Power and Reality
I can still remember the days when one of my favorite childhood cartoons came on television: He-Man. I can still remember him holding up his sword and thundering, "By the power of Grayskull, I have the power!" What a powerful statement I used to think to myself. In fact, the statement still gives me goosebumps to this day. What it must be like to have that kind of power at my disposal...I can think of a hundred things I'd do with it (none of which particularly beneficent, though not altogether selfish). To be powerful, for me then involves having some kind of advantage that others do not have satisfying my need for speciality in and amongst my peers (especially my family and friends to whom I find an embarassing need to show-off, which does become rather embarassing at times). I want to be powerful enough to care for my son, love my wife and make my life easier. And so then another aspect of the power I want is that it makes life easier. But of course I would also want to impress the world with my power if possible...the more time in the spotlight the more inflated my ego becomes, the less stress I have, and the more I seem like that interesting person I always find on television.
In the last paragraph the word "I" and "me" appeared 25 times in a description of the kind of power I have been attracted to in my life. Thus, the power I want is an individual power that aids me and gives me an advantage in life, more 'freedom' to choose possibilities not available to others.
Again, I'm reminded of yet another superhero -- Superman. Now Superman has the possibility of flying, zapping things with his eye lasers, seeing through most objects, picking up objects too heavy for human beings, and going back in time -- all of which are possibilities not available to us naturally (as of yet at least). [And no I'm not going into a debate on what is and what is not natural...that's a few volumes of books]. Superman has the autonomous decision to use this advantage for his advantage or for others advantage. Of course, Superman is selfless, choosing the corporate good at all turns unless prevented by Kryptonite or other manipulation of his advantage.
Interesting, that when I think of power my mind surfs the array of superheroes first. Why? Is it because I was "glued to the tube" as a child and loved cartoons so much and so often that the memory stuck in the back of my mind so that it gets recalled at will? Perhaps. Is it because I imagined myself as a ninja turtle, as luke skywalker, as ender, as Aragorn, Wolverine, He-Man, a transformer, Captain Picard, Spock while I was growing up? Perhaps. Is it because all of my friends were interested in many of the same things, that I gravitated to these particular manifestations of power? Was it the yearning for acceptance that motivated me? Perhaps. Or more than likely all of these played a part in my perception of who and what is powerful and what manifestations power can take that I perceive to contain that power. It is then significant to note the social nature of human beings, and thus the social construction of what is powerful and what holds power.
Most nations hold America to be a nation more powerful than others, right? Not always. It depends upon your particular view of power. Returning to my first comments, the individualistic power that I grew up with informs me that indeed America is extremely powerful: we have an abundance of resources, wealth, autonomous freedom to choose within the parameters of the law, education, democracy, and the ability to destroy the world a thousand times over (or something like that). This is the power that gives Americans their perceived advantage over those in the rest of the world. We ignore the rest of the world because we know we are better than they are. Or we give the rest of the world charity while we stuff our faces, shop, buy, buy, buy, and indulge not in our ignorance concerning the condition of others but in our ignoring of them while masking with ignorance. Concerning the American mindset, I am not going to criticize it much more than I already have, but I would like to point out that it is our perceived advantage, our perceived power, that contributes to global strife because we tend to universalize our perception for the rest of the globe. And yes, the globe has conformed somewhat to the predictable advantage of the West, but because it is predictable, because it is physical and tangible -- something available to the senses that answers many questions. What is more powerful to us than the advantages we can see, touch and experience? That which we do not experience -- what I will refer to as the sacred?
