Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 21:41:25 +0100 From: bwanika <h961138-AT-stud.hoe.se> Subject: casuality and mechanism (power and force) Could help explain ? thanks. ---------------------- 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 , family, political, capitalistic, medical ethics 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 grateful. 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 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, chemical reactions, joy, excite, breakingpoint, revolution, trade union wage demand etc. Is that power ? Biology and physics give us a differing level/grades and explanation of forces . From philosophy, all these experiences have been derived to ground them in different sense perceptions as feelings or emotions. 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 relationships. 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 from which the speaker derive power ? Since the speaker in this case covers the distance between her and the listener in form of enticing them towards her views and in that order attaining power over listerners ? When does this force become power , i.e. ideological power , political power, money power, capitalistic power ? Since we are talking about Action- at - a distance or contact forces through emotions or * mastered * 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 ? Since not all powers have to go through force which has to be worked to attain a power status ? For example power to think may be, you do not force the nerves, power to love is does not require force to be, as force in atoms/morecules do not need to arrive to power, to like each other and to hold on to each other !! Now then, 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. For instance, Labour party and legitimisation of the working class and Conservative party and it's link to the bourgesien 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 certain kind of forces to be and hold on together , and it is as natural as it is contrally to the capitalistic and biological derived functionalistic ideas. I am not supporting physics in this regard but neither do I support revolutionary means but evolution ways. 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 is 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.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005