Power vs. Freedom. Mutually inclusive or mutually exclusive? A tentative definition for power could be, simply, control; likewise, freedom could tentatively be defined as the state of being uncontrolled.
And yet, on closer inspection of the relationships inherent to these concepts, one realizes their contradictory natures.
Power: control. Power over something is equivalent to controlling it. However, power cannot exist without something to be controlled. An old proverb asserts that knowledge is power. this is true, and is in fact a good way to characterize power in practical terms (if skill is included in the realm of knowledge). However, knowledge, like money and a gun, fail to confer power without some external element to be3 effective on; without something to be bought, or shot.
The stated definition for power could, however, still be valid, so long as certain assumptions are made: namely, that only external elements can possibly affect the self. In this case, one need only refine the definition of power to be control over that which may affect the self; this way, in the hypothetical world with no external influences, one is just as powerful in practice as in a world with external elements, to the extent that one is never affectable beyond one's own will.
So, in the world of perfect self-control, the issue of power is settled...but just for speculation's sake, let's consider the nature of power in terms of self-control.
The relationship between one's will and actions is a tricky one, which I have previously uncovered in greater detail. Here, it will simply be assumed as true that one's actions are, to one degree or another, controlled by both their conscious-will and their unconscious-will, and that the unconscious-will is also one of the influencing factors of the conscious-will's decision making process.
In this context, self-control could simply be stated as the dominance of the conscious-will in all actions, either by the majority of its influence over that of the unconscious-will, or by the complete removal of the unconscious will as an influencing factor from all decisions. Here, the role of freedom comes into play: by granting control entirely to the conscious-will (which is, for all intents and purposes, the self), one is free of the power of any other influencing factors, internal or external, including the unconscious-will.
Before making too much use of the concept of freedom, one should first elaborate on its nature. Defined as the state of being uncontrolled, it, like power, hold up until the element of self-control is considered. Logically, if the self does not control one's actions, any number of external influences would. Lacking any such external influences, however, one could scarcely be said to exist. Even one of extremely weak will could still assume control of their body if all external competition were removed. But, if any possibility of control, in any form, were removed, one should most likely exist in a state of either brain death or decomposition. So, parallel to the nature of imagination, complete freedom renders one inert.
Here's the theory: as a requisite condition of existence, one must have a controlling will over one's physical manifestation. And, while the self, or conscious-will, has a natural inclination toward this role, it may be overruled by other influences, both internal and external. Buy these terms, total freedom is impossible while in a state of existence as a physical manifestation. The nearest thing possible is complete self-control of the body, which at least grants one freedom from any will that is not their own. Complete self-control also grants one the ultimate power possible, as one is completely unaffectable by outside elements beyond one's will to be so affected.
A thought: could one have both complete control of their own actions and some degree of control over the actions of others? If one's own will took the role of an influencing factor to the will of another, and one's own will was of greater influence than another's will, as well as any other competing influences, one could essentially expand their will to direct the actions of others. And, though the decision making processes would still be centered in one's original physical manifestation, the will as it exists at the time of interaction could be conferred into the bodies of others, ruling out their own wills and directing action. This must be the appeal of power, that it grants such longevity to the will beyond its body. However, for power over others to be anything more than the vicarious will of whatever will happens to control one's own body, one must first achieve complete self-control.
-----
I actually remember writing this, sitting in front of the guard shack in a FEMA trailer park waiting for the sun to rise.
No comments:
Post a Comment