What is powerful about a man who dies by having his hands and feet nailed to a tree where he slowly suffocates? What is powerful in this image? Is this merely a cathartic, experiential sort of empathy we have for a person who has committed no crime to die such a horrible death? I can still here my high school english grammar professor telling the class about the Bible as a good work of literature, utilizing rhetorical devices and grammar constructions uniquely to evoke certain emotions and create an ambiguity that lends it its power to transcend the ages (thus far). The sacred was not something embodied within the text, but mere rhetorical ambiguity to excite the weak-minded. Of course I believed him...his reasoning was sound, but more importantly he had answers, he had an empirical advantage over the religion to which I associated myself, which merely offered idealistic ambiguity (I thought at the time). How could Christianity, seemingly large and powerful, claim a power that revolves around a man that died on a tree and claim a power in faith that cannot be empirically verified? Faith could be merely explained away in terms of a psychological need, while the power in the crucifixion could be explained away as an event that embodies certain possibilities not available to human beings to which human beings find hope that one day they might be more than who and what they are. Is it the need of human beings to redefine power so that we are not bound by our temporal and humanly limitations? Is this why religion exists? So that human beings have the power, the advantage to cope with their existence in the empirical?
There are two powers at work here: the power of the sacred (mysterious advantage), and the power of empirical advantage. It is important to note this because both exist in our society.
Let's look at a metaphor: power as art. But what do I mean? Well, art can be powerful in a number of ways. It could be that art has its power in and among the cliques that auction it off and buy it. Or it could be that art has its power merely in an aesthetic sense. Or it could be that it has power psychologically. Or it could be that it has its power in human nature? Art can derive its power as communication? My point is that the power inherent in a work of art depends upon where a person or community stands at any given point in time. There are cultural factors that play a part, religious factors, etc. Isn't it interesting that we create art, which then takes on a life of its own, and then we exploit it to fulfill our own advantage. Art is then very powerful in an infinite number of ways. This is why it must be controlled. Granted this is a bit simplistic and not a complete analysis, but brevity is my goal: the power in art is balanced by sacred advantage and empirical advantage; in other words, power exists in art, but that power is sacred. But what is sacred cannot be so without control, otherwise society would fall apart. When what is sacred breaks loose, violence ensues (i've said this before). I would elaborate on these examples, but here are a few that I find relevant: The French Revolution, Protestant Reformation, Evolution...
What is sacred is institutionalized by religions to control it...but institutions, utilizing an empirical advantage cannot always contain the sacred advantage because the sacred is not always predictable. The empirical advantage only stands the test of time if something is predictable. But the sacred advantage points to something inexplicable, something not static that violates the empirical advantage we cling to in the West as what is powerful. Art is exploited as an empirical advantage, bought and sold, but again when the sacred advantage breaks free, it will violently re-emerge and redefine itself as art -- and this is true art.
Returning to the power of the cross that the Apostle Paul vehemently clings to in the letters attributed to him within the New Testament of the Bible, this is the power of the sacred with a temporal face, a promise, a hope, and an example for all of humanity. Understanding that human beings do not have access to understanding such power he relies on the grace of God to reveal such things to he and his brothers and sisters in Christ. As theologians put it, he sees through the lens of the cross revealing true power for what it is. And for Paul true power is God, the Sacred. But because human beings are limited beings in time, we can recognize true power when we see the world through the lens of Jesus' crucifixion, and as such focus the power of the sacred on its true origin. Christianity is not then something that one chooses, but is a reflection of how one perceives the power of the sacred given by God. But this perception of the sacred advantage is not unique to Christianity.
This power is institutionalized and focused in a number of ways by many people -- the world's religions, et al. Who has pegged the perception of the sacred that is more right? Christians, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Atheists, Scientists? Though I hate to brave a discussion of faith, this would be a logical place to do so. To start, the Muslim faith involves a numerical system wherein for every good act, certain numbers of eternal years of salvation are added into one's overall salvation; and for every bad act, a subtraction of years of eternal life? Christianity suggests that what we do has no effect on our eternal life, but rather God graciously gives all the possibility of eternal life (and no I will not go into a theological debate on election here -- I find it pointless and a Scriptural stalemate -- the point is that only God is responsible for human salvation). Comparing these two religions is walking a fine line here and I do not do justice to either...but what this illustrates is a difference in how the sacred is identified. In one, we have an empircal advantage still that seeps into eternal life, and in the other, we have an advantage that is not in our hands. Is the power of the sacred ours to control outside the temporal or not? Granted, this is of course conjecture, but it could be that we try to attribute the dominating perception of empirical power as more powerful into what we consider the power of the sacred. But if the power of the sacred is more powerful than the empirical advantage, then I have an ontological problem in attributing my socially conditioned empirical advantage to that of the sacred.
