Template:M intro devil strength: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
It is also the time and effort expended to acquire skills, expertise, experience and resilience: the callouses you’ve grown, the toughened hide, the give in your frame, the system redundancies you have acquired. These confer ''strength'' not power. | It is also the time and effort expended to acquire skills, expertise, experience and resilience: the callouses you’ve grown, the toughened hide, the give in your frame, the system redundancies you have acquired. These confer ''strength'' not power. | ||
We talk a lot of [[power | We talk a lot of [[power structure]]s as a kind of pervasive and necessarily pernicious thing: those that are just acquisitions of hoarded resources, used by their owners to tilt the scales and preserve an unfair advantage, fair enough; but those ones are, in the long term, decadent. They eventually crumble. But not all social and political networks are like this: many are ''strength structures'' — mutually reinforcing systems of reciprocal collaboration that are quite different. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Power structure]] | *[[Power structure]] | ||
Latest revision as of 10:37, 25 July 2023
“A powerful person is one who brings the past to an outcome, settling all its unresolved issues. A strong person is one who carries the past into the future, showing that none of its issues is capable of resolution. Power is concerned with what has already happened; strength with what has yet to happen. Power is finite in amount, strength cannot be measured because it is an opening and not a closing act. Power refers to the freedom persons have within limits, strength to the freedoms persons have with limits.
Power will always be restricted to a relatively small number of selected persons. Anyone can be strong.”[1]
- — James P Carse, Finite and Infinite Games
There are many gems in James P. Carse’s masterwork (almost all of them missed by Simon Sinek’s threadbare cash-in, The Infinite Game, by the way) but the distinction he draws between power and strength is fantastic.
Think of power as accumulated, finite resource; a historical acquisition that is depleted by use, the way a battery loses its charge or a hydro-dam runs out of water.
Strength is prospective: it regenerates energy rather than using it; is somehow anti-fragile, a muscle that grows the more you exercise it and give of it.
The personal sacrifices one makes in the name of a wider cause; the good deeds you do when no-one sees, without asking for return; the reputation you build for honest dealing: There is a good Maori word for this sense of strength: mana.
It is also the time and effort expended to acquire skills, expertise, experience and resilience: the callouses you’ve grown, the toughened hide, the give in your frame, the system redundancies you have acquired. These confer strength not power.
We talk a lot of power structures as a kind of pervasive and necessarily pernicious thing: those that are just acquisitions of hoarded resources, used by their owners to tilt the scales and preserve an unfair advantage, fair enough; but those ones are, in the long term, decadent. They eventually crumble. But not all social and political networks are like this: many are strength structures — mutually reinforcing systems of reciprocal collaboration that are quite different.