A word or two on the illusions of power. The first thing that comes to mind is how common it is to hear people reject the notion that all social ties are binding no matter with whom and why. On closer examination, however, one can easily find at least a small dose of truth in the statement- in hating one is controlled by the object of hate, in loving by love, in jealousy by those that are envied, even in the wish to destroy the opponent has gained some control on his foe by the very manipulation the operation demands, and so one realizes the social tie is binding regardless of the nature its found in. But this is not at the heart of this thread however, so I will only set it aside as a side issue. There is something in power, true power that is admirable. Nietzche (and I understand there are many of you out there who would brush off anyone referring to him. If this is you then this thread is clearly wasting your time and your participation here should stop at the parenthesis)…Nietzche wrote about the relationships between soliders and their generals being much healthier, much happier and fruitful than that between workers and their employers. Why is this? That even if both relationships are based on the power of one over the other, that both are based on unequal premises then how could one be much bountiful and fulfilling than the other? Servitutude is seen as something despicable, no? Soomething wholly undeseribale and demeaning? I’ve come to find that the reason lies in the power itself. Power can only do what is in its nature to do- enslave, fasten and dictate- but its in the nature of the powerful character that even these traits are tolerable, that one almost feels pride in the surrender to a force such as this. Meaning: there is a certain form that has a certain kind of noblesse that commands just by its presence. You resent your boss because he is a miserable dog who only got there by cheating, he is obese, vulgar, unidiciplined yet you serve him from need. You resent having to but survival dictates it. One, at least I, would not resent Napoleon, say. Or one would find themselves ashamed in their resentment if the day ever came of them doing so. His command is undeniable, he is succinct and disciplined in his authority. People of this character are almost innocent even in their fury or hatred. You serve him from desire. The illusion of power, however, can intoxicate a weak mind getting caught up in its noise and recently I’ve been given the perfect, perfect SPECIMEN. Having been introduced to what it feels stands above crowds, the weak mind abandons itself sometimes with scrutiny sometimes without. Once there, however, it (the weak mind) defends its new cause or its focus since all that holds meaning to his leader holds meaning to him now above everthing else. At times, one will find it surprising to hear the most explosive defense come not from the object intended but from the weak mind that thinks it its place to protect this new thing above him. Only an illusion would tolerate such an underisable disciple. A Naopolean would find this kind of mind either detestable or use him as means to an end in his innocent opportunism. I am reminded of the Nomans that would keep Saracen slaves around to carry their luggage. A Jew came to Cedric’s dining hall one day in Scott’s “Ivanhoe”. Naturally both Normans and Saxons detest the jew, but the Saracen’s did not. Yet Isaac the Jew entered and the slaves were allowed to see how repulsed their masters were just by the presence of this Jew trying to sit down at the table. He writes: “…as he (the Jew) passed along the file, casting a timid supplicating glance….the Saxon and Norman domestics squared their shoulders, and continued to devour their supper with great perseverance…the attendants of the Abbot crossed themselves, with looks of pious horror….” And what about the slaves, having watched their masters repulsion yet never having seen a Jew before…what did they do? “They curled up their whiskers with indignation, and laid their hands on their poniards, as if ready to rid themselves by most desperate means from the apprehended contamination of the Jew’s approach”. This is what the weak mind is- a Saracen slave.
