Absolute Power: Violence - Tilted Forum Project - TFP - Sexuality, Philosophy and Political Discussion

Crompsin · 09-01-2007, 11:34 PM

Being a humble creature of this island Earth, I have thought about it extensively and propose that violence is the root of all power on this here rock.

Any facet of it: actual violence, the threat of violence, the ability to do violence, fear of violence, the proliferation and research into the advancement of, those who manufacture the preferred tools of, those who seek to control and limit it, etc.

I propose that violence governs all, is responsible for all of society's constructs, etc.

Any thoughts?

bermuDa · 09-01-2007, 11:54 PM

I'd say that violence ultimately just proliferates until whatever power gained from it becomes unmanageable. It's one way to gain power, but it's an unstable source.

Borgs · 09-02-2007, 12:39 AM

Power is not violence but rather lack of it. Most of us are violent but few are powerful.

JumpinJesus · 09-02-2007, 01:14 AM

Power is an illusion. It only exists through the consent of the controlled.

Those who attain power through violence will see violence as the root of power.

Those who attain power through fear will see fear as the root of power.

In other words, whichever method is used to attain power will be seen as the root of power by the group that used that particular method.

Their beliefs are mistaken because, as I've already mentioned, power exists by consent only. The root of power is consent.

ratbastid · 09-02-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borgs

Power is not violence but rather lack of it.

Bingo.

One definition of power is: the ability to produce results without force.

Only the powerless need to resort to force or violence to produce results. The truly powerful NEVER do.

Crompsin · 09-02-2007, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

Power is an illusion.

Somebody inform countries with primitive military technology who get their asses kicked.

Somebody inform kids who get beat up at school for being physically smaller, weaker.

Somebody inform the White House. They play the violence card all day.

Somebody inform the feeling you get when the police pull you over for a traffic violation.

...

We've already established that life is an illusion, too.

albania · 09-02-2007, 08:51 AM

I remember a few lectures by my political theory professor on something termed the economy of violence it sounded similar to what you're trying to say. As I recall he made some very interesting points, however, that class was over two years ago and I'm not a political science major so I won't try to recreate them. Maybe someone who knows more about it will chime in. I did manage to find this tidbit of info:

Quote:

I have suggested a number of places where Machiavelli is consciously or implicitly breaking from the ancient political tradition -- politics as a science, dual standard of morality, appearance vs. reality, focus on realism vs. idealism. Perhaps the most dramatic break with the past is in Machiavelli's discussion of violence and the political process.

There had been few political theorists prior to Machiavelli who regarded power and violence as dominant attributes of the state. With Machiavelli power has come to the front stage in the concerns of the theorist. Politics could be controlled or directed without the application of force.

What Machiavelli tries to do is create a science of the controlled application of Violence (See Sheldon Colin, Politics and Vision for an extended discussion of this thesis.). It would be a science able to administer violence in precise and measured dosages. In a corrupt society, for instance, violence represents the only means of correcting decadence, a brief but severs shock treatment is necessary to restore civic consciousness. In other situations, violence might be unnecessary, the prince might only threaten its use or play on the fears of his constituents. Machiavelli is not suggesting that violence should be used indiscriminately. Violence must be regulated and apportioned. It would be foolish to use it where it was not needed.

Machiavelli's writings on violence represent a profound shift in Western's societies acceptance of violence as a one amongst many of the tools of the politician. Classical Greek thought abhorred any action that exceeded standards of morality or the mean. An act of violence was a break in the natural limits that a good person was duly bound to preserve. Aristotle, the tutor of Alexander the Great, thought long and hard about these questions. Masters, he said, must never be confused with statesmanship. There is something deeply wrong when a profession is so practical as to justify deliberate killing. The success of a conqueror like Alexander does not place his acts outside the limits set by; nature and morality.

The conviction that natural limits to violence existed and that violence was inherently wrong persisted into the sixteenth century. To what degree Machiavelli is responsible for the changing views about violence in the sixteenth century is hard to say. For a whole series of reasons, and Machiavelli was just one part, violence ceased to be regarded as an act of passion. It was possible think of the use of violence in a cool and calculating manner. Machiavelli instructed people in what might be called an economy of violence. Violence as a tool in the hands of the statesman, was not to be misused or overused, but now violence was an accepted part of the politicians tool bag.

