Love and power?
I've read some interesting accounts which suggest that there is a dichotomy between love and power, that love can not compel whereas power does nothing other than compel, ultimately, in this theory, love prevails and is the greater of the two as power can not compel love, no matter how much it may seek to.
And, in this theory, it does seek to, this is why there is the confusing behaviour from all those who are dedicated to the pursuit of power, whether is a school yard bully or a concentration camp commandant, to expect that violence, compulsion, will be reciprocated with love, devotion and not simply capitulation, compliance or submission to commands.
While love requires trust, power can not trust because power expects all others to employing the same manipulations and compulsion as it does, so even in instances where, bizarrely, violence and compulsion does prompt some kind of love or devotion it will never be trusted to be such and therefore will provoke greater violence and compulsion until it results in (for the author of the violence) catastrophic loss of some kind, either the subject dies or leaves (sometimes the leaving will motivate homicide).
Love, on the other hand, implies or involves a freedom on either party, the author or the subject of the love and devotion, either can go and it should not be an occasion for catastrophic loss. This is a different idea to love in a lot of romantic sources, however, which would consider it to involve catastrophic loss, or it is not love, at least not le grande amoire.
What is your thinking about this? This is a little bit of a rude summary of what I've read in a number of different sources which seem to converge upon the same points, have you read anything similar or have you reached any similar conclusions?
I have read some similar dichotomies which use different terms and language, like Eric Berne's idea that you can either be a gamesplayer or engage with others in truth, it all seems to be a contrasting of the normal (which does not mean typical but I think is some how virtuous in character) and pathological (which strangely seems to be more typical in the sense of commonplace, much of the time the successful or prosperous are those who master or at least conform to this type well enough).
I've read some interesting accounts which suggest that there is a dichotomy between love and power, that love can not compel whereas power does nothing other than compel, ultimately, in this theory, love prevails and is the greater of the two as power can not compel love, no matter how much it may seek to.
And, in this theory, it does seek to, this is why there is the confusing behaviour from all those who are dedicated to the pursuit of power, whether is a school yard bully or a concentration camp commandant, to expect that violence, compulsion, will be reciprocated with love, devotion and not simply capitulation, compliance or submission to commands.
While love requires trust, power can not trust because power expects all others to employing the same manipulations and compulsion as it does, so even in instances where, bizarrely, violence and compulsion does prompt some kind of love or devotion it will never be trusted to be such and therefore will provoke greater violence and compulsion until it results in (for the author of the violence) catastrophic loss of some kind, either the subject dies or leaves (sometimes the leaving will motivate homicide).
Love, on the other hand, implies or involves a freedom on either party, the author or the subject of the love and devotion, either can go and it should not be an occasion for catastrophic loss. This is a different idea to love in a lot of romantic sources, however, which would consider it to involve catastrophic loss, or it is not love, at least not le grande amoire.
What is your thinking about this? This is a little bit of a rude summary of what I've read in a number of different sources which seem to converge upon the same points, have you read anything similar or have you reached any similar conclusions?
I have read some similar dichotomies which use different terms and language, like Eric Berne's idea that you can either be a gamesplayer or engage with others in truth, it all seems to be a contrasting of the normal (which does not mean typical but I think is some how virtuous in character) and pathological (which strangely seems to be more typical in the sense of commonplace, much of the time the successful or prosperous are those who master or at least conform to this type well enough).