Sometimes the weak by taking up the master’s cause gain the master’s majesty through osmosis and association. Kind of like you with Nietzsche. You spend enough time in the right atmosphere or surrounded by a particular type of person and you inevitably, if you possess the correct characteristics and the right amount of sensitivity, become that which you imitate, to the degree that you can. Imitation does not always lead to subjugation, it sometimes leads to surpassing. Nietzsche, for example, admired and idolized Schopenhauer, until he reached him and then left him behind, not in insult but with the gratitude of being helped by his mentor along the way. If I spend enough time around musicians I will be inspired to become the best musician I can and if the musicians I know are of a high enough caliber and I have the right amount of talent then the more chance I have of becoming good myself or better than they were. But if I’m never exposed to musicians at all then no matter what intrinsic talent I may posses the likelihood of me taking up music is slight. Psychologists say that if you imitate a happy person you become a happy person. The effects of psychological states on the body are well known, such as when an individual takes on a defeatist and insecure attitude that displays itself in a hunched-over body posture. Sometimes the reverse happens, the body if it is allowed to stay in a hunched-over posture begins taking on the positions psychological message and it begins feeling insecure and defeated. Like when you square your shoulders and puff out your chest and you begin feeling proud and strong despite yourself. All states of mind can be passed on in this way. Honour, nobility, selflessness, selfishness can all be inherited and imitated through masters and mentors. Weakness isn’t always a fixed position or demeanour it sometimes is a result of circumstances, environment and chance that when altered affect the ‘specimen’ positively. Not all weakness is due to genetic inferiorities although most often it is just that. Sometimes strength can be nurtured by the amount and the quality of adversity it is faced with in life. Weakness is also a judgment based on comparison. Weak in comparison to what or whom? Strong in comparison to what or whom? Powerful in comparison to what or whom? If nothing else weakness can become stronger than what it is even if it cannot become stronger than everything that is. A good master may, through example, lead to a strengthening of his slaves position, even though the slave can rarely become the master. Nothing is powerful in an absolute way, so we judge our power by the strength of that to which we are forced or choose to subjugate ourselves to. Isn't that why women are so choosy with men? They need to feel that they will give themselves only to that which is worthy and that which will enhance their power rather than degrade it. Isn't that why the most strong-willed individuals cannot just give themselves to any cause or idea or ideal and are more picky and discriminating in their alliances? The interesting thing about power is that sometimes it is enhanced and made greater through a compromise or controlled subjugation to another. For example, two individuals may be strong on their own but when faced with a larger opponent they may compromise a part of their individual power to merge or unite, thusly sacrificing a piece of their personal power but gaining much more overall power through unity. This is more true when the opponent cannot be avoided or ignored or defeated thusly making the sacrifice a matter of survival. Isn’t the sacrifice of sexual interaction made possible because the foe, mortality, cannot be dealt with by a single individual alone? Through the union of male female, in this instance, an answer is given to death. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It is this that has led man to where he is presently. The absence of frontiers and escape routes has forced even the strongest individuals into compromising positions where the only alternative is solitude or oblivion. Power is expressed through choice and control. When that which is weak is offered greater choice and control by that which is more powerful than it, it is empowered by it and so raised in power, in comparison to its lesser. But I'm an idiot so don't listen to me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wanderer: You have your android to thank for it. There is nothing weak in fusing with one you feel pride in but only with scrutiny and the strictest discipline can both embrace what is honestly beatiful. Noble or not, tyrant or not. Its only the vulgar, like my fat disgusting pig of a boss that has no right to his power, that one despises. Now leave me alone. ========================================================== Anyone else's comments are more than welcome.
I don't wholly agree with your perspective here. Real power requires more than subjugation and submission, it requires willing participation. In order to accomplish this, a leader must offer something in return whether it be a common goal, competent advice, the defense or promotion of an ideal, respect, a chance for growth, some form of personal compensation, or the like. Better yet, they will offer a combination of these. Without this return power can only be (relatively) fleeting as disrespect and discontent work to undermine authority. A savvy leader positions herself as a servant either to a further end or directly to those they would lead but never upon herself alone. The unworthy boss you mentioned winds up with no real power, the employees will work around his incompetence. Reports will be given reluctantly; the data slanted, delayed, or omitted to manage his response. Employees will network around him to find the resources they need to function properly. While he may retain some measure of control from economic sources or authority handed to him from his superiors he has little in the way of true power. ~Raithere
