In your message of 11:36 Feb 15 1997, you write:
> Sigmund wrote:
>
> > should we all be powerless? well, in a certain sense, that's
> > very hard to imagine. but in the sense in which power owes
> > its existence to inequality, and the less inequality there is,
> > the less power there is, if we were all relatively powerless
> > as a group, then no one would be all that powerless individually.
>
> I find this very interesting, this posing of the problem of group power vs
> individual power. Can we take it somewhere? I'll think about it some more
> too.
>
> -m
Well, here's a start: It is nigh on impossible for *all* of us to be
*relatively* powerless. That's just what "relatively" means...that if we
are *all* involved, then the frame of reference shifts such that the
dynamics of power are maintained. No?
--Blaine
--
> Sigmund wrote:
>
> > should we all be powerless? well, in a certain sense, that's
> > very hard to imagine. but in the sense in which power owes
> > its existence to inequality, and the less inequality there is,
> > the less power there is, if we were all relatively powerless
> > as a group, then no one would be all that powerless individually.
>
> I find this very interesting, this posing of the problem of group power vs
> individual power. Can we take it somewhere? I'll think about it some more
> too.
>
> -m
Well, here's a start: It is nigh on impossible for *all* of us to be
*relatively* powerless. That's just what "relatively" means...that if we
are *all* involved, then the frame of reference shifts such that the
dynamics of power are maintained. No?
--Blaine
--