Power

JSS,

Go ahead and play your reindeer games, 'tis the season. No serious specifics.

To You …
… the “specifics” are boring … not worth typing.

Yes. Instead of "lesser forms of power“ one could also use the wording “hierarchically more determined by those that are less determined”, or the wording “carried or borne by more strata or levels”.

According to Nicolai Hartmann there are four main strata or levels of being or reality:

[b]| _____ (4) Geistiges _____ |

| _______ (3) Seelisches _______|

| _________ (2) Organisches _________|

| ____________ (1) Anorganisches ____________ |[/b]

Schichtenlehre lt. N. Hartmann.

This four levels of reality are characterized by the fact that the respective higher (and lighter) level/s are carried or borne by the respective lower (and heavier) level/s and “free” towards the respective lower (and heavier) level/s - insofar as their “freedom” is not restricted by the fact that they are carreid or borne -, especially because they show new properties or characteristics against the respective lower level/s.

The (1) first, lowest, haeviest one is the inorganic level; the (2) second, second-lowest (and third highest), second-haeviest (and third-lightest) one is the organic level; the (3) third, third-lowest (and second-highest), third-heaviest (and second-lightest) one is the level of “Seelisches”, which means properties or characteristics of soul, psyche, emotion; the (4) fourth, highest, lightest one is the level of “Geistiges”, which means properties or characteristics of spirit, thinking, intellectuality, imagery.

So, for example, the inorganic level (1) is carried or borne by no other level, whereas the level of “Geistiges” (4) is carried or borne by all other levels.

Inorganic beings (1) do not need an organic body (2), do not need “Seelisches” (3), do not need “Geistiges” (4), whereas even the highest spirit of all times (4) needs “Seelisches” (3), needs an organic body (2), needs inorganic beings (1).

The fourth level is not capable of existing without the other three levels, because it is carried or borne by them. The third level is not capable of existing without the second and the first level, because it is carried or borne by them. The second level is not capable of existing without the first level, because it is carried or borne by it. Only the first level is capable of existing without the other three levels, because it is not carried or borne by them. The first level is unfree because of its type of determination: causality. The second level is relatively free in the sense that it is categorially free towards the first level. The third level is relatively free in the sense that it is categorially free towards the second and the first level. The fourth level is relatively free in the sense that it is most categorially free (but not 100% free), which means categorially free towards the three other levels.

100%-freedom is not possible: the fact that the lower and heavier levels carry the higher and lighter levels means that the higher and lighter levels depend on the lower and heavier levels, although the higher and lighter levels are relatively free towards the lower and heavier levels; and the lowest and heaviest level (1) is not free because of its type of determination: causality. Note: “relatively free” means here “categorially free”; each level has its own categories.

Hartmann postulated four laws that apply to the levels of reality:

- The law of recurrence: Lower categories recur in the higher levels as a subaspect of higher categories, but never vice versa.
- The law of modification: The categorial elements modify in their recurrence in the higher levels (they are shaped by the characteristics of the higher levels).
- The law of the novum: The higher category is composed of a diversity of lower elements, but it is a specific novum that is not included in the lower levels.
- The law of distance between levels: Since the different levels do not develop continuously but in leaps, they can be clearly distinguished.

The first and the second level are spatial, the third and the fourth level are not spatial.

The first level (which is pretty similar to what you called “physical power”) is in fact the most powerful one, has in fact the strongest power in the sense that the other three levels are carried or borne by the first level and that the categories of the first level recur in the higher levels (and never vice versa) as a subaspect of higher categories.

An example:

You hit a man and this hit causes something physically (=> (1) matter, causality). Maybe you hit that man bcause he has threatened you; so you just want to save your own life (=> (2) life, urge). Maybe you groundlessly hate that man and therefore you hit him (=> (3) Seele, motif). Maybe your hate is not reasonless, and you hit that man because of a reason (=> (4) Geist, reason).

| LEVEL | CATEGORY | TYPE OF DETERMINATION |
| _ (4) _| __ Geist __| _______ Reason _______ |
| _ (3) _| __ Seele __| ________ Motif ________|
| _ (2) _| ___ Life __ | ________ Urge ________|
| _ (1) _| _ Matter _ | _______ Causality ______|

[tab]If one looks at the connection of levels and categories, many world views contain for Hartmann the basic mistake of the fundamental one-sidedness.