Raither: But that is just it- there are some in which just the presence of their character is enough for one's desire to if not serve them at least surround oneself with their purity. Wouldn't you agree? Think of it- truth in anything is prized much the way virginity and innocence is cherished. What makes laughter contagious? Even if the joke is not funny and its teller slaughtered if he were on stage his laughter, if pure and innocent, would make it funny by its contagion. You forget his failures and surround yourself in his cheerfulness by the sheer innocence of his love of life, his bon vivance. Now think of what makes laughter annoying or loathsome- if it sounds forced, if exaggerated, or it there were a vulgarity in it that makes the person laughing seem as if he lacked coherence. In the first man, his laughter is enjoyed first by himself and you take pleasure in him enoying it, which is your enjoyment. He is real. In the second man, he is only advertising his abilities because he is nothing without approval and his exaggeration makes him disturbing, annoying or loathsome. He is illusion. See? Minds that surround themselves with these illusions or advertisers sometimes do so becaue they are so fucking bored any joke would do. Or some would lie to themselves and keep their company despite the laughter being a little disturbing sometimes. THIS is the weak mind I speak of, one who is only intoxicated with illusion, like the little girls so in love with the bridal showers and the wedding gowns, the idea of marriage that they put little stock in their bridegroom. The idea of power, the idea of marriage- the point of this thread. And so with with power- even if it meant your having to serve it I wonder how many of you if it were as real as Napoleon's or Charlemagne's would put their things down and follow them to the ends of the earth if they came down your block tomorrow. Your pleasure of being around such a character, such childlike will would be what they offer you and in these 'leaders' you learn things, you add and modify yourself into something as healthy as them even if the world looks on them as tyrants. Would you find this deplorable, Raithere? Saddam on the other hand, I'd shoot as soon as I saw him on my block. Do you see what I'm getting at? Android: Interesting. What the 'noble' rat sees when he comes to feed in this so called trap you'd like to think an inferior species is capable of setting is that he is being worshipped, especially in seeing that a rat smaller than him took it upon himself to try bringing him "into his lair", even with a gimmick. In the end you are both only just rats in the same. fucking. hole. I wonder what logic you used when you were still in the closet. I wonder what you tell yourself in your private dialogue with your heroes nowadays that its been hinted what your kind of mind is only good for. I wonder if you realize your presence in this thread strikes of justification, probably the same logic you used the last time you had doubts about something unhealthy that you wanted to keep around anyway because you liked how it made you feel, how it made you think you were even thinking. I wonder if you've found the laughter a little disturbing, a bit too exaggerated or vulgar but overlooked it despite yourself. I wonder if you realize you're only a toad. Do you not even see what it is that you are doing? A Saracen slave would have killed anyone that got close to his Norman masters despite their masters being miserable dogs that had no right to their power.
Capital, gendanken. I've noticed this trend thoughout my life, both in being percieved as object and in knowing men who seemed utterly and pristinely worthy of power, as if it should by nature flow to them. An individual like that seems almost marked in some way indicating that they are destined to create, and that the material for their art should by nature flow to them. Edvard Greig was such a one, Goethe and Pushkin were such. As to the second - It's a sort of playacting, for the leader and the led. The leader may listen to whatever his newest disciple whispers into his ear, the disciple creates the leader in his own image. What was Pygmalian's wisdom? Man is never satisfied with the real, only the ideal is flawless. The disciple has an image in his mind of Neapolean or Fredrich the Great, this strong man who will in turns dominate him and shower him with rewards. The leader sees this, flattered that one might see it in him, he tries to encompass the ideal as best he can. Alas, the ideal always falls short. It is simular in practice to the way men sublimate their hatred of "woman" by falsely exalting her. "Women" are scum, but this woman - ah, what an angel. So pure, so good and innocent. They whisper all this to her, and she, being a stupid woman, is flattered to believe it. Yet she doesn't - that's the beauty of the insult. The higher her pedestal, the more clearly she knows what they think of her. She's scum, reminded that she's scum by the constant praises being sung for her. You might enjoy Hegel's "master and slave" in the Phenomenology of Spirit. The two become so mutually dependant that the difference between master and slave becomes...nonexistent. Back to our case - Is the "noble one" being insulted? Sometimes consciously, sometimes not. In any case, true power can only be grasped by one who is able to connect straight with the elemental will to power that forms the fiber of our universe. Neither the teacher nor the disciple has undiluted power - they simply prey off one another. Such a model of power is perfect for our modern age, in which freedom is the source of anguish and everyone finds submission just a little titillating. However, remnents of more noble approaches still dwell in the remnents of more noble souls. For such ones, freedom and power are inseperable, and power is not something that one compromises to combine with a better or gains when one dominates some weakling but rather the highest consummation of life. I'll post something about this soon.
