That's one of the reasons why I am a fan of this short introduction. The points are so simple that it's easy to pick up on and think about how it applies to our world around us. Also, don't think you're so slick with that Mike Tyson reference, we see what you're doing. ;)
My joke is an allusion to what I found wanting in the opening sentence of the piece. The idea that power is subsequent to politics and other institutions. Wrong way around. Power is a punch in the face. Institutions are then built around that to modulate it. The description seems to be about political power, so at best, the terminology is inexact.
He's not a French intellectual, it's just a pseudonym. Power, as you are referring to it is not the physical. That is force—both non-violent and violent—and it is used to override another's will. Will is the facet of the self that guides conscious choice and practical reason, serving as the specific aspect of the self that drives self-actualization. Power is both the perceived and actualized ability to act, influence, or achieve goals which does not necessarily require force. The highest form of power is authority.
Power neither comes before nor after institutions are built, they are mutually constitutive. Power itself requires an institution to enforce its will. For example, when I created my cultural organization, The New Way, I simultaneously had to build an institution and demonstrate that I had what is called "raw power"—the unrefined potential energy of power without an institution—which was perceived by my new subordinates, but not actualized until I could build the first institution, thus granting my power legitimacy—authority.
Everyone has a complex French ontology of power relations - until they get punched in the face.
That's one of the reasons why I am a fan of this short introduction. The points are so simple that it's easy to pick up on and think about how it applies to our world around us. Also, don't think you're so slick with that Mike Tyson reference, we see what you're doing. ;)
But hey I’ll give it another read and try to disengage my prejudice against French intellectuals.
My joke is an allusion to what I found wanting in the opening sentence of the piece. The idea that power is subsequent to politics and other institutions. Wrong way around. Power is a punch in the face. Institutions are then built around that to modulate it. The description seems to be about political power, so at best, the terminology is inexact.
He's not a French intellectual, it's just a pseudonym. Power, as you are referring to it is not the physical. That is force—both non-violent and violent—and it is used to override another's will. Will is the facet of the self that guides conscious choice and practical reason, serving as the specific aspect of the self that drives self-actualization. Power is both the perceived and actualized ability to act, influence, or achieve goals which does not necessarily require force. The highest form of power is authority.
Power neither comes before nor after institutions are built, they are mutually constitutive. Power itself requires an institution to enforce its will. For example, when I created my cultural organization, The New Way, I simultaneously had to build an institution and demonstrate that I had what is called "raw power"—the unrefined potential energy of power without an institution—which was perceived by my new subordinates, but not actualized until I could build the first institution, thus granting my power legitimacy—authority.
Ok that makes sense. It is the missing paragraph zero of Monsieur Not-French’s article.