Returning to art, if buying and selling it as a commodity and the aesthetic value are together the socially constructed empirical advantage and human beings try to transpose this power onto the sacred power of the art, the empirical power falters every time because of its limited nature being imposed on something pointing to what is transcendent. But art, whether created as such or not, is not static or necessarily specific to a particular time period...
Here is where real power dynamics come into play and they have to do with a deeply-rooted metaphysical question: what is real? Reality over the years has been vastly interpreted in a broad range of ways...from Plato's forms, Aristotle's observation (potentiality and actuality), Bacon's induction, etc, etc...however the work does not stop with them (yes, I know I'm holding an allegiance with existentialism) but is a process of defining in our own lives. What is real to me, a social being (another assumption, I know), in a community with others? Or to phrase it another way, how do others reflect what is real? Because this question is processual and ongoing in our lives with no clear-cut definition given our temporal existence, then power struggles will always be a part of temporal humanity. In other words, while the good Muslim in Iraq holds that what is in the Quran is real, then any other possibility of what is real is automatically excluded from the discussion. Or if a Christian holds that what Scripture says is real, then this also excludes other possible definitions of reality. Absolutist, monopoly claims on reality are bound to cause tension and conflict where belief and faith are concerned because conviction does not change I have come to realize among many people I admire and respect.
Faith is something inherent within human nature that is generally characterized in the West in one of two ways: 1) true human nature is purely deterministic and physical and thus faith can be explained genetically as an evolutionary survival mechanism, or 2) true human nature is not yet realized and mystery is still in the equation leaving much conjecture. Scientist' allegiance to 1) pose the possibility of ending much tension and conflict with the correction of the misunderstanding that has long plagued humanity by means of de-mystifying the universe and the human being.
As such, I might add, 1) is attractive to me, in my experience and interactions with others, but 2) is more real. This could be because mystery plays a large role in my social life, or it could be that in my interactions and yearning for knowledge I have been unsatisfied with how much I can learn and retain from a broad spectrum of categories. Or it could be that my religious upbringing plays a large role in my perception of reality. Who knows? But what I do know is that historically, when scientists, Christians, whoever thinks they have everything almost figured out, more questions arise, and more questions arise until the questions far surpass the answers. And even when answers "solve" questions, the questions still remains with addendum questions. And when paradigms come crashing down at the introduction of a "better" one, the questions are continually being re-asked in different ways for purposes defined by the culture asking the questions. Thus the questions and the answers are both culturally conditioned and culturally limited.
What is real and what is powerful? What lens do you look through to answer this question? Paul used the criterion of the cross, the scientist the criterion of the scientific method, and the list goes on.
Rambling on and on is really a process of thinking through and re-assessing the lens through which I see because it makes no sense. I find power in what is seemingly unpowerful as a Christian and as such find myself always in tension (a concept I blogged on before). There are no assurances other than a deeply rooted faith I have for seeing the world the way I do and the community of friends and family that continually inform, encourage, challenge, and love me.
Though I did not discuss love here in this discussion, perhaps it deserves mention because for me it exhibits what is sacred and powerful. And that power is not a dominating one, not an advantageous one. Power is not advantage in the sense that we define it, but power is advantage in serving others through love. It is perhaps this deeply rooted faith in love that undergirds this discussion. It is this criterion that institutionalizes the sacred for Christians rather than the political organizations of the church that rest on this foundation. Traditionally, since Martin Luther the emphasis for Protestant Christians has been on grace and faith. But there is always a danger in holding to faith alone when the ambiguity of the term has historically led to very individual interpretations of it. Faith, hope and love are inextricably linked or a Christian has merely succumbed to empirical advantage over sacred advantage thus claiming grace alone as a means of human salvation but denying it at the same time.