Xev: Grieg, majestic in music. Goethe, majestic in word. (Did you know that "The Sufferings of the Young Werhter" was responsible for many sucides among young German men in Goethe's time?) None of these would I second guess in my being around them- Einstein, Napoelon, Charlmegne. A few others I've known personally. But Pushkin prostituting his talents on a duel over a trifle, a stupid duel that vulgarized the powerful literature in his namesake? He comes closest to illusion in the examples you've given, but not quite. I'll leave him alone. Don't know, what was it? As for the play acting between the leader and those led, it applies only to those relationships based on approval. Those that can only exist by reaction, those with whom silence or indifferene could rip through their fragile fabrics despite the bold colors and nuance. These folks fit into my 'spiritual diet' theory. Could be bullshit. We'll see. Zaruthrusta: "To upset--that meaneth with him to prove. To drive mad--that meaneth with him to convince. And blood is counted by him as the best of all arguments." Nietzche calls these play-acting charlatans the 'explosive' ones. I myself, like you, have been seen as an object of power but we've covered this before- it is these kind of people that go around assigning parts to you in reverence that are if not repulsive, at least specious and annoying. I'm not powerful at all and do not wish to force myself on anyone, yet I know only an illusion would keep these undersirables around as backbone. Something like an entourage. The ideal always falls far short so long as its casts its glance down from its 'pedestal' to fish for approval from 'below' or 'around' Don't get me wrong though- I don't think the ideal is meant for such a fickle creature as we. The gods and their abstracts- only art. But those few born every hundred thousand years or so breathe life into idealism when with our own eyes we see them move mountains. I do believe these exist. Raskolnikov dissects the ordinary from the extraordinary: "No, those men (the charlatans, the ideas) are not made so. The real master to whom all is permitted storms Toulon, makes a massacre in Paris, forgets an army in Egypt, wastes half a million men in the Moscow expedition and gets off with a jest at Vilna. No, such people, it seems, are not of flesh but of bronze."- from Crime and Punishment All of it done in the leader's innonce, his childish will to just be. I respect it. I do not respect Saddam. See the difference?
gendanken: Charlemangne? Uh....I dunno. Pushkin - Pushkin captured the oversensitive Slavic heart with elegant little words. To me, he merits inclusion. But then, so does Quorthon from Bathory and Akhenaten from Judas Isacariot, so there's an element of taste involved. Ideals will dominate you if you don't keep your hand around their neck at all times. Then again, this applies to pretty much everything. *Blinks* And? A leader is only the voice of those he leads. Their embodiment. Very rarely is there a person who is enlightened and above the herd such that he is able to manipulate them to his will. I don't know if such people have actually existed, or if I simply want them to have existed. For that matter, I'm not sure if I want them to have existed. Yes, but that's the heart of the actor - The actor is just like you and I, and attracts them, but the actor doesn't push them away. It's that which leads to corruption, allowing oneself to be lauded, trying to force away the fellow-traveler because they refuse to lionize, it's that which leads to preferring the love of slaves to that of friends. At root - a simple deficiency of self. No, the ideal falls short because it's man creating something man wants to be, man obeying something man wants to obey, man forcing another man into the mold of the ideal. I do not. Neapolean is romanticized. Brilliantly incompetent or just imperfect? I think it's the latter. But I have my reasons. "The great man? Where?! I've got to take him down, the bastard!" Dostoevsky is excellent. But what is the extent of Neapolean's power when he is one who channels the power of others? His genius lays in - commanding materials. Perfect. There's something fickle about power that makes you respect her practitioners only when they are very, very clean.
Xev: Arstist to artist, of course. But for the sake of analogy and this thread, with a little exaggeration I only used him to make a point. Surely. My taste trumps yours. Kidding. So! You're telling me that historically- screw it, in the day to day where heros go unsung there has never been one person whose only drive has been his own? A leader is the voice of those he leads....so? It does not tell me he is nothing without them or they him. It all depends on what side of the line he's shouting from. I do believe such have actually existed, and while agreeing that Napoleon is romanticized there IS a strict dichotomy between those whose power you despise since they have no right, in their sloppyness, to its usage and the kind of power or command that thrives, even in caves and dark caverns. The kind of power that does not force itself, that sways by sheer presence. "Noble" hermits, I've known them. Exactly. Humans are always deficient somwhere. But one should never push away one you can walk right alongside with. I don't and have never thought this. Disagreed- I don't believe these kind I speak of thrive on idealism. There's is a world of desire and innocent opportunism. These men are, they become, they move and thrust despite men. They're babies. Think of it- when is the last time anyone motivated a baby to do anyting? What thing in the world matters to that child other than his own body and the immediate? Brillinatly incompetent, that is what I love about him. Let him be romanticed, he moved mountains. His genius lays in not giving a shit. His genius lays in not mimicking sacrifiice. His genius lays in his madness. His truth, his carnal innocence. Even his vulgarity I'd find admirable. I've said it before and I'll dare say it again- anything, vice, barbarism, love, hate, depravity, anything is admirable in its cleanness.
