the man does not realize
that he is dominated by his tendency to dominate.
that he is guilty of inaction, living within elaborate lie, transferring his own guilt from one scale of consciousness to the other, rarely allowing it the repose of adequate judgment.
the paradox in power: no force without resistance, and insofar as there is resistance, the desire to feel complete power is never fully satisfied.
that power is to be shared (symmetrically): that he partially exists in her capacity to do something affecting him, changing the probable pattern of future events; that he is enabled by her ability to get him to do something he would not otherwise do when she participates in decisions that affect him; that this power is also exercised when she devotes her energies to creating or reinforcing values and practices that limit the scope of verbal exchanges to considerations of only those issues which are comparitively innocuous to her. To the extent that she succeeds in doing this, he is prevented, for all practical purposes from bringing to the fore any issues that might in resolution be seriously detrimental to her set of preferences.
that love does not equal power.
that what is fundamental is love.
6 Comments:
You've been quite prolific lately, what's up?
Do you think that power and love are compatible? It is clear that power is not love and that anyone who wishes to exercise power over an other cannot truly love the person whom he wishes to control. For love involves subordinating ones desires to those of the other and compromising because one cannot do otherwise, one cannot stand to exercise power over the one he loves in a manner that would make her unhappy and because her happiness is paramount.
No, indeed power stifles love. To love is to allow the object of love to be free.
foofi la pouf said...
> It seems to me that you might be dominated by confusion.
Actually, I gently suggest that the confusion is yours in this case. If you read the piece carefully you will understand that she is making a specific analysis about a particular man as I don't think she's attempting a comprehensive analysis of the concept of power or saying that all men live within an elaborate lie.
> Power is understanding. In understanding is controlling. You take apart
> ideas and put them together again to understand them.
I think you need to develop this a little further for it to make sense.
> power cannot 'be shared symmetrically' because power seeks to dominate.
She suggests that for love to work, power has to be shared such that each has power over the other, and she writes quite perceptively about the subtle ways women exercise power over men.
> Love cannot coexist with power — impure and selfish though the former may be.
I think you'll find this to be inconsistent with what happens in the real world: love and power are not mutually exclusive, they are actually often intertwined.
> and PS, your thought process and voice sound suspiciously not unlike the
> gender you generously analyse.
> Or rather self-analyse?
I think this comment probably applies more to you than to Alia.
Latifa
"foofi la pouf"? What are you trying to hide?
- Joe Smith
> indeed power stifles love. To love is to allow the
> object of love to be free.
Unless the object of love is about to hurt himself or commit some catastrophic stupidity. Then you need to exercise a little friendly force. (-;
http://www.nearfar.org/love-is-understanding
Post a Comment
<< Home