To conclude this discussion of power, it is important to note that this discussion by no means limits anyone's perception of power. It is merely a little chunk to contribute to a conversation that is normatively significant.
In the last paragraph the word "I" and "me" appeared 25 times in a description of the kind of power I have been attracted to in my life. Thus, the power I want is an individual power that aids me and gives me an advantage in life, more 'freedom' to choose possibilities not available to others.
Again, I'm reminded of yet another superhero -- Superman. Now Superman has the possibility of flying, zapping things with his eye lasers, seeing through most objects, picking up objects too heavy for human beings, and going back in time -- all of which are possibilities not available to us naturally (as of yet at least). [And no I'm not going into a debate on what is and what is not natural...that's a few volumes of books]. Superman has the autonomous decision to use this advantage for his advantage or for others advantage. Of course, Superman is selfless, choosing the corporate good at all turns unless prevented by Kryptonite or other manipulation of his advantage.
Interesting, that when I think of power my mind surfs the array of superheroes first. Why? Is it because I was "glued to the tube" as a child and loved cartoons so much and so often that the memory stuck in the back of my mind so that it gets recalled at will? Perhaps. Is it because I imagined myself as a ninja turtle, as luke skywalker, as ender, as Aragorn, Wolverine, He-Man, a transformer, Captain Picard, Spock while I was growing up? Perhaps. Is it because all of my friends were interested in many of the same things, that I gravitated to these particular manifestations of power? Was it the yearning for acceptance that motivated me? Perhaps. Or more than likely all of these played a part in my perception of who and what is powerful and what manifestations power can take that I perceive to contain that power. It is then significant to note the social nature of human beings, and thus the social construction of what is powerful and what holds power.
Most nations hold America to be a nation more powerful than others, right? Not always. It depends upon your particular view of power. Returning to my first comments, the individualistic power that I grew up with informs me that indeed America is extremely powerful: we have an abundance of resources, wealth, autonomous freedom to choose within the parameters of the law, education, democracy, and the ability to destroy the world a thousand times over (or something like that). This is the power that gives Americans their perceived advantage over those in the rest of the world. We ignore the rest of the world because we know we are better than they are. Or we give the rest of the world charity while we stuff our faces, shop, buy, buy, buy, and indulge not in our ignorance concerning the condition of others but in our ignoring of them while masking with ignorance. Concerning the American mindset, I am not going to criticize it much more than I already have, but I would like to point out that it is our perceived advantage, our perceived power, that contributes to global strife because we tend to universalize our perception for the rest of the globe. And yes, the globe has conformed somewhat to the predictable advantage of the West, but because it is predictable, because it is physical and tangible -- something available to the senses that answers many questions. What is more powerful to us than the advantages we can see, touch and experience? That which we do not experience -- what I will refer to as the sacred?
What is powerful about a man who dies by having his hands and feet nailed to a tree where he slowly suffocates? What is powerful in this image? Is this merely a cathartic, experiential sort of empathy we have for a person who has committed no crime to die such a horrible death? I can still here my high school english grammar professor telling the class about the Bible as a good work of literature, utilizing rhetorical devices and grammar constructions uniquely to evoke certain emotions and create an ambiguity that lends it its power to transcend the ages (thus far). The sacred was not something embodied within the text, but mere rhetorical ambiguity to excite the weak-minded. Of course I believed him...his reasoning was sound, but more importantly he had answers, he had an empirical advantage over the religion to which I associated myself, which merely offered idealistic ambiguity (I thought at the time). How could Christianity, seemingly large and powerful, claim a power that revolves around a man that died on a tree and claim a power in faith that cannot be empirically verified? Faith could be merely explained away in terms of a psychological need, while the power in the crucifixion could be explained away as an event that embodies certain possibilities not available to human beings to which human beings find hope that one day they might be more than who and what they are. Is it the need of human beings to redefine power so that we are not bound by our temporal and humanly limitations? Is this why religion exists? So that human beings have the power, the advantage to cope with their existence in the empirical?