Let' s get back to the topic, shall we? Firstly, I do not think any man is born to lead. Power is also an illusion predicated on having control. By extension therefore, all men who have power, get power, want power, possess such attribute(s) from a desire to control- an insecurity. Napoleon was not a born leader but rather a short man whose wife was an adultress. Hitler was a weak mind whose claim to glory or whose way of a healthy view of himself was an attachment to the illusion of a superior race to which he belonged. The most powerful of men have been insecure, it is in this drive for control that makes them commit atrocities, good, etc. The notion of nobility is based on the illusion of a person who normally is in control; this illusion is standardized by men in power to allow for them to be in power, and this image is of course an image of those in power. Therefore, in certain cultures or societies, the noble is the old, grayed, and physically weak, but whose experience in life makes him wise and therefore noble; or he is the tall, strong, disdainful man, whose physical presence begs that he be followed. These are images, and they are illusions, they are not a natural standard for man. Any man who gets power or is able to get power has by definition, a right to that power-- regardless of how such power is used. They fought for that power , and as such, have the right to that power. Disdain, and jealousy for the powerful is merely a reflection of the want for that power. Certainly, there are different kinds of powerful men-- for instance those who brandish that power and stay at the forefront, and those use others to execute their power or exert their control. The fundamental behind the two however is that "power" is there for control. One has power over another because they provide a need or desire for another. The price for the provision of said desire or need is power. Some might suggest that some power is forced by subjugation-- which is certainly true, but the fundamental remains the same. Another is subjugated, yes, but the price for the master's goodwill is their power. You touched on the subject of following a leader by will or in admiration of the power or nobility of such individual. I have to disagree completely. If one sees another as noble, or respects that persons authority over them, said individual is merely responding to the illusion of that power. They want that power. They have been given a taste of that power in the representation of what power ought to look like. The powerful man, the leader, has created for his followers an image of power and nobility in his own image. He allows access to that power by allowing access to himself. In following the leader, they vicariously live through the leader and experience that power. Most often than not, following the leader means exacting influence over those that do not follow the leader. Hence, servitude to another presents as its reward, power over another. The servant therefore has a direct investment in protecting the power of the leader whom he serves. If one does not provide a service or the illusion of a service that one desires, one cannot have power-- except in the case that they provide another illusion in a shared power. Nietzche notion of slave mentality is quiet stupid in how presents it, for it quite simply the mentality of all men. It is in associtaions that we get power; it is only in the possession of power over the society we are part of that we abandon the mentality.
Fountainhed: It never deviated. There's a point I should've covered more but did not, so here goes: Its not only "leading" I'm concerend with though- its a genuiness in character, any character that inspires loyalty. For example, I have a mechanic named Simba who talks llike a motherfucker about engines. He knows little else outside of spark plugs and switchgears and when he talks the man is literally on the edge of his seat. He's small. Unnatractive. Not that bright. Completely my oppositie in everything but I love being around him. He exists with or without my approval, anyone's approval. He was born to fix cars, he breathes car oil and if everyone in the world would stop driving tomorrow he'd still be a mechanic. I love watching him, he's powerful in this. I'll tie this in somewhere later somehow. Always attributing something to 'insecurity' or 'self hate' is the easiest shit in the world. The difference between the Corcican and the pasty half-Jew was focus. Motive. See? Can't you see the difference? The Hitlers of this world build a world around them and shout loudest in it. They create flags and slogans to wave them around from their smallness, they hunt others down with their mirrors, their dogma, their racket. They harvest an entourage and thrive in it. You pick up something being forced in them, something unnatural. The Napoleons (and I don't give a shit what those people giving me cant about the man being "romantacized", get over it)...the Napoleons on the other hand have something so genuine and carnal it seems almost ludicrous to them that something should not be theirs. Like a baby almost, vain yet ignorant of its power and uncounsicoulsy pleased with itself. Applying 'laughter' as an analgoy: "In the first man, his laughter is enjoyed first by himself and you take pleasure in him enoying it, which is your enjoyment. He is real. In the second man, he is only advertising his abilities because he is nothing without approval and his exaggeration makes him disturbing, annoying or loathsome. He is illusion." Saddam and Hitler would be like the second. Simba would be like the first, he has my loyaltly yet he's far from powerhungry. Leaving the powerhungry out of this: How do you explain those that divorce themselves from their surroundings? How do you explain those with a passion so pure and bold they never once look up to see who is watching? How do you explain those to whom power means nothing? The Einstein variety who'd be absurdly content up in a lighthouse somwhere where no one would bother them in their studies? Is he not noble? What props or illusions has he set up for his audiance? Where are are their stagehands, these people like that? Their footstools? It doesn't even have to be about men either- watch a human around a wild animal. Watch the domesticated animal around them. Those cheating their way to it have no right to to it, bubba. That's why you despise and don't respect them. If I did not need my filthy-dipshit boss for survival and there was no consequence of law to keep me from doing it, he'd be roadkill. And have we not the perfect example of this in that boy Android in his pursuit of his heroes? I'll say it again: "... only an illusion would keep these undersirables (Android around as backbone". The dwarf can exert influence on others by the simple alliance with those taller- this is exaclty what you are saying. But having examined his hero, I've come to find he has been duped by an illusion- Wanderer. A dwarf only taller than him, but still a dwarf. I've also come to find what I knew all along, that some are so fucking bored and dying for laughter, so romantic, that the first good joke would do despite the laughter being vulgar and forced shortly after. Like the little girls so in love with the bridal showers, the idea of marriage they put little stock int their bridegroom. No girl like this can "force a hand" anywhere in that marriage, though she'd like to think she can. See or no see?
