The Psychedelic Revolution

No you would not, no life is without power.

 

maybe we are talking about two different kinds of power. anyone can exert their influence. but to exert your influence in a position of authority in a manner that is productive to bringing about freedom, equality, and justice, is a different matter. power isn't so blank as to say, having the ability to do something. but it is having the ability to do something in a productive and just manner.

 

Productive and just are terms that are not calibrated to the extent that we can use them to take reliable measurements. Power is simply ability.

 

My take is power is not limited.

 

Power is about justice and equality? What noise is this? Power is about nothing of the sort. Haven't you ever heard 'Power corrupts'? So we should take the power to out of the hands of individuals to run their own lives out of their hands because they -might- fuck up and put it into the hands of other individuals? What, saintly ones? Like the Pope perhaps? Who gets to decide who has that power? What is to say they aren't as fallible as the rest of us?

But ok, let's just say that for now we're stuck with some centralized power. Why does that land in the hands of men? What makes you think it'll always be that way? Because that is what you see in the civilized world today? What makes you think that's just how humanity works? Because let me tell you, there is strong evidence that it is -not-.

So, I go over this a bit more in This thread, so I won't go over the baboons a second time. You should check it out if you'd like more of my thoughts, but ignore the fool who started the thread.

But I will talk about patriarchy, matriarchy and equality amongst indigenous tribes. See, anthropologists have discovered something interesting. A fair number of the tribes they've run into have been egalitarian. Some have even been lightly matriarchal, though only a few. The really interesting thing though, is they've noted that when tribes are threatened, they tend to switch over to a male dominance. Most of them switch back, once a peaceful and plentiful existence returns.

So, this tells us something really interesting about humans. A tendency to have egalitarian or female ruled power structures in times of peace. That male rule is merely a response to danger. And the baboon case fairly well proves that male rule in primates is basically a societal construct, and nothing more.

If male rule is a response to danger, it follows that male rule will result in a more violent society. And this plays out in the evidence pretty well. So, the question is, why is so much of the world in such a system? Why is male rule so ubiquitous? Well, the answer seems to lie buried in the Proto-Indo-European culture, and it's spectacular rise to dominance on the world stage.

We have some evidence that this culture was, at one point, either matriarchal or egalitarian. Then it seems that some threat occurred, and it switched over to male rule. And for some reason, it never switched back. It stayed male dominant. This actually gave it a huge competitive advantage over it's neighbors. It didn't just deal with the threat and then subside back into a more peaceful existence. It started to conquer. It conquered it's neighbors and expanded, apparently expanding across most of Europe a sizable chunk of Asia, and pressed into Africa. In the process, it threatened it's neighbors, so -they- flipped over into male dominant systems.

Eventually, this state spread across the world. And now here we are.

And now, after 2 world wars, and some sobering up, after the outbreak of psychedelics and the invention of birth control(a really big deal actually), we're starting to calm down a touch. I mean, we keep inventing enemies and threats for ourselves, but with global culture starting to take hold, and all sorts of peace-focused movements rising to the surface, we seem to be, very slowly, coming to our senses, as a global people, and realizing the threat is over. And with it, the need for hyper-competitive, short sighted, alpha male dominance culture.

Because that's what male dominance systems look like every time. It doesn't matter that many, even most men are different, because the manners that male dominance cultures tend to choose leaders involve competition. And competition doesn't choose leaders who are fit to rule a peaceful society. Cooperation does. And male dominant situations are short-sighted because they're not meant to last. They deal with immediate threats, because immediate threats are really important, right now. If they aren't dealt with then all the planning for the future doesn't matter in the least, because there won't be a future.

The species isn't under any real immediate threat anymore though. The only threats are our own violence, and our short-sightedness. We don't need male rule, and it's killing us. I'm not advocating for female rule either. That is actually pretty rare amongst humans, though I do think it would be interesting to see. I'm just advocating we move to what is actually -natural- for humans in times of minimal external threat. An egalitarian culture.

