Help with your views , we need to redifine the whole concept of power
as linked to politics and the academicia ;
--------------------------------------------------
There is landing on the conceptual difficults in defining what power is .
And by so doing we tend, to misinterprete what power is for real. Power
can't be force or for that matter a derivative of force. Since power is
positioned and in that case is grounded. Force traditionally, is
directional which means force becomes force when it covers a distance in a
given direction. For axample i apply force to break/bend an iron bar but I
use power (parental ) order children to school .
Here we start questioning the legality of the whole knowledge about things
and in this case power and how this concept is used in feminist/ gender ,
political, capitalsitic etc. relationships.
References;- Force, power and then work.
Now this is presumably English by I suspect those words might be of
Latin/Greek origin . Could Latin or greek speakers help with a reason or two
in understanding the origins of these two concepts and how they were used
and how they are used today. I will be gretaful.
Anyhow, where does this ambiguity of the use of these words comes from ? I
think there is a categorical error to assume the word " (E ) motion " is
power. Emotion is the beginning of all forces in both metals and human
beings and plants. What happens when you heat or hit a metal , what happens
to the atoms ? Even metals have got ( E )motions . What happens when you put
a flower in a dark coner, with a small ray of light ? What happens when you
boil water ?
Emotions are different levels and grades of reactions in different
substances. Thus creating accumulated force to reaction, for example towards
boiling/freezing points , anger, joy, excite, breaking point, etc.
Is that power ? Biology and physics give us a differing level/grades and
explanation of forces . From philosophy, all these experience have been
derived to ground them in different sense perceptions.
To me it seems, there is no pure distinction between how things react and
humans react, apart form that humans are rational beings with a huge mind
store, which helps to calculate risks and danger.
In Physics , Newton ( ? ) observed these two differentiation of forces :-
a. Action -at - a distance , gravitational, electric charges (nuclear )
forces for example or intellectural force with the unknowledgable ,
father child, husband, wife relationship. Emotions once again.
b. Contact forces or physical contacts. Push a wall for example, war fare
ownership - property , slave - master relationship. *Mastered* emotions
-----------
Now, take for example this sentence , " her * force * of language
commanded and instilled fear and respect into her subjects. Should I
conclude that we are talking about macroscopic force ? May I conclude too,
as in the different types of force above , force in this sense meaning that
her command of language, (relationality between the speaker and listerner )
instilled sense of direction to which we link power ? Since the speaker in
this case covers the distance between her and the listener and in that order
attaining power ?
When does this force become power , i.e. ideological power i.e. political
power, money power, capitalistic power ? Since we are talking about Action-
at - a distance or cantact forces through emotions or master emotions ? Can
we also say what keeps atoms or molecules in a substance together is this
force since atoms have to be pulled from a distance to a near to noll
distance in order for force to assume a power status ? Is this power in
case of ideologies pooling individuals of different life experience to one
idea ?
In normal English, I think we talk of the " power of....... " not the
"force of...." .
One social sciencetist writes , " Power is the ability to determine, or
influence outcomes. This could be positive or negative. To the extent that
force determines direction, I would argue that force is an instrument of power."
Why can't power stand on it's own and force on it's own ?
The whole concept of democracy is unbelievebly wrong if I am to go by this
kind of reasoning. First you have to apply force in terms of rational
capitalism/statism/ideologism and later come to power through macroscopic
forces of abstract cohesion. Labour party and Conservative party and how
much money is deposed among these different groups !! I think we are coming
up to something here. Commando economy and the whole concept of this type of
democracy. I think Karl Marx saw this problem in moving towards socialism.
Different groups of people need the force to be together , and it is as
natural as it is contralaly to the capitalistic and functionalistic ideas.
A naturalscientist (physicist) writes;- " Work must actually be done for
power to be mainfest. Power is the product of force, which force must
neccessarily have direction, accomplish meangful. I think as usual the
social science, shows its soft side, by alluding to soft elementals like
emotions and sentiments as a different kind of force. In the physical world
force must overcome all this, which would be analogous to frictional or
viscous forces in the physical, to do work, to manifestation of force. Power
is more accomplished than force. Or force is powerless, until it does work
regardless of the circumstances; "
That move from idealisation to realism (absolute idealism) is very
interesting. Since in this case, all powers are derivatives of forces !!!
This is the problem , English has made our understanding of these very
concept and how we should link them to the real world very very wrong.
In socialscience, we can as well say society i.e. a fragmented society as
(ethnicity ) has first to apply force a or b to come to power . But we know
most of the time this has failed. And atoms in a given metal are willingly
bonded together. What the confusion here : Let you look at the gangs of
youths in urban American, those small tribes of Africa and Europe.
Besides, I don't dispute the success of physics .
Bwanika.
