When I said “go change the world”, I said “What would you like to see changed in your lifetime?”. And I was pointing out how there is virtually nothing you – as an individual – can do to bring about any change with respect to that issue. Any issue. If you care about racism, there's nothing you – YOU – can do to end it. If you care about gender equality, there is nothing YOU can do to change people's minds about it. If you wish a certain politician could get elected, he/she may or may not be, and your contribution to that will be negligible.

My point throughout this essay is that individual people have no power. Wherever they do anything significant – which invariably means affecting some sort of change in their environment – it is because others back them, or the conditions of said environment were right. It could've easily gone a different way under even slightly different conditions. All of that is said pretty explicitly in the original post.

You – as in actually you, TF, not second person – can't even change a single person's mind. You won't convince anyone of anything. If they have a change of heart, it will be because they were already on the fence, were having similar thoughts. You may act as a catalyst, but you didn't DO much of anything in that case. Unless someone is open to receiving your message, they won't receive it, no matter what YOU do.

Do you know why people like us have so few visitors to our blogs, so few comments, have difficulty hosting any sort of in-depth discussions about the topics we care about? Because people aren't ready for revolutionary thinking. They're stuck in old ways, and old ways get to be old ways by virtue of powerful memes.

Since I wrote my essay “Black” back in…I think it was 2007? Have I changed even one person's mind, gotten them to “renounce” blackness? Not a single person – even those who fully understand and even agree with it. Out of convenience, out of tradition, out of intellectual laziness, or any number of reasons (all of which make up the “environment”), they continue to refer to themselves and others as “black”.

Now, mind you, I'm not saying that the mere fact of our powerlessness dictates inaction, that we should just say fuck it and give up. No. This was written at a time when I was feeling a lot of frustration over how at odds my views were with seemingly the rest of the world (acknowledging, of course, that my perception of what “the world's views” are is very limited). Even when I'm not frustrated, I'm forced to acknowledge this, though.

“My point throughout this essay is that individual people have no power. Wherever they do anything significant – which invariably means affecting some sort of change in their environment – it is because others back them, or the conditions of said environment were right. It could’ve easily gone a different way under even slightly different conditions. All of that is said pretty explicitly in the original post.”

I agree this is pretty clearly stated and I agree with the overarching point, but again, Im concerned with the premise of these validations of “power.” Having the cognition to perceive even some infinitesimally small fraction of possibilities and take a resulting course of action is some form of “power.” I say that because although there are infinite unknown variables, they are all still equally relevant to all other humans, who are validating your power to begin with. The leveling factor is humanity itself. So essentially the only variables that “really matter,” in the immediate sense, are the ones we can perceive to be most effective in driving human behavior and our relation to such mores. We gamble on the rest of the variables to remain stable enough for societal functionality. By example you dont live your life expecting any incalculable number of things to happen to you, and neither does society. The very premise of insurance companies are testament to this. You could of course be mangled in a car wreck and you could also be killed by a seagull that had a cardiac arrest mid-flight. You could…but you admit that you dismiss almost all variables for the ones with which you plan your life by in relation to the rest of humanity that validates your existence.

What we really dont know is what number or types of variables would have had to change to make what you “define yourself by” any different. Granted our development is a collision of events, but what really would have had to happen for you not to have made the decision to manifest yourself via a blog? Is it as simple as not having tied your shoe laces ten years ago? I am powerless to control what has made me me, but paradoxically I have the ability to control my perpetual reactions to “my” continued development because my development, as perceived by society, exists in a relatively predictable context.

To try and more clearly reiterate my point, we can count on the conditions of people and said environments to be right enough often enough to deliberately exploit the situation, although we actually have no control over it. Still, the ability to act upon these predictable societal or environmental conditions allows one to exude “influence” even without the conscious backing of others. Why? Because you and I (…and everyone) already have society’s subconscious and preconceived notions at our disposal. I would suggest that due to these old powerful memes you mentioned, there is the potential to exploit the associated ethos. The resulting societal preconceptions give “power” to those innovative enough to extract it.

Hm, Ill try to clear up my previous post by aligning it with points I agree with in your reply. I completely agree that “I” cant change a single person. “Religous influences” in my life have raised me according to the notion that “me” IS actually nothing, so Im no stranger to the concept/reality. I purposefully worded my race debate example as “…TRY and change his/her mind” to hint that I understand it to be impossible. So obviously my intent was the second “choice” which was to engage the debate for ulterior motives far removed from changing that person’s mind. It was, rather, merely an opportunity to exercise my own logic and beyond that to simply toy with the trained stimulus responses of society. If somehow that person was on the fence, however, the action to initiate the debate could have had the consequence of tipping them to one side or another…which brings me to the fundamental impasse im at now with your post.

As an oversimplification, the tone of the post was such that our actions have no consequences. Clearly this wasnt your intent, but to recognize that our actions DO have consequences implies that there is some level of perceptable effect to what we do or dont do…which brings me to…

You stated that it doesnt matter how we define power and thats where you begin to lose me. There has to be some conceptual basis for the term in order for us to not have it. Is power enablement? Is power control? Is power influence? Is power chocolate chip ice cream? Im just not sure I understand what you’re alluding to, because you also clearly state that we shouldn’t resort to inaction. Well we can only be active if we are ENABLED to be active in whatever respect we intend to not be inactive. This very enablement to be active is what I might very well equate with “power.”

We shouldnt resort to inaction and I posit we dont because, power or not, our actions have perceptible consequence and those consequences are the exploitation of what we dont have the “power” to “change.” So to state the essence of my previous post, Ive never had the intent to “change” what my non-existent “i” cant control. The purpose has been merely to exploit it based on variables im counting on to remain constant. “I” can go outside and chop down a tree not because I have “power” over the variables that allow the tree or myself to even exist. Its a viable scenario because, out of the infinite variables I cant control, enough remain constant for me to take advantage of the predictability. However, even this exploitation via consequence-based-action can cause “desired changes” that motivated the action to begin with…

… which brings me back to these ambiguous concepts of “change,” and “powerlessness” which seems to be based on the inability to cause change relative to our paths of action?

Living in a country that allows free speech. That the technology of the internet, this computer even exists. That I even have my points of view reflect my experiences – how I was raised, my education, my interactions with others, what I’ve read. You change any of these variables, and this website might not exist, I might be typing here, this discussion might not be happening. By sheer CHANCE, I could’ve been in a disfiguring accident that required both my arms to be amputated.

The possibilities for variability are infinite. That I’m able to be here, typing this, having this discussion, relies entirely on a ton of other external variables, most of which I take for granted. There is no separate, vacuum-entity “YOU” – you are a product of genes and memes being channeled through their respective “spheres” – a convergence as I call it.

People overestimate their individuality, their significance – and together we participate in a sort of exchange, an unspoken agreement – “I’ll validate you, I’ll pretend as though you matter, if you’ll extend me the same courtesy.” But in reality, we’re nothing – circumstantial and coincidental aggregates of biological and cultural data. This is taking it to a most extreme abstract, but…this kind of thinking underlay the original post as well.