Dialogue ~ 28

Consider what is meant by power and force. Is it possible that they are essentially the same thing, simply being referred to in differing ways?

An Oxford definition of power is: 1. The ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way. 2. The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events.

And of force is: 1. Strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement. 2. Coercion or compulsion, especially with the use of threat of violence.

It is clear that everyone is capable of behaving in all manner of ways. We have power in that regard. We don’t choose to behave in all ways, for our own reasons and/or because it is discouraged or not permitted within a relationship or community to do so. Compliance can give an impression of having relinquished power, although power is essentially still present. Consider that power is present both within one who is choosing to intimidate or bully another and the one being bullied. What differs is how power is recognised i.e. one’s perspective and this is where power is confused with force.

Force is now a science in itself; the use of force exists within many structures and institutions that we take for granted.

Children are enthusiastic to interact with the world and to learn what they can accomplish with their body. As adults, enthusiasm does not diminish, although what changes is the manner in which enthusiasm is recognised and expressed. Apathy, depression and happiness co-exist within a continuum of joy.

That which a person becomes is a narrative of an evolving relationship with life. What is interesting is that evolving or progressive is not necessarily cohesive; sometimes we are undone.

Perhaps one way to discern the relationship between power and force is to explore what is understood of the distinction between ‘being and our becoming’.

My favourite philosopher in this respect is Parmenides.

Of Parmenides, the scholar William Guthrie wrote, “Presocratic philosophy is divided into two halves by the name of Parmenides. His exceptional powers of reasoning brought speculation about the origin and constitution of the universe to a halt, and caused it to make a fresh start on different lines.”

Guthrie wrote, “The achievement of Parmenides was to demonstrate by logical argument that Being and Becoming were mutually exclusive. The choice must be made, and its outcome was not in doubt: something must exist. ‘It is’; therefore ‘becoming and perishing have been driven afar off ’. If Being excludes Becoming and Being is one, all plurality is banished to the realm of deceptive appearance... .The culmination of this train of thought was to deprive sense perception of any contact with reality, and to demand acceptance of the paradoxical notion that nothing existed save a single undifferentiated entity—spherical (Parmenides) or of infinite magnitude (Melissus)—which filled all space (though their way of expressing this was that empty space did not exist), yet was intangible and invisible and only to be grasped by the intellect. For philosophy to rest there was impossible.”

Contemplate then, that if reality is that which is eternal and undivided being, what is a purpose of individuation i.e. of becoming anything? In an instant of contemplation and of any thought arising would be the demise of its existence. Such a cycle or indeed bubble of consciousness would require tremendous energy to generate; perhaps this orientation of energy is how we might regard force as opposed to power? Force as the ‘will to become’ in motion; fragments of an idea of self and which are each seeking resolution?

All actions have consequences; some are immediate and unmistakable and others are subtle. What or where is the field in which these events are organised, such that they are coherent or meaningful for the human intellect?

I am able to observe, interpret and experience events. Is it possible to comprehend the causality or mechanism of how such events came to be in the world (together with their being recognised by me)? I can reasonably say that I have an idea of why a person acts as they do or of why certain events are occurring, but this is only an interpretation and I do not know the detail. It appears to me as if the intellect is endeavouring to interpret events from a very small window or dimension of reality (as observer), even when multiple perspectives can be understood.

In his book ‘The Conscious Mind’ and concerning ‘the intrinsic nature of the physical’, the philosopher and cognitive scientist David J Chalmers wrote, “…physical theory only characterizes its basic entities relationally, in terms of their causal and other relations to other entities. Basic particles, for instance, are largely characterised in terms of their propensity to interact with other particles. Their mass and charge is specified, to be sure, but all that a specification of mass ultimately comes to is a propensity to be accelerated by certain forces, and so on. Each entity is characterised by its relation to other entities, and these entities are characterised by their relations to other entities, and so on forever (except, perhaps, for some entities that are characterised by their relation to an observer). The picture of the physical world that this yields is that of a giant causal flux, but the picture tells us nothing about what all this causation relates. Reference to the proton is fixed as the thing that causes interactions of a certain kind, that combines in certain ways with other entities, and so on; but what is the thing that is doing the causing and combining? As Russell (1927) notes, this is a matter about which physical theory is silent."

Is it possible to discern between power (being) and force (becoming)? Can one say with any certainty whether reality is eternal and unchanging or is in flux and evolving? How do both these schools of thought contribute to a consensus of opinion of reality or worldview and determine the limitations of knowledge and of the freedom of the self towards wisdom and truth?