diminuendo

diminuendo


— diminuendo Report User
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
Virtually every macro-organism can be said to be capable of some form of violence, regardless of the perceived scale and the method of doing harm. Therefore power cannot be a factor in determining whether one can do violence. Ability can be said to be a factor, since the organism can become complete immobilized/disabled and thus lose any innate ability to do harm. Complete immobilization and death are two common ways to remove this ability, and neither require assertion of power, a power dynamic, or even a deliberate culprit.
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
This leads me back to my original premise-- the use of the terms "power" and "ability" are NOT interchangeable, even if we take power at its broadest definition. Power as a term is significantly heavier than ability, and thus use of it suggests a stronger, narrower view of violence. Mere ability, as the weaker/broader of the two terms, gives us significantly more latitude in determining whether something is capable of violence. Power creates a very specific stipulation since it includes very specific imagery insofar as physical, political, or authoritative prowess, and makes it so that we must refer to violence within a specific context in order to make your assertion viable. Violence in general does not require this specific imagery, and therefore has no need for power.
· Edited 23 weeks ago
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
The rest of your examples don't seem to prove that a power dynamic is necessary to violence. On the other hand, you mostly prove that power dynamics can come about as a result of violence, whether implicitly or explicitly. A society for which violent punishments are given for breaking a law does not prove that these violent punishments necessitate power. On the other hand, it shows that violence can be used to maintain that power dynamic, however it came to exist. It also shows that a desire to maintain the power dynamic can lead to violent acts, but this is not directly evident.
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
If we begin to add more agents into this scenario with additional conflicting views (for example, Agent C might believe that there should be no forest, and Agent D might believe that the forest should encompass all of reality), we can begin to see the problem with viewing reality as something to be manifested. We would have to assert that each agent is equally likely to have their own visions of reality manifested, but we haven't reconciled what happens to the agents if their realities fail. Do they disappear? Does their version of reality remain existent in some form, ready to be manifested at any moment? I assert that we do not bring imagination into reality, we merely make attempts to mold reality into the closest form that we want to imagine. This is more consistent, I believe, as once one agent manages to mold reality closely to their own imagination, other agents have no choice but to accept and work around it.
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
But now for a moment, let us consider if Agents A and B react with violence. For the sake of the argument, assume Agent A has a lesser physical power than Agent B, and that both agents are otherwise equal in all other respects of power in the situation as it unfolds. If Agent A wins, whether by a miracle or not, we have a situation in which the violence resulted in Agent B forfeiting all of their power to Agent A, even if temporarily. And vice versa. But the real question is, did the violence happen specifically because of the difference in power between the two?
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
To your more specific scenarios: Your situation with the home in the woods takes on a very particularly solipsistic approach. I don’t believe that reality is individually manifested, but for now I’ll assume so. If Agent A manifests the reality that they should have a home in the woods, but Agent B manifests a reality where Agent A does not take residence in the woods, then what we have is an irreconcilable situation. Two conflicting realities cannot manifest at once, but we can take the idea of superposition into place. Until the reality is properly manifested via observation, both realities can happen. How each reality can happen is different. Agent A can be scared by Agent B and allows Agent B's reality to happen. Similarly, Agent B can back off, allowing Agent A's reality to happen. There is no emotional harm done, merely an instinctual reaction to an emotional response.
· Edited 23 weeks ago
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
Violence, which requires merely the qualitative state of being able to cause some form of harm, does not require quantifiable ability. It therefore does not require the quantitative definitions of power. Taking the qualitative definition of power gives us a redundant tautology since it becomes interchangeable with the qualitative definition of ability. And even then I can assert that power has no place in the definition or causation of violence on the basis that we do not use power to mean merely being able to do something. The common uses of "power" grants it much more implications than mere "ability."
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
There are two definitions of ability. The first use is in qualitative cases where we merely refer to whether one is able to do something. For example, every properly socialized child has the ability to learn a language. The second use refers to quantitative proficiency, which we measure usually by visible results. We can say that a doctor has a lesser ability if they issue more incorrect diagnoses than others. We can certainly try to refer to an ability dynamic, which takes the second definition. But we cannot create a dynamic for what is not at least theoretically quantifiable. The broadest definition of power takes the first definition of ability, i.e. the state of being able to perform an act. It is not quantitative unless you take the narrower definitions of power, all which take on very specific types (political, physical, authoritative, and so on).
