put himself at great social risk and still
> attacked society - he didn't uphold it.
As I've said earlier in this post, it is more often than not the
Intellectual level that utilizes the social level for its' own purposes -
sometimes to dominate society and sometimes to dominate other
intellectual value. What needs to be seen is that the 'right' or 'better'
idea dominates. But how does one assess with confidence what is
better. Copernicus believed that his view was of greater value than the
current view and was prepared to risk his own safety for his beliefs.
Which of the May's five types of power does this equate to and is it
entirely clear cut.
Horse
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:40 GMT