The break of modern political theory from the past was well under way. Machiavelli is a figure that seems much more comfortable in our world of the late twentieth century. Aristotle would have a much harder time dealing with this political theorist from Florence

from http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfcjh/wiu/e...n/machpol2.htm.

ratbastid · 09-02-2007, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Somebody inform countries with primitive military technology who get their asses kicked.

Somebody inform kids who get beat up at school for being physically smaller, weaker.

Somebody inform the White House. They play the violence card all day.

Somebody inform the feeling you get when the police pull you over for a traffic violation.

...

We've already established that life is an illusion, too.

Nobody said that violence and threat were illusions.

The illusion is the connection between those things and power.

Baraka_Guru · 09-02-2007, 09:57 AM

I don't think violence is the root of power. Violence is an action, a manifestation, if you will.

The root of power exists in the individual mind. How you interpret the world, decide on your course of actions, and then follow through will determine your source of power.

Mastery over others is being strong; mastery over oneself is the greatest power.

roachboy · 09-02-2007, 10:51 AM

first off despite the fact that you might use the same word---power---to designate a relation or pattern in any number of situations, power is not really one thing. you could say that power is a type of dominance that relies on assymetry of force that in some abstract sense can be linked back to the potential for violence--but it is not obvious that this says much simply because i am not sure that it is so easy peasy to separate "power" from the modes through which it is exercised. violence then becomes a subset of the term power, and what it means is a function. power is linked to the routines of its exercise and the framework (legal or convention or otherwise) that legitimates it/outlines it on the one hand, and the systems of institutions that are developed--and both these general characteristics are, taken together, basic to political power--as is the legal or political framework that orients these institutions and legitimates the apparatus as a whole. so power and legitimation are tied every bit as closely as power and violence. all these seem to me to be mutually defining terms.

for example: modern state power is often understood as *routinized* violence. the routinization---via bureaucracy say, or more obviously through law---is a sublimation of violence.

depending on the legal and political context, you can easily imagine situations in which the breakdown of this routinization leads to direct use of violence leads to a breakdown of legitimacy of the state itself. a simple example: the photograph of the kent state student shot by the national guard in 1969 (i think)...you know the photograph, i expect:

so if you use this photo to think about the question posed in the op---in this instance, the state exercised violence--and not its police function (say)--because the act itself violated the rules--and so was delegitimating of the state. it is possible that, from a different political viewpoint, there was no violence at kent state, only the legitimate actions of the national guard. so the notion of violence floats in and out of your interpretation of the photograph.

==============
the idea that violence stands above the routines that shape it does seem to come from machiavelli---but it is strange that this would be the case, if you think about it.

you could say that just as machiavelli's work instituted the notion of the political itself (rather "the prince" is the text around which the instituted notion of the political as a category took shape), it follows that the notion of the political duplicates the logic of various readings of "the prince"--many of which use it to effectively detach the notion of violence from having and holding power from any particular routine of exercising power.

but if you think about this, i think it's clear that the scenario of conquest (which is the basic scenario addressed in that book) is itself a situation. so the prince doesn't describe the basis for ALL situations--rather it is about the fundamental role played by situation itself. so you cant move from the prince to a general theory of violence and its relation to power---you move from violence to the problem of stabilization and the development of routines as the basis for power. getting power is one set of question: exercising it another.

what the "the prince" is mostly directly about is not violence, but the notion of situation itself: the situation of conquest or invasion and how a prince would go about managing its particular complexities--so you could say the same thing about it--violence is not the same as power, but its crude precondition *in the situations that machiavelli addresses*

power is implied by the way it is exercised--so it is situational or frame-contingent--so in the prince, the situation of having-conquered another community places, you, mister prince, by definition outside the routines----and your problem, really, is establishing legitimacy long enough to be able to set up new routines based around a different center. which of course is you.

sometimes i think people are so fascinated by the prince because while they are reading it, they are addressed as if they *are* the prince and there is something flattering in that, isnt there?