• The materialism tries to derive organic (2), emotional (3) and spiritual (4) phenomena from physical processes (1) and overlooks the more complicated structures at the respective higher level.
• Alike the biologism tries to found emotional (3) and spiritual (4) phenomena on the life (2) principles and overlooks the laws of the novelty and the freedom.
• The vitalism tries an explanation of life (2) with the principle of the finality, although this is a category of the Geistiges (4).
• In the idealism occurs an explanation of the world (1 and 2) in the principle of the subject, although the subject is to be assigned to the level of the Geistiges (4).

Nicolai Hartmann:
[/tab]

More like …the “specifics” are wrong…

Along the Way, I don’t think you’ve read my 2 posts. All powers are necessarily physical, for the measurement of how powerful they are is ultimately their ability to affect the physical realm (reality). Physical power =/= bodily strength, I pointed this out in my OP, and this also applies to HaHaHa’s post as well.

There are 2 additional divisions of power -

1. Genuine, independent power. This power flows from self and does not depend, or depends less on otherness to be effective.
2. Empowerment, dependent power. This power is based to some extent on self, but in order to be realized it is dependent on the presence of some otherness. This is why it is sometimes considered inferior, although it can overpower 1) in certain contexts, but not in the long run. All types of social power belong in this category.

Arminius, I can’t say I agree entirely but this Hartmann sounds like he’s worth reading.

Nicolai Hartmann is worth reading - in any case -, yes.

Well they would not be called psychic if they were although I tend not to
accept something as true unless it can actually be demonstrated to be so

So what of an example of a delusional cult leader (like Heaven’s Gate for example) who believes he’s a prophet or messiah, or whatever, and whose delusions eventually lead to mass suicides? Let’s assume he’s truly insane too, and really believes what he’s saying, himself (no conscious manipulation involved). That would be an example of fantasy (“non-physical”) affecting events in physical world. Or what about suicide bombers who think they’re just earning a place in the afterlife by blowing themselves up and causing damage in physical world? Let’s say people are not even targets of insane visions. It could be animals or natural landscapes. Power or force is manifested in the physical world, but it comes from a mental delusion.

Psychological power. The ability to exploit a person by appealing to their emotions and feeding into their deepest desires.

You will notice that all religions and other methods of psychological manipulation feed into some fundamental human weakness/need. The God is the ultimate father figure, feeds into the human desire to be cared for and guided, makes one feel safe and gives a sense of purpose, absolving the individual of the responsibility of constructing their own purpose. Heaven promises eternal happiness for eternity - it doesn’t get much more obvious than that, appealing to the satisfaction of all of a person’s needs. And hell, its opposite - eternal punishment, appealing to fear of pain and suffering.

Those who are deluded themselves perhaps even make the best leaders because they are convincing, they don’t have to consciously switch between their private beliefs (what they actually believe) and public beliefs (what they sell to the masses), for they are one and the same.

But those who are aware that they are just manipulating others have the advantage of not being manipulated themselves by the same bullshit, Jews are the example of this - they sell all kinds of ideological bullshit to others, whilst of course rejecting it themselves. The downside is that others may perceive and point out this hypocrisy, which opens them up for criticism.

Even fantasy is physical in that it is constructed and contained by a physical brain, and representations of these connections in the brain can be expressed using written and spoken language.

The problem I’m having with the concept of power or force (which has been bugging me lately) is that it’s such a broadly used term, if you think about it, that it’s almost easier to think of it in terms of just physics if you’re trying to isolate it’s essence. Surely, force or power is something that has existed in nature before humans came along, and even before life itself appeared on earth. We talk about earth being created by cosmic forces, and later by geological forces and weather systems, which later created the environment conductive to life. Then life appeared, which could be considered a force of its own kind (negative entropy) which is driven by self replication/survival. Then, increasing complexity, either through assimilations or random mutations (how does force or power play into that?). It’s easy to use human or political examples of use of power, but what can we say of it’s essence? Is it determined by its function, or consequence/result, or its source, or is it a term that we use arbitrarily when you look at a bigger picture which does not even consider humans or animals as an exclusive source in power/force plays that may actually exist. Perhaps the problem lies in the language use, but then what would it be without linguistic definition?

Power is the ability to change.

