A Theory of Power

Joycey

Just started rereading this book today, was hoping maybe some people on here might get interested as well and would share their thoughts on it. Has greatly influenced the way I think about social organisation, and all kinds of things really.

Its only 50 (short) pages long and your man that wrote it made it freely available online.

Heres the link and il copy and paste the preface for ye:

http://jeffvail.net/atheoryofpower.pdf

I began writing this book while puzzling about the nature of power. I was debating the cause of the state of the world: is our present situation the result of some mysterious conspiracy, or is it the logical result of natural processes of power? As I looked into the nature of power, it became increasingly clear that the prominent actors and forces in the world today are emergent phenomena, resulting from a dominant, hierarchal pattern of power. The structure of power, it seems, is the root cause of the problems humanity struggles to solve. The result of my inquiry—this Theory of Power—is my attempt to understand root causes and to present a toolkit addressing the daunting problems facing our civilization.

The first eight chapters outline my theory as it parallels the development of civilization and humanity. The ninth chapter provides my suggested tools to solve the problems presented. The goal of this book is to both present the world in a new and revealing way, and to provide suggestions that inspire the reader with implementable solutions.

I would also like to take this opportunity to grant blanket permission to reproduce and use any portion of this text for any non-commercial purpose. I hope that the message of this book reaches as large an audience as possible—and for that, I request your support.

Jeff Vail
Colorado—August 22, 2004

The guy who wrote it is actually an energy advisor to the American military, believe it or not, but hes also an anarchist theorist and hes obviously got a head on his shoulders. He incorporates loads and loads of different schools and histories of thought in a clear manner, without going too indepth into any one thing but giving plenty of references to other texts on each page. The only reason im posting it in the philosophy forum is because chances are the discussion will be better and hopefully more people will read it

Have a look at it anyway, and if it starts a discussion well and good. I was hooked after reading the first couple of pages the first time...

DadaKopf

I'd be interested in discussing it. I notice the last chapter explicitly references Deleuze and Guattari, whose rhizomatic theory of knowledge and power has influenced Hardt and Negri (autonomists) and Jean-Francois Bayart who developed the term 'rhizome state' in relation to sub-Saharan African countries.

I'm reading loads of stuff at the moment, and was just asked to write a book reviw, but I'll try scan it soon.

Joycey

DadaKopf wrote: »

I'd be interested in discussing it. I notice the last chapter explicitly references Deleuze and Guattari, whose rhizomatic theory of knowledge and power has influenced Hardt and Negri (autonomists) and Jean-Francois Bayart who developed the term 'rhizome state' in relation to sub-Saharan African countries.

I'm reading loads of stuff at the moment, and was just asked to write a book reviw, but I'll try scan it soon.

Yeah his programme is basically to oppose rhizome and heirarchy and argue for the benefits and necessity of rhizomatic structure to get us out of our mess. Have never come across the rhizomatic theory of knowledge before, ive heard mention of it once or twice in relation to theories of self organisation(power). Only ever had the briefest skim through Mille Plateux as my only direct encounter with D+G, might actually have a glance at it when im done with this post. Negri is the only other one ive heard of, any recommended easily accessible essay by him (preferably in relation to rhizome...)?

I remember I got interested as soon as I started it the last time, but it was when I got to the end of the second last chapter, when he has outlined all the different ways in which we are structured and influenced to the point of (apparently) being determined, and proposed an easily testable method to prove to oneself that it is possible to become a self-authenticating individual, that the book completely won me over. Ive been meaning to reread it since.

Im reading a chapter or two a day at the moment, think im just starting the fourth there now in a minute... Any thoughts from anyone are welcome.

moviesrme

I'm new here. I do not recognise any of the references made above. I have to say I'm intrigued with the book Joycey posted there. I think I will study it. These topics interest me and moreso since getting a faster computer to allow me view movies online. I'm thinking of Zeitgeist and in particular the reference to the "Venus Project" in it.
Jacques Fresco blows me away. He talks of two fundamentals: Emergence and symbiosis. He thinks we as people and the power structures that exist think of ourselves as apart instead of a part; but until we realise the symbiotic nature of our existence we are doomed. Jung was into this aswell posing a collective unconsciousness even, that we all tap into like terminals to a mainframe.
The emergence idea is good also explaining the idea all our knowledge of any kind presently will be out of date soon as things progress so again we should embrace the whole as we cannot survive as a species without doing so.