anyway in *that situation* power is violence but its exercise is about stabilization. but the next step is obvious: without successful routinization, there is no power. there is only the after-image of violence. that is not power.

and this is a situation amongst a host of them, and is not a meta-situation (one that outlines the logic of others).

you could say that political power, then, is both the potential for violence and the routines that channel it/transform it--and that one only has meaning in terms of the other.

so let's see---violence can only be deployed as power through its routinization.

routinized violence is a way of seeing the ways in which state power is exercised--but its sources lay in the routine itself and the legitimacy of the institutions that enact it and the framework that orients the political system as a whole.

so i dont see how you can detach violence from its routinization and questions of legitimacy if you are thinking about political power.

at this point, the post dovetails with what the other rb and jj posted above.

this is written through my 3rd cup of morning coffee, so any logic lapses are early morning products yes.

JumpinJesus · 09-02-2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Somebody inform countries with primitive military technology who get their asses kicked.

Somebody inform kids who get beat up at school for being physically smaller, weaker.

Somebody inform the White House. They play the violence card all day.

Somebody inform the feeling you get when the police pull you over for a traffic violation.

...

We've already established that life is an illusion, too.

All of those things you mentioned happen because those who are victims of that violence don't act to stop or prevent it. It has nothing to do with the perpetrators being powerful.

What you describe as power is bully mentality. Bully mentality is not power, it's insecurity. Weak and insecure people are quite capable of violent and horrific acts.

I think it more interesting to ask why some people are so interested in attaining power.

And the "life is an illusion" cliche isjust that, a cliche. It has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Ustwo · 09-02-2007, 07:02 PM

Violence is a currency.

It is the most powerful currency our species has, its how we are wired as great apes.

The funny thing is while we claim to abhor violence it is perhaps the very reason we have civilization in the first place. A clan, becomes a tribe, becomes a nation, for power and protection. To do violence unto others while protecting itself from others.

To deny its importance is to deny our heritage, and even trying to change it may well be folly as those who don't change will have the currency the pacifists lack.

filtherton · 09-02-2007, 07:22 PM

I would argue that cellular respiration is the root of all power in this here rock, but that would only apply to the efforts of animals. Perhaps the physical laws of the universe are a more apt basis.

I don't know why you'd stop at violence, as far as finding the roots of power goes; there are plenty of other sources of power that don't involve violence at all - unless you like really broad definitions of the word.

If you think that all coercion is backed by a promise of violence, you are mistaken.

Ustwo · 09-02-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

If you think that all coercion is backed by a promise of violence, you are mistaken.

But such are the minor currencies.

filtherton · 09-03-2007, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

But such are the minor currencies.

I don't know about that. I think that a member of any number of successful nonviolent movements would tend to disagree.

Unless you equate many different types of things that aren't traditionally considered violence (poverty, etc) with violence, which some folks like to do, the two aren't necessarily linked at all. It all depends on how broadly you want to go.

Look at how much power international banking institutions have. As far as i can tell, they don't have their own armies, and would have a difficult time convincing somebody else to provide an army to force developing countries to pay off their debts. So, with no means to commit violence, how do they manage to hold countries to their debts?

Nimetic · 09-03-2007, 04:22 AM

Mmm.

Maybe - but respectfully I'm going to try to throw spanners and see if anything sticks.

How does this explain

- sexual attraction.... of men to women
- power of a child, over a parent
- Ghandi's non-violent protest movement
- mass religious movements such as cults
- the effectiveness of modern advertising

AYHJA · 09-03-2007, 04:28 AM

And don't let me unravel the discussion w/simple semantics, but I think others have already touched on it...Both power and violence are merely points of view...Different sides of the same coin so to speak...

Whether we are talking violent in the sense of an action taken, even then it can be debated...Violence as the root of power, as in conflict or lack thereof, almost always depends on the end more so than the means...

Crompsin · 09-03-2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I would argue that cellular respiration is the root of all power in this here rock, but that would only apply to the efforts of animals. Perhaps the physical laws of the universe are a more apt basis.

I don't know, bro. That might be involuntary!