_an.droid_, I don't think we've arrived there yet. The valuations of 'nobler' and 'inferior' are baseless in the context of power alone. They would simply be the stronger and the weaker. Nobility of intent or action is a different consideration, a moral valuation. Though I do agree that the ignoble often win power though deception. I believe that these are who Gendanken was referring to as unworthy. Gendanken, I suppose we need to define what we mean by power here. From your first post I took it to mean leadership, command over people. But by your ongoing conversations perhaps you're looking at something a bit more intrinsic than I was considering. Certainly I can see where intensity of purpose and clarity of focus... the innocence that you are talking about is a form of power. I agree that this is often attractive to others, who often follow after the ideal such people set. But I don't think this is the same type of leadership or the same expression of power that is demonstrated by Napoleon or Charlemagne. The former is unconscious, which sometimes makes it that much more attractive. They would continue their work alone as you said, content in a lighthouse. They lead almost by accident, often surprised when they look up and see that others are following. But the latter, those who would actively lead cannot afford such innocence or (let's face it) ignorance. While they can afford a certain naiveté born of ego they cannot mistake the desires of those they would lead. Naturally or intentionally they must feed those desires and are given authority and loyalty in return. However, just thinking now, perhaps there are some hybrids whose clarity does command leadership. Gandhi and the Dali Lama come to mind, who I cannot pare off into any particular category. Ah, I'll give it more thought. ~Raithere
Perhaps not. I, like Raithere assumed you were talking of power in the most common form. I tend to not think of his "ability" to induce "loyalty" as having power. Power would be his willingness to use that influence-- and influence he may not even be aware of. I also tend to think that your willingness to be around him stemps from an admiration of a trait that you may not have and desire. The individual being followed is unaware of his ability to create a following. The fact is you are following an attribute, and if what you admire and aspire to be is the intellectual, you might "follow" an Einstein; another on the other hand might follow a Jordan, the same principle holds. Fortunately it just so happens that drive is caused mostly by inseciurity or curiosity. I do not think self hate is applicable in this instance. I see what you are trying to get at, and firstly, I do not think Napoleon falls in the class of the innocent/unwilling/chanced leader. He sought his power, and even when lost and exiled, convinced himself he could still get the power he wanted. I do not see how a description of Napoleon and his thirst for power can escape his intense insecurity in his inability to tame his wife. His own soldiers laughed at him. They followed him because he gave them glory. He attained glory because he won wars. I think here that you are making the mistake of using your own preference for a leader as a blueprint. Sadam or Hitler had their followers and admirers, and still have their followers and admirers. Sadam usurped the power of a man he thought weak, and was weak. His taste of power corrupted him. As the saying goes, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men". None of these "leaders" deserved their right to lead. Their right to power is governed by the very same fundamnetal that governs all powerful men. The price for what they give-- be it security, a sense of themselves, etc etc is their power. How do I explain it? it is their choice. And stuck in a lighthouse, the have no realizable power. I do not think it noble to desert power, nor do I think it noble to follow one's passion to the neglect of other more or less meaningful things. It is merely a choice of an individual-- a choiice both shaped by the society they live in and their natural gifts. I think nobility is a romantic notion, and quite nonsensical. One must always remember that the notion of nobility is derived from belonging to the ruling class, and that its incantations stem from the practises of those classes. Different notions of nobility have existed and they almost all share the characteristic that the ruling part of society deemed what was noble. Like I said, it is merely an image of those in power to perpetuate that notion. I think it is applicable in today;s world. The domesticated animal simply has been raised in an environment where he did not have to care for himself. The wild beast is more usre of himself-- in any case, it is not a science. Some domesticated beasts are more "powerful" . Wether or not I or you respect them, reaching one, means absolutely nothing. There is no absolute for respect; they have others who respect. With respect to your boss, that is precisely the point, now isn't it? His right to power over you is his ability to give you a living. Which is why when yells at you, you still do his