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
You are most certainly not taking power at its broadest definition. You refer to a power dynamic, which a priori takes power to be more than being able to cause an effect. It requires that we be able to quantify the ability of two things capable of agency. Not only that, but we must be able to do this continuously for any agent that is a part of this power dynamic. Even if we can split this dynamic into separate scales and declare that some agents are more powerful than others in specific regards, the "dynamic" nature of this definition means that we can still rank every agent relative to each other in terms of every power we're considering. Even if we have someone who is an excellent orator and can wrestle with a large black bear, we can consider them lower on the power scale than a national politician by the emphasis we put on political power over physical and persuasive power.
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
We must be extremely careful that our use of the term does not imply more than it should. Words are more than just their definitions, and it would do us well to know when to use "ability" or "power." Violence requires ability, yes, but it does not require power. Power as a term is very specific, often referring to the ability of an actor to do something against someone. Ability as a term is not as specific, not requiring anything other than the actor and their own qualities. To illustrate the difference more clearly, we would never say you have the power of a plumber when we mean to say that you have the ability to do the job of one. The ability to do violence, then, is just that. The power to do violence is significantly heavier as a phrase and ought to be treated with care.
· Edited 23 weeks ago
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
Can we say that violence relies on physical power? If we seek to understand only physical violence, of course. You would need the ability to physically act in order to be capable of physical harm, and that capability can lead you to do an act of harm. But emotional violence cannot rely on physical power, as emotional violence is done by other factors. Can emotional violence rely on political/authority/influential power? In many cases, yes, as we can see with the 1984-esque landscapes of NK and China. But does emotional violence rely on those forms of power? Absolutely not. Emotional violence can be done by someone whose every measure of power is less than yours, all that is required is knowledge of something that can be violated. That knowledge does not have to go deep-- some emotional violence has been based purely on social norms and not on personal information. Insult of a religion, for example, can constitute emotional violence to believers.
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
We need to clearly distinguish the kind of power we're referring to when we engage in an argument of terminology. Your attempt to assert that violence requires power is indefensible on political grounds, as those with lesser political power have historically found ways to violently topple those with greater political power. Similarly, those with "authority" power can be the target of violence (as demonstrated with the bully and the victim example). Influential power is similarly ineffective in totally protecting one from violence. So clearly, violence cannot rely on these kinds of power differences.
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
The broadest definition of power available to us can be found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which simply is "ability to act or produce an effect." When we use the term violence, we typically use it as an expression of agency. So the thing doing violence must have the ability to do harm. Using that broad definition of power is, as I already asserted, a trivial tautology. But that's not the definition of power you intend on operating with, is it?
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
By your definition of violence, in order to make something incapable of violence, we need to put them in a perpetual state of lesser power than everything else. But we can see that this is not a viable solution, as the thoroughly power-neutered Third Estate of monarchical France managed to overthrow the very power-endowed Second and First Estates. We can attempt to reconcile this by broadly defining power in terms of physical capability, but then we have a trivial tautology. Every mobile living organism by definition has the physical capability to harm. Although fruit flies and the like may not be able to harm larger organisms, they can harm each other in their mating competitions. Power becomes a redundant requirement.
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
I again disagree with the notion that violence requires power in the social sense. Violence has been performed by people who are in a position of lesser power. Take a situation in which a bully has been physically harassing a victim for some lengthy period of time, and the victim finally pops the bully in the jaw. There can be a number of reasons why the victim chose not to react in self defense earlier, whether it be concern for their own safety or risk of the school ruling in favor of the bully. In whichever the case is, the bully clearly held the more powerful position up until that point. That act of violence is not an expression of having more or able power. But that act of violence can result in power-- namely, if the bully begins to treat the victim with distance, we can argue that the popped jaw has granted the victim personal power over the bully.