If we continue to have male rule, we will continue to have a war-like society. And even if we somehow manage to get past that, having power concentrated in the hands of one group is slavery. No rule without representation. It means something, and it's not just about votes. We need to be represented in the halls of power, because we cannot trust you to take our actual interests to heart, even if you intend to. Even if you really feel like you're doing what's best for us. We are not children, we don't need men to decide what is best for us, and we are apt to be just as gifted at leadership as men. Maybe not a leadership that best suits men, but certainly a leadership that better suits women.

 

i don't see why it wouldn't be possible to have power without being corrupted. power corrupts those who aren't ready to handle what has been given to them. sometimes they remain in positions of power, but rightly it ought to be taken away from them.

we shouldn't take the power out of anyone's hands. we all have our own will and our own decisions to make. but if we were to truly wish a better society a decentralised system isn't going to work. but again this does not mean that the people that were not given power would be lesser. there can be equality without equal power. power matters so little when it is being used rightly. what matters is that everyone is given justice and equality.

i think that now you are making presumptions about my ideas based on your past experiences with men, just like you thought thedope was doing earlier. "the need for hyper-competetive, short sighted, alpha male dominance... Because that's what male dominance systems look like every time." wrong. that is what the systems look like when people don't have the ability to rightly handle the authority that is given to them.

having power centralised doesn't mean slavery. if those people were trustworthy then they will represent the people they are head over and cooperate with them. again, it comes down to trust. because if we can't trust eachother, then nothing is going to work. and the ugly head of selfishness and greed will begin to show it's face again.

a male leader is really lacking in understanding without a wife anyway. so in that way you could look at the power role as being only fulfilled as a cooperation between the sexes. that and the fact that his wife would be in a position of power as well.

i can't help but think that the only reason that you are pushing so hard for 'equality' and feminist power is that you don't have trust that things will work out alright if you aren't the one personally overseeing them. trust is just as much of an essential component to any sucessful society as the structure itself. trust is the foundation.

 

Because power is ability and you think it is something else.

No one is without power.

Could use some backing for this statement.

You are confusing terms. There is no inequality in equality.

The sun shines on everyone alike.

Nothing is broken.

 

The term power is blank. One can choose to use it anyway he wants within his constraints. Some people's power may be limited by internal or external forces to only use it in a productive and just manner (though those terms are subjective). Others with less constraints will not necessarily.

I agree with your main point. There's no guarantee men will continue to hold the majority of positions with power. I don't think the gender of any leader matters though. There are some skills women are better than men at on average and vice versa. They are all people though with generally the same flaws. There are two contradictory tendencies of humans that ensure it. One is peoples' tendency to organize themselves in groups. These groups will form their own power structures and groups will organize themselves into larger groups. The other is peoples' tendency to rebel against authority. This threat will eventually corrupt those in power which will itself breed more rebellion until whatever power structure collapses or is taken over. Then the cycle continues.

 

i think that ability without a good effect is worth nothing. but rather that ability with positive effects is the only real kind of action. thus any other form of power is an illusion. one leads to death and degradation, the other to life.

exactly. it needn't be necesarily a decision based on one person. because that would be a person heavily involved in self. but rather it ought to be a group decision based on several factors enacted through a single person. thus everyone has a say. but still the power would ultimately rest in the person it was enacted through. although obviously things can't just rest in a single person. all of this, would need to be based on real trust.

 

All form is illusion. Form is defined by negative space.
You are clouding the meaning and comprehension of your own speech with evaluation. You confuse form with content. Greater or lesser power are meaningless terms. The only effects are real effects.

 

Hey moderators/site designers, can we get a "shrug" smiley for autumnbreeze?

 

Just say, so

 

to drugs

 

There is no ought. At least ought is based on the goal of an individual. Whomever is in power will weigh their personal ought against others and choose what's best for themselves. Giving more people a say, or at least giving them the illusion they have one, can help one maintain power for longer. That's not necessarily true though. If a leader's choices end up being better for others, the others may be content to acquiesce much of their power. Group decisions tend to take longer to make, are risk adverse, and are often not as effective.