bidding. Hate or envy is actually a widely used tool by those in power to ensure that they be followed. Yes of course, inasmuch as his influence was based on his ability to be controversial, was it based on his ability to incite the weakminded to his cause. But his was not power; he was weak to begin with. And again, power is only possible through associations. Without a following, one has no power. I see what you are trying to say, but I disagree with parts as I have already pointed out. Raithere: Let's forget our differences from that thread in the Religion subforum, shall we? The same principle still holds Raithere. The claim to leadership of the above(Lama) is likewise based on providing their followers with a want. In thier case, that want is based on religion. It is almost like saying that the Pope is an unwilling leader or a forced leader... The principle followed by the followers of such a leader ensures his leadership. An abandoning of that principle by his followers explicitly means the loss of his power. In this case, the desires of their followers are already set in stone and the leader merely follows are set path. I would classify Ghandi as the "unconscious" leader.
anyhow...you like [or at least approve of] napoleon, but dislike [or at most hate] your boss. now you do not contend that that both of these people have/had power. so the question becomes; why do you make the distinction between the two? well, you don't respect your boss. you think he/she/it is an inept ass. and yet, they control your paycheck, and thus you are dependent. you resent this. moreover, you argue that an individual has power by virtue of their character. i will grant that this is sometimes the case, but i will add that power takes other forms. surely there is the idol worship you refer to, but there is also power in the sense of getting things done. napoleon was a short, french, ambitious, albeit clever, man who happened to be in the right place at the right time. but no matter his stature or appearance or issues with his wife, the people followed him, respected him, worshipped him, because he got stuff done. when he stopped getting stuff done, he was tossed off to st. helena, to die. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Raithere: *funeral grin* I think you have completely missed out on what the little boy, the moustrapping little midget, the weak link and weakling I call Android was really babbling about in his post here. You cannot be blamed though, you're missing chunks of storyline. I'm sure you will and whatever thought there springs might the riverbeds bring my way. Yes, I'm being prosey. As for hybrids- I am sure there are, even in the powerhungry. These few I agree cannot afford the innocence or ignorance once throned but its the innocence and ignorance they show on their way towards that towers over all their faults. Powerful in its cleanliness ......clumsy, even. I respect it. Fountainhed: And here lies the culprit- your nihilism and conceit. Simba would mean shit to you in his lowlyness. He, a filthy mechanic, has nothing to offer you and so you'd pass him as mudwater. Someone has to envince some hint of their wanting to dominte you and exercise their will over you. This exites you, this interests you. Only then, in the namesake of challenge would they have your company, yes? Only then would you even remotely give of yourself to realize their power or allow them in to realize yours. Only in magnetism would you unfold and have the story end like it always should in your book: alot of power struggles and a lovely inventory of battlescars. How fucking cold and lonely. How alien to me. Not so in this case, brother, look elswhere. I love the laughter and mirth in being around such a character as...my mechanic, say, and why? Becuase it is me. Someone as passionate as I, when is the last time I saw one? Imagine coming up with a cure for philosophy or one for AIDS and the only language you could translate it in was philosophical or medical. 98% of the population would look on you with confusion and put you away for their soap operas and commodities. 2%, those precious 2 percenters on the other hand with your language and passion are so rare you rejoice in being around them, in finally spilling out a load you carry around like a tumor. It has nothing to do with a lack sniffing out a bounty in others and following it if only to admire. Its a rejoicing, a knowing of being with one much like you are. Follow? A nihilist would never see it as 'rejoicing'. Boo FUCKING Hoo for you, Oh my brother. You fool- never speak without knowing the history. Tell me, have you any clue what his first wife Josephine said on her wedding night? She detested the man, found him unnattractive and loathed the idea of her having to marry him but have you any idea the first thing she said right after he boned her? "Do it again". That simple. Henrick Van Loon in his "Story of Mankind" speaks of the carnal loyalty the man's soldiers had for him and even writes that he, a high classed spoon fed historian writing his book up in his ventilated office would drop everything if the man came down the street and asked that he follow him. All those comforts abandoned for that one man, much the same way thousands of men did in 19th century France. THIS is why your heart is cold. Outlined part and parcel with what Freddy called the 'explosive ones'. Of course I knew you'd agree on this, its in your interest but that is beside the point. The fact stands like the erctions Wanderer gets from text, from internet crossbabble. You peep in and find in him only an abilty to be controversial, based on and I quote "his ability to incite the weakminded to his cause". And he had the fucking Gall- the AUDICTIY- to call that churlish entourage a 'tribe'. Hillarious. Antifreeze: Bingo. I only put up with it since survival dictates I should. (And thank you for coming)
