POWER.

I think that even today, we are approaching a new age of identification conflict; The prospect of "becoming" or our state of "being" is in a sense dependent upon our environment. Sociologically, for one to be self actualized, the full potential of his/her character must be unraveled. In seeking answers to problems that are at this moment products of causality, we must undoubtedly embrace the 'questions' which have eluded us [or us them] so. Questions like 'how do me and my surroundings affect the one another', or inquiries such as 'who I am' are linguistic veils which are discoverd in the establishment of our sociopolitical identity. However, in a world that is becoming increasingly synchronized, neither the role of the identity nor its path to self awareness coincide directly with the interests of a modern day unified, clandestine empire. This new found crisis of awareness lies as a resultant factor of a systematic expansion on a global scale. Before we delve any further to view the juxtaposition of identity and power, The contextual meaning of power from a philosophical standpoint, can generally be derived from Hannah Arendt's definition of power and strength:

"...Power corresponds to the human ability not
just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together. When we say of somebody that he is "in power" we actually refer to his being empowered by a certain number of people to act in their name. The moment the group, from which the power originated to begin with (*potestas in populo*, without a people or group there is no power), disappears, "his power" also vanishes. In current usage, when we speak of a "powerful man" or a "powerful personality," we already use the word "power" metaphorically; what we refer to without metaphor is "strength,"

*Strength* unequivocally designates something in the singular, an individual entity; it is the property inherent in an object or person and belongs to its character, which may prove itself in relation to other things or persons, but is essentially independent of them. The strength of even the strongest individual can always be overpowered by the many, who often will combine for no other purpose than to ruin strength precisely because of its peculiar independence. This almost instinctive hostility of the many toward the one has always, from Plato to Nietzsche, been ascribed to resentment, to the envy of the weak for the strong, but this psychological interpretation misses the point. It is in the nature of a group and its power to turn against independence, the property of individual
strength..."

The definitive structure of the persona is inadvertently connected with the aspect of strength, whereby strength is an intrinsic property derived from the individual. As power is only conditional, it is only natural for it to reach a state of unified equilibrium. Whether or not we see it as a continuing process through globalization, or an already overt structure in the form of the esoteric mean little in the grand scheme of things; for the conditions of true power are met through one governing body, one governing law, so on and so forth.

Hypothetically speaking, if we were all part of a unified government right now, the idealistic view of the "person" would then be considered defunct, as inner strength seeks to naturally be absorbed by the constant coagulation of power. The constant need for power to be in concert as an infrastructure of people, or systems, compels it to either destroy, or assimilate the 'identity'. In such, as the true "self" is contrived of behavior; it is also composed of the potential action that person would commit in his or her future. Of course, there could be a lot of argumentation that challenges the definition of identity; but if the real world actions of the self are not actions of the 'self'...would that person still be a person?

History has shown many times over that actions which are manifested behaviors of real, individualistic thought is generally met with opposition if it does not appeal to the agenda of a global power. Leaders, terrorists, heros, villains; are all determined by their position as it plays in respect to a moving agenda. In conclusion, the self/system conflict of consciousness is a battle which must not be lost if we are to herald in a new stage of life for our future sons and daughters, as it leaves us today to define our "todays" not in terms of "the powers that be", but in the words of our own.

THINKperiod, Eric D.