Corollary: On the Architecture of Power and Strength
2024
Power and strength are mutually exclusive (orthogonal), yet one will always prevail over the “other”. When a hierarchy is established, power is ostensibly attributed to those with a higher level of responsibility. In theory, those at the top of a hierarchy will have the greatest accountability. Also, power and capital are equivalent, such that, the greatest hierarchies accumulate the most capital.
Strength “is” what in practice enables one to bear responsibility, or the amount of “weight”. Weight may be defined in many terms, but it is strongly associated with survival, in the absence of other factors. People in general, to one degree or another, are attracted to power; either those who have it, or the position itself. But this attraction is not derived from strength. The reason is that power affords a certain amount of security, financial or otherwise, in the “absence” of strength for survival. The soldier may not be wealthy for example, but he or she has strength…the epitome of strength to endure. It is also clear that a soldier on the front line bears the greatest responsibility. The same is true in any highly established hierarchy.
So, in practice, the greatest “weight” is in fact carried not by those in power, but rather by those without. And thus, in the absence of power, strength is required for survival. Accountability, as it relates to responsibility is also therefore most attributed with strength. One can then say that accountability “originates” from below. For this reason, power will always prevail over strength.
It says something about human nature in general: that we collectively organize in hierarchies, more so than other species. Although this condition may not be necessary, it is intrinsic to who we are, and to change this would be to change human nature itself...
Therefore, any hierarchical organization is only as strong as its foundation. And furthermore, any new organization must be built on the strength of its foundation, rather than solely based on the establishment of power structures. One may say that ideally, a reciprocal relationship exists between structure and foundation, but even if structures do prevail, in essence power invariably relies upon strength.
Cultural implications arise when considering its association with personality traits, although generalities may not always hold. If foundation is primarily associated with introverted concealment, then power may be applied through extraversion. Further, strength may be internally derived, where power is something that is external, and may tend to be hollow if not properly grounded. Given this, what is the tendency of state-institutions that “heavily” rely on power structures over the established “strength” of its foundation?
Furthermore, on the notion of Economic Productivity, any new organization requires a certain amount of initial capital to “get off the ground”. Even if foundations are established, and since power is equivalent to capital, a non-biased distribution is essential for the establishment of “new productive organizations”.
One can further say that if “mathematics” forms the foundation of things, and “art and architecture” are an ontological extension, then all art and architecture that is not “drawn” to power is foundational. Foundational work consequently does not achieve “nor” require capital…and is also its “essence” …