1
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
In the playground sense, violence is "owning" people because the fear it generates makes people shut up. But that method of "owning" people is less conducive to any actual exchange of ideas than "owning" people via cleverer insults. We can demonstrate that physically violent reactions to perceived insults is an authoritarian reaction. The best evidence is playground behavior, where violent bullying is often used to create environments of subservience. Other evidence can be found in virtually every form of power where one person holds all. Dictatorships, absolute monarchies, and so on all bear the stain of violence against remarks of arbitrary value.
3
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
... arbitrary line that caused a feeling of offense. In contrast, if a dictatorial community leader were to propose that everyone ought to hand over all of their possessions to the communal government and the people rioted, we have a non-arbitrary act of harm being used to counter a non-arbitrary act of deprivation. Since the deprivation includes every possession, the leader in question is bringing every person in the community into harm's way by taking away everything they had used to live up until that point. Thus violence as a tool can be used if it becomes necessary to remove the leader from power (provided the leader refuses to step down and attempts to solidify their political place).
· Edited 23 weeks ago
I’m in danger, Benny probably 189 comments
diminuendo · 23 weeks ago
Violence is not merely an expression of power. Feelings of power can come as a result of violent interactions, but that does not mean that violence necessitates power to come about. Violence can be most broadly defined as something that can lead to injury, physically or emotionally (if emotionally, the connotations seem to imply to the point past mere feelings of offense). Power is not involved in the definition, and rightly so, as any mobile organism is capable of committing violent acts.
.
To the question of whether threatening violence is acceptable as a retort-- in a place where the premise is to talk peacefully with no direct physical result, absolutely not. If one were to talk of the morality of pet owning in a coffee house and the listener were to suddenly propose to break a bottle over the speaker's head in response to any perceived insult, it would be reasonable to call the listener quite in over their own heads as they are using a non-arbitrary act of harm to respond to an...
1
Instant mood booster 3 comments
diminuendo · 31 weeks ago
I had a stomachache just looking at this
Let's all just take a nap together 11 comments
diminuendo · 32 weeks ago
Not for no reason. There's often a root cause, but it's just not practical or efficient to always try to dig that deep. Most people who look for a "quick fix" to clinical depression use medications to suppress the sensation just enough to function, and others look for long-term treatment by going to therapy sessions for as long as they need. And even then it's a long and arduous journey to recovery.
1
Do not trust the fairies, generally 4 comments
diminuendo · 33 weeks ago
Put a bone under your pillow and you'll wake up with none. But at least you'll be compensated for having donated an entire skeleton and then some.
The fact that these pictures are taken 63 years apart is disconcerting 18 comments
diminuendo · 34 weeks ago
Thanks for the tip, I've heard that a few times. Though I do have a passion for math and want to eventually teach in it, so I'll have to go through the routines and work towards a masters or Ph.D. to even have a chance to pass on my enthusiasm to people who are testing the waters.
2
We can't let the west wing go stale 56 comments
diminuendo · 34 weeks ago
... different evidence will always lead to differing conclusions. The difference in his evidence indicates to me that there are untouched aspects of the arguments that need to be touched.
.
I don't believe that famousone is being ignorant or willfully intransigent. He hasn't yet denied all evidence, merely used his own evidence because social media arguments tend to exclude sources. And when you don't provide a direct source, the other person has every license to look up any other source on the topic and make their own conclusions.
1
We can't let the west wing go stale 56 comments
diminuendo · 34 weeks ago
I think I'll side with famousone. It doesn't hold that you should treat famousone differently because he fails to grasp your points. It's unfair to treat a microbiologist like a child because they can't understand quantum physics, and a quantum physicist like a child because they can't memorize the specific interactions of all the different enzymes and polymers. He may have opinions that are at odds with the ones we have, but he also has a wildly different kind of expertise. His specific judgements are a result of the kind of information that we don't necessarily interact with all the time. He concludes that Trump isn't so bad because specific improvements have been made under this current administration, whereas we can conclude otherwise due to his current attempts at sabotaging mailed ballots. He can conclude that Trump's actions aren't completely detrimental because it protects certain individualistic freedoms, whereas we conclude that he's a madman. In whichever the direction, ...
1
We can't let the west wing go stale 56 comments
diminuendo · 34 weeks ago
So yes, we can have such benefits... at a limit. Otherwise, we can continue with the current model of individualism that is admittedly very lax in terms of who can make use of it.