If I had a choice to breathe or not... I might just stop!

Rumor has it too much breathing causes lung cancer!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Violence is a currency.

It is the most powerful currency our species has, its how we are wired as great apes.

The funny thing is while we claim to abhor violence it is perhaps the very reason we have civilization in the first place. A clan, becomes a tribe, becomes a nation, for power and protection. To do violence unto others while protecting itself from others.

To deny its importance is to deny our heritage, and even trying to change it may well be folly as those who don't change will have the currency the pacifists lack.

Hey, this is what I was trying to say.

Thanks, chief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

And the "life is an illusion" cliche isjust that, a cliche. It has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Totally sardonic comment. A lame retort to the "power is an illusion" cliche, chief... like my choice of underwear, not to be taken seriously.

Silly side point:

Sure, power/force is an illusion in society. It is based on an action timeline. Illusion? Definitely. Damned if it doesn't just "illusion" some people to death!

See "World War 2" for references to the illusion of power killing people.

...

Just screwin' around. I love your brains.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimetic

Mmm.

Maybe - but respectfully I'm going to try to throw spanners and see if anything sticks.

How does this explain

- sexual attraction.... of men to women
- power of a child, over a parent
- Ghandi's non-violent protest movement
- mass religious movements such as cults
- the effectiveness of modern advertising

Mmm, let's be really vague:

- Sexual chemical reaction reward mechanism... I only want sex because my brain chems are screaming for it
- Parental chemical reaction reward mechanism... I only protect my child because I get a high from it or prevent a low
- Dunno, but I'd still fight him
- The cult stereotype typically involves fanatics and violence... we talking Charlie Manson or Catholic church? Both killed a lot of people.
- I don't own a television, but magazines seem to play on #1 and #2

ratbastid · 09-03-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

- Dunno, but I'd still fight him

There you go right there. You might fight him--and you might win the fight--but you'd lose the battle in the process.

Ghandi was one of the most powerful people of our time precisely because he produced extraordinary results (the independence of India, the cultural unification of Hindus and Muslims) without force.

Dr. King same story. Powerful man. Altered the world. Zero force.

Crompsin · 09-03-2007, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

There you go right there. You might fight him--and you might win the fight--but you'd lose the battle in the process.

Okay, I'll bite:

In theory, if I'd won... he'd have been dead. And thus, not being non-violent anymore... or alive, for that matter. Dead heroes (violent or non-violent) don't create anymore flashy ideas, and their perpetuation-oh-so-shiny charm power (or is that force?

) generally goes with them to the grave. Sheeple carry the ideals on, but they often lose their potency.

Abe Lincoln could have probably kicked my ass, though!

JumpinJesus · 09-03-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Totally sardonic comment. A lame retort to the "power is an illusion" cliche, chief... like my choice of underwear, not to be taken seriously.

Silly side point:

Sure, power/force is an illusion in society. It is based on an action timeline. Illusion? Definitely. Damned if it doesn't just "illusion" some people to death!

See "World War 2" for references to the illusion of power killing people.

...

Just screwin' around. I love your brains.

I can agree with you that violence has killed a lot of people. I think we're arguing over semantics, which would be silly.

I see violence as very real; I see power as very real. I just believe that seeing power as an absolute is wrong. It's like the value of our money. Once we went off the gold standard, our money became literally worthless, not worth more than the paper it's printed on. It's our belief in it's value that gives it value. Power is the same for me. There is no real power, only the belief in power that gives it.

And don't worry. I love this type of debate.

Crompsin · 09-03-2007, 04:30 PM

I concur. And I endorse this message:

Violence, like gold, is tangible. You can even do violence WITH gold! Hot.

"Power" / "Force", like the tired American greenback, might be the "illusion" of which we speak.

Somehow that isn't enough for me, though. I still feel like power is tangible somehow.

I'll work on it.

...

UsTwo, that smart cookie, used the saying I was craving.

Currency. A medium. A from-me-to-you thing.

(Crompsin gives UsTwo a gold star)

...

Hah, and I always break up fights in real life.

ratbastid · 09-03-2007, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

In theory, if I'd won.