An alternative definition would be that power is the ability to posit a goal and then achieve it but this excludes everything that does not have a goal (e.g. tornadoes) or is said to have an “unconscious” goal which is something that is rarely observed and often merely postulated (e.g. any human action that is not preceded by a conscious idea of a goal.)

A physically strong man is powerful because physical strength allows him to manipulate heavy objects by changing their physical position and shape.

A liar is powerful because he can change people’s thoughts.

An intelligent person is powerful because he can better anticipate events.

And so on and so forth.

That’s very broad. Everywhere I’d look I would see power because change is happening everywhere. (Maybe transfer of energy would be a better description).

You would still see transference (dissipation) of energy in tornadoes, from combination of ordered warm/cold fronts to their dispersal and dissipation(from non-equilibrium to equilibrium). It would not follow the goal per se, but it would follow a natural law, this is why we can predict the possibility of formation of tornadoes or hurricanes beforehand.

I think in physics that would technically be how much work is done. In physics, power (rating) would be how long it would take to do work (power=rate at which work is done). In people, we would also call this an efficiency factor, that is, an efficient person would do the same (or greater) amount of work in less time (and with less wasted energy)

“The ability to cause change” is “potential energy”. The changing itself is “energy”. And then “power” is how much change is caused within an amount of time (usually conflated with “potential power”).

In physics, power is energy over time = how much changing (the “work”) is done within a specified amount of time (the rate of energy transfer or the rate of changing of the changing).

In physics energy is defined as the ability to perform work. That ability reduces over time
as entropy increases. In a system with maximum entropy no work at all can be performed

I agree that is what is said and taught, but it happens to not be true. The “Second Law of Thermodynamics” is merely a commonality, not a law.

The Second Law Of Thermodynamics states that entropy will not decrease over time so
some equilibrium can be maintained in specific cases but in most cases it does increase

True (close to where ever life grows).

Although universally, it increases in exactly one half of the cases.

Whenever you see one object changing another object – change must be caused – that would be a manifestation of power i.e. the ability to change. That, however, does not mean that every object has the same ability to change, in terms of both quality (kind of change) and quantity (degree of change), as every other object.

It is useful to define what ability is.

Ability means being able to do something.

Ability to do something means that you can do that action. That means nothing other than that you will perform that action when you’re expected to do so.

Ability is an interpretation not a fact.
Facts refer to memories of what was.
Interpretations refer to predictions of what will be or would have been.

A child, for example, is expected to be successful each time it tries to lift a lighter object and unsuccessful each time it tries to lift a heavier object. These expectations, of course, are limited to its early childhood.

When it grows up, say when it reaches adulthood, he is expected to be successful with both lighter and heavier objects.

Because we predict that an adult can physically perform everything a child can and then some more, we say that the adult is physically stronger than the child.

Right.

Well, I can only speak on that which I can observe and that which makes sense to me. I cannot, in honesty, really speak as to what’s going on elsewhere in the universe. How would I (or anyone) know anyway?

Yes, and in physics, as James noted, that ability to change would be considered potential energy. In physics, there would also be additional variables considered for power, such as speed of such change. You can do the same quality and quantity of change but doing it faster would be considered more powerful (in physics anyway), so, as an example, blasting a large hole in the mountain with dynamite in 2 seconds vs. digging it out by hand for 15 yrs vs. natural water erosion by rain water for 2 million yrs. Same result, different pace. (the first example of work would be considered more powerful on the account of speed) But then, in energy transfers, and work done, isn’t there also an efficiency factor involved, or the amount of energy used up for work. Which of the three would be most efficient? I’m thinking the third example. Sport vehicles, for example, maybe powerful and faster but would not be considered efficient, as they also consume a lot of fuel in the process. Maybe this does not specifically have anything to do with power per se, but if you’re talking change and energy transfers these elements start coming into play as well. It seems to me that the efficiency factor may actually exist independently of power factor. So far, I’ve identified four variables in energy transfer dynamics: potential energy (ability), power (rate), work (amount of change or the amount of energy transferred by force), and efficiency (energy lost/conserved in the process). Perhaps it can be debated whether power should be further differentiated to include rate and not just work (as it seems to be usually understood).

(Well, so much for me attempting to geek this thread out. )

Logical necessity tells you of what must be, regardless of where it is.

You did pretty good … for a Geekette.