 

well I say it's great tasting.

 

And by what process do you propose these leaders are chosen?

You miss my point entirely, despite the fact that I've worded it a dozen different ways now. I'm beginning to think it's intentional. Maybe you're really just trolling me. But PB seems to think you have merit, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try -again-

You, and others here, have tried over and over again to show that there are some essential differences between males and females. Perhaps this is true. If it's not, then power should be at least vaguely split. But if it is, it becomes absolutely vital that power is split as evenly as possible.

The reason being, the more different men and women are, the more we need our own representation in the decision making process. Not as the good little supportive wives of the leaders, but as leaders in our own right.

It's not that I don't trust men to -try- to work in my interest. It's that I don't trust men to know what my interests actually are. Men have fooled themselves for millenia that they were acting in the best interests of women. That's called chivalry. And it doesn't work.

Think back, just a bit. It hasn't been so long for you, so it should be easy. Think back to the age of 18, as you chafed at your parent's control of your life. At their acting in your best interests. Now, perhaps their choices, in the end, turned out to honestly be the best. Perhaps not. But still you chafed. Imagine that going on -forever-. Other people making your choices for you. Even if it's 'in your best interest' a life of that with no hope of release is tyranny. No rule without representation.

I do not want to be the one with absolute power. I don't want there to be one person with such power. The more decentralized we can make the system the better. But yeah, I know some centralized authority is going to be important. I just would like to know there are some people there with certain commonalities to me, in the hopes they might have some knowledge of what it is like to be a woman, and therefor be able to advocate for my interests. Not as a weak, supportive 'power behind the throne'. That's Bs. In male run societies, the wives of the leaders rarely have any say.

A movie to check out, torrent it if you will: 'Iron Jawed Angels'. One element of it is a very well-meaning Congressman, who truly loves his wife, working in the best interests of women to the best of his knowledge, actively blocking women's suffrage. And the story of his dutiful wife. It's a true story and speaks to exactly the point I am arguing.

A woman's power should not be determined by who her husband is. It should be determined by her own merits as a leader. Being married to a woman doesn't give a man any magical understanding of what it's like to be one. Having a woman's status determined by her marriage amounts to structural prostitution.

And my point about alpha-male dominant societies is that, in both primates and indigenous human tribal groups, this is what we see. There seem to be 2 types of leadership structures. One is male-dominant, and tends to be fairly violent. The other is egalitarian about power and tends to be peaceful. Many groups switch back and forth depending on threat levels. If we want a more peaceful social structure, we should really be looking at what social structures are peaceful. And the answer tends to be ones where power is split equally.

 

Form may be an illusion, but we all have our own illusions. In a societal context, what matters is how one's illusions compare to others'. Ones we mostly agree on we call truth. This is why greater or lesser power are meaningful terms. Unless you can find a way to change everyone's perception of things, their illusion matters and will lead to certain real effects.

 

What will take real trust, imho, is moving to a type of leadership that is more peaceful. One of the arguments against women in power is that they are too likely to trust other nations. That they aren't ruthless enough to handle war. Well, perhaps, on average, we're not. Even if the difference is only about 20%, maybe we're not. Maybe women in power would act as a foil to the hyper-competitive men who achieve power. Because as long as power has any privilege, and it's hard to see it not, the men and women that gain power will be the ones with the strongest competitive drive. And maybe that 20% lower ruthlessness will stay our hand, and help us aim for peace. Maybe that 20% higher tendency toward long-term planning will help us stave off ecological disaster.

Because I'm not just talking about politicians. That's not where all the power lies. I'm talking about all 3 branches of power. Political, economic and religious.

 

My brother says it's less filling.

 

This is arrogant but so much here is...

AutumnBreeze, minimize some things.

And I'll do it too.