09-01-2007, 11:34 PM	#1 (permalink)
Crompsin STRIKE FACE Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Prime Self	Absolute Power: Violence Being a humble creature of this island Earth, I have thought about it extensively and propose that violence is the root of all power on this here rock. Any facet of it: actual violence, the threat of violence, the ability to do violence, fear of violence, the proliferation and research into the advancement of, those who manufacture the preferred tools of, those who seek to control and limit it, etc. I propose that violence governs all, is responsible for all of society's constructs, etc. Any thoughts? __________________ C19H28O2 = C6H2(NO2)3CH3 All your base are belong to us.

09-01-2007, 11:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: CA	I'd say that violence ultimately just proliferates until whatever power gained from it becomes unmanageable. It's one way to gain power, but it's an unstable source. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

09-02-2007, 01:14 AM	#4 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Abuse Your Illusions Moderator Emeritus Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Chicago	Power is an illusion. It only exists through the consent of the controlled. Those who attain power through violence will see violence as the root of power. Those who attain power through fear will see fear as the root of power. In other words, whichever method is used to attain power will be seen as the root of power by the group that used that particular method. Their beliefs are mistaken because, as I've already mentioned, power exists by consent only. The root of power is consent. __________________ I thought you were leaving.

09-02-2007, 09:57 AM	#9 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru In the 6th percentile Moderator Join Date: May 2006 Location: Toronto	I don't think violence is the root of power. Violence is an action, a manifestation, if you will. The root of power exists in the individual mind. How you interpret the world, decide on your course of actions, and then follow through will determine your source of power. Mastery over others is being strong; mastery over oneself is the greatest power. __________________ "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. [...] In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer." —"Politics and the English Language," George Orwell "Humankind cannot bear very much reality." —"Burnt Norton," Four Quartets, T. S. Eliot

09-02-2007, 10:51 AM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: chicago	first off despite the fact that you might use the same word---power---to designate a relation or pattern in any number of situations, power is not really one thing. you could say that power is a type of dominance that relies on assymetry of force that in some abstract sense can be linked back to the potential for violence--but it is not obvious that this says much simply because i am not sure that it is so easy peasy to separate "power" from the modes through which it is exercised. violence then becomes a subset of the term power, and what it means is a function. power is linked to the routines of its exercise and the framework (legal or convention or otherwise) that legitimates it/outlines it on the one hand, and the systems of institutions that are developed--and both these general characteristics are, taken together, basic to political power--as is the legal or political framework that orients these institutions and legitimates the apparatus as a whole. so power and legitimation are tied every bit as closely as power and violence. all these seem to me to be mutually defining terms. for example: modern state power is often understood as routinized violence. the routinization---via bureaucracy say, or more obviously through law---is a sublimation of violence. depending on the legal and political context, you can easily imagine situations in which the breakdown of this routinization leads to direct use of violence leads to a breakdown of legitimacy of the state itself. a simple example: the photograph of the kent state student shot by the national guard in 1969 (i think)...you know the photograph, i expect: so if you use this photo to think about the question posed in the op---in this instance, the state exercised violence--and not its police function (say)--because the act itself violated the rules--and so was delegitimating of the state. it is possible that, from a different political viewpoint, there was no violence at kent state, only the legitimate actions of the national guard. so the notion of violence floats in and out of your interpretation of the photograph. ============== the idea that violence stands above the routines that shape it does seem to come from machiavelli---but it is strange that this would be the case, if you think about it. you could say that just as machiavelli's work instituted the notion of the political itself (rather "the prince" is the text around which the instituted notion of the political as a category took shape), it follows that the notion of the political duplicates the logic of various readings of "the prince"--many of which use it to effectively detach the notion of violence from having and holding power from any particular routine of exercising power. but if you think about this, i think it's clear that the scenario of conquest (which is the basic scenario addressed in that book) is itself a situation. so the prince doesn't describe the basis for ALL situations--rather it is about the fundamental role played by situation itself. so you cant move from the prince to a general theory of violence and its relation to power---you move from violence to the problem of stabilization and the development of routines as the basis for power. getting power is one set of question: exercising it another. what the "the prince" is mostly directly about is not violence, but the notion of situation itself: the situation of conquest or invasion and how a prince would go about managing its particular complexities--so you could say the same thing about it--violence is not the same as power, but its crude precondition in the situations that machiavelli addresses power is implied by the way it is exercised--so it is situational or frame-contingent--so in the prince, the situation of having-conquered another community places, you, mister prince, by definition outside the routines----and your problem, really, is establishing legitimacy long enough to be able to set up new routines based around a different center. which of course is you. sometimes i think people are so fascinated by the prince because while they are reading it, they are addressed as if they are the prince and there is something flattering in that, isnt there? anyway in that situation power is violence but its exercise is about stabilization. but the next step is obvious: without successful routinization, there is no power. there is only the after-image of violence. that is not power. and this is a situation amongst a host of them, and is not a meta-situation (one that outlines the logic of others). you could say that political power, then, is both the potential for violence and the routines that channel it/transform it--and that one only has meaning in terms of the other. so let's see---violence can only be deployed as power through its routinization. routinized violence is a way of seeing the ways in which state power is exercised--but its sources lay in the routine itself and the legitimacy of the institutions that enact it and the framework that orients the political system as a whole. so i dont see how you can detach violence from its routinization and questions of legitimacy if you are thinking about political power. at this point, the post dovetails with what the other rb and jj posted above. this is written through my 3rd cup of morning coffee, so any logic lapses are early morning products yes. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-02-2007 at 11:00 AM.