af_thefragile

Hmm... sounds interesting... I must check out this book...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Red Hand

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because you are going to get a pyrimad hierarchical structure in anarcho capitalism as well which leads to inequality, though admitedly not as 'pointed' pyrimad as seen under communism/capitalism/nation state. The rhizomic structure that Vail presents as being appropriate would have a shallower distrubution curve as regards inequality as people would organise theselves into small bands.

Also having people in 'tribes' of around 200 people is what we are evolved for, not the mega hive structure of present society?

Mozart1986

"Symbolic though - specifically the ability to invent new abstract representions and metaphors - most differentiates humans from other species. A symbol belongs to a subclass of memes - defined as an abstract representation of an object or force. The genetic advances that led to the human ability to work with symbols precipitated the development of language, writing and religion. Primates (and some other animals) have varying ability to recogmize symbols. Gorillas, such as Koko1, have even combined and applied existing symbols in simple ways. The ability to invent new symbols, to create new representations and connections, however, remains a uniquely human trait, as well as the greatest accomplishment of the symbolic development of our genes and memes. Mastery of the symbol makes humans and human society unique."[P15]

I am not sure if Husserl's works are contrary to these remarks, but I will quickly state his explication of the development of the symbol and then say where I think there is a discrepency. Correct me if you think I'm wrong in my interpretation but I'm not going to take the time site the page number of Logical Investigations.
If you take a horses head in a horse-box you abduce the ideal horse. The head is an insignifier of the rest of the horse and carries the intention from the aspect (the head and all the perceived parts) to the whole horse. We ever see the whole horse, we just conceive its objectity and unity and spacial extention due to the potential that we could view the horse from any side, even from inside its torsoe. If you take the word symbolising the ideal concept to be the same process in principle as the horses head carrying cosciousness methodically onto an ideality - call that a type of meme or whatever - then the word or symbol can be seen as an aspect of the ideal concept just the same. So my quam could be somed up like this:
does anyone crate new symbols or do they just recur and are carried egoistically, hence being semantically external, but evoking causal stimulation? I personally would say languages evolve and aren't created - although we may give new or different meanings to old words. Look at Chinese characters for a more natural intuitive fluid artistic form of communication that is closer to inexplicible environmental phenomena and less formal - just like the horses head as the aspect of the ideality. "Beautiful" in Chinese characters is represented by the character for "Big" over "mutton" - i.e. sheep being a main part of the chinese diet, and when they are big the people are healthy and beautiful. "Love" is another one - "mother"/"child" (I think that one is correct, I might be wrong).

I may be building a straw man argument here. It could be that I'm taking it out of context because other parts seem to agree totally with what I've said. The idea that memes assume control - for lack of impetous to think of better terms- over the organism is one such instance. This would fit with the semantic externality of language.

This is good quality adult mental stimulation. Thanks for opening this thread Joycey. I hope we might ave a good discussion if people are interested. I'll have a tonne of thoughts when I'm finished and it's digested and if I don't get them out after my mind will quickly tuen into a bag of vomit. That is what philosophy does to ya.

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Although I dont want to highjack this thread with yet another capitalist argument, I think the first 4 or 5 pages of chapter 7 do a pretty good job of dismissing any hope of capitalism as it exists now or in an even more unregulated form which is what you are proposing(?) "saving us", or even being sustainable except over the very short term.

Also, I think part of the reason Vail wouldnt go along with your conception of libertarianism (although I could be wrong), is that he conceives of the "self" precisely as the opposite of the isolate, atomised self which American Libertarianism takes as its most basic presupposition. It is through our recognition of our inherent connectedness that we attain "freedom", not through our maintanence of a fallacious notion of the ego which can become free if society stops "oppressing" us, in the simple minded way that most libertarians talk about.


Il try to reply your post in a while Mozart, just wanna finish the book first. Have my own criticism of him as well...

silverharp

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Also having people in 'tribes' of around 200 people is what we are evolved for, not the mega hive structure of present society?

its an idea worth teasing out but does you happy little band connect to grid, internet , use airplanes?