There are exceptions to every rule(I have not loved my women because they presented a challenge, although one or two did. I loved for more earthly reasons)but you are mostly right. I do not however see the relevance with relation to the present subject matter. I find that amusingly surprising Woman, passion comes in many forms. If your claim is that you stay around this person who you claim speaks of nothing but cars because you enjoy the passion he displays in what he knows, fine, so be it. The fact is his environment shaped what he became; were he born a millenium ago, he'd do something else. His is not power, and like I said, it is an admiration for something in him that drives you close, it means nothing it terms of power if he won't wield it, or is unaware of it. You know how Clinton became powerful, he had his charisma, knew he had it, wielded that charisma with a drive to have fame/leave a mark on history(the roots of that passion, I do not knw). Yes, but it is not power. And the relevance is still nil. He never owned her and he wanted to own her. While he was Egypt, she was fucking "half of Paris", he knew it and he hated it. His power gave him women, and his ferocity in fucking them or wooing them was more of an attempt to deal with himself. Really? Much like hundred of thousands of men died for Xerxes, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Sadam, Charlemange, "Lionheart" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! , Patton, etc, etc. You simplify things, you underestimate man. Care to explain what my "COLD" heart is? How exactly is it in my interest? From day one I have asserted such, now is no different, and it is not driven my ulterior motives. I actually had some hope for him at one point. I do not find it funny; It is not only that ability that I do find in him.
Fountainhed: Well, keep laughing because it is true. Cross me and I'll crush your skull with my bare hands (figuratively). This applies to both the forums and the Universe. But crossing me is staple. No, you're missing a huge piece here. You seem to think he is humble- far from it. He does not give a shit whether I speak with him or not and the man has on many occasions put me in my place, as lacking as I find him to be in his education. He can, and that I feel is powerful specifically in his indifference to it. Dr. Yazdi, a physics teacher. Put me in my fucking place. An astronomy teacher, in my fucking place. A scant few others (what most will call 'friends') have put me in my place. The common thread linking these personages is motive. Friendships with these, at least the scant few since with teachers one rarely builds friendships, all these fit the master morality (and I am in no way saying I am a master here so keep your pants on): -one's duties apply only to one's peers. A close circle where all spectators are treated indiscriminately. -toward those of lower rank one wields the freedom to act as one pleases and to quote direclty "beyond good and evil" - the bond of 'friendship' is far more than its namesake. It is sophisticated, simple yet complex. A fusing. I in no way think these people are of "lower rank" nor consider myself noble among them. It is healthy that there are few of them. Very few. I just told you it was. Yup. Mutual, selfish interest. Its in your interest to agree with what I have to say on someone you find weaker than you. Its in your interest to agree with the thoughts and opinions aligning with yours. Mutual, selfish interst, like a parasite. No? Tell me, why are you here?
Hmm. Wonder why. Has it any to do with with your interest no longer fed with subjectives? Has it any to do with a fork on the road usually found when those selfishly preying on mutual interests lose their appetite once they find what looked like a show not one? Or has it any to do with my not answering your PM? No need to answer, only rambling. I already know why, you leech.
LOL. You surpass even yourself in your inability to see the simple. It has everything to do with fact that the subject keeps deviating from what I thought it would be-- power. In answer to your nonsense about mutual self interest, 1. You obviously do not understand how low I think of Wanderer, 2. I come here to have fun and to get knowledge. 3. Any interest I have in you has shit to do with any imagined shared interest What about my PM? Wasn't the initial a response to you? There was none needed.