An good explanation will be very much welcome.
as linked to politics and the academicia ;
--------------------------------------------------
There is landing on the conceptual difficults in defining what power is .
And by so doing we tend, to misinterprete what power is for real. Power
can't be force or for that matter a derivative of force. Since power is
positioned and in that case is grounded. Force traditionally, is
directional which means force becomes force when it covers a distance in a
given direction. For axample i apply force to break/bend an iron bar but I
use power (parental ) order children to school .
Here we start questioning the legality of the whole knowledge about things
and in this case power and how this concept is used in feminist/ gender ,
political, capitalsitic etc. relationships.
References;- Force, power and then work.
Now this is presumably English by I suspect those words might be of
Latin/Greek origin . Could Latin or greek speakers help with a reason or two
in understanding the origins of these two concepts and how they were used
and how they are used today. I will be gretaful.
Anyhow, where does this ambiguity of the use of these words comes from ? I
think there is a categorical error to assume the word " (E ) motion " is
power. Emotion is the beginning of all forces in both metals and human
beings and plants. What happens when you heat or hit a metal , what happens
to the atoms ? Even metals have got ( E )motions . What happens when you put
a flower in a dark coner, with a small ray of light ? What happens when you
boil water ?
Emotions are different levels and grades of reactions in different
substances. Thus creating accumulated force to reaction, for example towards
boiling/freezing points , anger, joy, excite, breaking point, etc.
Is that power ? Biology and physics give us a differing level/grades and
explanation of forces . From philosophy, all these experience have been
derived to ground them in different sense perceptions.
To me it seems, there is no pure distinction between how things react and
humans react, apart form that humans are rational beings with a huge mind
store, which helps to calculate risks and danger.
In Physics , Newton ( ? ) observed these two differentiation of forces :-
a. Action -at - a distance , gravitational, electric charges (nuclear )
forces for example or intellectural force with the unknowledgable ,
father child, husband, wife relationship. Emotions once again.
b. Contact forces or physical contacts. Push a wall for example, war fare
ownership - property , slave - master relationship. *Mastered* emotions
-----------
Now, take for example this sentence , " her * force * of language
commanded and instilled fear and respect into her subjects. Should I
conclude that we are talking about macroscopic force ? May I conclude too,
as in the different types of force above , force in this sense meaning that
her command of language, (relationality between the speaker and listerner )
instilled sense of direction to which we link power ? Since the speaker in
this case covers the distance between her and the listener and in that order
attaining power ?
When does this force become power , i.e. ideological power i.e. political
power, money power, capitalistic power ? Since we are talking about Action-
at - a distance or cantact forces through emotions or master emotions ? Can
we also say what keeps atoms or molecules in a substance together is this
force since atoms have to be pulled from a distance to a near to noll
distance in order for force to assume a power status ? Is this power in
case of ideologies pooling individuals of different life experience to one
idea ?
In normal English, I think we talk of the " power of....... " not the
"force of...." .
One social sciencetist writes , " Power is the ability to determine, or
influence outcomes. This could be positive or negative. To the extent that
force determines direction, I would argue that force is an instrument of power."
Why can't power stand on it's own and force on it's own ?
The whole concept of democracy is unbelievebly wrong if I am to go by this
kind of reasoning. First you have to apply force in terms of rational
capitalism/statism/ideologism and later come to power through macroscopic
forces of abstract cohesion. Labour party and Conservative party and how
much money is deposed among these different groups !! I think we are coming
up to something here. Commando economy and the whole concept of this type of
democracy. I think Karl Marx saw this problem in moving towards socialism.
Different groups of people need the force to be together , and it is as
natural as it is contralaly to the capitalistic and functionalistic ideas.
A naturalscientist (physicist) writes;- " Work must actually be done for
power to be mainfest. Power is the product of force, which force must
neccessarily have direction, accomplish meangful. I think as usual the
social science, shows its soft side, by alluding to soft elementals like
emotions and sentiments as a different kind of force. In the physical world
force must overcome all this, which would be analogous to frictional or
viscous forces in the physical, to do work, to manifestation of force. Power
is more accomplished than force. Or force is powerless, until it does work
regardless of the circumstances; "
That move from idealisation to realism (absolute idealism) is very
interesting. Since in this case, all powers are derivatives of forces !!!
This is the problem , English has made our understanding of these very
concept and how we should link them to the real world very very wrong.
In socialscience, we can as well say society i.e. a fragmented society as
(ethnicity ) has first to apply force a or b to come to power . But we know
most of the time this has failed. And atoms in a given metal are willingly
bonded together. What the confusion here : Let you look at the gangs of
youths in urban American, those small tribes of Africa and Europe.
Besides, I don't dispute the success of physics .
Bwanika.
An good explanation will be very much welcome.