Message-ID: <19991216035524.AAA21774@jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca@LOCALNAME> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:08:31 -04 From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: The Scientist:: What's Right? (8k To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
--,
Is it clear, then, that neither Wiener's personal competence nor his message's *content are in contention, but only its container-language and the way the publication-context required it to be used (that is, without *expectation of response)? I now tackle the real cybernetician's task -- bringing the dead frog's leg back to life, or, for the metaphorically challenged, persuading by *feedback (what I call dialogue) alone* an audience which knows not how to respond. (Is this paradoxical? - but isnt 'no-comment' also a comment?) You out there in Devel-L Land may be standing with your arms crossed and a sneer on your face, but I see in the shadow one with a pipe and a drink and a quietly(!) attentive smile -- and until you speak, you cannot do anything about it.
Yes, dear Devel-L, it *is an Off-Topic post, on power and control in cyberspace.... Well, what are your choices? As any power-enthusiast knows, you call immediately for the In-Charge. Pull rank. Complain to your superiors. Alternatively, go backstage: pull strings, dig dirt, cast aspersions. That is, 1. Play the System, and 2. Scare the Dickens -- the difference between them being only that in the first case, you 'have every right to,' and in the second, you *pretend to have the right. (I cant stop you, right? - and anyhow, its a free country. Yes, I've heard that, too.)
I note, however, that 1. depends on *already existing power, and its application or *execution is out of your hands. and 2. depends on *future power ("One of these days...") over my 'status' and 'exposure' -- but this works only if *I'm a power-minded type -- and that too is out of your hands, since I act in the here and now. Your choices are, in fact 1. Surrender (in exchange for Righteousness; and you can say delegate, if you prefer) your own mite of power, or 2. Admit you havent got any, and settle for Resentment.
There is, however, the famous Choice #3: Face the facts; viz., you dont know what power is, or how to use it. You're running on ersatz.
To others who reach this critical point, I recommend accepting Dialog as their saviour, and thus *learning to play the 'power game.' (The best imagery I've found to manifest the ineffable being of D'og is that of Play.) As you are all ears (I use the tools I have!), I shall explain:
In place of speech being a weapon of one 'having' authority over another who 'obeys,' dialogue is a game of 'suspended belief' in which players *adopt or assume power turn by turn. It is actually very simple: the Questioner goes first, and *gives* the power to the Answerer to satisfy hyr 'demands.' Q's goal is to keep the outcome in the air; A's task is to make a reply of such Real, 'down to earth' merit that there is no *room for more questions. (These roles, of course, are not indelibly attached to our mundane personas; rather, Q and A are indivisible bodies-within- the- Body.) Strategically this means Q and A ultimately arrive at a point where they can *act together*; that is to say, they are 'translated' to Common Ground and the outcome is *mutual execution - - and satisfaction.
(Aha, says the old demon Praxis, but as soon as there is action, then Things Are Different, and a new 'stage' of QA springs up! Dialog extends through this level, and *all levels, heh, heh! Like a fractal geometry, once one is into dialogue, one is never out of it.)
After awhile, even one's thoughts take on a different value, as one starts to actively play one against the other (instead of being dependent for (reactive) motivation on some fantastic World which was Here Before You and is -- therefore -- going to judge you by your 'competitiveness'; that is, your ability to deny the real world). This (like dreaming in a foreign language) is a sign of real progress: power is not inherent in 'the facts,' no matter how many of them you have after your name or at your fingertips. Power is, in fact, the ability to *not be influenced* by the (factual or ideational) choices one makes, to be independent of both their antecedents and their consequences.
1. No, I havent contradicted myself. The WHBY is someone else's world -- your *fantasy* is that it is yours; that you have been, or ought to be, considered in it's design. Power is what that that posited Other has, and against his mountain impala-hide upholstery, you are but a flea desperately trying to suck one last drop of blood from it.
2. The law recognizes the concept of 'disinterestedness.' Is a witness more or less powerful when he is not influenced by the outcome of his testimony?
3. In the ideational sphere, what is 'creativity' but the ability to manipulate that which does not (yet) exist just as readily as that which does, in order to *bring it into being*? Facticity, by presenting only one half the picture (and a small half at that!), blinds one to an incredible canvas of possibility. (Oh yes, it makes one feel *safe, too; as does not noticing that power (sic) companies computers use 30 year old software.)
4. But is creativity power? It's a good question; indeed, it may redeem this post's topicality. When one speaks of 'empowering' a local community, what does that refer to, if not its ability to look beyond what is, to evaluate its options and plot its course *for itself*? Is this not the prime directive of all (psych/ social/ cultural/ international) development... that is worth talking about?
5. In view of the parallels between the QA and the beneficiary/ benefactor ideas, has there been a material corruption of the concept of power, in order to aggrandize 'having the answers'?
======
*I need not add, "To be continued" -- but do I need to mention that *how it continues is our shared responsiblity?
Btw, "to cut off one's nose to spite one's face" is *not an expression of power, but of fear -- or misunderstanding, which is almost always the same thing.
Cheers,
kerry
Watch for
~/keepingup.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Seen in passing:
<color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> [...] Aping the style of mainstream advertising has its disadvantages, of course, from a theoretical standpoint. Where old-school culture jammers could guarantee viewership by, say, hijacking a prominent billboard to critique a corporation, the new generation seems more interested, as Winiemko puts it, in "hijacking the internal thought process that makes advertising work." As a result, today's culture jammers have to find a way through the conscious filters set up to protect Americans from media oversaturation.
"A lot of our culture is based on people giving something one cursory glance," [Gordon Winiemko, co-creator of the short film Enjoy, a satire about a huge neon Coca-Cola billboard] laments, sounding like a Madison Avenue executive. "That's hurt us a few times. People don't want to take the extra time to look at something and find out what it's really about."
-- Sam Williams, The Medium Is the Message
<underline><color><param>0000,8000,0000</param>http://www.sfweekly.com/extra/culturejam.html</underline><color><param>0 00,0000,0000</param>
<nofill>