I've been thinking about this question for years, even before I discovered Actualized.org. I wrote something in my journal that I'd like to share with you. If you have any disagreements or insights then share with me. I really appreciate it. It's a little pretentious, I know. English isn't my first language so I picked up the style from all the pretentious writers I've read over the years. Hope you find it interesting.
"Power left unused, untamed, buried deep in our minds, has a detrimental effect on us, those around us, and the world. Like a fire, it either must be used to cook, to warm, or extinguished. Left unobserved this fire grows, but now it's too late to stop. When Plutarch said "The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." I wish he handed on a warning, that once kindled, be ready to use it or lose it, or else you'll fucking burn. Power, like fire, is a produced out of a process. The only exception perhaps is the power of existence itself. In human terms, we shall speak then. Also like fire, a myriad of ways are capable of producing it. Also like fire, once we look more closely, the process is essentially the same, yet highly complex, inside a candle flame, hundreds of reaction can take place. The flame of power has no reason to burn, yet it does nonetheless. The flame of power if not used internally to be projected as energy outwardly, burns us from the inside unknowingly. The flame of power when left untamed, can burn the whole planet, literally. Economic, political, even religious powers have been projecting flames outwardly without being filtered inwardly first. They produce nothing but destruction, instead of energy. Even those who are not in position of power, still have the power of their own minds, their bodies, but mostly it not filtered inwardly. Which leaves them feeling powerless, or egomaniacs. It burns us, outside in, inside out, sometimes both. When we speak of power, we must diminish the simple idea, that power is merely Machiavellian, to move a person from point A to point B at command, as Bertrand Russell suggests in his book "Power". It is those, and much more. Power can be conscious or unconscious. When your immune system attacks an invading pathogen, when your brain signals you to sleep and does so quite forcefully at times, all these are unconscious manifestations of power. Power is not an innately human trait, yet our human manifestation of it is unique. Power is innate in all things. Yet is not the source of all things. But comes out of them. Our lives, a magical flame, will be extinguished. To accept it fully, requires power. True power is more than self-perseverance. It can accept its own dying flames. Power is universal.
In a sense power is limitless, it can have an ability to cause, or destroy. It has the ability, as Shakespeare says "To be or not to be." Is that the ultimate question? Much like a fire that can forge a sword, or dissolve it. It is only when you align yourself with a power against a force that has a greater power, that you are defeated. Once understood, the act of dying is as much power as living. Our minds idea of power is colored by an evolutionary past. The chimp days that haunt us still. "Money, power, sex." is like saying "Drugs, cocaine, and heroin". They are all acts of power. These idea are not innate to power itself but because of our species lineage. A Chimpanzee's life, especially a male chimp, is utterly dominated by power. Yet it is out in the open, directly available for the our consciousness to perceive. Ours though, the sneaky ape that we are, is subtle. So, "what is our power?" & "what is power?" are different questions, yet somehow I feel that they are the same.
Leo has mentioned that direct experience is KING. But I want to know why this is so. Now I'm familiar with the typical responses to this question, such as: "It's all you have dummy!" & I totally agree with that. But I would like to know if there are other things I should look for to validate this notion that direct experience is KING. What sparked my skeptisim was a book called Incognito by a neuroscientist named David Eagleman. Here is a small excerpt from the book and my own notes attempting to refute his notion. Tell me your thoughts, thanks. "So first a lesson about trusting the senses is: don't. Just because you believe something to be true, just because you know it's true, that doesn't mean it is true. The most important maxim for fighter pilots is "Trust your instruments." This is because your senses will tell you the most inglorious lies, and if you trust them-instead of your cockpit dials-you'll crash. So the next time someone says, "Who are you going to belive, me or your lying eyes?", consider the question carefully." (( he follows by giving examples that illusion not merely trick your brain into believing something, but actually experiencing it.))) My own notes: Eagleman uses his experience of perceptual illusions to generate his skepticism of deriving truth from mere experiential data. This seems to me to be contradictory. Or is it? A strange-loop again. The only way to distinguish false experience from "true experience" is through experience?