09-02-2007, 12:39 AM	#3 (permalink)
Borgs Tilted Join Date: Nov 2004	Power is not violence but rather lack of it. Most of us are violent but few are powerful.

09-02-2007, 07:02 PM	#12 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes Join Date: Apr 2003	Violence is a currency. It is the most powerful currency our species has, its how we are wired as great apes. The funny thing is while we claim to abhor violence it is perhaps the very reason we have civilization in the first place. A clan, becomes a tribe, becomes a nation, for power and protection. To do violence unto others while protecting itself from others. To deny its importance is to deny our heritage, and even trying to change it may well be folly as those who don't change will have the currency the pacifists lack. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-02-2007, 07:22 PM	#13 (permalink)
filtherton A poor man's version of a rich man. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I would argue that cellular respiration is the root of all power in this here rock, but that would only apply to the efforts of animals. Perhaps the physical laws of the universe are a more apt basis. I don't know why you'd stop at violence, as far as finding the roots of power goes; there are plenty of other sources of power that don't involve violence at all - unless you like really broad definitions of the word. If you think that all coercion is backed by a promise of violence, you are mistaken.

09-03-2007, 04:22 AM	#16 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Melbourne, Australia	Mmm. Maybe - but respectfully I'm going to try to throw spanners and see if anything sticks. How does this explain - sexual attraction.... of men to women - power of a child, over a parent - Ghandi's non-violent protest movement - mass religious movements such as cults - the effectiveness of modern advertising

09-03-2007, 04:28 AM	#17 (permalink)
AYHJA Upright Join Date: May 2005 Location: Stark-Vegas	And don't let me unravel the discussion w/simple semantics, but I think others have already touched on it...Both power and violence are merely points of view...Different sides of the same coin so to speak... Whether we are talking violent in the sense of an action taken, even then it can be debated...Violence as the root of power, as in conflict or lack thereof, almost always depends on the end more so than the means...

09-03-2007, 04:30 PM	#22 (permalink)
Crompsin STRIKE FACE Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Prime Self	I concur. And I endorse this message: Violence, like gold, is tangible. You can even do violence WITH gold! Hot. "Power" / "Force", like the tired American greenback, might be the "illusion" of which we speak. Somehow that isn't enough for me, though. I still feel like power is tangible somehow. I'll work on it. ... UsTwo, that smart cookie, used the saying I was craving. Currency. A medium. A from-me-to-you thing. (Crompsin gives UsTwo a gold star) ... Hah, and I always break up fights in real life. __________________ C19H28O2 = C6H2(NO2)3CH3 All your base are belong to us. Last edited by Crompsin; 09-03-2007 at 04:33 PM.