Is a speech given by Martin Luther King, or Winston Churchill, as powerful
when it is given to NO audience?
I don't think so... which implies that the POWER exists in the relationship
BETWEEN qualities..
There was a psyc. test done involving conformity where the group was rigged
to provide wrong answers about the length of a line... several members of
the group blatently said the longer line was the shorter... The overall
effect was that as the number of confederates rose, the number of people
willing to stand up and go against the tide decreased... Social pressure or
conformity to the group values actually led people to disbelieve their own
eyes. The actual psyc subjects were sweating, becoming highly aroused,
disturbed and anxious - which sounds like a dynamic event to me - What the
experimenters found was that as the number of confederates rose, so did the
level of influence. Rephrasing this: I would say that the level of the
static power OVER the dynamic rose with the number of confederates... The
level of ENERGY of dynamic quality needed to simply RESIST the energy of the
static quality rose as the number of confederates rose... and thus power
would be the difference between those two energy levels.
I would disagree that power is the capacity to do Quality... Zero power
would mean zero capacity to do Quality - The speech by Churchill has the
capacity to do Quality even when given to NO audience.... It is the same
speech after all, but it only has POWER when given to an audience. It has
the capacity to do WORK when given to an audience. This Work being the
Quality flow at the intellectual level.
Drawing other elements from the world of physics, I could introduce the
concepts of inertia and friction... The energy of dynamic quality necessary
to be absorbed into static quality would need to be above a particular
'value': a value which would equate to the static latching mechanism.
thoughts?
Leighton.
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:40 GMT