Red Hand

silverharp wrote: »

its an idea worth teasing out but does you happy little band connect to grid, internet , use airplanes?

Do they need to? (Half serious question)

My point is, there is a big gap between the structures that most of us live in now, and the structure that gave rise to homo sapiens.

Joycey

silverharp wrote: »

its an idea worth teasing out but does you happy little band connect to grid, internet , use airplanes?

Aside from the why do they need to point...
Yeah, the point of each "node", which is represented by a family, or, more likely, a community of around 150 people, is not that it is entirely isolated, but that it is part of a larger interconnected network. Each node is self sufficient/autonomous to a certain extent but is still connected to all the other nodes in the network, and as a result is dependent to some degree.

One could argue that the internet is perhaps the most efficient means of communication between all the disperate nodes in the network of the society, so the idea of abandoning the internet in an attempt to decrease (among many other things) the loss of time/resources/information in communication which arises from a heirarchical structure would be antithetical to the goal.

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

Aside from the why do they need to point...
Yeah, the point of each "node", which is represented by a family, or, more likely, a community of around 150 people, is not that it is entirely isolated, but that it is part of a larger interconnected network. Each node is self sufficient/autonomous to a certain extent but is still connected to all the other nodes in the network, and as a result is dependent to some degree.

One could argue that the internet is perhaps the most efficient means of communication between all the disperate nodes in the network of the society, so the idea of abandoning the internet in an attempt to decrease (among many other things) the loss of time/resources/information in communication which arises from a heirarchical structure would be antithetical to the goal.

There are obvious merits to the position, even within Dublin it is possible to have a village atmosphere if more businesses were locally owned, less chain stores etc. people do have some inbuilt sense of place and it is hard to argue that people are not better off if they know their neighbours get involved in local activities etc.
At the same time the argument cant be pushed too far , clearily cities are needed as the backbone for technological development, manufacturing of capital goods etc.

Joycey

silverharp wrote: »

At the same time the argument cant be pushed too far , clearily cities are needed as the backbone for technological development, manufacturing of capital goods etc.

But did you read the book? He proposes models for businesses, and ways for people (even in cities) to become somewhat autonomous. Heres an article on Goretex if you havent read the book/heard anything about goretex before: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/89/open_gore.html


Im about 10 pages from the end. Will reply in more depth when I finish it

asdasd

Yeah, the point of each "node", which is represented by a family, or, more likely, a community of around 150 people, is not that it is entirely isolated, but that it is part of a larger interconnected network. Each node is self sufficient/autonomous to a certain extent but is still connected to all the other nodes in the network, and as a result is dependent to some degree.

Do the nodes get to oppose migration?

These 150 people nodes in history were interrelated tribes. Or clans. There is plenty of evolutionary biological history on that too. Clanns in such nodes clearly have their own hierarchy, the leader of the Clann ( either elected, or by primogenature). The clanns are hierarchical. These 150 personed nodes are not going to be multi-ethnic, or a group of disparate individuals joining up. They will be extended family.

In fact human society will, in the absence of civilization and higher authority, organise itself as either Clanns, or Gangs. Mafia, or Crips. The gangs are unrelated, the Clann is a extended family. Clanns would tend to be stronger. With civilization, the rule of law, we can trust that our neighbour is going to be good for the loan, or the law will make him: without it we lend to our extended family.

Saddam ran Iraq with his Tikriti node.

So thats not going to work, now, is it?

Dick Swett

Well I think there wont be as much of a need for economic migration( self sufficiency), if other factors do cause it the entire node will migrate or several, they can set themselves up again to be self sufficient bla bla, also I think yes there will be a hierachial structure within the node but this will not be the same thing as what we have in society today, the "people at the bottom" could find it far easier to communicate with and observe people who are at the head of the node, the ability to influence their decisions would be far greater. It would be more of a situtation of "head of the Household" than head of the state. The nodes themselves may not be multi ethnic but the entire web will be.

asdasd

The nodes themselves may not be multi ethnic but the entire web will be.

Kinda like the Crips and the bloods.