----- Original Message ----- From: <billbartlett at dodo.com.au> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 7:56 AM Subject: Re: power
> At 11:26 AM -0800 8/12/02, Ian Murray wrote:
>
> >Again the issue is one of defining power in such a way that it
dissipates it's role in
> >explaining human interaction. If I can define love as power, what
human capability can I
> >not describe in terms of power? The issue was whether love
relationships manifest the
> >absence of power-over and render the capability of explaining love in
terms of power-over
> >somewhat silly if the participants in the relationship interpret
their behaviour vis a vis
> >each without recourse to power in the sense of power-over.
>
> The distinction you make between power-to and power-over seems like
nonsense to me.
>
> How is love as a source of power any different from consent as a form
of power? Given that in a democracy, state power is rooted in consent.
The difference seems to be that, if the love you have for someone is the
source of their power over you, the power they have to command you, then
you as an individual can cut off that power. Since you as an individual
is the source of that power.
>
> In a democratic political state, the people as a whole are the source
of the power. They have given it, or at least allowed it to be taken.
Again they can, collectively, withdraw remove that power.
>
> But in the meantime, the power of the state over citizens is none the
less real merely because the source of the power is the voluntary
consent of those over whom the power is exercised.
>
> The same applies to power derived from the love of those over whom the
power is exercised.
>
> >
> >And you are conflating power-to with power-over and not recognizing
the distinction of
> >using power as a term to define and power as a term of explanation.
>
> Perhaps. You will have to give me a more convincing explanation as to
why I should recognise the relevance of such a distinction.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
===================
Why should I when you give no hint as to what criteria of assent or confirmation on your part would suffice to show that you were conflating definition and explanation. Love=Power=Democracy is even sillier than the standard taxonomic distinction that commonly starts off discussions of power.
Ian