There are two powers at work here: the power of the sacred (mysterious advantage), and the power of empirical advantage. It is important to note this because both exist in our society.
Let's look at a metaphor: power as art. But what do I mean? Well, art can be powerful in a number of ways. It could be that art has its power in and among the cliques that auction it off and buy it. Or it could be that art has its power merely in an aesthetic sense. Or it could be that it has power psychologically. Or it could be that it has its power in human nature? Art can derive its power as communication? My point is that the power inherent in a work of art depends upon where a person or community stands at any given point in time. There are cultural factors that play a part, religious factors, etc. Isn't it interesting that we create art, which then takes on a life of its own, and then we exploit it to fulfill our own advantage. Art is then very powerful in an infinite number of ways. This is why it must be controlled. Granted this is a bit simplistic and not a complete analysis, but brevity is my goal: the power in art is balanced by sacred advantage and empirical advantage; in other words, power exists in art, but that power is sacred. But what is sacred cannot be so without control, otherwise society would fall apart. When what is sacred breaks loose, violence ensues (i've said this before). I would elaborate on these examples, but here are a few that I find relevant: The French Revolution, Protestant Reformation, Evolution...
What is sacred is institutionalized by religions to control it...but institutions, utilizing an empirical advantage cannot always contain the sacred advantage because the sacred is not always predictable. The empirical advantage only stands the test of time if something is predictable. But the sacred advantage points to something inexplicable, something not static that violates the empirical advantage we cling to in the West as what is powerful. Art is exploited as an empirical advantage, bought and sold, but again when the sacred advantage breaks free, it will violently re-emerge and redefine itself as art -- and this is true art.
Returning to the power of the cross that the Apostle Paul vehemently clings to in the letters attributed to him within the New Testament of the Bible, this is the power of the sacred with a temporal face, a promise, a hope, and an example for all of humanity. Understanding that human beings do not have access to understanding such power he relies on the grace of God to reveal such things to he and his brothers and sisters in Christ. As theologians put it, he sees through the lens of the cross revealing true power for what it is. And for Paul true power is God, the Sacred. But because human beings are limited beings in time, we can recognize true power when we see the world through the lens of Jesus' crucifixion, and as such focus the power of the sacred on its true origin. Christianity is not then something that one chooses, but is a reflection of how one perceives the power of the sacred given by God. But this perception of the sacred advantage is not unique to Christianity.
This power is institutionalized and focused in a number of ways by many people -- the world's religions, et al. Who has pegged the perception of the sacred that is more right? Christians, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Atheists, Scientists? Though I hate to brave a discussion of faith, this would be a logical place to do so. To start, the Muslim faith involves a numerical system wherein for every good act, certain numbers of eternal years of salvation are added into one's overall salvation; and for every bad act, a subtraction of years of eternal life? Christianity suggests that what we do has no effect on our eternal life, but rather God graciously gives all the possibility of eternal life (and no I will not go into a theological debate on election here -- I find it pointless and a Scriptural stalemate -- the point is that only God is responsible for human salvation). Comparing these two religions is walking a fine line here and I do not do justice to either...but what this illustrates is a difference in how the sacred is identified. In one, we have an empircal advantage still that seeps into eternal life, and in the other, we have an advantage that is not in our hands. Is the power of the sacred ours to control outside the temporal or not? Granted, this is of course conjecture, but it could be that we try to attribute the dominating perception of empirical power as more powerful into what we consider the power of the sacred. But if the power of the sacred is more powerful than the empirical advantage, then I have an ontological problem in attributing my socially conditioned empirical advantage to that of the sacred.
Returning to art, if buying and selling it as a commodity and the aesthetic value are together the socially constructed empirical advantage and human beings try to transpose this power onto the sacred power of the art, the empirical power falters every time because of its limited nature being imposed on something pointing to what is transcendent. But art, whether created as such or not, is not static or necessarily specific to a particular time period...
Here is where real power dynamics come into play and they have to do with a deeply-rooted metaphysical question: what is real? Reality over the years has been vastly interpreted in a broad range of ways...from Plato's forms, Aristotle's observation (potentiality and actuality), Bacon's induction, etc, etc...however the work does not stop with them (yes, I know I'm holding an allegiance with existentialism) but is a process of defining in our own lives. What is real to me, a social being (another assumption, I know), in a community with others? Or to phrase it another way, how do others reflect what is real? Because this question is processual and ongoing in our lives with no clear-cut definition given our temporal existence, then power struggles will always be a part of temporal humanity. In other words, while the good Muslim in Iraq holds that what is in the Quran is real, then any other possibility of what is real is automatically excluded from the discussion. Or if a Christian holds that what Scripture says is real, then this also excludes other possible definitions of reality. Absolutist, monopoly claims on reality are bound to cause tension and conflict where belief and faith are concerned because conviction does not change I have come to realize among many people I admire and respect.
Faith is something inherent within human nature that is generally characterized in the West in one of two ways: 1) true human nature is purely deterministic and physical and thus faith can be explained genetically as an evolutionary survival mechanism, or 2) true human nature is not yet realized and mystery is still in the equation leaving much conjecture. Scientist' allegiance to 1) pose the possibility of ending much tension and conflict with the correction of the misunderstanding that has long plagued humanity by means of de-mystifying the universe and the human being.
As such, I might add, 1) is attractive to me, in my experience and interactions with others, but 2) is more real. This could be because mystery plays a large role in my social life, or it could be that in my interactions and yearning for knowledge I have been unsatisfied with how much I can learn and retain from a broad spectrum of categories. Or it could be that my religious upbringing plays a large role in my perception of reality. Who knows? But what I do know is that historically, when scientists, Christians, whoever thinks they have everything almost figured out, more questions arise, and more questions arise until the questions far surpass the answers. And even when answers "solve" questions, the questions still remains with addendum questions. And when paradigms come crashing down at the introduction of a "better" one, the questions are continually being re-asked in different ways for purposes defined by the culture asking the questions. Thus the questions and the answers are both culturally conditioned and culturally limited.
What is real and what is powerful? What lens do you look through to answer this question? Paul used the criterion of the cross, the scientist the criterion of the scientific method, and the list goes on.
Rambling on and on is really a process of thinking through and re-assessing the lens through which I see because it makes no sense. I find power in what is seemingly unpowerful as a Christian and as such find myself always in tension (a concept I blogged on before). There are no assurances other than a deeply rooted faith I have for seeing the world the way I do and the community of friends and family that continually inform, encourage, challenge, and love me.
Though I did not discuss love here in this discussion, perhaps it deserves mention because for me it exhibits what is sacred and powerful. And that power is not a dominating one, not an advantageous one. Power is not advantage in the sense that we define it, but power is advantage in serving others through love. It is perhaps this deeply rooted faith in love that undergirds this discussion. It is this criterion that institutionalizes the sacred for Christians rather than the political organizations of the church that rest on this foundation. Traditionally, since Martin Luther the emphasis for Protestant Christians has been on grace and faith. But there is always a danger in holding to faith alone when the ambiguity of the term has historically led to very individual interpretations of it. Faith, hope and love are inextricably linked or a Christian has merely succumbed to empirical advantage over sacred advantage thus claiming grace alone as a means of human salvation but denying it at the same time.
To conclude this discussion of power, it is important to note that this discussion by no means limits anyone's perception of power. It is merely a little chunk to contribute to a conversation that is normatively significant.
posted by Timcom at 8:59 PM
1 Comments:
This was written really quickly and after re-reading it, I need to clarify some things...I'll do it when I get time...but the bulk of the discussion is there as stream of consciousness.
Post a Comment
<< Home